 |
|
 |
 |
 |
Brad's Starbase Thread...
|
 |
|
 |
 |
#50
by Citizen Abaddon5 - 4/18/2003 8:08:25 PM
Hello,
Here is something that I don’t believe has been suggested already(if so I apologize):
How about tying each star base to a colony with a line of supply like a trade route?
Say that each colony can support X amount of star bases that maybe depends on planet quality, population, economy or production (whichever makes the most sense) and which can be improved with various researched Techs. In addition to this global upper limit that can grow as your empire grows there is a definite line of supply between the star base and the colony that supports it that visually acts like a trade route. This way there is a definite limit on the total number of star bases that can easily be calculated and makes sense in a ‘suspension of disbelief’ sort of way (How else does a star base sustain itself?). Also with the ‘supply route’ one has the option to create star bases in sectors far away from the supplying colony and wouldn’t arbitrarily constrain the player insofar as where he wants to put them, but adds a layer of strategy on where a star base goes and what colony will supply it. Also it would address the hard to believe (IMHO) tactic of star bases that are put deep into enemy territory since the ‘supply route’ is now vulnerable to enemy attack just like a trade route. If a ‘supply route’ were to be sufficiently disrupted then the star base would have to go into an emergency mode of operation whereby it concentrates all of its energy on sustaining itself and therefore gives no outside bonuses until the route resumes. In other words it is not lost but is does nothing positive until the line of supply is restored. (An enemy race may not be powerful enough to destroy that fully decked out military complex/party palace, but it can starve it out.) Another thing related to this would be to allow the researching and building of modules that eventually lead to a self sustaining star base, something like a hydroponics farm and such. These modules would give no outside bonus but would reduce the dependence on the supply route until at some point it no longer needs one. Now if the player wants to build a party palace or whatever in a sector deep within an enemy’s territory it has to decide between defending a long supply line or spending the research points and module upgrades on a self-sustaining star base.
One way to determine how the ‘supply route’ works would be to have Y number of turns that a star base can go without a supply ship before resorting to reserves and Z amount of reserves before it has to essentially shut down. Then the arrival schedule of a supply ship and number of ships in a supply route is determined by the distance from the supplying colony and the ship speed and is set according to its Y re-supply rate. (The farther away a star base from its supplying colony the more ships have to be in transit at any given time.) If a ship is destroyed by an enemy race or pirates/monster/other event, then the star base must use its Z reserve until the next supply ship arrives. If enough supply ships are destroyed to burn through a star base’s Z reserve then it shuts down until ships start to arrive again at which time the reserve is replenished at some rate. This would open up a lot of Tech research options as you could choose to improve its Y re-supply rate and/or its Y reserve amount with the Tech eventually leading to a self-sustaining star base. Also the supply ships could be effected by existing Tech improvements in speed so that fewer are needed etc. Since theoretically one would not simply give up on a supply route like one would a trade route this method would allow for disruption without the hassle of reestablishing a route. (Perhaps the replacement of a supply ship might have a one time cost to place value on ships on the return trip and may contribute to a decision to abandon a star base altogether.) This method may be calculation heavy but the scaling of ships according to distance, ship speed, and re-supply rate would prevent there being a ton of ships on the screen at once and be a discrete way to determine how much you are being disrupted or how well you are disrupting an enemy’s star base.
The downside is that it may take a bit of programming to accomplish, though I think one can at least copy the graphics used for trade routes and maybe some of the code as well. It also may be too complex, but a simpler way to implement the basic idea can obviously be used and shouldn’t require more micromanagement than it takes to create and protect a trade route as most of the complicated stuff is 'under the hood'. Also of utmost importance is how hard it would be to ‘teach’ the AI how to use it.
I think this ‘star base supply route’ method dovetails nicely with Brad’s current leanings on a logistics approach and opens up new strategic avenues without shutting any current ones out completely. This method also has a lot of ancillary potential in that you can have UP resolutions, events, trade goods, buildings, wonders, capitols, and obviously star base modules that modify the supply routes in some way. Also as stated before a whole branch of technologies could be created that improve upon various aspects of the supply routes and how a star base interacts with them. Finally, I believe that it would be fairly intuitive to the player as it would leverage off of the functionality and mechanics of a trade route that most should be familiar with by now.
I apologize if this post is a bit rambling and cryptic. I hope it makes sense.
Thank you.
| |
|
#51
by Citizen alexti - 4/18/2003 8:24:49 PM
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.
 
| |
|
|
|
#54
by Ambassador Lucky_Jack - 4/18/2003 9:30:59 PM
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.
b) 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.
 
| |
|
#57
by Citizen olaf73 - 4/18/2003 10:49:33 PM
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.
| |
|
#59
by Citizen Entropy68 - 4/19/2003 12:15:41 AM
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!
   
| |
|
|
|
#61
by Citizen Wheatley - 4/19/2003 12:27:25 AM
You should really limit the amount of starbases per sector to 1, or 2.
| |
|
#62
by Citizen Mike693 - 4/19/2003 12:30:37 AM
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
| |
|
|
|
|
|
'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).
| |
|
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.
 Link
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.
   
| |
|
|
|
#70
by Citizen OldOrion - 4/19/2003 9:55:47 AM
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.
| |
|
#71
by Citizen Alf Melin - 4/19/2003 10:43:25 AM
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.
 
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
 |
|
 |
Copyright 1995-2026 Stardock Corporation. All rights reservered.
Site created by Pixtudio and Stardock, designed by Pixtudio.
|
 |
