Food as a resource

[jju_57]

Before anyone goes all crazy two questions needed to be answered.

1) Was there any country where their fighting force suffered a penality or bonus based strictly on the food situation in their home country? This means if US troops are fighting in the jungles do they get a bonus because there are more farms in Iowa?

2) Did the abbundance or lack of food force any country to surrender or change allignment.

If the answer is no to both those questions then food as a resource is a waste of time. If yes then you need to present how it was an impact and how it can be represented in the game.

 

[Ksyr]

I am thinking hard, but can't come up with a good answer to those questions.

Food shortages did have an impact on the civilian population in many cases. Perhaps increasing dissent and indirectly decreasing IC.

Slightly on topic: Should dissent decrease leadership? Food shortage probably should.
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/1138958/a_lesson_from_the_food_shortage_in.html?cat=25

 

[aahari]

Well... if one is going to argue that "Food" must be added as a resource, then the game "must" include & track total population (and not just military) growth/decline. As what is a food resource with out the mouths that need to be fed? So for it to have any value, the game must start to model and track total population and age changes (ie distinction between service eligibility and non).. and what would the Dev's to to model segregation in the US military, or difference in tracking Male vs. Female given that at the time with the exception the Soviets, women really didn't server the front lines? It needs to be thought about as it does impact the population size and how one is going to apply "food as a resource"...

I jest of course, as this WAR game does track food in an abstract way. As soon as you start to apply "food resources" then you need to step back from a HOI3 being a war game and morphing it into a Civ 'lite' type of game. In war, food was rationed from the civilians and given priority to the front line troops (note Stalin's dictate in Leningrad, the "sacrifices" made in the US, UK, Germany to feed/cloth the troops instead, etc...).

So in WAR game terms the effect of food as a resource would be fairly weak to non-existent.

 

[Ksyr]

True, but I was hoping we could find a good way to expand on the economic side of the game.

Actually it is kinda pointless since we are getting SR already
A food province giving a general bonus to the civilization owning it would be nice.

 

[jju_57]

Then it leads to rationing and giving your scientists more food etc. This then gets real bad real fast as I can starve certain parts of my country so to speak. Nope, food is just a bad idea. If we can't directly link it to fighting then we should ignore it or abstract it.

 

[Easy1]

Guns before rice. That was Japaneese strategy during parts WW2. The chapter on Japan's war econoomy is titled the same in the most comprehensive book on WW2 economies of the majors, The Economics of World War II: Six Great Powers in International Comparison. Japan lost the war, and one of the main reasons you can read from the link posted bt Ksyr.

Still som people think that guns are more important than food in war. Yes, this is a war grand strategy game, yet that does not mean guns are more important than food. Food are already included in several other WW2 strategy games, and it will be present in the newcomer Bitter Glory.

A new book takes on the role of food during WW2 in detail.

Food, and in particular the lack of it, was central to the experience of the Second World War. In this richly detailed and engaging history, Lizzie Collingham establishes how control of food and its production is crucial to total war. How were the imperial ambitions of Germany and Japan – ambitions which sowed the seeds of war – informed by a desire for self-sufficiency in food production? How was the outcome of the war affected by the decisions that the Allies and the Axis took over how to feed their troops? And how did the distinctive ideologies of the different combatant countries determine their attitudes towards those they had to feed?

Tracing the interaction between food and strategy, on both the military and home fronts, this wide-ranging, gripping and dazzlingly original account demonstrates how the issue of access to food was a driving force within Nazi policy and contributed to the decision to murder hundreds of thousands of ‘useless eaters’ in Europe. Focusing on both the winners and losers in the battle for food

This thread is about the political and military-strategic aspects of food, now don't forget that after reading this.

When it comes to the role of food during WW1, those knowing their history well already know the information provided in these links

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blockade_of_Germany#Effects

http://www.oldandsold.com/articles26/world-war-one-34.shtml

 

[aahari]

Still som people think that guns are more important than food. Yes, this is a war grand strategy game, yet that does not mean guns are more important than food.

I'm not sure everyone is advocating that guns are more important, or otherwise. If one is to incorporate food as a resource, then you have to by logic implement a model that tracks demographics/population. The HOI engine is simply not build that way. And it takes on a tone in a wargame that can get controversial very fast [calculating death tolls from strat bombing, slave labour, etc...]. And how do you model this when you also have to take under consideration the number of provinces in the entire game x population per province factored by age, factored further by male/female, factored further by serving eligibility vs non-eligible, factored by migration (due to bombing, invasion; ie Soviet invasion in Central Europe created a huge migration pattern towards the west), and factoring in how food is modeled for occupied regions and more. Can the game engine continue to track changing demographics with out slowing down the PC to the point that the first shell fired in Sept 1, 1939 doesn't reach Warsaw until January of 2056!

And on the note of food over guns... during a global conflict one can argue that controlling just about every resource was equally important. With out oil you couldn't have a "modern" and mobile mechanized army as demonstrated with the lack of mobility for German air/ground units in the latter parts of the war. Rubber was a significant resource then, as was silk, uranium, steel (the largest reason why Germany invaded Norway), coal, etc....

So yes, I doubt many disagree that food is important (it is) but how do you model it with the engine at hand and the game at hand? I'm not sure you've answered these basic questions besides advocate for food as a resource.

 

[Easy1]

Before anyone goes all crazy two questions needed to be answered.

1) Was there any country where their fighting force suffered a penality or bonus based strictly on the food situation in their home country? This means if US troops are fighting in the jungles do they get a bonus because there are more farms in Iowa?

2) Did the abbundance or lack of food force any country to surrender or change allignment.

If the answer is no to both those questions then food as a resource is a waste of time. If yes then you need to present how it was an impact and how it can be represented in the game.

Questions are pathetic. Was there any country where their fighting force suffered a penality or bonus based strictly on the oil/metal/rare materials/tank/battleship situation in their home country? Did the abbundance or lack of oil/metal/rare materials/tanks/battleships force any country to surrender or change allignment?

In the fist post you are talking about food as a tactical resource. I'm talking about food as a strategic resource with impacts on politics and strategy, like the other strategic resources. Ayways, the anser is YES, Japaneese and Soviet soldiers suffered from malnutrition. The answer to your second question is also YES, lack of food contributed greatly to the surrender of Japan. Food also contributed to the decision to invade Denmark and Ukraine.

Then it leads to rationing and giving your scientists more food etc. This then gets real bad real fast as I can starve certain parts of my country so to speak. Nope, food is just a bad idea. If we can't directly link it to fighting then we should ignore it or abstract it.

Really impressed by your resoning based on Ksyr post here. If you really want to portray food as political incorrect, I am sure you will succeed in the end.

 

[jju_57]

Questions are pathetic.

LOL. You sound like the typical politician. How dare any of us peons question the all knowing. Till you explain how food would be incorporated into the game (you do know that this is a game don't you?) then your whole basis is suspect.

 

[Easy1]

I'm not sure everyone is advocating that guns are more important, or otherwise. If one is to incorporate food as a resource, then you have to by logic implement a model that tracks demographics/population. The HOI engine is simply not build that way. And it takes on a tone in a wargame that can get controversial very fast [calculating death tolls from strat bombing, slave labour, etc...]. And how do you model this when you also have to take under consideration the number of provinces in the entire game x population per province factored by age, factored further by male/female, factored further by serving eligibility vs non-eligible, factored by migration (due to bombing, invasion; ie Soviet invasion in Central Europe created a huge migration pattern towards the west), and factoring in how food is modeled for occupied regions and more. Can the game engine continue to track changing demographics with out slowing down the PC to the point that the first shell fired in Sept 1, 1939 doesn't reach Warsaw until January of 2056!

And on the note of food over guns... during a global conflict one can argue that controlling just about every resource was equally important. With out oil you couldn't have a "modern" and mobile mechanized army as demonstrated with the lack of mobility for German air/ground units in the latter parts of the war. Rubber was a significant resource then, as was silk, uranium, steel (the largest reason why Germany invaded Norway), coal, etc....

So yes, I doubt many disagree that food is important (it is) but how do you model it with the engine at hand and the game at hand? I'm not sure you've answered these basic questions besides advocate for food as a resource.

First, I am not a qulified game designer, so my point was never to explain how it can be implemented. My point is to underline the importance of food, and say it deserve a role in the game. I was disapointed food is still neglected, even still when they introduce new "strategic resources"

You have such complex ideas about the implentation of food as a new resource. This game might not be as complex as you think. If all other resources are "abstraced" there is no need to model population migrations if food is going to be implemented.

I'll give a very simple example on how food can be implented without portraying holodomor. Regions without food as a strategic resource are more vulnareable to dissent hits. Let me put it this way: regions (countries) that has food as a strategic resource are more robust, they will not suffer from dissent and lack of national unity as easy. Kind of same effect as strategic bombing.

LOL. You sound like the typical politician. How dare any of us peons question the all knowing. Till you explain how food would be incorporated into the game (you do know that this is a game don't you?) then your whole basis is suspect.

Probably because i'm a student of politics

 

[aahari]

You have such complex ideas about the implentation of food as a new resource. This game might not be as complex as you think. If all other resources are "abstraced" there is no need to model population migrations if food is going to be implemented.

Without population shifts then food as a resource becomes irrelevant (ie you either have it or not). In terms of other resources in the game, the are relevant b/c the resources are province based and actions in said provinces and a "unit build" demand put a value on a said resource.

I'll give a very simple example on how food can be implented without portraying holodomor. Regions without food as a strategic resource are more vulnareable to dissent hits. Let me put it this way: regions (countries) that has food as a strategic resource are more robust, they will not suffer from dissent and lack of national unity as easy.

OK, it's one way to implement it.You realize however that you're basically eliminating the playability of 3/4 of the nations in the game. It ceases to be "food as a resource" discussion and more of a "food as a weapon" debate... which again, can get controversial for a game marketed for mass consumption.

Another challenge is the arability of a province. In the model above playing as Switzerland, Sweden, Norway or any minor country would be at a significant disadvantage. Remember, during that period there was no bio-engineered seeds/crops, hydro planting, etc...

Anyway, I understand your point. Heck, I want air/naval HQ's in the game and others want XYZ...

 

[Cpt Crash]

Insuring adequate food supplies/stocks is a basic requirement of government. In all of the great displacements that occurred in WW2 there were only a few areas that had real starvation-Such as Leningrad. Even in 1945 Germany still had an adequate amount of food. Starvation was looming, but due to the destruction of infrastructure. Occupied nations would have suffered from food shortages-resulting in revolt risk. Italy was having problems with food supplies by 1943, but just shortages not resulting in starvation. This likely affected support for the party and war effort. However, I wonder if that affect was more due to a lousy war performance. Even the USA suffered shortages.

I agree that there is nothing more important than food supplies-unless we add drinking water to the picture-as a separate resource. However, the ability of wartime governments to deal with acquiring and dispensing food supplies generally overcame the most extreme circumstances. Even Japan, which was very dependent on imported food stuffs, was able to continue with its merchant fleet destroy-with no end in sight. The people were hungry, but willing to continue the fight.

So, the question for me is-what will a food resource add to the game? Italy needed to import about 1/3 of its food requirements. It looks to be a similar situation as with coal in the current game-where Italy needs to import about 1/2 of its energy needs. So, a player would have to take the time to make trades to build up a supply of 20,000 or so before the war-then all is OK. If the supply is not built up then there would be dissent-maybe. What if the war was being won? Does the type of government and victory level have any impact on food shortages?-I think so. If a lack of food had terrible results for a nation, then it would become a driving force in strategy-get food. It would need to be possible for a nation to take food from other countries/occupied areas to feed its own, while leaving a minimal subsistence behind. Maybe there should be varying degrees of food confiscation-with varying degrees of revolt risk.

I am not totally apposed to adding new requirements to the game, but this may be adding "make work" attributes, while adding virtually nothing to realism or a gaming experience. Of course, the need for food is real, but can be said to be abstracted for playability.

Perhaps if there were some interesting idea's in how such a resource would affect the game I would change my mind. Right now, I would say it's more trouble than it is worth.

 

[jju_57]

Was there any country where their fighting force suffered a penality or bonus based strictly on the oil/metal/rare materials/tank/battleship situation in their home country? Did the abbundance or lack of oil/metal/rare materials/tanks/battleships force any country to surrender or change allignment?

I can cite various examples in real life and in the game where resources play an important asspect and did influence battles. I can also cite where food basically didn't do much to influence the battles in WW2.

Lets take the Battle of the Buldge. Here you have German tanks with ammunition but no gas. These tanks were left behind intact as the troops had to withdrawl. So here is one example of a shortage of one resource represented in the game having an impact in the actual war.

It is also widely know that Japan and Germany could not operate nor produce as much war material (tanks, guns, planes) as they wanted or could have if they weren't lacking in some vital resources like rubber. This also is represented in game as once you run out of rares your IC goes to zero.

But as for food this really wasn't that important. Lenningrad held out despite being cut off with almost no food. People scounged and ate what they could (dogs, pets, rats, grass) but it never stopped them from fighting. Dissent didn't go up it reinforced the willpower to hold out. When food was scarce the troops still got what they could. The civilian population was what suffered and this did not raise dissent like you think it did. In many cases it brought people together and raised their fighting determination. Look at UK and rationing for an example.

So this whole idea of food is suspect at best. Especially when it comes to being implemented in a game like HOI3. So far in my opinion you have not amde the case for why food should be incorporated into the game. And even if the why is answered the how becomes paramount as playability is more important than adding everything that happened in real life.

Edit: Forgot to add that yes the lack of resources did force a coutnry to do something. It forced Japan to attack Pearl. Food never did this.

 

[unmerged(157847)]

I really don't understand the argument here. The game is not designed to simulate whether each country could feed its entire population adequately, it is designed to simulate whether countries could adequately conduct war operations during the WWII era. In game terms, i.e. the engine as we currently see it implemented, how is food *NOT* adequately simulated by the manpower, supply, and consumer goods metrics?

The manpower limit is the manpower available for the armed forces AFTER accounting for food/industrial production; i.e. we do not get to choose to draft EVERY person out of the fields/factories and put them on the front lines.

Supply is many things, such as ammo and clothing, but in my mind it is also food/water and other necessities, as well as the means of storing/distributing them. The IC which we control in-game produces this -- we already have a metric for controlling it. Yes it is abstracted, but I think reasonably so -- I do not particularly want to have to worry about planting/harvesting wheat in Iowa, meat in Texas and dairy in Wisconsin, processing it in Chicago, and then moving it overland to ship it to troops in the South Pacific.

Consumer goods are many things, but to me this abstracts just how many sacrifices you are asking the civilian population to make in order to run your war machine. Too many sacrifices = too few consumer goods (i.e., you allocate IC from CG to something else) => unhappy citizens (i.e. dissent) => lower IC. Yes again this is abstracted, and perhaps it could be modded/tweaked, but how does this dynamic not get at whether the civilian population is affected by the war?

I *DO* agree that food is the basis of all economic/industrial/war activities; without it, you cannot effectively conduct a war. But I think the basics of this are already modeled -- Japan gets much of its IC from their mainland holdings, so if it loses these then its war effort is largely screwed; same for UK losing India. Or, at least, these things are modded well in HPP. However, I would be in favor of some kind of agri-bonus for holding key areas such as the Ukraine (as well as favoring some kind of scorched-earth method of denying this benefit to the enemy). I just don't see a reason to rewrite the engine to cover something which, while abstracted, already seems to be covered in game-terms.

 

[Easy1]

Without population shifts then food as a resource becomes irrelevant (ie you either have it or not). In terms of other resources in the game, the are relevant b/c the resources are province based and actions in said provinces and a "unit build" demand put a value on a said resource.

OK, it's one way to implement it.You realize however that you're basically eliminating the playability of 3/4 of the nations in the game. It ceases to be "food as a resource" discussion and more of a "food as a weapon" debate... which again, can get controversial for a game marketed for mass consumption.

Another challenge is the arability of a province. In the model above playing as Switzerland, Sweden, Norway or any minor country would be at a significant disadvantage. Remember, during that period there was no bio-engineered seeds/crops, hydro planting, etc...

Anyway, I understand your point. Heck, I want air/naval HQ's in the game and others want XYZ...

This is a modern map dealing with the worlds food self-sufficiency (Net trade in food). Even if it is a modern map still show some basic trends that also were true 70 years ago.

Here is a more refined idea on how food can be implemented

Make a basic distinction between food exporters and food importers (Yes I now that culture affects these things and blablabla. This is macroeconomics) for each country/region/area based on a similar chart like the one I provided above. What characterizes food exporters is that they have a certain amount of "food/agricultural output" as a strategic resource.

Countries that in total (areas/regions combined or just the country in itself) are food exporters will amplify severly less dissent and higher national unity. Countries that in total are food importers will amplify severly more dissent and lower national unity. This is to say that food exporting countries are more stable political regimes than food importing countries. A fact that can easily be historically proved. Food self sufficient countries are "neutral" in this regard.

If you occupy or loose a region that is a food exporter you will have the dissent and national unity amplifier equivalently changed. Regions that are not food self suffivient will have higher rebell risk. Trade among allies will foolow the same system here as with the other strategic resources introduced with FTM.

All this means that you as Great Britian really want to keep India, while you as Japan really want to invade it.

 

[jju_57]

It looks like most countries in the world are either at breakeven or above that. The areas below (importers) are in South America, and Africa mostly. So who would really care then? Sucks if you play Mexico but has very little impact of the majors. Japan and Italy were fairly self-sufficient food wise at the start of WW2.

Also some places are green not because they produce lots of food but because they have so little population. (Greenland, Iceland and Australia). So as UK will I be fine cause I invaded and captured Iceland from the Germans once they take over Denmark?

 

[Easy1]

It is also widely know that Japan and Germany could not operate nor produce as much war material (tanks, guns, planes) as they wanted or could have if they weren't lacking in some vital resources like rubber. This also is represented in game as once you run out of rares your IC goes to zero.

Getting a little tired of you and your arguments now. Please explain to me why rare materials should be a resource of its own then, and not just included in consumer goods, supplies and metal. When you are done, I will contiune my discussion with you.

But as for food this really wasn't that important. Lenningrad held out despite being cut off with almost no food. People scounged and ate what they could (dogs, pets, rats, grass) but it never stopped them from fighting. Dissent didn't go up it reinforced the willpower to hold out. When food was scarce the troops still got what they could. The civilian population was what suffered and this did not raise dissent like you think it did. In many cases it brought people together and raised their fighting determination. Look at UK and rationing for an example.

Again, you are bringing this to the tactical level. Food on the tactical level is not the same as food on the strategic level. Get that. Anyways, I suggets you reflect on the choices Leningrad were confrontet with.

Have you not seen my links? Are you really saying FOOD IS NOT THAT IMPORTANT? "Dissent didn't go up it reinforced the willpower to hold out. When food was scarce the troops still got what they could." Just insane to claim such thing. I suppose you believe the fighting spirit is lifted when there is no food. You are actually claiming the same thing as the nazi administration, funny thing that. Why did the British Empire even bother import food.

Edit: Forgot to add that yes the lack of resources did force a coutnry to do something. It forced Japan to attack Pearl. Food never did this.

Did I say japan attacked Pearl Harbor beacuse they needed more food? I didn't. The rest of your text i consider irrelevant.

I really don't understand the argument here. The game is not designed to simulate whether each country could feed its entire population adequately, it is designed to simulate whether countries could adequately conduct war operations during the WWII era. In game terms, i.e. the engine as we currently see it implemented, how is food *NOT* adequately simulated by the manpower, supply, and consumer goods metrics?

Whether each country could feed its entire population adequately = whether countries could adequately conduct war operations during the WWII era. Do you disagree?

Supply is many things, such as ammo and clothing, but in my mind it is also food/water and other necessities, as well as the means of storing/distributing them. The IC which we control in-game produces this -- we already have a metric for controlling it. Yes it is abstracted, but I think reasonably so -- I do not particularly want to have to worry about planting/harvesting wheat in Iowa, meat in Texas and dairy in Wisconsin, processing it in Chicago, and then moving it overland to ship it to troops in the South Pacific.

Just read my earlier posts. IC does NOT include agricultural industry. You too, please explain to me why rare materials should be a resource of its own, and not just included in consumer goods, supplies and metal.

I *DO* agree that food is the basis of all economic/industrial/war activities; without it, you cannot effectively conduct a war. But I think the basics of this are already modeled -- Japan gets much of its IC from their mainland holdings, so if it loses these then its war effort is largely screwed; same for UK losing India. Or, at least, these things are modded well in HPP. However, I would be in favor of some kind of agri-bonus for holding key areas such as the Ukraine (as well as favoring some kind of scorched-earth method of denying this benefit to the enemy). I just don't see a reason to rewrite the engine to cover something which, while abstracted, already seems to be covered in game-terms.

Good

 

[jju_57]

Getting a little tired of you and your arguments now.

Ah the argument of those that are losing. If you can't argue the facts then attack the other side.

Please explain to me why rare materials should be a resource of its own then, and not just included in consumer goods, supplies and metal. When you are done, I will contiune my discussion with you.

Have you even played the game? Rares represent many different things. From rubber to nylon to rare metals to cloths to gems. To actually make something like a tank or a plane you needed these rare materials. Think tires.

Again, you are bringing this to the tactical level. Food on the tactical level is not the same as food on the strategic level. Get that. Anyways, I suggets you reflect on the choices Leningrad were confrontet with.

The game is about tactical combat. Get that?

Have you not seen my links? Are you really saying FOOD IS NOT THAT IMPORTANT? "Dissent didn't go up it reinforced the willpower to hold out. When food was scarce the troops still got what they could." Just insane to claim such thing.

Yes I am saying that food isn't that important for this game. You call me insane for saying that food like all other itmes weren't prioritized to the war effort? You are the one lacking knowledge if you think otherwise. Hell even common sense tells you that.

Did I say japan attacked Pearl Harbor beacuse they needed more food? I didn't. The rest of your text i consider irrelevant.

Never said you did. But I am saying your reading comprehension isn't up to snuff. I said countries went to war over resources in WW 2 but NOT over food. Therefore, these precious resources were actually more of an influence in what went on then your food argument.

Whether each country could feed its entire population adequately = whether countries could adequately conduct war operations during the WWII era. Do you disagree?

Not sure if you know this or not but you just proved his whole argument that populationhas to be tied to food. You just said so above. So he was right that you have to consider population and once you do you open the game up to nasty things like population control, starvation etc.

 

[Ksyr]

Can't we just agree that it would be nice to have a bonus if you have food as a SR? Your population won't starve without it, but if you have it they will have a bonus to something. The DD mentioned national unity. It sounds good to me. How about a bonus to supply consumption? Or a bonus to manpower?

What kind of other abstracted bonuses would people like to see?

I'm not saying here that we should/should not include it otherwise. I just want to know what people think of an abstracted food SR.

 

[Easy1]

Ah the argument of those that are losing. If you can't argue the facts then attack the other side.

You are the one not arguing the facts, hence the reason I should not bother with you. I posted links with FACTS. You have not read them it seems

Have you even played the game? Rares represent many different things. From rubber to nylon to rare metals to cloths to gems. To actually make something like a tank or a plane you needed these rare materials. Think tires.

No I have never played the game in fact, just like to pretend to. Those arguments are not up to par. I'll show you why.

Food represent many different things. From apples to ham to corn to egs to sugar. To actually make something like a tank or a plane you needed food. Think tires. My arguments on why to include food is actually much better than yours

The game is about tactical combat. Get that?

Yes? And hence it is not about strategic combat? You know why it is called a strategy game...yes?

Yes I am saying that food isn't that important for this game. You call me insane for saying that food like all other itmes weren't prioritized to the war effort? You are the one lacking knowledge if you think otherwise. Hell even common sense tells you that.

Then you are saying food is not important in war, since this is a game about war Then again, look at my links. That was not the reason I called you insane, you know that.

Never said you did. But I am saying your reading comprehension isn't up to snuff. I said countries went to war over resources in WW 2 but NOT over food. Therefore, these precious resources were actually more of an influence in what went on then your food argument.

I never said countries went to war over food. I said it contributed. Also read the book preview in my previous post

Not sure if you know this or not but you just proved his whole argument that populationhas to be tied to food. You just said so above. So he was right that you have to consider population and once you do you open the game up to nasty things like population control, starvation etc.

Explain how