I'm a new player, but something that I found really stupid is that by adding the Tonnage Module to your ship, it increases the cost of your ship by almost 200%. Not only that, but it I've also seen the base Tonnage values for other modules also increase. So what were the developers thinking when they calculated this? Tonnage just magically increases on all Modules? What quantum physics does this fall under?



If I double the cost of my ship by adding a Tonnage Module, I should at the very least be able to add an Engine Module.

Sheldon: Why are you crying?

Penny: Because I'm stupid!

Sheldon: That's no reason to cry. One cries because one is sad. For example, I cry because others are stupid, and that makes me sad.

Right Click and select View Image to see better.

Bad213Boy wrote:
I'm a new player, but something that I found really stupid is that by adding the Tonnage Module to your ship, it increases the cost of your ship by almost 200%.

It's always nice to have strategic resources in abundance. If you possess 4+ units of Hexaferrum, the industry cost of Advanced containers = (340/100)*40 = 136

Bad213Boy wrote:
Not only that, but it I've also seen the base Tonnage values for other modules also increase.

if X>Y

10% out of X > 10% out of Y

if X>Y

10% out of X > 10% out of Y

Then why isn't all the Modules, including weapons effected?



There shouldn't even be a Tonnage Module. I can pump out twice the amount of ships for the price it costs to add the Tonnage Module. And what, you gain a few more weapons or 1 armor? If you're playing multiplayer and you're using the Tonnage Module, you're gonna get smoked. There's absolutely no logical reason to even have this wasted function in the game.



Why not just make it extra Cargo Module. Buy X Cargo Modules, get X modules. Maybe 1 extra cargo gives you 2 weapons, or 1 armor, or 1 what ever. Maybe 2 extra cargo holds give you an Engine Module. I might pay double for the just the Engine Module, but it's so dumb the way it's setup right now.

Vicarious wrote:
It's always nice to have strategic resources in abundance. If you possess 4+ units of Hexaferrum, the industry cost of Advanced containers = (340/100)*40 = 136

Did not know. Thanks for that info. But Tonnage Modules still = 200% for nothing of value, lol.

A simple fix to this would be to make modules that take up a %age of weight, take up a %age of base weight instead.

You use tonnage when you want to pack more on your ships and don't care about the added cost. It lets you make stronger ships which(if designed right) are harder to kill and (should) last longer than ships without the extra bells and whistles. It is expensive but the reward is worth it IMO.



Modules increase in cost because they are calculated based on total tonnage of the ship. You'll see all modules increase on ships that have more tonnage, they will also increase when you research bonuses to ship tonnage. I'm assuming this is a balancing mechanic. For engines this makes total sense, you need a bigger engine to power a heavier ship. For the other mods I'm not sure I understand the logic.... but there it is

kalthas wrote:
You use tonnage when you want to pack more on your ships and don't care about the added cost. It lets you make stronger ships which(if designed right) are harder to kill and (should) last longer than ships without the extra bells and whistles. It is expensive but the reward is worth it IMO.



Modules increase in cost because they are calculated based on total tonnage of the ship. You'll see all modules increase on ships that have more tonnage, they will also increase when you research bonuses to ship tonnage. I'm assuming this is a balancing mechanic. For engines this makes total sense, you need a bigger engine to power a heavier ship. For the other mods I'm not sure I understand the logic.... but there it is

If this is true, then why are the Weapon Modules not increasing? I don't have a picture of it, but have a look for yourself in game. If you want, I guess I can post a picture to prove it. But Bombs have a tonnage increase, and Civilian, Weapon/Defense, Siege and Special Modules don't? Ya that makes sense. It's clearly a generic move to fix imbalance issues. Frankly I think it sucks and could be a lot better IMO. It just looks and feels sloppy the way it is now.



lol

Bad213Boy wrote:
If this is true, then why are the Weapon Modules not increasing? I don't have a picture of it, but have a look for yourself in game. If you want, I guess I can post a picture to prove it. But Bombs have a tonnage increase, and Civilian, Weapon/Defense, Siege and Special Modules don't? Ya that makes sense. It's clearly a generic move to fix imbalance issues. Frankly I think it sucks and could be a lot better IMO. It just looks and feels sloppy the way it is now.



lol

Weapon and defense modules for example are flat rate. They cost the same no matter what (not including bonuses and penalties for ship class). Power and engine modules are %age of weight. Go to your tech tree and hover over a better power module. Its tonnage will be listed as a % of weight.

I know it's there. But it's a bad game design IMO. It might look good on paper, but it looks stupid in a game. Why not make Weapons a % of the ships weight too then? More cannons should equal more weight right? It just doesn't make sense to only limit non Weapon/Defense Modules. It'd be fine if everything was effected, but because the game involves loading ships up with weapons they take that part of the game out. It should be an all or none mentality.



The idea of making more compartments for more Modules is what makes sense. If this game is trying to be very technical, then go all the way, don't half arse it. For Heroes, you can actually invest in an ability to give you more ability points, why can't we invest in more space for more Modules?

I can only assume that the designers are full aware of this difference between tonnage values. It makes sense for them to have different mechanics. The weapons don't increase in power on a larger ship. The modules DO increase in effectiveness!



Example:

1 power module increases the weapon damage a % amount.



If you have 5 pew pews they get increased by an amount but if you have the space to put 10 pew pews the module boosts their effectiveness by double. It therefor makes sense that the tonnage of said module should increase.



Having weapons on a % of tonnage scale would eliminate the advantage of having larger ships.

Bad213Boy wrote:
If this is true, then why are the Weapon Modules not increasing? I don't have a picture of it, but have a look for yourself in game. If you want, I guess I can post a picture to prove it. But Bombs have a tonnage increase, and Civilian, Weapon/Defense, Siege and Special Modules don't? Ya that makes sense. It's clearly a generic move to fix imbalance issues. Frankly I think it sucks and could be a lot better IMO. It just looks and feels sloppy the way it is now.

Support Modules



Engines are percentage based because you need a bigger engine to propel a bigger ship. Which is realistic assuming the ship doesn't go in atmosphere.



The power required for a bigger ship is larger than that for a smaller ship, and thus this too, is percentage based. However, it's completely useless, because the extra power it provides is less than the extra power provided by just placing more guns for the same tonnage. 25% bonus power for 20% tonnage means you need to fill your whole ship with guns, apart from the part reserved for the power module, before it turns a profit (which means it never can, you just break even!), better power modules (45% bonus) means you only need to fill about half of your ship with guns, but when do you ever do that? Since you'll most likely want at least an engine on there, which is already another 20%, then include the power module, and you'll still only have such a marginal profit at the cost of not having any defenses at all. Power module = pointless!



You need more armor to cover a bigger ship and thus this too, scales with the ship size. At least, as long as you want to keep the density the same, which they don't in the game. So, in other words, the health gain should scale with the ship as well. If it makes a small ship twice as tough, it only makes a massive ship 25% as tough as it stands. To be entirely accurate, the tonnage of this component should scale sublinearly, but I think that would break too many people's minds (but maths is so fun!)



Sensors also scale with the ship size, but this makes absolutely no sense. A sensor is a sensor, whether on a big ship or a small one, this component should not scale.



Repair also scales, which makes sense so long as it also scales the damage repaired each turn. Since it does this, the scaling is justified. However, I would much prefer to see the component not scale (and neither should the damage repaired), so you can personally decide how much your ships should repair themselves.



Weapons and defense



Reflective armour should scale sublinearly, just like armour, and for the same reason. It should not become more effective though, because its reflectivity is determines how effective it is (whereas with armour, it should scale because armour makes a ship %tougher).



Shields should also scale without providing more protection because a bigger ship requires a bigger shield to protect it. However, a bigger shield is not necessarily more effective at stopping incoming fire. This component could either scale linearly, if you think that only the radius of the shield should matter, or quadratically if you think that the surface area of the shield should matter. Both have merits.



Flak modules should not scale, because a bigger ship does not need a bigger flak gun to shoot down missiles.



Weapons, finally, should not scale, because they come in standard size units that do a certain amount of damage. Standardised components allow for faster and cheaper construction, and thus it's unlikely each ship will get custom fitted guns.



Special Modules



Most of these should either scale their power with their tonnage, or not scale both. I don't know what they do in the game, haven't used them yet.



But hey, that's just what makes sense!

All I have to say is that it can costs anywhere from 6-15 Weapon Modules for either 1 Power Module or 1 Engine Module. It costs 8 Weapon Modules when adding the Tonnage Module. There's clearly something wrong here with the entire tonnage system.

I found this issue like you did, but the solution is very simple.



Just don't use any Tonnage Module when building ships, only do it with upgrading your fleets before an upcoming or important battle because you need all the tonnage X ships you can get to win the battle.



After you can build ships much faster and don't care about the cost, you can put the Tonnage Module on.



About the design, I think it is realistic and logical. Putting more things into a ship is more difficult, have you been on a submarine? I have.



And the technologies "Tonnage + XX %," I think in Endless Space universe, they might work in a different way?



You can ask anyone in industrial design or managing cargo ships..."Tonnage Module" costs, it does.

Bad213Boy wrote:
All I have to say is that it can costs anywhere from 6-15 Weapon Modules for either 1 Power Module or 1 Engine Module. It costs 8 Weapon Modules when adding the Tonnage Module. There's clearly something wrong here with the entire tonnage system.

Maxed out tonnage tech means it costs 8x a weapon module... For space to put 12 weapons.



It's expensive because it's not intended to be used on throwaway ships. You use it for the massive advantage adding 50% tonnage to a 1CP ship gives.

cgboy2003 wrote:
I found this issue like you did, but the solution is very simple.



Just don't use any Tonnage Module when building ships, only do it with upgrading your fleets before an upcoming or important battle because you need all the tonnage X ships you can get to win the battle.



After you can build ships much faster and don't care about the cost, you can put the Tonnage Module on.



About the design, I think it is realistic and logical. Putting more things into a ship is more difficult, have you been on a submarine? I have.



And the technologies "Tonnage + XX %," I think that is simply expanding the size of a ship, not like Tonnage Module.



You can ask anyone in industrial design or managing cargo ships..."Tonnage Module" costs, it does.

Tonnage +XX% increases total tonnage of the ship. The module adds base tonnage. Which means that the flat +25 is equivalent to +25% tonnage on a 1CP ship. It benefits from the tonnage techs just like the tonnage of a ship does.

Autocthon wrote:
Tonnage +XX% increases total tonnage of the ship. The module adds base tonnage. Which means that the flat +25 is equivalent to +25% tonnage on a 1CP ship. It benefits from the tonnage techs just like the tonnage of a ship does.

Hmm, I know how it works. I just try to explain the possible reasons why the Tonnage Module costs so much but the technologies "Tonnage + XX %" just don't.



Maybe the Tonnage Module is some super advanced way to squeeze spare room from original ship structures...so it has to cost so much? 200%...?

Commander wrote:
A simple fix to this would be to make modules that take up a %age of weight, take up a %age of base weight instead.

exactly, I also think this would be patched/fixed quickly as the current state of things simply lowers the value of tonnage modules.