Any way to combat Waste ?

[Hard Sarge]

are you saying building per city or building total ?

hmmm, and since we have protecter cities, that we can't control, they will ruin anything you try to set up

I got to disagree, with the Waste is a great Idea, it will slow the player down, as far as I see it, Waste is a Game breaker, and will drive the player away

or if nothing else, force them into playing smaller/shorter games, why play a 5000 point game,

HARD_Sarge

[Reiryc]

ORIGINAL: Hard Sarge

are you saying building per city or building total ?

hmmm, and since we have protecter cities, that we can't control, they will ruin anything you try to set up

I got to disagree, with the Waste is a great Idea, it will slow the player down, as far as I see it, Waste is a Game breaker, and will drive the player away

or if nothing else, force them into playing smaller/shorter games, why play a 5000 point game,

HARD_Sarge

Interesting view... I've found waste to be a good idea and it's partly that slowing of the player down that keeps me playing no matter the length of the game.

[jchastain]

More than anything, waste is viewed as a negative because people expect more than they get. If the system simply quoted production as 1/10 of what it says now but then there was a "bonus" whereby you got 10x production for the first unit produced and 2x production for the next 10 units produced, then we'd have the same exact total production figures as we do now. The difference with waste is that people feel like they produced something and it was then taken away from them.

[Uncle_Joe]

I think waste as implemented is not a good idea. It doesnt offer any encouragement to improve your provinces through economic upgrades. Unless the way waste is implemented is changed, it wont be long before players arent bothering with econ upgrades at all and concentrating on the military upgrade and troops instead.

[EarlPembroke]

ORIGINAL: Uncle_Joe

I think waste as implemented is not a good idea. It doesnt offer any encouragement to improve your provinces through economic upgrades. Unless the way waste is implemented is changed, it wont be long before players arent bothering with econ upgrades at all and concentrating on the military upgrade and troops instead.

With this I'd agree. Would be better to have a more sliding scale. I think the waste should be tied to your average Courts improvement across your provinces. That would encourage some building of them. As it stands now, you build up courts in one province to get good diplomats, then no courts in the rest of your lands. No real incentive to build them (perhaps least of all improvements). So if your average level of courts was 1.0, your waste factor becomes 90% of whatever base waste (determined by your level of production). If you build to an average courts level of 5.0, your waste is 50% of base for given level of production.

Thoughts?

Oh, and while we're talking improvements, can we lower the cost of Roads just a wee bit on the labor involved? Makes it hard to play an economic game when I try to build everything in line with the level of roads, but I'm always having to wait several turns to save enough labor to build roads in a province.

And one more thing. [:'(] - I have income, but little labor. So no point in producing militia at all - might as well garrison everything with infantry. Seems to me that militia should take less labor to build than infantry. If this were to simulate the labor removed from the work force, it might be OK, but there is already a very good system for that in removed population. Seems like in reality there is less labor in putting together militia - yes they need uniforms and guns, but probably not as good as the infantry, less resources committed to training them (besides just money), etc.

[jchastain]

ORIGINAL: Uncle_Joe

I think waste as implemented is not a good idea. It doesnt offer any encouragement to improve your provinces through economic upgrades. Unless the way waste is implemented is changed, it wont be long before players arent bothering with econ upgrades at all and concentrating on the military upgrade and troops instead.

I think that is already the case for the more knowledgable players. Between the very minimal impact of upgrades (as I discussed in THIS thread) and the significant impact of waste, economic upgrades are essentially worthless in the majority of circumstances.

It is a fine balancing act though. In order to maintain the flavor of the game, it is essential that a growing threat is able to be stopped by an alliance of smaller nations. Essentially, 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 must be greater than 4. And waste is an important element in ensuring that is true. If the goal is to ensure that people invest in provincial developments, I think it would be preferable to increase their direct impact instead of lowering waste. Instead of giving a 10% bonus, it needs to be at least 25% to make that happen. In that way, investment is encouraged and has a real impact (building 3 of something would yield a multiplier of 1.25 * 1.25 * 1.25 or 1.95 (essentially doubling output) rather than the current 1.1 x 1.1 x 1.1 or 30% bump. Even with 90% waste, doubling output has a significant impact.

The other option is to use developments to lower waste. The challenge there is that waste is computed on a national level and calculating it on a province by province basis would be a lot of rework. Adding all of the total roads and courthouses together to give a national reduction of waste (for example) would give the greatest benefit to the largest nations so that the strongest would grow stronger - the exact opposite of the desired behavior.

Just my thoughts after a brief reflection...

[EarlPembroke]

ORIGINAL: jchastain

The other option is to use developments to lower waste. The challenge there is that waste is computed on a national level and calculating it on a province by province basis would be a lot of rework. Adding all of the total roads and courthouses together to give a national reduction of waste (for example) would give the greatest benefit to the largest nations so that the strongest would grow stronger - the exact opposite of the desired behavior.

Just my thoughts after a brief reflection...

I realize you posted while I was posting the one above, but how about average courthouses (and roads is a good idea too)? So a small nation builds one courthouse and gets a benefit; a larger nation has to build x times as many to get the same.

[jchastain]

ORIGINAL: EarlPembroke

With this I'd agree. Would be better to have a more sliding scale. I think the waste should be tied to your average Courts improvement across your provinces. That would encourage some building of them. As it stands now, you build up courts in one province to get good diplomats, then no courts in the rest of your lands. No real incentive to build them (perhaps least of all improvements). So if your average level of courts was 1.0, your waste factor becomes 90% of whatever base waste (determined by your level of production). If you build to an average courts level of 5.0, your waste is 50% of base for given level of production.

Thoughts?

I think that would make courts too powerful. The key is to balance various improvements so as to create a real delimma in choosing between them. In this system, I'd build barracks in one loacation and nothing but courts everywhere else. Using the average (rather than total) is a smart move. Perhaps...

The impacts of farms, factories, and banks are increased from 10% to 25% as discussed above.
Waste is reduced by the average of roads and courts * 5% (so up to 50% reduction in waste for all 10's).
(as an aside Culture could be used to determine the Victory Point cost of a province following a surrender but it still needs help)

The problem with all of this is that it would resule in significantly more production. That would be to be balanced by either toning down the base production figures or increasing the cost of everything. You don't want everyone awash in unlimited resources.

[Uncle_Joe]

In theory I agree that something like having Courthouses combat waste is a good idea. But I dont think it will be sufficient without some other tweaks being made. All that is doing is increasing the 'overhead' for any economic upgrade. So, instead of needing to builds Roads to 3, then Factories to 3 to get 'x' payoff, you need to do Road, Factories, and then Courthouses to get 'x' payoff.

Given that most games arent going to go on for years and years and years, economic upgrades are already marginal in value compared to military upgrades (or troops). Having Courthouses combat waste just increases the investment needed for payoff which is already too low.

As I mentioned in the other waste thread, I think a possible solution would be to have the level of development of a province reduce waste. So, a few upgraded provinces should experience considerably less waste on their output than having a ton of conquered or unupgraded provinces providing the same output. Note that the resource producing upgrades themselves should reduce the waste, not be dependent on yet another upgrade to do so.

Another possible solution would be to lower the build time and cost of many econ upgrades such that its actually possible to have them pay off within the timeframe of an average game.

If not already implemented, I think waste SHOULD be tied to the number of provinces that you are producing 'x' in as well. Centralizing production and upgrading to higher level developments should produce payoff commeasurate with their expense. Currently, 2-3 crap provinces can often produce as much or more of a resource than one upgrade province and without the upgrade costs and time. The waste cuts the same both ways, so why bother paying for upper level upgrades? The trick would be to have that one developed province producing significantly more than the 2-3 crap province.

If doing the above, a more 'guns or butter' feel would develop. If you put more of your resources into econ upgrades, you should see return on it at least as fast or faster than simply going on the warpath and taking provinces. Otherwise the decision to go 'guns or butter' is not really a decision at all...go 'guns' and simply take what you need with less hassle, time, and probably with more Glory to boot.

[jchastain]

ORIGINAL: Uncle_Joe

In theory I agree that something like having Courthouses combat waste is a good idea. But I dont think it will be sufficient without some other tweaks being made. All that is doing is increasing the 'overhead' for any economic upgrade. So, instead of needing to builds Roads to 3, then Factories to 3 to get 'x' payoff, you need to do Road, Factories, and then Courthouses to get 'x' payoff.

Given that most games arent going to go on for years and years and years, economic upgrades are already marginal in value compared to military upgrades (or troops). Having Courthouses combat waste just increases the investment needed for payoff which is already too low.

As I mentioned in the other waste thread, I think a possible solution would be to have the level of development of a province reduce waste. So, a few upgraded provinces should experience considerably less waste on their output than having a ton of conquered or unupgraded provinces providing the same output. Note that the resource producing upgrades themselves should reduce the waste, not be dependent on yet another upgrade to do so.

Another possible solution would be to lower the build time and cost of many econ upgrades such that its actually possible to have them pay off within the timeframe of an average game.

If not already implemented, I think waste SHOULD be tied to the number of provinces that you are producing 'x' in as well. Centralizing production and upgrading to higher level developments should produce payoff commeasurate with their expense. Currently, 2-3 crap provinces can often produce as much or more of a resource than one upgrade province and without the upgrade costs and time. The waste cuts the same both ways, so why bother paying for upper level upgrades? The trick would be to have that one developed province producing significantly more than the 2-3 crap province.

If doing the above, a more 'guns or butter' feel would develop. If you put more of your resources into econ upgrades, you should see return on it at least as fast or faster than simply going on the warpath and taking provinces. Otherwise the decision to go 'guns or butter' is not really a decision at all...go 'guns' and simply take what you need with less hassle, time, and probably with more Glory to boot.

UJ -
What specific problem do you think needs to be addressed? If you just want to make province improvements more attractive, then I believe that is best addressed by enhancing them directly - so increase the bonus for each farm/factory/bank - rather than by curtailing waste (which really is aimed more at preventing large empires from dominating).

[Uncle_Joe]

I personally dont think waste should be tied to total production per se...at least not on the same scale. I think production earned from upgrades should be significantly less wasteful than production gained from simple mass (ie, having lots of provinces).

In my perfect world, it would be possible to build up a robust econ that isnt crippled by waste if you invest in it rather than taking it. A lot of 'waste' would come from administering remote provinces and certainly from conquered areas. But having that same amount of waste apply in home provinces where economic investments are being made seems off base.

So, in simple terms waste should factor in based somewhat on total production to a degree, but far moreso based on the number of provinces either producing 'x' resource or perhaps just based on the number of provinces you own in general. The larger the empire, the harder it should be to squeeze every iota out of. Communications and transport just werent up to the task. But small well developed empires should have little trouble being 'efficient' IMO.

As far as 'balance' is concerned, the smaller, more efficient empire will have more resources and money, but would still be capped by population and labor constraits. At any rate, there SHOULD be a pretty big economic advantage for investing in the econ, eh? [;)]

[Queeg]

I don't mind using Waste or some similar concept as a restriction on the "steamroller" effect that usually ruins games like this. But it is important that the factors that cause it are understood and that the player has some ability to counteract it, even if only slightly. Otherwise, it would make more sense to just ratchet back the economy across the board.

[Hard Sarge]

as it stands right now, I still see Waste as a game breaker
can't do anything about it, so why bother, why build anything, why do anything in the game at all

knock a side out of the war, then sit on there doorstep and pound them each turn till you get a enough glory to win, oh boy

sorry, I think it was a poorly thought out idea (the idea may be good, how it works is poorly thought out)

I have played the game every day since it came out, I will finish off my current game and shut it down until the patch comes out and we see how they handle it

(my Current game, a 1796 started as France, 6 of the 8 sides are broke, waste has crippled every one)

HARD_Sarge

a shame, as I really like the game and the system

[Jordan]

From Hard Sarge:

my Current game, a 1796 started as France, 6 of the 8 sides are broke, waste has crippled every one

Do you know this to be accurate...that it was waste that made them broke? Not their wars, etc?

I like the idea that this isn't another conquer a province, get more powerful, build more troops from the resources of the newly conquered province (from folks who now can't seem to want to do enough for me), conquer two more provinces, get even more powerful, rinse-wash and repeat....this is just boring and it turns me off quicker to a game than listening to Pamela Anderson talk.....there goes the illusion.

I would like to have a middle and end game for once (all the Pamela games above do not - Rome Total War tried but who are you kidding? Imperial Glory...same ol, same ol.) The only way to do so is to maintain some balance and, oh by the way, inject some realism into the game. How many successful world conquerors have their been? Napoleon didn't completley dismantle Austria and Prussia for smart reasons...he was after dominance and legitimacy, he knew he couldn't govern their countries (at least directly). Anyway, you and I disagree I think on more than just how waste works and having the economy (and waste) spelled out a more clearly - I thnk the developers also could have managed expectations a little better by having a clearer idea in the manual as well

[jchastain]

ORIGINAL: Jordan
Do you know this to be accurate...that it was waste that made them broke? Not their wars, etc?

Realistically, it is all of the above that made them broke. Income and expenses figure into the equasion.

And I agree with you. If a nation has enough resources to do everything it wishes to do, then there is no challenge. Strategy games are about making choices and limited resources are one of the constraints that forces you to make trade offs. There might need to be some minor tweaking of the system, but we need to maintain the general concepts of not being able to grow too strong and not being able to build everything you might want.

[Hard Sarge]

yes, but

limit the resourse, is fine, limit the numbers is fine, but don't let me, make me build 150 of this a month, but only let me have 3 when the month is over

don't make me wait 3 month to save enough labor so I can build a Farm, so I can improve how much wine I can make, and then take all the wine away from me, because I make too much wine

heck, I shouldn't need to make any wine for the people, as they stole it all already, what do they need more for

and again, I disagree with the idea that this make the game more a non take over the world, as it stands now, just muddle though and take as much as you can, cause it don't matter one way or another to your people if you are mean or nice, you are not going to get anything you build

as I said, in this game, I have been very peaceful (for me) and I still own over 55 ciies, everybody else can't wait to go to war with me, only to be beaten silly, when they surrender, there is nothing else to take but there land, treadys and peace is worthless, as they will break those as soon as they think you are not looking there way

(LOL, for the last 6 months, Spain has been marching into my lands, only to run back when the box comes up telling me they are on my land, and what do I want to do)


okay, the part I do not understand or follow, if you want to limit what the player does, up the cost of your troops, you have 50 Divs, it is going to cost you this, if you have 60-75 Divs, it is going to cost double, if you have 75-100 Divs, it is going to triple, if I have the money and goods to pay for 100 Divs, so be it, if I don't, I better not build that many

and this way, you have a reason to improve your cities

HARD_Sarge

LOL I just lost 400 points in my morale, as I couldn't build enough Wine for the masses

[mogami]

Hi, I am currently running Sweden in 1792 scenario. Date is late 1797 and I'm making money and my Army is growing (slowly)
I have fought 2 wars with Prussia (won them both)
Currently involved in major war with Turkey (protectorate in Mecklenburg and Denmark so I allied with Russia and Britian )
You can't continualy develop all your provinces. You have to plan "I want to build a barracks in Stockhome next year" (opposed to "this instant")
Before I moved my Army South for war I stockpiled food. (and had divisions deployed on my borders to keep out strays)
Sweden is in third place (victory is simply highest Glory at games end) I still have 5 provinces on my hit parade from list of those I wanted to aquire at start.
I'm not a good Ally. When Britian threatened to take Mecklenburg and there was a major Prussian-Turkish Force on Berlin (fighting the Russians) I moved one of minor Ally (Bavaria) Divisions onto Berlin and then called the British as reinforcements. The Prussian-Turk Force hammered us but it kept Mecklenburg out of British hands.
I keep a few units in Pomeria for such uses. (Prussia ceded Pomeria to Sweden after the first war. ) As a condition of surrender in the seconded war I had Prussia declare war on Turkey. (now that large combined Army in Berlin is no longer a problem. )
Events go rather slow in this game. Plenty of time to arrange them to unfold in your favor.
It is not a game about production. Production is just another tool you have to use to get what you want. You can't build your way to victory (it costs too much)
You have to build enough to maintain what you have and over time squeeze out just a little more. Bavaria provided 100k troops (2.5 morale) also a diplomat (they have been busy running other diplomats out of town) The troops are now 4+ morale from sitting on outnumbered Turko Prussian garrisons. (Bavaria is producing troops much faster then Sweden) most of the new units go to keeping the older ones at 10k.
In 1792 I wanted to be ready for war by 1800. I'm going much faster then I planned.
I really didn't even know I was wasting production.

[Jordan]

heck, I shouldn't need to make any wine for the people, as they stole it all already, what do they need more for

Ask Fouche to check all knapsacks, there's not a Marshal's baton in there, there's a fine bottle of port.

I agree that it is frustrating. I also completely agree that if the game is supposed to be about dominance and not conquest, then other elements of the game need to keep you interested...robust diplomacy options (money, trade goods, alliances, demilitarization...perhaps you should have the ability to influence their economic and foreign policy decisions, although I don't know how that could be done, or be able to have all FOG lifted for that country so you can see what they're doing) need to be worth it and more importantly the econcomic/development side of the game needs to keep your interest. As argued by chastin and Uncle Joe and you, there doesn't seem to be a whole lot of incentive to improve your economy.

So I agree that waste and economic develoment should be tweaked, I just don't want to see this turn into a steamroller game. I would like the opportunities for other countries to remain viable, to remain a challenge and to retain the ability to make a comeback...part of that is to limit the ability of one nation from becoming all powerful and limiting the ability to cover the map. Therefore, the game needs to make it in the self-interest of a dominant player not to try and cover the map.

[mogami]

Hi, I'm not convinced we have all learned all there is to know about the economic model.
I thought I was doing well. I didn't even know about waste till last night so it has not been something that bothered me before now.
Are we certain that some players interaction is not simply more wastefull then others? (As opposed to waste being a built in mechanism that effect all economic practices evenly)
In any event. I like the game system so far. My only problem is when after I spend a fortune getting a country to like me some knucklehead from the other side of the map gets a protectorate and then I have to fight the units built with my money in the forts built with my money. (I'm still chomping at the bit to get into a 8 human player games.)
However I think turn 1 online would take forever so I think online players should be able to set up a game "Friday at 8pm) and then send a turn file PBEM to each player that on Friday at 8pm is loaded. (with all those long turn 1 orders already finished)

[Mr. Z]

IIRC, "waste" was originally implemented in order to make it difficult to manage a large empire a la Napoleon. Is the feeling here that it makes it too difficult to manage even a nation which stays within its original boundaries?