Corp Inflation Solution Thread

Spinal said:
Just from the manual itself, it seems Corps were created with a definitive positive and negative in mind.

I get that coupled with inflation, there may be a bug that is causing the cost to be way too high, and possibly makes it too strong of an ability to use against an opponent, however...

The majority of posts I've seen seem to be of the mind that this is intended to be beneficial only, and spread everywhere.

I really don't see this as the intent either. Even the basic manual seems to phrase it so that the downside of corporations can be considerable.

Like I said, not arguing a bug could exist, but I do think there is a major downside to the Corporations, that they were intended to be used carefully, and that placing them in opponents cities for a negative effect was also intended.

The strength of it, as opposed to their intent, can certainly be argued though.
Click to expand...

some of the limits of spreading them everywhere exist already: competition between companies, foreign competition of companies with your companies, maintenance, inflation, potential espionage to courthouse, finite resources.

also, you can spread them everywhere, as long as they arent your own cities, and potentially you can do your best if you simply just plop one down in a friendly colony or vassal, and let them take on all the costs by them spreading it themselves.

so it's a bit of a double standard. and the fact that the AI isn't exploiting the demolition of a courthouse if you have corps while you can easily see the net effect of this against them is a bit unfair too.
 
macsbug said:
The inflation rate is calculated in CvPlayer::calculateInflationRate(). On a brief scan through that function, it appears to be something to the effect of:
Modified Turn = (Turn – Inflation Offset)
Rate = Inflation Percent * Handicap Percent * Modifier
RP = (Modified Turn * Rate / 100) + [Modified Turn * (Modified Turn - 1)* Rate * Rate / 2000000]

Inflation Offset: Defined in the XML documents, varies with game speed.
Inflation Percent: Defined in the XML documents, varies with game speed.
Modifier: Represents any in-game modifier applied to inflation rate (such as the World Bank example I believe).
Handicap Percent: I’m not exactly sure what this is – I’m assuming it’s defined somewhere in the XML documents as well.

So, for example, if we take all of the above but Inflation Offset to be 100 (no modification), at a turn of say 100, and an inflation offset of 250:
Modified Turn = 50
Rate = 100
Rate = (50 * 100 / 100) + [50 * 50 * 100 * 100 / 2000000] = 62.5

I pulled the constants out of thin air - you'd need to check the XML files for real values. You’ll probably also want to pull up the CvPlayer.cpp file and check the math yourself, but that’s pretty much how it works.
Click to expand...

Thank you very much! I'm familiar with the constants from the XMLs. Hmm... I'll need to chew on this for a while.
 
I also thank you for the inflation formula. I must say that I find it weird that they introduced a quadratic (game turn related) term in the inflation formula. This means that inflation will keep increasing at an ever increasing rate compared to the turn number. Definitely something that I won't have in my personal modification. The notion that your civilization is eventually going to fall due to ever increasing inflation is not something I like.
 
I think I would just exempt corporate fees from inflation (while still applying inflation to regular city maintenance). This will make corporations get somewhat better over time---which isn't a bad thing.
 
Roland Johansen said:
I also thank you for the inflation formula. I must say that I find it weird that they introduced a quadratic (game turn related) term in the inflation formula. This means that inflation will keep increasing at an ever increasing rate compared to the turn number. Definitely something that I won't have in my personal modification. The notion that your civilization is eventually going to fall due to ever increasing inflation is not something I like.
Click to expand...

is this a way to encourage the space race? :lol:

seriously a quadratic in the inflation formula makes NO sense
 
Quadratic makes sense to me, although you might argue about what the constants should be. The other alternative would be exponential (which would be even more than quadratic, eventually). Just a linear growth rate for inflation would mean it either remains negligible throughout the game, or takes off to high levels way earlier than it usually does.

I don't see a problem with the inflation formulas as they haven't met with objections in the past two years. The issue is just how corporate fees are affected by inflation.
 
I did a bit of digging - I wasn't sure what the difference between getGameTurn() and getElapsedGameTurns() (see CvPlayer::calculateInflationRate()) was - so I tracked them down.

getGameTurn(): appears to measure time from 3000 BC
getElapsedGameTurns(): appears to measure time from when the game started

In any event, this change only applies when using the advanced start option. As above, except:
Modified Turn = [(Game Turn + Elapsed Turns)/2 – Inflation Offset]

If, for example, an advanced start option was starting at turn 50 and 50 turns had elapsed then:
Modified Turn = 75 - Inflation Offset

Where as using the formula I posted previously it would have been:
Modified Turn = 100 - Inflation Offset
 
DaviddesJ said:
Quadratic makes sense to me, although you might argue about what the constants should be. The other alternative would be exponential (which would be even more than quadratic, eventually). Just a linear growth rate for inflation would mean it either remains negligible throughout the game, or takes off to high levels way earlier than it usually does.

I don't see a problem with the inflation formulas as they haven't met with objections in the past two years. The issue is just how corporate fees are affected by inflation.
Click to expand...

did you just ignore the entire meat of the previous posts? the inflation formulas CHANGED in the past week, where they remained the same over the past 2 years.
 
Roland Johansen said:
I also thank you for the inflation formula. I must say that I find it weird that they introduced a quadratic (game turn related) term in the inflation formula. This means that inflation will keep increasing at an ever increasing rate compared to the turn number. Definitely something that I won't have in my personal modification. The notion that your civilization is eventually going to fall due to ever increasing inflation is not something I like.
Click to expand...

You continue speaking as if it were intended that you'd collect empire-crushing inflation. I give Firaxis more credit than that. This sounds like old playtest code that wasn't removed in the final build, or some such development glitch that would add a broken feature.
 
mrt144 said:
did you just ignore the entire meat of the previous posts? the inflation formulas CHANGED in the past week, where they remained the same over the past 2 years.
Click to expand...

I don't see that claim above. My impression is that this is the same formula that was in the previous versions.
 
DaviddesJ said:
I don't see that claim above. My impression is that this is the same formula that was in the previous versions.
Click to expand...

Looking to macsbug's posts above, the old formula (for Warlords and Vanilla) would just be (Modified Turn * Rate / 100). Check the inflation rates in your games, then do the maths, and you'll see it checks out. This new formula ramps the late game inflation up with well above an additional 100% compared to the old one.

Personally I haven't played enough games yet to determine if this has a good, bad or insignificant impact on gameplay as there are a lot of new factors to take in to account.
 
Good Lord, I feel like the lunatic in the wilderness here.

I admit I haven't tried getting all the corporations and for my play style, I really like the mining one. It gives me hammers in my production cities and even playing on Prince, I haven't run into this dire "inflation killing my civ" experience yet. My next game will be on Monarch, and maybe that will change things, but let's be honest and own up to the fact that Civ is made for Warlords/Prince/Noble level. I'd be pissed if they made the game for the hardcore immortal/deity level types whose game I have no desire to play. I don't think that is a minority opinion.

I only send Mining executives to three, maybe four, cities. The rest go to vassals and opponents. In one game they made me rich, in another they netted me nothing, but the bonuses I got from my three production cities were worth the income I sacrificed. So basically my experience is, if you are selective, you get a bonus and if you are selective and lucky, you get a bonus and gold. How is this completely broken?
 
Molon Labe said:
let's be honest and own up to the fact that Civ is made for Warlords/Prince/Noble level.
Click to expand...

I think design decisions are primarily set for Monarch/Emperor level. At the lower levels, these decisions mostly don't make much difference to player's enjoyment, and at higher levels, everything tends to get rather distorted.
 
Leave it as it is. It's realistic, game-breaking, and there's no really need for them to change it.
 
DaviddesJ said:
I think design decisions are primarily set for Monarch/Emperor level. At the lower levels, these decisions mostly don't make much difference to player's enjoyment, and at higher levels, everything tends to get rather distorted.
Click to expand...

why would you believe this, and is your belief more valid based on the factual basis? :crazyeye:
 
DaviddesJ said:
I think design decisions are primarily set for Monarch/Emperor level. At the lower levels, these decisions mostly don't make much difference to player's enjoyment, and at higher levels, everything tends to get rather distorted.
Click to expand...

That might be the case. I'm certainly not the savviest Civ player here. But I would argue out of the millions of Civ sold, most players are playing in the Warlord/Prince/Noble range. I admit I work in advertising rather than product development, but it would seem odd to design something for the minority rather than the largest target audience.
 
Molon Labe said:
That might be the case. I'm certainly not the savviest Civ player here. But I would argue out of the millions of Civ sold, most players are playing in the Warlord/Prince/Noble range. I admit I work in advertising rather than product development, but it would seem odd to design something for the minority rather than the largest target audience.
Click to expand...

Generally, the best design targets the minority and serves the majority. This means that nothing about the design breaks the high-end game, but the game is still fun for everyone of all ages.

In the example of Civ4, this would mean that features wouldn't be broken at Immortal/Deity, but they'd still be fun to use at Settler.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

R
Balancing Civ 7
Replies
8
Views
2K
Taefin
Taefin
A
Civ 6 Review, All DLC
Replies
3
Views
4K
Naokaukodem
Naokaukodem
Eddie Verdde
MORE TYPES OF GOVERNMENT FOR ANTIQUITY – A NON EUROCENTRIC APPROACH
Replies
1
Views
312
SupremacyKing2
SupremacyKing2
D
Supply System Brainstorm
2
Replies
25
Views
4K
Tekamthi
Tekamthi
E
[BTS] Earth Equatorial Islands - a more accurate realistic map for Civ4 BTS RFC
Replies
6
Views
3K
Gen1_
G
Back
Top Bottom