Gigantic, literally, - oversight - governments not scaling with galaxy size

The lack of scaling per galaxy size is a big issue with several items, governments included. Can be frustrating to those of us that love the biggest maps around and yet get a bit short changed from features that don't scale with those maps.

When governments first debuted, I went into the xml and tripled all the defaults. Has worked pretty well on Immense and Gigantic maps for me, ymmv.

More administrators are needed on ludicrous.

I have a Mod tool that scales Governments with Galaxy size. Adding administrators.......

Anything else might need scaling?

The whole game?

lol.

Anything doable, Modable.

If you can. The number of colonies for the he governments don't bother me as long as I get galactic communion. The game does this to slow me down which is fine, but I seen other complaints that the number doesn't scale with galaxy size. I would like it if life support scaled with rareity of planets.

Can you link this mod.

Does it scale the number of colonies supported? I might be interested, could you describe it a little more?

You can set the number of colonies each map size supports by adjusting % per map size

e.g. Huge has a default change of +30%, so.. 

smallest Government now supports 5 instead of 4 

largest Government now supports 62 instead of 48.

You run the tool select the map size you are going to play and run Gal Civ.

It copies the games relevant xml to a mod folder and modifies the values you have set in the tool.

Adding administrators to it as well, where you can select base admins and amount you get through techs.

Also adding checks for any existing mods that use the same files, so it can modify them instead.

Will add a link when all testing done.

Wow, sounds very interesting.

i think the intention was to force very large empires to split off puppet empires.

You are correct, but not all of us like that option.

Fair enough call, but this discussion seems to have had it's genesis in the "Can You Win With A Wide Empire V Can You Win With A Tall Empire" argument, which ultimately had it's genesis in the "What's The Best Way To Win GalCiv3 And How Obvious Should It Be" argument.

For me, admittedly as someone who's yet to use anyone's mods, the split of possibility of winning (talking purely single-player here) in the base game doesn't feel as anything like 50-50 as it should. In other words, you're still better off inhabiting that shitty 4-Class planet than just picking the good ones ie the 12-Class plus.

Or maybe the simple thing is the Commonwealth feature needs work in terms of how much each Commonwealth, while being independent, still gives it's "Boss" race...

Perhaps. But I thought it had to do with answering complaints about micromanagement with large empires. Different people have different tolerances for micromanagement.

Well if you look at the post I compiled from real charts. Wide empires are more likely to do anything than tall empires in research, economy, or military. They have a higher average, but if you don't have a lot of people the numbers per person is higher on the average.

My post is tall vs. wide in this world.

I think we forget about average when we think this.

https://forums.galciv3.com/494320/list-of-tall-averageand-wide-nations-of-the-world

Should take it's the real world Tall vs. Wide countries.

What would you guys think about a path on the Colonization tech trees (for all races) that would allow for more planets allowed to be in the fold of the government du jour?  ie "Expansion I: Increase maximum allowable colonies by 15%", "Expansion II: Increase maximum allowable colonies by 10%", "Expansion III: Increase maximum allowable colonies by 8%", etc ad nauseum?

This would solve the situation by allowing players that want to build wide to do so by investing resources in the (administrative) technology to oversee more subjects.  So you can build as wide as you want, but doing so does have an opportunity cost of foregone research. 

Another similar tech tree solution might be to modify/increase the amounts/types of resources that your commonwealths must supply you - I haven't fiddled with the commonwealths enough yet tho to have any specific suggestions as to what these should be. 

tid242, I like those ideas except that you'll have to balance out the advantage of increasing the maximum allowable colonies versus giving commonwealths more benefit to their Owner Race - so that one helps one gamestyle, the other a different one.

I'd suggest making only one of those two a Tech Tree "journey". Certainly have research to allow you to expand the number of colonies allowable, forfeiting time researching other, less "lovable" tech like how to kill people with lasers etc. But also buff commonwealths with what they give from the Start. Make that "offering" improve as their Owner Race gets more powerful (whichever way, number of colonies, number of technologies known, number of allies etc ie conditions taken from the player's Victory Conditions as set up in the Galaxy Setup Screen, basically), as let's face it, you're less likely to say No to your Owner if he's holding a plasma bomb than holding a cute little laser gun. But maybe that way means you take a diplomatic hit with other races.

Essentially: Can you make "allow more colonies into your civilization" a more Benevolent/Pragmatic route, where as "Impress upon your Commonwealth to give you more good stuff by showing them how you could crush them" is more a Malevolent thing to do...

From what I've read on here, what people don't like about commonwealths - leaving aside those of us who like micromanaging 50+ colonies one-by-one - is that it doesn't give enough goodies in terms of bcs, alliances, resources etc - to the player who still owns them.

Yea, I mean, totally fair: maybe an "Enhance Empire" tech path that gives both: more colonies and better commonwealth bonuses.  It makes it straightforward what to research and allows the player to go either way (wide/tall micromanage/delegate).

I would actually push back against the benevolent/malevolent dynamic dictating wide vs commonwealth.  I would push for any alignment being able to pursue either path..

Actually the problem with Commonwealth's is two things. First you give up controll of planets. Second they don't last. I would still keep the tech options separate, because I would use both. Maybe if you pick one path you can't pick the other.

Governments and administrators were designed to contend with micro.  Micro only gets worse with size, hence the governments remain fixed.  You may not like the design, but I would not consider it an oversight.