Deeper Economics?

[Celdur]

When it comes to fuel being consumed by the army i disagree on your extrapolation of Victoria 2.

Its a war game and supply depots, fuel dumps and consumption were and are an integral part of warfare.

 

[Meglok]

That does not match my experience. Try watching British Malaysia's oil resources on the world market. They are at the top and yet other nations are being imported from for oil.

In terms of economics and such I'm rather neutral and ignorant to the economics of WW2 to argue why/if shipping oil from British Malaysia to a nation on the other side of the world was more or less efficient or costly. I tend to think that while global trade is starting to be front and center, there is still efficiency gains and cost reduction using regional partners over global partners to some degree.

Distance to market has a huge effect now on trade in 1.3.3. Far too much in fact, it is one of the reasons Japan has issues now in building up industry. She is so far from Europe even her ideolical partners will not trade with her.

 

[cellinis]

But as it stands now, destroying your economy won't result in a loss because this game isn't Victoria and you don't lost metric tons of prestige and diplomatic clout if you are a major power and fall to a revolution brought on by economic instability.

That is actually an issue that should be corrected instead of a reason not to add a deeper (PS: deeper, but not neccessarily complexity brought forth by multiple variables) economic simulation within the game.

 

[Secret Master]

That is actually an issue that should be corrected instead of a reason not to add a deeper (PS: deeper, but not neccessarily complexity brought forth by multiple variables) economic simulation within the game.

But you can't just add deeper economics and get this result. It would require a ton of other mechanics.

 

[safe-keeper]

What you call hindsight I call planning. Sure the system wasn't perfect in HoI3 but that doesn't mean we need to ditch the system for the horrendous misrepresentation of how resource management works in this game. Not having fuel or supplies completely unbalances the war in the Pacific, particularly for the Japanese, and changed the balance of Europe as well. Stockpiles of resources and the ability to not completely burn through every ounce of iron your country produces in a given day are integral to any semi-realistic depiction of the war, since resource stockpiling and storage was a major issue.

Oval office, January 1st, 1936:
"I am going to have our industry shift its focus solely to producing war machinery, and I'm going to have us stockpile huge amounts of resources!"
"But, but, we're a peaeful isolationist country! And, and what of our schools, hospitals, roads, and..."
"Sorry, but we have to be prepared when Germany invades Poland in 1939. Also our victory conditions don't say anything about schools or hospitals."
"...what?"

If there was some really good system for handling stockpiles, I guess I would support it. However, having them kinda lets the player prepare for war instantly from '36 because they are time travellers from 2017 who know there will be a war is a bit silly. As Secret Master says, this isn't something you just do. It'd be incredibly complicated. Perhaps you could tie it to laws and whatnot, but it'd still be easy for the player to game, I suspect.

 

[hkrommel]

Oval office, January 1st, 1936:
"I am going to have our industry shift its focus solely to producing war machinery, and I'm going to have us stockpile huge amounts of resources!"
"But, but, we're a peaeful isolationist country! And, and what of our schools, hospitals, roads, and..."
"Sorry, but we have to be prepared when Germany invades Poland in 1939. Also our victory conditions don't say anything about schools or hospitals."
"...what?"

If there was some really good system for handling stockpiles, I guess I would support it. However, having them kinda lets the player prepare for war instantly from '36 because they are time travellers from 2017 who know there will be a war is a bit silly. As Secret Master says, this isn't something you just do. It'd be incredibly complicated. Perhaps you could tie it to laws and whatnot, but it'd still be easy for the player to game, I suspect.

I think this is where a deeper political system would solve a lot of problems. Stockpiling equipment and resources means, in abstracted terms, military spending. A peacetime nation, particularly a democracy in the Great Depression, is not going to be able to sustain notable military spending without instant political ramifications in addition to being voted out of office at the first opportunity.

Basically all I'm saying in this instance is that the current way of handling multiple aspects of this game (trade, economics, resource management, politics) is incredibly simplified. These things are also all intertwined, so to properly balance one to avoid the pitfalls you describe would require a reform of the others as well. In essence, the political system is the system which the leaders of a country inhabit. It is the first and last consideration of their actions. Everything is conducted, organized, proposed, approved, and formulated in the political sphere with the exception of day-to-day military operations (and if you're Hitler or Stalin in some instances even that's not true). Reforming the political aspect is therefore central to the others.

Fixing the way politics work in the game could add a plethora of incentives for or against certain actions which would counteract hindsight abuse (whether that be excessive stockpiling, premature embargoes, or never building battleships). In addition, this could add meaning to losses in the war, as losing literally millions of men at this point has no effect other than draining your equipment and manpower. Prolonged warfare and increased conscription could have effects beyond the time it takes for training a division. This level of interaction is necessary to pull HoI back to its Grand Strategy roots, since right now it plays more like a wargame with your people reduced compliant robots to fuel the war machine, irrelevant economics, zero political infighting or activity whatsoever beyond an event here and there, etc.

And again, as with everything, I'd urge you not to let perfect be the enemy of better. Every system will have flaws, I just think that improving the political system would open the door to vast improvements to the game as a whole.

 

[Sloeberjong]

I think this is where a deeper political system would solve a lot of problems. Stockpiling equipment and resources means, in abstracted terms, military spending. A peacetime nation, particularly a democracy in the Great Depression, is not going to be able to sustain notable military spending without instant political ramifications in addition to being voted out of office at the first opportunity.

Basically all I'm saying in this instance is that the current way of handling multiple aspects of this game (trade, economics, resource management, politics) is incredibly simplified. These things are also all intertwined, so to properly balance one to avoid the pitfalls you describe would require a reform of the others as well. In essence, the political system is the system which the leaders of a country inhabit. It is the first and last consideration of their actions. Everything is conducted, organized, proposed, approved, and formulated in the political sphere with the exception of day-to-day military operations (and if you're Hitler or Stalin in some instances even that's not true). Reforming the political aspect is therefore central to the others.

Fixing the way politics work in the game could add a plethora of incentives for or against certain actions which would counteract hindsight abuse (whether that be excessive stockpiling, premature embargoes, or never building battleships). In addition, this could add meaning to losses in the war, as losing literally millions of men at this point has no effect other than draining your equipment and manpower. Prolonged warfare and increased conscription could have effects beyond the time it takes for training a division. This level of interaction is necessary to pull HoI back to its Grand Strategy roots, since right now it plays more like a wargame with your people reduced compliant robots to fuel the war machine, irrelevant economics, zero political infighting or activity whatsoever beyond an event here and there, etc.

And again, as with everything, I'd urge you not to let perfect be the enemy of better. Every system will have flaws, I just think that improving the political system would open the door to vast improvements to the game as a whole.

Yes and no.

I agree that a better political system would do wonders, however this is a wargame and not political simulator 1940. The things you suggest might be more realistic but they won't necessarily make a better game. Also, it'd be incredibly complex to make it work and then to balance it. It's not just politics from a government point of view, you'd have to incorporate influence people have on said politics. So you'd have to simulate popularity of parties that stems from socio-economic troubles/fortunes. Why did Hitler rise? because the social economic trouble in Germany at the time. People were pretty poor, food was expensive etc. He promised them something better. He just won from the commies who tried the same. You'd need to simulate the causes of these hardships and the way people pick their leaders and also how leaders react to all this. Why was the US isolationists? Why didn't the Dutch prepare for war? Why didn't the Allies try harder to stop Hitler? Then there's the way governments work, there's democracies, dictatorships or autocracies.

Then there's the little aspect that politics play little to no role after the war has truely started. It only affects the buildup.

That's all way too complex to incorporate in a game that spans 10 years. Let alone to actually make it all work.

I do think there's room for improvement though. But I still say it shouldn't be a priority. And I would prefer a relative simplified system that's still fun to use and you'll have the same effects.

I think PDX has chosen the right path to remove stockpiles etc. so you don't get to use your hindsight. Because as you said, politically stockpiles need to be justified. It's all intertwined and the focus should be on army building and fighting the war, trying different strategies for how to win said war. Use more or better planes, go all tanks, navy etc. etc.

It's interesting to explore other ways of starting the war, but do we really need complicated political systems for that? No we don't, better not to, because a realistic sytem would block a lot of the alternatives.

Back to stockpiles, I agree with @safe-keeper . And I reïterate that there is definitely room for improvement and expansion of the trade/political-system, but right now I'd prefer expanded/imporved Air- and Navalcombat methods.

 

[hkrommel]

Yes and no.

I agree that a better political system would do wonders, however this is a wargame and not political simulator 1940. The things you suggest might be more realistic but they won't necessarily make a better game. Also, it'd be incredibly complex to make it work and then to balance it. It's not just politics from a government point of view, you'd have to incorporate influence people have on said politics. So you'd have to simulate popularity of parties that stems from socio-economic troubles/fortunes. Why did Hitler rise? because the social economic trouble in Germany at the time. People were pretty poor, food was expensive etc. He promised them something better. He just won from the commies who tried the same. You'd need to simulate the causes of these hardships and the way people pick their leaders and also how leaders react to all this. Why was the US isolationists? Why didn't the Dutch prepare for war? Why didn't the Allies try harder to stop Hitler? Then there's the way governments work, there's democracies, dictatorships or autocracies.

Then there's the little aspect that politics play little to no role after the war has truely started. It only affects the buildup.

That's all way too complex to incorporate in a game that spans 10 years. Let alone to actually make it all work.

I do think there's room for improvement though. But I still say it shouldn't be a priority. And I would prefer a relative simplified system that's still fun to use and you'll have the same effects.

I think PDX has chosen the right path to remove stockpiles etc. so you don't get to use your hindsight. Because as you said, politically stockpiles need to be justified. It's all intertwined and the focus should be on army building and fighting the war, trying different strategies for how to win said war. Use more or better planes, go all tanks, navy etc. etc.

It's interesting to explore other ways of starting the war, but do we really need complicated political systems for that? No we don't, better not to, because a realistic sytem would block a lot of the alternatives.

Back to stockpiles, I agree with @safe-keeper . And I reïterate that there is definitely room for improvement and expansion of the trade/political-system, but right now I'd prefer expanded/imporved Air- and Navalcombat methods.

Firstly, I think it's rather unfair to lambast a system that hasn't been created or even postulated yet. Yes, it would add complexity but that's not a bad thing. Nobody plays Paradox games for their simplicity.

Secondly, it seems that Paradox disagrees with your characterization about their game (emphasis mine).

• Total strategic war: War is not only won on land, sea and in the air. It’s also achieved in the hearts and minds of men and women.
• Authentic real-time war simulation: Let the greatest commanders of WW2 fight your war with the tools of the time; tanks, planes, ships, guns and newly discovered weapons of mass destruction.
• Assume control of any nation: Choose from the greatest powers striving for victory, or the small nations trying to weather the storm.
• Turn the world into your battlefield: Experience the full WWII timespan in a topographical map complete with seasons, weather and terrain. Snow, mud, storms can be both your strong ally and a ruthless enemy.
• Negotiate or force your will: Experience the advanced politics and diplomacy systems, form factions, engage in trade for resources and appoint ministers to your party.

Paradox makes grand strategy games with simulation aspects. If this was a wargame it would be advertised as one, and it sure doesn't play like War in the East.

Thirdly, I fail to see how the current lack of stockpiles is an improvement over HoI 3 in a real sense. It's still deeply flawed, but in a different way. Dumping resources into the void is, quite frankly, a nonsensical solution to the hindsight problem. It removes an incredibly important strategic aspect of the war, and as many have already pointed out, this game is all about the war.

Fourthly, the political power system is a lot more versatile than you'd think. You seem to be envisioning a vastly different and more complicated political system, and while I wouldn't necessarily be opposed to that I think we should actually define something before criticizing it. As the game currently stands, political power roughly represents political capital. Simply creating modifiers based on certain in-game factors such as stockpiles during peacetime, premature embargoes, etc. could create negative PP modifiers. Implementing this alongside a stability system like the one currently in the Kaiserreich mod would create a great incentive for players to actually pay attention to politics beyond the notification telling you you can appoint another minister. The PP system is quite elegant. It can be used to reward players for doing politically smart things and punish them for doing politically stupid things. Perhaps adding in possible uses for additional political power like in Black ICE (and corresponding maluses for lack of political power) would go a long way. The framework is already in place, and these aren't radical fixes. Nobody is arguing for Victoria 2 levels of detail.

 

[Sloeberjong]

Firstly, I think it's rather unfair to lambast a system that hasn't been created or even postulated yet. Yes, it would add complexity but that's not a bad thing. Nobody plays Paradox games for their simplicity.

Secondly, it seems that Paradox disagrees with your characterization about their game (emphasis mine).

Paradox makes grand strategy games with simulation aspects. If this was a wargame it would be advertised as one, and it sure doesn't play like War in the East.

Thirdly, I fail to see how the current lack of stockpiles is an improvement over HoI 3 in a real sense. It's still deeply flawed, but in a different way. Dumping resources into the void is, quite frankly, a nonsensical solution to the hindsight problem. It removes an incredibly important strategic aspect of the war, and as many have already pointed out, this game is all about the war.

Fourthly, the political power system is a lot more versatile than you'd think. You seem to be envisioning a vastly different and more complicated political system, and while I wouldn't necessarily be opposed to that I think we should actually define something before criticizing it. As the game currently stands, political power roughly represents political capital. Simply creating modifiers based on certain in-game factors such as stockpiles during peacetime, premature embargoes, etc. could create negative PP modifiers. Implementing this alongside a stability system like the one currently in the Kaiserreich mod would create a great incentive for players to actually pay attention to politics beyond the notification telling you you can appoint another minister. The PP system is quite elegant. It can be used to reward players for doing politically smart things and punish them for doing politically stupid things. Perhaps adding in possible uses for additional political power like in Black ICE (and corresponding maluses for lack of political power) would go a long way. The framework is already in place, and these aren't radical fixes. Nobody is arguing for Victoria 2 levels of detail.

This is all moot. There is a political system, economic system, there is a thing called national unity(hearts and minds) and all aspects of war are basically part of the game (through a simulation). It might not be at a satisfactory level at all aspects, but they're in. This is not a discussion about the definition of the game and I never disputed that.

I responded to your wish of stockpiles and political system and the possible consequences it has and that I agree with expansion of economic and political systems already present in the game. Just not to the level you suggested and so I disagreed. Also the devs have stated in dev diaries about why they made certain choices regarding stockpiles. It was a gameplay choice, like it or not, there it is. I happen to agree with that because in HoI3 the stockpiles were just as far from the truth as the system in HoI4 is right now. You twist my words into being against expanded economic or political models, but that's not true. I'm all for expanding those, just not the way you envision. We can agree to disagree on it, fine, but don't twist my words please.

I do like your last suggestion, though. I like and dislike the PP system at the same time. It's elegant, but also a bit too abstract for my taste. I think Keizerreich utilizes it pretty well. As a whole though the PP system lacks input from "the people" and national unity is way too static. They could (or should) be linked. I guess it'd be acceptable if stockpiling were to cost PP. In that sense I think it would be a neat solution. You'd stockpile instead of utilizing other political choices/laws/foci(?)/companies. It should be balanced though, hindsight should not lead to everybody exploiting the stockpiles like in HoI3.

 

[LWE]

If it's anything like Victoria 2, then the revamp should recognize the vital importance of Liquor on world economy, making it another strategic resource on par with Steel and Oil.

 

[hkrommel]

This is all moot. There is a political system, economic system, there is a thing called national unity(hearts and minds) and all aspects of war are basically part of the game (through a simulation). It might not be at a satisfactory level at all aspects, but they're in. This is not a discussion about the definition of the game and I never disputed that.

I responded to your wish of stockpiles and political system and the possible consequences it has and that I agree with expansion of economic and political systems already present in the game. Just not to the level you suggested and so I disagreed. Also the devs have stated in dev diaries about why they made certain choices regarding stockpiles. It was a gameplay choice, like it or not, there it is. I happen to agree with that because in HoI3 the stockpiles were just as far from the truth as the system in HoI4 is right now. You twist my words into being against expanded economic or political models, but that's not true. I'm all for expanding those, just not the way you envision. We can agree to disagree on it, fine, but don't twist my words please.

I do like your last suggestion, though. I like and dislike the PP system at the same time. It's elegant, but also a bit too abstract for my taste. I think Keizerreich utilizes it pretty well. As a whole though the PP system lacks input from "the people" and national unity is way too static. They could (or should) be linked. I guess it'd be acceptable if stockpiling were to cost PP. In that sense I think it would be a neat solution. You'd stockpile instead of utilizing other political choices/laws/foci(?)/companies. It should be balanced though, hindsight should not lead to everybody exploiting the stockpiles like in HoI3.

At first I was going to write a lengthy response but your last point means that we are, at least for the immediate future, in agreement. I agree that PP and NU are way too abstracted and isolated, and the changes I propose are basically to tide the game over until a DLC.

Again, I emphasize that major changes are, in fact, major and will likely take time to formulate and balance. That's fine with me. As for stockpiles and supply I frankly think the devs made a mistake, and I also hope at this point they recognize that. A possible solution to the stockpile problem is have fuel and supplies be produced by military factories and consumed on a regular basis by divisions. While this would require some changes to the mechanics I think it would work well, since ammunition was a huge supply bottleneck in reality and several nations had to make difficult choices. Germany, for example, didn't have sufficient winter clothing in the winter of '41 because they had to choose between shipping winter gear or ammunition sufficient for offensive operations. Either way this system would allow fuel and supply systems to be restored to some semblance of reality without dealing with the raw material stockpile problem. I still think we need a fix to the "resources into the void" problem, but one doesn't immediately come to mind.

 

[xtfoster]

To all the people who say they want:
A more detailed economic system.
A more detailed political system.
etc.

I say: Get Victoria II and play it instead. Trying to simulate what you want in a game designed to last 12 years would be a WASTE OF THE DEVELOPER'S TIME.

 

[Sourlol]

To all the people who say they want:
A more detailed economic system.
A more detailed political system.
etc.

I say: Get Victoria II and play it instead. Trying to simulate what you want in a game designed to last 12 years would be a WASTE OF THE DEVELOPER'S TIME.

Sooo can they make their next game a melding of HOI and Vic then?
I'd do just about anything to get my hands on a GS that basically runs from industrial revolution through the end of the Second World War (if not Cold War, or at least until 1969 for that moon tech). If they added all the economic, diplomatic, social features from Vic and implemented the production, and warfare mechanics of HOI I'd be a pretty happy camper.