I've added in 0.25 rubber conversion in 4001 and changed rubber conversion so it is never >1 rubber per oil. This is in line with 1.04 Paradox and critical for many minor nations.
-
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.
v1.05 has done a lot of tech tree tying, which was considered by many, to be a good thing. I am evaluating 1.05 now and will have some opinions soon.
thanks.
thanks.
Conversion rates
Did we ever discuss the conversion rates (coal to oil and oil to rubber)? Right now they are set to 0.25. 0.5, 0.75 and 1.0. I think there's a few things we could look at there:
- A lower starting conversion rate (0.1 or maybe 0.2) which every country has.
- Some additional techs (improved/advanced versions) for conversion to introduce smaller steps in conversion rate (0.2, 0.35, 0.5, 0.65, 0.80 and 0.9).
- No 1:1 conversion at all.
Did anybody already test this? There is a couple of reasons I'm looking at this:
- There is always a major coal surplus in the world market and many countries build up large stockpiles, this really reduces the importance of oil and rubber provinces
- There is never any reason to trade higher than 4:1 and eventually not even any reason to trade at 1:1
- The industrial tech tree is completed a little too fast IMHO
Did we ever discuss the conversion rates (coal to oil and oil to rubber)? Right now they are set to 0.25. 0.5, 0.75 and 1.0. I think there's a few things we could look at there:
- A lower starting conversion rate (0.1 or maybe 0.2) which every country has.
- Some additional techs (improved/advanced versions) for conversion to introduce smaller steps in conversion rate (0.2, 0.35, 0.5, 0.65, 0.80 and 0.9).
- No 1:1 conversion at all.
Did anybody already test this? There is a couple of reasons I'm looking at this:
- There is always a major coal surplus in the world market and many countries build up large stockpiles, this really reduces the importance of oil and rubber provinces
- There is never any reason to trade higher than 4:1 and eventually not even any reason to trade at 1:1
- The industrial tech tree is completed a little too fast IMHO
Re: Conversion rates
Might be a problem, since most of smaller coutries go for IC rise rush and later suffer from 'overindustrialization'. Can be solved by creating AI's for every single country, though.
IMO industrial tech tree is too much about conversion rates and not enough about prerequisites for naval, tank and all other branches. Right now this branch can be called "Chemistry" rather Industry...
Good one, I agree - 0.8 should be enough.
Not always - in late game stages many countries got high IC thanks to constant upgrades and burn their coal really fast - I've seen that even in case of USA.
Agree, but again - I'm for industrial tree similar to naval one (many techs, but 1/3 to 1/2 are already known to most advanced countires), not just developing conversion section. There are many parts of modern industry almost untouched in HoI, like advanced metalugy, statistical control, advanced work organization, advanced mechanics, optics and so on...
On the positive side - we can use some of the work posted at the start of the thread.
Might be a problem, since most of smaller coutries go for IC rise rush and later suffer from 'overindustrialization'. Can be solved by creating AI's for every single country, though.
IMO industrial tech tree is too much about conversion rates and not enough about prerequisites for naval, tank and all other branches. Right now this branch can be called "Chemistry" rather Industry...
Good one, I agree - 0.8 should be enough.
Not always - in late game stages many countries got high IC thanks to constant upgrades and burn their coal really fast - I've seen that even in case of USA.
Agree, but again - I'm for industrial tree similar to naval one (many techs, but 1/3 to 1/2 are already known to most advanced countires), not just developing conversion section. There are many parts of modern industry almost untouched in HoI, like advanced metalugy, statistical control, advanced work organization, advanced mechanics, optics and so on...
On the positive side - we can use some of the work posted at the start of the thread.
Offshore Oil Installation Tech
Would there be a place for an offshore oil installation tech? It could give a bonus like 10% in oil production. It would require some naval, submarine, and industrial tech to achieve. I don't know how you would limit it to nations without coastline except for nations without navies don't usually have naval techs. If it something that we are interested in adding to the game, I would be willing to work on descriptions. MDow
Would there be a place for an offshore oil installation tech? It could give a bonus like 10% in oil production. It would require some naval, submarine, and industrial tech to achieve. I don't know how you would limit it to nations without coastline except for nations without navies don't usually have naval techs. If it something that we are interested in adding to the game, I would be willing to work on descriptions. MDow
Re: Offshore Oil Installation Tech
Techs can change resource production. That's the weakest part of the technology system...
EDIT:
What I was trying to say is "Techs can't change resource production." Sorry for the confusion.
Techs can change resource production. That's the weakest part of the technology system...
EDIT:
What I was trying to say is "Techs can't change resource production." Sorry for the confusion.
Last edited:
With regard to resources, i beleive the biggest gap [expressed B4] is the lack of trading off oil for coal. One of the biggest outcomes of WWII in the energy sector was the shift from coal based to oil based economy, especially in the USA.
As mentioned by MateDow, you can overgrow the USA economy and run out of coal, limit your IC output while swimming in OIL. Not correct. The USA shifted to oil.
I've suggested adding this ability [oil requirement] into the economic equation but have not had a reply yet .... I suspect that Paradox puts even this into the 'beyond the 1949 scope of the game'.
As for off-shore oil, i would put this into the 'beyond 1949' category myself. One of the KEY assumptions of HOI is that the game is limited to 1949. This [IMHO] was done to limit the complexity and scope of the technology. The 50's and 60's [continuing until today] saw an explosion of technology. Can we simulate that? Yes, but it is a HUGE scope. Is that really the intent of CORE? take HOI into the 60's? I haven't seen that as part of the goals....
I'd like to suggest a re-focus back to the 40's and maybe a bit into the 50's on our technology scope.
BTW, i've come up with a method of simulating the replacement of oil for coal. Not exact, but given the tools that we have, it is as good as we can do.
If we increase the overall resource utilization efficiency and then decrease the oil to rubber conversion efficiency, we end up with the result of trading oil for coal, i.e. shifting from coal based economy to oil based. The downside is that we also lessen dependence of steel, but maybe that can be explained away by overall efficiency gainin the economy by the oil shift.
Thougts?
As mentioned by MateDow, you can overgrow the USA economy and run out of coal, limit your IC output while swimming in OIL. Not correct. The USA shifted to oil.
I've suggested adding this ability [oil requirement] into the economic equation but have not had a reply yet .... I suspect that Paradox puts even this into the 'beyond the 1949 scope of the game'.
As for off-shore oil, i would put this into the 'beyond 1949' category myself. One of the KEY assumptions of HOI is that the game is limited to 1949. This [IMHO] was done to limit the complexity and scope of the technology. The 50's and 60's [continuing until today] saw an explosion of technology. Can we simulate that? Yes, but it is a HUGE scope. Is that really the intent of CORE? take HOI into the 60's? I haven't seen that as part of the goals....
I'd like to suggest a re-focus back to the 40's and maybe a bit into the 50's on our technology scope.
BTW, i've come up with a method of simulating the replacement of oil for coal. Not exact, but given the tools that we have, it is as good as we can do.
If we increase the overall resource utilization efficiency and then decrease the oil to rubber conversion efficiency, we end up with the result of trading oil for coal, i.e. shifting from coal based economy to oil based. The downside is that we also lessen dependence of steel, but maybe that can be explained away by overall efficiency gainin the economy by the oil shift.
Thougts?
The industry efficiency techs (assuming that's what you refer to) *increase* resource consumption.
Pax,
I agree with what you are saying on keeping the scope in the 40's and what was on the burner for the early 50's.
Could you explain a little further about how to utilize oil as a sub for coal? I would assume it would be a super-late tech so as to replicate the historical shift later in the war. I think it should also be a *lengthy* research time-wise.
On conversion rates, I am in favor of a 5-step conversion ladder, starting somewhat large (say 0.25) then getting progressively smaller in increases as it winds up to, say, 0.85%? Something along those lines?
I think the industrial techs are KEY to manipulating things in the game to replicate the resource/research issues that were so central to WW2 and the economies. It's the best chance to manipulate the hardcoded stuff to get what we want.
-PK
I agree with what you are saying on keeping the scope in the 40's and what was on the burner for the early 50's.
Could you explain a little further about how to utilize oil as a sub for coal? I would assume it would be a super-late tech so as to replicate the historical shift later in the war. I think it should also be a *lengthy* research time-wise.
On conversion rates, I am in favor of a 5-step conversion ladder, starting somewhat large (say 0.25) then getting progressively smaller in increases as it winds up to, say, 0.85%? Something along those lines?
I think the industrial techs are KEY to manipulating things in the game to replicate the resource/research issues that were so central to WW2 and the economies. It's the best chance to manipulate the hardcoded stuff to get what we want.
-PK
Not sure what you mean, is this an 'undocumented feature' where the effect is reverse of the stated intent?
I'll try ... just go the math. we have variables available to change the coal
il, oil:rubber, TotalResources:IC. drop TR:IC which lowers C, S, and R, then increase O:R back to balance, and you have traded C for O in a big way. Downside is [as stated B4] you have also decreased S requirements.As for high/difficult. I don't think necessary. Not a lot of of countries are in a position to do this from a resource point of view. However, there should be some benefits to it though, which i have not worked out/balanced yet. These benefits as a result of play balance will probably decide how expensive to make this. ideas are:
Coal -> Oil shift advantages
- higher transportation => quicker SR moves? less org loss?
- more flexible economy => able to build IC is remote areas easier? [give a few free IC in low IC provinces??]
- improved infrastructure => infrast5ructure bonus to home provinces?
Thoughts?
Using Japan as an example (with no modifiers for tech):
183 IC
366 Coal/day
183 Steel/day
91.5 Rubber/day
Now add this to an early tech (4102 for example):
command = { type = industrial_modifier which = total value = 50 }
And instead Japan now has:
274 IC
548 Coal/day
274 Steel/day
137 Rubber/day
So very simply: if a country has 100 industry and +50 industrial_modifier, then they have 150 IC and consume resources based on the IC, not the industry.
Last edited:
In some early versions of HoI the 'industrial efficiency' techs increased ICs without increasing resource consumption; this was changed in a patch so resource consumption increased along with the ICs. I questioned this in the bug forum and was told it was WaD.
Resource consumption/production
I'm really not sure where to post this, someone feel free to enlighten me and shift it to somewhere more apt.
Anyway, we have various conversion techs for rubber and oil; these mean that, as industry grows, the disproprtionate burden on coal is lessened. However, steel - always constant - remains, and will often become the chokepoint in later games. It'd be interesting to have a game where resource production increased over time...
Is it possible to write an event which modifies resource production in a certain territory? I seem to recall manpower can be changed, but I don't believe I've seen it done for the resources.
Possible uses:
1/ Random events.
"New chemical plant opened!" - gain +15 rubber in random province; "New mines opened!" - gain +20 coal... you get the idea.
2/ Decision events; sometime after Britain goes to war:
* "We need troops for the front!" - situation constant;
* "Bevin is right, we must expand the mines" - lose 50 manpower, gain +15 to coal in a few UK provinces, +1 dissent. (Historically, some 50,000 conscripts were chosen by ballot to work in the coal mines; not very popular, unsurprisingly)
3/ General timed events;
for, say, Germany:
"New Krupp plant opens" - gain +15 to steel in one of the Ruhr provinces
or the US:
"Aluminium smelters spring up to use cheap hydro power" - +10 steel in the Pacific NW, after Hoover/Grand Coulee/&c dams built.
Are these feasible? If they are, I'll look into writing a couple of reasonably unbalancing ones...
I'm really not sure where to post this, someone feel free to enlighten me and shift it to somewhere more apt.
Anyway, we have various conversion techs for rubber and oil; these mean that, as industry grows, the disproprtionate burden on coal is lessened. However, steel - always constant - remains, and will often become the chokepoint in later games. It'd be interesting to have a game where resource production increased over time...
Is it possible to write an event which modifies resource production in a certain territory? I seem to recall manpower can be changed, but I don't believe I've seen it done for the resources.
Possible uses:
1/ Random events.
"New chemical plant opened!" - gain +15 rubber in random province; "New mines opened!" - gain +20 coal... you get the idea.
2/ Decision events; sometime after Britain goes to war:
* "We need troops for the front!" - situation constant;
* "Bevin is right, we must expand the mines" - lose 50 manpower, gain +15 to coal in a few UK provinces, +1 dissent. (Historically, some 50,000 conscripts were chosen by ballot to work in the coal mines; not very popular, unsurprisingly)
3/ General timed events;
for, say, Germany:
"New Krupp plant opens" - gain +15 to steel in one of the Ruhr provinces
or the US:
"Aluminium smelters spring up to use cheap hydro power" - +10 steel in the Pacific NW, after Hoover/Grand Coulee/&c dams built.
Are these feasible? If they are, I'll look into writing a couple of reasonably unbalancing ones...
Thanks for clarifying. I just checked the code an d you're right [of course]. I had thought that FCC used a different function from polypropylene based upon its description. woe to me, it is the same function call.
So we can't do it at all ... oh well!
I'm referring to the command:
command = { type = industrial_modifier which = supplies value = 10 }
this one holds the IC constant, but drops the total resources needed to produce them by 10%. I just ran a game to confirm this and it does work, so to corect my above message, we can do a coal for oil trade as i had suggested.
Correct? Steel? jdrou? Mathguy? see any errors in my logic?
Wow, Pax!
That is exactly what I've been wanting to hear. Because by my thinking that really *is* industrial efficiency - 'efficiency' being getting the same amount of product for less input.
In fact, the word 'efficient' is described as "acting or producing effectively with a minimum of waste, expense, or unnecessary effort". I think that is what Pax has just mentioned and identified.
Of course, we still need the industrial power multiplier, which is what I think Steel was describing in the post previous to that of Pax. I am not sure how this 'multiplier' should be termed.
In fact, I'd really prefer to see the tech tree - in regards to the industrial efficiency thing - be reconsidered so that we have some equal techs for both true industrial efficiency (dropping supplies needed per IC output) and also industrial power multiplication.
At this point I think it's a little heavy on the industrial power multiplication and too light on the industrial efficiency aspect. Which in reality is FAR harder to accomplish than become more economical (efficient) in usage of raw materials. I think putting more of a balance between the two will really help some nations in their need for resources. As is, it's brutal at times. Personally, I'd like to scale back the multiplication a tad and increase the efficiency a bit.
Following along the lines of Shimgray's post a bit earlier on 'adding resources' (which we can't), an alternative to altering the tech tree would be an event that granted an efficiency boost. How to implement it would be the issue. These tech boosts could occur automatically as you hit a certain industrial research level, as opposed to an application research.
In summation, we need a bit more efficiency (as if that wasn't clear ).
-PK
That is exactly what I've been wanting to hear. Because by my thinking that really *is* industrial efficiency - 'efficiency' being getting the same amount of product for less input.
In fact, the word 'efficient' is described as "acting or producing effectively with a minimum of waste, expense, or unnecessary effort". I think that is what Pax has just mentioned and identified.
Of course, we still need the industrial power multiplier, which is what I think Steel was describing in the post previous to that of Pax. I am not sure how this 'multiplier' should be termed.
In fact, I'd really prefer to see the tech tree - in regards to the industrial efficiency thing - be reconsidered so that we have some equal techs for both true industrial efficiency (dropping supplies needed per IC output) and also industrial power multiplication.
At this point I think it's a little heavy on the industrial power multiplication and too light on the industrial efficiency aspect. Which in reality is FAR harder to accomplish than become more economical (efficient) in usage of raw materials. I think putting more of a balance between the two will really help some nations in their need for resources. As is, it's brutal at times. Personally, I'd like to scale back the multiplication a tad and increase the efficiency a bit.
Following along the lines of Shimgray's post a bit earlier on 'adding resources' (which we can't), an alternative to altering the tech tree would be an event that granted an efficiency boost. How to implement it would be the issue. These tech boosts could occur automatically as you hit a certain industrial research level, as opposed to an application research.
In summation, we need a bit more efficiency (as if that wasn't clear
).-PK
Last edited: