Difference between revisions of "Social Engineering Mod"

From Alpha Centauri Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search
m
m (→‎Credits)
 
(95 intermediate revisions by one user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
−
==Preface==
+
=Credits=
  
−
This is an attempt to enhance and balance social engineering choices. Thanks to all contributors on many other forums for expressing their opinions and sharing ideas.
+
[http://alphacentauri2.info/index.php?action=profile;u=12053 Alpha Centauri Bear] (me)
  
−
==Goals==
+
[http://alphacentauri2.info/index.php?topic=21359.msg122436 WTP mod] (the one inspiring and using this technique)
  
−
===Adjust efects range usage===
+
=Preface=
  
−
In vanila version some combinations of models bring effect values beyond allowed range thus wasting it and diminishing model value in general. The opposite is also true. Some effect values are unreachable by any means. Adjusting this alone will bring more variety to the game.
+
This is an attempt to give SE modders a tool to roughly compare different society effects for the purpose of better SE balancing. Thanks to all contributors on many other forums for expressing their opinions and sharing ideas. Such tool does not replace actual playing experience and testing because, fortunately, effect have very different effects and applicability to different strategies and play styles. However, it may help fixing too much imbalance in SE system.
  
−
===Adjust models appeal===
+
In addition this article also analyses vanilla SE models using above comparison technique and suggests correction to balance models better, adjust effects range usage, adjust underused models appeal, adjust extra sharp effects, etc.
−
 
+
−
I agree with multiple posters that some models are inferior by all means and never used. This too cripples game variety. I'd like to adjust their value to let it be chosen not necessarily often but at least sometimes when time is ripe. Thus bringing additional twist into the game by using means already encorporated into game mechanics.
+
−
 
+
−
===Adjust extra sharp effects===
+
−
 
+
−
Some effects of social engineering could be so good that it brakes the game. I am specifically talking about population boom. With democracy + planned + CC it comes too early in the game ruining the rest of the game experience.
+
−
 
+
−
==Resulting configuration==
+
−
 
+
−
Here is my resulting configuration. The rest of the article is just a rationalization for those interested in academics.
+
−
 
+
−
Frontier,        None,
+
−
<br />
+
−
Police State,    DocLoy,  --EFFIC, ++SUPPORT, ++POLICE
+
−
<br />
+
−
Democratic,      EthCalc, -ECONOMY, ++EFFIC, --SUPPORT, +GROWTH
+
−
<br />
+
−
Fundamentalist,  Brain,  ++MORALE, ++PROBE, ++INDUSTRY, --RESEARCH
+
−
<br />
+
−
Simple,          None,
+
−
<br />
+
−
Free Market,    IndEcon, ++ECONOMY, -----POLICE, ---PLANET
+
−
<br />
+
−
Planned,        PlaNets, --EFFIC, ++GROWTH, +INDUSTRY, --RESEARCH
+
−
<br />
+
−
Green,          CentEmp, ++EFFIC, +POLICE, -GROWTH, ++PLANET
+
−
<br />
+
−
Survival,        None,
+
−
<br />
+
−
Power,          MilAlg,  ++SUPPORT, ++MORALE, -INDUSTRY
+
−
<br />
+
−
Knowledge,      Cyber,  --ECONOMY, +EFFIC, --PROBE, ++RESEARCH
+
−
<br />
+
−
Wealth,          IndAuto, +ECONOMY, ---MORALE, +INDUSTRY, -RESEARCH
+
−
<br />
+
−
None,            None,
+
−
<br />
+
−
Cybernetic,      DigSent, ++EFFIC, +SUPPORT, ----POLICE, +PROBE
+
−
<br />
+
−
Eudaimonic,      Eudaim,  ++ECONOMY, +GROWTH, +PLANET, ---INDUSTRY
+
−
<br />
+
−
Thought Control, WillPow, ---SUPPORT, ++POLICE, +++INDUSTRY, +RESEARCH
+
  
 
==Effect weights idea==
 
==Effect weights idea==
  
−
Effect weight is a relative effect value comparing to others. Understanding effect weights allows easy social models evaluation and balancing. Keep  in mind that such estimate is a very context dependent, though. Particular effect can be valued more or less depending on circumstances. Besides, I used multiple assumptions in below calculations. Feel free to correct me of propose your own. I will appreciate any input. Thank you.
+
Effect weight is a relative effect value comparing to other effects. Definitely, their behavior is nonlinear both because of nonlinear effect scale and due to different game state, environment, and play style. Therefore, such comparison is nonlinear too and depends on many factors. All evaluations are bound to be very approximate and are applicable one on "in average" case. I also used multiple assumptions in below calculations. Feel free to correct me of propose your own. I will appreciate any input. Thank you.
  
 
===Comparison method===
 
===Comparison method===
  
−
Obviously different effects have different impact on your empire. Fortunately, game provides different means to achieve same result. Some examples would be: 1) using either minerals or energy reserves to complete production, 2) using either police or psych to quell drones, etc. This allows us to express impact of different effects in same units and, therefore, relate their weight numerically.
+
Each effect is expressed in either minerals or energy difference to the player (average per base). Conversion ratio is 1 mineral = 2 energy. Then these differences are compared to each other to calculate relative SE weights.
  
−
===Historical periods and city yelds===
+
===Historical periods===
  
−
I consider three historical periods for purpose of averaging. Latest part of the game is excluded as at that point game is either won or lost and no social engineering can help it.
+
I consider three historical periods for purpose of averaging. The very early part of the game is excluded since SE are not available there - nothing to compare. The very late part of the game is excluded as at that point game is either won or lost and no social engineering can help it.
  
−
====Early game====
+
{| class="wikitable"
 +
|+ Historical period average values
 +
|-
 +
! period !! early !! middle !! late
 +
|-
 +
| approximate turns || align="right" | 25-50 || align="right" | 50-100 || align="right" | 100-200
 +
|-
 +
| base count || align="right" | 5 || align="right" | 10 || align="right" | 20
 +
|-
 +
| mineral intake || align="right" | 6 || align="right" | 12 || align="right" | 24
 +
|-
 +
| energy intake || align="right" | 4 || align="right" | 12 || align="right" | 36
 +
|-
 +
| base size || align="right" | 3 || align="right" | 5 || align="right" | 9
 +
|-
 +
| nutrients/square || align="right" | 2.0 || align="right" | 2.5 || align="right" | 3.0
 +
|-
 +
| commerce technologies || align="right" | 1 || align="right" | 3 || align="right" | 5
 +
|-
 +
| distance from HQ || align="right" | 3 || align="right" | 6 || align="right" | 12
 +
|-
 +
| economy allocation || align="right" | 0.3 || align="right" | 0.3 || align="right" | 0.3
 +
|-
 +
| labs allocation || align="right" | 0.7 || align="right" | 0.6 || align="right" | 0.5
 +
|-
 +
| psych allocation || align="right" | 0.0 || align="right" | 0.1 || align="right" | 0.2
 +
|-
 +
| minerals multiplier || align="right" | 1.0 || align="right" | 1.5 || align="right" | 2.0
 +
|-
 +
| energy multiplier || align="right" | 1.0 || align="right" | 1.5 || align="right" | 2.0
 +
|}
  
−
* Technology: restrictions are not lifted
+
=Effect result calculations=
−
* Number of cities: 6
+
−
* Distance to HQ: 5
+
−
* City size: 3
+
−
* Terraforming: minimal
+
−
* City yield: 8-6-6
+
−
* Production bonus: none
+
−
* Eco/Phy/Res bonus: none
+
−
* Small army, occasional conflicts
+
  
−
====Middle game====
+
All calculation are done for normal map and all other medium values if not specified otherwise. This can be extrapolated to other map sizes.
  
−
* Technology: restriction are lifted
+
==ENERGY==
−
* Number of cities: 12
+
−
* Distance to HQ: 10
+
−
* City size: 5
+
−
* Terraforming: partial heavy terraforming
+
−
* City yield 14-12-16
+
−
* Production bonus: none
+
−
* Eco/Phy/Res bonus: +50%
+
−
* Medium army, occasional conflicts
+
  
−
====Late game====
+
This is an artificial effect introduced for the ease of further calculations and to establish base weight value. One step on this imaginary ENERGY effect scale changes raw city energy yield (including commerce) by 10%. So it works similar to other linear effects. Of course, it doesn't exist in a game as described but it is convenient to use it as a base value since many other effects can be expressed through it. I also pick this one as a base and not an Industry as energy can be converted to both Industry and Research - two important effects not easily comparable with each other.
  
−
* Technology: Advanced Ecological Engineering
+
ENERGY result = 0.1 * <effective energy intake>
−
* Number of cities: 18
+
−
* Distance to HQ: 15
+
−
* City size: 7
+
−
* Terraforming: heavy terraforming
+
−
* City yield: 20-20-30
+
−
* Production bonus: +50%
+
−
* Eco/Phy/Res bonus: +100%
+
−
* Medium army, permanent conflicts
+
  
−
==Effects weight calculation==
+
===ENERGY derivatives===
  
−
===Energy===
+
From ENERGY weight we also can calculate its derivative weights: LAB/ECO/PSY. LAB is a RESEARCH. Other two do not exist in the game but it is still useful to calculate them to use as intermediary values for further computation. Obviously, all of them change proportionally when Energy change. We will compare each of them individually with Energy assuming we also can change allocation without penalty to channel all extra energy to one derivative only without modifying others.
  
−
This is an artificial effect I introduce for the ease of further calculations and to establish base weight value. One step on Energy effect scale changes raw city energy yield (including commerce) by 10%. So it works simialr to other linear effects like Industry, Research, Growth. Of course, it doesn't exist in a game as described but it is convenient to use it as a base value since many other effects can be expressed through it.
+
Let's calculate how much ENERGY should increase to produce same result as LAB increase.
  
−
Weight = '''1.0'''
+
lab increase for +1 ENERGY = 0.1 * <effective energy intake> * <lab multiplier>
 +
lab increase for +1 LAB    = 0.1 * <effective energy intake> * <lab allocation> * <lab multiplier>
  
−
===Industry===
+
Using the above we can express LAB result through ENERGY result.
  
−
Main energy reserves usage is production rush. Of course, you can also use it to buy technologies and subvert cities but this is just small part of what is usually spent on rushing. You can consider rushing production as a energy to production conversion channel that works both ways. Hiher Energy effect fills up your energy reserves and let you rush production more. From the other side, higher Industry effect let you produce faster => cut on rushing => save for buying and subverting.
+
LAB result = ENERGY result * <lab allocation>
  
−
Formula:
+
Same way we get similar formulas for ECO and PSY:
−
<br/>
+
−
Industry weight = 2 * <mineral output> / (<energy reserves income> / <economy allocation>)
+
−
<br/>
+
−
<mineral output> is total mineral output after multiplying by facilities.
+
−
<br/>
+
−
<energy reserves income> is the total energy reserves income before subtracting maintenance. You can see this value on the F3 screen as "Total Income".
+
−
<br/>
+
−
<economy allocation> is the part of energy allocated to economy (i.e. 50% = 0.5).
+
−
<br/>
+
−
Essentially, the (<energy reserves income> / <economy allocation>) value is your would be income if you allocate 100% energy to economy without allocation penalty.
+
  
−
Estimate:
+
ECO result = ENERGY result * <eco allocation>
−
<br/>
+
PSY result = ENERGY result * <psy allocation>
−
At early stage your city mineral yield is about the same as energy yield. So, assuming there are no mineral and economy boosting facilities, that translates to Industry weight = 2. At middle and late stages energy yield grows faster than mineral one due to stronger terraforming effect and due to increasing commerce. The economy boosting facilities also come into play much earlier than corresponding mineral ones. I usually see total income 2-3 times bigger in large cities at late stage. That would be about 2 times bigger faction wide. That brings Industry weight to 1 toward the end of the game.
+
  
−
Weight = '''2.0=>1.0'''
+
A special thing to say about RESEARCH. Players tend to maximize labs as much as allocation penalty possibly allows. That is an indication that research advantage is actually much more valuable then mere economy to production contribution. Unfortunately, technology advantage is impossible to evaluate by itself and even less the discovery rate. That's why I tend to give RESEARCH additions factor of 2 on top of the above LAB result formula. Same bonus goes to ENERGY as this is also source of research. The more economy and labs combined player has the more they can divert to research - either directly or indirectly through economy->labs reallocation. In this regard it should be obvious that increasing energy intake by 10% is about twice as more valuable as just increasing labs by 10% because energy goes to both labs and economy.
  
−
===Research===
+
==INDUSTRY==
  
−
Research is directly allocated from energy so the exact formula is the simple one.
+
INDUSTRY result = 0.1 * <mineral intake>
  
−
Formula:
+
==ECONOMY==
−
<br/>
+
−
Research weight = <research allocation>
+
−
<br/>
+
−
<research allocation> is the part of energy allocated to research (i.e. 50% = 0.5).
+
  
−
Estimate:
+
Economy effect is drastically non linear. We can try to estimate each '''type''' of Economy change on its own and then summarize combination values for each step on ECONOMY scale. ECONOMY effect change types are: 1) +1 energy per base, 2) +1 energy per square, 3) +1 commerce rating.
−
<br/>
+
−
It's about 0.5-0.7 throughout the game. This being said, even smallest research superiority could be very important especialy earlier in the game since it is difficult to substitute it with anything else. Later on with large energy yield and with technology trade it is not that critical. That's why I want to give it a little bit higher weight at the beginning.
+
  
−
Weight = '''1.0->0.5'''
+
===ECONOMY (energy per base)===
  
−
===Economy===
+
energy increase for +1 ENERGY            = 0.1 * <effective energy intake>
 +
energy increase for +1 energy per base  = 1
 +
 +
+1 energy per base result = ENERGY result * 1 / (0.1 * <effective energy intake>)
  
−
Economy effect is drastically non linear. We can try to estimate each '''type''' of Economy change separatingly and then assign combination values to each step on Economy scale. Such Economy effect change types are: 1) 1 energy per base, 2) 1 energy per square, 3) commerce rating.
+
===ECONOMY (energy per square)===
  
−
=====Economy (energy per base)=====
+
energy increase for +1 ENERGY            = 0.1 * <effective energy intake>
 +
energy increase for +1 energy per square = <base size> + 1
 +
 +
+1 energy per square result = ENERGY result * (<base size> + 1) / (0.1 * <effective energy intake>)
  
−
Formula:
+
===ECONOMY (commerce rating)===
−
<br/>
+
−
Economy (energy per base) weight = 1 / (0.1 * <energy yield>)
+
  
−
Estimate:
+
Commerce rating is very difficult to estimate as it fluctuates greatly based on diplomacy. Besides, it has quite a complex formula. It would be easier just to estimate it as a portion of total energy intake and then assign it different historical period values based on play testing average.
−
<br/>
+
−
Goes from about 2 at very early stage to 0.3 at late stage.
+
  
−
Weight = '''2.0=>0.0'''
+
energy increase for +1 ENERGY            = 0.1 * <effective energy intake>
 +
energy increase for +1 commerce rating  = <effective energy intake> * <average commerce proportion> / (1 + <number of commerce technologies>)
 +
 +
+1 commerce rating result = ENERGY result * [<effective energy intake> * <average commerce proportion> / (1 + <number of commerce technologies>)] / [0.1 * <effective energy intake>] = [<average commerce proportion> / (1 + <number of commerce technologies>)] / 0.1
  
−
=====Economy (energy per square)=====
+
==EFFICIENCY==
  
−
Formula:
+
EFFICIENCY effect is threefold. It decreases inefficiency, decreases number of b-drones (for positive ratings), and decreases penalty for uneven Eco/Res allocation. Let's review them one by one.
−
<br/>
+
−
Economy (energy per base) weight = (<number of working tiles> + 1) / (0.1 * <energy yield>)
+
  
−
Estimate:
+
===EFFICIENCY (inefficiency)===
−
<br/>
+
−
Goes from about 10 (!!!) at early stage to 2-3 at late stage. Depends heavily on average tile energy yield.
+
  
−
Weight = '''10.0=>2.0'''
+
energy increase for +1 ENERGY    = 0.1 * <effective energy intake> = 0.1 * <energy intake> * (1 - <distance to HQ> / (64-((4-EFFICIENCY)*8)))
 +
energy increase for +1 EFFICIENCY = <energy intake> * [min(1, <distance to HQ> / (64-((4-EFFICIENCY_from)*8))) - min(1, <distance to HQ> / (64-((4-EFFICIENCY_to)*8)))]
  
−
=====Economy (commerce rating)=====
+
This is very nonlinear, cumbersome, and depends on the distance to HQ. I won't even try to devise a nice formula just calculate and list these values in table for illustration.
  
−
Commerce rating effect is very difficult to evaluate as it obviously depends on total amount of commerce you have. That is: number of contacted faction, number of treaties and pacts, global trade pact in play, etc. I would estimate zero commerce at early stages and approximately 1/4 (half of max commerce output with one faction) * 2 (number of large enough factions you are not at war with) = 1/2 of raw base energy yield at middle game and later. I don't understand how exactly commercial rating increases commerce. Let's say it increases commerce by 20%.
+
{| class="wikitable"
 +
|+ EFFICIENCY (inefficiency) weight
 +
|-
 +
! from !! to !! early game !! mid game !! late game
 +
|-
 +
| align="right" | -4 || align="right" | -3 || align="right" | 3.21 || align="right" | 2.01 || align="right" | 0.00
 +
|-
 +
| align="right" | -3 || align="right" | -2 || align="right" | 0.96 || align="right" | 3.02 || align="right" | 2.63
 +
|-
 +
| align="right" | -2 || align="right" | -1 || align="right" | 0.32 || align="right" | 1.01 || align="right" | 2.63
 +
|-
 +
| align="right" | -1 || align="right" | 0 || align="right" | 0.16 || align="right" | 0.50 || align="right" | 1.31
 +
|-
 +
| align="right" | 0 || align="right" | 1 || align="right" | 0.10 || align="right" | 0.30 || align="right" | 0.79
 +
|-
 +
| align="right" | 1 || align="right" | 2 || align="right" | 0.06 || align="right" | 0.20 || align="right" | 0.53
 +
|-
 +
| align="right" | 2 || align="right" | 3 || align="right" | 0.05 || align="right" | 0.14 || align="right" | 0.38
 +
|-
 +
| align="right" | 3 || align="right" | 4 || align="right" | 0.03 || align="right" | 0.11 || align="right" | 0.28
 +
|}
  
−
Estimate:
+
As you can see the effect is very dependent on EFFICIENCY current rating itself and even stronger on distance to HQ. The effect is almost negligible for small empires and huge for large ones. The zero in the top right corner means that switching from -4 to -3 rating does not help at all. Still all energy is lost to inefficiency.
−
<br/>
+
−
Goes from 0.0 at early stage to 1.0 at middle and late stages. Depends heavily on total commerce.
+
  
−
Weight = '''0.0=>1.0'''
+
===EFFICIENCY (inefficiency) WTP===
  
−
====Economy by step weights====
+
WTP mod introduces two parts to inefficiency formula: the HQ influence and flat EFFICIENCY rating contribution. That reduces non-linearity. You can check inefficiency formula in WTP readme. Here I just show the same value table for illustration.
  
 
{| class="wikitable"
 
{| class="wikitable"
 +
|+ EFFICIENCY (inefficiency) WTP weight
 
|-
 
|-
−
! From !! To !! Early !! Middle !! Late
+
! from !! to !! early game !! mid game !! late game
 
|-
 
|-
−
| style="text-align: right; " | -3 || style="text-align: right; " | -2 || style="text-align: right; " | 2.0 || style="text-align: right; " | 1.0 || style="text-align: right; " | 0.0
+
| align="right" | -4 || align="right" | -3 || align="right" | 0.71 || align="right" | 1.21 || align="right" | 1.88
 
|-
 
|-
−
| style="text-align: right; " | -2 || style="text-align: right; " | -1 || style="text-align: right; " | 2.0 || style="text-align: right; " | 1.0 || style="text-align: right; " | 0.0
+
| align="right" | -3 || align="right" | -2 || align="right" | 0.43 || align="right" | 1.21 || align="right" | 1.88
 
|-
 
|-
−
| style="text-align: right; " | -1 || style="text-align: right; " | 0 || style="text-align: right; " | 0.0 || style="text-align: right; " | 0.0 || style="text-align: right; " | 0.0
+
| align="right" | -2 || align="right" | -1 || align="right" | 0.00 || align="right" | 1.21 || align="right" | 1.88
 
|-
 
|-
−
| style="text-align: right; " | 0 || style="text-align: right; " | +1 || style="text-align: right; " | 2.0 || style="text-align: right; " | 1.0 || style="text-align: right; " | 0.0
+
| align="right" | -1 || align="right" | 0 || align="right" | 0.00 || align="right" | 0.24 || align="right" | 1.88
 
|-
 
|-
−
| style="text-align: right; " | +1 || style="text-align: right; " | +2 || style="text-align: right; " | 8.0 || style="text-align: right; " | 5.0 || style="text-align: right; " | 2.0
+
| align="right" | 0 || align="right" | 1 || align="right" | 0.00 || align="right" | 0.00 || align="right" | 1.88
 
|-
 
|-
−
| style="text-align: right; " | +2 || style="text-align: right; " | +3 || style="text-align: right; " | 4.0 || style="text-align: right; " | 2.5 || style="text-align: right; " | 1.0
+
| align="right" | 1 || align="right" | 2 || align="right" | 0.00 || align="right" | 0.00 || align="right" | 1.88
 
|-
 
|-
−
| style="text-align: right; " | +3 || style="text-align: right; " | +4 || style="text-align: right; " | 4.0 || style="text-align: right; " | 2.5 || style="text-align: right; " | 1.0
+
| align="right" | 2 || align="right" | 3 || align="right" | 0.00 || align="right" | 0.00 || align="right" | 0.75
 
|-
 
|-
−
| style="text-align: right; " | +4 || style="text-align: right; " | +5 || style="text-align: right; " | 0.0 || style="text-align: right; " | 0.5 || style="text-align: right; " | 1.0
+
| align="right" | 3 || align="right" | 4 || align="right" | 0.00 || align="right" | 0.00 || align="right" | 0.00
 
|}
 
|}
  
−
====Summary====
+
This looks better than vanilla formula not only because it is linear but also because every step on a scale matters. Of course, the bigger the empire the more it matters.
  
−
Economy effect weight highly depends on exact Economy scale level it results in. With most popular changes being: 1) 0 to +2 (FM) with weight = '''10.0=>2.0''', and 2) +2 to +3 (Wealth) with weight = '''4.0=>1.0'''.
+
===EFFICIENCY (b-drones)===
−
<br/>
+
−
If one would like to spread pleinty of small negative and positive Economy effect values across multiple SE models, the average Economy effect value would be '''3.0=>1.0'''
+
  
 +
We'll calculate EFFICIENCY b-drones weight by comparing its drone reduction effect to two other means to quell same number of drones: 1) psych increase, and 2) energy reserves increase to maintain pacifying facilities. Then we select whichever is cheaper at certain game period. Number of b-drones per base is calculated assuming normal size map on highest difficulty. Two most common pacifying facilities are Recreation Commons (40/1) and Hologram Theater (60/2). The average cost of these two (per drone) is 25 minerals + 0.75 energy/turn. That is roughly 1 energy per drone per turn.
  
−
===Efficiency===
+
Obviously, with equal psych and economy multipliers maintaining pacifying facilities is twice cheaper than allocating energy to psych. However, there are only few pacifying facilities. So we use psych method as the main one keeping in mind that early on EFFICIENCY (b-drones) weight could be even lower due to pacifying facilities option.
  
−
Efficiency effect is threefold. It descreases inefficiency, decreases number of b-drones, and decreases penalty for uneven Eco/Res allocation. Let's consider them one by one.
+
Quelling drones with psych:
  
−
====Efficiency (inefficiency)====
+
drones decrease for +1 ENERGY    = 0.1 * <effective energy intake> * <psych multiplier> / 2
 +
drones decrease for +1 EFFICIENCY = [<base count> / ((8-Difficulty)*(4+EFFICIENCY_from)/2) - 1] - [<base count> / ((8-Difficulty)*(4+EFFICIENCY_to)/2) - 1]
  
−
Formula:
+
Again I am not going to convert it into formula. Here is the table values for highest difficulty.
−
<br/>
+
−
Efficiency (inefficiency) weight = (<average base distance to HQ> / 128) * 10
+
  
−
Estimate:
+
{| class="wikitable"
−
<br/>
+
|+ EFFICIENCY (b-drones) weight
−
Average base distance to HQ varies per game. With my assumptions the weight is 0.4=>1.2.
+
|-
 +
! from !! to !! early game !! mid game !! late game
 +
|-
 +
| align="right" | 0 || align="right" | 1 || align="right" | 0.00 || align="right" | 0.72 || align="right" | 0.97
 +
|-
 +
| align="right" | 1 || align="right" | 2 || align="right" | 0.00 || align="right" | 0.36 || align="right" | 0.69
 +
|-
 +
| align="right" | 2 || align="right" | 3 || align="right" | 0.00 || align="right" | 0.12 || align="right" | 0.51
 +
|-
 +
| align="right" | 3 || align="right" | 4 || align="right" | 0.00 || align="right" | 0.00 || align="right" | 0.38
 +
|}
  
−
====Efficiency (b-drones)====
+
===EFFICIENCY (allocation penalty)===
  
−
We'll calculate Efficiency weight by comparing it to two values: 1) the ammount of energy allocated to psych that quells same number of drones, and 2) the amount of energy spent on pacifying facilities maintenance. Then we select whichever is cheaper at certain game period. Number of b-drones per base is calculated assuming normal size map on highest difficulty. For pacifying facility maintenance I take Recreation Commons as an example. It costs (per drone) 20 minerals + 0.5 energy/turn. I think expressing it in formula as 1 energy/turn (per drone) would be a good approximation.
+
Finally, the penalty for unequal economy/research allocation. Let's take a smallest unequal distribution of 60%-40%. For that distribution you loose 2% for bigger allocation + 4% for smaller allocation per 20% difference per Efficiency level.
  
−
Formula 1):
+
energy increase for +1 ENERGY    = 0.1 * <effective energy intake>
−
<br/>
+
energy increase for +1 EFFICIENCY = 0.03 * <effective energy intake>
−
Efficiency (b-drones) weight 1) = (<number of bases> / 24) * 2 / <psych facilities multiplier> / (0.1 * <energy yield>)
+
−
<br/>
+
EFFICIENCY (allocation penalty) result = ENERGY result * [0.03 * <effective energy intake>] / [0.1 * <effective energy intake>] = ENERGY result * 0.3
−
2 is the number of psych required to quell one drone.
+
−
<br/>
+
−
<psych facilities multiplier> is there to show how much energy is accually spent to psych per drone. With higher psych multiplier you need less number of energy spent.
+
  
−
Formula 2):
+
==GROWTH==
−
<br/>
+
−
Efficiency (b-drones) weight 2) = (<number of bases> / 24) * 1 / <economy facilities multiplier> / (0.1 * <energy yield>)
+
−
<br/>
+
−
1 is the average amount of energy reserves required to support pacifying facility per quelled drone.
+
−
<br/>
+
−
<economy facilities multiplier> is there to show how much energy is accually spent to pacifying facility per drone. With higher economy multiplier you need less number of energy spent.
+
  
−
Estimate:
+
GROWTH power lies not in immediate economical effect but in economical development acceleration instead. Roughly you'll have 14% bigger bases at any future point in time with 10% growth rate bonus. That gives you 14% more workers => 14% more of both mineral and energy yield.
−
<br/>
+
−
Again, number of bases varies per game. With my assumptions the weight is 1) 0.8=>0.2 and 2) 0.4=>0.1. Expectedly, maintaning pacifying facilities is generally cheaper than channeling energy to psych. However, there are other things to consider there. Facilities become more expencive as game progress. For example, maintenance triples for next such facility (Hologram Theatre). Besides, number of facilities is limited and majority of drones are quelled by the psych toward the end of the game anyway. So we can adjust the resuling weight progression as 0.4=>0.2.
+
  
−
====Efficiency (allocation penalty)====
+
GROWTH result = 1.4 * (INDUSTRY result + ENERGY result)
  
−
Finally, the penalty for unequal economy/research allocation. Of course, the absolute effect depends on unequality percentage. Let's take a smallest unequal distribution of 60%-40%. For that distribution you loose 2% for bigger allocation + 4% for smaller allocation = 3% energy on average per Efficiency level which is equivalent of 0.3 Energy effect rate. Doesn't change with the course of the game.
+
Special consideration about GROWTH is that it becomes proportionally less valuable as game progress as it leaves less time for GROWTH effect to manifest itself.
  
−
====Summary====
+
==SUPPORT==
  
−
Summarizing above weight values here is what we get. Interestingly, it doesn't change drastically throughout the game as other effects before.
+
SUPPORT translates to absolute minerals gain/loss. However, it is not linear and allows free units only if there are so many supported. Here is the table for different SUPPORT transitions.
  
−
Weight = '''1.0=>1.5'''
+
{| class="wikitable"
 +
|+ minerals saved per SUPPORT rating
 +
|-
 +
! from !! to !! result
 +
|-
 +
| align="right" | -4 || align="right" | -3 || <number of supported units>
 +
|-
 +
| align="right" | -3 || align="right" | -2 || first unit is free
 +
|-
 +
| align="right" | -2 || align="right" | -1 || 0, don't know how to express free minerals for new base
 +
|-
 +
| align="right" | -1 || align="right" | 0 || second unit is free
 +
|-
 +
| align="right" | 0 || align="right" | 1 || third unit is free
 +
|-
 +
| align="right" | 1 || align="right" | 2 || fourth unit is free
 +
|-
 +
| align="right" | 2 || align="right" | 3 || all units beyond four and up to base size are free
 +
|}
  
−
Additional considerations:
+
The -4 to -3 transition is the most drastic one. The 2 to 3 transition is also drastic if there are much more than 4 supported units. The rest of steps are just about +1 mineral per base. Assuming the average +1 mineral per SUPPORT rating we can craft following formula.
−
<br/>
+
−
The importance of Efficiency grows proportionally to difficulty level and to the emplire size. Doubling number of bases from 20 to 40 would probably double Efficiency weight too.
+
  
−
===Growth===
+
minerals gain from +1 INDUSTRY  = 0.1 * <mineral intake>
 +
minerals gain from +1 SUPPORT  = 1
 +
 +
SUPPORT result = INDUSTRY result * 1 / [0.1 * <mineral intake>]
  
−
Growth power lies not in immediate economical effect but in economical development acceleration instead. Roughly you'll have 10% bigger sities at any future point in time with 10% growth rate bonus. That gives you 10% more workers => 10% more of both mineral and energy yields. That is +1 on Industry scale and +1 on Energy scale.
+
==POLICE==
−
<br/>
+
−
I do not consider early population boom here as this breaks this effect completely and makes it invaluable. The rest of the game after popbooming would be completely dull.
+
  
−
Weight = '''3.0=>2.0'''
+
Police effect is similar to EFFICIENCY b-drones effect and to PSY effect. They all reduce number of drones. However, this is another nonlinear effect. The summary is in the table below.
  
−
===Support===
+
{| class="wikitable"
 +
|+ drones reduced per POLICE rating
 +
|-
 +
! from !! to !! result
 +
|-
 +
| align="right" | -5 || align="right" | -4 || <number of outside units>
 +
|-
 +
| align="right" | -4 || align="right" | -3 || first outside unit does not generate drone
 +
|-
 +
| align="right" | -3 || align="right" | -2 || outside units beyond first do not generate drones
 +
|-
 +
| align="right" | -2 || align="right" | -1 || first police unit removes drones
 +
|-
 +
| align="right" | -1 || align="right" | 0 || nerve stapling is available
 +
|-
 +
| align="right" | 0 || align="right" | 1 || second police unit removes drones
 +
|-
 +
| align="right" | 1 || align="right" | 2 || third police unit removes drones
 +
|-
 +
| align="right" | 2 || align="right" | 3 || up to three police units remove one more drone each
 +
|}
  
−
Support translates to absolute minerals bonus/loss.
+
The progression is greatly depends on how many police units base has and how many outside units it supports. Up to mid game each step would probably cost one drone. Later on number of outside units may grow as well as non-lethal method ability may add one more drone quelling capacity to police units. So I'd estimate 1 drone per rating at game start that linearly grows to 2 toward late game and maybe then even to 3 with more outside units.
  
−
Formula:
+
drones decrease for +1 ENERGY = 0.1 * <effective energy intake> * <psych multiplier> / 2
−
<br/>
+
drones decrease for +1 POLICE = <POLICE game stage multiplier>
−
Support weight = <Industry weight> * (1 / (0.1 * <mineral output>))
+
 +
POLICE (b-drones) result = ENERGY result * <POLICE game stage multiplier> / [0.1 * <effective energy intake> * <psych multiplier> / 2]
  
−
Estimate:
+
==MORALE==
−
<br/>
+
−
Per historical periods: 3.0=>0.5.
+
  
−
Weight = '''3.0=>0.5'''
+
MORALE scale is not exactly linear but we can approximate it as such. It gives +6 morale levels per +8 ratings = 0.75 level per rating. Although, negative values are additionally halving morale facilities effect. So we probably can safely average it as 1 morale level per 1 SE rating.
  
−
===Police===
+
The way to estimate its result is to realize that each morale level adds 1/8 to army strength or equivalently saves 1/8 of production.
  
−
Police effect is similar to Efficiency b-drones effect and to Phych energy allocation effect. They all reduce number of drones. Let's convert Police rating to Economy rating using Efficiency b-drones calculation approach. Using same considerations as for Efficiency b-drones calculation, let's calculate quelling effect and corresponding Police weight two ways.
+
minerals gained by +1 INDUSTRY = 0.1 * <mineral intake>
−
<br/>
+
minerals saved by +1 MORALE = 1/8 * <mineral surplus> * <proportion of production spent on combat units>
−
Another consideration is that Police effect becomes quite valuable to the middle and end of the game. Indeed, the lowest negative values are multiplied by number of supported units outside of borders and high values gets doubled with invention of non-lethal methods and even tripled at +3 Police. That's why I count +/- Police rating resulting in +/- 2 drones close to the end of the game in formulas below.
+
 +
MORALE result = INDUSTRY result * [1/8 * <mineral surplus> * <proportion of production spent on conventional combat units>] / [0.1 * <mineral intake>]
  
−
Formula 1):
+
Mineral surplus is not the same as mineral intake since some of them are spent on support. Yet, at least after the very early game they tend to be close enough. If we assume <mineral surplus> = 0.8 * <mineral intake> on average over the course of the game the formula reduces to this nice equation:
−
<br/>
+
−
Police weight 1) = [1=>2] * 2 / <psych facilities multiplier> / (0.1 * <energy yield>)
+
−
<br/>
+
−
[1=>2] number of quelled/incuded drones at the beginning and at the end of the game.
+
  
−
Formula 2):
+
MORALE result = INDUSTRY result * <proportion of production spent on conventional combat units>
−
<br/>
+
−
Police weight 2) = [1=>2] * 1 / <economy facilities multiplier> / (0.1 * <energy yield>)
+
−
<br/>
+
−
[1=>2] number of quelled/incuded drones at the beginning and at the end of the game.
+
  
−
Estimate:
+
==PLANET==
−
<br/>
+
−
1) 3.3=>0.6, 2) 1.7=>0.3. Again, with same considerations as for Efficiency b-drones, resulting weight would be 1.7=>0.6.
+
  
−
Weight = '''1.5=>0.5'''
+
PLANET has many applications. Boosting native units combat odds effect is similar to conventional units morale. Therefore, it is worth that much. Another noticeable effects are ability to capture worms and impact on global warming. Ability to capture worms is very nice yet it dissolves with discovering Centauri Empathy when you can stamps them at production rate instead. The global warming part is significant without eco-damage containing facilities. However, players usually do eventually build them even if for other benefits. So the eco-damage reduction is a slight temporary addition. I don't remember a game where I '''had to''' fiddle with PLANET rating to contain global warming.
  
−
Additional considerations:
+
PLANET (psi combat) result = INDUSTRY result * [15% * <mineral surplus> * <proportion of production spent on psi units>] / [0.1 * <mineral intake>]
−
<br/>
+
−
The lowest negative Police values impact you only at war time.
+
  
−
===Morale===
+
Counting other bonuses combined I would increase resulting PLANET result by factor of 2. This is pretty arbitrary number, though. Feel free to correct me.
  
−
Unit morale level is affected by following means: monoliths, promotions, morale boosting facilities, and Morale SE effect. Let's compare Morale SE effect to the other means and see how replaceable it is.
+
==PROBE==
−
<br/>
+
−
Monoliths raise level once for free. Promotions raise level unlimitedly with declining probability so it harder to reach higher levels. Command Center becomes available with Doctrine: Mobility (Explore 1) and costs 40 minerals + 1 maintenance. Bioenhancement Center becomes available with Neural Grafting (Conquer 4) and costs 60 minerals + 2 maintenance. Earliest SE models become available at technologies level 2 and cost 40 energy to adopt. Being savvy player you would build morale facilities only in few bases minimizing investments. Once facilities are built they'll serve you forever unlike the SE choice that you need to keep on to support high morale.
+
−
<br/>
+
−
With all the above I won't even dive into calculations. Morale effect is obviously inferior comparing to other morale level raising methods.
+
−
<br/>
+
−
Besides, the unit morale level is important only when your odds are about 50% so change in morale significantly decreases your casualties. This is important in the early game when weapon and armor strength is about the same across all players and is progressing slowly. In the middle game, after missile launcher, weapon and armor strength is progressing rapidly and so is faction firepower difference. Weapon superiority is much more important and much easier achieved than morale superiority. Not even mentioning that morale superiority is limited while weapon strength is not.
+
  
−
Weight = 0.5=>0.0
+
This is most difficult to compare effect among them. Probes morale can be evaluated same as other unit morale. However, the proportion of probes is small relative to other units. Therefore, the effect is small too. Another aspect of this SE is making subversion costlier. Which probably should result in less number of subverted bases. However, I don't know how to evaluate and and I honestly don't bother as it is IMHO the least useful effect of them all. Mostly because it makes difference so rare in the game and does not impact game outcome in general. The only exclusion is a Miriam ability to set +3 Probe rating at the beginning of the game when you don't have cover ops centers yet. And even then it makes no difference for her.
  
−
===Planet===
+
=Effect weights=
  
−
Boosting combat odds element is similar to morale for native units. And, therefore, worth that much. Another noticeable effects are ability to capture worms and impact on global warming. Ability to capture worms is very nice yet it dissolves with discovering Centaury Empathy when you can stamps them at production rate instead. The global warming part is also insignificant as eco-damage containing facilities do their job pretty good. I don't remember a game where I '''had to''' fiddle with Planet rating to contain global warming.
+
Next step is to build a ration of effect results compared to INDUSTRY, for example. I call this effect weight as this number could be directly plugged into SE model evaluation.
−
 
+
−
Weight = 0.5=>0.0
+
−
 
+
−
===Probe===
+
−
 
+
−
This is IMHO the least usefult effect of them all. Mostly because it makes difference so rare in the game that and doesn't impact game outcome in general. The only exclusion is a Miriam ability to set +3 Probe rating at the beginning of the game when you don't have cover ops centers yet. And even then it makes no difference for her.
+
−
 
+
−
Weight = 0.0=>0.0 (subject for discussion)
+
−
 
+
−
==Effect weights table==
+
  
 
{| class="wikitable"
 
{| class="wikitable"
−
|+ Effect weight
+
|+ Effect weights normalized by INDUSTRY
 
|-
 
|-
−
! Effect !! Early game !! Late game
+
! effect !! early game !! mid game !! late game
 
|-
 
|-
−
| style="text-align: left; " | Economy (average) || style="text-align: right; " | 3.0 || style="text-align: right; " | 0.5
+
| style="text-align: left; " | INDUSTRY || style="text-align: right; " | 1.0 || style="text-align: right; " | 1.0 || style="text-align: right; " | 1.0
 
|-
 
|-
−
| style="text-align: left; " | Growth || style="text-align: right; " | 3.0 || style="text-align: right; " | 2.0
+
| style="text-align: left; " | RESEARCH || style="text-align: right; " | 0.6 || style="text-align: right; " | 0.5 || style="text-align: right; " | 0.4
 
|-
 
|-
−
| style="text-align: left; " | Efficiency || style="text-align: right; " | 1.0 || style="text-align: right; " | 1.5
+
| style="text-align: left; " | ECONOMY (average) || style="text-align: right; " | 5.5 || style="text-align: right; " | 2.0 || style="text-align: right; " | 0.9
 
|-
 
|-
−
| style="text-align: left; " | Support || style="text-align: right; " | 3.0 || style="text-align: right; " | 0.5
+
| style="text-align: left; " | GROWTH || style="text-align: right; " | 2.0 || style="text-align: right; " | 1.4 || style="text-align: right; " | 0.7
 
|-
 
|-
−
| style="text-align: left; " | Industry || style="text-align: right; " | 2.0 || style="text-align: right; " | 1.0
+
| style="text-align: left; " | EFFICIENCY (average and aggregated) || style="text-align: right; " | 0.8 || style="text-align: right; " | 1.4 || style="text-align: right; " | 1.4
 
|-
 
|-
−
| style="text-align: left; " | Police || style="text-align: right; " | 1.5 || style="text-align: right; " | 0.5
+
| style="text-align: left; " | EFFICIENCY WTP (average and aggregated)  || style="text-align: right; " | 0.5 || style="text-align: right; " | 0.9 || style="text-align: right; " | 1.9
 
|-
 
|-
−
| style="text-align: left; " | Research || style="text-align: right; " | 1.0 || style="text-align: right; " | 0.5
+
| style="text-align: left; " | SUPPORT || style="text-align: right; " | 2.1 || style="text-align: right; " | 0.9 || style="text-align: right; " | 0.4
 
|-
 
|-
−
| style="text-align: left; " | Morale || style="text-align: right; " | 1.0 || style="text-align: right; " | 0.0
+
| style="text-align: left; " | POLICE || style="text-align: right; " | 2.3 || style="text-align: right; " | 1.2 || style="text-align: right; " | 0.7
 
|-
 
|-
−
| style="text-align: left; " | Planet || style="text-align: right; " | 1.0 || style="text-align: right; " | 0.0
+
| style="text-align: left; " | MORALE || style="text-align: right; " | 0.4 || style="text-align: right; " | 0.5 || style="text-align: right; " | 0.6
 
|-
 
|-
−
| style="text-align: left; " | Probe || style="text-align: right; " | 0.5 || style="text-align: right; " | 0.0
+
| style="text-align: left; " | PLANET|| style="text-align: right; " | 0.7 || style="text-align: right; " | 0.7 || style="text-align: right; " | 0.6
 +
|-
 +
| style="text-align: left; " | PROBE || style="text-align: right; " | 0.4 || style="text-align: right; " | 0.4 || style="text-align: right; " | 0.4
 +
|-
 +
| style="text-align: left; " | TALENT || style="text-align: right; " | 5.0 || style="text-align: right; " | 1.3 || style="text-align: right; " | 0.4
 
|}
 
|}
  
−
===Effect weights table normalized by Industry===
+
Let me reiterate that these numbers are not by all means exact. Different evaluation approach may yield slightly different results. Yet, this is enough to understand SE relative values and how they are changing with the course of the game. Fixed benefit effects like ECONOMY, SUPPORT are obviously strong at the beginning and decline as bases produce more resources themselves.
 +
 
 +
=Society Models analyzis=
 +
 
 +
==Vanilla==
  
−
Apparently, energy yield grows faster than mineral one. That's why many effects fall strongly toward the end of the game '''comparing''' to Energy effect. We can renormalize the table by picking Industry effect as a base value instead. Industry seems to be more steadily growing and delivers more or less same value throughout the game. Below is such renormalized table where Industry weight is always 1.
+
The above devised tool allows us evaluate models and compare them to each other. Let's review vanilla models first. Only relevant game historical periods are shown.
−
<br/>
+
  
 
{| class="wikitable"
 
{| class="wikitable"
−
|+ Effect weight normalized by Industry
+
|+ Vanilla SE models weight
 
|-
 
|-
−
! Effect !! Early game !! Late game !! Comment
+
! effect !! early game !! mid game !! late game !! average
 
|-
 
|-
−
| style="text-align: left; " | Economy (average) || style="text-align: right; " | 1.5 || style="text-align: right; " | 1.0 ||
+
| style="text-align: left; " | Police State || style="text-align: right; " | 7.0 || style="text-align: right; " | 1.5 || style="text-align: right; " | -0.6 || style="text-align: right; " | 2.6
 
|-
 
|-
−
| style="text-align: left; " | Growth || style="text-align: right; " | 1.5 || style="text-align: right; " | 2.0 ||
+
| style="text-align: left; " | Democratic || style="text-align: right; " | 1.5 || style="text-align: right; " | 3.8 || style="text-align: right; " | 3.4 || style="text-align: right; " | 2.9
 
|-
 
|-
−
| style="text-align: left; " | Efficiency || style="text-align: right; " | 0.5 || style="text-align: right; " | 1.5 || Value grows with empire size.
+
| style="text-align: left; " | Fundamentalist || style="text-align: right; " | -0.1 || style="text-align: right; " | 0.2 || style="text-align: right; " | 0.6 || style="text-align: right; " | 0.2
 
|-
 
|-
−
| style="text-align: left; " | Support || style="text-align: right; " | 1.5 || style="text-align: right; " | 0.5 ||
+
| style="text-align: left; " | Free Market || style="text-align: right; " | -2.3 || style="text-align: right; " | -4.2 || style="text-align: right; " | -3.3 || style="text-align: right; " | -3.3
 
|-
 
|-
−
| style="text-align: left; background-color: yellow; " | Industry || style="text-align: right; background-color: yellow; " | 1.0 || style="text-align: right; background-color: yellow; " | 1.0 ||
+
| style="text-align: left; " | Planned || style="text-align: right; " | 3.4 || style="text-align: right; " | 1.1 || style="text-align: right; " | -0.4 || style="text-align: right; " | 1.3
 
|-
 
|-
−
| style="text-align: left; " | Police || style="text-align: right; " | 1.0 || style="text-align: right; " | 0.5 ||
+
| style="text-align: left; " | Green || style="text-align: right; " | -1.0 || style="text-align: right; " | 1.3 || style="text-align: right; " | 2.6 || style="text-align: right; " | 0.9
 
|-
 
|-
−
| style="text-align: left; " | Research || style="text-align: right; " | 0.5 || style="text-align: right; " | 0.5 ||
+
| style="text-align: left; " | Power || style="text-align: right; " | || style="text-align: right; " | 0.7 || style="text-align: right; " | 0.1 || style="text-align: right; " | 0.4
 
|-
 
|-
−
| style="text-align: left; " | Morale || style="text-align: right; " | 0.5 || style="text-align: right; " | 0.0 ||
+
| style="text-align: left; " | Knowledge || style="text-align: right; " | || style="text-align: right; " | 2.5 || style="text-align: right; " | 2.5 || style="text-align: right; " | 2.5
 
|-
 
|-
−
| style="text-align: left; " | Planet || style="text-align: right; " | 0.5 || style="text-align: right; " | 0.0 ||
+
| style="text-align: left; " | Wealth || style="text-align: right; " | || style="text-align: right; " | 2.0 || style="text-align: right; " | 0.7 || style="text-align: right; " | 1.4
 
|-
 
|-
−
| style="text-align: left; " | Probe || style="text-align: right; " | 0.0 || style="text-align: right; " | 0.0 ||
+
| style="text-align: left; " | Cybernetic || style="text-align: right; " | || style="text-align: right; " | || style="text-align: right; " | 2.8 || style="text-align: right; " | 2.8
 +
|-
 +
| style="text-align: left; " | Eudaimonic || style="text-align: right; " | || style="text-align: right; " | || style="text-align: right; " | 4.1 || style="text-align: right; " | 4.1
 +
|-
 +
| style="text-align: left; " | Thought Control || style="text-align: right; " | || style="text-align: right; " | || style="text-align: right; " | 2.0 || style="text-align: right; " | 2.0
 
|}
 
|}
  
−
===Economy by step weights normalized by Industry===
+
Apparently, Fundamentalist is a complete waste of a SE slot, which is also corresponds to community opinion. Free Market is very difficult to evaluate due to both non-linear ECONOMY scale and negative POLICE effects those manifest themselves only during offensive campaigns. I'll leave it without comments. Power seems to be under-powered as well especially later in the game when SUPPORT value deteriorates.
 +
 
 +
==WTP v.117==
 +
 
 +
Here is the similar table for WTP SE choice for comparison purposes. It accounts for WTP inefficiency formula. Future society models are also shown for mid game as they can be discovered by that time in WTP.
  
 
{| class="wikitable"
 
{| class="wikitable"
 +
|+ WTP SE models weight
 +
|-
 +
! effect !! early game !! mid game !! late game !! average
 +
|-
 +
| style="text-align: left; " | Police State || style="text-align: right; " | 6.9 || style="text-align: right; " | 1.7 || style="text-align: right; " | -2.2 || style="text-align: right; " | 2.1
 +
|-
 +
| style="text-align: left; " | Democratic || style="text-align: right; " | -0.1 || style="text-align: right; " | 1.9 || style="text-align: right; " | 3.4 || style="text-align: right; " | 1.7
 +
|-
 +
| style="text-align: left; " | Fundamentalist || style="text-align: right; " | 1.3 || style="text-align: right; " | 1.7 || style="text-align: right; " | 2.2 || style="text-align: right; " | 1.7
 
|-
 
|-
−
! From !! To !! Early !! Middle !! Late !! Comment
+
| style="text-align: left; " | Free Market || style="text-align: right; " | 0.2 || style="text-align: right; " | -2.7 || style="text-align: right; " | -2.4 || style="text-align: right; " | -1.6
 
|-
 
|-
−
| style="text-align: right; " | -3 || style="text-align: right; " | -2 || style="text-align: right; " | 1.0 || style="text-align: right; " | 0.5 || style="text-align: right; " | 0.0 ||
+
| style="text-align: left; " | Planned || style="text-align: right; " | 4.0 || style="text-align: right; " | 2.0 || style="text-align: right; " | -1.4 || style="text-align: right; " | 1.5
 
|-
 
|-
−
| style="text-align: right; " | -2 || style="text-align: right; " | -1 || style="text-align: right; " | 1.0 || style="text-align: right; " | 0.5 || style="text-align: right; " | 0.0 ||
+
| style="text-align: left; " | Green || style="text-align: right; " | -4.6 || style="text-align: right; " | -2.0 || style="text-align: right; " | 1.9 || style="text-align: right; " | -1.6
 
|-
 
|-
−
| style="text-align: right; " | -1 || style="text-align: right; " | 0 || style="text-align: right; " | 0.0 || style="text-align: right; " | 0.0 || style="text-align: right; " | 0.0 ||
+
| style="text-align: left; " | Power || style="text-align: right; " | || style="text-align: right; " | 2.1 || style="text-align: right; " | 1.5 || style="text-align: right; " | 1.8
 
|-
 
|-
−
| style="text-align: right; " | 0 || style="text-align: right; " | +1 || style="text-align: right; " | 1.0 || style="text-align: right; " | 0.5 || style="text-align: right; " | 0.0 ||
+
| style="text-align: left; " | Knowledge || style="text-align: right; " | || style="text-align: right; " | 0.9 || style="text-align: right; " | 2.1 || style="text-align: right; " | 1.5
 
|-
 
|-
−
| style="text-align: right; " | +1 || style="text-align: right; " | +2 || style="text-align: right; " | 4.0 || style="text-align: right; " | 3.0 || style="text-align: right; " | 2.0 || This is the strongest impact Economy change can make. And this is the reason it is valued very high.
+
| style="text-align: left; " | Wealth || style="text-align: right; " | || style="text-align: right; " | 1.8 || style="text-align: right; " | 1.1 || style="text-align: right; " | 1.4
 
|-
 
|-
−
| style="text-align: right; " | +2 || style="text-align: right; " | +3 || style="text-align: right; " | 2.0 || style="text-align: right; " | 1.5 || style="text-align: right; " | 1.0 ||
+
| style="text-align: left; " | Cybernetic || style="text-align: right; " | || style="text-align: right; " | -1.9 || style="text-align: right; " | 2.5 || style="text-align: right; " | 0.3
 
|-
 
|-
−
| style="text-align: right; " | +3 || style="text-align: right; " | +4 || style="text-align: right; " | 2.0 || style="text-align: right; " | 1.5 || style="text-align: right; " | 1.0 ||
+
| style="text-align: left; " | Eudaimonic || style="text-align: right; " | || style="text-align: right; " | 4.4 || style="text-align: right; " | -0.4 || style="text-align: right; " | 2.0
 
|-
 
|-
−
| style="text-align: right; " | +4 || style="text-align: right; " | +5 || style="text-align: right; " | 0.0 || style="text-align: right; " | 0.5 || style="text-align: right; " | 1.0 ||
+
| style="text-align: left; " | Thought Control || style="text-align: right; " | || style="text-align: right; " | 4.3 || style="text-align: right; " | 2.9 || style="text-align: right; " | 3.6
 
|}
 
|}
  
−
==Effect range usage analyzis==
+
Fundamentalist and FM look better. Although Green somehow went down a little. I probably need to revisit it. Everything else looks on target.
  
−
Analyzing how effect is used and whether its usage need to be adjusted. I.e. add more negative/positive modificators or use more rare/often.
+
==WTP v.121==
  
−
===Economy===
+
[[File:se-121.png]]
  
−
Values below 0 are not reachable by common means. Values -1, -2 are reachable by Hive only.
+
Green also has <span style="color: red;">'''+2 TALENT'''</span>, not shown on the picture.
−
<br />
+
−
Proposition: add some negative values somewhere.
+
  
−
===Efficiency===
+
Thought Control also has <span style="color: red;">'''+1 TALENT'''</span>, not shown on the picture.
  
−
Effect continues to work above value +4 even though manual describes value range -4 to +4 only. This is because all effects are calculated by formula that can accept any value.
+
====Effect weights====
−
<br />
+
−
Strongly unlinear toward -4 value. Stepping from -3 to -4 takes away 50% of your energy yield and makes all citizens drones! Whereas stepping from +3 to +4 changes same values by about 1%. Other than that works fine.
+
−
<br />
+
−
Proposition: disperse -2 modificators from PS and Planned to other models so they still can be used in large empires.
+
  
−
===Support===
+
Effect weights are adjusted a little internally. Here I just list resulting SE models summary weights with explanations.
  
−
Can go below and above value range which has no effect. No issue.
+
{| class="wikitable"
−
 
+
|+ WTP SE models weight
−
===Morale===
+
|-
−
 
+
! effect !! early game !! mid game !! late game !! average
−
Can go above value range which has no effect. No biggie.
+
|-
−
<br />
+
| style="text-align: left; " | Police State || style="text-align: right; " | 4.3 || style="text-align: right; " | 1.3 || style="text-align: right; " | -1.8 || style="text-align: right; " | 1.2
−
Worse thing is that besides SE models morale is also boosted by facilities and by promotion. As a result war oriented factions soon run swarms of elite units.
+
|-
−
<br />
+
| style="text-align: left; " | Democratic || style="text-align: right; " | -0.8 || style="text-align: right; " | 2.0 || style="text-align: right; " | 3.6 || style="text-align: right; " | 1.6
−
Proposition: decrease Morale modifier and give more negative Morale value across models so many combinations would push Morale down.
+
|-
−
 
+
| style="text-align: left; " | Fundamentalist || style="text-align: right; " | 1.7 || style="text-align: right; " | 1.7 || style="text-align: right; " | 1.9 || style="text-align: right; " | 1.8
−
===Police===
+
|-
−
 
+
| style="text-align: left; " | Free Market || style="text-align: right; " | 0.9 || style="text-align: right; " | -1.9 || style="text-align: right; " | -1.7 || style="text-align: right; " | -0.9
−
Can go waaay below and above value range which has no effect. No issue.
+
|-
−
 
+
| style="text-align: left; " | Planned || style="text-align: right; " | 2.3 || style="text-align: right; " | 3.1 || style="text-align: right; " | 0.9 || style="text-align: right; " | 2.1
−
===Growth===
+
|-
−
 
+
| style="text-align: left; " | Green || style="text-align: right; " | 3.0 || style="text-align: right; " | 0.0 || style="text-align: right; " | 1.4 || style="text-align: right; " | 1.5
−
Generally skewed toward higher values which allows early pop boom.
+
|-
−
<br />
+
| style="text-align: left; " | Power || style="text-align: right; " | || style="text-align: right; " | 2.6 || style="text-align: right; " | 1.4 || style="text-align: right; " | 2.0
−
Proposition: decrease positive modificators, add more negative modificators.
+
|-
−
 
+
| style="text-align: left; " | Knowledge || style="text-align: right; " | || style="text-align: right; " | 0.3 || style="text-align: right; " | 2.5 || style="text-align: right; " | 1.4
−
===Planet===
+
|-
−
 
+
| style="text-align: left; " | Wealth || style="text-align: right; " | || style="text-align: right; " | 1.5 || style="text-align: right; " | 1.1 || style="text-align: right; " | 1.3
−
Can go up to +4 which still has effect on combat odds. No issue.
+
|-
−
 
+
| style="text-align: left; " | Cybernetic || style="text-align: right; " | || style="text-align: right; " | 0.3 || style="text-align: right; " | 2.9 || style="text-align: right; " | 1.6
−
===Probe===
+
|-
−
 
+
| style="text-align: left; " | Eudaimonic || style="text-align: right; " | || style="text-align: right; " | 2.3 || style="text-align: right; " | -0.4 || style="text-align: right; " | 1.0
−
Can go up to +6 which has no effect. No issue.
+
|-
−
<br />
+
| style="text-align: left; " | Thought Control || style="text-align: right; " | || style="text-align: right; " | 1.3 || style="text-align: right; " | 1.6 || style="text-align: right; " | 1.5
−
Proposition: use more rare and use more negative values.
+
|}
−
 
+
−
===Industry===
+
−
 
+
−
A little skewed toward higher values. No issue.
+
−
<br />
+
−
Proposition: add more negative values.
+
−
 
+
−
===Research===
+
−
 
+
−
A little skewed toward higher values. No issue.
+
−
<br />
+
−
Proposition: add more negative values.
+
−
 
+
−
==Effect groups==
+
−
 
+
−
There are two major Effect groups. Build style group benefit your whole empire regardless of current political situation. They tend to keep or increase in value as you empire grows. Momentum style group helps you win the war one way or another. They tend to decline drastically toward the end of the game. Mostly because pure faction power overcomes all other factors.
+
−
<br/>
+
−
Build style effects: Economy, Efficiency, Police, Growth, Industry, Research.
+
−
<br/>
+
−
Momentum style effects: Support, Morale, Police, Planet, Probe
+
−
<br/>
+
−
Police is dual because of builder related top and momentum related bottom.
+
−
 
+
−
Naturally people understand the difference and tend to classify SE models the same way. That is attributing Democratic as builder choice and Fundamentalist as momentum choice. IMHO that is absolutely incorrect. Player shouldn't automatically chose SE model based on how its name sounds. They should carefully weigh selection based on how specific module bonuses strengthen their empire in current situation. Therefore, to build a good and variable collection of SE models, we need to mix effects from both builder and momentum group in each model. There should be no restriction induced by historical connotation behind the name.
+
−
 
+
−
==Society Models analyzis==
+
−
 
+
−
Analyze models popularity and discuss fix.
+
  
 
===Police State===
 
===Police State===
  
−
Slightly unpopular due to big Efficiency penalty.
+
SUPPORT and POLICE is incredibly strong especially early on. Early EFFICIENCY penalty cost nothing in term of inefficiency. So faction can can grow quite large without investing anything into psych. Therefore, I've added INDUSTRY penalty to it to even extra free minerals generated by SUPPORT in early game.
−
<br />
+
−
Proposition: split -2 Efficiency to -1 Efficiency and -1 Economy. Neither one have big drawback at the beginning of the game. Lower Efficiency penalty will keep the appeal of this choice toward the end of the game.
+
  
 
===Democratic===
 
===Democratic===
  
−
Overpowered due to big Efficiency and Growth bonuses combination.
+
Vanilla composition is pretty solid. I just felt a little random penalty should be in order. PLANET seems to fit the bill to add variety to Politics. Moreover, Democratic becomes stronger with time. So is PLANET. It may offset this choice a little in a future and give chance to other combinations.
−
<br />
+
−
Proposition: decrease Growth bonus and also drop Morale. Decrease in Growth will stop early popbooming and Morale drop will force player to switch from it at least sometimes at the beginning of the game. It will still be popular toward the end of the game due to nice Efficiency.
+
  
 
===Fundamentalist===
 
===Fundamentalist===
  
−
Unpopular due to lack of good bonuses.
+
As in other versions I like to add INDUSTRY to this model to strengthen combat oriented factions. Otherwise, it is too weak. I've also increased MORALE bonus to support the lore of this choice. Extra RESEARCH penalty should offset these two bonuses a little. Honestly, I don't feel it is too important to have this penalty. It seems fine both with and without it.
−
<br />
+
−
Proposition: add Industry and Morale. This is even kind of in line with name connotation. Indeed, why would Fundamentalist not boost their production? And +1 Morale is too unnoticeable to make a difference anyway.
+
  
 
===Free Market===
 
===Free Market===
  
−
No major issues since Economy is balanced by Police making it usable during peace time only. Plus you need extended worm protection for cities.
+
Reduced overly harsh POLICE and PLANET penalties a little. With strengthened planet combat bonus this is too much of the drawback. It gets little PROBE penalty instead. Again, this choice is very difficult to evaluate. It is very situational. I don't think PROBE penalty is absolutely necessary here.
  
 
===Planned===
 
===Planned===
  
−
Slightly more powered due to Industry + Growth combination.
+
Same theme of balancing INDUSTRY - SUPPORT here. This time it is opposite. This is perceived a very strong early game choice. This extra penalty should give chance to other Economics choices at early stages and it fades away as game progress. So not much harm done.
−
Proposition: -1 Economy. Harms this model very little by itself but may force to avoid it in combination with Wealth.
+
  
 
===Green===
 
===Green===
  
−
Apparently slightly weakeash model judging by other people feedback.
+
Interesting choice but is generally perceived to be UP in early game because EFFICIENCY not working in full capacity yet. I've added +2 TALENTS to offset its initial uselessness. Now it can work exceptionally well in tandem with PS to maintain population happiness. The choice of bonus effect was more or less random but, I guess, pure happiness is somewhat collocated to harmony this choice proclaims.
−
<br />
+
−
Proposition: a) +3 Police or b) -1 Growth, +1 Police. Slow growth but additional control of existing population.
+
  
 
===Power===
 
===Power===
  
−
Another slightly weakeash model judging by other people feedback. Lack of serious values.
+
Not much changes here. It is relatively well rounded vanilla choice, albeit slightly pushed down with double INDUSTRY penalty. I've decided to strengthen it with some extra GROWTH. Society needs more soldiers who are constantly dying in battles. This extra GROWTH is borrowed from Eudaimonic so the total amount of GROWTH bonuses for pop boom triggering stays intact.
−
<br />
+
−
Proposition: +1 Police.
+
  
 
===Knowledge===
 
===Knowledge===
  
−
No issues.
+
I always, always wanted to give it super extra RESEARCH to make it really distinguishable choice. This is supposed to be an ultimate technology lovers choice, after all. Besides, it was strangely weak choice in vanilla. So weak comparing to Wealth that generates same amount of research by it +1 ECONOMY. I know that vanilla scale is limited by +5 and this benefit can be lost if combined with Cybernetic so I plan to raise this limit in following versions. That should be completely harmless comparing to INDUSTRY and GROWTH scales where higher value becomes more and more stronger. GROWTH penalty offsets that amount of research. Don't know how to tie it to lore. Was just in need of some GROWTH penalties here and there for variety.
−
Although with its current configuration it is almost undistinguisable from Wealth. It is tempting to make it more research oriented for the price of economy. This way it will sort of channel energy to research without allocation change.
+
−
<br />
+
−
Proposition: -1 Economy, +4 Knowledge. Nice research bonus but cut on energy income from FM.
+
  
 
===Wealth===
 
===Wealth===
  
−
No issues in general except that -2 Morale is not always a major flaw.
+
This one, in turn, is bound to be about automated and enhanced INDUSTRY by being a child of Industrial Automation! So here it gets an extra one and becomes an only model with double bonus for this effect. Such addition is slightly offset by one POLICE penalty but I don't even believe this is needed. This choice was pretty weak in vanilla to begin with.
−
<br />
+
−
Proposition: -2 Morale, -1 Research. Morale makes war difficult which is kind of in line with Wealth values. Research offsets energy income - sort of reverted Knowledge.
+
  
 
===Cybernetic===
 
===Cybernetic===
  
−
No issues.
+
Not much changes here. It was pretty solid choice originally. Just increased POLICE penalty slightly.
  
 
===Eudaimonic===
 
===Eudaimonic===
  
−
Insanely overpowered. Each bonus is a huge boost by itself and Morale in later game means nothing.
+
Hard labor for people seeking fulfillment and happiness? Blasphemy! +2 ECONOMY was already insane bonus for them. Aside INDUSTRY they also lose one GROWTH (given to Power), one MORALE, and one EFFICIENCY just to complete their life style. Now they can enjoy their low morale life. 😂
−
<br />
+
−
Proposition: -3 Morale and -4 Industry. Economy and Growth bonuses are already insanely good. This change intends to force player to use this choice only in the time of peace to live on commerce instead of production. The logical end game choice.
+
  
 
===Thought Control===
 
===Thought Control===
  
−
Too weak comparing to Eudaimonic. Police is the only valuable bonus.
+
Another very well rounded but not exceptionally strong economical choice. I've add them +1 TALENT instead. I guess some talented people are happy to live in society where crime is non existent. Give them also slight boost in case they want to go to war, which is probably always at this game stage.
−
<br />
+
−
Proposition: +3 Morale, +2 Industry, ? Probe. Counterpart of Eudaimonic. War and production oriented.
+

Latest revision as of 20:01, 2 September 2020

Contents

Credits

Alpha Centauri Bear (me)

WTP mod (the one inspiring and using this technique)

Preface

This is an attempt to give SESocial Engineering modders a tool to roughly compare different society effects for the purpose of better SE balancing. Thanks to all contributors on many other forums for expressing their opinions and sharing ideas. Such tool does not replace actual playing experience and testing because, fortunately, effect have very different effects and applicability to different strategies and play styles. However, it may help fixing too much imbalance in SE system.

In addition this article also analyses vanilla SE models using above comparison technique and suggests correction to balance models better, adjust effects range usage, adjust underused models appeal, adjust extra sharp effects, etc.

Effect weights idea

Effect weight is a relative effect value comparing to other effects. Definitely, their behavior is nonlinear both because of nonlinear effect scale and due to different game state, environment, and play style. Therefore, such comparison is nonlinear too and depends on many factors. All evaluations are bound to be very approximate and are applicable one on "in average" case. I also used multiple assumptions in below calculations. Feel free to correct me of propose your own. I will appreciate any input. Thank you.

Comparison method

Each effect is expressed in either minerals or energy difference to the player (average per base). Conversion ratio is 1 mineral = 2 energy. Then these differences are compared to each other to calculate relative SE weights.

Historical periods

I consider three historical periods for purpose of averaging. The very early part of the game is excluded since SE are not available there - nothing to compare. The very late part of the game is excluded as at that point game is either won or lost and no social engineering can help it.

Historical period average values
period early middle late
approximate turns 25-50 50-100 100-200
base count 5 10 20
mineral intake 6 12 24
energy intake 4 12 36
base size 3 5 9
nutrients/square 2.0 2.5 3.0
commerce technologies 1 3 5
distance from HQ 3 6 12
economy allocation 0.3 0.3 0.3
labs allocation 0.7 0.6 0.5
psych allocation 0.0 0.1 0.2
minerals multiplier 1.0 1.5 2.0
energy multiplier 1.0 1.5 2.0

Effect result calculations

All calculation are done for normal map and all other medium values if not specified otherwise. This can be extrapolated to other map sizes.

ENERGY

This is an artificial effect introduced for the ease of further calculations and to establish base weight value. One step on this imaginary ENERGY effect scale changes raw city energy yield (including commerce) by 10%. So it works similar to other linear effects. Of course, it doesn't exist in a game as described but it is convenient to use it as a base value since many other effects can be expressed through it. I also pick this one as a base and not an Industry as energy can be converted to both Industry and Research - two important effects not easily comparable with each other. 

ENERGY result = 0.1 * <effective energy intake>

ENERGY derivatives

From ENERGY weight we also can calculate its derivative weights: LAB/ECO/PSY. LAB is a RESEARCH. Other two do not exist in the game but it is still useful to calculate them to use as intermediary values for further computation. Obviously, all of them change proportionally when Energy change. We will compare each of them individually with Energy assuming we also can change allocation without penalty to channel all extra energy to one derivative only without modifying others.

Let's calculate how much ENERGY should increase to produce same result as LAB increase. 

lab increase for +1 ENERGY = 0.1 * <effective energy intake> * <lab multiplier>
lab increase for +1 LAB    = 0.1 * <effective energy intake> * <lab allocation> * <lab multiplier>

Using the above we can express LAB result through ENERGY result. 

LAB result = ENERGY result * <lab allocation>

Same way we get similar formulas for ECO and PSY: 

ECO result = ENERGY result * <eco allocation>
PSY result = ENERGY result * <psy allocation>

A special thing to say about RESEARCH. Players tend to maximize labs as much as allocation penalty possibly allows. That is an indication that research advantage is actually much more valuable then mere economy to production contribution. Unfortunately, technology advantage is impossible to evaluate by itself and even less the discovery rate. That's why I tend to give RESEARCH additions factor of 2 on top of the above LAB result formula. Same bonus goes to ENERGY as this is also source of research. The more economy and labs combined player has the more they can divert to research - either directly or indirectly through economy->labs reallocation. In this regard it should be obvious that increasing energy intake by 10% is about twice as more valuable as just increasing labs by 10% because energy goes to both labs and economy.

INDUSTRY

INDUSTRY result = 0.1 * <mineral intake>

ECONOMY

Economy effect is drastically non linear. We can try to estimate each type of Economy change on its own and then summarize combination values for each step on ECONOMY scale. ECONOMY effect change types are: 1) +1 energy per base, 2) +1 energy per square, 3) +1 commerce rating.

ECONOMY (energy per base)

energy increase for +1 ENERGY            = 0.1 * <effective energy intake>
energy increase for +1 energy per base   = 1

+1 energy per base result = ENERGY result * 1 / (0.1 * <effective energy intake>)

ECONOMY (energy per square)

energy increase for +1 ENERGY            = 0.1 * <effective energy intake>
energy increase for +1 energy per square = <base size> + 1

+1 energy per square result = ENERGY result * (<base size> + 1) / (0.1 * <effective energy intake>)

ECONOMY (commerce rating)

Commerce rating is very difficult to estimate as it fluctuates greatly based on diplomacy. Besides, it has quite a complex formula. It would be easier just to estimate it as a portion of total energy intake and then assign it different historical period values based on play testing average. 

energy increase for +1 ENERGY            = 0.1 * <effective energy intake>
energy increase for +1 commerce rating   = <effective energy intake> * <average commerce proportion> / (1 + <number of commerce technologies>)

+1 commerce rating result = ENERGY result * [<effective energy intake> * <average commerce proportion> / (1 + <number of commerce technologies>)] / [0.1 * <effective energy intake>] = [<average commerce proportion> / (1 + <number of commerce technologies>)] / 0.1

EFFICIENCY

EFFICIENCY effect is threefold. It decreases inefficiency, decreases number of b-drones (for positive ratings), and decreases penalty for uneven Eco/Res allocation. Let's review them one by one.

EFFICIENCY (inefficiency)

energy increase for +1 ENERGY     = 0.1 * <effective energy intake> = 0.1 * <energy intake> * (1 - <distance to HQ> / (64-((4-EFFICIENCY)*8)))
energy increase for +1 EFFICIENCY = <energy intake> * [min(1, <distance to HQ> / (64-((4-EFFICIENCY_from)*8))) - min(1, <distance to HQ> / (64-((4-EFFICIENCY_to)*8)))]

This is very nonlinear, cumbersome, and depends on the distance to HQ. I won't even try to devise a nice formula just calculate and list these values in table for illustration.

EFFICIENCY (inefficiency) weight
from to early game mid game late game
-4 -3 3.21 2.01 0.00
-3 -2 0.96 3.02 2.63
-2 -1 0.32 1.01 2.63
-1 0 0.16 0.50 1.31
0 1 0.10 0.30 0.79
1 2 0.06 0.20 0.53
2 3 0.05 0.14 0.38
3 4 0.03 0.11 0.28

As you can see the effect is very dependent on EFFICIENCY current rating itself and even stronger on distance to HQ. The effect is almost negligible for small empires and huge for large ones. The zero in the top right corner means that switching from -4 to -3 rating does not help at all. Still all energy is lost to inefficiency.

EFFICIENCY (inefficiency) WTP

WTP mod introduces two parts to inefficiency formula: the HQ influence and flat EFFICIENCY rating contribution. That reduces non-linearity. You can check inefficiency formula in WTP readme. Here I just show the same value table for illustration.

EFFICIENCY (inefficiency) WTP weight
from to early game mid game late game
-4 -3 0.71 1.21 1.88
-3 -2 0.43 1.21 1.88
-2 -1 0.00 1.21 1.88
-1 0 0.00 0.24 1.88
0 1 0.00 0.00 1.88
1 2 0.00 0.00 1.88
2 3 0.00 0.00 0.75
3 4 0.00 0.00 0.00

This looks better than vanilla formula not only because it is linear but also because every step on a scale matters. Of course, the bigger the empire the more it matters.

EFFICIENCY (b-drones)

We'll calculate EFFICIENCY b-drones weight by comparing its drone reduction effect to two other means to quell same number of drones: 1) psych increase, and 2) energy reserves increase to maintain pacifying facilities. Then we select whichever is cheaper at certain game period. Number of b-drones per base is calculated assuming normal size map on highest difficulty. Two most common pacifying facilities are Recreation Commons (40/1) and Hologram Theater (60/2). The average cost of these two (per drone) is 25 minerals + 0.75 energy/turn. That is roughly 1 energy per drone per turn.

Obviously, with equal psych and economy multipliers maintaining pacifying facilities is twice cheaper than allocating energy to psych. However, there are only few pacifying facilities. So we use psych method as the main one keeping in mind that early on EFFICIENCY (b-drones) weight could be even lower due to pacifying facilities option.

Quelling drones with psych: 

drones decrease for +1 ENERGY     = 0.1 * <effective energy intake> * <psych multiplier> / 2
drones decrease for +1 EFFICIENCY = [<base count> / ((8-Difficulty)*(4+EFFICIENCY_from)/2) - 1] - [<base count> / ((8-Difficulty)*(4+EFFICIENCY_to)/2) - 1]

Again I am not going to convert it into formula. Here is the table values for highest difficulty.

EFFICIENCY (b-drones) weight
from to early game mid game late game
0 1 0.00 0.72 0.97
1 2 0.00 0.36 0.69
2 3 0.00 0.12 0.51
3 4 0.00 0.00 0.38

EFFICIENCY (allocation penalty)

Finally, the penalty for unequal economy/research allocation. Let's take a smallest unequal distribution of 60%-40%. For that distribution you loose 2% for bigger allocation + 4% for smaller allocation per 20% difference per Efficiency level. 

energy increase for +1 ENERGY     = 0.1 * <effective energy intake>
energy increase for +1 EFFICIENCY = 0.03 * <effective energy intake>

EFFICIENCY (allocation penalty) result = ENERGY result * [0.03 * <effective energy intake>] / [0.1 * <effective energy intake>] = ENERGY result * 0.3

GROWTH

GROWTH power lies not in immediate economical effect but in economical development acceleration instead. Roughly you'll have 14% bigger bases at any future point in time with 10% growth rate bonus. That gives you 14% more workers => 14% more of both mineral and energy yield. 

GROWTH result = 1.4 * (INDUSTRY result + ENERGY result)

Special consideration about GROWTH is that it becomes proportionally less valuable as game progress as it leaves less time for GROWTH effect to manifest itself.

SUPPORT

SUPPORT translates to absolute minerals gain/loss. However, it is not linear and allows free units only if there are so many supported. Here is the table for different SUPPORT transitions.

minerals saved per SUPPORT rating
from to result
-4 -3 <number of supported units>
-3 -2 first unit is free
-2 -1 0, don't know how to express free minerals for new base
-1 0 second unit is free
0 1 third unit is free
1 2 fourth unit is free
2 3 all units beyond four and up to base size are free

The -4 to -3 transition is the most drastic one. The 2 to 3 transition is also drastic if there are much more than 4 supported units. The rest of steps are just about +1 mineral per base. Assuming the average +1 mineral per SUPPORT rating we can craft following formula. 

minerals gain from +1 INDUSTRY  = 0.1 * <mineral intake>
minerals gain from +1 SUPPORT   = 1

SUPPORT result = INDUSTRY result * 1 / [0.1 * <mineral intake>]

POLICE

Police effect is similar to EFFICIENCY b-drones effect and to PSY effect. They all reduce number of drones. However, this is another nonlinear effect. The summary is in the table below.

drones reduced per POLICE rating
from to result
-5 -4 <number of outside units>
-4 -3 first outside unit does not generate drone
-3 -2 outside units beyond first do not generate drones
-2 -1 first police unit removes drones
-1 0 nerve stapling is available
0 1 second police unit removes drones
1 2 third police unit removes drones
2 3 up to three police units remove one more drone each

The progression is greatly depends on how many police units base has and how many outside units it supports. Up to mid game each step would probably cost one drone. Later on number of outside units may grow as well as non-lethal method ability may add one more drone quelling capacity to police units. So I'd estimate 1 drone per rating at game start that linearly grows to 2 toward late game and maybe then even to 3 with more outside units. 

drones decrease for +1 ENERGY = 0.1 * <effective energy intake> * <psych multiplier> / 2
drones decrease for +1 POLICE = <POLICE game stage multiplier>

POLICE (b-drones) result = ENERGY result * <POLICE game stage multiplier> / [0.1 * <effective energy intake> * <psych multiplier> / 2]

MORALE

MORALE scale is not exactly linear but we can approximate it as such. It gives +6 morale levels per +8 ratings = 0.75 level per rating. Although, negative values are additionally halving morale facilities effect. So we probably can safely average it as 1 morale level per 1 SE rating.

The way to estimate its result is to realize that each morale level adds 1/8 to army strength or equivalently saves 1/8 of production. 

minerals gained by +1 INDUSTRY = 0.1 * <mineral intake>
minerals saved by +1 MORALE = 1/8 * <mineral surplus> * <proportion of production spent on combat units>

MORALE result = INDUSTRY result * [1/8 * <mineral surplus> * <proportion of production spent on conventional combat units>] / [0.1 * <mineral intake>]

Mineral surplus is not the same as mineral intake since some of them are spent on support. Yet, at least after the very early game they tend to be close enough. If we assume <mineral surplus> = 0.8 * <mineral intake> on average over the course of the game the formula reduces to this nice equation: 

MORALE result = INDUSTRY result * <proportion of production spent on conventional combat units>

PLANET

PLANET has many applications. Boosting native units combat odds effect is similar to conventional units morale. Therefore, it is worth that much. Another noticeable effects are ability to capture worms and impact on global warming. Ability to capture worms is very nice yet it dissolves with discovering Centauri Empathy when you can stamps them at production rate instead. The global warming part is significant without eco-damage containing facilities. However, players usually do eventually build them even if for other benefits. So the eco-damage reduction is a slight temporary addition. I don't remember a game where I had to fiddle with PLANET rating to contain global warming. 

PLANET (psi combat) result = INDUSTRY result * [15% * <mineral surplus> * <proportion of production spent on psi units>] / [0.1 * <mineral intake>]

Counting other bonuses combined I would increase resulting PLANET result by factor of 2. This is pretty arbitrary number, though. Feel free to correct me.

PROBE

This is most difficult to compare effect among them. Probes morale can be evaluated same as other unit morale. However, the proportion of probes is small relative to other units. Therefore, the effect is small too. Another aspect of this SE is making subversion costlier. Which probably should result in less number of subverted bases. However, I don't know how to evaluate and and I honestly don't bother as it is IMHO the least useful effect of them all. Mostly because it makes difference so rare in the game and does not impact game outcome in general. The only exclusion is a Miriam ability to set +3 Probe rating at the beginning of the game when you don't have cover ops centers yet. And even then it makes no difference for her.

Effect weights

Next step is to build a ration of effect results compared to INDUSTRY, for example. I call this effect weight as this number could be directly plugged into SE model evaluation.

Effect weights normalized by INDUSTRY
effect early game mid game late game
INDUSTRY 1.0 1.0 1.0
RESEARCH 0.6 0.5 0.4
ECONOMY (average) 5.5 2.0 0.9
GROWTH 2.0 1.4 0.7
EFFICIENCY (average and aggregated) 0.8 1.4 1.4
EFFICIENCY WTP (average and aggregated) 0.5 0.9 1.9
SUPPORT 2.1 0.9 0.4
POLICE 2.3 1.2 0.7
MORALE 0.4 0.5 0.6
PLANET 0.7 0.7 0.6
PROBE 0.4 0.4 0.4
TALENT 5.0 1.3 0.4

Let me reiterate that these numbers are not by all means exact. Different evaluation approach may yield slightly different results. Yet, this is enough to understand SE relative values and how they are changing with the course of the game. Fixed benefit effects like ECONOMY, SUPPORT are obviously strong at the beginning and decline as bases produce more resources themselves.

Society Models analyzis

Vanilla

The above devised tool allows us evaluate models and compare them to each other. Let's review vanilla models first. Only relevant game historical periods are shown.

Vanilla SE models weight
effect early game mid game late game average
Police State 7.0 1.5 -0.6 2.6
Democratic 1.5 3.8 3.4 2.9
Fundamentalist -0.1 0.2 0.6 0.2
Free Market -2.3 -4.2 -3.3 -3.3
Planned 3.4 1.1 -0.4 1.3
Green -1.0 1.3 2.6 0.9
Power 0.7 0.1 0.4
Knowledge 2.5 2.5 2.5
Wealth 2.0 0.7 1.4
Cybernetic 2.8 2.8
Eudaimonic 4.1 4.1
Thought Control 2.0 2.0

Apparently, Fundamentalist is a complete waste of a SE slot, which is also corresponds to community opinion. Free Market is very difficult to evaluate due to both non-linear ECONOMY scale and negative POLICE effects those manifest themselves only during offensive campaigns. I'll leave it without comments. Power seems to be under-powered as well especially later in the game when SUPPORT value deteriorates.

WTP v.117

Here is the similar table for WTP SE choice for comparison purposes. It accounts for WTP inefficiency formula. Future society models are also shown for mid game as they can be discovered by that time in WTP.

WTP SE models weight
effect early game mid game late game average
Police State 6.9 1.7 -2.2 2.1
Democratic -0.1 1.9 3.4 1.7
Fundamentalist 1.3 1.7 2.2 1.7
Free Market 0.2 -2.7 -2.4 -1.6
Planned 4.0 2.0 -1.4 1.5
Green -4.6 -2.0 1.9 -1.6
Power 2.1 1.5 1.8
Knowledge 0.9 2.1 1.5
Wealth 1.8 1.1 1.4
Cybernetic -1.9 2.5 0.3
Eudaimonic 4.4 -0.4 2.0
Thought Control 4.3 2.9 3.6

Fundamentalist and FM look better. Although Green somehow went down a little. I probably need to revisit it. Everything else looks on target.

WTP v.121

Se-121.png

Green also has +2 TALENT, not shown on the picture.

Thought Control also has +1 TALENT, not shown on the picture.

Effect weights

Effect weights are adjusted a little internally. Here I just list resulting SE models summary weights with explanations.

WTP SE models weight
effect early game mid game late game average
Police State 4.3 1.3 -1.8 1.2
Democratic -0.8 2.0 3.6 1.6
Fundamentalist 1.7 1.7 1.9 1.8
Free Market 0.9 -1.9 -1.7 -0.9
Planned 2.3 3.1 0.9 2.1
Green 3.0 0.0 1.4 1.5
Power 2.6 1.4 2.0
Knowledge 0.3 2.5 1.4
Wealth 1.5 1.1 1.3
Cybernetic 0.3 2.9 1.6
Eudaimonic 2.3 -0.4 1.0
Thought Control 1.3 1.6 1.5

Police State

SUPPORT and POLICE is incredibly strong especially early on. Early EFFICIENCY penalty cost nothing in term of inefficiency. So faction can can grow quite large without investing anything into psych. Therefore, I've added INDUSTRY penalty to it to even extra free minerals generated by SUPPORT in early game.

Democratic

Vanilla composition is pretty solid. I just felt a little random penalty should be in order. PLANET seems to fit the bill to add variety to Politics. Moreover, Democratic becomes stronger with time. So is PLANET. It may offset this choice a little in a future and give chance to other combinations.

Fundamentalist

As in other versions I like to add INDUSTRY to this model to strengthen combat oriented factions. Otherwise, it is too weak. I've also increased MORALE bonus to support the lore of this choice. Extra RESEARCH penalty should offset these two bonuses a little. Honestly, I don't feel it is too important to have this penalty. It seems fine both with and without it.

Free Market

Reduced overly harsh POLICE and PLANET penalties a little. With strengthened planet combat bonus this is too much of the drawback. It gets little PROBE penalty instead. Again, this choice is very difficult to evaluate. It is very situational. I don't think PROBE penalty is absolutely necessary here.

Planned

Same theme of balancing INDUSTRY - SUPPORT here. This time it is opposite. This is perceived a very strong early game choice. This extra penalty should give chance to other Economics choices at early stages and it fades away as game progress. So not much harm done.

Green

Interesting choice but is generally perceived to be UP in early game because EFFICIENCY not working in full capacity yet. I've added +2 TALENTS to offset its initial uselessness. Now it can work exceptionally well in tandem with PS to maintain population happiness. The choice of bonus effect was more or less random but, I guess, pure happiness is somewhat collocated to harmony this choice proclaims.

Power

Not much changes here. It is relatively well rounded vanilla choice, albeit slightly pushed down with double INDUSTRY penalty. I've decided to strengthen it with some extra GROWTH. Society needs more soldiers who are constantly dying in battles. This extra GROWTH is borrowed from Eudaimonic so the total amount of GROWTH bonuses for pop boom triggering stays intact.

Knowledge

I always, always wanted to give it super extra RESEARCH to make it really distinguishable choice. This is supposed to be an ultimate technology lovers choice, after all. Besides, it was strangely weak choice in vanilla. So weak comparing to Wealth that generates same amount of research by it +1 ECONOMY. I know that vanilla scale is limited by +5 and this benefit can be lost if combined with Cybernetic so I plan to raise this limit in following versions. That should be completely harmless comparing to INDUSTRY and GROWTH scales where higher value becomes more and more stronger. GROWTH penalty offsets that amount of research. Don't know how to tie it to lore. Was just in need of some GROWTH penalties here and there for variety.

Wealth

This one, in turn, is bound to be about automated and enhanced INDUSTRY by being a child of Industrial Automation! So here it gets an extra one and becomes an only model with double bonus for this effect. Such addition is slightly offset by one POLICE penalty but I don't even believe this is needed. This choice was pretty weak in vanilla to begin with.

Cybernetic

Not much changes here. It was pretty solid choice originally. Just increased POLICE penalty slightly.

Eudaimonic

Hard labor for people seeking fulfillment and happiness? Blasphemy! +2 ECONOMY was already insane bonus for them. Aside INDUSTRY they also lose one GROWTH (given to Power), one MORALE, and one EFFICIENCY just to complete their life style. Now they can enjoy their low morale life. 😂

Thought Control

Another very well rounded but not exceptionally strong economical choice. I've add them +1 TALENT instead. I guess some talented people are happy to live in society where crime is non existent. Give them also slight boost in case they want to go to war, which is probably always at this game stage.

Retrieved from "https://alphacentauri2.info/w/index.php?title=Social_Engineering_Mod&oldid=6955"