C2C - Buildings Discussion

[little_cyclone]

I think maybe Walls and Towers/Batteries should probably be -1 . Seems to me they would need to be maintained by the city, which amounts to some kind of tax. Shouldn't be a major expense since they get replaced with each new upgrade.

Initially, I agreed. But then I thought to myself with that line of thought, wouldn't you need to maintain all the buildings in the city? New roof, new paint, new sidewalks, windows, carpeting, electrical systems, etc. Where do we draw the line? Considering all the buildings in C2C and their various bonuses to the cities, what should require maintenance, and what shouldn't?

 

[Hydromancerx]

Initially, I agreed. But then I thought to myself with that line of thought, wouldn't you need to maintain all the buildings in the city? New roof, new paint, new sidewalks, windows, carpeting, electrical systems, etc. Where do we draw the line? Considering all the buildings in C2C and their various bonuses to the cities, what should require maintenance, and what shouldn't?

I can answer that. If its private residence like a house then no. The owners would pay for maintenance, if it is a job like a factory, farm, shop, office then the business would pay for them. Those would be considered Residential, Commercial and Industrial types of buildings. Buildings such as Fire Stations, Police Stations, Power Plants, Sewers, Landfills, etc would be considered "Civic" buildings which would be owned by the city. Thus any "Public" building would need to be payed for by the city while anything "Private" would pay money to the city. This is basic Sim City economics which can work for C2C.

 

[EldrinFal]

I can answer that. If its private residence like a house then no. The owners would pay for maintenance, if it is a job like a factory, farm, shop, office then the business would pay for them. Those would be considered Residential, Commercial and Industrial types of buildings. Buildings such as Fire Stations, Police Stations, Power Plants, Sewers, Landfills, etc would be considered "Civic" buildings which would be owned by the city. Thus any "Public" building would need to be payed for by the city while anything "Private" would pay money to the city. This is basic Sim City economics which can work for C2C.

Agreed. Civic type buildings would be under the care of the city, which I feel Walls and City Defenses in general would belong to.

Power Plants is the most iffy because many times those aren't city utilities. No more than phone service, internet, gas, etc. But you could say they are subsidized I suppose?

 

[little_cyclone]

Power Plants is the most iffy because many times those aren't city utilities. No more than phone service, internet, gas, etc. But you could say they are subsidized I suppose?

:thinks: Well, for some countries they are nationalized... Perhaps that might be something to consider in the future for adding to Economic Civics, whether or not those services are in private hands or nationalized, and the benefits/drawbacks gamewise therein..

 

[Thunderbrd]

All of these considerations have been made and I simply dropped the ball on enacting them. I wasn't going to start off with employing civics yet but I thought I might eventually have to for just that reason. Yes, considering whether something is privatised or socialized is key in whether or not money flows out or in from a nation's perspective. Defenses SHOULD have a maintenance cost (and to be fair I don't mean necessarily the Maintenance % metric.) Walls would have a flat rate cost as once built they maintain the same size as they started with. The gold cost would be to staff those who enact occasional repairs etc...

This kind of micro thinking that leads to macro results is exactly what the system needs to balance out in a natural manner. Once established, we can then tweak things from a more rational perspective - then its just a matter of scaling to reflect proper gameplay needs. Until then, we float in a world of haphazard bonuses, penalties and so on. We are getting closer all the time with every version it seems though. And that's good.

I'll be really pouring myself into this project soon I think.

 

[steampunk1880]

With the discovery of plastics and the obsolescence of fur, all of the X hunting camps that require fur go offline permanently. Similarly with industrialism, prime timber and nuts (save for coconuts). Is this intended and desirable?

 

[EldrinFal]

All of these considerations have been made and I simply dropped the ball on enacting them. I wasn't going to start off with employing civics yet but I thought I might eventually have to for just that reason. Yes, considering whether something is privatised or socialized is key in whether or not money flows out or in from a nation's perspective. Defenses SHOULD have a maintenance cost (and to be fair I don't mean necessarily the Maintenance % metric.) Walls would have a flat rate cost as once built they maintain the same size as they started with. The gold cost would be to staff those who enact occasional repairs etc...

This kind of micro thinking that leads to macro results is exactly what the system needs to balance out in a natural manner. Once established, we can then tweak things from a more rational perspective - then its just a matter of scaling to reflect proper gameplay needs. Until then, we float in a world of haphazard bonuses, penalties and so on. We are getting closer all the time with every version it seems though. And that's good.

I'll be really pouring myself into this project soon I think.

:thinks: Well, for some countries they are nationalized... Perhaps that might be something to consider in the future for adding to Economic Civics, whether or not those services are in private hands or nationalized, and the benefits/drawbacks gamewise therein..

I pondered that as well when thinking about the Civics. The simplest method that would require the least amount of game changes would simply be to have a list of those buildings that fall into that category, and give them a -1 default and then in the civic add +1 if they are privatized OR the reverse: give them a base of no adjustment and then with a subsidized / state-owned system, they all get -1 The latter probably would be easier assuming less state-owned civics than private.

An even more crude way is simply to lower maintenance costs for private industry civics.

 

[BlueGenie]

If you're thinking of adding a Privatized or Nationalized Civic there's a lot more to ponder than simply maintenance costs.

1. Privatizing doesn't always decrease costs for the nation as many services are still needed and would then be BOUGHT by the nation instead of having their own. Police/Fire-stations primary among those. This could end up more expensive as the private sector cares more for income than security and the services would either be very expensive or not adequate.

2. What level of privatization? Only peripheral services/production (power, water, goods manufacturing and selling), more in-depth services (transportation, communication, research and design), or everything (police and security, health, education)?

3. In my opinion most of this is already covered in the basics of the game. You play a nation which gets most of its benefits (science/gold/culture/espionage) from the private sector already, all through the game. Moving stuff over to being privatized would mean that the private sector would get all the science/gold/culture/espionage instead of our proud nation. In the game it still benefits the nation as a whole, which I think it should do. The Government Civics really cover this already, aka Communism, Federal, Monarchy, and so on.

Cheers.

 

[Praetyre]

I've always seen the upkeep cost in civics as reflecting the benefits/costs of privatization/nationalization. I think that trying to work out which civic has privatized police stations (hmm, there's an idea, Neighbourhood Watch and Gated Community buildings...) would just unneccessarily complicate things.

 

[EldrinFal]

I've always seen the upkeep cost in civics as reflecting the benefits/costs of privatization/nationalization. I think that trying to work out which civic has privatized police stations (hmm, there's an idea, Neighbourhood Watch and Gated Community buildings...) would just unneccessarily complicate things.

Is Civic upkeep just a general percentage based on all the buildings an empire has? I'm not really certain what factors into that cost. You could be right though. That could be what the designers initially intended it to be for.

 

[Thunderbrd]

I have always liked the idea of some civics indicating whether some building types would be privatised or not and make those bulidings change in +/- gold values based on the civic selections that indicate this.

I find the civic 'cost' the cost of the bureaucratic process involved in maintaining such a structure. Some governmental constructs take more employment and effort while others are more streamlined and efficient (or just plain lazy and undereffective as a result of letting chips fall where they may without any attempt to rectify solutions in some issues.) The 'cost' of maintaining a civic scales to the size of the empire nicely and I think that fits this consideration of the expense of its bureaucracy.

So this does not automatically take into consideration any manner of privatization vs socialization on various categories of buildings.

I'm still giving some thought to these matters and will be more easily capable of providing some ways to address this once I've laid out the spreadsheet for the buildings finally.

 

[bill2505]

So this does not automatically take into consideration any manner of privatization vs socialization on various categories of buildings.

I.

there is a third option nationalization

 

[Thunderbrd]

curious... what's the difference between nationalization and socialization?

 

[steampunk1880]

In reality? Semantics. Techically socialization implies the community takes ownership and shares it while nationalization says the government takes ownership and lets the people use it, as in the nationalization of land in Central and South American countries whereby the governments of those countries took the land from USA companies and redistributed it among local people causing us to send in the CIA to destabilize their obviously communist tainted regime.

 

[bill2505]

curious... what's the difference between nationalization and socialization?

steam punk you are slightly wrong here . its not the same

example
The phrases "to nationalize" or "to socialize" industry are often used interchangeably. It means to make public, or in some other way, to give to the people. Power lines and roads, hospitals and the highways -- these are generally considered to be public possessions, because they are managed by individuals chosen to represent the people. Many would confess that they don't know if there is anything different between these two phrases. Yet, the difference is very strong, even if phrases like "nationalized medicine" and "socialized medicine" are used like synonyms.

To Nationalize industry means to give it to the nation and make is obedient to the wishes of those in charge of government. To Socialize industry means to give it to the society and make it subservient to the direct will of the people. The nation receives the right to regulate and control the powers of many business in a sector of the economy, or many different societies spotted across the nation reserve that right for those businesses.

A nationalized hospital, for example, will set its budget, its policies, and the way that it operates according to a plan set nationally, usually by a congress of representatives from many different regions. A socialized hospital, however, will organize itself according to the ideas and principles decided upon by those who work there. In one case, it is the nation that obtains the industry, controlled by governors, and in the other case, it is the people that obtain the industry, controlled by the workers.

when the goverment is incorruptible nationalization is better than sosialization

 

[Thunderbrd]

So how would the difference be reflected in gold and game terms?

You have a Privatized Energy System: a power plant would not only provide power and but also, as a result of privatization: + gold (as you're taxing their profits) but as they would tend towards being unfair and + :unhealth: as they would operate with less care, trying to get around safety regulations for greater profits. It might also be a little less effective if we could find a metric for that. And it would be more susceptible to crime thus +% maintenance perhaps.

Then, on a Socialized Energy System, run by the community as opposed to the government or private enterprise (non-profit co-ops as it were): you'd have no gold intake or loss by the government as profits wouldn't be taxed but given back to the people of the community. You'd have as people feel it puts them in control and no additional health benefits or penalties though lower crime susceptibility.

On a Nationalized System then we'd see: -gold%, as the government maintains its costs and is expected to pay for that out of taxes rather than the people paying an energy bill directly. You'd have + due to the fact that the government will consider its controls of the highest priority so as to lessen its overall woes. It would not be happier or unhappier as the people's ability to ignore the bill may come at a slightly higher tax cost and the feeling that control is less in their grasp. It would be much less susceptible to crime as there's nothing there to really exploit except the government itself which is quite good at self monitoring for corruption.

hmm... good considerations there. I'm thinking there may even be more options than just these three.

 

[bill2505]

So how would the difference be reflected in gold and game terms?

You have a Privatized Energy System: a power plant would not only provide power and but also, as a result of privatization: + gold (as you're taxing their profits) but as they would tend towards being unfair and + :unhealth: as they would operate with less care, trying to get around safety regulations for greater profits. It might also be a little less effective if we could find a metric for that. And it would be more susceptible to crime thus +% maintenance perhaps.

Then, on a Socialized Energy System, run by the community as opposed to the government or private enterprise (non-profit co-ops as it were): you'd have no gold intake or loss by the government as profits wouldn't be taxed but given back to the people of the community. You'd have as people feel it puts them in control and no additional health benefits or penalties though lower crime susceptibility.

On a Nationalized System then we'd see: -gold%, as the government maintains its costs and is expected to pay for that out of taxes rather than the people paying an energy bill directly. You'd have + due to the fact that the government will consider its controls of the highest priority so as to lessen its overall woes. It would not be happier or unhappier as the people's ability to ignore the bill may come at a slightly higher tax cost and the feeling that control is less in their grasp. It would be much less susceptible to crime as there's nothing there to really exploit except the government itself which is quite good at self monitoring for corruption.

hmm... good considerations there. I'm thinking there may even be more options than just these three.

i agree with this but on nationalization thing
when you have nationalist civic it should give +2 - gold +1 or 2 health
when you have corporatist civic -2 + gold - 3 health

 

[steampunk1880]

Well if you're right you're right. I just conducted a 10 minute google search for my answer.

 

[Koshling]

Just noticed this in Sleeeper's save game where it's monumentally bad:

Buildings that give a percentage bonus to espionage, when built in cities that have netagtive base espionage (due to negative espionage crime buildings etc.), amplify the negative espionage.

I'll address this before V18. Two obvious ways to address it:

1) When calculating BASE espionage generated by a city cap it at the bottom at 0 (so no city can EVER produce negative espionage, but the negative espionage buildings will prevent it producing any positive contribution until if has net postive values totalled over all its buildings). This will also prevent overall negative espionage.

2) If a city's base espionage is negative have the modifiers act in reverse (so +25% to espionmage acts as a 25% reduction in negative espionage)

Opinions please (I favor option (1))...

 

[Thunderbrd]

Although I would suggest option 3 will be in use as well soon (no significant amount of - ) I think we still need to select one of the two of those options. I actually, and I hate to be argumentative, prefer option 2. The first option ignores that - is even really possible while it would seem logical to make it possible to be so open to the enemy that you're practically handing them info they don't even know they needed until its delivered them.