Infrastructure costs?

Place bug reports / questions here.

Moderators: Balthagor, Moderators

Post Reply
Message
Author
mrgenie
Brigadier Gen.
Posts: 607
Joined: Jul 08 2008

Infrastructure costs?

#1 Post by mrgenie » Jul 26 2018

I noticed I keep running insane amounts of infrastructure costs in my empire.

although I reduced everything to railroads, and official cots of countries in reality throughout the global point out their
insane highways, waterways, railroads, etc are just a fraction of the costs of the federal governments

In my game they are 50% of my total expenses!

http://www.supremewiki.com/node/25
"Infrastructure is the system of highways and railroads that distributes supply in a region."
Really? Doubt that this is true.
infra2.jpg
So the total cost of railroads is 9M..
infra1.jpg
So 50% of my expenses are infrastructure for just some railroads..


The wiki, and the 2 numbers just don't add up.

Also it's doubtful by just building railroads the costs of infrastructure are 50% of total expenses.

Look at households of the USA, Russia, Germany, etc..

they make up 2% or 3% in reality..
Or back in 1940 where I'm playing even less!

User avatar
number47
General
Posts: 2632
Joined: Sep 15 2011
Human: Yes
Location: X:913 Y:185

Re: Infrastructure costs?

#2 Post by number47 » Jul 27 2018

mrgenie wrote:
Jul 26 2018
I noticed I keep running insane amounts of infrastructure costs in my empire.

although I reduced everything to railroads, and official cots of countries in reality throughout the global point out their
insane highways, waterways, railroads, etc are just a fraction of the costs of the federal governments

In my game they are 50% of my total expenses!

http://www.supremewiki.com/node/25
"Infrastructure is the system of highways and railroads that distributes supply in a region."
Really? Doubt that this is true.

So the total cost of railroads is 9M..


So 50% of my expenses are infrastructure for just some railroads..


The wiki, and the 2 numbers just don't add up.

Also it's doubtful by just building railroads the costs of infrastructure are 50% of total expenses.

Look at households of the USA, Russia, Germany, etc..

they make up 2% or 3% in reality..
Or back in 1940 where I'm playing even less!
I think it's how you "translate" the sentence "Infrastructure is the system of highways and railroads that distributes supply in a region."

You see it as cost of "system of highways and railroads" and I see it as cost of "distributing supply in a region"
Image
"If everyone is thinking alike, someone isn't thinking."
- General George Patton Jr

mrgenie
Brigadier Gen.
Posts: 607
Joined: Jul 08 2008

Re: Infrastructure costs?

#3 Post by mrgenie » Jul 27 2018

number47 wrote:
Jul 27 2018
I think it's how you "translate" the sentence "Infrastructure is the system of highways and railroads that distributes supply in a region."
You see it as cost of "system of highways and railroads" and I see it as cost of "distributing supply in a region"
Ehm, yeah sure, probably you're right. These numbers were however meant as examples of a giant failure in the epenses
system where infrastructure makes up 50% of the expenses of my country.

and you have no doubts this makes up 50% of the federal government expenses?

Image

https://www.cbo.gov/publication/21902

2,4% in the USA

https://de.statista.com/statistik/daten ... -ressorts/
7% in Germany (although in that budget is a lot not just infrastructure related as well)

We're talking about 2018! Back in 1918-1940 both roads and railroads didn't have the double, triple and more lanes and railways we have today
also they didn't have the expensive high speed.
also they didn't have highways.

These % back then were a lot lower.

Actually the whole tax was a lot lower and states were able to finance themselves.

50% is just WAY too much.

User avatar
number47
General
Posts: 2632
Joined: Sep 15 2011
Human: Yes
Location: X:913 Y:185

Re: Infrastructure costs?

#4 Post by number47 » Jul 27 2018

mrgenie wrote:
Jul 27 2018
Ehm, yeah sure, probably you're right. These numbers were however meant as examples of a giant failure in the epenses
system where infrastructure makes up 50% of the expenses of my country.

and you have no doubts this makes up 50% of the federal government expenses?

Image

https://www.cbo.gov/publication/21902

2,4% in the USA

https://de.statista.com/statistik/daten ... -ressorts/
7% in Germany (although in that budget is a lot not just infrastructure related as well)

We're talking about 2018! Back in 1918-1940 both roads and railroads didn't have the double, triple and more lanes and railways we have today
also they didn't have the expensive high speed.
also they didn't have highways.

These % back then were a lot lower.

Actually the whole tax was a lot lower and states were able to finance themselves.

50% is just WAY too much.
I agree with you but isn't those 50% your choice? It's only because you killed spending on environment, family sub, law enforcement,cultural sub and social assistance...max all of them (to the same level as health care, education and infrastructure) and see how much % goes to infrastructure than :wink:
Image
"If everyone is thinking alike, someone isn't thinking."
- General George Patton Jr

mrgenie
Brigadier Gen.
Posts: 607
Joined: Jul 08 2008

Re: Infrastructure costs?

#5 Post by mrgenie » Jul 27 2018

wow, maxing them all is impossible in this game without going bankrupt :)

But even so, that's not the point either, stick to healthcare to compare.. I spend in the game about 3 times more on infrastructure as health care to achieve health care 100% and infrastructure 100% ..

In reality, the health care cost a government a hell of a lot more.

https://www.destatis.de/DE/ZahlenFakten ... gaben.html
so between 350 and 400 billion is spend each year on health care in Germany.

but as my figures pointed out above, on infrastructure in reality the German government, we can assume both would be 100% in Germany because they have good infrastructure and good health care for everyone,
pays only 27 billion, compared to the 350 on healty care.

Health care in Belgium, Netherlands, USA isn't cheaper as in Germany. Most western countries pretty much at same levels or spend in case of USA even more on health care.

And 27/350 = factor 13.

So in reality an economy spends 13 times more on health care as on infrastructure to achieve something around 100% for both..
In game it's the other way around, I spend 3 times more on infrastructure.

So the wrong values are kinda like 3*13 roughly 40 times off from reality.

And when I look at GDP of countries 1920, 1930, 1940 I'd say the health care cost related to economical % is kinda just fine and well balanced..

infrastructure cost thus is 40 times higher as what it should be.

way2co0l
Brigadier Gen.
Posts: 686
Joined: Nov 29 2010
Human: Yes

Re: Infrastructure costs?

#6 Post by way2co0l » Jul 27 2018

How large is your controlled land area? Infrastructure includes more than just the visible roads/rails on the map. There are all kinds of lesser infrastructure not accounted for with visual map displays which is what that infrastructure cost represents. The larger your territory, the more that cost will balloon. It's a particularly expensive area to increase for Russia for example, which often forces me to spend less in the area than I'd like. But I feel this is realistic.

dax1
Colonel
Posts: 465
Joined: Apr 05 2012
Human: Yes
Location: Italy

Re: Infrastructure costs?

#7 Post by dax1 » Jul 27 2018

way2co0l wrote:
Jul 27 2018
How large is your controlled land area? Infrastructure includes more than just the visible roads/rails on the map. There are all kinds of lesser infrastructure not accounted for with visual map displays which is what that infrastructure cost represents. The larger your territory, the more that cost will balloon. It's a particularly expensive area to increase for Russia for example, which often forces me to spend less in the area than I'd like. But I feel this is realistic.
exactly that...you can think to roads into the cities...you don't see on the map..
Con forza ed ardimento

mrgenie
Brigadier Gen.
Posts: 607
Joined: Jul 08 2008

Re: Infrastructure costs?

#8 Post by mrgenie » Jul 28 2018

People, all your arguments about "everything" thats counted into infrastructure is valid and true and known by me.

- Doesn't change the fact that questioning the description on the wiki in that case is valid too. It means in the wiki
it should state that it's not just raods and railroads but also covered invisible infrastructural costs like water
supply to the people, power supply lines, roads in cities, villages, distribution of goods away from the railroads and roads that are
actually made visible in the game.

- 2nd, even in Russia today (and yes I lived in Russia quite a few years) I can drive with my car from the east to the west
and back in 1940 the Russians also had railroads throughout the land and units didn't get stuck in the middle so their infrastructure
is good enough to move from east to west without getting stuck.

- the cost of infrastructure in Russia, and infrastructure good enough to get from east to west, are also just as in western countries
just a fraction of the cost of healthcare.

These 3 valid points are just as valid as your argument which is covered by the first argument that in such case simply wiki should
be updated but all of these arguments don't even scratch argument 2 and 3.

way2co0l
Brigadier Gen.
Posts: 686
Joined: Nov 29 2010
Human: Yes

Re: Infrastructure costs?

#9 Post by way2co0l » Jul 28 2018

I understand that, and I'm really not trying to be argumentative at all. I just know that when it comes to the wiki, there are probably thousands of tiny minor inaccuracies that need updated or simply added in the first place. If I have the choice between them adding something new in game, and spending all their time updating minor things that could just be answered by users, then I'd prefer the former. As long as the wiki is close enough and the gaps can be filled in, or until we can get some new wiki contributors to fix it for them, then I would much rather that they focus on in game content even at the cost of less than perfect information.

As for your other points, I can definitely see your point as well, and I know you won't like my answer to it, but again I feel like it is what it is. lol. But sometimes they have to make gameplay decisions, even when those decisions aren't 100% accurate. The way the social spending is done, some of them are better than others, but there is only one that is 100% of the time better to keep as close to max as you possibly can. That is infrastructure. The benefits it provides to the military and just general effects on employment and GDP just from the slider setting alone, but also the effect that this improved infrastructure has on your supply network and your resource productivity. There is never a case where you will willingly want to have infrastructure spending at a subpar level if you can reasonably afford to do otherwise. Any savings are offset by harm to your economy that the other sliders just don't match.

Basically, infrastructure is special, and requires additional balancing. Now yes, I'd agree that the choice they made to expense is a rather brute forced way to balance it and I'd prefer a different approach, but any other approach would be more difficult and would ultimately mean that any work might be done in other projects now won't be, all to fix something that is already good enough at the moment. At least in my opinion. The benefits to infrastructure are balanced around the additional cost. If we want to change that balance, we will have to decide what project on their current list is now going to be pushed down in order to make those balance changes possible. My opinion is that the current balance, while not ideal, is good enough, and I'd rather not push down other priorities in order to have it changed.

I completely respect if your opinion is different from mine on this. I'm not saying you're wrong. The cost is definitely disproportionately high. It also feels less than realistic in many ways. I just feel like it's an adequate enough balance decision to be fine with it.

I also want to apologize if it seems like I'm trying to lecture you or something. lol. You've been around even longer than I have. I definitely don't mean to be lectury or condescending when I provide my opinions. More than anything else, I just try to be overly thorough in an effort to make sure that there's no confusion on what I mean, and because I feel it's a benefit to newer players that browse these topics now and in the future. It's useful for them to find this information, information which as you've pointed out isn't entirely accurate on the wiki and that they might not otherwise know. I know I can sometimes come off as superior or whatnot, but I just wanted to take the opportunity to clarify that it's not my intent at all. I'm just trying to be thorough. :)

Post Reply

Return to “Issues and Support”