-
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.
Semiconductor Tech
I was looking at the late game electronic techs and noticed that three juicy electronic computer techs just build right on top of one another. Unfortunately, commercializing the transistor requires a whole new industrial infrastructure for creating the silicon or silicon-germanium crystals, doing the ion implanation, and then packaging the semiconductors so they don't corrode. So I think this needs some pre-cursor technologies in the late Industrial Techs for solid state materials, semiconductor fabrication, and improved semiconductor fabrication.
I was looking at the late game electronic techs and noticed that three juicy electronic computer techs just build right on top of one another. Unfortunately, commercializing the transistor requires a whole new industrial infrastructure for creating the silicon or silicon-germanium crystals, doing the ion implanation, and then packaging the semiconductors so they don't corrode. So I think this needs some pre-cursor technologies in the late Industrial Techs for solid state materials, semiconductor fabrication, and improved semiconductor fabrication.
DogRed said:
Likely true, but two considerations:
1. Italy is a prime example of a country with a large 'underground' economy. Everyone knows that the offiicial numbers grossly under-represent the actual GNP, however getting agreement on how much is tough. Take a look at EU economic meeting notes in the '90s when the Euro was being discussed to see details even then. in the 40's much more so.
2. ECO data sources of the time are highly biased. there are a lot of conflicts. For example, i have access to 3 different data sources for oil production in various areas. Stated production data agrees with "only" +/- 30% variance. Reserve data is within +/- 200%. Ooops! The data neither agrees on standards nor definitions, and in some instances is left undeclared. Example: Is butane [C4 molecule] part of the liquid production or the flare component? In winter production, liquid, in summer flare [during that era].
2. For all of the countries, the economies have been adjusted for gameplay balance. Pick any economy, normalize it against the HOI value, then compare against another. They don't match the eco data of the time, BUT, in the game, the relative strengths 'feel' right.
You can go back, re-originate the economic data, and then re-normalize it. But to what effect? There are 2 possible outcomes:
1. your effort realizes the HOI numbers closely, so you did a ton of work with little [no] impact.
2. your effort comes up with vastly different values. How will you convince anyone to use them in light of the fact that everyone 'knows' the current economic balance to be close [maybe not spot on, but close] to correct?
To use your example, Italy with only 8% of it's official economy being used for war was able to field the 4th largest fleet in the World. There is a cost there, quantifiable, and it does not balance back with that 8% [unless Italy economy was larger than USA]. Where did it come from? The undeclared underground economy. I.E, Italy's economy was big enough to build that fleet, they just lied about it and used that as their war chest.
Not knocking your thoughts. You are right. Just asking you to think through your end goals B4 walking down the path.
Just my thoughts ...
I agree with you that Italy has a large underground economy, that oil production data is often inconsistent, and that Italy had a large standing army. But I'm not entirely sure that these points touch on the overarching issue that I was addressing, namely that certain major countries (such as Italy and Japan) had economies that were not nearly as advanced as other major countries. These less advanced countries could never convert their economies to wartime production at the same ratio as the more advanced countries. My other point was that HoI has no way of allowing modders to recreate this economic aspect of history.
History aside, your point regarding game balance is well taken. It may be that some folks believe it best to make the Italian economy stronger than it was historically in order to make the game more fun for those who decide to play Italy. It may also be that some folks don't see a need to alter the economics of the game because it "feels right" to them. These are both very legitimate views; but they are also highly subjective and depend entirely on a player's own style and predilections.
History aside, your point regarding game balance is well taken. It may be that some folks believe it best to make the Italian economy stronger than it was historically in order to make the game more fun for those who decide to play Italy. It may also be that some folks don't see a need to alter the economics of the game because it "feels right" to them. These are both very legitimate views; but they are also highly subjective and depend entirely on a player's own style and predilections.
Minister effects...
While there is no good thread for the topic, I think that this place is the best to discuss minister effects in the C.O.R.E. games.
As you know, ministers can be very important part of game. The most important element is of course the choice of the Minister of Industry (various supply/R&D/IC modifiers), Minister of the Security (dissent/manpower rise/IC from the occupied territories/R&D) and various "military ministers" (Head of the General Staff and so on).
Why do I mention it? Apparently, AI doesn't change the ministers, loosing serious value that can be potentially used to support it.
While many historical changes of the ministers are already included in C.O.R.E., IMO we would never add all of them - but we can make the AI only events that change ministers on the best for them.
Example:
Initially, GER got Frick (+5 dissent, +25% IC from occupied territories) as the Minister of Security. Very good minister for human controlled Germany, but due to the bad resource use, AI got problems with supporting such a bonus to the IC. Much better Security Minister for the AI is "Man of People" guy, available from the 1937 (as manpower is the other thing AI is unable to keep).
Similar thing can be done to German General Staff Chief (switching from the +10% speed to +10% R&D rocketry/artillery), to Industry Minister (instead of +15%IC better supply handling or better industrial R&D) and so on.
The events are quite easy to script... Any opinions on the idea?
And maybe someone got some more ideas how to make better use of the other countries ministers?
While there is no good thread for the topic, I think that this place is the best to discuss minister effects in the C.O.R.E. games.
As you know, ministers can be very important part of game. The most important element is of course the choice of the Minister of Industry (various supply/R&D/IC modifiers), Minister of the Security (dissent/manpower rise/IC from the occupied territories/R&D) and various "military ministers" (Head of the General Staff and so on).
Why do I mention it? Apparently, AI doesn't change the ministers, loosing serious value that can be potentially used to support it.
While many historical changes of the ministers are already included in C.O.R.E., IMO we would never add all of them - but we can make the AI only events that change ministers on the best for them.
Example:
Initially, GER got Frick (+5 dissent, +25% IC from occupied territories) as the Minister of Security. Very good minister for human controlled Germany, but due to the bad resource use, AI got problems with supporting such a bonus to the IC. Much better Security Minister for the AI is "Man of People" guy, available from the 1937 (as manpower is the other thing AI is unable to keep).
Similar thing can be done to German General Staff Chief (switching from the +10% speed to +10% R&D rocketry/artillery), to Industry Minister (instead of +15%IC better supply handling or better industrial R&D) and so on.
The events are quite easy to script... Any opinions on the idea?
And maybe someone got some more ideas how to make better use of the other countries ministers?
Remember there's some work being done on election events, for nations with elections I'd recommend to put this idea on ice until we see the result of that project.
Sure thing - I thought about that already. I case of the democracies and other countries with elections, we should limit those changes only to the Chief of Air/Land/Sea (and in important cases only).
For now I was thinking only about the Germany:
1 ) 1937 Schacht (+15 IC) is out, Fritz Tornow (Military Entrepreneur -15% supplies) is in,
(Note: AI Germany got problems with supporting their IC with resources, especially on the V.H. level - supplies are better)
2) 1940 Fritz Tornow is out, Todt is welcomed (+10% Industrial R&D, +5%IC)
(Note: That should help them in conversion research...)
3) Security 1937: Frick is out, Josef Wirmer (Man of the People - manpower rise) is in.
(Note - this change also makes Schacht dimission less painful - dissent (CG demand) is lower).
4) Inteligence 1944: Georg Hansen (Technical Specialist +3% R&D) is in.
5) Chief of the General Staff 1937: Beck (+10% speed) is out, Hoepner (School of Fire Support +10 artillery/rocketry R&D) is in.
(Note: AI combines tanks with infantry so it never uses speed bonus fully).
6) Chief of the General Staff 1944:Heinz Guderian(School of Mass Combat 2x MP rise, +5% supplies)
YES!
7) Chief of Navy 1943: Karl Dönitz(Indirect Approach Doctrine - sub production bonus).
That's it, no more ideas. Maybe for human player those choices are not the best, but fit very well AI style of play (high manpower use, supply/resource waste, economy meltdowns...).
Anyone got the ideas about the other nations?
For now I was thinking only about the Germany:
1 ) 1937 Schacht (+15 IC) is out, Fritz Tornow (Military Entrepreneur -15% supplies) is in,
(Note: AI Germany got problems with supporting their IC with resources, especially on the V.H. level - supplies are better)
2) 1940 Fritz Tornow is out, Todt is welcomed (+10% Industrial R&D, +5%IC)
(Note: That should help them in conversion research...)
3) Security 1937: Frick is out, Josef Wirmer (Man of the People - manpower rise) is in.
(Note - this change also makes Schacht dimission less painful - dissent (CG demand) is lower).
4) Inteligence 1944: Georg Hansen (Technical Specialist +3% R&D) is in.
5) Chief of the General Staff 1937: Beck (+10% speed) is out, Hoepner (School of Fire Support +10 artillery/rocketry R&D) is in.
(Note: AI combines tanks with infantry so it never uses speed bonus fully).
6) Chief of the General Staff 1944:Heinz Guderian(School of Mass Combat 2x MP rise, +5% supplies)
YES!
7) Chief of Navy 1943: Karl Dönitz(Indirect Approach Doctrine - sub production bonus).
That's it, no more ideas. Maybe for human player those choices are not the best, but fit very well AI style of play (high manpower use, supply/resource waste, economy meltdowns...).
Anyone got the ideas about the other nations?
Copper Nicus said:Sure thing - I thought about that already. I case of the democracies and other countries with elections, we should limit those changes only to the Chief of Air/Land/Sea (and in important cases only).
For now I was thinking only about the Germany:
1 ) 1937 Schacht (+15 IC) is out, Fritz Tornow (Military Entrepreneur -15% supplies) is in,
(Note: AI Germany got problems with supporting their IC with resources, especially on the V.H. level - supplies are better)
2) 1940 Fritz Tornow is out, Todt is welcomed (+10% Industrial R&D, +5%IC)
(Note: That should help them in conversion research...)
3) Security 1937: Frick is out, Josef Wirmer (Man of the People - manpower rise) is in.
(Note - this change also makes Schacht dimission less painful - dissent (CG demand) is lower).
4) Inteligence 1944: Georg Hansen (Technical Specialist +3% R&D) is in.
5) Chief of the General Staff 1937: Beck (+10% speed) is out, Hoepner (School of Fire Support +10 artillery/rocketry R&D) is in.
(Note: AI combines tanks with infantry so it never uses speed bonus fully).
6) Chief of the General Staff 1944:Heinz Guderian(School of Mass Combat 2x MP rise, +5% supplies)
YES!
7) Chief of Navy 1943: Karl Dönitz(Indirect Approach Doctrine - sub production bonus).
That's it, no more ideas. Maybe for human player those choices are not the best, but fit very well AI style of play (high manpower use, supply/resource waste, economy meltdowns...).
Anyone got the ideas about the other nations?
On Germany: we might want to script some of the changes made for a human player as well. Like Raeder getting sacked and replaced by Donitz. As well as the changes in CoS and CoA. Also as people got reassigned to otther posts, such a Governor-General of Poland (Frick wasn't it?). Let the player have a choice to sack/replace the problem minister (like Raeder or Canaris or Frick or Von Neurath).
One thing about Canada that I don't think is included is that McNaughton resigned from active command, but eventually became the minister of defense in 1944.
Minister Changes
I was finished with the script writing on the USA - doing the tweaked events scrub - but hadn't given a look at modifying the minister changes that go with the basic Landon election.
Hull was a Republican to begin with and would probably be retained. What I can do is look back at the foreign policy selection event that is there for the USA player. A radical change, either to the Big Stick or full Isolationist foreign policies, might provoke his resignation and let me slip a different minister in.
Hoover knew where all the skeletons were buried in Washington. Somebody probably ought to write an event if Hoover isn't at the FBI, then there is dissent in the US as all that dirt spills out.
The USA really didn't have an industries ministry but I'll look at that.
The US has such a strong civil control of the military tradition that this should jsut about be left at player discretion, though I like the AI only event idea for some wartime shake-ups.
I was finished with the script writing on the USA - doing the tweaked events scrub - but hadn't given a look at modifying the minister changes that go with the basic Landon election.
Hull was a Republican to begin with and would probably be retained. What I can do is look back at the foreign policy selection event that is there for the USA player. A radical change, either to the Big Stick or full Isolationist foreign policies, might provoke his resignation and let me slip a different minister in.
Hoover knew where all the skeletons were buried in Washington. Somebody probably ought to write an event if Hoover isn't at the FBI, then there is dissent in the US as all that dirt spills out.
The USA really didn't have an industries ministry but I'll look at that.
The US has such a strong civil control of the military tradition that this should jsut about be left at player discretion, though I like the AI only event idea for some wartime shake-ups.
I wouldn't merge those two things, as the goals are totally different - in case of the AI we want effectiveness, while human events are more about the German internal politics - we should add the background, some side effects (dissent?). Canaris decline for example should be connected with the failed Hitler's assasination attempt, Reader - with lack of the decisive victory over UK (since we can't check other sea warfare factors)... What I mean is that will be fully fledged events, while AI only can be very easy (no description, minimal triggers, stationary dates and so on).
And the Governor of the GG was Frank, not Frick.
DogRed said:
Excellent point and examples. I'll take you a step further in this and declare that in Milna and Rome, Italy's economy was as advanced as any of the other majors. However, in the 'outer' provinces, let me use Bari as the example [no slight intended to any Barese reading this], that area was still in the 1800's. Many homes still did not have indoor plumbing or other utilities [source: family archives]. How do you model this conunfrum with the current HOI eco model?
DogRed said:
I take your point, but will again assert that Italy and Japan's economies must have been far stronger than any reference of the time will allow for. Proof: look at what they did build/do. On paper, they could not have done it, but they did. QED: the paper is wrong. When you read histories of this era from the 60's/70's you get some authors alluding to this [Morrison for example in his naval treatise]. I'm not an expert, so i'm not familiar wnough to know of more recent works that may examine this topic in more detail.
My last point: for all of the AXIS power dreams, economy was never their main issue. MP was. Because they were rooted in nationalism and facism, they could never utilize populations outside of their 'pure' roots. Between them, they just did not have enough people to accomplish what they wanted u as long as others were willing to resist. In this regard, IMHO, HOI gets this pretty close. Both Italy and Japan cannot attain their aims on their own, they simply do not have the MP to field enough of an army to do it.
Please don't take anything here overtly. Sometimes my writing style is a bit too pointed...
Italy and Japan could build large forces prior to the war because they had decades in which to accomplish the job, not because they had massive economic power that has evaded historians and economists. The point I'm making is that Japan and Italy could not squeze the same proportion of military production out of their civilian economies during war-time as the other major powers.
The only way to model this in HoI is through dissent penalties, which would force a human controlled Japan or Italy to devote an increased portion of its economic resources to consumer goods. This method is not ideal, however, because (1) dissent also shrinks the economy as a whole, and (2) dissent can be reduced over time, thus allowing Italy or Japan to eventaully reach ahistorical proportions of military production.
The only way to model this in HoI is through dissent penalties, which would force a human controlled Japan or Italy to devote an increased portion of its economic resources to consumer goods. This method is not ideal, however, because (1) dissent also shrinks the economy as a whole, and (2) dissent can be reduced over time, thus allowing Italy or Japan to eventaully reach ahistorical proportions of military production.
DogRed said:
So, we disagree. BTW, Italy's underground economy has not evaded economists. There is just disagreement on how to quantify it. Please refer to EU documents previously referred to for Italy. If EU economists cite a disparity between official and actual and have agreed to a gross up for Euro purposes, how can it be ignored? Japan is similar. Your arguement regarding decades to build is specious, everyone else had decades as well.
DogRed said:
Agreed, and i think already well modeled in the game. When they do a DoW, they do not gain as significant an increase as a democracy does. i.e. their economy was already running closer to the edge and there is less to squeeze.
DogRed said:
One alternative that can be implemented would be to remove some of the better minister choices to them, and force them to use poor ones, like CORRUPT_KLEPTOCRAT, CROOKED_KLEPTOCRAT, and/or BACK_STABBER. In effect for both it would be a +15% penalty as they both have administrative genius' available.
Just don't count on my support for this idea, though feel free to mod your game as you please ...
The thing that makes it so difficult for me to understand your reasoning is that there is no blackmarket for battleships or tanks. Italy didn't have an underground economy that could allow it to produce huge quantities of military equipment. Italy's armament producers were heavily regulated by the military and the government. When WW2 broke out, other countries had untapped industrial resources (idle or underutilized factories and workers) that could be put towards war production. Italy and Japan had less of these types of resources than other major powers; and thus could never obtain the same proportion of military production for each point of GDP as the other major powers.
I don't want to turn this thread into a history debate, but rather keep it focused on modding issues. Your suggestion about changing leaders is interesting. When I first started this line of discussion, Jdrou stated:
"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)."
Does this mean that a minister with -1% dissent reduces consumer good demand?
I don't want to turn this thread into a history debate, but rather keep it focused on modding issues. Your suggestion about changing leaders is interesting. When I first started this line of discussion, Jdrou stated:
"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)."
Does this mean that a minister with -1% dissent reduces consumer good demand?
Thanks Steele; I assume that the opposite would also be true...a minister with, say, +10 dissent would increase consumer goods demand by 10 percent? If that's the case, then it would seem possible to mod the effects I'm talking about via ministers.
DogRed said:
I was going to let this lie, but i can't, sorry. Too many people base history upon their perceptions of today. It appears that you are obviously basing your assessment of the Italian economy of the 1930's on the Italian economy of the 1990's. Please read the attached english selections. They are by no means complete, but it will give you a basis:
Italy: From Revolution to Republic, 1700 to the Present, Spencer Di Scala; Westview Press, 1998. {BTW if you read italian, he has several other good references]
Italian Fascists on Trial, 1943-1948, Roy Palmer Domenico; University of North Carolina Press, 1991
The Politics of Italian Foreign Policy, Norman Kogan; Praeger, 1963
If you simply want the raw data, the Bank of Italy has this data, and can be obtained from them via written request [specify years and rough variables such as unemployment, GDP, pop, birth rates, etc.] along with their nominal fee. It is copyrighted, so posting it here ...
At the end of this reading, each and every single point in your paragraph will be invalidated, with the exception of: " Italy's armament producers were heavily regulated by the military and the government. "
Oh, and please be more precise. Underground economies are not to be equated to blackmarket economies in any sense other than they are not captured in official economic data. In general use the definitions would be:
Underground Economy: that portion of the economy producing goods and services seeking to avoid government notice, and by way of, taxes. Example: "cottage industry".
Blackmarket Economy: that portion of the economy producing or distributing goods and services countermanded by law. Example: A Speakeasy during the Prohibition Period.
OK, i am off my soapbox now, my apologies to all ...
I would refer you, and any other readers of this post to, Mark Harrison's "The Economics of World War 2," whom I cited in my original post on this matter. Harrison's work is particularly useful for those of us trying to model the economies of the period because it is not a book about Italian foreign policy or the history of Italy in general, but rather a fairly in-depth statistical analysis by economists of the major powers during the war years. Harrison's book also benefits from the fact that each chapter is written by economists from the particular country in question and a great deal of original source data is discussed. I've noticed other modders on these forums relying on Harrison's work as well.
Pax, with all due respect, I'm going to disengage from this debate. I'm not entirely sure you understand the points I'm making and I've never seen any source that confirms your theory that Italy had a vast underground economy that allowed the Italians to obtain the type of military production-to-GDP ratios as other major powers. Best of luck modeling your theories.
Pax, with all due respect, I'm going to disengage from this debate. I'm not entirely sure you understand the points I'm making and I've never seen any source that confirms your theory that Italy had a vast underground economy that allowed the Italians to obtain the type of military production-to-GDP ratios as other major powers. Best of luck modeling your theories.