At the very least, the simplest "band-aid" quick fix I can think of at the moment is to include an option at game start that modifies the supply cap to account for map size.
So for example, the "small" setting could be the current supply cap that scales from 100 to 2000 with ~200 increments. The "medium" setting could scale from 100 to, say, 5000 with increments of 500. The "large" setting could go from 100 to 10,000, and the "huge" setting could go from 100 to 20,000 before the very last upgrade and then the last upgrade could remove the supply cap entirely and maybe tax you 90%.
Something like this is -badly- needed, in its current state the game teases you with the possibility of hundreds of solar systems, but in reality maps with more than 4 or so solar systems become literally unplayable.
This also leaves it entirely up to the player. If you don't like it and think it ruins the game, like some people here, good for you, stick with the original cap and try to figure out how to run a massive empire with it, and everyone's happy.
I agree totally here. I think the tax system as it is now can function properly. I haven't completed a large scale game yet, so I don't know for sure. However, without playing one, I can already see that the fleet cap is going to be extremely restrictive in the later stages, so I think the main fix is to increase the fleet cap.
What I really agree with here is the fact that it needs to be user selected. Either through a patch of the interface, or through a mod (already done). That way, those of you that prefer the game as it is now can keep going with that. Those of us that feel the need for larger fleets can do so and everyone is happy.
I still feel that an empire should be able to build a fleet that matches it's size to some extent.
All of the arguments I see in this thread against a scaled fleet increase seem to be assuming the game is 1v1, and as I said, and others have said, the little guy in this situation is definately going to be at a disadvantage. What I am trying to put across, and I think what those that spoke before me on this are saying, is that the largest empire is rarely ever fighting only one opponent.
Lets say you have built a large empire that has the industrial might to easily use all 2000 of your fleet points. You are at war with 3 smaller empires, all capable of using only 1000 of their resources. That means the enemies, even though they can't max their fleets, are still a fare bit more powerful than you.
Now, we look at the size. Your larger empire is 5 times the size of those smaller enemies. Does it seem logical that the 3 opponents with fewer natural resources (planets) among them can garner a larger fleet, even though the larger empire's economy could easily support a larger force?
Sure, with a scaled fleet, the larger empire has more ships, and can build them faster than any one of the smaller empires, but they may not keep up with all 3 hitting them from different vectors. You folks are ignoring the fact that the larger empire has to spread it's forces over a much larger area, effectively reducing their force's effectiveness.
Now, I have not played a game into these massive scales yet, so I may be blowing hot air here. I can see it being a problem, and others here have already said they have encountered it. If the economics work as you others say, so only a truely massive empire can build a massive fleet because of costs rather than cap, then the idea of simply increasing the max cap should suffice. Increase the cap so the larger empire can build a larger force to more effectively police it's territory, but the smaller empires are still hamstrung by their economies.
Also, I'm not saying the idea I had earlier is perfect. It's just an idea that could be used to help scale the fleets without creating the loophole of a huge economy rebuilding a fleet too rapidly. Through in some methods for smaller empires to boost their own economies and you have a more balanced game that makes more sense, to me at least.
