How to simulate Sypply routes / TC correctly

[Lennartos]

This thread is for suggestions regarding the TC usage and supply system of the HOI series.


According to the suggestions this first post will be edited, and the armageddon improvement thread will be updated with the "conclusion" (best solution?) reached here.


It seems that we have found a good solution:
(i count all silent lukers as silent accepts of the idea )

General discription:
We need logistical nodes, wich we here will call Supply Centers or SC in short.
All provinces will belong to the nearest SC,therby defining that supplycenters distribution area. (like the Area of influence from trade centers in EU2).
Like EU2/3 that area is flexible and will vary depending on the relative SCs free TC capacity.
Resources will not be send to and distributed from the capital alone, but from and to each SC.
To simulate the inportance of the infrastructure, each resource/supply movement costs TC according to distance and infrastructure.
The general TC linked to IC will be removed and replaced by a system of buildable and assignable(to SCs) TCs.

Each SC has its own TC burden. It will distribute and collect to and from all provinces in its assigned area, and freight resources to other SCs. SCs capabilitys can be improved by upgrading the SC level or improving infrastructure.

Supply centers also limit the stockpile allowed.

Picture of germany with 4 SCs:

gameplay and rules:

Max SC size and max infrastructure level buildable is limited by techlevel.
When occupying an SC it will downgrade permanently.

Trade: trade will go through the SC/convoy system just as every other resource. A new diplomatic option will be added: "Trade agreement", where a cost / TC value can be agreed upon. This allows transporting through neutral land.

The transition from steam/oil based will be made posible with a slider(?).
A steam based infrastructure will use energy(coal) as primary TC cost source.
A Oil based infrastructure will have added oil cost, but have a much lower TC usage cost in low infra provinces.

Gameplay Actions:
Strategic Layer(things that the player should do)
Production of SCs and TCs.
Placing of SCs

Planning Layer(optional automatation)
Prioritys of SCs
Should SC build up the supplies/oil storage?(if yes maybe a desired value)
Should supplies and oil be prioritized over resources?
Should this SC be shut down and/or dismantled?
Should i make a shortcut with convoys over water?
Assigning of TCs to SCs*
Specifying which SC-to-SC routes are valid/possible for each commodity*

Execution Layer (things that should be automated)
From where should i take my demand?
Where should i send surplus?
How much should be send from A->B and B->C?
Assigning of TCs to SCs*
Specifying which SC-to-SC routes are valid/possible for each commodity*
Specifying in which direction goods should flow along these routes
Specifying what order of priority should the different routes have

* = Can be both places depending on implementation

current example topics:
How to model the transition of steam / oil based infrastructure.
How to make optimal routing mechinisms?
How do we balancing the game?

 

[Lennartos]

?? Why would you want to set up something this complex? Just offer for 9 metal in Normandy and 12 Energy in Marseilles. If France accepts, they get demands in those SCs and it's their job to get the stuff there (through their normal transport nets). How it gets from these ports to your SCs with demand is handled by your transport net - you don't even need to specify where to get it to - the logistics routines will take it to wherever you have need of it. But the transfer points are fixed - Normandy and Marseilles.

Thats just it...
Now you have 1 trade... now you need 30Energy from asia france to india... and now you need a little steel from sweden to northern eire.
YOU are specifying from where to where... its just not accaptable

As an aside, I don't see why you should not be able to, but I'm baffled as to why I would want to pick up goods from Alsace, Lorraine and Paris. I would select border SCs in just about all cases, I would think.

Just picked a new of frances provinces in my head, without any thought of geography... just read as province X,Y,Z

Or we just let trade prices be determined by transport cost and desirability.
so as england you will automatically trade with asia as long as you have enough convoys to spare(as france will sell these cheaper(it doesnt have to transport it anymore)... once it gets rough with free convoys, it will buy the same wares from mainland france ( paying more ) to save convoys.

This sort of 'free global market' is really a very modern conception. Governments in the 1930s and 40s really did get together and agree this sort of trade stuff - so I think it's reasonable to have it in the game, too

Yes.. but i dont think mussolini did cross the border each time he needed a 10 energy trade and cancel 3 days later to make a new 8.5 energy trade.
Either we make trade more stable, read: its not just something you can break. Or we automatize even more. ( mussolini had people to do that for him)


I would personally be glad to see the trade simplefied to trade agreements.
trade agreement:
you can buy up to xx resource from france / day.
cost = x.xx$ / resource

Rule when you buy:
The further away the supplying SC is from sellers capital(if not connected to capital), the less it cost.(AI will choose a farther path if convoys are unused, and buy closer to target if less convoys are free).
( the idea above)

The trade AI will then buy from lowest bidder to highest bidder.

 

[unmerged(78917)]

Ok I’ve caught up as I was away for awhile. As I was reading this a couple of things struck me.

First we need to set limits on how much a country can store of each raw material. An issue I have with the game today is that that countries can build ridiculous amounts of stock, and the logistics we’ve been discussing becomes a moot point! I mean if England has a 3 year supply of rare materials on September 1st 1939 what’s the point of Germany building submarines? Can you just picture 3 years worth of tin ore sitting on the dock at Portsmouth? The strategic side of logistics can be improved simply by making daily flow important. If a limit of say three months production was implemented imagine how that would change your thinking in how you’d use your assets and what type of units you’d build.

Also when I was thinking about transportation in the 30’s and 40’s (as opposed to today) normally the most efficient method of transport was by ship. Many major industrial centers were close to the ocean or waterways. My concern is that our convoys (water TC’s) and land convoys (land TC’s) are truly representative of that era. When there’s a choice, a water route should be much more efficient. I’m not sure how we’d model that other than giving different capacities to each.

And lastly I had a thought about trade. You might like it, or maybe not…

What if all trades used money. You sold all your surplus raw material for cash, and bought all you needed for cash. It was always the buyers’ responsibility to transport. That would simplify each transaction and put more emphasis on money in the game. It might simplify the SC to SC problem you’re discussing. An example might be the Netherlands selling Germany Rare materials. If Germany buys rares from Sumatra it might cost 5 rares for 1 money. If they bought the rares from Amsterdam it might cost 2 money’s for 5 rares. Germany might not have a choice though because they don’t have enough sea transport to bring it home from Sumatra so they have to pay more. I think I remember seeing that Greece had a large sea transport fleet in the 30’s so maybe they’ll buy the Dutch rares in Sumatra 5 for 1 and then sell them 5 for 1.5 or something like that. While being a little overly simplistic I think it might be easier to model and it accomplishes what we want, doesn’t it?

Just a thought.

 

[Lennartos]

Hi, and welcome back TonRich...always nice to see friendly typings

First we need to set limits on how much a country can store of each raw material. An issue I have with the game today is that that countries can build ridiculous amounts of stock

"Supply centers also limit the stockpile allowed" ( from first post)
each supply center allows a certain stockpile

Also when I was thinking about transportation in the 30’s and 40’s (as opposed to today) normally the most efficient method of transport was by ship. Many major industrial centers were close to the ocean or waterways. My concern is that our convoys (water TC’s) and land convoys (land TC’s) are truly representative of that era. When there’s a choice, a water route should be much more efficient. I’m not sure how we’d model that other than giving different capacities to each.

However a water route is also much more vulnarable.
So as a default, i would say land should be preferred if possible in wartime and convoys in peacetime.
Also you will always have the option of making TC "shortcuts" with convoys.
( from first post)

And lastly I had a thought about trade. You might like it, or maybe not…

What if all trades used money. You sold all your surplus raw material for cash, and bought all you needed for cash. It was always the buyers’ responsibility to transport. That would simplify each transaction and put more emphasis on money in the game. It might simplify the SC to SC problem you’re discussing. An example might be the Netherlands selling Germany Rare materials. If Germany buys rares from Sumatra it might cost 5 rares for 1 money. If they bought the rares from Amsterdam it might cost 2 money’s for 5 rares. Germany might not have a choice though because they don’t have enough sea transport to bring it home from Sumatra so they have to pay more. I think I remember seeing that Greece had a large sea transport fleet in the 30’s so maybe they’ll buy the Dutch rares in Sumatra 5 for 1 and then sell them 5 for 1.5 or something like that. While being a little overly simplistic I think it might be easier to model and it accomplishes what we want, doesn’t it?

Just a thought.

Im also beginning to go into that direction myself. (distance influences cost)
I think it deserves further thought, also on how to balance the economy and trade then. (it is very easy to buy, but rather hard to sell)
How do you sell, how do trade agreements wortk?
im off to a meeting now, but you are welcome to spin further on this idea(how to implement and balance)

 

[Alex_brunius]

Im also beginning to go into that direction myself. (distance influences cost)
I think it deserves further thought, also on how to balance the economy and trade then. (it is very easy to buy, but rather hard to sell)
How do you sell, how do trade agreements wortk?
im off to a meeting now, but you are welcome to spin further on this idea(how to implement and balance)

You could have a big list off offers that anyone with enough cash surplus can accept. When putting up offers you can restrict them either to people in your alliance or people with a certain relations to you.

But I think the most important thing to get a good dynamic balanced economy working is to limit resource stockpiles. When bigger producers must choose between either let their surplus steel rust or sell it the economy will start rolling automatically no matter what kind of trading system your using.

It was always the buyers’ responsibility to transport

I also agree that trade deals should have to use convoys. What if several countries(not at war) could have stockpiles in the same province? Then you would only see "your own" stockpiles and trades deals would just change ownership of resources.

So if UK trades 100 oil from US, then 100 oil per day will be added to a UK owned stockpile in any US port where UK could come and get them. The cost of transport will be included in the extra IC cost to build convoys if you don't have sufficient already.

 

[Balesir]

Thats just it...
Now you have 1 trade... now you need 30Energy from asia france to india... and now you need a little steel from sweden to northern eire.
YOU are specifying from where to where... its just not accaptable

Well, no - you are specifying where the change of ownership takes place, not where it comes from or goes to. If you have trade goods needing to be actually moved in your game model (as opposed to mysteriously teleporting ) I really think you need this.

Just picked a new of frances provinces in my head, without any thought of geography... just read as province X,Y,Z

OK, but I think you made it a bit of a straw man - i.e you made it far more complicated than it would be in practice. As a general rule I would see only one 'exchange province' per commodity in a trade deal - maybe two, if both trade partners were very spread out.

Yes.. but i dont think mussolini did cross the border each time he needed a 10 energy trade and cancel 3 days later to make a new 8.5 energy trade.

No, I'm sure he didn't - but he hired the men who did and set their policies and objectives.

Either we make trade more stable, read: its not just something you can break. Or we automatize even more. ( mussolini had people to do that for him)

Right - this is an important point and I thought it had been touched on above. Having endless trade deals that you can renege on without penalty is both unrealistic and a pain as a player. Deals would typically be for a period of time (e.g. 1 year) or a fixed amount of goods (x thousand tonnes of coal). They might 'roll over' (i.e. a pop-up box asks each year if you want to renew - if both parties say yes the deal goes another year), or just have a minimum duration (time or quantity), but they would never be open to cancellation without penalty.

They would also not become 'inactive' just because one party is short of material flow (i.e. they still have stock, but they are not making more than they are using).

If we take a deal with a commodity and a Supply centre for exchange, it might work like this: the deal effectively gives the receiving party in the deal license to take away 'x' units per day from the specified SC in their ships/trains/trucks/whatever, at a price of 'y', until they have taken a total of 'z' units or until such-and-such a date. Either party may cancel the deal at a cost of 'a' in money, plus an automatic hit on badboy and prestige, maybe? The SC becomes part of their supply net until the deal is completed orr cancelled. Declaring war on a nation automatically cancels all deals you have with them, without charge.

I would personally be glad to see the trade simplefied to trade agreements.
trade agreement:
you can buy up to xx resource from france / day.
cost = x.xx$ / resource

Again I say 'from where?' The price I will pay for goods in Brest is very different to what I will pay from SE Asia - especially if I am Belgium!

Rule when you buy:
The further away the supplying SC is from sellers capital(if not connected to capital), the less it cost.(AI will choose a farther path if convoys are unused, and buy closer to target if less convoys are free).
( the idea above)

What is the deal with the capital? I mean, as things stand, with the 'all goods must go through the capital' nonsense, fair enough - but in a realistic scenario I don't care where the capital is! As Holland, if I build up industry in Indonesia I will pay for goods in SE Asia quite happily - and I certainly won't send the stuff to Amsterdam before I use it! Selling price is related to how much surplus I have and how much it will cost me to ship it where you want to take it from (which might be zero if you will take it from the source). Buying price is related to how much unfilled demand I have and how much it will cost me to get it from where you want to give it to me to where I need it. When Buying price >= Selling price we have a deal!

 

[Balesir]

Hi, TonRich,

Lennartos already answered several of your points, but I'll pitch in on the last:

What if all trades used money. You sold all your surplus raw material for cash, and bought all you needed for cash.

I first thought this would be best, then thought maybe not - I'm currently back on 'yes, all trades must include money'! :wacko:

It has the great benefit of decoupling the various trades and allowing the money to 'keep score', which is its raison d'etre, after all!

It was always the buyers’ responsibility to transport.

Not completely - or neccessarily. If mines are inland the seller often brings the stuff to the coast where it is exchanged at a port and taken away in the buyer's ships. And for rich countires 'cultivating' puppets the rich seller might well transport - especially if they have a deal to transport raw materials back home and can thus keep the ships full both ways...

That would simplify each transaction and put more emphasis on money in the game. It might simplify the SC to SC problem you’re discussing. An example might be the Netherlands selling Germany Rare materials. If Germany buys rares from Sumatra it might cost 5 rares for 1 money. If they bought the rares from Amsterdam it might cost 2 money’s for 5 rares. Germany might not have a choice though because they don’t have enough sea transport to bring it home from Sumatra so they have to pay more.

Ahhh, talk of 'Germany buying rares from Sumatra' or 'from Amsterdam' at different prices - this is exactly what I'm talking about! It is precisely my point that Germany might not have the option to buy from Sumatra, so an automated system that puts no onus on Holland to move the goods to Amsterdam (if that is where they have agreed Germany may take them from) is no good! And if, as Britain, I agree to take rares cheap from Sumatra and then nick them from Amsterdam because my logisticians like that better - well, Holland will have a right to be pissed off!

In short, the 'where' of an exchange of goods is a key, vital part of the deal. Without it, you just don't have a deal that is worth a damn.

I think I remember seeing that Greece had a large sea transport fleet in the 30’s so maybe they’ll buy the Dutch rares in Sumatra 5 for 1 and then sell them 5 for 1.5 or something like that. While being a little overly simplistic I think it might be easier to model and it accomplishes what we want, doesn’t it?

Oooh - trading nations, too! This would make balancing the scenarios a little more tricky and the trade AI would need to be pretty sophisticated (including national policies and preferences in ai files, forex) to cope, but it would be awesome, in my view. Drool!

 

[unmerged(78917)]

"Supply centers also limit the stockpile allowed" ( from first post)
each supply center allows a certain stockpile

How do you sell, how do trade agreements wortk?
im off to a meeting now, but you are welcome to spin further on this idea(how to implement and balance)

I know we discussed this earlier I just didn’t want it to get lost. I think Alex has it correct, once you reach your stocking limit you might as well sell all surplus that your resource centers produce. So you would put out “offers” like 15 metal per day for $2.5, or 5 rare materials per day for $1.5. This should create a market environment that will allow you to shop for the best deal, provided you have the transportation ability (as the buyer) to carry what you buy. You’re also going to have to be price savvy in order to help your economy. Germany might be forced to buy rares at high prices from European countries because there’s a land route instead of “shopping for the best price because they don’t have the sea transport capacity to buy from Brazil.
I was looking at the book “Hitler’s U-boat War” by Clay Blair and he listed the size of some countries merchant fleet at the start of WWII which I thought fit into this discussion. Britain was 1st with 3000 merchant ships; the US was 2nd with 1400. After Japan and Italy, Norway had 800 merchant ships, France and The Netherlands each had 500 and Greece had 400. The reason I think this is significant is how Norway and Greece could fit into the game if these changes happen. With a representative merchant fleet size, Norway and Greece could become major brokers of resources throughout the world. This would change the strategic value of these countries and how they work in the game.

After thinking about this and the ramifications it might be necessary to rebalance the game in respect to raw materials and industrial capacity.

 

[unmerged(78917)]

Not completely - or neccessarily. If mines are inland the seller often brings the stuff to the coast where it is exchanged at a port and taken away in the buyer's ships. And for rich countires 'cultivating' puppets the rich seller might well transport - especially if they have a deal to transport raw materials back home and can thus keep the ships full both ways...

But the in-country TC is moving raw material to SC...isn't it? The trades between countries are from SC to SC...arn't they? The current system doesn't alocate to-way loading. You'll see one convoy bringing things back and one convoy taking supplies.

Ahhh, talk of 'Germany buying rares from Sumatra' or 'from Amsterdam' at different prices - this is exactly what I'm talking about! It is precisely my point that Germany might not have the option to buy from Sumatra, so an automated system that puts no onus on Holland to move the goods to Amsterdam (if that is where they have agreed Germany may take them from) is no good! And if, as Britain, I agree to take rares cheap from Sumatra and then nick them from Amsterdam because my logisticians like that better - well, Holland will have a right to be pissed off!

In short, the 'where' of an exchange of goods is a key, vital part of the deal. Without it, you just don't have a deal that is worth a damn.

I'm not sure I'm following you on this. The Netherlands controls Sumatra and they'll decide if they want to offer rares out of Sumatra for a price, or transport them back to Amsterdam and sell them out of there. I disagree on the onus. Because germany doesn't have the sea transport to bring back rares from Sumatra they'll pay a higher price to buy rares transported back to Europe by somebody.

Oooh - trading nations, too! This would make balancing the scenarios a little more tricky and the trade AI would need to be pretty sophisticated (including national policies and preferences in ai files, forex) to cope, but it would be awesome, in my view. Drool!

See my responce to Lennartos

 

[Balesir]

But the in-country TC is moving raw material to SC...isn't it? The trades between countries are from SC to SC...arn't they? The current system doesn't alocate to-way loading. You'll see one convoy bringing things back and one convoy taking supplies.

We are talking about a radical revision of the whole SC and logistics system, here. In-country transfers might be SC to SC. Imagine the USSR - are they going to ship everything to Moscow and then back to the ICs given the choice? I doubt it - there will be an SC somewhere east of the Urals collecting resources and feeding the local ICs. From there, surplus resources will be shipped to the Moscow SC and also to port SCs such as Leningrad, Sevastopol and Vladivostock for shipment overseas. I would expect most trade exchanges to be at the ports, not with the trade partner picking the stuff up in the Urals nor in Moscow.

I'm not sure I'm following you on this. The Netherlands controls Sumatra and they'll decide if they want to offer rares out of Sumatra for a price, or transport them back to Amsterdam and sell them out of there. I disagree on the onus. Because germany doesn't have the sea transport to bring back rares from Sumatra they'll pay a higher price to buy rares transported back to Europe by somebody.

OK, but the way trade works in this era is that deals are signed allowing the trade - governments effectively control most strategic trade through tariffs, border controls, etc. Germany thus signs a deal with Holland to take rares, at an agreed price, out of Amsterdam. Now the onus is on Holland to get the rares to Amsterdam, because of the agreement. Naturally, Holland expects to get a higher price for the rares from Amsterdam than if they were taken by the buyer from Sumatra.

The logistics nets for each country use sea convoys and land 'TCs' (which are manufactured, not set based on IC level) and act on a set of algorithms to keep resources and supplies moving from where they arise to where they are needed. When a trade deal is agreed, the pickup SC(s) become part of the participating nation's logistics net (if they weren't already) with either a demand or a supply. The same algorithms (more or less) that are used for resource distribtuion from own supply to own demand are used to distribute trade supply and demand.

 

[Lennartos]

Hmm....

Im just lifting a few ideas here....

1) You can buy resources at any SC that has any surplus if you have a trade agreement(diplomatic option, prices only) with the country.
In that trade agreement you also define a $$ price per tranported good.
2) When making a trade you can choose whether you want to retrieve it yourself or specify a SC you want it delivered to.(paying a fixed amount of $$ for transport)

---- so far so good ----
3) stockpiles of resources (Energy/Metal/rares/supplies) are spoiled at a fixed rate (0.1% of value/day?). Energy does not spoil, but is limited in stockpile ability by SCs.
------------------------
4) Each province can stockpile up to 180 days of its current production.
5) As the stockpile is growing the production is slowly lowered.(no demand.. people are getting fired)
6) if demand is greater than production, production is slowly raised.(expansion)
------------------------
7) Consumer goods are stockpileable.
8) Population consumes consumer goods and gives $$ to country. (As long as there is ample supply of CG dissent will fall slowly)
9) If CG stockpiles fall below a certain threshold, fewer CG are consumed (rationizing.. this should lead to small increase in dissent)
10) All resources and IC cost $$$ if you stockpile 1000 Tons Energy @ 1$ each you have to pay 1000$.
11) Going negative $$$ should be a viable option, and not kill you instantly.(some negative modifiers depending on amount of debt.)

 

[Balesir]

Bad news - I'm back!

1) You can buy resources at any SC that has any surplus if you have a trade agreement(diplomatic option, prices only) with the country.
In that trade agreement you also define a $$ price per tranported good.
2) When making a trade you can choose whether you want to retrieve it yourself or specify a SC you want it delivered to.(paying a fixed amount of $$ for transport)

Yes, this is basically what I said - but why limit the seller to supply from a specific SC? What I mean is, if I buy metal from USA as France and ask for it delivered to Brittany, why should I specify where the USA source it from? Why not leave it to their logistics net to supply the metal from wherever to Brest? As I said, I think only a 'handover' SC need be defined - one SC for each commodity in a deal.

---- so far so good ----
3) stockpiles of resources (Energy/Metal/rares/supplies) are spoiled at a fixed rate (0.1% of value/day?). Energy does not spoil, but is limited in stockpile ability by SCs.
------------------------

(1) I don't see why energy (coal, essentially) need be different - it gets wet, crumbles and blows away on the wind like any crushed ore does. (2) Beyond limiting stockpiles to the SC capacity, I don't really think any loss/degradation etc. is needed - but I don't really mind if it's an option with a moddable rate...

4) Each province can stockpile up to 180 days of its current production.

180 days seems a heck of a lot - maybe 30 days. In addition to SCs this might be a bit complex, but it makes sense from a 'realism' point of view. As long as it's balanced out with the starting SCs I don't really mind either way.

5) As the stockpile is growing the production is slowly lowered.(no demand.. people are getting fired)

This is not a bad idea - although I can see some of the regimes in this era keeping the workers working just to have "employment". Maybe just have an (automatable) option to 'switch off' ICs - remember that ICs that are left running will eat up resources while producing no retained product... This might fit well with having ICs 'block' MP while operating...

6) if demand is greater than production, production is slowly raised.(expansion)
------------------------

At a rate determined by CG production, maybe? Good idea.

7) Consumer goods are stockpileable.

Hmm, OK, but CG will spoil, so a % loss here would be essential. Making them tradable would definitely be a plus, but I'm not sure of the best way to do that - making 'IC-days' tradable might be better.

One possibility I would love to see is for countries without any IC but with resources to be able to trade with other nations for the ability to builc an IC. Something like 'they trade resources for IC-days and use the IC-days to build an IC'... This makes it possible to 'bootstrap' even poor nations, (eventually).

8) Population consumes consumer goods and gives $$ to country. (As long as there is ample supply of CG dissent will fall slowly)

Hmm, here's the rub with 'stockpiles of CG'. People may have a minimum CG quantity they need to keep dissent down, but they have no maximum that they will consume if they have the money for it... Nevertheless, cash generation from CG used is not a bad technique. It represents taxes, after all, that are a proportion of GDP outside of the state sector (or might be measured as such). Sliders and ministers ought to (and already do) affect the cash per CG generated and the CG need - reflecting actual tax rates and policies.

9) If CG stockpiles fall below a certain threshold, fewer CG are consumed (rationizing.. this should lead to small increase in dissent)

As I said above, I don't really see CG being 'stored' to any great degree - rationing is just a decrease in CG need occasioned by war.

Thinking further on the 'storing CG' and 'how much can peple afford?' issues: maybe the rate of cash per CG controls a maximum 'CG per working population' amount? 'Working' = 'producing resources or running ICs'; resource generation and ICs have MP needs and operate at a % capacity based on MP available against that need (so if the MP need from ICs and resource generation is 100 and MP is used so that only 80 are in the pool, all resources and ICs are working at 80% rate). CG need is based on total MP but maximum take-up is on the lowest of 'free' MP or MP need for ICs/resource generation. This would mean that bad government could get the maximum take-up lower than the need, leading to automatic dissent!

As an aside, someone (Wyk?) suggested a screen with tick-boxes for 'wartime and other exigency measures' on it. This might be a good way to do things like rationing, convoy operation, etc.

10) All resources and IC cost $$$ if you stockpile 1000 Tons Energy @ 1$ each you have to pay 1000$.

I don't think this is needed - stock space for this stuff is cheap to run. Just limit stocks to the SC capacities and that should be fine - stocking more means you have to spend on building SCs.

11) Going negative $$$ should be a viable option, and not kill you instantly.(some negative modifiers depending on amount of debt.)

Agreed - war bonds and loans were a common feature. Maximum credit should maybe be related to MP used in ICs?

 

[Lennartos]

Nice to have you back.
Im stuffed with work, so im going to be a little unstable, but here i goes:

"only a 'handover' SC need be defined"
Thants exactly what i meant...
Resource trade should be flexible and automatation should be improved.
Biggest focus for player should be on diplomacy, getting the all so important trade agreements signed!

Degradation of resources means that there always is some form of production needed.
If a dynamic economy is introduced, it should never not shut down 100% once storage space is filled.(and you have no trade partners)

What i have been thinking about is to partially abandon the stockpile limit on SCs.
Its just a unfinished rough idea, but hear me out

Resources are produced in provinces, each province will produce as long as there is a movement on the stock (IC taking the resource, stockpiling...)
Each resource costs $$$ to buy / use..
The population consumes xxx amount of GGs / day.
Each consumed CG gives money.
As a logical conclusion: producing wartime material will not give you any money, but still cost $$ for resources.

So if you want to stockpile resources you can only do so, as long as the economy can bear it. ( money should be totally rebalanced, of course)
Enland can stockpile as much as they want, but they will do so at the expense of production.

CGs also simulate the "wealth" of the nation... (therefore the stockpile ability)
any nation can only sustain total war for a limited period of time. When CGs are very low, dissent is rising as food/daily goods for the population are getting scarce.

Production of resources will change based on demand.
A free market structure will respond faster to demand changes than a planned economy, and that is not always a good thing.

This still needs much improvements... but im just playing with the idea in my head...

 

[Balesir]

Nice to have you back.

Why, thank you!

Im stuffed with work, so im going to be a little unstable, but here i goes:

"only a 'handover' SC need be defined"
Thants exactly what i meant...
Resource trade should be flexible and automatation should be improved.
Biggest focus for player should be on diplomacy, getting the all so important trade agreements signed!

Exactly! Get the agreements for what you need to be delivered safely to somewhere you can get it from... After that, the 'staff' look after things

Degradation of resources means that there always is some form of production needed.
If a dynamic economy is introduced, it should never not shut down 100% once storage space is filled.(and you have no trade partners)

What i have been thinking about is to partially abandon the stockpile limit on SCs.
Its just a unfinished rough idea, but hear me out

Resources are produced in provinces, each province will produce as long as there is a movement on the stock (IC taking the resource, stockpiling...)
Each resource costs $$$ to buy / use..
The population consumes xxx amount of GGs / day.
Each consumed CG gives money.
As a logical conclusion: producing wartime material will not give you any money, but still cost $$ for resources.

So if you want to stockpile resources you can only do so, as long as the economy can bear it. ( money should be totally rebalanced, of course)
Enland can stockpile as much as they want, but they will do so at the expense of production.

CGs also simulate the "wealth" of the nation... (therefore the stockpile ability)
any nation can only sustain total war for a limited period of time. When CGs are very low, dissent is rising as food/daily goods for the population are getting scarce.

Production of resources will change based on demand.
A free market structure will respond faster to demand changes than a planned economy, and that is not always a good thing.

This still needs much improvements... but im just playing with the idea in my head...

I think you might be in danger of having a system that is complicated enough to collapse under its own weight! What I mean is, you get a situation where things are getting worse and nothing anyone does will fix it - good for modelling the Great Depression, but has to be very sophisticated if there is to be a well-modelled recovery, as well...

In the meantime, I still think a straight cap on total storage set by the SCs you build will suffice.

 

[Balesir]

Reading other threads here a couple of extra ideas ocurred to me:

1) For trading - it would be good to have a 'world marketplace' as well as bilateral deals. For these, you basically offer up resources at a fixed (money) price at a specified SC. Any nation that wants the deal can take it - transport from the specified SC is their problem - transport to it is yours. A nation might even place an embargo on specific other nations that stops them taking their market offers up (seen as greyed out when you view the market screen and someone is embargoing you).

2) The ESE for a unit I said above should be set by the 'capacity' of the unit's logistic element divided by the sum of {provinces divided by their Infrastructure and Terrain movement modifier factors} for the route from the closest SC to the unit. This is almost right, but there should be some sense in which the Infrastructure of a province is divided by the number of units tracing supply through it. Supplying one division in northern Finland should not be too much problem - supplying 20 or so will definitely be an issue! Thanks to Johan Jung in this thread for this idea.

Cheers!

 

[Lennartos]

Reading other threads here a couple of extra ideas ocurred to me:

1) For trading - it would be good to have a 'world marketplace' as well as bilateral deals. For these, you basically offer up resources at a fixed (money) price at a specified SC. Any nation that wants the deal can take it - transport from the specified SC is their problem - transport to it is yours. A nation might even place an embargo on specific other nations that stops them taking their market offers up (seen as greyed out when you view the market screen and someone is embargoing you).

2) The ESE for a unit I said above should be set by the 'capacity' of the unit's logistic element divided by the sum of {provinces divided by their Infrastructure and Terrain movement modifier factors} for the route from the closest SC to the unit. This is almost right, but there should be some sense in which the Infrastructure of a province is divided by the number of units tracing supply through it. Supplying one division in northern Finland should not be too much problem - supplying 20 or so will definitely be an issue! Thanks to Johan Jung in this thread for this idea.

Cheers!

1) will propably become the most used auto trade system.
2) decreasing a single province infra value for each run through it will not be possible CPU-wise. that would mean excessive rebuilds of the network. instead how about lowering SCs base ESE with units attached?

Of course i am more and more thinking about making the resource /IC system more autonoumus / flexible/ livelike instead of the static system we have now..
That will require rebalancing of many factors some of witch i outline here:
All auto-trades are based on $$$
All domestic provicnce production costs money, efficiency is partly dependant on infrastructure.
All excess resources within a SCs range are up for sale to any country with a trade agreement (with the agreed prices).
You can stockpile resources by buying them for yourself. ( the limiting factor will mainly be economy and spoiling rate)

High demand for extended periods of time will increase production, while a decrease (depression?) will lower production.
USAs great production capacity on their entry to the war was quite profoundly strenghtened by the Lend-Lease exports witch started much earlier.


Also militia should have a great bonus on ESE values, making them perfect for low infra/bad SC situations

 

[Balesir]

1) will propably become the most used auto trade system.

I agree - but I think it's important that we keep the possibility to offer 'most favoured nations' a special deal via bilateral agreements. In the end, both routes produce the same thing - a trade deal with a quantity per day, a price and an exchange SC.

2) decreasing a single province infra value for each run through it will not be possible CPU-wise. that would mean excessive rebuilds of the network. instead how about lowering SCs base ESE with units attached?

Oh, agreed - I was thinking more along these lines:

1) The size of an SC in a province is capped at Infrastructure/10, round down.

2) ESE of units in a single province are divided by the sum of unit 'weight' (by some measure) divided by province Infra., so ESE reduces when many units are in low Infra provinces.

Of course i am more and more thinking about making the resource /IC system more autonoumus / flexible/ livelike instead of the static system we have now..

Snap!

That will require rebalancing of many factors some of witch i outline here:
All auto-trades are based on $$$
All domestic provicnce production costs money, efficiency is partly dependant on infrastructure.
All excess resources within a SCs range are up for sale to any country with a trade agreement (with the agreed prices).
You can stockpile resources by buying them for yourself. ( the limiting factor will mainly be economy and spoiling rate)

By 'auto-trades' do you mean 'all trades'? I like the idea that resources are private industry selling excess off. Would managed ('Left') economies have to buy all, though?

I need to think about this some more...

Also militia should have a great bonus on ESE values, making them perfect for low infra/bad SC situations

In the scheme I suggest above just give them a low 'weight' - that way they suffer as well if they are put in with a load of 'heavyweights', which seems 'true to life'!

 

[Lennartos]

By 'auto-trades' do you mean 'all trades'? I like the idea that resources are private industry selling excess off. Would managed ('Left') economies have to buy all, though?

Planned economy would have reduced resource cost, but less flexible production. ( if demand falls you have expensive overshoot for longer time)
And maybe prefer domestic production if possible.

Free Market will always buy from lowest bidder in the world, giving lowest price per working IC, but does not necessary increase domestic production?!?(depends on demand and trade deals)...Also free market regulates supply/demand much faster so cost efficiency is improved.

Having all trades in $$$ would simplify the global market and trade agreements while giving money a much needed facelift... so im all for $$$ only trades.

 

[unmerged(90310)]

aww, either im dumb or this thread is horribly complicated to understand. maybe an massive update of the first post will make things look clearer. im currently trying to create a picture of the world market but first of all i need to understand its underlying concept.

as far as i have read , i understand the concept of the world market in the following way :

every SC stores the produced materials to a certain level. so if there are more raw material than are used at the moment it enlists itself automatically(?) on the world market with the amount it has extra. the material is owned by the land that produces it (?).
so on the world market there is a exchange rate by the rules of offer and demand which changes daily. as player i can buy directly out of a big unified pool and have not make a direct contract with any country. so, im getting this stuff anonymous out of somewhere. only the country that sells has to pay tc costs those who buy have no tc cost, and noone knows whom gets his stuff and were its form. (?)

daily figures of the worldmarket are shown ( like +7292 energy or -2129 metal ) in the world market screen. embargos are made that way that there is less available for a embargoed country on his stock exchange ( so instead of 1000 rare its now 100 ), which makes his exchange rate for that good go up (?).



thats how i interpreted , or is there an smarter solution available ?



edit :


http://img396.imageshack.us/my.php?image=import1fv9.jpg

 

[Balesir]

Sorry, wyK1NG, I missed this post earlier.

aww, either im dumb or this thread is horribly complicated to understand. maybe an massive update of the first post will make things look clearer. im currently trying to create a picture of the world market but first of all i need to understand its underlying concept.

Well, I couldn't possibly comment on you being dumb , but you're right that it's complicated!

If we achieve something that is hideously complex in its underlying concept, but simple to understand and use in play, then we will have achieved a perfect score, IMO!

as far as i have read , i understand the concept of the world market in the following way :

every SC stores the produced materials to a certain level. so if there are more raw material than are used at the moment it enlists itself automatically(?) on the world market with the amount it has extra. the material is owned by the land that produces it (?).

The original idea was that the player would place resources up for trade, but the idea that Free Market area resource operations should automatically offer their stuff might be interesting. Not necessarily true, though, since in this era export licenses etc. would still be needed from the government.

so on the world market there is a exchange rate by the rules of offer and demand which changes daily. as player i can buy directly out of a big unified pool and have not make a direct contract with any country. so, im getting this stuff anonymous out of somewhere. only the country that sells has to pay tc costs those who buy have no tc cost, and noone knows whom gets his stuff and were its form. (?)

Not quite. Stuff is offered up for sale at a specific SC. The seller has to get the stuff to that SC (so in many cases it will be offered at the SC nearest the source, where it will accumulate anyway). The buyer has to transport the stuff away from that SC.

After more thought, I am thinking there are three varieties of trade deal/offer:

1. Bilateral trade deal - similar to the current system, but always for cash. These are set up as a diplomatic action between two countries. Four things are specified for each deal: the commodity to be exchanged; the price; the Supply Centre at which ownership will switch (i.e. where the seller must get the stuff to and the buyer must take the stuff from); the maximum rate that the resource may be taken in units per day; the duration of the deal, given as either an end date or a total number of units taken.
   
2. A sale offer - placing resource on the 'world market'. Specify a commodity, a price, an SC and a maximum rate per day in total. Any nations not subject to embargo may link a route to the specified SC to take product away at the specified price. If demand exceeds supply then all get the commodity proportionally.
   
3. A buy offer - offering to buy from the world market. Specify a commodity, a Supply Centre, an offer price and a maximum rate per day in total. Any nations not subject to embargo may link a route to the specified SC to supply product to it at the specified price. If supply exceeds demand then all suppliers get to feed the commodity proportionally.

Sell and Buy offers may be cancelled at any time, but cancelling a bilateral deal before the duration is up costs money (penalty payments), badboy and prestige.

An example bilateral deal might be for Germany to buy up to 30 rares a day from Netherlands Eindhoven SC at $4 per rare. German TCs would then have to get the rares from Eindhoven to all the German SCs that need them (this would be automated). Netherlands would have to convoy the rares to Amsterdam and use TCs to transfer them to Eindhoven.

Netherlands could also offer rares direct from an SC in Sumatra on the open market, presumably at a lower price, but Germany, with no/few convoys, is unlikely to take them.

Germany could, alternatively, offer to buy rares in Wilhelmshaven at $4. Netherlands may decide to ship rares there, at this price - or Germany and Netherlands could enter a bilateral agreement to exchange rares in Wilhelmshaven instead of Eindhoven.

daily figures of the worldmarket are shown ( like +7292 energy or -2129 metal ) in the world market screen. embargos are made that way that there is less available for a embargoed country on his stock exchange ( so instead of 1000 rare its now 100 ), which makes his exchange rate for that good go up (?).

No, an item has to be listed for each offer, because it matters a lot where you buy the stuff from. It matters both because transport needs TCs or convoys, and it matters because land routes and convoys can be attacked if you are at war. Once the 'big war' starts, Germany will likely not want to buy from South America...

Deals that are subject to embargo should be shown greyed out.

thats how i interpreted , or is there an smarter solution available ?

There may well be a smarter solution available - all suggestions gratefully received!

 

[Empire Builders]

Another thing I would like to see is the ability to ignore a provinces level of infra, and just build a military 'strategic railway' through the province. The railway would take the form of being shown when clicking on a province display, and where it shows the type of boarder it has with neighboring provinces it would show RR tracks running from the center of the province to whichever provinces had such a 'strategic railway'. If these were to be able to be built by military forces (read as engineer divisions), this could allow for a better ability to transport and supply ones troops in conquered lands. Infra isn't really a consideration of how to move through a province, but mainly how to move within the province. A 'strategic railway' would be just to transport and supply military units, would have no effect on units movements moving through the province on their own, and should need either an embarkation/debarkation point, or have an engineer brigade able to improvise a field expedient, with consequent delays in the units availability for a less than perfect load/unload site.

I just realised how tired I am. Please forgive me if I am rambling on...

Agree, it is meaningless that you don't know where the railway is even you have upgraded all the railway tech. I think the AoD should add the rail map during the next update.