While We Wait: Part 4

[carmen510]

When the hell did I ask you that?

In LuckNES, when Prussia and Russia were still at war and France was considering to go on one side or something of that sort. I'm too lazy to actually check the thread.

 

[germanicus12]

I exaggerated with the Great Britain part, but Carmen is pretty much correct.

When I was fighting Prussia you constantly asked me whether I would invade Greece or not.

 

[Abaddon]

Civ4 - Stories & Tales (23 Viewing)
#Civ4 - Succession Games (19 Viewing)
Civ3 - Stories & Tales (40 Viewing)
#Civ3 - Succession Games (1 Viewing)
#Civ3 - Never Ending Stories (29 Viewing)
OTHER GAMES (11 Viewing)

 

[sp1023]

Oh, yes. You said Great Britain, so I got confused...

 

[Symphony D.]

Time to first international news photo spread of a child mistakenly shot by such a set up...20 maybe 30 minutes ?

It'll be a lot more than 10 years before you can have a robot doing policework...

How do they use those Predator doodads armed with Hellfires, again?

 

[flyingchicken]

General question: What do you think about nations in the some NESes spending more than/half of their national income/total economy (depending on ruleset) in buying colonies?

Personally, I think those are over-inflated and unrealistic prices for colonies, as far as I know, and I think the fictional citizens should be going crazy about such sales. But it could just be me, and someone will post up extensive historical accounts of colony purchases that cost more than/half of national revenue/GDP/GNP without leading to major chaos.

Lazy question: Also, were there any industrial-era colony sales that did not involve a war in some way (funding or the result of one)?

 

[jeps]

depends on the colony. if you are buying all of indonesia, papua new guinea, brunei, and malaysia (on borneo only), with its oil, that would be worth a fair amount.

Buying Western Sahara or a random chunk of the amazon on the other hand...

 

[das]

Thing is, colonies are relatively hard to get by, and pretty difficult to assume control over, usually. Which is why not all that many colony sales occurred in OTL - well, that and the fear of giving the other side a potential strategic advantage. Both Louisiana and Alaska were sold because they were judged untenable; note that the prices were always very low, the Russians even managing to lose money on their sale of Alaska between their diplomat's travel expenses and the bribes to the senators.

 

[Disenfrancised]

Thing is, colonies are relatively hard to get by, and pretty difficult to assume control over, usually. Which is why not all that many colony sales occurred in OTL - well, that and the fear of giving the other side a potential strategic advantage. Both Louisiana and Alaska were sold because they were judged untenable; note that the prices were always very low, the Russians even managing to lose money on their sale of Alaska between their diplomat's travel expenses and the bribes to the senators.

And it causes enormous trouble with the metropol (unless you have vast political capital) over the loss of face, and the annoyence of people with investments and interest in the colony that have often been made for centuries. Its also moronically hilarious how in NESes someone sells a colony and *bing* the buyer has equal control over it without making the huge investments in personnel and influcence the original power had too.

Colonies are massively over valued in NESes anyway, even the colony-tastic british empire was only just equal to the GDP of the metropol and provided less than 15% of the pure cash revenue (the access to resources and markets had many positive effects, but not on a year by year balance sheet). The highest colonial income was probably the Dutch East indies, which only provided 30% of the national revenue at its absolute height (and that was with some pretty severe oppression and profit guaging).

As to flyingchickens question on colony sales: No, there were boundary settings and spheres of influcence agreements, but no one would sell colonies unless it was at the barrel of a gun (guns economic, political and potential as well of course*), there are even many examples of conquering powers giving back colonies to their original owners at the conclusion of hostilities.

*The French and Russian sales in north america both due to it being a buyers market - if they hadn't sold their territories the British or Americans would have been along in a few years and pinched it without them getting any money.

 

[Lord_Iggy]

Too much education does, especially when a certain person that I quoted is online but not saying anything about my PM.

I have to see what my other allies say about bringing you into the North American Research Fund.

 

[Supermath]

I have to see what my other allies say about bringing you into the North American Research Fund.

NARF!

That is all.

 

[North King]

Colonies are massively over valued in NESes anyway, even the colony-tastic british empire was only just equal to the GDP of the metropol and provided less than 15% of the pure cash revenue (the access to resources and markets had many positive effects, but not on a year by year balance sheet). The highest colonial income was probably the Dutch East indies, which only provided 30% of the national revenue at its absolute height (and that was with some pretty severe oppression and profit guaging).

Do you have some sources for the GDP figures? It would be useful in devising rulesets and setting up NESes...

 

[Terrance888]

sh1t ~Darkening~ attacked the Caliph!... and no Arab nations to help me...

God,(Allah!) he thinks he can and will win.

What happens if I try to colonize Africa and....

 

[Disenfrancised]

Do you have some sources for the GDP figures? It would be useful in devising rulesets and setting up NESes...

*Psh*, I always have sources .

The 30% figure for the Dutch (862 million guilders in 1877) is taken from the 'Phillips Atlas of World History', the British figure (overseas assets valued at £3.1 hundred Bil compared to the home GDP £2.5 hundred Bil in 1914) taken from some reference in a Niall Ferguson essay.

These are supported by wiki's reproduction of the figures of Angus Maddison, though a) its wiki and b) his figures are often disputed (though will almost certainly do for NESing purposes ). I would suggest the percentages from those tables are more useful guides than strict numeric values.

 

[North King]

Well, those figures do have British India as half of the Empire's GDP (at least in the 1800s), which would make it a valuable colony, no?

 

[Disenfrancised]

Well, those figures do have British India as half of the Empire's GDP (at least in the 1800s), which would make it a valuable colony, no?

Overvalued does not equal No Value silly. India was valuble, but a) not to the extent as some NESes would put it, b) vast amounts of that income need to go towards sustaining india and thus C) the revenue it made available to Britain was much less than that provided by the metropol per GDP. A colony is rarely a hotbed of instant profit. Plus in the 1820s over half of india was still outside Jon Companies grasp .

And of course GDP tells nothing like the full story - 16th century France had four times the GDP of england, but since England had centralisation and a taxation system that allowed far better use of those resourses they fought on a much more even playing field.

 

[North King]

Oh, certainly, I was just pointing the numbers out.

 

[Thlayli]

All colonies aren't created equal.

There can be tiny, vastly profitable colonies, like Goa for example, or large, moderately profitable colonies like Hudson's Bay. There can be tiny, unproductive colonies like Pondicherry, or large, unproductive colonies like Siberia/Russian Alaska.

There's a huge difference between 17th century mercantilist colonies and 19th century imperialist colonies as well, in purpose and organization. Population, whether native or expatriates from the home country, also plays a major factor.

So it can't really be oversimplified.

 

[Luckymoose]

Spoiler Taking moat to the extreme :

 

[das]

Thlayli, a clear distinction must be made between trade outposts, settler colonies and resource colonies (colonies of occupation. Or whatever else they call them in English nowadays). There are many differences, and yet these are all too often treated as though they were identical but for their size and wealth.