You know, I think there is a way to simulate a game with no fleet max limits. I noticed earlier there is a mod that increases the fleet resource allotments, all the way to 10,000 points and 32 Cap Ship crews. I wonder if it would be possible to increase this even higher. Put something like a 100,000 cap on your fleet resources and you'll likely never see it, and I love to see the computer that could handel a fleet like that. This would, in essence, eliminate the fleet cap all together.

I personally would leave a cap on the capitiol ships. Otherwise, an industrial juggernaut could simply build a hundred battleships and annihilate anything in their way.

I think we here really have a good opportunity to extend the civilian tech-tree width one new item.

I thinking about some sort of a spacestation that specific handles corruption related stuff (ex. policestation).

- station can only be build outside capital star system

- only one station can be build and exist in a single star system (like one capital planet)

- Should be very big and cool looking

- cost to research should take a HUGE amount of credits/resources (game strategy purpose)

- new Levels to research to extend corruption handle, levels witch would cost even more on each new level (like we see now)

- destroyable, but should take some time (protect it at all cost )

- On every new station build, fleet cap increase a little (as we can use as we see fit but meant for purpose for the new station – see next)

- station can hold a smaller fleet up to heavy cruiser size ships, but this fleet can NOT leave its star system – Think of it as like a “home fleet”. Because this “home fleet” doesn’t have the capability to go between stars, ships have more room for more weaponry/defence and have maybe faster phase jump speed between planets in its system.

I think this would be possible to code in, and maybe the best, and also might be an easier way to resolve this issue.

Redion

Making Fleet Supply depend on the Economy is a pretty stupid idea if I may say so. Economy already defines how many Ships of what type (research) you can deploy how fast and what lvl of upgrades they have. If you add to that that the one with the better and quicker deployed fleet can build more ships it's kinda an exponential increase in military Ooomph. Not only can said player rebuild his fleet more quickly, he gets more too ... he simply spams everybody else to death.

they didn't have fleet caps

If "bigger is always better/wins" than why not just end the game after conquering over 50% of the planets?

to solve this YOU MUST CRUSH THE REBELLION AND MAKE SKYWALKER ONE OF US...as for Jack Sparrow KILL HIM!!

the satisfaction of owning everyone

Some of the complex and elaborate reworkings of the system that people are suggesting here sound good, but we need a fix that can actually be implemented with a patch.

A simple and effective solution would be to apply a small multiplier to the fleet cap based on your empire's total population in addition to the current system. This multiplier could never go below 1 or above 2. That way the larger empire could have enough ships to defend itself while the smaller one wouldn't be completely SOL. It would also justify the "empire X has to pay 5X as much for the same size fleet as empire Y just because" issue.

As for the "give the little guy a chance" argument, keep in mind that the larger empire is naturally going to have to spread its forces out much thinner than the smaller one. Even with a fleet twice as large it may only be able to devote 1/4 of its fleet to a particular battle.

Oh and one more thing; planetary defenses need to be made more effective. This alone would solve many problems.

That's really the player's problem, not the game's. There's nothing "natural" about it, there's nothing stopping you from putting together the big steamroller and running over the little guy, for example.



Yes, let's give double the fleet cap to an empire just because

A small empire already does not have a sufficient economy of scale to operate at the fleet cap, and a large one does. So the difference in number of ships is already there, and it's much more elegant than "Hey, let's just double the fleet cap for no reason"

Sure the big guy could steamroll the little guy, but what would stop the little guy from jumping to another star and smearing big guy's capitol. Remember, big guy and little guy have the same size fleet.



Um, just because the larger empire has 5X the population, income, and resources...

Theorycraft is great. Now, show me a game where a small empire like get hits the 2k fleet cap to match the empire that's 5x larger in everything.

Until you do, you're pulling your argument out of thin air.

The problem is the cap. In my opinion that is the problem with most, if not all, RTS that have ever been made. Economics simply doesn't matter in this game. The basic state of economics in Sins seems to be it's mostly there to initially build. Granted as you expand the cap there is a negative modifier to your economy in the form of the upkeep percentage but, at least in my opinion, it over simplifies and is there simply to "prove" that the economics exists and not to limit in the sense economics would. The main thing is the upkeep is not based on the amount of ships you actually control but the amount you could control with the cap maxed out at whatever level you happen to be at. Really that defeats the whole idea right there. The amount of upkeep spent should be directly affected by the ships in play. The main two examples have been a large empire vs. a small one. Now if both have the cap upgraded once then they are both spending 9%. In a smaller empire this would of course mean less goes towards that 9% but on the other hand it means you may be building ships slower to compensate for the lack of incoming resources. Now in a larger empire more resources go towards that 9% but if you have enough you may max out the new cap in a few minutes, but not spending anymore even though you may have even double the ships. This is my main "down point" for Sins. Each individual ship should somehow add to the amount you must spend to upkeep them otherwise it's just gonna end up a typical RTS. And I don't really want that because there is no "down side" to rapid expansion and building in any RTS other than you're low on resources for a little while. Our economies should be supporting our fleets and that does mean giving us the possibility of over extending our economies by building fleets that our tax base can't support leading us to lose credits, metal, or crystals. As it is now it's not that possible for us to ever lose negative amounts as even the highest cap upgrade makes you pay at most what... is it 75% I'm not sure but I can promise it's not 100%. I just feel economics is just as important in any 4x game at the tactical aspect is but as of right now the only one focused on is the tactical part.

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.

Well I was exaggerating with the 5x statement.

Take two empires, empire A and empire B, both large enough to fill the 2k cap. Empire A is twice as large as empire B. Clearly empire A is disadvantaged for no real reason. It's like a racing game with slow-car-catchup, which sucks in my opinion.

With a slightly expanded unit cap for the larger empire it would still be possible for Empire B to gain back some ground, but it would and should be damn hard.

Also, a bit of per unit taxation would help balance this situation out even more.

I would like to state that Sins is great; I hate to come on here and make it sound like the game is "broken" or unplayable. The flaws that I am pointing to are the few exceptions to an otherwise ingenius design.

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.

I'd like to second this. So far, what I've played of Sins has been incredible. Definately the best RTS I've ever played, and one of the best 4X strats I've played. It's just that I like to play on massive scales, and it seems that there are some holes in the game at truely massive scales.

These "give the little guy a fair chance" arguments really don't make any sense. If you do not play as well as another empire and they manage to make twice the income you make, then you SHOULD be at a disadvantage. And don't say then all the game becomes is a planet grab because a person with 5 well developed planets can make more than a person with 10 or 15 undeveloped ones. If you have the economy to support a bigger fleet then you should be able to build one. Using this "fair chance" logic if Empire A loses his fleet to Empire B for whatever reason then Empire A should be able to get cheaper/free ships just because he played worse than Empire B and it needs to be made 'fair'.

"Just because the an empire makes less doesn't mean that a ship would cost less for that empire to upkeep. "

This.

I am still waiting for the game to download, but I think I understand the problem. It makes no sense to tie build or upkeep costs as a percentage of what you make. A dollar is a dollar is a dollar, spaceships dont cost less because you have less income.

I also see how the fleet capacity should not be directly tied to planet/population. Massive expansion shouldnt necessarily mean more industrial/military capacity. Once I have played a few games I will be able to give better input or have some suggestions, but for now I will just have to play a huge game and see for myself.

On the allegience problem, the OP mentioned:
How about being able to designate a (one) sector capital per system, that works as a 80% Homeworld (i.e. has allegiance 80%, next planets 70% and so on)?


Both, the fixed cap and the fixed upkeep are plain stupid IMO.

As it is now, to take an earthern analogy, the US and, say, Jamaica, could support the same fleet (CVNs and all), if both spent 75% of their budget for it.

This is clearly ridiculous.

Below is a suggestion, I made in another threat.


How about this:

Without any further research/developement you get:
0.3 capships per colonized planet
0.1 capships per colonized asteroid
The sum is always rounded up

30 ship points per colonized planet
10 ship points per colonized asteroid
The Homeworld gets a 70 point bonus to ship points.

Reserach/developement increases the basic values much the same way as it does the fixed number now.

I haven´t thought a whole lot about the numbers, but wanted to keep the "1 cap, 100 ship points" at the start of a game, and imagined, if I control 10 planets, I should be able to field at least 3 capital warships even without research.

Ship points might be a bit much. On the other hand. This would mean a fully colonized planet (like earth) could support a whooping 6 Cobalt class frigates. That doesn´t sound as too much.

Perhaps modify the numbers for the type of the planet (terran get full value, desert and arctic 2/3 and volcanic half that.

Also, how about removing the fixed amount of upkeep/support for the fleet (spending 75% of my income on fleet upkeep, even if my fleet just got crushed and there are only a handfull of frigates left is kind of stupid)?
How about giving each ship an upkeep cost? Thinking of this, you could do away with the ship points all together, as a small empire couldn´t afford a large fleet anyway.

Yes, I know this isn´t original and was in quite a few games allready. IMO, it worked quite well there, so why fix it if it aint broken?


Ralph Hoenig, Germany

Just wanted to respond on this point, as I don't see it as valid. Both countries are vastly different in terms of size and raw material availability. In a fair comparison, eg the US and Russia, it makes more sense. Both can and have maintained a similarly sized military force, but the income and living standard in Russia is a lot lower. This is because building something requires materials, the quantity being the same no matter if it costs $100 dollars in Russia or $500 dollars in the US.

Also, look at Germany in WW2. They are quite a small country yet dominated Europe for quite a while and were a serious threat to the combined allies. It was the same for the UK, they conquered a huge amount of territory for such a tiny country.

Another example, Indonesia has far more troops than Australia but they are much smaller. This is simply because those countries chose to spend a greater percentage of income on building up their military, so the percentage upkeep makes perfect sense to me.



I prefer the percentage instead of fixed rate. This is how I see the abstract concept:

- Upgrading your fleet capacity means setting aside a portion of your income to create supply ships and centres, and service staff (mechanics/engineers etc). This infrastructure is then kept in place regardless of how many ships there are.

Afterall, in the real world a navy fleet captain doesn't pay for servicing or refitting at a naval base, nor do they hire mechanics to work on their aircraft carriers. There are people already within the navy that do that, and they have to be paid wages whether there are 2 ships or 100.


- Upkeep depends upon parts and servicing. This does not change according to income - eg. to replace a wheel on a car you need a new tire, whether it costs $200 for company A or $50 for company B. This is real world economics; low income, low prices, high income, high prices, ie. inflation.

So, Empire A makes 4 credits/sec but only pays 3/sec to it's workers at 75% upkeep.
Empire B makes 40/sec and pays 30/sec to it's workers, due to higher living cost. It's the same infrastructure for each. It's like the difference between a first-world and third-world country.




I'm currently playing a 8 player 9-star 100+ planet game, and I'm making over 60 credits/sec with 26 planets so far, and at 38% upkeep. Even at 75% upkeep I'll still be making 25/sec.
I don't see how it's possible to lose money no matter how many planets you have; it doesn't even seem mathematically possible. The only way to lose money via your own economy is through underdevelopment, as previously stated. There are outside influences though that can affect your income; some of the capital ships abilities can drain income.

But that´s the whole point!
Even with the enormous difference in available money and resources, in this game Jamaica could support a vast fleet.
Of course, a country like Jamaica would have neither the resources nor the money to keep a fleet of even a single carrier battle group operational.
As I said, ridiculous.

Ralph Hoenig, Germany

I had 20 planets, i had more income than i could use even constantly pumping out ships from a dozen factorys.


Its called TRADE. If you fill the orbitals of many planets with just trade ports then you earn alot of money.

Basicly the person with more planets will allways be at the advantage mineral and money wise if they do it right.

Yes, you're right, I was looking at economy with that example.
In terms of size though, that's why I gave the other examples such as your own country or the UK.

In the real world a country the size of the UK probably could build up a US sized fleet over a very long time, decades at least, at great cost to the rest of the economic sectors and by importing materials if necessary. This is what several other countries have done in the past.

However, an ingame UK equivalent of a single planet would take an inordinately long amount of time to build up a fleet due to the lack of incoming resources. One planet supporting say 2 crystals/sec at 75% upkeep would be bringing in .5/sec compared to a 20 planet empire bringing in 5/sec even with corruption. My 26 planet empire is bringing in over 10/sec after corruption in my current game at 38% upkeep.

So yes, they could both support the same size fleet, but it would be very difficult to rebuild for the smaller empire, plus the research and manufacturing resources would be very limited.

The acquisition of planets has diminishing returns due to corruption. The empire starts to become top heavy. The bigger it is, the harder to manage. But you always get some profit from every planet.

So I think it all still works fine.

A patch could easily implement a minimum cost to each fleet supply tier, I would imagine, which would help to eliminate the 'tail chasing' phase of the game. When you've got no planets you'd be in negative money (instead of 74% of zero = zero cost) and you wouldn't be able to constantly build/upgrade new planets because you saved 30k beforehand. Destroying trade and population would actually count for something, because there is a level of economy they must maintain to not be constantly losing money to pay for the military.

Right, you could argue either way for the supply costs mechanic, and either way, comparing it to real-life examples doesn't make much sense because real-life is not designed to be fun and enjoyable, whereas a game should be. But the more important issue is that a larger empire doesn't actually get enough ships to work with.