I don't want to talk in values and modiffiers when the economy system isn't realistic.. please read the post before this one.
-
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 don't want to talk in values and modiffiers when the economy system isn't realistic.. please read the post before this one.
I know, the problem is the developers aren't going to overhaul the system for FTM, although I know a system more like the one you wish for is available in other Paradox games, like Victoria II. I guess we'll have to wait for HOI4, but I do agree with what you're saying, industry and heavy industry are separate things entirely, but for the current game and mechanics, modifiers I think is the only way you can show this.
Yes..Is a small solution.. but the bigger problem is still there...
I don't know how is the consumer goods totaly calculated so is dificult to evaluate.. I only know the politics can be a way..
But unfortantly we hope for help in some issues to better develop the game and no/few answer appear.
However I prefer to change to my solution..Only has to know how to make the IC_TO_SUPPLIES and IC_TO_CONSUMERS_GOODS work..
I don't know how is the consumer goods totaly calculated so is dificult to evaluate.. I only know the politics can be a way..
But unfortantly we hope for help in some issues to better develop the game and no/few answer appear.
However I prefer to change to my solution..Only has to know how to make the IC_TO_SUPPLIES and IC_TO_CONSUMERS_GOODS work..
OK, first of all: we are talking about an extremely complex system of supply and demand when it comes to both consumers major purcases (like cars) and the fast moving goods (like icecream). The one who can accurately model this can sell the software to the US Fed and make a fortune.
Yes it is.
The ting is that a tractor is made out of many components. What you do is that you make sure that tracks, engines, leather upholstery and whatever goes to the war effort. I.e. tanks instead of tractors. Not to new tractors to farmers or even more importently to cars to be sold to private persons.
Then it takes time for the Armoured unit to be built - i.e. assembeld in a special plant. But this is exactly what HoI 3 models where the first unit takes longer and then it goes faster and faster as the learning curve kick in. As you allocate more IC to this you can copy the processes to a newpland, or build airplanes, or something else.
In my opinion the distinction is not so clear. Part of the "supply" needed for a division is new uniforns, new boots, new guns to replace what has ben lost or worn down, lots of spare parts to fix anything from broken tents to gas- or oil lamps, and don't forget: more ammunition!
The exact same things are needed when building a unit, the main difference is that a new division needs to combine (=train) new manpower and new material before it can function.
Of cource a Panzer assembly plant can't produce food - or even clothes. But the paint produced in BASF chemical plant and used for camouflage on the Panzer could have been sold as Consumer Goods to someone wo nedded to repaint the house. Some of the rare materials / metals could have been toasters or civilian binoculars for bird watching instead of sights for the main gun. The rubber used in sealings could have been used for childrens toys, the roller bearings could have been used in rollerskates, etc.
I would argue that the separation is illogical, for the reasons stated above.
Again, no. I said (or tried to say) that the different countries had different cultural, political and economical/financial systems wich has an impact on how the industry was "used". Used is a bad term for real life since it is more about how the complex affairs of men interact as a system. But in game terms it is how we can use the IC, and how much IC there is in the first place.
Yes it is.
The ting is that a tractor is made out of many components. What you do is that you make sure that tracks, engines, leather upholstery and whatever goes to the war effort. I.e. tanks instead of tractors. Not to new tractors to farmers or even more importently to cars to be sold to private persons.
Then it takes time for the Armoured unit to be built - i.e. assembeld in a special plant. But this is exactly what HoI 3 models where the first unit takes longer and then it goes faster and faster as the learning curve kick in. As you allocate more IC to this you can copy the processes to a newpland, or build airplanes, or something else.
In my opinion the distinction is not so clear. Part of the "supply" needed for a division is new uniforns, new boots, new guns to replace what has ben lost or worn down, lots of spare parts to fix anything from broken tents to gas- or oil lamps, and don't forget: more ammunition!
The exact same things are needed when building a unit, the main difference is that a new division needs to combine (=train) new manpower and new material before it can function.
Of cource a Panzer assembly plant can't produce food - or even clothes. But the paint produced in BASF chemical plant and used for camouflage on the Panzer could have been sold as Consumer Goods to someone wo nedded to repaint the house. Some of the rare materials / metals could have been toasters or civilian binoculars for bird watching instead of sights for the main gun. The rubber used in sealings could have been used for childrens toys, the roller bearings could have been used in rollerskates, etc.
I would argue that the separation is illogical, for the reasons stated above.
Again, no. I said (or tried to say) that the different countries had different cultural, political and economical/financial systems wich has an impact on how the industry was "used". Used is a bad term for real life since it is more about how the complex affairs of men interact as a system. But in game terms it is how we can use the IC, and how much IC there is in the first place.
Last edited:
Panncakemouse, First of all: I'm loving to talk with you about this matter.. Also I hope you take my words peacefully and don't think other way..I know the economy system is not a simple question, and is more complicated to simplify to a game interface..
Two asppects why can't be only a delay of one day..
- Ok, we can think in effort as components, tiny pices event primary material, all resume to fisical objects. As you said before, IC is service industry (specialy heavy capacity industry) so have an assemble line, stock materials, manpower instructions, machines, all prepared to one kind of product. If you order to make other kind of product you must prepare those aspects to make other product. So if today 2011 it take between weaks or month I can't imagine in 1940. All the logistic evolve can't be made in one day.
- When we also think in order comunication is other delay problem was envolved. Because most of the comunication were by letter mail or in a smal network phone lines. So the decision from the goverment to the factory will take time to reach and less one day is dificult to believe.
Yes, the units production has a timeline but the consumer goods no. The consumer goods industry has the same timeline for his goods products. If you cut the effort for the consumer goods then the factories in time will empty her supplies and break the production which in time will hover the stok for the population buy. This was the main reason why I think the goods stockpile is important. Is simplifying the the economy resuming all the goods, but give him the importance they need. MORE, are very important for strategic war, because one country can surrender because don't have any goods for his population. Why the introduce of the CG building and Goods is important, will give the chance for hit the CG buildings and try to empty the goods from the oponent, Than he is force to buy goods to other contries, and then we can destroy the convoys. when the Goods reach 0% start to up the dissent and when the contry reach one % of dissent the goverment surrender. This was the principal plan from the Germany to win UK, and in the game isn't possible.
the game only give the chance to destroy all the convoys and bomb the supplies and IC. The result is you lose IC and lose some supplies for your troops.(in war the CG are nearly to 0, and the minimal IC cover so never will give a revolt).In Uk you can't destroy convoys which transport supplies, the troops are near the capital and the supplies to your troops can always easly reach them, so you don't lose militar capacity from them. You can try to destroy ICs, Convoys, bomb supplies and never reach the surrender point of the UK. With goods you cand reach the economic breack point and force the surrender.
If you evaluate in militar effort I'm certain is militar. However economically the game are saying the effort in one day ca be only to supplies and next day to construct units. If the supplies, as you said also, required one kind of factories, and resources, and production other, this is meaning the country in one day have his industry type specified to supplies and in the other day the most industy capabilty is for producing units. This not make any sence. This is the reason why it sould be important to have the distintion of industry militar capacity and no the militar effort. So the supplies and Goods have to be 3 difrent types of industry and at the same time conected by moddifiers. Where the militar production require some consumer goods to build units, and the supplies require both militar effort and consumer goods effort. This clarefy the economic model to the HOI not leaving simplicity of the game.
Well still being logic..hehehehe
Yes I understand the effort political.. As I said above, the problem is the effort are implicated in the type of industry. If you have a country whit all the effort to produce tanks, It means you much have many factories with that caracteristic to do it. So when you pull all bar to production leaving supplies in "0";
- or you don't have factories to make supplies (and them when pull again, simply appear..=P)
- or you move all the manpower to this kind of factories closing the others, and the resources much be affected (which is'nt the case)
So can't find the explanation for the BAR option. Both option don't make sence, is there other choice to justification?
Have fun.
No worries. To do these analysis of business environments and their interrelations is part of what I do for a living so I don’t mind a nice discussion at all. However, I think that you are dead wrong here and will continue to argue the matter.
I will give you four (in part detailed) explanations of why/how I think you are wrong regarding
1) Time of effect on IC / Dissent
2) Strategic warfare (starve UK out)
3) Production and civilian business logic
4) IC as a system of suppliers, not stand alone factories
All three headings are somewhat connected and all three also relates to the issue of a CG stockpile so htere will be some repetitions of examples and concepts.
1) Timing and CG / CG stockpile
You have a perfectly valid point that the time from decision to implementation to actually running out of stock of a certain item can be (probably is) is longer that one day. However, that does not mean that the effect cannot be instantaneous, or at least very fast.
IRL there will be some delays, miscommunications and mistakes that add to the time lag, but for game purposes I don’t see the point in simulating this. If you would simulate this I would argue that it would make more sense to do so for combat orders with random attack delay after orders are given and sometimes units doing the wrong thing. But this is again simplified and included in the randomness of combat simulation
One example: the government decides to ration butter to 50 grams per person and month. The rest of the (constant) production will go to the military. Even worse: they decide that production of vodka for private consumption will stop and the factories will instead produce molotow coctails and disinfection for medical use. In game terms IC is used for supply instead of CG. Even if the effect is not immediate in terms of less butter in the stores or less bottles in your drink cabinet at home, the price of available butter and vodka would skyrocket (if there are no price control laws) or whatever is available would be saved and not be sold at all. People would instantly not be very happy (=dissent). Why? Because you can read about it in the papers, hear it on the BBC radio news etc. When this happens for item after item (IC to CG is under what is needed) as more and more of goods is decided to be allocated to the war effort, people will start to react to rumors about the next shortage weather true or not. Dissent is therefore not only related to actual shortages.
Many products, however, are also the exact same stuff as CG but are allocated to the military. This goes for small items like chocolate bars, shaving cream, soap, toilet paper, razor blades, cigarettes and kerosene lamps as well as for the daily usage of 7.821 lbs of construction materials (11.9 lb in Pacific) in a US infantry division (from "US Army Handbook 1939-1945" by George Forty). An early WW2 (German) infantry division would include 5 000 horses – and that reduces “CG allocated to recreational horseback riding” quite dramatically when the horses are drafted for production of Inf brigades. I would argue that even the dozen or so chaplains in each produced Inf division allocates IC from CG to production since the civilian possibility to go to church is lowered (or you have add capacity using retired chaplains with a stutter and weak bladder– and that might make everyone irritated = create dissent).
2) Strategic warfare and CG stockpile
Apart from simulating that you get annoyed because your house-maid is now working in an ammunition factory so you have to clean your own house (less IC to CG, more to supplies) the game does simulate the effect on the people of strategic warfare. The effect of targeting convoys and strategic bombing of IC is NOT only to lose IC and some supplies for the troops. You get strategic warfare effects as well (due to the fact that people are not stupid and hear / read about what happens and understand the effects).
To me this is a better way to simulate this than a CG stockpile, especially since so much of the “peace demand of CG” is things that can’t be stored. A few examples: movie and theater performances, restaurant visits, doctors appointments (the doctor is drafted), the football season is cancelled and so are the ice-hockey championships, even if the paint for repainting your house is in store the actual painter who would perform the work is not, neither is the carpenter, massage therapist, caterer, etc.
I would also argue that one of the CG effects is less spare time when “Rosie the Riveter” enters into hard work in the factories instead of taking care of home, kids, nails and the hairdo full time. To put it short: if there is no time or resources for parties there can be no tabloids gossiping about what happened at those parties, and no one has the leisure time to read tabloids anyway. That is also a basis for tired and/or angry citicens = dissent
One source on Women Workers in World War II
3) Production and Business and logic
Let me illustrate why I think a separation if CG and other IC is illogical: CLOTHES.
If the "textile industry IC" is allocated to producing uniforms and bandages (supplies in game terms) the output can be standardized, logistics streamlined and a stockpile created of winter gear, summer gear, different sizes etc.
If the same textile industry IC is allowed to cater to private customers it will be (it was in the 1930s and 1940s) mainly local business where local tailors and small manufacturers make smaller batches of many, many designs. To have a (large) stock of clothes is something every businessman avoids. It is bad business. The fashion changes, perhaps it will be the wrong color or shape next year. Perhaps people want different materials. Perhaps moths will eat it. It costs money to store things even if the rest is no problem.
Even if you apply some rational production of civilian clothes and stockpiling of it such as the British "Utility Suit" and American "Victory Suit", the customers experience is less and will to grumbling (dissent in game terms). In this particular case they were both made of wool-synthetic blend yarns, without pleats, cuffs, sleeve buttons or patch pockets; jackets were shorter, trousers were narrower, and double-breasted suits were made without vests. A good base for dissent if you ask me!
(i.e. an example of lowered CG output not in volume but in quality)
It was actually the lessons learnt developing methods of mass producing uniforms (such as sizing standards) that after WW2 carried over into the ready to wear “haute coture” industry and enabled manufacturers to produce quality goods speedily, moderately priced, and within acceptable profitmargins. This, coupled with increased world wide logistic ability, enabled modern day giants like H&M to be founded shortly after WW2 (GAP and Zara even later as free trade grew)
4) IC = network of manufacturers, subcontractors and other suppliers
I think you fail to see the production process or “manufacturing plant” as a network of many parts and not one local entity. A German Panzer V, or any other major product used in the war, consisted of many, many, many parts. These parts are not (for most part) made in dedicated Panzer factories unable to make other items that can be used as CG. The optics could just as well be used for civilian bird watching or hobby astronomy, the engines in civilian boat motors, the radio componens for listening to music in the living room, the capacity in the steel plants could produce raw material for car chassis or nice cruise ships instead of armor plates. The welding equipment supplier might sell to a producer of steel boats instead of Panzers. The hydraulic components could be used to any number of civilian needs, etc.
And again, many end products like motorcycles (or regular muscle powered bikes), skis, cars & trucks, boots, gloves, medicines, mail transport capacity, etc can either be used for civilian CG needs instead of being painted army grey/green and used either to equip (=produce) a new division or as supplies to the troops.
Conclusion
It is not the goods themselves but the context and subsequent use that many times defines if item X is Consumer Goods, used in Production of new units or used as Supplies.
Therefore the current system is a fair simulation. Far from perfect but still good enough.
Last edited:
I think you did an excellent job of explaining the real world justifications for the current system. But there was one part of the OP's issue that you did not address, namely this:
Here is the core of the disagreement in this thread. Another poster earlier pointed out that the game is not trying to model the economic systems of these countries. That is not quite correct, and this may not translate well because the reason it is inaccurate is because he put the words in the wrong order, which in English makes all the difference in the world, while in Portuguese there is a little more wiggle room (and in Russian the word order is nearly irrelevant
). He said the game "is not trying to model the economy", when to be accurate he should have said "the game is trying not to model the economy". **those are not exact quotes, and I added emphasis to show the shift from the original focus to where it should be**Basically the game is not so much trying to simplify the economic model so as to improve gameplay, but rather trying to avoid modeling the economy at all by abstracting all the economic factors into a more war-game oriented measure of "war capacity", as the other poster aptly put it. This is not Vicky or Vicky 2, where the player gets to manage his nation's economy. And I think it is safe to say that based on the reactions to your idea, most people don't want this game to move in that direction. They are receptive if you have a suggestion to improve realism in this area, but only so long as it is does not make game as a whole more complicated than it already is.
Edit: okay, I looked back like I should have done before and "the other poster" was Kayapo. Sorry, dude.
I agree with everything Panncakemouse said. IMO, IC represents a nation's capacity to build war materials, not the overall economy. For example, Ford or Boeing would directly be represented as IC, since they could (and did) change from producing trucks, cars, and planes for civilian use to producing vehicles for the military. However, a stock broker, grocery store, or toy factory would not contribute to IC since they either don't actually produce anything, or are incapable of producing items for military use.
So, to keep with the above example of Ford, before the war, Ford's portion of the US IC should be devoted to consumer goods, since it was geared for civilian products. When the war starts, the CG requirement goes down due to laws, allowing Ford to switch to military production. That makes sense, and allows for abstraction, resulting in the current simplicity of the game's IC system.
At this point, the real trick would be to figure out what each nation's starting 1936 IC should be, and how much it should build. Based on tests, Germany's IC seems to be about right, if a little low, while France is low, Italy and China are too high, the US is way too low, and the USSR is just about right (they were in the middle of a 5-year plan and both player and AI should do nothing but build IC and infra until 1938 to get things where they should be).
So, to keep with the above example of Ford, before the war, Ford's portion of the US IC should be devoted to consumer goods, since it was geared for civilian products. When the war starts, the CG requirement goes down due to laws, allowing Ford to switch to military production. That makes sense, and allows for abstraction, resulting in the current simplicity of the game's IC system.
At this point, the real trick would be to figure out what each nation's starting 1936 IC should be, and how much it should build. Based on tests, Germany's IC seems to be about right, if a little low, while France is low, Italy and China are too high, the US is way too low, and the USSR is just about right (they were in the middle of a 5-year plan and both player and AI should do nothing but build IC and infra until 1938 to get things where they should be).
Well, in my book most of the economic models of the countries went down the drain in WW2 or even before that with price regulations, rationing, planned economies, forced labour and what not. So it is not really interesting to model the economy as such.
But, thanks to those fallen in WW2 most of us live in a free world and can have any opinion on that...
Not to disagree since I agree in principle, but I actually think that in game country IC must have at least as much to do with game balance as with historic accuracy.
IC could be made/modified to reflect historical total production levels, and if split between military production and civil production, still use the HoI system. Everyone would have a base IC according to real numbers...the balancing would come into effect when determining both cost of a unit and the amount of IC dedicated to military production.
Of course, the ratio would be based on somewhat static internal politics/laws and generally modified by the geopolitical situation.
But -- I don't really see the added benefit for such a large overhaul.
Of course, the ratio would be based on somewhat static internal politics/laws and generally modified by the geopolitical situation.
But -- I don't really see the added benefit for such a large overhaul.
Well to organise the post I want to say a few things to "americans" and the "Italian" before answer to Panncakemouse.
- It's true, my inglish is not good at all, I have very difficulties on read and write..Only the love for the game make me to effor in it.I even have to read your post 2 a 3 times to understand your meaning in portuguese..=S.. I hope all I said don't be badly interpreted.
- Well to answer the game type preferences, as I said before, I'm dealing with many brazilian and portugueses comunities which play the game. Not so much internation, because of the dificulty in the inglish. But I can say many player talk in a union from the VIC2 to HOI3. My opinion is also the economy model of VIC and supremer Ruler are very intressting and I will love to have it in HOI. This because for me an only military game is one game with militar base strategy strategy, When pass to production enter in a desire for economy control.
- I'm formed in logistic managment, so I have some ideias of production. But my experience in life is not so long..hehe.. Panncakemouse showed some experience and knowledge in the economy aspect. His last explanation was very good but I will give some issues to me not totaly explained.
Panncakemouse
I notice you don't aswer totaly to the facts said but apresent new facts to prove how it works the concept( defend the actual system). I have untill now the atitude to attack the actual system. I will also have to explain my sugestion. I'm trying also to say that I undestand perfectly how it works and the effects evolved. I only think isn't totaly represented.
I'm not so good explaining and argue, but I'm very stubburn until not get all the answers..=P..I hope you understand..=).. Each post I lost several time to search the better way to make you understand and I specialy didn't want to close my ideia and do not let any other enter in my head.
I'll do two parts:
1 - Give some answer for the new facts you said.
2 - Fire up again the question where you don't undestand the point of view, try to order also the Ideias.
I Part
1) Timing and CG
First: I can't aggree when you I want to separate the areas, when we are talking in economy changes I don't want to argue with militar changes. Basically because the militar militar discussion is other changes. So I prefer to do something, else than not do because the other also deserve to changes.
---------X - Well Basically you aggree the delay bettween decision and instituition. Gather the % of a country as to take more time than a day. Alos considering now, people services required to move people. Only didn't receive examples of instant.
2) Stockpile.
Well It appear you are trying to represent the consumer good more things that the IC means. So if you are talking in people mobilization to war effort. How you explain the build of one IC ? When you build an IC you are growing the Industry capacity, but certain you aren't building people? If this will not be clarefy the representaions of CG, can only be Goods related to industry production.
IC construction must consume manpower.The economy realism of the game defend the country population is unlimited.
Only If the construct of IC consume manpower it may possible to consider the people effort in CG.
3) Logistics
- This I totaly disagree, as you shoud know and study the preocupation of limitation of stocks was the most use AFTER-WAR with new concepts (container, new comunications, logistic gather systems, etc..) adapted to speending as less as possible, to recover from the war. In the war all policy was mass production to fill as much as possible the stockpile. this caused by the militar startegy to secure backups to use when necessary and also the win the probability of material destruction. The primary sector was the most affected producing many material to never fail to the secundary sector.
4) IC network
Well I totaly know what you are saying. So in my suggestion obviously the production consumes goods where refesented by a modifier. Also supplies has to consume goods. So I think is explained.
II part
I understand most of the matters you are saying but, still not invalidated my sugestion.
Issues to solve in my sugestion are because:
1 ) The timeline permited to the bar control is realistic in one day all kind of decisions.
2 ) Since you realistic have, specified productions buildings to make supplies and other to make units, the scroll bar in one bar may change the prodution without any problem. Means you intire industry change from one kind to other kind in one day. When this has to be a fixed capacity. And as said before , create the same problem in people war effort. The question is still up
3 ) CG are goods which can be stocked or trade.
4) People effort can't be represented in bar until IC construction do not consume Manpower.
Well the irrealistic doubts still remain..
- It's true, my inglish is not good at all, I have very difficulties on read and write..Only the love for the game make me to effor in it.I even have to read your post 2 a 3 times to understand your meaning in portuguese..=S.. I hope all I said don't be badly interpreted.
- Well to answer the game type preferences, as I said before, I'm dealing with many brazilian and portugueses comunities which play the game. Not so much internation, because of the dificulty in the inglish. But I can say many player talk in a union from the VIC2 to HOI3. My opinion is also the economy model of VIC and supremer Ruler are very intressting and I will love to have it in HOI. This because for me an only military game is one game with militar base strategy strategy, When pass to production enter in a desire for economy control.
- I'm formed in logistic managment, so I have some ideias of production. But my experience in life is not so long..hehe.. Panncakemouse showed some experience and knowledge in the economy aspect. His last explanation was very good but I will give some issues to me not totaly explained.
Panncakemouse
I notice you don't aswer totaly to the facts said but apresent new facts to prove how it works the concept( defend the actual system). I have untill now the atitude to attack the actual system. I will also have to explain my sugestion. I'm trying also to say that I undestand perfectly how it works and the effects evolved. I only think isn't totaly represented.
I'm not so good explaining and argue, but I'm very stubburn until not get all the answers..=P..I hope you understand..=).. Each post I lost several time to search the better way to make you understand and I specialy didn't want to close my ideia and do not let any other enter in my head.
I'll do two parts:
1 - Give some answer for the new facts you said.
2 - Fire up again the question where you don't undestand the point of view, try to order also the Ideias.
I Part
1) Timing and CG
First: I can't aggree when you I want to separate the areas, when we are talking in economy changes I don't want to argue with militar changes. Basically because the militar militar discussion is other changes. So I prefer to do something, else than not do because the other also deserve to changes.
---------X - Well Basically you aggree the delay bettween decision and instituition. Gather the % of a country as to take more time than a day. Alos considering now, people services required to move people. Only didn't receive examples of instant.
2) Stockpile.
Well It appear you are trying to represent the consumer good more things that the IC means. So if you are talking in people mobilization to war effort. How you explain the build of one IC ? When you build an IC you are growing the Industry capacity, but certain you aren't building people? If this will not be clarefy the representaions of CG, can only be Goods related to industry production.
IC construction must consume manpower.The economy realism of the game defend the country population is unlimited.
Only If the construct of IC consume manpower it may possible to consider the people effort in CG.
3) Logistics
- This I totaly disagree, as you shoud know and study the preocupation of limitation of stocks was the most use AFTER-WAR with new concepts (container, new comunications, logistic gather systems, etc..) adapted to speending as less as possible, to recover from the war. In the war all policy was mass production to fill as much as possible the stockpile. this caused by the militar startegy to secure backups to use when necessary and also the win the probability of material destruction. The primary sector was the most affected producing many material to never fail to the secundary sector.
4) IC network
Well I totaly know what you are saying. So in my suggestion obviously the production consumes goods where refesented by a modifier. Also supplies has to consume goods. So I think is explained.
II part
I understand most of the matters you are saying but, still not invalidated my sugestion.
Issues to solve in my sugestion are because:
1 ) The timeline permited to the bar control is realistic in one day all kind of decisions.
2 ) Since you realistic have, specified productions buildings to make supplies and other to make units, the scroll bar in one bar may change the prodution without any problem. Means you intire industry change from one kind to other kind in one day. When this has to be a fixed capacity. And as said before , create the same problem in people war effort. The question is still up
3 ) CG are goods which can be stocked or trade.
4) People effort can't be represented in bar until IC construction do not consume Manpower.
Well the irrealistic doubts still remain..
Last edited:
Fine, then we disagree. I think we are allowed to
My opinion is that it is totally unnessecary in HoI3. If it had been a game spanning over several decades I would have agreed. Nox it is focused on a (maximum) 12 year timespan.
I was actually only discussing how you use existing IC. If you increase IC allocated to Production and decrease IC allocated to CG this can IRL mean to add an extra shift in factories = added production but less free time for the civilian workers. If free time is something we value then this can be thought of as less CG. If you add IC (more factories, machines etc) this won't change the basic principle.
A case in point: for the German NSDAP Ideology it was unthinkable to use women as workers. They should be used for production of German babies, not german weapons. So, to add an extra shift using women would lead to some dissent due to less free time for women.
This was basically my point. Mass production or war good => stockpiles. CG produicion is not (primarily) about stockpiles. You just couldn't stockpile icecream in those days. You can never stockpile services.
Yes we can..=).. But I believe you want to defend the war game at all cost..Despite of I don't want also to change war core of the game, more, I believe this minimal increase in the economy system will give a really good puch in the war strategy and put this war strategy more intresting.Fine, then we disagree. I think we are allowed to
My opinion is that it is totally unnessecary in HoI3. If it had been a game spanning over several decades I would have agreed. Nox it is focused on a (maximum) 12 year timespan.
I must explain that I don't want to extend so much the economy system only get him more realistic.. I also don't want one VIC economy system in HOI3 only see that a smal minimal step don't represent so heavy economy. For me 10% of realistic VIC economy size is enugh for this game be more intresting in militar campaigns. This small changes will give the game strengh to balance the choices of the player and end with the possibilities to adulterate the system. Reason why the player can manipulate the game and end conquer all world with USSR or GER easly, only requiring a little pacience to control everything..
I think you don't understand me. By numbers when you add IC it means someting will have to grow also in CG, OK goods grow we already conclude, but time is limited to 24h so can't be, the only veriable which can grow is the people mobilize to the effort (more people/manpower). So if the game defends the IC construction don't consume manpower, means the CG can't represent people mobilization effort. If you don't understand this I have to explain by math formula.
Well If you are assuming the no stockpile when the necessities are satified. So if you are decreasing the dissent, don't you mean that you are producing goods to the population in excess?If work in one way to give penalty to the population, has to work the same way when you are give benifits. You can't adapt waht is affected when the interface is the same.
Unfortanatly all people think in the most problable fuction used in the game to be represented, and the designer is not worried in the possibilities/orportunities the player can play to adulterate the system in his favor. This is my worried, How to stop the adulterate of the player, ending with the tools he used to manage the system. This is the base of my sugestion.
It appears to me, you are trying to justified the function which the game don't count on it. I'm very glad for your effort and will love to get to the final conclusions, but I'm affraid you will be tired with my stubbornness in wanting answers to all the possibilities.. =S
To me, this economy system, is literaland simply as manual the describe (design base).
Consumer goods represent the many things regular people
find necessary for everyday life – food, gasoline, household
utilities, etc. During wartime, the people are generally more
understanding of tough times and have a reduced demand
for Consumer Goods. Even then, it’s necessary to keep a
steady supply of these products available, or else the people
will begin to become dissatisfied, causing Dissent to rise and
National Unity to suffer.
There is a minimum level of Consumer Goods you must
produce, which is below the level at which you begin getting
Dissent. However, if you want to avoid or reduce Dissent, you
must produce a higher level of Consumer Goods by using the
sliders in the Production Interface. The level of demand for
Consumer Goods can be modified through Educational or
Industrial Policy Laws, Ministers, Government Ideology, and
whether or not you are at War. If your country has lost a lot
of its Victory Points in war – if you’re losing – your citizens’
demand for Consumer Goods will also be lower.
All military units also require a certain amount of
Consumer Goods during peacetime, though this need ends
with full Mobilization, as the needs of the units move away
from domestic peacetime concerns and toward more purely
military needs. A higher Neutrality rating lessens your Units’
need for Consumer Goods.
Conclusion, the representation of excess of acollocate CG aren't not justified, because wasn't the principal concept to worried. So CG are Goods to the populations needs and not people effort. If you accollocate less CG value you are giving less supplies than the population need ( give revolt= dissent). So means the same process if you accollocate more supplies than the people needed. This it will create more than a stockpile which was not represented.
Supplies• : These represent materials, like food, any
military unit must use to operate, even if they’re sitting
still. Movement or Combat may significantly increase
the unit’s need for Supplies
So supplies are specify type of goods to units operation. So the production of industry network has to be difrent from the industry network of production which require other type of capacity.
Those are the main reason why these two bars have to be better represented and separated from the other parts of the IC.
Also IC must consume manpower to be realistic.
Last edited:
Loool...no way..
The sugestion would be minimal and has more militar strategy than economics.So is still warfare based.
The sugestion would be minimal and has more militar strategy than economics.So is still warfare based.
I thought I did, and tried to giver my view on why you in my opinion are dead wrong. By that I mean that the IC system works for me and I can translate it just fine inte logical real life situations that motivate the game mechanics, and that is despite several years of studying economics on different levels wich can screw up the logical capability of any sane man or woman.
But perhaps you are right that I did not understand you in the first place. If I knew Portugese we could go further (to Rio perhaps...) but I have nothing further to add here.
War = Logistics = Economical ability to produce and distribute all the nice things you need to fight.
So warfare is about this as well. At least on the scale we play with in HoI3
But I agree that we only need a "good enough" model to represent this. Not "HoI3 - Macroeconomics for dummies".
Сою́з Сове́тских Социалисти́ческих Респу́блик (CCCP)
Soyuz Sovietskikh Sotsialisticheskikh Respublik (SSSR)