You can't buy them (why???) They're needed for everything. I thought I'd build a metal mine and eventually an industry I to make my own...
Nope. You need 250 IP to build a mine, and you start with only 144!! So you have to hope that your people can scrounge enough for one, then the other?! [:@][:@][:@][:@]
What can you do about this at the start? How can you improve your chance of finding some? and WHY can't you trade for them???
IP's
Moderator: Vic
RE: IP's
ORIGINAL: Red_Dwarf
You can't buy them (why???) They're needed for everything. I thought I'd build a metal mine and eventually an industry I to make my own...
Nope. You need 250 IP to build a mine, and you start with only 144!! So you have to hope that your people can scrounge enough for one, then the other?! [:@][:@][:@][:@]
What can you do about this at the start? How can you improve your chance of finding some? and WHY can't you trade for them???
You start with a bank of 235IP but that is the product of income of IP so you have to save up over a number of turns.....just like life[:)]
"I do not agree with what you say, but I shall defend to the death your right to say it"
RE: IP's
ORIGINAL: devoncop
ORIGINAL: Red_Dwarf
You can't buy them (why???) They're needed for everything. I thought I'd build a metal mine and eventually an industry I to make my own...
Nope. You need 250 IP to build a mine, and you start with only 144!! So you have to hope that your people can scrounge enough for one, then the other?! [:@][:@][:@][:@]
What can you do about this at the start? How can you improve your chance of finding some? and WHY can't you trade for them???
You start with a bank of 235IP but that is the product of income of IP so you have to save up over a number of turns.....just like life[:)]
I only see 144 on any turn 1 [&:]
-
TheCrazyScot
- Posts: 11
- Joined: Sun Oct 13, 2013 4:43 pm
RE: IP's
You will accumulate IPs each turn, so they save up like any other resource. They are your main bottle neck for interior development at the beginning of the game, and as such I highly recommend that you first get water and food production taken care of before you try to build anything else. Then you can get the metal mine, and once you have the first industry building then things will start to pick up.
RE: IP's
Since industry is quite expensive, I would suggest you to invest on private assets, since the light industry asset from the private sectors produces a good amount of IP for free.
Amateurs talk about strategy. Professionals talk about logistics!
-
Malevolence
- Posts: 1798
- Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 11:12 am
RE: IP's
ORIGINAL: Bleek
Also, IP is an output as a result of industry and man power. Not a tangible commodity produced such as oil. Hence, you can't trade it.
Makes sense. [:)]
I don't disagree, but that begs the argument, "How are you accumulating and saving something intangible?"
Nicht kleckern, sondern klotzen!
*Please remember all posts are made by a malevolent, autocratic despot whose rule is marked by unjust severity and arbitrary behavior. Your experiences may vary.
*Please remember all posts are made by a malevolent, autocratic despot whose rule is marked by unjust severity and arbitrary behavior. Your experiences may vary.
RE: IP's
ORIGINAL: Malevolence
ORIGINAL: Bleek
Also, IP is an output as a result of industry and man power. Not a tangible commodity produced such as oil. Hence, you can't trade it.
Makes sense. [:)]
I don't disagree, but that begs the argument, "How are you accumulating and saving something intangible?"
I guess in the same way you'd explain an economic stat/measurement such as GDP.
I've been beta testing myself for decades.
-
Malevolence
- Posts: 1798
- Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 11:12 am
RE: IP's
ORIGINAL: Bleek
ORIGINAL: Malevolence
ORIGINAL: Bleek
Also, IP is an output as a result of industry and man power. Not a tangible commodity produced such as oil. Hence, you can't trade it.
Makes sense. [:)]
I don't disagree, but that begs the argument, "How are you accumulating and saving something intangible?"
I guess in the same way you'd explain an economic stat/measurement such as GDP.
GDP is a measurement of past performance during a period of time; it is tangible in terms of value. The temporal issue remains--produced in the past. Were all those goods (and services?) sold saved in a warehouse?
In this case, IP are saved like "goods/work" (potential energy) in a warehouse (capacitor) to be used later. Like energy then, it is a commodity.
If a tangible or intangible (e.g. idea) can be saved for later, it can be transferred and sold. As an aside, that is why the most important resource is time. Cannot be saved and used later.
[:)]
dislcamer: if someone really wants to break it down, GDP is an even deeper rabbit hole with respect to your regime.
Nicht kleckern, sondern klotzen!
*Please remember all posts are made by a malevolent, autocratic despot whose rule is marked by unjust severity and arbitrary behavior. Your experiences may vary.
*Please remember all posts are made by a malevolent, autocratic despot whose rule is marked by unjust severity and arbitrary behavior. Your experiences may vary.
RE: IP's
Yup, you can't really stock man and machine hours for years and then spend them all to produce gazillions of stuff at once.
But it's an abstraction one could rationalize by saying: okay, I just ordered this factory to be built but the fact of the matter is it was planned and all these factories were making parts and pieces for months to get it done when the time comes.
I agree though it's weird but imagine the pain in the neck it would be if you had to rely only to your per round IP income to get stuff built.
But it's an abstraction one could rationalize by saying: okay, I just ordered this factory to be built but the fact of the matter is it was planned and all these factories were making parts and pieces for months to get it done when the time comes.
I agree though it's weird but imagine the pain in the neck it would be if you had to rely only to your per round IP income to get stuff built.
RE: IP's
ORIGINAL: Malevolence
GDP is a measurement of past performance during a period of time; it is tangible in terms of value. The temporal issue remains--produced in the past. Were all those goods (and services?) sold saved in a warehouse?
In this case, IP are saved like "goods/work" (potential energy) in a warehouse (capacitor) to be used later. Like energy then, it is a commodity.
If a tangible or intangible (e.g. idea) can be saved for later, it can be transferred and sold. As an aside, that is why the most important resource is time. Cannot be saved and used later.
[:)]
It is an abstraction to allow for overflow between periods of production when something is being built and the depression when waiting for some other resource. Regard it as cleverly making stocks of components that will be needed anyway while waiting for the next budget approval.
RE: IP's
During history it happened some nations ordered for example a bunch of guns from private companies abroad.
And now I think about it, one way to simulate something along the lines of lend-lease during WW2 would be to allow to send IPs to an ally.
But that's another whole can of worms and I suppose VR already has plenty of work on his plate already! [:D]
And now I think about it, one way to simulate something along the lines of lend-lease during WW2 would be to allow to send IPs to an ally.
But that's another whole can of worms and I suppose VR already has plenty of work on his plate already! [:D]
RE: IP's
I think it's weird that you cannot sell Industrial Points. If you can stockpile them, that must be simulating pre-constructing certain items like railways and tractors. Surely you could sell those?
But I think the real problem is that you don't start with enough IP to fully build either a metal mine or Industry 1, which means when it says one of those will take 2 turns to build, it's telling you something false. The game is lying to you. That really leaves a bad taste in my mouth.
But I think the real problem is that you don't start with enough IP to fully build either a metal mine or Industry 1, which means when it says one of those will take 2 turns to build, it's telling you something false. The game is lying to you. That really leaves a bad taste in my mouth.
RE: IP's
Agreed.
But it does underscore the benefit of a larger population at game start, because being stuck with 38 IP/turn is a tad painful.
Now, I like challenges so np, but if you want an easier time best to roll starts where you have a decent amount/turn.
But it does underscore the benefit of a larger population at game start, because being stuck with 38 IP/turn is a tad painful.
Now, I like challenges so np, but if you want an easier time best to roll starts where you have a decent amount/turn.
-
Malevolence
- Posts: 1798
- Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 11:12 am
RE: IP's
I'm fine with it as is too as part of the overall design of the game. I also admit I like the thought problem the OP poses as well.
95% of my comments are directed for the developers to consider in their future games. By the time testers see the "alpha" version, the designers have already established almost all the architecture.
How could you do IP otherwise? As was suggested, make IP only available during your turn. That would have required a total rebalance from the ground up, but also added a nice pressure to the player each turn. Use it or lose it. Same with Stratagems, for example. It makes a player think hard, "how can i make this game piece work for me." As opposed to pushing it aside and getting to it later.
In any turn-based game, as a player, I recommend thinking upfront about where the designer sees the player in time and space. "When and where am I making these decisions/commands?" in terms of the game's cycle. What is past, what is present, and what is future in terms of the game and the interface.
95% of my comments are directed for the developers to consider in their future games. By the time testers see the "alpha" version, the designers have already established almost all the architecture.
How could you do IP otherwise? As was suggested, make IP only available during your turn. That would have required a total rebalance from the ground up, but also added a nice pressure to the player each turn. Use it or lose it. Same with Stratagems, for example. It makes a player think hard, "how can i make this game piece work for me." As opposed to pushing it aside and getting to it later.
In any turn-based game, as a player, I recommend thinking upfront about where the designer sees the player in time and space. "When and where am I making these decisions/commands?" in terms of the game's cycle. What is past, what is present, and what is future in terms of the game and the interface.
Nicht kleckern, sondern klotzen!
*Please remember all posts are made by a malevolent, autocratic despot whose rule is marked by unjust severity and arbitrary behavior. Your experiences may vary.
*Please remember all posts are made by a malevolent, autocratic despot whose rule is marked by unjust severity and arbitrary behavior. Your experiences may vary.
RE: IP's
Tester28:
It tells you you could build it in two turns if you have the resources.
Get burnt once and you'll never make the same mistake again ever.
To be fair the game doesn't exactly tells you that. It tells you: here's what you'll need, and whispers on the left side (for two turns).
The game doesn't lie, it is quite often awkward in telling you what you need to know.
I see your point though and can only tell I'm quite confident it will improve in time.
(I know I sound like a fanboy, and understand entirely people who think software they buy with hard-earned money shouldn't throw wrenches in their work, but I'll always be willing to cut VR Designs some slack, as they are a small operation and obviously doing their best effort to improve.)
Malevolence:
Fair points.
The balance and feel of the game would be different entirely.
I thought about the phases of supply in Shadow Empire and trying putting myself in the shoes of a developer. How do you decide it's SHQ to zones then SHQ supplies to troops then zones to SHQ then SHQ replacements to troops? There are pros and cons everywhere, so you just decide which way it is and it becomes a rule. Otherwise you could agonize on what to decide until your life is over.
Weird what playing Shadow Empire can lead one to think about.
It tells you you could build it in two turns if you have the resources.
Get burnt once and you'll never make the same mistake again ever.
To be fair the game doesn't exactly tells you that. It tells you: here's what you'll need, and whispers on the left side (for two turns).
The game doesn't lie, it is quite often awkward in telling you what you need to know.
I see your point though and can only tell I'm quite confident it will improve in time.
(I know I sound like a fanboy, and understand entirely people who think software they buy with hard-earned money shouldn't throw wrenches in their work, but I'll always be willing to cut VR Designs some slack, as they are a small operation and obviously doing their best effort to improve.)
Malevolence:
Fair points.
The balance and feel of the game would be different entirely.
I thought about the phases of supply in Shadow Empire and trying putting myself in the shoes of a developer. How do you decide it's SHQ to zones then SHQ supplies to troops then zones to SHQ then SHQ replacements to troops? There are pros and cons everywhere, so you just decide which way it is and it becomes a rule. Otherwise you could agonize on what to decide until your life is over.
Weird what playing Shadow Empire can lead one to think about.