Capitalism 2 and Capitalism Lab Forum

We are considering whether the following idea is a good one that we should implement:

A new game option on the new game setting menu: Company Size Limit – apply to both AI and players

Unlimited, 100, 200, 300, 400, 500

Popup help: set the company size limit by specifying the maximum number of firms that each company can build.

This will provide some quick games to players who dislike micromanagement.

The company cannot merge if their total firms after the merger exceeds this limit.

This will force the player to play with a smaller number of firms and maximize their profits.

Viewpoint: Some players may not like it as it has obviously drawback.

Another viewpoint: Right now, it is much more difficult for the player company to diversify extensively and secure market leadership in many markets as they are all cut-throat, thanks to improved AI and the product class expertise feature.

In other words, the competition is so intensive on every market that it is impossible to run a large corporation, so it actually won't be necessary to impose such an artificial limit on the company size.


What are your thoughts on this?

It's fine either way. If it takes lots of time to implement that limit so that AI can actually function well within it (a low limit might require some tuning to current AI) then I would pass. If not, then it's just another option to add in the menu, which won't hurt. If someone dislikes the higher amount of options in CapLab, they can stick to Cap2.

With a 'low limit' I meant like <10 firms or so. The lowest you suggested there was 100 which wouldn't cause the possible AI problem I was thinking about. I've never had over about 30 firms in the game and even that 30 only because 20 of them were R&D. I might be an exception. I used to like the game to go fast and easy. So the lowest limit of 100 sounds very high.

Random suggestions:

There could be random pre-written 'story events' that appear once a year or so in a text box which pauses the game, where a fictional situation related to the company is explained and the player sometimes has to choose between two or three options, and sometimes there are no options just an effect. The effects are either absolute or partly randomized which are informed when putting the mouse cursor on the button of each decision. This idea is actually from Europa Universalis, and it has been used in other games as well. Those do have the problem of being repetitive so they should be general events, not like 'The head researcher stained important blueprints with coffee and much of the progress was lost.'. If they are that specific, the player will become bored with the repetition of such an unlikely event and will wish there was a choice button to cut the researchers head off because it happens in every game, sometimes twice! Furthermore, if they are specific like that, you have to make 50 to 100 of them so that this feature would be complete. With 'general event' I mean things that actually happen regularly like weather-related situations.

Then again weather could be it's own factor implemented in the game so that in hot weather ice cream and drinks sell better and so on. To simplify, there could be info about which months are hot, cold and average temperature in each country so that player knows when to switch those hot weather products to retail stores. Stereotypes don't always apply in real life though. It's often -30celcius and even less in winter where I live, and ice cream sells well. That's what I was told by a relative who used to drive an ice-cream van.

Another possible thing if you think the game should be entertaining more than realistic (my vote is for realism, boring or not) is to implement mini-games in several different functions like advertising and R&D. I've played many games with mini-games in them, it can be as simple as solving a jigsaw puzzle with a picture of a certain product which is being researched in an R&D firm. The faster it's solved the better the tech rating bonus. Same could be used for ad campaigns - create a few text ads and mess up the order of words in the sentences so that the player has to put the words in correct order as fast as possible to get bonus effectiveness in the specific ad campaign. I'm not being very creative here but it's something.

Regarding your suggestion of random pre-written 'story events', would you come up with a list of story events that you think will fit the game and post them here?

If there are sufficient number of them that we think we will work with the game, we may consider implementing a script system allowing users to create scripts on their own for such story events in the future version of CapLab.

The company size limit idea is mainly for reducing micromanagement - making it impossible for the player to have too many firms.

Another idea we have been considering is to allow the player to set the CEO's "FOCUS" on a small number of firms. For the firm that receives the "FOCUS" of the CEO, its efficiency and competitiveness will increase significantly.

When a corporation gets too big, it will appear slow and inefficient when compared to small companies focusing on a few firms only.

For example, let's say there is a small company has 20 firms and 5 of them gets the benefits of the FOCUS effect, compared to a large corporation which has 100 firms and only 5 out of 100 receives the benefits of FOCUS effect.


Reducing the tedious mirco-management has always been one of the game's design goals.

We haven't yet decided which method discussed above will work better. Your inputs are welcome - which method you like better or you have any other suggestions for reducing tedious mirco-management.

Hi David. I have one suggestion. Maybe you can make it so that the company can specialize on a certain industry, for example aerospace, tech, automobile, clothing, drugs etc. I do find it unrealistic that every company is a conglomerate. I also think you should be able to choose whether your company is public or private and be able to file for IPO.

Hi David. I have one suggestion. Maybe you can make it so that the company can specialize on a certain industry, for example aerospace, tech, automobile, clothing, drugs etc. I do find it unrealistic that every company is a conglomerate. I also think you should be able to choose whether your company is public or private and be able to file for IPO.

COO's have strengths and weaknesses in retailing, tech development etc. and player could have the same which could be chosen by allocating points between those skills at the beginning, and the amount of total points could determine difficulty modifier. COO's skills would still affect those firms he is assigned to.

Player could enroll in corporation management courses via headquarters to increase skills, which costs a lot. These might be suggested in the forum already.

To reduce micromanagement, I would propose a simpelr way:
Make CEO & COO useful

The refactored COO position would effectively be able to manage production chains and factories efficiency to maintain and level-up profits.
The CEO position would be limited to manage funds and take other minor tactical decisions making the health of the company getting better on itself.

Big strategical decisions would still rely on the player (new products, new buildings, investments, stock market actions, real estate).

Some raw ides, I hope not to be off-topic.

I think the last idea is a good one.

1) If we could actually have a corporate staff from the start of the game, like hire a COO or CFO but not a great expense
2) it would be cool if we could negotiate more precisely the COO contract, for example make it's wage dependent of company's revenue or the firms revenue we chose to assign to him

then again limiting the number of firm would be an interesting option if we just want to play a game with an equally powerful competitors.