Europe's Golden Age 5: The Golden Age is Back

[unmerged(41172)]

The British pound was the dominant currency not because of its colonial dispersion (its strongest daughter economy-the United States-abandoned the Sterling altogether and its second strongest daughter economy-India-never adopted it in a way that made any difference in international finance), but because the British capital market became the largest, cheapest and best financed in the world during the Napoleonic Wars.

Heh, ok I must make more detailed explanation. Pound, as every other currency was bound to gold untill formation of IMF. Nixon broke last ties with gold in 1972,3,4 or something like that. It was not important where British Pound went, but where gold went. Wealthiest empire in the world enabled "British capital market to became the largest, cheapest and best financed in the world during the Napoleonic Wars".

Fixed pound sterling was not even the basis of global monetary exchange until the 19th century, which falls outside our time period. And it never achieved the kind of universal supremacy of the dollar, which certainly wasn't based on maritime colonial policies but on, again, the strength and stability of US capital.

Again, with gold standard it was gold that was global monetary exchange. Paper money and coins could have been printed as an modern equivalent of money checks. It was valid as long as central banks (or Kings for some time) had the same ammount of gold in their treasors. USA dollar has become unversal currency since gold has lost its meaning in monetary policies throughout the world.

More to the point, wealth didn't flow in that direction. Take a look at a breakdown of the globe by culture and language-the Spanish presided over the largest colonial expansion in modern history, not the British, and the Spanish were engaged in relentless European warfare during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries.

Their empire was also less developed and they had one other problem; large ammount of wealth they took from their colonies was not products but inflationary gold. Money is representation of work (human work). Money which is not produced is called inflationary money.

Now, what you say is true-the British invested far more capital in the development of self-sustaining colonial economies...

Excatly what I meant in earlier paragraph.

...but these economies had limited benefit to the Crown itself.

No. If you think on taxes; yes, maybe - but if you think about market, colonies proved to be invaluable.

The real benefit was to the colonists, who prompty (in the area of greatest settlement and development) declared war on the British Empire and went to their own business.

Again, market provided them with gold. They had huuge British colonial market where they could sell their products. On the contrary, Spain had nothing to sell - they just had a lot of gold for buying. Limits in working places in Spain provided them with huge inflationary preasure and breakdown was inevitable. England had ships that enabled them trading in such an extensive way.

So what's the difference between the Spanish and English? Because you are correct that British capital formation, at least at the end of the time period, was considerably greater than that of any other country. But it's not that the English, by virtue of a maritime policy, created a more viable revenue.

Size of market is the difference. Such market is provided by travelling infrastructure (ships in this case, roads, railways, modern ships, airplaines and telecommunications in present time).

If the Spanish raped the New World while the English cultivated it-it was the Spanish who drew in mass and immediate fortunes.

Those fortunes were not made out of work (products, goods, food and so on) but were made of metal. That metal would be good for one individual but for the country it spelled disaster because Spanish economical growth (growth in working results) was lesser then Spanish gold growth (to put it that way). Had they exported most of it (in exchange for goods like USA did in 90's) they would have a chance to become richest in the end. What happened was something else and it is reversal of situation with depresion in 30's. Great depression (with rapid deflation) was induced by lesser growth of gold then growth of world GDP. Spanish inflation was induced by lesser growth of their GDP then growth of their gold reserves. Make no mistake here; we all like deflations in the game, but in real world it is THE scariest thing that can happen to any economy.

But the English, by virtue of their neutrality and, more importantly, immunity (esp. from Napoleon), had a more viable expenditure.

That's something that ought to be-and is-reflected in the actual game. If the English refrain from getting embroiled in European warfare, and if they maintain naval domination (they did not until the Napoleonic Wars), they will have greater wealth and time for development. This happens all the time. It's called hyperteching. And it can easily happen in a land 5 game too. It's just not written on stone (nor was it historically nor should it be in a game).

Of course that peace is more profitable for a country then war. My point is something else; if you specialise in ship building you will connect parts of your empire better. Better connecting means more efficient trade. Trade means development and further specialisation that results in competitive adventages of certain countries in certain fields. In the end it means money. Proff is here; NL, Porto and England were all richest or second richest countries while they had dominion on the seas. It is a historical fact. Spain was also richest while it controlled seas. Francis Drake and stupid Medina changed that but it is another story. Or do you suggest that some other country was richer then those who had the high seas? When did it happen?

That said, I don't mind the economic benefits of a "naval" policy. It's just that they aren't worth the morale/manpower/naval support/naval cost side-effects. They're definitely not historical and they're far too rigid. England had an army, remember, and a highly effective one. And France had a navy and a highly effective one. It's not nearly as black and white as the land slider makes it out to be.

I agree.

EDIT: Dunno what you were talking during that Chill session but European Union if formed as a countrbalance to USA market. All other issues are not as important. USA had been an elephant in the glass shop for a long time. Every move they made was earthquake elsewhere. When they sold French currency in the open market it was a disaster for France, whose central bank had to raise short term interests to block incoming inflationary preassure (for instance - this is invented example, real ones were even worse and not so simple). With united European currency USA can buy or sell as much Euros as they want and noone will be able to notice any tremor in the European markets or monetary policy.

 

[HolisticGod]

Nabu,

I was unclear.

I'm not disputing any (or at least, many) of the facts you've asserted. What I was disputing were the reasons why. You had said to begin with that the dispersion of British capital-as enabled and safeguarded by its maritime policy-was the source of its immense wealth and the dominance of the British Pound. That is not true.

Your second post makes a much better case, but it's essentially in agreement with what I said in my response. British capital formation was vastly superior to capital formation in the rest of Europe, and it managed its resources (read: expenditures) much better than Spain did. The two principal investments the British made were in infrastructure (including naval) and the development of transoceanic trade. Specifically, as you've laid out, the British differed from the Spanish by investing heavily in their colonies and then allowing those colonies to exploit their own resources. The British bought them (cheaply), providing an economic base to the colonists, and then resold them (less cheaply), exploiting markets they created where there had been no markets before.

I don't dispute any of this. However, it's not the reason British currency was the globally dominant standard in the 19th century, which was the point I was addressing. During the Napoleonic Wars Britain became the main source (often the sole source) of cheap capital in Europe. I agree that the British maritime policy (indirectly) and British trade policy (directly) were the source of this cheap capital, but they were not the reason for its dispersion.

Another thing to consider is that Britain, for reasons both economic and political (and cultural, for that matter), became predominant only after the development of machine industry, and particularly textiles. Maritime policy was not the reason for this. Textile precursors were widely available and cotton did not have the importance it would in the 19th century, nor did Britain have control of the world's cotton at that time anyway. The rise of cottage industry and then organized factories could've happened in France and especially Germany as well, both of which has access to sufficient coal and iron.

This falls outside our time period and industrialization does not happen in this game. So the kind of British power you're describing is an inappropriate standard by which to judge EU II.

There is no denying that by the 18th century naval power was among the most important determinants of national wealth, but by your own argument there were many, many others. Also, British naval power was not absolute until the Napoleonic Wars, and its maritime empire wasn't even the most profitable and advanced until the Seven Years War.

All of this is semantic (fun, but semantic). Even if your assertions about British power were relevant to the game (they are certainly not relevant to the first two thirds; the latter third is debateable), that power was not inherent to the British Isles nor was it exclusively held by them. There are better ways to mimic it (COTs, leaders, player built navies) than a static, unrealistic and deterministic land slider. If Britain wants to do what Britain did historically, it's welcome to acquire control of COTs, of India and of North America. It's welcome to build a powerful navy (it has by far the highest naval support in any given game). It's welcome to stay off the continent altogether. Those are sufficient ways to do the job.

But if another country-Austria, for example-wants to make the same attempt, it ought to have that opportunity. First of all, it'll have to take enough ports. Then it'll have to develop and protect its maritime empire. Then it'll have to build a navy (quite expensive-and it detracts nicely from other investments).

Why shouldn't Austria have this ability?

The Royal Navy was an impressive modern wonder of the world. But it did not come at the expense of fielding a national army, engaging in European and colonial warfare or the production capacity of the mother country. The land slider forces you to make a choice that didn't exist.

And putting all historical arguments aside, it's bad for the game.

 

[Fredrik82]

Interesting discussion

HG,
I thought you said you guys would focus on regional changes in MP/taxes?
I'm able to help out tomorrow aswell if necessary, i'm eager to see the results here.

 

[King John]

Nice arguments, most of them well above my head :wacko: .

I'm for the naval 5 rule of course. England still has a huge advantage over other nations as far as achieving its historical greatness. The reason- same as IRL, it has no connection to the continent. It can therefore throw the majority of its military expenditures into naval production, and tech. If England and France both have 100 income in 1600, England will be able to easily have a better navy, it doesn't need a slider to accomplish this for it. It just needs to invest its extra money in ships, and avoid continental wars. France, OTOH, hardly has this choice, because it's going to be sucked into expensive continental wars periodically whether it likes it or not. This is where France's extra money will be going, leaving very little left for ships, and same for every other nation, except England, Portugal, maybe NL, and maybe possibly a Scandinavian nation.

Which is exactly as it was IRL. England, Port, NL, DK, had ussually superior navies because they didn't suffer expensive land wars on the continent as much, nor had as much need of investing in large standing armies.

With higher incomes, as France and Spain achieved, the naval power of these nations could still be matched. And in the reverse, when England decided to invest large amounts of money in land expeditions, it could do so as well as France or Spain, it's people weren't physically handicaped by the slider to only be sailors, they fought as well as Frenchmen or Spaniards.

With these realities already reflected by the geo-political positioning of the world, we have balance and can reflect history well. The only effect allowing the land naval slider will have is to cause extreme excessiveness.

 

[Fredrik82]

Which is exactly as it was IRL. England, Port, NL, DK, had ussually superior navies because they didn't suffer expensive land wars on the continent as much, nor had as much need of investing in large standing armies.

I would call a lose of 2/3 of its territory, as suffering expensive land wars in Denmarks case though

I agree with the rest, i'm positive to a Land 5 rule in BF4 aswell.
I've only played in one game that used this rule, but i suppose it has showed good results in other games so far.

 

[unmerged(41172)]

Nabu,

I was unclear.

I'm not disputing any (or at least, many) of the facts you've asserted. What I was disputing were the reasons why. You had said to begin with that the dispersion of British capital-as enabled and safeguarded by its maritime policy-was the source of its immense wealth and the dominance of the British Pound. That is not true.

In fact, that is true. At least that part about dispersion of British capital. Now, maybe semantically it is not true. I'm poor in English. What I meant to say is that ammount of work should be equal to ammount of gold/any other currency. If that is not equal you have inflation or deflation. Trade deficit is good for country in times of inflatory preassure and trade suficit is good in times of deflatory preassure. Same as current account deficit adds to inflationary preassure and vice versa. Forget Merchantilist theories. T. R. Malthus (1978), J. S. Mill (1848) and especially J.M.Keynes (1936) proved them to be wrong. Those issues can be also dealt with operations on the open market in any modern economy. Heavier measures include discount rates (currently on 4% in your country and rising) and reserve requirements (10% in your country) which define multiplier modifier (10 for USA) for all of M of one nation. For small tremors it is, of course, much more efficient to simply use operations on open market which will change M1 in short term (multiplier needs around 18 months to make any influence). All other experiments that were trying to influence just M1 and M2 proved unsuccesfull (situation from first recesion in double dip). For all non economists double dip was two USA recessions in rapid succesion, which were induced by Fed (Dec. 1969 to Nov. 1970 11 months 6.1 percent unemployment in Aug. 1971 - Nov. 1973 to March 1975 16 months 9 percent unemployment in May 1975 ).

Now back to England who changed inflatory gold for products from colonies. Any move in which country exports gold for goods causes apreciation. As you can very well remember appreciation was the key happening in USA during 90's for very similar reasons. Huge trade deficit enabled dollar to appreciate despite extensively expansionistic monetary policy causing ideal secular inflation which enabled USA to jump from 5 trillions GDP to 10 trillions GDP in less then 10 years. How is that possible? Well... money was cheap but excess of money was spilling out of the country in exchange for goods. Basic equasion of macroeconomics is Y=C+I+E where Y is final bruto domestic spending, C is spending, I are investitions and E is export. If you stimulate C and I with monetary measures while having negative E, you will get a situation with enormous growth coupled with secular (ideal) inflation, because excess of (inflationary) money will be spilled to other countries. Domestic situation can only profit from that because money will still be cheap and effects of appreciation will result in better standard (you can buy more for the same ammount of money).

That is what happened in England; they invested in colonies a lot - investments raised their domestic C partly because appreciating Pound could buy more of colonial cheaper products. Since they exported gold (investing in colonies) and imported valuable cheap goods, inflation was impossible while standard of living was rising together with the Pound (who inevitably had to appreciate and result in a more productive domestic production (in other words people could buy more for same ammount of Pounds).

Your second post makes a much better case, but it's essentially in agreement with what I said in my response. British capital formation was vastly superior to capital formation in the rest of Europe, and it managed its resources (read: expenditures) much better than Spain did. The two principal investments the British made were in infrastructure (including naval) and the development of transoceanic trade. Specifically, as you've laid out, the British differed from the Spanish by investing heavily in their colonies and then allowing those colonies to exploit their own resources. The British bought them (cheaply), providing an economic base to the colonists, and then resold them (less cheaply), exploiting markets they created where there had been no markets before.

Excatly. Especially the red sentence. How much their maritime policy influenced such situation is completely another question but I presume (here I can't be sure) that without large military and trading fleet it would have been impossible to maintain such market. I guess their colonies could be cut from Britain and transport was endangered by Pirates anyway. Not to even mention Spain. Only maritime dominance could've enabled them safe trade. I guess.

However, it's not the reason British currency was the globally dominant standard in the 19th century, which was the point I was addressing.

Wrong. I have addresed the issue above. Pound gained its dominant position because of its stability.

During the Napoleonic Wars Britain became the main source (often the sole source) of cheap capital in Europe. I agree that the British maritime policy (indirectly) and British trade policy (directly) were the source of this cheap capital, but they were not the reason for its dispersion.

Ok, ok, maybe dispersion is the wrong word. CIA World factbook (I have checked it now) uses term Capital Expenditures and Foreign Capital Expenditures. So I should have used the term Foreign Capital Expenditures rather then dispersion. Foreign in this context would, of course, mean Colonial Capital Expenditures

Another thing to consider is that Britain, for reasons both economic and political (and cultural, for that matter), became predominant only after the development of machine industry, and particularly textiles. Maritime policy was not the reason for this.Textile precursors were widely available and cotton did not have the importance it would in the 19th century, nor did Britain have control of the world's cotton at that time anyway. The rise of cottage industry and then organized factories could've happened in France and especially Germany as well, both of which has access to sufficient coal and iron.

Without trading empire all of their textiles production would not have achieved such profit. Maritime policy they kept made them invunerable and in the same way made trade invunerable. All of this repeated in 1.WW when England simply won with economy (marital dominance and trade). IMO.

BTW, France copied those machines very quickly (inventor of that textile machine (I don't know how to say that in English) fled to France only few years after he implemented them in England. In fact, largest textile company in the wolrd was in France, 15 years after machine was invented but that didn't prevent England to maintain trading supremacy and I think it was because of their naval dominance.

This falls outside our time period and industrialization does not happen in this game. So the kind of British power you're describing is an inappropriate standard by which to judge EU II.

Formation of the Admiralty is well withing EU2 game.

There is no denying that by the 18th century naval power was among the most important determinants of national wealth, but by your own argument there were many, many others. Also, British naval power was not absolute until the Napoleonic Wars, and its maritime empire wasn't even the most profitable and advanced until the Seven Years War.

I didn't know that.

All of this is semantic (fun, but semantic). Even if your assertions about British power were relevant to the game (they are certainly not relevant to the first two thirds; the latter third is debateable), that power was not inherent to the British Isles nor was it exclusively held by them. There are better ways to mimic it (COTs, leaders, player built navies) than a static, unrealistic and deterministic land slider. If Britain wants to do what Britain did historically, it's welcome to acquire control of COTs, of India and of North America. It's welcome to build a powerful navy (it has by far the highest naval support in any given game). It's welcome to stay off the continent altogether. Those are sufficient ways to do the job.

Hmmmm... I would like to be naval because of money and colonists rather then because of naval supremacy.

But if another country-Austria, for example-wants to make the same attempt, it ought to have that opportunity. First of all, it'll have to take enough ports. Then it'll have to develop and protect its maritime empire. Then it'll have to build a navy (quite expensive-and it detracts nicely from other investments).

Tem tried with colonisationing Austria and he did it well.

Why shouldn't Austria have this ability?

Is there any rule preventing Austria to do so? Or BB for that fact. Tem again colonised with BB as crazy and he was full land.

The Royal Navy was an impressive modern wonder of the world. But it did not come at the expense of fielding a national army, engaging in European and colonial warfare or the production capacity of the mother country. The land slider forces you to make a choice that didn't exist.

I agree.

And putting all historical arguments aside, it's bad for the game.

I don't think so.

 

[Joohoo]

Tem tried with colonisationing Austria and he did it well.

Is there any rule preventing Austria to do so? Or BB for that fact. Tem again colonised with BB as crazy and he was full land.

Wasn't he BB?

Btw I colonized Enkan as Austria in EGA3 IIRC

 

[King John]

Who were the other players in those games, Nabu?

I've created an uber rich Germany before in a game without the land naval slider rule, and pretty wealthy Austria's. It's not impossible to do certainly, but the fact that it's *possible* is not an excuse to say the rule would not be beneficial.

It's also possible to swallow up Spain with Portugal. I've seen Bocaj and Devil both do it.

It's also possible to gain uber MP with Sweden, by expanding far into Germany and the Baltic areas.

Are either of these things likely to be repeated? They're not trends, they happened because of the superior skill of the players accomplishing them combined with very poor play by their neighbors.

That's not something I would like to rely on for their to be balance between land and naval powers in these games. If the game you're talking about where Tem created a Bra with a modest colonial empire is the one where I subbed France, you know that Bra was exceptionally powerful in that game, and for a long time had an alliance with France.

Examples from extreme situations do not have much value when used to try to justify the balance of this slider. To me that simply shows how desperate your argument is becoming .

 

[Joohoo]

it was K'shar in England, me in OE, irregular players in Austria(?), Cas in Russia, can't remember Swedish player. Nab in France?

 

[Casluerj]

USA dollar has become unversal currency since gold has lost its meaning in monetary policies throughout the world.

No, nab... The Bretton Woods agreemen ('44) made US Dolar the most important currency in the World, however it was still tied with Gold. Later, in 70's that Gold lose its importance.

About all that discussion seems very interesting...

About lco the sliders you already know my opnion and we also know K'shar's one... So we are missing Ryo's one... That one will decide if we gonna lock it or not.

EDIT: Ryo voted yes, to lock the sliders. He said that he has never played a game with that rule and he wants to test it. So its decided.

 

[HolisticGod]

Cas,

Ryo is in favor of locking it, along with K'Shar.

He and I discussed locking it at 0 instead today and agreed it has the best outcome, but it has too many drawbacks we can't address (mainly that countries like Brandenburg, Austria and especially Poland suffer too much).

So that seems to be the majority of both GMs and players in favor of Land 5.

Incidentally, Nabu was saying that gold lost inherent importance with Bretton Woods (it did, by the very fact of its becoming a regulatory principle), but was only abolished as the fixed standard of currency valuation/exchange when Bretton Woods was abandoned by Richard Nixon in the seventies (he was unsure-it was 1971, though).

Nab,

I don't think we disagree about the underlying facts. I said in my initial response that it was the British mercantile system (i.e. its capital market), and especially high capital investment in "foreign" markets (foreign in this sense meaning all non-domestic), that led to its economic dominance and specifically the dominance of the Pound.

I think there was a misunderstanding over what your initial post meant. I had assumed that you were drawing a comparison between the global dispersion of the Pound via its colonies and the global dispersion of the dollar via Bretton Woods and the Marshal Plan, particularly as the reason for its strength. That's what I disputed, and you can see in my initial post that I said (more briefly ) what you've since argued. So it seems we were in agreement and there's merely a language barrier.

On the wider issue, the strength of British currency specifically is rooted in the Napoleonic Wars, not in Britain's maritime empire. The best example is a contemporary one-the American dollar, and American capital, before lend-lease was the best developed in the world, but it lacked the stability and robustness of the American dollar after 1945, and the reasons were:

1. Wartime investment (especially the export of US arms to Britain)
2. The Marshall Plan
3. Overseas investment in the postwar era generally

Before the Napoleonic Wars, British capital was principally confined to Britain and its colonies. After the Napoleonic Wars, and progressively throughout the ninteenth century, it was heavily invested in foreign markets, esp. French, American and German industrialization and Austrian, Spanish, Ottoman and Indian national debt. This vastly improved both the power and the fertility of the British economy, just as the Marshall Plan and other postwar development programs vastly improved the American.

I am not questioning the basis of British wealth, nor have I. That would simply be blindly ignoring the massive weight of historical evidence. I'm just arguing on a rather obscure point-that being the basis of Britain's monetary power in the 19th century, which began with the purchase of considerable Austrian, Prussian and Russian debt in the war with Napoleon.

And even with that, I don't think we disagree all that much, although I will say, again, that as an historical matter the Royal Navy was not the indisputed master of the seas prior to the Battle of Abukir Bay (compounded of course by Trefalger). It and France were often in competition, and French warships prior to the Revolution are generally considered to have had higher displacement and better materials. It was the lack of sailors and especially offers all the way up to Minister of the Navy, the superior organization and tactics of the Admiralty (since France's own admirals had been beheaded or exiled during the Terror) and Napoleon's mismanagement that cost them the battle of the seas, which was hardly a foregone conclusion.

Just look at what the French navy did to win the American Revolution, and that was not long after losing the most important colonial war of the 18th century. Naval power was not as rigid as the slider forces it to be in this game, as John said. But it does indeed force it to be-if the land slider is not locked at five, Austria will have to go 10, in the example, and even if it goes full freetrade and stays narrowminded to build colonies, it won't have the ships to protect them. Period. Morale is massively impacted by that slider, not to mention naval support. And on the other side, England can't fight any real wars on the continent of Europe even with allies. It's an utter waste of time until the mid 18th century.

Land countries are land countries and naval countries are naval countries under the slider. Period. There's no halfway, there's no moving back and forth, there's no wiggle room. You can't have a real navy to compete with a naval power's unless the slider is locked. And that's ahistorical, unrealistic and dreadfully dull.

By the way, we should probably cut the two arguments apart, now, and continue our discussion (which is quite interesting) without mixing in the land slider, because I think we do have a couple substantive disagreements.

And there's no need to explain inflationary economics to me. I've actually started a couple threads on the subject. To me, what inflation in EU II represents is debt. It certainly isn't "inflation."

 

[K'shar]

:rofl:

What have I done. Naturally, I am deeply pleased of course . HoG you have far more patience and umphh to type so much in such a short time then I care to commit, yet I thank you ... where do you find the energy .

is there any rule preventing Austria to do so? Or BB for that fact. Tem again colonised with BB as crazy and he was full land.

Hmm, well keep in mind Nab, Tem's colonial empire was never 'crazy' large and much of it was gained by late game conquest. More importantly he basically had British patronage (and an therefore almost total security) in the great wide world. If I had opposed Tem from the beginning, I know he never would have wasted half a thought or ducat on colonies in EGA4.

 

[artemis667]

And there's no need to explain inflationary economics to me. I've actually started a couple threads on the subject. To me, what inflation in EU II represents is debt. It certainly isn't "inflation."

sorry to go off topic, but I rather like that way of looking at it, never thought about it quite like that before. It certainly acts like real debt much more than it does like real inflation.

 

[HolisticGod]

Arte,

Aye. It's the best analogy I've seen.

Whatever inflation is in this game, it's sure as hell not inflation.

All,

Ryo has just sent me the .inc files for manpower/tax in Europe and I'm looking them over now. These have been done by hand based on some basic principles we worked out, and the preliminary stuff he sent me looks very good. Might need some minor balancing tweaks, but after that we should have a workable base for everybody to look over.

And that means we could very well start this Saturday, unless there's some pressing need to do the ROTW as well.

Oh, and as an aside, and I don't say this as BB (I've already made the decision for BoP and urged it be done in other games), Frederick the Great, as a monarch and leader, ought to be extended from 1780 to 1786. That is, historically, when he died, and everything I've seen indicates he was still fully in charge of the country and the army up to that time (irrelevant too-many, many other leaders and monarchs in this game were infirm before their death dates). In 1778, in fact, he invaded Bohemia to force Austria out of Bavaria.

It's six years, I know, but six important Suvorov-infested/pre-Napoleonic years. And it's historical, fair, etc.

 

[Tem_Probe]

Another important problem is that Spain, France, Austria, the Ottoman Empire, Brandenburg, Poland and Russia must go land. If they do not, they lose any wars they fight in Europe without an uber leader. Simple as that.

Emphasis added. I would personally argue that Spain rather should go naval, and not land. Having played naval Spain, I dominated a whole game by having naval mastery superior to England and the Scandinavians, while still beating the Ottomans, Austrians and French on land. Spain does not need to rely as much as others on land sliders to assure manpower. Just keep a decent presence in Italy, and naval is better. A land Spain can dominate the continent. A naval Spain can dominate both the continent and the high seas.

Is there any rule preventing Austria to do so? Or BB for that fact. Tem again colonised with BB as crazy and he was full land.

Aye, sliders don't prevent colonisation(especially not in this mod), only lack of will and/or explorer/conquistadors do.

Hmm, well keep in mind Nab, Tem's colonial empire was never 'crazy' large and much of it was gained by late game conquest. More importantly he basically had British patronage (and an therefore almost total security) in the great wide world. If I had opposed Tem from the beginning, I know he never would have wasted half a thought or ducat on colonies in EGA4.

Hmm, well yeah, a bunch was gained by late game conquest, but then again, no one can seriously say Brandenburg is an early power, much less an early colonial power. But iirc, I had several key and highly valuable areas, including South Africa, Indonesia, Taiwan, Indochina, Ceylon, as well as one Asian CoT if not two and that's off the top of my head. It wasn't comparable to say Britain or Spain, but it was comparable to many others. Surely, if you had opposed me since the beginning, I would have had to act differently, and much more cautiously than I did. But I probably would have grabbed some land anyway, somewhere I could easily defend. Hell, iirc, by the end I had the largest pacific fleet. Couldn't have competed with the English Royal Fleet, but hey, you were busy defending european waters

Plus, hmm, I'd daresay that as my ally, England was no less troublesome in my colonial expansion. I remember being cheated(okay, bought , it wasn't so bad) out of my soon-to-be Chinese conquests and other areas you wanted for your own.

Oh yeah, while we're talking of colonising, I'd like to propose a rule I took from colonial Europe into IER and that's worked very well I think:

-Exotic provinces in Asia, not connected via a land connection to your capital, will become a colonial culture province via edit after nationalism has died out.(Should include african minors except north africa)

It has lead to much less abuse, and has proven imo more realistic, than the idea of claiming exotic cultures in areas like india, indochina or central africa. You don't have to go over the top by needing to conquer 10 provinces to make it worth your while. Plus its more fun for player conflicts, since those provinces conquered automatically become valuable for other players as well.

All,

Ryo has just sent me the .inc files for manpower/tax in Europe and I'm looking them over now. These have been done by hand based on some basic principles we worked out, and the preliminary stuff he sent me looks very good. Might need some minor balancing tweaks, but after that we should have a workable base for everybody to look over.

I'd like to give them a look, so that I can contribute if need to rather than wake up to a ugly nightmare(don't mind waking up to a good dream, eheh). Where is this file? Or perhaps a list of the changes before and after?

 

[K'shar]

You can grab it from any of the GMs or HoG if you like. It is still in the dev. stage though, as for your colonial cultural conversion rule, I proposed it I believed during the rule discussion, I don't believe it was agreed upon by the other two members.

edit: i'll also be asking about the reason for removing the Paris COT ... it makes for a rather ginormous Flandern ...

 

[HolisticGod]

Tem,

Who played France and the OE in that game?

 

[unmerged(41172)]

Examples from extreme situations do not have much value when used to try to justify the balance of this slider. To me that simply shows how desperate your argument is becoming .

No, nab... The Bretton Woods agreemen ('44) made US Dolar the most important currency in the World, however it was still tied with Gold. Later, in 70's that Gold lose its importance.

Hehe, Caslu, yes Bretton Woods agreement "made US Dolar the most important currency in the World, however it was still tied with Gold".

To replace the gold standard, the Bretton Woods system established a parity for each currency in terms of both the U.S. dollar and gold. The revolutionary innovation of the Bretton Woods system was that exchange rates were fixed but adjustable. After Bretton Woods US$ was THE ONLY currency on the world tied to gold. 28$ for ounce of gold IIRC. It was, obviously, a temporary solution and in a few decades U.S. growth did what world growth did in 30's; it surpased ammount and growth of gold on the world. So, adjustments were made and dollar was depreciated in relation to gold. IIRC 35$ was new price for ounce of gold (or something like that, people I really don't remember anymore). Two years after that, new appreciation of gold was needed and Nixon broke ties with gold. I wasn't born yet but world entered age of floating currency system (now, don't jump on me - maybe it is not good expression again) HoooG, is that how you call it?

Sry for expanation Caslu and HoG, I guess you know all of this, but I had to explain to others. Daniel is reading this and he is enjoying

Incidentally, Nabu was saying that gold lost inherent importance with Bretton Woods (it did, by the very fact of its becoming a regulatory principle), but was only abolished as the fixed standard of currency valuation/exchange when Bretton Woods was abandoned by Richard Nixon in the seventies (he was unsure-it was 1971, though).

Can you borrow me you knowledge of English HoG?

Nab,

... So it seems we were in agreement and there's merely a language barrier.

Mea culpa.

On the wider issue, the strength of British currency specifically is rooted in the Napoleonic Wars, not in Britain's maritime empire. The best example is a contemporary one-the American dollar, and American capital, before lend-lease was the best developed in the world, but it lacked the stability and robustness of the American dollar after 1945, and the reasons were:

1. Wartime investment (especially the export of US arms to Britain)
2. The Marshall Plan
3. Overseas investment in the postwar era generally

Before the Napoleonic Wars, British capital was principally confined to Britain and its colonies. After the Napoleonic Wars, and progressively throughout the ninteenth century, it was heavily invested in foreign markets, esp. French, American and German industrialization and Austrian, Spanish, Ottoman and Indian national debt. This vastly improved both the power and the fertility of the British economy, just as the Marshall Plan and other postwar development programs vastly improved the American.

I am not questioning the basis of British wealth, nor have I. That would simply be blindly ignoring the massive weight of historical evidence. I'm just arguing on a rather obscure point-that being the basis of Britain's monetary power in the 19th century, which began with the purchase of considerable Austrian, Prussian and Russian debt in the war with Napoleon.

And even with that, I don't think we disagree all that much

Yeah, I think we are speaking more or less the same. Only problem is that I have to decipher your good English, and you have to decipher my bad English.

On the other hand, strenght of British Pound has many roots. I agree with what you said except with this; "the strength of British currency specifically is rooted in the Napoleonic Wars". They made too many good moves before and after Napoleonic Wars, but such macroeconomic analisys is too complex for us to continue here.

Although I will say, again, that as an historical matter the Royal Navy was not the indisputed master of the seas prior to the Battle of Abukir Bay (compounded of course by Trefalger). It and France were often in competition, and French warships prior to the Revolution are generally considered to have had higher displacement and better materials. It was the lack of sailors and especially offers all the way up to Minister of the Navy, the superior organization and tactics of the Admiralty (since France's own admirals had been beheaded or exiled during the Terror) and Napoleon's mismanagement that cost them the battle of the seas, which was hardly a foregone conclusion.

Just look at what the French navy did to win the American Revolution, and that was not long after losing the most important colonial war of the 18th century. Naval power was not as rigid as the slider forces it to be in this game, as John said. But it does indeed force it to be-if the land slider is not locked at five, Austria will have to go 10, in the example, and even if it goes full freetrade and stays narrowminded to build colonies, it won't have the ships to protect them. Period. Morale is massively impacted by that slider, not to mention naval support. And on the other side, England can't fight any real wars on the continent of Europe even with allies. It's an utter waste of time until the mid 18th century.

Land countries are land countries and naval countries are naval countries under the slider. Period. There's no halfway, there's no moving back and forth, there's no wiggle room. You can't have a real navy to compete with a naval power's unless the slider is locked. And that's ahistorical, unrealistic and dreadfully dull.

Hehe, ok HoG, you won this battle. You have convinced me (as you always convince everybody) :rofl:

Therefore my vote will from now on go in the direction of locking the land/naval slider. (it is already decided so it is pointless) I would only propose locking it at naval 0 despite the fact you will have tons of arguments to lock it at 5.

And there's no need to explain inflationary economics to me. I've actually started a couple threads on the subject. To me, what inflation in EU II represents is debt. It certainly isn't "inflation."

I agree - it certainly isn't inflation. It is more like debt. Hehe, obviously you know a lot about economy

Oh yeah, while we're talking of colonising, I'd like to propose a rule I took from colonial Europe into IER and that's worked very well

I think:

-Exotic provinces in Asia, not connected via a land connection to your capital, will become a colonial culture province via edit after nationalism has died out.(Should include african minors except north africa)

It has lead to much less abuse, and has proven imo more realistic, than the idea of claiming exotic cultures in areas like india, indochina or central africa. You don't have to go over the top by needing to conquer 10 provinces to make it worth your while. Plus its more fun for player conflicts, since those provinces conquered automatically become valuable for other players as well.

Seconded.

 

[unmerged(27108)]

Sry for expanation Caslu and HoG, I guess you know all of this, but I had to explain to others. Daniel is reading this and he is enjoying

They're not alone

 

[Casluerj]

After Bretton Woods US$ was THE ONLY currency on the world tied to gold.

Exactly. While all other currencies were tied to US Dollar.