one mans trash is another mans treasure.
you might not like it. But aliens might be used to such thing and think we're living in total anarchy!
(police state civic should be good for eliminating such penalties)
Issue: Criminal Syndicate, The AI and endless enforcer spam....
- Thread starter Paestan
- Start date
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
you might not like it. But aliens might be used to such thing and think we're living in total anarchy!
(police state civic should be good for eliminating such penalties)
I've been giving crime some thought myself, and I wonder if 0% crime shouldn't be really hard to get and that a healthy empire should still have somewhere between 3-5%. As long as the consequences of low (but not zero) crime are negligible it shouldn't be an irritant for players and give crime megacorps some room to work with.
I thought, what if you could build only one police building on a planet, and the reset would go from governors, edicts and etc?
Also crime level should generate a criminal worker baseline, and under 50% crime shouldn't be destructive. Criminal organizations also care about stability, they aren't suicidal... That gives a decision making for syndicates to limit criminal activity at manageable for government level to operate relatively safe, and stay "under radar". For now it's always "build the max amount crime to have better chance of staying". Also too high crime could cause trouble for syndicate. Branches, overtaken by local bands, as example. Presence of criminal syndicates also could add stability to counteract criminal volatility.
Plus, where's my corporate competition mechanics??? How to kick out other corporations from planets?
Also crime level should generate a criminal worker baseline, and under 50% crime shouldn't be destructive. Criminal organizations also care about stability, they aren't suicidal... That gives a decision making for syndicates to limit criminal activity at manageable for government level to operate relatively safe, and stay "under radar". For now it's always "build the max amount crime to have better chance of staying". Also too high crime could cause trouble for syndicate. Branches, overtaken by local bands, as example. Presence of criminal syndicates also could add stability to counteract criminal volatility.
Plus, where's my corporate competition mechanics??? How to kick out other corporations from planets?
Well yeah but that can be subsumed into ethics. My point is, there should be a cost to the action. That way you have a choice that balances, that shifts weightings and makes more things happen. As it stands: have crime> Create enforcers> crime stops>situation resolved.
If enforcers reduce happyness as I propose? Have crime>Create Enforcers>Happyness drops>stability drops>Produuctvity drops>Need to compensate for these, which in turn has more consequence depending on how you handle it. That's more game right there.
And really Enforcers do too much. Each one is -25% to crime? Pluss righteous? If criminal corps are meant to do anything those numbers against what criminal buildings do (against yes, what crime % does) are way out of whack.
Ultimately a game is just a cmplicated way to generate intresting choices for the player to make. In a game like stelaris based on gameplay that emerges asa result of those choices you want to avoid things that create stability or equilibrium, and promote things that create imbalance or tension of conflicting wants.
Last edited:
Adds a new building, using rare resources as upkeep, that make the crime stops at 5% minimum, so, in this way, at least it won't shotdown
Something is really broken with this mechanic. I have almost 27 branch offices as a megachurch in 8 different empires. 26 of them have 0% crime on their plantes, all because of enforcer jobs.
It should probably only build more one at a time if crime is not already decreasing.
I'm beginning to think planets need to track base crime and total crime (after enforcers) seperately. Net crime can be negative.
You should be able to eliminate crime if you are (f) authoritarian (you can literally do what you want as the government) fan spiritualist (your country is almost a cult) and psionic (you can read minds), if you are not all of the above, your pops still have some degree of freedom, and freedom means you can do crime
Crime usually is most profitable when there isn't too much of it, when there is, gang wars and instability pop up
As a crime lord to maximize profits you should want your crime to stay controlled, and if you manage to get crime to 100% there should be an event chain that allows you to seize the planet
As a planet owner you should have benefits from criminal syndicats, if you keep overall crime level reasonable, additional clerk jobs, enforcer jobs per crime level etc
Crime usually is most profitable when there isn't too much of it, when there is, gang wars and instability pop up
As a crime lord to maximize profits you should want your crime to stay controlled, and if you manage to get crime to 100% there should be an event chain that allows you to seize the planet
As a planet owner you should have benefits from criminal syndicats, if you keep overall crime level reasonable, additional clerk jobs, enforcer jobs per crime level etc
Actually authoritarian regimes are usually pretty bad at handling crime. First of people don't see cheating a authoritarian regime as wrong the same way, secondly it places loads of people with lots of power and poor oversight which pretty much always means corruption is rampant.
- 1
Depends on the fantasy. In game terms we can literally see if governor is corrupt. In authoritarian powerfanasy each person is chipped, and his activity recorded, or some other way to completely destroy a chance of person to do something secretly.
Secret police to control high ranks. Special procedures (chemical, surgical, psychological) to nullify any chance of a person to even think about betrayal in secret police. Etc etc.
There are techs for that stuff if you don't have it you don't have them.
At which point, well tahst the unsatusfying state of play. Crime becomes impossible.
If, they are going to make Criminal empires a thing at all, it has to be viable right now, we're kinda dancing about a few related issues.
1: actuall crime % hurts way too much
2: Because of #1, criminal buildings give relitavely small +crime, especialy for being limited to 4 of them.
3: Enforcers do way too much, are too easy to get, and have no signifigant drawbacks.
Now a lot of this can be solved by making the numbers in 1 & 3 smaller in relation to 2, and what ever else happens I think it needs to do so.
I think we also need 'natural' crime which I have litteraly never seen.
Now nerfing 1 & 3 is a good start but I think its leaving a lot of intresting space, ways to push instability and compromise, off the table that would add a lot of good gameplay for criminal empires. But I spoke of that above.
I'd say it's because these are percentual increases and decreases it would be much more effective if they were weights with the crime percentage being a equilibrium between these, and with diminished returns as you approach 0% and 100%.
I would be minded to have base crime rate based on Living standards as well as the disparity between worst off and best off on a given world. If you have Utopian abunadncethose pops wont generate much crime if any. But if you have another race on impvershed then not only will they generate far more criminality, but the presence of the utopians will in turn generate still more crime.
So say base [From Living standrads] +% from disparity+% low stability+%Criminal buildings-% from Enforcers*
But Each enforcer has a social cost or drawback as I keep meantioningto keep things out of equilibrium. Then rebalance the effect of overall crime so its not as brutal till the very top.
Just a little pet want of mine, but I think it would be a good improvement in general. Subsidiaries of a Criminal Syndicate shouldn't be able to close their overlord's branch offices, and maybe should even receive an additional increase to crime from their overlord's branch offices. It would make establishing Subsidiaries as a Syndicate far more worthwhile, and give them a more reliable place to establish Branch Offices without having to worry about being shut down.
Perhaps each pop could have a crime/corruption percentage which then adds up to the strata and planetary crime/corruption.
In fact lets have crime called different things for different strata, it's crime for the workers, corruption for the specialist, and I don't know disloyalty for the rulers? Or maybe entitlement or privilege?
These will be incurred in different ways, in the case of the workers keeping them poor will increase the crime as well as increasing the unhapiness, crime will also increase unhappiness.
For the specialists corruption will increase if they are kept poor, but corruption will in turn increase the happiness of the pops becoming a less malleable happiness (a score that is affected by how they are treated by drags behind the happiness).
And for the rulers entitlement is instead gained by treating the pops well, but will also increase the costs of doing so over time, the more you give the ruling class the more they will feel that it is their due and to truly be happy they want even more.
In fact lets have crime called different things for different strata, it's crime for the workers, corruption for the specialist, and I don't know disloyalty for the rulers? Or maybe entitlement or privilege?
These will be incurred in different ways, in the case of the workers keeping them poor will increase the crime as well as increasing the unhapiness, crime will also increase unhappiness.
For the specialists corruption will increase if they are kept poor, but corruption will in turn increase the happiness of the pops becoming a less malleable happiness (a score that is affected by how they are treated by drags behind the happiness).
And for the rulers entitlement is instead gained by treating the pops well, but will also increase the costs of doing so over time, the more you give the ruling class the more they will feel that it is their due and to truly be happy they want even more.
Last edited:
Its a term thats already used (But barely fits these days) but how about Decadence for rulers? Think of 40k with Nobles from the Necromundia spires decending to the underhive for murder.
I think decadence have to religious overtones. Hence why I like entitlement, a noble would feel entitled to privileges and power while a merchant would feel entitled to profit.
True decadence is more of a personal thing than a strata thing.
From the fanfic harry potter and the methods of rationality
Harry stared down at the can in his hand, the coldness settling into his blood. Charming, happy, generous with his favors to his friends, Draco wasn't a psychopath. That was the sad and awful part, knowing human psychology well enough to know that Draco wasn't a monster. There had been ten thousand societies over the history of the world where this conversation could have happened. No, the world would have been a very different place indeed, if it took an evil mutant to say what Draco had said. It was very simple, very human, it was the default if nothing else intervened. To Draco, his enemies weren't people.
And in the slowed time of this slowed country, here and now as in the darkness-before-dawn prior to the Age of Reason, the son of a sufficiently powerful noble would simply take for granted that he was above the law, at least when it came to some peasant girl. There were places in Muggle-land where it was still the same way, countries where that sort of nobility still existed and still thought like that, or even grimmer lands where it wasn't just the nobility. It was like that in every place and time that didn't descend directly from the Enlightenment. A line of descent, it seemed, which didn't quite include magical Britain, for all that there had been cross-cultural contamination of things like ring-pull drinks cans.
Harry stared down at the can in his hand, the coldness settling into his blood. Charming, happy, generous with his favors to his friends, Draco wasn't a psychopath. That was the sad and awful part, knowing human psychology well enough to know that Draco wasn't a monster. There had been ten thousand societies over the history of the world where this conversation could have happened. No, the world would have been a very different place indeed, if it took an evil mutant to say what Draco had said. It was very simple, very human, it was the default if nothing else intervened. To Draco, his enemies weren't people.
And in the slowed time of this slowed country, here and now as in the darkness-before-dawn prior to the Age of Reason, the son of a sufficiently powerful noble would simply take for granted that he was above the law, at least when it came to some peasant girl. There were places in Muggle-land where it was still the same way, countries where that sort of nobility still existed and still thought like that, or even grimmer lands where it wasn't just the nobility. It was like that in every place and time that didn't descend directly from the Enlightenment. A line of descent, it seemed, which didn't quite include magical Britain, for all that there had been cross-cultural contamination of things like ring-pull drinks cans.
Last edited:
Just to comment, another thing I have found a little bit odd is crime does not scale with large populations. For example, if you shove 30 pops on a planet with only 20 jobs, then you get a "crime" job, and for every 33% extra crime, an additional job is gained. This maxes out at 100% crime with 4 total crime jobs. On a ringworld with 200 pops and 100% crime and only 50 jobs, we have 146 unemployed pops.