Steel Mills should be added as a building

[Znail]

Sorry, but if you don't want Steel Mills, why did you use all the arguments FOR steel mills?

He obviously ment that not having steel mills adds to realism as the fits in with the rest of his post.

I also agree with that the current game deals with this better with the prospect decitions.

The one thing I do agree with is that countries without steel mills had serious trouble building a military production as ordering armor grade steel plates became harder as war loomed. But that is not solved with letting people build magic mills.

 

[Quantum_AI]

But that is not solved with letting people build magic mills.

Yea steel mills are "magic" but oil and rubber refineries are not. Nor is that fact that everyone can build aircraft carriers and atom bombs. But noooo, steel mills is where we draw the line.

 

[Louella]

What is the German players reason for the Norwegian campaign, if they could just build more steel mills in Bavaria ?

 

[Quantum_AI]

What is the German players reason for the Norwegian campaign, if they could just build more steel mills in Bavaria ?

What is the German player's reason for the Norwegian campaign even if they can't build steel mills?

 

[Vorondil]

Simple

In my mod Steel mils are buildable, but consume a lot of coal and iron

Without coal and iron as resources, buildable steel mils makes abolutely no sense.

 

[Znail]

Yea steel mills are "magic" but oil and rubber refineries are not. Nor is that fact that everyone can build aircraft carriers and atom bombs. But noooo, steel mills is where we draw the line.

That there are other things in the game that bothers you is not a reason to make the game worse.

 

[Quantum_AI]

That there are other things in the game that bothers you is not a reason to make the game worse.

Except that steel mills are actually a reality that most countries can and have built, even the tiny ones. They are not "magic".

 

[MinhowMinhow]

They should add ores in game, iron ore, bauxite, etc. And refined metals and fuel production be dependent from number of industries.

 

[blahmaster6k]

Simple

In my mod Steel mils are buildable, but consume a lot of coal and iron

Without coal and iron as resources, buildable steel mils makes abolutely no sense.

Since you won't plug your own mod by name, this guy's mod is called ULTRA, I advise checking it out if you want more realism in terms of resource locations among other things.

 

[Znail]

Except that steel mills are actually a reality that most countries can and have built, even the tiny ones. They are not "magic".

Making Steel out of thin air is magic.

 

[blahmaster6k]

Making Steel out of thin air is magic.

Making steel out of iron ore is not magic, which I think is what should be done if they were to add steel mills. In my opinion, ideally iron ore should be on the map, and it should be turned into steel at refinery buildings. There would of course be steel mills in every country that had a steel industry at the start of the game, but it would make the resource war more accurate and incentivize things like Germany making sure to protect the Norwegian iron import routes.

 

[Cobannos]

Steel Mills are not magic... wtf. The 1930/1940s were not the Bronze Age, every country had or at least could have had it's own domestic albeit small steel production. Coal and iron were not massively expensive or even rare. And since its use is restricted by building space it would be balanced.
Magic is paying basically the same price for the same amount of every ressource type.

 

[Harin]

If you build steel mills, will these mills produce steel without consuming ore, or will they consume ore(s)?

If they consume ore, then it seems we are moving an existing resource from one hand to the other, but with an additional step to build a steel mill to do it. If the mill automatically makes steel, consuming no ore, then it seems we are creating raw resources, the missing ore, that did not exist originally.

If the end goal of the OP is to create more resources, building a mine, instead of a steel mill, might be a cleaner design choice for the hundreds of thousands who buy the game and never visit the forums or the WIKI. Mines increasing resources seems intuitive, while steel mills which conventionally consume resources, seems counter intuitive in using them to increase a resource.

Either way, it may require a little more work than we first imagine. Since the games resources are balanced to something, choosing where and how much additional resources can be added to the game would require some wise decisions. If to many resources are added, or allowed in the wrong place, then much of the economic game will loss value, since without scarcity, resources have little value. Unfortunately, the game is close to this state already, in SP for major powers. It would not take a big mistake to make resources almost meaningless, game wise.

 

[Vlad123]

If you build steel mills, will these mills produce steel without consuming ore, or will they consume ore(s)?

If they consume ore, then it seems we are moving an existing resource from one hand to the other, but with an additional step to build a steel mill to do it. If the mill automatically makes steel, consuming no ore, then it seems we are creating raw resources, the missing ore, that did not exist originally.

If the end goal of the OP is to create more resources, building a mine, instead of a steel mill, might be a cleaner design choice for the hundreds of thousands who buy the game and never visit the forums or the WIKI. Mines increasing resources seems intuitive, while steel mills which conventionally consume resources, seems counter intuitive in using them to increase a resource.

Either way, it may require a little more work than we first imagine. Since the games resources are balanced to something, choosing where and how much additional resources can be added to the game would require some wise decisions. If to many resources are added, or allowed in the wrong place, then much of the economic game will loss value, since without scarcity, resources have little value. Unfortunately, the game is close to this state already, in SP for major powers. It would not take a big mistake to make resources almost meaningless, game wise.

The problem that creates scarcity is not war or scarcity itself ... but, ironically, how the market works on hoi4. If Japan conquers Indonesia and Malaysia and puts the market closed ... 95% of rubber production is "canceled from the game". Because japan to recover those 10 of metal, closes everything by blocking the rubber (and the synthetic refineries, even for germany, do not solve the problem, and germany, I remember, has +2 of rubber from a focus)

 

[DocDesastro]

If I might throw in my hat into the discussion, while I also concur with the abstraction of the resources in the game going too far I wonder, why we should have steel mills first without the proper resources to fuel them existing?
Another strong indicator of how mighty a country is industrial-wise is the amount of chemical industry and THIS is the kind of factory emerging with some companies like Bayer, IG Farben, DuPont, Kellog's and whatnot. The whole era after WWI saw the birth of nylon/spandex, bakelite, celluloids and other synthetic materials and Haber-Bosch-reactors literally producing chemicals out of thin air (talking ammonia for fertilizers and oxidated to nitrates in the Ostwald-Process for more fertilizer but also combustibles and explosives).
These factories paved the way to surplus-producing agriculture ('bread out of air') and together with mechanization freed up thousands of workers not being needed anymore as farm hands - which in turn should bolster the manpower pool and add consumer goods for export or free up land for producing cash crops as trade token which is a viable option for minor countries to have something to trade without giving up the scarce civil IC factories.
Chemicals could e.g. be used as another resource and being used for let's say infantry and support equipment and the more high-tech something is (i.e. it contains more electronic parts and light-weight plastics) the more chemicals it will need. Steel is depicted quite well as the countries that had it usually has steel mills in the nearer vicinity of the mill unless we are talking of colonies strictly exporting raw materials.
If at all steel mills could be an indicator of how much of the raw resources can be efficiently used for industrial needs refining iron, chromium and tungsten into workable compounds. This would indeed make a difference as a lowly developed country might have mines and ores but no means of processing them limiting their options in terms of industry. This is something at least to be discussed as trade currently feels not meaningful but a chore to be done - just pop enough CIV and trade for what you need, rinse and repeat and let the bot do the trade.
After all, war is all about logistics and simulating the strategical layer of the game should also reflect on procuring materials and getting them to the home theater where the weapons of war are forged you need in the conflict.
After all I think this is a plausible way of tweaking some countries to realistic behavior and no more 'minor conquers the world' with pitchforks and torches (because they do not have much else...)
I would not write it off.

 

[KubiG37]

The issue ultimately revolves around resource complexity. Of course you could have all the different goods, mines producing raw materials, and factories turning those raw materials into better ones, which other factories could consume to produce military equipment.

I’d personally prefer a bit more complexity.
a steel mill requiring raw iron ore isn’t a bad idea. It would make countries like Sweden and Norway actually relevant for gameplay. And having your steel mills bombed, or iron cut out of iron would slow down your production.

And a lot more could be added.
But at this stage, you could have just created a 1936 scenario for Victoria 2 instead, with actual money and population needs.

 

[blahmaster6k]

the synthetic refineries, even for germany, do not solve the problem, and germany, I remember, has +2 of rubber from a focus

Building 30 synthetic refineries as Germany nets you 210 rubber at max tech plus the +2 from the focus. You can be entirely self sufficient on rubber as Germany extremely easily.

 

[Vlad123]

The issue ultimately revolves around resource complexity. Of course you could have all the different goods, mines producing raw materials, and factories turning those raw materials into better ones, which other factories could consume to produce military equipment.

I’d personally prefer a bit more complexity.
a steel mill requiring raw iron ore isn’t a bad idea. It would make countries like Sweden and Norway actually relevant for gameplay. And having your steel mills bombed, or iron cut out of iron would slow down your production.

And a lot more could be added.
But at this stage, you could have just created a 1936 scenario for Victoria 2 instead, with actual money and population needs.

A mod is creating just that. But already some mods create industries that require some new resources to function and produce steel

 

[Vlad123]

Building 30 synthetic refineries as Germany nets you 210 rubber at max tech plus the +2 from the focus. You can be entirely self sufficient on rubber as Germany extremely easily.

Yes, it's a pity that you get to the last two levels at the end of the game. Granted (and not granted) that with Germany you satisfy all the need for rubber ... the other states of the game?

 

[blahmaster6k]

Yes, it's a pity that you get to the last two levels at the end of the game. Granted (and not granted) that with Germany you satisfy all the need for rubber ... the other states of the game?

As Germany you save the 300% research bonus for the 1943 rubber tech. Perfectly viable to have it in 1940/41.