FreeOrion

OK for how I would do food.

At a fairly Early tech level, Each unit of population could support 5 units of 'Farm Infrastructures' * the Focus multiplier

Focus multiplier =(1, + 5 if Minor, +15 if Major +1 if Minor is Balanced, +3 if Major is Balanced)

Each population unit would need 100 units of food for Full Health

a Habitable world would produce 20 food per 'Farm'
so 1 population unit on a fully developed Habitable World could support itself with No focus (Focus Multiplier of 1) on Farms (5 Farms*20 Food each=100 Food)

a Marginal World would produce 5 Food per Farm
so 1 population unit on a fully developed Marginal World could support itself with a Balanced Major Focus (Focus Multiplier of 4) (20 Farms*5 Food each=100 Food)

a Hostile World would produce 1 Food per Farm
so 1 population unit on a fully developed Hostile World could support itself with Major And Minor Focus (Focus Multiplier of 21) on Farms (105 Farms*1 Food each=105 Food)

For this model you would slowly focus your HW (and other Habitable worlds) more and more on Food as you colonized more hostile environments..and less and less on Food as technology Improved. At some point Terraforming would enter the picture and you would be using Food primarily to increase and maintain your max population cap rather than the population itself.


*The Numbers of course could be adjusted but follow that General Pattern. (and here 'Farms' represent all forms of Environmental Life Support, from Wheat Fields to Intense Hydroponics and Air/Water Purification Systems)

@Krikkitone:
I think there would never be a case where there is no focus, I think the default would be balance and balanced. If you are saying in your first example that there is no focus because the focus in on two other things, then that makes sense. I think that a habitable planet would only be self sufficient if it was at least balanced primary as opposed to two other foci. I think a marginal world should need a farming focus to survive and a hostile should needs imported food, even double focused on farming. Especially if this is with basic tech, higher tech might alleviate this to where you could survive on a hostile without help.

@emrys:
I noticed the same thing about balanced. I may have to wait till v0.9 to get the final numbers straight, but we definitly don't want to make it vastly better to balance all planets or double specialize all planets. There should be game balancing so that there is a reason to specialize and a reason not to during any campaign. I think a variation on your first example using money, but changing the 6's to 8's would be best right now.

Maybe we should implement an additional bonus, like additional +2 for primary mining focus on a rich world and +1 for secondary focus. This way in encourages you to sepecialize on planets with specials. If you had two worlds, one rich and one normal: in our current system it wouldn't matter which one was focused on mining for your total minerals, you get the planetary bonus and you get the focus bonus from either planet. With an additional bonus for having the focus on the the rich world, it makes more sense. I think Krikkitone was getting at that with his example of habitable , marginal and hostile food production.

That is what I meant, that the Focus would be on two other things.

Also I really think that a space faring habitable planet needs to be self sufficient without focusing on Food. (However I also believe our HW shouldn't start out Fully developed... ie they start out with just enough Farms to Feed Themselves, and a minimal level of other Infrastructures.. Few factories, just enough mines to support them and few labs+'banks')

A Hostile planet, relatively early on Should be capable of self supporting, but only with All focuses on Food (which means all other output from the planet is minimal, and it is therefore far more effective to ship food in by taking a habitable world and making it produce an easy surplus)

As for advantages to balanced worlds, that could probably be done by adjusting those numbers (For the ones I had, a Focus gave the same total bonus whether it was Balanced or Not..+15 to 1 resource or +3 to 5 resources)

The idea that Specials ie Artifacts or mineral richness should act like the hostile, marginal, habitable environments is what I was thinking.

A slight bonus to making a Focus Balanced would counteract the automatic tendency to make all the 'Bonus' worlds Double Focused. (another way to do this would come from having a wide range of Bonuses so worlds often have bonuses in different resources.. ie a Habitable Artifact world or a Mineral Rich Trade Center.)

Good question. Basically, I think people just wanted to wait until v.3 (with techs and buildings) before thinking about these things. I guess.

I'd amend things to use your numbers in v.2.
.

I definitely agree with this, we need (though probably not immediately) to think up a mechanism that produces higher returns for focusing on what a planet is naturally good at, otherwise we will lose most of the immersive and strategic benefit of planet differentiation.

Planetary Specials should add or subract from an apropriate metter, If anyone remembers the Environmental Preferenve wheel then that would be an excelent way of going about it. A sweetspot ideal add +2, a Good +1, a marginal 0, a bad -1 and a terrible -2. A level of 0 is genearaly needed for a planet to support itself in food with all focuses on food so planets worse then a base of 0 are going to be food importers and are subject to mass starvation if blockaded. The population growth metter is also effected in a similar manor based on the EP preference, Gravity could effect industry too.


As for the Infastructure debate here is how I would propose it be done.

Population x Tecnology modifier = Max Infastructure alowable

Just like in Orignial Moo better Tecnology alows an incresse in capacity but the effect is not instantanious, it requires a resorce/time investment. At first your 10 Factories per 10 population but that can rise a step at a time with each discovery to ever more factories as you invest in upgrading and building new ones.

(Operating Infastructure) x Metter setting = Output

Operating Infsastructure here means the Infastructure that is supported by population and supplies of minerals, only when all are present in sufficient quantities will their be the tools to produce output.

Say for example their are 100 Factores, 30 population which can each work 12 Factores per 10 population for a total of 36. And we have 40 minerals avalible. Only 36 Factories operate and 36 is multipled by the Industrial Metter settins which lets say multiply the output by 25% for a final total of 36 x 1.25 = 45

I have heard that Each focus will stimulate production of its apropriate infastructure on the planet, farms for farming, mines for mining, factories for industry. Change of focus can cause old infastructure to decay and new infastructure to be created slowly over time. I think we should still have some way of excelerating the process though, for example setting "build Factories" as the planets production task.

_________________
Fear is the Mind Killer - Frank Herbert -Dune

Another idea, the 10 Factories per 10 population could itself be a metter, call it Labor. At 0 you have a 10-10 ratio, tecnologies incresse the ratio giving you the ability to expand and build more and use the new factores. Race picks and leaders could do the same and let you expand above and beyond the normal amount (like the Mecklar in MOO2).

_________________
Fear is the Mind Killer - Frank Herbert -Dune

That's about the way I would do it (although the 'Build Factories' would be the more generic 'Build Infrastructures'), and the



Yes, although I would have the 'Labor' meter specific to each type of Resource (5 of them), with the two parts of the 'Labor' or Max Infrastructure Meter, Technology and Focus (as well as possible Race/Government Bonuses)

Too many meters. Simplfy.

The end result of the meter system should be something just a touch more complicated than the v.2 economy.

The boring stuff: what happens when.


1: Set up
--Every meter set to 0

2: Galaxy
--Every object "attached" to the galaxy runs through it's effects, adding and subtracting to galaxy meters
(mostly objects "attached" to the galaxy would be galaxy-wide events)

3: Empire
--Empire meters=empire meters+galaxy meters
--Every object attached to each empire (save planets and ships) runs though effects
(events, technologies, racial picks, government picks would be typical of objects run at this stage)

4: Planets
--Base Enviroment meter is determined through enviromental preference
--planet meters=planet meters+empire meters
--Every attached object runs through through effects
(events, planet specials, buildings, Focus effects would be typical)

5: Execute Last Stage
--Any effect encounted in the previous stages with the execute last flag is appened to a list to be executed in this stage. Each Execute Last effect is given a Priority--high Priority effects are executed before lower priority effects.
(if an effect has to check the amount of a meter, it needs to be executed in this stage. Effects that are executed last should be relatively rare)
--If an Execute Last effects touches the Empire or Galaxy meters, the must also apply the modifer to each applicable planet.

6: Meter Effects
(some meters, such as Enviroment, effect other meters. Meters poking at other meters happens in this phase.)
--For each planet, check meters and take action where required, in this order:
----Enviroment (effects Health, Happiness, Farming)
----Health (effects Happiness)
----Happiness vs Secuirty (causes cities to rebel)

7:Economy
--Nutrients, Minerals, Science, Money, Industry are tallied for each planet
--Nutrients divided by Population provides a new modifier to the Health meter. This modifier is applied to the Empire meter, then each planet within the empire.
--Population/infrastructure/city/whatever growth is checked for
--Industry and mineral are applied to build projects on the queues
--Science is applied to research projects on the queues
--Unit upkeeps are taxed to Money

Drek: For simplicity it seems that population=infra would work, BUT they are not the same thing. Infrastructure is how developed the planet is and is intimately tied with the planets focus.

Population is simply the people there.

Population and Infrastructure are related in a way yet to be determined but we cannot make them the same.

Think back to moo2. If I had a maxed out planet as far as buildings were concerned but only had 1 pop unit it was far from capacity. Similiarly if I had a maxed out planet population wise it still sucked. Only by haveing both my population and buildings developed would I start getting the insane production values. Obviously the higher my pop is the faster infrastructure will develop but they are not the same.

Originally I proposed infrastructure to be a percentage from 1-100. It would be better to have infrastructer represented as a number out of maximum. say 100/300. That is 33% developed but the player would know that planet was more valuable then a planet that was 60/100 or 60%infrastructure developed.

So the meters the player needs to see:

1 Population x/X (plus a vector)
2 Infrastructure y/Y
3 Food used/needed?
4 the amount of resources the planet is using/producing (including money)

I can't really think of anything else right now. Obviously we would need a way to show defense however we decide that should be set up. Others will need to be added as we develop the game more.

Luckilly the way .1 is set up each planet has a lot of room just by clicking on it to show pertinent information of that planet.

_________________
Aquitaine is my Hero....

Er, why can't we combine population and infrastructure?

If Joe moves to planet X, he'll build a house when he gets there, yes? Besides, the goal isn't to realistically model the economy of a planet (an impossible task in any case.)

The main reason is when a planet changes focus. There needs to be some kind of penalty. A logical choice would be a hit in the infrastructure level of the planet. If population = infrastructure that would be implying that people died when you changed focii. Also I was thinking bioweapons. These weapons kill population but do not hurt infrastructure (but will hurt the output of the planet). By keeping the two seperate it allows us more flexibility in various events and technologies effects.

_________________
Aquitaine is my Hero....

Focus also effects the meters. If you have a bunch of Farming cities and change to Mining focus, it's going to be a while before the Farms switch to Mines. In the meantime, your effiency is way down.

Changing focus might cost Money.




See the City thread on brainstorming.

A bioweapon would turn cities in "Ruins", producing nothing until they are rebuilt.

A more destructive weapon would destroy the city altogether.

What is efficency in your model?

_________________
Aquitaine is my Hero....