The way, IMO, that the bonus should be calculated is across modules across starbases per sector. The bonus to that module is dependent on the number of starbases with that module. The bonus from extra modules is exponentially decayed (say 50%). In other words, the bonus from the same module in a system would be:

SUM (1..m) { (1-r)^m }, where 'm' is the number of same modules. Using r=.5 (50%), the theoretical maximum you can get is 200% of the module'ss bonus (i.e, +10% becomes +20%). At three starbases with the same module, for example, the bonus is 175% (+10% becomes +17.5%).

For non-percentage bonuses, the forumula factoring would need to be adjust accordingly (i.e., what does +1 speed ship mean with multiple modules present).

Phaedyme, upkeep for constructors is $0. The other stuff you list is status quo except for starbase maintenance and an establishment cost. Do you really think that 100 bc would be prohibitive as a cost for establishing a single starbase? For most sectors, that should be the only cost. You would pay the higher cost only when trying to stack bases.

In your post, you start by saying that maintenance makes sense to you, then go on to suggest BC costs for building modules. The other stuff I list *isn't* status quo.

Institute a cost for building starbases, *or* maintenance. Both would be overkill.

~SDC~

Brad's build-it-into-the-infrastructure idea seems better to me than BC costs.

~SDC~

You could make the player select what it is for when you finish building it i.e this is a trade/military/cultural/etc. constructor and then that is the only area that it can be used for. That would definitely add a ton of strategy to the game.

That way you couldn't add it to defensive or military halfway there.

That might work better than either maintenance or hard limits.

In reference to post #50, Terror Stars would also require at least a minimum amount of self-sufficiency... making it harder to build them, especially if you're trying to rush build in or next to enemy territory. (Assuming the AI would learn to target bunches of constructors while it might overlook a dribble of one or perhaps two constructors a turn until it is 'too late' ). Basically I would look forward to the challenge of having to maintain starbases in this manner.

---

I'm also in favour of diminishing returns on bonuses. I would suggest ranking the starbases by max bonus per module type (in each sector) and then figuring the bonuses such that the highest bonus gives 100%, the next starbase gives (x/2) bonus of that module type, the next (x/3) bonus, etc.

EG: Three starbases in one sector.
Starbase #1 is ranked 1st in culture, 2nd in production and last in speed bonus.
Starbase #2 is ranked 2nd in culture, 3rd in production and 1st in speed bonus.
Starbase #3 is ranked 3nd in culture, 1st in production and 2nd in speed bonus.

Bonuses for culture would then be: SB1+SB2/2+SB3/3
For production bonus it would be: SB3+SB1/2+SB2/3
For speed bonus it would be: SB2+SB3/2

If you wanted to be really evil, you could give 100% effectiveness to lowest rank SB, followed by 50% (x/2) effectiveness to the next up in rank, etc, so that unless everything is about the same level, there will be real inefficiencies going on with one uberstarbase and 2 dorky starbases in a sector.

(Reference for this part of my post is back to #22 this thread)

---

Somebody also mentioned population being part of the cost of building a starbase. Transports would then need to be built to bring the population required to run the starbase (once x population is there, no need for more pop until new modules go in). Since combat transports carry armed forces, this makes them ineligible for bringing population, making ordinary defenseless transports more sensible to build late game (and also quite vulnerable... more problems building near enemy/neutral territory for player and AI).

This population can be damaged by attack, so requiring transports again to build the pop back up (it doesn't grow like a planet's does - on board regulations, or whatever else is decided to justify that). EG a starbase loses 1/4th of its total hitpoints, it also loses 1/4th of its population. Then to get modules working again, you'd have to rebuild the pop.

In reference to another (I think it's Frogboys) idea, you could have the remaining population keep going (by priority) the defenses, then whatever modules the starbase was built to be (production/culture/speed/trade/whatever), then whatever other modules were built in addition.

This also adds another module that could be added - an 'additional population' module that would need to be balanced by another space hydroponics module (takes two modules to increase pop capacity, not one, so it isn't cheap to just load up on pop in a starbase).

----

I'm thinking the solution in #80 would add to micromanagement - less micromanagement to have two or three levels of constructor (somebody mentioned ???, constructor, architect - I like that idea rather than module type).

----

That's the ideas I have for now, I look forward to seeing what Brad settles on as a solution

Damian

~SDC~

Umm if you do that i wont be able to win in any difficulty rite now...

Ok in a logical purpose of balancing the game id say to put maintenance only when u have more than 5 module + the AI should aim the starbases first before invading any planets + Diminish the effect when u stack to many of em + construction time on certain module. If you put a maintenance cost just like that on starbase ud bet noobs will stop playing the game. So dont do it i just bought the game (after 3 weeks of waitin in a retail store) and id be extremely frustrated.

Aerain, you'll improve... I thought I was not good at strategy games and I've won so far - on subnormal, and this is without optimising everything. I just build everything on every planet, and get lots of planets . Reckon sometime I should move up an intelligence level LOL .

~SDC~

I figure if I can handily win on any given difficulty level, it's time to move up.

~SDC~

I dunno if somebody brought this one up about hard-limiting, but why not make it a United Planets resolution that could be passed or something?

- Of course, that would mean that the AI would have to build SBs without resources, and while I've seen that it's not exactly something the AI automatically does ALL the time...
- A natural hard-limit would go, IMHO, against the basic idea of a 4x game where cultural domination is a victory possibility.
- Having leveled constructors would be better (so you have like L1 - L4 constructors for SB development that is based on tech levels. Of course, this adds the yucky element of having to think about what module needs what level of constructor, so in that instance an advanced type of constructor sounds a lot more realistic)
- Maintenance costs that would increase per module, and why not factor in how non-production modules cost more to maintain as they cannot derive a subsidy from the production coming from the SB (in this way, SBs that don't have any use for production would need constant maintenance costs)
- Terror Stars should cost a heap to maintain. Think about it from the Star Wars perspective. Even with the resources of a subjugated galaxy it took the Empire 7 years to build another Terror Star, wheras in GalCiv you could easily build on in about a year (with enough resources devoted to Constructors)

Wow, that's a lot. I've probably covered a lot of ground already tread.

~SDC~

Allright... I've been going over the posts and washing ideas around in my head. As I think we all are... and here's what I got so far:

(Always trying to keep in mind what the best/simplest way to implement)

1) I still think Diminishing Returns (DR) would help balance out a Star Base game... the only issue with DR is the limiting of effectiveness of constructors at a later stage because it lessens the value of the spent credits near the end of the game, until an alternative becomes available.

2) Adding additional 'types' of star bases or sizes of star bases or different types of constructors, will A) add new dimensions to SB placement and buliding would definitely complicate when and of what type a SB or constructor will the AI build, unless specific types of star bases are tied to alignment, intelligence, and star placement; and finally C) Might really complicate the game... just thoughts... although personally, with 4x games, the more diversity the developers can add in terms of production choices for players, that the AI can handle, the more enjoyable the game is to me. I _love_ choices; heck, if I thought it was appropriate I'd argue for more ship types!

3) I've reconsidered the idea of hard-limits, and think they won't be necessary if the economic and logistic forces in the game are uprated enough. From an economic point of view, I see a few choices and solutions. Among the options for adjusting star bases is tying SB maintanence to ship maintanence, and then add a (per X numbers of modules) charge (Y BC per month)... maybe every 5 modules up the cost by 5, with the first 5 being free? Another option is to charge maintanence on modules other than economic modules, and econ modules pay station maintanence fees before adding on to global benefits.

From a logisical point of view, we could explore calculating the closest distance from the SB to a friendly planet and then use that to compute a Logistic cost, with tech and abilities availible to increase the distance of maintanence free zones around planets? Another logisitcal bonus could apply to increasing the value of trade routes and reducing the maintanence fees for military vessels. Of course negative events and or occurances could include widespread corruption and or inefficeincy.

4) Frogboy, I think we're all about heavy constructors.

5) One thing I don't want to see happen, is see GalCiv turn into GalStarBaseCiv... if a lot of options are added to star bases, I just want to know what other areas of the game can we open up for adding more items/depth to? :):):):)

6) I'm still very jazzed that the developers take such a keen interest in what the fan base has to say in the forums

Humbly...
agillious

~SDC~

No new ideas, just my feelings.

I'm not in favor of either a limit on the number of starbases or maintenance fees. I won't argue the realisticness of maintenance fees, just that it would be a radical change for the game the way it exists now. If a maintenance fee is used, then there should be no maintenance fee on say, the first 5 SB + 1/4 the number of star systems owned (feel free to modify the constants, though as a gut feel, the minimum free SB should never be below 3).

My two ideas are:

1) giving us either a reason to have empty military queues, or something else to put into the military queue that's useful in the end-game. I know that this would end my tendancy to start shipping around hundreds of constructors towards the end of the game.

2) Non-linear adding (diminished returns on multiple starbases within the same sector). ie, the the starbase with the biggest bonus has full effect, the second starbase has 1/2 effect, the third 1/4 (or 1/3, or similar), the fourth 1/8th (or 1/4th), etc. This by itself gets rid of most of the problems. If you go with the inverse geometric model, (second does 1/2, third 1/4, etc), then an infinite number of starbases would be twice as effective as a single starbase (this could be scaled pretty easily). Unfortunately, it seriously nerfs the culture push. Of course, undoing the reduction of the culture palace/party palace could restore some of that, or special-casing culture so that it gets full (or less-reduced) benefit would restore that. This makes some sense. After all, if these were meant to add linearly, then why couldn't we just build two modules of micro-fighters in the same starbase?

Having an empire wide limit on starbases wouldn't upset me too much, provided it starts of with a minimum of 5 starbases (I've grabbed that many resources while still grabbing star systems) and tech is available to expand the limit.

I think that any limits placed on starbases, no matter what kind, should not include starbases placed to develop resources. Sure, that might mean that you'll get an extra starbase or two in a sector with colonies in it, but that's rare enough that i don't think you need to worry about it. If the player isn't allowed to develop all the resources that they reach before the AI, they'll just use cheesy tactics like surrounding the resource with scouts to keep the AI away until they research/develop/whatever enough to be able to build the extra starbases.

My take on the matter is that there should be different classes of Starbases:

- Minor Starbases, which can handle only 5 modules each. Minor Starbases can be built by any Constructor type vessel.

- Major Starbases, which can handle 10 modules each. Major Starbases are created by using MajorConstructors to upgrade Minor Starbases. That is, the first 5 modules can be added using Minor Constructors (the same constructors we have now). The next 5 modules will require the use of Major Constructors. Major Constructors will cost a lot more than Minor Constructors.

An addition to this may be the use of Minor and Major modules. Only Major Starbases can handle Major modules.

Of course, this can expanded further for Ultra Starbases, Ultra Constructors, and Ultra modules. And Big Mouse. Don't forget Big Mouse.

Cheers,
Mr. Veinless

ok here is my take on logistics

Have it so that each civ can have a certain globabl amount of free star bases depending on map size. Then they could have up to two possibily three times that number of SBs that would cost normal maintence (3-5 whatever seems best). Then any SBs beyond that number would cost extra maintence (5-8 whatever seems best) since your logistics system is completely overwhelmed. However, the logistics technology would increase the number of free star bases you could have, and thatwould in turn increase the amount of regular maintence and extra maintence SBs. So in Brad's earlier example, you could start out with 4 free star bases, then you could build an additional 8 at normal maintence, then any beyond that would cost extra maintence.

Also logistics technology could be used to limit the number of effective dupes per system. For example at the start of the game only one module would provide the full benefit, and each module beyond that would give no extra benefit, half benefit or the 1/(X+1), 1/(X+2), 1/(X+3) benefit mentioned earlier in this thread, depending on what seemed most balanced. Then later logistic technologies could increase the number of dupes per system. Also in the earliest part of the game, any dupes over the limit might not do anything, but there could be a technology to get some benefit out of having dupes that are over the limit.

but hard limits are something that should be avoided at all costs.

Count me for one that prefers a maintenance fee for starbases. In fact, what I think would work is:

1. Starbases are maintenance free to a set point, based on the map size you are playing.

2. At the cutoff point, all starbases built from this point on have a maintenance fee attached to them.

3. At another set point, the maintence fee for all those starbases built after the original cutoff point will start going up by 'X' amount for each one built.

4. You can scrap your starbases to get back some sort of monetary compensation. Thus you can have a strategy of wiping out a bunch of older starbases that are not helping your long term goals, getting some BC in compensation, and reduce the current maintence fee you are paying.

I also agree that no fee or limit for modules. That could become tedious to manage. Unless of course, you could scrap individual modules as well, for compensation. That might add a level of strategy, I dunno.

fleabitfox

I'm not sure that anything less that severe maintenance costs would have much of an effect on spamming late game uber starbases... after all, if the bonus shields gained is more than the maintenance cost, it's still viable. With per-starbase maintenance costs, this would *encourage* uber SB spamming, wouldn't it?

As near as I can tell, the basic problem is what to do about piling production (and presumably military and culture) boosting SBs into a single sector. Although imposing a penalty-point on the bonus production could work for production, it doesn't really make sense for +attack and +culture spamming, for instance.

Personally, I don't really like the idea of using Advanced Constructors simply to go over 5 modules (which is a rather small number for late-game SBs)... and regardless of that, it would only slow down the spamming process (and it may not even do that for players who are happy to build and pay for piles of 5-module SBs).

Also, IMHO empire-wde limitations on the total number of SBs is problematic when you consider galaxy sizes. The 'non-cheesy' number of SBs goes as the *square* of the galaxy width, so constant (or linear %age) increases are less effective as the galaxy size increases. Also, constant per SB maintenance costs would penalise weaker players, and linear (or exponential ) costs are somewhat counter-intuitive. IMHO, if there are going to be maintenance costs, they need to be per module to work.

Perhaps the SB-limiting tech could work by limiting the number of modules (or at least, maintenance free modules) in a sector, and you get (a small number of) additional ones by building certain social projects that are made available by those techs.



~SDC~

A logistics ability would definitely help limit the total number of starbases and provide an additional strategy to the game.

Wont go need limit of moduals per system! That way you can have lets say 5 bases but you can only build one of each moduel excluding green mods. So that if you build a mark I factory thingy you cant build another mark I on any other base in the system. And to build a mark II you will have to build it on that base anyway. This is good cuase it will 1) diversify a base 2) allow strong defensive bases 3) make it hard to guess if you are nailing a starbase with combat ability mods or production mods or a decoy with only defensive mods. 5) it will keep a system's production from being taken out with one base going down i you use decoys or diversify ect

I understand alot of what is being said BUT all these suggestions will seriously affect cultural path to victory. And just because some UBER-PLAYERS are cheesing with starbases toward the end doesn't mean we all are in any way shape or form. Most of these suggestions will hurt the casual player who isn't good enough to play on the top difficulty levels. A hard limit is not a good idea. Maintenance costs may flat out take away a players option to go for cultural victory...and so on and so on. Big changes with starbases could cause big problems for the average game player, and I hope Stardock considers them in their change with this. I'm all in favor of updates and bonuses, but there has to be solid reasoning for them, which will not affect any of the *paths* in the game AS well AS not hurting players of different abillties.
Doc

Regarding the usefulness of the end-game military queue:

How about giving us the option to build Star Docks? These are stellar dry docks that are capable of upgrading existing ships. A specific number of turns in a Star Dock could upgrade you Overlord to an Overlord II - the same ship, but now it has a reduced maintenance cost, or increased combat abilities, or increased speed, etc. You'd have to do include an Upgrade.SHIP file with the upgraded ship versions in it.

I'm really not keen on playing another "Huge galaxy, Beyond Human" game, simply because near the end of the game, the military build queue was limited to a choice between Constructors or Nothing. (I suppose this might be different if you were at war, you'd have a reason to build up your military.) I think that if there were something besides Constructors to build, you might not have to worry about changing the way starbases work. Although, coming up with something that would equal or outweigh the benefits of filling sectors with starbases might not be easy.

Just thinking.


~SDC~

Keeping the AI in mind when making suggestions is always a good point. That said:

1)I like the logistics ability for one reason:It can give a small well organized empire an edge over a larger military empire. It might actually add a ton of difficulty in beating the smaller opponents, esp. if the dimensions of logistics were applied to ships as a whole(perhaps reducing maint. or something).

2)As far as Adv. constructors go. I would like to see them as keys to getting upper level upgrades rather than just going over 5 constructors. But either way is good enough for me.

Perhaps the way Star Bases work could be changed: If SBs could be garrisoned inside systems like other ships and limited to one per planet (for garrison purposes) then economic,production, and defense benefits could be tied directly to the garrisoned SBs. Garrisoned SBs would be permanetly fixed unless disbanded (ie terror SBs could not be garrisoned) and contribute to the influence of the system. (I.E. ungarrisoned bases would either be terror SBs or mining SBs). Also mining SBs should nolonger be allowed the terror star modules - since terror SBs move and mining bases are fixed. In summary SBs should be modified for game play to allow garrisoning of SBs for economic/production/defense contributions. It seems unrealistic from a game concept point that a SB - which is infinitely small by comparison - could affect an area 12 light years across.

While I am happy for starbases to have some sort of dminishing return I personally dont think starbases are the problem. The problem is the economy model (worst thing about the game in my opinion). Mid-late game if you are not trying for a military victory then you have most/all the social improvements you want (limited due to maintenance). This means my social spending is frequently at 0. This leaves research and military. I find that having emphasis on research forces me to drop the government spending very low sometimes less than 10% to prevent me from losing money. So if I go for something like 40 mil, 60 research I still have to run much less than 100% unless I have a lot of tribute coming in. But because research takes longer at later techs I find keeping tribute coming it gets harder and harder. This still leaves me with military production. Unless I am planning on going to war I dont want to build military vessels as they cost mainenance and I cant afford to waste money. This leaves me with the free mainenance ships
Survey
Colony
Transport
Constructor
Of those the only useful one to build later in the game if you are at peace is the constructor. Thats why I build the super stations simply because I cant do anything else due to money. Although I eventually get bored of moving all these constructors and will eventually switch to a research setting. I then have to hope my culture will win me the game before I become bankrupt. As the number of civilizations reduce money becomes more and more of an issue.

While I like the idea that a government can spend more than it earns I do think that money is overly tight in this game at the mid-late stages. Early on I find money much less of a problem. If it makes a difference I usally play on small/tiny galaxies.