WesWorld

Quoted

Originally posted by Brockpaine
Discussion on this kinda dried up. Was there consensus to put together a text and vote on it, or no?

I don't think that there was a consensus reached on any particular proposal. If there is a specific proposal, I'd like to see it clearly stated.

It seems to have stalled out without reaching a vote consensus.

I'd be curious as to Rocky's view of where the discussion stands and any ideas strike him as worth development.

Here's a proposal.

All large nations (+20 factories) get an additional 3 factories.

All smaller nations (-20 factories) get an additional 4 factories.

Quoted

Originally posted by TheCanadian
Here's a proposal.

All large nations (+20 factories) get an additional 3 factories.

All smaller nations (-20 factories) get an additional 4 factories.

Much as Yugoslavia would benefit from this proposal - a 200% increase - I do not favor it.

Quoted

Originally posted by Kaiser Kirk

Counter offer - one I've offered before.
I think we could graft a population solution onto the current game without being disruptive.
Simply assign an "infrastructure factory" based on pop.
This could be 1 per an absolute number (1:25mil, 1:50, 1:100 etc) or sliding ( 1: 1-10mil, 2:11-30mil, 3: 31-90mil, 4: 91-270mil, 5: 271-1 billion)
I favor the sliding scale, though in my case I'm not sure how it would apply (i.e. would my nations be bundled, or separated by continent)

These factories could only be expended on "infrastructure " - Factories, docks, slips, and would reflect the increased labor pool available.
This would allow both smaller countries to focus on actual ship building, and very large population nations to see benefit from that.

I would prefer such a proposal .... may be we could spend a little bit more fine-tuning in it but i looks good in my eyes.

Quoted

Originally posted by parador

Quoted

Originally posted by Kaiser Kirk

Counter offer - one I've offered before.
I think we could graft a population solution onto the current game without being disruptive.
Simply assign an "infrastructure factory" based on pop.
This could be 1 per an absolute number (1:25mil, 1:50, 1:100 etc) or sliding ( 1: 1-10mil, 2:11-30mil, 3: 31-90mil, 4: 91-270mil, 5: 271-1 billion)
I favor the sliding scale, though in my case I'm not sure how it would apply (i.e. would my nations be bundled, or separated by continent)

These factories could only be expended on "infrastructure " - Factories, docks, slips, and would reflect the increased labor pool available.
This would allow both smaller countries to focus on actual ship building, and very large population nations to see benefit from that.

I would prefer such a proposal .... may be we could spend a little bit more fine-tuning in it but i looks good in my eyes.

I stand opposed to this proposal at this stage of the game.

If the value is pitched too low, the most populous nations in the game (China and India) would receive a huge increment of "infrastructure" factories compared with the other nations in the game. If the number is pitched high, only nations with very high population figures would gain any real benefit.

This late into the game is not the time to tinker with the fundamentals; to consider such in the context of rules changes for reset is another matter.

OT

Are any plans made for a post 1950 WW? Anyone here skilled enough to modify springsharp to introduce the features needed?

Quoted

Originally posted by TheCanadian
Here's a proposal.

All large nations (+20 factories) get an additional 3 factories.

All smaller nations (-20 factories) get an additional 4 factories.

There is no need to increase industrial potential generally. WesWorld is already crowded wither factories - but no rules on maintenance etc. that force people to actually use their factories for what is reasonable.

I also think your proposal does not address the original request - to deal with countries that developed over time but did not benefit from a jump start of a large navy prior to 1920.

The problem I have with the proposals so far is that it only benefits a few. If we are going to "tweak" factory numbers, it either benefits all or none. Which is why I proposed a flat rate for all nations, with the smaller nations benefitting more than the larger nations.

The other route I suppose would be to review all countries on a case by case basis, awarding extra factories whether they are used for shipbuilding or infrastructure.

The problem I have with Kirk's proposal, is that it has really very little benefit to all but a few nations, and that those it benefits do not really receive much of a boost at all. So why bother when its almost 1943, and I at least am not planning anything post-1950?

Why not just leave things as they are, and let the game run out?

A. Why make any changes - because some folks feel we've come far enough to reveal "issues" with the original design. Thats enough to at least merit a discussion.

B. Story line. Countries that were undeveloped should have developed somewhat further now. Capital inputs into lower echelon countries from something like SATSUMA or SANTA are storylines with no change reflected. The only available mechanisms hinged on already having heavy industry, and being a pre-WWI naval power.

C. I'm not really in the change or no change camp. It's so late that it won't massively alter anything I do, so I'm in favor of considering things if it will make our community happier.

D. On the post 1950 stuff...the later the SIM goes the less interest I have. Missiles and Jets are not of interest. I don't even like the +3 rule, I'd rather it be -5. I signed up through 1950, and that's it. I would have more interest in starting "fresh" in 1880 or so.

A. Much of the opinion expressed so far, hasn't really been one of an overwhelming consensus that things need to be changed. Sure there are issues with the original design - but from my POV most have either shot down the proposals so far, or aren't in favour, or would rather it benefit all.

B. Yet countries that were already developed also would have developed further, there is NARC after all, and various other agreements that have the same affect as the ones you posted. I highly doubt that the larger economies have totally stagnated and the Eastern Powers have been industrializing at full steam.

C. Discussing thing is fine, and I agree that its too late to really make an impact on the game. Adding 4 factories to India and China doesn't put them any farther ahead in comparison to the other powers in the region, especially if you add 2 or 3 to the Europeans, which I think is likely what would have to happen for them to gain additional factories. Whether they gain them through being given to them, or having to build them themselves with infrastructure points, the end result is the same; Navalwise, the Europeans have a significant advantage vs. everyone else, one they have held for the entirety of the game. Whether you think its the failure of Asia to divide the Europeans amongst themselves through diplomacy, or the unwillingness of the European players to risk their empires, the end result is the same if China/India has 11 factories or 15. They each might get an extra cruiser or two out of the deal, with some destroyers thrown in considering the length of time it takes to build ships.

D. Im not all that keen on playing past '50 either, but I will if the rest want to.

Perhaps someone else has some more proposals? I suppose I could go through each nations factory numbers, and post what I feel each nation should get (if we are giving everyone more factories, or infrastructure factories whatever the case may be).

A. There have been many issues raised in the past and most have been solved by tweaks. The latest round of infrastructure rule changes were begun by tweaks but we are reaching a point where tweaks need to be more major. Is the right time to implement them? Probably not, but we need to discuss things now to have a clear plan what any changes for WW2 or WW1950+ may look like and so everyone gets a chance to have some input (realisticaly still probably 2-3 years away).

B. All nations should have developed. When we look at how much IP has actually been spent on docks or new factories it belies that fact. There has been no investment at all in certain quarters (new players to previously unplayed nations have tended to get some backdated IP to immediately spend like I did with Argentina). Also if we take China as a case study of a nation who wants more capacity, most of the quarterly tonnage has been spent on buying second-hand ships rather than home-grown designs (Mexico too). They have used what resources they have to acquire bigger bangs for less bucks, but that probably hasn't really invested much in the home industries.

C. As my answer to A really, we need to discuss an ideal system in time for any WW2 to iron out snags. I think WW2 or WW1950 would require a host of new things like maintainece plans, manpower limits etc. to make things more realistic. At the moment we have serious overstretch of resources to maintain and man fleets. Something not addressed with pure IP and tonnage capacity for building.
In any case at the moment the boards are fairly inactive and many members are AWOL or otherwise tied up. Without a full consenus beyond a few regular players it won't work. If we loose any more players then WW2 isn't going to be a realistic proposition without a raise in NPCs. We can't even fill the gaps we have now without major triple or qaudruple hatting.

D. I'd like to go past 1950, but then a reset might be more fun (and SS works fully with a reset). We would need to decide a suitable place to reset to, an exact copy back to 1919-20 might become deja vous.

E. Proposal, keeping with the original premise; one extra factory for every capital ship built by a nation (or paid for but built by a third-party from new) since 1920.
*Walks away whistling innocently*

E. I would go with that proposal Hood only if we included ships reconstructed or refitted in that time .

B. On growth, we've seen more ingame storyline transfer of capital and investment than occurred historically, thus allowing more industrialization of agriculture and freeing of more labor to operate manufacturing. This *could* create a more modern situation than historical, with developed nations naturally growing at 3%, while developing nations expand at 9-12%.

E. Interesting. An example of a proposal we can kick around. The Dutch can claim 2 Utrechts, a van Heemskerck, 2 Ijelsijks, 2 Kortenaers, with 2 Kortenaers building... and we've refitted 4. So I'd be comfortably in advance of dread Bahrat. Or Italy.
BUT
I see problems with it - favors those with the most factories, the dampening effect of Clieto's, and how to account for something like my 26,000 ton Ijelsijk counting the same as a 45,000 ton Kortenaer, overall I don't see how it really moves towards improving the situation in the original post.

F. How about : Go back through sim reports to the beginning, figure out what % of each nation's output has been committed to IPs for factories, award bonus factories in accordance.

Looking through the proposals so far, I'm not sure I want to vote for some of the proposals that add a lot of factories. One or two factories, sure - three factories maybe at a stretch. But some of these proposals seem likely to add significant numbers of factories to nations which probably shouldn't even have had more than three or four to start with.

Quoted

Originally posted by TheCanadian
E. I would go with that proposal Hood only if we included ships reconstructed or refitted in that time .

If that were the case, then France would receive twenty-eight new factories. (And Chile would receive six, if not more.)

Now, I'd not be upset if France got twenty-eight new factories. But I'm not sure it's entirely reasonable to do so. And this from a nation which is significantly behind most of the other Great Powers in terms of capital ship construction.

Quoted

Originally posted by Kaiser Kirk
F. How about : Go back through sim reports to the beginning, figure out what % of each nation's output has been committed to IPs for factories, award bonus factories in accordance.

This could conceivably be a good idea - although I'd like to note that it would quite heavily favor larger players (who have invested in IP for factories) rather than the small players who have not.

Quoted

Originally posted by Brockpaine

Quoted

Originally posted by Kaiser Kirk
F. How about : Go back through sim reports to the beginning, figure out what % of each nation's output has been committed to IPs for factories, award bonus factories in accordance.

This could conceivably be a good idea - although I'd like to note that it would quite heavily favor larger players (who have invested in IP for factories) rather than the small players who have not.

I suspect that's true, which is why I framed as % of the nations output. Belgium's been putting 20-25% of it's output into more factories, for the UK to match it would take ~12 factories/turn.

Since small nations may have felt it wasn't worthwhile to try for a factory, they may have done nothing...but this *is* the only development mechanism in the game, and the only current way of indicating the importance to your economy of trying to expand capacity. So if we're discussing "growth" it may be a metric worth discussing.

Really not sure how to move it forward to a "you invested X%/N years, you get +Y factories.

I still like my earlier infrastructure factories best.

My suggestion was slightly tongue-in-cheek, but it shows if we continue the intial logic of WW's creation that it no longer makes sense. But then by re-writing that logic now, the past no longer makes any sense.

I don't quite understand Kirk's logic. If nations have been paying IP towards new factories then that IP has already been spent to acquire a factory. Why award a "bonus" when that capacity has already been paid for from the system already in place? It's like a buy-one-get-one-free offer. How is that in any sense fair since that IP has already been created by the factories and consumed into creating another factory. Yes its growth, but its growth already sustained within the current system. If Belgium can afford to spend a qaurter of its budget on factory production already then does it really need further expansion? What would Belguim do with a BOGOF result, then spend 50% of its resources on more factories?
Also, it ignores IP spent on other solid products like docks and slips.

I think before we go much further we really need to find a justification for increasing capacity. Using the Belgium exmaple given by Kirk, given its small fleet and construction requirements spending on factories makes more sense than building ships it doesn't need or can't support. So why would it want more factories when it has nothing to produce except more IP to feed back into the system? Given we just amended the surplus tonnage rules to increase the unspent amounts of tonnage that can be saved for a rainy day, that would imply a degree of surplus already in the current system. So the question is who really doesn't have a surplus from their construction needs/ IP spends each quarter? I see all this as a mechanism to get more tonnage when in reality most players probably have more than enough with proper budgeting. [China's second-hand spree is another example of this, plenty of tonnage to use up buying old 1910-1920 era floating scrap every quarter without exception.]

If any deserving needy case can prove they need more tonnage on this thread then I might vote Yay. Right now its Nay until that issue of justification can be answered.

Quoted

Originally posted by Hood
My suggestion was slightly tongue-in-cheek, but it shows if we continue the intial logic of WW's creation that it no longer makes sense. But then by re-writing that logic now, the past no longer makes any sense.

I don't quite understand Kirk's logic. If nations have been paying IP towards new factories then that IP has already been spent to acquire a factory. Why award a "bonus" when that capacity has already been paid for from the system already in place? It's like a buy-one-get-one-free offer. How is that in any sense fair since that IP has already been created by the factories and consumed into creating another factory. Yes its growth, but its growth already sustained within the current system. If Belgium can afford to spend a qaurter of its budget on factory production already then does it really need further expansion? What would Belguim do with a BOGOF result, then spend 50% of its resources on more factories?
Also, it ignores IP spent on other solid products like docks and slips.

I think before we go much further we really need to find a justification for increasing capacity. Using the Belgium exmaple given by Kirk, given its small fleet and construction requirements spending on factories makes more sense than building ships it doesn't need or can't support. So why would it want more factories when it has nothing to produce except more IP to feed back into the system? Given we just amended the surplus tonnage rules to increase the unspent amounts of tonnage that can be saved for a rainy day, that would imply a degree of surplus already in the current system. So the question is who really doesn't have a surplus from their construction needs/ IP spends each quarter? I see all this as a mechanism to get more tonnage when in reality most players probably have more than enough with proper budgeting. [China's second-hand spree is another example of this, plenty of tonnage to use up buying old 1910-1920 era floating scrap every quarter without exception.]

If any deserving needy case can prove they need more tonnage on this thread then I might vote Yay. Right now its Nay until that issue of justification can be answered.

This is a very clear exposition of the position I find myself in. If any nation has expended IP to construct factories for the production of tonnage or IP, it has increased its productive base for naval construction - and everything else in the economy is so much hand waving, for better or worse.

I have yet to see anyone make a good argument that their nation was somehow 'shorted' factories at start up and that they deserve an increment now in compensation. Given the fact that we have major WW naval powers that in the OTL had little or no organic naval construction capacity, the start-up positions do not mirror the OTL very well - but they are where the game started.

If and when the game is reset (and I personally favor some sort of reset) we do need to find a better way in which to establish the basic industrial capacities of the nations involved in the game - whether that be historical or ahistorical. And once set, they are set. Industrial development from that point would be controlled by what ever mechanisms we put in place to control industrial development.

Like Hood, if someone can made a good argument, I might find their reasoning sound - but I have yet to see it.

Quoted

Originally posted by Hood
I think before we go much further we really need to find a justification for increasing capacity. Using the Belgium exmaple given by Kirk, given its small fleet and construction requirements spending on factories makes more sense than building ships it doesn't need or can't support. So why would it want more factories when it has nothing to produce except more IP to feed back into the system? Given we just amended the surplus tonnage rules to increase the unspent amounts of tonnage that can be saved for a rainy day, that would imply a degree of surplus already in the current system. So the question is who really doesn't have a surplus from their construction needs/ IP spends each quarter? I see all this as a mechanism to get more tonnage when in reality most players probably have more than enough with proper budgeting. [China's second-hand spree is another example of this, plenty of tonnage to use up buying old 1910-1920 era floating scrap every quarter without exception.]

If any deserving needy case can prove they need more tonnage on this thread then I might vote Yay. Right now its Nay until that issue of justification can be answered.

Seconded. I think that, in 90% of cases, we have too many factories, rather than not enough.

Look at Britain - over the course of game-time, has built or laid down fifteen battleships, when historically they only built five (the KGVs). France has built ten battleships/battlecruisers compared to 3-4 historical. Italy has eleven versus their historical three. Japan built six and has four more under construction, where they only historically built two.Only the WW USA has laid down fewer battleships than their OTL counterpart. The story goes on.

Quoted

Originally posted by Hood
If any deserving needy case can prove they need more tonnage on this thread then I might vote Yay. Right now its Nay until that issue of justification can be answered.

Global domination is hard on Canada's budget. More plz.