[Forum Game] World in Revolution 1861, Sign-up Thread

[Vellos]

um, lol, 1.2 million soldiers?

Hogwash. The Green Banner Army had 2 million easy, not including the special armies raised against the Taiping rebels.

[Perth]

Okay...


Nations who lost a bunch of troops (Russia, China and Japan) did do so because when I implemented the income formula from Fry it put you all waaaay in the red. Like, China and Russia had over -1000 income. Now, I could correct that by simply jacking up their base incomes a ton, but I felt it would be a poor fix because then nations like Russia and China would have humongous base incomes compared to nations like the UK or France; meaning all Russia and China would have to do is disband, say, half their armies, and they would be sitting on humongous piles of cash overnight.

Maybe that is okay? If so, I can make it so. It is up to you all.


The income numbers before were not based on anything more than "Ehhh... that looks right." So there was no correlation between why the UK had 15 industry and 500 income and Prussia had 17 industry and 250 income. Now, using Frymonmon's income formula, it is all standardized across the board.



Again, I'm happy to make more changes. I just felt the best way to go about it would be to lower troop numbers (ie. costs) to provide everyone a positive balance as then you can invest, build up your income, and build more troops.

Maybe my base numbers are wrong, but Fry said he wouldn't be able to provide his numbers to me until at least Monday.



Also, I made changes now as opposed to later, because I know you all have planned some stuff out, but at least nothing has technically happened yet. I though it would be less painful.

[Tom]

It seems to me the upkeep costs are off, then.

As I see it, huge nations would also have to pay a lot of money just to run their country. So they can have a huge income, but low cash flow. The army would be part of that "costs of running the country" until some limit.

To simplify things, you could simply add a number that represents how many men the standing army can support "for free", i.e. out of the normal operating costs of the government. Then a large country can maintain a large army, but increasing it is costly.

Balance can be maintained by picking the number carefully. China could field 200,000 men for free, but it needs to keep 300,000 men under weapons just so there are no internal rebellions, while Belgium can only field 10,000 men for free, but it can run at that level without internal unrest.

Also maybe make that second number (how much army do you need before you get internal trouble) depend on stability.


Just suggestions.

[Vellos]

Alternatively, make soldiers required for stability. Auto-deteriorate stability if soldiers aren't present in-region in some ratio to population.

That way, large empires still can't just disband for cash, because doing so will beget instability, nor can they just go ROTFL stomp other nations, because doing so will beget instability.

Or you could keep it as-is, which is okay I guess. Bit of a tough break for us developing countries; I assume you did some fairly strict industry-level weighting. Which is okay I guess. It just incentivizes investing in industry for us.

[Dante Silverfire]

I guess the changes are fine. I mean it was just SUCH a big change that it simply threw me off right away.

If these changes are what is necessary to ensure a balanced economic system, then I'll work with it. I just wasn't expecting the loss of 7/8ths of my military power. Thought it was one of Japan's advantages in the place of being drastically under developed.

I don't know as much about implementing formulas like this and such so will simply defer to those with more experience.

[Dante Silverfire]

On the other hand, I actually was intending to disband some portion of Japan's army in order to supplement a larger positive income, but with the changes won't be doing that I am guessing.

[Perth]

I'm going to play around with the base incomes and see what I can do to remedy the heart ache. Will post again here in a little while.

[Perth]

Okay.

Troop numbers restored!

Incomes slightly readjusted.

I think we should be good now and everyone should be moderately content. *crosses fingers*

[JPierreD]

* JPierreD riots and burns tires

[Dante Silverfire]

Okay.

Troop numbers restored!

Incomes slightly readjusted.

I think we should be good now and everyone should be moderately content. *crosses fingers*

I just want to say the fact that the Swiss have a larger army than the CSA makes me giddy inside. lol.

[Tom]

I just want to say the fact that the Swiss have a larger army than the CSA makes me giddy inside. lol.

But it's historically correct, AFAIK. The swiss had been fielding mercenary forces all over Europe for centuries.

[Dante Silverfire]

But it's historically correct, AFAIK. The swiss had been fielding mercenary forces all over Europe for centuries.

I understand that. I just think its funny.

[Perth]

I just want to say the fact that the Swiss have a larger army than the CSA makes me giddy inside. lol.

I will take giddy over baffled, annoyed and angry anyday.


Besides, the CSA is like 3 months old at this point.

[Dante Silverfire]

I will take giddy over baffled, annoyed and angry anyday.


Besides, the CSA is like 3 months old at this point.

Anyone else think the CSA should hire the Swiss to fight the USA for them?

Also, why not change history and have it NOT be the bloodiest war in American history and jsut only fight with 20k and 30k troops? Win or lose just go with that eh>?

[Tom]

Also, why not change history and have it NOT be the bloodiest war in American history and jsut only fight with 20k and 30k troops? Win or lose just go with that eh>?

That nature of war is that people want to win it, so they will throw resources at it until they either win or have no resources left.

Very few wars in the history of mankind were won on the battlefield. Most were matters of whose economy collapses first.