Annual turns

[KWorld]

Guys,

A question: is filling in the spreadsheets for our turns enough of a time-sink that it makes sense to go to annual turns?

My personal feeling is that if we doubled incomes to compensate, it wouldn't matter much at all, because you'd still be doing all the same spending.  If we don't double incomes, then it will halve the amount of spending to do.

[Jefgte]

Annual turn is a good  speed, Navalism history & naval technos could progress quickly.

That mean too, with 60BP per year & 20 years old max for active PDN (+5 in reserve)

60 000t x 20 = 1 200 000t

For Austro Hungarian Empire:
18 000t x 20 = 360 000t

Jef

[Darman]

Its not the spreadsheets that are time-consuming to me, its the writing roles and stories and news.  Designing ships isn't even time consuming either.  I generally get it in my head to bang out a few (or a few dozen) designs over a week or two.  Same with the spreadsheets.  Its the writing that takes up my time. 

[Nobody]

My two cents on the turn lengths:
Yes, with longer, fewer turns you only have to make a lower number of spreadsheets.
But, they are more work. More turns (per year) mean that you don't really have to change much from one to the other. Most things remain the same.

[KWorld]

So, do people care if we use half-year or full year turns (for doing spreadsheets)?  Right now, the budgets in the sheets are kind-of assuming half-year turns, with first-line countries having a base income (before pre-start purchases) of $200 and 20 BP per year.  The assumption is there because they're, at root, the sheets from last run, where we had half-year turns.

Questions: do we want to double incomes and go to full year turns (1 spreadsheet per year, plus news)?
Would we rather stay with bi-annual spreadsheets?
Or would we rather use the existing spreadsheets and annual turns (cuts income in half)?

[Darman]

I think half year turns are fine.  It gives you a little more flexibility, especially when mobilizing armies. 

[Jefgte]

2 turn per year to have stories to wrote is certainly better but it "ll take a long time before build dreadnoughts...


Jef

[Walter]

Only a mere 70 turns, Jef. If we do a report every two weeks, we'll get to the dreadnought stage in the summer of 2016.

[Jefgte]

... a report every 2 weeks, in peace time.
Wars must be short with just a few battles.

Jef

[Logi]

Probably an annual report would be nice, if it would reduce the amount of time spent per year - to account for the slow down during wars.

But we need to address the war simulation issue sometime down the road as well (not necessarily right now).

[Darman]

Probably an annual report would be nice, if it would reduce the amount of time spent per year - to account for the slow down during wars.

But we need to address the war simulation issue sometime down the road as well (not necessarily right now).

agreed.  Annual reports would be nice too.  But the problem I see with it is that if you mobilized your troops or ships for only a portion of a year then you are stuck paying the full for them. 

[Walter]

Well, if you were to do annual reports, you should be allowed to set the unit's status for a shorter period of time. It should not be too difficult to add a formula into the spreadsheet so that with a few additional colums I could say that the unit is in reserve for 1 quarter, active for two quarters and mobilized for one quarter and the formula would calculate the upkeep for the unit for me in the end.

Questions: do we want to double incomes and go to full year turns (1 spreadsheet per year, plus news)?
Would we rather stay with bi-annual spreadsheets?
Or would we rather use the existing spreadsheets and annual turns (cuts income in half)?

Not quite sure what you mean by this. When I read this, I would assume that you meant $200 and 20 BP per half year and not per year otherwise it makes not much sense to me. $200 and 20 BP per year was roughly what I had for N3 Japan which was a minor nation.

Another thing with the start up is population. How do we handle that? After all we need to have both a population and an IC figure to fill into the spreadsheet in order to determine the revenue.

[KWorld]

Questions: do we want to double incomes and go to full year turns (1 spreadsheet per year, plus news)?
Would we rather stay with bi-annual spreadsheets?
Or would we rather use the existing spreadsheets and annual turns (cuts income in half)?

Not quite sure what you mean by this. When I read this, I would assume that you meant $200 and 20 BP per half year and not per year otherwise it makes not much sense to me. $200 and 20 BP per year was roughly what I had for N3 Japan which was a minor nation.

No, $100 and 10 BP per half-year is how the current spreadsheets are set up.  If we wanted to go to annual turns without reducing incomes, I'll tweak that so the income is doubled (so we get $200 and 20 BP per year) in the spreadsheets.  The third option is an option that has incomes for first-line nations starting at $100 and 10 BP per year.

Another thing with the start up is population. How do we handle that? After all we need to have both a population and an IC figure to fill into the spreadsheet in order to determine the revenue.

Population for Italy in TTL in 1870 will be 30.5 million, with another 1 million in Tunisia.

[Walter]

Like I said, $200 and 20 BP per year was roughly what I had for N3 Japan which was a minor nation. I find such a low income really questionable for so-called "first-line" nations, especially if you're going to allow some nations to retain their colonies. To me such an income gives me a "slightly lesser minor nation than the other minor nations" feeling.

I ran across a figure of just under 26 million for Italy so I'm not sure how you got to 30.5 million. If we were to apply OTL populations, you would end up with about 131 million for the territories of the British Empire. If we were to convert that, Italy would have 74 IC and Britain 41 IC. Now if we are to have a variable cost for ICs, Italy's ICs will be more expensive than the British ICs. Also for every IC that Britain gains in the less developed countries, it will gain $1.8 per IC while Italy will only gain $1 per IC.

Another thing is that this way reflects that mainland Britain is significanly weaker than some other nations and at this point it would be very questionable that Britain would have had the ability to even get its hands on overseas territories let alone keep their hands on it. To me Britain screams C-line nation with territories added to it in order to make it an A-line nation.

I thought we were supposed to start with a level playing field? Right now I can tell you that we're moving further and further away from such a start. One way to correct it is to sever the connection between ICs and populations and that every IC produces $1, regardless of the population. Another other way would be "no colonies at start up" to make it a level playing field colony-wise as well.

[Jefgte]

IMO,
If Japan is too small, KW could increase economic potential.

It is possible for the Modo to increase the Japan economic bonus, every year, more than other countries  :)  :)  :)

That is also Modo work...

Jef  ;)