Mergers

[Sumeragi]

I did the calculations using factbooks and thier update thread. I googled costs of tanks and used basic units and compared them to advanced ones, using the basic prices. I posted it at 4:30 am in IRC once with both Vektor and Old Greg present. I am not doing it again.

Then I would have to decline your calculations.

[mykep]

Whatever. I'm done screwing around with mergers.

Edited May 28, 2009 by mykep

[Tahsir]

It just means their entire national economy is revolving around making spare military parts and paint for the maintenance crews which are the other major industry. Since to have that many bases means you have to man them with troops, which come out of the population, and then you need to maintain them, which comes out of the population, and then you need to supply them

etc etc.

basically if they arn't wearing a uniform in GNR they are either a farmer, maintenance crew, or making maintenance/farm/war parts and equipment.

There isn't much left for anything else there.

Edited May 28, 2009 by Tahsir Re

[LeVentNoir]

Alot of structures were already constructed before the merger. We just decided to add them into our factbook. Also,if you'd read our factbook..you'll see what kind of economy we operate. We are not a closed economic model like you all seem to think..

Also maintenance is quite easy, especially for static objects. What is there to repair? All you have to do is check the gun barrel..do a weekly check on the electronics etc. Computer chips are so easy to mass produce these days..they are of no concern.

Underground, you have to pump it out, stop plants, ice damage, rust, dampness, all active measures, all costing.

Also, on the economic model. The govt budget total is normally quite static, within 3% usually. This means if a project is too large for one year, it will have to take longer, or you can simply not afford it. There is no way to pull money out of thin air.

(Also on export. Most nations Import a equivalent amount. To deny that is to god-mod.)

[JerreyRough]

Also remember that the USA military is over 3 trillion US dollars in dept.

[mykep]

Also remember that the USA military is over 3 trillion US dollars in dept.

Over how many years? We are talking years in creation.

/me smacks self for coming back in this topic.

[JerreyRough]

Over how many years? We are talking years in creation.

/me smacks self for coming back in this topic.

Just putting that fact out there.

It costs the USA military ~$500 billion a year for "regular expenses" (repairs, replacement, etc.), as of about a year ago.

[Sarah Tintagyl]

Guys...why don't you all just leave it alone. The mods aren't going to change the mergers. Nordland merged, USA merged. Who cares what its like in real life with the United States and the USSR and the various Unions and Confederations of the of the world. If you're going to argue about stats then fine, but the mergers were created. Whether there is a story with them or not is up to the merging nations. Piss poor if they didn't and bravo if they did. But trying to say well this merger is like this or that is preposterous. CNRP-Nordland is CNRP-Nordland and CNRP-USA is CNRP-USA. I don't like mergers I think blocs are better, I think they're more realistic, but whatever.

Also about Nordland being poor, people barely RP economies. Argument fail on both sides cause the people that argue against them I don't think RP economies yet at the same time, the Spartan comparison is so true its almost scary.

Edited May 28, 2009 by Sarah Tintagyl

[iamthey]

(Also on export. Most nations Import a equivalent amount. To deny that is to god-mod.)

Eh, no. Most major world powers/industrialized nations (Examples: china, japan, and Germany) have very export favorable trade balances, while only a few have very poor trade balances. (Examples: France, US, and UK). Very few if any industrialized nations have break even trade balances. While yes "most" nations do export and import an even amount most nations are not world powers and many are not even industrialized which probably means they are not trading much at all. My point is the trade balance of a nation is a fairly definite thing in developed nations. Nations like China have chosen to industrialized and be producing nations, while nations like the US have chosen to be consumerist nations. The balance is kept by the latter which essentially acts as a black hole to absorb the production of the producing nations. So to say its god moding wouldn't really give justice to the reality of the world economic scene.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_count...account_balance (IMF Stats)

Edited May 28, 2009 by iamthey

[LeVentNoir]

Eh, no. Most major world powers/industrialized nations (Examples: china, japan, and Germany) have very export favorable trade balances, while only a few have very poor trade balances. (Examples: France, US, and UK). Very few if any industrialized nations have break even trade balances. While yes "most" nations do export and import an even amount most nations are not world powers and many are not even industrialized which probably means they are not trading much at all. My point is the trade balance of a nation is a fairly definite thing in developed nations. Nations like China have chosen to industrialized and be producing nations, while nations like the US have chosen to be consumerist nations. The balance is kept by the latter which essentially acts as a black hole to absorb the production of the producing nations. So to say its god moding wouldn't really give justice to the reality of the world economic scene.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_count...account_balance (IMF Stats)

But since none of that specialization (industrialization, actually finding someone in Rp to export to...) has been RP'd we can go to the standard, imports pretty much equal export to a little leeway.

[iamthey]

But since none of that specialization (industrialization, actually finding someone in Rp to export to...) has been RP'd we can go to the standard, imports pretty much equal export to a little leeway.

True. Of course there are all the treaties and blocs with open boarders, and free trade economic clauses. I mean the US doesn't really choose to be a consumerist nation it just ends up that way as foreign goods are cheaper to produce due to the reduced costs of labor in nations like china, and therefore the US ends up buying more foreign goods than their own domestic goods. So I think just having treaties like that would probably consitute finding a market assuming your own internal policies and economy are set up to be able to produce goods that can compete with your treaty partner's domestic markets.

That aside I will agree, most people if not everyone under RP's their own internal economy and industry related policies to a point where it would be god moding to assume one particular preference (consuming or producing); but there is probably a basis for someone with the right treaties to RP out a sino like economy. (Now weather that would just be a story, or it actually gives you some kind of edge idk).

Edited May 28, 2009 by iamthey

[LeVentNoir]

True. Of course there are all the treaties and blocs with open boarders, and free trade economic clauses. I mean the US doesn't really choose to be a consumerist nation it just ends up that way as foreign goods are cheaper to produce due to the reduced costs of labor in nations like china, and therefore the US ends up buying more foreign goods than their own domestic goods. So I think just having treaties like that would probably consitute finding a market assuming your own internal policies and economy are set up to be able to produce goods that can compete with your treaty partner's domestic markets.

That aside I will agree, most people if not everyone under RP's their own internal economy and industry related policies to a point where it would be god moding to assume one particular preference (consuming or producing); but there is probably a basis for someone with the right treaties to RP out a sino like economy. (Now weather that would just be a story, or it actually gives you some kind of edge idk).

I would assume the free trade agreements just indicate preferred partner. Trade goes both ways. There would be more imports, and also more exports. The actual ratio would not change, just the volumes traded.

[HHAYD]

Guys...why don't you all just leave it alone. The mods aren't going to change the mergers. Nordland merged, USA merged. Who cares what its like in real life with the United States and the USSR and the various Unions and Confederations of the of the world. If you're going to argue about stats then fine, but the mergers were created. Whether there is a story with them or not is up to the merging nations. Piss poor if they didn't and bravo if they did. But trying to say well this merger is like this or that is preposterous. CNRP-Nordland is CNRP-Nordland and CNRP-USA is CNRP-USA. I don't like mergers I think blocs are better, I think they're more realistic, but whatever.

Also about Nordland being poor, people barely RP economies. Argument fail on both sides cause the people that argue against them I don't think RP economies yet at the same time, the Spartan comparison is so true its almost scary.

So what you suggesting to stop the god-mod super underground fortresses and "anti-everything" systems?

[Sarah Tintagyl]

So what you suggesting to stop the god-mod super underground fortresses and "anti-everything" systems?

I would tell a GM to review it, if the GM tells them to stop and they don't take it to a mod. I'll be honest with you guys and I'm speaking to Nordland. I have no clue what you guys are building, mainly because my eyes fall out of my head when I try to read a page of military text about these defense mechanisms, the same when when I see an LVN post with one algebraic equation I never open that thread again. Agreed, I think you guys build it far too quickly, FAR too quickly with the underground fortresses and the virtual fortress Europe. Also while I hadn't thought that all this was even possible, (don't correct me if they are cause I really don't care), I think it takes the fun out from having a war on here, cause I know its going to happen. But that's just me.

[Uberstein]

Static defenses don't take the fun out of a war, I told Malatose when he was first building those things that Static defenses were outdated by 1942, but he didn't listen.

It's better to have a mobile, elastic defense.

[Cody Seb]

I would tell a GM to review it, if the GM tells them to stop and they don't take it to a mod. I'll be honest with you guys and I'm speaking to Nordland. I have no clue what you guys are building, mainly because my eyes fall out of my head when I try to read a page of military text about these defense mechanisms, the same when when I see an LVN post with one algebraic equation I never open that thread again. Agreed, I think you guys build it far too quickly, FAR too quickly with the underground fortresses and the virtual fortress Europe. Also while I hadn't thought that all this was even possible, (don't correct me if they are cause I really don't care), I think it takes the fun out from having a war on here, cause I know its going to happen. But that's just me.

I agree, though my position regarding mergers has softened. I just know that OOC will be rampant when the war in Europe comes. Still, it would probably occur without the defenses or not. Anyway, it isn't of much concern, as everyone else hyperbuilds as well.

[HHAYD]

Static defenses don't take the fun out of a war, I told Malatose when he was first building those things that Static defenses were outdated by 1942, but he didn't listen.

It's better to have a mobile, elastic defense.

Indeed. If an enemy punches holes in your static defenses, then you are doomed because your enemies can march in and demolish the vital parts of the static defenses.

Static defenses are only useful in modern age if both sides are caught in a deadlock and/or if the area is extremely important to your nation.

[Markus Wilding]

And not to mention that the second the enemy breaks through them, they can just go around the back and take them out permenantly.

[Subtleknifewielder]

And not to mention that the second the enemy breaks through them, they can just go around the back and take them out permenantly.

Indeed...one well-placed bomb or missile and the whole defense means squat.

[Sir Keshav IV]

Don't give them ideas on outdated defenses, itll make it harder for us in Comintern to kick their butts

[Subtleknifewielder]

Don't give them ideas on outdated defenses, itll make it harder for us in Comintern to kick their butts

Oh, ok. Shutting up...

[Sir Keshav IV]

You get a cookie for being such a good boy Subtle

[Tahsir]

Static defense for me is a last line, not a front line.

[hawk11]

People still use static defenses?

[iamthey]

I would assume the free trade agreements just indicate preferred partner. Trade goes both ways. There would be more imports, and also more exports. The actual ratio would not change, just the volumes traded.

In theory sure, but when tariffs are dropped and nation B is importing goods on the cheap that directly compete with nation A's we can assume consumers will prefer one product over another and that trade balance would be shifted. (Ultimately I don't think it really matters unless you are trying to garner some sort of advantage off of having an uneven balance of trade). I mean I RP a nation that is primarily an exporting nation and specified my industrial capacity and the work force itself, but I am just doing that to enhance my nation's social system, and governing mentality/ideology, not to give myself a gaming edge.