You don't need money to do that though, you could, an an example, base attrition or a constant supply cost ala HOI3 to model the same thing.
Avoiding money has made more problems
- Thread starter Syuzeren
- 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.
You don't need money to do that though, you could, an an example, base attrition or a constant supply cost ala HOI3 to model the same thing.
Suggestion: Allow nations to trade fractional portions of factories for specific amounts of resources, instead of blocks of 8.
Mechanics:
- 1/8 of a factory can be traded for 1 resource.
- The factory production would then be reduced by 1/8 for every eighth used.
- This would help minors, allowing them to more discretely use their factories
- It strengthens the game's philosophy that even minor nations could make a difference in WW2.
- Improving trade for minors helps reduce the urge for non-historical solutions such as gifting minors large amounts of resources through artificial national focuses.
- Minors with only 1 or 2 resources to trade (e.g. Liberia) will now be attractive trading partners.
- Allows the term "pieces of eight" to be re-introduced into the financial vocabulary of Western Europe.
- 1. __________ Slot #1 is an opportunity to present opposing views or other perspectives
- 2 ___________Ditto, but slot number 2
- 3. ___________Here's a 3d slot for another perspective.
Sid Meier (of civ fame) - a game is a series of interesting choices.
If you can trade part of a factory for the goods you want then there is never a choice - trading is always the correct response. At least under the current system you have the choice at which point to start trading (I generally allow a deficit of 2 or 3 before I start trading)
Also puppets, etc. give better than 8 units of trade in goods. 20 (16?) or 40 are possible so it's not as simple as 1/8th factory
Trade gives relation ship boosts - the current system allows you to choose since you're investing a whole factory, I'm not sure the payoff under your new system would be worth it.
The current trade choices aren't great but they are at least choices. Under your system you might as well remove trade entirely since there isn't enough left to support it as a feature.
P.S. bringing back pieces of eight is a worthy aim so I'll support you for that alone.
P.P.S. being unable to support an airforce / mechanised as a minor is also an interesting choice. I like the fact minors are playable but if every single nation can field exactly the same forces it would get even more samey.
Agreed, if money would be in the game, China shouldn`t be given so much industry. They could trade said money for weapons.
Or there should be some mechanic to trade (within the country) manpower for industry to represent the imperfect substitution of manpower for machinery that happened in China and India. Though it's a biased book once he's in command, Stilwell and the American Experience in China has a great passage...
While it won't work for big ticket items like planes or tanks or ships... to a certain extent smaller things like rifles, small artillery, and mortars could be built with a low industrial base and the Chinese did.
Also, allowing for some sort of grossly inefficient "MP for Industry" mechanic would make it so that China and the Raj aren't just endless manpower generators since, historically, manpower was a constant problem in both countries.
This wouldn't be a very historical implementation of dept at all in that case.
Some historical examples:
- UK paid back their WW1 dept 100 years after, and there has been similar news recently for their WW2 depts ( 70 years after ).
- War bonds took many decades to pay back with many in USA being paid back in the 70s.
If it's the act of being in debt that's important to you then it is infact already in the game in terms of the US warbonds NF that reduce consumer goods by -5% ( and other similar NFs )
In a total war like WW2 money can't magically buy you a tank. What matters if you have access to the resources, the factories and the labor to make that tank, and if your workers are motivated enough to work overtime to make more of them. The only part of the economy that matters in total war is how much of it that needs to be dedicated to civilian matters and how much can be diverted to the war effort which is perfectly modeled by the Consumer Goods ratio.
So you think that Switzerland would have been able to make an attack costly because they planned to resist?
Let me tell you a secret... ALL other nations attacked by Germany in 1939-1941 also planned to resist, in equal amounts that Switzerland did, and it did not go very well for any of them except for the one that had a war economy of similar size, an army with modern weapons of similar size, plenty of land to trade, millions of soldiers to sacrifice and immense external support to rely on. Not one of the other nations made it costly for Germany to take them. Not even France, universally agreed to be the most powerful military power before the outbreak of WW2, could offer serious resistance.
Switzerland had zero external support, was a very small country of 4.2 million, had almost no modern equipment (tanks/planes) and were surrounded by Axis on all sides of them. Germany had access to paratroopers & mountaineers with experience from the Norwegian campaign as well as an airforce several 100 times stronger. Something else that can't be overlooked is that all branches of the German forces knew they were unbeatable after just having knocked over France like a walk in the park, while the Swiss soldiers knew the Germans were undefeated and unstoppable, and that they could count on no help from anyone, so their situation was truly hopeless.
I would be surprised if Italy and Germany would have needed more then a week to secure Switzerland if they attacked them right after France.
German hyperinflation stopped being an issue by 1924. It was solved by democratic politicians. It's deeply ironic that Hitler now gets the credit.
When Hitler came to power the main economic issue for Germans was unemployment, not hyperinflation.
Norway resisted for months and entirely lacked any modern equipment while also being caught completely by surprise and having an army several magnitudes smaller than that of Switzerland (Norway's 60 000 compared to Switzerland's ca 400 000). And considering the terrain in Switzerland is even harsher than that of Norway I think victory within a week of fighting is out of the question.
I'm sure the Swiss coastal defenses could have put up equally stiff resistance to the German ships that the Norwegians did... And I'm sure the Royal navy can help them out as well in sinking German ships, landing more troops then the Norwegians themself effectively fielded, and denying the Germans supply.
In spite of that resistance Oslo fell in half a day. In the rest of Norway the only meaningful resistance was from the Allied forces and the time delay the Germans needed from advancing long distances overland or being cut off from supply ( neither of would be a thing in attacking Switzerland ).
In Norway the German forces advanced 130km in a week, but Switzerland is only 130km from North to South, and the Axis can attack from both directions at once...
Norwegian proper forces did not put up any kind of significant fighting for months.
The 1:st Norwegian division ( or what was left of it ) fled to Sweden and were interned 4 days after opening of hostilities.
The 3:ed Norwegian division surrendered near Kristiansand after 6 days
The 4:th Norwegian division surrendered near Bergen after 15 days
Except for those scattered parts of the 2:nd division in full retreat was all that was left "defending" southern Norway.
I do think we have strayed enough offtopic now.
Last edited:
Norway is a large country that was mostly undefended, Switzerland is a small country that was well defended. To actually invade a country like Switzerland and defeat it within reasonable time you'd need a force at the very least equal to that of the Swiss, but preferably two or three times larger (in the invasion of Norway the Norwegians were outnumbered 2:1). The mountain passes would have presented a huge obstacle because they limit the amount of troops that can be brought to the field. You can't make a pincer move in an alpine valley as long the enemy actually got enough troops to hold a decent front line, you'd have to brute force your way though and that would take a lot of time. I'm certain that If the Germans believed they could beat Switzerland within in a week then they certainly would have done so.
Read again what I wrote and ask yourself how you interpret it to giving Hitler credit for anything. It is a fact however that the hyperinflation = devaluation of money hurt the german economy and created mass unemployment which enabled Hitlers claim to power.
avoiding fuel creation has made far more problems then the avoiding the creation of money....
FEAR THE REGIA MARINA!!!!!!
today the Mediterranean ... tomorrow the WORLD!
FEAR THE REGIA MARINA!!!!!!
today the Mediterranean ... tomorrow the WORLD!
If the interface was clear on what was happening to fractions of CIC, I'd be 100% in favor of this.
Side note: I have no problem with rescaling CIC by a factor of 8 so that you can trade 1 factory for 1 resource, and adjusting all production values accordingly.
Not really.
There are times when it makes sense to eat the production penalty rather than pay the trade cost, especially for poorer countries.
Why waste a precious CIC (or even 1/8 of a CIC) when you could just eat an 8% production penalty on a production line while using that CIC to do something more useful (like build the synthetic plants you need to produce the oil you lack)?
Right now the biggest issue PDS should be focused on is fixing the broken AI system. Adding another complex concept is the wrong move at this time and will only make the AI situation worse. They need to fix the AI's ability to build units with the right templates (like Expert AI mod) and fix the ridiculous naval AI so one can play countries like Japan and the US in a reasonably challenging way.
But credit to @BeauNiddle for thinking up disadvantages to using "pieces of eight".
The original post's thesis is: HoI4 could use a generic currency ("money") .
The conversation has evolved to "there is 'money' and it is called 'civilian factories' "
Further refinement of the conversation includes "fractioning civs into eighths would facilitate microtransactions."
To which The BeauNiddle has fleshed out the conversation with, "uh huh...but have you thought about this, this, and that?"
That being said, Secret Master's counter-counter point makes sense:
To which @ThuderLizard2 responded with a "Right now the biggest issue PDS should be focused on is fixing the broken AI system."
To which Gold 5 commands, "Stay on target. "
Related question: Does CIC mimic money better than factories in Vic2 because CIC requires absolutely no input at all?
MIC and NIC require resource inputs. CIC does not. It basically conjures goods out of thin air.
For comparison, in Vic2, all factories require labor and resource inputs (even my favorite factory, the liquor distillery requires grain and glass). Obviously, in Vic2, factories aren't functioning as cash, since they have to buy their inputs.
EDIT: I'm not asking to derail the conversation, but to see if the lack of inputs for CIC helps dictate the way we look at them and see their economic role.
The mass unemployment Hitler dealt with was caused by the Great Depression. Unemployment was relatively modest during the hyperinflation era.
Hoi3 had money, and whoever ended up with all the cash, was the biggest loser. So, you are USA, it is late 1941, you have 99,999 money, Japan starts war. Is your situation any better than if you had 1,000 money? Nope, it is actually worse. If you spent pre-war years buying up every last bit of supplies from the world, you would have larger army/economy/fleet.
In time of peace, money(international trade equivalent, like gold/silver/valuables) is essential, because usually there is surplus labor/production capacity, and if you offer enough, you can buy most mass-market stuff and usually semi-modern tech/production, with exeptions of politically sensetive items like latest weapon designs or best production equipment.
In total war, money is irrelevant, politics/relations,resources, labor and means of production are everything. Neutral trading partners will have to pick a side and grudgingly accept debt, surplus goods/equipment/any other means of payment, because they can`t afford collapse of their trade partners, or foreign invasion.
Sweden would have to accept almost anything valuable from Germany, as a pay for iron, because there would be no need for their iron on allied side, and Germany would invade them to secure deposits.
Similarly, Brazil, Argentina or Venesuella could very well expect blocade/invasion if they didn`t quit trading with Germany, even if Germany had all the gold in the world, thus trade stopped, despite Germany being able to pay.
In peace, it is far harder to interfere with enemy trade than in war, which allows your money to buy something.
The only thing we are really missing, is ability to trade equipment/ships for resources.
In time of peace, money(international trade equivalent, like gold/silver/valuables) is essential, because usually there is surplus labor/production capacity, and if you offer enough, you can buy most mass-market stuff and usually semi-modern tech/production, with exeptions of politically sensetive items like latest weapon designs or best production equipment.
In total war, money is irrelevant, politics/relations,resources, labor and means of production are everything. Neutral trading partners will have to pick a side and grudgingly accept debt, surplus goods/equipment/any other means of payment, because they can`t afford collapse of their trade partners, or foreign invasion.
Sweden would have to accept almost anything valuable from Germany, as a pay for iron, because there would be no need for their iron on allied side, and Germany would invade them to secure deposits.
Similarly, Brazil, Argentina or Venesuella could very well expect blocade/invasion if they didn`t quit trading with Germany, even if Germany had all the gold in the world, thus trade stopped, despite Germany being able to pay.
In peace, it is far harder to interfere with enemy trade than in war, which allows your money to buy something.
The only thing we are really missing, is ability to trade equipment/ships for resources.
It certainly is intended to represent money. The use of a percentage of all factories being needed to keep the population happy is a very smart representation of the economy as a whole. You can't convert a country 100% to military factories as your economy will grind to a halt. But as people get used to war the amount of economy that can be freed up rises. It's a very nice, easily understandable, system.
As was discussed in the coal thread adding inputs to CIC would be a bit meaningless since the majors had ample. The main features of money (Stockpiling / inflation / loans) wasn't really relevant during the war even if it did have very large repercussions outside the conflict.
HOI4 has an interesting amount of symbolism built into it's systems. CIC being representative of money. MIC being almost a specific factory but at the same time factory prioritisation (since damaged factories only affect the bottom of the list). Production being a unique object but at the same time being supplies for that object type. I personally like Paradox's game design skills shown since the base idea is easy to grasp and yet the expanded definition covers all intended purposes (except fuel for navies
)I'm not sure symbolism is the right word but it's the best I can do at the moment!
Modern day economic professionals who practically live on Wall Street can not even get economics correct. The decision to remove money and wrap it all into CIC is a good one. In previous HOI iterations money was never a problem for any nation except maybe the fist few months of game play. It was always that bloated ever growing number on the top bar that never really amounted to much of anything. I for one am glad they revamed it into something much more useful, CIC.