Planetary Development Concepts and Tools for Macromanagers

[Zodicus]

Introduction

After having started the Regional Zoning Strategies thread, I thought I’d conduct a bit more testing to further flesh out some of the concepts behind regional zoning. As I got further and further into testing, however, I began to run into brick walls. Some results just didn’t appear to make any sense. This spurred on further testing. Many hours of testing later, I think I’ve gained a new perspective on planetary development that I thought I’d share with the community. What I’m going to focus this thread on are some concepts and principles that I think define planetary development. Then, I plan to talk about the macromanagement tools for influencing planetary development and challenge what I perceive to be many misconceptions surrounding these tools. By planetary development, what I am referring to is influencing the development of DEAs and regional improvements.

My testing has included tinkering with grants, tax rates, migration, regional zoning, technology and dev plans (to name a few). What follows, is a collection of facts, opinions, and theories that all derive form this testing. I hope this thread provides newer players with some level of added understanding and experienced players with a new perspective with respect to the macromanagement tools available to them. I’ve tried to steer clear of throwing out too many numbers and tried to focus on the higher level principles (though I do provide test results where appropriate).

I’m assuming that you’ve read and understand the concepts presented in the Economics 101 (http://www.ina-community.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=273336) thread and the Current Development Plan Theory (http://www.ina-community.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=287815) thread as it pertains to how planetary classifications are assigned. I also assume that you’ve played the game and are familiar with some of the vernacular which surrounds MOO3.

There are still many things that I don’t fully understand but I hope those that suffer through this post (small novel now) will have gained a perspective they can use in future games. I am open to constructive criticism should errors be found in any of the concepts/data discussed below.

Due to the size of this post I’ve written, I’m spreading this out over three posts:

Introduction (what you’re reading now)

Concepts

Tools of the Trade

[Zodicus]

Planets Are Unique

By now, we’re used to thinking of planets by their development plan classifications. Planets are either mineral rich, high biodiversity, secondary, primary, core, mineral poor or any one of the other various simplistic classifications to which planets are assigned. Most of our thought and effort goes into devising development plans aimed at making planets all they can be using this fairly limited perspective. However, take a good look at any two planets that bear the same classifications and you will literally see a world of difference (pun intended) ;). Planets are defined by a myriad of factors that never make their way into the consciousness of the development plan focused macromanager. A mineral rich planet might also qualify as having high-biodiversity. A world with average mineral richness may be one large mountain range and out-produce a mineral rich world that is essentially one big flat plain. The reality is that no two planets are alike. They differ in terms of atmosphere, temperature, gravity, mineral quality, biodiversity, planetary specials and terrain. Consequently, one cannot assume, for example, that a planet classified as “mineral rich” will necessarily imply that an abundance of regions ideally suited for mineral development exist. Quite often, a closer inspection will reveal that the world in question may have fairly average mineral efficiencies due to poorly suited terrain. Alternatively, that same poorly suited terrain may make for outstanding farmland. These are all factors to keep firmly in mind as we move forward and will help you appreciate how challenging planetary development can be for the macromanagement-oriented player as well as help you appreciate the various tools at your disposal.

Planets have Tree Rings

Each year of a tree’s life is marked with a growth ring which is clearly visible as circular bands in the tree’s cross section. By studying the thickness of the various bands of growth rings, one can get a sense for which years were wet and which were dry. These rings form a permanent record of the stress and challenges that this tree endured throughout its life. A planet’s development in MOO3 is an growth process similar to that of a tree. Some years are good, others are fraught with difficulty. The evidence is there once you understand how viceroys make decisions. One can look at two identical planets subject to the exact same development plans and regional zoning policies and see dramatically different results. One may have more recreation DEAs. The other may have more mines. Still another may even have bioharvest DEAs. All else being equal, the differences are usually the result of stresses and challenges experienced by the planet during its development lifecycle. As such, realize that each planet develops in it’s own fashion and a close look at each planets development pattern, much like tree rings, tells the story of the planet’s past.


Viceroys Don’t Use Blueprints

Viceroys have a tough job. They must try to forge a functional planetary economy, be wary of future challenges and yet always lend an ear to your wishes. Sometimes their decisions seem baffling, infuriating, and counterproductive. However, throughout my testing I’ve noticed a clear pattern of behavior that is logical when considered from the viceroy’s perspective. That is a key point to bear in mind at all times. What this pattern reveals is a viceroy that is constantly weighting decisions each and every turn balancing current needs and trying to ensure that the planet can respond properly to future potential challenges. If there is a slogan that could sum up viceroy behavior it would be “ keep your options open.”

Alternatively, if the viceroy had a mission statement, it would be:

Satisfy current planetary needs/requirements in the most efficient manner possible while maximizing the potential for future development.

This is the mission statement of the viceroy. Learn it, and much of the mystery surrounding his behavior will be dispelled.

As stated, the viceroy makes development decisions every turn. He does not bother with blueprints. Needs change, demands change and, consequently, plans must change. The viceroy understands this. In addition, the viceroy is not overly concerned with the needs of your empire. The issues surrounding the planet in the viceroy’s care are paramount. Each turn the viceroy goes through a decision making process influenced by the planet’s current situation. From the viceroy’s perspective, all planets need the following:

-resources (food/minerals)
-industry
-a compliant population (i.e. no unrest)


The degree to which these needs will be satisfied and the priority for satisfying them will depend upon many factors not the least of which would be the regional zoning policy you have chosen at any given moment.

I could wax on about how I have come to realize this but I think an example would do a much better job.

Jobe III is a prime example of what symbolizes what most think is wrong with the viceroy’s development strategies: too many mines, not enough of a balance of industry and research, and mines placed in regions a human player wouldn’t give a second thought to. I’m not going to justify the logic behind the number of mines (Though you might want to peep at the AIPlanet.txt. There, you’ll see some of the influences such as kExtraMineralsKeepPercent 50). Instead, what I’m focusing on here is the logic behind some of the DEA placement decisions. Here are the salient characteristics of Jobe III

Size 8, mineral poor, bio-diverse, moderate gravity, green-ring 2.

Here’s a region-by-region breakdown of Jobe III.

Region Terrain Bio_eff / Mineral_eff

1 plains-hard-scrabble 3.6/1.2
2 plains-subsistence 2.4/1.2
3 mountain-arable 2.4/3.6
4 plains-arable 4.8/1.4
5 plains-barren 1.2/1.2
6 broken-arable 3.6/2.4
7 plains-hardscrabble 3.6/1.2
8 plains-arable 4.8/1.2

So, in this example it’s turn three and my eager colony ship lands on Jobe III. I’m going to turn Regional Zoning on “Natural” and not interfere with any dev plans. Let’s see what happens.

The first thing the viceroy builds is an industrial DEA (hardly a surprise). Where should he put it? Hmmm. Remember the principle - meet current needs while maximizing the potential for future development. Since industry DEAs will function equally well regardless of where they are placed (an example of what I call a non-efficiency based DEA as opposed to BioHarvest and mine DEAs which are affected by a terrain’s varying level of efficiency in such areas), why not choose the most worthless piece of dirt available? Looks like region 5 to me. Guess what, our viceroy decides to put our first industrial DEA in region 5.

Next, the viceroy realizes that the planet needs resources. We need both food and minerals but, should there be a need for both, minerals will trump food (read the econo101 thread for some reasons why or study the AIPlanet.txt file). Currently, this planet is importing food from the home colony, so, we see that the second DEA queued up is a mine. Where to put it,,…. Hmmm. Well, if it were me, I’d put it in region 3. That’s by far the region with the highest mineral efficiency. What does the viceroy do? Mine number 1 goes to region 3! So far none of this is surprising in the least. The viceroy next builds another industry. It goes to region 1. A second mine is also queued up and it rounds out region 3.

Time for DEA number four. Well, by now we’ve got two industry and two mines. We’re hurting for minerals so the viceroy opts for another mineral to satisfy the needs of industry. The viceroy is working under established guidelines that tell it that it must strive to fulfill its need for resources if at all possible. So, where should the next mine go? We’ve got two choices; we could put the next mine in region 6, the next best mineral location. However, that region would make an even better bio-harvest location. This planet isn’t all that good at minerals anyway and, hopefully the emperor’s scientists will help us out with some cool technologies in the near future that will allow us to get the most out of the mines we’ve got. As such, let’s just satisfy the current need while preserving the relatively fertile spots for farms in case we need them. The viceroy puts mine number 3 in region 2.

The next DEA in line is an industry DEA and this is also placed in region 2. After that industry DEA, we are still in the yellow for minerals. Grrrr. No new technologies yet? Damn. We still need minerals and every region left is better suited to farming. Where’s the next best location for a mine that will do as little damage to this planet’s future potential? Region 1, 6 and 7 are all available and have the exact same bio-harvest efficiency. However, region 6 has better mineral resource efficiencies. Mine # 5 and #6 are placed in region 6.

This process continues as the planet’s growth spurs on more industry and more industry puts additional pressure on dwindling mineral resources. However, you already know enough to predict which regions are the last to be developed by now. Take a guess…..
.
.
.
If you guessed region 4 or 8, you are correct! In this case, it was region 8 but could just as well have been region 4.

Now, suppose we’d started the colony on Jobe III and walked away for awhile. We then come back at a time when a mineral DEA is going into region 2 (bio=2.4, mine=1.2) when region 6, which is broken terran, remains empty. We might be pretty upset. Only if we’d looked carefully at each region and thought the situation through from the viceroy’s perspective would this make sense. The viceroy doesn’t know what technologies you’ve got just around the corner, nor can he appreciate just how remote the possibility of a food shortage is. The viceroy develops planets with the following harsh reality firmly in mind:

Planets must provide for themselves.

The AIPlanet.txt file reveals this clearly. Viceroy’s realize that, even though his planet is part of an federation, at some point he will have to make sure that the planetary economy can function on its own. That grant money may not be there forever. Military and Research grants come and go at the whim of the emperor. If there is unrest, the viceroy won’t call for help, he will try to build a recreation DEA or something similar.

This planet ultimately ended up with 9 mines, 6 industry, and 1 research DEA. What may not always be clear in this process is how, precisely, the viceroy defines what is “needed” vs. what is wanted. A quick look at the AIPlanet.txt file reveals many of the influences/targets that the viceroy is striving to achieve. Included in this list is the need for specific mineral/food surpluses and the need to respond to factory consumption.

If factory consumption is rising, the need for minerals rises and the existing surplus dwindles. The end result is a planet that, in the early stages of the game, has a fairly primitive and inefficient development state. However, we shall see that technological advancements can radically alter this DEA ratio.

Limit the momentum of development

The viceroy is an honorable fellow. Once a decision is made to build either a DEA or a regional improvement, you can count on him to follow through. In fact, he is good at this to a fault. To my knowledge, the viceroy simply does not second-guess decisions. Once a commitment is made to build a DEA/enhancement, it will be done. However, the viceroy, as indicated above, must be capable of responding to planetary crisis, needs, and/or your wishes. This creates a dilemma. If he were to commit to too many DEAs/improvements at any given time, it might take the viceroy a long time to respond to a sudden food shortage. Additionally, he might not be able to respond to a sudden change in your orders as dictated by your shifting development plan priorities. I believe that this reality is the primary reason that both the regional build queue and the DEA queue are so shallow. The viceroy will not commit to more than two projects at any given time so as to permit the ability to respond to changing priorities and/or unforeseen planetary needs. I call this, limiting the momentum of development. By keeping his commitments to a minimum, the viceroy is able to promptly respond to new requirements. Put another way…

Regional build decisions are made incrementally so the viceroy may respond to new needs and changing priorities.

In keeping with this decision-making paradigm, the viceroy will only make one build decision per turn. That’s why there is only ONE item in the DEA build queue when a colony if first created, two items by turn two and no more. The viceroy will only make one decision, then, if fewer than two projects are in the queue, a second decision will be made. Once two projects are in-progress no more decisions will be made until one has been completed. What is a project? Well, in this instance, I’m referring to the RBQ and DEA (not planetary build queue or military build queue). As such, a project is either a DEA or Regional Build Queue items (regional improvements and DEA improvements).
The next time you you find yourself wondering why only one DEA is queued up, take a look at the RBQ, odds are, there’s a project in progress (or will be next turn if one can be built). Put another way…

DEA projects + RBQ projects <= 2

Yes, I’ve seen up to three things in progress as well, but this is likely a bug when it does occur….

Interesting Side Note: Does the fact that planetary development occurs in pairs have anything to do with the fact that a planet is only assigned up to two planetary classifications? I think so. The design philosophy that restricts the viceroy to only working on up to two items at once is consistent with the idea that a planet (All Planets notwithstanding) is affected by up to two development plan classifications. The two-item project queue permits the opportunity for both development plan priorities (all things being equal) to be worked on simultaneously. Note that permits and will are not the same. If the priority for one of the two development plans corresponds very well to what the viceroy already deems a high priority, it is likely that the project queue (RBQ + DEA) will be dominated by that dev plan priority for several turns.

I have come to accept these realities of viceroy behavior. They make sense and once you’ve come to understand them, you may actually come to appreciate the viceroy a bit more (or not…).

I think that’s enough about viceroys and planets. Now, how do we bend this behavior to our imperial will?

edit: noticed some spelling errors and had an error in the Jobe III example (i.e. region 1, 7 and 6 were available not 1,2 and 6)

[Zodicus]

Overview
As a macromanager, there are several tools available to you to influence the development of every planet such that each is a successful contributor to your empire. Given the how many factors can influence a planet’s development, and how varied individual planets can be, this is truly a challenge. As such, you will need to learn to use ALL of the macromanagment tools available to you to their utmost effect.

Tools Used to Influence HOW Planets develop
The tools below influence the development landscape of planets. This includes the mix of DEAs and regional improvements. Each of these will occupy their own section later but for now, well just include an overview.

Regional Zoning
Your foremost tool is the regional zoning policy. You have three policies: Specialized, Natural, and Balanced. The regional zoning setting will wield enormous influence on a planet’s DEA development. Each regional zoning setting is literally a different viceroy personality. No single decision will have more of an influence on the composition of DEAs on a planet. A good macromanager will be on good terms with each of these viceroy characters.

Technology
Another major influence on a planet’s development is technology. The availability of DEA efficiency and capacity enhancements will have a substantial impact on the number of DEAs of any given type built on a planet as well as on the pacing of DEA development. Development plan prorities should depend heavily upon which DEA enhancing buildings/technologies you have discovered as we shall see.

Development Plans
Development plans are the macromanager’s macromanagement tool. The influence of a development plan on a planet’s ultimate development can range from minor to overwhelming. On balance, macromanagers will learn to rely on development plans to set global development priorities for regional improvements and less so on DEA development.


Tools that affect the pace of development
I have tested these tools to see how they influence a planet’s development. I mention them here for two reasons. First, to indicate that I have tested these settings. Secondly, to clearly indicate where I think they stand on the issue of planetary development. Each of the tools below has had an influence on planetary development during my testing, however, the results are often unpredictable and too isolated to concern the macromanagment-oriented player. They will get no further mention in this thread (unless someone has a compelling reason to insist on their inclusion based on reproducible test results).

Migration
As mentioned before, migration can influence how a planet develops but it really shines when used to give planet’s that necessary population boost to get going quickly. However, in some circumstances, migration can adversely impact a planet’s development. Take the example of Jobe III above. If I were to subject Jobe III to the exact same circumstances (no dev plans, Natural regional zoning) but make it a migration target, here’s how it would have developed:

11 mines
5 industry

Why so many more mines? In short, the fast rising population filled out the industry DEAs faster and created a demand for mineral resources that could not be met efficiently on Jobe III (it is, after all, mineral poor and has no mountains). As such, minerals got a much higher priority and proliferated. When I compared this planet at the end of its development, it had generated twice the need for minerals than Jobe III without migration had.

Does this mean you should avoid migration? No. Just use care and be somewhat mindful of its potential impact on a planet’s development.

Grants
Aside from human-oid resources, grants provide much needed cash flow for driving industry permitting planets to develop much faster than they would otherwise.

Taxes
Taxes, like grants can be set to either speed up or slow down a planet’s development. Set taxes too high and smaller worlds will develop at the expense of larger worlds (assuming that what money you are collecting is going into grants). Set taxes too low and you won’t have enough grant money to spread around to young growing planets that lack income generating economies of their own.



Regional Zoning Policy

The Regional zoning has perhaps the greatest influence on the pattern of DEAs chosen for any given planetary region. As a macromanagement focused player, this is your number 1 micromanagement tool. Each region of a planet is evaluated individually and, if it meets the proper criteria as set forth in the regional zoning policy, the proper DEA is established. As such, you must choose a zoning policy that best suites your current requirements. You have three choices:

Natural
Specialized
Balanced

A good macromanager will learn to use all three at some point. Each provides you with a broad set of micromanagment instructions. One concept that is vitally important to keep in mind is that this policy applies to regions only. I know that is stating the obvious but it is vitally important to keep in mind when you make a decision as to which policy to use at any given moment. Your regional policy doesn’t put any weight whatsoever on the classifications a planet bears. Every factor is taken into account. This includes magnate civilizations, resource efficiencies, resource quality (high biodiversity, mineral rich) and planetary specials (though the viceroy record on taking maximum advantage of these can be spotty). However, of all of these factors, the best predictor of what will most influence a zoning decision will often be the mineral and bioharvest efficiencies of a given region. As such, don’t be surprised when you open up that mineral rich world and find that most of it is covered with bioharvest DEAs when you thought that by choosing Specialized you’d get more mines. Take a good look at each region and re-visit the definition of Specialized REGIONAL zoning and you’ll see why.

It’s also important to realize that the viceroy will always be able to respond to truly urgent needs under any zoning policy. If the planet is going to go into revolt and the capability of building a recreation DEA exists, then a recreation DEA will be built under any of these policies.

For convenience, I will break the priorities of each regional zoning policy down into Primary / Secondary / Tertiary to be consistent with current dev-plan lingo. These priorities have been arbitrarily chosen by me but should prove helpful to illustrating the differences between the policies.

Natural
The default zoning policy in Natural. As described, the priority of Natural is to first focus on a planet's needs. Focusing on a planet’s strengths is of secondary concern. A viceroy operating under natural zoning policy will tend to focus on the following:

Primary: industry/mine*(or eff > 10)/bioharvest*(or eff > 10)/recreation*/government**
Secondary: mineral/bioharvest (regional efficiencies >= approx. 7.0)
Tertiary: Research (regional eff < approx. 7.0), Military(size 5+ worlds), Gov(size 6+ worlds)

* extreme need only
** To establish a system seat of government(conditions during which this becomes a high priority are still undergoing testing....)

Because the natural zoning policy prioritizes industry and minerals (the first DEA will virtually always be an industry DEA), this zoning policy tends to develop fast but may succumb to the “mineral shortage treadmill” (see Jobe III example above), particularly early in the game. The switch to secondary priorities will occur when primary needs are met or if too many of any given DEA type have been established (usually when a planet is covered with at least 50% of any given type of DEA).

If there are no zones that are particularly efficient with respect to mineral or bioharvest DEAs (a number that seems to have a threshold of about 7.0 when using Natural zoning), then non-efficiency based DEAs such as research will receive priority. Military and Government DEAs will be built (the choice of which is unknown to me) but only on moderately sized or larger worlds.

I like to think of the Natural Zoning policy as the industrial powerhouse zoning policy. It is driven first and foremost by the need to establish industry. Many of my test worlds ended up with 40-50% of their regions populated with industry DEAs with no dev plans even late in the game. A viceroy operating under a Natural zoning policy will, however, take on a “specialized” sort of demeanor once the need for industry and minerals has been satiated and should regions with high efficiencies in such areas exist (> 7.0).

The Natural zoning policy, in general, responds better to the DEA priority present within dev plans than Balanced or Specialized but this additional influence tends to be confined to truly average zones (mine/bio eff of < 7.0). Otherwise, Natural will exhibit zoning biases similar to that of Specialized.

Advantages:
 Best response to development plan DEA influence (regions with <= 7.0 eff)
 Tends to result in a higher proportion of industry DEAs

Disadvantages
 Priority on industry and mineral needs may result in high number of industry / mineral DEAs on even mineral poor worlds when technology enhancements are not available.
 Focus on industry may result in mineral shortages during the earlier stages of empire development.
 Hard to achieve a good mix of DEAs on small to moderately sized worlds (3-6). Only larger worlds will include military/gov DEAs. Most planets will be dominated by the four basic DEAs (mine/bio/ind/research)


Well use Jobe III as a running comparative example. As a reminder, here’s how Jobe III turned out on a Natural zoning policy.

Jobe III DEAs: 9 mines, 6 industry, 1 research


Specialized

The Specialized zoning policy will place pre-eminent value on the establishment of resource-related DEAs in regions with high efficiencies for such areas. A world with more average resource efficiencies will tend to develop in a fashion similar to Natural.

Primary: bioharvest/mine DEAs (regional eff >= approx. 7.0)/recreation*/government**
Secondary: industry(eff < 4.0)/mine(eff >= 4.0)/bio(eff >= 4.0), Research (eff < 4.0)
Tertiary: Military(size 5+ worlds), Gov(size 6+ worlds)

* extreme need only
** To establish a system seat of government(conditions during which this becomes a high priority are still undergoing testing....)

Specialized policies, have a lower requisite threshold for resource efficiency than a Natural zoning policy. If a region has a resource efficiency > (4.0-5.0), it will receive more “favor” with respect to a resource DEA than it would on Natural. Since more regions receive favor for efficiency-based DEAs, the influence of the DEA modifier present in your development plans will have less of an impact when using a Specialized zoning policy due to this “zoning bias”. Regions with resource efficiencies less than approximately 4.0 will be zoned for non-efficiency DEAs such as industry and then research. Specialized zoning policies are great for making sure that resource needs come before industry. The establishment of an industrial DEA has a way of generating an immediate thirst for minerals. It is for this reason, I believe, that a Specialized policy tends to forgo industry in favor of resource DEAs. It will eventually build industry, but only after the good resource locations have been populated.

Advantages:
 Planets will emphasize resource development resulting in a larger number of resource DEAs.
 Will zone research / industry in zones that are truly average (eff < 4.0). Specialized tends to zone a higher number of research DEAs in such cases. In fact, I think of research as a third form of specialization (aside from mines and bio-harvest DEAs).

Disadvantages
 DEA influence from dev plans is weak on regions with resource efficiencies > 4.0.
 Hard to develop a mix of DEAs. Most planets will be dominated by the four basic DEAs (mine/bio/ind/research)
 Only the largest worlds will be zoned to have gov or military DEAs (size 6+ worlds).

Jobe III DEA composition: 6 bioharvest, 4 mines, 3 industry, 3 research

Balanced

A Balanced zoning policy doesn’t get the attention it deserves. The current strategy guide even goes so far as to say “never use this.” Maybe now I know why I didn’t buy the strategy guide. A Balanced zoning policy contains qualities of Natural, Specialized, and a little extra. A Balanced zoning policy will, like Natural, focus first on industry and mineral needs. The degree to which these needs are satisfied is very similar to Natural. However, balanced has built in brakes that are not otherwise present in a Natural zoning policy. At some point, it will build at least one bioharvest DEA and one research DEA. IF the planet is large enough (5+), it will also build an unrest DEA (almost always a rec DEA). The larger a planet is, the greater the likelihood of miltary and government DEAs. Worlds of size 4 or smaller will rarely get more than the standard 4 DEAs (ind/res/mine/bio).

Primary: industry/minerals/food*/recreation*/government**
Secondary: research/food/mine (like under natural zoning)
Tertiary: unrest DEAs (size 5+ worlds).

* extreme need
** To establish a system seat of government(conditions during which this becomes a high priority are still undergoing testing....)

Should a planet have particularly high resource efficiencies, a Balanced policy will (contrary to common belief) focus on these strengths. In this respect, balanced is like having the best of both Natural and specialized zoning policies.

Like Specialized, a Balanced zoning policy has its own agenda and, as such, will not respond as well to the DEA modifier present in your dev plans. However, in my experience, a Balanced policy comes closer to developing sensible worlds than any other zoning policy without any need of dev plans. This policy is particularly useful later in the game when you have established a solid industrial foundation and wish to focus on quelling unrest and enhancing/maintaining your research efforts.

Advantages:
 Initial focus on industry with some specialization if planet is rich in resource zones
 Provides a good DEA mix making for a planet that is more robust and less subject to food/mineral shortages if blockaded.
 Greater number of unrest DEAs resulting in less money spent dealing with unrest and / or the ability to crank up the oppressometer with less unrest.

Disadvantages:
 Dea influence from dev plans is weak.
 Not effective in early stages of game as this policy tends to overwhelm the initial population with unrest DEAs that may not be needed nor productive.
 Worlds with many resource rich zones may have some zones that contain non-efficiency based DEAs in the interest of diversity resulting in some loss of efficiency

Jobe III DEA composition: 2 bioharvest, 5 mines, 3 industry, 2 research, 1 recreation, 2 military, 1 government

Side-by-Side Comparison of the Effects of Different Zoning Policies

I though it might be of interest to provide some test results. Then, one could see the different effects of each zoning policy over time. I think you’ll find the results for Balanced, in particular, surprising.

In this example, I’ve let the computer auto-play the game for the first 150 turns. I then arranged to have 7 colony ships position themselves to colonize worlds of varying size, mineral and bioharvest richness. All were of green ring terraform zone. I then switched to one of the three regional zoning policies and clicked the “turn” button until all planets had fully established all zones with DEAs. This happened at about turn 227. While these may not be realistic results from a player’s standpoint, they do serve to illustrate the relative impacts that regional zoning policies , absent any dev plan influence, can have.

Natural

Bio Mine Ind PPs TT AU
6.7k/3.1k 11.8k/5.4k 40.1k 29.1k 53.7k 47.2(-70)k

Total Amount in Treasury: -16.7 K

DEA totals for the seven planets:
BioHarvest 19
Mine 15
Industry 30
Research 9
Recreation 0
Military 2
Government 3
SpacePort 22

Balanced

Bio Mine Ind PPs TT AU
7.5k/3.2k 11.7k/4.9k 37.9k 31.5k 60.1k 112.1 (+12k)

Total Amount in Treasury: 63.2 K

DEA totals for the seven planets:
BioHarvest 19
Mine 14
Industry 23
Research 9
Recreation 6
Military 6
Government 4
SpacePort 29


Specialized

Bio Mine Ind PPs TT AU
8.3k/3.3k 11.4k/5.4k 37.7k 34.3k 74.1k 85.8 (-10k)

Total Amount in Treasury: 36.4 K

DEA totals for the seven planets:
BioHarvest 28
Mine 15
Industry 19
Research 14
Recreation 0
Military 0
Government 3
SpacePort 26


As you can see, the Natural zoning policy resulted in a much heavier emphasis on industrial DEAs. However, the income being generated at the end of 77 turns was paltry when compared to the other two policies (not to mention that the treasury was going negative). Specialized resulted in the lowest number of industry DEAs but the largest number of research DEAs (the third specialty). It was the second place finisher in the cash flow department. Balanced was in the middle in most respects. However, it was much farther ahead of both other policies in cash flow. In addition, what this data does not show was that, under a Balanced policy, unrest expenses were practically nil by comparison to those under the other two. This was an additional savings of tens of thousands of AUs over the other two policies.

Does this example prove anything. Not necessarily as it involved very little intervention on my part. However, it is a fair comparison since I treated all different zoning policies equally during the test. Food for thought.

Technology

Aside from Regional Zoning, no other tool will have a greater influence on the DEA composition of a planet. When Jobe III was first colonized, all the viceroy had to generate additional mineral capacity were the technological equivalent of picks and shovels. As such, mine DEAs proliferated in a desperate effort to keep pace with the rising needs of industry. Technological advancements, particularly those that enhance DEA capacity or efficiency can radically alter this ratio. If I’d possessed Deep Extraction mining, for example, the viceroy would have resorted to enhancing existing mine DEAs before building new ones in regions that were otherwise better suited to bio-harvest DEAs or perhaps additional industry or research. Once you’ve come to appreciate the difference technology can make, you’ll be rushing to obtain these improvements and research will take on new meaning. By providing the viceroy with the necessary tools, he will focus on meeting your resource needs with as few mineral/bioharvest DEAs as necessary (unless the regions are well suited to such development and/or your regional zoning policy makes these DEAs more desirable). Stick the viceroy with shovels, and he’ll dig lots of ditches and generally make a mess of your planet.

When we first told the story of Jobe III’s development the viceroy didn’t have many options when it came to satisfying its craving for minerals. If we’d had even one DEA enhancing technology such as Deep Extraction mining, might the outcome be different? You bet. Here’s a second version of the Jobe III story. This time, however, I’m going full steam ahead with research into the Physical sciences discipline in an effort to obtain Deep Extraction mining. All else (including letting Jobe III begin colonization in spite of my lack of technology) will be the same. As I’m watching the turns go by I’m letting Jobe develop while I’m pouring resources into research in a mad dash to obtain Deep Extraction mining which happens to be at tech level 6. Jobe III has already built 3 industry and is working on a fourth mine when I finally obtain Deep Extraction mining technology. The result – not a single additional mine DEA is built. The viceroy immediately proceeds to enhance all existing mine DEAs with the new technology. Because he is able to resort to Deep Extraction mining as an alternative means to satisfying Jobe III’s mineral needs, this frees up the DEA queue for other things. The final result:

4 bio-harvest
4 mines
4 industry
4 research

The reason we are able to obtain a much more ideal DEA mix is due to the availability of DEA enhancing technologies. This allowed the viceroy to begin zoning additional DEAs in accordance with what this planet was best suited for. Since Jobe III is a fairly average world, the viceroy started building research DEAs right after obtaining Deep Extraction mining.

I believe that the dramatic “normalizing” effect that technology can have on a planet’s development is the primary reason that the first few levels of technology tend to come on pretty fast. If it took too long to obtain some basic DEA enhancing techs, you’d end up with more planets that have skewed development patterns like the original Jobe III.

You should also realize that, later in the game, it will take planets much-much longer to fully develop all regions with DEAs. The reasons have already been described. Once a given DEA has been built, it will be enhanced in preference to zoning more regions with the same DEA.

Run, don’t walk, to obtain these DEA enhancements if you’re serious about developing well-balanced and highly productive worlds. They are particularly important to obtain if many of the worlds available to you have mediocre resource efficiencies.

Development Plans

Development plans are misunderstood creatures. For this reason, I’ll be spending much more time discussing dev plans than would otherwise be required. Development plans deserve none of the credit they receive nor the scorn to which they are often subject. As I proceed to discuss development plans I want you to think of the words of the immortal Yoda – “You must unlearn what you have learned.”

Given our previous discussion in the section titled “Planets Are Unique”, one observation should spring to mind when looking at the development plan spreadsheet: Development plans are overwhelmingly simplistic and crude when applied as a tool for establishing DEA priorities for any given planet. Development plans do not respect gravity, terrain, nor varying regional resource efficiencies. On several occasions I’ve seen a mineral rich planet consisting of nothing but plains! From the standpoint of mineral efficiency, this world had only marginal mineral generation capabilities. Many of my “average” worlds could generate more minerals in their mountainous regions. Therefore, I would definitely zone some mine DEAs (since the quality of “rich” confers additional monetary value)on the mineral rich world mentioned above, but I wouldn’t go overboard. That Mineral Rich mine/mauf/mine dev plan would place too much mineral emphasis for such a world.

In addition, development plan classifications do not pretend to acknowledge the difference between a planet which has fully developed all regions with DEAs vs. those that have not. As an example, most planets are born with either the Secondary or Frontier classification. They will cling to this classification long after they have populated all regions with DEAs. As such, one cannot use the Secondary dev plan in a manner which emphasizes DEAs for developing worlds while simultaneously emphasizing DEA enhancements for more developed Secondary worlds. In fact, all planets, regardless of their individual strengths and differences are, by and large, classified similarly (New/Secondary, New/Frontier). By mid-game, a planet may have established anywhere from 20-100% of their DEAs in the 15 turns that they are labeled as new (I’ve seen planets with magnate civs polish up all available regions after only 13 turns using a Specialized zoning policy without having the benefit of any industry!). Sigh , what is a macromanager to do? Dev plans seem hopelessly outmatched when such challenges are considered fully.

With that, let me segue into my thoughts on dev plans.

Prescribing which DEAs a planet should focus on is NOT the primary purpose of development plans! Let me repeat that, DEVELOPMENT PLANS ARE NOT TOOLS DESIGNED FOR PRESCRIBING DEAS!!!!! The current DEA-centric focus of development plans is misguided and will lead to severe frustration.

The primary purpose of development plans is to improve/enhance the priorities specified in the plan using the best means available. There are several means available for satisfying a development plan priority. ONE way, and not necessarily the most effective nor best, is the establishment of a new DEA corresponding to the priority established in the dev plan. An often BETTER way is to enhance an existing DEA through the use of a DEA enhancing structure. These structures can dramatically affect the output of existing DEAs. Additionally, there are no lost development opportunities when building such structures. Given their dramatic effect on DEA output, building such improvements is the preferred approach to fulfilling your wishes. To reinforce the point, lets take a look at the DevelopmentPlans.txt file.

In this file, you can see that any given dev plan option (eg mine/research/manuf) has three simultaneous effects:

 +100 to <DEA>Cap
 +100 to <DEA>Eff
 +30 to <DEA>


This modifier is altered based upon the position it holds in your particular development plan. In the Primary slot, the modifier has the full effect as stated. In the secondary slot, it is reduce to 70% and to 30% in the tertiary slot.

You’ll notice immediately that the DEA-specific modifier is less than one-third that of the other two. Does this translate into less than one-third the level of influence? It would be speculative and reckless to say so without knowing the exact algorithm that consumes these numbers. However, I’ve conducted enough testing to suggest that this is, in fact, the case. There is also good reason for this (many of which have already been mentioned).

From the perspective of the viceroy, the establishment of a DEA is a dramatic and potentially career altering event for a planet. It permanently (again, from the standpoint of the viceroy) alters the development potential of the planet. It limits the planet’s options for additional development should the need arise. If, for example, a planet were to be blockaded and classified as Starving, there might be no place to establish a bio-harvest DEA to deal with such a contingency if the viceroy took a DEA-centric approach to planetary development. Additionally, establishing a DEA when there are plenty of improvements to choose from is not the most effective method of dealing with your dev plan request. DEA enhancements to existing DEAs often have at least as great an impact as the alternative approach of establishing new DEAs. Furthermore (and most importantly), a capacity/efficiency improvement built to enhance an existing DEA does not limit the viceroy’s options for future development. Regions can be left undeveloped and available to respond to future development pressures. This fact, in addition to the incredible diversity present within each planet that dev plan classifications cannot hope to capture adequately is the primary reason that development plans do not weigh the DEA option anywhere nearly and heavily as efficiency and capacity enhancements.

The modifiers in the DevelopmentPlans.txt have been tuned with their original purpose clearly in mind. Since each planet must be treated as an individual case, setting the DEA priority too high will often result in more inefficient decisions than not and should be considered a last resort.

Dev plans work remarkably well for what they were designed for. The problem is, when you’re looking for evidence of their impact, you’re often looking to the left, when you should be looking to the right.

As such, the primary purpose of dev plans can be summed up as follows:

Dev Plans instruct the viceroy to enhance development plan priorities using the BEST AVAILABLE methods.

The highest priority modifiers, therefore, are given to the preferred methods for dealing with your request: efficiency and capacity enhancements to existing DEAs. These modifiers acknowledge that, at the level from which dev plans work, this is the best sort of instruction that ALL planets can respond to equally.

With modifiers ranging from 30-100, the influence a dev plan has on prioritizing efficiency and capacity developments is profound and overwhelming. The influence on DEA development, however, could usually be best be described as a “nudge” or “tweak.” (though there are occasions when this is not the case as will be discussed below…).

The BEST DEA modifier corresponds to the tertiary influence of a capacity/efficiency modifier. This is the primary reason why so many are frustrated at their development plans. When players construct development plans they are thinking in terms of DEAs when they should be thinking in terms of DEA improvements.


Development plans will result in an alteration to the number of DEAs when the following conditions are met:
* There is a high enough level of agreement between what you have chosen as a dev plan priority and the parameters of your chosen Regional Zoning priority to propel your chosen dev plan priority to the top of the list of possible build decisions.
* There are no other pressing needs or regional zoning biases (e.g. the need for Balanced to place at least one research DEA) that will usurp your chosen priority.
* You have few, if any, efficiency or capacity improvements available as an alternative.

The typical viceroy behavior towards any given dev plan priority will be as follows:
1) Is there already a DEA corresponding to the development plan priority in existence on this planet?
2) If so, is an enhancement available that I can build? If not, is there a region that can suitably serve the request given my current regional zoning instructions.

As a result of this viceroy methodology, development plans will have a largely DEA-centric impact only during the initial stages of an empire’s development cycle. During this stage, there exist few other options for the viceroy to satisfy the demand specified in your development plan other than to build a DEA.

It is also vitally important to understand that your chosen regional zoning policy sets that stage for the degree of influence your development plans will have with respect to the establishment of DEAs. If you choose a specialized zoning policy, you will have to literally strangle the viceroy to put a research DEA in a mountainous region with a mining efficiency of greater than 10. If however, the region in question is on the “cusp” for your chosen regional zoning policy, your DEA modifier will likely tip the balance in favor of what you’ve established as a priority. For example, let’s say we chose a natural Zoning policy. Well, under a natural zoning policy, regions with resource efficiencies in a more moderate range (4-7) tend not to be as aggressively zoned for resource DEAs such as bioharvest or mining as would be the case under a specialized zoning policy. As such, our dev plan priority would likely “tip” the balance in favor of what we want for such regions. If we were to establish research as a priority, we might see such regions zoned as such. If we’d chosen mining, we might push the viceroy to consider these regions for mines instead even though they don't meet the typically cut-off (about 7.0 for a natural zoning policy). I've seen regions with mining efficiencies as low as 3.6 zoned for mining under such circumstances. Again, this whole calculus will usually happen only when there is no other option but to establish a DEA corresponding to your target.

Using development plans during the early stages of your empire’s development (i.e. few if any DEA enhancing technologies are available) can be risky depending upon your chosen regional zoning policy and how you structure your development plan priorities. If, for example, you were to take a world like Jobe III (hopelessly average) and choose “natural” as your regional zoning policy, you’ve now set the stage for maximum DEA input from your development plans. As such, if I were to use a development plan and place “government” in the primary slot (or secondary if there was no priority established in the primary slot to compete), I could transform Jobe III into a bureaucrat’s dream. In my tests, Jobe III ended up with as many as 8 government DEAs not to mention the fact that the construction of such DEAs dominated Jobe IIIs development cycle (resulting in a very inefficient development lifecycle)!! Does that mean that you should avoid using development plans early on? No, not necessarily. One option might be to establish a set of development plans with competing priorities (see Da_Blade's Development Plan Guide (http://www.ina-community.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=294276) for an example of this approach). Alternatively, I could have used a different regional zoning policy such as specialized or balanced. These policies have a stronger “will” than a natural policy under such circumstances. The DEA-specific influence of my development plans would then be tempered.

On balance, you will be much more satisfied with development plans when you acknowledge their proper role, to prioritize DEA efficiency and capacity development, not DEAs. When it comes to a macromanagment DEA-centric tool, your foremost tool would be your Regional Zoning policy.

Not only are dev plans not DEA-centric, I believe they were meant to be used to establish MULTIPLE, DISTINCT priorities. They CAN be used to overload (I define overloading as repeating a priority whether within or across plans) priorities when the need arises. However, I do not believe this to be an efficient use of dev plans nor was it the intended use. Dev plan targets HAVE ALREADY BEEN GIVEN THE RIGHT AMOUNT OF EMPHAISIS TO DO THE JOB when used according to the simpler Primary, Secondary, Tertiary paradigm. If they weren’t, QSI would have done just as well to label Primary as 1.0 and Secondary as 0.7 and so on and provide us a modifier total rather than forcing us to do the math ourselves. Development plans are more than capable of having very adequate influence for ALL THREE priority classifications when used to prioritize efficiency/capacity improvements. As such, they permit you lots more flexibility than they are given credit for. A good macromanager, will rely on this flexibility to fully exploit the ability and potential of development plans.

What is needed from most players is a change in their expectations. Dev plans are a highly effective tool but not for the purpose that has been commonly ascribed to them. Unlearn what you have learned! Subvert the dominate paradigm!

When used primarily to prioritize efficiency and capacity improvements, several things will become clear as you play MOO3:
* Dev plans will quite often be fewer in number and much more meaningful. I believe this is why there are only 12 slots for dev plans and no scroll bar. You just don’t need that many at any given time Your dev plans should be targeted to achieve very specific aims.
* You will find that it is rarely necessary to repeat a dev plan priority either within or across plans. My advice is, don’t do it unless you have a truly urgent need for it.
* Dev plans will be easier to understand and will change frequently.
* You will find research more fulfilling as you can see a much clearer relationship between what you discover and the power you have through the use of dev plans to marshal it into service.
* You will not fear unduly influencing your planet’s DEA choices when you understand the role that technology and regional zoning can also play in this regard.
* Most importantly of all, creating dev plans will be more fun, less confusing, just as rich with strategic depth, and much easier to maintain.

If using development plans to prioritize regional improvements doesn’t sound like a big deal, consider the following:

There are seven different types of DEAs. The cost of a DEA ranges from 50-150 pps.
Most planets will ultimately establish all regions with a DEA in anywhere from 10-100 turns depending upon planet size and the availability of technology. A size 5 world would only need 10 to complete the DEA development cycle.

On the other had, there are at least 19 different efficiency and capacity enhancements that can be acquired to enhance mining and bioharvest output alone! These mods can cost anywhere from 25-300 pp and have their own population requirements.

As such a planet with 2 of each DEA (bioharvest/mine) would have to build at least 28 DEA structures, and 5 planetary improvements to fully enhance just these four DEAs. Throw in research and industrial DEA improvements, divert some resources to building dreadnoughts and throw a few more AUs into driving research efforts and you can clearly see that prioritizing such DEA efficiency/capacity builds can have a major impact on your empire’s development through time. Because the viceroy will only make one new DEA / RBQ build decision per turn, many planets will never fully develop as a result and/or will take a very long time to do so. As such, dev plans are extremely effective at putting you in the driver’s seat when it comes to decided what gets built and when.

Development Plan Myth: The Supernatural Power of the All Planets Dev Plan

It is a commonly asserted that the All Planets development plan has greater potency than other development plans. Some have suggested that it will weigh development plan choices at twice the weight of those present in other plans. Still others have speculated that All Planets priorities will preempt others. None of my test data supports this notion. In fact, all testing that I’ve conducted suggests that ALL PLANETS WORKS IN EXACLTY THE SAME FASHION AS ANY OTHER DEV PLAN.


Sample Data Illustrating The Influence of Development Plans:

To illustrate just how much of an influence dev plans can have, here’s what happened when I re-ran the 77 turn test mentioned in the Regional Zoning section while using a Balanced zoning policy. I used an All Planets dev plan as follows:

All Planets: Manf/ research / trade

Balanced Without Dev Plan

Bio Mine Ind PPs TT AU
7.5k/3.2k 11.7k/4.9k 37.9k 31.5k 60.1k 112.1 (+12k)

Total Amount in Treasury: 63.2 K

DEA totals for the seven planets:
BioHarvest 19
Mine 14
Industry 23
Research 9
Recreation 6
Military 6
Government 4
SpacePort 29


Balanced with Dev Plan

Bio Mine Ind PPs TT AU
7.1k/3.2k 13.3k/8.8k 47.1k 32.8k 64.5k 169.4 (-16.3k)

Total Amount in Treasury: <forgot to record this, damn>

DEA totals for the seven planets:
BioHarvest 19
Mine 10
Industry 21
Research 12
Recreation 6
Military 6
Government 4
SpacePort 22

A few things jump out at us from this data. Our DEA numbers don’t correspond well with the degree of emphasis placed in our dev plans. In the case of our primary and tertiary targets, we ended up with fewer DEAs. In the case of research, an handful more. However, even though our sample worlds ended up with 10% fewer manufacturing DEAs, empire-wide, we still ended up with 24% additional manufacturing capacity! Notice the impact this had an effect on our mineral resource generation and consumption. Clearly the pressure to expand industrial capacity resulted in pressure on mineral resources. Our test-tubes has increased but, unfortunately that doesn’t tell us much as I didn’t feel like adding up all of the actual research capacity (sorry). Also note that our income has risen dramatically when compared to the non-dev plan outcome (ok, I admit that not knowing the amount I had in the treasury when I jotted down these numbers throws a slight monkey wrench in the income figure but I hope you’ll take my word for it that the balance was quite good).

Final Thoughts on Development Plans

It is important to bear in mind at all times that the viceroy is evaluating a new set of priorities every turn. Each potential decision is given a weight whether it be to establish a DEA or enhance an existing one. All of these general “rules” which I’ve presented above whether they apply to regional zoning or development plans can appear to be broken at times. This is because they are not really rules or laws of viceroy behavior, just observations of consistent “emergent” behavior. The “under-the-hood” reality is that the viceroy is assigning a set of “lottery balls” to every potential option. Your regional zoning policy sets the stage for this calculation, your technology creates the options, and your development plans (in addition to other factors) add weight to all of the various options on the table. Which option will emerge at any given moment is difficult to predict. In some cases, you may notice plenty of mine DEAs being built and few, if any, being enhanced. Why? Well, if you’re using a specialized regional zoning policy and many of the regions in question have extremely high efficiencies for mining, then number of lottery balls calling for the mine DEA option may be very high (mine it before the planning committee turns it into a park!!!).

As a closing thought, realize that planets have very complex and dynamic economies. You cannot put undue stress on the development of one area of a planet and NOT have some unforeseen impact elsewhere. Take a look at the results above for my empire running under a Balanced zoning policy. You will notice that I was using only one development plan and nowhere was “mining” established as a priority. Nevertheless, the dev plan-influenced outcome not only resulted in increased manufacturing capacity, but enhanced mining generation as well. As such, expect a few “surprises” here and there. Though, the more you understand how interrelated MOO3’s economic model is, fewer of these changes will come as surprises.


Summary

You have three macromanagement tools that you can call upon to influence planetary development. Development plans alone are not sufficient to properly shape the destiny of your worlds. You must properly employ regional zoning and technology to influence the establishment of DEAs. Development plans can wield enormous power over the choice of which regional or planetary improvements to build and, when conditions are right, tip the balance in favor of preferred DEAs. Migration should be a consideration early on as well. Use migration with care early on by targeting worlds that can respond well to the sudden and rapid influx of population.

Key Points:

REGIONAL ZONING –> DEA-centric macromanagement tool. This plan will directly influence what sort of DEAs populate your planets and set the foundation for the resulting influence your development plans will have with respect to the establishment of DEAs.

DEVELOPMENT PLANS –> RBQ/PBQ – centric macromanagement tool. Use development plans to influence the viceroy’s priorities when it comes to choosing which DEA efficiency and capacity enhancements to build. Development plan priorities can influence the establishment of DEAs but their influence is regulated by your regional zoning policy.

TECHNOLOGY –> Can influence the number of DEAs required for any given planet. Provides fuel to your development plans in the form of capacity and efficiency enhancement technologies. As your technology progresses, development plans become progressively more influential.



Edit: Minor clarifications. Removed “Exceptions” section as I didn’t think it was helpful and probably more confusing. Some additions in other areas to clarify DEA influence of dev plans. Regional Zoning section may require update in light of 1.2.5 patch but I'm haven't had time to investigate this yet.

[Da_Blade]

:up: Nice work, very nice work, nicely worded. Don't have time to read all now (only read first post now), but will comment later. Having written a "guide" myself, i know what a pissload of work it is to get the info and word it right. Respect.

[RobNelson]

very good work! :up:

I'm printing it out now, I'll re-read and digest when I wake up.

After this, I may have to change my title to Disciple of Zodicus. :D

[malekith]

Very good read! Definitely one of the most informative posts I've seen in a while. I finally think I have a clear picture of exactly how regional zoning and dev plans work. Hopefully this will make the game even more enjoyable as I can now stop trying to figure out why 'roy makes the decisions he does.

Thanks a lot!!

[Beamup]

Two comments:

Sticky please!

Stormhawk, get thee in here and add this to the encylopedia!

[ursketchy]

tremendous :up:
this post (along with your regional zoning post, also extremely helpful) cleared up a huge mystery (for me, anyway)!

should someone create the Zodicus Fan Club or something? "i'm not just the president, i'm also a client" :D

[Polymath42]

WOW!!:up: :eek: :up:

Wow, wow, wow, wow, wow

Excellent work!

[Doomshade]

I realize that my question is only kind of related to what you were discussing but something you said sparked it. I am relatively sure that you didn't mean this quote the way I took it (as you were only talking about the specific output of a region based on its resources)
____________________________________________________
Quote
Since industry DEAs will function equally well regardless of where they are placed (an example of what I call a non-efficiency based DEA as opposed to BioHarvest and mine DEAs which are affected by a terrain’s varying level of efficiency in such areas),
____________________________________________________

It is my (very limited) understanding that industry DEAs need at least 6 space (in a specific region) to become all that they can be, therefore, where they are placed does matter (even though in my experience the Roy has ignored this), does it not? Industry is not effected by the minerals or fertility but all DEAs productivity are effected by size and population, right?

I know you may not have mentioned that because it was a) duh everyone knows that (I didn't until last night, heh), b) the Roy ignores region size so there is no point in mentioning it, c) you weren't intending to discuss the effect that region size has on DEA placement but rather how resources effect DEA placement.

I guess what I am really saying/asking is does the Roy care about region size? For instance does the Roy look at a region that is 4.5 in size and say hmmm 2 industry would never produce as it could/should so I won't put 2 or even any in this region? And when Roy sees at size 13.0 region does he/she say, "I should do everything possible to put 2 industry DEAs here." Or does anybody know? I am betting that the Roy could care less about region size (based only on my limited in game experience).

Really good information by the way Zodicus. And thanks in advance to anyone that can answer my question.

[Da_Blade]

If by region size you mean population maximum, let me explain:

The fact that the amount of regional population affects the DEAs in it in any kind is an absolute myth. The only way the amount of population affect DEAs is planet-wide. All population requirements from every building on the planet are added together and then compared to the amount of population is avaible. From this the DEA productivity is calculated, a direct modifier on all DEA output (except some DEAs like spaceports).

The only effect regional pop has is the racial effect: all buildings in a region are operated with bonusses based on the race living in the region. So mining is very effective in a silicoid region, even if there's only 0.25 pop point worth of silicoid in the region.

I have not tested VR behavior anymore after i learned this knowledge quite a while ago, and have not had time to test it since. But if Zodicus is right, which by my preliminary conclusions quite a while ago, when i was studying VR vehavior, he is, racial bonusses will be accounted for since the VR works with a predicted effeciency.

[Doomshade]

is what I was referring to. Hrm I wonder where I read that bit about an industry DEA needing atleast room for 6 pop in a region to reach 100% effeciency. Well regardless thanks for the reply (not sure my post was very clear but I think you got the gist of what I was saying).

[Zodicus]

@Doomshade: You bring up a very worthwhile point. Yes, I did consider region size when it came to DEA placement and was not able to discern any visible impact. I also know that one of the *.txt files clearly indicates what is a minimum region size before any one of the DEAs will be considered (and I think that number is 0 except for SpacePorts) but, as I am at work at the moment, the name of the file escapes me. Overall, Da_Blade's response to your question is consistent with the facts as I have observed them and represents my feelings on the matter. In fact, when I was first writing this post, I had planned to mention region size, but, I opted to not make this thread a detailed discussion of every conceivable viceroy influence but keep it to useful high-level principles that you can digest easily while playing the game. But, yes, with enough time, I would have presented more of my observations (what you see above is a pruned version of my original post, believe it or not). I would encourage you to investigate further if you wish and, should you find an impact, let us know! :)

Furthermore, there appears to be no dependency between which regions are currently populated and the placement of new DEAs. I was going to write a humorous article titled something like "and you think your commute is bad..." but, like other things, I just didn't have time nor did I think it added much to the discussion.

Anther factor that I have seen strong evidence for are the racial / magnate civ bonuses that Da_Blade also commented on and that I acknowledged in the Regional Zoning section (but didn’t elaborate on). On one world, I saw bioharvest DEAs being zoned in places that appeared to violate the normal efficiency constraints. However, I did notice that the planet, and the region in particular (though I'm not sure if that was a factor) had a high number of Gnolams. When I clicked on the Gnolams, I noticed that the world was Green 1 for them which was better than the race I was using. As such, I think this is clear evidence that such factors as race can influence regional zoning preferences if that race has bonuses that can apply to particular DEA types.

@All:

I'm glad that many have found this thread useful and I very much appreciate the positive feedback. It makes all the effort worthwhile. In particular, Rob Nelson’s positive response to my Regional Zoning thread (which will, and must, be updated) was an inspiration to me to post some of this information (thanks Rob).

I may not be too responsive to new posts on this thread for a few days as I've been neglecting other things while conducting all of the testing and writing lately (my girlfriend is ready to clobber me). I'll try to respond as best I can but it may be sporadic at best for the next week or so. ;)

[triller]

Hard! (evidence)
Sweet! (subject)
Sticky! (please)
(I saw Montrose @ Winterland a few times).
Very nicely worded & supported by given results.

[StormHawk]

Originally posted by Beamup
Two comments:

Sticky please!

Stormhawk, get thee in here and add this to the encylopedia!


Yes & Yes. This information is going into the encyclopedia for sure. Probably somewhere at the top too. :)

[vorenhutz]

Nice :)
This is the sort of stuff that should have been in the manual.
I haven't had time/patience to read all of this yet, but I have one question:
Do you think this allows us to finally give instructions to the VR on DEA placement without totally screwing up his DEA upgrade priorities, and vice-versa? It's been my experience that I can tweak things to get one of these right, but not both at the same time.

[RobNelson]

It looks like if you want to tweak DEA upgrades without messing up DEA placement, simply leave "primary" blank. I'll try some limited testing on this (from his posts, I think Zodicus did some really deep tests on this very (sub)issue).

[Zodicus]

Posted by RobNelson
It looks like if you want to tweak DEA upgrades without messing up DEA placement, simply leave "primary" blank.

Actually, I should qualify this more in my thread. If you've got a planet like Jobe III and you've got no DEA enhancing technologies, then you CAN affect Jobe III's DEA placement but usually only if you've got nothing in the Primary slot as well. If you have a Primary target, you can usually forget about the Secondary one (or at least, just don't count on it).

Thanks for asking the question. Though I did throw in some hedge language (“individual cases may vary”) I'll update the thread to reflect this possible source of confusion.

[RobNelson]

Doing some low level testing, and I found out something interesting. Placing Recreation as primary seems to set the preferred non effiecency based DEA from industry to rec. I got rec DEAs everywhere I expected a nonefficiency based DEA, instead of seeing Industry and research. The efficiency based DEAs worked as expected. This was using Natural and with only an all planets dev plan. I think the reason your Jobe III example was changed so little when you used that specific example was that what the VR wanted to do (based on Regional policy) and what you told him to do (Dev Plans) were so similar.

I understand that Jobe III was just 1 example of the many cases you looked into, but I'm wondering if there's more interaction than any of us have as yet discovered (or even guessed at) between dev plans and regional policy.

PS I'm still following, but sometimes the student must ask the master the difficult questions, to ensure the master is also on the right path. :D

[visage]

Very nice! It explains quite clearly why much of a player's initial intuition about how to use the macromanagement tools is backwards.

[Zodicus]

@RobNelson:

Yup, I don't doubt it. I don't know if I tested Recreation on Natural but that behavior is consistent with what I saw using Military and Government so I think that the mechanism is the same. When using Natural (or any Regional Zoning policy for that matter), if there are no "enhancements" available, *and* the efficiency of the region is minimal as defined by your zoning policy, you'll tip the scales in favor of what's in your dev plan. On a planet like Jobe III, in which the entire planet qualifies under a Natural zoning policy, I could, in the early game, radically change the face of Jobe III with my dev plans.

I think I've accounted for this in my latest edit but I may need to clarify a bit more.

I think I'll do it tomorrow and write it more thougtfully than the current version.

[RobNelson]

Actually, I think Jobe III would have made a great example, if you hadn't used manufacturing as the dev plan example, since that's what the VR wanted anyways.

So, a question. How do other dev plans affect the policies? I imagine that farm and mine would each simply treat non efficient regions as farm/mine (whichever was chosen). Planetary defense and trade, I can imagine, would not affect region zoning (since they both work "outside" of region zones - by which I mean that they don't take up a DEA space). Research should act the same way as rec, gov, mil. What about Morale? Does it do anything?

I'll try to test some of these out, now that I have a grasp of what should happen if there are no dev plans (that was the intimidating part for me - everything was too chaotic and complex, but the new region info seems to be helping all of us understand what's going on a little better :D ).

[Da_Blade]

As for DEA placement by dev plans; i do have to disagree slightly here. Though i rtemind you of what i always said; dev plans' biggest use os for steering the economy (upgrades), it is also a very usefull tool for DEA placement; as long as you stack priorities.

I usually make my dev plans in such a way that 2 or 3 things have more then primary weight. As i explained in my thread, stacking dev plans is what it's all about. For instance; a primary in all planets gives a dev plan weight of ~2. Two primary's on the other two dev plans make for a weight of ~2 too. One secondary in all planets and one secondary in the planetary classifications make ~2 too. The three tertiary's and the other secondary make ~2 too! Now, this is pretty useless of course to give all targets the same weight, but it is just to show how strong influences you can give with DEA placement.

Now, it is true that with this you also increase the weight of imrpovements. But, as Zodicus marvellously explained, this is far from a bad thing, as it leaves space open for future development.

[MooMaster]

way to go Zodicus, I finally had time to finish going through the whole thing, and there is some very enlightening and useful info there, nice job.

Sticky Please, people everywhere must know this!

[Zodicus]

Posted by RobNelson
Actually, I think Jobe III would have made a great example, if you hadn't used manufacturing as the dev plan example, since that's what the VR wanted anyways.

It is a good example, but not for what I was using it for. The reality is the Jobe III behaved with Industry much as it did with a Government or Military DEA in the primary slot so, in that respect, the mechanism was consistent. There are other reasons, however, for Jobe III not being an ideal example but I worry that if I belabor the point, it will result in more, not less confusion. The development plan topic can get sticky and complicated, especially when using a Natural zoning policy in the early stages of the game. I think that my word of "caution" should and my recommendation that players wait until they have achieved some technological sophistication before delving into dev plans is about as much "strategy" as I want to offer up as we could write a whole other thread on that topic.

For now, just having the general principles on the table and making people aware that the DEA-specific impact of their dev plans will largely depend on factors such as the availability of technology enhancements and regional zoning is sufficient. That's why I pulled the Jobe III example and reduced/eliminated the focus on the Primary slot. As long as players understand the constraints, they will soon understand why, especially mid-game, they aren't seeing DEAs anymore. So, hopefully, instead of getting frustrated, they know now that they should be looking at their RBQ/PBQ where there will be ample evidence of dev plans in action.

[dkass]

Very interesting. The first description of Dev Plans that actually matches what I've seen (and maybe now it will make enough sense for me to actually feel like using them).

I do have one comment. Your example under dev plans doesn't seem to illustrate the point that "all planets" has the same weight as other plans. The way to prove that would be to run a third case where you put your Manf/Res/Trade plan in a player defined plan and applied it to all your planets. This would, under your theory, give the empires identical effective plans and thus the final results should be identical to the "All Planets" case.

[Zodicus]

Posted by dkass
I do have one comment. Your example under dev plans doesn't seem to illustrate the point that "all planets" has the same weight as other plans. The way to prove that would be to run a third case where you put your Manf/Res/Trade plan in a player defined plan and applied it to all your planets. This would, under your theory, give the empires identical effective plans and thus the final results should be identical to the "All Planets" case.


The example was presented to indicate that, after 77 turns, the DEA-specific impact of my dev plan priorities was virtually non-existent. However, because there was clearly as substantial rise in Industrial Capacity and, consequentially, mineral consumption, that there was clearly an impact as a result of using Dev Plans. It was never intended to prove anything about All Planets specifically. However, I figured the point might be challenged at some point since I omitted specific test results so here goes…

With respect to proving that All Planets does NOT have double the influence, I can think of numerous was of demonstrating this. I did run a test as you suggested but I went about it using a method that, I think, is simpler and just as effective. I created dev plans identical to All Planets for the following:

Secondary
Primary
Core
Frontier

Now, there is a margin of error here as some planets may be temporarily classified as Starving from time-to-time, resulting in a handicap for the NON-All Planets test, but I think this test will suffice.

I ran my test on the test bed which started at turn 149 (the same test bed I used in all the Regional Zoning examples) using a Natural zoning policy. Here are the empire-wide totals:


All Planets Dev Plan mauf / research / trade
Bio Mine Ind PPs TT AU
6.9k/3.2k 12.6k/7.2k 49.5k 28.1k 64.4k 140.9 (-231)



Secondary/Primary/Core/Frontier Dev Plans mauf / research / trade
Bio Mine Ind PPs TT AU
6.5k/3.0k 13.1k/7.6k 50.6k 32.4k 58.7k 140.3 (+55)


An interesting thing happened during the NON-All Planets test run. The game dynamics changed enough to result in much more combat. Some would chalk this up to being a “random” element between games. I do not. What I “think” happened was that, by creating four plans, I was forcing MOO3 into using enough slightly different code paths such that the game dynamic changed resulting in a different outcome over time. Regardless of the cause, as a result of this change, some of the original seven planets were adversely affected (being subject to blockades) which , I believe resulted in more military DEAs being created. As such, when I went to look at the results planet-by-planet, I saw many differences but due, in part, to the presence of military DEAs that weren’t otherwise there during the All Planets run. However, a look at the empire-wide totals shows remarkable agreement in spite of the hardships my empire encountered during the second run. So, the above results certainly “suggest” that there is not bias.

But I’ve got more….

Let’s take Jobe III. At this point, Jobe III is only my second colonized planet and there are far fewer potential interruptions when using this test bed. As such, I ran some tests. Some using only an All Planets plan and other tests using a combo of identical Secondary/Core plans (simulates the All Planets effect). I then ran tests which pitted a Primary target in All Planets against a Primary in Secondary/Core and then ran them again with reversed targets (i.e. if I’d set Gov for All Planets and Rec for the other two in the Primary slot, then I simply reversed this). I even ran some tests with only a Secondary priority target(as such All Planets secondary target should have had a +42 effect while my Secondary/Core combo should have only been able to muster a +21 at any one time). I then ran at least one other test that included fully stocked mauf/research/farm plans.

The results of the above tests? In every instance, ABSOLUTELY INDENTICAL. Not just in the final result, but every step of the way. I took snapshots at turn 14, 20, 30, 40, and 45. Every one lined up perfectly with respect to which DEAs had been built and which were in progress.

I then ran a test using a PD plan with Government in the Primary slot against All Planets (Gov was the only target). On this run I didn’t get IDENTICAL results primarily, I think, because I was only able to change to the PD plan once the planet was colonized (I’d always created the All Planets plan in advance of the colony being colonized in previous test runs). The result? I actually got 1 MORE gov dea using the PD plan (10) than I did using the All Planets (9). I could have run yet another test but I really felt like I had already made the case that there was nothing special about All Planets.

That’s enough for me. What do you think? :)

As always, if you've seen something which might suggest otherwise, l'd be more than happy to reconsider.

[dkass]

Interesting and definitely suggestive.

I probably should have been more clear, I didn't have an opinion on the weight of the All Planets Dev plan (its the only one I use--usually just to get planets to build spaceports when I discover them). I was just commenting that as written, you seemed to be saying here is an example that shows the weights are the same, and yet it didn't actually do that (I was a math major so I instinctively analyze any such statement for its logical correctness).

'm impressed by just how much the two full empire cases differ. Have you tried running the case multiple times with identical conditions (and choices as far as possible) to see how much inherent variability there is? (I'd suggest having an early fight where you move differently or something to make sure any saved random number seed isn't biasing the results). I realize this would be a lot of work, but it seems to be the one problem with many of the Empire level studies being done--we don't know what the intrisic "noise" is.

[Zodicus]

Posted by dkass
I was just commenting that as written, you seemed to be saying here is an example that shows the weights are the same,

To which I can only reply:

Posted by Zodicus
Sample Data:

To illustrate just how much of an influence dev plans can have,


Nope, I threw out the challenge to All Planets with no explicit or implicit proof. That's why I responded to your question with a detailed outline of what testing I had done.

Posted by dkass
'm impressed by just how much the two full empire cases differ. Have you tried running the case multiple times with identical conditions (and choices as far as possible) to see how much inherent variability there is?
Uuughh. Your a hard man to please dkass :). No, I didn't run this case multiple times. I spent most of my time testing the power of All Planets on individual planets. I did conduct this one empire-wide study as a sort of "due-dilliegence" test. However, as a long-time veteran of testing MOO3, I can say this: whenever I have re-run a test (all choices being identical), using the same saved game, the outcome has ALWAYS been identical. I've seen this enough times now to convince me that re-running such tests is no longer necessary. If this instills some measure of doubt in the results, I understand. I can only encourage you to try your own tests. As for me, I have demonstrated to my satisfaction that no evidence exists to support the claim that All Planets works differently, has any more influence, or has any other special power other than omnipresence.

[Da_Blade]

Brawler showed a long time ago that the "All Planets" weighs in roughly at 2 times the weight of a classification plan. I thought the current development theory was needed knowledge? ;)

[dkass]

Sorry, I wasn't asking you to do the experiment. Just asking if you had done it (to avoid wasting my time duplicating it).

Yes, it does appear that the seed (or at least part of it) is saved with the game. This is why just replaying identically from a saved game doesn't give any variability. The trick is then to make an irrelevant change that does change the seed (I need to do some more experiments to see what the minimum is).

I guess it was your headings that confused me (I didn't realize you were starting an unrelated section). I thought the example was trying to prove the statement about all planets. Sorry about that.

[Zodicus]

Posted by Da_Blade
Brawler showed a long time ago that the "All Planets" weighs in roughly at 2 times the weight of a classification plan. I thought the current development theory was needed knowledge?
Actually, it is required knowledge but I was careful to qualify what was required from that thread insofar as I stated "as it pertains to how planetary classifications are assigned." That thread is very long now and I didn' t want those new to the game to feel as though they had to plow through the entire thread. I followed that thread for some time but I don't recall the bit about Brawler's assertion that All Planets was double the weight. I'll have to dig in to find out where that might be and what evidence he has to support it. As I recall, a lot of us (me included) felt that All Planets weighed in a little heavier at that time. I've since pulled back from that and am now openly critical of such notions unless more complelling evidence can be offered to support such a claim.

[Zodicus]

Posted by dkass
I guess it was your headings that confused me (I didn't realize you were starting an unrelated section). I thought the example was trying to prove the statement about all planets. Sorry about that.
Yes, I can see how that was a bit confusing. I've been meaning to update that portion of the thread and clean it up a bit (and correct at least one minor error that I noticed) but I made a promise to StormHawk that I wouldn't touch it for a bit. Maybe next week I'll reformat so that the relationships are clearer. Sorry for the confusion.

[Zodicus]

@Da_Blade:

OK, I think I found the post wherein Brawler asserts that there is an additional effect from using All Planets. I would actually have many questions to ask Brawler about his test bed before I was convinced there was anything special about his results. All I can say for now is, read the results I posted to dkass and then read Brawler's one example regarding rec deas. At the very least, I would say the jury is out. To me, the evidence is weak at best. It is also counter-intuitive. All Planets has plenty of utility working just like any other dev plan. It really doesn't need, nor should it have extra power. Just having one omnipresent dev plan provides users with a utility of use that other dev plans don't provide. That's enough. By doubling the power, you make All Planets that much harder to use effectively. For example, there are a lot of planets classified as Mineral Rich in my empire. However, that classification covers up a nasty problem that may be lurking beneath-the terraform ring. One of the best ways to push through this is to use All Planets as a holder for the terraforming priority. That allows me to get all planets that need it to put it on their agenda. Otherwise, I'd be forced to put terraforming in my mineral rich, mineral poor, or secondary or what have you, JUST IN CASE a planet with that classification was also a non-ideal terraform zone.

I would also think that evidence for this would have been in the DevelopmentPlans.txt as they already have externalized the relative prorities for dev plans in general. It should have been quite easy to do the same for All Planets if there was to be a difference.

[Da_Blade]

Well, asking Brawler is out of the question since he's in the army atm, but my own testing has always proven twice weight for all planets too. I'll go into it again when i have the time, something i have been painfully short of lately...

[MooMaster]

i don't mean to be a spoil sport or anything, but does it really affect zodicus' "guide" and it's relevance if there is or isn't a double weighting on the all planets classification?

I think his points are still very good ones either way and that if there may be something of a little more relevance to the uses of the macro tools he talks about, then we should focus our discussion there.

Is everything else he said correct? you know stuff like that.

[Zodicus]

Posted by dkass
Very interesting. The first description of Dev Plans that actually matches what I've seen (and maybe now it will make enough sense for me to actually feel like using them).

I was just reviewing my original post (as I plan to update it this weekend) when I came across dkass's comment and it struck me in such a way that I thought it was important to comment on, specifically as it pertains to using dev plans. I've seen other posts like this that claim to be micromanagers and NOT use dev plans.

What's interesting is that, regardless of whether you are a micromanager or a macromanager, you actually NEED to use dev plans!

Why?

There is no way to micromanage the RBQ (though I understand there is a mod for that purpose but, assuming that isn't installed....).

As such, especially later in the game, if you manually zone a new planet, you'll only be affecting the DEA priorities. That's not going to be very effective unless you're also deciding which DEAs to enhance as an industry DEA with enhancements can easily double the productivity of a non-enhanced version. As such, even micromanagers, later in the game, must learn to use dev plans.

If you leave it up to the vic, generally, I have observed that regional buildings (hydroponics farms and the like), tend to get queued up with much greater frequency. As such, many of you manually zoned DEAs will sit idly by at sub-par performance levels for quite some time.

[Beamup]

Can we get this stickied?

[Xentax]

Wow. Definitely sticky.

At the rate we're going, someone's going to be doing a master's or doctoral thesis on the economics of MOO3 :D

[Ron_Lugge]

Originally posted by Xentax
Wow. Definitely sticky.

At the rate we're going, someone's going to be doing a master's or doctoral thesis on the economics of MOO3 :D

LOL

I believe it :D

[Zodicus]

I've just updated the thread. Mostly just clarifications. Sections most affected include "Viceroy's Don't Use Blueprints" and "Development Plans". Please feel free to let me know if anything appears more (or less) confusing/inaccurate as a result of these changes.:)

[Beamup]

Originally posted by Zodicus
DEA projects + RBQ projects <= 2

Just FYI, I've seen up to 5 at once, and 3 is routine. 3 DEAs, in my experience, is the "standard" amount to have in the queue (until all are built), and then up to 2 in the RBQ. I really don't think there's a limit here, just that generally projects don't take more than 1-2 turns to complete, so the fact that he won't add more than 1 a turn becomes the limiting factor, not the depth of queue.

Of course, I've also seen 12 DEAs in the queue at once, but that was apparently due to the -1 turns bug.

[Zodicus]

@Beamup:

Thanks for the feedback. :up:

If you are referring to DEAs that are in a "planned" state, I don't count those (I guess I should be clear about that....). If there are 12 things in the queue and 10 of those have build times of "-1", I think that is a bug. This "formula" is based upon my observation of several games with careful scrutiny being paid to the relationship between the number of DEAs vs RBQ items being actively worked on at any one time. It is also the result of letting the vic do what he wants given my total reliance on the macro tools (i.e. absolutely no micromanagement intervention on my part).

In literally every case, from turn 1 - 200, the number of items being actively worked on never exceeded two. Furthermore, though it would take some time to explain why, simply changing your regional zoning policy mid-stream can result in what "appears" to be a greater number of items being queued up. The short reason being that if I've gone from a "natural" zoning policy to a "specialized" zoning policy, this choice can sometimes result in the temporary abandonment of what are now very low priority projects in favor of newer high priority projects. The result tends to be a number of DEAs in the "planned" state.

However, all things being equal, only one item per turn, no more than two items at any one time. That's the general rule I've seen over and over again.

Have I addressed the issue you are referring to or am I still missing something?

[Beamup]

No, you haven't. I am in fact referring to DEAs under construction ("x turns") rather than Planned.

I can, however, suggest two possible causes. When I have seen it, it's been when I'm microing DEAs (which I almost always do early on). That might be because I never look at the RBQ unless I'm microing my DEAs, but it might be that player requests are the key. Or it could be the one-per-turn manifesting in a different form, too. It doesn't take much production to get things down to one completing every turn, which locks down the number of items from ever increasing.

Although there is another case when it happens, that being the -1 bug (no, Roy, I don't WANT 10 Industry DEAs on a size 6 Yellow 2...).

[Zodicus]

Interesting.

Yes, I think that active micromanagement is the key to what you are seeing (bugs notwithstanding). As I virtually never micromanage any DEAs into existence (in an effort to become that much more adept at using the macro tools), I have never seen the behavior you describe. I will probably update the post with the qualification that this is the behavior the viceroy will exhibit without player intervention, however, it sounds like I'll need to conduct additional testing to see what the exact effect of micromanagement is on the number of items being worked on.

All that being said, I think you'll find that, if you were to start an new game and commit yourself to using only the macromanagement tools, the vic would behave as described. This is also the sort of behavior you can come to expect when you relenquish complete control to the vic. As such, I regard this as "standard" viceroy behavior. Player intervention, as you have pointed out, seems to result in exceptions to this.

What many don't realize is that this behavior (no more than two items) is the reason that many complain about the vic "overdriving" research and "playing with the sliders". The reality is that the vic sticks to this two item limit and makes use of money to maximize the efficiency of efforts directed towards economic development. If, for example, there are two industry DEAs in production, and the number of PPs required at any given moment to get both to complete next turn is < than that being allocated, then the remainder will go into research, not additional build queue items. I've seen this time and time again. The "normal economic development" slider and the "research" slider will "appear" to behave haphazardly. However, when one relalizes that the vic will only commit to spending money on two items at once, then the reasons for this happening become transparent.

Thanks for the heads up regarding this issue. I'll take a closer look into it and likely update the post. :)

[dashrader]

I have conquered planets and reinhabited them from 0 population up to 50K+. This is very late game. Many of these planets have only a few DEAs built on them, however, I have noticed that the both Regional and industry items are being built. So I end up with a big infrastructure, and very little in the way of developed DEAs. Some DEAs will have 4 or 5 regionals (or whatever they are called), and there will be many items at the top of the planet list, but the actual DEAs will be undeveloped. On a size 10 planet, I have only 3 DEAs, and tons of other stuff built, as well as over 50K mixed inhagitants. I have DEV plans that are primarily MANUFACTURE, MILITARY, INFRASCTRUCTURE. What DEV plans will force the planets to build the DEA instead of the supporting stuff?

[Ron_Lugge]

Time.

Read through the whole thing, and you'll notice the VR's mandate - to "Satisfy current planetary needs/requirements in the most efficient manner possible while maximizing the potential for future development. " - this means it will *always* fill up any open development slots before adding more DEAs - in an effort to maximize flexibility.

edit:

Please note that the additional improvements will actually get you more than the additional DEAs you want. Once its done with all improvements, it will move onto new DEAs.

[dashrader]

Ron,
Thanks for the reply. I know that the Roy will "do what is needed", but if it builds the other stuff first, at least before industry, then that is wrong. The long range benefit is better to have the DEA developed before the extras. I am missing out on 10s of thousands of PPs because I only have 1 or 2 industry DEAs on a planet with 8 open DEAs (for example). IMHO, the DEAs should be developed first, then the extras, because with more industry DEAs, then the other stuff can be built faster because you can then apply more PP to the development of the planet. Oh well. To me, this is broken. I think that it should have been designed the other way, to build up the DEAs based on need before it went hog wild with the extras. It certainly would be nice if it could build a DEA at the same time as a regional or other item, rather than only one at a time, and the DEAs last of all.

DS

[AlanC9]

It's not quite as bad as you describe. Some of those regionals will improve industry DEA efficiency. The big problem is building regionals in empty regions, which is clearly suboptimal.

You might want to try cutting infrastructure out of the dev plans, or put it into the higher-developed categories like Core and Primary. In my experience infrastructure has a high enough default priority without asking for more of it.

Edit: regional environment improvements also seem to be overemphasized. Are these "infrastructure" as far as dev plans are concerned?

Edit 2: looks like they're not. Max pop and ecosystem adds don't seem to be covered in the dev plans. Are they hardcoded to be high-priority?

[rhyssan]

Originally posted by AlanC9
It's not quite as bad as you describe. Some of those regionals will improve industry DEA efficiency. The big problem is building regionals in empty regions, which is clearly suboptimal.
yeah, no kidding!! i wish only that it would build the populated regions first, then backfill the ones it skipped on the first pass...

Edit 2: looks like they're not. Max pop and ecosystem adds don't seem to be covered in the dev plans. Are they hardcoded to be high-priority?
i've noticed that too. but it's hard to tell how much the values in modifiers.txt make a difference. could be hardcoded, certainly, but might be interesting to set the values in modifiers to be very small (like 1% of the current value) and see if those regionals still get built.

-rhyssan

[Beamup]

Originally posted by AlanC9
Edit 2: looks like they're not. Max pop and ecosystem adds don't seem to be covered in the dev plans. Are they hardcoded to be high-priority?

As of 1.2.5, these buildings are in the Infrastructure DP, IIRC.

[Zodicus]

Posted by dashrader
Thanks for the reply. I know that the Roy will "do what is needed", but if it builds the other stuff first, at least before industry, then that is wrong. The long range benefit is better to have the DEA developed before the extras. I am missing out on 10s of thousands of PPs because I only have 1 or 2 industry DEAs on a planet with 8 open DEAs (for example). IMHO, the DEAs should be developed first, then the extras, because with more industry DEAs, then the other stuff can be built faster because you can then apply more PP to the development of the planet.

As rhyssan pointed out, this is not entirely correct. Many of the enhancments will result is as good or better results than the establishment of a new DEA. Plus, establishing a DEA limits the viceroy's options should a crisis occur. A DEA enhancement doesn't result in any additonal "lost" opportunities in this regard. In addition, the viceroy does a very good job of only selecting the very best DEA enhancing structures to build FIRST. In fact, after all DEAs have been enhanced with the best technology, it will often proceed to work on whatever you might have as a secondary or tertiary target in your dev plans. That's because building further, lower-tech, enhancments may not be a big a bang for the buck. It also serves to optimize the fulfillment of your development plan priorities in the least amount of time. When people "overload" priorities (i.e. you've got manufacturing repeated in several places), then the vic will tend to focus a bit too much so on enhancing DEAs with EVERY available enhancment before moving on to lesser priority dev plan targets. This may be what you want, but from a time/cost benefit analysis, it is not always the most efficient approach. That's why I tend to stay clear of "overloading" my dev plan priorities.

Posted by dashrader
Oh well. To me, this is broken. I think that it should have been designed the other way, to build up the DEAs based on need before it went hog wild with the extras. It certainly would be nice if it could build a DEA at the same time as a regional or other item, rather than only one at a time, and the DEAs last of all.
Again, if all regions were populated with DEAs before any were enhanced, you'd put undue strain on the population, and limit the options for further development. I don't think anyone here is arguing that you should only have a couple of industry DEAs on any given planet, but I think that the current approach is designed to optimize output using the fewest number of resources required in the least amount of time. I respectfully disagree with the idea that this approach is broken, in general.

BTW, it can and will build up to two things at a time. This could be one regional improvement AND one DEA. In fact, it could be building Deep Extraction Mining and a Mine DEA simultaneously! It will only make ONE decision per turn but it will ultimately queue up to two times whether they be DEAs and/or RBQ items. In the example I listed above, it may have first decided to enhance an existing mine, then, on the second turn, realizing that it still needed mines but already had an RBQ in place to enhance the only other mine available, realized that its only option was to start another mine DEA.

[Beamup]

Just a clarification - have you been able to demonstrate that Roy does consider projects under construction when making further decisions? That is, suppose the planet is short by 5 minerals, but there is a mine under construction that will supply 10 minerals on completion. Will Roy still act as if the planet is short (i.e. by queueing more mines), or will he consider the need to be satisfied already and move on to something else?

[Zodicus]

@Beamup:

An excellent question and I wish I could answer it conclusively. I see evidence of this but I can't be totally sure. Many of my planets will queue up an industry, then a mine, then an industry (even though we are still short on minerals), then a mine, and so on.

What I think is happening is not so much a realization that the mineral needs WILL be met, but simply that there is a need. Then, a priority is established and modified by some of the factors revealed to us in the AIPlanet.txt (kNumDEA and kAnyDEA if IIRC). During the early stages of the game, rarely are my mineral poor planets able to fully satisfy their immediate need for minerals. They still end up in the yellow. I don't think this means that kKeepMineralsPercent 50 doesn't work, it just means that the formula for setting the lottery balls for minerals will sometimes be exceeded by other perceived needs.

So, in short, yes and no. Yes, I do think that projects under construction impact the priority established for building additional improvements/DEAs of any given type at any given moment. No, I don't think the viceroy calculates in advance the degree to which the mine dea (in this case) will actually satisfy the current need. If it did, then planets like Jobe III would build nothing but mines.

I now "suspect" that one of the factors/priority adjustments in the AIPlanet.txt, kAnyDEA, probably refers to the queue rather than what is currently on the planet (which would be adequately addressed by kNumDEA). As such, if this theory holds, simply having a mine DEA in the queue would dramatically lower the priority for queuing up a second one. However, once the mine in the queue has been completed and the need calculus redone, the kAnyDEA would be absent and the priority for a new mine/mine-improvement would once again trump other considerations. I think this moment-to-moment calculus is the way the vic works. Obviously, if the need/preference for mines is large enough, even having one queued up (and the resulting hit on the priority for an additional one) might not be enough to keep another one from being queued up in some cases. I see this often when using a specialized zoning policy when I've got regions with very high efficiencies (like 10+).

Of course, we could test such theories by modding the AIPlanet.txt but I just don't have time at the moment. Anyway, this is one area that I'd like to see QSI address in the manual.

[AlanC9]

Zodicus, I don't think dashrader's problem is so much with DEA enhancements as it is with non-DEA regional items. Though if Beamup's correct, this may be fixed in 1.2.5 -- as long as you don't overdo infrastructure in your dev plans, anyway.

Also, to what extent do Imperial resource surpluses and shortages change VR priorities?

[Beamup]

@ Zodicus:

OK, sounds reasonable. Maybe I'll do a quick test myself tonight if I can. Seems like if you're right, and kAnyDEA were negated and made very large in magnitude, that should result in "more of whatever's in the queue syndrome," to coin a phrase. Wouldn't be conclusive either way, but it could give some strong evidence.

[Zodicus]

Posted by AlanC9
Zodicus, I don't think dashrader's problem is so much with DEA enhancements as it is with non-DEA regional items. Though if Beamup's correct, this may be fixed in 1.2.5 -- as long as you don't overdo infrastructure in your dev plans, anyway
Well, from what I read, he seemed to be arguing that DEA building should trump enhancments. Either way, good or bad, this is basically the way things seem to work.

With respect to the preference for infrastructure, I've noticed this bias too. Often "sanitation infrastructure" will be one of the first things queued up on a new planet when such an enhancement is available. As such, I agree that "infrastructure" type improvements get lots of attention whether in your dev plans or not.

[Beamup]

Well, I've run that test. There was no clear result from changing that number from 500 to -2000 or -5000. The negative numbers did not make Roy build more of what was in the queue.

However, increasing to 5000 DID prevent multiple player-zoned DEAs of the same type from moving beyond "Planned," even if they did get built with default settings.

Conclusion - negative numbers don't work as expected with that value, but Zodicus' theory appears to be correct as to its function.

[Zodicus]

@Beamup:

Hmmm. Interesting results and thanks for looking at this more closely. :up:

Here's a test that I would like to see run IF you have time;) ....

1) Adjust the kAnyDEA value to some very high number (5000 if you wish).

2) Select "specialized" regional zoning.

3) Colonize a world that is mineral rich and has several mountianous regions (eff prob > 7.0 or even 10 would be best).

4) Do not manually zone any deas, let the vic do it.

Now, under normal circumstances, the vic would queue mine upon mine. However, if the kAnyDEA does have a relationship to what's in the queue, then I might expect to see one mine, then the next DEA would be something other than a mine.

That would be pretty conclusive.

[dashrader]

Thank you for the help. I have changed my Dev plans and removed infrastructure. now that I understand what it is doing does not mean that I like it. I have 2x the amount of minerals than i need. Something like 35k/17k. Now that is absurd. I realize that the Roy wants to make planets subsistant, but at this late stage in the game, that much is too much. How much of this overproduction get turned into money? Well, I will see how my development goes now. Thank you.

[Zodicus]

Posted by dashrader
I have 2x the amount of minerals than i need. Something like 35k/17k. Now that is absurd.
Basically, I agree on this point. I think industry should probably be modded to consume more minerals than it currently does. Right now, minerals aren't usually a limiting factor. With respect to generating income, they'll generate some but only a fraction of that will be accessible in the form of tax revenue. What I might suggest in the meantime is to stick to either a Balanced or Natural zoning policy as frequently as you can while placing appropriate emphasis on the types of DEAs you'd prefer in your dev plans. Use a specialized zoning policy on an as-needed basis when you're hurting for either food or minerals and you don't have any DEA enhancing technologies to help out with the shortage. In this circumstance, specialized can be a life-saver.

[RobNelson]

It depends on tech. I was playing as bugs, had the Industry enhancements in my tree, but no mining techs. Also, I din't have the mineral easing techs (those that make industry require .25 minerals, etc).

That game really hurt (and bug spies can't even figure out what they're doing, let alone your oponents).

For most other situation, I agree fully. :D

[Zodicus]

@RobNelson:

Yeah, I ran into a very similar situation playing the Evon once. In that case though, I didn't have ANY of the bioharvest enhancing techs until almost tech level 15! I didn't take long before my empire growth ground to a halt and my people began to starve (I must have had at least a half-dozen starving planets). Now that was a hard game and the first time food has ever been an issue. That took every trick in the book to get around. I begged, pleaded for tech with rediculous tech exhange bargains. I put FARM in the All Planets dev plan and switched to a Specialized zoning policy. I then built and hurled science spies in a vain effort to steal the tech. I think I ultimately got on my feet but I was soo far behind size wise that I got ground to dust eventually. Still was a fun and challenging game! :D

[RobNelson]

Yeah, those low creativity races sure for the player to be highly creative. :D

I recently had a game where I got a new industry add-on (don't remember which) that made me wish I had a huge stockpile of minerals. I was so glad I had all that food when I got the bio-industry fix. :D

[Ron_Lugge]

Originally posted by Zodicus
I put FARM in the All Planets dev plan and switched to a Specialized zoning policy.

That may not have been the best approach - see the guide. IIRC, specialized would have only exaggerated which regions would be used for mining / farming; instead a balanced approach may have been better.

[RobNelson]

LOL, telling Zodicus to read his own guide. :D

I don't think any re-reads will make it any clearer than all the work to create the guide in the first place. :D

[Ron_Lugge]

Originally posted by RobNelson
LOL, telling Zodicus to read his own guide. :D

Ooops.

Missed that.

But the point still stands! (Albiet, its more of a "but according to your guide...")

[Zodicus]

Posted by RobNelson
LOL, telling Zodicus to read his own guide.
:haha:
Yes, it is ironic.

However, I think it's worth pointing out that my "guide" isn't really so much a guide as it is just raw information (with a bit of advice here and there...).

@Ron_Lugge:
Thanks for the advice and it is well taken. :) Yes, you are very correct to make such a suggestion and I'm quite glad you did! It is great to see that the awareness level has been raised such that people are starting to see how their regional zoning decisions (not dev plans) can be every bit as important a decision under such circumstances! :up: Yes, by choosing a Balanced policy, you guarantee that each developing world would build at least one bioharvest DEA which might be just enough to feed themselves and or minimize the shortfall somewhat. It would also have several fringe benefits such as zoning more unrest deas which is often quite useful for races using representative-type governments. In fact, I think Balanced should serve as the standard zoning policy for such races.

Well, in point of fact, I was using a Natural zoning policy during much of my initial expansion in this particular game. I saw that I'd lacked the bioharvest techs but, not having encountered such a situation before, I was naive and didn't realize just how dire my situation would become until much too late. I was expanding soo fast, that I quickly succumbed to a major food shortage. As such, I was desperate for food. Soo much so that I was willing to resort to a specialized zoning policy AND exacerbate the situation by clearing all dev plans save All Planets in which I put FARM in the primary slot. This accomplished three things:

1) By using a specialized zoning policy, efficiency-based DEAs would achieve top priority over most all other DEAs if a region had even decent efficiency ( greater than 7.0). That's exactly what I wanted. I needed food, NOW!

2)Specialized also brings more zones under the efficiency-based umbrella. Regions with efficiencies as low as 4.0 (actually even lower considering the nudge from my dev plans) would be considered for bioharvest DEAs.

3)By clearing all dev plans off the table save All Planets, I ensured that the DEA priority for FARMING was the only such priority on the table. It suffered no competition. Batten down the hatches!!! Give me food no matter what the lost opportunities!!!

Now, this strategy definitely resulted in some development that was inefficient for the long-term, but it was, under the circumstances, a FAST way to solve the problem.

If I had been wiser and seen the danger coming, I would have done well to follow your advice and use a Balanced zoning policy well before I was in the red! It likely would have saved me much grief.

This decision to go with specialized was also based upon a quick survey of the worlds under my control. I did a quick scan and realized that there were some with some regions well suited to bioharvest.

However, if most of my planets DID NOT have regions suited to bioharvest DEAs, then Balanced would have been the absolutely best approach hands down. Balanced would ensure that food got on the viceroy's agenda at some point no matter what.

As in any good strategy game, your choice depends upon the situation. There are no hard-and-fast rules, only guidelines. The more you understand regional zoning behavior, the better a decision you can make given your current situation (a point I do make in the guide).

Oh shoot, I was planning on updating the Regional Zoning Strategies thread and it looks like this post has stolen some of that material....

Thanks again Ron! Next time, I'll use balanced before I get into troublel!! :)

[AlanC9]

I just realized that infrastructure really is the perfect choice according to the AI's priority of maximizing both future flexibility and current impact. Infrastructure doesn't pre-empt anything. If it only checked to make sure there were DEAs present before building infrastruture.

The late-game mineral excesses seem to be a function of the tech tree, which has a fair number of production-boosting techs and consumption reducers. Cutting the later versions of these techs might help the AIs, which always build too many mines for the late games. A human, of course, can just rip out mines.

Re food: anyone know if Hydro Farms, etc. , are now building on worlds without any Bio DEAs? If they're still not, that's another argument for Balanced.

[RobNelson]

I have personally seen Hydro farms on a world with no bioharvest DEAs in 1.25 on a planet I owned since colonization.

EDIT: Thanks rhyssan for making me be accurate.

[rhyssan]

Originally posted by RobNelson
I have personally seen Hydro farms on a world with no bioharvest DEAs.
in 1.2.5, and on a planet that you owned for all turns that it's been colonized? (just asking to make sure some of the alternative reasons to have them aren't present - not being hostile or accusing you of anything at all... :) )

-rhyssan

[RobNelson]

Yes, and fixed. :D

[edalbert31]

I just started playing MOO 3 last night, and it immediately became clear to me that I needed to understand the macromanagement tools in order to get anything out of the game. I was overjoyed to discover this forum and the many useful articles on regional zoning, dev plans and technology.

I have a question, however, which is, where can I find the actual raw numbers for which combination of terrain, mineral richness and biodiversity result in what efficiency ratings for, say, mines and bioharvest DEAs? Thanks!

[AlanC9]

Start in the Econ 101 thread, I think.

[Beamup]

Specifically, look for the posts by TomHughes. One of them gives all the details on Mines, one is all the details on Bio. Later posts by fans (Da_Blade in particular) contain similar information for other DEAs, as well as a lot of other useful stuff.

It's a lot of posts to wade through, but worth your while.

[edalbert31]

Thanks for the quick response. I've found the relevant posts, at least for mining and bioharvest DEAs. I've included the links below for NOOBs like me, to save them some time.

Mining:
http://www.ataricommunity.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=3620241&highlight=efficiency#post3620241

Bioharvest:
http://www.ataricommunity.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=3698214&highlight=efficiency#post3698214

[Lennier]

Good stuff; must read for beginners.

[Longspur]

A worth while thread.

[silentrogue30]

must keep thread alive:D

[Castellon]

Originally posted by silentrogue30
must keep thread alive:D

You realize it is a sticky thread already right. ;)

[silentrogue30]

oops. my bad

[Stormflux]

Thanks for this guide! It seems to me that the in-game descriptions for the regional zoning policy are either inaccurate or are accurate in such a roundabout way that I can't make the logical connection. Here is what I am seeing from this thread:

Natural ("Industrial Powerhouse")
Resource on 7.0 and up
Heavy industry, then research (in regions below 7.0)
No unrest DEA's

Specialized ("Help, I'm Starving!")
Resource on 4.0 and up
Research, then Industry (in regions below 4.0)
Use to solve resource shortages, then switch away

Balanced ("Tax collector's paradise")
Resource on 7.0 and up
Will force 1 bio and 1 research
Will create all DEA types
Best profits generated in the long term

Is this correct, or am I missing the point?

EDIT: The in-game tool-tip warns you that "specialized" may cause shortages, but in reality, the "specialized" setting is used to correct shortages!

[Zodicus]

@Stormflux


I think you’ve summed up the data I presented correctly. That said, I think I should really rewrite the post. The 4.0 and 7.0 numbers are conservative. Since a value of 3.0 seems to be universal average (IIRC), I think I should, based upon further play experience, restate the numbers as 3.0 / 6.0 instead of 4.0 / 7.0.

I think the number one factor to keep in mind at all times when trying to determine how a planet will be affected by regional zoning is the underlying resource efficiency of the zone.

As such, I think a more abstract view would be as follows:

NATURAL

The galactic “average.” Zones without exceptional resource efficiency (>6.0) will likely (resource shortages notwithstanding) be zoned for non-resource DEAs. Now, whether that is an industry, research, government, military, or whathaveyou is much harder to determine. In my experience, the more mineral poor the planet, the more likely the zone will go to a research DEA. If the planet has at least a few zones with above average mineral efficiency, then it is likely that an industry DEA will populate the “average” or below average zones. This is just a rough observation as this area would require much more controlled testing (for which I have no time) to pin down.


SPECIALIZED

The resource-oriented zoning policy. Any zone with greater than average efficiency (> 3.0) will likely be zoned with a resource DEA.

BALANCED

Same behavior as natural but with the exception being that at least one of the four basic DEA types (research, industry, bio, mine) will be present regardless.

I think about everything else I stated is likely still current (though most of my analysis, play experience and work was pre-v 1.25).

In general, zoning policies are blunt instruments though very powerful (think of it as the Fed adjusting the interest rate). It’s a deceptively simply choice but one that usually requires some thought to make as many factors should play into the decision to alter a regional zoning policy (racial preferences, current resource shortages/surpluses, current planetary zoning mix, current and/or upcoming technology).

Also, zoning policies are also best viewed as FOUNDATIONAL behavior. The preferences stated above will be tweaked by your development plans (as most dev plan selections influence DEA choices). As such, if you set the zoning policy on natural but choose “mining” in the primary slot of your dev plan, you may find that zones with efficiencies as low a 4.0 are being zoned for mining (when, normally, the threshold would be ~6.0).


Realize that, if a planet is experiencing unusual circumstances (i.e. resource shortages, unrest) that zoning behavior will be altered to address the crisis. The above circumstances will prevail in the “all else being equal” scenario.

Thanks for the questions and good luck!

Edits: For clarity and spelling

[Stormflux]

Ok, that clears it up a lot. You should use dev plans to plan improvements, but they will also affect dea zoning if they need to, and there are some overriding rules like how the viceroys try to make every planet resource-independent (even against players' wishes), so it's more of a case where everything weighs in to the final viceroy decisions.

I'm also seeing that maybe DEA's aren't as important as I thought... or rather planetary zones aren't as scarce as i thought. You never "run out" of DEA's until they become fully improved, which they almost never do, except at the beginning when you need another mining DEA because you dont have the tech yet to improve the mining DEA you already have. For example, I may manually force a large planet to have 20 industry DEA's, and I end up with 20 understaffed, underimproved, underfunded industry DEAs which pump out the same amount of industry that a single staffed, improved DEA would.

[Zodicus]

I think you’ve got the religion.


Stormflux
“You should use dev plans to plan improvements, but they will also affect dea zoning if they need to…”

I think you’re saying the right thing here but I'll just make these points to avoid possible confusion:

regional zoning = which dea should go in this zone

dev plans = improve this capability by any means available .

technology = means available

I think this is the simplest and most powerful way to view, what I consider, the three major influences that affect planetary development. I think my entire tome could be summarized in those above three statements. All of the examples and data were there to prove the point and attempt to overturn the overwhelming bias and focus that existed (and, to a degree, still exists) on development plans. When you combine the above information with the understanding of the viceroy's logic of trying to keep one’s options open via improving existing DEAs rather than building new ones, it sorta all makes sense. When I was doing a lot of testing (over a year ago now, … wow does time fly…), it was clear that, when it comes to figuring out how and why planets develop the way they do, these three factors were inextricably linked. You MUST be thinking about the other two factors when you make a decision regarding the third (<insert recycling symbol here>). That’s why I generally don’t like dev-plan threads. I think they perpetuate a simplistic view of how to influence a planet’s/empire’s development.

[Lennier]

Originally posted by Zodicus
<snip>You MUST be thinking about the other two factors when you make a decision regarding the third (<insert recycling symbol here>). http://ilcswma.org/design_images/red-yellow-blue-recycling.gif
:haha:
Sorry, I couldn't resist.

[Zodicus]

You didn't label the arrows! ;)

[Lennier]

We could start a poll with the following choices:
[list=1] red=regional zoning; yellow=dev plans; blue=technology
red=technology; yellow=regional zoning; blue=dev plans
red=dev plans; yellow=technology; blue=regional zoning
Halle Berry
pie
Mariska Hargitay
[/list=1]:D

[Dark Duke]

Dear Zodicus,

I bow before thee ! You just explained what I personally needed explained.

I put what I understood to have grasped (I am quite new to the game of MOO3) to action and surprisingly the zoning policy, which I never touched before due to the sheer complexity of learning the whole game, solved it all.

My bunch of Trilarians ows you their mastery of the known Galaxy as Balanced Zoning plus player-defined Devplans to stress production, resources and research where desired made my Empire untouchable very quickly and took care of all new colonies (and aquired planets).

My only advise is: Do the micro-Dea placing yourself up to Turn
30-ish to give "Roy" time to have tech at his disposal to upgrade DEAs (this way you can spread out early research instead of running for extraction mining) and he will stop overbuilding useless junk. Once the techs are there later in the game Zoning + Dev show their real Power.

Congratulations on breaking the one riddle bigger than ship design and weapons efficiency !

with thanks,

Dark Duke

[Zodicus]

@Dark Duke:

You're quite welcome and thank you for the feedback. I believe that your approach is very reasonable and takes into account the limitations of macro-management during the early stages of the game.

Most of my testing occured during the 1.0 - 1.2 versions (my thread pre-dates the patch by almost a week) so the information contained reflects some of that. Since 1.25, some regional zoning behavior appears to have been tweaked a bit (Natural, in particular, seems to build far more government DEAs that it did prior to version 1.25) but the general principles still apply.

Prior to the one-and-only code patch, technology used to come much faster. Most of us didn't like it as we felt flooded with research notifications. With the patched version of the game, technology has been slowed significantly (33% I believe, maybe more). After conducting all of the testiing (the intention of which, originially, was to understand regional zoning better, ... I never anticipated writing as ambitious a tome as that which it became), I realized that the decision to slow down tech significantly in v1.25 was a mistake as it impaired the viceroy as well as the effectiveness of development plans. In reality, the more flooded a player is with development options, the more critical development plans become as a means for setting priorities. As such, I believe that technology should be modded to be at least as fast as it was in the 1.0 version of the game given what we understand about viceroy behavior. In lieu of that, however, your approach to micromanaging for the first 30-odd turns (until you have the requisite technologies to priovide the viceroy with some options) is the best approach.

Anyway, just a bit of my thoughts and some background. Overall, it sounds like you were able to take the information in the thread and make it your own (which was the *real* intention of the thread). I hope we see an "empire development" strategy thread from you soon... :) :up:

[Dark Duke]

Oh man, an Empire-Development strategy all by myself ? That will take a while...

However, I can share some observations on my approach of microing planets' DEA placement until some upgrades are available:

Later in the game, when two to four upgrades per DEA are available, microing can be forgotten and the planets still come out well (although I hardly can resist a little tweeking for industry and for gov/recreation for representative governments)

Early game, I get the best results from manually placing DEAs until turn 75 or so (not too many planets by then anyways)


I noticed one general piece of advise useful for all though:
(Step one to my Empire Guide - a working theory)

Microing DEA placement can be stopped earlier for Balanced Zoning, then Natural, then Specialised for obvious reasons.

I will test on this idea, trying to foind what techs make micro obsolete....

Results (much ) later !

[DavidByron]

I have not been able to reproduce Zodicus' findings for Specialized regional zoning without any Dev plans.

I have not been able to observe any relationship between efficiency levels and the creation of different types of DEAs in the early game. I altered the GovernModifiers txt file and the DEAtables txt file to change the efficiency of Mine and Bio DEAs and expected to see a change in the type of DEAs created, but it pretty much worked out the same.

Even without changing any files I could get 7 out of 10 DES on a size 5 planet to be Mines when the best efficiency they had was only 2.5 (poor minerals planet). The planet was even worse for Bio. If I am reading him right Zodicus' predicts that under those circumstances I should expect a lot more Ind and Research DEAs.

It looks like the amount of available spare Bio and Minerals in the rest of the empire (which in my test consisted on just the homeworld) effects what DEAs are built, even when there is no shortage of those materials (ie a difference between just scrapping by and having tons of it spare). Previously I'd assumed each planet figured out what to build without any knowledge of the rest of the empire -- as long as it got enough food and minerals for its needs.

Even with quite a lot of spare materials the best I could get was 50% of the DEAs created as Ind or Research.

Results seem a little all over the place but at the same time repeatable / deterministic as if there was no random element.

[DavidByron]

Well this is interesting.... it might not have been the amount of spare materials but the amount of spare cash that was effecting my DEA creation.

Using specialized regional zoning and no Dev plans it looks like you can effect the proportion of Research DEAs by simply giving more or less cash to the developing planet to spend on research. With no spending on research (federal research grant at zero and research slider on the planet at zero) you receive no Research DEAs. It seemed to build Bio or Mining instead - despite the planet being lousy for both and the empire having stacks of both materials. If I funded Research by some colossal amount I got 7 out of 10 DEAs as Research with the others being 2 Ind and one mine. I could get 6 / 10 with the only difference being the federal grant for research.

[DavidByron]

Comparable results with Natural and Balanced. With Natural and Specialized there appears to be two stages of development. In the first stage Industry is built but not Research DEAs. In the second stage Research can be built but not Industry. For Natural regional zoning the first stage takes up 5 DEAs on the size ten planet I was testing. Perhaps this is 50%? For Specialized it took up 3 DEAs each time. No amount of financial manipulation could get the Viceroy to place a Research DEA within this first stage. Similarly Balanced appeared to have a first stage of 4-5 DEAs where no research DEA could be built.

Within the second stage I could vary the amount of Research DEAs built from 0% to 100% by altering the funding for research from zero to ungodly amount. This worked for Natural (0-5 Research DEAs) and Specialized (0-7 Research DEAs) but for Balanced the variation was much smaller. Even though I couldn't produce any Industry within the last 6 DEAs the variation in Research DEA was only 2 from minimum to maximum funding. I got a minimum of 2 Research DEAs even with zero funding and I got a maximum of 4 even with large amounts. The other two DEAs seemed reserved for Bio.

If a slot that could contain a Research DEA with enough funding didn't have the funding it would be a Mine or a Bio. I only received a Gov DEA with Natural and then only if the system didn't contain a regional HQ already. Presumably Gov and the other specialized DEAs are triggered under special cicumstances only.

Since AI planets often contain > 50% Ind DEAs in the late game there's obviously more going on. In particular there were no DEA upgrade techs to muddy the waters during this test. The colony went ahead and filled all the DEAs pretty much within 12 turns. Despite creating a huge surplus of Bio and Min output on the homeworld (by hacking the files again - I had about 10-100x the demand) the viceroy still created Mines along with Ind within stage one. In fact it alternated Ind / Min / Ind / Min.

[DavidByron]

Continuing with the early game / no DEA upgrades / hacked to have huge surplus of Bio+Min test......

The amount of research financing required to get a Research DEA in the second stage of development seems stable - or to be more precise it's the number of research points which is stable (it can cost slightly different amounts to create the same number of research points according to which planets it's spent on). What I mean by stable is that a save / re-load will predictably create a Research DEA or not according to slight changes to the amount of research points created. The numbers themselves appear pretty random though. For example using Specialized with my size 5 planet I got:

4th DEA (or 1st DEA in stage 2): 123 research points
5th DEA 48 research points
6th DEA 82 research points
7th DEA 222 research points
8th DEA 245 research points
9th DEA 107(*) research points
10th DEA 329 research points

Pretty much above those numbers I'd always get a Research DEA and below them I'd tend to get a Mine. With the 6th DEA I got a Bio instead of a mine. With the 5th if I had between 43 and 47 research points I'd get a Bio, 42 or less a Mine. The 9th DEA had two 'stretches' where a Research DEA would be created. The number above is for the lowest amount of RPs needed, but the second 'stretch' started at 383 RPs. From about 250 to 382 RPs created a Bio DEA, below 107 created a Mine.

All pretty messy but I can't think what's really going on. The amount or Research Points needed did NOT relate to completion of any tech levels. At the moment all I can say for sure is that the chances of creating a Research DEA is somehow related to the amount of research you are already doing.

[DavidByron]

I'm guessing that the numbers I'm seeing are essentially random within limits calculated to represent a low research use and a high research use, generated ahead of time as many of the random results are (eg you often get the same leader if you save and reload). I can't see any patern to the way the numbers change.

One thing came up; applying a Dev Plan of "all" and primary = research gave the same number (ie required the same number of research points to guarantee a Research DEA would be created next) as primary = research for the other two Dev Plans the planet was under. This suggests "All" is no different to the other plans.

Presumably the number of research points needed to produce the same effect increases as the empire expands. eg. if it is in proportion to the number of test tubes you have it might work out as something like "If you are not using all your current labs build no new labs, if you are overriding your current labs to 6x capacity always build new labs."

[Zodicus]

Wow, someone's still looking at this thread. I've not played in over a year so my knowledge is fading but I've gotten a few emails indicating that there's been some activity here.

Posted by DavidByron
I have not been able to observe any relationship between efficiency levels and the creation of different types of DEAs in the early game. I altered the GovernModifiers txt file and the DEAtables txt file to change the efficiency of Mine and Bio DEAs and expected to see a change in the type of DEAs created, but it pretty much worked out the same.

David, it is important to bear in mind that all of my testing was done on version 1.0 of the game. That said, there are a lot of problems with the above statement. The testing I did was simple (the best kind) and straightforward and in no way was I attempting to hack the game, alter spending ratios, or throw dev plans into the mix when I was testing regional zoning settings. What I observed were overwhelming and clear differences (which I presented in my thread) that were clearly linked to the underlying mneral/bio efficiency of the planet. Take a size anything world and if it has a minearl eff of > 7.0 using a regional zoning setting of "specialized" and you'll see mines popping up well before industry. I've seen this soo many times and under very controlled testing. Is that all there is to it? Of course not nor do I pretend to know the all of the factors. These are general trends and serve as good general guidance (a point which I close with).

...altered the GovernModifiers txt file and the DEAtables txt file to change the efficiency of Mine and Bio DEAs and expected to see a change in the type of DEAs created,

David, I'm totally confused by this statement and I think you've missed the point. The efficiency I'm talking about is the TERRAIN-based bio/mineral efficiency not DEA efficiency. DEA efficiency has nothing to do with what I was speaking of when it came to how regional zoning settings influenced DEA construction.

I've not read and absorbed the rest of your findings but I've skimmed them and I'm facinated to learn more about how research funding can affect DEA output. That said, if you're looking to test/challenge/expand on what we know about regional zoning, you've got to provide planet-specific details (i.e. knowing that it was a size 5 planet and it happened to build an industry DEA is totally inadequate).

[DavidByron]

I'm deliberately throwing out these notes before there's much definate to say in the hope of generating some interest - since I didn't know who was around.

I don't think 1.0 -> 1.2.5 altered the Dev Plan stuff did it? I don't recall that being part of the listed changes but I never used Dev Plans at the time since it's a macro tool. At any rate the upgrade mostly tweeaked stuff so even if some details changed I doubt the entire system was re-written. One thing though; they didn't start to list the "base efficiency" for bio and mining on each region in 1.0 so whereas I could just read offf the scores did you calculate the scores using the economics 101 formulae?

Hacking the files has proved invaluable to previous work I've done on testing formulae. It makes it easy to test edge conditions for example, although in this case the edge conditions seem completely out of whack.

For very large efficiencies I would often come across the "bug" where the viceroy simple doesn't bother to build any more DEAs.

I noticed that for large values of efficiency making efficiency larger again tended to REDUCE the number of DEAs of that type that were created. It was alsmost as if the viceroy said, "Good grief - 200 food from one DEA - guess I don't need any more of them". This was especially noticeable with Mining. One Mining DEA producing ungodly amounts of minerals would mean the rest of the planet was built as Industry - every single DEA - incidentally blowing away my first stage / second stage hypothesis.

Most of the patterns that I see with DEA development seem to hold only within certain parameters - which is why I didn't want to try to reproduce EXACTLY what you did. Nevertheless I did satisfy the parameters you mention specifically - namely,

Take a size anything world and if it has a minearl eff of > 7.0 using a regional zoning setting of "specialized" and you'll see mines popping up well before industry

Subject to understanding what you meant by "efficiency" which in 1.0 was not well defined since there were many efficiencies that combined. I think the displayed efficiency is the base efficiency (from terrain and richness / fertility) multiplied by efficiency effects from 5-6 other things (government, unrest, racial pics, DEA% from population, infrastructure bonus and one or two I've forgotten). This is multiplied by the capacity to get the total output. Do you mean base efficiency here? I raised my BASE efficiencies to 50-100.

The efficiency I'm talking about is the TERRAIN-based bio/mineral efficiency not DEA efficiency

DEATables.txt is the file that says how much difference plains vs valley or mountains makes and the one that says how much poor vs average vs rich makes. I hacked those numbers after hacking the government figures failed to reproduce the test results. I could get the viceroy to build mines on plains or valleys first (if it had a better efficiency) but couldn't repro the results.

you've got to provide planet-specific details

Mostly working with a size 5, poor, yellow planet in the same system as the homeworld around turn 25.

Btw did you ever get a handle on what the various numbers in AIPLanets.txt were all about? I wasn't following the Dev Plan (or military) threads as carefully as the economics side of things. It's the file with all the planetary development parameters in it. Repeated here:

kPlayerDEARequestPriorityIncrease PlayDEAI 500
kPlayerDEARequestPriorityDecrease PlayDEAD 2000
kDEAReducePriorityNumBuilding DEARedNB 20
kDEAReducePriorityAnyDEABuilding DEARedAB 50
kPlanetNeedFoodFactor NeedFood 3
kPlanetNeedMineralFactor NeedMin 3
kLushRegionFarmPriority LushReg 100
kRichRegionMinePriority RichReg 150
kNewColonyFactoryPriority FrstFact 1000
kImproveFactoryCapacityFactor FactCap 5
kImproveFactoryEfficiencyFactor FactEff 5
kAddManufacturingDEAFactor ManDEA 4
kFactoryConsumptionPriority FactCons 100
kFactoryBioConsumptionPriority BioCons 100
kPollutionCleanupFactor PolClean 10
kExtraGovDEAPriority GovDEA 7
kUnrestGovFactor UnrGov 1
kUnrestGovDEAFactor UnrGovD 0.6
kUnrestRecFactor UnrRec 2
kUnrestRecDEAFactor UnrRecD 1
kUnrestMilFactor UnrMil 1.25
kUnrestMilDEAFactor UnrMilD 0.75
kIncreaseMilUnivaluePriority MilUni 20
kFirstSystemMilitaryDEAPriority SysMlDEA 40
kSecondSystemMilitaryDEAPriority SysMilD2 20
kIncreasePopCapFactor PopCap 70
kIncreasePopGrowthFactor PopGrow 100
kSpecializeDEAPriority DEASpec 20
kIncreaseFarmableRingFactor FarmRing 100
kImproveGravityPenalty GravPen 100
kImproveResearchFactor ImpRes 20
kTestTubesPerPopPriority TTPPop 100
kAddResearchDEAFactor ResDEA 100
kAddSpaceportPriority SPort 40
kBalanceZonePriority BalZone 50
kSpecializeZonePriority SpecZone 50
kMinExtraFoodAmount XtraFood 5
kMinExtraMineralAmount XtraMin 5
kExtraFoodScrapPercent ScrpFPct 200
kExtraMineralsScrapPercent ScrpMPct 150
kExtraFoodScrapAmount ScrpFAmt 75
kExtraMineralsScrapAmount ScrpMAmt 75
kExtraFoodKeepPercent KeepFPct 30
kExtraMineralsKeepPercent KeepMPct 50
kGiftToEmpireFactor Gift2Emp 10

Figuring out this file is what it's all about I suppose. For example "kNewColonyFactoryPriority" is what makes the first DEA always be an Ind (almost always - I've seen it go to a Mining DEA first).

Guess I really need to be hacking this file.

[DavidByron]

I think the discepency between your observations and mine might be because of the two variabnles,

kLushRegionFarmPriority 100
kRichRegionMinePriority 150

Where the numbers are comparable to the +30 for a primary Dev Plan, so they are quite strong. It seems that there's a built in bonus for Farms on "Lush" planets. I'm not sure if it's on a planet or region basis but I think it might be for any region in a planet of SweetSpot or better despite the name. That's a guess. I think for the mining one it might be a bonus on Very Rich planets.

At any rate it's not dependent on the efficiency, even base efficiency, of the region which is why I could hike base efficiency for non-rich planets without seeing the bonus. Without a change the base efficiency for mining of regions on a very rich planet are 5, 8 and 12. For a SweetSpot planet the bio efficiency varies a lot but the bonus seems to apply even to the worst fertility regions which would only have an efficiency of about 1.

Reducing the above number to 1 seems to eliminate the effect ofvery rich planets building a lot of mines.

kAddResearchDEAFactor 100

This parameter seems to be a multiplier along with the gauge of how much you are spending on research (in terms of research points produced per {unknown factor representing how big the empire is - possibly test tubes total}). If you reduce it you get less Research DEAs.

What goes wrong is when I try increasing these numbers a lot. Possibly the system can't cope with numbers that are too big. For example making the mineral bonus for very rich planets 15000 instead of 150 created farms instead of mines !?

[redrick]

Originally posted by Zodicus
Planets Are Unique

The AIPlanet.txt file reveals this clearly. Viceroy’s realize that, even though his planet is part of an federation, at some point he will have to make sure that the planetary economy can function on its own. That grant money may not be there forever. Military and Research grants come and go at the whim of the emperor. If there is unrest, the viceroy won’t call for help, he will try to build a recreation DEA or something similar.[/i]

BTW huge thanks all over again to Zodicus for this thread.

It has helped much but this newbie is still struggling mightily with Regional Zoning. They all seem to work against me unless I completely misunderstand something. Despite what Zodicus says above, the empire does completely share food and mining, is this not so? None of the zoning choices seem to acknowledge this. All three are only about what the planet needs and what the planet can best produce, none seem to be aware of what the empire provides and needs.

And dev plans don't help much. Zodicus points out they are not the tool for determining which DEAs get built. Neither do they determine what doesn't get built.

How do experianced macromanagers handle this? By turn 150 you have huge surpluses of food and mining. What's the best strategy to get the VRs to stop or at least slow down the building of Bioharvest and Mining DEAs.

I get the feeling there must be some benefit to planetary self-sufficiency that I am not aware of. Please enlighten me! I love it but don't understand it!

(Sounds like a child or parent. Taking up more time than both right now.)

[Zodicus]

To Dave:

Dave, sorry for not replying earlier. I was going through some tough schedules at work. I don't want to address every point you've made except to say that my observations are definitely general trends. I also think that the points you are making regarding the overall efficiency (i.e. terrain-base + DEA) affecting the number of DEAs is critical and will affect the number of DEAs (I mention this in the Technology portion of my original thread iirc, to lazy to look at it now...). I agree that my test results, if interpreted too literally (i.e. a base eff of 7+ for mining will always result in a mine DEA under specialized) will get one into trouble as that will not always hold true. I think the general principles are what are most important (i.e. that, under specialized regional zoning, you'll see a greater exploitation of regions for mineral/food DEAs). The exciting work done to MOO3 such as the savegame editor, the new autoturn features and so on present us with new tools to dig deeper and come closer to more precise answers. These are exciting opportunities. However, it will still take lots of work and I believe that tweaking with the AIPlanets.txt file (as you've suggested) will definitely have to be a part of that work. I definitely encourage you to do more in this area (if you're still playing) and help us refine our understanding in this area.

To redrick:

You're welcome. However, I don't recall stating that food and mineral surpluses aren't shared (they are) just that they aren't necessarily considered by the vic when deciding if her/his planet should build a new min/bio DEA.

In addition, I want to steer clear of absolutes (i.e. DEV plans are worthless or have no effect). It is vital to realize that both regional zoning choices and Dev plans will have an impact on your planet's DEA development. However, the important point to realize is that regional zoning is a DEA-only setting and wields enormous influence in that regard. Dev plans are aimed at improving the capability of a certain area and enhance all means for improving that (which includes throwing a little extra weight towards DEAs targeting that area). As such, BOTH will combine to influence your DEA development. However, Dev plans are (to my understanding) the only means to influence DEA-IMPROVEMENT development (i.e. Deep Extraction Mining improvements).

WRT the benefits of planetary self sufficiency, the benefits are legion. I think it is important to realize that the vast majority of planets (in a mature empire) are largely self-funded. The empire gives out grants in the areas of military spending, research and for general purpose but, IIRC, those don't find their way to all planets. As such, a planet must build a functional economy and, particularly early in the game, mineral and food surpluses are great sources of income. In addition, having at least some mineral and food on a plant makes it more resistant to blockades (wherein imports of food and minerals would be halted resulting in an impact to pop growth and industry).

Of course, my caveat emptor is that I've not played the game in almost 2 years so, mine could be the ramblings of someone who is hopelessly out of date. ;-)

[JosEPh]

Load it up add some of Bh and Gerra's best patches and play awhile.:D

JosEPh

[Tarhalindur]

I think that this is within the prune limit as it was, but I'm going to make sure it stays that way. :)

[dbouya]

i dont have an aiplanet.txt file on my computer yet i have moo3 properly installed and it plays perfectly fine.... so i can't look at this file... how are my viceroys getting their info without it? why dont i have it?

also if i did get a copy of said file... i'd like to be able to make the viceroy stop caring so much about meeting his planets needs... like if my empire has 10k/5k mineral and food i'd like to set those things to just stop being built except i guess maybe in EFF 9+ regions.... I'd also like my dev plan's to have a bigger impact i was thinking maybe if i set the numbers in aiplanets really low a +30 terraforming from dev plan might make him terraform being developing?

its really weird i dont have the file and i saw some/all of it posted in this thread could i just create it myself and copy and paste from here? it seems weird to me i dont have the file at all

[Lennier]

The aiplanet.txt file is inside the spreadsheets.mob file. The spreadsheets.mob file has a bunch of data for the game that has been zipped into one file (there are a number of other .mob files that have various different classes of information.) If you want to fool around with the data sheets, unzip the spreadsheets.mob file and edit the data you want too. Keep whatever edited .txt files in a folder named spreadsheets at the same level as the .mob file.

[UnregisteredToo]

Wow, Zodicus, I AM impressed! That's a lot of thought-provoking information and gives my (newby) game play a whole new dimension! Thanks so much for your contribution.

[Arkanin]

You know what the problem with this game is? The advanced degree that I'm working on, I will actually get paid money for. I've been playing this for months and I still don't completely understand all the mathematics behind the damn thing. Also, I am sometimes forced to wonder whether the developers of this game understand the difference between 'strategic depth' and 'complexity'. This game definitely has complexity in spades, but I disagree with you when you say that the development plans offer what I would call a great deal of 'strategic depth'. They don't really offer much more strategic depth than a simple empire-wide slider for various priorities ever could; what they do that such could not do, rather, is try to undercut the general stupidity and regressiveness of some of the AI's world-building decisions. This is not a question of focus or strategy but of finding ways to deal with an enormous logistics nightmare without getting your hands dirty and hand-managing it.

And here's my observations with the viceroys: first, a viceroy isn't that bright, because it doesn't have the capacity to delete its old DEAs when they are no longer needed and replace them with something more sensible for its current needs. The result is very much like a bonsai tree; if you don't trim it, it will be horribly malformed. Second, it's not that he's that stupid; it's like he's the guy at work who doesn't give a crap about the company and cares a lot about his department. Also, viceroys are essentially designed to patronize you in spite of their rather poor behavior. How do I mean? Their behavior is not horribly unreasonable, but it is still rather worthless, because their 'reasonable behavior' is rooted in the assumption that you're inept and that the long-term self-sustainability of their planet is what matters, rather than production optimized to most greatly benefit the entire empire. In other words, they are like Jim in accounting who thinks the owner of the company makes decisions by drawing numbers out of a hat. I say they assume you're inept because they act like the guy who only cares about their department, who expects that one day you may arbitrarily axe them -- they don't think you'll take care of them or that you'll behave rationally when they shouldn't make that assumption (A 'self-sufficiency' and 'Assume the emperor is inept-ometer' slider and some other sliders would have been better than the development tools we have if they caused the viceroy to still act intelligently. E.G., an ability to tell the game to go for 'system-wide' or 'region-wide' self-sufficinecy, rather than planet-wide, would have been better than this stuff).

Specialized build policies help with this, but the viceroy just doesn't adjust to change sufficiently, behaves too selfishly, and does other stupid things from time to time. Hence, we have this amazingly convoluted tool called "development plans" whose real purpose is actually to essentially attempt to coerce the viceroys' behaviors to be less selfish and more in-line with a "big picture" plan. Because you're trying to trick the viceroy AI into doing things it normally wouldn't do, the consequences of such development plans can be extremely unexpected.

These are my observations after months of play. I am also doubtful that Quicksilver had any idea what the purpose of the 'development plans' would actually be, which is not so much to promote a general direction for your empire to go -- which, it is -- but more importantly, to circumvent the general selfishness and foolishness of the viceroys, who do behave rationally in a certain way that does not really help you, and just generally increase the efficiency of your beauracratic, messy empire.

[Arkanin]

Also, the kind of intelligence needed to see the forest for the trees here -- to understand that development plans' utility isn't so much due to their ability to give your empire focus, but to manipulate some viceroys in ways that can try to increase efficiency while adding some direction, to understand why the viceroy behaves the way it does, to see why that behavior has an ant-logic to it with little real intelligence, to see why its default behaviors generally lead to the emergent result of a crappy empire -- frankly, there is just better stuff to do with the kind of ingenuity necessary to pick apart this game.

Nevertheless, it's a great guide for a not-so-great game. I am primarily trying to explain why the game's system is somewhat borked because without understanding why it's screwed up, it's harder to abuse it to get it to do what you want.

[MisterPlow]

These are my observations after months of play.

I couldn'a said it better. Of course, I gave up on macroing my first week of the game. If you have the patience for it, MoO3 can be a lot of fun if you don't mind spending half an hour tweaking your planets every 20 turns or so.

[Arkanin]

I couldn'a said it better. Of course, I gave up on macroing my first week of the game. If you have the patience for it, MoO3 can be a lot of fun if you don't mind spending half an hour tweaking your planets every 20 turns or so.
Thanks, and ignoring some of these macro tools is probably the best way to go, as it really just makes the game more challenging that way -- using them right just increases your efficiency more than anything else -- which is not a bad thing even on impossible. :)

I think also that after my time playing, which is a long time, I can safely say I still don't understand all the math Moo3 does, but at any rate I can safely say it's complicated enough that if you want to really get into the intricacies of a system like this and aren't simply planning to get something more cost effective, like a BS in economics, go buy GalCiv 2. It lacks the same depth but all the results are essentially the same -- you build ships, research, et cetera -- but less complexity means more control. There's a few good things about Moo3 but managing the economy, not so much, it's very convoluted.

[JosEPh]

After 3 years of playing I can't really say that I Macro or really understand the Macro concept. I do Micro. Not every turn requires it. But every few turns does need something adjusted.

My Dev plans are generally very basic. I have a set that is more detailed but don't use them till mid to late game.

As for 'Roy, well once he starts working against my intentions I uncheck the Econ AI box. Generally long before that I've unchecked the "Gift to Empire" box as well. Keep your AUs local and avoid the bureaucratic inefficiencies.

But in defence of Zodicus, His Zoning Policy discussions are very useful.

My 2 cents.

JosEPh

Edit: Learning when to switch Zoning Policy is key to All of Zodicus' Info. Using one of 3 settings at the appropriate time is much easier than building and switching a 12 step Dev Plan.

Even though most of Zodicus' testing was pre 1.2.5 his info on the 3 Zoning Policies is essential. Every Moo3 Player needs to read this thread. Glad Stormhawk put it in the Encyclopedia.

So whether you Macro or Micro or a hybrid of both; Knowing how Zoning Policy works is here for the user.

[w0lfshad3]

any1 care to explain this advisor choice?

starting planet:

Region Terrain Bio_eff / Mineral_eff

1 plains-alluvial 9.6/2.0
2xbioharvest DEA
2 mountain-fertile 4.8/5.0
3 broken-arable 4.0/3.0
1xresearch DEA
4 plains-arable 4.8/2.0
5 mountain-hardscrabble 2.4/5.0
2xmining DEA
6 broken-subsistence 2.4/3.0
1xmanufacture 1xgovernment(system seat + empire seat)


game starts as constitutional monarchy, balanced
i'm using strawberry mod
i'm in the red with minerals

on first turn it starts with a planned government DEA in region 3???
why does he need another government DEA?
on second turn it plans a research DEA in zone 4???
why doesn't he get focus on mining?

from here it makes sense...
on third turn finally he plans a mining DEA in region 2!
on fourth he adds a manufacture to zone 4...

*IMO he smells a inch of unrest and that would be the reason for the government DEA(dunno why not military or recreation just for diversity's sake)
*the research DEA is a mistery... i'm in the red with minerals, free mountain yet he goes for a research go figure.

[Monkey Head]

personall experince causes me to fill the planetary infrastructure table manually as soon as i have established a colony as IMHO roy does what is best for his planet, instead of the empire as a whole.

so a mineral rich planet has nothing but mines, fertile ones farm, and those with nether become reseach planets or industrial powerhouses. hopefully with a lil macro + a lil micro, this all balances so i have enough food, minerals, and a productive empire.

[w0lfshad3]

yes i do that too but know i was playing around, to be sincere the viceroy can be pretty efective except he can't demolish existing DEAs...

tryign to figure out where can i come in and patch the viceroy

[JosEPh]

You never stated what *Zoning Policy* you were using?

From the looks of what you posted it was probably *Specialized*, or *Balanced*.

Doesn't matter what Government you started with but what Policy you set. 2nd Gov't Dea would increase all other DEA efficiencies as did the 1st one ( but only at 75% of what the 1st one did, diminishing returns).

If Balanced was Zoning policy then you will get a Research Dea built early too.

Have you read this thread? Especially Zodicus' posts?

JosEPh :bulb:

[w0lfshad3]

@joseph: i stated all the relevant info...
Second government only adds 3% compared to my first that adds 10%
that 3% from 2nd gov DEA is not noticeable AT ALL! i watched industry before and after, it actually decreased but (it wasn't a population problem), at best it has no effect at all.

Obviously u didn't read my short post at all... :( and failed to provide any answers as well

[ac_snowman]

w0lfshad3:
As far as the Gov DEA is concerned, you're right that's a wierd choice. You're balanced zoning and a Const. Monarchy, so if unrest were an issue I'd have expected a Recreation DEA. Here's the thing to remember though...no matter how good a job you do with your policies and dev plans, Roy will still make a totally bizarre decision on occasion! It's inevitable.

I always choose a balanced zoning policy and the rest of his choices are pretty much what I'd expect.

Alternatively, if the viceroy had a mission statement, it would be:

Satisfy current planetary needs/requirements in the most efficient manner possible while maximizing the potential for future development.

This is the mission statement of the viceroy. Learn it, and much of the mystery surrounding his behavior will be dispelled.

As stated, the viceroy makes development decisions every turn. He does not bother with blueprints. Needs change, demands change and, consequently, plans must change. The viceroy understands this. In addition, the viceroy is not overly concerned with the needs of your empire.

While your empire may have been in the red for minerals, I'd bet that the planet itself was in the positive.
You really do need to reread the thread and I do not mean that as a jab. I think it was the third time I'd read it before it really clicked and stuck with me. That also included substantial playing time between the 2nd and 3rd readings. Once it clicks the pattern of Roy's behavior in your example will make sense. Except maybe that 2nd Government. :)

[JosEPh]

@joseph: i stated all the relevant info...
Second government only adds 3% compared to my first that adds 10%
that 3% from 2nd gov DEA is not noticeable AT ALL! i watched industry before and after, it actually decreased but (it wasn't a population problem), at best it has no effect at all.

Obviously u didn't read my short post at all... :( and failed to provide any answers as well

Yup, missed the balanced part.

Answered the best I could at that time, especially missing the balanced part. I ain't no Moo God, nor do I have clairvoyance. Sorry I disappointed you. All I can say is get in line after the wife , kids, boss, co-workers, neighbor down the street, mailman, garbage man, town assessor, cable customer, phone man, kid's school teachers,........................somewhere there's a spot you can have to have a whack at me. :bored: Oh wait! You already did! Line jumper! :p

JosEPh

[SMELLJAB]

If you are smart, you know the difference between Natural, balanced, and specialized.

I want to introduce two theorems here.
Using Regional Zoning Strategies is more "gentle" than using the All-planets devplan
When you are faced with a crippling mineral shortage in the early to early-mid game, Switch to Specialized already (dumbass.)