Budget

[Blackbird_SR-71]

I think spending should really be revised. currently we only use science and entertainment we really spend on. well i was thinking we add a couple of more sliders:

Military Spending: This is how much you appropriate toward the military. You use this amount of money to pay for maintance and expenses.

Science Spending: Same thing in Civ3.

Entertainment Spending: Same thing in Civ3.

Infrastructure Spending: This money is used to build terrain improvements. We should pay some money to build these improvements. Every time you tell a worker to build a improvement some money is used up to build it.

Foreign Spending: This is how much money you are allowed to give in deals. You use this for paying GPT and trade deals.

What do you guys think? This can add economic depth we all want without us needing to have master degrees in Economics.

 

[AA-battery]

Yes, there must be more sliders that change the economics of your civ. I think there should be a naval slider where it puts a limit on your navy and stuff. But if these are to be added not all of them should be included in the same percentage divider. They sliders might be in different categories like military, diplomatic, domestic, etc.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

Hmmm, I agree with the idea, but would possibly split it up as follows:

1) Science and Education: boosts 'beaker production' for allocation into research streams, and increases the culture and happiness output of Educational Institutions.

2) Military: Improves the build time of units and military buildings, and increases the rate of unit improvement.

3) Law and Order: Improves the ability of buildings like the courtthouse, palace etc, to reduce crime and corruption.

4) Industry and Infrastructure: Increases the shield output from labour and improvements. Also increases the chance of discovering resources and the number of terrain improvements that can be built and/or the speed at which they can be built.

5) Intelligence and Foreign Affairs: Produces intelligence points for allocation into Espionage, counter-intelligence and Sabotage missions, as well as effecting international reputation generally.

6) Health and Environment: Effects growth rate of your cities, happiness of your cities, reduces the chance of disease and plagues effecting and/or spreading through your nation, and increases the rate at which terrain heals from environmental degredation.

Please note, though, that these are mere suggestions, but a more complex division of budgets WILL force players to make much more difficult long-term decisions.

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

Oh and, I KNOW people might say that this will increase MM, but I have thought of a way to limit this factor. Essentially, when you move a % of your budget into a certain area, the benefits you gain from it continue to accrue over several turns. So, for example, lets say that every 2% you increase your industry budget by boosts your shield output by 5%. Therefore, increasing your industry budget by 6% will give you a 15% bonus to shield output. Now, every turn you LEAVE it unchanged, the shield bonus continues to increase by, say, 3% per turn-to a maximum of DOUBLE the original bonus (so 30% in this case).
This would help to discourage people from MM every turn, as greater benefits are achieved from leaving things in place for the long-haul!
Now, if that is not sufficient, you could add a stick to counterbalance the carrot. Namely, if you change a setting within a single turn, you lose 10% of the total money you move. This loss would be recovered over several turns. If you wait 2 turns, then the penalty is only 8% of the total, and so on until it gets to 0% after 5 turns. Of course, if you change it in one turn, then change it again in the next turn, then the total loss could end up as high as 18% (i.e., 10% for the latest adjustment, plus 10%-2% for the original adjustment!)
Either singly or doubly, this would remove the benefits of Micromanaging for players-especially if rounding were removed or limited-as suggested by Sirrian!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[searcheagle]

Foreign Spending: This is how much money you are allowed to give in deals. You use this for paying GPT and trade deals.

While I support a system styled after yours or Aussie's system, there there should be no limit on foreign spending. This would be spent, as always, from the surplus.

 

[Blackbird_SR-71]

Aussie Lurker-

Your model is basically what covers most of what i wanted. and yes we should have a way that allows us to not change funding every turn. i like your first plan with your long-term sameness ending up benefiting you

 

[Trade-peror]

From what I have heard of MoO3, I unfortunately find that this system reminds of MoO3's system of budgets and spending; I forget who said MoO3 was no more fun than "playing with a spreadsheet." This model, in being simple so far, presents no learning curve problem for newbies, but essentially embodies the idea of "throwing money at a problem" to fix it.

For example, a player may have low productivity due to a low level of shield-producing terrain. Money, however, is in no short supply (because roads can be built anywhere), and the industrial boost offered through "funding" toward this sector makes up for this lack of shields. If food is low instead, funding the Health sector would make up and maintain growth. If the military is too small, funding would make up for that. How could the player have any more weaknesses that would offer the AI some chance to compete?

Even so, I am not saying this idea is bad, only that it should not be independent of other changes in the game. In fact, with some changes to the mechanics of Civ economics, this budget idea would be incredibly enriching to Civ. But as Civ currently exists, sticking a budget in may not help in terms of balance.

By the way, this adds no economic depth whatsoever, but does increase financial depth!

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

Hey, T-P, you KNOW that I would never suggest an idea in isolation from all of the other ideas I have. For starters, as you know, I believe that a cities wealth and, therefore, the wealth of the nation, depend a great deal on its demographics, its productive output and its access to resources. That is not to say that roads, rails or rivers shouldn't boost that underlying wealth, but they should work more on the basis of what they connect the city into-NOT how many of them you build (or, in the case of rivers, have in your city radius).
For instance, a wealthy city, with lots of merchants and wealthy elite COULD boost its wealth further IF it also acts as a hub of several major trade networks. Also, given that I want roads and rail to COST money as well, then building lots of roads and rail would no longer be the quick route to excessive wealth. Also, as you can probably see from the example I have provided, there is a natural limit to the benefits which can be provided from adjusting your budget, and good city placement will still be the final arbiter. In addition, though, as INCREASED funding boosts performance, DECREASED funding reduces it. The way I envisage it, a city will always pay a minimal 'maintainance' cost for all improvements within it, and all terrain improvements within its city radius. In order to function properly, however, requires the remainder of the maintainance cost to be paid for out of the national budget. Failure to do this will initially cause said improvements to function less effectively and, at worse, cause the improvements to fall into 'disrepair' and eventually disappear! I guess the main point I am making here is that, in isolation, a budget system IS exploitable (at least within the current civ rules) but that with appropriate balancing, this system could greatly improve the sense of truly running a nation!!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[Trade-peror]

Aussie_Lurker, of course I do not think you are suggesting this in isolation, but this statement:

This can add economic depth we all want without us needing to have master degrees in Economics.

leads me to think that the original intent of this proposal was to implement only this idea and leave the rest of the game alone.

And, of course, I don't think there are any ideas around this forum that would even nearly require any degree in Economics to play.

 

[Blackbird_SR-71]

Trade-peror-

Of course what i mean is you have 100%. then lets say you have five bugdet sectors. you would have to divide 100% into those 5 budget sectors accordingly to your priorities. you wouldn't be able to go over 100% funding. so if you want to increase spending in one area you would have to decrease spending in another area.

Also what made you think i only wanted to change this aspect of the game and leave everything else? the quote you did doesn't state that what your thinking is true.

also my bad i mean financial depth not economic depth.

 

[Trade-peror]

Also what made you think i only wanted to change this aspect of the game and leave everything else? the quote you did doesn't state that what your thinking is true.

Well, I am glad to hear it!

I do think this budget idea would work well for increasing financial depth, but increasing economic depth to a comparable level would also be necessary, to serve as a foundation. Economic depth concerns the way in which the money is generated; financial depth concerns the way in which the money is spent. I hope you are also thinking of boosting the economic depth of Civ to complement this increase in financial depth.

 

[searcheagle]

Trade-peror-

Of course what i mean is you have 100%. then lets say you have five bugdet sectors. you would have to divide 100% into those 5 budget sectors accordingly to your priorities. you wouldn't be able to go over 100% funding. so if you want to increase spending in one area you would have to decrease spending in another area.

Actually, you can go over 100% in spending. This deficit spending would reduce your surplus cash.

 

[Trade-peror]

Maybe the percents should be clarified. Does 100% mean that 100% of the money required by maintenance is being spent? Or does 100% mean that 100% of the money necessary to complete projects, as well as take care of maintenance, is being spent? If the former, then I see no reason for not going over 100% for additional development of the sector; if the latter, then I see no reason to be wasting funds by giving more than is necessary to complete what has been planned for.

 

[searcheagle]

I was assuming 100% of income. We do need to clarify:

x % Of maintaince cost
x% Of money on hand
x% of income
x% of suggested maintaince. Where 100% would be everything full stocked, 110% would be a surplus, and 90% would be without out all usual supplies.

 

[Blackbird_SR-71]

searcheagle got it pretty much right.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

OK, what I am thinking is that the 'maintainance' for a building sould be paid for by both the city it is built in AND the state.

So, for example, lets say you have 20 cities in your nation, and 10 of those cities have commercial improvements in them-at an average maintainance cost of 4gpt. What this means is that each city with this improvement will pay 4gpt. But, at the same time, this costs the state a MINIMUM of 80gpt-which will come from its 'commerce' budget. Now, lets say that this nation was earning 500gpt, then the commerce budget would naturally rise to 16% of total income. Now, this is JUST so the buildings can operate at normal output. The player could reduce this spending to, say 10% (or 50gpt), which would reduce the wealth and happiness producing benefits of ALL your commercial improvements OR they player could raise spending to, say, 20% (or 100gpt), which would INCREASE the benefits from commercial improvements. Additionally, it could be possible to go into a city and switch off funding for any improvements it has. This would have to be made up for from the national budget, or else they lose their functionality AND the buildings in question would have a chance of being 'destroyed' each turn (i.e. lost).

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[Kayak]

I like this idea and I like A_L's division of the sliders the best. I'm assuming that this spending would replace such things as policmen and scientists? This would reduce MMing, something I'm broadly in favor of.
@Aussie_Lurker on your last point, it seems to me that this is so in the current version as well. If I have ten cities and they each have a range of improvements, there is notheing to say that an individual city has to be able to support all of the improvements in it. It could be opperating at a loss. It would be very hard to separate the cities from the State in Civ.