The importance of money

[Cardus]

Exactly because of that. Why would I want money for the sake of money? I have just posted an example of how it may be possible to calculate debt based on the already existing "valuta" in the game. Why do i need another which essential doesnt add anything to the game?
HoI is about industrial output and ressource constraints on industrial output and how this effect the war. Germany choose to built the Tiger I instead of the Tiger(P) because the chassis of the Tiger(P) used too much cobber that was also needed in other productions, not because cobber was expensive, but because they had a limited supply of cobber. Its a matter of how much ressource do i have, how much industrial capacity do i have, how do i optimise my production best. Money just doesnt exist in the equation.
From what i gather i agree with SM

Please note that when you have large demand for something and little offer/availability this means that you have something scarce. Money (the price of that something) tells you quite well how scarce it is (eg. it is scarce $ 1,000 or it is scarce $ 1M). Let's say now that the something above mentioned is copper; now when you compare the price of a Tiger I vs a Tiger P you will see immediately what is best for you to produce. Can you see now how money enters in the equation?

For those that claim that money doesn't matter as it's non historical and the budget was unlimited anyway

Cost
A major problem with the Tiger was that it required considerable resources in terms of manpower and material. This in part was responsible for the low quantity produced: 1,347 of the Tiger I and 492[18] of the Tiger II. The German designs were expensive in terms of time, raw materials and reichsmarks, the Tiger I costing over twice as much as a Panzer IV and four times as much as a StuG III assault gun.[19] The closest counterpart to the Tiger from the United States was the M26 Pershing (around 200 deployed to the European Theater of Operations (ETO) during the war[20]) and IS-2 from the USSR (about 3,800 built during the conflict).

Although a formidable design, the low number produced, shortages in qualified crew and the considerable fuel requirement in a context of ever shrinking resources prevented the Tigers from having a real impact on the war.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiger_I#Cost

 

[jju_57]

Please note that when you have large demand for something and little offer/availability this means that you have something scarce. Money (the price of that something) tells you quite well how scarce it is (eg. it is scarce $ 1,000 or it is scarce $ 1M). Let's say now that the something above mentioned is cobber; now when you compare the price of a Tiger I vs a Tiger P you will see immediately what is best for you to produce. Can you see now how money enters in the equation?

For those that claim that money doesn't matter as it's non historical and the budget was unlimited anyway

And yet they still made those Tigers. Seems money didn't matter at all. The reason there were less produced is exactly as you quoted "expensive in terms of time". It took much longer for each tank so the factory produced smaller amounts per month. Seems if they were following your logic they would never have even made a single one of these.

But thanks for fully proving what I said. When it came to war needs money and cost meant nothing. Hitler wanted the Tiger and despite the high dollar cost they were made. The lack of money did NOT prevent the Tiger from getting made.

 

[Lightning Jack]

How about making it so that if you keep borrowing money, dissent rises as the poeple get fed up with "inflation"

 

[frolix42]

I'm sorry, but I don't agree. Under your scheme, Britain could get around having its merchant marine sunk by spending extra pounds sterling. That's just not acceptable.

I think your mistake in the scenario is that you don't account for the where the exorbitant $1 million per unit cost to acquire tungsten is actually spent. In the case of an unrealistically perfectly flawless submarine blockade by Germany, the British would build cargo submarines of their own. If all of those British Cargo submarines were sunk, suicidally brave continental smugglers would paddle across the English Channel in dinghies filled with as much tungsten as they could carry.

Real life example, if German submarines are preventing you from acquiring an orange, and you publicly announce that you'll pay $1,000,000 for an orange, somebody will find a way to deliver you an orange. I don't know how, but I promise you that someone ingenious will show up at your door with an orange.

And the glory of the market system is you don't have to micromanage dinghies crossing the English Channel filled with heavy metals, all you have to do is pay them on delivery.

What you propose could literally open up a floodgate of abuse.

Things are sometimes exploitable, everything in the game should be balanced in a way so it can't be. I think we've already covered how governments do not literally have, and realistically can not borrow, infinite amounts of (real) money. Therefore Britain still has a cap on how much tungsten they can consume, and at the same time the player has the ability to intensely focus their industry on their chosen projects up to the point where they lose the game because they are so focused on their singular goal of acquiring tungsten.

 

[jju_57]

Real life example, if German submarines are preventing you from acquiring an orange, and you publicly announce they'll you'll pay $1,000,000 for an orange, somebody will find a way to deliver you an orange. I don't know how , but I promise you that $1,000,000 would be the catalyst for their ingenuity.

Then why didn't this happen in real life? There were no bananas on the black market and other foods seldom appeared. So it seems real life just killed your theory.

 

[Cardus]

How about making it so that if you keep borrowing money, dissent rises as the poeple get fed up with "inflation"

The idea was that the government has 3 means to get more money and can use all of them
1) print new currency (which implies inflation)
2) raise taxes
3) debt
1 & 2 should have a negative consequence in terms of national unity/dissent/party support (just name what in your opinion makes sense)
3 if the debt is towards the allies there shouldn't be any consequence (as many said the debt of UK vs the USA was paid after the war so we can forget about it) but if the debt is vs the citizen there should be a negative effect as for 1 and 2.

 

[Cardus]

Don't get me wrong, I agree with everything you're saying, and appreciate the impact it has from a grand strategy perspective. One of the things behind my proposal is that if you actually reflect the circular flow of resources using IC instead of money, it would become clear (in gameplay, not in forum posts) why the distinction between the two matters. At the moment (well, in HoI3), as far as I can see it, because of the variable naming of two resources (money for trade, IC for domestic production, unless it's traded) it obscures the issues with the model.

I'm fairly relaxed that we'll have a reasonably enough abstracted model for a short period of time for it to be a very enjoyable and 'close enough that only a handful of people will notice it' historically plausible game without something explicitly called 'money'. It will be a less strategic game for it, but the 'pro money' camp are in a minority even in this thread, and I have no doubt that the broader community is more interested in the panzers than juggling the resources and economy to make sure they show up on the battlefield, so I'll stop my rabbiting on here. Big props to Frolix42 and you for your arguments though, am a fan. Totally understand the interest in people not wanting it to get overly complex on that front as well - I think it would be possible to have a system that was nearly as straightforward as that in HoI but did a better job of modelling the actual flow of resources, but that's by no means guaranteed, and once people call something 'money', everyone seems to get excited .

You are right and I think that there are 3 reasons why someone doesn't understand that money can simplify things:
1) My explanations are not good/convincing (first and foremost)
2) People are used to HOI and are very good at. They know every single bit of the game and they can exploit whatever they like. As they are used to the franchise they can think about improvements/changes but within the HOI framework not outside of it.
3) The common sense tells everyone that if something is added then the problem/game gets more complicated. The issue is that the common sense often can be misleading so, for example, 29/30 is a rational number (a bit difficult to handle) but if I add 1/30 it will be 30/30=1.

 

[Poh]

Please note that when you have large demand for something and little offer/availability this means that you have something scarce. Money (the price of that something) tells you quite well how scarce it is (eg. it is scarce $ 1,000 or it is scarce $ 1M). Let's say now that the something above mentioned is copper; now when you compare the price of a Tiger I vs a Tiger P you will see immediately what is best for you to produce. Can you see now how money enters in the equation?

The problem is that money doesnt tell me anything that i need to know. Adding a money cost will only tell me 1 thing. I have plenty resource for this or I might not have enough resources for this. After that i need to check every resource to find which is the "problem". Instead i could just have checked the production cost of the resources from the beginning, which is what matters. its a question about do i have the ressources for this or not adding money only adds another value that i have no use for.

If you have 100, 10 or 1 of X Resources in surplus doesnt matter. What matters is that you have a surplus. The only time the surplus matters is if you want to add another production line which uses the same Resource. At this time you need to make a decision depending on which production you want the most. Money wouldnt give you any useful information in that regard because you could be lowering your Aircraft production to free Iron to add another Tank production. Even though the Tanks are more "expensive" in money cost because they generally use more Resources and more IC, even though theres a constaint in Iron which means you might produce less aircraft you might overall produce more.

For those that claim that money doesn't matter as it's non historical and the budget was unlimited anyway

The Quote you pull out states "required considerable resources in terms of manpower and material" Hence in HoI4 terms alot of IC and Resources. What made the Tiger expensive is the amount of work needed to produce one.

The reason why they compare prices in monetary value is because its the only way to convey a difference in production cost that the broad public can understand. From a production perspective the way to compare the tanks would be A manhours, B production lines, C steel, D chrome etc. vs ...
So when you look at only the cost you ignore the constraints in production (resources, production facilities etc.). When you need to optimize your production the cost in money has no say. Its a matter of how much Manpower/production facilities (IC) do it have and what Resources do i have?

 

[Cardus]

The problem is that money doesnt tell me anything that i need to know. Adding a money cost will only tell me 1 thing. I have plenty resource for this or I might not have enough resources for this. After that i need to check every resource to find which is the "problem". Instead i could just have checked the production cost of the resources from the beginning, which is what matters. its a question about do i have the ressources for this or not adding money only adds another value that i have no use for.

Sure, money can't replace resources but 1 single figure can tell you if there is a shortage or not. Is that convenient or not?

If you have 100, 10 or 1 of X Resources in surplus doesnt matter. What matters is that you have a surplus. The only time the surplus matters is if you want to add another production line which uses the same Resource. At this time you need to make a decision depending on which production you want the most. Money wouldnt give you any useful information in that regard because you could be lowering your Aircraft production to free Iron to add another Tank production. Even though the Tanks are more "expensive" in money cost because they generally use more Resources and more IC, even though theres a constaint in Iron which means you might produce less aircraft you might overall produce more.

No as money can SHOW how much a resource is scarce and this is important to you as if you have a surplus of 1 or of 1M it does matters. In the first case you are going to run out of that resource in the second you can use that resource at will or you can sell it in big quantities. Back to your example if 1 tank = 400 iron + 30 IC and 1 bomber = 200 iron + 60 IC if you attach a price to goods you can evaluate and compare different things (i.e. you can compare a tank to a bomber, some iron to some IC)and decide which strategy suits you most given your constraints in terms of IC; resources, etc.
For example if you have a relative abundance of iron it could be 1 iron = 5$. So 1 tank = 400 x 5$ + 30 x $100 = 5,000$ and 1 bomber = 200 x $5 + 60 x $100 = 7,000$. Maybe the best strategy for you in this case could be to build/sell tanks (and to buy bombers if you are allowed to). If the price of iron goes up to 20$ (e.g. if your surplus is much less) then 1 tank = 400 x 20$ + 30 x $100 = 11,000$ and 1 bomber = 200 x $20 + 60 x $100 = 10,000$. In this case it would be good to revise your strategy (maybe for any reason you can still want to build more tanks than bombers but that is not any more convenient).
It's clear in this example how money can be useful for comparisons and can help in making an INFORMED choice?

The Quote you pull out states "required considerable resources in terms of manpower and material" Hence in HoI4 terms alot of IC and Resources. What made the Tiger expensive is the amount of work needed to produce one.

The reason why they compare prices in monetary value is because its the only way to convey a difference in production cost that the broad public can understand. From a production perspective the way to compare the tanks would be A manhours, B production lines, C steel, D chrome etc. vs ...
So when you look at only the cost you ignore the constraints in production (resources, production facilities etc.). When you need to optimize your production the cost in money has no say. Its a matter of how much Manpower/production facilities (IC) do it have and what Resources do i have?

Yes, you used the right and magic words: "The reason why they compare prices in monetary value is because its the only way to convey a difference in production cost". Money is a METRIC that allows a comparison between anything (i.e. manpower, IC, resources, pineapples and bananas).

 

[Porkman]

Sure, money can't replace resources but 1 single figure can tell you if there is a shortage or not. Is that convenient or not?

No as money can SHOW how much a resource is scarce and this is important to you as if you have a surplus of 1 or of 1M it does matters. In the first case you are going to run out of that resource in the second you can use that resource at will or you can sell it in big quantities. Back to your example if 1 tank = 400 iron + 30 IC and 1 bomber = 200 iron + 60 IC if you attach a price to goods you can evaluate and compare different things (i.e. you can compare a tank to a bomber, some iron to some IC)and decide which strategy suits you most given your constraints in terms of IC; resources, etc.
For example if you have a relative abundance of iron it could be 1 iron = 5$. So 1 tank = 400 x 5$ + 30 x $100 = 5,000$ and 1 bomber = 200 x $5 + 60 x $100 = 7,000$. Maybe the best strategy for you in this case could be to build/sell tanks (and to buy bombers if you are allowed to). If the price of iron goes up to 20$ (e.g. if your surplus is much less) then 1 tank = 400 x 20$ + 30 x $100 = 11,000$ and 1 bomber = 200 x $20 + 60 x $100 = 10,000$. In this case it would be good to revise your strategy (maybe for any reason you can still want to build more tanks than bombers but that is not any more convenient).
It's clear in this example how money can be useful for comparisons and can help in making an INFORMED choice?

Ok, here's where you're going off the rails. In both of those cases, the constraint is iron. Adding money makes an extra click where I would see scarcity, and then click to see what exactly was scarce or in surplus.

My tanks cost 6,000$ apiece.

My airplanes cost 9,000$ apiece

My carriers cost 45,000$ apiece.

My infantry divisions cost 1,500 apiece.

Which do I build?

What if the numbers look like this?

My tanks cost 10,000$ apiece.

My airplanes cost 5,000$ apiece

My carriers cost 60,000$ apiece.

My infantry divisions cost 2,000 apiece.

What does that tell me about my build priorities?

The finite resource in HOI has always been the IC-day. How much IC for how long? If money were somehow directly representatives of that, then it would be somewhat useful. (In the sense that I have two production lines going and each is telling me the cost per unit.) but that isn't what you're advocating.

 

[Alex_brunius]

Alex you used the right words: "show me what resources I need to acquire". You need money to understand if what you are going to acquire is affordable or not. So I tell you that 1000 Shermans need 3000 energy (=$20k), 400 IC (=$20M), etc. for a total bill of $40M and you tell me if you have the budget for it. This is how it works in real life

Aquire in a wargame surprisingly often means take by force and not buy. ( when it doesn't mean recieve for free through lendlease ).

Looking at the signup competition it looks like 70% of the players are most interested in playing axis or comintern, nations that tend to "aquire" things not by money but from conquests or lend lease.

This means for your plan to work the value of each province you can capture also needs to be shown primary in dollar.

I want to look at Malaya as Japan and go: Hey I need to capture the valuable rubber and metal resources here. Not: Hey Malays are worth $3000 with my current shortages so I really need to go there and take it over.

I think that showing everything from unit value, production needs, convoy shippings and province worth primary as $ would lead to a very boring game with little WW2 feeling.

 

[Poh]

Sure, money can't replace resources but 1 single figure can tell you if there is a shortage or not. Is that convenient or not?

It is not convenient as it does not tell me anything that a look at the Resources cant tell me. At the same time i still need too look at the Resources hence adding money is adding a redundant extra check.

No as money can SHOW how much a resource is scarce and this is important to you as if you have a surplus of 1 or of 1M it does matters. In the first case you are going to run out of that resource in the second you can use that resource at will or you can sell it in big quantities.

You are forgetting a simple a very important factor. If you base the money cost of a unit on the nations supply of Resources that price can not be comparable to another nations price as that other nation will have another supply and hence another money cost for that exact same unit. My point being that if you produce something at a money cost of X countries A,B and C will only by it for X,Y and Z because their cost of the Resource is something else that yours.

If you want to compare prices between countries you have to have a global market. But since free trade is suspended in a world war and you have very limited markeds it either become a very very complex mechanic or it becomes dependable on world scarity which then wouldnt give you any information regarding your own production.

Back to your example if 1 tank = 400 iron + 30 IC and 1 bomber = 200 iron + 60 IC if you attach a price to goods you can evaluate and compare different things (i.e. you can compare a tank to a bomber, some iron to some IC)and decide which strategy suits you most given your constraints in terms of IC; resources, etc.
For example if you have a relative abundance of iron it could be 1 iron = 5$. So 1 tank = 400 x 5$ + 30 x $100 = 5,000$ and 1 bomber = 200 x $5 + 60 x $100 = 7,000$. Maybe the best strategy for you in this case could be to build/sell tanks (and to buy bombers if you are allowed to). If the price of iron goes up to 20$ (e.g. if your surplus is much less) then 1 tank = 400 x 20$ + 30 x $100 = 11,000$ and 1 bomber = 200 x $20 + 60 x $100 = 10,000$. In this case it would be good to revise your strategy (maybe for any reason you can still want to build more tanks than bombers but that is not any more convenient).
It's clear in this example how money can be useful for comparisons and can help in making an INFORMED choice?

The first problem is that a choice based on cost alone isnt informed in anyway. The second problem is that for your example to work i have to assume that i can buy any quantity of any equipment any time at a given price. That wont be possible and since it is not possible you will need to produce from your strategically planning and needs in the war. At the same time the cost of the equipment is redundant if i do not need to produce anything that use the most expensive material.
In your example if the tank also cost Chrome which has a very high cost because i only have 5 units. but i only need to use 4 for my production of tanks. The cost of the tanks would be huge however i have nothing else that i need to produce which requires Chrome thus the cost doesnt matter. At the same time a light tank will become a great looking investment compared to a super heavy tank because the cost of the latter would be so much greater. But that doesnt take into account what you need or if you have all the Resources needed. That difference in cost would show even if all Resources and IC needed was at normal cost, but if im without constraints why would i chose to not produce the most expensive and best equipment?
Resources are a YES or NO question either you have them and can produce or you dont have them and you need to adjust your production or your plans to your current situation.

Yes, you used the right and magic words: "The reason why they compare prices in monetary value is because its the only way to convey a difference in production cost". Money is a METRIC that allows a comparison between anything (i.e. manpower, IC, resources, pineapples and bananas).

"... that the BROAD public can understand". In that sentence it should be clear that we are talking about your quote which refers to a simplification that has been made to compare complex industrial processes

Now in HoI4 we already have simplifications. Manpower and industrial capacity/production facilities are simplified in IC. All the possible Resources need to make a production is simplified in 6 Resources and i imagine that a production line will not use more than 3 Resources (from the production DD thats all theres space for). Now we have 4 components we need to keep track on and compare. Since you will always need to keep track of your Resources your Money only adds a redundant check before the check we really need to make to be able to take the best possible decision.

 

[Cardus]

Aquire in a wargame surprisingly often means take by force and not buy. ( when it doesn't mean recieve for free through lendlease ).

Looking at the signup competition it looks like 70% of the players are most interested in playing axis or comintern, nations that tend to "aquire" things not by money but from conquests or lend lease.

This means for your plan to work the value of each province you can capture also needs to be shown primary in dollar.

I want to look at Malaya as Japan and go: Hey I need to capture the valuable rubber and metal resources here. Not: Hey Malays are worth $3000 with my current shortages so I really need to go there and take it over.

I think that showing everything from unit value, production needs, convoy shippings and province worth primary as $ would lead to a very boring game with little WW2 feeling.

As I said money can't replace goods but tells you quite well how those goods are worth to you. You still will see goods and say "Hey I need to capture the valuable rubber and metal resources here" but you will know how much valuable they are.

Is that boring?

Edit
See the picture below

 

[Alex_brunius]

Is that boring?

Edit
See the picture below

View attachment 113419

Is it more complex or more simple with twice as much information to code and to understand as a player??
Where the new information needs to be able to update each day depending on market fluctuation or supply/demand.


Edit:
In your picture 20 metal is also worth $200, but what does that price represent?
Normally every good or resource has two prices on a market for the same source. One price that is what you can buy it for ( say $220 ) and one price you can sell it for ( say $180 ). Which one should be displayed? ( assuming not both since that would add even more complexity ).

 

[Cardus]

Is it more complex or more simple with twice as much information to code and to understand as a player??
Where the new information needs to be able to update each day depending on market fluctuation or supply/demand.

It's like in real life: you buy 2 apples for 3$. You are used to it and it works pretty well.

 

[Alex_brunius]

It's like in real life: you buy 2 apples for 3$. You are used to it and it works pretty well.

I prefer HoI to not be like in real life where I would need to run a complex national budget and manage inflation, currencies, world market demand/supplies, taxation, rationing, allocation of money and the list goes on forever.

I guess we simply fundamentally disagree here.

 

[Cardus]

I prefer HoI to not be like in real life where I would need to run a complex national budget and manage inflation, currencies, world market demand/supplies, taxation, rationing, allocation of money and the list goes on forever.

I guess we simply fundamentally disagree here.

I meant that everyday you manage perfectly info about quantities and prices.
Regarding the rest of your comment taxation can be just a slider (e.g. taxes = 30%), inflation/minting can be very easy as in EU, rationing (never mentioned it) is already in HOI, debt is partially in HOI (when you are allowed to borrow) and it can be very basic, demand and supply is partially already in game (you consume/buy and you produce/sell, it's just a matter to match supply and demand).
In my opinion we are in disagreement because you can't see those elements and rightly you are worried about them.

 

[Porkman]

As I said money can't replace goods but tells you quite well how those goods are worth to you. You still will see goods and say "Hey I need to capture the valuable rubber and metal resources here" but you will know how much valuable they are.

Is that boring?

See the picture below...

View attachment 113419

Ok, so I'm China... How much is that uranium worth considering I'm never going to build nukes... 0$ . Or I'm Belgium, I'm never going to build nukes... 0$. In fact, there are maybe 3 countries who will ever build nukes in the game... the price of uranium, if I'm Belgium is not 1000$, it's whatever the US or Germany will pay for it.... Which would work fine for Uranium which has a very limited set of buyers, where you could show each buyer's individual price.....

But let's look at another resource: energy...

On that screen, it says energy is worth 30$, how does it know that? I could use the energy to run my industry... I could convert it into oil... (which I don't have)... I could sell it to France or Germany or England, all of whom would pay a different price....

Does 30$ mean that it would be worth 30$ if sold on the open market? Does that mean that I could buy 10 energy for 30$ from anyone in the game or is this just the price of that particular 10 energy?

What if I convert it to 1 unit of oil.... is that unit of oil also worth 30$? More? Less?

If the prices are dynamic then they are worse than useless... I make a trade deal for 30$ worth of oil, but the price keeps changing so my 30$ keeps getting me less and less oil each turn.

Let's say I'm Italy and I'm thinking about African conquest... I have rares but I lack energy... will the price reflect that? What if I make a giant trade with Germany to trade my rares for their energy, will all of the little values on the terrain change?

 

[jju_57]

And Cardus never once explains where money comes from? How do you increase your supply of money? It's a failed system.

 

[Cardus]

Ok, so I'm China... How much is that uranium worth considering I'm never going to build nukes... 0$ . Or I'm Belgium, I'm never going to build nukes... 0$. In fact, there are maybe 3 countries who will ever build nukes in the game... the price of uranium, if I'm Belgium is not 1000$, it's whatever the US or Germany will pay for it.... Which would work fine for Uranium which has a very limited set of buyers, where you could show each buyer's individual price.....

But let's look at another resource: energy...

On that screen, it says energy is worth 30$, how does it know that? I could use the energy to run my industry... I could convert it into oil... (which I don't have)... I could sell it to France or Germany or England, all of whom would pay a different price....

Does 30$ mean that it would be worth 30$ if sold on the open market? Does that mean that I could buy 10 energy for 30$ from anyone in the game or is this just the price of that particular 10 energy?

What if I convert it to 1 unit of oil.... is that unit of oil also worth 30$? More? Less?

If the prices are dynamic then they are worse than useless... I make a trade deal for 30$ worth of oil, but the price keeps changing so my 30$ keeps getting me less and less oil each turn.

Let's say I'm Italy and I'm thinking about African conquest... I have rares but I lack energy... will the price reflect that? What if I make a giant trade with Germany to trade my rares for their energy, will all of the little values on the terrain change?

If you have rares and lack energy the price of rares for you will be low. If you make a giant deal with Germany prices will adjust. The frequency of the adjustment can be decided (daily or weekly).

France or UK can pay a different price. That depends on their convenience to trade with you. It's similar to the current system: if France is requiring some rares a windows will appear telling you that there is a request for your rares. The only additional thing is that you will see a price.