Economic Growth is too large.

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Economic Growth is too large.

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [American Civil War] >> Forge of Freedom: The American Civil War 1861-1865 >> Economic Growth is too large.

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Economic Growth is too large. - 4/11/2007 3:56:41 PM

firepowerjohan

Posts: 378
Joined: 4/7/2007
Status: offline

I have played both the latest patch and the beta patch and found that the basic buildings that grow your economy (factory, mine) simply has too large profit per turn. This means if you early on build many factories or mine and reinvest their profit into new factories and mines then you can at leist 10 fold your economy by 1864.

I urge ppl to look into this matter so that this will be included into the future patching because it is always nice to be able to have the standard rules ok when you are going to set up games against other ppl.

Example:
Factory cost 20, 20 to build and produce +2 per turn. Roughly you could say that it cost 40 units and produce 2 which is 5% profit per turn. Reinvesting this profit into new factories would mean a exponential growth that if building times are 0 (which they are not so the growth will be lower than my example) means in 3 years (72 turns) is 1.05 raised to 72 which is 33.5.

Building times will lower this number considerably but also mines produce +4 instead of +2 so that will mean you have higher than 1.05 growth when u sum up factories+mines.

Comparing this kind of growth to population would mean if you have 1 million and then 3 years later you have 33.5 million so quite easily you understand that the growth is simply humongous.

I used this strategy "1861-1862 Factory+Mine boom" where (especially in the early phase) the priority was to build factories and mines.

I can post send you my mod if anyone is interested playing with tougher costs and more reasonable growth rates.

< Message edited by firwepoerjohan -- 4/11/2007 4:04:06 PM >

Post #: 1

RE: Economic Growth is too large. - 4/11/2007 4:47:01 PM

Walloc

Posts: 3141
Joined: 10/30/2006
From: Denmark
Status: offline

Well Johan,

You are naturally intitled to ur opinion and i do see what you are talking about. More power to any one that makes mods too.

I have to disagree with ur math a bit tho.

Using the example of a mint / factory. Yes they give +2 resources and costs 40.
So for starters, since they take 4 rounds to build, u arent making ur investments back until after 4 build turns and 20*2= in all 24 turns. Thats a whole year of the 3 the game lasts. leaving 48 turns of +2 = 96 as a true payback of ur invenstment of 40. A 40 to 96 is some what different from a 1 to 33.5 payback, IMHO.

2ndly. All builings require slots. Yes u start with some for free. If we for a sec discount those for a bit.
A mansion costs 120 resources for 4 slots. Thats 30 per slot. Adding those 30 to the 40 makes for 70.
Ending up in a payback of 96 for an investment of 70. IMHO a far cry from 1 to 33.5.
ofc more so in the case of free slots.
Atop of that is the payback in reinvestment of ur gain, altering the payback to be a bit larger. Intrests, intrest kinda thing. But the longer into the game u build stuff the less time u have to gain the payback of the investment and in the last year, any thing u build wont get u back what u payed.

While u certainly can and i do it my self can build an economy larger than what u start with and i do it my self. I dont think its a quiet as bad as u describe. I've tried and I cant 10 fold the economy or any where near it.
The math is a bit different from the south sides since plantations actually make resources so u gain both that and slots. The build time makes up for that math wise.

Slots, use of resources for military and research, upkeep and diplomacy. U dont end up being able to reinvest every thing u gain back.

U are certainly in your right to think that the possibilties as they are atm are to great.
Again power to any one that makes mods, IMO.

Kind regards,

Rasmus

< Message edited by Walloc -- 4/11/2007 4:58:01 PM >

(in reply to firepowerjohan)

Post #: 2

RE: Economic Growth is too large. - 4/11/2007 5:53:46 PM

firepowerjohan

Posts: 378
Joined: 4/7/2007
Status: offline

I also said that building times will limit the growth but also Mines give +4 instead of +2 if you have Iron Works i.e build mines first hand at those locations.

lets take an example

Factor 20 20
Mine 40 0

I buy factories spread out so i dont need plantation for a long while
Mines I buy where I have Iron works and since they produce +4 i do not need as many of them for the early phase.

A country has 10 10 income (labour, iron)

turn 1 : income 10 10 , Stored 10 10
turn 2: income 10 10, stored 20 20 buy factory
turn 3: income 10 10, stored 10 10
turn 4: income 10 10, stored 20 20 buy factory
turn 5: income 10 10, stored 10 10
turn 6: income 12 10, stored 22 20 buy factory
turn 7: income 12 10, stored 14 10
turn 8: income 14 10, stored 28 20 buy factory
turn 9: income 14 10, stored 22 10
turn 10: income 16 10, stored 38 20 buy factory
turn 11: income 16 10, stored 34 10
turn 12: income 18 10, stored 52 20 buy factory
turn 13: income 18 10, stored 50 10 buy mine
turn 14: income 20 10, stored 30 20 buy factory
turn 15: income 20 10, stored 30 10
turn 16: income 22 10, stored 52 20 buy mine
turn 17: income 22 10, stored 34 30 buy factory
turn 18: income 24 10, stored 38 20 buy factory
turn 19: income 24 14, stored 42 14 buy mine
turn 20: income 24 14, stored 26 28 buy factory
turn 21: income 26 14, stored 32 22 buy factory
turn 22: income 28 18, stored 40 20 buy mine
turn 23: income 28 18, stored 28 38 buy factory
turn 24: income 30 18, stored 38 36 buy factory
turn 25: income 32 22

So, this example is after 24 turns i.e one year has passed. I produce 32 22 instead of 10 10 so the economic growth was 220% on labour and 120% on iron.

Total factories built (or began building) : 13
Total factories built (or began building) : 4

Worth to be noted
i) with a 2-3 year plan I would have started building 1-2 plantation during the later stages of this 24 turn period.
ii) 10 10 is low income so if I had started the example with 20 20 or 30 30 I would have needed much more plantations to keep up the rate.

Yes, the mathematics I used was for when building time is 0 and when you do not need capacity increases. But also worth to mention is that Plantation cost only 50 labour and 50 horses and horses you do not need for building factories and mines. Plantation produce +2 labour, +2 horse, +1 cash so it really does not slow down the growth much having to buy them.

The fact that USA cannot build plantation further makes this unfair and means CSA has better potential than USA in the game building their plantations since with high growth rate you are going to run out of slots earlier hampering the growth factor.

I played with my mod with roughly DOUBLED prices for all resource buildings and still by 1863 with CSA I had great railroad, good science, good hospital coverage, large surplus of weapons and loads of camps, so that is why I think with the normal prices the economy would have been simply huge.

< Message edited by firwepoerjohan -- 4/11/2007 6:13:02 PM >

(in reply to Walloc)

Post #: 3

RE: Economic Growth is too large. - 4/11/2007 6:14:46 PM

christof139

Posts: 980
Joined: 12/7/2006
Status: offline

When the enemy takes the upgrade of Counterfitting, it will mess up your economic production, so I wouldn't increase the cost of buildings that much if at all.

Chris

_____________________________

'What is more amazing, is that amongst all those approaching enemies there is not one named Gisgo.' Hannibal Barcid (or Barca) to Gisgo, a Greek staff officer, Cannae.
That's the CSS North Carolina BB-55
Boris Badanov, looking for Natasha Goodenov

(in reply to firepowerjohan)

Post #: 4

RE: Economic Growth is too large. - 4/11/2007 6:40:41 PM

Erik Rutins

Posts: 37503
Joined: 3/28/2000
From: Vermont, USA
Status: offline

Hi Johan,

quote:

ORIGINAL: firwepoerjohan
The fact that USA cannot build plantation further makes this unfair and means CSA has better potential than USA in the game building their plantations since with high growth rate you are going to run out of slots earlier hampering the growth factor.

In practice though, the CSA generally starts losing territory, cities and getting plundered whereas the USA doesn't.

quote:

I played with my mod with roughly DOUBLED prices for all resource buildings and still by 1863 with CSA I had great railroad, good science, good hospital coverage, large surplus of weapons and loads of camps, so that is why I think with the normal prices the economy would have been simply huge.

Is this with the beta update? Also, on which difficulty/power settings? By far the most common complaint from player is in fact that they can't do enough, not that they can do too much with the economy. On top of that, at least for the Union this was a period of tremendous expansion as the economy supplied the needs of the war. I agree that a skilled player can get a lot more out of the economy though, but it generally takes a lot of practics and discipline.

Regards,

- Erik

_____________________________

Erik Rutins
CEO, Matrix Games LLC

For official support, please use our Help Desk: http://www.matrixgames.com/helpdesk/

Freedom is not Free.

(in reply to firepowerjohan)

Post #: 5

RE: Economic Growth is too large. - 4/11/2007 6:50:36 PM

Walloc

Posts: 3141
Joined: 10/30/2006
From: Denmark
Status: offline

Yes, and as said i played the same way when i started as CSA.
But it does have a price. 628 spend resources to be specific. Resources that isnt going towards any thing else. Btw that about half ur iron production that is used. Not much else can be build, that requires that. Governour request for example.

Did i feel the South was overpowered economicly when i first played the, yes.
Apparently if i understand the dev team correctly it was done to make the CSA side more "playble". One can of course agree or disagree with that.�I see it as an effect of that in part.
Has the dev team IMO, succeded in that, yes.

Plantation produce +2 labour, +2 horse, +1 cash so it really does not slow down the growth much having to buy them.

U can only get either labor or cash not both.

Taken to that. Horses are sorta free for CSA. That helps them immensly. Getting slots with out using Money. They have a huge advantage over the US side. They need money for all, more or less being the limiting factor in all for the US side.
In some sense i always felt that the CSA side is more free to do stuff and buy what they need over the US side. In the standart Scn. Any how its sorta another case of arguement.

If u play US side Southern Steel. U would never ever even consider buying any of the resource upgrades. +2 money, iron, labor or horses means nothing when u get 400 per turn. The return for the slot simply isnt worth it. Maybe a few horse farms possibly arsenals, but thats all.

So i feel the issue is very much not a general issue, but a issue specific to one side and to only in some scn's vs the AI.

Can and should the side CSA in the standart scn boost they their week spots, sure.
As said apparently this was the intention. A +4 mine is alot when ur benchmark is 26, but nothing if ur benchmark is 400.

I assume u are playing the AI. IMHO any good human player would make u pay using 628 resources for non military purposes. tho some u would use any how cuz nothing else to use them on.
Heck i usually win as CSA side playing the AI southern steel by oct/nov 62, blindfolded now. No need for a long term Economy.

Kind regards,

Rasmus

< Message edited by Walloc -- 4/11/2007 6:55:09 PM >

(in reply to firepowerjohan)

Post #: 6

RE: Economic Growth is too large. - 4/11/2007 7:10:19 PM

Gil R.

Posts: 10821
Joined: 4/1/2005
Status: offline

I'll just point out that if you reinvest your resources instead of devoting them to the war effort you're going to win less. Maybe as a result you'll lose some territory and cities and the production that goes with them. (This is especially true for the CSA, which can't afford to sit back and build up its economy while the Union is spending left and right to upgrade its armies.)

(in reply to Walloc)

Post #: 7

RE: Economic Growth is too large. - 4/11/2007 7:25:29 PM

firepowerjohan

Posts: 378
Joined: 4/7/2007
Status: offline

It was the July 61 scenario and I was CSA, the AI was USA.

(in reply to Gil R.)

Post #: 8

RE: Economic Growth is too large. - 4/11/2007 8:08:10 PM

ericbabe

Posts: 11927
Joined: 3/23/2005
Status: offline

In the initial iterations of the game, the economic improvements all cost more, about 2-3 times as much as they do now, and took longer to produce. But with these old values the general consensus of most of our testers was that they weren't worth the cost at that price. I'd love to hear more feedback on whether the costs of these types of developments should be increased if other players have opinions on this.

_____________________________

(in reply to firepowerjohan)

Post #: 9

RE: Economic Growth is too large. - 4/11/2007 8:31:06 PM

firepowerjohan

Posts: 378
Joined: 4/7/2007
Status: offline

Also, FYI i use latest patch AND beta patch on top.

I know I can modify the power setting to make for slower growth but there is one problem that then I would have such a small starting income. Would be almost impossible to afford buying CSA ironclad or for USA to build ships.

As for build time, I rather have low building time and high building cost than the opposite.

example a) A mine cost 40 labour and 6 turns it has a payoff time of 16 turns while if it example b) cost 20 labour and 11 turns it has a payoff time off 16 turns also.

Difference in example b is that after those 11 turns you gain 8 iron while example a gain 4 iron since in example b you afforded building 2 factories.

In my mod I had factories cost much more labour than money so it meant it took a long time before my labour matched my iron. This also meant that things that used alot of iron (weapon upgrades and ironclad) was reasonable to afford since I got use of my extra iron and only had to pay for the "labour".

< Message edited by firwepoerjohan -- 4/11/2007 8:40:53 PM >

(in reply to ericbabe)

Post #: 10

RE: Economic Growth is too large. - 4/13/2007 12:38:58 AM

jchastain

Posts: 2164
Joined: 8/8/2003
From: Marietta, GA
Status: offline

Let me touch on a few points if I may...

First, are we talking about the advanced game with support costs? It is possible to increase the economy fairly dramatically in the basic and intermediate games, but I believe that was by design. By making it very easy to grow the economy in the most basic games, it makes manpower the real constraining resource and simplified the management challenge for new players. Basically, without support costs enabled you can build you heart away but after a certain point it doesn't really matter because you can't really apply the additional economic output to the war effort because you run out of manpower.

In the advanced game, Walloc is exactly right - you can't focus on economic payback of your investments without considering the cost of mansions to expand building space. And when you consider that full picture, there is a payback but it isn't nearly as attractive as you indicate. And as Gil indicates, it really isn't effective to concentrate on economic growth exclusively as a method of winning the game.

So, based on my own experiences, I must admit that I am somewhat confused by your comments. So... let me ask a few questions...

1. What game options are you playing with?
2. If we accept that you are seeing the economic growth you suggest, do you find yourself winning the game easily because of your economic output? And if so, when do you begin to focus it on expanding your military capacity and how exactly do you "spend" your earnings - ie. what do you buy at that late date that allows you to be so successful?
3. What level of difficulty are you playing at?

Thanks.

(in reply to firepowerjohan)

Post #: 11

RE: Economic Growth is too large. - 4/13/2007 12:56:51 AM

christof139

Posts: 980
Joined: 12/7/2006
Status: offline

If you turn off resource support costs, does that mean you also turn off supply point costs??

I have never played with support costs off, so I think I will try that.

Thanx for the info., Chris

_____________________________

(in reply to jchastain)

Post #: 12

RE: Economic Growth is too large. - 4/13/2007 9:55:44 AM

firepowerjohan

Posts: 378
Joined: 4/7/2007
Status: offline

I am playing with advanced options but I have disabled a few of the characteristics like generals, governors, unit attributes and stuff since I want to play the game more until have all hardcore stuff :)

I never use the example I showed, it was the 100% economy extreme, I might use 80% economy, 20% war in the first year and then second and third year i use 60% economy, 40% war production.

One point worth to mention is that due to the high productivity of mines (in the unmodded version) you can still afford some weapon upgrades because it does not use labour and it uses weapons which you will get a little and from european import. Also you can build schools and runners without labour and iron.

So, the setback with industrialisising is really only you lack new units and reinforcements but you can still somewhat improve your firepower by weapon upgrades.

I am now reworking my mod, making it even more balanced so that growth and military can be used at the same time somewhat. Since labour is not used for weapons and research, it is the most industrialisation like factor so that means factory should be the expensive bottleneck IMO. I now belive the way to go is to make factories expensive but not adjust mine or horse camp any. Also, mansion and plantation should be very expensive so that growth will hit some walls later. This could enable more incentive to buy alot of military early on since ou do not miss out so much on growth.

The new numbers I will try is (those not listed use the normal prices)
name, coin , labour, iron, horses
Factory 0 45 45 0
Mint 0 30 90 0
Mansion 200 40 0 40
Plantation 0 180 0 180

camp 70 20 0 80
RR_Station 0 20 100 0

< Message edited by firwepoerjohan -- 4/13/2007 2:02:52 PM >

(in reply to christof139)

Post #: 13

RE: Economic Growth is too large. - 4/13/2007 10:25:49 AM

christof139

Posts: 980
Joined: 12/7/2006
Status: offline

Hi, The Govenors do drive you nuts, a real pain with too many unreasonable requests. Once a Guv. requests a Building I think he shouldn't be allowed to request that Building again. I have Guvs. requesting manufacturing Centers twice and the second request comes right after the first request is fullfilled. Same for Telegraph Stations, Factories, Foundries, and Barracks.

I can undertand a Guv. requsting more than one Telegraph if there is more than one City in the State, but States like Arkansas and Florida only have one City. Both of these States could have 2 Ciities, perhaps Helena or Camden in Arkansas and St. Augustine in Florida, just small Cities with small populations. Smaller Cities should have a limit on the number of Buildings that can be built in them, say maybe 8 or 12 buildings maximum.

Ft. Smith could be put in western Arkansas along the border with the Indian Territory, and Ft. Gibson could be put in Indian Territory. Those were important points and Ft. Gibson was a fairly strong fort and both had settlements around them and some industry, but the industry could be ignored in the game.

Limiting the number and types of buildings the Guvs. request should be easy to program. As FoF is now, it is not right concerning Guv. requests.

At higher levels of play like Capt. and above you get resource deduction penalties and if you increase the cost of Buidings, then you will have a non-existant economy. As the game is now, at the Lt. Col. level as the CSA I frequently have a negative resource income, due to these resource penalties and upkeep costs of weapons etc. At the higher levels of play, these penalties and upkeep costs need to be reduced a bit, and perhaps at all levles they could be reduced a bit and overall at all levles the cost of some weapons and Buildings could be lowered, with the cost of Plantations probably staying the same or either being raised a small amount or lowered a small amount depending on how one views things, while the cost of Mansions could be made higher with the Mansions maybe being given an income of 1 Money just to offset the the Plantations a bit.

Anyway, most of this is easy to mod, except for adding the Cities and Forts because you have to set map coordinates for those, but some experimentation might give good results.

Chris

< Message edited by christof139 -- 4/13/2007 3:58:02 PM >

_____________________________

(in reply to firepowerjohan)

Post #: 14

Page: [1]

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [American Civil War] >> Forge of Freedom: The American Civil War 1861-1865 >> Economic Growth is too large.

Page: [1]