Capitalism 2 and Capitalism Lab Forum

So, I played a 100-years game with the 1.196.

I put it on the hardest mode.
The game lasted 9 hours.
I gave myself the limit to not sell anything directly to people.

I ended with 15 billions, being first in the game.
I could have made much more but didn't want to as I knew there was about to have more patches.
I made 4B revenue, and 400M profit which is quite good as i didn't sell anything. I could have methodically buy anything in the game and make much more but didn't want to.

GOOD :
- The game was very competitive. Even during the last 30 years, there were people richer than me at some times (I ended with 15B, the second was at 9B, and they were 2. There were 12 local billionnaires in the end, 4 of them being stock focused investors, 2 of them were NPC
- I looked at every products. There are more or less 2, 3 or 4 competitors PER products PER city.
If I look at the world stat, i would say that rezrezrzerzerzerzer
- You never get bored. There are so many products and things to do that you can always do more
- In the end, the cities are full. You cannot build in cities anymore, or have to buy a slot before.
- All the stocks are owned. There are a lot of transactions between AI to buy/rebuy stocks
- In the end, all the products are produced and sold. 50% of the retail of Air conditionner are controlled by AI, with 8 competitors on this product. But only 1 on backpacks. There were some extreme case such as cakes (10 retailers, 5 producers), Cookies (11retailers/2 producers), eye shadow (11/7). Leather has 15 producers ! But cars has only 2 producers (and they control more or less 1% of the market, which is very small and quite sad, perhaps it's a real issue?). Motorcycles are normal (25% of the market is controlled by AI, 4 producers 4 sellers. There are at least 3 or 4 producers and retailers for each products (apart from coconut oil and corn syrup, which i think is internal produced in plants)
Leather and Smartphones are the world biggest markets (47M/55M). They also are my biggest productions :p (25% of the leather market, 33% of the smartphones)
- There are 37 media firms, some where built by AI. Every media firms are controlled by a player. None remained in the hand of the governments.
- 15 AI makes less than 50M per year (with 7 which are loosing money, 4 because they uses timber as material, which I own and make them pay very hard). On the other hand, 13 are making more than 100M per year.
- Technologies were sold and bought all along the game. It works very fine. But, however, on very competitive products (such as cakes) the highest tech is only 250. Idem for cars (which was not very competitive, but should be). Air conditioner was a real war , with highest tech nearly 3000 and a lot of tech sellings.

BAD :
- There were nearly no mines (only 1 of Iron, for example and 2 timbers).
As a result, when a mine was built, it was "internal sales" very soon, and many AI who needed it didn't build one and lost much money.
As a result, too, the small mines (Iron, Coal) which were smaller were empty very very quickly (every 1 or 2 years) so it was quite a pain.
- Some AI built back all their stocks until they are 100% controlled by them, and after that nothing happens anymore.
- The AI didn't react to some obvious event. For example one AI had built factories with camera telephone. There weren't any camera telephone sold anymore, as the smartphone was here. But he kept all his factories and retail with camera telephone. Idem with beds. He built beds but has I controlled the only timber lodges, i tried to maximize the price. He continued to built and sell them, even if he lost a hell of money with them.
- With time, all the cities are the same (it was already emphasized). Real wages ranged from 80 to 86.
- I had never seen episode of critical growth (<-3%, >5%) after 50-60 years
- Residential slots were nearly all bought in the same city. But the AI never developed it. Some contains only an hospital, a fire station (for example) and 2 residences, a retail discount and that's all.
- Technology is still cheap. 200/250 tech costs 8M, whereas you have to wait 10 years with a 3x3 R&D center to make the same amount of technology. When you make 200 or 300M per year, it's nothing. I still think and claim that the amount should be linked to the size of the market.




I have probably more things to say, but can't remember what here.
I hope this helps.

- There were nearly no mines (only 1 of Iron, for example and 2 timbers).
As a result, when a mine was built, it was "internal sales" very soon, and many AI who needed it didn't build one and lost much money.

When you find the same situation in version 1.92, please send me the saved game and I will ask the dev team to look into the AI and see if that can be improved.

As a result, too, the small mines (Iron, Coal) which were smaller were empty very very quickly (every 1 or 2 years) so it was quite a pain.

I supposed that this happens at the later stage of the game where the sales are in larger volume. Do you think it will help if the game will generate natural resources with larger amounts of deposits when the trade volume of industrial goods are larger in the later phase of the game?

Did this happen only to Iron and Coal? Or other types of natural resources as well?

- Some AI built back all their stocks until they are 100% controlled by them, and after that nothing happens anymore.

Do you think the game should restrict the maximum amount of stock any individual company or person can hold to a limit, like 80%?

And the AI will be programmed to stop buying back shares when the single largest shareholder's share has reached 80%.

- The AI didn't react to some obvious event. For example one AI had built factories with camera telephone. There weren't any camera telephone sold anymore, as the smartphone was here. But he kept all his factories and retail with camera telephone.

This has been fixed in the latest version 1.92.

Idem with beds. He built beds but has I controlled the only timber lodges, i tried to maximize the price. He continued to built and sell them, even if he lost a hell of money with them.

Please send me a saved game if you happen to create the same situation in version 1.92.

- With time, all the cities are the same (it was already emphasized). Real wages ranged from 80 to 86.

And it's true that the cities tend to differ most obviously in the beginning of the game where some of them are emerging ones and some are developed ones. Then their gaps become smaller and eventually become similar. I think the gameplay will be to establish a strong foothold in the developing cities while their land costs are still low at the early stage of the game.

By the way, their populations are still different and thus their market sizes for products.

We could make some cities decline in the later stage of the game, thus increasing the differences among the cities. But there has to be some reasons for that kind of declines and not just random factors, otherwise the players may not be happy about that. Any suggestions?

- I had never seen episode of critical growth (<-3%, >5%) after 50-60 years

It varies from game to game. You may start new games and just let the game run overnight to obvious more games. (You don't build any firms in the game so you won't run out of cash.) You can turn off the newspaper display so that it won't pause the game. (open the newspaper display option menu and click on the icon at the top righthand corner of the window).

- Residential slots were nearly all bought in the same city. But the AI never developed it. Some contains only an hospital, a fire station (for example) and 2 residences, a retail discount and that's all.

It should be due to a lack of cash to develop it. If you find a game where the real-estate focused AI has lots of cash and doesn't do anything, you may send me your saved game.

- Technology is still cheap. 200/250 tech costs 8M, whereas you have to wait 10 years with a 3x3 R&D center to make the same amount of technology. When you make 200 or 300M per year, it's nothing. I still think and claim that the amount should be linked to the size of the market.

Cheap tech costs allow newcomers AI to acquire tech more easily. And tech companies, if pricing their tech too high, may not generate any businesses.
The upside is that a tech company can sell the same tech to multiple companies and thus the incomes will be more.

David wrote: I supposed that this happens at the later stage of the game where the sales are in larger volume. Do you think it will help if the game will generate natural resources with larger amounts of deposits when the trade volume of industrial goods are larger in the later phase of the game?

I think this would be good- However, smaller deposits need to continue to exist for newcomers

David wrote: Do you think the game should restrict the maximum amount of stock any individual company or person can hold to a limit, like 80%?
And the AI will be programmed to stop buying back shares when the single largest shareholder's share has reached 80%.

No. It should stay at 100%.

- With time, all the cities are the same (it was already emphasized). Real wages ranged from 80 to 86.

David wrote: And it's true that the cities tend to differ most obviously in the beginning of the game where some of them are emerging ones and some are developed ones. Then their gaps become smaller and eventually become similar. I think the gameplay will be to establish a strong foothold in the developing cities while their land costs are still low at the early stage of the game.

By the way, their populations are still different and thus their market sizes for products.

We could make some cities decline in the later stage of the game, thus increasing the differences among the cities. But there has to be some reasons for that kind of declines and not just random factors, otherwise the players may not be happy about that. Any suggestions?

For me, the problem here is not that the wages eventually become equal, but that the prices within the cities remain different (If wages go up, so should prices)

- I had never seen episode of critical growth (<-3%, >5%) after 50-60 years

Ive had depressions of -5% and a boom of 7%.
In the depression, non essential items were severely punished! (Which is a good reflection)
SUGGESTION: In a boom there are no benefits to demand. If citywide demand goes down in a bust, it should go up in a boom- (but not by as much).

David wrote:Cheap tech costs allow newcomers AI to acquire tech more easily. And tech companies, if pricing their tech too high, may not generate any businesses.
The upside is that a tech company can sell the same tech to multiple companies and thus the incomes will be more.

This may be true, but the current pricing is still too low. All tech AIs in every game I have playe have gone bust. And the reason is always the same. Tech is too cheap. They do not make enough money at the start of the game resulting in repeat closures of their R&D centers until they go bankrupt

It seems good that there are small mines and bigger mines.
The real problem is (in my opinion) that some mines are ALWAYS big (Silica, CM, for example) and so they are very costly (100M), whereas iron and coal are ALWAYS small.
It was already told in the forum as a problem of price. It's not a problem of price. With a Silica/CM mine you will make a lot more money than with Iron/coal (i haven't tested for oil silver and gold). You should increase the variance of the reverse, and impact in on prices.


It's not a problem (in my opinion) about reaching 100% of the stocks. Why not, after all. And it's working fine. But as a result the end game is less interesting for stock investments as more and more company are "unbuyable".
IRL, it's nearly impossible to buy back stocks like this, because people cannot have so much money.


About cities, if you could implement different growth between cities, it would be fine.
Idem for unemployement which is quite unrealistic. Even during the most severe phase of depression (-4.5% for me), the unemployement never reached more than 5%. The reason is that the demand in not affected.

I support the demand of mwyeoh. The prices of houses and appartements are strongly connected to growth. BUT NOT THE DEMAND. It's highly problematic.
Can you manage to change the % of necessity of products in relation to growth ? This would greatly impact the game.
Some class of products would have a % variable. For example instead of 20% necessity, it would be 10%+(growth-3), which could lead to a range between 15 to 2%( it's just an example, of course). I know that programming necessity index different from one city to another, or linking necessity to the power of purchasing (which would be realistic) is very hard. But if you could manage to do something i think that it would be interesting. I support mwyeoh !

I would consider the game as really realistic when a lot of plants were closed during a depression.
If you play mostly in rents, you are impacted by crisis. But if not, you see nearly no impact.

About R&D, same thing that mwyeoh. You should keep raising the price. When you see the profit the AI can make and the importance of R&D (and the cost of R&D !)...


I'll tell you if i see something in 1.92.

It seems good that there are small mines and bigger mines.
The real problem is (in my opinion) that some mines are ALWAYS big (Silica, CM, for example) and so they are very costly (100M), whereas iron and coal are ALWAYS small.
It was already told in the forum as a problem of price. It's not a problem of price. With a Silica/CM mine you will make a lot more money than with Iron/coal (i haven't tested for oil silver and gold). You should increase the variance of the reverse, and impact in on prices.

Actually for this "With a Silica/CM mine you will make a lot more money than with Iron/coal", it is due to the demand for Silica/CM being greater than the demand for Iron/coal. It is not due to the reserve size of the mine.

In fact, it is true that in the game, mines for Iron/coal are more difficult to become profitable - but you can make profits from downstream businesses (steel, cars, etc) than input iron/coal, if you are going for vertical integration, you will have some benefits as a whole. So building iron/coal mines is part of the strategy, not a strategy on its own.


CHANGE TO BE MADE IN THE NEXT VERSION 1.921: Will double the reserve of coal and Iron in the beginning (but won't make it increase over time in reserve quantity yet). You may test it then, and let me know if it is okay or not.

Some AI built back all their stocks until they are 100% controlled by them, and after that nothing happens anymore.

CHANGE TO BE MADE IN THE NEXT VERSION 1.921: AI will have less tendency to buy up to 100% of his/her own company.

- Technology is still cheap. 200/250 tech costs 8M, whereas you have to wait 10 years with a 3x3 R&D center to make the same amount of technology. When you make 200 or 300M per year, it's nothing. I still think and claim that the amount should be linked to the size of the market.

CHANGE TO BE MADE IN THE NEXT VERSION 1.921: The cost for acquiring tech will be further increased.

Ive had depressions of -5% and a boom of 7%.
In the depression, non essential items were severely punished! (Which is a good reflection)
SUGGESTION: In a boom there are no benefits to demand. If citywide demand goes down in a bust, it should go up in a boom- (but not by as much).

I support the demand of mwyeoh. The prices of houses and appartements are strongly connected to growth. BUT NOT THE DEMAND. It's highly problematic.
Can you manage to change the % of necessity of products in relation to growth ? This would greatly impact the game.
Some class of products would have a % variable. For example instead of 20% necessity, it would be 10%+(growth-3), which could lead to a range between 15 to 2%( it's just an example, of course). I know that programming necessity index different from one city to another, or linking necessity to the power of purchasing (which would be realistic) is very hard. But if you could manage to do something i think that it would be interesting. I support mwyeoh !

It is programmed to behave this way - when GDP growth is high, people tend to spend more money (but high unemployment will counter the effect).

You may observe this in games and send me saved games if you find it not working as expected.

Idem for unemployement which is quite unrealistic. Even during the most severe phase of depression (-4.5% for me), the unemployement never reached more than 5%. The reason is that the demand in not affected.

In my recent game, the unemployment rate approached 9% during a recession. (screenshot attached). You may play more games and should be able to experience high unemployment rates.

I would consider the game as really realistic when a lot of plants were closed during a depression.
If you play mostly in rents, you are impacted by crisis. But if not, you see nearly no impact.

This depends on the AI companies' balance sheet - whether the balance sheet is strong enough to absorb losses during the recession times.

In the real world, lots of plants close down during a depression. In the games, such numerous plants are represented by local competitors. And firms simulated in details only account for a percentage of all the plants. That's the reason why we may not necessarily see firms being closed down in great numbers during recessions.

If you find otherwise (recessions' effect is too minor, doesn't impact companies at all - a company with poor balance sheet can still survive), please send me saved game and we will look into it.

Thank you David. You are really listening to people


I will try to note everything and send it to you.

About Iron and Coal, I'm not 100% for "doubling the reserve" without counterparts. For Silica and CM, the reserves are doubled, but on the other side the price is doubled too.

So it's good that only the first Iron and Coal mines are doubled, or their profitability will be completly flawed against other materials.

I think that all the mines have more or less the same profitability. But Iron and Coal are on shorter time.

About unemployement, i only gave you my view on 100 years and 7 cities. It's only a part of what the game can make.

I prefer to try everything i can try, with 1 full game per version. Perhaps i see less things, but i try to report you everything i can.

However it's harder to give you savegames with examples as versions change quite a lot and previous versions are not compatible (and it's quite a good thing because it means that you are well working). Now that the game is quite stabilized (even if i think that with the new beta testers and new bugs, we will have a 1.21 very soon), it will be easier. Perhaps if version haves to change a lot, you should keep a previous very installed on your computer ?