How deep into resource deficit are you willing to go?

[Dalwin]

The new resource system brings with it some new decisions. Before 1.3.3 if there was something I really needed, I could always get a bit more of it at least by simply throwing more factories at it. In fact as long as it was only one of three ingredients missing I could add unlimited factories at 70% efficiency.

The new system is much less forgiving. I find myself hesitant to add another factory to some line if that factory will have more than a 40% penalty from lack of resources, though if the need is great enough I may extend that to -60%. One oddity to be aware of here is that the penalty is a cumulative 5% per each successive factory and not 5% per point of resource you are short. That means that if I am short 4 aluminum and it is support equipment taking the loss, the worst factory of the 4 penalized gets -20%. If I reordered my lines so that fighters were below support equipment the worst of the two affected plants would receive -10%.

Of course there are times when it is not voluntary such as resource convoys being intercepted. There could also be exceptions based on the knowledge that you will soon be seeing more of something whether by conquest or extraction tech or synthetic refinery construction.

Even if my penalty has gotten to be larger than 40% I am unlikely to convert to factories of some other product unless I see no realistic hope of improving my supply of the key resource. Keep in mind that if you are seeing -40% as the average of a line of 15 factories instead of merely the worst individual factory that is the equivalent to 6 of the 15 producing nothing even though they are still consuming resources.

One side effect of the new system is that as some countries I find myself reaching a point of diminishing returns where adding new NIC or MIC is not really productive. This means that my CIC spend more of their time building fortifications or AA or doing repairs and so on than they did prior to 1.3.3.

 

[Axe99]

I'm a "production is king" kind of player, so I'm very wary of having resource shortages. If I'm playing someone in the Allies that can trade their way out of long-term (ie, not convoy reduction) shortages, I always will (although if the alert for resource shortage was a bit more nuanced, I'd let the first 1-4 shortages slide, and trade for more on the fifth, but if I do that in-game at the moment it removes the value of the alert, and the game still surfaces too little information on what's going on for me to risk not noticing far larger deficits of resources due to ignoring the alert). As the Axis and sometimes the Soviets, I'll do what I can, but generally need to wear some type of shortage. I will restructure what I'm building to reflect the resource mix I have.

Once it's the late-game and many countries have changed their trade laws and IC > resources, I'll wear them, but usually by that stage the game's pretty much over one way or the other (and usually is before then).

 

[Dalwin]

Here is a method I sometimes use to get the info I need at a glance strictly from the resource alert without having to spend too much time studying the production queue.

Lets say for instance that I am Japan (simply because steel shortages make a good example and Japan is the rare major who struggles with steel.) I will probably have some items that require only one steel per factory while others require two or three. If I know how many are needed by the lowest priority item in my stack of production lines then it is simple. If I have decided to allow 4 factories to fall short, per your example, and if the bottom item using steel needs 2 per factory, I then know that the highest I can tolerate in the alert is a shortage of 8.

To take this a step further if the priorities of the lines is not such to discourage this technique, as in one of the items is needed much more badly than the others, you gain flexibility by putting the most expensive items at the bottom. So if the last item takes 3 each I can tolerate a shortage of 12 units while suffering the same overall loss of production as I did with 8 in the previous example.

The last easy tip involves having two different resources in sort supply at the same time. You may come out ahead if you move items that use both resources at the same time to the bottom. The reason for this is one of the aspects to the new system that I consider flawed. Let's say I have 1940 fighters which consume 2 oil, 3 aluminum and 1 rubber per factory and have 10 factories. If I am short 12 aluminum that line still wants to use 20 oil and 10 rubber (instead of the more logical 12 and 6 respectively). If I make sure that both shortages fall into the same line the overall production loss is about the same as if I didn't do so unless one of the shortages spikes into being severe, as in some factories are producing zero. Factories which produce zero will still demand and consume the full amount of the other resources and in such cases you may be dodging a penalty (that you logically shouldn't suffer anyway) if you have arranged things so that both shortages fall into the same line.

One last comment on this system which is more of a logical criticism than a tip: If some item needs three resources and I am short enough on one to cause the overall line to produce with a 25% penalty and I am short enough of a second one to also receive a 25% penalty, the game calls that 50%. This is very bad logic since if the line is producing 25% less already then the demand for the other things should decrease. When multiple penalties apply to one line only the highest one should be in effect and the others should be factored out.

 

[Meglok]

Resource management requires far more thought now that lack of resources can kill production lines. I am unwilling to go deep into deficit unless the need is vital or I have no other good uses for the IC. I also am pounding far more refineries than before, mainly for rubber. Really wish they would add rubber refineries as a separate build.

I find that I will tailor my war/alliance goals more towards who has what resource I need per country I play. And I am very careful in what I produce. Japan for instance, forget about level 2 rifles and arty, I need that steel for hulls. And support company aluminum is very frowned on, I need that for planes. Japan has really been nerfed by the new rules.

Germany is certainly protecting Romania at all costs now, and tiny bits of rubber in Africa actually start looking good.
Italy has to pound refineries and go for Libyan oil if it wants a fleet and big airforcehave, and might even delay war now to keep resources flowing.
USA and Russia are least affected, only reason you are running deficits is either economic laws or massive construction. You do have to be careful in that they and Germany tend to have a lot of different lines going. Shortages can cascade into shut downs if you let them build.

I will definitely switch to production that lessens use of resources running low. Planes don't use steel, INF and ARTY weapons don't use oil or rubber, etc. And can we all agree that due to the new production penalties for switching Dispersed is the meta, at least until 1.4? Tried using concentrated industry once, choked on the efficiency penalty for switching.

I do agree as others have said, the formula for penalties needs more work on how they are calculated and applied. Line should not be shut down, shortages and penalties should be spread out.

 

[Dalwin]

I agree with your comments concerning Japan. They are much more challenging than before. I am playing them in my current MP game and enjoying it very much.

I do not agree about the critical importance of Rumania to the Axis, the oil is nice but can be replaced with synthetics. It is the tungsten from either Scandinavia or Iberia that is critical to Germany, IMO.

I think dispersed is easier to use but will not accept that it is always better. I still think you can come out ahead using concentrated if you are able to plan ahead well enough and avoid most switching. The soviets, for example are a country that I think can benefit from concentrated. I don't mind very long runs of equipment with them even if some of it is outdated. They very rarely face any strategic bombing. Resource problems are not common.

I absolutely want to see resource penalties spread out more instead of the current method, but then again I have been saying that I wanted bomber damage spread out since at least a year before release and have never coaxed any reply from the devs on those particular points.

 

[kviiri]

It depends, really. When I have an ally, neutral or a non-threatening potential enemy who could provide the resource, I don't go into deficits at all. I only skip buying if I'd have to buy off a future enemy country, and even then not always.

 

[fabius]

Very situation dependent.

Generally 4 is my target, more than that then I try to trade.

But for crucial equipment, planes, tanks or anything else that becomes crucial I trade sooner.