I don't like the idea with the Starbase support buildings just because it would help big empires and punish small empires that want to have lots of starbases.

I liked the Idea of making the maintanance cost for SB's dependant on the distance to the closest owned planet and their number of modules.

If you go for the 1.7thing i'd suggest having a cap somewhere to not render starbase-based strategies useless in bigger galaxies.

"#23 by Veteran forceinfinity - 5/8/2003 3:39:40 AM

I like what Keith suggested, but with the following modification

Why not also have starbases cost more as they are further away from the nearest owned planet (as they would be a bit more difficult to keep "supplied" as it were)"
good idea and add as your sector influence grows the cost of sb away from your home reduces. It seems ridiculous to have a starbase on the other side of the galaxy cost the same as one by your home planet.

"I vote for 'starbase support network'."

I don't think this is such a good idea.

1.) Part of the race for galacy dominace is resource control. It takes the fun out of sending your survey ship to search for resources and trying to get the resource before another race does.

2.) It's a pain in the butt when playing AI at higher levels. And weaker races will never be able to create starbases.

Of course my thought may change once I try playing with the new rules.

Suggestion: Why not create random resource event...so during the middle or toward the end of the game. You have resources, on a rare basis, pop up at a random location. This will help races who don't have resources and add an extra challenge to control them.

It could be a random event:

Ex: The continued advances in the realm of quantum-astro-physics have allowed us to discover a new resource called 'Grey Matter'. The worth of this resource or what it does is still unknown, but this has not stopped other races from pursuing 'Grey Matter'.

Thanks, J

Whatever you come up with, I think it would be a good idea if the costs were in the data files so casual players like myself could edit them out if necessary. For instance, the 1.7 exponential would make it very hard to play defensively against a big empire; this is probably fine for folks who want a really hard challenge, but not so good for those of us who have a limited amount of playing time and are looking for a break from work/family stresses. Throwing out a game because you get a bad start is a big penalty when you only have a few hours a week to play.

Personally I like the fixed maintenance per starbase idea, and dislike the maintenance cost per module idea and the exponential idea. But as long as the user can mod whatever you choose it'll be okay. Its one of the strengths of your game, and it'll allow you to keep both serious and casual players happy.

The 1.7 method needs to be adjusted based on map size. The rule proposed by frogboy takes starbases out of the game on gigantic maps. On tiny maps, it is no penalty at all.

A better solution is to cap all the starbase benefits.

On a related issue, the fact that production and taxes are penalized leads to some weird situations. If you're already maximizing your tax income, you get almost no benefit from a new economic resource or a galactic stock exchange. The production caps should come BEFORE resource, wonder, and social project bonuses are applied. A resource or wonder should ALWAYS help its full amount.

The starbase bonuses DO need to be capped, to prevent someone from building 20 starbases in the same sector. If someone builds two starbases per planet, that's not really abuse.

Another wasted resources issue: Prouction in excess of what completes the project/ship/tech is wasted. In Alpha Centauri, some production in excess of completing a project is carried over to the next project. In Alpha Centauri, this number is 10. In GalCiv, it should be something like 2*planet quality.

For example, a planet is building Corvettes (cost 50) and is producing 40 military per turn. One corvette is produced every 2 turns. Out of 80 production units, 30 are wasted. This also happens when you get close to researching a tech. Whenever you're about to complete a tech, you should adjust your spending so that you just barely complete the tech. At the beginning of the game, whenever you're about to complete a project on Earth, you should adjust your spending. That's too much micromanagement. If there was carryover, this wouldn't be an issue.

I have never seen a starbase become the victim of a culture flip. Could the threat of that (easier than a system, bases mining resources harder to flip than unattached) combined with a max number of bases per sector work?

If you wanted research techs, the tech could permit you to place an additional base in 1 sector, two sectors, etc. It could be a UP event as well. It could be tracked the way trade routes are.

Little off-topic to start: All this is reminding me of an episode of B5 where Earth tried to make the station pay for itself more and placed a module on the station that was a store. Had dolls of the senior officials and diplomats. Ended up getting spaced, I think Sheridan was upset with his doll...

But anyways, I agree that there should be some form of modifier based on size of the map. Could always just scale the ^x.y based on the size. 1.7 for a tiny map and reduce as you go up.

I like the starbase support planetary improvement idea, it makes sense with the little OT concept at the start of my post as starbases are not self-sufficient.

With that in mind you could always have starbase improvements which have that goal in mind. Self-sufficiency. Thus reducing their maintenance cost. I mean I would think the Star Wars rip-off of the Terror Star would have some self-sufficiency to it.

I can't be a good judge of the numbers and thresholds of what is reasonable in terms of amounts of starbases though.

They are used for resources, increasing production, projecting power, projecting culture.

Hmm... is it possible to nerf starbase modules after building them?

So you could build one with the goal of taking over a planet, and once that is done you could change the modules that are in it (remove and reduce and replace - at cost) to increase production on that planet.

As an addendum regarding this:

[[ I don't like the idea with the Starbase support buildings just because it would help big empires and punish small empires that want to have lots of starbases.

I liked the Idea of making the maintanance cost for SB's dependant on the distance to the closest owned planet and their number of modules.]]

It is a valid point against in terms of balancing the game.
However, it is reasonable that a larger empire would be able to afford more.

Based on what Vorlin on others have postulated:

1) SB built on a resource 1BC maintenance +1BC up to max 5.
2) SB built (no resource) double #1 (if only one in sector
3) ADDITIONAL SB built in sector to be some multiplier of #2 (at least by 2). This would have the original intent of Stardock to limit the effect of these bases.
4) No economic relief for SBs thru a tech or planetary social production. Counter-productive to intent. If at the end game you can't afford it, you don't need it.

I like the 1.7 idea, with two conditions.

1.7 is fine for a medium, maybe a large map, but it's too high for Huge and Gigantic, unless the support network is also implemented. I think it should scale according to the size of the galaxy. I disagree that 1.7 should be the basis for Tiny and everything else should be smaller, however.

If the support network is added in combination with the exponential support cost, then depending on the exponent, the support network should reduce the number of starbases before raised to the exponent. Do that and have the support network cost 4 or 5 support, and there will come a time where more support networks actually cost more than the reduced maintenance, and that number will be just about the same as the cost of the support network.

Oh, for the record, I like the idea that the fixed 5BC/SB rule is being reevaluated. As I said in the sticky thread, even before playing it, I thought that would hurt the early game but not impede the late game.

Sure enough, my current 1.03A game is the first time I've ever built a long range starship catapult. I set up all my trade routes to a minor civ that is within my empire, dropped 9 +50% trade SBs in every sector on the route, and can now run my entire empire at 0% tax, 100% spending, no tribute, and still have quite the surplus, even after paying the maintenance fees on a starship catapult with a +10 sector range modifier. I'm currently stocking that sector with AAMs, constructors, and Excaliburs, as the only two victory conditions that are practical at this point are sole survivor and tech, and seeing as I don't consider it fair to buy a tech victory from an AI, my options are limited

As several others have pointed out above, wasted resources is the core problem with starbase abuse. Give players something more useful to do with their military spending and we probably won't see that many starbases popping up all over the map. Barring that, tying starbase limits to empire size instead of some ad hoc exponential maintenance cost is the better way to go.

I don't like the math. Too hard to figure your costs. Keep it simple. Besides, if the first starbase costs X to maintain, the costs should not change just because of how many you have. It's unrealistic. Maybe you can let the cost be effected by the distance from your nearest planet but all starbases should have the same cost parameters.

Gotta agree with Za H on this... the only reason I ever have loads of bases (each with multiple modules) is that I don't have any other practical use for military production for all planets (assuming I'm not in war, or about to enter war). If I have 2-3 planets building a needed ship (like a trade or colony ship), the other planets are wasting money if I don't put *something* in their queue. Since constructors don't have any upkeep, and as long as I don't create new, unneccessary bases (extra maint fee), I'll just default a bunch of worlds to constructors... and once I have 3+ constructors in the same area, with no immediate use, I'll make a new base with production bonuses... then send more constructors to it... then when I max the modules on that base, I'll build another base... and max the modules on that...




... hence the proliferation problem of starbases.

~SDC~

If we're going to make starbases *this* costly using the 1.7 power rule, make the constructors a little cheaper...yes you can build up the bases faster, but you're going to hit that softcap sooner or later and be constrained by your economy.

SeanB

Personally, I build 1 base per sector, + 1 per resource. I'm happier if the "1 per sector" and "1 per resource" are the same base.

I think all of this maintenance and whatnot hullaballoo is just a reaction to the base-spamming tactics some players have adopted. 10 bases in a single sector is outrageous and should be easily limited by diminishing returns. But 10 starbases across 10 sectors seems perfectly reasonable to me.

Starbase maintenance should *not* be based on number of modules... as pointed out on the sticky thread, that penalizes the "trade strategy" which needs like 6 modules to get a bonus... and only while the minifreighter is in the appropriate sector.


On the other hand, I too end the game with Constructor Bingo. Every planet is pumping out Constructors every couple turns... what are you going to do with them? I really like one suggestion from above: use them Civilization Caravans, to boost production at another star. In my last game, twice UP Resolutions came up about an unowned planet suddenly becoming habitable; I would really have liked some way to boost production at those planets with constructors (or something; cargo haulers?) to keep them from immediately getting culturally overwhelmed by the nearby AI home system!

i think that modules, not individual starbases, should have maintenance costs. that way things like trade modules could have little or no maintenance, while party palaces and the like have high maintenance costs.

this way you could balance the more abusable aspects of starbases without interfering too much with some of the more benign stuff.

cheers

h

I think you should:

* Have zero cost for SB maintence. It doesn't matter what the costs are in mid and late game, but any costs hurts the early game. Particularly the AI. I'm on my 3rd 1.03A game now, and so far, whichever Major race LOST the resource rush, wins. All because their early economy isn't crippled from grabbing resources.

* Fix the wasted resource issue. The only reason everyone is building constructors like crazy is that a SB is much more valuable a 0 cost maintence then anything else (that list is: Constructor, Drone, Freighter, Colony Ship, Star Hawk now.)

No cost is ever going to stop a player from building 20 SBs in their critical production sector with max +Mil and +Soc. The only way to stop that is to change it so that a given module can only be used once, and all the others of that module do nothing.

Any cost at the start is going to hurt the early game. The higher the cost, the worse it will cripple the early game resource holders.

RAISING costs will only cause players to max out all their given starbases.

RAISING costs will also hurt the peaceful trader.

If you want to enable 'Dead Zones' (Stacked -1 to enemy movement) tactics, then you have to allow at least certain forms of stacking multiple starbases, OR you need to enable a form of repeatable construction on the same starbase. Making it arbitrary (you can have 20 -1 Enemy Move modules on a SB and get the full benies, but +10% Production Bonus only works once), can actually be justified in both game balance and game settings.

If you insist on setting some form of costs, please make sure it is easily changed by the players, as no value picked by SB will please everyone, all map levels, or all play strategies.

Also, if you are just bound and determined on setting a costs, I'd suggest that make it scale by amount. Larger galaxies and larger planet commonality will be able to support greater incomes, and therefore they will be able to afford more. Have each module cost a base amount of maintence, with raising costs per tech basis and return results. This would enable you to set the base cost for a SB low, have a zero to one cost for trade increasers, and have a significant costs for the bigger/more complex modules. And enable a 'scrap module' option on SBs, so in times of recession, players could scrap out the costlier modules, while still retaining the base SB and its core features.

Just some suggestions.

It might also help if you would articulate the exact problems and behaviours you and your team are trying to discourage, rather then have us just toss out ideas at random.

The problem with using constructors as maintenance caravans is the time when constructors are the most prolific (end game) is exactly the time when you need extra production the least (which is the whole reason they are so prolific). I'm fairly sure most of you do as I do and have a super-production planet set up to speed build wonders, by this stage of the game that normally only takes 2-5 turns depending on the wonder. So not much assistance is needed there. Could be useful for bringing newly conquered planets up to speed I suppose. But since this would also require a whole new level of AI code to be written I wouldn't expect to see it implemented any time soon.

I don't see how the 'module maintenance' penalizes trade stations, it is 20% cheaper then they are now the way I proposed it. Currently they cost 5 BC, with what I proposed they would cost 4 BC (starbase + the 3 trade bonus modules). Currently this type of starbase has problems anyway (as noted in other discussions), the only way to -really- have a good trade starbase setup in a gigantic galaxy is to have an unlimited number of free starbases (due to the length of the route, and the parallelogram (sp) effect you need a -lot- of starbases, almost none of which will be doing anything at any given time). So anything that makes trade starbases practical in a gigantic galaxy also brings us back to the infinite starbase sleeze that started this whole issue to begin with.

I already said in another thread that IMHO it's more important to think about how changes will affect gameplay. So i also want to hear about results you want to achieve, and how gameplay will change if result will be achieved.

Now it's impossible to give some reasonable answer because starbase effectiveness depends on too many factors.

~SDC~

Vorlin, it isn't star base sleeze at the core of this issue. It's wasted production.

If you could set sliders based on GOVERNORS, the infinite constructors rolling off the line would cease. Why? Players would set the majority of their worlds to a governor with 0 Military production, while their core ship building worlds rolled out whatever they needed for home defense, (new) home repossession, ships for trade/sell/strengthing partners, or strategic star base improvement.

A simple military trade good that would boost your income would fix the matter.

This problem of waste is exaggerated if you go for a peaceful game, and under the new PQ less then 15 worlds really shouldn't be bothered with. Why? Because most of your worlds will finish up with whatever it is you want them all to build, allowing you to set SOCIAL to zero until you get new social items you must have. This means even more funds will flow into MILITARY, building those constructors even faster.

The whole thing keys back to wasted resources. This is the disease. Endless Constructors being made is just the biggest symptom of the problem. And Brad and his team need to really take a hard look at this issue, as it is what needs to be addressed. NOTHING they do about starbases will stop the endless constructors and the cheese tactics that will result from them until then.

Heck, Brad and team want to see how I can turn a maintenence cost of 50 per SB to my advantage? No problem... I go build useless little bases in enemy star sectors, and gift that "useless but enraging" star base to whichever AI I want them in a fight with. AND charge them whatever money and what not I can get away with. if not, just handing off the base is enough. DO that a few times and cripple their economy. The AI sucks with SBs, after all.

SB cheese will always be a part of the game, so long as wasted resources are NOT addressed. They need to fix that disease, to get rid of its symptoms and effects.

Sorry, that's military queue item. 'Trade Goods' mean a particular thing in GalCiv, and I did not mean 'Trade Good' as a unique monopoly item that is buildable only once.

I guess if SSNs were dirt-cheap, they wouldn't impact gameplay that much, if they were expensive, they would penalise smaller empires.

I also think that linear maintenance costs would amplify the dominance of a powerful empire without really helping smaller ones (which I guess is why the 1.7 solution appeared )

Regardless of anything else, it seems we're agreed that resource bases (and/or their extraction modules) should be exempt from any SB-limiting tactics, to keep things fair for smaller empires/games. Resources don't crop up in colonised systems for this to be too much of a problem.

There seem to be three distinct flavors of cheese here, all of which involve stacking multiple SBs in a single sector... culture bombs, 1-2 module bases (-1 speed bases in particular), and completely full production/trade boosters. All of these stem from the ability to pile SBs into a single sector without repercussions.

Perhaps the solution is simply to double (triple?) the maintenance for each SB in a sector?

~SDC~

Vorlin: The idea of diminishing returns is the only one I know of that won't botch long trade routes, unless we go with the starbase support project and give it a *VERY* low maintenance cost. I've given up on long trade routes because of this. If a starbase only has a mini-freighter in it 10% of the time, it has to boost the trade revenue by 50BC that turn in order to break even. I've switched to trade routes to my immediate neighbors just to keep them off my back until I can stand on my own, and then I switch all my trade routes to a carefully preserved minor civ near but behind my economic capitol, and spam the trade route all to heck with starbases, because on short routes, the starbases more than pay for themselves if you've got enough routes going through it.

You could give each type of module a different "decay" factor. With a decay factor of .5, for example, you could never more than double the effectiveness of a single starbase. With a decay factor of .79, you'd be limited to about 4.8 times the effectiveness of a single starbase. Even with a high decay factor (say 0.89), you'll never get more than 10 times the effectiveness of a single starbase. How many people are going to build starship catapults when an infinite number of starbases won't give you a 20 move bonus? A factor of 1 would represent the current status, and a factor of 0 would represent non-additive bonuses.

Unfortunately, this would complicate computing the bonuses in each sector (though they'd only have to be recomputed when a starbase is destroyed or traded, or a new module is added), and the AI would have to understand diminishing returns to decide when another starbase is worth it.

Whichever limits are put on starbases, the ones on Resources should not be affected! That's a big failing with the current system.

And is maintenance or anything like that needed anymore? They've put in limits for how much benefit you can get for production bonuses on planets, which is the main thing that caused ISS for me. And as someone else pointed out, the maintenance punishes people for putting trade enhancing starbases on long trade routes and reward those who make very short routes to ensure that the starbases are in effect as much of the time as possible.