Free Market - Central Planning Slider

[von Sachsen]

I don't know what you are planning for this, but the bonuses of the current settings seem wrong in that it is best to go all free market or all central. It would be much better to have the bonuse for each side inclded in the other.
For example, a very shortened version - Currently Full free gives -25% production time and cost, one towards central gives 20% and so on while the same is true for central except for +IC. The center gives me neither, giving me no incentive to have anything but full on way or the other. It would be much better and more realistic to have the bonuses taper off as the slider is moved away, ie. full free market still gives a large just -production time/cost but one step right and it gives a smaller amount of that and a small amount of +IC. THe same would be true of central, with the -production time/cost only completly dissapearing at the last step. Now there is an incentive to have a mixed economy.

EDIT: This would actually ork well with a few of the other sliders as well.

 

[Sledgehammer7]

Totally agreed.

Other sliders could do with this as well, but mixed economies absolutely need to be made more attractive.

 

[Alex_brunius]

At least its better then HoI3 where only one side of the "slider" (law) is worth it

 

[unmerged(20048)]

Totally Agreed

That slider is rediculous as it is now!! I fully support to resolve this with OPs proposition as that would be a brilliant solution!

 

[Insentient]

At least its better then HoI3 where only one side of the "slider" (law) is worth it

Definitely.

I agree with the OP as well.

 

[Saulot333]

The OP suggestion is very good from a gameplay point of view. However, from a historical point of view, we should consider altering the sliders in a different direction. Once at war, all the nations of the period, USA included, enacted some drastic measures to convert their free market economies to central planning ones. This was the only way to cope with the unreasonable demands waging a world war imposed on the nations of the time. Hoi3 "Mobilization Laws" models this quite well, in a basic way. I would suggest this: at full Free Market you get a big bonus to Money produced (a VERY important resource in Arsenal of Democracy, as the Development Diaries show) and a nice reduction to dissent. Each step taken toward Central planning reduces those bonuses but adds a little production time and gearing bonus (the revamped serial sistem would make this a very valuable asset).
What do you think?

 

[Radu]

Realistically, Free Market means "Less IC for military purposes". A free market economy is one geared to cater to the needs of the consumers, in gameplay terms, a Free Market economy should mean that most of the IC is locked in as Consumer Goods. In effect, Free Market = Peacetime IC penalty if we truly want a correspondence between the real world and the HOI2 game concepts.

As it has been pointed out, even the USA during World War II "commandeered" the economy and geared it away from consumer goods and towards war material.

So I agree that the Free Market - Centralized Economy slider should be revisited,if not done away with entirely.

Wether a country was Communist or Capitalist or how much in-between,from a grand-strategy military point of view was irrelevant. Certainly,the effects associated with the slider are fantasy mumbo-jumbo Paradox threw in. There's no evidence to suggest that Capitalist economies would build things faster than Communist ones, to address one set of effects associated with the vanilla Free Market slider.

What does matter is how much of its IC a country can dedicate to building military units,the purpose of the game.

That's what the Free Market slider should mean : how much IC can be dedicated to building a military.

 

[unmerged(42794)]

Realistically, Free Market means "Less IC for military purposes". A free market economy is one geared to cater to the needs of the consumers, in gameplay terms, a Free Market economy should mean that most of the IC is locked in as Consumer Goods. In effect, Free Market = Peacetime IC penalty if we truly want a correspondence between the real world and the HOI2 game concepts.

As it has been pointed out, even the USA during World War II "commandeered" the economy and geared it away from consumer goods and towards war material.

So I agree that the Free Market - Centralized Economy slider should be revisited,if not done away with entirely.

Wether a country was Communist or Capitalist or how much in-between,from a grand-strategy military point of view was irrelevant. Certainly,the effects associated with the slider are fantasy mumbo-jumbo Paradox threw in. There's no evidence to suggest that Capitalist economies would build things faster than Communist ones, to address one set of effects associated with the vanilla Free Market slider.

What does matter is how much of its IC a country can dedicate to building military units,the purpose of the game.

That's what the Free Market slider should mean : how much IC can be dedicated to building a military.

Indeed, like in the other thread about conscription, draft etc, the sliders in HoI all pretty much missed the point: the political direction of a country was the result of the effects a policy had on the people of said nation.

A democracy like the US naturally gives their people freedom, one like not being forced to be a soldier, and allowing companies to produce what the market wants.
Every bit more a government gets involved here, limits freedom (of production and price or simply by conscription) people mostly don't like it.
So more freedom is the preferred direction during peace time, less the required one during wartime.
Naturally, none of this matters so much for dictatorships.

I would very much argue that generally a free market system is more efficient than a planned one during war, the Soviets had an impressive industry performance during the war, churning out tanks and planes under most dire circumstances, after having had the entire factory moved over 2000 km.
Why then a T-34 should actually take longer than a comparible American tank (if there would have been one ) in production is something I'd like to see proof for.

So ultimately, the sliders shouldn't be about various kinds of likely questionable effects, but rather about whether your country is involved in war or likely soon to be in one, needs to squeeze out all ressources (industry as well as human) or whether war is not early on the horizon, and the costs for pushing your country towards war are politically sustainable (less money by hampering free enterprise, dissent due to limiting freedom).


That way, you can have a realistic situation as it was during WW2, where the US for example is pretty much geared towards peace time even when nations are already fighting WW2, while a nation like Germany, and even Britain, has long before started limiting freedom and focusing the economy towards warproduction.

 

[Alex_brunius]

Why then a T-34 should actually take longer than a comparible American tank (if there would have been one ) in production is something I'd like to see proof for.

Well, what does it matter if USA builds 5 tanks in 4 parallel lines for a total of 20, or if USSR builds 4 tanks in 5 parallel lines (due to the extra IC) instead?
Both will get 20 tanks during the same time

 

[Der Bismarck]

One thing that is seemingly ignored it FM/CG as it applies to teh resource sector. There seems to be no difference in the price paid for a commodity whether it is in short supply or ample supply.

 

[Der Bismarck]

In peacetime, the more you move away from open market, the more dissent should be generated which will eventually lead to regieme change in democracies (party in power loosing the election).

This should change with war status; as the people generally support centralized government for the "war effort".

IRL, you can see the mess America is in by trying to fight two wars AND maintain a total open market system; borrowing to finance the wars. The country is deeply in debt and policy is stymied.