N4 Economic Outline (Not Finished)

[Nobody]

In my opinion we need some kind of limitation for producing military equipment. Be that production, although I think our BPs have the wrong scale (world steel/iron production was 4 million tons in 1880 and 28.3 million tons in 1900). Sure only a fraction of that is usable as armor or for guns, but civil ships shouldn't be a problem.
Another option could be "industry" (e.g. production capacity splitted guns, armor and engines) or yards and docks.

I think ship upkeep/running costs are reasonable, as is upkeep for harbors (required for ships). However one of the two could be omitted if it makes things easier.

[miketr]

In my opinion we need some kind of limitation for producing military equipment. Be that production, although I think our BPs have the wrong scale (world steel/iron production was 4 million tons in 1880 and 28.3 million tons in 1900). Sure only a fraction of that is usable as armor or for guns, but civil ships shouldn't be a problem.

There is a limiting factor, its called how much cash do you have?

Michael

[Kaiser Kirk]

In my opinion we need some kind of limitation for producing military equipment. Be that production, although I think our BPs have the wrong scale (world steel/iron production was 4 million tons in 1880 and 28.3 million tons in 1900). Sure only a fraction of that is usable as armor or for guns, but civil ships shouldn't be a problem.

There is a limiting factor, its called how much cash do you have?

Michael

Hmm, during the rubber boom Brazil had cash, and could order battleships...but it didn't have the heavy industry to build them domestically. Cash was not equal to construction capacity.

Another example would be the CSA during the civil war - decent pop, domestic light industry, some $... but little domestic heavy industry.

[Sachmle]

Hmm, during the rubber boom Brazil had cash, and could order battleships...but it didn't have the heavy industry to build them domestically. Cash was not equal to construction capacity.

Another example would be the CSA during the civil war - decent pop, domestic light industry, some $... but little domestic heavy industry.

Along the same lines as what Kirk said

From Wiki-

Argentina increased in prosperity and prominence between 1880 and 1929 and emerged as one of the ten richest countries in the world, benefiting from an agricultural export-led economy as well as British and French investment. Driven by immigration and decreasing mortality the Argentine population grew fivefold and the economy 15-fold

Yet they still had to rely on foreign shipyards for anything larger than a 900t coastal patrol boat, and even then it was only 2 and not until 1938.

[miketr]

In my opinion we need some kind of limitation for producing military equipment. Be that production, although I think our BPs have the wrong scale (world steel/iron production was 4 million tons in 1880 and 28.3 million tons in 1900). Sure only a fraction of that is usable as armor or for guns, but civil ships shouldn't be a problem.

There is a limiting factor, its called how much cash do you have?

Michael

Hmm, during the rubber boom Brazil had cash, and could order battleships...but it didn't have the heavy industry to build them domestically. Cash was not equal to construction capacity.

Another example would be the CSA during the civil war - decent pop, domestic light industry, some $... but little domestic heavy industry.

In the new system CSA and Brazil wouldn't have slipways to do construction.  So they have to buy from one of the player nations.

Michael

[TexanCowboy]

This is all going way over my head why we have to have the super-complex system instead of something that's easier to understand. There's a fulcrum point between Realism and KISS, and, well, at the moment, it's dramatically tilted towards Realism, stuff that a bunch of us don't really have time for. You're taking the current system of upkeep and such....and making it more complex? You're removing the ability all but 6-7 players to build ships, and replacing that with a system where exorbiant preniums will be charged, and you might not even be able to build the ship of your choice? I'd rather have KISS, and, frankly, fun, here, than this brand of realism.

[snip]

This is all going way over my head why we have to have the super-complex system instead of something that's easier to understand. There's a fulcrum point between Realism and KISS, and, well, at the moment, it's dramatically tilted towards Realism, stuff that a bunch of us don't really have time for. You're taking the current system of upkeep and such....and making it more complex? You're removing the ability all but 6-7 players to build ships, and replacing that with a system where exorbiant preniums will be charged, and you might not even be able to build the ship of your choice? I'd rather have KISS, and, frankly, fun, here, than this brand of realism.

I agree, and add the following. If we want to continue to attract new players, a simpler system will help get them to stay. Very few people enjoy doing the sort of work that a report under this system could entail, so it becomes a chore rather then entertainment. This is not the way to expand the player base, which is something we need to do if we are going to keep the number of nations as high as they are.

[ctwaterman]

*YOu Know you people are having an adverse effect on my blood pressure*

Brazil and Argentina are examples of nations who have cash but have not invested it in building and paying maintenance on Military Slipways and Drydocks and Ports.

There fore under the proposed system they would approach a nation who did have such things possibly not being utilized for a period of time and pay them some money to build such items for them.

I do not see where this Complexity issue is comming from.   You already have to keep track of the maintenance costs of all sorts of things now instead of tracking how much BP you have to spend as well that is simply removed from your work load and another maintenance cost has been added.   This cost was not added to force you to buy ships on the foreign market as all the Player nations should be big enough to build ships on their own.    Its there as a limiting factor on ship construction. 

Oh I have $180 for my Military Budget for the next 4 years so let me see I will build 20 Battle Ships that fit into my 20 Type 2 Docks or Slips.   Before you built Slips and Dry Docks and then they sat empty for months or years at a time.   To be honest Italy is one of those who had more Dry Dock and Slips then it could ever use unless I was building just 500 Ton DD or was able to purchase lots of foreign [BP] for use.

I have looked at the system and I dont see any additional complexity.

[Darman]

I too am in favor of going with paying upkeep for slipways/drydocks, mainly for realism purposes.  No country can afford to leave their naval/marine infrastructure unused for extended periods of time but that is exactly what we currently do.  Egypt has done it a lot.  ctwaterman just said Italy did it a lot as well.  Those are two examples of in-game use of marine infrastructure.  Like I mentioned earlier in this thread, the head of the Imperial German Navy wanted to create a self-sustaining battleship construction industry.  Around 1902 the German Navy was ordering 2-3 battleships annually and each took 2-3 years to be completed (if my memory serves me).  Assuming that 3 battleships were ordered for three years in a row and each battleship was completed in 3 years that means that 9 slipways were needed.  But if the construction tempo decreased to 2 ships annually then only 6 slipways would be needed.  What happens to the other 3?  They sit unused unless their owners can build a ship for the export market.  That happened all the time in England which is why England could lay down 3 keels in one year and the next lay down 6.  If my in-game Egypt had to pay upkeep for my slipways then I'd be producing as much as possible to get the most bang for my buck.  If I didn't need the ships myself I'd be searching for a foreign buyer.  I even tried to allude to this in one of my (brief) stories about the munitions industry being slowly privatized. 

[Kaiser Kirk]

I too am in favor of going with paying upkeep for slipways/drydocks, mainly for realism purposes.  No country can afford to leave their naval/marine infrastructure unused for extended periods of time but that is exactly what we currently do. 

For Bavaria it was referred to a couple of times that the export market was seen as a way of providing employment for the Friuli workers.  In the past 11 game years Bavaria has built 40 small vessels for herself and ...47 (?) for export.  I charged rock bottom prices as the goal was ship building, not income.

Overall, I still oppose the elimination of BP, and I'd rather see maintenance for PORTs not slips.  Machine shops, training facilities, assembly rooms, etc.  A slip isn't that complex a structure, and can just sit there, and most of the personnel.  It's the skilled workers, which I think the port is a better representation.  And I still want harbor depths assigned.  :)

[Darman]

I too am in favor of going with paying upkeep for slipways/drydocks, mainly for realism purposes.  No country can afford to leave their naval/marine infrastructure unused for extended periods of time but that is exactly what we currently do. 

For Bavaria it was referred to a couple of times that the export market was seen as a way of providing employment for the Friuli workers.  In the past 11 game years Bavaria has built 40 small vessels for herself and ...47 (?) for export.  I charged rock bottom prices as the goal was ship building, not income.

I completely agree with that approach as being more realistic.  Thats why I had asked at one point about building civilian ships with my unused naval infrastructure.  As to using the general "Ports" rather than individual slips and drydocks... I'm not completely sure. 

[Nobody]

A question for those opposing a more complex or simulation system:
Would you be ok with more complex internas if they were a "black box", aka a program or excel sheet were you copy in some data in from the last year, make a few choices (Tax rate, investments) add upkeep, trade & construction and then get some data out (carry over for the next year, tax balance...)?

[Delta Force]

Having done that before with games that I have made and played, I would have to say that it was the one thing that I didn't like about them. Even if it can be done in Excel and you just have to tinker with a few numbers, it is still just the most boring thing to do. We should try to keep it as simple and fast to do as possible.

[ctwaterman]

I like automating the book keeping as much as possible.  Book keeping or as Mario called it bean counting is a necessary evil so we can keep track of the things we built and how much they cost.

The real game is for some people drawing the ships or in my case Roleplaying the Politics between nations.   Drawing up treaties or alliances.   Or sitting in the smoke filled back room puffing on a cigar sipping Cognac and wondering who is going to stab whom in the back next.

[Nobody]

Having done that before with games that I have made and played, I would have to say that it was the one thing that I didn't like about them. Even if it can be done in Excel and you just have to tinker with a few numbers, it is still just the most boring thing to do. We should try to keep it as simple and fast to do as possible.

Now you have lost me. I mean, there is absolutely no way around some kind of economic system, a budget, cost of construction, upkeep, import and export.