Dilemma between GDP vs Naval Budget bonus decision

[Anavel Gato]

What do you choose in patch 1.1?

For me, I don't see too many changes in GDP even after taking 2.75% GDP bonus decision (plus monthly GDP, so the bonus for this turn should be 3.75%) - is it a bug? Should we go all on Naval Budget?

[Mobzonk]

The bonus seems to be to economic growth, and not just one turn but every turn. So for example if economic growth is 2.00% and the event will add 1% to this then next turn onwards economic growth is 2.02%.

In isolation this is pretty minor but if you pick economic growth every time the effects can snowball.

Personally I always go for GDP growth increase as I like the role play element of the decisions.

[Aries]

I have to agree with Mobzonk. IF there is a single pick, either Naval OR GDP bonus, I go GDP. If it's a choice of having a Naval/GPD minus and plus on the other, I would take GDP early campaign unless there is a choice of neither. I don't take anything away if I can help it but a boost to GDP does help later if you can stack them IMO.
Suggest trying to keep Transport Capacity at max to grow GDP.
I always steer away from those alliances offers that you give up 1 or 2 % GDP. They'll bb in a few months to be more reasonable.

[munroburton]

With the addition of armies and land wars, picking GDP is even more preferable. Doing that makes your nation's army stronger.

[CaoLex]

GDP not only increases your money too, it also increases building capabilities of your nation (allowing you to have more money from selling ships to minor nation, as well as rebuilding and repairing fleet faster) and recruitment rate for crew.

[Anavel Gato]

Can GDP increase when conquer more regions? A few patches ago, people told me to pick 100% Naval Budget, but now it's 100% GDP.

[CaoLex]

Originally posted by Anavel Gato:

Can GDP increase when conquer more regions? A few patches ago, people told me to pick 100% Naval Budget, but now it's 100% GDP.

Yeah, it does. And it's increasing army and naval budget as a result too.
Few patches ago there was no army, no shipbuilding capacity and having ships over the port limit was minimal issue.

[Esmarix]

Does the size of the economy/GDP directly affect the amount of money allocated to R&D? As in larger GDP=faster R&D?

[godspeedthunder]

GDP increase is a drop in the ocean.

NBP increase makes a huge difference.

GDP grows on its own.

NBP doesn't ever grow excluding events.

NBP best option without a shadow of a doubt.

[godspeedthunder]

I won't go into the maths as it would fill the page but here is an example of why NBP is better than GDP.

The example is unrealistic as it would require an event to trigger every month, but lets assume that one did for the sake of the test.

If 2 nations both start at $10bil GDP and their average growth is 7.5%p/a (this is around what it usually is but it can vary) then after 6 years their GDP would be-
$15,433,015,000

If 1 nation took the event GDP+1.5%, NBP-1.5% every month then after 6 years their GDP would be-
$15,532,122,000
And their naval budget would be 2% in peace time and 4% in war time.

If the other nation took GDP-1.5%, NBP+1.5% every month then after 6 years their GDP would be-
$15,334,435,000
And their naval budget would be 15.5% In peace time and 31% during war time.

Nation 1 has $200mil higher GDP but only has-
$310,642,440 during peace (the actual in game amount is a percentage of this, I don't remember the exact amount so I won't try to recall) and
$621,284,880 during war.

Nation 2 has $200mil lower GDP but has-
$2,376,837,425 during peace
$4,753,674,850 during war

Whilst nation 2 has 98.7% GDP compared to nation 1,
It has 765% more available funds.

I tested this theory out taking NBP every time and after 50 years of gameplay I increased my NBP to 17% which gave me $8bil funds per month.

If I had taken the opposite event choice each time I would have had approx $1bil instead.

So the choice is yours, do you want slightly higher GDP or x8 the amount of funds by the end of the game.

[Anavel Gato]

Originally posted by godspeedthunder:

I won't go into the maths as it would fill the page but here is an example of why NBP is better than GDP.

The example is unrealistic as it would require an event to trigger every month, but lets assume that one did for the sake of the test.

If 2 nations both start at $10bil GDP and their average growth is 7.5%p/a (this is around what it usually is but it can vary) then after 6 years their GDP would be-
$15,433,015,000

If 1 nation took the event GDP+1.5%, NBP-1.5% every month then after 6 years their GDP would be-
$15,532,122,000
And their naval budget would be 2% in peace time and 4% in war time.

If the other nation took GDP-1.5%, NBP+1.5% every month then after 6 years their GDP would be-
$15,334,435,000
And their naval budget would be 15.5% In peace time and 31% during war time.

Nation 1 has $200mil higher GDP but only has-
$310,642,440 during peace (the actual in game amount is a percentage of this, I don't remember the exact amount so I won't try to recall) and
$621,284,880 during war.

Nation 2 has $200mil lower GDP but has-
$2,376,837,425 during peace
$4,753,674,850 during war

Whilst nation 2 has 98.7% GDP compared to nation 1,
It has 765% more available funds.

I tested this theory out taking NBP every time and after 50 years of gameplay I increased my NBP to 17% which gave me $8bil funds per month.

If I had taken the opposite event choice each time I would have had approx $1bil instead.

So the choice is yours, do you want slightly higher GDP or x8 the amount of funds by the end of the game.

This is what I suspected all along. GDP growth so far is a static number and almost fixed for every nation at the start. I used to re-roll game for the best growth, like 13% and after several war, many territory gained, still 13% ...

[Timmer120]

If you don't mind, I want to put in 2 additional things I haven't seen yet:

1. Spending money on Transport Capacity eventually caps the GDP Growth that it provides, after a few turns you can tone it down to maintenance since you've already built up the growth as much as possible(though you'll have to bump that back up if you start loosing transports)

2. Sure getting more Naval Funds may be more impactful for your end, but I've found I never really lack for money tbh, also a higher GDP may convince the stupid AI in charge of the other part of your nation to invest more into the army so that you don't automatically invade a minor nation and then just sadly bounce off, or potentially hope to do better on the land side with the other great powers

[godspeedthunder]

Originally posted by Timmer120:

If you don't mind, I want to put in 2 additional things I haven't seen yet:

1. Spending money on Transport Capacity eventually caps the GDP Growth that it provides, after a few turns you can tone it down to maintenance since you've already built up the growth as much as possible(though you'll have to bump that back up if you start loosing transports)

2. Sure getting more Naval Funds may be more impactful for your end, but I've found I never really lack for money tbh, also a higher GDP may convince the stupid AI in charge of the other part of your nation to invest more into the army so that you don't automatically invade a minor nation and then just sadly bounce off, or potentially hope to do better on the land side with the other great powers

Unless they have fixed it the transport capacity doesn't provide any growth above 100%, or at least no significant growth which is obviously visible, I would have to restest this again on the latest patch to see if it's still the same.

What it does do though is prevent permanent reduction in funds from the TR losses, so its still important in its own right. This too was bugged at some point so I would have to retest this too before I give any information that may be incorrect.

As for the GDP, the event which gives +1% only actually gives +0.077%, so while it may appear good on the surface, in actuality it is practically insignifcant when taking natural growth into account.

Whereas the negative penalty to NBP makes a huge difference, so you should never take that option.

By all means take the +GDP if it doesn't harm your NBP, but never take it at its expense.

[Lipi]

I will increase GDP+ only if it doesn't curtail naval budget, in which case I go for naval budget first. I increase GDP as long as it's at the expense of naval funds but not naval budget percentage.

[Strap me to a Missile]

Always pick GDP growth, it will give a high naval budget in the long run.

[Lipi]

Originally posted by isaacssv:

Always pick GDP growth, it will give a high naval budget in the long run.

I guess depends on the situation. When early on you need to catch up with other nearby nations' navies you might need the naval budget more coz you'll soon be low on money until you win your first war.