Subsistance or Planned for SE?

Drogue · May 19, 2003, 10:55

Should we change from Subsistance Economics to Planned when we discover Planetary Networks (currently researching)?

Planned gives us +2 Growth, +1 Industry, and -2 Efficiency. Therefore, we have a choice between our faction as a whole having:
Subsistance: +2 Efficiency, +2 Research, -1 Growth
And
Planned: +1 Industry, +2 Research, +1 Growth.

You have 2 days, and remember that it will cost us 40 Ec to change to Planned.

Drogue · May 19, 2003, 11:02

I vote for Planned. We need the Growth more than we need the Efficiency ATM IMHO, and the Industry +1 is a nice bonus

Cedayon · May 19, 2003, 12:22

The upheaval cost is non-trivial at this point in the game, but growth is rather important and industry is nice... our inherent efficiency will allow us to run such a buerocracy-intensive system without excessive inefficiency.

It beats simple, at least. Go planned

*begins writing programs to cause golden ages so we can actually pop boom when we get demo and cc's*

DeathByTheSword · May 19, 2003, 12:53

planned is the most logical choice

a strong military can only be acheived be having a strong economic base....one of the rescoures for economy is labor....so it it s logical idea to get more CyCon citizens

funtion Delta

Method · May 19, 2003, 13:54

planned...for now

Drogue · May 19, 2003, 15:14

When we get Industrial Economics, we can discuss FM

I am tending to come more on side with that now. However CyCon don't need choice, or competition, we strive for efficiency anyway. But that amount of energy might be needed to counter the University. Luckily, with Demo/FM we get Paridigm economy, something the UoP cannot do until future tech

Method · May 19, 2003, 15:19

right. i think we should stay away from green anyway, just because of the growth penalty. and if we don't go FM right after industrial economics, i'd suggest wealth until cyberethics. the industry bonus is really great, although +1 econ isn't that much. as vel says, creches negate the morale penalty, but FM+wealth is really bad for worm combat

Maniac · May 19, 2003, 15:22

Quote:

However CyCon don't need choice, or competition, we strive for efficiency anyway.

Efficiency is indeed our goal, but there are different sorts of efficiency. If we want efficiency in increasing our industrial capacity, using already known technology, a planned collectivist system is best. If we want efficiency in our technological advancements, competition and a free market is the best system. Thus efficiency can be used to legitimize both FM and Planned, depending on the goals we strive to reach.

Drogue · May 19, 2003, 15:34

True, what I was refering to, is things like the idea that competition forces prices down, and thus costs down, in order to stay profitable. However, being as logical an efficient as we are, we already produce with the minimum of waste, utilising our superior intellect to find the most efficient method to do a job. Thus we do not need competition to force costs down and create efficiency. Your point is vert true however.

The idea of working independantly, but having a better overall, is appealing to me, thus FM could be better at times. We shall have to see.

Cedayon · May 19, 2003, 17:53

My take on econ choice for us:

Simple: no real reason to stay here, eh?

Planned: The growth is a big help, the industry is quite nice, and our effic bonus cancels the penalty.

Green: The growth penalty could make big trouble unless we already have maxed bases and growth wasn't an issue (or we've built the cloning vats), and the efficiency bonus is really unnecessary because I'm pretty sure we'll be running Democracy exclusively once we have the tech, and that gives us +4 effic (to my knowledge, nothing is gained from going higher). The planet bonus is useful in certain circumstances, but I don't think it can compete against the benefits of Planned or FM.
FM: What can I say? +1 energy per square. (that's a size 10 period, by the way) The police and planet penalties are harsh, but I think all of us here have a lot of practice in dealing with them

... as for the RP side... I don't think any of the collective would find it logical to harmfully exploit any of the others, do you? Given that, is there any compelling reason to enforce market controls on people we can already trust to act in the best interest of the faction?

Summary: Planned if we need the growth (we'll want to pop boom at some point, which means Demo/Planned/Children's Creche's/Psych Spending for Golden Ages), as we do now... once we're big enough for it to be appropriate, switch to FM and use the energy as best we can.

Method · May 19, 2003, 18:05

Quote:

Originally posted by Cedayon
that gives us +4 effic (to my knowledge, nothing is gained from going higher).

actually, i'm pretty sure it keeps going past +4. so if we wanted, demo/green/knowledge/cyber/creches would give us +11 eff

Cedayon · May 19, 2003, 18:08

Oh, you can get a higher number, sure, but +4 is paradigm economy (no energy lost to corruption, can go 100/0/0 or 0/0/100 without penalty), right?

Method · May 19, 2003, 18:10

oh, no. +4 doesn't mean no energy lost to inefficiency i'm pretty sure. i remember seeing a thread about this a while ago, and AFAIK you gain more energy by going higher. maniac, you've been here for a long time: tell me you remember seeing that and that i'm not crazy?

Maniac · May 19, 2003, 18:19

I haven't seen that thread, but I know a 100% sure from personal experience that you still lose energy at +4 efficiency (even at +9 with CC's). Though I don't know the exact formula (that from Firaxis obviously isn't right since you still have ineffiency at 4+), my experience seems to tell there is the law of decreasing benefit. Meaning the difference between +1 and +3 Eff is bigger than that between +7 and +9 regarding energy lost.

Edit: LoD's old site The Chironian Guild had an efficiency calculator, but unfortunately that no longer exists on his nex site.

Drogue · May 20, 2003, 11:33

I would say we don't need higher than +4, and with Demo/Know, we get +5 anyway. I agree, we don't need Green. I am tempted to agree with the FM, although we can talk about that when we come to it. Planned for now it seems

Will be changed as soon as we get Planetary Networks.

Corellion · May 21, 2003, 18:48

I've played the CyCon with Demo/Green/Knowledge/Cybernetic. Let me tell you, the efficiency DOES make a difference, and you get better economy and research than with either planned or FM. Of course, that was only after I got the Cloning Vats and was very late in the game. I never go with Green early on though, because of the growth penalty.

Drogue · May 21, 2003, 19:01

We will have to look and discuss it about this particular case whenthe time arises later. ATM, Planned is the way IMHO. Maybe FM relatively soon, although that will be debated thoroughly I'm sure. We can be sure the UoP will use it as soon as they get it

Cedayon · May 22, 2003, 11:29

I don't think there will need to be much debate on when to do FM, the numbers will tell us when it is better for the faction to go from planned to FM... I think we all recognize that FM is likely to be the best option for most of the game, particularly if we want to beat the UoP, which is likely to make Morgan look like a socialist in comparison