Annual turns

[Walter]

It is too late to change Japan now since the last time we ran anything N3 was a few years ago (back in 2011). N3 Japan started out with a population of 97 million, 7 BP and 43 IC for a revenue of $96.4 per half year. After a few sim years, the decision was made to increase the number of BPs per nation by about 50% so if we apply that to the startup, it would be 10 BP. This means that our so-called "first-line" nations will be the about the same as N3 Japan or significantly worse if we were to apply the $100 and 10 BP per year.

As far as I know, N5 Japan is at the same level as the other first line nations so no change is needed because if you do change it then all the other nations need to be changed as well.

[Logi]

Population for Italy in TTL in 1870 will be 30.5 million, with another 1 million in Tunisia.

I ran across a figure of just under 26 million for Italy so I'm not sure how you got to 30.5 million. If we were to apply OTL populations, you would end up with about 131 million for the territories of the British Empire.

I agree with Walter, I don't understand your numbers for population KWorld. There should be no argument on the subject, after all I already posted the population numbers of various nations with adequate research in another thread.

Remember this thread?

Besides that though, I have some of the same grievances as Walter.

[Walter]

Looking at your figures, you get the next numbers for the "first-line" nations:
England ---------- 31,400
France ----------- 38,440
Germany ---------- 27,008
Japan ------------ 34,437
USA -------------- 40,241
Italy ------------ 27,888
Russia ----------- 76,221
Ottoman Empire --- 37,686

I would think that a population between 25 and 40 million would be okay. The only one sticking out is Russia. Looking at those figures, I really don't see why nations such as England and France would need colonies in the fist place. Ignoring Russia's population, adding ICs and making minor adjustments to the populations (in order to get $100 exactly) you will get:

Nation ---------- pop ---- IC -- revenue ---
England ---------- 31 ---- 69 ---- $100 ----
France ----------- 38 ---- 62 ---- $100 ----
Germany ---------- 27 ---- 73 ---- $100 ----
Japan ------------ 34 ---- 66 ---- $100 ----
USA -------------- 40 ---- 60 ---- $100 ----
Italy ------------ 28 ---- 72 ---- $100 ----
Ottoman Empire --- 38 ---- 62 ---- $100 ----

Alternatively, adding all population figures and divide it by 8 will give you about 33 million, which would work as a good baseline population figure for an equal start for all "first-line" nations. This would give:
Nation ---------- pop ---- IC -- revenue ---
X ---------------- 33 ---- 67 ---- $100 ----
Y ---------------- 33 ---- 67 ---- $100 ----
Z ---------------- 33 ---- 67 ---- $100 ----
... as baseline for all "first-line" nations.

[Logi]

I agree with Walter that I don't see the need for colonies by players as far as budget goes. If we are going equal start, I would much prefer Walter's numbers with the differing pop and IC without any colonies over the seeming current state.

I've mentioned before that I quite dislike the whole equal start notions as it is ahistoric and quite constraining in all respects. But that is just me bringing it up again for the sake of bringing it up.

[Jefgte]

KW  ;)

Thanks to post the Countries final economic numbers in:

"Rules\Economics (Population, IC, BP) and Civilian Infrastructure."

Lock them & we start

(Walter's numbers are not a pb for me)

Jef 

[Walter]

Well, for the start we still need to know the IC and BP cost for 1870 and on. As far as I know the $10/IC and $100/BP is for the start-up only so we start and then stop immediately since we can't complete our reports.

Right now, the A-H example report speadsheet KW posted uses the costs of the previous Navalism run but that does not give an equal start. Russia with a population of 77 million would have 47 ICs while Germany would have 27 million and 73 ICs. Russia only has to pay $51.78 for the next IC while Germany has to pay $95.24 for the Next IC. Like I mentioned before, with the IC cost of the previous Navalism run, not only are such ICs cheaper, but they will give you more money for each additional IC.

Darman had mentioned static or "increase up to a certain maximum level" somewhere else after which I gave a few suggestions of the latter.
http://www.navalism.org/index.php/topic,6335.msg82604.html#msg82604
Those were just examples. It is possible to shift that so that ICs 1-10 are $40. It then goes up all the way up to IC 30 at $60 after which the price stays at $60. Prices are also examples. We could start at $20, $30, etc.
BPs could be variable in a similar way if we want to go that way. Perhaps BP 'x' cost = IC 'x' cost * 4. Going for the simple +$1 IC cost example, you would get for the BPs:

BP 1 - $160
BP 2 - $164
BP 3 - $168
...
BP 20 - $236
BP 21 - $240
BP 22 - $240
BP 23 - $240

Now, while I was busy typing the above and looking things up, something popped up in my mind that made me look at the suggested startup values again...
Logi indicated that China has a population of 380 million. The population alone will give a revenue of $72. In my opinion it will need some ICs but it should be noted that at 15 IC China will be at the same level as the "first-line" nations ($99 to be exact) while China is a third-line nation.

I did a simple Half year report test run using the previous run's variable IC and BP costs as used in the A-H example report. With the test run, what I did was spending cash on ICs first and then BPs with only 1 IC being allowed to build in the region at the time. No variables applied such as population increases or additional territories being gained or leftover military cash used. Just purely IC building using civilian cash with the leftover cash going to BP building. Also for simplicity, I used whole BPs only.

Applying the proposed first line nation figures, Germany starts with 27 million people, 73 ICs and 10 BPs with a revenue of $100 per half year. China starts with 360 million people, 0 (='zero') IC and 5 BPs with a revenue of $72 per half year. I deliberately used zero ICs to start out with the weakest possible China.

After the run, at the beginning of 1901, you will have
- Germany with 27 million people, 103 ICs and 11 BPs with a revenue of $130 per half year.
- China with 360 million people, 61 IC and 18 BPs with a revenue of $181.8 per half year.

China revenue overtook Germany's in 1881.
China's BP production overtook Germany's in 1886.

While I haven't tested it yet, I would not be surprised at all that in a similar run, China overtakes Austria-Hungary in less than 3 years.

[Logi]

I should make the point that the 27 million figure refers to Prussia not united Germany. As I note, South Germany is another 9 mil people, so a united Germany would have a population of 36 million.

As for China, as I have indicated with my numbers, China had a far higher GDP than the "first-line countries" in 1870. It took until the 1890s for the US, and the US alone, to barely overtake China in GDP. We should note that the rate of growth for the US was in no way usual for the world. It took until 1937 and 1938 for Germany and the United Kingdom to overtake China's GDP respectively. China stayed quite close to Germany's GDP, though behind, until 1982 when China overtook Germany. But even Germany in that period was an out-lier, China overtook the UK at the much earlier date of 1958. So the perception that China should have a lower revenue (as function of national wealth) is ahistorical, the only time the first-line countries (outside of the US, which was a special case) overtook China in total wealth was a brief 45 years for Germany and 20 years for England, and even then the disparities were minute.

Here the corresponding data:

Total GDP	1870	1890	1937	1938	1958	1982
China	189,740	205,379	296,043	288,653	450,977	1,186,387
US	98,374	214,714	832,469	799,357	1,859,088	4,254,870
UK	100,180	150,269	294,025	297,619	411,450	729,861
Germany	72,386	112,021	317,783	342,351	481,599	1,099,799

There are many factors in the decline of China in allowing the gap to closed, but not much overtaken, but to be simple: China did not invest much during the period of great growth for Germany/US/UK. Not surprising, it's something we've all known from conventional history. There are various reasons for this, the most outstanding being the amount of foreign debt held by China, not by choice, but by compulsion.

In "China's Economic Development from 1860 to the Present: The Roles of Sovereignty and the Global Economy" they mention the huge war indemnities of 1842, 1860, 1896, and 1900 which China was forced to pay. The 1896 indemnity caused the Chinese government to suffer a large deficit of 18% of it's federal revenue. To pay off these indemnities, China was forced to get foreign loans. Between 1895 and 1911, China payed 476 million taels in principal and interest to foreign creditors for the 1896 and 1900 indemnities. That (476 million) was more than twice as much as the total investment in all foreign, joint, and Chinese-owned modern manufacturing China established between 1895 and 1913.

Also foreigners, and by extension their businesses, in China did not have to pay taxes to the Chinese government or even heed Chinese law. As a result of both the indemnities and this taxation-free environment for the principal investors, China's interest payment on it's foreign debt was 40% or more of China's total income from 1900 to 1949.

The direct cost of opium through it's purchase was 28 million silver taels per year from 1870 to 1897, a total of about 800 million silver taels over 27 years. The 28 million tael yearly loss represents over 30% of the yearly national budget of China (which was about 90 million taels). This is only a fraction of the unmeasurable human cost.

There was also the mandated very low 5% tariff as well as the manipulating of China's currency exchange rate by other nations. Since China was compelled by treaty to only collect it's tariff in silver amounts although trade and loans were in gold-backed currencies, the actual tariff revenues fell about 40% between 1860 and 1900 due to the drop in the world price of silver.

And the 1895 Japanese indemnity created an annual budget deficit of about 20 million taels, or ~20% of the budget. This is a sum that would have been covered by tariff increases up to 10-15%. In this period, most of the income of the various nations of the world came from tariffs, since income tax did not exist. For example, British tariffs on opium exported to China from India alone provided 15% of British India's government budget.

Previously I mentioned that China spent 40% or more on interest to their foreign debt. It also spent 40% for military developments, leaving 20% or less for all government expenses and development efforts.

Before the Sino-Japanese War in 1895, China and their Chinese-designed economic development enterprises, though burdened by the Opium War indemnities and unequal treaties, was achieving the same, though smaller, success as then in Japan in the Meiji Restoration.

In short, China was a first-line nation in the period we are talking about, and it's fall into third-rate was due to stagnation which was caused by the severe amount of burden imposed on China by foreign nations. We should not endeavor to mode China as a third-rate nation for it was not.

If China is to be weak, China must either be defeated and forced into multiple unequal treaties during the sim, or assumed China was defeated and forced into unequal treaties before the sim start date. If we opt for the latter which obviously is less hassle, we can model it by setting a modifier on China. China receives only 40% of it's normal national income until such time as it defeats the oppressing nation.

This means a China with 360 mil people and 0 IC produces $72 revenue, which is modified to $28.8. Spending $7 (the amount free in the sample half-year report) every half-year yields a total investment of $560 from 1860 H1 to 1901 H1. The cost for IC is 25 + 5 * IC/sqrt(pop). Since we fix pop at 360 mil, number of IC produced in this period is the N where the sum of k = 1 to N of (25 + 5(k-1)/sqrt(360) is equal to 560. We solve this equation and the result is N is about 20.

A China with 360 mllion people and 20 IC in 1901 will have a revenue of $108 per half-year which is modified to $43.2 per half-year.
Similarly, an biannual investment rate of $10 per half-year would yield a China with 28 IC and $122.4 modified to $48.96.

[Walter]

With Germany, I am referring to the "Prussia" bit on your list for that is the startup size of Germany.

Having worked with the semi-fixed idea as well for a test run, what happened in the first run did not happen in this run so the semi-fixed costs for BP and ICs is a lot better than using the cost formulas of the previous run. Using the semi-fixed costs will also make it an equal start for all players. Looking at things, perhaps a non-flexible cost like with N3 would be better.

China is fine as it is. The current planned budget of $200 and 20 BP a year is way too low for a "first-line" country in my opinion.

[Darman]

China is fine as it is. The current planned budget of $200 and 20 BP a year is way too low for a "first-line" country in my opinion.

I agree that 20BP is too low but keep in mind that we can buy more. 

My opinion has been that if we do an equal start then nobody has colonies.  I'm willing to sacrifice Britain's and The Netherlands' colonies for this to happen.  Additionally, I like Walter's suggestion  of equal populations.  You want a back-story for this?  Plague.  It wiped out large swaths of the population.  It also ruined any attempts at colonization.  I know that mathematically speaking populations should still be unequal but you can say that genetic defects caused certain ethnic populations to be more susceptible to the disease, thus causing equal populations. 

I will say this, I can't give my opening statements for the Conference until this is settled because the national interests of both the English and the Dutch will change if they no longer have colonies. 

[Logi]

A budget of $200 and 20 BP a year is much much to low, even if we can buy more. To put it into perspective, South China in N3 had a annual revenue of roughly $223 and 16 BP. Economic development was hard and to be honest the BP was such a small number that it felt like being shafted. It felt like playing a 3rd-world country since the budget was so constrained and BP-purchasing was so expensive. Because what actually happens in while playing (you have to spend BP everywhere as well) you end up without much of a navy at all at 20 BP per year.

The nations that had navies that were actually worth talking about had 34-52 BP per year. I propose that the first-line countries have the following annual budget instead:

$400 and 40 BP

Supposing we spend 1/4 of that budget, $100 every year on BP until 1901, the total BP per year in 1901 for such a nation would be 48. Which is much more reasonable.

[Logi]

To amend the issue of China, we could also place a cap on population-based revenue.

i.e. The following:
1.0 x POP,  POP < 50
0.6 x POP + 20,   POP >= 50 and POP < 150
0.2 x POP + 80, POP > 150

The lines intersect at the mentioned population numbers, so there would be no sudden decrease/increase in revenue. That would not affect the first-line countries but bring China's revenue (360 mil POP, 0 IC) down from $72 to $30.4.

[Darman]

My preference was always for a clean equal start.  No colonies period and everyone starts in Europe (sorry Kworld and Logi). 

I had an idea for colonies (based on my previous premise that there was a plague that kills most of the world's population) whereby to establish a colony you must pay to build a port.  It can be as basic or advanced as you want it to be.  But you still have to build the port and then you must provide the civilian shipping to transport your settlers to your new colony.  Every year (or two years, mods discretion) your population in your home country and your colonies will be re-calculated based on immigration from your home country to your colony (as provided by your own shipping) and by your home population's growth and the colony's population growth (which will be unnaturally high, say 5-10%, could vary from year to year).

Thoughts? 

[Darman]

...... cricket....

[Walter]

Yes, with all that has been posted, there has been no further input from KWorld. I could post the startup stuf I have, but no idea how to go any further without confirmation as to what will be done.

[Darman]

I must admit I've been re-working the entire naval philosophy of both the Netherlands and Great Britain to reflect a possible change in our start-up situation.  Its actually quite simple and interesting all at the same time.