BGForums

I've been trying to figure out how the economic score is derived and it appears to be based almost solely on budget deficit. I've wondered why I wasn't number 1 economically in the World Scenario and have pinned it down to budget deficit. I've looked at the AI's and sure enough India, the highest scoring region, seems to have the best budget surplus.

The problem with basing economic scoring on budget deficit is that the budget bottom line is misleading and incomplete.Since the budget bottom line does not include trade surplus/deficit it gives an inaccurate picture of economic prowess. India has to have a high budget surplus to counter it's massive trade deficit. I have a large deficit but a massive trade surplus. I also have $2.5 trillion in reserves and am only 4th in economic scoring.

India on the other hand has had chronic resource shortages and there seems to be no negative style points awarded for this poor mismanagement. It also puts the number one region last on the trade ladder. I found that if I bankrupted India I could then use it to dictate trade prices by being able to undercut oil exporters and cause them to not sell some oil mthereby causing them to reduce prices. I was able to do that twice and the AI's now are only producing oil on "demand" instead of producing as much as they can.

Something needs to be done to improve econimic scoring and to take into account real trade numbers, not that unreasonable gimmick they call the annual trade surplus/deficit now in abuse. Trade surplus/deficit should be done with real trade numbers to get real results. Otherwise it's just way too easy to gimmick the AI's by making sure you're not number 1 economically and you can then pound the rest of the AI's into line by bakrupting the number 1 region. After months and months of being chronically short on 4 resources or products India should have dropped down and another sucker elevated to number 1, in my game the Middle East a net exporter (barely) of oil.
Thanks,

Eric Larsen

Actually all the scores are in need of rebalancing, research in particular is too heavily weighted in the overall score. Other issues just keep taking priority.

Feel free to make suggestions on what other things should affect the different scores (depending how the conversation goes I may move the thread to a more appropriate section)

_________________
Chris Latour
BattleGoat Studios
chris@battlegoat.com

Chris,
The scoring on all subjects seem to be too simplistic. They seem to be based upon only one item when they should reflect several aspects from each category. For economics reserve balance and loan balances should be reflected in the score. I've found it easy to manipulate the economics for the AI's by not having the best economic score. I found I could buy oil at $155 a barrel and sell it at over $200 or $300 a barrel all in the same day because I was not the top econ dog. India on the other hand was forced to always buy the most expensive oil because it was rated number 1. Product shortages should also decrease the econ score so that top econ dogs that are sucking wind on products gets moved down the pole to where they'll get better deals and regions that are truly better off get stuck with the more expensive deals.

I'd also like to see the research score reflect techs researched, not just tech level. It does seem that the research score is more heavily weighted, probably all sections should have equal weight on the total score.
Thanks,

Eric Larsen

Chris,
I've found that scoring for economics and world market are very skewed towards the AI's. The economic high scorer is always the region with the worst trade deficit so it has to have the largest pre-trade budget surplus to cover it's massive import bill. The world market score is heavily slanted towards the largest importer. These two scores seem to cover the poor economic play of the AI's rather than actually rewarding human players for having to jack up their economy to supply them with goodies. The problem with aiding the scoring of the AI's is that in the economic sector the best scoring economic power has to buy from the most expensive exporter which pretty much guarantees it's number one status throughout the game.
Thanks,

Eric Larsen

I have no idea if George coded the scores to favour the AIs but I find it highly unlikely. As mentioned the scores require rebalancing entierly. I will mention this to George incase it is of some use to him.

_________________
Chris Latour
BattleGoat Studios
chris@battlegoat.com

Chris,
Maybe George didn't intend to do this but it sure is happening, and to the AI's detriment. I can see him trying to help the AI's by balancing the scoring towards them and I don't have any problems with helping the AI's seem competitive. Unfortunately in trying to help them, if he did, he's actually dogged them in the economic arena. The number 1 economic power is always the biggest importer and that biggest importer gets to buy it's stuff at the highest price which guarantees they'll remain the number 1 economic scorer and never be able to get out from under the high prices it must suffer.
Thanks,

Eric Larsen

I just asked him and he confirmed that whether the player is human or AI has no effect on the score. I must be that he scores the things the AI is doing higher than the things you are doing.

And yes, I already know that "the things he's scoring highly" needs to be reviewed.

_________________
Chris Latour
BattleGoat Studios
chris@battlegoat.com

Chris,
I'm sure it was unintended and I'm glad the scoring will be made better. It's tough to tell what the scoring will do until the game is out and about and people start doing stuff. I'm just glad I was able to spot the problem and report it so it could get fixed.
Thanks,

Eric Larsen