Buying Equipment

[Kai Lae]

This is actually a big deal. At the start of the war, one of the most common aircraft in the french airforce was the hawk 75 - which is more commonly known as the P-36. It should be that you need high relations to buy equipment and then you have to trade factories to gain whatever amount of output that you can negotiate. It shouldn't be that much different than a resource trade, except it's harder to do.

 

[LordOfWar16]

What exactly would keep the british and french from buying massive amount of equipment from the US instead of building it themself and steamrolling germany? Nothing. If they would include that you certainly shouldnt be allowed to sell up-to-date equipment, but rather old equipment. Overall, the US planes bought by the US and French were already outdated and mainly used as trainers since atleast the UK already had alot better planes.

 

[Amur_Tiger]

What exactly would keep the british and french from buying massive amount of equipment from the US instead of building it themself and steamrolling germany? Nothing. If they would include that you certainly shouldnt be allowed to sell up-to-date equipment, but rather old equipment. Overall, the US planes bought by the US and French were already outdated and mainly used as trainers since atleast the UK already had alot better planes.

The planes the US sold weren't outdated by US standards, the aspects that limited their performance were common to all US designs at the time, refer to the P-36 and P-40 for reference, the biggest problem with both of these was the lack of a more advanced supercharger which was something that no US planes had at the time.

 

[bwc153]

What exactly would keep the british and french from buying massive amount of equipment from the US instead of building it themself and steamrolling germany? Nothing. If they would include that you certainly shouldnt be allowed to sell up-to-date equipment, but rather old equipment. Overall, the US planes bought by the US and French were already outdated and mainly used as trainers since atleast the UK already had alot better planes.

If they were so outdated, howcome the P-36 performed so well against German aircraft during the Battle of France?


"On September 20, Sergeant André-Armand Legrand, pilot of the H75A-1 n°1 in the Groupe de Chasse II/5 La Fayette was credited of the first Allied air victory of World War II on the Western front with shooting down one Messerschmitt Bf 109E of the Luftwaffe 3/JG53, over Oberhern. During 1939–1940, French H75 pilots claimed 230 air-to-air kills (of a total of 1,009 air-to-air kills by the French Air Force during the 1939-40 time period) and 81 probable victories in H75s[15] against only 29 aircraft lost in aerial combat. While making up only 12.6% of the French Air Force single-seater fighter force, the H75 accounted for almost a third of the air-to-air kills during the 1940 Battle of France.[14] Of the 11 French aces of the early part of the war, seven flew H75s. The leading ace of the time was Lieutenant Edmond Marin la Meslée with 15 confirmed and five probable victories in the type."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curtiss_P-36_Hawk

 

[blue_yonder]

What exactly would keep the british and french from buying massive amount of equipment from the US instead of building it themself and steamrolling germany? Nothing.

If paying for it counts as nothing, then yes, nothing. It's the same nothing that is stopping me from buying a yacht.

 

[agus92]

What exactly would keep the british and french from buying massive amount of equipment from the US instead of building it themself and steamrolling germany? Nothing. If they would include that you certainly shouldnt be allowed to sell up-to-date equipment, but rather old equipment. Overall, the US planes bought by the US and French were already outdated and mainly used as trainers since atleast the UK already had alot better planes.

And we also have bf 109 licensed to Finland. I think allied nation should be able to license amongs themselves updated equipment, while licensing old equipment to neutral but friendly nations. And that's pretty much what happened as well.

 

[FUregistration]

I guess its something else we just have to hope one of the many talented modders is able to mod in...

 

[agus92]

I guess its something else we just have to hope one of the many talented modders is able to mod in...

Actually, I think the devs believe that they can implement this. Just not prioritary, since it would mean quite some work to implement and test properly. So, I can easily see this as a free patch or part of the first DLC. I hope so, at least.

 

[Ibn_Solmyr]

Yeah, it's truely a shame, but we won't be able to buy some military equipment in HoI4. Ever. (I guess, as no money in the game). That's one of the most important very disapointing aspects of the devs path.
It is a very important aspect of the war though (pre-war, but pre-war leads to war, heh ). We should be able to ask for built stuff, ready to ship, and put money on the table or not. Some countries were in the urgent need of military equipment (planes, tanks and ships essentially) and others were pleased to make money by selling part of their own stuff. But the devs choice is to force us to lend-lease or give it for free, once we have enough obsolete equipment to train our units.

But the worst is that the actual development system makes me afraid that no one could mod it one day in a nice way, as game is designed to NOT handle money or equivalent... Even if you raise it, I guess there will be plenty of conflicts with the rest of the game here or there.

 

[agus92]

Yeah, it's truely a shame, but we won't be able to buy some military equipment in HoI4. Ever. (I guess, as no money in the game). That's one of the most important very disapointing aspects of the devs path.
It is a very important aspect of the war though (pre-war, but pre-war leads to war, heh ). We should be able to ask for built stuff, ready to ship, and put money on the table or not. Some countries were in the urgent need of military equipment (planes, tanks and ships essentially) and others were pleased to make money by selling part of their own stuff. But the devs choice is to force us to lend-lease or give it for free, once we have enough obsolete equipment to train our units.

But the worst is that the actual development system makes me afraid that no one could mod it one day in a nice way, as game is designed to NOT handle money or equivalent... Even if you raise it, I guess there will be plenty of conflicts with the rest of the game here or there.

No need for money. It should be possible to handle this with civilian factories (wich is potential money, in a way).

 

[Ibn_Solmyr]

No need for money. It should be possible to handle this with civilian factories (wich is potential money, in a way).

I hope so, I hope so, but then what I said : you'll meet loads of potential conflicts with the rest of the game. How could you hoard civilian factories manufacturing like you could hoard money ? How will you price the equipments, when there are no request neither "bids" ? Who will be responsible for the shipping ? etc..

 

[agus92]

I hope so, I hope so, but then what I said : you'll meet loads of potential conflicts with the rest of the game. How could you hoard civilian factories manufacturing like you could hoard money ? How will you price the equipments, when there are no request neither "bids" ? Who will be responsible for the shipping ? etc..

This system definitely brings issues. Implementing would mean reevaluating all the economy. But I still believe it's doable.

 

[Asfifldjarfi]

I hope so, I hope so, but then what I said : you'll meet loads of potential conflicts with the rest of the game. How could you hoard civilian factories manufacturing like you could hoard money ? How will you price the equipments, when there are no request neither "bids" ? Who will be responsible for the shipping ? etc..

I explained that earlier, you can trade raw resources away for civilian factories, and by buying weapons you would trade civilian factories away for the produce of military factories, maybe 3 civilian factories for the produce of 1 military factory. Equipment is basically priced by the efficiency of the producer.

For example, Soviet union is producing T-34 and the Germans are producing Panthers. The efficiency of the Russians is a lot higher, which means you get more tanks per year from that 1 factory, while if you trade with the Germans you get a better tank.

Basically, do you buy a lot of cheap Russian equipment, or high tech German stuff.

The trade off is of course, you need those civilian factories to strengthen your own industry, including building military factories, so if you rely heavily on bought weapons, if the market dries up(Germany and Soviet union get in a war, for example) you might be left with very little armaments industry of your own.

 

[agus92]

if the market dries up(Germany and Soviet union get in a war, for example) you might be left with very little armaments industry of your own.

Exactly. And this is a big factor, since your armies need to replenish their equipment. And when all your good foreign equipment dried off, if you don't produce it via license, you will have to change towards local, worse equipment. Moreover, your army will have to adapt to the local equipment, which requires retraining (you lose time and equipment in the process).

To sum up: this system would bring a lot more depth to the diplomatic system (specially to minors), since it would require the player (and the AI) to plan ahead it's diplomacy.

 

[Denkt]

I could see a system in which a country could lend civilian factories to another and gain some sort of currency which they then can trade in for equipment.

It would have to work in the same way as the trade system and would be based on the trade laws.

 

[GermanKaiser]

Really think this should be included, while not that important for major nations, minor nations quite often relied on importent equipment, at least things bigger than artillery. Finnish army used mostly imported anti-tank weapons in winter war and later on most of it's equipment orignated from Germany, those weapons were bought aswell and weren't part of some lend-lease agreement or just aid.
Buying equipment makes minor nations be able to compete in a way, standing up against agressors, protecting their independence or what no.
And majors can empty their stockpile and arm their less important allies. Let's say UK arming Belgium and Netherlands for example.
Oh, I also asked in one of the earlier DDs about it and I was given the answer that it is possible, seems to be cut from the game now though.

 

[agus92]

I could see a system in which a country could lend civilian factories to another and gain some sort of currency which they then can trade in for equipment.

It would have to work in the same way as the trade system and would be based on the trade laws.

While having money back could ease solving some issues, I'm certain they will stick with their idea of keeping it away, since it would affect dramatically all the key systems.

 

[blue_yonder]

I could see a system in which a country could lend civilian factories to another and gain some sort of currency which they then can trade in for equipment. It would have to work in the same way as the trade system and would be based on the trade laws.

That is a very percipient remark. There is already a perfectly good currency in the game, industrial output, and it is used to exchange one thing of value for another – raw strategic resources in return for finished products. In principle there is nothing to stop that same currency being used to trade arms under the same set of laws and restrictions, but in practise it’s a great deal of work for only a minor benefit in gameplay. If and when the dlc comes out, I’ll remind people that you predicted the core mechanism first – perhaps the new currency will be called an IOU, an industrial output unit…

 

[Amur_Tiger]

That is a very percipient remark. There is already a perfectly good currency in the game, industrial output, and it is used to exchange one thing of value for another – raw strategic resources in return for finished products. In principle there is nothing to stop that same currency being used to trade arms under the same set of laws and restrictions, but in practise it’s a great deal of work for only a minor benefit in gameplay. If and when the dlc comes out, I’ll remind people that you predicted the core mechanism first – perhaps the new currency will be called an IOU, an industrial output unit…

In other threads I've refereed to it as the factory-month unit of output. This is in part because trading infantry weapons by the gun would be tedious to the extreme where factory-months give you a fairly good idea of how much stuff you're trading, making it easier to compare to investments in other areas.

 

[blue_yonder]

In other threads I've referred to it as the factory-month unit of output.

yup, a month sounds right. So 1 fmu/iou or whatever = one month of production by a basic non-upgraded factory, and everything else is factored around that. I agree the idea has knocked around in general terms for some while, but what denkt says about tying it to the trade law mechanism is new as far as I know, and entirely correct in my view.