Research & Development Policy
Historical Progression
If you do not wish to engage in active development of customized units, or accelerate the development of real-life ones, then you simply have to wait until the units entered production in real life. This means that technology actions are not a required aspect of the game.
If you choose this route, funding for the programs is considered to already be paid for by your normal military budget.
Player-Led Development
If you wish to:
- Actively develop custom units
- Bring prototypes that never entered service into service
- Change the timelines on real-life units
Then you will need to adhere to the following rules.
Note: Research and development takes time—sometimes decades. We are enforcing more realistic development timelines to ensure long-term survivability of the round.
Additionally, these programs will be funded through new spending, as they are not part of historical spending bills approved by your government.
Long Term Programs
Long-term actions are preferred and include:
- Multi-part projects
- Programs like the space race
- Yearly development milestones
Example: Modifications to a long-term tank development action.
Tip: Always include milestone dates and provide unit specifications where applicable.
Single Unit Programs
These focus on the development of specific units.
Be sure to include:
- Estimated unit costs
- Program costs
- Due dates
- Full specifications or at least the government’s requirements
Costs
The R&D program budget is set by the player. Use real-world sources for estimates.
- Lowballing: Risks project failure or major delays.
- Overspending: Won’t typically refund you, but may offer extra benefits (e.g. civilian tech spinoffs).
- Cost Overruns: Should be expected and planned for.
Results
Outcomes vary depending on action complexity:
- Simple Actions: Like reboring a rifle caliber, are quick and low-risk.
- Complex Projects: Like nuclear weapons or space programs, may have serious consequences and require multiple contingencies.
Results are determined by:
- Action quality
- Included contingencies
- Governing military statistics
Command Economies: Guns vs Butter
In command economies, R&D and military expansion do not appear as simple budget line items. Instead, they draw directly from sectors of the economy, representing the “guns vs butter” trade-off more realistically.
Sectoral Resource Allocation
Actions such as R&D, production, and troop increases will affect specific economic sectors:
- Infantry Increases: Draw primarily from agriculture (largest labor pool).
- Tanks and Armored Vehicles: Pull heavily from heavy industry.
- Small Arms Production: Impacts metallurgy sectors.
- R&D Programs: Pull resources from education and healthcare (e.g. engineers and PhDs diverted from teaching, medicine, etc).
Strategic Consequences
Command economies like the USSR can undertake large-scale initiatives, but at a cost:
- Economic Growth: May slow due to diversion of productive labor to non-productive military work.
- Education/Innovation: Over-prioritization of R&D weakens future capacity as fewer experts are trained.
Example: A major increase in personnel dedicated to space programs may see a reduction in the availability of professors providing education to new students.
Planning & Trade-offs
Players managing command economies must submit:
- Expected economic sectors affected
- Projected impact on growth and productivity
- Justification for prioritizing military goals over civilian needs
- Expected long-term economic benefits if any from such program
Moderators will factor in these trade-offs when processing actions.