1903 Rules Patch

[Kaiser Kirk]

What about changing "most developed region" to "average of homeland regions"?

Thought of that, which is why I floated "median" or mid range instead.
Say Nebraska, Minnesota, and Mississippi are all at 1:1 and New York is at 5:1, your average is 2:1, but your median (1:1, 1:1, 1:1, 5:1)  is 1:1.
then I thought, that still produces a number higher than the least developed province at home.

What the colonists probably care about is they aren't worse off than being in the home provinces - then they feel exploited.
so I proffered the least developed as an option. 

[The Rock Doctor]

That makes some sense.

Either way, I probably won't be doing a sim report till late in the week.

[Walter]

I can go ether way on it. I am leaning in the direction of IC started in 1902/H2 can be completed for the cost when it started, but be assured that if that is what we do the mods will be looking closely to make sure it is not abused.

I can understand that if you had one IC to complete. Jeff with France for instance is building multiple ICs but not necessarily completing them at the same time. If I am not mistaken, he has two unfinished ICs which he could then complete in H1/1903 for the H2/1902 price. I have not posted my H2/1902 report yet so I could deviate from my previous reports by starting multiple ICs and completing those ICs in H1/1903 for the H2/1902 price.

But as I said, it seems more proper to complete those ICs using the new cost and not the old cost and this is the way I currently have it in my report. Alternatively you could say only one unfinished IC from H2/1902 may be finished using the old cost.

If its the exemptions for Canada and Australia that are the decisive point here, then just say that.

No, I can live with that with the reasons you gave (although it will still make your statement of "It will apply to all equally" incorrect). I have got the biggest problem with this...

An exemption exists for any territory that changed hands before 1903H1 that would not count as a colony under the above definition.

... as this would make areas such as Cuba, the Philippines and the bits of Austria-Hungary immune to revolt. That will definitely get the thumbs down from me. No exemptions should exist for territory that changed hands before 1903H1.

If not a revolt risk, then what do you want to see as the drawback for expanding territory? There must be some sort of drawback. Right now it has no drawback in the way that not expanding has. If you don't expand your population base, your ability to produce income on IC decreases. If you have any ideas on what the drawback for expanding should be, please say them.

Uhm... something like nothing just for the sake of keeping things simple?

I was actually talking to a Wesworlder (who shall remain anonymous) who has noticed the various discussions here. He was kind of confused by the want to make things simple yet N-verse needs to have a rule for everything. This proposal is just an additional annoying thing that a player needs to keep track of and the moderators as well. The more things you add, the more complicated it becomes and the bigger the chance is that errors creep in and someone ends up in a situation somewhat similar to yours over at Wesworld where you have to do quite a few reports.

Won't mention the other questionable things Mr. Anonimous said but I did kinda agree with him on those points...

[snip]

@IC: Will talk with Logi. I can see the argument for both options here. Perhaps something like "If more then 75% of the old cost has been payed, the IC may be completed for the old cost. If less then 75% of the cost has been payed, it must be completed under the new cost." is a possible middle ground. (Disclaimer: The 75% number is just a first proposal and has no evidence backing. The US IC still under construction is at 77.9% complete under the old cost.)

@Revolt exemption: You are misreading the pre 1903 exemption in such a way that makes that provision more overarching then it was intended. I will note that the wording was from an early draft, and so lost some clarity with further revision. The key thing to note here is the "that would not count as a colony under the above definition" part of that statement. Places like Cuba, the Philippines, and other sited examples do meet the definition of colonies, and so would not be subject to exemption. I cant actually think of a place that does not meet the colonial definition while also not being part of the homeland, so this clause may be superfluous. [As background, the exemption existed under an earlier idea that had three tiers (Core, Frontier, and Colony were the working names) as opposed to two. I cant seem to find the discussion, but this was originally floated around because of some possible grey areas with that tier between Homeland and Colony.]

@Expansion drawback: There has to be something to make colonies not a no-duh investment. Logi and I have discussed this at length and feel strongly that there must be a drawback to expansion that makes growing up as opposed to out a viable gameplay choice.

@Any WW comparison: Each ruleset has its set of flaws for what it has set out to do. Nobody is asking people to pick one or the other exclusively. Since our ruleset here is inherently more complex via both the counting of a second currency and addition of land/air compensates as part of the rules, there are going to be more small things that need to be accounted for. We feel that most of the potential for error can be minimized by using a spreadsheet.

[Walter]

You are misreading the pre 1903 exemption in such a way that makes that provision more overarching then it was intended.
...

To me when I read it, that bit refers to the "A Colony also is any territory taken over by a nation from another nation for a period of 25 years." I really get the feeling that an argument about exempting Cuba and the Philippines would pop up be because they were "territory taken over by a nation from another nation".

You say that I am misreading it so I would say that that is one more reason to remove that line from the rule proposal.


Looking at some of the proposals...

Players may move relocate population in their own lands as they please, however, each 1 unit of pop (1 million people) will cost two times the cost of building a new IC to move.

Considering the proposed change in the cost of ICs, the cost of relocating population will go way beyond totally ridiculous. So a nation with an income of less than $50 will pay $20 for relocating 1 million people while a nation with a budget of $100-125 will have to pay $50 to move the exact same amount of people... There is an other aspect that this bit does not take into account. Using China as an example, moving 1 million out of Manchuria (which is about 10% of the population of that region) should have a much bigger impact on the direct and indirect costs to the economy of that region than moving 1 million people out of Wei (which is about 0.75% of the population of that region). Maybe it is just better remoe that bit and keep movement limited to what is given in the next bit of the proposal...

This cost does not apply to moving up to 50% of the population growth on a given turn with mod approval.

I would suggest changing this bit a bit. If we are to take China's Wei region, its population will change from 135.951 in 1902 to 139.350 in 1903 which is an increase of 3.399. 50% of that is about 1.7 million. Probably an idea to add 'as long as it is less than 1 million'?

... at least I assume that with the "50% of the population growth" bit you are referring to the population growth in a region and not the population growth of the nation as a whole...

[snip]

Im not seeing how the line is creating this issue, but as stated there is no noted exemption to it so it can be scrubbed.

Regarding population movement, Logi and I do not want large scale population movements to be commonplace. As much as we would like to just say no to population above the later part of the rule, it has been asked about. So we wanted to make sure such movements were covered. The 50% clause applies per region, and as stated requires mod approval. I will have to look at just how many regions have pop growth around the levels you describe, but I think the times were growth large enough to make movements of greater then 1 million will be few enough to be handled on a case-by-case basis.

[Kaiser Kirk]

I cant actually think of a place that does not meet the colonial definition while also not being part of the homeland, so this clause may be superfluous. [As background, the exemption existed under an earlier idea that had three tiers (Core, Frontier, and Colony were the working names) as opposed to two. I cant seem to find the discussion, but this was originally floated around because of some possible grey areas with that tier between Homeland and Colony.]

Presuming Homeland is that area contiguous, or connected by the 12nm territorial sea limit ...based on the current definition, would not the following places be colonies?  Or do they fall in that grey area, or are they grandfathered into homeland in some undefined way? 

Sardinia is closer to Africa than Sicily, much less the mainland.
It is currently the 3rd least industrialized region, with most of Southern Italy, as well as Lombardy& Tyrol being behind.

So if Homeland is left as most developed province, there is a revolt risk until Pop:IC reaches .98:3 Current 1.09:1, so I need to triple the IC.

Chance of revolt is : 10% + (1903-1861/2)* + ?(don't get this part)...so basically 31%

*Technically Sardinia conquered the rest of Italy, and had the capital, which would make all of Italy the colony, but the capital has twice moved, and is now Rome, making Sardinia the colony.

Pantelleria and it's cohorts, between Sicily and Africa, suddenly become Colonies.

Corsica is more than 12nm from France. Ethnically Italian and taken from Genoa and the Corsican Republic in 1768-69. The Bonaparts were Italian nobles and Napolean didn't learn French until he was 9.

The Baelearics are more than 12nm from Spain.

Shetland is more than 12nm from Scotland.

Ireland...is 10.9nm from Scotland. Curses.  Of course it DID revolt..repeatedly...against terrible treatment. But apparently not a colony, despite what the locals, and many of my ancestors, would say about it. There's actually a song about the Brits burning down a forest to catch one of my family's rebels :)  Tipperary seems to have recovered nicely though.

Cyprus and Crete both appear to be more than 12nm away from other Ottoman territories. Ethnically Greek, Cyprus revolted repeatedly in the 1800s.  Historically Crete in this period had successfully torn away and was the Cretean state. While England ruled Cyprus.

New Zealand and Tasmania are more than 12nm away from Australia

As for the definition of Colony...gives a rather large boost to continental conquests by the USA/Russia/China, and to island hoppers.

Ironically, Spanish conquest of North Africa would not make a colony, as the strait is less than 12nm. Despite the Arab Muslim population. Likewise, the Ottomans are the only starting power with the ability to grab African lands...and NOT have it be a colony from the get go. Neat bonus prize for that starting position. 


Also : IF the rule patch is rammed through, and so changes my ability to ship population to Africa, and creates a revolt risk I don't want to deal with...
Well I'm going to have to sit down and work out a bunch of dummy turns to see what I can make of my African possessions, which raises the question -
If decide I don't want to bother, can I go back and undo my colonization of Africa?  That would seem fair.

[snip]

The 12nm limit is intended to be off of both respective shores. We had to pick some number, and since the 12nm limit would be something that could be verified with modern documentation simply. Other then the land connection and a territorial waters link, what else is there to objectively define the difference?

The Pop IC target ratio for Commonwealth status will change, likely to something more representative of the nation of a whole. I have not had a chance to talk with Logi about it yet.

Remember, Colony status is also conferred on any lands taken over that are contiguous for a period of 25 years. The wording should be changed to "another nation or non-incorperated territory" toke make that more clear.

As to the population of colonies with native populations, how do you propose we would track it? I am not sure how we would track that without lots of additional work and ambiguity. I'm also not sure how we would objectively define the level of native to transplant that would grant Commonwealth status.

[The Rock Doctor]

Theoretically, yes, the Ottomans could annex all of Africa and treat it as homeland.

Obviously, this does not pass a common sense test and I would not treat it that way.  Nor would I expect anybody to permit me to.

[The Rock Doctor]

So, full disclosure:  I have four incomplete IC under construction as of 2/1902.  You'll note from the sim report date that these preceded the discussion in this thread.

These are projects I've been throwing chump change at each year under the basic principle that they represent specific long-term projects - dams, railways, etc - that can't realistically be built in six months like our generic IC are. 

I'll continue those under the old pricing scheme.  New ones will follow the new pricing scheme.

[Logi]

I still don't think the Revolt thing in Colonial holdings is necessary... TBH Revolts have always been fluff, and should remain that way IMHO.  the increased IC costs will definitely slow down building for everyone.  I know you and Logi really like the forced revolt idea, but just because someone has an idea doesn't make it a good one.

My opinion is that if Snip and Logi like the idea of revolts so much then they are welcome to apply it to their territories but should not bother others with it who do not want it.

It is not so much that we like the idea of forced revolts but that me and Snip agree that there needs to be a drawback to incessant expansion. It needs to be a concrete, baked-in-the-rules drawback.

There are several reasons why there has to be a drawback.

1) A check on Player min-max gaming
2) A way to (passively) de-centivize wildly historically implausible events (in other words to promote some semblance of realistic gameplay and events)
3) To reduce moderator work (i.e. not having to review case by case and update by update the events occurring, for example, in Africa)
4) To provide a reference point for players to know when they are straying into "danger zone". (Similar to the L:B ratio guidelines)

I've said it before about canal cost and I will say it again... When I calculate the dirt cost of the canal, the only way for me to get to your $33 dirt removal cost is when I use $1.00 instead of the $0.25 you use. If I use $0.25, I get a dirt removal cost of $8.25 (0.25*100,000*30*11/10^6 = 8,250,000/1,000,000 = 8.25).

I forgot to divide by 4. You are right, it is $8.25 in dirt cost.

One other question regarding the change in IC cost. Do the ICs started and not completed in H2/1902 keep the H2/1902 cost or do their cost change to the H1/1903 cost for completion? To me it feels like it is proper that the latter is applied and currently I have it edited as such in my H1/1903 report.

My tentative opinion is that IC in construction should be grandfathered in, given that it is not excessive. For example, I think Rocky's case is fine.

Unless we are all fine with increased complexity in handling this transition, I see no reason to go ahead on the mixed cost option.

... as this would make areas such as Cuba, the Philippines and the bits of Austria-Hungary immune to revolt. That will definitely get the thumbs down from me. No exemptions should exist for territory that changed hands before 1903H1.

I don't believe the intention was ever for Cuba or the Philippines to be immune to revolt, although looking at it now the wording is not clear enough in that manner. I don't see how the bits of Austria-Hungary would be considered a colony though.

It should be noted that this merely defined a basic minimum of revolt chance, it does not mean if that specific section of the rules don't apply that you will never face a revolt.

I was actually talking to a Wesworlder (who shall remain anonymous) who has noticed the various discussions here. He was kind of confused by the want to make things simple yet N-verse needs to have a rule for everything. This proposal is just an additional annoying thing that a player needs to keep track of and the moderators as well. The more things you add, the more complicated it becomes and the bigger the chance is that errors creep in and someone ends up in a situation somewhat similar to yours over at Wesworld where you have to do quite a few reports.

For lack of a better phrase, a game without rules is just an exercise in mental masturbation.

Rules provide a common basis for discussion and allows gameplay to proceed with less moderator work. I have played (and moderated) games without rules and it is tiring on everyone. The players have to wait constantly for moderator feedback. The moderator has an undue amount of work to ensure the gameplaying experience proceeds fairly. If such feedback is not required, the gameplay quickly devolves into who has the loudest voice and other such low-class arguments.

Things seem simple only at a glance. But it is often the case that we will both regard something as simple but have very different interpretations of why it is simple and what the solution is.

Considering the proposed change in the cost of ICs, the cost of relocating population will go way beyond totally ridiculous. So a nation with an income of less than $50 will pay $20 for relocating 1 million people while a nation with a budget of $100-125 will have to pay $50 to move the exact same amount of people... There is an other aspect that this bit does not take into account. Using China as an example, moving 1 million out of Manchuria (which is about 10% of the population of that region) should have a much bigger impact on the direct and indirect costs to the economy of that region than moving 1 million people out of Wei (which is about 0.75% of the population of that region). Maybe it is just better remoe that bit and keep movement limited to what is given in the next bit of the proposal...

That is wildly inaccurate. The cost to move people is not proportional to the total number of people in that region.

By your logic, you could argue that moving 1 person from a county with a population of 1 could cost the same as moving 5,000 people from a county with a population of 10 million. It doesn't and has never worked that way.

Large scale movements are more possible in highly populated areas only because:
1) People notice it because of the scale
2) Natural movements (and population growth) do scale with population and a lot of this is included in migration counts.

Thought of that, which is why I floated "median" or mid range instead.
Say Nebraska, Minnesota, and Mississippi are all at 1:1 and New York is at 5:1, your average is 2:1, but your median (1:1, 1:1, 1:1, 5:1)  is 1:1.
then I thought, that still produces a number higher than the least developed province at home.

What the colonists probably care about is they aren't worse off than being in the home provinces - then they feel exploited.
so I proffered the least developed as an option.

I feel that that is definitely reasonable, however my concerns are the following:

1) Increasing the amount of math makes using a spreadsheet almost required.
2) If that still does not cover some cases or is too lenient.

[Walter]

Theoretically, yes, the Ottomans could annex all of Africa and treat it as homeland.

Obviously, this does not pass a common sense test and I would not treat it that way.  Nor would I expect anybody to permit me to.

I would think that it would either be looked at by the mods or maybe treated as 'territory taken over by a nation from another nation'? I would think that with the firm foothold the Ottomans have in Africa with Egypt and that it would be a continuation of their territories instead of something where there is a large stretch of water between homeland and colony, it would be much easier for them to deal with matters and potential riots as well as influence the area compared to European nations.

A typo as it were. You are right, it is $8.25 in dirt cost.

Okay. Kinda felt like slapping you around a bit in IRC regarding that. :)

Unless we are all fine with increased complexity in handling this transition, I see no reason to go ahead on the mixed cost option.

Okay. Got it. *starts building a dozen ICs* ;D

I don't believe the intention was ever for Cuba or the Philippines to be immune to revolt, although looking at it now the wording is not clear enough in that manner. I don't see how the bits of Austria-Hungary would be considered a colony though.

To me all those bits are, according to the proposed rules, "territory taken over by a nation from another nation" (Cuba and the Philippines from Spain and the Austria-Hungary bits from... well Austria-Hungary of course) and therefore a colony for a period of 25 years. Maybe not the intention, but that is how the rule proposal comes over to me. Adding to that the bit of "An exemption exists for any territory that changed hands before 1903H1 that would not count as a colony under the above definition.", that would then suggest then that all those bits I mentioned are then actually immune to revolt and if that actually were the case... well I guess you can understand why I would have a big problem with that as it would be a pretty cheap way to remove 'colony' status from a controlled region. Snip explained that that was not the case though...

For lack of a better phrase, a game without rules is just an exercise in mental masturbation.

I find your choice of words a bit... questionable... I would actually have used 'Anarchy' there... I'm not saying that we should not have any rules at all, but we should not have too many rules either and make the whole sim unwieldy so we end up with yet another Navalism reset.

That is wildly inaccurate. The cost to move people is not proportional to the total number of people in that region.

Regarding cost, I'm pretty sure that with "income of less than $50 will pay $20" and "budget of $100-125 will have to pay $50" I am neither looking at populations nor at regions when it comes to the cost. I am actually looking at the revenue and the nation as a whole as indicated in the proposed rules regarding the new IC costs.

By your logic, you could argue that moving 1 person from a county with a population of 1 could cost the same as moving 5,000 people from a county with a population of 10 million. It doesn't and has never worked that way.

I thought my logic was more along the lines of 'the bigger the percentage of population being moved, the bigger the impact on the direct and indirect costs to the economy it has.' Actually looking at my example, it is no good because as it stands now, the 1 million people from Wei are 0.75% which is less than the 50% of the population growth...

... On the other hand, there is no need to make it complex...


Another thing... I was actually looking at the DEI a bit and thought for fun to see how history would compare. For the 20th century with quickly looking around I could only find Soekarno's insurrection in 1927 and of course the war of independence in the second half of the 1940s (which is actually something that got a boost due to the Japanese occupation)...

... but then when looking at the proposal, it just confuses me. I have absolutely no idea how to calculate that... :-\ An example would help with that so we get a decent insight as to how it will work (a proper one please and not a faulty one like Logi gave with the canal costs :) )

[miketr]

Are things still being argued, hashed over, talked about or are they final? 


Michael

[Logi]

We are still talking over the "Colonies and Commonwealth" section. I think everything else has been finalized.

[Walter]

I would say that it is more about clarifying aspects of the "Colonies and Commonwealth" section as well as maybe seeing how the riot formula works.

Someone did make me aware of a number of 19th century rebellions in Canada (using 1903 as base, the most recent one being in 1885 or so which is less than 20 years ago) which would make the exemption for Canada and Australia questionable but I am not going to bother with that too much.