I suppose its all a matter on how you see things.
Yes, i rant -> but one must wonder what fostered that.
I did not ignore your post in the 1936 thread -> it just didn't add any value to the thread or answer the question. YOu stated logically how the economy *should* work. Fact is, it does not work like that in the BG world.
Even your advice in this thread, while sound in the real world, has no bearing on the BG world. Just do a simple test -> Take a small country, sell ALL your production facilities with all other things unchanged *and locked* -> and magically watch your unemployment decrease. You'd expect it to increase.. .afterall, the people have no jobs now?? That test alone tells me the amount of production facilities on the map has no effect on your employment levels (the gov't spending during the building process *might* have an effect on it). Does employment level have any effect at all? During the same test, after all production facilities are sold, simply adjust your spending slider from one extreme to the other, and watch the magic work.
I've played the game(s) long enough too -> i've listened to all kinds of player advice, only to find out in the course of playing the game that its total speculation and often downright false. Its frustrating (which is one source of my rants, i suppose). So the solution is NOT to ask more advice of players who just have more theories and real world examples. I want (yes, i "demand") the actual game mechanics. I've also asked the same on how combat works a long time ago. All i got was player theories and speculation. It seems this game's main feature is *hokus pokus*. As long as the player *thinks* everything is working as planned, everyones happy, eh?
This is incorrect. Global unemployment tends to correct almost instantly, due to a HUGE number of factors, most of which are beyond your control, and beyond your observation without loading as other regions via multiplayer, etc. Examples include:
Underfunded health care/family subsidy: population decline due to deaths exceeding births, unhappy people emigrating > less workers.
Overfunded anything: workers absorbed by service sectors > less workers.
Lower taxes > happy people, service sectors expand, immigration increases, > more workers, but not as many as you might expect without experience/analysis.
Increased military salaries > working age people leave factories in droves for higher paying defense jobs > less workers
Decreased military salaries > more workers, but decline in GDP stimulates emigration
Your problem is that you want to tweak X and get Y. The economic simulation is set up so that A, B, C, D... on through X all factor into Y. We can give you guidelines, we can elaborate on specific questions, but in order to understand the entire economy, you need to test almost all of the entire facets of the game to see all the effects, and even then you'll never see them ALL. There are just too many combinations.
Let me toss out another example, this time with a formula. Production efficiency is based on technology, loyalty, and supply level. It looks something like this (unless Battlegoat has changed something under the hood and we haven't caught on yet):
((0.5*supply level) + (0.5*is_loyal) + (cumulative_production_bonii))*base_output=effective_output
Let's say you have a widget factory. It is located in occupied territory that you conquered from a neighbor. The local supply level is 62%. It's theoretical output is 187 widgets per day. Since it is conquered, "is_loyal" has a value of 0. We have no tech bonii to widget production, as we are not yet far enough into the tech tree (also, widgets are not in the game and are made up for this example.) Plug in our numbers, we get:
((0.5*.62) + (0.5*0) + (0.5*0))*187 = 57.97 widgets per day.
Now, let's say I built the same widget factory a short distance outside my capital. The hex will be loyal, and I can expect higher supply levels, say 90%.
((0.5 * .90) + (0.5 * 1) + (0.5 * 0))*187 = 177.65 widgets per day.
Now, note that my second example carries the same manpower/employee requirement as the first, and as it is closer to my capital where supply is higher, will likely have lower infrastructure costs as well. The difference in efficiency is staggering, meaning I will have all at once much higher output, slightly lower costs, vastly greater profits, and quite likely higher sustained GDP/c. Once you understand this, you see that you want to always have every single unit of production possible on loyal territory rather than on occupied, unless you literally have no other choice. It does not take long for it to be profitable for you to scrap captured consumer goods factories and use the industrial goods recover to rebuild the factory back in home territory.
This also leads to an interesting strategy choice when considering annex/liberate/colonize. Colonies only get land that is loyal to them. You can begin construction in a colony, and they will complete it if they have the money and industrial goods to do so. They will give you anything they produce which is surplus to their needs. What this means is that you can conquer land, build on it, then get the full value of the production rather than the nerfed disloyal output, and the colony eats the production costs. This means that one of the fastest, surest ways in the game to get filthy stinking rich is to acquire and industrialize your colonies to provide your people with expensive goods that you didn't have to pay for.