Will modding out Inflation make the game less fun?

[SilverWing]

(I searched the forums and no thread had the answer I needed.)

I hate inflation but Im scared that if I take it out, the game would go from hard to super easy.

I know its there to balance the game out and the inflation doesn't become a concern to me until later in the game or when I am at a point where I need to war someone for more land just to gain more income. All I want is more money and inflation seems to be there taking my money just to be there.

Will taking it out make a HUGE difference in the game? Or only a difference to where I get a small amount of extra cash in my treasury?
Has anyone done it and see any huge differences?

 

[kristopherb]

if you mod it out and you doen't like it mod it back in.

 

[SilverWing]

lol I knew someone was gonna give me that answer which is not what Im looking for.

Has anyone tried it and seen any huge or small differences?

 

[Elandal]

If you take away inflation, you'll breeze through the tech tree. That's pretty much the effect..

Unit cost (or supply cost for away unit) is the same for a warrior and a tank, but the civ with tanks has a thousand times the economy. Maintenance costs consider the size of your empire (city distances, number of cities, population). Still, late in the game you can have mature towns that give you way more commerce than the early / midgame cottages. Also, late in the game you have all kinds of money and reserach multipliers (banks and universities being kind of a dividing point).

So the costs scale with number of units, number, size, and distance of cities. Income grows faster and may continue to grow even when you've reached high maintenance costs. Inflation is there just to balance things. Not that I like hundreds (or thousands) of percentages of inflation when we, in reality, seem to have low percentages (0-3% in EU area these days).

EDIT:

Already the game pace seems to get faster towards the end, and removing inflation would amplify this. No inflation wouldn't mean much early on, but late in the game it would be huge.

 

[SilverWing]

Hmm because if I had more money, I'd be able to spend to complete buildings or use more money for tech. And that wouldn't be much of a challenge.

Im on of those long lasting type of players who like Marathan and long games in Civ4. I figured if inflation was gone, the game would last longer so I wouldn't have to worry about my money vanishing to the point where Im forced to disband forces or attack.

Maybe I should just leave it as it is. Unless someone else has info to say

 

[Ravellion]

I figured if inflation was gone, the game would last longer so I wouldn't have to worry about my money vanishing to the point where Im forced to disband forces or attack.

Do you play on after the time limit? I have never had that problem you describe.

In any case, you'll reach the modern age far faster than you would wihout inflation. Just add up all that money that goes towards inflation, and imagine if that would have gone to research instead.

 

[SilverWing]

Ah...I see now. Thanks for the replies.

 

[Roland Johansen]

I have personally modded inflation out of the game a while ago. The effect of inflation on the game is none-existant to minor until the late game and thus modding it out won't effect the game in the early to mid game.

Some numbers about inflation. (On normal game speed at high difficulty levels. At low difficulty levels inflation is lower):
Until 125AD (120 turns), inflation is 0% and thus has no effect at all. The biggest parts of the land should by now be settled (depending on map size)
Then inflation slowly increases. It's 30% in 1550AD (after 220 turns). A major part of the game is over by then. Peaceful expansion has long ago stopped (except maybe a minor island somewhere that was cut of from civilization) and your economy should be well established by then. If you would pay 20% of your total commerce to cover all the expenses without inflation, then you'd have to pay 26% of your total commerce to cover the expenses with inflation. This means that your science rate goes up from 74% to 80%, a relative increase in science output of about 8% (no it's not 6%). So from 1550AD and onward, it will have a slowly increasing impact on your science rate. Of course, it has a similar effect on the AI's science rate.

I've also changed the effect of the free speech civic so that it improves the output of towns with only 1 instead of 2. So, that should largely balance the increase in science rate.

The reason that I did this is not because I can't handle inflation or something like that. It's just that I think it's a very artificial way of balancing the game. It has absolutely nothing to do with the normal real-life inflation (which would increase the income and expenditures of money). And the fact that it is linked to the time-line and not the state of development of your civilization makes it even more artificial. Some games played at small maps are finished long before 1550 AD and players who like those maps never encounter inflation in any meaningfull sense. People who like to play without a timelimit untill 3000AD (that's not me, but still) will encounter an inflation of 400% while the technology level has not improved at all. If you had to pay 25% of your commerce to maintain your civilization in 2050AD, then you'll have to pay 100% in 3000AD for the exact same cities. This fundamental weird effect that you have to pay more for the same stuff is something that made me mod out inflation. And I don't regret the decision.

 

[SilverWing]

thanks Roland Johansen. Now I might change my mind

 

[Mutineer]

Actially it is not an artificial.
It is actially a good model of civ word inflation.

If you take Sum of all % to commerce you can get from standart buildings it will be = of total inflation from year 4000BC to year of our Lord 2050.

So, in a way, in emulate inflatory effect of all this markets and banks.

You know, banks do not produce anything, they just print money .

So, that cause 1 commerce = 1 gold from start of the game to finish.

It is a good balancing mechanism and I do not know how one can ballance it othewize and avoide ball rolling effect, well, one could by including inflation directly in expences, but, wait a sec, that how it is done!

In shord it garanty that 3 commerce = 1 shield try all game, othewize buying and financial will be the only way to play at the end of the game, who need shields?

bTW, befor starting new topic make a search. There was such discussions befor and I am tied explaining it over and over again.

 

[Roland Johansen]

Actially it is not an artificial.
It is actially a good model of civ word inflation.

If you take Sum of all % to commerce you can get from standart buildings it will be = of total inflation from year 4000BC to year of our Lord 2050.

So, in a way, in emulate inflatory effect of all this markets and banks.

You know, banks do not produce anything, they just print money .

So, that cause 1 commerce = 1 gold from start of the game to finish.

It is a good balancing mechanism and I do not know how one can ballance it othewize and avoide ball rolling effect, well, one could by including inflation directly in expences, but, wait a sec, that how it is done!

In shord it garanty that 3 commerce = 1 shield try all game, othewize buying and financial will be the only way to play at the end of the game, who need shields?

bTW, befor starting new topic make a search. There was such discussions befor and I am tied explaining it over and over again.

First of all, commerce grows by much more than a factor 2. It's not just the multipliers from banks, marketplaces and groceries. But also, the increase in output by cottages later in the game and the effect of harbors and the increase in trade routes.

The argument that commerce grows with a factor 2 and thus there should be an inflation effect of a factor 2 is quite nonsence. You are trying to say that real life banks, marketplaces and groceries don't have a real effect on the world at all, that all they do is increase inflation. So actually, we aren't any richer than when we were still wearing bear skins and dancing around campfires, it's just inflation. Yeah, right.

Last you compare the increase in productivity and the increase in commerce growth. Inflation is somehow needed to compensate for a difference in growth and preserve some kind of conversion factor. The argument itself is based upon the notion that there should be some sort of fixed conversion factor. And I don't see why that should be so. But the argument is also not true. The conversion factor will stay roughly the same throughout the game. Both hammers and commerce (science/gold) get a + 100% bonus at the end of the game. And the tile improvements that produce commerce and hammers get similar boosts throughout the game. The increase in trade routes will tend to make the increase in commerce somewhat larget than the increase in productivity. But nowhere near a factor 2.

If you convert gold into hammers through rush buying, then you'll get the gold bonus from banks, groceries and marketplaces but don't get the production bonus from forges, factories and power plants. So an inflation effect is not needed there to preserve some kind of conversion factor.

 

[scu98rkr]

Is inflation really fixed to the timeline ???

This seems a very poor model to me. There has been alot of talk in the Better AI thread about the end phase of the game happening too quickly.

If your right and a game that finishes in 1555AD experiences no inflation this will make the game considerably quicker ! This means the quicker the tech ARE researched the quicker they CAN be researched this is a real double whammy.

I think this really needs to be linked to the total commerce output of the civs somehow, but how I dont know.

 

[Roland Johansen]

Is inflation really fixed to the timeline ???

This seems a very poor model to me. There has been alot of talk in the Better AI thread about the end phase of the game happening too quickly.

If your right and a game that finishes in 1555AD experiences no inflation this will make the game considerably quicker ! This means the quicker the tech ARE researched the quicker they CAN be researched this is a real double whammy.

I think this really needs to be linked to the total commerce output of the civs somehow, but how I dont know.

Yes, inflation is linked to the timeline. The xml-files that regulate this are CIV4GameSpeedInfo.xml and CIV4HandicapInfo.xml (at lower levels, there is less inflation).

I didn't say that inflation didn't exist before 1550AD. I said it's influence was limited before that time because the percentage of inflation is only 30% or lower before that time (0% before 125AD).
At the normal game speed inflation increases by 0.3% per game turn from 125AD.

The best way to get technologies at the right pace in Blake's improved AI-mod is by increasing the technologies cost. But know that it has always been a problem at the higher difficulty levels that the rate of technological development was very fast. But I agree with your observation that if the technology rate would be slightly too fast, then the way inflation is implemented in the game will only increase that rate.

 

[Mutineer]

Roland Johansen,

I would not disscuss economics with you, but yes, banks do not produce anythiong exept services.
Again, improvent of cottagess is irrelivant, as they do not change commerce to shields conversion rate.

In addition, Cottagess become fully grow towns in just 60 turns, which is mach shorter then full deriation of the game.

Making inflation linked to average % of current commerce multiplifiers will make it mach more dificult to catch up technologically, as more advance neaibors will have all this building and you will be penalised by inflation.

Making inflation linked to average % in your cities a bit more interesting. It will reduce positive effect of this building on one side and increade effect of specialisation. If you only build banks in your best commerce city you will get max from your nak when do not suffer from inflation.

Firaxis did try to avoide situation when more building actially hurt you, as it is unfun. Current solution is the best compromise.

 

[SilverWing]

Mutineer

bTW, befor starting new topic make a search. There was such discussions befor and I am tied explaining it over and over again.
------------------

If you read my first post in this thread it says I didn't find the answer i needed. All I wanted to know is if modding it out would make a HUGE or small difference and if anyone who's experienced it would share some info.

Im no rookie in forums. I always search before creating a thread. But thanks anyway

 

[Roland Johansen]

Roland Johansen,

I would not disscuss economics with you, but yes, banks do not produce anythiong exept services.

You are twisting around my argument. I was not talking only about banks. I was talking about the total economy. I was arguing that we really did become richer than 6000 years ago and that it wasn't all inflation. And you say that ingame, every multiplyer of gold/science should be undone by inflation for some kind of balance.

Again, improvent of cottagess is irrelivant, as they do not change commerce to shields conversion rate.

I talked about your conversion factor in my previous post. But you haven't quoted anything about it. So I guess we must be talking about different things. So explain me what is this conversion factor that you're talking about, so that we can discuss it. Why is the conversion factor 3 according to you and why would it not remain 3 if there was no inflation. And also important, why should the game have a fixed conversion factor at all?

 

[Roland Johansen]

If you read my first post in this thread it says I didn't find the answer i needed. All I wanted to know is if modding it out would make a HUGE or small difference and if anyone who's experienced it would share some info.

Im no rookie in forums. I always search before creating a thread. But thanks anyway

Your question was about the effect of modding out inflation. My guess is that the other discussion is about how realistic inflation is and whether or not it is a good game mechanic. While that discussion is related to your question, it's not exactly the same.

But I guess that Mutineer's post was at least partly directed at me, because in my first post in this thread, I was rather negative about the game mechanic inflation while he thinks it is an important game mechanic.

 

[Mutineer]

Because otherwize game will be screved in favor of financial trait and cash buying.

Firaxis mad mistake in original vanilla which they were forced to fix in future paches. The make cash bying too efficient in general and in addition Kremlin was putting cash bying efficiency well overtop.

They had to nerf cash buying a lot and nerf effect of Kremlin.

Extrime short unswer to you question is: keep 1-1 relationship of commerce to real money true all the game is important because otherwize Financial will allways be the best trait. (additionl answers that power of cash buying which let you to use all power of your empire in one place has to keep constant or even decrease true the agess, othewize production will be useless.)

 

[Roland Johansen]

Because otherwize game will be screved in favor of financial trait and cash buying.

Firaxis mad mistake in original vanilla which they were forced to fix in future paches. The make cash bying too efficient in general and in addition Kremlin was putting cash bying efficiency well overtop.

They had to nerf cash buying a lot and nerf effect of Kremlin.

Extrime short unswer to you question is: keep 1-1 relationship of commerce to real money true all the game is important because otherwize Financial will allways be the best trait. (additionl answers that power of cash buying which let you to use all power of your empire in one place has to keep constant or even decrease true the agess, othewize production will be useless.)

Your answer is indeed very short. I agree that cash rushing was overpowered in the original game and it still is slightly overpowered in Warlords 2.08. I have argued that point extensively in a strategy thread discussion. In my personal mod, I've decreased the power of cash rushing slightly more than in Warlords 2.08.

The strength of cash rushing is related to what is the best way to produce stuff.
1)build cottages and let them grow to towns and then use the commerce together with cash multipliers of banks, marketplaces and groceries to get loads of money to rush buy stuff. This works best if you use civics that enhance the output of cottages like free speech and universal suffrage.
2) build mines, lumbermills, watermills and workshops and use the hammer multipliers of forges, factories and powerplants to produce stuff directly with hammers. This works best if you use civics that enhance production improvements like state property.

If at some time a town improvement's commerce + hammer production would lead to a higher production through cash rushing than a mine would with normal production, then cash rushing is overpowered. You would only need towns in your land and those would give you all the production and science that you need. And the production would also be more flexibel since you can decide where and when to use the vast commerce production of your land for the production of buildings.

Now this is in no way related to inflation. The value of inflation will be exactly the same whether you use cottages or mines to produce stuff in your land. And the conversion factor between gold and hammers when you cash rush is not influenced by inflation. You will always get 100 hammers for 300 gold (exceptions are related to wonder building and rushing stuff from scratch and of course the Kremlin). Inflation is just a constant that is not related to whether you use cottages and gold multipliers with cash rushing or mines with production multipliers to produce stuff in your cities.