Starbases - economically viable?

from Sins Forums

Hey all,

This is a question, not a statement.

I've been playing around with starbases recently (particularly the Vasari one) and I'm on the fence about whether it's worth getting their economic upgrades or not.

Here's why:

I had an upgraded trade network that generated about 60 credits a second easily. I then decided to try out starbases as an economic force, and put one in each system with *only* economic upgrades. I was playing against an easy AI, which never attacked the whole game so I didn't have to worry about it. I proceeded to upgrade each starbase with all the economic upgrades available to the Vasari. This includes two upgrades that put colonists on the starbase (up to a max of 120ish) and one upgrade that puts a trade market on it.

I have to say that after it was all completed, I was pretty underwhelmed. I gained an additional 30 income per second in tax, and probably MUCH less than that in trade bonuses (I had 3-4 trade markets at each planet.) The problem? Each station, fully upgraded, cost in the 7500-10,000ish credit range. I had to build 8 of them to  get my income up +30. If you do the math, that's at least 50,000 credits if you're being generous. That doesn't even count the crystal/metal costs per station, station upgrade and migrator. Nevermind the fact that starbases currently don't affect crystal / metal income at all.

So, by my calculations if I am hopelessly optimistic 8 starbases generate 50 income / sec. Say they cost 50,000 credits - enough to max out a fleet with buying out heroes. If I risk that many credits on upgrading my economy, there should probably be a bigger return.

You can argue that they are strictly for defense, or that the defensive abilities of the starbase should be factored in. As I understand it, the design philosophy of starbases is that they're supposed to be versatile, and can fit different strategies. That is definitely not what I felt after I spent 50,000+ credits upgrading starbases to gain a 50ish / sec return.

Another thing about that though is that it doesn't sound that bad, right? 50 x 1000 (50,000) means that in 1,000 seconds you'll pay off your starbases. Or, to make it easier, about 16 minutes from when you bought and upgraded them. Doesn't sound that bad, right? But realize at this point it's probably already the super late game as it is (you're spending 50,000 credits on economy starbases.) and that money could be going to RA / a ridiculously massive fleet / super heavy defense and a moderate fleet besides.

I just think that the economy shouldn't be a "bonus" aspect of the starbase, and should be a viable risk in and of itself.

To summarize: An upgraded trade network generates about twice - 3x as much as 50,000 credits worth of starbases.

Now, for the question part:

Do you think it's worth it?

If so, I must be missing something very very obvious. Which is entirely possible of course :) but I am having difficulty seeing the use of a starbase as an economic tool. And I think having more options in a game like this, the better.

Economically viable starbases exist in GalCiv 2, so why not here?

4,634 views 10 replies
Reply #1 from Sins Forums Top

I'm curious, can't starbases extend the longest trade route in the galaxy? Like put the Starbase at a star or an asteroid belt so that the trade route line (when you put your mouse over credits) is longer. It worked out for me. I will admit, it does feel a little underwhelming but your Starbase still has 5-4 other upgrades available after that.

Reply #2 from Sins Forums Top

Well it might be that the Vasari can't be quite as competitive economically with their starbase as other races.  How much do the TEC tradeports bring in? Also the neutral tradeport link is very important, as a starbase is the only way to complete those trade routes and that is very valuable.

The Political Machine 2024
Reply #3 from Sins Forums Top

Starbase costs arent final yet iirc.

Reply #4 from Sins Forums Top


Now, for the question part:

Do you think it's worth it?

If so, I must be missing something very very obvious. Which is entirely possible of course but I am having difficulty seeing the use of a starbase as an economic tool. And I think having more options in a game like this, the better.

End of quote

Yes, it is definitely worth it - in some games. 16 minutes to pay off for a new economic addition to the game that can be built everywhere (should you so choose) is a fairly short time in long games on large/huge maps. In a short MP game it wouldn't be worth it, but that's fine with me - not all things need to be equally good in long and short games.

Second, in a shorter game and thinking of using economic starbase to get most bang for the buck rather than building them en masse, if we ignore the Vasari only colonists, the trade upgrade available to all is really good at extending the length of your trade network since it can bridge any gap by turning an empty system into one with a trade node. In some of my SP test games, this has made a significant difference to my overall income with just one or two strategically placed economic bases. In other games it has not made economic sense given other ways to spend money or has only made a small difference - it is all about the situation you find yourself in and how long time the game will take.

-- I have found them to be very good in large/huge games vs. unfair AIs since those are endurance matches and digging in in chokepoints has always been part of my strategy when having to fight off 5-6 AIs at once. With Entrenchment it got so much easier (and cheaper due to needing less ships at the chokepoints) but the games take so long that not putting in all economic starbase upgrades in interior systems would be silly. I suspect there are many other players who like trying the larger maps with a heck of a lot of unfair AIs stacking the deck against the player. :)

And, who knows - with Entrenchment it is possible that some MP games will be longer anyhow as players come to enjoy digging in rather than quick raids/skirmishes, you never know. :)

Reply #5 from Sins Forums Top

the op is indeed missing a crucial point: if you want to compare the cost effectiveness of ecnomic upgrades, you should also consider just the upgrades, not the starbase construction cost also. because after all, the starbase has a worth in itself, even without upgrades. think about it, if you did really build a starbase at each of you 8 worlds, then you didn't spend enourmous amounts of resources of trade, you spent enourmous amounts of resources on defense. true, an unupgraded starbase won't last against a larger fleet, but it will do damage and it will help a defending fleet or buy you time to reach the planet.

I'd say, the economic upgrades are not something to be used in masses, they're probably not even designed for it, but they have their use in some starbases. after all, at a frontline starbase, I'd favour military enhancements anyway, if I indeed expect an attack. with all that, there is often not enough capacity, let alone resoures to jam in an ecnomic upgrade.

Reply #6 from Sins Forums Top

in terms of credti income starbases are based on the rest of the game mechanics so far.

its vasari < advent < tec

 

as tec i could easily push every starbase I had to 8.5 credits/sec even on neutral worlds and the sun.

giving me about 100 c/s in late game with 56% fleet upkeep, just awesome.

 

yes the vasari ones give much less than tec, about 3 c/s when i remember correctly, but this is still more than enough to be profitable.

even if it takes 20 minutes to get all your cash back, it's still worth it because usually sins games take much much longer than that.

 

ah and one more thing, the vasari starbase doesn't just improve tax income on the planet build but on all planets on the trade-route.

Reply #7 from Sins Forums Top

I don't think Starbases in Sins are meant to be like a GalCiv 2 economic starbase. They're still primarily defensive structures, that can be upgraded to trade some defensive firepower in exchange for some economic help.

 

Just IMO of course. Extending the trade network is a nice bonus, but I don't think its the point of the Starbase.

Reply #8 from Sins Forums Top

Definitely belive they are worth it in the economical sense.

The TEC (my fav) can triple your trade route income (had one instance of 60 to 180:ninja: )

The Advent may not move your credits up much but they can raise your loyalty factor by 30% which gives you better resource collection and taxes.

The Vasari is probably the least useful in eco but it moves.

Reply #9 from Sins Forums Top

Quoting Ryat, reply 8
Definitely belive they are worth it in the economical sense.

The TEC (my fav) can triple your trade route income (had one instance of 60 to 180 )

The Advent may not move your credits up much but they can raise your loyalty factor by 30% which gives you better resource collection and taxes.

The Vasari is probably the least useful in eco but it moves.
End of Ryat's quote

actually induced reverence could work well with resource focus, even though I have no high opinion of the latter ability. raise base rate first, then raise it further by the focus.

Reply #10 from Sins Forums Top

I agree with Peter Ebessen.  You should look at these upgrades situationally.  All else being equal they really shouldn't be cost competitive with trade ports given that they are mounted in a massive weapons platform and dont cost logistical slots.  But if you use trade upgrades to extend your trade net, you can get disproportionate gains from it.  Similarly you should look at upgrading population at worlds where you get more benefit from it (high allegiance.)  Cut the rest of the starbases and upgrades as fat, and you should get the majority of the benefit while having lots of $$$ to spend on fleets.

Sometimes when logistical slots are short I even scrap trade hubs and use starbases to keep the route long.

Another efficiency note: Induced Reverence will get you the most bang for the buck used at low-allegiance planets. 30->45% is a 50% increase. 100->115% is only a 15% increase.