It is currently Mon May 01, 2017 3:11 am



Welcome
Welcome to Victoria 2 multiplayer forum.


Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 19 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Navies are completely broken in this mod, and here's why
PostPosted: Tue Nov 15, 2016 12:09 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Dec 30, 2013 8:19 pm
Posts: 422
Alright, so after understanding exactly what slayzer's done to late game navies, I've come to the conclusion that late game naval combat is COMPLETELY ruined.

Lets go over some of the problems, comparing stats to base game. Slayzer mod on left, vanilla on right.


Naval Forcelimit cost:
Battleships: 120 vs 50 (2.4x increase)
Cruiser: 25 vs 20 (1.25x increase)
Dreadnought: 180 vs 60 (3x increase)

Slayzer mod also hard caps the max number of dreadnoughts you can have to only be as many as the cored level 5 ports you have. with ONLY considering the force limit, it's clear that late game players will have SIGNIFICANTLY less capital ships, due to the forcelimit cost doubling and tripling.


So, one would assume that since the supply limit went up an insane amount, the stats would go up proportionally right?

Attack(includes torpedos. Some odd numbers are due to inventions not firing yet, but they make a very small difference, between 1-3 points):
Battleships: 97 vs 50 (1.94x increase)
cruisers: 49 vs 40 (1.225x increase)
Dreadnoughts: 127 vs 60 (2.116x increase)

Hull:
Battleships: 177 vs 70 (2.5x increase)
cruiser: 56 vs 50 (1.12x increase)
Dreadnought: 257 vs 80 (3.2x increase)


So, the issue is that in the base game, you could have something like 3 cruisers for every dread, or 2.5 cruisers for every battleship. Now you can have almost 5 cruisers for every battleship, and 7 cruisers for every dread. Capital ships already lose HARD to cruisers in base game, but now they don't even stand a chance to do any real damage.


This all seems like a very poor attempt from Slayzer to make it so that people can't have tons of military score from their ships in the late game. The problem is, he already implements this into his scoring system anyways by dividing all capital ship military score by 3. So you can have 3x less dreadnoughts, and they count for 3x less than normal. Clearly either the coefficient for any naval country (USA, UK, Japan, Italy, Ottomans) needs to go Waaaay down, or the score needs to not be divided. In fact, the score should probably be something like 1.5x for capital ships, due to capital ships being literally useless vs cruisers now.


An alternative suggestion is to pretend 2 cruisers count as 1 battleship for the purpose of scoring (whilst still getting rid of the /3 to ships).


_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________



Here's a completely separate issue: Navies cost WAAAAAY too much. Not only do you have to spend millions upon millions of dollars making naval bases for a fleet (much of this money gets deleted from the game completely), but the fleet maintanence itself is completely crippling. A lot of people who don't ever play naval powerhouses will say something like "Well it should be hard to have a good navy" without realizing that it isn't just "hard" it's "impossible". You simply CANNOT have a good navy in this game whilst also being able to fight a ground war. What I mean by this is: Unless you're not funding your navy, or not funding your military, you CANNOT fight any real wars. Ontop of the other huge nerfs already applied to USA and UK (USA statue nerfed into uselessness, UK missing tons of india at the start of the game) it's very unfair.


If we assume that in the base game, naval powers have to pay twice as much for supplies as land powers to upkeep a navy, and that slayzer's mod basically doubles the cost for armies and navies, we see that:

Land countries are paying twice as much in base game, and can have small savings between wars (~1-5mil) easily)
Naval countries are paying twice as much as land powers in modded game, and are always on the verge of bankruptcy, unable to fund everything.
There is no new income for countries to offset this increase, there isn't any way you can just outplay it or find a way around it, the money required simply isn't in the game (partially due to it literally being deleted from the game).


We always have trouble finding UK players because they are literally unplayable for noobs in this mod, and pretty **** in an experienced player's hands.
(Not to mention slayzer wants to get rid of UK's ability to bully people into treaties at the start of the game, further making them garbage tier)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Navies are completely broken in this mod, and here's why
PostPosted: Tue Nov 15, 2016 1:41 am 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 31, 2013 1:13 pm
Posts: 776
Location: Belgrade,Serbia
Ok I have to respond to this post in separate posts, not that I'm stubbornly defending my mod or anything but some numbers and facts you pointed out are deficient to the level that makes naval system look ridiculous.

Now keeping in mind numbers you posted above you forgot to add 2 of the key factors, I will list capital ships and monitors:

Ship type||military points per ship||daily maintenance

Vanilla

1. Manowar || 0.3 || 0.15
2. Ironclad || 1.7 || 0.3
3. Monitor || 0 || 0.4
4. Cruiser || 0 || 0.4
5. Battleship || 17 || 1
6. Dreadnought || 23 || 2


Mod


1. Manowar || 0.3 || 10
2. Ironclad || 1.7 || 75
3. Monitor || 0 || 75
4. Cruiser || 0 || 100
5. Battleship || 67 || 500
6. Dreadnought || 135 || 700



The comparison would look like this


Military points || Maintenance || Supply limit

Cruisers|| 0 : 0 ( - ) || 0.4 : 100 (250x increase) || 20 : 25 ( 1.25x increase)
Battleships|| 17 : 67 (~4x increase) || 1 : 500 (500x increase) || 50 : 120 (2.4x increase)
Dreadnoughts|| 23 : 135 (~5x increase) || 2 : 700 (350x increase) || 60 : 180 (3x increase)


Conclusion


Battleships cost 2.4x more in supply limit but provide 4x more military points.
Dreadnoughts cost 3x more in supply limit but provide 5x more military points.

This completely beats the theory of reduced potential of gaining military points by spamming navy.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Navies are completely broken in this mod, and here's why
PostPosted: Tue Nov 15, 2016 2:08 am 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 31, 2013 1:13 pm
Posts: 776
Location: Belgrade,Serbia
Now that I explained and proved that lategame capital ships are bad in the mod we need to go back to naval upkeep. Although it seems like ridiculous amounts of money the main reason for high upkeep cost of navy is that battleships, cruisers and dreadnoughts require good amounts of artillery which is very expensive.

Somehow you are only seeing negative sides of this as artillery factories make insane amounts of money in the mod, in fact if your country is producing enough artillery you will have no issues funding your navy.

Steel and artillery factories have been buffed in the mod so people will be making more of those with same amount of input goods and if you manage your country properly you should have no issues having a decent navy while maintaining your army.

In comparison to fleet maintenance of 1 artillery regiment (Vanilla ~7£), (Mod ~65£) that is almost 10 times more than in vanilla and still wars seem ok and probably even more interesting than vanilla since you have to manage your economy while fighting.

The huge issue with navy in Vanilla is that it was way,WAY too cheap even comparing vanilla art. regiment maintenance to lategame ships it seems like arty is almost 4 times more expensive(ignoring the oil price). This imho is completely ridiculous, I really don't think anyone should be able to make a fleet of 100 dreadnoughts or 600 cruisers in lategame.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Navies are completely broken in this mod, and here's why
PostPosted: Tue Nov 15, 2016 2:12 am 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 31, 2013 1:13 pm
Posts: 776
Location: Belgrade,Serbia
Now finally what remains an issue is whether navy as it is right now in the mod will perform well in combat.
My goal is to have people build lategame ships as the game progresses and have early game ships such as frigates/manowars/commerce raiders obsolete.
Another goal is to make Battleships and Dreadnoughts superior to cruisers in combat(taking forcelimit into consideration) while cruisers should remain cheaper in cost.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Navies are completely broken in this mod, and here's why
PostPosted: Tue Nov 15, 2016 2:32 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Dec 30, 2013 8:19 pm
Posts: 422
[quote="Slayzer"]
Somehow you are only seeing negative sides of this as artillery factories make insane amounts of money in the mod, in fact if your country is producing enough artillery you will have no issues funding your navy.




CITATION_NEEDED.

Seriously though, wtf are you talking about? It's LITERALLY impossible to be able to fund your navies during this time period. Anytime between 1870-1900, as we've seen through countless games, makes it impossible to fund a navy. The late game it ends up not being a problem because production catches up and everyone makes tons of money, but you're acting as if you can ALWAYS fully supply your navy if you're good enough, and not like it just so happens that late game industries explode and become far more effective.




[quote="Slayzer"]Now finally what remains an issue is whether navy as it is right now in the mod will perform well in combat.
My goal is to have people build lategame ships as the game progresses and have early game ships such as frigates/manowars/commerce raiders obsolete.
Another goal is to make Battleships and Dreadnoughts superior to cruisers in combat(taking forcelimit into consideration) while cruisers should remain cheaper in cost.




You've done neither. To begin with: Frigate spam was never really an issue, manowars and commerce raiders even less so.

Battleships and dreadnoughts should not be superior to cruisers, cruisers are literally made to counter capital ships. I have no idea why you want everyone to just build 1 ship and spam the **** out of it instead of actually having thought behind how you want your navy to be. Enemy has lots of frigates? Instead of making frigates worthless, how about actually countering by spamming monitors?

Enemy has only battleships and dreadnoughts? good thing cruisers completely wreck them unless the enemy gets an ally with even more battleships, in which case your cruisers get rekt.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Navies are completely broken in this mod, and here's why
PostPosted: Tue Nov 15, 2016 6:40 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Nov 18, 2015 2:35 pm
Posts: 109
[quote="Guren275"][quote="Slayzer"]
Somehow you are only seeing negative sides of this as artillery factories make insane amounts of money in the mod, in fact if your country is producing enough artillery you will have no issues funding your navy.




CITATION_NEEDED.

Seriously though, wtf are you talking about? It's LITERALLY impossible to be able to fund your navies during this time period. Anytime between 1870-1900, as we've seen through countless games, makes it impossible to fund a navy. The late game it ends up not being a problem because production catches up and everyone makes tons of money, but you're acting as if you can ALWAYS fully supply your navy if you're good enough, and not like it just so happens that late game industries explode and become far more effective.




[quote="Slayzer"]Now finally what remains an issue is whether navy as it is right now in the mod will perform well in combat.
My goal is to have people build lategame ships as the game progresses and have early game ships such as frigates/manowars/commerce raiders obsolete.
Another goal is to make Battleships and Dreadnoughts superior to cruisers in combat(taking forcelimit into consideration) while cruisers should remain cheaper in cost.




You've done neither. To begin with: Frigate spam was never really an issue, manowars and commerce raiders even less so.

Battleships and dreadnoughts should not be superior to cruisers, cruisers are literally made to counter capital ships. I have no idea why you want everyone to just build 1 ship and spam the **** out of it instead of actually having thought behind how you want your navy to be. Enemy has lots of frigates? Instead of making frigates worthless, how about actually countering by spamming monitors?
Are you serious?? So you are literally saying that instead of building most modern and versatile navy we have to focus on older monitors because some idiot decides to build frigates in 1900???
Isnt THIS a little bit retarted??


Enemy has only battleships and dreadnoughts? good thing cruisers completely wreck them unless the enemy gets an ally with even more battleships, in which case your cruisers get rekt.
In my opinion the late game naval battle should be balanced that who brings more guns win the naval fight. Cruisers shouldnt be able to counter everything enemy brings, what is then point of building other late game naval units besides getting army score?

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Navies are completely broken in this mod, and here's why
PostPosted: Wed Nov 16, 2016 1:29 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Dec 30, 2013 8:19 pm
Posts: 422
[quote="DuroSVK"][quote="Guren275"][quote="Slayzer"]
Somehow you are only seeing negative sides of this as artillery factories make insane amounts of money in the mod, in fact if your country is producing enough artillery you will have no issues funding your navy.




CITATION_NEEDED.

Seriously though, wtf are you talking about? It's LITERALLY impossible to be able to fund your navies during this time period. Anytime between 1870-1900, as we've seen through countless games, makes it impossible to fund a navy. The late game it ends up not being a problem because production catches up and everyone makes tons of money, but you're acting as if you can ALWAYS fully supply your navy if you're good enough, and not like it just so happens that late game industries explode and become far more effective.




[quote="Slayzer"]Now finally what remains an issue is whether navy as it is right now in the mod will perform well in combat.
My goal is to have people build lategame ships as the game progresses and have early game ships such as frigates/manowars/commerce raiders obsolete.
Another goal is to make Battleships and Dreadnoughts superior to cruisers in combat(taking forcelimit into consideration) while cruisers should remain cheaper in cost.




You've done neither. To begin with: Frigate spam was never really an issue, manowars and commerce raiders even less so.

Battleships and dreadnoughts should not be superior to cruisers, cruisers are literally made to counter capital ships. I have no idea why you want everyone to just build 1 ship and spam the **** out of it instead of actually having thought behind how you want your navy to be. Enemy has lots of frigates? Instead of making frigates worthless, how about actually countering by spamming monitors?
Are you serious?? So you are literally saying that instead of building most modern and versatile navy we have to focus on older monitors because some idiot decides to build frigates in 1900???
Isnt THIS a little bit retarted??


Enemy has only battleships and dreadnoughts? good thing cruisers completely wreck them unless the enemy gets an ally with even more battleships, in which case your cruisers get rekt.
In my opinion the late game naval battle should be balanced that who brings more guns win the naval fight. Cruisers shouldnt be able to counter everything enemy brings, what is then point of building other late game naval units besides getting army score?



So just to make it clear: My ideal situation is where your fleet composition can always be countered by another player. For some reason, everyone just has a huge problem with the idea that frigates could possibly be viable. But in general yes, I think you should have to have a sort of balanced navies, with monitors/ironclads acting as a screen for your actual advanced navy. Monitors were still being used in real life during WW1. Because, ykno, real navies don't literally have 1-2 different types of ships. Something like a destroyer being added would be ideal to fixing the problems (Destroyer counter cruiser, cruiser counter battle/dread, battle/dread counter destroyer).

Instead we end up with a situation where two ship types are literally just for generating mil score, while cruisers destroy them with ease. The only reason people would ever cruiser spam is because some1 else is just blindly spamming one type of ship instead of actually building a balanced navy. I've literally only done the insane frigate spam thing twice, and the second time someone actually had a decent navy with lots of screening ships and wrecked me.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Navies are completely broken in this mod, and here's why
PostPosted: Wed Nov 16, 2016 8:24 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2015 7:56 pm
Posts: 53
If anyone still has saves from around February-march of this year where I played UK you can take a look at my navy in 1904. I had a huge number of battleships and the largest army in the world. At max army/navy funding I believe I was only losing 5k a day, which was nothing considering during peace I was making 7-8K per day as well as having 35mil in the bank. I had more ships than every other country combined at all stages of the game and I didn't run into any money problems. Granted after the early-mid game I never had to fund my navy during wars because everyone else gave up trying to build a navy to fight me, but this was also before slayzer lowered the cost of artillery in his recent mod change so navies were even more expensive back then.

You also have to keep in mind that even in vanilla nobody funds their navy at 100% for the entire duration of the war. Usually whichever side has an overwhelming naval advantage sinks most of the enemy navy at the start of the war, at which point everyone lowers naval funding. So I don't think navies are too expensive in the current build.



That said, I agree that cruisers beat capitals too easily. Here's a save of 50 commerce raiders + 30 cruisers (900 supply) vs 10 battleships (1200 supply).

http://www.filedropper.com/mpspain19000706

Spain and France are the 2 countries set up for this test. You can run test this yourself by starting 2 clients and running an mp game. The 50 commerce raiders + 30 cruisers rape the battleships while barely taking any losses. If you try the test with just 30 cruisers vs 10 battleships, the cruisers STILL win most of the time. If you pay attention to the naval battles you'll notice that it takes several hits for a battleship to sink a commerce raider, let alone a cruiser. Plus raiders have evasion, which makes them that much harder to kill.

It was like I said earlier, every ship in the game has the SAME HP, which is measured by strength. Hull rating reduces damage taken by a %. I've done tests like 100 frigates vs a dreadnought and the frigates can bring the dreadnaught down to 0 org which forces it to retreat, but can never sink the dreadnought due to the battle ending before the dreadnought takes any significant strength damage. At the same time it takes over a month for the dreadnought to sink even 1/3 of the frigates. Keep in mind that you can field 180 frigates for a single dreadnought. It would take over half a year for the dreadnought to sink them all because it can only fire at one target at a time and the frigates can evade some attacks.

So far my testing has indicated that frigate spam + capitals are the most effective vs pure capital fleet because frigates give the most effective hp per supply. 1800 frigates and 1 dreadnought vs 11 dreadnoughts will result in the 11 dreadnoughts not even hitting the enemy dreadnought because they only have a 1/1800 chance of targeting it. Of course vs a mixed fleet the results would be very different, like 600 ironclads and 15 cruisers vs 1800 frigates and 1 dreadnought would probably result in the ironclad spam winning.

My final conclusion is that battleships and dreadnoughts are completely useless in naval warfare and their only purpose is to artificially inflate a players military score, and most people dgaf about the ranking system in these games anyway.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Navies are completely broken in this mod, and here's why
PostPosted: Wed Nov 16, 2016 10:10 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Dec 30, 2013 8:19 pm
Posts: 422
I want to point out that I did specify that navies + armies were only impossible from 1870-1900. There is a very clear economic depression that happens here, where the amount of pops outgrows the capacity for the world to generate goods.


The only other thing I'd like to point out is that 1 dread + 1800 frigates results in the 1 dread missing the majority of it's shots.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Navies are completely broken in this mod, and here's why
PostPosted: Wed Nov 16, 2016 11:52 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2015 7:56 pm
Posts: 53
Did some more testing and figured out that there's 2 stages to naval combat. Before ship can begin combat it has to "seek" out an enemy ship. The base chance is 50% in the defines.lua file, whatever that means. The coordination penalty is capped at 90%, and this affects the chance to "seek" out an enemy ship. Not sure if that means the base chance to seek an enemy ship is 5% with max coordination penalty or if it gets lowered to 1% because the latter was how it worked at HOI4 launch, bad naval combat formulas meant that all percentages were additive/subtractive instead of multiplicative, so a 80% penalty to something with a base chance of 50% becomes -30%, which gets rounded up to 1%. To figure this out would require running a lot of trials and statistical analysis which I don't have time to do. This seeking determines what enemy ships your ships will be able to target.

Once a ship has found its target will it begin to close the distance to within firing range. When in firing range, it fires a shot every day until either the ship or the target dies/flees. After the target is destroyed, the ship goes back into "seeking" mode, and once it acquires a new target it starts off at max distance which it has to close again. There's a bunch of numbers and percentages for damage that get shown when you hover over the individual ships in combat, however none of them make sense to me when I try to add/subtract/multiply them to get accurate damage figures. All I know is that it takes a dreadnought anywhere from 1-4 hits to kill a frigate depending on the dice rolls. A 0 roll requires 4 hits and a 9 roll requires 1 hit. Frigates will also dodge 25% of attacks so a 0 roll will require on average 5 rounds of firing from a dreadnought to sink a frigate.

One hugely important thing I noticed is that the amount of ships that can target an enemy ship at one time is capped at 6, with the exception of the first ship at the top of the battle line at the start of the battle for some reason. In my test I ran 1800 frigates + 1 dreadnought vs 11 dreadnoughts. When I looked at the bottom 10 dreadnoughts in the French fleet, they only ever had 6 frigates targeting them at one time and not a single ship more or less. For some reason the first ship had over 50 frigates targeting it, but after the first ship of the line was forced to retreat the next ship that was at the top of the battle list still only had 6 frigates targeting it. I re-did the battle 3 times and my 1 dreadnought with the 1800 frigate fleet couldn't target the enemy dreadnoughts due to this cap of only 6 ships being able to fire at once.

Now despite only 6 frigates being able to fire on an enemy dreadnought at a time and my lone dreadnought never being able to fire on the enemy dreadnoughts, the 1800 frigate spam still won easily. Each frigate does between 0 to 0.2 strength damage per hit, but they do between 0.1-0.6 org damage per hit. 6 frigates doing an average of 0.3 org damage is 1.8 org damage per round. The dreadnoughts get de-orged extremely quickly and are forced to retreat.

End result after all 3 trials is that the 11 dreadnoughts lost within a month without losing a single ship, meanwhile the frigate spam would lose anywhere from 75-125 frigates. If my lone dreadnought would have been able to target an enemy dreadnought then perhaps one of the 11 dreadnoughts would have been sunk, but the odds of that happening are incredibly low since it has to compete for 6 targeting slots vs 1800 other ships.


So its not that the dreadnought with the 1800 frigates "missed" its shots, it technically never fired any because it couldn't begin to target the enemy dreadnoughts in the first place. However it seems like once a ship has acquired a target and sailed into firing range, it can't miss unless the enemy ship has evasion. At least I noticed my frigates weren't missing any shots once they were within firing range. So while small ship swarm will beat dreadnoughts, they aren't ideal for sinking them.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 19 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
suspicion-preferred