I have to disagree as IRL Germany dramatically increased its production by streamlining the items it produced. I don't see how something with so many variant parts designed for technical superiority would be easily upgradeable.
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Aren't these two different matters? Here we are taking into consideration not the actual production of e.g. the MG42, a lot simpler than the MG34, but the time it takes for the soldiers to learn using that magnificient piece of weaponry.
Of course, it depends on what do you take into consideration - the time to produce the new equipment or the one needed to master it. Since AoD is in many ways abstracted, there can be two points of view on this. I think, however, that Epa referred to the soldiers' ability to use new weapons being delivered to them effectively, and I share his view.
It's as Mr T suggests, but I'll admit that my position rests on two assumptions. The first is that the upgrade cost includes a component for training personnel up on the new equipment and not simply the production cost of the hardware. The second is that the definition of a 'standing army' used in-game is that typically used at large - i.e. a professional army of long-term enlistees.
If both of those hold up, then I'd maintain that those long term troops would have had significant experience in adapting to new equipments and therefore be advantaged over relatively inexperienced draftees. Thus we get to Mr T's point - however simple or complex the new equipment is, the training cost component for a standing army will be less than that for a mass army.
If both of those hold up, then I'd maintain that those long term troops would have had significant experience in adapting to new equipments and therefore be advantaged over relatively inexperienced draftees. Thus we get to Mr T's point - however simple or complex the new equipment is, the training cost component for a standing army will be less than that for a mass army.
As Titan79 also said, AoD is quite abstract. The upgrading time includes not only the training cost but also the production of this new equipment so it is hard to come up with a definite yes or no answer in this regard.
Very good point. There are two aspects to upgrading an INF division – the time and cost to build the new equipment and the training to use that. My earlier had only concentrated on the equipment production.
I certainly agree that more professional soldiers will progress faster thru any learning curve over less professional soldiers because they are, for the most part, more motivated and often more educated – soldiering being their career.
However, the simpler and more generic nature of equipment to upgrade a drafted army (new rifle for everybody) is definitely easier to manufacture and do so more quickly in larger numbers than the various new things the standing army expects for its upgrade to maintain its professional standing - which relies on greater elite ability provided by specialized teams using several different new weapons. As a simpler example, to upgrade a medieval drafted army each pike man might receive a more deadly and complex pike. However, the professional soldiers for their upgrade will get improvements in armor, shields, and all their swords, daggers and other knives a professional soldier carries (think of going from low grade steel to better forged steel) plus additional upgrades in anything useful for his horse. The total equipment and complexity to upgrade a standing army is much greater, and learning to use it all takes more time also – even if they are more motivated and smarter.
Coming back to the game, this difference might include the acquisition of new field radios, other signaling gear, new explosives and various light arms. Meanwhile, the majority of the drafted army is really only needing to learn how to shoot that new rifle as good as they could the last one.
Of course the third parameter that does impact on this discussion is the higher organization given the standing army. It is quite possible that some of the things I discussed for standing army are already represented by the higher ORG they gain and maybe not the upgrade. Meaning, the greater training a standing army needs to use all its specialized equipments should not be considered as upgrade time since it is covered with ORG increase. Fair enough.
However, looking at all sides; I still feel the game got it backwards by favoring more standing with “less upgrade time and cost”. Drafted armies are low quality armies, easily outfitted with available weapons. In fact, the Russians got the principle so low (and cost/time effective) that 4 soldiers would charge with one rifle, the surviving ones using the piece when it became available. That warrants “lower cost and time” to upgrade any drafted army (meaning if you need to produce only one new rifle for every 4 soldiers).
Both your points do hold up very well. But the modifier is that the drafted army does not get the same equipment that they need to train how to use. They get simpler equipment. Or am I incorrect about that important fact? I would be if we baseline it that upgrade for standing or drafted should be the same thing ... or what comparison are we even discussing?
The position I am trying to show is that a drafted army does NOT get the same upgrade as a standing one. Not sure that is a fair or accurate position; and it does become problematic when we consider both the Russians and Germans getting the same ARM-II to ARM-III upgrade.
Certainly, if the upgrade is the same new rifle for both drafted armies, the professional soldiers will master using it far quicker. I am questioning if that is a realistic situation - the same upgrade results in same things in both armies being upgraded.
I suppose it really depends on what sectors of any army we are considering. I agree that a more standing army will learn how to use their new ARM-III much quicker than any drafted army mastering the use of their new ARM-III; without even getting into the problem of considering which tanks are cheaper and quicker to build. In fact, in this example, it seems logical that more standing or drafted army would have absolutely no influence on the production of the tanks themselves. Rather it is only the difference in industries that determines which country might produce new tanks quicker (something already covered under the IC value of a country).
As such, I am of the opinion that the component of “upgrade time/cost” within the Standing – Drafted Army slider is really quite misplaced. While I see it being applicable to divisions that are mostly composed of men like INF, MIL, CAV, GAR, MOT, MARINES and possibly even PARA (in which case I think it is incorrectly reversed) I really can’t see how it can even apply when upgrading armor, aircraft or ships. Upgrading these things is heavily industry dependent, and not on the degree of drafted or standing army soldiers.
That's not really what Titan said. Firstly he said "AoD is in many ways abstracted", which does not imply the same meaning as "AoD is quite abstract". You are twisting the semantics.
Next, he did not say, "The upgrading time includes not only the training cost but also the production of this new equipment" as you imply but rather he said , "Of course, it depends on what do you take into consideration - the time to produce the new equipment or the one needed to master it."
I do not see Titan at all supporting your point but only reaching his own fair conclusion which is, "there can be two points of view on this.".
The question under discussion is, "Is training time really part of the upgrade time and cost, or not?" Lumping it all together to gain a final word is not kosher with me.
If the words "it is hard to come up with a definite yes or no answer" are really your words, might I suggest that that is exactly what Epaminondas and I are trying to figure out because definitely knowing if it is a yes or no becomes instrumental in deciding if the drafted/standing army slider is applied incorrectly as regards "less cost and time to upgrade"; or as I just above questioned - is the concept incorrectly placed within that slider?
Or should the concept of "training" be part of that slider?
Last edited:
You got it right, Commander. That's the correct interpretation of my thoughts
.However, this doesn't mean that I completely reject Mr_B0narpte's view. It's just that, as written before, there can be basically two points of view on the matter: time to produce equipment vs. time to master it.
Since I tend to consider upgrading more training (i.e. related to the actual troops) than delivering or producing new tanks or aircraft (i.e. related rather to logistics/industrial might), I'd be in favour of the option which gives a professional army shorter upgrading times when compared to a drafted, i.e. unexperienced one, for which even shifting from a Mosin-Nagant M1930 to a SVT40 would mean weeks and weeks of practice to be able to use the new rifle effectively. This is the correct interpretation of the issue IMHO but, again, it's just a personal opinion.
Last edited:
I think standing army in terms of AoD does not mean that different equipment is used than in drafted armies but just that better trained and better paid soldiers are using the weapons. Different equipment is represented by different units(Mil, Inf, Mtn) and different tech levels. If you have a look at the techs you will see that many components are training components, so upgrading units also means upgrading their training. Therefore standing armies are upgraded faster. But they donnot fight better, but only longer due to better org.
Good point. It becomes even better if you consider the "german armour exploit". Do one step free markets and three step standing army. Now build light Armour level 1936. If you upgrade it to Armour level 1941 it will be cheaper than directly building them, and that is even before better gearing bonus is applied. Does that mean that more motivated soldiers of standing armies are more creative in reusing old equipment?
Good point. It becomes even better if you consider the "german armour exploit". Do one step free markets and three step standing army. Now build light Armour level 1936. If you upgrade it to Armour level 1941 it will be cheaper than directly building them, and that is even before better gearing bonus is applied. Does that mean that more motivated soldiers of standing armies are more creative in reusing old equipment?
Not really. The production time and cost will be the same in both cases so the only difference will be that made by the training. So,
(1) if professional soldiers train more quickly on new weapons than drafted recruits then standing army upgrade costs should be lower,
(2) if there's no difference in the rate of learning between the two, upgrade costs should be the same, and
(3) if the inexperienced group learn more quickly than the pros then standing army upgrade costs should be greater.
While there are many cases in which old learnings can actually slow down the acquisition of new skills, the empirical evidence generated over the last hundred or so years for the most part indicates that (1) is by far the more likely outcome.
Good point. It becomes even better if you consider the "german armour exploit". Do one step free markets and three step standing army. Now build light Armour level 1936. If you upgrade it to Armour level 1941 it will be cheaper than directly building them, and that is even before better gearing bonus is applied. Does that mean that more motivated soldiers of standing armies are more creative in reusing old equipment?
Not so much the more 'motivated' soldiers of standing armies, but the more experienced and better organised soldiers of standing armies. In terms of the 'armour exploit' the rationalisation would be that the, since it's not possible in the game to jump intervening models, the standing army troops can cope better with the rapid turnover of new models than could inexperienced troops.
After all it would mean that standing army can upgrade faster, but not at a lower total ICD.
If we do factor training into the upgrade cost, and we accept that IC is a generalised estimate of the cost of production, wouldn't faster upgrade times reduce IC costs?
So the standing army slider should reduce the time it takes to upgrade, but not the IC cost of upgrading?
Maybe I'm missing something but I'm really confused as to what you mean.
If standing army uses the same equipment as drafted army, than the ICD required to upgrade would be the same, wouldn't it? If standing army is upgraded faster the daily IC would be much higher. This logic however is tampered by the fact the drafted armies have better gearing bonus.
Aha! I see your point. I've been labouring under the impression that that the upgrade cost was calculated at a daily rate rather than a fixed quantum.
The upgrade time & cost for new equipment for an existing drafted army should be lower than for a standing (professional) army. The other way around isnt logical, when the time & cost to produce a drafted army division from scratch is lower (is this actually true? The drafted army gearing bonus is higher, this reduces the time to commission a new division from scratch, when in a long series.)
Logic says that if costs are lower to create the original division, costs should also be lower to upgrade the division?
Also, upgrading in a drafted system could work this way. Take the new rifles out of the crate & swap them. Training simply consists of an instruction to point & pull.
Upgrading in a professional system could work this way. Firstly the new rifles are unpacked and a special team loads, test fires, dismantles & reassembles looking for defects. Once all new rifles are approved for use, soldiers are briefed on the new rifle, its advantages over the old equip, how to unjam etc. Then the whole division is re-equipment and a training session organised with live ammo use of the new rifles, etc.
The difference in approach is reflected in performance on the battlefield, the standing army performs better than the drafted army under identical conditions.
From a game approach, there shouldnt be a heavily biased, preferred slider position. Better for game play if it isnt clear cut as to which way to go with the slider position. It should be; which-ever way you go you will get some advantages and you will get some disadvantages. Combine that with the special circumstances of your countries position, and the best slider position for your country wont be the same as the best slider position for another country. At present everyone goes Standing Army, so we may as well not have this slider ?
Logic says that if costs are lower to create the original division, costs should also be lower to upgrade the division?
Also, upgrading in a drafted system could work this way. Take the new rifles out of the crate & swap them. Training simply consists of an instruction to point & pull.
Upgrading in a professional system could work this way. Firstly the new rifles are unpacked and a special team loads, test fires, dismantles & reassembles looking for defects. Once all new rifles are approved for use, soldiers are briefed on the new rifle, its advantages over the old equip, how to unjam etc. Then the whole division is re-equipment and a training session organised with live ammo use of the new rifles, etc.
The difference in approach is reflected in performance on the battlefield, the standing army performs better than the drafted army under identical conditions.
From a game approach, there shouldnt be a heavily biased, preferred slider position. Better for game play if it isnt clear cut as to which way to go with the slider position. It should be; which-ever way you go you will get some advantages and you will get some disadvantages. Combine that with the special circumstances of your countries position, and the best slider position for your country wont be the same as the best slider position for another country. At present everyone goes Standing Army, so we may as well not have this slider ?