We are so organized.

[MJF]

What I meant was: if the RN is far away and leaves the North Sea undefended, yet you do not have yet the forces available for a full scale sea lion, what about a landing in Scotland? The idea would be, that your troops dig in at chokepoints to hold out, until more forces are available. Also, the idea would be to fly your air units over to airbases in Scotland and both aid the ground troops in fending of attacks and attack returning RN ships in the area. Never tried it myself, just wondering if it would be feasible in that specific case on a Royal Navy that is absent in the early war because it aids in the invasion of Spanish North Africa.

Interesting idea. The RN is large, and usually only fully decimated by luftwaffe bomber attacks. The carriers keep them at bay, and can cause some serious repair damage, but the bombers (CAS and TACs - no NAVs in '39-40) are the killers.

There will be a second large fleet in Scapa Flow, or their East Coast, which is impossible to bomb. Their biggest fleet has an uncanny way of showing up at the entrance th the Channel about 1 day or so into Sealion. This time Franco couldn't win his war, so I had to DOW RS right after VF - Mid October '39. I rushed an attempt around 10/28/39 and guess who showed up as predicted? Lost Marines = retry later! I could wait until March - doing Denmark & Norway and try to crush the UK fleet that way, but once they detect my CVs they bug out, unless it's their own homeland being hit. Understandable.

 

[Mr_B0narpte]

The logic is semisound and it becomes sound if you go for total conquest before 1941.

The logic increases when you factor in the peace-time penalties for the UK, France and USA - why would Germany want to delay militarising for the sake of "efficiency" if it gives their opponents more time to catch up?

Total conquest before 1941 is certainly ideal but not the aim, the aim is to have a significant fighting force ready to win World War 2 for you.

I guess your ultimate aim is to have all AIs fight out a historical World War 2 as close as possible to the actual timelines.

But I ask - what is your aim as Germany when playing it yourself?

How much experience do you have with vanilla in 1.11+?

Probably not much at all after being fully converted to the Improved 1936 mod. I remember playing a few run throughs, always trouncing France by mid-October 1939 then getting bored. Admittedly I struggle having the motivation to play any single-player campaign on AoD anymore - I mainly just do for experimenting in preparation for online games.

 

[Pang Bingxun]

Ok, but now I am suffering from the lack of early production, i.e., not enough CL IVs, Int's or even Inf divisions, and if the infra is still building, where's my extra later IC to catch up?

The gist is to spend as little on militarization before Danzig as reasonably possible, but spend as much as reasonable possible on militarization between Danzig and Fall Gelb. Measured in ICD it is up to 50% before Danzig, but given how retooling and gearing bonus work the clear majority of useful military enters service betwen Danzig and Fall Gelb. The holy Sitzkrieg needs to be utilized.

I may expand on this later.

The logic increases when you factor in the peace-time penalties for the UK, France and USA - why would Germany want to delay militarising for the sake of "efficiency" if it gives their opponents more time to catch up?

Where is the fun in exploiting the close to historic unreadyness of your enemies? There should be some challenge involved. It is a matter of finding the right balance regarding the timing.

Total conquest before 1941 is certainly ideal but not the aim, the aim is to have a significant fighting force ready to win World War 2 for you.

I guess your ultimate aim is to have all AIs fight out a historical World War 2 as close as possible to the actual timelines.

But I ask - what is your aim as Germany when playing it yourself?

The goal can vary greatly.

I suppose my goal is to pick a date till when i will abstain from taking territory that was not taken historically, but optimize the economy and the military ready at said picked date and unleash the built up potential in a mostly unmitigated manner then. So i do subsribe "the aim is to have a significant fighting force ready to win World War 2 for you".

Since i am trying to give reasonable advise to MJF i picked spring 1940 as a date. So here the goal is to have a military barely sufficient to take Poland at Danzig but have a military more then sufficient to take on France in spring 1940 and a navy sufficient to take on the royal navy in mid 1940. Both those goals together imply a big icd-budget. The question is how to achieve this best while also giving proper credit to long term considerations. In other words i do value a proper build up of infrastructure, resource stockpiles and of course an economy that is able to utilize those stockpiles and be it just for the tc. TC can be a major bottleneck.

 

[Acheron]

Sorry if this has been talked about before, but is there a point where it is better to build infrastructure in a province instead of industry? I mean, infrastructure increases the effectiveness of existing industry, right? Theoretically, there should come a point where this is greater than the extra industry, given that infrastructure is cheaper and faster.

 

[Acheron]

Trying my hand there, though be warned, I have done poorly at proper calculating such things oin the past:
USA startup:
The "Territorial information" screen provides both the infrastructure and the efficiency of a province. Unfortunately, the same infrastructure rating gives differing efficiency-ratings, why, I do not know, does anyone else? I suspect, that high infrastructure also slightly improves efficiency in neighboring provinces, it would explain the high-rating of the high-infra northeastern cities. I also wonder if provinces with "city" terrain (that dark brown color) get a boost to efficiency.
Worse, while provinces with 100% infrastructure have slightly above 100% infrastructure, those with 80% infrastructure seem to have well above 8ß% efficiency, excepting some islands with have far lower values, though Puerto Rico with 60 infra has 88.9 efficiency.

In the file misc.txt, I found the entry "# _EV_INFRA_EFFICIENCY_MODIFIER_, the influence of infra on Efficiency" "0.3", so I will assume that one point of infrastructure increases efficiency by 0.3.

Industry has a cost of 1,800/ IC/days, infrastructure has 240 IC/days. So one industry costs about as much as 7.5 infrastructure builds, which would increase infrastructure by 37.5. This in turn should increase efficiency by 11.25%. I assume one industry given one IC more. Dividing 1 by 0.1125 gives 8.89. So, infrastructure would be worth it in provinces with more than eight industry.

This calculation is of course very rough and probably has a few errors, though how big I cannot say. Some more things to consider:
- one industry needs five IC per day for "repair" until it is online. One infra takes 0.2, so our 7.5 infra take 1.5 IC per day. I have no clue how many days they take though.
- could it be that high infrastructure reduces the days needed to "repair" new industry? In that case, it would be worthwhile to build infrastructure in provinces where you are going to build a lot of industry, as then you will need to spend less to get them running in addition to these industries being more effective.

 

[bosman]

While i just like to have full spectrum of attachment types, in most cases it is better to specialize.

In case of Germany it is IMO better to go SP Art for Motos, as it is a little more combat efficient. It takes the same amount of manpower to produce as AC and it helps slightly save manpower in combats. Generally it's worth saving manpower for Germany and even if you count to save some IC and fuel by producing ACs it might be deceptive.

Afterall it all depends on strategy and the situation. If you can't cover all your (desired) Motos with SP Art, then it is probably better to focus on ACs as they are likely meant to be produced anyway - for infantry and even as nice bonus for armor.

 

[MJF]

Sorry if this has been talked about before, but is there a point where it is better to build infrastructure in a province instead of industry? I mean, infrastructure increases the effectiveness of existing industry, right? Theoretically, there should come a point where this is greater than the extra industry, given that infrastructure is cheaper and faster.

In case you or other readers have not seen:

Economic build up

Sorry if this has been talked about before, but is there a point where it is better to build infrastructure in a province instead of industry? I mean, infrastructure increases the effectiveness of existing industry, right? Theoretically, there...

forum.paradoxplaza.com