The Food Resource

[The Albatross]

This is just a friendly reminder that any kind of discussion of war crimes and genocide is off limits. This means we cannot discuss certain food related historical items, including the infamous Hunger Plan or any deliberate starvation of civilians.

If we can follow the rules, the thread can be left open.

I concur @Secret Master -- I cannot help but notice that my post #13 attracted 3 disagreements.
Noted also is that NONE of these posters had the courage to present an alternative view.

For those posters who decline to provide evidence for their comments = here is more non-confrontational information about FOOD;
Australian developments into COMBAT RATION packs began in 1940.

These ration packs are now the RATPACKS of every Defence Force on the planet.
Do any of those anonymous brave souls who ticked the disagreement box care to comment??

 

[kalauer]

I concur @Secret Master -- I cannot help but notice that my post #13 attracted 3 disagreements.
Noted also is that NONE of these posters had the courage to present an alternative view.

For those posters who decline to provide evidence for their comments = here is more non-confrontational information about FOOD;
Australian developments into COMBAT RATION packs began in 1940.

These ration packs are now the RATPACKS of every Defence Force on the planet.
Do any of those anonymous brave souls who ticked the disagreement box care to comment??

Oh, so you are actually serious about this. I myself was very much tempted to formally disagree but decided you tried to troll. Why?

Because in a discussion about the potential strategic importance of food, it seems ridiculous, at least to me, to start arguing about horse food during WW2. I would argue that the strategic relevance of horses (and their food) has another dimension than steel, oil etc., even IF food alltogether was as relevant as those.

But knowing you are serious, I may now push that button. And you even have an explanation. Everyone wins!

 

[potski]

The Disagree button was changed to Respectfully Disagree. You also should respect people's right to disagree with you. May be they disagreed with you that supplies had to be horse-drawn, or even that the topic was about military supplies at all. I took it the OP was on about food supplies for the population. Was I wrong about that?

 

[The Albatross]

The Disagree button was changed to Respectfully Disagree. You also should respect people's right to disagree with you. May be they disagreed with you that supplies had to be horse-drawn, or even that the topic was about military supplies at all. I took it the OP was on about food supplies for the population. Was I wrong about that?

Indeed @potski, the topic thread is entitled ~~ "The Food Resource" - why would you simply think that it is just about humans?
Recall this gem from Sun Tzu;



In academia, the usual method of disagreement is to provide references.
This provides a counterpoint to the discussion.
I provided mine - they have declined to provide theirs.
Disagree with me all you like ~~ do you wish to argue the point with Sun Tzu here?

 

[The Albatross]

Oh, so you are actually serious about this. I myself was very much tempted to formally disagree but decided you tried to troll. Why?

Because in a discussion about the potential strategic importance of food, it seems ridiculous, at least to me, to start arguing about horse food during WW2. I would argue that the strategic relevance of horses (and their food) has another dimension than steel, oil etc., even IF food alltogether was as relevant as those.

But knowing you are serious, I may now push that button. And you even have an explanation. Everyone wins!

Read my Sun Tzu reference to @potski .
There is NO argument about horse or food for the Beasts of War.

Recall what LTGEN Patton stated;
"When everybody is thinking the same ~~ somebody is not thinking."

Thread title is "The Food Resource" -- and there is no argument at all --- horses, just like soldiers need food.
Do you disagree?

 

[vector1]

I however do agree that food did have a very strong historical influence in the logistics of the pre-industrial age as from your references. In the industrial age, rare materials, oil, steel and such take more prominence in scarcity and value in the WW2 war machine. However important food is in real life, it's very hard to simulate the details down to the diet of the individual soldiers and the effect on combat. This is a grand strategy game, not WW2 survival simulator, so I'd say it's permissible to focus on the tools of war and abstract the rest of it a little more into generic supplies and civilian consumption of factories

 

[kalauer]

Okay, nowI have a suspicion again... But whatever:

First of all, quotes (in general, but also in this particular case) do not prove your point, that's just namedropping. And assuming anyone here would buy the book you linked to be allowed to question your statements is bold at least.

Now for the content:
OP posed the question whether food should and can be a strategic resource in HoI4, just like steel, oil etc. Concers regarding undesirable (and undesired) implications to that force the limitation on military aspects, narrowing down the strategic importance alot!

Your approach on this issue was to introduce figures about how many food was used in operation Barbarossa by horses, at which point I thought of a joke. Because, and I am repeating myself here, this is hardly a strategic significance when compared to e.g. Germany lacking tungsten for artillery or rubber for planes. You can get food for horses if you need to, also very well within your own country. Getting it to the troops is another issue (not a strategic one!) and btw the right interpretation of your "Sun Tzu"-quote.

But I have the notion you do not want to talk about food or strategic resources but logistics. Thing is, this is not the thread for this. It is not only not about food logistic, it is not at all about logistic. Even strategic ressources do not use a detailed logistic system, just the good olde convoi at max.

While I am writing this, @vector1 makes the point that food may be seen as included in general supplies, which I fully support in terms of game model. However, this has nothing to do with food being a strategic resource.

In academia, the usual method of disagreement is to provide references.
This provides a counterpoint to the discussion.
I provided mine - they have declined to provide theirs.

That sounds like you want me to search for a quote that proves you are not on topic. And while I have my problems with your claim regarding academic method, I'll just let you have it since this is no academic discussion.

But to end with a more friendly approach: Could you rephrase your thesis regarding food as strategic resource? Maybe it is all a big misunderstanding.

 

[vector1]

I imagine that while food is technically a historically strategic resource in WW2 as posited by Albatross, we simply have to consider the relative importance of it in HOI4. Abstraction is the way to go, rather than deal with the minutiae like Victoria 2 and assorted mods with their different trade goods. The Paradox games have different focus on simulated resources/goods and I can fully get behind the intent of HOI4 as regarding abstracting food.

 

[Miragu]

The Disagree button was changed to Respectfully Disagree. You also should respect people's right to disagree with you. May be they disagreed with you that supplies had to be horse-drawn, or even that the topic was about military supplies at all. I took it the OP was on about food supplies for the population. Was I wrong about that?

Naw I was just reliant on the numbers shown in the vid to make sure food was a topic of enough importance to implement in game. If the numbers were small and insignificant then this thread wouldn't exist

I just thought we might be missing a critical resource since the vid talked about how important food as a resource was in the era, to everyone alike, and had big, juicy numbers to prove the point.

After all, wouldn't this wargame be a little funny if you only had to feed your planes, ships and vehicles, but not your men? I'm assuming in the future we feed our machines Oil. Why not Food for the men?

 

[Sharp163]

I always assumed that food is included in the "supplies" portion of your (now nonexistent) stockpile. This was because if you didn't have enough of it, the people would revolt.

 

[Evan05]

Oh, so you are actually serious about this. I myself was very much tempted to formally disagree but decided you tried to troll. Why?

Because in a discussion about the potential strategic importance of food, it seems ridiculous, at least to me, to start arguing about horse food during WW2. I would argue that the strategic relevance of horses (and their food) has another dimension than steel, oil etc., even IF food alltogether was as relevant as those.

But knowing you are serious, I may now push that button. And you even have an explanation. Everyone wins!

Horses were quite important in WW2.

Okay, nowI have a suspicion again... But whatever:

First of all, quotes (in general, but also in this particular case) do not prove your point, that's just namedropping. And assuming anyone here would buy the book you linked to be allowed to question your statements is bold at least.

Now for the content:
OP posed the question whether food should and can be a strategic resource in HoI4, just like steel, oil etc. Concers regarding undesirable (and undesired) implications to that force the limitation on military aspects, narrowing down the strategic importance alot!

Your approach on this issue was to introduce figures about how many food was used in operation Barbarossa by horses, at which point I thought of a joke. Because, and I am repeating myself here, this is hardly a strategic significance when compared to e.g. Germany lacking tungsten for artillery or rubber for planes. You can get food for horses if you need to, also very well within your own country. Getting it to the troops is another issue (not a strategic one!) and btw the right interpretation of your "Sun Tzu"-quote.

Sure, horse food isn't as important as oil or steel or aluminum, but it's still a resource that had a strategic use and importance.

However, food in general is more important then natural resources such as oil or metals. Without food, your soldiers are literally going to starve to death. Even in food shortages they will not be able to march or follow orders effectively, if at all.

Sure, if you don't have oil, it's going to cripple your war effort. A lack of oil could pretty much lose you the war. But if you don't have the food to feed the soldiers that will be invading hostile nations, or the food to feed your government officals and police so they can keep order, or the food to feed the workers in your factories, everything is going to fall apart.

Those soldiers will not be able to fight effectively, which will cripple your war effort. Those government administrators and police will not do their job well, leading to unrest and even potential revolt which cripples the war effort. Those workers in your factories will not be able to refine the oil and steel into useful military materials if you have no food which cripples the war effort.

You can have all the oil, rubber, and tungsten you want but if you don't have any food, then those resources are useless.

 

[vector1]

Horses were quite important in WW2.



Sure, horse food isn't as important as oil or steel or aluminum, but it's still a resource that had a strategic use and importance.

However, food in general is more important then natural resources such as oil or metals. Without food, your soldiers are literally going to starve to death. Even in food shortages they will not be able to march or follow orders effectively, if at all.

Sure, if you don't have oil, it's going to cripple your war effort. A lack of oil could pretty much lose you the war. But if you don't have the food to feed the soldiers that will be invading hostile nations, or the food to feed your government officals and police so they can keep order, or the food to feed the workers in your factories, everything is going to fall apart.

Those soldiers will not be able to fight effectively, which will cripple your war effort. Those government administrators and police will not do their job well, leading to unrest and even potential revolt which cripples the war effort. Those workers in your factories will not be able to refine the oil and steel into useful military materials if you have no food which cripples the war effort.

You can have all the oil, rubber, and tungsten you want but if you don't have any food, then those resources are useless.

This could be said of a lot of things as well. For example, water. Without water soldiers are going to sicken much faster than without food, but pretty much no one ever talks about the importance of water in operations and it took till well after WW2 before armies recognized the importance of sufficient hydration in preventing heat injuries. By weight and bulk I'm reasonably sure water is going to take up significant amount transporting it in particular environs like Africa.

It comes down to what's important to the game and how food can be modeled.

All the tradable resources involves items specific to production (other than oil but that's another story). Food has no direct link to manufacturing other than keeping the workforce healthy. In that aspect I don't imagine food should be a tradable resource.

As a strategic resource, having additional food from bonuses like black soil, or agriculture technologies can be abstracted into increased menpower or even minor combat efficiency bonuses. That may work and is quite easily modded in if anyone's inclined. This abstracts food to a degree but keeps it's presence in the game.

Lastly, as a logistical resource, food for soldiers/beasts of burden do not fit the vision of HOI4. The logistical system has been simplified to the point where we only have a generic "supplies" to simulate all possible items that are required at the front. Food is thoroughly abstracted so it's up to your imagination since HOI4 is not WW2 logistics simulator 2016.

 

[kalauer]

I agree with @vector1 again here: That a resource is important for the war does not make it viable to be a strategic resource. Because for food, water and others, it is about distribution, not availability. I believe this is tha major difference between strategic and logistic resources in HoI4: strategic resources must be available and are not distributed (steel, oil), while logistic resources are assumed to be available (and then manufactured into supplies) but must be distributed.

So how could food be a strategic resource? Only if you claim there was a structural lack of it for all/many/important countries. Distribution issues do not count for this imo.

About the horses... might be; but was the food for the horses strategically important?

 

[The Albatross]

Okay, nowI have a suspicion again... But whatever:

First of all, quotes (in general, but also in this particular case) do not prove your point, that's just namedropping.
And assuming anyone here would buy the book you linked to be allowed to question your statements is bold at least.

Comment: It is not 'namedropping' it is fact + history + reality and therefore RELEVANT.

Now for the content:
OP posed the question whether food should and can be a strategic resource in HoI4, just like steel, oil etc. Concers regarding undesirable (and undesired) implications to that force the limitation on military aspects, narrowing down the strategic importance alot!

Your approach on this issue was to introduce figures about how many food was used in operation Barbarossa by horses, at which point I thought of a joke. Because, and I am repeating myself here, this is hardly a strategic significance when compared to e.g. Germany lacking tungsten for artillery or rubber for planes. You can get food for horses if you need to, also very well within your own country. Getting it to the troops is another issue (not a strategic one!) and btw the right interpretation of your "Sun Tzu"-quote.

Comment: If the USSR has initiated a SCORCHED EARTH STRATEGY - and YOU are the General Office Commanding [GOC] then you will never 'get food for horses if you need to' - as per your posted comment. The historical records are clear - there were 750,000 horses in YOUR armies. If you do not feed and water them, who or what will put your artillery units into position?

But I have the notion you do not want to talk about food or strategic resources but logistics. Thing is, this is not the thread for this. It is not only not about food logistic, it is not at all about logistic. Even strategic ressources do not use a detailed logistic system, just the good olde convoi at max.

Comment: Consider - irrespective of whether it is Guns or Butter that you manufacture, these products are of NO value if you cannot deliver them to the FRONT-LINES where they are needed. The connection between manufacturing + supply always requires LOGISTICS for successful OPS.
Recall: Generals win battles - Logisticians win wars

While I am writing this, @vector1 makes the point that food may be seen as included in general supplies, which I fully support in terms of game model. However, this has nothing to do with food being a strategic resource.

That sounds like you want me to search for a quote that proves you are not on topic. And while I have my problems with your claim regarding academic method, I'll just let you have it since this is no academic discussion.

Comment: Every endeavour in human research and development requires a sound basis in science and academic effort.
Example: Do you suppose that antibiotics just 'fell out of the pharmacy without any research and academic work?'

But to end with a more friendly approach: Could you rephrase your thesis regarding food as strategic resource? Maybe it is all a big misunderstanding.

Comment: Here is a historical narrative about food and water requirements for successful combat OPS with our old friend Alexander the Great.

"The result was disastrous: the blazing heat and the lack of water caused innumerable casualties, especially among the animals, most of which died of thirst or from the effects of the deep, burning, sun-baked sand. Sometimes they met with lofty hills of sand - loose, deep sand, into which they sank as if it were mud or untrodden snow; sometimes, climbing or descending, the mules and horses suffered even greater distress from the uneven and treacherous surface of the track. Not the least hardship was the varying length of the marches, as the fact that they never knew when they would find water made regular, normal marches impossible. It was not so bad when they found water in the morning after covering the requisite distance during the night; but when there was still further to go, and they found themselves plodding on and on as the day advanced, the double distress of heat and raging thirst was almost intolerable."


"Casualties among the animals were very numerous; indeed, most of them perished. Often they were killed deliberately by the men, who used to put their heads together and agree to butcher the mules and horses, whenever supplies gave out, and then eat their flesh and pretend they had died of thirst or exhaustion. As every man was involved, and the general distress was so great, there was no one to bring actual evidence of this crime, though Alexander himself was not unaware of what was going on; he realized, however, that the only way to deal with the situation was to feign ignorance, which would be better than to let the men feel that he connived at their breach of discipline."

Indeed, this account highlights the effects of dehydration in military campaigns - but lack of food also stops combat OPS.

Once again - the thread title is "The Food Resource" - history has provided plentiful examples about this necessity.
Just because the game mechanics ignore or overlook these vital assets does not mean that they are irrelevant.

Conclusion: Your comments denigrating research, academia and historical references are concerning.
Ask yourself this - if the historical works of people like Sun Tzu, Alexander the Great, Julius Caesar, Carl von Clausewitz etc are so irrelevant, then why do military academies all over this planet continue studying their campaigns?
The reailty is that they ARE relevant and MUST not be ignored.

 

[Jamey]

I could see a Food resource used to generate a cap for the number of units you can supply, providing a soft or hard cap on military size.

That said, I'm not sure whether that would improve the game or not. It would certainly require redesign and/or rebalance of numerous aspects of the game.

 

[kalauer]

@The Albatross :

Fortunately, I have some time to spend:

First comment: Your quotes might be relevant if they were on topic. But they are not. Stressing the importance of food and water for living things to exist is of no relevance to the question, whether HoI4 should consider them as strategic resource because there is more to being a strategic resource than the fact it is needed in some way. And exactly this non-existing relevance makes your quotes namedropping. I honestly feel you did not even understand the Sun Tzu one.

Second comment: Again, your example is about logistic, not about food as strategic resource. True, if I can't get food to the troops (and horses... what is it with you and the horses anyway?) you are screwed. But, and I say this the third time now: Distribution and logistic are of no relevance for strategic resources in HoI4 (other than convois from colonies). So every point you bring up here about logistic is just miles off topic. To convince me of the strategic importance of food, you would have to claim and proof that food was issue to structural shortages (due to just not enough being there or available in the entire nation), not local ones (as induced by logistic problems).

Third comment: Here you present me again a story from a known guy with no relevance to the strategic aspect. Maybe you have a enhanced version in which he states that all of this was caused because there was no food in his nation? I rather guess there wer problems with getting the resources to the soldiers. Although I might believe that in general, food production was a greater problem in his times than in WW2.

The title of the thread is your justification to stray from its topic. It is about food as strategic resource. Please accept this. And "history has provided plentiful examples about this necessity" when referring to "animals and humans need food" is just ridiculous. No sensible man would try to provide historic examples for this, it's common sense. Yet you do. On the other hand, what i would like to see historic example (accompanied by rerasoning, but we will come to that) for is that food as strategic resource was relevant in HoI4. I commented on my interpretation of the OPs video (see, this guy in the video was on topic, though I don't agree with his conclusion).

Now for your self proclaimed "scientific effort". If you'd really wanted to adress this in a scientific way, the first thing you'd do was to formulate your research question. If you did so, you might see that you are off topic. And while this still is no academic discussion, as it lacks all legitimation to call itself one, I want to tell you that popping sources without interpretation and reasoning behind it is not scientific, it is deception. You are supposed to have a position backed by a theory and support it with sources. You throw sources at us (without connection to the problem at hand) and expect us to agree with you.

The knowledge of the people you mention do matter. But the quotes you brought up here do not add to the topic. Simple as that. Thus, they are irrelevant here, and this is your fault, not theirs.

Maybe we would all be better off if you just opened a thread about logistic aspects of food or food aspects of logistics in WW2?

 

[vector1]

This makes for pretty interesting discussion about the importance of food in historical campaigns, and certainly in WW2.

@The Albatross

There are multiple type of resources in HOI4. Which generally can be divided up into
1) strategical resources for production (production inputs)
2) the production units from each factory (factory output)
3) equipment produced by factories (final products)

Then there is the logistical system, which basically has only units of generic supplies and assigns each equipment/division type a particular weight to cover them all.

As @kalauer has said, no one will dispute the importance of food, but food as a resource in the game needs some better justification than simply listing historical references on how important it was.

I have previously tried to hypothesize why food hasn't been directly modeled into the game, but where do you envision food fitting into the game that has already been discussed, or do you have something new to add?

 

[potski]

According to academia, Napoleon once said, "Qu'ils mangent les chevaux" (Let them eat the horses)

 

[The Albatross]

@The Albatross :

Fortunately, I have some time to spend:

First comment: Your quotes might be relevant if they were on topic. But they are not. Stressing the importance of food and water for living things to exist is of no relevance to the question, whether HoI4 should consider them as strategic resource because there is more to being a strategic resource than the fact it is needed in some way. And exactly this non-existing relevance makes your quotes namedropping. I honestly feel you did not even understand the Sun Tzu one.

Comment: You were already given a prime clue. The thread topic is "The Food Resource" there is no 'strategic' word put in there.
Cease being fixated on your spurious claims that quotes are 'namedropping.'

Second comment: Again, your example is about logistic, not about food as strategic resource. True, if I can't get food to the troops (and horses... what is it with you and the horses anyway?) you are screwed. But, and I say this the third time now: Distribution and logistic are of no relevance for strategic resources in HoI4 (other than convois from colonies). So every point you bring up here about logistic is just miles off topic. To convince me of the strategic importance of food, you would have to claim and proof that food was issue to structural shortages (due to just not enough being there or available in the entire nation), not local ones (as induced by logistic problems).

Comment: My comments include the entire chain of "The Food Resource." Food source + production + packaging + preservation + transportation + distribution. Focus here kalauer!! I do not have to prove anything to you. History has already provided all of it.

Third comment: Here you present me again a story from a known guy with no relevance to the strategic aspect. Maybe you have a enhanced version in which he states that all of this was caused because there was no food in his nation? I rather guess there wer problems with getting the resources to the soldiers. Although I might believe that in general, food production was a greater problem in his times than in WW2.

The title of the thread is your justification to stray from its topic. It is about food as strategic resource. Please accept this. And "history has provided plentiful examples about this necessity" when referring to "animals and humans need food" is just ridiculous. No sensible man would try to provide historic examples for this, it's common sense. Yet you do. On the other hand, what i would like to see historic example (accompanied by rerasoning, but we will come to that) for is that food as strategic resource was relevant in HoI4. I commented on my interpretation of the OPs video (see, this guy in the video was on topic, though I don't agree with his conclusion).

Comment: You keep going around in circles - again - the thread topic is "The Food Resource" there is no 'strategic' word put in there.
Your inclusion of 'strategic' is simply as a tactic to stop any further discussion. You are therefore off topic. All I have done is highlight those other unasked elements in utilizing the Food Resource.
Manufacturing -> packaging -> preservation -> transportation -> front-line distribution of this Resource.
My objective was to raise this for discussion. It highlights the significant gameplay abstraction of such vital resources.
Just because PI choose not to include these elements in their game does not invalidate the questions I raised.
For all we know, a modder may already be working at it.

Now for your self proclaimed "scientific effort". If you'd really wanted to adress this in a scientific way, the first thing you'd do was to formulate your research question. If you did so, you might see that you are off topic. And while this still is no academic discussion, as it lacks all legitimation to call itself one, I want to tell you that popping sources without interpretation and reasoning behind it is not scientific, it is deception. You are supposed to have a position backed by a theory and support it with sources. You throw sources at us (without connection to the problem at hand) and expect us to agree with you.

Comment: Again, you claim to hold the academic high ground proclaiming that you, in fact, are the guru in 'formulating research questions.' If you cannot link the sources provided within the thread topic, then nobody can help you.
Your statements are simply incoherent.

The knowledge of the people you mention do matter. But the quotes you brought up here do not add to the topic. Simple as that. Thus, they are irrelevant here, and this is your fault, not theirs.

Comment: Your claims about what is - and is not relevent - are rejected.

Maybe we would all be better off if you just opened a thread about logistic aspects of food or food aspects of logistics in WW2?

 

[sonicpwr]

Food, pertaining to transport animals and soldiers is a logistic issue, not a resource issue. Still important, just not as a resource.

"The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little." -FDR