Hmm, that is true, defenses seem to be quite effective now. Still, I'd rather they nerf experience effects than have it cost upkeep.



Early-game, IMX base Industry costs are about equal to tonnage, so an early destroyer costs ~100 Industry depending on strategic resources. So upkeep under the Industry scheme would be 1 or 2 Dust upkeep per destroyer (at 1% and 2% respectively). I think this is similar to what is going on now. Against the AI this is generally still in the colonization stage where economies are weak, so I usually rely on 1-2 powerful fleets of 7-13 ships, so we would be looking at 10-40 Dust per turn.



My mid-game battleships have been ~400 Industry cost; this would put them at 4 or 8 Dust upkeep. I could have 20-50 ships running around against the AI at this point, so this might be 80-400 upkeep total under this scheme.



I haven't played any games recently that got to the point where I would be using late-game ships, but I imagine an uber-dreadnought could get up to 1-3k Industry cost, for 10-60 upkeep apiece under the proposed scheme. God only knows how many ships are going to be running around at this point, with probably 10k production systems and such. Probably a few hundred dreadnoughts is not out of the question (at least in the current game), so you could be looking at total upkeep in the several thousands, maybe even reaching five digits. Though at this point, maybe such upkeeps are necessary to keep up with Dust incomes!



When I last worked it out during the beta, upkeep was 2 Dust per CP, but I think they changed it--I'll figure out the new formula when I get home. I suspect they reduced it (!) In any case, it's probably negligible past early game.

i like the ideal of a 10-1 or so mp advantage doing an overrun automaticly, maybe even giving the poor fleet a small chance to escape the system especially if its faster. maybe even making it a tech or something,



just an ideal.

Ail wrote:
My opinion on this is:



The amount of production capabilities and support-cost for ships are just badly balanced regarding the size of fleets.

It just feels weird, that a fleet makes only such a small faction of your total ship-count.



Ships are too cheap to produce and maintain while fleet-size-limits are set too low. Doubling production-cost, maintanance and fleet-sizes would make combat feel way more significant and less inflated.

+1



You name it. I just had a game in ES with a small map and all that, a very fast game. The little fleet fitted there, but if you have like these huge and long games. Nah. It's just not enough yet.

Total CP size is probably balanced based on the graphics requirements in combat. So, I doubt it'll be changed much.



I agree ships should be more expensive in general. Especially the more advanced modules, as one's economy grows incredibly fast mid-late game.

My opinion on this is:



The amount of production capabilities and support-cost for ships are just badly balanced regarding the size of fleets.

It just feels weird, that a fleet makes only such a small faction of your total ship-count.



Ships are too cheap to produce and maintain while fleet-size-limits are set too low. Doubling production-cost, maintanance and fleet-sizes would make combat feel way more significant and less inflated.

That's not a good ratio.

It's looking like ship upkeep is a flat 1 Dust per CP right now. So in one game my nearly 200 battleships are only drawing ~400 Dust per turn. (In comparison, I have revenues of ~4.5k Dust, and improvements consume ~2k Dust per turn.)

Kesat wrote:
I don't think a fixed amount per CP would work. You have to consider economical growth rate - an empire's income in mid- to end-game is quite large. In one of my current games at turn 150 e.g. my income exceeds 10k dust/turn while fielding about 250 CPs (3rd in terms of CP). In my opinion maintenance has to be at least a percentage value, either of industry cost or military power (which is quite higher than ind cost).

It's quite a challenge to balance maintenance growth regarding economic growth. On the one hand an empire needs to be able to field a reasonable military at the beginning (we don't want to prevent early wars, right?) without a strong economy, but on the other hand we want a serious (or at least noticable) impact on an empire's economic in mid- to end-game which is quite hard to implement due to exponential economic growth (up to a individual system's maximum). Quite tricky, if not done properly

Indeed, never was a good economist anyway.

Igncom1 wrote:
1 dust per CP and then 1 per ship level? (I am intentionally being conservative because 5 dust per CP would really screw over my games and would lead me to dislike the game a hell of a lot just because some people cant manage a lot of ships.)

I don't think a fixed amount per CP would work. You have to consider economical growth rate - an empire's income in mid- to end-game is quite large. In one of my current games at turn 150 e.g. my income exceeds 10k dust/turn while fielding about 250 CPs (3rd in terms of CP). In my opinion maintenance has to be at least a percentage value, either of industry cost or military power (which is quite higher than ind cost).

It's quite a challenge to balance maintenance growth regarding economic growth. On the one hand an empire needs to be able to field a reasonable military at the beginning (we don't want to prevent early wars, right?) without a strong economy, but on the other hand we want a serious (or at least noticable) impact on an empire's economic in mid- to end-game which is quite hard to implement due to exponential economic growth (up to a individual system's maximum). Quite tricky, if not done properly



Possible solution would be a combined mixed in maintenance growth, e.g. a basic of x%/MP and some military key techs would have a negative side effect of increasing this x% by y points. Potential side effect: Players have to consider if they want to have more module choices vs. less maintenance at same military power. Let's play an example: Mobile Gauss Plattform and Hypermagnetics are both key technologies (both are crosspoints for kinetics/flak and beam/deflector). Let's say actual maintance is 5%/MP, both techs would increase maintenance by 2.5%. The player has to consider if he wants a flexible fleet composition with better beams/deflectors and better kinetics/flak at the costs of 10%/MP or just one tech for only 7.5%/MP.

Depending on his overall strategy, his economic, enemy's fleet designs etc. both possibilites are reasonable (or even none - he may just skip all Tier 6-8 weapon techs, since none is required for end-game weapons). If following a long-term strategy players may reduce their maintenance significantly (not very advisable to skip every mid-game weapon techs, but possible)

Your point is good and i endorse it.

Igncom1 wrote:
So you would prefer stacks of death?



No, the current size of fleets is good but there has been discussions about the actual number of ships to combat having 6v6 battles.

Well, besides the realism (It would be realistic that 'stack of death') I don't any problems actually. You have these stacks in Civ 4 for instance too, but it works out like You have one unit against a stack of three, and you would have to fight everyone in that stack by one. But you should have like a bonus if you have like more units (fleets) than ur opponent. Like when it would be realistic you would have all of them fire at once. But I see you that you could rush through an entire empire with a big ass stack like that, crushing everything on ur path.

1-2% industry cost huh? What numbers would you mean for the average game if you can?



But with the experienced ships i am not so sure, this patch has seemed to have done away with most glass cannons and i really don't find them to be effective at all.

I'd prefer upkeep to be 1% to 2% of the ship's Industry cost. Experience increasing upkeep would just encourage glass cannon or other throwaway spams even more.

So what are we thinking?



1 dust per CP and then 1 per ship level? (I am intentionally being conservative because 5 dust per CP would really screw over my games and would lead me to dislike the game a hell of a lot just because some people cant manage a lot of ships.)

Velaux wrote:
Ship maintenance is far better than any sort of cap, because it means choices and dilemmas, as you say. I'd have no problem with that.



Never seen 100 fleets, not sure how people are getting those. I usually quit when the AI is beat tho - capturing all the planets is boring and pointless in any 4x.

CP cap was just the obvious first thought, like most people had - but first thoughts are not always the best ones

Ship maintenance is indeed far better - it's more appropriate to simulate an empire's strategy (like small trade empires fielding large armies) and various interaction of game mechanics.



100 fleets may be a bit exaggerated - but i had various battles between ~25 fleets in just one system, and thats already boring. Really large fleet stacks around 60-100 may be still possible in a multiplayer game, if the players incite one another in arms race.

Yeah, fleet maintenance is a real joke (Experienced ships should also cost more due to them being far more powerful then the originals), and industry is probably a little on the cheap side.

Kesat wrote:
Multiple attacks per turn wouldn't change anything. It's meaningless who's attacking if there are 100 fleets in one system fighting each other. If both sides are reasonably equal you have to fight every combat yourself. Over and over again. Where's the point to be the one attacking instead of defending?



Another possible solution maybe a massive (!) increase in ship maintenance, i'd say at least 10x (probably even more). Any empire which desires still may field a huge military, but it'd need a strong economy (that was unexpected! :sarcastic. Furthermore FIDS conversion (to dust) would be far more important, especially for empires with a weak economy.It may also add a cost-benefit calculation to war if there is a serious impact on system development, approval (due to high taxes) etc.

Ship maintenance is far better than any sort of cap, because it means choices and dilemmas, as you say. I'd have no problem with that.



Never seen 100 fleets, not sure how people are getting those. I usually quit when the AI is beat tho - capturing all the planets is boring and pointless in any 4x.

Kesat wrote:
It's simply annoying to fight fleet after fleet for a myriad each turn in just one war

Agreed. This is dreadfully boring.

9:55 is where i do my first battle, and its really fun to watch!

Velaux wrote:
A ship cap will just result in having huge amounts of FIDS with nothing to use it on.



Add multiple attacks per turn and perhaps some way to very quickly kill fleets you vastly outmatch. Reasses the situation after that. These are needed changes even if there were a ship cap.

It's true, that you have far less to to do with your FIDS - but honestly, thats a problem every 4X has if your cities/planets/systems/whatever are fully developed. Possible solution to this problem: increase importance of FIDS conversion as an strategic component (just an example).



Multiple attacks per turn wouldn't change anything. It's meaningless who's attacking if there are 100 fleets in one system fighting each other. If both sides are reasonably equal you have to fight every combat yourself. Over and over again. Where's the point to be the one attacking instead of defending?



Another possible solution may be a massive (!) increase in ship maintenance, i'd say at least 10x (probably even more). Any empire which desires still may field a huge military, but it'd need a strong economy (that was unexpected! :sarcastic. Furthermore FIDS conversion (to dust) would be far more important, especially for empires with a weak economy.It may also add a cost-benefit calculation to war if there is a serious impact on system development, approval (due to high taxes) etc.



Just as an example from another game (even if it's not 4X but grand-strategy) called Europa Universalis: having a (large) standing army was connected with serious expenses and was only possible for large, powerful countries with great tax income or trade empires (which would have to deal with inflation, but that's another story). Long waged wars were destined to fail, if income (and approval) broke down. And that's something ES is definitly missing in it's current state.