Making Money in 1.04

[jscott991]

By your command.

[ASHBERY76]

Massive over expansion of colonies with a lack of luxury resources I bet.Look at the tax rates and revenue compared to the homeworld.

[jscott991]

ORIGINAL: ASHBERY76

Massive over expansion of colonies with a lack of luxury resources I bet.Look at the tax rates and revenue compared to the homeworld.

That's a fair assessment.

It's all the AI's doing. So colonization at least needs to be managed manually with a focus on worlds with luxury resources and probably large sizes. The AI just seems to be grabbing everything it can.

It still astonishes me, however, that it is almost impossible to tell what colonies are netting revenue and what colonies are costing it.

This was a very simple feature in GalCiv that hammered home the risks of over-expansion.

[JosEPhII]

@Tacit_Exit,

While you have a TON of cash, you also have One of the EASIEST game settings to acquire said fortune.

Throw in some Pirates (normal) Space Creatures (normal), Aggression(Normal, not Peaceful) Normal Research (not slow), no Excellent home system but Normal , Closer AI, and you would Not be sporting an 11 million balance sheet. Your example is the Extreme end of Capital/Economy building not even close to the Mean, Average, or Medium. It instead gives a False impression of Normal game play when it in fact comes from playing on the Very Easy level.

Then Ashberry jumps in and chimes in Again that the Economy needs More nerfing. Sorry Ash but you need to show a bit more patience before you pounce. Look over the example given before crying "wolf".

SO.... I say HOLD IT Bub! Let us use better examples to judge the Economy, Not the eXtremes.

I have reservations just like jscott does. I Have waited for my economy to right itself (and eventually it does, like Erik said). BUT... by the time it does I'm being "owned" by the AI. So that period of waiting (when I can't build/upgrade/repair) Costs me Way too much in being able to be competitive. And it invariably hits when I have 5-10 colonies.
a
There is more but More Normal examples need to be shown As Well As the exTremes (we need to see an example of a game with ALL setting difficult, no one has posted one of those yet.)

JosEPh [:)]

[Andrew Brown]

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins
This is a single player game, so balancing it for both playstyles is not the same challenge it would be in a multi-player game. Micro-managers will always be able to do better, but the goal is to make it so that people do not feel like things are not working if they have all the automation on.

Making generalization is almost pointless though, as the experience with one combination of race/government/galaxy settings can be very different from the experience with another.

Erik - perhaps what is needed is some sort of "economy difficulty" slider. Players can then select from harder (high costs, harder trades etc.) to easier (low costs etc.) values, to suit their play style. I am in the "harder is better" camp as I like a challenge and I don't mind a bit of micromanagement (as long as it is not too repetitive), but there is a large group who just want to "set and forget" the economy. I don't think you are going to find a single group of economic settings that will please everyone.

Just a thought...

Andrew

[YvesDelecroix]

Solution: Disregard women, acquire currency.

[Druthlen]

lmao isnt the only point of acquiring currency is to acquire women??? did I miss the point of life somewhere??

[lancer]

Goodaye,

I think there is a basic philosophical divide here between two types of players. On one side is the detailed, micromanager inclined players. On the other is the switch-it-to-automated-and-don't-bother-me-with-the-details players.

Both groups are pulling the game in different directions. The detail orientated players will always extract a much better performance from the game than the big picture automated players who rely on the AI.

One group inherently finds any economical balance sweet-spot to easy and the other too hard.

I suspect that it will be impossible to satisfy both groups. The nature of DW is that it will attract large numbers from both camps and you wouldn't want to willingly brush off one group in favour of the other.

I'd recommend putting in place some version of an economic difficulty setting so that both groups can be accomodated. An easier, more forgiving setting for the automated players and a harder setting for the detail ones. As the economic balance appears to revolve around costs, returns and resistance to taxation this appears (?) to be doable from an outsiders point of view.

Trying to set the economy to appease both groups with their widely divergent approaches is only going to put you on a hiding to nowhere and will probably end up pleasing nobody.

Oh, and thanks for all the hard work in getting out the patches. It's appreciated.

[edit: I missed a few comments above from Andrew Brown who said the same thing already. Consider this post a reinforcement of his original idea]

Cheers,
Lancer

[Druthlen]

I dont know I am a micro manager. I can barely get this economy going. I never go into the red ever mind you. I am really successful, really I am, just not as successful as the AI that is aggressive and declares war on me the second we meet. How the heck does he afford so many ships. And if he is playing a large budget now and we will lower it after the war game...Gosh that is to much micro management. Realistic, but um i dont want to have a ever changing navy based on the here and now need. Knowing when to scrap ships and when to produce and go into the red for the sake of war. That is just to much for me. I should be able to have a decent navy and be positive on income. I guess as an individual my war wearniess is really high So basicly this patch is a miss not a win for the micro managers and a lose for the macro grand strategist. Its just a miss period. They will rebalance it and we have to help by posting how our games are turning out.

[Erik Rutins]

Thank you for the ongoing feedback folks. We are taking it all in and will be making some more tweaks.

[Col Zin]

I still don't know enough about how to get the economy rolling in this game, but it seems to me that the complaints from the automated focused players regarding the AI handling of the economy aren't related to differences in how they play the game; it's simply that the AI isn't optimized to do the things that micromanagers do very well.

i.e: in version 1.03, over-building of mines, over-colonizing, simply wasteful spending rather than focusing on streamlining.

From what I gather, the developers are trying to find the balance where based on what the micromanager will learn, the economy system doesn't give specific advantages to one particular play style (choosing a particular race & democracy), and that when automated, the AI properly handles the instructions that a skilled micromanager would order.

It sounds like the sliding bar approach would work well for this (Assuming no bugs with automated behavior), as an easy setting would essentially enable full automation across the board, and sliding up several levels to hardest would set certain orders to full manual each step of the way.

Honestly, I don't see how satisfying the needs of the automaters and the micromanagers is impossible. At this stage in development, it seems to me that the designers are tweaking the system balance more than anything, which makes sense.

[Lord_Astraios]

This is what i mostly do.

IN my game i have humans,  700 stars,  distant from each other races, 7 races,  democracy and everything in to manual i click everything and decide everything,  in other terms nothing automated except for the home-world star-dock and 10% of my military ships that do patrols.

For the tax i just go by the population,  500 or less i dont tax,  when they grow more than 500 i increment somewhere around to 3 to 7 %,  more than 1,000 i go to 12%,  somewhat matching the number of population and the number of the tax percentage. My homeworld  when it is at 10,000 i just leave it around 31% to 34%  just to keep em happy.

Of course find planets with most resources,  race in a balanced way to get colonies,  i hate when someone else colonize a planet inside my star system.  Try to get planets that have a lot of resources in either way. 

Also the expansion planner will tell you everything,  all demands and planets with resources to colonize,  as for the minerals the planner shows it like the stock market,  which have the higher demand and find a planet with those resources and place a base on it.

As for the military bases or docks,  depending on the traffic,  i always start with smaller bases,  and if the planet is far away i jump to medium bases.

As far as i know this is the strategy i used lately and it worked, or course depends on the rush,  or when you got 4 empires wanting a piece of me on a silver platter then i have to make some small changes,  more the ships in to the lesser worlds and with large bases leave some ships as a just in case the base fails to defend the planet.

[taltamir]

i find that the quality of the home system and starting size plays a major factor. If you start small in a harsh planet you WILL be losing money at the get go...

as for scrapping mining stations... how do you do that? i tried and i can't click them, they are all private. (and cause my private sector to be losing money

also, cost matters... its easy to get carried away with arming and armoring your colonizers, mining bases, civilians, etc...
I have managed to bankrupt myself that way... sure any pirate that attacked a mining base died, but the mining bases cost 2x the normal price, each. and getting rid of some of them is actually good since I can't afford them (playing on hardest everything has been enlightening, I learn so much.)

on normal, state starts making 14k and private 25k... on harshest state started losing 12k and private losing 12k.

[sanderz]

I have just had a quick read through these pages and no one (particularly Eric) seems to have commented on a point that jscott991 has mentioned several times

ORIGINAL: jscott991
It still astonishes me, however, that it is almost impossible to tell what colonies are netting revenue and what colonies are costing it.

Is the above statement true or not? Cos i have the same problem in that i can't find enough info to make informed decisions.

thanks

[Fishman]

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins

How much in the red were you? If you abandon the game when you go red, you may be making a mistake and not giving your economy time to grow and become more profitable.

If by "going red", he means his funds have hit zero and he has no income, he may not have a choice, since at that point he can't do anything anymore.

[Sliverine]

there are still things that you can do at that stage. you can check your balance sheet to identify your greatest cost and cut that e.g. scrap ships, bases, raise taxes, disband troops etc....there are so much more things you can do, just that by that time the said person is so disillusioned that he thinks nothing can be done any further and ragesquit.

[taltamir]

I have noticed something interesting... luxury goods make money...

I now ignore planets with regular goods until late in the game... and I focus on colonizing the planets with the rarest goods first... (well, after the ancient ruins, ancient ruins are most important)...

[Sliverine]

i think the most important thing here is to limit your expansion. You mostly start out with one pretty developed world along with 3 other worlds in the same system as you that you can immediately colonize. You should then look to getting a constant supply of 4 (or more) luxury goods (of which 2 should be already in your starting system) to further your development. If im not wrong i read somewhere that when worlds have a supply of more then 4 luxury goods they start to develop. Fully developing worlds is the important thing here. Its better to have 4 fully developed worlds bringing you loads of income rather then 39 poorly developed ones fighting for their share of development essential luxury goods and with that one developed world being your sole source of income (i.e. your capital). Therefore, in a nutshell, expand slowly but surely!

[Gertjan]

Its better to have 4 fully developed worlds bringing you loads of income rather then 39 poorly developed ones fighting for their share of development essential luxury goods and with that one developed world being your sole source of income (i.e. your capital). Therefore, in a nutshell, expand slowly but surely!

 
Tell this to the AI
 

I still don't know enough about how to get the economy rolling in this game, but it seems to me that the complaints from the automated focused players regarding the AI handling of the economy aren't related to differences in how they play the game; it's simply that the AI isn't optimized to do the things that micromanagers do very well.

 
I fully agree! Ensure that the AI plays more like expert micromanagers. Let the AI be more careful when to colonise new planets and build starbases and troops. It seems that the revenues have been lowered in this patch, but that the cost side of the state finances (mostly maintenance and building costs) has not been changed.
 
 

[DasTactic]

To help control the economy, what about a logarithmic scale of frugality/expenditure (that could be tied in to a difficulty slider).

If your economy is in the red the logarithmic scale kicks in to favour the player. This would represent the citizens of the empire tightening their belts. So lets say the game scale is -1000 the game may use the frugality scale to only penalize the player -900. As the amount increases the frugality scale helps to keep it manageable. -5000 might penalize the player -2500, -10000 might penalize the player -3000 etc. So the deeper in red you are the more frugal the population becomes.

To stop this blowing out, the reverse could also be true using the same scale to represent citizens spending in boom times so you can effectively block the economy running rampant into the black.