Asia Buildup

[Korpen]

Colonization, qua colonization, is something I admit I have mixed feelings about; overall, I'd say that my viewpoints are informed by an emotional preference for construction and preservation over destruction, and the knowledge that colonization often worked, or was intended to work, by knocking down existing 'inferior' governmental and social structures in favor of imported ones.

I think that that statement could be applied to any changes of rulers over a territory. If there were a hierarchal society in place that could be used by the new rulers for their aims it was kept in place most of the time (for example Swedish rule over the Baltic states in the 17th century, or most European colonies in Asia). I do not agree with the analysis that it was done for racially founded ideological reason any more then the radical changes in say European societies (and the extermination of regional languish and cultures) during the industrial revolution.

My vehemance on the subject of enforced colonization stems from an ongoing, mmm, movement, among my fellow players, which has always been one of my main beefs with N3: the tendancy, when I try to do something that I feel makes sense in the context of the game but which did not happen OTL, of someone or other to go, 'But that's not historical. You shouldn't do that.'

'What does historical case x share with Navalism case y?' I ask. (Or would ask, or should ask - I can be as unclear as anyone, I admit!) 'What is the principle or logic that makes this unlikely?'

The 'overseas colonies' structuring of the starting positions looks, to me, like another case of people going 'This is historical, and therefore that's how you should do it' over and over without ever even bothering to explain why it should be neccessary, or, if not neccessary, why their favored playstyle should be enforced on the whole game.

"Historical" is almost as dangerous a word as "realistic".
For the most part, I do agree with you here; I do not believe our rules should reward or force any one play style more then any other. So on average the state that goes for military expansion in the home area, the one that gets allot of colonies or the one that sits tight at home and invest internally should after 40 years be in about the same economical situation.

As for doing "ahistorical" things, it is fine as long as one does it from an informed position, at least in the "soft" issues such as intents and trade-offs.
But when one talks about harder things such as ship engineering I would most likely be stricter.

[ctwaterman]

The Person who expands will need to spend more and more money upgrading the Infrastructure of their Colonies increasing the size of their military to guard it and well.... probably raising their tax rate at home for a substantial period of time. 

This will slow their growth rate at home so this might very well be true in the current system I have seen.
The Colonial Expansion areas are their to provide locations where nations might have small regional conflicts without feeling that their nations are directly threatened.

The Problem with all the wars in N3 was most of the wars people assumed were to the Death.   But most wars up until World War I were not that way.   Win a major Battle of take the enemies capital and then the diplomats take over and you give up a province or two or an over seas colony.   The cost of the war and of occupying a hostile nation for 20 or 30 years doesnt justify not making peace.

[Korpen]

The Colonial Expansion areas are their to provide locations where nations might have small regional conflicts without feeling that their nations are directly threatened.

I find this concept abit strange to be honest, as "colonial war" was mainly about gaining control of territory that other states already recognised as belonging to that state (so really an internal matter). However if it would come to any armed conflict between any of the states armed forces it was a full war. The Fashoda Incident should be a pretty good indicator.

[Valles]

I have a very hard time taking seriously the idea that the Japanest Islands are supposed to be capable of becoming a match for the OTL United States by staying home and concentrating on their economy without adding any 'interior' resources or workforce. Not only would I find myself dragged away from my real goals by the 'determinists', they'd be right.

But, you know, this is really kind of what I'm talking about.

What factors created the environment where 'winning a war' was understood to only transfer a province or two? In what way do they apply to my case? If you want to argue that 'limited' wars are the only kind I should be fighting, support the argument, or at least give me a workable alternative.

But for gods' sake don't waste the time and mutual goodwill of both of us repeating the historical fact over and over like it constituted an actual argument.

[Korpen]

I have a very hard time taking seriously the idea that the Japanest Islands are supposed to be capable of becoming a match for the OTL United States by staying home and concentrating on their economy without adding any 'interior' resources or workforce. Not only would I find myself dragged away from my real goals by the 'determinists', they'd be right.

I use vessel-words: "...on average the state that goes..."
Exceptions could and should exist, and really expansionism should be a high risk strategy, possibly greater rewards, but also greater risk for failure. So on average equal to other strategies. 

[Valles]

Ah. OK, yeah, that makes that make more sense. Sorry for misinterpreting.

[ctwaterman]

Ok...

lets be honest in the real world with real Coal, Iron, Oil, and hardening metals for steel production no Japan simply cannot compete with the United States by internal investment.   It is all about access to resources which Japan historically has NONE.

But then the United States did spend 100 Years expanding until it occupied or controlled a very significant amount of territory on the North American Countinent.  So that proves and supports the Grab it theory of expansionism.  Starting at the end of the War of 1812 the Belief in its own Manifest destiny pushed the United States to constantly expand westward.  Heck the US even bought Alaska the results is with the end of the age of Wind and Water Power and with the advent of the age of steam and Coal and latter Oil the US had all the energy and natural resouces it needed.

So lets be honest ARE you looking for a system that rewards staying within you borders and slowly building up or one the penalizes going out and having a few conflicts.

I saw your desire to have 5 Battle Ships under construction in a given year?  I doubt that will happen here because I am trying to remember if anyone ever had that many under construction accept the United States or Great Britain.   Nobody Else I think ever had more then 2 Battle Ships and 1 Battle Cruiser under construction at the same time ????  Maybe Germany did so as well once.

But this Sim is distributing that Income, and Ship Building Capacity over 20 nations not 5.

Charles

[Nobody]

I saw your desire to have 5 Battle Ships under construction in a given year?  I doubt that will happen here because I am trying to remember if anyone ever had that many under construction accept the United States or Great Britain.   Nobody Else I think ever had more then 2 Battle Ships and 1 Battle Cruiser under construction at the same time ????  Maybe Germany did so as well once.

Well, I just counted and Germany did build 50 capital ships above 10000 tons in 25 years. And in at least two years 5 entered service each. If building a ship took only 2 years than that makes 4 under construction at any given time on average. I wouldn't be surprised if the British number would two or three times bigger.

BTW I kind of would like to do that as well. However, the only "solution" I could think of is that don't start with countries, but with a few "core" provinces and everything else is for expanding. Some provinces might have an affinity to you and easy to integrate, others might be hostile. From a gameplay point of view that should work, but history based storytelling? I don't think so.

[Korpen]

lets be honest in the real world with real Coal, Iron, Oil, and hardening metals for steel production no Japan simply cannot compete with the United States by internal investment.   It is all about access to resources which Japan historically has NONE.

I would like to point out that steel was not the industry that lead industrialisation in most countries, that honour usually goes to the textile industry.
Also, exactly what recourses one got inside ones own borders is not really relevant; the relevant thing is what is cost for an industry to acquire what it need for its production.
So on a country level there is not really much difference if say the iron is mined in the country and made into steel or imported and made into steel unless tariffs on either end distorts (and given equal transport costs).

But then the United States did spend 100 Years expanding until it occupied or controlled a very significant amount of territory on the North American Countinent.  So that proves and supports the Grab it theory of expansionism.  

Actually; no it does not. In the first 100 years by far more wealth was generated in the core homelands then the regions that was "grabbed". Expansion in it self gains a country very little, development creates wealth and that can be both in new or old territory.

I saw your desire to have 5 Battle Ships under construction in a given year?  I doubt that will happen here because I am trying to remember if anyone ever had that many under construction accept the United States or Great Britain.   Nobody Else I think ever had more then 2 Battle Ships and 1 Battle Cruiser under construction at the same time ????  Maybe Germany did so as well once.

Russia had 7(!) Dreadnoughts under construction in 1912, and its Pre-Dreadnought buildning program was prodigious as well.

EDIT: And I think it should be pointed out that the UK in this period had an army that pretty much was smaller and less well equipped then the civilian police of most continental powers. ;)

[Valles]

*shrug* If need be, I can stick to alternating 'orders' of three and two, but my nomenclature scheme determines that most of my BB classes will have five ships. If the new construction rules allow me to match historical construction rates, rather than being limited to ten thousand tons a year, it won't even be that big a hardship.

I've always known that I was going to need to be aiming for 'superpower' status by 1905 if I wanted to pull it off. At one point, in the 'pre reboot' speculative discussions, I advocated a small number of quite large 'player states'; that was voted down on the theory that people were more interested in building up from modest starting bases. Sure, I'm willing to take that on. If it legitimately doesn't work, hey, that's okay, luck of the game. If trying to pull it off does things to directly ruin people's games, whether by 'system slow down' or whatever, I'll try and back off and find another way - I don't want to break the game, and I have no interest in telling people how to play their side of things.

But I'm not going to go along with, 'You're too small and you have to stay that way just because'.

[Borys]

Ahoj!

EDIT: And I think it should be pointed out that the UK in this period had an army that pretty much was smaller and less well equipped then the civilian police of most continental powers. ;)

IMO an urban legend. Smaller - yes. But very well equipped.
Borys

[ctwaterman]

No the only limit on the game here is how you balance your budgets.  Expansion as Korpen points out pays off long term not short term.  It will I "THINK" cost short term before it ever generates income.

well unless you count California where California was aquired in 1848 and Gold was discovered their in 1949  :P

And Yes the British Army was 2 tiered a Hard Corp well Equiped Professional force and the Territorial and or Home Guard Units.  But Yes it was really really small !  Because the Navy was really really big.

Well, I just counted and Germany did build 50 capital ships above 10000 tons in 25 years. And in at least two years 5 entered service each. If building a ship took only 2 years than that makes 4 under construction at any given time on average. I wouldn't be surprised if the British number would two or three times bigger.

I believe we are interested in Lay down Dates.... when the money was appropriated for them.   They may have been commissioned in the same year but were they laid down in the same year?

Honestly instead of a world dominated by 2 or even 5 or 6 Super Powers this World will have 20 or so Intermediate powers all looking to try and become Super Powers.

Charles

[Carthaginian]

IIRC in Dreadnought (which I don't have in front of me ATM) the Germans appropriated for 4 BB's and 2 BC's in one of their navy laws, and  England appropriated for a mix of 8 dreadnought vessels in one year (initial order of 4 that they expanded later)- so having 5 vessels under construction is not unheard of, though it wouldn't be something sustainable.

"If you give me four more dreadnoughts, I shall name the Winston, Churchill, Lloyd and George- how they will fight!" - Jackie Fisher to Winston Churchill, on needing 8 dreadnoughts in one year.

[Darman]

IIRC in Dreadnought (which I don't have in front of me ATM) the Germans appropriated for 4 BB's and 2 BC's in one of their navy laws, and  England appropriated for a mix of 8 dreadnought vessels in one year (initial order of 4 that they expanded later)- so having 5 vessels under construction is not unheard of, though it wouldn't be something sustainable.

"If you give me four more dreadnoughts, I shall name the Winston, Churchill, Lloyd and George- how they will fight!" - Jackie Fisher to Winston Churchill, on needing 8 dreadnoughts in one year.

Funnily enough, I do have it in front of me.  Am still not quite finished with it either.  A bit of backstory... the Germans had 7 slipways big enough to build capital ships (either BBs or BCs).  It took the Germans roughly 3 years to complete a dreadnaught from start to finish.  Roughly one year (40% of the construction time was in the slipways) of that was in a specialized slipway.  Thus 7 hulls could be started in january of a given year and the following january they would have been launched and fitted out with everything else and replaced by 7 new keels.  The book goes on to explain that the biggest bottleneck for dreadnaught construction was not the hulls themselves but the manufacture of the guns, turrets, and armor plate.  In 1909 the Germans had amended their Navy Law to build more capital ships at a faster rate.  And there was also evidence they were gathering materials (turrets, guns, and armor plate) so they could speed up the second phase of building the ship, that is, outfitting it once it has left the slip. 

Construction Schedule (according to English Naval Estimates before Parliament and German Naval Law)
1905 the English laid down Dreadnought and 3 battlecruisers. 
1906 the English laid down 3 dreadnaughts and the Germans 1 (Nassau). 
1907 the English laid down 3 dreadnoughts and the Germans laid down 3 dreadnoughts and 1 battlecruiser. 
1908 the English laid down 2 dreadnoughts and the Germans laid down 3 dreadnoughts and 1 battlecruiser. 
In 1909 the Liberal Cabinet had hoped to lay down only a further 2 dreadnoughts to Germany's 4.  First Lord McKenna wanted to lay down 6.  With Germany's capacity to lay down 7 keels at a time, and the knowledge that some German shipbuilders had begun acquiring materials before the Reichstag had approved the construction of the ships, it appeared that the Germans were planning on increasing their construction tempo.  Furthermore, it was rumored they had been stockpiling armor plating, guns, and turrets. 

(For those wishing to look it up its all roughly p. 609-612.)

[Borys]

Ahoj!
As concerns the dreadnaught race - keep in mind that from 1905 to 1913 the size of ships had gone up by 50% - from c.20K to 30K tonnes. And that it would reach 40K by 1916 ...

Two state of the art Schlachtshiffe+1 Grosskreuzer of 1905 displaced some 50K in total. Less then ten years later those 50K tonnes represented two frugal battleships.

Borys