I'm sure there is a thread somewhere on the forum but if not , a little insight as to trade and paying for or selling (cash) goods/equipment in the game would be great. as i cannot find any info on it.
Cash/money in HOI4?
- Thread starter curtisstade3518
- Start date
-
We will be taking the forums down for scheduled maintenance on Tuesday, May 22nd 2023 at around 8:00 CDT / 13:00 UTC for up to an hour hour.
-
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.
Indeed there be, although it's very old, so no shame in not going back through the forum threads to the middle of August to find it 
.
http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum...ce-of-money&highlight=the+importance+of+money
Short answer is that the devs indicated at one point that there isn't money in the game, but suggested there would be 'something' for trade. I can't remember the details, as it was a while ago now. We know pretty much nothing about trade or diplomacy at this stage.
.http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum...ce-of-money&highlight=the+importance+of+money
Short answer is that the devs indicated at one point that there isn't money in the game, but suggested there would be 'something' for trade. I can't remember the details, as it was a while ago now. We know pretty much nothing about trade or diplomacy at this stage.
thanks Axe99 i will read the thread you linked. and i guess we will just need to wait for more upcoming DD. thanks again.
I remember reading that you can buy equipment/armaments too providing someone is willing to sell them.
That is a great shame. The lack of money/gold was a driving force behind the German conquest of foreign capitals and the capture of their gold reserves.
the economic depression in 30's should be simulated somehow, even though this is a war strategy game still, ..its most needed.
US was in depression or best stagnation, UK,France same, basically whole western and also Japan were economically stagnating.
while West controlled most resources needed2fuel the economies of the world. Simulating this aspect and adding economic
sanctions(embargo-which we already have but is far from a punishment,most of the time its actually beneficial lol) should
be more serious. Germany got sanctioned soon after Hitler started deviating from Western rule.. this made economic situation
more dire, which means it makes it possible or even urgent to go to war and reverse the damages of isolation. As Italy who
got sanctioned cuz of Abysenia and Japan over Manchuria.. those factors and economic mostly are driving force for policy
changes, and economic laws-militarization of the economies etc..
Without any kind of simulation of this its a big part of reason why WW2 happened disappear..
US was in depression or best stagnation, UK,France same, basically whole western and also Japan were economically stagnating.
while West controlled most resources needed2fuel the economies of the world. Simulating this aspect and adding economic
sanctions(embargo-which we already have but is far from a punishment,most of the time its actually beneficial lol) should
be more serious. Germany got sanctioned soon after Hitler started deviating from Western rule.. this made economic situation
more dire, which means it makes it possible or even urgent to go to war and reverse the damages of isolation. As Italy who
got sanctioned cuz of Abysenia and Japan over Manchuria.. those factors and economic mostly are driving force for policy
changes, and economic laws-militarization of the economies etc..
Without any kind of simulation of this its a big part of reason why WW2 happened disappear..
The economies during ww2 were very important but how would you model it.
The bond drives appear as though they were dependent on advertising (heroes of battles or great battles to promote the bond drives as per flags of our fathers)
The Germans fueled their economy through all sorts of means that cannot me talked about on the forums, They tried to destabilize the UK economy with printing money and flooding the markets also tried to perfect the US dollar aswell.
The Spanish civil war the republicans sent all their gold to Russia for safe keeping (funny it sort of disappeared) and funded the purchase of arms and equipment.
After invasion all the economies of invaded nations tended to go into hyper inflation.
How do you model any of that and still keep it understandable for somebody that is not working on wall street.
The bond drives appear as though they were dependent on advertising (heroes of battles or great battles to promote the bond drives as per flags of our fathers)
The Germans fueled their economy through all sorts of means that cannot me talked about on the forums, They tried to destabilize the UK economy with printing money and flooding the markets also tried to perfect the US dollar aswell.
The Spanish civil war the republicans sent all their gold to Russia for safe keeping (funny it sort of disappeared) and funded the purchase of arms and equipment.
After invasion all the economies of invaded nations tended to go into hyper inflation.
How do you model any of that and still keep it understandable for somebody that is not working on wall street.
The problem with money in HOI3 was that there was no "sink" for it. You could produce more money, but there was nothing to spend it on. It would only circulate through the world market, constantly increasing causing a sort of unintentional inflation.
If you are to include automatic generation of money, you need to include things that CONSUME money, such as research or establishing production lines, or anything. Even if they will make "money" only intended for trading, there will have to be some way of for it to be reduced if you are able to produce it. Or a hard limit on how much you can produce.
In theory, the HOI3 system could work well if consumer goods could be sold on the market instead of having a surplus automaticaly generate money.
Also, have some sort of penalty for having a lot of money to prevent hoarding. There could be an inflation modifier to all transactions, meaning you will recieve less for selling and pay more when buying.
If you are to include automatic generation of money, you need to include things that CONSUME money, such as research or establishing production lines, or anything. Even if they will make "money" only intended for trading, there will have to be some way of for it to be reduced if you are able to produce it. Or a hard limit on how much you can produce.
In theory, the HOI3 system could work well if consumer goods could be sold on the market instead of having a surplus automaticaly generate money.
Also, have some sort of penalty for having a lot of money to prevent hoarding. There could be an inflation modifier to all transactions, meaning you will recieve less for selling and pay more when buying.
A good solution is just to have fixed gold reserves for international trade, maybe leave a small income from gold mines. So as Germany, if you want to rearm at a record pace you need to buy resources which costs you your gold reserves (because you cant sell your products in exchange because you need all that IC to rearm)... whooops, I'm out of gold in 38, what to do? Anschluss Austria with its gold reserves! Then Czechoslovakia! Poland is next, but UK&France guarantee its borders, so we need to secure resources for the inevitable war some other way. We got quite a lot of industry with Czechs but not many resources...so we trade resources for supplies/consumer goods with USSR!
The historical route will make sense this way without too much railroading. And this would also simulate economic mobilization somewhat, because you cannot count on conquest to refill your gold reserves as democracies, so you have to keep a balanced budget until war is imminent and produce a lot of consumer goods just to reduce dissent to manageable levels (Darkest Hour had a nice dissent mechanic, in HOI3 dissent is almost a non issue, only arbitrary numbers to allow arbitrary "better laws"). After war starts "allow debt" and "lend lease" will kick in so no need to worry about gold reserves anymore. But it will decrease score for the recipients (UK&France) and increase for the lender (USA), so it will also simulate the war's effect on the participants economy, prestige and power.
The historical route will make sense this way without too much railroading. And this would also simulate economic mobilization somewhat, because you cannot count on conquest to refill your gold reserves as democracies, so you have to keep a balanced budget until war is imminent and produce a lot of consumer goods just to reduce dissent to manageable levels (Darkest Hour had a nice dissent mechanic, in HOI3 dissent is almost a non issue, only arbitrary numbers to allow arbitrary "better laws"). After war starts "allow debt" and "lend lease" will kick in so no need to worry about gold reserves anymore. But it will decrease score for the recipients (UK&France) and increase for the lender (USA), so it will also simulate the war's effect on the participants economy, prestige and power.
its easy to make the money "sink" in somewhere as not to keep growing..
money is made by selling your lets say "consumer IC".. which is at a certain level(to feed your
population needs and to sell on international markets). So, if you expand your IC(build new
factories which can later be turned to military ones) you need what?you need new markets where
you can sell your products. Since in a war situation you really don't need to sell your products
more than you need resources to feed your military IC pumping units you will go for the resources
as Axis did.
Money surplus is possible only if you are net-exporter, something axis were not, while western allies
were to indebted to increase production so were sagging along in stagnation like coma..
War in a way is desired by most of nations since it would eradicate the surplus production that was
acting as deflation in the system. Ravaged europe sure did "release" lots of productivity right into the
air, and was later recycled by superpower US that capitalized on it.
So, tie the money to Consumer products(%x of your population + whatever you sell).make it possible
to increase what you sell by "independence guarantees", favorable trade terms(giving them resources
like iron, etc ), or political favors (agreeing with the side you are working to certain views etc, maybe
accepting their point of view of who is more "threatening" on global stage"..) so all kind of trade can
happen, and would NEED to happen as money would be in short supply..so it would make the AI do
the things needed to drive the world to world war 2 on its own, .. while you can do what you want to
add personal flavor and probably try to pick better terms of when and how your nation goes in..
money is made by selling your lets say "consumer IC".. which is at a certain level(to feed your
population needs and to sell on international markets). So, if you expand your IC(build new
factories which can later be turned to military ones) you need what?you need new markets where
you can sell your products. Since in a war situation you really don't need to sell your products
more than you need resources to feed your military IC pumping units you will go for the resources
as Axis did.
Money surplus is possible only if you are net-exporter, something axis were not, while western allies
were to indebted to increase production so were sagging along in stagnation like coma..
War in a way is desired by most of nations since it would eradicate the surplus production that was
acting as deflation in the system. Ravaged europe sure did "release" lots of productivity right into the
air, and was later recycled by superpower US that capitalized on it.
So, tie the money to Consumer products(%x of your population + whatever you sell).make it possible
to increase what you sell by "independence guarantees", favorable trade terms(giving them resources
like iron, etc ), or political favors (agreeing with the side you are working to certain views etc, maybe
accepting their point of view of who is more "threatening" on global stage"..) so all kind of trade can
happen, and would NEED to happen as money would be in short supply..so it would make the AI do
the things needed to drive the world to world war 2 on its own, .. while you can do what you want to
add personal flavor and probably try to pick better terms of when and how your nation goes in..
I'd be against a Vicky-style economic model (which you need if you start modelling gold reserves and international trade - once you get that deep, you need the domestic economy and non-military trade included as well). As the devs have very sensibly said, with game design you can only have so much going on. For every economic simulation element, we lose a military element. For HoI, the goal should (imo - my o could be wrong ) as little economic simulation as possible to achieve a reasonable enough simulation to support the military side of things.
This is a pretty radical view. The whole reason appeasement was a thing was because the UK and France didn't want a war, and the US was hardly charging into the fray gung-ho. Even Hitler didn't actually want a war with Britain and France, he wanted quick victories, not total mobilisation (and had expanded his military in a war-like fashion without needing to go to war in any event). What war does is provide a justification (if the war can be 'sold' as such) for huge taxes to support a large military, but it generally isn't good news for the economy in general. Very few countries actually do well economically from war, at the very least in modern times. Even the US, which did very well out of the post-war economic order, Bretton-Woods and all that, could well have been just as powerful in a similar amount of time. Going to war doesn't suddenly increase productivity of the skills and capital of a nation - and often has the opposite effect!
) as little economic simulation as possible to achieve a reasonable enough simulation to support the military side of things.This is a pretty radical view. The whole reason appeasement was a thing was because the UK and France didn't want a war, and the US was hardly charging into the fray gung-ho. Even Hitler didn't actually want a war with Britain and France, he wanted quick victories, not total mobilisation (and had expanded his military in a war-like fashion without needing to go to war in any event). What war does is provide a justification (if the war can be 'sold' as such) for huge taxes to support a large military, but it generally isn't good news for the economy in general. Very few countries actually do well economically from war, at the very least in modern times. Even the US, which did very well out of the post-war economic order, Bretton-Woods and all that, could well have been just as powerful in a similar amount of time. Going to war doesn't suddenly increase productivity of the skills and capital of a nation - and often has the opposite effect!
That is a good idea. As a subtle benefit, you can program the French (and to lesser extent Americans) to be obsessively observe the first rule of acquisition (Once you have their money, you never give it back.) This would help simulate French shortcomings in rearmament because just like in history they would be busy building up gold reserves instead of artillery.