|
Post by JagdFlanker on May 24, 2019 6:29:54 GMT -6
In my last campaign as imperial Germany, I took every possession I could get my hands on. Ended up with a budget in between the UK and the US, neither of which I ever fought against. Now I'm doing another game from the same starting position, but I resolved to take no possessions and instead double down on post-war base resource gain. Though I wonder: I'll probably still want to take the baltic states and finland, if only to deny Russia airbases in the baltic? the best balanced approach is to not take possessions in your first win or 2 to maximize your economy early (i'm pretty sure possessions only give half the economic benefit of taking empty points, at least in RtW1), then take possessions in subsequent wars to "pretty up the map" with your flag
|
|
|
Post by southkraut on May 24, 2019 7:12:06 GMT -6
Is there some hard or soft limit on base resources, diminishing returns or otherwise? Because if not, then I'll take "eclipsing the US economically" over "painting my flag on the globe" as a goal.
|
|
|
Post by aeson on May 24, 2019 7:38:31 GMT -6
Is there some hard or soft limit on base resources, diminishing returns or otherwise? Because if not, then I'll take "eclipsing the US economically" over "painting my flag on the globe" as a goal. The growth rate of base resources is pretty much fixed, outside of war reparations and the occasional event (the railroads event can give you a boost to base resources, and I think the economic downturn event can take some away); at least in Rule the Waves it was a 1% growth tick in April and December each year for all powers, an additional 1% growth tick in June each year for the USA (or any other power with Rapid Economic Growth), and a 350k growth tick in either February or August for powers with rapid growth in the first or second half of the game (RGP1/RGP2 set in the nation file), though I haven't checked to see if this is still the case in Rule the Waves 2.
There is also a limit on base resources that depends on the data type used to store it, and a separate limit on useful base + colonial resources that depends on the data type used to store the budget - for example, if the game uses 32-bit integers, then the limit is about 2 billion (4 billion if unsigned). It is also possible that the developers capped budgets or base resources to some other value, though I don't know that they have in Rule the Waves 2.
|
|
|
Post by southkraut on May 24, 2019 7:40:58 GMT -6
Limits due to data types would at least be the same for all nations, so there's still no reason not to go for it.
|
|
kaiwi
New Member
Posts: 24
|
Post by kaiwi on May 24, 2019 10:36:31 GMT -6
Yeah, if you look at individual possessions it tells you how valuable they are. IIRC the most valuable "possession" in game is Sicily at 12 points. Most other possessions are 1-5 points and only a few are 10 points. I think from what people (including myself) are seeing, historical resources are bugged at present. Noticed that but the funny thing is that its the game budget that is buged, because Japans historical budget is 10 Million and you have with or without historical budget 10 million always with Japan. ^^
|
|
|
Post by pirateradar on May 24, 2019 19:51:05 GMT -6
I just ran a little test to confirm, yeah, the historical resources tickbox doesn't seem to do anything.
|
|
|
Post by JagdFlanker on May 25, 2019 12:32:20 GMT -6
playing Japan on historical budget/VL fleet, didn't take possession reparations my first 3 wars, and my budget ballooned to where by 1925 i was 30mil behind UK, and now in 1940 am 2nd behind USA
this is the first time i ever passed UK in budget in a game, but i usually always take possessions when i can
3rd war against Russia i got 20 points for reparations which i'v never seen before - the cap was 10 in RtW1. used 5pts to get Kamchatka, put the other 15 into the budget
|
|
|
Post by evil4zerggin on May 25, 2019 15:26:07 GMT -6
Here are the events with money modifier measured in 100s, which I suspect is related to it modifying national resources rather than naval budget. But it's also possible that it's an index into some table of effects rather than a magnitude.
A major arms firm wants to sell ships to a South American country. This will be good for our arms industry but risks leaking sensitive technology. What is your recomendation? If you allow the sale, you get "+300" (and presumably leak a technology).
A regional war seems imminent X3. One of our major arms manufacturers wants to step up exports to the likely belligerents. What is your reaction? Also "+300" for allowing the sale. There's no evidence of a technology leak, only tension.
Boom times! There has been a windfall in tax revenues. What is your recommendation on how to spend the money? The famous railroads event. Actually, the other two choices give "+100", but the railroads choice is indeed prima facie superior at "+200".
A sudden slump in the economy has led to widespread unemployment and poverty as well as cutbacks in military spending. You are asked to advise on how to handle the situation. Oddly, the first option "Any further cuts in the navy budget are unacceptable considering the tense international situation." only says -100" while the two social program options say "-200". You do pay more in unrest, but usually I would consider national resources to be of top importance.
|
|