DogRed said:
Harrison's work [well actually his and the other author's, he only wrote the preface and the section on Russia] is of value. Many people do use it as a reference, as it is one of the mst recent analyses done. However, there are several points to be examined regarding this work:
1. Technical analysis. Each of the authors took their own approach to the analysis. Some opted for Keynesian, a couple traditional, and one a unique approach [Harrison himself].
2. What was the goal of this work? Harrison gives his in the forward, but the other author's are mute. From the reading, it is apparent that they had differing views.
3. The most common criticism of this work is, to quote Danny Yee: "When Harrison turns to discussing the "quality" of armed forces, some of his generalisations seem dubious, .." How does this perspective impact the analytical technique and conclusions?
4. To view data and attempt to deduce conclusions without examination of the perspective is to induce error. Not a quote, not my original opinion either [though i agree with it strongly], but rather Schroedinger's, validated by a host of people far smarter than I [Pauli, Einstein, et.al.] Granted it originated from the field of non-Newtonian physics, but "woe be unto those" who ignore it in any field of endeavor. Understanding the social and political perspectives of that time is crucial to using, interpreting, and modeling with that data.
DogRed said:
I understand your points, but simply do not agree.
Never claimed that they did have MP:GDP ratios as others. I beleive it is already incorporated into the game to the appropriate level. I am not willing to support a reduction in Italy's IC without much more thorough analysis.
Thanks for the offer, but i have no intent of modeling WWII economies for HOI or anyone else without a large contract. It is WAY too big of a job to take on 'pro-bono'. Earlier in this forum we tried to look at just one economic aspect that i had thought simple: the oil resource distribution and had to give up. After putting in several 100's of man-hours [thanks again to the team], accumulating tens of Gigs of data [i had to buy a DVD burner because of it back when they were $400], the honest conclusion was you could assign almost any value that you wanted to almost any province and justify it. To say terrible is a total understatement. Conflicting data from reliable sources, incomplete data, inconsistent definitions of data, ommissions, and obvious errors are just a few of the problems. If you want more details on this, send me a PM and i will expound some real horror stories ...
Finally, to use the Harrison source as a reference and paraphrasing author Vera Zamagni: 'Italian industry was hampered by resource shortages, organisational weakness, and a net export of resources to Germany'. All of these are player variables within HOI. In a stand-alone game, Italy loses just as they did historically, largely by 2 of those 3 reasons cited [lack fo resources and poor management pf the economy]. A player can address those decisions and with clear goals, make significant changes to the outcome.
Is this not the goal of the game achieved?
The Paradox team has done a truly remarkable job to pull this game and economic model together in the timeframe and resources available. I don't know who exactly did all the research [I beleive that Aetius was on the team, but the others?], and kudos to them.
As to withdrawing, please continue to read and submit to this thread. I am not, nor ever claim to be, a final source. Your ideas are wanted and needed. Just because I don't agree with them, well frankly, does that really matter?
