[6.2] A review of the Economic System

A lot of posts have been circling these ideas, so I wanted to centralize them into a single discussion.

And though I think its worth having the discussion, the reality is...so close to release I don't think any changes that we discuss in this topic should occur right off the bat, if even at all. The economy is such a core centerpiece of the game that changing it would have huge consequences.

So here are the main topics I've seen discussed:

 

Planet Specialization is demanded for good play.

It can be argued that most 4x games require specialization to a degree for good play. However, I think Gal Civ 3 takes it to a much higher threshold, for a few main reasons:

The local 100% slider: If you can go to 100%...you should, no reason not to. And because every planet can be tailored to 100% of a certain resource, you are compelled to do so.

The Adjacency System: The current adjacency system is "like begets like". Factories help other factories, so even without the slider you are still encouraged to stack the same groups of buildings together. This aspect is not as strong though because there are "regions" on a planet. I might have 3 clusters of tiles on a planet, and could theoretically make 1 clump of factories, 1 clump of research, and 1 clump for wealth....except that the slider compels my otherwise.

The Cost of Changing Gears: Its not just that Gal Civ 3 encourages specialization, but once a planet is specialized it is basically "locked in", even though you can change the slider so fluidly. The reason is the enormous infrastructure cost to change. Changing the slider on a research world to wealth provides so little benefit its not worth it. And destroying all those research laps to build markets takes such a large amount of time...again its not worth it.

Compare this to Civ 5 as a counterexample. I can buy or build a few key buildings, change all my specializations, and suddenly my city is specialized in a completely different way.

The projects model theoretically does this for a manu world, allowing them to adapt to other types. However, right now we have seen the gauntlet of OP and UP versions of those models, so I don't think its working quite right yet.

 

Special Tiles are not strong enough in many cases

The special tiles theoretically give you incentive to go "against type", by building something that you might not otherwise. And in the cases for manu, research, and wealth...it doesn't work.

The power is the slider is so strong, that even a +3 adj bonus is not enough to compel me to go against the planet's specialization. The only exceptions are the secondary resource bonuses:

Influence: Not affected by the slider, so you get good returns here.

Approval: Often only 1 approval building is desired on a planet, so the more bang for the buck the better.

Population: Faster growth is a big deal early on, so putting your hospital here is good.

Military: A +3 with hyperion shrinker is good. Otherwise I ignore these completely.

 

There is little incentive to upgrade buildings

Right now, upgraded buildings do not provide that much more benefit, and are hugely expensive in manufacturing costs.

Lets look at an example:

Take a 12 production research world with 6 research labs (or a 210% research bonus assuming some standard adjacencies). We are going to assume that his planet has 2 factories with a manu bonus tile (so a 75% manu bonus). Its important to note that we are being pretty generous here. I am assuming no extra science bonuses (which on a science world is unlikely). I am also not being stingy on the manu with a +3 manu tile.

We intend to upgrade the labs to xeno labs. To do that in "short order" (4 turns per upgrade), we are only left with 5.57 production going into research.

Summary: After 24 turns, all labs are upgraded (so we crank all 12 production back into science). In total, it takes 153 turns before we have broken even on the exchange. For many, the game is half over before 1 planet's upgrade actually pans out.

 

Why so much? For the gearheads out there, here is some further math:

 

A research lab costs 30 manu and gives a 35% bonus to research (with 2 adjacency, very easy to get in most cases). That's 1.167% / 1 manu.
A xeno research costs 45 manu and gives an additional 5%. That's .11% / 1 manu.

It takes 7 upgraded labs to give me the same research benefit of 1 extra research lab, but it takes 10.5 times the manufacturing! And since research planets are often manu starved, that's a big deal.

If we look at at the research institute, we get an additional 10% for 67 manu, or .15% / 1 manu. A little better, but still 7.78 times the manufacturing of a single new research lab.

A research center is .15% / 1 manu. And a research institute is .13% / 1 manu.

To put this in final context, a research lab that relies on Universal Soil Adapter station provides 35% research with a total cost of 181, or .19% / 1 manu (still better than any of the upgraded labs). Going down all of the yellow terraforming techs, I can generate 5 new research labs with terraforming, providing me a 175% research benefit for a total cost of 544 manu, or .32% / 1 manu. That's 2.5-3 times more bang for the buck than the upgraded labs offer.

 

So my conclusion is that building upgrades simply cost too much manu. Even at the base 30 cost, a new lab is still roughly 7 times better than a xeno lab, so its not like they suddenly become must halves even with such an adjustment.

9,549 views 27 replies
Reply #1 Top

I completely agree with your analysis.

These are strong points of the game which need a serious thinking.

Reply #2 Top

I slightly disagree on the upgrades. Its not a bad idea to upgrade - its just a bad idea to upgrade earlygame

Lategame you will have a whole bunch of +manu techs, improvements, trade resources, etc, that make upgrading a much better deal and cost you far less in terms of relative output. You'll also (typically) won't have room to expand - so it will be the only way to improve your tech output.

I think xeno probably needs a buff to 10%

Reply #3 Top

Update: Made a math error, new numbers now shown below.

 

Quoting adamb1011, reply 2

I slightly disagree on the upgrades. Its not a bad idea to upgrade - its just a bad idea to upgrade earlygame

Lategame you will have a whole bunch of +manu techs, improvements, trade resources, etc, that make upgrading a much better deal and cost you far less in terms of relative output. You'll also (typically) won't have room to expand - so it will be the only way to improve your tech output.

I think xeno probably needs a buff to 10%
End of adamb1011's quote

I would actually argue that at 152 (now 153 with updated math) turns to get any benefit from the upgrade, the only time you have to upgrade is the early game.

That said, your point is valid that there will be bonuses later game for Manufacturing. Then again, there will also be more bonuses for research.

I redid the model, giving the planet another 50% boost to research and manu. This way less production is needed to siphon off to manu in order to build the buildings. The result? Its 139 turns, an improvement but still a very long investment.

Lastly, its important to remember that at "normal" tech rates, science recieves a +25% bonus straight up that manu does not. I didn't factor that in, but that would actually skew the numbers away from upgrades even more.

Reply #4 Top

Just thought I would do 1 more example for comparison.

Lets take that same planet I mentioned above, and assume the 6 labs are done in a ring (so the middle gets a +5 adjacency). That would be a 240% science bonus.

Now, ets make that the Tech capital!

 

What's interesting here is that I have to remove the middle lab, so I take a pretty big science hit (75%!!!!) in order to do the upgrade.

If I focus on manu on the building it still takes 11 turns to finish up. Overall, it takes 29 turns to break even. A lot faster than the 130-150 turns, but not an insignificant time either. It just shows that even the strongest investments in galciv 3 right now take investment time to pay off.

Reply #5 Top


The local 100% slider: If you can go to 100%...you should, no reason not to. And because every planet can be tailored to 100% of a certain resource, you are compelled to do so.
End of quote

This isn't exactly true. There are corner cases where you can get more output by setting a small amount of production to manufacturing and using that manufacturing to get a bonus to the desired output than by setting the sliders so that all production goes to the desired output type. The bonus you get from a project is

B(x) = 0.05*ceiling((1 - x)*(1 + Bm)*P)

where x is the fraction of production set to the desired output type, Bm is the bonus to manufacturing production expressed as a decimal, and P is the planet's base production. As long as

1 + Bx <= x*(1 + Bx + B )

where Bx is the bonus to the desired output type, B is an assumed bonus from the project (remember that all valid values of B are integer multiples of 5%) and x is as defined above, you get more production with x < 1 than with x = 1. This means that as long as the bonus to the desired output type is less than

Bxmax = x*B / (1 - x) - 1

you can gain a bonus to output by setting (1 - x)*100% of the planet's output to manufacturing production. Alternatively, if you're going to sacrifice (1 - x)*100% of your planet's production to use a project, the minimum bonus you need to obtain from the project is

Bmin = (1 + Bx)*(1 - x) / x

for the sacrificed production to be worthwhile. In general, though, it will not be worthwhile to sacrifice production to make use of a project; for x = 0.99 (99% of production is directed to the output type which you want), Bxmax = 3.95 (+395% bonus to the output type you want) if B is assumed to equal 0.05, and that's not really all that difficult to achieve on a specialized world. It's also unlikely that you'd be able to improve B sufficiently for a low enough sacrifice of production to be worthwhile.

 

If you ignore the ceiling function hidden in B(x), you can compute the optimal value of x to maximize a single output type as

xopt = min(1, 0.5 + (100 + 100*Bx) / (P + P*Bm))

which should give you a first guess at the optimal slider settings.

Reply #6 Top

The other thing is you really should never build a planet with 100% labs. I tend to start with at least 3-4 factories minimum. This makes upgrading cost you substantially less. 

Generally, I try not to upgrade my planets all at once too. Ie once I research xeno labs, I will only upgrade to them once I have 3 research worlds. Then I will rotate between the worlds, meaning 2 are full research, and 1 is offline (full production) upgrading. I think that way you tend to strike a good balance between earlygame tech and lategame competitiveness.

Reply #7 Top

and 50% (extra) manu is nothing. I usually have at least +100% from 5 starbases, a relic (if im lucky), some nanos (traded), and random other stuff as I transition into midgame.

Reply #8 Top

Stalker0 is completely right... upgrading most of the buildings such as industry, wealth and research are NOT necessary and just take time you instead can get more technology, pay LESS MAINTENANCE thus need less wealth buildings and can use production to produce MORE colony ships, constructors, freighters and all that other stuff earlier and more of them.

 

A research world should focus on a about 50% research related improvements, one or perhaps two factories, stations will make sure you can build the rest of the approval and pop raising buildings you need to get a high RAW production for the multiplier on the research world to flourish. Stations also give a healthy dose of extra research that in turn make upgrading research buildings even less valuable and desirable. I rather have my research worlds keep producing science without interruption.

 

The more factories you put on a research world the more you pull from its potential research output.

 

Wealth planets are slightly different since they can get more use of more industry since you can want to use them as production planets from military production as well as a center of wealth from trade and tourism. These worlds might actually alternate between helping fund shipyards and making money and can actually make some decent money from tourism and trade while they produce ships for a big war.

 

It is almost always better to have production and science now rather than later since they both multiply themselves the faster you can use them, investing in a very "slight" increase in production, wealth, research 100-150 turns in the future is no investment with what you get by colonizing a few extra planets and gaining some new abilities and bonuses from tech earlier.

 

I argue that "time" is one of the most valuable resource you have. How you manage it is very important. That is also why it is almost always better to set sliders to 100% in either category. Don't waste much energy upgrading buildings unless you have the proper TIME to actually do it. Sometimes there is time to spare, but I find that to be very rare.

 

Also... remember that upgraded buildings cost more in maintenance and that builds up over time and also cost you resources better spent on other ventures. This is all math and if you stop to think about it it actually makes sense... ;)

 

 

Reply #9 Top

Quoting joeball123, reply 5



The local 100% slider: If you can go to 100%...you should, no reason not to. And because every planet can be tailored to 100% of a certain resource, you are compelled to do so.



This isn't exactly true. There are corner cases where you can get more output by setting a small amount of production to manufacturing and using that manufacturing to get a bonus to the desired output than by setting the sliders so that all production goes to the desired output type. The bonus you get from a project is

B(x) = 0.05*ceiling((1 - x)*(1 + Bm)*P)

where x is the fraction of production set to the desired output type, Bm is the bonus to manufacturing production expressed as a decimal, and P is the planet's base production. As long as

1 + Bx <= x*(1 + Bx + B )

where Bx is the bonus to the desired output type, B is an assumed bonus from the project (remember that all valid values of B are integer multiples of 5%) and x is as defined above, you get more production with x < 1 than with x = 1. This means that as long as the bonus to the desired output type is less than

Bxmax = x*B / (1 - x) - 1

you can gain a bonus to output by setting (1 - x)*100% of the planet's output to manufacturing production. Alternatively, if you're going to sacrifice (1 - x)*100% of your planet's production to use a project, the minimum bonus you need to obtain from the project is

Bmin = (1 + Bx)*(1 - x) / x

for the sacrificed production to be worthwhile. In general, though, it will not be worthwhile to sacrifice production to make use of a project; for x = 0.99 (99% of production is directed to the output type which you want), Bxmax = 3.95 (+395% bonus to the output type you want) if B is assumed to equal 0.05, and that's not really all that difficult to achieve on a specialized world. It's also unlikely that you'd be able to improve B sufficiently for a low enough sacrifice of production to be worthwhile.

 

If you ignore the ceiling function hidden in B(x), you can compute the optimal value of x to maximize a single output type as

xopt = min(1, 0.5 + (100 + 100*Bx) / (P + P*Bm))

which should give you a first guess at the optimal slider settings.

End of joeball123's quote

 

This is only a case for super optimized production worlds, you are likely only to have a rather select few of them and it is easy enough to just drag the slider on the bottom between production and wealth/science to get the best result. You don't have to bother about the math directly.

 

Although... it is still very unintuitive and the average gamer neither understand or will ever bother with it, which is kind of the point. Why have two system doing the same thing just slightly different when almost no one will understand it?

Reply #10 Top

Quoting JorgenCAB, reply 9

This is only a case for super optimized production worlds,
End of JorgenCAB's quote

Nonsense. Assume that you can get +0.05 added to the research multiplier on a world with 1% of the planet's production to manufacturing (which you can; I usually do so in the early game if I have planets with low bonuses) and setting the other 99% of production to research. The research multiplier is therefore either

R = 1 + B

if you forgo the project, or

r = 0.99 + 0.99*B + 0.99*0.05

where B is the bonus to the research multiplier from structures, empire abilities, planet abilities, starbases, etc (basically, any bonus other than the project bonus). For any B such that B < 3.95, r > R. Therefore, on any planet where the bonus to research (or wealth; it works out the same way there) is less than +395%, I will benefit by sacrificing some small amount of production to generate manufacturing points to feed into the project rather than using all 100% of the production to generate research directly. I won't generate much more this way (if the planet only gets +0.05 to the multiplier of the desired type, it will generate no more than 4.95% more of the desired output type than it would have when set to 100% production of the desired output type assuming B is nonnegative), but it does slightly increase the desired output.

Furthermore, since the bonus from the project is calculated as

[project bonus] = 0.05*ceiling(0.1 * [social manufacturing fraction]*[manufacturing fraction]*[manufacturing multiplier]*[production])

that +0.05 to the desired output multiplier is achievable for any world by sacrificing no more than 1% of the planetary production on manufacturing.

Reply #11 Top

Quoting joeball123, reply 10


Quoting JorgenCAB,

This is only a case for super optimized production worlds,



Nonsense. Assume that you can get +0.05 added to the research multiplier on a world with 1% of the planet's production to manufacturing (which you can; I usually do so in the early game if I have planets with low bonuses) and setting the other 99% of production to research. The research multiplier is therefore either

R = 1 + B

if you forgo the project, or

r = 0.99 + 0.99*B + 0.99*0.05

where B is the bonus to the research multiplier from structures, empire abilities, planet abilities, starbases, etc (basically, any bonus other than the project bonus). For any B such that B < 3.95, r > R. Therefore, on any planet where the bonus to research (or wealth; it works out the same way there) is less than +395%, I will benefit by sacrificing some small amount of production to generate manufacturing points to feed into the project rather than using all 100% of the production to generate research directly. I won't generate much more this way (if the planet only gets +0.05 to the multiplier of the desired type, it will generate no more than 4.95% more of the desired output type than it would have when set to 100% production of the desired output type assuming B is nonnegative), but it does slightly increase the desired output.

Furthermore, since the bonus from the project is calculated as

[project bonus] = 0.05*ceiling(0.1 * [social manufacturing fraction]*[manufacturing fraction]*[manufacturing multiplier]*[production])

that +0.05 to the desired output multiplier is achievable for any world by sacrificing no more than 1% of the planetary production on manufacturing.

End of joeball123's quote

 

Ok... yes... sorry... I didn't read it properly... this is an even better proof for how incompatible these two system really are. We are only talking about a very small benefit here, not worth pursuing all that much even if it obviously can matter with a point here or there in the end.

Reply #12 Top

Frankly, I don't know why the game was designed this way, it just adds complications and more micromanagement to the game.

The improvements built on the planet should be enough to decide what is the output of the planet, specialized world, mixed world, whatever.

Is that it must be so complicated to play the game?

Force the player "to do the math" for efficiency?

"So, I have this, this and this... ...I must put the cursor wheel here... ...almost... ...alright..."

Seriously, come on.

Currently, if I want to have fun with the different types of improvement, it's better to not touch the "wheels" (global and planets), and also less micromanagement this way.

It should be also fun to play the game with efficiency.

Should it?

Reply #13 Top

 

Quoting Unknown_Hero, reply 12

Frankly, I don't know why the game was designed this way, it just adds complications and more micromanagement to the game.

The improvements built on the planet should be enough to decide what is the output of the planet, specialized world, mixed world, whatever.

Is that it must be so complicated to play the game?

Force the player "to do the math" for efficiency?

"So, I have this, this and this... ...I must put the cursor wheel here... ...almost... ...alright..."

Seriously, come on.

Currently, if I want to have fun with the different types of improvement, it's better to not touch the "wheels" (global and planets), and also less micromanagement this way.

It should be also fun to play the game with efficiency.

Should it?
End of Unknown_Hero's quote

I think I'm starting to come to the same conclusion. The question is: does the AI move it's governing wheels around (either globally or for individual planets)?

I'm curious because, if I'm going to make it a 'house rule' to just leave the sliders/wheels at default (33%/33%/33%), I'd like to know if the AI is doing the same.

Thanks in advance.   

 

Reply #14 Top

Quoting JetJaguar72, reply 13

 
I think I'm starting to come to the same conclusion. The question is: does the AI move it's governing wheels around (either globally or for individual planets)?

I'm curious because, if I'm going to make it a 'house rule' to just leave the sliders/wheels at default (33%/33%/33%), I'd like to know if the AI is doing the same.

Thanks in advance.   

 
End of JetJaguar72's quote

 

The AI are using the sliders but not very efficient and as far as I can tell it is almost exclusively using the empire wide sliders.

 

You can quite easily see this when you use the console, remove the FOW and use the GOD command. You can now freely watch the AI colonies and look at the RAW numbers. The AI seem to use the sliders but the same settings on all the worlds. So... for now... using only the empire wide slider seem a fair option to use and is not very micromanagement heavy since it effect all your planets.

 

Using the wheel for individual planets is almost a cheat in the same way the AI get bonuses on higher difficulties.. ;) ..you certainly don't need it to beat a normal AI or even a gifted one either. It also become more fun to build up your colonies, at least in my opinion.

Reply #15 Top

re the production wheels: your population provides your base production. The production wheel determines where that goes.  The improvements on a planet provide percentage bonuses in a give. Category.

as for the suggestion that the improvements themselves should provide the productions, I strongly disagree. We had that in galciv2 and it resulted in endless late game tedium of players destroying improvements to build different kinds based on what they need. 

The production wheel is there so players can adjust their overall focus quickly and reasonably intuitively.

the AI does constantly change theirs but they aren't as good at min/maxing as humans.  But they will get better as we get more data on how humans use it.

Reply #16 Top

At present the planetary projects are pretty useless. 5% boost if selected.

What I find I am constantly doing is manually moving the econ slider to 100% of whichever the planet specialises in to stop the idle planet reminder.

If its a manufacturing world, I move the slider over to 100% manufacturing and 100% military to feed the shipyard.

 

This is fine until I need to upgrade or build another  improvement. I then have to move the sliders back to allow social building.

 

Could we have projects to simulate the above, i.e.

econ focus -  would simulate  a move of the slider to 100% econ

research - 100% research

military - 100% manufacturing and 100% military

 

Then when an upgrade or building is added to the queue, the econ wheel would default back to its previous/global setting to allow social production.

This would eliminate a lot of micro.

 

 

Reply #17 Top

Does anyone find this tedious planetary build up micro management fun? Are you going to want to keep doing all of this, on really large maps, with hundreds of planets? How are you going to complete multiplayer games with this required time sink?

Reply #18 Top

Quoting treborblue, reply 16

At present the planetary projects are pretty useless. 5% boost if selected.

What I find I am constantly doing is manually moving the econ slider to 100% of whichever the planet specialises in to stop the idle planet reminder.

If its a manufacturing world, I move the slider over to 100% manufacturing and 100% military to feed the shipyard.

 

This is fine until I need to upgrade or build another  improvement. I then have to move the sliders back to allow social building.

 

Could we have projects to simulate the above, i.e.

econ focus -  would simulate  a move of the slider to 100% econ

research - 100% research

military - 100% manufacturing and 100% military


End of treborblue's quote

I'm a big fan of this idea.

Reply #19 Top

Quoting Nathan, reply 17

Does anyone find this tedious planetary build up micro management fun? Are you going to want to keep doing all of this, on really large maps, with hundreds of planets? How are you going to complete multiplayer games with this required time sink?
End of Nathan's quote

 

I dislike this level of micromanagement.

But, I also dislike a specialised world losing potentially two thirds of its production. So I am compelled to micro.

 

I have just completed a medium map where I owned 27 planets, it got pretty tedious constantly adjusting sliders back and forth.

 

The old planetary projects, while not perfect (and open to abuse) at least diminished the need to constantly adjust the sliders.

Reply #20 Top

If the sliders are suppose to get rid of micromanagement I'm fairly sure it has not worked. It actually add quite allot of micromanagement in comparison with changing buildings on planets which you don't do as often. I also don't see why you would change planetary improvements more if you did not have the wheel to manipulate individual worlds. It is pretty easy to use a project to focus on research or wealth if you like to focus on that for a while.

 

Just let the Economy and Research project automatically give the world the mathematically strongest combination of change in population and production conversion and be done with it... there are no reason to have both these options.

Using a 50/50 on production and research are just a waste of time and resources so why allow this at all?

 

The least micromanagement intensive way would be to set the global slider to 100% production and then use the projects (that automatically choose the most efficient balance of pop dedicated to production versus wealth/research) to focus a world when they are not building stuff. You have just eliminated tons of micromanagement for a large group of players.

The basic idea is that the project would take the production on what the project tries to maximize and the production dedicated to the project itself and then balance it so you automatically get the most efficient output. There are no reason the player should have to use a calculus or even touch the wheel for this.

 

Make both wealth and research projects available at the start of the game.

Reply #21 Top

Quoting Nathan, reply 17

Does anyone find this tedious planetary build up micro management fun? Are you going to want to keep doing all of this, on really large maps, with hundreds of planets? How are you going to complete multiplayer games with this required time sink?
End of Nathan's quote

You won't.

Unless the multiplayer rules state that all management of planets is done with advisors, or there's a strict time limit for all players and you manage with priority over moving fleets and doing battles.

Reply #22 Top

@JetJaguar72

I think I'm starting to come to the same conclusion. The question is: does the AI move it's governing wheels around (either globally or for individual planets)?

I'm curious because, if I'm going to make it a 'house rule' to just leave the sliders/wheels at default (33%/33%/33%), I'd like to know if the AI is doing the same.

Thanks in advance.
End of quote

As stated above, it seems the AI uses the sliders (not tested).

If you want to have fun playing the game, then "make it a 'house rule' to just leave the sliders/wheels at default (33%/33%/33%)" is the way to go, a least, it's this way for me.

If you want to play the game with efficiency, then, welcome to the micromanagement hell, there is no alternative.

But, perhaps you can have fun with the micromanagement, have you tried, I mean, have you REALLY tried, just kidding. :)

@Frogboy

as for the suggestion that the improvements themselves should provide the productions, I strongly disagree.
End of quote

You misinterpreted what I wrote.

The improvements built on the planet should be enough to decide what is the output of the planet, specialized world, mixed world, whatever.
End of quote

It's not written: "that the improvements themselves should provide the productions"

It is written: "The improvements built on the planet should be enough to decide what is the output of the planet"

"to decide what is the output of the planet"

"to decide"



Currently, there is two "sliders", the wheel, and the improvements; only one is needed.

I would do it this way:

100% of the production from population (production points) goes in the Research improvements (% bonuses).

100% of the production from population (production points) goes in the Wealth improvements (% bonuses).

100% of the production from population (production points) goes in the Manufacturing improvements (% bonuses) for social manufacturing (improvements on the planet).

100% of the production from population (production points) goes in the Manufacturing improvements (% bonuses) for military manufacturing (ships in the shipyard).

Remove the wheels.

No need for the global and planets wheels, the built improvements ARE the unique "slider".

No more micromanagement for the settings of the wheels (the micromanagement to build the improvements on the planet is already too much).

The overflow production (for social and military manufacturing) is "stored in a reserve".

These "stored production points" are used to "rush build" the ships in the shipyard (can be limited at one ship per turn), this is entirely automatic, no need to bother the player with more micromanagement.

These "stored production points" can also be used to upgrade the ships on the map, and, eventually, to repair the damaged ships on the map, this can be done automatically at the player choice (ex: option: repair automatically all the ships on the map).

These "stored production points" can also be eventually traded with other civilizations, and also be eventually transformed in credits, so no waste.

Remove the Projects.

They are just here because the planet can not be "Idle", as the "Skip" button has been removed from the game to have only one button, the "Idle... Idle... Idle... Idle... End Turn" button. As the overflow production is stored, and automatically redistributed, there is no need to go to each planet and to set a Project each time a planet is idle, the player just set the planet to "I am not idle anymore" when he wants, and there is no need to come back.

We had that in galciv2 and it resulted in endless late game tedium of players destroying improvements to build different kinds based on what they need.
End of quote

Why galciv2 has been designed this way?

And it will be exactly the same in galciv3.

The production wheel is there so players can adjust their overall focus quickly and reasonably intuitively.
End of quote

Currently, this goal is not achieved, what are you going to do about it?

@Nathan E

Does anyone find this tedious planetary build up micro management fun? Are you going to want to keep doing all of this, on really large maps, with hundreds of planets? How are you going to complete multiplayer games with this required time sink?
End of quote

You are quite right, it's not very fun. ;)

Once an acceptable model of construction is determined, it's just a matter to reproduce it on almost all the planets.

Yes, it's boring.

I hope the Planet Governors (and others) will be introduced soon, so we can concentrate on "building our civilization", "make diplomacy with others", etc., and not make repetitive and boring tasks, ...at least when the game will stop to completely reboot my PC in my case.

Reply #23 Top

I also have a strong dislike for the slider system in its current form. While frogboy is correct in that it is an intuitive system, it is also tedious micromanagement. I also agree with other posters that mixed specialization worlds need to be viable rather than very fringe cases already discussed in this thread.

 

To that end, I see a couple paths to adequately rectify these problems:

 

1. Don't let the players change the sliders at will.

Have all planets' sliders start at 33/33/33, then have a planetary improvement (not a building probably) that shifts the sliders. In other words, there would be a production cost associated with shifting your planet away from a balanced world. In effect, mixed worlds would become more viable as they require less shifting.

 

2. Create a new chain of mixed building improvements.

A new building chain is available that gives an economic, research and manufacturing bonus at a better total rate than the specialized buildings. 

Reply #24 Top

OK, so I had the same conclusion as the OP: that the cost of upgrading a building is simply too expensive and that the point of breaking even was very far down the road. Granted that I did not do the math, but I think that the current differential is so large that it's hard not to notice if one just think about it.

There is, however, one thing that I feel that all this number crunching does badly, and that is taking into consideration additional player actions (such as buying out a building). One could for example build a ton of level 1 buildings and when upgrading select the buildings that will give the best return for a quick buy out. As the map gets bigger buying out buildings becomes much safer and prudent.

There is, I think, a lot of depth added to the game via the sliders that are not apparent in simple cost efficiency comparisons.

Reply #25 Top

Quoting AryevIshx, reply 24

There is, however, one thing that I feel that all this number crunching does badly, and that is taking into consideration additional player actions (such as buying out a building). One could for example build a ton of level 1 buildings and when upgrading select the buildings that will give the best return for a quick buy out. As the map gets bigger buying out buildings becomes much safer and prudent.
End of AryevIshx's quote

Its not that the math doesn't account for this, its just no one has done the math on this yet:)

You may be right that buying upgrades is the best way to efficient returns, I'm sure someone can crunch the numbers (oh Joe where are thou?:)

 

My biggest takaways from that math exercise was "turn off auto upgrades". Its not worth it!