Martin Boreman + Rudolph Hess Is Best

[Gefallener_Held]

Doesnt matter much.
To draw a graph you have to calculate PP income.
And to calculate PP income you have to take stabiliity into account because it influences it.

With 50% stability the values are: Normal: +1.3 Borman +1.6 B+Hess: +1.9
With 84% stability the vaules are: Normal: +1.436 Borman +1.736 B+Hess: +2.036
With 100% stability the values are: Normal: +1.5 Borman +1.8 B+Hess: +2.1

Difference is always 0.3

[Formula: PP Bonus in % = (Stability in % - 50) / 5 ]
[PP Gain is 2 Base, 25% Adolf H. , +Bonus from Stability +Bonus from Advisor -1 from Focus -0.2 from MEFO]
[Example 84% Stab, Bormann: 2*(1+0.25+0.15+(84-50)/5/100)-1-0.2 = 1.736]


Not really.

@DaleDVM says here: https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/threads/lets-talk-germany.1163659/post-25314418 :
"the two generate an extra 447 PP by Sept 1 1939. That is 3 extra ministers before the historical date of the war vs a player who doesn't use them!"

In the calculation I used for my chart I get +448.8 PP from both Bormann and Hess compared to none of them.
The calculation seems to be correct (?)

But, I think , the point in is this: Dale says:
"Place them both and do it early. There are literally no other ministers that are vital in the beginning of 1936. "

In this thread the argument is made that early Free Trade and War Economy is WAY more important than having great PP income. I'm not sure about that and it is a little bit subjective but the case of @el nora and @Corpse Fool are making is very strong.

It is still unclear to me if those are net versus gross gains, esp re Hess (as the second SH selection). Another thing to factor is that Hess basically is a 300pp choice, as it mandates a second minister choice when he leaves. So it really may be a wash after all?
Free trade (I say export focus is better bc of need to import aluminum in 38) is arguable. Early war economy not as much and can be argued is a bit of an exploit. Early war economy gives bonus to mil factories which I think we all agree are best defered to Spring 38.

 

[Corpse Fool]

With 84% stability the vaules are: Normal: +1.436 Borman +1.736 B+Hess: +2.036

That explains why my days were off a little bit. An extra 0.006 PP per day. Which does in fact fix everything.

If the net gain is in fact only 150,

Per workhorse and within that 3 year period, yes. It is only 178.5 PP, or 1.19 extra buys. This post of mine in this thread shows that Dale and my numbers are not different at all (after accounting for that error) for as far as Dale cares to detail when specific buys are happening.

So as Simon pointed out, it will ultimately come down to what you care about more. Earlier free trade, war eco, canaries, shacht, and whatever else to help your snowball? Or having your high command and such in place a bit earlier

It is still unclear to me if those are net versus gross gains, esp re Hess (as the second SH selection). Another thing to factor is that Hess basically is a 300pp choice, as it mandates a second minister choice when he leaves. So it really may be a wash after all?
Free trade (I say export focus is better bc of need to import aluminum in 38) is arguable. Early war economy not as much and can be argued is a bit of an exploit. Early war economy gives bonus to mil factories which I think we all agree are best defered to Spring 38.

Does it matter if those are gross or net? You can work under either set, assuming you can reason your way through such a problem.
If you do consider Hess to be a 300 PP buy to account for his later replacement, then you have to wait the 1000 days after hiring him for there to start to be any benefit to having hired him to begin with instead of just getting that other person first.
Free Trade in a multiplayer setting is basically mandatory. It doesn't matter if you have to import aluminum, your allies are buying up a lot of your exports as well, so it is still often a net gain in civ production. In single player where the AI doesn't buy from you near as much as I would like, free trade can certainly be less appealing. But its also single player, nothing really matters, you can win with artillery only or 2 wide cavalry rushes.
Early war eco being an exploit is not my concern, its whether the server bans it. If you think war economy is for the military factories, you've completely missed the point of consumer goods percentage.

 

[Simon_9732495]

It is still unclear to me if those are net versus gross gains,

The yellow line is the difference between Bormann pick an no pick
The blue line is the difference between Borman and Hess pick and no pick

Here is the graph with the gross values:

 

[Gefallener_Held]

Does it matter if those are gross or net?

Yes. Net pp gain is all that matters. 300 plus net gain factoring in 150 cost puts two step squarely into the advantage. Just 150 or thereabouts AFTER 150 pp buy makes it much less worthwhile.

Re war economy, I am well aware of the advantages of consumer goods. Still not worth it, and certainly not with wasting 150 on Goebbels. Mid to late 37 is what I advocate.

Please do not talk down to me re multiplayer. Obviously, unfortunately, sp does not have allies buying stuff the way they would in mp. This is obvious to me and should be obvious to anyone. I have various reasons from eschewing multiplayer, including using extravagant use of the pause button, wanting to play at my own pace, hearing stories of people just quitting games, not to mention absolute disgust with the socalled battle planner and insisting on attacking manually, with of course extravagant use of the pause button.

Finally, concerning whether servers ban something or not, I disagree. All sorts of exploits that the multiplayer games you talk down to me about rightly ban. If human players cannot handle them, the AI certainly cannot. And while playing Germany optimally absent some pretty bad exploits makes Germany much, much stronger than its historical counterpart, I have no interest in indulging things that clearly ought to have been rectified by Paradox, if the company were not preoccupied with silly, goofy althistory and so on.

Aside from eschewing exploits like rush teching to get Panthers (which were not serviceable till later half of 43) in 43, war economy in 36 certainly applies. It really should apply later than the time I advocate for. Even beyond that, there are other priorities, plus benefit of not blowing 150 on Goebbels when you get enough war support by mid 37 with Anschluss, and an attache to Japan once Marco Polo breaks out.

 

[Zauberelefant]

1. Germany doesnt even need Bormann to meet their pp needs. Hess is a waste.
2. You only have 3 advisor slots. You need either Schacht or Funk, Canaries, and you also probably want Goebbels. Fitting Bormann in is hard enough, where do you slot in Hess?
3. Hess disappears before* you dow Soviets. It fires when France falls. Not in 41. Maybe in 40. But more probably in 39.
4. Your first picks are going to be Free Trade, attache/Goebbels, War Eco, and Schacht. Bormann becomes less and less useful the longer he is put off. Hess all the more so.
5. Seriously what exactly is it that you need to be doing with all that pp? You will have tank designer, air designer, theorist, spymaster, etc all on time even without getting Bormann.

My testing found that free trade and going Back is not profitable in Terms of industry m given the expenditure of PP, I think there are equal or better alternatives.

 

[Corpse Fool]

Yes. Net pp gain is all that matters. 300 plus net gain factoring in 150 cost puts two step squarely into the advantage. Just 150 or thereabouts AFTER 150 pp buy makes it much less worthwhile.

If you have the gross production, you can very easily figure out the net profit. If you have the net profit, you can very easily figure out the gross production. This is because we know what the cost is, which is going to be fixed at 150 PP. It shouldn't matter which values the graph shows you, you should be able to work with either set of data so long as you understand what the different parts are. That you are still resistant to the idea that it might only be 150 PP or so profit after 3 years suggests that maybe you don't understand how this math is working. If you are having trouble understanding different parts of what is presented to you, please ask for clarification and I will do my best to assist you or anyone that wants to learn and develop themselves as a person.

Fair enough you don't like goebbels, fair enough you advocate for mid-late '37 war economy. I am a lot more interested in learning what has led you to such a position. There are ways of getting early war economy without hiring goebbels.

I was not talking down to you. I'm going to start talking down to you now though. I didn't know you were so opposed to playing multiplayer, and quite honestly I don't care. You can ultimately play the game however you want, and have whatever opinions about the game you want. You seem to be more interested in having a historical ww2 simulator, when this is very much a video game where gamey shit happens. You come into a thread about min-maxing (gamey shit) and rant and rave about how this or that is the best despite seemingly doing nothing to look into whether or not it actually is. Someone mentions that you ranted and raved about 40 wide divisions before but say you would characterize it differently. I'd like to point out 2 things. Your signature says 40 wide divisions should be banned, and you're in a min-max thread talking about history. You also tried to cut off nora based on your wild misunderstanding about what they said. I make mistakes now and then, but that was a doozy.

When you come in here and try to argue this or that without really doing any of the arguing yourself (you have often said you don't know, or simply pointed to Dale), what are you hoping to achieve? If you want to watch football, paradoxically peruse 'old' threads for up to date information and opinions, and outright hope that someone comes in here and gives you the answer (but only the answer you want to hear, because you are resistant to Simon coming in with their answer), what are you even doing in here? What are you hoping to get out of this? I don't think Dale gives a shit about what we got to say about a 2 year old thread for a different version of the game, notably before LaR where spies did a lot to mess up previous min-max solutions.

Hopefully you have thick enough skin that my actually talking down to you hasn't scared you away from this thread. I would like for you to continue to be a part of a productive conversation and that we can learn from each other and develop a better understanding of the game and how to play it. But a productive conversation certainly can be had without you if you so chose.

Returning to the topic that is really at hand, and trying to cut through all of the bullshit. The determining factor here is whether we care about having our 5 first buys a bit earlier, or the 6+ buys a bit earlier and ultimately squeeze 2 or 3 extra buys into a total given time frame. This is more or less exactly the same thing dale said, there is no contradiction. There is perhaps a lot of misunderstanding going on here though.

So what we really have to establish here (after through whatever means you come to accept that the workhorse is only +150 or so PP after 3 years) is an actual buy order for workhorses first, or no workhorses, like I asked for much earlier in this thread. Once we have that, we can split it into first 5, and 6+ within a given time period. Now that we have 2 things we can try to compare them different ways, and then everyone who reads through that comparison will be able to make a more informed decision about which choice is more suitable for their goals.

 

[Gefallener_Held]

@Corpse Fool

For the love of Christ, I was simply asking for a clarification re net v gross. I am holding my tongue lest I get an infraction. Use your powers of telepathy to ascertain my other comments to you.
Concerning relying on the prior post, I already stated that I did testing--almost a year ago bc the game was still not where I wanted it to be, and came hoping that we are now up to 10.3 it will be better. Why you would think I owe you or anyone an explanation is beyond me.
I have tried being magnanimous in conceding that it seems I and the convincing posts I alluded in support of my position to are wrong.

 

[Corpse Fool]

Concerning relying on the prior post, I already stated that I did testing

Out of all 19 of your posts in this thread, only 2 of them reference any sort of testing. One was the last comment you made which says you said you tested it.
The other says...

Way to be magnanimous when I am on three Bergen if conceding. One, I am watching football. Two, I am going to have to peruse old threads. Then I may new to test. Hopefully by then someone will chime in on this discrepancy
All data points of DaleVLM's postthat I have crossreferenced have checked out so not sure why his analysis and numbers would be wrong....

I had a bit of difficulty trying to interpret what half of that is suppose to mean the first time I seen it, and I'm not much better off now. I have no idea what "Then I may new to test." is supposed to mean, and cross referencing isn't testing. So I have no information indicating that you have done any testing, or saying that you have done testing. But now you're saying you've done testing and I'm very interested in seeing that data.

Why you would think I owe you or anyone an explanation is beyond me.

Because that is how this is supposed to work. We start with a hypothesis, find/generate some data and try to explain it to each other why we think that data is relevant to our hypothesis. Even if we don't convince each other, we should have a much firmer understanding of what the others position is so that we may later refer back to it. All you've really done is come in and slam someone else's data on the table and tell us to look at it. You think it speaks for itself but the moment we raise a counter point, you futz around and have great difficulty being able to accept the idea as even being a correct application of math.

Perhaps if you tried explaining why you are having difficulty accepting that the workhorse only generates 178.5 PP after 3 years, we could better identify where the hang up is, and either we would get a new perspective and turn ourselves around, or be able to help you proceed with your understanding of our arguments.

 

[blahmaster6k]

But, I think , the point in is this: Dale says:
"Place them both and do it early. There are literally no other ministers that are vital in the beginning of 1936. "

In this thread the argument is made that early Free Trade and War Economy is WAY more important than having great PP income. I'm not sure about that and it is a little bit subjective but the case of @el nora and @Corpse Fool are making is very strong.

It might be worth it to mention that that thread is from April 2019, which is before La Resistance introduced espionage. The introduction of spy agencies and blueprint stealing revamped early PP spending and introduced a very good early advisor purchase in the Illusive Gentleman. This made it much easier to rush industry research, which also makes having an early industrial company more useful. This is especially changed for Germany, which doesn't have room for two silent workhorses, a fascist demagogue, a captain of industry, and an illusive gentleman.

 

[el nora]

In this thread the argument is made that early Free Trade and War Economy is WAY more important than having great PP income. I'm not sure about that and it is a little bit subjective but the case of @el nora and @Corpse Fool are making is very strong.

That's it, I'm going to necro the Germany factory count thread. I need to think of a good focus order.

If I'm just going to do memes, and not a real game order I think Rhineland into Free Trade, then Navy into no focus into war eco with the war support coming from ace spam in Ethiopia. Second navy into hold focus for dispersed 1 to reach 58 days to completion into Schacht. Should only be a few days wasted if I juggle both tools and dispersed 1. No tanks or rubber. Yes Agency and Canaries.

My testing found that free trade and going Back is not profitable in Terms of industry m given the expenditure of PP, I think there are equal or better alternatives.

I feel like you missed several of the comments through this thread talking about the differences between sp and mp play.

 

[bbasgen]

If I'm just going to do memes, and not a real game order I think Rhineland into Free Trade, then Navy into no focus into war eco with the war support coming from ace spam in Ethiopia.

Just tried a game with ace spacing in Ethiopia. I must be missing something. I put both fighters and CAS in Ethiopia, and split them into wings just 2 large. Ethopia caved in 2 months, and no aces. Is that somewhat expected?

 

[blahmaster6k]

Just tried a game with ace spacing in Ethiopia. I must be missing something. I put both fighters and CAS in Ethiopia, and split them into wings just 2 large. Ethopia caved in 2 months, and no aces. Is that somewhat expected?

The planes have to be in combat to generate aces. Ethiopia doesn't have any fighters, so you're not going to get any fighter aces with air volunteers there. Use CAS instead. Also, size 1 wings are the best for this strategy, not size 2.

 

[el nora]

Just tried a game with ace spacing in Ethiopia. I must be missing something. I put both fighters and CAS in Ethiopia, and split them into wings just 2 large. Ethopia caved in 2 months, and no aces. Is that somewhat expected?

Fighters are no good for Ethiopia. They have no range, so their mission efficiency is trash and 1-plane wings dont sortie at all. 2 -plane wings get half the aces that 1-plane wings do (when at 100% mission efficiency).

Regardless, you probably only sent 20 planes. If I'm gonna exploit, it's go big or go home. 200 planes going to Ethiopia in my game.

 

[blahmaster6k]

Fighters are no good for Ethiopia. They have no range, so their mission efficiency is trash and 1-plane wings dont sortie at all. 2 -plane wings get half the aces that 1-plane wings do (when at 100% mission efficiency).

Regardless, you probably only sent 20 planes. If I'm gonna exploit, it's go big or go home. 200 planes going to Ethiopia in my game.

1-plane wings do work, I use them regularly in Spain. I don't know where the idea that they don't sortie at all comes from. I can't read. At mission efficiency below 50, perhaps, but I'm not aware of how the game rounds 1-plane wings. You're possibly probably right for Ethiopia, since the air zones in Spain are pretty manageable and I don't remember what East Africa is like.

 

[el nora]

1-plane wings do work, I use them regularly in Spain. I don't know where the idea that they don't sortie at all comes from. I can't read. At mission efficiency below 50, perhaps, but I'm not aware of how the game rounds 1-plane wings. You're possibly probably right for Ethiopia, since the air zones in Spain are pretty manageable and I don't remember what East Africa is like.

Yea, someone else pointed it out to me that 1-wing fighters sent to Ethiopia dont gain aces. I tried testing it and saw that they dont gain experience either. But 2-plane wings do. Since the range penalty to the mission efficiency was over 50% I assume that is the culprit.

 

[blahmaster6k]

Yea, someone else pointed it out to me that 1-wing fighters sent to Ethiopia dont gain aces. I tried testing it and saw that they dont gain experience either. But 2-plane wings do. Since the range penalty to the mission efficiency was over 50% I assume that is the culprit.

I wonder if you could get the efficiency to over 50% with more ground crews or if it's just too low at base. AFAIK you can't gain fighter aces either way without actually being in combat with opposing planes, so I doubt that would make a difference.

 

[el nora]

I wonder if you could get the efficiency to over 50% with more ground crews or if it's just too low at base. AFAIK you can't gain fighter aces either way without actually being in combat with opposing planes, so I doubt that would make a difference.

Oh no, Im referring to air volunteers sent to Ethiopia. To fight the Italians. The fighters have plenty of enemy planes to shoot down. But they werent even flying, much less fighting.

 

[blahmaster6k]

Oh no, Im referring to air volunteers sent to Ethiopia. To fight the Italians. The fighters have plenty of enemy planes to shoot down. But they werent even flying, much less fighting.

Oh, right, my bad. You're absolutely correct then, I can't think of any other reason they wouldn't sortie.

 

[bbasgen]

Oh no, Im referring to air volunteers sent to Ethiopia. To fight the Italians. The fighters have plenty of enemy planes to shoot down. But they werent even flying, much less fighting.

How interesting. Do you also send troops? Can you actually stop the Italians, and is that a good thing, or is it just an easy/gamey way to get XP? I'm giving it a go now.

 

[el nora]

How interesting. Do you also send troops? Can you actually stop the Italians, and is that a good thing, or is it just an easy/gamey way to get XP? I'm giving it a go now.

You can send 2 only divisions. You can delay them pretty well all things considered. As Germany you dont want to delay them too far because then they cant go down their focus tree. As the Soviets, you can send your 24 width mountaineers and stall hard. Eventually the Ethiopians will lose enough land that you are just attritioning to death from lack of supply and at that point you just let them die. But that point can come long after the SCW begins depending on how well you delay.