I was looking at the resource mapmode, and I started wondering how Paradox determined which states and countries should produce which resources. Is the resource distribution based primarily on historical research for production during WWII, is it set up purely for optimal game balance, or is it a little of both? If it's based on research, is there a definitive source I can read about this sort of thing?
How does Paradox determine where resources are located?
- Thread starter Regaccio
- Start date
-
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.
I doubt there is any single, definitive source, but there has been a great deal of ink spilled over the decades concerning the economic aspects of WWII. I suspect the answer is whilst resource distribution is rooted in reality, there have been some balance related changes and fudges made to make the game flow better.
There are some aspects of the resource game that have been trimmed too, like how wood could be considered a strategic resource (UK building Mosquitoes on a timber and canvas frame), the fact that not all "oil resources" are created equal (different grades of crude produce different amounts of the various POL products IRL), quite a lot of rubber production went into gasmasks IRL, which never saw any actual use, and could have been better used in tyres and seals in various mechanical items, penicillin was arguably one of the most valuable strategic resources of the entire war, and yet is never mentioned AT ALL, and so on, but the micro has to end somewhere
- 3
- 2
If it's historically based, it's only so in the loosest of possible terms. Game balance all the way seems to have been the idea.
- 8
- 2
The amount of resources they gave to Sweden for example has little to do with balance. The reasoning behind resource distribution in HoI4 has "arbitrary" written all over it.
- 8
- 1
Some folks like to believe they use the dart to the map method.
I've never personally subscribed to that theory.
I think they go historically as possible, with an eye out for game balance. But that's just another theory.
- 8
- 1
STRONGLY disagree. You seem not to be aware that Sweden is and was one of the major producers and exporters of iron ore in the world, and definitely so in the 1930's and 1940's. You might also not be aware that the word "tungsten" is Swedish (meaning "heavy stone", I gather). It's symbol on the Periodic Table is W, deriving from the Latin name "wolfram".
Perhaps the only reason that Sweden was allowed to remain neutral in WWII was that the Axis and Allies desperately needed access to that iron, tungsten and other mineral resources that Sweden has been world famous for since at least the 18th century, and much earlier in the case of iron (one of the keys to Viking ascendancy a millenium ago was the very high quality of ore from Jarnberaland) and both knew that Sweden threatened to wreck the mines if their neutrality was compromised, and neither side could afford that risk.
There is absolutely nothing arbitrary in any sense whatsoever in assigning Sweden large resource deposits. Perhaps the exact figures have been fudged a bit for balance, but as a point of historical accuracy, it's far closer to the truth than just being put there to make Paradox devs feel good about the Homeland. I might also note that Sweden holds the unique distinction of having no fewer than 3 elements named after the mining town of Ytterby, where they were first discovered
- 9
- 7
- 2
Wasn't that info covered by our NDA? Are you going to tell them also about the beer balance sessions?
- 1
Wasn't that info covered by our NDA? Are you going to tell them also about the beer balance sessions?
I'm well aware.
However:
https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/index.php?threads/steel-produced-or-a-resource-pi.957866/
https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/index.php?threads/the-worldwide-industrial-survey.948755/
The resource distribution is arbitrary since not only aren't ore deposits represented most of the time, but in many cases areas that IRL produced the refined product aren't represented either. Except for Sweden, which for "some reason" has both ore and the finished product represented (in huge amounts I might add).
Sweden IRL most certainly did not produce half the amount of steel that Germany produced, yet it does in the game.
- 3
- 1
If you're gonna head a response to me with "STRONGLY disagree", please make sure that the content of that response disagrees with something I posted.
Well, part of that is because Germany starts with remarkably low steel production and seems to be expected to seize most of France's second-only-to-the-USA output, even though, to my knowledge, Germany was one of the largest steel producers, even before the Fall of France.
- 1
HoI4 does a decent job of reflecting areas of resource production (raw sources and refined) as they were from 1936 to 1946. Yes, there is some fudging.
Note that some resources in HoI4 represent several resources (e.g. "Chromium" in HoI4 represents, in part, chromium and
For English language sources, the US Geological Survey's Mineral Yearbook series are very good sources. The University of Wisconsin has them all digitalized:
https://uwdc.library.wisc.edu/collections/econatres/mineralsyearbk/
Here's a UK source:
The Mineral Industry of the British Empire and Foreign Countries Statistical Summary (Production, Imports, and Exports) 1938 -1944, His Majesty's Stationery Office, London, 1948
World rubber production:
https://archive.org/details/materialssurveyr00unit
Here is a discussion on oil, steel, and rubber production:
https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/foru...source-production.962989/page-3#post-21795835
Greek Mineral Production (not accurate for HoI4 to have Greece producing tungsten)
http://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/Pnadw748.pdf
Oil Production:
https://www.prio.org/Global/upload/CSCW/Data/Geographical/Country Profiles 2007.pdf
More oil production:
https://www.prio.org/Global/upload/CSCW/Data/Geographical/petro_onshore.xls
Tungsten Production in the USSR
https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc40315/m2/1/high_res_d/mineraliss_1988_11_w.pdf
Tungsten Production in British Columbia
http://www.empr.gov.bc.ca/Mining/Ge.../BulletinsAfter1940/Documents/Bull10_1943.pdf
Canadian Mine Production report (1942)
http://www.empr.gov.bc.ca/Mining/Ge...Catalogue/AnnualReports/Documents/AR_1942.pdf
Here is a list of Canadian mines:
http://www.empr.gov.bc.ca/Mining/Ge...Catalogue/AnnualReports/Documents/AR_1942.pdf
Chinese mine locations:
http://www.aaamineral.com/englihs/locatities-mineral.htm
Afghanistan had no real mineral production in WW2. Not accurate to have AFG produce 2 units of tungsten during WW2.
http://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/Pnabl961.pdf
History of mineral production: (focusing on Japanese tungsten production during WW2)
Last edited:
- 8
Ah, I see where the confusion arises. In fact it is entirely reasonable for Sweden to produce so much steel, although it's not well explained why in game. Since neither iron ore or coal are directly represented in the resource model, and coal was much less of an issue for any nation (certainly the major players in WWII, at least) steel is standing in for the entire production flow, from raw resource mining, to smelting and finishing, and also acting as a close proxy for iron ore, which is why certain areas that didn't have much steel production per se do in the resource model.
The reason Sweden is so relatively blessed is that the iron ore deposits in Sweden tend to be of very high quality, nearing 70% iron content in some cases, and in large volumes too, and also low in contaminants such as sulphur and silicon, which greatly complicate the smelting process and make it very much more expensive per unit weight of steel finally produced. In contrast, whilst post-1940 Germany had access to large quantities of iron ore from the Lorraine region, it was rubbish, topping out at about 35% iron, max, and frequently half that, and with contaminants that made it hard to work with, and generally made pretty low grade steel in the end too.
So, Swedish "steel" resources reflect the fact that in fact Sweden had excellent iron ore deposits. Germany had considerable steel production facilities, and ready access to large amounts of coal. You might also note that Poland has a small amount of "steel" resources listed too, despite the fact that their (1936 borders) iron ore reserves are small, and low quality, and is more reflective of their large coal reserves, and overprovision of steel making plants, making them quite reliant on foreign iron ore and scrap steel imports, but still capable of more domestic steel production than actual real world production figures might suggest.
The HOI4 resource distributions are far less arbitrary than it might seem, but I agree it isn't always very clear WHY they are what they are, since the resource model is approximating and blending many things together in several of the resource categories. So, yeah "Swedish steel" is totally reasonable in game terms, even if it isn't a perfect 1:1 tracking of actual steel output. Since you cannot buy "Swedish iron ore", you have to buy "Swedish steel".
- 5
- 3
Im sure the resource placement is not arbitrary, as natural resources were a big part of the campaign planning of many nations (see German need for oil in the caucus or Japan taking Oceania for rubber/oil, etc.).
However, I take some issue with the distribution. Lets just look at rubber.
per billcorr's reference material, we can see the UK said there were 2150 units of rubber being produced (maximum all external influences going your way).
Malaya 690
Ceylon 105
Sarawak 60
British North Borneo 25.2
For a total of 880.2 units. This would be 40.93% of all rubber production
Indonesia has 950 or 44.19% of global potential supply.
In game, the UK has 52.05% of world rubber production, Netherlands has 35.76%.
The entirety of the resource chain from ground to military factory is pretty uninteresting. It is a functional system for now, but the trade and economics of the war is super important, I hope it is given the attention it deserves at one point.
However, I take some issue with the distribution. Lets just look at rubber.
per billcorr's reference material, we can see the UK said there were 2150 units of rubber being produced (maximum all external influences going your way).
Malaya 690
Ceylon 105
Sarawak 60
British North Borneo 25.2
For a total of 880.2 units. This would be 40.93% of all rubber production
Indonesia has 950 or 44.19% of global potential supply.
In game, the UK has 52.05% of world rubber production, Netherlands has 35.76%.
The entirety of the resource chain from ground to military factory is pretty uninteresting. It is a functional system for now, but the trade and economics of the war is super important, I hope it is given the attention it deserves at one point.
- 1
Yes, the Minerals Yearbook is the most comprehensive, reliable and easily accessible source of data on mineral production in the 1930s.
As for the larger question posed in the OP, the issue of accuracy tempered by game balance has already been discussed. What could also be added is that the gameplay consideration often has to be refined by questions of access to resources by individual states. For example, Italy often has needed some TLC in the resources it is endowed with, as well as the resources it can get ready access to once the war begins. This tends to tempt developers and modders to "overendow" neighboring states like Yugoslavia, Greece, Romania and Turkey with a few extra goodies to make Italy more viable to play.
- 1
Or Japan taking Manchuria for its vast reserves of steel...
- 3
Will do
STRONGLY disagree. I've already touched on the steel vs iron / coal thing, so looking at other resource types, I still fail to see why you think the resource distribution is seriously out of whack. The other resource types more or less match real world production levels, allowing for some of the same shenanigans in terms of raw material vs refined end products
Oil distribution matches 1930's / 1940's production reasonably well, allowing for some balance fudges and varying oil quality around the world.
Rubber really did mostly come from various SE Asian sources until the Japanese conquest, whereupon the US engaged in a massive crash research program into making synthetic rubbers which forms the basis of most of todays' rubber products, so that's fine too.
Tungsten is standing in for several metals, used for various things (ie Germany relied heavily on tungsten carbide machine tools, and had to stop using it in APCR rounds quite early on, whereas the US was stuck with molybdenum carbide machine tools, and churned out mountains of APCR rounds, and the UK had so much tungsten, we specially adapted 2Pdr guns to fire sub-calibre rounds with tungsten penetrators) including tungsten, molybdenum and vanadium being used in various specialty steels, but Portugal is accurately represented as a very major producer of tungsten. China gets a bit shafted on it, but since most of what they did produce was largely being seized by the Japanese, or being smuggled out to the Allies mostly through Hong Kong (hence part of the UKs' surplus), so again, I see few problems there really, although it is a good example of shenanigans making "game" figures making more use of end user data rather than raw production, a bit like steel
Chromium is also standing in for several metals, like zinc, nickel, manganese, and again is subject to some shenanigans so "game" figures aren't just a case of translating RL production directly
Aluminium is probably the worst offender overall, partly because it is mostly (almost only) used in aircraft, and partly because RL production of aluminium was a genuine mess, with governments all over the world monkeying directly with its' production for various reasons all through the 1930's and 1940's. I suspect it may be the one most subject to balance based fiddling to control the rate at which various nations can build their air forces from native resources, requiring more decisions about whether / how much civ factory capacity to trade away to allow an air build up.
The historical basis of all the resource figures is much stronger than you seem to think, although a great deal more explanation and background into why the figures are what they are would be nice to see, since it is too often not clear why some of the numbers are where they are, and aluminium is a bit broken, but modelling the truly astonishing spikes in production around the world with an unchanging per-state resource value was never going to be easy, and the politics behind it even less so
- 3
- 1
- 1
Thanks, kinda threw me the first time.
I find your argument a bit strange, though. There are six resources, of these:
Steel, rubber and aluminium seem to be complete guestimates - the coal &c proposal above makes Europe look a bit neater for steel, but turns the already dire asian setup even worse. Aluminium I don't think I have to explain, and rubber vaguely matches historical levels only if we look at it on a continental level rather than a state level (even then, only roughly).
Chromium and Tungsten are hand-waved amalgamations which are fairly frequently scrutinised and are never made sense of. They've not been shown to accurately map any particular set of materials, they're simply unfalsifiable because they aren't defined.
Oil is pretty decent.
You, yourself, seem to have admitted that this is the case at least for rubber, aluminium, chromium and tungsten, which makes four of the six resources. Even by what you've said, two thirds (although it really should be five sixths) of the resource types can't be shown to closely match historical data sets. That's pretty darn supportive of my line that the historical basis is pretty loose.
- 1