Is there any way of knowing how efficient you are at producing different units?
Generally, not before you try. However it is currently all tied to XP so check the reliant XP requirements and your XP share. Expertise, in turn, is a conflation of true ability and industrial learning, and so Navy XP represents both the presence of marine infrastructure to support, say, a large navy; and the skill of sailors, and the skill of naval engineers. Current rule-of-thumb (very unofficial, which is why I'm taking some more time to investigate this) is 3-5% is baseline competence, 5-7% is good, and 7-10% is very good. Above 10% represents mastery. The gulfs are much larger for Public/Private XP which will be appreciated into a prominent role in determining Base Cost (with the other XPs helping determine Base Value for goods produced in related industries).
As an example of how this will work, currently GFA has the state-owned enterprise Bohmenelektrizitatswerke (Bohemia Electronics). It sells IC using the GFA's Electric expertise. So, at ~8%, GFA will have high-value electronics. As the highest-value electronics in the Socialist Internationale, their "Electric-IC" will net them a comfortable profit satisfying any demand for electronics, including demand generated by, say, France building Battleships which require electronics. If France wants, it can encourage the development of its own electronics, but if Germany can produce high-value (depends on Electric XP) cheaply (depends on Public XP), then France's work is cut out for it.
Private IC is automatically bought and sold based on places Private actors can "foresee" the most profit. So, since GFA has constructed an extensive electronics expertise, private entities in the GFA can piggyback off of that success and build and sell their own electronics. However, they will use the GFA's Private XP to determine the Base Cost, which may cut into their margins considering the GFA's Public XP is so much higher. However, their work is just as technical, so they will also generate their own XP, contributing to a "positive feedback" effect of governments paving the way for private development.
"Wait a minute," you may say, with your thick Australian accident, "bogans and maccas. Also, how will you determine the way private actors behave?"
As part of the Resources update I am looking at ways of automatically assigning private IC to ephemeral "private actors" that will only exist while the turn is being simulated, in order to augment the market model by flexing the concepts of supply and demand. Private actors will always seek to maximize their value on every strategy. In countries with large businesses or trusts, these actors will command large amounts of IC and be able to satisfy a demand very effectively, but at the risk of inflexibly over-satisfying a demand, whereas smaller businesses will have less IC, and be less likely to meet a demand, but also less likely to crash the market (most countries will have a mix of both, with socialist or undeveloped countries having lots more small businesses, and capitalist or developing countries having lots more big businesses). Their decision-making will be weighted random towards the highest value they can expect to get. It's a major abstraction but it may allow me to tie GDP to the "actual" final value of all goods produced in the nation in a year, which is, if I may indulge my own overinflated ego, groundbreaking. Hence GDP = SUM[i = all transactions] Base Value(i) - Base Cost(i) and then GNP = SUM[i = all transactions] Base Value(i).
This system should preclude the need for a consumption model, since consumption, supply, and demand are assumed in the way competitiveness is described. As an illustration, consider our GFA friend, their private piggy-backs, and France. Suppose France also wants to build up an electric industry, and their XP begins to compete with the GFA's. Now GFA's XP will drop, say, to 5%, and France's will rise, say, to 5%. Both are equally competitive, but GFA is getting less final value compared to previously. Hence a contraction has, very naturally, been modeled thanks to the oversatisfaction of demand.
I've also toyed with the idea of introducing (at some point) Corporate entities that will function as vassals. They will own some of the private IC of their patron country, pay taxes to their patron, develop their own expertise, and use IC to act in the market with their own goals.
It's still all quite theoretical, but, uh, I guess that's how I envision supply/demand being modeled within the context of the expertise-based system. I see resources functioning in a very similar capacity but I'll touch on that more as I work it out. For example, most IC conversion (say, to chemical-based goods, or another resource like steel) will require at least coal, if not also oil, in order to work (plus iron, I mean, hell). Shortages and surplus of these resources will also affect the Base Cost and thus affect the profit margin. When the profit margin dips below zero - it is no longer a profitable enterprise! Muahahaha!
edit: note to self. industry is not the only thing that produces goods. do I need an agriculture stat? hmm.
It sounds like naval and air units will now be produced at dramatically greater rates. Buildup to this point seems like, at best, a few turns of using the new system.
There are a few reasons for this.
The first is that IC has been reevaluated so that 1 IC appropriately represents about the manufacturing capacity it is supposed to represent. Previously IC was heavily under-valued which was OK because all of the IC in your country was controlled by the government anyway. Now, most countries have exclusive access to less than half of their total IC, so the balance will tolerate IC being more valuable.
The second reason is that, since IC has definite advantages when not being used for war, the impulse to spend everything on warmachine production is restrained. Hence it is now possible to maintain a system where IC can realistically be traded off between pacifistic and militaristic endeavors.
The third reason is that military sizes have been reduced across the board to reflect what a major drain a large military is. The philosophy is that build-up is easy but maintenance is hard (relatively speaking). So if you want to mobilize your nation's resources for a major war, you can go further in less time and conceivably "catch up" to your enemies. This may be seen as a nerf to extant military powers, but the major advantages of a weaker nation attacking a stronger one in a moment of relative strength shouldn't be discounted in light of the ability of the stronger one to marshal its forces and strike back.
The fourth reason is that I do not expect most nations to be able to sustain lengthy build-ups since the economy model I am working on will mean that building destroyers, battleships, etc. will give your industry a good work-out but, unfortunately, produce little profit. I mean, you'll have a battleship, and the final value of that will count towards your GDP for that year, but since you didn't sell the Battleship, you bought it, that cuts into your government expenditures.
