Maybe there should be an option in the trade screen to trade in military factories instead of the civilian ones, this way you will be able to trade for the target weapons production
- 1
Purchasing Aircraft
- Thread starter Frosted Vert
- 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.
That is perfect, as GB got ships and aircraft built before lend lease.
France got P36 (again this should be the first US fighter) and several types of bombers.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_ship
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Maryland
- 1
The problem with this is that it allow military factories become civilian factories and civilian factories become military factories.
- 1
For the military trade, I think you should use the military factories you have or convert some civil in special military but they will only product for export use and they will be requisitioned / sized in case of war. So you will win some efficiency and XP for variant.
I don't know how the SDN will work but this can devellop their role by enact embargo against some countries. Then you can choose to respect the embargo or continue the trade but the world tension will rise.
- 1
I have been thinking about this before and it is something that SHOULD be in the game. I also think it will be. Eventually, through an DLC. I would then also think money comes back and that we will have more advanced trade options than in previous games.
Just "generic" tanks/models/planes etc is not to my liking. Many nations didn't produce everything themselves, but bought what they needed.
Just "generic" tanks/models/planes etc is not to my liking. Many nations didn't produce everything themselves, but bought what they needed.
- 1
Let's say that in the starting files, US get 10 more military factories, but 10 less civilian. These MiC are locked by some sort of Law as available for export. The US AI produces a cross-section of equipment. Because US has less CiC it struggles to provide enough consumer goods. It has to "sell" the equipment to get enough CiC. France comes along "buys" some planes, providing it's CiC to US.
On the face of it, win-win. Though pointless, except for a bit flavour that France has some US models in it's air wings.
Except as Denkt points out you are using CiC to get equipment, but CiC is twice as expensive as MiC. Why on earth would France buy US planes, if they can make French planes in French MiC? There is no incentive unless you change the balance of France's starting factories to reduce their MiC, and/or make it more expensive or difficult by Laws to build new MiC. They don't even have any better tech, when French and US planes have the same base stats, France can research more than the US and France gets the earlier opportunity to produce variants.
To me the current set-up stops all that. It's too complicated to balance, and adds nothing at all to the gameplay. The production of so many lines of equipment, getting the right MiC/CiC/NiC and managing resources is complicated enough, without having to consider what you can or can't buy from another country.
And what happens if a German player dives in and buys all of the US planes? France sits there with plenty of CiC but nothing to buy with it. They trawl round the world looking to buy pre-war planes from Sweden and WW1 biplanes from Turkey? They lose all control over what they can field. Again any sensible player would convert as much of their spare CiC into MiC as possible, unless the game puts artificial barriers in their way.
If the overall result is still that France generally produces it's equipment in factories in France, then this sort of change produces nothing of any benefit. It just makes it more difficult to balance and more likely to produce gamey exploits.
We know historically that countries like China didn't produce many of their own weapons. They bought them on the world market using money they got from selling consumer goods to other countries. But we aren't playing an economic simulator. It's simpler for the AI, but also means the player has more direct control over their equipment, how much is produced and what types. Even if this means that they have direct access to technology and amounts of military industry which they didn't have IRL. It's an abstraction that they can research infantry weapon techs instead of buying licenses, or they can produce artillery pieces and machine-guns in their own factories instead of buying them. As long as the Chinese can't produce 1943 planes in 1940, or produce far too many planes.
On the face of it, win-win. Though pointless, except for a bit flavour that France has some US models in it's air wings.
Except as Denkt points out you are using CiC to get equipment, but CiC is twice as expensive as MiC. Why on earth would France buy US planes, if they can make French planes in French MiC? There is no incentive unless you change the balance of France's starting factories to reduce their MiC, and/or make it more expensive or difficult by Laws to build new MiC. They don't even have any better tech, when French and US planes have the same base stats, France can research more than the US and France gets the earlier opportunity to produce variants.
To me the current set-up stops all that. It's too complicated to balance, and adds nothing at all to the gameplay. The production of so many lines of equipment, getting the right MiC/CiC/NiC and managing resources is complicated enough, without having to consider what you can or can't buy from another country.
And what happens if a German player dives in and buys all of the US planes? France sits there with plenty of CiC but nothing to buy with it. They trawl round the world looking to buy pre-war planes from Sweden and WW1 biplanes from Turkey? They lose all control over what they can field. Again any sensible player would convert as much of their spare CiC into MiC as possible, unless the game puts artificial barriers in their way.
If the overall result is still that France generally produces it's equipment in factories in France, then this sort of change produces nothing of any benefit. It just makes it more difficult to balance and more likely to produce gamey exploits.
We know historically that countries like China didn't produce many of their own weapons. They bought them on the world market using money they got from selling consumer goods to other countries. But we aren't playing an economic simulator. It's simpler for the AI, but also means the player has more direct control over their equipment, how much is produced and what types. Even if this means that they have direct access to technology and amounts of military industry which they didn't have IRL. It's an abstraction that they can research infantry weapon techs instead of buying licenses, or they can produce artillery pieces and machine-guns in their own factories instead of buying them. As long as the Chinese can't produce 1943 planes in 1940, or produce far too many planes.
- 2
My out look is this. You start a battle and say you build a massive amount of tanks thinking you will take every losses. You don't think your enemy has very many planes. When you start fighting you realize they aren't really damaging your tanks. You have an extremely large stockpile of tanks but a shortage of fights. You take a loss and trade them for fighter planes you need. You always lose on the deal, but if over built on something, it gives you chance to recover some of that spent time and resources. either it could used to gain resources return for the equipment or straight trade for other equipment. It could come in handy if you are country with massive army equipment shortages and have spare planes to trade away. It gives you some option when you are losing to change the situation.
- 1
I think the point is the re-armament of France and GB between 1936 and 1939 was helped greatly by buying in US production.
This means their MiC and CiC does not fit to what they had IRL.
Therefore in 1939 IRL GB and France were able to have larger military forces (better) than would have been possible by using their own MiC disregarding CiC.
I agree this does not fit the current model. However it is not that different that it can't be modeled.
Just look at the Armee de l'air in 1939, there was an acute shortage of modern bombers and fighters due to civilian workers striking etc. There were good designs but these were not produced as fast as the French wanted. They turned to US production to give them the modern aircraft they needed. It is a mute point that the Armee de l'air could not absorb the amount of aircraft bought and produced.
This actually fits better with a minor who has a low number of MiC and CiC, Hungary as an example bought Italian aircraft to fill it's needs.
What I think is needed is a slight tweek to the resource model of giving CiCs for resources. Gold is a resource that could be limited to allow an emergency purchases of material, be it oil or Tanks.
To those that think Germany would then buy US aircraft you could limit who would get an "Export license" to those deemed acceptable by the government type. so if the US is fascist then they would export to German and not GB or France.
An example of all this is Turkey selling all their precious metals to the Allies so that Germany could not get them for their production.
This means their MiC and CiC does not fit to what they had IRL.
Therefore in 1939 IRL GB and France were able to have larger military forces (better) than would have been possible by using their own MiC disregarding CiC.
I agree this does not fit the current model. However it is not that different that it can't be modeled.
Just look at the Armee de l'air in 1939, there was an acute shortage of modern bombers and fighters due to civilian workers striking etc. There were good designs but these were not produced as fast as the French wanted. They turned to US production to give them the modern aircraft they needed. It is a mute point that the Armee de l'air could not absorb the amount of aircraft bought and produced.
This actually fits better with a minor who has a low number of MiC and CiC, Hungary as an example bought Italian aircraft to fill it's needs.
What I think is needed is a slight tweek to the resource model of giving CiCs for resources. Gold is a resource that could be limited to allow an emergency purchases of material, be it oil or Tanks.
To those that think Germany would then buy US aircraft you could limit who would get an "Export license" to those deemed acceptable by the government type. so if the US is fascist then they would export to German and not GB or France.
An example of all this is Turkey selling all their precious metals to the Allies so that Germany could not get them for their production.
- 3
Japan shipped in quite a bit of US stuff. The exporting ability should only be cut off by embargoing and war, imo.
very good point.
If my memory is right Japan bought scrap metal from the US to build weapons
They did, they also brought in a few aircraft types, although they dismissed most of them as unworthy for development.
I personally think that "gold" should be added into the game.
Gold would be used to build factories, buy resources.
Gold can be earned by CiCs or conquest (taking someone else's Gold) aka Germany 1938 -1940
Gold can buy Equipment
Gold can pay for infrastructure, aka fortification of Singapore, airfields
Countries can loan Gold, aka lease lend, let the countries buy the equipment they need. aka GB buying transport planes instead of making them, freeing up MiC to build fighter or Lancasters
Gold would be used to build factories, buy resources.
Gold can be earned by CiCs or conquest (taking someone else's Gold) aka Germany 1938 -1940
Gold can buy Equipment
Gold can pay for infrastructure, aka fortification of Singapore, airfields
Countries can loan Gold, aka lease lend, let the countries buy the equipment they need. aka GB buying transport planes instead of making them, freeing up MiC to build fighter or Lancasters
- 4
in letting countries buy equipment with "gold" your MiC can be increased without you needing to build them aka as happen in the USA
The problem with the gold solution or any sort of real currency is that in reality Lend-Lease built up the US production ability but it was all debt driven. And that leads down a whole economic rabbit whole that HoI is just not about.
- 1
The GB war time budget was mostly debt and the US debt from ww2 has just been paid off 70 years later so it is not a big rabbit hole. The amount of gold can be modified to model this without adding banking.
War Bonds were issued in many countries not to increase mining or other collection of resources but to keep government afloat and fund many aspects of the economy. Generally, defense firms were allowed to produce for other countries and not give them "surplus" equipment but new equipment which; a) brings in revenue, b) increases/keeps stable/keeps afloat the company's manufacturing capabilities, c) assists in future production efficiencies and ideas.
- 2
The ability to make a war machine is the largest factor in winning The War. The arsenal of democracy was not named as such because they built only for themselves.
- 4
A lot of really good points here. Balancing France especially is difficult. France had limited production and research leading up to WW2, which is why they turned to America to rearm.
Another example hoping Paradox are listening for a DLC
RAF Coastal Command had flying boats (not too may Sunderlands!!) and Avro Anson for Sub hunting. The Blackburn Botha was a possible replacement.. least said about that the better.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avro_Anson
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackburn_Botha
I hope you can see these aircraft were ill suited to the task and German U-boasts would not be too worried.
However we Brits are not stupid and it was realised that another aircraft was needed. The RAF bought the Lockheed Hudson
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Hudson
Again this is not a 4 engined Liberator but as in all wars baby steps are needed.
My point is that GB did not have the MiC or the CiC to replace the Anson and this would have had a direct effect on the war. Think how many Fighters would have been sacrificed for the battle of Britain to build the aircraft to protect the convoys off the UK or the amount of convoys that would have been lost without the Hudson forcing the uboots to run submerged by just being there.
Allowing nations to use their assets (gold) to buy aircraft for example allows them to build other things and be stronger than they otherwise would be. Otherwise they will have to be stronger than they actually were to balance the game.
Not forgetting this was a vital step in building up US military manufacturing before their entry into ww2, and help end the depression.
RAF Coastal Command had flying boats (not too may Sunderlands!!) and Avro Anson for Sub hunting. The Blackburn Botha was a possible replacement.. least said about that the better.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avro_Anson
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackburn_Botha
I hope you can see these aircraft were ill suited to the task and German U-boasts would not be too worried.
However we Brits are not stupid and it was realised that another aircraft was needed. The RAF bought the Lockheed Hudson
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Hudson
Again this is not a 4 engined Liberator but as in all wars baby steps are needed.
My point is that GB did not have the MiC or the CiC to replace the Anson and this would have had a direct effect on the war. Think how many Fighters would have been sacrificed for the battle of Britain to build the aircraft to protect the convoys off the UK or the amount of convoys that would have been lost without the Hudson forcing the uboots to run submerged by just being there.
Allowing nations to use their assets (gold) to buy aircraft for example allows them to build other things and be stronger than they otherwise would be. Otherwise they will have to be stronger than they actually were to balance the game.
Not forgetting this was a vital step in building up US military manufacturing before their entry into ww2, and help end the depression.
- 1