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

[MateDow]

Originally posted by Steel
There is a lot of techs posted at the start of this thread. Is anybody interested in reviewing this again and seeing what can be implemented?

I always thought that we were onto something good here. I think the more detailed that we can get this tree, the better. If there is someone who can get all of the information together, I can code it, but I don't know enough about industrial processes to build one myself. MDow

 

[unmerged(18738)]

I'd like to go over it. I think the industrial aspect is way too important to leave in it's current state. It's a key to winning a war. So let's go over those thoughts. I guess we should be specific. Are you referring to just the first post of the thread? Why don't we recopy the relevant sections for consideration?

-PK

 

[Steel]

Originally posted by Phil K
Are you referring to just the first post of the thread? Why don't we recopy the relevant sections for consideration?

No, I'm referring to the posts by Aetius and I would *not* recommend double-posting all that

 

[unmerged(18738)]

Originally posted by Steel
No, I'm referring to the posts by Aetius and I would *not* recommend double-posting all that

Sheesh! What a wuss! LOL!

Seriously, I've copied Aetius' posts down into a text file and I am straightening it up. Then I'll upload to my webspace and post a link here for it so people can download for perusal and consideration.

I think there are a LOT of good things in there. Good concepts and if we can take a few of them and incorporate them into the industrial tech field it will be a lot stronger. We really, really need this because right now industrial isn't near as important as it should be.

Well, let me get this done.

-PK

 

[unmerged(18738)]

Hell's Bells - doing the cleanup of Aetius' code makes me realize how little I know about this science. Verrrry humbling.

Anyhow, here's the link to a text file for Aetius' ideas and coding:

Aetius Industrial Tech Ideas

All I can say is: WOW!

-PK

 

[unmerged(15066)]

Aetius Ideas

Actually, I looked over that and saw too much of my job summarized in a few hundred lines of code. Let me suggest some alternative perspectives and maybe there is a synthesis out there.

1) Industrial mobilization: Which countries successfully took people into the economy? The contrast here would be between "Rosie the Riveter" in the USA (and Britain and Russia) and the Germans who still had the "Kinder, Kuche, Kirche" notion of women's roles. This would be an industrial efficiency sort of technology. It would also be relatively high level so you would have to push this early in the game to get there by the early 1940s. So it becomes a strategic choice between early weapons or later IC.

2) Industrial training: Extra hands are good but trained hands are better. This is classic Drucker and Deming that the USA figured out how to train people to do industrial tasks that the Germans considered "craft" work that needed skilled workmen. It is another industrial tech that increases available IC.

3) Pilot training: The USN had double the number of carrier pilots that the IJN had in 1941 and could turn out a new carrier certified pilot in 18 months while the IJN needed over four years to do the same. (There's a War to Be Won by Murray and Millett). Maybe this translates into specific carrier wings that are far more expensive than ordinary land wings and there are doctrines for systemized training that radically drop the build duration. The key insight here is that the main cost for new air units is not the steel and aluminum that goes into the plane but the time and fuel to train the pilots. Although carrier air is an extreme case, it would apply to all air units.

4) Dues ex machina resources (at least for the USA): The historical statisics for coal and oil production in the USA show enormous increases from the 1930s to the 1940s. GDP doubled during WW2. That tells me that a 1500 to 2000 IC USA by 1947 is historically possible. (As a side issue that also tells me that the Germans need to try and win outright by 1942 or they have to set up a "Fortress Europe.") But since we can't change province resources, we might have to patch that with resources in events and then other events triggered by technologies that release the resource events. Example:

Tech XXX: Improved oil extraction

Event zzz
Trigger = Improved oil extraction tech
Own Texas and California
Command: Increase oilpool 30,000 units every three months

Certainly the number is arbitrary and this might be adjusted with the detailed research.

Anyway, some thoughts for your consideration.

 

[Gwalcmai]

I read the discussion about efficiency, and how it isn't possible to have the same IC for less resources. Then I saw a post by Steel explaining that the smaller nations get discounts in tech research prices. And I had an idea, which you guys will probably think is silly.

It's not possible to have the same IC for less resources. That's established. But it IS possible to have the same production with less IC. So, if a certain tech is meant to make your industry work more efficiently, the tech effects could very well be lowering the prices across the board and giving an IC reduction. If both reductions are 10%, then you can keep producing what you were producing before, but using less Ic to do it. In other words, production remains constant and resource spending drops.

Would that be feasible?

 

[MateDow]

Re: Aetius Ideas

Originally posted by Engineer
3) Pilot training: The USN had double the number of carrier pilots that the IJN had in 1941 and could turn out a new carrier certified pilot in 18 months while the IJN needed over four years to do the same. (There's a War to Be Won by Murray and Millett). Maybe this translates into specific carrier wings that are far more expensive than ordinary land wings and there are doctrines for systemized training that radically drop the build duration. The key insight here is that the main cost for new air units is not the steel and aluminum that goes into the plane but the time and fuel to train the pilots. Although carrier air is an extreme case, it would apply to all air units.

I think this was more the side effect of the US rotating pilots out of the combat zone where they could then train the next generation rather than a specific training technique. It wasn't just Japan, Germany had the problems with pilot training throughout the war which was just made worse by lack of fuel. If it does become a tech, it needs to have a fuel penalty to represent the intensive training. MDow

 

[Steel]

Originally posted by Gwalcmai
I read the discussion about efficiency, and how it isn't possible to have the same IC for less resources. Then I saw a post by Steel explaining that the smaller nations get discounts in tech research prices. And I had an idea, which you guys will probably think is silly.

It's not possible to have the same IC for less resources. That's established. But it IS possible to have the same production with less IC. So, if a certain tech is meant to make your industry work more efficiently, the tech effects could very well be lowering the prices across the board and giving an IC reduction. If both reductions are 10%, then you can keep producing what you were producing before, but using less Ic to do it. In other words, production remains constant and resource spending drops.

Would that be feasible?

Yes and it's already in the game (Mass assembly techs). The main issue is how it scales, ie if USA has 1000 IC and costs drop to 1 (or 0!) then suddenly you get some rather spectacular builds. A human player will ruthlessly exploit this to get "free" units (for example escort pool ships).

As unit counts are a little too high now there may be something in investigating an increase of say 25% across the board for all units, which then allows us to increase the effect of cost-reducing techs (like the existing mass assembly techs).

It may also be useful to increase the production efficiency of minors and then cut their IC, so that a minor with 10 IC is cut to 5 IC with a 200% default production. This maintains their ability to produce and research while making them less attractive conquest targets.

 

[shimgray]

Re: Re: Aetius Ideas

Originally posted by MateDow
I think this was more the side effect of the US rotating pilots out of the combat zone where they could then train the next generation rather than a specific training technique. It wasn't just Japan, Germany had the problems with pilot training throughout the war which was just made worse by lack of fuel. If it does become a tech, it needs to have a fuel penalty to represent the intensive training. MDow

USAAF did much the same, AIUI; did it greatly benefit most pilots? I can see it helping fighter jocks, but being a bit less helpful for, say, the B-17 crews.

Hmm... Pilot Rotation Doctrine (late war, aviation doctrine tech)
(description - blah, historical, pull pilots out of combat, increased training tempo, expensive but gave an edge)
Effects: +10% fighter org, +6% (dive, tac, torp) org, +3% (naval, strategic) org, -5days.build all units;
+1 MP, +0.5 fuel & supply consumption for all air units.

Hmm. Represents the "expense" of mantaining a high level of flight training and the added manpower needed (pulling pilots off the frontline means you need to replace them as well as provide the ones to train...), but gives the benefit of having faster air unit production (you're producing competent pilots who can walk up to the plane, get in, fly off; no added training needed) and, basically, better air units. I've given the different org effects based on the benefit I feel it gave each "field"; any comments?

 

[unmerged(15066)]

The shape is right, but my recent reading and re-reading of WW2 history is that the Axis powers seemed to make consistent mistakes on misplaying the economic front.

Description: similar - emphasize reduced training time.

Effect: REDUCE basic organization by 1 or 2 percent but slash build time by 30% to 40%.

Note: Go back and increase basic build times by 25%.

Timing: Make this an early war doctrine since the US historically needs to have this in hand by 41 or 42.

The idea here is that a staff obsessed with combat effectiveness will look at this as a purely asinine solution that decreases the effectiveness of squadrons. An "industrial view" figures that four squadrons at -2% org will whip 3 squadrons at basic org. There should probably be an industrial tech precursor in the doctrine that forces the player to invest in looking at things from an "operations research" sort of perspective before this type of thinking would be plausible.

The other point is not that experienced trainers turn out better novice pilots in slightly less time, but that they turn out sufficiently skilled novice pilots in a lot less time. If you pursue this into the post-war period you can draw a tree that leads to Top Gun where you get better pilots in less time thanks to good training, but that's a Cold War sort of extension.

 

[McNaughton]

I am trying out a similar thing with the Air Training Program in Canada, which basically did the same thing.

I see it not as increasing the speed of airgroup production, the US economy will already do that, nor did it significantly sap pilot quality (a proven fact is that aces were not built, but found). Usually a pilot had 3 options

Become an Ace (pilots with natural abilities)
Become a Veteran (not as good as an ace, but experienced enough to survive)
Become a Casualty

I see these training programs as a way to give these nations doctrines instead of faster air groups (in fact, it took longer for the Allies to train pilots than the axis, but they had a better chance in becoming a veteran or an ace, and not ending up as a casualty). Giving them doctrines (at the expense of MP, supply and oil) is a better representation IMO.

 

[Gwalcmai]

Originally posted by Steel
Yes and it's already in the game (Mass assembly techs). The main issue is how it scales, ie if USA has 1000 IC and costs drop to 1 (or 0!) then suddenly you get some rather spectacular builds. A human player will ruthlessly exploit this to get "free" units (for example escort pool ships).

As unit counts are a little too high now there may be something in investigating an increase of say 25% across the board for all units, which then allows us to increase the effect of cost-reducing techs (like the existing mass assembly techs).

It may also be useful to increase the production efficiency of minors and then cut their IC, so that a minor with 10 IC is cut to 5 IC with a 200% default production. This maintains their ability to produce and research while making them less attractive conquest targets.

I looked at the mass-assembly techs and they don't really do what I was talking about. Well, it does part of it. But they don't cut the available IC. If they did, the benefit for the country would be in the reduction of resource spending, not in added builds and research.

But I see the problem with the unit costs. (Damn, why does the game round unit costs?). What units could be taken to 0 IC by this?

 

[MateDow]

Originally posted by Gwalcmai
What units could be taken to 0 IC by this?

There are some of the smaller naval units that are effected this way. Between the Mass Production tech and the minister that gives the price reduction, the 1000 ton destroyer sometimes ends up being free. It probably happens with the Corvette and Frigate as well, but I haven't seen that in a while, so I can't remember. MDow

 

[unmerged(12612)]

I have a question regarding economic mobilization. Since the posters on this forum have done so much good work in this area, I thought this might be a good place to turn. My understanding is that it is not currently possible for the mod community to script events that change consumer goods demand/requirements ("CG")directly. Is this correct? If so, has anyone proposed to Paradox that this field be capable of modification?

I am currently reading the Economics of World War 2 (edited by Mark Harrison), in which the authors make the point that critical to success in WW2 was the ability of countries to increase the percentage of their economy devoted to the war effort...which in very rough translation in HoI terms would mean the ration of consumer goods to everything else (supplies, R&D, and military production).

On a related note, how extensive is the community's collective knowledge on how CG works. We all know that Soviet and USA CG decrease as WE increases. But do we have any data on the ratio of decrease? We also know that CG decrease for all countries when war begins. Do we know if different countries CG decreases at different rates during war time? This last point is critical, according to Harrison, et al. Italy and Japan were never able to devote as much of their economy to the war effort as Germany...a fact which reflected these countries different level of economic development.

 

[SykoNurse]

this thread made it into the Metathread

 

[unmerged(14683)]

Originally posted by DogRed
I have a question regarding economic mobilization. Since the posters on this forum have done so much good work in this area, I thought this might be a good place to turn. My understanding is that it is not currently possible for the mod community to script events that change consumer goods demand/requirements ("CG")directly. Is this correct?

True.

Originally posted by DogRed
On a related note, how extensive is the community's collective knowledge on how CG works. We all know that Soviet and USA CG decrease as WE increases. But do we have any data on the ratio of decrease? We also know that CG decrease for all countries when war begins. Do we know if different countries CG decreases at different rates during war time? This last point is critical, according to Harrison, et al. Italy and Japan were never able to devote as much of their economy to the war effort as Germany...a fact which reflected these countries different level of economic development.

As far as I know, both USA and SOV got 1% WE rise every month, which can be further rised by the events. There is also sudden drop of WE (70% ?) when GER are annexed - it's hardcoded.

I'm affaid currently it can only be modeled by events + techs similar to Soviet Great Patriotic War - rising supply/production modifier and lowering units costs. Similar doctrine for Germany ("Festung Germania"?) and events should be easy to script...

 

[unmerged(12612)]

Thanks CopperNicus. I may not have been clear in my questions. I meant to ask what is the ratio fo CG decrease to war entry increase. In other words, how much does CG go down for each point of war entry increase?

And my question regarding CG decreases for actually going to war still stands.

Thanks for your insights.

 

[jdrou]

Originally posted by DogRed
Thanks CopperNicus. I may not have been clear in my questions. I meant to ask what is the ratio fo CG decrease to war entry increase. In other words, how much does CG go down for each point of war entry increase?

And my question regarding CG decreases for actually going to war still stands.

Thanks for your insights.

I believe the normal peacetime CG demand is 30% for all countries. Wartime is 20% for Democracies, 15% for others. Minister effects modify these (the "dissent" ministers). USA WE/CG is a linear relationship; WE goes from 0 to 100 while CG demand goes from 90 to 30 so the relation is 0.6%CG per 1% WE. I think WE may go up 1.5%/month rather than 1% at least for USA. Should probably be checked.

 

[unmerged(12612)]

Thanks Jdrou...it sure would be nice if we had ability to modify the wartime CG decrease for a particular country. Advanced economies were able to convert large portions of their economies to the war effort; less advanced economies could not.

By way of example, Italy starts off the HoI 1936 scenario at war and with 93.7 percent of its economy converted to war production (supplies, R&D, new units). In real life, Italy was only able to convert between 8 (1939) and 23 (its peak in 1941) percent of its economy to the war effort. HoI has it completely backwards.