How would you rate countries and territories considering realism in big WWII maps.
Roughly Axis&Allies distribution will look something like this considerigthe year of 1942 which Axis at its peak.
Germany (All European Axis countries+occupied territories)= 275
Japan (All Asian Axis countries+occupied+territories)=67
Well in this kind of game we will have to implement either of them for playability.
Making USSR doomed to fall since Axis can only win in this scenario when USSR falls.
Making surviving certain rounds as Axis goal rtahter than winning.
Giving some handicaps to allies and bonuses to Axis.
Also how come Yugoslavia 1 while Croatia is 2?
Well spotted. Probably Croatia was not meant to be there.
Since it is GDP above subsistence, this could be possible if Yugoslavia outside Croatia had a GDP under the subsistence figure, but almost surely this is either a math error for at least one of the two or a huge discrepancy from interpolating or extrapolating.
This is another interpolation anomaly as the first figures for Croatia alone come later than 1950. It is surprising how most of the world in 1940's was no more than twice the level of subsistence.
And it is reasonable to view natural resources as being more important for a war effort than their share of the GDP alone would indicate. An industrial economy can compensate for the lack of natural resources in many ways, these compensation techniques have costs of their own.
Romania is barely above subsistence.
I wonder if Maddison is consistently underestimating the per capital GDP's of European countries.
@RogerCooper Does Maddison 2018 still use primarily and mostly year 1990 boundaries, despite the PPP being moved to 2011?
In particular, I'm looking at the figures for Ethiopia in Maddison 2010 and 2018. In Maddison 2010 there is "Eritrea and Ethiopia", but in Maddison 2018 there is only "Ethiopia", and there is no "Eritrea" anywhere. From 1950 to 1990 the population figure given in both databases is exactly the same, thus it has to be the same country. So, why is it called "Eritrea and Ethiopia" in Maddison 2010 but only "Ethiopia" in Maddison 2018, and which one of the two Maddisons has the wrong naming? Especially for the 1950 data, in either databases, is it actually Ethiopia only or is it comprising Eritrea too? Do the borders change at some year, like India?
The Maddison 2010 database available at the original Maddison website makes clear the 1950 and following figures for "Eritrea & Ethiopia" comprise Eritrea, so this has to be true for the "Ethiopia" of Maddison 2018, since the data are the same.
The only explanation that I can see, for the renaming, is that the name was changed from "Eritrea & Ethiopia" to just "Ethiopia" since "Eritrea" was internationally formally part of "Ethiopia" from 1950 to 1993, thus for 1990 if you say "Ethiopia" that includes "Eritrea" too. However, this seems incoherent to me with the fact that I'm seeing "Sudan (Former)", instead of just "Sudan". Since South Sudan was generally recognized in 2011, there are no reasons to say that, instead of just "Sudan", when using 1990 boundaries (and if that was done to be clear, then "Ethiopia" should have been called "Ethiopia (Former)" as well).
Or am I overlooking or misinterpreting something?
I've compiled myself a table from Maddison 2018 (integrated with my atlas for the 1937 South Africa population entry only), using all the countries given, except Angola, United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Algeria, Kuwait, Qatar (so this would be all the world except those countries and the microstates not covered by Maddison 2018 (the only one sizeable country missing is actually Algeria)), and these are the results for all countries hitting the 1 permille figure of 1937 cGDP above a subsistence figure of 693.5 per person:
2.1 = Afghanistan 17.9 = Argentina 14.8 = Australia 4.1 = Austria 8.8 = Belgium 2.7 = Bulgaria 3.4 = Brazil 16.5 = Canada 5.2 = Switzerland 3.1 = Chile 32.3 = China (but the free China in mid 1942 would be only about 50% the population of China by 1937 shares) 1.9 = D.R. of the Congo 3.1 = Colombia 13.3 = Czechoslovakia 2.1 = Cuba 82.5 = Germany 5.2 = Denmark 4.1 = Egypt 15.1 = Spain 2.4 = Finland 43.1 = France 75.9 = United Kingdom 1.1 = Ghana 4.5 = Greece 2.8 = Hungary 12.7 = Indonesia 60.7 = India 2.0 = Ireland 3.8 = Iran 1.2 = Iraq 20.1 = Italy 35.6 = Japan 1.7 = Republic of Korea 2.2 = Morocco 4.8 = Mexico 1.4 = Myanmar 1.6 = Malaysia 3.6 = Nigeria 9.1 = Netherlands 3.2 = Norway 2.6 = New Zealand 1.3 = Peru 3.4 = Philippines 11.3 = Poland 1.3 = Puerto Rico 2.5 = Portugal 1.5 = Saudi Arabia 1.3 = Sudan (Former) 139.2 = Former USSR (but the free USSR in mid 1942 would be only about 60% the population of USSR by 1937 shares) 7.0 = Sweden 3.7 = Turkey 1.6 = Taiwan 1.5 = Uruguay 263.6 = United States 1.1 = Viet Nam 1.0 = Former Yugoslavia 7.3 = South Africa
Definitely you are virtually not seeing oil here, as Venezuela, that was the 3rd greatest oil producer (after USA and USSR, of course) doesn't even reach the 1 permille! Also Romania doesn't reach the 1 permille. However, these values should be fine for maps using fuel too (rather than abstracting oil production with PUs).
@Cernel I see some serious flaws in the Maddison figures. For example, Romania's per capita GDP jumps from 549 in 1947 to 1502 in 1948. I will try contacting the Maddison project for some comments.
@RogerCooper Also, are the 1950 entries they estimated for Algeria documented anywhere (or can they give them)? From the documentation, they say that they did calculate them, but cut them out, as the quality of the data appeared to be too bad. Tho not having Algeria is very bad for valuing the pro-Vichy French Colonies, as Morocco and Algeria alone represented most of their value; so having those values would be most likely at least better than nothing (also since Algeria is the only relevant thing missing from the 1950 data actually being almost the world total).
@Cernel There was no 1950 figure for Algeria, just my interpolation from 1971 data.
@RogerCooper Yes, but in the documentation they say that they calculated Algeria till 1950, but then they didn't publish the figures before 1970, deeming them too off. So, I was wondering if those are to be seen anywhere, since a bad figure for Algeria is still better than no figure. Algeria should have a GDP about half that of South Africa.
I've found these stats from a wwii game considering military capacities rather than natural resources;
Dutch East Indies=3
@Schulz Well, what game? My guess is that they just gave around some values without any research of any kind. I don't think there is a way Italy can be as strong as France, or either of Brazil or Romania almost half as strong as France or Italy. I guess they arbitrarily also bumped the value of the less valuable countries, to distribute more income around the map (like Bhutan or Albania having any value at all; but really almost all value 4 or less are not justifiable). Probably the biggest blunder is the extremely low value of Dutch East Indies; less valuable than Mongolia or Paraguay! On the other hand, Romania or Yugoslavia stronger than India are crazy.
EDIT: If they are strictly military capabilities, maybe this justifies Dutch East Indies as such (but still not as being equal to Bhutan). But, in this case, those values should be rather used to define the starting TUV (your starting armies), rather than Production. So, it's not about rating countries/territories. Still, Brazil or Romania cannot be almost half of France or Italy.
@Schulz But, don't get me wrong. I do believe those values are still better than the ones of most TripleA WW2 maps in repository. Just I strongly doubt there is any kind of research behind them.
The game is Hearts of Iron 4 and they are starting factories per country. One of the developer had admitted that as far as I remember Italy was buffed in 1936 scenario but he has very good reasons;
Italy would have saved more war resources if Italy had not intervened Spanish Civil War and invaded Ethiopia.
Italy could have prepared more to WWII.
Italy is more populated than France.
Italy was politically more stable.
Its ok for me depicting Italy as strong as France.
Romania actually isn't almost half as strong as France. There is 3 type factory and most valuable factory type is civilian one. They can be converted into military factories, you can trade resources with civilian factories also your construction speed is based on how many civilian factoryies do you have.
For examle if a country has only one civilian fac, the country will be able to construct 1 military fac per months but having 2 civilian fac will provide constructing 2 military fac per months. In the game civilian factory is 1.5 fold more valuable than military factory.
Romania=7 military, 2 dockyard, 13 civilian factory total 22 fac but real value becomes 8.75+2+21.9375=32.6875
France=6 mil, 8 dockyard, 35 civilian factory total 49 fac but real value becomes 7.5+8+59.0625=74.5625.
Also dockyards output is 2.5 (per day) while military factories is 5 (per day) it is up to you you can doubled dockyard base value but would it be realistic since wars are won with ground units but lets doublind dockard base balue to 2
I have calculated them with such a similiar method giving coefficients to each factory types;
In 1936 border;
USA 241.16 (No Philippines)
UK 96.5 (Also Newfounland+All African, American and Middle Eastern posessions except South Africa)
Germany 93.8 (1936 borders)
Jap 82.7 (+Korea but not Manchukuo and Mengkukuo)
France 72.74 (Include all French posessions)
Italy 68.58 (Include all Italian posessions)
Netherlands 25.84 (Excluding Dutch East Indies).
Well only Netherlands looks problematic to me.
One of the things that is shared amongst all TripleA maps having Italy (be it v3, World At War or Total World War, etc.) is the tendency to make Italy unrealistically way over-productive, actually by several times. This is surprising to me, especially considering the Italian performance during WW2; I would rather guess people would tend to undervalue it!
But, really, going back to those HoI4 values, there is no way that, if Germany is 70, Italy can be 50, or Romania 22. Those are really either nonsense or the developers wanted to maybe allow for the game to go in some some directions, giving more options, to do something ahistorical for fun, when playing the less fortunate. If you consider that (data from my period atlas) Romania was 19.646 millions in January 1938 and Germany was 79.730 millions in May 1939 (with Austria, Sudetenland and Memel, but without Bohemia-Moravia and Danzig), that would go down to 69.777 millions, if you cut Austria and Sudetenland out (as per 1936), those HoI4 values would imply that a Romanian person was individually more productive/valuable/militarily capable than a German person, that is obviously unacceptable.
I really don't think that those values (HoI4) are defensible under any perspective. Still, in my personally opinion, they are better than what you see in most TripleA maps; so not saying they are worthless of consideration.
EDIT: Unless those values are representing the armed forces in 1936, that in TripleA terms would be the TUV (not the production). Then, in that case, it may be fine, since Germany started almost from 0 (still I'm not buying Romania). I'm really not understanding if this is the case or not. Are we talking about "production" or "total unit value" for those HoI4 numbers?
Italian performance during wwii is not considered because Italy could have performed better.
Italy had also bigger surface fleet than Germany and it directly affect Italian power so if you look only manpower UK should be weaker than Italy since UK had very small army compared to other major combatants.
These factories are related to production not TUV. I have no idea too why some of them is very unhistorical especially Dutch East Indies and India. But Dutch East indies is represented very rich in terms of raw materials since I had ignored it.
Looking at the population figures from the Maddison database (which are more reliable than the GDP figures) it seems that the HOI designer was using approximately 1 million people equals 1 point of capacity for European nations. That is a reasonable approach to assigning capability. Then you can ask how much should colonies and impoverished nations be discounted.
Colonies (not dominions) are generally very undervalued in the game but they provide enormous natural resources and huge manpower to their masters and its historical too. Japan Invaded Dutch colonies for resources not getting factories/industries.
Since resources are not represented in Triplea, there is nothing wrong to give more value to these colonies.
Giving coefficients to each factory types; 1936 values look something like this. Some of them are unacceptable for me too...
South Africa 14.5
New Zealand 7
Dominican Republic 5.5
Dutch East Indies 4.78
Costa Rica 4
El Salvador 4
Tannu Tuva 2.5
British Malaya 1.5
USSR, India, Iran, Dutch East Indies, Britis Malaya should be more values whereas Brazil, Romania, Czechoslovakia, Poland, Netherlands, Belgium, Yugoslavia should be slighly less valuable.
@Schulz Yeah, Dutch East Indies is still crap, the Italians are still more productive/valuable (per capita) than the Germans, Brazil is still stronger than Canada and such. Sorry, I really don't feel like those are very good referring values to start with.
We have no obligation to stick all values. If you decrease Italian power drastically,she becomes unplayable and making Italy separate country would make it unplayable. In this scenario Italy could be represented as part of Germany only.
Germany will capture all occupied territories income without penalty (which is unrealistic) in Triplea maps. When France and Western Europe fall, German/Italian ratio becomes closer to more realistic.
It is actually better to compare 1941 Germany vs 1941 Italy rather than early dates.