|
|
Post by christian on May 20, 2021 15:51:57 GMT -6
this would make it so nations get a 5-15% research bonus when at war to simulate the rapid technological growth that war causes
|
|
|
|
Post by tornado1555 on May 20, 2021 18:29:03 GMT -6
I like this idea, particularly if it can be customized. A research bonus while at war (possibly during a major war) would effectively allow for the wave of techs that currently arrive in the 1940s to be broken up into normally slower progression, and yet still return and be researched in a historical fashion if a WWII-like war occurs in a campaign.
|
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on May 20, 2021 20:22:53 GMT -6
Just some of my thoughts on your idea. Through the twentieth century, two major World Wars were fought along with the Cold War. War is what I would call a negative-sum game. Recovery after wars is followed by rapid recovery and development but that is only making good for wartime losses and delays. I believe that peace is better than war, economically. My opinion is that if we do want to increase research with a bonus, then it has to followed by severe drop in the economics of the nation in the post war period. This means that the players research and total budget for its navy must be severely reduced. I will support this not just an increase in research. Attachments:ww1overview2005 1.pdf (138.22 KB)
|
|
|
|
Post by christian on May 21, 2021 6:29:47 GMT -6
Just some of my thoughts on your idea. Through the twentieth century, two major World Wars were fought along with the Cold War. War is what I would call a negative-sum game. Recovery after wars is followed by rapid recovery and development but that is only making good for wartime losses and delays. I believe that peace is better than war, economically. My opinion is that if we do want to increase research with a bonus, then it has to followed by severe drop in the economics of the nation in the post war period. This means that the players research and total budget for its navy must be severely reduced. I will support this not just an increase in research. But on the other hand the world wars both times lead to MASSIVE technological advances in under 5 years in world war 1 aircraft went from barely able to properly fly to large 4 engined bombers and fighter aircraft In world war 2 aircraft development went from dive bombers barely able to carry 1000 lb bombs over any significant range to large torpedo and divebombers able to carry 2 torpedoes or several 1000lb bombs not to mention ship and gun development As they say a picture speaks a thousand words www.history.navy.mil/research/library/online-reading-room/title-list-alphabetically/b/budget-of-the-us-navy-1794-to-2004.html This is already a thing in game where due to tensions you gain 20-30% economy boost but since tensions are reset after the war your economy drops by 20-30% The game models economy boosts based on tensions the higher they are the more money the higher the tensions the more budget you loose after a war Attachments:
|
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on May 21, 2021 7:35:00 GMT -6
Just some of my thoughts on your idea. Through the twentieth century, two major World Wars were fought along with the Cold War. War is what I would call a negative-sum game. Recovery after wars is followed by rapid recovery and development but that is only making good for wartime losses and delays. I believe that peace is better than war, economically. My opinion is that if we do want to increase research with a bonus, then it has to followed by severe drop in the economics of the nation in the post war period. This means that the players research and total budget for its navy must be severely reduced. I will support this not just an increase in research. But on the other hand the world wars both times lead to MASSIVE technological advances in under 5 years in world war 1 aircraft went from barely able to properly fly to large 4 engined bombers and fighter aircraft In world war 2 aircraft development went from dive bombers barely able to carry 1000 lb bombs over any significant range to large torpedo and divebombers able to carry 2 torpedoes or several 1000lb bombs not to mention ship and gun development As they say a picture speaks a thousand words www.history.navy.mil/research/library/online-reading-room/title-list-alphabetically/b/budget-of-the-us-navy-1794-to-2004.html This is already a thing in game where due to tensions you gain 20-30% economy boost but since tensions are reset after the war your economy drops by 20-30% The game models economy boosts based on tensions the higher they are the more money the higher the tensions the more budget you loose after a war I think you should look at this information about the debt to GDP ratio which is far more important. www.thebalance.com/national-debt-by-year-compared-to-gdp-and-major-events-3306287The public debt to GDP ratio went from 42% in 1938 to over 118% in 1946. This is not good for an economy. |
|
|
|
Post by christian on May 21, 2021 7:41:49 GMT -6
But on the other hand the world wars both times lead to MASSIVE technological advances in under 5 years in world war 1 aircraft went from barely able to properly fly to large 4 engined bombers and fighter aircraft In world war 2 aircraft development went from dive bombers barely able to carry 1000 lb bombs over any significant range to large torpedo and divebombers able to carry 2 torpedoes or several 1000lb bombs not to mention ship and gun development As they say a picture speaks a thousand words www.history.navy.mil/research/library/online-reading-room/title-list-alphabetically/b/budget-of-the-us-navy-1794-to-2004.html This is already a thing in game where due to tensions you gain 20-30% economy boost but since tensions are reset after the war your economy drops by 20-30% The game models economy boosts based on tensions the higher they are the more money the higher the tensions the more budget you loose after a war I think you should look at this information about the debt to GDP ratio which is far more important. www.thebalance.com/national-debt-by-year-compared-to-gdp-and-major-events-3306287The public debt to GDP ratio went from 42% in 1938 to over 118% in 1946. This is not good for an economy. Not exactly like debt cant massively rise during peacetime but yes wars do result in large debt but on the other hand unlike the US we dont get a 20-30 fold increase in budget. Thus we should also see far less debt increase in %and hell the current US debt is over 120% and was 106% during 2019 |
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on May 21, 2021 8:01:05 GMT -6
Not exactly like debt cant massively rise during peacetime but yes wars do result in large debt but on the other hand unlike the US we dont get a 20-30 fold increase in budget. Thus we should also see far less debt increase in %and hell the current US debt is over 120% and was 106% during 2019 The TBF Avenger's first flight was on 7 August 1941. This is four months before Pearl Harbor. It takes, at least one or two years to actually begin the design, win the competition with other manufacturers and then begin to build the plane. So, this excellent torpedo bomber was already in design and built before WW2. the F6F Hellcat did not fly until June 1942. This means that the plane was in design and development before the war. She flew but the engine was not powerful enough so they replaced it with a 2000 hp. Pratt and Whitney engine. This engine had been in development and first run in 1937. That's four years before Pearl Harbor. Radar had been developed prior to WW1, long range radars were already in production and being installed before the War. The proximity fuse concept had been considered for a long time but was first tested in 1931. This is almost 8 years before the war started. The list goes on and on. There is no doubt that the increase in military spending rose fast during WW2 and it did accelerate technological advancement but at what cost to the nation. |
|
|
|
Post by christian on May 21, 2021 8:18:48 GMT -6
Not exactly like debt cant massively rise during peacetime but yes wars do result in large debt but on the other hand unlike the US we dont get a 20-30 fold increase in budget. Thus we should also see far less debt increase in %and hell the current US debt is over 120% and was 106% during 2019 The TBF Avenger's first flight was on 7 August 1941. This is four months before Pearl Harbor. It takes, at least one or two years to actually begin the design, win the competition with other manufacturers and then begin to build the plane. So, this excellent torpedo bomber was already in design and built before WW2. the F6F Hellcat did not fly until June 1942. This means that the plane was in design and development before the war. She flew but the engine was not powerful enough so they replaced it with a 2000 hp. Pratt and Whitney engine. This engine had been in development and first run in 1937. That's four years before Pearl Harbor. Radar had been developed prior to WW1, long range radars were already in production and being installed before the War. The list goes on and on. There is no doubt that the increase in military spending rose fast during WW2, but at what cost is the real question. And the BTD destroyer had its first flight in 1943 Or the AM Mauler first flight 1944 Or the A-1 skyraider first flight 1945 just 4 years between the first flight of the TBF and the A-1 skyraider Or you know going from an F-6F to the P-80 in TWO years Yes radar was a thing pre war but post war radar was good enough to detect aircraft at over 120km range in addition to that ground radar had been produced and by 1944 there were radar guided glide bombs it was technically feasible for the US navy to develop air launched radar guided missiles in 1944 |
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on May 21, 2021 8:44:09 GMT -6
The TBF Avenger's first flight was on 7 August 1941. This is four months before Pearl Harbor. It takes, at least one or two years to actually begin the design, win the competition with other manufacturers and then begin to build the plane. So, this excellent torpedo bomber was already in design and built before WW2. the F6F Hellcat did not fly until June 1942. This means that the plane was in design and development before the war. She flew but the engine was not powerful enough so they replaced it with a 2000 hp. Pratt and Whitney engine. This engine had been in development and first run in 1937. That's four years before Pearl Harbor. Radar had been developed prior to WW1, long range radars were already in production and being installed before the War. The list goes on and on. There is no doubt that the increase in military spending rose fast during WW2, but at what cost is the real question. And the BTD destroyer had its first flight in 1943 Or the AM Mauler first flight 1944 Or the A-1 skyraider first flight 1945 just 4 years between the first flight of the TBF and the A-1 skyraider Or you know going from an F-6F to the P-80 in TWO years Yes radar was a thing pre war but post war radar was good enough to detect aircraft at over 120km range in addition to that ground radar had been produced and by 1944 there were radar guided glide bombs it was technically feasible for the US navy to develop air launched radar guided missiles in 1944 All the elements for those aircraft were already available, but the increased defense budgets and requirements did accelerate the development, there is no doubt of that. The A1-1 Skyraider was a follow-on development of the SB2C and the Avenger designed by Eduard Heinemann. Just a logical progression from those aircraft. Even without WW2, those planes and the A-1 would have been developed just not as fast. This is what war did, it increased the rate of development. I think we've reached the end of this discussion. Interesting. |
|
|
|
Post by christian on May 21, 2021 9:43:40 GMT -6
And the BTD destroyer had its first flight in 1943 Or the AM Mauler first flight 1944 Or the A-1 skyraider first flight 1945 just 4 years between the first flight of the TBF and the A-1 skyraider Or you know going from an F-6F to the P-80 in TWO years Yes radar was a thing pre war but post war radar was good enough to detect aircraft at over 120km range in addition to that ground radar had been produced and by 1944 there were radar guided glide bombs it was technically feasible for the US navy to develop air launched radar guided missiles in 1944 All the elements for those aircraft were already available, but the increased defense budgets and requirements did accelerate the development, there is no doubt of that. The A1-1 Skyraider was a follow-on development of the SB2C and the Avenger designed by Eduard Heinemann. Just a logical progression from those aircraft. Even without WW2, those planes and the A-1 would have been developed just not as fast. This is what war did, it increased the rate of development. I think we've reached the end of this discussion. Interesting. Exactly and that development went into for both guns, armor, tanks, radios, ships, anti aircraft guns, fighters, bombers, radar, rifles, nuclear fission, synthetic rubber, medicine, rocketry and electronics and many many more all had highly increased development speed and in order to develop these things further new technologies methods and so on had to be developed. Which meant technical innovation as funds for all of these things had massively increased (synthetic rubber which people had tried to do since 1920 but failed) |
|
|
|
Post by tornado1555 on May 21, 2021 13:55:50 GMT -6
Well it was interesting! And I like the idea of technology accelerating in a major war, and now I also agree that economic losses (abstracted perhaps as a function of unrest, convoy losses, etc.) should be represented to multiply the economic and societal contraction which occurs after a major war. As one side-effect this would give players more incentive to experiment with arms limitation treaties while their country's affairs are uncertain in the wake of a major war.
I don't think that either of these conditions should apply to a war that remains relatively limited-- perhaps involving only two countries and limited losses for example.
Since technological growth is tied to the naval budget to a large degree, the slightly reduced tech development after a major war would add to the feeling of war exhaustion.
|
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on May 21, 2021 14:19:47 GMT -6
Well it was interesting! And I like the idea of technology accelerating in a major war, and now I also agree that economic losses (abstracted perhaps as a function of unrest, convoy losses, etc.) should be represented to multiply the economic and societal contraction which occurs after a major war. As one side-effect this would give players more incentive to experiment with arms limitation treaties while their country's affairs are uncertain in the wake of a major war.
I don't think that either of these conditions should apply to a war that remains relatively limited-- perhaps involving only two countries and limited losses for example.
Since technological growth is tied to the naval budget to a large degree, the slightly reduced tech development after a major war would add to the feeling of war exhaustion.
I agree with you. It was two major wars that provided the technological advances and increases in spending on defense. These are long wars, 1914-1918; 1939-1945. We could include the Cold War and Vietnam. But the short wars between two nations just didn't provide those advances. War exhaustion and the impetus to join more arms limitations is better. |
|
