|
Post by oldpop2000 on Jun 6, 2019 12:03:01 GMT -6
I think that an event driven resource management could be a simple workable plan using four of the resources. You could start the game with the resources available both externally and internally. As you progress through time with budgets and technological innovations, those resource requirements can and should increase. You could make agreements with nations that have the resources needed and if they refuse then this might be an event that drives you either to invade or go somewhere else to find the resource. I haven't given this much thought but off the top of my head, this is my idea. I would use these four resources to simplify: Oil Iron ore Coal Bauxite or aluminum, light alloy could be used for terminology if you wish. In this situation, then blockades become important to stop vital resources from arriving at a nation you are in conflict with. If you are Britain or France, then blockading Italy to prevent oil from US arriving at her ports. You could blockade Germany and Japan. USSR would almost be impossible as would the US and the Confederacy. Great Britain and France would be two nations that would have problems with blockades with two or three of those resources. Anyway, just my ideas. Go for it and I will try to be supportive of your efforts to add some realistic events into the game, but I will not support fantasy. I like to play a game that allows me to take the "path not taken". Follow historical events, but take the path that was not taken to see how it would have changed the world situation.
|
|
|
Post by dizzy on Jun 6, 2019 12:12:01 GMT -6
I think that an event driven resource management could be a simple workable plan using four of the resources. You could start the game with the resources available both externally and internally. As you progress through time with budgets and technological innovations, those resource requirements can and should increase. You could make agreements with nations that have the resources needed and if they refuse then this might be an event that drives you either to invade or go somewhere else to find the resource. I haven't given this much thought but off the top of my head, this is my idea. I would use these four resources to simplify: Oil Iron ore Coal Bauxite or aluminum, light alloy could be used for terminology if you wish. In this situation, then blockades become important to stop vital resources from arriving at a nation you are in conflict with. If you are Britain or France, then blockading Italy to prevent oil from US arriving at her ports. You could blockade Germany and Japan. USSR would almost be impossible as would the US and the Confederacy. Great Britain and France would be two nations that would have problems with blockades with two or three of those resources. Anyway, just my ideas. Go for it and I will try to be supportive of your efforts to add some realistic events into the game, but I will not support fantasy. I like to play a game that allows me to take the "path not taken". Follow historical events, but take the path that was not taken to see how it would have changed the world situation. Well, what you propose, I agree with 100%. I'm wondering if we could simplify Iron ore and light Alloy into just 'Metals' for simplicity and end up with the world resources of Oil, Coal and Metals, ultimately the driving factor behind having a navy? I think it's too early to decide the details of an event driven resources layer that would include an invasion mechanic for neutral nations and a notification system of the consequences of low resources and effects. But this is all a good start. I'm very encouraged by how this would change the game in a Conquest type optional start. What do you think, oldpop2000? Think this would be doable if we find enough common ground to agree on moving forward to develop a solid idea here? I'm encouraged!
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Jun 6, 2019 12:21:38 GMT -6
I think that an event driven resource management could be a simple workable plan using four of the resources. You could start the game with the resources available both externally and internally. As you progress through time with budgets and technological innovations, those resource requirements can and should increase. You could make agreements with nations that have the resources needed and if they refuse then this might be an event that drives you either to invade or go somewhere else to find the resource. I haven't given this much thought but off the top of my head, this is my idea. I would use these four resources to simplify: Oil Iron ore Coal Bauxite or aluminum, light alloy could be used for terminology if you wish. In this situation, then blockades become important to stop vital resources from arriving at a nation you are in conflict with. If you are Britain or France, then blockading Italy to prevent oil from US arriving at her ports. You could blockade Germany and Japan. USSR would almost be impossible as would the US and the Confederacy. Great Britain and France would be two nations that would have problems with blockades with two or three of those resources. Anyway, just my ideas. Go for it and I will try to be supportive of your efforts to add some realistic events into the game, but I will not support fantasy. I like to play a game that allows me to take the "path not taken". Follow historical events, but take the path that was not taken to see how it would have changed the world situation. Well, what you propose, I agree with 100%. I'm wondering if we could simplify Iron ore and light Alloy into just 'Metals' for simplicity and end up with the world resources of Oil, Coal and Metals, ultimately the driving factor behind having a navy? I think it's too early to decide the details of an event driven resources layer that would include an invasion mechanic for neutral nations and a notification system of the consequences of low resources and effects. But this is all a good start. I'm very encouraged by how this would change the game in a Conquest type optional start. What do you think, oldpop2000 ? Think this would be doable if we find enough common ground to agree on moving forward to develop a solid idea here? I'm encouraged! I think that you could very easily combine iron ore and bauxite with other metals into one resource. This would simplify the game and its procedures. I also agree that you cant really make a detailed event driven layer yet, I would leave that to the developer. I don't think we need a conquest type optional start, most gamers will take the lead in conquest and they don't need any pushing. We can continue to develop the idea and then you can present it.
|
|
|
Post by dizzy on Jun 6, 2019 12:49:31 GMT -6
oldpop2000 Great! I'll start working on ideas we have discussed in this thread and post a new one later. I think we can talk this out a bit more here, first, flesh out some of the ideas. I'm about to start my 1898 Spanish campaign. I've replaced Austria's holdings with German ownership so they have some presence to fill the void and removed the oil there, added Japan as a nation to the Spain start replacing Austria, and raised tensions to critical levels with the USA to represent the Spanish-American War. When I'm done with that, let's finalize this idea and present it to Fredrik together with all the community members contributions to the idea. I think we are off to a good start with perhaps a DLC idea that he might like.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Jun 6, 2019 16:12:51 GMT -6
oldpop2000 Great! I'll start working on ideas we have discussed in this thread and post a new one later. I think we can talk this out a bit more here, first, flesh out some of the ideas. I'm about to start my 1898 Spanish campaign. I've replaced Austria's holdings with German ownership so they have some presence to fill the void and removed the oil there, added Japan as a nation to the Spain start replacing Austria, and raised tensions to critical levels with the USA to represent the Spanish-American War. When I'm done with that, let's finalize this idea and present it to Fredrik together with all the community members contributions to the idea. I think we are off to a good start with perhaps a DLC idea that he might like. One more point that, to me, is important. If they add an event or events driven resource management aspect to the game, it should be optional at the beginning. It should be an on or off with a check box. Gamer's should have the option to add the complexity or not.
|
|
|
Post by dizzy on Jun 6, 2019 16:19:11 GMT -6
Yeah, why I said there should be a Conquest mode, that's the checkmark box to turn all this on.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Jun 6, 2019 16:44:15 GMT -6
Yeah, why I said there should be a Conquest mode, that's the checkmark box to turn all this on. Why don't we use the term "logistics" or "logistics Management" for the resource management title, sounds more professional to me.
|
|
|
Post by dizzy on Jun 6, 2019 16:59:08 GMT -6
Sounds more 'navy'. Let's use that. Logistics, or National Logistics, Logistics Management (misnomer that implies we have to manage it and we dont) or Nation Logistics?
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Jun 6, 2019 17:51:37 GMT -6
My suggestion is that we leave it as Logistics or Logistics Management, and the let the manual explain the details of what the term means and how to deal with it. RTFB in my world.
|
|
|
Post by dorn on Jun 7, 2019 0:42:21 GMT -6
I like your discussion, it is very interesting.
I can see what you are thinking about to add what was cause of the wars that it is struggle about power and one of the most important part of power are resources even if you are speaking about natural resources mainly. To make RTW2 more realistic is something I will always support.
However I do not know how to have some simply model that could be implemented into RTW2. There are things need to be realized and it is how affect game:
a) resources can politically to drive nations to acquire them b) resources have effect on production
c) resources needed to be transported in war - it can be centered about missions to transport them or denied ability to transport them by enemy (look at WW1 and WW2, all main naval tasks were at the end about invasions and transportation of resources - natural resources, war equipment, soldiers)
I think you cannot have good model without good link betwen a) and b) and c)
|
|
|
Post by dizzy on Jun 7, 2019 7:48:21 GMT -6
I like your discussion, it is very interesting.
I can see what you are thinking about to add what was cause of the wars that it is struggle about power and one of the most important part of power are resources even if you are speaking about natural resources mainly. To make RTW2 more realistic is something I will always support.
However I do not know how to have some simply model that could be implemented into RTW2. There are things need to be realized and it is how affect game:
a) resources can politically to drive nations to acquire them b) resources have effect on production
c) resources needed to be transported in war - it can be centered about missions to transport them or denied ability to transport them by enemy (look at WW1 and WW2, all main naval tasks were at the end about invasions and transportation of resources - natural resources, war equipment, soldiers)
I think you cannot have good model without good link betwen a) and b) and c)
To work, this idea has to be simply and easy. So I'll take a stab at connecting the dots. To get to a) resources can politically to drive nations to acquire them, as you suggest above, we need to assume that the Logistics of our proposal will simply be a mechanism by which events are generated. This is the easiest implementation of this idea I can imagine. Kind of an 'if/then' setup. Imagine Logistics being overlayed somewhere on the UI easy to see. Perhaps it could be a button next to or along with the Oil button on the main map. However it's displayed, as the player, you will be made aware of your current logistics. If there is a deficit in any of them, Events will transpire to get you to point a) above, meaning that if you are short on metals, a trade agreement to get them at a cost may be offered. You may refuse this offer. Or. alternatively, you may be directed toward taking a colony to get them, or be directed politically, through events, to take them by force from another nation. Or refuse all this at a cost of prestige. This leads us to b) resources have an effect on production. In refusing to heed your minister's/political leader's advice and secure Logistical materials vital to your nation, you will incur Events that will be detrimental to your navy. Delays on construction, extended repair time, machinery malfunction, research delays, aircraft delays, dock size delays, internment in port, prestige loss, etc. These are just a few of the ways Logistics may be modeled in the game to have an effect. As the player, you will acutely be made aware of your nations shortcomings, whatever they may be, that will make you take a second look at diplomacy and war in order to address these needs. c) resources needed to be transported in war This part is abstracted as it currently is in the game. Unless you are at war, trade will continue until there is an embargo, which could either be an event or high tension levels. This will affect any Event trade deals. In war, it is assumed that trade will be conducted as it already is through merchant warfare and raiding. This is already done and is enacted by setting up raiders and submarine warfare. So any Logistical deficiencies you have in war, expect Events to make them worse. Overall, this idea is an optional conquest mode that will add Events and realism that deal with the real world issues of resources that drove empires to either defend or obtain them by force.
|
|
AiryW
Full Member
Posts: 183
|
Post by AiryW on Jun 7, 2019 8:35:39 GMT -6
Still, the reason we got bombed was because the Philippines and Pearl were between them and the oil fields they needed to survive. Japan was resource poor. It was expand or die. We told them to die. They attacked. Period. It's strange how this narrative became so ubiquitous when it's so squarely out of shape with reality. Japan unconditionally surrendered to the US and ceased it's military activities, losing all ability to coerce other nations for economic resources. The result was a period of rapid economic growth that lead to Japan becoming the world's second largest economy, larger then the Soviet Union which had twice the population and abundant natural resources. Yet even in the Pearl Harbor memorial museum it is stated that Japan was doomed by the embargo. It's a narrative that people find very easy to believe even when the evidence against it is so simple and overwhelming. The truth which should be so obvious in hindsight is that Japan's military campaigns were losing them far more resources then they were bringing in so the cessation of those military activities improved their access to resources. Humans find it difficult to give proper consideration to the factual and counter-factual. If Japan invades Korea, builds a coal mine and produces steel on exploitative terms it's very easy to see the benefit of all the steel they are bringing back to Japan. It's very hard to see the mutual benefits of trade that never happened because the occupation meant some Korean person was never given the conditions to start an enterprise that would have one day traded with Japan more valuable goods for less then the cost of those military activities. When we look at the figures for the tons of steel or coal produced we can forget that those are choices not limits, people labored to make those resources and human labor could have been directed to other activities as well. And that is why it's so useful to limit ourselves to the high level view of national resources and be slow to jump to detail. The military is given a certain level of support. That only needs to be elaborated on if there are certain things that support can't provide such as oil for about a 10 year period for some nations.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Jun 7, 2019 9:05:36 GMT -6
Still, the reason we got bombed was because the Philippines and Pearl were between them and the oil fields they needed to survive. Japan was resource poor. It was expand or die. We told them to die. They attacked. Period. It's strange how this narrative became so ubiquitous when it's so squarely out of shape with reality. Japan unconditionally surrendered to the US and ceased it's military activities, losing all ability to coerce other nations for economic resources. The result was a period of rapid economic growth that lead to Japan becoming the world's second largest economy, larger then the Soviet Union which had twice the population and abundant natural resources. Yet even in the Pearl Harbor memorial museum it is stated that Japan was doomed by the embargo. It's a narrative that people find very easy to believe even when the evidence against it is so simple and overwhelming. The truth which should be so obvious in hindsight is that Japan's military campaigns were losing them far more resources then they were bringing in so the cessation of those military activities improved their access to resources. Humans find it difficult to give proper consideration to the factual and counter-factual. If Japan invades Korea, builds a coal mine and produces steel on exploitative terms it's very easy to see the benefit of all the steel they are bringing back to Japan. It's very hard to see the mutual benefits of trade that never happened because the occupation meant some Korean person was never given the conditions to start an enterprise that would have one day traded with Japan more valuable goods for less then the cost of those military activities. When we look at the figures for the tons of steel or coal produced we can forget that those are choices not limits, people labored to make those resources and human labor could have been directed to other activities as well. And that is why it's so useful to limit ourselves to the high level view of national resources and be slow to jump to detail. The military is given a certain level of support. That only needs to be elaborated on if there are certain things that support can't provide such as oil for about a 10 year period for some nations. You can gather facts from history and prove any case you want. The Japanese resource problem and possible bankruptcy was their own fault. The operations in China were draining their money and causing them to lose trade with the US and other nations. The story that they present, is that they went south to gather natural resources. They went south because it was the IJN plan to gain more money for ships because the Chinese campaign was ruining the economy. The Japanese government lost control of the Kwantung Army and eventually pulled two of its leaders back to Japan because they were being aggressive and Chiang Kai-shek just responded by returning that aggression and this pulled the US into the fight. It is a very complex subject and when you read the document from the Roosevelt Administration like I have, you do get the idea that war with Japan was not really Roosevelt's idea and he wanted to convince the Japanese that their aggressive moves into China and Indochina were moving them farther and farther away from their primary sources of natural resources. The real problem for the Japanese was that their civilian government lost control and the Japanese Army took it. This was a dangerous series of moves that prompted the Navy to develop the southern operation. The battle between the Army and Navy probably is the primary reason for the war. I don't mind adding into the game a simple resource management or logistics management aspect provided it is voluntary and it does not add complications to the game. The problem is war never so simple. I believe that this is a good discussion and we should keep it civil and add our knowledge.
|
|
|
Post by dizzy on Jun 7, 2019 9:27:56 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Jun 7, 2019 16:25:52 GMT -6
I just wanted to pass along some interesting information that I had to go back and research. On July 26, 1941, FDR imposed an obscure 1917 law titled the Trading with the Enemy Act that had been passed in November 1917. A single paragraph allowed the president to paralyze dollars owned by foreign countries, whether they were an enemy or not. Now, since by 1941, with the war in progress, the US dollar was the currency of trade in almost all countries. When he imposed that freeze as a result of that law, he essentially made the YEN, Japanese currency, illiquid. The British and Dutch also froze along with the US. In order to buy strategic goods in the US or with any country that exported using dollars, they had to get permission from the US and now they had no permission.
Now, what was the intent. It was never to bring them to a condition of war. The idea was that they would have three choices: A. Suffer Bankruptcy and impoverishment as one author calls it B. Give up all territorial conquest C. Go to war with the US. We know what they chose. Were they really backed into a corner? Of course not, it was simple. Remove your armies from China and Manchuria. If they had done that, we would have lifted the freeze and they would be free to buy from the US or South America. You see, we owned all the major strategic suppliers in South America. Our freeze also affected supplies from that region. Japanese aggression and the samurai tradition put them into a very difficult situation. I am not certain that we understood that tradition of aggressiveness. This is what led to the Southern Operation and the attack on Pearl Harbor.
This information was not intended to continue the discussion in this direction, just to clear up some discussion points. Let's move on from here.
|
|