Exactly how to implement this I'm not sure.
But here's the idea, make a RISING cost for new workers and worker maintenance.
As it is, if you just raise the cost of everything, that doesn't really solve the problem (ex. they raised the cost of settlers but that didn't stop ICS, you just had to wait a little longer)
But if the cost rose so that the 20th unit costs 50% more, and the 30th unit costs 100% more, and the 40th unit costs 200% more... (numbers don't matter, this is just an example)
Thus, while there is no solid cap to the number of worker you can use, there will be a user-chosen optimum.
Thus, you would only need to manage 20-30 workers (or less) instead of 60-100 workers because 20-30 would be more efficient. right now, the game rewards you for having an huge # of workers. Playing to win requires tedium. But with my idea, the game would reward you for choosing less tedium.
But if you don't mind micromanaging and really want that huge worker force, then you're not artificially limited by a cap.
And for realism proponents, isn't this a realistic model of the world? Each additional unit still boosts production (so it's not like corruption), but costs more and more to increase the worker force. Think of it as how the labour market is saturated and government must subsidize to entice more people since most people go where there is a labour shortage and wages are higher.
The game already counts your units, no extra work there.
Plus, the AI should be very capable of handling a simple optimization routine. (but I could be wrong here).
So, what am I missing here? Is there some undesirable result that I'm not seeing?
Comments? or any other ideas?
But here's the idea, make a RISING cost for new workers and worker maintenance.
As it is, if you just raise the cost of everything, that doesn't really solve the problem (ex. they raised the cost of settlers but that didn't stop ICS, you just had to wait a little longer)
But if the cost rose so that the 20th unit costs 50% more, and the 30th unit costs 100% more, and the 40th unit costs 200% more... (numbers don't matter, this is just an example)
Thus, while there is no solid cap to the number of worker you can use, there will be a user-chosen optimum.
Thus, you would only need to manage 20-30 workers (or less) instead of 60-100 workers because 20-30 would be more efficient. right now, the game rewards you for having an huge # of workers. Playing to win requires tedium. But with my idea, the game would reward you for choosing less tedium.
But if you don't mind micromanaging and really want that huge worker force, then you're not artificially limited by a cap.
And for realism proponents, isn't this a realistic model of the world? Each additional unit still boosts production (so it's not like corruption), but costs more and more to increase the worker force. Think of it as how the labour market is saturated and government must subsidize to entice more people since most people go where there is a labour shortage and wages are higher.
The game already counts your units, no extra work there.
Plus, the AI should be very capable of handling a simple optimization routine. (but I could be wrong here).
So, what am I missing here? Is there some undesirable result that I'm not seeing?
Comments? or any other ideas?
Comment