Page 2 of 2

Re: Is Maintenance Too High?

PostPosted: Sat 12 Aug 2017 21:10
by Moonsword
Don't forget that as populations go up, the share of income going to the interstellar government goes down sharply.

Re: Is Maintenance Too High?

PostPosted: Sun 13 Aug 2017 04:29
by Cralis
SCC wrote:Interstellar states in Starfire seem to devolve a lot of power to their planetary members, and the Players only deal with foreign affairs, the military, research, and colonization and not other maters like agriculture, justice and internal trade.


It just feels that way because we abstract those areas to simplify the economics for the game. However, I'm not sure what this has to do with maintenance or decompression.

Re: Is Maintenance Too High?

PostPosted: Sun 13 Aug 2017 14:17
by SCC
Cralis wrote:
SCC wrote:Interstellar states in Starfire seem to devolve a lot of power to their planetary members, and the Players only deal with foreign affairs, the military, research, and colonization and not other maters like agriculture, justice and internal trade.


It just feels that way because we abstract those areas to simplify the economics for the game. However, I'm not sure what this has to do with maintenance or decompression.

It was more a comment on income being low for a given population

Re: Is Maintenance Too High?

PostPosted: Wed 16 Aug 2017 01:32
by SCC
I thought process here was to both better simulate reality and keep fleet sizes under control drop population based income back to occurring only once a year, on months ending in 1, and population growth to 3% on months ending in 0. All other income would be left alone.

That was when I realized that if I was still paying maintenance monthly it would be too high, 150% of list price a year :shock: So that needs to change, I'm thinking of 3% monthly for warships (Because simply changing maintenance to yearly reintroduces the problem of too many ships and raises problems when a ship in only in service for part of a year), with 1% maybe for FT.

Science I'm thinking is now done yearly, and at triple cost, so normal EL research should consume 60% of budget.

Not sure how to adjust FT income (Because this also affects colony costs) and IU income but thinking interest goes done to 0.2% monthly.

Re: Is Maintenance Too High?

PostPosted: Wed 16 Aug 2017 23:43
by Whitecold
I have to say I am not very fond of the idea of introducing 'special turns'
Personally I'd just increase the required HS to build, RP needed, survey points needed, unit cost and PTU/Infrastructure needed for colonization.
Income only on certain months raises the question of what happens if the player's balance goes negative, and it fixes build activity to those special turns where players get fresh money, instead of spreading it out over the year. The same I'd want science results happening spread through the year.
Otherwise I'd feel like waiting nine subturns to wait for the 'real' turn to happen where the interesting stuff happens, but that is a matter of opinion.
Also I'd be afraid by reducing maintenance that you run into lots of small numbers, which leads to rounding errors.

Re: Is Maintenance Too High?

PostPosted: Thu 17 Aug 2017 02:49
by SCC
Whitecold, these special turns are only for population incomes, so IU, FT leasing, and CC incomes are unaffected and pay out their normal amounts every turn, part of why I'm not thinking of reducing maintenance further. (Interest is lower but it still pays out every turn).

As for running in the red, that doesn't happen. If the player doesn't have the money to pay for something, they aren't allowed to buy it, or in the case of maintenance you can not pay for it and suffer those penalties or mothball/scrap some ships or sell some IU. About the only time that something like what you describe might come would be colony missions, in which case I'd say your forced to sell some IU.

And you can still do plenty of stuff on the other turns, and making all your purchases on the one turn you get a lot of money would be a bad idea for a couple of reasons.

Re: Is Maintenance Too High?

PostPosted: Thu 17 Aug 2017 11:10
by Cralis
That is an interesting possibility, moving to a fiscal year system very much like what governments do. Realisticall though the fiscal year is more about planning then when income arrives. But we could do that. The potential complication would be emergencies -- needing to liberate allocated but unexpended funding for something like emergency construction.

If you want to do it realistically anyway. I could see it done less realistically, which give more value to non-tax revenue, IU, and reserve funds.

Something to really think about. At least for economics geeks like me :lol:

Re: Is Maintenance Too High?

PostPosted: Thu 17 Aug 2017 14:36
by SCC
Three things Cralis:
1) This should encourage putting some funds aside for such situations, cutting down on the number of ships floating around problem.
2) Sell some IU, or FT to the CFN. Or simply scrap some older ships.
3) Maybe a rule about being able to free up funds from another part of the budget, a roll against RM or maybe RO to free up a percentage of the Empires TNI

Re: Is Maintenance Too High?

PostPosted: Fri 18 Aug 2017 00:45
by Cralis
SCC wrote:Three things Cralis:
1) This should encourage putting some funds aside for such situations, cutting down on the number of ships floating around problem.


Reserve funds would be more common because the flexibility outweighs the alternative costs. However, IU still needs to be dealt with as it currently performs a similar function.

Do you mean "too many ships"? It just extends the timeline by 10, approximately.

2) Sell some IU, or FT to the CFN. Or simply scrap some older ships.


This sounds like possible actions rather than a point of interest. But these would be some methods for monthly income.

3) Maybe a rule about being able to free up funds from another part of the budget, a roll against RM or maybe RO to free up a percentage of the Empires TNI


I'd like to avoid that. I'm thinking that we can simply have certain expenditures occur on an annual basis, and the larger chunk of tax income that comes in at the same time is used to fund those expenditures. Realistically you'd just be "planning" that expenditures and the income comes in monthly, but we want to simplify things.

Of course, we can use random events with recessions or booms that would require you to cover shorted expenditures with flexible income during a recession or have extra monthly income added during a boom period.

Re: Is Maintenance Too High?

PostPosted: Fri 18 Aug 2017 02:00
by SCC
Cralis I'm already moving research funding to annual only, and I suppose that colonization could be moved as well. I don't want to move maintenance, as this causes problems with ships only being active half the year or discourages mothballing ships. Moving building would be a BAD idea, it make emergency construction or de-mothballing impossible.