When Should You Start Building Mils - Hoi4
Вставка
- Опубліковано 20 вер 2024
- Analyzing when you should start building military factories to maximize your production output.
Yes this video is a direct attack at civ greeders everywhere. Stop, get help.
Twitch.tv/71Cloak
This guy singlehandedly turns every hoi4 MP player into a sweat
Multiplayer has tons of mods to rebalance building slots and building speed, and it's much more important to get a better scaling in MP than in Singleplayer, simply because in Singleplayer, you Can totally destroy the AI with 39-40 tech without much difficulty, while in MP, being ahead in teck is Key.
Multiplayer player?
I didn't think people try hard in sp
@@VMUDream yes
@@thomasjones3206 depends on what im playing? Germany? Obv no im either testing astrategy or a focus tree. Czechoslovakia, Netherlands, Baltics etc.? Hell yea im tryharding lmao
I've been into civ-greeding for a while now (apart from with the US because there's literally no point, lmao), but you sobered me up just from showing all the maxed out building slots. Like damn, you're right, what have I been doing to myself, robbing myself of all those incredible building slots like I have been?
same, as france i did a lot of civ greeding and it was hard to catch up on production with that lack of building slots
As ussr i build civs until january 1940 then switch to mils. I have 200 civs
my friend is a civ goblin. that mf really builds to 300 civs until 1940ish on USA and then complains when there are no more slots available or when he cant keep up with the production.
Civ greed for life
@@ArturHedlundThat’s too late for me, I like to switch around the time I get my medium 2’s(roughly mid 39’)
My goal is always 175 civs, this is roughly enough to afford what I need resource wise from the market, and enough to still be cranking out over 100 mils per year, and even enough to fully max railways back to Moscow.
The roughly 40-50 civs you get from Finland and the baltics is also a boon, usually puts me at where I need to be production wise by mid 40, and I achieve parity with German mils by war, if not sooner when I integrate my puppets.
Great work. There is one thing to consider here though: A player who builds mills early may indeed have more equipment at the war start, however they will be extra vulnerable to bombing as their repair capacity will be limited. They also won't have been able to build anti-air, infrastructure, railways, and forts very rapidly. Equipment is not a be-all-end-all.
A germany who attacks into scorched earth will find their soldiers un-supplied and a weak industry unable to keep up with repairs and upgrades.
Wasn’t the standard is using fighter to intercept?
I think UK shouldn't be a problem with this, the increased Mill production should grant you a large air force, theoretically. Sorry I'm not very experienced I'm just putting this out there.
@@sakom0793 in SP as the UK if you don't actually fly missions over German territory the AI just forgets you exist anyways. Even without this, if you put 30 to 40 on fighters with investment from the start and keep them up to date you should be completely fine.
well a large old airforce. Especially for fighters quality matters more than quantity (of course just to some extend)
Generally speaking, anything more than 30 free civs is a waste from my experience.
I've always believed in mil greed green factories look better than the orange ones anyways
GREEN FACTORY FTW, LULULULULU
Things to consider when doing a multiplayer Eco: Spy agencies(for collab governments/Tech stealing etc.), Trade Backs, and Civ boosting.
I've met many UK's with with a very decent economy because he was civ boosted by USA, or Germany Players with Great eco's because the entire axis was boosting him, also great italian economies because he built collabs on yugo/greece.
Consider your allies for your eco during multiplayer games, they can be a very deciding factor during the playthroughs.
What is civ boostinh?
@@henryextreme9210 Gives civ factories to a country without any tradebacks or any form of compensation.
@@henryextreme9210 Yeah I wonder the same
@@henryextreme9210 Its where your allies buy your materials (steel rubber ect) giving you more civilian factories. Some U.S players will buy materials from U.K even if they dont need it just so the U.K is strong
I was wondering what's optimal for Japan if you intend to go the historical route. Pushing for early mils should give you a speed bonus in actually ending the war with less material losses, on top of the larger amount of time you had to use the occupied territories' civs as well.
As japan you shouldn't really need to build edit: mils (for some reason I said civs )for china so you can kind of look right past them. (this is of course assuming their isn't a player on them)
@@71Cloak Ah, I see, thanks! I just play single player and I played Japan so many times I try to be as efficient as I can with it. But I'm also really bad with numbers, which is how I found your channel :)
you dont need mils til after china for japan
What I do as Japan is at the start of the game i build mils until i get total mobilization from the focus tree and then i convert the mils to civs.
Usually build civs til 38-39 so I can militarize China as quickly as possible
you already mentioned that not only factory output should be considered (you need refs as germany). Means that a high civ count also gives you other benefits, for example to build airports, anti-air, ports, supply hubs and railways etc. That would extend the model and make it more complex (not only factory output as a indicator of a good build). I believe, especially for nations like Japan and also Italy maybe, adding those parameters would be helfpul to find the optimal strategy. Also, because of the navy focus Japan and Italy might build dockyards also where efficiency is not really comparable to military factories (1. doesn't matter how long you use a dockyard, they don't have production efficiency and 2. building early hulls instead of 1940 tech ships has a more negative impact than using basic instead of 1940 tech infantry equipment). So my question @71Cloak is: Maybe it is still better to build more civs, even if you lose a bit of military factory output (specifically when playing navy nations)?
When playing the Netherlands I start building mils and get the civs from Belgium and Luxembourg (either by diplo or war). Even then I can't fully equip my entire army (78 divisions), but at least enough to hold of the Germans.
As a fan of this channel, I have to say there are some serious problems with this test.
1. You're using the UK and pre-conquest Germany, countries with a low amount of building slots. For countries like the US or USSR the running out doesn't happen nearly as early and the moderate level of greed (2 years before joining the war) is often the most optimal.
2. You're using 1936 guns as the sole standard, which no country other than the USSR or China will want to use once the war actually kicks in. For anyone else, higher tech tier equipment will be needed, and those are not likely to be fully researched until at least 39.
3. Even if one were to starting 1936 equipment, having less civs means having less wiggle room to import. That can either halt production or significantly slow the rate at which mils are built. The fact that you used a very resource non-intensive weapon didn't allow for this to factor in.
I used to play hoi4 mp a lot, I started building mils ~jan 1 37. As the uk I also would rush the industry techs to get production tools 2/3 early for even more initial production. Due to my lower skills in other areas it didn't work out so when people called me out for building too early and I went to the normal 38. Thanks for proving that in at least one area my instincts weren't terrible.
In MP, it has been meta for some time to start building mils in mid 37. Soviet is different since barbarossa starts later and they have a lot of railways and airports to build. Usually, soviet would build civs until jan 38 - mid 38.
For your germany test, you also have to consider that you have to build refs which cost more than building mils. You also are making collabs which takes a lot of civs for some time. It makes civs slightly more worth it (though in MP, since you are getting more civs from trade, you are going to get more civs in total and run out of building slots if you start mils later).
Lol i build civs to mid 1940 as soviets
@@ArturHedlund that would not work in my mp games way too little mils since I need 40 on planes by 1940 or it’s already over
So it's a build slot issue? So USSR is the only viable major that can do this? Or is the equipment earned still more useful than civ greeding as USSR?
That's part of it, but the main thing is that you just start having mils to use so much later, so they get less total "base" production *and* less efficiency multiplier on top of that base. The building slot thing compounds the issue bc the theoretical advantage of civ greed is more construction IC later on, but if you run out of slots you can't use it (and like 71 said, converting CIVs is way less efficient than just building mils in the first place).
its not a slot issue per se, its a good infra slot issue and in that regard the soviets aren't much better off than the UK. you'd still end up building in 40% slots if you civ greeded too hard.
@@cm01 with the UK he was also forced to build off Core land, I thought that was the "bad land" he was referring to . Plus when building mills good infrastructure isn't that much of a factor. There's a video with a spread he created showing the infrastructure to factory gain on mills and compared to civs infrastructure level isn't that important.
The bad land is mostly the low infrastructure. All of those states as the UK is going to have 90+% compliance.
За Уралом можно в каждом регионе сделать по 25 слотов. В итоге са СССР можно иметь около 3000 построек. Это и делает СССР самым сильным Мажором. Остаётся только раздпбыть алюминий Венгрии и хром Турции. И СССР не победим. Своей стали 2900 хватает с полна...
I take available resources into consideration when deciding on civs/mils, especially when playing a minor nation. I don't know if it is the best, but it feels good. What I mean is that if you know that you are staying on the current trade law for along time I sometimes build one or two mils early/earlier before continuing with civs. I do that if for example you got two steel and one aluminium which isn't used for anything, and you aren't producing any support equipment which you know you will need before the war. I build a mil to put on producing support equipment. Of course the already existing mils are producing only what you will really need.
I agree with this approach. Building mils just for the sake of building them does no good if you don't have the resources to use them properly. When you get to the point of needing to trade for resources, you will need more civs to balance your economy.
We also need to remember that the earlier mils that you get tend to go into lower quality equipment, especially with countries like USSR that only start with 3 research and cant afford to be ahead in gun tech.
Given how good 2.5 years is, would be interesting to see earlier starts as well. I.e. 3 and 3.5 years. Curious at what point it becomes worse
Really liked the point about how civ greeding leads to players building in bad slots, which really lessens the effect of having those extra civs. Never would've guessed that, but it makes total sense. Didn't realize anti-civ greeding was so effective.
This test does feel a little flawed because of your choice of production. In my experience, very little of your starting equipment is worth producing (like you've mentioned), and because of that a lot of early mill ic ends up either producing garbage you don't need, or overproducing necessary equipment such as trucks, support, or infantry equipment .
The only material advantage I see Anti-Civ-Greed giving is more Fighter1/Cas1s and Medium1/Heavy1s, as they can be researched before January 37. By the time figher2/cas2s and medium2/heavy2s are researched however, Normal Civ Build is going to have more military factories, and figher2/cas2s and medium2/heavy2s are more potent and more expensive. This difference can be pretty impactful if your war is going on until 43 or 43. I think this difference could be negated somewhat by tech rushing, but I'm not sure by how much, and it's very nation dependent. I would still recommend Normal CIv builds, especially for multiplayer.
Yeah, it's hard to come up with a testing environment that accounts for things like that. 90% of my factories when the war starts are on equipment I didn't have researched at the start of the game like tanks and planes. I'd say it depends on when you expect to get your key techs, because what matters the most is your mil count at the time you research say fighter 2 or medium 2.
If you start building mils in mid 37, you are still going to have more available when you get f2 or other good equipment.
@71Cloak I think this is the most reasonable critique here - who cares about output until you have fighter 2 or whatever tech you're rushing? That said, there's plenty of stuff you can build in the early game that will always be useful later on: support equipment, trucks, trains, even shitty guns can be used for suppression. But the war is mainly won or lost on production from 38-41, production that's mainly 1940-42 tech equipment.
That adds quite a bit of extra complexity, notably refineries/tungsten/chromium for germany and aluminum imports for the UK. I can't imagine setting up tradebacks is fun to test (and a PITA to keep consistent between tests). Compared to inf equipment 1, the imports for the higher tech stuff will eat up several times more resources and that makes having extra civs more valuable.
Civ greed build is still bad, 38-40 is fighter time and you lose a ton of production compared to normal/anti-greed builds. I'd love to see graphs to suggest just how bad it is when taking into account imports.
@@28lobster28 It is as you said, "the war is mainly won or lost on production from 38-41, production that's mainly 1940-42 tech equipment.". If you take this statement and think about production efficiency, even if you build hot garbage at the beginning of the game, your prodution efficiency retention will aid you in the 1940-42 part of the game. And the more mils you have on your early equipment the more production you keep after the swap to good equipment.
He also claims his slots are capped out, which means he may have skimped on infrastructure as well as ignoring the option for conversion.
Insightful video. But, arn't you overlooking a few things?
1. Having more mills earlier isnt really useful, as you usually DONT want to produce basic infantry equipment, but modern figthers (or tanks, or cas - but you get the point). So having mills early is a bit of a waste as before you get the fighter 3 tech, you can't really do anything with them, you will just produce stuff that will soon be outdated.
2. If you produce more advanced stuff, you need to import more res. This means that your civ count becomes more important; if you use 20 civs to cover your imports but only have 50, its a huge toll while using 40 civs when having 50 basicially halts your economy. So once you produce stuff that isn't basic infantry equipment, your civs become more valuable. You mention this towards the end of the video but from my experience with tank heavy builds, you underestimate the amount of trade you need to support 150+ mills on tanks.
3. running out of slots IS a problem. For the UK. And for the prewar germany, but germany is about to get more slots by just conquering them.
4. You dont invest 100% of your construction in civs/mills (you kinda mentioned that one, but ignored the consequences). Once you build rafineries, forts, AA, supply hubs, railways and so on, building slots becomes a lot less problematic.
Im not saying this would overthrow your findings, just that i can't trust your data as long as there are so many simplifications.
youre right, this guy is what happens when a guy thinks he knows the game just by doing maths but without experience, this is not an accurate representation of efficiency.
What he is doing is gathering raw data which people can then take to advise their decisions, not decide their decisions. Seeing how the IC availability changes based on whether you go Civ greed or early mils is information which you can then go away with and apply further variables in your own time.
To do this test he had to do six different save states (U.K. and Germany) plus take data at three points from each state. The amount of time to do just this is plenty to expect from a UA-camr, he’s not going to try and test for every single variable that would be ludicrous.
Don’t hate on him because he hasn’t covered all the possibilities. At least he is doing something, and the community now has more than it did before he posted the video. He’s not doing specific nation guides, he’s just letting people see how numbers interact with each other in a very number rich game.
@@Fleet1wood he is using a false approach, his conclusion simply isnt true, building only gun ones means you have same eq from day one, only in this Scenario do civ greed builds not catch up, in a normal game were equipment is changed regularly, it catches up
@@christophmaier4397 the guns are just being used because it becomes easier to math out what the IC production was, regardless of what that IC is spent on. He knows that 10,000 guns produced means that the factories produced 5,000 IC.
He does actually try to show the impact of efficiency by switching to inf2s in the Germany test. Early mils still out produced. Also, I don’t know what you mean by saying “equipment is changed regularly”. Generally builds try to limit equipment change as much as possible because of the impact it has on production.
@@Fleet1wood i have 5k hours, nations dont only build one produxtion line they unlock in 36
I would still build civs for the first 6 - 9 months to counteract the fact that early mills build equipment you don't really need. You don't need crap planes, light tanks, or excessive infantry equipment.
question is if military output is all who counts? , becouse that extra 50 civs do add up when you need to construct ports , airports , refineries , trains stuff , supply depos or allies ,, or building stuff in puppet to anex them
late game , especialy in SP i rarely run into production problems midgame , and having lots civs to keep expanding trains so you can fight in russia helped me win ww2 as germany more then mills or equipment
not to say civs help you repair who you often get bombed or due front swifting
who the fuck even builds that, the only thing i really build other than factories is supply hubs
@@lorrainemapper7000 trains are cheaper and can supply all front
This depends on country and scenario. There is no universally catch-all answer.
There are better answers and the answer is to not civ greed. You don't have to do the anti-civ greed option but you should definitely be building mils at least 2 years before the war. Otherwise you just aren't going to have any production.
71Cloak DESTROYS hoi4 metas with LOGIC
When I play Germany I usually start building mils after I get 100 civs, so usually around mid-1938 early-1939
I say u start building Mils around March of 1938
Around historical Anchluss for me. February/March 38.
This way there's no way you have tanks for France-poland, especially in MP games where France player can hold infantry easily. Not to talk about air
As a new player that has played Poland 60 unsuccessful games in a row, hearing that the war starts on 1 Jan. 1940 was really funny
the last advice was gold though. I'll try not building civs as Poland at all and conquer them from the Czechs and Germans.
My best Polish games are the ones I commit to early mils and aggression, with the only civs I gain before hitting 80 factories are those from focuses or conquest.
Don't be afraid to pursue an early war against Yugoslavia - if your factory count is low enough, you can go straight to total mob in 37
60 In multiplayer right?
Charts are quite helpful for visuals. Thanks!
Production efficiency is also a factor. More mills early on the same equipment gets to max production efficiency faster than thus more guns now and later.
However(!)
Germany can get high Collaboration Occupations in Poland and France, which also translates into many buildin slots you can fill up. ADDITIONALLY - it is almost more important to have CIVs able to produce Infrastructure and Trainlines and Airports later in the game - obviously you stop building mils eventually when you cap out at the resources you can efficiently trade. And its mostly the supply stuff which I find myself building while fighting on the eastern front or in Africa / the Middle East.
Just playing "normal" - stopping with Civs in January 38 or before, building half a year of refineries and then going into Mils will permit Germany to perform perfectly fine, and unless you reliably anticipate to be able to finish the war by 1942, germany is gonna be fighting from the end of 39 in Poland - and the war will last 3 years or 4 sometimes, going into early or mid 43. After those 3 or 4 years, the civ greed will have outperformed the Milgreed by alot, no?
ICYMI, max mils in your capital it increases your supply output more than dockyards or civs. Never build civs or refineries in your capital.
@@timhand3380 How?
@@RK-cj4oc , by the new supply mechanic. I think mils increase supply out of capital by 0.5 and dockyards 0.4 civs by 0.3
So 20 more mils in Capital increase supply out by 10. Of course you need rails out too
@@timhand3380 ahhhh. I did not know that. Thank you man.
@@timhand3380 it doesnt matter where you build the factories they still add to your supply cap
Another point to add on, with Germany, you should probably start mild way before (jan 1937) simply because you want to make good use of memo billed before the start of the war. It is 20% more production in total.
I have always built a ratio of 1 civ and 2 mils to ideally have military factories coming in early whilst not ignoring my civilian factories. I wonder if you could document the effects of doing a set ratio versus the data you have gathered here?
If you look at his spreadsheet, in Jan 1940 he has 1.5 times mils on Normal build and 1.8 mils on AntiCiv build. 2:3 ratio is 25% less than 1:2.
i remember hearing the best ration was 4 civs then 7 military and repeat
@@pubcollize thats not what he meant in this experience he did all his civs then started building military factory, here he ask about what if you alternate btween them like you build 1 civ then 2 mils then 1 civ again then 2 mils and repeat.
@@tritojean7549 I understood what he meant. In terms of ratio he gets almost exactly the same result, but worse because instead of getting civs early to be able to construct factories quicker in the first two years he's building mils early just so he can produce trash equipment at bad production speed early.
@@tritojean7549 btw 7/4 is even closer to the suggested tactic
The german focus tree kinda makes this decision for you by having the Captain Of Industry disappear post-Sudetenland. I always switch him out for the military guy then and this does take place around 1938 so I guess I end up with a normal build by default?
never, keep building civs until the end of the game
Highly appreciate your work. It would have been good if people like you would have been around when I started HoI4 and I would not have to find this through hard way.
I had NO IDEA I was even "anti-civ greeding" in this game before lol. I always built mils before the war because it intrinsically made sense to me. Civs are SO expensive to build, they take a long time to pay themselves back.
very complex topic.
It also depends what Equipment u wanna focus on and what Time u unlock that Equipment.
If u are for example the USA(because good tech progression) and want to build as much as possiable 40 or 42ish equipment, Civ greed + Disperesed Industry is your Friend.
While as Japan, u might go for Concentrated Industry and build Mils earlier.
Maybe iam a bit Dispersed Industry biased, but for the USA it dosent make sense to go Concentrated. Because of the explosion of additional Mils. that u get constantly, so that u having truble ever going to max. efficiency with Concentrated
As a civ greed connoisseur, after watching this video I sobbed to 'Make your own kind of music'
Finally someone who understands...
I usually build civs for an year, depending on country. For example with France I might just start with 2-4 civs, and move to mils.
i build a lot of civs as france since generally germany and the UK get more civs than u
I love it when widely-held suppositions are shattered by one guy who bothered to check the data
The things he checked here are just some data with specific scenarios, meanwhile the game is much more complicated than that
I play hoi4 to roleplay more than to conquer - and I have to say that until around mid 1938 I always built approx 1 mil per 3 civs, after which it's about 1:1 and eventually 4/5:1 on the war's outbreak (mid/late 1939). Interesting how that could actually be the optimal strategy
Paradox should make the building slot decision cheaper, maybe 25 for the at-war option and 50 for the at peace option
alot of the time in HOI4 the production you want to scale can only be built past 39, this result is good for things such as support eq. but for good techs (adv. arty, gun3) the results will skew toward normal build. Also more factories would be lost to trade with equiptment other than gun 1 than to more advanced techs, skewing further to normal build as the ratio of civs from early mils to normal increases with each lost civ
I never considered how running out of slots would affect the equation. Very important point.
Mid-38 is usually when I switch over to Mils in Europe. In America it's mid-39. Because I won't have to engage for an additional two years, taking that extra year to build civs makes sure I won't have any issues dealing with consumer goods or mass construction. In Europe switching over in mid 38 is key because it gives you plenty of time to build up both types and maybe squeeze in some Dockyards if you're going for that build.
Building to mid 38 as Germany is fine in SP because Germany is OP. You could literally never build a single civ as Germany and still easily cap the allies and soviets.
In MP if you build civs until mid 38 you will probably fail to break France as you don't have the air to win the air war nor the tanks to brute force the forest line.
This video is gold. Thank you so much for this
What about setting puppets and building Mils on them?
You get more slots efficiency when puppets control their cores and you get 65% or 75% of their mills back once you have build sufficiently on their territory.
Not all puppets hold the same value and some are worthless as puppets, but if you are going to leech their man power anyways then you may as well turn them into banks.
This isn't eu4 the game ends within 5 years... Unless your playing mp.
You get more value with 100% compliance
please allow me to raise the points that, you are focussed ONLY on Production, but not on Building Infrastructure, railways, airports, anti-air, ports, and if you are in a war - repairs, can you maybe make a video, although extremely complicated, it would be more representative :)
I like having 5 full development lines for repair and rail construction.
As Germany this is. You can constantly construct rail lines to level 5 as you push into Soviet territory all across the lines. Never running out of supply.
Plus it gives you capacity to upgrade radars, build synthetic factories.
I think this raw number approach really undervalues civs.
I usually build them 18 months before war but I scatter a few extra in during the early years so I can start getting a little more equipment & production efficiency. As the Soviets as soon as it turns 38 I’m only doing Mils & Forts behind a large natural barrier like a river or maybe a mountain if I have an usual threat like turkey who usually stays neutral but not always
Would love to see this repeated but with some non factory construction, mandated to be done by January 1940. That could be like max airfields in southern england, connectting supply in africa, with maybe a level 5 fort on El Alamein. Something just to represent the typical infrastructure investments that are done before war. I think it is also important to quantify how many civs are still left for construction at the end.
Civs are still essential for trade, licences, arms market, agency upgrades, so I think building a decently sized civilian industry is important (especially for faster repairs and less consumer goods impact)
Nice work! But i think that research only applies to countries that start their conquests in 39 and have relatively middle size (Germany, Britain, France, Italy historical). Obviously, strategy for USA or Soviet Union is completely different, cuz they have a lot of building slots and starts their wars later. Also this couldn't be accurate for Japan, China and most of alt-history paths in Balkans cuz they start their wars too early(37-ish) so they just dont have time to build enough civs for their economy.
The best meta, as we all know, hopefully, is civ-greeding USA in Kaiserreich/Kaiserredux while also avoiding the civil war. Endlessly scrolling down the screen when you put war economy on is soooo satisfying.
There are some exceptions tho. As England you can make mills with 20% constructioncost reduction when on early mobilization
Minor point, but as the UK you get the shadow scheme after the war starts as well as an advisor that speeds up conversion (totaling a 70% reduction in cost IIRC), so wouldn't it be worthwhile to civ greed as the UK, and then convert once the war starts?
I think this test is flawed as conversion time isn't taking into account. Especially in early game you will switch equipment often and thereby loose a lot of your productivity. Sometimes it will be useful to scale your military production once you have the tec you actually want to produce, instead of overproducing some cheap early stuff witch won't do you any good.
Also regarding factory conversions: as America, France and I think the UK as well, you can convert factories for free when going full mobilization with advisors and spirits. While as France you won't be able to set up a defense with your starting mills, both UK and America can easely hold out, or in the case of US against Japan win, with just their starting mils and dockyards as well as the factories they get along the way.
Aspecially as the US you can easely get up to 400-500 civ's before 1941, whilst still having enough equipment for a decent army group. Once war starts you can literally instantly switch 200 to 300 of your civ's to mills for free. If you time your tec right at this point you will already have the best medium or heavy tanks possible, fighter 3's, mechanized etc. And you can just start to build the best army on the world in large quantities. Usually in less then 6 months you can have your first armored army as well as enough fighters to contest an air zone. And it's only growing from there.
This is the question that bothered me for a long time. It kept me up at nights. Thanks for giving back my normal sleeping cycle. (L)
Shout out to 71cloak for answering the questions that most experienced hoi players cope at newer players about
idea/question : if CL can convert into CA (refit with bigger guns). would building CL then change single gun to large calibre faster than building CA from start since CL can assign 10dockyards while CA can only assign 5.
Pardon my smooth brain, but can't this just be mostly simplified to the question "How long does it take for a Civilian Factory to pay for itself in extra Mils"?
Hmm...I guess that disregards the effect of early Mils creating equipment sooner...
But production is worth less early game and worth more as you research better equipments, so it might make sense to civ greed. In a tank game maybe you don’t care about production at all before you get your tank researched.
This is an important video. Truly a milestone in the History of HOI4 and sweaty MP min maxing. From the bottom of my heart I thank you
typically, my civ builds revolves around the time, the first 2 years I do civ / infst only (for RSS) then the third year, I cancel all civs that have no progress, then work on Mills, and others based on what army / air comp I am using. This vid is good, but there are some things it doesn't take into account, like switching lines (newer model, not needed stockpile, trade which is influenced by how many wills you have on certain types, EXT)
The video is great. But there’s something that you as a viewer is that you can use the civ factory’s can build anti air, forts etc
what about soviets? they will never run out of slots
Your changing the meta everyday sir
Civs take more time then 1940 to make a return. Stats are hard to grab once war begins but the construction output isn't close and that pays off in 1941 and 1942. Especially if you have more land at that point where you can build.
Cloak, need some help here--------------->SUPPLY! Yes, I understand the rails, etc, but something many people do not get, especially me is-------------->You are the USA or UK. For this example, I will use USA. You and allies have invaded Europe, and now heading into the Soviet Union for whatever reason. You can upgrade all the ports, and almost all of the railroads, and still show low supply. When clicking on hub, it says bottleneck here or whatever, but you have no idea where the actual main of your supply is coming in from. I upgrade both naval bases to level 10 in Maryland, and any place I see a white route across the ocean to mainland Europe is leveled up too. Every railroad is level 5, but it still shows low supply. Since the supply hubs are foreign owned, you can't turn off supply to allies. Now, I never increase railroads across the USA, does that have something to do with it? Understand, this is with 24 width infantry division, 5 of them, on a field marshall front line who is Eisenhower who usually has logistics wizard by then. I do see red lines in the water because if I don't need my navy why use it, but when I check the route efficiency, it only says that I am losing trade, but not supplies. Point is---------->it is much easier to understand supply when your capital is on the mainland of where you are fighting, not so much when you are fighting on another continent of how it works from your capital. It is not intuitive at all by any guide I have seen except for building new naval bases, but in Europe, why would you have to when they have so many to upgrade? P.S. These are usually single player gms, and yes, have fighter superiority. I also wait for the tracks to show they have been upgraded, yet still happens. Winter, summer, doesn't matter. They are not bright red, but they do have attrition because of supply. Also check the hub, 8 of 8 trains in use, 70 of 70 trucks. Where it is even worse is when you go through Iran towards China, lol. Can build massive rails, upgrade naval bases in Med, as soon as out into the desert between Iran and what is next, you can't seem to supply a parakeet with a piece of birdseed! Keep up the good work!
If too many nations (more than 3) motorize the same supply hub you end up losing supply. Getting up to 5 or 6 nations motorizing the same supply hub and you will have 0 supply. So stop motorizing the supply and your supply situation may improve.
@@71Cloak Thank you, will try that.
So for a country like Germany where you need to build synths for rubber, should I be building them concurrently? What I’ve done in the past in SP is swap to mils around June 38 and then swap 3 of my construction lines to synths.
Building mils first will largely maximize production output, build refineries first will make them finish faster because you don't have the extra consumer goods from the mils yet. Up to you weather you need the construction speed on the refineries or the production. Most people seem to go for the mils first in mp.
Lol as major I always build infrastructure and civs until mid 1937 and then mills, guess I was right. Isn‘t this the MP meta?
So the original 2016 meta of "Build Civ for 1 year" was closer to truth than we thought eh?
I sort of noticed this myself after about 1k hours of MP that producing mils early is very useful. However I still like about 2 or 2.5 years of civ construction (considering on nation, if USSR even longer) because I like using my civs to build things like AA, radar, ports, etc very fast. I feel leaning SLIGHTLY towards civ-greed gives me flexibility and I understand if the war does indeed last to like '45 it will have been a benefit.
And you can use PP to increase building slot which can sometimes be useful
You should build civs until mid 37 in MP. As soviet, max until mid 38. Building more is a waste, even considering AA, airfields, etc.
@@mimile4462 thanks sounds about right. I'll try mils early 38 max instead. Old habits die hard I guess. Im old school like in HOI 2 I remember being a guy who does infrastructure + factory spam all the way to '39 as any major
What about the Soviet Union, and for that matter, the United States? With both countries, you enter the war way later. Would you just move the mil building from '37 to '39, assuming you join the war in '41? Or is the formula different with all the extra time?
Well you don't consider a few points.
1. Imports, you are building only equipment that cost no resources you need to import, when building planes, artillery, tanks that will be different. Having less CIVs due to expensive imports means when having fewer civs a much larger portion of your civilian industry won't be available any more
2. Old equipment has limited value. Sure Info equipment doesnt change that dramatically, support equipment stays the same. But tanks and even more so plains are not that useful if they are outdated. So getting more modern equipment might be more important than having a lot of old equipment
3. Why are you still on partial mob when the war has started? You should be on war eco from day one and after 2 years probably on total mob as well.
4. Infastructue, for war you will also need to build/repair harbors, supply depots, railways, airports, radar and such. Meaning building slots will be less of a problem overall
Not saying you are generally wrong. But its a little more difficult than just figuring out how many shit guns you can make by which build style
personally i'd still go for normal in mp because for things like tanks which you start producing later and won't have maxed production effeciency on so puring in an extra few mils later to your updated tanks i feel gives you more of the new equipment than having mils early and trying to get your production efficiency up.
I don't have much MP experience which I gather has completely different economics so It might be completely different.
In SP you really do need to Civ greed because you are by yourself and will need to build all the crap like roads ports AA and such, it is also too easy to just conquer mils.
This also doesn't really acknowledge that in SP you will have to change your production lines a lot which ruins the value of having the factory for a long time.
I get that this applies for maximum MILs, but what about other construction? If you're going for a lot of refineries, forts, supply hubs, etc. how much does CIV greed become better?
I wonder if you have considered converting the factories? The exponential buildout of civs plus subsequent conversion to mils works very well for USSR. Also, please note that the exponential civ buildout has an advantage in enabling one to build a strong fortification line, which in case of Barbarossa makes huge difference. Sometimes it's even possible to prevent the Germany from advancing beyond that line.
That’s what I’ve usually done for the US. Until the war breaks out in Europe, I strictly build Civ and Infrastructure, once the war breaks out I 50/50 it, then when I enter the war I just stick to mils until I’ve run out of good spots then start converting
@@jacobnormann6678If you manage to do some early conquests as a USSR, then you'll have enough equipment to arm enough divisions until the war starts. About a year before the war, you may build out forts and then use Molotov's line focus to get 8-9 level forts and a decent number of fighter airplanes to hold out the first year without losing a single region.
You could always build civs up as germany. They have Albert Speer as a political advisor and he give a factory conversion speed of 20% I think.
Man thank you, I always did building mils from 1 year and suffered every time from slot problem
Thanks for the tip, gamer.
This is true unless you have poopy resources, countries like Japan and Italy have serious lacks in resources like rubber and aluminum early (if you do an air build) and other minor countries like Raj and Canada need lots of resources just to function. Almost every major doesnt need to civ greed though
Thank you sir
I noticed this while i was playing minor/major and minor nations, you don't really have enough civs or slots in the beginning to affordably civ greed and takes too long overall.
Instead i would do mil greed and some infrastructure until i can get to partial or war economy, then add a civ or 2 for trade over time while focussing on mils production and overall equipment output.
Maybe for sp
@@thomasjones3206 Only for single player, multiplayer is cancer.
@@leiaorgana5098 Singleplayer is unplayable for me
I love building civs till right before going to war and I have suffered
But how about USA or USSR? surely the outcomes are different, also with USA the "Undisturbed Isolation" consumer goods only reducts civs production, so early "civs to mils" would make more sense right?
never build civs with USA you are griefing if you do. With USSR you build civs until mid 38 this will usually work out to around 130-150 civs
9:20 not even, I’ve Been doing this build where I build 10 civs and then mills and I get enough equipment to fully train 360 16 widths with 40 hv3 tds by barb and like half of the tanks are fully trained, anti civ greeding is very efficient as Soviets because you start producing convert tanks pretty much by the time you finish those 10 civs, even considering Soviets have enough slots the short term fully prepared for barb is worth it imo
If u are a large nation with late war u can civ greed
If u play Poland u build 2 infra in Katowice for steel and then all mills
theres a big question to be asked tho too because you dont just produce infantry equipment, so it would be worth analyzing how these players alter their behavior regarding production efficency in a real game. I could picture the civ greed build performing quite worse too because when I do it in MP games, I start new productionlines 0->30 factories from scratch with that, which is very inefficent afaik.
Thats a great gob man! I would to look same experiment in soviet union. There more time and building slots, so i think more better to built more civs. I wanna check statistic.
I feel like there are too many variables for these results to be accurate. For example, the need to build sinthetic refinaries (that you don't as the uk), the need to build airports, supply-related problems that require civs, the fact that the soviets don't need to worry about building slots (that much). All of these things you need civs for and you wouldn't be building mills during that time. I feel like this is a matter that differs a lot between different nations. I suggest an in-depth "guide" for each important nation, if you have the patience ahah. Let me know what you think. Cheers!
Spamming green factories it is then.
Maybe try this experiment with the USA or USSR - much more potential for building slots, Would be good to know if I ever play them again when its best to stop building civilian factories - normally I make use of the late entry into the war by going hard on civs until 1940 or even a bit beyond.
So I think the answer to this question isn't as straight forward as we think it is. This now the thing I am curious about, if these exact circumstances are continued, what does it look like when you convert the excess civs to mils. This is usually what I do and it doesnt feel like I am behind anyone in MP games in fact it feels like I am ahead. The excess civs also means I can spam out early aa, forts, rail lines refineries etc
I wonder which would be the best for the USSR since you have so many slots
Answering the real questions
I'm pretty sure if you count in the flexibility of both switching the equipment to later techs and having to build things like railways airports refineries etc. the civ will get ahead. The only thing this proved to me is how long does it take for a civ build to catch up with a mil build(when it comes to raw mil count), and how much 1936/39 weaponry can the builds produce.
The building slots mechanic makes very little sense to me in the developed parts of the world. HOI3 did it better, like pretty much everything else honestly.
@JL-XrtaMayoNoCheese Obviously.
I sharply but politely disagree with your reasoning. Raw mil output is less important than you make it out to be, simply because of the other uses that Civs have. Namely trade, and constructing buildings other than mils. A build that maximizes mil count, therefore mil output will lose against a balanced one that can make synthetics, airports, etc
Also the paradox forum has a lenthy thread where this topic has been discussed forever. Sadly, I cant find it :(
this guy is really smart.
wasn't there like a meta to abuse the civ to mil conversion bonus the UK gets to end up with more mils overall?
Is that meta I'm thinking of outdated or is it straight up BS?
whenever i play Germany i would always spend 2 yrs on civs, 1 yr on mils, and 39-War on refs. once the war started it would depend on the situation i find myself in. if im getting bombed to oblivion i would focus on AA(max 2 slots in each air zone) if aa, mils, and refs aren't a problem anymore i might focus on infra and rail for the eastern campaign.
i know its not the best build, but it works enough for me.
Did you change your occupation law to Local Autonomy? You have many places in the world you can build with the UK. With Local Autonomy you'll have 100 compliance everywhere by the time you're out of slots.
In the case of Germany, you have to consider that you have to idealy make some rafineries before the war and mefos bills gives 15% building speed on those, so you want to build a few before the war. If you build 6 rafineries, some AA, some railroads, infra in Rhineland, you shouldnt run out of slots even if you civ greed.