[1.05b1] Optimal efficiency limit does not change

[Malevolence]

Per the image, the optimal efficiency limit does not change despite the size of the map and assets the player deploys. The limit is the same for all organizations. Playing on the largest maps and over more than 150 turns, the limit makes the use of further administration assets economically pointless. Does not increasing the size of the Command HQ asset change this value?



Device is Windows 10 Pro 64bit, version 2004 (v19041.421), Intel i7-1065G7 1.30Ghz, 16GB RAM. It is a Surface Pro 7, connected to 2560x1600 display monitor via USB-C. Intel Iris Plus integrated graphics.

For reference, Game Build v 1.05-beta1; Scenario Build 1.05-beta1; Last Game Build used 1.05-beta1; Scenario Version Number #53.

[Vic]

Yes small is more efficient than big. Working as intended.

[Malevolence]

ORIGINAL: Vic

Yes small is more efficient than big. Working as intended.

Are the major regimes held to the same standard?

[Malevolence]

ORIGINAL: Vic

Yes small is more efficient than big. Working as intended.

Again, are the major regimes held to the same standard?

Also, the assumption that small is more efficient than big is wrong. It's a nice idea, but incorrect.

Is a small family farm more efficient than large corporate farms? No, large corporate farms feed the world because of scale.

I'll not rehash undergraduate economics, see economies of scale, division of labor, etc. etc.

In any event, I suggest making some asset like the Command HQ change the value for the game. It's a nice number for little maps, but it becomes silly on larger ones with many turns.

[Vic]

The AIs are not subject to the same rule, but they get more generic reductions and bonuses.

The design philosophy is that economic scaling up is slightly exponential, but that bureaucratic scaling up is giving less and less returns on investment.

best wishes,
Vic

[Malevolence]

ORIGINAL: Vic

... (the) bureaucratic scaling up is giving less and less returns on investment.

Why? This isn't just impacting the regime leader's political choices.

Bureaucratic scaling up doesn't null economic forces. This is still a matter of distribution of scarce resources.

For example, you held over a WW2 model of national research and are holding that to the same methods?

You mixed political influence with economics and now the systems are incongruent. Why would research not benefit from scale? It absolutely does benefit from scale.

[Clux]

ORIGINAL: Malevolence

ORIGINAL: Vic

... (the) bureaucratic scaling up is giving less and less returns on investment.

Why? This isn't just impacting the regime leader's political choices.

Bureaucratic scaling up doesn't null economic forces. This is still a matter of distribution of scarce resources.

For example, you held over a WW2 model of national research and are holding that to the same methods?

You mixed political influence with economics and now the systems are incongruent. Why would research not benefit from scale? It absolutely does benefit from scale.

Its for balancing reasons on mp, since right now we cant "steal" techs from other majors, being able to increase the limit of BP than every organization can use would result in one player snowballing the rest.

[DTurtle]

Yeah, I'm absolutely fine with this. Its the only thing giving me or others a fighting chance in a few MP games.

[Vic]

Its a snowballing-protecting too, but also my strong take on the nature of bureaucracies