WesWorld

Quoted

Originally posted by Desertfox

Quoted

Citing 2010 GDP stats as an example for any country is not relevant; the IMF does not track GDP data before 1970 because of inaccuracies in the means of measuring data.

I know, but its the best thing I found and I am upset with people painting Mexico as the least economically developed country in the world...

We have that problem endemic to the Sim. The absence of the Great Depression throws things off as well.

Right now I have ~2.5 factories assigned as 'being in' the NEI. On a per capita basis that would mean the NEI are as developed as Bahrat. Meanwhile Belgium has 1/3 the factories of the NL, despite it's historically higher steel production. This is because factories are neither indicators of GDP, nor tech level, or industrial base. It makes it all very fuzzy and hard to decide what is "appropriate".

As for Nationalization of oil industries- at first it can work great. Cut out the middle man, etc. In the longer run the historical outcome is croynism, job creation, and using the Oil company as a piggie bank drains the company of skill and experience, and exploration & infrastructure funds. I did look up the Mexican oil industry once, and there is a decline eventually, but I can't recall when.

Quoted

Originally posted by Desertfox

Quoted

Citing 2010 GDP stats as an example for any country is not relevant; the IMF does not track GDP data before 1970 because of inaccuracies in the means of measuring data.

I know, but its the best thing I found and I am upset with people painting Mexico as the least economically developed country in the world...

It's not; we just don't feel it's as rosy a picture as you try to paint it. I try to evaluate things based on fact, and I feel like you've let your pro-Mexican nationalism color your view of the situation.

In any case - I feel the factory requirements in Wesworld represent a mix of two main factors:
- the political will to build a navy
- the economic capability to build a navy

Since Mexico's political will to build a navy is High (it feels high), then I'd rate their economic capabilities as the limiting factor in Mexico's role in the game. Conversely, the US is in the opposite position: economic capability is high, but political will (even with friendly politicians) is lower, and therefore is only represented by 30-odd factories. (Note: I've calculated that based on the historical economic power the US had approximately seventeen times the GDP of Japan - so if Japan has 27 factories in Wesworld, the US would have 459 factories. Of course that's sheer economic scale - if memory serves, the US outproduced Japan by a 5:1 ratio, or the equivalent production of 135 factories.)

Quoted

Originally posted by Desertfox

Quoted

Much of Mexico's economic growth came in the 1970s and 1980s, and the basis for is was laid in the aftermath of the Second World War.

Actually the Peso crashed in the 1970's setting the country back a decade. It only recovered by 2000.

The peso may have crashed, but the Mexican GDP was still growing in the 1970s.

Quoted

Originally posted by Desertfox
As for WW effects, Mexico was one of the hardest hit countries by the Great Depression which never happened here..

My sources disagreed, saying, quote: "The Great Depression brought Mexico a sharp drop in national income and internal demand after 1929, challenging the country's ability to fulfill its constitutional mandate to promote social equity. Still, Mexico did not feel the effects of the Great Depression as directly as some other countries did."

Quoted

It's not; we just don't feel it's as rosy a picture as you try to paint it. I try to evaluate things based on fact, and I feel like you've let your pro-Mexican nationalism color your view of the situation.

Since Mexico's political will to build a navy is High (it feels high), then I'd rate their economic capabilities as the limiting factor in Mexico's role in the game. Conversely, the US is in the opposite position: economic capability is high, but political will (even with friendly politicians) is lower, and therefore is only represented by 30-odd factories. (Note: I've calculated that based on the historical economic power the US had approximately seventeen times the GDP of Japan - so if Japan has 27 factories in Wesworld, the US would have 459 factories. Of course that's sheer economic scale - if memory serves, the US outproduced Japan by a 5:1 ratio, or the equivalent production of 135 factories.)

Well I am not saying Mexico should be a 15 factory superpower, even 10 would be a stretch. But neither is it a lowest rung nation with 3 factories. I think 5 would be a reasonable representation of manufacturing capability vs political will.

And actually you have it backwards, Mexico is an even more extreme version of the US, having the economic capability but not the political will. OTL 2010 Mexico spends 0.5% of its GDP on the military in contrast to most of the world's ~5%.

Quoted

My sources disagreed, saying, quote: "The Great Depression brought Mexico a sharp drop in national income and internal demand after 1929, challenging the country's ability to fulfill its constitutional mandate to promote social equity. Still, Mexico did not feel the effects of the Great Depression as directly as some other countries did."

There is a difference between feeling the effects and actually being affected by them. More developed nations will feel the effects more, but might be less affected by them. For most of Mexico's population, nothing really changed due to the Great Depression. But Mexico on the whole was greatly affected in that it was not able to develop economically

Quoted

Originally posted by Desertfox
And actually you have it backwards, Mexico is an even more extreme version of the US, having the economic capability but not the political will. OTL 2010 Mexico spends 0.5% of its GDP on the military in contrast to most of the world's ~5%.

I'll quibble with that as I'm talking WW with that statement, not IRL. The way Mexico buys cheap ships implies political will to expand the Mexican Navy; the fact that you don't build new implies that the limiting factor on acquisition is financial.

Five factories doesn't sound unreasonable to me.

Quoted

Originally posted by Brockpaine

Quoted

Originally posted by Desertfox
And actually you have it backwards, Mexico is an even more extreme version of the US, having the economic capability but not the political will. OTL 2010 Mexico spends 0.5% of its GDP on the military in contrast to most of the world's ~5%.

I'll quibble with that as I'm talking WW with that statement, not IRL. The way Mexico buys cheap ships implies political will to expand the Mexican Navy; the fact that you don't build new implies that the limiting factor on acquisition is financial.

Five factories doesn't sound unreasonable to me.

I think I'll step in before Hoo does, and point out that I don't think an abstract adjustment of any power's factory totals is going to be considered at this state of the game. There are many players who I'm sure think their nation is under-represented or otherwise needs some kind of 'tweaking' (I've always said I believe Canada is somewhat undervalued), but these statistics are what were set up at the begining of the game, and the statistics all players agreed to when they took stewardship of their nations. To now demand a change seems to be in bad form; All players knew the score when they agreed to run the country.

I suppose I could be wrong, and perhaps there's a general sentiment to adjust the economic power levels of the sim in general to reflect a 1940s no-depression era vs. the 1920s era we started with... but I don't think so.

I have to second Shin's point; this particular sim is to far along in its history to make major adjustments to the economic base of any one, or a few, powers. We must play the hand we are dealt.

If the game resets, perhaps, a different method of determining each nation's naval construction capability can be used - if a better one can be developed. But for now, no changes please; it is what it is.

The factory's we have represent naval production not the overall nations value. Along the way in the sim some have taken existing resources and increased their factory tally's further, myself included.

Given the fleets that have been spawned in smaller nations I'd say the factory levels for the most part are fine. As Turkey and Colombia I have more than enough tonnage to create larger than historical fleets.

I echo what Shin and Bruce say. Factory levels have been the way they are for nearly 20 sim years and shouldn't be changed now.

I was not suggesting a change - I was merely saying I didn't think it was unreasonable.

Not asking for more, just stating that Mexico's factory number should be higher. And therefore, I am forced to buy used ships to make up for the lack of factories. A Mexico with two extra factories would have been able to build say six 1k destroyers a year for a total of 60 destroyers in 10 years. Which is approximately where I am at, only used. Hence my original statement that I feel pinched compared to other 3 factory nations such as Bulgaria or Ireland.

That said, Australia probably has too many factories...

Quoted

Originally posted by Desertfox
That said, Australia probably has too many factories...

I'll take two. Or five. Yoink!

Quoted

Originally posted by ShinRa_Inc

Quoted

Originally posted by Desertfox
That said, Australia probably has too many factories...

I'll take two. Or five. Yoink!

If he's giving them away, Brazil and Romania can use some as well, so I will take two each also.

I do agree though for WW 2.0 that one of the things we should bring up is factory levels. While I that the number of factories Romania had at sim start (5) is appropriate, I do think that Brazil could be upped at least to where Chile is currently. IOTL the South American republics were more or less equal in their willingness to invest in the naval arm.

Quoted

I'll take two. Or five. Yoink!

Knowing his twisted evil mind (just look at Navalism), I'm pretty sure you will be the one who ends up losing those factories and he will then put them in Mexico together with the surplus Australian factories.

Quoted

If he's giving them away, Brazil and Romania can use some as well, so I will take two each also.

... and he's going to turn Brazil and Romania into Mexican colonies.

Quoted

Originally posted by Desertfox
Not asking for more, just stating that Mexico's factory number should be higher. And therefore, I am forced to buy used ships to make up for the lack of factories. A Mexico with two extra factories would have been able to build say six 1k destroyers a year for a total of 60 destroyers in 10 years. Which is approximately where I am at, only used. Hence my original statement that I feel pinched compared to other 3 factory nations such as Bulgaria or Ireland.

That said, Australia probably has too many factories...

Colombia with 4 factory's has a Destroyer fleet of 20, 12 of which are brand spanking new destroyers built over, if I'm recalling correctly, under a leasurely and sporatic 5 year building program. Colombia's also purchased the 2 Rio's and the BB Minais Gerais from Brazil and 2 Oyama's, 2 pre dreads and 3 CL's from Chile......all with 4 factory's. Granted I have had a bit of help from Atlantis but it isn't by any means a consistant or sizable amount.

The arguement seems flawed.
So folks only buy second hand hulks becuase they can't afford to build as many new ships.
So Nation X could build two destroyers per year but instead buys four old 1917 destroyers per year. So after five years Nation X could have had ten new DDs but actually has 20 old destroyers with 5-10 years life left and the've had to find the crews to man twice as many ships. They also need replacing twice as fast as the new ships.

There is nothing wrong in buying second-hand to fill gaps for expensive ships and niche vessels (carriers etc) but to inflate OOBs with dozens of old and quite crude CLs and DDs seems wastful in the long-term view.

The argument presented relies solely upon the number of factories - there are other factors in the equation - the number and size of available building slips or docks, and the size of vessel selected for construction.

For example, Yugoslavia has but two factories, but they produce 8,000 tons of material a year - which, given sufficient number of building slips, would support construction of up to four 2,000 ton destroyers a year. Yugoslavia cannot sustain that building rate due to lack of slips and docks.

Even so, there would be little strategic and tactical need for a large force of a single ship type in a green water navy. National aspirations aside, a nation with a small naval construction capability has to balance its budget with its needs, and not try to impress the world with a collection of antiques - no matter how large.

The other thing too is smaller nations tend to get noticed more when they start to feild large navy's, which isn't always a good thing.