I'll also have to do the math, but I think if we're only concerned about civ count and not absolutely crippling our war potential, deleting the mils will immediately give us +4 civs, about +17% more production from the game start as you now have 27 instead of 23. I don't believe the first 3 civs you build will be sent to CFG, so you have them also contributing, so you have 30 civs working compared to maybe 25?. You'll also be opening up more slots in your +80% infra areas, making building more that little bit faster.
Alternatively, those +4 civs could be thought of as subsidizing the civs you would normally be spending on your agency, so its more like 22 civs compared to 18, a ~22% increase in production capability.
Rather than just checking the endpoints, we should consider all the critical points. It is almost certainly faster to delete 6 mils and convert the 22 you have left with 8 consumer goods and then build 6 more afterward than it would be to convert all 28 with 9 consumer goods. But is the same true about deleting 12 and converting 16 to be at 7 consumer goods factories? What about deleting 18 and converting 10 at 6 cgf? And finally, the minimum number to test would be deleting 24 and converting 4 at 5 cgf. There's no point in deleting any further below that, as that doesn't reduce consumer goods any further.
Could someone explain MEFO a little bit more in detail, as the ingame decription is horrible. As far as I know, MEFO...
- could be canceled at several points (but which is the right one?)
- MEFO reduces PP
- MEFO speeds up construction
- Anschluss and Tschecheslowakei reduce MEFO-costs
- if MEFO get canceled it cost you a number CIC (no idea how much and for how long with the several decisions possible)
Never cancel MEFO bills. When you cancel then, you lose a lump sum of pp, depending on how long they've been ongoing, which is whatever. But you get a massive +20% consumer goods for half a year which is crippling. Maybe the +25% build speed and -5% consumer goods is not worth the pp spent on them, though I would contend that it is. But the penalty for paying them back is just too harsh to ever do it.
- if you talk about blueprint stealing, why Bhutan or Tibet - what's the problem with little bit more historical Swiss?
- when and how to build up "Abwehr"?
- just Collaboration or blue-print-stealing first?
- if so how many times?
- just industry?
Bhutan and Nepal are opms. Opms have a x0 weight toward taking their industrial focuses until 39, and have like 2 total factories each. So you will never be forced to contend with them ever being able to make an agency to fight against your spies. The optimal time to create your own agency is immediately before needing to use it. For Germany that is literally day 1. You need at least two collaboration governments in France, maybe a collaboration in Poland, and to steal fighter 2 from Romania in mp games. That's without even mentioning the industrial blueprint stealing.
are there any PP-decisions, that should be done in SP:
- better working-conditions
- promise peace
- others?
Never improve worker conditions as Germany. It's not worth increasing consumer goods now for reduced consumer goods later. Improve Worker Conditions is a panic button that you press if you're below 50% stability while at war to avoid getting strikes and only if you don't have other, better ways of increasing stability. Promises of Peace is only worthwhile if you've got a bunch of war support burning a hole in your pocket, with more coming in. That is to say, if you're allowed to ace spam. USSR does it at the same time that they do war propaganda which is net zero on war support and just increases stability. Anti-communist/democratic raids is a nice little bit of stability if you have a bunch of pp that you're not using, for instance if you take Bormann instead of taking Goebbels.
I never made any conversion to MIC in all my DR-games, last one I even converted MIC to CIC, as I was running out of Steel (as DR!!!).
From my point of view DR needs as much CIC as possible, as this helps you all the way (at a certain point I don't even use 100% of the MIC-production anymore):
- trade
- building massive INFRA to supply your tank-divisions (btw. if you choose your supply-lines wisely you can improve raw material extraction significantly)
- repairing all those things your tank-divisions damage
- repairing all that damage from resistance
- building fortifications (as DR only weakness is menpower from my point of view)
In all my runs I build much more CIC, then MIC.
How early do you switch from civ to mil construction? All your construction before June 38 should be pure civs. Some people also advocate building up to 10 infra in Rhineland and Moselland because you will have 20 buildslots in those states when you get dispersed 5. And you start out using only 5 and 3 of them respectively, so they do pay themselves back in total build time, but since you get the civs later than you would have gotten them if you hadn't built up infra there it may still be not worth it. However, they also provide quite a bit of steel, worth more and costing less than the civ you would have had to spend on buying more steel on the open market.
Repairing infrastructure during the war is worth it if you are getting attritioned by the lack of supply. If you are suffering no ill effects of the broken infrastructure, then there's no point in repairing it.
Building up forts can be worthwhile in singleplayer as they do actually deter the ai from attacking if the fort level is high enough. But forts are a pure joke in multiplayer. Don't build them up.