Economic Health

Discussions about Cosmic Starfire.

Moderators: SDS Members, SDS Owner

Forum rules
Cosmic Starfire is being designed by Fred Burton (aka 'Crucis'). Please direct all inquiries to him.

1. Nothing obscene.
2. No advertising or spamming.
3. No personal information. Mostly aimed at the posting of OTHER people's information.
4. No flame wars. We encourage debate, but it becomes a flame when insults fly and tempers flare.

Try to stick with the forum's topic. Threads that belong to another forum will be moved to that forum.

Re: Economic Health

Postby Cralis on Thu 24 Jan 2013 23:59

tmul4050 wrote:What if you crank taxation up (stalinist method), would that be a modifierer.
Stalin actually did something like that in the 1930's, when he crunched the agricultural sector (ok I am simplifying). This had the effect of giving him tremendous economic clout (control of 50% or so of the nation GDP), which he used to industrialise the soviet union. It worked but it had serious side effects (I don't think soviet agriculture ever really recovered). Anyway (tangent ended :) ) could you do similar and what would the modifier be? I do remember that there is a economic tactic in the game to rip income out of a planet, at the increase risk of revolt.


Oh that's not a bad idea. Negatives for the Stalin method and the Cortez method... the use of such methods would probably have an impact on your whole economy. More so for democratic empires, less so for corporate or "heartless" empires (like the bugs).
Image
User avatar
Cralis
SDS Member
SDS Member
 
Posts: 10198
Joined: Tue 30 Jun 2009 19:27
Location: Oregon, USA

Re: Economic Health

Postby procyon on Fri 25 Jan 2013 03:33

If you don't like Economic Health, you could always call it the "Economic Activity Index (EAI)" or some such. Whatever suits you.

But on the war mod, I agree with drakar here. I think it should go away as time progresses. Wartime economies begin to grind down as wars drag on. But from a game based perspective - I could see my players (or others) refusing to 'finish off' an opponent just so that it could grow back 'just enough' to qualify them for the bonus. They would sit in a perpetual war that wasn't really threatening them, but would qualify under the rules. They could give up a couple fairly worthless systems and pops, just to take them back in a month or so...
And this way hold onto a big econ bonus.

I would say that the bonus should go down one every ten turns or so. So, -1 per year you stay in the war - down to a -2 after 4 years. If you have been in a 'life and death' struggle with a HEL race for 40 turns - your economy should be strained badly. Not placing you in the middle of a 'golden age' because death has parked at your door for the last several years.
It would also give players a reason not to drag out wars just to maintain the bonus. If they just let a war drag out - it will cripple them and prevent the 'perpetual war bonus' I am afraid will occur.
...and I will show you fear in a handful of dust....

Cralis wrote:I would point out that the "what was" which is different from "here and now" can easily change in the "future then."
User avatar
procyon
Sky Marshal
Sky Marshal
 
Posts: 2549
Joined: Mon 26 Apr 2010 16:26
Location: SE IOWA

Re: Economic Health

Postby Cralis on Sat 26 Jan 2013 01:11

procyon wrote:If you don't like Economic Health, you could always call it the "Economic Activity Index (EAI)" or some such. Whatever suits you.

But on the war mod, I agree with drakar here. I think it should go away as time progresses. Wartime economies begin to grind down as wars drag on. But from a game based perspective - I could see my players (or others) refusing to 'finish off' an opponent just so that it could grow back 'just enough' to qualify them for the bonus. They would sit in a perpetual war that wasn't really threatening them, but would qualify under the rules. They could give up a couple fairly worthless systems and pops, just to take them back in a month or so...
And this way hold onto a big econ bonus.


To be fair, the war bonus isn't exactly a bonus in reality. Yes there is boosted activity from the people, but the real "bonus" comes from the massive increase in spending by the government. Taking WW2 for example, the boosted spending and activity lasted well after the war was over.

What causes economic collapse in a wartime environment is economic damage. That is why I was recommending that you take negatives from population losses. Thinking about it, taking losses from raiding would not only reduce the "income" in the game (the loss of goods), but it should also cause a negative to the roll because those losses compound down the supply and production chains.

IRL the more a country is losing, the more the citizens put into trying not to lose. WW2 Germany is a great example, we literally eviscerated their manufacturing capabilities with our bomber campaign but they continued producing stuff right up to the end of the war.
Image
User avatar
Cralis
SDS Member
SDS Member
 
Posts: 10198
Joined: Tue 30 Jun 2009 19:27
Location: Oregon, USA

Re: Economic Health

Postby TerryTigre on Thu 31 Jan 2013 12:26

Well to compare to ww2, this is a snippet from the Wikipedia piece:

Code: Select all
This table shows the relationships in Gross domestic product (GDP), between a selection of Allied and Axis countries, from 1938 to 1945, counted in billion international dollars and 1990 prices.

Country          1938 1939 1940 1941 1942 1943 1944 1945
Austria            24   27   27   29   27   28   29   12
France            186  199  164  130  116  110   93  101
Germany           351  384  387  412  417  426  437  310
Italy             141  151  147  144  145  137  117   92
Japan             169  184  192  196  197  194  189  144
Soviet Union      359  366  417  359  274  305  362  343
British Isles     284  287  316  344  353  361  346  331
USA               800  869  943 1094 1235 1399 1499 1474


What can we learn from this?

1) With a limited econmic base, not much change is possible. Look at Japan, maximum production petered out. Of course, it can be argued that as they were warring with China before WW2 they were already on a war footing at the start of the war.

2) German production only collapsed after the country was physically conquered. The second to last year of the war had the highest production.

3) British production topped earlier.

4) France is a good example of a conquered nation, with production steadily declining after being conquered.

Note: These economic rules should also work for conquered nations, but instead of booms/upswings the best you can do is keep the economy stable...
Status: 26 types of tech system. Working on fleet tactics. Added b generation weapons, including G, Gb. Possible to give Ships Movement Orders. Working on SysGenV2
TerryTigre
Captain
Captain
 
Posts: 208
Joined: Wed 23 May 2012 01:11

Re: Economic Health

Postby tmul4050 on Sat 02 Feb 2013 19:46

I don't suppose you have the figures for 1946 to 1950, once the war has ended?
tmul4050
Commander
Commander
 
Posts: 112
Joined: Sun 27 Dec 2009 20:28

Re: Economic Health

Postby Xveers on Tue 30 Apr 2013 22:52

TerryTigre wrote:Well to compare to ww2, this is a snippet from the Wikipedia piece:

Code: Select all
This table shows the relationships in Gross domestic product (GDP), between a selection of Allied and Axis countries, from 1938 to 1945, counted in billion international dollars and 1990 prices.

Country          1938 1939 1940 1941 1942 1943 1944 1945
Austria            24   27   27   29   27   28   29   12
France            186  199  164  130  116  110   93  101
Germany           351  384  387  412  417  426  437  310
Italy             141  151  147  144  145  137  117   92
Japan             169  184  192  196  197  194  189  144
Soviet Union      359  366  417  359  274  305  362  343
British Isles     284  287  316  344  353  361  346  331
USA               800  869  943 1094 1235 1399 1499 1474


What can we learn from this?

1) With a limited econmic base, not much change is possible. Look at Japan, maximum production petered out. Of course, it can be argued that as they were warring with China before WW2 they were already on a war footing at the start of the war.

Just so. It would be worth looking at this table as far back as '35 or even a year or change earlier. I'd be willing to look even earlier than that given the Japanese political situation.


2) German production only collapsed after the country was physically conquered. The second to last year of the war had the highest production.


However, you have to note that the German economy was still on essentially a civilian footing till the middle of 1942, and by the time it transitioned to a full war economy ('44) it was getting steadily crippled by strategic bombing of transport hubs and constricting inputs.

3) British production topped earlier.

4) France is a good example of a conquered nation, with production steadily declining after being conquered.


At the same point here, note that much of France's industry wasn't being used at all, which is what lead to the steady downswing (industrial production of any sort was against the long-term plans of a greater reich).

Note: These economic rules should also work for conquered nations, but instead of booms/upswings the best you can do is keep the economy stable...
Xveers
Vice Admiral
Vice Admiral
 
Posts: 725
Joined: Wed 15 Jul 2009 02:26
Location: New Westminster, BC, Canada

Re: Economic Health

Postby tmul4050 on Thu 02 May 2013 19:07

As a point of interest, most nations involved in the 2nd world war had an economic downturn at its conclusion. Here in Australia we only got rid of rationing in 1951 or so. But after that was a rapid improvement. By the 60's we were booming. Germany, Japan and (to a lessor extent) Italy also boomed in the 60's. The same was true in europe, though asia and africa lagged. Only the US went from strength to strength economically. Coincidentally (or maybe not) it was the only major combatent that didn't suffer major attack (non infrastructure damage or servere population hit)

It would be hard to simulate that though.
tmul4050
Commander
Commander
 
Posts: 112
Joined: Sun 27 Dec 2009 20:28

Re: Economic Health

Postby aramis on Mon 13 May 2013 03:01

For cmparison, the US abolished the "Office of Price Administration" in 1947 - 2 years after the end of WWII - which governed both maximum legal prices and both maximum and minimum wages from 1942-1948. I've only dealt with the records of the OPA records for the Terrirtorial region - covering Alaska, Hawaii, and the Panama Canal Zone, plus post-war, Guam.

Rationing ended closer to the end of the war, at least in Alaska.
aramis
Rear Admiral
Rear Admiral
 
Posts: 261
Joined: Mon 01 Mar 2010 00:42
Location: Eagle River, Alaska

Re: Economic Health

Postby szurkey on Thu 10 Sep 2015 20:58

Crucis wrote:Here's an idea that I came up with, and have discussed with Cralis on and off for a couple of weeks... "Economic Health". EH represents the ups and downs that any economy may have from month to month in a relatively simple manner.

BIG SNIP!
Crucis wrote:Ok, that's it.... Comment away...


I'm not too crazy about most of your modifiers. Part of the problem is that they skew the binary probability distribution pretty badly. Also, there is no self-correcting mechanism in the economy to keep you towards center.

Below is my take. Where you were last turn may add a sift, and it is added to the shift generated by the die roll, it does NOT modify the die roll. The result is that economies tend to float between 90% to 110%, and only occasionally get to 80% or 120%, and you probably won't be there long.

I would rather see a fixed bonus or penalty for other events. For example, fighting a genocidal race would add a +10% to whatever the economy would otherwise generate.

Frequency is what percentage of the time you can expect to be there.

Economic Modifier Table (EMT)
Economic ModifierStatusShift Next Turn (SNT)Fequency
120%Economic Boom-23.3%
115%Major Upswing-17.8%
110%Moderate Upswing016.7%
105%Mild Upswing014.4%
100%Normal015.6%
95%Mild Downswing014.4%
90%Moderate Downswing016.7%
85%Major Downswing+17.8%
80%Economic Depression+23.3%


Economic Shift Table
Die Roll 1d10Shift
10+2
8 to 9+1
4 to 70
2 to 3-1
1-2


I've done volatility analysis as well, but I don't feel like typing it all in (I really need to get to bed). Bottom line, your economy on average will fluctuate +/-5.8% per turn.
User avatar
szurkey
Commander
Commander
 
Posts: 160
Joined: Sat 05 Sep 2009 09:19

Re: Economic Health

Postby LordKron on Thu 10 Sep 2015 22:14

Interesting table. Would the economic rolls be on a system basis, or a single roll for an entire empire?
LordKron
Commander
Commander
 
Posts: 148
Joined: Thu 27 Aug 2015 17:16

PreviousNext

Return to Cosmic Starfire

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest