1903 Rules Patch

[miketr]

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.

What about just moving around the natural increase?  That should deal with your guys worry on research.  Otherwise it requires special GM OK.  For example Evil Conquering nation X takes over a bit of territory called Y.  The natives in Y prove to be anti-social and generally unwilling to grovel enough for the conquerors liking.  So mass graves start to sprout up and Evil Conquering nation X decides to move some of its people to Y above the natural increase of the homeland.  Mods assign some cost to move people from homeland to the new territory. 

Michael

[The Rock Doctor]

Snip's concern should only be a factor in the small minority of regions where the IC/Pop ratio is already relatively high.  I could move millions of people out of Anatolia and I'd still not have any research coming out of there. 

From my perspective, I don't want historically reasonable population movements made hugely expensive because somebody might be a weenie and try to game the system for R&D money.  Fix a cap on the percentage of people that can be removed from a region, assign a low cost for moving them, and reserve the right of the Mods to levy extra fees on weenies.

Yeah, we could just remove the limit on military/civ spending altogether.  Extremes either way will present risks.

Mike:  I think $10 IC only applies for countries with less than $25 revenue as Snip describes it.  That's a fair chunk of change for small economies.

[Logi]

Just popping in here to correct a misconception I think everyone has while I try to catch back up over the weekend.

A I was the one that proposed the Foreign Standard cost of 50% at construction I have to say the following:

You are supposed to pay the 50% additional cost ONCE per CLASS of ship. In other words, if you order 8 ships of the same class, only the first ship of the class has +50% higher construction cost.
I reasoning is that the upfront cost represents retooling costs which do not have to be paid for each and every ship of the class.

[snip]

I seem to have accidentally removed that bit in my cleaning of comments off the PM I had. My mistake.

[Walter]

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...

The way I see that is that the US needs to process all those Italians arriving and having to relocate them to all the various parts in the US so that the full $40 should be paid by the US.

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 have my own ideas about that but those are classified. :)

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

Yes, that was something I said, although you gave a better example that I did.

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.

Not colony back to core? Looking around here in Holland I would say that that should also be allowed if it were applied. There are plenty of people around here in Holland whose families originate from Surinam or the DEI. Having been to both Britain and  France, I see the same thing there. People coming from the colonies to the core.

We originally thought moving pop at all should be a no-go, I'm really thinking now that it is the right call.

Maybe, but looking at all the movements of people historically that would be unrealistic. Kirk gave numbers regarding Italians moving to the US. A total of 2.9 million in a period of 30 years. That's quite a lot.

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.

Thinking about it, I would think that there may be some sort of formula that we can come up with that would be somewhat more acceptable in cost when it comes to moving pop around between high pop and low IC regions and from high pop and low IC regions to low pop and high IC regions (moving pop to a low pop region would decrease the research cash available), but it would be much more expensive to move pop from low pop and high IC regions to high pop and low IC regions (thus preventing cheap research cash being created).

I am playing around with the idea of making Beijing bigger somewhere in the future by having Beijing absorb some of the surrounding cities and villages, but the proposed $20 is just ridiculously expensive for what is essentially changing lines on a map and does not involve moving people around and it should probably be less than a $1 job (1$ Navalism currency of course).

[miketr]

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.

Not colony back to core? Looking around here in Holland I would say that that should also be allowed if it were applied. There are plenty of people around here in Holland whose families originate from Surinam or the DEI. Having been to both Britain and  France, I see the same thing there. People coming from the colonies to the core.

Decolonization population transfers in the 1960's and beyond I don't think are a reasonable example to apply to early 1900s.  In the time period of the game that sort of thing just didn't happen in any large numbers.  Yes I am aware that there were examples of it happening and even doing very well like getting elected to Parliament in the UK.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dadabhai_Naoroji 

Such examples were the exception NOT the rule.  Nations of our time period would without a doubt NOT want people from Africa, India, East Asia migrating in any numbers to the home nation.

Michael

[Darman]

About the whole Australia/Canada exemption thing when it comes to rebellions: the way that Australians/Canadians would revolt would be either a minor rebellion, little more than terrorism, by an outnumbered and outgunned native minority, or some sort of industrial action: work stoppage or work slowdown to gain more and more political independence. 

India, on the other hand, could easily fall prey to a full-scale revolt in one or possibly more provinces.  I would even argue that a successful rebellion in one part of a colonial possession is going to make other parts of the same possession that much more likely to revolt.  Part of the reason I'm splitting India up into provinces is to allow for that possibility, because while India as a whole may revolt, its a lot more likely that one or more of 29 provinces could revolt. 

[Walter]

Nations of our time period would without a doubt NOT want people from Africa, India, East Asia migrating in any numbers to the home nation.

Yes, that is the unfortunate racist truth of those days. Still, something else that hit me which would be more proper for the time period: Not all people in Africa, India and East Asia are natives. There are no doubt people who go there and find that the climate is not to their liking or they miss the family they left behind or they tried their luck there and failed or they were successful there and decided to return to the homeland to waste their riches or people moved there and the children don't like it and move to the homeland once they are adult. Stuff like that.

I ran across this Dutch pdf...
http://www.cbs.nl/NR/rdonlyres/6A1AD820-F436-4039-AC85-F19B5673E8AB/0/2007k4b15p32art.pdf
... with population stats for the Netherlands giving the next...

1849 population 3,056,900, 2,900 of them born in the Dutch colonies.
1859 population 3,309,100, 3,000 of them born in the Dutch colonies.
1869 population 3,579,500, 4,900 of them born in the Dutch colonies.
1879 population 4,012,700, 7,600 of them born in the Dutch colonies.
1889 population 4,511,400, 9,800 of them born in the Dutch colonies.
1899 population 5,104,100, 11,800 of them born in the Dutch colonies.

1909 population 5,858,200, 15,000 of them born in the Dutch colonies.
1920 population 6,865,400, 20,600 of them born in the Dutch colonies.
1930 population 7,935,600, 32,600 of them born in the Dutch colonies.

1947 population 9,625,500, 79,900 of them born in the (former) Dutch colonies.
1960 population 11,462,000, 216,100 of them born in the (former) Dutch colonies.
1971 population 13,060,100, 247,100 of them born in the (former) Dutch colonies.
1992 population 15,129,200, 423,300 of them born in the former Dutch colonies.
2001 population 15,987,100, 436,200 of them born in the former Dutch colonies.
2006 population 16,334,200, 429,500 of them born in the former Dutch colonies.

Migration (note that these numbers are not just from people migrating between the Netherlands and the colonies)
Immigration/Emigration
1796-1864: 1,600/3,000
1865-1899: 12,500/15,800
1900-1924: 35,600/34,100
1925-1949: 41,300/45,700
1950-1974: 63,900/59,800
1975-1999: 98,400/69,400
2000-2006: 111,400/103,700


I thought that with the small amount suggested by Kirk (0.0935 or even 0.0035) that we could be able to move freely around it should be no problem. There is no data regarding the movements of Dutch going to the colonies and then returning to the Netherlands in their lifetime, so that would make it more like a maybe. On the other hand, is it really worth it to bother about the movement of a pop of 0.0935 or 0.0035? Might be just better to keep it simple and leave them where they are and assume that some of the end of year population increase would be of people moving back and forth between the various regions.

About the whole Australia/Canada exemption thing when it comes to rebellions: the way that Australians/Canadians would revolt would be either a minor rebellion, little more than terrorism, by an outnumbered and outgunned native minority, or some sort of industrial action: work stoppage or work slowdown to gain more and more political independence.

That is something that I was imagining for Australia and Canada. Just some minor inconveniences for the British. But if I read it correctly about Canada, the French part is mostly catholic and the Anglo part is mostly protestant which can cause some problems now and then (the mess in the 16th century and the 80 year war that followed between the Spanish and the Dutch was (IIRC) because catholic Phillip and his Spanish bullies were pressing down hard on the Dutch who where predominantly protestant). And as I indicated before, the Australians are descendants from troublesome criminals who were dumped there by the British and thus should not be trusted. :)

[miketr]

Nations of our time period would without a doubt NOT want people from Africa, India, East Asia migrating in any numbers to the home nation.

Yes, that is the unfortunate racist truth of those days. Still, something else that hit me which would be more proper for the time period: Not all people in Africa, India and East Asia are natives. There are no doubt people who go there and find that the climate is not to their liking or they miss the family they left behind or they tried their luck there and failed or they were successful there and decided to return to the homeland to waste their riches or people moved there and the children don't like it and move to the homeland once they are adult. Stuff like that.

<CUT>

Movement of people was many times not permanent there have been migrate workers that moved to where the jobs for a long time.  Even today there are a lot of people in the US that come to learn or work for a few years, build up a nest egg and then return home.  This was a very common pattern in the 19th century.

Well again if we just treat our core population growth as one big blob for growth in the home land or colony would cover what are talking about.  We are all using excel it shouldn't be hard to track such.

Michael

[The Rock Doctor]

Just popping in here to correct a misconception I think everyone has while I try to catch back up over the weekend.

A I was the one that proposed the Foreign Standard cost of 50% at construction I have to say the following:

You are supposed to pay the 50% additional cost ONCE per CLASS of ship. In other words, if you order 8 ships of the same class, only the first ship of the class has +50% higher construction cost.
I reasoning is that the upfront cost represents retooling costs which do not have to be paid for each and every ship of the class.

Oh...well, that's an important distinction.

[The Rock Doctor]

So, proposal:

"Revenue" = sum of:

-->Taxes from population
-->Income generated by IC
-->Income generated by partly-owned IC in NPC nations

If Revenue is less than $25.00, IC cost = $10
If Revenue is $25.00 to 49.99, IC cost = $15
If Revenue is $50.00 to 74.99, IC cost = $20
If Revenue is $75.00 to $99.99, IC cost = $25
For each additional $25 increment of revenue, IC costs increase by $5.

Notes:

-->IC Costs are based on Revenue taken in at the start of the turn the IC is started.  This doesn't change even if the IC takes several turns to build, because any saving on the building costs will be offset by unrealized revenues.  If the Ottomans start an IC representing hydro dams in 1903, when their revenue is ~$45, the IC will cost $15 to build - even if Ottoman revenues are above $50 when the IC is completed in 1907.

-->For joint venture IC built by two or more nations, each nation's share of the IC cost is based on the cost of building an IC in their own territory. If Ethiopia (Revenue = ~$0.50) and Ottoman Empire (Revenue = ~$40) are going 50/50 on an IC in Ethiopia, Ethiopia pays $5 and the Ottomans pay $7.50.

[Darman]

I think Rocky's proposal sounds fairly simple and feasible.  It helps to slow down my own growth, but I'm okay with that, although I have been trying to expend close to the maximum possible on military projects. 

[miketr]

It has the virtue of KISS.

Same economic rules otherwise with respect to how much money IC produce?

Michael

[The Rock Doctor]

Probably.  I'm not overly offering any changes, anyway.

[Jefgte]

If Revenue is less than $25.00, IC cost = $10
If Revenue is $25.00 to 49.99, IC cost = $15
If Revenue is $50.00 to 74.99, IC cost = $20
If Revenue is $75.00 to $99.99, IC cost = $25
For each additional $25 increment of revenue, IC costs increase by $5.

I like too Rocky proposal.

----

In the same spirit with a finer cutting

Revenue $
From	to		IC cost
0	19,99		10
20	39,99		12
40	49,99		14
50	59,99		16
60	69,99		18
70	79,99		20
80	89,99		22
90	99,99		24
100	109,99		26
110	119,99		28
120	129,99		30
130	139,99		32
140	149,99		34
150	159,99		36