Food as a resource

[Cpt Crash]

I am fairly certain that the strategic food situation was better in France and the Low Countries than in Germany in 1940-it did not have a very great impact on the military situation. Food is just one of those things that gets taken care of one way or another-99.9% of the time. It's important in war, sort of like air to breathe, but it would be a chore to take care of.

 

[Easy1]

I am fairly certain that the strategic food situation was better in France and the Low Countries than in Germany in 1940-it did not have a very great impact on the military situation. Food is just one of those things that gets taken care of one way or another-99.9% of the time. It's important in war, sort of like air to breathe, but it would be a chore to take care of.

70 years ago food could be a scarce resource during times of total war in some parts of the world. It even is today. It was not one of those things that gets taken care of one way or another-99.9% of the time in every corner of the world. Find my links in my previous post.

 

[jju_57]

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

I did read them. they were about WW1 and not WW2.

Explain how

Here is how you proved his point. You made the comment "Whether each country could feed its entire population adequately = whether countries could adequately conduct war operations during the WWII era." The comment used the word 'population'. Food is only important in that it feeds a population. His argument was that you must consider population and he wrote "If one is to incorporate food as a resource, then you have to by logic implement a model that tracks demographics/population. "

You argued that he was wrong to include population. Yet in your reply you do use population to food supply. Hence you proved his point that food without population is nothing. Its an empty resource. Is 10 metric tons of food enough? No one can answer this without first knowing the size of the population.

Your pictures on food exporters and importers also prove this point. Iceland is shown as an exporter. But if you had the population of India there it would have to import food. Therefore, food quantity without knowing population size is irrelevant. And once you add in population size and relate that to food supply you go down a slippery slope of first rationing then starving people. Will dissent go up if I starve certain people but not others? It gets really ugly really fast.

Edit: And why limit it to food? What about water?

 

[unmerged(149383)]

Seriously jju_57, stop trolling. You've had your fun. Move on.

 

[jju_57]

I'm not trolling. Food as a resource is just dumb. Think about it.

For dissent food < population. So either increase food or lower population. Lower population leads to bad things. But wouldn't bombing of Dreseden result in lower population? So this then lowers dissent because there is more food now?

And why should your country be subject to dissent based on food? If the enemy bombed your corn fields to lower food then would you blame the enemy or your coutnry?

The real troll is anyone that is trying to justify food as a ressource in a game like HOI3. I argue from logic and how it impacts the game. If you call that trolling then I'll continue whenever I see an idea that makes no sense when ti comes to game implementation.

 

[unmerged(149383)]

Then you're just choosing to ignore the arguments not fitting your cause or modify them so that they do. The american way i presume? I choose to trust the ones who can back up their argument with som real reasoning and references, not only their personal opinion or belief regarding how a ww2 game should look like.

 

[1alexey]

I will support jju_57
There is no way to include food as resourse without turning form the focus of the game. So no matter how importaint food was, HOI is a game.

First of all food is the most damand-scalable resourse. So if we just try to include it as a stratefic resourse, this will be equal to not including it at all, because the "quantitiy" is what metters, not the ability to grow. So unlike say Uranum mine which basically is enought to feed all nuclear reserch, the food is totally different story. Basically the "ability" to grow/gather food exists pretty much everywere, exept arctics and deserts but there, the population to speak about is pretty much nonexistent. So the strategic resourse implementation is equal to not having such at all.

Secondly unlike the "consumer goods" the demand of which is tied to IC, we will need each province to have it`s own demand and production.
Which will not only be taxing extreemly heavily on performance, but allso will be a micromanage hell.
Which means it will be really hard to implement as usual resourse.

Thirdly. Realistically speaking most of the time the population is concentrated around the food-produsing regions. So unless there is a huge evacuation and refugies movements the local population should be able to fullfil their food demand. And since we have no population as such and no movements, there is exactly zero thing to which we can tight demand and supply.
Ukraine is the perfect example. Over 1/4 of SU population lived there. And yeah it was produsing a large amount of food, but despite the fact that SU lost it for 3 years and
afterwar population was 10-20milions less and agriculture was destroyed SU did not starve. So...
Even still Ukrane has 43mil population. Russia 142mil, which is mostly concentrated is Europe.

Easy1 I think you fight for void. Since HOI is abstracted, and food is really hard to abstract correctly, it`s inclusion is pretty much doubtfull and unnesesary.

 

[Caezaire]

Then you're just choosing to ignore the arguments not fitting your cause or modify them so that they do. The american way i presume? I choose to trust the ones who can back up their argument with som real reasoning and references, not only their personal opinion or belief regarding how a ww2 game should look like.

First of all way to insult an entire nation. You jump in and claim he is a troll for disagreeing with someone. Now food could be possible in this game but the issue is it has to be tied to some sort of population model. Now, HoI gets slow enough far into the war due to the massive number of divisions. Now, add a running population model to the things that you're computer has to track. And of course as previously pointed out that would also mean that strategic bombing and nuclear bombs could begin to take effect. And attacks on civilian populations doesn't fly with paradox. Also, the effect of the homefront in HoI 3 is abstracted in National Unity, Dissent, IC, and Manpower. Therefore you could have an agricultural tech system that could effect rare materials or supplies and perhaps dissent but that is still another thing that you have to add to thousands of provinces.

 

[Cpt Crash]

Then you're just choosing to ignore the arguments not fitting your cause or modify them so that they do. The american way i presume? I choose to trust the ones who can back up their argument with som real reasoning and references, not only their personal opinion or belief regarding how a ww2 game should look like.

In the 46 previous posts in this thread there are only two that contain absolutely no historical, computer capacity or gaming considerations regarding the OP proposal. It just so happens that both of those trolling/insulting/arrogant and bigoted posts are from the same individual.
Can you figure out who that individual is? Try, then come back and explain how the desired addition can be implemented in HoI3-without a super computer. I wont hold my breath (an American saying).

For those that would like a game that includes food in a WW2 time frame there is Making History. It's too bad (for some-including me) that the military aspects are so basic-and that is putting it mildly. I want a war game, that is why I play HoI unlike the other which was trashed a long time ago.

 

[Balesir]

I will support jju_57
There is no way to include food as resourse without turning form the focus of the game. So no matter how importaint food was, HOI is a game.

[snippage]

Easy1 I think you fight for void. Since HOI is abstracted, and food is really hard to abstract correctly, it`s inclusion is pretty much doubtfull and unnesesary.

Glossing over the overexcited posts for a minute, I'm going to disagree with you, here. I think (a) food (or at least 'Agricultural Products') does have a significant effect on the war effort (this is wider than just "the fighting" but is the core of what a strategy game has to be about), and (b) these effects are quite easily abstractable, if you focus on what the effects on the war effort were.

So, what are these effects? Well, to start with, let's say what they are not. Primary food producers will, except in extreme circumstances (localised and ignorable/covered by other things), feed themselves. These we can ignore. The people who are relevant, for our purposes, here, are those working in industry, and those growing 'cash crops' or resource mining, etc. instead of growing food for themselves. The effects we need to consider are the dissent caused by sudden shifts in food availability and the loss of resource production and industrial output if convenient food imports are removed. We can assume that, in cases of food shortage, the population (and maybe the government) will take steps to ensure they have enough for survival, and that they will succeed in the longer term if not in the short.

So, how to model this? Well, making food/agricultural product an input to industry makes sense. Before you scoff, consider that (a) part of an "IC" is its workers, and they require food input to work (and generally don't generate their own), and (b) agricultural products - from actual food (for supplies and 'consumer goods') to sisal to rubber to copra to wood to god knows what else, are needed to make a wide range of products. The distribtuion of such product supply is not well represented with the current resource model, resulting in gaps in the "strategically important regions" list (another, albeit minor, effect relevant to a strategy wargame).

Another element might be modelled as a 'Strategic Resource'. This represents a significantly rich food exporting area that produces not merely materials to feed industry, but also large quantities of food to supply civilian populations elsewhere (I gave the examples earlier of Burma and Ukraine). Access to these areas can boost resource output and industrial output, because with conveniently importable food, more of the population can devote more time to industrial and "cash crop" production. Loss of access to the resource would generate dissent (due to food supply failures inevitably caused when distribution patterns have to change) and loss of the bonuses (as workers spend more time and land cultivating food on their own account - you see massive examples of this in WW2).

Such a relatively simple system - within what is already being made for the game - would model food (and other agricultural materials) quite adequately, it seems to me.

Edit: I should say that I don't regard this as "neccessary" - quite evidently it is not as HoI2, AoD, DH and HoI3 all run quite well without it. I do, however, think it would be an improvement and that it has a place in a "Grand Strategy" game of WW2, since it materially affects the war efforts of the powers involved.

 

[Ksyr]

Thank you Balesir, I had almost given up on this thread

I like what you write and it would be nice if it was included.

 

[jju_57]

Oh no that evil troll guy is back.

Before I refute the points let me make it very clear where I'm comming form. To me HOI is a wargame with all the other parts supporting it. If something enhances the wargame part them I'm for it. Also, we all have to admit that there are some MAJOR problems with HOI3. Since resources, like food, are limited I want those precious resources from PI spent on fixing the game. If the game was near perfect I wouldn't care what they did to it as long as it didn't break it.

Now to the points.

I think (a) food (or at least 'Agricultural Products') does have a significant effect on the war effort (this is wider than just "the fighting" but is the core of what a strategy game has to be about), and (b) these effects are quite easily abstractable, if you focus on what the effects on the war effort were.

So, what are these effects? Well, to start with, let's say what they are not. Primary food producers will, except in extreme circumstances (localised and ignorable/covered by other things), feed themselves. These we can ignore. The people who are relevant, for our purposes, here, are those working in industry, and those growing 'cash crops' or resource mining, etc. instead of growing food for themselves. The effects we need to consider are the dissent caused by sudden shifts in food availability and the loss of resource production and industrial output if convenient food imports are removed. We can assume that, in cases of food shortage, the population (and maybe the government) will take steps to ensure they have enough for survival, and that they will succeed in the longer term if not in the short.

Very interesting points. Let's look at why there may be food shortages, but first what is a food shortage? That is simply more demand for food then food produced or stockpiled. Two parts to that equation. Population gorwth means higher demand. Outside of exports there is no other reason for it (in WW2 and not bio fuels of today). Supply rests on food produced or stocks from pervious years. What can reduce production? Most common reason is weather. Other reason might be loss of land due to war (captured or destroyed). So for the game to even know if there is a shortage the game needs to track population and production which means weather for entire seasons. Not enough rain at the right time means poor crops. Sorry but this is reality.

So, how to model this? Well, making food/agricultural product an input to industry makes sense. Before you scoff, consider that (a) part of an "IC" is its workers, and they require food input to work (and generally don't generate their own), and (b) agricultural products - from actual food (for supplies and 'consumer goods') to sisal to rubber to copra to wood to god knows what else, are needed to make a wide range of products. The distribtuion of such product supply is not well represented with the current resource model, resulting in gaps in the "strategically important regions" list (another, albeit minor, effect relevant to a strategy wargame).

This paragraph brings up no-no's for PI such as slave labor. Just tying IC to food ignore the thousands of other factors. What if you feed your workers but let others starve? IC would be fine in this situation. Again the ties are there on a macro-level but extremely hard to show in the game. Same can be said for medicine which results in less sick days. Things get really muddy really fast. And what about research that increases farm yields? You already admit there are lots of other gaps and abstraction of resources. Food in my opinion is even harder to model then rubber ever would be.

Another element might be modelled as a 'Strategic Resource'. This represents a significantly rich food exporting area that produces not merely materials to feed industry, but also large quantities of food to supply civilian populations elsewhere (I gave the examples earlier of Burma and Ukraine). Access to these areas can boost resource output and industrial output, because with conveniently importable food, more of the population can devote more time to industrial and "cash crop" production. Loss of access to the resource would generate dissent (due to food supply failures inevitably caused when distribution patterns have to change) and loss of the bonuses (as workers spend more time and land cultivating food on their own account - you see massive examples of this in WW2).

This is about as close as any food proponent could ever hope to get. But it is still way off. The reason is you will need to convoy that food. Doesn't due much good in Burma if you are hungry in Japan. And if you have dissent due to losing the area then you should have dissent based on convoys over and above what you get now. But I disagree on dissent and will discuss that soon.

Such a relatively simple system - within what is already being made for the game - would model food (and other agricultural materials) quite adequately, it seems to me.

Have to disagree with you big time here. See food spoils and is based on seasons. After harvest there is excess food and at planting time there are shortages. Can't make that same argument for coal. Food has to be stockpiled during harvest and throughout winter. Plus things outside of our control impact the supply of food. Weather has to be completely changed else why even bother? plus food is consumed in a constant rate. Other things like rubber can and did see spikes and lulls. If you ran out of rummber the tire manufacturer shut down. Once rubber was available it might run 3 shifts to catch up. Can't do that with food. So you are forced to abstract it anyway. So why bother in the first place?

Some have argured to tie food to dissent or national unity. This makes very little sense. You are in England during the war. Food is in short supply and you get mad. But who did the citizens get mad at? It was Germany. NU actually went up. There was shared sacrifice. Because dissent is tied to combat we need to be very careful in when we allow dissent to be raised. Why should the UK troops in NA suffer combat penalties if someone back in the UK is hungry? The comabt troops have enough food and they may not even know about the shortages. And if they did then they want to beat the Germans for causing the shortages.

To date no one has shown how food can be incorporated into the game or even why it should be. I'm not talking about some professor at some university that wants to write a book. I'm talking about HOI3 a game that we play. And the burden of proof is on those that want to change it. They need to justify it and explain how it will improve the game. This is a very important point so I'll repeat it.

If you want to change the game you need to justify it and explain how it makes the game better.

 

[Easy1]

I did read them. they were about WW1 and not WW2.

Wow, you really didn't understand that the core nature of war and food did not change between these two wars. Do I have to explain everything to you?

Here is how you proved his point. You made the comment "Whether each country could feed its entire population adequately = whether countries could adequately conduct war operations during the WWII era." The comment used the word 'population'. Food is only important in that it feeds a population. His argument was that you must consider population and he wrote "If one is to incorporate food as a resource, then you have to by logic implement a model that tracks demographics/population. "

I did not prove his point because I quoted his word "population". Really bad analysis. From providing calories, food has ripple effects in the fields politics, ecomomics and miltary strategy. These ripple effects are the one I am talking about. Not the Biologic, demographic, ethic or moral effect. When will you understand this? You do not have to by logic implement a model that tracks demographics/population.

You argued that he was wrong to include population. Yet in your reply you do use population to food supply. Hence you proved his point that food without population is nothing. Its an empty resource. Is 10 metric tons of food enough? No one can answer this without first knowing the size of the population.

Your pictures on food exporters and importers also prove this point. Iceland is shown as an exporter. But if you had the population of India there it would have to import food. Therefore, food quantity without knowing population size is irrelevant. And once you add in population size and relate that to food supply you go down a slippery slope of first rationing then starving people. Will dissent go up if I starve certain people but not others? It gets really ugly really fast.

In the scope of HOI3, knowing which region is a food exporter and which is a food importer is enough. No need to include populations. I've already explained how, you seem to neglect my posts one after another. You also seem to think food is the only resource one consumes and hence is affectet by deomgraphic trends.

Edit: And why limit it to food? What about water?

Question not relevant. This is about food.

I'm not trolling. Food as a resource is just dumb. Think about it.

For dissent food < population. So either increase food or lower population. Lower population leads to bad things. But wouldn't bombing of Dreseden result in lower population? So this then lowers dissent because there is more food now?

And why should your country be subject to dissent based on food? If the enemy bombed your corn fields to lower food then would you blame the enemy or your coutnry?

The real troll is anyone that is trying to justify food as a ressource in a game like HOI3. I argue from logic and how it impacts the game. If you call that trolling then I'll continue whenever I see an idea that makes no sense when ti comes to game implementation.

Seriously, bringing Dresden into this discussion? Troll...

"For dissent food < population" = WRONG. Already exlained why several times. You should not be able to bomb croplands, it can be a stacic resource like manpower

I will support jju_57
There is no way to include food as resourse without turning form the focus of the game. So no matter how importaint food was, HOI is a game.

The words of a true fundamentalist. No matter how important I can prove food was, you will still think it is not important and should not be included. Why do I even bother...

First of all food is the most damand-scalable resourse. So if we just try to include it as a stratefic resourse, this will be equal to not including it at all, because the "quantitiy" is what metters, not the ability to grow. So unlike say Uranum mine which basically is enought to feed all nuclear reserch, the food is totally different story. Basically the "ability" to grow/gather food exists pretty much everywere, exept arctics and deserts but there, the population to speak about is pretty much nonexistent. So the strategic resourse implementation is equal to not having such at all.

Secondly unlike the "consumer goods" the demand of which is tied to IC, we will need each province to have it`s own demand and production.
Which will not only be taxing extreemly heavily on performance, but allso will be a micromanage hell.
Which means it will be really hard to implement as usual resourse.

Thirdly. Realistically speaking most of the time the population is concentrated around the food-produsing regions. So unless there is a huge evacuation and refugies movements the local population should be able to fullfil their food demand. And since we have no population as such and no movements, there is exactly zero thing to which we can tight demand and supply.
Ukraine is the perfect example. Over 1/4 of SU population lived there. And yeah it was produsing a large amount of food, but despite the fact that SU lost it for 3 years and
afterwar population was 10-20milions less and agriculture was destroyed SU did not starve. So...
Even still Ukrane has 43mil population. Russia 142mil, which is mostly concentrated is Europe.

Just read my previous post on how it can be included, and all your soap box speaking here is moot

Easy1 I think you fight for void. Since HOI is abstracted, and food is really hard to abstract correctly, it`s inclusion is pretty much doubtfull and unnesesary.

Hard to include? Not a good argument. Other game developers have done it and even paradox them selves in other games. Ever heard of Victoria?

First of all way to insult an entire nation. You jump in and claim he is a troll for disagreeing with someone. Now food could be possible in this game but the issue is it has to be tied to some sort of population model.

Now, HoI gets slow enough far into the war due to the massive number of divisions. Now, add a running population model to the things that you're computer has to track.

Victoria has food and over 40 other different resources. It even portrays demographics. You have no idea what you are talking about

Also, the effect of the homefront in HoI 3 is abstracted in National Unity, Dissent, IC, and Manpower. Therefore you could have an agricultural tech system that could effect rare materials or supplies and perhaps dissent but that is still another thing that you have to add to thousands of provinces.

As declared several times in this thread. Effectivity (technology) and resources are not the same.

 

[jju_57]

Wow, you really didn't understand that the core nature of war and food did not change between these two wars. Do I have to explain everything to you?

Yes you have to explain why you picked a reference to WW1 when WW2 has been over for 65 years. Maybe because there are none to support your point? After all just because it happened in WW1 therefore it must be true for WW2.

I did not prove his point because I quoted his word "population". Really bad analysis. From providing calories, food has ripple effects in the fields politics, ecomomics and miltary strategy. These ripple effects are the one I am talking about. Not the Biologic, demographic, ethic or moral effect. When will you understand this? You do not have to by logic implement a model that tracks demographics/population.

LOL and in just this one post you double prove it by saying:

Victoria has food and over 40 other different resources. It even portrays demographics.

See you even mention demographics.

In the scope of HOI3, knowing which region is a food exporter and which is a food importer is enough. No need to include populations.

And where is weather taken into consideration or do all years produce bumper crops? Excess food can only be possible if food supply is greater then population demand. To calim anything else shows a lack of simple logic. I already poked holes in your food exporter charts as Iceland was listed as an exporter. Only way that's possible is due to their limited population. Or do you claim they would still be an exporter with the population of the UK there? Please use some common sense.

If you want to change the game you need to justify it and explain how it makes the game better.

You also seem to think food is the only resource one consumes and hence is affectet by deomgraphic trends.

Victoria has food and over 40 other different resources. It even portrays demographics.

So which is it? Ouch no fair I'm using logic and your own words against you.

Seriously, bringing Dresden into this discussion? Troll...

Typical egghead argument that when you are clearly losing you stoop to name calling. If you can't show the facts for WORLD WAR TWO then they must not exist.

 

[Caezaire]

Wow,
Victoria has food and over 40 other different resources. It even portrays demographics. You have no idea what you are talking about

As declared several times in this thread. Effectivity (technology) and resources are not the same.

Victoria is an economic game HoI is a war game. I mean, in Victoria there isn't IC there are factories designed for a certain purpose. In HoI the only economic effects are abstracted recources that you need for your war machine. I could understand perhpaps a "agricultural" recourse which leads to the production of supplies being more effecient. Without cotton and food which can be the same thing as the HoI system is designed allowd the troops to be fed and clothed. Also, Victoria has far fewer provinces than HoI 3 which means that you have to model.

Also, how does food, if not taken down to an abstracted source, not need a population model?
For example, The United States population has gone up almost 100 million in 80 years. http://www.census.gov/popest/estimates.html
Don't tell me the food requirement in the US is the same as it was in 1980. And, therefore, for food to be accurate why not make energy be effected by population? houses need electricity after all. Well thats just getting ridiculous. HoI is a war game, and they don't put much economics in except an abstracted system that effects only the military.

 

[Easy1]

Yes you have to explain why you picked a reference to WW1 when WW2 has been over for 65 years. Maybe because there are none to support your point? After all just because it happened in WW1 therefore it must be true for WW2.

Because WW1 proves food is important during total war. You have neglected all I have said about the importance of food during WW2. Did you read review of the book about food during WW2?

LOL and in just this one post you double prove it by saying: Victoria has food and over 40 other different resources. It even portrays demographics. See you even mention demographics.

Did you notice the word "EVEN"? Important to read every word I write

And where is weather taken into consideration or do all years produce bumper crops? Excess food can only be possible if food supply is greater then population demand. To calim anything else shows a lack of simple logic. I already poked holes in your food exporter charts as Iceland was listed as an exporter. Only way that's possible is due to their limited population. Or do you claim they would still be an exporter with the population of the UK there? Please use some common sense.

Weather is not relevant. Climate is relevant. No, Iceland produces lots of food, and that is the main reason. Don't care about Iceland btw, it is not relevant to the discussion. Iceland was not that big of an food exporter during WW2. This is a modern map, and it only serves as an example.

Food is a very important resource during war = common sense.

If you want to change the game you need to justify it and explain how it makes the game better.

Realism makes a game better. You demand I do lot of things it seems. Shall I not jsut come over and give you a massage next?

So which is it? Ouch no fair I'm using logic and your own words against you.

The way you use the word "logic" is a shame. There is no contradiction in what I say.

Typical egghead argument that when you are clearly losing you stoop to name calling. If you can't show the facts for WORLD WAR TWO then they must not exist.

Your "master" suppression techniques are getting quite funny. Dresden is off topic.

If you are not able to see the structural similiraties between two historical occasions like WW1 and WW2 there is no point discussing. Staring history lessons in this thread is one thing I don't intend to do.

Again, I also proved the significance of food during WW2. Why do you keep neglecting that?

Victoria is an economic game HoI is a war game. I mean, in Victoria there isn't IC there are factories designed for a certain purpose. In HoI the only economic effects are abstracted recources that you need for your war machine. I could understand perhpaps a "agricultural" recourse which leads to the production of supplies being more effecient. Without cotton and food which can be the same thing as the HoI system is designed allowd the troops to be fed and clothed. Also, Victoria has far fewer provinces than HoI 3 which means that you have to model.

What kind of game Victiria is, is irelevant in this matter. You claimed including demographics and food will lead to a computer slow down. I have all this time said demographics is not a necessity, we can include food without that. Now, if Victoria includes both aspects and runseven faster than HOI3, your claim is pretty much proved wrong.

Also, how does food, if not taken down to an abstracted source, not need a population model?
For example, The United States population has gone up almost 100 million in 80 years. http://www.census.gov/popest/estimates.html
Don't tell me the food requirement in the US is the same as it was in 1980. And, therefore, for food to be accurate why not make energy be effected by population? houses need electricity after all. Well thats just getting ridiculous. HoI is a war game, and they don't put much economics in except an abstracted system that effects only the military.

Arguments not relevant. WW2 time span is limited. Deomgraphic changes during this period were not signaficant enough to change the strucutre of food-importing and food-exporting regions, and is hence not relevant. Including food will lead to a more realistic than unrealstic game.

 

[jju_57]

Shall I not jsut come over and give you a massage next?

Could you please? If you do I promise to support your position.

 

[Easy1]

Could you please? If you do I promise to support your position.

Moving to the US in four months. Have some food ready and I'll come over

 

[jju_57]

Arguments not relevant. WW2 time span is limited. Deomgraphic changes during this period were not signaficant enough to change the strucutre of food-importing and food-exporting regions, and is hence not relevant. Including food will lead to a more realistic than unrealstic game.

I would think 50 million dead is a hugh change and relevant.

But I'm stopping here. At least for the next expansion PI has indicated that special things like heavy water or uranium will be in the game but not food. You may have to wait till HOI4.

 

[Balesir]

Oh no that evil troll guy is back.

Well, the brave, heroic defender of food will have to step forth to face him, then!

Before I refute the points let me make it very clear where I'm comming form.

Refuting stuff is a fun game - and so much easier than proposing something better!

To me HOI is a wargame with all the other parts supporting it. If something enhances the wargame part them I'm for it. Also, we all have to admit that there are some MAJOR problems with HOI3. Since resources, like food, are limited I want those precious resources from PI spent on fixing the game. If the game was near perfect I wouldn't care what they did to it as long as it didn't break it.

I basically agree with you, but suggesting that agricultural products don't have a material impact on the ability to wage war, or that the segregation and specialisation of such "resource gathering" in colonial/imperial states (such as the USSR and UK/French/Belgian/Dutch posessions) flies in the face of history. Whether that makes the effects of these a priority for inclusion is another issue - but I'll say more on that below.

This paragraph brings up no-no's for PI such as slave labor. Just tying IC to food ignore the thousands of other factors. What if you feed your workers but let others starve? IC would be fine in this situation.

Industrial output suffers (albeit in different ways) when using slave labour, too - I agree with Paradox's position to date that this is (a) not a suitable topic for a game to touch on and (b) unneccessary to include, since at the abstraction level we are dealing with it all takes effect similarly in any case. All the stuff about weather and population is below the abstraction level that is needed; they form the "baseline" - the status quo. The same mechanisms that deal with them in peacetime will deal with them in wartime. Only the points of dislocation need to be addressed to include the factors that are relevant to the war satisfactorily in the game.

This is about as close as any food proponent could ever hope to get. But it is still way off. The reason is you will need to convoy that food.

I covered this already in my suggestion for the SRs in general in the Dev.Diary thread. Tie each SR to a resource; as long as a nation has access to that resource from a province that has the SR - either because they own it or through trade with a nation that has access already - they get access to the resource. If overseas trade or colonial import is required, it needs a convoy, as always.

Some have argured to tie food to dissent or national unity. This makes very little sense. You are in England during the war. Food is in short supply and you get mad. But who did the citizens get mad at? It was Germany. NU actually went up. There was shared sacrifice. Because dissent is tied to combat we need to be very careful in when we allow dissent to be raised. Why should the UK troops in NA suffer combat penalties if someone back in the UK is hungry? The comabt troops have enough food and they may not even know about the shortages. And if they did then they want to beat the Germans for causing the shortages.

This is a really good point and a valid critique of the model I presented. It's only a part of the model (and not an essential one), but nevertheless dissent may be the wrong instrument, here. The intent was to represent the significant economic disruption caused by the removal of an important food source from the market; perhaps a temporary loss of resource output would fit better.

To date no one has shown how food can be incorporated into the game or even why it should be. I'm not talking about some professor at some university that wants to write a book. I'm talking about HOI3 a game that we play. And the burden of proof is on those that want to change it. They need to justify it and explain how it will improve the game. This is a very important point so I'll repeat it.

I already gave an outline of a simple-to-include, non-micromanagement intensive way to do this and explained why (to add more strategic targets, to represent the importance of food and agricultural products to the war effort and to more plausibly represent the strategic strengths and weaknesses of several major nations). It might not be micromanagey enough for you - but I don't think it needs to be any less abstracted than I presented.

If you want to change the game you need to justify it and explain how it makes the game better.

Well, the same applies to 'wargame' (i.e. very narrow military model) changes, as well!

But the core of this comment is 'priority', I think. Does the inclusion of food and agricultural products come before, say, giving more control over convoy operations (the UK can't even 'close the Med' when Italy enters the war, as it stands!), improving the model of sea combat (CAGs seem too powerful against land air, land air is not powerful enough against ships or submarines, intelligence and recce at sea are poorly represented and submarines are not good enough at attack but are too hard to catch if in restricted/coastal waters), improving the model of air combat (pitched battles of 400+ fighters vs 200+ bombers in one province at one time??) or improving the intelligence system (I still face units in battle that my espionage screen claims don't exist...)? Well, no, it doesn't. But to an extent, in making a game, you have to do what you can. If you can't find a good system for one area but you can for another, it's sometimes better to include the idea you have a good system for, even if it's not as 'critical' as the one you still have to puzzle over. It's not pretty, but it's life - just because something is important doesn't mean that good ideas for addressing it will flow.