What are you talking about? It is thousands and x10^3 so the numbers you see are in millions. That gives a world population of about 3.74 billion. In case you're curious, OTL 1950 had only 2.5 billion. And judging by the level of warfare we can expect in HOI, this timeline may hit that too.:rofl:
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
What are you talking about? It is thousands and x10^3 so the numbers you see are in millions. That gives a world population of about 3.74 billion. In case you're curious, OTL 1950 had only 2.5 billion. And judging by the level of warfare we can expect in HOI, this timeline may hit that too.:rofl:
Regarding resource production, and how severely unbalanced it seems to be in the conversion.
Perhaps using something like one, or more of these:
#1:
-Vanilla Distribution.
#2:
-Each province from Vicky that produces an affiliated good will convert over to HOI to produce resources.
-These provinces will be weighted inversely proportional to the IC of the owner.
#3:
-Like #2 but be weighted inversely proportional to the IC/province ratio.
#4:
-Resources are distributed on a basis similar to how IC is converted. Taking into account, railroad, efficiency, population etc.
#5:
-Certain techs from Vicky will give countries more resources.
Reasoning:
#1:
Pro:
Resource distribution will still be historical regardless of what you have done to the poor timeline. Players have had plenty of time to grab resource rich regions and they know exactly what to expect.
Con:
The vanilla resource distributions were setup to help with gameplay as well as historical accuracy. In addition, resources were often historically exploited near the major industrial centers first while the colonies were used primarily for things that couldn't be produced back home. This left many resources unexploited simply because they were not near the major industrial centres of OTL. As the major industrial centres have changed so should the resource exploitation.
#2:
Pro:
Industrializing uses up a lot of resources. If a nation has industrialized then they would have fewer resources available then a nation that is still developing. In addition this still represents, to some extent, the distribution of resources.
Con:
Resources historically were more available in certain locations then in others, though still available. In addition this assumes that the Vicky distribution is correct. Finally this does not take into account that the same level of industry will use up more resources if it comes from 2 locations rather then 1. That was not explained well, if you need to ask for an example and I will oblige.
#3:
Pro:
Similar to #2, however one could assume that there would be a larger base to draw resources from. A small nation would have fewer resources then a very large one. The small one would burn up all of they're resources industrializing while a large one would use very few. Finally this does lessen the issue of the poorly explain con from #2.
Con:
Once again, resources historically were more available in certain locations then in others, though still available and this assumes that the Vicky distribution is correct.
#4:
Pro:
Nations that develop they're resources would receive more then those that ignore them.
Con:
Early exploitation often lead to the resources being used up. In addition, unlike factories, the production of natural resources is not linear. You can build another factory anywhere the land is stable but you can only put another coal mine where there is coal.
#5:
Pro:
Gives nations that research something of little use a bonus. Gives resource poor nations a chance to receive more.
Con:
Far from historical.
I also like #2&3 because it would give nations with few resources the ability to be important in HOI. In addition it would give the Industrial powers something to fight over. Whether through war or through diplomacy.
Regarding the term Affiliated good, that would be like oil to oil and coal to energy.
Perhaps using something like one, or more of these:
#1:
-Vanilla Distribution.
#2:
-Each province from Vicky that produces an affiliated good will convert over to HOI to produce resources.
-These provinces will be weighted inversely proportional to the IC of the owner.
#3:
-Like #2 but be weighted inversely proportional to the IC/province ratio.
#4:
-Resources are distributed on a basis similar to how IC is converted. Taking into account, railroad, efficiency, population etc.
#5:
-Certain techs from Vicky will give countries more resources.
Reasoning:
#1:
Pro:
Resource distribution will still be historical regardless of what you have done to the poor timeline. Players have had plenty of time to grab resource rich regions and they know exactly what to expect.
Con:
The vanilla resource distributions were setup to help with gameplay as well as historical accuracy. In addition, resources were often historically exploited near the major industrial centers first while the colonies were used primarily for things that couldn't be produced back home. This left many resources unexploited simply because they were not near the major industrial centres of OTL. As the major industrial centres have changed so should the resource exploitation.
#2:
Pro:
Industrializing uses up a lot of resources. If a nation has industrialized then they would have fewer resources available then a nation that is still developing. In addition this still represents, to some extent, the distribution of resources.
Con:
Resources historically were more available in certain locations then in others, though still available. In addition this assumes that the Vicky distribution is correct. Finally this does not take into account that the same level of industry will use up more resources if it comes from 2 locations rather then 1. That was not explained well, if you need to ask for an example and I will oblige.
#3:
Pro:
Similar to #2, however one could assume that there would be a larger base to draw resources from. A small nation would have fewer resources then a very large one. The small one would burn up all of they're resources industrializing while a large one would use very few. Finally this does lessen the issue of the poorly explain con from #2.
Con:
Once again, resources historically were more available in certain locations then in others, though still available and this assumes that the Vicky distribution is correct.
#4:
Pro:
Nations that develop they're resources would receive more then those that ignore them.
Con:
Early exploitation often lead to the resources being used up. In addition, unlike factories, the production of natural resources is not linear. You can build another factory anywhere the land is stable but you can only put another coal mine where there is coal.
#5:
Pro:
Gives nations that research something of little use a bonus. Gives resource poor nations a chance to receive more.
Con:
Far from historical.
I also like #2&3 because it would give nations with few resources the ability to be important in HOI. In addition it would give the Industrial powers something to fight over. Whether through war or through diplomacy.
Regarding the term Affiliated good, that would be like oil to oil and coal to energy.
6# Resource distribution proportional to IC.
Pros: Industrial nations had the machines with which to extract their resources. HoI setup is sort of like this. Also, gives me MOAR POWAH!
Cons: Overpowers IC. May make for a boring game.
Pros: Industrial nations had the machines with which to extract their resources. HoI setup is sort of like this. Also, gives me MOAR POWAH!
Cons: Overpowers IC. May make for a boring game.
You actually made me read bits of it again. I was surprised how great it was... too bad it won't happen again.
I think the current model for resource conversion will be excellent, the only issue is exactly which percentage of resources to redistribute. We will try out 10% and see how it works out. I suspect 20% will yield a more attractive result. We'll see later as tech is being researched...
Seeing as how Africa, Finland and Prussia are probably the most backward and also strategically threatened countries, you ought to just give them more coal and rares than they need. There's three of them so each major alliance can coerce one of them to become their resource provider, making for a fair yet exciting game.
Africa in particular ought to get a revision of its resources based on 1960s or 2000s resource exploitation. Reasons:
1) They are the furthest removed from their "historical trajectory", having started industrialization in the 1800s
2) They are weak and giving them resources will in no way overpower IC
3) They are smack in the middle of the world, making for the ideal place to be booty or bitches of the major alliances. Also if they throw themselves into the arms of a major alliance early on, Africa will be the ideal place for an early big war. Long coastlines, long overland distances, strategic islands, and as of yet still all in the hand of one player.
The African player might be unhappy to be painted "VICTIM" in big, red letters but it could really make for an exciting game.
Africa in particular ought to get a revision of its resources based on 1960s or 2000s resource exploitation. Reasons:
1) They are the furthest removed from their "historical trajectory", having started industrialization in the 1800s
2) They are weak and giving them resources will in no way overpower IC
3) They are smack in the middle of the world, making for the ideal place to be booty or bitches of the major alliances. Also if they throw themselves into the arms of a major alliance early on, Africa will be the ideal place for an early big war. Long coastlines, long overland distances, strategic islands, and as of yet still all in the hand of one player.
The African player might be unhappy to be painted "VICTIM" in big, red letters but it could really make for an exciting game.
Is there any way to get the composition of the armies? Specifically the types of, and how many brigades everyone is using? I could be interesting to see who is focussing on tank development, who is expanding their Artillery base and who is not bothering with such units.
Wait so you're using a mod that makes it better to be behind in land tech? That seems more than a bit silly.
However, surely it must give at least an absolute bonus, even if relative to maintenance, being advanced causes your effectiveness to decline? So it should still even out the current war to some extent, no?
I believe that 'better' here is a relative term. My impression is that the mod increased the costs of maintaining a military, but the bonuses are still present. Thus Indonesian troops are likely cheaper to maintain, but may not be anywhere near as effective in a fight.
Georgia and Indonesia/China/Japan have come to terms on a peace treaty, that will hopefully end this terrible conflict.
We offer further reduced demands completely withdrawing the demand for Pakistan.
Reasons primarily being we have better things to do than spend the next 10 years in trenches. While we are certain it is impossible for our side to lose, we also see the difficulty ahead in defeating our worthy foes from America. For all sides it would simply lead to a wasted generation, and continued ruin to the Georgian economy.
Therefore upon the Georgian acceptance we offer peace to all combatants and hope for normalization of relations with our foes.
We offer further reduced demands completely withdrawing the demand for Pakistan.
Reasons primarily being we have better things to do than spend the next 10 years in trenches. While we are certain it is impossible for our side to lose, we also see the difficulty ahead in defeating our worthy foes from America. For all sides it would simply lead to a wasted generation, and continued ruin to the Georgian economy.
Therefore upon the Georgian acceptance we offer peace to all combatants and hope for normalization of relations with our foes.
That's not in response to your peace terms, but to Georgia accepting them. I tell him we can win the thing and dictate the peace (at least with Indonesia and Japan; China, admittedly, would be a tougher nut), with experimental data to prove it. So what does he do? Turns around and accepts the loss of two big states!
Japanese demand back banners from the 17 divisions that were forced to surrender due to cowardly actions of African warlords.
Nations which have been defeated on the battlefield do not generally make impertinent demands of the victors. If you want your banners back you can pay ransom, which we set at 10k per banner.
I lost battle, Western allies lost war.
Edit. Write something witty for your 5000th post KoM.
Edit. Write something witty for your 5000th post KoM.
My brother wished to point out that he already agreed to this peace before he read the PM where norway told him the war was winnable.
I second this. Though it's still about 4000 posts until he can make a certain pop-culture reference.