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 4)
7 PagesFirst 2 3 4 5 6  Last
on Nov 01, 2015

jdwren

Can we at least solve the problem of the focus buttons not working in saved games? I suspect many people had games in progress during the update they can't continue except on 33/33/33, and are probably not willing to do so (like me).

The prefs.ini option would be much appreciated if possible.

Yes. I expect them to have a patch for that up this next week. 

on Nov 01, 2015

lyssailcor

I have no problem with Frogboy's proposals and strongly agree to the "no free lunch" paradigm.

That said, the coercion concept seems a little complicated to me.

I have another suggestion that is likewise game changing, but if a coercion mechanic can be programmed in relatively fast, why not another system as well?

So:

Give every tile on a planet a property that says what can be built on it:

- a manufacturing building

- a research building

- a wealth building

- a population building

- an approval building

- an influence building

- a trade building

- a combination of two of the above (e. g. resarch or manufacturing, wealth or approval)

- anything (should be a quite rare tile)

- did I forget something?

Buildings that boost several areas can be built on any tile corresponding to one of those areas (making them automatically more powerful in this system).

Then add (researchable) projects like "transform tile to manufacturing tile" or "transform tile ro research tile" etc., even "transform tile to universal tile" what should be very expensive. Transforming a tile should also permanently destroy special tile bonuses that are no longer applicable after the transformation (e. g. +2  influence makes no sense anymore if the tile is a manufacturing tile after transformation).

That takes away some options from players because they cannot freely decide how to place buildings anymore and makes it much more difficult to use adjacency bonuses. But no free lunch, remember? Perhaps the average number of tiles per planet can be increased to counter that effect a bit, but then I think the building bonuses have to be decreased to keep the balance.

So players still have the possibility to specialize planets but it takes a lot of time and has some possible drawbacks (destroying tile bonuses).

And as far as "realism" is concerned: a game should not be forced to be "realistic". it should be forced to be fun Any game rules are abstractions, in the best case they are made in a way so that every player can interpret them to match his or her own inner picture of the game world. But I think that will not be possible all the time. But who thinks about "realism" when playing tic tac toe?

What do you think, Frogboy? Would something like this be possible?

 

That's a very interesting idea.  I think it would take a lot of work to implement that though.  

For all of GalCiv's history (until GalCiv III) there was a morale price to be paid for moving "the sliders".  That is, players were encouraged to monkey with their economy but also understood that they'd meet resisteance and (previously) have to face voters.  GalCiv III is the first GalCiv where we didn't tie moving the sliders (or in this case, the wheel) t o morale. 

Even in GalCiv II, if you moved the social slider, it had an impact on morale.

on Nov 01, 2015

Frogboy

That's a very interesting idea.  I think it would take a lot of work to implement that though.  

I take it you mean by that, more work than implementing the coercion system. But too much work to be done?

Frogboy

For all of GalCiv's history (until GalCiv III) there was a morale price to be paid for moving "the sliders".  That is, players were encouraged to monkey with their economy but also understood that they'd meet resisteance and (previously) have to face voters.  GalCiv III is the first GalCiv where we didn't tie moving the sliders (or in this case, the wheel) t o morale. 

Even in GalCiv II, if you moved the social slider, it had an impact on morale.

I know that, having played the game from it's beginning.

If you want to say you are missing a morale impact in my proposal then I think about one, but not today anymore, must go to bed now

on Nov 01, 2015


As for the Ayn Rand comment...there is no need to inject politics into this discussion.

I don't see how anyone who has the faintest knowledge of e.g. Ayn Rand, American Libertarianism, Laissez-Faire or Neoliberalism philosophies or economic systems along those lines can not fail to see the first post is dripping in politics it's so saturated.

I do intend to actually comment on the game mechanics mentioned in their somewhere but I felt I had to point out the obvious since I hadn't read anyone mention it.

on Nov 01, 2015

What I'd say is that I'd like to see a lot of different economic systems put in place based on the government type players end up picking.

The coercion system is very simple.

I literally do a max() of whatever the wheel is and then multiply the goods and services of a planet by it.

The more you change it from the default, the more you pay a morale price.  But players can adapt that by building things on planets (and eventually adopting forms of government) that affect that.

In the old days, when I had fewer engineers, I'd just have capped production on the planet and called it a day.

on Nov 01, 2015

It seems to me the coercion system will penalize the player for adopting the correct strategy.  That is to focus their production and specialize their planets.  It's going to be a double whammy as well since it affects the bonus received from happiness.

I think this system will cause a lot of frustration for players, they won't know how to manage their economy.  With the removal of the wheel that's the case already, I've had people message me asking me to create guide videos to help them out!  (I make GC3 YouTube videos)  I think the coercion change is much more drastic and possibly a major step in the wrong direction.

The aim of the economic system should not be to satisfy some believed philosophy or to satisfy realism.  Faster than light speed, talking aliens... in a few hundred years c'mon.

It should be fun and engaging with the right amount of complexity and preferably something that doesn't throw out all the adjacency and specialization system that the game has been built around.

 

I don't understand the philosophy behind the change, why is the player being penalized and to what end?  There was more to explain Ayn Randian philosophies in the opening post than there was to explain why this change is needed or beneficial to the game.

on Nov 01, 2015

joeball123

Also, regarding the command vs free market economy thing, I don't really see it as being applicable. The only planet improvements in the game which are not paid for, owned, operated, and maintained by the state are the trade goods and the colony or civilization capitals (and these only fail the "paid for" criterion). If planetary improvements represent the sum total of infrastructure, public and private, on a given world, then there is no room for a truly free market economy within the game. The fact that you can rush production and the mechanics used for that process, however, imply the existence of a private sector economy which is invisible to the player and whose production costs are largely unaffected by the state-owned and -operated infrastructure built upon a planet. Rushing production costs exactly the same amount per unit of manufacturing generated regardless of whether you require merely 10% more manufacturing output from your infrastructure or 10,000% more output from your infrastructure; this implies that whatever infrastructure is used for generating the rushed manufacturing points, it's not the same infrastructure that is used to generate manufacturing points normally. Furthermore, the manufacturing points generated basically appear out of thin air; a location which can produce only ~10 manufacturing point normally can generate orders of magnitude more manufacturing if I rush production, and while stopping work on private projects and working overtime on the state project might help explain it, it also has the issue of why exactly the state-owned, state-operated factories are being used to manufacture goods for the supposedly-free market, and also why the output that is going towards, say, lipstick can so easily be diverted into, say, a new superdreadnought.

TBH I never like it when invisible things are at large contributing something to a game, esp. if it's a strategy game. Nevertheless, there is an understandable need to be able to do something with unused credits, as there is some need to boost up the speed of production or do ship-upgrades.

My idea for this would be that instead of a rushbuy completely finished next turn, you could buy an increase in production by 50% or 100%. The workers in the factories would simply work 24h instead of 12h/16h. Every extra production raised will cost a reasonable amount of credits. After a project is finished, the planet cannot quickbuy something (for the time of another project) because workers need to sleep, machines need off-maintenance etc.

In the same way, shipupgrades should need a shipyard and use up productivity that you'll have to pay for. More or less instant upgrades many lightyears away from the next facility is granted, handy, but doesn't require much strategic planning. 

Frogboy

Even in GalCiv II, if you moved the social slider, it had an impact on morale.

Are you sure? Guess your boys took out some of your code, then^^

***

Just wan't to say one thing: In GC2 there were alot of buildings that would run on 100% always, all

- econ, moral, popgrowth, shipsupport, tradegoods, wonders, GA

the split was merely between labs & facs. So if you played a balanced global mixed slider setting your labs & facs would run an average of 50% throughout the course of the game. Compared to other 4X games the global slider gave alot of flexibility on an empire wide level while still being able to specialize worlds in profitable manner, and it also allowed to homogenize worlds and be successfull with it. But alot of people coming from other games complained that it's illogical/unrealistic that you'd build a lab and only use 50% of its rooms/jobs on average. That's where all-lab or all-fac strat came into play.

Now in GC3 that's even a bit more aggravated because the split of capacity is between prod, res & wealth. And esp. in bigger maps where you have a lot of core/backland planets you're faced with the problem that the ships released there are too far away to be good for anything and will likely be outdated if you send them to the front, but do cost maint & also upgrade costs. Sure, you could do the obvious use all MP to build more & more starbases, but that will only delay & indeed aggravate matters in the long run.

Before, people could have backland money maker planets or strict research planets, both without any shipproduction, so there was no bother with "misplaced" fighters.

edit:

MacsenLP

I don't understand the philosophy behind the change, why is the player being penalized and to what end?  There was more to explain Ayn Randian philosophies in the opening post than there was to explain why this change is needed or beneficial to the game.

to bring the cost of buildings, ships etc in line with the overal productivity

edit2:

Frogboy

The coercion system is very simple.
I literally do a max() of whatever the wheel is and then multiply the goods and services of a planet by it.
The more you change it from the default, the more you pay a morale price.  But players can adapt that by building things on planets (and eventually adopting forms of government) that affect that.

I like this very much because of the tradeoff distribution vs. morale that it implies. In order to specialize a planet you've got to sacrifice a few tiles to morale improvements in order to compensate the penalty. No depending on the strength of your morale improvements and the total count of available target improvements, that might proove fruitful or not. And some - or most - of these factors are not fix but can be changed via technological evolution, terraforming etc... that is, if you do it right it could mean that, as a game develops, planets can become more & more likely to become a profitable candidate for specialization.

on Nov 01, 2015

Perhaps instead of calling it coercion a better word for it might be restriction because if you have set the production wheel(s) to 33/33/33% your population is still being coerced anyways by their government to do work in some way for it, but assuming that 33% of people would prefer to manufacture for their government rather than the other two, 33% desire to research for their government rather than the other two, and the last 33% desire to increase wealth for their government rather than the other two then everyone is happier than if all 100% of them have to, for example, manufacture for their government. The 66% who desire to do some other work for their government aren't very happy because they are being restricted to only manufacturing.

on Nov 01, 2015

MacsenLP


Quoting RGee,

As for the Ayn Rand comment...there is no need to inject politics into this discussion.



I don't see how anyone who has the faintest knowledge of e.g. Ayn Rand, American Libertarianism, Laissez-Faire or Neoliberalism philosophies or economic systems along those lines can not fail to see the first post is dripping in politics it's so saturated.

I do intend to actually comment on the game mechanics mentioned in their somewhere but I felt I had to point out the obvious since I hadn't read anyone mention it.

 

I guess people are going to see what they want to see.  

 

Is it political to describe some considerations for a hypothetical model for the behavior of virtual societies in a fictional universe such as a computer game?  

Or is it political to insist that the chosen considerations can only be political?

 

All I was trying to illustrate is that Gal Civ's current set of races all "behave" in a very similar manner, and are not terribly complex or unique, in the grand scheme of things.

(Again...no disrespect to Frogboy.  He started this all off from scratch how many years ago?  How much computing power was he working with back then?  And how much fun have we all had playing his games over all the years in between?)

 

Frogboy now aspires to implement changes such that one or more virtual races will exhibit behavior other than just involuntary mass responses to coercion.

This can be much more complex, obviously.

The current races are (or can be can be likened to) an array of coefficients for the same function.

The proposed races with more varied and complex behavior might be full-blown AIs in their own right--or possibly a constellation of multiple or even myriad AIs per race. 

 

Under the concept I was trying to describe in my initial post, when a player plays as the sovereign of Race "A", the player is not only in competition with the AI sovereigns of races B, C, D, and so on.  The player is also in coopetition with the subject AIs of his own race.

The AI sovereigns of the other races are likewise in coopetition with their own subject AIs.

Or, would the player and all AIs of all types and races all be in coopetition?

These subject AIs would not necessarily be rivals to the sovereign, capable of usurping power and managing the state--although some or all could be.  They would just be Groups of People trying to get the best deal possible for themselves.  (Citizenry of an entire planet, members of an organization or interest group, investors in an enterprise, industry groups, associations of people of a like mind, members of a cohort of a class in a locale, or however else you would want to break it down.)

 

Now this might not be the best direction to take Gal Civ.  Frogboy would be able to guess or outright know better than any of us armchair quarterbacks, for sure.  Maybe (probably) the smart move is to just increase the number of coefficients in that function, and call it a day.

 

Either way, I look forward to the outcome.

on Nov 01, 2015

Now that we're all on the same page more or less and talking again about GC2 let me jolt your memories:

On free lunch:

Remember that in GC2 nothing was free in the sense that each point of research, production etc had a cost of 1bc. You could build planets with huge capacity for production, but you couldn't run them without the credits. That cost was extra on the running costs and building maintenance. So in GC2 pop fed taxes based on approval and taxes fed into all the rest. Buldings had no %values but hard production points. The sliders gave budget allocation: where the bc would go.

Most of the time you couldn't afford it.

In launching GC3 for the first time and taking a look around I realized that production was free! So there was no reason to worry about pop or approval, I could maximize factories and slider allocation and get huge numbers! Let's remember the early beta and the efforts to balance population production, growth and pop numbers and morale, cause back then ppl just skipped food buildings! Does this jog your memory? It is also powerful cause the bonuses from buldings accumulate and are applied over the entire population allocation. So if you have 10 factories they would affect the production of a single individual. In GC2 buildings were capacity converters: 1bc of tax would be allocated to a single point produced by the buildings. There were efficiency tech and bonuses for starbases that increased this if my menory serves me, but NOT THE ENTIRE set of production buildings on the surface like in GC3.

At the time I thought that frogboy was ok with this new design: "After all, he spent months doing the design for GC3 in his millionaire mansion" I kept saying to myself. I thought that his masterplan included this situation. Well as of 1.4 it turns out that he didn't: Too many band aids and big changes post release.

On empire expansion penalties:

With that old GC2 design, once you would colonize a planet you would start spending bc for its production based on the colony capital, but you didn't have any tax base over there so the money were coming from the other planets! So if you were colonizing like mad, you would quickly reduce spending to your other planets cause it would get you into debt very fast. Only once you had a tax base on your new planets you would resume colonization. Early openings consisted of spamming market builds with 1-2 manu worlds to make the early land grab colony ships. That was good!

Now in GC3 since all things are free, the only restriction is colony ships, hence the need for extra artificial rules. And thank you naselus for solving this with credits in your mod. In GC3 without the band aid rule for expansion penalty you expand exponentialy like a plague!

 

Please stop with the band aids! they don't work. Just take your time, work it out and roll a huge patch, or leave all the huge changes for the next expansion.

on Nov 02, 2015

Perhaps instead of calling it coercion a better word for it might be restriction because if you have set the production wheel(s) to 33/33/33% your population is still being coerced anyways by their government to do work in some way for it, but assuming that 33% of people would prefer to manufacture for their government rather than the other two, 33% desire to research for their government rather than the other two, and the last 33% desire to increase wealth for their government rather than the other two then everyone is happier than if all 100% of them have to, for example, manufacture for their government. The 66% who desire to do some other work for their government aren't very happy because they are being restricted to only manufacturing.

This. I don't understand why 33/33/33 is normal, but something else is "forcing you populating into doing something it doesn't want to do". If we look, f.e., into our current society 33% of it being into some kind of research activity is just crazy. If anything, every race should have different basic values (or intervals for values) for M\E\R  based on race backstory and/or race traits (it's obvious that race with + to manufacturing have higher possible % for pop in manufacturing sector)  affected by new research though the game. 

This way we can have, f.e., ultra-specialized manufacturing planets - as long as our total pop in manufacturing  sector don't exceed % allowed for our race or empire-wide penalties will follow.

 

At the time I thought that frogboy was ok with this new design: "After all, he spent months doing the design for GC3 in his millionaire mansion" I kept saying to myself. I thought that his masterplan included this situation. Well as of 1.4 it turns out that he didn't: Too many band aids and big changes post release.

I really "liked" explanation for wheel removal. Like: "You know, we are supposed to remove wheel long time ago so we don't code AI to use it, but we kind of forgot to do it or something...". So, a game have a placeholder instead of one of the most critical gameplay mechanic for half a year after release (plus quite some time during EA, so people can adjust to it) and it had nothing to do with AI - especially it had nothing to do with sad fact about how AI was dumb as bread in managing his colonies in 1.0-1.2 - anyone who ever captured AI planets could enjoy its  glorious planet-managing. The same planet-managing AI governors use - because no-one in right mind would code different AI for player and AI building. Now AI is somewhat adequate in managing planets and it suddenly start to play much better. And we got governors instead of planetary wheel. It's just a pure coincidence it happens in the same patch.

on Nov 02, 2015

Sounds extremely interesting!

Finally, the decision making in GCIII wil get some intrigue and important decisions will have tangible downsides.

Do not hesitate to release it as soon as possible, Frogboy

on Nov 02, 2015

lyssailcor

I have no problem with Frogboy's proposals and strongly agree to the "no free lunch" paradigm.

That said, the coercion concept seems a little complicated to me.

I have another suggestion that is likewise game changing, but if a coercion mechanic can be programmed in relatively fast, why not another system as well?

So:

Give every tile on a planet a property that says what can be built on it:

- a manufacturing building

- a research building

- a wealth building

- a population building

- an approval building

- an influence building

- a trade building

- a combination of two of the above (e. g. resarch or manufacturing, wealth or approval)

- anything (should be a quite rare tile)

- did I forget something?

Buildings that boost several areas can be built on any tile corresponding to one of those areas (making them automatically more powerful in this system).

Then add (researchable) projects like "transform tile to manufacturing tile" or "transform tile ro research tile" etc., even "transform tile to universal tile" what should be very expensive. Transforming a tile should also permanently destroy special tile bonuses that are no longer applicable after the transformation (e. g. +2  influence makes no sense anymore if the tile is a manufacturing tile after transformation).

That takes away some options from players because they cannot freely decide how to place buildings anymore and makes it much more difficult to use adjacency bonuses. But no free lunch, remember? Perhaps the average number of tiles per planet can be increased to counter that effect a bit, but then I think the building bonuses have to be decreased to keep the balance.

So players still have the possibility to specialize planets but it takes a lot of time and has some possible drawbacks (destroying tile bonuses).

And as far as "realism" is concerned: a game should not be forced to be "realistic". it should be forced to be fun Any game rules are abstractions, in the best case they are made in a way so that every player can interpret them to match his or her own inner picture of the game world. But I think that will not be possible all the time. But who thinks about "realism" when playing tic tac toe?

What do you think, Frogboy? Would something like this be possible?

I promised yesterday to introduce a morale penalty to my suggestions above and here it is (all numbers are examples and subject to balancing):

- When having selected one of the Transform projects give the planet a 20% morale penalty while it lasts. Think of environmentalists fighting against large scale pollution stemming from the transformation.

- When the transform project is finished the 20% penalty remains at the beginning, but decreases by 10% per turn (18% penalty left after one turn, 16,2% after two turns and so one). Slowly the environmenatlists are calming down and the population gets used to the changes. But this only applies if not another transform project is started right away. Then the decrease of the penalty stops and another 20% morale penalty is applied. This will effectively limit the ablility to transform a planet in one big crunch.

- Racial traits and technology could influence the numbers depending on race.

- Transformation could also cost money. But all penalties should not be so harsh as to make transformation impractical as such.

on Nov 02, 2015

At some point, I would just like to see the development team pick an option and stick with it. My desire to play the game right now is completely diminished knowing that in few weeks/month the whole econ system is going out again to replaced by something new. This plays hell with the rest of the balance because everything can't be fine-tuned while major changes to the entire economy are taking place.

I wasn't a big a fan of the wheel but I used it like the no-brainer 'choice' that it was...100% to whatever was that planet's specialty. I liked the the compromise with the current 'focus' system. I'm less sold on the idea of going back to the wheel, but with a 'penalty'. So now I'll still have to micromanage the wheel and now find the 'sweet spot' where I get the maximum return from fidgeting with the wheel?

I dunno, I guess at this point I'll just wait and see but honestly there comes a time to make a decision and go with it. I thought the removal the wheel was that decision but apparently now we are back-tracking again (at first it was just going to be a 'put the wheel back with an .ini file and now it's the wheel is coming back and we are changing the econ again). So 'round and 'round she goes, where it stops, nobody know!

on Nov 03, 2015

Uncle_Joe

At some point, I would just like to see the development team pick an option and stick with it. My desire to play the game right now is completely diminished knowing that in few weeks/month the whole econ system is going out again to replaced by something new. This plays hell with the rest of the balance because everything can't be fine-tuned while major changes to the entire economy are taking place.

I wasn't a big a fan of the wheel but I used it like the no-brainer 'choice' that it was...100% to whatever was that planet's specialty. I liked the the compromise with the current 'focus' system. I'm less sold on the idea of going back to the wheel, but with a 'penalty'. So now I'll still have to micromanage the wheel and now find the 'sweet spot' where I get the maximum return from fidgeting with the wheel?

I dunno, I guess at this point I'll just wait and see but honestly there comes a time to make a decision and go with it. I thought the removal the wheel was that decision but apparently now we are back-tracking again (at first it was just going to be a 'put the wheel back with an .ini file and now it's the wheel is coming back and we are changing the econ again). So 'round and 'round she goes, where it stops, nobody know!

GalCiv III will continue to evolve over the next few years.  That's the nature of these kinds of games. They aren't static. 

7 PagesFirst 2 3 4 5 6  Last