Massive steel shortages and issues with resources

[Alex_brunius]

So to equip one german platoon in 1936, you'll need 309 kg of steel, not including ammo.

Your infantry has no cutlery to eat with, no tents to sleep in, no kitchen to cook food for them and no jeeps or motorcycles to do recon for them. They carry no binoculars, no radios, no other steel gear or tools, no mines, no barbed wire and no grenades.

Overall a German Infantry division using so little steel per platoon probably wouldn't be an effective fighting force lacking all of the above

While your clearly put some efforts of trying to summarize the heavier weapons needed, as discussed to great detail in other threads infantry equipment encompasses a whole lot more then just weapons, and it also includes a lifetime of ammo consumption and spare parts for everything produced as already pointed out ( although that is true for the tank as well even if I suspect the tanks ammo per own weight ratio is much smaller ).

 

[aono]

Your infantry has no cutlery to eat with, no tents to sleep in, no kitchen to cook food for them and no jeeps or motorcycles to do recon for them.

Not every of this thing represented by Infantry Equipment in-game. There is also Support Equipment (and quality of life efforts are definitly there) and Motorized Equipment (for jeeps and motorcycles). And division template using only Infantry Equipment would be not-so-effective as well.
For experiment clearness I thought it would be nice to say "everything directly not-defined as Infantry Equipment isn't it".

and it also includes a lifetime of ammo consumption and spare parts for everything produced as already pointed out

Yes, it was, by myself. ))

Just in case, include ammo, spare parts and non-rifle parts of infantry equipment.
Not as I can't see virtue in your arguement, sure, but I'm kinda pedantic.

although that is true for the tank as well even if I suspect the tanks ammo per own weight ratio is much smaller

And again, as I said before, medium tank shells are made from tungsten or high-quality special hard steels (represented as tungsten as well), so it's ammo not in this equation.

 

[Stolen Rutters]

Does the original poster recognize that weapon grade steel is not available everywhere and the game is already generous?

If you jump through hoops you can get sub grade irons and coals to produce low quality but still adequate weapons. Takes electricity which is itself not available in quantity everywhere before 1970. Remember solar panels don't exist yet

 

[aono]

If you jump through hoops you can get sub grade irons and coals to produce low quality but still adequate weapons. Takes electricity which is itself not available in quantity everywhere before 1970

I'm sorry, are you implying that after 1970 electricity was available in quantity everywhere?!

 

[Alex_brunius]

Not every of this thing represented by Infantry Equipment in-game. There is also Support Equipment (and quality of life efforts are definitly there) and Motorized Equipment (for jeeps and motorcycles). And division template using only Infantry Equipment would be not-so-effective as well.
For experiment clearness I thought it would be nice to say "everything directly not-defined as Infantry Equipment isn't it".

Motorized equipment and support equipment in HoI4 clearly don't represent all jeeps and motorcycles, as well as everything except weapons since they are only needed for specialist battalions which indicate your division is better then the average at something. A division in HoI4 without a recon battalion can't be said to have zero recon capability or zero vehicles, just as a division without support equipment can't be said to have zero capacity of cooking, throwing grenades or laying down mines and barbed wires.

In my view at least all equipment for basic necessities of life (tents, cooking, tools like axes, shovels, saws and so on) must be included in infantry equipment since it's needed for any division to be able to survive and function. And at least some ( but not as much as with specialized battalions ) of lighter vehicles, radios, engineering equipment and others should also be included in the cost.

 

[aono]

It is possible, but, as I said, I consciously limited Infantry Equipment to something directly offered in-game. After all, you can create tank division that wouldn't get Infantry Equipment at all, so that doesn't mean they haven't basic necessities of life, for example.
For me it's what civilian producers do, and included into that fee we have for active military factories.

 

[Superfluke]

I don't see a huge problem with resources, in fact with minors that can be part of the fun as you choose your country and plan your future accordingly, with resource availability in mind. Doubly so if you aren't part of a major faction, which I feel is realistic.

In my latest India game, I fielded motorized and ordinary rocket artillery, dozens of motorized divisions, powerful airforce, some heavy tanks but had to be really careful about infantry equipment and regular artillery.

Minor countries suffer the worst. The smaller you are, the more problems you're gonna have with most basic equipment. It would lead to some comical situation if it were like that in real life. I'm imagining ordering new infantry equipment as Otto von Habsburg in Austro-Hungary.

You make your choices. Basic infantry costs I think 2 steel, and motorized 1 if I recall correctly. Dozens of motorized divisions use up quite a bit of steel I would think.

 

[Stolen Rutters]

I'm sorry, are you implying that after 1970 electricity was available in quantity everywhere?!

Sort of yes, if you invested in it. I don't mean that everyone had electricity by then, but you could install it anywhere on the planet given the technology of the day. The United States had electricity virtually everywhere when I was growing up and I was born in 1970 near Detroit.

I meant the 1970s, not 1970 precisely. (Typing on my phone, text is small and I missed the s). I owned a solar powered calculator when I was nine years old. The President even installed solar panels on the White House roof in the '70s. The late 70s energy crisis got solar investments rolling.

In the 1940s, if you want electricity in quantity you need coal, oil, or hydro power. The major powers in 1940 had at least one of these available. It's fundamentally why they were the major powers if you think about it. They had the stuff needed to industrialize from the beginning. Much of the world had to import the resources... Nuclear came in the 1950s. Solar came in the 1970s and 1980s. It's only after solar where you can build a steel forge anywhere on the planet and not have to import your energy source.

The OP in game seemed to imply that he believes steel is some worldwide resource, easily available. This is absolutely not true. It's simply cheap enough that you can get hold of steel anywhere today. In world war 2, the US was feeding the right materials to allies across the world.

Spoiler

Iron is available under approximately 30% of the Earth's land surface, but that doesn't mean you can get usable gun steel out of all that iron, not easily anyway. You need the right trace elements mixed in, the right alloys, and the right purity. If you want to render one iron alloy into another you need an electric forge and a plethora of electricity, nothing else will work. (And I mean you need A LOT of electricity!) You are basically taking out as much of the existing alloy as possible to get reasonably pure iron, THEN adding the right elements into the purified iron to re mix the chemistry, while closely moderating the temperature of the batch to get the proper chemical ratios.... After that you roll it, anneal it, heat treat it, whatever.

This means to get the result the OP is asking for, Everybody-Gets-Steel even after trade is shut down (and remember trade wasn't shut down on the allied side, it was only Italy and Germany that had real trouble getting enough resources to produce all the weapons they needed once their trade supply was strangled), he is implying that we can get electricity anywhere without regard to availability of energy source, which to me means solar at a MINIMUM, which in real life doesn't show up until the 1970s.

edit - Granted, in my opinion his argument about minors being able to kick out high tech equipment while being short of infantry weapons has merit, but flooding the world with steel resource is NOT the solution.

 

[Kovax]

Medium tanks shoots tungsten, don't they?

Medium tanks fire mostly High Explosive rounds, as in at least 2-3 HE per Armor Piercing round. AT guns mainly fire AP. Further, a lot of countries only carried a small number of tungsten or tungsten-cored rounds per tank, and the rest of the AP rounds were hardened steel, with only a small percentage of tungsten or other metals to harden them. Germany decided rather quickly during the invasion of the Soviet Union that it couldn't afford to throw Tungsten all over the place, so it put sharp limits on the availability of Tungsten rounds. Even the US only carried a few "silver bullets" per tank, the rest being a mix of HE, smoke, and hardened steel AP rounds.

As for steel, an infantry squad needed a lot of additional steel for supporting equipment, as pointed out, but think of the specialized tools and machinery (and trucks) required to service and support a tank formation, IN ADDITION to the same supporting equipment as an infantry formation for the crew, large numbers of service and transport personnel, and the infantry that directly operate with the tanks. Again, a tank formation needed WAY more steel, even ignoring the steel that went into the tanks themselves.

The resource issue is a bit unrealistic, but its effect on the game, making it more practical for minor countries to field ahistorically "advanced" equipment to save on basic infantry gear, is absurd. As stated, making steel more plentiful isn't the answer, because that's also unrealistic and causes other issues. Reducing the steel requirements for basic infantry gear (more for higher tech levels, to represent more "support" equipment) might be a better solution, and introducing some mechanism for the buying/selling of obsolete equipment could also work.

 

[aono]

Sort of yes, if you invested in it. I don't mean that everyone had electricity by then, but you could install it anywhere on the planet given the technology of the day. The United States had electricity virtually everywhere when I was growing up and I was born in 1970 near Detroit.

Well, I meant places as African states or South-East Asia. In USSR full electrification, I believe, wasn't achieved even in 1991. And I'm not sure that solar panel-powered electrical furnaces would be so effective. There was nice toys as Odeillo solar furnace, sure, but, truth to be said, France could allow itself to use traditional ways as well, and allowed. Actually, if you had money for solar energetics, you for sure had money for traditional one, with a good margin.
Just in case. I'm not trying to say your point about "steel isn't dirt" is wrong. I'm trying to say that point "that was changed in 1970th because energy became everywhere" is wrong, and this wrong make your argument more powerful.

Medium tanks fire mostly High Explosive rounds, as in at least 2-3 HE per Armor Piercing round. AT guns mainly fire AP. Further, a lot of countries only carried a small number of tungsten or tungsten-cored rounds per tank, and the rest of the AP rounds were hardened steel, with only a small percentage of tungsten or other metals to harden them. Germany decided rather quickly during the invasion of the Soviet Union that it couldn't afford to throw Tungsten all over the place, so it put sharp limits on the availability of Tungsten rounds. Even the US only carried a few "silver bullets" per tank, the rest being a mix of HE, smoke, and hardened steel AP rounds.

Real one - sure, but in-game medium tanks take tungsten as resource to build.

 

[Stolen Rutters]

Just in case. I'm not trying to say your point about "steel isn't dirt" is wrong. I'm trying to say that point "that was changed in 1970th because energy became everywhere" is wrong, and this wrong make your argument more powerful.

Ok, thanks.

The reason the minors in real life were able to produce what guns they did was not because steel is plentiful everywhere but because the US and Germany were feeding their respective factions with steel they had in surplus. The OP complained he couldn't get steel without importing it from one of the big four (which is historical), but instead he wants to be able to freely produce guns without restriction when playing India and other minors (which is NOT historical)... arguing that because other materials didn't have the same shortages he could build unhistorically so he should get unhistorical steel too.

I finally read through the rest of this thread and realized the point had already been made.

edit - I agree my solar power claim is an aside (...that the only way you can add arbitrary steel production anywhere on the planet with zero access to where the real-life resources are would be through an arbitrary future technology that wasn't industrialized until some arbitrary decade in the future. (Nobody uses it today because It can't compete on the market, like coal gasification.)

 

[scroggin]

The steel production is historical correct and the resource allocation too. The USA, UK, Fra, SOV and Ger produced 90% of the worlds steel, thats a fact.

The problem isnt with the resource production figures. The problem is with the export system!
Instead of just exporting those resources you have a surplus of you are forced to either export some of the resources you are short of or stop exporting the resources that you have a surplus of. Most axis countries respond to this faulty system by stopping resource trade once war starts.

 

[Arieswolf]

All the resource use is totally screwy. If you look at just small arms for example. Why would a more advanced infantry small arm use twice as much material to produce it? If you look at history (not that Paradox does that much anymore) you'd note that all the small arm upgrades actually tended to be much easier to produce.

The Germans for example: the MP44 and its like all used simple stamped designed parts to improve production while still putting more rounds on target. Same with the US for the it series. You'd be harder pressed to explain why a M2 carbine or a late war M-3 SMG used twice as much material as a M-1 Rifle. The British designed the stern gun with simple stamped parts, same with the USSR. The tech advanced should be with firepower and ease of production but the cost of material should at least remain the same.

Why does a Fletcher class destroyer use much more Oil to build than a Sims? It makes no sense what so ever.

 

[Secret Master]

Why would a more advanced infantry small arm use twice as much material to produce it?

Because the tech isn't just the weapons held in the hands of basic riflemen, but also includes other equipment?

And while you pay more for the higher tech infantry kits, you pay absolutely nothing for more and better mortars, heavy machine guns, and other support equipment in the support weapons tech.

 

[Sarmatian]

I think you can argue about realistic cost till the cows come home, but there is something fundamentally wrong when it is easier to produce airplanes than infantry equipment as a minor.

It doesn't matter if the set up is correct, the end result is wrong, and it needs to be addressed in some way.

 

[mursolini]

All the resource use is totally screwy. If you look at just small arms for example. Why would a more advanced infantry small arm use twice as much material to produce it? If you look at history (not that Paradox does that much anymore) you'd note that all the small arm upgrades actually tended to be much easier to produce.

The Germans for example: the MP44 and its like all used simple stamped designed parts to improve production while still putting more rounds on target. Same with the US for the it series. You'd be harder pressed to explain why a M2 carbine or a late war M-3 SMG used twice as much material as a M-1 Rifle. The British designed the stern gun with simple stamped parts, same with the USSR. The tech advanced should be with firepower and ease of production but the cost of material should at least remain the same.

Why does a Fletcher class destroyer use much more Oil to build than a Sims? It makes no sense what so ever.

Well, one reason is that output of factories increases around 3 fold during the game, so everything becomes 3 times cheaper in terms of resources(dockyards have different math though). Now, since new kits also take more IC-days, effectivly they cost closer to same as level 1 kit.
in 1936, 1 military factory at full gearing will produce 5.25 infantry I kits/day, each kits cost 2/5.25= 0.39 steel
in 1943, 1 military factory at full gearing will produce 12.00 infantry III kits/day, each kit cost 4/12= 0.33 steel
So, no, cost doesn`t really grow if you keep your industry tech up.

 

[LostAlone]

Well, one reason is that output of factories increases around 3 fold during the game, so everything becomes 3 times cheaper in terms of resources(dockyards have different math though). Now, since new kits also take more IC-days, effectivly they cost closer to same as level 1 kit.
in 1936, 1 military factory at full gearing will produce 5.25 infantry I kits/day, each kits cost 2/5.25= 0.39 steel
in 1943, 1 military factory at full gearing will produce 12.00 infantry III kits/day, each kit cost 4/12= 0.33 steel
So, no, cost doesn`t really grow if you keep your industry tech up.

But that assumes that you only need as many rifles in 1943 as you did in 1936 which is not the safest assumption.

No, you need more rifles, vastly more rifles and thus vastly more factories. And thus you need more steel. It doesn't matter if you keep your production on Rifle I or not either, you are in contact with the enemy and training many more units at the same time. It's a huge problem. And if you think it's not try playing as any Euro minor. I am starting to seriously feel like there's no point at all in building infantry; like I would rather build a very very elite army entirely of tanks. Either way I will struggle to have enough men, at least with tanks I can go do something useful somewhere and I can't defend my home front anyway.

 

[Agenor]

I owned a solar powered calculator when I was nine years old.

I bought a solar powered calculator in the late 1970s - and I still use it today. It still works thirty-seven years later. It's a Casio. They don't make them like that any more...

Perhaps the real problem is, as others pointed out, the screwed up export system. There is plenty of steel, but no one will sell it to you, not even your allies. And regardless of the historical realities, a decent game should be playable and fun, even when playing as minors, and that is why the trade/resource system needs to change.

Also, as others have pointed out, a game that lets minors produce planes more easily than rifles wins no historical reality awards.

 

[mursolini]

But that assumes that you only need as many rifles in 1943 as you did in 1936 which is not the safest assumption.

No, you need more rifles, vastly more rifles and thus vastly more factories. And thus you need more steel. It doesn't matter if you keep your production on Rifle I or not either, you are in contact with the enemy and training many more units at the same time. It's a huge problem. And if you think it's not try playing as any Euro minor. I am starting to seriously feel like there's no point at all in building infantry; like I would rather build a very very elite army entirely of tanks. Either way I will struggle to have enough men, at least with tanks I can go do something useful somewhere and I can't defend my home front anyway.

Your post is strange. I was showing that material cost of Infantry I kit in 1936 and infantry III kit in 1943 is the same. The rest is your attempt to find something you want to talk about.

 

[Kovax]

The problem isnt with the resource production figures. The problem is with the export system!
Instead of just exporting those resources you have a surplus of you are forced to either export some of the resources you are short of or stop exporting the resources that you have a surplus of. Most axis countries respond to this faulty system by stopping resource trade once war starts.

This, I believe, is the root of the problem. The export system is an "all or nothing" choice, where you either allow ALL goods to be traded, or none of them. Either you protect your scarce resources, or else you provide your oversupplied resources to your allies, not both.

In HOI3, I regularly wished for some way of turning off the purchase or sale of Oil and Fuel, while allowing the trading of Energy, Metal, and Rare Materials. The AI would regularly spam offers for tiny amounts of Fuel (as in 0.07 Fuel), and that would require its own convoy route to import something you had absolutely no use for (when you're sitting on 75K units of surplus Fuel), yet the AI would spend all of your surplus cash and use up all your available convoys to buy it instead of waiting for an offer for critically short Metal or Rare Materials. That means, letting the AI run trade was frequently a disaster.

Now HOI4 has its own issues with the ability or inability to control what you buy or sell, again forcing unrealistic game issues that have nothing to do with the real situation they're supposed to represent. The mechanics are completely different, but nothing has changed.