SC Economics: MPP plus

[Shaka of Carthage]

MPP Plus (MPP+)

Player Information

Mine produces mineral points (MP). Well produces oil points (OP). For every 200 MPP's you require 1 OP and 1 MP. Hence 201 MPP's requires 2 OP and 2 MP.

German "excess" MP and OP is available for use by Italy.

Optional: Player can "invest" 10 MPP's and gain base MPP increase of 1.

Optional: Germany can "convert" 1 MP into 1 OP.

In addition to the merchant convoy's there are land trade routes, which can be traced thru neutral nations.

National Vaules and Merchant Convoy/Trade Routes

</font>

• Germany 0.5 MP</font>
• Norway trade: 0.5 MP</font>
• Swedish trade (before occupation): 1.5 MP</font>
• Swedish trade (after occupation): 1.0 MP</font>
• Romanian trade: 1 OP</font>
• Russian trade (after occupies Baltic nations): 0.5 MP, 2 OP</font>
• Vichy France trade (before occupation): 1 OP</font>
• Vichy France trade (after occupation): nothing.</font>

</font>

• UK</font>
• Atlantic convoy: 1 MP, 0.5 OP</font>
• Atlantic convoy (after US enters): 2 MP, 1 OP</font>
• Mediterrian convoy: 0.5 OP</font>

</font>

• France 0.5 MP</font>
• Atlantic "convoy": 0.5 MP</font>
• Mediterrian "convoy": 1 OP</font>

</font>

• Italy</font>
• Spanish trade route: 0.5 MP</font>
• French trade route: 1 OP</font>
• Mediterrian "convoy": 0.5 MP</font>

National values

Sweden:..... 1.5 MP

Norway:..... 0.5 MP

Spain:........ 0.5 MP

Romania:.... 1 OP

Canada:..... 0.5 MP

Iran/Iraq:.. 3 OP

US:........... 14 MP, 16 OP

USSR:....... 3.5 MP, 5 OP

Program Logic changes

MPP requires necessary MP and OP. Otherwise, production amount is reduced to amount that MP and OP can support.

Trade routes are in effect unless:

Nation is no longer neutral OR

Cannot trace land route to trading partner OR

Before and After occupation trade routes are different

MP and OP production is by 0.5 or whole numbers. Normal supply rules are in effect, with values rounding to 0.5 or a whole number (that is the intent of the before and after occupation trade values).

Current convoy destruction can use % of MPP's destroyed to determine % of MP/OP resources destroyed. Hence, requires 51% convoy MPP destruction to remove 0.5 OP from UK Mediterrain convoy.

[ May 12, 2003, 07:35 PM: Message edited by: Shaka of Carthage ]

[Shaka of Carthage]

Here is my humble attempt to add some historical playability to the current economic system. Existing system is easy, interfaces well with the player and allows you to make decisions quickly. So any changes need to follow that concept as well. In other words, you should be able to figure out the MPP requirements in your head.

Existing Problems

</font>

• Economies do not reflect dependence on strategic materials.</font>
• Neutral nations are targets, not partners.</font>
• Strategic bombing has lost its importance.</font>
• Convoy protection has lost its importance.</font>

After MPP+
</font>

• Strategic bombing can cripple Axis economy.</font>
• Italian economy limited unless find a source of OP.</font>
• Germany economy can grow roughly three times before OP limitation.</font>
• First priority of UK Navy is to protect convoys.</font>
• Certain neutral nations are more important as trading partners than if they were occupied.</font>
• Middle East has regained its strategic importance to the UK.</font>

The MPP+ solution, I believe will solve the economic problems listed. Sadly though, this will require logic changes so is not an easy thing to do. The good side, is that for the player, it requires no extra steps or actions and retains the MPP as the only economic unit. You just have to make strategic choices depending on what your options are.

[ May 12, 2003, 07:29 PM: Message edited by: Shaka of Carthage ]

[JerseyJohn]

Great Posts. I won't bother linking the threads where this stuff was originally hashed around as you've summarized and expanded upon all those ideas in the opening entry. For once I seem to understand the numbers, which means something is probably wrong somewhere.

[ May 13, 2003, 03:09 AM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[Edwin P.]

I like it. Nice and Simple (well almost simple)

Three questions though;

1. How can strategic bombing cripple the German economy? I assume you mean targeting the mines in France and Western Germany with long range bombers?

2. Re: Iraqi Oil, If the UK, Italy or Germany held Iraq and Egypt would a would be a convoy route through the Med to Europe be created? or would Italy/Germany have to trace a land route thru Turkey or Russia to access the oil?

3. If UK had only 1.0 MPP and 0.5 OP would UK production be 200MPP or 0? or is their a minimum production level?

[ May 13, 2003, 12:47 AM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

[Shaka of Carthage]

Edwin P

I tried to simplify it as much as possible, so that it wouldn't require a bunch of screens for you to figure out what the numbers are. Lot more flexibility if the values are 10's or 100's, but very few people can do that math in thier head.

1) Yes, strategic bombing of mines and oil wells in Romania. Germany, once it starts to fight Russia, only has 2.5 MPs and 2.0 OPs. Enough for 400 MPP's and 0.5 excess MPs going to Italy. Reduce the MPs by 0.5 and Italy is hurt. Reduce MPs by 1.0 and in addition to Italy, German production is reduced to 200 MPPs.

2) If Axis hold Iraq, they would get the oil thru Turkey. If Allies hold Iraq, nothing changes.

3) If UK had 1 MP and 0.5 OP, production would be zero (0).

Option 1 and 3 do bring up a good point. When I first put this together, I recommended that production be cut in half. Made sense, since I wanted Italy to have production of around 60 MPPs. As you can see, Italy is in a bad shape. Then while I was redoing it, I came up with the zero production concept. I'm going to sleep on it, but I think I will have to go back to the minimum production being 1/2 of the intial base MPPs.

[ May 13, 2003, 03:08 AM: Message edited by: Shaka of Carthage ]

[santabear]

Hmmm. *Bear scratches head, removes flea*

This sounds like a great concept--making the resources more meaningful, but I don't understand some of this (as will be apparant from my questions). Could you explain?

======================

Why do transport values for Sweden and Vichy France go down after occupation (but values for France, USSR, etc. are apparently unchaged)?

Germany invades and conquers Sweden. Ok, Sweden is no longer a "trading partner" but Germany can just take iron ore. Whatever shipping issues existed to conduct two-way commerce are simplified bringing loot back to Germany. What am I missing?

Why can't the Germans ship oil through captured Vichy ports?

France falls to Germany: Germany takes French resources (apparently at full value). Why is this different than in the case of Sweden?

I understand that within the game, the object is to reduce "frivolous" declarations of war. But what is the historical basis here?

==========================

Why can Germany convert minerals to oil? Synthetic fuels?

==========================

What does "investing 10 MPP to gain a 1 MPP base increase" mean? A one-time investment of 10 MPP to gain 1 point/turn for the rest of the game? This would work like compound interest--invest 10 MPP on every turn (and you would have to start early):

First 10 turns--100 MPP invested, +55 return, net -45.

Next 10 turns--100 MPP invested, +145 return, net 0 (over 20 turns, 200 invested 200 gained); but this would give a boost at the most critical juncture of the game

Next 10 turns--100 MPP invested, +255 return, net +155 (over 30 turns, 300 invested, 455 return)

Germany is the country who would have 'spare' MPP to invest early in the game. By the time Britain could invest, it would be too late to get a reasonable pay off.

=======================

Hopefully the MPP+ system eliminates "plunder," which makes no historical sense. (Or SC2 could include a "rapine" category for the Ghengis Khan types--"Germany plunders 367 MPP, 458 women and 382 children from Poland" )

=======================

It seems to me the net effect of this change would be to accurately reflect history: the Axis has no chance to win unless they can wrest control of the seas from Britain and the US. It will make naval power much more relevant to the game. This is good, historically speaking, but I don't think the SC naval system is up to the task just yet. SC, like Hitler, is a "lion on land, and a mouse at sea."

I also think this system also would require a better way to model the submarine war than the King George V doing sub hunting duty.

And there is also the problem of the Middle East map. If the Med becomes a crucial theater of war, the map is going to have to allow some real military operations in the desert. I don't think Rommel ever advocated the "conga line" method of attack that has to be used down there. Could an unsupported/unsupplied Italian corps be transported in (remember the 'wandering amphibious operation' issues) to shut British production down to zero? It would be worth building an Italian corps every turn or two and floating them randomly around the Med if that were the case.

===============

Most of these points are likely the result of my incomplete understanding of your system, I'm sure. In any case, I'm not trying to be a wet blanket--it just takes us bears longer to figure things out sometimes.

[ May 16, 2003, 02:04 PM: Message edited by: santabear ]

[Shaka of Carthage]

santabear

Why do transport values for Sweden and Vichy France go down after occupation (but values for France, USSR, etc. are apparently unchaged)?

Sweden 1.5 MP. Once invaded, (1.5 * .8) = 1.2 rounded = 1.0

France and Vichy France are getting OP from Syria. But Syria isn't really producing the OP. It is coming from Iran/Iraq thru a pipeline. Once Vichy is no longer neutral, Allies won't still allow the pipeline oil to flow.

France falls to Germany: Germany takes French resources (apparently at full value). Why is this different than in the case of Sweden?

French mine 0.5 MP. Once invaded (0.5 * .8) = 0.4 rounded = 0.5

Historical basis is you receiving 80% after occupation. Vichy France still traded with the Allies, even though it more or less went to Germany. Remember... Vichy is not only what we see on the map, but the entire French Colonial Empire. Allies never cut them off.

Why can Germany convert minerals to oil?

Synthetic fuel. Germany and Japan both invested heavily in alternative fuels. It costs four to five times more than producing fuel from oil. Btw, the German "atomic" program was for its use as an alternative fuel (ie nuclear power), not for an atomic bomb. And even though we don't show it, both Japan and Britain had coal. The ships had been converted to burn oil, but there was some talk about converting them back to burning coal.

What does "investing 10 MPP to gain a 1 MPP base increase" mean?

Basic economics. "Guns, Butter and Cows". We have the Gun part down fine. 10MPP for 1 MPP is for the Cows. The Butter part will come later. Nation has 100 MPP, spends ("invests") 50 MPP, then subsequent turns they will have 105 MPP. Way of representing Economic Growth.

MPP+ system eliminates plunder

No it doesn't. And plunder for the Germans is historical. The military equipment and supplies from France were used by the German military. I don't know if it is suppossed to represent manpower as well, so lets assume no.

the Axis has no chance to win unless they can wrest control of the seas from Britain and the US.

Don't agree with that.

Germany has the same problems it did historically. Germany/Italy are 600 MPP strong before conflict with Russia.

Conquering UK eliminates the threat, but no MPP gain. You don't want Spain as ally, for same reasons Hitler didn't... Spain wants the Med just like Italy does. "conflict of interest". So are extra troops and neutralizing US worth it? And do you have the time?

Once you do end up in war with Russia, you want a short war. Since initially you will be at a MPP disadvantage.

I don't think the SC naval system is up to the task ... this system also would require a better way to model the submarine war than the King George V doing sub hunting duty.

The naval system in SC is something I try and stay away from. I've got some general beliefs and ideas, so maybe I'll post a seperate topic regarding those.

Middle East map

Agree it would be nice for it to be larger. But don't forget, I have an "enhancement" that limits the Amphib option to a range of three (3). So no "conga line".

You understand fine. Don't sh*t a sh*tter.

[JerseyJohn]

Edwin, santabear and Shaka

Great stuff all around.

I have to differ with the Syria point. The first thing the UK did after the setting up of Vichy was invade both Syria and Iraq. They were minor actions but put the whole Middle East south of Turkey under UK control. Iraqi oil was used mainly for UK units stationed in the Eastern Med, primarily the fleet, but we need no be concerned with that here.

I'd like the basic game to reflect British domination in Syria and Iraq. Iraq was never out of British control so I think, even in Hubert's basic 39 scenario it ought to be a UK possession. There ought to be some way to have Syria be independant of Vichy and directly Axis so the UK can invade it without declaring war on Vichy or, not invade it and risk Syria's becoming an Axis base of operations -- difficult but not impossible.

In terms of the basic point, there should definitely be a neutral country MPP influence in the game for one side or the other. I think Sweeden would have reacted very stronly against any invasion, not just in initial warfare but also in partisan activity. The ore mines and their complex, vulnerable rail connections would have been fairly easy to sabotage from within Sweeden. The British and American Secret Services both worked on plans to do so but decided not to violate Swedish neutrality.

[Shaka of Carthage]

JerseyJohn

March '41..... pro-Allied Yugo coup.

April '41..... pro-German Iraq revolt. Pro-Nazi officers seize control of the Iraq govt. British women and children are taken hostage. Germany sends combat aircraft to assist the Iraqis. The British invade and take control by end of May. IArab mobs riot and kill 600 Iraq Jews. Many Iraqi officers flee to Iran, a few notables get to sanctuary in Germany.

It would be nice if SC made the Iraqi revolt an event, just like the Yugo one. Hmmmm.... I think I will have to include this as an "enhancement".

June '41....... Vichy Syria invaded. Falls after 5 weeks. (Thats almost a year after Vichy France was established)

July '41 ...... Japan occupies French Indochina.

(poor French, everyone is picking off the pieces... no wonder they have an attitude)

August '41 .... British and Russian forces invade Iran (govt was pro-German).

Since SC doesn't show the Iraq revolt, until the Allies take Syria or Iraq, the oil flows. And if I remember my map right, Iran really isn't even on the map is it?

I understand the point about the neutral not really being a neutral, since they leaned one way or another.

Interesting point about the response of Vichy France to the invasion of Vichy Syria. You would think they would DoW on UK. Syria didn't just roll over... they fought hard. But that seems to be something that SC doesn't deal with right now. And wouldn't it make more sense for Vichy France to DoW on UK if Vichy Syria was attacked?

[ May 16, 2003, 07:15 PM: Message edited by: Shaka of Carthage ]