Conversion Tests

[Mithel]

I've run another test to see how conversion actually works in HoI.

I modified Bulgaria to have:
33 ICs
71 Coal
33 Steel
0 Oil
17 Rubber

I removed the Admin Genius so there should have been no governmental economic changes.

I gave them two Panzer divisions such that at rest they would need a total of 10 oil per day.

BEFORE stockpiles were exhausted I observed IC as being reported as 34! Yet only needing the resources of 31 ICs (62 Coal, 31 Steel, 15.5 Rubber). Perhaps this is the readme note Paradox made a couple releases ago that mentioned something about helping out small countries regarding rubber usage?

After running out of oil the situation remained exactly the same. No change to production and the "extra" 9 points of Coal were used in conversion to make 1.8 points of oil (5:1 as per the starting values in my mod).

This appears to reinforce my belief that conversion of coal to oil does NOT hurt production (but only results in unit fuel starvation).

- Mithel

 

[Mithel]

I reconfigured Bulgaria again, same as last time but this time with only 10 rubber (5.5 short).

Again it still gives me 34 ICs and they only use resources equivalent to 31 ICs (are the first 3 ICs free? Or is the first 10% free?).

As they ran out of oil the same behavior as last time (excess coal converted to oil no harm to industry).

When they ran out of rubber industrial production dropped to 22 (the limit of the rubber resources?) and I observed the IC level shifting from 21 to 22 to 23 back and forth (odd usage of rubber). There was NO indication of any conversion of oil to rubber. The armed forces used more oil than could be produced by conversion of coal, thus leaving no extra oil to make rubber.

I also noticed that it takes the initial coal stockpile minus roughly one day's demand of coal and converts it to oil upon game start (I think the code is trying to maintain a minimum stockpile of oil). You can see that coal is converted to oil BEFORE the oil stockpile is completely exhausted.

Thus I'm concluding that a situation such as Germany is likely to face (short of rubber and short of oil) will result in fuel shortages limited by the excess coal, industry constrained by the amount of rubber available.

I conclude this is even more evidence to support my recommendation of providing some rubber to simulate agriculture.

- Mithel

 

[Mithel]

Two more tests continue to show this as being consistent.

Conclusions:

1) Lack of oil (and subsequent conversion of coal to oil) does NOT harm industrial production, but it will result in fuel shortages for units.

2) Lack of rubber will create an economic meltdown. The level of the meltdown is related to how much rubber there is if there is no excess oil (i.e. units consume all available oil whether that oil comes from natural sources or conversion).

3) The code attempts to maintain an oil stockpile of 10x the fuel need at rest (or 5x the fuel consumption of the units while moving) - this was tested with panzers only - no knowledge of how air or naval units would impact this.

4) Further clarification: the code will NOT convert coal to oil to rubber if the available coal (coal over and above the current IC production) conversion does not provide enough oil for the units. (i.e. no oil is left over to be converted to rubber).

Again, I conclude it would be a mistake to give extra coal to simulate agriculture. All this would accomplish is to guarantee no fuel shortages. Economic meltdown can be better limited by adding in rubber to simulate agriculture.

- Mithel

 

[Mithel]

Further testing indicates the code attempts to maintain an oil stockpile equal to 10x the predicted fuel usage (assuming 50% movement).

Example: two panzer divisions with stated fuel consumption of 10 points per day (while moving) drives the code to desire a oil stockpile of 75 points.

If this stockpile exceeds the daily usage of fuel, and rubber is short then it appears the excess oil will be converted to rubber.

- Mithel

 

[unmerged(19545)]

Excellent!

Okay, now these tests are rigorous enough to have some utility. In fact they are highly informative.

The consumption of less resources is a behavior I haven't seen in earlier versions.

I ran my own test, and it's not the Administrative Genius. With an economy that shows 96 ic in the ledger, but is actually producing 118, consumption of resources showed as 118 in the rollover at the tool-tip, but 116 in the ledger. The AG is worth an extra 15%, or 96*1.01(caoutchec)*1.01(vinyl acetate)*1.05(polyuethane)=102.8*1.15(AG)=118.2, or 15.4 from the administrative genius. The other increases in industrial efficiency are worth 7 points, so they don't explain the 2 point discrepancy between the rollover on the main screen, and the ledger. I carefully tracked resource flow though, and the ledger, not the rollover is correct.

I then changed (to be certain its not Admin Gen), my minister of armaments to theoretical scientist. He gives extra theoretical research, but no ic. All outcomes as above. The new ic is 102, and the rollover states steel usage of 102, coal of 204, rubber of 51. Ledger shows 100, 200, 50, and resources are acculated at the rate the ledger indicates, not the rollover.

To test Mithel's suggestion that fractional output is free, I totalled all net production on my sliders. CG 37.7, supplies 2(6.2), research 37.4, 25.1 for the build queue, totals 102.2 Each rounded down is 101, not 100. Good guess Mithel, but not quite.

Gentleman, I'm baffled. Thank you Mithel, for the good use of scientific method. Anyone smarter than me (don't all raise your hands at once ) Know for certain what's happening here? My extra 2 free ic is nice, but not game breaking. However Mithel reports 2 free ic in a 2 ic economy and that is a different matter.

 

[Mithel]

DC, to try and figure out the "two free" ICs I did more testing with four different countries.

One with 54 ICs (per Province.csv) actually got 63 ICs due to techs, Adm Genius, etc. And under a normal production load was only using resources equal to 61 ICs. Thus still 2 "free" ICs.

Two with 2 ICs (per Province.csv) actually got only 2 ICs (no tech or gov bonuses) without adjusting the sliders (thus all four sliders were using less than 1 IC each) there was no usage of raw materials at all.

Testing with a 3 IC country (no bonuses thus still only 3 ICs) and adjusting just ONE slider to be above using 1 IC it used resources equal to only 1 IC.

Thus I conclude the freebies ARE due to partial usage of ICs per slider. But as per your report I'm guessing this might not be all of it. Perhaps your 6.2 supplies slider was actually only using slightly UNDER 2 ICs?

In any case it appears that a country using minimal ICs can use very few resources. Specifically a country with less than 4 ICs and properly adjusted sliders could use ZERO resources if they desired!

I don't see this as a big deal. It's still basically 2 free ICs per country. If this is slider round off potentially someone could adjust the sliders just right to obtain a round off of 0.9, 0.9, 0.9 and 0.3 thus totalling 3 ICs for free. Can anyone produce an example giving more than 3 ICs for free?

It is a potential human "cheat" in that someone might be inclined to adjust their R&D and Production to x.9 values rather than whole values and get that slight bit of free ICs. Now that's micro management!

- Mithel

 

[unmerged(19545)]

I think you are right

Yes, it is certainly possible that supplies were using less than 2. I had to calculate it from the output of 6.2, and the current productively of 3.1. Since all values are unavoidably approximations, I think it very likely that it was actually less than 2.

Yaay! That is explained.

So know we know where everything is going, and it what sequence.

What do we do with these revelations? Besides use them to conquer the world with Luxemberg's free industrial output.

And is anyone else reading this thread, or are we alone?

 

[Mithel]

DC, well I suspect all in all we only have a dozen "die hard" researchers and modders that care about this stuff.

I'm hoping that hard knowledge of how this works wins more support for my concept of using rubber to represent agriculture (for just about everyone but the USA). With proper resource distribution (coal specifically) we can recreate Germany's oil/fuel/synthetic situation and the need/motivation to reach the oil of the Middle East (most likely via Russia).

- Mithel

 

[unmerged(15893)]

Re: I think you are right

Originally posted by Dog Cavalry


And is anyone else reading this thread, or are we alone?

Well, I'm reading this thread, and I'm VERY interested in the work you guys are doing. I wish I could help, but I'm not sure if I harbor the correct skills to do this kind of work. Good luck, though!

 

[unmerged(14078)]

Re: I think you are right

Originally posted by Dog Cavalry
And is anyone else reading this thread, or are we alone?

I'm here, but i have nothing constructive to say so i don't say anything.

Regards/
Klaus

 

[unmerged(10371)]

you guys are smart! all i got was numbers and other stuff!

 

[unmerged(13914)]

Yay for the lurkers! You guys are what it's all about.

Sorry I haven't contributed anything to this thread. Excellent work Mithel and DC, when I have a spare minute I'll try to think about what it all means.

 

[unmerged(19545)]

Implications

The biggest implication is that an economy that doesn't need to convert coal to oil to make rubber, won't convert coal to oil for fuel for its forces unless it has surplus coal, either in production or stockpile.

However, and this is the big one: any economy that must convert coal to make rubber, is at risk, because the oil produced will service the forces first, and won't get to make rubber. Unless of course, that economy has enough coal coal for both.

The totals shown in the last almanac for 1.04, show that Germany had at that time 965 surplus coal per day. At any sort of conversion rate, that will be plenty for the Heer, and the economy's rubber needs both. Giving them more coal will make this worse.

Within the game mechanism as it stands, Germany can only have a fuel shortage if given enough rubber to run its economy, and coal is reduced to allow economy, with a limited surplus for limited oil consuming forces.

Math Guy, is there a correlation between how rigorously thought out a post is, and how many smilies are used? Sort of an inverse square root relationship?

 

[Mithel]

Bump.... I wonder if the results of testing like this should be permanently stored somewhere rather than scrolling off into oblivion?

Perhaps in the FAQ?

- Mithel

 

[unmerged(19545)]

Bump again.

I feel guilty Bumping stuff, but this thread has enormous significance for anyone modding province values, or resource related events. There might be more posts to this thread, but maybe not: the work is already done, and conclusions drawn.

Perhaps some kind moderator could see to it that it doesn't scroll away to oblivion?

Failing that, perhaps there might be related issues to discuss.

Mithel, lately I've been wondering what happens when a unit has its supply or fuel requirements set to 0. Does it become impossible to cut it out of supply? How about if fuel and supply are set to negative values? Would the unit then create supply or fuel for it's army? Sort of a professional looting and scavenging brigade? Or would the game engine take absolute values for these products, and they'd still need stuff. And perhaps units with values set to zero might still suffer loss of supply, because supply might be handled as an issue separate from actual consumption within our favourite black box of a game engine.

Y'know, if a unit that has 0 supply and fuel needs can't be cut out of supply, that might allow a more realistic militia unit, as partisan. It would have a move of 0, but could spring up in an un- garrisoned enemy territory, without consideration of supplies. The locals taking up arms, and supplying themselves from their own larders.

Well, that is enough to start some folks thinking (I hope)
TTFN

 

[Mithel]

DC, yes generally I oppose bumping threads. I think the best solution would be to make a modding "FAQ" or add this info the the FAQ forum.

Far too often I think we modders study the game and learn something for ourselves but we haven't really built a good knowledge base (aside from Havard's site) nor do we take the time to share our discoveries with others (or we aren't 100% sure and thus may keep our mouths shut to avoid looking stupid).

I also like threads to stay short and on topic (thus we should spin off another about supply, etc).

Good questions... I guess I have no idea. The concept of zero supply militia is very intriguing.

- Mithel

 

[unmerged(19545)]

Agreed then.

Two more threads, coming up.