just do that germany vs soviets mp and build mils and see when you get steamrolled.
- 6
- 1
When should I stop building Civs? A: Don't build them.
- Thread starter personwithhat
- Start date
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
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.
Last edited:
- 1
I've already defended it. None of you are bothering to defend yours, which is my only point.
We can argue about this all day and I say "Yes" and you say "No"
The main difference between our arguments is that I have some math, and more importantly, some test cases done.
I've had no issues applying this math to improve my eco on some of my own 'real' games.
- 4
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.
- 10
- 1
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.
- 6
- 2
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.
- 8
I agree, the title is here as click bait
Can probably be better phrased as:
"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."
- 1
- 1
I am following this thread for a while, curious on where it would lead. Unsurprisingly, we arrived at the "yelling for lack of Argument" stage.
Of course there is something as wasted production, which apparently you don't believe: excess production. 100k Basic Rifle Equipment won't do you any good If you conquered or produced enough already.
This is but one implicit premise that makes your very metric for success vulnerable to criticism.
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".
Anything beyond that is a waste.
Hence, I fail to see the benefit from building MIC for that. Same goes for support Equipment, and recon planes or armoured cars are not needed in the excessive quantities to justify building MIC exclusively either.
Compounding that Problem is the German lack of rubber and oil, the fact that you are going to wait a bit for full production of upgraded fighter I and MARM 1, etc.
Making a less MIC focussed approach sensible. It makes you stronger in 1942.
Japan, curiously, as you mentioned it, actually serves as testimony to conventional wisdom: If starting war early, and conquering stuff early, Go all MIC. Because the immediate need for Equipment supersedes future optimization. For that very reason, you go 2x in favour of the army in the army navy conference, Pick army advisors over navy ones etc.
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.
- 6
- 2
Here we're getting somewhere that might lead to a more thoughtful discussion. I think you're trying to encourage discussion and appreciation of your effort, so the words you choose matter in generating buy-in.
I'd suggest going even further:
"In an effort to optimize my Japan playthroughs, I did repeated controlled testing of whether MILs first or CIVs first led to greater overall output. I also ran a mathematical analysis. Both results support a conclusion that MILs active over time are significantly more productive than CIVs first and a later MIL advantage, due to buildup of industrial output. If we try to base this conversation in math and not subjective experience, how can we make the model I'm presenting more effective than what I've already provided?"
Constantly returning to a tone like this would probably net excellent results from a community as nerdy and passionate as this one. I'm pretty sure you're looking for engagement, but your response to differing opinions is shutting it down and antagonizing potential partners.
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.
I'm not attacking you here, I'm suggesting you can refine your approach and generate interest in the community for an examination along the lines that interest you. Japan is a pretty unique country that might for many reasons be more suited to your hypothesis; you have a very large number of assumptions that are being questioned on grounds you mostly haven't modeled yet; you're saying you're willing to engage and want to improve your model. Are you defending an opinion or asking for help to develop an idea?
- 4
- 3
- 2
I'll start with that:
You may not agree, but in my opinion it is constructive what I said and I will explain to you why:
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.
Yes, the game is a optimization problem. But the goal is to win not to maximise overall produced IC. There are decisions 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.)
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 decisions 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.)
Last edited:
- 5
- 3
- 1
Not to mention spy agencies, trade licenses (theoretically), refineries, military infrastructure etc. All at some point critical and not MIC.
- 2
- 1
- 1
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.
Japan I would consider it valid to build either CIC or MIC depending on different factors, mainly how early you plan to go to war with China and later the Allies. If you want to get the factories from China ASAP and get the compliance building up, then building MIC would make sense. If you want to handicap the Allies by keeping the world tension low as long as possible, it makes sense to build CIC for a while so you can have a bigger industrial base leading to more dockyards once you research 1940 ships.
For other majors, I would always advocate building CIC at the start so you'll have a bigger long term industry. The game doesn't end in 1940, after all (unless you're France and quit when you capitulate).
Last edited:
- 5
- 1
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"
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"
- 10
Read the previous 4 pages. Or my post immediately before your post.
Here, let me reply with the same level of effort.
"I think all equipment is critical if you properly manage your production lines and technology, with various garrison templates to maximize the use"
"In 1936, for most nations, there is typically lots of useful equipment. Why, you can read any of the past 8 snippets I've written regarding this"
"Therefore I can build Mils early"
- 8
Yea, I've said the same logic before. Technological focus on a certain branch of equipment is a possible exception to the rule.
In which case you knowingly sacrifice net-IC production in exchange for more of whatever equipment you need.
This is ignored in the PDF/reasoning simply because there isn't a model that can handle heavily nation-dependent decisions....such as this one.
- 4
I've accused you because, well, at the very least you aren't putting in the effort to consider what I'm saying or any of my reasoning.
Most of this thread is limited to a mere handful of unique responses, the rest parroted with frequent allusions to "As an experience HO4 player...." and what not.
Comparing Mil and Civ count is not a valid test case.
Guesstimating imaginary numbers of "How bad it would be" for a case which I'm sure most haven't bothered testing anytime recently is also a poor sample.
Showing examples using two atrocious AI nations, and stating "This AI is better because Civs" is also a useless test case.
Nobody can repeat the stupid decisions that the AI made. It's also a massively overcomplicated test case that could skew the result on any number of factors.
Maybe one of the AI was stuck on limited exports all game or something, or didn't do the focuses in the right order, etc.
- 8
For the record, I've stated numerous times before on several situations that may or may not affect Civilian factory construction.
None of these devalue the statement: "In most cases building Mil's first is more optimal as compared to building Civs than Mils, if your goal is to maximize military IC"
The below are simply outside constraints that are unrelated to the economic strategy that is taken:
- Civs traded or building Infra: For resources
- Civs built to maximize future military infrastructure: Fuel silo's, synthetics, airports, repair, etc.
As noted they are buildings of a fixed value that are independent of when you build them.
Unlike military factories, the loss of which introduces a substantial opportunity cost.
- Civs built to maximize Mils at a later point in the game: A trade off. You lose total military IC but gain more of whatever you're aiming for. SITUATIONAL DECISION
Here is the same bloody snippet for the 40'th time:
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.
I do agree that it's a factor that makes Civ's more favorable. However, in most cases the current payoff is so bad that it's not worth it.
None of these devalue the statement: "In most cases building Mil's first is more optimal as compared to building Civs than Mils, if your goal is to maximize military IC"
The below are simply outside constraints that are unrelated to the economic strategy that is taken:
- Civs traded or building Infra: For resources
- Civs built to maximize future military infrastructure: Fuel silo's, synthetics, airports, repair, etc.
As noted they are buildings of a fixed value that are independent of when you build them.
Unlike military factories, the loss of which introduces a substantial opportunity cost.
- Civs built to maximize Mils at a later point in the game: A trade off. You lose total military IC but gain more of whatever you're aiming for. SITUATIONAL DECISION
Here is the same bloody snippet for the 40'th time:
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.
I do agree that it's a factor that makes Civ's more favorable. However, in most cases the current payoff is so bad that it's not worth it.
- 5
@personwithhat, below is one of the threads that tried to address the question of CICs or MICs. The thread will not teach someone with your math skills anything new in math, but it does a good job bringing up questions that need answers or assumptions when building a production model for any individual country.
forum.paradoxplaza.com
Below is another thread that gives many observations of an optimized German build.
forum.paradoxplaza.com
Both threads have many more observations than one person could possibly arrive at by themselves. I hope they can help you with your model.
German build up: A simple comparison between a CIC build and pure MIC.
I haven't run this test since LaR came out, so in light of some of the tweaks the game has had over the past year, I thought I would run this test again. But first, let's ask Conan what is is best in life. Conan has played HOI4 with me in MP...
Below is another thread that gives many observations of an optimized German build.
1.9 German Economy Benchmark Thread
There were some changes to economy in Husky and I'd like to optimize my Germany Buildup 1936-1939 again. To see where I stand I would like to compare my builds with others. Therefore I'd suggest the following benchmark: Date: 1.6.1939 (Short...
Both threads have many more observations than one person could possibly arrive at by themselves. I hope they can help you with your model.
- 2
- 2
Yeah, "nonsense". You know, difference between us: I spot nonsense and add information, you feel attacked and get Defensive.
Your rebuttal underscores the fundamental issue of your approach: dumbed down to worthlessness.
If your math cannot handle the complexitiy, well, then the math is lacking. Try again. Come up with a better model.
For all your scientific Method thumping, you're really bad at taking criticism. I didn't argue that your thing is inconsistent or the math wrong, I attacked the very premises and your reply is: "but then my theory won't work"
Yeah. That's the point. There is a variety in methodology because you cannot easily handle problems like this in 2 pages of equations.
Think about that.
- 8
- 1
- 1