Concentrated industry !seems! overpowered compared to scattered industry
- Thread starter HerrWeltkrieg
- Start date
-
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.
Concentrated works well, when you have infinite land and well protected land and near infinite resources.. a.k.a. USA/USSR.
For the rest of the players, Dispersed looks better, esp. AXIS like- Germany, Italy, Japan and minors as they will be bombed by USA.
It is a trade-off, either you lose some efficiency, though 50% looks huge, remember you won't get the MAX till about 1942 and by then the war is already decided.
So, the actual difference will be 20% or so on an average and it is worth it, as on the maximum of Dispersed you have 100% better chance to escape bombing i.e. you only suffer half the effects.
For the rest of the players, Dispersed looks better, esp. AXIS like- Germany, Italy, Japan and minors as they will be bombed by USA.
It is a trade-off, either you lose some efficiency, though 50% looks huge, remember you won't get the MAX till about 1942 and by then the war is already decided.
So, the actual difference will be 20% or so on an average and it is worth it, as on the maximum of Dispersed you have 100% better chance to escape bombing i.e. you only suffer half the effects.
- 1
No not yet but from what we saw in the WWWs they look like the same bonuses every lvl so far. What I am just afraid of is that CI will be industry "I win button" since it influences ALL production lines (giving you long term broad edge over countries with SI ), SI bombing resist is only effecting those that are bombed so it is situational at best. I understand that diversity is needed but what I think is that right now CI is improving BOTH efficiency and number of slots of possible factories more than SI and that is just too much.
- 1
Exactly what is the reasoning that CI gives you more SLOTS for factories anyhow?
I get that the efficiency rises (shorter ways between factories, better synergies and economies of scale), but CI basically means to concentrate all industry in a designated industrial area, yes?
So would that not give LESS slots, since space is finite?
If I disperse my industry over the whole state, I have MUCH more space to build factories, although they suffer inefficiency mali.
So shouldn't it be:
CI: - X slots, + Y% efficiency
SI: +Z slots, - W% efficiency, + X% Bombing defence
I get that the efficiency rises (shorter ways between factories, better synergies and economies of scale), but CI basically means to concentrate all industry in a designated industrial area, yes?
So would that not give LESS slots, since space is finite?
If I disperse my industry over the whole state, I have MUCH more space to build factories, although they suffer inefficiency mali.
So shouldn't it be:
CI: - X slots, + Y% efficiency
SI: +Z slots, - W% efficiency, + X% Bombing defence
- 7
- 1
@Lifthrasil
Actually as per my knowledge, CI and DI follow the Historical paths-
In CI you have taken the base as - Tankograd built by USSR in the Urals or River Rouge in Detroit, America as the model. Pumping out hundreds of tanks, trucks and guns every month.
In contrast, Nazi Germany was the pinnacle of DI- it had factories from France to Poland, with some concentrations in the Ruhr and Silesia and Berlin-Brandenburg but with substitutes available everywhere which is the reason, despite heavy bombing you had the German production increase y-o-y from 1939 to 1944.
Eg: In CI you build more factories in a province or state, so more slots and more efficiency.
in DI you build only some factories in each province or state, also you build certain factories underground or partially underground to protect from bombers, you use camouflage, build in the deep forests, in valleys etc, basically odd places with increased cost of transportation but better defensive capabilities against enemy bombers. Since, you spend some space for protection etc, you can build lesser factories in that state.
Actually as per my knowledge, CI and DI follow the Historical paths-
In CI you have taken the base as - Tankograd built by USSR in the Urals or River Rouge in Detroit, America as the model. Pumping out hundreds of tanks, trucks and guns every month.
In contrast, Nazi Germany was the pinnacle of DI- it had factories from France to Poland, with some concentrations in the Ruhr and Silesia and Berlin-Brandenburg but with substitutes available everywhere which is the reason, despite heavy bombing you had the German production increase y-o-y from 1939 to 1944.
Eg: In CI you build more factories in a province or state, so more slots and more efficiency.
in DI you build only some factories in each province or state, also you build certain factories underground or partially underground to protect from bombers, you use camouflage, build in the deep forests, in valleys etc, basically odd places with increased cost of transportation but better defensive capabilities against enemy bombers. Since, you spend some space for protection etc, you can build lesser factories in that state.
- 2
DI is a no brainer for NAT China, a country that has no air defense and enters the war in 1937.
However, for every other country that doesn't enter the war until 1939, the 3 years of getting higher output% + more building slots per state, makes CI a no brainer for virtually everyone else except Nat China. Since you'll have more factories, more planes, more tanks, more ships, more infantry weapons for when the war starts, and its a no brainer to start the war with a larger military, and do more damage from the beginning.
Basically if you are using DI then you are just saying, I'm gonna lose so I need to play like I'm going to lose from 1936, for every other country except Nat China, where its more like a question of, what can I do to ensure that I survive until 1941, when I can join the allies. If we are going down the historical route in a MP game or single player.
However, for every other country that doesn't enter the war until 1939, the 3 years of getting higher output% + more building slots per state, makes CI a no brainer for virtually everyone else except Nat China. Since you'll have more factories, more planes, more tanks, more ships, more infantry weapons for when the war starts, and its a no brainer to start the war with a larger military, and do more damage from the beginning.
Basically if you are using DI then you are just saying, I'm gonna lose so I need to play like I'm going to lose from 1936, for every other country except Nat China, where its more like a question of, what can I do to ensure that I survive until 1941, when I can join the allies. If we are going down the historical route in a MP game or single player.
It's not about outproducing USA, its about outproducing UK and France, between 1936 and 1940, and having a larger army, larger navy, larger airforce then you would with DI, for when you start Operation Barbarossa. Its a no brainer to DOW USSR with a larger force. Axis can't win by the time USA has entered in the war, if USSR has not been beaten.
So Axis will always go CI, to get best bang for their buck and defeat their enemies before US entry, every single time. Allies will always go CI because its a no brainer.
- 3
I could not agree more, there needs to be some differences between the two but they need to be balanced, otherwise no brainer.
- 1
As others have said, we can assume that balance for HoI4 is nowhere near final.
Generally, I would assume that you want to go down the dispersed industry route if you expect to be on the receiving end of a lot of strategic bombing. It seems like a viable option for nations like Germany, Italy, the UK, and possibly Japan. On the other hand, if you have a lot of ground to give, like the USSR, or have vast geographic defensive advantages, like the US, then maybe concentrated industry is the better option. However, even if you expected to be bombed alot, you could go the concentrated industry route and then just build more interceptors and flak.
Generally, I would assume that you want to go down the dispersed industry route if you expect to be on the receiving end of a lot of strategic bombing. It seems like a viable option for nations like Germany, Italy, the UK, and possibly Japan. On the other hand, if you have a lot of ground to give, like the USSR, or have vast geographic defensive advantages, like the US, then maybe concentrated industry is the better option. However, even if you expected to be bombed alot, you could go the concentrated industry route and then just build more interceptors and flak.
- 1
The problem is that it is a choice between a situational bonus and one that are always good.
- 3
This is clearly not HOI3 and as far as we know, if the ennemy put enough effort into it, you ARE going to be bombed no matter how many fighters you put. Especially as germany...
Meaning no disrespect, but the argument that since we are going to get bombed no matter what we do kind of reveals more flaws than it solves.... I want to be able to secure my skies ( not 100% of course but SIGNIFICANTLY ) if I commit sufficient forces.
I think the DI bombing bonus needs to be powerful enough that if you're getting bombed at all you should benefit from it.
Another interesting Idea for CI, have it so that damage is focused on one production line at a time e.g if one bombing raid damages 15 factories that could completely knock out artillery production until they are repaired. (Also note industrial gearing means you cant just set up a new production line with different factories)
Another interesting Idea for CI, have it so that damage is focused on one production line at a time e.g if one bombing raid damages 15 factories that could completely knock out artillery production until they are repaired. (Also note industrial gearing means you cant just set up a new production line with different factories)
- 3
You do realize that may not be because CI is overpowered. First if I remember correctly, Britians fighters arn't all that modern compared to the Bf109 fielded by germany. Thats already a disadvantage. There is also that Germany not only has more industry, but because of Britian having to do national focuses in order to rearm, they already start behind Germany in fighter production and other military production areas in general. So over time from the start, Germany is simply able to mass more fighters because he had more industry available at the start and more advantagous laws even without researching CI.
Now lets remember theres still two massive powers not in the war yet. the USSR and the USA. If Germany gets on a two front war with these powers Germany in theory (Because USA is AI) he will not be able to produce fighters to match both USSR and USA fighter production. If germany can only make say 2,500 fighters per month but the USSR and USA can each produce 3,000 a month, thats a 3500 difference in fighter production. Thats not counting the UKs fighter production which will be whatever Johan sets it too.
So due to having to fight on both fronts and not being able to match the production of both the USA and USSR (It couldn't in WW2 either), it will eventually lose control of the sky. Now even if it could match the production of either in theory, now it has to make a choice. It can protect it's factories, but if hes still fighting the USSR, now his troops are being bombed without air cover or air support. It could support its troops against the USSR, but this is worse as now its factories are being bombed to bits. Or it could try to do both and probably fail at unless it can end the war against the USSR quickly.
- 1
I want too, but should we? AFAIK in WW2 no one could stop strategic bombardement, they could only make enough damage to the bombers so the ennemy had to adapt (bomb at night, escort with fighters, produce even more bombers, try to gain air superiority, etc.) or stop the bomb runs.
Unlike hoi3 with gamey stuff, in hoi4 and in reality industries are in every regions and I doubt you could commit enough forces to protect them all at all time, in the meaning time the bombers can target your soft spot until you react. By commiting enough forces you should and will indeed hit them a lot and keep their damage to a very acceptable level but you won't stop the allies from bombing
IIRC jakob had his civilian factory lines fully occupied to repair. We don't see the extent of it but it will probably hurt him (looked for it, at 49:30 in last WWW)
Last edited:
At 12.8 % of German factories bombed it becomes better to use SI than CI for the case of 1940. That’s a lot. As the production increases, SI becomes better than CI at a slightly lower percentage of bombed factories though. (In two more research levels the percent drops to 12.2%) This means that if bombed, at a certain point (12% factory loss) Germany will wish that they were using SI instead of CI. IF they manage to produce/fix factories at a greater rate than they lose them, and can keep their losses at less than 12%, it seems like CI is better. Is that a no-brainer? Well, the less you use your brain here, the more of a no-brainer it becomes. I think the real question was answered by Jakob: If you think the war will end quickly, go CI; if you're in it for the long haul, go SI.
- 2
After last WWW I have to again stress the importance of this issue, because it seems that even after USA and UK are doing their strategic bombing and other sorts of warfare, Germany is still able to outproduce its losses in all fields. I think in no small amount Daniel has to thank the Concentrated industry tech for this. Again it seems OP since all of the players wnt for it and none seem to regret it even one bit. Just a small adjustment of fighter planes and bombers were going down like flies without drawback. I am not sure now if it has been addressed in the build they are using for videos but it needs to be addressed.