Mathalamus
Emperor of Mathalia
in 200 to 400 years, earth could easily right itself back in shape, and catch up to them no problem. they will want to check up on that colony.
IOT Developmental Thread
- Thread starter Joecoolyo
- Start date
in 200 to 400 years, earth could easily right itself back in shape, and catch up to them no problem. they will want to check up on that colony.
Ailedhoo
wonderer
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2012
- Messages
- 7,809
This better become a reality Tyo, for I am eager for it! 
We have a present for you...
We have a present for you...
- Joined
- Mar 14, 2011
- Messages
- 4,131
Or a bad situation could get worse. No way for the colonists to tell.
It's CivO's annual summer game time! Spiritual successor to SaR, for those who played
- Joined
- Mar 14, 2011
- Messages
- 4,131
gay_Aleks
from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free!
SouthernKing
crickety cricket
An alternate Cold War IMPERIUM OFFTOPICUM game brought to you by the hive-mind behind KASHMIR and LYRICAL GIRL CAPTIOS!
Coming this holiday season on VHS!
Terran Empress
Hornet
HYYYYPE
JohannaK
Heroically Clueless
VHS hype
- Joined
- Apr 4, 2010
- Messages
- 8,873
Question to GMs - How do you, personally, calculate economic damage from combat? Do you have some sort of formula or percentage? Or you do just use pure fiat?
Crezth
i knew you were a real man of the left
"Pure fiat" is not a valid method unless it's supported by some kind of justification, both in science and in life. Hence though I do not have a formal method, I present the following heuristic:
Economic damage from combat should be understood in terms of:
1. What, exactly, is being destroyed, and;
2. How is it being destroyed
In general, populations are the most valuable resource. Losing populations incurs a hit both on total economy and real productivity. That's just simple math: 1,000 thousand can produce more than 500 thousand. A loss of 50% population should correspond to 50% GDP (even though losing 50% population would probably disrupt everything resulting in cascading death, losses, chaos, etc). However, there are other resources, which can be seen as economic "multipliers," that losing them also hurts, and how they are lost:
1. Factories and industrial complexes are usually destroyed as the result of targeted bombing. Reduction of these modifiers in the face of enemy strategic bombing seems reasonable.
2. Dockyards and docks are targets of general interest (sabotage an enemy supply line, compromise an enemy's naval projection, eliminate an enemy's avenue of retreat-by-sea) and affect trade very strongly and naval capacity.
3. Infrastructure (roads and railroads) are targets of general interest for attackers and defenders in virtually every combat scenario especially in modern times. Losing infrastructure is like losing blood vessels and should flat-out decrease economic output. In principle: if 100% of the infrastructure (a silly concept but work with it) were destroyed, 100% of the economic activity would cease. Speaking practically, there will always be some infrastructure that can never be destroyed (a person's own two feet + solid ground), but a lot of it can, and that's usually stuff very important to other parts of an industrial+ economy (trains and cars). Docks and dockyards can count as infrastructure too.
4. Military bases and public service centers. They don't always generate any additional value but sometimes they do. If you can imagine a major military base that services a lot of careers in its area, losing that would qualify the same as losing an industrial complex or similar.
Since most of the time it is reasonable to expect that damage to infrastructure or industrial facilities can be repaired, it is also acceptable to apply a timed penalty or one that decays over time. This is what EU4 does (for the "looted" mechanic).
Economic damage from combat should be understood in terms of:
1. What, exactly, is being destroyed, and;
2. How is it being destroyed
In general, populations are the most valuable resource. Losing populations incurs a hit both on total economy and real productivity. That's just simple math: 1,000 thousand can produce more than 500 thousand. A loss of 50% population should correspond to 50% GDP (even though losing 50% population would probably disrupt everything resulting in cascading death, losses, chaos, etc). However, there are other resources, which can be seen as economic "multipliers," that losing them also hurts, and how they are lost:
1. Factories and industrial complexes are usually destroyed as the result of targeted bombing. Reduction of these modifiers in the face of enemy strategic bombing seems reasonable.
2. Dockyards and docks are targets of general interest (sabotage an enemy supply line, compromise an enemy's naval projection, eliminate an enemy's avenue of retreat-by-sea) and affect trade very strongly and naval capacity.
3. Infrastructure (roads and railroads) are targets of general interest for attackers and defenders in virtually every combat scenario especially in modern times. Losing infrastructure is like losing blood vessels and should flat-out decrease economic output. In principle: if 100% of the infrastructure (a silly concept but work with it) were destroyed, 100% of the economic activity would cease. Speaking practically, there will always be some infrastructure that can never be destroyed (a person's own two feet + solid ground), but a lot of it can, and that's usually stuff very important to other parts of an industrial+ economy (trains and cars). Docks and dockyards can count as infrastructure too.
4. Military bases and public service centers. They don't always generate any additional value but sometimes they do. If you can imagine a major military base that services a lot of careers in its area, losing that would qualify the same as losing an industrial complex or similar.
Since most of the time it is reasonable to expect that damage to infrastructure or industrial facilities can be repaired, it is also acceptable to apply a timed penalty or one that decays over time. This is what EU4 does (for the "looted" mechanic).
*points wildly at Germany*
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2008
- Messages
- 14,928
If Y = K^(ARBITRARY DECIMAL) * L ^ (ARBITRARY DECIMAL) then
If K = 100, L = 100, and AD = .3 for K and .7 for L, then Y = National Output = GDP = 100.
If L = 50, Y = 61, not 50.
Factories and ICs would fall under K, so yeah that is reasonable. A 50% reduction of K to 50 would reduce Y to 81, again assuming the fairly arbitrary numbers I used above. I guess my point is that the sum of an economy isn't the value added by labor.
Depending on the GM, Infrastructure is either part of a modifier to K and L or is, itself, K.
It may be easier for GMing purposes to just assign a discount to catch-up.
----
The personal way I planned on handling this stuff in EoJ was rolling dice after combat based on the number of units attacking. More rolls = more chances of buildings being damaged/destroyed.
Economic buildings weren't really going to be "destroyed". A factory or mine had a high chance of reverting to a generic Abandoned Mine/Factory, which could be switched into any factory the empire had access to. Switching costs were lower than build costs, meaning repairing after a war would be cheaper than expanding the economy for a given amount of resources.
Crezth
i knew you were a real man of the left
What are the bounds on the arbitrary decimals and the physical meaning of K and Y in this model? It seems AD_1 + AD_2 = 1 and K = development? If so, I think I see what you mean. I used the same model for originally determining EP in Blackened Skies. I decided (with help from players) that I didn't really like a production-based model and I wanted to measure competitiveness, resource availability, and real vs. nominal growth. So I kept the Y value as a reference and started trying to measure supply and demand (specifically demand which I started to see as the most relevant indicator of an economy's size). Eventually I realized I could derive an EP stat based on models of market interactions and I decided to go with it.
Anyway, my assumption earlier was that Y is a linear system of GDP/capita and total capita and by superposition a 50% reduction of total capita produces exactly a 50% reduction in Y. Obviously this is a derived quantity, and GDP/capita (tentatively "productivity") would be attached in no small degree to population also, making the entire thing nonlinear -- however, allow us to assume the basic unit of demand is the population. Hence we can say there is a "base demand" which is the nominal demand produced by any population and is linearly proportional to that. The true demand will be equal to this base demand multiplied by some non-dimensional factor. By this transformation a 50% reduction in population results in a 50% reduction in base demand.
gay_Aleks
from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free!
words are better
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2008
- Messages
- 14,928
Usually I make the exponents of both equal to 1. So if K's is .3, L's is .7. Any lower and you start getting diminishing returns to scale, and any higher you get increasing returns to scale, both of which might be an issue for balance.
K is capital. It represents physical property used in production including factories.
Y is national income.
If Y = Consumption + Investment + Government Spending + Net Exports, a 50% reduction of the population wouldn't lead outright to a 50% reduction in the size of the economy still. Consumption would decrease, yes, but investment and government spending don't necessarily fall by 50% as well.
Going back to the example above of K = 100, L = 100 (with L also being the population), the same .3/.7 split, we get this.
Y = 100
Wages = 100 * .7 (assuming no rents or anything of the sort)/100 = .7
Savings Rate = 5% (using America as the example)
Savings = .7 * .05 = .035
Consumption = .7 - .035 = .665
We're going to be generous and say that owners of capital consume at the same rate, and therefore consume 95% of their income and save 5%, meaning 95 out of 100 is consumed. Consumption per person = .95
Reducing L by 50 leads to this.
Y = 61
Wages = .854
Savings overall = 3.05
Consumption = 57.95
Consumption per person = 1.159
The economy is smaller overall, and savings are smaller overall. The 50% reduction in the economy reduced output by roughly 40%. This takes into account "demand" through consumption, which in this scenario is 95% of output.
From a logical point of view, after 50% of the population disappeared, their wages increased because the infrastructure, factories, capital, etc., was left behind. Demand per person, likewise, increased with wages. If the 50% reduction in population includes a 50% reduction in capital, then you would get 50% reduction in GDP in the model because .7 + .3 = 1, so the model assumes constant returns to scale.
Very rarely does it work out that neatly though.
JamesCaesar
People-Vulture
Sone please it's still summer, why am I getting a math lesson
