N4 Economic Outline (Not Finished)

[miketr]

Seriously thats it.  Only thing that is more complex is we are requiring people to pay upkeeps on more things.  

That's exactly what I meant when I said it was more complex than our current system. It wasn't about the Budget calculation, it was the additional maintenance values.

How do you suggest limiting build capacity?  We spent MONTHS arguing over this point.  Other suggestions came out to being BP in a new form or something even worse.  This was the least bad suggestion.

Michael

[ctwaterman]

Ok folks....

I like the chart I like being able to look back and say ok my tax percentage in my last Yearly report was 4% so my yearly growth rate is...  [hmmm looks back at mikes chart] 2.25%  now for my next year report my budget is 6000*2.25% =$6135   and now since i am cutting government spending due to demands by the Tea Party my new tax rate will be 3% and my new budget is...$ 184.05

To be honest It eleminated BP, and IC.....

The limit to your navy is not BP but the cost of maintaining a government run and operated ship yard with expensive to maintain pieces of equipment like dry docks and such.   Now you have a reason to build ships and sell them oversea especially in slow years because you need to atleast make operation costs on the drydocks you built.

We wont have place like Italia with some huge amount of military ports and extremely large numbers of slips and drydocks.   If I had to pay maintenance on them I wouldnt have built them up so quickly.

So far I like the KISS principle.   Railroad investment well yes it builds jobs and create revenue but the only railroads we built for real in N3 were military railroads or places who didnt have a real railroad infrastructure historically.

[miketr]

I recognize it as from Victoria 2.

Could be I don't remember WHERE I lifted it from.  I know it was a Paradox Interact map, from one of the game wiki's.

I agree this isn't the most complex system. But the point is that it's more complex. And tbh, I don't really see the value of it.

I will check when I get time for the exact reason but its buried in either a 10 page long thread or one of the other dozen or so sub threads.

The reason is in rough terms as a limit on ship production capacity.  The Slipways, Dry Docks and Ports are now expensive creatures this is a hold on people doing huge expansions.

You are looking at the wrong things this tax rate is of national economy and not of PEOPLE.  In the 19th century most state income derived from tariffs, excise taxes and the like.  No sale taxes and not much in the way of income taxes. 

You mean we're playing in the 1800s? Because that's what 19th century means. I was under the impression we would be playing in the 1900s. Then income taxes and sales taxes were implemented.

1880 is the assumed start.

Again Logi we are talking about % of GDP spent on military and 3% tracks with historic norms for this time period.  Its not out of line for today either.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures

Where the money comes from (income tax, tariffs, loans, whatever) doesn't matter tax is just a game term mechanic.

Michael

[Logi]

Victoria 2 is a good deal more complex than any of the proposed systems. Shucks, they have individual goods. I abstracted that as one value, NPin.

Maintenance... We have to have maintenance cost, but it's not nice to calculate all of that, even if you have excel. This is likely because I actually read the maintenance values and plan according to them.

I rather like limiting the maintenance costs to only Corps, Ships, and Planes/Blimps. Like we do today. However, a more flat maintenance rate than the current system. Streamlines it and makes it simpler. I understand what you mean though, although I can't seem to find where they say what the upkeep for a dock/slip/port is.

How do you suggest limiting build capacity?  We spent MONTHS arguing over this point.  Other suggestions came out to being BP in a new form or something even worse.  This was the least bad suggestion.

So to be clear, as I understand it, this is a cash-only system.

I don't think BP was a bad idea per say, just that it was incredibly generic and difficult at the same time. The idea of industrial capacity is necessary in some way.

I rather like splitting BP into Land,Air,and Sea components. I suppose if it were my proposal, I could flesh it out something along the lines of investment-production. Invest some value, say $100, in Naval Yards, return $10 per year for construction cost. Then it would be a cash-only system with distinction between naval facilities and other facilities. As in naval yards can't produce tanks.

Could be I don't remember WHERE I lifted it from.  I know it was a Paradox Interact map, from one of the game wiki's.

It is, I recognize the province shapes which were different from HoI. Also the link calls itself V2.

[miketr]

Again the major addition is people are required to pay upkeep on naval infrastructure but in an excel sheet this is a minor issue.

And there I think is the main point. Some of us wish to avoid spreadsheets. Now I am not one of those people, but I know some who are who I otherwise might be able to convince to join up. Some of us are just looking for an environment to design ships in SpringSharp, not play a pencil, paper, and Excel version of Victoria II.

Here is the thing SNIP.

We need to track what types of military ports we have yes?  We track Dry Docks and Slipways?  They all have costs?

Only thing we are doing is adding upkeep to them.

If we ditch the upkeep on them the other ideas were... if my memory is correct and it has been some time...

Shove Ship upkeep up, increase the up front cost of the slipways / drydocks. Or some other idea that I don't remember because odds are it was even worse and I purged it from my mind in self defense.

Michael

[Valles]

Personally, I do my reports by hand, copying the old report into notepad and then going through it line-by-line to make alterations for the new turn, with windows' calculator to check my figures. An economic model that permits me to continue that habit - no matter how different from what we have now - will be acceptable; one that doesn't, won't be.

Speaking for myself, I like the idea of being able to keep track of and involve myself with the specific production of various 'components', not only aircraft or tanks but turbines, guns, and the rest, but I am neither qualified to nor interested in arguing about the execution beyond my 'primary point', above.

[miketr]

So to be clear, as I understand it, this is a cash-only system.

Yes Cash Only.

Part of this reason was to drive exports, the non industrial nations can't build ships and armies.  They have to buy the military hardware from players. 

Michael

[Logi]

We need to track what types of military ports we have yes?  We track Dry Docks and Slipways?  They all have costs?

But they only have cost when we build them. After building them, there's no cost. We don't have to think about it anymore.

Shove Ship upkeep up, increase the up front cost of the slipways / drydocks. Or some other idea that I don't remember because odds are it was even worse and I purged it from my mind in self defense.

So if I'm understanding you right, ship upkeep is eliminated and replaced by slip/dock upkeep?

[ctwaterman]

*slaps forehead*

Dry Docks, Slips, Ports especially military only ports like say Diego Garcia cost alot of money to operate.  They are now assigned a yearly maintenance cost.
The Reasons Why are.
1. An artificial limitation on ship building [Replaces BP]  if you dont have a slip or dry dock you cant build a ship.
2.  These things deserve to have a maintenance cost so now they do.

Ship maintenance:
Unless I screwed it up and Mike or P3d can correct me remains the same we only have to assign final actual maintenance costs and values.

Maintenance will now be paid on:
Planes
Airships
Warships
Naval Infrastructure
Armies
Fortifications

I think that is it unless I missed something

[miketr]

We need to track what types of military ports we have yes?  We track Dry Docks and Slipways?  They all have costs?

But they only have cost when we build them. After building them, there's no cost. We don't have to think about it anymore.

Shove Ship upkeep up, increase the up front cost of the slipways / drydocks. Or some other idea that I don't remember because odds are it was even worse and I purged it from my mind in self defense.

So if I'm understanding you right, ship upkeep is eliminated and replaced by slip/dock upkeep?

1) We want people to be paying attention to ports, etc. Otherwise things like people having fleets larger than ports to support them or building / repairing ships without Dry Docks / Slipways to build them occurs.

2) No you are paying both (infrastructure and ships).  Again we don't want people to just be able to suddenly spit out huge fleets, etc when they go to war.  Instead you have to build more ports, more slipways, etc first, then the ships AND once the war is over have all that extra crap to support.  Its a clear attempt to slow things down.

When the move to the Pure Cash system was decided the idea was to kill BP or anything like it.  Instead you pay upkeep.  I think there was the idea of Naval Factory or shipyard instead but that was killed for whatever reason.

Michael

[Darman]

I definitely like the idea of paying upkeep for slips/drydocks.  It does prevent smaller nations from building ships of their own and it neatly solves a problem I had with my current nation's naval construction infrastructure, that when its idle it is idle and there is no penalty.  In fact, part of the reason von Tirpitz wanted the battle fleet he did was because it forced the Reichstag to replace the battleships when they were retired at the rate of 2-3 every year, thus keeping the German shipyards that produced battleships in business.  In England such shipyards catered to the foreign market, building battleships for Turkey and Chile, among others.  von Tirpitz was afraid that the German shipbuilding industry he had helped create through his Navy Bills and Novelles would stagnate and dissapear without the guarantee of future contracts. 

[snip]

We need to track what types of military ports we have yes?  We track Dry Docks and Slipways?  They all have costs?
Only thing we are doing is adding upkeep to them.

increase the up front cost of the slipways / drydocks.

So your saying that slip mantinece is going to be the driving factor behind keeping small nations down? Why not raise slip and DD costs (as you mentioned was a proposal). If the current $ costs are cared over (not seeing new ones in your proposal, this is what I will assume) a type 0 slip costs about as much as a halfway descent destroyer might (depending on how we do ship cost, as I cannot find that in you proposal ether). Under WW's rules, a type 0 slipway costs as much as a 10,000t cruiser. Playing a small nation over there, I have basically desired to forgo expanding my existing infrastructure because those 10,000t will prove more useful to me in the form of ships and subs. It forces me to contract out any work I need done after my one type2 facility is filled. If I am getting the jist of your proposal, that is exactly what you want small nations to be forced to do. Doing that same sort of thing eliminates the needed for upkeep, which IMO, just adds needless complexity when a better way can be found to acheave the same goal.

Also, I feel the point that Valles made in another thread should be pointed out here as well:

I have absolutely no interest in ship trading, and in fact am likely to avoid it no matter any mechanical 'enticement', simply to spite those trying to shove it down everyone's throats.

It does appear to me that the circumstances surrounding this are an attempt to force us to behave more like nations from the OTL. Who is to say that in a alternate history, more powers could not have become shipbuilders. For some of our players, part of the fun might be seeing what they can do with domestic industry and infrastructure. Forcing us to rely on foreign powers for all or part of our ship-building, while realistic, I think is another element of needless complexity.

[Kaiser Kirk]

Personally, I view Wesworlds IP system as analogous to cash only- except it's tonnage. One "currency" for everything. I prefer the IC/BP here.

As for dock/port maintenance, it would be more "real"- as you need to keep the skilled worker base present, but it shouldn't be by slipway, but by Military Port. The real specialized folks are your gear cutters, machinests, architects, etc. Riviters can be brought over from the civilian world and so most of the per-slip cost wouldn't be fixed. 

Under WW's rules, a type 0 slipway costs as much as a 10,000t cruiser. Playing a small nation over there, I have basically desired to forgo expanding my existing infrastructure because those 10,000t will prove more useful to me in the form of ships and subs. It forces me to contract out any work I need done after my one type2 facility is filled. If I am getting the jist of your proposal, that is exactly what you want small nations to be forced to do. Doing that same sort of thing eliminates the needed for upkeep, which IMO, just adds needless complexity when a better way can be found to acheave the same goal.

I'll point out that this is why when I was doing turn maintenance for Siam, I turned to it's "Dutch Ally" who had spare capacity to provide some slip and dry dock space.

It does appear to me that the circumstances surrounding this are an attempt to force us to behave more like nations from the OTL. Who is to say that in a alternate history, more powers could not have become shipbuilders. For some of our players, part of the fun might be seeing what they can do with domestic industry and infrastructure. Forcing us to rely on foreign powers for all or part of our ship-building, while realistic, I think is another element of needless complexity.

One aspect of "refounding" nations could be the choice of investing in starting IC/BP/military infrastructure.

[miketr]

There is one thought that I don't exactly favor but it is a possibility.  Just keep the current POP, IC and BP system for a reboot.  Don't give non industrial powers BP.  Of course we have no way to do sales, no way to do mobilization, etc.

Michael

[Kaiser Kirk]

I wouldn't say give them no BP...but limited to whats appropriate for a non-industrial power.
China/India in 1890 are good examples - lots of people, fair amount of resources and skilled craftsmen..not alot of foundaries, machine shops, etc.

Either could build roads, or slipways and drydocks, or even handcraft early aircraft, but generating the high quality of steel in sufficient size to make quality boilers, turbine blades, reduction gears or belt armor- not so much.   Think of how Japan developed in the late 1800s for an example of a transition from one to the other.