1903 Rules Patch

[The Rock Doctor]

Okay, to the patch:

1)  Naval Artillery:  I have no issue with it. 

2)  Foreign Standards:  Too high.  If you want to encourage purchase of foreign goods, this isn't the way to do it.  Ten percent, or at most twenty, for both the increased maintenance and up-front fee, ought to convey that different countries have different standards.

3)  Canals:  Fine with me, but then again I have no dogs in the race.*

4)  I don't have a strong opinion on Canada/Australia; India is the colony that matters and nobody disputes its status. 

4b)  I think the possibility of colonial revolts is entirely reasonable, but my gut sense is the frequency of revolts will be too high with the formula presented.

5)  Digestion:  I can go either way on this.  A number of our techs don't translate into specific goods to sell, being more like tactics and strategies (say, the Reserves tech). 

6)  Okay in theory.  I'd suggest a lower cost for moving people within the home nation:  Infrastructure's in place, less travel, etc. 



*Edit:  Actually, not entirely true.  I am toying with some sort of stupid mega-project involving Lake Chad or the Nile but it's a loooooonnnnnnnggggg way off.

[The Rock Doctor]

For game purpaces, a colony is defined as territory owned by a country that does not possess a land connection to the capital of the country.

I don't agree with that bit. I have a bunch of islands that are not connected to the capital by land but I'm not going to consider them to be colonies. What about Japan? Hokaido, Shikoku and Kyushu are not connected to the capital by land either but I doubt Logi would turn those into colonies. With the Suez canal, every little bit of the Ottoman empire in Africa would be a colony because it is no longer connected to the capital by land and the same would be true for the Northwestern part of Scotland if I am not mistaken because it is cut off from the rest of Scotland due to the Lochs and rivers. The definition of Colony should be different.

The exemptions for england are also questionable... DEI was around in one form or another from like 1603 on, about the same time the first english colonies went up in Canada, and australia didnt get any untill like 1783.  The duration argument isnt realy valid IMHO.

I agree... and don't forget that you got natives in both Canada and Australia that might not really like it all of a sudden. Not to mention them troublesome fake Frenchies in Canada and the fact that those non-Aboriginals in Australia are mostly descendants of criminals...

True, but the population of both countries even in 1900 is overwhelmingly immigrant.  The natives are heavily outnumbered.  I'm not saying a native uprising is impossible, but it's a very different situation than a rebellion in India or Indonesia where the natives far outnumber the colonialists.

[Walter]

Foreign Standards:  Too high.  If you want to encourage purchase of foreign goods, this isn't the way to do it.  Ten percent, or at most twenty, for both the increased maintenance and up-front fee, ought to convey that different countries have different standards.

The thing is that you either pay the 50% extra for the construction or you pay 20% for the refurbishment... I know what I would do with foreign built ships...

Okay in theory.  I'd suggest a lower cost for moving people within the home nation:  Infrastructure's in place, less travel, etc.

Yes, but (using the US as example) I would think that it would also be cheaper to move 1 million people from New England to the Mid Atlantic than it would be to move 1 million people from New England to the US West... so as example perhaps you could say that you have a baseline cost of $10 and if you were to move them 1 region you add $1 to the cost with a maximum of $15 to move within the home nation while keeping the $20 cost for overseas population movements.

[miketr]

Revolts.

I don't see either Canada or Australia revolting, both have functioning local parliaments and no history of revolts in living memory.  Neither is a native population with their own separate cultural identity and dreams.  Canada and Australia while diverging sprang from the same culture as UK.  In time they will become independent but not I expect within period the game covers.  South Africa after the Boer Republics are eaten, yah I can see a revolt there.  The British Raj in India I can totally see revolting and lets be real that is the source of limitless cash for the British is.

Just to clear up here.

If Germany rips off part of France or Russia and annexes them since I would have a rail connection would there be no chance of revolt?

I am not sure how reasonable that is if that is the case.

Could some one give an example on the revolt chance I want to be sure I am understanding it.

Michael

[Walter]

I don't see either Canada or Australia revolting, both have functioning local parliaments and no history of revolts in living memory.

I guess that all these rumors I have been reading about Quebec wanting to separate from the rest of Canada are false then... :)

More seriously, that is what I kinda expect with a failed revolt roll in Canada. Disgruntled Quebecers talking about wanting to be their own nation and perhaps some minor incidents comparable to the 2011 Vancouver Stanley Cup riot. It would be quite different though compared to a failed roll in India...

If Germany rips off part of France or Russia and annexes them since I would have a rail connection would there be no chance of revolt?

I am not sure how reasonable that is if that is the case.

Don't know really. I guess it would probably be more a case of the Resistance and Partisans harassing your forces on a failed roll. Maybe a revolt of the citizens on a truly dismal roll but I expect the chance of Resistance/Partisans annoying Germany would be much bigger than an actual revolt...

[snip]

Ok, let me try and catch all of this.

@Canada and Oz exemption from Revolt chance: Rocky hits the nail on the head. Native populations in those regions are so outnumbered by transplanted homelanders as well as a highly functional government that the likelihood of violent revolt is so minuscule that it is best to just leave it out.

@Definition of Colony: Separation by bodies of water was the best way we could come up with the differentiate homeland from colony in a objective way. Sited problem can be covered with the following change.

For game purpaces, a colony is defined as territory owned by a country that does not possess a land connection to the capital of the country and there is no link in territorial waters (here defined as 12nm from any shore of land owned by the nation. This is the current international definition) between the landmass containing the capital and the landmass disconnected from the capital.

Another option would be to use internal waters as defined here, but that is a bit more subjective so I would rather avoid it.

@Foreign Standards: Initial fee could be brought down. Why it is so high is we felt it represented retooling lines to make non-standard componates for that nation.

@Canals: Formula based of the one big project we had good data for, which is Panama.

@Digestion: Cheep excessive tech sharing was a far more important consideration then sale of goods. When we looked at this, we discussed both removal of cost reductions and removal of time reductions. We felt that the cost should stay the same as a normal tech because there would still need to be some work done on converting and understanding the tech, but it could reasonably be done in a shorter time due to the sharing of resources. Note this does not effect the Obsolete tech rule.

@Moving Population: Given how the Pop:IC ratio effects research, we did not want to make it easy to move pop around to get "cheep" research money. This was our consideration in setting cost.

@If I eat parts of the country next door do they revolt?: I refer to this "A Colony also is any territory taken over by a nation from another nation for a period of X years." We tossed around a few ideas on what X should be, but never got to a consensus. My thought was somewhere around 15, but Im open to suggestions.

[miketr]

I don't see either Canada or Australia revolting, both have functioning local parliaments and no history of revolts in living memory.

I guess that all these rumors I have been reading about Quebec wanting to separate from the rest of Canada are false then... :)

Wanting to separate and willing to revolt aren't the same.

Michael

[Tanthalas]

as I have previously stated, I think most of it is fine (I actualy like the tech trade changes, as I always thought tech trades were to easy).  I just dont like that we are looking at adding a rule that esentialy only applies to a few nations in the form of the colonial portion of the rules proposal, without realy adressing the other nations that can have runaway growth within their "native" borders.

As I understand this Rule (admitedly I might be wrong but just reading it this is how it looks), China, Russia, The US, The Ottomans, and Germany (basicly all the big blob nations) can invest in their economies any way they want to and at a lower cost.  While Italy (African holdings), Japan (Philipeans), France (Various Holdings), and Unified Netherlands (various holdings) have to invest at a higher rate to se similar growth, and we risk moderator imposed rebelions if we do so.  GB falls into a third catagory, they can invest in Canada and Australia all they want with no risk but get the same risk as the rest of us if they invest in India or Cape Colony (although with the way Draman is planing to split India up it might be easier to get peices of it to Comonwelth status IDK I havnt looked).

I am fine with one or the other but the combination makes it efectivly imposible for nations like mine to avoid rebelions in our Colonial holdings.  As it stands under the curent ruleset it would take me 2 turns to bring Congo up to comenwelth status (8 pop so 16 IC to match home teritories ratio of 2 IC per Pop), which I could do.  However DEI would take 6 turns just to get to 1-1 (although it goes realy fast after that).  Under the new proposal since IC cost 30 bucks each instead of 10 it would take 6 turns to bet congo to comonwelth and well ALOT to bring the DEI up to that point.  this is why I say one or the other is fine but the combination of higher cost and the risk of rebelion is just to much.

[snip]

The only nation(s) that are really going to have runaway growth without expansion is China and possibly Russia. Right now (1902/H2, which I should really post) the US is at 82 Pop and 68 IC. It only get maximum growth for another 2-3 turns before it tapers off if the ~6.5 IC per turn (this is at 50/50 split BTW) is built in the most effecent areas. I see no way to objectively limit China and Russia short of higher IC costs which would effect all nations.

This is an issue that needs to be fixed, and will be fixed in some way. How would you do it?

[Walter]

Canada and Oz exemption from Revolt chance: Rocky hits the nail on the head. Native populations in those regions are so outnumbered by transplanted homelanders as well as a highly functional government that the likelihood of violent revolt is so minuscule that it is best to just leave it out.

Wasn't the Boer War between the British and transplanted homelanders as you call them? Something like that could happen with Quebec. It would indeed be small. Probably something like rolling a d100 three times and in all three instances roll 100.

For game purpaces, a colony is defined as territory owned by a country that does not possess a land connection to the capital of the country and there is no link in territorial waters (here defined as 12nm from any shore of land owned by the nation. This is the current international definition) between the landmass containing the capital and the landmass disconnected from the capital.

I was wondering if it would not be better if 'territory' was replaced by 'region'. Cause with 'territory' I feel that I would be forced to split Taiwan from the Wu region and you would have to split Hawaii from the US West region.

Foreign Standards: Initial fee could be brought down. Why it is so high is we felt it represented retooling lines to make non-standard componates for that nation.

Considering the big difference in cost between the proposed construction fee and the refurbishment fee (50% vs 20%), I feel that adding the 50% fee to the rules is useless as no one will use it and everybody will just use the much cheaper refurbishment option to remove the foreign upkeep penalty.

Cheep excessive tech sharing was a far more important consideration then sale of goods. When we looked at this, we discussed both removal of cost reductions and removal of time reductions. We felt that the cost should stay the same as a normal tech because there would still need to be some work done on converting and understanding the tech, but it could reasonably be done in a shorter time due to the sharing of resources. Note this does not effect the Obsolete tech rule.

Well, as per the research rules, the tech is going to be cheaper anyway when you research it, unless the nation you bought it from started researching the tech a few years earlier.

Moving Population: Given how the Pop:IC ratio effects research, we did not want to make it easy to move pop around to get "cheep" research money. This was our consideration in setting cost.

Would it then not be better to use the IC cost as minimum (or IC cost +$1) then so you would get "moving 1 million pop" = 1 IC (+$1)? Something like what I have posted.

Would it be the same if I were not moving population and just alter the border of the region (like Beijing gobbling up some surrounding villages that currently belong to another region)?

Perhaps something like $10/1 pop for altering regional borders, $13-16/1 pop for moving them to another region (cost depending how far) and $20/1 pop for overseas movements.

If I eat parts of the country next door do they revolt?: I refer to this "A Colony also is any territory taken over by a nation from another nation for a period of X years." We tossed around a few ideas on what X should be, but never got to a consensus. My thought was somewhere around 15, but Im open to suggestions.

Not sure what X value would be right. The Netherlands came under rule of Philip II of Spain in 1556. The Dutch rioted in 1566 which led to the the start of the 80 year war and the formation of the Republic of the Seven United Netherlands in 1581. That's 25 years and Philip II didn't even use force to occupy the Netherlands (he took over as sovereign of the Habsburg Netherlands from his father father Charles V of the Holy Roman Empire). I think that if military force was used to take over a region, it could even be longer than that, perhaps even never...

Wanting to separate and willing to revolt aren't the same.

Yes, but as I indicated that is what might be expected from Canada and Australia if they were to fail a revolt roll. A failed roll for Canada/Australia would have different results compared to a failed roll in India.

While Italy (African holdings), Japan (Philipeans), France (Various Holdings), and Unified Netherlands (various holdings) have to invest at a higher rate to se similar growth, and we risk moderator imposed rebelions if we do so.

I think that the main problem is that you pay more and have a rebellion risk while getting nothing in return compared to other nations. There should be rewards for such risks to make it worth it to spend more money there and have a rebellion risk like double revenue or so until commonwealth status is reached (except for GB as they get a sh*t load of revenue now anyway :) )

I see no way to objectively limit China and Russia short of higher IC costs which would effect all nations.

Well, it would help somewhat if something was done about the 50% military limit. Ease it maybe to 60-65% or so which would allow me (and others) to spend more on military stuff allowing me to use more BPs resulting in me gaining less cash from selling BPs and use less cash for new ICs. That way I myself could limit the growth.

... but then there is of course the target m$:BP ratio I set to get to and IC cost is not going to stop that.

I was also playing with the idea of investing ICs in places like Indochina and the DEI which would slow down local IC build-up but so far I have not really found a proper reason to do that...

[miketr]

As talked about in the other thread objective, for me at least, isn't to stop economic growth but to just slow it down to a more reasonable pace.  I did some growth numbers last night.  Just increasing the base cost to $15 does wonders, $20 is even better.

I will try to post the numbers if I get a chance tonight.

Michael

[The Rock Doctor]

I'm thinking it's maybe 25 years for the "territory of one place captured by another" period.  This permits all the young hot-heads in the annexed land to mature into boring middle-aged people, while "current" young men of 15-25 have all been raised and schooled never knowing anything other than their current ruler.

[snip]

I was wondering if it would not be better if 'territory' was replaced by 'region'. Cause with 'territory' I feel that I would be forced to split Taiwan from the Wu region and you would have to split Hawaii from the US West region.

If its region, what is to stop somebody from making a region of "Various Islands" that includes one homeland chunk and the rest out of homeland parts worth way more economically and claiming the whole thing as homeland? Territory is there for a reason.

Would it then not be better to use the IC cost as minimum (or IC cost +$1) then so you would get "moving 1 million pop" = 1 IC (+$1)? Something like what I have posted.

Would it be the same if I were not moving population and just alter the border of the region (like Beijing gobbling up some surrounding villages that currently belong to another region)?

Perhaps something like $10/1 pop for altering regional borders, $13-16/1 pop for moving them to another region (cost depending how far) and $20/1 pop for overseas movements.

No, because moving population around should not be close to as viable as building infrastructure. Note if the baseline IC cost is increased, the cost on this will go up proportionally as well.

Yes, but as I indicated that is what might be expected from Canada and Australia if they were to fail a revolt roll. A failed roll for Canada/Australia would have different results compared to a failed roll in India.

Revolt in this case is meant to be in the majority of situations armed conflict.

There should be rewards for such risks to make it worth it to spend more money there and have a rebellion risk like double revenue or so until commonwealth status is reached

The reward is a greater income from the underdeveloped territory. We do not need additional imbalances from anything like you propose.

I'm thinking it's maybe 25 years for the "territory of one place captured by another" period.  This permits all the young hot-heads in the annexed land to mature into boring middle-aged people, while "current" young men of 15-25 have all been raised and schooled never knowing anything other than their current ruler.

Sounds good to me.

[Tanthalas]

easiest answer snip? make IC cost the same increased amount everywhere.  Then atlease everyone is facing the same increased costs of expansion.  If there isnt some sort of limitation placed on blob nations growth why are we even bothering placing limits on Colonial powers, thats what I dont understand.

[snip]

easiest answer snip? make IC cost the same increased amount everywhere.  Then atlease everyone is facing the same increased costs of expansion.  If there isnt some sort of limitation placed on blob nations growth why are we even bothering placing limits on Colonial powers, thats what I dont understand.

Because outside of the two noted exceptions of China and Russia, all of the problems are colonial. If the majority of the issue can be delt with under a different mechanic, then there is no need to adjust the baseline. Then the two major issues (of which I feel China is the greater problem by several orders of magnitude due to geography) can then be tackled separately if necessary.