The income problem with the main map

I have been doing all the research and checking my facts. And our income problem is very simple. Europe, the United States and much of the first world regions are severely underestimated. For example India has a GDP of 2.597 Trillion on the map it makes 1,030. While Japan has a GDP of 4.872 Trillion yet makes just 847. The US state of California has a GDP of 2.448 Trillion which is in the USA: Pacific region. Has just under the GDP of India, sports an income of less than 2/3s that of India. The entire USA: Pacific region has a GDP of 3.1 Trillion larger than India's.If the map's income was scaled off of India's income, then Germany should make 1550. The US Atlantic should have an income of 1300. This isn't just India, it's Russia and china too. All of Russia makes 2500. That is nearly 5 times the amount of Germany yet in reality Germany has a GDP two times the size of Russia's. Meaning it is skewed at a ratio of 10:1as America 50% larger than China's, yet all of China has an income of 2900 while the US has an income of 4000. If you factor in India, all of China should make 5000+ while America should make nearly 8000. Last thing, cities are way off as well, Chicago has a GDP of 524 billion and makes 153 while Shanghai has a GDP of 516 Billion( less than Chicago yet has an income of 463 more than triple Chicago's. This income is clearly skewed especially against the United States, and especially towards India and Russia. Whether done intentionally or unintentionally it needs to be fixed.

Yes, the same post is in Ideas and Suggestions

Very good research. It's a very interesting point.

I would like to propose two reasons why this isn't going to be changed.

1. The income isn't based off of real life.
Like a book in the category of historic fiction isn't entirely true, so also these are not intend to be that closely accurate. The game is played well with the current status of the map (that's what the map creators thought).

2. There are so many things that could (and argueably should) be change in this game. Something like this that is simply a numbers correction and isn't exactly a problem, will probably be overlooked.

I agree with google, but theres a reason they have an editor on this game

I realize you don't have premium, but thats where they get you to spend money!

To reply to the fact it was made in 2010 proves my point further, India was much poorer in 2010 than now, while America and Europe have relatively not changed (economically). Yes you are right many aspects of the game needs changed, but I think this is a rather important step that needs to be made. I understand it was balanced, but the balancing has gone way too far, America should make more, and Russia less. I think the game turned out pretty well, I just believe it could be a tad more realistic by adding a 20% increase to America, and by cutting Russia by 50% at least. I hope this isn't overlooked. But you are probably right the developers probably will. I would like to start a poll, and see if people would want the change or not.

It's a feature, not a bug. The incomes were never meant to be based (entirely) on real life, otherwise Germany would have more income than the entire African continent.

It is not accurate, and that is ok, but there is a difference between not being accurate and being so far off reality it is near unrecognizable. I am not suggesting Germany be more than Africa, I am merely suggesting lowering incomes of Russia and India, as they are extremely far fetched. And improving American economies as they are the most far off.

If anything, I would give Africa and South America more income. World games would be less shit for it.

نوشتع شده توسط floss123, 22.10.2018 at 17:24

It is not accurate, and that is ok, but there is a difference between not being accurate and being so far off reality it is near unrecognizable. I am not suggesting Germany be more than Africa, I am merely suggesting lowering incomes of Russia and India, as they are extremely far fetched. And improving American economies as they are the most far off.

stop preaching and go play rp you bloody wimp

And Macedonia is clearly underated, compared to what it has become !!!

Wait...

Truth is, it is and has always been a SHITHOLE

And to answer your question, the map is ACCURATE in economy based off one country relative to another.
example: germany is slightly richer then UK, UK slightly richer then france, spain slightly poorer then Italy etc.

The only countries that dont follow this economy and scaling pattern are USA, China, Brazil, Russia, Canada and Australia and thats for the sake of gameplay and options.
Nobody wants to play as Full China with 100 reinfs 20k economy and winrate 100% of the time.
Id like to see mexico and india split into 3-4 regions as well cause people win too much with them in 50k

I am not asking for full reality just an update to the game and if America was improved like I am asling, then more people would pick it, therefore harder to take all of it over

نوشتع شده توسط floss123, 23.10.2018 at 06:00

I am not asking for full reality just an update to the game and if America was improved like I am asling, then more people would pick it, therefore harder to take all of it over

you talk like america isn't strong enough, but it has 2 massive natural barriers and it can hold both europe and china at the same time until turn 50

But America can't ever invade anywhere, and that is only with all the America's at their Beck and call

Ah hell nah, this motherfucker wanting exact ammount of shit. How about you give them Chinese 1.4 billion reinfs.

نوشتع شده توسط floss123, 21.10.2018 at 21:52

While I do agree US probably needs a slight boost, I disagree with the extent.

This is a particularly interesting topic, even if we don't ever change the values.
I'd primarily like to point out that GDP (Nominal) is probably not the best metric to calculate a country's ability to produce equipment/ field armies. This is because GDP is a tool used to check national output in terms of a base currency (USD). Its more useful when looking at output from trade or relative economic development. However, GDP PPP takes into account that goods/services will be cheaper to produce/purchase in certain countries and more expensive in others. As an example, assume a situation where the US and China had to mass produce a fighter jet with the exact same specifications and that they both have full access to necessary technology. There is no way the US can compete with China on a cost basis and China will be able to roll out 1.5 to 2 jets to each American one. This disparity is not something that is accounted for under GDP Nominal whereas GDP PPP gives a better understanding of it. We do need to note that GDP PPP calculations aren't easy and will not be very accurate.

نوشتع شده توسط Dr. Trsid, 25.10.2018 at 09:43

نوشتع شده توسط floss123, 21.10.2018 at 21:52

While I do agree US probably needs a slight boost, I disagree with the extent.

This is a particularly interesting topic, even if we don't ever change the values.
I'd primarily like to point out that GDP (Nominal) is probably not the best metric to calculate a country's ability to produce equipment/ field armies. This is because GDP is a tool used to check national output in terms of a base currency (USD). Its more useful when looking at output from trade or relative economic development. However, GDP PPP takes into account that goods/services will be cheaper to produce/purchase in certain countries and more expensive in others. As an example, assume a situation where the US and China had to mass produce a fighter jet with the exact same specifications and that they both have full access to necessary technology. There is no way the US can compete with China on a cost basis and China will be able to roll out 1.5 to 2 jets to each American one. This disparity is not something that is accounted for under GDP Nominal whereas GDP PPP gives a better understanding of it. We do need to note that GDP PPP calculations aren't easy and will not be very accurate.

i was waiting for someone to say this PPP measures a trading economy, While GDP measures industry value, because GDP measures industry better it is better at analyzing wartime economy, also PPP measures economy capability, however this is flawed in the fact that better living conditions in a particular country will mean lower PPP because wages will increase as well reducing PPP in turn.

Just to clear up some things, you are correct Ghart - ivan and amok did originally intend for the map to be based on real GDP values, and early versions of the map were close to accurate based on the stats available to them.

I am not sure how many times changes were made, but i know there was at least one major correction that skewed real GDP values to create a more balanced map, and these adjustments can account for most of the imbalance you mention, particular in the Indo/China vs USA comparison stats. Once the map was 'somewhat' balanced, it was left alone for the most part.
===
The issue now is correcting and updating would again likely result in an unbalanced map.
It would also be a major undertaking.
However, if you are up to the task of correcting and using more up to date GDP numbers, let me know and i'll message admin to see if they would consider an update.
==

Also, an aside about GDP - it is often a misunderstood measure... it does not measure just value, but overall economic activity (related to consumed goods.) One fun exercise to do is to consider the voyage of the Exxon Valdez. Had it just gone to deliver it's goods to port, the GDP would have increased moderately. However epic GDP was achieved by the spill, since not only was the value of the oil still factored in, but so too was the clean up, the insurance claims, the production costs of building a new tanker, the compensation to the various industries affected, such as tourism and fisheries. Then there was the legal value, as criminal and civil charges, and all the business done by lawyers, judges, court staff, etc. also added. Once you see how insane GDP rises when things go horribly wrong, you start to see why GDP rises when a nation has an unhealthy population (healthy people contribute 0 to GDP, but the sick contribute to GDP in multiple ways, from insurance claims, medicine, doctor/nurse care, follow-up.) Same applies to criminal system - zero crime = zero GDP. Lots of crime leads to insurance claims, police salaries, court staff... US leads the world in imprisoning it's citizens, contributing to it's world leading GDP.

Yet GDP is still thought by most of as a sign of a nation's wealth =D

Don't waste your income on stupid shit.

نوشتع شده توسط floss123, 23.10.2018 at 17:20

But America can't ever invade anywhere, and that is only with all the America's at their Beck and call

You need to play more. It's not easy, but it's definitely not impossible.

If you want to see how rearranging the map, in proportion, to RL, will look, then take a look at the custom map "World 2016 based on real data" by VladRacovita. The proportional strengths, costs, ranges, etc., between countries, between ground, air and naval units, etc., is really nuts.

I'm playing a game on it for the first time. I like it, and it seems to be exceptionally well-researched, planned, and executed. However, the real world is so disparate that the SP multiplier is ZERO. The only SP gains you get are the medals for battles, cities, countries, and unit ("other") destruction, and some fun with huge stacks of powerful units.

Instead of focusing on making sure that the in-game incomes accurately reflect real world statistics, it would be better to make sure that the income to reinforcement ratio is balanced for all regions of the game map. Also, it would me impractical to make these kinds of changes to the game's map, since these statistics that you provided could change overtime, which would mean that one would have to constantly update the map to reflect the changes that occur in the actual countries.