|
Post by oldpop2000 on Jun 5, 2019 18:09:38 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. I did not explain my statement correctly. It is absolutely necessary but certainly not in the game. My apologies, busy day. I agree about rubber and other resources, I am speaking to reality. There were other options including internally for Germany. The Lahn District had iron ore, Lorraine had iron ore but that disappeared after WW1. As I have stated on two occasions, I do not believe that Rule the Waves need the extra complications of economic resource management. It is a naval game, not a game of government economics. There was artificial oil from the Haber Bosch process which was why the plant was near Auschwitz, if I remember my history.
|
|
|
Post by hoffmads on Jun 5, 2019 18:17:48 GMT -6
Perhaps some of this could be abstracted in by adding some more wartime events regarding resource allocation beyond the one relating to army offensives. Maybe there could be an event where the air force/army air force wants resources to build more planes, with the consequence of refusal being things like a reduction in overall national base resources and an increase in interest due to enemy strategic bombing and another relating to the civilian economy, with the potential to add unrest due to excessive rationing.
Additionally, it might be worthwhile to give each nation a value for how crippling being blockaded is, since countries like the UK and Japan (and First World War Germany) aren't able to feed themselves without imports, whereas a country like the US, or to an extent, Russia, are far more independent both in terms of food and strategic resources.
|
|
|
Post by brygun on Jun 5, 2019 18:21:54 GMT -6
I highly recommend chocolate on a busy day. Then again I recommend chocolate for every day.
I would be more inclined to see "rare metal" access to be a thing but I find myself still thinking of it as too much detail for RTW. I also can't see it being an on-off or yes-no like oil but rather a quality factor. Something like when you start to build a ship a message of either "Nickel shortage in affect ships will have slightly weaker armor" or "Nickel shortage in affect pay an extra 5% ship cost to secure sufficient quantity." Both these seem a bit much for me to see in RTW2.
I never mentioned coal and while it does have a coal quality issue it doesn't really implement well. Its not like a ship that burns one type of coal is really so different in design from one that burns a different type. RTW abstracts range in chunks that have 1,000s of nm differences which is far greater than a difference in consuming at 1.2x a differnt type of coal (number out of a hat and maybe high ball park). Heck there are cases where coal burning river boats would salvage wood from the shore to fuel their engines.
|
|
|
Post by brygun on Jun 5, 2019 18:28:12 GMT -6
Additionally, it might be worthwhile to give each nation a value for how crippling being blockaded is, since countries like the UK and Japan (and First World War Germany) aren't able to feed themselves without imports, whereas a country like the US, or to an extent, Russia, are far more independent both in terms of food and strategic resources. This makes sense. Might be in game already. I could perhaps see a blockade impacting the Naval funding somehow. Like while under blockade new ships being built cost 10% more that turn. I think the game has a factor for how hard it is to blockade each nation. Not sure and not sure how it works. It could be interesting to see the blockade economic impact to consider the value of the flags in the sea zone controlled and apply a temporary reduction in your naval budget. For the home region it would need some reasonable limit on the affect. UK economy depends alot on overseas trade so blockading the Indian Ocean should have a fair impact on them. Im okay and interested in grand affects like controlling a distant sea zone rather than detailed resource management.
|
|
|
Post by hoffmads on Jun 5, 2019 19:31:22 GMT -6
Additionally, it might be worthwhile to give each nation a value for how crippling being blockaded is, since countries like the UK and Japan (and First World War Germany) aren't able to feed themselves without imports, whereas a country like the US, or to an extent, Russia, are far more independent both in terms of food and strategic resources. This makes sense. Might be in game already. I could perhaps see a blockade impacting the Naval funding somehow. Like while under blockade new ships being built cost 10% more that turn. I think the game has a factor for how hard it is to blockade each nation. Not sure and not sure how it works. It could be interesting to see the blockade economic impact to consider the value of the flags in the sea zone controlled and apply a temporary reduction in your naval budget. For the home region it would need some reasonable limit on the affect. UK economy depends alot on overseas trade so blockading the Indian Ocean should have a fair impact on them. Im okay and interested in grand affects like controlling a distant sea zone rather than detailed resource management. The game currently has a modifier to the amount of strength points required to blockade, so that countries like Russia and Germany with limited sea access are easier to blockade. What I'd like to see would be a second modifier relating to the country's dependence on resources, including food, imported by sea. This could impact VP loss/gain, unrest, and, as you've suggested, naval budgets/build costs.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Jun 6, 2019 9:14:43 GMT -6
I've been waiting to see if anyone thought of this, I should have said something before. Aircraft, probably in around 1915 when the first all metal aircraft was built by Junkers - Junkers J 1, were built out of aluminum, Eventually, Duraluminum. The NACA in 1922, recommended finally the use of Duraluminum to build aircraft. To make it, you need a rock, not a mineral. Bauxite is the rock you need. Now in this time period, the US was primary supplier although Jamaica is now one of the main suppliers. One of the primary supply areas in the US was the Southeast US around Georgia, Tennessee, Arkansas and Virginia.
Anyway, this is a vital natural resource and I hope the developers have included it. The primary sources in Europe would be Southern Europe, Yugoslavia, USSR. Hungary has a little but Australia is currently one of the main producers along side Jamaica. Norway is also source. Also, chromium and vanadium which are necessary for steel are by products of aluminum production. There are many other by-products of the aluminum processing.
|
|
|
Post by dizzy on Jun 6, 2019 10:15:29 GMT -6
I've been waiting to see if anyone thought of this, I should have said something before. That's why you should be put in charge of this! I know you don't quite agree with me, oldpop2000, but I'd like to work with you on a compromise to get to common ground and have something solid that we can present to Fredrik to see if he likes the idea. I do agree that we don't need another layer to manage resources. That's beyond the purview of being the Admiral and running the Navy. Instead, I want them to be managed by the game and have the resources or the lack thereof be made aware of to the player. So the game would track them and it would be displayed. If resources become critically low, Events will transpire to place you in conflict with neutral nations, which will raise tensions globally to varying degrees, and or war with other principle nations whose resources of whatever type you require. This will serve to place nations and players in a position to either expand their empire or defend it giving the game purpose and direction beyond that of ship design, naval battles and earning prestige, which is all I've been wanting. This could be accomplished with a Conquest mode at the start of a campaign and allow the normal sandbox mode to be unaffected. I think this historically driven narrative would be the impetus to provide meaningful conflict in RTW2 which currently lacks this. What do you think?
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Jun 6, 2019 10:25:29 GMT -6
I've been waiting to see if anyone thought of this, I should have said something before. That's why you should be put in charge of this! I know you don't quite agree with me, oldpop2000 , but I'd like to work with you on a compromise to get to common ground and have something solid that we can present to Fredrik to see if he likes the idea. I do agree that we don't need another layer to manage resources. That's beyond the purview of being the Admiral and running the Navy. Instead, I want them to be managed by the game and have the resources or the lack thereof be made aware of to the player. So the game would track them and it would be displayed. If resources become critically low, Events will transpire to place you in conflict with neutral nations, which will raise tensions globally to varying degrees, and or war with other principle nations whose resources of whatever type you require. This will serve to place nations and players in a position to either expand their empire or defend it giving the game purpose and direction beyond that of ship design, naval battles and earning prestige, which is all I've been wanting. This could be accomplished with a Conquest mode at the start of a campaign and allow the normal sandbox mode to be unaffected. I think this historically driven narrative would be the impetus to provide meaningful conflict in RTW2 which currently lacks this. What do you think? I think that idea would work, and I would support it as long as it doesn't get too complex. The main natural resources would be the following. I emphasize natural not human which in fact does affect a nations ability in a long war to continue production. They are in no order of importance. If the developer thought this list was too long, then delete copper and rubber although they are important for wiring, seals, tires etc. but I would agree. The bold ones are the most vital. A. Iron ore B. CoalC. BauxiteD. Rubber, both natural and synthetic E. Oil, both natural and syntheticF. Copper These would be my choices for resources that have to be managed by the government, not the military. Military spending would depend on the quantity of each resource. In peace time, civilian needs would be prioritized, in war, military priorities would be higher. This is something the game would recognize and implement. It could be a choice provided to the gamer, civilian or military. For RTW, I would eliminate bauxite and when the game gets to 1920, add that resource into the RTW2 resource list.
|
|
|
Post by dizzy on Jun 6, 2019 10:33:05 GMT -6
oldpop2000, Yes, good ideas to pursue here. I'll have to take a bit to think of how to use this to affect the game. I was simply thinking of an Event driven method to spur the player into actionable conquest for these. For example, an Event for foreign service requirements to double in a zone where a rival empire threatens your resources. Events that increase tension based on resources. Events directing you to invade other colonies for these resources. All Events would have choices. And a lack of resources would have consequences, perhaps delaying construction/repair of ships and or aircraft or preventing their use alltogether as in the case of the current Oil mechanism...
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Jun 6, 2019 10:37:01 GMT -6
oldpop2000 , Yes, good ideas to pursue here. I'll have to take a bit to think of how to use this to affect the game. I was simply thinking of an Event driven method to spur the player into actionable conquest for these. For example, an Event for foreign service requirements to double in a zone where a rival empire threatens your resources. Events that increase tension based on resources. Events directing you to invade other colonies for these resources. All Events would have choices. And a lack of resources would have consequences, perhaps delaying construction/repair of ships and or aircraft or preventing their use alltogether as in the case of the current Oil mechanism... We know from history, that many conquests were aimed at natural resources, plus agricultural products like wheat, corn, rice, barley etc. for feeding your nation. It is a natural force by humans to take territory for personal gains and development.
|
|
|
Post by dizzy on Jun 6, 2019 10:38:48 GMT -6
We know from history, that many conquests were aimed at natural resources, plus agricultural products like wheat, corn, rice, barley etc. for feeding your nation. It is a natural force by humans to take territory for personal gains and development. Yes, and natural to defend it. Events moving us toward conflict for this purpose is perfect for a Conquest mode game in RTW2. How it's done is the question.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Jun 6, 2019 10:44:09 GMT -6
We know from history, that many conquests were aimed at natural resources, plus agricultural products like wheat, corn, rice, barley etc. for feeding your nation. It is a natural force by humans to take territory for personal gains and development. Yes, and natural to defend it. Events moving us toward conflict for this purpose is perfect for a Conquest mode game in RTW2. How it's done is the question. The real problem, but this is from my perspective, is that the wars in the game, don't last very long. They are never long enough to allow government time to change resource priorities. The US did not get into full production until 1943. although she had begun her build up in 1939. It took four years to get the whole issue of priorities of resource management completed.
|
|
|
Post by dizzy on Jun 6, 2019 11:29:15 GMT -6
Yes, and natural to defend it. Events moving us toward conflict for this purpose is perfect for a Conquest mode game in RTW2. How it's done is the question. The real problem, but this is from my perspective, is that the wars in the game, don't last very long. They are never long enough to allow government time to change resource priorities. The US did not get into full production until 1943. although she had begun her build up in 1939. It took four years to get the whole issue of priorities of resource management completed. Well, yes and no. Currently I'm at work on a scenario playing as the Spanish where I'm having to roll the clock back to 1898 just before the Spanish-American War, raise tensions and change Austria-Hungary colonies to German Colonies so I can add Japan as a participating Empire. Just makes more sense. Besides, the default start in 1900 shows all the prior to that war Spanish colonies still under Spanish rule and after the war, which lasted only 10 weeks, marked the end of Spain as a global power; they lost all their overseas colonies. So while wars are short, doesn't mean they cannot be decisive, and in the Mods forum, I already have a thread for a manual invasion mechanic that works great for neutral colonies and could be adapted as a built in mechanism for a Conquest mode. I'm sure the fact that wars can sometimes be short in this game is only a problem that can be solved. Perhaps the event requiring an invasion for a resource would prevent any whitepeace until a colony had changed hands....
|
|
|
Post by brygun on Jun 6, 2019 11:34:48 GMT -6
I could see something like the aluminum et al becoming a factor in aircraft somehow. Such as if you didn't have access to it oil style then the new prototype aircraft would have a quality reduction. This idea is simple to implement but leads the oddity of an alumunium using old plane still on the books when aluminum isn't available.
We could look at the "oil is now for everyone" time (which by the way really needs a forced big splash screen as I keep forgetting about it) when the resource become unrestricted. Aluminum isn't quite like that but alternate materials are invented like synthetic oil and synthetic rubber or alternate plants for rubber.
Alum. for planes might be better expressed as "Light alloy". A few historical spots would have it and chances for random finds in the world like with oil.
That level of management I could work with.
What I don't want for RTW2 is to be counting 166 barrels of oil, 48 sheets of allow and 16 rolls of copper to make a ship.
>>>>
I support dizzy's idea for having tension events related to resources. There could be situations like you are treated as having oil if an ally does.
We could have inland raids for aircraft but Im not so sure we have the right sort of combat model for an air only battle to be done "well" and its a bit out of the synopsis of being the Admiral.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Jun 6, 2019 11:41:25 GMT -6
The real problem, but this is from my perspective, is that the wars in the game, don't last very long. They are never long enough to allow government time to change resource priorities. The US did not get into full production until 1943. although she had begun her build up in 1939. It took four years to get the whole issue of priorities of resource management completed. Well, yes and no. Currently I'm at work on a scenario playing as the Spanish where I'm having to roll the clock back to 1898 just before the Spanish-American War, raise tensions and change Austria-Hungary colonies to German Colonies so I can add Japan as a participating Empire. Just makes more sense. Besides, the default start in 1900 shows all the prior to that war Spanish colonies still under Spanish rule and after the war, which lasted only 10 weeks, marked the end of Spain as a global power; they lost all their overseas colonies. So while wars are short, doesn't mean they cannot be decisive, and in the Mods forum, I already have a thread for a manual invasion mechanic that works great for neutral colonies and could be adapted as a built in mechanism for a Conquest mode. I'm sure the fact that wars can sometimes be short in this game is only a problem that can be solved. Perhaps the event requiring an invasion for a resource would prevent any whitepeace until a colony had changed hands.... I understand what you are trying to do in the scenario but I am talking about reality. You can do anything in a game that you wish, but the farther from reality you get, the more the game is fantasy and has no relative bearing on history. Either you want a fantasy game or a near reality simulation. I vote and enjoy the latter, to assess how I would have reacted in real life situations that occurred in wars of the 20th century. We played war in NORAD all the time but it never came close to the reality of a possible nuclear war in 1969. Everything changed immediately.
|
|