Clearing Debts

I have no problem with the costs of things and understand the need for Agema to set the same rates if only for administrative convenience. The rates feel about right historically.

What worries me is the astronimical rates of return discussed - 480% and the scale of the inevstements - both of which seem extraordinarily high given the period. Bear in mind that in todays economies growth rates of 10% are spectacular so 480% is in my view unrealtistic and therefore harmful to the accuracy of the game.

i have no doubt that some investments - such a suger and tobacco - would produce very high returns, but these would ultimately be limited in scale by the laws of supply and demand in the eighteenth century.

i think this is quite a big issue. its demoralising to know that ones historic research is effectively being undone by unrealistic rates of return. if i had known this i would have played the game quite differently - and will from now on.

THat is point I am trying to make... There was much more than just currency invested. There were close to 50 thousand people invested in certain areas. The rate of return is not out of the range of possibilities when you examine the scope of what was done and is currently being done.

I think Game 2 is an exception. In Game 7 i invested 2 million £, 20.000 recruits and 30.000 slaves last year and my return was only £50.000.

You have to remember that game 2, is now in the year 1737. So game 7 is many years behind. This is the difference in figures.

If you avoid war and keep investing in trade and revenue. After 37 game years,you would be talking high millions,nearly billions.

England is always at an advantage trade wise anyway. Due to its advancements and colonial ties.But avoiding wars is the key.

Sure, but in this case the length of time does not explain the difference in the figures and the lack of connection to historic reality. The previous posting states:

This past year I invested around 45 million pounds along with 6,000 recruits and recieved about 220 million pounds in return

That is a rate of return of 480% in one year. I am sure we have all done our historic research, especially around the issue of historic economic investments. From my research I can see no justification, in any circumstances, for these rates of return on this scale.

I studied the eighteengh century Glasgow tobacco trade as part of my degree. This, along with sugar, is probably the highest rate of return in the eighteenth century. But even they never managed this, and anything like this scale is, in my view, historically inaccurate, come war or peace.

If anyone can find any historic justifications for such high rates of return that are scalable, I would like to see them.

Maybe the answer is easier than we thought and Richard has made an error with the calculations?

blimey!....an answer which Sir Humphrey Appleby would define as "brave, minister, very brave"

I think you're misreading the figures. I think he's giving you his trade income and this year's investment. What he's not giving you is all the past years of investment that have accumulated. I doubt he's getting 480% returns on his investments.

I'd add that given that this is a game, I should certainly hope we can with work get outside of historical norms. Else why bother to play?

This is a game and therfore should be fun.There is no fun running a position with no, or very little money.

European nations were often involved in wars,so therefore could never get a steady build up of revenue and income.So if you evade wars,then you can build.European nations did not evade war,therefore historical figures would not be accurate.

You cannot compare nations at war,dureing the period. Compared to what those nations would have done if peace was there instead.

Two things. If this is the total trade income rather than the return on that investment than I agree that is a very different contention. I would welcome clarification from the player concerned (although I have seen other post highlighting equally astounding growth levels year on year. I will dig these out later.)

As to it being a game, for me it is a game based on a high level of historical reality and that is how I expect it be in every aspect of the game including finances. while it is no fun being poor, it is equally no fun to discover your rivals have growth rates which are, for the purposes of competing, the financial equivalent of them inventing the atom bomb 350 years early.

As to the peace./war arguiment I agree peace is going to encourage faster growth in most areas than war. again it is a matter of degree. so perhaps 5% growth in wartime and 15% growth in peacetime would be a useful benchmark.

has anyone read a good book on the economic growth of the period?

I was Kwantung China in game 4, joined early 1704. Invested a bit to get the ball rolling.
I built 100 L, and put them to work supporting trade
- 538,000 trade income (from almost nothing)

Next year (1705) another 200 L joined them
-3,790,000 Trade income

Finally in 1706 I built 600L (I was recruiting heavily from all of China)
-16,750,000 trade income

Rates of growth are:

704%

and

441%


This is a province of China, the country that - for entirely political reasons - largely discouraged foreign trade in the eighteenth century.

I can assure that, after reading this I am now following exactly the same strategy as above. My advice is borrow to the hilt as even interest rates of 20% are as nothing compared to these returns. In light of this I have thrown out my textbooks since if you cant beat em join em.

I agree these numbers for China are quite startling and very good.

It may be that picking the right investment is critical and that China had a huge pent up demand for trade.

I haven't seen any returns like this in my extremely limited experience. I guess I'll get a chance in a few months with game 8.

Massive foreign trade for China in the eighteenth century is about as likely as...

Hugenot toleration or noble taxes in ancien regime France
A big army and a Catholic on the throne of England
Reforming the Janissaries
Attacking the Papal States if your a Catholic
Getting Russians to shoot straight
Getting the Polish parliament to agree - on anything

...it can be done (and has been done in many of the games) but at the very least it should be damn challenging!

Well, I guess it depends upon your view. My understanding is that there was massive smuggling going on. So lots of the Chinese were trading anyway and wanted to trade. If the government legitimized it, you would have a massive underground economy of trade that you could suck up relatively quickly into the normal economy.

Though I take your point about this being very ahistorical. So the question then arises when and where Richard pushes back. Maybe income rises and honor falls?

my guess - or perhaps more accurately my hope - is that richard seeks to take care of these discrepencies through a number of factors including honour and by limiting the number and effectiveness of recruits. so you can have a massive army in china but they are not much good against europeans for example.

problems will ocurr if china is allied to, for example, spain, and uses this massive wealth to help allies build armies which are much more effective and modern but realistically out of china's pay scale.

in the case of game 2, britain is subsidising prussia with wealth that i remain unconvinced is justified historically, even though i accept the player has invested wisely. but then i play france so i would say that, wouldnt i!

anyway for the purposes of this thread i would now say dont bother to pay back debt, borrow as much as you can and invest in liners supporting trade as above! the above suggest that returns will beat the interset payments, even if they are 20-30%.

Well, the downside to liners is that you must have recruits for them. can't just throw money at them, so it may be that's another reason they're more profitable.

The income listed is related to years of investment. I have been in my position for 6 years now and have developed the economic portion as best I can. This money is now being used as Britian did indeed historically use her wealth in a later period.

Needless to say... The problem is I have to find new things to invest in to keep up a good rate of return.

There is a reason why Italy was first in the race out of the middle ages... There is likewise a reason why the British were on the top years later.

I could be wrong here, but revvaughan's most recent post about being in position 6 years kind of makes me believe my memory is correct, but perhaps a more established player in the game can confirm....

I think the massive resources of England in this version were built up by a previous player. He got VERY strong as a result, and basically other nations "ganged up" on him when he used his power unwisely (and I am NOT suggesting player gang up on England again !! ) but the end result was quite a big collapse in income streams. So much so that the player dropped out.

The underlying economic strength was there and so it was possible for rev to carefully re-build and add to them with his own ideas.

I would say, congratulations to those who succeed in such high revenue streams. Rarely is an over-night success, it does take (normally) alot of time and effort. To those worried about the balance of a game, do not overly worry. Somehow equilibrium rules. I have seen very strong powers topple.

Clearly rev, and Kingmaker, who controls a very powerful Russia will testify that their positions give them alot of security but they are forever working to both maintain and protect those positions.

The major economic problem for Chinese provinces is that infrastructure is very expensive.
Road lvl: 1,200,000
Canal lvl: 10,000,000
And EH will fall if you do not do something.

I couldn't agree more with your assessment sir... Security is never easy to maintain.

As to roads and canals... The British Government must maintain its own and spend heavily in the Americas to improve the road and canal system there as well. That has been the key!

I look forward to many more years working in this position.

Well only one Tea party and bang there goes the money.

Russian roads and cannals cost a bomb but currently mine are all a grade

As to shooting striaght lets say they can and I dare any one to try my troops face on I suggest they may find that they can shoot extremely well!!

One Tea Party could cause some problems, but I don't believe it will destroy the British Economy. It caused a speed bump in RL, but the British still dominated the worlds economy for another 100 years or so before a real threat came along.

Keep you colonist happy!

And really, a critical part of the success of the American Revolution was the international involvement.

According to this, it cost France 1 billion livre!

https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/France_in_the_American_Revolutionary_War

A Tea Party without somebody writing the checks might not amount to much.

Deacon wrote:
And really, a critical part of the success of the American Revolution was the international involvement.

According to this, it cost France 1 billion livre!

https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/France_in_the_American_Revolutionary_War

A Tea Party without somebody writing the checks might not amount to much.

Well as England and France are at war in game 2 this shouldn´t be a problem.