Question about morale buildings, how would you like the behavior changed? This is something that could be addressed in 1.7.
Thanks for asking. Mumblefratz lays it out pretty well. And if you have the time, hopefully my
The Death of Morale Buildings thread helps a little to understand the problem. Several things conspire under the current system:
1) Money (bcs) are the most important thing. For morale buildings to be useful, you must be able to get more money by using them. For a morale building to be useful, placing one of them must allow a 2.5% increase in your global tax rate... or two of them allow a +5% increase (or more) to your global tax rate. In DL 1.4 - two morale buildings DID allow for (at least) a 5% increase in tax rate. In DL 1.4, morale buildings were therefore worthwhile. Even at middle population amounts (13-20 billion) two morale buildings don't allow a 5% increase in tax rate in DA. Therefore, you should always build stock markets in DA, never morale buildings.
2) Higher populations only increase income slowly. Because of the sqrt applied when figuring out how much money a population produces. (Thanks again Iztok) So 20 billion people don't produce twice the money of 10 billion people. They produce only about 25% more. Therefore, higher populations are problematic for producing more money. You will make more money with identical tax rates with 4 planets at 9 billion population than you will with 2 at 20 billion. But at 9 billion you ALSO have no morale worries, so you are free to run at 79% for almost the whole game (excluding the first 30 turns or so). At 20 billion, it is almost impossible to run at 79%, so not only do you make less money by going this route, you can't support as high a tax rate, a double whammy. This makes the only option for money horizontal expansion - always grab as many planets as possible and keep them to the low end of the morale curve (6b - 12b, usually 9b), vertical expansion - a few planets with a high population - isn't a workable strategy.
3) As Mumblefratz pointed out, in addition to the lack of money produced by higher populations - they create a triple penalty on trying to maintain a higher population. The fact that VR centers, the best you can get in morale buildings, result in only a 6% bonus at the top really starts to show why they are not worthwhile. Plus, with smaller populations you are losing almost NONE of your income potential. I've said this before, but basically the problem is this: At low populations you have no need for morale buildings. At high populations when you might need morale buildings, they provide such a small bonus that stock markets (or factories, or anything that will help you in the game) are a more worthwhile use of a tile.
4) Empire wide morale bonus does
not need to be weakened again. That you need a +1000% to be able to get a max bonus for a 25 billion population is already big enough. But compare the effect of empire wide morale bonus to morale buildings, and it is pathetic. That 5% bonus from an entertainment center isn't even that good for LOW populations, it is only a 3% bonus. It eventually drops to a 1% bonus for higher populations. When you look at the penalties associated with the higher end of the tax scale - I only ever run for most of the game at between a 69% and 89% tax rates - there is no way for a morale building to ever support a 2.5% increase in tax, which is the level they need to hit.
5) I hate to bring up penalties, but in this case, you really need more penalties for running at 30%-40% morale. You only need higher morale for 2 out of 52 weeks to support a higher government. Your people don't revolt or defect (often enough) to matter. The population drop takes care of itself... because typically what happens is say I want to run 11 b populations, but researched too far in the farms line so now my planets have a 13b pop limit. They will breed up to 12 billion, get unhappy due to low morale, and die down to 11 billion again, then get happy, and breed back up to 12 billion, etc. All the while I have an 89% tax rate - and I still have my "base" 9 billion unmolested providing all the tax money on each world. Whether my population is at 11 billion or 12 billion has no real effect on my empire, so it doesn't hurt to have morale drop down to 35% (or even 25%) empire wide. They will get happier as they die, and they will always keep at least my 9 billion (real) tax producing population alive. Fixing the morale penalty for advanced governments will help, but doesn't solve the problem. First, you don't need to use advanced governments. Second, by "fixing" that problem all you do is force me to abandon the 12billion pop worlds (that I don't like already) and focus more on the 9 billion pop worlds (where the real money is).
6) Personally, if I had the code, I would make the following changes:
1. When people start dying, worlds start defecting. At lower than 40% morale you start to have a REAL chance that a world will strike off on its own, or defect to an opponent in close proximity to that world. This forces players to keep at least 40% morale for almost the whole game - bringing morale in as a factor even when money isn't a concern.
2. Morale buildings would offer a static bonus to
approval, so that they can be used for larger populations. Say 5%, 10%, 15%, 20%. Yes, this does mean that with 6-8 VR centers you can support large populations. But, that is a 15%-20% loss in tax rate already (because 6-8 tiles could be stock markets) AND all of that population doesn't really produce that much money anyway. It more opens up influence and troop options.
3. Votes for government would be based off of a formula that remembered what your approval was over the last 26 weeks. The current week would be worth 26/351, the week prior 25/351... etc. and 26 weeks ago is worth 1/351. People have short memories, but you still would need to run at lower tax rates for a good portion of the year to be able to pass an election. This would combine with #1 to give people a reason to keep their approval above 40% for most of the game.
With just these three changes (well, really with just change #2, but I'm dreaming) morale buildings would again be efficient to use at some points in the scale, although still not necessarily all. You would also open up more strategy options with higher population worlds. It's not that I don't mind hundreds of worlds with 6-9billion people being taxed 89% and filled with stock markets, but its my only option for decent money. I think making all three of these changes would force players to again consider lower tax rates (down to as low as 69% even) and also open up the options of actually using some higher population worlds - although higher pop worlds would take work, at least they would be possible.
There are, of course, lots of
other changes that could be made, but those other changes start to have far ranging consequences that alter the delicate balance already in place. I wouldn't alter penalties for tax increases, change the other penalties for higher populations, change what % of people pay tax in a population, etc. etc. without a lot more thought, because tweaks to any of those fundamentals starts to create unintended consequences that might drastically effect the game. But the three changes I listed, I think, would allow the current balance to stay in place while bringing in morale buildings as a realistic use of a tile in a competitive game.
Hope that helps. Thanks again for asking. You guys are the best!
- Wyndstar
