You DO notice that there are patch and DLC features that interact?
- 1
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
By wrong time period, I mean that the mechanics you suggest are not fit to the time frame of the game. By 1936, the political changes of the inter-war was mostly over. The food was never a problem big enough to justify implement it in the game. Pretty much everyone had enough to hit. The only cases of famine were among the civilians and directly because of the war, especially in China and the occupied areas of the Soviet Union. There was no famine in Germany, France, Italy, USA, UK, Japan, etc. And the soldiers never went starving unless they were encircled such as at Stalingrad or Leningrad. And even then, the army was always fed in priority. Even if it was implemented, it was too complex of a problem to simply make it created by civilian industries and call it more immersive. Quite the opposite, with your suggestion agrarian countries would have a far worse situations regarding food production than the industrial ones, which is absurd.
Same things for you other suggestions. The gold standard was abandoned in most major countries during the 1930s. And yes, it affected trading. Every country implemented protectionist policies to end the Depression. For instance, Germany imposed every foreign investor to reinvest their gains in Germany. International trade was greatly reduced during that period. Idem for unemployment. It was a very complex problem with even more complex solutions which cannot be represented easily in a game like that. It would be useless to try. Especially as the situation quickly evolved into a shortage of workers during the war (and even before for some countries like Germany).
Overall, your suggestions don't fit the time period and wouldn't be immersive at all. Don't take it the wrong way, but it sounds like you don't know much about the period of the 1930s and 1940s. I suggest reading one or two books on this period to better understand the situation at the time. I recommend the Third Reich Trilogy by Richard Evans to have an overall view of what was happening in Germany for instance. If it's simply the mechanics of economical evolutions and their effects on political life that you would like, rather than simply a more accurate economic representation of 1936, I would recommend you to play a different game rather than trying to impose it when it's not its place. According to what you asked, Democracy 3 (there's also a 4 in development) would probably fit better what you want.
- 1
You're right. I overreacted. My apologies. I thought Haresus' explanation (post #35) of how Paradox DLCs work was very well articulated, using rational arguments and based on facts. I found your response so ludicrously preposterous and condescending in constrast, that I couldn't help making fun of it.
To be completely transparent with you, I don't have anything to contribute to this discussion, and whether I agree or not with you is not important. Unless you can demonstrate, with solid actual proof, that constructive criticism of the game on this forum, with the goal of 'improving' it, has any impact whatsoever, on the developers and/or on the game, I see no point in having this kind of debate.
Sorry for the disturbance. Rest assured I won't bother you again.
- 5
I did not suggest this to make a perfect reproduction of the rise of communists and Nazis to power in Germany and the USSR, I suggested as a way to simulate (not perfectly) how a nation could change from democratic to socialist ideology should its nation enter into crisis. On the subject of "hunger," I did not suggest a simulator of hunger, I suggested it as a way to simulate logistical and economic difficulties. To have large armies you need a large logistic chain that can feed you (The game already has this, it does not have the food resource). The food would only serve to give a better functionality to civil industries (to improve, to give more sense). I'm all for creating a new type of exclusive manpower for the civilian factories, the current manpower serves more as a military reserve, while the civilian manpower serves as workers for the factories, the same functionality present in Victoria II.
On the gold standard, central banks and European governments were negotiating with the U.S. when their nations were plunged into the chaos of war to rearm themselves. The British, French and others turned to the U.S., which did not trade with currency without financial backing. So the negotiations between the countries always demanded some kind of financial backing and I am suggesting the gold for the game (feel free to make better suggestions).
So far, all I see is criticism from you, I haven't seen you give a better suggestion and this makes you very suspicious, very biased. I know enough about the 1930s to know the difficulty that many have had with hunger resulting from unemployment, perhaps their concept of hunger is culturally distinct from mine. Dorothea's famous photo "Migrant Mother" describes hunger perfectly. But all this is irrelevant because I am not discussing it with you, I made suggestions to improve a certain mechanics of the game. Be helpful and make suggestions too. because, with all due respect, until the present moment you have been a complete useless one making criticism without proposing something better.
Last edited:
- 2
If on the one hand the economy of hoi3 was not very balanced, often it is less difficult to balance something you already know, than to make a new feature, and then run for cover years later because it is too simplified / unbalanced. I know that in times of war the military always had priority (food, money) but in other paradox games it is like this: The more troops you have, the more they weigh on the budget (less income). Just see EU4 or victoria 2. If Hoi3 and hoi2 were not perfect it was because the money was often piled up and the troops were consuming supplies. But regardless of whether the resource is called food, money, supplies, cigarettes or anything else, the important thing is that it exists. For now, paradox is the only game where troops "cost nothing" as "fixed cost" but you only have to "repair" them when they are damaged. To make you understand: it is as if either I bought a car that runs out of fuel that I just have to buy parts when needed. Compared to someone who has a normal car, I have a LOT more money left in my pocket.
- 1
But that era had passed by 1936. The countries didn't see a change of dominant ideology because of the crisis after 1936. Almost all the political changes of the inter-war (the Nazis in Germany, the communists in Russia, the dictatorships in Poland, Austria and half the countries of the Balkan, the fascists in Italy, etc) was over by 1936. Again, wrong game for those mechanics.
Which, as I've said, is useless because food didn't create such economic difficulties during WW2. Even in 1945, Germany was able to feed its army. Adding food is as useless as adding tool production. Sure, both were necessary, but they didn't create major problems which affected WW2, and this game is about WW2.
The manpower shortage is already represented by the decreased factory output when you change the conscription law.
Because first it's not the suggestion forum, it's the discussion forum. Second I don't think the devs even care about the suggestions made in the suggestion forum.
No, you obviously don't. I'm sorry but having seen a photo from that era is not enough to understand the complex situation of the 1930s.
I am. I told you what your problem was, that you don't know enough from that era, I suggested a way for you to solve that problem and recommended you a book to start on that path. But so far you've been been very reluctant to receiving help. You refused to see that the problem could be coming from your own vision from that era and it seems that overall you've been more seeking for approval rather than real improvement. I can't help you if you refuse to be helped.
- 3
- 1
This is what we call the straw man argument. You didn't understand what was said at this point and you formulated a criticism based on an interpretation error. The fact that I cite the case of Germany and the USSR does not give you reason to say this. Once again, mechanics was suggested as a way in which a nation can more easily adhere to a socialist ideology. You speak as if it were not possible to change ideology in the game, a speech with no connection to the reality present in it. Even if the game starts in 1936, it allows me to change ideology, it allows civil war, if the game contains this why not create this rule? By creating this rule, in nations with high levels of economic instability, socialist parties receive more support by provoking revolutions, civil war, they become more vulnerable to foreign operations.
The logistical effort in the rear during World War II was colossal, for every 20,000 soldiers, 30 tons of food were needed every day, for one million 1500 tons every day. If this was not a problem for you, I recommend having a good conversation with personnel specialized in logistics. There is no war in which logistics is not a serious problem, an army does not advance without provisions.
However, manpoweris not used in civil industry, the current manpower serves only to create military units. The civil industry needs to have its own manpower as in Victoria II. It is a good element present in that game that should have been followed in HOI 4.
Only in complex speaking do you refute yourself. That is one of many photos from the newspapers of the time.
If you had understood what I said you would have realized your mistake in speaking all the nonsense you spoke. I'm ignoring you because I realized that you can't understand what I'm writing, probably because two different cultures are talking it's normal to think one is more right than the other. but in reality, each culture sees things in a different way, there is no defined pattern. Perhaps this is the problem in your difficulty in understanding what I write.
I don't need help to understand how a democratic country can adhere to a socialist ideology, I cited simple examples; hunger, unemployment, revanchism... writing a dissertation on the subject is unfeasible, I don't have time for it.
I am respectfully ignoring you from now on because of your difficulty in understanding what I write.
It should be like this in HOI 4. I realized that they must have made the game simple to reach a younger audience.
Last edited:
- 2
- 1
It strikes me that you think national socialists are actually socialists.
I think if you're reasoning from that point, you're bound to end up with wrong conclusions.
And: it's a Strawman, not a Scarecrow argument.
- 2
- 1
It is not a difficult thing neither to implement nor to understand. It exists in even simpler games than paradoxes. Simply this is one of the rules (the other is an age of empires type limit) to limit the army.
- 1
Sorry, I tried to use the words closest to the expression used here, the important thing is that you understand, even if the word is wrong. About socialism, we understand here that fascists, Nazis and communists are all socialists.
What is socialism? It's a totalitarian regime in which the government totally controls matters like politics, economy, religion, race and culture. Communism is Fascist, Nazism is Fascist and all are socialists. They are just different names to simply say the same thing.
- 6
That's explicitly not the definition of socialism by any means? Also communism and fascism might both be authoritarian, but they're not the same thing either? Either you're trolling or very misinformed.
- 4
- 1
- 1
Ah, you're a TIK viewer. Well then, no use arguing, you're plain wrong at best and at worst you are a useful centrist idiot for actual nationalists trying to whitewash their Agenda.
Just in case anyone is wondering why he's wrong:
Socialism in the accepted Definition is about the ownership of the means of production by "the people" instead of "the rich".
Also, socialism holds the idea of class struggle, which is because of different interests between rulers and those ruled.
National "socialism" at no point changed the ownership of property from private to public, in fact, the Nazis privatized a lot of formerly state owned means of production.
Also, NS ideology thought class struggle was an effect of a "jewish world conspiracy", which does.not.exist. therefore, the Nazis declared class struggle to be overcome in the "Volksgemeinschaft". Basically, they denied the problem and forbade adressing it.
So, despite any horseshoe ideas about Stalins USSR and hitler's Germany, the two Ideologies were opposed to one another and rightly so.
The only reason to bring up this lie is to reinforce a narrative that socialism is everything bad and that it's hell bent on destroying western civilization through postmodernist Propaganda yadda yadda culture war, while exempting conservative, right wing and nationalist positions of criticism.
Last edited:
- 4
- 2
I don't discuss socialism in theory, but we can talk about socialism in practice.
In a simplistic definition, socialism is exactly what I described, it is totalitarianism, the control of the state over all the subjects mentioned; politics, culture, religion, economy and so on. If there is any doubt, just study about the French revolution, the genocides practiced against the religious. Also study the history of the USSR, the Gulags and the purges, take a look also in Venezuela, Cuba, North Korea and other modern SOCIALIST states.
The definition of socialism I gave was based on historical observation of facts and not on dreams and fantasies taken from the mind of some junkie writer: USSR, Germany, Italy, Cuba, North Korea, Vietnam, China, Venezuela among others. There is the socialist group and within this large group there are the subgroups of course, I mean in general. All of this translates into oppression, genocide and totalitarianism.
Those who have experienced socialism don't want to go back to this, for example Poland, the Poles know well what socialism is, after all they felt the oppression imposed by the socialists. I won't even mention the Ukrainians (they went through hell at Stalin's hands). There is no nation that has adopted socialism that has not practiced the same atrocities as the Nazis or even worse.
Last edited:
- 5
Discussing atrocities, war crimes, genocide, and other such things is against forum rules.
Thread closed.
Thread closed.
- 1
- 1
- Status