Stinking Cities: Selling the Sewers?

[PinkyGen]

General Secretary Knapovich has requested that I, currently as Assistant Economic Minister, for my first task evaluate the possibility of disbanding our sewer systems in order to raise revenue in defense of the Rodina. Undoubtly, this will result in smelly cities, unsanitary conditions, and probably the outbreak of all kinds of diseases we haven't seen since the Tsar's time, but hey, sacrifices need to be made.

More importantly, the question is whether it would harm city growth to disband sewer systems in all or some of the cities. Food is easily gathered in the summer, but cities lose food in the winter, so some cities might be even. Also, some might just be growing slowly.

According to my numbers, we currently have 6 sewer systems, at 2 rubles each. (Using shorthand for clarity). It costs 12 rubles to maintain each turn, something I consider rather small. On the other hand, they will sell for 120 rubles.

Cities with sewers:
Lenningrad (17), Moscow (20?), Stalingrad(20), Sevastpol (16), Vorenezh (only a size 7 City!!!!) Sverdelosk (size 8).

Sell all, some, or keep all. I intend to evaluate the situation more carefully, and compare winter and summer intake, but I wanted this to be posted now to get suggestions. So far, it looks as though I should at least sell for Vorenezh and Sverdelosk, though these cities do take in a lot of food.

[PinkyGen]

Food intake, summer, then winter.

Moscow: 35, -13
Leningrad: 5, -4
Stalingrad: 21, -7
Sevastpol: 12, 0
Vorenezh: 11, 1 (note, also a threatened city)
Sverlodvsk: 23, 0.

Summer lasts from May-November. 7 months.
Winter December-April: 5 months


Moscow: We do not have to worry about starving, as summer more than makes up for winter losses. Moscow is also using every square, with a lot of excess workers either as tax collectors or entertainers (maybe a few more should go from entertainer to tax colelctor). Assuming we don't really need any more of these people, the place is safe to sell.

Leningrad: Not using all squares, and has a very small net surplus per turn. Has a decent amount in storage, 1/5th of the way until next growth. The city is growing very slowly, so there does not seem to be much benefit to the sewers. It won't starve so long as the net surplus is maintained. However, does the front commander (I believe it's Henrik) change it's collection often?

Stalingrad: Not using every square, but any additional square only brings in food, no industry or trade. Thus, we gain nothing except a larger population to possibly make entertainers or tax collectors, and indeed, these fields lie fallow on purpose. (note, some of these existing entertainers can easily be changed to tax collectors, no unhappy people in city). Unless we want more entertainers, scientists, or tax men, we can easily sell here.

Sevastpol: Food surplus, unusued squares, and has two entertainers. Ocean squares can still be tilled to give trade and industry, and I don't really know why those entertainers are there. One can be changed before getting, changing two gets unhappiness. Even if both are changed, still empty ocean squares, and we can always reconvert the minefield as well. We may wish to keep this one.

Vorenezh: Food surplus summer and winter, (indeed, whomever is controlling recources there should take advantage of the suburbs). Can grow fairly quickly. On the other hand, it won't approach size 12 for a while, and the city is threatened by the Germans. I say sell it, and we can reconsider rebuilding it later a few years later if we wish to when the city starts approaching 12.

Sverdlosk: Food surplus in summer, no loss in winter. Growing much faster than Voreneh, and is being transformed into much more of an industrial city by the armaments minister. However, the city has probably still a while until it reaches size 12, and it can quickly rebuild a sewer system if need be. However, it is growing faster than Voreneh, and unthreatened. I would like to see input from the new armamaments minister Greeny on this.

Initial recommendations: Sell Moscow, Leningrad, Stalingrad, Vorenezeh.
Keep Sevastpol, and possibly keep Sverdlosk.

I await further input from my comrades before forming the final verdict.

Edit: In regard to these commendations of selling in 4 cities and keeping the other two, I would ask if the Marshall, using his godlike powers (though he is not god, since we have happy atheism here) could add the option of selling in Moscow, Leningrad, Stalignrad, and Voreneh only as an option to the poll.

[conmcb25]

Very nice analysis Pinkygenovitch! This is exactly what I was looking for!

Our mod has minimal powers I dont know if he can change a poll or not?

We might have to start another poll based on your increased analysis.

[Xenozod]

If he cannot edit the poll, then people who want to sell those in Moscow, Leningrad, Stalingrad, and Vorenezeh only could vote 'other' and post as so. We probably don't need to create another poll.

Good job Comrade Pinkygenovitch.

[Six Thousand Year Old Man]

I'm somewhat appalled that they haven't been sold already, comrades. And the aqueducts as well!

This isn't a high score game, this is total war! The materials making up these superfluous improvements could be used to fuel our war machine.

A size 8 city is perfectly capable of producing a KV-1 or Shturmovik every 2 months, with the right combination of industry and steel mill. We don't need the additional growth, we need rubles, badly!

Moreover, I suggest, comrades, that we consider selling markets and banks, in all but our biggest cities, if they haven't been sold already. These capitalist edifices do not serve us well, except in large cities and oil rich ones.

[PinkyGen]

Agreed, no new poll seems needed. If you wish to endorse some other plan, vote other and put your city list below, preferably with a reason.

[Henrik]

The sewer systems might be ok (Leningrad won't be growing a lot under my rule...) but please leave the markets and banks alone

[Shaka Naldur]

I agree with Henrik
also i think that Vorozneh can still grow up a lot and with a few labor brigade we can have a big city but if the money is needed....

[Six Thousand Year Old Man]

Originally posted by Henrik
The sewer systems might be ok (Leningrad won't be growing a lot under my rule...) but please leave the markets and banks alone

I'd agree, regarding markets and banks in larger cities, or in the 4 oilfield cities.

However, we have markets and banks (and libraries and universities) in cities that don't produce enough rubles/beakers to justify them. Sell 'em off.

We are a lean, mean, war machine, comrades.

[PinkyGen]

It seems to me that markets and banks usually pay for themselves unless the city is pitfully small and has a bank in it.

As for finances, I'm not sure if we are horribly stressed for cash, we do have the convoys coming in, so don't feel as though a front is going to collapse if we don't do this. On the other hand, it will give us the ability to pay for some nice things.

[Bossy20000]

I wouldn't sell them, because we don't really NEED the money. It would be helpful to have more cash, but we won't lose the war without it. the upkeep isn't too much, and we could keep it for when we really need the money some time. We could see it as a crystalised cash reserve.
If we should sell one, it would be the one in Voronezh, because it is a front city and won't grow fast enough to make it worth it. I consider this as the city with the most bananas

[PinkyGen]

I agree with you Bossy, except I think some of them are just useless, as the city won't be growing anymore, is using all the squares, like Moscow and Leningrad. To me, there seems to be no point in keeping them, as Leningrad won't be growing and in a city like Moscow all you'll get are more taxmen, entertainers, or scientists, which has marginal uses.

BTW: Who controls conversion of entertainers to taxmen or scientists. Econ Minister, front commander, armamanents?

[Six Thousand Year Old Man]

Originally posted by PinkyGen
It seems to me that markets and banks usually pay for themselves unless the city is pitfully small and has a bank in it.

We might be better off with a large lump sum now, rather than a stream of payments into the future. Remember, comrade, the war will not last 3 more years (36 turns) in all likelihood. The lump sum may well be more rubles, than the market will produce in that time. And with that lump sum, we can rushbuy improvements needed immediately (like airports, steel mills, tanks, Kollektivs, etc).

[greeny]

Originally posted by PinkyGen
BTW: Who controls conversion of entertainers to taxmen or scientists. Econ Minister, front commander, armamanents?

It's technicaly the Economic Minister, although some people have been changing them by thier own initative (which I didn't realy have a problem with )

[conmcb25]

Pinkygenovitch.

How much does it cost to maintain market and a bank?

What the break even points for having each in a city?

This might be something we can look into for smaller cities but I believe we sold most of the banks already.

Take a look at this as well.

In general I think if we can sell something sell it and develop the urals or our newer front cities or build Sturmoviks or Katyusha's. We can always use more of those! As well as KV-1's and AA's, ect etc etc.