Further issues for consideration

Moderator: Vic

Post Reply
Cassini
Posts: 26
Joined: Tue Nov 30, 2021 6:03 am

Further issues for consideration

Post by Cassini »

8. Readiness Increases….

As it stands, the readiness increase at the end of the turn is simply inadequate in consideration of the scale. If the turn was a half a month, the current mechanic would be tolerable – but at 2+ month time increments, the current readiness increase is simply inadequate.

Combat units could recover from mental fatigue, physical exhaustion, equipment maintenance requirements and general disorganization within a period of a couple of weeks – AT MOST. Being in combat (and field conditions) brings a gradual reduction in readiness – compared to ‘barracks’ levels of readiness (this is the ‘limit’ function placed upon a unit when in field conditions and subject to temperature, radiation and logistical shortcomings). However, recovering to that FIELD ‘limit’ of readiness only takes a couple of weeks if the unit is given the time AND is left more or less alone by hostile forces.

Here is what I’m proposing. A unit’s end of turn action points (AP’s), is ADDED to its readiness recovery percentage (subject to the set ‘limit function’ due to environmental and supply considerations). This would allow a unit that was given a ‘slight pause’ in operational tempo to increase its readiness to whatever was the field limit relatively quickly – PROVIDED it was left alone for a period.

9. Radiation diminishment…

The ‘game’ takes place a few hundred years post nuclear holocaust. The three major culprits of fallout are Iodine-131, Strontium-90 (beta decay) and Cesium-137 (to Barium 137 which decays via gamma emission). Iodine-131 has a 7-day half-life, so is of no concern here. Stontium-90 and Cesium-137 have half-lives in the 30-year range. There are other constituents of fallout, but their half-live is measured in hours or days.

I propose that a per round reduction in a hex’s radiation level of say 0.5% per round should account for the falling radiation levels of these two major constituents of nuclear fallout.

This next part is ‘chrome’.

In addition… food produced in non-domed conditions should have its yield diminished by the average radiation levels in surrounding hexes which have the ‘agricultural’ hex change present. Growing food in conditions of high fallout levels is a recipe for increased cancer rates among those who consume the food. I would go so far as to disallow non-domed food production in areas with hex radiation levels above say 150 or so – with a diminished food yield with any radiation level above zero. So, say an equation of food yield being reduced by (average agric. hex radiation level / 150) %. Food produced in domed conditions would be immune to this reduction – regardless of radiation levels. The fallout isn’t getting into the food in these conditions, so it would be safe to eat.

As an alternative, a zone that has food produced in open air farms (within agricultural radiation hexes), should experience a reduction in population levels (due to sickness, cancer, etc.) that is proportional to the radiation level in the agricultural hexes of the open-air farm. This would simply be as radiation level increases (open air farm agricultural hexes), a per round population reduction would be imposed – to reflect increased mortality rates of the inhabitants eating this contaminated food.

Pop reduction = Zone population * ((Average agricultural hex rad level) /150) * 0.5%

So… say a zone with 100,000 population with its farm having an average rad level of 200, would experience a decrease in population of 667 – rounded to 700 per round – this is AFTER all other population adjustments – so at this level of radiation, the population would be doing good to maintain itself after the other ‘growth’ equations do their bit.

10. Advisors…

There needs to be the ability to attach an advisor to a VACANT position – thus being a temporary holder of the office, till a qualified replacement can be installed. As it stands, the advisor is attached to the ‘person’ and not the office – preventing the advisor from acting if the office is vacant.

11. Zone public funding….

There needs to be an added function (added to the Secretary) that allows ALL ZONES to have their public finding be adjusted ALL AT ONCE and paid for with a single cost in PP’s. At a cost of say 3 PP, one should have a menu where ALL zone public funding levels are displayed and can be manipulated at once.

12. Spy recon….

As it stands, ‘spies’ are just too effective in gathering field intelligence (6 spies will get 100 recon levels – giving all unit positions). This needs to be adjusted, it is just too damn easy to get perfect field intel on minors – especially their ground force dispositions.

Cassini
Posts: 26
Joined: Tue Nov 30, 2021 6:03 am

RE: Further issues for consideration

Post by Cassini »

13. Foot movement along roads….

As it stands, foot movement gains no advantage in moving along roads. This simply isn’t an adequate representation of ‘reality’. Simply put, foot movement rates along roads in level terrain need to be set at 20 AP. Mountain roads have more ‘twists and turns’, thus taking more time to get through compared to straight paths across plains (I know foot movement along a low mountain road is at 25AP)…

As a corollary to this, I’d argue that militia forces aren’t as capable of conducting long marches – the personnel tend to be older, tied to a specific locale and more ‘defensive’ orientated… So, I’d argue that militia forces should be limited to 80 AP to reflect this tendency. The cost to enter terrain would be the same (along with the ‘road use bonus’ offered to foot mobile forces), but their AP’s would be limited to 80 AP in a segment to better reflect their nature.

14. Solar panels (chrome)…

Variable output depending of latitude of the hex where they are installed and season of the ‘year’. Build a solar panel array in the high latitudes, they won’t put out much power in the ‘winter’ months. Build panel arrays in the equatorial regions, and the power output will be more or less uniform throughout the year. There is already information regarding planet axial tilt to use, along with latitude (distance from equatorial center line), so it would be simple to work up a reduction in an array’s power output based upon this (there is a reason why solar will never be a replacement – only a supplement for energy needs).

15. Militia receives mercenaries, decision…

The decision to fund militia with an additional 400 credits for more ‘mercenaries’ (greater experience growth) needs to have an accompanying growth in militia profile by a couple or so points. There isn’t much that can affect the militia profile after the second round or so.

In addition, this cost needs to be scaled upon HOW MANY militia are active. In my current game, I’ve managed to ‘unify’ with EIGHT minors (excellent foreign affairs character with medal of merit and propaganda assistant – haven’t given him the ‘pheromones’ yet…). I’ve got 9 complete militia forces (including starting zone) that all get the experience boost. This decision needs to have the cost either scaled to the militia forces present (larger total force gets a low level of experience boost) – OR have the experience gain reduced based upon how many militia are present to get the ‘mercenaries’ distributed amongst them.
Cassini
Posts: 26
Joined: Tue Nov 30, 2021 6:03 am

RE: Further issues for consideration

Post by Cassini »

16. Zone income calculation (bottom left of screen).

There is still a problem with this calculation (there was with the Beta, it was revised but there is still a problem). The program is taking the sum of public sector wages and adding that to ALL of the sources of private income by the zone – hidden, sales to ‘traders’, and I believe asset private credits - then dividing by zone populace. Since the whole ‘economy’ has no basis in linking wealth creation to the population (all those minerals and food ‘floating around’ the ‘trader’s bazaar’), it is no wonder the final value calculated is junk. So, I recommend this statistic should be calculated by the program thusly:

Zone average pay = (Sum public worker pay) + (Private credits produced by private assets) / Zone POPULACE

Needless to say… this will require a reassessment of the linking of private credit production to each private asset…

The economic model is frankly a mess – I turn a blind eye to it – but this change will START to fix this statistic from being so skewed. And yes, the private assets NEED to have private credits produced in proportion to their employment level.

So… if a private asset uses 1,000 population to operate, it should produce say 3 private credits as part of its production (3 milli-credit per pop assumption). If the city hex ‘farm’ employs say 35,000 pop – don’t have the game open right now – it should produce 105 private credits as part of its production.

The concept of tying private credits to private assets (based upon their employment level) can also be embellished to reflect varying productivity levels of each asset. A farm asset would produce private credits at say 2 milli-credits per pop working, most early improvements would produce 3 mills per pop working, and the higher skill assets would produce 4 mills per pop working in them. So that 35,000 pop farm would produce 70 private credits if the labor was valued at 2 mills (determined as part of design process – not player adjustable). A library, casino, hospice would be valued at 3 mills per pop – so the 1,000 pop asset would produce 3 private credits in this case. The higher skilled industrial assets (industry, logistics, mining, etc.) would be valued at 4 mills per employee. As the asset becomes more ‘productive’ the baseline assumption for private sector employee pay can go up. So, a high value asset can have an assumption of 5 mills per employee pay ‘baked into’ its private credits production amount.

The concept of ‘hidden economy’ can simply be dealt with by putting a ‘productivity’ level of 1 milli-credit per population (1 credit per 1,000) for population not engaged in either a public or private ‘asset’. So, a zone with a populace of 50,000, possessing 10,000 in public sector being paid 0.004/pop (40 credits), a private sector farm with 20,000 producing private credits (0.002/pop = 40 credits), a number of private assets (casino, library, hospice, etc.) employing 5,000 producing (0.003/pop = 15 credits)… leaving 15,000 unemployed (not within an asset) producing credits at 0.001/pop (15 credits).

Grand total production of wealth = 40 + 40 + 15 + 15 = 110 credits per round.

Head tax (service tax) would merely be 0.001 credits/pop, so for a population of 50,000. 50 credits would be pulled as ‘service tax’. The remaining 60 credits in wealth produced by this population would be subjected to ‘income tax’ at whatever rate (starts at 20%). So, income tax in this example would gather 12 credits for the government, and 48 credits would stay in the private ‘pool’- to be used to develop the private economy of the zone (build schools, sewers, casinos, brothels, etc.). In addition, should a zone experience ‘hunger’ – no service tax should be collected (and credit production for the zone would be reduced by Population/1000 credits). In the example of the 50,000 population zone, the credit production would be reduced by 50, leaving 60 credits being produced subject to income tax with NO service tax being collected – that 50 credits in potential wealth creation is being used by the population to come up with sources of food on their own (‘hidden’ traders) – the government has failed in its obligation to keep the population fed and pays the price.

This leads to the obvious link between value of food and productivity – 1000 population produces 1 credit (if not in asset employment) – and consumes 10 food per round – so 1 food = 0.1 credit.

If the central government needed a bigger bite of the total economy, increase the income tax rate (service tax rate needs to be FIXED) – but more being taken out of the private sector will result in slower growth of all those private assets needed to increase civilization level.

Needless to say, starting down this path would require a complete reassessment of the economy. All of the assets would remain unchanged, they would just be assessed for wealth creation, then the relationship between wealth creation and tax assessment would change. Another change would be the reeling in of the ‘traders’ that are the MAJOR source of wealth creation in the game (the government gets all the wealth – the population just gets fed – feudalism at its finest).

Assets like the private mines (scavenging, metal, oil), need to produce private credits and private credits ONLY. The resource needs to be depleted – but unlike the public versions of these assets, they produce private credits NOT the metals, machines and oil. Here is where the ‘magic traders’ come into play: should the government need to purchase the actual metals, oil, machines etc. that these private assets produce– they would be available in proportion to what the asset would’ve produced if in public hands.

I’ll use a metal mine as an example. If a metal mine was to produce 250 metal in a round (if it was a public asset) – and the base value of a unit of metal was 0.1 credit, then the mine would have a total value added amount of 25 credits per round. This value added would have to be linked to labor input – so let’s say 0.005/pop employed by this asset (plus 0.001 profit – hidden, used in asset valuation). So, every 1000 pop employed by this mine would be paid 5 credits – so dividing 25 by 5 yields total employment at this asset of 5 thousand employees, creating a total of 25 private credits per round.

A private metal mine will ‘add’ 250 metal to the round’s available metal for the traders’ stock. If the government wants to buy part or all of the production, they pay the market rate plus a transaction fee – and the metals appear in the SHQ inventory. If the government doesn’t buy the production, it is assumed to be absorbed by the private economy (the private credits get added into the zone balance), to develop the private economy further. Either way, the zone private economy gets its 25 credits per round.

The final part of the ‘rationalization’ of the economy would be the assessment of the ‘worth’ of the asset itself. Given the 2 month time scale, an asset should be able to produce wealth for its investors of about 20% of that 2 month production – or in this case 5 credits per cycle (works out to be 0.001 credits/pop employed by the asset). Given the very high risk present In the ‘game environment’, the asset should have a ‘payback’ time of about 6 years – or 36 rounds. 5 credits times 36 cycles yields an asset valuation of 180 credits.

A private ‘civilization’ asset with say 1,000 employees being paid an assumed 0.003/pop would create 3 private credits per round – so the asset ‘purchase price’ would be in the ball park of 20 credits. A farm which employs 10,000 (being paid 0.002/pop) would produce 20 private credits/round and would have a purchase price in the ball park of 140-150 credits (this asset feeds and shelters about 20,000 pop from game stats).

You may be thinking, “These numbers don’t match up with what the game is currently producing”. The numbers the game is producing frankly have no realistic relationship with each other – and that is why the government’s credit balance by round 70 or so is up to the 50,000 credit level. The economy (as it currently stands) is simply to keep the game rolling and has no real relationship between productive capability and consumption – it simply develops an ever increasing number of credits for the player to use, thus continuing the progression of the game.

Going back to that 50,000 pop zone… It produces a net of 48 credits per round for the private funds pool. So it would take (180 credit cost for private mine / 48 credits per round ) 3.75 rounds to ‘pay’ for a metal mine that employs 5,000 employees. This is the entire excess productivity of a 50,000 wage earner zone going to create a mine over 8 months of time, which produces enough metal every 2 months to create 20-30 tanks. This now productive mine adds 20 private credits per cycle to the zone totals (remember, 5,000 previously unemployed are NOT producing their ‘base’ 0.001/pop credit). So the zone produces 130 private credits per round (previous 110), the income tax from the zone increases from 12 to 16 credits/round and the net additional wealth per round to the zone goes from 48 to 64 credits.

Everything would have to be placed into a spreadsheet (labor, productivity (IP), prices, resources per unit production requirements, etc.) to get an integrated economic model that holds some credibility under play conditions (the current model simply does not once one begins to really disassemble it and look at the existing interrelationships). Two years ago, I started on creating such a model, but had to discontinue participation in the Beta-testing process due to personal commitments. If there is any interest from Vic in taking this direction, I could restart that work – but otherwise what I put up is merely for illustration to show what is possible.
Cassini
Posts: 26
Joined: Tue Nov 30, 2021 6:03 am

RE: Further issues for consideration

Post by Cassini »

17. Logistical Extenders (not asset based)

In addition to having the existing asset-based road logistical network extenders (Supply base), it would be useful to have a mobile unit-based network extender (that could move with the front line advancing). The resources to produce a mobile “logistical battalion” would be scaled to be roughly equivalent to the fixed asset – with the exception that the unit would be made up of trucks and maybe 1 MG and 1 MANPADS.

It would work by ending the player’s turn on a road hex and extending the logistical points (just like the current asset), but the number of AP’s the battalion has left at the end of the turn would be divided by 20 to derive the net extension to the road logistical points. So, if it didn’t move at all – and had 100 AP’s available, it would extend the road network by 5 hexes. If it moved during the turn and had 40 AP’s left, then it would extend the road network by 2 hexes. If it used all of its AP’s moving in a turn and had none left, then no extension to the road logistical point network would occur.

18. Motorized Infantry attacking into mountains…

As it currently stands, no unit may attack into terrain into which it cannot move. This unduly penalizes motorized (and mechanized) infantry units. These units should be allowed to have their infantry components attack into these terrain types (fighting dismounted), but should be prohibited from advancing into the hex should it be vacated by the defender. The firepower of any APCs should NOT be included in the combat calculation (they are not involved in the combat).

19. Anti-grav lifter (Magic Carpet ride)

This technology allows a unit to cross un-crossable terrain, but confers no advantage in crossing other terrain types. This technology would be better implemented by just allowing the unit so equipped to move at the road movement rate, across whatever terrain it happens to be moving across – in addition to allowing movement across prohibited hex sides.
Post Reply

Return to “Suggestions and Feedback”