IztokBitenc IztokBitenc

NLC's and Industrial Sectors broke my economy

▼

NLC's and Industrial Sectors broke my economy

from GalCiv2 Forums
Hi!
In my current DA 1.50.72 fastest-tech maso game I for the first time allowed my planets to build "ultimate" production and research buildings: Neutrality Learning Centers and Industrial Sectors. Those two combined changed my financial state dramatically, and for the worse. Let me explain that a bit more.

Im most my games I build my planets by a simple rule of thumb: 1/4 of every kind of buildings: 1/4 factories, 1/4 labs, 1/4 banks and 1/4 for other purposes (colony center, 1 morale, 1 farm, starport, specialization, "wonders"...). In DA with nerfed factories I sligtly increased amount of them to ~30%. My usual spending sliders settings are 1%/49%/50%, and in late mid game, when my core ~20 planets achieve maturity (all tiles used with the latest kind of buildings, but not NLCs and ISs), I'm usually flowing in money. At that time I usually have in possession at least one of each kind of galactic resources, ofc. most of them fully mined.

My current game went about the same way, but then I decided to build NLCs first, and after them also the ISs. Since both cost a lot of money (=time to build) I decreased my research slider from 50% to 30%. The first effect I noticed when first NLCs on bonus tiles came on-line was a drop in income: all of a sudden I couldn't spend money for spies. Playing as a Kryn that sounds silly, but that was just a consequence of moving from Reseach Academies with 14 TP output to NLCs with 22. To alleviate that I had to lower my research slider for another 5%, but that was just a temporary solution. Since more and more more NLS were built, they required more and more money to feed ther enormous output. So I increased taxes from 69% to 79%. That helped, but when my planets started producing ISs, my financial situation again went to worse. Those ISs cost lots of money to maintain and require 20% more money to feed their production. Just from five HWs I currentely possess (that have the usuall infrastructure: manuf. capital, Quantum power plant and ~5 ISs and one-two starbases for support) I get so much production I can not afford to fincance it.

Here's my current situation:
- I'm running taxes at 71% to allow newly conquered planets to grow at 100% approval, producing 8300BC from taxes,
- I have Federation as government,
- my econ ability is at 108%, morale 174% and research 133%,
- 3 turns ago I had an econ treaty worth 200BC with Altarians, the third strongest econ,
- all my older planets have Stock Markets, on most newly conquered I'm building financial buildings exclusively, even converting other buildings into it,
- all my trade routes (11) are active, bringing measly 340BC, with potential of ~800 (my financial capital brings 340, average planet at 9B pop ~200),
- my empire produces 370BC from turism,
- my espionage spending is turned off, my research is all-time high despite its slider is at 21%, several production-heavy planets are turned off (nothing in military queue), but
- I'm still barely runing positive income, as that dozen of newly conquered planets with 1-2B pop costs me ~40BC to have each.

Solution: win ASAP. In the mean time I'm:
- growing pop at 100% approval on most planets to make those new planets pay for themself ASAP,
- converting some ISs into Stock markets,
- converting other buildings on conquered planets into Banks/Stock Markets/Trade centers, covering empty tiles with Trade Centers, and
- researching the latest morale tech to build the only one morale "wonder" I don't have yet, to increase taxes back to 79%.

Conclusion
My "1/4" model does not allow me tu fully utilize those ultimate buildings. In future games I'll need much more econ buildings before I can afford too build NLCs and ISs. The best approach will probably be to
- build lately-gained planets into econ planets (most econ buildings), and
- on "old" planets to convert one of existing research and one production buildig on most planets to Stock Markets, before actually building there NLCs and ISs.

BR, Iztok
60,521 views 106 replies
Reply #51 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
Hi!
Around 25-26b ish the penalty for more population seems to drop off.

There's floor for it too: 10%. Neutral civs get additional 10%, so floor for them is 20%.

Which makes figuring out what you want for your base worlds "easy as cake" (2010). Say you want only a 13b population...
Compare with say a 15b ...
but 15b population is more versatile than a 13b population... for raising taxes, for defense...

Ermmm, but 13B cap requires only one farm, that can be upgraded by gouvernor. For 15B I need to turn off the gouvernor to prevent automatic upgrades. I turned "him" off in my last game. Then I had to manually put in queue 100 NLCs, not to mention the rest of the stuff. Since the planet management is very clumsy (way too many point-and-clicks), I'm not going to repeat that again.

...and for breeding troops.

You can't breed troops faster on a a 15B planet. Every planet over 2.5B and with the same approval breeds the same amount (new_pop = max(3% old_pop, 75M) * bonuses). The pool from which you can load troops is larger on 15B, but I'll probably stay at 13B, as my core planets almost never get invaded.

BR, Iztok
Reply #52 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
114 * 3.00 = 342, vs. 122 * 2.75 = 335

I understand where you're going with this but there are a *lot* of assumptions here. I think it's valid as a 'rule of thumb' but I wouldn't try to make definite statements using this.

This presumes a planet with 12 stock markets (300% econ bonus) that you give up one SM for a farm to get the additional pop. If you change the number of stock markets on the planet you get a different answer. Also we do know that income isn't directly proportional to population, there is a certain (unknown) amount of folks that don't count. So income is proportional to the square root of the pop minus some unknown offset. This changes your numbers again.

Finally, you have many situations where you can have the extra pop without losing a tile by having the farm on a bonus tile. Also using a limited number of morale buildings on a planet can still be worthwhile and these also can be implemented using fewer tiles if the planet has some morale bonus tiles. Both of these factors give you a different result for your income calculation, however these both work only in the direction of being an advantage to the higher pop choice.

Certainly you could go in a planet by planet basis and calculate the optimum pop based on number of tile and what kind of bonuses the planet has but you would definitely need to find out how much of the population doesn't count and the exact formula for calculating income. I don't think I'd be willing to go that far. Although if you want to graph out a few pop versus income points we could probably figure it out, it might be interesting.

But the point that I was trying to make (and I think is made) is that the assumption that global sources of morale are useless in DA is a fallacy. Yes, they may be less useful than they are in DL but *not* useless.
Ashes of the Singularity II
Reply #53 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
You were correct in saying that it's the NATIVE ability that's capped at 100%. You were incorrect in saying that NATIVE ability is the sum of all morale bonuses/abilities. NATIVE ability is actually the sum of all morale bonuses/abilities depreciated by the base morale (i.e. the morale determined by the population of the planet). There is a major difference in these assertions.


If that's the case, then why is it in all my games that, if I have 2 yellow starbases, I can upgrade the second one all I want and it doesn't raise my morale one doggone point? There's a real cap there, and I see it kicking in. It happens around the time I have Harmony Crystals, Zero G researched, Ultra Spices, one fully-upgraded yellow base, and +10 racial morale bonus. That's right around 100%. I HATE THAT CAP!!!
Reply #54 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
Bravo Mumble and Wyndstar!  You should get Noble price for unlocking the Mysteries of Moral.
Reply #55 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
Actually, it's not that bad. Many socialist countries have high tax rates, but they also provide high levels of service to their citizens: unemployment insurance, socialized health care, etc.

What I'm thinking is that for that 79%, the government is taking care of almost all necessities (housing, food, health care, education, etc.) leaving the remaining 21% as pure discretionary income. That's how I'd run an empire.

Now what I would love is the ability to adjust tax rates for specific worlds.
Reply #56 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
If that's the case, then why is it in all my games that, if I have 2 yellow starbases, I can upgrade the second one all I want and it doesn't raise my morale one doggone point? There's a real cap there, and I see it kicking in.

I didn't say a cap doesn't exist. Yes there is a cap but the cap is on native morale not on the benefit of as you say 'yellow starbases'.

The best way you can see this is to have two planets, one with a pop of 10B and the other with a pop of 20B. Let's say you have a 'yellow starbase' (or two or whatever) that has no modules installed. At first as you add modules to the starbase you can see the approval on both planets get better. At some point you add another module to the starbase but the approval on the 10B planet doesn't improve. What you will notice is that on the 20B planet the approval did improve. You can then continue to add modules for awhile and the 10B planet's approval will not change but the 20B planet's approval will continue to improve. Eventually however, at some point even the 20B planet's approval will stop improving.

In order to see this going on you have to first off be paying attention at the right time. You also have to have planets with noticeably different populations. What people are doing is looking at that 10B planet seeing it's approval stop improving and then saying it does no good to get any more morale bonuses and so they stop. If all you're ever going to have are 10B planets then you're correct to stop. However, if at some point you may want a 20B planet you just made a big mistake.

Hope this explains it better.
Reply #57 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
leaving the remaining 21% as pure discretionary income. That's how I'd run an empire.


This is off-topic but I could not resist: in many socialist countries you will have difficulties in spending this 21%: most things you would want to spend money on are not simply available for money (alone). Or your 21% is too small sum to buy things you'd like to buy. Plenty of reason to be unhappy regardless of having the basic (material) needs covered.  


Reply #58 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
it looks like the morale bonus from ethical events is huge. It's not multiplied by base morale

Absolutely correct. Same with the 10% bonus for planets PQ11 or above and the same with the 10% neutral bonus. These are essentially direct 'approval' bonuses not 'morale' bonuses.

This also highlights how truly puny the benefit of morale buildings are. Yes the morale improvement of the top end entertainment building (VRC) is 40% but at a pop of 20B this only improves approval by 16% (0.4 * 0.4) or 8% at 25B+ if anyone really ever wants to try and get there.

At 20B, which is a reasonable pop goal, the effective 16% approval boost of a VRC doesn't even compensate for the 20% approval decrease caused by only 19% taxes. To actually compensate for the 122% approval decrease caused by 79% taxes you'd need 8 VRC's at 20B and 15 VRC's at 25B+. Plus don't forget the tiles you'd need for the farms. There's certainly not much point attempting anything above 20B, in fact you're really just 'tilting at windmills' fighting the system trying to get anything above 13B.
Reply #59 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
The best way you can see this is to have two planets, one with a pop of 10B and the other with a pop of 20B. Let's say you have a 'yellow starbase' (or two or whatever) that has no modules installed.


I can check that out. Looks like a 10B planet's base morale is around 75%, while a 20B planet is 40%. That would put the caps at 100/.75=133% and 100/.40 = 250%. That's believable. It's also quite a big difference.

Looking at the wiki again, it looks like the morale bonus from ethical events is huge. It's not multiplied by base morale. +23 morale from an ethical event means +23 morale (wow, what a concept!). Take your 100% native cap, multiply by a 25B planet's base morale of 20%, take that to the 0.75 power (which isn't too hard: 100%^0.75=100%), that 43% morale. That planet's going to keep growing past the 25B mark without a single entertainment center.
Reply #60 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
Actually there is a maximum MoraleAbility that there is no benefit to exceed. That value is the reciprocal of the BaseMorale of the maximum population that you want to maintain. From the listed numbers throughout this thread you get the maximum useful MoraleAbility's.

25B+ = 500%
21B = 334%
20B = 250%
19B = 228%
16B = 193%
15B = 167%
13B = 150%
11B = 139%
10B = 130%
6B = 113%
Reply #61 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
That planet's going to keep growing past the 25B mark without a single entertainment center.


I need to correct myself on this and I can't edit my last post. I didn't factor in taxes yet (and a number of other things). It depends on your taxes. I'll just make the general statement: it looks like blowing past the 25B mark is very much doable on planets that get a good ethical event bonus.
Reply #62 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
A stupid thought: what would I do in RL if taxes would be anywhere *near* 79%? Ugh!


Yeah...I hate putting my taxes higher than 51%, game or not.
Reply #63 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
Hi!
> 114 * 3.00 = 342, vs. 122 * 2.75 = 335

I understand where you're going with this but there are a *lot* of assumptions here. I think it's valid as a 'rule of thumb' but I wouldn't try to make definite statements using this.

Sorry, but that statement is VERY valid. Money from popuation IS square-rooted (I tested it here: DA - producing money - a testbed results) and the Stock Market gives exactly 25% bonus.

There's certainly not much point attempting anything above 20B, in fact you're really just 'tilting at windmills' fighting the system trying to get anything above 13B

I'll ask again: where's that wide diversity of first reported GC-2 DL games now?   Stardock?

BR, Iztok
Reply #64 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
Absolutely correct. Same with the 10% bonus for planets PQ11 or above and the same with the 10% neutral bonus. These are essentially direct 'approval' bonuses not 'morale' bonuses.


The PQ11 bonus I do see in the wiki, but I don't need the neutral bonus. According to the wiki, the neutral bonus is still multiplied by base. I also know my galaxy-wide approval goes up by more than 10% when I pick neutral. It's the wiki's wrong and neutral is ADDING to the base....
Reply #65 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
Hi!
I also know my galaxy-wide approval goes up by more than 10% when I pick neutral. It's the wiki's wrong and neutral is ADDING to the base....

That should be easily provable: pick neutral and get pop on one 11+ planet up to 25B. The base pop morale should be 30% (10% floor + 10% planet quality + 10% neutral).

BR, Iztok
Reply #66 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
EASILY provable? First you have to get a planet to 25B.

Shoot. The doggone edit button...I meant _unless_ the wiki's wrong and neutral is adding to the base....
Reply #67 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
Sorry, but that statement is VERY valid. Money from popuation IS square-rooted (I tested it here: DA - producing money - a testbed results) and the Stock Market gives exactly 25% bonus.

I hadn't seen the work you did on income. Thanks for pointing it out. Very interesting.

However, even if the income calculation is directly proportional as you have shown, it makes the statement valid only for that specific number of stock markets on the planet. Also it's only valid on a percentage basis not an absolute basis unless the tax rate is specified as well. In his calculation you could only conclude that the 13B planet with 12 SM's would have an income that's 342/335 (or about 1.02 or 2%) greater than the income of the 15B planet with 11 SM's.

The point I was making is that if you change that planet so that it has 20 SM's on it the calculation becomes 114 * 5.00 = 570 versus 122 * 4.75 = 579.5 and now the 15B planet's income is 579.5/570 (or 1.6%) greater than the 13B planet.

The answer is you make more money with less pop with 12 SM's but you make more money with more pop with 20 SM's. Therefore you can't make a general statement about which will generate more income, it depends on both how many SM's you're giving up to get the extra pop *and* how many total SM's there are on the planet. Clearly the answer will vary from planet to planet. That's what I meant when I said his statement wasn't valid in general.
Reply #68 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
For that small a difference in income, it's better to take the population anyway. At least, unless the influence bonus from the SM's somehow outweighs the population's influence.
Reply #69 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
Hi!
However, even if the income calculation is directly proportional as you have shown, it makes the statement valid only for that specific number of stock markets on the planet.

Erm, what more do you want? You already cracked down the morale formula. Now combine it with previous formula and you can precisely determine the optimal planet population and structures on it for the maximum cash yield.

BR, Iztok
Reply #70 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
Hi!
For that small a difference in income, it's better to take the population anyway

Depends on rece's morale ability, if you can afford running taxes at the same percentage in both cases and still keep your planets above target approval. In my small games I rather prefer 13B.

BR, Iztok
Reply #71 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
Therefore you can't make a general statement about which will generate more income


Oh, yes - I agree. That calculation was just for example purposes. And, just to be clear, it was figured on a PQ10 world, 300% was only 8 stock markets and a base 100%, vs. 2 farms and 7 stock markets on a similar PQ10 - and figuring no empire bonuses. I just like to build templates around a PQ10, because in DA everything hits at least that eventually, and for all the planets that go over in PQ it is easy to have a pattern of how to add buildings (for these worlds, all SMs).

The fact that with fewer stock markets smaller pop wins by about 2% per world, and with more larger pop wins by about 2% really only goes to what I was trying to say - but maybe didn't make clear... the two approaches are about equal, but there are more advantages in other areas of the game to a higher pop so I would err on that side. (And yes, I know higher pops don't breed faster Iztok, sorry if you thought that is what I meant. Rather, because of the sqrt modifier on pop size to income, you don't take the same income hit for launching transports from those worlds as you do launching from smaller pop worlds).


EASILY provable? First you have to get a planet to 25B.


No problems there if you are just running a test. Set up a base world with 7 basic farms and troop transport in the population, and start testing.

That should be easily provable: pick neutral and get pop on one 11+ planet up to 25B. The base pop morale should be 30% (10% floor + 10% planet quality + 10% neutral).


But, and I'm not at my home computer right now, I didn't see a base +10% when I went neutral in my game last night. Rather, I got an Empire wide bonus of 20% when I researched xeno ethics and went neutral. I can check when I get home later, but going from memory I think it just added to empire morale. Well, I *know* it adds to empire morale, I guess the question is whether there is another additional unmodified +10% at the planet level.

I'll ask again: where's that wide diversity of first reported GC-2 DL games now?


Sadly, you are really starting to convince me on this one Iztok. I used to play all sorts of styles for the variety or roleplaying aspects... but the more I play the more I realize there really is a single best way to approach planet design, a single best way to approach ship design, a single best way to approach research. Each of those changes depending on the race you are playing and map settings, which is where the little variety lies. But many races and maps play exactly the same, leading the experience to turn into an indistinguishable gray goo...

BUT - that's why we are all excited about the 1.6 patch. Something new to do!

Good luck all.




Reply #72 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
For that small a difference in income, it's better to take the population anyway. At least, unless the influence bonus from the SM's somehow outweighs the population's influence.

Oh, I definitely agree that a small difference in either direction favors the higher pop scenario.

You already cracked down the morale formula. Now combine it with previous formula and you can precisely determine the optimal planet population and structures on it for the maximum cash yield

I don't want to take it to this level of detail. I do want to know I'm in the right ballpark but I don't want to worry about wanting different numbers of farms/morale buildings on different planets dependent on size and bonuses, it's just not worth the micromangement as I think you pointed out earlier.

Right now in DL I go with no farm/no morale on PQ7 and below for 6B, 1 farm/no morale on PQ8-10 for 13B and 2 farms/2 VRC's on PQ11 and above for 20B. I assume when I do move to DA I'll have to adjust this a somewhat but I'd be looking to do something similar. Whether I squeeze every last nickel out of a planet isn't that important to me, I just don't want to do anything too stupid.

Oh, yes - I agree. That calculation was just for example purposes.

Yes, it's a fine example. I just didn't want to imply too much precision. It's good to have numbers to back up your decisions but it's also good to not get too carried away with them and ignore common sense. Not all things can be finely quantified, for example the benefits of a larger pop. As you point out after going through all this detail it then comes down to the subjective judgement that higher pop is worth a little lower income. It's good to have gone through the numbers so that you know it is just a little and not a lot that your giving up.
Reply #73 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
I'll ask again: where's that wide diversity of first reported GC-2 DL games now?

Sadly, you are really starting to convince me on this one Iztok. I used to play all sorts of styles for the variety or roleplaying aspects... but the more I play the more I realize there really is a single best way to approach planet design, a single best way to approach ship design, a single best way to approach research.

I certainly have to agree the number of different game styles have significantly decreased (I do miss the high pop strategy), but there still are some different ways to play. I've played slow tech with no tech trading and developed massive research planets surrounded by arrays of economic starbases for in excess of 400% research bonuses. I've played fast tech with tech trading and never built a research building. I've played high diplomacy where you get the AI's to give you their planets and I've played weak sister where you have to pay everyone off to not kill you for what seems like forever before eventually you can start picking off your opponents. Even in games that start out with a similar strategy something usually happens that causes each game to be unique. The weakest AI in one game may be the strongest in the next. Yes, game diversity has declined but rumors of its death are highly exaggerated.
Reply #74 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
From the Wiki Article plus extra data points from both my and Wyndstar's data we get the following table for BaseMorale. I believe this has remained constant throughout all the various DL revs and is still the same in DA. This data is consistent between all three sources of data (Wiki, DL, DA).

POP, BaseMorale (Tooltip Display)
1B, 0.99 (-1%)
2B, 0.98 (-2%)
4B, 0.94 (-6%)
5B, 0.91 (-9%)
6B, 0.89 (-11%)
10B, 0.77 (-23%)
11B, 0.72 (-28%)
13B, 0.67 (-33%)
15B, 0.60 (-40%)
16B, 0.54 (-46%)
19B, 0.44 (-56%)
20B, 0.40 (-60%)
21B, 0.30 (-70%)



This does not appear to be the case in DA - in my current game 13B is 0.64 (-36%) and 20B is 0.34 (-66%). Each VR centre at 20B pop gives you an increase of 13.2%, so you need 5 just to offset the population effect.

That said, it is possible to have 20B pop with 2 VR centres on a PQ11+ with a tax rate of 69% and still maintain 70%+ approval (provided you have the maxed out +100% native ability - which in turn requires a morale ability of just under +300%).

However, all other things being equal and replacing the 2nd farm & VR with Stock markets, this gives a marginally lower overall tax income than having 13B pop on every planet with 1 VR Centre and a tax rate of 79% - with an approval of 80%+ everywhere, and only requires a morale ability of just under +160%.
Reply #75 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
A stupid thought: what would I do in RL if taxes would be anywhere *near* 79%? Ugh!


hmmm well if you consider that your hit with income tax when you get your money, then get hit with tax again when you spend it,,, Also you get taxed on any investments and then there are all mannor of quazi taxes such as speeding fines, licencing, and all kinds of other government charges when you try to do things in life... then there is local government which takes it's cut in rates etc etc.

So yea, if taxes where anywhare near 79% then what would you do? the answer is... exactly what your doing right now!