Post reply

Warning - while you were reading 49 new replies have been posted. You may wish to review your post.

Note: this post will not display until it's been approved by a moderator.

Name:
Email:
Subject:
Message icon:

Verification:
What is the answer to life, universe, and everything?:

shortcuts: hit alt+s to submit/post or alt+p to preview

Please read the rules before you post!


Topic Summary

Posted by: the obelisk
« on: December 03, 2018, 12:06:47 PM »

The wealth cap is fine for a stopgap solution for the sake of getting C# Aurora tested and released. For a longer term solution, we need to define exactly what wealth *is*
I agree with this sentiment.  I think that in the long run, a deeper economic model would be better, tracking the economic prosperity of individual colonies or populations, tracking TN minerals that exist in the civilian economy (possibly as a trade good only produced by mines(and possibly allowing the player to sell minerals to the civilian economy, to allow for something like a fully nationalised TN mining sector)), and offering the player a greater range of options in regards to how their economy operates.
Posted by: Steve Walmsley
« on: November 30, 2018, 10:38:46 AM »

There is a difference between a ship completing an overhaul at maintenance facilities and a ship being put back together while underway. While I agree that a ship close to completing an overhaul is probably in a better situation than one half way through, I don't want to complicate a rule that is simple to understand and implement. You still have the option of waiting instead of abandoning if close to completion.
Granted there's a difference in closing up, but at the same time, there's also a huge difference between a ship who will be out of yard in a week and one who is going to be there for the next six months.  It's a change I'd like, but I can definitely see why you wouldn't want to implement it.

Quote
Ships in overhaul are stationary and the to-hit chance will reflect that.
But I ship I just pulled out of overhaul is also stationary, and it has no shields or guns.  A ship in overhaul has both, as far as I understand it.

Not in C# Aurora. It is just an expensive target. It wasn't very realistic in VB6 that a ship undergoing overhaul in 'dry dock' was combat capable. I'll add that information to the rules post.

Also, when a ship speed is checked for any reason, a ship in overhaul will be 0 km/s.
Posted by: byron
« on: November 30, 2018, 07:18:18 AM »

There is a difference between a ship completing an overhaul at maintenance facilities and a ship being put back together while underway. While I agree that a ship close to completing an overhaul is probably in a better situation than one half way through, I don't want to complicate a rule that is simple to understand and implement. You still have the option of waiting instead of abandoning if close to completion.
Granted there's a difference in closing up, but at the same time, there's also a huge difference between a ship who will be out of yard in a week and one who is going to be there for the next six months.  It's a change I'd like, but I can definitely see why you wouldn't want to implement it.

Quote
Ships in overhaul are stationary and the to-hit chance will reflect that.
But I ship I just pulled out of overhaul is also stationary, and it has no shields or guns.  A ship in overhaul has both, as far as I understand it.
Posted by: Steve Walmsley
« on: November 29, 2018, 01:37:52 PM »

I have some questions about how overhaul abandonment works.  It makes no sense to me that a ship which is, say, a week away from finishing up an overhaul would be essentially crippled for at least two or three weeks if I choose to close it up early.   The easiest way to solve this would be to have ships that are less than a month away from completing the overhaul simply start with an overhaul factor equal to the proportion of the last month of overhaul that they had completed.  By that point, they should have most of the major issues dealt with anyway.

Also, how do ships in overhaul behave when shot at? I know you can't give movement orders, but are they totally crippled, or will you accidentally handicap yourself when you abandon an overhaul upon the arrival of the bad guys?

There is a difference between a ship completing an overhaul at maintenance facilities and a ship being put back together while underway. While I agree that a ship close to completing an overhaul is probably in a better situation than one half way through, I don't want to complicate a rule that is simple to understand and implement. You still have the option of waiting instead of abandoning if close to completion.

Ships in overhaul are stationary and the to-hit chance will reflect that.
Posted by: byron
« on: November 29, 2018, 11:46:59 AM »

I have some questions about how overhaul abandonment works.  It makes no sense to me that a ship which is, say, a week away from finishing up an overhaul would be essentially crippled for at least two or three weeks if I choose to close it up early.   The easiest way to solve this would be to have ships that are less than a month away from completing the overhaul simply start with an overhaul factor equal to the proportion of the last month of overhaul that they had completed.  By that point, they should have most of the major issues dealt with anyway.

Also, how do ships in overhaul behave when shot at? I know you can't give movement orders, but are they totally crippled, or will you accidentally handicap yourself when you abandon an overhaul upon the arrival of the bad guys?
Posted by: TMaekler
« on: November 28, 2018, 08:35:11 AM »

In regards to the Maximum Wealth Balance:
When I started my conventional games, I always did that with a 50% financial efficiency. That way not so much wealth (but still enough) accumulated. I therefore had to begin constructing financial centers at some point to not be overwhelmed by running costs later... found that solution quite ok.
It also opens the option to lay waste of a civilization by bombing away their financial centers... .
Posted by: alex_brunius
« on: November 27, 2018, 08:51:18 AM »

The Conv->TN Wealth bloom seems to be coming from the low production efficiency of Conventional Industry (1/10th CF, 1/10th Mine, 1/20th Fuel Refinery, etc.) when Wealth costs are still based on output.  If 50,000 workers generate 10 Wealth, but only mine 1 ton of TNE (and thus spend only 1 Wealth) due to the inefficiency of Conventional Industry, they generate 900% profits.

To me, it seems the solution is to charge Conventional Industry five-to-ten times the Wealth per ton of TNE mined, or constructed, or refined.  Pre-TNE empires would no longer be generating such enormous wealth in the first place, and wouldn't need their treasuries capped.

This is another good point. It doesn't make sense that Conventional Industry would be cheaper to run just because their output is lower...
It's supposed to represent less efficient factories after all, and it seems you nailed down one of the root causes of the early wealth buildup.

( Unrelated: I have the same issue with conventional tech rocket engines being cheap to run on fuel just because their thrust output is so low )
Posted by: Father Tim
« on: November 27, 2018, 08:33:16 AM »

I would go for a solution were the Conventional Factories are using wealth to a point were most (but not all) of the wealth is used up at the beginning...

The Conv->TN Wealth bloom seems to be coming from the low production efficiency of Conventional Industry (1/10th CF, 1/10th Mine, 1/20th Fuel Refinery, etc.) when Wealth costs are still based on output.  If 50,000 workers generate 10 Wealth, but only mine 1 ton of TNE (and thus spend only 1 Wealth) due to the inefficiency of Conventional Industry, they generate 900% profits.

To me, it seems the solution is to charge Conventional Industry five-to-ten times the Wealth per ton of TNE mined, or constructed, or refined.  Pre-TNE empires would no longer be generating such enormous wealth in the first place, and wouldn't need their treasuries capped.
Posted by: Rabid_Cog
« on: November 27, 2018, 08:22:14 AM »

The wealth cap is fine for a stopgap solution for the sake of getting C# Aurora tested and released. For a longer term solution, we need to define exactly what wealth *is*. We can safely assume its not just money, but rather represents the entire industrial capacity of your empire, all the non-TN manufacturing, services, etc. A "Finance Center" is not actually a New York Stock Exchange, but rather a commercial district where small business can flourish and provide goods and services to the public as well for state consumption. It would also reasonably include all TN minerals not in state hands (both % from your mines as well as CMC's that you dont buy).

If we see Wealth as "Industrial Capacity", it makes sense that you can't save it up. If there is a company that can build toilet seats for 4 spacecraft in a year and you build 0 spacecraft in a year, it does not follow that you can now build 8 spacecraft's worth of toilets the following year, you can most likely build 0 as the company has gone bankrupt due to having no income for a year.

You can conserve resources to some extent, building up stockpiles, but there is a very low limit to how much of that is feasable. The economy only functions if it flows.
Posted by: chrislocke2000
« on: November 27, 2018, 07:32:33 AM »

The wealth cap looks to me to be a reasonble solution to the problem. A couple of points:

- Perhaps when reserching improved wealth this could add to the maximum cap or there could be a separate research line for this.
- I like the idea of running a budget surplus that means you get higher growth rates / production bonuses as a way to entice even conventional starts to be careful with money.
- Perhaps finance centres could also add a quantum to the maximum cap to give another reason to build more of them
- When it comes to war reperations I'd be frustrated if these got considered in the cap. I guess the whole point of these is to address the rebalancing of significant expenditure for the war so would be annoying if a chunk of money received just disappeared. In a recent campaign it's these payments that have actually been keeping my economy going.

Posted by: alex_brunius
« on: November 27, 2018, 06:20:19 AM »

About wealth... Maybe a wealth surplus could slightly increase growth rate or there could be an option to automatically subsidize Commercial Shipping Companies with the surplus?

Or another option is it gives a small boost to production/mining/research output ( Say a 20% wealth surplus boost performance by 2%? )

That way it wouldn't feel like a total waste, but still as a not optimal way to spend the wealth.
Posted by: King-Salomon
« on: November 27, 2018, 03:28:51 AM »

I don't want to add more uses for wealth as that could disrupt the current balance, so a cap is a simple solution that doesn't disrupt anything.

The other option I considered was having wealth tied to TN, so that wealth was multiplied by (Starting Conventional Factories - Current Conventional Factories) / Starting Conventional Factories, but that could have other consequences I can't foresee at the moment.

I would go for a solution were the Conventional Factories are using wealth to a point were most (but not all) of the wealth is used up at the beginning...
with the converting of the factories the wealth is starting to come in and can be saved for later (something like a boost for the whole economy with the invention of TN-tech)

a (mostly) conventional society would struggle to save wealth - invest in ground forces etc but it would not be impossible - especially if they start building financial center to pay for the land forces they want to deploy in the conventional years...

a converted economy would save some wealth at the beginning (but not as much as atm) but would have to react to rising wealth useage through ships/armys after some years...

having a hard cap at the gamestart I am not sure about... building financial centers at the starting phase is a strategy too - one that wouldn't be reasonable with a wealth-cap...
Posted by: Jorgen_CAB
« on: November 26, 2018, 05:26:07 PM »

While we are on the subject of wealth... perhaps add a cost of commercial ships in state service in terms of a small wealth cost symbolizing the cost of sallaries and maintenance needed for these ships. I think everything need to have some cost, commercial ships should not get a pass.
Posted by: Steve Walmsley
« on: November 26, 2018, 04:41:55 PM »

Generally speaking, wealth is usually irrelevant for conventional races and very relevant for TN races. I don't want the conventional period to take away meaningful decisions from the subsequent early TN period. In those rare situations where a TN race has a large excess of wealth, whether that maximum is 2x or 10x is only going to make a significant difference if that race suddenly changes from low to high expenditure relative to annual income, which is unlikely. I don't want to add more uses for wealth as that could disrupt the current balance, so a cap is a simple solution that doesn't disrupt anything.

The other option I considered was having wealth tied to TN, so that wealth was multiplied by (Starting Conventional Factories - Current Conventional Factories) / Starting Conventional Factories, but that could have other consequences I can't foresee at the moment.

Posted by: tobijon
« on: November 26, 2018, 04:05:08 PM »

Note, having 200 units total of xenoarcheology components does not equate to a 100% chance. It's approximately equal to ((1/72)^72)% chance of failing if I remember my math right. So pretty much zero, but not actually being zero you can just end up rolling really, really poorly.

yes, but entropy is on your side for that one  :)


On the wealth mechanic: wouldn't it also be better for there to be more things that cost money, like terraforming for example, wouldn't that be kind of expensive?
Sitemap 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54