|
Post by dizzy on Jun 4, 2019 23:49:11 GMT -6
GLOBAL PETROLEUM PRODUCTION 1939 USA...................................60.4% Latin America......................15.4% My goal is not to confuse or draw this discussion from its direction, but to provide facts to be able to make the proper recommendations to the team. I like where this conversation is going. I love the research involved. I enjoyed reading the history of the Dutch Royal Shell company still around today and seeing what contributions to obscure, and often times difficult historical facts the community is able to find. Here's where all this could matter. williammiller RTW2 is lacking in general aim and purpose. Let's all admit that when you fire up a new game, there's no stated goals whatsoever. Where are the victory conditions for each nation? What is their objective? We know what's fun about the game: Ship design and naval battles between 1900-1950. But that's it and you'd need to play the game or watch a youtube vid to figure that out. The game is a sandbox with no goal to achieve and we all play it because we are enthusiasts for the two afore mentioned fun aspects. It think we have an opportunity to realize something profound that not even I completely grasp at this point, but with this basic Oil mechanic in the game, it could be nurtured to give RTW2 a new lease on life. Let's develop this idea to a logical conclusion, as an example. Let's say the default mode is Sandbox. Nothing changes. You load RTW2 and it's always as it has been. But what if starting a new game there was a Conquest mode to start out with? One in which each nation had trade, diplomacy and resource goals they needed to achieve and along the way the Navy was the ultimate means of attaining/defending them. The Conquest mode would introduce a layer of resource/trade/diplomatic 'needs', perhaps something you don't manage, but a goal your navy/nation would need to obtain with consequences for failing to do so, sometimes dire. Included would be a Neutral nation invasion mechanic along with the trimmings to make all this gel together. This would make RTW2 a grand strategy game rather than the sandbox 'build your navy and fight battles pointlessly' game it is now, and is what I ultimately envision for this game to be. So the 'Resource Layer' of this game I'm getting at is much more encompassing than you might imagine, and less of something one would have to 'manage' and more of something that would setup strategic goals and purpose.
|
|
|
Post by christian on Jun 5, 2019 3:14:07 GMT -6
sure a game where you trade and all that sounds fun but that is not how the game is designed the game is designed so you are the fleet admiral you dont control the trade sure you can send orders if you are short on oil or steel for construction
sure it would be nice to be the total leader of a nation and control everything but you are not the leader you are the admiral there is a limit to what you can do you are the admiral but you have almost no control over the nations trade sure you can assign trade protection but there is no purpose in peace time and we already have trade protection in wartime
there are needs for oil steel alluminium and trading to get your nation what it needs but these are all in the hands of the people leading the nation sure you could add random events with this but i feel this would just make the game needlessly complicated for no gain
events from the politicians such as send x tonnage to x location to protect our interests are already in game to some extent although i do think more scenarios could be added here it is currently very fleshed out
the only expandable option here i see is oil because almost all countries had enough steel to build their warships and when they dident they just bought alot of it
there could be an oil shortage message your oil will run out in 2 years due to x nation blocking trade and an option to either
try find a new seller
prepare an invasion of an area that has oil (preferably neutral) (tension +
preassure nations to sell you oil (tension ++
|
|
|
Post by southkraut on Jun 5, 2019 4:26:52 GMT -6
Wait what? Sandbox? No goal? You must've missed some pretty obvious clues, since RTW has always been about maximizing prestige. You compete with yourself, and others you voluntarily compare with, for the highest score.
|
|
|
Post by alexbrunius on Jun 5, 2019 4:26:53 GMT -6
Access to oil and coal was pretty central and I think the game would benefit alot from tracking those as well as tracking the dockyard in a bit deeper way than just max ship displacement. Except all major powers present in the game had some if not great access to coal. The limitations of oil if you don't have access to it yourself were stated before. Professional Historians don't agree with you at all: www.youtube.com/watch?v=dWJhqQd5dxk&I researched it a bit more, and even USA which was the WW2 power that was the least dependent on coal of all major powers ( Due to an abundance of oil ) actually ran out of coal when they reached their peak industrial capacity in 1944. They had to work overtime and extra shifts in the coalmines to get enough coal out of the ground. Source: images.library.wisc.edu/EcoN...945/reference/econatres.minyb1945.whyoung.pdf ( Page 839 ) If coal became a scarce resource in USA and hit peak capacity during WW2 this means it must have been a key resource everywhere. And for the purposes of RTW2 it had an even greater importance earlier on when all warships ran on coal.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Jun 5, 2019 7:47:46 GMT -6
Except all major powers present in the game had some if not great access to coal. The limitations of oil if you don't have access to it yourself were stated before. Professional Historians don't agree with you at all: www.youtube.com/watch?v=dWJhqQd5dxk&I researched it a bit more, and even USA which was the WW2 power that was the least dependent on coal of all major powers ( Due to an abundance of oil ) actually ran out of coal when they reached their peak industrial capacity in 1944. They had to work overtime and extra shifts in the coalmines to get enough coal out of the ground. Source: images.library.wisc.edu/EcoN...945/reference/econatres.minyb1945.whyoung.pdf ( Page 839 ) If coal became a scarce resource in USA and hit peak capacity during WW2 this means it must have been a key resource everywhere. And for the purposes of RTW2 it had an even greater importance earlier on when all warships ran on coal. Interesting video, I am watching tonight when my granddaughter is here with us. One issue that is important with coal is the type of coal. As you probably know, there are actually three types of coal; peat, bituminous and anthracite. The latter is the hardest and the coal that is used in steel production to produce coking coal. Anthracite is the best, bituminous is the next but coking coal is intermediate between them. But coke is vital to steel production. The issue for the US and other nations is that in a world war, you begin to enlist many men, men who probably work in the mines, so production of coal increase as steel plants need more coke and other plants need electricity derived from the burning of coal. However, now you are reducing the number of coal miners from the ranks. Experienced coal miners would probably go first. So, there is the problem; not the lack of coal but the lack of miners. The following extract is from an official document produced in 1944 by the War Production Board Chairman.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Jun 5, 2019 8:26:54 GMT -6
I've been remiss in not providing some sources of information for all of you. I will try to correct that now. The Wages of Destruction by Adam Tooze - This book is an excellent source for the Nazi Economy Bankrupting the Enemy by Edward S. Miller - This excellent book is the story of financial siege of Japan before WW2 Japan Prepares for Total War by Michael A. Barnhart - This book is about the Japanese seach for Economic Security The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers by Paul Kennedy - Another excellent source about economic change and military conflict from 1500 to 2000 The Wealth and Poverty of Nations by David S. Landes - This book traces the economic advances and modernization of the nations of the world Castles, Battles and Bombs by Jurgen Brauer amd Jibert Vam Tuyll - This takes a different approach to military history using economics to explain it. It starts with the high Middle Ages to the end of the Cold War. Interesting approach. www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/ATO/index.html - This is a link to the Hyperwar page that deals with the American Theatre. My primary use was the "Arsenal of Democracy" documentation which had the logistical issues for the US military warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/economics/staff/mharrison/public/ww2overview1998.pdfThese are just some of the sources that I have used. I have more on my personal server.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Jun 5, 2019 8:55:02 GMT -6
GLOBAL PETROLEUM PRODUCTION 1939 USA...................................60.4% Latin America......................15.4% My goal is not to confuse or draw this discussion from its direction, but to provide facts to be able to make the proper recommendations to the team. I like where this conversation is going. I love the research involved. I enjoyed reading the history of the Dutch Royal Shell company still around today and seeing what contributions to obscure, and often times difficult historical facts the community is able to find. Here's where all this could matter. williammiller RTW2 is lacking in general aim and purpose. Let's all admit that when you fire up a new game, there's no stated goals whatsoever. Where are the victory conditions for each nation? What is their objective? We know what's fun about the game: Ship design and naval battles between 1900-1950. But that's it and you'd need to play the game or watch a youtube vid to figure that out. The game is a sandbox with no goal to achieve and we all play it because we are enthusiasts for the two afore mentioned fun aspects. It think we have an opportunity to realize something profound that not even I completely grasp at this point, but with this basic Oil mechanic in the game, it could be nurtured to give RTW2 a new lease on life. Let's develop this idea to a logical conclusion, as an example. Let's say the default mode is Sandbox. Nothing changes. You load RTW2 and it's always as it has been. But what if starting a new game there was a Conquest mode to start out with? One in which each nation had trade, diplomacy and resource goals they needed to achieve and along the way the Navy was the ultimate means of attaining/defending them. The Conquest mode would introduce a layer of resource/trade/diplomatic 'needs', perhaps something you don't manage, but a goal your navy/nation would need to obtain with consequences for failing to do so, sometimes dire. Included would be a Neutral nation invasion mechanic along with the trimmings to make all this gel together. This would make RTW2 a grand strategy game rather than the sandbox 'build your navy and fight battles pointlessly' game it is now, and is what I ultimately envision for this game to be. So the 'Resource Layer' of this game I'm getting at is much more encompassing than you might imagine, and less of something one would have to 'manage' and more of something that would setup strategic goals and purpose. The goal of RTW and RTW2 is prestige points for the gamer or admiral if you will. I do agree that economics has played a large part in the wars of the 20th/21st century with the globalization of trade and resources. However, it is a very complex issue and as the video presented states, even a game like Hearts of Iron probably did not get correct. You will probably never get the economic foundations correct as they are very difficult to create and maintain. We are talking about issues like gold standard, money supply, interest rates just to name a few. Almost all of these played a very large part in both wars. Germany essentially lost WW1 due to poor economic management, not in the field. I personally would leave the issue to the designers and the other members of the team. They are the ones who have to deal with the issues.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Jun 5, 2019 12:06:53 GMT -6
Just some more thoughts on the issue of resource management in the game.
Economics in war is the A. National requirements B. Quantity and quality of the resources, availability and mobilization C: The Institutions and policies that are able to mobilize them for the war or anytime for that matter. Resources are not just natural resources, but fixed capital assets like bonds, financial stocks and flows. Resources are also working population, health, literacy, degree of skill, training and educations along with scientific knowledge and technical know-how.
Realistically, most of this economics management cannot be put into the game unless a special spreadsheet was developed for all the nations, with main resources:
1. Iron ore 2. Oil 3. Coal 4. Rubber 5. Copper
Now, if these were put into an Economic Resource Spreadsheet at the beginning of a game starting in 1900, the transferred to the game data then you would start with the basic resources with upper and lower limits. After this entry, the game now controls the resources. You could add food stuffs grown internally, bonds, stock market and other financial items.
This is one simple way of representing resources. You could also around 1920, update the resources, again with upper and lower limits. You cannot change economic geography. By this I mean, that if a nation like Italy does not have oil or coal in its geologic structure, forget it. You cannot change this. All you can do is go find it, conquer the area and develop it. I think this is far too much for the game, in my opinion.
|
|
|
Post by dizzy on Jun 5, 2019 12:51:36 GMT -6
Just some more thoughts on the issue of resource management in the game. Economics in war is the A. National requirements B. Quantity and quality of the resources, availability and mobilization C: The Institutions and policies that are able to mobilize them for the war or anytime for that matter. Resources are not just natural resources, but fixed capital assets like bonds, financial stocks and flows. Resources are also working population, health, literacy, degree of skill, training and educations along with scientific knowledge and technical know-how. Realistically, most of this economics management cannot be put into the game unless a special spreadsheet was developed for all the nations, with main resources: 1. Iron ore 2. Oil 3. Coal 4. Rubber 5. Copper Now, if these were put into an Economic Resource Spreadsheet at the beginning of a game starting in 1900, the transferred to the game data then you would start with the basic resources with upper and lower limits. After this entry, the game now controls the resources. You could add food stuffs grown internally, bonds, stock market and other financial items. This is one simple way of representing resources. You could also around 1920, update the resources, again with upper and lower limits. You cannot change economic geography. By this I mean, that if a nation like Italy does not have oil or coal in its geologic structure, forget it. You cannot change this. All you can do is go find it, conquer the area and develop it. I think this is far too much for the game, in my opinion. Well that was well articulated oldpop2000. For example, there could be Unrest added to the USA for continuing to sell Oil to Japan and you'd need to improve bases and move a fleet to the Philippines causing tensions to rise. Or Japan gets an event that it needs to invade a neutral colony's Oil fields to ensure a continuous supply which could lead to war. Or Italy must invade an African nation because it's last war was with it's coal supplier who stopped all Coal trade. The resources mechanism would then drive the narrative of your nation's objectives to either it's security or demise. All these are opportunities to give this game so much needed direction and purpose other than 'get the most prestige you can.' I'd love to see it managed and abstracted internally in a way that only moves the player toward goals that benefit their nation fraught with military risk. I think it could be done. How it's done is the question. But your method of Economic Resource Spreadsheet is a start. ;-)
|
|
|
Post by dorn on Jun 5, 2019 13:14:05 GMT -6
Main issue is that it is not generic and need to be scripted.
It will take a lot of time to implement and added value is dubius.
What about Malta in case of war in the Mediterranean. There a lot of naval battles related to supply Malta or quick reinforcement of North Africa.
The mechanism need to be very simple and abstracted not to change RTW to resource management game.
I would think more about principles of blockade, not only homeland but colonies too.
|
|
|
Post by dizzy on Jun 5, 2019 13:15:54 GMT -6
As Naval Admiral, you'd conduct your affairs as you normally would, but as resources get critically low, you'd have this new Event for mitigating them with either a war on a country rich in that resource to win concessions through war, or invading a colony to get it. Either way carries risks. But using Resources in this fashion turns it into a mechanism by which you get objectives and purpose other than design ships, fight battles and earns as much prestige as you can.
|
|
|
Post by brygun on Jun 5, 2019 17:06:57 GMT -6
There would need to be alternate markets, resource points, shipping and as pointed out the management of the nation is outside of our Admiral character's decisions.
The oil instead of coal did make a huge impact on ships. The steel from source home, A, B or C would change armor values* by only a small degree. * armor value meaning the internal numbers of # inches X production quality we don't see.
Steel and coal quality could be an issue but general quality was.
Certainly wouldnt want steel to be a yes no question like oil is. Would you want to get a message "construction halted until you get more steel" message.
You could have the price cost of ships varied by the resource availability but I think thats more in the annoying vs enjoyable detail to this game.
|
|
|
Post by brygun on Jun 5, 2019 17:11:10 GMT -6
For naval ships, oil is vital, but so is iron ore, nickel, chromium, manganese and few other ores that make up armor plate. <snip> The World supply of oil in WW2 came from six different locations. <snip> Agreed and thanks for providing the "boring" details. Oil was critical and decisive with a yes-no for design decisions. Steel and others were a quality or price-per-unit which is far less significant than a yes-no.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Jun 5, 2019 17:31:26 GMT -6
For naval ships, oil is vital, but so is iron ore, nickel, chromium, manganese and few other ores that make up armor plate. <snip> The World supply of oil in WW2 came from six different locations. <snip> Agreed and thanks for providing the "boring" details. Oil was critical and decisive with a yes-no for design decisions. Steel and others were a quality or price-per-unit which is far less significant than a yes-no. This economic resource issue or issues is a little boring but absolutely necessary. Steel needs, as we all know iron ore and for Germany, the best iron ore came from Sweden. The iron ore was shipped to Narvik and then carried by coastal steamers all the way to Germany hence, the Norwegian campaign with an emphasis on Narvik. They had shipped it through the Baltic but with war against Russian that was no longer an option. We can see many reasons for the geostrategic operations by the Axis in WW2 that were governed by the quest for natural resources in most cases.
|
|
|
Post by brygun on Jun 5, 2019 17:50:32 GMT -6
This economic resource issue or issues is a little boring but absolutely necessary. Steel needs, as we all know iron ore and for Germany, the best iron ore came from Sweden. Not agreed that it is "absolutely necessary" as the game is quite valid without it. On German getting Steel from Sweden the take away is not agreed. The "best" means "not only". Shipping or mining steel from other sources is an option. Rubber became artificially made. Making iron a quality-price affect rather than a yes-no. I still think the strength of Rule the Waves is as a combined ship design and meaningful battle generator. Getting into details of the lesser resource considerations is outside the synopsis of the game. Getting off your synopsis is a bad thing for a TV series and for a computer game. I also submit that improving and facility carrier groups and carrier missions is a much higher programmer priority that affects a large portion of the player base than a niche of resource centric players. Plus, there are games like Hearts of Iron which do add in that layer along with the non-naval battles to fight over the inland XXX locations this would lead to.
|
|