14-11-2002 21:33									#331
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Can we afford the Morale penalty with the Hive (probably) a short hop away? Knowledge is the way forward.

To Maniac: Maybe they do, but do they outnumber the people that don't want FM or Wealth. I think it may be possible to keep a Knowledge/Planned or Green system going, especially if we go to war with the Hive (which IMHO makes Wealth not a possibility)

	15-11-2002 06:42									#332
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: I didnt say that. It depend of the way you play SMAC. I prefer an industrial style than a commercial one, and my faction is always adapted to this. I'll make a save and show what Demo/Planned/Knowledge/Eudaimonia can do though.

It depends on the situation created by your playstyle. If you prefer to use Knowledge because when you play with your playstyle it works, that doesn't mean it will work here when we're using a whole heap of different ones.

quote: Im not exactly sure of how the commerce income is determined, but IIRC, its the first base of your faction and the first base of each other faction, and their wealth determine the trade income. While a commercial bonus would improve this income for the bases linked (meaning for the same #bases that the opponent have), knowledge will improve efficiency (allowing you thus a higher rate of research with no penalties) and save energy and decrease the cost of research.

From the AC Strategy Guide Commerce Formula:

quote: Commerce is computed base by base between factions with Treaties and PActs, as follows: First, all bases for each faction are ranked from top to bottom by energy output. Bases are paired off from top to bottom. If one faction has extra bases, they're ignored. For each pair of bases, sum the combined economic (energy) output and divide by 8, rounding up. Double this if the Global Trade Pact is in effect. This result = PAIRED BASE VALUE Now you can calculate the energy bonus from commerce for each individual base: BASE COMMERCE = the sum of economic factors for your faction and this base: Environmental Economics (+1) Planetary Economics (+1) Hive (-2) Free Market (+2) Eudaimonic (+2) Industrial Economics (+1) Sentient Econometrics (+1) Morgan (+1) Wealth (+1) Plus any base-specific modifiers. TOTAL COMMERCE = the sum of all economic technologies currently in the game. Environmental Economics (+1) Industrial Economics (+1) Planetary Economics (+1) Sentient Econometrics (+1) Base's Energy Bonus = (PAIRED BASE VALUE) x (BASE COMMERCE + 1) / (TOTAL COMMERCE + 1) Divide the Base's Energy Bonus by 2 if there is only a treaty (but no Pact). Add +1 to the Base's Energy Bonus if you are Planetary Governor. Note that no commerce is allowed if sanctions are in effect against either faction.

As you can see, those bases which produce the most energy get the best commerce, and they are also the ones that can make best use of it. Unless your faction's energy production is spread out fairly evenly, the extra efficiency is unlikely to outweigh the extra commerce (and more even energy production, ironically, is more likely to come about under FM than Planned).

EDIT: whether FM produces more or less even energy production depends on how population is distributed, but population tends to be distributed more evenly than energy./EDIT

quote: it is obvious that knwoledge favors science and wealth favor EC , I cant beleive you argue on that.

Knowledge favours research, but Wealth favours Energy, not Energy Credits. The extra money goes into research as well as ECs. It's no good having 20% cheaper techs if you're only producing half as much energy as you would be using Wealth (okay, so that's an exagerration, but you get the idea).

	15-11-2002 07:49									#333
	Inflate your Upload Space

Good debate.

	15-11-2002 08:20									#334
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

Oh, and Eudaemonia is irrelevant to this discussion, as it comes so late in the game.

	15-11-2002 14:13									#335
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

*thanx for the precise formulas.

All that seem quite close to what I imagined, but i adds a couple of features to my arguments.
First, the base that cant be linked to other bases are ignored, so thats an enormous manque à gagner. It still depends on the configuration of the played faction, but I think a better energy dispatching, read a better efficency, could save energy instead of gaining more energy. Take it this way : when you're running out of eergy, try to save it instead of first trying to increase your energy output.

As you pointed, the trade bonus from Wealth is equal to the research of one economic tech advance, meaning wealth is a good thing in a short term, while knowledge will help you understand Chiron's natural economics and therefore will make you gain more money.

According to this formula :

quote: Base's Energy Bonus = (PAIRED BASE VALUE) x (BASE COMMERCE + 1) / (TOTAL COMMERCE + 1)

This is very unlikely to get more research with wealth than with knwoledge. For example, if you have a pure energy output of 100, 50/50 energy divided between research and EC, you still have a 20% cheaper research, while the general energy output should be 40% more with only a +1 in "base commerce" to get the same science rate. It means the paired base value must be exceptionnaly high.

For me, this only show wealth can be a good investment at a short term (ie: preparing to rushbuy a couple of SPs, an army, etc...), but in the long term, knowledge brings you more research, and therefore increaseyour tech level (read your base commerce) faster, and keeps your efficiency at a better level.

	15-11-2002 14:31									#336
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

When I was talking about getting more commerce via Wealth, I was referring to getting Econ values above +2, rather than the bonus to the commerce equation, but that is a good point also (for me ). Note that in addition to that, one gets 1 extra commerce at +# ECOn, as well as +1 energy per base square AND +1 energy per square, including the base square anyway, and double the base square and commerce bonuses at +4.

Now, to sum up my arguments that Wealth is capable of producing more tech than Knowledge (not all the time, but it is quite possible:

1) Without FM, it's the only way (before Eudaemonia) to get +2 ECON, which is an enormous boost to tech advancement.

2) With FM, it gives even more energy from base squares and commerce, especially in conjunction with a GA

3) 25% faster research (and it IS 25% - though that only helps your point) and extra efficiency may or may not produce faster tech advancement than a higher economy rating - it depends entirely on the distribution of population and infrastructure relative to the HQ. +1 efficieny increases the maximum distance for any energy production to occur at all by 33%, but if most of your energy is being produced near your HQ already, it is unlikely to be worth it.

EDIT:

quote: As you pointed, the trade bonus from Wealth is equal to the research of one economic tech advance, meaning wealth is a good thing in a short term, while knowledge will help you understand Chiron's natural economics and therefore will make you gain more money.

Isn't that exactly what we're debating here: whether Wealth produces faster research than Knowledge?

	15-11-2002 14:40									#337
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

Sorry to rehash an old part of this discussion, but I felt this bit required a further response:

quote: The Morale penalty is designed to show that the people have become accustomed to having material things, and, like Morgan, prize comfort so highly it has a detrimental effect on society.

No, the Morale penalty doesn't necessarily reflect a negative impact on society, it just means that soldiers will be a bit less enthusiastic about having to go off and fight away from their comfortable homes, and that less money is also likely to be spent on actually training them, as it's instead invested into industrial and economic development.

	15-11-2002 16:26									#338
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

I think it's logical to conclude that if soldiers want to fight less, and don't want to leave there comforable homes, then there will be unrest about any war. Besides, I'll have to find the actual phrase, but I think in the SMAC manual it explained all the penalties, and what they represent, and I thought it was a little broader in scope than just the soldiers.

	15-11-2002 19:25									#339
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

The "Morale" definition is quite simple, describes only soldiers' attitude and has nothing to do with population as a whole. You can't say that because of Wealth people are 'very green' instead of 'disciplined'...

	15-11-2002 19:35									#340
	Get a bigger avatar today!

I wasn't impling that merely that if the soldiers don't want to fight, forcing them to will cause unrest with them , their families, and anti-war protestors (like me )

Yes, I'm clutching at straws, but I think the people won't feel safe without a badly trained army, and i really think Wealth is a bad idea. but hey, its just my opinion.

	15-11-2002 19:43									#341
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

Wealth : Government looking for wealth try to build quiclky an economic and industrial infrastructure. They success to a growth and a development quickly, regardless of secondary effects like decadence and degenrescent ways of life.
(this is a shitty translation from the Manual to Social Engineering : actualise your sentient being by AdamTG)

Read : the superior class, the evil bourgeoisie, destroys moral -- what makes man different from common lentil -- and civilization itself by the only goal of achieving a succesful economy and industry.

[OOC] I love this game, all that is so marxist [/OOC]

	15-11-2002 22:31									#342
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

THEY (those foul scientist scum) want you do think that way.

	16-11-2002 05:57									#343
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: Wealth : Government looking for wealth try to build quiclky an economic and industrial infrastructure. They success to a growth and a development quickly, regardless of secondary effects like decadence and degenrescent ways of life.

The English version is: "with possible side effects being decadence and moral decay." This states merely that wealth can lead to decadence, not that it will.

As for the Morale penalty: the better the quality of life people have, the less willing they will be to leave and go risk their lives for their country, so it's hardly a surprise that there is such a penalty.

quote: Read : the superior class, the evil bourgeoisie, destroys moral -- what makes man different from common lentil -- and civilization itself by the only goal of achieving a succesful economy and industry.

What if it's the proletariat that want Wealth implemented, so they have more jobs and more goods and services?

	16-11-2002 16:25									#344
	Inflate your Upload Space

Wealth is not job and goods and services its only money money money and money. The proletariat only wish to be able to benefit of its own work, instead of putting it on rent for someone else's profit.
The morale penalty is not about patriotism, its about the moral decay. If you have creches, theres no moral decay. Dont tell me creches make conscripts more patriotic and thus cancel the moral penalty.
It is indeed a possibility, it can happen when you dont have creches .

	16-11-2002 18:50									#345
	Got spare money?

I cannot comment on that because I just realized we have completed the HGP(RL) and such have more happy People arround.

	16-11-2002 20:58									#347
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

i agree.

	17-11-2002 03:50									#349
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: Wealth is not job and goods and services its only money money money and money.

Wealth is economic and industrial development, goods, services and money, all represented by Energy Credits and faster builds.

quote: The proletariat only wish to be able to benefit of its own work, instead of putting it on rent for someone else's profit.

No, IOW, everyone wants to produce everything they need for themselves? That would require everyone to be furniture maker, tailor, cook, farmer, miner, etc. etc. all at once, all day long.

quote: The morale penalty is not about patriotism, its about the moral decay.

I never said it was about patriotism, I said it was about the soldiers being less well trained and not wanting t fight as much.

quote: If you have creches, theres no moral decay. Dont tell me creches make conscripts more patriotic and thus cancel the moral penalty. It is indeed a possibility, it can happen when you dont have creches .

Creches cancel the Morale penalty because:

quote: with children present, parents will defend their homes to the death.

Nothing to do with them somehow countering moral decay.

	17-11-2002 03:51									#350
	Tired of ads?

Re: Main_Brain...

I think he means that we've mapped the Human Genome and as such have built the HGP, but I have no idea how that pertains to this topic.

	17-11-2002 04:01									#351
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

So far I understood it too, but otherwise...

	17-11-2002 18:39									#352
	Get a bigger avatar today!

I have spotted no extra talents in Warsaw...

	19-11-2002 02:00									#353
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: Originally posted by GeneralTacticus No, IOW, everyone wants to produce everything they need for themselves? That would require everyone to be furniture maker, tailor, cook, farmer, miner, etc. etc. all at once, all day long.

The idea is equal distribution of the "fruits of labor". That is, labor should not produce more surplus value than it is permitted access to. Obviously the details are still complex but the notion does not require primitive/tribalistic communalism.

	19-11-2002 03:53									#354
	Tired of ads?

So, a clerk who sorts paperclips six hours a day should get the same pat as a miner who works in hazardous conditions twelve hours a day? That doesn't sound right.

	19-11-2002 04:40									#355
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

A perfect example of "complex details". The miner is no doubt producing more surplus value per hour he labors. His occupational status should be greater. That status in fact may well not be greater, of course.
Then comes the obligatory lefty statement that neither person should be denied enough access to resources to feed himself and his family, pay for medical care, pay for shelter and pay for education for his family. Here in the states, all of the above is often more of an issue for miners than for copy boys.

	19-11-2002 04:42									#356
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

I never said it wasn't. However, do you consider 'surplus value per hour' to be relative or absolute? Should ore be considered to be worth less because there is a lot of it?

	19-11-2002 16:33									#357
	Tired of ads?

Indeed we did Finsih the Human Genome in RealLife (mostly) so I went up on the Streets looking for People who went Happy..

	19-11-2002 20:52									#358
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: Originally posted by GeneralTacticus I never said it wasn't. However, do you consider 'surplus value per hour' to be relative or absolute? Should ore be considered to be worth less because there is a lot of it?

"Surplus value" relates to both the cost of labor and the price of the ore. Once a miner extracts enough to pay the cost of his labor, anything he makes for the company is surplus value. The relative scarcity of the ore could affect how quickly he pays for himself in a shift, but the principle remains the same. This happens to be the basic definition of surplus value Marx uses in Capital .

	19-11-2002 20:54									#359
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Originally posted by Main_Brain Indeed we did Finsih the Human Genome in RealLife (mostly) so I went up on the Streets looking for People who went Happy..

My life hasn't been this ecstatic since they put up the Hanging Gardens.

	20-11-2002 11:12									#360
	Tired of ads?

quote: "Surplus value" relates to both the cost of labor and the price of the ore. Once a miner extracts enough to pay the cost of his labor, anything he makes for the company is surplus value. The relative scarcity of the ore could affect how quickly he pays for himself in a shift, but the principle remains the same. This happens to be the basic definition of surplus value Marx uses in Capital.

Okaaaaaaay... now what relevance does that have to what we were discussing? For that matter, what were we discussing?