Is there a way to counter bureaucracy, its increasingly ruining my economy? I think the game really needs improving on its economic aspect - looking at the balance for my home planet i.e.
Income: Tax 580 (set to normal)
Mining 400 (core mining built - way too low in my eyes considering the negative effects mining has)
Expenses: Building Upkeep 650 (though I've built elementary and necessary structures only, much too high in my eyes)
Defense Upkeep 15
Bureaucracy 396 (yet increasing)
Ship upkeep 50
I run a deficit and the game provides absolutely nothing to change this. There are no structures I could remove and the game provides no other structures I could build to improve the economy (this research aspect is missing). There seems to be nothing I can do to deal with the increasing burocracy costs, I don't even know what causes them. Growing your empire in a large map seems to trigger a cost increase which yout cannot counter at all, as least I haven't found a way to do so. I do like a challenging economic model but this really starts to get frustrating.
bureaucracy
Moderator: MOD_Armada2526
RE: bureaucracy
Play the Walden or Hoon Yu.
It's a game mechanic to reflect the increasing burden of managing a large empire. Unless you play one of these two races, there comes a point where the imperial overhead threatens to stop you in your tracks, even on a medium map. I'm presently playing the Klurgu on a 120 x 120 map and out of a total imperial budget of 20k/turn, over 6k is spent on bureaucratic overhead. I'm managing by trading tech aggressively and establishing trade missions with the various weaker empires, but I'm at the point where I'm definitely cherry picking planets, and only taking ideal worlds.
Anything else I just nuke to the stone age and move on.
Once I get infinite communication technology I may stop colonizing worlds, period...and simply exterminate anybody who is near me in VPs. After all, I get fat points as a Klurgu for genocide. Non bureaucratic races need to specialize their game play to max out their VPs according to their racials, and you can find ways to win based on that.
It's a game mechanic to reflect the increasing burden of managing a large empire. Unless you play one of these two races, there comes a point where the imperial overhead threatens to stop you in your tracks, even on a medium map. I'm presently playing the Klurgu on a 120 x 120 map and out of a total imperial budget of 20k/turn, over 6k is spent on bureaucratic overhead. I'm managing by trading tech aggressively and establishing trade missions with the various weaker empires, but I'm at the point where I'm definitely cherry picking planets, and only taking ideal worlds.
Anything else I just nuke to the stone age and move on.
Once I get infinite communication technology I may stop colonizing worlds, period...and simply exterminate anybody who is near me in VPs. After all, I get fat points as a Klurgu for genocide. Non bureaucratic races need to specialize their game play to max out their VPs according to their racials, and you can find ways to win based on that.
WitE Alpha Tester
RE: bureaucracy
Yes, the game works this way. It just seems not well modelled to me. What's the point in playing i.e. a huge map if you are forced either to play one of two races or are definetely constrained in your expansion capability as the game fails in providing you with an appropriate set of alternate strategic choices to deal with the effects of your expansion - it's a 4X game after all. It may be right to reflect the increasing burden of bureaucracy the larger the empire gets but the game should provide means to deal with it - i.e. on the technology layer, why not including technics to lower that costs?
p.s.
Concerning the victory conditions, maybe I missed this point in the manual, but are the race specific conditions the only one which are taken into consideration when determining the score? So when playing the Jellution the only victory conditions to matter are happines and technology advance, is this correct?
p.s.
Concerning the victory conditions, maybe I missed this point in the manual, but are the race specific conditions the only one which are taken into consideration when determining the score? So when playing the Jellution the only victory conditions to matter are happines and technology advance, is this correct?
RE: bureaucracy
well. if it's working this way and you cannot do anything to influence the gameplay, this is a game breaker to me, at least I am not able to play larger maps. I haven't even got to explore most part ot the map and yet am no more able to expand due to the exploding bureaucracy costs the game does not give me the chance to deal with? So it looks like I should stop playing my campaign now.
RE: bureaucracy
btw stopping expansion doesn't seem an option either as bureacracy costs increase seems to be affected by population growing. The larger your empire and the higher your population the higher the bureaucracy costs increase which in effect seem to eat away your tax income. So it seems you are forced to continue expansion in order to distribute your population from your high populated planets to avoid bureaucracy costs increase which on the other hand contributes to increase those costs.
RE: bureaucracy
hmm... i haven't yet checked the fiscal impact of bureaucracy. i was more ... focused on the impact on happiness, to be honest.
still, if bureaucracy will swallow up all profits generated without any chance to counter the effects, large galaxies might prove unplayable. Anyway, it's still too early to say that it's definetly broken. Maybe the current mechanics allow to counter the bureaucratic effects and we just haven't found the right strategies for that. Like the "build everything everywhere" behaviour that clearly doesn't work in Armada 2526.
"Bureaucracy expands to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy."
-- Oscar Wilde
still, if bureaucracy will swallow up all profits generated without any chance to counter the effects, large galaxies might prove unplayable. Anyway, it's still too early to say that it's definetly broken. Maybe the current mechanics allow to counter the bureaucratic effects and we just haven't found the right strategies for that. Like the "build everything everywhere" behaviour that clearly doesn't work in Armada 2526.
"Bureaucracy expands to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy."
-- Oscar Wilde
RE: bureaucracy
Well, you can always win by eliminating everybody, but I tend to win on VPs in a turn limited scenario. Especially in larger maps. And the VP calculations vary by race.
Presumably bureaucracy costs cap at some point. But it is likely a very high point, as I'm already seeing it hit 30%+ of the imperial budget, which is pretty hefty. This is around turn 300ish and well into the endgame, with only a handful of techs left to research. (I set the game to 400 turns, so it's almost over anyways.)
If it doesn't cap...that's a game killer for larger maps, yeah.
Presumably bureaucracy costs cap at some point. But it is likely a very high point, as I'm already seeing it hit 30%+ of the imperial budget, which is pretty hefty. This is around turn 300ish and well into the endgame, with only a handful of techs left to research. (I set the game to 400 turns, so it's almost over anyways.)
If it doesn't cap...that's a game killer for larger maps, yeah.
WitE Alpha Tester
RE: bureaucracy
The hit to happiness seems to increase directly parallel to the fiscal impact, btw. In this Klurgu game unhappiness is -3 due to bureaucracy, which matches closely with the 30% overhead costs.
WitE Alpha Tester
RE: bureaucracy
I have like 25% of 140x140 galaxy turn 330 or so. Buro got me too but I think I got it controlled atleast so far. I concentrated totally on rich planets. Built everyting there even security and entertainment center. And researced bio-atmospheres for those rich planets that didnt have one. I also did some microing of removing useless buildings i.e shipyards and sofort from my empire. Those planets that rebelled and yet refused to provide income I just let burn into the ground. I dont really need them.
My income went from low of +600 to almost +3000 and I havent even yet finished building with the rich planets. Treasure is 80k growing fast.
My income went from low of +600 to almost +3000 and I havent even yet finished building with the rich planets. Treasure is 80k growing fast.
"99.9% of all internet arguments are due to people not understanding someone else's point. The other 0.1% is arguing over made up statistics."- unknown poster
"Those who dont read history are destined to repeat it."– Edmund Burke
"Those who dont read history are destined to repeat it."– Edmund Burke
-
Richard III
- Posts: 714
- Joined: Mon Oct 24, 2005 5:16 pm
RE: bureaucracy
"Bureaucracy increases as the number of your colonies increase" [X(]
This little quote from the start up tip on a new custom game. No doubt they mean Bureaucracy Costs increases with new colony planets.
This little quote from the start up tip on a new custom game. No doubt they mean Bureaucracy Costs increases with new colony planets.
“History would be a wonderful thing – if it were only true.”
¯ Leo Tolstoy
¯ Leo Tolstoy
-
Tom_Holsinger
- Posts: 233
- Joined: Thu Oct 23, 2003 12:18 am
RE: bureaucracy
This is why I advocated, before the game was released, that an abstract and easily modded model be created for bureaucracy which did not affect happiness. Players should be able to adjust the affects of bureaucracy based on the scale of the game they prefer to play.
Or else they won't play the game for very long.
The customer is always right. Give them what they want. If they want to play in large galaxies, don't punish them for trying with a bureaucracy model which works only for small galaxies. Let them mod it.
Or else they won't play the game for very long.
The customer is always right. Give them what they want. If they want to play in large galaxies, don't punish them for trying with a bureaucracy model which works only for small galaxies. Let them mod it.
RE: bureaucracy
ORIGINAL: Tom_Holsinger
This is why I advocated, before the game was released, that an abstract and easily modded model be created for bureaucracy which did not affect happiness. Players should be able to adjust the affects of bureaucracy based on the scale of the game they prefer to play.
Or else they won't play the game for very long.
The customer is always right. Give them what they want. If they want to play in large galaxies, don't punish them for trying with a bureaucracy model which works only for small galaxies. Let them mod it.
So you and a few others represent the customer?
-
Tom_Holsinger
- Posts: 233
- Joined: Thu Oct 23, 2003 12:18 am
RE: bureaucracy
Ashberry, I was involved with all three versions of Master of Orion, helped write AD&D (my name is in the 1st edition), etc. I've been around a long time, been involved with lots of games, and know how to market turn-based space 4x games.
RE: bureaucracy
i don't think Ntronium even HAS a marketing department. Or has anyone seen ads for that game anywhere?
RE: bureaucracy
I'm a bit worried if there's indeed some unstoppable effect that forbids all except a couple race to expand past a certain point...It should be at least proportional to map size, or -better- the game should allow some way out ...Look at Civ, GC or EU for ideas, let's create independent colonies that still gives VP, or add some government research that allows galactic council, whatever !
That's not a marketing thing, just basic good gameplay design (don't put the player in a corner they can't escape, else they'll escape the game !).
That's not a marketing thing, just basic good gameplay design (don't put the player in a corner they can't escape, else they'll escape the game !).
PDF
RE: bureaucracy
on the other hand, bureaucracy (or rather the lack of) gives smaller empires a chance to catch up.
RE: bureaucracy
I agree that there needs to be a function to allow smaller empires to not be completely overwhelmed, but what amounts to a hard cap on expansion for most races is too much in my opinion.
There are a ton of ways implement functions to slow down the large empires without outright crippling them.
There are a ton of ways implement functions to slow down the large empires without outright crippling them.
-
Tom_Holsinger
- Posts: 233
- Joined: Thu Oct 23, 2003 12:18 am
RE: bureaucracy
Ryvan,
There are different opinions here. Mine is that turn-based space 4x games are fundamentally different than other turn-based 4x games because the former's players are much more interested in combat. Specifically we space gamers tend to consider our 4x games to be vehicles for creating exciting space battles, and/or mastering strategic challenges, both of which are outward directed at our AI opponents.
Fans of the Civiilzation series are more focused on empire management. They like coping with their own unruly populations. Space gamers, by contrast, view domestic unrest as, at best, an annoying distraction from the parts of the game they more enjoy. The enjoyable part of space empire management is much more a matter of optimizing production than of placating unruly citizens. Another significant faction of space gamers really liikes the exploration phase, but that too is outward directed. Most to almost all turn-based space 4x game fans loathe coping with the domestic unrest which, by contrast again, is a major point of enjoyment for Civ fans.
Note that Master of Orion I and II had no domestic unrest at all, and were great successes in their day. This is because Steve Barcia (designer of MOO1/2), who was and is a true genius in the gaming industry, understood the point I just made. He convinced me of it in phone conversations during MOO1 days.
Alan Emrich and Quicksilver added unrest to MOO3 in several ways, some of which worked and some of which didn't. Their implementation of piracy was a flipping disaster. On the other hand, their use of the Ithkul/Harvester bad guy race to create unrest on planets was a wild success. Overall their addition of unrest to the MOO series was effective.
The key insight, though, and this was Emrich's, was his means of keeping player empires from easily winning a game by just outgrowing the AI empires. Bob Smith has something similar, and both are based on the concept that the bureaucracy necessary to run increasingly large empires makes them increasing inefficient.
Emrich's implementation of bureaucracy in MOO3 was what he called the Heavy Foot of Government (HFoG). It is definitely not the same as Armada's "bureaucracy", but they serve the same purpose - giving experienced players a challenging game after 100-150 turns - in different ways. Emrich's in MOO3 is IMO much preferable to Bob Smith's in Armada.
Emrich's HFoG increases building costs as empire size increases, in terms of numbers of planets and total population both. A HFoG rating of 3 means everything costs three times normal. A HFoG rating of 2.25 means everything costs two and a quarter times normal. This means that the really big empires, i.e., player ones, cannot easily win by just outgrowing the AI empires. It's a handicap which dsproportionatey affects the larger empires, and more so as they get bigger.
HFoG absolutely, positively, does not increase or affect unrest in any way. You can run a large empire in exactly the same fashion as a small one - it just takes longer because there is more to do. Most importantly, you can concentrate on beating the enemy, advancing your empire and generally stay outwardly focused.
Bob's bureaucracy scales up in much the same way Emrich's HFOG does, but Bob's bureaucracy does not directly affect production. Instead it adds to unpopularity and thereby, ultimately, unrest. The costs of building things does not change as an empire gets bigger. The costs of creating the many buildings and troops to keep down the unrest, i.e., the cost of doing business, goes up. But, worst of all, Bob's bureaucracy here DEMANDS that players pay an increasingly greater amount of attention to domestic unrest as their empires get bigger, and distracts them from the fun stuff of facing external strategic challenges plus waging wars and fighting exciting space battles against AI opponents. You simply cannot play a really big empire in Armada the same way you play small ones. Quite different play styles are required.
And, IMO, the inwardly-focused, domestic politics, style Bob requires to successfully play large empires in his game is absolutely not the style most fans of turn-based space 4x games want. Sure it's what a lot, perhaps most, players of non-space turn-based 4x games want. But not space gamers.
I.e., Bob's Civ-type unrest implementation of bureaucracy will, IMO, kill the fun of playing his game on a large scale map.
I hope he changes it based on these remarks. It would not be difficult to do. Playtesting it for balance will be the hard part.
There are different opinions here. Mine is that turn-based space 4x games are fundamentally different than other turn-based 4x games because the former's players are much more interested in combat. Specifically we space gamers tend to consider our 4x games to be vehicles for creating exciting space battles, and/or mastering strategic challenges, both of which are outward directed at our AI opponents.
Fans of the Civiilzation series are more focused on empire management. They like coping with their own unruly populations. Space gamers, by contrast, view domestic unrest as, at best, an annoying distraction from the parts of the game they more enjoy. The enjoyable part of space empire management is much more a matter of optimizing production than of placating unruly citizens. Another significant faction of space gamers really liikes the exploration phase, but that too is outward directed. Most to almost all turn-based space 4x game fans loathe coping with the domestic unrest which, by contrast again, is a major point of enjoyment for Civ fans.
Note that Master of Orion I and II had no domestic unrest at all, and were great successes in their day. This is because Steve Barcia (designer of MOO1/2), who was and is a true genius in the gaming industry, understood the point I just made. He convinced me of it in phone conversations during MOO1 days.
Alan Emrich and Quicksilver added unrest to MOO3 in several ways, some of which worked and some of which didn't. Their implementation of piracy was a flipping disaster. On the other hand, their use of the Ithkul/Harvester bad guy race to create unrest on planets was a wild success. Overall their addition of unrest to the MOO series was effective.
The key insight, though, and this was Emrich's, was his means of keeping player empires from easily winning a game by just outgrowing the AI empires. Bob Smith has something similar, and both are based on the concept that the bureaucracy necessary to run increasingly large empires makes them increasing inefficient.
Emrich's implementation of bureaucracy in MOO3 was what he called the Heavy Foot of Government (HFoG). It is definitely not the same as Armada's "bureaucracy", but they serve the same purpose - giving experienced players a challenging game after 100-150 turns - in different ways. Emrich's in MOO3 is IMO much preferable to Bob Smith's in Armada.
Emrich's HFoG increases building costs as empire size increases, in terms of numbers of planets and total population both. A HFoG rating of 3 means everything costs three times normal. A HFoG rating of 2.25 means everything costs two and a quarter times normal. This means that the really big empires, i.e., player ones, cannot easily win by just outgrowing the AI empires. It's a handicap which dsproportionatey affects the larger empires, and more so as they get bigger.
HFoG absolutely, positively, does not increase or affect unrest in any way. You can run a large empire in exactly the same fashion as a small one - it just takes longer because there is more to do. Most importantly, you can concentrate on beating the enemy, advancing your empire and generally stay outwardly focused.
Bob's bureaucracy scales up in much the same way Emrich's HFOG does, but Bob's bureaucracy does not directly affect production. Instead it adds to unpopularity and thereby, ultimately, unrest. The costs of building things does not change as an empire gets bigger. The costs of creating the many buildings and troops to keep down the unrest, i.e., the cost of doing business, goes up. But, worst of all, Bob's bureaucracy here DEMANDS that players pay an increasingly greater amount of attention to domestic unrest as their empires get bigger, and distracts them from the fun stuff of facing external strategic challenges plus waging wars and fighting exciting space battles against AI opponents. You simply cannot play a really big empire in Armada the same way you play small ones. Quite different play styles are required.
And, IMO, the inwardly-focused, domestic politics, style Bob requires to successfully play large empires in his game is absolutely not the style most fans of turn-based space 4x games want. Sure it's what a lot, perhaps most, players of non-space turn-based 4x games want. But not space gamers.
I.e., Bob's Civ-type unrest implementation of bureaucracy will, IMO, kill the fun of playing his game on a large scale map.
I hope he changes it based on these remarks. It would not be difficult to do. Playtesting it for balance will be the hard part.
RE: bureaucracy
Well, this space 4X gamer wants the unrest. This one likes having to deal with domestic unrest, even open rebellion, while fighting a knock down drag out war.
This one would like to see more of it. Would like to be able to appoint regional governors, who might get an itch to overthrow you. or fleet commanders who may get the same itch.
This one would like to see more of it. Would like to be able to appoint regional governors, who might get an itch to overthrow you. or fleet commanders who may get the same itch.
Building a new PC.
RE: bureaucracy
"Emrich's in MOO3 is IMO much preferable to Bob Smith's in Armada."
No offense, but Armada is much preferable to MOO3 as a game! I've been playing them since Chris Crawford's Eastern Front in '82, and MOO3 lasted a few hours on my hard drive. However, the background story written for MOO3 was awesome. Just my opinion, of course.
No offense, but Armada is much preferable to MOO3 as a game! I've been playing them since Chris Crawford's Eastern Front in '82, and MOO3 lasted a few hours on my hard drive. However, the background story written for MOO3 was awesome. Just my opinion, of course.