SUGGESTION: Limit the stockpiles - three ways to do this

[LodovicoAriosto]

Hi,

I think AoD could offer an increase in realism and an improvement of gameplay by some changes in stockpiling.

I can't talk for anybody else but I would like to be eager for capturing oil and rares stockpiles from the enemy, to be vastly dependant on war-time trade partners and uncertain convoy trade routes when playing Germany or Japan...would you too?

I suggest introducing some kind of limitation system.

HoI3 has 100k cap for every resource which is, IMO, a bad solution. I think the game deserves a more realistic approach:

1. resource caps depend on total IC; they could be different for each resource since some of them are more valuable than the others

- example - 200 energy, 150 metal, 100 oil, 50 rares etc. per 1 IC

OR

2. decay over time

- example - all stockpiles reduce by 2% each month

OR

3. a new province building - resource depot or silo

- example - one depot costs 5 IC and takes 180 days to build; can contain 5000 oil or 2500 rares etc...



My ideal solution is a combination of options 2 and 3. That means building depots + decay of superfluous resources.


Could anything of this be coded into a patch?

 

[Lennartos]

Yes its possible - you are pretty much on par with our discussions on the subject my favourite is still a 1+2 approach (3 might be interesting, but the AI has kinda enough things on its mind already )

But the first patch is all about bugfixing, so it wont be around the corner

 

[Amallric]

Maybe some kind of slider that allows to keep bigger stockpiles, but at a cost? Or an exponential formula of decay instead of a 2% decay - the more ressources you stockpile, the faster they decay.

 

[Chamoisking]

The forum has discussed this idea for a long time. Option 1 is easy to implement. Option 2 needs rebalancing the whole world's resources. Option 3 is fine but i want it is easy to build, like 1 silo can contain 5000 energy, costs only 90 IC.days.

 

[LodovicoAriosto]

Yes its possible - you are pretty much on par with our discussions on the subject my favourite is still a 1+2 approach (3 might be interesting, but the AI has kinda enough things on its mind already )

But the first patch is all about bugfixing, so it wont be around the corner

1 + 2 option is absolutely OK on my side.

This could also be used to rebalance the game. You could simulate the German difficulties in waging a long war. And multiplayer games would be more fun due to this feature since the human Axis powers usually stockpile enormous amounts of oil and rares before the war - to support their industry and panzers until the late 40s...

 

[Orm]

Yes its possible - you are pretty much on par with our discussions on the subject my favourite is still a 1+2 approach (3 might be interesting, but the AI has kinda enough things on its mind already )

Wouldn't it be possible to have option 3 for humans, but something simpler for the AI? It's a sort of AI cheating I wouldn't mind.

 

[unmerged(132371)]

If you don't want stockpiles don't stockpile , but don't stop me from it either. Every one seems to want their own values imposed on everyone else . The SOV players that used to hammer the game with 500 - 800 DIVS don't like the quality > quantity and the non GER players want no stockpiles for GER .
Personaly I want the toughest opponent I can get so I want to see GER with lots of tanks, mot and mech. Without a stockpile of oil the air naval and mobile troops don't work. If historic accuracy is so important let the whole game be by event and we can just watch the same thing happen the same day so all major battles happen on the right day with the right results. Now we have a movie not a game. This game should have a historic begining but be open to changes as the game goes on . The war was full of stupid decisions that don't need to be repeated. Britons reluctance to use the convoy system . Germany not increasing productivity till to late and all of "the leader's" bad decisions. America's tank destroyer doctrine and failing to escort bombers even tho P-38 had the range. Do we want these as mandatory parts of the game? Some poeple play with IC takeover some don't same with tech teams. Some use very easy or easy ,normal , hard ect. We have options on how to play and that is great. If you have to make stockpiles an option like difficulty , tech team takeover ect. do it to please some but dont enforce it on me.

 

[LodovicoAriosto]

If you don't want stockpiles don't stockpile , but don't stop me from it either. Every one seems to want their own values imposed on everyone else .

So what is the ideal "game" according to you? Maybe they should make the console an integrated part of the interface so that every player could "cheat" as much resources/manpower/IC as they like???

I didn't like that I had to limit myself (e. g. not invade France until May 40, sinking the whole RN before launching Sealion etc.) in HoI2. The game should limit me and punish me for absurd exploits.


One of the major characteristics of any game is imposing restrictions on a player = rules (look it up in a dictionary ) It consititutes good gameplay, fun and challenge. I am just suggesting a rule which, IMO, would make the game more fun, more realistic and more challenging (mostly in terms of planning). And I think most players support this or some similar rule.


And finally, if you're worried about your stockpiles, I think the rule could be made optional, just as techteam takeover.

 

[Syntalynder]

Resource Stockpile Attrition.

Depots can also be bombed.

 

[Acesandeights]

I like the idea of 1 + 2, so long as it's handled within reason and balanced somewhat from top to bottom of the food chain, so minors are hindered more than majors, but not completely hobbled with regards accomplishing anything.

 

[unmerged(133545)]

I don't think there is any problem with the stockpile situation just the way it is - if my economy can produce these reserves then why should I have penalties applied - there will always be limits to realism, it is a game remember.

 

[Cybvep]

IMO 1 + 2 seems to be the easiest way of getting it right. It's universal, simple and effective. It's also more balanced than pure "option 1".

Example:

pure 1 = you hit the stockpile cap and then all the resources that are your surplus are wasted, so with 100 IC you would be stuck at e.g. 20000 cap for a long time.

1 + 2 = you hit the stockpile cap and THEN the resource attrition effect kicks in, so you can still surpass it if your resource surplus is really large, but the larger the difference between the cap and your stockpile, the higher the attrition

All modifiers should be in misc.txt, of course...

 

[unmerged(52751)]

I don't think there is any problem with the stockpile situation just the way it is - if my economy can produce these reserves then why should I have penalties applied - there will always be limits to realism, it is a game remember.

Agree. It's about player choice. The player that stockpiles resources before the war chooses to do so over production or building supplies. Why should they be penalized? Just because Germany entered the war without prudent resource reserves does not mean that human players have to follow this historical bad planning. Also, there is no way that limiting stockpiles is in any way realistic, are people suggesting that a country could run out of storage space?

I think a nice addition would be resource depots in more than one place than the capital city, so that supplies and resources can be captured by the enemy, or perhaps even targeted by strategic bombing.

 

[Czarina Julie]

I agree somewhat with tingerman and Big Tex. But...

So what is the ideal "game" according to you? Maybe they should make the console an integrated part of the interface so that every player could "cheat" as much resources/manpower/IC as they like???

isn't cheating. The game has no limit/cap on resources and neither did/do countries in real life.

My wish, would be to see LodovicoAriosto's 2 & 3. This way there is no cap (just like real life) but to have hugh stock piles you'll need to ensure you have the facilities to store all of it. I'm strongly against any type of cap. Restrictions on hugh stock piles yes, cap no.

 

[unmerged(166050)]

Generally I dislike decay as a mechanic in games and simulations. It represents something outside the control of the player which - in better incarnations - creates additional micromanagement for little or no gameplay benefit. Thus, I favour 1 and 3, with the ability to bomb said structures and remove enemy resources with ease.

However, I'd be fine with it staying as it is now.

 

[unmerged(132371)]

Where do you get the cheating ? HOI 1 no cap on resources , HOI 2 no cap so where am I cheating. In Texas if you call someone a cheat or a liar it is VERY insulting and is considered dangerous. I will assume you did not know this. Please do not make personal attacks on differing opinions. This is an open forum and my opinion is as valid as yours. Some people like large scale maps , strategies , and unit counts and other people don't. DEV'S don't restrict the game , leave it open to choice.

 

[Cybvep]

What choice? It's an evident flaw when resource stockpiles become so huge that this part of the game becomes practically irrelevant. It also makes submarines close to useless in the most important scenario - 1936. There was a reason why War in the Atlantic was so important. In history most wars had been fought over resources (of one kind or another). In HOI games we hardly need any.

 

[Alex_brunius]

1. resource caps depend on total IC; they could be different for each resource since some of them are more valuable than the others

- example - 200 energy, 150 metal, 100 oil, 50 rares etc. per 1 IC

OR

2. decay over time

- example - all stockpiles reduce by 2% each month

A few notes:

1. Should be dependent on how much you actually consume of them to produce 1 IC. So in that case 200 energy, 100 metal, 50 rares would allow you to keep that IC running for 100 days. (100 day stockpile).

Oil is tricker since it both more valuable and harder to store (leakages) / easier to sabotage. Normally the only places that actually store oil for the military are military bases, such as Airbases and Navalbases.

Thus Ideally oil max stockpile should be dependent on those instead.

2. Id preffer to see a daily decay, since it would be clearly visible in the balance then. For example adding a line "-10 decay from storage".

1% daily decay would obviously be very high (+100 balance at 0 evens out to +0 at 10 000 stored).
0.1% daily decay might be to low (+100 balance at 0 evens out to +0 at 100 000 stored).

Id preffer if devs wait with these implementations until they have enough time, so that both 1 & 2 or whatever is choosen can be properly tested. Option 2 for example will severly impact global resource availability, and if trade AI can't handle it some serious problems might follow. A trade AI that aims to keep a +50 surplus will keep buying and buying growing your stockpile for all eternity ignoring that it soon becomes very expensive due to all decay.

Another thing that would be nice to have is to have the key variables exported to misc.txt so mods can toy with them.

This game should have a historic begining but be open to changes as the game goes on .

Just as you wan't a historic beginning, we want historical problems and constraints. Not being able to stockpile enough to run your Industry without imports for 5 years was a very real and very historical problem for Axis nations. It's not about having the game be historical each time, Its about forcing the player to think how to overcome the historical problems. Do you preffer a game like HoI3 that is so open to changes that we have USA join the axis and Japan join the Allies?

There are also clear solutions to overcome all 3 suggestions. 1: Build IC, 2: buy more (It gets a little more expensive to stockpile). 3: build depots.

The game has no limit/cap on resources and neither did/do countries in real life.

That's just bullshit. Each ton of resource you store is going to cost you cash. All industries today know this and tries to keep their stockpiles to a mimimum, a modern car factory have less then 8 hours of material available at the plant and are heavilly dependent on "just in time" deliveries, The trucks and trains are their warehouse, because Its cheaper that way.
Just Imagine the cost of storing all billions off tons of resources needed to run an entire nation. Where can you put them? How do you stop shady corporations from just taking some of it? How can you access it all at once when its needed? Who pays for that infrastructrue and those extra deliveres?

This actually got me to think off a 4:th option. An additional expense slider for strategic stockpile maintainance instead. That will impose a cost on the nations depending on how much they stockpile, but it won't affect resource balance. You still need to make the AI aware of it though.

 

[LodovicoAriosto]

Just because Germany entered the war without prudent resource reserves does not mean that human players have to follow this historical bad planning. Also, there is no way that limiting stockpiles is in any way realistic, are people suggesting that a country could run out of storage space?

When we talk about historical plausibility, it is impossible to storage enough resources to run a powerhouse economy and support a large motorized war machine for more than a few months. In present conditions, you can do without ANY further resource inflow for a DECADE, feeding from the stockpiles you have gathered in 3 pre-war years.

My country has recently invested in oil silos to build up solid strategic reserve...for 1 month! And it is already above the EU average.

UK example: The British were highly dependant on convoy route to Persian gulf through Suez, they needed a continual inflow of oil. That's one of the major reasons behind the North African fighting. Wouldn't it be nice to add this new dimension to the African campaign?

Where do you get the cheating ? HOI 1 no cap on resources , HOI 2 no cap so where am I cheating.

You got me wrong. I don't say that no cap means cheating. I wanted to say that any game has rules (=a player is not omnipotent) and changing some of them cannot be called bullying or something.

What choice? It's an evident flaw when resource stockpiles become so huge that this part of the game becomes practically irrelevant. It also makes submarines close to useless in the most important scenario - 1936. There was a reason why War in the Atlantic was so important. In history most wars had been fought over resources (of one kind or another). In HOI games we hardly need any.

Full agreement. When people say that Germany should be weakened in AoD, this could be a good way, IMO better than simple reducing IC. Germany should invest much to prevent the war machine from losing breath after 1942. And these investments could be roughly described like this:

1. building ships to secure convoy trade routes
2. building depots or losing resources due to attrition/decay
3. building synthetic oil/rares plants

Such a small improvement in stockpiling could add a whole new dimension to the gameplay.


EDIT: @Alex_brunius - I just presented examples, we can discuss exact numbers. My idea is that the Axis powers should really APPRECIATE the captured stockpiles, Germany should find Ukrainian resource-rich provinces really helpful and it should hardly do without synthetic resource plants. On the other hand, the UK should suffer from being cut off from colonies by U-boots etc...

 

[Cybvep]

Some AI changes will always be necessary, but introducing another building type would mess things too much. Players would have absolutely no problems with resource handling while AI would probably make too many mistakes. Supply attrition, sliders, caps etc. should be better for the AI. The most intensive changes would be needed in AI's handling of trade.