IC race

[Jefgte]

IC race

Viewing last reports, IC race is not finish & Shipyards are sleeping  :'(  :'(  :'(
Where are Cruisers, Destroyers & Submarines ?

Suggestions =>
1 - Increase IC again by 15 or 20% & stop IC race
2 - 50% of IC reserved to shipyards

Jef

[Walter]

1 - Increase IC again by 15 or 20% & stop IC race

As mentioned elsewhere, I'm opposed to this recent bunch of freebies being given to some nations so I will definitely be opposed to even more freebies being given.

2 - 50% of IC reserved to shipyards

As an army-heavy nation, I am also giving this the thumbs down. If you say "military", okay I can understand that, but having to spend the entire military budget (which is what you are saying with the 50% of the ICs) on building ships is just stupid. Looking at my latest report on the board (= H1/1902), about 30% of China's normal military budget of $42.115 is dedicated to the upkeep of China's army. It is that I am getting some military cash from Britain from the Armor deal and from selling BPs to NPC nations in that HY, but comparing it to the baseline military budget, China spent 109% (= $46.304) of it on its Army alone in H1/1902.

I know it is Navalism and I really want to build a bunch of ships, but to me all the land stuff I have planned have priority over any naval plans.

Looking at the Chinese reports:
In H1/1900 about 95% of the spent military budget was used for the Army.
In H2/1900 about 91% of the spent military budget was used for the Army.
In H1/1901 about 90% of the spent military budget was used for the Army.
In H2/1901 about 59% of the spent military budget was used for the Army.
In H1/1902 about 82% of the spent military budget was used for the Army.

... and while I still have to post it...
In H2/1902 the plans are (at least the pre freebies plans) that about 69% of the spent military budget will be used for the Army.

IIRC in the following reports for China, the amount spent on the Army will go even further down (to just the upkeep), but a large amount of the military budget will then be spend on the construction of numerous forts and coast defense guns and once I get the 1905 infantry and specialist techs, I'll be back spending lots of my military budget on the Army again.

Should be noted that if I were actually spending all my cash and BPs on naval construction instead of on the army and forts, I would most likely have more cash left to spend on building ICs. I get the impression that you are forgetting that. You spend $1 for every BP for warships and coast defense guns, but you spend $8 for every BP spend on infantry units and $24 for every BP spends on specialist units. Also I only have 12 BPs meaning that I can spend only $12 on naval construction making it completely impossible for me to actually spend my whole military budget on ships even if I wanted to. To me, building ships is actually just adding fuel to any IC race that exists.

[Tanthalas]

I actualy changed my plans to join the "IC Race", I felt with the aditional IC given to various nations and with various nations building craploads of them that I had no choice but to put off ship building in favor of ramping up my Economy even faster than I had originaly planed... I would rather be building ships but given how my tech worked out, and the necessity of maintaining my posistion relitive to various other powers... well I find myself in the posistion of having to build IC in places I hadnt intended to build them just yet.

[Walter]

To be honest, I feel that I am being forced to join the IC Race as well with those freebies being handed out so I would be delaying my plans to complete the upgrade of the army and building the forts by a few years and focus on ICs. As I am not 100% sure about it, it is the main reason why I haven't posted my H2/1902 report.

[miketr]

For what its worth Germany has built 2 BB, 1 AC, 2 CL and 17 TBs since game start, yes I need to update my OOB list. 2 more BB, 1 AC, 2 CL and 5 TB were worked on this last half.  Also a bunch of work has been done on the army with many Corrps upgraded to 1895 tech and new units raised.

The above said I have pushed very hard to increase Germany's IC total and have been very successful.  With annexation of Austria the economy of the German Empire has more than doubled since game start. 

$75 per IC was too expensive but the $10 per IC is far too cheap.  No clue what if any change we should do to be honest.

Michael

[Darman]

I'd argue Britain's navy has increased the most yet I've been trying to build as many ICs as I can. 

A suggestion would be that ICs under a certain IC:pop ratio threshold cost $10, and ICs over that cost more

[miketr]

One of the thing to keep in mind is that IC bought under the Pop number are the best deal, they generate $2.  Pop number to twice pop generate $1, etc.  So there already is a slow down on return, many of us are about to hit that number and the rate of increase will slow.  To my mind the damage is done and there is no good fix at ths stage.

Michael

[Walter]

Changing the cost of ICs isn't going to stop an IC race. The % of revenue spend on ICs will just remain the same. It will slow down the number of ICs appearing per turn, but it will still be an IC race. I feel that making the ICs more expensive might actually make the IC race last longer so we might as well work with the IC cost we have now.

[The Rock Doctor]

For the most part, I'm using my military budget.  The hindsightitis of knowing that turbines and dreadnoughts are coming does not encourage me, but I'm empire-building in Africa and that does suck up the cash.

[Darman]

Changing the cost of ICs isn't going to stop an IC race. The % of revenue spend on ICs will just remain the same. It will slow down the number of ICs appearing per turn, but it will still be an IC race. I feel that making the ICs more expensive might actually make the IC race last longer so we might as well work with the IC cost we have now.

This makes complete sense, and I do agree.  I was simply tendering possible options for change. 


This has always been a problem, it seems to me.  Its one we will never fully be rid of either.  Those with more assets can afford to invest more, and will thus gain more assets. 

[Kaiser Kirk]

I believe I've spent all my military funds on my military, and added in extra from selling BP I couldn't afford to turn into ships.
I have 12 Destroyers, 4 Armored Cruisers, 5(?) refitted vessels and 2 partially built battleships to show for it.
Plus I've built Brigades for Kustenland, Trieste, Zanzibar, Warsangali, and 2 for the newly independent Carinola.
Plus retrofitted the coast defense guns at Trieste to use Italian construction.

Since my initial Civilian surplus was only $10.36, I've built about an IC a half year, and am just starting to manage 2 IC a HY.
If anyone, I should be forgoing my military and working on my civilian.

[Kaiser Kirk]

This makes complete sense, and I do agree.  I was simply tendering possible options for change. 


This has always been a problem, it seems to me.  Its one we will never fully be rid of either.  Those with more assets can afford to invest more, and will thus gain more assets.

There is no shadow of war or need for preparedness, so one can leave the navy to rust a bit. Not to mention, all the ships were created only 10 years old. Very little need to replace ships.
Toss in the lure of waiting just a couple of years for massively better engines....

I think the other question is...so, if you don't spend that 50% of the budget you can't touch on IC...what do you spend it on? There is a dearth of civilian assets to invest in.

Perhaps the governor should have been you Start at 50% of the budget military, and 50% civilian, each year you can add/subtract 10%, but in wartime the military budget ramps up by 20%/HY (bringing industry on line etc).  So, 1900 you could choose 40/60, in 1901 30/70, in 1902 20/80... but it's going to take you a while to turn policy around.

As for IC cost... everyone has a surplus called a civilian budget. Once the rate of return on IC really falls off I think you'll see a switch to investments or BP, but until then everyone will build IC up to at least 2x Pop, probably a little more than that as slop for pop growth, then I expect the BP race....because that's the only other thing Civilian $ is good for.

[Walter]

Looking at numbers of the 5 Chinese reports that have been posted, I had a total military revenue from ICs of $170.31, $45.19 military revenue from BP sale (about 36 BPs of the total of 60 were sold) and $10.85 military revenue from Britain. A total of $226.35.

Of the $226.35, $188.19 has been spend on military stuff (about 83% of the total available military budget over that period). Of the $188.19, $155.14 has been spend on the Army, $19.45 on the Navy and $13.6 on various. Of the $155.14 spent on the Army, $94.20 was used to upgrade the Army and $60.94 was for upkeep.

If I had not upgraded my Army and instead focused on building ships, my Army expenditure would have been $55.4. My Navy expenditure would have been $62.7 so the total military spendings would have been $131.70. Without the BP sale, my military budget over the period would have been $181.16 meaning that 72% would have been spent.

Instead of $38.16 of military revenue being spent on ICs, $49.46 would have been spent. The big difference between the two is that I could have spend those $38.16 that I used for IC construction for military purposes (as in: I could have balanced out the BP sale so all the military revenue would have been spent together with the BPs). But if I had focused only on naval stuff, I would have been stuck with $49.46 and no BPs to couple them to and thus am forced to shift that to the civilian budget.

So based on that, in China's case spending the maximum amount of the military budget on warships is a bad thing and would just increase the IC race.

I think the other question is...so, if you don't spend that 50% of the budget you can't touch on IC...what do you spend it on? There is a dearth of civilian assets to invest in.

Yes, you either spend your civilian budget on BPs or you spend it on ICs. But then there is the m$:BP ratio to consider. Because the army stuff is quite expensive (especially specialists), I am looking at a ratio of at least 10:1 before I even consider looking at creating new BPs. Right now I am at about 7:2. With 12 BPs per half year, a 10:1 ratio means a military budget of $120 minimum and thus a total revenue of over $240 so I need another 80 or so ICs before I'm going to consider building an additional BP. But for every additional BP I am going to build, I will need another 10 ICs to keep the ratio at 10:1.

Perhaps the governor should have been you Start at 50% of the budget military, and 50% civilian, each year you can add/subtract 10%, but in wartime the military budget ramps up by 20%/HY (bringing industry on line etc).  So, 1900 you could choose 40/60, in 1901 30/70, in 1902 20/80... but it's going to take you a while to turn policy around.

I don't really like that. To me it is way too inflexible to work with and way too much calculating and planning and headaches.

Once the rate of return on IC really falls off I think you'll see a switch to investments or BP, but until then everyone will build IC up to at least 2x Pop

...
...
...
Okay...

You know it'll take quite a while for me to get there but that's going to be quite insane in China's case to get to "at least 2x Pop". Right now I need 400 ICs just to get to a 1:1 ratio and 823 ICs to get to the 2:1 ratio. 846 ICs are going to create quite a budget. :o

[Tanthalas]

I am for my home teritories already beyond the 1-1 point...  however since startup I have built 3 BBs, and 4 CLs.

[snip]

Something to keep in mind here, Logi and I are working on revamping how the IC system works with regards to colonies.