You obviously haven't tried building infrastructure to raise your practical to 99 before starting to build IC
Oooh good idea
-
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.
Oooh good idea
I concurr. Also, you should get theory and practical bonuses from your allies and from fighting other people.
After all... The Germans built the Panther after they fought against the T34.
This seems to be the same as reality. Germany didn't fully mobilize their industry before 1943-44, It wasn't really needed earlier.
Hahaha. Read Albert Speer's memoirs.
They never really fully mobilized even though the army and industrialists were screaming to the whole time.
Something akin to the fact you never got a gearing bonus for IC builds in HoI2?
I definetly agree with this.
A combination of these three would be a great way to deal with it.
Both points are somewhat flawed. Don't forget that Speer wrote his book to advertise himself and (like all the German generals/leaders after WWII) put all the blame on Hitler's stupidity, claiming that they could have won without him. This PR campaign still influences the public today, even though we know a lot of the claims are wrong! Speer's claim that he is responsible for the enormous output growth is one of those things. He was a competent man, but his book is more a CV than historic research or factual report.
Germany was mobilized by any definition you care to apply. 4.5 million men mobilized and 23% GDP on the military in 39 (remember most of the year they were at peace!)
Armed Forces Germany/UK:
39: 4.5 0.5
40: 5.7 2.3
41: 7.3 3.4
42: 8.4 4.1
43: 9.5 4.8
44: 9.4 5.0
%GDP on military 39 - 44; Germany/UK/US/Japan/Italy/Soviets
23/15/01/22/08/-
40/44/02/22/12/17
52/53/11/27/23/28
64/52/31/33/22/61
70/55/42/43/21/61
---/53/42/76/---/53
So if you claim that Germany wasn't mobilized, then Britain wasn't either. Nor was any other country, except the Soviets. German manpower growth is comparable with Britain, though they start at such a higher level that there isn't nearly as much room for growth. The constant growth each year however is typical for all nations at war, and not a sign that Germany was slow to mobilize.
As for the economy; it's comparable to the UK mobilization until 42, when Germany invests far more than any nation could sustain (The USSR peaked at 61% in 42 and 43, but thanks to 5% and 10% aid from abroad during those years maintained 44% civilian economy at the worst.
Regardless, it shows that the German industry was mobilized during the whole war. The output boost came mostly from new factories and discounts for building mostly obsolete weapons. Another part came from reducing corruption and waste, but those problems exist in every country and I haven't seen a statistic that shows Germany having unusually high amounts of either.
Re: Canada
The Soviets get lots of IC by event (move industry to Siberia does not remove it from existing provinces; that's 39 free IC). It would be possible to set something like this up for Canada; I'm not sure about Canadian development, but would it be fair if ENG had a decision to invest money/supplies in exchange for a boost in relations with Canada and some IC construction in Canada (maybe also some boni to theory/practical values)?
Sorry that's just wrong:
Germany went from 370 AFVs built in 39 to almost 19k in 44 and you claim their industry were fully mobilized for war then? Try plotting a graph of the total production and its obvious something did happen in 43, the same year when the allied started to bomb more intensively they more then tippled their output.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_armored_fighting_vehicle_production_during_World_War_II
How about aircraft production? Doubled between 42 & 44.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_aircraft_production_during_World_War_II
Uboat Production? 15 times as many built in 43 compared to 39. Start to see my point?
A great suggestion! I think even the "first" will be enuff and it must easy modable too.
I wholeheartidly agree. Also higher conscription laws should represent this.
+1
after all this is just game. As you already said, this won't disrupt historical balance after annexation and PI already stated that IC does not represent actual industrial production measured by GDP.
IC whoring ftw.
Yes, I am losing ressources, but if I can still sustain ~900 effective IC, without trading at all.
Btw: Officers are much more an issue for minors than IC. As Canada, you have 300 officers and can train 7 per day MAX. Even if they had IC, they wouldn't even be able to field a minor army (but interesting enough, 40 STRATs would be possible, as well as 20 BBs + CLs...).
Yes, I am losing ressources, but if I can still sustain ~900 effective IC, without trading at all.
Btw: Officers are much more an issue for minors than IC. As Canada, you have 300 officers and can train 7 per day MAX. Even if they had IC, they wouldn't even be able to field a minor army (but interesting enough, 40 STRATs would be possible, as well as 20 BBs + CLs...).
Last edited:
Well IC spamming with the US isn't a huge achievement, is it? Instead of showing a pic where USA has 700+ IC, show me a pic where Luxembourg has 700+ IC (or even 70+ IC)!
I don't think you can do it with Luxembourg.If AI use this technique why not me???
Last edited:
Getting OT here but-
It seems to me the conventional wisdom, based largely on Speer's memoirs and others, was that Germany never fully mobilized. However I believe Tooze's "The Wages of Destruction" strongly attacked that theory and claims that Speer's "miracle" and the increase in production was really done by cannibalizing other sectors, planning done by his predecessor (who started several Luftwafte plants that came online during Speers tenure ect). Germany was apparently an economic basketcase, and its true they made more AFVs in 1944, they did it by starving other sectors. In general it would be impossible for them to get that production in 1941.
I agree that manpower is a limiting factor, but why does everyone cry about leadership? I do not bother building it. You don't need it...as long as you are winning. Having 2x the army with 1/2 leadership, or not, which is better? Your units do not 'shatter' just because you enter a fight, they shatter when you are LOSING. So attacking with overwhelming firepower means you do not shatter. I spend those leadership on advancing techs.
Not without major dissent at least.
OT:
BTW. Germany never really put women in the factories, the soviets did (as well as on the frontlines). Something that was unthinkable to Hitler and his goons. I remember reading something about Hitler countermanding a suggestion/order by Göbbles regarding women and makeup, or possibly perfume, because Hitler thought womens tasks included aspiration for beauty.
I was under the impression that shatter mechanics don't work properly in the current build? It's hard to get a good idea of how much leadership percentage you 'need' for your army.
What exactly is IC whoring?
Just curious.... what explicitly does this term mean? We don't mean IC hoarding do we? If whoring is the right term, then what is the orgination as it relates to prostitution or promiscious sexual behavior?
Just curious.... what explicitly does this term mean? We don't mean IC hoarding do we? If whoring is the right term, then what is the orgination as it relates to prostitution or promiscious sexual behavior?
I agree with Old Dragon post about the 3 major flaws of the current system.
The point about mobilization is that it is a continuum not an end point. Total mobilization varies with the starting economy and education levels and natural resources by nation. The difficult part of modeling minor countries in a game like HoI3 is that in reality the cost to build an infantry brigade for Hungry or Mexico is not that the same as for USA or Germany. On the other hand in the game same costs give equal abilities which in reality those nations did not have and wouldn't be able to achieve without donation of equipment or leadership from the more advanced majors.
90% or higher practical speed and cost should be time constrained not simply IC devoted to task constrained. I think it is ok to have 80% practical benefit eventually but to achieve even close due to 1 production run seems unrealistic. The problem comes I think from representing all branches and equipments the same way just as minors share builds and cost of majors.
In history most nations navies achieved huge production bonus due to streamlined and massive production capabilities. However a bulk of naval vessel is its hull and integral systems which while advanced in WW2 especially submarines it changed less in proportion to things like the tanks and airplanes. It is much more difficult to increase the production time of a system which is changing rapidly itself in all areas vs a system which the major components remain similar for long periods of time. The HoI3 representation has to reconcile all this into a single abstraction and thus the complaints.
IC whoring could be regulated to its valid strategic choice by 2 options foremost- leadership cost for new built IC or max cap % on IC built per run. IC is different that other things able to be built in the game and increasing IC by more than 25% per year seems very unrealistic even with max practical.
Gaining more than 50% IC and leadership/resources from annexed land without specific decisions and technologies required to pass that mark also seems unrealistic.
The point about mobilization is that it is a continuum not an end point. Total mobilization varies with the starting economy and education levels and natural resources by nation. The difficult part of modeling minor countries in a game like HoI3 is that in reality the cost to build an infantry brigade for Hungry or Mexico is not that the same as for USA or Germany. On the other hand in the game same costs give equal abilities which in reality those nations did not have and wouldn't be able to achieve without donation of equipment or leadership from the more advanced majors.
90% or higher practical speed and cost should be time constrained not simply IC devoted to task constrained. I think it is ok to have 80% practical benefit eventually but to achieve even close due to 1 production run seems unrealistic. The problem comes I think from representing all branches and equipments the same way just as minors share builds and cost of majors.
In history most nations navies achieved huge production bonus due to streamlined and massive production capabilities. However a bulk of naval vessel is its hull and integral systems which while advanced in WW2 especially submarines it changed less in proportion to things like the tanks and airplanes. It is much more difficult to increase the production time of a system which is changing rapidly itself in all areas vs a system which the major components remain similar for long periods of time. The HoI3 representation has to reconcile all this into a single abstraction and thus the complaints.
IC whoring could be regulated to its valid strategic choice by 2 options foremost- leadership cost for new built IC or max cap % on IC built per run. IC is different that other things able to be built in the game and increasing IC by more than 25% per year seems very unrealistic even with max practical.
Gaining more than 50% IC and leadership/resources from annexed land without specific decisions and technologies required to pass that mark also seems unrealistic.