Now there are two possible approaches to this issue:
First option: Money is a resource just like iron. You gain it from taxes and trade, and you use it for buying resources, building units and doing diplomatic acts. This is how it was done in Victoria, EUII and several other games.
Then there is the second approach not used in many games that I know of, the more abstracted and the more complex way. Money not being tax money. Money that is only a receipt from a succesfull trade. Money that is only gained from trade. Money that is only used for trade. When you conquer the world you do not need any money, as you need no trade. (Please no UFOs, please, please
)
The former is of course the more Paradoxian way, the more easy way, but also the more abusable, the more vulnerable and the more unbalanced way.
Now I hope everyone undestands the first way. Everyone having played EUII, Victoria or any such like, will understand it. Money is a resource just as any other. Everything needs money.
The second will need some explaining I suppose:
Money is not a normal resource.
Every unit requires resources to be built, but not money.
Money is only acquired from trading.
Money is only used for trading.
Now this is excactly the WM of HOI1, but with a "receipt" of a succesfull trade. If you sell something to the WM, you get money, that you can use to buy something from the WM.
Now I presume that the support for the first option is much larger. That is the way Paradox has handled money before. However with the lack of a economic representation of any depth, other than automatic resource gathering, economy unrelated to manpower (Soldiers are UFOs, not workers of one`s country)... It seems very likely that something of the sort of the latter is introduced.
For the first option to work some sort of representation of the fact that drafting people in the army hurts the economy is to be implemented. I have before suggested that in order to achieve this it is first calculated how much free manpower you need to uphold your economy, then all the available manpower is put into this, and all the excessive manpower will give plenty of money. (You need to have 20MP to keep your RGOs and factories (Abstracted, abstracted, don`t complain about complexity!!) working, and you have 21 free manpower. This gives you 100% production efficiency, and one MP point giving you 300% the money that the other 20MP give you.) (If you have only 16/20 MP then you have only 80% production efficiency).
(Put in simple words: All free manpower is your industrial manpower. If you have less than needed, you have maluses and penalties (Slow production of units, only some amount of resources generated...), if you have more than needed you have bonuses of money.)
An example: Germany needs 200MP for its industry. In 1936 it has 250 free MP. This means that it has 100% production efficiency, and 50MP giving it much money to buy stuff from the WM. (The free MP represents the private sector, unemployment is abstracted!!!). In 1940 Germany had only 190 free MP. This means that it has the production efficiency of 95%. (It only produces 95% of the iron it has, it has the unit build speed of 95%.....). In 1944 Germany has only 20MP. This means a production efficiency of 10%. Not only does Germany have extremely few resources to go with, it is also constantly losing money, as it is trying to buy resources, but also has only 20MP as taxpayers...)
Now. Option number two, would support a war game. Option number one, with the addition of the above model of "industrial manpower" would support a grand scale strategic game. What will it be?
(Also if the discussion kicks in with some volume, I would like to ask for a moderator to pollify this, in order to bring forward the public opinion of the matter for higher powers.)
First option: Money is a resource just like iron. You gain it from taxes and trade, and you use it for buying resources, building units and doing diplomatic acts. This is how it was done in Victoria, EUII and several other games.
Then there is the second approach not used in many games that I know of, the more abstracted and the more complex way. Money not being tax money. Money that is only a receipt from a succesfull trade. Money that is only gained from trade. Money that is only used for trade. When you conquer the world you do not need any money, as you need no trade. (Please no UFOs, please, please
)The former is of course the more Paradoxian way, the more easy way, but also the more abusable, the more vulnerable and the more unbalanced way.
Now I hope everyone undestands the first way. Everyone having played EUII, Victoria or any such like, will understand it. Money is a resource just as any other. Everything needs money.
The second will need some explaining I suppose:
Money is not a normal resource.
Every unit requires resources to be built, but not money.
Money is only acquired from trading.
Money is only used for trading.
Now this is excactly the WM of HOI1, but with a "receipt" of a succesfull trade. If you sell something to the WM, you get money, that you can use to buy something from the WM.
Now I presume that the support for the first option is much larger. That is the way Paradox has handled money before. However with the lack of a economic representation of any depth, other than automatic resource gathering, economy unrelated to manpower (Soldiers are UFOs, not workers of one`s country)... It seems very likely that something of the sort of the latter is introduced.
For the first option to work some sort of representation of the fact that drafting people in the army hurts the economy is to be implemented. I have before suggested that in order to achieve this it is first calculated how much free manpower you need to uphold your economy, then all the available manpower is put into this, and all the excessive manpower will give plenty of money. (You need to have 20MP to keep your RGOs and factories (Abstracted, abstracted, don`t complain about complexity!!) working, and you have 21 free manpower. This gives you 100% production efficiency, and one MP point giving you 300% the money that the other 20MP give you.) (If you have only 16/20 MP then you have only 80% production efficiency).
(Put in simple words: All free manpower is your industrial manpower. If you have less than needed, you have maluses and penalties (Slow production of units, only some amount of resources generated...), if you have more than needed you have bonuses of money.)
An example: Germany needs 200MP for its industry. In 1936 it has 250 free MP. This means that it has 100% production efficiency, and 50MP giving it much money to buy stuff from the WM. (The free MP represents the private sector, unemployment is abstracted!!!). In 1940 Germany had only 190 free MP. This means that it has the production efficiency of 95%. (It only produces 95% of the iron it has, it has the unit build speed of 95%.....). In 1944 Germany has only 20MP. This means a production efficiency of 10%. Not only does Germany have extremely few resources to go with, it is also constantly losing money, as it is trying to buy resources, but also has only 20MP as taxpayers...)
Now. Option number two, would support a war game. Option number one, with the addition of the above model of "industrial manpower" would support a grand scale strategic game. What will it be?
(Also if the discussion kicks in with some volume, I would like to ask for a moderator to pollify this, in order to bring forward the public opinion of the matter for higher powers.)
Last edited:
