Purchasing IC

[KWorld]

As has been noted, right now the spreadsheets I've posted for second-line powers have the same growth costs (for IC and BP) as the last run.  For IC, this means the cost of the next IC starts at 25 and scales up based on the number of IC already in the region and the region's population, in low population regions it goes up rapidly and in high population regions it goes up slowly.  This makes a reasonable amount of sense, but it does mean that if China or India can get their acts together, the rest of the world will have to sit up and take notice.  [Right now, barring some fairly substantial reforms, China's going to be paying extra to purchase IC.]

Alternatively, it's been proposed that IC should be purchased on a scale that doesn't include population, and that may have a cap.  For example, the first IC costs $40, the second $41, etc, up to say $60, where all further IC cost $60 each.  This is certainly easier to estimate future costs, but it has the downside of encouraging lots of LITTLE colonies to plant IC (some joker starts building IC on Saint Helena, Christmas Island, and American Samoa) on.


What's the opinion of the group on which way we want to go?

[Darman]

make a maximum IC:pop ratio. 

[KWorld]

make a maximum IC:pop ratio.

That would substitute for the population linkage in the other formula, yes.

[KWorld]

Here's the example Austria-Hungary sheet with the cost of IC changed to 40-60, with a cap of no more than 5 IC per million population (you can always buy 1 IC).

[Walter]

Regarding China and India, you could always split them up into smaller bits that will never get along with each other.

With the first option, you will need to have populations that are the same for all nations for an equal start. With the second option, the population issue is not such a big problem for an equal start.

Is it an idea to mix the two together? Put a cap on the cost which, going by the proposal so far, is $60. Homeland ICs are standard $60 regardless of population. For the colonies, make IC cost population dependant as per first option with a max of $60. That would mean that with "the little colonies to plant ICs", you most likely end up paying the full $60 because of the low number of people living there.

... Or something along those lines.

[KWorld]

India, historically (before the Raj), was a collection of smaller states, so that's easy enough.  China wasn't, but it's organization and inward-looking posture makes it relatively easy to delay it's growth.


As far as a split option, it could be done.  It's a little awkward in the spreadsheet, but not too bad.  I don't know that it's really necessary, though: right now, a hypothetical colony in Saint Helena would get it's first IC for $40, and then could not get any more until it reached a population of 200,001 people, whereupon it could by a second IC for $41.

[Walter]

That may be so, but it would not stop the little cononies problem. You could end up with a player having a lot more small colonies than just Saint Helena, Christmas Island, and American Samoa just for the purpose of cheap ICs.

Can't remember if this was brought up. Is it necessary for a region to have an IC? In the previous run, it was mandatory for a region to have an IC. If we were to apply it here, then the "some joker" you mentioned is actually being forced to build the cheap ICs in those little colonies (not that he would be complaining).

[KWorld]

I certainly can't see why it would be necessary for a country or colony to have an IC.  I'll have to hunt that requirement down.

[Walter]

Of course with the necessity of 1 IC needing to be there, if you are going to assume that every colony always has a minimum of 1 IC when you capture it and shift the increasing cost by 1 IC (i.e. the 2nd IC is $40, the 3rd $41, etc.), it would mean that with your hypothetical colony in Saint Helena example above, you would need 200,001 people in order to build the next IC (= IC #2) there for $40.

On the other hand, I mentioned that dealing with something like the Suez and the revenue it would create, ICs would be the simplest way to go to determine that. It is going to be difficult using that if you are going to use a a maximum IC:pop ratio when no population will be assigned to the Canal entry in a report.

[Logi]

China wasn't, but it's organization and inward-looking posture makes it relatively easy to delay it's growth.

That's quite false. There's been various papers studying the reason for China's slow growth during that period and they've all concluded similar things. China tried a Meiji Restoration approach during that period and met similar success... and then the Sino-Japanese War and other such wars happened.

It was the burden imposed by foreign nations in the form of special privileges and war indemnities that drained the Chinese government's budget and prevented it's growth. Only in pop history does your stated viewpoint still thrive.

[KWorld]

Win the wars and you don't have the problems resulting from losing them.

Actually, there's really a chicken and egg problem with China: did the poor war performance of the Empire allow the unequal treaties and the indemnities, or did the unequal treaties and indemnities cause the lousy war performance?   Treaties and indemnities do not explain the poor performance in the Opium War or in the revolts of the early 1860s,  the fact that the most powerful Chinese fleet did not involve itself in the Sino-French War, the fact that the second most powerful Chinese fleet let itself be attacked in harbor at the outbreak of the Sino-French War even though it was a known fact that France and China were sliding into war, the fact that the largest Chinese fleet in the Sino-Japanese War had rarely trained and that shells were found to be filled with sawdust instead of gunpowder, etc.  Treaties and indemnities do not explain the failure of the Hundred Days reforms.

[Walter]

Eggs existed long before there were chickens so I don't see that as a problem. Therefore the China matter is quite clear. :)

[Logi]

Win the wars and you don't have the problems resulting from losing them.

The tone is unnecessary.

Actually, there's really a chicken and egg problem with China: did the poor war performance of the Empire allow the unequal treaties and the indemnities, or did the unequal treaties and indemnities cause the lousy war performance?

Doubtful. The issue was never a chicken or egg problem if you looked deeper into it's history.

Treaties and indemnities do not explain the poor performance in the Opium War or in the revolts of the early 1860s, [...] sawdust instead of gunpowder, etc.

Indeed, treaties and indemnities do not explain the poor performance of the Chinese military, precisely because they're not related in that fashion.

The failure of the Chinese military was the product, not of inward-looking posure and poor organization with the proviso that poor organization is only referred to as such if it is not intentional.

The military policy of the Chinese government was to purposefully create regional rivalries between the different fleets and armies for the express purpose of preventing any one individual from wielding too much influence and it worked wonderfully in that regard. In a nation of some 400 million, the fundamental problem is controlling that enormous nation, especially when your ruling class is a minority.

Treaties and indemnities do not explain the failure of the Hundred Days reforms.

Indeed because there was no failure. Surely you do not expect a nation of some 400 million to change over the course of just one year? Even believing that it is possible is highly doubtful. The fact of the matter is, the Hundred Days reform accomplished much what any reasonable person would expect from any other nation short of a revolution.



I simply do not understand the persistent idea that China was something of a failure in that period. China achieved much of the same success in reformation as Japan during the period before and after the Opium Wars up to the Sino-Japanese War. Even when saddled with the growing number of war indemnities it managed to make quite spectacular growth given it's limitations. During WW1, China managed to make quite large economic gains when the Western powers were focused elsewhere.

Yet persistently there is this idea that China was a failure in that period, and that the fault lied completely in itself. Surely you could make the comment that the failure of the military front caused the failure in modernization, but to say it is China's fault for getting attacked by some dozen odd countries in the period is a bit of a stretch.

Why do this matter? Well it is not specific a personal concern of mine, although I do find it puzzling. It is that in reference to our sim, it is important to get the proper reasons for various nations' circumstances leading it's it's economic and military status in 1870. This is especially important since we are doing a very ahistorical start!

Your viewpoint has lead you to suggest that China should have a higher price per IC, which is erroneous modelling of the Chinese situation! It seems to imply that the China problem of the 1900-1930s was an intrinsic one when much lay on the shoulders of others.

Of all the nations only the handling of China currently strikes me immediately as very erroneous, no doubt because I have read more literature of China that the rest of the nations which partially resulted from the fact that I played China in N3. As a corollary, I have not read sufficiently enough on Japan to make a judgement call on it given the current situation, but that my silence does not imply Japan is correctly modelled either!

Since we are playing in such an early period, 1870, the standard cookie-cutter modelling you have proposed for China simply does not work since most of the wars and rebellions that so saddled China have not even occurred yet! I ask of you:

Are we attempting to even attach any semblance of historical plausibility to these countries? If we aren't, then I will stop the line of questioning and objection.

PS: There is no need to get agitated, as I surmise from the tone in your replies. I am not attempting to attack your character or honor. If my conduct has been less than polite, I request that you politely inform me so I may correct it.

[Darman]

Are we attempting to even attach any semblance of historical plausibility to these countries? If we aren't, then I will stop the line of questioning and objection.

Any resemblance to historical situation would be by accident rather than by design.  We are trying to create an equal world order.  We don't want one person to have a more powerful country.  advantages in geography we can't really help. 

[KWorld]

Exactly so, this universe IS NOT OURS.