6 turns is all it took to go from a solid economy to complete production shutdown and back.

Holy Potatoes! That is Insane!

removed/fixed

Let us hope they review this and remove this dastardly demon!

So now I am at the point that if I don't spend 60-70K bc every turn on ships, social builds, and sundry to get below the cap I loose 25-30K that turn. Reganonomics???

So now I am at the point that if I don't spend 60-70K bc every turn on ships, social builds, and sundry to get below the cap I loose 25-30K that turn.

If you don't spend your budget, it'll be reduced. Sounds like Brad is too deeply rooted in business.

More seriously, I really think that the 20K rule is a very bad way of telling the player not to save up a fortune - especially when you need a fortune for projects like upgrading a bunch of ships at the same time.

Scrap the cap. That's one player limitations that makes absolutely no sense. Is it a programming issue?

I understand that the money should be used. Maybe tie funds above $x to morale drops the same way that going in the red does. With too much money, the tax payers sense corruption. There's always a social project to pay off. It doesn't need a hard cap.

Scrap the cap. That's one player limitations that makes absolutely no sense. Is it a programming issue?

No. I think it's just another left-over from GC1. In GC1 the cap made a little more sense since you couldn't build an uber economy.

Anyway I agree the cap is out of whack. It should at least scale to galaxy size, or planets. Or make it a progressive tax so that the OPs case doesn't happen. (go from 5% at 20K to to 20% at 50k or whatever)

I personally find it annoying to quick-buy stuff every turn to get under the 20k penalty. Which drives me to build more research/production planets to spend the money, but invariably I still need to spend more money.

I am with Fuels Chief. I am not necessarily opposed to a cap as such, but I keep finding that 20,000 bc is just too low. I buy one or two high-level buildings, and I'm nearly out of money. And as pointed out already, you virtually cannot upgrade ships in one go, except fairly early in the game.

StarDock doesn't want the players to have loads of cash laying around according to Frogboy.

That is a joke right ?

And i thought that GC2 economy system with that money and capacity wasting sliders
was just a convenient way to program a simple resource management system.

But a hard coded cap for "cash" balance that is outright insane.

Sounds like Brad is too deeply rooted in business

IF he were deeply rooted in business then THIS idea of a cash cap wouldn't even exist.
(and also not that wasteful economy setup of GC2)

It is a micromanaged monopoly game.

For myself i will not spent money on such a weird game play "expansion"
(must be my personal hard coded cap to waste money on weird things at zero EUR)

Thanks for the replies and support.

I.E. Your income is 2K, and the cap is twice your income. So you cap is 4K. Then when your income is 200K, your cap is 400K.

As stated before I am not a code savy guy so I don't know what it would take to do something like what Purge has stated

It should at least scale to galaxy size, or planets. Or make it a progressive tax so that the OPs case doesn't happen. (go from 5% at 20K to to 20% at 50k or whatever)

or like gallagher118.

I guess a pipe dream would be a Galactic Bank sort of like the Selachee handle in Battlefield Earth. Perhaps a new tab on the Domestic policy screen where we can deposit x amount of bc each turn and earn moderate interest rates on. This could then be used for massive upgrades of ships, TG/GW purchases, and what not. Maybe become an available option after researching Galactic Stock Exchanges and implement a minimum balance before withdrawal to avoid cheese tactics that could happen.

Ah, but the definition of hoarding is what is in question here and why it needs to slide with size of your empire in some way. 20K is not hoarding in FC's original post of a 200K+ per turn revenue.

Not only is it unclear and undocumented, it is not good game play.

Rush buying a player designed dreadnaught with high end technology can easily cost around 60k.

Actually you should break this into two pieces. Build the hull then upgrade to the dreadnought. This reduces total cost down to 35K or even less.

I find no difficulty with my income of 1,300,000 bc per turn in buying 30 to 40 of these per turn. Actually I do tend to find it tedious to spend my income down to below 20K each and every turn. If I don't spend my treasury down, my 1.3M bc per week income turns into *only* 700K per week.

My suggestion is that if you want to buy ships like this get your income up to levels that can support it. Otherwise, another tack is to build uber production planets with 16 econ SB production bonus (384%) that can build these types of ships in a turn or two. Actually producing these ships is far more efficient than buying them.

The game gets retarded when you need to buy ships every turn to avoid this penalty.

There's truth in what you say, but my point was more that there's either a penalty or there's not. Changing the penalty from 20K to 40K really doesn't matter that much. However, eliminating it entirely does make a big difference. But anyway, you're going to spend the money on something sooner or later, otherwise why earn it in the first place. Yes there is a micro mangement difference between having to spend it every turn versus being allowed to save it for awhile before spending it. If your point is to reduce the micro management of spending money down then make the limit something like ten times your income.

Mumble you completely missed the point of his post, which was building top of the line ships shouldn't be so easy.

I'm not quite sure what you mean here. I know that I can produce 30 to 40 of these per turn with the appropriate type of production planets or I can simply buy 30 to 40 of these per turn with a sufficient income. Which of these is cheese, pick one and I'll simply do the other. If you think both of these are cheese then make these kind of ships cost ten times more. As long as the AI has to spend either the same amount of money or the same amount of production it really doesn't matter to me. I can out produce them in either case.

I didn't know that, and it sort of suprises me. I personally consider this cheese if it is true.

It is true if you're not neutral. The rush buying of ships benefit that being neutral has is pretty much equivilient to the cost of upgrade versus buy if you're not neutral.

Hi!

Changing the penalty from 20K to 40K really doesn't matter that much. However, eliminating it entirely does make a big difference.

Why not implement it in a different way. Like: the more money empire has in treasury, the less happy / loyal their citizens are. "Look how much they have, and they still tax us so high. I refuse to pay taxes / live in such a corrupt empire!"

The decrease in loyality and morale would start with 10000 BC and would progressively increase to reflect the amount of collected money, so it would become increasingly more difficult to collect really high money. The formula could be
((treasury-10000)^(1/4))-5.

This would give the following decrease in morale and loyality:

treasury   decrease
---------+---------
   10000     0.0
   11000     0.6
   12000     1.7
   15000     3.4
   20000     5.0
   25000     6.1
   30000     6.9
   40000     8.2
   50000     9.1 
   75000    11.0
  100000    12.3
  200000    15.9
  500000    21.5
 1000000    26.5 

Just my 2 stotins (in 21 days it will be cents too ).

BR, Iztok