game play

dust off · Post by **dust off** » Nov 11 2003

Just wondering how the economics will affect game play. Like, will inflation increase the price players pay for things; but reduce the 'real terms' ammount of money borrowed.
And if we build lots of tanks will there be a price reduction for economy of scale.
Will there be a disposable income tracker, so that the population's feel good factor will be linked to the 'economy stupid'.
Any economic cycles? and any theory involved like Keynesian spend to get out of trouble policy?

[ This Message was edited by: dust off on 2003-11-11 14:49 ]

madflava13 · Post by **madflava13** » Nov 11 2003

I didn't understand everything you just said, but hopefully I won't need a degree in economics to play this game! (What's Keynesian policy?)

dust off · Post by **dust off** » Nov 11 2003

Ha Ha, sorry, I have had a small, sociable get together.

Keynesian policy follows that advocated by an influential economist, John Maynard Keynes. It basically states that if your economy is really going down a urinal, then the government should spend money on public works to kick-start the economy. Doesn't matter what the money is spent on: just get that cash in circulation.

Which reminds me of widely acknowledged crucial element in successful economies. That is the number of people with reasonable disposable income; thereby giving the home nation an economy of scale of the consumables it manufactures. Bigger home market = more competitive internationally. In gaming terms, I guess a basic cost of living would have to be calculated, and some way of measuring the percentage of population earning X ammount above this, or the middle classes.

Empier4552 · Post by **Empier4552** » Nov 11 2003

-Quietly inserts a 'SIMPLE ECONOMY MODEL OPTION' on todo list for Battlegoat.-

3iff · Post by **3iff** » Nov 12 2003

Empier 4552 - Nice one!

I think the economist (Dust Off) is talking about economic strategies employed by the player rather than the game. If not, I second the suggestion by Empier 4552.

As for inflation, I find that distorts values by gradually increasing prices and tends to confuse me as to how much things cost in relation to each other.

The game TTD (Transport Tycoon deluxe) has inflation but this can be switched off using 'the patch'. I always have inflation off which helps keep cash levels at sensible levels. I can then gauge vehicle profitability at the same level throughout the game.

Not sure if you plan to incorporate inflation, but I would prefer it left out, so a unit costing $10m at the start of the game would remain at $10m (or thereabouts) throughout the entire game. Price fluctuations are fine (and expected), continuous price increases are confusuing.

[ This Message was edited by: 3iff on 2003-11-12 00:49 ]

dust off · Post by **dust off** » Nov 12 2003

you make a good point there 3iff: I can see how years of inflation affecting prices in a few hours of game time could be confusing. But if things are not going to cost more why have inflation tracked in the game?

Post by **BattleGoat** » Nov 12 2003

Inflation and the economy as a whole does play a very big part in the game. As an example, as inflation spirals out of control, the GDP/c of your region goes up, so the cost to produce all of your commodities goes up. Sometimes it can then become cheaper to buy everything you need on foreign markets rather than domestically (Hmmmmm, this sounds familiar). This then puts your people out of work and your region heads towards a recession...

You DON'T need a degree in Economics though to play the game. Hopefully your Cabinet Minister in the Treasury Department knows what they're doing and manages to make adjustments (a la Federal Reserve) to prevent bad things from happening. And if they don't, you can always fire them and find another cabinet minister.

Post by **BattleGoat** » Nov 12 2003

Hmmm... thought I'd better elaborate just a little more.

If you want to concentrate on your economy and micromanage all the fiscal policies of your government, you can! If you don't want to, that's fine as well... Turn the day-to-day decision making over to the AI Cabinet Minister and rely more on their regular reports to see if they're doing a reasonably good job or not.

3iff · Post by **3iff** » Nov 13 2003

Inflation is fine if it adds to the game, which is what you seem to be saying. As I said regarding TTD, inflation there is just an annoyance.

If, in SR2010, a region is hit by massive inflation then the economic decisions change causing internal strife with a chance that the region will self destruct and probably be captured economically by better run neighbours. Sounds great - unless it happens to me!

dust off · Post by **dust off** » Nov 13 2003

If I was an economist I should hope to have made enough money to buy a small, upcoming computer game developer- maybe one that was developing a modern era strategy game. Anyway, my point was that I would like the game to have some realistic ecomomic decisions to make, and strategies to play that will have real impact on a nation's prospect. And it sounds like this will be so.

[ This Message was edited by: dust off on 2003-11-13 15:38 ]

Shutzen · Post by **Shutzen** » Dec 26 2003

A question about the Beta and the economic model. How much is actually implemented now as far as computer controlled countries go? I'm asking because other countries don't really seem to be restricted in spending at the moment. I have tried to do a lot of different unit testing and have spent a lot of time just waiting for the right unit to be built so I can try it. Consequently, lots of game time goes by and my neighbors end up with huge stacks of military units in the meantime (which I assume they can't really afford). I'm sure this will not occur in the final game (right?).

Another question- I assume an "arms race" is probable if I start building up my military. However, if it appears that I am not building up (putting most units in reserves...) can the opposite effect occur? (neighboring countries limiting defense spending). I'm sure it will change when war breaks out but I'm hoping an automatic arms race does not start as soon as the game starts (without a good reason for it).

On the same note... in theory, peace can reign for quite a long time when the game starts. Is there always going to be a beligerent neighbor who forces war quickly or is there a chance to peacefully develop technology and infrastructure before starting a war (or getting sucked into one)? How long can this last? If, for example, I managed to spend 5 years developing peacefully (Boring and not too likely), would the rest of the world be fighting the entire time and what would that do to regions as far as the campaign path goes?

Looking at the title "Supreme Ruler", I know the game requires a lot of fighting and conquering. What I'm hoping for though is a sensible balance that is both realistic and allows all of the other facets of the game to be used and enjoyed.

Juergen · Post by **Juergen** » Dec 26 2003

Interesting questions Shutzen,Im also interested in how far the AI is operational.

"Looking at the title "Supreme Ruler", I know the game requires a lot of fighting and conquering. What I'm hoping for though is a sensible balance that is both realistic and allows all of the other facets of the game to be used and enjoyed"

As far as I have heard some scenarios in single player are actually best finished peacefully and I very much like to see a game were peace really can be a solution.
And I very much appreciate the complex economic modell that Supreme Ruler 2010 offers.
No game has done this before.
Remember Shutzen that if you dont like features like complex economy you can let your ministers run the show while you focus
on the things that you like.
As far as I have seen the ministers arent doing such a bad job

Shutzen · Post by **Shutzen** » Dec 26 2003

As far as letting the economic minister take over... it is very interesting. A few somewhat negative experiences from the Army have not stopped me from really enjoying the military aspect of the game. However, one negative experience since I got out has had an effect. The experience... suffering though a semester of "Politics of East Asian Economic Development". I think I might still have PTCSS- Post Tramautic Class Stress Syndrome. I'm hoping to get into counseling though so I can slowly start working through the game's economic model without having flashbacks of "government subsidies and regulation of conglomerates".... Oh, the horror....

Post by **George Geczy** » Dec 28 2003

Two excellent questions...

First, there is one over-all rule for the AI in Supreme Ruler - "the AI will not cheat". There are two ways players can balance themselves against stronger/weaker players: First, no scenario will be fully 'balanced'. The world is not 'balanced' (in fact, it is unbalanced in more ways than one

). So each scenario will have stronger and weaker regions, which in later versions will more fully be described in the scenario notes. A good player can try to start from a weaker region; the opposite for a novice.

Secondly, we will be offering 'balancing startup options', where you will be able to give more/less money or World support etc to the AI players; currently this is all set to 'default'.

So getting back to your question, the AI does in fact play by all the rules. If it is building units, that must mean that it has money.

One source for the AI's money is the fact that it does not (yet) build additional facilities - no new factories or bases, etc. Human players tend to do this early on, draining away extra funds until the construction is complete.

I suppose the second benefit the AI has is that it doesn't suffer the 'Politcial Interference Effect' - ie the country's ruler over-riding and changing the policies set by the ministers

The current AI will actually start to run low in cash in some regions after a while, due to the fact that it doesn't do much to expand its industries or economy while it is building (and deploying) units. This would be most likely in some of the Australian or US regions that start with a low population. Later version of the AI will do more to not build excess units if not required (ie avoiding an 'arms race').

Regarding the 'road to victory', many scenarios will certainly allow peaceful (or relatively peaceful) solutions as an option.

-- George.