About the spending sliders

from GalCiv2 Forums

First I have to say that I only play DL, so I don't know how exactly DA or TA handle the spending sliders.

So I read a bit about strategies to understand better how the spending sliders work and discovered the "all labs" and "all factories" strategies which seem to be mandatory for suicidal difficulty. Now I understand the spending sliders and I have to say that this is completely counterintuitive and unlogical. One would expect that the factories and labs work at 100% efficiency if the industry capacity slider is at 100%. But that is not the case if you have build factories and labs. For example with your spending at 50% military and 50% research, both factories and labs only work at 50% efficiency. There is no way for me to let factories and labs both work at 100% efficiency even if my economy could easily support this.

And this is why the "all labs" and "all factories" strategies (or even the "flipping" strategy) exist because they are the only way to run your buildings at 100% efficiency. Just build only factories and no labs and set research spending to 0% and then focus your planets to reseach (or the other way around with building labs and no factories). Am I the only one who finds those strategies completely ridiculous? I am not criticizing the strategies themself, only that they are far superior to a mixed approach.

Here is how I could imagine the sliders to work:
- There should be 3 sliders.
- 2 capacity sliders and 1 distribution slider.
- The 2 capacity sliders replace the current industry capacity slider.
- 1 capacity slider determines the capacity of factories from 0 - 100% (100% being the optimum of course)
- 1 capacity slider determines the capacity of research labs from 0 - 100% (100% being the optimum of course)
- 1 distribution slider replaces the current 3 distribution slider
- the single distribution slider merely determines the distribution of factory production to military and social production from 0% social/ 100% military to 100% social / 0% military

With this setup, you could do everything you can do with the current sliders and more. It would be possible to run both factories and labs at 100% efficiency while retaining all the old adjustment possibilities.

For example a 100% industry capacity 25%/25%/50% (mil/soc/res) distribution setup in the current system would equal 50% factory capacity, 50% research capacity with the factory production distributed 50% to military and the other 50% to social.

On the other hand with my proposed system you could set factory and research capacity to 100% and distribute the factory production 50% to military and 50% to social. This is simply not possible with the current system (apart from the afore mentioned specialized strategies).

The distribution between factory production and research is made on the planets by building the appropriate buildings in the intended mix and using the focus to shift some of the production to other fields. This is true for the current system as well as for my proposed system.

Discuss.  :)

6,838 views 15 replies
Reply #1 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
this topic is as old as the game and been discussed a million times.

And I think most agree that it's stupid as it is ;P
Reply #2 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
The big thing with that system is that if you're not running at 100% for a factory or lab, then you have workers sitting on their hands.

The current system allocates your workers to what you want done. You have a workforce of your population. If you are running at 0/50/50 then you have half of your people in the factories and the other half in the labs. You have zero wasted workforce as long as that production slider at the top is at 100%.
Siege of Centauri
Reply #3 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
this topic is as old as the game and been discussed a million times.And I think most agree that it's stupid as it is
End of quote


I see, but then I'd like to know why it is so stupid in the first place.

The big thing with that system is that if you're not running at 100% for a factory or lab, then you have workers sitting on their hands.

The current system allocates your workers to what you want done. You have a workforce of your population. If you are running at 0/50/50 then you have half of your people in the factories and the other half in the labs. You have zero wasted workforce as long as that production slider at the top is at 100%.
End of quote


The current system has nothing to do with workers which I can easily show with a little example:

First scenario: 0/50/50 spending, a basic factory (6 MP) and a basic lab (6 FP)
output: 3 MP and 3 FP, so I could assume 6 workers by using your analogy

Second scenario: 0/100/0 spending, two basic factories (12 MP)
output: 12 MP, what has happened now? The number of workers has suddenly doubled?
Reply #4 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
so I could assume 6 workers by using your analogy
End of quote


And that I think is where your thinking got flawed. Output of a building isn't equal to number of workers. You're not necessarily getting more workers into a Industrial Sector than you are a Basic Factory, your technology is better thus it has a better output.

Your scenario itself is even flawed since you are changing more than just the sliders between the two. I'd say you can't have your cake..etc, but as I said in another thread, I'm not a cake person, so why does this analogy fit me?

But as melon-head ~snickers~ said, this is a dead-horse topic. Wait until forums appear for not-MoM and voice your concerns at that point if they use any sort of slider system there since that engine will be used for GC3 I believe.
Reply #5 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
Arrrgghhhh.. again?

If Stardock coders think (or had been) a better system would be more "logical" (that is - as much different as anyone could define it, btw), they ***ALSO*** would need to change the entire dynamics of gameplay; including, the AI algorithms so that those can compensate their activities to the new feature(s).

Don't be fooled by the apparent easiness of such alteration, it is waaaaayyyy more complex than it seem at first.

Won't go into details but i too believe this issue is a dead-horse topic.
Reply #6 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
so I could assume 6 workers by using your analogy
End of quote
And that I think is where your thinking got flawed. Output of a building isn't equal to number of workers. You're not necessarily getting more workers into a Industrial Sector than you are a Basic Factory, your technology is better thus it has a better output.Your scenario itself is even flawed since you are changing more than just the sliders between the two.
...
End of quote


The number of "workers" doesn't really matter, just assume it's the same in both scenarios. Why has the output suddenly doubled then? There is no better technology involved at all.

I am well aware that this would be no easy change especially regarding the AI. But we can discuss stuff here, right? I didn't know that this is a dead-horse topic, now I do. ;)
It's just that the current system is quite disappointing to me...
Reply #7 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
There is no better technology involved at all.
End of quote


There are different buildings involved. One you had a factory & a lab, the other 2 factories...that is where you got the additional 'workers'.

The two scenarios also accomplished two entirely different things.
Reply #8 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
If I remember previous topics about this correctly, this inefficency was intentionally built into the game to force the player to make strategic decisions about spending, rather than being able to crank out as much as you want at any time.

This also explains why the all-x strategies are so powerful, even if they have been nerfed for TA.
Reply #9 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
If I remember previous topics about this correctly, this inefficency was intentionally built into the game to force the player to make strategic decisions about spending, rather than being able to crank out as much as you want at any time.
End of quote


This also explains why the all-x strategies are so powerful, even if they have been nerfed for TA.
End of quote


IMO, the all-x "strategies" should either not be possible or should be obviously inferior to playing the game as designed and intended (IMO, ie, no point in having sliders if it's equally efficient to do all-x type setups).

Anyways. I don't think the current setup is bad at all for gaming purposes. It works. It's a little wierd when you think about it too much. But it works.
Reply #10 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
If I remember previous topics about this correctly, this inefficency was intentionally built into the game to force the player to make strategic decisions about spending, rather than being able to crank out as much as you want at any time.
End of quote


I'd agree with the argument in principles at least. But the whole point of the actual sliders 'variation' is that there is a mathematic CONSTANT involved. One player can manage two specific areas; Research & Productions (that one being split into Social Manufacturing and/or/nor Shipyard output).

The logic of it is more of a philosophical manner than a true control over any consequences, be it into focus on each planets or applied empire wide.

To me the 100% productivity ---MUST--- be limited somehow to real products since the result will always be the same; elements that come into gameplay and which have certain values as they are tied with a number of strategies. The management part is a different issue as that means more like adapting choices and surface designs than exploiting whatever limits we are given. Brake (or change, even if only to provide a full 300% relative total) that principle, this game becomes something else altogether.

Not only that, the entire mechanics of buildings (cost, maintenance, effects, etc) would also need a complete overhaul to lock up the new balancing factors in such a way that AIs would still be 'smart' enough to compete in many aspects.

And, then there is the BCs calculations; this is also important for a lot of reasons. Morale, Influence & available spending power. Three of many, many more.

The illusion of lowest effects because of limited sliders is just that - an illusion. Or something to handle, properly.

Etc, Etc!! ;)
Reply #11 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
I think it is quite logical actually. Since you have fixed amount of money from taxes you have to choose where to allocate your money. You can't have it all just as in real life.
Reply #12 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
I think it is quite logical actually. Since you have fixed amount of money from taxes you have to choose where to allocate your money. You can't have it all just as in real life.
End of quote


I would agree with you if it would work that way. But it does not. The sliders just give the illusion to work like that. This is one of the reasons why they're bugging me.
I still can overspend or more importantly make huge profits which i am simply not allowed to spend to structures that are quite capable of better efficiency.
Reply #13 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
You're not necessarily getting more workers into a Industrial Sector than you are a Basic Factory
End of quote


Loupindor, just using the word "workers" in this discussion is a disservice to newer players (or folks just starting to dig into these details). Because population has no effect on planetary output, you should limit talk to tile improvements and the civ-wide economy.

Mind you, I hope to see this become more complex for GC3. Whether, and how much, the presence of labor (skilled or otherwise) affects output should be a factor of the production or research tech being used. Drengin Slave Pits should require huge populations, but maybe the real trick for Neutrality Learning Centers is that one person can do the work of hundreds or thousands of people using a Basic Lab.
Reply #14 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
Loupindor, just using the word "workers" in this discussion is a disservice to newer players
End of quote


After I saw the chaos that ensued after I posted that, I'll agree with you.
Reply #15 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
I still can overspend or more importantly make huge profits which i am simply not allowed to spend to structures that are quite capable of better efficiency.
End of quote


That's precisely what i meant by "balancing factors" - there is a delicate gameplay context region where any player can FIND how to micro-manage the most efficient values as, when this fragile but calculated distribution of resources is somehow altered, the whole set of strategic elements and decisions DO become much more complex (different, and yet indirectly un-balancing to the usual activities).
Thus, why i used the term -- entirely new game.