Odd strategic resource effect on production speed in livestream

[Evil4Zerggin]

I realize that things are still under development and there may be plans to change this already, but I wanted to point it out just in case. The livestream shows some Panzer IIs being produced.

Here are things before anything is ordered:

Note that we have 60 Iron, 2 Oil, and 0 Tungsten.

When the first factory is assigned, we have this:

The Iron and Oil requirements are fulfilled, but we are missing Tungsten. Even though we are missing Tungsten, the Iron and Oil costs are still being deducted from our available resources. The single factory is producing 6.82 tanks per year.

Now podcat ramps the factories up to 15:

Now we have 1.96 tanks per week. Multiplying by 365 / 7 weeks in a year and dividing by 15 factories gives us 6.81 tanks per year per factory, which is pretty much the same even though we are now also short on Oil.

What's the problem with this? We have no Tungsten, but we are still spending Iron and Oil. Yet the the production rate is the same whether we are also short on Oil or not. This suggests that we are not getting any faster production out of that Iron and Oil expenditure. I think it would make more sense if a) being short of just one strategic resource affected the production speed less than being short of multiple strategic resources or b) the consumption of the non-bottlenecking resources was scaled down to match the proportion of the bottlenecking resource.

Just for fun, here's a screen of the production when all strategic resources are fulfilled:

That's 34.07 tanks per year per factory, which is pretty much exactly 5 times as much.

 

[Stenner]

Also, as was discussed, producing vehicles can make you use part of a resource (say .5 tungsten to make all those tanks), but resources are only measured in whole numbers. (So you're wasting .5 tungsten by not making "enough" tanks).

They talk about it at length but I didn't know what they were talking about, there's a brief part in the video after resources are ordered where it shows that you're wasting .5 tungsten.

Another example of this is that each "kit" of weapon 1 uses .1 steel, so you need to be making 10 at whatever the rate is to use a whole steel and not go over, or multiples of 10.

 

[Holy.Death]

What's the problem with this? We have no Tungsten, but we are still spending Iron and Oil. Yet the the production rate is the same whether we are also short on Oil or not. This suggests that we are not getting any faster production out of that Iron and Oil expenditure. I think it would make more sense if a) being short of just one strategic resource affected the production speed less than being short of multiple strategic resources or b) the consumption of the non-bottlenecking resources was scaled down to match the proportion of the bottlenecking resource.

Could this be so, because he didn't run out of oil at that point? It'd explain same-ishness of example 1 and 2. Otherwise I agree: having 2 out of 3 resources should allow for somewhat faster production than having 1 out of 3 resources.

 

[podcat]

Also, as was discussed, producing vehicles can make you use part of a resource (say .5 tungsten to make all those tanks), but resources are only measured in whole numbers. (So you're wasting .5 tungsten by not making "enough" tanks).

yeah this is a bit shit and we are changing it to use big numbers so you dont have to fiddle around to deal with the losses fractions

 

[Beagá]

Which metals exactly are strategic resources? Are copper and chromium too?

 

[podcat]

Which metals exactly are strategic resources? Are copper and chromium too?

chromium is, but not copper

 

[smurphy99999999]

Which metals exactly are strategic resources? Are copper and chromium too?

Looks like Iron/Steel, aluminum, tungsten, and chromium.

 

[smurphy99999999]

Off topic question for podcat. In the screen shot German starts with 40 military factories. Obviously that is not a finalized number but I was wondering if it was in the ball park of where you think it will be or if its basically a place holder and you expect the number at release to be more like 100+.

 

[podcat]

Off topic question for podcat. In the screen shot German starts with 40 military factories. Obviously that is not a finalized number but I was wondering if it was in the ball park of where you think it will be or if its basically a place holder and you expect the number at release to be more like 100+.

roughly in that ballpark

 

[ariansandstrom]

You mentioned in the stream that you would be able to build sythetic oil refineries but I wonder if you could build some buildings to actually increase the output of a resource(similar to EU4 where manufactories existed)?

 

[podcat]

You mentioned in the stream that you would be able to build sythetic oil refineries but I wonder if you could build some buildings to actually increase the output of a resource(similar to EU4 where manufactories existed)?

not right now. not sure it would be good for gameplay. resources are there to cause conflicts because you need to either be friends and trade them or go take some other persons resources.

 

[RabbidHamster]

not right now. not sure it would be good for gameplay. resources are there to cause conflicts because you need to either be friends and trade them or go take some other persons resources.

That makes sense. By keeping resources scarce it creates competition/conflict... Important to keep that motivation in a war game.

On another note, Podcat, even though you said the UI for trade wasn't done, I'm VERY happy you can now search by resource needed/desired so easily! really looks like you all have put a lot of good thought into streamlining things!

 

[Victor Cortez]

Maybe there could be a law to make the use of resources more effective nation-wide. For example you could ask your citizens to save of fuel, because your bombers need them. But it's a detail really.

 

[Gamer_1745]

resources are there to cause conflicts because you need to either be friends and trade them or go take some other persons resources.

While I think the correct answer would be more 'its to simulate historical reality' and not the above. I agree with podcat that just building more buildings should not increase resources. With some countries & resources it would be OK, like the USA increasing oil production.

Under the 4 Year Plan:

Reichswerke "Hermann Goring":

Worked with German oil drilling companies to expand oil production in Germany that did not increase oil production.

I think this can be better handled with events that have costs made by the Devs &/or modders based on historical research. Synthetic oil production, with the right tech, is different. No coal to convert to oil??? And oil (lubricating oil?) needed to produce tanks? Without more info I don't think oil should be used as a cost for production. For fuel needs of tanks, airplanes & others, yes very much!

 

[1alexey]

not right now. not sure it would be good for gameplay. resources are there to cause conflicts because you need to either be friends and trade them or go take some other persons resources.

But then you run into all sorts of problems. Like SU, for example lost around 40-50% of it`s resource production in 1941, and had to invest heavily in other places to get itself the the necessary resources.

Then, you would get into HOI3 situation where either those resources are already developed in 1936 and SU doesn`t care if it has to retreat to Moscow because it`s backup is already there, or situation in which SU lost a lot of ground, and now they objectively can`t fight the Germans because they are short on resources that IRL they were not because they built up production in Siberia in 1941-1942.

Besides, SU did spend a lot of it`s resources in 1936-1941 to build up resource extraction. Starting them at 1941 production level allows them to ignore the costs, starting them at 1936 level in 1936 without the ability to boost production means a huge nerf.

 

[Daelyn75]

But then you run into all sorts of problems. Like SU, for example lost around 40-50% of it`s resource production in 1941, and had to invest heavily in other places to get itself the the necessary resources.

Then, you would get into HOI3 situation where either those resources are already developed in 1936 and SU doesn`t care if it has to retreat to Moscow because it`s backup is already there, or situation in which SU lost a lot of ground, and now they objectively can`t fight the Germans because they are short on resources that IRL they were not because they built up production in Siberia in 1941-1942.

Besides, SU did spend a lot of it`s resources in 1936-1941 to build up resource extraction. Starting them at 1941 production level allows them to ignore the costs, starting them at 1936 level in 1936 without the ability to boost production means a huge nerf.

This is true actually. It would be nice if there was some way to increase resources. I suppose there could be a desicion to increase them as the USSR, but in order to do so you will need to expend something to cover the costs. I think from 36-41 there were two five year plans, one had ended at a certain year and another began.

 

[varsovie]

I see that production numbers can be represented with different denominators (day, week, maybe month/year).
It seems clear at first, but I wonder how confusing would it be because of the different bases.
If you want to compare two production lines, one at day and one at week then you have to multiply/divide the number (may be fractional too) by 7. Are month 30 or sometime 31....

Wll there be an option to show production per days (or whatever) ONLY across all production regardless of rates? Even big or small numbers would make so much sense in regard of comparison. Heck there's a reason base 10 is so universal today.

 

[Silion]

Also, as was discussed, producing vehicles can make you use part of a resource (say .5 tungsten to make all those tanks), but resources are only measured in whole numbers. (So you're wasting .5 tungsten by not making "enough" tanks).

Why don't measure resources in a 5.22 or 3.78 way but whole numbers?

 

[Lollardheretics]

numbers. (So you're wasting .5 tungsten by not making "enough" tanks).
Why don't measure resources in a 5.22 or 3.78 way but whole numbers?

Well, basically it is easier to understand 1522 kg than 1,522 metric tons. Maybe it will switch to ton when you have over 100 000 kg, etc.

 

[Evil4Zerggin]

Could this be so, because he didn't run out of oil at that point? It'd explain same-ishness of example 1 and 2. Otherwise I agree: having 2 out of 3 resources should allow for somewhat faster production than having 1 out of 3 resources.

There are no longer resource stockpiles. Resources flow directly to production with any excess being lost. So the "2" Oil refers to the rate at which Oil is being produced, not how much is stockpiled.