First of all, thank you very much for an excellent mod. I didn't expect much when I first heard of it and was reluctant to try it. I was wrong, period. There are a lot of cool original ideas there but the spirit of SMAC is carefully preserved too. You guys have done an amazing job.
Nevertheless, there are also things that I think still can be improved. And I'm speaking primarily about civics.
Law, political science, political philosophy and economics are my real life primary areas of interests and also a field of my professional competence. So I suppose I have something to say on this subject.
I think civics in Planetfall are sometimes unrealistic, sometimes bad gamewise and sometimes make no sense at all (autarky). It mostly applies to economic civics but other ones can be improved too.
So, my suggestions.
First, government civics.
Democratic.
I generally like how it is implemented. Great people points bonus seems very fitting.
Suggested effects:
+ 50 % to great people points;
+ 1 happiness for every religion present;
no cloning of units;
can not hurry buildings with population.
Police state.
Once again, I generally like it but I don't think that free units bonus fits well here. Police state is in no way cheap and it includes military units too. I suggest moving this bonus to power (see below) and instead giving reduced war weariness to the police state. So it will become a copy of its original Civ4 counterpart.
Suggested effects:
+ 20% to military units production;
- 25 % war weariness;
can't follow homo superior
Fundamentalism.
I think the very concept of fundamentalism should be reworked. We don't have traditional religions in Planetfall, we have ideologies. So, I think fundamentalism should be conceived as a rule by an ideological, not religious, elite. This means, first of all, that it isn't necessarily anti-science, so there is no reason for Zakharov and Luttinen to dislike it. Then it isn't by itself militaristic (though it may be aggressive in a broader sense as ideological leaders seek planetary domination for their ideology), so military bonus shouldn't be here. And, of course, we need a new name for it, something more fitting. I don't have good ideas right now but I will think more about it. This is much alike Plato's republic but not something we had in actual history as far, as I know.
Suggested effects:
Triple effect of state religion;
no non-state religion spread;
double cost of enemy spies actions in bases where state religion is present (btw does AI ever use spies? Never seen it);
psi output is doubled in bases where state religion is present.
Now, lets move to economic civics. This is the section where I want to propose the most serious changes.
Free market.
I liked how it was implemented in SMAC. It gave a powerful boost to economy but put a player under strong constraints. It gave huge penalties to happiness and ecology just as it does in real life.
As it is implemented now, it is totally unrealistic and also underpowered. It is usually supposed that the free market makes people less happy as there is a large social inequality and also life isn't stable. How is it that in the game the free market increases happiness? On the other hand, the free market in Planetfall almost doesn't give any improvement to economy compared with planned (actually planned is stronger as it gives a player a super-capital).
Moving to finer points, free market in Planetfall discourages building happiness-producing infrastructure (freeing more minerals to produce units) and also discourages research. This pushes a player towards a more aggressive game style. Several times I actually so AI using it as a wartime civic (they needed happiness bonus to fight war weariness). I don't think it is right.
And, at last, it is too weak compared to planned or for large empires autarky. Trade route bonus is nothing and I usually don't have any serious problems with happiness. On the other hand bonuses of two other economic civics are extremely useful.
Suggested effects:
Eden yields + 1 mineral
Mining platform yields + 1 energy;
Sea borehole yields + 2 minerals, + 1 energy;
Sea mill yields + 1 energy;
Solar collector yields + 3 energy;
Thermal Borehole yields + 2 minerals, +1 energy;
Tidal harness yields + 2 energy;
Windmill yields + 1 energy;
Mine yields + 1 energy;
Base square yields + 1 food, + 1 mineral, +1 energy.
(This all to reflect better general economic performance of free market).
No maintenance cost for distance from capital (this is to reflect decentralized nature of free market; may be changed to 75 % maintenance cost for distance from capital for game balance purposes);
+ 1 trade route in all bases;
All planet attitude negative modifiers are doubled (free market neglects ecology);
Additional unhappiness for bases with large population (I'm not sure about concrete formula here. The idea is that unhappiness should rise exponentially as bases become bigger. We should consider game balance issues to decide how steep this curve should be).
The idea is that the free market should encourage player to build more but smaller bases and to cram them with happiness producing infrastructure. Happiness should be the major problem for a player but economy shouldn't be a problem at all, especially after solar collectors and thermal boreholes become available. Also it should be strictly anti-planet: 1) it is realistic, 2) it gives Deidre a real reason to hate it (which is absent for now), 3) it should be next to impossible for hybrids to use it as two maintenance bonuses give too powerful synergy.
Generally it would be nice to have a small-but-many cities alternative for terraformers.
Planned. (I conceive it as all out economic planning USSR-style).
I think that food and minerals bonus to capital is very fitting. As free market is about decentralization, planned economy is about centralization and concentration. In real life it always tended to make huge and relatively rich capitals, which drained resources away from all other cities, living the rest of the country impoverished. Moscow in Soviet Union is the best example here, but Havana, Minsk and Pyongyang, to a lesser extent Beijing nowadays share the same characteristic.
However, food bonus to all cities is absolutely wrong placed. Rampant poverty which borderlines famine (or even crosses this border) is the dominant characteristic of planned economy. Gamewise it discourages hybrids from using it as they usually don't need much food.
Suggested effects:
+ 35 % food, + 50 % minerals in capital;
+ 20 % minerals in all cities;
- 2 health in all cities (to reflect poverty);
+ 50 % to wonder production (to reflect the ability of planned economics to concentrate resources for large scale projects);
may hurry buildings with population (GULAG is possible on Planet to! This option is unavailable if planned is used alongside with democratic).
Concrete numbers are subject to revision for game balance purposes.
Regulated (or mixed).
I suggest to scrap autarky. It is fully compatible with free market economy, planned economy, any other economy, so it isn't a real alternative to them. I suggest to replace it with regulated or mixed economy, which we have in pretty much all western countries today. In such an economy government isn't engaged in all-out planning but carefully regulates the market to direct its resources to socially desirable goals: education, healthcare, science. It also provides safety net for population to protect it from market unpredictability. The downside is lack of efficiency and slow (or non-existent) economic growth.
Suggested effects:
+ 3 happiness in all bases;
+ 3 health in all bases;
+ 10 % food in all bases;
+ 1 free specialist per base;
+ 10% science in all bases.
May be we should also give it some planet attitude bonus but here I'm not sure.
Regarding economic civics in general, I do understand that I leave no other option but planned for radical hybrids (it is still possible and even useful to run mixed for light-green strategy). But, I think, it is still better than it is now when pretty much everyone sticks to planned after it becomes available.
Also I suppose that introduction of mixed makes light-green strategy more viable than before as it allows to offset hybrid health penalty.
Now let's turn to values.
Power.
I suggest to add here free support bonus which police state had. Otherwise, no changes.
Suggested effects:
+ 3 experience points for new units;
+ 50% espionage in all cities;
less number of units require support.
Knowledge.
Suggested effects:
+ 20 % science in all cities (to make it more powerful in this regard then mixed economy);
+ 1 science per specialist;
cost of enemy spies actions is halved.
Wealth.
As planned gives bonus to production now, I suggest restoring the free market happiness bonus used in the previous version. Also, I'd like to give an incentive to player to build more basic infrastructure in cities.
Suggested effects:
+ 1 happiness in all bases per 10 % energy credits rate;
+ 50 % trade route yield;
+ 2 energy credits for biology lab, children's creche, hologram theater, infirmary, network node, recreation commons;
+ 1 health in all cities
+ 50 % war weariness;
- 20 % to unit production;
can't follow ascetic virtues.
I suggest leaving ecology civics as they are now.
Nevertheless, there are also things that I think still can be improved. And I'm speaking primarily about civics.
Law, political science, political philosophy and economics are my real life primary areas of interests and also a field of my professional competence. So I suppose I have something to say on this subject.
I think civics in Planetfall are sometimes unrealistic, sometimes bad gamewise and sometimes make no sense at all (autarky). It mostly applies to economic civics but other ones can be improved too.
So, my suggestions.
First, government civics.
Democratic.
I generally like how it is implemented. Great people points bonus seems very fitting.
Suggested effects:
+ 50 % to great people points;
+ 1 happiness for every religion present;
no cloning of units;
can not hurry buildings with population.
Police state.
Once again, I generally like it but I don't think that free units bonus fits well here. Police state is in no way cheap and it includes military units too. I suggest moving this bonus to power (see below) and instead giving reduced war weariness to the police state. So it will become a copy of its original Civ4 counterpart.
Suggested effects:
+ 20% to military units production;
- 25 % war weariness;
can't follow homo superior
Fundamentalism.
I think the very concept of fundamentalism should be reworked. We don't have traditional religions in Planetfall, we have ideologies. So, I think fundamentalism should be conceived as a rule by an ideological, not religious, elite. This means, first of all, that it isn't necessarily anti-science, so there is no reason for Zakharov and Luttinen to dislike it. Then it isn't by itself militaristic (though it may be aggressive in a broader sense as ideological leaders seek planetary domination for their ideology), so military bonus shouldn't be here. And, of course, we need a new name for it, something more fitting. I don't have good ideas right now but I will think more about it. This is much alike Plato's republic but not something we had in actual history as far, as I know.
Suggested effects:
Triple effect of state religion;
no non-state religion spread;
double cost of enemy spies actions in bases where state religion is present (btw does AI ever use spies? Never seen it);
psi output is doubled in bases where state religion is present.
Now, lets move to economic civics. This is the section where I want to propose the most serious changes.
Free market.
I liked how it was implemented in SMAC. It gave a powerful boost to economy but put a player under strong constraints. It gave huge penalties to happiness and ecology just as it does in real life.
As it is implemented now, it is totally unrealistic and also underpowered. It is usually supposed that the free market makes people less happy as there is a large social inequality and also life isn't stable. How is it that in the game the free market increases happiness? On the other hand, the free market in Planetfall almost doesn't give any improvement to economy compared with planned (actually planned is stronger as it gives a player a super-capital).
Moving to finer points, free market in Planetfall discourages building happiness-producing infrastructure (freeing more minerals to produce units) and also discourages research. This pushes a player towards a more aggressive game style. Several times I actually so AI using it as a wartime civic (they needed happiness bonus to fight war weariness). I don't think it is right.
And, at last, it is too weak compared to planned or for large empires autarky. Trade route bonus is nothing and I usually don't have any serious problems with happiness. On the other hand bonuses of two other economic civics are extremely useful.
Suggested effects:
Eden yields + 1 mineral
Mining platform yields + 1 energy;
Sea borehole yields + 2 minerals, + 1 energy;
Sea mill yields + 1 energy;
Solar collector yields + 3 energy;
Thermal Borehole yields + 2 minerals, +1 energy;
Tidal harness yields + 2 energy;
Windmill yields + 1 energy;
Mine yields + 1 energy;
Base square yields + 1 food, + 1 mineral, +1 energy.
(This all to reflect better general economic performance of free market).
No maintenance cost for distance from capital (this is to reflect decentralized nature of free market; may be changed to 75 % maintenance cost for distance from capital for game balance purposes);
+ 1 trade route in all bases;
All planet attitude negative modifiers are doubled (free market neglects ecology);
Additional unhappiness for bases with large population (I'm not sure about concrete formula here. The idea is that unhappiness should rise exponentially as bases become bigger. We should consider game balance issues to decide how steep this curve should be).
The idea is that the free market should encourage player to build more but smaller bases and to cram them with happiness producing infrastructure. Happiness should be the major problem for a player but economy shouldn't be a problem at all, especially after solar collectors and thermal boreholes become available. Also it should be strictly anti-planet: 1) it is realistic, 2) it gives Deidre a real reason to hate it (which is absent for now), 3) it should be next to impossible for hybrids to use it as two maintenance bonuses give too powerful synergy.
Generally it would be nice to have a small-but-many cities alternative for terraformers.
Planned. (I conceive it as all out economic planning USSR-style).
I think that food and minerals bonus to capital is very fitting. As free market is about decentralization, planned economy is about centralization and concentration. In real life it always tended to make huge and relatively rich capitals, which drained resources away from all other cities, living the rest of the country impoverished. Moscow in Soviet Union is the best example here, but Havana, Minsk and Pyongyang, to a lesser extent Beijing nowadays share the same characteristic.
However, food bonus to all cities is absolutely wrong placed. Rampant poverty which borderlines famine (or even crosses this border) is the dominant characteristic of planned economy. Gamewise it discourages hybrids from using it as they usually don't need much food.
Suggested effects:
+ 35 % food, + 50 % minerals in capital;
+ 20 % minerals in all cities;
- 2 health in all cities (to reflect poverty);
+ 50 % to wonder production (to reflect the ability of planned economics to concentrate resources for large scale projects);
may hurry buildings with population (GULAG is possible on Planet to! This option is unavailable if planned is used alongside with democratic).
Concrete numbers are subject to revision for game balance purposes.
Regulated (or mixed).
I suggest to scrap autarky. It is fully compatible with free market economy, planned economy, any other economy, so it isn't a real alternative to them. I suggest to replace it with regulated or mixed economy, which we have in pretty much all western countries today. In such an economy government isn't engaged in all-out planning but carefully regulates the market to direct its resources to socially desirable goals: education, healthcare, science. It also provides safety net for population to protect it from market unpredictability. The downside is lack of efficiency and slow (or non-existent) economic growth.
Suggested effects:
+ 3 happiness in all bases;
+ 3 health in all bases;
+ 10 % food in all bases;
+ 1 free specialist per base;
+ 10% science in all bases.
May be we should also give it some planet attitude bonus but here I'm not sure.
Regarding economic civics in general, I do understand that I leave no other option but planned for radical hybrids (it is still possible and even useful to run mixed for light-green strategy). But, I think, it is still better than it is now when pretty much everyone sticks to planned after it becomes available.
Also I suppose that introduction of mixed makes light-green strategy more viable than before as it allows to offset hybrid health penalty.
Now let's turn to values.
Power.
I suggest to add here free support bonus which police state had. Otherwise, no changes.
Suggested effects:
+ 3 experience points for new units;
+ 50% espionage in all cities;
less number of units require support.
Knowledge.
Suggested effects:
+ 20 % science in all cities (to make it more powerful in this regard then mixed economy);
+ 1 science per specialist;
cost of enemy spies actions is halved.
Wealth.
As planned gives bonus to production now, I suggest restoring the free market happiness bonus used in the previous version. Also, I'd like to give an incentive to player to build more basic infrastructure in cities.
Suggested effects:
+ 1 happiness in all bases per 10 % energy credits rate;
+ 50 % trade route yield;
+ 2 energy credits for biology lab, children's creche, hologram theater, infirmary, network node, recreation commons;
+ 1 health in all cities
+ 50 % war weariness;
- 20 % to unit production;
can't follow ascetic virtues.
I suggest leaving ecology civics as they are now.
