A new economic system .... please

[jksn]

I like the way HoI4 is being increment in the last 4 years. The developers have work hard and make this game really great,but I don't like the game's economic system in my opinion it's very simple, it should be something more like Vic2.

Making a system more focused on resources and allowing the player to expand his sector without stopping in a region, can make the game with small countries more interesting.

Another mechanism that would benefit this game would be to have money: it would be possible to make foreign investments, without civil factories in commerce, and each resource could have its own price based on its total quantity in the world.

These are some ideas for improving this game. Please comment on some of your ideas here. I want to know if I'm the only one who wants it.

And developers, congratulations on your work.

 

[Toybasher]

IIRC HOi3 had money, although it didn't add much to the game experience from what I have read.

I want the political power cost changed for Economy Laws so it's similar to conscription laws where it's 150PP per level difference. This would make going from Civilian Economy to War Economy cost 450PP but you no longer get punished for going early or partial mobilization (Since ramping up to war economy costs 450PP if you skip early and partial mobilization or go through them) so there's less rushing to War Economy in 1936.

https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/threads/economy-laws-railroading-war-economy-asap.945824/ Not my thread but someone else had the same idea.

 

[porta80]

Money would change nothing, and you can edit the cost for resources already if you like to do that. Edit 00_resources.txt file to your needs.
Not to be rude but every few month someone comes into the forum and has this creat idea about adding money and its still not in the game, and devs where right about it.
We have a currency ingame called cic that does its job you would just replace it with money, so it would be a useless switch.
This is not an economy simulation where you need hundreds of resources the system is help pretty simple and thats ok, you still have to micro but its not a micro hell as in other games.
Sometimes less is more and sales proof the game is still a success as you could read in the last dev diary.
Just my opinion.

 

[Talamare]

IIRC HOi3 had money, although it didn't add much to the game experience from what I have read.

I want the political power cost changed for Economy Laws so it's similar to conscription laws where it's 150PP per level difference. This would make going from Civilian Economy to War Economy cost 450PP but you no longer get punished for going early or partial mobilization (Since ramping up to war economy costs 450PP if you skip early and partial mobilization or go through them) so there's less rushing to War Economy in 1936.

https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/threads/economy-laws-railroading-war-economy-asap.945824/ Not my thread but someone else had the same idea.

What if that... but 100 per level?

 

[Zauberelefant]

I think it's more important to add costs to your laws. Only thing having drawbacks is total mobilization, and the conscription above limited conscription.
But if you had something like a PP/d cost, a war support cost or stability hazards associated with certain laws (and more of them, akin to occupation laws), and different instead of just more pronounced effects at each level, we avoid micro hell and money for the sake of it, while having an engaging Economy game.

 

[fallgelb22061940]

No way to add money because of the time period. In 19.century you couldn't print money and get rich, and we all now what happened with interwar Germany before Hitler. They printed money and it devaluated tooo much. Why wouldn't any player do it, also it is hard to simulate inflation, we have China as an example, where inflation is represented badly, but great if we look at mechanics limits.

 

[Dlin369]

I think economy could use improvement in terms of gearing up for war - as a previous poster mentioned the cost should be scaled to your current mobilization law.

In the near term I think Civilian economy should offer some boosts so it's not a no-brainer choice to immediately switch out of it. Maybe some ease building civilian factories and also boosts to foreign trade. Countries after fighting a long and destructive war should slowly demobilize (or perhaps go into a "national recover" economic law) to help them focus on rebuilding their destroyed economies. Damage from war should be much more severe and difficult to repair, as should war support loss.

Long term, if the game continues churning expansions after the USSR and Italy DLCs and starts to focus on the post-war I'd like to see debt and civilian economy see some expansions. Give players some goals (even if just aesthetic) regarding not just winning the war but also winning at a reasonable price to the economy and the nation. It would also tie into some post war content for the Democracies to enjoy (since they've got a boring early game, they should get some cool end-game flavor to balance it) like decolonization, Bretton Woods, and Marshall plan

 

[Armillus Dynat]

I think, respectfully, that the game's time frame is too short for an in-depth monetary systems. I find that a recurring problem of the game is that you can gleefully destroy any part of your nation in the pursuit of victory. Manpower? who cares fight to the last man. infrastructure? as long as the enemy's house has been toppled who cares if you only have two bricks left in yours. Geopolitics? offend, betray, or attack, everyone after 1948 they won't be able to do anything anyway. I see no reason why money wouldn't suffer a similar fate. I'm sure players would drive up massive amounts of inflation and leave their country in ruins after the war to win. Ultimately we don't have to deal with the fallout of our actions during the war in any way, shape, or form. Which is a shame because I believe that an extra 10 - 20 years of game time would make an already amazing game even greater and allow some of the more radical alt history paths to truly shine. Although I don't think its fair expectation and I'm sure it would quickly break several game systems.

Resource wise I completely agree. I loath the resource system in this game. I hate how so many piles of resources are localized and then completely scare in most other regions of the world. I appreciate that this is designed to be representational of historical precedent and resource extra, however I find it creates situations of vast amount of surplus or incredible dearths and no smooth transition.

I would really love to see a more emphasis placed on resource processing and not resource extraction. Players would then be give more control over if they choose to develop the economic ability to produce more of a given resource (obviously to an extent). I don't think it would be terribly out of place as planned economics tend to be most highly tolerated during periods of war anyway . It also has some precedent in game with synthetic refineries. Although I'm not particularly fond of that kind of implementation. I was thinking something a little more abstract and ubiquitous, that could then be dedicated to whichever industry/resource needs it most.

Ultimately countries could decide how many resources they want to spend to develop safe internal supplies or if they want to gamble on securing existing production.


Edit: I think any new resource/mechanic added is ultimately going to need to play on the idea of opportunity cost.

 

[Ostovar Hossein]

I like the way HoI4 is being increment in the last 4 years. The developers have work hard and make this game really great,but I don't like the game's economic system in my opinion it's very simple, it should be something more like Vic2.

Making a system more focused on resources and allowing the player to expand his sector without stopping in a region, can make the game with small countries more interesting.

Another mechanism that would benefit this game would be to have money: it would be possible to make foreign investments, without civil factories in commerce, and each resource could have its own price based on its total quantity in the world.

These are some ideas for improving this game. Please comment on some of your ideas here. I want to know if I'm the only one who wants it.

And developers, congratulations on your work.

What you suggested might go well with modern title... if they ever make one from 1995-2020 something like that with in depth economy with accurate income on all nations!!! more in depth trade system over hull of military and doctrine. And a big rework on the missiles and AA systems.
Work on Satellite, drones many possibilities I hope they consider working on modern title and take note from your suggestions.

 

[DrinkingHeavily]

we all now what happened with interwar Germany before Hitler. They printed money and it devaluated tooo much. Why wouldn't any player do it, also it is hard to simulate inflation

If we're interested in historical accuracy.. Hitler's economic goal was autarky. He was attempting to create a country that was sustainably self-sufficient: no need to trade for resources. Thus any change is another introduction of a game mechanic rather than "reality" per se.

[Side note: That's why fall blau targeted the caucasus oil rather than the generals' goal of eliminating Rzhev attrition by driving on moscow]

Also note that if the goal is "historical accuracy" then Germany is currently represented with a LOT more capacity to acquire oil than they would.. But you'd have more complaints if if the game made it as tough to drive armored units as it actually was.


My thoughts: Balance is a better outcome than "realism." Money is itself just another medium of exchange. As long as the system is balanced.. good by me!

 

[kimidf]

I believe the current economic system should be revised by example, authoritarian ideologies should have a bad production or not have access to certain economic policies because it is inconceivable for a fascist or communist state to adopt a free trade policy. It would also be a way to make these ideologies lesattractive to the players and balance them to democracies.

That the civil economy should have more incentives, above all, it gives an interesting bonus to the construction of civil factories or construction and, at the same time, military constructions or military shipyards that these bonds would be reduced to subsequent measures, economic laws until they reached a war economy. change the trend between military to civil manufacturing between bonds and malus.

I think you could add some policies, economies and own policy for certain countries, as happens in communist China in mod road 56, which personally is more accurate and plausible than it has in the vanilla game.

 

[Vlad123]

If we take for example the mod "Millenium dawn: Modern day" there the monetary system exists and it is done quite well and it is quite simple. I think if paradox did something similar (obviously moddable) it would be something much "stronger" and perhaps even better. If put together with the "stockable" resources (like on hoi2 and hoi3) it would be perfect, we would have the economic system of hoi2 / 3 (or better) on a game as beautiful as hoi4

 

[DystopianAlphaOmega]

Right now a key part of the game as a democracy is trying to get your economy mobilized and restraining this by being careful with world tension is a fair part of fascist/communist gameplay. Putting a bunch of drawbacks on partial/war economy, so they aren’t always desirable, would mess with this balance. Whether or not to delay the jump up to save pp is another interesting decision. If a country is at war why shouldn’t it be able to jump straight from civilian to war economy without massive political investment (it takes a while to really reap the benefits, so it’s not like the nation changes that much overnight).

If you wanted an extended timeline/forced demobilization, you could make a democratic victory significantly drive down WT (eg. Have WT of defeated countries massively cut) so that nations get the mission/“disaster” (in theEU IV sense) to demobilize their economy already in game.

As for money, in HOI III it was largely produced through industry or selling resources (there were also no minimum “resources to market”). IIRC most decent-sized nations had enough to buy what they needed i

 

[blahmaster6k]

One thing I wish that would happen would be the debuffs from increased manpower laws changing to be multiplicative rather than additive with other modifiers to factory output. Being on Service by Requirement and above provides negative modifiers, but these modifiers become relatively less impactful the more industry techs/national spirits you have affecting your output. The 40% debuff from scraping the barrel can be completely negated by having dispersed industry 4, or concentrated industry 3 (?!?!). Sure, it's still bad, but it should be completely crippling your economy!

 

[Hoi Neuling]

The Economy system is good and not complex. I don´t discuss it. If you wanna have a complexer one play Hoi 2 and 3. Point!

The only thing the Devs could change is the Trade System. Instead of Civ-Industry you can trade with other Ressources (like Oil, Steel or so). If you don´t have Ressources, they get Civ or Mil-Industry instead.

 

[Vlad123]

One thing I wish that would happen would be the debuffs from increased manpower laws changing to be multiplicative rather than additive with other modifiers to factory output. Being on Service by Requirement and above provides negative modifiers, but these modifiers become relatively less impactful the more industry techs/national spirits you have affecting your output. The 40% debuff from scraping the barrel can be completely negated by having dispersed industry 4, or concentrated industry 3 (?!?!). Sure, it's still bad, but it should be completely crippling your economy!

True: Democracy provided ask the pace if the war goes on too long and is not going well. Some historians say that the UK, if the US had not entered or had entered late, would have given up. (Which then if they had given up I doubt the US would have entered the war, or rather they would have provoked Japan to have a CB) So I think that if the war goes badly, democracies should have increasingly serious protests to the point of strikes against the war. If Stalin, Hitler, Mussolini or Hiroito can resist until the enemy literally enters their home, democracies do not.

 

[kimidf]

The Economy system is good and not complex. I don´t discuss it. If you wanna have a complexer one play Hoi 2 and 3. Point!

The only thing the Devs could change is the Trade System. Instead of Civ-Industry you can trade with other Ressources (like Oil, Steel or so). If you don´t have Ressources, they get Civ or Mil-Industry instead.

I think like most of the game the system of the game including the economic one needs a deep rework of the system

It is hardly understandable that the authoritarian states do not have any disadvantage unlike the democratic states and it is unlikely that in a fascist or communist state they could agree to have a free trade policy when it is known that these regimes abhor this type of economic policy and also this would make balance the attraction of playing with authoritarian states and would give more balance towards playing with democracies plus the types of laws that should be revised to make them more balanced as I proposed.

As I said at the beginning of my presentation, all the mechanics of the game must be deeply reworked

 

[Jopa79]

Country-specific gold reserves could be presented in game mechanics as well as foreign loans.

For instance, Germany's draining gold and foreign exchange reserves inhibited the acquisition of the materiel in the 1930's, but focusing on militarisation the Nazi economy couldn't afford to deplete the means to procure the foreign machinery and parts.

Germany had to default paying its foreign loans and trade relied on command economy barter. However, by looting gold reserves of annexed or occupied countries the Nazis financed waging the war expanding their own foreign reserves and allegedly transferred the seized gold overseas.

 

[Premu]

The only thing the Devs could change is the Trade System. Instead of Civ-Industry you can trade with other Ressources (like Oil, Steel or so). If you don´t have Ressources, they get Civ or Mil-Industry instead.

You mean like: country A sells 8 steel for 8 rubber to country B instead of country A sells 8 steel to B for one civ, while B sells 8 rubber for one civ? Where is the actual difference? (Except that your rubber import might end just because your provide doesn't need steel anymore.)

 

[Vlad123]

Country-specific gold reserves could be presented in game mechanics as well as foreign loans.

For instance, Germany's draining gold and foreign exchange reserves inhibited the acquisition of the materiel in the 1930's, but focusing on militarisation the Nazi economy couldn't afford to deplete the means to procure the foreign machinery and parts.

Germany had to default paying its foreign loans and trade relied on command economy barter. However, by looting gold reserves of annexed or occupied countries the Nazis financed waging the war expanding their own foreign reserves and allegedly transferred the seized gold overseas.

In a mod (oak? Road to 56? i not remember) the german focus three have a similar thing (the focus economy of plunder) and i make a similar thing in a my personal mod for the next series (the axis trade gold can give you more bonus more country collapse to axis, or better, via NF)