In 1.2, we have very few options for reducing logistics costs, in fact, theres only one (1). If your playing on gigantic maps, after your 10th starbase it becomes near impossible to keep building more starbases and keep up with the AI in tech/starships (on maso anyways). The whole system to me seems unfinished and rushed. There needs to be a few more techs done up to aid in reducing logistics costs, or possibly have it scaled by map size/difficulty.
Another thing that would be useful is more defense upgrades. Whenever i go into a war with the AI now, i actually have to go to war instead of flipping them (which is a GOOD change IMO, i shouldnt be able to flip every planet in a turn to win). But now im finding myself having to park overlords/excalibers on my starbases to protect them during wars, because lets face it: the defense upgrades suck. Avatars, and possibly even dreadnaughts can take out a fully upgraded starbase (aprox 75-90 defense, depending on your bonuses). I have over 4/5 of my ships just defending planets and resource starbases (which is forced, if i dont then i lose all my resources which means i am significantly weaker, or the AI takes over all my undefended planets). Why should i have to waste 75-100 ships doing nothing?? the AI doesnt have to because it cheats (it knows exactly where all my ships are and can adjust accordingly).
         
| |
|
|
|
Well, it's supposed to be about the logistics techs, but I must say, I agree with all of the above. Logistics is o.k., IF the AI might need it. There really should be a whole tech-tree worth of techs for it because resources are VERY important in masochistic games, I have found. A fully developed resource garners (%xx?) bonuses, more than triple most galactic achievements! C'mon! Perhaps the resources should have an effect locally, radiating, and diminishing, outwards. Or something.
And logistics. Besides the bru-ha-ha in the 1.19 starbase economics thread, all I can say is, either go for this, or leave it out. One tech and wonder isn't enough. Resources are ubiquitous in every game. Focus on balancing them (less effect, methinks), and give them a HEFTY maintenance fee, rather than an upfront fee. Various non-enemy civs should be able to buy the resource effect as well, paying large taxes to the resource developer. Make it complex, and balanced.
-Smack
   
| |
|
|
|
| A fully developed resource garners (%xx?) bonuses, more than triple most galactic achievements! |
|
+90%, at one time. I think it's +45% now. I'll have to recheck. Less than double of most wonders and many achievements, at any rate.
| |
|
There needs to be a defensive ship, like the battle axe and the defender to help you defend systems late in the game.
  
| |
|
I would think that the requirement of ships protecting your starbases would be a good thing. 
You now have to think about how to allocate your limited pool of ships and position them in the best defensive matter ... not to mention choosing which starbase is the most important to protect.
Isn't having to do all this better than simply applying a cookie-cutter strategy of slapping on a few more defense modules?
  
| |
|
#7
by Citizen Ook Ook - 2/22/2004 8:39:27 AM
Then what's the point of ANY defence modules if starbases are so weak that you have to do this anyway?
They might as well have a big red X on them and a sign saying "Shoot Me"...
 
| |
|
Starbases are normaly devended by squadrons of fighters (look at babalon5 just to name one) so.... what you have to do is build ships to defend your starbases... and set them on guard duty on the starbase...
Logistics are fine IF all players are subject to them.. at the moment though it looks like the AI's don't pay the fees when building starbases (I could be wrong though)
As for big guns.. how much bigger do you want... build a terror star and crush planets... anything smaller use the ships youve send to guard it..
As for devence.. even the death star was really rather week.. (it was protected by a forcefield.. which even 1 little fighter was able to penitrate......
      
| |
|
|
|
#10
by Citizen Ook Ook - 2/22/2004 11:38:26 AM
| As for devence.. even the death star was really rather week.. (it was protected by a forcefield.. which even 1 little fighter was able to penitrate...... |
|
It definitely wasn't weak.
The Death Star carried over 60 times the firepower of a Imperator Class Star Destroyer - and that's not including the superlaser, as well as 100 times as many fighter craft.
Its weakness was that it was designed to repel attacks from capital ships, rather than from small fighter craft, on which it relied on the surface laser batteries. The trench supplied cover from these.
The rebels never approached the Death Star with any of their capital ships. The superlaser could be configured to fire at cap ships, and the shield on the second Death Star could not be penetrated by the fighters (they had to wait until it was taken down), although this shield was not actually part of the battlestation itself.
Quite impressive compared to GC Terror Stars which can be destroyed by one (1) Avatar. I'd like to see Home 1 take down the Death Star on its own. Even the Executor was heavily outgunned.
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ah, with more tech options maybe things will be more balanced. Still need defense modules for starbases. Now they shouldnt be able to take on an excaliber, but they should be able to kill an overlord without too much trouble. That never ever happens in my games, maybe 1 out of 15 fully upgraded starbases can survive an attack by an overlord. the constructor cost for full upgrades is more than the overlords cost, yet the starbases get destroyed easily.
| |
|
|
|
| How about a logistics social project (not achievement)? That would help balance out logistics for various map sizes. |
|
Unfortunately, it can't be done. Regular social projects can't add to global abilities. You could do achievements, wonders, trade goods, and maybe have the tech itself give a bonus (I haven't tested it yet), but not a normal improvement.
| |
|
|
|
|
|
| You mean that that it can't be done as a mod. I'm sure that Stardock could do it if they wanted to. |
|
Well, yes and no. What I meant was that it can't be done without a significant code change. So yes, technically Stardock could do it if they wanted to, but I find it extremely unlikely that they would.
Aside from the work involved in any code change like that, there are also balance considerations. If a regular improvement added even a measly 2% to Logistics, what happens in a Gigantic galaxy where you might actually have 25 (or more) of the things? With just the other 55% in bonuses already available, that brings your Logistics rating up to 105, for a 105% reduction in starbase construction costs. Do you now gain money whenever you build a base?
Logistics is the worst offender here, because of how it works, but other bonuses could easily get just as abusive.
All in all, it just doesn't seem doable, although I admit to being mildly disappointed myself to discover that I couldn't add in more reasonable ones (like say a 1 or 2% boost in Trade) with a mod.
| |
|
| Logistics is the worst offender here, because of how it works, but other bonuses could easily get just as abusive. |
|
I've seen that in practice. During the beta test, anomolies were cumulative, not additive as they are now. I had soldering up to +3000% without any improvements or soldering tech at all once.
| All in all, it just doesn't seem doable, although I admit to being mildly disappointed myself to discover that I couldn't add in more reasonable ones (like say a 1 or 2% boost in Trade) with a mod. |
|
This isn't doable with social projects or resources, but there are plenty of other ways of getting at both this and Logistics. Anything that refers to the abilities by an index number can do the job (Logistics is ability 29, IIRC).
Trade is intertwined with local economy at both endpoints: boosting one will boost the other (and cause a similar chain reaction at the AI's end). That's why the Trade * social improvements increase economy.
| |
|
| This isn't doable with social projects or resources, but there are plenty of other ways of getting at both this and Logistics. Anything that refers to the abilities by an index number can do the job (Logistics is ability 29, IIRC). |
|
Certainly. It just so happened that I had wanted to add in a minor Trade-enhancing social project, mostly for the novelty of it I suppose. As you say though, not a big deal as there are plenty of other ways to do it.
(And just 'cause I'm anal that way, Logistics is Ability #28.  )
| Trade is intertwined with local economy at both endpoints: boosting one will boost the other (and cause a similar chain reaction at the AI's end). That's why the Trade * social improvements increase economy. |
|
Really? I was under the impression that they were separate... that the Trade ability boosted your trade income, and the Economics ability only affected your tax income.
[Edit: Or are you just getting at the idea that planets with a larger tax base generate more trade income?]
I may need to have a look at my mod, there could be too many economic bonuses floating around...
| |
|
Really? I was under the impression that they were separate... that the Trade ability boosted your trade income, and the Economics ability only affected your tax income.
[Edit: Or are you just getting at the idea that planets with a larger tax base generate more trade income?] |
|
Trade and Economics are seperate. Local trade and Economics_Bonus are not.
Local economics is not Economics. The Economics ability only affects tax income (that is to say, population-based income), but local Economics_Bonus improvements affects all local income sources, including the base planet quality income and trade routes with that planet as an endpoint.
A planet's total economy is the important factor for a trade route, not the tax base, so local Ecnomics_Bonus is more important to increasing trade income than Economics.
Trade routes themselves also appear to slightly improve local income, even though trade income itself does not appear in the planet details at the route's endpoint. This does not change the tax base, though, and is not affected by Economics. It also does not appear to directly relate to Trade, but the route's total value may be a factor.
| |
|
|
|
|
it seems every update changes them in some way or another, i just wish they would make thier minds up what they want to do them 
