GDP and Income

[[BFs]Karaya 1]

So ive been playing the first 20ish years of a Japan campaign. Ive conquered around 15 or so provinces by now in addition to my starting Provinces, but the AI just turbo grows their GDP, with compounding rates due to how percentages work, and i cant ever catch up at all.

Its kinda insane. I can barely afford my MUCH smaller fleets, and if im at war conquering more provinces, my GPD sometimes even declines a little. Do you just have to sit at peace forever and ever to even have a chance ?

What am i doing wrong ?

Ive also had a war against France where i had over 100k VPs, and then could choose 3 (!!) Provinces in the peace deal, and was given NONE. That was a slap in the face.

How does Home Population vs other work ? Im guessing core territories have a higher impact but none of this is explained much. Same with Transport Capacity.

[vanDyck]

France is (as most democracies) a GDP power house becaurse of the 5% gouvernment bonus.
Finacially you rely mostly on your home provinces, conquered provinces dont add much as far as i know and experienced it myself, but put more stress on your logistics. So i mostly only take provinces when:
-i want a new base there
-i want to deny enemy acces to certain regions (like russia to the baltic)
-it has oil
It may be that enemy core provinces give you more GDP as others.
Going to war slows down your GDP growth. It can even get smaller. So keep your wars as short as possible.

Transport capacity adds to GDP growtth and should kept as high as possible (max. 200%), i think if it goes down below 100% you may loose GDP. Its importand to protect your transports, so having some small forces in every region you have bases is a good thing.

How many VPs had france? If they got more, they will take it all, all for the winner, the looser gets nothing.

[[BFs]Karaya 1]

It was like 100k to 2 k....

I could choose almost 1,4 billion worth of spoils, except i got none of the provinces.

Yeah its such a shame that the best way to improve your income seems to be to just sit on your ass and not go to war, and the countries that start with like 4x your GDP are just unreachable.

[gigamelon1981]

At 1.4.0.2 capturing territories does increase the income.
Now it isn't.
I maintained 3 mil ton of fleet back then using Austro Hungary, at peace.
Every single port filled with coastal minelayer submarine.
And it still has huge surplus per turn.
I didn't cheat. I never cheat at this game.

[[BFs]Karaya 1]

I didnt have the problem before, but i can never get far above a million in either my china, germany or Japan playthroughs over the years without always being in a deficit massively. I just cant get my income up like the AI does -.- . Obviously a skill issue, but i cant figure it out.

[gigamelon1981]

Originally posted by BFsKaraya 1:

I didnt have the problem before, but i can never get far above a million in either my china, germany or Japan playthroughs over the years without always being in a deficit massively. I just cant get my income up like the AI does -.- . Obviously a skill issue, but i cant figure it out.

I don't think it is a skill issue, i have confidence with my skill.
Since you said China, then it makes 2 case using China.
Also perhaps related with another thread says USA is OP.

[Butterside down]

If you receive an option to choose either an increase to the GDP or your Naval budget, pick the GDP increase every time.

[sintri]

Originally posted by SatreJR:

If you receive an option to choose either an increase to the GDP or your Naval budget, pick the GDP increase every time.

Pretty sure that's not true, GDP events are a one time mod to your current GDP, which is practically nothing compared to just monthly growth. Naval budget is a permanent modifier your monthly allocation percent and a way larger boost.

[omanous darkness (PCMR)]

Originally posted by gigamelon1981:

Originally posted by BFsKaraya 1:

I didnt have the problem before, but i can never get far above a million in either my china, germany or Japan playthroughs over the years without always being in a deficit massively. I just cant get my income up like the AI does -.- . Obviously a skill issue, but i cant figure it out.

I don't think it is a skill issue, i have confidence with my skill.
Since you said China, then it makes 2 case using China.
Also perhaps related with another thread says USA is OP.

i have done 15 years in USA and ended up bankrupt because of how stupid hard it is to get money. i have my research set at 65%, merchant ships maxed out, and crew training at 5% just to maintain 1m above deficit. if you go to war, you need more ships, and that means more expenses. that was where i went from 1m positive growth to -165m growth in expenses

[RalphRoberts]

Originally posted by vanDyck:

France is (as most democracies) a GDP power house becaurse of the 5% gouvernment bonus.
Finacially you rely mostly on your home provinces, conquered provinces dont add much as far as i know and experienced it myself, but put more stress on your logistics. So i mostly only take provinces when:
-i want a new base there
-i want to deny enemy acces to certain regions (like russia to the baltic)
-it has oil
It may be that enemy core provinces give you more GDP as others.
Going to war slows down your GDP growth. It can even get smaller. So keep your wars as short as possible.

Transport capacity adds to GDP growtth and should kept as high as possible (max. 200%), i think if it goes down below 100% you may loose GDP. Its importand to protect your transports, so having some small forces in every region you have bases is a good thing.

How many VPs had france? If they got more, they will take it all, all for the winner, the looser gets nothing.

From my experience enemy core provinces do indeed contribute signifcantly. I conquered Eastern England as Germany in 1916 and it added over 10 million to my GDP (which still left it under 200 million total, haha).

[Axor]

This game has so much potential, but the Devs seem to not know where to turn next to fix the issue. Some players are talking about how they have too much monthly income... others are complaining about having barely enough money to maintain even a modest fleet. So, let's be fair about this, how do they know what is really going on??? They need a group of dedicated play testers who can give them honest feedback on the "current state" of the game - is money an issue or not? Is it only certain countries? Did change XYZ break something that they did not expect?

My opinion - the economy of most of the countries I have played - China, USA, Germany and Britain - seems to have changed drastically, and negatively, since 1.4 was released. In all 4 of my save games, I am struggling to maintain Crew Training at 40%, Research at 40%, and Transports Capacity at +0.5%. Increasing the size of the building ways - impossible, no free money. Going to war - disaster resulting in as much as a -3.7% to my GDP per month.

These changes may stop players who claimed that they were making far too much money with everything set at 100% from breaking the game. However, the players who are not cheating and playing as intended can no longer "play" the game because they cannot go to war, they cannot enlarge the docks, and they can barely afford any research. Frankly, the Economy of Ultimate Admirals Dreadnoughts is utterly broken as it stands right now. Why not give the players more control over the economic factors that effect growth - let us initiate "new trade treaties" or "create specialized trade routes for resource XYZ" that are lucrative short term treaties that can help us out when in financial difficulty. Let us help influencing our government on trade treaties, or on appointing diplomats to improve trade arrangements that lead back to increased GDP. Since conquest seems to currently be the only real way to increase our income, fix the economic model so that we get a reasonable percentage of the value of any conquered province as an additional monthly amount added to our GDP. Do something, ANYTHING at this point before you lose to many players and get a lot of complaints. I understand it is hard to do, so if necessary appoint a solid team of testers you can trust not to cheat to help you test these changes more thoroughly.

[bgp_spook]

Although it is true that the strategic level could do with some additional mechanics and refinement.

The fundamental problem is time and effort.

Admitedly, I am not on the inside. I do not know what is going on.

However, it seems as though the underlying code and systems are being stretched and patched over to make things work and make due with what is already there. In my opinion, what is needed is a redesign of the underlying systems and refactoring of the code is to enable all kinds of changes.

Writing a monolithic program like this with an expandong scope is ki d of like building your house as you live in it.

Along the way it turns out you need to add a wing to the house but you didn'take the foundation big and strong enough. So you have to tear half of the house down and relay much of the foundation so you can finish the whole house.

Furthermore, you have to build your tools as you build your house. And your tools wear out as you go along, they don't fit the needs anymore, and you need new, different, and better tools to finish the house.

Those are the kinds of changes that seem to be needed now. But that would take months and months of dev, most likely.

And all of this for a game that is already "finished". You can't relaunch the game. The devs really care about this project but it doesn't pay their bills anymore. At some point they have to move on and leave their ambition half finished. I just pray the game is still in a playable state when that happens.

[MeowThai]

+1

im having problems with the money right after 1905s especially if im in a war with 2 or more nations.

Japan is almost impossible to play

seems there is a bug here..

[hurepoix]

I play a japan campaign(historical 1890 start) at legendary currently and dont have the problems you describ.
I started the poorest of all, with a GDP which was half Spain one. My fleet was rather symbolic the first 5 years, and I had my first war, late 1897 and reached 100 000 k tons of ships early 1898. between 1897 and 1910 I had 3 wars against Russia, China and Spain, conquering a few territories of poor value to Russia, Spain pacifics s colonies and most of China coastals s provinces. I had also an unwilling war with Austria ...
In 1914 My fleet is 600 000 tons including a dozen of modern BB. My GDP is still mosdest comparing to top dogs, but historically speaking I m strong than Japan was at that time by far. I tend to have a slight and very acceptable deficit at time of peace, and benefit in time of war. Transport and research had always been at 100%, crew at 50% and dock in constant enlargement.

Probably nornal and very hard are still jokes, at legendary Player have to be careful with economy and pay minimal attention on diplomacy to avoid unwilling confrontation.

I also pay attention on ship design. Now ship cost have its importance and picking up all option whatever the cost is no more mandatory.

I dont need to have the biggest GDP to dominate, nor to have the biggest fleet. I dont think you need too, especially we are always the most technically advanced.

[DoctorDanny]

The other way around is also fun. As France in 1918 I have 55 billion funds and a positive 55 million change per month. My opponents still build bathtubs while I cruise the oceans in 30k ton behemoths. Not much fun either.

[[BFs]Karaya 1]

Originally posted by hurepoix:

I play a japan campaign(historical 1890 start) at legendary currently and dont have the problems you describ.
I started the poorest of all, with a GDP which was half Spain one. My fleet was rather symbolic the first 5 years, and I had my first war, late 1897 and reached 100 000 k tons of ships early 1898. between 1897 and 1910 I had 3 wars against Russia, China and Spain, conquering a few territories of poor value to Russia, Spain pacifics s colonies and most of China coastals s provinces. I had also an unwilling war with Austria ...
In 1914 My fleet is 600 000 tons including a dozen of modern BB. My GDP is still mosdest comparing to top dogs, but historically speaking I m strong than Japan was at that time by far. I tend to have a slight and very acceptable deficit at time of peace, and benefit in time of war. Transport and research had always been at 100%, crew at 50% and dock in constant enlargement.

Probably nornal and very hard are still jokes, at legendary Player have to be careful with economy and pay minimal attention on diplomacy to avoid unwilling confrontation.

I also pay attention on ship design. Now ship cost have its importance and picking up all option whatever the cost is no more mandatory.

I dont need to have the biggest GDP to dominate, nor to have the biggest fleet. I dont think you need too, especially we are always the most technically advanced.

Im also playing Japan, and while i was ok on money untl 1900 ish, now at 1911 im in a constant deficit, that i can keep under control with selling ships and winning wars. But i cant even get above 30B GDP, even with some of frances colonies, some of china, Phillipines, Sumatra and other indonesian islands and Madagaskar. And now that youre always going back to war eventually with peoples allies, i cant end the wars quick enough to not have new ones. I can barely keep 6 BBs and a bunch of CLs/DDs around.

Im usually not that bad at these games, and ive won every war in a rather crushing way so far, but the economy side i just dont understand. Cant get tech above 75% for most stretches either.