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 2)
7 Pages1 2 3 4  Last
on Oct 31, 2015

Frogboy

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.
 
 
That's another good point: it's unrealistic how fast the wheel (global or planet) can be changed. Maybe changes to the wheel should only be able to be made in smaller increments. For example, maybe only 10% at a time (each turn). This would represent the idea that such sweeping changes and reallocations of industry couldn't happen overnight; but would occur over time, as part of committed, persistent policy changes. Could be interesting for gameplay as well. It might reduce the tedious min/max every turn micro-management.
Also Brad, I just wanted to say that I like the direction GalCiv 3 is taking. Thanks... and looking forward to it's future.
on Oct 31, 2015

I personally do not like the new system. I do appreciate that we will have the ability to bring the wheel back.

I just want to say, I'm just not sure about the rationale behind the change; I lost choices that I used to have, and I don't feel like I've gained anything gameplay-wise.

Frankly, it doesn't feel like any less of a command economy, because now every planet is more or less following one centrally set economic plan. If anything, it feels more like a command economy. This system would make more sense to me personally if planets set their own "ideal" local wheel, based on the jobs available (and any number of other factors). The deviation between the local wheel (how the people of the planet want to work & be taxed) and the empire wheel would be the actual coercion. 

That's just my 2 cents. The game is still great, and I'll definitely pick it up again once I can enable the local wheel.

on Oct 31, 2015

This all sounds very interesting, but I want to make sure about something with the coercion idea. You say that setting wheel(s) to 100% production of, say, research, is coercion, and I agree with this. But isn't keeping the wheel(s) at 33,33,33% production amounts still coercion? You're still forcing your population to do certain jobs if I'm not mistaken. Again, I just want to make sure I'm understanding this correctly, and I enjoy reading your ideas on the future of the game.

on Oct 31, 2015

the idea that wealth generation is 100% taxation is null and void along with the idea that the wheel represents the entire activity on the planet. The game abstracts other productive forces behind the scenes: Where does the production comes to create a ship when you buy it with credits in a pure research or wealth world?

100% wealth generation means that all of the managed portion of the economy is dedicated to activities like investment or banking or whatever that generates cash, with employees and other activities to funnel the wealth to the coffers. You still have salaries and bonuses for staff and you don't tax their skins off.

Perhaps a visual seperation of the state and the free economies in the game gui would help to flesh out both the political party features as well as solve the wheel problems in an elegant way: you only control the state economy: switch to a free market, and the game decides for you your allocation either with an algorithm or by just rolling 3 numbers.

on Oct 31, 2015

So let me get this straight: a game that had an alpha stage, a beta stage, and a final release is randomly, drastically, changing a core game function 6 months after the game is launched. 

 

Why even end the alpha/beta when we're clearly still in it?

on Oct 31, 2015

The_Poena

This all sounds very interesting, but I want to make sure about something with the coercion idea. You say that setting wheel(s) to 100% production of, say, research, is coercion, and I agree with this. But isn't keeping the wheel(s) at 33,33,33% production amounts still coercion? You're still forcing your population to do certain jobs if I'm not mistaken. Again, I just want to make sure I'm understanding this correctly, and I enjoy reading your ideas on the future of the game.

Yes, yes it is.

Now please stop poking holes into Frogboy's arguments, otherwise he may eventually start feel so bad that he completely cancels and removes GC3... and nobody wants that... Blackmail? NO! It's coercion, stupid!

on Oct 31, 2015

I definitely agree about the no free lunch, but yamann777 touched on an important consideration: If planetary improvements are 80% research, 20% manufacturing and 0% wealth, is the natural (non-coerced) balance of job choices 33/33/33? IDK, maybe you could argue it is - maybe a lot of people born on a research-heavy planet are unhappy because they're not smart enough to do it, so that's captured in the coercion penalty.

But kind of like I would expect farmers to be more likely to leave Silicon Valley to go to Nebraska, for reasons of opportunity, I would expect people to seek out planets where they have opportunities. Perhaps some combination of the two? Something to reflect planetary focus and incentives?

 

on Oct 31, 2015

yamann777

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').

This pretty much sums up the disconnect I've had with the economy stemming back to Galactic Civilizations II.  The idea that no matter how efficiently I set up my planets and structures, there was going to be a sizeable (67% by default) inefficiency.

Late in the game, after the core worlds were built up, spending would typically be 50/50 between research/military, with the spending sliding either way depending on war conditions and the like.  But after finding and colonizing new worlds or conquering them from opponents, the dilemma of how to build these new worlds popped up.  Absent cash purchasing all the buildings on the planet (which in many cases turned out to be the preferable option) there was no realistic way to get the social production started up on a new world without taking a sizeable chunk out of the military or research production of the entire rest of the empire.  For me, that's always where the disconnect felt most intense.

In examining the discussion on this thread and the various ideas you've had Brad, I think perhaps the problem isn't the wheel or lack thereof, it's the concept of raw production controlled at an empire level.  Based on the concepts that you were postulating with the ideas of coercion and governmental systems. I think an economic system that might fit your desires better would be to look at planets through an employment lens.  Rather then population converting a raw production stat which then has the wheel or basic formula applied to it, what if population was just that, the amount of people that were willing/able to work?  Rather then buildings providing a bonus to the production formula, they would provide a certain number of employment opportunities.

Ex:  Factory (employs up to x population to produce 3x production units, etc.)  Adjacency bonuses could be applied to the production output, along with racial, researched, starbase bonuses and the like.  Advanced buildings could offer a better ratio, or higher employment capacity (or maybe have research specialty effect it... hmm... more choices

This would make population a bit more tangible then it is currently, since your population would literally define the upper bounds of a given planet's productivity.  Approval would determine how many of the total populace are employable workers (disgruntled folks have less incentive to get out there and help their fellow man/robot/evillizardthing). Underemployment could also be a thing in this setup.

The concept of coercion could still be applied on a empire level but examining not how far you've pushed the wheel from center (33/33/33) but instead on the total employment opportunities available in the empire (penalty to kick in if you don't have y% employment opportunities in each of the various fields (industrial/research/finance/entertainment/health/culture))  The weighting of the various fields could definitely serve as flavor for the races as well, helping to reinforce their existing play patterns.

This would take away some of the power gap between pure managed efficiency (wheel) and let them do what they want to (forced 33/33/33 split), without removing the benefit (and enjoyment (at least for me)) of settling up well designed efficient worlds.  On the plus side, it could also help lower late game micromanagement, since even if you're not using a governor to set up your building plan, once you've got the bulidings in place, the world is largely done.  It turns your attention back towards a combination of analyzing the native benefits of the world (tile bonuses, various adjacency opportunities, boy this world would be a nice production center) with the needs of the empire (if I don't open up some more banking centers, there's gonna be a riot on my hands) which seems to me to be the decision point that you want to emphasize for the players (you can't have it all, so what do you give up?)

Anyway, hope some of those ideas may be of use.  I know I was rather excited about the addition of the wheel (or more specifically, the control it enabled) in GC3, and was a bit bummed when you announced it was going away last patch.  I really think the problem with the system is the basic production->sliders setup as it currently exists.  Whatever solution you do end up with, I look forward to seeing how the game continues to evolve.

on Oct 31, 2015

tbh there's so many logical contradictions to this subject I just think of it that people are either send to work in (a) industry facilities ( labs (c) markets.

and please, for the sake of making a good *strategy* game, don't base its mechanism on some sort of "realism-sense" because (a) alot of people will only come to different conclusion and don't see it as being realistic at all ( this will only drag down your available options of what can work out or intermingle

the most important focus should be to make tje game challenging & fun, in a strategy game that is to place or force a player to might meaningful decisions, decisions that are not no-brainers, ie. different paths rivaling in same strength.

your approach to penalise it if individual planets go full mongo by completely neglecting the other 2 fields is actually a good one. such a mechanism could have solved the whole overkill-output-superspecialized planets in the first place.

nevertheless, I like the focus options anyway but I would wish a few steps in strength, that is, if I click it two times it should be doubled. naturally, there could be a penality in place, even for the normal focus use, which reduces the focus output a bit, and that penalty increases in percentage as I raise the focus specialization a step or two.

that would cause one thing: if a world lacks sufficient adjacency bonuses or specific placement of buildings, then going full mongo wih focus will not pay off. it might be better here to leave it in a balanced fashion. and that would naturally be have to looked for as the tiers of buildings rise.

on Oct 31, 2015

I've said my peace on this topic. 

I'll leave with one final thought to share:

When you design a game, any game, you design it around a set of assumptions on how the numbers will work out.  In GalCiv II, I'd get save games where people had managed to make 20,000 credits per turn.  So I made an update that started to heavily penalized income after a certain point and referred to it as graft. 

Now, back then, the community was much smaller. I can't even imagine the riots we'd get today if we released an update that simply lopped off all production after a certain point.  Here, we're TRYING to come up with mechanics that feel less arbitrary.

But at the end of the day, the numbers need to work within a certain range or else they have to be hard-capped or the entire game starts to collapse on itself. 

I've seen saved games where people were getting over 2,000 research PER TURN from a planet. They weren't cheating. They had just mastered the system we had setup beyond what we ever imagined.  Same has happened in every GalCiv and we always respond by coming up with ways to try to bring those numbers back into line with how the game was designed.

(this was particularly true in the OS/2 version when all the ships were in a 1000 member array, I simply brought up a dialog telling the player that the galaxy was too crowded).

Obviously, the easiest way to solve this would be to just hard cap the production of planets. We could just say, anything after say 500 research per turn is lost to corruption and cal it a day.  That's how GalCiv II would have handled it. 

on Oct 31, 2015

I really don't mind the changes overall.  I get why they were made and I even support them.

 

However, I really don't like that even when I make a planet focus on production, and build up factories, I still can't make that planet focus its manufacturing more on Military rather than Social production.  I can only set that globally, and honestly that doesn't make much sense to me.  Once that planet has filled out its tiles, I can't make it focus its production efforts towards a shipyard.  I have to pick an ongoing project instead like research or money.  

 

At the very least, add another ongoing project that sends a portion of social manufacturing to military.  

on Oct 31, 2015

Thankyou for laying out the vision. You've sold me.

on Oct 31, 2015

In a purely free-market economy, governments tax and spend, make regulations, and raise armies.   That's generally about it.  They don't build anything.  They don't invent anything.  They do not populate new territory.

Every race in Gal Civ is very very similar in that compared to real nations in the real world in real history, they are all on the extreme totalitarian end of the spectrum: communistic...or really, feudal.  The Lord of the Manor decides how many of his peasants shall work the fields, and how many shall toil in the shipyards.  The lord directs when large masses of peasants shall migrate, and where to.  If the lord so commands, every man, woman and child from one planet shall be conscripted into the army one week, and deployed on the battlefront the next.

Oh, Gal Civ races have different model coefficients here and different ship doodads there.  But really, every single one of them operates pretty much like the same extreme stereotype of a communist state or feudal manor or ant colony.

Which is fine.  Its a game.

But clearly, Frogboy has ambitions to make a more "realistic" simulation with respect to free market economies.  This is exciting!  

In a society where individuals have free will, and collectively comprise a free market, people and Groups of People consume and produce.  

They trade with each other and the governments according to the laws of supply and demand.  The government's scrip is worth what the free market says it is.  There are rates of exchange and rates of inflation for all currencies, and market prices for all goods and services.  Where there are "official" rates and prices, there is also a black market.

There is debt, and there are rates of interest.

There are tax rates. Tax brackets. Tax regulations.  etc.

When a government needs to wage a war, technology, production, and regiments can and must be provided by people and Groups of People.  

Sometimes, government institutions can direct and conduct technological research.  But in a society with a healthy economy, for every Manhattan Project, there is at least one Turbinia.

Twelve men walked on the moon.  They got there in ships built by the lowest bidder.

People don't all work for the government.  Even the ones that do work for the government generally don't live at the government factory or the government lab or the government farm.  Some land is privately held and developed and occupied by homes and businesses large and small.  There are civic institutions that, while governmental, are not directly managed by the sovereign.

People don't work for money.  They work for (among other things) the things they buy with money.  The government factories and farms generally suck at providing such things.  That is where private enterprise comes in.  Your ability to keep your population happy, to raise sufficient revenue through taxation, to maintain a favorable balance of trade with your competitors, depends heavily on the 50% - 99% of your economy over which you have no direct control.

Unless otherwise coerced, people and Groups of People migrate freely as they so choose, carried in star ships designed, built, and operated by people and Groups of People. Unless otherwise incentivized, they establish their homes, their civic institutions, and their private enterprises on planet surfaces (or in space colonies) as they see fit.  If and when a sovereign government arrives on the scene, they can welcome it or resist.  They can voluntarily cede space for the sovereign's installations, or they can have such space taken by eminent domain or some other manifestation of threat of violence.

So you are going to set forth the task of simulating all of this and more?  In a game that is fun to play?  Against an AI that puts up a good fight? Awesome!  I can't wait to see how it turns out.

But please don't throw out the baby with the bathwater.  

Please make all of the flavors of economic simulation race-specific.  Please leave in communist/feudalist/insectoid races with production wheels for the micromanagers.

But...how do you balance a free-will race vs a collectivist race?

Maybe you don't have to?

If a player needs to have a game with perfectly-balanced races, they can choose to include all free-will races or all collectivist races when they launch their game.  Only if they draw races of two different types will they have to accept the possibility of a major imbalance. 

 

on Nov 01, 2015

Frogboy

I've said my peace on this topic. 

I'll leave with one final thought to share:

When you design a game, any game, you design it around a set of assumptions on how the numbers will work out.  In GalCiv II, I'd get save games where people had managed to make 20,000 credits per turn.  So I made an update that started to heavily penalized income after a certain point and referred to it as graft. 

Now, back then, the community was much smaller. I can't even imagine the riots we'd get today if we released an update that simply lopped off all production after a certain point.  Here, we're TRYING to come up with mechanics that feel less arbitrary.

But at the end of the day, the numbers need to work within a certain range or else they have to be hard-capped or the entire game starts to collapse on itself. 

I've seen saved games where people were getting over 2,000 research PER TURN from a planet. They weren't cheating. They had just mastered the system we had setup beyond what we ever imagined.  Same has happened in every GalCiv and we always respond by coming up with ways to try to bring those numbers back into line with how the game was designed.

(this was particularly true in the OS/2 version when all the ships were in a 1000 member array, I simply brought up a dialog telling the player that the galaxy was too crowded).

Obviously, the easiest way to solve this would be to just hard cap the production of planets. We could just say, anything after say 500 research per turn is lost to corruption and cal it a day.  That's how GalCiv II would have handled it. 

 

You're going at this from the wrong angle.

The production doesn't need to fit the cost.

The Cost must be based on the production.

 

What does this mean? Well, when it is possible to get 2'000 from a single research planet and you want master tech X to be researchable in no less than 10 turns, then tech X would have to cost 20'000 Research points.

There could also be a dynamical system that increases research cost for tech based on number of colonies, due to decentralization of research and increased need for communication.

For example, Tech X costs 20'000 base and another 1'000 for every Planet in the empire.

 

The same production.

 

Balance the cost against the possible production, not the production against the cost. Otherwise you are doing a futile effort that will only end in unreasonable results, as it already has.

on Nov 01, 2015


In a purely free-market economy, governments tax and spend, make regulations, and raise armies.   That's generally about it.  They don't build anything.  They don't invent anything.  They do not populate new territory.

Every race in Gal Civ is very very similar in that compared to real nations in the real world in real history, they are all on the extreme totalitarian end of the spectrum: communistic...or really, feudal.  The Lord of the Manor decides how many of his peasants shall work the fields, and how many shall toil in the shipyards.  The lord directs when large masses of peasants shall migrate, and where to.  If the lord so commands, every man, woman and child from one planet shall be conscripted into the army one week, and deployed on the battlefront the next.

Oh, Gal Civ races have different model coefficients here and different ship doodads there.  But really, every single one of them operates pretty much like the same extreme stereotype of a communist state or feudal manor or ant colony.

Which is fine.  Its a game.

But clearly, Frogboy has ambitions to make a more "realistic" simulation with respect to free market economies.  This is exciting!  

In a society where individuals have free will, and collectively comprise a free market, people and Groups of People consume and produce.  

They trade with each other and the governments according to the laws of supply and demand.  The government's scrip is worth what the free market says it is.  There are rates of exchange and rates of inflation for all currencies, and market prices for all goods and services.  Where there are "official" rates and prices, there is also a black market.

There is debt, and there are rates of interest.

There are tax rates. Tax brackets. Tax regulations.  etc.

When a government needs to wage a war, technology, production, and regiments can and must be provided by people and Groups of People.  

Sometimes, government institutions can direct and conduct technological research.  But in a society with a healthy economy, for every Manhattan Project, there is at least one Turbinia.

Twelve men walked on the moon.  They got there in ships built by the lowest bidder.

People don't all work for the government.  Even the ones that do work for the government generally don't live at the government factory or the government lab or the government farm.  Some land is privately held and developed and occupied by homes and businesses large and small.  There are civic institutions that, while governmental, are not directly managed by the sovereign.

People don't work for money.  They work for (among other things) the things they buy with money.  The government factories and farms generally suck at providing such things.  That is where private enterprise comes in.  Your ability to keep your population happy, to raise sufficient revenue through taxation, to maintain a favorable balance of trade with your competitors, depends heavily on the 50% - 99% of your economy over which you have no direct control.

Unless otherwise coerced, people and Groups of People migrate freely as they so choose, carried in star ships designed, built, and operated by people and Groups of People. Unless otherwise incentivized, they establish their homes, their civic institutions, and their private enterprises on planet surfaces (or in space colonies) as they see fit.  If and when a sovereign government arrives on the scene, they can welcome it or resist.  They can voluntarily cede space for the sovereign's installations, or they can have such space taken by eminent domain or some other manifestation of threat of violence.

So you are going to set forth the task of simulating all of this and more?  In a game that is fun to play?  Against an AI that puts up a good fight? Awesome!  I can't wait to see how it turns out.

But please don't throw out the baby with the bathwater.  

Please make all of the flavors of economic simulation race-specific.  Please leave in communist/feudalist/insectoid races with production wheels for the micromanagers.

But...how do you balance a free-will race vs a collectivist race?

Maybe you don't have to?

If a player needs to have a game with perfectly-balanced races, they can choose to include all free-will races or all collectivist races when they launch their game.  Only if they draw races of two different types will they have to accept the possibility of a major imbalance. 

 

I have been saying the same thing before, but people seem to understand the customization options of this game less than anything else in the game.

Also, we should make a fundraiser, so that Frogboy can take a few classes... like economics 101, Philosophy 101, Gamedesign 101 etc. I am sure the series would benefit from it by the time GalCiv 5 is released.

7 Pages1 2 3 4  Last