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

[Vellos]

What does the trade balance mean?

I dispute the Qing having zero infrastructure. Ever heard of the Grand Canal? Flood control projects? Numerous ports? Infrastructure wasn't fantastic, but not zero.

[Perth]

What does the trade balance mean?

I dispute the Qing having zero infrastructure. Ever heard of the Grand Canal? Flood control projects? Numerous ports? Infrastructure wasn't fantastic, but not zero.

Trade balance is just an income modifier. Imports v. Exports, essentially. I am not sure what exactly they based those numbers on though... I think we should play it as basically you are either exporting resources or manufactured goods, or you're importing them. Alternatively, you can exploit them from territorial/colonial possessions to give you positive balances as well.

As for infrastructure, I agree. I think I'll give a couple nations a bump for this stat.

[Vellos]

Trade balance is just an income modifier. Imports v. Exports, essentially. I am not sure what exactly they based those numbers on though... I think we should play it as basically you are either exporting resources or manufactured goods, or you're importing them. Alternatively, you can exploit them from territorial/colonial possessions to give you positive balances as well.

As for infrastructure, I agree. I think I'll give a couple nations a bump for this stat.

So... how do we all have a positive trade balance?

I guess NPCs are running deficits?

Also, how are you handling movement of armies? Can I launch my 2.5 million man army straight across the Himalayas into India?

[Sypher]

So... how do we all have a positive trade balance?

I guess NPCs are running deficits?

Also, how are you handling movement of armies? Can I launch my 2.5 million man army straight across the Himalayas into India?

I would think the larger nations would be more likely to have a negative trade balance.

[Lefanis]

I dispute the Qing having zero infrastructure. Ever heard of the Grand Canal? Flood control projects? Numerous ports? Infrastructure wasn't fantastic, but not zero.

Russia was pretty lame compared to the other western powers! But we invented the electromagnetic telegraph! And we had railroads between our majors cities in the west.

And the military ought to be larger too.

In the early 1850s, the Russian army consisted of around 938,731 regular soldiers and 245,850 irregulars (mostly Cossacks). Of these, some 720000 participated in the Crimean war, with 220000 deaths.

[Vellos]

I would think the larger nations would be more likely to have a negative trade balance.

Not at all.

Qing China ran a huge trade surplus. That's why the European powers wanted to force them to buy opium. The Qing Empire was exporting so many goods and acquiring so much bullion that it was bankrupting many European trading companies. By the 1860's the Qing Empire's trade balance might have been in a deficit. The Qing tightly restricted imports and subsidized exports, creating a positive balance of trade. Ultimately, however, what depleted the Qing Empire's silver reserves was not a trade imbalance (though opium expenditures did lead to a diminishing trade balance) but rather reparations payments and other treaty obligations which Western powers required them to pay.

[Sypher]

Not at all.

...

It would make sense for China (and Japan?) to have a trade surplus. I was thinking of the European powers, particularly the colonial ones.

[Dante Silverfire]

Um, it definitely seems to me that Japan should have a higher infrastructure value. I mean up until just before this time they were heavily isolationist. What else would they be spending their money on if not infrastructure? If they have no infrastructure, and no industry then they are essentially eating any of their money. Which would also mean that their bank should be higher as they aren't using any money apparently.

At least those are my thoughts. And yes Japan would have a starting positive trade balance at this time from what I've read.

[Perth]

There is also the option of starting all Trade Balances at Zero and saying "have at it from here."


For now, I have:

1. Increased trade surpluses of China and Japan.
2. Increased Infrastructure levels across the board.
3. Increased Russian army size.


As for nations like United Kingdom and (to lesser extent) Belgium, it was my impression that they were some of the most industrialized nations in the world at the time and therefore producing a lot of manufactured goods for export. I could be wrong, however, perhaps these manufactured goods were not really exported but sold in country?

Also, should bringing in resources from colonies should count as negative trade balance? Opinions?

[Perth]

Um, it definitely seems to me that Japan should have a higher infrastructure value. I mean up until just before this time they were heavily isolationist. What else would they be spending their money on if not infrastructure? If they have no infrastructure, and no industry then they are essentially eating any of their money. Which would also mean that their bank should be higher as they aren't using any money apparently.

At least those are my thoughts. And yes Japan would have a starting positive trade balance at this time from what I've read.

True, but were they really westernizing yet? Building railroads and such? Ports, yes. Roads, sure. I'm thinking railroads is the big one moving into 1860's-1900 though. Nevertheless, I've upped all Infrastructure across the board a little bit.



Also, I've given no one any "Conscripts" to start with as I figured it would be better to let everyone choose to raise those on their own or not.

[Dante Silverfire]

There is also the option of starting all Trade Balances at Zero and saying "have at it from here."


For now, I have:

1. Increased trade surpluses of China and Japan.
2. Increased Infrastructure levels across the board.
3. Increased Russian army size.


As for nations like United Kingdom and (to lesser extent) Belgium, it was my impression that they were some of the most industrialized nations in the world at the time and therefore producing a lot of manufactured goods for export. I could be wrong, however, perhaps these manufactured goods were not really exported but sold in country?

Also, should bringing in resources from colonies should count as negative trade balance? Opinions?

The changes are good, however, your impression about the industrialized part of the world is somewhat wrong. At that time, those countries who were industrialized highly treasured their superiority over other nations. They would not have exported their industrialized produce as much as sell it within their own country so as not to give other nations advantages over them.

I could be wrong there, but I believe that was the way things were. No opinion on colonies, because I'd only be biased as I don't start with any, and also am not sure how that issue was actually addressed. My only thoughts were that I believe colonies existed for the purpose of imports to the home country, while minimal "exports" would go back to the colonies. Colonies would be one possible beneficiary though if a country were to export industrialized goods. Interpret that as you'd wish though.

[Perth]

Also, how are you handling movement of armies? Can I launch my 2.5 million man army straight across the Himalayas into India?

Remember: realism.

Can you? Sure. Will it end well? Probably not. Will it end with mixed results? Maybe. Will you lose half of them to starvation, freezing, attrition, etc? Probably. Will it pwnd Hannibal and his little march over the alps? Heck yes.

You're going to have to deal with the like 1-3 million man Taiping army first though 

[Perth]

The changes are good, however, your impression about the industrialized part of the world is somewhat wrong. At that time, those countries who were industrialized highly treasured their superiority over other nations. They would not have exported their industrialized produce as much as sell it within their own country so as not to give other nations advantages over them.

I could be wrong there, but I believe that was the way things were. No opinion on colonies, because I'd only be biased as I don't start with any, and also am not sure how that issue was actually addressed. My only thoughts were that I believe colonies existed for the purpose of imports to the home country, while minimal "exports" would go back to the colonies. Colonies would be one possible beneficiary though if a country were to export industrialized goods. Interpret that as you'd wish though.

Hm, yes, perhaps you are right about that. I am trying to think then what incentive you would have, in game, to colonize/expand/conquer stuff if colonies would only drag down your trade balance, and therefore, your income. Unless, owning more colonies/land simply helped your income on a base level.

I am also not opposed to doing away with the "Trade Balance" category. I brought all of these stats over from where I found this but am definitely wanting to perfect and change things where need be. Instead, for instance, if you sign a trade agreement with someone in game, it could merely positively affect your income? Perhaps unevenly between the partners depending upon what is being traded between which nations, but still both positively?

[Sypher]

Colonies should be ignored for trade balance. Both sides are considered within the same country. Instead the colonies should increase your income. I'd keep trade balance in, but wouldn't be opposed to starting everyone at zero and then increasing/decreasing it based on actions each person takes. I think it will be easier to track if the effects of those trades is separate from your income.

edit: found some interesting info on Japan's trade & economy in 1860s here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late_Tokugawa_shogunate
Looks like Japan's economy had a rough adjustment in opening up to foreign trade.

[Dante Silverfire]

Hm, yes, perhaps you are right about that. I am trying to think then what incentive you would have, in game, to colonize/expand/conquer stuff if colonies would only drag down your trade balance, and therefore, your income. Unless, owning more colonies/land simply helped your income on a base level.

I am also not opposed to doing away with the "Trade Balance" category. I brought all of these stats over from where I found this but am definitely wanting to perfect and change things where need be. Instead, for instance, if you sign a trade agreement with someone in game, it could merely positively affect your income? Perhaps unevenly between the partners depending upon what is being traded between which nations, but still both positively?

I don't think the Trade Balance category should be taken away and would agree with Sypher that colonies and more lands should not affect it at all. I think they should just add to overall income at a base level. (Which explains Britains high base income)