Hoi4 Dev Diary - Thoughts & roadmap

[Vicentey01]

I used to think that, too, but over time realized that defense spending is relative in value, not absolute. For example, in WW2, the US, the richest country, went from just a few percent of GDP going to defense, to over 40%. The Axis, not as rich, and more desperate, went well beyond 50%, even if their printed money may say otherwise. If money was absolute, these countries would have collapsed or gone into deep depressions. Instead, manpower was the major issue for the US, resulting in the 90 Division Gamble, and for Germany manpower and resources were major issues.

During the Cold War, the US was routinely reported as vastly outspending the USSR in defense, even though the USSR's military in terms of numbers dwarfed the US's. Today, the US seems to vastly outspend China on defense, yet China is producing as much, and more, than the US is. Even though the US pays more per unit the difference in the reported spending does not come close to reconciling with what is actually getting produced.

In my opinion, the more accurate comparison of defense spending in the world is to measure production. During times of need governments take what they need, offer promises of repayment, and proceed to produce what they require to stay in power.

Allow me to disagree with your economic analysis, dear. It is incorrect to compare the 'percentage' of military spending between countries, because said percentage is applied to the GDP of a country and it is evident that the differences between the GDP's between countries differ abysmally. China's GDP is incomparably BIGGER than Russia's, for example.

 

[Vicentey01]

that is a really bad decision. A money would be a good tool to keep the army sizes in check, B use it possibly in actually purchasing weapons from the market (weapons market should be added) and use it as an alternative to buy strategic goods (its weird that we are paying with buildings which by the way kind of works like monewy anyway so why not just create it). Money could also be used potentially to try to lure volunteers from foreign nations into your army (if you are a rich nation but burned out on manpower)

Exactly!! Perhaps the money should not be used for internal issues, but at least to trade between countries... it would be a twist to the economic-commercial system.

 

[Vicentey01]

You mean "we'll never add money to HoI without a system of dynamic floating exchange rates, currency arbitrage, HoI4-themed traveller's cheques and international traders that rig currency interactions to make extra-large bonuses", aye?

View attachment 804985

Nothing more to add, that would be really fascinating!!

 

[Balesir]

Allow me to disagree with your economic analysis, dear. It is incorrect to compare the 'percentage' of military spending between countries, because said percentage is applied to the GDP of a country and it is evident that the differences between the GDP's between countries differ abysmally. China's GDP is incomparably BIGGER than Russia's, for example.

I think you are missing the point. HoI is a game about Total War. Money is, to quote several fine literary characters, just a way of keeping score; such scores mean little when ones ultimate existence is at stake. In a total war, no-one ever said "welp, we're out of cash so I suppose we'll have to stop making ammo and just give up!" If the capacity to make ammo remains, then you keep making ammo and fight. The USA's Lease Lend scheme is an example of just this; the money issues may have been addressed in the peace after the war, but during it the focus was on supplying what was needed. The only place 'money' has in a game about total war is as a proxy measure for physical capacity - because the physical capacity itself is all that matters in total war.

 

[Vicentey01]

I think you are missing the point. HoI is a game about Total War. Money is, to quote several fine literary characters, just a way of keeping score; such scores mean little when ones ultimate existence is at stake. In a total war, no-one ever said "welp, we're out of cash so I suppose we'll have to stop making ammo and just give up!" If the capacity to make ammo remains, then you keep making ammo and fight. The USA's Lease Lend scheme is an example of just this; the money issues may have been addressed in the peace after the war, but during it the focus was on supplying what was needed. The only place 'money' has in a game about total war is as a proxy measure for physical capacity - because the physical capacity itself is all that matters in total war.

Absolutely, my dear: once industrial capacity is "given" or fixed, in total war money is no longer a "priority" (partially true). But the problem lies in the EXCHANGE of raw materials between nations, or what do you think factories and shipyards produce with? What's the point of paying another nation with a civilian factory?
I cite an invented example to clarify the issue: How does a small nation with 5 factories buy steel if the only resource it has is aluminum (or even few or no other resources) and at the same time it has to build military factories?
I understand that it is fun to play with big countries like the USSR, Great Britain, the United States, Germany or Japan where factories are not a problem... but what about the small countries?
I can think of another example: a country that does not produce resources for the war industry at all, but does produce food or livestock (such as an Asian, African or South American country [and even some European haha]); he could sell them for money that he would later invest in foreign companies to build the factories that he so badly needs and that, otherwise, it is impossible for him to get (BECAUSE THEY DON'T HAVE THE FACTORIES IN THE FIRST MOMENT!).
If we analyze it from a purely economic science perspective, in order to industrialize a country, investment is needed! MONEY is needed.
At this point, I think that a way to get out of this "dilemma" would be 3:
*1- Paradox updates the tree of generic focus to make industrialization more flexible and adds ways to increase the extraction of "scarce" resources from smaller countries.
*2- Add money to create a reliable and FUNCTIONAL trading system.
*3- Do nothing and continue to have difficulties with small countries.

 

[CantGetNoSleep]

Immersive/Roleplay Elements
Optional tools for making your mark on a game, and/or development of further building blocks to enhance attachment to a HoI campaign. Bring the simulation to life.

Please - no more pointless "mini-games" where if you don't click a button in time you get a civil war / your entire army purged / some other silly debuff. These are not fun.

Remember having to click the MEFO bills every 6 months? It wasn't fun, that's why there were so many complaints about it. Similarly, the Bulgaria button clicking is not fun. The great purge ridiculous RNG button clicking that is always (even) worse than what happened IRL is not fun. The clicking monkey RNG of Ataturk's death is not fun. The double/triple civil war time-down mechanisms of Mexico are not fun. They are all tedious distractions that end up going along highly scripted lines. Integrating the Zverno is so much better, why would you ever not do it, etc.

There are lots of ways to make interesting different focus trees that do not involve this ridiculous "you need to click that button at that precise time or else" stuff.

 

[Axe99]

I think you are missing the point. HoI is a game about Total War. Money is, to quote several fine literary characters, just a way of keeping score; such scores mean little when ones ultimate existence is at stake. In a total war, no-one ever said "welp, we're out of cash so I suppose we'll have to stop making ammo and just give up!" If the capacity to make ammo remains, then you keep making ammo and fight. The USA's Lease Lend scheme is an example of just this; the money issues may have been addressed in the peace after the war, but during it the focus was on supplying what was needed. The only place 'money' has in a game about total war is as a proxy measure for physical capacity - because the physical capacity itself is all that matters in total war.

It is a bit more complex than this - being able to manage money in a way to optimise economic activity matters, and at different times in history, the relative difference in states' capacities to raise capital (be it loans from citizens, or from other states) has had a material impact on their capacity to wage war. Money is also a "store of capital" - even at their most mobilised, large proportions of the non-communist countries' economies were in private hands, and some kind of measure (like money) can help get more and more of that private productive capacity (including converting capital into productive capacity that would otherwise not be spent) involved in the war effort. For example, Britain ended both World Wars in debt (and quite a lot of it) - without money (or a proxy - "future CIC", for example), it's impossible to model Britain's harnessing of other nation's (and all of its own citizens' productive capacity - although what HoI4 does model captures much of this) for the war effort.

That said, I'm not suggesting for a second it's needed in HoI4 - that's heading down the dark path of fairly complex economic modelling, which as best I understand it isn't really what the HoI4 audience is looking for

And y'all thought I was bad when I rambled on about ships

As an attempt at penance, here's a pic of a CV (and not just any CV, eh @FindFloppies )

 

[Balesir]

Absolutely, my dear: once industrial capacity is "given" or fixed, in total war money is no longer a "priority" (partially true). But the problem lies in the EXCHANGE of raw materials between nations, or what do you think factories and shipyards produce with? What's the point of paying another nation with a civilian factory?

Civilian factories are what generate the goods to sell for money and to be taxed. That is the point of the CIC cost for resources.

I cite an invented example to clarify the issue: How does a small nation with 5 factories buy steel if the only resource it has is aluminum (or even few or no other resources) and at the same time it has to build military factories?
I understand that it is fun to play with big countries like the USSR, Great Britain, the United States, Germany or Japan where factories are not a problem... but what about the small countries?

Well, the small country can put aluminium up for sale, gaining the CIC it needs to buy steel. It can also build MIC more slowly, which is reasonable given its lower industrial base. Before it has any MIC, it doesn't need steel in any case, as it stands.

I can think of another example: a country that does not produce resources for the war industry at all, but does produce food or livestock (such as an Asian, African or South American country [and even some European haha]); he could sell them for money that he would later invest in foreign companies to build the factories that he so badly needs and that, otherwise, it is impossible for him to get (BECAUSE THEY DON'T HAVE THE FACTORIES IN THE FIRST MOMENT!).
If we analyze it from a purely economic science perspective, in order to industrialize a country, investment is needed! MONEY is needed.
At this point, I think that a way to get out of this "dilemma" would be 3:
*1- Paradox updates the tree of generic focus to make industrialization more flexible and adds ways to increase the extraction of "scarce" resources from smaller countries.
*2- Add money to create a reliable and FUNCTIONAL trading system.
*3- Do nothing and continue to have difficulties with small countries.

I have already commented above that I think it would be very useful to have a new resource of "industrial raw materials" that would supply civilian factories. This would give countries that produced such materials (a) something to trade for CIC and (b) something to feed their own CICs without trading for it!

The trading problem for small nations seems to be that trade is only done for 8+ resource units (that they don't need all of, but have to 'pay' CIC for all of). Maybe allowing "composite deals" of, say, 5 steel and 3 rubber for 1 CIC might help here? Another thing that I think would help smaller countries is an expanded diplomatic system that allows, for example, asking a puppet master for investment (ie. building industry in your country with its own CICs, maybe in exchange for resources - although that is already possible via regular trade). Another alternative might be to allow trading resources for resources in small quantities - something only smaller countries would be likely to use? The problem would be getting the AI to use that function sparingly.

It is a bit more complex than this - being able to manage money in a way to optimise economic activity matters, and at different times in history, the relative difference in states' capacities to raise capital (be it loans from citizens, or from other states) has had a material impact on their capacity to wage war. Money is also a "store of capital" - even at their most mobilised, large proportions of the non-communist countries' economies were in private hands, and some kind of measure (like money) can help get more and more of that private productive capacity (including converting capital into productive capacity that would otherwise not be spent) involved in the war effort. For example, Britain ended both World Wars in debt (and quite a lot of it) - without money (or a proxy - "future CIC", for example), it's impossible to model Britain's harnessing of other nation's (and all of its own citizens' productive capacity - although what HoI4 does model captures much of this) for the war effort.

Maybe before the war these things might be important, but once general war breaks out governments can manufacture debt in quantities far in excess of the "spare" capacity in their national (or even imperial) economy. Look at the recent responses to global pandemic; governments' real currency is coercion and deception - the money is there largely to keep the bean counters happy once the crisis is over (apologies to all accountants out there; I have worked with accountants extensively and my experience is that, in general, they are very aware of the redundancy of money in a crisis, only for it to come rushing back with redoubled relevance once the danger is past!) FWIW I think "future CIC" would be a fine way to handle post-war debt - but by that stage in HoI the game is functionally over.

 

[Vicentey01]

I have already commented above that I think it would be very useful to have a new resource of "industrial raw materials" that would supply civilian factories. This would give countries that produced such materials (a) something to trade for CIC and (b) something to feed their own CICs without trading for it!
The trading problem for small nations seems to be that trade is only done for 8+ resource units (that they don't need all of, but have to 'pay' CIC for all of). Maybe allowing "composite deals" of, say, 5 steel and 3 rubber for 1 CIC might help here? Another thing that I think would help smaller countries is an expanded diplomatic system that allows, for example, asking a puppet master for investment (ie. building industry in your country with its own CICs, maybe in exchange for resources - although that is already possible via regular trade). Another alternative might be to allow trading resources for resources in small quantities - something only smaller countries would be likely to use? The problem would be getting the AI to use that function sparingly.

Dear, you have enlightened me with your definitions and proposals. Now I think I understand much better the commercial point of view with civilian factories and the small changes that are necessary.

Look at the recent responses to global pandemic; governments' real currency is coercion and deception - the money is there largely to keep the bean counters happy once the crisis is over (apologies to all accountants out there; I have worked with accountants extensively and my experience is that, in general, they are very aware of the redundancy of money in a crisis, only for it to come rushing back with redoubled relevance once the danger is past!) FWIW I think "future CIC" would be a fine way to handle post-war debt - but by that stage in HoI the game is functionally over.

This is absolutely true! Now we are paying, due to the lag of monetary pressure, the increase in the inflationary phenomenon... Not only in the United States, but in countries where the intervention of the Central Banks -at the height of the quarantines and later as well- was enormous, such as Argentina, etc.
Actually, it is the absolute responsibility of the States for the problems that occur with respect to inflation thanks to their intervention by the Central Banks, managing interest rates at their pleasure and discretion.

 

[Balesir]

Dear, you have enlightened me with your definitions and proposals. Now I think I understand much better the commercial point of view with civilian factories and the small changes that are necessary.

Good! I am glad to have helped

This is absolutely true! Now we are paying, due to the lag of monetary pressure, the increase in the inflationary phenomenon... Not only in the United States, but in countries where the intervention of the Central Banks -at the height of the quarantines and later as well- was enormous, such as Argentina, etc.
Actually, it is the absolute responsibility of the States for the problems that occur with respect to inflation thanks to their intervention by the Central Banks, managing interest rates at their pleasure and discretion.

Yes, indeed - the extreme exertions during a crisis can cause great problems of "readjustment" after the crisis as those who were given promises during the crisis are rewarded, those who suffered seek redress and those who are owed debts are repaid. HoI in general does not address these issues to any extent, but given its chosen scope I don't really think it has to, to be honest.

 

[MrMcQue]

Maybe before the war these things might be important, but once general war breaks out governments can manufacture debt in quantities far in excess of the "spare" capacity in their national (or even imperial) economy.

handle post-war debt - but by that stage in HoI the game is functionally over.

These are the two most important points in my opinion and also from my perspective the two main arguments against money in HoI.

During the games time frame it simply became an abstract resource, and in addition was handled differently between let's say Germany and especially the Soviet Union and for example the USA and the UK. This would require complex structures for a gameplay element that is fairly irrelevant and finally Arheo has already stated that they will never introduce money into the game. This alone should have settled this matter.

 

[FindFloppies]

It is a bit more complex than this - being able to manage money in a way to optimise economic activity matters, and at different times in history, the relative difference in states' capacities to raise capital (be it loans from citizens, or from other states) has had a material impact on their capacity to wage war. Money is also a "store of capital" - even at their most mobilised, large proportions of the non-communist countries' economies were in private hands, and some kind of measure (like money) can help get more and more of that private productive capacity (including converting capital into productive capacity that would otherwise not be spent) involved in the war effort. For example, Britain ended both World Wars in debt (and quite a lot of it) - without money (or a proxy - "future CIC", for example), it's impossible to model Britain's harnessing of other nation's (and all of its own citizens' productive capacity - although what HoI4 does model captures much of this) for the war effort.

There are many things about the economy of war, and yes, money is one of them.

Interesting sources come to mind here:

Grim Economic Realities

Main source for the figures above:

Amazon.com: The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers: Economic Change and Military Conflict from 1500 to 2000 eBook : Kennedy, Paul M.: Kindle Store

The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers: Economic Change and Military Conflict from 1500 to 2000 - Kindle edition by Kennedy, Paul M.. Download it once and read it on your Kindle device, PC, phones or tablets. Use features like bookmarks, note taking and highlighting while reading The Rise and...

www.amazon.com

Interesting look at the German war economy from the inside:

The Wages of Destruction: The Making and Breaking of the Nazi Economy: Tooze, Adam: 9780143113201: Amazon.com: Books

The Wages of Destruction: The Making and Breaking of the Nazi Economy [Tooze, Adam] on Amazon.com. *FREE* shipping on qualifying offers. The Wages of Destruction: The Making and Breaking of the Nazi Economy

www.amazon.com

Another look from the economy of war, from the US side:

Freedom's Forge: How American Business Produced Victory in World War II: Herman, Arthur: 9780812982046: Amazon.com: Books

Freedom's Forge: How American Business Produced Victory in World War II [Herman, Arthur] on Amazon.com. *FREE* shipping on qualifying offers. Freedom's Forge: How American Business Produced Victory in World War II

www.amazon.com

If you take the above into account, and add the comments about civilian factories generating money, the abstraction makes more sense. Do you really want to run a real economy AND have to build the weapons, and fight the wars? There are games that will let you do so, but, HOI4 is not quite so deep, imo.

And, as for ships, @Axe99 , this one spent a lot of time in a carrier's wake, protecting it from aircraft, in 1942 and beyond.

 

[Axe99]

Maybe before the war these things might be important, but once general war breaks out governments can manufacture debt in quantities far in excess of the "spare" capacity in their national (or even imperial) economy. Look at the recent responses to global pandemic; governments' real currency is coercion and deception - the money is there largely to keep the bean counters happy once the crisis is over (apologies to all accountants out there; I have worked with accountants extensively and my experience is that, in general, they are very aware of the redundancy of money in a crisis, only for it to come rushing back with redoubled relevance once the danger is past!) FWIW I think "future CIC" would be a fine way to handle post-war debt - but by that stage in HoI the game is functionally over.

To be very clear, I'm not advocating for money in HoI4 As per @FindFloppies 's points, it would add a layer of complexity that I would prefer was spent on naval mechanics, myself (and others would prefer was spent on other things) . And in saying this, money as I'm talking about wasn't present in HoI1, 2 or 3 either, even if it had a dollar sign next to it - that was a similar concept to total IC (where research slots from HoI4 would be seen as a form of money in HoI3, say).

In terms of the uses of money, while a government that is able to fully coerce and manipulate its population could gain full control of the total domestic production capacity, it cannot do this internationally - and while a gov't may be able to coerce and deceive its citizens, its capacity to coerce and deceive other nations is much lower. A credible monetary policy enables effective international borrowing, while a "throw caution to the wind and print money like it's going out of fashion" approach would be likely to cut off access to using loans from overseas to boost short-term production (to help the war effort - which very much happened)*. Even if it's just a case of modelling gold reserves, without some kind of "stock" that can be run down to purchase foreign-built equipment and resources, HoI4 is lacking a key element to the international trade in goods that played a significant part in the war effort for a number of countries. It's the other side of "Future CIC" - future CIC is traded for resources or capacity now. Of course, turning that into a game mechanism that can't be easily abused could be tricky. Sorry that's all a bit vague, but I'm getting hammered by work this week, so in no position to hit the books and provide more concrete examples - and as my head's a bit off, I may be off the mark as well

Also, while a government may in theory be able to fully coerce and manipulate its population to gain full control of to domestic production capacity, the issuing of war bonds and similar mechanisms to raise money suggest strongly that at least those countries that did so were aware of the need, even in wartime, to not just print money without care for the consequences, because even wartime economies can be brought undone by poor handling of monetary policy. Again, I'm afraid hitting the books to provide more concrete examples now isn't something I'm up for, so this is all very vague. Also, given players are the "spirit of the nation", it could be argued that the CIC takes into account bonds, although there's no direct mechanism for running down types of domestic capital to help the war effort, per se.

As for the pandemic response measures, I'd argue very strongly they relate to a very different financial system(s) and environment than that prevailing in the 1930s and 1940s, and aren't the best example for this kind of thing.

Again, I'm not saying I think money should be in HoI4 - I'm not sure I'd like it to turn into an international trade and domestic bond-raising simulator And I'm also saying that money, as we're talking about, hasn't been in HoI4 to date (so it's not a case of "bringing back money", but rather exposing HoI players to new mechanics and ideas).

 

[Balesir]

Also, while a government may in theory be able to fully coerce and manipulate its population to gain full control of to domestic production capacity, the issuing of war bonds and similar mechanisms to raise money suggest strongly that at least those countries that did so were aware of the need, even in wartime, to not just print money without care for the consequences, because even wartime economies can be brought undone by poor handling of monetary policy. Again, I'm afraid hitting the books to provide more concrete examples now isn't something I'm up for, so this is all very vague. Also, given players are the "spirit of the nation", it could be argued that the CIC takes into account bonds, although there's no direct mechanism for running down types of domestic capital to help the war effort, per se.

Lots of good points and detail in this post, but this specific bit caught my eye as there are specific decisions/events for some types of war bond in the game - they often provide off-map CICs (which just reinforces the 'CIC ~ money generator' point).

On domestic bonds and so on, I see them as more of a public morale/propaganda/public committment to the war tool than a strictly economic one. I mean, sure, the money is nice, and all, and that side of it is potentially very relevant after the war is over - but the clarity that "if our side loses the war you lose everything you invested here" makes for both a demonstration and an assurance of civilian committment to the war. Especially in democratic, free polities such matters are generally subtle and many-faceted. I think that may be why they tend to be more effective in the longer term than some nutter haranguing a crowd, to be honest...

 

[Vicentey01]

To be very clear, I'm not advocating for money in HoI4 As per @FindFloppies 's points, it would add a layer of complexity that I would prefer was spent on naval mechanics, myself (and others would prefer was spent on other things) . And in saying this, money as I'm talking about wasn't present in HoI1, 2 or 3 either, even if it had a dollar sign next to it - that was a similar concept to total IC (where research slots from HoI4 would be seen as a form of money in HoI3, say).

In terms of the uses of money, while a government that is able to fully coerce and manipulate its population could gain full control of the total domestic production capacity, it cannot do this internationally - and while a gov't may be able to coerce and deceive its citizens, its capacity to coerce and deceive other nations is much lower. A credible monetary policy enables effective international borrowing, while a "throw caution to the wind and print money like it's going out of fashion" approach would be likely to cut off access to using loans from overseas to boost short-term production (to help the war effort - which very much happened)*. Even if it's just a case of modelling gold reserves, without some kind of "stock" that can be run down to purchase foreign-built equipment and resources, HoI4 is lacking a key element to the international trade in goods that played a significant part in the war effort for a number of countries. It's the other side of "Future CIC" - future CIC is traded for resources or capacity now. Of course, turning that into a game mechanism that can't be easily abused could be tricky. Sorry that's all a bit vague, but I'm getting hammered by work this week, so in no position to hit the books and provide more concrete examples - and as my head's a bit off, I may be off the mark as well

Also, while a government may in theory be able to fully coerce and manipulate its population to gain full control of to domestic production capacity, the issuing of war bonds and similar mechanisms to raise money suggest strongly that at least those countries that did so were aware of the need, even in wartime, to not just print money without care for the consequences, because even wartime economies can be brought undone by poor handling of monetary policy. Again, I'm afraid hitting the books to provide more concrete examples now isn't something I'm up for, so this is all very vague. Also, given players are the "spirit of the nation", it could be argued that the CIC takes into account bonds, although there's no direct mechanism for running down types of domestic capital to help the war effort, per se.

As for the pandemic response measures, I'd argue very strongly they relate to a very different financial system(s) and environment than that prevailing in the 1930s and 1940s, and aren't the best example for this kind of thing.

Again, I'm not saying I think money should be in HoI4 - I'm not sure I'd like it to turn into an international trade and domestic bond-raising simulator And I'm also saying that money, as we're talking about, hasn't been in HoI4 to date (so it's not a case of "bringing back money", but rather exposing HoI players to new mechanics and ideas).

Sublime explanation! By the way, and taking advantage of the fact that you mention the management of economic and monetary policy in times of war, I recommend some books that are easy to read and very profound for those who wish to delve into the subject:

- "The Banking Mystery" by Murray Rothbard
- "History of Economic Thought" (I & II), by Murray Rothbard
- "Critique of Interventionism", by Ludwig von Mises
- "Socialism and War", by Friedrich A. von Hayek

 

[Emnought]

I can think of another example: a country that does not produce resources for the war industry at all, but does produce food or livestock (such as an Asian, African or South American country [and even some European haha]); he could sell them for money that he would later invest in foreign companies to build the factories that he so badly needs and that, otherwise, it is impossible for him to get (BECAUSE THEY DON'T HAVE THE FACTORIES IN THE FIRST MOMENT!).

There's an easy way to address this without overcomplicating the game.

Instead of usign per se money use debt instead. Of course, on an intricate theoretical level money (especially fiat money) is debt. But since we're working on a total war sim there's no need to reproduce intracacies as they would only matter later, in the post-War Period and in the long run. There's also no point in recreating currencies thus we can stick to the (admittedly oversimplified) discreet quantifications represented by civs-to-resource ratios.

Debt based investments could be represented as the creditor using/providing real resources (and/or factories) immediately to the debtor, who would then 'repay' in a deferred manner and in installments. Possibly with 'interest'.

Moreover, we could finally find good use for the infamous Consumer Goods Factories. Creditor countries would still be locked out of using those directly. But those CGFs could be provided for the international investment market in the same way resources-to-market are provided.

Example: let's say it's 1936 and USA (who will act as creditor in this example) has 40 CGFs due to being on Civilian Economy/Isolationism. Due to having Export Focus 50% of those CGFs can be offered on the international market.

Let's say Afghanistan wants to build civs, mils and infrastructure, but doesn't have the factories to do so. In this case it can ask to borrow some of the American CGFs for a period of one year. The cap of CGFs it can ask for should be tied to their Trade and Economy laws (to prevent countries on Total Mob from cheesing large investments they are totally able to pay for). Afganistan, being the spunky entrprenur, switches to Free Trade and asks for the maximum of 8 CIVs* with hardcoded 20% interest (rounded up). The US market leases 8 out of its possible 20 CGFs. The USA player can still use the same amount of CIVs, since it's only putting its CGFs to use, but will get a bonus in the later game and may be incentivised to stick to Civilian Economy a bit longer. AFG can go wild with their newly aquired CIVs and build whatever they like for 365 days. But then it will termporarily lose 1 CIV for 10 years (a total of 10 civs/year). USA will in return will get 1 perfectly usable CIV starting from 1937 to 1946.

AFG can via decision declare bankruptcy or refuse to pay the debt in full but it would then suffer from embargos and would lock itself out of any further investments for the remainder of the game.

*seems like a reasonable cap because it would make investments made up until 1939 repayable during the course of the intended gameplay.

 

[Emnought]

[T]he issuing of war bonds and similar mechanisms to raise money suggest strongly that at least those countries that did so were aware of the need, even in wartime, to not just print money without care for the consequences, because even wartime economies can be brought undone by poor handling of monetary policy.

A small remark, as this is my special interest.
If you get into the nitty gritty, war bonds were actually macroeconomically not a means to raise funds for the war effort. Instead they were a means of deferring consumption into the post-war period in order for to prevent consumers and firms from competing with the government for real goods and resources and to prevent inflation (bidding up prices). Buying $1000 worth of war bonds meant you would not be able to buy a $ 1000 worth of petrol, stockings, car parts etc. in consequence allowing the government to buy up those resources (or ask for reinvesting into the war economy) for an unchanged market price instead of resorting directly to price controls.

Thus, in game War Bonds decisions should look more like the MEFO bills decisions (and ought to temporarily decrease the resources-to-market %, while allowing to retain the bonuses from Free Trade or Export Focus) than what we see now. And also Soviet Union and other command economies should be locked out of War Bonds decisions, because since they don't have market prices the war bonds would serve little to no purpose in those countries.

As an easy read on the subject I recommend The Price of Peace by Zachary D. Carter's (a biography of JM Keynes)

 

[opsircrocodile]

Firstly, we intend to up the tempo of our releases a little.

 

[Balesir]

Sublime explanation! By the way, and taking advantage of the fact that you mention the management of economic and monetary policy in times of war, I recommend some books that are easy to read and very profound for those who wish to delve into the subject:

- "The Banking Mystery" by Murray Rothbard
- "History of Economic Thought" (I & II), by Murray Rothbard
- "Critique of Interventionism", by Ludwig von Mises
- "Socialism and War", by Friedrich A. von Hayek

Thanks for the recommendations! I'll add one that most Paradox GSG players would probably find really fascinating, with the provisos that (a) it's a big book! and (b) I haven't completely finished it, yet, though I am most of the way through:

- "War in Human Civilisation" by Azar Gat

He studies war and armed conflict from the earliest times to the modern day, including treatments of the funding and finding of manpower for war, including some insights as to why no-one IRL has done a world conquest A deep but fascinating read.

 

[sinanziric]

Airforce Command must be implemented. Current mechanic is old and obsolete.

We need Air Force commanders, traits, bonuses and better control of aviation in general.

Navy has been improved, aviation needs to be as well