The Merchant Exchange?

[Skanky Burns]

The strange thing is the ME seems custon-built for Morgon on initial inspection. Not only that, but the movie for the project features Morgan quotes. Were the project moved to a post-energy restriction technology then Morgan would clearly benefit from its construction.

[CEO Aaron]

Morgan's strength is the production of energy. He doesn't do anything special with it once it's produced. Any clown with the ability to get to +2 Economy would see the exact same benefit. More, since other factions with higher hab limits will be able to work more tiles, and thus reap 3 more energy, before crawlers are factored in.

For my part, ME is one of the SPs I let go, almost without exception. In my hands, it's worth almost nothing until the very late game when I might consider making an Energy Park. In the AI's hands, it will only amount to a handful of extra energy per turn.

[Santiago_Claus]

The Cult should find the ME as useful as The Hive.

[CEO Aaron]

Good point. I keep forgetting they exist.

[smacksim]

In a tech-stagnation game, the ME is quite a bit more useful. There, energy parks are much more realistic b/c the actual time to use them. The other early projects are just so over-powered that the ME is tame in comparison. But compared to mid-game projects, it's typically better.

As the main developer with Aldebaran, I often wished I could change the special projects. Custom projects and effects would really add a lot to MP games. Anyways, here's what I would do with the Merchant Exchange, IF the other early projects couldn't be made a bit weaker (which is a better solution).

Merchant Exchange (maybe even 'choose three of four effects'):

1) +1 energy for each square worked by this base

2) Permanent Pact-level trade with all other factions, at this base. (Hey, it's the center of all trade after all)

3) 0 inefficiency at this base, even if not your HQ. (This makes capturing it much more attractive as well)

4) Some benefit to Free Market Economy, like -1 police instead of -3

That would make it quite useful methinks.

-Smack

[GeoModder]

That last one would be too much, and completely out of toutch with how FM is considered ingame.

The other three: Those would do good

[Skanky Burns]

I think just allowing the +1 energy per square it produces to be allowed even above restrictions would make this a great project. Imagine Morgan making 3 energy per square when others are getting a maximum of 2.

[Petek]

Item #3 is a great idea. The ME is typically built early, either in your HQ or close to it. As the game progresses, you'd like to relocate your HQ to maximize efficiency. But if you do so, the ME base (which is probably your SSC) loses lab points due to increased inefficiency. If the ME base always had 0 inefficiency, you could have the best of both worlds.

[The Mad Monk]

It's fine as it is -- adding anything more would force it to cost more.

As for moving your capital...

I always prefer to get the WP, and move the land instead.

[Enigma_Nova]

You can't get everything.
I'm playing as Uni, so I'll move for the VW.
Beyond that I'd like the WP or the HGP, but I figure I'll be beaten to the post.

[RoadRash]

My favorite early game SP is the terraforming one. Especially if I find myself stranded on a small island. But the ME runs a close second.

My capital city often produces 1/3 of my total research. Especially as the game progresses and my capital continues to build research-related SPs.

Since the ME contributes 1/3 of the energy in my capital, it's generating 10% of my research. That's a far greater research contribution than any other city. And it costs no maintenance and incurs no penalty for "bloated bureacracy".

[smacksim]

'....and completely out of touch with how Free Market is considered in game'...

hmm. I know there have been plenty of discussions of this, and I don't at all feel the need to defend those SP enhancements. They're just 'what if?'s. But, your comment GeoModder brings up that age old question: What is difficult for free market economies? Is there a better system, empirically?

It seems the Police thing is pretty arbitrary. Free Markets should need fewer police to keep people from breaking laws, as they are freer to pursue their own interests than in a planned or possibly even green economy. Even with Black Markets, there are crimes, but they are typically about competition and profit-making, not about unhappy citizens. The penalty for FM against Planet makes much more sense. What do you think?

-Smack

[GeoModder]

I'l slinging the whole time between giving minus Police to Democratic or Free Market.

Both can bring drones to the streets since workers displaced or losing their jobs come to the street, offen violently, and that peace demonstrators do the same. Actually it should be much better if FM had 4 social benefits, from which negative support is added then but perhaps a less negative police rating. That's my 2 cents.

I made a little scenario in which demo/FM support/police were reversed (-3 police in Demo, -2 support in FM), and noticed that democracy was not so keen anymore for AI's, even those (like Lal) who are forced to take this political choice.

[Santiago_Claus]

It should be remembered that this is an environment concocted as part of a science fiction story, not Earth.

On Earth we humans do most of our ecological damage through a behavior known as "the tragedy of the commons": people will tend to take communal resources for their own benefit to such a degree it destroys that resource.

On Earth the classic means of managing the Commons is by regulation and privatization.

However, in the game regulation is "rewarded" and privatization "punished".

Privatization only works on Earth because much of the time what's good for the land is also what's good for its owner. On Earth "Free Market" has proven universally greener than "Planned" for a given population size.

On a hostile alien planet, however, what's good for humans might prove lousy for the indigenous life, so much so that privatization becomes part of the problem rather than part of the solution.

If "improving" the land actually harms it from Planet's point of view, the ponderous old Planned economy would cause less damage by the same logic that says if you're producing something at a loss, the slower you build the less money you lose.

The Green economy on Planet would probably bear little resemblance to what we think of as "Green" on Earth (see below). After many years of research ecologists would no doubt produce a laundry list of bizarre best-practices and regulations, at first contradicting themselves as new evidence comes to light, then finally arriving at some set of principles which, taken together, form the efficient, slow-growing "Green" SE choice.

"Green" means different things for Earth versus Planet? I know, I know, "Planet" is just a construct of a science fiction story, but the point of science fiction is to get readers thinking about things ...

On Earth a slow accumulation of minor problems eventually adds up to big trouble. One plastic bottle tossed out a window is nothing, 15 million another matter. Scalability problems by their nature creep up on us. When we built the first CFC-based air conditioner nobody dreamed that if we built a billion more they would eat a hole in the ozone layer. Eventually we'll saturate the CO2 system (most of which is in the ocean) and suddenly we'll see some serious global warming.

However, big pollution centers by themselves make little global impact. Mexico City, Earth's most polluting, causes very little damage outside of Mexico City. The oil fires set by Saddam in Gulf War I messed up the Gulf for awhile but didn't much bother anyone else. Earth can withstand a great deal of punishment in one place and make up for it somewhere else.

Planet is the exact opposite: it can absorb tremendous industrial output if you bring it on slowly and spread it around, but reacts very negatively to sudden change.

Rapid change, be it fast population growth, sudden increase in mineral production, the rapid pace of a free market economy, or the sudden depopulation of a city (e.g. an atrocity), causes the fungus to hit the panic button.

Yet ramp up industrial output slowly over a huge area, clear-cutting fungus wherever it lies, and Planet will absorb it without complaint. Push a little too hard and you get a fungal pop -- but every fungal pop lets you turn the screws a little tighter, across the entire globe.

On Planet a billion air conditioners would mean nothing, yet one Mexico City would bring on Armageddon -- that is if the locusts didn't eat it first. Interesting to contemplate, isn't it?

[RoadRash]

Good one, Santiago!