suggestion, add more ways for the player to affect GDP

[fittkuk]

please let us use our naval budget to boost GDP growth. for example by investing in civilian technology or building civilian chips or something. this would obviously take money away from military projects so you would have to neglect your navy in the short term for long term economic benefits. i think this would add more much needed depth to the long term strategic layer of the game, and i for one would love such a feature. what do the rest of you think?

[sagaren]

I like this idea. There are times I have a buget surplus and then get punished for it by having my budget drastically slashed. I'd rather invest so as to see some benefit. Maybe it could be something like research where we can devote a percentage amount.

[stww2]

You do get popups every once and a while where one of the options is to suggest money be spent on making long term infrastructure improvements to grow the economy. Note that in RTW you're playing as the head of the navy (not the President or the Minister of Finance), so beyond something like that it wouldn't really make too much sense to give the player much control over economic matters. The one exception I could see is with respect to the merchant marine, since that has often been used as a way to boost naval capacity (both logistically and personnel wise).

[director]

Or you could apply your funds toward 'influencing' your government, whether outright cash 'appreciation' payments or building facilities (and/or ships) in their area.

[tbr]

One thing I would like to see is the option to "sponsor" fast liners. Their building would enhance GDP, their "sponsoring" generate prestige and, for times of war, the "fast liner count" would go up for large AMC or direct conversion to CVE/CVL. NB: we need a variable "fast liner count" that is trackable from one of the basic game screens, at the moment the only place you (sorta) can track (and mod) it is the save file. "Fast Liner Count" would go up/down with variable events (player notifications) and the player would have the "sponsor" option to enhance this (either with a relatively common event ot a chooseable but limited (e.g. to two a year) option in one of the game screens.

[JagdFlanker]

Aug 14, 2022 12:03:17 GMT -6 stww2 said:

You do get popups every once and a while where one of the options is to suggest money be spent on making long term infrastructure improvements to grow the economy. 

i have seen people mention this event a few times over the years and i get the impression that some people think picking this option does a lot more than it may actually do

i could be 100% wrong about this, but i'm pretty sure that the event in question (which is the 2nd choice) does not increase your budget in the long term (or at all) nearly as much as taking the 3rd option which gives you an outright immediate raise in your naval budget

it could be the way it's worded, different people could have different interpretations of the wording, but having played a trillion hours of both RtWs and having seen and read the options many times i have always gotten the impression that picking the 3rd option of the immediate raise is the "right" answer for the biggest short term and long term benefit to your naval budget

but i am interested to know if i am wrong on this or not

[aeson]

Aug 15, 2022 5:47:01 GMT -6 JagdFlanker said:

Aug 14, 2022 12:03:17 GMT -6 stww2 said:

You do get popups every once and a while where one of the options is to suggest money be spent on making long term infrastructure improvements to grow the economy. 

i have seen people mention this event a few times over the years and i get the impression that some people think picking this option does a lot more than it may actually do

i could be 100% wrong about this, but i'm pretty sure that the event in question (which is the 2nd choice) does not increase your budget in the long term (or at all) nearly as much as taking the 3rd option which gives you an outright immediate raise in your naval budget

it could be the way it's worded, different people could have different interpretations of the wording, but having played a trillion hours of both RtWs and having seen and read the options many times i have always gotten the impression that picking the 3rd option of the immediate raise is the "right" answer for the biggest short term and long term benefit to your naval budget

but i am interested to know if i am wrong on this or not

If I recall correctly, the railroads event gives you +200 base resources if you take the "build railroads" option, +2 budget modifier if you take the "give the money to the navy" option, and -1 or maybe -2 unrest from the "social programs" option.

Base resources start out between 4,000 (historical-resources Spain) and 20,000 (Britain) in 1900, can grow significantly over the course of the game (typically, a power gets +1% base resources every April and December, gets an additional +1% base resources every June if it has the Rapid Economic Growth trait, and may also see some other, typically flat, unannounced additions to base resources one or occasionally two times a year, especially if it has one of the hidden rapid growth traits), and are supplemented by resources from possessions, so +200 base resources does not in general represent a significant short-term benefit. It can, however, represent a relatively significant long-term benefit, and the magnitude of that benefit is fairly easy to evaluate because it's 200+growth base resources that you would not otherwise have had. This option is generally better earlier in the game or when playing particularly poor powers.

Budget modifier typically ranges from about 15 to 25, so +2 budget modifier usually represents a relatively significant immediate increase in your operating budget. Changes to budget modifier are however not permanent (the budget modifier is usually reset to a default peacetime value after a war) and the game has some mechanics to counter 'unnaturally' high values for the budget modifier from event choices (budget cuts at low tensions, peacetime unrest generation and associated events at 'high' budget modifier values, et cetera). As such, it is not clear that taking a +budget event option means that your budget modifier will be a point or two higher than it would otherwise have been until the next time it gets reset to default value (maybe there's a low-tensions budget cut or an anti-naval spending protest that wouldn't have occurred or a high-tensions budget increase that would have happened had you not taken a +budget event option earlier or something else like that), and it is therefore very difficult to evaluate the value of +budget events outside the fairly short term. This option is generally better later in the game or when playing particularly wealthy powers.

Unrest has no direct impact on your operating budget and is unlikely to be a significant issue in peacetime unless it becomes very high. If you do have high unrest when this event occurs, however, then this might be one of the better ways to deal with that unrest because if I recall correctly the only real cost of taking the -unrest option from this event is the opportunity cost of not taking the +budget or +resources options whereas many other -unrest event options come with -budget and possibly -resources riders. If you have low unrest, then this option is worthless; if you have high unrest, its economic value is very difficult to predict as it's highly dependent on whether or not your high unrest actually ends up hurting you and how much it does so - you might not see any damage at all from high unrest, but at the other extreme you might go into a war with high unrest and consequently lose most of your major fleet units to a governmental collapse and the resultant peace treaty.

[cv10]

In general, I don't think the player should be able to do too much to grow the size of their nation's base economy, outside of seizing colonies or winning wars for reparations money. As others have pointed out, we are the head of the navy.

Sponsoring merchant vessels/the merchant marine out of the Navy budget sounds like a good idea and it fits with the player's role in the game.

I think a variation on the current event where the player can ask for a proposed budget increase to go into railroad and infrastructure investments where the player is asked if they will tolerate a budget reduction to allow the government to cut taxes, stimulating economic growth that way (perhaps with varying degrees of success).

Another variation could be to take the current events where the Navy Secretary asks for the construction of new ships/subs and change it to the government wanting to build warships to provide employment or as a public works program, with a small boost to base resources occurring if you agree to the event. During the Depression, Public Works Administration money went to naval construction.

[JagdFlanker]

Aug 15, 2022 9:31:08 GMT -6 aeson said:

If I recall correctly, the railroads event gives you +200 base resources if you take the "build railroads" option, +2 budget modifier if you take the "give the money to the navy" option, and -1 or maybe -2 unrest from the "social programs" option.

ok, the options don't say anything about the 'extra benefits' even if you hover over them so i just take the face value of what the options say - seems like you need to know the 'innards' of the game to know the actual effects of some options

thanks!

[ludovic]

Aug 15, 2022 10:30:03 GMT -6 cv10 said:

In general, I don't think the player should be able to do too much to grow the size of their nation's base economy, outside of seizing colonies or winning wars for reparations money. As others have pointed out, we are the head of the navy.

Sponsoring merchant vessels/the merchant marine out of the Navy budget sounds like a good idea and it fits with the player's role in the game.

I think a variation on the current event where the player can ask for a proposed budget increase to go into railroad and infrastructure investments where the player is asked if they will tolerate a budget reduction to allow the government to cut taxes, stimulating economic growth that way (perhaps with varying degrees of success).

Another variation could be to take the current events where the Navy Secretary asks for the construction of new ships/subs and change it to the government wanting to build warships to provide employment or as a public works program, with a small boost to base resources occurring if you agree to the event. During the Depression, Public Works Administration money went to naval construction.

However realistic it might be, having a largely predestined economy is simply not fun for me, and is causing me to play RTW less than I used to. Plus, even if it is historically accurate, which may or may not be true, it doesn't feel accurate in the case of Continental powers fighting each other or Japan dominating the Pacific. Thoroughly winning a war on the Continent should bring significant economic benefits due to taking over land close to you populated by people who in some cases share your nationality, both of which would make integration into your economy easier. And Japan needed resources outside of its borders to grow its economy, so unlike other nations, how well it does in the colonization game should have a large impact on its economy.

Which is a roundabout way of saying that I think wars should benefit your economy more when you win them, because it is both more fun and feels more accurate in some cases.

[fittkuk]

exactly. being forced to have a certain economy no matter what you do makes the game anti fun. i'm basically playing the entire game with one hand tied behind my back no matter what i do. it should be possible to boost GDP by devoting part of your naval budget to some sort of GDP boosting activity. also, you should get WAY more GDP as reparations when you win a war. Right now you only get a few hundred extra GDP for winning a crushing victory which is absolutely ridiculous.

[jwsmith26]

Sept 4, 2022 8:37:35 GMT -6 fittkuk said:

exactly. being forced to have a certain economy no matter what you do makes the game anti fun. i'm basically playing the entire game with one hand tied behind my back no matter what i do. it should be possible to boost GDP by devoting part of your naval budget to some sort of GDP boosting activity. also, you should get WAY more GDP as reparations when you win a war. Right now you only get a few hundred extra GDP for winning a crushing victory which is absolutely ridiculous.

"I'm basically playing the entire game with one hand tied behind my back no matter what i do."

This sounds very much like the situation most navies faced. There were usually skeptical civilians controlling the purse strings. Most navies have little say about their own budget unless they happen to have politically astute commanders installed at the highest levels. But influence only goes so far and navies typically have very little ability to set their own budget, let alone the national economy. It is what navies did with what they were given that was important, and for me at least, I find that it's a fun challenge working within those budgetary constraints.

Can't say I disagree with the reparations complaint, though.

[dorn]

Reparations are much more difficult. They can temporary boost GDP about ratio of reperation to your GDP base before reparations. However all the effects of reparations are similar to printing money by central bank (similar what a lot of nations are doing now). So it has quite a lot of negatives.

[t3rm1dor]

We'll I would actually want sort of the opposite, make gaining money harder. So if I'mplaying Spain for example I should be strap for cash though all the game, not be able to inflate my base resources by grinding Italy and France.

[macroeconomics]

I will note that it is already possible ingame to allow a player to divert accumulated funds to economic development. You just need to edit your save game file. Subtract from the variable "Funds" and add to the variable "BaseResources" in the save game file. The relationship between the two changes should follow: GrowthRate * ChangeInFunds/12 = ChangeInBaseResources. Thus if you want to allow the player controlled country to invest in its economy with a 5% rate of return, then a 60 million decrease in Funds would increase BaseResources by 250,000. Just keep in mind that both variables are stored in the save game file in thousands, so you'd decrease Funds by 60,000 and increase BaseResources by 250.

Historically, GDP growth rates for developed nations in this era were in the 1-2% range, with countries at the higher end of that range generally accomplishing those rates via higher population growth rates. Real interest rates were in a similar range, so it'd be hard to justify rate of returns to government sponsored entities over 3-4%. Once you contemplate those sorts of returns, you realize that you have a time to breakeven of 25-35 YEARS. Since your next war is probably going to happen before that, it kind of puts a damper on the "invest to win" strategy.

That having been said, I've played around with this and with allowing R&D expenditures to go beyond 12% (again by editing the save game file), and the "invest to win" strategy does become really, Really, REALLY dominant once you start having reinvestment rates of 8% or higher. And when I say dominant, I mean like Spain > Great Britain dominant. It kind of proves Einstein's point when he said, "Compound interest is the most powerful force in the universe". It's just true. Hands down true.