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 5)
7 PagesFirst 3 4 5 6 7 
on Nov 03, 2015

I agree with everything Frogboy has said about game balance and how economies cranking out $20k/turn or 2000 science/turn really throw it off.  I'm curious to see how the whole coercion thing plays out in game.  I see a deeper issue with the game economy though.  I think the problem you're running into is really fundamental to the model the game is using for the population dynamics.  It seems to my untrained eye like you have a macroeconomic model whose behavior is perturbed by these microeconomic parameters. 

The coercion thing strikes me as like the epicycles of the Aristotelian model of the solar system.  You add them to get it close to what you want to see, but it really doesn't do much by way of representing reality.  YES, I understand, GC3, space ships, aliens, video game: "reality" is subjective here.  But similarly, I feel like the coercion solution and determining the penalty associated and so on will be successful because it's a good guess by an expert who's been designing these games for a long time.  Imagine though: would it be better if the system you put in place is successfully balanced because of emergent behavior in response to whatever decisions the player is making, instead of some arbitrary set of rules, be that a cap or, as here, coercion?

I wonder if there's a way you could model the population of a planet as a group of 10 or 100 or whatever "people" and have them influenced by the various things that would influence them...  population density (inversely proportional to morale), job desire (some want to be workers, farmers, scientists, whatever), government actions (scientists are getting paid more now via the wheel or similar, so farmers might try to change careers), some kind of general competence (a planet with a hospital, a university, and a recreation facility turns out competent, mentally healthy people).  You only have as many traits as you need to get the behavior that you're looking for and that makes sense from a players perspective.  Then all these "people" acting as little finite state machines figure out what they're going to do each turn, and the aggregate of those FSM decisions winds up being what happens on each planet.

Or something like that.  Obviously, that describes a much more complex system conceptually and computationally than the whole raw production + bonuses thing, and maybe it's not feasible to implement at this point, but maybe there's a way to model something roughly equivalent with just a set of formulas and functions.  

The thing is, I think if you don't somehow address the limits of the underlying model, you're going to refight this balance issue with every new government type you add.  Cf. Deferents and epicycles.

 

on Nov 03, 2015

I don't buy Frogboy's ideological justification for this latest tweak to the economy of GCIII, but I think it sounds very exciting from a game-play perspective. One minor tweak that I think might make it more interesting: Give different races different default resting points and/or have the default point be effected by tech i.e.:

-Terrans default is 33/33/33, but the Drengin default is 40% man/35% research/25% econ and the Iridium default is 25% man/25% research/50% econ. This way the personality of the factions would be expressed by the interests of their population.

and/or

-Each research tech you discover moves your default point toward research, same with manufacturing and economy. Maybe influence and diplomacy allow you to move it in a direction of your choice or move a few points away from the default point without incurring a penalty. This way, your research path would help define your culture which would in turn shape the occupational interests of your population. If you race up the manufacturing tree, not only do you have better factories, but more of your people want to be engineers and manufacturers.

on Nov 04, 2015

Here is what happened: they created an economic system that has exponential potential because adjacency is fun. But it worked too good, and now they are considering adding diminishing returns to combat that. But all they really want is to limit production. I'm going to propose something radical, but hear me out:

Let them put on a cap!

Not a rigid cap like 500 points per planet, something like a cap of 30 points per planet class (I'll call it a cap multiplier from here on). A class 10 planet cannot output more than 300 of one particular resource per turn (though cumulatively amongst the 3 resources you could get past 300). But if you get a super class 25 planet it can output 750 points of a particular resource per turn. And the reason: chalk it up to logistics / efficiency.

You still get the fun of building up your planet to maximum potential, and you still get the benefit of exponential growth up until the very late game. It's a simple system, very easy to understand.

When they develop new economic systems, the cap still applies, so ultimately the different economic systems become balanced in the late game. It's the early and middle game where the different economic systems will show their distinctiveness.

If a planet reaches the cap and there are still some tiles to build on, with the cap you are not obligated to build pure production buildings, you can play around with the other ones that you normally would just ignore. People and governors can rebuild planets that would otherwise go beyond the cap, freeing tiles for other things.

With planet caps is the large empire penalty still needed? Would love to get rid of that thing.

Make the cap multiplier moddable.

Consider allowing research to increase the cap multiplier slightly (e.g. starts at 20, upgradeable to 25 and eventually 30).

Consider race traits that provide a small bump to the cap multiplier.

Consider planet traits, galactic events, UP resolutions, and ideology bonuses that provide a small bump to the cap multiplier.

Consider a civilization unique building that bumps one planet's cap multiplier.

Dang, I'm smart!

on Nov 04, 2015

I hate caps.

on Nov 04, 2015

lyssailcor

I hate caps.


I dont either but there is a lot of good in what eviator is proposing i think

on Nov 04, 2015

lyssailcor

I hate caps.


 

Fair enough. Whether it's a simple, easy to understand hard cap like I said above or a convoluted soft cap like the coercion idea, caps are coming.

on Nov 04, 2015

lyssailcor

I hate caps.


 

Depends on the cap.

 

I'm not in favour of a cap on output. But I am in favour of a cap on population. Being able to build up planets with 150 population is game-breaking regardless of the wheel.

 

I'd rather see food being reworked into a proper resource (like in most space 4Xes) that is produced and needed to feed the population, and pop cap being determined by a combination of planet class and development. That way, we'd not only get proper agri-worlds, but would also be able to just determine what the maximum base production is and set maximum population possible to sit there. 

on Nov 04, 2015

naselus


Quoting lyssailcor,

I hate caps.



 

Depends on the cap.

 

I'm not in favour of a cap on output. But I am in favour of a cap on population. Being able to build up planets with 150 population is game-breaking regardless of the wheel.

 

I'd rather see food being reworked into a proper resource (like in most space 4Xes) that is produced and needed to feed the population, and pop cap being determined by a combination of planet class and development. That way, we'd not only get proper agri-worlds, but would also be able to just determine what the maximum base production is and set maximum population possible to sit there. 

Despite my hate of caps that would be a good idea

on Nov 04, 2015

lyssailcor

Despite my hate of caps that would be a good idea

 

Yup. No-one actually hates caps. Everyone hates ARBITRARY caps. Just saying 'you can only ever produce 500 and anything over that is lost' would be another massive kerfuffle in the player base; just ensuring that achieving 500 production is nearly impossible will just be a balance change and no-one will mind (in fact, most people who appreciate it). The player doesn't mind getting less in return for investing more resources; he does mind getting nothing for increasing investment. This is why coercion is actually quite a good idea - a diminishing return is still a return.

on Nov 04, 2015

Morale penalties? Can I just make that moot with my awesome Virtual World surrounded by improvements that provide at least +2 to Approval and a bunch of approval relics? 

 

I see a flaw in the research production though. There are plenty of real world ideas basically suggesting that the more tech you have, the faster your tech will grow, such as Moore's law for semiconductors or the law of accelerating returns. This implies that research growth should not be linear, but curved, and ever so steeply toward the end of the graph. Therefore, if we are trying to achieve realism here, your research points should naturally be through the roof by late game.

 

This further brings up another issue that I have not seen addressed despite all this talk about "citizens choosing their jobs." What happens when you run out of things to research? Why should I get a penalty for dedicating all of my planet's resources to making money or cranking out ships when there is literally nothing left to research? Who would need to bother with choosing research as their job when my civilization has already unlocked the key to ascension? Would people really complain if I made them build stuff instead of researching ways to find more to research?

 

On that same line, what about when I have all the ships and star bases that I want, and all of my improvements are done? What do I need manufacturing for? Should I take a hit in morale or have my planet go up in anarchy because all the people working in manufacturing and research are suddenly out of a job and lazing around? The world does not work when you have 33% of your population working to support the 66% that have nothing to do.

 

I do not know about everyone else, but unless my aim is war and I need to build a ton of transports, I always come to a point where I no longer need to build or research anything. Even if I decide to go to war, not all of my planets are building ships or improvements. This usually happens around turn 250-300. The way I see, the game would not be as fun to continue once you unlock all of the techs.

 

I see these things addressing issues in early to mid game, but there is nothing being spoken for late game. As a matter of fact, these implementations would probably hurt late game.

on Nov 04, 2015

naselus


Quoting lyssailcor,

Despite my hate of caps that would be a good idea




 

Yup. No-one actually hates caps. Everyone hates ARBITRARY caps. Just saying 'you can only ever produce 500 and anything over that is lost' would be another massive kerfuffle in the player base; just ensuring that achieving 500 production is nearly impossible will just be a balance change and no-one will mind (in fact, most people who appreciate it). The player doesn't mind getting less in return for investing more resources; he does mind getting nothing for increasing investment. This is why coercion is actually quite a good idea - a diminishing return is still a return.

I totally agree. What I meant is indeed that I hate hard caps that are only there out of game mechanics reasons. There are more elegant ways to achieve this, e. g. coercion (or my own proposal to address the same problem (see reply #45 to this topic)).

on Nov 04, 2015

Nilfiry

Morale penalties? Can I just make that moot with my awesome Virtual World surrounded by improvements that provide at least +2 to Approval and a bunch of approval relics? 

 

I see a flaw in the research production though. There are plenty of real world ideas basically suggesting that the more tech you have, the faster your tech will grow, such as Moore's law for semiconductors or the law of accelerating returns. This implies that research growth should not be linear, but curved, and ever so steeply toward the end of the graph. Therefore, if we are trying to achieve realism here, your research points should naturally be through the roof by late game.

 

This further brings up another issue that I have not seen addressed despite all this talk about "citizens choosing their jobs." What happens when you run out of things to research? Why should I get a penalty for dedicating all of my planet's resources to making money or cranking out ships when there is literally nothing left to research? Who would need to bother with choosing research as their job when my civilization has already unlocked the key to ascension? Would people really complain if I made them build stuff instead of researching ways to find more to research?

 

On that same line, what about when I have all the ships and star bases that I want, and all of my improvements are done? What do I need manufacturing for? Should I take a hit in morale or have my planet go up in anarchy because all the people working in manufacturing and research are suddenly out of a job and lazing around? The world does not work when you have 33% of your population working to support the 66% that have nothing to do.

 

I do not know about everyone else, but unless my aim is war and I need to build a ton of transports, I always come to a point where I no longer need to build or research anything. Even if I decide to go to war, not all of my planets are building ships or improvements. This usually happens around turn 250-300. The way I see, the game would not be as fun to continue once you unlock all of the techs.

 

I see these things addressing issues in early to mid game, but there is nothing being spoken for late game. As a matter of fact, these implementations would probably hurt late game.

I always play with the slowest possible tech advancement and I never reached the point were I hadn't anything to research anymore, even after 500-600 turns. If you enable tech victory then you have won by then.

Apart from that I agree that the later techs should be more expensive in relation to the possible tech output in late game.

on Nov 04, 2015

I'd rather the population caps. Coercion is putting diminishing returns on an exponential mechanic. That's two opposing forces and seems like a lame and overly convoluted solution, mathematically.

on Nov 04, 2015

lyssailcor

I always play with the slowest possible tech advancement and I never reached the point were I hadn't anything to research anymore, even after 500-600 turns. If you enable tech victory then you have won by then.


Apart from that I agree that the later techs should be more expensive in relation to the possible tech output in late game.

I always play with tech victory disabled after the first time because it is too easy to win with that method, and I also want to actually put those precursor components to use. I have not played on very slow research, but for those who play on normal or slow research (like I do), then it is pretty easy to have everything researched in half of that time.

 

This is just going to make it harder for me to buy up my opponents, sell them all of my techs to recoup losses, and then invade their home and final worlds for the lols.

 

on Nov 05, 2015

I have to say I agree with this and think the idea of Coercion is a great one, I also love the idea that the form of government you have will impact what controls you have over your empire that's a master stroke for making the different races play differently but will be hard to balance I imagine.

 

 

7 PagesFirst 3 4 5 6 7