What a great game, it models the thing that has brought down Empire after Empire:

Imperial Over reach. Historically many empires have fallen because they have got to large, the cost of maintaining forward outposts overwhelms it and it is then torn apart by smaller hostile enemies at its periphery.

Even today this holds true. Look at the USA, its government runs a huge multi trillion dollar deficit to finance its war machine. That is perhaps one thing the game should model, the ability to borrow money from the intergalactic banking cartel.

As an Empire expands the gains from each new planet should grow smaller and smaller, there is an optimal empire size. When this is reached the player should then think about other strategies to take down other empires, alliances, culture etc etc.

However one thing I have not seen discussed is that crystal and metal income can be converted into credits, so even if a remote planet is running a tax deficit (which is highly realistic imo) the owner of said planet can still convert its resources into credits.

I have just started playing the game so I don't have any experiance on the huge maps.
I bet that the reason for the empire large fleet cost as a percentage is to prevent the run away large empire effect. You know how in so many other games, after an empire gets to a certain size the game is all but over since no other smaller empire can stop you. At least thats what I assume is the designers intent with this coding.
That said, I don't want a situation that makes my whole empire stagnant after reaching a certain size. So maybe a little tweaking is needed.

Please listen to him. It has already been established and agreed by most people on this thread that are at least a few problems with the current system. You may personally think it's fine, but there should at least be other options for players who think it's too limiting. The game allows for maps of infinate size, but does not give sufficient options to make those late game huge maps fun.

No... What we've determined is that a lot of people are incompetent and want a game that is solely run and gun. Even if the maps are HUGE... the way the galaxy is setup the gameplay is going to run the same way - and with more fleet cap you invalidate defenses almost totally.

Can't win with just the fleet? OH golly no, TRY using the techs, or the superweapons, or expanding by culture - or diplomacy. Brainstorm wow.

Other options are there to be used. The game's not all about fleet battles, so sorry you guys.


Was going to mention this but you sir are an excellent person Although you forgot to mention the OTHER alternative which always happens eventually - revolution. Someone breaks away. Eventually you DO get too far away to control your subjects.

Even in THIS universe they acknowledge that. They say it themselves the Vasari are running from something that destroyed their empire that was originally part of them. Ruling 100+ stars or something stupid in game is unfeasible and the rest of the gameplay shouldn't be changed to apply to you few diehard eye candy fools. (Cause seriously, theres no point past like 80 planets or so, Its all going to be the same. You just want to do it to say you did it.)

Martyr? you the guy that's arguing about how you have to be incompetent to drop below 65% allegiance?

You're aware that solar systems can be up to 100 planets large? Do you have a bit of an idea how far away from your capital some of the outlying planets would be? tack on an extra few jumps for planets in another solar system, and you start getting 35% allegiance all over the place. That means you're gaining 8.75% of the resources you're actually making. It has zero to do with incompetence. Also, I assume you think the 2000 limit is enough if you're not "incompetent"... enough for 1 solar system? 3? 5? 10? I want to hear your theories on how you manage to extend 2000 fleet points over many solar systems.

Techs? wtf? After about 1 solar system you're already maxed out on every tech. I mean really dude, I think you sorely lack experience in "huge" games to be able to accurately comment on this stuff...

well, after readng this entire thread, I can see a lot of flawed arguments on both sides.
I have played on large and huge maps, and yes, the unit cap is frustrating to deal with after a certain point.
the diplomacy system needs a little work, sure.
the allegiance bit is a pain in the ass.
rebels and pirates make it hard to defend your planets.

the answer is not spamming, or you could just use the basic frigates and still win the game
the answer is not an uber economy, nor is it a freaking turtle.

the answer is playing with strategy to overcome the handicaps built into the game.
true, the AI turns endgame on the larger maps into whack-a-mole, but so do human players who are trying to avoid elimination. if eventually you expand beyond your ability to maintain, the game has ways of punishing you for it. maybe the real trick is to not expect to be able to mop up large scale actions in a matter of hours, but be willing to invest literally days worth of time to finalize your victory. like it or not, large scale warfare inevitably turns into a grinding match until someone wears out.

personally, unless you are willing to work around built-in handicaps, there isnt much point in playing the game. I am all for tweaks to the various parts of the game that need improvement, but do not demand such drastic changes that this game becomes like every other RTS or Empire-Builder out there, and I will not play a game that has turned into every other game out there. I wanted this game precisely because it was different, please do not destroy it for those that think like me.

Your aware that none of the official sins maps have more than 21 planets a solar system? Maybe thats for a reason? Can I help it you play idiotic maps? Do you know how utterly unlikely a solar system with even more than 30 planets is? And using their tools technically we could mod in the United States Navy! Except that it would be utterly ****ing stupid. Much like 30+ planet solar systems.

I thought we were talking about huge maps. AKA, Random HUGE maps. Like the game says, I didn't know we were talking about, "I'm an idiot and I have way too much free time so I made this map in the forge but for some reason I can't make my normal sins style work with it!".

Making something that large is just as stupid as making something incredibly tiny. Like 7 stars and 1 planet a star. I bet you think thats genius too?

Yes, Sins of A Solar empire can support

"Can support thousands of planets and solar systems, the only limitation is the player's system. "

(taken from their feature page)

But they don't. Because its unnecessary, and impractical - much like a map with 1 star and 30+ planets. You play any map thats not feature filled with idiocy (AKA, use the random map generator, or one of the official sins maps) and my advice works perfectly well each time.

I only got the game yesterday and I could see this flaw playing just small and medium games.

Since the folks at stardock are not stupid, they can see it too. I think the reason its in is because stardock, in making good AI's, often simplify things so the AI can handle it. To many variables, too much depth to the economy and the AI is going to have to really massively cheat to keep up with an expert player.

Really the one thing that irks me is that you can't switch back to a lower fleet cap.

You just got gangbanged by 3 empires, you fleet is mostly dead, you need to rebuild, but you are still paying a huge % in upkeep for dead ships.

And ya its obvious that huge games would become big ugly quagmires. I'll be sticking with medium games until something is worked out.

I've only followed the discussion up to about page 3, and I understand the POV complaining about the fleet caps. While I don't agree with the status quo in regards to how fleet maintenance is paid and how large empires reach a limiting point to where victory nor loss is completely possible, I do think the problem can be overcome within the current limits. I've never actually played a huge map so I'm not 100% sure of the validity of the following strategy. Basically, instead of maintaining a huge empire that exceeds the game's logistics to support it, maintain a smaller one and continue to push the front lines of combat and your empire while abandoning planets in the rear. Basically, as you begin to clear out solar systems, move your capital, drop rear planets and enforce boundaries where the enemy can not cross and sneak into one of your rear planets to colonize. However, I don't know what a really large map looks like so I can't testify to the feasbility of enforcing a wall against the enemy. There is the possibility of having the enemy slip past and colonize behind your lines, but this is essentialy the two steps forward, one step back problem where if you do manage to eliminate the bulk of his empire, you only have to skip back a couple of planets and finish off the growing branch of his empire. Depending on the size of his empire you might have to repeat this a few times. In addition, when fighting mulitple empires, you can mobilize the empire to focus more on certain opponents rather than all at the same time, eventually you should be able to wipe out the enemy if you prevent them from moving anywhere else.

PLEASE READ THE ENTIRE POST, MY GRIPE IS NOT DIRECTED AT THE FLEET CAP ITSELF BUT THE WAY IT IS IMPLEMENTED, THERE SHOULD ALWAYS BE A CAP, BUT THAT CAP NEEDS TO BE ADJUSTABLE NOT BASED ON MAP SIZE, WHILE IT WOULD WORK TO A CERTAIN EXTENT. IT EFFECTIVELY BECOMES THE SAME SYSTEM IT JUST HAS A HIGHER END POINT, THE SAME SITUATION WILL ARISE BUT IT WOULD JUST REQUIRE MORE PLANETS TO REACH IT. I DO NOT WANT A BANDAID SOLUTION THAT STOPS WORKING AS SOON AS I DECIDE TO ADD EVEN MORE PLANETS.

On to the post.

The one issue that needs to be addressed is the that with lets say 5 empires, 300 planets. Player A is the largest player, by far. he has 10 of 15 systems, 20 planets each. The AI (And if you ever find people willing to stay players - it happens now and then however rare) bands together. You now have 5 people capable of producing the fleet cap without ever running out of money if they built up properly.

Lets not even bring attacking into this discussion yet, I'll do it later.

All three players have maxed out fleets, just by the nature of the map's size, as well as tech. Your defense consists of static defense structures and 2000 fleet cap, no structures if you're multi star and defending the star itself. The offensive team has an 8000 fleet cap. Now before I explain in detail how the four players that are effectively only HALF OF YOUR TOTAL EVEN WHEN COMBINED, can destroy you without hardly trying, how can you not understand the simple problem here? Or are you going to try and suggest to me that I'm supposed to out play 4 other people with a 4th of their ships, maybe you're some sort of god, or you're playing against infants, I'm not sure which.

Adjusting the fleet cap based on size would work to a certain extent - but as I said earlier, there's still a point where each player reaches their endgame, and as soon as everyone does, the biggest player gets singled out, and thoroughly stomped on. And do you know why? Because no matter how good he is, no matter how much he outplayed the other people in the start of the game, he now has no fighting chance. You simply can't against any semblance of AI or even plant level intelligence.

Lets take another smaller example, 100 planets, 10 systems, 10 planets each, each player starts on their own, 4 players. Player A is scouting effectively, and colonizing quickly, knowing the best build/upgrade patterns, and avoiding systems with other players. The other 3 players expand slowly: B and C finsh their own, and through scouting and painfully simple process of elimination ("Hey, I'm number 2 in econ/colonization, what are you?" "3, the other guy said he was 4" "Oh? I guess A must be 1") they realize player 1 is much bigger than all of them. B and C continue to expand, they work together on system 7, already owning 8 and 9 respectively, while D finishes system 10. Meanwhile player A colonizes 1-6, say he's a vassari that takes advantage of nano disassemblers on colonizing capital. Sends one to each and takes planets rapidly.

Each player can support the fleet cap and resupply their fleet at least once after a major loss by now, and all three smaller players band together against the much larger A. Taking advantage of the current fleet cap model, B targets 2 C targets 3 D targets 4. The player with 60% of the "universe" or "sector" responds by ____. Fill in that blank. I actually HAVE had this happen on several occasions. And as I play more and more games, especially lan games with friends who I know have good computers, we play regularly, this scenario happens often. The only solution is team games, which are bland and I simply don't enjoy, I want to win on the merits of my skill, not win/lose based on how well my allies play or win because of how poorly my enemies.

I'll do an example of another smaller map with even more players, for what a lot of other people are experiencing, the stalemate-esque ending for games after they take 50%~ of the galaxy after eliminating people and they start to gang up, the basic point is, you either steamroll EVERYONE before they reach fleet cap or you lose. Or you end up as one of tiny players in the group that beats the guy several times their combined size because of poorly designed (With good intentions, I know why the current system is in place, don't tell me why again, I'm saying an even better system could be put into place, and even one that's optional for those who like the standard game. But those of us with powerful machines want to be able to use them. The reason I got this game is to avoid the "cap battles" of other RTS games because the current game without any cap supports whatever your computer can handle. I want to reach that point while still having some sort of balance so the steamroller effect DOESN'T happen, I don't always win, and I want a chance to if I screw up or something just soundly outplays me. But I have no god given right or some such nonesense to win just because I suck and two other people also suck.

The inability to defend despite the vastly superior economy is an issue.

This is a very obvious and distinct problem for non team games, anyone can see that. Now the question is how do you fix it? You can't let the larger empire steamroll everyone or they'd quit. There needs to be a middle ground between the little and big guys. The simplest way to do it is to have a fleet cap limited only by how many ships you can afford to upkeep (Every ship has a certain amount of upkeep.) But not for all games, 1v1 this won't work at all, team games, it would hurt too. This would have to be balanced by either increasing the actual cost of ships so once you lose your fleet you don't have a big enough income to just rebuild instantly, which has a cap just as fleets do now. OR the one I prefer, when you lose a ship, you still pay the upkeep for a certain amount of time. This system adds another layer of strategy regarding economy. You could sit with a small defensive fleet with one planet on a star having massed frigate factories to protect your empire, and save up a large amount of resources then create a juggernaut to take over and colonize another system then disband the excess before you go bankrupt.

I'll continue with more in another post about details for how the upkeep system would work, and any questions I'd answer. If an official change isn't coming I'd resort to making a mod just for these large games. I have a powerful machine, and I want to exploit it. I LOVE BIG GAMES, I don't like jumping twice and having an early fight over a planet between first fleet caps worth of base frigates and a capital. I want to play endgame, I want to enjoy the entire game, I don't want my games decided 5-15 minutes in by an early conflict before I have even 5 of the 100 or so techs. I say this current system encourages micromanagement more than anything. You have to use your comparatively tiny fleet several times better than your opponents to even stand a chance, which isn't possible if they're AI or as stated above, a sentient plant.

What you're thinking of would only work in a one system game where it's just a lot of planets in one big line lol. I see why you would think the way you do, but it just isn't possible to defend against several competent people no matter how much better you are. Three people I could beat by rolling my face over my keyboard in 1v1 that can walk all over me in ffa simply because I become the biggest threat? That's not cool. This game doesn't have a way to sit back and bide your time while other people fight, and then just swoop in and finish all of them off. The game is EPIC, it's simply to big for one offensive to kill someone in a huge game quickly enough to before the others catch on and gang you.

The way I think fleet upkeep should work is a percentage (as it does now) or a flat amount, whichever is lower. There comes a point when you have a very high income that you should be able to completely support your fleet. It shouldn't cost more to support a fleet the more money you make. It should cost up to a certain flat amount per second. If you make more than that, you keep the leftover instead of permanently losing a percentage of your income no matter how huge that income may be.

If you make less than the flat amount, you can rationalize that you're not fully supporting the fleet but paying as much as you can afford. Whether this should lead to game-play effects, I leave to you, gentle reader.

The way it is now, you can kind of permanently gimp your income the further you research logistics.

The most realistic way would be you pay a certain amount per ship you have, and many games do this. It would be easy to gimp your income this way, but at least it wouldn't be permanent, as you can always scuttle ships.

There should also be research you can do to lower your support cost, IMO. I'm pretty sure the TEC and Advent don't have anything like this, but maybe the Vasari do.

This game was built in such a way as to be ridiculously flexible for modifications. Don't cry and whine because you don't want someone else to be able to enjoy the game, ask almost any wc3 player if he plays the standard maps or the totally custom games. The vast majority will say they play more custom maps where the words "RTS" don't even belong. We like the game, we like the engine, we like the galaxy forge, now we want more support for it, be it from someone capable of modding in the things we wish and capable of balancing it. Or an offical mod. (I can name a few games where the company designs modifications for their game that changes it completely, not just tweaks. Another wc3 example. Tower Defense mini game, part of the wc3 campaign. You place towers outside of a path, and the "mobs" run through to the end, that's no RTS. This game isn't built for ladders, rankings, and all that nonesense. Even as I speak people are working for complete modifications and overhauls of the game from battlestar galactica to starwars. A lot of us don't even want that much, we just want the base game, but actually balanced for larger maps that the game technically can support, but realisticly with the current cap cannot. A modification is something that can be turned on or off at will with a simple click, we want a modification that allows for what I described above, a balanced map with hundreds of planets.

The thing about the fleet cap percentage gimping your income is this. It's been stated several times throught this thread, mostly by those that do not support a higher fleet cap of some kind. Anyhow, don't research more fleet capacity until it's needed, and your economy will respond much better to it. By waiting until the capacity is needed, your empire will (in most cases) expand some and be better able to support the increased military tax burden. If you simply research all of the fleet levels right off the bat, your economy will suffer greatly, and you'll likely never be able to reach your new found fleet cap before another player blows you out of the stars. So long as you manage your economy well, the fleet upkeep costs are basically a non-event.

[EDIT] I would like to add that I do agree that the current upkeep system, where a ship costs more to support if you make more money, does seem a little funky. However, it's a game mechanic that works if used properly, so I don't mind it. What I'd like to say is an increased fleet capacity to reflect the fact that if you make more money, you pay more to the fleet. I support leaving the flat tax percentage, independant of you actual fleet size, if you could build a larger fleet to substantiate the increased expense on the military. See my earlier post (on page 4 or 5, I think) for my thoughts on this type of system. Please keep in mind, the numbers I use in that example are arbitrary, and Not really balanced at all. The fleet sizes I list are far too varied, IMO, but they were simpler to figure.

No I see your point and agree with you.

Even in my medium game I'm getting gangbanged by 3 empires and really have no way to defend. I'm sure I made some noob mistakes in build/research type things but still I am the most powerful empire and all I can do is defend. I came to the conclusion that I just need to be more aggressive and attack enemy home systems as early as possible.

This is the thing that bugs me the most, also.

I still don't understand your case here... Even at 0.1 credits/sec (which I feel is extremely low), those 30 extra planets are making you 3 credits/sec, and 25% of that is 0.75 credits/sec more that you are making over him. Those are the numbers I have added up.

Not to mention you have at least 60 more resource asteroids than your opponent, spitting out stuff you can sell on the black market for extra cash.

Thank you Haeso for summarizing a lot of the flaws already brought up with the current fleet cap/tax system. Though they were already covered earlier in this thread, it is obvious some people (Martyr) did not take the time to read the entire thread and instead decided to bring up arguments that had already been addressed. I was hoping this could remain a friendly discussion about the fleet issues but some people (again Martyr) feel the need to attack others just because they have different views on how the game should be played.



Since our choice of map sizes is not what you would play, they are therefore labeled idiotic? How unbelievably arrogant.
Please people, before you start posting arguements, READ THE ENTIRE THREAD because your problem has probably been addressed already.

Wow, this guy based a multi paragraph insulting rant based on a typo someone made.

Why did the report button leave us?

Wow, get a clue. This discussion is about multi-solar system maps with many planets, particularly maps that outpace the supply cap. If you're only playing random huge, then the fleet cap isn't a problem. Go play on truly huge maps then come back to this thread and talk when you have experience with it.

Anything over 30 is retarded? It's great that you think so, but nobody really cares. I've played games with 8 players on one solar system and about 50-60 planets, the game is perfectly fine (except for the massive corruption).

Thanks - and what do you think of the upkeep per ship idea? The only other plausible ones are no cap at all, which while it would work, I don't really like that idea, and each planet you control giving X amount of fleet cap. Maybe have this number affected by allegiance too? Give it a bigger effect in the game, and make a way to increase the max cap even more, or perhaphs make it 5% per jump instead of 10%? Anyway, as I fool around with the modding myself I'll keep looking into more ideas as well as implementing them.

How huge is "Truly Huge"? I mean, I'm a shameless huge map lover, but how big do you WANT?

In any case, fleet cap size is fundamentally irrelevant to the issue: You would encounter this problem with ANY fleet cap: If you simply doubled the fleet cap size, you would also need a fleet twice as large to effectively combat the now twice-as-numerous invaders. In the end, it doesn't matter how large the fleet cap is, and making it larger would simply mean that battles are twice as large and your computer is brought to its knees by the deluge of extra ships.

What you're REALLY facing is simply an issue of topological overreach. The topology of the map you're playing on simply isn't defensible, and so it becomes impossible to expand and still hang on to what you have.

...this is the point at which you just start building dozens of autofire Novalith cannons around on every single one of your rear-worlds and render the entire rest of the map uninhabitable in a rain of bullets that makes it impossible to recolonize (for you OR them) because it constantly rains bullets for the next half hour even after you've stopped shooting at it, thus quickly destroying any new colony that sprouts up.

I havent posted in this thread in a while, and it has gone off the topic some because most of the people responding now arent really responding to the real issue I actually brought up in the first couple pages of the thread.

While the game may have worked out well for you, there are other factors that DO make a difference in the outcome and the scenario I presented.

1. Martyr, you played TEC. TEC have a resource advantage over other races. I was playing Advent. I know you think the rebels were a 'minor' annoynace, in my games I often had rebel fleets with 20+ ships attacking 6-8 systems simultaneously. While the rebels arent going to eliminate you from the game, they *are* more than a minor annoyance when they often attack the infrastructure of your outer rim planets while you might be fighting other AI opponents on 2-3 fronts. You may have had an easy time and cake walked thru opponents, I often fought multiple empires with just as many planets as I had after eliminating 3 opponents that were coming from far off systems I hadnt even reached yet. Go play a huge map as Advent and come back with the same results.

2. It also depends on how the AI interacts and how the random map is set up as well. I was playing a FFA game with 9 AI opponents. I dont care if you think you are 'leet gamer guy' and had such an easy time winning on a huge map. The design of the game is inherently flawed with the fleet cap on huge maps. Its not about not being able to spam ships and win, its about having to go thru a long unnecessary process to eliminate smaller enemies which makes the game not fun.

3. I did build up my planets, but it gets to a point where its easier to just raze planets and not colonize them which shouldnt be the case, which I find is a design flaw. Again, it just makes the game long and drawn out for no reason since the planets just get repopulated over and over.

4. I still believe the game is inherently flawed with the 'give the little guy a chance' system they have implemented when played on huge maps. As is, in the end game you can have twice as many planets as two smaller empires, but they can ally together and field a fleet that is twice the size of yours. As an empire with many more planets, you should have much more economic leverage on two smaller empires.

BTW, I won the game, but it was unnecessarily long, and IMHO doesnt work as it should. There are too many wholes is the current system on huge maps.

Instead of just gloating on how great a player you are and how you think I dont understand the game mechanics, try going back and reading the thread from the beginning.

While I'm glad you can sit around and high-five all the guys that seem to agree with your position, there are just as many people in this thread if not more that feel the design is flawed. Just the fact that this thread is as large as it is should be an indication that this *is* an issue.

I think there are many players on both sides of this argument that have presented good points, and if nothing else this speaks for itself.

My only advice is to pump your infrastructure to its max on each planet and research the population tech (its usually first or second tier, pretty cheap).

You have to be pro-active with your fleet, you can't turtle. And with such a massive fleet it really shouldn't be a problem.

Also, a nerf to fleet upkeep is a buff for returning armada, keep that in mind.

@Spacethug,
i agree your first words, and therefore didnt post here neither for some time. I think we should stop to bang our heads if or if not it makes sense for a new fleet cap. Cuz even the developers ask already for new ideas for the fleet cap system in the next patch. And by arguing yes we need or no we wont we wont help them finding a good solution. So when there really will be one, it could be optional, and people who like it the old way can do so, and people who like it the new way can turn it on.

Instead we should collect ideas how to do it, and what we think might work out, if there will be a new-second fleet cap.

1. I like the idea of increasing the fleet cap in relation to the overall amount of planets on the map. Some people state that in this way it will be the same as now, just bigger, and the enemy can also have the same fleet size. I dont really think so. It can be like this, as long as our empires are around the same size, but as soon as they get smaller, they have less ressources and therefore wont be able to keep up with the rebuilding. So there will be a difference between big and small. Which also should be.

2. the second idea i like is having fleet cap, but the last stage is not limited. Instead u have to pay for the oversupply you create. Doesnt has to be every ship,but therefore every next supply package, e.g every over 50 fl supply cost xxx resources (this is just an example of the mechanic, and not supposed to be the right formula). On the income panel it could be displayed liked 1: Over Supply 50 2. Cost (every 50): xxx 3. Remaining Income: +5000/sec

In this case your fleet limit only depends on your econmy. And this will create the difference between the bigger and smaller empire. Sure you will reach the point where you cant expand anymore cuz your economy cannot take another step. But this could be balanced by not paying for every ship. Instead paying for every next fleet supply package e.g every 50 every 100 etc.

This are the two ideas i like so far for a new fleet cap system. And i hope we can get more to find a good way of improving the system, and help the developers to find a solution for the next patches.