Great stuff, SM. But, I have to be honest, I do wonder if you have a real life.
- 2
German build up: A simple comparison between a CIC build and pure MIC.
- Thread starter Secret Master
- 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.
Well, he has to put up with me on a virtual daily basis. That gets more real than most people like.Great stuff, SM. But, I have to be honest, I do wonder if you have a real life.
- 4
I don't know what I enjoy more, SM's ability to put a spot light on questions we have or the remarks about his MP games. Please keep doing both!
- 5
Ok i have done something similiar MIC from Start and CIC from Start both until 01.06.1939 but with building all the nice stuff Tanks, Planes etc. so I can compare results that I had like in this thread:
forum.paradoxplaza.com
In both games I did went Rhineland, Naval Effort, 4 Year Plan, Autarky, Hermman Göring Werke, KDF Wagen, Anschluss, Research Slot at the beginning.
PP went to Bormann, Hess, Funk for MIC run/Free Trade CIC run, War Economy (by sending Tac bombers to spain and grinding aces.
In both games I did send 200 Air Volunteers to Spain and 10k of Gusn each to Japan and later the 200 same Planes to Japan also as Air volunteers.
One diffrence in the CIC run i did Sudentenland later then in the MIC run, to get more out of schacht, but in the MIC run you need all those factorys more early.
My goal was to reach ~100, 25 NIC and as many synth/civs i could get until then.
I have 2 Statistics for you, first the buildings:
Now the Equipment I did calculate the total MIC value by tacing the IC value and multiplying with the build equipment:
For the Navy i did finish the starting Ships in the queue and after that total on subs II on the 01.06.1936 i had:
Its now the 01.06.1939 so still 3 more month to go until war starts, at this point both builds are equal in the MIC and NIC factory side, the NIC build has some synth already done, but only 46 available CIV Factorys on limited exports for building more.
The CIC build has 86 free Civs buidling stuff on export focus, so it will catch up until the war starts with sthe synths. and after that it will start to catch up on the MIC deficit.
The big diffrence between both runs in equipment is ~1k Medium 1 and 1K figther some cas and Tacs and some artillery.
Also in the CIC build I am slightly ahead in tech as I was able to go free trade until mid/late 38 adn switched then to export focus in the MIC build i stayed on limited export whole time.
The Equipment advantage in MIC days is ~36% on that day. The CIC advantage for the civ build is ~32%.
As SM stated it is a tactical thing what you can do, the long run is still the CIC wins, the fast run MIC from start probably is superior.
The ammount of Equipment available in both runs is enough to crush Poland and France pretty fast.
Also you need to consider, this is all old lvl 1 Equipment, but soon there will be Arty 2, Figther 2, Guns 2 etc, there you have no advantage anymore.
The MIC run only works on limited exports and on a quick rush to decide the game in 1940, if you can't achieve that your probably screwed.
1.9 German Economy Benchmark Thread
There were some changes to economy in Husky and I'd like to optimize my Germany Buildup 1936-1939 again. To see where I stand I would like to compare my builds with others. Therefore I'd suggest the following benchmark: Date: 1.6.1939 (Short...
In both games I did went Rhineland, Naval Effort, 4 Year Plan, Autarky, Hermman Göring Werke, KDF Wagen, Anschluss, Research Slot at the beginning.
PP went to Bormann, Hess, Funk for MIC run/Free Trade CIC run, War Economy (by sending Tac bombers to spain and grinding aces.
In both games I did send 200 Air Volunteers to Spain and 10k of Gusn each to Japan and later the 200 same Planes to Japan also as Air volunteers.
One diffrence in the CIC run i did Sudentenland later then in the MIC run, to get more out of schacht, but in the MIC run you need all those factorys more early.
My goal was to reach ~100, 25 NIC and as many synth/civs i could get until then.
I have 2 Statistics for you, first the buildings:
| CIC run | MIC Run | |
| Synth | 0 | 8 |
| CIV | 127 | 65 |
| MIC | 102 | 101 |
| NIC | 24 | 25 |
| Fuel Depot | 0 | 0 |
| Summary | 2259600 | 1705200 |
Now the Equipment I did calculate the total MIC value by tacing the IC value and multiplying with the build equipment:
| Stockpile CIC run | Stockpile MIC run | |
| AA | 3902 | 3731 |
| Armored Car | 906 | 1177 |
| Art | 5664 | 12570 |
| Inf | 135150 | 149300 |
| Mot | 3160 | 5880 |
| Sup | 8400 | 9020 |
| LT 1 | 913 | 906 |
| LT 2 | 1270 | 925 |
| MT 1 | 1034 | 2386 |
| MT 2 | 72 | 102 |
| TP | 4 | 4 |
| Interwar Fighter | 290 | 269 |
| Fighter | 3772 | 4770 |
| CAS | 476 | 1028 |
| Nav | 72 | 199 |
| Early Tac | 275 | 247 |
| Tacs | 219 | 793 |
| Summary of total | 307909 | 421482 |
For the Navy i did finish the starting Ships in the queue and after that total on subs II on the 01.06.1936 i had:
| Sub II | 75 | 94 |
Its now the 01.06.1939 so still 3 more month to go until war starts, at this point both builds are equal in the MIC and NIC factory side, the NIC build has some synth already done, but only 46 available CIV Factorys on limited exports for building more.
The CIC build has 86 free Civs buidling stuff on export focus, so it will catch up until the war starts with sthe synths. and after that it will start to catch up on the MIC deficit.
The big diffrence between both runs in equipment is ~1k Medium 1 and 1K figther some cas and Tacs and some artillery.
Also in the CIC build I am slightly ahead in tech as I was able to go free trade until mid/late 38 adn switched then to export focus in the MIC build i stayed on limited export whole time.
The Equipment advantage in MIC days is ~36% on that day. The CIC advantage for the civ build is ~32%.
As SM stated it is a tactical thing what you can do, the long run is still the CIC wins, the fast run MIC from start probably is superior.
The ammount of Equipment available in both runs is enough to crush Poland and France pretty fast.
Also you need to consider, this is all old lvl 1 Equipment, but soon there will be Arty 2, Figther 2, Guns 2 etc, there you have no advantage anymore.
The MIC run only works on limited exports and on a quick rush to decide the game in 1940, if you can't achieve that your probably screwed.
Last edited:
- 11
- 5
Thank you Porta. Why did you build Synths with the MIC run and not the CIC run?
SecretMaster, your original post is interesting but doesn't have much value to me. Like others have mentioned, you conveniently chose to build only equipment that Germany has a lot of raw resources to build. I understand that the all steel strategy is a choice you can make in this game. But it is a failing strategy.
Perhaps you could repeat this and build nothing but strategic bombers. After all Germany starts with none of them so we could keep an accurate count.
SecretMaster, your original post is interesting but doesn't have much value to me. Like others have mentioned, you conveniently chose to build only equipment that Germany has a lot of raw resources to build. I understand that the all steel strategy is a choice you can make in this game. But it is a failing strategy.
Perhaps you could repeat this and build nothing but strategic bombers. After all Germany starts with none of them so we could keep an accurate count.
- 5
- 2
To which Porta replied,
(Ok, that's my wiseassery for the day. Back to being a mature adult)
- 1
- 1
I think a more realistic test might be to produce 25% light tank, 25% artillery, and 50% fighter, as strategic bombers are more expensive than fighters, and you can delete your stockpile so you don't need to only produce things your country doesn't have from the start to have an accurate count. The artillery because it uses some tungsten to represent hypothetical medium tank production, since players switch their tank production at different times, the light tank to represent materials you don't need tungsten and rubber for, and the planes to represent the rubber and aluminium needs. I'd do it myself, but I don't have the time.
I tend to put 15-20 factories on planes from the start and typically need to import 24 rubber from day 1 as Germany, and that requirement only goes up the more MIC I have. Even from day 1, that's 3 less CIC to build with. If you go free trade and aren't getting factory trade backs, you also need to import lots of steel and aluminum in the early game even though you extract plenty. These observations have led me to personally conclude that a full MIC build is suboptimal in single player, and disastrous in multiplayer without trade-backs, assuming equally skilled opponents.
I don't find them granular enough in terms of count. I wanted the cheapest thing I could build that Germany starts with nothing in stockpile and wont' get from capitulations.
Since the test is not about measuring the resources Germany needs, I don't see how it's relevant. We all know you need tungsten and aluminum and rubber and fuel. How you budget for that is your own business. No one said anything about running a steel only strategy as a winning strategy in this thread. I did mention someone using a LARM strategy in MP, but that wasn't a steel only strategy. It just minimized tungsten, not eliminated it.
Although I'm sure I could beat the AI with no tungsten or chromium imports at all.
- 2
- 2
They are in the production queue just not finished yet, also mic run is still building more both up to 20 in total.
- 1
I guess I misconstrued the intent of the experiment. I thought this was looking at the better build strategy to use. Sorry about that.
I was being a bit salty earlier with that strategic bomber comment... as I knew it would skew the results in the exact opposite direction. However, everyone took me seriously.
Not a player yet, just wondering if a one-year-run of CiCs would be a good or bad compromise?
Since the test is not about measuring the resources Germany needs, I don't see how it's relevant.
Because Germany needs them, and lack of civ factories obviously hampers the ability to meet that need. As I think about it really not sure how this analysis does not prove that civ builds are the way to go. Not that much difference between equipment and military factories. Both sides of the column are more than adequate to do what needs to be done for Fall Weiss and Fall Gelb. But one hampers your ability to do other things you need to and incurs a quick pitfall right about when Barbarossa gets underway and months before the US joins the war.
Because Germany needs them, and lack of civ factories obviously hampers the ability to meet that need. As I think about it really not sure how this analysis does not prove that civ builds are the way to go. Not that much difference between equipment and military factories. Both sides of the column are more than adequate to do what needs to be done for Fall Weiss and Fall Gelb. But one hampers your ability to do other things you need to and incurs a quick pitfall right about when Barbarossa gets underway and months before the US joins the war.
- 2
- 1
From what I understood, many argue that Barbarossa is the decisive moment of the game, so you should optimize your army for about 1941. Later drawbacks from that strategy supposedly are easily made good by having defeated the USSR, while later advantages from another build won't matter you fail then and there.
Of course, a build for later benefits that still allows you to defeat the Soviets would be best, but there is the danger of sacrificing today for a golden tomorrow that will never happen because you didn't make it there. One of my weaknesses.
- 1
But 1941 is break even point anyway. Indeed, not so much less mic or equipment from civ build....
I play EAI. I build nothing but MIC until '38, and then MIC/refineries. I also run collaberaion missions; 2 in France, 1 in Poland, 1 in Denmark, and 1 in Yugoslavia.
My objective is to beat the USSR in 1941. I rarely keep playing after that, though sometimes I knock Britain out of the war.
I don't play MP, and if I can beat the USSR in '41, then I'm in the cat bird's seat anyway.
Last edited:
- 1
- 1
- 1
Brilliant comparison SM, I really enjoy your analysis of MIC/CIV build up. What is your view on UK's reaction to MIC/CIV build up. I guess UK is in bigger pickle now with intelligence using CIV's and political power to gain the advantage. Can Britain really gain the advantage, Division spam is hard to beat!!??
(Just installed La Resistance and starting first game with it).
Have an excellent weekend
(Just installed La Resistance and starting first game with it).
Have an excellent weekend
Great stuff, SM. But, I have to be honest, I do wonder if you have a real life.
If I were unemployed, I'd have done this test sooner and done several others.
I won't speak for other groups, but in our case, we mod the game to achieve a couple of goals.
1) When possible, we like to mod the game to make it so that house rules stop being house rules and instead are just in the game. For example, we got tired of Turkey's neutrality being violated every single game by the Axis. So, we created a special national spirit that makes it hard to justify on Turkey unless certain conditions are fulfilled instead of just having a house rule about leaving Turkey alone. (The reason we want Turkey to be neutral most of the time is related to how the AI runs the country and refuses to defend the #$%^&*ing straits, making it impossible for Britain or the Allies to really help when the Axis attacks.)
2) We wanted some aspects of the game to be more historical. For example, before LaR came out, we modded how Vichy worked so that Vichy wouldn't become a German ally instantly and get into a shooting war with the Allies.
3) In some cases, we modded out some AI behavior to prevent AI insanity from ruining human strategies. The best example was our "Disable AI air production" decision. Why don't we want AI countries building planes? Because if I lost Hawaii one more time due to my airfields being clogged up with AI planes not running any missions, I was going to throw my tower out a window.
4) In a few cases, we modded the game to make warfare more realistic (and harsher). We increased the time it takes for reinforcements to reach divisions, we increased attrition in certain weather and terrain, and we changed the division template interface so that huge 40w divisions are impossible to create. (Someone got tired of seeing my 40w panzer formations with MW basically attack continuously for months at a time.
)5) In a select few cases, we changed the game to make the war a bit more dynamic. The best example of this is how we changed the modifiers on the eastern front. We got tired of seeing the entire war in the east boil down to whether the Riga-Kiev-Cherson line was broken or not every single game. If the line was broken, the Axis won. If the line held, the Axis would lose. There was no capability to trade space for time on the Soviet side because the Axis could effectively stay on the attack 365 days a year. So, we changed the game. We added weather effects that nerf attacks heavily during the coldest part of the winter and during the mud. But that just meant it was easier to hold the Riga-Kiev-Cherson line with forts. We also included a Shock modifier that penalizes the Soviets heavily during the first 3 months of Barbarossa (if Germany fulfills a few conditions). Now the Axis has a good chance to break into the open past the river line, but they are on a timer with the weather. The Soviets can get breathing room to replace losses, receive lend-lease, and coordinate with the western powers. The Axis getting past Riga isn't an automatic loss, and the Axis need to actually plan separate offensives and not just count on the Soviets folding in four months.
6) In some cases, we balanced some mechanics that we thought were not right for MP. The first two games after MtG came out, we did some heavy modding of the navy in response to things that we were seeing with submarines. The fact that Germany was able to sink around 2000 convoys in the first year of the war showed us that letting Secret Master build 120 1940 submarines with doctrines and raiding designer by the end of 1941 was problematic given the stats for subs and ships at the time.
I won't claim to be the expert, but if Germany isn't building any CIC at all, and I notice this as the UK, and I'm in MP, I will be asking the Soviets and US to adjust their build priorities and be prepared to send me more equipment or I'm telling the Soviet player to be ready for a 1940 Barbarossa.
- 3
- 1
He is not trying to show a plan that Germany should use to go to war. As good as he is, I really don't think SM would even try this in a game. My understanding is that he is trying to show the total production that could be achieved, all things being equal. I don't know how many messages I have read where players argue over going cic or mic. This gives and idea as to which approach is better to follow while building your production plan for all the equipment, divisions, planes and ship you will need.
- 4
But in trying to "show the total production that could be achieved" it seems to me he disregards this consideration. The problem is that output is boundup in these considerations, ie tradig for rubber and tungstem building airstrips, radars, etc. For me and I think many others, this really proves that CIC is the way to go. The difference in MIC and equipment production is not all that great, and the tradeoff for such a small difference is forfeiting substantial industrial production going forward.
The response seems to be, well, I invariably capitulate USSR by Christmas, so it really does not matter, That seems to speak volumes about the AI, even Expert Ai, than a justification for mic builds. The build strategy that allows for Eastern Campaign to go beyond one year and have clear cut better footing from 1941 on (with a paltry difference before) is a no brainer.
- 4
- 1