Have manpower requirements doubled and the effect of mobilization laws lessened, that would help. Oh, and let AI know when to scrape the Barrel. Maybe some casualties to population to available manpower under current law ratio?
Add a better economy mechanic for the game
- Thread starter Simon Marques
- 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.
- Status
Maybe I have an idea that could please everyone: The supplies are produced either by the civil industries (new function) or by the military industries. Obviously this new "equipment" is consumed every day by soldiers (be they ships, planes or troops). As mentioned by a user (I've also played MMOs) in strategy games if you don't have food you are told that troops are dead, if you don't have money they have deserted. In this case the troops would have increasing penalties if they do not have supplies. This simulates hoi3. I would prefer there was a supply system with the "warehouses" maybe where also to accumulate the normal resources that can be "stolen" in case of occupation of the province (but if reconquered and are located there, they are recovered, but if moved they are lost. ... it would be very micro mangament, but it would be great!)
- 1
- 1
Louella said:
Service manpower for land equipment. Would that be a good start ?
Yes it does put that extra manpower where it can become casualties. But still a better solution than what we currently have.
But changing the manpower of units is possible.
Service manpower for land equipment. Would that be a good start ?
Yes it does put that extra manpower where it can become casualties. But still a better solution than what we currently have.
But changing the manpower of units is possible.
In that case, we'd just double the manpower cost of existing battalions and call it a day. Not an elegant solution, but it might satisfy some players.
- 1
But it should be, it would be a great way to teach history and geopolitics to children and teenagers. It would also be a great didactic tool on how to save money and how not to waste food. This sounds funny, but in reality it's not, it's very serious, this is quite didactic for young people.
With this, the young will understand how the communist and fascist ideologies came to power taking advantage of the hunger and despair of the poor. They reach out to you and give you food and hope for a utopian future that in a few years becomes a nightmare worse than what they lived through before all this.
Last edited:
- 8
Then you should probably make your own teaching tool, because HOI4 is a grand strategy game, not a teaching tool. Hell, there's probably some games out there already that do what you ask.
- 5
There is! Making History was used as an educational tool. In many respects it is more or less a dumb down version of HOI. Though the develpers marketed as a grand strategy game. There isn't any food resource, but it does do a decent job at creating the geopolitical situation though not without some buggy features. USA doesn't always ally with UK&France, Russia sometimes doesn't go to war with Germany etc...
Returning to the economy factor, I think that if the army cost a resource (ANY RESOURCE) making it clear to the AI if you arrive in balance better stop, if you arrive in negative it is better to remove troops (because then you go in negative as a budget and you have heavy penalties ). That would be the way to take away a lot of problems. an MMO had a lot of problems (balance first) because the troops did not cost upkeep, only the cost to be recruited (so worse than hoi4, since the troops have to reinforce them every time when they lose equipment) and cascade created a lots of problems. If the troops cost any resource and this resource was consumed every day, there would be a nice limit to the army. Because, technically paradox would be simply imitating his other games (which are not unbalanced on the military side)
Wrong time period for that kind of game. By 1936, fascists and communists were already in power. They also didn't access power simply because of food shortage and bad economic situations. It mattered of course, but it was far from the only factor. The Nazis would never have taken power if nationalists and antisemitism had not been so strong in Germany in the 1920s. An educational game should start by getting its facts straight.
Same thing with food production. It was a more complex situation that you make it out to be. For instance, Germany, even before the war, wasn't self-sufficient in food. They had to rely on importations from Eastern Europe. Nonetheless, they never really had a problem feeding their population or soldiers. Even with rationing, which began in 1937, the Germans never went hungry. So adding a system to force factories to produce food would be both unrealistic and unnecessary. Same for gold. It wouldn't fit the time period as at that time most countries stop relying on gold for their economy. Same for expendures. The 1930s was a period when complex economic policies were adopted in order to fix the crisis. The MEFO bonds cannot be represented by a simple slider between civilian and military expanses.
Sure, the game could use some improvement of the economics. Notably to better represent the differences between how the different countries prepared and adapted to war. But your propositions would only add an unnecessary complexity and decreased performances while making the game actually less immersive because not accurate to that era.
- 6
- 1
- 1
Wrong time period? I didn't understand your writing well, I just cited the example of what a basic mechanics would look like that would simulate the support of the people of a nation to a socialist (communist/fascist) ideology. It's not to be 100% realistic, this is just a game. I didn't just talk about the mechanics of food production, I also talked about unemployment and GDP. In my proposal I speak;
1 - The civil factories produce food.
2 - The civil and military factories generate employment.
3 - Factories dedicated to civilians generate an increase in the GDP.
Every year there would be a conference with your military and civilian advisors and you would discuss with them how the GDP budget for the whole year would be allocated. This mechanics that I found very interesting in that classic game that I quoted "Pacific Theater of Operations". Take a look at the game later, maybe you like this mechanics like I did at the time.
Gold is and always has been a kind of financial backing of any monetary unit. How you can trade with other nations without gold or anything else of value? Paper has no value, gold among other resources has value as currency of exchange. The Gold Standard in the USA was in force until 1971 for example and I believe this is using gold as financial backing for its monetary unit. If you have a currency that allows you to trade in any country in the world, this is gold. I suggested this one because it is something that has global value.
Unnecessary complexity just for you. If it is a DLC, it does not force you to buy it, I for example did not buy the DLC "La resistance", many like me have not bought and probably will not buy, because they did not like to see civilian factories serving as a monetary unit to fund espionage agencies. So the DLC's are for all tastes, those who like it will buy those who do not like the reviews and the description will not buy.
Last edited:
- 6
gold as a resource is not wrong ... but on hoi2 and hoi3 the generic "money" was used. You could use that. For mantenimence the soldier
- 1
So this kind of economic system is not new in the HOI series. It should have continued, I do not understand why this is not present in HOI 4. I liked to know that.
- 2
- 1
Because, how would you then handle money printing, mefo bills, command economies?
I have yet to see a proposal for "money" that would work essentially differently than the system we have now.
And don't get me started on stockpiling. If you stockpile cash, you're not investing. If you're not investing, your war effort suffers.
That's not really how the Paradox DLCs work. When Man the Guns came out, that changed the naval combat system for everyone, not just those who bought the DLC. When La Resistance came out, that changed the resistance for everyone, not just those who bought the DLC.
Paradox can't support two (or more) parallel HOI4 games at the same time, so the DLCs are designed in such a way that the main features are available for everyone, but those who buy the DLC unlock a couple extra features (espionage, upgrading generals, designing ships, focus trees). If Paradox made a DLC that updated the economy, then those mechanics would have to be available to everyone in some form or else they would run into major issues.
I also disagree with a lot of the other stuff that you wrote, but I think this is the most important thing. You can't just overhaul the entire economy in a DLC and then pretend that it only affects people who bought the DLC.
- 10
- 1
Come on man, a DLC is resumed in an on/off button, it should not be difficult to understand this.
Last edited:
- 10
it must also be said that it is from D1 that many are asking for a revamp of the economy. However the MEFOs give a build bonus (effect that was already there in the old hoi series) and decrease the% of consumables (other thing present in the old hoi) so I think, paradox wanted to try a new system. Either to simplify the game, or to try something new. But in Italy we have a saying "whoever leaves the old road knows what he leaves, but he doesn't know what he finds". I have often seen video game companies being forced to take back the new feature and put the old one back.
- 1
Then why don't you go apply for a job at Paradox and show'em how a "politically-incorrect for grown-ups" (or is that an "educational for kids"? I lost track) DLC should be done?
Lemme show you how: ON... OFF... Button. There, done. Bingo, ship it!
- 6
Did you at least buy HOI 4?
Although they don't agree with my proposal, most here seem to agree that the game needs improvements in its economy mechanics. I just one more who is not satisfied with it. To ask for improvements is a right that all consumers have. Suggesting something is also a democratic right wherever space is given to it. If you don't like it, it's your right to leave your opinion and press the exit button. Ideally, you should just talk because you don't agree at least and not act like a 10-year-old.
Last edited:
- 5
Because it was largely a waste of time in HOI3? Because it's impact was minimal once the shooting started in HOI3? Because the trade system allowed you to stockpile 20 years worth of rares and oil, which still had more impact on the game than a large stockpile of money? Go ahead and play HOI3 and tell me if you think the money system was worthwhile.
Money contributed very little to HOI3. Taking that old system and putting in HOI4 would have been a poor choice.
- 3
- 3
- 1
- Status