Thank you for all your answers>
That is your view, and I disagree. In this world, given where we are all headed, the issue should be "what one needs" and not "what one can do with more". I think I have the environmentalists on my side. But - applied to AoD - why should I spend IC to get higher IC for more TC when the totality of my build and strategy results in less TC needed than I already got? The problem is you are taking the AI build scheme and what it should do TC-wise... and wrongly applying same to me.
I do agree it is a bad idea and have cancelled the project. While it seemed very logical to me, the best idea is still my preferred "numbers crunching" which almost instantly exposed that the massive economic program AI does could not possibly be profitable by 1941.
AND THANK YOU FOR YOUR NEW ESTIMATE OF "By 1942/02/30 AI will have a greater total military" which supports what my numbers crunching had revealed; and which I agree with (as I already stated earlier it would be 1942 that the higher IC of AI will out pace me).
Sure, if you want and don't mind the work. I would enjoy seeing more estimates derived different ways regarding the subject.
I see your point in this example. But I do not see how it is even relevant when discussing any unit which can't be constructed in 1936 because the needed techs have not been achieved. So - if discussing INT-4, how does the phrase "base icd" even apply? Would you take the base icd of INT-1 and apply the slider and assembly line modifiers? That might be a start, but isn't INT-4 a more expensive unit? The calculation using base icd is already screwed up, and hopelessly so once considering how, or if, retooling should be applied, and how to handle gearing. Will it be 1 line, or more? Certainly that made the issue of 90 MOTs that needed justifying in my failed attempt rather crazy when it was 3972 days to construct if doing it one way versus any other way.
As I said, I personally like the numbers crunching way for very complex problems like this comparison exercise. Somehow I have the knack to see instantly the pluses and minuses... and give them about even weight. It worked in this case because I knew it was 1942 that AI would pass me. Not 1941 as Blue Emu had predicted, and not as you had indicated with claims of ONE NEW factory that get 3x and even 5x the IC. You see, there is a "numbers crunching" aspect to that... so I instantly see the years it takes to repay the IC invested for nearly one year to construct the new factory. And I add that onto the 1 year it took to build. But even more important is the delayed profit from 2nd factory build there, and it all just gets far worse with 3rd factory built there. In fact, one can easily find themselves with a beautiful model economy, but very few military models to use when the war comes.
I think MJF has shown that over and over again. Given his game objective of very early world conquest, it is my opinion he should not build more than 3 factories in Berlin and about 17 infra improvements. If he followed that model, he would have tremendously more units for his late 1939 invasion of France; and all else that quickly follows. His world conquest is mostly over before the AI economic plan even reaches parity in early June 1942. Why have all those factories when suffering such an obvious shortage of military units? Wouldn't extreme tech rushing of Logistical Techs be far better choice to address the TC issue; and insuring that the best units considering TC is what gets built? (That, would - of course - be paratroopers!
joke, appreciate it).
There are other negatives of delaying construction that count far more than any savings by waiting for assembly line (or certain sliders, etc). Let's say you do have - in early 1942 - massive IC to lay down 18 CV-5 in your plan to invade USA. Does it matter if my little U-boats - building from 1936 - already sank the whole USN before any CV of yours even launches?
Obviously, I am not convinced by the economic plan that interferes with my Wehrmacht growing as I consider sensible from Day 1.
That is your view, and I disagree. In this world, given where we are all headed, the issue should be "what one needs" and not "what one can do with more". I think I have the environmentalists on my side. But - applied to AoD - why should I spend IC to get higher IC for more TC when the totality of my build and strategy results in less TC needed than I already got? The problem is you are taking the AI build scheme and what it should do TC-wise... and wrongly applying same to me.
I do agree it is a bad idea and have cancelled the project. While it seemed very logical to me, the best idea is still my preferred "numbers crunching" which almost instantly exposed that the massive economic program AI does could not possibly be profitable by 1941.
AND THANK YOU FOR YOUR NEW ESTIMATE OF "By 1942/02/30 AI will have a greater total military" which supports what my numbers crunching had revealed; and which I agree with (as I already stated earlier it would be 1942 that the higher IC of AI will out pace me).
Sure, if you want and don't mind the work. I would enjoy seeing more estimates derived different ways regarding the subject.
I see your point in this example. But I do not see how it is even relevant when discussing any unit which can't be constructed in 1936 because the needed techs have not been achieved. So - if discussing INT-4, how does the phrase "base icd" even apply? Would you take the base icd of INT-1 and apply the slider and assembly line modifiers? That might be a start, but isn't INT-4 a more expensive unit? The calculation using base icd is already screwed up, and hopelessly so once considering how, or if, retooling should be applied, and how to handle gearing. Will it be 1 line, or more? Certainly that made the issue of 90 MOTs that needed justifying in my failed attempt rather crazy when it was 3972 days to construct if doing it one way versus any other way.
As I said, I personally like the numbers crunching way for very complex problems like this comparison exercise. Somehow I have the knack to see instantly the pluses and minuses... and give them about even weight. It worked in this case because I knew it was 1942 that AI would pass me. Not 1941 as Blue Emu had predicted, and not as you had indicated with claims of ONE NEW factory that get 3x and even 5x the IC. You see, there is a "numbers crunching" aspect to that... so I instantly see the years it takes to repay the IC invested for nearly one year to construct the new factory. And I add that onto the 1 year it took to build. But even more important is the delayed profit from 2nd factory build there, and it all just gets far worse with 3rd factory built there. In fact, one can easily find themselves with a beautiful model economy, but very few military models to use when the war comes.
I think MJF has shown that over and over again. Given his game objective of very early world conquest, it is my opinion he should not build more than 3 factories in Berlin and about 17 infra improvements. If he followed that model, he would have tremendously more units for his late 1939 invasion of France; and all else that quickly follows. His world conquest is mostly over before the AI economic plan even reaches parity in early June 1942. Why have all those factories when suffering such an obvious shortage of military units? Wouldn't extreme tech rushing of Logistical Techs be far better choice to address the TC issue; and insuring that the best units considering TC is what gets built? (That, would - of course - be paratroopers!
joke, appreciate it).There are other negatives of delaying construction that count far more than any savings by waiting for assembly line (or certain sliders, etc). Let's say you do have - in early 1942 - massive IC to lay down 18 CV-5 in your plan to invade USA. Does it matter if my little U-boats - building from 1936 - already sank the whole USN before any CV of yours even launches?
Obviously, I am not convinced by the economic plan that interferes with my Wehrmacht growing as I consider sensible from Day 1.
Last edited:
