[C4:AC][Programming] Social Enginering

[Chaos Theory]

Re: [Design/Game Mechanics]

Originally posted by mdbill
I hope you all can follow my shorthand. Anyone wanna help me fill out this list of social effects?

Econ

-2 or less: add (ECON+1) energy to each base tile, after rec tanks, for a total minimum energy of 0
-1: -1 at HQ (negates the HQ bonus)
0: standard energy rates
1: +1/base
2: +1/square
3: +1/square, +2/base, +1 commerce
4: +1/square, +4/base, +2 commerce
5 and up: +1/square, +4/base, +3 commerce

Efficiency

Losses due to unbalanced sliders:
First, round the unbalance down to the next multiple of 20%. Then, multiply that by (4-Effic)/10. Bound to 0-40%. This is the loss on the higher of econ/labs. The lower has twice this loss.

Energy in cities lost: see Datalinks

Bureaucracy: see Datalinks

Support

-4 and down: 2 minerals/unit
-3: 1 mineral/unit
-2: 1 free unit/base, then 1 mineral/unit
-1: 1 free unit, then 1 mineral/unit; free 10 mins at new bases
0: 2 free units, then 1 mineral/unit; free 10 mins at new bases
1: 3 free units, then 1 mineral/unit; free 10 mins at new bases
2: 4 free units, then 1 mineral/unit; free 10 mins at new bases
3 and up: 4 or base size free units, then 1 mineral/unit; free 10 mins at new bases


Police

-5 and down: 2 drones per military unit outside borders; no nerve stapling
-4: 1 drone per military unit outside borders; no nerve stapling
-3: 1 drone per military unit after the first per base outside borders; no nerve stapling
-2: no nerve stapling
-1: 1 police unit; no nerve stapling
0: 1 police unit
1: 2 police units
2: 3 police units
3 and up: 3 police units; such units each quell an additional drone (total of 3 with nonlethal methods)


Growth

-3 and down: +20% nutrient box width; possible zero city growth?
-2 through +5: -(GROWTH)*10% nutrient box width
+6 and up: -50% nutrient box width; pop boom

[mdbill]

Thanks gang,

I've decided on what new tags will be required in the XML to produce these effects. I should be done with Social Engineering shortly.

[mdbill]

I think "near zero growth" means the box will fill with food, but you never get a pop increase.

[Senethro]

Originally posted by mdbill
I think "near zero growth" means the box will fill with food, but you never get a pop increase.

This is correct withing my experience.

It would probably be a good idea if you created some "dummy" levels for the SE table that go above and below the values that have an effect. Do you know about the probe rollover bug which happens when you reach +4 probe? Seriously messed up the poor Angels. I don't know how Firaxis didn't notice this when Probe goes up to +5 in SMAC and +8 in SMAX.

Also, going to conduct some experiments just to confirm how Econ actually works, as I'm a bit concerned...

[mdbill]

"dummy" levels...absolutely. That's the plan. Didn't know about the rollover bug, but we won't have that problem. (or are we trying to exactly reproduce SMAC? then I'll add it in)

[Senethro]

Originally posted by mdbill
"dummy" levels...absolutely. That's the plan. Didn't know about the rollover bug, but we won't have that problem. (or are we trying to exactly reproduce SMAC? then I'll add it in)

Some hard heads actually thought thats what we meant by reproduce SMAC :P


Economy SocEng.
At each level I've stated what I believe the effect to be based on observing the game. I've then stated what energy I've observed a base without recycling tanks or energy bonuses or a river to make on its base tile.

Econ 0: No effect. Base tile makes 1 energy.
Econ 1: +1 energy at each base. Base tile makes 2 energy.
Econ 2: +1 energy all tiles. Base tile makes 2 energy. (NOTE: Effect of Econ1 and Econ2 do not stack.)
Econ 3: Differs from stated in datalinks. Actual effect: +2 energy at each base. Base tile makes 4 energy. (NOTE: This effect does stack.) Also, a bonus Commerce rate and the +1 energy per tile.
Econ 4: +4 energy per base. Base tile makes 6 energy. Also 2 bonus Commerce rate and +1 energy per tile.

This 6 energy it makes in Econ 4 = 1 for being a base, 1 because its a worked tile, 4 applied as a bonus.

Econ 5: Correctly gives 3 bonus Commerce rates, but no further bonus on top of +1 energy each tile and +4 energy per base.
Econ 6: No further effect.
Econ 7: Highest Econ achievable in unmodded SMAX

Now how does that correlate with what other people have said...

Edit: Looks like I'm in disagreement with Rubin. How do we resolve this?

[Rubin]

Originally posted by Senethro
Edit: Looks like I'm in disagreement with Rubin. How do we resolve this?

Eh, maybe all these numbers are confusing me, but where do you see the disagreement?

From my memory of how the game works: In your calculations, you've added the +1 energy all bases receive by default. This is unaffected by economy rating. Perhaps my memory fails me? (I didn't test again just now.)

The only issue I see is which values to implement: The documented effects or the actual effects?

[Senethro]

Originally posted by Rubin
mdbill, as you can see in, for example, this post, the economy settings do not correspond with the game "documentation".

I would think something like this needs to be changed:

+4 Economy: +1 energy at each square, +3 energy at the base square and +2 commerce rating. Note that the base square gets a total of +4 energy.

Here are the economy values (as documented by the game) from the alphax.txt:

#SOCECONOMY
-3, -2 energy each base
-2, -1 energy each base
-1, -1 energy at HQ base
0, Standard energy rates
1, +1 energy each base
2, +1 energy each square!
3, +1 energy each square; +1 commerce rating!!
4, +1 energy/sq; +2 energy/base; +2 commerce!!!
5, +1 energy/sq; +4 energy/base; +3 commerce!!!!

I don't know if this helps or if it is the sort of information you are looking for.

Disagreement with my post and this one. Firstly, we know that the actual effect isn't whats stated. Secondly, I disagree with what you believe the effect of Econ 4 to be. In Econ 4, may bases make 6 energy, not 4.

Edit: Also, I vote we go with the actual effect in this case.

[Rubin]

Well, Senethro, firstly, in my post I linked to my previous findings on "the actual effects"; these correspond to your findings posted here--at least, I cannot see any conflicts.

Secondly, I suggested that we might be interested in some kind of change to the actual effects. This interest may arise from two issues: 1) The documentation and 2) the actual effects. I don't know which of these issues were intended for gameplay, so perhaps a third option were a possibility.

I am interested in "resolving the disagreement", but I am unable to spot it. To this, I suggest we disregard my post (#11 in this thread)--this should resolve the disagreement. Is this acceptable?

[Senethro]

Heh, I should have read the post more carefully, and especially should have noticed the link. I see what you're saying now. I was worried that there was another factor in effect that needed investigation.

I'm fairly sure I've come across other inaccuracies in documentation before (one facility has incorrect maintenance...) but I still think we should go with actual effects in game, except when it comes to stuff like the stockpile bug. (Funnily enough, the stockpile bug is also present in MoO2 for exactly the same reasons)

[ForesterSOF]

I would go for making the tables the way they were ment to be and nixing as many of the bugs as posible so future cheating cant happen.

[mdbill]

It's late, so I'm not gonna go into detail, but here's a preview of the Social Engineering. The civic choices don't match the social effects. I just set Washington's initial civics to interesting values so I could see the display. I'll get it all wired properly tomorrow.

[IMG][/IMG]

[PJayTycy]

That's very impressive, you work fast

[MMC]

I'm just trying to work out what happened to the map in that pic... what did you do Rubin?

[MMC]

On a side note... I was just flicking through my original SMAC manual, and came across the description pages for the SE screen...

Apparantly, the main reason the "Social Effects Summary" (5) box is there, is for colour blind people who can't see the red and green colours denoting value changes.