Why/when use Heavy Industry Emphasis

[Pro_Consul]

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.

Have you verified this against in-game results? I am seriously wondering where you got the flat rate figure of -16% CGs needed. The two CG-related modifiers of the CGO law are the -1% reduction in CG demand during peacetime and the -20% daily dissent growth. I know that you then subtracing back out the -5% CG reduction of the mixed law, but is the daily dissent growth modifier functionally interchangeable in the way you are calculating it?

 

[Less]

Have you verified this against in-game results? I am seriously wondering where you got the flat rate figure of -16% CGs needed. The two CG-related modifiers of the CGO law are the -1% reduction in CG demand during peacetime and the -20% daily dissent growth. I know that you then subtracing back out the -5% CG reduction of the mixed law, but is the daily dissent growth modifier functionally interchangeable in the way you are calculating it?

As far as I can tell that is the case. -% CG demand is exactly equivalent to -daily dissent change.

1936 Germany under CGO = 6.39% CG requirement.
1936 Germany under Mixed = 22.39% CG requirement.

1939 Soviets under CGO = 11.8% CG requirement.
1939 Soviets under Heavy = 42.8% CG requiement. (+31%, 20% from lost daily dissent decrease, 11% from +CG demand)

 

[21oliver]

Let me simplify things, because my head is spinning.

Under CGO your CG requirement is lower but the time and cost of things you build take longer then in Mixed, so the question comes down to how much your saving in CG vs the savings in production time and costs. Correct?

Upon further review i just realized that this discussion has changed from "Heavy to Mixed"....

Anyway a few things to keep in mind. As already stated if time is important, in regards to producing units quicker then the argument becomes moot. Also at least in regards to Mixed two things that often effect my games, one is I often sell supplies, so that 10% bonus on supplies can be big. And if you build alot of IC like i do, i tend to factor some costs as the "Costs of doing business". For example lets say that CGO is better then mixed efficient wise by a small amount, but MIxed produces units faster and provides more supplies, well then when Im spamming IC I could care less, ive essentially covered the costs imo. Same with say British Strategic Bombing, sometimes when i play Germany and have a base of 300 IC and effective way over 400+ I let the UK bomb my cities until they are blue in the face with their 3 strats and never feel a thing. Circumstances come into play sometimes. I do understand the analysis from a pure efficiency pov though. I am interested in the results because i thought it was determined in TFH that Mixed was definitely the way to go.

 

[Pro_Consul]

Under CGO your CG requirement is lower but the time and cost of things you build take longer then in Mixed, so the question comes down to how much your saving in CG vs the savings in production time and costs. Correct?

Mostly. You do have to balance CG savings against production time and costs, true, but you also need to balance the urgency of your unit builds, since time is a factor both of cost and of strategy. Even if CGO is more economical from a strictly IC-days perspective, mixed may still be better if it lets you complete the builds you need in time for when you need them. As with most things: very situational.

Simple rule of thumb, for if you don't want to calculate the differences every time you are unsure: if you like the look of your savings under CGO, but you are feeling the pinch on time, then go Mixed. If you feel comfortable on time, and the savings look good, use CGO. If the savings look iffy or even non-existent, kick CGO to the curb and go Mixed. And if the heavens are about to descend upon you, go Heavy.

 

[21oliver]

I agree, that was sort of the point i was making. Sometimes the savings can be minimal or as i stated you may have already accounted for them. If CGO is costing me 10 IC but i have built another 100 IC already and now i get to produce units faster and more supplies under Mixed, then i wont care so much about the extra 10 IC...

I think it becomes more of an issue for minors whereby every decimal or unit has a greater impact. If im only going to have a dozen units, every extra day or IC spent it costs to produce one is huge. If Im spamming 100's of units i can make up the differences one way or another.

 

[everburn]

So doing a recap. In peace always CGO until you don't have thousand of IC.

If you are Italy consumer good and not mixed.

With Soviet Union, consumer good and not heavy.

For me it's not like this. I pay as italy the unit the +15% more in cost and time. How can i save "IC" putting them on consumer goods. I mean i will build all on them later and i will pay every single unit more that i should have. So i will have in the longer terms less of what i should had.

Anyway the question is also, regardless your value of neutrality. If you have 0, mixed industries is always better than CGO no matter what.

Anyway the soviet union loose the 35% + the regular value of the unity, in IC days for heavy. But he takes a really faster time in building queue. So actually it's worth for them to switch for heavy industries? or they should stay in CGO?

 

[misterbean]

I did a test once where I (as Germany) build the exact same OOB from the 1936 start in both CGO and MI. I did not build any IC.

In CGO, my OOB was done in februari/march 1939, with just enough time left to upgrade before mobilising.
In MI, it was done in december/januari 1939, with enough time left to build the port defenders I would eventually need in France before having to start upgrading.

This was with Germany. I cannot imagine it would be interesting for anyone else in 1936.

 

[21oliver]

Something else i dont see anyone mention, which to me is a factor. Mixed gives you a +10% supplies bonus. If your Germany and say, selling large quantities of supplies to import resources, 10% isnt anything to sneeze at.

 

[Sweynforkbeard]

Something else i dont see anyone mention, which to me is a factor. Mixed gives you a +10% supplies bonus. If your Germany and say, selling large quantities of supplies to import resources, 10% isnt anything to sneeze at.

In your case, an important factor is that Heavy and MI vs. CGO becomes relatively more efficient as your practicals improve. If you do multiple runs of IC, possibly with a bit of practicals cooking in the pot, MI (if it isnt already from day one) will pretty quickly become the more efficient. In turn, if you allow the practicals on everything else to deteriorate in the process, it is quite possible that it will be most effecient to return to CGO when you go from IC building to unit building.

Just some food for thought to brighten your morning

 

[21oliver]

And you know im up! TYVM....

When I build such large quantities of IC, I try when it comes time to build units, to work the practicals at least some. For example If I build INTs or SSs and want 20, Ill likely start of with like two runs of 2, then runs of 5, i wont simply burst build the whole lot...

 

[Kovax]

And you know im up! TYVM....

When I build such large quantities of IC, I try when it comes time to build units, to work the practicals at least some. For example If I build INTs or SSs and want 20, Ill likely start of with like two runs of 2, then runs of 5, i wont simply burst build the whole lot...

In the interests of penny-pinching to the last fraction of an IC, if you start with builds of 2 of something, rotate one to the bottom of the que for a few days, so the IC gets put into something else for a couple of days, and then rotate it back. When the first unit completes, the increase in Practical is likely to "complete" the delayed unit, saving you a few IC/days. That second unit will in turn boost the related Practical for the next group of units. That's not very significant with INF brigades, but when you're talking about ships or planes, the IC/day savings can be significant (as in 300+ IC/days for a capital ship).

 

[Opanashc]

Why not both? Run with CGO until the date your production would be finished with MI, then switch for a day, finish it, and go back to CGO?
Gaming the system, but oh well.

 

[21oliver]

In the interests of penny-pinching to the last fraction of an IC, if you start with builds of 2 of something, rotate one to the bottom of the que for a few days, so the IC gets put into something else for a couple of days, and then rotate it back.

Didn't think about that, Thx K-

 

[Pro_Consul]

In the interests of penny-pinching to the last fraction of an IC, if you start with builds of 2 of something, rotate one to the bottom of the que for a few days, so the IC gets put into something else for a couple of days, and then rotate it back. When the first unit completes, the increase in Practical is likely to "complete" the delayed unit, saving you a few IC/days. That second unit will in turn boost the related Practical for the next group of units. That's not very significant with INF brigades, but when you're talking about ships or planes, the IC/day savings can be significant (as in 300+ IC/days for a capital ship).

That's a rather convoluted way to go about staggering your builds. Why not just queue the units one at a time, starting the second one after a suitable interval has passed?

 

[21oliver]

I did once TBH i tend to build large quantities so i just group them in seperate "bundles", as long as im achieving savings im happy, it doesn't have to be the "most" savings possible...

 

[Pro_Consul]

Yeah, I do much the same, especially with lower priced items like cookie cutter MIL and INF divisions and the like. I only take the trouble to stagger the bigger ticket items like ships, armored divisions, etc. I just don't want to devote that much extra attention for a relatively small net savings, being somewhat lazy in that way.

 

[sunsterson]

Mixed is always better then cgo I think

 

[Kovax]

That's a rather convoluted way to go about staggering your builds. Why not just queue the units one at a time, starting the second one after a suitable interval has passed?

Normally, you have a heap of IC to allocate on Jan.1, 1936. It's not a simple thing to stagger builds at that point, but you can rotate units to the bottom of the que to delay them, while the IC gets pumped into other projects instead. When the first wave of stuff starts coming off the assembly lines, THEN you can begin to stagger production by using the freed up IC to build things with different completion dates.

 

[Pro_Consul]

Normally, you have a heap of IC to allocate on Jan.1, 1936. It's not a simple thing to stagger builds at that point...

Sure it is. Queue some very quick-building items, e.g. MIL, AAA, MP, transports, etc. All of those kinds of things generally take less than two months to complete, at which point you can get some of your second ranks of staggered build items started.