Logo Platform
logo amplifiers simplified

[Suggestion] Scale System Improvement Upkeep Cost with System Size

Reply
Copied to clipboard!
12 years ago
May 19, 2012, 3:15:37 AM
Give each System Improvement a lower-than-current base dust cost but add an additional +1 for every colonised planet in the system. This would make the cost increase (roughly) with the amount of benefit gained from the per-pop techs, and make the static benefit improvements of considerably more value to low-planet systems. It also makes sense; It's harder to run infinite supermarkets for five planets than it is for one.



So a current 3 cost dust would have a base dust cost of 1. On a single planet system (or a system you are minimally exploiting) it is cheaper to keep up than current (1 + 1 = 2). Two planets, current cost (1 + 2 = 3). A 6 planet, fully terraformed monster of a system would be paying 7 dust total.



Additional variety could be added by varying if the cost increases; Moon-boosting improvements only count planets with moons, or hydrofarms could cost +2 instead of +1 for every "dry" planet.
0Send private message
12 years ago
May 21, 2012, 12:21:15 AM
Agreeing, both the main topic and the 'additional variety' ideas here look great to me.
0Send private message
12 years ago
May 30, 2012, 3:17:11 PM
Good ideas. The first one seems the most sensible way of handling/balancing improvement costs, more so than the current implementation.
0Send private message
0Send private message0Send private message
12 years ago
May 30, 2012, 5:15:05 PM
+1 Agreed. Right now it's a difficult decision to add improvements to a single planet system. Just played a map, where the first 3 star systems I colonized only had 1 total planet on them. Found a few other star systems with more planets, but the negative effects of colonizing them made it too expensive for me to justify in early game. Then I found out the Cravers where only 2 systems away... I didn't last long after that.
0Send private message
0Send private message0Send private message0Send private message0Send private message
12 years ago
Jun 1, 2012, 12:24:36 AM
It shouldn't be applied only to the upkeep, but maybe also to the industry cost to build the improvements ?



Also about the upkeep, would it depend of the number of planets in the system, or the number of planets you own in the system accorsding to you ?
0Send private message
12 years ago
Jun 1, 2012, 1:48:31 AM
Ones owned would make more sense, considering that two or more empires could occupy the same system. Realistically, the only infrastructure that you want to maintain is what you are using.
0Send private message
12 years ago
Jun 1, 2012, 8:26:52 AM
Photon_Ventdesdunes wrote:
It shouldn't be applied only to the upkeep, but maybe also to the industry cost to build the improvements ?




I have to say that I'm completely OK with smaller systems needing more time to build stuff. On one hand it's realistic (they simply don't have much manpower), on the other hand smaller systems have to have some drawbacks in my opinion.
0Send private message
12 years ago
Jun 1, 2012, 8:56:40 AM
Dinadan wrote:
I have to say that I'm completely OK with smaller systems needing more time to build stuff. On one hand it's realistic (they simply don't have much manpower), on the other hand smaller systems have to have some drawbacks in my opinion.




The manpower is your population. You can have 6 pop on one planet-system. They will work faster than 5 pop on a 4planets-system.
0Send private message
?

Click here to login

Reply
Comment