The Food Resource

[Had a dad]

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Conclusion: Your comments denigrating research, academia and historical references are concerning.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.

Just one warning, if you post in yellow as mod post are, I will infract for violating impersonating staff.

I have edited your post to not be in yellow as .....

 

[xtfoster]

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.

Or food could be another of those things that were strategic resources, but didn't have enough of an impact on the period in question to be included...like wood, coal, etc.

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.

My thought when he said that is "Since when is an internet forum even close to approximating academia?

 

[xtfoster]

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.

Sure. And so was wood and coal, but they aren't included in the game either, for the simple fact that while they are important, they didn't play a significant part in the period covered by the game.

 

[Lemont Elwood]

Maybe have more rural provinces produce more Food, with certain provinces producing even more? I don't see as it matters much, though. By the time a nation would really have to worry about its food supply, it's probably too late for them.

 

[kalauer]

@The Albatross

Your style of answering in-quotes makes it hard for me to reply.

On topic:

I will just quote OP (bold editings by me):

My first thought was this game might do well to also include a "Food" resource amongst the current others (Oil, Iron, Chromium, Rubber...etc). This, or "Civilian Goods" can become representative of Food, so as you try to focus more on industry, you suffer a cut in your Food output.

So what he (and the provided media) was about is the importance of food as a strategic resource. Not only in the way HoI4 treats them, but also in a more general term (->media). Now since you, in your last post, stated that you truely want to talk about the logistics, I tend to believe you did not read OP or watched the video.

Also this one:

The video makes lots of points about the importance of food production and trade actually, how Britain feared starvation from probable defeat at the Atlantic, how lebenstraum [Lebensraum; kalauer] and Japan's imperial ambition was also driven by need to increase/take over food resources. And how food was also an important element in the supply of an army, which can whittle you down like hell if you don't provide for it.

After all, armies march on their stomach. Not just the Steel / Aluminum that goes in their Weapons II and Support Equipment.

The bold marked words clearly indicate strategic considerations, since they are about acquiring land to produce or guarding intercontinental trade routes. Merely the last sentence of the first paragraph may be interpreted to have a logistic aspect. But given the context, I strongly suggest Op meant that having no food at all would (strategic) surely hamper the fighting forces. Granted, the effects are the same if the food just does not get to the troops. But it is a totally different operational level.

So when you say the title has no "strategic" in it, you are right. But the remark is not relevant, because the topic is clearly strategic. That's why there is a title and a post, and not just the title. ... Honestly, i feel silly explaining this to you, but I can't help to feel it is necessary. Do you think Ulysses could be shortened because this whole irish stuff obviously is not related to Odysseus? Yeah, I know, far fetched. But you see that title<content/topic, right?


The research question, presented here by the OP, asI understood it, is:

Should food be included in HoI4 as a strategic resource, next to steel, oil etc.?

Now this is not precise enough to be a real research question, hence I stated this not to be an academic discussion. We would need to define criterias on how to decide that. But it suffices.
Now if you may return the favor and tell me how you understood OP, we will surely find the root of our disagreement. Maybe @Miragu can help settling this by explaining what was meant?


You including the "entire chain" may be part of the problem: After production, there is no further chain in HoI4 for strategic resources. So the downstream processes are not relevant for the question whether food should be one.

Again, I would suggest you open a thread about more detailed representation of food and/or other resources in their production chain. You will most likely get the answer that HoI4 works on a strategic, not a tactical level, but at least, you might be on topic there.

edit: You started claims about academic reasoning (want me to quote you?). I keep insisting this is not an academic discussion. So how am I claiming higher ground. I merely showed that you do not reach the very standards you introduced.