Is there too much money in this game?

[Gareth_Bryne]

I have an idea: the amount of money has increased due to improvements in AI for civilian shipping between versions and expansions. So the largest part of your income comes from construction and trade.

To lancer: I agree with the idea of (un)limited choice. I find that at a certain point, within my playing style, money and resources are not the issue, but time is. At a certain point, the game starts looking more like Dominions in its approach to management - pause, overview the situation, set your orders, let some time pass, pause again, rinse and repeat. Playing against the AI is okay, but playing against a real player (theoretically) would require a limited timeout of some sorts. The AI can be defeated without that much concentration, unless you are fighting on multiple fronts. However, within above limitations, DW allows for a degree of casualness and exploration, which is fine by me. For a powergamer, that kind of tempo dilution, coupled with unlimited resources, leads to frustration. It would be interesting if the AI was more adaptive, copying the player's most efficient policies and tactics. That way the player maybe forced to utilize his resources more intensely, going into the red through military construction.

[Bebop Cola]

The lion's share of my steady income still comes from taxation. I tend to have a comparatively smaller percentage coming in from my spaceports, and I'll need to check but I don't ever recall seeing much come in listed as trade specifically. Lately I've taken to ignoring luxury resources in my mining efforts in the hopes that my empire's demand for those will spur trade with other empires. Construction income from private sector construction does give the occasional boost, but I don't consider that steady income.

With the exception of a few somewhat hard to find resource types(for some reason chromium is often hard for me to come by), it's just too easy to satisfy my empire's resource demands by dropping some mining bases here and there and I presume the AI enjoys the same luxury. As such, I'm left to wonder what exactly spurs trade if everyone has everything they need. Personally, I think the introduction of some manner of trade goods might give the private sector something to spend its money on. These trade goods could be produced as a result of an increased consumption rate by the private sector of both strategic and luxury resources. With private sector coffers depleted through trade there is less of a buffer that can be counted on to allow for high tax rates, reducing tax revenue for the state sector of the economy, as well as a reduction in the free cash to buy a glut of new freighters for every new colony.

[Gareth_Bryne]

Bebop Cola, here's another thought, thanks to you[:)]: Depending on the government, the maximum tax rate should be limited; for example, a Democracy can tax up to 20%, a Republic up to 30%, a Monarchy up to 50%. That would influence the importance of trade, and give more rationale for using the other government types apart from roleplay.

[Bebop Cola]

In the real world, there's nothing that prevents a government from high tax rates aside from public discontent so I see no reason to break from that mold. However, with the dynamics of the power relationship, it does make some sense that certain government types have a tolerance for different tax rates as a result of citizen resignation to the relationship with government. As such I don't think I'd set a limitation on tax rate by government type, rather I'd have population discontent with taxes receive a modifier based on it.

That said, the various government types need a bit of work as well, in my opinion. In this case, for example, what then prevents players from simply choosing the government with the greatest tolerance for high tax rates? There should always be a tradeoff of some sort, and I just don't see enough of those in the existing governments. At the very least there should be greater animosity between different government types. Democracies and Republics should not be as buddy-buddy with Monarchies and Feudal governments, few to no people should be friendly towards despotisms and military dictatorships, and Hive Minds are just alien to non-insectoid species. Everyone should hate the empire on Way of Darkness, and that Way of the Ancients guy is probably a patronizing ass even if he is otherwise decent enough. That, however, is another matter.

[Shark7]

ORIGINAL: lancer

G'day,

I think that money in the game represents choices.

If you have bundles of the stuff then you have unlimited choices of action. Decisions over what to spend it on become fairly meaningless.

On the other hand if money is less than abundant any decisions you make become very meaningful. Which is what keeps you interested in playing.

Same with the resources. DW has a fantastic living, breathing private sector but if the end result is an over abundance of resources then all you've got is a fancy backdrop. If you're swimming in the stuff it becomes irrelevant.

As everybody has different versions of what constitutes the ideal levels of money and resources it would be nice to have an adjustable setting for the player rather than the current, give-everyone-the-kitchen-sink approach.

No need to bother the AI over this. Leave it to wallow in a deep pool of both.

Cheers,
Lancer

Lancer, I think you got it right.

I fit into the category of people who don't really want to have to deal with money and micromanagement so much...I just want to build fleets and conquer. Still for the added challenge I'd go for a place somewhere in the middle, rather than full on easy mode. Leaving it up to me with an 'economy slider' where you have different levels (IE Very Easy to Insane) where at each level you either get a bonus or penalty to maintenance etc, would be ideal.

IE:

Very Easy = -75% maintenance +50% taxes where insane might be Very Easy = +75% maintenance -50% Taxes, etc.

[Franky007]

An easy solution would be to allow negative numbers in the races files.

For example:
ShipMaintenanceSavings ;-50

A new value like "TaxRateBonus" would be great to modify tax rate...

[Shark7]

ORIGINAL: Francoy

An easy solution would be to allow negative numbers in the races files.

For example:
ShipMaintenanceSavings ;-50

A new value like "TaxRateBonus" would be great to modify tax rate...

While that is true, what we are looking for is something that is modifiable by the player at game start, not through modding the files, so it won't affect the AI. The AI can roll in cash without affecting gameplay, its when the player has too much cash that the game goes into super easy mode.

[Beag]

If the player doesn´t have to spend money it´s a sign of lack of AI pressure. Therefore it´s the AI that should be looked into first. Handicaps are for harder difficulties.

The big question is, where the AI should be improved.

[ASHBERY76]

The A.I is always being worked on.The bloated economy has been in effect for 2 expansions now.It makes gameplay choices pointless and should be adressed.It's nothing to do with handicaps but balance.I would like to see the economy factors modable because it is clear the developer is not changing this aspect.

Play EU3 and add a 100000 money cheat and it destroy the game mechanics.

[Gizuria]

I stopped playing about a month or so ago simply because I was finding it too easy to generate enormous sums of cash quite early in the expansion phase of the game. I had 1 million credits and counting in my account and I could afford to buy huge fleets of large ships and recruit massive armies whenever I wanted. For me, the challenge goes when I have too much money and the fun stops.

Here are a couple of points I'd like to add.

First, big ships, Cruisers and upwards, IMO are far too cheap to build and maintain. There is a reason why only a few nations in the world can boast a navy with aircraft carriers and cruisers while almost everyone with a coast has some sort of gun boat. Battleships and carriers should be massively expensive to build and maintain.

Second, in the real world economy, when the market is flooded with a resource, the price goes down. So, this happens in the game already, right? But what happens in real life? The mines producing these resources close down because it costs more to extract the stuff than it does to sell it. So, when priices fall below a certain level, the player must pay subsides to maintain his mines or they close down and are lost.

[MartialDoctor]

ORIGINAL: ASHBERY76
It's nothing to do with handicaps but balance.I would like to see the economy factors modable...

I second that [:)]

[unclean]

ORIGINAL: ASHBERY76

I would like to see the economy factors modable because it is clear the developer is not changing this aspect.

It is though? At least, I don't remember seeing any of this stuff in ROTS:

TradeBonus (affects colony income)
FreeTradeIncomeFactor
TourismIncomeFactor
ResourceExtractionBonus

ShipMaintenanceSavings
TroopMaintenanceSavings

edit: nm, should have read the thread better. Modding guide says these accept 0-100 only

[jpwrunyan]

Stop harping on the ai. Make stuff cost more for the player and eliminate exploits. Stop harping on the ai!!!!

Hey you know what would be great? If spock programmed the ai. Its not going to happen. Simple fixes people! Simple fixes!

[Beag]

ORIGINAL: ASHBERY76

The A.I is always being worked on.The bloated economy has been in effect for 2 expansions now.It makes gameplay choices pointless and should be adressed.It's nothing to do with handicaps but balance.I would like to see the economy factors modable because it is clear the developer is not changing this aspect.

Play EU3 and add a 100000 money cheat and it destroy the game mechanics.

Well you can´t really compare DW to EU 3 because of the assymetrical starting positions. Playing as France with so much money would make the game a cakewalk; with a one province minor, not as much. In fact it´s impossible to compare DW to a Paradox game because despite being real time and pausable, it is a much simpler game (no casus-belli mechanics, manpower pool, shallow diplomacy etc).

Also, the mod that made the game very challenging (Magna Mundi) did give some bonuses for the AI as well as negative events that happened only with the player, thus adding an element of uncertainity in it. Considering that for the average player Magna Mundi was considered way to difficult, I think such approaches wouldn´t work here.

Finally, making everything more expensive (that is making the economy less "bloated") for the player AND the AI won´t change ANYTHING about the difficulty of the game. Only thing that would change would be the number of ships floating around. Unless for some reason the AI used resources much better than the player, which isn´t the case.

[Bebop Cola]

ORIGINAL: Beag
Finally, making everything more expensive (that is making the economy less "bloated") for the player AND the AI won´t change ANYTHING about the difficulty of the game. Only thing that would change would be the number of ships floating around. Unless for some reason the AI used resources much better than the player, which isn´t the case.

It seems reasonable that while the effect on the overall difficulty might be debatable, tightening up the economy at least with an optional resource slider would be of benefit.

Then again, while the AI will certainly sink or swim on its own merits, swimming in cash and resources may very well be what keeps it as competitive as it currently is(your mileage may vary). I'd be inclined to apply any economic restrictions to both player and AI equally as I'd be concerned that an AI flush with cash and resources may upset an intertwined economic system(dropping resource prices as supply goes up, excess money to buy technologies, etc), but if the AI needs that buffer just to survive due to inefficiencies it might be beyond simple fixes.

[Fishman]

ORIGINAL: Fascist Dog

First, big ships, Cruisers and upwards, IMO are far too cheap to build and maintain. There is a reason why only a few nations in the world can boast a navy with aircraft carriers and cruisers while almost everyone with a coast has some sort of gun boat. Battleships and carriers should be massively expensive to build and maintain.

That's really a scale issue. Battleships and carriers are "expensive" to build and maintain because a battleship is 50000-ton battleship is 10x bigger than 5000-ton destroyer. For the price of that one battleship, you could therefore have 10 destroyers, which is in turn 10x more expensive than a 500-ton cutter. This level of scale just doesn't EXIST in DW. The big ships aren't actually that much bigger. Even my 1500-size Leviathan Battleships are only maybe twice the size of the AI's 750-size versions.

The real reason you end up swimming in money is somewhat more basic. Ever notice that no matter how undersupplied a resource is, its price appears to be capped and no strategic resource ever exceeds a price of 2.5, even when the demand exceeds the supply by an entire order of magnitude? Additionally, since the price of each resource appears to be global rather than empire-specific, it's unclear how or why trade occurs.

[Shark7]

ORIGINAL: Fishman

ORIGINAL: Fascist Dog

First, big ships, Cruisers and upwards, IMO are far too cheap to build and maintain. There is a reason why only a few nations in the world can boast a navy with aircraft carriers and cruisers while almost everyone with a coast has some sort of gun boat. Battleships and carriers should be massively expensive to build and maintain.

That's really a scale issue. Battleships and carriers are "expensive" to build and maintain because a battleship is 50000-ton battleship is 10x bigger than 5000-ton destroyer. For the price of that one battleship, you could therefore have 10 destroyers, which is in turn 10x more expensive than a 500-ton cutter. This level of scale just doesn't EXIST in DW. The big ships aren't actually that much bigger. Even my 1500-size Leviathan Battleships are only maybe twice the size of the AI's 750-size versions.

The real reason you end up swimming in money is somewhat more basic. Ever notice that no matter how undersupplied a resource is, its price appears to be capped and no strategic resource ever exceeds a price of 2.5, even when the demand exceeds the supply by an entire order of magnitude? Additionally, since the price of each resource appears to be global rather than empire-specific, it's unclear how or why trade occurs.

Most nations with a coast line that use PGs and PTMs would love to have CGs and DDGs. Its not a matter of want, its a matter of what they can afford. Most third world navies can barely afford their PGs (as in most of them are broken down more than they are at sea), much less a ship of corvette size or larger.

So in DW, it all does come back to 1. the economy and 2. ships being totally open design. IN DW your frigate can cost as much as your battleship because both can be identical. Now if there were some mechanism to enforce both size restrictions (like a hardpoints system) and cost, then perhaps it would balance out as you'd have a large navy or smaller ships, a small navy of very large ships, or go the middle route and balance it.

But it has to be balanced. It should not be done so that the only thing the player can afford is the equivalent of row boat with an M2 mounted on the prow.

[jpwrunyan]

The price cap on strategic resources is lame, but I suspect it is more to the benefit of the ai than the player. I would rather it not exist at least for the player so they could sink if they pushed their economic demand off a cliff. But the ai would need some guarnteed start situation so that they wouldnt go off the same cliff. Even then this may not be easy to do and leads back to why I think the price controls are primarily to keep ai economies from going insane.

Just my theory.

[Fishman]

ORIGINAL: Shark7
Most nations with a coast line that use PGs and PTMs would love to have CGs and DDGs. Its not a matter of want, its a matter of what they can afford. Most third world navies can barely afford their PGs (as in most of them are broken down more than they are at sea), much less a ship of corvette size or larger.

And that's because they can't build a ship that big. They don't have enough Construction research, and they can't afford to actually maintain what they do have, because they don't have the resources for it.

ORIGINAL: Shark7
So in DW, it all does come back to 1. the economy and 2. ships being totally open design. IN DW your frigate can cost as much as your battleship because both can be identical.

You can do that in real life, too. In fact, we *DO* do this in real life. The US Navy produces "destroyers" that are basically the modern equivalent of battleships in all but name. They're way bigger and more expensive than any destroyer of the past, and function in the same roles that one might have formerly found a cruiser or even a battleship: They're not the expendable, cheap destroyers of the World Wars. Similarly, I'm sure some nation would love to call their crappy little boat a frigate, except for the problem of being laughed at.

ORIGINAL: Shark7
Now if there were some mechanism to enforce both size restrictions (like a hardpoints system) and cost, then perhaps it would balance out as you'd have a large navy or smaller ships, a small navy of very large ships, or go the middle route and balance it.

But then it wouldn't be DW anymore. It'd be one of those OTHER games where hull types are rigidly set in stone by some cosmic universal force, and where you know that any "destroyer" you encounter will always be comparable in size and capability to yours, regardless of their tech level. In fact, the smaller hulls quickly become obsolete. You see this in games like the Master of Orion games, where you quickly stop producing the "lesser" classes and fleets are composed entirely of battleships serving as destroyer screens for Titans and more.

ORIGINAL: Shark7
But it has to be balanced. It should not be done so that the only thing the player can afford is the equivalent of row boat with an M2 mounted on the prow.

That exists in DW already. I routinely encounter "row boats with an M2 mounted on the prow" in DW. My 1500+ firepower battleships routinely find themselves under assault by some two-bit backwater empire's "rowboat" destroyers with obsolete Maxos blasters. I have 10x their speed, 20x their firepower, and a hundred times their shielding and armor. I have a battleship, one meant to do battle against the Shakturi...they have a rowboat. This already exists in DW. Of course, I'm pretty sure THEY thought their ship was pretty impressive. I mean, they call it a destroyer, and built them by the hundreds, which is probably why their economy sucks. I call it target practice. Also, for some reason, they're inexplicably hostile and keep trying to blockade my colonies, which is why these fights occur.

ORIGINAL: jpwrunyan

Even then this may not be easy to do and leads back to why I think the price controls are primarily to keep ai economies from going insane.

The AI is very good at driving the economy insane, that's for sure, doing asinine things like queuing up hundreds of ships at once at a single 4-arm spaceport, crashing the entire game. It should REALLY STOP QUEUING MORE ORDERS THAN THERE EXISTS CONSTRUCTION SLOTS.

[Beag]

Good post (funny too [8D] )

Well the AI isn´t that stupid with designs, I once had the bad luck of attacking a base that had the super area weapon and wasn´t pretty (so they do upgrade stuff sometimes instead of only using the uberpotent Maxos). But yes, AI designs could be looked into a bit.

As for the US modern destroyers, I´d say that a good battleship with Rihanna on board is still better and can kill aliens (don´t throw rocks at me I didn´t see that movie!)

About resources, so maybe more modern weapons should use more resources then, instead of increasing maintenance cost (since increasing resource cost will mean more maintenance, after all)? Always thought a Titan beam should be more costly than a Maxos.