Home Trending Latest threads New posts Developer diaries

C.O.R.E. Tech Tree: Economic & Industrial

Jump to latest Follow Reply
  • 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.
Originally posted by PaxMondo
So writing a generic event as i described is not possible? I haven't written that many yet, and so am not flluent with the full instruction set.

Ideally, you'd like to have, for example, Germany offering to all facist minors the ability to buy say ships for X amount. Then without the tech additions, drop it into the build cue if they accept to simulate the payments. They aren't really building it, the Germans are [did], but it absracts the payment terms that would have gotten.

Am i way off board here? If i am, i take it that you cannot force a build that is not in the tech tree. Do we need that instruction from Paradox? Do we make a request to address this issue instead of trying to write 120 events?

Thoughts?
Click to expand...
the events have a "country = XXX" being XXX the tag of the country, unless you make a random event "random=yes", but they are random, they could never happen in some games... :(
i do not know if you can build a paratrooper without the proper tech, i think not, but i have never test it.
Also, for example, lets supose you want to simulate the Tigers that Hungary bought to Germany, well, there is no way to do that, why? because Hungary only had light tanks, so when you put a tank into the building queue, that tank will be a light tank and not an equivalent to the Tiger, so you must first give them the proper techs and then, put it into the building queue, that's the only way to get a Tiger to Hungary, what's the bad point of this? that you can upgrade any tank of Hungary to a equivalent of the Tiger AND you will be able to produce from now on Tigers all the time in hungary after receiving the techs . :(
 
Originally posted by PaxMondo
Sorry, see my edited thoughts. i type faster than i think [i think! :D ]
Click to expand...
ok, my entire previous post applies in part to what you have [edited ;) ] said.
The tank in the building queue is produced based upon your current techs.
deleting techs?? i think that this is not posible. :(
also, it will make a disaster, what if the argentinians focused in those techs and were able to get it, you will delete it because it is "predesigned" that the argentinians will hardly get there... you will create a real mess there... :D
i will have to reject the equipment, just to not see my techs deleted. :D
 
Sorry, i hit the send key to fast and was editing it while you were writing your first response.

Yep, you're right of course. Not thinking things through. So, to avoid all the unpleasantness, need to be able to suspend tech requirements while placing a unit in the production cue.

And i think this is going to be tough because of an undocumented feature that is in the code right now. Have you noticed that when you produce something, it sometimes gets the benefits of techs that you completed research on while you were building?

I've thought about this quite a bit, because it is difficult to decide which way it should be. Arguements arise in my mind to support both sides. So i have never reported it. However, if this undocumented feature does exist, then it would be a major inhibitor to implementing paragraph 2's idea.

Seems like i need to play a bit first with the code to confirm that you cannot drop it in [i doubt that you can].

Thanks!
 
Originally posted by PaxMondo

And i think this is going to be tough because of an undocumented feature that is in the code right now. Have you noticed that when you produce something, it sometimes gets the benefits of techs that you completed research on while you were building?

I've thought about this quite a bit, because it is difficult to decide which way it should be. Arguements arise in my mind to support both sides. So i have never reported it. However, if this undocumented feature does exist, then it would be a major inhibitor to implementing paragraph 2's idea.
Click to expand...
I expect this is Working as Designed. Units in the build queue have NO stats (other than model #) until they are first deployed so they will get the stats of whatever tech is in effect at that time.

What you really need is the ability to give units to other countries. Should be possible as a minor variation of the existing Expeditionary Force code. Even if we get this ability it would also be useful to modify the add_division command with another parameter for model #.
 
Can't you create events that cause:

- Put new unit in build queue
- Transfer resources + manpower (+ extra payment: profit, can be supplies or rare resources)
- ideally upon completion of unit have unit switch allegiance (however unit should not die off)

For instance have events for all 'major' minor nations (Argentina, Brazil, Turkey, Romania, Poland, Czechoslowakia, Sweden, Mexico, Hungary, (India), Comm. China, Nat. China, Australia, Canada, South Africa, Free France) that give them a choice to buy weapons. For instance:

- Yearly or 6 monthly event to buy weapons for super minor saying something like "It is time to expand and modernize our armed forces" with a yes and no option.
- Next event: "we want equipment from:" with the choice of the 5 major nations (Germany, Italy, UK, USA, USSR). There are a few conditions. First, ordering from a certain country should automatically give them military access (so the newly built unit doesn't die while waiting for the minor to pick it up), secondly a textover should appear that if a nation is at war the request will probably be denied. The option a of nation should depend on the super minor that asks (India, can, south africa, australia should have UK as option a, Rep. Spain USSR, Argentina Germany, Brazil probably US or maybe Germany, Nat. Spain Germany or Italy etc.
- Event for chosen major power: "XXX wants to buy weapons from us. What is our response?" With the options: Accept: profit in rare resources; accept: profit in supplies; denied: we need the capacity for ourselves
In case of war of the major power, the denied option should be option a
- Event in case of accept for choice of weaponry: "They are willing to arm our forces, what is our priority?" With options: army, navy and airforce. Depending on the nation the option a should be different.
- Event for naval choice with options: we need capital ships, order BB; we need fast ships with firepower, order CA, we need destroyers, order 2 DD. With the price as condition of course. The cost should be mentioned. I don't know if it is possible to have option a based on nation and what it can afford, but that's probably too difficult.
- Events like naval event for army (choice of armor, mot. or mech) and airforce (choice of fighter, dive bomber, naval bomber or tac. bomber)
After choice is made, half the price should be transferred to producing nation
- Event upon completion of unit requesting transfer of second half of payment. Upon payment unit changes ownership and nation can pickup unit.

Problems with this scheme:
- Is it possible to have the unit that is built to be transferred to the minor? I thought I read somewhere that that isn't possible right now.
- The enormous amounts of events to create. For every super minor all these events have to be coded
- There must be a check if the minor can afford the order. Otherwise the payment comes out of thin air.

Maybe it is easier to think of licensing agreements. In this case the super minors do not order hardware but tech advances in exchange of resources. They get X numbers of tech in certain branch (armor, infantry, light aircraft, heavy aircraft, naval, submarine) in exchange for resources. Then they can build the stuff themselves. Is it possible to have an event add for instance the next 3 techs in a branch to your techs?

Ah well, quite complicated all in all. Sorry, I have no simple solution.
 
while i was reading I thought about this problems :
- The enormous amounts of events to create. For every super minor all these events have to be coded
- There must be a check if the minor can afford the order. Otherwise the payment comes out of thin air.
Click to expand...
so, we agree that this is very hard to be done :(

also, the GREAT problem is that you CANNOT identify a unit, you just need to "switch_allegiance" of a random one, so, no matter if you choose air/land/naval, you may even receive a militia from Germany... :(
That's the only way to do it, just "switch allegiance" of some random units, but that could leave to weird stuff, as Germany you can even "sell" a unit that is currently fighting on Moscow to Argentina... :rolleyes:
 
So summarizing this proposal up;

1. I have made a proposal to address the majors current, unrealistic, over-production capabilities by dragging out the iniital build time on capital intensive units, and then adding industrial research tech's to simulate the construction of infrastructure such as shipyards, slipways, and factories.

Example: US on a pre-war focus on IC and R&D strategy can almost complete the entire tech tree by Jan41. While the research might have agrueably been done, the infrastructure to produce would not have been in place. This diversion of resources was immense and is why, even with great gov focus, improved units were being made in 1943, with advanced units in 1944/45. The R&D could get there much faster than the infrstructure to build 1000's of units.

2. The goal of this is to create more focus of a nation upon it's military in a realistic manner, and to better tie the players strategic economic decisions into the game. This is historically accurate as these decisions were quite key to many events in the war.

3. this proposal does not address current issues with minors purchasing units. those issues remain, and at this time look to require copious amounts of code, with the resultant game impact to address.

Sound about right? If so, should i start testing to 'dial in' the values? My 'capital' intensive unit priority order would be:

BB
CV
CA
SHvy Tank
Hvy Tnk
DD
SS
Md Tank
Lgt Tank
Mech/Mot/Air

And as you go down the list, IMHO, the amount of the initial stretch would be less, in fact, after eval, may not be impacted. As stated above, my initial data suggests that for many units, it is approx. avg. 1943 US production times.

Initially, i will add these tech's in and then bring everything up to 1.03b times to maintain balance. I will then start backing off the US and somewhat the USSR capabilities unitl results achieved.

Comments? Thoughts?
 
Naval Armor Technology

Here is what I could find about the development of armor before WW2. Hope that this helps. MDow

Schneider Mild Steel- Developed by the French in Late 1800s
Schneider Nickel Steel- Developed by France around turn of the century
Composite (or Compound) Armor- Developed in UK around the turn of the century
Harvey Nickel Steel- Developed in US around turn of the century
Krupp Cemented Chrome Nickel Steel- Developed in Germany in early 1900s. Used in Dreadnaught Battleships
Improved Krupp Cemented Armor (Class B)- Used in 1930s designs for light armor
Homogenous Chrome-Nickel Steel (Class A)- Used in WW2 Battleships for main armor belt armor. Also known as Chrome-Nickel-Molybdenum Steel.

My thoughts on the matter are that a country should have to delvelop the technology to produce these specialized types of steel before being able to build armored warships (cruisers and battleships). When and at what levels they delvelopment should happen, I don't know. Many of the major powers could make this armor, but many nations could not. MDow
 
Minor Navy Issue

How about an event that would be random (but limited to minor powers) with a parlimentary decision to buy X number of Y type to reenforce the navy? Write three or four events and cut and paste. That would be fitting with the fickleness of legislatures. You might not need a battleship right now, but the honorable senator from patagonia thinks we need to order one. Have that event trigger and event 700 days (or how ever many are needed) announcing the "delivery" of the naval vessel(s). The problem with this approach is that it doesn't take into account the industrial capacity of the country building the ships, but it would allow Brazil and others to get ships that they can't build on their own. Unfortunately, I have no clue how to put something like that together, but figure there must be someone who does. :) MDow
 
IC doesn't really matter too much if it's government purchase ie probably on credit. I'm assuming you are talking about a shortlist of countries ie not Tannu Tuva, Luxembourg etc or on the other side of the scale USA and USSR.

What I'd recommend is to create 4 events per country, each running for a limited time period (say 60 days). Set start dates with three year intervals and a 1% chance for the event to occur. Thus the events will sometimes fire, sometimes sleep.

For each event then code 4 options. The first is a DD purchase, the next a CA purchase, the next a BB purchase and the last an SS purchase. That way the AI will mostly buy DD units and a player get's a choice. Any purchases should probably be pre-war or early war tech models, maybe accompanied with a tech gain if you are feeling generous :D
 
Posible Nations

Here were the countries that I had in mind.

Argentina
Brazil
Chile
South Africa
Australia
New Zealand
China
Greece
Turkey

Some posibilities to keep countries from getting overrun too easily

Mexico
Netherlands
Spain
Siam
Venezula
Columbia
Ethiopia (if in sustained war with Italy)
Denmark
Norway
Poland

Those are countries that either built their own ships, didn't survive long enough to need warships, or didn't increase their navies during this time period (but are traditional targets of resource hungry players). MDow
 
Doing some more number crunching, using USA as baseline normal difficulty.

USA can currently research the entire tech tree by 1941 with focus. If you assume that the realisitic balance is 50-50 R&D vs Production, then this pushes out to 45/46. Very much too early in my mind for the type of end techs that we are talking about.

To keep game balance, i will try and get the USA ability to be closer to historical in a normal game with a 50/50 split. This means that most end tech's would not be achieved in the normal course of events [i.e. jets, nuke boats, icbm's]. However, with more focus on R&D and more attention to IC growth, they could become available in say 46 ro so.

I beleive once the US is balanced out, the other countries will fall in line as i think that the overall country balance is pretty much ok.

As stated previously, i initially intend to do this by adding in infrastructure development tech's that will delay the produciton capabilities of researched tech's. This abstraction better fits the reality of development. Building the first one is a big step. Being able to build 1000 of it frequently requires 6 - 18 mo's of infrastructure development [factories, mines, shipyard, whatever.] Once i get the timing set right, we can go back and refine some of the tech abstractions, renaming them to metalurgy developments etc.

Thoughts? Comments?
 
PaxMondo

I've been following your thread, and I like some of the ideas, and what you are trying to acheive. I see a couple of problems though.

Sorry if I don't explain this right, but I hope you get what I am pointing at.

The problem as I see it is that research is way to expensive, and to much IC is available particularly pre-war.

The actual cost of research is minimal compared to the cost of actual production. Research does not consume huge amounts of industry, but it does consume large amounts of time, both to do the research and to implement it in actual production.

Additionally, the % of IC's available for military production was substantially lower for all countries, particularly before the war. IMO this is one of the main causes of the build strategy problems.

Upon commencement of WW2 the US in particular, and all countries in general were substantially able to improve industrial efficiency through things such as extra shifts, even with out any increase actual potential capacity.

What this all means, IMO, is that the number of IC's available pre-war are too high, and research costs need to be dramatically reduced, and either increased in time taken, or have more steps put in, as you seem to be suggesting.

Progression along the tech tree should also be dependent to a certain extent on war entry date. Of course reducing the IC's available prior to the onset of war would help to simulate this.

One solution might be to substantially increase dissent pre-war, and have one or several war activated events to reduce dissent back to 0 over a period of time. This makes pre-war industry far less efficient, thereby automatically reducing the amount of pre-war research available. Countries can effect this if they wish through increased consumer spending, which will further take away IC's available for production and research short term, but may be benificial lnog term.

I assume events can be triggered by DOW's but I don't know.

The down side is of course the combat effect implications, particularly if dissent were to be reduced over a period of several months after the war started, especially when a country is an aggressor.

There is also the problem of a major power declaring war on some remote minor just to decrease their dissent. I don't know how this would be overcome. Is it possible to write an event that only activates if war is declared on one of the three alliances?

Of course the best solution would be having the ability to mod the demand for consumer goods directly, but I have not heard that this is possible.

Time prohibits me from continuing, but I'll check back next week.
 
Dino;

I've come to similar conclusions. Actual R&D expense is too high, so i assume that part of the R&D cost is the building of the infrastructure. I also agree, either the infrastructure cost is too low, or there is too much free IC to spend, as countries can advance too quickly down the R&D path. Dissent, war entry, resource limitations are all possible hooks' to address this.

Right now i'm quantifying economic capacity, coming up with baselines, comparing against actual historical data, and determing my preferred abstraction directions. i don't intend to release anything for 1.03b as 1.04 probably isn't too far off, and there have been so many 'suggestions' on the economic model made in threads that i suspect [hope] that Paradox will be making some changes. Not knowing what those are, i am willing to wait and see.

Also, there have been a number of suggested variable introductions and hooks that if added would make economic adjustments far easier and more realistic. Again, which ones if any?

Finally, I suspect that 1.04 will likely be the final big update for HOI, which is what is taking so much time. From a couple of other threads from Paradox, obviously they have a number of other projects starting and they want to free up the HOI resources to pursue them. After 1.04, my bet is we are looking at HOI2 for any changes other than a serious CTD miss from the beta's and after 1.03, i doubt that will happen.
 
Re: Minor Navy Issue

Originally posted by MateDow
How about an event that would be random (but limited to minor powers) with a parlimentary decision to buy X number of Y type to reenforce the navy? Write three or four events and cut and paste. That would be fitting with the fickleness of legislatures. You might not need a battleship right now, but the honorable senator from patagonia thinks we need to order one. Have that event trigger and event 700 days (or how ever many are needed) announcing the "delivery" of the naval vessel(s). The problem with this approach is that it doesn't take into account the industrial capacity of the country building the ships, but it would allow Brazil and others to get ships that they can't build on their own. Unfortunately, I have no clue how to put something like that together, but figure there must be someone who does. :) MDow
Click to expand...

No problem, Mate. But could you give me possible background just how "big" ships were build for sale during late 30ties? I have only experience with polish navy - destroyers, subs, stuff like that.
So, one option for "We need more destroyers" (AI default), second for "We need subs" (option B), and "We need capital ship!" for cruisier?
 
Re: Re: Minor Navy Issue

Originally posted by Copper Nicus
No problem, Mate. But could you give me possible background just how "big" ships were build for sale during late 30ties? I have only experience with polish navy - destroyers, subs, stuff like that.
So, one option for "We need more destroyers" (AI default), second for "We need subs" (option B), and "We need capital ship!" for cruisier?
Click to expand...

I am aware of two pretty good historical examples of hardware sales. Argentina bought cruisers and a dreadnought [? help me here generalissiomo]] i beleive. And eitehr bulgaria or rumania bought Tiger King tanks for their forces. I also think there were aircraft sales to a number of the axis partners.

So the sale issue is a pretty large one historically, and right now it isn't eing modeled too effectively. There are a number of other threads really looking at this though.

I'm ot focusing on the sale issue, except as it effects the economy.
 
Uh, I analized this problem and I think that it's possible to code this as random event - but only in single player game. :(
The main problem is inability to check, who actually gets "naval development events". So, it is absolutely possible that one player will order ships, and another will get them. :rolleyes:

I've got other idea - maybe we will leave arms "free market" for now, and try to find examples of real purchases? In CORE 0.2 there are examples of this kind of event (Military credit for Poland). It would be simple chain of events - one for ordering, one for recieving order, one for delivering. What do you think?
 
Sounds great! I know Turkey received some Me 109's from Germany; and some other wepaons from the UK, I think it should diplomatically influence a nation as well...
 
Re: Re: Re: Minor Navy Issue

Originally posted by PaxMondo
I am aware of two pretty good historical examples of hardware sales. Argentina bought cruisers and a dreadnought [? help me here generalissiomo]] i beleive.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure about the 30's but before WWI the South American "ABC" countries (Argentina-Brazil-Chile) all bought then-modern dreadnoughts. I think Britain confiscated one they were building for one of them along with the one(s) they were building for Turkey.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back