88 replies to this topic

[(DAC)Syzygy]

Right now, Environment has almost no effect on nations, and in addition to that, it is hurting small nations a lot more then large nations. Over time you just outgrow the impact.

Some facts first:
currently Environment gives a happiness penalty of 0.4 for every env you get above 1.
2 env = -0.4 happiness
3 env = -0.8 happiness
and so on.

In addition to that, environment gives a very slight population bonus which is:
- applying AFTER modifiers (so resources or improvements have no impact on that number)
- not depending on anything else (so it is the same number of citizen for a 1 day old nation or a 700day old naton)
[the admin has not revealed the exact formula yet, so I will not reveal them either]


Flaws:
-0.4 happiness and ~50 citizens are nice numbers for VERY small nations to deal with. But as soon as a nation has a bit of infra, trades and improvements, these numbers become totally irrelevant. Even a total nuclear war, giving 4 env-penalty would cost not even notciable amounts of cash. Not even counted the fact that 50citizen more or less for a nation with 50,000 or even 100,000 citizes is NOTHING.

In addition to that, with some gov-settings, water and at the end borderwalls basically EVERY nation in the end reduces its environment to 1 (best) + GRL. So, we have a nice gameplay feature here, which, except for the nice looking stars, brings nothing for the game at all. The effect is just too low.

Suggestion:
- instead of fixed values, use dynamic values (%) for the penalty and boni.
- strengthen the effects so nations have a motivation to care for their environment
- make more decisions in the game have impact on environment

@ point 1+2: I suggest to give a -0.5% income penalty to every level of environment worse then 1, and a sliding population modificator from -5% citizen for the worst environment (12) to +5% population for the best environment (1). Nations with around 6 environment would then have no pop bonus. This would lead to the following environment modifications:

01 = -0.0% income +5%pop
02 = -0.5% income +4%pop
03 = -1.0% income +3%pop
04 = -1.5% income +2%pop
05 = -2.0% income +1%pop
06 = -2.5% income +0%pop
07 = -3.0% income -1%pop
08 = -3.5% income -2%pop
09 = -4.0% income -3%pop
10 = -4.5% income -4%pop
11 = -5.0% income -5%pop
12 = -5.5% income -6%pop

This way, all nations would be affected equally, and not only the small ones while big nations could mostly ignore the environment.

@point 2: I suggest to let population density have a DIRECT impact on environment. Currently there are some artificial borders 70 and 120 (with water), but even those have very little impact and a lot of nations do not reach them anyway. My suggestion would be: (PopDensity/20)-1 as direct env modificator. So, nations who can reach a pop density of 20 or below, would suffer no penalty. 40 would hurt environment by 1 (40/20)-1. 60 by 2, 80 by 3 and so on.

This would even make war-times more realistic, because if people build large troop amounts, their pop-density rises and their environment suffers automatically (just logical).

In addition to that, give nukes not a fixed penalty, but a sliding one: nukes/10 = env modificator. 20nukes means 2 env penalty, 10 nukes only 1. 25 = 2.5. Just logical. Lead (as currently very weak resource), could negate the nuke-env penalty.

Last but not least, uncap the GRL. With environment having a bigger impact, nuclear war will have worldwide effects and there will be political pressure to stop the massive use of nuclear weaponry, because you do not only hurt your enemies, but your allies too. This way, it can happen that a nation who makes constantly bad decisions AND the GRL is high, will suffer noticable penalties (-5.5% income, -6% citizens at worst case).

Benefits:
- The worth of Lead, Gold, Microchips and Radiation Cleanup (all currently very weak) is strengthened (= right for resources balance)
- Land has an additional use (because you can directly influence the pop-density penalty with purchasing land), so the decision to purchase land or infra will become important (currently its just: infra infra infra all the time)
- Skill has more impact in the game, because the right decisions (imports, improvements, land, wonders) at the right moments are impacting the nations more.
- realism. Environment has in reality a strong impact on the health of your population, and therefore the amount of deseases and deaths (pop modifiers) and the amount of days they are ill (income modifier).

Drawbacks:
- none that I know of.

The admin already stated he would be willing to listen to such a suggestion, so please do not answer with "wont be implemented" or "too much to code" or such things. Its a very simple change, the formulas just need to be adapted form the current calculations to the new ones.

Discuss.

[LeVentNoir]

This might make border walls worth having. Also, might need another environment bonus wonder/ improvement.

[+Zeke+]

From a selfish point of view I say Ouch!

Needless to say, you need to expect that kind of resistance.

But I have to admit it makes sense. Environment should have more impact on the game.


Just one thing, however. Currently only "dirty" resources impact the environment. But it's a fact that mass agriculture does too in RL. Most of the food based resources should offer some kind of penalty, though a bit less than their industrial counterparts. This would also balance the burden more evenly throughout the trading spheres.

[Higgsboson]

I think that's a fantastic idea. It would add another level of planning to managing your nation, it also might encourage people not to inflate their NS with military all the time if it impacted their environment.

[dudluv2]

all very sound ideas. cant find any drawbacks with exception to a large increase in the number of land raids (which necessarily might not be a drawback at all; just a consequence of different styles of gameplay)

[(DAC)Syzygy]

Just one thing, however. Currently only "dirty" resources impact the environment. But it's a fact that mass agriculture does too in RL. Most of the food based resources should offer some kind of penalty, though a bit less than their industrial counterparts. This would also balance the burden more evenly throughout the trading spheres.

The Agricultural set automatically increases the pop-count and the max troop amount. Nations using that set will automatically have a higher pop.density (especially since the land-bonus of wheat and sugar was removed) = they automatically suffer a higher env-penalty from the pop.density.

I already thought that one in

[Lord Sharpe]

Doesn't this just hurt younger nations, while older nations, with appropriate trades/improvements, will not suffer as much?

[(DAC)Syzygy]

thats the key, the nations must make the right decisions, depending on their size. If you have a really bad environment, it might be useful to buy a borderwall earlier, and not like now as last improvements (or even never).

Also just buying a few miles of land (very cheap early on) helps small nations a LOT (reducing pop density penalty). While big nations would have to buy many hundred miles to bring down the density. Nuke penalites would apply to strong nations only.

Also small nations do not have all pop boosters (hospital, clinics, wonders), so they have a lower pop-density and penalty after all, they simply dont NEED to counter as much environmentpenalties as big nations must.

[enderland]

Right now, Environment has almost no effect on nations, and in addition to that, it is hurting small nations a lot more then large nations. Over time you just outgrow the impact.

Doesn't this just hurt younger nations, while older nations, with appropriate trades/improvements, will not suffer as much?

That was my first thought as well. It seems this is intended to help smaller nations with environment but instead produces the opposite effect.

Something to add MUCH more gameplay strategy would be the following. Similar to how the real world develops, starting agricultural, starting to industrialize, then arriving where we are today, I recommend a scaled environment impact to be added with this.

So, with infra (representing economic development):

0-1499: +2 environment
1500-2499: +1 environment
2500-3499: +0 environment
4500-5499: -1 environment
5500-6499: -2 environment (simulating pollution from economic growth)
6500-7499: -1 environment
7500-8499: +0 environment
8500-10499: +1 environment
10500-15499: +2 environment
15500-29999: +3 environment

Something along those lines to simulate the poor environmental effects of industrial development. Offsetting at "500"s means that you cannot get the max infra upkeep and best environment bonus to line up.

Or perhaps tie factories in with environment too.

[lardlad]

yes/10

[myruler]

I think this might possibly be a problem:

01 = -0.0% income +5%pop
02 = -0.5% income +4%pop
03 = -1.0% income +3%pop
04 = -1.5% income +2%pop
05 = -2.0% income +1%pop
06 = -2.5% income +0%pop
07 = -3.0% income -1%pop
08 = -3.5% income -2%pop
09 = -4.0% income -3%pop
10 = -4.5% income -4%pop
11 = -5.0% income -5%pop
12 = -5.5% income -6%pop

This reduces any bad effects border walls have. The +1 environment will give you 1% of your citizens back(losing only 1% total) and decrease your income loss as well. So I guess it is a gameplay choice, but if your environment is not 1, border walls should be better than +1 happiness improvements and just a little bit worse than +2 happiness improvements.

I like this idea very much though. Another problem I have is what happens if you are stuck in between an environment number? Let's say your environment is normally at 04. You advance it to 03, but the +1% population brings you back down to a 04, then the loss of the +1% population would push you back up?

[+Zeke+]

The Agricultural set automatically increases the pop-count and the max troop amount. Nations using that set will automatically have a higher pop.density (especially since the land-bonus of wheat and sugar was removed) = they automatically suffer a higher env-penalty from the pop.density.

I already thought that one in

Touche! Got me there.

[Azaghul]

I like it. If it's implemented, the impact of border-walls on environment should be very significantly reduced. Improvements such as factories could hurt it, while tech has more of an impact to reduce it.

I was considering posting something similar, but instead of balancing it so better environment provides a bonus, you increase the population value of land to 1 citizen per person (or some other appropriate number, I haven't done calculations on it) while creating a 1% population penalty for every point of pollution above 1. That way you make both land and environment much more meaningful, which land needs especially for it's cost.

[Lord Emares]

I think this might possibly be a problem:


This reduces any bad effects border walls have. The +1 environment will give you 1% of your citizens back(losing only 1% total) and decrease your income loss as well. So I guess it is a gameplay choice, but if your environment is not 1, border walls should be better than +1 happiness improvements and just a little bit worse than +2 happiness improvements.

I like this idea very much though. Another problem I have is what happens if you are stuck in between an environment number? Let's say your environment is normally at 04. You advance it to 03, but the +1% population brings you back down to a 04, then the loss of the +1% population would push you back up?

this would be a problem with any such system especially near the boundaries...

[(DAC)Syzygy]

I think this might possibly be a problem:


This reduces any bad effects border walls have. The +1 environment will give you 1% of your citizens back(losing only 1% total) and decrease your income loss as well. So I guess it is a gameplay choice, but if your environment is not 1, border walls should be better than +1 happiness improvements and just a little bit worse than +2 happiness improvements.

Yes, Borderwalls can be very potent, if the environment is very bad. However, they can never bring your environment below GRL+1, its a gameplay choice when to use it, and when to use it not. If your environment is already as clean as it can be, you switch +2happiness for -2% pop, so the decision depends on your nation size. If your environment is pretty bad, it will be a good decision to invest cash into borderwalls, sometimes even before police HQs or Churches or IntelAgencies. As said, the more experienced the player, the more he can use the effects (skill impact on gameplay).

I like this idea very much though. Another problem I have is what happens if you are stuck in between an environment number? Let's say your environment is normally at 04. You advance it to 03, but the +1% population brings you back down to a 04, then the loss of the +1% population would push you back up?

First, the boni shall not work in steps. So as example an environment of 4.26 would bring you no bonus/penalty like for 4 (because it is nearer at 4), but a bonus/penalty for *exactly* 4.26. [these steps were only examples to show how the effect changes for different values, its NOT how it should be calculated]

4.26 = 3.26 worse then 1.
= -3.26% income
= +1.74% pop (5-3.26)

So, the bonus is *really* sliding, never "in between".

In addition, the environment modificator is applied in the END. After all other modificators work, so it will not apply "on itself". Its the same way wheat or fish works. Its not like 1,000 citizen, 1,080 with wheat and then "hey, but theye 80 eat wheat too so don't they get further modified?" - no. First the complete nation is calculated witout the environment mods. Then the final value env is calculated (based on the non-env values) and applied on pop and income.

So basically if you lose pop from environment, the "benefit" of the pop-density decrease is not counted again. [they die FROM the environment effects, but their death don't make the environment itself better ]

Edited by (DAC)Syzygy, 01 April 2008 - 12:50 PM.

[eminemdre166]

I would not reap the benefits of this suggestion, but I do think it is a good one that should be implemented.

[koona]

So any idea how this was implemented? I have a feeling that it wasn't taken word for word.

[admin]

So any idea how this was implemented? I have a feeling that it wasn't taken word for word.

It was not. This update was based on the OP's suggestion but the equations are much different. I am not releasing those equations. Figure it out.

[threefingeredguy]

Well there's 4k citizens lost. I guess I'll have to sit here with -4 improvement slots for a little while until I figure out what changes I want to make.

I do however feel that this is a good change and kind of balances out how hard it is to get to the top 5% since now nuclear capable nations have way fewer citizens. It's more realistic, we'll just have to change how we play a little.

[greenansatsu]

O.k. I don't mean to complain but is it just me or were the changes made really extreme? I know I've never had good environment usually a 5 or 6 +GR, even though i only import uranium and import water. have a pop density of 60 some. With this update it went down to 7+ GR, ok if its that bad alright however its the reductions that his me. I lost 2 happiness no big deal really, and then 6.50 income tax dollars. probably from the lost happiness. The change that is screwing with my head is the loss of 15,000-20,000 citizens. I know before I had at least 83000 according to my last excel sheet thats over 2 months old and I am sure it was up to 88000, due to changes in trades now I'm down to 68,827 Working Citizens. Thats around a 20% citizen loss either way. I know environment should hit you hard but 20%? thats a bit harsh! I'm just checking to make sure this is correct and not a typo while putting in the formula. I figured 2 happiness, maybe the change was supposed to be 2%. decimals errors happen... if not well then I'm gonna go buy a whole lot of land.