One other thing that could be interesting: diminishing returns for farming and mining facilities. Facilities start out producing whatever the planetary value is, but after a certain number are built (depending on size) the production for each new facility starts to drop until it reaches the minimum efficiency (hydroponics or ultra-poor, as the case may be). If you have reasonably high planetary population caps (that increase with technology or special construction) you can have a situation where you have lots of people, but your food and minerals are really limited by available real-estate.
Actually, If you do that, then there is no reason to have planetary max populations... since Industry is limited by mineral output, and research by Industry for maintenance, you could just have a planets 'mineral+farming' maxes (which would have to go up with tech)
(of course with 0 migration and an always positive growth rate, you need max populations... but still... Oh well, I've been waiting for an empire game to provide Trantor for a long time, I can wait a bit longer.)
Would this allow fractional people, or just the closest whole-number approximation? I vote for closest whole number. Or even better, completely meet percentage commitment to primary first, then secondary, then the other's in order of percentage commitment. That way you aren't likely to waste people on little 10% commitments until the planet has decent pop.
Well I was assuming fractional population units (at least for the purposes of where people worked).
I think I came up with a slightly better idea on the scrapping +switching focuses though. auto scrapping would take place when the total demand of facilities for people, or their maintenance costs were more than was available. Switching focus would, rather than switching population, switch the 'target level' for the facilities (based on current population). Facilities would be built towards their target level, and any facility that was beyond its target level would be the first on the scrap list when scrapping was done. Population would be divided evenly among the facilities based on their need. (so a half developed Farm world, switching to Industry would continue to keep the stable level of farms, and growing level of Industry operational until the demand for people exceeded the population, and then the farms would begin to be scrapped, bit by bit... The same would happen if development money/production..either governmental or private local...was not enough to pay for maintenance)
Agreed, but do we assign any kind of loss in the coversion process to account for increased flexibility? (2 pp lost in taxes = 1 AU in the treasury) Or maybe just say an inherent moral-lowering effect of taxes is enough?
What I was thinking is
AU when spent (for example on a world with 100 PP Total at a 25% tax rate)
(maybe not a 2x but maybe a 1.5x.. but thats a testable number)
Possibly also a lag (so that boosting spending past the 1st row takes X turns per row (or goes X rows per turn).. ie to account for all the shipping time from the rest of the empire, getting stuff out of storage, etc.)
So both a lag and seriously diminishing returns (although I wouldn't cap it, so you could run a world at 100x its bas production, it would just lead to overflow the AUs it would cost you..actually that probably would be about the area to cap it)
In your model, everything already costs PPs indirectly (for facility construction and maintenance). I would just make Industry facilities moderate construction, low maintenance, research is high/high, mining high/low and farming low/moderate.
I was thinking about keeping all maintenance + construction costs the same for each type (made my balance calculations easier) but I think that might be better, because then building research capacity is a long term commitment, and if you break that commitment, you lose what you put into it. (plus that would allow some method of building up a farming world, without going heavy industry 1st.)
think we should eventually have some mechanism like this, but it surely won't be in v.2. I think there needs to be something to keep people from just keeping consumer goods at zero and toughing it out. Maybe part of the effect is global average consumer good level? People get really pissed when they see people in Empire B with so much more stuff....
Well I figured consumer goods would only be something you could control indirectly by means of the tax rate ie, the untaxed* gets split between consumer goods and development... but population's could have a desire for a rise in the CG level which would decrease unrest. (comparative CG levels would be good too. Maybe not global average, but say an Imperial average comparison effect, your people compare their average to the empires that you know about.. increasing or decreasing unrest.)
* When I was first thinking about this I thought it should only be production, but then I thought about those poor worlds that would be farming/mining/research worlds, and then figured the CG level, as well as the amount they Want to spend on building/maintaining local facilities. would be best proportional to the total production (minerals+food+Industry+research..possibly with a *factor for each of the nonIndustry portions).
That would assume they get some consumer goods in trade, and their economic development spending would still be limited to the amount of untaxed production available. (part of the idea here is that you could 'theoretically' run a 0 tax empire and ecoonomic buildings would still be built.. of course there would be no military, no exploration, no colonization, no world to world trade (since I'm figuring the shipping bill for mines and farms comes from the treasury.. although perhaps it could be subtracted from overall production... actually that might be better..It's the same way I'm thinking of doing empire to empire trade, it simply adds a bonus or penalty to all world's pretax production) ok back to the list
no military, exploration or colonization
no terraforming or pollution cleanup
no subsidy of developing worlds
essentially, you would only have to spend tax money/make decisions on semi-worthwhile things (I'm even thinking of a possible freemarket type devplan, where the people get a bit of a say in the focuses of the world... essentially, an autodevplan... totally shut offable of course, but probably with some benefits. (lower unrest, bonus to efficiency... or not). That would allow a player to ignore the economics (mostly, they'd probably have to beef up research in their own dev plans) and just focus on what they wanted to spend the money on.