Galactic Civilization

Create account
Login
Downloads
NewsGroup
Community
Purchase
Galactic Forum
Strategies
Mods
Empires
Do you still think GalCiv 1 is fun even with GalCiv II out?
758 votes
1- Yes
2- No


Is Building Nothing Wasteful?
  Search:   
Go to Bottom         Go to Bottom
by Citizen Tacit_Exit - 6/19/2003 2:06:58 AM

So if I've got some planets with social queue projects online and some with 'nothing', and I have spending allocated to the 'social' bar, am I wasting money?

That is, is money still spent on the planets social production even though there is nothing queued?

(I assumed the answer to this was 'yes' until reading a few recent posts here)

On a related topic, do any of the 'free' productions (ie military, social or research) work if 0% spending is allocated to that area?

Do you find overuse of 'parenthesis' annoying?

            
#1  by Veteran vincible - 6/19/2003 4:58:21 AM

Yes, social production on a world producing "nothing" is wasted. The money is still spent to produce "nothing." Some people like this, some people don't mind at all. Anyway, it doesn't look like Stardock will change this anytime soon.

Free production is proportional to your spending. You could see this by allocating zero to say research and seeing that your tech will never complete.

                        
#2  by Citizen LeegleechN - 7/5/2003 8:20:23 PM

Gaaa! Why must it be so!? (wasted production, that is)

                      
#3  by Citizen bruinb77 - 7/6/2003 8:25:32 AM

I don't mind it. I look at it as your factories sitting idle so I understand why it doesn't make any money.



                       Posted via Stardock Central
#4  by Diplomat Arturus Magi - 7/7/2003 2:36:11 AM

Gaaa! Why must it be so!? (wasted production, that is)


The basic idea: You still have to pay the workers at your plants, but you haven't told them to do anything. (Note that you still get the portion of the tax money related to production, so you could also look at it as the plants are producing generic products for individual people, rather than something the government would use, like say... food.)



       Posted via Stardock Central
#5  by Citizen bernard Lallier - 8/4/2003 8:05:26 PM

I realise this (related) gripe has probably come up a billion times before, but doesn't it irritate people that in order to build a ship to defend a new addition to the empire you have to drastically switch production across every planet you have? I don't recall my local toothpaste factory stopping to pump out depleted uranium shells during this years war. Is this just to prevent a complete collapse into spreadsheet micromanagement school, or are there real reasons for the solitary slider bar?

      
#6  by Veteran vincible - 8/4/2003 10:34:11 PM

Various explanations have been advanced, none of which is very plausible in "game-world" terms.

Avoiding micromanagement is one answer. The other, which I personally think is the real one, is that it's hard to program the AI to deal with a complicated production system.

My own system of preference would be for by-governor sliders.

                        
#7  by Citizen ElGranCapitan - 8/7/2003 1:00:46 PM

"The basic idea: You still have to pay the workers at your plants, but you haven't told them to do anything."

This argument holds no water for me. Two words: maintenance cost.

      
#8  by Citizen bernard Lallier - 8/7/2003 5:22:21 PM

As vincible said, its most likely a complexity saver but slide-by governings would really add a big layer of strategy by allowing you to really designate different planets for different tasks as well as preventing the rather incomprehensible dumping of resources for no use (as Paul said, there is already a maintenance cost and the other argument about factories producing civilian goods is beyond the scope of the game. The fact that there is a wider economy is implicit in taxes which are paid by the population but the government plays no role in it and would ergo not randomly start funding it just because it wasn't making anything else).
[Message Edited]

      
#9  by Citizen LeegleechN - 8/10/2003 9:14:21 PM

The expansion will have per-governer sliders.

                      
#10  by Ambassador Ray the Wanderer - 8/10/2003 9:21:17 PM

And how did you manage to get the scoop on that, LeegleechN?

First time I heard it.

                        
#11  by Citizen Tacit_Exit - 8/11/2003 2:50:41 AM

And how did you manage to get the scoop on that, LeegleechN? First time I heard it.


Maybe its like a mantra

(thru sheer force of will . . .)
[Message Edited]

            
#12  by Ambassador Ray the Wanderer - 8/11/2003 4:39:14 AM

Well let's see if the chanting works. I've got a couple of changes I really want as well.

Tacit_Exit, what's a good player like you doing without an empire? Do consider joining the Fellowship.

                        
#13  by Veteran TheQuack - 8/11/2003 11:48:31 PM

I thought about a way to divide the spending ages ago, not by governors, but by what's in the build queues. No-one cared

Heh, oh well, I'll be interested to see if they do have per-governors sliders coming soon. I'm guessing if that happens, then the empire-wide sliders will just become "dumb sliders", that you only change indirectly through governor sliders.



                    
#14  by Veteran vincible - 8/12/2003 1:01:37 AM

I remember that thread, I liked your idea Quack. I like the by-governor idea better but your idea would be an improvement too. And there's no reason they couldn't implement both.

                        
#15  by Citizen Tacit_Exit - 8/12/2003 4:00:19 AM

Tacit_Exit, what's a good player like you doing without an empire? Do consider joining the Fellowship.


Thanks for the invite, oh beacon of GalCiv goodness.

Unfortunately I'd be in danger of being dead weight in an empire atm. I've been lured back to Civ3 and I just can't seem to get enthusiastic about GalCiv right now.

I'll probably take a raincheck till the expansion is released, and see if that puts the fire back in my belly

            
#16  by Ambassador Ray the Wanderer - 8/12/2003 4:19:11 AM

No worries, Tacit_Exit. Enjoy your Civ3 and hope to see you playing when the Xpack arrives.

Used to play quite a bit of Civ3. I was too unadventurous and kept using the same strat. I liked playing at Emperor(?) and my games always ended at tanks.

edit: BTW, there is no deadweight in empires. Every point gets added up and they all count.
[Message Edited]

                        
#17  by Citizen Shane Lang - 9/2/2003 7:50:20 PM

So if you have so much being put into production, will that money will cover cost for the planets that do have a production line?

eg. Planet 1 had been making stuff and it takes the 20 months to make while planet 2 has been making stuff which will take 200 months.
When planet 1 has finished, will the money the they will recieve then be converted to planet 2 so it's production will be faster?

Warning, I only played the game for like 2 or 3 hours.

            
#18  by Citizen Base Delta Zero - 9/2/2003 8:06:30 PM

When planet 1 has finished, will the money the they will recieve then be converted to planet 2 so it's production will be faster?

No.

                      
<<   (1)   >> 
   Page 1 of 1   

Go to Top    Go Back to Message Board    Go to Top
To be able to post something you have to become a member
Click here!



Copyright 1995-2024 Stardock Corporation. All rights reservered.
Site created by Pixtudio and Stardock, designed by Pixtudio.