IC race

[The Rock Doctor]

Man, China screws up all my calculation runs.

[Kaiser Kirk]

Musing on New Economics.

First off, these are my opinons, for others to chew on and accept/reject/modify as desired.

1) In Wesworld,the economics essentially focused on what N6 calls BP.  However, there were repeated discussions of the need to recognize the contributions of population and other sectors of the economy to fund those things which were not dependent on high quality steels. An example would be concrete coastal defenses, or the cost of a strategic bomber. Likewise, there appeared to be a use for a tech tree to kinda define where people were in relation to each other.

So I see a value to keeping the POP + IC revenue to fund BP use model we have.

2) The problem seems to be more about the expansion from now, until a place ~20 turns from now, and how much we all have at the end.

3) This expansion bit... if we're all going to expand pell-mell until we cap out.... let's skip it.
Let's all have the PC nations start developed, with X IC and Y BP, and then a yearly pop & IC growth.
Now, if we want to allow some control of that growth, go back to an N4 idea and vary it.  The level of Civilian funding that year determines how much IC growth you get.
Just throwing out an idea - start with a basic factor of -2% growth +1% for every 10% spent on the civilian sector. If Country A spends 20% Civilian and 80% Military, it's not going to grow.  50/50 might be a +3% growth rate, 80/20  a massive 6%.... or somesuch.

4) I think I would rather have a world where there are rough tiers for players.   Something like  1 Major = 2 Mediums = 4 Minors...  or 1 Major = 1 med + 1 minor = 3 minors. 
China, USA, Russia, Germany, UK = Majors.
France, Ottomans, Japan, Netherlands = Mediums.
yes, I'm elevating the PC nations to at least Minors.

Spain, Greece, Sweden, Denmark, Burma, Thailand, Persia, Brazil, Argentina, Chile, Venezuala, Mexico, basically any semi-developed non-colony  = Minors.

Each would have a mix of IC and BP that would vary a bit within the tier, with the land powers having more $ and less BP, the seapowers a more even mix. Etc.

Anyhow, just an idea to punt down the road or inspire others to put forward notions in self defense :)

[The Rock Doctor]

Whack-a-doodle thinking...

-We don't really want to hit the re-set button, as we've got some momentum in the sim.

-The current track does lead to unsustainably huge growth in some cases.

-We need a means of implementing a reform that doesn't throw everything out of whack.

-The end result should allow us to make use of our full BP allotment, plus some for other military spending.

Thoughts:

-We implement a hike in IC costs, which slows growth. 

-We tweak the internal sub-division of our nations as follows:

-->A nation's core area is essentially technologically and culturally homogenous.  It uses the baseline IC cost.  Metropolitan France, British Isles, UK, Italy, the Chinese coastal region, etc.

-->A nation's periphery is either technologically or culturally homogenous with the core, but not both.  It uses the next highest IC cost to reflect greater costs of improving/integrating infrastructure and/or cultural integration.  This would include bits of modern nations tacked into others as war booty, long-held conquests, or cultural outliers.  Russia's Muslim territories, Ottoman's Slavic and Egyptian territories, whoever owns Alsace-Lorraine on a given day.

-->A colony is both technologically and culturally different from the core.  IC costs are bumped up twice to reflect the great deal of boot-strapping and basic governance establishment.  India, Philippines, Africa, Siberia, etc.  There would be a cap on per-turn investment in IC here, as one can't just dump cash and expect instant results.

IC Costs are:

IC/Pop is less than 0.5:  $15 (baseline for cores)
IC/Pop is 0.5 to 0.749:  $20 (baseline for peripheries)
IC/Pop is 0.75 to 0.999:  $40 (baseline for colonies)
IC/Pop is 1.00 to 1.249:  $80
Anything higher:  $160

All IC produce $2, regardless of pop/IC ratios.

Obviously, if a periphery or colony becomes independent, it becomes its own core and IC are easier to build - but that new state has less cash to invest in the first place.

Note that this likely buggers our research rules up.

[Tanthalas]

as it stands right now, I am 3 turns from what I consider "maxed out" (all my colonial holdings will be at 2 pop per IC), and  my "Home Teritories" are already at 2 IC per Pop.  this will give me a total income (without population growth) in H2 1904 of $99.34.  That is more than Double what I started with in only 4 years... Even I admit that that is sort of uhm insane, admitedly I will still only have 11 BP but my actual buying power will be far higher than my BP (at that point) will reflect.

[snip]

In my opinion, the only broken part of the system is that cash is derived from Pop and IC. The way the system is set up beyond that where we have one currency the describes how much a nation can afford (cash) and another how much it can build (BP) is solid and does not need to be changed. Its only how we earn cash that needs to be redone. My thought would be to move to a tax-based system along the following guidelines.

--There is a baseline number $X that defines the baseline budget of a given nation per turn.
--As little or as much of X may be spent per turn up to 200% of X (this allows for deficit spending, something we do not currently allow).
--For the next turn, X changes by 10% of the difference between X and the spent value from the turn. [Note: 10% was chosen because it is simple to work with.]

I think this offers a number of advantages over the Pop:IC system, mainly that it is much more simple in comparison to having lots of variable IC costs. It also addresses the concerns I outlined in my previous post. I would also do away with the mandatory 50/50 split to allow for more flexibility as growth is now related to how much you spend rather then how much IC you buy. As to how this could be converted from our current system, I propose the following.

--On the turn of conversion, the total revenue for a given region becomes the baseline budget for the region.
--A new thing like BP is introduced to cover research budget, called Research Centers. Each one of these allows for $1 of research spending per turn. Nations would be awarded a number of research centers based on there current research budget.

Thoughts?

[The Rock Doctor]

In my opinion, the only broken part of the system is that cash is derived from Pop and IC. The way the system is set up beyond that where we have one currency the describes how much a nation can afford (cash) and another how much it can build (BP) is solid and does not need to be changed. Its only how we earn cash that needs to be redone. My thought would be to move to a tax-based system along the following guidelines.

--There is a baseline number $X that defines the baseline budget of a given nation per turn.
--As little or as much of X may be spent per turn up to 200% of X (this allows for deficit spending, something we do not currently allow).
--For the next turn, X changes by 10% of the difference between X and the spent value from the turn. [Note: 10% was chosen because it is simple to work with.]

I think this offers a number of advantages over the Pop:IC system, mainly that it is much more simple in comparison to having lots of variable IC costs. It also addresses the concerns I outlined in my previous post. I would also do away with the mandatory 50/50 split to allow for more flexibility as growth is now related to how much you spend rather then how much IC you buy. As to how this could be converted from our current system, I propose the following.

--On the turn of conversion, the total revenue for a given region becomes the baseline budget for the region.
--A new thing like BP is introduced to cover research budget, called Research Centers. Each one of these allows for $1 of research spending per turn. Nations would be awarded a number of research centers based on there current research budget.

Thoughts?

Could you work through an example for us?

[snip]

Examples

The Republic of Ireland has a base budget of $20. During 1920/H2, they spend only $15 on various military projects. For 1921/H1, the base budget becomes $20.5 [20+((20-15)*0.1)]

Meanwhile, the Kingdom of Italy has a base budget of $50. However, ongoing programs plus War Emergency Programs require spending $75. For the next turn, the Italian base budget is $47.5 [50+((50-75)*0.1)]

The idea is that the base budget represents the level at which the economy can handle spending on war material without consequence. The less you call on this ability, the greater capacity you have with which to spend, intended here to represent investment in civilian production that boosts the economy as a whole rather then military production ^[1]. When you call on the whole might of the economy you can spend lots but your ability to do so long term shrinks, indented here to represent everything from long term political will to resource limitations to labor to raw Industrial Might which can be called on.

[1] Rather then try and represent the potential windfall of military spending, I choose to keep the growth defined to lack of military spending for simplicity.

[Tanthalas]

IDK snip the curent system works (even if it is slightly flawed), and people understand it (not saying your proposal wouldn't work as well or possibly better just it is more dificult to understand).  I am making diferent choices than the Netherlands made historicly, OTL they built a line of murderously expensive fortifications in this period to protect against precived german threats... ok ok so OTL turns out they were right, but still they were damn expensive (as in I could literaly not afford to reproduce them at startup so I just ignored them).  Instead I am focusing on Naval matters (several times the Dutch considerd building a real navy OTL they just never actualy did it).  Point of this post, well I suppose that would be "if it aint broke no reason to fix it".  Our system may be slightly broken but in all honesty it is equaly broken for everyone.

[snip]

Its not equally broken for everyone tho. We have some nations that without territorial expansion are going to see a sharp drop off in growth (Germany) while others just have huge reserves of population that will allow them to keep growing at the fastest rates for the foreseeable lifetime of the game (China). As others have posted the numbers, you can see just how insane it gets. Going to a variable IC cost structure like Rocky proposed induces lots of complexity and Kirk's proposal of IC limits per province is all-but impossible to maintain in good order with pencil and paper processes like we have. The issue is the relationship between Pop and IC so that relationship needs to be radically changed or removed from cash generation.

[Walter]

I would also do away with the mandatory 50/50 split

That is actually not quite true. Ignoring all fixed costs, you could essentially spend anywhere between 50 and 100% of your revenue on civilian stuff so splits like 65/35 or 90/10 etc. are also valid and in war you can spend more than 50% of the revenue on military stuff so there really is no mandatory 50/50 split.

Point of this post, well I suppose that would be "if it aint broke no reason to fix it".  Our system may be slightly broken but in all honesty it is equaly broken for everyone.

I have to agree with that. The current system is not perfect and I would not be surprised if snip's proposal is not perfect either so in a sense you are replacing something that is slightly broken with something else that is also slightly broken. To me it is better to stick to what we have.


There are a few other things with the proposal:

- Altering the revenue calculations means altering all the report spreadsheets we have.
- Ignoring the fact that I would have to alter all my report spreadsheets up to 1910 to do that to incorporate any new revenue calculations, any changes would mean I will have to redo everything I had planned and worked into the reports which I do not want to do.
- I do not see how this idea solves the initial problem stated in the thread by Jeff. People will spend a limited amount of revenue on stuff to build just to bump up their revenue as much as possible. It is just the same as the people spending lots of the military budget on building ICs in order to bump up their revenue as much as possible.

Considering that, I'm not in favor of changing things when it comes to the formulas and calculations (especially when it means that I have been wasting all my time on those spreadsheets and have to redo everything).

[snip]

I would also do away with the mandatory 50/50 split

That is actually not quite true. Ignoring all fixed costs, you could essentially spend anywhere between 50 and 100% of your revenue on civilian stuff so splits like 65/35 or 90/10 etc. are also valid and in war you can spend more than 50% of the revenue on military stuff so there really is no mandatory 50/50 split.

Mandatory maximum 50% on military in non-war. You know that is what I was talking about.

- Altering the revenue calculations means altering all the report spreadsheets we have.

Only from the turn at which the change is made occur. The alteration would be simple and would of course be provided in a copy-pasteable format.

- Ignoring the fact that I would have to alter all my report spreadsheets up to 1910 to do that to incorporate any new revenue calculations, any changes would mean I will have to redo everything I had planned and worked into the reports which I do not want to do.
(especially when it means that I have been wasting all my time on those spreadsheets and have to redo everything).

All the pre-planing does not mean we should keep a broken system.

- I do not see how this idea solves the initial problem stated in the thread by Jeff. People will spend a limited amount of revenue on stuff to build just to bump up their revenue as much as possible. It is just the same as the people spending lots of the military budget on building ICs in order to bump up their revenue as much as possible.

The only way to force spending on military is to make economic growth so bloody expensive so at not to be worth doing anything other then a required minimum. See WW factories, where after like 1925 it is a massively unoptimal use of factories to construct new ones. We don't want that here because we are trying to represent the nations as a whole rather then just the shipbuilding sectors.

The current system is not perfect and I would not be surprised if snip's proposal is not perfect either so in a sense you are replacing something that is slightly broken with something else that is also slightly broken. To me it is better to stick to what we have.

Not calming my system is prefect, but the flaws in the current system are quite massive. Because population is tied in, it becomes in all practicality "expand or stagnate and be crushed" unless you are already sitting on top of a large section of the world's population. The Pop:IC interaction is broken on a fundamental level and needs to be replaced for the economic health of the sim.

[miketr]

A lot of ground covered here already so I will keep this brief.

My issue is that growth rate we currently have is nothing less than insane.  So the issue becomes what to do with it.  SNIP solution which is interesting I admit is remaking the wheel, do we need to do that?  I have been saying for some time that the solution is to adjust IC costs that is what is allowing the rapid growth. 

I find Rock Doctors idea of having different IC costs for different areas an interesting one.  I wouldn't have the bar being different culture or tech level though.  Just different tech / education of the population.  We can add a metric for conquered / annexed territory where the civilians don't want to work for the occupying power.

Michael

[snip]

A lot of ground covered here already so I will keep this brief.

My issue is that growth rate we currently have is nothing less than insane.  So the issue becomes what to do with it.  SNIP solution which is interesting I admit is remaking the wheel, do we need to do that?  I have been saying for some time that the solution is to adjust IC costs that is what is allowing the rapid growth. 

I find Rock Doctors idea of having different IC costs for different areas an interesting one.  I wouldn't have the bar being different culture or tech level though.  Just different tech / education of the population.  We can add a metric for conquered / annexed territory where the civilians don't want to work for the occupying power.

Michael

The issue at hand IMO comes down to how Pop and IC interact to create our cash supply. It creates a lot of imbalanced situations were nations can ether grow to fast or have limited ability to grow at all. Creating lots of individualized "IC zones" is going to add layers of complication and bickering onto the already flawed foundation. I think its better to move to a tax based system because it presents a way to move past the fundimental problems of Pop IC.

[miketr]

SNIP it also blows up the entire economic system and requires us to in effect reboot things in mid game.  Then have to wait and see how well it works out followed by possible tweaks down the road.

Going with Rock Doctors suggesting we keep the base system which we all understand and we are tweaking that.  For the games powers we only have to create the zones for China, Ottoman Empire and Russia (inactive player).  For Germany we could turn A-L and Posen (Polish) into none core provinces but its not a big deal IMO. 

Your system will at first glance be simpler but I like the idea of having areas less productive than others.  Colonies vs. Core Nation.  I would also like the idea of if you over industrialize non core areas those areas might revolt. 

Michael

[snip]

Give me a good objective way to divide homogenous nations like the Ottoman Empire and Russia into the three catagories Rocky mentions. I cant see a way to do that which does not involve judgement calls. If we do that, we need Ironclad rules on what counts as what.