Economics (enter at own risk)

[The Rock Doctor]

Two differences between the two charts, one is upper end and the other is the progression.

One tops out at 6% and the other 4.5% growth.  Both are at 3% in the middle and then hit 0% growth at 6% tax rate.

Now the real difference is that one is a linear progression.  For every point of tax you decrease your income by a matching amount.  Its stupid easy to figure.  Say you have an economy of $10,000 (its JUST a number, not a budget suggestion just a number).  You put a 3% tax rate and that gets you

10,000 * 0.03 = $300 to pay for upkeep, buy ships, whatever.

Your growth rate is 6% (base rate) - 3% (tax rate) = 3% (effective growth rate)

Next turns economy is then 10,000 * 1.03 = $10,300

Simple, done.

Michael

So that applies to the chart you posted, rather than the one I copied?

[Nobody]

Yes mikes new chart is as simple as one based on growth rates can get.

3.  The Mod will apply a global modifier based on the overall state of the world economy.  So your actual growth may actually be higher (or lower) than your taxation alone would have determined.  Negative growth will be possible.

I would by that. In fact I wanted to propose that myself (I sort of already have I think).

7.  You can carry over income between turns in the same year.  You will be able to carry over some income across years, although if you do so and still have high taxes, you might have Mod-inflicted social issues arising.

Bad idea IMHO. All turns should be equal. It should make no difference if carry money between months or years. Just apply a certain loss factor per turn.

8.  You will not be allowed to borrow money from elsewhere in your government, or from NPC entities.  This is not "realistic", but it reduces bookkeeping for the Moderator.  You will be allowed to borrow money from other players, at whatever terms are agreed upon. 

Understandable, but what's the difference between positive and negative carry over?


My idea of how a turn could work is:

• copy new economy value from last report.
  
• choose new tax rate within limits.
  
• calculate growth rate, e.g. GrowthRate := 6% - Tax + GlobalTrend
  
• calculate economic value for next report (econ*(1+GrowthRate/Turns_per_Year))
  
• check resources (see Rocky)
  
• do everything else
  
  
  Edit:
  Had to correct my formula.
  

[The Rock Doctor]

Understandable, but what's the difference between positive and negative carry over?

If you spend more than you have, and carry-over a debt to the next turn, who/what forces you to pay off that debt?

[Nobody]

Understandable, but what's the difference between positive and negative carry over?

If you spend more than you have, and carry-over a debt to the next turn, who/what forces you to pay off that debt?

Increasing costs, growth penalty and a maximum debt to econ. ratio maybe?

[The Rock Doctor]

I don't care for increased costs.

I could get behind the idea of treating debt as "emergency taxation", with consequences for subsequent growth.  It applies a tangible cost to the player.

Example:

-You tax at 4%.  You spend your 4% in the first and second turns.  In the last turn, something bad happens, and you spend extra money to build warships. 

-In the economic phase of the next year, you add up total expenditures from the past year.  Hey, they actually work out to the equivalent of 8% annual taxation because you spent so much.

-So when you calculate your economic growth for this next year, you do so as if you'd taxed at 8% all along.  That probably means negative growth, and a risk of civil unrest.

A maximum debt ceiling would still be necessary in that scenario, I suppose...

[Valles]

Take the percentage of shrinkage, apply a multiplier (maybe x1 or x2 in wartime and x5 or so in peacetime). Mod rolls a d100 against that number. Roll over, no issue. Roll under, well, Trouble. No need for a hard maximum, just a player's mental calculation of how far they'd be willing to push their luck - and for how long.

[miketr]

So that applies to the chart you posted, rather than the one I copied?

Mike (Guinness) wanted a different cost progression.  So 0 to 3% tax rate its for increase in taxes the growth rate went down by 0.5%  From 3% on the ratio was 1:1 between taxes and growth rates.  We did this because we wanted a lower upper limit on growth.

Michael

[miketr]

Lets make things simple... here.

You can bank as much as you want turn to turn.  Money in bank doesn't grow it just sits.  You don't spend it or reduce your tax rates its doing nothing for you other than being a nest egg.

As to borrowing...  What I suggest is that any debt you have MUST be paid off at the start of the next turn before any other spending and with a flat 10% interest rate. Over spend $100 then you owe $110 next turn.  Going into debt requires mod approval and has to be in response to something like a surprise attack.  Yes in theory you can keep just rolling over the debt turn to turn but at some point the house of cards is going to come tumbling down.  At which point bad things happen to your nation; I think real world events can give people some idea as to examples on this.  You could in theory carry 200% of your economy, as 20% max war time tax levels means you could just pay your debt but nothing else on a 10% interest rate.  You would realistically hit the wall long before this.

Michael

[The Rock Doctor]

I'm gonna need a little help here establishing the economic numbers.  Here are the assumptions:

-Per-capita GDP is moderately high - sort of similar to modern South Korea or Taiwan, where the economies aren't "post-manufacturing".

-Ship costs are the same as previous iterations of N-verse - $1 per 1,000 t of typical construction.

-Starting ship-building capacity is kind of on-par with pre-WW2 France or Italy:  A couple of capital ships at a time, plus smaller stuff.

So...

-What ballpark size should we be looking at for the starting economy, in N$

-How do I convert this figure into a GDP, and then to an in-game per-capita GDP?

[Nobody]

I'm gonna need a little help here establishing the economic numbers.  Here are the assumptions:
[...]
-Ship costs are the same as previous iterations of N-verse - $1 per 1,000 t of typical construction.
-Starting ship-building capacity is kind of on-par with pre-WW2 France or Italy:  A couple of capital ships at a time, plus smaller stuff.
[...]
-What ballpark size should we be looking at for the starting economy, in N$
-How do I convert this figure into a GDP, and then to an in-game per-capita GDP?

That depends.
Let's assume build speed is 1000 t per month (as before), than you would want an income of
   a_couple * (Length_of_Turn + Harbor_cost⁽¹⁾) + fleet_upkeep⁽²⁾ + other_costs⁽³⁾
to get this you need an economy of
   Income/default_Tax = Income/0.03

Does that help?

⁽¹⁾ upkeep for a harbor with production capacity of 1000 tons/month
⁽²⁾ upkeep for a "normal" sized fleet at "normal" active rating PLUS upkeep for necessary support facilities (ports, docks...)
⁽³⁾ all other cost not already covered (Army, Air Force etc.)

Edit:
added more explanations

[The Rock Doctor]

...not greatly.  I suppose I will play with math on my bus ride...

[Nobody]

Well it mostly depends on the turn length (e.g. 4 Months), the other cost and what you define as "a_couple". A couple of capital ships could mean:
a battleship, a battle-cruiser and a heavy cruiser under construction at any given time. That would be a 3. However, you would also some some light cruisers, a couple of destroyers and a few submarines. Not to mention tenders, minesweepers and other light crafts to a companion them. So 6 might be a better choice for your situation.

[The Rock Doctor]

Oh, I agree with your general methodology.  I was just hoping Mike would wander in and plunk down a number.

I'm looking at four-month turns.

I'm looking at tweeking shipbuilding rates - I've felt that small stuff gets built too quickly (leading to silly "war emergency destroyers" that have no actual analogue) and big stuff gets built too slowly.  I'll do the calc on the assumption that the capital ships are modest to start with - ~20-25,000 t.

[miketr]

Issue isn't as simple as just dumping a number.

How much of the budget do we want people to spend on construction?  How much on army?  How much on upkeep?  What is the default tax / growth rate?

From that we can reverse engineer a GNP and have it fairly close.

For example I can easy enough look at what Italy built in WW2 / Pre-war period but recall that was only part of the over all budget.  Ditto France.  We can asume 3% tax / growth rate.  What type of upkeep costs do we want?

Michael

[Delta Force]

3% growth would be a tad low in my opinion. That is the growth rate for developed economies, which have large infrastructure and industrial bases so it is hard to roll out new technology quickly. Developed economies also tend to already have good or excellent infrastructure and industry so it is more difficult to improve on. It is hard to improve the efficiency of something that is already efficient, you usually end up with diminishing returns (computing being one major example of things becoming less expensive and more powerful at the same time). If you already know how technology plays out (as a developing country or someone with access to "future" information), you do not have to spend time developing technologies that seemed good at the time but that did not pan out (like flywheel cars and prop/jet engine aircraft hybrids). However, you also do not have sunk costs, so technologies that looked like a dead end but that are useful with improved technologies (like airships and modular rockets) could be developed too.

I think that 6% or higher economic growth is reasonable until the information on "future" technology, management techniques, and processes becomes closer and closer. Once that happens you have to spend more money on less certain and more expensive research, so improvements will slow down. Developing nations tend to achieve growth rates around 6% by taking advantage of the ideas and technologies that have been proven by developed nations, gaining the benefits of lower cost and rapid implementation. Some developing nations have much better telecommunications systems than the United States, for example, because they skip straight to the latest developments instead of having to go through and develop and construct all the levels of technology that came before.