When Should You Start Building Mils - Hoi4
Vložit
- čas přidán 8. 07. 2022
- 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 - Hry
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
I've always believed in mil greed green factories look better than the orange ones anyways
GREEN FACTORY FTW, LULULULULU
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.
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.
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 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
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.
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)?
I appreciate the analytic approach you apply rather than the trial and error it seems others employ
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
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
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.
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 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.
This video is gold. Thank you so much for this
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 CZcamsr, 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
Charts are quite helpful for visuals. Thanks!
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 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.
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.
never, keep building civs until the end of the game
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 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
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
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.
Finally someone who understands...
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
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?
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
Your changing the meta everyday sir
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
71Cloak DESTROYS hoi4 metas with LOGIC
That's actually very helpful, I've been watching your videos for months even though I don't even play that much. Your work is just that interesting. A question about the civ greeding, what about cases like Germany that can stack civ building speed bonuses very high ( especially if you go oppose Hitler), isn't it more interesting to just spam civs and convert progressively
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.
love your videos man
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 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
Interesting vid - what about alternating building Civs and Mils? I tend to go for this strategy. Is this effective?
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.
I never considered how running out of slots would affect the equation. Very important point.
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.
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?
how would it play out if you first build up the infrastructure and then build civs and maybe Synthetic refinery.
Im doing a slightly modded democratic Japan (found a mod not sure how well balanced it is called Stronger democratic Japan).
and it just gave you a lot more focus and sort of started the postwar industrial groth in 1937 instead of in 1947.
and whit that I lose the oil and rubber so I decided to whit just the 8 oil or what it is to just build the 3 limit Synthetic refinery in each state (each also gives 1 rubber each + 1 per research).
and from what I can tell I make so much fuel that the Synthetic refinery factories turns a coffee cup of oil into like 10 barrel of fuel.
What about small nations? If i start as Yugoslavia for example, with barely any fomestic resource production and half of my civs will be dedicated to just trading, is it still viable to stop building then so early?
So many variables and im having feverrn. can you calculate this without taking any focus, using the policy that have no debuff on mil/civ/dock construction, and max infra (theoritical output). im also interested at seeing the overall picture of the economy (civ output, mils, dock) as i realized that civilain good kinda percentage of total factory so if you only build mils your civ to build (and to trade for resource) will be reduced slowly.
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.
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
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.
Great video! Thank you for it!
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)
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.
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.
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
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.
Thank you sir
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'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.
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
There are some exceptions tho. As England you can make mills with 20% constructioncost reduction when on early mobilization
Paradox should make the building slot decision cheaper, maybe 25 for the at-war option and 50 for the at peace option
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 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
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.
Shout out to 71cloak for answering the questions that most experienced hoi players cope at newer players about
Legend!
I think the build slot issue doesn't apply as much to Germany, since they gain new land with relatively high infrastructure from the start of the war onwards. So I was wondering, if you took this to 43 or 44, would the civ greed be able to scale up?
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.
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?
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.
Thank you so much !
You should also consider resources
When you build a lot of mils early you might run out of resources especially if you're on free trade
i know i am 1 year too late, but what if you do the same thing on japan only with docks? you start building mils mid 37 and docks mid 39?
Tommy really need to see this
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.
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.
such cool video
I'd be interested to see if you remove the lack of build slots problem for civ greeding (aka just add more build slots base or through decisions like some MP mods do) how that changes the math for when its more efficient to start building Mils.
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
Man thank you, I always did building mils from 1 year and suffered every time from slot problem
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)
Good job
What do you think of the strategy of early game converting mils into civs and then building more mils? I've tried it a little and so far I'm not impressed. Granted, I'm trying it with Italy where they start with significantly less than the nations you talked about here.
Answering the real questions
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)
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.
Great arguments but have you considered having big number in building tab?
As a civ greed connoisseur, after watching this video I sobbed to 'Make your own kind of music'
Wow! Thank you.
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.
I love building civs till right before going to war and I have suffered
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
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.
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.
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?
what about construction bonus, building civs, then getting construction 5 as soviets for example and building mills?
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
Is this true for soviet too? When should i stop producing civs in vanilla ussr?
Thanks for the tip, gamer.