Hearts of Iron IV - 24th Development Diary - 11th of September 2015

[Ouragan2]

Hi. Great job !!!! Very good changes, but...

Why there is no more coal? There was many countries produce this very importent resourses, and now it is useless? Plants need this resources, without plants there is no energy to factoris, without factoris there is no production. No matter You have steel, rubber, oil etc, without energy factory can't manufacture it to final product. Silesia now is a worthless region.

 

[ringhloth]

Hi. Great job !!!! Very good changes, but...

Why there is no more coal? There was many countries produce this very importent resourses, and now it is useless? Plants need this resources, without plants there is no energy to factoris, without factoris there is no production. No matter You have steel, rubber, oil etc, without energy factory can't manufacture it to final product. Silesia now is a worthless region.

There are plenty of important things that everyone had and thus aren't modeled in the game. Importance doesn't mean good game mechanics.

 

[Sir Garnet]

"seller gets use of the buyer's factories" is a really bonkers way of representing things.

It sounds strange when explained that way, but but trading resources for abstracted goods from buyer factories is simple to manage and a sufficiently good representation of the mechanisms of trade, as are focus-modified limits on the permitted volume of trade - from free markets to attempted autarky.

 

[ASPGolan]

People have complained about no stockpiles. Let me tell you why this is a super smart idea.

No HOI game has production/mining of resources changing over time. But in the RL production/mining of things like tungsten did in fact increase. Portugal increase tungsten mining by over 50% or so. But even with this increase there was more demand than supply.

So what is a game to do? With fixed production/mining you have to pick a number and balance to that. My guess is PDS picked an amount that is more along the lines of 1943/44 as their production amounts. This means that in 1936 there would be a very large excess of supply over demand but by 1943 the demand exceeds the supply. If stockpiling was allowed we would buy up all that excess 36-39 production and stockpile it.

Now with no stockpiles PDS doesn't have to worry about balancing supply/demand for every year. Maybe in the perfect world game production could vary by year and Portugal in HOI4 would be able to increase production. But that is lot's of work for not much gain. Instead they did a brilliant thing and made resources actually count.

So instead of making a functional economy in the game, we'd rather remove the feature that can be exploited. That's not only logically fallacioous, it's ill conceived. What's the game to do? Have a better economy system. It's a pretty straight answer to a straight question. The economy system would be a lot of work, but it's completely wrong to assume it would be for nothing. For many years now, Pdox have released games with no effective economy. It's time for that to change and have a more realistic system that can and should be reusable with each new title. This would be needed especially for Victorian era or later titles, but if it's implemented correctly, it should add some depth to games of any period.

WIth a proper economy in place, you won't have to worry about stockpilling infinite resource, because no country should be able to get those many resources by production or trade with a realistic economy system. WIth a proper economy system, you don't have to worry about what will happen to the excess resources, because a demand/supply system and change of prices ensures that the civilian industry will absorbe resources in excess as soon as their price diminishes bellow a certain a value. Etc, etc....

 

[jju_57]

So instead of making a functional economy in the game, we'd rather remove the feature that can be exploited. That's not only logically fallacioous, it's ill conceived. What's the game to do? Have a better economy system. It's a pretty straight answer to a straight question. The economy system would be a lot of work, but it's completely wrong to assume it would be for nothing. For many years now, Pdox have released games with no effective economy. It's time for that to change and have a more realistic system that can and should be reusable with each new title. This would be needed especially for Victorian era or later titles, but if it's implemented correctly, it should add some depth to games of any period.

WIth a proper economy in place, you won't have to worry about stockpilling infinite resource, because no country should be able to get those many resources by production or trade with a realistic economy system. WIth a proper economy system, you don't have to worry about what will happen to the excess resources, because a demand/supply system and change of prices ensures that the civilian industry will absorbe resources in excess as soon as their price diminishes bellow a certain a value. Etc, etc....

Since you quoted a post about stockpiles I have to ask why and how stockpiles make for "a better economy system"? Nothing in your post describe what a better system would look like or have. The only thing you said that sheds any light is this part; "a demand/supply system and change of prices". That sounds like a financial trading system and not a war game.

 

[ringhloth]

So instead of making a functional economy in the game, we'd rather remove the feature that can be exploited. That's not only logically fallacioous, it's ill conceived. What's the game to do? Have a better economy system. It's a pretty straight answer to a straight question. The economy system would be a lot of work, but it's completely wrong to assume it would be for nothing. For many years now, Pdox have released games with no effective economy. It's time for that to change and have a more realistic system that can and should be reusable with each new title. This would be needed especially for Victorian era or later titles, but if it's implemented correctly, it should add some depth to games of any period.

WIth a proper economy in place, you won't have to worry about stockpilling infinite resource, because no country should be able to get those many resources by production or trade with a realistic economy system. WIth a proper economy system, you don't have to worry about what will happen to the excess resources, because a demand/supply system and change of prices ensures that the civilian industry will absorbe resources in excess as soon as their price diminishes bellow a certain a value. Etc, etc....

Why are stockpiles so much more realistic? How would you actually fix them?

 

[Secret Master]

I would be too.

Except I've never really seen a Paradox game get the economy right... ...but... if the following is true

Well, the curse of Paradox games is that no matter how good they are, you see good economic features and think "Holy crap! If we could just tweak the money creation mechanics of Vic2, we could have a kick ass economic simulator."

Good features breed the desire for better and more awesome features among those who understand that stuff.

So, it's basically your fault, Johan, podcat, and the crew.

It's bloody annoying. The only real answer is scrapping the feature - thankfully most of the long-term commenters here follow a gentlemen's agreement and don't use the disagree feature.

:clicks disagree:

In all honesty, I can see the usefulness of the function (from a "What is generating buzz" perspective), but I see it as a useless tool for genuine intellectual exchange.

 

[jju_57]

I'm trying to set the record for most disagree button pushes given and received.

 

[mursolini]

It's bloody annoying. The only real answer is scrapping the feature - thankfully most of the long-term commenters here follow a gentlemen's agreement and don't use the disagree feature.

The argument they do already agree with can already be layed out by somebody else in the thread, so no need to double it.

 

[Secret Master]

I'm trying to set the record for most disagree button pushes given and received.

There you go. A little help for ya.

 

[columbusbobby23]

It's bloody annoying. The only real answer is scrapping the feature - thankfully most of the long-term commenters here follow a gentlemen's agreement and don't use the disagree feature.

I like the feature. I think it's a good way to gauge the communities reaction to certain opinions and viewpoints. It's really no different than the thumbs up/down on many other forums and comment sections like youtube,reddit etc. It would be nice to have the option of explaining why you agree/disagree without making a new post.

 

[keynes2.0]

Well, the curse of Paradox games is that no matter how good they are, you see good economic features and think "Holy crap! If we could just tweak the money creation mechanics of Vic2, we could have a kick ass economic simulator."

Money creation is pretty unimportant, what's needed is a utility choice model and balance of trade (achievable through currency exchange rates).

 

[Secret Master]

Money creation is pretty unimportant, what's needed is a utility choice model and balance of trade (achievable through currency exchange rates).

See? This is what I'm talking about. One good thing leads to the desire for even more stuff.

Someone is going to come in here and say, "But if we had regional markets and transportation costs, balance of trade would be more meaningful." And then we'll spend all night debating the relative merits of steam ships, clippers, and the balance of silver between China and Europe.

 

[Shynka]

Since you quoted a post about stockpiles I have to ask why and how stockpiles make for "a better economy system"? Nothing in your post describe what a better system would look like or have. The only thing you said that sheds any light is this part; "a demand/supply system and change of prices". That sounds like a financial trading system and not a war game.

I don't know how Germany will cope with fuel after Romania falls. They struggled pretty bad in our own timeline, but in 1945 the Luftwaffe was still flying some small scale missions, and the Panzers did have some fuel left. In HOI4 I don't see how Germany will last without fuel with there being no stockpile. As soon as Ploiesti falls and all else is blockaded, the German panzers and planes will grind down to a halt? Or will they not consume any fuel, and be able to run at full effectiveness?

It just seems like something that could lead to a lot of problems with realism.

 

[jju_57]

I don't know how Germany will cope with fuel after Romania falls. They struggled pretty bad in our own timeline, but in 1945 the Luftwaffe was still flying some small scale missions, and the Panzers did have some fuel left. In HOI4 I don't see how Germany will last without fuel with there being no stockpile. As soon as Ploiesti falls and all else is blockaded, the German panzers and planes will grind down to a halt? Or will they not consume any fuel, and be able to run at full effectiveness?

It just seems like something that could lead to a lot of problems with realism.

Synthetic oil plants just like they had historically. Do you know they had almost as much synthetic fuels as they got from Romania? The allies bombed the plants constantly.

 

[the_legion]

So if Germany moves its Navy to the London coast in peacetime the english will say "Well, let's trade more with those guys".
A bit unrealistic. Could we change it so that the military presence only counts if Country A is much stronger than Country B.
This mechanic suits more to Situations between let's say USA and Cuba than to european powers.

 

[FOARP]

I like the feature. I think it's a good way to gauge the communities reaction to certain opinions and viewpoints. It's really no different than the thumbs up/down on many other forums and comment sections like youtube,reddit etc. It would be nice to have the option of explaining why you agree/disagree without making a new post.

You can have "thumbs up" without having "thumbs down", there really is no need for the disagree button. It doesn't encourage debate, instead it allows the childish to get away with a pure emotional response saying "I hate this" without ever actually expressing the reasons for it - something that, if they did it, might actually lead them to deciding that they don't actually hate it.

99% of disagrees are exactly like this - you write a post, which may even be a question that does not actually express a point of view, and someone "disagrees" with it without explaining why. If you PM the person who "disagreed" and ask them why, you'll find that many of them simply clicked on "disagree" because they think it's the "do not like" button and do not actually disagree (or at least don't have any reason for disagreeing). One person who I asked about this said simply: " I looked at [you comments] and + and - a few" - that is, they AREN'T using the disagree button to express disagreement, simply to express dislike.

 

[Big Nev]

I'm trying to set the record for most disagree button pushes given and received.

Good luck.

The most I remember seeing is when @PanosB3 managed to rack-up 36 & 37 disagrees in two consecutive posts on nerfing Italy.

And I thought I was doing well with 23 Agrees for my brilliant piece of discursive reasoning.

Because no.

That's why.

I'm really proud of it though

 

[misterbean]

The record on number of disagrees belongs to a troll, actually. Don't remember the actual thread, but he made 1 OP and ended with a couple hundred disagrees in the space of a couple of hours. never saw the blighter again

 

[Rauko]

I don't know how Germany will cope with fuel after Romania falls. They struggled pretty bad in our own timeline, but in 1945 the Luftwaffe was still flying some small scale missions, and the Panzers did have some fuel left. In HOI4 I don't see how Germany will last without fuel with there being no stockpile. As soon as Ploiesti falls and all else is blockaded, the German panzers and planes will grind down to a halt? Or will they not consume any fuel, and be able to run at full effectiveness?

It just seems like something that could lead to a lot of problems with realism.

But your questions are about fuel supply, not fuel usage to build planes, ships and tanks. We still don't know how fuel supply will work (or even if it exists. The last screenshot of the division planner without fuel stats makes me doubt)