Starting Nation economic strength

[snip]

For the US, most of the constraints were funding based AFAIK. So the US could have easily outbuilt most anyone but the Brits and maybe the Germans in this timeframe had the money been available. Given the way the US industrial base was able to come to life during times of war, I have little doubt that should Congress have wanted it, the USN could have been much larger then it was historically. Italy will be ahead of Japan, but considerations are being made for balancing reasons so the lead might not be as significant as OTL at game start. From there, any lead will depend on how the nations are mannaged.

[KWorld]

True enough Kworld (on the produced in Italy by british firms part anyway However Italy produced from 1885-1900 74 ships at roughly 350,000 tons for domestic consumption.  In the same period England produced in excess of 1 million tons for domestic consumption, not helping I know but the diferance is largley cruisers (england built a crapton of em), the US produced 45 ships at around 250,000 tons.  So while Italy definetly wasnt in the same weightclass as GB they were ahead (at this point) of the US.

The reason Italy got put in the slot it did was that a fair number of it's naval guns were actually built in Britain, and most of the rest were produced to British designs by Italian branches of British companies.  This remained true up through the WWI period.

Japan by Comparison had roughly 100,000 tons of Domestic produced ships

Japan should be a minor industrial power in 1900.  By 1905 probably not.  But at least for battleships Japan is using English shipyards and English designs in the 1890s

Heh, if you look at gross naval tonnage, the US looks puny, granted.  That's mostly because of inactivity, not so much lack of capability, though.  Of course, it DID take at least a decade to get up to speed as technology had moved on during those years of inactivity between the Civil War and about 1890.  And Italy DID make some very interesting ships during this time period.

[Darman]

True enough Kworld (on the produced in Italy by british firms part anyway However Italy produced from 1885-1900 74 ships at roughly 350,000 tons for domestic consumption.  In the same period England produced in excess of 1 million tons for domestic consumption, not helping I know but the diferance is largley cruisers (england built a crapton of em), the US produced 45 ships at around 250,000 tons.  So while Italy definetly wasnt in the same weightclass as GB they were ahead (at this point) of the US.

Then if Italy can build the ships but needs to buy its guns... doesn't that follow the way we wanted to advance our technology?  You can build the hull and engines but not the armor or guns.  Or whatever you decide to put your research points into.

[KWorld]

Japan is in the list of major powers as is Italy.  But Japan and Italy and Austro-Hungary should be rated minor powers for the purposes of the Sim.  That can and should change as time goes on and they accumulate colonies and industry.  The Hapsburgs might not change much though,

Not exactly: look at the top of this thread.  Italy, Japan, and Russia are all major powers, but they're not major industrial powers, because they historically AT THIS POINT IN TIME had some limitations.  Japan rapidly outgrew those limitations, Italy did so somewhat more slowly, Russia would have but had that Civil War thing and lost much interest in naval matters until after WWII (though by the mid-30s she was certainly a major industrial power in other ways).

[Tanthalas]

Not exactly, the guns were produced in Italy, just to british designs by companies whos home office was generaly in Italy.  Much like USS Texas (or was it Maine cant remember off the top of my head) was built in the US using all US parts to a design from GB.  Italian ships were built entierly in Italy by Italian companies, unlike Japan or Spain who imported their guns from GB and used british yards to build many of their ships.

True enough Kworld (on the produced in Italy by british firms part anyway However Italy produced from 1885-1900 74 ships at roughly 350,000 tons for domestic consumption.  In the same period England produced in excess of 1 million tons for domestic consumption, not helping I know but the diferance is largley cruisers (england built a crapton of em), the US produced 45 ships at around 250,000 tons.  So while Italy definetly wasnt in the same weightclass as GB they were ahead (at this point) of the US.

Then if Italy can build the ships but needs to buy its guns... doesn't that follow the way we wanted to advance our technology?  You can build the hull and engines but not the armor or guns.  Or whatever you decide to put your research points into.

[KWorld]

Not exactly, the guns were produced in Italy, just to british designs by companies whos home office was generaly in Italy.  Much like USS Texas (or was it Maine cant remember off the top of my head) was built in the US using all US parts to a design from GB.  Italian ships were built entierly in Italy by Italian companies, unlike Japan or Spain who imported their guns from GB and used british yards to build many of their ships.

Texas was to a British designs.  On where the guns were produced, see NavWeaps: the 12"/40s seem to be domestic, the 12"/46s were mixed (some domestic, some imported), the 13.5"/30s were imported, and the big 17" guns on the Italias were imported.

[Tanthalas]

Yeah the 17s definetly were, but I dont intend to follow that particular italian lunacy.  Im all about RoF honestly its entierly possible I will use nothing larger than a 12" gun up to and through WW1 (or our equivilant baring huge gun creap like we saw in N2).  I can see Italy under me aligning closer to Germany than GB (especialy if they arnt exactly friendly with AH).  Everyone (myself included here) needs to remember we are rewriting history not simply repeating it.  I havnt found the rules on colonial expansion yet (im sure they are here somewhere) but by this point OTL it was largley finished.

Not exactly, the guns were produced in Italy, just to british designs by companies whos home office was generaly in Italy.  Much like USS Texas (or was it Maine cant remember off the top of my head) was built in the US using all US parts to a design from GB.  Italian ships were built entierly in Italy by Italian companies, unlike Japan or Spain who imported their guns from GB and used british yards to build many of their ships.

Texas was to a British designs.  On where the guns were produced, see NavWeaps: the 12"/40s seem to be domestic, the 12"/46s were mixed (some domestic, some imported), the 13.5"/30s were imported, and the big 17" guns on the Italias were imported.

[snip]

Ok, I went ahead and whiped up some very rough numbers on what I think the economics should look like. The process went somewhat like this. I figured that the UK in this era was the dominet industrial power, so everyone else has there industrial strength assigned relative to the UK. The major powers fall within 90-70% of the UK's factory number. Minor powers fall within 70-45% of the UK's number. Purchasers fall anywhere between 45-5% of the UK. As far as cash numbers, I figured that both Major and Minor powers would be within 10-15% of one another, with the majors closer to the top of the pile. Large purchasers would be within 95-60% of the Powers. Small would be somewhere around 60-5% of the major powers. So ideally, the nation structure would look something like this.

The Minor powers would be the closest analogs to N3 major powers (ie France). They are manly limited by there industrial capacity, but can fill most of there immediate needs domestically if required. Would have surplus cash to buy the remaining needed materials and finished equipemt from abroad. Research wise, these nations would be able to be cutting edge in a category and years (5+) behind on the rest, or relitivly current (+2 years or so) in every field.

In contrast, the Major powers would be unable to use all of there industrial output due to cash constraints. Think the most powerful N3 nations with about 2.5x the BP output and no Pop/IC increase to go with it. This would ensure that there would be plenty of surplus capacity for other nations to bid over for warships and other such materials. These nations would also be the leaders in technology, and able to sell more advanced overall products (ie completed warships) then Minor powers, tho some minor powers might have advantages in one area or another (ie fire control).

The large purchasers have the cash to spend to buy all of there needed materials from abroad. There industrial bases are not up to supporting all of there needs just yet, tho with carful management for the uppermost self-reliance is not far away. These nations would at best be able to matain a current level in one field, if they neglect most of the other fields, otherwise they would be a few years (3-4+) behind the times. Think the N3 midrange nations (ie. China).

Small purchasers would have very little cash, and potentially next to no industrial output. There most advanced domestic technology would be backwards to most nations Think the lowest N3 nations.

Does that seem like a reasonable framework moving forward?

[Darman]

Looks good to me snip

[Tanthalas]

Looks good here, although having played a Super Power I have to say that that should work hypotheticly all we can do is try and see ^.^

[Darman]

What I like most about it is that there is no clear-cut "the big nations are ahead in everything", they have a product the little nations need, and the little nations have a product the big nations need.  Granted the big nations can afford to waste but really, why would they want to?

[snip]

Now for the numbers *math major squee*

So, first go at the UK, seeing as it is the base for all nations. Note I am not trying to get the historical UK. As Tan points out, we are not replaying OTL, but creating a new one. OTL will be the approximation basis for how the nations stack up, but the totals will not likely not match OTL ones.

I begin with the last French report from N3. Being the most powerful nation there, it seems a good place to start. Per that report, France has a total revenue of ~$280 and 37 BP per turn. Converting the BP into the IP dicussed here (1BP=1000IP) gives us 37000 IP per turn. Now, just for the sake of round numbers, Im going to bump both values up to $300 and 40,000IP per turn. Since the UK is an industrial power, it needs lots of additional IP so it can build warships for other powers, so let us double it and add a little bit to make the value 100,000IP per turn.  That would give the UK a economy of $300 and 100,000IP a game turn.

Does this seem like a good starting point to base the remaining economies off?

[Tanthalas]

how many of these IP things is it going to take to build a ship? Im only asking cause that looks like alot to me.

[snip]

IP converts to tonnage 1-to-1. So a 35000t ship will cost 35000IP before it is finished.

[KWorld]

OK, from that I get the impression that IP by themselves are not overly useful, they're the countries industrial capacity, not what it can spend.  If that's the case, and a country like the UK is limited by it's budget rather than it's industry (certainly true), then yeah, those numbers could work.  Certainly the UK was capable of building it's own warships plus warships for other countries plus merchantmen  without problem in this period.