I haven't run this test since LaR came out, so in light of some of the tweaks the game has had over the past year, I thought I would run this test again. But first, let's ask Conan what is is best in life.
Conan has played HOI4 with me in MP, it seems. He understands the critical importance to industrial build up when playing Hearts of Iron. But the plan of what to build is a vexing question not addressed by his wisdom. The question has been raised in other threads and keeps popping up generally over the years: which is for Germany? Pure MIC from the start? Or two years of CIC and then MIC?
I do not propose to answer this question, but to instead resolve a simpler question: which plan for production yields more equipment in the field by September of 1939 and June of 1941. Answering this question, and measuring the margins by which one or the other wins out, tells us a lot about how much firepower you can bring to the table at different dates depending on your build scheme.
First, let's dispense with an important thing that novice players overlook. Factory count is not everything. Yes, factories are incredibly important. But give someone a country with 500 MIC and only 1 infantry kit, and in 30 days, I give you a country that's been capitulated and that has "donated" its 500 MIC to its occupier. You must have actual equipment in the field, ready to fight, in order to win the war. Timing is crucial. Peak too soon, and your enemies puff up their industrial base to unassailable heights. Peak too late, and you struggle to win at the most critical times.
Another thing to keep in mind is that certain countries are in a position to "steal" the industry of others. But the cost you pay to steal that industry scales to some extent with the amount of stuff you can put in the field. Germany can easily crush France, but the cost of doing so can be lowered by having more and better equipment in the field when attacking Benelux and France. And fewer losses in October of 1939 make it possible to do more later. This goes double if playing against humans that can sense weakness. You do not want to be the Germany or Italy or Japan that takes too long or too many losses achieving an early objective. By the same token, a US that is swimming in IC but watched impotently as Britain loses the empire because the US didn't have anything to send via lend-lease is a US preparing to merely defend its own shores instead of taking the fight to the Axis.
To that end, I ran tests to determine which build would generate more equipment to Germany at various dates. To make the test understandable and to make measuring things easy, I followed these guidelines.
1) One test was a pure MIC run. I only built MIC from the start and nothing else. The only non-MIC things I got were from focuses (infrastructure, CIC).
2) The other test had two years of CIC build up, with the last CIC finishing around January of 1938. The rest was MIC.
3) The only thing my MIC built the entire time were armored cars. The test, therefore, measures how many armored cars each build makes from game start until June of 1941, with various snapshots at other times to give me an idea of what's going on.
4) Research stayed focused on IC techs, computer techs, resource techs, and land doctrines.
5) NF order was basically the same for each so that each version of Germany got the same WS and IC at the same times. (I made a few mistakes post-Danzig, but they were NFs that had no impact on production.)
6) All occupations were run under military governors to keep things simple and consistent.
7) NIC was applied to cheap early submarines and all non-submarines were deleted from the queue. No NIC was built, and no NIC focuses were run at all.
8) Once Danzig was complete, the entire German army was turned into divisions consisting of 1 AC battalion. This put all infantry kits in the stockpile where garrisons could draw them.
9) No new divisions were recruited.
10) No exercises took place, and no SCW. This minimized equipment losses.
11) I cheated in XP so Germany could create a special infantry division template that could give her the manpower in the field to meet the requirement for all focuses.
12) Garrison forces were based on the starting CAV template with the support companies removed. This ensured that only infantry kits were used by garrisons.
13) When declaring war and attacking other countries, the AI was turned off and all enemy divisions were deleted. This ensured that both tests had combat losses totaling less than 10 AC each.
14) Minister order for MIC test: Goebbels, War Economy, Bormann, Funk
15) Minister order for CIC test: Goebbels, War Economy, Schacht, Bormann, with Funk replacing Schact once Sudeten is complete.
16) Anschluss takes place in 37. Sudeten-Munich chain in early 1938.
17) I deleted the army in June of 1941 before taking screenshots of the amount of equipment in stockpile.
18) I did two Improve Worker Conditions before June of 1941. I was unable to squeeze another one in.
19) I kept 1 trade in place. Both builds maintained the 1 CIC for 8 tungsten from Sweden for consistency sake.
20) Concentrated Industry for both.
21) Identical occupations: France (no Vichy), Benelux, Poland, Denmark, all of Yugoslavia. No Greece or Norway (because both have a lot of mountains that would cause attrition in AC).
22) No swapping to Total Mobilization and Women in the Workforce.
Why am I counting production in armored cars?
Because the AI doesn't seem to make them before 1941. There are also no ACs in Germany's stockpile at game start. Any AC in the stockpile are the result of this test. They are also fairly granular. I could use Tier 1 infantry kits, but infantry kits are used in garrisons. The garrison log only counts lost equipment from 12 months ago. So, by counting production in AC, but never using them in garrisons, and deleting opposing armies, I can get a very accurate count of production. AC also do not use too many resources, so we don't have to argue about whether producing item A is better than B because A doesn't require importing motes or exotic gases from Io and Titan.
I gave the different tests different ministers because it's obvious that not using Schacht would nerf the CIC build considerably. But we should not see these minister choices as optimal, since optimal means different things depending on your foreign policy goals.
I spammed IC techs just to push IC output and slots to their limits.
The NF order is not meant to be optimal, but consistent.
By focusing on factories and nothing else, you can see what a pure comparison looks like. Obviously, building an agency, forming collaboration governments, building synthetic plants, and so on eats into your CIC. But we all know that, and we also know that those kinds of things might be included in any build regardless.
Let's take a look at what the two builds look like in June of 1941:
You can tell which is the CIC build, because it's the one with a lot more factories. But the MIC build has more AC. By my reckoning, it has 8.6% more AC in stockpile than the CIC build. (Remember, the army is deleted, and no AC are in garrisons, so that's the total count.)
That is not a small advantage in equipment. But what does it look like earlier?
This is January of 1940:
Wow, now that's a much bigger difference. By my reckoning, that's around a 34% increase in produced equipment. Again, the CIC build has more total IC to throw around, but those with plans to steal IC and perhaps run a 1940 Barbarossa or Sea Lion would do well to consider this. Even if you don't want pure MIC, rebudgeting MIC to NIC can yield more submarines or ships for naval stuff.
There is one thing these screenshots don't show you, but most experienced players have guessed or already knew: the CIC build has already used up all of Germany's factory slots on cores by June of 1941. The MIC build has not.
These results do not quite match my earlier results around the time MtG came out, but they are close. The MIC build still has the lead in produced equipment by the date of historical Barbarossa, but the lead is clearly shrinking. The CIC build has more IC to throw around, but in the crucial Danzig-Barbarossa historical period, it's not better in terms of actually winning the war.
There are some conclusions to draw from this analysis, though they are not as revelatory as they might be.
1) Those looking at historical timetables for Germany would do well to consider whether they want to win harder and faster now or later. Those, like me, who consider Germany capitulating the Soviet Union to effectively be a "win" due to manpower and factories occupied should at least consider whether a two year CIC build is really what they want to do. Sure, you might want to build up to the confrontation with the US, but if you just roll over the French and Soviets with minimal losses in manpower and equipment thanks to having more planes and tanks in 1940 and 1941, you are in a better position to contend with the US and UK in some ways than you might otherwise be.
2) Anyone planning early wars should not waste time with CIC.
3) Most MP games are modded now, but if your MP game uses a tech and industry scheme that closely matches vanilla HOI4, you should watch Germany's build up a like a hawk. There are advantages to Germany going either way in terms of a war between human opponents, but the Allies and COMINTERN really need to know which way Germany is going. If Germany has 30% more equipment in January of 1940 due to an MIC build, Britain is in for a tough fight, and the US and Soviets need to be willing to help her out. If Germany has run the CIC gambit, the US and Soviets also need to know, because it means that by 1943, Germany might start running out of factory slots with all the consequences to the Allies and COMINTERN that come with Germany having that many more factories.
4) I know a lot of players hate using lower tier equipment, but keep in mind that even with aircraft, numbers matter. I'm not going to sit here and tell you to spam 1936 fighters like it's a winning strategy, but I will tell you that having 30% more planes than the RAF in January of 1940 can really make life miserable for the Allies even if you don't run Sea Lion.
I'm open for questions if anyone has any.
Conan has played HOI4 with me in MP, it seems. He understands the critical importance to industrial build up when playing Hearts of Iron. But the plan of what to build is a vexing question not addressed by his wisdom. The question has been raised in other threads and keeps popping up generally over the years: which is for Germany? Pure MIC from the start? Or two years of CIC and then MIC?
I do not propose to answer this question, but to instead resolve a simpler question: which plan for production yields more equipment in the field by September of 1939 and June of 1941. Answering this question, and measuring the margins by which one or the other wins out, tells us a lot about how much firepower you can bring to the table at different dates depending on your build scheme.
First, let's dispense with an important thing that novice players overlook. Factory count is not everything. Yes, factories are incredibly important. But give someone a country with 500 MIC and only 1 infantry kit, and in 30 days, I give you a country that's been capitulated and that has "donated" its 500 MIC to its occupier. You must have actual equipment in the field, ready to fight, in order to win the war. Timing is crucial. Peak too soon, and your enemies puff up their industrial base to unassailable heights. Peak too late, and you struggle to win at the most critical times.
Another thing to keep in mind is that certain countries are in a position to "steal" the industry of others. But the cost you pay to steal that industry scales to some extent with the amount of stuff you can put in the field. Germany can easily crush France, but the cost of doing so can be lowered by having more and better equipment in the field when attacking Benelux and France. And fewer losses in October of 1939 make it possible to do more later. This goes double if playing against humans that can sense weakness. You do not want to be the Germany or Italy or Japan that takes too long or too many losses achieving an early objective. By the same token, a US that is swimming in IC but watched impotently as Britain loses the empire because the US didn't have anything to send via lend-lease is a US preparing to merely defend its own shores instead of taking the fight to the Axis.
To that end, I ran tests to determine which build would generate more equipment to Germany at various dates. To make the test understandable and to make measuring things easy, I followed these guidelines.
1) One test was a pure MIC run. I only built MIC from the start and nothing else. The only non-MIC things I got were from focuses (infrastructure, CIC).
2) The other test had two years of CIC build up, with the last CIC finishing around January of 1938. The rest was MIC.
3) The only thing my MIC built the entire time were armored cars. The test, therefore, measures how many armored cars each build makes from game start until June of 1941, with various snapshots at other times to give me an idea of what's going on.
4) Research stayed focused on IC techs, computer techs, resource techs, and land doctrines.
5) NF order was basically the same for each so that each version of Germany got the same WS and IC at the same times. (I made a few mistakes post-Danzig, but they were NFs that had no impact on production.)
6) All occupations were run under military governors to keep things simple and consistent.
7) NIC was applied to cheap early submarines and all non-submarines were deleted from the queue. No NIC was built, and no NIC focuses were run at all.
8) Once Danzig was complete, the entire German army was turned into divisions consisting of 1 AC battalion. This put all infantry kits in the stockpile where garrisons could draw them.
9) No new divisions were recruited.
10) No exercises took place, and no SCW. This minimized equipment losses.
11) I cheated in XP so Germany could create a special infantry division template that could give her the manpower in the field to meet the requirement for all focuses.
12) Garrison forces were based on the starting CAV template with the support companies removed. This ensured that only infantry kits were used by garrisons.
13) When declaring war and attacking other countries, the AI was turned off and all enemy divisions were deleted. This ensured that both tests had combat losses totaling less than 10 AC each.
14) Minister order for MIC test: Goebbels, War Economy, Bormann, Funk
15) Minister order for CIC test: Goebbels, War Economy, Schacht, Bormann, with Funk replacing Schact once Sudeten is complete.
16) Anschluss takes place in 37. Sudeten-Munich chain in early 1938.
17) I deleted the army in June of 1941 before taking screenshots of the amount of equipment in stockpile.
18) I did two Improve Worker Conditions before June of 1941. I was unable to squeeze another one in.
19) I kept 1 trade in place. Both builds maintained the 1 CIC for 8 tungsten from Sweden for consistency sake.
20) Concentrated Industry for both.
21) Identical occupations: France (no Vichy), Benelux, Poland, Denmark, all of Yugoslavia. No Greece or Norway (because both have a lot of mountains that would cause attrition in AC).
22) No swapping to Total Mobilization and Women in the Workforce.
Why am I counting production in armored cars?
Because the AI doesn't seem to make them before 1941. There are also no ACs in Germany's stockpile at game start. Any AC in the stockpile are the result of this test. They are also fairly granular. I could use Tier 1 infantry kits, but infantry kits are used in garrisons. The garrison log only counts lost equipment from 12 months ago. So, by counting production in AC, but never using them in garrisons, and deleting opposing armies, I can get a very accurate count of production. AC also do not use too many resources, so we don't have to argue about whether producing item A is better than B because A doesn't require importing motes or exotic gases from Io and Titan.
I gave the different tests different ministers because it's obvious that not using Schacht would nerf the CIC build considerably. But we should not see these minister choices as optimal, since optimal means different things depending on your foreign policy goals.
I spammed IC techs just to push IC output and slots to their limits.
The NF order is not meant to be optimal, but consistent.
By focusing on factories and nothing else, you can see what a pure comparison looks like. Obviously, building an agency, forming collaboration governments, building synthetic plants, and so on eats into your CIC. But we all know that, and we also know that those kinds of things might be included in any build regardless.
Let's take a look at what the two builds look like in June of 1941:
You can tell which is the CIC build, because it's the one with a lot more factories. But the MIC build has more AC. By my reckoning, it has 8.6% more AC in stockpile than the CIC build. (Remember, the army is deleted, and no AC are in garrisons, so that's the total count.)
That is not a small advantage in equipment. But what does it look like earlier?
This is January of 1940:
Wow, now that's a much bigger difference. By my reckoning, that's around a 34% increase in produced equipment. Again, the CIC build has more total IC to throw around, but those with plans to steal IC and perhaps run a 1940 Barbarossa or Sea Lion would do well to consider this. Even if you don't want pure MIC, rebudgeting MIC to NIC can yield more submarines or ships for naval stuff.
There is one thing these screenshots don't show you, but most experienced players have guessed or already knew: the CIC build has already used up all of Germany's factory slots on cores by June of 1941. The MIC build has not.
These results do not quite match my earlier results around the time MtG came out, but they are close. The MIC build still has the lead in produced equipment by the date of historical Barbarossa, but the lead is clearly shrinking. The CIC build has more IC to throw around, but in the crucial Danzig-Barbarossa historical period, it's not better in terms of actually winning the war.
There are some conclusions to draw from this analysis, though they are not as revelatory as they might be.
1) Those looking at historical timetables for Germany would do well to consider whether they want to win harder and faster now or later. Those, like me, who consider Germany capitulating the Soviet Union to effectively be a "win" due to manpower and factories occupied should at least consider whether a two year CIC build is really what they want to do. Sure, you might want to build up to the confrontation with the US, but if you just roll over the French and Soviets with minimal losses in manpower and equipment thanks to having more planes and tanks in 1940 and 1941, you are in a better position to contend with the US and UK in some ways than you might otherwise be.
2) Anyone planning early wars should not waste time with CIC.
3) Most MP games are modded now, but if your MP game uses a tech and industry scheme that closely matches vanilla HOI4, you should watch Germany's build up a like a hawk. There are advantages to Germany going either way in terms of a war between human opponents, but the Allies and COMINTERN really need to know which way Germany is going. If Germany has 30% more equipment in January of 1940 due to an MIC build, Britain is in for a tough fight, and the US and Soviets need to be willing to help her out. If Germany has run the CIC gambit, the US and Soviets also need to know, because it means that by 1943, Germany might start running out of factory slots with all the consequences to the Allies and COMINTERN that come with Germany having that many more factories.
4) I know a lot of players hate using lower tier equipment, but keep in mind that even with aircraft, numbers matter. I'm not going to sit here and tell you to spam 1936 fighters like it's a winning strategy, but I will tell you that having 30% more planes than the RAF in January of 1940 can really make life miserable for the Allies even if you don't run Sea Lion.
I'm open for questions if anyone has any.
- 38
- 14
- 2