Research: Unit diversification vs. a tight focus on a few types of units

[Pang Bingxun]

But icd is not the issue regarding unit diversification, research is. And that topic deserves a seperate thread.
[...]
I think we can agree that research spending below 100% is only an option in some rare cases like USA 1936.
[...]
I am confident that mcganyol means skipping the research for STR and CAS and their doctrines. The issue about unit diversification is research. And thus i would conclude, that germany can afford much more unit diversification than soviet union. But more on this issue should be discussed in a seperate thread.

This is cited from another thread. How many types of units you do you properly research to their current models? How many month of research are you on average ahead or behind the historic date of techs?

I would guess that a thight focus allows to save 20% research days else put on unneeded tech. This may allow to have the important models 6 to 12 month earlier. This means +16.7% soft attack in case of Inf1941 vs. Inf1939, +33.3% air attack in case of Int1940 vs. Int1937 and +22.2% soft attack in case of Tac1940 vs. Tac1938. If we multiply that with 9 month and divide it by 2 or 3 years between two models to get some sort of average, than it is +6.25% soft attack in case of Inf, +8.33% air attack in case of Int and +5.55% soft attack in case of Tac. This is a very simplified look at things, but this is something a more diversified unit composition must compete with.

 

[mcganyol]

With major powers too less unit diversification may harm effectiveness while too much may result in lagging behind and lead to lower effectiveness too.
I think we can agree that the main problem with unit diversification is mainly the research time needed.
The main areas are the planes: CAS,NAV,STR vs TAC... (CAS also walks hand-in-hand with ESC). And the foot soldiers: MTN-MAR-INF(-MIL). Also the question of (CAV-)MOT-MEC-LARM-ARM is a hard one, focus on one or try to go for all? [cav/mot and larm/arm shares the same research path but still, producing them may be tricky] Every unit has it's advantage over the "base" type but if it's worth the extra effectiveness or not should depend very much on the country/alliance you play. For example not much point research/produce MAR, STR and NAV as the SU because that won't serve you nowhere as good as INF/MOT/TAC. Also while TRA & PAR is a very effective offensive weapon they won't win the war on their own. You should know what combination works and which are not and it is not trivial, takes a lot of practice. Only few knows that for para attacks air superiority is usually not a requirement. Tanks are pretty ineffective in the defense [compared to their price] while mechanized shines in the role of mobile defense too. Also one must study the "army unit modifiers" to be aware of such nuances that MTN is nearly as good in amphib landing as MAR. So if you have a lot of MTN researching MAR is golden for the extra "amphib assault efficiency" but actually producing MAR may not worth much.... etc

Unit diversification seems to work the best between allied countries. For example why should USA and UK both research TRA and PAR? that seems to be a big waste of resources [well, allies can better afford wasting resources than axis or comintern...]. A better example would be ITA not researching ARM at all but focus on the much more useful INF [or MOT] and let GER focus on ARM. There are units which should be common even between allies like the INF but one can focus on MTN while the other on MAR to maximize their overall effectiveness. This goes only for online games tough [or editing the ai in singleplayer] and SU is still "alone" in the matters of research.
Also puppets or minor allies are very helpful concluding diversificated research if you are willing to edit the AI.

My 2 cent is if you play the research game alone, don't try to go for everything and lag behind in every area. Tech rushing only 1 type of unit seems to be very ineffective as well. You should make up your plans and focus on a few and then force your enemies to fight on your terms. If you've decided to go for MTN or STR you should make serious strategical/tactical advantage of it [MTN advantage is not only in hills and mountains but also it's far better winter conditions modifiers... etc] . If you can't utilize their advantages on grand scale then it was a major mistake to go for them. It can not be described with pure numbers as their usefulness greatly depends on the enemy force and the current status of the (unpredictable) war.

It is something like the combined arms modifier. While the 50% hardness is the optimal, basically everything between 40-60 is just as good. So concentrating on a "few" unit types can't go wrong if you find the golden mean. A "few" means neither all nor only two types.

 

[Commander666]

How many types of units you do you properly research to their current models? How many month of research are you on average ahead or behind the historic date of techs?

Playing as SU I research at 100% and do everything. I avoid being more than a year ahead on anything except about 4 specific techs I intend to tech rush for unit build. That includes ARM-3, INF-39 and a couple aircraft techs. At start two teams tackle navy techs not because I have any intention of building anything except some subs (and TPs) but only because they are 1936 techs and so occupy my teams while avoiding researching ahead of historical (except the stated 4 exceptions). I know my SU is getting behind in research once the navy research gets cut to only one team. But one team will keep on forever preparing for when SU will build a modern navy. I find I am ahead of Allies in several techs - especially air doctrines. I think I must lag behind Germany in intelligence, industrial and ground troops because they have better teams. But the AI does not give 100% research effort (I think), so against him I am fairly even.

Playing as Germany I can not afford 100% research and at times it dips to only 75% but I aim for 95% best I can. As I don't have spies in SU at this time I can not compare but am confident that I am ahead of the AI because I tech rush more with Germany than I do with SU. This is a natural result of having better teams. (Later SU does get some excellent teams). Germany also does not need navy research but I do it to minimize researching too far ahead of historical date on other techs; and prepare for a future Sea Lion with CVs. I start my Germany doing four (4) navy techs. Still, I find my Germany is starting many other techs at least a year ahead of historical, and certain ones like INF-39 more than that ( this done deliberately).

Playing as Allies, ... sorry ... too long ago to remember details like this. Last game as UK I took over an AI play done to 1940. I thought its research was pretty ugly and took me years to get my inherited UK where I wanted it to be. Certainly there is great benefit in checking your partners research to strategize regarding sharing plans.

Playing as Italy I think I remember it is rather tough trying to keep up until one joins Axis.

Playing as Japan it is a very independent road and with this country there are huge areas of research that I never touch while prioritising industrial, INF, CAV and navy. A 2nd rate air force is OK for Japan so I do those techs as they come along (if I have spare team) since I won't have IC for FTR or NAV anyway until after China is won. Toys like MAR, PARA and ARM Japan can't afford. But CAV is, IMO, Japan's answer to all its problems in China. Maybe I should try MTN but seems I couldn't afford to build those either!

Hope the above helps, Pang.

 

[Pang Bingxun]

I avoid being more than a year ahead on anything

This is a good rule of thumb.

Assuming a tech started one year ahead takes 1 year to research, than the average historic date modifier will be 0.82.
Assuming a tech started exactly on time takes 1 year to research, than the average historic date modifier will be 1.09.

This would mean that later the average daily research output would be 33% higher or earlier it would be 25% lower. Of course the historic date modifier would assure that the same tech would not need 1 year in both cases, therefore the actual average historic date modifier will be higher than 0.82 and below 1.09 in the second case. Proper calculation would be done iterative because the days needed depend on historic date modifier and historic date modifier depends on the current day.

except about 4 specific techs I intend to tech rush for unit build.

Having a few exceptions is OK. As Germany Arm1939, Int1940, Tac1940, Esc1940 and CAS1940 can be such exceptions. Arm1939 is needed for a properly timed build up as germany. Int1940 is quite essential. Tac1940 is helpful for cheap upgrading to Tac1938. Esc1940 is good because of range and Naval attack. CAS1937 is acceptable, but the upgrade to CAS1940 is cheap compared to the usefulness.

At start two teams tackle navy techs not because I have any intention of building anything except some subs (and TPs) but only because they are 1936 techs and so occupy my teams while avoiding researching ahead of historical (except the stated 4 exceptions). I know my SU is getting behind in research once the navy research gets cut to only one team. But one team will keep on forever preparing for when SU will build a modern navy. [...] Germany also does not need navy research but I do it to minimize researching too far ahead of historical date on other techs; and prepare for a future Sea Lion with CVs.

Such sort of minimizing historical date penalties is something i can advise, too. But only for techs that are intended to be needed in the future.

Playing as Germany I can not afford 100% research and at times it dips to only 75% but I aim for 95% best I can.

Using 100% spending but using only 3 team in early 1936 is good alternative. Slowly the number of used teams is increased to (current) maximum in 1938 at latest.

I think I must lag behind Germany in intelligence, industrial and ground troops because they have better teams. [...] This is a natural result of having better teams. (Later SU does get some excellent teams).

Too late is more like it. Between 1936 and 1947 german tech teams have an average daily research output that is 25% higher than that of soviet union. Historical date modifier will reduce the german advantage in daily research output, but only because germany will be significantly ahead of time compared to soviet union. On average germany would be ~9 months ahead of soviet union.

But the AI does not give 100% research effort (I think), so against him I am fairly even.

AI always uses always 100% research. It is just way less capable of organizing its teams properly.

Playing as Japan it is a very independent road and with this country there are huge areas of research that I never touch while prioritising industrial, INF, CAV and navy. A 2nd rate air force is OK for Japan so I do those techs as they come along (if I have spare team) since I won't have IC for FTR or NAV anyway until after China is won. Toys like MAR, PARA and ARM Japan can't afford. But CAV is, IMO, Japan's answer to all its problems in China. Maybe I should try MTN but seems I couldn't afford to build those either!

You donnot have the icd to utilize Mtn in huge numbers in 1937. If however you decline the war in 1937, join axis in early 1936 and wait for Danzig to declare war on China, than Mtn-Art in huge numbers is by far the best choice possible.
Mar is something japan must research in any case, too. But as mcganyol correctly points out actualy building Mar may not be necassary.

 

[unmerged(678781)]

Audemars Piguet Survivor replica Report Pipes Get The Up-Grades Without Delay

The disease is is a highly contagious illness and one of the classic childhood diseases isabel marant sales. It distributed official Nintendo consoles and games in China. Replica Panerai Radiomir Related Articles Pair of Christian Louboutin highheeled shoes on the red background Sexy ShoesChristian Louboutin Get These Christian Louboutin Shoes At Online Store 2010 Popular Christian Louboutin His shoe products incorporates bows, feathers, patent leather, bejeweled straps, chiffon, pony hair, satin, suede, diamonds, and other decorative touches. Replica Cartier Ballon Bleu Mattel Barbie the owner of the company and cooperation between Christian Louboutin boots, in fact, earlier this year began isabel marant shoes.

Cholon China Town with Thien Hau Pagoda Cholon is in District 5 and is a maze of narrow streets, bustling with people. The gaming house and mental hospital were also moved to Lapta isabel marant sneakers. Replica Rolex GMT-Master II Tiffany Jewelry and creative ideas are brought out the essence of the American rich features simple clear line tells calm aloof personality and exciting move of God grace isabel marant shoes. However ,as you all know that nearly all medicine has side effect ,its imperative to look for a safer therapy. IWC Portofino Replica Koppe U and the research team indicated The innate immune system is critical for the control of colonization and for defence during invasive disease.

Blueberry In the investigation of Blueberry and blackberry wines commercially available in Illinois and theirs potential health benefits, found that fruit wines made from blueberries and blackberries may have potential health applications and therefore could contribute to the economy of the wine industry isabel marant shoes. Replica Cartier Santos They are generally shaved of bark and then varnished to yield a magnificent surface finish.
It can be speculated this action is responsible, at least in part, for protection against heart attack.


Related Articles:

 

[stevep]

Pang & all.

As you will know from elsewhere my only real experience is with Russia. Heard various arguments about the irrelevance of assorted tech types, such as TDs, HArm or even Interceptors. Also the extreme suggestion that the only land based brigade worth using is Art.

After about a year away from the game I've tended to specialise more in a few narrow areas and also to force tech in some key areas. Try and make sure I'm ahead on the main industrial and intelligence categories and those areas of military research I view as important. Hence in the current game I pushed Inf 41 and Art & AT 40 to have a big programme of production, 15 lines of Inf start in Apr 1940. Also ahead or at least not too far behind on Arm, Mtn and Interceptors @ Tac. Achieved this by ignoring other areas of air, although now catching up on fighters and will do more in coming. Also totally ignored naval although currently researching long ranged subs. Have also research Mot up to lvl 2 and SP Art corresponding but won't push it any further for some time as I am developing and building Mech divs.

This seems to have worked well. Took Finland, Latvia and Estonia after the M-R Pact. Most of the way through the programme of 150 Inf divs when the Germans attacked ~ 1 week ahead of OTL. They occupied about 5-6 provinces I decided were too vulnerable but since have bounced on every attack. Got to 1-1-42 but since late Nov the Germans haven't risked any ground attacks, despite me reducing the front line garrisons to both reduce attrition losses and try and lure new attacks. According to my spies I'm ahead on Inf and Intel and pretty much level on Arm. The Inf programme has completed and don't expect to build any more. Got 3 lines of Mot, 2 of Arm IV [recently started researching lvl V] and 3 of Mech I while researching Mech II, as well as two short lines of Mtn II.

Intention is that I pretty much have or have in production all the ground forces I need for the war against Germany and probably longer if I carried on with the game. Will research paras more than the base level and build some and keep my current forces updated but main priority will be broadening my air force and possibly some naval, along with possibly some atomic research. [Looks pretty difficult for the Soviets but presume plugging away @ it will get there eventually].

While differ from what some people do, this seems to be a successful policy for the Soviets, at least in solo play. Battering down the German defences will be costly and time consuming but expect their empire, from previous examples to start crumbling in late 42 or early 43. Could be more difficult in this game as Britain is pretty much out of it, being restricted to India, assorted scattered possessions and those parts of Africa that the Italians haven't yet take. However from what I've seen I agree that the AI has some weaknesses and think I'm getting enough knowledge of the game I have an edge.

Steve

 

[Pang Bingxun]

Landunits and their brigades is something where a tigh focus is most easily implemented. One could go for Mtn-Art + HQ-AA and that is it. Mtn has a somewhat unique kind of mediocrity. They are slightly below good in all areas except winter warfare. But due tp this very unlimited usefullness they make up an excellent choice. Germany could very well keep the initiatial Minister of Armanent and skip the +10% IC from Schacht. +10% research on infantry would allow to have Mtn1941 in 1939 and the +5% attack for Mtn helps since 1.09, too. But the japanese doctrines match winter warfare much better because Winter mixes with long nights.

 

[mcganyol]

true but only after '43 [i mean the doctrine, not the long nights ]
MTN can not be a real replacement for INF, for ger beacuse the increased mp cost for others because the increased icd cost.