What would be nice are MORE levels of fleet cap and capital ship cap research, so that we can raise our fleet caps at the cost of even MORE punishing levels of upkeep. If you're a huge empire, you can afford 99% upkeep for another maybe thousand fleetcap, right? The punishment would likely be too brutal for a smaller empire to bear.

I don't know if it's been mentioned yet but the reduction in income from planets further out is somewhat counter balanced by the increased income from trade the larger your empire is. The larger you make your trade lines stretch the more income you get per trade building. While I haven't played on huge yet, the large game I recently finished I was at max fleet and had no problem making money.

That said, considering the game still can take a very long time to finish even once you have over half the map I appreciate that there's still challenge there and it's not an automatic win otherwise those last 5 hours or so would be pretty boring.

hey guys, boradcast centers and trade ports, more trade ports = more profit.

More broadcast centers= more alleigence= more profit.

I like the fleet cap / income tax principle.

It acts as a damping force on the ability to project power (which otherwise would grow exponentially as you expand), and also the ability to replenish losses. This helps the game scale to a wide variety of map sizes effectively. It also somewhat damps out the dominance of a slightly larger empire over a smaller one (or a collection of smaller ones).

However - the fleet cap only scales effectively up to its maximum value. The result is, as highlighted by the OP, that on very large maps several smaller factions may have the same size fleet (each..) as a single much larger faction, leaving the larger empire without a realistic defense should their opponents choose to join forces - even if his empire is physically larger than the combined enemy territory.


The solution to this is to scale the fleet cap with the map size (in terms of # planets). I see two fundamental solutions:

* A fixed, global solution: Scale the fleet cap sizes with the map size. Once the map has been generated, the fleet caps are fixed for everyone. This will allow the largest empires to field reasonable forces on even the largest maps, without altering the current dynamic.

* A dynamic, local solution: Scale the fleet cap with the size of the empire. One example of this would be, increasing each of the fleet caps by a given percentage for every planet gained. Eg, Terran planet +5%, desert +4%, astroid +2% etc. The initial fleet cap could be smaller than the current, reaching the current cap at an empire size of about 20 planets or so.


Anyway, like I said, I do think the fleet cap is good in principle, but it has an inherent limit related to map size and maximum fleet cap.

This is an OBVIOUS fix and I am not sure what the reasoning behind the "one size fits all" INSANITY that prevailed at the publishing point."

ALL though the implementation of this could differ

The graduated penalties as in place:

Should be in ratio with the number of available planets and the empire "allegiance" penalties should ALSO scale with the size of the map.

Placing a static Fleet Cap doesn't flex with the research tree decision for resource extraction upgrade.

UNIT SWARMING to bring down someones elses machine would be a problem BUT those individuals shouldn't be playing on such HUGE maps. just play medium sized maps. The game dynamics are elementary enough that there is no bigger fun factor on 100+ planet maps...they just TAKE LONGER TO PLAY.

I'm not highly experienced, but has anyone mentioned the possibility of just enabling the player to "retract" fleet logistics advancements? This would keep you producing at a higher rate if you lose a good chunk of your fleet. It would be similar to upkeep costs on a per-ship basis, but not as cumbersome to manage.

Would also be much more realistic in my opinion. If our military is deployed somewhere with supply lines and other such infrastructure set up for a large force, if the force gets defeated, we would obviously pull the supply lines and infrastructure back so that it's not a burden.

Maybe this has already been discussed?

i don't kno if someone said this already but f u make a culture radio center or wat ever those things are it slowly brings up allgince to youre far away planets as well

This is exactly the reason that it is not available.

If it were possible, the optimum strategy would be to build a huge fleet, send it into battle, and leave it there until completely annhiliated. Then retract the fleet cap for a 4x boost to income, and just sit back for 10/15 minutes while the credits roll in. Then upgrade once again, and rebuild the fleet quickly.

This would always beat out a player that maintained a good-sized fleet constantly (which shouldn't be the case - nothing good should come from deliberately wasting ships on a massive scale)

Having the fleet cap non-retractable adds another strategic element to the game: Upgrade your fleet too early and you will stifle your economy. Upgrade too late, and your empire will be over-run, despite you being rich.

Yes, but only by a maximum of 10%. Distant planets will still have a maximum alligence of 35% (25% + 10% from the BC).

It's true, the culture loss rate should technically scale with the problem size for consistency, but I don't think it's too big of an issue. Refinary and trade income doesn't reduce with culture, so your ability to generate resources still scales linearly with the number of planets you own.

Well it's easy enough to limit the extent to which you could retract logistics. Perhaps limiting you to go back no further than one step below the maximum you've ever achieved. This relatively small (10-15%) difference isn't going to make a player in that situation completely dominant, ESPECIALLY with no ships left. OR you could have a graduated system where you could retract 1 fleet logistic position for every 10 mins of game time, or something like this. This would still make the loss of all those ships absolutely crippling for a time, but your empire would eventually get back to its economic mode of operation and start producing again if your ship count stayed low.

Also, more realistic fleet maintenance costs don't exactly reward you for losing ships, you've still lost the ships and all the defense they provide, so now your massive empire is easily nibbled away.

I really just don't see what's wrong with a per-ship maintenance system based on the units that the ship cost to build, as another poster mentioned earlier. This is basically the system used in GalCivII and it seems to work fine there. But if a per-ship maintenance upkeep is too cumbersome in an RTS game, then I think a _slightly_ scaling fleet logistic system could work.

Wow. This has been one of most interesting threads I've read on these boards. Can't help but throw myself onto the fire here.

This has probably already been said (can't remember with sooo many posts) but I think that fleet cap should be based on population size. Obviously a larger empire with a larger population to call on to would be able to field a larger army. I believe I saw a previous post with a similiar idea of having each planet type adding a number to your fleet supply. I like that idea but would tweak that number to reflect your current population on those planets.

Maybe even treat fleet supply like a resource that takes time to build up to represent having to recruit and train new soldiers but would eventually cap out at a number based on your total population. As fleet are assigned to ships, the fleet supply cap would "lower" to reflect those spots being taken. As you lose ships in battle, the cap gets those numbers "back" allowing you to use them again. But since it would be treated like a resource, you don't automatically get points instantly, it'll need to refill based on it's growth rate. There could even be tweaks to fleet tech that enhances how fast your fleet supply would go up. Hope I wrote that out to make any sense.

Another possibility could be having each star system have a fleet cap which would scale on how far away it is from your capital planet's system. Bringing ships from one system into another would affect the cap so players wouldn't be able to make one huge uber-force. This would let players field a good offense and leave a good defense behind them. You may say this leaves "smaller" empires with no chance but they have every opportunity to do the same thing. However, I have no idea how this would effect economy and that may be why such a scheme wasn't implemented in the game.

Thoughts?

Actually that does make sense when you think about game play too.... If a player with cap fleet got destroyed for example, with all the up keep he's paying, how is he going to rebuild his army? I think basing the upkeep on your actual unit will gives much more chance of recovering from such loss.