RE: bureaucracy (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [Science Fiction] >> Armada 2526 Series



Message

Wade1000 -> RE: bureaucracy (11/30/2009 7:14:03 AM)

Another way to address any potential bureaucracy issues might be to adjust the benefits of current bonus structures and/or add more bonuses or structures throughout the technology tree.

Having a different bureaucracy game setting that scales for larger galaxies is unappealing to me.



Zakhal -> RE: bureaucracy (11/30/2009 8:02:31 AM)

Overpopulation is another problem. Ten of my planets hit overpopulation last turn and I have no idea what to do with them. It has a big minus happyness and my planets are filled with people.

I wish I would be able to kill them or somthing. Just continiously bombard my own planets populations so that they dont go over. Got to check today if there is som tech that could fix this.



Wade1000 -> RE: bureaucracy (11/30/2009 8:15:46 AM)

Maybe there should be more technology and upgrade bonuses throughout the technology tree to solve any potential problems. For example, over population could be solved with arcologies and further upgrades to happiness structures.
I think that every empire problem should be able to be resolved, to a fair extent, eventually, through the use of technology.



kafka -> RE: bureaucracy (11/30/2009 11:08:40 AM)

quote:

For those people complaining about bureaucracy, how many colonies do you have, and how many do you think would be fun to have before it becomes too much of a management chore.

The huge maps are really there to accomodate a lot of races, rather than to allow enormous empires. I didn't really think the game would be fun with 100 + colonies to manage. Still if people want to play huge empires, I'll add some means to adjust it.


since I've focused my strategy on the race specific victory conditions I don't think I've expanded too much. Anyway I've a long way yet to reach 100 colonies, most AI players do have larger empires (btw I play on a huge map, turn limit set to 500, 12 players). Though I've expanded rather conservatively, colonizing normal and rich systems, building necessary structures only and having the smallest fleet to maintain, the bureaucracy burden has started to increase in a way it almost eats my complete tax income (on high populated systems particularly). I'm past 100 turns now and the map hasn't been fully explored yet, so there are still 'free' systems available. But at this stage each new colonized system seems to disproportionally cause the bureacracy costs to increase. On the other hand, if I understand the game mechanics correctly, I do have to expand to distribute population from the overpopulated sytems to keep them happy. As I wrote before, I didn't focus on expansion but on the race specific victory conditions, technology advance and happiness.

Btw... could you explain which factors are exactly taken into consideration when determining the score, only the race specific ones?
Thanks



Iceman -> RE: bureaucracy (11/30/2009 5:44:14 PM)

quote:

Btw... could you explain which factors are exactly taken into consideration when determining the score, only the race specific ones?


Yep, those listed in the Custom Game screen when the race is chosen, or in the in-game screen with the race's info. Check the tooltips for each VC to see how it is factored.

---

About Bureaucracy, the way Lost Empire: Immortals deals with it is, Bureaucracy depends on both system count and distance to the homesystem. Whenever you colonize a new system, bureaucracy for all systems increases - of course, at first it's not noticeable. Colonizing a system farther from your homesystem increases it more than a closer one. Some races have bonuses to one of those factors, others to the other. It is capped at 50% by default, but it's moddable (a system with x% bureaucracy loses x% of its resources income). There is no way to contain it.

Capping it to a certain % of a system's income could be a way to deal with it. And making it moddable.
The No Bureaucracy trait could be turned into a Level-based trait like most others, in that each race would have +x% reduction on bureaucracy. The Walden would have Bureacracy Level 10 (100% reduction).



Flaviusx -> RE: bureaucracy (11/30/2009 6:31:25 PM)

Increasingly, it seems to me, there are only 3 important racial traits:

1. The bureacracy trait.

2. Orderliness.

3. Low pop growth. Yes, you read that correctly. Given the Malthusian population model of the game, pop growth rate restrictions are actually a benefit in the long run.

Races lacking these traits need not apply. The humans obviously fare badly here, but the actual worst race is the Toyes. They don't have bureacracy, they are disorderly, and have a runaway growth rate for pop. Their victory conditions might make up for this I suppose, but they won't be very fun to play since they fail at every level to compete with the game's economic/demographic model.

I suggest some tweaks here. We need more tech options to address the buro penalty. And the unhappiness resulting from overpopulation. "Overpopulation" indeed needs to be rethought from scratch and either made irrelevant or offset by tech.



Aroddo -> RE: bureaucracy (11/30/2009 6:47:59 PM)

you can always build entertainment centers to increase happiness.

ok, they are expensive and have a fairly high upkeep, but most of the time it's worth the increase in revenue when you can switch from low to normal taxation.

and the teyes should get a new race trait: no overpopulation penalty.
they love it crowded. :)



Flaviusx -> RE: bureaucracy (11/30/2009 6:53:41 PM)

That's a pretty darn good idea about the Teyes, actually. They'd go from zero to hero right there as a choice to play and join the big leagues with the Walden and Hun Yoon.



Iceman -> RE: bureaucracy (12/2/2009 3:47:55 PM)

I always thought growth rate was overrated. I never really cared for it, and never "played" it.
Also, growth rate kind of dilutes with all the mods over it.



solops -> RE: bureaucracy (12/2/2009 5:33:19 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Ntronium

The huge maps are really there to accomodate a lot of races, rather than to allow enormous empires. I didn't really think the game would be fun with 100 + colonies to manage. Still if people want to play huge empires, I'll add some means to adjust it.



Please do.



Tom_Holsinger -> RE: bureaucracy (12/2/2009 5:41:01 PM)

Actually, Solops, the tactical combat system is such that player management of really large fleets is an issue.  This would be a major problem for really large player empires.  There are limits on game scale given the game system.



solops -> RE: bureaucracy (12/2/2009 5:52:52 PM)

I am not so worried about the tactical system as I am the empire management/bureaucracy. That, I believe, is what Bob was referring to. I can always stop combat and issue orders and I am not concerned with micromanaging combat here like I do in Sword of the Stars.



Iceman -> RE: bureaucracy (12/3/2009 10:29:28 AM)

About Bureaucracy being a pain, you can always give *all* races the No Bureaucracy trait. [;)]
The game was not really designed for conquest victories, but for VPs. It seems to have been designed so that empires support something like 30 or so colonies. Remove the Bureaucracy penalties, and you can have conquest victories.



Shark7 -> RE: bureaucracy (12/3/2009 2:35:55 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Tom_Holsinger

Armada works out of the box, and is fun to play. MOO3 could run, but wasn't fun and plain did not work right until a Canadian programmer whose on-line handle is Bhruic fixed most of the broken parts out of sheer genius in the 6-12 month period after it was released. I believe he has helped with many other games too. MOO3 is now great fun for me because I've customized it so much, but is still micromanagement city compared to Armada 2526.

OTOH, you can play the really big MOO3 empires in really big galaxies in less than real time. I suspect few will have the patience to play really big Armada empires in really big galaxies.

quote:

ORIGINAL: rosseau

"Emrich's in MOO3 is IMO much preferable to Bob Smith's in Armada."

No offense, but Armada is much preferable to MOO3 as a game! I've been playing them since Chris Crawford's Eastern Front in '82, and MOO3 lasted a few hours on my hard drive. However, the background story written for MOO3 was awesome. Just my opinion, of course.




Agree, with the fixes in place MOO3 turned into a quite enjoyable game, but like you I have modded mine to the point its not recognizable from its 'out of the box' configuration.

And that brings up a key point to keeping any 4x game playable for me...moddability. If I can mod it, I can make it play so differently that there are infinite possibilities...it turns it into a digital sandbox of sorts.



Tom_Holsinger -> RE: bureaucracy (12/3/2009 2:38:47 PM)

Iceman,

A production penalty that increases with empire size is absolutely essential to extend the duration of relative power parity between player and AI empires. This was THE key design innovation in Master of Orion III and it was wildly successful. Every turn-based 4x game should have something like it. Armada does, but linking it to unrest is IMO a mistake. I advocate eliminating that link, and making bureaucracy a stand-alone feature which can be incrementally modded.



Shawkhan -> RE: bureaucracy (12/3/2009 7:33:58 PM)

Bureaucracy is the natural friction that has always limited the size of empires in the human experience, which is why no one power has ever conquered the entire world. I consider it quite realistic. Players of these games don't generally prefer simulations but games. A simulation MAY also be fun to play(as is this game), but a GAME that is not fun to play is dead on arrival. MOO3 and Reach for the Stars weren't that much fun to play.
I see no reason why different settings can't be incorporated into this game that make it easier but less realistic to play the huge empires.
Are the effects of bureaucracy lessened on the easier settings of the game?



Archy -> RE: bureaucracy (12/3/2009 8:34:42 PM)

I like all these penaltys but what's missing is a pop-up when hovering over details giving malus % and source.
I love humans, bring on the malus i can deal with it anyways. Who said you needed mines and industrys everywhere.

This game has indeed a logistic system that people dont really use yet , you can setup transport shuttling and use taxes and human growth to expand while researching other stuff.
You have to figure out how to take risks to get bigger gains in the end with the current system, i really like it but it lacks content/details and polishing to make it less generic.

I like the game like it is i'm not here for a walk in the park i play at expert anyways.



Flaviusx -> RE: bureaucracy (12/3/2009 8:36:51 PM)

Shawkhan, nobody questions the need for bureaucracy penalizing empires in some fashion, but in this game it's quite excessive.

It reminds me of Civ3 as it originaly shipped out with the horrendous corruption penalties.

It's possible to go overboard with this sort of thing. There's a sweet spot...and Armada hasn't hit it.



laika -> RE: bureaucracy (12/3/2009 9:06:07 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Archy

I like all these penaltys but what's missing is a pop-up when hovering over details giving malus % and source.
I love humans, bring on the malus i can deal with it anyways. Who said you needed mines and industrys everywhere.

This game has indeed a logistic system that people dont really use yet , you can setup transport shuttling and use taxes and human growth to expand while researching other stuff.
You have to figure out how to take risks to get bigger gains in the end with the current system, i really like it but it lacks content/details and polishing to make it less generic.

I like the game like it is i'm not here for a walk in the park i play at expert anyways.


Fully agree. I like this tactical way of 4x space gaming. Maby its because i play on small maps and games that only takes 1 evening. I don,t have time to play games like MOO3 anymore.These games don,t bring me the joy anymore. It took me to mutch time in RL to get fun out of these games. I told before to TOM that i,m a tactical gamer. I took a risk with this game but its great and i,m happy with it.
I think the problem is lack for information in the manual. My fleets are contains only aprrox 40-50 ships. And the great thing is you dont need to control the galaxy to win a game. I choose my systems with care.
What ever change they gone make in this game i don,t care. But i realy hope that we can choose with settings how we can play this game after changes. So every 1 can play this game he wants.






Shawkhan -> RE: bureaucracy (12/4/2009 3:55:43 AM)

In my third game as humans, I was able to reach over 500k in cash reserves, build an 80 ship fleet(DestroyerIIs,BattlecruisersIIs, missile cruiserIIS,DoomwingerIIs) and become an almost unstoppable force by turn 300 of the 12 player game. Bureaucracy is quite playable as it is. Hint: As human don't upgrade mines, and only build shipyards on Rich worlds.



Flaviusx -> RE: bureaucracy (12/4/2009 8:22:44 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Shawkhan

In my third game as humans, I was able to reach over 500k in cash reserves, build an 80 ship fleet(DestroyerIIs,BattlecruisersIIs, missile cruiserIIS,DoomwingerIIs) and become an almost unstoppable force by turn 300 of the 12 player game. Bureaucracy is quite playable as it is. Hint: As human don't upgrade mines, and only build shipyards on Rich worlds.


We know all this and it falls apart on larger maps.

Try something other than the 12 player game.




Iceman -> RE: bureaucracy (12/5/2009 12:47:15 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Tom_Holsinger
Iceman,
A production penalty that increases with empire size is absolutely essential to extend the duration of relative power parity between player and AI empires. This was THE key design innovation in Master of Orion III and it was wildly successful. Every turn-based 4x game should have something like it.


I disagree. Upkeep and Bureaucracy can do the job, if implemented properly. Artificial penalties not only are not intuitive, they're unnecessary IMO.
It's a good thing that different people have different opinion though.



PDiFolco -> RE: bureaucracy (12/5/2009 2:02:54 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Zakhal

Overpopulation is another problem. Ten of my planets hit overpopulation last turn and I have no idea what to do with them. It has a big minus happyness and my planets are filled with people.

I wish I would be able to kill them or somthing. Just continiously bombard my own planets populations so that they dont go over. Got to check today if there is som tech that could fix this.


I know, in GC2 you could just dump them in space, not here.
There's no "game design" solution, so deport them en masse to some crappy planet where you'll build nothing, and let them rot or be taken over by the IA powers - which will *weaken* them ! [:D]

This game amazingly supports gulag empires...Chances are it'll be a hit in N Korea [X(] [:D]



Shawkhan -> RE: bureaucracy (12/5/2009 2:08:06 PM)

Has anyone else found that when your home planet is destroyed most of the bureaucracy penalty disappears? Had that happen in one of my early games when the Klurgu destroyed Earth. I was just learning the game and was almost bankrupt. Earth died and my income shot up!



Iceman -> RE: bureaucracy (12/5/2009 2:55:33 PM)

IIRC Bureaucracy has to do with pop size more than anything else. Maybe Earth had most of your total pop at the time?



Iceman -> RE: bureaucracy (12/5/2009 2:57:40 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: PDiFolco
I know, in GC2 you could just dump them in space, not here.
There's no "game design" solution, so deport them en masse to some crappy planet where you'll build nothing, and let them rot or be taken over by the IA powers - which will *weaken* them ! [:D]


Not exactly true. Build a lot of transports, load them up with the pop, and then scrap those transports. [;)]
Yep, a bit expensive, but the Bureaucracy decrease and happiness increase might be worth it.



Grandpoobah -> RE: bureaucracy (12/5/2009 4:01:00 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Iceman

Not exactly true. Build a lot of transports, load them up with the pop, and then scrap those transports. [;)]
Yep, a bit expensive, but the Bureaucracy decrease and happiness increase might be worth it.


A variation of what I do. Instead of scrapping the transports, I add them to my battle fleets to give the opposing forces something else to shoot at. You get the added benefit of lower naval losses in battles. [sm=tank2-39.gif]



Iceman -> RE: bureaucracy (12/5/2009 4:07:47 PM)

Yep, you just have to pay the upkeep of all those ships until you get into battle. If yuo want to get rid of them quickly, or you have loads of transports, it's easier to scrap them.

BTW, pop aboard arks and transports doesn't count towards Population Killed in the Charts, but if it ever gets to count, doing that will look bad in your record (and good in your opponent's) [;)]



PDiFolco -> RE: bureaucracy (12/5/2009 4:33:43 PM)

Whatever, this is totally nonsensicaland should be fixed ![:-]



Iceman -> RE: bureaucracy (12/5/2009 4:39:52 PM)

I wasn't making any excuses, mind you. Just talking. [;)]

In a way, you wonder if it's not best to colonize only those systems with zero (or low) pop growth so that you don't get galloping bureaucracy, and have a couple ideal systems growing pop - and then selectively send pop to the inhospitable ones, only enough to open up construction slots. Of course, happiness is not good in those systems, but then again, as long as you keep to what you really need, and with some strong Security, you might just be ok.
If you can keep a strong income through trade, you're good to go.



Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
2.908203