#,GlobalCO2,NOICON,0.01,0,1,HIGHBAD,icons_co2,#,"_year,0+(0.01*x)* _winning_","_globaleconomy_,0+(0.08*x)* _winning_",#,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
#,GDP,ECONOMY,0.57,0,1,HIGHGOOD,icons_gdp,#,"_globaleconomy_,0.25*(x^0.8)",#,"Capitalist,-0.2+(0.65*x)","CO2Emissions,0.7*(x^1.4)","AirTravel,1.0*(x^1.5)","ImmigrationDemand,0.41*(x^4),8","Unemployment,0.45-(0.5*x)^0.75","Environment,-0.84*(x^2)","Equality,-0.28*(x^6)","OilDemand,0+(0.4*x)","_HighIncome,0.28*(x^2)","Pollution,0.32*(x^2.85)","Wages,0.3*(x^3.2),2",,,,,,
#,ImmigrationDemand,FOREIGNPOLICY,0.8,0,1,UNKNOWN,icons_immigrationdemand,#,"_globaleconomy_,0.1-(0.2*x),2",#,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
#,OilDemand,TRANSPORT,0.1,0,1,UNKNOWN,icons_oildemand,#,"_globaleconomy_,-0.1+(0.2*x)",#,"OilPrice,0.+(0.5*x)",,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
#,Tourism,ECONOMY,0.35,0,1,HIGHGOOD,icons_tourism,#,"AirlineTax,0-(0.3*x)","AntisocialBehaviour,0-(0.1*x)","CrimeRate,0-(0.1*x),8","StreetGangs,0-(0.3*x)","ViolentCrimeRate,0-(0.2*x),8","ForeignRelations,0+(0.4*x),4","BorderControls,0.0-(0.22*x)","SalesTax,0-(0.05*x)","_globaleconomy_,0+(0.25*x)","ClassWarfare,0-(0.4*x)","Environment,-0.1+(0.1*x),8","Pollution,-0.03-(0.03*x),4",#,"GDP,0+(0.10*x)","HealthcareDemand,0+(0.06*x),16",,,,
#,RareEarthPrice,ECONOMY,0,0,1,HIGHBAD,icons_rareearthprice,#,"_default_,0.1","_year,0+(0.02*x)","RareEarthRefinement,-0.1-(0.2*x),3","Technology,0.8*(x^3.7),6","ForeignRelations,-0.2*(x^0.4)","GreenElectronicsInitiative,-0.1-(0.17*x),1","_globaleconomy_,-0.07+(0.14*x),1","CurrencyStrength,0.08-(0.16*x)",#,"Rareearthcrisis,0+(1.0*x)",,,,,,,,,
The ‘_globaleconomy_’ simulation, unlike most other stats, has a range of -1 to +1 (you can check this by playing UK, which has economic cycle setting at 75%). Therefore, there are some differences on how to write links from it, like not requiring a constant term to output 0 at the center. But some links seem to be treating it just like any other simulation which has 0~1 range.
-
Global Economy to GDP: 0.25*(x^0.8)
giving an input of a negative value to x^0.8 sounds like a possible mistake. Though it just works as if imaginary part has been ignored, I think it’s worth checking again. -
Global Economy to Immigration Demand: 0.1-(0.2*x),2
-
Global Economy to Oil Demand: -0.1+(0.2*x)
-
Global Economy to Rare Earth Price: -0.07+(0.14*x),1
2,3,and 4 suggest that these simulation values might have been somewhere too high or low. When global economy can be -0.7 (at 75% economic cycle) or +0.7(at 25% economic cycle), I’d expect these links will have zero impacts on the point 0 instead of 0.5 to be fair. -
Global Economy to Global CO2 Emission:
"_globaleconomy_,0+(0.08*x)* _winning_"
I guess the intention is boosting Global CO2 even more if a player is winning by a big margin. But current implementation just makes it fluctuate more extremely. -
Slopes in general
And there is"_globaleconomy_,0+(0.25*x)"to Tourism. I assume that these impacts are suppose to have influence as much as their slopes. But, in reality, Global Economy can boost/crash Tourism up to +25% and down to -25%. In other words, effects of global economy might have been doubled by mistake.
It would be nice if @cliffski can check if these are working as intended.
