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

[Harin]

They didn't mean to destroy their countries. Though that's exactly what they did in the end.

Very good point. Very good. They did not intend to destroy their countries. It is so easy to forget to slow down and try to imagine the times decision makers were living in when making their decisions. When someone thinks they will win, bad decisions may happen.

 

[Harin]

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.

I am playing the mod Ultra. I highly recommend it. It has a gate before selecting Total War and it really works well for the mod.

 

[marcelo r. r.]

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

This was the economy of Hoi2.

The "consumer goods factories" where allocated by sliders by your choice.

The factories used to it, produced Supply(its worked like fuel work in hoi4),
And theres like hoi4 a "required consumer goods factories" %, if u allocate less factories than required it would produce "dissent"(stability reduction).

It produced supply and Money, u could also sell supplies.

Having a civil economy in hoi2 make more sense, was a alternative playstyle a "civil country" could focus heavily on producing money/supply, but in hoi4, more of these burdens are just for the sake of have burdens.

In really aren't complicated bring that mechanic to hoi4, we have all tools here:

- The current Fuel mechanic could be used to make supply.
- The % of consumer goods continue as is, but instead of automatic sink factories, it will require a "consumer goods production" construction type under construction tab, if the player allocate less factories, it will start reduce stability.

But i don't see the relation with coopearation agreements of south america countries, in really cooperation agreements are represented in game by decisions(Turkey have lots of it).

 

[$ilent_$trider]

This would become a tradeable good.
So, if say, a civilian economy produces more of these goods per civ than another in full mobilization, for instance, you would need, in order to keep their stability/war support stable, warring countries would have to trade these goods with countries at peace (or at least countries who didn’t mobilized their whole economy). The civs gained by trade for these resources can represent the investment these countries received to modernize/industrialize.