Developers please explain logic and reasoning of these two things

Hi!
Why should developers explain their design decision? If they start with that, they'll just be explaining all the time all the micro-decisions instead producing next patch.

BR, Iztok

It shouldn't take that long to give a little realism to the game.

---- also someone please help me with this FORUM BUG ----

FORUM BUG

"please post a message before submitting your article". I keep getting this and can't get out of it even trying new posts. For a while posting new threads worked and then now no matter what the interface looks different (with rich text stuff on it and like regular verses fancy text code used to be below now it's on a second page)), too and I fill every field and try and try. Replying to articles worked.. I've rebooted, restarted my browser, cleared the cache and cookies, nothing. It only happens when I create new threads.

This forum won't even load on MSIE, just firefox. Netscape loads it but it freezes Netscape.

I tried making a new account (with cookies cleared) and still the same problem.

3 hours to "return realism"

2 months to return balance.

Design decisions for all software need to be explained, because we are the customers, we pay the bills, we pay the salaries. Do you think a company isn't going to fire you if you are programming for them and you don't explain your design decisions? Heck, you won't even get to the coding stage until it's all laid out in explicit documentation. Only a small number of companies, such as Microsoft, get away with not explaining design decisions, and even they are finding that they can't get away with it as much as they used to.

An extremly small minority of the population is smart enough to do any research at all.
Robots (meaning mechanical devices that can perform preprogrammed physical tasks) are mainly used for production.
Therefore, population won't make any noticable difference to either production or research.

ignus. Hmm.. Now that I think about it, I once asked myself why in MOO2, all of the population did farming, manufacturing, or research and no private enterprise--that would make the government communist.

Oh, but then again why taxes are the square root of the population? Sure taxes have to pay for them, but square root is pretty harsh. A morale equation has it raised to .75 instead of .5(which is square root). It would make more sense to have it raised to a number closer to one. Or offer a good explanation.

This space stuff ....
Moo2 or civ wattever, StarCtrl - craft .. you know the gig ...
Do watt ya gotta do and ...
... buildbuild ... then ... ATTACK !!!!!!!!
Gotta love it - Xplor Xpand Xwatt? --> then Xterm !!!!!
As easy as 1 - 2 -3 ur ...and 4 !!!!!

What does population have to do with research and production?

In the real world, factories and research labs are what matter. Having lots of people means next to nothing without the fascilities.  The people provide the money, what you do with that money depends on you.

Design decision and game balance. If a 100 billion world did 10x the money of 10 billion, it would make these things a must have, instead of an interesting novelty. As for the pop, I'm not sure why they did it. Maybe so when sending troops off for invasion productivity would not drop off the table. That would not be much fun, build a fleet and some transports and then have an empire unable to produce any more. Who would vote for that?

At some point in the game, you will have enough money. The financial struggle will be over, and you will be swimming in cash. You will be able to buy anything you want.

Increasing the tax income will only make that happen sooner, reducing the value of money.

I think it's silly if a planet has 1.5 billion, you sent 1 billion off to fight, you're likely having lots of children and elderly people as soldiers, and even worse people who just aren't into physical battling at all (i.e. out of shape people).

Well if you think about it , the 1.5 billion is amount of people paying taxes. I seem to recall reading that in one of those pop up dialogs in game. So children would not be in the equations.

Also, I am still experiencing a bug where I can't start new threads. It is detailed here. I hope stardock fixes this.
https://www.galciv.wikia.com/wiki/User:SleepAtWork/forumbug

Pull your head out of your ass and think about why they've limited it to the square route.

1. It's lesser then the linear route i.e. 1 pop pt = $1 10 pop pts = $10.
2. It's easier for keeping an economy in balance using the sliders
3. It keeps the AI more competitive cause nothing you can do can instantly shift the economic power in your favor overnight or over the course of even a game year.

If they'd gone linear games would be much shorter plus you and the AI would be able to build and expand much faster with fewer resources, not just at the beginning but using the mutiplier of the money available after the initial expansion. If none of that made sense think about this...

Assume an attrition rate of 1:10 between force A:B respectively. Lets say force A has 10 units and force B 100. And they both build at the same rate of 2 per turn which could represent the square route function. If both engage each other in lets say 1 battle per period A loses 1 units, and then B loses 10. Since A replenishes 2 each turn and loses at a 10% of B's attrition rate then A will eventually win. B meanwhile loses 10 on the first turn has 90 left builds 2, then 92 92/10 9.2 losses 84 84 +2 86 see how b is losing units faster while A is gaining units. same thing with the money.

Using the square is more of an advantage for the little guy then the big guy then linear which keeps the games in check. instead of bitching about design decision ask for more content

A. Better Espionage/Sabotage
B. Tactical Battles
C. Multiplayer

Of course here on Earth the richest, especially per capita, nations are the ones with the highest populatiosn densities right...? India, China, Pakistan, Indonesia. That's where the big bucks are. 

Frogboy, hi, is there any way you know of in the game to work against the enemy stealing tech (like putting more spying money on them). Also after advanced, does putting more money into spying actually do anything? I've had people say with no money they've still stolen tech.

Also, Japan has a high population density, but they are rich. China is making some good strides, too.

While it may cost more tax dollars for infrastructure of higher populations like skyscrapers, is square root the right estimate?

You can not expect a computer game like this to be realistic to a such degree. The economy is balanced in the game and that's what counts.

If you start to think about it, you'll find countless things that are not realistic. Why banks increase the amount of taxes, shouldn't it be a corporate tax for banks and a personal tax for people? actually.. why do I have to build the banks, where is the private sector? where's crowding out effect of high public spending? why do I need labs to research things like trade or alliances? ... it's just a game!

I can't believe he actually got the developer in here to answer this post. Anyway I was going to mention that Magic: the Gathering is a game that has two biweekly columns by lead designers explaining their philosophy about the division of abilities between guilds and the appropriate power level for creatures. So it's not necessarily dumb to ask the developers to justify design choices if it helps keep people from complaining that their favorite tribe got nerfed.

I was going to say Monaco, but then I remembered that they don't have income taxes at all...

I can't believe he actually got the developer in here to answer this post.

The games do need a feel of realism to it. It's not necessarily realistic graphics. I have done programming myself and that is hard work and takes a long time--making a simple justifiable story usually doesn't take as long and it's very important.

Meklar - and what I said is accurate: Higher populations should do not translate even linearly into higher tax income.

We have our own world to use as an example.