HOI4 Dev Diary - Stability and War Support

[sprites]

sooo... in the new expansion you can make a situation where France is nerfed to ensure a historical result played by the AI, but not something a player need 5 years to overcome?

 

[EmeraldCougar]

How NU will affect on draft from non-core lands ?

 

[scroggin]

In my continuing research I came across this:

I would seem that in 1942 New Zealand was producing 5 Bern Gun/Universal carriers a day

I think our Railway Workshops were producing brengun carriers.

NZ's contribution to the war was small unless you look at it from a per capita basis. Our biggest contribution would actually have been in food. Over 90% of our agricultural production was exported. That factor gave a small nation with very little industry a similar standard of living to any industrial nation. It meant our army was able to be equiped to the same standard as the UK except we were more heavily motorised.

The New Zealand division of the Royal Navy was paid for entirely and mostly manned by New Zealand, so the change to RNZN in 1942 was only a change in command structure. Not a change in ownership of the ships.

 

[Gamer_1745]

I think our Railway Workshops were producing brengun carriers.

My big question was New Zealand actually making the engines or importing them? That would show how independent they were in production. Rifle/Machine Gun barrel, artillery/tank barrel & truck/tank/aircraft engine are the big points of failure.

 

[Bankerboy]

looks like it'll be fun to mess around with

 

[Axe99]

Actually I was talking about industry in terms of military factories, civilian factories and building slots in the game. I brought up population because it directly relates to how much manpower you can field in the army which is a pretty big part of the game. Unfortunately as of now there is no such thing as GDP or GDP per capita in the game though yes New Zealand had a much higher GDP and GDP per capita compared to Siam.

....

I get your point that historically New Zealand contributed much more to the war effort than Siam or Bulgaria, but if we look at in game terms Siam has a much better navy and air force by the 1940s when the war breaks out in the pacific compared to New Zealand. From my experience Siam usually has around 20 ships while New Zealand doesn't even have 10 not to mention that Siam can pump out much more divisions and can play a strategically important role in Asia. Therefore in terms of how New Zealand and Siam is represented in the game, I stick to my point that Siam has greater potential than New Zealand at least in hoi4.

You began arguing historically (by and large), which is why I responded as such . If we're talking the current in-game situation though, I'm not sure that's the best basis for whether a nation should or shouldn't have a focus tree. Finland, for example, makes very little difference at all in the vast majority of the games I play, but I wouldn't argue for a second that they shouldn't get a focus tree. Same story for Belgium or the Netherlands (both in a fair bit of trouble if things go historically of course, but that's by no means guaranteed). We're moving away from "Nation X did Y historically so should get an NF tree" to "what is the appropriate set of criteria for including an NF tree", which is a far more complex discussion, and one I'm not quite up for this morning (a bit off-colour - historical stats are easy, complex problem-solving less so ). If you do want to have that discussion, though, maybe fire up a new thread, tag me so I don't miss it, and I'll happily throw ideas around when my brain's got some .

 

[him_15]

I am very surprised and grateful with such a big change, this would certainly give more depth to the game. Though my main concern is about game balancing and potential bug. QA has already been the weakest part of Paradox, and based on my past experience any new feature that changed the core of the game are guaranteed a lot of bugs that takes a couple more patches to fix.

 

[Dieselboater]

Text box should read "pay raise", not 'pay rise'... ;-)

 

[Gamer_1745]

I am very surprised and grateful with such a big change, this would certainly give more depth to the game. Though my main concern is about game balancing and potential bug. QA has already been the weakest part of Paradox, and based on my past experience any new feature that changed the core of the game are guaranteed a lot of bugs that takes a couple more patches to fix.

Yes, I have come to look at HOI IV as a 'In development' project. From what we have been told that part of the reason for the state of the AI at release is major changes during development needing a rework on the AI, nearly a full rebuild for the changes.

I would rather have the new features that still need balancing than wait until the game is full & complete.

 

[man0lo]

The team is split on the issue of money. 14 out of 15 people on the team want money in. @podcat thinks differently.

The issue is that money played very little role in the internal economies. The Reichsmark was essentially monopoly money during the timeframe of the war. Inflation was an issue, but price controls and rationing could counteract that. Manhours spent is a far better value to assess the "cost" to the war economy of building weapons. For the purpose of paying soldiers, the government could always just print money, so in this particular event the effect is simply that it costs more pp.

Personally, I would love to get money back in the game at some point, but it'll probably be focused more on international trade where you actually had to pay in hard cash.

So, with what am I supposed to pay?

-Before the WW1 the rule of Gold Standard was in effect. According to this law banks of each Nation were creating money depending only on the amount of gold or golden bullions that they had in their possesion.... After the WW1 and especially after the great depression this rule has been gradually abandoned. Since then factors like Productivity;Manufacturing;Construction;Infrastructure etc started to gain value and they were counted by banks in order to manufacture new money. Hajmar Schacht reiled on this economy model in order to relief the German economy which had lack of gold due to the vast reparation that paid to the Victors of WW1.

-Generally in times of war money looses its value and inflation rates can reach the sky. So the currency of a nation may not have the same value around the globe and becomes unwieldy to use. Also think that before the WW2, economy and banking system werent global as it is now.

-Initially when I saw the economy system of HOI IV I was complaining. However after all these thoughts I realised that @podcat 's decision to remove money of the game was wise and well studied ; if we consider that civilian factories represents the financial capability of each country. So I suppose the aspect to not add money in the game is correct.

PS: My opinion relied only on historical point view ... cuz I havent studied economics ..so I couldnt provide any further explanations....

 

[Misaka_Complex]

You began arguing historically (by and large), which is why I responded as such . If we're talking the current in-game situation though, I'm not sure that's the best basis for whether a nation should or shouldn't have a focus tree. Finland, for example, makes very little difference at all in the vast majority of the games I play, but I wouldn't argue for a second that they shouldn't get a focus tree. Same story for Belgium or the Netherlands (both in a fair bit of trouble if things go historically of course, but that's by no means guaranteed). We're moving away from "Nation X did Y historically so should get an NF tree" to "what is the appropriate set of criteria for including an NF tree", which is a far more complex discussion, and one I'm not quite up for this morning (a bit off-colour - historical stats are easy, complex problem-solving less so ). If you do want to have that discussion, though, maybe fire up a new thread, tag me so I don't miss it, and I'll happily throw ideas around when my brain's got some .

Yes I was at first, but as I was continuing the discussion with Alex_Brunius and after reading your comments you guys managed to convince me that Historically New Zealand contributed more than Bulgaria and Siam, so I focused more on my other argument which was the in game potential of the nations . I don't intend to start a whole new discussion on the criteria for making an NF tree for an entire nation, but I do think like the idea of Finland having its own tree due to its strategic position of being able to pose a significant threat to Leningrad and effects the Eastern Front along with its insanely OP division recovery rate. Belgium and Netherlands on the other hand has a bigger industry and population than Finland but they get buffed it would significantly further weaken the German AI (who to this day still declares war on everyone despite losing wars) so I would argue that we should think very carefully in terms of game balance before Belgium and the Netherlands get their own trees. On the other hand the German AI could use some help with a Finland buff due to Barbarossa rarely succeeding when its left to the AI.

 

[Gamer_1745]

From Twitter on this topic:

Gamer_1745: I think money should be in the game, but only for international trade (arms, resources, tech licenses, paying WW I German war debt)

T.J. Hafer: Yeah, I think there's an argument for implementing some kind of trade capital. I think I'd rather see it worked into existing systems, tho.

podcat: yes there is some problems without a "translation" currency for implementing certain stuff.


T.J. Hafer: Rather than adding a totally separate currency, maybe make it a strategic resource?

Gamer_1745: Gold?I want to sell arms to country X&buy resources from country Z even if Z does want my arms.I don't want domestic money use

Axe99: A separate currency for trade is still money, just with a different name


I think I have got the conversation correct here.

 

[Pyro157]

Although I'm not sure about money in-game yet, part of the hyperinflation that destroyed the KMT was them trying to inject more Gold Yuan into their closed economy, then raising the exchange value to absurd rates after the war.

 

[NaRen13AnnexYourself]

Although I'm not sure about money in-game yet, part of the hyperinflation that destroyed the KMT was them trying to inject more Gold Yuan into their closed economy, then raising the exchange value to absurd rates after the war.

That's because they simply don't have enough REAL reserve, the Gold Certificates, like its predecessor, is a fraud.(worse than mefo)
Nationalist China will still have to pay on debt, gold or US Dollars for sure, no one accepts fraud papers. So, if there is money in-game, I think that must be real Gold reserve, but the German reserve is not legit enough for this game anyway.

 

[NaRen13AnnexYourself]

From Twitter on this topic:

Gamer_1745: I think money should be in the game, but only for international trade (arms, resources, tech licenses, paying WW I German war debt)

T.J. Hafer: Yeah, I think there's an argument for implementing some kind of trade capital. I think I'd rather see it worked into existing systems, tho.

podcat: yes there is some problems without a "translation" currency for implementing certain stuff.


T.J. Hafer: Rather than adding a totally separate currency, maybe make it a strategic resource?

Gamer_1745: Gold?I want to sell arms to country X&buy resources from country Z even if Z does want my arms.I don't want domestic money use

Axe99: A separate currency for trade is still money, just with a different name


I think I have got the conversation correct here.

Germany owes everyone money for rebuilding its industry in the interwar period.
When Austria and Bohemia joined the Reich these debts are most likely voided.
How could HOI4 represent this mechanic.....

 

[Gamer_1745]

On money & inflation.

In about 1920 you to get the best mans suit for about $20. Today you can get that same suit for about $1300.
A $20 gold piece was an ounce of gold. Today that ounce of Gold will buy the $1300 suit. Yes this is all general

So generally the value of gold has remained flat in that time. That is why a international exchange money (not national currency) or gold would be useful in HOI IV. Germany through trade & conquest trying to get gold to keep it's economy going was one of the factors for what happened 1936-40

In 1938.11.26

The U.S. State Department assigned its Ambassador Hugh Wilson (pictured), to Berlin to an indefinite tour of duty in Washington and published new protests agaisnt Nazi treatment of American Creditors.

From Third Reich Events Mod.

 

[billcorr]

Gamer_1745: I think money should be in the game, but only for international trade (arms, resources, tech licenses, paying WW I German war debt)

T.J. Hafer: Yeah, I think there's an argument for implementing some kind of trade capital. I think I'd rather see it worked into existing systems, tho.

podcat: yes there is some problems without a "translation" currency for implementing certain stuff.


T.J. Hafer: Rather than adding a totally separate currency, maybe make it a strategic resource?

T.J. Hafer: A separate currency for trade is still money, just with a different name

Gamer_1745: Gold?I want to sell arms to country X&buy resources from country Z even if Z does want my arms.I don't want domestic money use

Axe99: A separate currency for trade is still money, just with a different name

Perhaps some sort of trading to provide for armies could take place in a neutral location such as a semi-remote peninsula in the Philippines?

The A.I. would oversee the trading of civilian factories, PP, equipment, for sheep, wood, ore, and grain.

Such a bartering game has never really been done before. It would revolutionize the gaming industry.

This bartering system to supply armies centered in the Philippines would be called...

Spoiler: Name of system

Sutlers of Bataan.

 

[Dman1791]

Oh no... No, no, no, this 'Stability' must be called something else. Oh the horror...

The "Komet Sighted" event will actually DO something!

 

[Captured Joe]

The "Komet Sighted" event will actually DO something!

It really should, yes. It's tradition.

 

[CrazyZombie]

-Before the WW1 the rule of Gold Standard was in effect. According to this law banks of each Nation were creating money depending only on the amount of gold or golden bullions that they had in their possesion.... After the WW1 and especially after the great depression this rule has been gradually abandoned. Since then factors like Productivity;Manufacturing;Construction;Infrastructure etc started to gain value and they were counted by banks in order to manufacture new money. Hajmar Schacht reiled on this economy model in order to relief the German economy which had lack of gold due to the vast reparation that paid to the Victors of WW1.

-Generally in times of war money looses its value and inflation rates can reach the sky. So the currency of a nation may not have the same value around the globe and becomes unwieldy to use. Also think that before the WW2, economy and banking system werent global as it is now.

-Initially when I saw the economy system of HOI IV I was complaining. However after all these thoughts I realised that @podcat 's decision to remove money of the game was wise and well studied ; if we consider that civilian factories represents the financial capability of each country. So I suppose the aspect to not add money in the game is correct.

PS: My opinion relied only on historical point view ... cuz I havent studied economics ..so I couldnt provide any further explanations....

As I already mentioned, civil factories can't work everywhere. For example, they do not work in licensing stuff.
1 factory can build endless amount of factories. So, giving that one factory in the exchange for the tank or plane is not worthy at all.
You usually paid with some final amount of something. Money (tied to gold), resources, mutual exchange of techs, whatever else.