Social Engineering Mod
Contents |
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.
| 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 |
Effects weight calculation
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 weight = 1.0
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.
First lets introduce effective energy intake which is energy intake minus inefficiency.
<effective energy intake> = <energy intake> * (1 - <inefficiency>)
Now let's compare how ENERGY and LAB affect 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>
Therefore, obviously:
LAB weight = ENERGY weight * <lab allocation>
Same way we get similar formulas for Eco and Psi:
Eco weight = ENERGY weight * <eco allocation> Psi weight = ENERGY weight * <psi allocation>
INDUSTRY
Energy reserves has multiple use. However, bulk portion of it goes to production hurrying. Therefore, both energy reserves and minerals are production factors and cat be compared as such. Facility hurrying cost is 2 energy/mineral. Other type hurrying is higher. Assuming player tries to maximize hurrying benefit they tend to spend more on facilities. Therefore, we can roughly estimate the hurrying cost as 2.
production minerals increase by +1 ECO = 0.1 * <effective energy intake> * <eco allocation> / 2 production minerals increase by +1 INDUSTRY = 0.1 * <mineral intake> INDUSTRY weight = ECO weight * <mineral intake> / (<effective energy intake> * <eco allocation> / 2) = ENERGY weight * 2 * <mineral intake> / <effective energy 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 weight = ENERGY weight / (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 weight = ENERGY weight * (<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 weight = ENERGY weight * (<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> * <distance to HQ> * 8 / (64-((4-EFFICIENCY)*8))^2 EFFICIENCY weight = ENERGY weight * <energy intake> * <distance to HQ> * 8 / (64-((4-EFFICIENCY)*8))^2 / [0.1 * <energy intake> * (1 - <distance to HQ> / (64-((4-EFFICIENCY)*8)))] EFFICIENCY weight = ENERGY weight * <distance to HQ> * 8 / (64-((4-EFFICIENCY)*8))^2 / [0.1 * (1 - <distance to HQ> / (64-((4-EFFICIENCY)*8)))]
Yes. This is very nonlinear, cumbersome, and depends on the distance to HQ. So I'll just list these values in table. Infinity means that all energy is lost to inefficiency and raising EFFICIENCY rating is the only mean to increase it. There are no other means to compare with.
| EFFICIENCY rating | distance = 5 | distance = 10 | distance = 20 |
|---|---|---|---|
| -4 | Infinity | Infinity | Infinity |
| -3 | 6.00 | 30.00 | Infinity |
| -2 | 1.15 | 3.00 | 15.00 |
| -1 | 0.48 | 1.11 | 3.33 |
| 0 | 0.26 | 0.58 | 1.50 |
| 1 | 0.16 | 0.35 | 0.86 |
| 2 | 0.11 | 0.24 | 0.56 |
| 3 | 0.08 | 0.17 | 0.39 |
| 4 | 0.06 | 0.13 | 0.29 |
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.
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)/2 / ((8-Difficulty)*(4+EFFICIENCY)/2)^2 EFFICIENCY (b-drones) weight = ENERGY weight * <base count> * (8-Difficulty)/2 / ((8-Difficulty)*(4+EFFICIENCY)/2)^2 / [0.1 * <effective energy intake> * <psych multiplier> / 2]
Again very nonlinear. Here is the table values for highest difficulty.
| EFFICIENCY rating | base count = 5, energy/base = 4 | base count = 10, energy/base = 12 | base count = 20, energy/base = 36 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 0 | 0.57 | 0.43 | 0.37 |
| 1 | 0.36 | 0.26 | 0.21 |
| 2 | 0.25 | 0.18 | 0.14 |
| 3 | 0.18 | 0.13 | 0.10 |
| 4 | 0.14 | 0.10 | 0.07 |
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 = 3% energy on average 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) weight = ENERGY weight * [0.03 * <effective energy intake>] / [0.1 * <effective energy intake>] = ENERGY weight * 0.3
GROWTH
GROWTH power lies not in immediate economical effect but in economical development acceleration instead. Roughly you'll have 7% bigger bases at any future point in time with 10% growth rate bonus. That gives you 7% more workers => 7% more of both mineral and energy yield.
GROWTH weight = 0.7 * (INDUSTRY weight + ENERGY weight) = ENERGY weight * 0.7 * (1 + 2 * <mineral intake> / <effective energy intake>)
SUPPORT
SUPPORT translates to absolute minerals gain/loss.
minerals gain from +1 INDUSTRY = 0.1 * <mineral intake> minerals gain from +1 free unit = 1 SUPPORT weight = INDUSTRY weight * 1 / [0.1 * <mineral intake>] =
Estimate:
Per historical periods: 3.0=>0.5.
Weight = 3.0=>0.5
Police
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.
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.
Formula 1):
Police weight 1) = [1=>2] * 2 / <psych facilities multiplier> / (0.1 * <energy yield>)
[1=>2] number of quelled/incuded drones at the beginning and at the end of the game.
Formula 2):
Police weight 2) = [1=>2] * 1 / <economy facilities multiplier> / (0.1 * <energy yield>)
[1=>2] number of quelled/incuded drones at the beginning and at the end of the game.
Estimate:
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
Additional considerations:
The lowest negative Police values impact you only at war time.
Morale
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.
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.
With all the above I won't even dive into calculations. Morale effect is obviously inferior comparing to other morale level raising methods.
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
Planet
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.
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
| Effect | Early game | Late game |
|---|---|---|
| Economy (average) | 3.0 | 0.5 |
| Growth | 3.0 | 2.0 |
| Efficiency | 1.0 | 1.5 |
| Support | 3.0 | 0.5 |
| Industry | 2.0 | 1.0 |
| Police | 1.5 | 0.5 |
| Research | 1.0 | 0.5 |
| Morale | 1.0 | 0.0 |
| Planet | 1.0 | 0.0 |
| Probe | 0.5 | 0.0 |
Effect weights table normalized by Industry
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.
| Effect | Early game | Late game | Comment |
|---|---|---|---|
| Economy (average) | 1.5 | 1.0 | |
| Growth | 1.5 | 2.0 | |
| Efficiency | 0.5 | 1.5 | Value grows with empire size. |
| Support | 1.5 | 0.5 | |
| Industry | 1.0 | 1.0 | |
| Police | 1.0 | 0.5 | |
| Research | 0.5 | 0.5 | |
| Morale | 0.5 | 0.0 | |
| Planet | 0.5 | 0.0 | |
| Probe | 0.0 | 0.0 |
Economy by step weights normalized by Industry
| From | To | Early | Middle | Late | Comment |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| -3 | -2 | 1.0 | 0.5 | 0.0 | |
| -2 | -1 | 1.0 | 0.5 | 0.0 | |
| -1 | 0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | |
| 0 | +1 | 1.0 | 0.5 | 0.0 | |
| +1 | +2 | 4.0 | 3.0 | 2.0 | This is the strongest impact Economy change can make. And this is the reason it is valued very high. |
| +2 | +3 | 2.0 | 1.5 | 1.0 | |
| +3 | +4 | 2.0 | 1.5 | 1.0 | |
| +4 | +5 | 0.0 | 0.5 | 1.0 |
Effect range usage analyzis
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.
Economy
Values below 0 are not reachable by common means. Values -1, -2 are reachable by Hive only.
Proposition: add some negative values somewhere.
Efficiency
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.
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.
Proposition: disperse -2 modificators from PS and Planned to other models so they still can be used in large empires.
Support
Can go below and above value range which has no effect. No issue.
Morale
Can go above value range which has no effect. No biggie.
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.
Proposition: decrease Morale modifier and give more negative Morale value across models so many combinations would push Morale down.
Police
Can go waaay below and above value range which has no effect. No issue.
Growth
Generally skewed toward higher values which allows early pop boom.
Proposition: decrease positive modificators, add more negative modificators.
Planet
Can go up to +4 which still has effect on combat odds. No issue.
Probe
Can go up to +6 which has no effect. No issue.
Proposition: use more rare and use more negative values.
Industry
A little skewed toward higher values. No issue.
Proposition: add more negative values.
Research
A little skewed toward higher values. No issue.
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.
Build style effects: Economy, Efficiency, Police, Growth, Industry, Research.
Momentum style effects: Support, Morale, Police, Planet, Probe
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
Slightly unpopular due to big Efficiency penalty.
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
Overpowered due to big Efficiency and Growth bonuses combination.
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
Unpopular due to lack of good bonuses.
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
No major issues since Economy is balanced by Police making it usable during peace time only. Plus you need extended worm protection for cities.
Planned
Slightly more powered due to Industry + Growth combination. Proposition: -1 Economy. Harms this model very little by itself but may force to avoid it in combination with Wealth.
Green
Apparently slightly weakeash model judging by other people feedback.
Proposition: a) +3 Police or b) -1 Growth, +1 Police. Slow growth but additional control of existing population.
Power
Another slightly weakeash model judging by other people feedback. Lack of serious values.
Proposition: +1 Police.
Knowledge
No issues.
Although with its current configuration it is almost indistinguishably 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 penalty.
Proposition: -1 Economy, +4 Knowledge. Nice research bonus but cut on energy income from FM.
Wealth
No issues in general except that -2 Morale is not always a major flaw.
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
No issues.
Eudaimonic
Insanely overpowered. Each bonus is a huge boost by itself and Morale in later game means nothing.
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
Too weak comparing to Eudaimonic. Police is the only valuable bonus.
Proposition: +3 Morale, +2 Industry, ? Probe. Counterpart of Eudaimonic. War and production oriented.
