Brad Wardell's site for talking about the customization of Windows.

With GalCiv III v1.4, we’ve removed the per planet production wheel.   You can read more about that here.

This has sparked a lively debate on just how much control a player should have on their economy. 

Planet Specialization

Planets in Galactic Civilizations III can be specialized much more than in previous versions.  An industrial world, through adjacencies, can result in massive bonus manufacturing.  However, on top of that, players can direct their citizens to work more in those factories via the global production wheel (and previously the local production wheel).

So let’s talk about what that actually means.

Command Economies

By default, your citizens work at whatever jobs are available on your planets. 

If you live in the West (USA, Europe, Japan, etc.) you are free to choose the job you want.

image

By default, your citizens work the jobs they want.

 

image

Earth in 2251. M:23, R:15, W:9: Total of 47

So in this model, Earth is producing 23.7 quadrillion tons of manufactured goods, 15.1 units of research, and is generating taxable income of 8.7T credits (for GalCiv III we’ve gotten rid of the units of measurement).

However, new to GalCiv III is the concept of being able to FORCE people to work certain jobs.   That is, I can draft people to go work in the factories or in the labs or raise their taxes:

image

Through the production wheel, I can make people to  work in the factories, raise their taxes or help out in the labs.

In every previous GalCiv, if you raised taxes, there was a corresponding morale penalty.  We don’t have that here because it was decided it was too convoluted to have it just for taxes.  However, what we really should have considered is that it’s not that people hate taxes per se, they had COERCION.  They don’t like their government controlling their activity.  If my taxes are 50%, for instance, that means 50% of the time I’m working FOR the government.

When I move my wheel to 100% manufacturing I’m conscripting my citizens to work in the factory and I get a corresponding boost to manufacturing:

image

Now, I get 70.8, 0, –3.6.  You’ll note that this number if much MUCH higher. Total: 67.

Note that in this example, my morale is still 78%.  In GalCiv II, if you raised your taxes to 100%, your morale would plummet unless you invested heavily into things to keep them happy.  But in GalCiv III, there’s no penalty at all for setting manufacturing to 100%. 

I understand why people like the production wheel

Imagine if in GalCIv II we let people set their taxes to 100% and there was no downside to this.  Now, imagine if we put out GalCiv II v1.4 and we made it so you couldn’t change taxes.  People would have been ticked off.  Understandably.  But I hope also that people would understand that such a system is broken.  There’s no such thing a a free lunch.

Ending the Free Lunch

I’ve had a lot of time to think about the production wheel.  By reading the forums, at length, I’ve gotten a much better idea of what the issue really is.  It’s the free lunch aspect of the production wheel I don’t like.  In the real world, command economies don’t do well against free markets in the long-run.  But in GalCiv III, they’re absolutely the way to go.  The problem ISN’T the wheel on its own (I don’t like the micro management but I have no issue with people voluntarily choosing to play that way).  The problem is that you get to coerce people without any downside.

How I’d like to solve this

First, the Terran Alliance won’t support the command economy.  That is, you won’t be able to set tax policy on a per planet basis as the Terran Alliance.  However, a new racial trait called “Command Economy” can be added that will be part of the Yor.  The Yor aren’t mindless robots but unlike humans, they can be micro-managed in ways that humans can’t.

Second, we will introduce the concept of COERCION into the system.

How Coercion would work

Let’s say your planet is producing 11 units of goods and services (as seen in the screenshot below). 

What coercion would do is that for every point above 33 your maximum focus is, you’d diminish those goods by a percent. 

Example: Let’s say I set Manufacturing to 100%.  That’s 67% above the 33% natural rate.  Your goods and services would then be multiplied by (1 – 0.67).  Thus, I would suddenly only get 4 goods and services and I would thus take an overall production penalty.  In this example, instead of getting 70.8 manufacturing I’d only get around 50 and my planet’s population would grow slower.  But it’s still massively above  the 23 that is the default.

image

Right now, your approval is based on the goods you provide per citizen.

 

image

Random example explaining coercion.

image

How the UI would communicate this

Similarly, civilizations with a command economy could set it on a per planet basis but it would work the same, you could just micro it on a per planet basis if you wanted.

NOW, let’s talk about the future

Eventually, GalCiv III is going to have a bunch of different types of governments to choose from.  The reason the Economy tab is done the way it is is because it’s been designed with the idea that eventually the type of government you have will determine what shows up in that tab.   So one type of government might have a bunch of sliders, another might have almost no controls, another might have players choosing a series of subsidy policies and so on.  For now, we just have the production wheel. But it’s never been intended to be the end-all be all.  

So when?

I’d like to see this change put into 1.5 or sooner.   It’ll take a little balancing to make sure pacing isn’t hosed. But ultimately, it will result in a much more balanced, less…arbitrary economy and allow us to justify more types of planetary improvements, super projects and other goodies that offset this.

Oh, and we can get rid of the large empire penalty too since it won’t be needed under this system.


Comments (Page 1)
on Oct 31, 2015

naselus


Quoting Dracul_JOSHI,

Well, if it's going to be a race trait it should impart some level of advantage, so it would have to be better.


Every Trait give you an unfair advantage compared to those that don't have them... that's their entire point.

The only real question is, HOW strong this advantage can/should be.



 

Well, that's the problem - it can be a bit better, but nearly doubling output is insanely OP. But strength is relative, and the strength of focuses is variable. It's attempting to hit a moving target. You'd be looking at something around 30% reduction in production at a minimum, just to bring it in to line with the costings model, and even that might not be enough. 

 


Quoting Dracul_JOSHI,
One thought I was playing around with, was making the local wheel race trait cost 2 trait points, making it the whole point of the race in question. This would greatly balance it, because it would basically be the equivalent of (Patriotic & Prolific) picked together.



 

It's still much more powerful than any 2 existing traits combined without some kind of big hefty raw production nerf attached to it (and even with such a thing, any source of raw production, like techs or wonders, would be substantially more valuable to the wheel users). 

 

Also, although it's a bit off-topic, I do think that just about everything on the race design screen should have different points costs anyway - some stats are just more valuable in-game than others, so having them all on equal pricing when picking traits and abilities is problematic. I'd consolidate all the points int one pool, and just allow you to pick 2 abilities and as many traits as you liked - but have everything cost as many points as it was genuinely worth. 



Quoting Dracul_JOSHI,

From a setting standpoint, I also considered, that a race with it really shouldn't have this kind of approval mechanic. Basically, I was thinking, that just like the synthetic trait that replaced food and overpopulation with an assembly project and energy resources, the wheel trait could replace approval with a strength-of-control type thing, where they would be able to build a building and starbase module that raises the value to prevent it from being influenced(or hacked) by other civilizations. furthermore, a low value would cause inefficiency (meaning reduced output) while a high value would increase efficiency (100% Control equaling to the wheel prior to 1.4)

The only problem would be, that it would require a new 'Control' Tech Tree as well as a change to the Yor Tech Tree.

 



Could mostly just use approval still, tbh. The underlying mechanic you're describing is exactly the same. As an added bonus, since Raw production bonuses are higher for wheel-use, that also means any penalty to raw production is also higher (like the one that comes from low approval). Just re-label it in the interface. You could set up alternative building sets for the race easily enough and just tag them into the equivalent techs for the normal approval stuff, then locked races with the trait from getting stadiums etc. You could then use those alternative buildings to make the wheel races much, much more approval-dependent.

 

Getting the production balance right is the central problem, and is pretty insurmountable. The funny thing is, the easiest way to deal with it is resetting Focuses to 100%. Once that happens, suddenly production on both sides balances again... but it does kind of raise the question as to what benefit there is to removing the wheel in the first place.

 

It wouldn't be the same as approval, actually.

The reason for that is, that if you colonize a world outside of your usual range of influences, you effectively have no control (0) over it, which means you can't build anything, you can't decide what it produces and it will still cost you maintenance for anything it builds and uses at RANDOM!

On the same note, ships (except for tiny fighters and/or Drones) wouldn't work outside your zone of influenceunless build with a quantum-receiver. Which would probably cost and weight the same amount as a colony/spacestation module. And fighters won't work outside unless you accompany them with a bigger ship that does.

oh, and obviously no LEP. But I don't think that would be an issue, since the control mechanic prevents quick expansion in favour of steady expansion.

Also, maybe the wheel CAN come back for all races, but only those with control can shift on a dime... while regular races would have to shift gradually over time. (taking approximately 50 turn to switch from 100% to another 100%)

on Oct 31, 2015

The coercion thing sounds good...

 

But I think it would be nice if there was a trait that made that a non-issue... again, for races like the Borg.

 

One way to do that from my previous idea, would be to separate the wheel trait and the body-control within territory (that replaces approval with control)trait into two, one for each trait point.

 

 I would say 'Dominance' for the wheel and 'Control' for the other.

 

Also, how does the 'choose a form of government' make sense? Unless you choose an empire, you, as the player, shouldn't be able to input ANYTHING. Regardless of whether it's what buildings to build, what ships to make, where to build starbase etc.... basically, the game would have to play itself without you... UNLESS you're an emperor. (which is not inherently bad, Tyrant is the word for the bad guys)

on Oct 31, 2015

"But in GalCiv III, there’s no penalty at all for setting manufacturing to 100%. "


This is incorrect.  By setting manufacturing (or wealth/research) to 100%, there is a corresponding decrease in the opposite corresponding resources (wealth/research, etc.) of that planet.


So if you make that planet have 100% manufacturing, then you aren't going to get jack squat for money or research from it.  That's the balance already inherent in the system which you are ignoring here.

 

on Oct 31, 2015

Mashintao


"But in GalCiv III, there’s no penalty at all for setting manufacturing to 100%. "





This is incorrect.  By setting manufacturing (or wealth/research) to 100%, there is a corresponding decrease in the opposite corresponding resource (wealth/research, etc.).

 

Positive.

And I also think, from what the problem description gave us, the problem was that they set the costs before seeing the potential production.

Put simply, just inflating the cost for everything would have probably minimized the effect of the wheel... doesn't mean it can't be implemented better though.

on Oct 31, 2015

So when you play the Yor you will get the same issues as before.I just think it should stay scrapped.Nobody will care in 5 mins and just get on the game.

on Oct 31, 2015

Mashintao


"But in GalCiv III, there’s no penalty at all for setting manufacturing to 100%. "





This is incorrect.  By setting manufacturing (or wealth/research) to 100%, there is a corresponding decrease in the opposite corresponding resources (wealth/research, etc.) of that planet.




So if you make that planet have 100% manufacturing, then you aren't going to get jack squat for money or research from it.  That's the balance already inherent in the system which you are ignoring here.

That's not true in reality though.  If my total planet production is 47 when balanced but goes to 71 when put to 100% on manufacturing, that's not a penalty.  If you wanted it to be truly reasonable, it would be 47 on manufacturing, not 71.

on Oct 31, 2015

Ashbery76

So when you play the Yor you will get the same issues as before.I just think it should stay scrapped.Nobody will care in 5 mins and just get on the game.

No, the coercion change will affect all players. It addresses the imbalance both globally and locally.  But for players who want to micro their planets, they can have at it.

on Oct 31, 2015

Mashintao


"But in GalCiv III, there’s no penalty at all for setting manufacturing to 100%. "





This is incorrect.  By setting manufacturing (or wealth/research) to 100%, there is a corresponding decrease in the opposite corresponding resources (wealth/research, etc.) of that planet.




So if you make that planet have 100% manufacturing, then you aren't going to get jack squat for money or research from it.  That's the balance already inherent in the system which you are ignoring here.

 

 

In fact, the current system works with the logic of INCENTIVE.  You are lowering taxes to encourage people to work in the industrial (or technology) sector.  It makes perfect sense. 

My point: you don't need COERCION to justify the current system.  

 

Why make things more complicated than they need to be?  Nobody likes when things get too messy.

 


 

EDIT:

Here's my suggestion.  Get rid of the wheel and replace it with two separate sliders, each with a pro/con.  You can call it coercion for the evil races and incentive for the good races - whatever.   For balance reasons, the affect of the production sliders should be only a minor modification of the base value.  So changing the Economic coercion/incentive to 100% Industry would change a value of 23 to something more like 30-40.  By changing the value farther from the 50%/50% state, you receive increasingly greater penalty to wealth and/or morale.


 

on Oct 31, 2015

Mashintao


Quoting Mashintao,



"But in GalCiv III, there’s no penalty at all for setting manufacturing to 100%. "






This is incorrect.  By setting manufacturing (or wealth/research) to 100%, there is a corresponding decrease in the opposite corresponding resources (wealth/research, etc.) of that planet.




So if you make that planet have 100% manufacturing, then you aren't going to get jack squat for money or research from it.  That's the balance already inherent in the system which you are ignoring here.

 



 

In fact, the current system works with the logic of INCENTIVE.  You are lowering taxes to encourage people to work in the industrial (or technology) sector.  It makes perfect sense. 

My point: you don't need COERCION to justify the current system.  

 

Why make things more complicated than they need to be?  Nobody likes when things get too messy.

Right now you can set your wealth creation to 100%. That's 100% taxes. You can force your people to work in the factories at 100%. You can make them work in the labs at 100%. That's coercion.

Like I said in the topic. I'm sure plenty of people would be unhappy if GalCiv II introduced a morale penalty for 100% taxation after it released.  But the idea that a planet can go from 23 to 71 right off the bat with the flick of a wheel without a single downside is just not going to work.

on Oct 31, 2015

Dracul_JOSHI

It wouldn't be the same as approval, actually.

 

That wouldn't, no. But then, that's nothing like the mechanic as you originally outlined it, which was completely identical to approval(down to increased output at high levels and reduced output at low levels, and the direct effect on influence), so I'm not sure how you expected anyone to infer this 'no control' thing.

 

 

Anyway, to discuss the topic at hand.

 

This frankly seems like a bizarre U-turn after a month and a half of strident declarations that the wheel had to go because micromanagement, or is it flavour, or is it balance, and the cascade of posts yesterday about how the wheel was never coming back to the main game. I can follow the reasoning - hell I even agree with it - but tbh I'm not particularly comfortable with this sudden massive change of direction adopting an semi-formed drop-of-a-hat idea Brad read about 18 hours ago into the core of 1.5, completely reverting a changes introduced in 1.4. Surely this is basically just going to piss off the half of the community who have been running around telling us what a great idea taking the wheel out was? This makes the game's ongoing development appear confused, arbitrary and directionless, with sudden wild experiments being thrown into the game half-formed in a knee-jerk reaction to a crisis that was essentially created by exactly the same sort of behaviour?

 

Don't get me wrong; I like the idea of different governments having different economic systems etc (not so much the race trait thing really, since there's no reason humans wouldn't try communism - a fairly large portion of the planet's population were quite taken with the idea for nearly a century, after all), and I love the idea of getting the wheel back. But might it not be wiser to leave it with the toggle for now and then just bring the wheel back into the main game once a full-on, properly balance government module is ready for inclusion? You made a sudden, massive change to the game. Leaving it to settle for a month or two might be a better course of action before essentially reverting it.

on Oct 31, 2015

naselus


Quoting Dracul_JOSHI,

It wouldn't be the same as approval, actually.



 

That wouldn't, no. But then, that's nothing like the mechanic as you originally outlined it, which was completely identical to approval(down to increased output at high levels and reduced output at low levels, and the direct effect on influence), so I'm not sure how you expected anyone to infer this 'no control' thing.

 

 

Anyway, to discuss the topic at hand.

 

This frankly seems like a bizarre U-turn after a month and a half of strident declarations that the wheel had to go because micromanagement, or is it flavour, or is it balance, and the cascade of posts yesterday about how the wheel was never coming back to the main game. I can follow the reasoning - hell I even agree with it - but tbh I'm not particularly comfortable with this sudden massive change of direction adopting an semi-formed drop-of-a-hat idea Brad read about 18 hours ago into the core of 1.5, completely reverting a changes introduced in 1.4. Surely this is basically just going to piss off the half of the community who have been running around telling us what a great idea taking the wheel out was? This makes the game's ongoing development appear confused, arbitrary and directionless, with sudden wild experiments being thrown into the game half-formed in a knee-jerk reaction to a crisis that was essentially created by exactly the same sort of behaviour?

 

Don't get me wrong; I like the idea of different governments having different economic systems etc (not so much the race trait thing really, since there's no reason humans wouldn't try communism - a fairly large portion of the planet's population were quite taken with the idea for nearly a century, after all), and I love the idea of getting the wheel back. But might it not be wiser to leave it with the toggle for now and then just bring the wheel back into the main game once a full-on, properly balance government module is ready for inclusion? You made a sudden, massive change to the game. Leaving it to settle for a month or two might be a better course of action before essentially reverting it.

 

I am sorry if I was unclear with my original post.

I though it would be clear enough with the mention of the buildings and colony modules, and the fact that we are talking controlling people similar to either the Borg or the Leviathans/Reapers that the zone of influence from different parts of the empire played a role in the effectiveness of said parts.

Taken all the way to the place that, if you settle a place without having established a zone of control around it first, you are not going to have any control over that colony. And that ships that go outside these control zones would require an anchored quantum connection... Much like the Leviathan Orbs in Mass Effect 3.

heck, maybe the control thing can somehow even be interwoven with the Influence system already present, providing a tech tree that provides buildings that increase both control and influence and maybe an extra tech to increase ship capacity.

 

Having different forms of state really doesn't make any sense... if they were communists, they would have no reason to listen to what you are ordering. The same goes if they were socialists, capitalists, theocrats (unless you're their god), oligarchs or any other form of state not ruled by a single person.

on Oct 31, 2015

I think this is a really promising feature that is akin to many of the quantities/variables you see in Paradox strategy games...while it is not perfect representation of reality, it is an excellent abstraction that captures the essence of the inefficiency that would result from such specialization...

on Oct 31, 2015

Dracul_JOSHI

Having different forms of state really doesn't make any sense... if they were communists, they would have no reason to listen to what you are ordering. The same goes if they were socialists, capitalists, theocrats (unless you're their god), oligarchs or any other form of state not ruled by a single person.

 

Um... what? Do you just break the law where you live constantly, or do you live in Saudi Arabia and assume everywhere in the West is an anarchic wasteland of dog poo and rape? I live in Britain, and it seems to me that for reasons unknowable people tend to listen to what David Cameron is saying far more often than they should.

 

Remember that the older titles in the series even had elections, and you had to win senate votes to declare war. Any system aside from anarchism generally has someone calling the shots; there may be checks and balances on his power but he can still pretty much dictate the direction of government. Different forms of political and economic organization make more or less perfect sense, and have the advantage that they can be changed in-game. Several of Brad's posts in the past have indicated he'd like to see the game moving back in that direction (including the OP of this thread), and it's a lot easier to justify any remaining imbalance if everyone can use it. I don't think we want to see MP being reduced to 'everyone uses trait X because it's better'. 

on Oct 31, 2015

naselus


Quoting Dracul_JOSHI,

Having different forms of state really doesn't make any sense... if they were communists, they would have no reason to listen to what you are ordering. The same goes if they were socialists, capitalists, theocrats (unless you're their god), oligarchs or any other form of state not ruled by a single person.




 

Um... what? Do you just break the law where you live constantly, or do you live in Saudi Arabia and assume everywhere in the West is an anarchic wasteland of dog poo and rape? I live in Britain, and it seems to me that for reasons unknowable people tend to listen to what David Cameron is saying far more often than they should.

 

Remember that the older titles in the series even had elections, and you had to win senate votes to declare war. Any system aside from anarchism generally has someone calling the shots; there may be checks and balances on his power but he can still pretty much dictate the direction of government. Different forms of political and economic organization make more or less perfect sense, and have the advantage that they can be changed in-game. Several of Brad's posts in the past have indicated he'd like to see the game moving back in that direction (including the OP of this thread), and it's a lot easier to justify any remaining imbalance if everyone can use it. I don't think we want to see MP being reduced to 'everyone uses trait X because it's better'. 

 

I live in switzerland, we DON'T have any one person in a political position of power. It's called a direct democracy. We have 7 guys that share the highest authority, but every law and change has to be approved by vote from everybody who's got the right to vote.

 

As I said before, I don't play MP and I don't care about multiplayer... and even if it WAS incredibly unbalanced, it would be easy to make the trait/s in question illegal for multiplayer. (as in, races that own one or two of those traits are not allowed to be picked for a MP game.)

 

Furthermore, how are patriotic and prolific doing in MP?

on Oct 31, 2015

Dear Frogboy,
I've read your post "GalCiv III: Economics, Command Economies and Citizens".

You speak about command economies and coercion and your idea to address that with penalties at the wheel.  I want to ask you about a scenario and how your penalty would effect it and thereby show you how you're looking at this whole thing wrong.  

I play by setting each planet entirely on only 1 of the 3 'spending' options by only having buildings of that type on that planet.  Based on your 'adjacencies' and percentage bonus buildings, this is the smartest thing to do.

For example: Planet "PumpItOut" has only production buildings on it.
If I set the wheel to 'All Production', how is that coercion when it's the only job in town?  If I set the wheel to 33/33/33, why should that planet be losing 2/3 of it's production?  (1/3 going to 'no income buildings' and 1/3 going to 'no research buildings').


You have already setup the game to reward planetary building focus which
 nullifies the way you're looking at it now and the penalties you want to impose on the way you're looking at it.  All that convoluted penalty stuff is crap.

The solution that makes everyone happy, except you, is to give the planetary wheel to everyone by default, including the Ai.  That way, everyone has the same advantages/penalties in regards to the planetary wheel and the option of using it or not!

It's not a free lunch.
It's not coercion.
It's not micro-managing
It's not a trait (if everybody has it).
It's not any of that crap your talking about.
It's a Playing Style!
A playing style that everyone should have the option of using.

And the funny thing is, your solution is just a version of the wheel that doesn't look like the wheel and it's a lot more confusing.

Final note: Why is it so obvious to you that the Ai should be using the planetary wheel?

Take the answer to that and apply it to why we should have it to!

Meta
Views
» 97060
Comments
» 93
Sponsored Links