trade-wealth-logistic : a unique resource?

[Bobbygre]

Hey guys,
It's been a while since I've participated in the discussion, but I read you regularly.
What's got me excited is the upcoming release of 4.0, and I'm rather worried...
Most of the proposed changes really excite me, but there's one major point that terrifies me.
First of all, I want to point out that I struggle with the idea of a complete overhaul. The game works fine as is. When I start a game, I know I'm in for dozens of hours because the game is exciting. I consider it without a doubt one of the best games in my library. I understand the performance issues... which I've never really faced because when I get to the point where I know I've won or lost, I start another game.
I understand that this would open up other possibilities in the future. I'm already more sensitive to this argument.
But sometimes, the best is the enemy of the good.
In short, I hope you'll prove me wrong, and let's get to the point I wanted to raise, the elephant in the room: the trade-wealth-logistics resource, we don't know what to call it anymore.

I've read the dev diaries, I've read the posts, and allow me to make my modest contribution. First of all, clearly, as it stands, this resource becomes something totally abstract, meaningless in the game and therefore likely, for me at least, to harm immersion and make the management exercise completely artificial. The only justification for this resource seems to be purely mechanical: the game mechanics require it, but its meaning seems secondary. It seems to me that the process should be reversed: the game needs this resource to be credible, how do we integrate it into the mechanics?
So let's start from there. If I follow you, you consider that the game needs an additional resource: "logistics capacity." We already have trade. Currency has been energy since the beginning of the game. Wanting to put these three concepts in the same resource is dubious. As a programmer, you wouldn't use the same variable to mean three different things, right?

My proposal:
Keep trade as it is. Eliminate trade routes, which are expensive in terms of performance and don't provide much benefit, fine.

Keep energy as a currency. Is it really necessary to change this, at the risk of upsetting many of the game's balances?

And logistics? But we almost already have it! Naval capacity, of course. We just need to modify the concept slightly. If naval capacity becomes logistics capacity, it is possible to maintain the existing mechanisms by simply expanding them a little.

Let's explore this hypothesis:
- Fleets continue to consume logistics capacity. The difference: in the event of an incursion into enemy territory, they consume much more. Implication: in times of war, a conquering empire must be strong enough to absorb the costs associated with the probable overstretching of logistics capacity. No impact in the event of a defensive war.
- Planets with resource deficits consume logistical capacity. Implication: an economically optimal empire with highly specialized planets will pay the price with a diminished military capacity. Economic power and military power: the two will no longer necessarily go hand in hand. The icing on the cake: an empire that wants to prioritize brute force will have every interest in favoring the self-sufficiency of its planets, which seems cool thematically. In any case, it opens up new strategic possibilities.
- Logistical capacity cannot be stockpiled. And it's so much more logical. I don't even think it's necessary to explain why.

I'll stop here. I suspect it's probably too late to change the direction we're taking... but at the same time, it's never too late.

Good luck with Stellaris 4.0!

 

[prismaticmarcus]

You might not know that the game has received a complete top-to-bottom overhaul twice before i.e. 2.0 and 3.0. Sure, they took a bit of getting used to, but the game came out the other end much better than it had been before. That's all I wanted to say.

Keep the ideas coming! That's how the game improves!

 

[Bobbygre]

You might not know that the game has received a complete top-to-bottom overhaul twice before i.e. 2.0 and 3.0. Sure, they took a bit of getting used to, but the game came out the other end much better than it had been before. That's all I wanted to say.

Keep the ideas coming! That's how the game improves!

I've been playing Stellaris since 1.0, and Paradox games must have accounted for half of my total gaming time for the past 25 years (I'm 45). I fell into the deep end with EU2. I've seen Paradox evolve and the growing influence of salespeople at the expense of creatives. And yet, as you point out, the devs are still as courageous as ever and don't hesitate to take risks and challenge themselves. 4.0 is further proof of this. I really think the changes in 4.0 will be beneficial for the game... except for the point I raised.
Like many other players who have already commented on this forum, the changes to resource trading seem poorly thought out and, I fear, will harm the game. I must say this is the first time in my life as a Paradox player that I've felt this way. The changes made in 2.0 and 3.0 simply excited me when I discovered the dev diaries.
But you're right, we can only judge on the evidence, and perhaps these fears are solely due to the exceptional transparency of the devs during this beta.

 

[WoodenP]

You might not know that the game has received a complete top-to-bottom overhaul twice before i.e. 2.0 and 3.0. Sure, they took a bit of getting used to, but the game came out the other end much better than it had been before. That's all I wanted to say.

Keep the ideas coming! That's how the game improves!

In what way was 3.0 a "complete top-to-bottom overhaul"?

And what is the implication here, exactly? That overhauls have happened before so therefore even more must also make the game better? Not sure that tracks.

 

[Blackened30]

I would agree that its too late to greatly impact the direction, 4.0 is going to be what its going to be and the input we give is more in the tweaking. If something is really disliked it could get iterated on for later patches. Even so, thinking about it all is always an fun exercise.

I'm not a fan of linking trade with logistics, they just aren't the same thing. Trade is the buying and selling of product, while logistics is the ability to care for, support and make use of your empire's assets. There may be some overlap in terms of say a merchant vessel being used for both trade and troop transport, but they are two entirely different concepts and an empire who doesn't care about one may find the other fanatically important. I think you could make a larger case that Consumer Goods and Amenities share a linkage, since CG is one half of what an amenity is, the other half being services.

Logistics should be a very limited resource that you have to work to expand, much like Fleet Capacity is as was said above. Your Starbases, number of planets and population, even the number of industrial zones you possess could all be considerations as parts of a single Logistics equation. It should be something that you expend moving fleets and repairing ships, and should be something you think about when you send a fleet far from your nearest Starbase as a limiting factor. I'd argue that it can also be something that you stock up on up to a certain cap.. That represents your empire's ability to plan ahead and stockpile things like spare parts, fuel and even spare crew members for anticipated future events. There could be a cost associated with maintaining a Logistic supply, as in the real world it costs money to maintain and store spares, training crew and so on. That cost could be a limiting factor which would see empires having to balance the level of Logistics they wish to maintain vs. throwing away tons of money each month on an unproductive bunch of items. That's a real world dilemma that nations have to face today. That's more or less the direction I'd like to see the game go, embracing its galactic empire simulation side more.

I like Energy and Trade being separate resources, i think it just makes logical sense. Energy is a commodity, you use it to power your civilization but can also sell it for cold hard cash. in 4.0 Trade could be renamed something else like Wealth, because its just money. it shouldn't do anything except allow you to pay for things. You get it from taxing your subjects (most subjects in 3.9x Beta seem to supply some small amount of trade) and from selling stuff on the market like you do now. I could imagine robots and some empire types not producing Wealth whatsoever or needing it for any upkeep.

 

[Newbee53]

Keep energy as a currency. Is it really necessary to change this, at the risk of upsetting many of the game's balances?

No, just no. Energy is already the most annoying resource to balance. Even in the beta it's the one I have the hardest time with when its low or negative. and the one that is the most annoying to keep in the positive side of things. Energy no longer being currency is the best thing that could have been done, and the best choice--in my opinion--for making the economy work well.

I have less problems producing more minerals--even late game 3.14 when you are turning minerals into everything--than energy. one could suggest that part of this is balance, but part of it is that it ends up costing you energy to produce energy. Buildings and districts are maintained by energy, so are stations and mining stations. so are machine pops. so, anything you build to produce energy reduces how much you have. this makes sense, but it also means that the more uses for energy the worse it is for a fun game experience.

But the other part is that your demands on minerals and food don't change all that fast. both are used up, but unless you build buildings that burn them only pop growth can reduce your income. something that is very basic and very easy to keep in front of.

And logistics? But we almost already have it! Naval capacity, of course. We just need to modify the concept slightly. If naval capacity becomes logistics capacity, it is possible to maintain the existing mechanisms by simply expanding them a little.

While reworking Naval Capacity into something logistics focused is probably a good idea, I think it's better to wait on that for a dedicated military rework. Still, this isn't a bad idea, it's just outside the current framework of the 4.0 update. Based only on what I remember hearing from the devs, so it could be any number of things.

Keep trade as it is. Eliminate trade routes, which are expensive in terms of performance and don't provide much benefit, fine.

Other than eliminating trade routes, what would be left for trade? You've removed both logistics and market resource for it. Sounds like you just want it removed entirely. what's left? What is there for trade to do? Magically be transformed by government policy into other resources? Ok, but why even have it then? Eliminate trade enterally and just have those polices change what clicks/civilians produce.

But that reduces the flavor of megacorps and merchant guilds greatly. both are much more believable if they are dependent on the market price of energy, rather than if they are somehow poofing energy out of thin air. Or are traders and clerks actually working at power plants and dyson swarms?

That's always been the biggest issue with traders in 3.14 for me. They don't make much sense in your 'average' civilization. Worker cooperative at least has the lore/vibe that clerks and traders represent small scale industry and agriculture that isn't fully under the empire's direct control but are also a part of that corporate bulwark.

There are always going to be game like confusions. the word 'Trade' not being a perfect description of the resource is no worse than that neither sociologist nor biologist really describe the middle researcher type. And while it's something to think about, I don't see why it demands mechanical changes any more than any other slightly odd name in the game.

 

[Vicarun]

Completely agree with you. Even just thinking about all the text in the game where Energy is synonymous with currency, like the Curators where they talk about how they need "funds" because their stations "use a lot of energy", the setting has woven the two together. It's weird to delegate currency to trade suddenly. Definitely would prefer trade staying as is and just trade routes being removed.

 

[Bobbygre]

Other than eliminating trade routes, what would be left for trade? You've removed both logistics and market resource for it. Sounds like you just want it removed entirely. what's left? What is there for trade to do? Magically be transformed by government policy into other resources?

I quite agree. Trade doesn't serve much purpose. But what you describe is exactly the situation in 3.x. Except for trade routes, but frankly, I've played entire games without even remembering that mechanic existed (and I didn't get any pirates). What I'm proposing is the status quo rather than a bad rework... while waiting for a good one.

 

[Bobbygre]

There are always going to be game like confusions. the word 'Trade' not being a perfect description of the resource is no worse than that neither sociologist nor biologist really describe the middle researcher type.

This is partly true, but I find that in the case of trade-wealth-logistics, it is definitely not at the same level, the confusion is total and enough to break the "suspension of disbelief"

 

[exi123]

Energy Credits really should not be the currency of the game. Energy is like today a different resource you need to keep the economy running and is needed to let things run that only need pop input and no other resource, except for energy to run the "building" like today. To create goods or alloys, you need the resource, lots of energy and get your advanced stuff, all fine.

I totally agree that the new trade resource should NOT represent logitics for fleets AND some kind of wealth of the civilian economy. This is really hard to get, how should that be connected? Civilians supplying logistics to the fleets is fine, but what is fleet capacity then? Wealth being something that civilians create that can be used to buy on markets (and maybe later pay public services with) is also fine, but how does this supply fleets in hostile lands?

Currently the military buildings supply fleet capacity, the rest is from tech and modifiers. Thats fine, it needs adjustments, yes, but planetary building consume things and offer fleet/logistic capacity is a good concept. This can also be a more volatile factor, where the cost factors increase with the actually operation of fleets, like they have planned already.

But how do we weave the new trade into it? In my opinion, we need the same splitter policies like we have with unity, where I can decide what my civilian economy is doing:

- Prosperity (100% trade)
- Community (split to unity and trade)
- Militaristic (split to military capacity and trade)
- Technocracy (split to science and trade, more consumer goods upkeep)
- Oligarchy (less happiness, more trade)
- Feudalism (More trade generated from upper classes, less wealth generated from lower strata pops)
- (...)

This would offer a direct way of shaping different kinds of civilian economies. Their purpose changes with the kind of empire I play, because what kind of economy I run is of course based on my civics and empire type.

 

[Newbee53]

This is partly true, but I find that in the case of trade-wealth-logistics, it is definitely not at the same level, the confusion is total and enough to break the "suspension of disbelief"

And I'm more bothered by biology and social policies being placed in the same research tree. Not a suspension of disbelief issue, however. It's a personal thing here.

I totally agree that the new trade resource should NOT represent logitics for fleets AND some kind of wealth of the civilian economy.

It's not hard to see how a trade/wealth number could fit in for logistics. I think the only reason the devs aren't committing to the change is they don't have the time or desire to go through and change energy credits to something else in the thousands of lore entries.

So how is civilian logistics tied to an empire's wealth? Easy, empires make money via taxes, regardless of how your tax laws are written, you aren't making as much on shipping goods between planets as you are on goods made local. Possibly because the extra burden of shipping the goods reduces the strength of economy, or possibly because hyperdrives are just that expensive for civilians to work with. personally, I lean more to the idea that Hyperdrives are just so expensive the government has to subsidize them or build them themselves. but that's just me.

Military Logistics? You are ether paying for more military run shipping, civilian run shipping, or some combination there off. Easy.

In all cases it simply hurts the economy, and thus the wealth of the empire. and thus the 'trade'.

 

[Bobbygre]

And I'm more bothered by biology and social policies being placed in the same research tree. Not a suspension of disbelief issue, however. It's a personal thing here.

It's not hard to see how a trade/wealth number could fit in for logistics. I think the only reason the devs aren't committing to the change is they don't have the time or desire to go through and change energy credits to something else in the thousands of lore entries.

So how is civilian logistics tied to an empire's wealth? Easy, empires make money via taxes, regardless of how your tax laws are written, you aren't making as much on shipping goods between planets as you are on goods made local. Possibly because the extra burden of shipping the goods reduces the strength of economy, or possibly because hyperdrives are just that expensive for civilians to work with. personally, I lean more to the idea that Hyperdrives are just so expensive the government has to subsidize them or build them themselves. but that's just me.

Military Logistics? You are ether paying for more military run shipping, civilian run shipping, or some combination there off. Easy.

In all cases it simply hurts the economy, and thus the wealth of the empire. and thus the 'trade'.

Good point. You're right. I'm being a bit dramatic, but given how you see this resource, it's just money. And of course, money has a connection to trade; trade brings in money, and logistics cost money. But money is a catch-all resource; it seems like a convenience to me. In any case, at the very least, I think we should no longer call it trade; it's a real source of misunderstanding. I'm proof of that, and many other posts attest to it as well.

 

[Newbee53]

Good point. You're right. I'm being a bit dramatic, but given how you see this resource, it's just money. And of course, money has a connection to trade; trade brings in money, and logistics cost money. But money is a catch-all resource; it seems like a convenience to me. In any case, at the very least, I think we should no longer call it trade; it's a real source of misunderstanding. I'm proof of that, and many other posts attest to it as well.

Yeah, I'm partial to wealth, it fits and is natural enough to allow for money less economies. But you could also go for capital. Whatever works. At the end of the day, you trade something for something else. 'Prestige' or 'Social Capital' or whatever is still a type of currency in that having it gives you access to more resources, even if its only luxuries along the line of star trek.

I'd kind of like to see a civic like this. Something like an 'influencer civic' for mega-corps and a 'post-money' civic for individuals which slightly flattens political power--representing the 'drivers' of policy might not officially hold positions--while possibly adding something to leaders and maybe having a special building for unity or something like that. Or maybe it should impact the civilian stratum some way.

Still, it's just a name and so isn't high on my list of things to complain about. I do try to bring it up because of the confusion thing. But I figure waiting until mega-corps are in the Beta before really trying to push it makes the most sense.

 

[Verx90]

isn't trade value the "money" of the game now?(4.0) it make sense that logistic cost money. why adding a new set of resources that would simply end up being bought from the market or be solely for one purpose?

one thing is if military was as complex as HOI4, where you could have a weapon market and complexity... but Stellaris has nothing really big about complexity of the ships, there are already upkeeps for the ships that consume energy and minerals, and now they cost your money.

I would suggest to add a bit more complexity to TV with a form of inflation, decrease the value of your TV if you have increasing stockpiles of it, and have military spending increase the inflation considerably. (something like: during war, military stuff increase in value)

or having systems with big spending or production of TV to have a "bounty" for invading forces (raiding the system give you TV).

I would propose to embrace the presence of money being added to the game and invest on it, instead of going backwards towards energy = money.


Edit: I mean, i'm all in if you want to add ammo\battery industry, and various industry that produce towers, lasers, etc.. , L - M - S weapons , and have fleets consume them when they are on construction or repairing\ lose them to time\use. but i don't think we are going to get this anytime soon

Edit edit: the more I think about it the more I want it, the number of jobs could define your capacity for production, and have a new tab that controll what you produce, there could be a military market that doesn't have infinite resources but only what is send to the market. You could have fleets auto-reinforcing and using those resources and even DP could be replenished with it automatically. This way empires could have an harder time switching completely their weapons to adapt without buying them from the market. There could be ships hulls, and the various type of weapons with S,M,L and XL weapons

 

[Newbee53]

isn't trade value the "money" of the game now?(4.0) it make sense that logistic cost money. why adding a new set of resources that would simply end up being bought from the market or be solely for one purpose?

Kind of? I mean, there are probably hundreds of lines of text in the game that reference energy credits as money rather than trade. and its been a part of stellaris lore from the very beginning that energy was the money of the galaxy, so a complete switch over to trade as the money is likely beyond the scope of this update--especially given its already pretty heavy on writing new tool tips and stuff.

On your other ideas:

I would suggest to add a bit more complexity to TV with a form of inflation, decrease the value of your TV if you have increasing stockpiles of it, and have military spending increase the inflation considerably. (something like: during war, military stuff increase in value)

inflation could be simulated by making market costs go up with total trade income or stockpile or both. but that has two dangerous I don't know if can be reasonably avoided given how many changes are brought to the game. If you push inflation two hard, it will make the markets useless for their intended use of 'a way to leverage an economy for a quick influx of resources' weather its to react to a surprise war or deal with a deficit doesn't really matter. The second effect would encourage people to spend all the time, keep trade lowish, and otherwise have no effect. in other words, the opposite of what you really want to deal with in trade. A final idea of just inflation increasing with time or other factors would only make trade less valuable and oddly make trade focused empires even less interested in trade. after all, inflation would hit them the most.

or having systems with big spending or production of TV to have a "bounty" for invading forces (raiding the system give you TV).

putting bounties on high value systems is redundant, they are already high value. If you are winning their war score makes you win faster, if its close they deprive your opponent of resources, and if you are losing, they might give you another year of breathing room--though you will probably still lose--and I can't think of another possibility.

in both cases I'm not sure that--at this time--they would add much to the system. interesting though.

 

[Verx90]

inflation could be simulated by making market costs go up with total trade income or stockpile or both. but that has two dangerous I don't know if can be reasonably avoided given how many changes are brought to the game. If you push inflation two hard, it will make the markets useless for their intended use of 'a way to leverage an economy for a quick influx of resources' weather its to react to a surprise war or deal with a deficit doesn't really matter. The second effect would encourage people to spend all the time, keep trade lowish, and otherwise have no effect. in other words, the opposite of what you really want to deal with in trade. A final idea of just inflation increasing with time or other factors would only make trade less valuable and oddly make trade focused empires even less interested in trade. after all, inflation would hit them the most.

I was thinking more on the line of giving you a reason to actually wanting a war to stop, if by having all your fleets inside the enemy territory after 30 years start to make you lose the ability to use the market properly, on both sides, as the winning side still want to get money, and the losing side lose the ability to buy alloys in big sums.

I was thinking to add as a slow burn slow to heal, to hit aggressive empires that keep waging wars, or having a way for a new kind of "war exhaustion" against big empires with multiple aggressive empire on their border.

putting bounties on high value systems is redundant, they are already high value. If you are winning their war score makes you win faster, if its close they deprive your opponent of resources, and if you are losing, they might give you another year of breathing room--though you will probably still lose--and I can't think of another possibility.

in both cases I'm not sure that--at this time--they would add much to the system. interesting though.

Yep, it's redundant with the current system, I guess I was thinking/hoping for the next diplomatic update(war system) to have raiding conflicts