Social Queue missing parantheses, consuming hammers with nothing to do

from GalCiv2 Forums
The manual says: "If you have no projects queued, the number above the hammers
will be in parenthesis."

I have a 26 quality world with mega factories, manufacturing capital, etc, consuming nearly 1/3 of my social output even when there is nothing in the queue. I expected that emptying the social production queue would take the planet's social production out of econ calculations (by using parentheses) in the same way that removing ships takes the planet's military production out of the calculation. This has effectively crippled my economy, since I can't build social projects anywhere else.
9,890 views 20 replies
Reply #1 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
In the beta, if I'm not producing socially my social production is all garbled. The production isn't being re-routed over to Military, either. Surely Stardock knows abou that.
Reply #2 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
I'll have to check, but I believe - as has historically been the case with the Gal Civ economic model - if you don't use it, then you lose it.

In other words, Gal Civ unions are tough and landlords are unforgiving. If funds are allocated to social output, but nothing is being built - too bad. You still have to make the payments for the production resouces.

I think the parenths just tell you what you are losing, and don't indicate any savings or non-use.
Start11 - Customize the Start Menu and Taskbar in Windows 10/11.
Reply #3 from Stardock Forums Top

Sadly this is a well known problem.


The manual is 'incorrect' according to Stardock (there is a VERY long thread on this very topic with exactly the problems your having) and your resources are indeed *wasted*. This was less an issue in Gal Civ I than in Gal Civ II where bonus production tiles and multiple factories can literally mean 1 super producer eats up 50+% of all social spending.


My understanding is this is going to be addressed in a patch (to either return the unused to treasury or to spend it on military/research instead).


For now the ONLY thing you can do is to literally destroy factories on your 26 quality world so that the waste is reduced enuff to stop crippling your economy.


It's gotten so bad for me that after the inital few dozen turns I end up destroying factories on my tiles with production bonus's (esp the +700% ones) to stop this problem from killing my economy or starving out my lesser planets from making anything.


KGB


 
Reply #4 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
(I did search the forum before posting, but missed the discussion)

This is a game breaker. I was top rated in the metaverse in GalCiv (as high as fourth for several months), so I know my way around the eco model and I'm familiar with the use-it-or-lose-it concept. But having to keep all the planets at a reasonably similar production level was never a big deal back then.

My issue is, when you lose the ability to build lower productivity buildings like factories because you magically discovered manufacturing centers during an invasion, you might need 100+ weeks to build your first manufactoring center on a newly acquired planet -- or several thousand credits. So I have to shut down social spending everywhere and use cash to get these guys up to speed? That doesn't make sense.

Or obliterate factories as manufacturing centers come online, which is just plain silly.

How did this get through beta?
Reply #5 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
It isn't broken just because you don't like it. If you destoryed your factories, it doesn't make jack all difference to social on another planet, because spending is NOT based on anything other than ability to spend. And yes, it does go to military. I can see that because the first turn I get a new tech, the upgrades say "never" for completion as the funds are going to military instead. It then drops to a realistic 3 weeks once funding gets sorted. The new system works fine, and isn't broken. Don't exagerate by saying "gamebreaker", if other people get around it it shouldn't be a problem.

And if you started a new planet, of course it would take money to get things going. There is some realism to this game, if we colonised Mars we wouldn't have London or New York running on Mars.
Reply #6 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
1) the funds say "never" because the econ model is not updating correctly. There is no 3-turn lag between when a change is made and the results are displayed.

2) if it has to be "got around" it is a bug, not a feature.

3) if you destroy your factories it *does* make a difference to social on other planets. Your understanding of the model is flawed.

4) you should practice ranting, you aren't very good at it.

If one planet has the capacity to spend 50 BC's and 5 other planets have 10 BC's each, then at whatever level spending, the one planet does 5 times output of the others. If one planet has the capacity to spend 500 BC's and your new planet can spend only 10 then the new planet is getting only 1/50 of the available BC's, or maybe 3 or 4. If that planet can't build a simple factory (god knows why not) but only a major manufacturing center, it will take 100 turns. This *is* a game breaker IMHO. I need the ability to bootstrap a new planet, not be forced to build only the latest and greatest buildings.

Either I need to be able to turn off the social consumption of a planet as it says in the manual (get the parentheses), or I need to be able to build primitive structures on primitive planets. Otherwise new conquests are useless, and the entire game will be driven from a core of 4 or 5 worlds.

Again, are we in beta? Why the electronic manual which can be updated in a minute is different on such a major issue is beyond my ability to understand.
Reply #7 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
Simultaneously maintaining a beta manual and a 1.0x manual would be a disaster.
Reply #8 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
just to make it clear...

in normal pre-beta galciv:
social is spent even when you arent building anything.
social=waste.

in beta:
social is redirected to military(which either isnt spent(no ships being built) or goes to the ship making), the display doesnt always show this, but you can easily test that it works this way.

heres simple example how to prove it:
start a game
put something in social queue and notice spending of that planet goes up, clear social queue and the spending goes down.

or you can continue wasting your time on the forum instead of doing a 2 second test.
Reply #9 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
In the 1.1 beta you CAN direct all the production on a planet towards just military, social or research. Not sure if it was possible in the 1.0X.

On another note the so called "use it or use it" concept is no longer a problem since the 1.1 Beta... As from the 1.1 patch all unused production will be funneled into the other categories. Playtesting is being done to determine how this will work and how the bonuses should be applied.

And finally... It's the same for EVERYONE so don't blame your inability to adapt on "flawed" game mechanics. If you're still not happy, well... then I suggest you go back to playing Galciv 1 and stop bugging the rest of us!
Reply #10 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
What do you mean beta -- you mean the beta 1.1 patch?
if this issue was fixed, why didn't someone just say it's been fixed in the patch?
Reply #11 from GalCiv2 Forums Top

I have no idea why someone didn't nip this whole rant in the bud.

People complained about social production being wasted. It wasn't a bug. It was intentional but after a great deal of discussion we decided that we would change it.

We changed it in the 1.1 beta. Which is available. Right now. End of discussion.

Reply #13 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
My only question is, will previus upgrades ever be made available after your tech upgrades? EX Will I ever be able to maek just a factory even though I might have the tech to build an advanced factory?

Thanks!
Reply #14 from Stardock Forums Top
People complained about social production being wasted. It wasn't a bug. It was intentional but after a great deal of discussion we decided that we would change it.


Could we at least say there was a bug in the manual?
Reply #15 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
Frogboy --
FIrst, if it was in the manual it was not reconsidered after complaints. Period.
Second, calling this a rant is uncalled for, as is the preemptory tone. I was never treated this way in the first galciv forum, in which I participated for a year or so. It is inexcusable for the stardock moderator to post like this.

Your forum will degenerate to the level you allow it, and I will probably not return.
Reply #16 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
Not that Frogboy needs defending, but this topic has been beaten to death already. When something has been asked, answered, and fixed, its human nature to be at least a little short when its being asked for again. And again. You said you searched for the topic; I just typed in 'social' and within a few minutes read through several posts about this very same thing.
Reply #17 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
Frogboy --
FIrst, if it was in the manual it was not reconsidered after complaints. Period.
Second, calling this a rant is uncalled for, as is the preemptory tone. I was never treated this way in the first galciv forum, in which I participated for a year or so. It is inexcusable for the stardock moderator to post like this.


Oh boo hoo.

Let's disect this: The manual was probably made months before the game shipped. In that time they decided (which has been talked about) that sending socal production back to teh treasury was too imbalancing.

Then game came out, people complained about social production, there was some discussion and it was decided that social production would get funneled into military production which kept the net revenue of the player's civ reasonably steady. So they put it in to the 1.1 beta.

Your forum will degenerate to the level you allow it, and I will probably not return.


Then go if you're so thin skinned.
Reply #18 from GalCiv2 Forums Top

Frogboy --
FIrst, if it was in the manual it was not reconsidered after complaints. Period.
Second, calling this a rant is uncalled for, as is the preemptory tone. I was never treated this way in the first galciv forum, in which I participated for a year or so. It is inexcusable for the stardock moderator to post like this.

Your forum will degenerate to the level you allow it, and I will probably not return.

I was not referring to your post as a rant but rather that the thread in general had gone several posts without it being made clear that this issue had already been discussed -to death- and addressed.

I'm not a moderator btw.  I wrote the code you are referring to. If users don't like developers in the forum, warts and all, that can be arranged.

Reply #19 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
How did this get through beta?

It was spotted during beta 4 or beta 5 in december https://forums.galciv2.com/?ForumID=274&AID=94769

What do you mean beta -- you mean the beta 1.1 patch?

in normal pre-beta galciv:
social is spent even when you arent building anything.
social=waste.

in beta:
social is redirected to military(which either isnt spent(no ships being built) or goes to the ship making), the display doesnt always show this, but you can easily test that it works this way.

I think that people are forgetting that there are 2 betas:
- when refering behavior of the game compared to the manual, beta could only refer to the the public beta of the game at the end of 2005, prior the release
- there is currently a beta 1.1 patch. And it is the only thing that is currently beta in the game.
Reply #20 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
I was refering to 1.1beta, thought it was obvious enough that beta1.1 is the only beta being discussed on these forums because every 2nd thread is about it and thats why i didnt mention 1.1 beta.