I might try that... would be a great mini-AAR if I actually won! I should have guessed you were meaning MP with the 1-1 thing. I imagine anybody in MP knows the value of land based aircraft to save one's fleets and win naval combat.
-
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.
I might try that... would be a great mini-AAR if I actually won! I should have guessed you were meaning MP with the 1-1 thing. I imagine anybody in MP knows the value of land based aircraft to save one's fleets and win naval combat.
USSR game, disband all your units apart from an HQ, 1941 the Germans invade start spamming militia and pray. Allowed units to build: naval, HQ units, artillery brigades and I won (and had a fleet of BB). You can build factories and infrastructure as well. I tried this twice with vanilla HoI2 the 1st time I build air units and made the game to easy. Its a race to see if your 1st militia units are ready in time to defend Moscow. You can usually stabilise the line at Stalingrad.
Defeating Germany and Japan is doable, invading USA with 1943 militia is difficult.
Playing USA GC 1936, I just finished constructing the first round of infra builds in the best 17 provinces. But my IC is still the same: 0/89/285.
What's wrong? This ain't like Germany at all who would have climbed at least 3 IC by now. Or should I scrap the infra (except Washington and Los Angeles) and just build 6 factories instead? If so, where's best... the 4 provinces I got the most factories in already and also Washington and L.A. since those will end up highest infra provinces??
What's wrong? This ain't like Germany at all who would have climbed at least 3 IC by now. Or should I scrap the infra (except Washington and Los Angeles) and just build 6 factories instead? If so, where's best... the 4 provinces I got the most factories in already and also Washington and L.A. since those will end up highest infra provinces??
you want infrastructure to increase the efficiency of the ic in the provinces and then you need ic to boost the effective ic up higher...
in other words, build infrastructure in the highest ic provinces and then ic in them, as usa i would suggest building infra in the 10 highest ic provinces at x3 speed, followed by ic in the top 4 on infinete (or at least until you grow tired of building ic) and then rest of those provinces up to around 1940.
building just infra only gives you ca 50% boost to the ic, which for any province with less than 10 ic isnt really enough to make much of a difference, not unless you also build ic in them (given a war start around 1941)
Thanks. But given time constraints, I would change that to "build infra and IC together."
10 infra builds x 2 IC each x triple time = 60 IC. I've only got 37 available. I am doing 5 techs 1936 at 100% cause its better than 10 at 50% I think to avoid doing anything ahead of historical. In fact I'm down to only 4 techs right now. But CG is using ~35 IC (nil military spending) and supplies 6 IC. I could get 47 IC maximum available for construction if sticking to this further reduced research speed.
However, I believe one line of CL-4 must need doing or, come, 1941 the USN will have a useless navy. So basically, I only got 42 IC to work with for infra/and factories. I think building infra/factory together is better. At 7 IC per pop, that seems like only 6 provinces can be built up simultaneously at normal speed, with one line of CL-4, and research at less than 50% (or 4-5 slots at 100%).
.
Ah ha! That's the basic problem. Comparing to infra construction in Germany where there already exist substantial factories making "only infra construction" an option that does raise IC somewhat, doesn't work for the USA still stuck in a comparative vast wilderness!
Which way is correct?
I confess I have not had much experience building factories because my motto always was, "Best way to raise IC is to conquer something!" But for a relatively low IC starting nation like USA that has huge potential (and must have high IC) I'm making an exception.
While I'm confident factories and infra should be raised together, I am quite shocked by what I just discovered laying down 6 factory builds. All factories will complete same day regardless of terrain differences and regardless of infrastructure level. So, Washington with 100% infra constructs 5 new factories same time Houston - a swamp - with 80 infra does. Both places will complete Oct 21/39.
Basically this means there seems to be no benefit from having high infra (unless I'm very much missing something - like maybe the factories in high infra contribute more IC than factories in low infra do)? Is that the case? I thought all factories contribute same (1 more IC).
I do realize that factories should be constructed where the most factories already exist for "concentration bonus". So no problem deciding what is USA's best places to build factories.
HOWEVER, if infra has no significant benefit regarding how much a factory gives in IC or how fast it constructs, then it really is better to improve infra in the provinces that have exceptional high resources of any commodity for greater energy, metal, rares and/or oil (without any factories built there if the existing IC of that province is low).
Of course Washington, (low resources) is an exception and must have 200 infra for maximum world-wide ESE. But, as regards all the rest, it seems player will be able to improve more provinces by placing just factories where they already exist, and improving infra only where high resources are.
Or is something really wrong with this strategy?
I confess I have not had much experience building factories because my motto always was, "Best way to raise IC is to conquer something!" But for a relatively low IC starting nation like USA that has huge potential (and must have high IC) I'm making an exception.
While I'm confident factories and infra should be raised together, I am quite shocked by what I just discovered laying down 6 factory builds. All factories will complete same day regardless of terrain differences and regardless of infrastructure level. So, Washington with 100% infra constructs 5 new factories same time Houston - a swamp - with 80 infra does. Both places will complete Oct 21/39.
Basically this means there seems to be no benefit from having high infra (unless I'm very much missing something - like maybe the factories in high infra contribute more IC than factories in low infra do)? Is that the case? I thought all factories contribute same (1 more IC).
I do realize that factories should be constructed where the most factories already exist for "concentration bonus". So no problem deciding what is USA's best places to build factories.
HOWEVER, if infra has no significant benefit regarding how much a factory gives in IC or how fast it constructs, then it really is better to improve infra in the provinces that have exceptional high resources of any commodity for greater energy, metal, rares and/or oil (without any factories built there if the existing IC of that province is low).
Of course Washington, (low resources) is an exception and must have 200 infra for maximum world-wide ESE. But, as regards all the rest, it seems player will be able to improve more provinces by placing just factories where they already exist, and improving infra only where high resources are.
Or is something really wrong with this strategy?
Thanks. But given time constraints, I would change that to "build infra and IC together."
10 infra builds x 2 IC each x triple time = 60 IC. I've only got 37 available. I am doing 5 techs 1936 at 100% cause its better than 10 at 50% I think to avoid doing anything ahead of historical. In fact I'm down to only 4 techs right now. But CG is using ~35 IC (nil military spending) and supplies 6 IC. I could get 47 IC maximum available for construction if sticking to this further reduced research speed.
However, I believe one line of CL-4 must need doing or, come, 1941 the USN will have a useless navy. So basically, I only got 42 IC to work with for infra/and factories. I think building infra/factory together is better. At 7 IC per pop, that seems like only 6 provinces can be built up simultaneously at normal speed, with one line of CL-4, and research at less than 50% (or 4-5 slots at 100%).
.
Ah ha! That's the basic problem. Comparing to infra construction in Germany where there already exist substantial factories making "only infra construction" an option that does raise IC somewhat, doesn't work for the USA still stuck in a comparative vast wilderness!
first off, it is best to construct infra and ic at the same time, i was tired when i wrote the previous post so sorry about the confusion.
the issue with infrastructure is that provinces with 200 (max) infrastructure will give a boost of 50ish % regardless of what kind of province the terrain is, however, the terrian determines how difficult or how long it takes to construct infrastructure there.
that means that a mountaineous and an urban province is capable of the same effective ic output given that both have identical levels of infrastructure and number of base ic, but the time it takes to build up to max infrastructure is not the same, it will take longer to build up to max infrastructure in a province with mountains than it would in a plains/urban province.
in order to maximize your effective ic output, you need to build infrastructure to max in the provinces with the most ic (and in the provinces with the most resources to maximize the output of resources) as the infrastructure and concentration bonus work together.
the reason to produce infrastructure and ic at max speed is that with high ic provinces the relative max efficiency helps to boost the (effective) ic up faster, resulting in a faster return of investment and/or a larger industrial base. The less ic a province has, the longer it will take to get a return of your investment.
when i play usa, i usually try to aim for a massive ic boost in the early years, minimizing the number of tech teams i run and the investment i make in research in order to reduce the amount of ic i will have to devote to consumer goods so they can be used to boost the production of ic and so later also help reduce the relative cost of running all techteams on 100% when they are all needed (e.g. after 1939)
(you can then devote a lot more ic to building up your navy after you have a larger ic base)
Taking 100% Infra as base it is exactly +30%, while 0% Infra gives only 70%. So higher infra give up to 85.7% higher base ic, but usually only 30% or slightly more. The exact formula is:
base ic = factories x (1 + 0.01 x factories) x (0.7 + 0.3 x Infra)
effective ic = base ic x (1 - peace time penalty) x (1 + tech modifier + minister modifier + slider modifier)
minister modifier includes ideas. 1 factory at 0 Infra gives 0.7 base ic, 100 factories at 200% Infra give 260 base ic.
Thanks. It all sounding better now and making more sense. I'm quite aware of the different construction times for infra in different terrain. Just a couple questions left regarding the factories:
Give a boost to what? You mean the construction speed of the factories will increase? I not see that happen yet and have now done several rounds of new infra. Completion date for factories remains same.
So you must mean a ~50% boost to the IC. This I don't understand because I was always of the impression that 1 factory = 1 IC. (regardless of the infra level). I guess that is true as regards the base IC. And the 50% boost is how we reach a higher effective IC, right? (plus other things like sliders/ministers might impact too I guess)? Is that right? If so, OK, I see the sense of getting infra up for all places I building factories.
Well, I maybe screwed up on 1 province - Newark - where I am increasing factories but not infra. However, the infra constructions in neighboring Philadelphia and New York will spill over into Newark and definitely raise Newark's ESE. Now, will that also produce a boost effect in Newark, or must Newark's infra be raised to get the boost? What does the ~50% boost effect depend on - infra level in the province or actually the ESE of the province? Newark straddled by two 200% infra provinces will have very high ESE even if Newark infra only at 100%.
That makes sense. I almost doing that but two small variations:
a) I am doing 1 line of CL at full IC because that is 14 cruisers gotten by Pearl Harbour the cheapest way. Hence, I have lost one factory construction. But the cruisers are needed (actually 20 are needed) and the only alternative if delaying is to then later do two lines (which uses double the daily IC.) Of course, if I had extra factory, I would have the extra IC to pay for double line. So maybe I did other mistake with that, but my way I don't worry because I see the cruisers definitely will be in place.
b) I trying to do '36 techs in 1936, '37 techs in 1937, '38 techs in 1938 and '39 techs in 1939. I not starting anything ahead of year. I reduce research speed as much as I can to get those techs stretched out over their year. I think I would be quite worried if I delayed all of them as much as you indicate. But again, I can see how you are probably saving more IC.
But what if all techs not done on time and so upgrading is waiting until that next needed tech is achieved? So I'm a bit concerned about delaying too much, and then having a lot of research to catch up... and upgrading can't even begin until that is done. I guess the solution is just delay construction of units - hence kind of getting into multiple lines to get the army, air force and CVs on the board. That becomes a classical math nightmare for me. Basically nothing to fight with but all figured out so it will be there in the nick of time.
I find that style too "calculated" versus a more progressive building. The progressive building has the advantage of "feeling your way as you go" which might be good cause I never played USA this way before. I'm afraid doing it a more "calculated math way" will basically result in me getting surprised by Pearl Harbour, then losing a lot while I scramble to defend Hawaii. Of course, that was kind of what happened IRL. So maybe I should not have 3 INF each in Guam, Wake and Midway backed by FTR and NAVs so the poor AI does not get anywhere.
Give a boost to what? You mean the construction speed of the factories will increase? I not see that happen yet and have now done several rounds of new infra. Completion date for factories remains same.
So you must mean a ~50% boost to the IC. This I don't understand because I was always of the impression that 1 factory = 1 IC. (regardless of the infra level). I guess that is true as regards the base IC. And the 50% boost is how we reach a higher effective IC, right? (plus other things like sliders/ministers might impact too I guess)? Is that right? If so, OK, I see the sense of getting infra up for all places I building factories.
Well, I maybe screwed up on 1 province - Newark - where I am increasing factories but not infra. However, the infra constructions in neighboring Philadelphia and New York will spill over into Newark and definitely raise Newark's ESE. Now, will that also produce a boost effect in Newark, or must Newark's infra be raised to get the boost? What does the ~50% boost effect depend on - infra level in the province or actually the ESE of the province? Newark straddled by two 200% infra provinces will have very high ESE even if Newark infra only at 100%.
That makes sense. I almost doing that but two small variations:
a) I am doing 1 line of CL at full IC because that is 14 cruisers gotten by Pearl Harbour the cheapest way. Hence, I have lost one factory construction. But the cruisers are needed (actually 20 are needed) and the only alternative if delaying is to then later do two lines (which uses double the daily IC.) Of course, if I had extra factory, I would have the extra IC to pay for double line. So maybe I did other mistake with that, but my way I don't worry because I see the cruisers definitely will be in place.
b) I trying to do '36 techs in 1936, '37 techs in 1937, '38 techs in 1938 and '39 techs in 1939. I not starting anything ahead of year. I reduce research speed as much as I can to get those techs stretched out over their year. I think I would be quite worried if I delayed all of them as much as you indicate. But again, I can see how you are probably saving more IC.
But what if all techs not done on time and so upgrading is waiting until that next needed tech is achieved? So I'm a bit concerned about delaying too much, and then having a lot of research to catch up... and upgrading can't even begin until that is done. I guess the solution is just delay construction of units - hence kind of getting into multiple lines to get the army, air force and CVs on the board. That becomes a classical math nightmare for me. Basically nothing to fight with but all figured out so it will be there in the nick of time.
I find that style too "calculated" versus a more progressive building. The progressive building has the advantage of "feeling your way as you go" which might be good cause I never played USA this way before. I'm afraid doing it a more "calculated math way" will basically result in me getting surprised by Pearl Harbour, then losing a lot while I scramble to defend Hawaii. Of course, that was kind of what happened IRL. So maybe I should not have 3 INF each in Guam, Wake and Midway backed by FTR and NAVs so the poor AI does not get anywhere.
Last edited:
There must be a problem.
I recently placed 6 new factories, got them repaired, and also have 2-4 new placements of infra in each of 7 provinces.
And my total increase for all that is a measly 3 EFFECTIVE IC. Base has climbed 10, but as effective is far lower, that's all I get (3 IC more to work with). I'm getting ripped off! How can 6 new factories only raise EFFECTIVE IC by 3? And no increase for an additional 22 infra builds (most in the provinces with highest IC).
What is wrong with this USA? :sad:
EDIT: Now Sept 1/37 and just placed 2nd round of factories. All together with the many infra constructions, my EFFECTIVE IC climbed again just 3 IC. Now have 0/95/305. I'm starting to think that IC construction is a gimmick dreamt up by bad math calculations that wrongly justify the strategy. One and 3/4 years of all the USA can do, and I basically added 3 CJs (as regards something that actually has offensive ability). I'm almost crying when I compute how many aircraft I might have built instead. The plan was that this huge divestment for 3 years would raise my effective IC by 30. Looks like I'll get only 15 effective IC raise for diverting NEARLY ALL of USA industrial production into the crazy scheme. There must be something else coming later in the game that will bring my effective up to the much greater base IC I got... but can not use.
I should go conquer something! :rofl:
I recently placed 6 new factories, got them repaired, and also have 2-4 new placements of infra in each of 7 provinces.
And my total increase for all that is a measly 3 EFFECTIVE IC. Base has climbed 10, but as effective is far lower, that's all I get (3 IC more to work with). I'm getting ripped off! How can 6 new factories only raise EFFECTIVE IC by 3? And no increase for an additional 22 infra builds (most in the provinces with highest IC).
What is wrong with this USA? :sad:
EDIT: Now Sept 1/37 and just placed 2nd round of factories. All together with the many infra constructions, my EFFECTIVE IC climbed again just 3 IC. Now have 0/95/305. I'm starting to think that IC construction is a gimmick dreamt up by bad math calculations that wrongly justify the strategy. One and 3/4 years of all the USA can do, and I basically added 3 CJs (as regards something that actually has offensive ability). I'm almost crying when I compute how many aircraft I might have built instead. The plan was that this huge divestment for 3 years would raise my effective IC by 30. Looks like I'll get only 15 effective IC raise for diverting NEARLY ALL of USA industrial production into the crazy scheme. There must be something else coming later in the game that will bring my effective up to the much greater base IC I got... but can not use.
I should go conquer something! :rofl:
Last edited:
USA will not get full benefit of factory and infrastructure construction programme until it receives the gearing up events
I realize that, but I never knew just how "flipped" the USA situation is. For instance, Germany starts with 0/152/153. The difference of 1 IC is hardly noticed, and as soon as one occupies Rhineland (usually on 3rd day) then I think the base is the higher useable figure, IIRC.
But with USA - now at 0/98/307 on March 1/38 - the useable is the 98 effective. So while the base has significantly climbed building factories and infra, it is all unusable until much later when the gearing events get it up. That is a strange flip for what I am used to.
But there is more than just straight forward math to this. One has to consider that for 1936-1939 one is diverting nearly all the useable into infra and factory construction - with extremely low net useable IC increase gotten in return (until years later and gearing events change it).
Yes, later it will be nice to have a higher base because of IC construction in the early years. But what's the point if I missed what I could have constructed in ships and aircraft during the early years had I not diverted so much IC to building something that is actually giving hardly any benefit until so much later? But I not sure when the first gearing event comes. The Japs just massacred thousands and sunk my destroyer at Panay with the silly Yanks not even protesting that the Japanese government refused compensation. I guess I'm lucky to not loose the many big trades of resources to Japan because, without that, I couldn't even build my one line of CLs.
My usual play for USA is to build infra only at Washington (for high outlet ESE and Atlantic Port for fast upgrading), at Los Angeles for Pacific port for fast upgrading and boost the high oil there, at Pearl for fast upgrading there, and then one of the best provinces each for energy, metal and rares. That takes care of all concerns and costs just 12 IC.
Instead I'm pumping 39 IC into a scheme that is giving hardly anything back in all the earlier years. Well, for the difference of 27 IC from 1936-1939 I can practically build all the navy and aircraft I need come Pearl Harbour Event. I'm not convinced this IC construction is a good deal. But it may take playing it both ways until 1941 to make a definitive statement on that.
EDIT: The other problem is the infra builds are also doing nearly nothing. One new infra in Los Angeles (which has 14 oil) gives total oil increase of 1/10 of a barrel. With Germany and SU, both infra and factories give immediate noticeable benefits. That is very much needed to make a case for "return on investment" since it takes years to break even with the cost of provincial constructions.
Last edited:
USA Gearing Up 1 event will, from memory, usually occur just after Vichy France?, about July 1940 in historical SP game with human as USA.
commander, install latest patch before spreading misinformation. usa starts with 142/283 IC in the 36 scen.
despite this the fact stands that they are much worse than germany before the gear up evenets (and before the war). So USA won't be the strongest nation in '42. this was meant to be like that. by '45 they can field an insane army.
I still propose to increase usa base ic and increase it's pre-war penalty. something like 142/320 would be better game-balance wise, as multiplayer games usually don't last to 45 so usa needs very fast production of everything in 40-41-42 [yes even faster than currently it has]
despite this the fact stands that they are much worse than germany before the gear up evenets (and before the war). So USA won't be the strongest nation in '42. this was meant to be like that. by '45 they can field an insane army.
I still propose to increase usa base ic and increase it's pre-war penalty. something like 142/320 would be better game-balance wise, as multiplayer games usually don't last to 45 so usa needs very fast production of everything in 40-41-42 [yes even faster than currently it has]
I am playing 1.08 and am of the impression that 1.09 is still in beta testing with files changing regularly. As such, what is the latest patch is somewhat confusing. I don't think I'm spreading any misinformation but did not clarify my game version, and realize many of the moders do have 1.09 beta installed now. As regards 1.08, my figures are correct.
But thanks for pointing out a new huge recent change that has USA going from start IC of 0/89/283 with v1.08 to 0/142/283 in beta v1.09. That is an increase of 160% more effective IC at start - so making the 2 different games nearly incomparable if playing USA. Basically, it allows 10 more factories to be built.
Your equating highest IC as being strongest nation is somewhat misleading. Germany's and Russia's IC is largely in units sitting on the battlefield. But USA's IC will for a big part be in units trying to move strength to a battlefield. Besides, an army in the field is easily stronger than an army coming from overseas (until it gets built up). So, I think the phrase "strongest nation" is much more complex than just effective IC. Anyway, USA was not the strongest nation in '42, is not in v1.08 in 1942, so don't understand why you are pushing for what goes against what you have elsewhere stated.
The war ENDED in 1945. What is the point of having an "insane" army the year global war ends? The concept is itself insane because the enemy was already being retreated a couple years earlier. And actually USA fielded the "strongest" Allied army in June 1944... so this recent HUGE game change doesn't fit. Hopefully the beta version will go thru many more file changes before people argue about it.
AoD should not be designed for the exclusive priority of online gaming. And I would disagree that there is much game balance left compared to the far better balance 1.08 must have - given the far lower USA IC. As regards USA and Pearl Harbor, it was very much a case of waking a sleeping giant. But seems you want your giant to jump to attention right away instead of the realism of what was involved to get the giant to just stand up.
Just because...
...really is not any reason to so accelerate what was, IMO, balanced before. Yes, I understand online gamers wanting a satisfying conclusion to their games, but can't you start at a later scenario if the problem is one of total time and commitment to get players to finish?
The USA did not have fast production in '40, but had peacetime production that was trying to stop large navies from being constructed.
Things didn't change much in '41 because the country was rudely shaken from its long slumber only 3 weeks before the year ended.
And in 1942 the USA was scrambling still trying to figure out how to be a large producer. Seems to me that further accelerating USA by arbitrarily increasing IC even more is just adding more ahistorical to the pot.
EDIT: The below is your quote from other thread.
So, increasing USA starting IC by 160% with one patch... and recommending even more IC be added, is your solution? I guess this post would be feedback.
Last edited:
the infrastructure gives a boost to the base ic, so that with 100% infrastructure your province with 10 base ic will have an effective ic of 11 (due to the 10% concentration bonus), at 200% infrastructure the effective ic will be 14 or 15 (10% concentration bonus and a 30% boost from the infrastructure.
the effective ic is based on the province infrastructure and not the ese, the ese is however dependent on the other provinces route to the capital or ports (there was a recent thread on this if i recall correctly)
That makes sense. I almost doing that but two small variations:
a) I am doing 1 line of CL at full IC because that is 14 cruisers gotten by Pearl Harbour the cheapest way. Hence, I have lost one factory construction. But the cruisers are needed (actually 20 are needed) and the only alternative if delaying is to then later do two lines (which uses double the daily IC.) Of course, if I had extra factory, I would have the extra IC to pay for double line. So maybe I did other mistake with that, but my way I don't worry because I see the cruisers definitely will be in place.
b) I trying to do '36 techs in 1936, '37 techs in 1937, '38 techs in 1938 and '39 techs in 1939. I not starting anything ahead of year. I reduce research speed as much as I can to get those techs stretched out over their year. I think I would be quite worried if I delayed all of them as much as you indicate. But again, I can see how you are probably saving more IC.
But what if all techs not done on time and so upgrading is waiting until that next needed tech is achieved? So I'm a bit concerned about delaying too much, and then having a lot of research to catch up... and upgrading can't even begin until that is done. I guess the solution is just delay construction of units - hence kind of getting into multiple lines to get the army, air force and CVs on the board. That becomes a classical math nightmare for me. Basically nothing to fight with but all figured out so it will be there in the nick of time.
I find that style too "calculated" versus a more progressive building. The progressive building has the advantage of "feeling your way as you go" which might be good cause I never played USA this way before. I'm afraid doing it a more "calculated math way" will basically result in me getting surprised by Pearl Harbour, then losing a lot while I scramble to defend Hawaii. Of course, that was kind of what happened IRL. So maybe I should not have 3 INF each in Guam, Wake and Midway backed by FTR and NAVs so the poor AI does not get anywhere.
you could reduce all non ic building and research for at least 2 years, then slowly start on the buildup in 38 (as the infrastructure builds complete in 38 if on x3 speed) you can basically wait the 2 years in order to get the boost from researching techs that are behind on the historical date, i prefere to just research industrial and research related tech up to that point, saving the rest for later even if it means being behind on some techs by a few years, the industrial base should be more than capable of upgrading and reinforcing the units as soon as the peace ic modifer is removed by events...
my preference is to have 2 or 3 garrison infantry on the islands with an engineer brigade (to increase the max dig in from 20 to 40), artillery brigade(fire power and defence) and either another artillery brigade or an anti air brigade depending on if there is a hostile airbase in range of the islands. the garrison infantry cannot move and so will be worthless on offense but since infantry cant retreat either when they are on the island the nearly just as capable garrison units seems the better choice.
and your choice to build the military early isnt bad either, it is just different and dependent on how much ic you want availerble to you at the start compared to how ready for offensive operations you want to be
That explains it really well. Thanks. It is a very significant boost, and justifies building infra to max. But it's really nice when IC and infra production (recommended for doing in highest already IC provinces) matches to where the most resources of any commodity exist. Unfortunately, USA does not have that combination often - with the provinces with highest existing IC being rather resource poor. So that can result in tackling 2 jobs: a) infra and IC building where there are existing high factories and b) build to high infra where there are high resources - which then one may as well add IC construction to capitalize even if the start IC of that province is only around 5-6. This tends to multiple the possible placements, and my 6 factory placements don't cover it all.
But I wondering if I really need to worry about infra in Dallas for more rares, Birmingham for more metal (only has 3 factories so did not add any new factories there) and Louisville chosen for its high energy and numerous start factories. The last one breaks the rule and might be only place I got a very efficient high infra and factories with high resources. That's the ideal combo, I think.
However, does USA ever run out of resources? I now wondering if the gearing events will significantly increase resources too - meaning I could stop some infra constructions because I probably not really aware how big resources might get once gearing for war begins.
OK, very good to know!
Probably mine as I've done many posts stressing the importance of good ESE trace, capital to outlet being at 200% with importance of maximum naval base size at both ends; and then route to where units sit not dropping more than 1 ESE/further province.
This is viable. Personally I avoid 3x production mostly but - still - there is math to show it can pay. I’m building IC until Oct 1939, but I am managing to improve the critically inadequate parts of the navy too because the one CL-4 line is very efficient (that brings all SAGs to max range and strengthens them too by getting rid of the DD-1s). There is also the matter of dealing efficiently with the two CV-2s and the existing CV-3 so later CV-4 CTFs can be homogenous; and now in Nov/38 I started on that job to get the "odd balls” taken properly care of for specialized "infantry transport and amphib escort duty" This will leave the later-to-be-built CV-4s completely free and of max range for each CTF so they can combine as needed if the AI runs mega-fleets.
GAR and a ENG are great used correctly. That's what I do but skip the AA cause I probably got FTR there anyway. Well, we're not giving the Japanese much chance if we pre-position like that.
your choice to build the military early isnt bad either, it is just different and dependent on how much ic you want availerble to you at the start compared to how ready for offensive operations you want to be
There are many strategies to win, I think. I'm not building any army or air force yet. Will delay until late 1939 to start aircraft and later still for INF, GAR and marines. It was only fixing the odd-balls that exist in start navy and getting that out of the way while so much infra/IC construction happens. I probably lost 1 factory placement because of it... but sure nice to have that accomplished early to not interfere with the maximum armed forces push that needs to be efficient later - and concentrated on - come 1940.
Last edited:
Thanks. About how many gearing events will be needed to access the base IC? I would love playing with 300 IC!
Well, the really sad part about all this focus to capitalize IC is that the AI struggles valiantly on... but the humans know the future... and pre-position. Even IC construction is a tactic designed to simply permit higher IC... and done right (stopped on time) with all figured out (like how many lines of CV and INF need to start when to position everywhere) it gives human an unbeatable edge.
How nice it would be if game might be programmed so that maybe Japan does not worry about a dumb bridge... but amphibs Guam in 1938 (just because the AI decided to be "alternate". Boy, would that stop humans from pulling their INF division out of Philippines (and rest of Pacific empty too) just to avoid supply convoys interrupting their finely tuned preparations. Pearl Harbor should be a surprise... but that doesn't much exist in SP. So, I think there exists good case that SP player should move some ships from 1936-1940 if only to burn oil; and I doubt Hawaii, Wake, Guam and Colon were ever totally devoid of doughboys all those years.
Stated that way, perhaps a strategy to maximize anything in the mathematical pursuit of using icd really doesn't contribute to best game play.
commander dont take it too personal, but why are you arguing with me? just for the sake of arguing?
1, you mod your game in single player as much as you want. if you are not statisfied with the built-in easy/normal/hard difficulty you can tune the game to your liking with minimal effort
2, in multiplayer gamebalance issues are a bit harder to resolve, so yes softcoding aim must be to make multiplayer games somewhat reflecting historical accuracy, and also a good video-game experience
3, both germany and soivet union having more or same base ic in 42 as usa [this is pretty much the case in mp games] is very far from being realistic
4, by saying usa is not the strongest nation in 42 is exactly what is meant to be. it's military is at best medicore. both germany and su is far stronger [given they didnt overkill each other already], maybe even japan
5, by 45 usa with free market and not participating in serious meatgrinders (what su and ger can't avoid), it is easily the strongest nation [in terms of military power]
6, it wasnt me who proposed to increse usa prewar ic so dramatically in 1.09. in our current multiplayer game tough it seems to be a good change. in my previous post i proposed to increase it's base ic by a further 40 [15%] but not increase it's effective ic at all in 36-40. so it won't start the war any stronger but once usa joins it would increase it's potential even further. To reflect better how overwhelming usa was irl
1, you mod your game in single player as much as you want. if you are not statisfied with the built-in easy/normal/hard difficulty you can tune the game to your liking with minimal effort
2, in multiplayer gamebalance issues are a bit harder to resolve, so yes softcoding aim must be to make multiplayer games somewhat reflecting historical accuracy, and also a good video-game experience
3, both germany and soivet union having more or same base ic in 42 as usa [this is pretty much the case in mp games] is very far from being realistic
4, by saying usa is not the strongest nation in 42 is exactly what is meant to be. it's military is at best medicore. both germany and su is far stronger [given they didnt overkill each other already], maybe even japan
5, by 45 usa with free market and not participating in serious meatgrinders (what su and ger can't avoid), it is easily the strongest nation [in terms of military power]
6, it wasnt me who proposed to increse usa prewar ic so dramatically in 1.09. in our current multiplayer game tough it seems to be a good change. in my previous post i proposed to increase it's base ic by a further 40 [15%] but not increase it's effective ic at all in 36-40. so it won't start the war any stronger but once usa joins it would increase it's potential even further. To reflect better how overwhelming usa was irl
Not arguing with you. Corrected your claim of spreading misinformation and stated my view about your view. Just feedback like you suggested... not personal.
Last edited: