WesWorld

Quoted

Originally posted by ShinRa_Inc

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.

I'm afraid that doesn't cut it.

Quoted

Originally posted by Hood

I don't quite understand Kirk's logic.

That's a frequent result of my explaining things

As I understand the overall issue, countries with large starting populations, but low starting factories, have spent 20 years "developing" by storyline. In the case of SATSUMA it had non-naval growth components as well, and access to Japanese capital. Other nations have been bound by agreements that should have boosted development - PETA, RATs, AEGIS, SANTA, BENELUX, Skoda-Davao etc.

Generally, large but poorly industrialized benefit greatly from liberalized trade, access to capital and infrastructure injections, achieving growth rates difficult
to attain in more developed countries where that is already in place.

So how to we account for this.
A) Ignore it, it's 1942, sim ends 1950, to late now.

B) Award bonus factories based on pop - distorting, favors large nations just cause.

C) Infrastructure factories - reward for storyline/growth, not directly distorting the naval picture.

D) Award factories based on some naval metric - yes I realized it was tongue and cheek, but treating it seriously was fun, and I didn't want to be dismissive.

E) Award bonus factories to those nations that used the in-game growth mechanism, based on % of effort allocated to this end. More quantifiable, and so more defensible (perhaps) than B, though it does result in freebies.

F) Variant on E : Retroactively change the amount of IP needed for a factory, so that lower # factories need less IP for +1, representing the mining of the high return ores, occupying the primo transportation spots, access to cheap labor etc. As production shifts to more marginal areas, and labor pools dry up, the # of IP for a factory rises.

Granted E and F may do nothing for the people raising the issue, as they may not have put much into factories due to the long timelines and minimal return.

So I favor C. It frees factories for actual naval builds, while allowing the base to be expanded, tapping the non-naval portion of the labor pool. I never understood why a drydock took so much high quality steel and machining. The machine tools would be about it. You can dig the hole with steam shovels..or coolies. The cranes and gates can be low quality steels or even alternative resources...i.e. an Infrastructure factory could do that.

Quoted

Originally posted by Kaiser Kirk
C) Infrastructure factories - reward for storyline/growth, not directly distorting the naval picture.

...

So I favor C. It frees factories for actual naval builds, while allowing the base to be expanded, tapping the non-naval portion of the labor pool. I never understood why a drydock took so much high quality steel and machining. The machine tools would be about it. You can dig the hole with steam shovels..or coolies. The cranes and gates can be low quality steels or even alternative resources...i.e. an Infrastructure factory could do that.

Just for my own mental clarification, what do you mean by "reward for storyline/growth"?

Quoted

So I favor C. It frees factories for actual naval builds, while allowing the base to be expanded, tapping the non-naval portion of the labor pool. I never understood why a drydock took so much high quality steel and machining. The machine tools would be about it. You can dig the hole with steam shovels..or coolies. The cranes and gates can be low quality steels or even alternative resources...i.e. an Infrastructure factory could do that.

What seems to be proposed is a mechanism to somehow quantify the output of a general economy in order to allow it to construct naval infrastructure - the factories/shipyards that actually construct vessels.

IF that's the case, it's all well and good to award such to high populations like China or India. But the same premise would apply to any industrialized nation - China would rely on more labor and less capital, Germany would rely on more capital and less labor. The end result would be the same basic distribution of naval construction capability, merely at a higher level of output.

Quoted

E) Award bonus factories to those nations that used the in-game growth mechanism, based on % of effort allocated to this end. More quantifiable, and so more defensible (perhaps) than B, though it does result in freebies.

What in-game growth mechanism is referred to here? Is it the investment of current IP in additional factories or something else? The growth of options has obfuscated this point.

Brock : I mean that folks write about the investments they've made in their economy, the deals struck with other nations, the factories built by foriegn concerns - Skoda Davao, and the tractor production thereof being an example. Yet while there is satisfaction of improving your nation - after 20 sim years players find their nation not improved a whit statistically. So granting an improvement would be a reward.

Bruce : Industrialized nations's ability to expand via capital is already accounted for in Wesworld via the ability to expend Factory effort for IPs. There is no method to model other ways of expanding your manufacturing base.

yes, the only in-game growth mechanism is that of IP to current factories.

At this point I find myself bemused that I seem to become an advocate for this, when it's not my issue in the first place. Really I'm trying to be an advocate for discussing the issues with an open mind. I do find that Bahrat's and China's continued silence is irksome.
Why try to consider the issue if they won't participate?

My thoughts on this follow. They are admittedly colored by my work over at Navalism, but I feel they are applicable to the current talks. When I refer to Naval Capital, I am referring factory numbers as here as they are an abstraction in my view of a nation's industrial, monetary, and political power for building and maintaining a Navy.

I agree with the assessment that some nations have to much Naval capital for a system without turn-based maintenance built into it. There is some form of maintenance due to refit rules, but seeing as it is not enforced on a turn-to-turn basis as far as consuming a dedicated portion of Naval Capital, it is not what it needs to be to realistically accommodate such high factory numbers.

On that same token, I agree that some nations have insufficient Naval Capital for the current geo-political arena they find themselves in relative to the start of the game. If say the initial ruleset was applied in 1880, would the very rapid growth of Naval Capital in Germany, the United States, and Japan have been possible? I don't think so. (to be fair, I think modeling that sort of growth is very complicated for any system that is easy to use)

That being said, I agree with this line of thinking to be a very long shot for implantation in this round of our glorious game. After 22 game years, and with the artificial SpringSharp imposed "deadline" of 1950 for a transition anyway, it seems to have already run the course it is going to run. Altering it now provides minimal benefit for the remainder of the remainder of game time until we are forced to make some sort of change for post 1950, be it a reboot or something else.

In my opinion, after having worked on a few restart attempts at Navalism, there are two paths a economic system for this type of simulation can take, that of two variables (Money and industrial potential) or one (the current factory system). To me, a two variable system allows for a much more dynamic representation of the use of Naval Capital relative to the current single variable system. The argument that I continue to see within these economic talks is that there is a instinct difference between those nations that can build warships and those that can only purchase them. This distinction in my opinion allows for variation in the amount of Naval Capital that can be spend over time without tieing it to industrial capacity as a single variable system is forced to do. By separating the monetary and political capital from industrial capital, it allows for variation to a more flexible extent then is currently allowed. This flexibility would go a long way to helping fix the issues that have been raised with the system. I think such should be considered if a alteration to the system is to be implemented for a reboot.

The reasons I let myself be talked into taking Bavaria in Navalism 3 were largely the twin economic elements Snip refers too, and the tech tree which I hoped would forestall the introduction of things far before time.

Bavaria also had the "advantage' that I could build a navy from scratch and was so backwards I could play with stacked casements ! Also, as I had little naval expenses and so could pay for a massive army, I was going to be a land power......and then the army rules were revamped and everyone could afford all the army their pop could support...sniff. Plus I found myself hemmed by other people's backstories I hadn't found in my pre-game research. But I digress.

So overall I'm decidedly a fan of a twin Money & industrial potential route.

From the lukewarm to negative reception received here so far to the ideas of change, I think there is unlikely to be any change here. I thought the concerns of some players was sufficient to merit an honest discussion.

Quoted

Originally posted by Kaiser Kirk
At this point I find myself bemused that I seem to become an advocate for this, when it's not my issue in the first place. Really I'm trying to be an advocate for discussing the issues with an open mind. I do find that Bahrat's and China's continued silence is irksome.
Why try to consider the issue if they won't participate?

Hi Kirk,
your commitment on this issue honors you. I can understand ,that you feel yourself somehow as "advocates" on this matter.

I've never complained about the initial conditions, and I do not participate in the discussion, because I know that each proposal, which would strengthen China, will be rejected.

Of course, I would have advocated that certain things would be different, if I had participate from the beginning of Wesworld, however, I started later and therefore I must go with the starting conditions.(It is just bad luck, that the battleships that China had before 1910 do not count )

By the way, if you look here ....

Quoted

Originally posted by The Rock Doctor
Alright. Forget I asked.

...... Rocky has withdrawn his "request" regarding the change of the economy.

Quoted

Originally posted by parador
I've never complained about the initial conditions, and I do not participate in the discussion, because I know that each proposal, which would strengthen China, will be rejected.

I think that not participating in the discussion does yourself and the rest of the forum a disservice.

First, your comment implies that the other players are unable to differentiate between the in-character brinksmanship and the level-headed out-of-character discussion. I simply do not believe that is true: we're all reasonable thinking adults here. If you disagree, then it is all the more vital for you to speak up and make the issue clear so we can address it.

Second, if you say nothing, then you deny the rest of us the ability to hear, understand, and address alternative ideas. If you never tell anyone that you disagree (and tell why), then how can we understand and take your viewpoint into account? People may try to be your "advocate", but unless you state your own opinions and observations, then the best we can do is guess!

Wesworld has always worked on the mutual partnership of players. But if I interpret your statement at face value, you imply that you no longer believe that to be true. So, as a moderator, I think we ought to address this at once before returning to the economics discussion.

Sorry Brock,

may be i have misspelled a little.

Quoted

First, your comment implies that the other players are unable to differentiate between the in-character brinksmanship and the level-headed out-of-character discussion. I simply do not believe that is true: we're all reasonable thinking adults here. If you disagree, then it is all the more vital for you to speak up and make the issue clear so we can address it.

Sometimes i have the feeling, that some couldn't differentiate, that's only MY opinion / feeling. I have no problem with that and draw my own conclusions. Hope you understand what i mean.

Quoted

Second, if you say nothing, then you deny the rest of us the ability to hear, understand, and address alternative ideas. If you never tell anyone that you disagree (and tell why), then how can we understand and take your viewpoint into account? People may try to be your "advocate", but unless you state your own opinions and observations, then the best we can do is guess!

I made a proposal in the beginning, than saw that other proposals were better and if you scroll up you can find, that i would favor the following suggestion, made by Kirk.

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.

If i take this .....

Quoted

Originally posted by BruceDuncan
IF that's the case, it's all well and good to award such to high populations like China or India. But the same premise would apply to any industrialized nation - China would rely on more labor and less capital, Germany would rely on more capital and less labor. The end result would be the same basic distribution of naval construction capability, merely at a higher level of output.

and add this .....

Quoted

Originally posted by Kaiser Kirk
It frees factories for actual naval builds, while allowing the base to be expanded, tapping the non-naval portion of the labor pool. I never understood why a drydock took so much high quality steel and machining. The machine tools would be about it. You can dig the hole with steam shovels..or coolies. The cranes and gates can be low quality steels or even alternative resources...i.e. an Infrastructure factory could do that.

[btw i fully agree here with Kirk]

i have this result .... (IMHO)

a high industrialized nation (like Germany) with a high infrastructure power [31 factories => can build IPs or tonnage] with a low (or may be medium) population (80 million)

vs

a not so high industrialized nation (like China) with a moderate infrastructure power [11 factories => can build IPs or tonnage] with a really huge population (500 million)

A factory (equal in asia or europe) could produce a defined amount of tonnage or IP. Sure a day has only 24 hours, in a factory there are 3 shifts etc. pp . I think we all agree on this
point

BUT

where is the (damned word) bonus for a country with huge population ?? How it will be handled if this country put extra 20 million people to dig a hole, fill it with concrete to build e.g. a drydock or a slip ? Therefore you didn't need many engineers or know how, you need manpower to do it. A country with huge population could do this easily and has the luck to do it, on the other hand a country with a low population couldn't do this and haven't this (again damned word) bonus.

For example, China could put this 20 million people easily to the coast to modify the coastline (even with handwork) BUT if Germany will put this 20 million people to a place for some handwork, the whole economy will colapse because no one will produce anything for this time (okay the comparision limp a little bit but i think you all understand what i mean).

So why should a country with small population benefit from a rule change (if this change ONLY take the population into account) in the same amount like a country with a large population ?

And if someone says that either all must have the same benefit and no one will be preferred, then that seems to me, do everything against to strengthen these countries.

Maybe now you understand why I think so.

I would have the same opinion if China only has a population of 20 million and another country, may be Canada, have a high population.

Just for everyone's clarification, I'll repost the list that sorted countries according to Kirk's proposal, which Parador mentioned above.

Quoted

Under 10 million: +1 Infrastructure Factory
Belgium, Bolivia, Bulgaria, Colombia, Denmark, Greece, Hedjaz, Ireland, Latvia, Lithuania, Paraguay, Peru, Syria, Yugoslavia

10-30 Million: +2 Infrastructure Factories
Argentina, Australia, Canada, Chile*, Chosen, East African State, Mexico, Nordmark, Persia, Poland, Romania, Thailand, The Philippines, Turkey

30-90 Million: +3 Infrastructure Factories
Atlantis*, Brazil, Germany, Iberia**, Italy, Japan, South Africa**

90-270 Million: +4 Infrastructure Factories
French Union, Dutch Empire, Russia, United Kingdom, United States

270+ Million: +5 Infrastructure Factories
China, India

Notes:
* - Used the figure in the encyclopedia.
** - Approximated populations using sums of regional historic figures.

If countries submit sim reports as a single unit, then I lumped them together regardless of how they may be broken down into political units. For instance, even though Indochina is basically independent of France, all my reports to date lump their budgets together, and therefore I classified myself above as a single entity. Ditto with the British and Dutch.



For myself, I am still leery of significantly altering the mechanics of the game at this point. However, if there is a widespread consensus for a change, I think this proposal is the best alternative thus far.

I don't like changing things when the game in my mind is almost up.

But, I could live with that proposal IF the US gets 10 infrastructure factories in wartime to better reflect their industrial power. Only in wartime mind you.

Parador, the Chinese did that sort of thing IOTL, the 20 million Chinese being moved to the coast to modify the coastline. It is known in history as the "Great Leap Forward" and was anything but. Estimated death toll, around 18 to 45 million.

Manpower really has a negilble effect on industrial production and the economy at least in the initial stages. In many ways, it can make a society industrialize at a slower rate than say a smaller power. What are all these people doing in China and India? Mostly up until the modern era the main industry it was agricultural, and the style of farming done was very manpower intensive. How many machines (tractors, harvesters, seeders, etc) does China and India have to allow the movement of people away from the farms and to the cities? In the cities, who has provided the necessary capital (money, experience, etc) to build factories and heavy industry? How much are the people in the cities being paid, are they able to take a portion of their disposable income and put it towards buying consumer goods? And, is the society able to feed its people as more and more of them move from the farm to the city?

Industrialization takes alot of hard work, alot of foreign capital and investment, and frankly Japan does not have enough solely on its own to industrialize both China and India. It took Japan 40 years to get to a point where it was seen as a credible rival to the Great Powers. It took the West 80 to 100 years to go from where China and India were in 1800 when they were more or less on par with the West to where they were in 1880 to 1900.

So, in essence where did the money come from?

Quoted

Originally posted by TheCanadian
I don't like changing things when the game in my mind is almost up.

But, I could live with that proposal IF the US gets 10 infrastructure factories in wartime to better reflect their industrial power. Only in wartime mind you.

I have reservations about making "special deals" that only apply to one country in exclusion of the others - even though I believe that the US was shorted on factories at the start of the game. I agree it would be more realistic to what occurred in WWII; but I'm not sure it's fair to give the US special rules that apply to no one else.

Quoted

Originally posted by Brockpaine

Quoted

Originally posted by TheCanadian
I don't like changing things when the game in my mind is almost up.

But, I could live with that proposal IF the US gets 10 infrastructure factories in wartime to better reflect their industrial power. Only in wartime mind you.

I have reservations about making "special deals" that only apply to one country in exclusion of the others - even though I believe that the US was shorted on factories at the start of the game. I agree it would be more realistic to what occurred in WWII; but I'm not sure it's fair to give the US special rules that apply to no one else.

I would have to be in agreement with Brock on this point; if we do make the change, there should be no special caveats.

That said, and while I do not whole-heartedly agree with the arguments previously presented for making a change - this redaction of Kirk's proposal, with the impact now clearly stated - is one with which I could live.

Such infrastructure factories would only produce infrastructure points, and their output expended either in producing dockyards or factories that could in turn churn out tonnage. Their impact would minimal at this stage of the game.

Well, one could also argue that China and India would be the main beneficiaries of this.

I would point out that perhaps we should figure out what the scenario should be in wartime for these factories. My feeling though is if China and India are able to utilize their population advantage, in wartime the United States should be able to utilize its advantage in industrial output, and this is one way of modelling that.

Quoted

Originally posted by TheCanadian
Well, one could also argue that China and India would be the main beneficiaries of this.

I would point out that perhaps we should figure out what the scenario should be in wartime for these factories. My feeling though is if China and India are able to utilize their population advantage, in wartime the United States should be able to utilize its advantage in industrial output, and this is one way of modelling that.

...I do agree with you, but I'm still reticent to give one country special rules that *only* apply to them. I'd argue that the US's advantage in industrial output is demonstrated by their thirty factories, as opposed to the eleven currently in China and India.

Very well then my vote is Nay. I do not think India and China deserve to have 5 infrastructure factories, and that population is a poor basis to judge economic performance.

Perhaps an idea to look at the civilian industry factories?

Quoted

Originally posted by Rooijen10
Perhaps an idea to look at the civilian industry factories?

Could you expand upon that?