HOI4 Dev Diary - Synthetic Dawn

[Fulmen]

Petsamo was ceded after Continuation War.

No doubt an oversight, but in HoI4 it gets ceded in the Winter War peace event. Which is bizarre because this was not the case in previous HoIs and it's also something that's very easy to look up and fix (literally one line of code), yet it's been in the game since launch.

Think I'll actually make a bug report on it today.

 

[SeekTruthFromFx]

@podcat ....please....please.....for the love of everything beautiful in this world......when can we expect a beta?

One of the DDs announcing an earlier public beta said that they were only used for non-DLC patches. I don't know why, but it might be because PDX, understandably, don't want DLC code downloaded to thousands of computers before its ready for sale.

Great ideas here but how well has the AI managed the additional complexity? Does the AI know to create more infrastructure in these resourceful areas?

I'm sure Steelvolt and his new colleague are working on it. Actually, I would think that this is a relatively easy problem for them. At its simplest: if you have a deficit in a resource you already extract, then put infrastructure in the extraction state at the top of the construction queue. Obviously this could be improved by making it forward-looking, considering the refinery option, and in many other ways.

Will this somehow address the inability of japan to build shale plants in Fushun, Manchuria because the puppet lacks the technology to build synthetic refineries?

I doubt we'll see that in this patch. In the long run, it would be good to have a generalized mechanic for construction in the territory of other faction members. This would cover a number of real life cases:
- Japanese industry in Manchuria
- USAF airbases in Europe and China
- Royal Navy bases in the Commonwealth
- the destroyers-for-bases deal between the UK and the US
- Soviet-controlled industry in occupied Europe

And there are many sandbox uses. E.g. when the Allies defend Norway, it would be great to construct radar there. Germany could invest in Scandinavian mines; the US could develop Brazilian rubber.

I think only germany (as an federalistic high developed state) should have high infrastructure, britain and france as ultra-centralistic colonial empires should have BAD infrastructure.

You make some really good points here: railways in metropolitan France were overcentralized on Paris & this hurt their war effort; US infrastructure was strong on the coasts & underdeveloped in between; the French wanted a highly centralized colonial empire (though I believe recent studies have shown that they didn't have the technology to implement it).

But the sentence in the quotation is a major mischaracterization. The British Empire was very decentralised. To quote Lord Curzon (without the source, so not word-perfect):

”Other empires only have one capital, be it Madrid or Paris or Berlin. Great Britain has capitals throughout the world, from Ottawa to Shanghai."

Shanghai is not a mistake here. It wasn't even sovereign British territory, but the Shanghai Municipal Government ruled its own patch in its own way, with minimal interference from London. The same was true throughout the empire, with responsible (=autonomous) governments in many territories: Rhodesia, the Caribbean islands, the Isle of Man, etc. Even within the UK, there was a separate government and parliament in Northern Ireland, which made its own decisions about roads and railways.

In some cases, this did hurt infrastructure. A more centralized empire might have built good railways from Calcutta to Rangoon or Cairo to the Cape. But the real obstacle to infrastructure was the laissez-faire economic policy, which is a different question.

I'm also puzzled by the assertion that Germany was a federalist state. That's true in the 19th century and now, but 1933-45 was the nadir of Germany federalism. In fairness, Germany's rail network is more of a grid (unlike the hub-and-spoke systems of England and France). But I believe the Autobahns were laid out on a centralized plan (can anyone confirm?), so centralization helped the wartime infrastructure.

 

[smurfopax]

Here a plan of the Autobahn 1939 http://www.landkartenindex.de/historischelandkarten/?p=37

 

[DicRoNero]

So no more Chromium in Lappland?

 

[SnakeInATopHat]

Synthetic Dawn is see what you did there

 

[SeekTruthFromFx]

Here a plan of the Autobahn 1939 http://www.landkartenindex.de/historischelandkarten/?p=37

Thank you. The accompanying text confirms that the network was designed by a centralized war machine, not federalist diversity, hence the Autobahn directed at the French border.

 

[alexlj1]

Very nice. This small change looks like it could add a lot more strategic depth to the game.

 

[petertel123]

I havent read the entire thread, so sorry if this has already been asked, but have any resources been added to africa? Its kinda useless right now

 

[LiberiusX]

It just dawned on me that I can't play EU4 or HOI4 until their respective DLC's come out. The upcoming changes make both games look severely inferior in their current state. I guess I'll go play some Vicky 2 or something...

 

[katanatan]

Thank you. The accompanying text confirms that the network was designed by a centralized war machine, not federalist diversity, hence the Autobahn directed at the French border.

What are you talking about?

The "autobahn" on the map shows that every major centre in germany (not the new sudetenland, corridor, austria territorries) are connected, escpecially the heavy industrialised silesia and rhine area.
The text further just says that they planned an autobahn in Elsa-Lothringen-Area and had plans for the territorries after the war. And that there would be a Danzig-Vienna Route.

Centralized Warmachine WTF???


http://www.landkartenindex.de/historischelandkarten/?p=37

 

[katanatan]

One of the DDs announcing an earlier public beta said that they were only used for non-DLC patches. I don't know why, but it might be because PDX, understandably, don't want DLC code downloaded to thousands of computers before its ready for sale.



I'm sure Steelvolt and his new colleague are working on it. Actually, I would think that this is a relatively easy problem for them. At its simplest: if you have a deficit in a resource you already extract, then put infrastructure in the extraction state at the top of the construction queue. Obviously this could be improved by making it forward-looking, considering the refinery option, and in many other ways.



I doubt we'll see that in this patch. In the long run, it would be good to have a generalized mechanic for construction in the territory of other faction members. This would cover a number of real life cases:
- Japanese industry in Manchuria
- USAF airbases in Europe and China
- Royal Navy bases in the Commonwealth
- the destroyers-for-bases deal between the UK and the US
- Soviet-controlled industry in occupied Europe

And there are many sandbox uses. E.g. when the Allies defend Norway, it would be great to construct radar there. Germany could invest in Scandinavian mines; the US could develop Brazilian rubber.



You make some really good points here: railways in metropolitan France were overcentralized on Paris & this hurt their war effort; US infrastructure was strong on the coasts & underdeveloped in between; the French wanted a highly centralized colonial empire (though I believe recent studies have shown that they didn't have the technology to implement it).

But the sentence in the quotation is a major mischaracterization. The British Empire was very decentralised. To quote Lord Curzon (without the source, so not word-perfect):

”Other empires only have one capital, be it Madrid or Paris or Berlin. Great Britain has capitals throughout the world, from Ottawa to Shanghai."

Shanghai is not a mistake here. It wasn't even sovereign British territory, but the Shanghai Municipal Government ruled its own patch in its own way, with minimal interference from London. The same was true throughout the empire, with responsible (=autonomous) governments in many territories: Rhodesia, the Caribbean islands, the Isle of Man, etc. Even within the UK, there was a separate government and parliament in Northern Ireland, which made its own decisions about roads and railways.

In some cases, this did hurt infrastructure. A more centralized empire might have built good railways from Calcutta to Rangoon or Cairo to the Cape. But the real obstacle to infrastructure was the laissez-faire economic policy, which is a different question.

I'm also puzzled by the assertion that Germany was a federalist state. That's true in the 19th century and now, but 1933-45 was the nadir of Germany federalism. In fairness, Germany's rail network is more of a grid (unlike the hub-and-spoke systems of England and France). But I believe the Autobahns were laid out on a centralized plan (can anyone confirm?), so centralization helped the wartime infrastructure.

Well, i only want to comment on the claim GB wasnt a centralistic empire.

If you look at the British Isles cities and their population http://www.demographia.com/db-ukcities.htm you can see that in 1931 the biggest city is 8 times bigger than the second biggest and 10 cities in we are at a population of 283k.
In germany in 1939 a quite densly populated country with more population than Britain https://www.sporcle.com/games/professor88/germanys-largest-cities-1939 (the numbers are correct sorry that i dont have a better source RN) the biggest city is half as big and 20 cities in we are at 337k pop.

So germany had way more "smaller" cities and a very liberal regional government. The nazis did try to undermine this (germania) but nonetheless, that is how it was.

Just because somebody says something it doesnt mean it is true or 100% true. The empire did have some "regional" "capitals" like singapur, alexandria to have control on the surrounding colonial regions and trade. But this has very little to do with infrastructure, industry or industrialization. Just a mere colonial trading post.

Ottawa a capital?, come on...

 

[Tavior]

When I saw Synthetic Dawn. I initially thought it was for Stellaris. Only to realize shortly afterward that Stellaris Synthetic Dawn was already released at time of this posting.

 

[billcorr]

• The removal of chromium from Swedish Lappland is consistent with the historical production values.

So no more Chromium in Lappland?

Clever eye to note that chromium was not included in Podcat's first screen capture of Sweden's Lappland. Well done!

Note the 40 units of chromium depicted in a screen shot from the game (v.1.4.2 Oak), Lappland (Sweden):

From PodCat's screen shot:

Having no chromium in HoI4's Swedish Lappland would reflect Sweden's historic production record in 1936.

In 1936, Sweden produced the following resources:

• BAUXITE: none
• ALUMINUM: 1,760 out of a world total of 354,000 long tons*
• CHROME ORE: 488 long tons* out of a world total of 1,067,671 metric tons ** (the U.S. source does not identify Sweden as having produced chrome in 1936. See spoiler below.)
• IRON ORE: 11,065,890 long tons out of a world total of 172,000,000 long tons*
• STEEL INGOTS and CASTINGS: 961,922 long tons out of a world total of 122,000,000*
• RUBBER: none
• OIL: none
• TUNGSTEN***: 62 out of a world total of 25,344 metric tons**

Spoiler: According to one source, Sweden produced no chromite in 1936

In 1936, Sweden also produced the following (from trace amounts to sizeable tonnage)*:
Abrasives, Antimony, Arsenic (world leader), Asbestos, Borax, China Clay, Coal, Coke, Coal by-products, Copper, Diatomaceous Earth, Felspar, Gold Ore, Graphite, Gypsum, Lead, Magnesite, Manganese Ore (6k out of 5,300k), Mica, Nickel (6 long tons out of roughly 150,000 long tons), Phosphates, Superphosphates, Slag, Platinum, Potash Salts, Pyrites, Quicksilver, Salt, Silver, Sulphur, Talc, Zinc.

*The Mineral Industry of the British Empire and Foreign Countries Statistical Summary 1936-1938
https://www.bgs.ac.uk/downloads/start.cfm?id=2006

**1940 Minerals Yearbook

*** Paradox's reason for including tungsten as a Swedish resource is noted.

Northern Sweden still has precious tungsten which can be expanded to help Germa...accurately simulate Sweden's complicated role in the war.

• In summary, the removal of chromium from Swedish Lappland is consistent with the historical production values.

 

[Axe99]

Well, i only want to comment on the claim GB wasnt a centralistic empire.

If you look at the British Isles cities and their population http://www.demographia.com/db-ukcities.htm you can see that in 1931 the biggest city is 8 times bigger than the second biggest and 10 cities in we are at a population of 283k.
In germany in 1939 a quite densly populated country with more population than Britain https://www.sporcle.com/games/professor88/germanys-largest-cities-1939 (the numbers are correct sorry that i dont have a better source RN) the biggest city is half as big and 20 cities in we are at 337k pop.

So germany had way more "smaller" cities and a very liberal regional government. The nazis did try to undermine this (germania) but nonetheless, that is how it was.

Just because somebody says something it doesnt mean it is true or 100% true. The empire did have some "regional" "capitals" like singapur, alexandria to have control on the surrounding colonial regions and trade. But this has very little to do with infrastructure, industry or industrialization. Just a mere colonial trading post.

Ottawa a capital?, come on...

Not to get tied up in arguments about the nature of colonial administration (which seems both off topic and away from the point being argued), your main point was that Britain should have poor infrastructure because it was decentralised. However, decentralised (whether or not it's true =/= poor infrastructure - the US, for example, has a relatively decentralised form of Government with States (particularly back then) having substantial power over their own jurisdictions, but this didn't prevent the US developing an effective national highway system).

Accordingly, you'd probably best forming your argument on things like the actual level of infrastructure in various nations (how many km of railroad per standard area, same for roads, ports and aerodromes - numbers of cars in use might be helpful, although it's not a straight correlation).

I'm no expert, but I was under the impression Britain's infrastructure in the 1930s was pretty good - to make a convincing case that it wasn't, it would help to provide some evidence to that effect.

 

[billcorr]

Finland in HoI4 has more resources than it historically produced in 1936. This increase in HoI4 resources might reflect the developers acknowledgement of the Petsamo nickel mine.

We have been rebalancing resource numbers across the world to go with this change.

A good example is Finland's nickel mines in Petsamo, that contained Europe's largest reserves of nickel ore, but are not represented in the game in any way because the nickel was not yet mined in 1936.

In HoI4 (v 1.4.2 [a48d])), Finland produces 12 steel and 2 chromium at the start of the 1936 scenario.

According to The Mineral Industry of the British Empire and Foreign Countries Statistical Summary 1936-1938 https://www.bgs.ac.uk/downloads/start.cfm?id=2006, Finland produced the following in 1936:

• BAUXITE: none
• ALUMINUM: none
• CHROME ORE: none
• IRON ORE: 28,950 long tons out of a world total of 172,000,000 long tons* (this equals 0.017% or 0.00017 of the world's production. In HoI4, there are 4,301 units of steel according to the January, 2017 HoI4 wiki. 0.00017 x 4301 = .72 )
• STEEL INGOTS and CASTINGS: none
• RUBBER: none
• OIL: none
• TUNGSTEN: none

In 1936, Finland also produced: Abrasives, Asbestos, Coke, Copper, Diatomaceous Earth, Felspar, Gold, Superphosphates, Potash salts, Pyrites, Silver, Talc, Zinc

Strictly adhering to a game design paradigm of "Resources in HoI4 shall directly correspond with that nation's 1936 production values" would result in Finland having no resources.

Zero.

(or at most, 1 steel resource)

But, instead, the game designers awarded Finland with +12 steel and +2 chromium.

One possible explanation is that the increased Finnish resources are the designers' acknowledgement of the contributions of the Petsamo nickel mines to the war.

What are your thoughts?

 

[Fulmen]

Finland in HoI4 has more resources than it historically produced in 1936. This increase in HoI4 resources might reflect the developers acknowledgement of the Petsamo nickel mine.




In HoI4 (v 1.4.2 [a48d])), Finland produces 12 steel and 2 chromium at the start of the 1936 scenario.

According to The Mineral Industry of the British Empire and Foreign Countries Statistical Summary 1936-1938 https://www.bgs.ac.uk/downloads/start.cfm?id=2006, Finland produced the following in 1936:

• BAUXITE: none
• ALUMINUM: none
• CHROME ORE: none
• IRON ORE: 28,950 long tons out of a world total of 172,000,000 long tons* (this equals 0.017% or 0.00017 of the world's production. In HoI4, there are 4,301 units of steel according to the January, 2017 HoI4 wiki. 0.00017 x 4301 = .72 )
• STEEL INGOTS and CASTINGS: none
• RUBBER: none
• OIL: none
• TUNGSTEN: none

In 1936, Finland also produced: Abrasives, Asbestos, Coke, Copper, Diatomaceous Earth, Felspar, Gold, Superphosphates, Potash salts, Pyrites, Silver, Talc, Zinc

Strictly adhering to a game design paradigm of "Resources in HoI4 shall directly correspond with that nation's 1936 production values" would result in Finland having no resources.

Zero.

(or at most, 1 steel resource)

But, instead, the game designers awarded Finland with +12 steel and +2 chromium.

One possible explanation is that the increased Finnish resources are the designers' acknowledgement of the contributions of the Petsamo nickel mines to the war.

What are your thoughts?

I don't know the reasoning behind that, but 12 steel and 2 chromium definitely does not do justice to the Petsamo nickel mines.

Actually that 12 steel and 2 chromium probably represents some of the minerals on that list: copper, gold, silver, zinc etc.

 

[billcorr]

I don't know the reasoning behind that, but 12 steel and 2 chromium definitely does not do justice to the Petsamo nickel mines.

At the top of this thread, Podcat mentioned that they are rebalancing the resources distributed throughout the game-board.

How should the Petsamo nickel mines be represented as part of the reshuffling of the resource deck?

 

[Secret Master]

One possible explanation is that the increased Finnish resources are the designers' acknowledgement of the contributions of the Petsamo nickel mines to the war.

That's the most reasonable explanation.

To be honest, this is where things could get complicated quickly. If you added five more resources to the game, it would more accurately reflect the situation with countries like Finland. But, it would also make the game unwieldy in some respects (especially if you added 5 new resources and allowed equipment to use resources at a time instead of 3).

 

[SeekTruthFromFx]

@katanatan, we are getting off-topic, so I have created a new thread in the history forum.

 

[katanatan]

Not to get tied up in arguments about the nature of colonial administration (which seems both off topic and away from the point being argued), your main point was that Britain should have poor infrastructure because it was decentralised. However, decentralised (whether or not it's true =/= poor infrastructure - the US, for example, has a relatively decentralised form of Government with States (particularly back then) having substantial power over their own jurisdictions, but this didn't prevent the US developing an effective national highway system).

Accordingly, you'd probably best forming your argument on things like the actual level of infrastructure in various nations (how many km of railroad per standard area, same for roads, ports and aerodromes - numbers of cars in use might be helpful, although it's not a straight correlation).

I'm no expert, but I was under the impression Britain's infrastructure in the 1930s was pretty good - to make a convincing case that it wasn't, it would help to provide some evidence to that effect.

I did.
I was not only forming the content and exclamation in post on facts regarding governing and politics but just numbers.
Somebody was just quoting some brit about that the british empire would not have been centralistic and ottawa beeing a capital...

My main point was (you probably just mixed up the words) that the brits should have in most of the british isles poor infrastructure (3-5) but in birmingham 8 and london 10 because the infrastructure was CENTRALIZED.
It is bad t ocompare the US and the UK as one was quite densly populated the other one was not, one hat a huge metropolis while the other one had several big cities on the coast and was way younger and thous freer in its development.




Now some numbers.
In 1923 the British Empire had railroads of 31336 km https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_rail_transport_in_Great_Britain_1923–1947
In 1912 the second empire (germany) had railraos of 57158 km
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gesch...Deutschland#L.C3.A4nderbahnzeit_1871_bis_1920

This means, that germany had in 1912, ten years ahead of the brits 1.83 times as much rail while beeing bigger of course. Before somebody tries to calculate area sizes and railroad coverage.
1. It is very hard/ impossible via the internet to get some numbers of the same time concerning both states.
2. You have to account the actual map of the rail net and the SHAPE of the country, Britain beeing a more dorky shaped conic while germany was quite rectangulare with two arms (silesia and prussia).
3. You would come to the conclusion that england had a lot of railroads in miles but their miles were less effective since they had so many roads to the same destination like a star while the germans could use their rail roads due to a different shape and more effectivly.



I guess we are making a bad case for HOI 4 here.
As long as the distinction between the states of the countries is so small implementing realistic infrastructure would not make sense.
The london area should have around around 30% of the factories and slots early as in lategame to be realistic. Maybe even 45% as not every area should get factory slots as some produce mainly aggricultural, ressources or third sector.


Case for me closed, hope you aggree and differences cleared for my side.