Bureaucracy policy

Creation, discussion, and balancing of game content such as techs, buildings, ship parts.

Moderators: Oberlus, Committer

Post Reply
Message
Author
User avatar
Oberlus
Cosmic Dragon
Posts: 5715
Joined: Mon Apr 10, 2017 4:25 pm

Bureaucracy policy

#1 Post by Oberlus »

This policy is unlocked by adopting Planetary Infrastructure, and it gives +5 stability to all colonies if #RegAd > turns_since_policy_adopted/10, plus makes focus change cost 3 IP.
The adoption cost is 2+#popcenters.

To keep the bonus at all time you need to do one of these:

- Add another RegAd (which must be at 5+ hops from any previous RegAd) every ten turns. That's quite fast and (I think) too hard to achieve in common situations.
- De-adopt the policy once you lose the bonus and re-adopt it next turn. In this case you'll have 10*#RegAd turns before having to build another RegAd or do the de-adopt&re-adopt again.


Assuming you have 10 popcenters per RegAd, and add a new RegAd every 20 turns (later 30 or 40):

1. Adopt policy at turn 10 when you have 5 popcenters, costs 7 IP.
2. Build your first RegAd at turn 20, stability bonus stays.
3. De-adopt policy at turn 30 and re-adopt it at turn 31 for 22 IP. Bonus remains until turn 51
4. Build second RegAd at turn 40. Bonus until turn 61.
5. Build thirds Reg Ad at turn 60. Bonus until turn 71.
6. De-adopt at 70 and re-adopt at 71 for 42 IP. Bonus until 131.
7. Fourth RegAd at turn 80 and fifth at 100110. Bonus until 151.
8. Sixth RegAd at turn 140. Bonus until 161.
9. De-adopt at 160 and re-adopt at 161 for 72 IP. Bonus until 231.
10. Eight RegAd at turn 170 and Ninth at 210. Bonus until 251.
11. Tenth RegAd at turn 250. Bonus until 261.
12. De-adopt and re-adopt at 261 for 112 IP. Bonus until 371.

At that point, the total cost of that +5 stability is 250 IP.

Maybe this is affordable and can be a good way to have that +5 stability for the whole game, and more affordable to get it only when you need that extra stability and other policies won't help.
And one could use those turns in between de-adopt and re-adopt to do focus changes.

None of this is micromanagement, but it feels kinda boring, adopt, de-adopt, re-adopt...
On the other hand, that's only needed every few tens of turns, and it kinda feels quite bureaucratic :lol:
And the effects themselves do make sense: the bureaucracy is rigid and makes difficult to change procedures; the bureaucracy is boring but predictable, discourages favoritisms, etc.
At start I thought it made little sense that de-adopt/re-adopt thingy, but now I think it does: bureaucracy is rigid and loses efficiency with time, to change well-established bureaucratic processes needs to undertake a costly process ans do needs influence investment.

Anyways, although I'm not sure I prefer to remove the de-adopt&re-adopt mechanic (I guess it's better to playtest it several times), does anyone have an idea how to make this more "fun" or at least remove the need to de-adopt&re-adopt to make it effective during time?

I can think of:
- giving a stability bonus based on ratio #RegAd/#PopCenters,
- slowing down meter change.


Some remarks on pros and cons of bureaucracy (not sure how accurate/actual these are):
https://vittana.org/20-advantages-and-d ... ureaucracy

User avatar
Geoff the Medio
Programming, Design, Admin
Posts: 13587
Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2003 1:33 am
Location: Munich

Re: Bureaucracy policy

#2 Post by Geoff the Medio »

Oberlus wrote: Thu Jun 17, 2021 9:41 am...makes focus change cost 3 IP.
Specifically, it reduces the influence meter by 3. The total cost of that depends on how fast the meter regrows after the one-time reduction. Eg. if it's growing +1/turn after the reduction and was initially at the target level, it might cumulatively cost 3 + 2 + 1 over the next few turns until influence has returned to the pre-effect level. If the influence meter was already less than the target influence, before the one-time adjustment, then the cost might be more since it will take even longer to grow to the target level.

User avatar
LienRag
Cosmic Dragon
Posts: 2148
Joined: Fri May 17, 2019 5:03 pm

Re: Bureaucracy policy

#3 Post by LienRag »

Don't know.

It certainly works differently that other policies, which is clearly good.

As you said, the "adopt/deadopt" is a bit problematic, but since it costs quite a lot of IP once the game advances, I'm not sure it'll be boring. I mean, it will impose a lot of precise planning to get it right. In a way, that's good too.

The problem I see is that if it allows the +5 bonus to Stability to stay without much global strategy, just good economic management, then why bother with making Stability hard to get in the first place ?

Though obviously it will make taking enemy Regional Administration a good way of disrupting entirely their Stability, which is probably a good thing.

Needs testing to really know how it will fare, I guess ?

User avatar
Oberlus
Cosmic Dragon
Posts: 5715
Joined: Mon Apr 10, 2017 4:25 pm

Re: Bureaucracy policy

#4 Post by Oberlus »

LienRag wrote: Thu Jun 17, 2021 5:21 pm As you said, the "adopt/deadopt" is a bit problematic, but since it costs quite a lot of IP once the game advances, I'm not sure it'll be boring. I mean, it will impose a lot of precise planning to get it right. In a way, that's good too.
I said boring, not problematic. But I'm unsure of that.
LienRag wrote: Thu Jun 17, 2021 5:21 pm The problem I see is that if it allows the +5 bonus to Stability to stay without much global strategy, just good economic management, then why bother with making Stability hard to get in the first place ?
You always say the same for any mechanic in the game: no strategy. What do you really mean when you talk about strategy?
In this case, I don't understand why you say that, since you need to consider how, when and where to expand to keep control of RegAds. Also, why you say it won't have much global strategy and in the previous sentence you said "impose a lot of precise planning"?
//Edited to be more open-minded.//

User avatar
LienRag
Cosmic Dragon
Posts: 2148
Joined: Fri May 17, 2019 5:03 pm

Re: Bureaucracy policy

#5 Post by LienRag »

Oberlus wrote: Thu Jun 17, 2021 5:43 pm You always say the same for any mechanic in the game: no strategy.
Very often indeed, as it is a flaw that I see in many proposals : not enough reflection about how the new mechanic would interact with the other parts of the game, and more importantly about how it would affect player interactions.

Not always though, as when I do not spot this flaw I keep silent, and I believe (without being able to spot an example right now out of my head) that I did in some occasions praise ideas and mechanisms that did improve the strategic quality of the game.

But yes, I consider that this is a very important point that any proposal should take into account, and that not enough do it right.

Oberlus wrote: Thu Jun 17, 2021 5:43 pm What do you really mean when you talk about strategy?
Well, there are quite a lot of definitions of it, I believe, and some of them too advanced conceptually for me to fully understand them.
To answer your question, I'd say : non-linear effects whose results depend on the interactions between players' choices.

Oberlus wrote: Thu Jun 17, 2021 5:43 pm Also, in this case, you are clearly wrong, since you need to consider how, when and where to expand to keep control of RegAds.
You may have a point there.
Oberlus wrote: Thu Jun 17, 2021 5:43 pm you are contradicting yourself, since you just said "impose a lot of precise planning" in the previous sentence.
No, that was why I called "economic management".
Planning about how you do things can be fun (at least for some time) but is not really strategy if it doesn't take into account enemy action.

There can indeed be strategic implications if that planning is done under pressure by the enemy, you are right about that. That was what my last paragraph was about.

User avatar
Oberlus
Cosmic Dragon
Posts: 5715
Joined: Mon Apr 10, 2017 4:25 pm

Re: Bureaucracy policy

#6 Post by Oberlus »

I'm sorry, but I can't see some of your points, and I disagree with the rest.


You say some mechanics don't take into account strategy, but you don't explain why (e.g. this case).

Linearity doesn't imply lack of strategy, it's just a mathematic concept about how magnitudes grow. What you say here just sounds pedantic to me, and void of content.
You don't really explain what you understand for strategy in this case.

If you expand without taking into account enemy's actions you will hve surprises. So again, I disagree with your point.
My impression is that your statements are mostly aimed at supoorting your own edification and not really based on actual insight. If you care to explain them better, without fancy words like "non-linearity" that have nothing to do with strtegy, that would help me understand your points.
You may have a point there.
OK, I may. Do I or not? What do you think?

User avatar
LienRag
Cosmic Dragon
Posts: 2148
Joined: Fri May 17, 2019 5:03 pm

Re: Bureaucracy policy

#7 Post by LienRag »

Oberlus wrote: Thu Jun 17, 2021 8:10 pm I'm sorry, but I can't see some of your points, and I disagree with the rest.


You say some mechanics don't take into account strategy, but you don't explain why (e.g. this case).

Linearity doesn't imply lack of strategy, it's just a mathematic concept about how magnitudes grow. What you say here just sounds pedantic to me, and void of content.
You don't really explain what you understand for strategy in this case.
Some time ago, you wrote a long post (or a thread ?) about how everything in the game could be reduced to¹ Production Points through some to-be-determined-formula.

It was quite interesting since indeed, many things actually can be reduced to Production Points, and that gives a common ground for comparisons.

Implied (at least how I've read it) was that the relation between all these game aspects and Production was somehow of the nature of linear proportionality.

Then in the 15th game, Ophiuchus' invasion of your Capitol proved you wrong; which is happy since if you were right and everything was reducible to production points, we'd have not a game but an Excel sheet².

It's clear to everyone I believe that there was no linear proportionality between Ophiuchus' material investment (which can be reduced to PP) and his results; also that it was clearly strategic thinking (and good one) that made him able to strike such a blow of non-linear consequences.

It's the same with hunting damaged ships before they can repair : it's a question of strategy, not of PP. Playing well (outmaneuvering them, cutting their supply, ...) brings results that are not proportional to the PP invested on each side.

That is what gives room to strategy, and what we should strive for imho.

¹ French expression is "peut être ramené à", I'm not sure about the exact translation.

² Not to say that there are not parts of the game that are Excel-sheety, nor that it's bad that some portions of the game are Excel-sheety; resource management is part of a 4X game.

Post Reply