Italy, Serbia, and economic balance

[zokk]

I played a game as the allies under the new 1.4.2 patch. I was surprised at how strong Serbia is and how weak Italy is. I added up the PP each country has from its cities and it looks like Serbia has 26 PP while Italy only has 20. That means that in the game, Serbia has an economy that's 30% stronger than Italy!

I tried looking up some 1914 GDP figures on the internet and it looks like Serbia had roughly a $7 billion GDP, while Italy's was around $90 billion... more than ten times as much.

It seems that in the current version of the game, Serbia has an easier time fighting Austria than Italy does. It really should be the other way around. I think the city PP values for Serbia need to be lowered and Italy's need to be raised.

[operating]

I was a little surprised with those numbers too..

[anguille]

Serbia is indeed extremely powerful...

[LandMarine47]

When Italy enters the war (from my exp from starting in 1914) they are practically bankrupt! I can't produce ANYTHING! I had to sell everything but the high seas fleet! While Serbia is WAY too strong! Their army is about 3x stronger the the Italians! I hope these are better balanced, with Italy having a better economy.

PS in that game, the Serbs had to bail out the Italians! They took everything! Even Zargeb! Serbia would be lucky if they Saravejo....

[Yote]

A theory about this popped into my head. Not sure if it's correct (hence a theory and not an explanation), but developers don't tend to add things like these without a thought behind them, so I wonder whether this might be it...

Early in the war, Austria-Hungary thought they would be able to crush Serbia easily, but due to high serbian morale, its army's experience from the previous Balkan wars and thus also its expert use of terrain etc, the Habsburg army was thrown back. A smaller army belonging to an economically weaker nation managed despite it all to defeat a larger one for quite awhile, and also made a few successful rallies when they were pushed back by its enemy's superior numbers.

When it came to Italy, the country suffered from widespread corruption at all levels at the time and the management of the army was very poor, as a result. The country wasn't unique in this of course, since Austria-Hungary and Russia were also well known for this, but its level of mismanagement of the army has been noted as one of its greatest weaknesses in its war effort. Just like early russian efforts, the soldiers were thrown against the enemy with very little sense behind it, before they managed to get some decent officers in charge.

The most logical way of simulating this in the game would be giving different troops different stats, like for example making the serbian units overall stronger and perhaps having the italian units start with a lowerer level of quality. This game, however, doesn't use different stats for different nationalities. The german army start off with being lvl 2 at the onset of the game, but its stats there is the same as what the other armies have when they successfully research lvl 2. Units are the same, unless research says different.

So, I'm simply guessing that to create these historically inspired conditions in the game, the developers have chosen to do this through the economical system.
Italy has a crap economy from the start and the player has to rationalise in order to get things going somewhat; Serbia has quite the economy to build units from at the start in order to show how they could put up a good defence, but after awhile as Belgrade is taken (or at least bombed the shit out of) and other industrial centres suffer, the country weakens before the onslaught of the larger enemy.

[zokk]

I've only noticed the problems with Italy and Serbia after the latest patch. Right now, Italy has a hard time affording a small line of units to cover its border with Austria while Serbia can build a sizable force capable of advancing into Austria. Before the patch, Italy and Serbia seemed to have much better economic balance.

In 1914, Italy's economy was about 13 times larger than that of Serbia ($90m vs $7m). Even though there was considerable inefficiency in the Italian war effort, the numbers in the game make no sense at all. In the game, Serbia is 30% stronger than Italy (26pp vs 20pp)! Looking at the ratios, that means Serbia gets 1 PP per $270,000 of GDP while Italy gets 1 PP per $12.86 million of GDP. Was Italian inefficiency so bad in 1914 that it had to spend 16.7 times as much as Serbia (who probably wasn't 100% efficient either) to field a unit?

During the actual war, Serbia put up a good fight, but was ultimately crushed by Austria. Italy, on the other hand, managed to go toe-to-toe with Austria for years. Austria wasn't able to make any real headway on the Italian front until Germany helped out. The game as it stands doesn't reflect this reality.

[operating]

I've only noticed the problems with Italy and Serbia after the latest patch. Right now, Italy has a hard time affording a small line of units to cover its border with Austria while Serbia can build a sizable force capable of advancing into Austria. Before the patch, Italy and Serbia seemed to have much better economic balance.

In 1914, Italy's economy was about 13 times larger than that of Serbia ($90m vs $7m). Even though there was considerable inefficiency in the Italian war effort, the numbers in the game make no sense at all. In the game, Serbia is 30% stronger than Italy (26pp vs 20pp)! Looking at the ratios, that means Serbia gets 1 PP per $270,000 of GDP while Italy gets 1 PP per $12.86 million of GDP. Was Italian inefficiency so bad in 1914 that it had to spend 16.7 times as much as Serbia (who probably wasn't 100% efficient either) to field a unit?

During the actual war, Serbia put up a good fight, but was ultimately crushed by Austria. Italy, on the other hand, managed to go toe-to-toe with Austria for years. Austria wasn't able to make any real headway on the Italian front until Germany helped out. The game as it stands doesn't reflect this reality.

Did find this site to support a weak Italian economy beginning of WW 1. http://histclo.com/essay/war/ww1/cou/it/w1ci-home.html

[zokk]

The site is interesting, but it lacks hard numbers or direct comparison to other nations. Everything is relative. Italy did have a weak economy... compared to the other great powers: Germany, France, Britain, Russia, Austria-Hungary, and the USA. Compared to the non-great powers like Serbia, Greece, Romania, Bulgaria, Belgium, the Ottoman Empire, and Portugal, Italy's economy was quite large.

The idea that Serbia should have more PP than Italy in the game is absurd.

Here's a link to a detailed essay on the economics of WWI. Pages 23 & 25 are of particular interest since they have the population and GDP figures for all of the combatants.
http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/econo ... ronto2.pdf

[operating]

The site is interesting, but it lacks hard numbers or direct comparison to other nations. Everything is relative. Italy did have a weak economy... compared to the other great powers: Germany, France, Britain, Russia, Austria-Hungary, and the USA. Compared to the non-great powers like Serbia, Greece, Romania, Bulgaria, Belgium, the Ottoman Empire, and Portugal, Italy's economy was quite large.

The idea that Serbia should have more PP than Italy in the game is absurd.

Here's a link to a detailed essay on the economics of WWI. Pages 23 & 25 are of particular interest since they have the population and GDP figures for all of the combatants.
http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/econo ... ronto2.pdf

Serbia has quite the economy to build units from at the start in order to show how they could put up a good defence, but after awhile as Belgrade is taken (or at least bombed the shit out of) and other industrial centres suffer, the country weakens before the onslaught of the larger enemy.

For the sake of playability: I liked Yote's rationality in the above quote. We should all appreciate the evolution of this game, for at least you have a say in it. More than likely Italy will get a boost of some sort in the next patch, but don't forget: in this 1914 scenario Italy has naval fleets that Serbia does not have, Italy has a balloon that Serbia does not have, Italy has 4 infantry-7 garrisons-3 SGs to Serbia's 2 Infantry-5>6 garrisons -1 cav - 3 SGs-1 gun. Italy has 5 tech categories, Serbia 2 and they have to fight for a long time before Italy enters the war and perhaps saving Italy from being invaded earlier than their deployment date. What I am trying to say is: That Italy has a far superior military complex, compared to Serbia's. Yes, sure you can have a cut in Serbia's PP, offset with a greater PP for Italy, however, you can bet that Serbia will be knocked out of the game a lot quicker, resulting in NM loss to Entente, just to give Italy more points. It must be painful to Kirk and the gang, on how to keep this game balanced, yet keep the World War One feel.

[LandMarine47]

The only issue I really have is have the Italians are so easily bankrupt when they enter the war! I'm selling their entire high seas fleet to keep them in the war....

[zokk]

For the sake of playability: I liked Yote's rationality in the above quote. We should all appreciate the evolution of this game, for at least you have a say in it. More than likely Italy will get a boost of some sort in the next patch, but don't forget: in this 1914 scenario Italy has naval fleets that Serbia does not have, Italy has a balloon that Serbia does not have, Italy has 4 infantry-7 garrisons-3 SGs to Serbia's 2 Infantry-5>6 garrisons -1 cav - 3 SGs-1 gun. Italy has 5 tech categories, Serbia 2 and they have to fight for a long time before Italy enters the war and perhaps saving Italy from being invaded earlier than their deployment date. What I am trying to say is: That Italy has a far superior military complex, compared to Serbia's. Yes, sure you can have a cut in Serbia's PP, offset with a greater PP for Italy, however, you can bet that Serbia will be knocked out of the game a lot quicker, resulting in NM loss to Entente, just to give Italy more points. It must be painful to Kirk and the gang, on how to keep this game balanced, yet keep the World War One feel.

I understand that it's difficult to keep things balanced and I appreciate the efforts being made. I agree that the World War I feel is very important to the game. However, part of keeping that feel is maintaining at least some level of historical accuracy. Right now, Italy and Serbia are way out of whack with where they were historically.

[LandMarine47]

I way I see it is, what's the point? The Italians have the tech, but no industry to make what they need, and the Serbians have the industry, but no tech.

[Plaid]

GDP is very poor characteristic for determining country's ability to wage war.

Current values atleast seems based on historical performance.
If Serbia would have less PPs, their frontline will collapse right in 1914 [didn't happen in reality].
If Italy would have more PPs, they will just push into AH as soon as they join [didn't happen in reality].

[LandMarine47]

Still the Italains wouldn't be bankrupt when they enter the war....

[Plaid]

Italians start bankrupt because they have prepurchased lab in each area already. (They did not in older versions).
They deffinetely don't need navy and vehicle. Maybe air too, but not sure.
If you sell them you will get both PP refund and positive income.

[LandMarine47]

Italians start bankrupt because they have prepurchased lab in each area already. (They did not in older versions).
They deffinetely don't need navy and vehicle. Maybe air too, but not sure.
If you sell them you will get both PP refund and positive income.

This would have been Great news, before I disbanded nearly half of Italy's military

[zokk]

GDP is very poor characteristic for determining country's ability to wage war.

Actually, in a war between great powers, and especially in a long war of attrition like WWI, GDP the most important characteristic for determining a country's ability to wage war. There's a really good book entitled "The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers" by Paul Kennedy. It examines international relations and wars between great powers from 1500 to 2000. His primary finding is that in a war between great powers, the side with the stronger economy virtually always wins. The only exception to this is the very rare instance when the smaller side manages to pull off a very quick shock victory- the best example being the Franco-Prussian war. But this is very rare. When two or more great powers fight more than briefly, the deeper pockets always win.

If you still don't think GDP is a good measure of war-waging capacity, then use another measure.
Number of men mobilized: Italy = 5,900,000; Serbia, Romania, Belgium, & Portugal combined = 2,230,000 (roughly 3x as much)
Direct spending on the war: Italy = $12.3 billion; Serbia, Romania, Belgium, & Portugal combined = $4 billion (also roughly 3x as much)

Italy was a great power in 1914. It was the least of the great powers, but it was still considerably stronger than all of the minor allied countries combined.

Current values atleast seems based on historical performance.
If Serbia would have less PPs, their frontline will collapse right in 1914 [didn't happen in reality].
If Italy would have more PPs, they will just push into AH as soon as they join [didn't happen in reality].

I don't think the current values reflect historical performance at all.
Serbia can easily hold out against AH, which isn't historically accurate.
Italy has a very hard time holding AH back, which also isn't historically accurate.

[Plaid]

This would have been Great news, before I disbanded nearly half of Italy's military

You can check in management screen how much upkeep you pay for army and for research. And each power can sustain some number of units without any upkeep at all, so disbanding Italian starting infantry will not increase you income.

[Plaid]

Italy was a great power in 1914. It was the least of the great powers, but it was still considerably stronger than all of the minor allied countries combined.

This is a right point, but look on it from gameplay perspective. Italy has only one narrow front to fight on. If they have income "higher than all of the minor allied countries combined", whey will easily breach AH defenses here probably as soon as 1916 (AH troops are stretched in Serbia and Russia, they can't mount strong defense here).

[operating]

Without a doubt most members are active in SP, those that have not tried MP (then do so) might change their opinion on this economic balance question. For in MP the truth comes out about your playing skills and with what you have to work with, and believe me, Being CP is no picnic. If you want to pile on more points to the Entente nations, Entente will rout CP everytime (as it pretty much does now anyways). Yes, there are historical arguments pertaining to this game, but what's more important is the playability, and that comes in the realm of "balance". Yes, there will be changes to the game, hope there will always be new structure to the game, for once it flatlines, that'll be it, good, bad or indifferent.