Difference between revisions of "Social Effects Comparative Analysis"
m (→Effects) |
m (→Effects) |
||
| Line 221: | Line 221: | ||
! Effect !! early !! middle !! late !! average | ! Effect !! early !! middle !! late !! average | ||
|- | |- | ||
| − | | Economy || 3. | + | | Economy || 3.68 || 2.70 || 1.16 || 2.51 |
|- | |- | ||
| Efficiency || 1.35 || 2.99 || 3.37 || 2.57 | | Efficiency || 1.35 || 2.99 || 3.37 || 2.57 | ||
Revision as of 17:12, 4 October 2018
Contents |
Social effect weight idea
Social effects were not created equal. They were just created, you know. Obviously, some of them bound to be better than others. That is intuitively perceived by veteran players as well as game designers. Indeed, some social model effect mix can be very unequal. Take a “Free Market” for an example. This is due to difference in perceived weight of contributing social effects. The purpose of this research is to calculate social effect weights to help out social engineering mod designers to compare and balance social models. The main problem with comparing social effects is the subjectivity and lack of rationalization which prevents intellectual discussion and opinion sharing. The big idea under this calculation is to tie resulting social effect weight to basic measurable game variables such as number of bases, average base size, average tile yield, energy allocation, etc. Even though assumptions about these variables are still subjective they can be observed and statistics can be gathered easily. Once that base is established math will speak for itself. Of course, due to the nature of initial assumptions this still won’t give us an exact answer but it will confine our results in the more or less narrow range usable for social models evaluation. Let me reiterate again that greater value of social model doesn't mean it should be used all the time. Game situation varies and so is social model tactical advantage. Yet when we see that one model on average is ten times less valuable comparing to others we can clearly conclude it is badly designed and will be rarely used if at all. That gives us clue which social models are subjects to change for improved variability.
Comparison technique
Social effects conversion
Thanks to complex game design almost any action of effect can be achieved by different means. That allows us to emulate one effect with another by varying some game parameters thus calculating their comparative value on the way. Indeed, if one effect gives you some benefits and another one (with some game parameters fiddling) gives you same then, clearly, they provide the same value. The relative social effect weight can be found then as a proportion between the benefit and the level of social effect increase. Of course, not all effect can be converted to each other that easy but we’ll figure it out on a way. Since effect weights are relative I chose Industry as a base one with constant weight of 1. Other social effects weights will be, therefore, expressed relative to Industry.
Averaging
Some social effects are greatly affected by certain game conditions. It would make sense to estimate social effect value under specific circumstances and then average across them. This would show us average effect weight as well as its variation range. Keep in mind that assumption about averaging dimensions and values are completely subjective. I feel like small variations in these values will not drastically distort final results. In other words, I believe no social effect weight will suddenly jump out of charts just because of slight change in one game variable.
Game stage
One dimension is game progression stage: early, middle, late. Each stage more or less naturally defines other game variables such as number of bases, average base size, average tile yield, average income multipliers, etc. These variables grow smoothly through the game so considering just three points on a history line should be enough for good averaging. Below are stage description and their corresponding assumption about game variables I used in my calculations.
| parameter | early game | middle game | late game |
|---|---|---|---|
| turn range | 1-100 | 100-200 | 200-300 |
| number of bases | 6 | 12 | 24 |
| average distance from HQ | 3 | 5 | 7 |
| average base size | 3 | 5 | 7 |
| average base yield | 8-6-6 | 15-12-18 | 24-24-40 |
| Efficiency rating | 0 | 1 | 2 |
| Energy allocation | 3-0-7 | 3-1-6 | 3-2-5 |
| Energy multiplier | 1.0 | 1.5 | 2.0 |
| Mineral multiplier | 1.0 | 1.0 | 1.5 |
This is just a sample. See complete list in attached worksheet.
War and pacifism
This dimension is about war situation and pacifism drones. Even though war and pacifism do not always happen together they quite often do. These conditions can be on and off by player(s) desire. Some social effects behave differently under these conditions and need to be evaluated in both cases. Most notable social effects falling in this category are: Morale, Police (-3 and below), Planet (fighting other faction psi units), Probe (hostile actions).
Terms and helper variables
<energy> = average base raw energy yield. <economy> = energy reserves. This is to less confuse it with raw energy yield. <labs> = research reserves.
Since we are going to express everything with minerals we would encounter following “energy production to minerals production ratio” coefficient very often in calculations. I’ll use this coefficient to shorten formulas. Essentially it means how many minerals you can produce by directing all energy to reserves without any loss comparing to you actual mineral production.
E/M = (<energy> * <energy multiplier> / 2) / (<minerals> * <minerals multiplier>)
Another helper variable is level of Inefficiency = Max Efficiency – Efficiency. This variable is used to calculate energy loss due to unequal allocation, corruption, and b-drones.
Assumptions
World size is normal. Difficulty is highest. All bases have recycling tank and children creche. Energy reserves are primarily converted to minerals via production rushing. The conversion ratio is 2/1. Other energy reserves usage is rare and don’t impact overall faction power: subverting enemy bases and units, protection for subverting own bases, buying technologies, cornering global economy. Economy, labs, and psych boosting facilities produce about same multiplicative effect at each point in time. I’ll use the term energy multiplier instead of individual economy, labs, psych ones for the sake of simplicity.
Psych allocation
Some effects can be converted to others by mean of modifying energy allocation. Whenever this allocation change needed I will always convert between economy and labs keeping psych amount unchanged. The main reason for it is that both economy and labs proportionally benefit faction power. The more of them you have the better. Whereas psych just quells drones. There is some sweet point of psych amount generated that quells just enough drones effectively. Anything below or above it is a waste.
Unequal allocation penalty
I assume most of the game you allocate more to labs than to economy. With this in mind any conversion from labs and economy has additional beneficial effect in dropping unequal allocation penalty. This effect is roughly about 3% of total energy loss per each 20% of labs-economy allocation difference per level of Inefficiency.
Effect value calculations
Industry
I’ll list a formula for Industry effect on production even though we take Industry effect as a base with constant value of 1. We’ll reference this formula below for other effect conversion purposes.
<minerals increase> = <minerals> * <minerals multiplier> * 0.1 (Industry effect) Industry = 1
Research
Labs excess received as a bonus of Research effect increase can be converted to extra production by directing it to economy for production rush. We also need to account for labs allocation change.
<labs excess> = <energy> * <labs allocation> * <labs multiplier> * 0.1 <energy increase due to labs excess conversion> = <labs excess> / <labs multiplier> <energy increase due to drop in labs allocation> = <energy> * 0.3 * Inefficiency * [<labs allocation> + <economy allocation>] * 0.1 * <labs allocation> <energy increase combined> = <energy increase due to labs excess conversion> + <energy increase due to drop in labs allocation> <reserves increase> = <energy increase> * <economy multiplier> <minerals increase> = <reserves increase> / 2 <minerals increase> = [<energy> * <labs allocation> * <labs multiplier> * 0.1 / <labs multiplier> + <energy> * 0.3 * Inefficiency * [<labs allocation> + <economy allocation>] * 0.1 * <labs allocation>] * <economy multiplier> / 2 = <energy> * <labs allocation> * <economy multiplier> / 2 * [0.1 + 0.3 * Inefficiency * [<labs allocation> + <economy allocation>] * 0.1] = 0.1 / 2 * <energy> * <labs allocation> * <economy multiplier> * [1 + 0.3 * Inefficiency * [<labs allocation> + <economy allocation>]] Research = E/M * <labs allocation> * [1 + 0.3 * Inefficiency * [<labs allocation> + <economy allocation>]]
Energy
This is a new effect introduced for the ease of further calculations and conversions. One step on Energy effect scale changes raw energy yield by 10%. It works similar to other proportional effects like Industry, Research, Growth. It doesn't exist in a game as described but is convenient to use in further calculations since many other effects can be expressed through it. Let’s compare it with Industry and Research effects. We will keep psych intact and distribute extra energy to economy and labs proportionally to their current allocations. Total Energy weight will be a combination of economy and labs effects.
<economy increase> = <energy> * 0.1 * <economy allocation> / [<economy allocation> + <labs allocation>] * <economy multiplier> <minerals increase> = <economy increase> / 2 = <energy> * 0.1 * <economy allocation> / [<economy allocation> + <labs allocation>] * <economy multiplier> / 2 Energy (economy) = (<energy> * 0.1 * <economy allocation> / [<economy allocation> + <labs allocation>] * <economy multiplier> / 2) / (<minerals> * 0.1 * <minerals multiplier>) = E/M * <economy allocation> / [<economy allocation> + <labs allocation>] <labs increase> = <energy> * 0.1 * <labs allocation> / [<economy allocation> + <labs allocation>] * <labs multiplier> Energy (labs) = (<energy> * 0.1 * <labs allocation> / [<economy allocation> + <labs allocation>] * <labs multiplier>) / (<energy> * <labs allocation> * <labs multiplier> * 0.1) * Research = E/M * <labs allocation> * [1 + 0.3 * Inefficiency * [<labs allocation> + <economy allocation>]] / [<economy allocation> + <labs allocation>] Energy = E/M / [<economy allocation> + <labs allocation>] * [<economy allocation> + <labs allocation> * [1 + 0.3 * Inefficiency * [<labs allocation> + <economy allocation>]]] = E/M * [1 + 0.3 * Inefficiency * <labs allocation>]
Growth
First of all I like to exclude population boom from Growth effect evaluation. Population boom is insanely powerful feature that completely breaks game and blows situational Growth effect value out of proportions. That’s why all social engineering mods designers try to make it harder to trigger by delaying positive Growth effect applications from social models. Population boom definitely adds to Growth effect value. I just don’t want to calculate it and leave its evaluation for subjective experts. In this article “Growth effect” means “Growth effect without population boom”. Growth doesn’t contribute to your faction power immediately. Instead it speeds up population growth therefore increasing your future faction development potential. The analysis of exact impact is a little bit speculative but here is it. First, I emulated city population growth on a period from turn 1 to turn 200. I assumed city tile produces 3 nutrients with recycling tank and worker tile production increases from 2 to 3 nutrients during this period. Variation in above numbers don’t seem to change anything much anyway. Then I varied growth rate between -3 and +5 and evaluated how number of worked squares (population + 1 city tile) changes. Results look pretty consistent and showed about 7% worked squares increase per each level of growth rate on average. This may seem strange at first as one would expect exact 10% population increase with all equals but this how numbers added up. Maybe it is the nature of rounding when fractional changes do not manifest themselves in small amount. I don’t care much. Feel free to share your own emulation and results. Second, we need to account for empire size growth. With 7% more extra workers you can build proportionally more extra settlers and bases. So, you’ll probably end up with 7% more bases at any given time. Total population is the product of base count and average base size. With each one increased by 7% the product increases by 14%. I take that as the combined impact of Growth effect on total population. Bigger population gives you proportionally bigger minerals and energy yield. So we can express Growth effect weight with Industry and Energy as below. Keep in mind that the Growth impact is stronger when it is applied earlier so it impacts longer future timeline. At the very end of the game it worth nothing barring population boom. That’s why formula below contain game left play time portion.
Growth = 1.4 * <left play time portion> * [Industry + Energy]
Economy
Economy effect is drastically not linear. We can try to estimate each type of Economy change on its own and then assign combination values to each step on Economy scale. Such Economy effect change types are: 1) energy per base, 2) energy per square, 3) commerce rating.
Economy (energy per base) = 1 / (0.1 * <energy>) * Energy
Economy (energy per square) = <.base worked tiles> / (0.1 * <energy>) * Energy
Commerce rating gives you +1 per each faction you are not at war with and per each base participating in trade.
Economy (commerce rating) = <trading factions> / (0.1 * <energy>) * Energy
Economy scale level change coefficients
| from | to | energy per base | energy per square | commerce rating |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| -3 | -2 | 1 | ||
| -2 | -1 | 1 | ||
| -1 | 0 | |||
| 0 | +1 | 1 | ||
| +1 | +2 | 1 | ||
| +2 | +3 | 1 | 1 | |
| +3 | +4 | 2 | 1 | |
| +4 | +5 | 1 |
The exact Economy effect weight is calculated in the attached spreadsheet for each level change.
Efficiency
Efficiency effect is threefold. It decreases inefficiency, decreases number of b-drones, and decreases penalty for uneven economy/labs allocation. Let's consider them one by one.
Inefficiency change
Inefficiency is the amount of energy lost at base due to low Efficiency level. We need to calculate how this loss is changed with Efficiency level change. Inefficiency formulas will account for children creche (+1 Efficiency)
<inefficiency> = <energy> * <distance> / [64 – 8 * [4 – [EL + 1]]]] <inefficiency change> = <energy> * <distance> / (8 * [5 + EL] * [6 + EL]) Efficiency (inefficiency) = <energy> * <distance> / (8 * [5 + EL] * [6 + EL]) / (0.1 * <energy>) * Energy = <distance> / (8 * [5 + EL] * [6 + EL]) / 0.1 * Energy
Where EL is the lower Efficiency scale level you switch from or to when changing Efficiency level.
b-drones changes
We'll calculate b-drones impact by comparing it to the amount of psych required to quell produced drones. Number of b-drones per base on normal size map and on highest difficulty.
<.b-drones per base> = <.base count> / (1.5 * [4 + EL]) – 1
If the above value is negative then there are no drones.
<.b-drones per base change> = <.base count> / 1.5 / ([4 + EL] * [5 + EL]) <psych required> = <.b-drones per base> * 2 <energy required> = <psych required> / <psych multiplier> <energy required> = <.base count> / 1.5 / ([4 + EL] * [5 + EL]) * 2 / <psych multiplier> Efficiency (b-drones) = <.base count> / 1.5 / ([4 + EL] * [5 + EL]) * 2 / <psych multiplier> / (0.1 * <energy>) * Energy
Where EL is the lower Efficiency scale level you switch from or to when changing Efficiency level.
Allocation penalty change
Finally, the penalty for unequal economy/labs allocation.
<energy penalty> = 0.03 * [4 – Efficiency] * [<labs allocation> + <economy allocation>] * [<labs allocation> - <economy allocation>] / 0.2 <energy penalty difference> = 0.15 * [<labs allocation> + <economy allocation>] * [<labs allocation> - <economy allocation>] Efficiency (allocation penalty) = 0.15 * [<labs allocation> + <economy allocation>] * [<labs allocation> - <economy allocation>] / (0.1 * <energy>) * Energy
Support
Support translates to absolute minerals bonus/loss. Excluding extreme values change on a Support scale from -3 to +2 frees 4 minerals. That is approximately 4/5 minerals per level. Free minerals for new base is a small one time bonus and doesn’t contribute much to the effect value over the course of a game.
<freed minerals> = 4/5 Support = 4/5 / (0.1 * <minerals> * <minerals multiplier>) * Industry
Police
Police drone inducing or quelling effect can be expressed through Energy same way as for b-drones. Police effect is twofold, though. The quelling part from level -2 to +3 works always. Whereas pacifism inducing part from level -5 to -2 manifest itself only when military units are outside of borders. That’s why I split this effect in two and evaluate them separately: Police negative and Police positive.
Police positive
Excluding extreme +3 value police rating changes from 0 to 3 on a -2 to +2 interval. That is 3/4 police rating per level. This value is doubled if using police units with double police power. At the same time supporting additional police unit requires one more mineral assuming free support pool is already used up.
<drones quelled per level> = 3/4 * <unit police multiplier> <psych saved> = <drones quelled per level> * 2 <energy saved> = <psych saved> / <psych multiplier> <energy saved> = 3/4 * <unit police multiplier> * 2 / <psych multiplier> Police positive (energy saved) = 3/4 * <unit police multiplier> * 2 / <psych multiplier> / (0.1 * <energy>) * Energy Police positive (minerals used) = -1 / (0.1 * <minerals> * <minerals multiplier>) * Industry Police positive = Police positive (energy saved) + Police positive (minerals used)
Police negative
Police negative effect works only when there are military units outside of the borders. Otherwise, its weight is zero. According to our averaging rule, we need to average these two value to get global average for this effect. Calculated value also depends on number of units this base sent out.
<drones decrease from -5 to -4> = <number of outside units> <drones decrease from -4 to -3> = 1 <drones decrease from -3 to -2> = <number of outside units> - 1 <drones decrease per level average> = 2/3 * <number of outside units> <psych saved> = <drones decrease per level average> * 2 <energy saved> = <psych saved> / <psych multiplier> <energy saved> = 2/3 * <number of outside units> * 2 / <psych multiplier> Police negative (pacifism) = 4/3 * <number of outside units> / <psych multiplier> / (0.1 * <energy>) * Energy Police negative (average) = 2/3 * <number of outside units> / <psych multiplier> / (0.1 * <energy>) * Energy
Where <number of outside units> is an average number of base units outside of borders during war or exploration time.
Morale
To evaluate Morale effect we will compare it to morale boosting facilities maintenance. This approach is, of course, highly speculative but so is everything in this article. We’ll use calculation results as a first order of approximation only. Morale effect grows from -3 to +3 on scale from -4 to +4. That gives approximately 3/4 morale per SESocial Engineering Morale level.
Morale boosting facilities
• Command center (Doctrine: Mobility, Explore 1): 40/1, +2 morale ground. • Naval yard (Doctrine: Initiative, Explore 4): 80/2, +2 morale sea. • Aerospace complex (Doctrine: Air Power, Conquer 6): 80/2, +2 morale air. • Bio-enhancement center (Neural Grafting, Conquer 4): 100/2, +2 morale all.
Building all of them gives us +4 morale all for 5 maintenance. Supposing we are building them not in every base but only in most productive unit producing bases. Here goes our formula.
<morale increase per SE Morale level> = 3 / 4 <morale increase per maintenance> = 4 / 5 / <portion of bases with facilities> <SE Morale level maintenance equivalent> = (3 / 4) / (4 / 5) * <portion of bases with facilities> = 15 / 16 * <portion of bases with facilities> ≈ 1.0 * <portion of bases with facilities> <energy spent on maintenance> = <maintenance> / <economy multiplier> Morale = 1.0 * <portion of bases with facilities> / <economy multiplier> / (0.1 * <energy>) * Energy
Other considerations
I believe no one would argue that combat advantage is crucial during the war time. Unfortunately, morale doesn’t proportionally contribute to combat advantage due to multi round battle mechanics. At Civilization I time casualties were exactly proportional to attack/defense strength ratio. Veteran unit with 50% bigger strength would then win proportionally more often. In other words, two veterans worth exactly three recruits. Civilization II and beyond screwed this proportion by introducing multi round battle and healing concepts. Now unit with 3:2 odds wins 100% of the time. With following healing it makes it invulnerable and army of them unstoppable. On top of that they guaranteed to reach elite status due to their indestructibility. Even Civilization I with balanced winning odds was conquest oriented. Whereas SMACSid Meier's Alpha Centauri just turns into a blitzkrieg every time after you got weapon advantage. It doesn’t matter whether you wipe out the whole planet with 10 needlejets or other faction does. It is still boring and doesn’t align with original game goal. Back to the morale. Look at the picture in the attached spreadsheet on battle tab that depicts 10 rounds battle winning probability as a function of single round winning probability. Other authors researched battle probability function in SMAC and found it is goes even steeper then red line on a chart. Essentially 40% probability (2:3 odds) is a guaranteed loss, whereas 60% probability (3:2 odds) is a guaranteed win. With this in mind it is obvious that morale makes HUGE difference when your single round probability is around 40-60% range (with all other modifiers accounted for). Otherwise, when you are way out of this range, then morale gives you NOTHING! In other words morale helps tilting tie battles but becomes virtually useless for both sides in case of greater unit strength disparity. Besides, morale and modifiers boost is limited. Whereas weapon/armor progression is practically not. Morale still counts for psi and probe combat, though. Summarizing the above I state that morale boost to your army competitiveness is critical in the early game but completely nullifies later. Therefore, I like to assign corrective coefficients to the Morale formula of 2,1,0 respectively for early, middle, late game stages.
Planet
Planet effect has many applications: improving psi combat odds, increasing worms capturing chances, improving fungus square production, decreasing impact on global warming. Of these first one works during the whole course of the game as you keep fighting native life as well as using own psi units. Worm capturing is a nice addition to the army up to the middle of the game. Later on your produce worms faster than capture them. Fungus production is marginal and always worse than improved terrain. Global warming happens only later in the game and can be easily offset by building specialized facilities. So I’ll evaluate Planet psi combat weight based on the cost of native unit life cycle boosting facilities same way as for Morale. Each Planet level gives +10% to psi combat. That is equivalent of 10/12 life cycle increase.
Life cycle boosting facilities
• Biology lab (Centauri Empathy, Explore 3): 60/1, +1 life cycle. • Bio-enhancement center (Neural Grafting, Conquer 4): 100/2, +1 life cycle. • Centauri preserve (Centauri Meditation, Explore 5): 100/2, +1 life cycle. • Brood pit (Centauri Genetics, Explore 7): 80/2, +1 life cycle. • Temple of Planet (Secrets of Alpha Centauri, Discover 12): 200/3, +1 life cycle.
Building all of them except the last one gives us +4 life cycles for 7 maintenance. Supposing we are building them not in every base but only in most productive unit producing bases. Here goes our formula.
<life cycle increase per SE Planet level> = 5 / 6 <life cycle increase per maintenance> = 4 / 7 / <portion of bases with facilities> <SE Planet level maintenance equivalent> = (5 / 6) / (4 / 7) * <portion of bases with facilities> = 35 / 24 * <portion of bases with facilities> ≈ 1.5 * <portion of bases with facilities> <energy spent on maintenance> = <maintenance> / <economy multiplier> Planet (psi combat) = 1.5 * <portion of bases with facilities> / <economy multiplier> / (0.1 * <energy>) * Energy
Rest of the SE Planet applications is difficult to quantify. I’ll leave this to other players expert opinions.
Other considerations
Unlike morale planet bonus is not shaded by weaponry. So it doesn’t fade. On the other side, psi combat by itself is rare and situational. Like for factions with inherent planet or psi bonuses. Whatever is it I don’t want to explicitly modify Planet value as any attempt to do it will be highly speculative and subjective anyway.
Probe
This is IMHO the least useful effect of them all. Mostly because it makes difference so rare in the game and doesn't impact game outcome in general. Moreover, it takes only few probe teams on a front line to prevent enemy from capturing your cities and it is the only thing you need SE Probe for. The only notable exclusion is Miriam’s ability to set +3 Probe rating at the beginning of the game when she doesn't have cover ops centers yet. And even then it makes no difference for her when she loses technological advantage. Overall I would rate SE Probe weight as zero but leaving this again for other player expert opinions.
Talent
Same calculation as for drone quelling.
<drones quelled per level> = 1 <psych saved> = <drones quelled per level> * 2 <energy saved> = <psych saved> / <psych multiplier> = 1 * 2 / <psych multiplier> Talent = 1 * 2 / <psych multiplier> / (0.1 * <energy>) * Energy
Summary tables
Effects
| Effect | early | middle | late | average |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Economy | 3.68 | 2.70 | 1.16 | 2.51 |
| Efficiency | 1.35 | 2.99 | 3.37 | 2.57 |
| Support | 1.33 | 0.67 | 0.22 | 0.74 |
| Morale | 1.53 | 0.32 | 0.00 | 0.62 |
| Police positive | 0.63 | 1.44 | 0.54 | 0.87 |
| Police negative (pacifism) | 2.04 | 1.71 | 0.72 | 1.49 |
| Growth | 2.69 | 2.56 | 1.13 | 2.13 |
| Planet psi combat | 1.15 | 0.48 | 0.14 | 0.59 |
| Probe | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
| Industry | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 |
| Research | 0.77 | 1.22 | 0.82 | 0.94 |
| Talent | 3.07 | 1.28 | 0.36 | 1.57 |
Observations
Fixed unit count effects such as Economy (energy per base/square/trade), Support (minerals per unit), Police (drones per police), Talent(1 talent) have descent initial value and fade down the road comparing to percentage based effect like Industry as overall economy flourishes. Weight wise most lucrative effects are Economy and Efficiency followed by Growth, Talent, Industry, Research, Police, Support, Morale, Planet. Police positive weight fluctuates around same value because of double police unit ability activated later on in the game. Police negative weight shows negative effect of dumping Police rating to negative values while having military units outside of the borders. Without pacifism its negative impact can be ignored. Growth fades toward the end of the game as expected due to due to game running out of future. Both Morale and Planet psi combat weights decline due to increased availability of morale or life cycle boosting facilities and ease of their support with grown economy. The only effect noticeably growing in value toward the end of the game is Efficiency. More or less stable effects across the course of the game are Industry, Research, Police positive. Other effects are constantly declining.
Models
See exact values in the attached file. Few notes. In Politics Democracy the only viable choice at all times. In Economics Planned leads early while Green does later. Free Market shines when there is no pacifism and it gets to the +2 Economy, obviously. Otherwise, it sucks. In Values Power is quite valuable early but not late. Knowledge is good initially becoming insanely lucrative later. Wealth is relatively well rounded again depending on how well you placed its Economy bonus. In Future Society Cybernetic and Eudaimonic are insanely good all the time while Thought Control sucks. Overall calculated weights correlate pretty good with other players opinions I’ve heard on forums.
