1903 Rules Patch

[Walter]

If its region, what is to stop somebody from making a region of "Various Islands" that includes one homeland chunk and the rest out of homeland parts worth way more economically and claiming the whole thing as homeland?

Well, you the moderators perhaps? :)

Territory is there for a reason.

Yes, but with what you propose, Taiwan would be a colony (being some 80 miles from the Chinese mainland) which is not how I see it.

No, because moving population around should not be close to as viable as building infrastructure. Note if the baseline IC cost is increased, the cost on this will go up proportionally as well.

True. The costs I gave was more of an example than an actual proposal of cost and it was based of an IC cost of $10. The proposal was more regarding the difference in cost between moving the pop to a neighboring region and a region on the other side of the continent and an overseas region as well as just redrawing region borders. I used $1 steps in the example. Redrawing the borders of a region should be cheaper than building infrastructure, but in my example I did not do that (to prevent "cheap" research money) so I felt that that should be the baseline cost and equal to the cost of building 1 IC. Moving pop should be more expensive than that (perhaps 50-75% more depending on distance) and the overseas relocation the most expensive (100% more).

The reward is a greater income from the underdeveloped territory. We do not need additional imbalances from anything like you propose.

Looking at it, I do not feel that that is enough. This idea seems to punish Italy, Japan, France and Unified Netherlands for having colonial territories as they have to pay more for the ICs and have the risk of revolt. Either something is added to make it worth it or this colonial IC cost increase and revolt risk idea should be given the thumbs down and not be implemented into the rules.

make IC cost the same increased amount everywhere.  Then atlease everyone is facing the same increased costs of expansion.

The way I look at it is that you cannot really link the IC cost increase to number of ICs because revenue from 50 ICs in a nation with a lot of pop is going to be different from 50 ICs in a nations with a small number of pop. So that tells me that you would probably have to link IC cost increase to the revenue of the nation instead (kinda along the lines of the companies building the ICs saying "Well you have that much revenue. Surely you can pay us more to do our job").

Basing it on revenue would mean that a large pop nation would get the IC cost increase starting at 50 ICs while a small pop nation would get the same cost increase starting at 100 ICs (those numbers are most likely not correct, but more of an example).

[snip]

There should be rewards for such risks to make it worth it to spend more money there and have a rebellion risk like double revenue or so until commonwealth status is reached

Still requires subjective ruling, therefor I do not want it. Rules need to be objective.

Yes, but with what you propose, Taiwan would be a colony (being some 80 miles from the Chinese mainland) which is not how I see it.

This is why rules need to be objective.

True. The costs I gave was more of an example than an actual proposal of cost and it was based of an IC cost of $10. The proposal was more regarding the difference in cost between moving the pop to a neighboring region and a region on the other side of the continent and an overseas region as well as just redrawing region borders. I used $1 steps in the example. Redrawing the borders of a region should be cheaper than building infrastructure, but in my example I did not do that (to prevent "cheap" research money) so I felt that that should be the baseline cost and equal to the cost of building 1 IC. Moving pop should be more expensive than that (perhaps 50-75% more depending on distance) and the overseas relocation the most expensive (100% more).

Moving Pop is not something we want as commonplace, and therefor will continue to be expensive.

Looking at it, I do not feel that that is enough. This idea seems to punish Italy, Japan, France and Unified Netherlands for having colonial territories as they have to pay more for the ICs and have the risk of revolt. Either something is added to make it worth it or this colonial IC cost increase and revolt risk idea should be given the thumbs down and not be implemented into the rules.

As of current, the punishment is on the nations that choose not to expand to grab more population. Colonial expansion should not be the correct move 100% of the time as it is now. It needs something to make it balanced. Expensive IC is part of this equation, as is revolt risk. Revolt risk can be tuned, but the IC cost adjustment is in a place that the mods like.

[Walter]

This is why rules need to be objective.

Guess I will need to be objective as well then and object to all your proposed rules then... :P :)

Moving Pop is not something we want as commonplace, and therefor will continue to be expensive.

I can understand that but it is just that I feel that it needs to be different levels of expensive.

Colonial expansion should not be the correct move 100% of the time as it is now. It needs something to make it balanced. Expensive IC is part of this equation, as is revolt risk. Revolt risk can be tuned, but the IC cost adjustment is in a place that the mods like.

The fact that the mods like it does not mean others like it or that it should be implemented into the rules (definitely not if the majority that are negativly affected by it object to it).

[snip]

Guess I will need to be objective as well then and object to all your proposed rules then... :P :)

If you are just going to object out of hand to all of then, I dont see much reason to value that opinion.

[Walter]

If you are just going to object out of hand to all of then, I dont see much reason to value that opinion.

With the smiley at the end I actually expected even less than that. :)

More seriously, running along the points...


- Replacement of the Naval Gun rules with the following.

The amount of text makes my head spin but I guess I can understand it and aprove of it.


- Foreign Standard

This is pretty much what I expected it should be: either/or when it comes to the foreign cost penalty. The only thing about it I have my doubts about is the big difference between the proposed 50% fee and the 20% refurbishment cost. As indicated, I'm pretty sure everybody will be going for the cheaper option making the 50% option useless. Either the cost is much closer to the refurbishment cost or remove it as option.


- Canal Projects
Not sure about that. I could maybe use it to expand China's Grand Canal system.

The "The dirt cost is $0.25 per cubic meter / 10^6 of canal" actually gives me $8.25 for dirt in your example and not $33 (0.25*100,000*30*11/10^6= 8,250,000/1,000,000 = 8.25). In order to get $33 you would need a cost of $1.


- Colonies and Commonwealth

Well I gave my opinions about that. Looking at it now, colonial cost being 3x the homeland equivalent is just ridiculous. If you have the population in the homelands for it, spending $30 for 3 ICs there gives you more reveue than spending $30 for 1 IC in the colonies. Considering the risks, it is probably much, much better to spend $40 in the homelands for 4ICs and $2 of revenue when the number of ICs is greater than 2*pop then it is to spend $30 for 1 IC and $2 in the colonies with risks of revolts. Rereading it I am now even more convinced about it punishing Italy, Japan, France and Unified Netherlands more than a nations that choose not to expand to grab more population.

If I controlled a smaller nation and was in the position to expand overseas or stick at home, I would definitely choose to stick at home and focus my cash there if that rule was applied. If the Dutch were to offer to sell the DEI to my small example nation, I would say "sure", but if you were to apply that colonial rule I would say "Sorry guys. You can keep it. I'm fine where I am right now with what I have."

I also disagree with the "An exemption exists for any territory that changed hands before 1903H1." Either the ruling is valid for all or it is valid for none. There should be no exceptions.


- Digestion Rules

Can agree with that. As I said, it is going to be a bit cheaper anyway when you digest it unless the nation you get it from started it a few years earlier than the baseline date.


- Population Relocation
I can accept it, although I thought it might be an idea to apply different level of costs but if you want to keep it simple, then that is okay.

Still just redrawing the borders of a region should be nowhere near that expensive because no people or properties are being shuffled around.

[Kaiser Kirk]

OK, I've read through the IC and the 1903 threads. I figured I've give reactions from the metagame and Italian perspectives respectively, and in some cases address some of the comments.

1)Replacement of the Naval Gun rules with the following.

Italian Perspective :
Meh. Currently I'm not using the Gun creation for large weapons because they are not yet equivalent to the historical weapons I am allowed to use. Eventually I'll get around to making large bore custom guns, but I don't see an issue here with that.

Metagame perspective :
The question I have, is ROF was historically increased without having to replace the mounts. Likewise, flash arrangements were changed. Also, the 15" shells were repeatedly upgraded in size and bore pressure without having to replace guns and mounts. Elevation was increased on existing turrets – in some cases just by expanding the opening, in others additional changes had to be made to allow the breachs to depress as the barrels elevated.
If all of this is to be accomplished by putting in a new mount, currently, we can make such mount changes under a 20% refurbishment, in addition to the material cost. What if all we want to do is increase the ROF with a new chain hoist and fit flash tight doors....are we going to develop a new mount, then pay the material cost of changing the entire mount and 20% refurbishment to accomplish that? Seems- excessive.

Comment : Q: Why not just use navweaps  A: Because I want to have guns in sizes not available in navweaps. I plan on having a 7.5mm automatic sequence – 7.5MG/15HMG/23 (22.5)/ 30, then up by 15s – 45, 60, 90,  then 30s – 120, 150, 180, 210 – then 45s – 255, 300, 345, 390, 435... many of which were not available in Navweaps.  I also planned on using BigGun to balance MV and shell weight to get the performance desired, but that's not working with Win7...piffle. 

I feel at this time the opportunity should be taken to consider guidelines for additional weight associated with stabilized and RPC mounts- while 30+ years off, those mounts weighed more and presumably were more difficult to research as well.  The rules regarding them may not need to be dealt with now, but a reminder to deal with them later would be prudent.

2. Foreign Standard.
Italian view : Anything that makes foreign-built ships more palatable is good.
Metagame view : I think it should be simple – spend 25% more in construction to fit the foreign standard OR spend 25% more in maintenance for the ships lifetime unless reconstructed (25%).
Comments : I think would avoid the issues Walter raised with everyone just taking the refurbishment, while still giving flexibility.  A country like Italy would pay the 25% more construction to avoid the long term maintenance, while a country like Greece would rather minimize the upfront cost, so would pay the maintenance.

3. Canals
Italian perspective : I can dig it.
Metagame perspective : The rule should explicitly address use or expansion of natural waterways and how that is to be figured. Even if it's as simple as 'when naturual watercourses are incorporated into the canal, only the additional width and depth need be paid for, and any locks to overcome elevation.

4. Colonies and Commonwealth.
Italian perspective :
Let's see, my plans were to take the excess population that's been emigrating to North & South America, and find a New Italy to colonize.  Following the successful strategies of the USA and Australia, the native peoples were to be brutally displaced.  Now it will become prohibitively expensive to move my own population and rather unprofitable to invest in the new one. I simply don't have the spare funds to build up a colony with triple IC cost on top of revolt. So this new patch pretty much guts a major portion of my game strategy and renders my colonial efforts superflous. That's just not an acceptable alteration to the rules I agreed to play by.

Metagame perspective :
My understanding of the entire game set up was to encourage a race for Africa, and an investment in colonies, giving players something to do and places to fight over. Tripling the cost of these areas and making them revolt prone makes them rather undersirable and adversely effects rate of return.  Since we lack strategic resource considerations, it rather diminishes the appeal of having colonies in the first place, particularly for those that don't have them prior to 1903.
Further, there is a 10% chance of revolt, increasing with time, decreasing with industrialization..lets call that 10% of revolt and 90% of peace.  As the time penalty is incremented by halfyear, I presume this roll is by half year. 

Let's pretend that your nation pours the triple IC cost growth in to have your Growth penalty and time penalty offset, so the cumulative chance of peace is actually 90% a year... and so diminishes 90, 81, 72.9, etc.. by 2.5 years into your colony there's a 41% chance you're still at peace, and at  5 years into your colony there's a 35% chance you're still at peace.  That kinda sucks.

Plus, what if you beat down the natives in conquering them...then declare the colony...shouldn't the near term revolt chance be lower as you just slaughtered their warriors?
Or what if you have a ton soldiers there...wouldn't that kinda hint it's not the best time to take up the spear ?

Plus, frankly, if the "problem" is the eventual economic size of Russia and China...um, they are continental powers not effected by this in the least.

5. Digestion rules.
Italian perspective :
I've stated several times now that my intention was to research a desirable tech then trade it far and wide as my way of keeping up tech wise. I turned 1900 armor into 5 techs. I paid the extra to research 1905 engines early so I'd have something to trade. I've actually pre-arranged one trade for that already and was hoping to make 2-3 other trades. I had stated my intention to do that with 1905 MTBs and share those for 3-4 tech.  In other words, I was hoping that 75%-80% of my tech learning would be via digestion.  Already, by removing the cost multiplyer of researching multiples techs you've undermined my original strategy as countries are more able to research on their own. Now, this rule change will effectively double the cost of my tech, while making trading less attractive to others, disrupting a strategy I laid in place when took up poor weak Italy. Can you say, severely unhappy with this idea? I can. 

Metagame :
The combination of relaxing the cost of researching more than one tech, and removing the digestion bonus changes the original format from encouraging sharing to encouraging all countries to research on their own. This creates more stress on the research budgets, which could have been addressed with IC spent, but now it's too late. So what's the actual rule change goal here? Has there been a decision that the research structure that encouraged trading "cheap excessive technology trading" was wrong headed and a desire to force us to research independently?  If that's the case, we need to be allowed to reallocate our countrie's IC allocations to provide research centers to provide the research bucks for this new paridigm.

Comment :
Research Centers ....um that's what some choose to do by making  cities provinces with more IC than pop.  However, that was based on a more flexible research system where created a new research center was as simple as adding IC. If "Research Centers" were added....we'd need the choice to reallocate IC.

6. Population relocation.
Italian perspective : Let's see,
1880-1889 : 300,000 Italians move to USA.
1890-1899 : 600,000 Italians move to USA
1900-1910 : 2,000,000 Italians move to USA.
So, are they going to pay the $40? or am I?  And don't forget there were Italians leaving for South America too, particularly Argentina.  Me, this is why I'm trying an African colony, to send my people somewhere else, I'd rather have 1,000,000 colonists that send them to the US. Then there's that cost...

Metagame :
I presume this is about Miketr's question of reallocating pop. I would have just said no and instituted a rule that x% of a provinces's pop can be shoved around/year.   People will pay for themselves to move from areas with no work to areas they can maybe get work – hence the slums of the industrial era...or all the immigrants to Beijing today.

If 1 million people produce $0.2/year, then this proposal amounts to 100x their annual tax production. In the US that's something like $16,000. So would $1,600,000 induce the average US worker to move- oh you bet...but I *really *  think you could get by with far less. List of poorest places in US, the average income is $19,000. I bet you offer them $38,000 to move to Chicago they'd take it....but someone in a Tech job in Seattle might not. Double it though to $76,000....you'd have takers.

In short, the cost of inducing people to move seems unrealistically extremely high. Especially given history's testimony to people moving to better conditions all on their own.

There should be an allowance to simply "move" some folks to respresent some success at govermnents steering folks. I'd argue if you have 1.8935 million, the 1.8 is fixed and the .0935 you can shove around as you want. Or heck, make it you can move the 0.0035 as you want.

Now, if there is a desire to induce to move....$1 per million would still be 5x their tax production, close to that effective $57,000 as a reward and $19,000 in disruption...and for the poorer folks probably a huge inducement and grubstake. It's still overkill, but simple.

7. IC cost changes :
Italian Perspective :
Prior to taking Italy, or any of the minor powers, I looked at the rules structure. I ran some economics to determine when they had reasonable incomes, I made some plans to run them as a viable country.   Earlier I noted that I need to spend $580 on BP in the next 8 years just to have the industrial output historical Italy committed to battleship construction alone. I kinda doubt I'll hit that level and economic expansion is slowed, I most certainly won't. Changes that fundementally increase the timeline I play a pauper nation are not going to make me happy.

Metagame perspective :
Rocky's proposal seems to be currently the one with traction, and it's not horrid. However, the goal here is to cap the size of the biggest to keep them in range. If China (sorry to pick on you Walter) If "Porcelin" is all Core ($15, <0.5 IC/pop), then by 1919.5 it can have a revenue of $756.5 and 346 IC.  Changing different areas of China into different types – Core/Territory/Colony...varies back to my proposal of provincial IC limits.

I think my proposal could be simplified and blended a bit with Rocky's. I'll have to think on this one. I like my version of the idea because 1) I thought of it and 2) it caps growth while keeping our current system intact and 3) it creates some strategic considerations in wars by making some provinces far more desirable.  Snip's concern about the paper work could be fixed by just coding the map so we have a perm record. There's still the problem of then fitting the map to our provinces...argh... eh it's 11:15, I'll chew on it later.

[The Rock Doctor]

1)  I think Kirk's on to something with the population movement.  Allow for free distribution of each year's population growth increment to anywhere under the government's control (core or colonies).  Charge to move anybody else.  If $20 is too high and $1 per low, call it $5 per million.  It's still a decent chunk of change (25 years of taxation revenue) but not impossible to work with.

2)  For the revenue problem.  Perhaps, rather than link IC cost to IC built, maybe it's proportional to total revenues along the lines of:

If revenue is less than $25 (People taxation + IC revenues), IC cost = $10 (or whatever)
If revenue is $25 to $49.99, IC cost is $15 (or whatever)
...with additional increments as economies get bigger.

If the PC were to fund or co-fund IC in NPCs, they'd pay some sort of pro-rated IC cost and count their revenues as part of the above.  We would not include revenues from BP or tech sales or other discontinuous revenues there. 

Prices wouldn't change between one's core and colonial areas. 

This should get us around the colonial vs big-blob power issue and the OMGWTFBBQ issue of Chinese potential.

3)  Revolts should probably not be too common.  Maybe once a decade at most.  As noted above, successfully suppressing the revolt will mean killing off some of the supporters.  Enthusiasm should wane. 

But if we keep IC costs the same across a whole country, revolts still represent a risk/cost towards colonial industrialization that is appropriate.  Conquering Africa was no simple thing for any colonial power.

4)  On the matter of potential compensation for folks who spent their military budgets:  My suggestion of free BP was pretty tongue in cheek.  I made a conscious decision to spend my military budget (mostly) on military stuff.  It's possible that my first turn report was prepared and posted before others posted their all-IC reports, but after that, I knew what was going on and had the option of changing my strategy.  What sort of jump-start did the all-IC guys get on me?  Maybe three IC before I knew the score?  It's not huge.  I don't need compensation. 

5)  Budget ratios:  Given concerns about lack of spending options for civilian stuff other than IC, consider permitting powers to spend up to 60% of their budget (rather than 50%) on military stuff.  This permits a wider range of military-vs-economic policy-making for governments, permits greater BP take-up by their owners, and gives smaller powers a bit of much-appreciated flexibility.

[miketr]

1) Naval Guns:  I think part of what Kaiser Kirk is talking about in terms of the improvements of guns is a function of improved shells / propellant.  We have a tech for shells.  What I might suggest is expanding it?

Naval Artillery Shells
1880: Solid shot
1890: High Explosive
1895: Semi Armour-Piercing
1905: Armour-Piercing
1908: Capped shells
1913: Super Heavy Shell I (up to 12")
1918: Super Heavy Shell II (up to 14")
1923: Super Heavy Shell III (up to 16")
1928: Super Heavy Shell IV (up to 16+")

or maybe
1913: Super Heavy Shell I (up to 12")
1920: Super Heavy Shell II (up to 14")
1927: Super Heavy Shell III (up to 16")
1934: Super Heavy Shell IV (up to 16+")

Before super heavy shells you have to use the default shell size.  Before all the screaming starts about X Historic Shell was above this, its a KISS solution not intended to be a perfect solution.  Any type of line drawn needs to be drawn some place and letting SpringSharp defaults has the advantage of KISS.

We could also consider another tech for improved propellent to allow the higher barrel pressures that Kaiser Talked about.  The question is how much of an improvement?  This all goes into using BigGun or whatever other program to generate penetration tables.  So we need to consider that.

1920: Improved Cordite I (105% base mz velocity)
1930: Improved Cordite II (110% base mz velocity)
 
Population:  I like the suggestion of free movement of GROWTH population but only within core or within colonies or between core and to the colony not colony back to core.  It might be a little more paperwork but those that have gone colony route could track native and non native population and if the colonist population becomes large enough then colony converts to you nations core culture.  Only issue with this suggestion is the game play path that it could lead to.  For example an obvious solution is if the native population of the colony are being a problem is to remove the problem, IE genocide them and replace with people from your homeland.  I have played a number of games where this is done.  Master of Orion I and II and Starfire where nuking them from orbit were key game dynamics of the game.

If you want to move more pop than your growth then yes, some fee is in order.

IU:  Before we go down the path of having IU cost be tied to number of IU / national income what about we just increase the cost of IC flat. 

Increased cost for IC in colonies, I can see the issue people have with 300% cost AND a revolt.  Whats wrong with a 50% cost and a revolt chance?

Michael

[Tanthalas]

Mike I dont object to say a 50% cost increase, and a revolt chance... but the curently proposed 10% per year chance untill you atain comonwelth status is IMHO way to high.  Although on further reading of the proposal (like the 5th or 6th time I have read the whole thing), we (the players who are dependant on our colonies) might be over reacting a bit.  The Proposal could be read to apply to only "new" colonies, anything aquired pre 1903 is given a rather blanket exemption, while I suspect this was intended exclusivly for your Austria anexation and Possibly Japans conquest of the Philipeans (if I was playing Japan I would argue that it did) it could be read to extend to all preexisting colonial holdings.

[snip]

@Population movement: Given how that ratio effects Research $, the mods want it to be very expensive so cheep research money cannot be generated by moving pop around. We originally thought moving pop at all should be a no-go, I'm really thinking now that it is the right call.

@IC costs: The revenue-tiered costs look like the best solution so far. That would allow for removal of the flat 3x the cost for colonies. I think the $5 increase for every $25 in revenue is about right. $10 still looks right for the base cost then.

@Per-Province IC limit: Still opposed to this idea on grounds of management and enforcement.

@Flat IC cost increase: Still not opposed to this, but the Tiered solution does much more for curbing runaway economies and will function with a increase in the base cost as well.

@Revolt Chance: The exact formula can be modified, but I think the concept of the formula (Base chance, time, and growth) is sound. What about making the Time penalty reset after each major revolt? It will apply to all colonies aside from the noted exemptions of Canada and Australia.

@Budget ratio: If we are going to do away with the 50/50, why not just do away with the whole concept of peace and wartime ratios? I think that creates more choice (do I bulk up fast to try and eat the country next door or do I try and out-economy them in the short term so I can eat them later?) then the ratios do. Of course we would need to modify the rules for production in wartime. I think a system like WW where you gain a bonus to Cash and BP production but need to repair it after would work best.

@Digestion: Note that Digestion is still cheaper then researching a tech on your own because it takes two turns as opposed to a max of six. We felt the cost reduction was to much of an additional advantage in light of this now that we have the ability to research ahead in the tree.

@Gun shell stuff: Not opposed to introducing tech for Superheavy shells, but limiting to SS defaults wont fly. Some of us want to use historic guns, and any ahistoric guns have plenty of OTL examples to use.

[Tanthalas]

@Snip and @Mike

Agree snip on the shell weight thing snip, honestly I am not sure where SS gets its default shell weights...  For example it consistantly claims that 11" shells should be heavier than what germany (to my knowlage the only nation to use 11" guns) used.  IDK I figure it is just a bug and put in the proper shell weights for the gun I am basing mine off.

As to IC, I actualy like the sliding scale idea.

as to revolutions, I can agree that they should be hypotheticly possible I dont think they should be very common.  Atleast in my holdings most of my potential revolutionaries are still in elementry school, DEI was more or less quiet untill the mid 1940s (when admitedly it got HOT fast but I should be able to get the growth inline with comonwelth status before then).

[The Rock Doctor]

I'm not quite seeing the connection between moving people and gaining research capability.  I suppose one could remove people from territories to boost the IC/Pop ratio of the rest, but that comes with a lot of potential downsides from a civil unrest perspective.  My scenarios involve taking people (Turks or Egyptians) out of a populous area and moving them to sparsely populated places (Thrace or South Sudan).  Neither region is going to be producing R&D money regardless of whether I move people. 

I'm okay with Mike's notion of restricted immigration from colonies to core territory.  I don't mind the bookkeeping, either - I've been doing some tinkering on the Balkans already anyway.

I have no issue with the gun tech stuff being proposed; whatever becomes the rule should be fine.

Yes, revolt chances should re-set to zero.  Doesn't change my view that revolts should be infrequent.  There was a Indian Mutiny and a Mahdist War, not ten of each.

[miketr]

Mike I dont object to say a 50% cost increase, and a revolt chance... but the curently proposed 10% per year chance untill you atain comonwelth status is IMHO way to high.  Although on further reading of the proposal (like the 5th or 6th time I have read the whole thing), we (the players who are dependant on our colonies) might be over reacting a bit.  The Proposal could be read to apply to only "new" colonies, anything aquired pre 1903 is given a rather blanket exemption, while I suspect this was intended exclusivly for your Austria anexation and Possibly Japans conquest of the Philipeans (if I was playing Japan I would argue that it did) it could be read to extend to all preexisting colonial holdings.

If Germany had managed to get the ethnic Czech areas of the Hapsburg empire I would have no objection to a revolt chance for them.  The Ethnic German areas I don't see, I can make a very good case that they would want to be part of Germany.  If I rip off territory from anyone else (there isn't much ethnic German stuff out there not part of Germany (Luxemburg sorta and parts of Switzerland are about all that is left) then I would expect revolt chances.  Other than scattered holdings in Balkans and Eastern Europe of various sizes out to the Volga. 

I will let the GMs comment on what is affected an not affected by this rule.

Michael

[snip]

I'm not quite seeing the connection between moving people and gaining research capability.  I suppose one could remove people from territories to boost the IC/Pop ratio of the rest, but that comes with a lot of potential downsides from a civil unrest perspective.  My scenarios involve taking people (Turks or Egyptians) out of a populous area and moving them to sparsely populated places (Thrace or South Sudan).  Neither region is going to be producing R&D money regardless of whether I move people. 

The issue comes with the removing of people from a region. This creates a Pop:IC ratio that is more favorable to research because the research cap is determined by how many IC exist over Pop. That is where the research money would come from, hence why we want a large upfront economic cost to doing so.

[miketr]

@Population movement: Given how that ratio effects Research $, the mods want it to be very expensive so cheep research money cannot be generated by moving pop around. We originally thought moving pop at all should be a no-go, I'm really thinking now that it is the right call.

I agree with Rocky I am not seeing how moving growth around is a problem for research.  If I want more research I just spend $10.  DONE.  If there is any in game bonus for me moving pop its to get more POP in provinces so IC to POP ratio is kept as close to 1:1 as possible to get max income.

@IC costs: The revenue-tiered costs look like the best solution so far. That would allow for removal of the flat 3x the cost for colonies. I think the $5 increase for every $25 in revenue is about right. $10 still looks right for the base cost then.

I respectfully disagree on $10 being best but I made my case and thats done.  I will wait on seeing what the final solution is.

@Per-Province IC limit: Still opposed to this idea on grounds of management and enforcement.

I don't like the idea of hard limit on # of IC.

@Flat IC cost increase: Still not opposed to this, but the Tiered solution does much more for curbing runaway economies and will function with a increase in the base cost as well.

Depending on mechanics Tiered does look better yes.

@Revolt Chance: The exact formula can be modified, but I think the concept of the formula (Base chance, time, and growth) is sound. What about making the Time penalty reset after each major revolt? It will apply to all colonies aside from the noted exemptions of Canada and Australia.

If you crush a revolt then setting chance to 0% for ten years is reasonable AS LONG AS THERE IS A GARRISON.  If the people don't see a down side to revolting, IE no troops to bash heads then they will revolt sooner.  Thats my two bits.

@Budget ratio: If we are going to do away with the 50/50, why not just do away with the whole concept of peace and wartime ratios? I think that creates more choice (do I bulk up fast to try and eat the country next door or do I try and out-economy them in the short term so I can eat them later?) then the ratios do. Of course we would need to modify the rules for production in wartime. I think a system like WW where you gain a bonus to Cash and BP production but need to repair it after would work best.

SURE remove the limit.

@Gun shell stuff: Not opposed to introducing tech for Superheavy shells, but limiting to SS defaults wont fly. Some of us want to use historic guns, and any ahistoric guns have plenty of OTL examples to use.

Issue with using even historic guns.  Its not a given you are going to get complete penetration tables.  Seekrieg is fairly good but I generated a table for Iberian 330mm L45 using one of the gun programs and the results were wacky.  We really need to have all the penetration tables created to a common standard for use in Seekrieg or whatever.

Michael