Production : Streamlined vs Flexible

[Shatterfury]

The specialisation comes way too late by 1943.

I guess it was introduced to simulate how the germans tinkered with their equipment but for it to provide flavour to the game it must become active from 1936 or at least 1937, I see that in 1937 we have the first upgrade dedicated to production.

Talking about Germany here because I guess that was the inspiration.If it comes in 1937 than the German player can tinker it`s Pz IIs, Pz IIIs and Pz IVs and all it`s derivatives to he`s\her`s heart's desire.

By 1943 you only get to tinker with the Panther and the Royal Tiger but we all know that those 3 mentioned earlier were used for a lot of units : Wespe (Pz II), StuG III (Pz III), Wirbelwind, Hummel and StuG IV (Pz IV) that is not counting the huge variations of the tanks themselves.

So by 1943 the player has to play the Allied/Soviet style with careful chosen models and manufacture them for quite a lot of time.

 

[Nelfe]

I think the choice depends greatly of how many factories you have. If you play USA ou USSR, you have so much factories so you don't have to switch your lines from a production to another one. Then, streamlined seems a better choice.
For countries who have less factories available (UK, France, Germany at the start), flexible line will be more useful as you will frequently change your production line.

 

[Gort11]

My first thoughts are that - like concentrated industry - streamlined is better.

I see it this way - if you're switching your production around rarely, streamlined wins hands down. If you're switching your production often, streamlined is still useful since your efficiency will recover more quickly.

I guess it'll just be a case of doing the maths for how you end up playing.

 

[Denkt]

I think you should get the choice from start not at the end.

For flexible to be better you need to make switches often and switches are not good for production so you wan't to do them seldom. It basiclly make a bad choice less hurtful but it will still hurt. Meanwhile streamlined just give you more production power which is great.

Flexible require good understanding in counterplay as you wan't to force your opponent to switch what they are producing to counter what you are producing.

 

[Alex_brunius]

By 1943 you only get to tinker with the Panther and the Royal Tiger but we all know that those 3 mentioned earlier were used for a lot of units : Wespe (Pz II), StuG III (Pz III), Wirbelwind, Hummel and StuG IV (Pz IV) that is not counting the huge variations of the tanks themselves.

Don't you mean you only get to play with the Hetzer, the Grille, the Marder III ausf M, the Hummel, the Stug IV, the Brummbär, the Stürmtiger, the Nashorn, the Elefant, the Jagdpanther, the Jagdtiger, the Wirbelwind, the Möbelwagen, the Ostwind, the Jagdpanzer IV, the Panther and The King Tiger?

All of these entered production 1943 or later which means you can use the production bonus for them, as well as for any variants on them or base tank variants that you upgrade 1943 or later.

That is assuming you go down in 1945 like Germany did historically and don't survive longer + develop some more superheavy tanks /TD/SPArt/SPAA as well as more E-series stuff and their respective versions, and put these into actual production.

 

[Shatterfury]

Don't you mean you only get to play with the Hetzer, the Grille, the Marder III ausf M, the Hummel, the Stug IV, the Brummbär, the Stürmtiger, the Nashorn, the Elefant, the Jagdpanther, the Jagdtiger, the Wirbelwind, the Möbelwagen, the Ostwind, the Jagdpanzer IV, the Panther and The King Tiger?

All of these entered production 1943 or later which means you can use the production bonus for them, as well as for any variants on them or base tank variants that you upgrade 1943 or later.

That is assuming you go down in 1945 like Germany did historically and don't survive longer + develop some more superheavy tanks /TD/SPArt/SPAA as well as more E-series stuff and their respective versions, and put these into actual production.

Point taken but StuG III, who`s production ended in late 1943, kind of equals of those together in numbers.

The Germans did a lot of modifications to their Pz IIIs and Pz IVs.

To be honest I don`t get what you are trying to say, other than highlight the modifications the Germans did in 1943 and after.

Germany could really use that flexibility much more early and I think 1937 is a good year to have it.

 

[Alex_brunius]

The main point was that Germany did have a bigger amount of different combat vehicles in production the later the war went, and made more frequent and bigger modifications & variants on them then most others. This fits quite nicely with not having access to the technology that makes this easier right away in the game, but rather towards mid/late war instead. Don't you think?

If 1000 or 100000 StuG IIIs were produced doesn't really matter here since this is about flexibility = how often you can switch the line and keep more efficiency. So the important things is how many major production modifications were made to Early units compared to late. My feeling is alot more were made late war then early war.

 

[Shatterfury]

The main point was that Germany did have a bigger amount of different combat vehicles in production the later the war went, and made more frequent and bigger modifications & variants on them then most others. This fits quite nicely with not having access to the technology that makes this easier right away in the game, but rather towards mid/late war instead. Don't you think?

If 1000 or 100000 StuG IIIs were produced doesn't really matter here since this is about flexibility = how often you can switch the line and keep more efficiency. So the important things is how many major production modifications were made to Early units compared to late. My feeling is alot more were made late war then early war.

No, I don`t think it fits that well.

In a way you are right that the variations in 1943 and after were more visible and radical - Hetzer , Grille, Hummel etc. but before 1943 the Germans tinkered a lot with the same vehicles for example Pz III had around 12 variants and the production stopped in 1943, Pz II is in the exact same situation as Pz III - 12 modifications by 1943, StuG III, who`s production stopped at the end of 1943 had 7 modifications and Pz IV had 10 modifications.

As Germany if I get a decent amount of Points I use them a.s.a.p. and start using the new tanks as soon as they are produced while with the Soviets and USA I would use them more rarely not to disturb the chain of production too much.

So while the the Soviets and the Americans peak 25% faster the Germans would lose 50% less efficiency for shifting around thus if I keep upgrading my tanks like crazy I will lose 12.5% per change for the same vehicle but different variant rather than the regular 25%.

I would say it fits rather well having this in 1937 rather than 1943.

My take anyway but I don`t see the harm in giving flexibility to the player and you have to agree that it would be kind of hard switching between all those variants as the Germans did without this bonus.

 

[bkuepers]

I see it this way - if you're switching your production around rarely, streamlined wins hands down. If you're switching your production often, streamlined is still useful since your efficiency will recover more quickly.

If that is the case, it will need to be balanced. Both should be viable options. If one always makes sense, no need to have the other in the game.

 

[Shatterfury]

If that is the case, it will need to be balanced. Both should be viable options. If one always makes sense, no need to have the other in the game.

He may be exaggerating.

With streamlined you reach maximum efficiency 25% faster while with with flexible you lose 50% less of your experience thus if you change from Pz III to Pz IV you only lose 37.5% rather than the standard 75%.

 

[Alex_brunius]

My take anyway but I don`t see the harm in giving flexibility to the player and you have to agree that it would be kind of hard switching between all those variants as the Germans did without this bonus.

Why do you assume that Germany should be able to keep up high production numbers early in the war while switching? Historically they did no such thing!

Just look at for example tanks produced before and after 1943 and compare:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_armored_fighting_vehicle_production_during_World_War_II

There are reasons why Germany lost and that the allies could produce 5 Shermans and 5 T-34s for each German tank fielded.

Too many variants for efficient production and the resulting messy spare parts logistics, bad reliability is one of the reasons often quoted by historians.

 

[Shatterfury]

Why do you assume that Germany should be able to keep up high production numbers early in the war while switching? Historically they did no such thing!

Just look at for example look at tanks produced before and after 1943 and compare:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_armored_fighting_vehicle_production_during_World_War_II

There are reasons why Germany lost and that the allies could produce 5 Shermans and 5 T-34s for each German tank fielded.

Too many variants for efficient production and the resulting messy spare parts logistics, bad reliability is one of the reasons often quoted by historians.

What you speak of can be better represented by Germany staying with Guns and Butter economy for far too long, which in game I guess it kind of corresponds with Early Mobilisation / Partial Mobilisation.

Another important thing to consider is that the Germans lacked materials and that in itself is a reason why they tinkered with their vehicles and had a smaller production.

I guess that Germany going to War Economy should be part of a focus rather than a normal law that you can pass in 1940. That would balance the game a bit but this is different than what we are speaking about now.

Edit.
Besides, the game balance stays the same as it is because what I am advocating would just enable a gameplay closer to simulating German production rather than a buff, as it is as Germany would have to play Soviet and US style with fewer modifications until 1943 at which time it can chose to continue to play Soviet and US style or switch to German style.

 

[Alex_brunius]

What you speak of can be better represented by Germany staying with Guns and Butter economy for far too long

Why would guns and butter economy impact how much efficiency is lost when switching production lines? (something Germany did too much and paid for with bad efficiency and bad reliability). I don't understand your point here?

 

[Shatterfury]

Why would guns and butter economy impact how much efficiency is lost when switching production lines? (something Germany did too much and paid for with bad efficiency and bad reliability). I don't understand your point here?

Pfff....What I propose is not a buff, it`s a variation of the playstyle.
Early Mobilisation and Partial Mobilisation are Economic Laws while Streamlined and Flexible are researchable upgrades.

And while we are at it, yes, I think it would be a good idea to have some of the production efficiency tied up with those Economic Laws.

I don`t understand what is the problem, you seem to be fixated on the fact that flexible shouldn`t be viable but than why is it in game ?

It`s either put in game in a way so that players can play German style or remove it entirely.

The Germans lacked quite a lot of the materials to have a fully streamlined production thus they bettered their units at every step because the couldn`t "waste" resources on standardised units that could be constructed faster so they went with the route to use the raw materials to get the best units they could make at that time at the expense of numbers and ease of production.

Flexibility should also have maybe a small delay in build time but also require slightly fewer materials.

 

[panzerzombie]

Why do you assume that Germany should be able to keep up high production numbers early in the war while switching? Historically they did no such thing!

Just look at for example tanks produced before and after 1943 and compare:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_armored_fighting_vehicle_production_during_World_War_II

There are reasons why Germany lost and that the allies could produce 5 Shermans and 5 T-34s for each German tank fielded.

Too many variants for efficient production and the resulting messy spare parts logistics, bad reliability is one of the reasons often quoted by historians.

Shatter and you seem to talk past each other a bit ?

Shatter IMO is right that your 5 Shermans/5T-34 per german tank was largely caused by the guns-or-butter doctrine up to 42-43 ( refocused by Speer and leading to a lot more production - including Speer´s insistience on more completed hulls and less (desperately needed) spare parts, other tricks and real improvements ) and to a smaller degree ( but too ) due to chaotic variants, switching and stuff.

And yes germany did not reform its industry in time, they probably could have done so when e.g. Fritz Todt would have been replaced earlier or whatever, there were many economic and political factors involved.
So why not giving the opportunity earlier than ´43 ( perhaps with a less massive bonus at first ), other countries obviously did what was necessary and refocused much earlier. AI Germany e.g. should follow the historical path and should NOT choose so before ´43.

 

[shri]

@panzerzombie and @Shatterfury

Adam Tooze has dis-proved the Speer myth that production increased hugely due to Speer's efforts alone, instead it increased due to the "efforts" made in the previous years, mainly due to the 4 year plan of Goering which started in 1936 but finished only in late 1941-early 1942, about 18 months delay in implementation which created a lot of capacities in production. Also "streamlined" benefits kicked in and Speer cut down on the wasteful products by some.

Now, to German production. It was always hasty improvisation rather than a well thought strategy like- USA which decided to pump out 50000 Shermans despite knowing they were somewhat outdated in terms of armor or USSR pumping out IL-2 Sturmoviks in tens of thousands despite horrendous losses in pilots so that it could put an end to the "Panzerwaffe".

In 1933, the Germans were already on the verge of re-armament and had the basics of tanks, combined arms etc in advanced testing time period, Hitler accelerated the process.
The result- the Germans built the PzII as a stop-gap measure till the IIIs and IVs could be researched, tested and produced (both were under R&D and achieved tests in 1936 and 1937 but full scale production started only by 1939). - these remained the 2 main chassis for tanks for Germany throughout the war.
The "theory" of using "tracked vehicles" and "tractors" as prime-movers (which benefited them a lot, despite the cost) vs the Western allied theory of TRUCKS also was in place.
The Bf109 was in full production from 1937 onward and was first tested in 1935, which meant it was already being considered pre-1933. (the main fighter of Germany)

Further, Aircraft procurement was a quagmire of politics and corruption, with the fastest aircraft in the world-HE100 not being procured by the Luftwaffe despite its speed records not being broken till 1944. The entire Luftwaffe top brass was corrupt/incompetent- Goering, Milch, Udet etc. Just see the way they played around with Ju-88, forcing Junkers to make the plane -"dive bomb capable" reducing its speed and carrying capacity. The only 2 competent technical people they had were- Waver and Richtofen (Wolfram von Richtofen was not only a flying ace but an engineering postgraduate with specialty in avionics, a person like him was best suited to command the "Technical Dept"), Walther Waver died and Richtofen was sidelined.

Now to the Navy, the Navy wasted precious Steel and other important commodities building "White Elephants" esp. the Z plan ships like - Bismarck and Tirpitz. Both did not achieve anything. The "STEEL" would have been enough to build 500 PzIVs by 1939-1940 additionally and several hundred trucks and Sdkfz's. Or could have been used to build some 100+ Ocean going subs, but there was no "proper direction". Irony here is - in my opinion Adm. Raeder was the best "Grand Strategist" in entire Germany.

Again in 1942-42, when Guderian was appointed Inspector-General, he wanted to build only PzIII and IV chassis and scrap all other projects, making hundreds of Stugs and PzIVs and using them in a mobile manner to inflict terrible casualties on the Russians, but "Tiger, Elephant, Panther" were all a waste of resources- all put together were produced at less than 10,000; instead some 20,000/25000 Stugs/PzIV maybe in a 2:3/3:2 ratio would have benefited the Germans immensely. (even with the FUEL COSTS, as those heavies were gas guzzlers and difficult to transport and liable to breakdowns).

Overall, a - PLAYER in HOI series never plays - "NAZI INTERNAL POLITICS TOTAL WAR" and this saves him a lot of energy and resources to crush the AI easily.

If, the Germans had not built so many useless white elephants and variants, they would have had much better production figures, certainly not equal to the USA but much higher than it happened.

 

[panzerzombie]

@panzerzombie and @Shatterfury

Adam Tooze has dis-proved the Speer myth that production increased hugely due to Speer's efforts alone, instead it increased due to the "efforts" made in the previous years, mainly due to the 4 year plan of Goering which started in 1936 but finished only in late 1941-early 1942, about 18 months delay in implementation which created a lot of capacities in production. Also "streamlined" benefits kicked in and Speer cut down on the wasteful products by some.

Yes, I know about and do not doubt the disprovement of the Speer Myth (the so called "Rüstungswunder"). I did not explain myself fully due to lazyness, it was part fake/propaganda, part real effort and Speer was only responsible for parts of the production increase ( but claimed all of it ). Thats what I meant by "tricks".

 

[Snow Wolf]

Maybe one of the focii decreases the ahead of time penalty?

 

[shri]

Yes, I know about and do not doubt the disprovement of the Speer Myth (the so called "Rüstungswunder"). I did not explain myself fully due to lazyness, it was part fake/propaganda, part real effort and Speer was only responsible for parts of the production increase ( but claimed all of it ). Thats what I meant by "tricks".

Ok. Then we are on the same page. My main argument was based on this often ignored fact that-
Nazi Germany could have done this or that rests solely on arguments but not on ground reality that the internal functioning of the govt was fractured and totally chaotic with no semblance of "direction". It is a wonder that the Wehrmacht fought so long without cracking due to this internal confusion.

Overall, Luftwaffe was a total non-sense organisation and the Kriegsmarine was having plans way beyond dreams. The Govt itself had so many contradictions and push-me--pull-you set up, that it was perhaps quite possible that had- Hitler been assassinated, an all out civil war would have broken out.

 

[joe9594]

I was a bit surprised by what these techs actually did. I expected one to give faster growth in efficiency/ less loss when changing and the other to give a higher cap. That way it actually offers a choice between more equipment and higher tech stuff.