On the "Expansion or Arms Industries" saga

    This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy.

    • On the "Expansion or Arms Industries" saga

      Let us have a closer look on this often recurring question. (This most recently surfaced in a rather oddly placed thread, so I'd rather continue here than get buried there.)

      KFGauss wrote:

      On the day that I capture it, a captured home-city (captured from a 5-city country) for a given resource-type out-produces an at_home_Arms_Industry_upgrade for that same resource type, and the difference grows as the captured city's morale improves.
      Uhm, that is correct, as far as it goes. But I argue that this difference is too small to count much for the main issue, which is whether is it best to invest in ArmInd or better to forego that (in favor of using the corresponding resource for immediate troop mobilization, instead).

      Let us consider a scenario where Components is the limiting resource. In a barebones reference situation, the homeland production is 1786/day
      (1 city with Population 6, Morale 70%). The upgrade would bring an extra 178.6/day. Regarding the alternative of capturing a city, with the assumption that you'd find one with the same population, the Day-zero production gain is 248/day. If/when morale reaches 40% (typically after several days), this would grow to 314/day.

      So, for the first phase of expansion, the out-production differential is 69-135/day. To put this into context,
      this corresponds to mere 0.9-1.8 hours of baseline production.

      I will discuss the broader implications in a separate message.
      Commander Zozo001 :thumbsup:
      humble player

    • Zozo001 wrote:

      Let us have a closer look on this often recurring question. (This most recently surfaced in a rather oddly placed thread, so I'd rather continue here than get buried there.)

      KFGauss wrote:

      On the day that I capture it, a captured home-city (captured from a 5-city country) for a given resource-type out-produces an at_home_Arms_Industry_upgrade for that same resource type, and the difference grows as the captured city's morale improves.
      Uhm, that is correct, as far as it goes. But I argue that this difference is too small to count much for the main issue, which is whether is it best to invest in ArmInd or better to forego that (in favor of using the corresponding resource for immediate troop mobilization, instead).
      Let us consider a scenario where Components is the limiting resource. In a barebones reference situation, the homeland production is 1786/day
      (1 city with Population 6, Morale 70%). The upgrade would bring an extra 178.6/day. Regarding the alternative of capturing a city, with the assumption that you'd find one with the same population, the Day-zero production gain is 248/day. If/when morale reaches 40% (typically after several days), this would grow to 314/day.

      So, for the first phase of expansion, the out-production differential is 69-135/day. To put this into context,
      this corresponds to mere 0.9-1.8 hours of baseline production.

      I will discuss the broader implications in a separate message.
      I counter your correct claim with a different correct claim: I have a reasonable expectation that two-three days later, the troops that captured that first city will capture a 2nd city (assuming I'm not getting my butt kicked), and a couple of days later they will capture a third city (Public game, inactive countries and weak opponents are usually plentiful), and so on ...

      That's a nice payoff that I get from investing (primarily) into units that continuously capture cities. Arms Industry upgrades don't continuously capture cities.

      However, the investment into each Arms Industry upgrade is forever stuck at returning a 10%_of_a_single_city boost.

      There are definitely apples vs oranges comparisons (instead of apples vs apples) involved in this topic, but regardless my typical_public_game advice for increasing resource production is to primarily capture cities instead of upgrading their buildings.

      OBTW - Let's not forget that this horse has already been thoroughly beaten more than once. What's new since those previous beatings? I don't have anything more (yet) than what I wrote in this post.
      In 2022 (My views evolved some during and after this thread): Debunking the Arms Industry Myth
      In 2020: Resources and Arms Industries
      DCRCrimson42 (one of the (not uncommon) Max Arms Industry guys I was talking about in the other thread): An Economic Guide to BATTLEGROUND USA - A Texas Adventure
      Etc.

      The post was edited 3 times, last by KFGauss ().

    • Hakville wrote:

      hmm,

      In the beginning everyone is spending starting cash.
      Upgrading ArmInd by one level is about (roughly) equal to conquering a city of that resource type. Especially early game I don't think these two activities are mutually exclusive, so it would be silly not to do so.

      That's my logic,
      If you're having fun I say you are playing CoN correctly, but you might not be winning as often as you might win by using a different approach.

      The post was edited 1 time, last by KFGauss ().

    • KFGauss wrote:

      OBTW - Let's not forget that this horse has already been thoroughly beaten more than once. What's new since those previous beatings?

      What was new was your authorative sounding advice (amounting to a firm statement on worthlessness of ArmInd upgrade), which ignored all that we had discussed earlier,
      and posed an incorrect evaluation as if it were established fact.

      The horse has been beaten, but is very much undead.

      >"If you are able to invest the Arms Industry construction costs into combat units ..."

      This stance implies ArmInd investment as lost costs, never becoming available to making more units.
      In actual fact, those costs are paid back by the increased RSS production.
      After the investment is returned, the enhanced homeland productivity actually enables making more units.
      Commander Zozo001 :thumbsup:
      humble player

    • When your goal is winning [typical public 1X games] quickly - Yes, I do firmly contend that when relatively low-cost, city-capture opportunities exist for acquiring needed resources, expanding your military (your units) and using it to capture & hold cities should have first claim on your investable resources.

      That does not mean Arms Industry upgrades are worthless. I didn't write that they are. First claim isn't sole claim.

      Focusing primarily on units-for-expansion was the hunch I had at the end of that 2022 discussion.

      Since that 2022 discussion, experimenting with Playbabe's resource production spreadsheet and learning more about how morale and population behave turned that hunch into a conclusion for me.

      The resource production simulation attempt I started, if I can create enough fidelity in it, will be how I test if my conclusion is built on accurate estimates.

      The post was edited 3 times, last by KFGauss ().

    • KFGauss wrote:

      That does not mean Arms Industry upgrades are worthless. I didn't write that they are. First claim isn't sole claim.
      I do respect your opinion, but I keep disagreeing with the firmness of your conclusion.

      And in the context I had cited above, what you wrote did strongly imply that the upgrade is worthless. If ArmInd spending is never the first claim, then when would it be invested?

      Sounds to me your argument is going in circles (yeah, I do realize mine are too, in response). You reiterate that city capture is "low cost", while neglecting to consider that ArmInd is similarly (if not more) low cost AND non-exclusive, besides that. Then you go on expounding the marvels that expansion does, as if ArmInd development was hindering rather serving it, and so on, and so forth...

      I would very much like to see results from your production simulation, of course. But I can pretty confidently predict that there will be occasions when the upgrade is not the optimal choice, while there definitely are scenarios where boosting ArmInd before spending on units is more beneficial.
      Commander Zozo001 :thumbsup:
      humble player

    • “But I argue that this difference is too small to count much for the main issue...”


      The difference is negligible if you compare the return of 1 captured city vs 1 AI built. You wouldn’t judge it on that but rather its multiplicative effect. Take that 135/day differential you listed and multiply it by the excess number of cities you’d have at x point in time. The more proficient you are at expansion, the more profound the effect.

      City capture is much lower cost than AI building. It’s not even a contest. It’s a one-off investment into offensive units that continue to yield, potentially indefinitely unless losses are taken. To get to Lvl 5 AI cost 10k total resources exc cash. It’s trivially easy to put together an offensive force to capture the equivalent resources that thing produces for far cheaper. Leaving aside the fact that that force can go on and do it again and again for free.

      Every city captured also lowers the cost per city, to the point that it’s basically free if you manage your units. Contrast with the AI which have fixed costs for every upgrade. In addition, those units you mobilise instead, serve multiple other functions so it’s a better spend than a sunk cost into a building. If only part of their role is capture, the cost per city capture goes down further.

      You say that building AI’s are non-exclusive with mobilisation. A previous poster said the same. That’s true in the sense that you are able to do both. But both options are mutually exclusive in terms of the resources used to deploy either option. That 10k of resources you dump to get to a lvl 5 AI is not available to mobilise with. There is an opportunity cost. AI does hinder expansion because it ties up resources. It stagnates mobilisation. The fact that it does this to generate more resources later to help with expansion doesn’t change the fact that it hinders it in the time being. While the other guy is cranking out units to start exponentially snowballing, you've partitioned off some of your econ for future non optimal resource growth.

      A coalition member of mine did nothing in the 1st week but rush through AI upgrades. At which point all his AI were level 5 and mine lvl 1. His 7 starting cities to my 40 through capture. His econ was slightly ahead but not his mil. After which he was left in the dust. There’s just too much momentum and multiple fronts and rising morale fuelling growth everywhere for him to keep pace. All that expansion generating more manpower and more cash to fuel market orders for further early boosts. Once I upgrade the AI’s much later, on a higher morale homeland, it’s a nice bonus. His play was on one extreme, I'm on the other. I take on average 200 cities on a 30-day game. 7 per day. Yet even whenever I see people faffing around building AI’s in a moderate way, they still always get left behind. Unless you have stiff competition on your doorstep (rarely the case) which might necessitate an AI focus to compensate for a higher defensive posture & lack of growth options, just going straight to conquer is enough – gives all the bank I need. An early big blob also dissuades attackers which is nice.

    • xovault wrote:

      Take that 135/day differential you listed and multiply it by the excess number of cities you’d have at x point in time.
      Yes, please educate me about the excess number of cities.
      Not in the false setup you've been using, with the AI builder not expanding, though.


      xovault wrote:

      A coalition member of mine did nothing in the 1st week but rush through AI upgrades.
      Well that is a poor timing of upgrades, bad balancing of resource use, and weak playing overall (one cannot neglect research and mobilization, obviously).
      Are we to assume that any and all AI upgrades are being done improperly? Is that the only support for them not being being good??
      Commander Zozo001 :thumbsup:
      humble player

    • What false setup? I never said the AI builder cannot or does not expand. By excess, I meant the difference between the number of cities captured by both types of play at x point in time.

      The assumption is that, all else being equal, a player who doesn't focus on AI + expands will capture more than the one who builds AI and also expands. Simply by virtue of the fact that the former has more available resources to mobilise with, yielding a larger and/or stronger army at the start. That creates the disparity in the number of captured cities between the two; the excess.

      Well, when I said he did nothing in the first week, I meant he didn't conquer. Just sat back. He did do research though and mobilised a little. His belief was that to get the best start, one must upgrade all AI to lvl 5 straight away & as a matter of priority. That wasn't him compensating for believing he was bad at the game, he just thought that was the best move.

    • xovault wrote:

      The assumption is that, all else being equal, a player who doesn't focus on AI + expands will capture more than the one who builds AI and also expands. Simply by virtue of the fact that the former has more available resources to mobilise with, yielding a larger and/or stronger army at the start. That creates the disparity in the number of captured cities between the two; the excess.
      Here you presume the conclusion (a classic fallacy).
      Again, I question that the non-upgrading player would have substantially more resources, for a time period that would matter. Since you're claiming that it is so, supporting argument should come from you. You had stated that there is an excess, so I have asked to establish how big that would be.

      On my part, I give you this number: 4.7 hours. In my scenario (specific to a Components-limited situation), this is the most production time (at minimal standard reference rate) it takes for the AI upgrader to make up for the cost of a Lvl1 ArmInd upgrade, i.e. to catch up with mobilization of the expanding-only player. So I am asking, again, how much excess capture would you think can come from a <5 hours head start?
      Commander Zozo001 :thumbsup:
      humble player

    • Person x uses more of his starting resources to produce more units than person y does with his. X subsequently moves out with a larger force than y and thus is able to capture more as a result. There is no circular reasoning in that.

      I didn't say the non AI player would have substantially more, merely an excess. In terms of what those differences could be. Last game is below:

      Day 7:

      (A) 40 Cities (7 homeland/32 captured) + 4 AI (lvl 1) vs
      (B) 7 Cities (7 homeland) + 7 AI (lvl 5)

      Econ at parity by day 7. The period of substantial difference in resources came in exponential manner from day 8 until the end of the game on day 30. Finishing the game with 2.5x the economic output with 200 cities vs his 60 with a mil of 250 units vs his 100.

      This game doesn't capture your hybrid approach but it's all I have. My guess is you'd put your approach above or equal to mine. I'd stick it somewhere in the middle. In-game, I consistently see the hybrid approach consistently lagging behind. There's many variables in-game that affect performance so it's hard to nail down into a science anyway. From my perspective, I expand too fast for AI upgrades to even matter. The cumulative affect of capturing quicker is just OP and I have a specific build order and timings I need to be able to hit to operate continuous war on multiple fronts if I'm to hit approx 3000 vp by day 30. Stopping to build AI, in my mind, is not going to make that process any faster. AI's are fine if one needs them - different playstyles and all that.

      P.S. Okay, it takes 4.7 hrs to catch up for a lvl 1. But the total delay isn't just 5 hours. It's 5 hrs x by the qty of AI you build. And then what about lvl's 2 through 5? How much catch-up are we playing here through all these upgrades? I aim for 1 country take down per day minimum so 5 hours in of itself is not inconsequential let alone whatever the real figure is once you factor all the upgrades and multiply through the frequencies.

    • Zozo001 wrote:

      xovault wrote:

      The assumption is that, all else being equal, a player who doesn't focus on AI + expands will capture more ...
      Here you presume the conclusion (a classic fallacy).Again, I question that the non-upgrading player would have substantially more resources, ...
      Technically i want to quote and address Zozo001, because his argument is more detailed.
      Emotionally I really want to respond to KFGauss, because he's making blanket statements which are easily refuted.

      "On my part, I give you this number: 4.7 hours. "
      Interesting and very specific analysis, the idea that there's a specific tradeoff is correct but I think it's important to account for all factors before determining metrics.
      - if it takes 5h longer to get a unit, that doesn't matter unless that unit actually captures a city.
      ( there is some probability that the unit will: do so, say 50% within 5h )
      ( there is some probability that the unit will: die, say 20% within 5h)
      these are some probabilities (we can assume from experience or calculate from an actual set of games.

      - the ArmInd is 100% so you need to be pretty confident if you're making a tradeoff.
      even if you capture a city you need to prevent it from rebellion,

      Some of this may be off topic:
      typically I'm waiting for enough units before attacking anyone.
      Most often I'd say other active players attack me,
      usually I message people if I'm not sure if they're inactive.
      So mostly I'm only invading inactive players...

      Since a (inactive) player typically starts with 5 cities,
      invading one extra country is about equivalent to 5 ArmInd upgrades.
      I think it would be easier to calculate probably and rewards of invading one country,
      It's also helpful to factor in the cash and manpower bonus from territory etc.
      Just discussing strategies for addressing this debate :)

      Resources are not limited in the very beginning, so you can do both.
      How long does it take to expend the initial resources? (Idk maybe 3-5days)
      I think most players do the level 1 ArmInd upgrades in the beginning,
      idk what the best alternative buildings would be...
      (maybe higher level airfields etc, assuming unit production queues are busy)
      So the real debate here I think is about level 2+ ArmInd when we have few extra resources.

      Ok I'm done for now, anyone with the patience to read this far is commendable!
      I broke down the paragraphs to make it easy to respond to specific points.

    • Hakville wrote:

      Zozo001 wrote:

      xovault wrote:

      The assumption is that, all else being equal, a player who doesn't focus on AI + expands will capture more ...
      Here you presume the conclusion (a classic fallacy).Again, I question that the non-upgrading player would have substantially more resources, ...
      Technically i want to quote and address Zozo001, because his argument is more detailed.Emotionally I really want to respond to KFGauss, because he's making blanket statements which are easily refuted.


      . . .
      It's not obvious to me that you easily refuted anything I wrote. To avoid confusing future readers, can you be a little more specific please?

      To be clear, for my part of this, I think this still reflects my position, "I do firmly contend that when relatively low-cost, city-capture opportunities exist for acquiring needed resources, expanding your military (your units) and using it to capture & hold cities should have first claim on your investable resources."

      The post was edited 1 time, last by KFGauss ().

    • KFGauss wrote:

      Hakville wrote:

      , "I do firmly contend that when relatively low-cost, city-capture opportunities exist for acquiring needed resources, expanding your military (your units) and using it to capture & hold cities should have first claim on your investable resources."
      1, do the math
      2, explain the math

      I've proposed several strategies to simplify the math,
      you can agree with (default) or refute specific suggested assumptions.

      I'd prefer not to repeat the same concepts twice,
      without addressing /clarification of specific nuance.

    • Hakville wrote:

      1, do the math2, explain the math

      I've proposed several strategies to simplify the math,
      you can agree with (default) or refute specific suggested assumptions.

      I'd prefer not to repeat the same concepts twice,
      without addressing /clarification of specific nuance.
      LOL - So, you've refuted no specific thing that I wrote, here or in other threads that included this topic.

      I'll try this approach: How would you change this sentence, "I ... contend that when relatively low-cost, city-capture opportunities exist for acquiring needed resources, expanding your military (your units) and using it to capture & hold cities should have first claim on your investable resources."?

      The post was edited 2 times, last by KFGauss ().

    • Please notice that i follow with eager eyes this thread.

      I like the scholar approach, if only we could avoid the scholar disputes :D
      Running an online alliance is pretty much like running a small company, except you need to find other way than money to keep your employees productive. May they play or work, they are humans.

    • KFGauss wrote:

      "I ... contend that when relatively low-cost, city-capture opportunities exist for acquiring needed resources, expanding your military (your units) and using it to capture & hold cities should have first claim on your investable resources."?
      I sorta-kinda agree with this, provided that there is some attempt is made at specifying what "relatively low-cost" means.

      Note that what originally prompted my warming up this old debate was a comment of yours (in another thread), which mentioned no cost - but (to me, at least) suggested rather unconditional superiority of expanding-only over building+expanding.
      Commander Zozo001 :thumbsup:
      humble player