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
60,518 views 106 replies
Reply #76 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
Just checked, and in DA base morale for a 25B world is 10%, so you would need a morale ability of +1000% to get the +100% native modifer. With extreme luck on resources, you can probably get close to +500%, so with that, and 19% taxes, on a high PQ world as neutral:

Base: 10%
Taxes: -20
Native +50
Neutral +10
High PQ: +10
Initial colony: +0.5

= 60% approval
Each VRC will add the grand total of 4% to that (not that you'd ever be able to build them, because a tax rate of 19% would cripple you long before that).

Bottom line is that it just isn't worth the effort - stick with 1 farm, 1 VR and 79% taxes across the board.
Reply #77 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
Well, this seems like a pretty good research team we have here. Anyone want to help me on deconstructing the scoring? I've been working on it for a while and I've got some pieces down, but some I still get weird results from....



That would, I think, be a much bigger project because of how slow testing is. I've been keeping numbers tracked on all of my games, and I now have about 30 games worth of completed data points I've been messing around with. You also need to keep some track of what you did during the game to make sense of the numbers.

All for fun, of course.

Offworld Trading Company
Reply #78 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
while I have nothing really constructive to add to this discussion I just wanted to say thanks to you guys for working all this out and tag this thread for future reference.

Keep up the good work.
Reply #79 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
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%).

I don't know, the only numbers from DA that Wyndstar gave were the 11B, 16B and 21B numbers all of which seemed to reasonably fit into the Wiki sequence. If they don't, I can't really tell that from the data that I've been given. In any case my real point in speaking up here was not to argue 1 farm with no VRC versus 2 farms with 2 VRC's (or any other combination of farms and morale buildings). My point was to discredit the fallacy that there was no point in getting a total Morale Ability bonus listed in Stats & Graphs above 100%.

Regardless of potential differences in the DA BaseMorale table to that in DL or the one on Wiki, my conclusion in reply #59 is still a valid conclusion.

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.

However, it would be nice to have an equivalent table for BaseMorale for DA that covered the full ranges of population values that multiple people playing assumedly the same version of DA could agree on. With such a table then there could be no disagreement about which DA build strategy is the better to pursue.
Reply #80 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
So yea, if taxes where anywhare near 79% then what would you do? the answer is... exactly what your doing right now!


That's where you're wrong. Even after all those direct and indirect taxes (which don't all go to the central government), it doesn't get near 79%. Or 50% for that matter. Anyways, the guys that rule the country also pay taxes (remember we're not talking Imperialism only here), and would *they* impose 79% taxes?
Reply #81 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
Hi!
Just checked, and in DA base morale for a 25B world is 10%
...
Each VRC will add the grand total of 4% to that

Is that tested? Have you built one / more? I'm curious because the pure 10% bonus from being neutral can hardly explain the reported empire-wide increase in approval by ~20%. Something doesn't add here just the way it should.

BR, Iztok
Reply #82 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
Tested in current game only - so not a large data sample   

Took one planet up to 25B pop with 6 VR Centres on it, tool-tip displayed:

Population -90%
Taxes -122% (at 79% tax)
Native ability +28% (morale ability is +284%, so this confirms the 10% base)
Buildings +24% - (6 VRCs + colony = 245%, so further confirmation of 10% base)
High PQ +10%

Even at 0% tax, this world would only have approval of 72%

For a 20B pop world with 5 VRCs:

Pop -66%
Tax -122%
NA +96% (0.34 * 284 = 96.56)
Buildings +69% (0.34 * 205 = 69.7) ***yes, it is 13.6% per VRC, not 13.2 that my late night bad maths worked it out at yesterday***
High PQ +10%

For a 13B pop world with 1 VRC:

Pop -36%
Tax -122%
NA +100% (0.64 * 284 = 181.76)
Buildings +28% (0.64 * 45 = 28.8)

This is with DA 1.5X3.072, playing a custom race, evil.

Wyndstar seems to be getting different results, that are closer to the DL table and I have no idea why because this is consistent with what I've seen in previous DA games (can't give exact numbers though).
Reply #83 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
Hi!
> Something doesn't add here just the way it should...
Tested in current game only - so not a large data sample

Thanks for checking. I too did a check by myself - things really don't add here. Seems that going neutral only adds additional 15% to natural morale ability, and is from there on calculated as any other bonus. So Wyndstar's observed ~20% was quite correct, esp. because he didn't pay close attention.

It seems to me that the only two morale factors that arent's decreased by base morale are "+10% from planet quality" and morale events when colonizing a planet (I couldn'd check that by myself). But those two seems to be the same variable for a planet - in a case of morale event the variable that holds the 0% / +10% data for that planet is changed by the amount of the player's chosen outcome. Which makes taking negative choices even more painfull...

IMO that's the last bit in the morale calculation. Anyone fit for putting that on Wiki?

BR, Iztok
Reply #84 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
Wyndstar seems to be getting different results, that are closer to the DL table and I have no idea why because this is consistent with what I've seen in previous DA games (can't give exact numbers though).

Magnumaniac's and Wyndstar's results are not in any direct conflict, in fact looked at together they seem fairly consistent. But clearly, they aren't consistent with DL. Taking just the DA specific datapoints we have the following (note that in my previous table I used a 16B number that was the average between DL and DA, in this case it's just the DA number).

11B, 0.72 (-28%)
16B, 0.52 (-48%)
21B, 0.30 (-70%)

13B, 0.64 (-36%)
20B, 0.34 (-66%)
25B, 0.10 (-90%)

Other than the inconsistency between DL and DA there's nothing that indicates any major discrepency. Graphing these points results in the following reasonably smooth curve.

Reply #85 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
That is so disappointing about the 10% base morale. I want to grow mega-planets with 100B population. And it is sort of realistic--just picture a planet the size of Jupiter, that can sustain life.

Stardock is supposed to do balance tweaks during the 1.6 beta. Anyone else besides me want to give feedback that they want to see all the limits on mega-population lifted? I see why SD did it--it was in response to all the population-related morale problems back in Galciv1--but this is not the greatest solution for it.
Reply #86 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
I see why SD did it--it was in response to all the population-related morale problems back in Galciv1--but this is not the greatest solution for it.

I don't know about GalCiv1, but certainly population and morale have been in a downward spiral since at least v1.2. As far as the why I can't even hazard a guess but the result has certainly been to limit game style options. You're pretty much forced into a very limited range of population and there's really not anything that you can do about it, so don't even try.

The way that BaseMorale is used directly as well as used to depreciate the effectiveness of morale buildings and depreciate the benefits of tech/wonders/resource mining makes it extremely sensitive and tricky to adjust. It would make far more sense to decouple BaseMorale from both buildings effects and native ability. Then if what you really wanted was the approval benefit of a VRC to be 4% you could just make it a straight 4% bonus. At least people would then understand what they were getting. As it is now morale buildings are merely temptations to the unwary player to waste a precious tile.
Reply #87 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
Yep. I don't think I'm too crazy about the whole notion of base morale altogether. However, I do like the idea of being able to "stack" morale in some fashion with multiplying factors, just like you can stack factories with a manufacturing capital or labs with a research coordination center. As it is now, it's reverse-stacking--the more you grow, the more it gets nerfed.
Reply #88 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
You're pretty much forced into a very limited range of population and there's really not anything that you can do about it, so don't even try.


Yeah, and this is why Iztok is starting to convince me on the growing sameness of play in DA. To be at all efficient in money production and use of tiles, in DA you are basically forced into the 13b to 20b range for your planets. And actually, for many many race and map setups the range is really like 13b to 17b.

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.


Yes, I've played with all these and other strategies too in DL. And, of course, no two games are EXACTLY the same. But even in that list, with the DA changes to diplomacy and tech trading two of those styles don't really work anymore... never building research structures and just tech trading (an old favorite of mine) is essentially impossible at the top three difficulty levels, and playing the high diplomacy to just buy up the universe doesn't work anymore either.

You are forced into a spore ship/transport ship rush for any sort of foothold. The planets you take really drop off in effectiveness if you deviate from just a few development styles. Etc. etc. I don't want to go on because I do still love this game and it will sound like I'm whining. My point is, I see Iztok's point.
Reply #89 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
You do still have the option of ignoring DA and continuing to play DL. I haven't heard much discussion about the v1.5 DL, but is this a legitimate option?
Reply #90 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
It is. In fact, if you look at my metaverse profile you would see that lately a few DL 1.5 games are starting to get mixed in with the sea of DA 1.5 postings. The problem is I really miss a lot of the new options (Fertility Clinics can be exploited to an unreasonable degree, for instance) when going back to DL now.

It's kind of like getting a new sports car that keeps overheating. It is new and shiny, and while it is working, it is great fun. Then it overheats and you have to pull over to the side of the road. You think about going back to driving your old beater, but... but the beater just isn't the sports car. See what I'm saying?

And again, take what I'm saying with a grain of salt. I'm not really upset or anything, I am just noticing the restricting of divergant playstyles under DA.
Reply #91 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
and playing the high diplomacy to just buy up the universe doesn't work anymore either.


Oh, it does.   In fact, it seems to work better than ever before now, and you don't even need any starting diplomacy bonuses or the super-diplomat ability.

Current game at end of year 3 I had 759 planets, AIs had 103 between them - and I hadn't fired a shot in anger, or built a transport ship. Did have the MCC, so only half a dozen planets had been gained through culture flipping.

I agree with what you are saying about planet development though - it's all very carbon copy from game to game. I would go as far as to say that the optimum economy build is 12-13B pop only - if you prefer to keep global approval above 70% like I do.
Reply #92 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
I would go as far as to say that the optimum economy build is 12-13B pop only


And actually, for many many race and map setups the range is really like 13b to 17b.


Which all goes back to the argument about the 300% food tile. I think it was Wyndstar who first asked in the ideas for 1.6 thread that this tile be removed. Of course, later there have been a couple threads with people argueing about just this.

And these are the quotes of two masters of the game, checked your meta and altmeta stats both... wow! Great minds getting together in this thread, and if what they are saying is right, then even on a 6b world with only basic farms your pop would go to an 18b, which is outside of the approprite range for DA.

This thread should be bronzed for all new players to read.
Reply #93 from GalCiv2 Forums Top

If I get a planet with the 300% farm tile I'll usually build the lowest level of farm on it, just so I feel I'm getting SOME benefit, even if it's only the benefit of being able to use a cheaper, faster to build structure.

But I agree it's pretty much useless.

Reply #94 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
I like "almost" useless tiles. Actually I'd like more of them. The worst that can happen is, you don't use them. But every so often, you do.
Reply #95 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
I don't see the problem with the 300% farm tile. 18b is a very reasonable standard population size to aim for. Also, I don't see the problem with overbuilding feeding capacity; your planet will just naturally grow until its approval rate drops to the 21%-40% range, which is where you want it anyway. Bottom line, it's really no worse and sometimes a bit better than the 100% farm tile. That makes them more valuable than 100% morale bonus tiles on PQ 11+ planets.

You don't want a 21%-40% approval rating? Why, may I ask? The current election system is broken -- you only need to jack up your approval the week of the election, then you can raise taxes back up until the next election. (Yes, this should be fixed; the obvious solution is using average approval over the last 26 weeks as the input for election results.) Yeah, information warfare is more effective against you, but does that really matter? Is there some other benefit to a high approval rating that I'm missing? Since I seem to do fine having a stack of planets all with exactly 18b population and 21% approval...
Reply #96 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
You don't want a 21%-40% approval rating? Why, may I ask?


Because of revolts. In this range, planets will defect. True, in some cases that might not matter... but that is the reason for me.

And these are the quotes of two masters of the game, checked your meta and altmeta stats both... wow!


I'm flattered, but don't put too much stock on score. Magnumaniac has achieved much higher scores than me, my only claim to fame was figuring out how to consistantly get 100k scores on medium maps with ~130 habitable planets generated. I'm curious how I would do on a Gigantic, but I don't have the time to find out.

But playing for score is different than playing to win. And I have no doubt there are many people out there that don't post metaverse scores or who don't care about score that are very very good at playing to win.

and playing the high diplomacy to just buy up the universe doesn't work anymore either.


Oh, it does. In fact, it seems to work better than ever before now, and you don't even need any starting diplomacy bonuses or the super-diplomat ability.


OK, fair enough. It doesn't work for me, but that probably just means I need to get better. I mostly play on small maps. I've noticed that planets far from a civs capital sell for less, but on smaller maps I'm not good enough to use diplomacy to buy planets, because all the planets are close. I'll work on it and see if I can't improve and get it to work.

Reply #97 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
Because of revolts. In this range, planets will defect. True, in some cases that might not matter... but that is the reason for me.


Hmm, I guess I've just been lucky to not have been affected by one yet. Can someone explain the mechanics of revolt to me? The wiki and manual didn't provide the necessary details.
Reply #98 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
I'd like to hear about that, too, but regardless, I think it's time for me to try espionaging other people's entertainment centers to try & get them to revolt.
Reply #99 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
Hi!
> and playing the high diplomacy to just buy up the universe doesn't work anymore either.

Oh, it does. In fact, it seems to work better than ever before now, and you don't even need any starting diplomacy bonuses or the super-diplomat ability

Hush!!! Or it will be gone in the next patch.

BR, Iztok
Reply #100 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
Hi!
You don't want a 21%-40% approval rating? Why, may I ask?

Because of revolts. In this range, planets will defect.

In my testbed for generating money I've had the test planet below 40% approval for more than 200 turns, and nothing happened. Even if there is just 1% chance of defection or revolt, it should happen with probability of about 0.87 in those 200 turns. My experience may fell in the remaining 13% cases though. For confirming that I'd need to run the test on bigger sample.

BR, Iztok