Clarifications

[Logi]

I think for these major (mostly military) projects, it should be paid for simply to the way we do with ships and divisions: a fixed upfront cost with maintenance costs paid every half-year.

Say... $5 and 1 BP per 100 km of non-economic railways. Economic railways covered as Snip mentioned.

[Guinness]

That's fine, but you are back to having to have (potentially) confusing railroad rules.

Really all these things fall in the same category:

roads
railroads
undersea cables (etc)
wireless towers
canals
merchant shipping
ports

All of these things (and probably others) might exist as the result of economic activity, or might be partially or wholly subsidized by national governments. IC, in and of itself, is the funding of economic development. Whether or not it provides return on it's investment is the product of how sensible the investment is.

Or to put a finer point on the other side of the coin (woohoo mixed metaphors): if the military buys and wholly maintains a railway, can *any* civilian traffic use it? If so, do they pay the military for that privilege? See my point?

[snip]

I think it would be safer not to call such projects military due to what Guinness mentions. The name should reflect the fact that these projects are typically outside the scope of what is "economically sane" for a non-centralized project.

I think we can all agree that more complexity in the rules is something we do not want, but at the same time some of these major infrastructure projects that governments conducted do need to be covered somehow. I think we already cover government investment in general infrastructure rather well with IC and BP, we just need to figure out the special projects beyond the scope of general improvments. What I think we have to gain by adding in these projects that don't "have a basis in normal economics for existence" is that we can cover things like the Trans Siberian Railroad and Panama Canal. Very important items both economically and militarily, but what non-government actor is going to pay for them?

I think the happy middle ground here is going to be having the up-front and upgrade costs payed in full by the responsible nation, but having there be no upkeep. My though here is that we can represent the initial investment rather nicely with an up-front payment and then cover the civilian uses under there being no upkeep. Any fees generated go to paying for maintenance. I know its not the most realistic, but I think it is best fitting under the economic system we have set up.

[Logi]

You bring up a good point. We can take of the typical IC construction as a mixed portfolio investment by the government into the economy. In that sense, the projects in question become a question of whether or not you can single out specific items to invest in. In order to keep the return rates uniform, we've disallowed this. All investment is mixed portfolio.

I also don't think the whole civilian traffic and military traffic is a large issue: most non-profit operations lose money, significant amounts as well. We can see this in the one-price all stops railroads so popular throughout the world which lose prodigious sums of money. Any possible positive subsidiary effect on the local economy can be approximated as equal to this lost (maintenance) - plus-minus zero.

Following from this it would be possible to detach this completely from the economic side of things. Without economic considerations, we could collect all this issues into one logistics "package". In this frame, the question becomes is such a logistic package significantly game-changing as compared to the package offered by default from the economy? I feel the answer is no.

I have some doubts about whether such a package would prove sustainable to troops in the field.


If there's a significant desire for railroads and other such packages to be in N6... I feel something similar to what you, Guinness, initially proposed with the rolling. Instead of making the roll affect the IC produced though, I think it would be better to have it affect the price of that particular IC. In this manner, the roll affects a one-time cost and there are no decimal points and other unwieldy effects on the sim report.

Edit: I am in agreement with Snip that something with an upfront cost would be best.

[Guinness]

I know you guys missed me. ;-)

Feel free to continue to revise the rules with or without needing to include me in consensus and without requiring any sort of approval from me. I'll chime in occasionally with $0.02 when I feel like it's valuable.

[snip]

I know you guys missed me. ;-)

Feel free to continue to revise the rules with or without needing to include me in consensus and without requiring any sort of approval from me. I'll chime in occasionally with $0.02 when I feel like it's valuable.

We do have these sort of projects that did take place about this time in OTL, so its a valid topic. Hell, the Panama Canal is going to come about soon. Im going to enjoy paying for that.

I think we can all accept that in general IC in some fashion represents the approximate infrastructure level of a given region and I dont think anyone is contesting that point. In my mind, almost everything on the list Guinness provided a few posts back falls under this representation to a majority extent (underwater cables being the exception). I think what we are really getting hung up on here is the huge projects like the Panama Canal. We could always just approach each one of these on a case-by-case basis and determine whether or not the desired project is covered under the IC built in the region.

[Guinness]

We could always just approach each one of these on a case-by-case basis and determine whether or not the desired project is covered under the IC built in the region.

This seems a reasonable approach, and IMNSHO one that should have been taken in the past instead of crafting rules for special cases.

[Jefgte]

Could we use ships @ the restart (jan 1900) when they are SS in 1898-1899 ?

in other world;

Is a 12000t BB, laid down or SS in 1899, ready for action @ the restart, jan 1900 ?

Jef

[Walter]

I think that that depends on how long it takes to build the ship. I noticed in the Japanese spreadsheet that a pair of BBs were laid down in 1899 and will be completed in 1901. In 1899, everything smaller than 3000 tons is probably finished before 1900 (unless laid down in H2/1899). In 1898, everything smaller than 15,000 tons is probably finished before 1900 (unless laid down in H2/1898).

[The Rock Doctor]

I've got a couple of ships in progress; work done in 1898 and 1899 came out of my "allowance", but I'll be paying for the remainder from my 1/1900 and 2/1900 budgets.

[Logi]

Walter's correct.

As far as I'm concerned, you can have the cost of the ship to come fully, partially, not at all from your allowance.

[Guinness]

I know this is written down somewhere, but I can't find it:

Pre-startup naval artillery: historical guns can always be used 3 years after their OTL design date, right? What's the rule for ahistorical guns? I'm not keen an ahistorical, but I also suspect that (say) a 10.5cm/40 could be introduced sooner than 1900...

[snip]

We are basically going with declarations on guns, with the caviat of they at least have to pay some service to the rules (ie, nothing "big" above a L40 or "little" above an L50). Once you have a list, a quick once-over can OK it.

[Guinness]

My list right now has EVERY GUN IN THE ENTIRE WORLD on it, so I need to pare it down a bit. Maybe later today.

[Walter]

EVERY GUN IN THE ENTIRE WORLD?!? :o I doubt you will have enough then. ;D