.png){kind=avatar}
I agree. In a slight measure at least, we should be able to fiddle with those numbers as long as we give ourselves the modes.
Odd strategic resource effect on production speed in livestream
- Thread starter Evil4Zerggin
- Start date
-
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 agree. In a slight measure at least, we should be able to fiddle with those numbers as long as we give ourselves the modes.
I don't really understand this point. A brand new stockpile system, ok, but no stock at all, does it make sense ? Japan did its possible to get stock as more as possible before to DoW with USA.
That's all infrastructure related, you got to build the roads, rails, pipelines, buildings etc for the resource extraction. Just wrap it all up into Region level infrastructure average like DH where you have to upgrade the whole region.
I would have thought that the amount of oil consumed producing a tank would be insignificant compared to a few days running a tank. you would only need a few litres for lubricating the machinery used to produce the tanks and a few litres to top up the oil reservoirs in the tank. Maybe 30 litres of oil to produce a tank compared to hundreds of litres a day to run it.
In Arsenal of Democracy building infra increased resource production already.
But it´s mostly about investment AND allocating Manpower to work. Without a simple Manpower allocation system it´s tough to improve that part.
Only way to increase resoruces without conquest and trade should in my opinion be limited to techs and or laws.
It seems that industry tech will be very important as I think we saw that 1936 Germany could only get max 50% efficiency and equipment are so important.
But I think industry tech should be extreamly expansive because otherwise you probably are forced to always get it.
It seems that industry tech will be very important as I think we saw that 1936 Germany could only get max 50% efficiency and equipment are so important.
But I think industry tech should be extreamly expansive because otherwise you probably are forced to always get it.
Good thinking
. I remember listening to the discussion in the stream, and one of the people you were streaming with (I'm afraid I don't know the LPers, but the one with very short hair) suggested they enjoyed the 'optimisation' of resource use by trying to set the number of factories to avoid wasting fractions of a resource. I was thinking "I hope that suggestion goes through to the keeper" (cricket term for not paying attention to it/letting it go). Well left .
Good thinking
Interestingly, linear programming (used in real-life operations research and economics!) can be solved (optimized) in polynomial time, while the integer version is NP-hard and is thus much harder to optimize.
Indeed.. I tried playing Supreme Ruler 1936 once as Japan but once I realized I didn't have to go to war to meet my resource demands I quit because going to war(and playing the game) seemed pointless.
Oh aye, it'd be seven shades of painful for the AI, hadn't thought of that. Nice thinking
.There are plenty of real world examples of building up resources and plenty of real world examples of resources that aren't even exploited yet. IT all revolves around infrastructure and is the key to economic growth. Infrastructure frees up manpower, increases the speed at which you can gather, and reduces the cost of extraction. Since we do not model these things, we can simply say Infrastructure increases efficiency.
Currently thanks to the Afghan war we found out that Afghanistan has the largest deposits of Iron Ore in the world, possibly even larger then the entire world's reserves of Iron Ore currently... but there is no infrastructure available to build out these iron mines. There are also large amounts of resources in Africa that suffer the same problems. If you don't have the infrastructure in place, it doesn't matter how large the deposit is, it simply won't be developed.
Something along the lines of 25% to 50% produced even if Infrastructure is 0, and then infrastructure of the region increases that all the way to 100% by level 15.
The "big picture" of the war, the reason and drives behind why it happened the way it did, are more important than any historical fact. WW2 was very much a war about resources (Japan and Germany both started their wars to reduce their dependence on foreign resources, depriving the UK of the resources it needed to fight, seizing oil fields was always a critical part of tons of battle plans), and allowing people to build them isn't in the spirit of that. Maybe having techs that represent increased efforts to extract resources, but that'd be the absolute limit. If I don't feel like I need to invade SE Asia as Japan in order to fuel my war machine, and could instead just build resources out of the resources already on the home island, then the model suffers.
But then war and trade become less important and that is what the developers want to avoid.
And get a magic number from research that increases resource production instantly? That´s not realisitic either.
Tech could help a bit but in the end what matters is how much Manpower you allocate and how much you invest in the "RGO" so to speak. It´s OBVIOUS you need a good rail system to have decent output of coal and iron. Unless you think mules could do the trick. If building only infra using IC is not enough, well then put Money back in the game and allow investment.
Last edited:
How many railroads do you need to supply your 6-7 steel plants and 4 tank factories as USSR?
In reality you don`t really need "decent" infrastructure if your production is concentrated. You just need to build specific rails to the production sites, which is a very minor part of what "infrastructure" should be for people convenience.
There are also places like Norilsk, that used planes to move important people in and out, and ships to move in the supplies and production by river, and outside the city, there is over 500km of tundra with next to nobody.
So, no, infrastructure specific to extraction of goods should rather be accounted in the cost of extraction facility, not the other way around where the cost of the extraction facility is accounted in infrastructure cost.
"Funny" thing about Norilsk - some time ago, they started mining local top soil, because it was so heavily contaminated, that it contained enough metals to make topsoil mining profitable.
Living in Chernobil would be more healthy.
Living in Chernobil would be more healthy.
The point still stands that infrastructure makes large scale mining possible as you have to transport tons of stuff from place A to B. Not to mention big part of the reason why german industry stopped was infrastructure destruction.
So yes making it ALL about infra is wrong, but PART of is about it. Specially if Money is indeed removed and Manpower has no role in resource gathering, there is no other way to simulate improvement at local level than building infra. Just abstract it as more infra = more mines as well.
OTher POV: if you have no railroads you can´t extract and transport hundreds of tons of coal, thus having infra 0 and 200 energy is silly. What is transporting all that coal?
Podcat had already stated that they were thinking about adding "concentrated" bonuses into the game for that specific reason, because it frees up manpower and industry needs, thus "efficiency" is improved.
Both Germany and USSR invested 10,000's of railroad kilometers to extract resources from their territories, and Germany had to actually setup a priority system because there simply wasn't enough infrastructure to move all resources and troops. That is a direct limit on the amount of resources Germany was able to extract because they cannot move it all.
And no where did I say that this would allow you to "build" your way out of the war... IF you produce 50% with 0 infrastructure, you would have to spend the resources to build the entire region's infrastructure up 1 to gain a 3.33% bonus per level... That may not even be worth it to the player.
IF we modelled the cost of extraction, infrastructure would play a key role in this, as lower levels of infrastructure would only allow mules/trucks instead of trains.
To give a current example, grain processing companies here in the US have been importing grain from Kazakistan this year instead of getting the same grains from Canada. There is so much traffic in the Midwest US that train car deliveries are months behind schedule. That is a real world cost due to lack of infrastructure where grain is rotting in the fields/ storage because there simply isn't enough infrastructure available to move it. IF resources used the supply lines as well and didn't just magically appear in your stockpile, then this would be realized in the game.