Galactic Civilizations: Logistics in GalCiv 1.2

Downloads

Metaverse

NewsGroup

Community

Purchase

Galactic Forum

Strategies

Mods

Empires

Do you still think GalCiv 1 is fun even with GalCiv II out?

758 votes

1- Yes

2- No

Logistics in GalCiv 1.2

Search:

Sort by:

Go to Bottom

#25 by Citizen chuck1es - 9/27/2003 12:35:41 AM

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.

That makes obvious sense.
So one starbase is not effecting the WHOLE population of a sector. Only part.

#26 by Citizen couslee - 9/27/2003 2:01:30 AM

not that I am against limiting the number of SBs, but I see all kinds of problems with it. terror stars are converted SBs. Imagine if you will you have a number of constructors, which your paying support for, to use for a TS. you can't build it because you have met your quota using trade SBs. Your stuck with them. If you disband a trade SB to build your TS, then your econ will be harmed. Speaking of econ, if you limit the number of SBs, then you should remove the cap on trade routes. The only way to boost the all important trade income from the limited number of routes is with SBs. besides, with the added SB maint, and the constructor maint now, there might not be as much abuses anymore.

It might not be "realistic", but if the goal is to reduce massive SB abuse, make each additional SB in a sector have a maint surcharge. Call it necessary for pollution clean-up if you need a good reason. First SB has a maint of 10, second one costs 15, third costs 20. This would make it non-viable to have 20 trade SBs in a single sector (which I think is the real issue here).

#27 by Citizen chuck1es - 9/27/2003 2:22:47 AM

It might not be "realistic", but if the goal is to reduce massive SB abuse, make each additional SB in a sector have a maint surcharge. Call it necessary for pollution clean-up if you need a good reason. First SB has a maint of 10, second one costs 15, third costs 20. This would make it non-viable to have 20 trade SBs in a single sector (which I think is the real issue here).

I don't think, at least for me, that adding additional maintenance costs would fix the problem. It's the wacky way the starbases blow up your influence in a sector that's a (if not THE) major issue.

I don't think there should be much of a limit to trade routes either. I don't see a good reason why any Civ would limit it's trade with a partner if both are willing.

As far as using trade sb's....just build that many more constructers to create another sb

#28 by Veteran citahellion - 9/27/2003 2:52:10 AM

We'll be just as happy going to one Disney park as another. And I can only spend money in one place at a time.

But you can decide to go more often, which makes you (and Disney) happier.

Now for the tourists coming in they come to see everything and spend their money everywhere. They plan on going to see Universal for a day and check out Sea World for a day then go to Disney for a day. There may be more choices at Disney but the tourists will still spend the same amount of money no matter what Disney offers them.

Likewise here, if a Tourist sees everything in a single trip, he's not so likely to come back as quickly. But if there's more to do than he can manage in his allotted time, and it's all good stuff, he'll plan to come back sooner and spend more money.

Obviously for economic reasons, having two disneys won't attract twice as many locals. But it may attract twice as many out-of-towners, or it may make everyone visit more frequently, or it may just make it easier for everyone to get in and have a happy, uncrowded experience because more people wanted to go to Disney than could fit in just one park....

#29 by Citizen chuck1es - 9/27/2003 8:00:04 AM

here's some #'s for Disney...my wife is corprate and she get's these #'s all the time. She was nice enough to give them to me (after some begging and a foot massage later):

in 1990's Disney attracted about 18% of the world population per year. Now it's 2003. Disney receives about 17%. Before Sep 11 they were at 18%. There wasn't much fluctuation durring the last decade. After Sep 11 the tally plummeted to about 13-15%. And yes, granted, if the percantage stays at 18% Disney will recieve more and more warm bodies per year because of population growth.

Obviously for economic reasons, having two disneys won't attract twice as many locals. But it may attract twice as many out-of-towners, or it may make everyone visit more frequently, or it may just make it easier for everyone to get in and have a happy, uncrowded experience because more people wanted to go to Disney than could fit in just one park....

That's where most of the problem (for me) lies. The locals. That's where the majority of "influence" is in effect. Having two party palaces may not make the locals take much notice, but the game shows them as becoming deleriously happy. One could add that the economic boost would create influence/happiness. Yes, Disney put Central Florida on the map, but watch the news. I garauntee that within a few years gun sales will rise and Tourist Sniping will become a state sport

edit in: and have you BEEN to Disney in Florida? Going there often, or anywhere even approaching it, would bankrupt the upper middle class. I go there once and afterwards I get to decide what to have for dinner for the next month. Beef or Chicken Ramen Noodles.
[Message Edited]

#30 by Veteran kryo - 9/27/2003 8:44:40 AM

This thing is the people aren't becoming 'deliriously happy', it is your empire becoming more influential. That is, your culture is ingraining itself into the lives of the people of that sector and the surrounding sectors.

Anyhow the key problem here is not a need to limit the number of starbases exactly, but a need to fix the game so that it tracks the source of influence and adds the boni together, then adds them to the base, instead of accumulating them together, such that:

base+100%+100%+100%+100% (total 5x base, as it should be)

becomes

(((base+100%)+100%)+100%)+100%. (total 16x base, way too much)

THAT is the problem as it stands. Granted we may choose to cap the number of starbases per sector (although 1 per is far too restrictive IMO, maybe 1 per system in the sector +1 or something like that would be better) but the real thing that needs done is just to fix the way the engine calculates influence.

#31 by Citizen chuck1es - 9/27/2003 10:04:45 AM

Again I'm probably being more realistic than I need to be, but I just like that in games

#32 by Citizen DireFog - 9/27/2003 10:12:37 AM

One reason for multiple starbases per sector (and I'm talking of quite a lot here) would probably be sector defense and ship repair. Those are two things that would even in reality profit from a big lot of infrastructure (more repair docks in range, more Big Lasers to dismantle enemy ships ans do on). The same would probably also go for production and research.

There are many linear sequences of development in starbase design right now (battle stations, cultural palace stuff, some production and trade enhancements). If there was a limit of just one such sequence per space unit - not necessarily sector -, it would probably get close to what is proposed in the "one starbase per sector" line of thought.

A total limit of starbases based on puopulation would be a bit difficult. What if you lost population? Would you also lose starbases along the way? Which ones?

I agree that something has to be done about SBs. My endgames usually have me pump out constructors like mad and build as many culture bases close to unallied systems. In my last game, I conquered the Torians home sector (three large systems) with about six culture bases and a culture terror star.

#33 by Citizen Aldebert - 9/27/2003 11:16:37 AM

I agree that something has to be done about SBs. My endgames usually have me pump out constructors like mad

Yes, something has definitely to be done, but more than limiting the number of SB, I would like to limit the number of constructors. Towards the end of the games, you usually find yourself flooded by constructors because there's nothing else to do with your military production !
If we can't build new starbases, what shall we do with the idle military prod ? I would like an option to turn it into cash. This way, you could still be building overlords on your shipyard planets, and leave the rest idle militarywise.

#34 by Citizen Aldebert - 9/27/2003 11:23:15 AM

BTW, in my last gigantic/crippling game :
Pop. 2.3 trillions; 25 starbases.

#35 by Citizen Essex Ascendant - 9/27/2003 11:39:50 AM

Current Game:

Small Map
512.9 Billion People
20 SB's
I control all but one sector in year 2192

Influence is bugged right now isn't it?

For example in my home sector I have 4 planets and 6 starbases.

Base Influence: 128
6 SB's with: 1 at 103% Influence Increase
1 at 243
4 at 343
Total: 1718%

By my calculation I should have 2371 influence plus additives from my other sectors.

My current influence in that sector is 6986198!!!

I think fixing influence so it adds instead of multiplies will stop a lot of the SB culture bombing.

I'd also like to say that, from what ray has said in the past, culture bombing using just improvements, trade goods and wonders with minimal SB culture support is a viable strategy as well. Maybe the entire way flipping works needs to be reexamined or nobody will ever build any war ships.

Give war a chance

#36 by Veteran Maxtipherous - 9/27/2003 2:56:49 PM

Question for Frogboy --

When you say keep the # of starbases under control do you mean
. . . keep the physical count under control?
. . . keep the module count under control?
. . . keep the influence effects under control?
. . . keep the production / trade / military effects under control?

if the issue is only cultural influence, change the interaction of their modules to additive (like production and trade) rather than multiplicative.

As far as production & trade are concerned, how to the starbases enhance these anyway? Since the increase in production is somewhat magical, limiting it seems similarly arbitrary. By magical I mean one starbase in a sector with one poor planet has little benefit, yet the identical starbase in a sector with 10 great planets has 20x the effect.

I suggest creating distinct types of starbases for distinct purposes. Who wants to party out next door to a stinky factory?

How about each production / trade starbase ties to one and only one planet, and each planet can have one and only one production / trade starbase. Resource mining starbases are free. Military starbases are severly limited by logistics. Farflung influence starbases are tremendously expensive to build and / or maintain.

Also -- I want starbase build queues, 'cause I forget what I am building where and when a constructor arrives I keep having to stop and remind myself where the heck I am!

Cheers!

#37 by Veteran fsk5809 - 9/27/2003 3:07:59 PM

I was thinking that logistics should also be affected by social projects, trade goods, wonders, racial picks, party picks, and resources.

Why not have different categories of logistics for starbases and military? For example, the Torians might get a huge racial starbase logistics, but small military racial logicistics. It makes sense - supporting lots of starbases is somewhat different from supporting a huge military.

So when does the logistics resource get added?

You probably should also have a planetary cap. Say PQ/5 max starbases per planet, no matter what, and PQ worth of logistic points max per planet. Bigger ships use more logistic points, right?

#38 by Veteran kryo - 9/27/2003 3:43:30 PM

If it is decided to limit starbases by type and not by total quantity, it shouldn't be too tough to add in one module of each main type that has no or almost no real effect, but you have to pick one of them to build when you establish the SB--then you can only build more modules of that type (plus defensive ones).

#39 by Citizen chuck1es - 9/27/2003 4:28:03 PM

My main problem (if you guys are blind and haven't been able to read my stuff

) with starbases is the culture bombing. I don't think changing the effects from multiplying to adding would fix the problem.

by the way....before I rant further....is the object of this discussion to make it more realistic or more "balanced" and fun??

#40 by Veteran kryo - 9/27/2003 4:32:03 PM

Fun is always more important than realism

Fixing culture calculations would not prevent culture bombing, but it would require you to actually build lots of culture-boosting improvements and wonders in order to do so instead of just building hordes of starbases and instantly flipping every non-human planet in several sectors.

#41 by Veteran Maxtipherous - 9/28/2003 1:15:18 PM

(duplicate post -- first one didn't show up *sigh*)

Question for Frogboy . . .
Can you clarify what you mean by " . . . some way to keep the # of starbases under control."? What specifically do y'all think needs fixin?

a) limit the actual count?
b) limit the module count?
c) limit the cultural effectiveness?
d) . . . military effectiveness?
e) . . . production / trade effectiveness?

for cultural issues, reducing the effect from multiplicative to additive should do the trick.

My 2BC:

Differentiate between classes of starbase -- mining, production / trade, military, cultural. After all, who wants to party out in an industrial zone?

Mining starbases are self-limiting by resource availability, and effects remain global. Production / trade starbases could be limited to one per *star* and their bonuses can apply only to that star. Military starbases could be limited by logistics. Cultural starbases could be either a) very expensive to build, or b) operate on a local economy where they lose money relative to their module count when they are in non-controlled sectors.

Cheers!

#42 by Veteran Llaamaboy - 9/28/2003 1:45:06 PM

I did not want to start a new topic for this question, so I will ask it here since we might get a new feature in Nov ...

I _thought_ we were going to get a environmental political group ... something like a small PQ bonus and then slowing watching the plant in crease in PQ because of the smart use of the planet.

Any chance?

#43 by Citizen couslee - 9/28/2003 2:21:58 PM

#41 (duplicate post -- first one didn't show up *sigh*)

Yes it did, see #36.

#44 by Citizen ForesterGC - 9/28/2003 4:46:05 PM

I would go with a cube root for the number and a startup fee per each.

This would make people think well ahead where they want the bases to be.

#45 by Citizen LDiCesare - 9/29/2003 6:10:06 AM

Limiting the number of starbases is a VERY BAD IDEA unless you make some changes in the ai so it learns to scrap starbases.

(Cheese tactic). Build 1 starbase. Give it to your worst enemy. Repeat and rinse until your opponent cannot build any starbase. Do this to all opponents, prefereably in a corner sector far from everyone. You now have the opportunity to collect all te resources of the galaxy for yourself.

#46 by Veteran Qui-Gon Jinn - 9/29/2003 9:31:43 AM

Good thinking, LDiCesare. I'm hoping the devs are way ahead of you on that one.

#47 by Citizen LDiCesare - 9/29/2003 10:43:49 AM

I certainly hope they think of this. In fact there are 2 ways to deal with the cheese I suggested.
The poor one is to check the value of the starbase in the diplomacy screen: If it's worthless, it's worthless.
The best one is to routinely check every starbase to see if they are worth something. A culture starbomb that was useful to turn a planet 2 years ago may now be in the middle of your territory and no longer useful, particularly if it prevents you from culture bombing elsewhere.

#48 by Veteran kasualkid - 9/29/2003 11:11:05 AM

Limiting the number of starbases is a VERY BAD IDEA unless you make some changes in the ai so it learns to scrap starbases.(Cheese tactic). Build 1 starbase. Give it to your worst enemy. Repeat and rinse until your opponent cannot build any starbase. Do this to all opponents, prefereably in a corner sector far from everyone. You now have the opportunity to collect all te resources of the galaxy for yourself.

See, now this is why I never play these games very well. I don't have a criminal mind like the rest of you.

When I read any of the cheese threads, most of the time I am like, "You can do that??? It wouldn't have even occured to me to try. DOH!"

#49 by Citizen chuck1es - 9/29/2003 12:02:01 PM

Differentiate between classes of starbase -- mining, production / trade, military, cultural. After all, who wants to party out in an industrial zone?

I like that idea a lot. How about (maybe, possibly, in a way) designing each influence add-on to each individual race. Make it so you can't target two or more races at same time. Different races mean different tastes.

*sigh* Let's see how many holes get poked in THIS one

<<	<- 1 (2) 3 4 ->	>>
Page 2 of 4

Go to Top

Go Back to Message Board

Go to Top

To be able to post something you have to become a member
Click here!