SMACX AI Growth mod

[vonbach]

No it won't.  This is what data and observational science are good for, as opposed to arm chair opinion making.  It's not about "our values", or it's insufficiently so.  Saudi Arabia doesn't have a lot of our values:

You do realize how bad the muslim invasion of Europe is don't you? Europe will be minority European by 2050.

I actually did go down the "be fruitful and multiply" design path at an earlier stage of my modding.  For some reason I didn't think it was working.  I remember trying to empower the Believers as the "pop booming" faction, and it just didn't seem to work out.  Then I remember feeling that I couldn't just pile lots of bonuses into Fundamentalist, I can't have a "giveaway" choice where you get everything and have no liabilities.  I was specifically working against the self-imposed constraint of "3 benefits, 2 liabilities" at the time.

I'd just ditch the +Support or +Police for a +Growth. Fundamentalist societies aren't always repressive or warmongering.
The morale bonus could also get replaced by a +Growth but it seems apt.

[dino]

Globalisation. Developed muslim countries are rapidly westernising and Islamists are loosing a grip over these societes, especially among younger generation.
Meanwhile, no go zones in western Europe have 2-3 times higher ferility than local population. Islamic populations in western countries tend to radicalise and originate from poor countries.

Generally if you give people freedom to not have babies, they don't want more than 2, and some will fail at that, or don't want any.
In the past people didn't have an option and only level of prosperity and development determined how many could survive.
The only way to force a free society that can control conception to have more babies, is to take freedom of choice away by cultural indoctrination/ societal pressure, or stright up enslavement by goverment.
The second one was never tried, but since China is one of the most hit by fertility crysis, some officials started talking about introducing baby quotas already, it'll be interesting to see how it'll work.

My society bonuses were meant as a part of an interesting offtopic discussion, what I'd give if my goal was to simulate reality, not as an argument for doing it in your mod.
But you are vastly overestimating research bonus, it's one of the weakest bonuses, first at the beginning it applies only to like 40% of energy output, second tech cost grow exponentially, so flat 20% research bonus doesn't translate to much advantage in actually researched techs, +1 industry easily outweights +2 research for example.

> Europe will be minority European by 2050.

No, but 2100 ? possibly. We are safe, our grand-grandchildren may have to convert.

[bvanevery]

You do realize how bad the muslim invasion of Europe is don't you? Europe will be minority European by 2050.

It's basically driven by war in Syria.  Secondarily, a lot of economic migration under the guise of being refugees.  Separating the two isn't easy.  We have similar phenomena in the USA with Hispanics coming up from various countries.  There really are some violent, failed states down there that are threatening people's lives.  Like El Salvador is run by the gang MS-13 mostly, for instance.  Venezuela is in shambles although I don't know if anyone's coming up our way because of that.

The bigger picture point is, none of this stuff is because of population growth rate.  All of these embattled countries show pretty much the same declining fertility curve we see in all the other countries of the world.  For instance, Syria.  There's something bigger than people's culture or religion going on here.  It's probably all global economics and advances in medicine.  Some countries are just at earlier stages of being dragged forwards into the future than we are.

Details Syrian Arab Republic

Syrian Arab Republic

I'd just ditch the +Support or +Police for a +Growth.

+1 GROWTH isn't interesting or all that helpful compared to the other benefits as they currently are.  +2 GROWTH has some serious early game pop booming problems that need to be thought about.

Remember that no faction has a SUPPORT bonus in my mod.  They have to get SUPPORT from somewhere if they want it.

Fundamentalist societies aren't always repressive or warmongering.

I dunno, name a real one, modern day, that isn't.  The one that first springs to mind is Saudi Arabia.  They may be getting a little better but they still do beheadings and hand choppings over there.  If you're a journalist and say the wrong things, the Crown Prince has you killed!

I think we are back to arguing / struggling over "a label that isn't negative".  When there are definitely many examples of societies out there that are negative.  Iran is Fundamentalist.  When any of the progressive reform minded elements get uppity, the police start smacking them around.  Maybe killing them too, I get tired of following Iranian politics.

The morale bonus could also get replaced by a +Growth but it seems apt.

I'm quite sure that the MORALE bonus is the reason AI factions choose Fundamentalist.  When they have the freedom to do so: Yang is compulsively Police State, and Lal is compulsively Democratic.  I don't actually have a faction that "cannot use Fundamentalist".  The typical prohibitions are cannot use Democratic or cannot use Police State.

What's Santiago going to do?

[bvanevery]

Meanwhile, no go zones in western Europe have 2-3 times higher ferility than local population.

That's completely credible to me.  As is the ease with which you can get an AK-47 in Brussels in a few hours if you have the money.  European attitudes about gun control are a joke.  The proverbial ostrich sticking the head in the sand, even though ostriches don't actually do that.  The guns mostly come from Serbia and are smuggled in small quantities that no police force is ever going to be able to seize a large shipment of.  The guns are easily sold in the no go zones and if someone wants to do violence with a gun, they can and will.  Europe may have less murders overall but the level of non-murderous violent crime is higher.  It's all a herd mentality.  The herd overall does better, but the herd doesn't care if you are the victim.

This is why "God given right to keep and bear arms" and "Right wing lunatic" are out of the game, in my mod.  I'm a political independent.  I'm not a NRA member but I do understand why they exist.  I think they are well funded and don't personally need my help.  Meanwhile there are leftists in Portland finding a need to arm up, because they stand good chance of being victimized by the white supremacists.  Guns are an equalizer!

Islamic populations in western countries tend to radicalise and originate from poor countries.

The question is whether it's here to stay or will be a passing fad, in decades to come.  The biggest strategic problem is the military industrial complex which likes to make the wars in the Middle East, over the flow of oil, but also just for the lucrative military contracts.  The systemic violence causes people to flee the region, for Europe.  Dependency Theory is one possible explanation of why this is happening.  That rich countries have no interest in developing the Third World, rather they have every interest in keeping it poor and extracting resources for First World countries.  Blowing stuff up is lucrative, so need a battleground somewhere to do it!

China is one of the most hit by fertility crysis,

What's the crisis?  Fear that the young won't be interested in supporting the old?  They could watch Logan's Run for inspiration, har har har!

But you are vastly overestimating research bonus, it's one of the weakest bonuses, first at the beginning it applies only to like 40% of energy output, second tech cost grow exponentially, so flat 20% research bonus doesn't translate to much advantage in actually researched techs, +1 industry easily outweights +2 research for example.

I have noticed that AI factions that go Fundamentalist, do actually stagnate on tech.  Of course as you say there are multiple factors that determine final research rate.  Fundamentalist doesn't give an ECONOMY bonus, and in my mod it never will.

No, but 2100 ? possibly. We are safe, our grand-grandchildren may have to convert.

Newsflash, y'all gonna be atheist.

[vonbach]

I dunno, name a real one, modern day, that isn't.

The USA prior to the civil war or the 1960s. Yes I consider the last 200 years "modern" by the way. The USA was essentially
a protestant  traditionalist republic prior to Lincoln and the cultural revolution of the 1960's.

The question is whether it's here to stay or will be a passing fad, in decades to come.

There won't be a Europe by 2050. It will be a European Caliphate and the former inhabitants will either leave or die.
You cant have a welfare society with third world populations or open borders.

[bvanevery]

The USA prior to the civil war or the 1960s.  Yes I consider the last 200 years "modern" by the way.

That's not a useful term for talking about the past 200 years though.  Modernism refers to the late 19th century onwards.  At some point we've become Postmodernist or Contemporary.

Lots of things have changed since the US civil war.  Not the least of which is slavery.  Slavery was darned oppressive to the slaves, and Westward Expansion to the indigenous peoples.  Definitely worth at least +1 POLICE.   

Graph says US fertility rate peaked in 1960 and then started going down.  Didn't The Pill happen then?  And plenty of other things.

[bvanevery]

So the problem I see with GROWTH, Fundamentalist, and Socialist, is I do not need two early SE choices that give +2 GROWTH.  I'm totally unwilling to give away a pop boom that early in the game.  In my mod Politics and Economics choices are Tier 2 techs.  You get those options fairly quickly in the early game.  They are readily traded by all factions, as no Secret Projects are blocking them from being traded.  This is by design.  I had them "all blocked up" with SPs at one point, and moved to Tier 3.  It turned out to be a serious player usability mistake, and I had to rescind in the next version of my mod.

I do not want a total of +3 GROWTH to be available in the early SE table either.  In 1.29 Yang got his faction's inherent +1 GROWTH bonus back.  If he can pick up another +3 somewhere, then he's got an early pop boom.

So if I'm determined to have only +2 GROWTH available in the early game choices, where am I going to put it?

• Only in Fundamentalist?
• Only in Socialist?
• Spread between the two?

If Socialist isn't about seriously kicking your GROWTH up, then what's it going to be about?  JUSTICE isn't much reason by itself to choose it.  I suppose some of you might say "well go back to it being about +INDUSTRY, like in the original game."  But then what's Capitalist going to be about?  And from a realism standpoint, why exactly does Socialist improve your INDUSTRY?  I say it doesn't.

And what about Lal?  His AI is always going to chose Democratic, never Fundamentalist.  His strategy is to grow.  He has a GROWTH imperative as his secondary compulsion.  (I'm a little unclear from another thread on whether such secondary compulsions are bugged.  I will see what I can observe in games.)

[bvanevery]

https://core-econ.org/the-economy/book/text/02.html

https://core-econ.org/the-economy/book/text/02.html#subheadline

Ok, I think I see why you use terms like "industrialization" and "capitalist" as you do, and think they have various implications.  There are some ways in which we are both right.

It might be sloppy of me to use the term "Industrialization".  It refers to a specific historical period.  Much as I said it was inaccurate of you to use the term "Modernism" to describe things 200 years ago.  It's more recent than that.  I will simply refrain from using the term Industrialization in order to prevent any further confusion.

What is SMAC about?  SMAC is about the future.  All of what has happened in our present day, has already happened by the time of the game.  Technically things since the late 1990s may not have happened in SMAC's vision of the future, because the original game authors may not have anticipated them.  But I think we can safely contemplate what visions of Free Market, Planned, and Green meant to them.

Free Market is the kind of economy that Industrial Democracies practice today.  And were practicing 20 years ago.  And will still be practicing 20 years from now.  Farther than that, I'm not sure, but nothing's going anywhere in 20 years I think.  Free Market is the baseline of what we are used to.  We make money.  We ravage the planet of its resources fairly irresponsibly.  I think the POLICE stuff was goofy, I got rid of it.

Free Market is not about what people were doing in the 19th century.  Not in a sci-fi game starting in 2100.  These colonists did not get chucked back to the Stone Age to start everything all over again.  This is not Civ II.  19th century versions of a free market economy simply aren't relevant.  I've changed the term to Capitalist in my mod.  I'm aware that some academics talk about Late Capitalism.  That's what we're in right now.  I'm not exactly sure what it means or implies, but I do know that it's time and development based.

Now, what is Green?  It's a future looking government form, that doesn't exist right now.  Well, ok, it doesn't exist in the USA.  A nascent Green Party movement might like it to exist, but they won't get anywhere in the US political system.  The US system is a duopoly.  Green parties do get into power in Europe at times.  I'm not up on exactly what they do.  The Green of SMAC though, is a society where people like Deirdre have taken over.  People are forced to stop damaging the planet, and you learn how to control mindworms to kill your enemies!

I added some realistic touches to my version of Green.  I said GROWTH wouldn't be as bad as the original game said it would be.  I make it only -1 GROWTH.  I said you'd also get -1 SUPPORT.  I think that's totally realistic.  Green is not about conspicuous consumption, it's about conserving and regulating consumption.

The Planned of SMAC was backwards looking.  It modeled places like the Soviet Union.  It said such places had to be economic failures, grossly inefficient.  Nonsensically, it said people would spew many babies under such conditions.  It is a complete game mechanical contrivance that has no bearing on reality whatsoever.

I changed that to a version of Socialist that is forwards looking.  My game doesn't talk about EFFICIENCY, it talks about JUSTICE.  The goal of Socialism is more justice, at least, for those who aren't into revolutionary violence and think a lot of people need to be shot.  Shooting people doesn't get you justice, it gets you Stalin and Mao.  They're already covered by Police State.  What does justice cost?  Money.  I agree that Socialism doesn't make people money, it costs a lot of money.  It's a penalty, so I have -1 ECONOMY.  But money isn't the only goal in life, and people like welfare benefits.  Hence the +2 GROWTH.

It's an imagined Socialism.  We don't have any realistic actual society that's done it this way yet.  We've got people who talk about doing it, and sometimes a political party gets into power in Europe that suggests what is possible.  Sometimes we hear about countries with a lot of Socialist policies, like Sweden or Finland, are having some kind of economic trouble and people are wondering whether they're on the right track.  Sometimes we hear about the more wealthy of their citizens, going ex-pat because they can make far more money in places like the USA.  Except that, some people like the guy who owns IKEA stay in Sweden and make piles of money just fine.  So who knows?  We could cherry pick whatever available evidence we want to see about something that is imaginary.

But I do know that Contemporary Free Market countries, i.e. modern day Capitalists, do not demonstrate population growth.  That's UN data.  It's hard evidence.  Birth rates go down.  People worry about fitting into the industrial society and turning a buck.

Now if we were interested in imaginary societies for game mechanical purposes, we could contemplate Fundamentalist societies.  Real Fundamentalist societies are doing the same thing as every other country in the world is doing, which is having fewer babies.  But in an imaginary society, we could contemplate a Hitler Youth program, trying to birth as many new Aryan soldiers as possible.  I don't know what German fertility was like on the lead-up to WW II, but it was definitely State run.

[vonbach]

Only in Fundamentalist?
Only in Socialist?
Spread between the two?

I would spread it out between the two. Realistically Fundamentalism should be
the growth one but having growth in one place would affect gameplay too much.


I have capitalism modded so it gives +growth +effic and +economy.  +Industry would be nice for capitalism but I thought it would be overpowered.
I made wealth were the serious penalties for the pursuit of money are. Thats ++economy +industry and --planet and --police.
I just wanted a growth alternative.

Have you ever thought of giving Socialism a +talent modifier?

[bvanevery]

I would spread it out between the two.

I will consider it.

Realistically Fundamentalism should be the growth one but having growth in one place would affect gameplay too much.

I'm not afraid of having a "turn on GROWTH" social engineering choice.  That's what Socialist currently is.  I typically don't use it until Eudaimonic is also available.  Although, it can be a good counterbalance to the penalties I've made for Power.

+Industry would be nice for capitalism but I thought it would be overpowered.

I don't really know yet.  In my mod, it hasn't been there that long in the scheme of things.  I'm willing to revisit the decision if playtesters find it problematic in real play.

I made wealth were the serious penalties for the pursuit of money are. Thats ++economy +industry and --planet and --police.

I'm not willing to put any more ECONOMY buffs in the game.  My Morgan has +2 ECONOMY.  I realized at one point in development that I had seriously overheated the ECONOMY and I had to take one out.  I think it was the game where Morgan cornered the energy market for 1000 credits??!?

I don't think pursuing Wealth is antithetical to using POLICE in any way, shape, or form at all.  I think the original game mechanic comes from Civ II, and the contrast was between Democratic / Republic and Communist / Monarchy.  I think they botched the job when they made all those POLICE penalties for Free Market.  Has nothing to do with a Free Market, look at China.  Has everything to do with Democratic vs. Police State.

Have you ever thought of giving Socialism a +talent modifier?

No realism in that.  And in general, I dislike +TALENT modifiers because they have no actual visual depiction on the social engineering table.  It creates a problem when deploying the mod, that something "goofy" is going on that players don't really know about, or appreciate.  Whereas, POLICE fists, good game art assets!

[bvanevery]

Details siccing the Spartans on the Gaians

siccing the Spartans on the Gaians

I'm playing a stock binary game now.  I wanted to see what happens with the new Explore imperative I've given Santiago, and the new Aggressive personality and PLANET secondary compulsion I've given Cha Dawn.  I put them both in the game as AI players, with otherwise random opponents.  I drew Domai.  I allied with the Spartans and the Gaians have gotten uppity with me.  The Spartans happen to be neighbors with the Gaians so here goes!

I count 7 cities for the Spartans.  Gaians seem to have 6.  Spartans do not have offensive weapons yet, but they do have Speeders and Synthmetal armor.  Gaians have not gone Green, although E2 Centauri Empathy is not difficult to research and they'll presumably have it soon.  I have it and so does my ally Cha Dawn, but neither one of us is using it.  I don't know if that means Cha Dawn is ignoring his secondary compulsion to go GREEN, or if Socialist is just a much better deal as far as the AI is concerned.

Spartans have gone Socialist.  I noticed this choice was popular with Thinker mod AIs as well.  They seem to like growth.  Maybe I should take a cue from that.  However as the Free Drones, I realized I have a much easier time going Democratic early than other factions do.  Without it, my cities can go to size 3 without unhappiness.  With it, they go to size 2, like a normal faction at the beginning of the game.  So I'm taking the extra money and running with it!

MY 2161.  Santiago researches Applied Physics, which gives the strength 3 Laser, Heavy Artillery, and the Skunkworks.  I trade her for it.

[vonbach]

I'm not willing to put any more ECONOMY buffs in the game.  My Morgan has +2 ECONOMY.  I realized at one point in development that I had seriously overheated the ECONOMY and I had to take one out.  I think it was the game where Morgan cornered the energy market for 1000 credits??!?

I don't think pursuing Wealth is antithetical to using POLICE in any way, shape, or form at all.  I think the original game mechanic comes from Civ II, and the contrast was between Democratic / Republic and Communist / Monarchy.  I think they botched the job when they made all those POLICE penalties for Free Market.  Has nothing to do with a Free Market, look at China.  Has everything to do with Democratic vs. Police State.

I always viewed pursuit of wealth as the problem not capitalism itself. I always liked the idea of placing most of the economy bonuses in wealth and
making capitalism a more balanced choice. Its no so much wealth driven societies are not given to using police its what those policies end up
causing that lower the police rating.

No realism in that.  And in general, I dislike +TALENT modifiers because they have no actual visual depiction on the social engineering table.  It creates a problem when deploying the mod, that something "goofy" is going on that players don't really know about, or appreciate.  Whereas, POLICE fists, good game art assets!

I thought it might be an option to keeping citizens in line other than +police reflecting social programs. Just a thought.

[Vidsek]

    In my last few years of playing, both SMAC and SMAX, and both the stock binary and Yitzi's, I've consistently noticed the AI choosing social engineering on the basis of growth even when it conflicted with their ideological imperatives.  Diedre, for instance, avoided going Green even late into games until I reduced the growth rate difference between Green and the other two.  If I made Green the growth choice, everyone loved it.

  I suspect that, somewhere in the code, GROWTH is either given a higher rating than other socials, or is made the first selection and not allowed to be then overridden by others.  Or some other sort of rigging.
  Growth certainly is of paramount importance since since so many other factors vary directly with population.  So I wouldn't be surprised if the AI was deliberately restricted from limiting it.

  I think there is a reasonable chance that the designers didn't fully understand how all the variables in their game interacted for the AI, and went with outgrowing opponents as a reliable way to make the AI competitive.

  Makes me wonder if the way some of them spam defensive units might be another (simplistic) designed railroad for them, rather than the bug/design error it appears to be.

[bvanevery]

I've consistently noticed the AI choosing social engineering on the basis of growth even when it conflicted with their ideological imperatives.  Diedre, for instance, avoided going Green even late into games until I reduced the growth rate difference between Green and the other two.
  I suspect that, somewhere in the code, GROWTH is either given a higher rating than other socials, or is made the first selection and not allowed to be then overridden by others. 

HMMM.  You make a disturbing point.  In MY 2222, my Deirdre is currently Fundamentalist Simple Survival.  She should have long since gone Green.  And yet:

Details Gaians rock Spartans

Gaians rock Spartans

Not bad for a mere +1 PLANET, eh?  But the fact that I give +1 GROWTH for a Simple economy, could be the big problem.  Maybe I have to gut it, and just do a face palm that SMACX AI Growth mod never worked out in the real world of modding.  Would get rid of the -1 GROWTH for Frontier as well, which I thought was so clever.

[Vidsek]

   I thought your putting + and - GROWTH on Frontier and Simple was sort of clever.  But if the AI coding is buggering up how it's supposed to work......
  Hard info on how the AI works in this area would be helpful, so we're not just guessing and supposing.

  I could set up a scenario to empirically gather data, I think, at least for the early game.
First, let the factions run for 5, 10, 20, whatever years then with the Scenario Editor assign them all the appropriate Techs for the social choices.  One might have to watch them for a few years more just in case any of the choosing was delayed a bit.
 Doing this for mid and end game looks to be impractical to me.

  Maybe in a few months when the yard and garden calm down I'll find time to play with it.