Without money being in the game, I am still waiting to see how they plan to handle trading in general anyway. For me, that is one of the biggest remaining question marks in the system.
2 new factory lines for producing resources, Sythetic Rubber, Synthetic Oil
- Thread starter Bluestreak2k5
- Start date
-
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.
Without money being in the game, I am still waiting to see how they plan to handle trading in general anyway. For me, that is one of the biggest remaining question marks in the system.
I`m pretty sure they only said money will not be used for internal economy, not that it will not be present at all.
I am not quite sure how that would work either. I agree (as did others in that long money thread) that one of the primary reasons to have it in game is as a means of exchange or stored wealth. However, if not tied to the internal economy, how are you generating money in the first place so that you have some available to use for trading? I.e. where does money come from? (Please no answers involving storks or cabbage patches.
)
Like in HOI3 for example.I am not quite sure how that would work either. I agree (as did others in that long money thread) that one of the primary reasons to have it in game is as a means of exchange or stored wealth. However, if not tied to the internal economy, how are you generating money in the first place so that you have some available to use for trading? I.e. where does money come from? (Please no answers involving storks or cabbage patches.
Some small amount for each civil factory and the rest from international sales. This would compel resource rich countries to sell and industry rich to sell supplies, weapons & other. The money would not be horded and get traded back & forth.
But some small amount for each civil factory is tying it to your internal economy isn't it? Perhaps if you clarified, Alexey. I played HOI3 less than the other versions. Did it stop being tied to production of consumer goods?
For even an external economy involving money to work, there has to be something that produces new money and something that consumes money. It can't only be a medium of exchange.
If all that exists is the money that starts in the game with no new production, it is a zero sum game in which someone might eventually get most of the money piled up on their side of the table. If you have production of new money but nothing that consumes it, you get inflation, this could be very steep inflation depending on how much new money is being introduced. The economy in many MMOs has collapsed because of not grasping this latter point.
Last edited:
Well HOI3 had supplies instead of consumer goods available for sale. I liked HOI2 where you could trade more than just one thing. I could make a trade with the SU as Bulgaria giving supplies and a little money in exchange for the energy, metals, and rare materials I needed to start my factories going and building a stockpile. And Dalwin while your economics is very accurate I hope they abstract money as it doesn't add to the game. In strategic sense you either have a surplus or a deficit and in those terms you could code that it is harder to trade with nations not in your faction or ideological corner so to speak if running a deficit.
He does have a really good point though that since they effectively took away all stockpiles of resources, that there is potential problems. USA and USSR would need to start the game looking for trades for their massive resources, while Germany and Japan would be looking for massive trades, but potentially nothing to trade in return. But once war breaks out in June 22 1941, how does this model fare? Germany and Japan would no longer have any of these, and USA and USSR are extremely positive in all resources again.
That's one of the reason for this post is to correctly model the production and demand of these 2 resources. They are factories, factories on the map available for bombing. If you want to protect your factories you must build AA and fighters. These resources will not be free, they won't come from nothing like HOI3.
The largest German synthetic oil plant was the most heavily defended target in Europe, with no known damage done to it after the first bombing. the allies lost hundreds of planes attempting to damage it.
those are already part of AOD and if hoi4 does not include them... well then, i doubt hoi4 will ever make me interested enough to buy it
This seems like a very strange line in the sand to draw for a war game.
That's why Germany and Japan should start hunting for resources (seek other means of fabricating it, develop less resource-demanding designs, etc.). Money will become no problem due to the whole "we are at war, we must win at all cost" (something like unlimited credit until the war ends, and in this game end of war means end of the game).
because it is not the only thing that already bugs me, so you could suppose it is the drop that makes the cup spill over... also, why should i buy a downgrade?
This is derived from a previous post of mine. I really think it is important because it creates a balancing force that makes unrealistic "min-max" economies ineffective:
During WW2 national money supplies were backed by gold. Because of this nations tried to avoid using money for trade. Money meant transferring actual gold for balance of payments. Money is actually something you should have to use INSIDE your country.
Civilian production is about making money. Miners and factory workers expect to get paid. Owners expect to make a profit and reinvest to make more money, often by increasing production. When consumer goods are produced, they are sold to consumers and the exchange pays the workers and factory owners. When you take control of production and direct factories to build military equipment or simply build more factories, you are circumventing the economy. Why build more factories that may sit idle? Who is paying the workers? Where are you storing these goods? As a simple solution to these problems, I suggest the following:
-Producing consumer goods GENERATES money (taxes) AND a slight growth rate to factory capacity (as an economy grows, investors expand production)
-Intentionally building new factories COSTS money. You are artificially producing excess capacity. Workers still need to be paid, but now from taxes.
-Stockpiling large amounts of unused vehicles COSTS money (less cost than units, but storage facilities/vehicle upkeep cost money)
-Stockpiling resources COSTS money (yes, you can now allow nations to stockpile for war, but now you are not only paying for storage facilities, but you are also artificially reducing the supply of these materials to you economies; your government is literally buying up resources with taxes. Under supply and demand mechanics, you are making existing production more expensive.
Using this money system an economy cannot, for instance, "min-max" for factory spamming for very long without collapsing. This is VERY realistic. All nations struggled with the costs of military production. Even for communist countries military production is a drain away from the goods and services that people and infrastructure need.
During WW2 national money supplies were backed by gold. Because of this nations tried to avoid using money for trade. Money meant transferring actual gold for balance of payments. Money is actually something you should have to use INSIDE your country.
Civilian production is about making money. Miners and factory workers expect to get paid. Owners expect to make a profit and reinvest to make more money, often by increasing production. When consumer goods are produced, they are sold to consumers and the exchange pays the workers and factory owners. When you take control of production and direct factories to build military equipment or simply build more factories, you are circumventing the economy. Why build more factories that may sit idle? Who is paying the workers? Where are you storing these goods? As a simple solution to these problems, I suggest the following:
-Producing consumer goods GENERATES money (taxes) AND a slight growth rate to factory capacity (as an economy grows, investors expand production)
-Intentionally building new factories COSTS money. You are artificially producing excess capacity. Workers still need to be paid, but now from taxes.
-Stockpiling large amounts of unused vehicles COSTS money (less cost than units, but storage facilities/vehicle upkeep cost money)
-Stockpiling resources COSTS money (yes, you can now allow nations to stockpile for war, but now you are not only paying for storage facilities, but you are also artificially reducing the supply of these materials to you economies; your government is literally buying up resources with taxes. Under supply and demand mechanics, you are making existing production more expensive.
Using this money system an economy cannot, for instance, "min-max" for factory spamming for very long without collapsing. This is VERY realistic. All nations struggled with the costs of military production. Even for communist countries military production is a drain away from the goods and services that people and infrastructure need.
Sorry I disagree with a lot of the thoughts behind this, it would favor the allies way too much as they are naturally resource rich, and money rich. Allied countries could simply use their money reserve to max factory production by building several at once.
That's why I agree with the way they are making you build factories now, as a production line. It forces you to redirect output that would be normally used for military to build steel, concrete, etc to build new factories which is realistic.
Stockpiling large amounts of vehicles I don't agree that it should cost more, it is war, they will be used. You have paid the price for them already.
Stockpiling resources concept is similar to what other people have suggested in spending money/resources to build storage buildings, although I would prefer that idea to simply spending money. It becomes a strategic decision then, do I build storage far away from potential bombers, but then have a drain on supply when I need? Or do I build them closer to the front and have to risk losing resources to bombing.
I can see no flaw in it. Yes, the Allies ARE ressource rich. Why the need for balancing that? What do you think, WW2 has been fought? Lebensraum?? Nice german cottages for all? Yeah...Oil fields in the Crimea, Coal in Poland and Donetzk, Rubber in Indonesia, Swedish Iron ore...you name it.
The only things you might not see is the following: the more democratic a land is, the more resources and factories are privately controlled, so the Allies need to pay for the products from tax money and war bonds. The Axis and Comintern (especially the latter) OWN both resources and factories or enact enough pressure on the factory owners to do their bidding. Also, historically spoken, those countries were known to use forced labour or similar mechanics. So no payment here, Mr. Doe.
The mechanism should henceforth take into account, that
a) The workers are paid. In democratic countries you order an item and pay with tax. Military productions are tax-neutral for simplification so you pay and get your hardware but do not earn anything in cash. Consumer goods (exported or not) serve a dual purpose. They make people happy and are taxed. This means, you need consumer goods. The need might be shortened by autocratic politics but you need to produce them for cash
b) Working people are taxed. The more people in a land, the higher is the tax revenue. Harsh tax laws might result in dissent.
c) Exports are taxed. If country A buys for example ore from country B the money does not go into the state coffers directly, but the mine owners get it and the state gets a share in taxes. In return, the mine-owners use the money to raise production capacity (reinvestment).
Internally the game could count the money earned for a special good and automatically upgrade the mines at a threshold value resetting the earned cash. The more totalitarian the government is, the more money directly flows into the state coffers, but this will make automatical upgrades unlikely. On the other hand a country could invest and subvent certain industries by paying tax money to a certain field of tech. This will make the AI build according upgrades.
e.g.: no chemical industry yet? Invest a certain sum of money and AI will build a chemical plant for you after some time.
Imagine a user interface where you can invest money into certain fields of resource production. The more totalitarian your system is the more freedom you have here as in deciding where the next factory of a certain kind will go. Drawback might be corruption making upgrades more expensive than in "free" countries. Appoint a minister to automatically appoint and allocate those funds (in democracies however, those blokes are elected). They might favor certain industries. Imagine, that Mr. Krupp would rather expand steel production than textiles...
You could also take unemployment into account. Unemployed people are unhappy (dissent) and cannot be taxed and maybe they cost money. They can however, be drafted for service (Military manpower bonus). Factories reduce unemployment but also drain the manpower bonus.
Stockpiling should cost money or, if stuff is not sold or used, make a reduction in production plausible (factories get closed because they are not lucrative or factory yards are clogged).
The only things you might not see is the following: the more democratic a land is, the more resources and factories are privately controlled, so the Allies need to pay for the products from tax money and war bonds. The Axis and Comintern (especially the latter) OWN both resources and factories or enact enough pressure on the factory owners to do their bidding. Also, historically spoken, those countries were known to use forced labour or similar mechanics. So no payment here, Mr. Doe.
The mechanism should henceforth take into account, that
a) The workers are paid. In democratic countries you order an item and pay with tax. Military productions are tax-neutral for simplification so you pay and get your hardware but do not earn anything in cash. Consumer goods (exported or not) serve a dual purpose. They make people happy and are taxed. This means, you need consumer goods. The need might be shortened by autocratic politics but you need to produce them for cash
b) Working people are taxed. The more people in a land, the higher is the tax revenue. Harsh tax laws might result in dissent.
c) Exports are taxed. If country A buys for example ore from country B the money does not go into the state coffers directly, but the mine owners get it and the state gets a share in taxes. In return, the mine-owners use the money to raise production capacity (reinvestment).
Internally the game could count the money earned for a special good and automatically upgrade the mines at a threshold value resetting the earned cash. The more totalitarian the government is, the more money directly flows into the state coffers, but this will make automatical upgrades unlikely. On the other hand a country could invest and subvent certain industries by paying tax money to a certain field of tech. This will make the AI build according upgrades.
e.g.: no chemical industry yet? Invest a certain sum of money and AI will build a chemical plant for you after some time.
Imagine a user interface where you can invest money into certain fields of resource production. The more totalitarian your system is the more freedom you have here as in deciding where the next factory of a certain kind will go. Drawback might be corruption making upgrades more expensive than in "free" countries. Appoint a minister to automatically appoint and allocate those funds (in democracies however, those blokes are elected). They might favor certain industries. Imagine, that Mr. Krupp would rather expand steel production than textiles...
You could also take unemployment into account. Unemployed people are unhappy (dissent) and cannot be taxed and maybe they cost money. They can however, be drafted for service (Military manpower bonus). Factories reduce unemployment but also drain the manpower bonus.
Stockpiling should cost money or, if stuff is not sold or used, make a reduction in production plausible (factories get closed because they are not lucrative or factory yards are clogged).
Your basically describing Supreme Ruler 1936, and if you have actually played this game, a lot of this stuff doesn't work out.
Secondly, I'm not sure how much you know about "democratic governments" but it was not up to the owners usually. The "War Productions Board" in the US controlled and allocated nearly every resource for the US. There was no "Oh hey I want to build X factory over here" because the steel for the factory could be used elsewhere, the labor might not be available, etc. Whatever the US deemed of highest importance got the resources it needed first (Manhattan Project). This will already be modelled in HOI4 by (1) production line for new factories (2) the highest items in queue are highest importance.
Third, tax rates in the US were between 87% and 95% for the HIGHEST income earners during WWII. How much dissent did that cause? Not enough to even discuss about it. In fact we could raise our taxes to the WWII tax rates and pay off our 18 trillion in debt by 2020.
4th Stockpiling does not need to cost money to stockpile. Nearly ALL of the USA strategic Oil and Natural Gas reserves are stored in underground wells. Once the oil/ natural gas is bought there is no cost to this storage except for the pumping in and out of the well, which relative to the cost of the oil/natural gas is nothing.
I guess the problem here is when we are talking peacetime economics and wartime economics where in the latter case the decisions would have been pressed by the law no matter where. Supreme Ruler 1936 I do not know. They made a game already? Oh well...
Yes the game pretty much has everything your describing...
Every factory takes a certain amount of population workers to produce, you cannot simply keep building factories. There are 3 types of factories Civilian, Production, and Military goods, and they all take some production from the others. You control the budget and taxes, you can allocate and build more research funding and centers, and is affected by things like education.
The problem is its like merging Vicky and Hearts of Iron together, and then you try to balance that... Its not very well balanced, tons of issues (similar to HOI3 at first release). For example, you can destroy all factories in conquered lands, move them to your homeland, and people will naturally migrate to those areas for work, while you get the full production instead of less production in occupied areas.
You can do similar things in vicky by forcing huge amounts of unemployment (which is what your doing) and people will move to areas with factories with work available.
A nation like the U.S. starts out mostly market driven. As tensions elevate steps are taken to extend government control. During the war the railroads were even nationalized. However, there is still a cost. Workers still need to be paid, even if in food/clothing/fuel rations.
The U.S. issued bonds, effectively going into debt for the war. This was because the Government (not companies) were footing the bill. As you pointed out, taxes were high to help the government pay for the war. Governments can step in and direct production for war needs, but they also have to write the checks. In both Democratic and Fascist countries the factory owners were making money (at least for most of the war).
Also, several factories were built from scratch to meet government needs. Ford's Willow Run plant was built during the war to crank out B-24 Liberators. This was not charity by Ford. They got paid, as did their workers.
Concerning dissent, most countries didn't have to worry too much about that until they began losing.
As for the rich paying high taxes...there is a HUGE difference between personal income tax and business tax. Rich people didn't need to worry too much about high personal tax....their true wealth was prospering both during and after the war.
Stockpiling costs for two reasons. First, as I mentioned, the government is now adding to the world demand for resources. This drives up costs of those materials. Second, while some goods like oil are easy to store, having huge stocks of tanks and planes requires more. Even stored in a bone yard in the desert such vehicles require regular checks. Corrosion, pests, deterioration of rubber, glass breakage, sand contamination, theft...there is a constant cost to maintaining military equipment ready to use.
The easiest way to balance the colonial allies (British, French, Dutch) is make their colonies more like puppets and not home territories. After the fall of France and the Netherlands, the British were trying to manage the colonies of all three empires...and stretched doing it. They fought anti-colonial revolts in Africa, the Middle East and Southern Asia during 1940-1942. Most of the Indian Army had to stay in India...to garrison their own home! The British were a rickety structure during the war. This should be something that can be exploited by the Axis.