Why Military Economy is always better than Civilian Economy when it's not supposed to?

[Joshua Happytree]

mobilisation should not increase CIV factory built speed, it should reduce it, substantially

You understand there's no "true" CIVs both in RL war economy and in HoI4 one? You build a cement producing plant or a steel mill and they would certainly qualify for being civilian industry in peacetime. Yet in times of war practically all output of the former would go to fortifications and the latter would produce steel almost exclusively for war machines. Look civilian... Yet not really so.

 

[Joshua Happytree]

the benefits of a (real life) Civilian Economy wouldnt really be able to apply

And what are the benefits of truly Civilian Economy to a country in a major war? There're certainly massive disadvantages in running peaceful country's economy as if it were in war. Yet once an all out war actually starts what are the benefits of keeping the country's economy on a peacetime footing?

 

[PorkchopSandwiches247]

And what are the benefits of truly Civilian Economy to a country in a major war? There're certainly massive disadvantages in running peaceful country's economy as if it were in war. Yet once an all out war actually starts what are the benefits of keeping the country's economy on a peacetime footing?

I...kind of already said all that in the remainder of my post. Youre not getting a lot of context when you single out that one part.

Quoting my old post: stability. Being at war adds some instability to begin with. But the population of that country feels it (and reacts to it) more intensely when their daily routine and lives are actually personally effected. Suddenly your job has changed and youre now creating weapons of war. Some of those nice conveniences and comfort products you enjoy are now off the shelves, because the state has changed production. Maybe there is a bigger demand for food to supply the army, so you have to worry about food shortages. Stuff like that.

 

[marcelo r. r.]

Being at war adds some instability to begin with.

When u are coming from a huge economical crisis, war bring stability.
Like i said, people are applying anacronistic views, thres no stability in 20s or 30s to begin with.
Some wars are interpreted as a "smokescreen" for internal problems.
This make even more sense for axis countries.

This could make sense for democracies.

All these thing's just a return for hoi2, in hoi2 with slider system deal with all theses issues: if u are full democratic are more harder to become full intervencionist(warmonger).

 

[Joshua Happytree]

Being at war adds some instability to begin with. But the population of that country feels it (and reacts to it) more intensely when their daily routine and lives are actually personally effected. Suddenly your job has changed and youre now creating weapons of war. Some of those nice conveniences and comfort products you enjoy are now off the shelves, because the state has changed production. Maybe there is a bigger demand for food to supply the army, so you have to worry about food shortages. Stuff like that.

Can you provide some factual examples of what "instability" actually happened IRL and where after it became clear to everyone it's a real World War? IMO you think from a position of a person living in peacetime. War brings hardship, it makes people's life worse so people "should" do something about it. Yes, they do but not the way you'd think of. They do not protest, they take longer shifts at plants and give up peacetime habits for the sake of their country's victory.

 

[marcelo r. r.]

USA itself had one of the harshest war economies of ww2, then emerged as industrial superpower after, i don't see the "instability", or a pressure to end the war.

Meanwhile Vietnam War was a cup of tea to USA Economy, and then caused lots of internal political trouble, and even a "anti war" culture.

There is no correlation between war economy and political instability, it is something practically cultural/political.

 

[Harin]

Can you provide some factual examples of what "instability" actually happened IRL and where after it became clear to everyone it's a real World War?

Well, in Germany, they did not move to total mobilization until after attacking a country that was much to big to conquer. Germany drafted people, then returned them, then drafted more. From what I understand, this indecisiveness was due to industry wanting to keep their workers and the national leaders did not want to stir up the people if they could prevent it. Many factories were still shutting down at sundown and take Sunday's off. Something was holding the leaders back from going all in.

Since there is currently no mechanism to paint this kind of situation in the game, maybe stability is the closest thing we have, even though it was not designed for it. Even authoritarian governments are not eager to find the limits of a people's endurance and patience.

 

[PorkchopSandwiches247]

Can you provide some factual examples of what "instability" actually happened IRL and where after it became clear to everyone it's a real World War? IMO you think from a position of a person living in peacetime. War brings hardship, it makes people's life worse so people "should" do something about it. Yes, they do but living in peacetime not they way you'd think of. They do not protest, they take longer shifts at plants and give up peacetime habits for the sake of their country winning the war.

I mean, its happening in Russia currently. They tried to institute some extra conscription and economic mobilization, and it resulted in an exodus of their population, protests, and ongoing rebellious activity in the country they try to keep hushed up. Its a pretty common occurrence, which is why from the last few decades countries have tried not to change daily life too drastically for its population even when declaring war. And this separate from the actual declaration of war.

The population sometimes just goes along with it for love of country reasons, but this usually in the case of something like a defensive war or in special circumstances. Also, I should probably point out that you can go to War Economy without being at war whatsoever.

 

[marcelo r. r.]

Since there is currently no mechanism to paint this kind of situation in the game, maybe stability is the closest thing we have, even though it was not designed for it. Even authoritarian governments are not eager to find the limits of a people's endurance and patience.

Machiavelli wrote on the subject and concluded that "man is capable of forgiving the murderer of his own father, but he never forgives the loss of property".

What he meant is that the population is able to tolerate sacrifices in war, such as a high number of deaths or even hard work, as long as they don't lose money/property, so the prince should't worrie about casulties in war, only for people property.

The red line is probably property seizure.

 

[PorkchopSandwiches247]

USA itself had one of the harshest war economies of ww2, then emerged as industrial superpower after, i don't see the "instability", or a pressure to end the war.

Meanwhile Vietnam War was a cup of tea to USA Economy, and then caused lots of internal political trouble, and even a "anti war" culture.

There is no correlation between war economy and political instability, it is something practically cultural/political.

These are much much different circumstances. The US had Pearl Harbor happen, which was basically like a shot in the arm that made the population furious and more than willing to accept major changes to their daily lives. Vietnam was not a defensive war on US soil, and a ton of the protesting came because of conscription (another thing you would think would cause instability in-game).

You can have instability without changing the economy, but I absolutely believe in instability due to significant changes in the economy.

 

[Joshua Happytree]

I mean, its happening in Russia currently

I think it would be both prudent and relevant to discuss WWII times. At least that's the period HoI4 is about.

The population sometimes just goes along with it for love of country reasons, but this usually in the case of something like a defensive war

1. WWII was not a defensive war for Axis except for Germany vs UK, France and US. And for Japan attacking US since the latter planned to starve the former of oil to the point of total economic collapse. Though for Japan waging war in SEA was not defensive as well. Yet in both cases the populace complied to the very bitter end.
2. Actually France, UK and US were not under attack from Germany when they declared on it. The first two were honouring their diplomatic commitments and the latter decided Germany taking over Europe would pose the danger to US dominance in a longer run. So strictly speaking in these three cases it was a defensive war for Germany and not the other way around. I do not attach any positive connotation to the word "defensive" in this case. Certainly tens of millions of Slavs would have died should the Germany had won the war.

which is why from the last few decades countries have tried not to change daily life too drastically for its population even when declaring war

1. Yes, and all Western belligerents on both sides tried to do so at first. But what I'm trying to say is you state that war economy brings more "instability". I don't know what you mean by that -- loss of productivity, lower efficiency in using the strategic materials, decreasing labour pool due to people not wanting to work etc. My point is I see no historical proof to that in WWII. It's rather the other way around -- war economy is better at supporting the country's war machine. Just it's a very bad idea to run war economy in times of peace As North Korea so aptly shows to the rest of the world. If I missed something be kind to point out to where I should look to.
2. I think the pre-war and wartime history shows that from an economy point of view HoI4 simulates the RL correctly with VERY broad strokes. War economy is always better at supporting the war. The sooner the country switches to the total war economy the better military results it would achieve. Your pre-war civilian economy builds a foundation (industry, agriculture, raw material production, technological level and science etc) for your economic performance in wartime so if you missed on that then it's rather difficult to make up for your pre-war imprudence.

What do you think?

 

[Joshua Happytree]

USA itself had one of the harshest war economies of ww

No, the share of military spending in the US was much lower than in all other major belligerents except may be for Italy for which I haven't seen the numbers and knowing the state of things with WWII economic statistics I'd guess they would be very hard to dig out By pure numbers the harshest war economy was in Germany yet if you count in the seemingly civilian stuff that was actually produced to barter for "true" war materiel then Soviet Union would "win" in this competition of sorrow.

 

[Joshua Happytree]

then emerged as industrial superpower after

The US actually became the world's greatest economic powerhouse not after WWII but after WWI. It does help If Europeans are eager to turn each other into wasteland and ready to pay (in gold, debt or produce) for the US economic output

 

[Joshua Happytree]

Something was holding the leaders back from going all in.

They wanted a little victorious wars with pompous parades and inspiring speeches afterwards. They didn't mean to destroy their countries. Though that's exactly what they did in the end.

 

[Joshua Happytree]

You can have instability without changing the economy, but I absolutely believe in instability due to significant changes in the economy.

What do you mean by instability in terms of WWII economy? Not the HoI4 but RL.

 

[Joshua Happytree]

Since there is currently no mechanism to paint this kind of situation in the game, maybe stability is the closest thing we have

I'd say theoretically speaking you can simulate that in-game. Say you cannot switch to War Economy until you loose a sizeable part of your manpower or some cores. If it actually helps the balance.

 

[xtfoster]

1. <SNIP> US were not under attack from Germany when they declared on it.<SNIP>

Strictly speaking the US did not Declare War on Germany (or Italy) until after Germany had already declared on the US. Germany Declared War on the US 4 days after Pearl Harbor and the US reciprocated later in the day.

 

[Joshua Happytree]

Strictly speaking the US did not Declare War on Germany (or Italy) until after Germany had already declared on the US. Germany Declared War on the US 4 days after Pearl Harbor and the US reciprocated later in the day.

Yeah, you're right. My memory does fail me after all

 

[Simon_9732495]

Regarding Stability:

Being at war gives already a flat -20% to stability.
Furthermore low war support also reduces stability. -30% stability at 0% war support.
Effects that might influence life for citizens like convoys sunk or bombings reduce war support and thus stability.

So I don't think the economy has to have an influence on stability, too.

Btw: Just edited the wiki on stability: https://hoi4.paradoxwikis.com/Government#Stability

 

[$ilent_$trider]

Something I have suggested every now and then is to have a new resource (for short we call it supplies) that would represent non-metalic, non-oil goods but that are important for both civilian an military use (foodstuff, cotton, etc…)
This idea would be if we ever get a South American (i.e. Brazil) DLC to represent how many South American countries finally got their industrialization during and after WW2 by trading their agrarian resources with the Axis (for a while) and the Allies.

Brazil, for instance, got their first steel mill after WW2 with heavy investment from the Americans as payment for the war support and allowing the docking and landing of ships and planes in Brazil for the African campaign.

The consumption of these resources would be divided between military and civilian and going to war economy would shift most of these resources going to the military side
The consumption of these resources would be divided between military and civilian and going to war economy would shift most of these resources going to the military side
Under supply of these goods to the civilian side could cause a penalty to war support/stability that would eventually lead