Inflation at 278% and rising..

[xienwolf]

/shrug. I guess it must be playing on Prince/Monarch then, because I've managed to stay at 100% Science all the way to victory on multiple games so far

 

[onedreamer]

good, but the science bar isn't an indicator of your inflation rating. You should look at the inflation %. Also the dimension of the map, number of civs, dimension of your empire, etc etc, they are all key elements.

 

[c.fe]

TO handle inflation, you have to prevent, not cure (there is no cure).

Inflation is not artificial, nor arbitrary. It is based on your upkeep costs EACH TURN. So if you are learning how to combat inflation, keep an eye on the F2 menu.

Many people wind up with horrific inflation because while they still have a single city they produce too many scouts/warriors and wind up getting maintenance costs from the begining of the game. This will become basically compound interest, and everyone should know the glory/horror (depending on which side you are) of that mechanic.


If you strive to keep your maintenance from units/distance/number of cities/etc at 0, or dang close, every turn, you will never get inflation of any notable effect.

I don't know how you come to this conclusion. I took a look at the (BtS) sourcecode and it seems to me that inflation percent is merely based on the number of turns passed, the difficulty, the gamespeed and the effects of certain events. The game seems to take your maintenance cost and multiply it by this percentage.
I especially don't see any influence of your upkeep from past turns (compound interest) nor as onedreamer suggests any influence from foreign upkeep.

Well the Civ4 source is sometimes tricky - perhaps I missed something or Kael changed something here (why would he?), but I'm quite sure.

 

[onedreamer]

c.fe I do think there is a connection with upkeep spending over time. Otherwise, how do you explain the difference between FFH and normal Civ ? I do by the fact that maintenance costs in FFH are much higher. Civics that increase it, Civics with higher maintenance costs, buildings that increase it and courthouse that decrease it less. Etc...

 

[c.fe]

c.fe I do think there is a connection with upkeep spending over time. Otherwise, how do you explain the difference between FFH and normal Civ ? I do by the fact that maintenance costs in FFH are much higher. Civics that increase it, Civics with higher maintenance costs, buildings that increase it and courthouse that decrease it less. Etc...

That seems reasonable: Inflation is based on your maintenance costs (i.e. unit upkeep, city maintenance (distance, number, cooperation, colony) and civic upkeep. If you have a inflation rate of 100% and costs of 50 you pay 50 for inflation. If in the following round you reduce the number of units and switch civics so that your costs are just 10 you just pay 20 or perhaps 21 because the inflation rate could now be a bit higher as it raises from turn to turn.

But as far as I can see it has nothing to do with the upkeep costs of your rivals or with your costs five turns ago.

 

[xienwolf]

I initially came to the conclusion reading the civlopedia in Vannila about the game concept of inflation.

I could easily be wrong, but at the least, my way keeps one aware of their costs continually, so when inflation does go UP, you barely feel it.

 

[Nikis-Knight]

I thought something similar before, but I'm pretty sure c.fe nailed it.

 

[westamastaflash]

Inflation was increased in BTS anyway, afaik.

Reducing maintenance costs is a *very* effective way of fighting inflation, because say you have a city which *says* it costs you 10gpt in maintenance. With inflation @ 100%, it is really costing you 20gpt! So If you build a courthouse in city to reduce maintenance by 40%, you now have 6gpt (12gpt with inflation), a net 8gpt reduction in your costs.

 

[Blakmane]

100% inflation I could deal with. However, my game just hit 300% inflation and i'm only halfway through- it's crippled the AI and reduced my science slider to 10%. I'm running city states with both palaces and a courthouse in every city, but the cost of my civics alone is in the hundreds and hundreds of gold. I can't abandon my FoL civics because then my empire would crumble- i've essentially been defeated by the inflation rate and that's possibly the most boring way to end a game imaginable.

*edit*

I just checked, inflation at 362%.

 

[xienwolf]

Yes, what you say is true Westa, but what I was saying wasn't the same (and was very wrong I see now). I was thinking you could PREVENT inflation from ever happening (or delay it till much later in the game) by always having a low maintenance cost for your civ.

 

[westamastaflash]

Ah, I see. Inflation also seems to be a method of punishing those very huge empires. Blakmane, perhaps you should raze more cities rather than taking them over...

 

[eerr]

100% inflation I could deal with. However, my game just hit 300% inflation and i'm only halfway through- it's crippled the AI and reduced my science slider to 10%. I'm running city states with both palaces and a courthouse in every city, but the cost of my civics alone is in the hundreds and hundreds of gold. I can't abandon my FoL civics because then my empire would crumble- i've essentially been defeated by the inflation rate and that's possibly the most boring way to end a game imaginable.

*edit*

I just checked, inflation at 362%.

with lots of big cities, don't forget the commerce from trade routes
(i had up to 7-8 gp per route in a small elven empire back in an earlier version, and you can get at least 3-4)


did you conquer cities untill your sci was reduced really low(20-30%?
or did you go from reasonable(40%-50%?) to crippling debt(10%,0%)

 

[onedreamer]

That seems reasonable: Inflation is based on your maintenance costs (i.e. unit upkeep, city maintenance (distance, number, cooperation, colony) and civic upkeep. If you have a inflation rate of 100% and costs of 50 you pay 50 for inflation. If in the following round you reduce the number of units and switch civics so that your costs are just 10 you just pay 20 or perhaps 21 because the inflation rate could now be a bit higher as it raises from turn to turn.

But as far as I can see it has nothing to do with the upkeep costs of your rivals or with your costs five turns ago.

what seems reasonable ? Your explanation does not say why FFH2 has huge discrepancies in inflation increase compared to Vanilla Civ. We're not discussing the fact that due to inflation everything costs more, we're discussing the fact that inflation raises too fast. Load a normal Civ game in its final stages and compare inflation, you will see big differences and they can't be explained by what you saw in the files: "turns passed, the difficulty, the gamespeed and the effects of certain events"; unless you go a bit more specific on "certain events".

 

[onedreamer]

Ah, I see. Inflation also seems to be a method of punishing those very huge empires. Blakmane, perhaps you should raze more cities rather than taking them over...

You guys don't understand that inflation is not a player-specific thing, it's worldwide, so it penalizes everyone pretty much in the same way.

 

[c.fe]

what seems reasonable ? Your explanation does not say why FFH2 has huge discrepancies in inflation increase compared to Vanilla Civ.

You said that there are higher maintenance costs in FFH than in vanilla civ. So it seems reasonable to conclude that FFH has higher inflation costs. Note that it doesn't say anything about the raise of the inflation percentage.

We're not discussing the fact that due to inflation everything costs more, we're discussing the fact that inflation raises too fast. Load a normal Civ game in its final stages and compare inflation, you will see big differences and they can't be explained by what you saw in the files: "turns passed, the difficulty, the gamespeed and the effects of certain events";

They can't? To quote the description of FFH:

Tech progression is noticable slower in FfH, giving you an opportunity to play with those new toys you just discovered.

So if Kael just took the BtS files adjusted the tech costs but didn't adjust the inflation modifiers "turns passed" would be perfect explanations for too high tech costs.

But I never wanted to argue that inflation is either to high, too low or just right - I just wanted to point out that it doesn't depend on your past costs or other civilizations' costs.

unless you go a bit more specific on "certain events".

By events I mean the new BtS events like collapsing mines and ice statues.

 

[Calavente]

it is clearly that BTS increased inflation ALOT from vanilla or warlords...
other components were added to compensate a bit.
if ffh was transposed directly, the huge inflation would have been transposed, but not the compensation.
furthermore, as said by c.fe, the pace is much slower for FfH than for cIV... thus, when in cIV, 300% inflation costs 1000 out of 3000 gained, in FfH it would cost 1000 out of 1500, add to it the standard maintenance and you cripple an empire.

I would have lovede to have something less arbitrary than inflation to compensate for the insane rate of money increase. but ...

if we had increased costs for buildings, or tier 1 unit costs 1; tier 2 costs 2-3 tier 3 cost...etc maybe we won't need inflation... !!! but maybe not

 

[westamastaflash]

You guys don't understand that inflation is not a player-specific thing, it's worldwide, so it penalizes everyone pretty much in the same way.

But the *effect* is percentage based. So if you have more cities, your civic upkeep costs more, so you pay more in inflation. It's not something that is a fixed value for all civs - that'd penalize people in the same way.

 

[westamastaflash]

it is clearly that BTS increased inflation ALOT from vanilla or warlords...
other components were added to compensate a bit.
if ffh was transposed directly, the huge inflation would have been transposed, but not the compensation.
furthermore, as said by c.fe, the pace is much slower for FfH than for cIV... thus, when in cIV, 300% inflation costs 1000 out of 3000 gained, in FfH it would cost 1000 out of 1500, add to it the standard maintenance and you cripple an empire.

I would have lovede to have something less arbitrary than inflation to compensate for the insane rate of money increase. but ...

if we had increased costs for buildings, or tier 1 unit costs 1; tier 2 costs 2-3 tier 3 cost...etc maybe we won't need inflation... !!! but maybe not

Inflation's primary job is to slow the game down by keeping somewhat of a lid on technology costs, a way to drain money from the players that would be going to faster tech. Personally I think this is one of the primary reasons specialist economies work so much better in BTS than in prior versions.

 

[Calavente]

I totally agree with you

that's why this automatic system is a bit strange and I think it is a unbalanced...
maybe having an inflation based on units created + building created + pop (ie : almost based on score) would improve the matter...

 

[onedreamer]

But the *effect* is percentage based. So if you have more cities, your civic upkeep costs more, so you pay more in inflation. It's not something that is a fixed value for all civs - that'd penalize people in the same way.

it's the exact contrary. BECAUSE it is a percentage, it has pretty much the same effect on everyone. If I spend 100 before a 100% inflation, I will spend 200 in total. If you spend 50 you will spend 100. You apparently are less damaged by inflation but if you spend less than me it probably means you also earn less, unless you are organized, in this case you're supposed to have a bonus anyways, or you run lower support civics or less military, all at your harm.