I always disliked the magic dust upgrades. I would much prefer to have to use systems with sufficient resources to modify existing ships.



I would like to add another idea, scrapping ships could contribute part of their build cost, say a fourth or so, to whatever is being built on the system not to exceed the number of points of industry that system generates on its own

ørret wrote:
I dont like the idea of getting hands on the "retrofit with industry" possibility so late in game. Its illogical. Why do i have the tech to build complete spacecrafts and to move them in-and out hangar as i wish rigth on the beginning of the game while i need some sophisticated tech researched in order to be able to stuff some other weapons in?

I removed the option to avoid exploits, such as mass producing unarmed destroyers everywhere and then sending them to your one big production centre to kit them all out far faster than they could be built back in their home systems or your single production system could hope to build the more advanced version fresh off the production line. I'm sure you could balance it in other ways, but why even entertain the possibility?

Veneke wrote:
I removed the option to avoid exploits, such as mass producing unarmed destroyers everywhere and then sending them to your one big production centre to kit them all out far faster than they could be built back in their home systems or your single production system could hope to build the more advanced version fresh off the production line. I'm sure you could balance it in other ways, but why even entertain the possibility?

Well see to me, even that concept is an interesting one. It would be balanced somewhat, in terms of travel time, and tactical complication to set something up like that. Also, you would need to make an unfitted destroyer design, then queue up a bunch of them, and then upgrade the fit in order for it to be done.



At the same time though, its not actually an exploit at all. I mentioned in the original post that a player should pay 100% of the industry cost, plus an additional percentage (anywhere from 10% to 50%, depending on needed balance) for switching weapons. Thus, if the system were done that way, a player would actually spend more industry in building ships, and retrofitting them later. Factor in travel time, and no matter which way you slice it, you're actually being less efficient when making ships in one system, and retrofitting them in another.

Yes, however something like this would be implemented, it should NOT be modeled on the current discounted retrofit concept-- which really needs to be replaced by at least a cost-differential-plus-percent-of-total-cost-fee type system.



Right now, making tiny changes to a design costs the same as taking an empty hull and turning it into a fully-fit warship. Frustrating on one end, exploitable on the other.

SomeoneStrange wrote:
Well see to me, even that concept is an interesting one. It would be balanced somewhat, in terms of travel time, and tactical complication to set something up like that. Also, you would need to make an unfitted destroyer design, then queue up a bunch of them, and then upgrade the fit in order for it to be done.



At the same time though, its not actually an exploit at all. I mentioned in the original post that a player should pay 100% of the industry cost, plus an additional percentage (anywhere from 10% to 50%, depending on needed balance) for switching weapons. Thus, if the system were done that way, a player would actually spend more industry in building ships, and retrofitting them later. Factor in travel time, and no matter which way you slice it, you're actually being less efficient when making ships in one system, and retrofitting them in another.

The fact that it is difficult to do doesn't make it any less of an exploit, really. Travel time? Maybe a factor but I doubt it. That aside, you could work with % cost differentials for upgrades sure. I just decided that it would be better to avoid the hassle of figuring that out and then balancing that.

Veneke wrote:
The fact that it is difficult to do doesn't make it any less of an exploit, really. Travel time? Maybe a factor but I doubt it. That aside, you could work with % cost differentials for upgrades sure. I just decided that it would be better to avoid the hassle of figuring that out and then balancing that.

I don't see the point. Retrofit with industry still costs "industry" and of course the cost for the retrofit should be linked to the cost of the retrofittet equipment and should not be kind of a "flat-rate" as it is implemented now where it doesnt matter if you just ad one gun or completely fill an empty ship hull with armor.



And if you decide to build the ship hull in one system and retrofit it in another...well why not? This is no real exploid, the only benefit in doing so would be to share the production of one ship between two system (one produces the hull and the other produces the equipment). This is exactly what happens in modern industry (e.g. car manufacturing).

My concern is that mass-producing loads of empty hulls and shipping them to a big production system will see substantially quicker production rates, particularly of destroyers, early in the game which the AI is unlikely to be able to replicate. Given that early advantages tend to snowball if the AI can't handle it, it's probably best avoided. Plus the fact that I thought it was not an intended function of the retrofit with industry option.

I don't think the mass producing of empty hulls is an option for anyone... yes you can do it but to be effective you have to wait and collect all your empty built ships, concentrate them in one system, then upgrade the hull design, THEN retrofit with industry... that's kinda complicated and if you factor the added cost of industry in to retrofit, then you'll be balanced,



By the way, what is the cost for an empty destroyer class and for a full upgraded one ? ( industry points I mean by that) wasn't it around 200 for empty, and 400 -500 for a full upgraded one ?



I don't think that would be feasible for anyone, you effectively block another system from producing upgrades ( which you should not do at the beginning stage of the game )

There's absolutely no reason why a well-designed retrofit system needs to allow any such exploits. The cost to retrofit should always be MORE than the difference in hull cost, so total production with some kind of distributed industry- or dust-based retrofit scheme should always be lower/more expensive.



The current system is so highly flawed because it doesn't take cost difference (or module type changes) into account, which is why it's so terrible for small retrofits and so broken for huge ones.

This has been added to summary list for Dev Team to consider under Interfaces > UI - Docking Fleets for repair/Retrofit

jetkar wrote:
This has been added to summary list for Dev Team to consider under Interfaces > UI - Docking Fleets for repair/Retrofit

I think it is too much micromanagement to have to put ships in docks to speed up the repair process. What is really the benefit?

Veneke wrote:


3. Starbase = Provides large flat HP/turn. Small % discount (dust) to retrofits, needed to perform Industry-only retrofits. Very expensive to build and maintain. Available around Battleships?

I dont like the idea of getting hands on the "retrofit with industry" possibility so late in game. Its illogical. Why do i have the tech to build complete spacecrafts and to move them in-and out hangar as i wish rigth on the beginning of the game while i need some sophisticated tech researched in order to be able to stuff some other weapons in?

Shivetya wrote:
I would like to add another idea, scrapping ships could contribute part of their build cost, say a fourth or so, to whatever is being built on the system not to exceed the number of points of industry that system generates on its own

This is a great idea. It would surelly improve the gameplay.

I would just love to be able to retrofit my ships with new modules instead of scrapping them and building new ones.

Shivetya wrote:
I always disliked the magic dust upgrades.

Just replace "Dust" with "Mana" and viola you've got first (?) magic space 4X game.

ChillingTouch wrote:
Just replace "Dust" with "Mana" and viola you've got first (?) magic space 4X game.

...that's even the vaguely official explanation, isn't it, with dust Dust being sufficiently advanced nano-tech magic.

WhatGravitas wrote:
...that's even the vaguely official explanation, isn't it, with dust Dust being sufficiently advanced nano-tech magic.

LOL I see the protagonist screaming..... OMG Dust is Endurium....

GJDriessen wrote:
I think it is too much micromanagement to have to put ships in docks to speed up the repair process. What is really the benefit?

This basically - your suggestions could be done much more efficiently just by having damaged ships automatically steal industry points while repairing in a friendly system.

Shouldn't be too complicated whatever it is. Rather than putting your ships in hangars for repairs they could perhaps stay in orbit and have dockyards there... otherwise one may lose oversight of where one's ships are etc. A simple repair option connected to dust or industry would do...