Re distribution of IC

[Alex_brunius]

After having looked at how upgrades and reinforcements work in reality and compared it to the HoI2 system Ive found out that perhaps some more limits are needed.

In reality many countries use everything they can get their hands on even if its many years old equipment and alot of divisions are below max strenght. I find it very unrealistic that a drafted army like Soviet can spend 300+ IC on upgrades and do in a single year what in reality took them from 1938-45 to do (modernize their army).

What if there were a limit like drafted armys can only use 10% of IC on upgrades but 30% on reinforcements. And standing army may use 30% on upgrades but only 10% on reinforcements.

This would mean a standing army have to play more carefully since huge losses can't be replaced instantly but in return they would generally be more up to date.

It would also make upgrading and reinforcing more of a continual process like Ive always thought it to be in reality. And promote a more balanced distribution of your IC.

Perhaps a similair system could be worked out for consumer goods, Where democracys are more flexible but full authoritarian states might never be able to reduce dissent more than -0.05% per day? Along with some events giving you dissent for losing territory (sectors) this could make dissent a real problem for the Axis powers.

 

[unmerged(38037)]

Because we aren't trying to relive history. We are trying to change it. If you wanna relive it just wait until 1945 and nuke Japan.

Its a pain to stick to RL limits because they were all bad decisions of leaders. We don't wanna play a historical book so to speak. We wanna start and change and some relive history. Everyone is different.


If you have 1 Billion people in your country you can have millions of volunteers like that. So its quit to upgrade a standing army. But you can also draft a tiny nation with a few dozen millions and upgrade just as quick. Standing and drafting is just a way to get manpower. If anything standing is quicker cause you don't have to keep training so many new troops.

 

[Balesir]

The OP is not talking about limiting the players to the decisions made historically, he's talking about modelling the limits that those who made those decisions worked under. Part of the point of the Paradox games is to explore the historical situations, to interact with them.

If you explore those situations without considering the limitations under which the people at the time operated all you achieve is a distorted view of the situation and the value of their decision making. Of course, we are unlikely ever to get a perfect model of those limiting factors (or even agree on what they were!) - but not even to consider them leaves us simply with a fantasy. Now, I have nothing against fantasy for its own sake - but for many who play these games there is something else that they are seeking.

 

[Lord Finnish]

After having looked at how upgrades and reinforcements work in reality and compared it to the HoI2 system Ive found out that perhaps some more limits are needed.

In reality many countries use everything they can get their hands on even if its many years old equipment and alot of divisions are below max strenght. I find it very unrealistic that a drafted army like Soviet can spend 300+ IC on upgrades and do in a single year what in reality took them from 1938-45 to do (modernize their army).

What if there were a limit like drafted armys can only use 10% of IC on upgrades but 30% on reinforcements. And standing army may use 30% on upgrades but only 10% on reinforcements.

This would mean a standing army have to play more carefully since huge losses can't be replaced instantly but in return they would generally be more up to date.

It would also make upgrading and reinforcing more of a continual process like Ive always thought it to be in reality. And promote a more balanced distribution of your IC.

Perhaps a similair system could be worked out for consumer goods, Where democracys are more flexible but full authoritarian states might never be able to reduce dissent more than -0.05% per day? Along with some events giving you dissent for losing territory (sectors) this could make dissent a real problem for the Axis powers.

I am prefectly fine with the current system..

 

[Alex_brunius]

I am prefectly fine with the current system..

Yes, the current system gives you alot of freedom, To much in my opinion though.

The fact still remains, no army was 100% strenght and 100% upgraded. But in HoI2 this is often the situation.

Same argument can be made about dissent and about the flexibility of production. NO country can switch 70% of their industry from building battleships one day to upgrading modern infantry divisions the next one.

 

[blue emu]

Yes, the current system gives you alot of freedom, To much in my opinion though.

The fact still remains, no army was 100% strenght and 100% upgraded. But in HoI2 this is often the situation.

Same argument can be made about dissent and about the flexibility of production. NO country can switch 70% of their industry from building battleships one day to upgrading modern infantry divisions the next one.

This is certainly true, but remember that the HOI-2 system was never intended as an accurate simulation. Johan himself has pointed this out many times. It was intended as a GAME, set in a historical (or semi-historical) framework. The historical or "realistic" aspects are intended as flavor, not as constraints to the game system.