HOI4 Dev Diary - Synthetic Dawn

[Fulmen]

How should the Petsamo nickel mines be represented as part of the reshuffling of the resource deck?

I've got a few tabs open right now on the mines, but it's half past 4am here in Finland so I'll have to make more thorough research on it later.

But from a quick glance I can tell you that between Dec. 1940 and Sept. 1944, out of the total of 462 000 tonnes of ore that was mined:

• Over 231 000 tonnes were turned into "matte" (couldn't find an English translation), a product that is roughy 50% nickel.

• 16 250 tonnes were refined into pure nickel.

• ~8000 tonnes were refined into copper.

• 12 900 tonnes of pure nickel and matte reached Germany even with some of the shipments getting sunk, i.e. ~80% of the mine's production of [pure] nickel.

• Germany's nickel requirements 1939-45 were 50 000 tonnes, so Finnish nickel contributed to over a quarter.
  
  
• In 1943 Finnish nickel contributed to 73% of Germany's nickel requirements.

• In the fall of 1944 this had risen to 87%.

Given how Germany used nickel and the importance of Finnish nickel to the German war effort (they did give up Petsamo relatively easily in late 1944, but this is mostly because they had stockpiled enough nickel by that point to last them till mid-1946), it should be represented as a certain amount of units of tungsten and aluminium corresponding to the historical production values, with infrastructure upgrades and hopefully at some point a Finnish focus tree to simulate the construction and expansion of the mines and refineries throughout 1937-43, with room for expansion beyond historical production capacity (more could've no doubt been mined).

I'll try to make a more detailed post tomorrow, or perhaps a thread of its own.

 

[NaRen13AnnexYourself]

I've got a few tabs open right now on the mines, but it's half past 4am here in Finland so I'll have to make more thorough research on it later.

But from a quick glance I can tell you that between Dec. 1940 and Sept. 1944, out of the total of 462 000 tonnes of ore that was mined:

• Over 231 000 tonnes were turned into "matte" (couldn't find an English translation), a product that is roughy 50% nickel.

• 16 250 tonnes were refined into pure nickel.

• ~8000 tonnes were refined into copper.

• 12 900 tonnes of pure nickel and matte reached Germany even with some of the shipments getting sunk, i.e. ~80% of the mine's production of [pure] nickel.

• Germany's nickel requirements 1939-45 were 50 000 tonnes, so Finnish nickel contributed to over a quarter.
  
  
• In 1943 Finnish nickel contributed to 73% of Germany's nickel requirements.

• In the fall of 1944 this had risen to 87%.

Given how Germany used nickel and the importance of Finnish nickel to the German war effort (they did give up Petsamo relatively easily in late 1944, but this is mostly because they had stockpiled enough nickel by that point to last them till mid-1946), it should be represented as a certain amount of units of tungsten and aluminium corresponding to the historical production values, with infrastructure upgrades and hopefully at some point a Finnish focus tree to simulate the construction and expansion of the mines and refineries throughout 1937-43, with room for expansion beyond historical production capacity (more could've no doubt been mined).

I'll try to make a more detailed post tomorrow, or perhaps a thread of its own.

If I understand correctly, matte is some kind of unrefined and impure processed material so it is not any final product yet.

 

[atredies]

Perhaps introduce nickel as a resource?

I'd love to see some more types of resources in the game to add variety and strategic decision.

 

[Fryslan0109]

Looking at the pics reminds me that using only shades of green when viewing infrastructure levels makes it a little difficult to discern high and low levels. Could we maybe get a scale of red to green for that? I believe it would be a lot more helpful.

 

[him_15]

A very stupid question perhaps but what is Nickel primary used for in WWII?

 

[Ksyr]

A very stupid question perhaps but what is Nickel primary used for in WWII?

Mostly as a steel alloy to make steel tougher and overall better than normal steel. It was used for armor, engine parts, gun parts and so on. I imagine this is why HOI4 late war tanks require the chromium resource.

 

[Axe99]

Looking at the pics reminds me that using only shades of green when viewing infrastructure levels makes it a little difficult to discern high and low levels. Could we maybe get a scale of red to green for that? I believe it would be a lot more helpful.

A two-colour graduated scale is a good idea . Picking two colours that don't play up with colour blindness might be more accessible though (green and brown maybe? I'm not a colour-blindness expert).

 

[xtfoster]

@podcat ....please....please.....for the love of everything beautiful in this world......when can we expect a beta?

Unless I am mistaken, 1.5 is tied to a DLC, which means no Beta until the first patch after release (just like always). They are not, EVER, going to release a beta for paid content until that content has been paid for.

Is the AI system being worked on beyond fixing bugs?

The AI is ALWAYS being worked on, both to remove bugs and to improve it in general.

Burma was certainly more important to the war effort than those two states, neither of which commited men to the front in any significant way.

Yes, the area containing modern Myanmar was more important for WWII than Egypt (which barely participated in the war, and then only because it was invaded) and Ireland (which was neutral in the war). However, while technically separate from the British Raj during most of the time-frame of the game (April 1937), it didn't actually become independent until 1948.

Not even the theme? Like, maybe East Asia(and thus Naval?)

Why would East Asia mean Naval? Only if Japan was the focus would it possibly mean Naval. The war in East Asia was for the most part NOT a naval war. Even the invasion of the Philippines didn't involve much naval combat. Only the Pacific War was Naval focused.

 

[him_15]

Mostly as a steel alloy to make steel tougher and overall better than normal steel. It was used for armor, engine parts, gun parts and so on. I imagine this is why HOI4 late war tanks require the chromium resource.

So what is the difference between Nickel and Chromium? Are they all used for the same purpose? Thx!

 

[Porkman]

In 1936 they produced less then 0.1% of the worlds rubber ( according to this thread: https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/foru...on-1935-to-1950-natural-not-synthetic.967254/ ).

Since the global production is around ~2000 rubber in game they should have around 1 or 2 rubber. Would it make any meaningful difference?

If you look at that chart, rubber production goes from 800 tons in 1935 to 11,100 tons in 1943. That could be important. The Allies definitely did ramp up production there after the loss of Malaya.

 

[Ksyr]

So what is the difference between Nickel and Chromium? Are they all used for the same purpose? Thx!

I believe that the in game Chromium is a general resource that includes several real life elements that are useful for war machinery, among them Nickel.

 

[Serensius]

If you look at that chart, rubber production goes from 800 tons in 1935 to 11,100 tons in 1943. That could be important. The Allies definitely did ramp up production there after the loss of Malaya.

Seems like a perfect illustration of the impact this change can have, and a good reason to have increased infrastructure cost for states with a lot of difficult terrain. Otherwise it just becomes too easy to counter losing important regions by pumping up infra elsewhere.

 

[Alex_brunius]

If you look at that chart, rubber production goes from 800 tons in 1935 to 11,100 tons in 1943. That could be important. The Allies definitely did ramp up production there after the loss of Malaya.

Indeed. I'm not saying it's not important, just that the way Paradox done the resources at the moment it's mainly based on 1936 values so you would have to overhaul alot of values globally if you want to properly account for changes later in the war as well. You probably wouldn't do a change like that for a single states base resource value in isolation, might fit as an NF though.


Personally I'd say that USA missing the tools to build up their 500+ synthetic rubber they should be producing by 1943 going by history is alot more important for the allied war effort then Belgian Congo being able to ramp up to 25 or so rubber by 1944. The changes to the research branches will probably help alot with this so USA can specialize on synthetic rubber.

 

[Duke_Dave]

PDX pls nerf France More ! make it be weaker than spain... It should be Portugal level, isn't it ?

Not really, it was in shambles politics wise, badly led military wise but it was a strong nation with a strong army.

 

[Balesir]

The london area should have around around 30% of the factories and slots early as in lategame to be realistic. Maybe even 45% as not every area should get factory slots as some produce mainly aggricultural, ressources or third sector.

This doesn't ring true at all. You are ignoring Manchester, Liverpool, Newcastle, Belfast and Glasgow - historical cradles of industry and still major industrial areas until the 1950s/60s. The "Northern Industrial Decline" is not called that because it happened in London - London has always been much more of a financial, business and government centre than an industrial one. The element of infrastructure that you are missing out - and I think this is a very interesting point for the game, too, actually - is coastal sea transport. Coastal lighters are not terribly important these days, but they were in the UK up until the 60s or so. Arguably, all coastal sea provinces should act as "infrastructure" unless they are contested; that could be a major game effect for mine warfare, in fact.

 

[Porkman]

I don't see what we gain by separating infrastructure into road and rail, though. It sounds like complexity for the sake of complexity.

It is the only way to make the war in China work properly.

It's not very important outside the "rest of the world". Vital for places like China or Burma though.

Basically, in Europe/US, paved road and rail development happened in parallel. So if an area had good paved roads, it probably had good rail roads and vice versa. In the rest of the world however, the rails went in first and there was very little paving done. So we always talk about Germany's problems with Russia's poor infrastructure, but somewhere like China or Burma or India or Malaya was much, much worse. In those areas, maintaining control of the rails was the only way to move large groups of people or supplies.

If you look at something like this.

Notice how the Communist base areas are all away from the rails.

Without the local infra in the form of paved/macadamed roads, the Japanese couldn't control anything more than a 20 km from the rails. They couldn't get there fast enough, and they wouldn't be able to supply themselves once they got there.

Similarly, the Allies had so much trouble getting back into Burma because the Japanese connected the North South Burma railway to the railway crossing Thailand. The Allies had to build up supplies on the periphery and attack across dirt tracks in bad terrain. The Japanese, by contrast, could relocate using Burma's interior railway and relatively dry, flat plain during the spring.

In North Africa, the railroad going along the coast from Benghazi was quite important.

In some cases, this did hurt infrastructure. A more centralized empire might have built good railways from Calcutta to Rangoon or Cairo to the Cape. But the real obstacle to infrastructure was the laissez-faire economic policy, which is a different question.

I'm also puzzled by the assertion that Germany was a federalist state. That's true in the 19th century and now, but 1933-45 was the nadir of Germany federalism. In fairness, Germany's rail network is more of a grid (unlike the hub-and-spoke systems of England and France). But I believe the Autobahns were laid out on a centralized plan (can anyone confirm?), so centralization helped the wartime infrastructure.

The UK and other colonial empires generally just only built enough rails to get resources from the interior to the coast. A Calcutta Rangoon railroad didn't make sense as the Brits could ship stuff across the Bay of Bengal for much cheaper.

 

[Axe99]

This doesn't ring true at all. You are ignoring Manchester, Liverpool, Newcastle, Belfast and Glasgow - historical cradles of industry and still major industrial areas until the 1950s/60s. The "Northern Industrial Decline" is not called that because it happened in London - London has always been much more of a financial, business and government centre than an industrial one. The element of infrastructure that you are missing out - and I think this is a very interesting point for the game, too, actually - is coastal sea transport. Coastal lighters are not terribly important these days, but they were in the UK up until the 60s or so. Arguably, all coastal sea provinces should act as "infrastructure" unless they are contested; that could be a major game effect for mine warfare, in fact.

Woot, +1 for coastal convoys . They were widely used by Italy and Germany as well as (less surprisngly) Japan, both on domestic, north african and occupied shores - iirc pretty much all that ore that Germany went to war with Norway over was shipped down the coast (I think from Narvik) using coastal convoys. There were more ships in more convoys that travelled around the UK than travelled across the Atlantic in WW2, many of which were targets for German air or S-boat attack.

Trying to stay kind of on topic, about half of Japan's coal (I think - going from memory - but a key resource, might have been something else) used waterborne transport to get from mine to factory, much of which were coastal convoys. So the argument of tying in them in somewhere, perhaps as part of infrastructure, can definitely be made - I try and make it once every couple of months .

 

[Porkman]

Woot, +1 for coastal convoys . They were widely used by Italy and Germany as well as (less surprisngly) Japan, both on domestic, north african and occupied shores - iirc pretty much all that ore that Germany went to war with Norway over was shipped down the coast (I think from Narvik) using coastal convoys. There were more ships in more convoys that travelled around the UK than travelled across the Atlantic in WW2, many of which were targets for German air or S-boat attack.

Trying to stay kind of on topic, about half of Japan's coal (I think - going from memory - but a key resource, might have been something else) used waterborne transport to get from mine to factory, much of which were coastal convoys. So the argument of tying in them in somewhere, perhaps as part of infrastructure, can definitely be made - I try and make it once every couple of months .

The Importance of interior river/coastal transport for countries at this time should not be underestimated.

I'm thinking of how it work on a systemic level... (If we have a supply system where supplies move across the map in some way as opposed to being teleported)

Would it be a good idea to have certain rivers be designated as "navigable" (think the Volga, the Yangtze, Grand Canal, the Rhine, the Nile, etc?)

You could have it so that every country with a navigable river/coast would start the game with a pool of "small craft" to represent civilian barges, tugs, junks etc.

They would serve two functions... The first and primary function would be as part of the supply system. Just moving resources and such up and down rivers and along the coast.

The second would be as "emergency transports." Think Dunkirk or the plans for Seelowe. If used this way, they would be super vulnerable... like if a destroyer so much as occupies the same sea zone for two hours.... they're dead. Also, super slow, and super easy to spot.

Now, these would be buildable but cheap.

They should regenerate up to a certain base level without industrial spending to represent normal people just building boats through normal industry.

However, the speed of the auto regeneration would depend on the draft level and level of war economy. Essentially, at full draft and full war economy, there would be no auto regeneration because all people and all materials are going to the war effort. (In which case, you'd have to build some actively)

 

[scroggin]

So what is the difference between Nickel and Chromium? Are they all used for the same purpose? Thx!

some of its uses were similar and allowed substitutes. But not its use for heat resistant alloys. For example the engines on the me262 were very unreliable due to a lack of nickel.

At the moment nickel is lumped in with a few other metals as chromium in the game. But this removes the unique strategic importance of the few places in the world where it was mined. So the importance of Finland to Germany is lost. From memory most Nickel was mined in Finland, Siberia, Canada and New Caledonia. I just think it would add more interest to the game to seperate it out if the devs could do this.

 

[him_15]

I would say instead of adding Nickel as a new resources (which would make the game over-complicate) it is better to add this flavor by focus tree event. For example, if Petsamo is occuplied by Finalnd and Finalnd is not at war with Germany. Then Germany could be given a spirit that give bounus to certain equipment production. This is the sort of idea that could be implemented.