empirecitizen

Vasari Phase stabilizers(gates) reduce trade income

▼

Vasari Phase stabilizers(gates) reduce trade income

no one seems to notice

from Sins Forums

According to the discussions in this forum, the formula of trade income seems to be:

constant A * No. of trade ships * No. of Jumps of the longest direct trade route (shown when you mouse over your credit'

or

constant A * No. of trade ships +  constant B * No. of jumps of longest direct trade route.

Either way, No. of jumps of the longest trade route affect the trade income whether as a direct multiple or a added bonus.  Ever since i knew this , it occurred to me that phase stabilizers could reduce the number of jumps of your  trade routes.

So I paid closer attention to my trade incomes before and after i start building those phase stabilizers. In the game i was playing against AI as Vasari on a medium map 'entanglement' (something like that) i expanded more or less linearly and built trade stations on each planet to form the longest trade lane that spans my entire empire. That gave me around 10.6/sec. I am 100 % sure that i did not loose planets or trade station that breaks the trade lane afterwards. However, once i built those phase stabilizers on some of my more important planet, my trade income decreased to around 9. I noticed the longest trade lane now go through my phase gate planets and trade ships fly along them. THIS  ACTUALLY REDUCE THE NUMBER OF JUMPS MADE BY THEM.

As a matter of fact, if you have expanded normally from one planet to another and attempt to exploit the longest trade route bonus by making a long chain of trade routes, building phase stabilizers will almost always reduce the number of jumps made by trade ships because they always provide more direct means of travel.

There are rare exceptions. When your empire is completely segmented by allied planets without trade stations or colonizable yet unbuildable (logistically) dead asteroids. Phase stabilizers can help you connect these pieces of your empire to create longer trade routes. Normally this is not the case, so the above case is more common.

Ironically , these phase gates are built to facilitate transportation. Yet, they reduce trade income.... Also, i noted that refinery ships do not make use of the phase lanes created by stabilizers, so they still only harvest mines that are 'naturaly' one jump away.

I know Vasari is not about trade and phase gates have those dark armada tech that give you free stuff that may even be scuttled but dark armada is some sort of endgame tech (some say it needs a nerf) nor do i like the idea that Vasari always have to rush to them. I'm fine if Phase stabilizers dont improve economy because of the mobility advantage they give to your fleet.... but a penalty? This sounds like building a Suez Canal that reduces trade income.....

20,830 views 33 replies
Reply #26 from Sins Forums Top
I have discovered a benefit to using the phase stabilizers for trade. The trade ships dont go through all those uncolonizable systems, ya know the ones where enemy fleets usually sit and pick off your trade ships. So they actually make trade safer. So you lose a couple points of income, who cares?. You get a perfectly safe trade route. Which to me suggests more profit., but Im not sure if you lose credits for destroyed trade ships Of course this is just my observations, if someone with a little more patience could run a test that would solve a few issues.
Reply #27 from Sins Forums Top
Are you patched up to 1.02, empirecitizen? At this point, it's the only reason I can think of that your results would vary so much from ours. Maybe you're running into a bug that's been fixed.
Sins of a Solar Empire: Rebellion
Reply #28 from Sins Forums Top
I have discovered a benefit to using the phase stabilizers for trade. The trade ships dont go through all those uncolonizable systems, ya know the ones where enemy fleets usually sit and pick off your trade ships. So they actually make trade safer. So you lose a couple points of income, who cares?. You get a perfectly safe trade route.

Yes, it makes your trade ships much safer, and as far as I can tell, it doesn't cost you any trade income.

but Im not sure if you lose credits for destroyed trade ships Of course this is just my observations, if someone with a little more patience could run a test that would solve a few issues.

Destroying trade ships does interfere with trade - details are in one of my earlier posts in this thread.

Reply #29 from Sins Forums Top
To the guy asking about how fast to Dark Armada -

I've seen it roll out 200 ships in around an hour of played time in multi-player... and you do not want to be on the receiving end of that if you aren't prepared.
Reply #30 from Sins Forums Top
This means that you can, in theory at least, disrupt enemy trade by continually destroying their trade ships.

Well, in THEORY this could happen. In practice, it seems unlikely. Trade ships primarily travel between planets of the owning empire, and do not typically make extended detours into random territory where someone can safely be shooting down. In practice, it is far easier and more plausible to disrupt enemy trade by blowing up their planets. Any force that is large enough to shoot down trade ships consistently before they can run away from you is going to be large enough to menace planets.
Reply #31 from Sins Forums Top
Norfleet,

If you have an economic treaty with another empire your trade ships will travel through "enemy" space using the shortest route possible. You can loose quite a few trade ships this way.

As far as the semi off topic subject of longer = more money. It is a lot more complicated than longer routes = more money is true or not (from a real world economic stance, anyways).

supply and demand are inverse or opposite of each other. As the price rises supply will increase but the demand will diminish. As the price falls the supply will drop, but the demand will increase. There is an equilibrium point in which supply meets demand and maximum benefit is reached.

In real-world trade there are too many factors to realistically develop a complete scenario. So economists use an "all things considered equal" umbrella to remove extra influences.

The lower number of inputs (cash, raw materials, jumps, time, etc) that is put into a product the quicker and cheaper someone can produce a product and therefore they will receive more profit if cost < sales price.

Traders that can ship goods faster (due to stabilizers) would get more money from trade than someone who has to go through multiple sectors. This assumes that there is only one trade good and one planet wants the one good and only one or very few planet(s) produces that one good. Which would prove that shorter routes should equal more money.

On the other hand though, if there are multiple goods to trade produced by multiple planets and desired by different planets, traders that go through multiple planets would earn more money as they trade as they go. Which would prove the longer routes = more money.

Don't forget that there is the supplier and buyer surpluses that can be monitored to determine the health and happiness of the interstellar market (which is another lesson for another time).

...Back on topic...

I believe that ICO has gone with an equation that determines income rates and the reduced income for the Vasari due to stabilizers is a balancing point for when the player gets the returning armada tech.

I hardly ever (and I mean maybe once an hour) build a ship once I get the returning armada tech going. That tech exponentially increases your economic output since you don't really spend any additional money on those ships (once you have recouped your cost of the research, fleet logistics and building the stabilizers) and allows you to focus your earned resources on other areas of your game.

phew. longest post ever...at least by me anyways.


Reply #32 from Sins Forums Top
This means that you can, in theory at least, disrupt enemy trade by continually destroying their trade ships.Well, in THEORY this could happen. In practice, it seems unlikely. Trade ships primarily travel between planets of the owning empire, and do not typically make extended detours into random territory where someone can safely be shooting down. In practice, it is far easier and more plausible to disrupt enemy trade by blowing up their planets. Any force that is large enough to shoot down trade ships consistently before they can run away from you is going to be large enough to menace planets.


They might have to pass through a Magnetic Cloud or something similar to follow the most direct non-PhaseGate route between planets. The enemy can sneak a single light carrier loaded with a fighter squadron into that sector and keep shooting trade ships as they come through the area. Only the TEC's Armored Trade Ships would survive the attacks, but fragile Advent Trade Drones and Vasari Trade Ships would get blown up in just 2 passes.
Reply #33 from Sins Forums Top
Although, why the hell does Longer Trade Route = More Money???


Because planets can come to exchange rare resources to optimze production = better income/less waste! ^^