IC vs Factories

[unmerged(11148)]

That's no true. Imagine for example playing for Germany you just had Bitter Peace event. Normally it would take you years to change your industry for building of carriers and other stuff needed for defeat of UK and USA. With only general IC you can start production of dozen of carriers right away.

Is this not simulated by the loss of materials for unfinished production?

I agree that there should be something to simulate retooling, maybe a 10 - 25% IC increase for the first 6 months or so. However, I do not believe that the Vicky version of factories would be represtative of mid-20th century industry. Vicky era factories were very specific, however, by the mid-20th Ford had perfected the assembly line. This style of industry allows for faster production at a cheaper cost and the ability to make a variety of products.

 

[unmerged(51738)]

This is a good point. Most of the items need to build war materials is generated all over the place. Germany (and the other countries) did not make a TANK factory. They converted an existing factory that already made vehicles, Krupp I believe converted a number of their factories for the war industry.

What I would like to see is a war footing percentage. Germany never reached a full war footing in WWII. Hitler was convinced that the loss of the first WWI could be attributed to the racial enemy (SOOOOO NOT TRUE) and the strain on the population that the rationing and blockades created (there is a lot of truth to this thought process). As such he took steps to ensure that the population suffered as little as possible. This included invading Norway to eliminate the blockade and super rationing conquered peoples.

As such I would love for HOI III to be the first strategy game to take the home front into account by allowing the strict rationing of materials and neccessities. This could be done with a slider or percentile buttons. You would set it to 0%, 5%, 10% etc. The percentage that you select would cause a rise in dissent and a rise in ICs. It would be even better if you could set the war footing per providence. This would allow you to strip an area of resources while you had control of it. It would raise the dissent in the province, but a WF of 100% could create a ton of ICs that you would reap the reward of till you lost the province. This could be a good strategy for Germany during the summer and spring offenses in Russia if they know that they may lose the province in the winter.

But on what basis? WW2 was in many aspects an extreme war, but despite all the hardship put on the people in the involved countrieds they didn't give in. So this mechanism would only be appliable to occupied territory?

 

[unmerged(11148)]

But on what basis? WW2 was in many aspects an extreme war, but despite all the hardship put on the people in the involved countrieds they didn't give in. So this mechanism would only be appliable to occupied territory?

Not true, the difference was that the nations placed in the worst positions were those that were invaded. However, Japan was heavily affected and only their national unity kept the people from rioting in the streets. Italy everntually felt the strain and the people offered almost no resistence to the allied forces when they invaded. They also began executing pro-facists which culminated in the assassination of el duce.

America, the UK and Russia were strictly affected by ratioing of materials. All held up based on their belief that they were sacrificing to help stop the world's great evils.

War footing is an extremely important factor during war. War exhaustion simulates this some what, but the main reason for it is to simulate the ability of the nation to over strip its own to fund the war. Germany began melting down bells for copper. This was an important fact that was not lost on the population that the war was getting bad, and yet till 1945 the german people still had access to items like butter and bacon. One more propaganda tool for Hitler to use to make the people think the war was going well.

 

[StephenT]

As such I would love for HOI III to be the first strategy game to take the home front into account by allowing the strict rationing of materials and neccessities. This could be done with a slider or percentile buttons. You would set it to 0%, 5%, 10% etc. The percentage that you select would cause a rise in dissent and a rise in ICs.

Actually, HoI3 wouldn't be the first strategy game to do this.

HoI2 did it too. As did HoI1.

 

[Gen.Schuermann]

As much as i like Vickies factories, this just doesnt belong in Hoi. In Vicky we have a timepsan of 100 years, and the focus is more on nation management than war. In Hoi, war is all you can think about. I say keep the IC as an abstract form of production means, anything else would be way too complicated during all out war to manage.
while of course it is not realistic, it definately offers the greatest freedom for the player. There would be no means to play the minor/mediums any different. That would result in a great boredome, if for example you as Manchukuo could only build infantry with artillery all day long, and virtually nothing else, for most of the time.

also, imagine how much ineffeciencies a diversified economic model would bring. In Vicky it sufficed to have 1 factory to build up any stockpiles. If you wanted factories here, it would mean building entire units in those factories, with this limited resource system. I dont think it would work too well. A lot of the time, the factories would be empty. What do you propose the arms factories should do, ocne you ran out of MP? Be empty all day long?

 

[Don_Quigleone]

I think what he meant is that HoI2 didn't really simulate how England fully mobilised all it war industries, while the germans did not, it's not really to do with the consumer goods demand slider(though it would be related).

I have what I think is a simple and elegant solution. We should keep things as close to HoI2 as possible in cases like these, and HoI2 already had a mechanic that sought to simulate this: The Gearing Bonus. I would propose to change the gearing bonus, so that initially production is very slow, but speeds up within perhaps a month or two (rate of speeding up would depend on sliders and tech, with the gearing bonus cap another stat entirely). Equally a feature of being to, on the fly as it were, upgrade a building cue to a new model, this would cause the gearing bonus to go down, according to how different the new model is, and if the number of factories required goes up. Also to reduce micromanagement, the current system of a predefined number being produced would be scrapped in favour of them being produced until production is stopped by the player, this would make upgrading production less micromanagement intensive.

This would mean that the player wouldn't have to look at what individual factories are producing, or allocating individual factories roles, but likewise it gives a plausible difference in nations that are just starting to build against players that have been producing for a long time. Also certain buildings and technologies could influence the rate of gearing bonus gain, the gearing bonus cap, and global manufacturing speed.

 

[Bleedingorange1]

The IC system is flawed and needs to be improved. This is a strategic game and being able to build whatever, whenever, destroys many of the strategic decisions countries were historically forced to make. Germany for example sacrificed her navy to build up the army and air force.

Hitler made the strategic decision to decrease the number of tank brigades in Panzer divisions to increase the number of Panzer divisions Germany could field in Barbarossa. With IC you can just build as many as you like and never have to worry about any limits (unrealistic).

Very few Panzer divisions were at full tank strength on the front due to the factories inabilities to keep up with combat losses. You remove the decision on which divisions to upgrade and which to reinforce with older model tanks. Again with IC your tank units are almost always at full strength and you can build 10 tank divisions while upgrading 12 more tank divisions at the same time (unrealistic).

The decision to continue producing older tanks instead of retooling those factories because the loss of production would be crippling is removed. This creates a case where all your tank units have the newest and best tanks after a very short period of time (unrealistic).

Even after you build a tank division you still have to produce tanks/equipment to replace combat losses, accidents, machanical breakdowns, and upgrades to newer tanks. With IC you can convert those "factories/assembly plants" to other uses and only reactivate them using the reinforcements slider at need (unrealistic).

Being able to ignore your naval infrastucture from 36 to 40 and then be able to lay down an entire fleet (unrealistic).

If the game doesn't tie up IC to simulate the fact that you just couldn't retool your tank/aircraft production centers to naval production and back again without any problems or some other system that adds a little realism, I won't buy the game. It would be a shame to put so much detail/realism into leaders, diplomacy, combat, etc and leave production out. I realise that some things are abstract, but there still should be limits. I would rather have a little bit more to manage than have the abuses the IC system currently allows.

 

[Don_Quigleone]

That's why I think the Gearing bonus is the one to use, that way, to totally change your production causes a massive loss in gearing bonus, that means you won't be producing those new units anytime soon, whereas if you instead choose to switch factories to something similiar (i.e. an upgrade) you only lose some of that gearing bonus.

Of course whether it's accurate that tanks could get upgraded to another model in the field is another matter entirely. Perhaps only reinforcements should be able to be upgraded...

 

[daemonofdecay]

Of course whether it's accurate that tanks could get upgraded to another model in the field is another matter entirely. Perhaps only reinforcements should be able to be upgraded...

I would still like to see those "obsolete" tanks being put to use, personally.

You could give/sell them to an ally, turn them into a SP-A or SP-AT unit (possibly a special attachment that cannot be upgraded?), scrap them for the resources, or regulate them to training roles, etc.

This might be too much for the game to handle though, and in the end it might result in a-historical massive reusing of tanks again and again.

For upgrading, I can think of two ways to handle it. The first would be a "Strategic Redeployment" kind of option where they are not able to be involved in combat for a while, but are then able to be deployed as an upgraded unit.

Another (and less micro-managy) way would be to have it like HOI2, where upgrades happen in the field, but make them gradual. For instance, a division of PzIIcs would have one brigade/regiment upgraded to Panzer IIIs, and then another regiment would be upgraded later. Perhaps even a regiment in a different division.

And it would make sense that if they reuse the HOI1/2 system of upgrading in the field (much easier to manage) that there should be negatives for upgrading on the front line or while in combat. That way a careful player could place his units a few provinces back to regroup and get acquainted with their new equipment much faster than if they were forced to learn about the new tanks in combat, but would not force a player to micromanage his tank force if he didn't want too.

Offering depth is a great choice, but PI cannot and should not force the player to micromanage what he does not want too. A small penalty for those who don't want to bother seems acceptable to me.

 

[henryjai]

Granted, but not even half the way you made it seem to be ^^

I would like to try some vicky like factory system. A little easier maybe.

the vicky factory system isn't that troublesome except you have to manage your POPs and raw materials like crazy.

 

[e-stab]

While i like the idea in general, are all of you realizing how complex this would be, especially if it should be modelled semi-historic?
Paradox would need some real experts to guide them, i suppose...

I don't think adding ~3 types of province buildings would complicate the game by much. It's a matter of how it would be implemented and how many clicks you'd need to extent factories and such. As for the historical context, well, they do make historical simulations after all, can't be that hard to find some places/provinces where to put these abstracted factories, playability before realism of course.

 

[unmerged(51738)]

I don't think adding ~3 types of province buildings would complicate the game by much. It's a matter of how it would be implemented and how many clicks you'd need to extent factories and such. As for the historical context, well, they do make historical simulations after all, can't be that hard to find some places/provinces where to put these abstracted factories, playability before realism of course.

my line of thinking was more along the line:
To get it right you would have to know which units were build to which percentage in what factories, and then constantly calculate for shortages.
Like GER starting a massive fleet buildup after Barbarossa, which would in reality had slowed all other production(shortage of skilled labor), required retooling(a percentage of IC lost for sometime, usage of extra raw materials for specialized factories,tools and machines) and -theoretically, dependend on the sophistication of the economic system- it should incurr penalties which are unit specific. Like the fleetbuildup overloading all of Germanys electronic industry so all planes under production get a massive slowdown or are even stopped because they can't be outfitted.

 

[unmerged(7537)]

Why not recycle the tech team concept of HoI2 for factories? That way, you could have factories dedicated to tank/artillery production (like, say, Porsche), but also "mixed" factories that could produce anything from tanks to airplanes to motorised infantry (like the aforementioned Rolls Royce).

 

[unmerged(72651)]

Factories are the way to go

People, people! Lets stop and think a minute on this; should HOI3 use factories, then perhaps thats a nice tell on another game that could convert into HOI3 (Vicky2 anyone?).

 

[unmerged(62478)]

I like IC a lot more than factories. Since factories add a lot micromanaging as in Victoria (If it will work per a similar pincipe).

 

[TheDeadlyShoe]

if the principal goal is to limit naval production, you could easily tie naval production efficiency to naval base capacity.

 

[e-stab]

(If it will work per a similar pincipe).

I don't think so. Starting with POPs which won't be present in HoI 3. And they sure won't introduce dozens of goods like it is in Victoria.

 

[unmerged(62478)]

I don't think so. Starting with POPs which won't be present in HoI 3. And they sure won't introduce dozens of goods like it is in Victoria.

I meant something else. You will build a factory to product something certain (Small army, tanks, airplains...). You will really have to watch out which you build. With IC you had universal factories which were producing anything.

 

[e-stab]

With IC you had universal factories which were producing anything.

Yes. And that is what is silly.

 

[unmerged(62478)]

Yes. And that is what is silly.

Why? That was the coolest thing .