Luckymoose
The World is Mine
@EQ all of that is fairly enlightening. I still think Lord of Elves deserves punishment though.
Capto Iugulum Background Thread
- Thread starter EQandcivfanatic
- Start date
There is no argument from me. Lord of Elves certainly should be punished. I'll send a goon squad to his home right away, as soon as they're done beating TLJ.
JohannaK
Heroically Clueless
Awww, but tell them not to touch his face 
Symphony D.
Deity
This seems a rather dubious assertion and overemphasis on mass given even a few token examples. It took until 2010 for the PRC (pop: 1,339,724,852) to surpass Japan (pop: 128,057,352) in GDP and other important metrics; in 1839-1842 and 1856-1860, the British Empire (home pop: ~20,000,000) beat Qing China (pop: ~400,000,000); in 1941, Germany (pop: 71,916,700) came damn near beating the USSR (pop: 196,716,000) while also occupied elsewhere; in 1967, Israel (pop: 2,745,000) beat a coalition of four nations (pop: 49,258,242) in the Six-Day War; and so on. While many of these listed are military conflicts, in so far as the military is the matching of manpower, technological prowess, and materiel advantage, they remain instructive as comparisons vis-a-vis economic might as well. The history of the period in question is full of smaller nations routinely trouncing larger ones and "doing more." The US, with 1/5 the population, fought a war in Vietnam and put men on the Moon, among many other things, while the PRC tore itself apart in the Cultural Revolution: who was "doing more?" Indeed, the current membership of the G8 or a glance at a GDP ranking chart is nothing but a testament to the potential power of small nations. The entire gist of the industrial revolution was that manpower stopped being the deciding factor. To proceed from this initial premise to then go on to say something like:
Misses this point entirely. Growth isn't a function of population whatsoever. Population is tangential. Russia, today, in real life, gets lumped in with BRICS as a potential future economic superpower (rightly or wrongly is beyond the point here) and its population is experiencing one of the worst peacetime declines in world history since the Black Death. I would have severe doubts about the verisimilitude to reality of this approach simply based on this starting premise and perspective. If the goal was indeed:
Then it seems it has already failed. That, apparently, global economic growth is calculated independently and then parceled up among nations, instead of driven by nations and then summed up, also strikes me as completely backward. On average global GDP growth hovers somewhere between 3% to 5% per year. That doesn't particularly encapsulate what's actually going on, in the same way summing population growth across the planet doesn't tell you what's happening in Europe vs. Africa. There is also a more critical flaw:
Economists and Political Scientists like to go back and forth on which field is more important and fundamental to the everyday reality we inhabit. For a NES the calculation is rather simpler: players have largely unrestricted reign to make terribly poor choices (as you yourself point out in the next paragraph with regard to opposing Russia) with little to no a priori feedback; players also routinely are not informed about what they're doing, many of them not being experts or even versed in the particular subject matter at hand. As such, they need feedback mechanisms for what they're doing: whether it works or doesn't.
Given that the political consequences for actions tend not to be extreme (yes, there may be rioting, revolutions, or coups for particularly stupid actions, but these are not common) or particularly noteworthy (since any [purely imaginary] domestic resistance does not usually actually constrain players unduly, as it might in real life) those feedback mechanisms will primarily come in the form of some sort of tangible economic ramifications. Economics, more than politics, is actually the primary way of gauging responses to player actions, particularly as in the iterative process, of decision making, it's the money that pays for all of it. To go back to the first point, it's the more money (or more generally, leverageable resources) you have, the more you can do.
To write it off as being unimportant compared to politics, let alone science (which realistically isn't even a heavily government backed/directed thing until WWII and beyond in real life), is to cripple a key component of providing players with actionable information. If the system is so off-base, it frankly may as well not even exist and the numbers pulled out of a hat. Randomly guessing at the time will at least tie a broken clock, statistically. In terms of practicable advice, Crezth has been developed a rather robust economic model and can probably provide better guidance than I could. Scrapping global level growth would be a solid start, though.
I agree with what Symphony says there.
Regarding political consequences for idiotic actions, I think it is one of the more serious problems of CI that they aren't nearly severe enough. There should be a coup or a prohibitive political crisis almost every time a player attempts a really idiotic action, in my opinion - since that is what would be realistic, I think, more often than not.
Regarding political consequences for idiotic actions, I think it is one of the more serious problems of CI that they aren't nearly severe enough. There should be a coup or a prohibitive political crisis almost every time a player attempts a really idiotic action, in my opinion - since that is what would be realistic, I think, more often than not.
I did say "can" and not "will" in terms of what a larger population could accomplish. In the examples that you mentioned, the nations involved simply were managed in more efficient manners, which is a necessity when a people are pushed to the brink. A nation with a larger population or geopolitical isolation has far greater margins for mistakes then those who do not. In the example you listed, Germany came close, but they still lost, and probably would have lost the war against the Soviets, even without the involvement of the British and Americans. I know that's a matter that can be debated, and I'd choose to not do so here, but the Soviets had a far greater margin for error, simply because of their larger population and friendly terrain characteristics. Meanwhile, the Germans had little to no margin for error in the war, and thus the slightest strategic mistakes would cost them dearly. Same goes for the other scenarios, if the smaller powers had made strategic mistakes, they would have lost more easily than the larger ones. But they did/or didn't and thus they did not fail. On the other hand, with the rise of modern technologies, at least as far as OTL technology and science has progressed, a smaller state is able to wield greater power than ever before. That point is not the point where we're at, however, plus it is not necessarily the direction technology has to go. The one thing I am very proud of with my ruleset is the manner in which technology will drive things, and it has already begun to a smaller degree. The one thing I can say for certain is that the larger population argument likely would become moot depending on the directions technological advancement and society take us in Capto Iugulum.
As for Modern Russia, they are certainly not the next superpower. They are a failed state, and will likely not be around in any meaningful form by 2030. Anyone who considers them a rising superpower has been misled. As with the above, this could be debated, and frankly there's evidence on either side. I've read up on it though, and based on statistical trends and analysis, the continued existence of Russia as a power with influence is increasingly unlikely with each year. Of course, there's no real certainties in prediction, and that is just my take on affairs, as I'm sure others have dissenting opinions.
I think you misunderstand what I meant in terms of what drives the economic growth. It IS driven by player decisions, that's what those modifiers I was referring to. I don't calculate economic growth until after I do all other elements of the orders and update. There is no set amount of growth each year, though I do use the numbers that you just stated (3-5%) as a baseline for the program. The baseline is actually fairly negligible in terms of what it does. Essentially all growth is dictated by the modifiers, which in turn are dictated by the actions of the players. Remember though, that the basis of my economic program is to not only provide a system that's easy for players, but also one that's easy for me to keep up with. A system which would cause me to spend numerous hours of work to effectively update, is not a system I'd care to use. These days I'm married, have a full time job, and a increasing social calendar. There's also plenty of fun and new video games coming out, two half-written novels looking to complete, and a few independent projects coming out. I enjoy NESing and would like to continue to enjoy it, and that means a streamlined system. If it's not perfect, but still creates a world that's fun to play in, that's good enough for me.
You do make a very good point on political feedback, and this has been something which has troubled me in past updates. A while ago, when I was toying around with a Fallout NES, I did start working on a system which creates more fluid resistance/rebel/unrest movements. I'm planning on implementing this in 1940 with the new thread, so we'll see how well it functions in the actual NES. The current system for political/stability/random events has been increasingly less relevant the more I use it, and I'll be pleased to discard it in favor of what will hopefully be a better system.
I never said economics were less important than geopolitical movement or science, I just said that it wasn't my starting point or my priority. You quoted the question I started with, and frankly, I gave that question up pretty early on, and eventually it evolved into "How do I make a system that allows for tough choices, fun diplomatic settings, and a flexible, player-driven technological and economic global situation?" I'm fairly confident that the system does all of the above, and despite my misgivings about current feedback for players, it seems to be working fairly well.
As for Modern Russia, they are certainly not the next superpower. They are a failed state, and will likely not be around in any meaningful form by 2030. Anyone who considers them a rising superpower has been misled. As with the above, this could be debated, and frankly there's evidence on either side. I've read up on it though, and based on statistical trends and analysis, the continued existence of Russia as a power with influence is increasingly unlikely with each year. Of course, there's no real certainties in prediction, and that is just my take on affairs, as I'm sure others have dissenting opinions.
I think you misunderstand what I meant in terms of what drives the economic growth. It IS driven by player decisions, that's what those modifiers I was referring to. I don't calculate economic growth until after I do all other elements of the orders and update. There is no set amount of growth each year, though I do use the numbers that you just stated (3-5%) as a baseline for the program. The baseline is actually fairly negligible in terms of what it does. Essentially all growth is dictated by the modifiers, which in turn are dictated by the actions of the players. Remember though, that the basis of my economic program is to not only provide a system that's easy for players, but also one that's easy for me to keep up with. A system which would cause me to spend numerous hours of work to effectively update, is not a system I'd care to use. These days I'm married, have a full time job, and a increasing social calendar. There's also plenty of fun and new video games coming out, two half-written novels looking to complete, and a few independent projects coming out. I enjoy NESing and would like to continue to enjoy it, and that means a streamlined system. If it's not perfect, but still creates a world that's fun to play in, that's good enough for me.
You do make a very good point on political feedback, and this has been something which has troubled me in past updates. A while ago, when I was toying around with a Fallout NES, I did start working on a system which creates more fluid resistance/rebel/unrest movements. I'm planning on implementing this in 1940 with the new thread, so we'll see how well it functions in the actual NES. The current system for political/stability/random events has been increasingly less relevant the more I use it, and I'll be pleased to discard it in favor of what will hopefully be a better system.
I never said economics were less important than geopolitical movement or science, I just said that it wasn't my starting point or my priority. You quoted the question I started with, and frankly, I gave that question up pretty early on, and eventually it evolved into "How do I make a system that allows for tough choices, fun diplomatic settings, and a flexible, player-driven technological and economic global situation?" I'm fairly confident that the system does all of the above, and despite my misgivings about current feedback for players, it seems to be working fairly well.
Crezth
i knew you were a real man of the left
My big issue with the way economic growth is considered is that it seems to ignore development except in a very post-hoc way: the development progress of each individual country is not given its own consideration in appropriating GDP growth. Whereas in reality, industrializing countries would secure a regular GDP growth based on their ability to develop their natural resources and effect a structural evolution in their economy.
Basically what I'm saying is development should guide GDP growth, not the other way around. In this system it doesn't look like there's a way to model huge export economies, let alone rapid second-wave development, without relying on contrivance significantly.
Basically what I'm saying is development should guide GDP growth, not the other way around. In this system it doesn't look like there's a way to model huge export economies, let alone rapid second-wave development, without relying on contrivance significantly.
Actually, since we're all in a critical mood 
, I figure "Why not present what the current to new system will actually be for stability/decision related events?"
The way the system works right now is actually a bit archaic, even for me. There is no system or program in place yet for this, and it's almost all done by RNG or dice. Currently poor decisions reduce stability, which in turn increases the odds of a bad stability event taking place. Each bad stability event had a shot at worsening from other means, going from protest to revolution. At the same time, a nation which has not had any stability events for a few years (likely because of favorable RNG) can get a bad roll and suddenly have a revolution. This is the direct cause of things like the "Accidental Revolution" in Scandinavia (which caused me the doubt which eventually led to the development of the new system, which sadly was not ready by 1920) and the brief civil war in Denmark. 90% of the time the system functions adequately, but as I stated above, recently (as in over the past year) I've felt that adequate isn't. I'm sure you can see the flaws in the above system.
Now, under the new program which I've been designing with some a friend who works in our IT department here, stability isn't the only thing covered. I started with this in the ArcGIS system, but found it difficult thanks to the software's own limitations and difficulty of use. There will be some randomness within the new system, but functionally, it will be somewhat similar to the current one in use for the economy (which took me three times as long to make). This will fix two of my core problems with the current system:
1. Nations will no longer be limited to a single isolated stability event a year. For example, Russia, instead of just having riots in Poland, could now have a peasant revolt in Russia and a proletarist rebellion attempt in Latvia.
2. Each potentially disastrous decision or choice by a player will be run through the system, and assuming the modifiers align correctly, it could result into what spryllino suggested before, a coup. Of course, this will depend on the actual situation of a country. For example, a military government that does something objectionable could face a coup. A democratic leader who does something objectionable will instead face impeachment proceedings or something along those lines. These are of course just surface examples, and greater detail or disaster could be added or taken away as needed.
If you guessed, these changes will mean that the Stability stat we know and love on the front page will be eliminated. So the obvious question remains: Without a stability stat how will we know if we're in serious trouble? Consider it encouragement to read the updates. There WILL be a buildup to traumatic events. As with real life it will be a matter of perspective and guesswork for the leader of the nation. Are these protests the first wave of a class revolution with legitimate needs to be addressed or are they simply just a societal wave of venting with no deeper meaning? Was that balompie riot a simple situation of fevered tempers gone bad or is this the warning shot to a rebellion? The main promise here is that stability events will no longer be random and disconnected, and will be solely dictated by economic, political, and social decisions/trends. There will be warnings to every crisis, and I plan on using EXTRA "mini-updates" a lot more frequently in the future. This would have been implemented sooner, but fact is that real life, as it does, has made it difficult to complete, and we've only recently completed the program, which also needs a name.
, I figure "Why not present what the current to new system will actually be for stability/decision related events?" The way the system works right now is actually a bit archaic, even for me. There is no system or program in place yet for this, and it's almost all done by RNG or dice. Currently poor decisions reduce stability, which in turn increases the odds of a bad stability event taking place. Each bad stability event had a shot at worsening from other means, going from protest to revolution. At the same time, a nation which has not had any stability events for a few years (likely because of favorable RNG) can get a bad roll and suddenly have a revolution. This is the direct cause of things like the "Accidental Revolution" in Scandinavia (which caused me the doubt which eventually led to the development of the new system, which sadly was not ready by 1920) and the brief civil war in Denmark. 90% of the time the system functions adequately, but as I stated above, recently (as in over the past year) I've felt that adequate isn't. I'm sure you can see the flaws in the above system.
Now, under the new program which I've been designing with some a friend who works in our IT department here, stability isn't the only thing covered. I started with this in the ArcGIS system, but found it difficult thanks to the software's own limitations and difficulty of use. There will be some randomness within the new system, but functionally, it will be somewhat similar to the current one in use for the economy (which took me three times as long to make). This will fix two of my core problems with the current system:
1. Nations will no longer be limited to a single isolated stability event a year. For example, Russia, instead of just having riots in Poland, could now have a peasant revolt in Russia and a proletarist rebellion attempt in Latvia.
2. Each potentially disastrous decision or choice by a player will be run through the system, and assuming the modifiers align correctly, it could result into what spryllino suggested before, a coup. Of course, this will depend on the actual situation of a country. For example, a military government that does something objectionable could face a coup. A democratic leader who does something objectionable will instead face impeachment proceedings or something along those lines. These are of course just surface examples, and greater detail or disaster could be added or taken away as needed.
If you guessed, these changes will mean that the Stability stat we know and love on the front page will be eliminated. So the obvious question remains: Without a stability stat how will we know if we're in serious trouble? Consider it encouragement to read the updates. There WILL be a buildup to traumatic events. As with real life it will be a matter of perspective and guesswork for the leader of the nation. Are these protests the first wave of a class revolution with legitimate needs to be addressed or are they simply just a societal wave of venting with no deeper meaning? Was that balompie riot a simple situation of fevered tempers gone bad or is this the warning shot to a rebellion? The main promise here is that stability events will no longer be random and disconnected, and will be solely dictated by economic, political, and social decisions/trends. There will be warnings to every crisis, and I plan on using EXTRA "mini-updates" a lot more frequently in the future. This would have been implemented sooner, but fact is that real life, as it does, has made it difficult to complete, and we've only recently completed the program, which also needs a name.
Well in terms of the economic system, enacting any sort of change at this point would be immensely difficult from my perspective. It certainly would not come in time for the 1940 new thread, and frankly, I have the same time for programming as I did when I was unemployed towards the end of 2011 and in 2012. Similarly, the pricing for units, designs, and so forth have all been based on the old program. Changing anything would mean by default changing everything. If there is a way to do an improved economic system that would not extend the amount of time each update takes and achieve my other goal of remaining useful to the masses, I'd embrace it wholeheartedly. While you can express generalities and the way it ought to be, this does very little to aid me in specifics of actually changing things. If an improved system, no matter how simple it is in function, is presented to me I will eagerly adopt it. These are my two primary specifications:
1. It must allow for historically accurate levels of military production, design, and recruitment. Ideally to keep it in line with the current system and not require further ruleset changes, this would allow for an inflation rate of 5% a year.
2. The process for generating economic changes yearly must not take more than an hour in time. Two hours in a pinch if it's a non-automated system.
1. It must allow for historically accurate levels of military production, design, and recruitment. Ideally to keep it in line with the current system and not require further ruleset changes, this would allow for an inflation rate of 5% a year.
2. The process for generating economic changes yearly must not take more than an hour in time. Two hours in a pinch if it's a non-automated system.
Crezth
i knew you were a real man of the left
Fair enough, I was just providing insights, however if you're interested in an upgrade I'd be happy to help facilitate that. We can discuss it the next time you're on AIM.
I'll be on AIM in approximately 5 hours and will remain on AIM for about 3 hours after that.
Symphony D.
Deity
I'm not entirely sure what strategic depth really has to do with economic performance. While, all other things being equal, a larger group of people will outperform a smaller group of people, and thus one can indeed claim the larger group has more "margin for error" in future performance to prevent them from achieving equal value, all other things are never equal. Holding up populations and saying "if the productivity of population X was coupled with the size of population Y, its performance would be Z, but really its performance is A," isn't particularly illuminating.
Hong Kong has a GDP (PPP) of $351.119 billion with a population of 7,061,200. The PRC has a GDP (PPP) of $12.405 trillion with a population of 1,353,821,000 (presumably Hong Kong is also included in these numbers but for simplicity's sake let's ignore that). If the PRC had equivalent per capita GDP to Hong Kong ($49725.12 per person), it would produce $67.3 trillion a year. Does this mean the actual PRC is underperforming versus its true potential and its growth to date has been dismal compared to the potential? The takeaway lesson isn't the PRC "underplayed" and ate up its margin of error buffer while HK "played (really) well," it's that strategic depth isn't a particularly useful concept to employ in economically comparing nations.
P.S. the USSR was boned without US support.
The problem is the larger population argument isn't and really hasn't been the determining factor since even before the industrial revolution. Persia didn't win the Greco-Persian Wars. Applying the basics of Guns, Germs, and Steel to say "food makes pop, more pop is more better" sketches out the rise of civilization but misses pretty much all the actual fine details of how civilization has proceeded. Geopolitics is not deterministic, and neither is economics. The course of technology, conversely, (comparatively) is. What will be discovered when, by who, and how, is a matter of circumstance, but physical laws and facts of nature are discovered, and likely practical applications remain the same regardless. One can for example make fairly educated guesses about how the future will play out (barring an absolutely revolutionary discovery about the nature of the universe, which, given the success of Quantum Field Theory, is unlikely to be that revolutionary). Diesel-powered walking tanks or Gundams aren't really practical no matter what, for example. There are occasionally undeveloped spins on particular technologies that could radically alter the capabilities of a field, but it would continue to likely broadly resemble what we know. (The greatest example of this is the abortive effort to make nuclear power universal.) If it can happen somebody will almost certainly do it eventually. If it didn't ultimately happen, it probably wasn't as effective (or economical).
If you want to argue with Goldman Sachs, feel free. You wouldn't be the first, but that's neither here nor there.
The problem you have, really, is that (going by #nes, which I sit in and hear about this game constantly on, which is why I'm here pontificating at all) a significant number of your players don't think the current situation is terribly realistic. When a situation isn't realistic, trying to apply realistic thinking to it produces nonsense, and frustration results. The earlier fracas over the agricultural yield of Russia and the sizes of populations, and the initial query on globalization, are good examples of the tension of this frustration snapping. Part of this is probably due to opacity, which your posts here may alleviate, and the nitty-gritty mechanics of the system in particular, which I imagine Crezth can help with. Fiddly variables have a way of producing odd results. Regardless, I applaud your openness in discussing these matters.
No argument that there are always variables, my point simply was that before variables, a larger population will always have an advantage over a smaller one. Variables can either increase this advantage or diminish it. You can point out a number of such successful small states, both from the modern day and history. At the same time, I could point out a number of larger states which have done well despite far more troubles than a smaller state could bear. There are elements in history which support either side of the argument, and frankly, there is no single factor that dictates the success or failure of any nation.
An argument made by George Friedman states that in the modern world of the 20th and 21st centuries, conventional wisdom is often wrong when it comes to geopolitics. The world of 1920 would not have been and for the most part was not imaginable by the thinkers of 1900. The world of 1940 would have been mostly unthinkable a similar collection of people in 1920. Think on the past 20 years since 1993. The politics of the world have changed to a great degree, though some of the foundations remain the same.
Well, I don't really want to get dragged into further geopolitical or historical arguments on this thread any further. If you'd like to see where my argument is coming from, I'd recommend looking at The Next 100 Years and/or The Next Decade by George Friedman. I'm a registered recipient of STRATFOR intelligence analysis briefings, and Friedman's company makes a number of good points in their overall ideals and theses. I don't buy into everything they say, but I do believe that numbers of demographic changes make a Russian superpower highly unlikely.
Heh, times have changed for me, and I'd like to think I'm a bit more mellow than I used to be when it comes to criticism. I do sometimes keep abrest of what is being discussed on #nes by a couple of nosy types who "kindly" let me know when people are talking smack about my NES. The fact is, I'm a selfish person, and I like to do things that I actually enjoy, and I've learned to stop caring too much about what other people say about me. I wear Hawaiian shirts with fedoras in public, and fart openly, with minimal apology. Accusations of "fan fiction" masquerading as an NES are highly amusing in #nes where I'll never see it, but really, it's hard to care. When people actually present legitimate points and arguments in an open manner, it's a lot easier for me to take things seriously and look for ways to make improvements. I don't really believe that I know everything there is to know these days, and I'm always open to new knowledge and ideas. Whether I choose to agree with these ideas and knowledge is typically a matter of practicality.
That said, I'm not a person (anymore) who will enact retribution if valid criticism is offered. The problem with valid criticism is that it's hard to do anything about it if no workable solution is offered. I said from the beginning that the starting scenario of Capto Iugulum was not the most realistic in the world and the situation that has developed is likely not the most realistic either. On the flip side, NESers involved have not always made the most realistic choices, nor have they made the wisest ones. With the systems currently in place, there's not much that can really be done to alter that. As stated previously, there are upcoming system changes in 1940. On the surface they aren't going to be too radical, but the difference will be felt in the updates and among nations. The next scheduled update of systems and rulesets will come in 1960, and in theory, if an economic system can be developed, that would be the time to implement it.
An argument made by George Friedman states that in the modern world of the 20th and 21st centuries, conventional wisdom is often wrong when it comes to geopolitics. The world of 1920 would not have been and for the most part was not imaginable by the thinkers of 1900. The world of 1940 would have been mostly unthinkable a similar collection of people in 1920. Think on the past 20 years since 1993. The politics of the world have changed to a great degree, though some of the foundations remain the same.
Well, I don't really want to get dragged into further geopolitical or historical arguments on this thread any further. If you'd like to see where my argument is coming from, I'd recommend looking at The Next 100 Years and/or The Next Decade by George Friedman. I'm a registered recipient of STRATFOR intelligence analysis briefings, and Friedman's company makes a number of good points in their overall ideals and theses. I don't buy into everything they say, but I do believe that numbers of demographic changes make a Russian superpower highly unlikely.
Heh, times have changed for me, and I'd like to think I'm a bit more mellow than I used to be when it comes to criticism. I do sometimes keep abrest of what is being discussed on #nes by a couple of nosy types
who "kindly" let me know when people are talking smack about my NES. The fact is, I'm a selfish person, and I like to do things that I actually enjoy, and I've learned to stop caring too much about what other people say about me. I wear Hawaiian shirts with fedoras in public, and fart openly, with minimal apology. Accusations of "fan fiction" masquerading as an NES are highly amusing in #nes where I'll never see it, but really, it's hard to care. When people actually present legitimate points and arguments in an open manner, it's a lot easier for me to take things seriously and look for ways to make improvements. I don't really believe that I know everything there is to know these days, and I'm always open to new knowledge and ideas. Whether I choose to agree with these ideas and knowledge is typically a matter of practicality. That said, I'm not a person (anymore) who will enact retribution if valid criticism is offered. The problem with valid criticism is that it's hard to do anything about it if no workable solution is offered. I said from the beginning that the starting scenario of Capto Iugulum was not the most realistic in the world and the situation that has developed is likely not the most realistic either. On the flip side, NESers involved have not always made the most realistic choices, nor have they made the wisest ones. With the systems currently in place, there's not much that can really be done to alter that. As stated previously, there are upcoming system changes in 1940. On the surface they aren't going to be too radical, but the difference will be felt in the updates and among nations. The next scheduled update of systems and rulesets will come in 1960, and in theory, if an economic system can be developed, that would be the time to implement it.
Lord of Elves
Suede-Denim Secret Police
- Joined
- Oct 31, 2009
- Messages
- 6,976
@Luckymoose, I'm still not entirely clear why you want me punished. In my somewhat uneducated opinion, Scandinavian manpower and economic trends are entirely realistic to the context of the NES. Scandinavia was one of the first industrialized states in Europe, establishing a national railroad network, modern (to the late 19th and early 20th centuries) industrial capabilities, and maintains the most advanced and largest factories for steel products in the world. Mannerheim's Five Year Plan modernized the economy again following the Great War, and significant amounts of spending are dedicated to keeping domestic manufacturing functioning.
@JoanK, I've had such an unfailingly miserable day that your comment actually made me smile. For a Euronationalist you're a pretty cool guy.
@JoanK, I've had such an unfailingly miserable day that your comment actually made me smile. For a Euronationalist you're a pretty cool guy.
Luckymoose
The World is Mine
@Luckymoose, I'm still not entirely clear why you want me punished. In my somewhat uneducated opinion, Scandinavian manpower and economic trends are entirely realistic to the context of the NES. Scandinavia was one of the first industrialized states in Europe, establishing a national railroad network, modern (to the late 19th and early 20th centuries) industrial capabilities, and maintains the most advanced and largest factories for steel products in the world. Mannerheim's Five Year Plan modernized the economy again following the Great War, and significant amounts of spending are dedicated to keeping domestic manufacturing functioning.
You're assuming Brazil wouldn't have similar or superior industrialization by now? The BT was spent industrializing, which included the extraction and refinement of steel (something Brazil has way more of than Scandinavia). In OTL the steel industry in Brazil suffered from a lack of domestic growth, which is completely reversed in this timeline. There is a lot more infrastructure to lay, more people to house, more ships to build, etc. I couldn't imagine seeing a Scandinavian corporation being wealthier than the top Brazilian steel magnates. Importing steel from Europe is not a priority for South America when everything can be produced far cheaper at home. Hell, Brazil should be practically feeding the Uruguayan, Paraguayan, and Argentine iron/steel needs (cause we know Argentina lacks the resources to do it).
I'm not too concerned about it, though. I can't really change what is happening. I just have to wait and see, hoping that the juggernaut that Brazil should be actually comes to fruition at some point.
Like, maybe if Scandinavia is burned down?
Lord of Elves
Suede-Denim Secret Police
- Joined
- Oct 31, 2009
- Messages
- 6,976
Scandinavia and Brazil are not in competition for markets. My success does not equal your failure and vice versa. 
Luckymoose
The World is Mine
Scandinavia and Brazil are not in competition for markets. My success does not equal your failure and vice versa.
Your success = more purchasing power than my empire. You have 1/8th of your population in the military under a syndicalist economic model.
Lord of Elves
Suede-Denim Secret Police
- Joined
- Oct 31, 2009
- Messages
- 6,976
Your success = more purchasing power than my empire. You have 1/8th of your population in the military under a syndicalist economic model.
I have agreed many times that Brazil's economy is significantly underpowered. Nonetheless the way to correct that is to increase the size (EP) of Brazil's economy, not decrease Scandinavia's. I'm already dirt poor compared to other so-called great powers
Luckymoose
The World is Mine
I have agreed many times that Brazil's economy is significantly underpowered. Nonetheless the way to correct that is to increase the size (EP) of Brazil's economy, not decrease Scandinavia's. I'm already dirt poor compared to other so-called great powers
Scandinavia, Italy, and Brazil are the only ones in the 300 Club. The next highest is over 200 above us.
ChiefDesigner
Sunset Emperor
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2007
- Messages
- 761
You're assuming Brazil wouldn't have similar or superior industrialization by now? The BT was spent industrializing, which included the extraction and refinement of steel (something Brazil has way more of than Scandinavia). In OTL the steel industry in Brazil suffered from a lack of domestic growth, which is completely reversed in this timeline. There is a lot more infrastructure to lay, more people to house, more ships to build, etc. I couldn't imagine seeing a Scandinavian corporation being wealthier than the top Brazilian steel magnates. Importing steel from Europe is not a priority for South America when everything can be produced far cheaper at home. Hell, Brazil should be practically feeding the Uruguayan, Paraguayan, and Argentine iron/steel needs (cause we know Argentina lacks the resources to do it).
I'm not too concerned about it, though. I can't really change what is happening. I just have to wait and see, hoping that the juggernaut that Brazil should be actually comes to fruition at some point.
Like, maybe if Scandinavia is burned down?
Brazilian coal is low quality and expensive. Scandinavia has access to cheap, high-quality North American bituminous.
With what energy resources is Brazil industrializing?
