Also, regarding the command vs free market economy thing, I don't really see it as being applicable. The only planet improvements in the game which are not paid for, owned, operated, and maintained by the state are the trade goods and the colony or civilization capitals (and these only fail the "paid for" criterion). If planetary improvements represent the sum total of infrastructure, public and private, on a given world, then there is no room for a truly free market economy within the game. The fact that you can rush production and the mechanics used for that process, however, imply the existence of a private sector economy which is invisible to the player and whose production costs are largely unaffected by the state-owned and -operated infrastructure built upon a planet. Rushing production costs exactly the same amount per unit of manufacturing generated regardless of whether you require merely 10% more manufacturing output from your infrastructure or 10,000% more output from your infrastructure; this implies that whatever infrastructure is used for generating the rushed manufacturing points, it's not the same infrastructure that is used to generate manufacturing points normally. Furthermore, the manufacturing points generated basically appear out of thin air; a location which can produce only ~10 manufacturing point normally can generate orders of magnitude more manufacturing if I rush production, and while stopping work on private projects and working overtime on the state project might help explain it, it also has the issue of why exactly the state-owned, state-operated factories are being used to manufacture goods for the supposedly-free market, and also why the output that is going towards, say, lipstick can so easily be diverted into, say, a new superdreadnought.
TBH I never like it when invisible things are at large contributing something to a game, esp. if it's a strategy game. Nevertheless, there is an understandable need to be able to do something with unused credits, as there is some need to boost up the speed of production or do ship-upgrades.
My idea for this would be that instead of a rushbuy completely finished next turn, you could buy an increase in production by 50% or 100%. The workers in the factories would simply work 24h instead of 12h/16h. Every extra production raised will cost a reasonable amount of credits. After a project is finished, the planet cannot quickbuy something (for the time of another project) because workers need to sleep, machines need off-maintenance etc.
In the same way, shipupgrades should need a shipyard and use up productivity that you'll have to pay for. More or less instant upgrades many lightyears away from the next facility is granted, handy, but doesn't require much strategic planning.
Even in GalCiv II, if you moved the social slider, it had an impact on morale.
Are you sure? Guess your boys took out some of your code, then^^
Just wan't to say one thing: In GC2 there were alot of buildings that would run on 100% always, all
- econ, moral, popgrowth, shipsupport, tradegoods, wonders, GA
the split was merely between labs & facs. So if you played a balanced global mixed slider setting your labs & facs would run an average of 50% throughout the course of the game. Compared to other 4X games the global slider gave alot of flexibility on an empire wide level while still being able to specialize worlds in profitable manner, and it also allowed to homogenize worlds and be successfull with it. But alot of people coming from other games complained that it's illogical/unrealistic that you'd build a lab and only use 50% of its rooms/jobs on average. That's where all-lab or all-fac strat came into play.
Now in GC3 that's even a bit more aggravated because the split of capacity is between prod, res & wealth. And esp. in bigger maps where you have a lot of core/backland planets you're faced with the problem that the ships released there are too far away to be good for anything and will likely be outdated if you send them to the front, but do cost maint & also upgrade costs. Sure, you could do the obvious use all MP to build more & more starbases, but that will only delay & indeed aggravate matters in the long run.
Before, people could have backland money maker planets or strict research planets, both without any shipproduction, so there was no bother with "misplaced" fighters.
I don't understand the philosophy behind the change, why is the player being penalized and to what end? There was more to explain Ayn Randian philosophies in the opening post than there was to explain why this change is needed or beneficial to the game.
to bring the cost of buildings, ships etc in line with the overal productivity
The coercion system is very simple.
I literally do a max() of whatever the wheel is and then multiply the goods and services of a planet by it.
The more you change it from the default, the more you pay a morale price. But players can adapt that by building things on planets (and eventually adopting forms of government) that affect that.
I like this very much because of the tradeoff distribution vs. morale that it implies. In order to specialize a planet you've got to sacrifice a few tiles to morale improvements in order to compensate the penalty. No depending on the strength of your morale improvements and the total count of available target improvements, that might proove fruitful or not. And some - or most - of these factors are not fix but can be changed via technological evolution, terraforming etc... that is, if you do it right it could mean that, as a game develops, planets can become more & more likely to become a profitable candidate for specialization.