New player here with little more than 100 hours, found a gold mine in this channel. While I still need to get a grasp of the more in depth stuff the game has to offer, I really look forward to your content. I appreciate the effort you put into backing up your arguments with math and statistics, helps to get the hang of otherwise more theoretical concepts. Your content really helps to smooth the deep and challenging learning curve , ty for everything. Keep up the great work :)
This game is about diminishing returns and multiplying bonuses. Keep that in mind, and you'll be fine :) It took me a looooong time to come to terms with the fact that "good enough" is *better* than "as perfect as the game allows". Now, I know which things are needed when, and which things are nice to have but really not cost-efficient. Good luck, and enjoy ^^
I think the issue is that a lot of people play the game like it's EU4 In EU4, a building taking 3 years (~1% of total game) to pay it's self back is bonkers OP, in HoI4 (20-30% of total game) it's a rough sell at best
Have you noticed how Feedback gaming keeps ripping off this channel and makes a point even in several videos to not give him credit? This channel has soured my views on other channels it's so vastly superior.
@@mainman879 The one that stands out in my memory was the army doctrine comparison when the night battle +25% perk was discussed. FBG blatantly stole that discussion and revised his breakdown. I guess point being I don't need you to agree to know what went down there. But you were probably just making a joke anyway, which I agree with 100% ;)
I really like how you set up your test to be as realistic as possible. Showing us what your civs do (other than building mills) and what types of equipment are produced really helps to prove your point.
Production efficiency is the reason why i say USA is definitly a Nation for Dispersed Industry to even get to the max. efficiency. especialy USA has 2x +5max efficiency from General Motors and the Advisor.
Depends. Sherman spam/med hull 2 now late war USA gains more from conc. (You have the Sherman's on line from 38 to 41 when you join the war). If you are going for more airpower dispersed is kang.
@@janehrahan5116 yeah, iam generalizing. And i think for most new or average players, Disperesed is the better Choice. Because they lack the experience of how much equipment they need during a War etc. so they adapt their Production-lines quicker.
I’d say dispersed is king in almost all scenarios unless you plan to rarely if ever change out production lines. The only time I see that is where you are just desperate for basic equipment, like China. There a bad gun is better than no gun, so you keep your old production lines going and just add new mils to your newer, better guns. But most other situations dispersed is better because you want to switch to better tech options.
@@alatamore Also though something to bear in mind is most mp builds rush a tech ahead of time using 100% boosts, if you have a single piece of advanced equipment early and just care about spamming it and can afford to enter the war later than 39 and are safe from bombing conc can outpace dispersed.
A civ already takes a long time to pay itself back even when you don't look at opportunity cost. Civs cost more than mils. So if you build a civ to convert later into a mill. It would firstly need to pay back itself and then also the production cost difference between civs and mils. This takes way too long and is just looking at the build cost and not the ic/ opportunity cost.
@@ilikekspwaytoomuch4691 Actually not sure if that might be worth it. I usually start very early on (sometimes day 1) with building mils and rely on civs from focus tree and conquered territory. Normally building a mil and converting it to a civ cost more than builing a civ straight away. If there are enough modifiers for a country to get a cheaper conversion cost then it might be worth it even if the total cost is slightly higher. Even then I'd only do that if I notice I'll have to few civs anytime soon. Building a mil and converting to a civ using a 60% conversion reduction will have the same cost as a civ. 7200 + .4 x 9000 = 10800. I don't know any bonus/spirit that gives this though. It's all either civ to mil or production speed for civ.
This feels like a balance issue. What is the point of Civs then? The game should reward you for cutting it close on military production by taking the risk of delaying having equipment. The players expect that building Civs would pay off, but the game balance makes it so it is never meta. An alternative balance where Civs cost less than mils could yield some more interesting decision making in choosing between Mils and Civs. The balance as it makes so there is no decision.
Its never meta for the united states, for the uk/france/germany its meta to build civs exclusively for a full year to up to a year and a half from game start. For the soviets it is meta to build civs almost exclusively for 2 and a half years. The thing is that civs are best built early, by the time the us doesn't have a -50% penalty to factory construction the window of value has passed.
you're also not mentioning both the facts that civs are more expensive to build than mils (the base cost is higher) and that once you reach partial mob you've got more bonuses to mil construction speed than civ construction speed so even with a theoretical 100% conversion speed, you're still loosing IC because you're converting something expansive into something cheaper
The idea behind it that people put forward is that each cov is helping build more civs. So theoretically you are snowballing your civ count and that is supposed to confer some benefit. It doesn't but that's what some people think is going to happen.
@@71Cloak You could actually work out an equation and graph it to prove that point. You would have to pump out enough civs to get the equivalent IC to instantly build a mil. You get off the great depression way faster than that would take to ever be a viable strategy though. You will also run out of building slots way faster than it could hope to be useful. If HoI4 was a long running campaign like eu4 or ck3 it would be an incredibly busted opening strategy, Hoi4 doesn't last long enough though.
@@71Cloak Can you test building no civs at all (except for congress). I typically go infra, 10-20 docks depending on what Japan's been saying in lobby, and then mils. I find the starting civs are enough to handle imports and you max out your slots regardless. I also tend to run aluminum/steel decisions in 39 and 40 using PP for designers. Sure the factories are worth more after you get off GD, but the PP is just as valuable early and you get docks/mils faster to build stuff (TAC 1s are very decent to build efficiency on)
@@kaigao4842 Vanilla US definitely shouldn't build civs. Mods that buff US civ construction and mods that add more build slots can incentivize early civs. Rules for US are usually that they can only send fuel/convoys until France falls, then they can send any equipment, and US can join when Japan declares or some specific date (usually mid-late 41) if Japan hasn't declared.
Thank you for making this video. A lot of people who play this game just don't understand the production-output aspect of it. Having more mils and less output simply isn't better than having less mils and more output today. I think people have the wrong idea about snowballing. It is true that having more civs makes you snowball faster but the question is when does that snowballing begin? and how does that affect your output? However, one valid point is that you need civs for repair, trade and building other stuff. It's quite hard to answer how much buffer of civs you actually need because i think, it depends on specific countries and situations.
Amazing content as always. I have been making this mistake of civ greeding, and I can't wait to apply your findings in my next game. Also, this completely settles the argument about whether Dispersed or Concentrated is better. I guess Concentrated is better if you're doing some cheesy rush game, but it seems like dispersed will always be better for the US and most majors
I really enjoy your videos but there is one consistent factor you're never mentioning/considering. If you focus purely on military output you make yourself vulnerable to bombing. A low civ count nation's weakness is bomb vulnerability. You can't rapidly build aa or repair your damaged buildings if you have a low civ count. Nor can you rapidly build railroads, airports, and infrastructure to support your advancing front line.
I’d imagine the tipping point on when to switch to building mils varies depending on the country and when you plan to go to war. Japan would need mils faster because it will be starting in 37, while the US has more time in theory as it has until 41 (though it starts so far behind maybe not). Also how many civs do you really need? Spy ops, and the ability to build in ally’s territory makes me want a few extra civs than before but at the end of the day that isn’t that much. More mils sooner is overall better.
Japan should be able to beat China with their starting mils. You can take the army rivalry option for 4 extra, but I never need to build any for the China war
Lend lease Art and AT to France at 50% till '40 is a strong US move. It let's them focus on building Inf eq efficiency, and get enough divs out to hold their two fronts. As the French; pretend you are Russian. Cheap divs on the borders, fortify your river crossings. Naval invasions on Italian supply hubs can quickly turn a 2 front war into beating up the Germans and a sad, undersupplied rubber ducky.
Hey Cloak, great work on the channel uncovering a bunch of spaghetti code/running the numbers for us all! I have another suggestion (and one that I've lightly tested myself but I'm not 110% sure of myself). It's the unique national spirit for the UK 'cag night fighters'. It's a pretty cool concept to let CVs sortie during nighttime battles and has a lot of historical flavour. However, I've had a brief look at the code and it seems to be a multiplicative value that doesn't impact the relevant base value that reduces CV sorties. I've filed a fairly detailed bug report on the forums if you're interested in using that as a reference point which never received a reply - maybe your platform could shine a light on yet another broken corp spirit?
I'd like to see the math around when you should be switching infantry equipment. Personally I don't even bother with infantry equipment 3 because of the production loss from switching it over
"If you can't build mills in the beginning of 38, because you don't have anything worth producing, then you just need to research better." Do you think this would still be true if in future paradox reworked the ahead of time penalty to be more severe, or the game rules made ahead of time rushing more restrictive? In the extreme case for example, what if you just weren't allowed to research any techs ahead of time, like in some of the older HOI titles, would any of the equipment available in 38 (outside of equipment that doesn't change throughout the game like support equipment or moto) be worth producing over a strategy, where you wait until later in the game to have a larger number of mills producing more modern equipment? A more subjective question: do you think the ahead of time penalty is currently too lenient? Currently it's a regular occurance to see both sides of the war use equipment thats 2, 3 or even 4 years ahead of time (e.g. Fighter 3's in 40). IMO I think reasearching tech significantly ahead of time should be a far more niche strategy than it is currently, but i'd like to hear from someone with more experience, whether changes to the AOT penalty would have a positive or negative effect on competetive hoi 4 MP.
If the penalty becomes a lot bigger you can make motorized, support equipment, aa and medium tanks. Making some 1936 guns ain't that bad of an idea either. Sure 1939 is better, but you don't want to have too few guns when the war starts either. Personally I only play SP. I can imagine that in MP everyone has to have the bare minimum to hold off most attacks on land, but that everyone also will specialise in 1 field (air, ground or navy). In SP I barely use ahead of tech because you have to do all of those things yourself.
Realistically if the penalty for ahead of time got higher than early game equipment would be more valuable than current because the early war would have to be fought with early game equipment. You wouldn't be able to civ greed if Germany is just building Fighter 1s from day 1 preparing for a war on Jan 1 39. You would have to building that equipment or you would lose before you even have time to scale.
I still overmake civs, but I do so intentionally. I find the civs REALLY helpful for building ports, air bases, and railways as I advance. I even upgrade infrastructure so I can stay on Free Trade for as long as possible, to keep that research bonus! 🤓 And I don't want extra stuff if it's early tech. I don't struggle to hold, as it is, so I don't really need it. And the efficiency resets if I switch production, which is a pain (even with maxed Dispersed tech). So, although the issues raised in this video are all totally totally valid, I still don't think they are as decisive. (not in single-player, at least)
Cloak Can you make a video showing if adding a air producer who gives buffes such as 15% agility for fighters effects the airplanes given in lend lease for a air controller hungary? so would it be better to get the producer which makes production cheaper rather than buffs the equipment itself
Should do. The airplanes stats are permanently affected by the designers. The buffs/nerfs from national spirits are not permanent. If you have a -5% construction cost spirit and somebody licenses that from you they don't get the bonus.
what if you follow the building style of mils at partial mob, but also convert down to 100 civs anyways when it becomes free? how would the production look like then?
Hey Cloak I'm kinda bad at game and personally never build Civs with USA I build infrastructure and then mils. I don't think it's worth making anymore civs when you have so many. I presume I've been doing ut wrong?
USA starts with nasty civ building negative stat so you’re doing it fine. Infrastructure helps improve resource amounts and increases factory slots to let you build more mils anyway.
@@stevepirie8130 yeah I don't start building mils for USA until like later 38 or 39, I know better now but as USA I never build civs because of the incredible amount of civs. Good to know I'm doing ok
Given that production efficiency talk, specially for smaller nations, should you build civs at all? You need some for resources, so when should you switch to mils?
That's very dependent on both the small nation being played and how many civs they start with. Also how early you are going to go to war and whether you need extra production to win that war. Like if you only have 3-4 civs building its going to take over a year jist to finish a civ. Is that really worth it?
Learning to respect the production efficiency cap was a major improvement to my game. I was swapping lines all William Nilliam and wondering where it all went wrong
If you played Germany you could say you were roleplaying lol. There is some really great content on youtube about that if yuore interested ruclips.net/video/N6xLMUifbxQ/видео.html from 26 min onwards.
cloak, if you give tank expeditiory forces to another country that doesnt have the mobile warfare doctrine, but the sender has it, which doctrine do the divisions use? and do national spirits and military high commands affect the divisions?
Divisions use their original countries doctrine for base stats but the country they are being sent to for entrenchment and planning bonus. I think that is also true for high command.
if u intent on an early game winning in 40 or 39 is dispersed worse? do the 20% factory output while russing mils benefit more in arty, rifles, airplanes have a noticable difference? assuming u never change production tier and stay on 36 tech
It depends on when you are getting the majority of your mils. If your going to rapidly expand your industry and that production is going to matter then dispersed is much better in the short term. Otherwise it isn't going to be that much of a big deal either way.
So what would be the optimal start date to build mills for the US and Soviet Union? I have heard that you should build mills 2 years before the war for most countries but does this apply to the US and Soviet Union too? Since they are entering the war in mid to late 1941 and have a butt ton of building slots, isn't building mills later better? Thanks in advance.
This is the formula for the reduction of the damages by the armor : 0.9(1 - piercing/armor). If armor < piercing you will take full damage. If I remember correctly you don't take any critical damage while armor >= piercing. Don't forget to check the final value of the armor on your existing ships produced because training the ship means higher defense which means higher armor, the level of defense on the admiral and the doctrine.
You do realize most of us don't give two shits about MP in this game right? Some of the MP "tactics" are exactly why we ask Paradox to fix their game. For example CAS only should be annihilated by Fighters. Going subs only for Germany makes sense many because that was all they could get away with building in secret as BBs tend to get noticed in a time when a BB is viewed as an atomic bomb. I've even irritated by how long it takes to drill a tank unit much less production of them. Honestly I deathstack my navies but I would like to see Paradox fix that as well because it's silly almost everyone is running just strike force and convoy raiding. Honestly I'm even a little irritated that gaining XP above Veterans is almost impossible beyond purely defending even with field hospitals and divisions that barely lose any manpower. For the majority of us who just like playing a WW2 4X sim, we are trying to get paradox to kill off "metas" so that we don't have stupid gimmicks killing the game. It's really not a good game for MP on any level as far as being actually competitive since to some extent even in MP it follows history and no matter what some countries are going to get the shaft and others aren't. Which I am fine with but there's a reason why say FPSes pretend WW2 is everyone had a semi auto rifle or assault rifle. The only real pushback I saw was Hell Let Loose. The fact any MP HOI4 moron would even think to go all Civs for 2 years as the freaking US proves why we hate the MP side. How do they not know about production efficiency and yet they want to play MP? It just proves that dumb "metas" make the game too easy when the game is supposed to be this crazy tactical thing. Heck if I had my way I'd even go as far as to eliminate manually moving units when attacking in MP since it just becomes all about encirclements memes. Maybe that's why we need a POW feature as well so trying to ensnare 1 million troops becomes a burden as even the Nazis didn't mass murder all the Russians they took. In this game you coldly murder them down to a man regardless of ideology. I think Feedback, isorrow, whatever the other annoying Brit is named and other so called "experts" were exposed after NSB as clearly not having any idea how to play the game and really only knowing exploits in the 7-2 era. You know your stuff, no doubt, but the majority of the player base is playing the "spirit of the game" or doing dumbass alt history runs over MP. I'm irritated enough I now have to build my own planes, ships, and tanks. At this rate we'll be making our own guns and artillery next which is really getting out there when many of us just want what our countries actually used rather than pretending I'm ever going to get to use that 1944 CV anytime before the war ends. I'm irritated enough Lend-Lease requires the US to essentially be at war when in reality they were shipping guns to the UK before they were ever in the war. Heck I feel like Paradox themselves doesn't even really get their own game, why would I want the ability to make a million variations of tanks when I can't even kick them out fast enough to really effect anything? Even the Combat width update in NSB just made the game easier because for the most part just use the default layout for any nation (9 inf and maybe 1-2 art) and you're good for all situations. Clearly Paradox though they'd finally make Special Forces useful outside of gimmick unrealistic 1 Para attacks or Marines used the same as Inf but only for beach heading an naval invasion
What are you here for? What is your point? It seems you're just venting frustration about hoi4 in general, which seems more like a post more suited for the paradox forum.
Shouldn't this be free for Germany instead considering Albert Speer?🤨 Germany's production was constantly increasing inspite of the permanent desastrous bombing
Eh the US Civilian->Military conversion was practically legendary by scale alone, at the time in 1941 the US had over 50% of the world's industrial output and by 45 a huge amount of that had been converted to military
That's fine. As long as you know your being sub optimal because lots of civs feels good but isn't, then you can play how you like. Just don't try to convince people that civ greeding is good.
cloak roasting us like a substitute teacher before a math test
New player here with little more than 100 hours, found a gold mine in this channel. While I still need to get a grasp of the more in depth stuff the game has to offer, I really look forward to your content. I appreciate the effort you put into backing up your arguments with math and statistics, helps to get the hang of otherwise more theoretical concepts. Your content really helps to smooth the deep and challenging learning curve , ty for everything. Keep up the great work :)
This game is about diminishing returns and multiplying bonuses.
Keep that in mind, and you'll be fine :)
It took me a looooong time to come to terms with the fact that "good enough" is *better* than "as perfect as the game allows".
Now, I know which things are needed when, and which things are nice to have but really not cost-efficient.
Good luck, and enjoy ^^
You had me at "I built a simple little Excel spreadsheet"
I think the issue is that a lot of people play the game like it's EU4
In EU4, a building taking 3 years (~1% of total game) to pay it's self back is bonkers OP, in HoI4 (20-30% of total game) it's a rough sell at best
But like buildings take at least ten years to pay themselves off in EU4.
@@maheswarpradeep2816 which is still a very little time (unless you're playing byzantium)
This has to be the most sofisticated HOI4 channel on platform.
Have you noticed how Feedback gaming keeps ripping off this channel and makes a point even in several videos to not give him credit? This channel has soured my views on other channels it's so vastly superior.
@@adamconner9302 I agree. FBG used to me pretty original and interesting but now it's kinda copy/clickbait
@@adamconner9302 Nah if Feedback copied this channel he would have good points in some of his vids. Most of his information is shit though.
@@mainman879 The one that stands out in my memory was the army doctrine comparison when the night battle +25% perk was discussed. FBG blatantly stole that discussion and revised his breakdown. I guess point being I don't need you to agree to know what went down there. But you were probably just making a joke anyway, which I agree with 100% ;)
I really like how you set up your test to be as realistic as possible. Showing us what your civs do (other than building mills) and what types of equipment are produced really helps to prove your point.
Production efficiency is the reason why i say USA is definitly a Nation for Dispersed Industry to even get to the max. efficiency. especialy USA has 2x +5max efficiency from General Motors and the Advisor.
Depends. Sherman spam/med hull 2 now late war USA gains more from conc. (You have the Sherman's on line from 38 to 41 when you join the war). If you are going for more airpower dispersed is kang.
@@janehrahan5116 yeah, iam generalizing.
And i think for most new or average players, Disperesed is the better Choice.
Because they lack the experience of how much equipment they need during a War etc. so they adapt their Production-lines quicker.
I’d say dispersed is king in almost all scenarios unless you plan to rarely if ever change out production lines. The only time I see that is where you are just desperate for basic equipment, like China. There a bad gun is better than no gun, so you keep your old production lines going and just add new mils to your newer, better guns. But most other situations dispersed is better because you want to switch to better tech options.
@@alatamore Also though something to bear in mind is most mp builds rush a tech ahead of time using 100% boosts, if you have a single piece of advanced equipment early and just care about spamming it and can afford to enter the war later than 39 and are safe from bombing conc can outpace dispersed.
A civ already takes a long time to pay itself back even when you don't look at opportunity cost. Civs cost more than mils. So if you build a civ to convert later into a mill. It would firstly need to pay back itself and then also the production cost difference between civs and mils. This takes way too long and is just looking at the build cost and not the ic/ opportunity cost.
this means we should build mils and convert then to civs
@@ilikekspwaytoomuch4691 Actually not sure if that might be worth it. I usually start very early on (sometimes day 1) with building mils and rely on civs from focus tree and conquered territory.
Normally building a mil and converting it to a civ cost more than builing a civ straight away. If there are enough modifiers for a country to get a cheaper conversion cost then it might be worth it even if the total cost is slightly higher. Even then I'd only do that if I notice I'll have to few civs anytime soon.
Building a mil and converting to a civ using a 60% conversion reduction will have the same cost as a civ. 7200 + .4 x 9000 = 10800. I don't know any bonus/spirit that gives this though. It's all either civ to mil or production speed for civ.
This feels like a balance issue. What is the point of Civs then? The game should reward you for cutting it close on military production by taking the risk of delaying having equipment. The players expect that building Civs would pay off, but the game balance makes it so it is never meta.
An alternative balance where Civs cost less than mils could yield some more interesting decision making in choosing between Mils and Civs. The balance as it makes so there is no decision.
Its never meta for the united states, for the uk/france/germany its meta to build civs exclusively for a full year to up to a year and a half from game start. For the soviets it is meta to build civs almost exclusively for 2 and a half years. The thing is that civs are best built early, by the time the us doesn't have a -50% penalty to factory construction the window of value has passed.
you're also not mentioning both the facts that civs are more expensive to build than mils (the base cost is higher) and that once you reach partial mob you've got more bonuses to mil construction speed than civ construction speed
so even with a theoretical 100% conversion speed, you're still loosing IC because you're converting something expansive into something cheaper
The idea behind it that people put forward is that each cov is helping build more civs. So theoretically you are snowballing your civ count and that is supposed to confer some benefit.
It doesn't but that's what some people think is going to happen.
@@71Cloak You could actually work out an equation and graph it to prove that point. You would have to pump out enough civs to get the equivalent IC to instantly build a mil. You get off the great depression way faster than that would take to ever be a viable strategy though. You will also run out of building slots way faster than it could hope to be useful. If HoI4 was a long running campaign like eu4 or ck3 it would be an incredibly busted opening strategy, Hoi4 doesn't last long enough though.
@@71Cloak Can you test building no civs at all (except for congress). I typically go infra, 10-20 docks depending on what Japan's been saying in lobby, and then mils. I find the starting civs are enough to handle imports and you max out your slots regardless. I also tend to run aluminum/steel decisions in 39 and 40 using PP for designers. Sure the factories are worth more after you get off GD, but the PP is just as valuable early and you get docks/mils faster to build stuff (TAC 1s are very decent to build efficiency on)
@@28lobster28 Is this vanilla MP? If so, what are the game rules?
@@kaigao4842 Vanilla US definitely shouldn't build civs. Mods that buff US civ construction and mods that add more build slots can incentivize early civs. Rules for US are usually that they can only send fuel/convoys until France falls, then they can send any equipment, and US can join when Japan declares or some specific date (usually mid-late 41) if Japan hasn't declared.
Thanks for demolishing the Civ-greed approach. It might not seem like it, but building mils in early 1938 is key to victory.
Thank you for making this video. A lot of people who play this game just don't understand the production-output aspect of it. Having more mils and less output simply isn't better than having less mils and more output today. I think people have the wrong idea about snowballing. It is true that having more civs makes you snowball faster but the question is when does that snowballing begin? and how does that affect your output? However, one valid point is that you need civs for repair, trade and building other stuff. It's quite hard to answer how much buffer of civs you actually need because i think, it depends on specific countries and situations.
Amazing content as always. I have been making this mistake of civ greeding, and I can't wait to apply your findings in my next game. Also, this completely settles the argument about whether Dispersed or Concentrated is better. I guess Concentrated is better if you're doing some cheesy rush game, but it seems like dispersed will always be better for the US and most majors
I really enjoy your videos but there is one consistent factor you're never mentioning/considering. If you focus purely on military output you make yourself vulnerable to bombing. A low civ count nation's weakness is bomb vulnerability. You can't rapidly build aa or repair your damaged buildings if you have a low civ count. Nor can you rapidly build railroads, airports, and infrastructure to support your advancing front line.
That's a null factor if your getting bombed as the USA the game is over
If you make more mils, you will have more fighters so you won't get bombed.
I’d imagine the tipping point on when to switch to building mils varies depending on the country and when you plan to go to war. Japan would need mils faster because it will be starting in 37, while the US has more time in theory as it has until 41 (though it starts so far behind maybe not). Also how many civs do you really need? Spy ops, and the ability to build in ally’s territory makes me want a few extra civs than before but at the end of the day that isn’t that much. More mils sooner is overall better.
Japan should be able to beat China with their starting mils. You can take the army rivalry option for 4 extra, but I never need to build any for the China war
Damn nice testing. Great vid.
oof, someone give this man some ice-cold sparkling water and a foot massage. dude's seething
as usa in mp i think mils at partial is much more important as from 38-42 u can lend lease to france or china to slow down axis
Lend lease Art and AT to France at 50% till '40 is a strong US move. It let's them focus on building Inf eq efficiency, and get enough divs out to hold their two fronts.
As the French; pretend you are Russian. Cheap divs on the borders, fortify your river crossings. Naval invasions on Italian supply hubs can quickly turn a 2 front war into beating up the Germans and a sad, undersupplied rubber ducky.
Hey Cloak, great work on the channel uncovering a bunch of spaghetti code/running the numbers for us all!
I have another suggestion (and one that I've lightly tested myself but I'm not 110% sure of myself). It's the unique national spirit for the UK 'cag night fighters'. It's a pretty cool concept to let CVs sortie during nighttime battles and has a lot of historical flavour. However, I've had a brief look at the code and it seems to be a multiplicative value that doesn't impact the relevant base value that reduces CV sorties.
I've filed a fairly detailed bug report on the forums if you're interested in using that as a reference point which never received a reply - maybe your platform could shine a light on yet another broken corp spirit?
That spirit definitely doesn't do anything. I'm pretty certain I have mentioned it in a video.
I saw your Raj save, can you do a Raj build ? :D
That was a horstorical mp game. I just took a save at the end in case I wanted to look at what Japan did.
@@71Cloak I would so love a comprehensive Raj guide, it's almost impossible to find one up to date :(
I'd like to see the math around when you should be switching infantry equipment. Personally I don't even bother with infantry equipment 3 because of the production loss from switching it over
Why do you need so much guns tho
I always have a surplus of 10k+
"If you can't build mills in the beginning of 38, because you don't have anything worth producing, then you just need to research better."
Do you think this would still be true if in future paradox reworked the ahead of time penalty to be more severe, or the game rules made ahead of time rushing more restrictive? In the extreme case for example, what if you just weren't allowed to research any techs ahead of time, like in some of the older HOI titles, would any of the equipment available in 38 (outside of equipment that doesn't change throughout the game like support equipment or moto) be worth producing over a strategy, where you wait until later in the game to have a larger number of mills producing more modern equipment?
A more subjective question:
do you think the ahead of time penalty is currently too lenient? Currently it's a regular occurance to see both sides of the war use equipment thats 2, 3 or even 4 years ahead of time (e.g. Fighter 3's in 40). IMO I think reasearching tech significantly ahead of time should be a far more niche strategy than it is currently, but i'd like to hear from someone with more experience, whether changes to the AOT penalty would have a positive or negative effect on competetive hoi 4 MP.
If the penalty becomes a lot bigger you can make motorized, support equipment, aa and medium tanks. Making some 1936 guns ain't that bad of an idea either. Sure 1939 is better, but you don't want to have too few guns when the war starts either.
Personally I only play SP. I can imagine that in MP everyone has to have the bare minimum to hold off most attacks on land, but that everyone also will specialise in 1 field (air, ground or navy). In SP I barely use ahead of tech because you have to do all of those things yourself.
Realistically if the penalty for ahead of time got higher than early game equipment would be more valuable than current because the early war would have to be fought with early game equipment. You wouldn't be able to civ greed if Germany is just building Fighter 1s from day 1 preparing for a war on Jan 1 39. You would have to building that equipment or you would lose before you even have time to scale.
I still overmake civs, but I do so intentionally.
I find the civs REALLY helpful for building ports, air bases, and railways as I advance.
I even upgrade infrastructure so I can stay on Free Trade for as long as possible, to keep that research bonus! 🤓
And I don't want extra stuff if it's early tech.
I don't struggle to hold, as it is, so I don't really need it.
And the efficiency resets if I switch production, which is a pain (even with maxed Dispersed tech).
So, although the issues raised in this video are all totally totally valid, I still don't think they are as decisive.
(not in single-player, at least)
Amazing video
Tid bit I picked up... I had never changed my USA war footing off of isolation >_
With the US, I just build guns and planes until I get my massive mil boost, then I make a bunch of modern stuff so it counteracts
Cloak
Can you make a video showing if adding a air producer who gives buffes such as 15% agility for fighters effects the airplanes given in lend lease for a air controller hungary? so would it be better to get the producer which makes production cheaper rather than buffs the equipment itself
Should do. The airplanes stats are permanently affected by the designers. The buffs/nerfs from national spirits are not permanent. If you have a -5% construction cost spirit and somebody licenses that from you they don't get the bonus.
Hey, I was wondering, what do you think is the best infantry template and what template do you use the most with relation to infantry?
what if you follow the building style of mils at partial mob, but also convert down to 100 civs anyways when it becomes free?
how would the production look like then?
Hey Cloak I'm kinda bad at game and personally never build Civs with USA I build infrastructure and then mils. I don't think it's worth making anymore civs when you have so many. I presume I've been doing ut wrong?
USA starts with nasty civ building negative stat so you’re doing it fine. Infrastructure helps improve resource amounts and increases factory slots to let you build more mils anyway.
@@stevepirie8130 yeah I don't start building mils for USA until like later 38 or 39, I know better now but as USA I never build civs because of the incredible amount of civs. Good to know I'm doing ok
Given that production efficiency talk, specially for smaller nations, should you build civs at all? You need some for resources, so when should you switch to mils?
That's very dependent on both the small nation being played and how many civs they start with. Also how early you are going to go to war and whether you need extra production to win that war.
Like if you only have 3-4 civs building its going to take over a year jist to finish a civ. Is that really worth it?
Learning to respect the production efficiency cap was a major improvement to my game. I was swapping lines all William Nilliam and wondering where it all went wrong
If you played Germany you could say you were roleplaying lol. There is some really great content on youtube about that if yuore interested ruclips.net/video/N6xLMUifbxQ/видео.html from 26 min onwards.
god i hate that tiny saved games window. i always have 30 ongoing games i swap between i wish it filled the entire window
SNAP!
What’s your opinion on surface raiders are they better than subs? And Is the surface raiders navel spirt worth while?
Can you do a video on how to maximize CAS/TAC/heavy bombers?
cloak, if you give tank expeditiory forces to another country that doesnt have the mobile warfare doctrine, but the sender has it, which doctrine do the divisions use? and do national spirits and military high commands affect the divisions?
Divisions use their original countries doctrine for base stats but the country they are being sent to for entrenchment and planning bonus. I think that is also true for high command.
@@71Cloak thats dope, cheers
if u intent on an early game winning in 40 or 39 is dispersed worse? do the 20% factory output while russing mils benefit more in arty, rifles, airplanes have a noticable difference? assuming u never change production tier and stay on 36 tech
It depends on when you are getting the majority of your mils. If your going to rapidly expand your industry and that production is going to matter then dispersed is much better in the short term.
Otherwise it isn't going to be that much of a big deal either way.
So what would be the optimal start date to build mills for the US and Soviet Union? I have heard that you should build mills 2 years before the war for most countries but does this apply to the US and Soviet Union too? Since they are entering the war in mid to late 1941 and have a butt ton of building slots, isn't building mills later better? Thanks in advance.
He's saying the USA should just build mils from the beginning. USSR is sometimes a different story
All I’m hearing here is quadruple build slots make Japan 1 giant factory
Could you please explain how naval armor and piercing works?
This is the formula for the reduction of the damages by the armor : 0.9(1 - piercing/armor). If armor < piercing you will take full damage. If I remember correctly you don't take any critical damage while armor >= piercing.
Don't forget to check the final value of the armor on your existing ships produced because training the ship means higher defense which means higher armor, the level of defense on the admiral and the doctrine.
You can do this with France too
by the time in 43 when u have t4 research on dispered or 45 when u have assembly line growth is it viable then?
You should have tier 5 of both by early 42.
man, I'm just tryna enjoy the game whist y'all tryna giga Chad everything
can you make a franceMP guide?
This all hides the core issue:
Civs are too expensive. Its barely ever worth it to build civs because of their cost.
You do realize most of us don't give two shits about MP in this game right? Some of the MP "tactics" are exactly why we ask Paradox to fix their game. For example CAS only should be annihilated by Fighters. Going subs only for Germany makes sense many because that was all they could get away with building in secret as BBs tend to get noticed in a time when a BB is viewed as an atomic bomb. I've even irritated by how long it takes to drill a tank unit much less production of them. Honestly I deathstack my navies but I would like to see Paradox fix that as well because it's silly almost everyone is running just strike force and convoy raiding. Honestly I'm even a little irritated that gaining XP above Veterans is almost impossible beyond purely defending even with field hospitals and divisions that barely lose any manpower. For the majority of us who just like playing a WW2 4X sim, we are trying to get paradox to kill off "metas" so that we don't have stupid gimmicks killing the game.
It's really not a good game for MP on any level as far as being actually competitive since to some extent even in MP it follows history and no matter what some countries are going to get the shaft and others aren't. Which I am fine with but there's a reason why say FPSes pretend WW2 is everyone had a semi auto rifle or assault rifle. The only real pushback I saw was Hell Let Loose.
The fact any MP HOI4 moron would even think to go all Civs for 2 years as the freaking US proves why we hate the MP side. How do they not know about production efficiency and yet they want to play MP? It just proves that dumb "metas" make the game too easy when the game is supposed to be this crazy tactical thing. Heck if I had my way I'd even go as far as to eliminate manually moving units when attacking in MP since it just becomes all about encirclements memes. Maybe that's why we need a POW feature as well so trying to ensnare 1 million troops becomes a burden as even the Nazis didn't mass murder all the Russians they took. In this game you coldly murder them down to a man regardless of ideology.
I think Feedback, isorrow, whatever the other annoying Brit is named and other so called "experts" were exposed after NSB as clearly not having any idea how to play the game and really only knowing exploits in the 7-2 era.
You know your stuff, no doubt, but the majority of the player base is playing the "spirit of the game" or doing dumbass alt history runs over MP. I'm irritated enough I now have to build my own planes, ships, and tanks. At this rate we'll be making our own guns and artillery next which is really getting out there when many of us just want what our countries actually used rather than pretending I'm ever going to get to use that 1944 CV anytime before the war ends. I'm irritated enough Lend-Lease requires the US to essentially be at war when in reality they were shipping guns to the UK before they were ever in the war. Heck I feel like Paradox themselves doesn't even really get their own game, why would I want the ability to make a million variations of tanks when I can't even kick them out fast enough to really effect anything?
Even the Combat width update in NSB just made the game easier because for the most part just use the default layout for any nation (9 inf and maybe 1-2 art) and you're good for all situations. Clearly Paradox though they'd finally make Special Forces useful outside of gimmick unrealistic 1 Para attacks or Marines used the same as Inf but only for beach heading an naval invasion
What are you here for? What is your point? It seems you're just venting frustration about hoi4 in general, which seems more like a post more suited for the paradox forum.
🤓
Converting to mils makes no sense because costfor constructing a civ is a lot more than a cost for constructing a mil
Does this mean mil greed is meta?! 🤣
Shouldn't this be free for Germany instead considering Albert Speer?🤨 Germany's production was constantly increasing inspite of the permanent desastrous bombing
Eh the US Civilian->Military conversion was practically legendary by scale alone, at the time in 1941 the US had over 50% of the world's industrial output and by 45 a huge amount of that had been converted to military
Git gut
I mean you might come in with all of your data and experiments, but no amount of facts can convince me to not civ-greed.
That's fine. As long as you know your being sub optimal because lots of civs feels good but isn't, then you can play how you like.
Just don't try to convince people that civ greeding is good.