why is econ such a problem at even the easiest setting?

vmxa1 · April 3, 2003, 18:18

I am still trying to work out some of the things that I do not care for in this game as I think it could be fun.
Too many votes and they are too frequent. They have too large of an impact, especially at the lower levels.

One thing that is annoying me is that even a planet that is quite large 30+ and has :

Bank, Embassy, Fusion plant, Habitat, Soil (6 maint).
Rev 27 Spend 43, building Gravity Accel and a Constructor.
No planet is able to have enough income to met its spending, even though I did not make any purchases on time. I have one frieghter working and two more heading out. I have some pledged income. Morale is 50%.
Now I am not saying that things could not be done, what I am saying is why on earth would a game set to the lowest setting and having no extra structures build, be running in the red?
What I mean is why would you construct the basic econ model such that you will have trouble managing it at the baby setting?
Yes, I could trade more, but you should not have to so early in the game (2194).

Jon Shafer · April 3, 2003, 18:38

Just wait 'til you get to the higher difficulty levels...
Then you're in the red and the AI civs are a mile above you with half as many planets.

vmxa1 · April 3, 2003, 19:02

I am not looking forward to it. Really I am hoping some things will be changed, such as too many votes and them being too powerful. Trade being too much of a factor in the game for my taste.
I mean it is not hard to win, but I want to be able to build all of my structures and I do not want to be constantly making trades ro trying to make them.

vee4473 · April 3, 2003, 19:41

I agree that it is a bit daunting at first to keep the economy in the +.

Yeah, you can adjust the spending slider to keep a handle on it, but then it takes forever to build anything.

The credit system is cool, but wow, being strapped for 15bc/turn for 100 years can really hamper the early game.

Eric S · April 3, 2003, 21:32

I think the reason that the planet in question is in the red is because you have to finance the construction/research, and that is included in the numbers. If you reduce your funding level, you'll probably see the planetary expense numbers drop. Unlike the Civ-type games, you don't get your production for free in GalCiv. That's what makes trading (freighter trading, not diplomatic trading) so important. I've never seen a developed planet that was in the black by itself, unless the funding slider was set very low.

Which makes a Manufacturing center doubly expensive, because not only does it require a maintenance fee, but now you have more production capacity, so it's more expensive to fund that planet to the same % of production capacity. It's still worth it if you have enough trade coming in to pay for it, though. I've had times my trade was bringing in more than my taxes, and if you understand the freighter system, it isn't hard to keep most of your planets maxed out at 100% funding.

WarpStorm · April 3, 2003, 21:56

Plus, don't forget to build trade enhancing starbases.

vmxa1 · April 4, 2003, 00:35

Like I said the means to avoid the finace issues are available, but I just do not see why it should be a problem at the lower levels.
The econ works the same regardless and I wonder if that is a good thing to dump on newbies?
I just have a peeve with games not making the easiest level, well easy.
I can handle it, but I should not have to. I wan tthe struggle to come as I move up to the higest levels.
When one plays Moo on tutorial level, they do not strain, that is for hard and impossible. When I play on impossible, I know what I am doing, so lay it on me. Not when they open up the box for the first run.
If you do not want to adapt the AI, fine give a bigger cash start at the lowest setting.

Fried-Psitalon · April 4, 2003, 09:35

I think you might be doing something odd- in only my second game *at all* and my first completed one, I didn't run into any problems keeping my finances afloat. You just have to be willing to use multiple methods of funding:

Trade route increasing starbases
"Money over time" trades - I prefer these to "Up front"
Be picky about your first planets

It's also worth noting that you can pull a LOT more money from other Civs on the lower levels with your tech. Moving it from "Beginner" to "Sub Normal" (racial intelligence) has found me grinding my teeth in frustration sometimes- they DO NOT want to give things up as easily. I've found myself rabidly pursuing diplomacy to fix this.

Harry Seldon · April 4, 2003, 11:26

Diplomacy won't fix that even if your diplomacy is incredible. I'm playing one on subnormal and have friendly relations with the Yor and Arcean. They will not trade me the battleship or dreadnaught techs. I've tried to trade them eleven techs and three thousand dollars and they still won't trade. And this is with them repeatedly asking me to help them stave off the Drengin.

vmxa1 · April 4, 2003, 13:10

Trading war techs is something ost should be loathed to do, it makes sense to me.

Yes, I know I could spend all my time trying to sell tech to get cash, but that is not fun and should be nerfed.
In my current run I am being more selective about my planets and that has help. I also am not building social type stuff.

Harry Seldon · April 4, 2003, 14:25

I've gotten burned not building social stuff. Bad moral, slow build queues, no culture. I can't seem to find a good balance.

Malleus · April 4, 2003, 14:57

Quote:

Originally posted by vmxa1
Yes, I know I could spend all my time trying to sell tech to get cash, but that is not fun and should be nerfed.
In my current run I am being more selective about my planets and that has help. I also am not building social type stuff.

Well, perhaps this is not the game for you? These are keys to success in the game. It was designed this way. It's fun!

M

vmxa1 · April 4, 2003, 16:12

Quote:

Originally posted by Malleus

Well, perhaps this is not the game for you? These are keys to success in the game. It was designed this way. It's fun!
M

Yes it may turn out that I will not enjoy it, if that is the only method. In Civ III it was a big help, yet you could get by with out it, but it is much harder in Galciv as lessor planets are not productive.

I just do not see how it can be "fun" to go to all of the races constantly and try to sell them something.
It is very tedious and boring to me.

Searching the map, acquiring new planets, improving my planets, learning new tech, those are exciting and fun things. Combat is interesting, but trying to make a deal it not.

Fried-Psitalon · April 4, 2003, 17:06

I sit more in the middle on this. There does need to be SOMETHING to make trades run a little more smoothly, even if it's as simple as having the trade offered remain in the window if it fails so you can modify it instead of having to reclick EVERYTHING over.... or a "Civ-type" advisor who says "No way, maybe, probably, yes they'll take that, and "Wow, Christmas for the Drengins!"

vmxa1 · April 4, 2003, 20:48

I like the way (CivIII) you can just say what do you want for this or what will you give me for this. Now I have to take a stab in the dark and then adjust it over and over, yeah that is fun.
Especially when they have one thing I want and I have no idea what it will take to get it. I offer two items, then 3, then 4 and then I give up. So if I could say what do you want and they could tell me or say no way.

Eric S · April 4, 2003, 21:17

vmxa1, have you established trade routes yet? That's what keeps your economy afloat. I don't sell techs much at all, but use commercial trade to flesh out the budget, and it usually keeps me at or near the head of the pack on normal.

vmxa1 · April 5, 2003, 02:17

Quote:

Originally posted by Eric S
vmxa1, have you established trade routes yet? That's what keeps your economy afloat. I don't sell techs much at all, but use commercial trade to flesh out the budget, and it usually keeps me at or near the head of the pack on normal.

Oh yeah and research to get extra trade routes. My curent game is better since I took some trade bonus with my picks. But you still have to either sell sell sell or watch you spending. I do not think this should be the case at low levels.

Nirvana_CN · April 5, 2003, 02:50

Well the latest patch has addressed some Econ/Moral Fixes.

Plus some playability tweaks. Morale is a bit easier to keep higher. Some economics tweaks were made so that planetary improvements now get 40% of their bonus as "free" (efficiency) whereas before it was only 33% of it was free. Net result, building improvements will increase your production with more of it being bonus.

Also, i think your just in the learning curve, i was the same with my econ, now i have 12 games played, and i can manage my econ easily, always have money coming in, and always have about 6 or 7k free for invasion costs or for a buffer if a recession hits. Stick with it

You'll get the hang of it

vmxa1 · April 5, 2003, 14:37

Quote:

Originally posted by Nirvana_CN
Well the latest patch has addressed some Econ/Moral Fixes.

Plus some playability tweaks. Morale is a bit easier to keep higher. Some economics tweaks were made so that planetary improvements now get 40% of their bonus as "free" (efficiency) whereas before it was only 33% of it was free. Net result, building improvements will increase your production with more of it being bonus.

Also, i think your just in the learning curve, i was the same with my econ, now i have 12 games played, and i can manage my econ easily, always have money coming in, and always have about 6 or 7k free for invasion costs or for a buffer if a recession hits. Stick with it

You'll get the hang of it

I stay up to date on the patches.
I do not see much of a learning curve in the game, it is quite simple.
I mean you grab all the worth while planets, add pop structures and econ structures. Then the strong planets can make wonders and such.
You create as many freighters as you are allowed.
Now I choose not to go the lease route, so I have no on going debt.
Build as many SB as seem viable and upgrade them.
You trade tech or sell them. When I sell one, I sell it to all that turn.
I am making money late into the game, but I stop selling techs. I just do not like the idea that I need to do that selling in the early part of the game, it is unseemly. Anyway I do not want to give aid (techs) to races that I intend to kill.
Capitolism and Impperialism already exist for those that liek that stuff.

civer3 · April 7, 2003, 04:04

Your diplomacy skills are higher than any of the AIs and they refuse to trade technologies fairly with you! After that, I never gave them a single thing or traded technologies with them again. They keep asking me for techs and they never game me a single thing!

It was cool to watch the Fundamentalists beating the crap out of the Torians and Altarans who had refused my generous offers so many times! They wanted the Dreadnaught technology from me in exchange for Interstellar Tactics. Naturally I refused. I got the Dreadnaught technology from the Fundamentalists in exchange for Xeno Manipulation. Wonder if that's a good deal?

The only thing that bothered me was the Fundamentalists who I suspected had begun constructing Terror Stars! Fortunately the Fundamentalists were at war with everyone else except me.

In the game I was playing, only the Torians and Altarans remained. The Arceans were eliminated by them while the Yor and Drengin surrended after being blasted to pieces by the Independent League and the Fundamentalists.

Military might at the latest game save.

Torians 100
Altarans 128
Terrans 98
I-League 111
Fundamentalists 2860

I only have a value of 98 and the Terrans are the most powerful civ in the galaxy. I think that is a big bug in the game.

I didn't have a single Dreadnaught.

The Fundamentalists had around 100 Dreadnaughts.

The other civs did not have a single Dreadnaught.

Comments anyone?

Lemmy · April 7, 2003, 04:09

Quote:

I only have a value of 98 and the Terrans are the most powerful civ in the galaxy. I think that is a big bug in the game.

I didn't have a single Dreadnaught.

The Fundamentalists had around 100 Dreadnaughts.

The other civs did not have a single Dreadnaught.

Comments anyone?

I think that only major civs can be considered as the most powerfull in the galaxy, even if a minor civ like the Fundamentalists is a lot stronger. I wouldn't call it a bug, since it was probably intended like that.

Fried-Psitalon · April 7, 2003, 07:10

Quote:

Originally posted by vmxa1

Anyway I do not want to give aid (techs) to races that I intend to kill.
Capitolism and Impperialism already exist for those that liek that stuff.

So effectively what you're saying is "I'm going for a specific kind of victory (military) and I don't like that I either have to choose to aid my future war-rivals or be financially weaker."

If you choose to go beat down the other Civs, then YES, your inability to trade with them (the choice you make since you have military intent) SHOULD be a problem. Economic hardship is typically the largest balancing factor on a war-waging civilization. What's the problem here? If you're going to crush them, you will suffer economically as you prepare to do such. If you intend to win peacefully (or at least not utterly militarily) you have three options for doing it - and your economy will benefit from trade.

I'd call that the most reasonable and balanced decision I've yet seen in a civilization-type game. I rather like the fact that I have to grind my teeth and decide if I want to trim a few more dollars from my budget, or let the universe pay me hand over fist for this precious new technology.

playshogi · April 8, 2003, 13:22

I don't know if it always did this, but after the latest patch, 1.02.40, acceptable trades are printed in green.

yin26 · April 8, 2003, 14:00

1.02.40 introduced this 'fix' -- something I've been begging for since my earliest reviews! Go Brad!

On the econ problems:

Remember two important things:

1) Revenues are based on population numbers, so early on you just aren't going to bring in lots of taxes ... so make sure you've got room later on to have better planets and/or expand constantly.

2) Just because there is a social improvement you *can* build doesn't mean you should. In fact, I don't build any morale improvements until my morale actually starts to drop as the planet fills it population.

Buying things before you need them becomes even more deadly when you factor in the hidden econ killer: Upkeep costs! Be selective and timely with your purchases. Employ strategy, that is.

vmxa1 · April 8, 2003, 17:22

Quote:

Originally posted by Fried-Psitalon
So effectively what you're saying is "I'm going for a specific kind of victory (military) and I don't like that I either have to choose to aid my future war-rivals or be financially weaker."

Lets not take one statement out of contet with my whole point. So, no that is not what I mean.
I mean that it is not fun (to me) to have to go around constantly trying to find the best deals, period.
If I found that fun, there are games that are specifically design for that purpose.
Understand, there is no need to defend GalCiv, I am not saying anything bad about it. I am merely saying I am not excited about that aspect.
I played my last game with out a single battle, but that is not my preference. I would like some fighting and a lot less trading.
So what would be of use to me is if anyone had a strategy that would allow for toning down the tech trading. It is not necessary to respond, just to tell you like it the way it is or there may be something wrong with me, if I don't o why I am wrong. It is merely a matte of taste, no one is wrong.

Madine · April 14, 2003, 17:08

If you have a significant military advantage, try extorting money/tech from the other civs.

Trade can be a huge source of income. My experience is that in order to thrive you need to trade.

Pyrkaige · April 14, 2003, 17:21

Depending on how you play, you may not need to sell many techs if you can get cash other ways. There are basically three ways to make cash in the game (apart from the taxes you make from your populace, of course

1) Sell techs (or starbases/planets in rare instances)
2) Have trade routes
3) Beat up another race and force them to give money for peace

Take your pick, you will need to do at least one of those methods to get enough cash to keep your cash flow at what it should be. It's really up to your own playing style, and the way the game goes, that controls which method you use.

In my last game, I ended up with 10 trade route bringing in over 3k a turn; I didn't need to sell many techs, beyond the start of the game.

vmxa1 · April 14, 2003, 18:55

Trade routes and SB inprovements are fine, but I do not care for extortion or tech whoring. Those are techniques used in Civ3 as well and are unappealing.
Extortion as it is an exploit. Tech selling as it is tedious and boring. If it was toned down to where you did not or could not go around to everyone every turn.

Fried-Psitalon · April 15, 2003, 07:14

Extortion as it is an exploit?!

"Hey buddy, see these 15 dreadnoughts? Pay up or your lil' brother Louie, he gets the whack, see? Be real shame for something BAD to happen to him, y'know."

Organized crime, medieval powers, and who knows who else has found that extortion is an excellent means of bolstering one's economy for all of human history and no doubt until the sun sets on our race. HOW exactly is it an exploit to do it here? Most times, you can only make the 1 demand before they tell you to stuff it anyhow, 2 on very rare occasions. If you declare war to reneg the demands, you lose the last ones, and they're not likely to give you as good a deal the second time.

What am I missing here?

unic · April 15, 2003, 10:13

Well, if it's an exploit, it is one the AI uses often

Check your debug.err file after a game, and you'll see (or at least, after my games, I do) lots of messages about the Drengin (usually) extorting the other races for fairly big sums of money

Personally, I don't think it's an exploit.

/unic