Is the irrealistic HOI economic model still present in FMT?

[unmerged(129727)]

Is the irrealistic HOI economic model still present in FTM?

In all games from HOI series the economic model keeped irrealistic.

The reason is the regroup of the total industrial capacity to produce military, consumer goods, and supplies in the same bar. This represented in the producing bars where the player can chose to put all the factories(fishing instries, agriculture, furniture, etc..) of the country producing militar units, or also put the militar industry pruducing civil consumer goods. Doing only put the total IC bar full in consumer goods or producing. Also notice in the game that one country in war have a extraordinary capacity for living with a minimal consumer goods. I'm wonder how.

I think is easier to change the economic context in the game however is necessary to much work in study and some interface issues. This wil give some realist caracteristics in the countries, speacialy Urss.

My sugestion is create a two diferent buildings and specify the IC.
The IC now represents only the military capacity and reajust the required consumer goods to working.
Insert one new building to Civil industry where only reduce the consumer goods necessity. This will give the real economy stability where country need Civil industry to survive. My also, not required, appear a new resource, "products" wich can be trade.
Insert one new building to logistic military process where consume some coponents from the consumer goods and some from the IC to produce the supplies for the militar units.

I let the discuss go on for other details in the sugestion.

I've try to use the IC_TO_CONSUMER_GOODS and IC_TO_SUPPLIES to make it ineffective on the producion bar. But both didn't work with "0" value.
I will put a post in the Mods section hoping for the rarely help that appear in this matter.

Have Fun..

 

[Traks]

Too late for such big changes, maybe in next expansion.
But more likely, in HOI4.
I would like some buildings too, but not all we want gets into game.

 

[Alex_brunius]

Don't you think its realistic that you get better at building stuff the more you build off it?

If you have two different types of IC then USA would have say 90% Civil Industry in 1936. How would that change to perhaps 90% Military Industry in 1944? To me I don't see what a system where they are splitted up would improve since all nation would need to convert civil into military industry as they gear up to war anyways. You would need an entire new game for this with loads off supporting mechanics.

 

[Devildread]

This is more or less consumer goods. USA have for instance 80% of the IC into CG, and then gradually as Europe heats up they can free more and more IC for military production until the war breaks out.

This is an abstraction but this is enough IMO for a game in a 12 years timeline.

 

[Alex_brunius]

This is more or less consumer goods. USA have for instance 80% of the IC into CG, and then gradually as Europe heats up they can free more and more IC for military production until the war breaks out.

It's not only consumer goods.

The mobilization laws tripple your IC IIRC (from -50% to +50%) so 2/3:ed of the Industry is just hidden when at peace laws instead of simulated.

And why would we want a peacetime economy simulation anyways in a game about war?

 

[unmerged(129727)]

Well the discuss started..
If you only put the one industry sector represented you are saying all your factories are military capability when isn't the reality.
In the interface you can put the bar full to production, cacthing dissent. This is a realist reflect, but the bar represents that you convert all industry to military production in one day.
So the method to represent must be other, wich has to be reflected in one fixed value. where the fixe value will represent the industry wich can't totaly or semi-totaly convert to military procution.

Are you saying, the population of USA in 1944 require only 10% of the consumers goods? I think isn't so linear.

So to answer your example. I believe some of Civil industry have changed to militar capability from 1936 to 1944. This was reflected in policy and investment not the changes from one Day, which is how HOI interface represented. So In the game it should have those three buildings where in 1936 USA much have Civil industries capability and during the years you where constuct Military industry and converting some industry until 1944. This convertion may be done by modifiers or decision.

You may say the political effect in consumer good represent this metter. But must be fixed and not working by a bar connect to military industry.

I maked a sugestion, but I think problaby may have other solutions.

Conclusion is irrealistic have the consumers goods in the production interface bar.

 

[Alex_brunius]

Are you saying, the population of USA in 1944 require only 10% of the consumers goods? I think isn't so linear.

No Im trying to say that about 90% of all the Industry in USA in 1944 where used for Military production.


And I also think that its pointless to have one kind of IC which fills no purpose in the game since its a game about military and war. Paradox has just choosen to ignore the peacetime consumergoods production and I think that is a good decision.

If there should be more detail in the Industry I think that it should be in resource flows or more detail in producing specific reinforcement goods needed for war (for example a tank division needs 200 tank units and 100 truck units produced first in factories).

 

[Kayapo]

The game isn't trying to represent all industry of a country. It is trying to give an abstraction of the war capacity of the countries involved in the war.

If your argument were that the system is not well balanced and needs tweaking or you had an idea about how to improve the system to reach the same results then it would be valid.

Argueing that the economic system doesn't represent well the economy system of the time is a moot point. It isn't trying to represent economy. Just war capacity.

 

[unmerged(129727)]

No Im trying to say that about 90% of all the Industry in USA in 1944 where used for Military production.


And I also think that its pointless to have one kind of IC which fills no purpose in the game since its a game about military and war. Paradox has just choosen to ignore the peacetime consumergoods production and I think that is a good decision.

If there should be more detail in the Industry I think that it should be in resource flows or more detail in producing specific reinforcement goods needed for war (for example a tank division needs 200 tank units and 100 truck units produced first in factories).

Well, when paradox put the consumer goods in the game is showing not only reprasenting the military, but the preocupation on the economy of the country. In my opinion this is correct. The base for a militar campaing is the economy stability. The Cold War is the most historic event that prove it. The collapse of Urss cause by the run to military supermancy and less preocupation in the economy and modernization system. So the is military game but only is realistic the the general representation of the economy is suported.
If the game ment to be military has to forguet the dissent(partisan) and the consumer goods, economy policies, and only evolve, as you said, worry with the militar industry. If not will still forward this discussion.

The game isn't trying to represent all industry of a country. It is trying to give an abstraction of the war capacity of the countries involved in the war.

If your argument were that the system is not well balanced and needs tweaking or you had an idea about how to improve the system to reach the same results then it would be valid.

Argueing that the economic system doesn't represent well the economy system of the time is a moot point. It isn't trying to represent economy. Just war capacity.

I know perfectly the game is an war game, and has the preocupation in defending it.

Paradox For me paradox was correct, In representing the economy of the country. However badly representing.I'm not defending an extended development in the economy sector. But an improve in the already exist in the game.

Is important to realised , as I said in the aswer before, an militar capacity required an sopportable economy. If not will pass from a realistic game to a fantasiate game, where, for example, Portugal, and european minor as the capabillty of Conquer All the mediterranean countries. This is possible because the economy sector is unbalanced. So portugal can build more troops and support them easly without the responsability of the economy. Also Russian can build 800 Ics and have 2500 divisions before 42. If this was realistic possible? The economy has to be a effective factor to balance the game.

Other example to prove economy is a limit factor to military capabilty is, why USA didn't enter in the war sooner!? because his economy problem in 30s years crash the stability of the industry. So was not strong enough to suported a military capability. The insdustries already existed, but wasn't ready to war, however the USA gather the oportunity to recover from the economy crash selling material and products required to europe in War. This is represented in game by policy, as alex said, and I aggree.

The problem is the difrence from economy capability(Farms, music, fishing, etc.., the goods required to population), represented in consumer goods, and military capability(aeronautic, yards, automobile, etc.., which have a military capability), represented by ICs has to be separated. Supplies is the compilation of both groups.

 

[kezardinjnr]

Instead of having different types of IC's, it might be easier to remove consumer goods production altogether and have the equivalent cost in IC taken instead from the supply stockpile.

For example, under the existing system the USA in peacetime might require 100 IC committed to producing CG - under an alternate system, it would instead draw 100 IC worth of supplies from the stockpile. Cash would be generated as normal.

The consumer goods slider would be marked from 0% to 100%, in increments of 10%, representing the CG demand you're prepared to meet.

Under normal circumstances, the player would just leave it set at 100%. In an emergency, however, you could lower the percentage to divert more supplies to the armed forces, taking an appropriate (daily) dissent hit.

And since it can take a while for a severely depleted stockpile to rebuild, you could be in for a world of hurt if you stuff it up

And it avoids, to some extent, the complaint of being able to switch your IC wildly from one purpose to another on a daily basis. Yes, you could put all IC to building supplies, but since they're used for both military and civilian consumption, it's not so marked. (and again, it'd likely have to be left for several days/weeks to make a huge difference)

As with the current system, law changes will lower CG demand, meaning you'd be able to divert IC from supplies to new units, upgrades and replacements.

The system should work with the existing ministers who affect supplies, since they affect military demand while the CG would be drawn directly from the stockpile

 

[unmerged(129727)]

Instead of having different types of IC's, it might be easier to remove consumer goods production altogether and have the equivalent cost in IC taken instead from the supply stockpile.

For example, under the existing system the USA in peacetime might require 100 IC committed to producing CG - under an alternate system, it would instead draw 100 IC worth of supplies from the stockpile. Cash would be generated as normal.

The consumer goods slider would be marked from 0% to 100%, in increments of 10%, representing the CG demand you're prepared to meet.

Under normal circumstances, the player would just leave it set at 100%. In an emergency, however, you could lower the percentage to divert more supplies to the armed forces, taking an appropriate (daily) dissent hit.

And since it can take a while for a severely depleted stockpile to rebuild, you could be in for a world of hurt if you stuff it up

And it avoids, to some extent, the complaint of being able to switch your IC wildly from one purpose to another on a daily basis. Yes, you could put all IC to building supplies, but since they're used for both military and civilian consumption, it's not so marked. (and again, it'd likely have to be left for several days/weeks to make a huge difference)

As with the current system, law changes will lower CG demand, meaning you'd be able to divert IC from supplies to new units, upgrades and replacements.

The system should work with the existing ministers who affect supplies, since they affect military demand while the CG would be drawn directly from the stockpile

It is possible to have other ways to represent wisely the economic reality.
The main problem of remove CG and Supplies is the effect on the game mechanics the dissent. How you decrease dissent in your sugestion?

Your sugestion will be good if you have a mechanism to decrease the dissent without required more the 100% to CG. This because if not, you are using military capacity to supplie your population, which not make sense. Other aspect you are wrong is supplies. The supplies by calculation only represent to military necessity. Is a direct calculation of all supplies required by only your units. The Civilian consumption isn't insert in supplies.

 

[unmerged(129727)]

Suggestion

For me the bests solutions to a realistic economic model are 2:
- full military version
- with economic goods

Production Bar
Remove the Consumer goods Bar - Only appear two values of CG:
- the value required to the population
- the present value.
If the present Value is inferior to the required, inflit dissent daily and decrease the money income (Full military option), or dissent and decrease the Goods stockpile.(with economic goods).
If superior remove dissent, and if the dissent is 0 convert into money value (full military option), or remove dissent and when is 0 convert to goods icome (with economic goods)
- This represents if your economic grows has capcity to support a military campaing. In the militar option your money to buy resources to militar industry has the risk of suffre cuts, economy fall, money value decrease, etc..In the economic goods option the country IC production is limited by consuming the goods in the stockpile where he have to protect as metal and other resources.The money will be only a fix value give it by goverment, directly calculated by the number of ICs as it is. When you empty your consumer goods you always can buy goods from other countries.

Supplies production has a percentage value on the consumer goods (full military option) or consumes the goods resource in the the stockpile (with economic goods)
- Because supplies require not only military amounition and equipment but also but also other goods, like food, close, drinks, etc..

Each IC produced or capture increase the consumer goods need (in military option) or consumes the goods resource in the the stockpile (with economic goods)
- Because the military industry not only required primary resources but also other goods, like glass, rubber, plastic, etc..


The Consumer Goods required base are calculated by the politics and manpower. The ICs is depending on the (military or economic option)
The consumer goods is representated in each country based in population and ICs and economic stade.

How to manage the CG.
Is manage by the construction of buildings like industry, wich represents the funding of a company, construction of infrastructures to economy. Those buildings reduce the CG necessity (in military option) or also produce goods (in the economy goods option).
(In the military option) the infrastructure of the province where were build the economic building will give a modifier to reduce also the CG.
(in the economic option) The Infrastrucure in the province built should give modifier in the production of the goods.

Other aspects wich modifie and balance the game.
- Manpower has to be reflect in the Industrial buildings, has many IC you build has many manpower you use. Because you need manpower to work in the factory, manpower that will not be avaliable to combat.

I think will be good to defend the military focus of the game, however it seams the few economy aspects are important. Concluding that to be a good military balance depends always on a small/general economy base.

I'll leave here a very explicit statement by one community of players of paradox games:
- The best game will ever being designed, will be the union of VIC2 and HOI3.
So the economic aspects in HOI3 isn't a preocupation to the players

 

[kezardinjnr]

Your sugestion will be good if you have a mechanism to decrease the dissent without required more the 100% to CG. This because if not, you are using military capacity to supplie your population, which not make sense. Other aspect you are wrong is supplies. The supplies by calculation only represent to military necessity. Is a direct calculation of all supplies required by only your units. The Civilian consumption isn't insert in supplies.

There are overlaps between military supplies and consumer goods - basic necessities such as food and clothing, for instance.

You're correct about the inability of that system to lower dissent o

Instead the slider could run from 0% to something like 250%. Normal setting would be 100%. The size of the supply stockpile would still be the limiting factor, however, so just jacking up the consumer goods may *not* magically solve the dissent problem like the current system.

 

[Ricox]

I simply can't stop myself from saying this - it's not Urss, it's USSR, Soviet Union or Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.

 

[Kayapo]

I simply can't stop myself from saying this - it's not Urss, it's USSR, Soviet Union or Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.

Actually for him it is URSS. I'm assuming he is portuguese so it is União das Repúblicas Socialistas Soviéticas. Even though it isn't in english he isn't just making that up.

 

[kezardinjnr]

I simply can't stop myself from saying this - it's not Urss, it's USSR, Soviet Union or Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.

As Kayapo says, it's URSS in several languages

 

[unmerged(129727)]

I simply can't stop myself from saying this - it's not Urss, it's USSR, Soviet Union or Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.

hehhehehee... you're right.. is in Portuguese URSS, in inglish if USSR...Sorry for the mistake..

 

[Panncakemouse]

In all games from HOI series the economic model keeped irrealistic.

I would argue that it is simplified, but not unrealistic.

First of all; small scale (service) industries, the mentioned fishing industry, farms etc might not be able to produce an armoured brigade all by itself. However, by using heavy industry factory capacity to produce armour instead of tractors, army trucks instead of busses for public transportation, machine gun parts instead of tatoo machines... the effect is the same. The fishing boats might very well be used to transport parts from Factory A to be assembeled in Factory B instead of being used to fish lobsters to the consumers.
There will in the end be less "nice to have" goods for the consumer since the economic resources are focused elsewhere.

When you are at war the people will accept a lower standard of living with way less niceties without protesting (at least without negative effects on the society as a whole = dissent and less production output).

I think that when you examine history you will find examples of cultures who needed to produce massive amounts of "Consumer Goods" to keep the people moderately happy just because the people were used to a way of living and wasn't prepared to let it go. You could argue that the current situation in countries as Greece and Spain is an example of what happens when you can't afford the CG level needed. A classic remedy is to start a war for distraction. Let us hope it won't go that way.

You will also find cultures where the people are uninformed/uniterested of excesses in Consumer Goods. The former communist states are examples of this. You can then live with low CG output due to the lack of private ownership and a (liberal) market economy where people can trade the goods they own. On the other hand "total IC" might suffer since the incentive to grow = earn more money = produce more stuff is lacking.

Other countries as pre-WWII France had a small scale and family owned industry base. This led to inefficiencies in both production and in financing (hindered growth = the addition of more IC) . Small scale businesses are also not as good in the "heavy industry segment" with large scale and scope in serial production of things that go bang.

Germany on the other hand had a nice large-scale industry base with privatly owned companies that matched the plans of expanding the armed forces (but of cource the political coordination of what to produce was lacking)

So, in my opinion the IC system works just fine. You just have to tweak the IC levels to represent the individual countries ability to deliver to the war effort.

 

[JOR2010]

I don't think a new system is necessary, only that we need modifiers for current nations and scenarios. For example, Germany never really switched to a war-footing like Britain did until late 1943, so consumer goods still made up quite a lot of industry, thanks to Hitler wanting consumer goods for the people. I can't believe America would have such a tiny CG footprint, since America was an extremely wealthy nation (at least, for half or more of the population) so would need many more consumer goods as a % of total IC, than compared to say, USSR, whose civilians were not really gifted with consumer goods at all - IIRC, all radios were confiscated in 1941. For example, Britain should be able to ruthlessly use its industry solely for war production, whereas Germany should have a consumer goods modifier so they need more, the same with US, but the USSR should have very little in the way of consumer goods requirements.

I don't know what anyone else thinks, but I think the current model can be adapted to work!

 

[unmerged(129727)]

I would argue that it is simplified, but not unrealistic.

First of all; small scale (service) industries, the mentioned fishing industry, farms etc might not be able to produce an armoured brigade all by itself. However, by using heavy industry factory capacity to produce armour instead of tractors, army trucks instead of busses for public transportation, machine gun parts instead of tatoo machines... the effect is the same. The fishing boats might very well be used to transport parts from Factory A to be assembeled in Factory B instead of being used to fish lobsters to the consumers.
There will in the end be less "nice to have" goods for the consumer since the economic resources are focused elsewhere.

When you are at war the people will accept a lower standard of living with way less niceties without protesting (at least without negative effects on the society as a whole = dissent and less production output).

I think that when you examine history you will find examples of cultures who needed to produce massive amounts of "Consumer Goods" to keep the people moderately happy just because the people were used to a way of living and wasn't prepared to let it go. You could argue that the current situation in countries as Greece and Spain is an example of what happens when you can't afford the CG level needed. A classic remedy is to start a war for distraction. Let us hope it won't go that way.

You will also find cultures where the people are uninformed/uniterested of excesses in Consumer Goods. The former communist states are examples of this. You can then live with low CG output due to the lack of private ownership and a (liberal) market economy where people can trade the goods they own. On the other hand "total IC" might suffer since the incentive to grow = earn more money = produce more stuff is lacking.

Other countries as pre-WWII France had a small scale and family owned industry base. This led to inefficiencies in both production and in financing (hindered growth = the addition of more IC) . Small scale businesses are also not as good in the "heavy industry segment" with large scale and scope in serial production of things that go bang.

Germany on the other hand had a nice large-scale industry base with privatly owned companies that matched the plans of expanding the armed forces (but of cource the political coordination of what to produce was lacking)

So, in my opinion the IC system works just fine. You just have to tweak the IC levels to represent the individual countries ability to deliver to the war effort.

Well was very good your explanation, however don't explain the principal issues of irreality..I untherstand all you said and aggree with you..But...is missing to explain:

- where is the reality of the player can change the production from the Heavy industry of military unit production to consumer goods in just one day..So, as you said, is possible to change the production of Armor to tractor in one day, is realistic????
- Also you have heavy industries which can produce units, but can't produce supplies and others which can make supplies, but can't produce units.
The example is the food industry, drinks, medical, fishing, etc can't make units.. The tractors and fishing ships are build by vehicles industry and yards, that can't make supplies. In the game you can put all the industry capacity in supplies or production in days. So is realist change in one day all the factories wich are producing tanks pass to produce food?

This is the irrealistic economy system I was saying.

The sugestion of goods will separate this issue as much simplified as possible. Where the unit production and supplies production are divide and cant be change in days.

Also as you said the countries have diferent type of Industrial wich isn't separated in the game. German has more capability to construct units but less for supplies. USSR has the oposite. So in the game you can construct infinitive industry where you can always solve the supplies issue to your troops.

I ask for simplified but wisely realistic.