Yawn what a non issue. I knew this without any deliberation.  With enough bonuses why wouldn't you know this ?  Are you all so narrow minded? this is MISLEADING aljwlefjs;lfijafljawl;efjaiefjaf what do we do!!!!! everyone will LOSE NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO.  

Anyways perhaps a polish point but I'd put it on the list as number 999999999999999999999999999999999999999999715 to adjust/add because it's that important.

if you want to play the game casually on a medium map then you are right; however, if you want to play optimally on a larger map the system is a needlessly complicated micromanagement hell.

A huge interest for me is the chance to play on insane level, and see how the game changes.  On smaller maps you meet everyone right away and judging the situation is not too difficult.  On insane size, all that should go out the window and it will be a brave (or crazy) new world.

And yes I agree, everything to help with repetitive tasks to reduce micromanagement in such a galaxy is also huge.

It's interesting that you mention that as I'm going in just the opposite direction.  I can't wait to play insane, yes.  But I want to play it with 50 opponents and see how it plays.  I've had my fill with wide open spaces on maps (it's a compaint I've made once or twice I believe :D)

I'm figuring around 2000 habitable planets or so on a Loose Cluster map, which means each faction should have around 20 to 60 with the midpoint at 40 [it being variable depending on how fast they expand] planets and I want to see how some of the ideological traits (especially the +1 Approval per planet conqured) play with edge cases like that one.

Also I can not wait till I hear the complaints about Trade Resources being OP when Beta 5 drops.  We all know they're coming.

As if one is not going to run in to utter game breaking things when one plays on a map called "Insane".

===

When it comes to micro-managment, the one thing I hope comes in sooner than later is Auto Upgrade at starbases.  Being able to fire constructors at starbases and not having to manaually assgin each and every module as it arrives is going to be a godsend for me.  Especially if asteroid mining is in....

I feel your pain for sure.   Thing is, I am not sure how to proceed here.   The problem I see is that I do want to be able to specialize my starbases.  In my current game I have a couple of starbases in position to support two research planets.  (I have started to append "res", "cash", "man", and "inf" to the names of my colonies to remind me of that colonies plan).    So I want research improvements and (perhaps, depending on location) defenses.    Or there are SBs that only support a relic or mining, etc.

Perhaps an auto upgrade could have a simple checkbox (not a priority thing, but whether to upgrade at all) to upgrade this or that and then go to idle so I can reassign it to build ships.  If circumstances change, I could redo the check box.

Well I never play on anything smaller than the largest map and I really don't have an issue managing everything.  If you are having great trouble or anguish from such a system it just seems strange to me considering you are running a galactic empire.  This may come as a shock to most people but all things science related are MADE by manufacturing plants, machine shops, specialty building shops, etc.  There not made in a goofy lab.  In fact most lab equipment wouldn't exist had it not been for manufacturing.

 To me if you through crystal bonuses and highly developed manufacturing achieve such a feat thats awesome and feasible I don't even see the dilemma here.  Its like 5 extra clicks a turn for me.

Anyways I respect that it bothers you.  Different things get to different people I get that.  To me though non issue.  Really easy to deal with. 

i am currently midway through a large galaxy with a custom synthetic race and the micromanagement this game forces on you via it's economy and constructor/starbase system is just unacceptable.

e.g. this world

has it's research maximum at this point

what is even worse is, when you go into debt the game sets all planets at 100% econ, however you often get more credits with a setting somewhere between production and econ with a econ stimulus project. i would not be surprised if even the ai/game did not know how to use the governance system properly.

i just gave up this game to play optimally this time. i just go through all my planets every ~15 turns and optimize them. i probably loose 5 to 15% of research/econ/manufacturing because of this. (not that it matters because the balance/ai is so bad that i am leading with an order of magnitude compared to the ai on the second most difficult setting). to be fair i probably loose much more research/econ/manufacturing due to fact that there is no resource overflow.

Firstly, it makes some degree of sense that you'd be unable to use the economic project when in debt. Your factories are shut down because you don't have the money to pay the workers, after all. Of course, this also implies that we will have forgotten how to spend money we don't currently have and pay off the debt later ~200 years in the future (or alternatively that we've forbidden our governments to do this kind of thing).

Secondly, this is the kind of thing that should be fairly easy to get the computer to handle optimally. Under the assumption that your wealth fraction and your manufacturing fraction sum to 1 and that you're using an economic project, the optimal wealth fraction is w such that

O = (w*P + W + 0.25*((1 - w)*P + M)*(1 + Bm))*(1 + Bw)

is maximized, where O is the planet's output, P is the planet's production, M and W are any flat bonuses to manufacturing and wealth output, Bm is the  planet's bonus to manufacturing, and Bw is the planet's bonus to wealth. Simplifying, we see that

O = (1 + Bw)*(W + 0.25*(1 + Bm)*(P + M) + 0.75*P*w - 0.25*Bm*P*w)

This tells us that if Bm = 3, it does not matter what w is since it cancels out of the equation. For Bm < 3, the optimal value of w is w = 1 since 0.75*P > 0.25*Bm*P and so O increases when w increases, while for Bm > 3, the optimal value of w is w = 0 since 0.75*P < 0.25*Bm*P and so O decreases with increasing w. This also holds true for research under the assumption that the research fraction and the manufacturing fraction sum to 1 and you're using a research project. It should also be noted that for the purposes of deciding what w should be, the value of Bw does not matter; only the value of Bm matters.

In other words, if you're trying to maximize a single output type from a planet, it's essentially never optimal to have the production distribution set in any way other than 100% to a single output type, and there's an incredibly simple rule for choosing the optimal production distribution - if Bm >= 3, all production goes to manufacturing and you use a project to convert to the desired output type; otherwise, all production goes to the desired output type.

i am a malevolent overlord, i doubt i even pay my workers

anyways sense or nonsense, it is bad gameplay wise imho. the only reason why i got into debt in the first place is, that you can spend as much credits as you want when upgrading ships through the govern panel.

you are certainly right, but the player is no computer. for the player this is just a tedious task that you have to do over and over.

again no disagreement. however arriving at such an optimum is not always possible:

1) you need a few factories to build up the planet, otherwise it takes ages or a lot of credits. destroying those few factories might be unwise because you probably need to upgrade buildings as you progress through the research tree.

2) you may not have that many tiles to get to the optimum

in short: on most smaller and middle sized planets you will end up with a mix where the optimum (for that planet) is between manufacturing and research/credits.

Still????  I thought the Stardock team at least addressed resource overflow.  I.E. resource overflow is not lost but instead, gets applied to your next project. 

Not to sound stupid or anyting, but having wasted resource overflow is so 1990s.... 

no i am sorry they did fix it. however you can still only finish one item (building/ship/technology) at a time, which made me think that there is no overflow.

While we are on the subject of projects, I find it odd that if i am producing just 1 social Manu...I get a 25% growth from birthing subsidies.

i will often set my research and Econ planets to 1% Manu just to get that growth bonus.

I was maximizing O with respect to w, the fraction of production set to the desired output type, not with respect to the multipliers you have or can achieve on the planet.

O = (w*P + W + 0.25*((1 - w)*P + M)*(1 + Bm))*(1 + Bw)

This is linear with respect to w. Proof:

O = (w*P + W + 0.25*(P + M)*(1 + Bm) - 0.25*(1 + Bm)*w*P)*(1 + Bw)

O = (W + 0.25*(P + M)*(1 + Bm) + (0.75 - 0.25*Bm)*P*w)*(1 + Bw)

O = (W + 0.25*(P + M)*(1 + Bm))*(1 + Bw) + (0.75 - 0.25*Bm)*(1 + Bw)*P*w

The production fractions can vary between 0 and 1, so we want to maximize O with respect to w on the interval [0, 1]. If you do not know how to maximize a linear function over a closed interval, you need to review basic algebra, because this is trivially easy math. All you need to do is check the sign of the slope of the funciton; in this case, the slope is (0.75 - 0.25*Bm)*(1 + Bw)*P. P is strictly positive unless there's something very, very weird going on. 1 + Bw is positive as long as Bw > -1; as Bw is the bonus to wealth expressed as a decimal, (1 + Bw) will be positive for any planet which has a wealth bonus greater than -100%. Since it's rather unlikely that we'd have a planet with a wealth bonus less than -100%, this leaves us with only (0.75 - 0.25*Bm) governing the sign of the slope. This is positive for Bm < 3 and negative for Bm > 3, where Bm is the bonus to manufacturing expressed as a decimal (i.e., you're checking to see if you have a manufacturing bonus greater than +300%).

Since it's very, very unlikely that Bw will be less than -1, this gives us three cases to consider:

1. Bm = 3. O is constant with respect to w. Therefore, all valid values of w are optimal points.
2. Bm < 3. O is strictly increasing in w. A function which is strictly increasing in x over a closed interval [xmin, xmax] has one and only one maximum on the interval; this maximum occurs at x = x' s.t. x' >= y for all y in [xmin, xmax]. Our variable ranges from 0 to 1, so therefore when Bm < 3, the optimum value of w is w = 1.
3. Bm > 3. O is strictly decreasing in w. A function which is strictly decreasing in x over a closed interval [xmin, xmax] has one and only one maximum on the interval; this maximum occurs at x = x' s.t. x' <= y for all y in [xmin, xmax]. Our variable ranges from 0 to 1, so therefore when Bm > 3, the optimum value of w is w = 0.

This has almost nothing to do with the number of tiles on the planet. It has nothing to do with maximizing the planet's potential output. It has everything to do with what the planet's bonuses currently are, and with what the slider settings are. There is no question of whether or not you are able to "arrive" at these optimum values, as there is nothing that you can do that will change them. This is a question of slider settings, not of what you build on the planet.

If I were looking to maximize a planet's potential output under the assumption that I'm producing only one type of output (i.e. the manufacturing fraction and the desired output fraction sum to 1), then the maximization problem would look more like:

Maximize O with respect to Nfactories, Nother, and Nfarms:

O = (w*P + 0.25*((1 - w)*P*(1 + Bm))*(1 + Bw)

Subject to the constraint:

Nfactories + Nother + Nfarms = PlanetQuality - Notherimprovements

Defining P, Bm, and Bw in terms of Nfarms, Nother, and Nfactories:

P = (1 + ProductionBonus)*(FlatProdution + 2*((1 + FoodBonus)*(BasePop + Nfarms*Bfarms))^0.7)

Bm = Nfactories*Bfactories + B_manu_planet + B_manu_SB

Bw = Nother*Bother + B_other_planet + B_other_SB

As O is still linear with respect to w, the conclusions reached earlier regarding the optimum value of w still hold. This means we essentially have two cases to worry about - the case where w = 1, and the case where w = 0. Both of these result in equations which would probably be best solved numerically rather than analytically.

i don't know how you arrived food/farm/basepop bonuses as there is little documentation of their effects. i am currently validating with ingame examples

edit: according to this blogpost https://forums.galciv3.com/452497/page/1/

which strikes me as odd because ingame values of raw production/income/science don't seem to behave like this. the rest of the formula certainly works.

also from that post:

something makes me doubt that as it is very hard to glance at a planet and tell what is the optimum building arrangement to optimize the planet for output x (keep in mind adjacency bonuses, tile bonuses, planet bonuses and so on.)

In your screenshot you're doj g a research project. That is, you're comvering some of your manufacturing to research.

i am aware of that.

here is the core question:

what buildings and governance setting yield the optimum output of X (manufacturing, research or credits)?

in most games this answer is very simple, not so in gal civ3, e.g. the simple assumption if i want to build a "science world" i need max pop (assuming no farms, because i play synthetic), max. happiness and science buildings for the rest and allocate 100% science in the govern panel. This is not true just from gameplay experience, e.g. if your manufacturing bonuses are greater than your science bonuses (racial, starbase, tech, adjacency) it might be better to go for a pure manufacturing world and get more science with a conversion project. Needless to say that you also have some science bonuses here and there that affect the conversion project as well (i.e. the base population that yields the raw manufacturing is affected by two multipliers when using a conversion project). This makes the above question not that trivial (which is my main issue).

My thought is that maybe the projects should simply give a % boost to their target.

@tesb

The Population to Production ratio works this way currently:

Quote from this post:

https://forums.galciv3.com/462186/get;3528153

Yes, much simpler with the formula.

1B Pop gives 2 productions, 10B Pop gives 10 productions.

You can play with the curve here:

https://www.google.fr/webhp?hl=fr#hl=fr&q=y%3D2*x^.7

End of quote

@Frogboy

@Unknown_Hero 

i can not reproduce that:

e.g. population: 13, happiness: 100%, raw science: 27.5

according to the tooltip my colony capital gives me 5 total production, i.e. using the above formula

2*(population)^0.7 + 5 = 17.04... != 27.5

i know from ingame data that happiness is a direct multiplier to raw science/manufacturing/credits, but the population effect on the raw outputs is not linear and does not correspond to the the curve you linked

the base concept of the economy is not that bad, i.e.

however the conversion projects complicate this picture, as well as the the raw production, i.e. the true picture of the economy is something like this:

1) i can get behind the diminishing returns of population on raw production, as well as happiness, but this needs to better documented (what is the function used?)

2) the conversion project need rework imho a simple change would be to not allow them to run though the other modifiers as well, i.e. no double dipping. i don't know

The economic system are pretty badly thought out and I actually don't think the developers realizes it to the extent that they probably should.

Another big problem is that the AI never use the sliders it just keep them at 33/33/33, it does however move the social and military slider somewhat, but in general it seem to use 66% military and 33% social production.

In my opinion that make the slider system a very OP tool in favor of a human player over the AI... do the human player really need that advantage?!?

The other problem is that giving players the possibility to shift focus on planets without any restrictions and/or penalties only leads to min/max micromanagement which also is not really needed. This ONLY need to higher difficulties needing to give the AI more and more artificial bonuses to keep up with human player min/max the sliders as is the most efficient. this only lead to a perpetual slippery slope of gemeyness.

In my opinion there should be a link between a civilizations overarching ideology/government and how sliders can be manipulated, both on empire and individual basis. It should also govern the penalties for moving them.

It should require extreme measures to be able to set any world at 100% into any one region if not outright impossible to do so. It is completely unrealistic and counter intuitive from a strategic sense.

But in order for any of this to matter the AI must use it too or else it is just a tool for the human player which is a bad way of implementing a game mechanic in my opinion. Every mechanic you add you must have the AI in mind when designing, if it will not be able to use you need to revise it or get rid of it or people WILL exploit it against the AI, that's just they way it is.

If you as a player really want to play on the same level as the AI and give yourself a harder game experience then never change anything but the social/military slider. That is how the AI play anyway and so should you if you want a challenge, then up the difficulty as well a face some truly hard times. Min/max the sliders and build boring one dimensional colonies is neither hard nor challenging, even on the hardest setting. It is way harder to restrict your game-play to the same level of the AI and then give it extra bonuses on to of that. There is also the benefit of the game suddenly becoming allot more balanced as a result.

Apologize if this was already mentioned as these posts are very long and detailed.  Of course one advantage in going for a pure manufacturing world and then just having some planets do the research conversion project is you can ignore entire portions of the tech tree that enhance your research buildings and concentrate on just improving your manufacturing.  If you play with a race that has huge bonus to manufacturing this can be a valid strategy.  Never build a lab and yet still produce a lot of research.  Galciv 2 had this same issue, where it was actually better to have all manufacturing worlds and then use the focus mechanic to get some research.

Great to see FrogBoy in the thread! 

As everyone else has mentioned, the research and wealth projects introduce some pretty silly effects into the economy as they currently stand.

The primary reason for this is that normally your improvements scale additively. That is, when you make 2 labs worth 50% bonus research each, the total added research is 100%. 

However, the research project allows you to scale your improvements multiplicatively. That is, your production bonuses (converted to research) multiply with your research bonuses, rather than add to them. This creates some broken situations where planets can get in excess of 10k research points per turn.

The solution is really simple. Just add the bonus research from the research project in AFTER the research multipliers have been applied. This one change will completely fix the issue, while still leaving the projects useful on production-specialised world's.

if true, this would explain a lot. This should really be looked at, else ai will never be competitive. My first suggestion actually was to just dump the governance panel/system, now i am thinking more in the direction of removing/changing the conversion projects.

it was (page 1 reply 15, can't link it for some reason). from an immersion standpoint i want specialized planets, like population/political centers like Coruscant, hidden research worlds, military strongholds and so on. I just think that the current way of achieving this is too micro intensive and complicated, i.e. you could probably arrive at a similar outcome with a simpler and intuitive system. I guess that is the never achieved idea: a simple intuitive system with lot's of possibilities, oh and it is balanced .