|
Post by tunacat on Dec 9, 2018 2:17:57 GMT -6
The global depression was a major part of political and economic action inbetween the world wars. Will this happen in the game? Something like the depression seems kinda necessary to prevent escalation of warfare and everyone going into WW2 as if their countries had been under super economic growth with 100 BBs and 50 carriers.
Especially america, they were pretty much set to assume their WW2 economic position after the outset of WW1, but the Global depression stunted that, which is a major contributing reason towards there lack of a dominating pacific fleet in WW2.
|
|
|
Post by generalvikus on Dec 9, 2018 4:34:25 GMT -6
The global depression was a major part of political and economic action inbetween the world wars. Will this happen in the game? Something like the depression seems kinda necessary to prevent escalation of warfare and everyone going into WW2 as if their countries had been under super economic growth with 100 BBs and 50 carriers. Especially america, they were pretty much set to assume their WW2 economic position after the outset of WW1, but the Global depression stunted that, which is a major contributing reason towards there lack of a dominating pacific fleet in WW2. I think it would be interesting to see a global depression with a chance to fire within a certain time period, leading to budget cuts and unrest. It would be a good way to re-vitalise the game at its rough half way mark, perhaps even triggering the rise of Communism and / or Fascism around the world to re-align the global political system and set things up for a large ideological conflict to follow. Perhaps it should not be a guaranteed disaster, so that players are not encouraged - or, indeed, obliged - to plan for it ten years ahead of time in their construction.
|
|
|
Post by Noname117 on Dec 14, 2018 7:08:06 GMT -6
Maybe they could have a toggleable option; in normal games, the depression will happen around the time it did, with the exact dates smudged by up to a few years to keep the players on their toes. If the player chooses, they could have "randomized depressions" which will come and go less predictably throughout the course of a game so that the player can't play around them. And then maybe have an option to disable depressions all together.
|
|
|
Post by axe99 on Dec 14, 2018 16:00:11 GMT -6
Maybe they could have a toggleable option; in normal games, the depression will happen around the time it did, with the exact dates smudged by up to a few years to keep the players on their toes. If the player chooses, they could have "randomized depressions" which will come and go less predictably throughout the course of a game so that the player can't play around them. And then maybe have an option to disable depressions all together. This sounds pretty cool from my angle .
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Dec 14, 2018 17:50:32 GMT -6
I am not a big supporter of Wikipedia, but in a pinch. Here is their list of economic crises since the 1st Century. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_economic_crisesNow, I suppose if we charted this information, there might be some regularity to it.
|
|
|
Post by axe99 on Dec 14, 2018 18:11:04 GMT -6
I am not a big supporter of Wikipedia, but in a pinch. Here is their list of economic crises since the 1st Century. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_economic_crisesNow, I suppose if we charted this information, there might be some regularity to it. Economic crises, as best I understand them, to to come about due to economic imbalances - they can be triggered by all sorts of things, like the oil crisis in the 1970s (that triggered persistently high inflation for a few decades), to lending money without proper standards and safeguards (this one is quite common - it's where we got the 2008 crisis from, and it's been an _age_ since I read about it, but I think this had something to do with the Great Depression as well). They do tend to have a 'rhythm' to them (good economic times tend to make lenders more relaxed and confident they'll get their money back, and under pressure to make better returns lend money to people that are higher-risk than they assess them to be - this pattern repeats semi-regularly) but can be caused by shocks as well (climate shocks (crops destroyed) or illnesses (the plague in medieval Europe)) or readjustments. Much of the lower spending in the British economy and arms industry after both WW1 and WW2 was, as best I understand it, to help the Government pay off debt accrued during the war years, and to manage the interest burden on that debt until it was paid off. Perhaps long wars with high budgets might lead to a greater chance of an economic slowdown afterwards, particularly if they involved many a number of large countries, combined with a rolling, semi-random 'economic up and down', such that economic growth (already in the game) went up most of the time, sometimes by quite a bit, but occasionally took a dip as well (that could potentially be quite large and protracted)?
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Dec 14, 2018 19:58:17 GMT -6
First a disclaimer: I have studied the great depression and the 2007-2008 financial meltdown but that in no way makes me a novice. I am not even close. But it seems to me, that global downturns, depressions are more likely in a globalized world which did not really start until possibly the late 19th century and into the 20th century. Now we know that there were financial crises throughout history due to many causes. In many cases, poor monetary policy, war, nature in the form of terrible winters or droughts etc. are some of the primary causes. I think the game does a good job of providing that up and down or sinusoidal action of the economics of countries and that affects how naval spending is allocated. Politics always plays a role, and that is hard to really chart in a game. I think maybe in RTW2, we should see more localized financial difficulties and possibly some world-wide depressions due to the advent of more globalization. Globalization should play a more active role in the new game. Just my less than novice opinion.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Dec 15, 2018 10:06:28 GMT -6
In the interest of furthering this discussion, here is a short piece about the causes of the 1929-1939 Great Depression. I want to remind everyone that without WW1, this depression would not have been as severe. There were other financial crises in the early period of the 20th century which led to the creation of the Federal Reserve. Great Britain already had the Bank of England which was their version of the Federal Reserve. This financial crisis was solved but was not world-wide. So, if we don't have world wars in the game, will we actually have great depressions? I do not think we will. Consider that. www.thoughtco.com/causes-of-the-great-depression-104686Interesting fact: the bank failures were caused by the failure of a bank titled "the Bank of the United States". Everyone thought that was the Federal Reserve, which it was not. The Federal Reserve Bank of New York failed to deal with this failure and was responsible for the subsequent bank failures; one of the primary causes of the Great Depression. Another cause was the environment. A drought in the grain belt of Kansas, Missouri etc. and poor agricultural procedures caused the dust bowl which drove up grain and corn prices. Another failure by the government. See the trend?
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Dec 15, 2018 16:28:50 GMT -6
One of the problems for the nations in Europe and probably the rest of the world before the First World War was their failure to understand the connection between finance and war. The financial burden that grew before the war, was supportable but increased taxation due to rising central government expenditures was the real issue. It was a problem for many nations, that the British solved with an income tax. Eventually, all circles in the Great Powers began to understand the relationship between the ability to pay for military expenditures and military strength.
The European nations, throughout their history had always maintained an eye on their enemies and their pocket books. Their finances were built on the gold standard; a note being issued was based on a specific amount of gold. The problem with the gold standard is that when war occurs, there is no way to exchange the gold for products easily. This what happened in WW1.
The second problem with WW1 and its economic effects was that most of the participating nations thought it would be a short war and consequently had not established strict controls on financing and production. It was a long war, as we know, and this caused numerous problems, especially for the Germans and Austro-Hungarians along with the Russians. This same problem was a condition in the Japanese participation in WW2, they were not ready for a long war, and it showed early. BTW not all historians agree that the nations in WW1 were not prepared for a long war, it is still in contention amongst them. There were notable men like Von Molke the Elder, Kitchener and probably Tirpitz who had their own ideas since they had experienced war. They actually thought that the war was going to be long and as one author puts it "sanguinary". Even a banker like Ivan Boch predicted a lengthy, wearing war among states in which economic factors would be critical in the outcome. And this is prescient, because that is exactly what happened. So, not everyone believe in the short war.
Now, how does all this complexity in monetary policy, supply etc. matter in RTW2. Well, it is complex and truly cannot be duplicated. However, I believe that if the game developers will add more globalization as the game progresses and use this as an additional variable upon which to determine a Great Depression, I think it would work and provide that unknown factor that was important. So, as the years go by, the globalization variable would have a greater effect on the random number which probably generates the different economic levels. I have no idea how this whole thing works but this is just my idea.
Bye
|
|
AiryW
Full Member
Posts: 183
|
Post by AiryW on Dec 15, 2018 16:40:54 GMT -6
The global depression was a major part of political and economic action inbetween the world wars. Will this happen in the game? Something like the depression seems kinda necessary to prevent escalation of warfare and everyone going into WW2 as if their countries had been under super economic growth with 100 BBs and 50 carriers. Especially america, they were pretty much set to assume their WW2 economic position after the outset of WW1, but the Global depression stunted that, which is a major contributing reason towards there lack of a dominating pacific fleet in WW2. The London treaties were agreed to long before the Great Depression put financial pressures on the US government. And it should be noted that the Great Depression didn't stop Germany from rearming. Nor did the Great Depression have a significant impact on the long term growth rate, as for instance was done worldwide by the oil crisis or done at a regional level by the collapse of Argentinian democracy or the Great Leap Forward in China. The Smoot-Hawley tariff probably had little to do with the Great Depression. To put it in very high level terms, the problem with tariffs is that they reduce efficiency however in a depression you are faced with the problem of too much production. So temporarily lowering efficiency isn't much of a problem and might even possibly be a slightly good thing. The issue is that economists tend to be die hard free traders and so they tend not to be overly vocal about pointing out where tariffs aren't as bad as thought. The recent "Great Recession" was actually in economic jargon a depression, just not nearly as damaging as the one in the 1930s. Interestingly the shock that caused the Great Recession was larger then that which caused the Great Depression so the relative mildness shows how the experience bore fruit. The Great Recession was also an excellent chance to test the old theories. Two episodes were particularly useful: the 2012 European Central Bank rate hike and Abenomics in Japan. The first showed that interest rate hikes will in fact further depress an economy at zero lower bound interest conditions. The second showed that a credible inflation target will increase real spending and wage growth even in the most extreme demographic conditions. While there are many other lessons these two are the most interesting and suffice to say that the economic field considers the matters of depressions "solved." It is confirmed that they are caused by interest rates (which in both examples came from banking system collapses) and it is confirmed that changing the interest rates will impact the economy with about a 3-6 month lag. Unfortunately I think this new knowledge will be put to use sooner rather then later. Whereas after the Great Depression safeguards were put in place, modern politics appear to have stymied reform everywhere except Japan. So if you doubt what I say just wait 20 years and we can find out.
|
|
|
Post by rob06waves2018 on Dec 15, 2018 17:02:45 GMT -6
The global depression was a major part of political and economic action inbetween the world wars. Will this happen in the game? Something like the depression seems kinda necessary to prevent escalation of warfare and everyone going into WW2 as if their countries had been under super economic growth with 100 BBs and 50 carriers. Especially america, they were pretty much set to assume their WW2 economic position after the outset of WW1, but the Global depression stunted that, which is a major contributing reason towards there lack of a dominating pacific fleet in WW2. The London treaties were agreed to long before the Great Depression put financial pressures on the US government. And it should be noted that the Great Depression didn't stop Germany from rearming. Nor did the Great Depression have a significant impact on the long term growth rate, as for instance was done worldwide by the oil crisis or done at a regional level by the collapse of Argentinian democracy or the Great Leap Forward in China. The Smoot-Hawley tariff probably had little to do with the Great Depression. To put it in very high level terms, the problem with tariffs is that they reduce efficiency however in a depression you are faced with the problem of too much production. So temporarily lowering efficiency isn't much of a problem and might even possibly be a slightly good thing. The issue is that economists tend to be die hard free traders and so they tend not to be overly vocal about pointing out where tariffs aren't as bad as thought. The recent "Great Recession" was actually in economic jargon a depression, just not nearly as damaging as the one in the 1930s. Interestingly the shock that caused the Great Recession was larger then that which caused the Great Depression so the relative mildness shows how the experience bore fruit. The Great Recession was also an excellent chance to test the old theories. Two episodes were particularly useful: the 2012 European Central Bank rate hike and Abenomics in Japan. The first showed that interest rate hikes will in fact further depress an economy at zero lower bound interest conditions. The second showed that a credible inflation target will increase real spending and wage growth even in the most extreme demographic conditions. While there are many other lessons these two are the most interesting and suffice to say that the economic field considers the matters of depressions "solved." It is confirmed that they are caused by interest rates (which in both examples came from banking system collapses) and it is confirmed that changing the interest rates will impact the economy with about a 3-6 month lag. Unfortunately I think this new knowledge will be put to use sooner rather then later. Whereas after the Great Depression safeguards were put in place, modern politics appear to have stymied reform everywhere except Japan. So if you doubt what I say just wait 20 years and we can find out. It is important to note that economics is subjective. Something that is viewed in a positive light one day can cause a recession the next as markets react. Like the fact that Brexit or Donald Trump's trade war causes volatility (please don't discuss this particular point - I can't take it anymore!) That type of real life chaos could probably be implemented into RTW 2 through random variables but I think I prefer that the budget is affected mainly by war, peace and random events.
|
|
|
Post by firefox178 on Dec 16, 2018 11:00:35 GMT -6
Interesting thread. Though the cause of the Depression has been discussed it does not yet explain how this event would affect the players. Here's my suggestions for its effects on the players. Maybe make it that for several years, maybe once or twice per year under the effect of Global Depression the player is given a choice event for their budget. The first choice is that their budget is slashed considerably but there is no other effect. The other is that the player rejects the slashing of their budget but their prestige takes a hit. In other words, the player is given the choice of either accepting the budget cuts or they try to "tough it out" by sacrificing their prestige. This would allow the player options in how to respond to the Depression. This would also reward players who are doing well, while not severely punishing those who are doing poorly. And to make it more fair, the player is given some form of advanced warning of imminent budget cuts. Maybe include in the warning an estimation of how much in the budget would be cut. That way the player can plan on what their future acts would be.
|
|
|
Post by rob06waves2018 on Dec 16, 2018 12:28:20 GMT -6
Interesting thread. Though the cause of the Depression has been discussed it does not yet explain how this event would affect the players. Here's my suggestions for its effects on the players. Maybe make it that for several years, maybe once or twice per year under the effect of Global Depression the player is given a choice event for their budget. The first choice is that their budget is slashed considerably but there is no other effect. The other is that the player rejects the slashing of their budget but their prestige takes a hit. In other words, the player is given the choice of either accepting the budget cuts or they try to "tough it out" by sacrificing their prestige. This would allow the player options in how to respond to the Depression. This would also reward players who are doing well, while not severely punishing those who are doing poorly. And to make it more fair, the player is given some form of advanced warning of imminent budget cuts. Maybe include in the warning an estimation of how much in the budget would be cut. That way the player can plan on what their future acts would be. That could probably work within the current random events framework. Good idea!
|
|
|
Post by generalvikus on Dec 16, 2018 20:23:32 GMT -6
Interesting thread. Though the cause of the Depression has been discussed it does not yet explain how this event would affect the players. Here's my suggestions for its effects on the players. Maybe make it that for several years, maybe once or twice per year under the effect of Global Depression the player is given a choice event for their budget. The first choice is that their budget is slashed considerably but there is no other effect. The other is that the player rejects the slashing of their budget but their prestige takes a hit. In other words, the player is given the choice of either accepting the budget cuts or they try to "tough it out" by sacrificing their prestige. This would allow the player options in how to respond to the Depression. This would also reward players who are doing well, while not severely punishing those who are doing poorly. And to make it more fair, the player is given some form of advanced warning of imminent budget cuts. Maybe include in the warning an estimation of how much in the budget would be cut. That way the player can plan on what their future acts would be. What would the loss of prestige represent in this system? Prestige is derived from diplomatic sabre-rattling, glory in battle, and pleasing the higher-ups. More and better ships is always a good thing for prestige; fewer and worse ships is always bad. Meanwhile, we have a mechanic in game which causes unrest to be generated when the budget is too high relative to the national resources, representing popular discontent with naval spending that is too high compared to the economy as a whole. I think that the already existing choice between budget cuts and unrest is a better representation of the choice faced by democratic governments during the depression; the national resources are drastically decreased, and all of a sudden the player must make do with less, or risk strikes, mutiny, and revolution. However, this is only a good model for the democracies. Re-armament is what got Germany out of the depression, and the depression did not seriously effect the Soviet economy at all. Modelling these differences in game would go a long way to distinguishing the new time period which RTW2 aims to cover.
|
|
|
Post by firefox178 on Dec 16, 2018 23:06:41 GMT -6
Interesting thread. Though the cause of the Depression has been discussed it does not yet explain how this event would affect the players. Here's my suggestions for its effects on the players. Maybe make it that for several years, maybe once or twice per year under the effect of Global Depression the player is given a choice event for their budget. The first choice is that their budget is slashed considerably but there is no other effect. The other is that the player rejects the slashing of their budget but their prestige takes a hit. In other words, the player is given the choice of either accepting the budget cuts or they try to "tough it out" by sacrificing their prestige. This would allow the player options in how to respond to the Depression. This would also reward players who are doing well, while not severely punishing those who are doing poorly. And to make it more fair, the player is given some form of advanced warning of imminent budget cuts. Maybe include in the warning an estimation of how much in the budget would be cut. That way the player can plan on what their future acts would be. What would the loss of prestige represent in this system? Prestige is derived from diplomatic sabre-rattling, glory in battle, and pleasing the higher-ups. More and better ships is always a good thing for prestige; fewer and worse ships is always bad. Meanwhile, we have a mechanic in game which causes unrest to be generated when the budget is too high relative to the national resources, representing popular discontent with naval spending that is too high compared to the economy as a whole. I think that the already existing choice between budget cuts and unrest is a better representation of the choice faced by democratic governments during the depression; the national resources are drastically decreased, and all of a sudden the player must make do with less, or risk strikes, mutiny, and revolution. However, this is only a good model for the democracies. Re-armament is what got Germany out of the depression, and the depression did not seriously effect the Soviet economy at all. Modelling these differences in game would go a long way to distinguishing the new time period which RTW2 aims to cover. Excellent point. While the risk of unrest would certainly make sense for democracies, it would not make sense in autocratic ones. Hmm, maybe for autocratic countries the effect of the Great Depression is that their naval budgets won't get slashed, but their chance of getting new funding is severely curtailed. E.g. events that would give additional funding are not issued. Instead, only being at war would give said increase in budget. This way it could somewhat reflect the reality that the autocratic government were able to keep their military budget but at the expense of their economy. Thoughts on this idea?
|
|