just do that germany vs soviets mp and build mils and see when you get steamrolled.
- 6
- 1
Are you saying, that with static bonuses and producing always the same equipment and discounting import, any building other than MILs, repair and whatnot...
I appreciate that you are trying to further the understanding of the game, but you are the one voicing an opinion and you are the one that have to defend it. Your math is simplified to the point where it is useless for real games.
That strategy may not be optimal in overall industrial capacity (IC) worth of equipment produced. But that is not a goal in a real game.
See, the thing is, everyone else is saying your math is suspect, which you refuse to acknowledge. Everyone else has test cases too. Every game everyone has ever played is a test case.The main difference between our arguments is that I have some math, and more importantly, some test cases done.
See, the thing is, everyone else is saying your math is suspect, which you refuse to acknowledge. Everyone else has test cases too. Every game everyone has ever played is a test case.
You and the rest of the thread are just talking past each other because there's a fundamental disagreement on whether the foundation of the original argument is valid. As long as this disagreement exists, this thread will go nowhere.
This is true, perhaps I phrased my comment poorly.I don’t think the math is suspect or wrong at all. It’s just that the title of the thread isn’t supported by the math.
I don’t think the math is suspect or wrong at all. It’s just that the title of the thread isn’t supported by the math.
If you'd bothered reading what I've written, there are many cases in a 'real' game where the overall IC of equipment produced is valid.
If everything you build is useful then there's no such concept as 'wasted' IC.
If you have nothing constructive to say then don't bother writing nonsense.
"In most cases it is not worth it to build Civs if you do so with the intent to boost your military economy. The alternative (Mils only), when properly planned out, is a significantly more optimal choice."
That is not very polite and what I have written didn't deserve a harsh respones like this.If you have nothing constructive to say then don't bother writing nonsense.
The backpaddling is, that your header and your conclusion is 100% straight: "Dont build CIVs."Not what I said. This is most certainly not backpedaling. There's a difference between building Civs for economic boom (as I've mentioned) and building Civs specifically for repair or resource trade. If you want more Medium 3's at time X that implies you are building Civs, to build Mils. Not to build airports/etc. or get resources here.
You have a misunderstanding here.If you'd bothered reading what I've written, there are many cases in a 'real' game where the overall IC of equipment produced is valid.
If everything you build is useful then there's no such concept as 'wasted' IC.
Not to mention spy agencies, trade licenses (theoretically), refineries, military infrastructure etc. All at some point critical and not MIC.I'll start with that:
That is not very polite and what I have written didn't deserve a harsh respones like this.
You may not agree, but in my opinion it is constructive what I said and I will explain to you why:
The backpaddling is, that your header and your conclusion is 100% straight: "Dont build CIVs."
In the thread you admit that there are cases, were building CIVs is reasonable.
You even say now, that your title was "Click Bait". Not a very scientific method...
My question in the posting before was, and that why it was constructive: What is exactly your claim?
It's not the title (that is click bait) and not the conclusion in the Paper. What is it?
Beeing clear about what you claim helps you make your point and the community to understand what you want to say. Win-Win.
You have a misunderstanding here.
Yes, the game is a optimization problem. But the goal is to win not to maximise overall produced IC. There are decions where you harm your overall produced IC, TO WIN.
It's for example everytime you change a production line. The efficiency goes down A LOT. You lose a TON of overall IC if you do that. But you do it to produce modern equipment.
What matters is the IC you can put in your critical equipment. Therfore it can be useful to build CIVs early. (In 1936 there is no critical equiment.)
Basically this. Every country is different and there isn't a one size fits all solution you can apply to every scenario. The USA and France are the two majors where I would build MIC from day one, but for different reasons. The USA has massive civilian industry from day one and a relative lack of building slots in the late game. Add all the CIC you will be receiving for selling all your resources, and you have no need to build any yourself. France is different. You have the impending threat of Germany invading, and need to prepare for an early desperate defense against a much stronger enemy. Your first priority is to get enough equipment to equip an army strong enough to defend yourself ASAP, and to do that you need to build MIC.Because Japan has a very distinct optimization problem. That skewers your results in testing. You cannot take a special case and then generalize it.
You could go and try with the US for a change. Basically no imports, lots of time good Industrial base, enter war historically, see how that works.
Not to mention spy agencies, trade licenses (theoretically), refineries, military infrastructure etc. All at some point critical and not MIC.
Read the previous 4 pages. Or my post immediately before your post.My question in the posting before was, and that why it was constructive: What is exactly your claim?
Here, let me reply with the same level of effort.What matters is the IC you can put in your critical equipment. Therfore it can be useful to build CIVs early. (In 1936 there is no critical equiment.)
As an experienced Germany main, I know that I'll get Basic Equipment of all sorts by annexing via focus and conquering minors. Hence, the optimal production Level for infantry Equipment is "barely enough to have the army big enough for Anschluss".
Consider the trajectory of this thread. You've accused me of not being able to read. You've wholesale discounted experience-based suggestions and criticisms. You've asked for controlled trials, but when some initial attempts get presented you've said things like "If you're going to do a trial, at least make it good" and "your trials mean nothing because they're not scientific" and "you're only giving opinions, I'm giving facts." In a few cases, you've acknowledged that the exceptions presented have value but then immediately said "but that doesn't matter much in the end I don't think." Consistently you've have seemed to say "I fail to see anyone rise to my level of using pure math to solve this problem, so your ideas are worthless." This causes your argument to be perceived as purely being invested in your presentation rather than invested in the true answer you're making progress toward learning.
Yeah, "nonsense". You know, difference between us: I spot nonsense and add information, you feel attacked and get Defensive.Honestly, I'mma stop replying on this thread for a bit until I update the model to include CG's
Cherrypicking portions of my arguments and then pretending as if I've said something which I didn't, repeatedly.....
Nothing new has been said of note for the past 2-3 pages, I believe the last (and only quite possibly the only reasonable) reply was from Bitmode.
Ya'll can have fun repeating the same civilian into mil build on every nation ad infinitum, I'll stick to what my model show.
I've already said that I ran results on more than one nation, Japan was just an example.
In fact, if you were capable of basic logic, you'd notice that the posted test case is (mostly) nation independent and I simply chose Japan for convenience.
Just too damn tired replying to nonsense like this constantly:
The choice is "Civ now or Mil now, for more military prod"
Not "Do I build a refinery or do I build a Mil"