What is the most important resource in the game?

Post by **BattleGoat** » Jan 14 2004

There is a limit per day that is available through the World Market. This does allow for some regions to stock pile beyond their need while others are not getting enough. It's up to the scenario designer to decide what commodities the World Market is making available and at what quantity. The scenarios we have distributed are generally all "Have" regions... We felt that was easier for testing purposes to distribute than some of the scenarios the "Have Not".

Post by **BattleGoat** » Jan 14 2004

New opinion on the most important commodity in the game...

In the long term, I think the most important commodity in the game is "Industrial Goods". To manufacture them you need Oil, Ore, Coal, and Electricity. If you run short on industrial goods, it limits what other construction you can do.

herr neumann · Post by **herr neumann** » Jan 20 2004

Yep I tend to agree with BattleGoat. Running short on ind. goods has had most grave consequences on economy in my games. Alongside with electricty to be exact.

I think you missed my original question. Are starvation effects modeled in the game? If I manage to create a situation where my opponent consumes much more water/agri than it can produce/import, will its population start to become smaller?

Post by **BattleGoat** » Jan 20 2004

Yes... In those cases though, as long as you are being a good international citizen, you could expect some World Market Aid. However if you do something they don't like, the aid will dry up and your population will dramatically be affected.

Post by **Balthagor** » Jan 20 2004

I'm of a different opinion. Coal!

Coal is a raw material needed to make industrial goods and is the only raw material that does not have a synthetic version. Electricity can be gotten from "other power" stations, there is synthetic fuel and composites for petrol and ore. But if you're out of coal your in trouble! We where playing the map of Japan Sunday night and the WM quantities on the market where too low. I was making good money but my production was slowing right down because I couldn't get enough coal.

dust off · Post by **dust off** » Jan 21 2004

I've read that military units have ground to halt because of a lack of fuel, will there also be the possibility of units running disaterously low on ammunition?

The other question is will huge casualties actually affect a player's strategic options?

Post by **Balthagor** » Jan 21 2004

Ammunition is not tracked seperatly but units use military goods. No military goods, unit can't shoot so this has the same effect.

I can see casualty levels affecting morale. What else did you have in mind?

Post by **BattleGoat** » Jan 22 2004

Just to clarify Chris' post a bit... Units have Fuel and Supplies. For the interest of gameplay we made "Supplies" a little magical in that they turn into whatever you need "food", "toilet paper", "bullets"

We have a general supply usage per day for a battalion and this increases dramatically if its using ammunition.

So... in gameplay you will see units still have fuel and be able to move, but not have any ammunition to fire. And when a unit gets cut off from its supply line, runs out of fuel so it can't run, and then runs out of ammunition trying to defend itself... well that's generally the time they'll unroll the white flag!

dust off · Post by **dust off** » Jan 23 2004

Sounds reasonable to treat ammunition contained within a group called supplies; I like the idea of more being used if actual fighting occurs. This could hold true for other things in the 'supplies' categaory such as water etc.

When I asked about strategic considerations concerning manpower I was thinking about what heavy casualties draining the basic 'stock' of people. Most of the mian players during the WW1 began to be concerned by the numbers being lost. During WW2 even the Russians became aware that they could not afford to throw away men. Indeed, the British were concerned not to loose too many during the later stages of the war as they were looking to after war commitments; the Russians were assessed as not being capable of fighting a major way immiediately after WW2 due to its heavy losses.
In game terms I am aware that the military manpower pool will reduce as units are created and has a varied induction rate from the civil population. But if a country were to loose too many people fighting will the supply of people from the civil population eventually dry up? Thereby making people the most valuable resource.

I know this has not been an issue in recent decades; but it looks like your game could produce scenarios that resemble the more evenly matched high intesity wars of the past.

P.s. Have not been too active on the forum lately or applied for beta testing because of my selfish desire to play the game without knowing too much about it. Can't wait!!

Vesson · Post by **Vesson** » May 11 2004

From my reading / viewing regarding past wars such as WWI and WWII and today's warfare, its a different kind of war that is waged... Today's warfare demands that very low casualty rates are taken and that force multiplication etc is very important.

On the other hand, if say, China becomes a greedy warmonger in the next 10 years and launches a bloody land battle against Russia chances are it would be fairly messy... especially since China's army isn't exactly modern (today anyway).

Baloogan · Post by **Baloogan** » Aug 17 2004

it would be a bad one :/

Legend · Post by **Legend** » Aug 18 2004

dust off: Based on gameplay... it may become harder to attract new reserves. An example may be when your troops are dying in territory that isn't loyal to you which means you are the agressor. People are more likely to join your armed forces if they are needed to defend their country.