We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly. You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Agree with all of this, would be awesome to see real down sides to increasing conscription laws. A bigger impact of the conscription laws on production might also help reduce the factory spam that occurs later on in the game. I wouldn't mind a big increase to the cost of military factories as well.
Would also love a manpower system that models the potential to run out of trained pilots (ala Japan in the Pacific).
Wow, first of all, thanks for all the feedback. We seem to have gone all over the place, talking about manpower and airpower and division sizes, etc., which are all definitely critical issues for the game, but let me talk about my original point.
It seems like there are two ways of thinking about production costs: 1) Historicality/Realism and 2) Gameplay. Like @Dalwin says, gameplay is definitely more important, but let me address historicality/realism first.
#1: Historicality/Realism
I stand by my original point that the production costs are silly both in relative and absolute terms from the realism perspective. However, I think @Secret Master and @Dalwin raised an interesting point. So what if the production costs are out of wonk? Can you still field the historical armies, navies, and air forces of your nations?
It so happens I can answer this question. Let's stick with the example of the USA here. How much stuff did the USA historically produce?
"From Pearl Harbor to V-J Day the Industry-Ordnance team furnished to the Army and 43 foreign nations 47 billion rounds of small arms ammunition, approximately 11 million tons of artillery ammunition, more than 12 million rifles and carbines, approximately 750,000 artillery pieces and 3/2 million military vehicles."
--US Lt. Gen. Levin H. Campbell, Jr., US Chief of Ordnance
Fortunately, we have really good numbers for this. You can find them here. The US produced approximately 15 million small arms, 100,000 tanks and SPGs, 250,000 artillery pieces, 100,000 fighters, 100,000 bombers, and more than 6,000 ships, including 17 CVNs (we have to exclude the extremely large number of escort/small carriers), 8 battleships, 48 cruisers, 349 destroyers, 245 subs, and 2,750 liberty ships!
And hey, we know the production costs of all these things in game terms! Let's add them up.
Army Equipment:
Using .5 production units for 10 rifles, 10 for tanks and SPGs, and 5 for artillery pieces, plus vague guesses for motorized and support equipment... (let's assume 100 motorized and 100 support equipment per division and then double that to account for lend-lease. The US had 100 divisions, so that's 10,000*2=20,000 of each.)
15 million small arms * .5 PU/10= 750,000 PU
100,000 tanks or SPGs * 10 PU = 1,000,000 PU
250,000 artillery pieces * 4 PU = 1,000,000 PU (field artillery only, does not include mortars)
20,000 motorized * 2.5 PU = 50,000 PU
20,000 support equipment * 4 PU = 80,000 PU
(halftracks ignored)
Army Subtotal: 2,880,000 PU
Aircraft:
Let's use 30 PU for Fighters of all types and 50 PU for bombers of all types and ignore the production cost of transport planes, because that's ridiculously high. I'm ignoring the US national spirit bonus here.
100,000 Fighters * 30 PU = 3,000,000 PU
100,000 Bombers * 50 PU = 5,000,000 PU
25,000 Transport * 180 PU = 4,500,000 (ignored)
Aircraft Subtotal: 8,000,000 PU
Navy:
Let's use 10,000 PU for CVNs and Battleships, 4,000 for cruisers (averaging heavy and light), 1,000 for destroyers, 500 for subs, and of course 70 for convoys. But was is a convoy? Is each liberty ship its own convoy? Let's say it is for this purpose... but this is a bit wiggly.
17 CVNs * 10,000 PU = 170,000 PU (may have miscounted the Yorktown or something here)
8 Battleships * 10,000 PU = 80,000 PU
Sub-sub-total for Capital ships: 250,000 PU
48 cruisers * 4,000 PU = 192,000 PU
349 destroyers * 1,000 PU = 349,000 PU
245 subs * 500 PU = 122,500 PU
2750 convoys * 70 PU = 192,500 PU
Navy Subtotal: 1,106,000 PU
Grand Total: 11,986,000 PU ~= 12 million production units! (historical production of the US calculated using HOI 4 production unit figures)
Behold, the American war effort reduced to a single number! But wait, how many PUs can the US produce in game? Here's the results of some war economy tests I did before writing this post. (In which I devoted virtually the entire US economy to producing M1 Garands). Remember that an M1 Garand unit is 0.5 PU.
Infrastructure Strategy (builds only infrastructure until Partial Mobilization)
NB: End of Great Depression ~August/September, 1940
850.67K [+2.4K/day] (Infantry Eq.) on January 1st, 1942
404 Factories
-209 Military
-28 Dockyards
-167 Civilian
Civilian Strategy (builds only Civilian factories until Partial Mobilization)
NB: End of Great Depression ~January, 1940
963.57K [+2.9K/day] (Infantry Eq.) on January 1st, 1942
486 Factories
-251 Military
-28 Dockyards
-207 Civilian
Military Strategy (builds only Military factories)
NB: End of Great Depression ~August, 1940
1361.04k [+2.6K/day] (Infantry Eq.) on January 1st, 1942
423 Factories
-210 Military
-28 Dockyards
-185 Civilian
Civilian/Infrastructure Mixed (builds both Civilian and Infrastructure until Partial Mobilization)
NB: End of Great Depression ~July, 1940
919.5K [+2.6/day] (Infantry Eq.) on January 1st, 1942
453 Factories
-216 Military
-28 Dockyards
-209 Civilian
Military/Infrastructure Mixed (builds both Military and Infrastructure until Partial Mobilization)
NB: End of Great Depression ~April, 1940
1493.74K [+2.9K] (Infantry Eq.) on January 1st, 1942
445 Factories
-224 Military
-28 Dockyards
-193 Civilian
I've experimentally determined this to be, depending on your strategy, 400,000 PU to 750,000 PU to 1942. After that, the US will gradually ramp up to 330 military factories and dockyards. My estimation is that these will combined produce about 2,750 PUs (this is a very generous estimate) per day at maximum efficiency with free trade and all industry techs. Historical US involvement in WW2 was about 1350 days. 2750*1350=3,712,500 PU. By my above calculations, this would just about get you historical US land and naval production, but not the air force.
Now, what did this calculation tell us about the game? Nothing! Thanks for asking. However, it drives home the point that production figures are probably wrong.
#2: Gameplay
As @Dalwin said, hey, this is a game, and what's important is the gameplay not the economics. I understand this argument. For example, I GM'ed a series of OT forum games called Blitzkrieg for Dummies in which I priced armor at $30 and infantry at $10 - this was for game balance in that particular game and not because of the real price of armor and infantry. I understand this argument totally.
But at the same time it only serves to a point, because actually Hoi IV is an economics simulator. Keep in mind, what you're capable of producing determines what divisions you field - and it should affect your choices. If tank destroyers and tanks are only twice cost of AT guns, at some point, you have to start asking yourself what's the point of making AT guns at all?
And while this might be okay for major powers, to a point, the reason that I started this thread in the first place was I noticed all this has a chilling effect on the Death or Dishonor countries, which I was going to discuss in depth in an entirely separate thread which focused solely on small arms production.
I offer a double contention. Production costs don't have any apparent rational basis (which is why I asked about them), either in absolute terms or in relation to each other, and abitrary pricing has a serious and negative effect on gameplay.
The only manpower rule that would really be pertinent for aircraft would be if some sort of pool of trained pilots was introduced into the game. This is something that I suspect we will not be seeing any time soon, if ever.
Actually, I'd imagine it's exactly the kind of thing we'd see in late patches, because it's appealing to both role-players and min-maxers, and because it could be added without too many knock-on effects. I don't think EU IV introduced a pool of sailors until patch 1.16 or thereabouts.
Regarding aircraft, the devs have consistently said that 1 in game represents 1 plane, as they have also said for tanks. There's also the issue of CV's - are you saying that rather than carrying 50-100 planes each they're actually carrying 5000-10000?
Not necessarily. But given the numbers of carrier aircraft built during the war (by the US), having the equivalent of 10,000+ carrier aircraft ready to go isn't that far off.
Keep in mind in HOI4, we don't have to built training aircraft, scouting and spotter aircraft, and aircraft parts. And planes are either 100% functional or dead. There's no backlog of maintenance and repairs. Or ammunition....
You could argue that the 100:1 ratio I proposed would also include all of this stuff.
? I think that a combination of halving the production costs of planes coupled with increased output from higher economic mobilisation laws could see us come close to realistic levels.
There's simply not enough aluminum in the world. This test had me running a 499 deficit in aluminum while failing to even come close. And that was under old rules where I could keep production lines running when facing massive shortages of a resource. Under the current rules, you're more or less screwed without also rethinking aluminum costs (or the amount on the map).
When calculating US division equivalents did you factor in all the non divisional troops they fielded? More than half their tanks were not in divisions but independent battalions.
Here's the successful test.
But you will need to read most of the thread to find the agreed upon divisions and battalions I was ordered to build. Once you get rolling with Sherman production (and TD production), you can coast along without difficulty. I had enough equipment, even after giving away 17% of my total production, to rebuild the US Army more than once if it was completely wiped out. (Manpower would be a different issue.) I was almost at the point of shingling the White House in Sherman tanks.
There's simply not enough aluminum in the world. This test had me running a 499 deficit in aluminum while failing to even come close. And that was under old rules where I could keep production lines running when facing massive shortages of a resource. Under the current rules, you're more or less screwed without also rethinking aluminum costs (or the amount on the map).
I don't know if you saw my calculation above, but ignoring the question of aluminum, to make in-game the realistic number of US fighters and bombers produced during the war would take about 8 million production units - which would probably take ~700 military factories running at maximum efficiency with full industrial tech for four years. (Neglects transport aircraft). On the other hand, as I gather you demonstrated in your test game, you can produce the amount of US land materiel produced during the war, including lend-leased equipment.
I don't know if you saw my calculation above, but ignoring the question of aluminum, to make in-game the realistic number of US fighters and bombers produced during the war would take about 8 million production units - which would probably take ~700 military factories running at maximum efficiency with full industrial tech for four years. (Neglects transport aircraft). On the other hand, as I gather you demonstrated in your test game, you can produce the amount of US land materiel produced during the war, including lend-leased equipment.
And that is why I have been saying for almost a year (though not in this thread) that the planes realistically are 1:10 and not 1:1, except for the scaling on carrier planes. I believe someone hit the nail directly on the head when he pointed out that historically losses were much much greater than they are in game. So the real question then becomes, not how many planes did the US or Germany build during the war.
The question we should be asking is how many did they have in service at any one time? So let's look at a date like August of '43 and see how many planes each side had in service not counting trainers and discounting for all the planes that are down for maintenance. Compare that to a few actual games and then we are apples to apples, IMO.
And sorry, I am NOT volunteering to do that research.
Hmmm, one of the reasons I fell in love with HOI was it's attention to detail and an attempt at getting things closer to history than other games, eg I hate CC because yeaaa it's a war game, but booo it's a total load of poo (arcade trash).
I know you can't get true historical reasoning into the mechanics, but the more they can get to historical reasons for the outcome of WW2 the better, and not just make it some arcade click-fest.
And that is why I have been saying for almost a year (though not in this thread) that the planes realistically are 1:10 and not 1:1, except for the scaling on carrier planes. I believe someone hit the nail directly on the head when he pointed out that historically losses were much much greater than they are in game. So the real question then becomes, not how many planes did the US or Germany build during the war.
The question we should be asking is how many did they have in service at any one time? So let's look at a date like August of '43 and see how many planes each side had in service not counting trainers and discounting for all the planes that are down for maintenance. Compare that to a few actual games and then we are apples to apples, IMO.
And sorry, I am NOT volunteering to do that research.
Good news! I didn't include trainers, of which the US produced 57,000 during the war, in my figures. Losses, yes, were historically cataclysmic. US air losses during WW2 were a jawdropping 95,000 aircraft, including 52,951 operational losses. The US army airforce had 36,000 dead and 63,000 wounded or captured.
Wikipedia states that the US peak airforce, excluding the substantial naval airforce and the marines, was 80,000 aircraft in July, 1944. A decent guess from the above is that 1/3rd of these aircraft were transport or trainers. Fleet availability I haven't been able to find figures on, but 67-80% would be typical for aircraft of this era.
That is an interesting data point, but by then the Axis air forces are shattered and the Allies have more or less uncontested control in all areas.
I chose August of '43 for a reason. It was late enough that the US was heavily participating. The Luftwaffe was still a considerable force as well. Any earlier and the Allies are still ramping up. Any later and the Axis is broken.
That is an interesting data point, but by then the Axis air forces are shattered and the Allies have more or less uncontested control in all areas.
I chose August of '43 for a reason. It was late enough that the US was heavily participating. The Luftwaffe was still a considerable force as well. Any earlier and the Allies are still ramping up. Any later and the Axis is broken.
It's probably not possible to figure out what the size of the US (or any other airforce) was on exactly that month, so it's not a request I can fulfill. However, further down in this article, I noticed that it states 41% of those 80,000 aircraft were front-line combat aircraft. Assuming the others are reserves or out of service, that means the number of idealized Hoi4 aircraft you'd have to build to equal the US airforce at this time would be ~33,000, plus perhaps another 4,000 for naval and marine aviators. That's 37,000 Hoi4 aircraft to equal the US' actual 80,000 aircraft (plus probably 10,000 naval and marine aircraft) at that time - because, according to your thinking, the others were trainers, transports, aircraft out of service, and strategic reserves that are not counted or necessary in the Hoi IV idealization.
Extrapolating this idea further forward, an Hoi IV idealized plane is worth 2-9 actual planes, since the US had 80,000 aircraft on hand produced 300,000 actual aircraft during WWII. (Many were, however, lend-leased.) Ignoring trainers and transport planes, the upper bound falls to 5 actual planes. So 2-5. That's probably the conversion factor you're looking for between HoI IV idealized planes and real planes.
Producing 37,000 aircraft at 40 PU (average of fighter and bomber costs) a plane is "just" 1.5 million PU. Call it 2 million to account for in-game losses, and it would take 220 military factories to achieve by the end of 1944 under absolutely ideal conditions (Free Trade, Total Mobilization, all industry techs, etc). At 4 aluminum a plane, that's also 880 aluminum, plus more than 220 rubber, and some similar amount of oil. The US could provide or obtain these amounts through trade.
IE: It's technically achievable.
I didn't account for the US national spirit air production bonus. This also doesn't account for the tens of thousands of US aircraft that were lend-leased.
EDIT: I'm not necessarily convinced by this accounting, but its underlying argument is that those 37,000 aircraft are "the same" for game purposes as the 80,000 aircraft the US had on hand at that time in the war, or the ~150,000ish they had produced at that time.
For Fighter Command, which was the RAF defence of the UK, then in 1943, there were about 1500-1600 aircraft in service at any one time. Mixture of about 2/3 single-seat fighters, and 1/3 twin engine night-fighters.
That's just the defence of the UK though, there would be Bomber Command, the Far East Command and Middle East & Med Command to examine.
In 1943 in the NW African Air Forces, the Middle East & Malta commands, in total there were about 1800 single-engine fighters, 200ish twin-engine fighters, and 1000ish bombers.
In 1943, there were around 1000 ish heavy bombers in Bomber Command, 300 ish twin-engine bombers.
In 1943, in the Far East, there were about 300 single-engine fighters, and about 100 twin-engine bombers.
So, for the RAF, in 1943, in total, there were about 2500ish max. single engine fighters, 800ish max. twin-engine night-fighters, 1500ish twin-engine bombers, and 1000ish 4-engine heavy bombers.
In game manpower is returned for planes, so you should never leave those planes alone.
In real life, the manpower is already expended in providing the infrastructure for that plane, so why not use it to send that old model up in the air? If they increased the manpower loss of planes and made it permanent, it would then not reflect the fact you can get most of the manpower back (German Luftwaffe divisions etc)
I don't think you've understood what I was saying - I never claimed that lost planes cost manpower. What I was saying is that in order to have say five thousand planes operational, which is historically not excessive for major powers, there should be 1+ million men tied up in keeping those planes flying rather than the current 100,000+. With those sort of realistic manpower commitments and historical production, we would see the accumulation of large reserves for the US & UK and the older planes would never see the light of day once the production of their replacements was in full swing - which would be a lot more historical than what we have now. If aircraft production numbers in game were fixed and the manpower required to keep a plane operational was not increased, we'd see the US, UK etc fielding air forces of up to 50,000 operational which is a lot more than they had operational at any one time.
I think the big problem with divisions is that many of them are smaller than they were historically in that they're not using as much equipment as they should be and smaller in the sense that they don't use as much manpower as they should be. Coupled with the tiny in game manpower requirements for the navy & air force the AI has more manpower than it knows what to do with and produces too many divisions. There's also the issue that the AI can't keep its divisions properly equipped once it goes to war. Even in my couple of 1.4 test games as Cuba, I found it the norm to be facing German & Italian divisions in Africa with 25-75% equipment rather than fully equipped.
I think at minimum they should include a Manpower tax for fielded divisions representing logistics, support, MPs, HQs, etc. And this tax should increase should they be operating in foreign territories. That together with some "maintenance cost/tax" in terms of Civ/military factories, should eventually help with the infantry spam. The problem is that is we keep on complicating stuff for the AI, the SP game will suffer as the AI is already struggling as it is.
Not necessarily. But given the numbers of carrier aircraft built during the war (by the US), having the equivalent of 10,000+ carrier aircraft ready to go isn't that far off.
Keep in mind in HOI4, we don't have to built training aircraft, scouting and spotter aircraft, and aircraft parts. And planes are either 100% functional or dead. There's no backlog of maintenance and repairs. Or ammunition....
You could argue that the 100:1 ratio I proposed would also include all of this stuff.
There's simply not enough aluminum in the world. This test had me running a 499 deficit in aluminum while failing to even come close. And that was under old rules where I could keep production lines running when facing massive shortages of a resource. Under the current rules, you're more or less screwed without also rethinking aluminum costs (or the amount on the map).
Here's the successful test.
But you will need to read most of the thread to find the agreed upon divisions and battalions I was ordered to build. Once you get rolling with Sherman production (and TD production), you can coast along without difficulty. I had enough equipment, even after giving away 17% of my total production, to rebuild the US Army more than once if it was completely wiped out. (Manpower would be a different issue.) I was almost at the point of shingling the White House in Sherman tanks.
I vaguely remember that thread on US production and that I decided not to get involved - I must have had some work on at the time. Right now I'm sorta wishing I did as those templates you were given weren't particularly good - for example where are all the AT & AA guns? Each infantry division should have 2 x AT & 1 x TD rather than just 1 x TD and each division usually operated with its own LAA battalion attached with further battalions at corps & army level - they fielded 460 battalions in total in 1944, down from an originally planned 800 battalions, so even if each one only had 30 guns, that's around 5 x AA for each division. There were also about 2 battalions of combat engineers in corps/army troops for each division, so 3 battalions per division less 300 men in the engineer company makes for an extra 2 x Inf for each division. And yes that is combat engineers as there were even more engineers in the general service construction units. The infantry battalions in those armoured divisions should all be Mech rather than Mot and the organic AT & attached AA guns are missing. An armoured division had 263 tanks - 4 Med & 1 Lt in game and there were 94 non-divisional army tank battalions - or the equivalent of another 31 armoured divisions on top of the 16 actual armoured divisions. Each Marine division also had its own tank battalion. There were also non divisional infantry units of varying types, including the Rangers. There's also the mechanised cavalry - roughly a regimental sized unit for every corps with Mec & Lt tanks. About the only thing that's over stated in those templates was the artillery. An infantry division had 66 guns and there ended up more than 2 corps/army battalions per division so there should be more than 90 per division in total rather than the 168 you used - maybe call it 108 with the inf also getting the armoured divisions' share of non-divisional guns. One production item I do agree is not represented 1 for 1 is trucks - 50 trucks is not enough to fully motorise an infantry battalion, it should be more like 100 and armoured battalions should need trucks in addition to their tanks. This is another problematical area for US templates as their infantry divisions were in reality semi-motorised. The support was fully motorised but there weren't enough vehicles to carry all men and equipment in one go. There were also a lot of trucks held at higher command levels that could be attached to fully motorise some divisions. A way to represent this in game could be to have say 1/2 of the infantry divisions using motorised rather than leg infantry battalions.
If you want to run it again try these templates:
36 x Infantry: 11 x Inf, 3 x Art, 2 x AT, 4 x AA, 1 x TD, 1 x Arm, 1 x LArm, Recon, Engineer, Signal, Hospital, Logistics (extra division for Ind Rgts)
32 x Motorised: 10 x Mot, 2 x LSPA, 1 x SPA, 2 x LTD, 1 x TD, 1 x Arm, 1 x LArm, 7 x LSPAA/SPAA (ridiculous but only 12-15 guns each!), Recon, Engineer, Signal, Hospital, Logistics
16 x Armored: 5 x Arm, 2 x LArm, 4 x Mec, 2 x Mot, 2 x LSPA, 2 x LTD, 1 x TD, 1 x SPR, 3 x LSPAA, Recon, Engineer, Signals, Hospital, Logistics (factors in most Mech Cav)
7 x Marine: 11 x Mar, 2 x Art, 2 x AT, 2 x AA, 1 x LTD, 1 x Arm, 1 x LArm, Recon, Engineer, Signals, Hospital, Logistics (extra division for 1st Cavalry in ground role)
5 x Airborne: 9 x Par, Engineer, Artillery, AT, AA, Hospital
2 x Mountain: 11 x Mtn, 2 x Art, 2 x AT, 2 x AA, 1 x Arm, 1 x LArm, 1 x TD, Recon, Engineer, Signals, Hospital, Logistics (extra division for Rangers & SSF)
There were also troops for garrisons - probably a couple of Inf plus AA. I chose Logistics over Maintenance for 2 reasons - the big divisions will chew through supplies and when production is so high why bother repairing stuff when you can just replace it?
Back to planes, by my estimations, Total Economic Mobilisation should roughly triple peacetime output, so if that was combined with my suggested halving of aircraft production costs, that would be a sixfold increase over what you were able to achieve. Re aluminium, the deficit you've described and there not being enough aluminium in the entire world to meet historical US production says to me that aluminium requirements per factory are too high and/or there isn't enough included in the game (hence there's now some aluminium added in Asia). Coupled with increasing the number of planes that can be produced and increasing the service manpower per plane I've already mentioned, there would need to be an increase in accidental losses and air units should need to train like ground units.
HOI4 equipment is operational equipment. Like you can say that USA built 100k fighters but how many operational fighters did USA have at any time. Also HOI4 equipment is a representation of something bigger than just the equipment on the picture. Mutation, tools, machine guns and other weapons is represented into a single equipment.
An aircraft represent not just the aircraft but stuff such as pilot training and mutations.
For Fighter Command, which was the RAF defence of the UK, then in 1943, there were about 1500-1600 aircraft in service at any one time. Mixture of about 2/3 single-seat fighters, and 1/3 twin engine night-fighters.
That's just the defence of the UK though, there would be Bomber Command, the Far East Command and Middle East & Med Command to examine.
In 1943 in the NW African Air Forces, the Middle East & Malta commands, in total there were about 1800 single-engine fighters, 200ish twin-engine fighters, and 1000ish bombers.
In 1943, there were around 1000 ish heavy bombers in Bomber Command, 300 ish twin-engine bombers.
In 1943, in the Far East, there were about 300 single-engine fighters, and about 100 twin-engine bombers.
So, for the RAF, in 1943, in total, there were about 2500ish max. single engine fighters, 800ish max. twin-engine night-fighters, 1500ish twin-engine bombers, and 1000ish 4-engine heavy bombers.
I would say that not only are those numbers achievable, but that in MP most UK players exceed them. I am willing to bet that the same is true for most other majors (minors too really). So it appears now that perhaps the planes are 1:1 after all but that due to the combat and casualty model we cannot hope to match planes built. Instead it is a matter of matching planes in service. Other than having confused the hell out of us for a year, I can't really fault the devs for this choice either. It is better than the other alternatives.
( @Secret Master You are the production number puzzle guy. What do you think about this new theory?)
I would say that not only are those numbers achievable, but that in MP most UK players exceed them. I am willing to bet that the same is true for most other majors (minors too really). So it appears now that perhaps the planes are 1:1 after all but that due to the combat and casualty model we cannot hope to match planes built. Instead it is a matter of matching planes in service. Other than having confused the hell out of us for a year, I can't really fault the devs for this choice either. It is better than the other alternatives.
Found another source, which gives the production programme of operational types of aircraft as 23000 ish, in 1943, for the UK.
11,000 fighters (FTR + H.FTR) when the operational strength was 2500 fighters + 800 heavy fighters
500ish light bombers (i.e. CAS) operational strength was a couple hundred.
3300 medium bombers (TAC) operational strength of somewhere in region of 1500ish
4700 heavy bombers (STR) operational strength of no more than 1000 aircraft.
2000 Naval aircraft (CV types)
plus 1200ish reconnaissance types which are not present in Hoi4
and an additional 5000 training aircraft of various types.
The biggest and most glaring flaw of the economy game in Hearts of Iron 4--besides the lack of any actual supply system--is the catch all of a generic military factory.
The fact there are not specialized military factories capable of producing only a few different types of weapons is crazy. In WW2 the Allies specifically targeted certain factories to hinder the production of the FW-190 as well as Panther tanks.
A military factory shouldn't be able to go from field guns to Heinkel He-111's at the drop of a hat.
This would also give a purpose to the conversion feature.
