Construction rhythm

[Radu]

This is a discussion that branched off one of my other threads and it is about the stark difference between peacetime and wartime ship builds in terms of length for most countries. (Manziel,I concede to your points btw)

On closer inspection,one can see that this is the case for the other branches as well.

This is grounds for the introduction of a kind of "War Gearing" modifier in whatever shape or form the dev team desires that achieves this effect,namely proportionally reduce cost but increase build time when "war gearing" is low.

Increasing the "war gearing" should either be the player's decision or rising international tensions, depending on the govt type. An absolute dictatorship can gear up at will in addition to rising international tensions. A democracy should only gear up slightly at the player's request and only get going when tensions flare (Germany/Japan/Russia/Italy/etc aggressive). For obvious hindsight reasons, the Western Allies' "war gearing" is tied to the aggression level of the revisionist powers of Italy,Germany and Japan, with an open door for the USSR if in human hands.

After all,it's not so much about units being "cheaper" in wartime as more factories being involved and a parallelization of the production process,taking advantage of the additional industry available to reduce build times.

 

[Jingles]

Sounds like a decent idea. It would get rid of the need for those Gearing Up for War events for the Allies and USA in HoI2 right now. But everything would be less historical.

 

[Bismark776]

Well I think its a pretty good idea. Especially considering the new political system in the game. I mean we know that the population of the U.S., for the most part, really didn't want to get into a war in the 30's. Thus, if you use the "gear up for war" button (prior to the war affecting the US in such a way that the people deem it necessary to do so), not only should it not be very effective, but it should also cause a lot dissent and run a high risk of getting anti-war people elected into office. This would allow players to gear up early but at a great cost and with a risk of losing it all anyway to an opposing administration (both of which would have been very real risks if leaders had geared up for war without their populations supporting it)

 

[Alex_brunius]

Well I think its a pretty good idea. Especially considering the new political system in the game. I mean we know that the population of the U.S., for the most part, really didn't want to get into a war in the 30's. Thus, if you use the "gear up for war" button (prior to the war affecting the US in such a way that the people deem it necessary to do so), not only should it not be very effective, but it should also cause a lot dissent and run a high risk of getting anti-war people elected into office. This would allow players to gear up early but at a great cost and with a risk of losing it all anyway to an opposing administration (both of which would have been very real risks if leaders had geared up for war without their populations supporting it)

This Idea would be awesomelly cool. I can already imagine most people instantly trying to put war-gearing to full as US and having anti war parties and ministers into office within a year forcing it back to zero. And a healthy chuck of dissent at their hands for going against the will of the people and what not.

Another general thing thats good about this suggestion is that it could automatically help the democracy/minors AI scale down its peacetime production, both before and after any potential wars.

 

[krieger11b]

Well I think its a pretty good idea. Especially considering the new political system in the game. I mean we know that the population of the U.S., for the most part, really didn't want to get into a war in the 30's. Thus, if you use the "gear up for war" button (prior to the war affecting the US in such a way that the people deem it necessary to do so), not only should it not be very effective, but it should also cause a lot dissent and run a high risk of getting anti-war people elected into office. This would allow players to gear up early but at a great cost and with a risk of losing it all anyway to an opposing administration (both of which would have been very real risks if leaders had geared up for war without their populations supporting it)

What is especially true about the statement above is that there could not be a big increase for the democracies military budget without cutting back on their socialist policies at the time, which when unemployment is well into the double digits, can be a little, well, dangerous once the people are used to getting money/food from the government to sustain themselves and are once again faced with starvation.

 

[Alexander Seil]

Switchover to military production in the US was the last nail in the coffin of the Great Depression. It basically made labor surplus into a labor shortage overnight.

 

[Radu]

As a side note, it also empowered Keynesian economic theory which regards state intervention as the problem solver rather (quite socialist in a way) than the root of the problem. It also let loose legions of hussannah singers to the military-industrial complex. Mixed legacy if you ask me.