We are so organized.

[MJF]

Combined arms bonus is actually marginally hiher. Arm1939-SpArt1940 has softness 0.282, Mot1941-SpArt1940 has softness 0.7802. This means that 2 Mot + 1 Arm has softness 0.6141, while 2 Arm + 1 Mot has softness 0.4481. So combatwise this unit will be better than 2 Mot + 1 Arm.

So, I gather, the combined arms bonus is limited to an averaged softness rating?

The main argument is simply icd. You can get almost 4 Mot per Arm. So spending a given icd into units of 2 Mot + 1 Arm instead of 2 Arm + 1 Mot will give you a stronger army.

That was my reasoning, for my "Aggressive attacking" strategy, anyways.

If however you have the icd for 2 Arm + 1 Mot, then you might as well go for 3 Mech. That way all divisions get the panzer leader bonus and all divisions get the bonus from the Chief of Army with the doctrine of armoured spearhead.

How about Later, say late '41 when invading USA, you have 2 ARM + 1 MOT, and separate corps of 3 MECs? My rationale here is that, by the time I have 6 MECs ready to hit the USA, I have 7-8 corps of 1 ARM + 2 MOTs. So I can have 3 groups of 1 ARM + 2 MECs, leaving me 4-5 ARM + 14 MOTs. so 4 groups of 1 ARM + 2 MOT leaves me 2 corps of 3 MOTs. I've also had 3 MOT's in with 1 ARM at that point...?

Seems strange to have MECs fighting on their own, without armor. After all, they were called "Panzergrenadiers," But then again:

"The Panzergrenadier divisions were organized as combined arms formations, usually with six battalions of truck-mounted infantry organized into either two or three regiments, a battalion of tanks, and an ordinary division's complement of artillery, reconnaissance units, combat engineers, anti-tank and anti-aircraft artillery, and so forth. All these support elements would also be mechanized in a PzGren. division, though most of the artillery, anti-tank, and anti-aircraft elements were equipped with weapons towed by trucks rather than the relatively rare armored and self-propelled models. In practice the PzGren. divisions were often equipped with heavy assault guns (EDIT: Read SP Art) rather than tanks, one armoured regiment with three battalions of 14 assault guns each one of them[1] due to a chronic shortage of tanks throughout the German armed forces. A few elite units, on the other hand, might have the tanks plus a battalion of heavy assault guns for their anti-tank element, and armored carriers for some of their infantry battalions as well.....On paper a Panzergrenadier division had one tank battalion less than a Panzer division, but two more infantry battalions, and thus was almost as strong as a Panzer division, especially on the defensive." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panzergrenadier

Does this apply to MECs? Should we think of a MEC division as having a built-in Tank brigade?

"Of 226 panzergrenadier battalions in the whole of the German Army, Luftwaffe and Waffen SS in September 1943, only 26 were equipped with armoured half tracks, or just over 11 percent. The rest were equipped with trucks"

Another argument for allowing MOTs to upgrade to MECs...?


I've also done mixed groups of 1-2 ARM + 2 MEC + 2 MOT. I can conveniently drop a MOT off in a province to hold that as the power advances.

 

[MJF]

Try SpArt instead. Art only increases defence, while SpArt also increases thoughness and decreases softness. Lower softness means you lose org slightly slower. Higher thoughness means that you lose org slower when you are the attacker.

Lately I've been trying 2 SP Art + 1 Eng in my "fast infantry" corps (3/4 of my inf), but the cost is killing me! I've scaled down my Navy and arguably the Luftwaffe, but still am very behind. Maybe it's the getting Nat. Spain on board early and trying to upgrade their Navy that hurts too much. I need to go back to ACs with my MOTs. That, or abandon the fast infantry idea in favor of 3 inf + art, and some 2 art + 1 eng corps for speed and defense.

 

[MJF]

Combined arms bonus is actually marginally hiher. Arm1939-SpArt1940 has softness 0.282, Mot1941-SpArt1940 has softness 0.7802. This means that 2 Mot + 1 Arm has softness 0.6141, while 2 Arm + 1 Mot has softness 0.4481. So combatwise this unit will be better than 2 Mot + 1 Arm.

Where do you getr all this stuff???

 

[Pang Bingxun]

So, I gather, the combined arms bonus is limited to an averaged softness rating?

Yes.

[softness of a division] = [softness of the unbrigaded division]x(1+[softness of the brigade]).

So for a brigade to lower softness the brigade needs a to have a softness lower than zero, and indeed that is the case. Mech1940 has a softness of 0.7, Mech1942 has a softness of 0.66 and SpArt1940 has a softness of -0.06. So Mech1940-SpArt1940 has a softness of 0.658 and Mech1942- SpArt1940 has a softness of 0.6204.

Softness of a unit is just the average softnesss of all the divisions in that unit. Combined arms bonus is proportional to that average softness times (1- softness). It is then multiplied by 0.4 if that unit is the attacker and 0.6 is that unit is the defender.

attack: 0.4 x softness x (1-softness)
defence: 0.6 x softness x (1-softness)

50% softness gives 10% on attack and 15% on defence.
55% softness gives 9.9% on attack.
60% softness gives 9.6% on attack.
65% softness gives 9.1% on attack.
70% softness gives 8.4% on attack.
75% softness gives 7.5% on attack.
80% softness gives 6.4% on attack.
85% softness gives 5.1% on attack.
90% softness gives 3.6% on attack.
95% softness gives 1.9% on attack.
100% softness gives 0% on attack.

A unit of only Mech1940-SpArt1940 gets +9% on attack and +13.5% on defence. A unit of only Mech1942-SpArt1940 gets +9.42% on attack and +14.13% on defence.

How about Later, say late '41 when invading USA, you have 2 ARM + 1 MOT, and separate corps of 3 MECs? My rationale here is that, by the time I have 6 MECs ready to hit the USA, I have 7-8 corps of 1 ARM + 2 MOTs. So I can have 3 groups of 1 ARM + 2 MECs, leaving me 4-5 ARM + 14 MOTs. so 4 groups of 1 ARM + 2 MOT leaves me 2 corps of 3 MOTs. I've also had 3 MOT's in with 1 ARM at that point...?

Researching all 3 division types seems like bad idea. A more focussed approach on research seems smarter. Also building few divisions of a type is a bit inefficient as well, because gearing bonus and retooling will likely be less favorable.

If you already have those divisions it seems smart to keep 1 Arm+2 Mot just as before and keep the Mechs seperate. You want softness for each corps be as close to 50% as reasonably possible. Combined arms bonus should be 90% of the respective maximum and Mech1940-SpArt1940 is surprisingly exact on that figure. A corps of 1 Arm1940-SpArt1940 + 2 Mot1941-SpArt1940 has an avarage softness of 0.6141333. That is very good, you should not aim at changing that.

Seems strange to have MECs fighting on their own, without armor. After all, they were called "Panzergrenadiers," But then again:
[...]
Does this apply to MECs? Should we think of a MEC division as having a built-in Tank brigade?

Mechanized divisions are very much meant to fight by themselves as they already have built in means for combined arms. They donnot need proper tanks. All they need is proper mechanized vehicles like the Sd.Kfz. 251 and SpArt for support.

Mechanized infantry - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Sd.Kfz. 251 - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Infantry fighting vehicle - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Lately I've been trying 2 SP Art + 1 Eng in my "fast infantry" corps (3/4 of my inf), but the cost is killing me! I've scaled down my Navy and arguably the Luftwaffe, but still am very behind. Maybe it's the getting Nat. Spain on board early and trying to upgrade their Navy that hurts too much. I need to go back to ACs with my MOTs. That, or abandon the fast infantry idea in favor of 3 inf + art, and some 2 art + 1 eng corps for speed and defense.

No, what you need to do is use SpArt, but either skip building armoured divisions and go for Mot-SpArt alone or give the army a higher percentage of your icd-budget. The army is the backbone of your armed forces. The rest is just support for the army.

Calculate the latest date possible when you need the navy and time precisely for that date for the navy to complete all items at once.

Say you want the navy to complete at 1940/04/01, right for Weserübung. CV1938 takes 555 days to complete plus retooling. Retooling is up to 80 days, probably closer to 72, but this difference may be needed for taking on supply and gaining org in port. So maybe 6 CV1938 are added to the building queue 635 days before 1940/04/01 at 1938/06/26.

CAG1938 take 122 days to complete plus retooling. Retooling is up to 40 days. Lets add those 6 CAG1938 to the building queue 162 days before 1940/04/01 at 1939/10/19. This delay in construction can be instrumental in having an army of reasonable quality and quantity.

Donnot start your military build up before Anschluss and make sure to have maxed out free markets before that and hawk lobby after it (because you get +1 hawk lobby from the event).

Try to have 6 units of 9 Mot1938-SpArt1938 each at Danzig. Add 9 production lines of Mot1938-SpArt1938 at 1938/04/30 so you have 54 of them a few days(because retooling is less than 80 days) before Danzig. The last batch will be too close to Danzig to take on supplies properly. Therefore they should not make up a new unit. Instead have 6 units of 7 or 8 Mot each ready and add the remaining 9 ones to them. That will speed up resupplying and it also takes care of leaders having properly taken command of the unit.

Divisions in a unit donnot share supply stockpiles, but they seem to share supply ontake which favours those divisions with low stockpiles.

Where do you getr all this stuff???

Having a savegame at hand where the tech level is right(Say from Danzig or Barbarossa) is one way. The softness of divisions and brigades is shown in the production menu. Also reading the files in \db\units directly is an option. A combination of both works best for me.

 

[MJF]

Mechanized divisions are very much meant to fight by themselves as they already have built in means for combined arms. They donnot need proper tanks. All they need is proper mechanized vehicles like the Sd.Kfz. 251 and SpArt for support.

Mechanized infantry - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Sd.Kfz. 251 - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Infantry fighting vehicle - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Well, well. Thanks for your detailed answer!

Now, from the Sd,kfz_251 Wiki above:

"The early production models of this vehicle were issued to the 1st Panzer Division in 1939.

These vehicles were meant to enable Panzergrenadier to accompany panzers and provide infantry support as required. In practice, there were never enough of them to go around, and most Panzergrenadier units had to make do with trucks for transport.[5]"

So MEC was designed to fight in combination with the armor, not alone. Fighting alone might work vs vanilla infantry but they, if the game is accurate, should be decimated by one good tank attack -- without correspomding armor or maybe even heavy AT support.

However, The "Mechanized Infantry Wiki does indicate that we could think of a game's armor division as having a built-in brigade of motorized (early models) or mechanized (later models) infantry, and MECs as having a built-in brigade of (progressively more powerful) tanks. Is that an accurate game assessment? If so, then your idea of MECs fighting alone, in groups devoid of Armor divisions isn't so historically invalid.

No, what you need to do is use SpArt, but either skip building armoured divisions and go for Mot-SpArt alone or give the army a higher percentage of your icd-budget.

Are you saying to still build SP Art for the footsoldiers, instead of reverting to regular artillery brigades? What about corps of 2 SP Art + 1 Eng for regular infantry?

Calculate the latest date possible when you need the navy and time precisely for that date for the navy to complete all items at once.

Say you want the navy to complete at 1940/04/01, right for Weserübung. CV1938 takes 555 days to complete plus retooling. Retooling is up to 80 days, probably closer to 72, but this difference may be needed for taking on supply and gaining org in port. So maybe 6 CV1938 are added to the building queue 635 days before 1940/04/01 at 1938/06/26.

CAG1938 take 122 days to complete plus retooling. Retooling is up to 40 days. Lets add those 6 CAG1938 to the building queue 162 days before 1940/04/01 at 1939/10/19. This delay in construction can be instrumental in having an army of reasonable quality and quantity.

Good stuff here! However, I build 7 CV IVs to arrive in August 1939. I try to encounter the UK Navy as soon as possible. If I invade France by 10/1/39 (yeah - I still do...) then I need the CVs by then. Trouble is, if I fight near their coastlines, they just retreat into a port, and CV strike On Port is useless for Germany in 1939-41, and not much better afterwards. I try, but lately don't normally encounter too much UK Navy until I invade France, say 10/1/39. Then I hope to have my TAC's or if possible my CAS's nearby -- and in decent-enough shape to help.

Recall that I am doing this to play (as if ) for World Conquest by the end of 1945 - within 10 years. Hitting early, and with a powerful enough Navy and airforce seemed logical. As USA I play of course a different strategy, but as Japan's AI mis-manages their Navy so poorly I only get in trouble with them if I get "Sloppy" in the Pacific, and go transporting troops around "Willy-Nilly" without proper protection, or send those SS II's out early in the Western Pacific around the Phillipines or Guam. They don't last long.

I'm noticing many people here build brigades separately from units. I gather for the separate gearing bonus. I've been doing that for the existing infantry as above, but for fresh units I just look at the overall costs, and the convenience of combined builds, and build them attached. Frankly I saw separate brigade builds as being more costly - more of an emergency option, but maybe not?

Donnot start your military build up before Anschluss and make sure to have maxed out free markets before that and hawk lobby after it (because you get +1 hawk lobby from the event).

Good point on Hawk, but if I want to still attack early I max out Central Planning for the early IC. Since I am too behind to do massive unit upgrades anyway, I rely on doctrines and early Shock to win. Free market makes more sense if playing historically, correct?

Try to have 6 units of 9 Mot1938-SpArt1938 each at Danzig. Add 9 production lines of Mot1938-SpArt1938 at 1938/04/30 so you have 54 of them a few days(because retooling is less than 80 days) before Danzig.

Thanks. Probably good advise for game mathematics, but I can't conceive of playing a WWII sim as Germany without Tanks -- even if it's just the 3 LA's only by 9/1/39.

Having a savegame at hand where the tech level is right(Say from Danzig or Barbarossa) is one way. The softness of divisions and brigades is shown in the production menu. Also reading the files in \db\units directly is an option. A combination of both works best for me.

A-ha! That might be beyond my patience... But maybe not, as the payoff is clear!

I tried recently a game as Germany in which I built no factories. 15 IC in 3 years gets you 3 more annual IC . 5 really with bonuses. More accurately:

1936 5 IC builds you 1 new IC. In 1937 you could think of it as 4 IC (since you now have 1 new one) gets you 1 IC. In 1938 3 IC (5-1-1) gets you 1 new IC. With bonuses those 3 IC could be 5 actual IC now new to you. So for a 5+4+3 IC investment/year I get 5 or so new IC towards the end of 1938. That's not going to pay off until maybe early 1941. By then I'm on the way to invading the USA, and anything I build (Like my 6 MEC's) are a struggle. This was my brilliant reasoning.

The experiment did not go well.

I also tried reducing Infra builds to only those provinces either rich in raw materials, refining factories, or existing IC that I could get to 200% by Danzig or War. Not sure if this is a good idea yet... Others have said that they abandon Infra builds by "Munich," or by the annexation of CZ. Hmmm...

Thx for the help!!!

 

[Pang Bingxun]

So MEC was designed to fight in combination with the armor, not alone. Fighting alone might work vs vanilla infantry but they, if the game is accurate, should be decimated by one good tank attack -- without correspomding armor or maybe even heavy AT support.

The game is accurate there. At one vs. one mechanized will lose badly if attacked by armoured divisions.

Are you saying to still build SP Art for the footsoldiers, instead of reverting to regular artillery brigades? What about corps of 2 SP Art + 1 Eng for regular infantry?

I mainly meant to say you should not go for AC. But SpArt works well on regular infantry, too.

2 SpArt + 1 Eng do not mix well. SpArt is for attacking, at defence regular Art is better.

Good stuff here! However, I build 7 CV IVs to arrive in August 1939.

This is the problem. The lack of patience. This kind of doing what is not needed for the moment and neglecting what is needed for the moment is something that clearly does not suit me. There need to be clear priorities and an early navy is not what Germany needs.

I'm noticing many people here build brigades separately from units. I gather for the separate gearing bonus. I've been doing that for the existing infantry as above, but for fresh units I just look at the overall costs, and the convenience of combined builds, and build them attached. Frankly I saw separate brigade builds as being more costly - more of an emergency option, but maybe not?

There are 2 cases to consider: CAG for CV and all other cases. For CV the CAG make up a great portion of the total costs and delaying that till well after Danzig helps a great deal. There also are savings in terms of lower retooling and of saved maintenance costs. Items in the building queue do consume supplies once retooling is done.

In all other cases the math is usually clearly in favour of seperate construction, but the savings are not great enough to clearly favour the higher need for management. So with the exception of CV there is no strong reasoning.

But if thinking of optimal gameplay seperate construction is the better choice. The seperate gearing bonus can be a point, but it is minor. Lower retooling is likely more important than that. Also saved maintenance costs are an issue and not a minor one.

Still the main argument is perhaps when out of a given "to be spent icd" which icd per day need to be paid. If only divisions are built early on this helps to ensure to not run into a lack of available ic. Building the brigades later helps to rearrange the bill to meet the available funds, which are much greater after Czech annexation than before munich. That is because both terrtoriy and output per territorydo increase.

In 1938 still a big portion of production is spend on infrastructure and factories. In 1939 and especially after Danzig the picture changes. Delaying military production till to a sufficiently late time pays off.

Good point on Hawk, but if I want to still attack early I max out Central Planning for the early IC. Since I am too behind to do massive unit upgrades anyway, I rely on doctrines and early Shock to win.

This is rather nonsense. Central planning instead of hawk lobby will likely not max out your effective production by Danzig. Central planning mainly maxes out resource consumption. But as Germany is a net importer of resources you need to pay top dollar for those and with free markets you get those with less icd. In 1936 the first move needs to be hawk lobby. The second move in 1937 (or 1936 if you rush it) can either be hawk lobby or free markets. But assuming the second move was also hawk lobby, the third move needs to be free markets. Chances are that this move being free markets instead of central planning will help you immediatly. Non-military production per icd will increase by about 5%, military production per icd by about 10% and cash per icd will increase by 8.33% instead of decreasing by 4.167%.

Also it is a bad idea to not invest into upgrades. At least the infantry should be upgraded. There you get great bang for the buck. Some items such as the HQs can be excempted from upgrading, too little bang for the buck there.

Free market makes more sense if playing historically, correct?

IRL there were steps towards central planning between 1935 and 1939. Starting after Danzig there were steps toward free markets.

In game such a strategy is not sensible. As resources are a severe restriction, free markets are the obvious choice.

Thanks. Probably good advise for game mathematics, but I can't conceive of playing a WWII sim as Germany without Tanks -- even if it's just the 3 LA's only by 9/1/39.

Well, all those SpArt are mounted onto tanks. By my suggestion you will have a large amount of "tanks". Also you may of course keep the initial armoured divisions. Disbanding them is not needed. Just investing into more is no good idea if your intended army is too small already.

First you need to have the numbers(90 Inf-none is better than 60 Inf-Art), second you need to have the brigades(everything but Infantry really needs to be brigaded and even mere infantry should be brigaded), third you need to have the uprades(75 Inf1939 are better than 90 Inf1936) and only at fourth in the priority chain come divisions types.

I also tried reducing Infra builds to only those provinces either rich in raw materials, refining factories, or existing IC that I could get to 200% by Danzig or War. Not sure if this is a good idea yet... Others have said that they abandon Infra builds by "Munich," or by the annexation of CZ. Hmmm...

Well, my opinion on that matter is clear. All or almost all infra build should be continued till 200%. It does make sense to use accelerated production early on and reduce it as the respective production line has fewer items left. In most cases regular production will suffice and at regular production each line of infra costs only 2 ic. That is very accceptable.

A static comparision: Accelerated production for infrastructure?

I would like to compare building Infrastructure regularly and by using twice or even triple ic. Let us assume that manpower and ic are not limited and that any excessive ic is used for consumer goods. The money/icd ratio remains constant. There...

forum.paradoxplaza.com

 

[Mr_B0narpte]

As resources are a severe restriction,

All helpful info, but from previous experience with vanilla, I'm not sure resources ever become an issue for the Axis, especially if Malaysia is taken.

How is going for central planning a nonsense? Especially if it means you don't have to build as many factories (which you plan to do until at least 1939 it seems). Central planning gives you more immediate IC, freeing up production and enabling earlier militarisation, which can pay off far more substantially then several additional factories.

 

[MJF]

2 SpArt + 1 Eng do not mix well. SpArt is for attacking, at defence regular Art is better.

I did it because 1. It is "cheaper" than only SpArt. 2. Since you need Eng for Siegfried Line defense, and building Infantry units is clearly smarter than unmovable forts, the Eng looked good - I realize Germany, after Anschluss has 3 Eng brigades, and you once told me that just 1 of these in a stack doubles the entire group's defense rating (which seems excessive) but - 3. Eng help with river crossings. I would build them for footsoldiers as part of a "Fast Infantry" corps. 2 SpArt + 1 Eng, or switching 1 SpArt for an AC has the corps move 1 speed faster. That seems pretty important in a Blitzkrieg campaign, especially if fighting with an army of lesser size than a slower-developing war, no?

This is the problem. The lack of patience. This kind of doing what is not needed for the moment and neglecting what is needed for the moment is something that clearly does not suit me. There need to be clear priorities and an early navy is not what Germany needs.

Have you forgotten my posts in the past of massive Naval victories vs the UK in 1939, as well as my need to succeed in Sealion by early 1940 at the latest?

There are 2 cases to consider: CAG for CV and all other cases. For CV the CAG make up a great portion of the total costs and delaying that till well after Danzig helps a great deal. There also are savings in terms of lower retooling and of saved maintenance costs. Items in the building queue do consume supplies once retooling is done.

In all other cases the math is usually clearly in favour of seperate construction, but the savings are not great enough to clearly favour the higher need for management. So with the exception of CV there is no strong reasoning.

I'll try that next time.

This is rather nonsense.

Why, thank you...

Central planning instead of hawk lobby will likely not max out your effective production by Danzig. Central planning mainly maxes out resource consumption. But as Germany is a net importer of resources you need to pay top dollar for those and with free markets you get those with less icd. In 1936 the first move needs to be hawk lobby.

Always is.

The second move in 1937 (or 1936 if you rush it) can either be hawk lobby or free markets. But assuming the second move was also hawk lobby, the third move needs to be free markets. Chances are that this move being free markets instead of central planning will help you immediatly. Non-military production per icd will increase by about 5%, military production per icd by about 10% and cash per icd will increase by 8.33% instead of decreasing by 4.167%.

Ah...Why, Thank You!

Also it is a bad idea to not invest into upgrades. At least the infantry should be upgraded. There you get great bang for the buck. Some items such as the HQs can be excempted from upgrading, too little bang for the buck there.

I always fight in 39 and for that matter 1940 with 1936 infantry.

First you need to have the numbers(90 Inf-none is better than 60 Inf-Art), second you need to have the brigades(everything but Infantry really needs to be brigaded and even mere infantry should be brigaded), third you need to have the uprades(75 Inf1939 are better than 90 Inf1936) and only at fourth in the priority chain come divisions types.

As Germany, I never build more that 9-12 Inf units before the war. In Blitzkrieg, given how slow they are, what good is the extra? Later of course, esp with Garrison units and in my case 2x stacks of Militia, to control occupied provinces and defeat partisan groups. I also like at least 4 SturmMarine units fully ready to go by 11/1/39, 3 with Art 1 with Eng.

Well, my opinion on that matter is clear. All or almost all infra build should be continued till 200%. It does make sense to use accelerated production early on and reduce it as the respective production line has fewer items left. In most cases regular production will suffice and at regular production each line of infra costs only 2 ic. That is very accceptable.

Somewhere I read to abandon Infra building after CZ annexation, if not earlier. I never was sure of the penalty if a territory was at say, 150% vs 200%. Plus by then

A static comparision: Accelerated production for infrastructure?

I would like to compare building Infrastructure regularly and by using twice or even triple ic. Let us assume that manpower and ic are not limited and that any excessive ic is used for consumer goods. The money/icd ratio remains constant. There...

forum.paradoxplaza.com

Well, the math is beyond me. I also was building a line of 3 factories In the top 4-5 IC provinces. As mentioned, I seem to have worse success if I don't, although the jury is still out on that one.

 

[Acheron]

I once read that while free market improves, so to say, the efficiency of your IC, central planning increases your overall IC. And the later means also an increase in transport capacity. Is this true? Does central planning indirectly increase your TC?

 

[Mr_B0narpte]

I once read that while free market improves, so to say, the efficiency of your IC, central planning increases your overall IC. And the later means also an increase in transport capacity. Is this true? Does central planning indirectly increase your TC?

Yes it does - as TC is 1.5 times your effective IC, by installing central planning, the boost in your IC then further boosts your TC.

Meaning central planning frees up more IC for producing units, and provides more TC to help your supply network stay in the green.

Especially on vanilla, where resources are relatively easy to come by, the debate over free market vs central planning for Germany is not so clear cut. Even in the Improved 1936 mod, where resources are a lot harder to come by (Germany can start running out of energy by 1938 - yep, you read that right, energy!), free market is arguably more favourable (especially where Germany can get another +1 free market slider in January 1939 via an event), but even in this scenario - central planning has its uses. By going for it, perhaps your Germany doesn't need to build any factories pre-war, or if it still does, those factories become a lot more efficient.

Of course free market is easier to manage, with the reduced unit & upgrade cost, and reduced resource consumption - but that doesn't necessarily make it a "no brainer" to switch to.

 

[stevep]

Very interesting discussion guys. I always went for CP as Russia - and in my one attempt at a Germany game - both because of the increased IC - didn't realise that FM reduces IC consumption for many operations - and because that was historical, as both powers were massively centralised - albeit distinctly erratically in the German case. If I ever get the time to start playing again I think I will definitely give FM a try.

 

[Pang Bingxun]

All helpful info, but from previous experience with vanilla, I'm not sure resources ever become an issue for the Axis, especially if Malaysia is taken.

How much experience do you have with vanilla in 1.11+?

Before 1.11 was final the logic was less clear and maybe in 1.12(I had to cut back on factory construction there) it is not as clear as i implied.

How is going for central planning a nonsense? Especially if it means you don't have to build as many factories (which you plan to do until at least 1939 it seems). Central planning gives you more immediate IC, freeing up production and enabling earlier militarisation, which can pay off far more substantially then several additional factories.

The logic is semisound and it becomes sound if you go for total conquest before 1941. That is because ic for repairing provinces consumes no resources. But once upgrades come into play free markets gain the upper hand.

In practise Germany is resource limited if it goes for free markets. If it goes for central planning it gets worse. At Danzig AI Germnany produces 1678.4 energy, 293 metal and 126 rares. This averages to enough resources for 398.4 effective ic where imports for rares and metal equal the worth of possible energy exports.

I did it because 1. It is "cheaper" than only SpArt. 2. Since you need Eng for Siegfried Line defense, and building Infantry units is clearly smarter than unmovable forts, the Eng looked good - I realize Germany, after Anschluss has 3 Eng brigades, and you once told me that just 1 of these in a stack doubles the entire group's defense rating (which seems excessive) but - 3. Eng help with river crossings. I would build them for footsoldiers as part of a "Fast Infantry" corps. 2 SpArt + 1 Eng, or switching 1 SpArt for an AC has the corps move 1 speed faster. That seems pretty important in a Blitzkrieg campaign, especially if fighting with an army of lesser size than a slower-developing war, no?

There is no speed decrease due to SpArt. That is rather the definition of SpArt. The engineer-brigade however can slow down.

Building forts can be a preferable solution, but only against a serios enough threat. Engineers on garrision that cannot move anyway makes sense.

Have you forgotten my posts in the past of massive Naval victories vs the UK in 1939, as well as my need to succeed in Sealion by early 1940 at the latest?

I tried to forget, but did not manage to do so. It should be spring 1940 at the earliest.

Carriers are meant to be used from march to september, not the other way around.

I always fight in 39 and for that matter 1940 with 1936 infantry.

This is rather inefficient.

As Germany, I never build more that 9-12 Inf units before the war. In Blitzkrieg, given how slow they are, what good is the extra?

I did not mean to say you should build infantry. It just served as an example how a given rather restrictive icd-budget should be used in the end. A reasonable icd-budget is best used for Mot-SpArt. You should have 54 Mot1938-SpArt1938 by Danzig and 90 Mot1941-SpArt1940 by Fall Gelb.

I would suggest to try a bit of a compromise. Use the winter 1939 for your military build up. If you started researching 1940 assembly line experimentaton in 1938, then the higher maximum gearing bonus will benefit you. You will have a proper army in spring 1940. In march start Fall Gelb. In april your navy is raady as detailed above. Starting in Spring 1940 you go for every piece of territory you can grab.
Bring Spain into the fold.

Engage the UK in Spain and Afrika. Lure the UK into bringing its land divisions there to thin out the defences in England. Once this thinning out is reasonably maxed out start Sea Lion in july or august 1940.

 

[Pang Bingxun]

Very interesting discussion guys. I always went for CP as Russia

You have little choice there. You cannot really go FM there and you have ample resources. Selling them gives you cash which is more valuable to you because of central planning. It is kinda the same logic, but from the opposite point of view. Also soviet union has ministers that are poor for effective ic while Germany has ministers that are good for effective ic. One needs to account for that.

Once soviet union has maxed out professional army going as much free markets as possible can be an option, but that is way past 1943.

 

[MJF]

Well, my opinion on that matter is clear. All or almost all infra build should be continued till 200%. It does make sense to use accelerated production early on and reduce it as the respective production line has fewer items left. In most cases regular production will suffice and at regular production each line of infra costs only 2 ic. That is very accceptable.

A static comparision: Accelerated production for infrastructure?

I would like to compare building Infrastructure regularly and by using twice or even triple ic. Let us assume that manpower and ic are not limited and that any excessive ic is used for consumer goods. The money/icd ratio remains constant. There...

forum.paradoxplaza.com

You mean something like this?

Missing from the above screenshots is 2 x Infra in Wilhelmshaven (For Navy repairs) and a line of AA guns. All infra due to be done in 1939.

I couldn't say no to the Hippers, as they were geared and will be my only capital ships beyond carriers and the WW I BC's, and I need the transports.

So I reduced the number of provinces for infra builds, and accelerated them, hoping to get the enhanced IC in time to make up for the missing line of 9 INF divisions and the line of INT's. I usually only build 3-5 factory lines (x 3) and in the 5 richest IC provinces, for the puny concentration bonus. Here is is 6, and includes Hannover.

 

[Pang Bingxun]

You mean something like this?

Absolutely not. This is very wasteful.

Delete all the acceleration, it is meant for provinces with more than 8 factories. Building radar stations with acceleration is even more wasteful. Just use more lines instead, it is the obvious choice.

And donnot start them before Anschluss for that matter. Before Anschluss only factories and infra are meant to be build. Use spare icd to build up cash reserves of 120000 $ to 150000 $. You will need them.

All infra due to be done in 1939.

Donnot try to do that. Continue the builds till they are done with regular production. There is no need to stop them.

I usually only build 3-5 factory lines (x 3) and in the 5 richest IC provinces, for the puny concentration bonus. Here is is 6, and includes Hannover.

It is not so puny. At 200% infra 11 factories instead of 10 gives 1.573 base ic or about 2.2 effective ic, depending on ministers.

 

[MJF]

Absolutely not. This is very wasteful.

Delete all the acceleration, it is meant for provinces with more than 8 factories. Building radar stations with acceleration is even more wasteful. Just use more lines instead, it is the obvious choice.

Ok

And donnot start them before Anschluss for that matter. Before Anschluss only factories and infra are meant to be build. Use spare icd to build up cash reserves of 120000 $ to 150000 $. You will need them.

Another thing you will not approve of is how I throw money at Romania to get them in the Axis. (Done, around April '38), and I throw resources, with exchanges, at Nat. Spain through Open Negotiations, for all the good that's currently doing me, as they can't seem to make progress.

Of late I get Franco in the alliance before Danzig Or War. The trouble is that this gets a large UK fleet to go to the Canary Island/Gibraltar area to cost him NW Africa, as well as getting them out of the way of my CTF's, which I'm not sending down there that early. That UK fleet then shows back up from the Iberian Coast during my Sealion. Most annoying, as I don't have 4 large fleet groups to cover all the sea provinces. I suppose I could get "Gamey" and break my 7 CV's up into 3 or even 4 fleets, given their positional advantage, allowing me time to bring more to the "rescue," but that allows him to attack from more than one location.

Donnot try to do that. Continue the builds till they are done with regular production. There is no need to stop them.

Ok, but now I am suffering from the lack of early production, i.e., not enough CL IVs, Int's or even Inf divisions, and if the infra is still building, where's my extra later IC to catch up?

It is not so puny. At 200% infra 11 factories instead of 10 gives 1.573 base ic or about 2.2 effective ic, depending on ministers.

Great.

 

[Acheron]

Getting Nat. Spain into axis early seemed to make France neutral and not DOW me as Germany, was this another version of the game?

Regarding that big bad UK fleet, what is the Luftwaffe doing? If there are no significant allied naval assets in the North Sea, could you maybe affect an early landing? Maybe Scotland, somewhere where a small force can hold off counterattacks at chokepoints while you get aerial assets over to bomb their fleets and armies? Just a thought.

 

[MJF]

Getting Nat. Spain into axis early seemed to make France neutral and not DOW me as Germany, was this another version of the game?

Regarding that big bad UK fleet, what is the Luftwaffe doing? If there are no significant allied naval assets in the North Sea, could you maybe affect an early landing? Maybe Scotland, somewhere where a small force can hold off counterattacks at chokepoints while you get aerial assets over to bomb their fleets and armies? Just a thought.

Never tried amphibing Scotland. Scapa Flow and all. Landed in Norwich before. Can't get my CAS's very far from their mainland bases for a sealion beyond a Plymouth - Norwich arc.

 

[MJF]

This is rather nonsense. Central planning instead of hawk lobby will likely not max out your effective production by Danzig. Central planning mainly maxes out resource consumption. But as Germany is a net importer of resources you need to pay top dollar for those and with free markets you get those with less icd. In 1936 the first move needs to be hawk lobby. The second move in 1937 (or 1936 if you rush it) can either be hawk lobby or free markets. But assuming the second move was also hawk lobby, the third move needs to be free markets. Chances are that this move being free markets instead of central planning will help you immediatly. Non-military production per icd will increase by about 5%, military production per icd by about 10% and cash per icd will increase by 8.33% instead of decreasing by 4.167%.

This is the worst IC I think I've ever seen. No Armor in production. Started my 6 CAV/AC's needed for Barbarossa 8/1/1940 arguably late, although that's not new, but with this low IC...?. While I am 2 ahead on MOTs I've had to idle those lines. While I am at 10 CASs instead of 8 (Although lately I am often able to get to 12 by 9/1/39), I'm only at 14 vs 16 INT IIIs, whic is bad! I'm also short Inf divisions by about 3.

I abandoned building 6 BC IVs with my CVs in favor of an expanded Baltic Fleet of 2 BC I's, 4 CV IVs with the CL IIIS and DDs - Since the UK AI is bad with it's Navy. This should've freed up more IC, I believe, which was my idea for 12 vs 8 CASs.

Yes, this is my first attempt at a run with 6 factories and less infra builds but with rushing them, and with delayed unit builds. I suppose it could be worse.

We will see if I can somehow recover.

 

[Acheron]

Never tried amphibing Scotland. Scapa Flow and all. Landed in Norwich before. Can't get my CAS's very far from their mainland bases for a sealion beyond a Plymouth - Norwich arc.

What I meant was: if the RN is far away and leaves the North Sea undefended, yet you do not have yet the forces available for a full scale sea lion, what about a landing in Scotland? The idea would be, that your troops dig in at chokepoints to hold out, until more forces are available. Also, the idea would be to fly your air units over to airbases in Scotland and both aid the ground troops in fending of attacks and attack returning RN ships in the area. Never tried it myself, just wondering if it would be feasible in that specific case on a Royal Navy that is absent in the early war because it aids in the invasion of Spanish North Africa.