When should I stop building Civs? A: Don't build them.

[Emren]

The general community understanding is that CIC's "Pay for themselves" in 2-3 years and cause economic booms.

I’m curious why you state this? I mean, what gave you the insight to state that this is the community understanding?

For multiple reasons stated by other posters, there simply is no golden rule to what is better when it comes to CIV/MIL construction. It is so situational and country dependent that it’s pretty pointless to make the kind of assertive comments in the OP. I haven’t seen anyone question the math or calculations, so you are probably correct that for what you tested, case 2 wins. But that case won’t apply to a majority of countries.

 

[personwithhat]

The general "golden rule" (mentioned earlier in this thread as well) is to build Civs until ~2 years before your war.
E.g. if you plan to war in 1941 then you should build Civs until mid-1937 then switch over to Mils.

The majority of the comments are either ignorant or dismissive of the logic/math posted, unfortunately.

I would say Case#2 applies to every country? I don't see how building civs/mils on one would be more preferable than building Mils, barring some ridiculous resource constraints (And even then this would require a few tests).
If military economy laws didn't grant such a huge bonus to Mil construction, the payoffs would be much more reasonable.

 

[Emren]

But your relative advantage in method 2 is 2.5% early on, shrinking to a 0.4% advantage at the end of the test. I’m not challenging the math, but the usefulness of having 2.5% more equipment is... almost meaningless.

 

[personwithhat]

Ofc, but this is with a mere 10% difference in construction speed, and we assume you build in 10 infra all the time.
Less infra == more favorable to build mils.

Japan can easily achieve a 90% construction speed bonus for Military factories, as compared to 45% for Civilian.
Other nations can go even higher. The larger the difference, the more favorable it is to build Mils.

Also, keep in mind that this is the case where you build a mere 3 civs!
If you were to build the 10-16+ that is typically recommended, you will lose a lot more equipment.

 

[Magnificent Genius]

OK, the problem with your math is that you are presuming all kit is equal. It isn't.

The tradeoff is between having more kit overall in 1939, which will become rapidly obsolete, or more high quality kit in mid 1940, when you need it.

It has been fairly well established that unless you need guns rn, you build civs until you need to start producing 40 med tanks and fighters. You'll have less of the old stuff, but you'll be way ahead in the new stuff.

 

[personwithhat]

Never have I stated that all kit is equal.
Here is a previous message on the subject:
Regarding technological differences balancing out production worth, this needs to be handled on a case by case basis and relevant to your game plan.
Sometimes you need hundreds of crappy garrisons using any gun. Other's you want an elite cohort. Having more units is generally favorable compared to having less.
Since the scope and effect is situational, I've discounted it from the current calculations, and addressed every other possible variable.
I do agree that it's a factor that makes Civ's more favorable, however the current payoff is so bad that it's not enough.

You can easily build support kits, motorized, scout planes, light tanks for armored recon, AA_I, Arty_1, Gun_I for garrisons, fighter_1's (To intercept bombing runs, not for straight dogfights) etc. etc.

In most cases you can get the 'useful' tier of kits by 1937, Gun_II, Arty_II, and the like. In a typical scenario you are still building Civs......
Actually, you can also just build straight support equipment until then if necessary, and switch over to the new kit.

There's plenty of ways to juggle production to maximize its usefulness, and it heavily depends on the situation and your target troop composition.

 

[blahmaster6k]

I propose trial by combat.

@personwithhat plays Germany, and builds only military factories. @Roland Traveler (since he's probably got the most hours of people in this thread, someone else with more feel free to volunteer) plays the USSR (good player gets USSR, because everyone complains about how weak the USSR is), and builds civilian factories until whenever he wants to stop. All other countries AI, historical game settings. No war between players until the historical month of Operation Barbarossa. No ahistorical conquest. Both players screenshot their stockpiles of equipment every 6 months (January/June of each year). Then, see who wins. Maybe even record or stream the game. Maybe use paradox's History Logger tool, which they made public. My money would be on @Roland Traveler winning, but that's just me.

 

[Fulmen]

 

[Orbs]

Great discussion! Regardless of which side you may land on in this topic, discussions like these are usually insightful. I’ve learned things from both the OP and the folks who disagree. I’m also glad we’ve toned down the snarkiness a bit, because this forum has always impressed me by how mature it is, and like I said I’ve learned something from almost every post - At least things I’m interested to try in game, and see for myself.

Appreciate the math OP, that took time to put together and also appreciate the thoughtful replies as well

 

[Hiksday]

I would think that having more equipment all game up to 1944 would be enough of a reason to motivate most nations to build Mils first.

Well no . You have produced more 1936 equipement wich are irrelevant by 1941 and that's why your "strategy" don't work most of the time . You don't only need to keep track of the number of gun produced but also their quality . Don't get me wrong , it can be worth it to go full Mils on some country but it's more the exception than the rule .

 

[kettyo]

I prioritize MILs only if i expect to go to war early like as an aggressive minor.

 

[bitmode]

@personwithhat first of all, thanks for taking the time run the numbers and writing it up. It reminded me of my first forum post; using LaTeX would have been useful there as well . I'll respond to the paper step-by-step:

There is a substantial of misinformation, generally spread by hearsay and substantiated by mere opinion. Unfortunately, in all but the most extreme cases, building a Civ does not pay for itself. The truly optimal decision should be to exclusively build Mils.

Perhaps you should not put your conclusion into the introduction right after complaining about hearsay

To simplify the model, we discount production efficiency.

A simplification that happens to support your preferred outcome. Each tier of industrial tech introduces a sizeable boosts to MIC output, devaluing early game production.

Resource limitations can be safely ignored as they have no direct effect, and are typically resolved through alternative means such as infrastructure/focuses.

Another simplification that happens to support your preferred outcome. Early game items are significantly cheaper in terms of resources than the average equipment produced until 1941. Taking into account fuel production once the war starts, there is an upwards trend in resource-consumption-per-MIL over the years.

There is no need to consider consumer goods for the initial case builds, as the number of builder Civs (T) is consistent. In favor of a more “Optimistic” breakpoint, we can ignore consumer good’s effect on Y

Another simplification that happens to support your preferred outcome. For CG a CIC counts as much as a MIC, meaning per construction day you rack up CG faster while building MIC due to their lower cost.

Economy laws and Construction/output bonuses are consistent

Another simplification that happens to support your preferred outcome. CIC are worth more later in the game which would work against your hypothesis of getting ahead using early game production and staying low on factories.

Assuming construction uses a constant number of Civs that are exclusively building Mils.

Another simplification that happens to support your preferred outcome. This simplification alone invalidates your integral because M is not constant, not even close. Your available CIC go down as you build more MIC due to CG. The maximum ratio of CIC: (CIC+MIC) your economy law supports is the CG percentage and M converges towards infinity as you approach this ratio.

I don't have a response paper ready taking all these factors into account. It would probably have to be several times as long because the game's math does not really lend itself to closed-form formulas. But in my opinion the amount of bias you have already introduced into the assumptions before you get to the first formula makes the following calculations not any more reliable than subjective play experience.

Addendum, quick demonstration
Scenario:

• Japan
• 90 Civs

In my game Japan starts with 21 CIC, not 90. If I had the latter, sure I'd also just build MIC/NIC.

If you need (and can get) 30 more aluminum by March, you start building 2+ infra in January.
It's just cheaper than selling Civs for resources.

To get 30 aluminum with 1939 Excavation and 2 (or 3) infrastructure increase, the state needs a base amount of 115 (or 77) aluminum. There is hardly a handful of those in the world. To just break even with trade, the base amount would need to be 20+ (so that a 30% increase yields >=8). Only a good dozen states have this much, almost all of which are controlled by the Allies.

There are also other benefits of building equipment early or late which are not easily comparable with each other to arrive at a cut-and-dried solution. Equipment produced early could be used to make conquests that may factor into the benefits of building only MIC in various ways.

Building equipment later has the already mentioned benefit of having equipment that's on average more modern. But it also adds flexibility. I could build a bunch of support equipment, motorized, etc. in the early game to skirt the resource issue during buildup. But can I be sure I will need them in those exact quantities much later on? Depending on the game scenario I might not even yet know who the enemy will be, who my allies will be, who I'll be able to trade with and where the war will be fought.

 

[GrandVezir]

There's also this assumption:

All infra at 100%, own China/Machuko.

All of China and Manchukuo at 100% infrastructure? That's quite a bit of free resources, especially steel for those Gun_Is.

It's easy to ignore trade as an assumption, if you just get all the resources that usually require multiple in-game years to obtain, in your initial setup.

 

[DeadEyeTucker]

Yeah, playing Italy I like to build up Infra in my states as well. Don't get nowhere near enough resources by mid game for my war machine. Especially hurting on Tungsten which Italy starts with a mere EIGHT or so, and of course all the oil you're missing. Don't think building straight MICs is going to alleviate that unless going for a very rigid opening.

 

[donald dawkins]

I tend to find the opposite: the nation who wins the war is the nation with the most civilian factories.

this is due to several reasons:
firstly, more civilian factories will mean that at a certain point you will be able to build more factories simultaneously allowing for faster building and rapid re-armament

second, resource requirements from rapidly building mils will eat up your civilian factories through trade, reducing the speed of your growth and the speed of construction of military factories

third, lack of civilian factories will reduce the speed of damage repair and building of infrastructure, which is important on the eastern front.

to prove my point, I will present you two loose examples


example 1: Soviet Union builds nothing but mils at game start.

here the soviets have plenty of resources, however due to a lack of mass civs they can only build two military factories simultaneously. Now let’s say these factories get built in a month, that mean that in 10 months the soviet player will build 20 military factories.

Now let’s look at example 2, a soviet player builds civs until 1939 and then switches to mils. Now let’s be a bit pessimistic about this example and say that this soviet player can only get 5 * 15 civilian factories by 1939, meaning that they can build 5 mils at the same time. Now after 10 months this soviet player will have 50 factories.

so let’s compare early game to late game mil count for both examples.

1936 new mil count
Example 1: 24 mils
example 2: 0 mils


1937
example 1: 48
example 2: 0

1938
example 1: 72
example 2: 0

1939
example 1: 96
example 2: 60

1940
example 1: 120
example 2: 120

1941
example 1: 144
example 2: 180

1942
example 1: 168
example 2: 240

this is quite a rudimentary example, as how many civs a soviet Can build by 1939 will be dependant in skill, and civs available would vary depending military strategy, resource demand and so on. It also does not take into account foreign conquest or civs lost to trading.

however, what this example clearly proves is that, by building civs and allowing for simultaneous build slots, the civs building Soviet Union will almost evenly match A mils only Soviet Union within 1 year of mil construction, and then dwarf the mils only Soviet Union from then on in. Even more so when resource drain begins to affect the mil only soviet unions civilian factory supply.

in consequence, it is advisable that a mil only strategy is only for early all or nothing conquests, and if a mil only strategist cannot break or defeat a opponent civ. builder within 2 years of that civ builder’s, militarisation, is guaranteed to lose.

NOTE: this example does not take into account either nation prioritising construction technology building on factories on different regions with varying levels of infrastructur, so you need to assume that in both examples:

they both build in the same places
they both have the same trade laws
they both have the same construction tech

 

[Simon_9732495]

On the Perpetuum Mobile

1) Introduction
There is a substantial of misinformation, generally spread by hearsay and substantiated by mere opinion. The ultimate truth is: The perpetuum mobile exists.

2) Assumptions and Definitions
To simplify the model, we discount friction.
...

 

[personwithhat]

Thanks for replying!

A simplification that happens to support your preferred outcome. Each tier of industrial tech introduces a sizeable boosts to MIC output, devaluing early game production.

As you can see in the graph by the output bonus B, the output granted is a (relatively) minor factor in the resulting pay off.
Changes in economy laws/production efficiency/etc. can all be fit into B as they apply a bonus to MIlitary factory output after the initial Mil's or Civ are constructed.

Another simplification that happens to support your preferred outcome. For CG a CIC counts as much as a MIC, meaning per construction day you rack up CG faster while building MIC due to their lower cost.

Inaccurate. For Case #1 to output more than Case #2 you would need to build more factories (to catch up).
This would mean that, at the very least (if case #2 built 2) you would need to build 3 to match and 2+ more to catch up and overcome in military production.
Case #1 hence depends on more factories (and resources) -> Adding more CG and resource requirements than Case #2.

If I were to account for CG it would only penalize Case #1 (which already gives a poor result)

If you are focusing on building Civ's, the end result is you will have more factories for a shorter period of time.
This generally forces more of a penalty CG wise and resource wise.
I can guesstimate that you'd have around 30%+ more factories with Case#1 than Case#2, at the very least.

Hrm, on further thought.......you would have more CIC/day by going Case#1 in the earlier part of the game.
The problem is that this doesn't seem to be enough of a factor to affect any simulated runs I've done (to a noticeable extent)

Another simplification that happens to support your preferred outcome. CIC are worth more later in the game which would work against your hypothesis of getting ahead using early game production and staying low on factories.

I think you misread here. The laws are constant until the Civ finishes building. The switchover happens immediately (for the maximum discrepancy/benefit for Case #1)
So once you finish building the single Civ in Case #1, you will switch to the most beneficial economy law/production boost/etc. all at once.
(Changes at d = C)

In the graph, X == The military construction bonus at time D > C, or when the Civ in Case #1 finishes building.

Another simplification that happens to support your preferred outcome. This simplification alone invalidates your integral because M is not constant, not even close. Your available CIC go down as you build more MIC due to CG. The maximum ratio of CIC: (CIC+MIC) your economy law supports is the CG percentage and M converges towards infinity as you approach this ratio.

I'm simply assuming that you are using the full 15 civs per factory at that given point.
The case comparison is at a single point in time, where you chose to do Case #1 or #2.

So, at a given point in time, where you decide to do Case #1 or Case #2, M is a constant
For future decisions M will gradually decrease yes.....but I'm not measuring a causality chain.

In my game Japan starts with 21 CIC, not 90. If I had the latter, sure I'd also just build MIC/NIC.

The quantity of starting Civs does not affect or change the results, barring resource constraints.
Having more starting Civs is always better.

But it also adds flexibility. I could build a bunch of support equipment, motorized, etc. in the early game to skirt the resource issue during buildup. But can I be sure I will need them in those exact quantities much later on? Depending on the game scenario I might not even yet know who the enemy will be, who my allies will be, who I'll be able to trade with and where the war will be fought.

I'm assuming you know how much equipment you need for the usual basis of your divisions. E.g. 200 garrisons? 100? and what template? etc.
That should help with motorized/support equipment.
On most nations I don't find it too difficult to push mils onto something that would be of use later.

 

[personwithhat]

There's also this assumption:

All of China and Manchukuo at 100% infrastructure? That's quite a bit of free resources, especially steel for those Gun_Is.

It's easy to ignore trade as an assumption, if you just get all the resources that usually require multiple in-game years to obtain, in your initial setup.

Case #1 needs more resources than #2. Regardless, the point here was to maximize the Civ factory output in favor of Case #1.
I've done full simulations (mostly in preparation for MP games) of Japan and a few other nations, resources are an issue to tackle and resolve separately.
This has no bearing on the economic boom consideration. If you need more resources and you build Infra or Civs for resources, that is fine.
Just don't mistakenly build Civs to have 'more mils' later on as that reduces your production output.

 

[personwithhat]

I tend to find the opposite: the nation who wins the war is the nation with the most civilian factories.

this is due to several reasons:
firstly, more civilian factories will mean that at a certain point you will be able to build more factories simultaneously allowing for faster building and rapid re-armament

Comparing factory count means nothing. More civs would give you more factories, but you will have them working for a much shorter time period.
1 factory working for 2 years has output comparable to 2 factories working for a year.

 

[personwithhat]

To get 30 aluminum with 1939 Excavation and 2 (or 3) infrastructure increase, the state needs a base amount of 115 (or 77) aluminum. There is hardly a handful of those in the world. To just break even with trade, the base amount would need to be 20+ (so that a 30% increase yields >=8). Only a good dozen states have this much, almost all of which are controlled by the Allies.

My mistake, I was simply pointing out that in some cases infrastructure is preferable to Civilian factories for trades.
That's not always the case (e.g. Australia, yuck)