by Avatar Frogboy - 9/26/2003 5:48:27 PM
Okay, prior to doing a premium expansion pack we're thinking about adding logistics into a GalCiv 1.2 for November.
Here's our proposed mechanism:
Your base logistics score would be based on your population: The square root of your population in billions.
This score would determine how many star bases you could bulid.
So a population of 100B would be able to build 10 star bases.
HOWEVER, we would have roughly 30 new technologies that would increase your Logistics ability. So that 10 could be as many as 30.
Obviously there would be some playing with the numbers.
First question: How large a population do you find yourself having in GalCiv total?
         
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Final results from three huge games (1 was 1.05, 2 were 1.1):
2154.2 pop 104 starbases
2763.2 pop 108 starbases
2431.6 pop 101 starbases
Hmm, pretty consistant, huh?
Perhaps more significant the point when I launched my latest cultural attack my population was 1003.9 and I had 63 starbases.
IMHO if the intent is to limit the strength of a massive cultural attack, your numbers are too high. Frankly, I don't understand limiting the number of starbases by population at all. After all, I can kill my cultural bases after the AI's have flipped, then build them again elsewhere -- I just never bother *wink*.
I read elsewhere that the point of charging a flat rate for starbases rather than per-module was to disadvantage humans early. Maybe there should be a flat fee in the $1000 - $5000 range for the initial construction, which could increase with range.
a) better value for the AI's -- they won't trade them as willingly.
b) much more difficult to build many early
c) doesn't penalize ostrich playing style, nor reward agressive playing styles
d) avoids the critical mass issues -- i flip 3, increase pop by 20% so I can flip 6 more
Cheers!
    
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Me likey. This would solve many starbase abuses (especially by me) and result in a more realisic game all around.
Edit: BTW, my last game end up with a population of 1.9 trillion, playing on maso huge and culture flipping the A.I.
[Message Edited]
    
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Maso Huge
2186, 204B pop, 12 SBs.
Just below the 14 SBs that my pop would support under this system.
   
| |
|
|
|
The number of starbases per sector might work with the current game mechanics, but.... I believe that Frogboy mentioned something about letting starbases have a circle of influence, rather than relying on imaginary (and artificial) sector lines.
If that idea were implemented (and most of the comments about it were very supportive), then the number of starbases per sector would be meaningless. In this case, the rule should be that no 2 starbases could have an overlapping area of influence.
| |
|
|
|
Actually, I would say that if you move to a "Zone of influence" model for starbase effectiveness, the rule should not be 'No Overlap' but rather 'Larger Bonus Wins' within the overlapped range. Especially if there ends up being techs to increase your SB's zone of influence. You can build two starbases that overlap (or that end up with overlap after being enhanced), but if one of them has +25 trade and the other has +50, then the +50 is all you'll get in the overlapped area; and upping the first to a +50 won't do you any good in the overlap, either.
| |
|
|
|
For the current sector-based situation, though, having the "Zone of influence" defined as the SB's current sector would effectively mean that a second starbase is completely meaningless. I don't like that idea; artificially limiting the number of bases in a sector doesn't seem like the right way to go. It's like saying that you can't have more than one gas station on a block; while a gas station doesn't WANT a competitor across the street from it, two or three gas stations often do coexist in close proximity. They all suffer for it, I'm sure, but they don't all go out of business.
Maybe you'd want to take a page from the old "Diminishing returns" handbook. The maint cost of each starbase will still be 10bc, but for any sector with multiple bases, the bonus factor is determined thus:
sort SB bonus factors in decreasing order. Number them 1 through N. Total bonus = the sum for i = 1 to N of (bonus for starbase I)/I.
An example is probably in order:
Four starbases, trade bonuses of 50, 25, 50, 10. Arrange them in descending order: 50,50,25,10.
Divide each bonus by its position in the list:
50/1 = 50, 50/2 = 25, 25/3 = 8, 10/4 = 2.
Add the results: 50+25+8+2 = 85.
That's instead of getting 135 for straight addition. If you maxed out all four bases, instead of 200 you'd get 50+25+16+12=103.
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Using the economic reasoning of citahellion. You could think in terms of supply and demand, if there's 1 party palace x million people visit and then they go back home and tell their friends. However if there are 2 pp's then x+y million go there at the lower cost provided through competition. Some of the y's we're the ones that otherwise would have been only told by the x's, thus when they go home and tell THEIR friends the number of new friends told are less than in the first case. This is the law of diminishing returns, economics 101, as calculated on effect, even though the maintenance cost doubles the returns on your investement (2 instead of 1 pp's) doesn't yield twice the influence. In other words less bang for your buck  .
I don't know if this is how the system works now but I think it's a feasible strategy, at least it's realistic. 
  
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
). I don't believe a civilization would even consider such a thing. It would be counter productive cost wise. Let's say the U.S. becomes the world gov't. It's now the distant future and we're now a thriving space-based society. For what reason (other than possibly war) would the gov't put more than one starbase in a sector?
