Upgrading or producing?

[Thegreatgeneral]

Hello everyone, I started to play with Tsarist Russia but as I am a newbie every time I fail and see that there is something wrong. Now, the problem is about upgrading.

I generally upgrade my troops, I did it with Germany in the 1933 scenario. They were quite old, but by 1939 I managed to update them at 1939 and this led me to a successfull defense of the border with France on the Maginot line.
Now I see that:

1 - Upgraded troops are a must. I was in a 9 vs 3 with my 9 being 1907 inf and their 3 1914 infantry. And they were smashing me really really hard
2 - Upgrade takes a lot of time... by the time I upgraded from 1897 to 1914, they could update to 1916 or 1918. The only good solution would be producing, or it looks so

What is your opinion about that?

 

[Lord_Trollingham]

Generally, upgrading units is only viable for nations with tight manpower restrictions and low loss-rates. Germany is a prefect example, as is Britain. Countries like China and the Soviets really benefit from the fact that 50% of reinforcements received are new equipment, meaning that your units automatically upgrade over time if you have high losses.

 

[Thegreatgeneral]

Erm... I don't understand, actually. Can you explain better?

 

[Stuka Ju87 D3]

The way i see it, generally the more expensive the unit type+year (ARM-1945 > ARM-1941 > INF 1941), the worse the Upgrade/Production benefit ratio. I guesstimate that that ratio declines to <1 for most post-1940 units, except most notably CAGs. I rarely bother with consciously upgrading my INF past 1936, ARM past 1939, FTR past 1943, regardless of whom I am playing with (i aim for ~5% spare IC, which goes to CGoods/Upgrades).

Beyond this, it's very situational and it depends on, at least:
1. Whatever the strategic situation demands. (ex. SOV shouldn't upgrade in 1941).
2. Whether you are at a threshold. (ex. ARM-1 are much better than L ARM-III)
3. How big an army you want. (large armies cost ICD + Oil to maintain)
4. How many casualties you are willing to tolerate. (roleplay/stats screen preferences, minimal strategic importance for majors)
5. Whether you are central-planning or free-market. (ex. USSR units are much more costly to upgrade than USA units)
6. Whether you need to upgrade. (ex. plane range or CAGs)
7. Casualty rate - as Hinkel said (good point I missed), if you are taking a lot of casualties, you're auto-upgrading your units (50% of reinforcements come with new equipment). This is particularly useful for the USSR/China. Note: this will upgrade your units to ~90% or something IIRC, you need to spend some IC for the other 10%.

 

[Thegreatgeneral]

Mmm I understand! Thank you

 

[TK3600]

Why 50% of reinforcement is upgraded, not 100%?

 

[Stuka Ju87 D3]

Why 50% of reinforcement is upgraded, not 100%?

Because that's what the misc.txt file says (located in /db)

# Reinforce to upgrade modifier. Values from 0.0 (divisions do not get extra upgrade progress on reinforcement) to 1.0 (1:1 ratio, 1% reinforce adds 1% to upgrade progress)
0.5 # 0.0

Why in the real world?

The Panzer-III was produced 1936–1943.
The Panzer-IV was produced 1937-1945.
The Panzer-V was produced 1943–1945.

Just because you can make a newer tank doesn't mean the older one is obsolete

1. You can upgrade their capabilities piecemeal, adding a new gun one year, armor the next.
2. Older tanks could be sufficient to the task they are assigned to.
3. Older tanks could be simpler/cheaper/faster to produce.
4. Retooling to new production lines takes time.
5. There could be mechanical difficulties with newer models.

etc.

 

[Epaminondas]

A feature of the upgrading process to keep in mind is that it uses a sliding scale to calculate the cost of each level to be upgraded. That is, if the unit you're seeking to upgrade is four levels below the most recently researched production model the first level of upgrading will be achieved very quickly and very cheaply. The next level will take longer and cost more, the next will take even longer and cost more again, and the final level a take very long time at quite a high cost. It's generally more cost effective, therefore, to upgrade no further than the level below that most recently researched.

 

[Thegreatgeneral]

So, let's consider that I play the grand Campaign with Tzarist Russia... I have to update so many units to 1914 as soon as possible, but I have a lot of 1907 and 1897. Should I just consider to produce new 1914 units or to upgrade everything?

 

[Silver-Silvera]

New units would be your best bet to get 1914 units while still keeping a good enough sized army. That being said, I haven't played Russia in the WW1 Scenario, but considering it has lots of MP compared to IC its best to build new units than upgrading. If you make it to 1918 infantry tech you can upgrade the 1897s and 1907s to 1914s pretty fast though.

 

[Epaminondas]

I'm with Silver, I'd be starting new unit builds right away and upgrading only the 1897 units, and only to 1907. The IC and time you would spend upgrading all the way to 1914 would be better spent building new units. As a rule of thumb, it's best to restrict your upgrading to highest researched level minus one and using the IC saved for new builds.

 

[nhinhonhinho]

So it's better to produce more troops than upgrade the old once if you have MP?

Generally, upgrading units is only viable for nations with tight manpower restrictions and low loss-rates. Germany is a prefect example, as is Britain. Countries like China and the Soviets really benefit from the fact that 50% of reinforcements received are new equipment, meaning that your units automatically upgrade over time if you have high losses.

So the more my older troops suffer casualty the quicker they are upgrade right? Hm If so then the older type troops should be at the front-line instead of sitting at the rear.

Also is this rule apply for upgrade troops from one kind to another like upgrade Garrison to Infantry?

 

[Epaminondas]

So the more my older troops suffer casualty the quicker they are upgrade right? Hm If so then the older type troops should be at the front-line instead of sitting at the rear.

Maybe, if you have the manpower to spare. But every manpower point spent reinforcing your old units is a point that can't be spent building new ones, and manpower is often a commodity in short supply for the German player. Additionally, you're facing a kind of Zeno's paradox here. As Hinkel says, 50% of your reinforcements will be at the upgraded level, but that will leave 50% of your unit un-upgraded. If you then take more casualties in a subsequent battle some of those will come from the upgraded portion and you'll still only get 50% of the total losses upgraded. So (theoretically at least - I haven't actually trialled this) you'll never get to the point where there entire unit is upgraded through casualty replacement.

Also is this rule apply for upgrade troops from one kind to another like upgrade Garrison to Infantry?

Not as far as I know. Upgrading a Garrison to an Infantry unit takes a special instruction and an associated cost. I'm pretty sure you can't just feed your garrisons into the mincer and have them come out fully fledged Infantry.

 

[Lord_Trollingham]

So it's better to produce more troops than upgrade the old once if you have MP?

So the more my older troops suffer casualty the quicker they are upgrade right? Hm If so then the older type troops should be at the front-line instead of sitting at the rear.

1. Depends on your needs, future plans and loss rates, really. If you're playing as Germany, I'd refrain from producing too many new units after '42 as they just sap your manpower for too little gain in the long run, it's better to focus on lowering your overall losses as much as possible. And #1 rule with Germany is to never launch an un-needed attack.

2. Yes. The obvious issue is the fact that you need to spend IC to reinforce. When I play the SU, I'll launch an offensive every time my reinforcement IC needs go below 30 (and the odds are not terrible) and stop once I hit 100 IC. That way I can sap German strength, help upgrade units and I won't take too much of a hit in IC. Militia and infantry for instance upgrades incredibly quickly using this method due to their high strength to org loss ratios.

 

[Stuka Ju87 D3]

Germany should never have problems with manpower:

Manpower Stats
DE - 100 + 3 Swiss | GDE : 1
USA - 121 | GDE : ~0.8
USSR - 191 | GDE : ~0.5-0.6
+ Significant land tech advantages.

In a singeleplayer game, you have enough manpower to do a WC with an army of 90% 1936 Militia. Alternatively, with a regular army + only Partial Mobilization.
Whether MP is a concern in a multiplayer game depends on how GER vs. USSR goes, and if it goes bad, you'll probably lose before you run out of MP.

 

[Lord_Trollingham]

Germany should never have problems with manpower:

Manpower Stats
DE - 100 + 3 Swiss | GDE : 1
USA - 121 | GDE : ~0.8
USSR - 191 | GDE : ~0.5-0.6
+ Significant land tech advantages.

In a singeleplayer game, you have enough manpower to do a WC with an army of 90% 1936 Militia. Alternatively, with a regular army + only Partial Mobilization.
Whether MP is a concern in a multiplayer game depends on how GER vs. USSR goes, and if it goes bad, you'll probably lose before you run out of MP.

Yup, but I use the WIF 2 mod and refrain from MOT rushing Moscow, which means that I'll probably lose Barbarossa, which makes it a fight of survival afterwards. I managed to beat the Soviets once without MOT rushing Moscow and it's just so much more of a challenge. In that scenario, I'll usually have around 7k manpower when Barbarossa starts and will be down to 2k by 1943.