Some Economic Advice

[zgrssd]

Colony Growth is literally the most important factor for colonisation.
Forget low taxes - normal taxes with soild Colony growth is where it is at! Low with colony growth as a ideal case.
People actually got more growth by increasing taxes, as it brought the out of the red!

Pretty sure it is similar with Research. Not like you got a lot of quickly growing sources of Research Production.

[Jorgen_CAB]

Yes, there is a fine line between taxes and colony growth... more taxes will generally increase your colony growth, at least to a point.

Both of the post, colony growth and research is super important that you can fund. Fully funding the research means almost twice the research speed and probably is cheaper than using the same cash to crash research... hopefully you can do both via bonus income.

[zgrssd]

ORIGINAL: Jorgen_CAB

Yes, there is a fine line between taxes and colony growth... more taxes will generally increase your colony growth, at least to a point.

Both of the post, colony growth and research is super important that you can fund. Fully funding the research means almost twice the research speed and probably is cheaper than using the same cash to crash research... hopefully you can do both via bonus income.

Ideal Colonyg rowth is 0 Taxes, while getting the Growth Boost from established, Taxpaying Planets. But you also kinda need taxes to figure out when a plent ias "Break even", so it is propably better to keep them on in general.

As for bonu income:
Last I saw that goes completely past income. So you can have 0 going into growth and 1000k on the bank.

I actually had an idea for that (and a few other softlock states). But I still need to put it all into words.
Plus it is quite literally their job to think about it, so I am propably late to the party with any ideas [:)]

[Jorgen_CAB]

Yes... bonus income can never go into Colony growth and Research funding.... I suppose this is a game balance thing as those money are earmarked for additional spending outside the colonies.

With taxes those money are spent locally in the colonies rather than collected and spent by the local government to fund researchers and grow the colony economies.

Anyway... it probably is a game balance thing why it is setup like that.

[zgrssd]

I seriously doubt that was intentional. More like a sideffect they did not account for at all, or only realized too late (for the release) to fix it.

Of course we do not know what is in the Beta (which has content not covered by the Streams). So who knows?

[Jorgen_CAB]

In my opinion this is well intended... it would be way too easy to fund colony growth and research otherwise.

I doubt it will change.

[James80]

ORIGINAL: Jorgen_CAB


I think... but don't take my word for it... that if you have enough cash flow it will fund all of your Colony Growth or Research no matter how you set it. The percentage only really mean anything when there is not enough money to fund it all.

The thing that I find odd is the setting for Maintenance (ship,bases and troops) as those values seem to mean nothing as the game will always fund all your maintenance no matter how you set those percentages.

I wonder when those values actually matter?!?

I think so, too. My question was based on the assumption that there is not enough money to cover all expenses. Sorry if this was a little misleading

[Erik Rutins]

If you have a healthy economy that can fund colony growth, then low taxes are better than higher taxes, but if you're not able to fund colony growth from a predictable cash flow then low taxes will not make up the difference. Infrastructure requires a certain level of predictable investment.

Having a lot of cash on hand is still valuable and can help in other ways, including paying for colony ships, crash research, etc. but to maximize growth or research you need good cash flow (and ideally also decent cash on hand for those key one time purchases).

Regards,

- Erik

[Jorgen_CAB]

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins

If you have a healthy economy that can fund colony growth, then low taxes are better than higher taxes, but if you're not able to fund colony growth from a predictable cash flow then low taxes will not make up the difference. Infrastructure requires a certain level of predictable investment.

Having a lot of cash on hand is still valuable and can help in other ways, including paying for colony ships, crash research, etc. but to maximize growth or research you need good cash flow (and ideally also decent cash on hand for those key one time purchases).

Regards,

- Erik

I figure that as long as you get colony growth and research fully funded you probably are better of giving the rest in lower taxes. When the civilian invest you get pieces of it back later and a stronger economy which mean greater tax base etc... in general.

In turn that give you more money to crash research or build military ships and maintain them.

So trying to keep the cash flow close to zero as much as possible seem a good strategy in many cases, at least as long as your

[zgrssd]

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins

If you have a healthy economy that can fund colony growth, then low taxes are better than higher taxes, but if you're not able to fund colony growth from a predictable cash flow then low taxes will not make up the difference. Infrastructure requires a certain level of predictable investment.

Having a lot of cash on hand is still valuable and can help in other ways, including paying for colony ships, crash research, etc. but to maximize growth or research you need good cash flow (and ideally also decent cash on hand for those key one time purchases).

Regards,

- Erik

The issue is that you can be at -50k income but still get enough money to stay afloat from bonus income.
And there is no way for you to turn ~100k of Bonus income into Growth.

I think that is a very solid economy that should be able to support colony growth.
But it can not, because most of the income is bonus Income

[Erik Rutins]

That's because it's unpredictable. Long-term funding for growth and research can't be dependent on the swings of bonus income, which is why it's required to come from cashflow.

It's quite possible to manage your expansion and economy to have positive cashflow, but I think it may take getting used to for folks who are used to "expand/rush at all costs". It's also possible to play with negative cashflow and have bonus income keep you afloat, but in DW2 there is a cost for that in the lost growth and research funding as well as some other things that depend on cashflow (more state ships, more troops and bases, more facilties).

In my opinion it's fine to sometimes go negative when you need to, but you should try to avoid staying at negative cashflow for long periods.

Regards,

- Erik

[Jorgen_CAB]

ORIGINAL: zgrssd

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins

If you have a healthy economy that can fund colony growth, then low taxes are better than higher taxes, but if you're not able to fund colony growth from a predictable cash flow then low taxes will not make up the difference. Infrastructure requires a certain level of predictable investment.

Having a lot of cash on hand is still valuable and can help in other ways, including paying for colony ships, crash research, etc. but to maximize growth or research you need good cash flow (and ideally also decent cash on hand for those key one time purchases).

Regards,

- Erik

The issue is that you can be at -50k income but still get enough money to stay afloat from bonus income.
And there is no way for you to turn ~100k of Bonus income into Growth.

I think that is a very solid economy that should be able to support colony growth.
But it can not, because most of the income is bonus Income

Then you have too many, ships, troops, facilities or bases and you need to cut your running costs.

Bonus income should primarily be used for crash research, diplomacy and building stuff.

Personally I think it is an interesting system that require some thought and not just make your economy run away in a giant snowball. Not so fast anyway.

[zgrssd]

That's because it's unpredictable. Long-term funding for growth and research can't be dependent on the swings of bonus income, which is why it's required to come from cashflow

Lack of Predictability? That can be fixed:

Option 1 - Stimulus Package
The thing is I have several hundred thousands in the bank.
I can turn it into stimulus package - bulk sum substracted now, paid out over 12 months, 24 months or however much stability they need.

Predictability for them. I do somehing longterm usefull with my money.

Option 2 - Bonus Income Smoothing
Add all Bonus Income to a specialize storage. Call it "Tax Debt", "Bonus Income Accounting" or the like.
At the end of the month, 1/12th of that store is added as income to the treasury.
This amount is predictable, calculateable, not at all swingy - and thus can be listed on the UI and counted for income. You now have a smooth income from Bonus Income, based on what you actually earned.

Secondary Consierations:
- The exact divider should be player selectable. Like Concurrent Research
- If you are just turning it on (Game start or just changed the value), it should "ramp up" to the proper divider as the storage builds. Start at /2 at the first month. Then add +1 divider before calculating each month. Till you hit the target.

Again, predictabiltiy for them. Plus I actually get a overview about my real income.

[Jorgen_CAB]

ORIGINAL: zgrssd

That's because it's unpredictable. Long-term funding for growth and research can't be dependent on the swings of bonus income, which is why it's required to come from cashflow

Lack of Predictability? That can be fixed:

Option 1 - Stimulus Package
The thing is I have several hundred thousands in the bank.
I can turn it into stimulus package - bulk sum substracted now, paid out over 12 months, 24 months or however much stability they need.

Predictability for them. I do somehing longterm usefull with my money.

Option 2 - Bonus Income Smoothing
Add all Bonus Income to a specialize storage. Call it "Tax Debt", "Bonus Income Accounting" or the like.
At the end of the month, 1/12th of that store is added as income to the treasury.
This amount is predictable, calculateable, not at all swingy - and thus can be listed on the UI and counted for income. You now have a smooth income from Bonus Income, based on what you actually earned.

Secondary Consierations:
- The exact divider should be player selectable. Like Concurrent Research
- If you are just turning it on (Game start or just changed the value), it should "ramp up" to the proper divider as the storage builds. Start at /2 at the first month. Then add +1 divider before calculating each month. Till you hit the target.

Again, predictabiltiy for them. Plus I actually get a overview about my real income.

Personally I don't find any of this necessary as the current model require more restraint and planning. It actually is a pretty nice system in my opinion.

[StormingKiwi]

@zgrssd,

Ignore the fluff, it's for game balance reasons. Obviously bonus income is 'predictable' - In the real world, if people couldn't forecast future sales, production in the global economy would grind to a halt because there would be too much uncertainty.

The player can't use bonus income to fund colony growth and research because doing so trivialises the game and, more importantly, the developers said so.

It's an arbitrary rule.

[zgrssd]

ORIGINAL: Jorgen_CAB

ORIGINAL: zgrssd

That's because it's unpredictable. Long-term funding for growth and research can't be dependent on the swings of bonus income, which is why it's required to come from cashflow

Lack of Predictability? That can be fixed:

Option 1 - Stimulus Package
The thing is I have several hundred thousands in the bank.
I can turn it into stimulus package - bulk sum substracted now, paid out over 12 months, 24 months or however much stability they need.

Predictability for them. I do somehing longterm usefull with my money.

Option 2 - Bonus Income Smoothing
Add all Bonus Income to a specialize storage. Call it "Tax Debt", "Bonus Income Accounting" or the like.
At the end of the month, 1/12th of that store is added as income to the treasury.
This amount is predictable, calculateable, not at all swingy - and thus can be listed on the UI and counted for income. You now have a smooth income from Bonus Income, based on what you actually earned.

Secondary Consierations:
- The exact divider should be player selectable. Like Concurrent Research
- If you are just turning it on (Game start or just changed the value), it should "ramp up" to the proper divider as the storage builds. Start at /2 at the first month. Then add +1 divider before calculating each month. Till you hit the target.

Again, predictabiltiy for them. Plus I actually get a overview about my real income.

Personally I don't find any of this necessary as the current model require more restraint and planning. It actually is a pretty nice system in my opinion.

If the argument was: "It is to force the player to plan and not over over-expand" it would be perfectly fine.

Maybe not the nicest implementation. In fact I would propably have looked into a better way to solve that issue too. Since this implementation penalizes Shipbuilding to defeat a hive or defend yourself too. But with limited time I can understand this being used as a shortcut.

[Erik Rutins]

You can see this in the real-world as well. Occasional "emergency spending" packages are nowhere near as effective as predictable consistent investment in an area. You can spend money in the short-term, but you simply can't do certain things that require say a five year or ten year predictable budget if that can't be guaranteed from year to year. In any case, this is the design intent for this release. There are plenty of ways to spend bonus income, but there are also these new ways to spend extra cashflow. You can still play the game so that you over-expand and put yourself in very negative cashflow and things will still work more or less, it just has an effect.

Regards,

- Erik

[zgrssd]

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins

You can see this in the real-world as well. Occasional "emergency spending" packages are nowhere near as effective as predictable consistent investment in an area. You can spend money in the short-term, but you simply can't do certain things that require say a five year or ten year predictable budget if that can't be guaranteed from year to year. In any case, this is the design intent for this release. There are plenty of ways to spend bonus income, but there are also these new ways to spend extra cashflow. You can still play the game so that you over-expand and put yourself in very negative cashflow and things will still work more or less, it just has an effect.

Regards,

- Erik

I think you should stop trying to explain it like this.

Becuase if that is the argument - see Option 1. I can turn my stored money into a Predictive income. And it is not like Stimulus has never been done by incuring debt.

It also flies in the face of the fact that Tax income and expenses are not exactly predictable over 5-10 years in a game where:
- I could loose my capital to alien invasions
- have to double my fleetsize all of a sudden
And that in just one month.

If you say "it is to prevent the player for expanding too agressively", you will get acceptance.

[Jorgen_CAB]

It does not stop you from expanding or overspending... it just give you quicker response to things like war production of ships in your cash flow. It means you can probably sustain a large fleet but you will not do so while keeping up with colony growth and research. So you might need to reduce your fleet and armies size after a war now... unless you don't want to fund research or colonies.

I think that the reasoning given have some merits as in the real life countries and companies work with budgets and money rarely is "saved" in the sense we do in a game. In the real world we usually work with dept and loans and then use revenue to get more dept and loans...

This is just one way to abstractly simulate part of that. So unstable income can not be used to fund long term progress, you can however use it to fund crash research. Development you fund with lower taxes so the civilians can build more ships etc...

It is an abstract system to get a specific behaviour that simulate realistic behaviours in economic... but it still is quite abstract. But more importantly it is an intended game mechanic for a specific purpose.

[zgrssd]

It does not stop you from expanding or overspending... it just give you quicker response to things like war production of ships in your cash flow. It means you can probably sustain a large fleet but you will not do so while keeping up with colony growth and research. So you might need to reduce your fleet and armies size after a war now... unless you don't want to fund research or colonies.

And as a balance rule goes, this sounds okay.

I think that the reasoning given have some merits as in the real life countries and companies work with budgets and money rarely is "saved" in the sense we do in a game. In the real world we usually work with dept and loans and then use revenue to get more dept and loans...

Which only makes the fluff explanation even less sensible [&:]