www.navalism.org

Hi all,

I attempted to count all the territories each PC and NPC had claimed.

It's both been on my 'to do' list, and while preparing this turn's Status sheet, I noticed a potential problem.
Which is part of why that sheet exists.

From 'Colonization and Concessions'
"Colonial Upkeep
No colonial province may have more than two (2) IC present at any given time. "

Anyhow, unless I missed something, Byzantine has 109 territorial IC, and only 49 territories, so is
over by 11 more territorial IC than allowed (Territories x 2).

Rome may run out of space when updated.

Proposed Solution 'A'
When 1928.5 gets posted, the last 11 Territorial IC built are deleted, and the funds recorded as 'Other Income'
and can then be used to buy Homeland IC or BP as desired.

Since Territory IC gain $1.5/ HY, and Homeland only $1, there's a couple $$ that were gained and used,
which will be lost waiting for the Homeland IC to be built.

Proposed Solution 'B'
Others are free to suggest a better course of action.
Byzantine could also offer to buy territory, or seize it from an NPC.


First step is to ensure I had not made an error.
As I had not updated my count of who had how many provinces in a Loooong time, I undertook that.
The map is below. Probably dated wrong.

The results (same as attached spreadsheet) are :

Total Territories	Nation
78	Japan
186	Parthia
66	Azteca
68	Iberia
42	Rome
84	Norse
16	Five Tribes
13	Maya
143	Wilno
67	Inca
49	Byzantine
9	Deccan
38	Berbers
20	Rajasthan
39	Ethiopia
8	China
7	Laksmanavati

   

(https://i.postimg.cc/ncwPJQqr/1929-HY1-Territories.png) (https://postimg.cc/WhgnmzWc)

Oh wow, I'm far short on territorial IC.  I can build out almost a hundred more before I'm maxed

Quote...From 'Colonization and Concessions'
"Colonial Upkeep
No colonial province may have more than two (2) IC present at any given time... "

To make it simpler and without adding rules.
=> Remove this rule.

Sorry Jefgte, that rule was part of Snip's base concept. 

The time to revisit that was in pregame, or 1912 when the colonization rules were overhauled.
The 1912 revision added Ports as a key strategic concept, and Rich/Poor provinces, and ensured provinces could be developed
faster by providing lower costs for many via the Port/Prime/Coastal classes.

As I recall, Snip wanted dispersed holdings, with value, but low enough that one could fight, but would not need to do so "to the death".

but overall,  loosing 1 province- or 3 - or 5 - means a fairly low amount of IC and revenue at risk.

Also, with more than 2 IC in a province, why wouldn't a power just grab a block of 16 provinces for 1 "region"
and just continuously build those up. 10 IC per province would be 160 total- which none of us currently have.

Plus, since LP/DP/AP/FP are assigned on 'Region' basis, it would be far far easier to defend.
AND...with no cap, there's no temptation to rip off provinces from a neighbor


What I was looking for as a 'B' suggestion would be more limited.
I had the idea 'Port's can have 3 IC, the symbols make tracking it easy...but that really unfairly favors Parthia.

If folks have a balanced "B" suggestion, let's hear it.
Otherwise we will go with the existing ruleset.

I agree that we've had the rule set in place for a long time and should follow it.

I am totally on board with a solution that doesn't penalize a good-faith mistake.

One notion:  We break out the "Concession rule" in some fashion.  Everybody gets to declare two appropriate provinces (I assume they'd require a port) as "concessions" and build up to the higher IC limit there.  Jef would already be part-way there, he just has to designate the two concessions and allocated the surplus IC to them.  The rest of us would have some catching up to do.

Quote from: The Rock Doctor on October 07, 2023, 12:42:00 PM
I agree that we've had the rule set in place for a long time and should follow it.

I am totally on board with a solution that doesn't penalize a good-faith mistake.

One notion:  We break out the "Concession rule" in some fashion.  Everybody gets to declare two appropriate provinces (I assume they'd require a port) as "concessions" and build up to the higher IC limit there.  Jef would already be part-way there, he just has to designate the two concessions and allocated the surplus IC to them.  The rest of us would have some catching up to do.

I can concur with this.  Having a couple of colonies that just become far more industrialized makes a bit of sense.  Maybe quadruple the IC allowed in 2 designated port/Island provinces, and allow up to 2 BP to be built in those two enclaves.

I'm all for meeting him halfway, rather than making him reconfigure 11 IC around.  This would let him designate half the excess IC to two heavily developed enclaves, and the remaining could be converted into income and immediately into home province IC in the next update.

Quote...Having a couple of colonies that just become far more industrialized makes a bit of sense...

Large colony naval bases with slipways or drydocks could benefit from 4 IC. (Diego Suárez, Salvador & Port Darwin for Byzance.)
Supply harbors could have 3 ICs.
Other...2 IC

I can be on board with this.  Means there's extra investment than just building extra  IC alone.

Quote...Proposed Solution 'A'
When 1928.5 gets posted, the last 11 Territorial IC built are deleted, and the funds recorded as 'Other Income'
and can then be used to buy Homeland IC or BP as desired...

I have 3 new IC in progress. 1928-29.
11 => 14

I deleted the ones I started.

Going down to 98 IC by removing the last investments in the colonies, the 1928H2 report becomes:
- Colonial IC: 109 => 98
- $ colonials recovered => + 130
- Investment in Byzantium => $90 which provides + 4 new ICs
- investment in BP => - $20
- Budget with 109 IC was $282.55
- Budget with 98 IC becomes $262.8

Byzantium's economic growth is limited to $2 per year.   :(    >:(

I'm fine with that redistribution and look forward to the Byzantine invasion of West Australia.

QuoteI'm fine with that redistribution and look forward to the Byzantine invasion of West Australia.

... or Ethiopia.

Or that, sure!

I'm good with that.

And now, the rest of us get to draw up the Ethiopian fleet.......

I don't want to penalize an innocent error.

Sounds like the concession idea has merit.
As the week goes on we can finalize the 'Concession' or Enclave status.
Heck, probably need to make a special name for it.

Original game rules had no BP allowed outside the Homeland,
which means LP/AP/DP has to start in the Homeland and be moved
to the territory. That disrupted the Japanese plans.
If we're going to have extra holding, do we want to consider allowing a couple BP there?
Same cost as homeland or more.

Ethiopia would be a heavy lift.
Snip made that a tough NPC, like Rajasthan.
Byzantine has a strong presence in the Red Sea...but is not alone.

But there are weaker holdings near Byzantine territories.

Foxy actually tried a spy ship probe of one.
At the time I did not tell him the results, just the ship was lost.
It's sufficiently later to say that his 'old fishing boat with engine problems'
that was to allow boarding and being taken into the closed foreign harbor
...and that had a new turbo-electric steam plant and radios
...failed to pass for poor lost fisherman.
A combination of plausibility and bad rolls.

I'm good with an Enclave status that allows BP to be constructed.  For the Aztecs, it would make quite a bit of sense for BP to be constructible in our African and Zealand holdings, as they would have built up a significant colonial importance and be both strategically important and commercially viable.  Or the Windward Islands, though they can't really support the population for more than one or two BP.

Quote from: TacCovert4 on October 09, 2023, 01:33:05 PM
I'm good with an Enclave status that allows BP to be constructed.  For the Aztecs, it would make quite a bit of sense for BP to be constructible in our African and Zealand holdings, as they would have built up a significant colonial importance and be both strategically important and commercially viable.  Or the Windward Islands, though they can't really support the population for more than one or two BP.

One thing I wish in 1912 Snip& I  had made island groups 1 IC max for just that reason. ...and pre-emptively drawn them on the map. Did the latter later.
If we had paired that with Port Symbols allowing +1 IC, that would be interesting. Oh well, hindsight always helps.

I think there's some merit in having a bit of BP outside the homelands.  It's reasonable for places we've held a while to build up industrial capability and get to the point where they can produce steel. 

I wouldn't expect this to be an option with a newly-grabbed territory that was just jungle two years ago, but anything we grabbed in the initial expansion wave would be fine.

QuoteI think there's some merit in having a bit of BP outside the homelands.  It's reasonable for places we've held a while to build up industrial capability and get to the point where they can produce steel...

I consider a large naval base like Diego Suarez, Headquarters of the East Indian Ocean (Madagascar and East Africa) as capable of repairing and maintaining ships with its 4 large dry docks.
They have mechanical workshops with qualified personnel, cranes and raw materials imported from the homelands (steel plates, fittings, spare parts, guns, ammunition, food, hospital... everything necessary to maintain a Colonial fleet (DD, CL, CB, BB).
In addition, it can build ocean gunboats (large TGB) but not DD, CL, CB or BB.

It is therefore not stupid to grant additional IC, BP or $.
=> Ditto for your large colonial naval bases, friends.

QuoteAnd now, the rest of us get to draw up the Ethiopian fleet.......

It already exists.

https://www.navalism.org/index.php/board,695.0.html

	ETHIOPIA
Quantity	Class	Displacement	LD		Speed	Dimensions	Armament	Armor
1	Solomonic	17500	1906		25kts	150x26	2T2x255+6T2x180	B320-100-T320-D90
1	Ethiopia	7914	1903		18	123x18	2T2x255+4T2x180	B220-100-T250-D50
1	VdT	14860	1904		25	175x23	4T2x255+4T2x180	B200-100-T240-D45
2	Bismarck	15783	1901-03		24	170x23	3T2x255+12x152	B150-100-T152-D51
1	Exorcist	9226	1910		25	140x21	2T2x255+2T2x180	B250-100-T250-D64
2	PC	6000	1909		27	150x16	8x180	B120-T65-D30
3	CGB	3000	1903		16	90x16	2x180+2x120	B90-T90-D30
3	Minelayer	2150	1890		18	96x12	6x100+130minen
12	DD	1000	1918		31	87x9	4x90+12TTx533
12	TB	500	1904		26	70x7	4x100+4TTx457
48	TB	345	1900		27	72x7	1x75+4TTx457

Three subjects : 

Enclaves : 
I think it's reasonable to have a variant of the 'Concession' Rule that can be done domestically.
         
* As Concessions can have 5 IC, and a Normal Territory 2, that's a good limit for the Enclave, and would be+3 IC potential per Enclave.

* I would advocate for up to 2 BP per Enclave. They would be bought at the same price as a Home BP,
                  but would produce any BP 'on site' allowing LP/AP/DP/FP to be built across oceans from your homeland.
                  Otherwise they have to be built, then shipped over.  Conceptually that's what's happening with material
                  for any ships built in the territories - hull plating is shipped over and then formed, guns built and shipped, etc.

* Only Port Symbols may be designated as Enclaves. I think the advantages of a natural harbor make that reasonable.

I am inclined to say they be barred from benefiting from Rich symbols?  Stacking the bonuses seems unreasonable. Though
I am absolutely certain Parthia has at least 2...if not more..that have both Port and Rich....hmm more money....I need that...

The Last question is...How Many Enclaves.  I do not think it should be infinite or a large number, as that would undermine
much of the reason for expansion and concessions in the first place.
1  seems to few.
2  or 3 seems about right
4  is now +12 IC allowed. That seems a little large, but would conveniently mean the extra IC that Jefgte built would have a home....

Thoughts?

Drydocks :
Conceptually, I at least regard having drydocks as meaning you have cranes, engine shops, light armor foundries and a variety of fabrication and repair facilities.

Also, cruiser to battleship drydocks, or concentration of drydocks, along with a cruiser squadron or greater in tonnage are the rough measures I'm looking for to call something a major naval base or not for coastal defenses.
A bit fuzzy of an approach, but means folks aren't forced to micromanage and designate such things, just allocate their ships and docks which they are supposed to be doing anyways. (psst and I am so far behind in my OOB)...

Ethiopia :
Yes, Anchorsteam's work does make the foundation for the Ethiopian fleet. The classes are outdated.
While I know I was encouraged to put him there, in hindsight I should have put him in a different spot.
Suddenly having a major "active" nation in the Red Sea is too disruptive at this point.
The fleet is rather out of date though.

Quote... As Concessions can have 5 IC, and a Normal Territory 2, that's a good limit for the Enclave, and would be+3 IC potential per Enclave...

This could give:

Three large industrial zones linked to the large naval bases of:
Madagascar - Diego Suarez => + 3 IC
Australia - Port Darwin => + 3 IC
Brazil - Salvador => + 3 IC
A small industrial area
Namibia - Walvis Bay => +1 IC

For me I'd have Zealand,  Angola, and I'd like to have martinique.

On these of threads, I try to read, digest, post...
and then stay away for a couple days to let folks chat
without the 'mod' making declarative statements.

However there has not been a great deal of chit chat.

I think we've got the concept roughed out.
*Enclave 5 "average" IC max, 2 BP max.

*I think the "mod declare" will be that only Port symbols can be Enclaves.
  That will leave out places like Martinique, but will tie development to a known harbor with extensive hinterlands.
  When I very first started putting on Port Symbols, there were a few islands that got them (Jamaica, Trinidad), but then I narrowed
  the criteria and the rest did not.

*IF we were doing this from scratch, I would be in favor of only 2 Enclaves.
  - BUT...3 means Jefgte only 'looses' 2 IC, and 4 means he can build +1.
  Asking for Player Vote : 2, 3, or 4 ?


*Turnsheets
I think the enclaves should be listed under the home regions.
That way the sum columns and the formula that calculates the $ of new BP will work right.

The "Cash Income" column will need to be set to x1.5
The "Home Subtotal" cells will need to sum all the Home and enclave numbers.

The result would look something like this :

	Country Name	Budget for Period (19XX.X)				1912.5
	Regional Income
	Region Name		Region Type	IC	Cash Income	BP
	Name		H	10	$10.00	4
	Name		H	10	$10.00	4
	Name		H	10	$10.00	4
	Name		H	10	$10.00	3
	Name		H	10	$10.00	3
	Name		H	9	$9.00	3
	Name		H	9	$9.00	3
	Port Name – Region	Max 5 IC & 2 BP	Enclave	5	$7.50	2
	Port Name – Region	Max 5 IC & 2 BP	Enclave	3	$4.50	1
			Home Subtotal :	68	$80.00	27
	Colonial Region		Developed Provinces (with IC)
	by Name	Rich	Average	Poor
	mixed example	0	0	0	$0.00
	single example	0	0	0	$0.00
	rich example	0	0	0	$0.00
	ave example	0	0	0	$0.00
	poor example	0	0	0	$0.00
	Name	0	0	0	$0.00
	Name	0	0	0	$0.00
	Name	0	0	0	$0.00
	Name	0	0	0	$0.00
	Name	0	0	0	$0.00
				Colonial Subtotals :	$0.00
	Net Totals				$80.00	24

The

	Country Name	Budget for Period (19XX.X)				1912.5
	Regional Income
	Region Name		Region Type	IC	Cash Income	BP
	Name		H	10	$10.00	4
	Name		H	10	$10.00	4
	Name		H	10	$10.00	4
	Name		H	10	$10.00	3
	Name		H	10	$10.00	3
	Name		H	9	$9.00	3
	Name		H	9	$9.00	3
	Port Name – Region	Max 5 IC & 2 BP	Enclave	5	$7.50	2
	Port Name – Region	Max 5 IC & 2 BP	Enclave	3	$4.50	1
			Home Subtotal :	68	$80.00	27
	Colonial Region		Developed Provinces (with IC)
	by Name	Rich	Average	Poor
	mixed example	0	0	0	$0.00
	single example	0	0	0	$0.00
	rich example	0	0	0	$0.00
	ave example	0	0	0	$0.00
	poor example	0	0	0	$0.00
	Name	0	0	0	$0.00
	Name	0	0	0	$0.00
	Name	0	0	0	$0.00
	Name	0	0	0	$0.00
	Name	0	0	0	$0.00
				Colonial Subtotals :	$0.00
	Net Totals				$80.00	24

3 enclaves.

I can go with three or four.

I assume BP costs would be on par with homelands at the least - it'd be expensive to create industry from scratch.

Quote from: The Rock Doctor on October 14, 2023, 07:00:45 PM

I assume BP costs would be on par with homelands at the least - it'd be expensive to create industry from scratch.

The BP cost in an enclave will be the same as your homeland, scaling with the number of BP you already have.

Conceptually, it's a primate city, centered on a bustling tradeport, attracting investment to exploit the wider resources of your territorial system. The advantage of BP would be to allow you to stand up Land or Air forces without shipping them from 'home', or even build warships relying on local ore sources.

And 5 IC allows for more defensive units to be supported locally without DP

So "extensive hinterlands" would suggest to me that a place like Puerto Rico won't work.  One province, even if it is adjacent to some other holdings. 

Which would be fine, it's a base and not a building locale.

I'm probably going to do San Diego, Luanda, and maybe Christchurch as my major hubs.  While Christchurch doesn't have massively extensive hinterlands, it does function as the primary base for the Pacific Fleet when away from Acapulco.  And it's the major Aztec trading hub in the Eastern Hemisphere along with Wake Island.  Luanda for obvious reasons as the major African Port, and San Diego because it's the direct Port for all of the upper territories.

Quote from: The Rock Doctor on October 14, 2023, 08:23:59 PM
So "extensive hinterlands" would suggest to me that a place like Puerto Rico won't work.  One province, even if it is adjacent to some other holdings. 

Which would be fine, it's a base and not a building locale.

Difference between the Proposed rule : An Enclave must be a Port Symbol.

...and the Conceptual basis for it.
Without revising the map or adding lots of detailed clauses, I don't think fine tuning the matter further is wise.
Folks can disagree however, and we could revisit the wording.

In the event, Puerto Rico lacks even a Port Symbol, I presume you mean a tad West at Hispaniola. Which at least is 4 provinces. 

Quote...*IF we were doing this from scratch, I would be in favor of only 2 Enclaves.
  - BUT...3 means Jefgte only 'looses' 2 IC, and 4 means he can build +1.
  Asking for Player Vote : 2, 3, or 4 ?...

Byzantium's latest IC to add count gives:
4 Bases (3 IC) => + 12 IC
7 harbors (1 IC) => + 7 IC
Total => + 19 IC

-------------------------

QuoteI'm fine with that redistribution and look forward to the Byzantine invasion of West Australia.

Rocky is right.
I think Byzantium will conquer West Australia.

Quote from: Jefgte on October 15, 2023, 12:41:18 AM


Byzantium's latest IC to add count gives:
4 Bases (3 IC) => + 12 IC
7 harbors (1 IC) => + 7 IC
Total => + 19 IC

-------------------------

I think there has been a misunderstanding.

The +1 IC/Harbor symbol is not the current proposal.

It was one option, the enclave idea was the second option.

From my understanding of this thread, the enclave option is the one more desired.

If others have a different view, please say so.

Parthia was prioritizing good harbors....and has a ton of Port Symbols.

Voting
At this time we have votes for 3, 3 or 4, and 4 Enclaves allowed.

That would be +9 or +12 IC, and space for 6 or 8 BP.

For places like Rome's Texas holdings, or Norse Canada that would be a lot of 'overseas' BP in one place.
So I am inclined to vote for 3 Enclaves.

timeline
I will give it a little time, I've communicated with Snip recently, and he sounds like he is pretty busy with other things.
But I want the Mod Emeritus to have time to comment.

I will probably write up the final rule proposal language the 21st-22nd

That way it will be ready for 1929.

I prefer to stay with 49 colonies and 98 IC.
The 11 surplus IC investing beyond the rules represent $130.
I will invest them in 1 additional BP ($90)
The remaining $40 will be invested in IC Homeland.

($90 and $40 can be adjusted to make a round account in BP or IC homeland).
--------------

I am seriously considering conquering Western Australia.
It would be desirable to create these small Navy.

Quote from: Jefgte on October 15, 2023, 03:49:02 PM
I prefer to stay with 49 colonies and 98 IC.
The 11 surplus IC investing beyond the rules represent $130.
I will invest them in 1 additional BP ($90)
The remaining $40 will be invested in IC Homeland.

($90 and $40 can be adjusted to make a round account in BP or IC homeland).
--------------

That is fine as well.

I think we're still proceeding with the Enclave concept, and you could have built those up instead.

Quote from: Jefgte on October 15, 2023, 03:49:02 PM
I am seriously considering conquering Western Australia.
It would be desirable to create these small Navy.

Western Australia is owned by a pair of large NPCs - Rajasthan and Laksmanavati.
They are not very weak.  I expect when I do Snip's math, they will prove to have mid-sized navies.

They normally do not cooperate with each other.
War against both at once may be difficult, but Byzantine is a large power.

I have other things right now that demand my energy.
If you wish to attack them, I will likely ask for a volunteer to moderate the war.

QuoteI prefer to stay with 49 colonies and 98 IC.
The 11 surplus IC investing beyond the rules represent $130.
I will invest them in 1 additional BP ($90)
The remaining $40 will be invested in IC Homeland.

($90 and $40 can be adjusted to make a round account in BP or IC homeland).
--------------
That is fine as well.

I rework 1928H2 report like that.

Quote...Western Australia is owned by a pair of large NPCs - Rajasthan and Laksmanavati.
They are not very weak.  I expect when I do Snip's math, they will prove to have mid-sized navies...

I thought they only had small coastal navies.
Some big monitors, gunboats, DDs and MTBs.

I think I designed ACs and CLs for one...or maybe both...of those NPCs.

Quote from: Kaiser Kirk on October 14, 2023, 11:54:17 PM

Quote from: The Rock Doctor on October 14, 2023, 08:23:59 PM
So "extensive hinterlands" would suggest to me that a place like Puerto Rico won't work.  One province, even if it is adjacent to some other holdings. 

Which would be fine, it's a base and not a building locale.

Difference between the Proposed rule : An Enclave must be a Port Symbol.

...and the Conceptual basis for it.
Without revising the map or adding lots of detailed clauses, I don't think fine tuning the matter further is wise.
Folks can disagree however, and we could revisit the wording.

In the event, Puerto Rico lacks even a Port Symbol, I presume you mean a tad West at Hispaniola. Which at least is 4 provinces.

Whoops.  Well then Puerto Rico is definitely out.

I suspect I would use Newport News and Lagos for sure.

The third choice is more likely Montevideo than a Caribbean location because the latter's economy seems more transport/export driven than heavy industry.

Looks at entirety of territory....."Am I a joke to you?"

;D

I carried out a redistribution of IC, certain groups of colonies had too many, others not enough.

So with 98 IC for 49 colonies, the 1928H2 report becomes:
- Colonial IC: 109 => 98
- $ colonials recovered => + 90
- Investment in Byzantium => $90 which provides + 2 new BP
- investment in homeland IC => $5
- Budget with 109 IC was $282.55
- Budget with 98 IC becomes $262.55

I might be able to sim a war in December or thereabouts, but there's just a bit too much going on in October for me.

Quote from: The Rock Doctor on October 16, 2023, 05:39:43 PM
I might be able to sim a war in December or thereabouts, but there's just a bit too much going on in October for me.

By December I can help, and maybe even get the opfor navy caught up.  Do Jef the same favor he did me.

Quote from: Jefgte on October 15, 2023, 06:06:33 PM

Quote...Western Australia is owned by a pair of large NPCs - Rajasthan and Laksmanavati.
They are not very weak.  I expect when I do Snip's math, they will prove to have mid-sized navies...

I thought they only had small coastal navies.
Some big monitors, gunboats, DDs and MTBs.

I had a longer reply, but hit a wrong key and it went away.

Snip's Design of NPCs
- Exact power levels secret, he did not even want their relative power disclosed, but I have issues with that.
- Each assigned a general power level, that is based on the current average of the 6 starting PC nations.
- Each assigned ratios of Army/ Navy etc.
- Snips idea was the NPC exact power could then be determined when war was near.

- Everyone should know the Horde has a larger army than PCs, but a small coastal navy.
- Japan, China, and Azteca All started as NPCs... powerful ones.
- Maya is just a rank below those three.

The various NPC descriptions have a very short 'naval summary'..which was correct when written.

So, Byzantine is a top power, and should win vs. either
But expect a land war in Australia, and the need to secure your SLOC.
Since Rajasthan and Laksmanivati are somewhat hostile to each other, expect a fair number of troops and some fortifications.

As I recall your Amphibious tech is dated, so you'll need to attack overland,
which may require more Army and Deployment points than the IC there will support.
So keeping the SLOC open may matter.

War Timing : 
Once the decision is made to go to war,  then we work on specifics of armies/fleets. I think the Deccan is partially made. Khyrses made some non-canon Rajasthani.

If no one has time to Mod, then a war can still happen if the player wants, but we turn more to random dice rolls than actual battle- not nearly as satisfying.

Quote...Snip's Design of NPCs
- Exact power levels secret, he did not even want their relative power disclosed, but I have issues with that.
- Each assigned a general power level, that is based on the current average of the 6 starting PC nations.
- Each assigned ratios of Army/ Navy etc.
- Snips idea was the NPC exact power could then be determined when war was near...

I envisage the conquest in the early 1930s.
These 2 nations only have one harbor (base). They can't just have a small Navy.

Quote from: Jefgte on October 16, 2023, 04:10:47 PM
I carried out a redistribution of IC, certain groups of colonies had too many, others not enough.

So with 98 IC for 49 colonies, the 1928H2 report becomes:
- Colonial IC: 109 => 98
- $ colonials recovered => + 90
- Investment in Byzantium => $90 which provides + 1 new BP
- investment in homeland IC => $25
- Budget with 109 IC was $282.55
- Budget with 98 IC becomes $262.55

I suggest not re-working 1928.5
I hope to have the enclave rule finalized in time for 1929.0

At that point, you can allocate part of the investment to the extra IC into the Byzantine Enclaves,
and then decide where you want the rest of the investment.

Thinking further on the enclave concept,

Perhaps the best way of presenting them is +3 average IC, +2BP over the standard province.

Why?
Well, currently the proposal is that
So, if you have a Port Symbol in a 'Rich' province with 2 IC, currently it generates 2 x 3 (rich territory)  = 6
But if we say Enclave ICs are average..then it's 5 x1.5 (average territory)= 7.5 ....not much of a gain for +3 IC.

BUT if we make the Enclave +3
Then it's the 2x3 = 6  for the province
+ 3x1.5 = 4.5 for the Enclave +3...
total = 10.5   Suddenly a very desirable little chunk of territory.

IC cost
Should the + IC cost the Homeland rate? 
Or the territorial rate?


Thoughts on the above?

Quote from: Jefgte on October 17, 2023, 01:05:47 AM

I envisage the conquest in the early 1930s.
These 2 nations only have one harbor (base). They can't just have a small Navy.

That gives us some time to prepare.
I will likely have time to assist or mod battles by that point.
I expect their navies both exceed the Mayan in size when the math is done.

QuoteI suggest not re-working 1928.5
I hope to have the enclave rule finalized in time for 1929.0

At that point, you can allocate part of the investment to the extra IC into the Byzantine Enclaves,
and then decide where you want the rest of the investment.

Quote=> I carried out a redistribution of IC, certain groups of colonies had too many, others not enough.

I maintain the redistribution:
49 colonies => 98 IC (rules are rules)

Quote- investment in homeland IC => $25

=> $5 placed in reserve for Enclaves.

Quote from: Kaiser Kirk on October 17, 2023, 10:06:34 AM
Thinking further on the enclave concept,

Perhaps the best way of presenting them is +3 average IC, +2BP over the standard province.

Why?
Well, currently the proposal is that
So, if you have a Port Symbol in a 'Rich' province with 2 IC, currently it generates 2 x 3 (rich territory)  = 6
But if we say Enclave ICs are average..then it's 5 x1.5 (average territory)= 7.5 ....not much of a gain for +3 IC.

BUT if we make the Enclave +3
Then it's the 2x3 = 6  for the province
+ 3x1.5 = 4.5 for the Enclave +3...
total = 10.5   Suddenly a very desirable little chunk of territory.

IC cost
Should the + IC cost the Homeland rate? 
Or the territorial rate?


Thoughts on the above?

Do we have a port that is also rich?  I'm pretty sure I don't.

The converse is a place that is resource-poor becomes a lot more interesting with 3 additional average IC.

I assume the IC would cost the territorial rate, regardless of what income it produces.

Quote from: The Rock Doctor on October 17, 2023, 05:21:10 PM
Do we have a port that is also rich?  I'm pretty sure I don't.

The converse is a place that is resource-poor becomes a lot more interesting with 3 additional average IC.

I assume the IC would cost the territorial rate, regardless of what income it produces.

I thought we made Panama a rich port...

On the one hand, most rich symbols were put where resources were on an old atlas map,
and that tended to be mountains in the interior...not always.

So, we have many with both "Port Symbol" and "Rich".
You have one in Niger...and I really thought Panama had a port symbol now. Hmm. Has the rich symbol...no port.

The Aztec have them at San Diego, Baja, and South New Zealand, Japan at Java,
Parthia...has 7.. ironically not where I was musing about having Enclaves.

Quotecost

Quote
I am fine with the Enclave IC costing the same as other territorial Coastal Port IC..10.
If there is a player appetite for 25 like the homelands, I wanted to give folks a chance to speak up.

QuoteThe other option

Earlier in this, I mentioned the idea of letting all Port Symbols "host" 3 IC.
I discarded the idea immediately, as Parthia has more than it's share of Port Symbols, so it would be
very advantageous to me.

However, it's certainly within the Spirit of making those symbols,
Jefgte seemed keen on the idea, so I thought I'd throw it out there.
Norse at Newfoundland and in Quebec,