I am against setting a hard limit on number of starbases per sector. If you start in a remote corner with nowhere to go, you're already in trouble vs high level AI. (AI that started in similar position also has hard time). In this case strategies to survive are limited and building starbases is one of them. Global limit per race is fine, actually I think it will help to limit runaway victories, when whoever got best starting position wins. Another reason I like global limit is to reduce micromanagement. Those "big" constructors are also nice for this purpose.

I think that global limit would even add some more depth to the game by making one choose whether he wants to get maximum productions bonuses or squeeze opponents by his cultural bases. Tech path allowing to increase number of starbases allowed adds even more depth. This solution starts to sound like a fun addition :>

Another randomly thrown idea is to have starbase maintenance increasing with the distance from your nearest colonized system. Kind of makes sense, though unclear how it would improve the game.

Also I believe it's better to add or change something to improve the depth of the game than to disable some cheesy tactics. It is a single player game and nobody
forces one to use cheesy tactics. If somebody wants to ruin his experience he has paid for this right
You can just maintain a list of what is considered cheesy tactics.

Alex.

Just my two cents:

I would like to see both an overall limit in starbases as well as a limit on starbases in a given sector. These limits could either be a hard limit (i.e. number of starbases) and/or diminishing return type limits (i.e. duplicate starbases have reduced benefits or maintenance costs start increasing, etc). I think this would force many stratigic decisions based on the particular situation you find yourself in.

As the game is now, I think use of starbases has become kind of cookbook. In particular, there is a real incentive to build a bunch of economic starbases in the one or two sectors with your best planets (your better of building 6 starbases in the sector with your best planet than 1 starbase in each of six sectors). For me, what typically happens by the middle of the game is that these one or two planets become "MEGA" producing planets and account for 60% or more of my overall military and social production.

This is fun the first couple of times you do it, but after awhile the replay value begins to diminish. I'd rather be faced with having to make tough decisions on exactly how many starbases I can construct and I'd like there to be incentives to build up all of my planets rather than simply focussing in on the top few.





~SDC~

I'm okay with maintenance costs (5 or so seems good, as originally suggested).

I think that limiting starbases per sector is a very bad, counter-intuitive idea.

I'm okay with super-constructor units that allow you to build better modules.

I'm okay with a new tech path that affects how many starbases you can build globally.

I don't think the supply lines idea is very intuitive at all, and just adds another layer of complication to something that tends to get bogged down in the late game already.

I have no opinion on the terraformers.

~SDC~

There are a lot of good thoughts in the above posts. However, I agree with Brad's views on not liking _unrational_ limiting of the number of star bases. I can see some limitation if it is "believable".

1). Such as star bases that give a sector a production boost should cost something, or even be limited in number. The idea behind this is that even increased productivity has a cost.
a) More efficient manufacturing equipment costs more to own and run, but produces more per cost than the less efficient equipment. You can see this idea already in the power plant improvements.
Manufacturing takes people. I would find a way of limiting the production boost based on the number of people in the sector. Some things, like robotic devices, take less people than others, but they still take some people. Generally, if the support is not available, then a production upgrade can't be done. (BTW, this would require something that would tell what was needed when a particular upgrade couldn't be done.)

2). Some upgrades, such as the trade and culture modules, are revenue generating in nature. These should not be taxed, or limited, nor should they require any minimum population. The assumption here is that the increase in revenue such an upgrade produces is after expenses.

3). The offensive/defensive upgrades also could be seen as requiring people for support and fees for maintenance, but such fees and people would have to come from the empire as a whole, instead of any particular sector or planet. It could be viewed as people drawn from all of the planets, with the planets counting them as part of their population even though they are on the star base in another sector, not on the planet, such as is done with the military of most nations of our world today.

If limiting the number of star bases in this manner, or in some other "believable" manner, is too hard to implement, either in an upgrade, a point release, or a new version, then star base limits and/or fees should not be attempted.

I'm not entirely convinced of the need to solve the problem, but I'm not a brilliant GalCiv player either - so in my games, I'm happy to pump up my production as far as I possibly can with starbases.

A point made above, that constructors are currently the useful means of soaking up otherwise wasted ship production, should also be kept in mind. In effect, at this time, the only "wasted" production is social, since there aren't inifnite-soak social production projects.

Having said which, I'm not opposed to diminishing returns. Perhaps the scaling of the diminishment could be tied to the number of planets in the sector? The "super sector" effect actually makes a certain degree of sense when many planets are involved, and (in my limited experience) it's hardly guaranteed that you can have a large number of planets in a given sector.

If a maintenance fee is added, then having revenue-producing modules would be a Good Thing. Problem: how many of them can I build? Can I finance my empire on them....?

Heavy Constructors make good sense if they are tied to making the more advanced module types. Requiring them for the lesser types, regardless of number, seems less intuitive - harder to remember during the game.

On the logistics tech tree and maintenance: perhaps the logsitics should determine the number of starbases or starbase modules the empire can support without maintenance, and bases/modules beyond this require a maintenance fee? Let me exceed the empire's base capability, for a price.

Good stuff Brad. I like the extra research ideas, the Starbase differing types, and the advanced constructors. Much more creative than just limiting what is already in the game. I think its so great that the guy in charge, or as in charge as anyone can be, is also the developer. I hope you can implement some or all of these ideas.


~SDC~

Maintenance cost on starbases is a good idea.

olaf

I'm just a noob... But it seems like requiring advanced constructors to build lots of modules is:
Since starbases stack, it would actually encourage the player to build lots of starbases with a few modules instead of having a few with lots of modules. That way they could get all the benefit without needing advanced constructors.

It seems like there either needs to be a limit on the number of starbases or logistics or a limit on stacking or have some type of maintenance.

~SDC~

Here are my additions to what's been said:

I'm against a hard limit of any kind - by sector or by race. Hard limits aren't necessary if the economics of SB's are programmed correctly. In essence, as someone else mentioned, the law of diminishing returns should apply here. Yes, you could build 10 starbases in each sector, but the economic/military/cultural benefit would that much greater than 5, or whatever number of SB's.

I kind of relate SB's to US Aircraft Carriers. Maybe its because I was in the Navy for 7 years and spent 1 year, 6 months, and 14 days total living on them. Aircraft carriers are extremely expensive to maintain and support logistically - around $1 million US per day when deployed. The also need regular resupply and logistic support.

I think SB's should behave in a similar way - they should have a maintenance cost, and that cost should increase the further away it is from a friendly star system. For example, if a SB is in a sector with a player's system, the maintenance cost would be relatively low - if you build it two sectors away from a friendly system, the cost would be a lot higher, because the "supply line" would be longer.

To add onto what Frogboy said above about specialized SB's - I really like that idea. You could take it further by limiting the number of other types of modules you could add to it. For example, if you built a "military" SB, you could only add X number of culture, economic, production, research, or whatever modules, but add as many "military" modules as you like. It will force players to think ahead strategically more than they have to now. I think it more accurately reflects reality as well. To guard against obsolesence (IE - your "military" SB is no longer needed for military purposes because the front line has moved), you could have the option to convert a SB to a different type. Obviously, this should have costs associated and take a few turns to complete (to avoid players switching them endlesses to suit the current turn's circumstances).

Finally, another, possibly way-out, idea for limiting the "culture bomb" problem. How about making military modules reduce the effectiveness of culture modules on the other races. After all, there's a reason we don't have armored divisions guarding Disneyland Paris or Tokyo - no one would come for fear of being shot.

Many thanks to Frogboy and the development team for taking so much time to get player feedback!

Maybe starbases could be modified so production bonuses from multiple starbases in the same sector do not stack.

You should really limit the amount of starbases per sector to 1, or 2.

Regarding SB maintenance, I think it would make sense that SB maintenance costs be reduced in certain sectors. Supplies should be easier to aquire (and corresponding maintenance costs lower) in sectors where you control a star system or in a sector where a trade route that terminates at one of your stars passes thru (I suppose it doesn't have to be your trade route; one can resupply from a trading partner). If that is too much effort, maybe an easier approach would be to have maintenance cost have an inversely proportional relationship to influence, based on the already planned influence-distance fix Brad mentioned earlier in this topic. Either way, the intent is to make it more difficult to build "deep space" SBs (suppply chain issue), and balance the military benefits these forward bases bestow (in addition to the planned rebalancing of influence benefits).

Also, perhaps some costs could be reduced or eliminated with technology (e.g., food via hydroponics), while some minimum costs would always be necessary (e.g., fuel, dilithium crystals, 9V batteries, whatever).

(This is my first post. Thanks to Brad, the other devs, and beta testers for a great game and continuing support.)

Best Regards
Mike

Callipygea - just one thing about your aircraft carrier ananlogy: Aircraft carriers are not limited so much by cost but by logistics. The reason why France and whatnot don't have 20 aircraft carriers is not related to the cost of building them but the cost of logistically supporting them when they're at sea.

I must confess though, I've been looking for an excuse to have a logistics ability since the start.

Frogboy,

You're correct that logistics is the greatest long-term cost of large pieces of military equipment (Aircraft Carriers and SB's), but the upfront costs are great as well, as are "personnel" costs such as pay, training, etc. But that's probably a subject for another forum since much of that couldn't and shouldn't be added to the game.

I'm glad you're looking at a logistics ability - it really makes sense to me! I also am really excited by the possibility of specialized SB's. Programming the AI might be a little tricky though.

Another thought just came to me, and I think this would fit well with specialized SB's. You could add "intimidation" as a cultural-like effect. For example, you build a couple of military SB's in a sector bordering an AI player - the intimidation factor of those SB's increases unrest on their planets....Think of the fun the Drengin's would have! Oh, nevermind, they're powerful enough already....:notsure:


Thanks again for all the effort you guys put into this!

'You could have a civilization limit on starbases based on population or economics or technology'

This seems like the best solution to me. Set it up similar to trade routes, but without the hard limit. You can by default built two or three starbases, and techs will increas that by +1 every so often (and perhaps a event to add more).

~SDC~

Perhaps each SB's graphic could be determined by the modules? Put mosty military mods into a SB and you get a military graphic etc.

>I think SB's should behave in a similar way - they >should have a maintenance cost, and that cost should >increase the further away it is from a friendly star >system. For example, if a SB is in a sector with a >player's system, the maintenance cost would be >relatively low - if you build it two sectors away from >a friendly system, the cost would be a lot higher, >because the "supply line" would be longer


I'd like to second this idea. Maintance cost for SBs AND
ships should grow accoding to some sort of steep f() as they get further away from their homeworlds. Totally realistic and would penalize a lot of cheesy tactics

Some of my thoughts on this are also included in Daetrinn's link in #42, above.
http://www.galciv.com/forum.asp?BID=GF&id=41260.

I agree with the logistical approach. If you're going to build a starbase, you need resources. Whether those resources are little red cones full of Precursor military power or raw material from star systems shouldn't matter.

If you're going to maintain a starbase, you need resources. Maybe those enigmatic little red cones allow a starbase to support itself, but other starbases will require personnel, infrastructure, and replacement parts. Personnel will have their own requirements, as well.

If your total production is X, the number of starbases you can support equals X/Y, where Y equals the total of all modules in all starbases (or whatever formula works). In particular, non-resource-based starbases in uninhabited sectors should be a major drain on resources that can only be partially alleviated by income from trade and influence (tourism) modules.

I like the suggestion that the distance from a starbase to the nearest friendly system should determine its maintenance cost (unless the starbase is mining a Precursor resource). A starbase within constructor range of one of your systems should have little or no maintenance cost

Of course, fixing starbase proliferation doesn't address the problem of late-game military production, particularly games where the player is trying to go "Beyond Human". I have three suggestions:

1) Repair Ships: Repair ships are weak ships that can be sent out to repair damaged combat ships. If you can get a repair ship to a damaged ship on time, without some nasty Drengin vaporizing it, you can save yourself the bother of retreating to a planet for repairs. These could be one shot modular ships or even modules that allow a starbase to function like a planet as far as repair rates are concerned.

2) Supply Ships: Logically, starbases would deteriorate over time and would have to be repaired. If they weren't built near a resource (a star to provide energy, a planet to provide raw material) they would need to be re-supplied. One-shot, modular supply ships would perform this function. They could repair normal wear and tear and restock food and parts, etc., but it would probably take more than one to repair a war-ravaged starbase.

3) Specialized Starbases: as Brad and others have mentioned, building a series of research stations to boost your research output could reduce the time it takes to achieve a technological victory. This option might be limited to conditions where you already have an overwhelming lead in research.

End transmission.

~SDC~

I'm not sure that "realism" is the best reason for any given change. It rarely turns out well.

~SDC~

I like the idea of following all of which has been expressed before...

- max SBs tied to some other independent variable (tech, number of planets, pop)
- mutually exclusive, or interfering module upgrade trees to make you really pick and choose
- law of diminishing returns for bonuses as in every other aspect of the game (don't stack bonuses in a sector)
- constructors more expensive/advanced constructor tech
- some sort of 'zone of control' for starbases, i.e. can't build an SB within 6 squares of another

now, if any of the above unbalances the game too much, correct the unbalance by upping the numeric benefits of the SBs/modules especially the powerful late game upgrades

these limits are hardly realistic, I know, but I want to see every single starbase matter as a prominent piece of strategy, not a band-aid for any trouble. Realism can take a hike.

make me cringe when the aliens destroy one of my starbases at the end of the game, not just go "meh, I'll build another one in a second".

thank you for looking into this.

Advanced Constructors are a great idea, also maintenance cost makes a lot of sense to me. Hard limits are not a good idea.

The game also already has a 5000 bc cost for making a Terror Star, why not apply a similar logic to Starbases but with an escalating cost? Start it low (100 bc) but increase it quickly (500, 1000, 1500, 2000...) and people will have to think twice about building another starbase or risking the construction of a base without adequate defences.

Justification? The creation of a massive starbase requires enormous mass, gathered from nearby asteroid belts, moons etc. Such collection is expensive and as more bases are built in a sector materials have to be brought from greater distances, increasing cost.

Alternatively the cost could be per module (100 bc installation cost, maybe more for advanced modules), I prefer the first solution though.

If you want to implement a steep cost for upgrading starbases (that is, you pay for the constructor, pay maintenance on the constructor until it reaches the starbase, pay to upgrade the starbase with the constructor, lose the constructor, pay maintenance on the starbase), you've just made starbases *too* expensive.

~SDC~

If you want to implement a steep cost for upgrading starbases (that is, you pay for the constructor, pay maintenance on the constructor until it reaches the starbase, pay to upgrade the starbase with the constructor, lose the constructor, pay maintenance on the starbase), you've just made starbases *too* expensive.

~SDC~

I think that the problem with starbases can be solved by saying that a given module bonus can only be applied once in a sector. You can build as many starbases as you want in a sector, but you can only give one of them a 'Masssive Scaling module' and have in applied to the planets or 'Battle Stations +3' and have it applied to your ships. Modules that don't give sector wide bonuses would have no limit; so defense modules, and resource mining modules wouldn't be affected.

This solves the uber-production problem while still allowing flexibility in deployment and strategy. How many inverse tractor beams can a ship really benefit from without its crew being turned into jelly anyway? If I build two shopping malls ( or culture palaces ) next to your house does it really make you twice as likely to buy something?

The only thing that would have to be added user-interface wise is a warning when you are going to add a module that would be a duplicate.


On anther note, there should be a module or two required to get the full range increase of a planet from a starbase. What's the point of getting 'Gravity Mastering' if you can just plop down a single constructor and get ALOT more range?

~SDC~

In my experience, range continues to be a real limiter with starbases extending your range. It takes a long time for constructors to get to the limits of *their* range so you can build something to extend it, and there's the usual one-turn delay for it to kick in.

~SDC~