Extra capital crews / less severe upkeep scale a possibility?

I definitely DON'T think the supply penalties should be lessened. The game is already free-wheeling with the economy enough in later-game stages as it is.

-- Retro

I like how the upkeep scales, it really makes you have to decide if it's worth it to move up again and time it appropriately or you risk being at a notable disadvantage.

Capitals Crews, on the other hand, probably could use some tweaking. Up until around the fourth or fifth upgrade the scaling is fairly decent, it makes you pay for it and you have to do so carefully, but after that the prices just get a bit too high, I think. Considering how vulnerable Capitals are by the time you can afford these upgrades, it seems just cost prohibitive to bother with.

Even if you wanted to do a giant Capital fleet (damage and hitpoint issues compared to smaller ships aside) it also just gets really, really expensive. I assume this is to make you use Capitals to support your fleet, and not the other way around, but really when you have a fleet like that you don't want or need to have two or three of each Capital, one of each of the most important ones will do, and then just focus on the frigates and cruisers. So ultimately there's generally little reason to go beyond five or so Capitals and is difficult to justify the investment.

I think it is balanced right now, and here's why:

The upkeep hits some races harder than others, specifically Advent. TEC can maintain a strong enough economy easily to keep a full fleet and rebuild it in later games, where Vasari RA removes the need of an economy...advent not so much. However, advent's army in combination with its capitals is more effective per pop than other races.. If you can manage to max your capital slots and get them all to level 4 (with hostility upgrade), its VERY hard to deal with for other races. This makes advent more effective with less pop, but unable to maintain a fleet as large as the other races.

Unless I'm just screwing around, I very rarely hit the limit of Cap ships as it is. If they want to increase that limit at some point, I'd have no gripes but odds are, it wouldn't change a thing in my games.

I also think the upkeep rates are fine though, personally, I think there should be a way to scale back with some penalty. While it's generally argued that 'realistically', the upkeep is for infrastructure and necessary staff to handle the amount of ships offered by the upgrade, I see no reason why those facilities couldn't be mothballed for a savings. Which is to say, I don't think these upgrades and losses should be completely permanent.

But that's me.

The important thing is that it looks like Capital Ship upkeep doesn't use economy supply and another upkeep do constant expenses. So if u up to build many capitals then make em all and keep all together for better performance.

I have no idea what you just said...

And no to the suggestion. More options pre-game for customising fleet sizes, sure, but not removing or lessening the economic impact of fleet upgrades.

Capital Ships cost 50 supply, which is the same type of fleet cap that the other ships use and does cost you upkeep. Capital Ships just happen to also cost a crew.

More pre-game options wouldn't hurt. Better would be the ability to set a specific scale, like with a text box or something. 100% would be as it is by default, but it could go as high as you want. Arbitrary decisions by the developer of what the player wants, ie, just three different options (normal, more, less), is never the best solution.

IMHO it doesn't really need a LOT of adjustment in most situations. But I don't think it's excessive asking for 75% of your income if you want the largest fleet possible:

-It gives you incentive to capture and hold more resource worlds - otherwise you can basically play the entire game with 5 or 6 decent planets.

-It gives a smaller player somewhat of a chance to survive - they can replace losses far faster than a top-tier empire can... a top-tier empire effectively pays 4x the standard cost.

-If you've got a tier 3 empire with 5 planets and a tier 8 player with 15 planets, the first empire actually has a stronger economy and can afford to take more losses.

-A lower-tier player can destroy the economy of a higher-tier player by simply raiding their worlds and destroying the most valuable stuff before retreating.

Generally I think it makes the game a lot better. If you want the maximum potential size you have to sacrifice your economy. If you can make do with a smaller fleet you will be better off than everyone else. It adds a lot of strategy. It's a rare example where realism actually adds to gameplay.

Do you guys think it would be good if you could "un-research" the supply techs maybe? How much should it cost, and what other penalties, if any, would be needed to make it fair?

That's exactly what I was suggesting and where 'realism' is concerned, I think it would be far more realistic that way. If an empire isn't using facilities related to maintaining X number of ships, why on earth would it continue to allocate the resources to support them? There's nothing stopping a 'real' empire from mothballing or reallocating unused facilities. It happens all the time.

As for how to balance such things, I honestly doubt this is even being considered but if it is, that's something I'd leave to the experts. I see no reason that it can't be done or how it would devalue the strategy of this game. Every player would still have decisions to make regarding when and when not to build up and draw down. They would just be making decisions about a different set of variables.

If only the game actually worked like that. Shame.

Greetings all!

It would seem interesting that if you had (say) two capital ship crews in reserve, your tax rate would lower itself by some reasonable amount.

If you were at the 38 percent (whatever) tax level, and after two of your capital ships were destroyed, that you found yourself at the 35 percent (whatever) tax level...

Just a thought


Regards,

WC

I think the upkeep should be on a sliding scale the works automatically. Every time you build a ship, it changes slightly. It makes no sense having these huge "upgrades," that instantaneously double your upkeep percentage.

...As if 101 ships were somehow two times more difficult to maintain than 100. I just don't see any point to this arbitrary "buy logistics" system.

regarding caps, I think there should be fewer, not more. Make them stronger. the way 20 LRMs own caps right now is ridiculous.

I think thats a good idea. Give each unit an upkeep cost. That way your only paying for what you actually have built, and if you want to cut expenses, you can either scuttle your ships or send them into battle and if they get destroyed no more cost. If any of you played the Total War series, thats how thier system works. You can build as many units as you want, but each one has an upkeep expense. If you build more then your economy can handle you will start to los emoney at a very fast rate. Just a thought....

It would be nice if Capital ships were worth their cost in research and ship cost. Right now, they arent worth it. Lowering their research cost, or making that increase crews by 2 instead might make it worth it. In a lot of ways, I wish caps didnt take up 50 supply, in addition to the crew and expensive ship. Right now, its just not worth it for anything outside of planet bombing.

They could buff the ships, lower the cost, or lower supply/upkeep/crew cost.

Personally, I'd like to see a small ship buff, with an individual upkeep cost, so Caps didnt take supply, but each one would take up of a fixed rate of income. Making Caps a big investment, but still on par with equal cost of smaller ships.