What purpose does inflation serve?

[Thunder_Gr]

What really is inflation, and the theories we all have on who does it, and how it is used, to make us more miserable, is not of any interest here, IMO.
The point here is that, in this game, the player is the ruler and the mechanics want to provide a challenge! Not Fireaxis nor any other complany wants to just piss off their customers by ruining the fun in their game.
Inflation serves a purpose in this game, and while I am not quite happy when I see my inflation rising, I can always do things to help me overcome the challenges arising by the fact.
As with all preferences, some people find Inflation a good thing, others bad thing, and there are those that cannot stand it.
Since the solution to turn it off has already be given in this thread, I guess all of us can be happy playing this game, the way that closest matches our preferences .

 

[Emptiness]

Edit: I've no idea why the second quote is messed up.

Capitalize the word "quote" to correct the problem.

 

[odalrick]

Capitalize the word "quote" to correct the problem.

No. When I edit the post, it shows as QUOTE .

In fact, it is copied directly from the other quotes.

 

[Honor]

use / instead of \ ?

 

[odalrick]

That was it, thanks.

 

[Honor]

Glad to be of assistance.

 

[Renaud]

My blurb was mainly written for my and perhaps others amusement. Certainly we don't need a very realistic treatment of money in a fantasy game. The current system of maintenance cost increases serves admirably to model a gradual but general inflation of the currency and corresponding progressive decline in the monetary units purchasing power.

The only thing I might add is that it might be flavorful if rate of increase of inflation was tied to selected civics of civs somehow. Perhaps if i'm Sheaim perhaps I am prone to greater inflation (since I am working for the end of the world and could care less about the future anyway), whereas Elohim might be more fiscally conservative relative to Sheaim. Obvious game-balancing issues would need to be addressed, but it might add some flavor, if nothing particularly functional.

 

[odalrick]

The current system of maintenance cost increases serves admirably to model a gradual but general inflation of the currency and corresponding progressive decline in the monetary units purchasing power.

I disagree. At no point in civ are you actually handling real currency. In the beginning you don't even have currency, as shown by the increase in trade as you leave the barter economy behind.

CivIV inflation has nothing to do with actual inflation, other than sharing a name. It is just an arbitrary maintenance increase. I'd probably have a lot less problem with it if it was called "inefficency".

Whether or not it fulfils it's purpose is unknowable, since we don't know what the purpose is.

We do know it's bad design: no clear purpose, other mechanisms already in that can do what it does, poorly integrated into the rest of the game and it's effects are hard to predict.

 

[Senethro]

It stops a highly militaristic player running away with the game too early if he conquers 3 civs. Inflation is bad news for someone with a lot of cities or a low gold/city income. Its effects are negligible even in Deity when you're dealing with size 25 cities with courthouses. The profits on those are so high that its very difficult not to break even no matter how many of them you add.

 

[Honor]

I disagree. At no point in civ are you actually handling real currency. In the beginning you don't even have currency, as shown by the increase in trade as you leave the barter economy behind.

CivIV inflation has nothing to do with actual inflation, other than sharing a name. It is just an arbitrary maintenance increase. I'd probably have a lot less problem with it if it was called "inefficency".

Whether or not it fulfils it's purpose is unknowable, since we don't know what the purpose is.

We do know it's bad design: no clear purpose, other mechanisms already in that can do what it does, poorly integrated into the rest of the game and it's effects are hard to predict.

Exactly. 10 chars

 

[apotheoser]

I didn't mean it started in Civ3. Just saying, encouraged by the mechanics used even in Civ3 and SMAC. SMAC was particularly bad because in late game, if you built a mineral mining satellite, every city you had got +1 hammer/mineral, which really made having more cities a good thing.

True but bad example. If I recall the bonus couldn't exceed the population of the colony (or half the population without an aerospace complex).

SMAC had so many buildings, though, that early expansion was key, simply because the age of a colony was such a huge deal.

On the other hand: rovers. Rovers pretty much ruined the game. While there was incentive to build as many colonies as possible, that was the least of the problem.

I disagree. At no point in civ are you actually handling real currency. In the beginning you don't even have currency, as shown by the increase in trade as you leave the barter economy behind.

CivIV inflation has nothing to do with actual inflation, other than sharing a name. It is just an arbitrary maintenance increase. I'd probably have a lot less problem with it if it was called "inefficency".

Which is what it was called in SMAC. Except that it varied much more by civics and didn't increase over time.

Whether or not it fulfils it's purpose is unknowable, since we don't know what the purpose is.

We do know it's bad design: no clear purpose, other mechanisms already in that can do what it does, poorly integrated into the rest of the game and it's effects are hard to predict.

I have to disagree. It's obvious what the purpose is, and it does it just fine. Its effects are not hard to predict: they're always the same.

 

[odalrick]

I have to disagree. It's obvious what the purpose is, and it does it just fine. Its effects are not hard to predict: they're always the same.

Then what is the purpose? Annoy people? It can't be to stop large empires because there is already a mechnic in place for that.

And always the same effect? An arbitrary reduction of 1 per turn is a trivial effect, but considering what the ramifications are not trivial. "Inflation" depends on so many variables that it is impossible to predict.

 

[Earthling]

I agree with odalrick - I don't think inflation has a clear purpose. Let's consider the following:

-Discourage/Balance large empires. Completely untrue in civ4 vanilla. State Property counters this and courthouses do as well - by the late game (when inflation matters) even captured cities often keep courthouses. Back before BtS was patched inflation did serve an excellent role in crippling corporations but most players agreed that was exploitive. Regular maintenance, if anything, should counter this instead of inflation, and let's face it - larger empires are still stronger no matter what in the absence of something like a revolution mod.

-Discourage/Balance large armies - it could be a purpose but Inflation is a horrible method to do this. First, the unit-spamming AI are immune to a ton of these costs anyway. Second, in FFH I think this is just a terrible idea, period - such costs and inflation cripple civs like the clan who are supposed to be military powerhouses yet have very little economy. Inflation again shouldn't be the mechanic to do this - I'd bring the whole Armeggedon/alignment system back up as a counter for this.

Thunder Gr makes a reasonable proposal with an option to toggle but I think this would require some other balancing otherwise. Besides the fact that a lot of players would probably always toggle it off from then on, there may be enough differences in cost that have some effect in the game. I personally think my favorite solution is removing inflation, leave military cost alone (for FFH, since it's military oriented), and just a flat increase of late-game civic costs.

 

[apotheoser]

Then what is the purpose? Annoy people? It can't be to stop large empires because there is already a mechnic in place for that.

So? There can't be two mechanics geared towards the same goal?

And always the same effect? An arbitrary reduction of 1 per turn is a trivial effect, but considering what the ramifications are not trivial. "Inflation" depends on so many variables that it is impossible to predict.

But in the exact same situation, the inflation will always be the same. It isn't random, it's deterministic. Complicated, but not impossible to predict.

I agree with odalrick - I don't think inflation has a clear purpose. Let's consider the following:

-Discourage/Balance large empires. Completely untrue in civ4 vanilla.

Who cares? Civ 4 vanilla was not this game: lots of things were different, inflation was different, this is irrelevant.

Regular maintenance, if anything, should counter this instead of inflation, and let's face it - larger empires are still stronger no matter what in the absence of something like a revolution mod.

Yes, but not AS much stronger.

-Discourage/Balance large armies - it could be a purpose but Inflation is a horrible method to do this. First, the unit-spamming AI are immune to a ton of these costs anyway.

That's an AI balance issue, not an inflation issue. In multiplayer it's fine.

Second, in FFH I think this is just a terrible idea, period - such costs and inflation cripple civs like the clan who are supposed to be military powerhouses yet have very little economy. Inflation again shouldn't be the mechanic to do this - I'd bring the whole Armeggedon/alignment system back up as a counter for this.

Those are civilization-specific balance issues, not reasons to change the underlying game mechanics. If those civilizations are overly hurt by inflation, then change those civilizations. If you change inflation you affect every civilization.

 

[Renaud]

The current maintenance cost % increase only models the price increase effect of inflation, not inflation directly nor any other effects of inflation. The price increase penalty (modelled as progressively increasing maint costs) is what matters in game terms.

Arguably, the benefit part of the inflation equation has been left out: though all civs are hurt equally by the continually rising maint costs, none get the temporary benefits of inflation in the form of control of additional resources (equivalent as odalrick has pointed out to an additional form of taxation, allowing you to gain additional resources even beyond that provided by your currently selected tax rate, theoretically even beyond your 100% maximum tax rate).

My thought is that in game terms inflation was designed to prevent massive gold hordes allowing you to accelerate building of all your improvements/units without limit. I don't know that it actually functions well in this regard any longer in FFH2 as I've built some pretty sizable hordes late-game even with massive inflation, allowing me to at least periodically buy all the improvements currently being built in every city. I was however about to win a domination victory at that point anyway. The other civs with smaller income bases were probably hurt more by the inflation, assuming it was applied equally to all civs regardless of size.

 

[apotheoser]

The current maintenance cost % increase only models the price increase effect of inflation, not inflation directly nor any other effects of inflation. The price increase penalty (modelled as progressively increasing maint costs) is what matters in game terms.

Arguably, the benefit part of the inflation equation has been left out: though all civs are hurt equally by the continually rising maint costs, none get the temporary benefits of inflation in the form of control of additional resources (equivalent as odalrick has pointed out to an additional form of taxation, allowing you to gain additional resources even beyond that provided by your currently selected tax rate, theoretically even beyond your 100% maximum tax rate).

My thought is that in game terms inflation was designed to prevent massive gold hordes allowing you to accelerate building of all your improvements/units without limit. I don't know that it actually functions well in this regard any longer in FFH2 as I've built some pretty sizable hordes late-game even with massive inflation, allowing me to at least periodically buy all the improvements currently being built in every city. I was however about to win a domination victory at that point anyway. The other civs with smaller income bases were probably hurt more by the inflation, assuming it was applied equally to all civs regardless of size.

Once again, game inflation is not real-world inflation. They have the same name but they have nothing to do with one another.

 

[Sephi]

inflation is just a mechanism to make higher difficulties more difficult as it will increase faster on higher difficulties. It's that simple.

 

[odalrick]

So? There can't be two mechanics geared towards the same goal?

Not if you aspire to good design. Besides, "inflation" is obviously an afterthought. Why add a new mechanic that does the same thing as a previous one?

But in the exact same situation, the inflation will always be the same. It isn't random, it's deterministic. Complicated, but not impossible to predict.

All right, not actually impossible. Almost impossible. Impossible without spending unreasonable amounts of resources.

Consider this:
If I want to increase the maintenance cost for large empires, I raise city maintenance.

If I want to make Hunters more common, I lower their cost.

If you want to [ ], you raise "inflation".
Please fill in the blank.

I cant even say for sure that raising "inflation" by 500% would make the game unplayable.

Who cares? Civ 4 vanilla was not this game: lots of things were different, inflation was different, this is irrelevant.

Now you're just writing random messages in the hope that someone agrees with them.

The whole point of the thread is that changing "inflation" is unpredictable.

Those are civilization-specific balance issues, not reasons to change the underlying game mechanics. If those civilizations are overly hurt by inflation, then change those civilizations. If you change inflation you affect every civilization.

But "inflation" may be broken. That's a reason to ditch "inflation" altogether.

Notice that I said "may be"; it's so diffuse that we can't tell if it really is such a problem as it seems.

 

[Mylon]

But "inflation" may be broken. That's a reason to ditch "inflation" altogether.

Notice that I said "may be"; it's so diffuse that we can't tell if it really is such a problem as it seems.

I'm not so uncertain: It's pretty clear inflation is designed as a means of keeping up with growing economies in late-game without actually scaling costs of late-game items to account for that. And for this, it fails horribly. It would be better to simply increase costs. Either through military units (as I suggested) or through civic costs.

 

[Earthling]

Who cares? Civ 4 vanilla was not this game: lots of things were different, inflation was different, this is irrelevant.

Good, this helps me make my point even better, if we entirely disregard the "purpose" inflation had in any version of civ4 thru BtS. Now let's consider only FFH2:

-FFH2 has a huge focus on military conflict. Thus I feel that it is senseless to try to discourage players from having "large armies," especially for civs which are barbarian, mercenaries, demon-summoners, etc... Right now inflation not only fails to actually affect militaries that much, but overall it hurts the worst civs possible because many of the aforementioned lack economic specialties. It's not good balance.

-FFH2 by itself does NOT tend to have huge growth of economies late-game; most economic techs are mid-game. The tech tree is huge and expensive such that researching everything is often impossible. Almost all late-game techs focus on military or other specific needs/goals of a civ. So, again, inflation doesn't come into play to balance economies so much as it prevents further research and military buildups.

-Above all, FFH2 has a ton of mechanics meant to bring the game to a close and determine which civ is a victor. From a single player perspective, Armeggedon + AI attitudes force conflict in the end-game. If anything human MP players are more effective and potent at war so that's not a concern, and on top of that humans are quite capable of getting other victory conditions. There's no need for inflation to try to dull things down.