"Maybe should add Iron ore to the game. And Iron/Steel plants." -- Riekopo

[billcorr]

@Riekopo wrote:

"Maybe should add Iron ore to the game.
And Iron/Steel plants.
That's like the main thing Sweden did in the war. Support the Germans' industry."

https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/threads/2-3-of-germanys-iron-production-came-from-swedish-iron-ore.1407419/#post-26763458

There is a precedence in the existing game design for taking a resource and converting it into another resource:

With Man The Guns, oil was changed to a feed-stock resource that was converted into a useful resource, fuel.


The same could theoretically be done with iron ore.

Use historical amounts and distribution of iron ore, and use a game mechanic similar to that of petroleum and fuel.

Riekopo suggested the introduction of Steel Mills..


Note that we are talking about iron ore..

• Not vanadium
• Not nickel
• Not copper
• Not molybdeum
• Not pyrite (lookin' at you, Portugal!)
• Not manganese
• Not any other mineral that gets re-christened as "Steel" with the wave a magic wand.
  
  
  Iron ore is to steel
  As oil is to fuel
  
  The game mechanics already exist to implement the mechanic that "iron-is-a-feedstock-resource".
  
  But granted, there probably are barriers to implementing such a feature (to include the all important fun-factor).

 

[Mr_Dimento]

Uranium plz

 

[billcorr]

Uranium plz

Acknowledged.

For more discussion regarding uranium and HoI4, please go to:

"Uranium plz" -- Mr. Dimento

@Mr_Dimento wrote: "Uranium plz" https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/goto/post?id=28658591 This thread serves as a venue to discuss uranium and hearts-of-iron IV

forum.paradoxplaza.com

 

[General Fakenews]

The issue, from my point of view, is first: you could do this with every resource. Bauxite wasn't turned into aluminum where it was mined for a lot of the allied nations. Tungsten and Chromium also had to be refined, pretty much only rubber was somewhat in its final pre factory form at the places it got produced.

Second: Oil is automatically turned into fuel. There are no refineries except Synthetics, which is something completely different. You can Increase how much fuel you get per oil by changing your economic law, as you restrict civilian use of oil products. Something similar could be done for steel and other resources, however this would only buff Nations who can mobilize early more. Like the entire reduced fuel gain is pretty much only there to nerf the Allies in early game, when Germany couldn’t build refineries or capture some oil. So it would be a balancing hustle just to have an additional number there. The other thing affecting oil-to-fuel conversion is tec, which is mostly because there actually were a lot of technological developments in refining fuel in the 30’s and 40’s. Steel mills stayed pretty much the same since the end of the 19th century, increases in efficiency are somewhat reflected in the general resource efficiency tecs. And splitting them up doesn’t really like a thing one should do, as it would nerf these tecs further and people already mostly skip on those.

Third: If you would like there to be steel-mills as a buildable building: Civilian Factories in HoI are pretty large. Like they cost a lot and they have a lot of production output. So most countries (except maybe the US) can only really expand on one thing at a time. Either you make these buildings extremely important, which means you nerf some minors into the ground, or you make them more like infrastructure, which people already ignore a bit.

Fourthly: Iron ore isn’t the only resource needed to produce steel. Having coal in the game would actually be more interesting, with a lack of coal reducing your trains efficiency, your steel production and your civilian industry - as most of these things ran on coal in the 30’s and 40’s. Also Coal often was in a different place then the steel.

However I see your point that the resource distribution could be a bit more realistic and cleaner. Like there are some areas just lacking resources that are there and resources being in places they shouldn’t be.

 

[Kanitatlan]

Personally I don't believe that this should be a top priority in elaborating the economic / production side of the game. The industrial rules for HOI4 are very primitive. The game has a number of issues that could be addressed that are more important than this difference.

• Currently factories require no manpower
• There is no simulation of the essential civilian economy (in this case the core issue is food)
• The factory building process is based on using slack in the economy to expand war related production with the "slack" in the economy being based on the availability of building slots. This is a very primitive model and gives significant advantages to large countries (I'm looking at you Soviet Union)
• The model as it stands cannot handle extended timelines as no of the constraints that would kick in is in the simulation
• Raw material transport on land isn't well simulated
  • The +20% bonus for having a supply source in state really ought to be a substantial penalty for not having a supply path between resource and supply source (with no regard for having a an actual local supply point)
  • International raw material transfer should require a supply route to allow land delivery
  • Land resource routes should have some capacity limit

I'm sure there are many more issues but adding a bit more detail to what is already simulated strikes me as being the wrong next step for expanding the game industrial model.

 

[nuarbnellaffej]

Iron-to-steel production could certainly be an interesting inclusion to the game, and given the scale of it I would say it’s more deserving than rare earth refinement, raw latex-to-rubber processing etc.. But imo there is lower hanging fruit to be had in the economic side of the game.

-For one, I’d like to see civilian factories consume resources, depending on what they are building ofc. Railroads, infrastructure, factories, refineries, etc.. should definitely consume steel when built.

-Another nice addition would be for fortifications/provincial AA needing to be equipped with actual equipment, IE AAA and artillery. The Civs would be responsible for the actual construction of said sites, whilst your mils would be on the hook for the weaponry.

Also, I too support resource distribution being revisited and/or balanced. I mainly play as Germany, but I can’t ever remember steel being a bottleneck in my production. No choices between “should I put steel into ships, subs, tanks, or forts?”.

 

[z3rO_]

If more strain is to put into resources, especially talking about Civs, then there needs to be a way to gain them. Scrap refineries? Like regular ones, but with Steel instead of Rubber. Sounds good.

I'd prefer things to stay as is, or minorly adjusted. The economy is simple for a reason, same reason why tank, division, plane and ship designers exist - this is a game about doing war and stuff.

 

[Corpse Fool]

The economy is simple for a reason, same reason why tank, division, plane and ship designers exist

Does not compute.

 

[marcelo r. r.]

non sense.

Oil to fuel conversion was added for the sake of balance, because oil extraction numbers make no much sense when breakdown to units capabilities of stockpiling fuel.

Did u stockpile steel and transport it to front in barrels?

 

[blahmaster6k]

The factory building process is based on using slack in the economy to expand war related production with the "slack" in the economy being based on the availability of building slots. This is a very primitive model and gives significant advantages to large countries (I'm looking at you Soviet Union)

I remember when MtG added two or three states to the mainland UK and the UK suddenly got about 20 extra building slots on core territory, a massive buff that was almost certainly completely unintended, since previously the UK would cap out its building slots very early into the war.

Currently factories require no manpower

I would say this isn't necessarily the case. "Manpower" in hoi4 only represents the amount of manpower you have available for direct military use. If you have 5% recruitable population factor from extensive conscription, then the other 95% of your population is available to work in the factories.

Raw material transport on land isn't well simulated

• The +20% bonus for having a supply source in state really ought to be a substantial penalty for not having a supply path between resource and supply source (with no regard for having a an actual local supply point)
• International raw material transfer should require a supply route to allow land delivery
• Land resource routes should have some capacity limit

Pathfinding can be expensive to calculate dynamically for a large number of objects (causes lag), I'm not surprised they went with a simpler solution that still works quite well as a tool for creating strategic objectives to fight for and plan offensives around when previously there really weren't any aside from "capitulate the enemy."

 

[blahmaster6k]

As for the idea in the OP, I agree with @General Fakenews that the resource issue applies to more than just steel, and would require pretty much a total rework of the entire resource system and along with it a total rework of starting buildings, building slots etc for all nations as well as a ton of balancing passes. It might be a healthy thing for the game going forward in terms of historical accuracy but I don't know if it's worth doing all that work and adding all that complexity into the game for the sake of the few people who are hardcore enough to even care about things like that. I know a lot of this forum is made up of seasoned veterans, but remember that most of the playerbase is made up of very casual players, many of whom don't like it when things are made more complex.

 

[Jays298]

I like the idea in general.

But oil to fuel is very easy.

Ore to steel, probably more like refineries. But cost prohibitive like supply hubs.

The other benefit might be an indirect check on the power of minors with no resources. With scarce steel, exports less likely. And with the right implementation, steel production acts like an Axis boost in early war and a penalty later on due to trade limits and allied air attacks.

Anything that helps turn the tides so to speak is helpful.

Also the stockpile issue, as in how long can prewar iron stocks last.

 

[z3rO_]

Does not compute.

The game is a world war 2 battle alternate history simulator, not world war 2 economics simulator. I suggest that the economy part has been simplified into a few buttons for a reason, and the battle part expanded with every dlc for the same reason.

I doubt a rework of the scale would come even with a new version of the game for that reason. You'd also need to delete a lot of nations from being playable, because you just wouldn't be able to do anything, but that's secondary.

 

[Kanitatlan]

....

Pathfinding can be expensive to calculate dynamically for a large number of objects (causes lag), I'm not surprised they went with a simpler solution that still works quite well as a tool for creating strategic objectives to fight for and plan offensives around when previously there really weren't any aside from "capitulate the enemy."

Pathfinding for resource production is already taking place as you get +20% for having a supply depot that it in supply present in the same state. I suspect the real issue here is that applying this supply required principally fully would require a depot in every state that produces resources and that would mess up the supply system. Clearly they can afford the pathfinding because it is mostly done already and if it was appraised slightly differently what I'm suggesting would work. I suspect the real issue here is that it wasn't built in early enough and it was too late to retrofit it. The real problem is you can't make fixing the economy a paid for feature and it therefore needs to be implemented as part of the free update part of a dlc. I suspect that, at some point, there will be an economy revamp and this will get fixed.

 

[Corpse Fool]

The game is a world war 2 battle alternate history simulator, not world war 2 economics simulator. I suggest that the economy part has been simplified into a few buttons for a reason, and the battle part expanded with every dlc for the same reason.

I doubt a rework of the scale would come even with a new version of the game for that reason. You'd also need to delete a lot of nations from being playable, because you just wouldn't be able to do anything, but that's secondary.

I'll say it's pretty bold of you to be making assumptions about 'what the game is', but I suppose that part doesn't really matter. I'd say more that this is a bureaucracy simulator, but lets assume this is a ww2 battle alt-hist sim. Why does that need me to decide the particular mix of infantry and artillery, the arrangement of guns on the ships, the type of suspension I'm using on my tanks, or the amount of rubber the planes are using? If anything, those designers just suck player time away from the battles, and given that there isn't really a historical rhyme or reason to any of the formation templates or equipment designs (so much abstraction) for us to then generate an alternative to, we aren't getting much alt-hist either.

 

[Fulmen]

The game is a world war 2 battle alternate history simulator

Try "sandbox strategy game with a WW2 skin" and you're right on the money.

 

[cjhoser]

Trade and resources and logistics need such an overhaul that at this point I don't see it properly fixed without HOI5 revamping entire systems and gameplay loops.

 

[Jochen_Mongolia]

Iron ore + Coal +IC = Steel
We will need the resource of Coal.

 

[Kanitatlan]

IF we are splitting the current steel resource into separate provision of iron ore and steel foundries then there are a number of consequences that need looking at

• The obvious one is adding coal as a resource as well. Germany had plenty of coal in WW2 BUT had persistent issues with delivering it to where it was needed. Part of their "not working to normal German efficiency" issues with their rail network. Not really directly an issue except as we add a little complexity there are immediately arguments for more complexity
• One of the big things about Swedish iron ore was that it was high quality iron ore. If we are going to manage it as a raw material then there are arguments for building into the game the reasons why Germany wanted it. In a typical game Germany really doesn't worry too much about Swedish steel as other controlled sources can be more than adequate. The quality aspect is currently simulated by the availability of tungsten.
• One issue is that controlled resources are free whereas foreign resources have to be paid for. There are good arguments that steel making based on Swedish iron ore was a cheaper way to get high quality steel. This is definitely not reflected in the game as foreign resources are always simply more expensive
• If we start simulating coal then we ought to cover the other demands for coal - railways and power generation. Otherwise we end up with the sort of background problem there is around Axis oil production. As the Axis powers capture territory this is currently ALWAYS a benefit with regards to oil whereas one of the big problems Germany had was the demand for oil built into the civilian economy which meant all the captured territory reduced the availability of oil rather than increasing it. Same issue would arise with coal

My point is that building a model around resources and production that was usefully improved by adding iron ore as a resource would really involve a load of other stuff otherwise it simply becomes another little background activity to manage that has very little useful impact on the game.

 

[jpd]

Iron ore + Coal +IC = Steel
We will need the resource of Coal.

If you add coal, then it can't be just for the sake of producing steel. Coal should then be required for other processes as well. Like operating factories. Raw input for synth plants. Running the trains. In short, provide a balancing act for a player.

Not that I'm against it (far from it. Right now both CiC's and Synth plants give resource free, limitless production, which is a tad unrealistic), but it does open up a can of worms, and a major balancing headache.