Fleet Supply

from Sins Forums

hi i was wondering about the fleet supply and the cost to upp keap you fleet

kinda anoying when you have lost you fleet and have to build ah new 1 but still have to pay fore ah full fleet upkeep

wold it not  be better if the fleet uppkeap lowers to 0 when the player have no ships and go back depending on the ships you rebuild

if this question have ben asked before sory coldent find it

 

 

16,223 views 8 replies
Reply #1 from Sins Forums Top

Yup - higher fleet cap adds risk for the player, so use it wisely. Maybe it's a mechanism to allow overly long games to end, when one player gets his economy and/or fleet destroyed, might be frustrating though. You're supposed to keep your fleet alive and not sacrifice it in some epic battle - keep adding ships to it little by little using what economy remains after fleet upkeep costs.

Reply #2 from Sins Forums Top

I agree the fleet supply should be a fixed amount not a percentage.

 

In real life if you have a large fleet and start losing planets, and you're economy bombs, then you simply can't afford the large fleet anymore. Not in Sins where the fleet cost gracefully reduces with your economy.

 

This would also discourage spamming, since with a small economy you simply could not afford a big fleet supply number, since it would not be a percentage of your economy.

Ashes of the Singularity II
Reply #3 from Stardock Forums Top

Yes it is intentional the way it is. But it does not work as intended, because any veteran player will simply not fight a fight they can't win. In MP only bad players lose fleets. Good players will just hold their fleet backand keep running away until they get a sueprior force or they wittle down the enemy infrastructure.

Reply #4 from Sins Forums Top

I have to disagree, I think the fleet supply system is one of the best things about the game. If the upkeep lowered automatically, there would be no serious disadvantage to getting your fleets destroyed, so long as you could rebuild by the time enemies came - people would incessantly raid instead of playing more carefully. The current system allows for gambits where you purposefully maintain a smaller fleet than an enemy player, using your relatively more powerful economy to get ahead in research and stock up money to build a big fleet later.

 

Tony_T: In practise, you can never raise a large fleet in a realistic timeframe if your upkeep is high.

Astax: If you don't fight when you can't win, you may lose planets, and see your own infrastructure whittled down, which leads to your ultimate demise. Meaning the system works precisely as intended; if you have fewer ships than your foe and less upkeep, you could afford to lose part of your fleet in return for damaging his because the cost in relative terms to him is greater.

Reply #6 from Sins Forums Top

Quoting Astax, reply 3
Yes it is intentional the way it is. But it does not work as intended, because any veteran player will simply not fight a fight they can't win. In MP only bad players lose fleets. Good players will just hold their fleet backand keep running away until they get a sueprior force or they wittle down the enemy infrastructure.
End of Astax's quote

This is precisely why it does work as intended. It's made this way so that you *don't* mindlessly throw away your fleets because you can rebuild just as easily.

Reply #7 from Sins Forums Top

One reason why a fixed fleet supply cost would be better would be to slow down early game military rushing.

The player who rushes military and does not build economy is actually paying less upkeep for his fleet. And because of the percentage cost it's quite possible to have a massive fleet with only a few asteroids. This imo is the only big drawback of the current system. Early fleets can get big and this makes military rushing the only viable strategy except on very big maps.

From a dev point of view the percentage approach is simpler of course. You don't have to worry about the consequences of getting a negative resource income if your economy takes a hit. Should that happen in a fixed cost system the researched fleet supply level should be downgraded and ships going over the lowered fleet supply would have to start "drifting" and become unusable. I'd like this personally but it would make the game more complicated.

I would like to be able to downgrade fleet supply as well. It's not uncommon in multiplayer that a team member gets wiped out but gets a chance to rebuild after escaping with a colonizer cap.

Reply #8 from Stardock Forums Top

Up_In_This: If you have less ships than opponent you simply don't fight him, trust me man.  If your opponent outnumbers you 2 to 1, you will kill 1 or 2 of his ships and see your whole fleet destroyed.  Worse yet if you bring a capital ship to the fight, he will just sacrifice few frigates to see it destroyed.  And lose planets? How dude? The worst thing you can do when you have a superior force is break to bomb a planet down.  Siege frigates are worthlessly expensive, and cap ships just take forever to kill even an asteroid.  Your only chance at making a difference is killing all his military tech labs, which is a feat that's near impossible.