I took a look in the file CIV4GameSpeedInfo.xml and noticed how inflation had been seriously increased in BTS. Since inflation seriously increases all types of costs, this will seriously influence all kinds of game balance elements and will especially influence the costs of the expensive corporations.

Corporations are very expensive to maintain in this game, but their cost is balanced by their bonuses. However, would these buildings still be balanced when their costs were multiplied by a factor 2.5? Because that is exactly what inflation does at the end of the game.

Inflation in civilization 1.61 and warlords 2.08 in 2050AD:
Marathon speed: 100%
Epic speed: 100%
Normal speed: 102%
Quick speed: 100%

Inflation in Beyond the Sword 3.02 in 2050AD:
Marathon speed: 195%
Epic speed: 177%
Normal speed: 171%
Quick speed: 169%

So a corporation in a city with a basic upkeep of 20 gold would cost only 10 gold in a city with a courthouse according to the city screen. However in 2050AD at Marathon speed, the corporation will also increase the inflation by 19.5 gold (195% of 10) and so the corporation would effectively cost 29.5 gold. Maybe when you built the corporation, inflation was only at 60% and so the corporation was effectively costing you only 16 gold. But the cost slowly increase as the year pass while the benefits remain the same.

The corporation can never be a truly balanced game element when it can cost between 10 gold and 10 gold + 19.5 gold while still offering the same benefits.

Oh, inflation doesn't stop at 195%, it keeps increasing if you don't play with the time victory option and play beyond 2050AD. I've already seen a screenshot of a player who had a gold percentage of 80% just to break even because the inflation maintenance was something like 2000 gold per turn.

Personally, I've never really understood why inflation was implemented in the game as it was. I guess the game element was there to make buildings like banks meaningful in the late game because the costs would increase along with the increase in commerce due to technological advancement. However, it seems a very artificial game element because the percentage is purely based on the turns played in a game and certain elements of the game start costing more while the benefits don't increase. It was never really a problem because all kinds of maintenance costs were never significant at the end of the game compared to the total commerce output. Therefore, there has never been a real protest against the game element. Most people on this site don't even know how the percentage is derived. However, now that corporations do have a serious maintenance cost and inflation percentages have been increased, people will wonder why inflation was implemented in the game the way it has been done in the original vanilla civ4.

My solution would be to just get rid of inflation. Now that there is a serious cost element in the late game in the form of corporations, it won't be missed. There will be ample reasons to build banks and such to pay for the maintenance of these corporations and an artificial increase in gold upkeep like inflation is really not needed anymore (if it ever was).

(Short explanation of inflation on normal speed for the readers who don't know how this game element works. This explanation is for how it works on normal speed in Beyond the Sword 2.02.
Inflation starts at 0% in 4000BC and stays at that level for 120 turns (that's 125AD). From that moment on it starts to increase with 0.45% each turn until you quit the game. So at turn number 140, it will be at 20*0.45% = 9%. At turn number 500, it will be at 380*0.45%=171%. Inflation increases all kinds of costs, unit cost, civic cost, city maintenance and corporation upkeep. There are no other factors that influence the inflation percentage then the number of turns that you have played in the game.)

EDIT

Apparently not only the values in the xml-files which determined inflation were changed, but also the formula. This has been discussed in later posts in this thread and it is the reason for this edit. The formula is now quadratic in relation to the number of turns played in the game, which means that the inflation rate increases faster and faster throughout the game. It's not something that I like but the inflation formula is not the subject of the bug report. If someone thinks it is a bug, then they should write their own bug report. This report is about the effect that inflation has on the profitability of corporations.
I do want to add that in the late game, the profitability of cities barely increases and is usually stabilized while inflation increases ever faster.

Here is the new formula for inflation: (I copied it from another thread. It was extracted from the game code.)

Inflation only starts after several turns. This is the so called inflation offset. It was always used in civ4.

Modified Turn = (Turn – Inflation Offset)

Inflation increases each turn dependent on the inflation percent in the xml files. There is a reduction for difficulty levels below monarch defined in the handicap xml file. This was also working in this way in vanilla and warlords civ4.

Rate = Inflation Percent * Handicap Percent

The inflation percentage at a certain turn is calculated as follows. The second quadratic term is the new one.

Inflation percentage = (Modified Turn * Rate / 100) + [Modified Turn * (Modified Turn - 1)* Rate * Rate / 2000000]

This means in 2050AD that (at levels of monarch and higher) the inflation percentage is:
Marathon: 1300* 0.15 + 1300 * 1299 * 15*15 /2000000 = 384%
Epic: 590 * 0.3 + 590 * 589 * 30*30 /2000000 = 333%
Normal: 380 * 0.45 + 380 * 379 * 45*45/2000000 = 316%
Quick: 260 * 0.65 + 260 * 259 * 65*65/2000000 = 311%

Just for fun: Firaxis things we're moving to an Armageddon
Marathon inflation in 2500AD: 12700 * 0.15 + 12700 * 12699 * 225/2000000 = 20048% ;)

End Edit

good god that is ridiculous. the worst part is how inflation is additive to total costs.

Even with corporations costing an arm and a leg, I don't see how there could be any difficulty paying for them with a modern economy. I remember running 20% taxation with a CE economy and earning 80+ gold per a turn in vanilla. Going to 30% taxation at that point would generally net me hundreds of gold per turn. Inflation seems like an artificial but ultimately effective way to suck down some of those excessive gains.

However, I would support a system that caused inflation's growth to peter off or stop growing at a balanced level. It's stupid that it continues to grow forever.

Even with corporations costing an arm and a leg, I don't see how there could be any difficulty paying for them with a modern economy. I remember running 20% taxation with a CE economy and earning 80+ gold per a turn in vanilla. Going to 30% taxation at that point would generally net me hundreds of gold per turn. Inflation seems like an artificial but ultimately effective way to suck down some of those excessive gains.

However, I would support a system that caused inflation's growth to peter off or stop growing at a balanced level. It's stupid that it continues to grow forever.

remember that there are new ways that you have to spend your money. espionage points...etc etc.

the other problem is you're touting vanilla where inflation didn't exist.

remember that there are new ways that you have to spend your money. espionage points...etc etc.

the other problem is you're touting vanilla where inflation didn't exist.

But it does exist, just not to the severe degree that we have in BTS. My point is that I don't need 80+ spare gold per turn at the end of the game. A higher inflation rate could eat into those earnings and potentially slow down the absurd research pace that a developed CE empire could maintain.

The problem is that after the population stabilizes, construction ends, and the cities have more or less maximized their income costs, the game still ramps up the inflation rate. At that point, for game balance purposes, inflation should have halted--but it hasn't.

Therefore, to fix the problem of inflation without undoing its balancing effects, I think we should set a halt date for inflation. Similar to the start date for inflation, this date should stop inflation from growing at about the same time that the player runs out of options to expand or improve his economy. In my mind, this should happen shortly after the Modern Era begins.

as if inflation stops in real life. the simple solution is to make inflation a simple multiplier to costs, rather than multiplier to costs +costs

as it is now

costs*i+costs=total maintenance

how it should be

costs*inflation= total mainenance

so...

instead of 1000*1.75+1000 =2750
it would be 1000*1.75 = 1750

if for corporations (say 200) 1200*1.75+1200= 3300
it should be 1200*1.75 = 2100

this not only is better than the current system it also prevents a free lunch for corporations.

as if inflation stops in real life. the simple solution is to make inflation a simple multiplier to costs, rather than multiplier to costs +costs

as it is now

costs*i+costs=total maintenance

You're going to have to explain this with a little more clarity. What is i? What costs are you talking about?

Also, why is your method simpler? Remember, inflation is not really inflation. It's simply a game mechanic. It creates maintenance costs roughly appropriate to the game's expanding economies. When those economies stop expanding, it's time to stop expanding those maintenance costs, and that means halting the growth of the inflation mechanic--realism be damned.

You're going to have to explain this with a little more clarity. What is i? What costs are you talking about?

Also, why is your method simpler? Remember, inflation is not really inflation. It's simply a game mechanic. It creates maintenance costs roughly appropriate to the game's expanding economies. When those economies stop expanding, it's time to stop expanding those maintenance costs, and that means halting the growth of the inflation mechanic--realism be damned.

i is the inflation multiplier for the year. so for marathon games thats 13/7200s per year.

costs are city maintenance, civic upkeep, colonies, troops, etc etc. with foreign costs added at the end.

its in the F2 screen.

think about what i just showed you now.

as it is now lets say your costs are 500, the inflation multiplier is 1.70, and foreign costs are 100

as it is now

500*1.70+500+100= 1450

as it should be

500*1.70+100= 950

imagine that corps are adding 300 of that 500. for someone without corps (i.e. state property) you could argue that the only cost is civic upkeep. say thats like 250 under SP with other civics. even then

now 775
new 525

and 950 with corps vs 525 without seems a bit more fair...

You're going to have to explain this with a little more clarity. What is i? What costs are you talking about?

Also, why is your method simpler? Remember, inflation is not really inflation. It's simply a game mechanic. It creates maintenance costs roughly appropriate to the game's expanding economies. When those economies stop expanding, it's time to stop expanding those maintenance costs, and that means halting the growth of the inflation mechanic--realism be damned.

also you would have to rework the game mechanic of inflation to determine when you've stopped growing.

i is the inflation multiplier for the year. so for marathon games thats 13/7200s per year.

costs are city maintenance, civic upkeep, colonies, troops, etc etc. with foreign costs added at the end.

its in the F2 screen.

think about what i just showed you now.

as it is now lets say your costs are 500, the inflation multiplier is 1.70, and foreign costs are 100

as it is now

500*1.70+500+100= 1450

as it should be

500*1.70+100= 950

If that were true, you'd pay nothing but foreign costs until 125 AD, after which you'd begin to pay another measly maintenance*.0045 for each turn that has passed. I mean, most of the game is spent below 100% inflation.

also you would have to rework the game mechanic of inflation to determine when you've stopped growing.

No need for anything like that. Once we find a fair final value for "inflation," we simply pin the halt date roughly around the average time to discover the last economic technology--probably around medicine, in the late 1800s or the early 1900s.

If that were true, you'd pay nothing but foreign costs until 125 AD, after which you'd begin to pay another measly maintenance*.0045 for each turn that has passed. I mean, most of the game is spent below 100% inflation.

obviously you would adjust the inflation scale to compensate. perhaps a compound interest formula where c(1+.0025)^t? c=costs, t = turn number

where c =100

at turn 433 ( a good 53 turns after the end of the game) they would be almost equal in terms of inflationary costs of 100. at the end of the timed game (turn 380) 100 in costs would be 271 for the current system and 258.26 for the compound interest formula)

at turn 160 (halfway through inflationary game) the costs for 100 would be 172 under the current system and 149.11 for the new system.

screw that even 100*(1+i)^380=271
so that the i = .002626 and at the final turn of the game both systems would be almost equal.

in this example http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=232333&highlight=inflation where the pre inflation is 712 and the foreign costs are 189, he is paying 2147.

current calculation 712*577*.0030329+712+189 = 2147
new calculation (712*1.0015^577)+189 = 1879

a savings of 267 gold!
the lower you make i for the compound interest the more powerful you make it in the late game, until it peaks.

any idea of whether they will fix this?

I liked the inflation in Knights of Honor, it was based on how much gold you have in your coffers. So more gold == higher inflation. And I think the decreasing factor was population; more peope == lower inflation.

Since when do new features that are unliked by players end up under the category Bug Reports?

In total I don't really understand the complaints to date. Nice that you looked in the savegame and discovered but shouldn't you just play a game (or a few) and then make up your mind?

just stop the inflation in 2050 AD. Then just those who wants to play beyond that date would be affected and the inflation wouldn't be silly high for those players.

just stop the inflation in 2050 AD. Then just those who wants to play beyond that date would be affected and the inflation wouldn't be silly high for those players.

If the current inflation value is balanced, then this is the best solution.

Since when do new features that are unliked by players end up under the category Bug Reports?

In total I don't really understand the complaints to date. Nice that you looked in the savegame and discovered but shouldn't you just play a game (or a few) and then make up your mind?

Perhaps it isn't a bug but it is a balance issue. the double charge on corporations maintenance makes it a feature that isn't as exciting or useful as it should be.

Perhaps it isn't a bug but it is a balance issue. the double charge on corporations maintenance makes it a feature that isn't as exciting or useful as it should be.
But how can anyone possibly tell already if the game has only been out since yesterday?

But how can anyone possibly tell already if the game has only been out since yesterday?

:lol: aussies never lie!

just looking at numbers there is no possible way that the benefits ever outweigh the costs because of the way inflation and total maintenance works. you're better off not even using corporations in your own territory, which seems like something counter to what they were designed for.

On the bright side, there's an event which will reduce inflation by 25%.

Once you're forced by the U.N. to switch to Environmentalism,
those corporations will be huge pain and you can't get rid of it.

Inflation in civilization 1.61 and warlords 2.08 in 2050AD:
Marathon speed: 100%
Epic speed: 100%
Normal speed: 102%
Quick speed: 100%

Inflation in Beyond the Sword 3.02 in 2050AD:
Marathon speed: 195%
Epic speed: 177%
Normal speed: 171%
Quick speed: 169%

Its worst. Im playing normal speed and in the year 203AD I have 220% inflation, according to your chars even by 2050 i should have only 171%.

Here is a post I made in another thread regarding corporations. As it stands the effect inflation has is a major gamestopping bug and needs to be Firaxis' top priority:

Corporation was supposed to be similar to religion in general.

Corporation should provide benefits to cities which host them [as religions do] and also give a big bonus to the civ that holds the shrine[HQ].
As it stands, by the lategame corporation is devastated by the "inflation" which more than triples the true cost.
I guess when people read this, they won't understand how bad it REALLY is, they may assume by me saying that "inflation destroys the concept of corporation" I am exaggerating and that its simply a minor annoyance.

I have a screenshot of a game I played as dutch:

http://www.stormsoft.co.uk/civ4_inflation.jpg

Notice 3 things:

- inflation ALONE is costing me 2136:gold: per turn.

- Whilst units cost me 44 :gold: a turn and civic 180:gold: a turn, city maintenance is 700:gold: per turn.

- after one of my major corporation-franchise civs switched to state property, I'm running at 10% science and 10% espionage [luckily he did so towards the end of the game]

ps. the "10 turns to victory" doesn't mean I'm near the end, its from the spaceship; the actual date shown is 2003AD


Correct me if I'm wrong, but I assumed that the 10%:hammers: boost of state property, and the 1:hammers: boost in caste system was there to counter the great effects that one would have with corporations.

As it stands, a workshop under SP/CS will give +4:hammers: and their "total expenses" will be incredibly lower than mine letting them research at upto 90%. As a counter, civs running other civics could get corporations letting them get +:food: or +:hammers: but the damn inflation has screwed the whole system up to the point where the only viable civic now is SP+CS or Mercantilism+x.

Cottage economies were always supposed to be somewhat better once they had been maxed out because they have to build up, whereas workshops and farms are built almost instantly. This meant that peaceful civs would tend to have more cottages whilst areas devastated by war would be best to quickly rebuild the farms+workshops.
With workshops giving equivalent +12:commerce: and a fully completed cottage giving +10:commerce: It is definately broken, the only saving grace was that corporations were supposed to be a HUGE part of the game.

Also imagine that if I have the HQs in my country and its this bad, how bad would it be for civs who don't have the HQ.

Right now corporation is so broken that its best for me to found the corporation HQ and not spread it to a single city of mine but instead devastate the enemy by forcing them to run 90-100% tax.

This is more broken than the espionage foment unhappiness one and needs to urgently be fixed. They MUST make the corporation maintenance come into effect AFTER inflation and/or they MUST cap inflation at a certain point.

you need to read a little more. there are some serious flaws in domestic corporation spreads which is where a lot of it should be because of inflation.

Its worst than a flaw in domestic corporation spread. Its just that you don't get to directly see the effect it has in foreign branches - its actually even worst for them.


Here are the other 2 threads regarding this issue:

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=232674
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=232333

Totally agree.
My first game coasting to space race victory in 1900s.
I thought.
For fun, set up Sid's Sushi, had/traded for 16 resources,
spread company to all my cities,
thinking the extra food would mean merchant specialists and I'd be rich.
And as the years rolled by,
I couldn't understand why my tech rate kept getting lower and lower,
from 70-80% down to 30-40% and 10-15 turns to research late techs (epic speed).
At that rate I couldn't finish the ship before 2050.
I checked finances
and found inflation of 177% on top of massive maintenance,
which I'd never seen before,
and realised that's where all the money had gone.
A quick change to state property, goodbye Sid, goodbye sushi,
and we were back to 80% research
and a manageable economy.
Put me off corporations completely.

Thanks for your post homan. A picture often tells more than a thousand words.

I've always disliked the fact that inflation is related to the number of turns played in the game. If you absolutely think that inflation is a good balancing tool in this game, then just make inflation increase with the age in the game (ancient, classical, medieval, renaissance, industrial, modern). That way, it isn't lower in a game where everyone happens to research quicker and reach the modern age earlier.

However, the main argument in my original post was that the corporation mechanic can't be truly balanced when the benefits stay the same and the costs triple thanks to inflation. If the corporations are balanced before inflation increases then it means that the corporations become very pricey after the inflation rate increases. If the corporations are balanced at high inflation rates, then it means that they are very cheap at low inflation rates.

Totally agree.
My first game coasting to space race victory in 1900s.
I thought.
For fun, set up Sid's Sushi, had/traded for 16 resources,
spread company to all my cities,
thinking the extra food would mean merchant specialists and I'd be rich.
And as the years rolled by,
I couldn't understand why my tech rate kept getting lower and lower,
from 70-80% down to 30-40% and 10-15 turns to research late techs (epic speed).
At that rate I couldn't finish the ship before 2050.
I checked finances
and found inflation of 177% on top of massive maintenance,
which I'd never seen before,
and realised that's where all the money had gone.
A quick change to state property, goodbye Sid, goodbye sushi,
and we were back to 80% research
and a manageable economy.
Put me off corporations completely.

YES you get it now.
Corporations weren't intended to cost MORE and MORE and MORE, its like as the turns go by, I have to keep dropping the slider...

Some people are saying this is intentional, but its clear that either:

- they have not played or have no idea
- they think that the point of corps is to destroy your enemy by making then run at 100% tax [which makes it more powerful than the current espionage bug on marathon speed +24:sic: for 24 turns, in fact it means the civ effectively loses the game outright]

Thanks for your post homan. A picture often tells more than a thousand words.

I've always disliked the fact that inflation is related to the number of turns played in the game.

It gets even worst, before it used to be 0% inflation at turn 1 and by 2050AD it would be 100%.

My screen shows 2003AD and already I have 220% + inflation.

I think inflation is there because at the start towns are small and cottages are not developed.
However beyond a certain point in the game I think inflation should be capped... simply going higher and higher makes no sence because once a city gets +7:commerce: per tile then its never going to get more than that.

It gets even worst, before it used to be 0% inflation at turn 1 and by 2050AD it would be 100%.

My screen shows 2003AD and already I have 220% + inflation.

I think inflation is there because at the start towns are small and cottages are not developed.
However beyond a certain point in the game I think inflation should be capped... simply going higher and higher makes no sence because once a city gets +7:commerce: per tile then its never going to get more than that.

Yes, I do understand the reasoning behind the inflation mechanic although I would have liked other types of costs which would be a bit more imaginative and controllable than just a continuously increasing cost factor in the game. The corporations are actually a nice way to introduce late game costs, however the combination with inflation is not working well.

In my previous post I suggested to link inflation to the age in the game (ancient, classical, medieval, renaissance, industrial, modern). That would naturally cap inflation. It would also better link inflation to the availability of certain buildings and civics which improve the economy. However, this should be the average age of the various civilizations to avoid people deliberately not researching age advancing technologies.

The corporations maintenance cost should be independent of inflation or otherwise it is impossible to balance this game mechanic.

Yeah, it seems corporations might work better as a weapon to inflict on your foes than as a tool to build your own empire. I don't really like that, personally. If this is the case, why give them fun and interesting mechanics?
I willing to wait and see if I just don't understand the strategy or if there is some bug.

the more it i think about it the more i hate it. youre essentially forced to either play without corps or use them solely in an advesarial way where you confer huge negative things to the enemy and get a decent positive in return.

was the intent really to make the corp system one of 'hurt them more than they hurt you, or dont even play them?'

it needs to be changed to a system where you can hurt someone but also work with other civs and provide a real reason to run corps and free market.

this is one of the stupidest game balance blunders ive seen ever.

Yeah, it seems corporations might work better as a weapon to inflict on your foes than as a tool to build your own empire. I don't really like that, personally. If this is the case, why give them fun and interesting mechanics?
I willing to wait and see if I just don't understand the strategy or if there is some bug.

that the problem. the most effective and almost feasible way to run corps is to make it as mindless as possible (corp spam) and eliminates any nuance such as resource trading. that sucks.

This has to be a bug in the game because it ruins the whole idea of corporations.

Well, I'm not yet convinced on this.

Here's the details of my current game:

I'm the HRE
Large map
Epic speed
It's 1956
I've founded Creative Corporations
It's in 7 of my 19 cities
(These were selected based on where I thought I needed the :hammers: and :culture: most)

Here's my finances in terms of costs:
Unit costs 99
Unit supply 3
City Maintenance 92
Civics 101
Inflation 175% x 295 = 512

Of the 92 city maintenance:
Distance to capital 27
No. of cities 36
Colony 1
Corporations 28

I have courthouses in ALL my corporation cities (-75% for HRE) and I'm running Free Market.

I'm able to running 50 % :science: and the :hammers: and :culture: benefits of the corporation, are to me, far outweighing the overall maintenance cost of the corporation.

Granted I probably don't need to, and indeed shouldn't, expand the corporation too much, but isn't that to be expected? The benefits are specific and as I see it, the corporation should only be placed in the most appropriate cities; not every city, and certainly not any city without a courthouse. I also founded the corporation in my most profitable city, one with the specific religion building and all basic economic improvements (alas no Wall Street unfortunately).

So, what's the deal? Seems fine to me - a fine balance which can easily be lost unless you're extremely careful. As to how the AI deals with the fine balance, God only knows. ;)

Again, the point I'm trying to make is not that the costs are too high.

The point that I'm trying to make is that the game element named corporations can't be balanced when the costs varies between 100% and 300% of base cost (say 10 and 30 gold) while the benefits stay the same. Are the benefits balanced versus the 10 gold upkeep, versus 20 gold upkeep or versus 30 gold upkeep? They can never be balanced versus every value between 10 and 30.

Please don't turn this into a discussion on whether they corporations are too expensive or not. There are other threads in the Beyond the Sword subforum for that.

Roland - Most importantly, consider maintenance versus income. Generally speaking, while the maintenance for a corporation will rise, the income and benefits from owning a corporation will not. For this reason, spreading a corporation to another civilization inflicts a HUGE economic penalty for which the enemy has no recourse except to swap to Mercantilism or State Property; and all he gains is a comparably small gain in culture, production, or food.

And attempting to increase the productivity of the corporation will sink him further. For every bit of corporate power he squeezes out, he takes a massive hit while you gain a little income.

Ultimately, this balance versus benefit calculation fails even for the human player. As inflation nears 150%, the player is paying far more than he can afford for effects that cost him far less when the corporation was founded. Eventually, every corporation will become a massive loss for the owning Civ and a critical loss for a rival Civ.

To me, this dictates the next course of action--a vast reduction in inflation with a final halt on inflationary growth, or the simple removal of the inflationary system.

Roland - Most importantly, consider maintenance versus income. Generally speaking, while the maintenance for a corporation will rise, the income and benefits from owning a corporation will not. For this reason, spreading a corporation to another civilization inflicts a HUGE economic penalty for which the enemy has no recourse except to swap to Mercantilism or State Property; and all he gains is a comparably small gain in culture, production, or food.

And attempting to increase the productivity of the corporation will sink him further. For every bit of corporate power he squeezes out, he takes a massive hit while you gain a little income.

Ultimately, this balance versus benefit calculation fails even for the human player. As inflation nears 150%, the player is paying far more than he can afford for effects that cost him far less when the corporation was founded. Eventually, every corporation will become a massive loss for the owning Civ and a critical loss for a rival Civ.

To me, this dictates the next course of action--a vast reduction in inflation with a final halt on inflationary growth, or the simple removal of the inflationary system.

I have no doubt whatsoever, they (Firaxis) are going to make some changes, although I'm not exactly sure what they will do. Removal of the inflation system or making corporation costs independent from inflation (just like foreign income is in the F2 screen) is my guess. The only way you can balance the corporation cost versus benefits is when you have any idea what the costs are going to be and that is only possible when the costs are independent from the variable inflation.

My guess is that they will not fully remove inflation, but just make corporation upkeep independent from them. But I hope they will just remove inflation as I dislike the game mechanic.

If anyone who reads this thread wants to remove inflation themselves (while waiting for the first patch), then just ask. It is pretty easy. You don't need massive programming skills or something like that.

the more it i think about it the more i hate it. youre essentially forced to either play without corps or use them solely in an advesarial way where you confer huge negative things to the enemy and get a decent positive in return.

was the intent really to make the corp system one of 'hurt them more than they hurt you, or dont even play them?'

it needs to be changed to a system where you can hurt someone but also work with other civs and provide a real reason to run corps and free market.

this is one of the stupidest game balance blunders ive seen ever.

You hit the nail on the head.
Let me tell you what the biggest problem is, its not that corporations cost too much, I had already planned my costs and benefits.

The problem is that is starts off profitable and worthwhile to pay like 25:gold: for 8 :hammers:

However this ratio gets worst, much much much worst as the game goes on.
So whilst it starts at 8 :hammers: for 25:gold: (disclaimer: example) which is effectively 3:gold: per hammer or put another way 1.5:commerce: per hammer considering banks/market/grocer it gets much worst.
At its start, its very profitable for the owner [offset cost at HQ], and somewhat profitable for the guys allies who host other branches.

By the end of the game, it costs 100:gold: for 10 hammers and also there is no going back [the host nation can't even adopt Merc, he must have SP].

100 :gold: per city is just FAAAAAAR too high. How could any city support this? I REALLY don't think that the developers intended it to be like this.

We aren't supposed to use corporations to kill off civs. It would be game breaking and if someone does use it like this at the end-game its pretty much exploitative.
It pretty much kills off any civ right there and there.

They way corporations were meant to be was that, the HQ civ would get lots of benefits, and the civs it spread to would get a lesser benefit. Its job wasn't to offensively kill someone, its job was to make you try and get as many resources as possible to get the most benefit, whilst the opponent civs get the least benefit but you still get the 15:gold: per town u spread to in their cities.

It was supposed to make banks, grocers and markets more useful because corporations would then have to pay 400gold+ to open a branch and remove a competing corporation - it was supposed to be a battle where you would try to spread as much as possible, and if they closed your branch, you would pay another 400gold until one person gives up (as a sort of auction). This would encourage much more for BankMarketGrocer to be used whereas before in warlords I would have them in 1-2 cities at best because my cities would be running at 90-100% science with the exception of the holy shrine city.

Before it made no sense that banks and markets had no purpose in the game when in real life they were sometimes considered more important that universities and definately observatories.

Well, I'm not yet convinced on this.

Here's the details of my current game:

I'm the HRE


I'm gonna stop you right there. My first game was Ethiopia, my second being Dutch.

Guess what, my 3rd is also HRE.
The current broken mechanic means the HRE and Zulu Unique Buildings are far too overpowered.


HRE courthouse gives -75% maintenance. Normal courtehouse is -50% and Zulu get -70%.

The thing you need to understand is that -75% is 100% better than -50%, not 25% better.

with -75% you quarter the maintenance, with -50% you halve it. As such ½ is twice as big as ¼.

To give you concrete values:

in my screenshot I paid 2000 inflation and 700 maintenance cost.

Lets say that the sum contribution of corporation was 2000:gold: per turn (including the corporation cost and its portion of the inflation).

That means that with a courthouse -50% I pay 2000:gold: every turn.
Hence with no courthouse it would have been 4000:gold: every turn.

Now HRE gets -75% which means you only pay 1000:gold: every turn.
Thats 100% more effective than a non-unique building and its far too powerful (although it wasn't designed like this).

With the 1000:gold: per turn I would get using HRE unique building I could run an extra 50-60% science.
So the HRE UB is not 25% better its not 50% better but its 100% more potent, and the effect it has in the game is even more than 100% more powerful.
Also remember that whilst you currently may not have a huge problem, the point I am making is not that the corporation cost is too much but rather that it ends up being multiplied by 3.5 (250%) towards the end of the game.
So every few turns I ended up having to turn the slider down, even though I hadn't done anything in particular during that turn to excuse it.



So as I said, I'm playing my 3rd game as HRE and feeling a little guilty about it :lol: :crazyeye: :lol: :crazyeye:

making corporation costs independent from inflation (just like foreign income is in the F2 screen) is my guess

I isolated my guess.

Good point about the Rathaus and Ikhanda power in combination with corporations. When I first read about corporations and saw some screenshots of their upkeep, I hadn't expected Firaxis to let courthouses effect them just because of the power it would give to the Ikhanda (I hadn't heard about the Rathaus yet).

I didn't start about it in the first post because it is only partly connected to the main subject and would split any discussion over two subjects. It deserves its own thread. Some unique buildings are just overpowered compared to others. I also consider the Dutch Dike overpowered (and I'm a Dutch guy, so that says something) for other reasons and that might also deserve its own thread. Still, balance between various civilizations isn't as important as balance in a main game feature. Praetorians also aren't balanced, but it isn't a real problem for me.

The easiest solution to the huge power now given to these two unique buildings (Rathaus and Ikhanda) would be to just halve corporate maintenance and let it be immune to the effects of courthouses or other maintenance reducing buildings.

Again, the point I'm trying to make is not that the costs are too high.

The point that I'm trying to make is that the game element named corporations can't be balanced when the costs varies between 100% and 300% of base cost (say 10 and 30 gold) while the benefits stay the same. Are the benefits balanced versus the 10 gold upkeep, versus 20 gold upkeep or versus 30 gold upkeep? They can never be balanced versus every value between 10 and 30.

Please don't turn this into a discussion on whether they corporations are too expensive or not. There are other threads in the Beyond the Sword subforum for that.

yes Yes YES.

When I explain to people my experiences, they keep thinking I want corporations to cost nothing, or that the problem is with me. I don't mind if the corporations were more expensive or if they were cheaper.

The problem is that the same thing which costs 500gold now ends up costing 2000gold later.

As it is, it requires free market, free speech and likely Univ. Suffrage + Emancipation to run a good capitalist economy as well as having a generalling good global diplomacy policy (allows u to get max resources to get the most benefit).
Also this needed long term planning by placing cottages and growing them upto this point as well as keeping a GP that is also required AND finally beelining for the particular Techs. you'll need.

Because if you think about it, even the 35:gold: per turn which I said I don't have a problem with, can't be supported in a farm-heavy workshop-heavy economy.

Point taken homan1983. I do realise HRE aren't the best example, they just happened to be the first civ I got randomly selected to play with.

Anyway, what would you do to remedy the situation (until Firaxis hopefully have a look at it)?

Decrease inflation rate?

OR

Decrease Corp. maintenance?

well there are 2 points to be made:

1) Why was it 0% - 100% pre BTS and now, in the year 2003AD its already 229%?

2) I don't mind if the cost of corporations is increased or decreased. This simply changes their use from being a different economy type (e.g. free market vs state property) to being a weapon. If that were to be the case then I could adapt and use it more aggressively.
However with military weapons, diplomatic embargos, trade and now espionage, I don't think that the game designers intended yet another way to actively destroy someone.

why would they add espionage and corporations in the same expansion, if they both did the same thing - namely to peacefully destroy others.

I think that corporation costs should be fixed and not affected with inflation. Thereafter the designers can decide how much they should cost and I would have no problem with it.

If they made corporations into a weapon I would be lying if I said I wouldn't be disappointed, but then at least I would know what Im dealing with - as it is, in the mid game corporations are great tools that allow you to compete and even surpass the economies of state properties with proper resource trading and economic infrastructure (cottages) but then suddenly as the turns go by, slowly but surely they start to cripple their host nation. The same aspect of the game with no real input from the player is doing the exact opposite of what it had 100 turns ago.

This is like espionage in turn 150 making the target city get +12 unahppiness, but the same mission in turn 200 gives +5 happy.

Either way however, I want corporations to be less impacted by inflation and have its effects remain stable regardless of time so that I know what I'm dealing with.

I'm prolly more a Marxist at heart anyway, the only reason I went Free Market and cottage eco. was that I found the economy much more fun and exciting, bringing aspects of economy, displomacy, UN, colony [yes they help BIGTIME by allowing your corps to spread with domestic prices AND giving you the resources you need] and espionage (influence civi - choose free market dammit you :P)

Roland - I'm flipping through the XML files and I've become confused. How on Earth are these values calculating out to these huge inflation numbers?

What do I need to change to switch inflation back to Warlords levels? Or to turn them off altogether?

Roland - I'm flipping through the XML files and I've become confused. How on Earth are these values calculating out to these huge inflation numbers?

What do I need to change to switch inflation back to Warlords levels? Or to turn them off altogether?

It's a starting to be a bit late here in the Netherlands, so I'll keep it short. As you're actually flipping through xml-files, I guess you're at least vaguely familiar with modding.

The inflation figures are stored in the file ...\Civilization 4\Beyond the Sword\Assets\XML\GameInfo\CIV4GameSpeedInfo.xml and are configured separately for every game speed. The variable iInflationOffset determines how many turns it takes for inflation to start increasing. The variable iInflationPercent determines how many hundreds of percent points inflation increases per game turn.

So for instance at normal speed, you see that iInflationOffset has a value of -120 meaning that inflation starts to increase after 120 turns. You can see that iInflationPercent is 45, meaning that inflation increases by 0.45% per game turn.
For your reference: there are 330 turns at quick speed, 500 turns at normal speed, 750 at epic speed and 1500 at marathon speed.

It's very easy to adjust the inflation ratio with these two parameters. To make inflation equal to 0% throughout the game, you could set iInflationPercent to 0 at your favourite game speed setting. I don't know how to give a cap to inflation. That is probably possible, but I guess you'd need to do more than modifying some xml files to achieve that.

1- change inflation to be Cost*(1+rate)^turn in game and then scaled to game speed
2- seperate inflation calculations from corp maitenance so that Cost*(turn*rate)+Cost-Corporations
3- Free market confers -50% costs
4- Free market confers -50% to ones you own and -25% to ones owned by others in your territory
5-Adjust maintenance for resource consumption to get smaller as the resource amount increases
6- Own Executives in city prevent decrease chances foriegn executive from setting up a corp

These are all things that don't require huge adjustments and might go some way to makign corps more competitive and less exploitable.

1 - this benefits the free market by reducing overall costs and not double counting them
1a- this also means that those with less costs will pay less regardless

2- this benefits solely corporations

3- makes the civic stronger for the inteneded purpose it has
3a- Must have a cap on max reduction

4- Makes civic stronger but also encourages outward growth and corporate invasions
4a- same as 3a

5- Can actually get to a point where production from resources outpaces costs
5a- makes having foreign corps in your city not as bad

6a- free market/enviro benefit for protection
6b- used in case of UN vote for enviro

I want these options on the table!

It's in the CivIVGameSpeedInfo xml file.

In Warlords inflation rises by the following %:
Normal speed 30 %
Epic speed 20 %
Marathon speed 10 %

In BtS inflation rises by the following %:
Normal speed 45 %
Epic speed 30 %
Marathon speed 15 %

They're offset by the same amount in Warlords and BtS:
Marathon -200
Epic -160
Normal -120

If I recall correctly, I think this is how many turns it takes to kick in...

Bear in mind that BtS has comparatively more turns than Warlords, hence the explosion of inflation towards the end.

Good luck.

So for instance at normal speed, you see that iInflationOffset has a value of -120 meaning that inflation starts to increase after 120 turns. You can see that iInflationPercent is 45, meaning that inflation increases by 0.45% per game turn.
For your reference: there are 330 turns at quick speed, 500 turns at normal speed, 750 at epic speed and 1500 at marathon speed.

It's very easy to adjust the inflation ratio with these two parameters. To make inflation equal to 0% throughout the game, you could set iInflationPercent to 0 at your favourite game speed setting. I don't know how to give a cap to inflation. That is probably possible, but I guess you'd need to do more than modifying some xml files to achieve that.

But this seems somewhat wrong. The Dutch screenshot showed a "normal speed" game.
According you your numbers, then the max inflation at the year 2050AD should be: (500-120)*.45 = 171%.

But we already know that in the year 2003AD I'm already getting 220% inflation.

I have a question: does you xml values take into account that in BTS the number of turns for all speeds have gone up?
(if you check http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=222075#NewFeat you will notice that the first point under "key new features" is that and I quote: 'More turns have been added to the game.' )

What is the actual turn count?

Edit: I checked them by hand. Roland had the counts right.

But this seems somewhat wrong. The Dutch screenshot showed a "normal speed" game.
According you your numbers, then the max inflation at the year 2050AD should be: (500-120)*.45 = 171%.

But we already know that in the year 2003AD I'm already getting 220% inflation.

I have a question: does you xml values take into account that in BTS the number of turns for all speeds have gone up?
(if you check http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=222075#NewFeat you will notice that the first point under "key new features" is that and I quote: 'More turns have been added to the game.' )

I not sure that inflation offset value works as we think. I get the impression all inflation rates will max out at 225%. I've reached 1964 (Epic speed) and inflation's already at 185%.

solutions
obviously this is a new resource consumption cost idea.
initial cost before resource consumption = 10
cost per resource = 2

parameters
6 resources consumed
2 corps per city
10 cities
HQ income = 300
total cost=440
game year = 350
other maintenance = 125 (civic upkeep, units)
foreign expenses = 100

((565*(350*.0045)+565)-300+100 = 1254
((565(1+.0010)^350)-300+100 = 601 this is with compound inflation
((440+(125*.0045*350)-300+100 = 436 this is with corp costs not calculated

now assuming state property
corp costs = 0
upkeep = 250
foreign= 100

250(350*.0045)+250+100= 743 current
250(1+.0010)^350+100=454 compound inflation
250(350*.0045)+250+100= 743 no corp costs counted

this might show that a compound inflation rate is better because with corps you pay more than normal and without them you pay less, but dont get the benefits

I not sure that inflation offset value works as we think. I get the impression all inflation rates will max out at 225%. I've reached 1964 (Epic speed) and inflation's already at 185%.

Yea, I also re-read the Original Post and it seems he said that he is using 3.02 patch xmls.

I hadn't gotten round to patching it (been busy playing and real life :):crazyeye: :lol: :goodjob: ) but perhaps one of the changes in this patch was to lower the inflation.

Although its more likely that you're right about us not understanding the terms used in the xml since yo also get 185% and I'm assuming you have the latest patch?

The problem on corporation for me is that it forces me to use state property to compete late game.

In vanilla/warlords, people can claim that state property is the most useful civic but yet i find it enjoyable to use environmentalism/free market to exploit health/trade routes to compete on research.

There is no solution other than state property in BTS at late game in order to compete effectively if you do not monopolise the corporations.

That to me is game breaking.

Corporation shouldn't be free of cost. I fully agree that there must be cost attached to the benefits. But the way the present game is structured, it is useless because it prevents me from running an economy that can compete UNLESS i run state property.

I see the point of inflation. I don't think it is the % that is damaging since everyone gets the same inflation rate in the game.

Its the magnitude of corporation game dynamics that kills the game for me. The base cost of foreign corps/domestic corps is too high and there are no other counters to it beside state property.

Make corporation maintenance cost lower for balance things up.

There is no solution other than state property in BTS at late game in order to compete effectively if you do not monopolise the corporations.


And who on earth would want to waste 7 good Great People just so they can monopolize corporations? What an absolute waste. I'd rather use them to get 2-3 GAs which is spretty damn good esp. with the wonder the gives +50% duration.

I have faith that it'll be fixed though - I dont think this is intended.

I think it really is a simple fact of
1. Inflation amount
+
2. Corporate Maintenance amount

being too much

If inflation was scaled back to a 0-100% scale (instead of the 0-225% that it seems to be because the base levels weren't adjusted
AND
Corporation maintenance was decreased slightly

it might be managable... first of all because with 0-100 the variation for when corporations are around would be decreased (to probably 25% to 75%) for a 1.25-1.75 or say 10 v. 14 cost for a corporation (much better than a 10 v 20)
Combine that with a decrease in cost, and it would be reasonable.

looking at the benefits, I'd imagine they should be roughly similar to Universal Suffrage (for the Food/Hammers one) so ~3 gold for 1 hammer (or Food)... now because of Courthouses, that could be increased to 6m, and because of better Inflation dropped to maybe 4m or 5m per resource.

Alternative 2 is the base corporate cost+ much smaller cost per amount of production. In that case the Base cost should be about equal to the 5 raw gold=10 or 15 Gold gained from the corp (15m Courthouse+max Inflation) and perhaps 2m per resource (Civilized Jewelers is interesting because its output is partially Gold, so it should probably be good since 1 raw gold->2 Gold which should just hold off against Inflation.)
since
1 Food->3 Gold (so 2.25 from Mills) with Merchants+gold Boosters
1 Hammer-> 2 Gold (so 2 from Mills) with Wealth+production boosters
that would make it always worthwhile to get more resources

so assuming 33% Inflation+Courthouses+Free Market for foreign Mining Co
or 60% Inflation+Courthouses+Environmentalism
Hammer (treasury cost1:2)
1 (8:17)
2 (9:19) *US with best condition [assuming Factory+Power]
3 (10:21)
4 (11:23) *US with worst condition [assuming Factory+Power]
5 (12:25)
6 (13:27)
etc. if that is too easy perhaps 4 m per resource so
Hammer/resources (treasury cost1:2)
1 (9:19)
2 (11:23)*better than US for best condition
3 (13:27)
4 (15:31)
5 (17:35)
6 (19:39)
7 (21:43)
8 (23:47) * better than US for poor condition

That would make it always usefull to spread your own corp to yourself even under Mercantilism (15 Wall Street Gold=15 Courthouse Maintenance at 100% Inflation)
Free Market would allow you to reasonably benefit from foreign corps if you had enough resources (and would make your own corps even better money makers)

I'd probably keep Inflation tied to turn, but just 0-100% (with a cap at the end for those people who want to keep playing past the time limit.)

It would still give the Rathaus/Ihanda a strong bonus (perhaps they can be changed to include a +X% to Corporation Maintenance in this City as needed.) but that is less major than a game mechanic level problem.

Anyway - it's incredible how such a BIG problem passed through testing phase. :(

Regards all

I set up a test mod to find out what went wrong with the inflation percentage calculation that I did, but I couldn't find the problem. Every test I did followed the formula that I used. There is another percentage in the CIV4HandicapInfo.xml file which lowers inflation at lower difficulty levels (Prince and lower), I didn't mention that in my first post. But people in this thread say that they are experiencing higher inflation rates than the ones that the formula predicts, so that is strange.

The formula I used always fit all of my vanilla and warlords games and also fits my tests. My tests were limited to low levels of inflation as I didn't want to test for hours of clicking next turn. So the formula must have changed in a way that only shows up later in the game or something went wrong (bug) with the inflation percentage calculation in some games.

I've already changed the way inflation works in my game, so I don't have a game in an advanced state to see the higher than predicted inflation rates.

All of this of course doesn't change the fact that inflation and corporations shouldn't influence each other. If inflation is higher than what I said in the first post, then it only makes it harder to balance the profitability of corporations versus the varying inflation percentages during a game.

Note that there are more turns in BtS game, then in warlords or vanilla. I think 500.

Note that there are more turns in BtS game, then in warlords or vanilla. I think 500.

That effect has been taken into account.

All of this of course doesn't change the fact that inflation and corporations shouldn't influence each other.

Well - in "real life" in fact State Property generate a much more and constant inflation than corporations & Free Market ... :p

But this is another aspect - of course.

Regards

As long as corporations can act like actual weapons, the model is always going to be flawed. That's not an opinion, but a fact. It's not suppose to be cheap, but obviously profitable or why would I even bother investing all that money to begin with? And the answer to that question is NOT to cripple the enemy, that's such an obvious exploit, forcing players to change to State Property.

I like some of the solutions being presented here here, especially the ones promoting Free Market. I want diversity!! :)

I did some experimenting yesterday, and you've swayed me on the inflation part. In Warlords the formula checks out every time, but in BtS it's completely out of whack:

(Turn - Offset) * InflationPercent * "Difficulty modifier"

Two examples:
In turn 337 of a Normal speed Warlords game on Noble I should have
(337 - 120) * 0,30 * 0,9 = 58,59 (rounded down) % inflation - and this checks out if I load an old Warlords save with these conditions.

In turn 339 of a Normal speed BtS game on Noble I should have
(339 - 120) * 0,45 * 0,9 = 88,69 (rounded down) % inflation, but I actually have 125%!!

Now fast forward to when things really start getting insane:
In turn 433 I should have had, according to the formula, 126% inflation, but in fact I have 203! And in turn 499 it has gone all the way up to a whooping 266%!!

I present to you that Firaxis has either intentionally changed the formula that calculates inflation rate or, most likely, there is a bug that causes a fault in the calculation.

I think this inflation issue needs a proper thread all of its own in this forum, to bring attention to it. The Corporations "issue" is but a question of balance which may or may not need addressing, and I'm not taking a stand on the matter until I've played more BtS games.

I did some experimenting yesterday, and you've swayed me on the inflation part. In Warlords the formula checks out every time, but in BtS it's completely out of whack:

(Turn - Offset) * InflationPercent * "Difficulty modifier"

Two examples:
In turn 337 of a Normal speed Warlords game on Noble I should have
(337 - 120) * 0,30 * 0,9 = 58,59 (rounded down) % inflation - and this checks out if I load an old Warlords save with these conditions.

In turn 339 of a Normal speed BtS game on Noble I should have
(339 - 120) * 0,45 * 0,9 = 88,69 (rounded down) % inflation, but I actually have 125%!!

Now fast forward to when things really start getting insane:
In turn 433 I should have had, according to the formula, 126% inflation, but in fact I have 203! And in turn 499 it has gone all the way up to a whooping 266%!!

I present to you that Firaxis has either intentionally changed the formula that calculates inflation rate or, most likely, there is a bug that causes a fault in the calculation.

I think this inflation issue needs a proper thread all of its own in this forum, to bring attention to it. The Corporations "issue" is but a question of balance which may or may not need addressing, and I'm not taking a stand on the matter until I've played more BtS games.

Yes, I noticed that the formula for inflation must have changed. It starts with the normal rise in inflation according to the formula, but at some time, the rate increases. With enough figures (turn number vs inflation rate), the formula can be derived. It is easier when the difficulty level modifier is not a factor.

It seems to be close to a doubling of the inflation rate increase after 240 turns. Close, but not exact. Someone who could take a look at the new inflation formula in the code could also be helpful.

Yes, I noticed that the formula for inflation must have changed. It starts with the normal rise in inflation according to the formula, but at some time, the rate increases. With enough figures (turn number vs inflation rate), the formula can be derived. It is easier when the difficulty level modifier is not a factor.

It seems to be close to a doubling of the inflation rate increase after 240 turns. Close, but not exact. Someone who could take a look at the new inflation formula in the code could also be helpful.

Yes, I started out with the presumption that I could tweak the numbers in the XMLs to get the inflation rate to were it should be according to the Warlords/Vanilla formula, but it seems (Turn - Offset) is not being multiplied by a fixed number, but rather a steadily growing one.

How many reference points would you need to figure out the new formula? With some worldbuilder magic, it's quite easy to set up a game where you can just keep clicking "next turn" without delays.

Using this method, the inflation rate at any given turn checks out with the various savegames from my "proper" BtS playthroughs, so we can at least conclude that the calculation is still independent from what's going on in the game.

I present to you that Firaxis has either intentionally changed the formula that calculates inflation rate or, most likely, there is a bug that causes a fault in the calculation.There was an intentional rise in inflation. (I don't know details.) Check out the middle of the "Huge Inflation" thread.

There was an intentional rise in inflation. (I don't know details.) Check out the middle of the "Huge Inflation" thread.

Yes, this is evident from the XML-files. The million dollar question is whether the formula itself was intentionally changed.

Edit:
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=5731755&postcount=40
I guess this means the new formula was no accident. I have nothing further to contribute to this thread, then.

There was an intentional rise in inflation. (I don't know details.) Check out the middle of the "Huge Inflation" thread.

Yeah its this one:

The higher inflation in BTS is intended to slow down the late-game tech rate, but if anyone has a save showing negative maintenance from number of cities, please post it.
Thanks!

And I just did some code crunching - don't like what I see (careful long spoilers ahead ;) )


int CvPlayer::calculateInflationRate() const
{
int iTurns = ((GC.getGameINLINE().getGameTurn() + GC.getGameINLINE().getElapsedGameTurns()) / 2);
iTurns += GC.getGameSpeedInfo(GC.getGameINLINE().getGameSpee dType()).getInflationOffset();

if (iTurns <= 0)
{
return 0;
}

int iInflationPerTurnTimes10000 = GC.getGameSpeedInfo(GC.getGameINLINE().getGameSpee dType()).getInflationPercent();
iInflationPerTurnTimes10000 *= GC.getHandicapInfo(getHandicapType()).getInflation Percent();
iInflationPerTurnTimes10000 /= 100;

int iModifier = m_iInflationModifier;
if (!isHuman() && !isBarbarian())
{
int iAIModifier = GC.getHandicapInfo(GC.getGameINLINE().getHandicapT ype()).getAIInflationPercent();
iAIModifier *= max(0, ((GC.getHandicapInfo(GC.getGameINLINE().getHandica pType()).getAIPerEraModifier() * getCurrentEra()) + 100));
iAIModifier /= 100;

iModifier += iAIModifier - 100;
}

iInflationPerTurnTimes10000 *= max(0, 100 + iModifier);
iInflationPerTurnTimes10000 /= 100;

// Keep up to second order terms in binomial series
int iRatePercent = (iTurns * iInflationPerTurnTimes10000) / 100;
iRatePercent += (iTurns * (iTurns - 1) * iInflationPerTurnTimes10000 * iInflationPerTurnTimes10000) / 2000000;

FAssert(iRatePercent >= 0);

return iRatePercent;
}


int CvPlayer::calculateInflatedCosts() const
{
int iCosts;

iCosts = calculatePreInflatedCosts();

iCosts *= max(0, (calculateInflationRate() + 100));
iCosts /= 100;

return iCosts;
}



int CvPlayer::calculateInflationRate()
{
int iTurns;
int iRate;

iTurns = ((GC.getGameINLINE().getGameTurn() + GC.getGameINLINE().getElapsedGameTurns()) / 2);
iTurns += GC.getGameSpeedInfo(GC.getGameINLINE().getGameSpee dType()).getInflationOffset();

if (iTurns < 0)
{
return 0;
}

iRate = iTurns;

iRate *= GC.getGameSpeedInfo(GC.getGameINLINE().getGameSpee dType()).getInflationPercent();
iRate /= 100;

iRate *= GC.getHandicapInfo(getHandicapType()).getInflation Percent();
iRate /= 100;

if (!isHuman() && !isBarbarian())
{
iRate *= GC.getHandicapInfo(GC.getGameINLINE().getHandicapT ype()).getAIInflationPercent();
iRate /= 100;

iRate *= max(0, ((GC.getHandicapInfo(GC.getGameINLINE().getHandica pType()).getAIPerEraModifier() * getCurrentEra()) + 100));
iRate /= 100;
}

FAssert(iRate >= 0);

return iRate;
}


int CvPlayer::calculateInflatedCosts()
{
int iCosts;

iCosts = calculatePreInflatedCosts();

iCosts *= max(0, (calculateInflationRate() + 100));
iCosts /= 100;

return iCosts;
}



From looking at the code:

they changed the calculation extremely
For the calculations I take the following values:
a) InflationPercent from Gamespeed (Normal): 45 (BtS) 30 (Warlords)
b) InflationPercent from Handicap (Noble): 90 (both)
c) InflationOffset from Gamespeed (Normal): -120 (both)
d) AIInflationPercent from Handicap (Noble): 80 (BtS) 70 (Warlords)
e) Turn (25%, 50%, 75%, 100% of turns): 125/250/375/500 (BtS) 115/230/345/460 (Warlords) all start on Ancient start


So now lets get started ;)





iTurns = ((GC.getGameINLINE().getGameTurn() + GC.getGameINLINE().getElapsedGameTurns()) / 2);
iTurns= 115/230/345/460


iTurns += GC.getGameSpeedInfo(GC.getGameINLINE().getGameSpee dType()).getInflationOffset();
iTurns= -5/110/225/340


iRate = iTurns;

iRate *= GC.getGameSpeedInfo(GC.getGameINLINE().getGameSpee dType()).getInflationPercent();
iRate /= 100;

iRate *= GC.getHandicapInfo(getHandicapType()).getInflation Percent();
iRate /= 100;


so iRate= 0/29/60/91
I ignore AI Inflation ;)





iTurns (after Offset, since this is the same for both) = 5/130/255/380



int iInflationPerTurnTimes10000 = GC.getGameSpeedInfo(GC.getGameINLINE().getGameSpee dType()).getInflationPercent();
iInflationPerTurnTimes10000 *= GC.getHandicapInfo(getHandicapType()).getInflation Percent();
iInflationPerTurnTimes10000 /= 100;


iInflationPerTurnTimes10000= 36



int iModifier = m_iInflationModifier;
does not seem to be 0 for Human players... I ignore AI stuff



iInflationPerTurnTimes10000 *= max(0, 100 + iModifier);
iInflationPerTurnTimes10000 /= 100;


iInflationPerTurnTimes10000= 36



int iRatePercent = (iTurns * iInflationPerTurnTimes10000) / 100;


iRatePercent= 1/46/91/136


iRatePercent += (iTurns * (iTurns - 1) * iInflationPerTurnTimes10000 * iInflationPerTurnTimes10000) / 2000000;


iRatePercent= 1/56/132/473


Thus at each quarter of turns played inflation on Noble/Normal is:


0/29/60/91 Percent for Warlords
1/56/132/473 Percent for BtS


So inflation is really increased :eek:

Yes, I also read the inflation formula on another thread. I hadn't realized that they had changed it when I started this thread. Now inflation does not have a linear relation to game turn, but a quadratic one. This is not something that I like, but I don't like the strange cost increasing factor called inflation at all because it is based on game turn.

However, this is actually a different issue (although related) to the one in this thread. I also can't really call it a bug. It's more a game mechanic that I don't like. I'm sure to mod it for myself, but I'm not going to report it as a bug.

Yes, I also read the inflation formula on another thread. I hadn't realized that they had changed it when I started this thread. Now inflation does not have a linear relation to game turn, but a quadratic one. This is not something that I like, but I don't like the strange cost increasing factor called inflation at all because it is based on game turn.

However, this is actually a different issue (although related) to the one in this thread. I also can't really call it a bug. It's more a game mechanic that I don't like. I'm sure to mod it for myself, but I'm not going to report it as a bug.

I think it's a bug. That much inflation is such a terrible design change that I give Firaxis the benefit of the doubt and consider it a mistake.

I've been trying to work out what exactly was intended by this section of code:

// Keep up to second order terms in binomial series
int iRatePercent = (iTurns * iInflationPerTurnTimes10000) / 100;
iRatePercent += (iTurns * (iTurns - 1) * iInflationPerTurnTimes10000 * iInflationPerTurnTimes10000) / 2000000;

It's pretty clear what this code does, however I'm curious about what formula it was derived from (a Binomial series is an approximation of...actually, a Google search will turn up an explanation faster if you aren't familiar with the term). I'm reasonably sure whoever wrote this code was actually referring to a Taylor series - a special case of the Binomial series.

The problem I'm having is that I don't think any Binomial series would generate those two terms. What I'm wondering, therefore, is if it's possible that a zero was dropped or added to one of the terms. For example, taking away two zeros in the second term would give us:

]// Keep up to second order terms in binomial series
int iRatePercent = (iTurns * iInflationPerTurnTimes10000) / 100;
iRatePercent += (iTurns * (iTurns - 1) * iInflationPerTurnTimes10000 * iInflationPerTurnTimes10000) / 20000;

The code would then be a Taylor series approximation of (1 + iInflationPerTurnTimes10000/100)^iTurns.

If, however, the programmer forgot to add a zero we would then end up with:

]// Keep up to second order terms in binomial series
int iRatePercent = (iTurns * iInflationPerTurnTimes10000) / 1000;
iRatePercent += (iTurns * (iTurns - 1) * iInflationPerTurnTimes10000 * iInflationPerTurnTimes10000) / 2000000;

The code would then be a Taylor series approximation of (1 + iInflationPerTurnTimes10000/1000)^iTurns.

A third possibility exists, of course, which is that although the code may have began as a tailor series approximation of one of the two above, it was decided at some time during the development cycle to modify it to its present state. I'm guessing, given how vast a disparity there is between Warlords and BtS in this regard that (1 + iInflationPerTurnTimes10000/1000)^iTurns was what was intended. Using this we would get the following numbers (using the same test data as in ori's post):

0/29/60/91 Percent for Warlords
0/15/51/107 Percent for BtS

It seems, at least to me, that the above is much more likely what was intended - slower inflation at first, faster inflation later on.

Using this we would get the following numbers (using the same test data as in ori's post):

0/29/60/91 Percent for Warlords
0/15/51/107 Percent for BtS

It seems, at least to me, that the above is much more likely what was intended - slower inflation at first, faster inflation later on.

While that is some excellent and persuasive thinking, Alexman has already stated that inflation has been intentionally increased. Your model would lead to a final inflation rate only modestly higher than Warlords, and for a large portion of the game it would actually be lower.

Well I think, particularly with respect to Corporations, it has been increased too much. If the high level of inflation (good for making Civic/city/unit maintenance important late game) is desired then perhaps get Corporate Maintenance and Seperate it (probably give a flat *2 or *3 to current values since it would no longer be subject to Inflation.) If Possible to get it to still be affected by Courthouses that would be good.

Have it add in after Inflation (before Foreign expenses)

because otherwise the benefit/cost ratio rapidly changes, due to the rapidly changing Inflation

(also it would be good to have a cap on Inflation for those who like to keep playing way past the time limit)

I used your numbers verbatim so I hope they’re right because I can’t for the life of me determine how you arrived at the final set of numbers (for Beyond the Sword, your Warlords numbers seem fine).

I’ll be assuming these are correct:

From looking at the code:

they changed the calculation extremely
For the calculations I take the following values:
a) InflationPercent from Gamespeed (Normal): 45 (BtS) 30 (Warlords)
b) InflationPercent from Handicap (Noble): 90 (both)
c) InflationOffset from Gamespeed (Normal): -120 (both)
d) AIInflationPercent from Handicap (Noble): 80 (BtS) 70 (Warlords)
e) Turn (25%, 50%, 75%, 100% of turns): 125/250/375/500 (BtS) 115/230/345/460 (Warlords) all start on Ancient start



And these are very, very wrong =)

iTurns (after Offset, since this is the same for both) = 5/130/255/380



int iInflationPerTurnTimes10000 = GC.getGameSpeedInfo(GC.getGameINLINE().getGameSpee dType()).getInflationPercent();
iInflationPerTurnTimes10000 *= GC.getHandicapInfo(getHandicapType()).getInflation Percent();
iInflationPerTurnTimes10000 /= 100;


iInflationPerTurnTimes10000= 36



int iModifier = m_iInflationModifier;
does not seem to be 0 for Human players... I ignore AI stuff



iInflationPerTurnTimes10000 *= max(0, 100 + iModifier);
iInflationPerTurnTimes10000 /= 100;


iInflationPerTurnTimes10000= 36



int iRatePercent = (iTurns * iInflationPerTurnTimes10000) / 100;


iRatePercent= 1/46/91/136


iRatePercent += (iTurns * (iTurns - 1) * iInflationPerTurnTimes10000 * iInflationPerTurnTimes10000) / 2000000;


iRatePercent= 1/56/132/473


iTurns = 5/130/255/380 (correct)
iInflationPerTurnTimes10000 = 45 * 90 / 100 = 40
iRatePercent = 2/65/153/267

Now, using the correct iInflationPerTurnTimes10000 this time in my previous post’s calculations:
(1 + iInflationPerTurnTimes10000/1000)^iTurns: 0/18/61/130

So, to summarize:
0/29/60/91 inflation in Warlords
2/65/153/267 inflation in Beyond the Sword
0/18/61/130 inflation with (1 + iInflationPerTurnTimes10000/1000)^iTurns

While that is some excellent and persuasive thinking, Alexman has already stated that inflation has been intentionally increased. Your model would lead to a final inflation rate only modestly higher than Warlords, and for a large portion of the game it would actually be lower.

Take a look at my above post (assuming the numbers are all correct now :blush: )

I cannot fathom why, if the developers decided to pull away from their original design for this function (as a Binomial series - very, very likely one of the two I posted above) and yet continue to use a slightly butchered Taylor series. To me, it appears that some designer came up with a curve they thought would work well for inflation [(1 + iInflationPerTurnTimes10000/1000)^iTurns] and at some point during the implementation of that curve in the function CvPlayer::calculateInflationRate() someone screwed up and dropped a zero. In fact, that part of the function makes so much more sense to me with that modification that I would be astonished if that was not the intended implementation.

Edit:
I took a look at what I posted again, and while I was correct in that the function appeared to be setup to use the first two terms of a Taylor approximation of [(1 + iInflationPerTurnTimes10000/1000)^iTurns] I'm not quite sure why I assumed it would make a good approximation of that function, especially at higher turn levels :eek:. This effectively makes my above post look rather silly.

While it still seems, to me at least, that the hypothetical numbers posted above for inflation under a the two-term [(1 + iInflationPerTurnTimes10000/1000)^iTurns] approximation I posted above are a better 'fit' than the Vanilla method I have to admit that my argument is significantly weaker after putting a bit of coherent thought into what I said. The function was clearly never intended to closely approximate [(1 + iInflationPerTurnTimes10000/1000)^iTurns]. Whether or not that means that the code was an intentionally botched Binomial series remains to be seen.

Take a look at my above post (assuming the numbers are all correct now :blush: )

I cannot fathom why, if the developers decided to pull away from their original design for this function (as a Binomial series - very, very likely one of the two I posted above) and yet continue to use a slightly butchered Taylor series. To me, it appears that some designer came up with a curve they thought would work well for inflation [(1 + iInflationPerTurnTimes10000/1000)^iTurns] and at some point during the implementation of that curve in the function CvPlayer::calculateInflationRate() someone screwed up and dropped a zero. In fact, that part of the function makes so much more sense to me with that modification that I would be astonished if that was not the intended implementation.

Actually I was just about to comment how the numbers looked much more reasonable in your last post. Would this be possible to mod into the game?

Please please fix that. I need a quick fix for normal BTS and rhye's that fixes that. I can't stand playing past 1900 with 100+ inflation. If everyone of my cities has courthouses and full econ buildings why must I run at 20% even without corporations? Broken.

Actually I was just about to comment how the numbers looked much more reasonable in your last post. Would this be possible to mod into the game?

Certainly - as it happens I'd just compiling this change to give it a shot myself. Bear in mind this has not been play tested, but given how minor the change was I don't foresee any problems. Anyway, here's the rapid share link:

http://rapidshare.com/files/45230982/FixedInflation.zip.html

Certainly - as it happens I'd just compiling this change to give it a shot myself. Bear in mind this has not been play tested, but given how minor the change was I don't foresee any problems. Anyway, here's the rapid share link:

http://rapidshare.com/files/45230982/FixedInflation.zip.html

Thank you :) Seeing how this plays out is the main idea for me too.. As it is I have no problem with the new ramped up inflation in my games, even when it's surpassing 200% I can run a corporation in a handful of cities with all the resources I can get my hands on, and still get + >100 gold per turn at 10-20% taxation. (Indeed I just tried spamming corn in worldbuiler to see how my Standard Ethanol cities would fare.) I'd be curious to see how your change will affect balance.

I used your numbers verbatim so I hope they’re right because I can’t for the life of me determine how you arrived at the final set of numbers (for Beyond the Sword, your Warlords numbers seem fine).

I’ll be assuming these are correct:
they are for sure ;)


And these are very, very wrong =)


iTurns = 5/130/255/380 (correct)
iInflationPerTurnTimes10000 = 45 * 90 / 100 = 40
:blush: I accidentally typed 40*90 into my calculator - not 45*90 :blush:


iRatePercent = 2/65/153/267

sounds much better :D

Okay, I'll admit it! I only read all the replies in this thread up to page two. I don't have BTS either. :( But, from reading this thread, I think I have a pretty idea of how corporations work and I've come to a conclusion: Basically you're "investing" some money into a bank account and as time goes on, you lose money out of that bank account. It's like compound interest, except that you lose money instead of gain money.

@Macsbug

I wonder why the developers would choose an exponential function as the basis for the inflation cost (which is just a factor to increase maintenance). The wealth of your empire doesn't grow exponentially. Cottages grow slower over time and stop at some point and there are only a very limited number of buildings that can improve gold (market, grocer, bank). Cities are also very limited in size and don't grow forever. At some point, the growth of the economy in civ4 actually slows down when cottages have fully developed, banks, markets and grocers have been constructed and cities reach their maximum size. So why would the balancing factor called inflation have an exponential formula. From a game developers point of view, it doesn't make sense.

As a mathematician, I must say that you're maybe right about their goal to use a Taylor approximation on a more complicated formula. It's probably much quicker to calculate the Taylor series approximation than the original formula.

@ Macsbug:
I've played around with your modified formula a bit, and while it seems to be a godsend for those spam-happy corporate AIs, I myself am making way to much money before the inflation rate starts exceeding 100%.

This whole setup seems all backwards in terms of gameplay and balance. The inflation rate should rise rapidly at first and then start stagnating - just as the player's income :crazyeye: (That's a criticism of Firaxis' choice of implementation, and not your commendable attempt at improving it, just so you know.)

Will this be backward-compatible with current save games?

If not, I'll just have to start a new game, I suppose.

Count me in on the Beta test team! :goodjob:

@ Macsbug:
I've played around with your modified formula a bit, and while it seems to be a godsend for those spam-happy corporate AIs, I myself am making way to much money before the inflation rate starts exceeding 100%.

This whole setup seems all backwards in terms of gameplay and balance. The inflation rate should rise rapidly at first and then start stagnating - just as the player's income :crazyeye: (That's a criticism of Firaxis' choice of implementation, and not your commendable attempt at improving it, just so you know.)

Lars -- how much is 'way too much'? Can you maybe post a save?

Lars -- how much is 'way too much'?

A couple of hundred gold per turn with 0% taxation. I'll see if I can't find a save for you when I can get at my civving computer.

:goodjob: Will this be backward-compatible with current save games?

If not, I'll just have to start a new game, I suppose.

Count me in on the Beta test team! :goodjob:

I'll test it too. :goodjob:

but you might not ever get the results ;)

These are the current BtS inflation rates at all difficulty/speed levels.
Expanded BtS inflation rates:


Marathon Epic Normal Quick
Settler 0.16/0.61/1.17/1.85 0.04/0.45/0.98/1.62 0.01/0.41/0.91/1.54 0.04/0.43/0.92/1.52
Chieftain 0.18/0.70/1.34/2.14 0.05/0.55/1.19/1.99 0.01/0.48/1.10/1.86 0.05/0.51/1.10/1.85
Warlord 0.23/0.87/1.72/2.77 0.06/0.64/1.42/2.41 0.01/0.56/1.32/2.29 0.06/0.61/1.34/2.26
Noble 0.24/0.96/1.92/3.11 0.07/0.74/1.66/2.85 0.02/0.65/1.53/2.67 0.06/0.70/1.54/2.63
Prince 0.26/1.06/2.12/3.47 0.07/0.78/1.75/3.01 0.02/0.68/1.64/2.86 0.07/0.73/1.64/2.83
Monarch 0.29/1.15/2.34/3.84 0.08/0.84/1.92/3.33 0.02/0.74/1.79/3.16 0.07/0.79/1.80/3.11
Emperor 0.29/1.15/2.34/3.84 0.08/0.84/1.92/3.33 0.02/0.74/1.79/3.16 0.07/0.79/1.80/3.11
Immortal 0.29/1.15/2.34/3.84 0.08/0.84/1.92/3.33 0.02/0.74/1.79/3.16 0.07/0.79/1.80/3.11
Deity 0.29/1.15/2.34/3.84 0.08/0.84/1.92/3.33 0.02/0.74/1.79/3.16 0.07/0.79/1.80/3.11


Edit: I should add that these are the values for the Vanilla version of the game, not for the mod I posted above. The inflation rates at turn 25%/50%/75%/100% of the total number of turns in the relevent difficulty setting.

Inflation rates for the modded version of the formula I posed above:

Marathon Epic Normal Quick
Settler 0.02/0.16/0.42/0.79 0.00/0.01/0.33/0.66 0.00/0.09/0.29/0.62 0.00/0.09/0.29/0.61
Chieftain 0.02/0.20/0.51/0.97 0.00/0.14/0.43/0.88 0.00/0.12/0.38/0.80 0.00/0.13/0.38/0.79
Warlord 0.04/0.27/0.72/1.36 0.00/0.18/0.55/1.14 0.00/0.14/0.50/1.06 0.00/0.16/0.51/1.04
Noble 0.04/0.32/0.84/1.58 0.00/0.21/0.68/1.41 0.00/0.18/0.61/1.30 0.00/0.20/0.62/1.28
Prince 0.04/0.36/0.95/1.83 0.00/0.24/0.74/1.52 0.00/0.19/0.67/1.42 0.00/0.21/0.67/1.40
Monarch 0.05/0.41/1.09/2.08 0.00/0.26/0.84/1.73 0.00/0.21/0.76/1.62 0.00/0.24/0.76/1.58
Emperor 0.05/0.41/1.09/2.08 0.00/0.26/0.84/1.73 0.00/0.21/0.76/1.62 0.00/0.24/0.76/1.58
Immortal 0.05/0.41/1.09/2.08 0.00/0.26/0.84/1.73 0.00/0.21/0.76/1.62 0.00/0.24/0.76/1.58
Deity 0.05/0.41/1.09/2.08 0.00/0.26/0.84/1.73 0.00/0.21/0.76/1.62 0.00/0.24/0.76/1.58

Woah! Somehow I got it into my head "maximum" inflation rate (the rate by 2050) was the same at all game speeds. Holy cow, those Marathon numbers are nasty! >300% :eek: No wonder people are making a big deal out of it.

Both versions show an inflation rate that increases faster and faster as the game turns progress. As inflation was designed to counter the increasing profitability of cities, I think that it should have a similar curve as the curve of the profitability of cities. This increase of profitability of cities slows down in the industrial and modern age and finally grinds to a full stop because the tile improvements don't get any better and no new buildings are developed to improve the profitability of cities. So if inflation were designed to counter the increase in profitability of cities, then it should have the same behaviour in the industrial and modern age.

Inflation rates for the modded version of the formula I posed above:

Marathon Epic Normal Quick
Settler 0.02/0.16/0.42/0.79 0.00/0.01/0.33/0.66 0.00/0.09/0.29/0.62 0.00/0.09/0.29/0.61
Chieftain 0.02/0.20/0.51/0.97 0.00/0.14/0.43/0.88 0.00/0.12/0.38/0.80 0.00/0.13/0.38/0.79
Warlord 0.04/0.27/0.72/1.36 0.00/0.18/0.55/1.14 0.00/0.14/0.50/1.06 0.00/0.16/0.51/1.04
Noble 0.04/0.32/0.84/1.58 0.00/0.21/0.68/1.41 0.00/0.18/0.61/1.30 0.00/0.20/0.62/1.28
Prince 0.04/0.36/0.95/1.83 0.00/0.24/0.74/1.52 0.00/0.19/0.67/1.42 0.00/0.21/0.67/1.40
Monarch 0.05/0.41/1.09/2.08 0.00/0.26/0.84/1.73 0.00/0.21/0.76/1.62 0.00/0.24/0.76/1.58
Emperor 0.05/0.41/1.09/2.08 0.00/0.26/0.84/1.73 0.00/0.21/0.76/1.62 0.00/0.24/0.76/1.58
Immortal 0.05/0.41/1.09/2.08 0.00/0.26/0.84/1.73 0.00/0.21/0.76/1.62 0.00/0.24/0.76/1.58
Deity 0.05/0.41/1.09/2.08 0.00/0.26/0.84/1.73 0.00/0.21/0.76/1.62 0.00/0.24/0.76/1.58


would it be possible to offset some of these with a GPP style of increasing costs for setting up corporate offices? (200*(already created for that company-1)?

this might prevent corp office spamming.

@Macsbug

I wonder why the developers would choose an exponential function as the basis for the inflation cost (which is just a factor to increase maintenance). The wealth of your empire doesn't grow exponentially. Cottages grow slower over time and stop at some point and there are only a very limited number of buildings that can improve gold (market, grocer, bank). Cities are also very limited in size and don't grow forever. At some point, the growth of the economy in civ4 actually slows down when cottages have fully developed, banks, markets and grocers have been constructed and cities reach their maximum size. So why would the balancing factor called inflation have an exponential formula. From a game developers point of view, it doesn't make sense.

As a mathematician, I must say that you're maybe right about their goal to use a Taylor approximation on a more complicated formula. It's probably much quicker to calculate the Taylor series approximation than the original formula.

A Taylor approximation would indeed be much quicker in most computing applications. However, the stated two-term Taylor approximations of the functions do a very poor job of estimating the original formula - I don't know what the designers originally intended for that function, however it is clear that they did NOT intend the function to closely follow any of the exponential functions I posted (by the end of any game the approximation would be off by many orders of magnitude). Hence the reason for my edit in my previous post on the subject.

Both versions show an inflation rate that increases faster and faster as the game turns progress. As inflation was designed to counter the increasing profitability of cities, I think that it should have a similar curve as the curve of the profitability of cities. This increase of profitability of cities slows down in the industrial and modern age and finally grinds to a full stop because the tile improvements don't get any better and no new buildings are developed to improve the profitability of cities. So if inflation were designed to counter the increase in profitability of cities, then it should have the same behaviour in the industrial and modern age.

That sounds reasonable - why not give it a try? I, for one, have no idea what inflation rates would be balanced at what settings at what point in the game.

A Taylor approximation would indeed be much quicker in most computing applications. However, the stated two-term Taylor approximations of the functions do a very poor job of estimating the original formula - I don't know what the designers originally intended for that function, however it is clear that they did NOT intend the function to closely follow any of the exponential functions I posted (by the end of any game the approximation would be off by many orders of magnitude). Hence the reason for my edit in my previous post on the subject.

A quadratic function can never approximate an exponential function well. The exponential function will always outgrow the quadratic function after a while, so I'm not surprised that such an approximation would be poor. But I don't know what people at Firaxis know about this.

That sounds reasonable - why not give it a try? I, for one, have no idea what inflation rates would be balanced at what settings at what point in the game.

Phew, creating my own formula for inflation. But I dislike the very notion of the inflation game mechanic. ;)

The inflation game mechanic is there to have some meaningful cost level in the late game. Now that could be achieved in many ways. Before civ4, it was achieved by making some buildings have an upkeep cost. This was removed in civ4 in order to streamline the game, simplify it. Now, I don't mind removing pollution and replacing it with health or removing city rebellions in unhappy cities and replacing them with the new unhappiness system where unhappy citizens don't work. But removing building upkeep and replacing them with the system of city upkeep + inflation. Mwah.

City upkeep is good, it stops (or at least slows) the Rapid Expansion Strategy. It is good that it is hard to maintain a large empire with a primitive civilization. But after some technological developments, it starts to become meaningless. In the real world, modern cities do become more expensive and not because of some game turn number, but because you have to maintain more things. So I would just reintroduce building maintenance for the more modern buildings. That could go from 1 gpt for an observatory to 3 gpt for a factory.

Actually, that is what they did when they introduced corporations. Corporations are actually a type of buildings that requires maintenance. It does more than that as you can spread it to foreign empires and its maintenance is dependent on the number of resources used and it has a special headquarters, but in its basis it is a building that gives you something and requires a certain maintenance cost.

Other ways to increase late game costs:
Make the maintenance for more modern units higher than for ancient units. Knights and macemen and such could cost 2 gold per turn. Musketmen, grenadiers and cavalry 3 gold per turn. Infantry, sam infantry 4 gold per turn. Airplanes and mechanized units 6 gold per turn.
Probably a bit over the top. Yeah, these numbers should be a bit lower, but you get the idea.

I like to decide myself that I invest in something that increases my maintenance. I don't like it when my maintenance increases because I clicked next turn while nothing changed in my empire except the game turn number.

If you really think that it is best to create some abstract multiplier for the costs, then it should be dependent on the level of technological development. The technological development is a more accurate measure to see how profitable your cities are. Not perfect, but better than the turn number.

For instance, lets say that each age has 10 technologies (yes way off, just an example)
Ancient inflation: 0
Classical inflation: 0 + 1 per classical technology
Medieval inflation: 10 + 2 per medieval technology
Renaissance inflation: 30 + 3 per renaissance technology
Industrial inflation: 60 + 3 per industrial technology
Modern inflation: 90 + 1 per modern technology
Future inflation: 100

This is probably also not a perfect curve, but I must say that the profitability of my cities starts to increase greatly during the medieval and renaissance age because of the availability of buildings and the growth of cottages. Because of some superior civics, it continues to steadily grow in the industrial age. There's not a lot of improvement left in the modern age, so that's why inflation shouldn't grow that hard anymore in that age. The future age doesn't add anything anymore.

But I prefer the costs for buildings and units method. That way, you can see what you're paying for and you can decide whether you want that building/unit for that extra upkeep cost.

Holy crap I didn't realize that monarch (my level) had the same inflation as deity. :)

Where is this mod you have for the game btw? I'm finding a distinct lack of interest in playing anymore (hence spending tme here) because I can't face playing now, it just feels boring going SP/CS every game and im sick of HRE/Zulu, I wanna try some other civs with corporations without having to end my game by 1900.

The AI is so cool these days, just before I was posting about an experience I had: (this was actually the Dutch game, and this Egyptian is the same one that forced a huge drop in science %)!

Ditto

On my 2nd game I played as Dutch and went for a spacerace victory.
Close to completion I got raped by my pleased ally the Egyptians.

He came with 8 missile cruises which each had 4 missiles in them.
They proceeded to launch 4 nukes at my cities, and ~30 cruise missiles absolutely destroying the tile improvements in my country.
They also send a HUGE [and i mean HUUUGE] stack of transports and amphibiously assaulted one of my nuked cities capturing it.

They also brought subs and attack subs.
Finally, they had 3 carriers full of jet fighters which were in fact not even stationary but the smart AI has decided to put the on Intercept mission [air superiority] such that when I tried to first counterattack most of my jets were lost to the AI in a tit-for-tat air superiority war.

As soon as he lost some jets [which is about 50:50 considering I also had jets too] he would sent reinforcements onto the carriers and so on.

I got pissed and launched 3 ICBMs [yea I was pretty attached to my civ and was upset I got nuked] but all 3 got intercepted by his SDI...


Also you won't know the meaning of pain until you've experienced stealth destroyers. I was behind slightly in military tech and he had them whilst I didnt.

For those of you that don't know, stealth destroyers are completely invisible except to other stealth destroyers :mad: :mad: :crazyeye: :crazyeye:

Where is this mod you have for the game btw?

Certainly - as it happens I'd just compiling this change to give it a shot myself. Bear in mind this has not been play tested, but given how minor the change was I don't foresee any problems. Anyway, here's the rapid share link:

http://rapidshare.com/files/45230982/FixedInflation.zip.html

0123456789

Thank you, I had multiple tabs open and I think I just checked the wrong thread!

Phew, creating my own formula for inflation. But I dislike the very notion of the inflation game mechanic. 'scuse my ignorance, but if we want late game costs to increase, why not just increase the cost of later techs accordingly?? It would also be reasonable for more advanced (i.e., gunpowder) units to have more unit upkeep costs, and oil units even more still.
Add in, maybe, a city upkeep for age of city, and you have the system we have now, except less hidden costs and less screwing with corporations. (But coming up with all those numbers at this point is beyond me.)

'scuse my ignorance, but if we want late game costs to increase, why not just increase the cost of later techs accordingly?? It would also be reasonable for more advanced (i.e., gunpowder) units to have more unit upkeep costs, and oil units even more still.
Add in, maybe, a city upkeep for age of city, and you have the system we have now, except less hidden costs and less screwing with corporations. (But coming up with all those numbers at this point is beyond me.)

The idea is not only to make the technologies more expensive to research, but also to make buildings like banks interesting. They wouldn't be interesting when you're running a 90% research rate during most of the game.

But I agree with your higher upkeep cost for units. I happened to write the same suggestion in the post you quoted. I don't know what you mean with an upkeep for the age of the city. Do you mean how old it is (disagree) or in what age of advancement (ancient- modern) we are (could work)? That last one would be similar to the maintenance of modern buildings that I suggested except that it would be out of your control and would suddenly increase your costs when the age of the game advances.

Yea I sort of agree with Roland Joansen. I was so sick and tired of not building any Banks Markets Grocers in vanilla or warlords, or at least have them to be of almost no use.
The reason was that almost the entire game was ran at 80+% science.

The problem is however that the increased costs shouldn't be due to corporations. I think that when I had the 2100:gold: inflation, at least 2/3 was from corporations.
This doesn't inrease the use of commerce buildings but rather reduces the use of corporations.

In any case corporations always require a hefty amount of gold, it just that by the late game they don't justify their costs.

So if the cost of corporations was fixed throughout [the amount can be balanced if need be] the irony is that because of the :gold: cost science would actually be lower.

I happened to write the same suggestion in the post you quoted.d'oh! too much skimming.

Yea I sort of agree with Roland Joansen. I was so sick and tired of not building any Banks Markets Grocers in vanilla or warlords, or at least have them to be of almost no use.
The reason was that almost the entire game was ran at 80+% science.

The problem is however that the increased costs shouldn't be due to corporations. I think that when I had the 2100:gold: inflation, at least 2/3 was from corporations.
This doesn't inrease the use of commerce buildings but rather reduces the use of corporations.

In any case corporations always require a hefty amount of gold, it just that by the late game they don't justify their costs.

So if the cost of corporations was fixed throughout [the amount can be balanced if need be] the irony is that because of the :gold: cost science would actually be lower.

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=234094

Just my small suggestion. Increase the founding of an office costs each time you found a new one like GPP points. 200*(1+Corp Offices for specific corp already founded by you) is a start. This might also prevent the AI from spamming themselves.

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=234094

Just my small suggestion. Increase the founding of an office costs each time you found a new one like GPP points. 200*(1+Corp Offices for specific corp already founded by you) is a start. This might also prevent the AI from spamming themselves.

I suspect that the AI is hardcoded to spam corps. So as the game is now, that change would probably cripple the AI even more. However I like your idea. Personally I think that sounds too expensive but using a different scale for different mapsizes etc. would be appropriate.

I think you should make it cost more the further it is from the corp HQ instead.
How about something like:

100(1 + 0.4 * min(0,distance-4) )

where distance is the distance from the HQ to the city you're attempting to spread to.

This is for standard mapsize anyway.

Just an idea...

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=234094

Just my small suggestion. Increase the founding of an office costs each time you found a new one like GPP points. 200*(1+Corp Offices for specific corp already founded by you) is a start. This might also prevent the AI from spamming themselves.

:agree:

I suspect that the AI is hardcoded to spam corps.
I know for a fact this this isn't true because the AI doesn't spread corporations lke crazy.
My theory is that the AI doesn't take inflation into account when deciding if a corporation is "whorthwhile" but really it could be anything.

I know for a fact this this isn't true because the AI doesn't spread corporations lke crazy.
My theory is that the AI doesn't take inflation into account when deciding if a corporation is "whorthwhile" but really it could be anything.

I stand corrected.:)

I stand corrected.:)

:bowdown: :bowdown: 5:50am, when am I gonna get some sleep dammit!

:sleep: /bye :hatsoff:

I suspect that the AI is hardcoded to spam corps. So as the game is now, that change would probably cripple the AI even more. However I like your idea. Personally I think that sounds too expensive but using a different scale for different mapsizes etc. would be appropriate.

I think you should make it cost more the further it is from the corp HQ instead.
How about something like:

100(1 + 0.4 * min(0,distance-4) )

where distance is the distance from the HQ to the city you're attempting to spread to.

This is for standard mapsize anyway.

Just an idea...

the thing with the AI is that if the costs increase beyond a specific check on whether they have enough money, they will cease to be able to spread them. its somewhat novel i think.

well scaling goes without saying (i just dont know where you would start), but i think it might be more important to scale to gamespeed as you can accumulate much more gold huge/marathon (my favorite setting). this will also encourage corp spreading, corp mixing, judicious resource trading, etc etc.

bump that thread if you like the ideas. lets get some more discussion on it.

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=5751596&postcount=255

Thanks for the heads-up alexman, hopefully the AI won't capitulate in the late game anymore due to the presence of foreign corps. Do you have any idea how the changes will be made, e.g. dll or through xml tweaks? If so, I don't suppose you could hint at what precisely, so we could mod some changes ourselves in the interim while we wait for the patch?

http://forums