:. Infrastructure Restructuring, For Older Nations

[Updated with war damage and more realistic numbers]

Ok, so I was thinking today, infra = buildings/roads etc etc.

However, when a new nation is started, it eventually replaces/rebuilds and better does its infrastructure to keep up with the growth.

Well why not the same for Cybernations?

Now we all know that after ~5000 infra it starts to become fairly worthless and the return is not really worth it.

However, what about the possibility of restructuring your infra to keep up with the times?

Upkeep
Every 10 infra revamped decreases upkeep costs by 0.08% (Thus every 1K infra revamped = 8% decrease in costs).

War Destruction of Revamped Infra: The loss of revamped infra works on the percentage of your TOTAL infra to damage. Thus if your revamped infra is 1/3 of your total infra, 1/3 of the damage is done to it. For example:

You take 20 damage. You have 5000 total infra (2500 of which is revamped). 10 damage is taken from regular, 10 from revamped.


Note: I have no idea about the costs/benefits, but I figured the idea of revamping it would be a cool way to keep the larger players in the game who have achieved most goals one could set for themselves.


Edit: This revamped infra could then also perhaps be combined with tech for a whole new set of improvements? It just opens up so many doors IMO. If you have anything to suggest/comments please post em.

This post has been edited by Trace on Jun 23 2007, 03:29 PM

Makes sense, sounds interesting, adds a different button to push. Could probably use some price tweaking or whatnot, but I'm not really sure how to go about that. All in all, I'd support it.

Yeah I tried to get a hold of some of the better number-crunchers folks in the game, but they are unavailable (come on, who isn't around on a friday night), however I will be working with a few of them to try and make this realistic.

I like the idea. Would that price be based on this:

First ten would be 75% of buying the infra from 5000-5010, or what you are at now, like, your first revamp being 8000-8010, which would be significantly higher?

Thats a good question. Like I said, need to get like Bak or Frat to come and take a look and make it realistic. I would think perhaps the first way, from 5000-5010 and then up.

Just get rid of the happiness bonus and make it provide extra citizens. I would also eliminate the dependence on your current infra cost and just have it on its own price curve dependent on how much revamped infra you currently have, not how much total infra you have. Setting the price at 75% of normal infra cost would actually make it rather expensive, since it would provide far fewer citizens (10 per 10 infra) than regular infra does (75 per 10 infra), unless you're very low on the price curve (an effect that could be mitigated by making it start at 5000 or something instead of zero). But then again, this is supposed to be something for high-infra nations to continue growing, so perhaps it's justified.

This is an excellent idea that should be refined and implemented, and I'm hoping this can become a valuable new game feature.

EDIT: To reiterate, here's how I'm envisioning it:

Let I(x) denote the cost of one unit of regular infra with a regular infra level of x.
Let R(x) denote the cost of 1 unit of revamped infra with a revamped infra level of x.

R(x) = .75*I(x+5000)

One revamped infra unit gives +1 citizen count

If Revamped Infra Level > Regular Infra Level, then Revamped Infra Level = Regular Infra Level (ensuring that you can't revamp more infra than you have).

This post has been edited by Bakunin's Dream on Jun 22 2007, 07:18 PM

How would the war system deal with revamped infra? Would it cost more to maintain than normal infra?

This post has been edited by Fraternite on Jun 23 2007, 12:23 AM

Why are you so critical of all the suggestions on here? <huuuu>

Anyway, I like this idea a lot! Great concept, great stuff! I hope admin sees this.

This idea has merit and I agree it can be developed into something good. I was just wondering how it would be integrated with other game features, because that would have to happen before it could have a serious chance at implementation.

We need more new ideas rather than expansions of old ideas, and this definitely qualifies. So don't read hostility to a suggestion where there is none...

This idea has merit and I agree it can be developed into something good. I was just wondering how it would be integrated with other game features, because that would have to happen before it could have a serious chance at implementation.

We need more new ideas rather than expansions of old ideas, and this definitely qualifies. So don't read hostility to a suggestion where there is none...

Agreed, questions like this merely help fine-tune the suggestion into a something a bit more than a nice idea at first, into a workable and balanced feature for the game.

Restructured infra could well work as an upgrade to existing infra, but it shouldn't be a buffer. Perhaps any attacks done to normal infra also translate to damage to the restructured infra. A bombing run doing 20 infra damage will do an additional X damage to what has been restructured. I'd say 50% seems fair - so that means 20 normal infra lost translates to an additional 10 restructured infra being lost. It makes restructured infra a good, but risky investment.

This post has been edited by The Captain on Jun 23 2007, 05:05 AM

This idea has merit and I agree it can be developed into something good. I was just wondering how it would be integrated with other game features, because that would have to happen before it could have a serious chance at implementation.

We need more new ideas rather than expansions of old ideas, and this definitely qualifies. So don't read hostility to a suggestion where there is none...

Agreed, questions like this merely help fine-tune the suggestion into a something a bit more than a nice idea at first, into a workable and balanced feature for the game.

Restructured infra could well work as an upgrade to existing infra, but it shouldn't be a buffer. Perhaps any attacks done to normal infra also translate to damage to the restructured infra. A bombing run doing 20 infra damage will do an additional X damage to what has been restructured. I'd say 50% seems fair - so that means 20 normal infra lost translates to an additional 10 restructured infra being lost. It makes restructured infra a good, but risky investment.

Or, perhaps the restructured infrastructure should take all of the damage first? If you think about real wars, the most advanced things get hit first, so this would make sense.

You have a point, but like I said, it shouldn't work as a buffer that gets depleted first before existing infrastructure. I suggested a 100%/50% destruction rate, but it could well be 70%/30% if the whole 'extra infra lost' thing doesn't mesh too well.

Just tossing ideas.

Make it so that a random number of both is destroyed so that if a bombing campaign did 20 infra damage, it could hit any random amount of things.
10 infra - 10 revamped
1 infra - 19 revamped
18 infra - 2 revamped

(There's about 20 choices here)



Here's an idea of coupling it with the war system.

Precision Bombing - Limited to bombers, each bomber that makes it does 1 restructured infra and every 15 that make it do 1 regular infra damage.

Prerequisites:

1+ Fighters or Target's Airforce = 0
1+ Bombers (The More The Better)
Target's Restructured Infra > 49

If every fighter is destroyed in battle than all bombers are destroyed in battle unless the target country has no air force (not likely). If the target's airforce shot down the planes, than there is a 10-20% chance that 20-40% of the bombers made their hits doing 20-40% of damage, but they still get destroyed on their way back without protection.

Realism - They are going after strategic ground zones for the highest tech places. the 15 Bombers - 1 Infra accounts for bombs that hit normal infrastructure in the blast radius causing around 1 point of destruction per bomber. Fighters protect the bombers. Without fighters, the bombers are defenseless and the enemy can have a field day taking them down. There is a small chance though, that some bombers made it through to there target is there not?

Would this be to strong?

I approve this idea :J

Like what I see so far.

Updated with war changes, and $$$ factor.

Seeing as we are discussing advanced infrastructure here, it strikes me that technology would need to be involved.

Possibly you are required to have a certain amount of technology in order to upgrade the infrastructure, or must maintain an additional tech ratio of something like 2 tech allows for 1 restructured infra.

Excellent point. I do think it would be a good thing to combine with technology. This would allow for technology to have a more significant impact beyond the ~400 level.

I'll update it now with some preliminary figures.

Excellent point. I do think it would be a good thing to combine with technology. This would allow for technology to have a more significant impact beyond the ~400 level.

I'll update it now with some preliminary figures.

I think an easier and more effective solution would be to increase the weight tech has on reducing infra cost and infra upkeep. Takes out the middleman and kills two birds with one stone (makes tech more important and solves the problem of diminishing returns).

Excellent point. I do think it would be a good thing to combine with technology. This would allow for technology to have a more significant impact beyond the ~400 level.

I'll update it now with some preliminary figures.

I think an easier and more effective solution would be to increase the weight tech has on reducing infra cost and infra upkeep. Takes out the middleman and kills two birds with one stone (makes tech more important and solves the problem of diminishing returns).

You'll note that revamping infra decreases upkeep costs already, so that would just be overdoing it IMO.