ITNES I - An Epoch of Change

[Symphony D.]

OOC: 6 to 12 EP in a single turn is rather puny and easily acquired through several means. It is exceedingly easy for a small state to craft a large and powerful army with which to strike at a larger opponent and gain power. Again, I would know, because I've done it several times. That is one of the primary reasons several of my states ended up where they did: hard and rapid strikes against superior opposition.

Your proposal curtails that option by reducing its effectiveness and making vastly more static the potential growth between different sized powers. Small powers are limited to puny, gradual troop acquisitions, while larger powers can still produce armies up to four times larger (per turn) fairly easily. Even if the smaller power can come up with additional funding it makes little difference because not much can be done with it.

All it does is more permanently fix the difference; recasting the chasm in concrete. It does nothing to really balance the situation. The richer power will still have more troops, the poorer power will still have fewer troops, and the richer power will still have vastly more money, and although the progress of the former will be less titanic, the latter will lose its primary method of equalization as well. The imbalance still exists and a layer of complexity has been unnecessarily added for no gain whatsoever, and the addition of further detriments.

If the actions of large powers were to be curtailed, a maximum military quantity (determined by some combination of factors like say, economy and size) beyond which upkeep had to be paid (say, for every 20 units like DisNESII, or perhaps more) would be vastly more sensible without needlessly handicapping nations. Perhaps require much higher logistics costs for large forces as well (in NES2 VI you would always be safe with only 4EP into logistics, with no exceptions). Between these two it would be possible to reduce the awesomeness of ridiculously huge armies without doing anything to impede smaller ones.

 

[shortguy]

I had considered that it made level sacrificing less effective, and I see your point; however, I think a system like this could make the disparity less significant in the first place. As you say, though, it may not be the simplest system.

Another thing I considered was an exhaustion mechanism, whereby you increasingly lose training by producing large numbers of troops in sequential turns. Maybe you'd lose one level per 40 one turn, but next turn it'd be 1 per 30, and then after it'd be 1 for 20 (assuming you met all those thresholds). A method like this would allow a small country its emergency buildup without much trouble, while punishing larger countries that just throw troops into the meatgrinder at will.

 

[Insane_Panda]

But why punish that? That is what large nations do - they use their large numbers to crush smaller nations.

We are not trying to level the playing field, and it is not like small nations are doomed to always be small - it is all up to the player.

 

[shortguy]

I personally think that a one-to-one correlation between ECs and ability to grow army is a bit biased toward the large states. Or maybe the problem is just that large nations get so darn many of them. Either way, as I've said before, I think it's a bit easy to translate a monetary advantage into a (correspondingly sized) military one.

 

[Insane_Panda]

Well, duh. More money = more troops. So it is in life, and so it is in NES.

The United States, though third in population, spends 50% of the world's military budget. More money always means more troops (unless you are a small nation - das is very good with keeping things in check).

History has never been a level playing field, nor has NES. If you want that, go play RISK.

 

[Symphony D.]

OOC: This is a valid point. A singular outstanding power (or a number of them) is more often than not a standard fact of an age. Defeating them historically requires large quantities of resources and allies. Weak nations do not just magically catch up to strong ones and skewing rules such that they can by their own merits alone is oversimplification for the sake of oversimplification and horribly inaccurate to boot.

Weak nations survive by banding together or seeking a strong patron typically, not by challenging powers head-on. Designing a rule system to allow them to do so is silly. History isn't fair, or balanced, and neither are NES games. If they were, then everybody would just have equal stats. It should be possible for weak nations to have a fair shake but making things perfectly (or even mostly) fair and balanced is not a high priority. Nobody is forced to play weak nations, and it's not like das accepts reserves or applications anyway.

Again, I see what I suggested at the end of my last post as a sensible and realistic (and yet also simple) limiting factor on the power of extremely large militaries. But equalizing weak and strong simply for the sake of making them more equal serves no purpose. NESing is not a communism or socialism. That's what those vaunted Fresh Starts are for.

 

[shortguy]

This isn't just about fairness. I don't think that a nation with double the "ECs" historically had double the military. England had more "ECs" than Russia, but who had the larger military? England had many, many more than Prussia, but whose land army dominated the mid-19th century battlefield? The Spanish had much more wealth than any other European nation in the 16th century; in an NES universe, they would have run over France with ease. As it was, they played pattycake in Italy for 30 years instead, with both sides occasionally having the advantage. Heck, Portugal would likely have been second in "EC" count at the time; their colonial and trading ventures were going quite nicely. Yet I don't think anyone was quaking in his boots in fear of the vaunted Portuguese army. Somehow all those "ECs" don't matter that much when you only have a million people...

This isn't about equalizing unequals; it's about curbing what are IMO somewhat runaway advantages.

 

[erez87]

My only problem with EC's is that after a country ,say, conquered the whole Mediterranean. What trade with other nations they have through the whole Mediterranean now? Why there are still EC's there? EC's should be only for outside trade. Inside trade is part of the inside economy. If that will happen than EC's will be balanced. Because than a Russian won't have EC's in the middle of Siberia... Or a Carthage Empire won't have EC's in Lisbon (there are no countries out there... who would they trade with there? The sea?)

and indeed Shortguy has something. Population should be somehow implanted into the game.

 

[Insane_Panda]

However, your examples fail. Britain, though having a smaller military than Russia, had a MUCH better trained one - that is always reflected in the stats. Secondly, you ignore the fact that Britain's fleet was several magnitudes larger than the Russian one. In NES, just as in real life, you will spend more on one thing and less on another. Furthermore, Britain's army was not very small in actuality, only the home forces were small. Britain's combined forces totalled at over 1,000,000 spread throughout the colonies. Secondly, Prussia had a much larger military than anyone, including France and Great Britain, in the mid 19th century. It was an "army with a nation". Furthermore, the Spanish did not have a huge wealth advantage. They were rich, but they weren't that rich. And France had much stronger internal industries than Spain ever did, and more manpower to boot aswell. Its not the lack of forces and money which lead to the italian conflict's nature, it was the the day's military doctrines and the time's power projection capabilities. The concept of total, mobile war did not come into play until Gustavus Adolphus, and that was in 17th Century - it was doctrines, not lack of wealth which lead to the slow marches of most European forces. NESers, however, are not hampered with such doctrines, and usually play with modern conceptions - such is inavoidable, but that again has nothing to do with the EC system.

Finally, Portugal, though having trade posts throughout the world (and no, it would not have had second in EC count, as EC's are not merely colonial posts but industrial and economic centers throughout one's nation. Portugal had no real major metropolises, and thus, less EC's than the powers of continental Europe.) and having huge amounts of money, did not field a large army, you are right, but it did field a huge navy. This, again, is always reflected in NES stats.

 

[Insane_Panda]

EC's ARE NOT TRADE CENTERS.

EC'S ARE CENTERS OF ECONOMIC ACTIVITY INCLUDING INDUSTRY, TRADE, AGRICULTURE, AND EVERYTHING ELSE WHICH MAKES MONEY.

jeez.

 

[Insane_Panda]

Also, please look at the stats of NES2 VI. There is no bias. All the nations which have huge armies have justifiably huge armies.

And read the updates too, you will see that das keeps unrealistic expansion in check, and does damage your economy and industry during prolonged periods of conflict.

 

[Insane_Panda]

Also, why compare Britain and Prussia? They never fought in the mid 19th century, and by the time they DID fight, they had an equal economic strengh. (Though Germany was slightly stronger).

Prussia DID fight France, however, and Prussia certaintly had a stronger economy when it did that.

 

[shortguy]

Secondly, Prussia had a much larger military than anyone, including France and Great Britain, in the mid 19th century. It was an "army with a nation".

That's my point. Britain not only was the most industrialized nation in the world, but it had the large and rich overseas empire (which the EC system disproportionately favors); how would a country the size of Prussia achieve military dominance?

Furthermore, the Spanish did not have a huge wealth advantage. They were rich, but they weren't that rich. And France had much stronger internal industries than Spain ever did, and more manpower to boot aswell.

Because of map and geographic considerations, and the relative unimportance of non-EC economy, overseas empires are disproportionately favored (you can only fit so many ECs in France itself, and IMO the EC threshold is generally higher on the continent than in the overseas domains). And population, with the EC system, is more or less irrelevant.

Finally, Portugal, though having trade posts throughout the world (and no, it would not have had second in EC count, as EC's are not merely colonial posts but industrial and economic centers throughout one's nation. Portugal had no real major metropolises, and thus, less EC's than the powers of continental Europe.)

IMO, this is true in theory and not in practice. See above.

did not field a large army, you are right, but it did field a huge navy. This, again, is always reflected in NES stats.

The thing is, Portugal couldn't have had a large army (I understand mercenaries were a large component then, but population still mattered plenty). That is not reflected in the stats.



EDIT: In reading my responses, it seems that I'm arguing less that EC advantages are unfairly translated into army advantages, but that the EC system models economies poorly, in practice favoring trade and overseas holding too much.

 

[Insane_Panda]

That's my point. Britain not only was the most industrialized nation in the world, but it had the large and rich overseas empire (which the EC system disproportionately favors); how would country the size of Prussia achieve military dominance?

Again, in the mid 19th Century, it did not achieve dominance over Britain. Prussia's forces were considerably better trained, yes, but they were smaller. (training costs money too, you know. ) It achieved dominance over France and Austria - both of whom had weaker economies than Britain. When German y unified, it was better off economically than Britain. THAT is when the German military really took off. Wealth is the basis of all power - Prussia achieved its military dominance through industrial superiority against first France, than Britain.

Because of map and geographic considerations, and the relative unimportance of non-EC economy, overseas empires are disproportionately favored (you can only fit so many ECs in France itself, and IMO the EC threshold is generally higher on the continent than in the overseas domains). And population, with the EC system, is more or less irrelevant.

Exactly, EC thresholds are considerably higher on the continent. France had several metropolitan cities. Spain had Madrid and Seville and maybe one more. Spain had a large colonial Empire but PLEASE NOTE that in NESes which Spain's colonial empire is shown, it has less ECs in it than the colonial empires of others - Spains colonies were underdeveloped, this is again shown in all NESes. France had colonies aswell, and the number balances itself out against Spain. Furthermore, where are you getting this crap that non-EC economies are unimportant? All the nations which have alot of EC's have large home economies. Furthermore, smaller nations such as Portugal always have poorer home economies. HOME-BASED ECONOMIES ARE NO LESS IMPORTANT THAN ECs. THEY GIVE YOU MONEY ASWELL.

Population, just because it is not shown in the stats, is not irrelevant. In the EC system, it is the duty of the mod to regulate things like that, and they are regulated well (again, read NES2 VI updates - the nations with EC's are also generally much more powerful manpower and economically wise than the other ones. This is not an "unfair advantage.)

EDIT: Also, nations with low populations, as a general rule, have less EC's than more densley populated nations provided those nations are economically developed due to the fact that more people = more money.

 

[Insane_Panda]

EDIT: In reading my responses, it seems that I'm arguing less that EC advantages are unfairly translated into army advantages, but that the EC system models economies poorly, in practice favoring trade and overseas holding too much.

Not true. EC's do not mean trade, they mean cities of economic power (how many times to I have to state this?). Note NES2 VI, the clearest example of the EC system. The overwhelming majority of the HRE's ECs were in Europe, it's INDUSTRIAL BASE. Russia did not have any overseas positions either, but had over 20 EC's.

Overseas territories, as you will see in NESes, do not mean more EC's as generally overseas territories are underdeveloped in comparison with their home countries. In a NES reflecting 1914, the majority of the ECs would be concentrated on the developed regions such as America and Europe, NOT the overseas possesions. There are still ECs there, but not nearly as much when compared to Europe or America and this ACCURATELY REFLECTS HOW THE WORLD WAS AND IS.

 

[shortguy]

Furthermore, where are you getting this crap that non-EC economies are unimportant?

At the end of NES2 VI, you received 4 economic points from your "economy" stat, compared to about 35ish from ECs. That's what I mean.

Not true. EC's do not mean trade, they mean cities of economic power (how many times to I have to state this?).

I realize that, I just think that trade is disproportionately represented.

Take a look at LuckNES2's map for example. Britain itself has 4 ECs. Martinique is an EC for France. Do you think that Martinique produces more useful wealth than Britain's 5th most significant city at that time (I realize its an althist. Bear with me here.)? I'm not sure--feel free to correct--but I rather doubt it.

Feel free to disagree; I've spammed this thread up enough. I don't hate the system; it's simple and relatively transparent (unlike the current, rather inscrutable, one that das is using). I just think that an economic advantage translates into a larger military one than is appropriate.

 

[Disenfrancised]

Take a look at LuckNES2's map for example. Britain itself has 4 ECs. Martinique is an EC for France. Do you think that Martinique produces more useful wealth than Britain's 5th most significant city at that time (I realize its an althist. Bear with me here.)? I'm not sure--feel free to correct--but I rather doubt it.

1) With the proper slave system in place, the sugar plantations can produce considerable profits from Martinique, particularly if state owned.
2)The Martinique EC probably represents the output of several islands, each not large enough to make an EC, for which it acts as a regionally collection and coordination centre.
3)The ECs in LuckNES are a bit weird anyway .

 

[Thlayli]

I like the current system. Trade and economy are two very separate spheres, and should be treated as such. There were far too many "economic centers" in NES2 VI to be realistic, IMO. And in the pre-modern ages, empires can't expect to get a direct economic benefit from owning a center of trade; their treasuries are enriched indirectly from taxes and tariffs, thus bringing the benefit that trade provides.

In ITNES thus far, there are no true centers of industry in the modern sense, and agriculture/other rural production centers are scattered across the countryside. The "indirect benefit" system that das is currently using is far more accurate to historical reality, since during Medieval times there really were large cities located at the convergence of trade routes...and they weren't 50 miles apart.

Having a productive city shouldn't always translate into gold rushing into the treasury, at least not directly.

Also, is this really the right place for a discussion on economic systems?

 

[silver 2039]

I agree with Thalyi. I personally like this economic system a great deal, its far more realistic.

 

[Lord_Iggy]

That's what those vaunted Fresh Starts are for.

Amen to that.

I really don't think any one system is vastly better than another, though I agree with much of Sym's argument.