Can it be done?: Historical US production

[Alex_brunius]

Thanks for the effort and the results are interesting.

I do call foul on the trucks aspect however. There are a great many trucks abstracted into parts of the game. They are not all tied up in the points of motorized that are built. I am not sure that even half of the trucks get represented by motorized.

The supply system is undoubtedly simplified, but you do not and cannot assign motorized points to alter supply. This fact alone says that many of the war's trucks are abstracted.

I agree.

In HoI4 the only use for trucks is motorized divisions and some support, So even if we task USA to supply enough trucks to fill 150 motorized divisions for themself and their allied LL recievers they only need to produce 450*150=67500 Trucks

With a production of 49.20 Trucks per 15 factories it would take 57 factories to get the task done in a year.

The question we have to ask ourselves is whether or not it makes sense to think of tanks and planes in terms of 10:1 or even 100:1 ratios to real world production. I know that HOI4 is not a simulator, but I'm sure I'm not the only one who would feel better if they could confidently say things like, "Sure, the USA is powerful enough. If you compute historical production using ratio X, you can see that she's where she needs to be, so stop whining." It might also put production from other countries into perspective.

Let's think. USA peaked at around 28K medium tanks / year (43) and 40K fighters / year (44) historically.

According to your numbers 15 factories produce 3453 tanks per year and 1781 fighters per year.

If HoI4 USA devotes 45 factories to each (11% of their military Industry) that means roughly a 3:1 ratio for tanks and 7:1 for fighters. Heavy bombers also score the same 7:1 ratio ( assuming they too get 45 factories ).

Historically the unit price of a Sherman and P51 was almost the same, so this might be an argument that planes should be slightly cheaper and tanks slightly more expensive ( to both meet at around 5:1 historical ratio ). But that would also alter gamebalance alot.

 

[Axe99]

This could at least alleviate the resource crunch.

I suspect that the resource deficits are intentional, though. If I don't misread the design principles in play, it looks like the end goal is to make everyone, Axis and Allies and COMINTERN, feel resource shortages as time goes on.

The fact that we can continue producing stuff even when we are out of all resources required tells me that resources are meant to limit spamming of any kind of unit. This test clearly demonstrated that even if I could put 400 factories on a single piece of equipment, there's not enough resources in the world to support construction. You'll run out of oil, tungsten, steel, or rubber before all 400 MIC get in on the action.

Aye - I'm not pro-spam . It just feels at the moment the resource crunch seems a bit of a hard wall, particularly for nations capturing a low of factories. I'd probably find it more enjoyable (and more plausible) if I had less usable factories from conquest and less resource shortages (just my view, of course, but the resource shortages late game lead to a fair bit of fiddling with production if it still matters at that stage). I can't recall what the situation was historically, but my understanding was that it was cost and the war looking to be winding up that slowed down production of material, rather than hard shortages of things (although I know there were issues in all nations with particular items, like rubber or metals for special alloys or what-have-you).

 

[Dalwin]

"Let's think. USA peaked at around 28K medium tanks / year (43) and 40K fighters / year (44) historically.

According to your numbers 15 factories produce 3453 tanks per year and 1781 fighters per year.

If HoI4 USA devotes 45 factories to each (11% of their military Industry) that means roughly a 3:1 ratio for tanks and 7:1 for fighters. Heavy bombers also score the same 7:1 ratio ( assuming they too get 45 factories ).

Historically the unit price of a Sherman and P51 was almost the same, so this might be an argument that planes should be slightly cheaper and tanks slightly more expensive ( to both meet at around 5:1 historical ratio ). But that would also alter gamebalance alot.

This idea of one tank in game not equaling one tank in history has some issues obviously. Yes it allows one to reach historical production levels.

It also goes directly against what they have been saying about the game since early in it's creation. It also goes against historical OOB at both the battalion and division levels. A battalion of 60 light tanks is close enough to be believable, but a battalion of 180?

 

[Alex_brunius]

This idea of one tank in game not equaling one tank in history has some issues obviously.

Anything specific besides the two below?

It also goes directly against what they have been saying about the game since early in it's creation.

Does it? I don't remember reading anywhere that the production numbers were supposed to match real numbers. Or that total number of tanks/planes deployed were supposed to match real numbers.

It also goes against historical OOB at both the battalion and division levels. A battalion of 60 light tanks is close enough to be believable, but a battalion of 180?

If you want to look at light tanks the real division would have 60 light tanks in the actual battalion, 60 spread out in recon units + 60 that were not light tanks but ACs ( but light tanks is the closest we got in HoI4 at the moment ). Various other historical OOBs also had smaller amounts of light tanks used in Command/Control/Support of various units. There was also detached light tank battalions which don't show up in the divisions / HoI4 OOB at all. And that's not even counting the light tanks spread out in say infantry units in some nations historical OOBs which are not present in HoI4.

So it all depends on how you count... When comparing how many total light tanks there are present in historical OOBs and the HoI4 1936 start the ratio is actually closer to 10:1 ( for the reasons I mentioned above ).

 

[Dalwin]

Anything specific besides the two below?


Does it? I don't remember reading anywhere that the production numbers were supposed to match real numbers. Or that total number of tanks/planes deployed were supposed to match real numbers.


If you want to look at light tanks the real division would have 60 light tanks in the actual battalion, 60 spread out in recon units + 60 that were not light tanks but ACs ( but light tanks is the closest we got in HoI4 at the moment ). Various other historical OOBs also had smaller amounts of light tanks used in Command/Control/Support of various units. There was also detached light tank battalions which don't show up in the divisions / HoI4 OOB at all. And that's not even counting the light tanks spread out in say infantry units in some nations historical OOBs.

So it all depends on how you count... When comparing how many total light tanks there are present in historical OOBs and the HoI4 1936 start the ratio is actually closer to 10:1 ( for the reasons I mentioned above ).

Would you claim the same for Medium tanks? A number in the low 50s for a battalion of medium tanks is pretty well established for most nations.

Are we now going to go on to say that a tank equals three tanks and a division equals three divisions? (obviously I am being facetious but not without a point).

 

[Alex_brunius]

Would you claim the same for Medium tanks? A number in the low 50s for a battalion of medium tanks is pretty well established for most nations.

To some degree ( but not as large as with light ).

But for medium tanks it probably has more to do with tank losses and breakdowns which were much more severe in reality then in the game for vehicles, and thus required higher production numbers. According to some reports tank divisions engaged in heavy combat in reality could suffer 500% losses of tanks in their OOB per year ( assuming good supplylines and production, otherwise they would just be constantly understrength ). I don't see how that would be possible to do in HoI4 from normal combat operations.

And then you have the fact that alot of equipment ( including tanks ) never reached their destinations but were sunk on convoys, bombed out in stockpiles or in transit on trains and so on. And this is not really represented in HoI4 at all.

So the reason for the abstractions and differences in real and HoI4 production can be motivated from many different reasons. Another one for air units is that for example 33% of all planes built by USA were support for training, communication or transport needs.

 

[Cardus]

I refrain here my opinion: the issue in game is about the increasing return of scale/productivity that is not well represented.

See this

Plane Company ----------------------- Jan. 1943 --------Jan. 1944 -- empty weight -- hours per ton in 1944
B-17 Boeing at Seattle ---------------- 35,400 ------------ 18,600 ---- 16,210 kg ---- 1,147
B-24 Consolidated at San Diego ----- 24,800 ------------ 14,500 ----- 16,590 kg ---- 874
B-25 North American at Inglewood -- 14,800 ------------ 10,700 ----- 8,855 kg ------ 1,208
C-46 Curtiss at Buffalo ---------------- 113,000 ---------- 49,500 ----- 14,700 kg ---- 3,367
C-54 Douglas at Santa Monica -------- 142,100 ---------- 62,600 ----- 16,660 kg ----- 3,758
P-38 Lockheed-"B" at Burbank -------- 14,800 ------------ 9,600 ----- 5,800 kg ------- 1,655
P-47 Republic at Farmingdale --------- 22,200 ------------ 9,100 ----- 4,540 kg -------- 2,004

From: http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/AAF/VI/AAF-VI-10.html

Compare now with the two main German planes in the war:

Plane Company -------------------------------------------- Jan 1943 -- Jan 1944 -- empty weight -- hours per ton (last date)
Ju-88 Junkers Flugzeugund Motorenwerke, Dessau ---- 7,000 ------ NA -------- 9,860 kg -------- 710
Me-109 Messerschmitt-Regensburg , -------------------- 3,600 ------ 2,000 ---- 2,250 kg --------- 889

http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=191649

 

[1337Hospitaller]

This has a guy who studies aspects of tanks for WWII - he has a listing of cumulative number of tanks built for wwII it appears ~29 minutes. You should listen to it for some context as it describes economics of some of the tanks and different industrial approaches to production.
Italy: 4333
Japan: 5369
UK: 36252
Germany: 46937
US: 102253
Russia: 106104

Do remember that the US was producing tanks for everyone basically.
http://fas.org/man/dod-101/army/unit/toe/index.html
Has org break downs for tank battalions and stuff. But it basically suggests that there were about 120 tanks in a battalion which is more than double then what HOI 4 requires for light tanks.

As a note for the US to produce the listed number of tanks 102253 it would take 6 production lines with maxed throughput and production efficiency 1550 days - which is longer than the 5 years of the war (11 tanks/day).

"Russia"

stop

 

[Alex_brunius]

I refrain here my opinion: the issue in game is about the increasing return of scale/productivity that is not well represented.

Do you think that production lines ramping up from 10% efficiency to 100% efficiency is to low? ( A 10-fold increase ).

Or is it the long term increase of max production that's the issue? (from 50% efficiency x 100% output in 36 to 100% x 200% x 400% as many MIC in 43)? ( an x16 increase )

 

[Axe99]

I refrain here my opinion: the issue in game is about the increasing return of scale/productivity that is not well represented.

See this


http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=191649

My interpretation (ie, just my view, I could be wrong of course) of this is that it's is represented in-game by two things:

- the increases in production efficiency (both the drop for new units, the increase in the production efficiency cap and the +10%/20% (depending whether you go dispersed or concentrated industry) in IC per factory. If you go with concentrated industry, a fully worked-up line is well over twice as productive late-game as in early war.

- The increase in production efficiency per new type of thing being built - a production line starting a new piece of equipment is generally less than half as productive than it is when it's fully worked up, at least until the late-game efficiency bonuses have kicked in.

That said, I'm not suggesting there isn't the potential for getting things more historical, but I think the levers are there in-game, it'd just be a case of tinkering with them to hit the outcome you were looking for.

 

[Cardus]

Do you think that production lines ramping up from 10% efficiency to 100% efficiency is to low? ( A 10-fold increase ).

Or is it the long term increase of max production that's the issue? (from 50% efficiency x 100% output in 36 to 100% x 200% x 400% as many MIC in 43)? ( an x16 increase )

My interpretation (ie, just my view, I could be wrong of course) of this is that it's is represented in-game by two things:

- the increases in production efficiency (both the drop for new units, the increase in the production efficiency cap and the +10%/20% (depending whether you go dispersed or concentrated industry) in IC per factory. If you go with concentrated industry, a fully worked-up line is well over twice as productive late-game as in early war.

- The increase in production efficiency per new type of thing being built - a production line starting a new piece of equipment is generally less than half as productive than it is when it's fully worked up, at least until the late-game efficiency bonuses have kicked in.

That said, I'm not suggesting there isn't the potential for getting things more historical, but I think the levers are there in-game, it'd just be a case of tinkering with them to hit the outcome you were looking for.

Well if you think that playing a bit with the figures you can get results in line with historical ones I will be very happy. We all think that the split between production and training is the biggest improvement of HOI4 over HOI3.

 

[Alex_brunius]

Well if you think that playing a bit with the figures you can get results in line with historical ones I will be very happy.

I don't think being able to match historical production numbers makes any sense at all, unless all historical equipment uses and loss rates + loss causes of the units are also included !!!

Having well balanced production numbers which fit the actual equipment usage in HoI4 instead makes a much more fun game and also one that plays more historical.

 

[Cardus]

I don't think being able to match historical production numbers makes any sense at all, unless all historical equipment uses and loss rates + loss causes of the units are also included !!!.

Just to be clear on the methodology (scope is limited to the USA for the time being):
1) We know historical output figures for the USA
2) The USA should gear up for war following the historical dates
3) By changing the production's modifiers the test should only check whether the USA in game can match the above-mentioned figures (see 1)

NB: I think that If during the test the USA doesn't send abroad any troop war losses shouldn't be relevant

Having well balanced production numbers which fit the actual equipment usage in HoI4 instead makes a much more fun game and also one that plays more historical.

This is an opinion and there is no right or wrong opinion but, if I am not mistaken, the idea was to see whether the game can match historical figures.

In fact this thread says

Can it be done?: Historical US production

 

[Alex_brunius]

NB: I think that If during the test the USA doesn't send abroad any troop war losses shouldn't be relevant

From a gamebalance perspective war losses are very relevant, because if Soviet don't lose as much tanks, trucks, guns and planes due to combat, they don't need as much replacement or as much Lend Lease.

In fact this thread says

Yes that's what the thread is about. But this is (as far as I understand ) more of a test for fun or out of curiosity. Not because the game would benefit from having 100% historical production numbers.

 

[Cardus]

From a gamebalance perspective war losses are very relevant, because if Soviet don't lose as much tanks, trucks, guns and planes due to combat, they don't need as much replacement or as much Lend Lease.

You shouldn't send any lend lease or get involved in any battle. Just produce what you can and count the total figures at the end of each year. This is a test. You don't care if Soviet Union can't get your help.

Yes that's what the thread is about. But this is (as far as I understand ) more of a test for fun or out of curiosity. Not because the game would benefit from having 100% historical production numbers.

You started the thread so you know better than me why you are curious. Speaking for myself I am curious to see if this production system is just for flavor or if it has a real meaning.

 

[Alex_brunius]

You shouldn't send any lend lease or get involved in any battle. Just produce what you can and count the total figures at the end of each year. This is a test. You don't care if Soviet Union can't get your help.

You made it out to be an "issue" if we could reach historical numbers.

What I'm trying to say is that it's NOT an issue unless historical numbers are also needed.

In fact it's the other way around, if the game is changed to be able to reach historical equipment production numbers, and they are not needed, then that is a huge issue...

Because then everyone can field much much larger armies and more divisions then they could do historically... ( Hmm where did we see this problem before? )

 

[Cardus]

You made it out to be an "issue" if we could reach historical numbers.

What I'm trying to say is that it's NOT an issue unless historical numbers are also needed.

In fact it's the other way around, if the game is changed to be able to reach historical equipment production numbers, and they are not needed, then that is a huge issue...

Because then everyone can field much much larger armies and more divisions then they could do historically... ( Hmm where did we see this problem before? )

In this we think completely different. I think that the USA could outproduce any other country but I think, also, that the USA was not destined to win WWII. In fact the USA drew Korean war and lost Vietnam war. Production is very important but it is not the only factor for winning a war.

Adjusting figures in game means that, once the historical output is reached, the divisions should require that said equipment. This means no spamming of units.

 

[Alex_brunius]

Adjusting figures in game means that, once the historical output is reached, the divisions should require that said equipment. This means no spamming of units.

Not if losses and alot of other factors are totally different...

USA historically built 68000 medium tanks. If you can build equally many in HoI4 that means it's enough to train 227 tank divisions ( with 300 medium armor each ). If we instead use factor 3:1 it's "only" 76 divisions, which is a bit more reasonable.

 

[frolix42]

Goodluck @Secret Master

you'd be correct, at least not without a great deal of conquest. To hit historical production levels Michigan alone would have to be able to out produce Germany.

The scale of US industrialization is underrepresented in the game. IRL the US State of Ohio alone produced roughly the same amount of oil as the entire country of Romania. Granted Ohio used to be a significant source of oil during the WW2 timeframe, but nowhere close to Texas.

 

[Cardus]

Not if losses and alot of other factors are totally different...

USA historically built 68000 medium tanks. If you can build equally many in HoI4 that means it's enough to train 227 divisions ( with 300 medium armor each ). If we instead use factor 3:1 it's "only" 76 divisions, which is a bit more reasonable.

So, at the end you mean that the new production system is just for flavor as, if adjusted to match historical figures, all the other factors in HOI4 are "screwed"?