|
Post by brucesim2003 on Sept 8, 2015 4:06:53 GMT -6
I'm wondering why the German historical naval budget is so low. For a large chunk of the time the game represents, Germany outbuilt France and Russia combined. Yet in game their historical budget is the same as those two countries. Is the game setup reporting their budget wrong, or does it need to be looked at?
Cheers
Bruce
|
|
|
Post by sabratha on Sept 8, 2015 7:11:56 GMT -6
Yeah had the same impression. This is more of a sandbox do-what-you-want game, but still the tonnage fails to add up.
Japan seems to be a bit under-funded too, especially in comparison to Russia.
|
|
|
Post by gornik on Sept 8, 2015 8:02:01 GMT -6
Don't know much about German budget, but proportion between historical Russian and Japanese naval budgets was nearly 2.2/1 in 1900 year and rised to 3.6/1 to times of Russo-Japanese war according to Russian sources (and with GB proportion was 6,5/2.2/1 in 1900). As Russian Black Sea Fleet is out of game, proportion 1.6/1 at historical game start looks right. (Though I prefer "standart" start, as I want MORE ships to control and fight with )
|
|
|
Post by Fredrik W on Sept 8, 2015 9:28:39 GMT -6
The starting budgets are based on an average of naval budgets 1900-1905. In reality, naval budgets fluctuated quite a lot during the years before WW1, for most nations they went steadily up, but for Britain naval expenditures actually declined for some years. All of this is not reflected slavishly in the game (British expenditures do not decline for example), but RTW aims to follow the average general trends. This is of course modified by political developments in the game, so will not exactly match history. Below are numbers for naval expenditures 1904-1914 and graph of same. Source: "Taschenbuch der Kriegsflotten 1914" (Pocket book of Navies 1914). As the source is German this is given in Gold Marks. These are official figures, and TBH I do not know if some nations may have fudged these.
One should also be aware that the raw numbers do not tell the whole truth. Warship building costs were different, and ships were considerably more expensive to build in some nations compared to others (USA for example), and the budget numbers have been adjusted to reflect this.
|
|
|
Post by brucesim2003 on Sept 8, 2015 9:39:37 GMT -6
The problem is that it dumps Germany very firmly is the second rank of powers. They cannot come close to outbuilding France or Russia like they did historically. I've played them a couple of times, and all it takes is a few budget cuts and Germany has a lower - I'll use the term - "build capacity" than those two countries. I think the figures for Germany need adjusting upward quite a bit. Using your figures, the German expenditures from 1908 - 1912 were very significantly bigger than France/Russia.
At the moment they cannot achieve the tonnage they did relative to the other powers using historical budgets.
Cheers
Bruce
|
|
|
Post by Fredrik W on Sept 8, 2015 10:01:16 GMT -6
The problem is that it dumps Germany very firmly is the second rank of powers. They cannot come close to outbuilding France or Russia like they did historically. I've played them a couple of times, and all it takes is a few budget cuts and Germany has a lower - I'll use the term - "build capacity" than those two countries. I think the figures for Germany need adjusting upward quite a bit. Using your figures, the German expenditures from 1908 - 1912 were very significantly bigger than France/Russia. At the moment they cannot achieve the tonnage they did relative to the other powers using historical budgets. Cheers Bruce Do you mean historical budget or regular?
|
|
|
Post by hschuster44 on Sept 8, 2015 11:47:04 GMT -6
The problem is that it dumps Germany very firmly is the second rank of powers. They cannot come close to outbuilding France or Russia like they did historically. I've played them a couple of times, and all it takes is a few budget cuts and Germany has a lower - I'll use the term - "build capacity" than those two countries. I think the figures for Germany need adjusting upward quite a bit. Using your figures, the German expenditures from 1908 - 1912 were very significantly bigger than France/Russia. At the moment they cannot achieve the tonnage they did relative to the other powers using historical budgets. Cheers Bruce From my point of view it's not a question of German but of amending French and Russian budget: If you use my Germany-as-per-January-1900-folder you will find it quite challenging but not impossible to build all the historic ships based on historic designs with the exact historic building speed until 1918. This increasing historic building speed was a political challenge for von Tirpitz too, since the political willingness for the relevant naval laws could not bei taken for granted in the parliament (see en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_Naval_Laws) and growing tensions were a consequence. The point within RTW is that German players will frequently fail in outbuilding France or Russia even when they achieve the historic building speed. So my conclusion would be that the German budget within RTW is ok but that the French and Russian Budget could be at least slightly decreased.
|
|
|
Post by sabratha on Sept 8, 2015 16:48:33 GMT -6
Well, I just finished a historical budget game and germany DOES get a national income increase as the time goes by. Germany starts low, but then expands income more rapidly than let's say France or Italy. So does the USA btw.
When I was ending my game in 1925, USA was the wealthiest nation with the largest budget, then UK, then Germany, then Japan. France (me) was 5th, despite winning an early war against the UK and Italy, taking colonies away from the.
So at least the historical model DOES somehow simulate the German naval budget increase of the 1900s, as well as the US economic growth surpassing Britain.
As France I took over italian and some UK colonies, but still had a rough time trying to keep up with historical ship sizes and numbers, and that was on large fleet settings. So I don't think the French budget should be cut. Can't speak about Russia, may try playing as her later on with historical budgets and will let you know how it goes.
|
|
|
Post by tmp on Sept 8, 2015 19:34:38 GMT -6
One should also be aware that the raw numbers do not tell the whole truth. Warship building costs were different, and ships were considerably more expensive to build in some nations compared to others (USA for example), and the budget numbers have been adjusted to reflect this. Hmm ok i'm curious now. Are these adjustments a reason Austria-Hungary has consistently, from start to finish, ~50% larger naval budget in the game than Italy, when playing with historical budgets... even though these raw numbers suggest that if anything it should be the other way around?
|
|
|
Post by ccip on Sept 8, 2015 21:43:36 GMT -6
I notice that as long as the player is clever, regardless of the nation, your budget growth will always outstrip those of your opponents. A lot of the dialog choices boil down to budget increases, and I notice myself often trying to play them to maximize my budget.
The one thing to pay attention to is, after you've completed your game, check the graphs - which I love as a new feature since 1.11 - they give a very clear breakdown of budget trends for all nations.
|
|
jma286
Junior Member
Posts: 97
|
Post by jma286 on Sept 9, 2015 0:17:21 GMT -6
I never play historic budget, only normal, but I'm never disappointed with how things end up. UK and USA can easily have the #1 tonnage when played by the player, but Germany, France, Russia, Japan and Italy can all be quite competitive with any other power when controlled by a human. Austria and Spain are sturggles, but can at least concentrate their forces in one theatre.
|
|
krawa
Junior Member
Posts: 90
|
Post by krawa on Sept 9, 2015 7:22:11 GMT -6
I think at least the starting budget of Germany is pretty accurate, historically they didn't start to outbuild France until about 1907 when the Dreadnought arms race began.
|
|
|
Post by tmp on Sept 9, 2015 7:23:49 GMT -6
I notice that as long as the player is clever, regardless of the nation, your budget growth will always outstrip those of your opponents. A lot of the dialog choices boil down to budget increases, and I notice myself often trying to play them to maximize my budget. In my Italy game i'd take/maximize +budget choices pretty much always, but i'd still be trailing behind everyone else by at least 100 mln, no matter what. The only times it sort-of catches up is when you are at war, because you get some extra funding then. I don't mind it per se (I did pick the 'historical' option) but these raw numbers indicating A-H was technically in even worse place made me curious.
|
|
|
Post by Fredrik W on Sept 9, 2015 10:47:58 GMT -6
I don't understand. On historical budgets they have the same starting resources. This somewhat overstates what AH really had historically in 1900, but that is partly because the AH budget was growing faster than Italy's and partly because AH would be mission impossible to play on a lower budget. Maybe I should have put it slightly lower, but they certainly don't have 50% more than Italy.
|
|
|
Post by tmp on Sept 9, 2015 18:14:45 GMT -6
I don't understand. On historical budgets they have the same starting resources. This somewhat overstates what AH really had historically in 1900, but that is partly because the AH budget was growing faster than Italy's and partly because AH would be mission impossible to play on a lower budget. Maybe I should have put it slightly lower, but they certainly don't have 50% more than Italy. Well, i can only say this is what the budgets looked like at the end of my Italy game, played with v.1.1, historical budgets and very large fleets: As you'll note, for A-H and Italy that's ~300 vs ~200 mil, i.e. 50% advantage. Unfortunately i didn't keep older files so i can't double-check, but i'm fairly sure similar margin was present through large chunk of the game (starting a new game in 1.2 Italy does get about the same amount A-H gets -- 69 vs 63 mil, respectively) I can't really tell what has happened there over the course of the game, other that well, it's a thing that happened. You can also see what the nations were able to achieve with their budgets. France had 4 more BBs and 4 BCs, but they lost them in war(s) with me during 1920-23. Other countries were overall largely unaffected. Russia had something weird happen to them after the first decade -- their first admirals would repeatedly get sacked for mismanaging the budget for something like 6-7 years, and they didn't build much of anything in that time as the result, or side-effect. Italy didn't lose any BBs or BCs, these are literally all it was able to build with its budget (it could maybe get one more BB or BC if i cut spending on pretty much everything else) You can see that A-H has quite a few more, on par with Russia and France (if France's losses are excluded from the account) They aren't smaller than ships of our nations too, have comparable tonnages and everything. So... well, i don't know if this is a common thing, or just something odd that happened one time. Like i said, it made me curious if that's what's intended.
|
|