Victoria 2

[DGuller]

Does efficiency still work something like 1 coal + 1 iron = 2 steel * efficiency?  It created a whole set of idiocies in the original Vicky.

[Zanza]

One unit of coal does not have to correspond in any way to one unit of steel. So why shouldn't the formula work like that as long as it is balanced for reasonable results?

[Josquius]

Artisan sounds good.
It could make playing minors and non-civilized nations interesting.
Sounds a bit odd and unhistorical though to have the monthly changes like that.

[DGuller]

One unit of coal does not have to correspond in any way to one unit of steel. So why shouldn't the formula work like that as long as it is balanced for reasonable results?

One issue with that is compounding.  If you double the efficiency, you double the quantity of timber produced.  That leads to quadrupling the quantity of lumber produced.  Which leads to 8x the quantity of furniture produced.  Which leads to 16x the quantity of luxury furniture produced.  Good luck maintaining the balance with that highly exponential dynamic.

[grumbler]

One unit of coal does not have to correspond in any way to one unit of steel. So why shouldn't the formula work like that as long as it is balanced for reasonable results?

One issue with that is compounding.  If you double the efficiency, you double the quantity of timber produced.  That leads to quadrupling the quantity of lumber produced.  Which leads to 8x the quantity of furniture produced.  Which leads to 16x the quantity of luxury furniture produced.  Good luck maintaining the balance with that highly exponential dynamic.

So you think the answer to the question Zanza asks, " shouldn't the formula work like that as long as it is balanced for reasonable results," is to point out that, if it isn't balanced, it leads to wacky results?

In your example, double the timber production won't lead to quadrupling lumber production unless you also double lumber factory workforce size (otherwise, you are just producing surplus timber).  I don't see why doubling factory size and doubling factory efficiency should not lead to quadrupling output, but then I am an arithmetic guy, not a math guy.

[DGuller]

So you think the answer to the question Zanza asks, " shouldn't the formula work like that as long as it is balanced for reasonable results," is to point out that, if it isn't balanced, it leads to wacky results?

No?  My answer is that this kind of dynamic inherently cannot be balanced, and thus will at best be about right for a small range of situations.

In your example, double the timber production won't lead to quadrupling lumber production unless you also double lumber factory workforce size (otherwise, you are just producing surplus timber).  I don't see why doubling factory size and doubling factory efficiency should not lead to quadrupling output, but then I am an arithmetic guy, not a math guy.

I don't see why it shoulnd't either, as long as you properly define the efficiency.  The problem is that the first Vicky was very generous with efficiency improvements.  Building a better railroad doesn't make you more efficient at converting lumber to furniture.  Huge across the board improvements in efficiency lead to drastic change in relative quantities between raw materials and finished goods.

What Vicky often treated as efficiency improvement should instead have been treated as a capacity improvement.  Railroads may allow the factory to turn more lumber into more furniture, but I don't see why it should allow you to turn the same amount of lumber into more furniture.

If you do want to simulate an improved efficiency, a much more balanced mechanic would've been improvements in labor efficiency rather than conversion efficiency.  Instead of adjusting how many chairs you can make from a lump of lumber, they should've adjusted how many lumps of lumber one worker can turn into chairs.  That also avoids situations where eventually efficiency gets to be so good as you can turn a ton of lumber into two tons of chairs.

[DGuller]

I just read the developer diaries for Vicky 2, and they left me cautiously optimistic.  The developers seem to have the right approach to making the economy work well.

[KRonn]

I just read the developer diaries for Vicky 2, and they left me cautiously optimistic.  The developers seem to have the right approach to making the economy work well.

I've been reading those dev diaries too. So far I'm liking the what I see for the most part, as the economy is the most interesting aspect of the "V" games to me.

[Razgovory]

One unit of coal does not have to correspond in any way to one unit of steel. So why shouldn't the formula work like that as long as it is balanced for reasonable results?

One issue with that is compounding.  If you double the efficiency, you double the quantity of timber produced.  That leads to quadrupling the quantity of lumber produced.  Which leads to 8x the quantity of furniture produced.  Which leads to 16x the quantity of luxury furniture produced.  Good luck maintaining the balance with that highly exponential dynamic.

So you think the answer to the question Zanza asks, " shouldn't the formula work like that as long as it is balanced for reasonable results," is to point out that, if it isn't balanced, it leads to wacky results?

In your example, double the timber production won't lead to quadrupling lumber production unless you also double lumber factory workforce size (otherwise, you are just producing surplus timber).  I don't see why doubling factory size and doubling factory efficiency should not lead to quadrupling output, but then I am an arithmetic guy, not a math guy.

You swore to only say "maths"!

[Razgovory]

I just read the developer diaries for Vicky 2, and they left me cautiously optimistic.  The developers seem to have the right approach to making the economy work well.

I was cautiously optimistic about HOI3.  Fool me six or seven times shame you!  Fool eight or more times shame on me!

[Habbaku]

I just read the developer diaries for Vicky 2, and they left me cautiously optimistic.  The developers seem to have the right approach to making the economy work well.

I've unfortunately had the same reaction, which leads me towards thinking of purchasing the stupid thing.  I suspect I will best that notion in my head and wait six months for patches, though.

[grumbler]

I don't see why it shoulnd't either, as long as you properly define the efficiency.  The problem is that the first Vicky was very generous with efficiency improvements.  Building a better railroad doesn't make you more efficient at converting lumber to furniture.  Huge across the board improvements in efficiency lead to drastic change in relative quantities between raw materials and finished goods.

What Vicky often treated as efficiency improvement should instead have been treated as a capacity improvement.  Railroads may allow the factory to turn more lumber into more furniture, but I don't see why it should allow you to turn the same amount of lumber into more furniture.

I must misremember the factory formula, then, because I thought a 40% efficient furniture factory turned .4 lumber into .4 furniture. 

If you do want to simulate an improved efficiency, a much more balanced mechanic would've been improvements in labor efficiency rather than conversion efficiency.  Instead of adjusting how many chairs you can make from a lump of lumber, they should've adjusted how many lumps of lumber one worker can turn into chairs.  That also avoids situations where eventually efficiency gets to be so good as you can turn a ton of lumber into two tons of chairs.

I never ran into the situation you describe, where I was producing more of a finished good than I was consuming of the raw material (assuming that 1 unit of lumber is comparable to 1 unit of furniture in weight or cube or something).  Maybe I didn't play enough endgame stuff.

But you are correct that, if a furniture factory that has two tons of lumber available to it is, indeed, twice as efficient as a factory with one ton of lumber available to it, that was broken.

[grumbler]

You swore to only say "maths"!

No, I only said (no swear words) I would use the term.  I didn't say I would use it exclusively.

The type of person irritated to see me use it are doubly irritated when I use it inconsistently. 

[I Killed Kenny]

This map does not suck!

[Valmy]

Those Italians will have to pry Milan out of Radetsky's cold dead hands!