Why/when use Heavy Industry Emphasis

[lordboy54]

I mean, I tried searching for this everywhere, but I find no explanation. In my current game I am playing as Germany, at war atm, Using heavy industry emphasis, my Commerical needs increases so drastically, that I am not sure it's worth it? I mean, without heavy industry emphasis, I have like, 2+ needs, with it I get 20+ needs. Is it worth the tradeoff for that small 10% bonus, or not? I'd love to hear someone explain the logic to me, because so far I've just seen heavy industry emphasis as a stupid choice. Why is there so little info about this subject anyways? Like when to use what, and what not to use when, and such. Is it just me who is so confused by it? http://www.hoi3wiki.com/Political_strategy I mean according to this, it's the best choice for a country at war, but in my Sweden game it definitely didn't seem like a good choice, in my Germany it still doesn't, however since I have so much more IC in comparison, It's not as big of a deal. But should one use heavy industry or not, if so, when?

 

[Bigleady]

I suspect the supply throughput alone will be worth it for barbarossa

 

[Secret Master]

The math is pretty simple for the IC cost.

Compute the percentage of your total IC that goes into consumer goods before and after you implement heavy industry emphasis. If the increase in consumer goods is less than the decrease in time to build things, then it's a net gain. I would be shocked if heavy industry emphasis did not come out far ahead. You should keep in mind that while heavy industry emphasis decreases build times, consumer goods emphasis increases build times more than the base.

Keep in mind that the time it takes to build something is part of its cost. IC cost is just not how many IC it takes to build an item for a single day; it is the cost of an item over the number of days it takes to build it. Furthermore, if it takes less time to build a unit, you get the increase in practical knowledge sooner AND spend less time being affected by practical decay. This makes a huge difference in the long term.

Aside from the impact on IC costs, I agree with bigleady. The improvement to supply throughput makes it worth it for any planned invasion of the Soviet Union. Logistics can kill you faster than Soviet bullets.

 

[lordboy54]

The math is pretty simple for the IC cost.

Compute the percentage of your total IC that goes into consumer goods before and after you implement heavy industry emphasis. If the increase in consumer goods is less than the decrease in time to build things, then it's a net gain. I would be shocked if heavy industry emphasis did not come out far ahead. You should keep in mind that while heavy industry emphasis decreases build times, consumer goods emphasis increases build times more than the base.

Keep in mind that the time it takes to build something is part of its cost. IC cost is just not how many IC it takes to build an item for a single day; it is the cost of an item over the number of days it takes to build it. Furthermore, if it takes less time to build a unit, you get the increase in practical knowledge sooner AND spend less time being affected by practical decay. This makes a huge difference in the long term.

Aside from the impact on IC costs, I agree with bigleady. The improvement to supply throughput makes it worth it for any planned invasion of the Soviet Union. Logistics can kill you faster than Soviet bullets.

Thanks.

 

[lordboy54]

Another Question, would it be a good idea to puppet france?

 

[everburn]

TFH:

Peace:

1) Mixed Industries
2) Heavy
3) Consumer

War:

1) Heavy
2) Mixed
3) Consumer

If it's another expansion of hoi3

Peace

1) Consumer
2) Mixed
3) Heavy

War

1) Heavy
2) Mixed
3) Consumer

 

[Secret Master]

Another Question, would it be a good idea to puppet france?

Most people consider it an exploit, since it means you get the entire French army, navy, and air force intact.

The disadvantage of puppeting France is that you don't get any IC or leadership from them. The good news is that you don't have to police partisans, and the French will help you invade the Soviets later.

It does kind of screw up key event chains, though, so if you want a historical game, use the default Fall of France wargoal and run with Vichy.

 

[gunstickuncle]

TFH:

Peace:

1) Mixed Industries
2) Heavy
3) Consumer

I have to disagree on that, that is not always true. I played ITA lately and was surprised that the player I subbed for was on consumer goods, because I had expected mixed industry. He had ~100 effective IC and consumer goods was significantly more effective concerning net output of "free IC".

 

[feye1]

TFH:

Peace:

1) Mixed Industries
2) Heavy
3) Consumer

It's not so easy as this..

All depends on how much IC you can put in production.

I have to disagree on that, that is not always true. I played ITA lately and was surprised that the player I subbed for was on consumer goods, because I had expected mixed industry. He had ~100 effective IC and consumer goods was significantly more effective concerning net output of "free IC".

Yep, as Italy with no reserves allowed you are better of with consumer goods orientation, because otherwise you will pay 40-50 IC on consumer goods alone, another 15-20 for IC, makes only 30 IC left for production sometimes

 

[Secret Master]

Yep. Consumer goods orientation is the way to go when you build no reserves. Those active duty divisions are absolute fiends for consumer goods.

Because some countries start with reserves in place, a good question is WHEN to switch between mixed and consumer.

 

[ltccone]

Yep. Consumer goods orientation is the way to go when you build no reserves. Those active duty divisions are absolute fiends for consumer goods.

Because some countries start with reserves in place, a good question is WHEN to switch between mixed and consumer.

I used mixed as Germany, even though I don't build reserves. But then again I wait until the second half of '38 to build ground troops.

 

[Pro_Consul]

With no regular units affecting CG requirements, I have found that somewhere around 160 or so IC seems to be the tipover point for CGO vs Mixed. Below that point CGO is a guaranteed savings; above it makes Mixed the more economical policy. Still in play, however, is the major factor of time; as SM already mentioned once, there is a huge difference in industrial efficiency between the two, with CGO imposing a 20% penalty. So if time is a serious issue for you, that could easily justify moving to Mixed at an IC level that would be lower than optimum from a strictly economical viewpoint.

This is most noticed if the reason time is an issue is because of seriously long term builds you need, like ships or heavy armor units. Reducing the build time of a carrier from, say, 360 days to 300 can be pretty significant, and may be worth getting less than optimum IC value from your CG law. That is especially true if you need the practicals from that first run to enable a larger second run of the same thing.

 

[Less]

With no regular units affecting CG requirements, I have found that somewhere around 160 or so IC seems to be the tipover point for CGO vs Mixed.

Can you explain how you arrived at that conclusion? Since CG requirements is a % of total IC I don't see how it matters whether you have 1 or 1000 IC. All that matters is how much additional IC is "wasted" in CG/supplies/(upgrades/reinforcement? Does industrial efficiency affect these?) due to your units being non-reserve/drawing supplies/etc.

 

[21oliver]

So what about my games as Germany. Normally as anyone i build always as reserves, just a habit. When i play Germany though i bang out initially 300 base IC before building anything. I always have been going mixed. I thought the conclusion was that was now better. Should i stay Consumer instead?

 

[corazhor]

oliver, it sounds like your strategy would always be best with mixed - you use reserves (which reduces CG demand), you build IC (since you aren't building troops, you aren't increasing your CG demand). Unless you have unusually high CG demand for some reason, like every other nation is doing the spy mission to increase your dissent, mixed is probably the way to go.

Its pretty easy to tell which one you need - all it takes is one day. write down how much IC you're spending on CG and production under CGO, change the law, wait for the day to tick over, write down how much you're spending with mixed. If the increase in CG spending is equal to 15% of what you're spending on production with mixed, then you're 'breaking even' at that point. If the increase in CG demand is greater than 15% of production, change back to CGO. If its less, keep mixed.

I say production, because my understanding of efficiency is that it only benefits production IC, not IC spent on upgrades/reinforcements/supplies/CG. If you're one of those players that likes to leave upgrades at 0 until just before the war starts, you may want to consider switching to CGO when you switch to giving your units upgrades, depending on how much of your IC you have to spend on it.

 

[Less]

Yeah, definitely go to Mixed immediately for Germany. Even if you are building non-reserve divisions your neutrality will go to zero quickly and at that point you don't have any penalty to CG from regular divisions.

Its pretty easy to tell which one you need - all it takes is one day. write down how much IC you're spending on CG and production under CGO, change the law, wait for the day to tick over, write down how much you're spending with mixed. If the increase in CG spending is equal to 15% of what you're spending on production with mixed, then you're 'breaking even' at that point. If the increase in CG demand is greater than 15% of production, change back to CGO. If its less, keep mixed.

The breakeven point is actually much higher in most cases. IC efficiency modifies both construction time and cost, meaning on its own -15% efficiency = 1.15x IC * 1.15 days = 1.3225x IC*days. Any beyond that, the bonus is actually lumped together additively with the bonus from practicals, meaning that the higher your practicals get the more effective +IC efficiency gets. Check the practical tool tip on the production screen before and after changing laws.

I say production, because my understanding of efficiency is that it only benefits production IC, not IC spent on upgrades/reinforcements/supplies/CG. If you're one of those players that likes to leave upgrades at 0 until just before the war starts, you may want to consider switching to CGO when you switch to giving your units upgrades, depending on how much of your IC you have to spend on it.

Checked this out. IC efficiency gives a bonus to both supply production and reduces the cost of upgrades. From 1936 Germany going to Mixed appears to give a +8% bonus to supply production and +17.6% bonus to upgrading. Dunno how the math works out to give those numbers. Reinforcements saw no change, and of course consumer goods saw no change. If we assume those numbers are constant than the difference between Mixed and CGO in an upgrade-focused situation is probably minimal.

 

[21oliver]

Well Im basically not building any units until 38-39ish as I often build such a large quantity of IC. I thought i remembered hearing that with TFH it was determined that Mixed was the way to go, I didnt realize it was even an issue still TBH. Thx for the info-

 

[Pro_Consul]

Can you explain how you arrived at that conclusion? Since CG requirements is a % of total IC I don't see how it matters whether you have 1 or 1000 IC. All that matters is how much additional IC is "wasted" in CG/supplies/(upgrades/reinforcement? Does industrial efficiency affect these?) due to your units being non-reserve/drawing supplies/etc.

There is more than one factor in play there. First off, the 20% increase in IC efficiency you get from removing the CGO malus benefits more than just build times; it also reduces daily IC costs of built items, which in turn lowers upgrade and repair costs. I think it also boosts supply production as well. But the less overall IC you have, the less you can benefit, since your net gain is partly a factor of how much you can do with it. The higher your IC, the more that 20% to both build speed AND daily build cost represents in increased capacity, whereas the CG reduction is a flat rate change in only one dimension.

But I have to put in this disclaimer that I am not the one who calculated that 160-ish figure as the tipover. I was simple repeating what another poster established a couple of years ago. I don't have much chance of finding a specific thread that far back, but hopefully someone else will remember it.

 

[Pro_Consul]

Any beyond that, the bonus is actually lumped together additively with the bonus from practicals, meaning that the higher your practicals get the more effective +IC efficiency gets. Check the practical tool tip on the production screen before and after changing laws.

And we must not forget that practicals accumulate faster and decay less as a result of the shorter build times, so there is both the cumulative effect with practicals and the indirect effect of increasing the rate of practical gains.

 

[Less]

There is more than one factor in play there. First off, the 20% increase in IC efficiency you get from removing the CGO malus benefits more than just build times; it also reduces daily IC costs of built items, which in turn lowers upgrade and repair costs. I think it also boosts supply production as well. But the less overall IC you have, the less you can benefit, since your net gain is partly a factor of how much you can do with it. The higher your IC, the more that 20% to both build speed AND daily build cost represents in increased capacity, whereas the CG reduction is a flat rate change in only one dimension.

No, both are the same, a % bonus. The exact % bonus can change depending on a lot of circumstances, but they both scale the same with IC.

-15% IC efficiency = (ignoring practicals) +32% unit cost
-16% CGs needed = +16% of total IC investable in production.

If you have 5 IC and your CG requirements are 1%, you can invest 4.95 IC in production on units that cost 1.32x as much for a total effective production of 3.75 IC
If you chance to Mixed, your CG requirements are now 17%. You can therefore invest 4.15 IC into units that cost 1x as much for a total effective production of 4.15 IC.

To illustrate a situation in which CGO is better, we have to build non-reserve units:

5 IC with a base CG requirement of 40% in CGO = 3 IC investable, 2.27 IC effective.
5 IC with mixed = 56% CG required, leaving 2.2 IC investable and 2.2 IC effective.

There should be absolutely no reason to calculate things differently at higher or lower IC values. The only catch is that IC efficiency gets more powerful the more practicals you have, but it's still a massively good idea at low IC levels. And as we can see, you need absolutely huge amounts of base CG requirement from non-reserve units (40% with CGO!) before CGO can become better than Mixed, although that 40% will be lower depending on how much IC you are instead investing in supplies/upgrades/reinforcement.

But I have to put in this disclaimer that I am not the one who calculated that 160-ish figure as the tipover. I was simple repeating what another poster established a couple of years ago. I don't have much chance of finding a specific thread that far back, but hopefully someone else will remember it.

I can only assume it to be outdated.