Geoff the Medio wrote:
And there may be a problem that a good economy is dependant on having a ship on each planet.
Just each system, not each planet. But regardless, this isn't necessarily a bad thing.
Actually in my proposal you generally only need ships in systems without
friendly inhabited planets, that connect your inhabited systems.
He was talking about my simplified suggestion with only friendly or hostile nodes and no neutral nodes.
Algorithms aren't my thing, and i'm not sure how the current distribution happens.
Right now, for minerals and industry (or equilvalently production points), trade and research it all goes into a empire pool, and is spend on projects on queues or put into the stockpile (when possible), regardless of where things are being built or researched (trade doesn't actually get used for anything).
For food, planets give themselves their local production or their need to prevent starvation, whichever is less; then their need to prevent starvation (taking from the pool if necessary); then twice their need or their local production, whichever is less; then twice their need to prevent starvation, which is enough to ensure the mas possible growth rate. Any extra or shortfall is deposited in or taken from the global pool.
This needs to be tweaked a bit, as presently there's no benefit to giving a planet more than it's minimum to prevent starvation if it can't grow, which occurs when it is at its maximum population. This probably means giving "max growth need" instead of "twice need to prevent starvation" on the third / fourth passes. There also probably needs to be some tweaking to account for health effects, which interacts with food supply to determine growth rate. Right now there may be (if I didn't remove it) a special that gets applied when starvation occurs that reduced health, though better would be to lower health if food supply is short... or perhaps keep "health" and "food supply" separate concepts that don't interact... which actually is probably better now that I think about it...
2) Optimal distribution is calculated for the surplus (however that is now done).
3) Planets connected to the home world recieve/contribute only 50% of #2.
Well, you'd have to figure out the contributions to the surplus before you could figure out the optimal distribution, as you need to know how much you have to figure out where to send it.
But regardless, a 50% penalty is fine for exports, as this represents some lost or not-sendable portion of a fixed amount, the amount produced, which can't be changed by just producing more on the planet (since it produces what it produces, and no more). But for imports, the 50% of need restriction is bothersome. There's no single limit on how much you could send to a planet. If planet A has twice the population of planet B, then why does that allow planet A to have a twice higher food import limit? With the current distribution rules, the proportions sent are voluntary and pseudo-optimally, in that the planets are fed enough to prevent starvation or to allow growth, because the player would want that to happen. But with the 50% of need penalty, there's no logical reason why population for food, or PP consumption for production, is a determining factor in how much can be sent. Whether it's realistic isn't the point, but rather, the issue is that it raises the question for the player about why this is, and why can't they send twice as much? It's effectively an arbitrary limit, which I find irritating and shouldn't be used.