I say save yourself the 'zots' (effort) and just make culture additive. Improve the game in other ways.
        
| |
|
I'd see an economic factor as more use - installation and maintenance costs, possibly per module, with the more exotic modules costing a lot more! How much would it cost to install and maintain a party palace, for example? (It also opens up the possibility of some of the "repair" techs being used to lower maintenance costs! If it's properly looked after, it'll need replacing less often!!)
Alex
     
| |
|
#52
by Citizen Jan Hyde - 9/30/2003 8:10:58 AM
You could have a SB type. One for cultural, military etc. At the moment you get all these benefits from one SB. If a SB had to be specific to one area then several SBs would have to be build and therefore maintained.
The one issue with this is defence. I would sugest that defensive modules can be built on any SB.
So at the moment you have 1 starbase with all modules with maintenance*1, 1 constructer required for each defensive module
Under the new system you may need 5 SB's to get the same benefit therefore maintenace * 5, plus 5 constructers per defensive module to protect them all.
If there is a cap based on population then gaining planets becomes so much more important and so will +% to planet quality. If the cost increases with number of starbases them money becomes the important issue.
Either way there will be a workaround. The trouble is you'll end up being forced to use the workaround rather than have the freedom you do now. Just look how many player start a game to find the yellow stars, then start again from a save.
| |
|
I like the idea that each module that you add to a starbase should have a maintenance cost associated with it. Maybe the Defensive modules should be free, but just like you don't necessarily want to build an Embassy on most planets unless there's a specific need because the cost/benefit ratio isn't sufficient, you also don't necessarily want to slap every possible extension onto a starbase.
At a minimum there should probably be the base cost of 10 per starbase, plus the maintenance cost of however many constructors have been used to build up the starbase.
Then you can take it further and say that a Party Palace Base module costs 2 maintenance, and a full-fledged Party Palace costs 7, while the Satellite WaterPark costs 3, etc.
Might make you consider a little more carefully whether you really want to deck out all your SBs with +343 culture....
  
| |
|
Jan -- that was my idea!
by the way, I read that a per-module maintenance model was considered. The decision was a flat rate that made it more difficult to build multiple starbases early.
  
| |
|
Oh, there should still be a decent base cost, too.
What about the possibility that a resource should have a cost multiplier associated with it? Building a starbase on a Military resource might cost you 30 instead of 10; Morale resources might cost 20, etc. That would make it a little more expensive to take advantage of all the different resources....
| |
|
I don't have problems with limiting the number of starbases, but could be possible to create a ship that can conquer or assault other races starbases without destroying them, sort of a way to balance the presence of starbases in one sector, why destroy them when you can conquer them?
| |
|
|
|
|
|
#59
by Citizen couslee - 9/30/2003 10:15:59 PM
Most ppl have stated on the boards that by mid-late game, money is NOT a problem. Therefore added expence for SBs will probably not cause any limiting in the number of SB in the empire. I can see the point in frogboy's suggestion. With that in mind, another thought line would be to only allow SBs in sectors that you control a planet in, or one that has an open resource in it (controlling a resource would have the same effect as controlling a planet in that sector). You would not have to have the majority of influence there, just and established presence (or open resource).
If you wanted to culture bomb a sector, you would have to capture one of the systems (or one next door) by traditional warfare first. And yes, I agree the culture "bug" is a valid point, but again, I feel the point of this thread was to see what might be the best way to limit the number of SBs. When I am rolling in several hundred B per turn, have spending at 100%, I could care less what a SB costs.
If cost is to be the controlling factor in building SBs, I still think my previous thought is a good one  . If it is going to cost me 100B more a turn for my 20th SB, then I might reconsider it. Maybe not.
Limit by upkeep cost (either by per module,or multiply maint for each additional). and/or
Limit by required sector presence. and/or
Limit by population or total # planets controlled.
I think there should be a decision on which way this fish is going to flop. Once that is decided, then actual numbers/costs/ect can be fine tuned.
  
| |
|
#60
by Citizen Orson1981 - 10/1/2003 12:38:28 AM
Here's something you'll all hate.
Have the starbases operated by the inhabitants of your empire. Someone has to run this huge structure and all these modules your putting onto it. Have SB subtract population from surrounding systems in the sector its in and the sectors near it. As you get further away from populated sectors the amount of population willing to be relocated drops, making it more difficult to build SB far away from your populated worlds.
I've heard rumors that some of you like to "space" your excees population. Instead put them to use running trade modules. Want to culture bomb? Well you better start the mass exodus to the far reaches, cuz no one is going to buy your crap if there is no one to sell it.
So there is no actual population cap. Only how much of your people your willing to ship off planet and away from shipbuilding, improvements, and paying taxes.
 
| |
|
I like that idea Nomo, and so I must add to it: Why not have little shuttles running between the starbases and the nearest planets, kinda like the little trade ships do on a trade route. In order to keep the starbase functioning at full capacity the shuttles must arrive at the starbase on regular intervals. If too many months go by without a resupply shuttle, the starbase effectiveness starts to drop. This way, the further a starbase is away from a planet the longer the shuttle runs are and thus the less effective the starbase is. A new class of upgrade module could be created which would increase the number of shuttle runs between the starbase and nearest planet(s). The more shuttles you have running, the more effective the starbase.
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I dont like the idea of limiting the number of starbases (even if i normaly dont have many). I think the cost depending on modules is good.
What about limiting the size of starbases (like max of 10 modules). So harvester cant be defended properly and bases staring with weapons dont enhance the trade... The sizelimit could be a enhanceable skill like logistics.
Ad total population: Keep in mind that the population in the german version is times 1000. So one easily gets a total of 600,000 billions on the largest map!
 
| |
|
|
|
|
|
AIL.ST,
nothing is wrong with your math now that you're using multiplication signs instead of plus signs....
| |
|
Anyway, though, I just had another logistically-oriented idea that might be interesting (although it may also be more difficult to implement in the AI again)... but this is related to ships, not starbases:
Each ship should be classed as a small, medium, or large ship. Planets would then need to build certain improvements before they can build ships of a given size. You can't build a dreadnought if your stardock is only big enough to manage frigates....
| |
|
|
|
I dont know if this has been suggested, but what about if you could only have one kind of each module per sector, exept the resorce mining ones of course.
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Well I dont really think we should even have the trade limit so I agree with you generally
| |
|
|
|
|
