[Suggestion] Simple improvement to Trade!

from Sins Forums

With trade spam making up a large element of revenue from the early game on, I've been experimenting in an attempt to create a viable trade interdiction strategy.  As a counter it promises huge dividends, in both profit and damage to the opponents finances.  However I am still some way from being able to emulate Raging as the founder of a new playing style.  Even at one of the few suitable spots, a magnetic cloud in the middle of an enemy empire, micro is needed for interdiction to have any effect.

The problem is that the trade ships simply move too quickly.  They're quite sturdy even when they're not upgraded, but the basic problem is that they cross an unguarded gravwell too fast, and a small raiding force can't be lured into defences, or the strategy becomes unprofitable.

So why not slow them down?  The voyages aren't linked to the revenue from the ports any more, so its just a question of how vulnerable the ships are to be, rather than the effect on financial spreadsheets.  Merchant sailing ships could be faster than military counterparts, because they could afford to be more fragile, but since the age of steam warships have commonly been at least twice to three times as fast as cargo ships, because operation at speed costs money.  If the speed of the trade and refinery ships in the game were reduced to the equivalent, half or even a third of their present speed, counters to trade would be more viable.  If trade becomes more vulnerable techs like Ship Safety and Karmic Retribution become more viable.  Another improvement that would take almost no development time.

A slightly more complex improvement to trade would be to build in more reward for ice and volcanic planets, to offset the extra costs.  The standard rate could be reduced slightly- perhaps to 1- and then .1 added per ice/volcanic in the empire, for 'exotic goods'.  That might help to even up random starts with many volcanics.  As it is you seem to get little extra reward for these planets over a roid, unless the game gets to a stage when you can max the slots.  This would require coding though.          

46,421 views 9 replies
Reply #1 from Sins Forums Top

really, the only way to affect the economy of another enemy (at present) is to take out his planets... trade just doesnt do that much early game...

AND, as Sins tends to focus on planets moreso than Asteroid fields and random regions of space, there is really no way for you to have a small strike force behind enemy lines attacking their trade ships because the only places you can attack them (aside from enemy controlled planets) are UCGW's, which are few and far between on most maps, and usually form an exterior 'buffer' to an empire, not fill internal space...

the only thing i can think of is make most or all phase lanes include a random UCGW between two planets... perhaps the type of planet would dictate what type and number of UCGW to have... and create a new research tech that allows military ships to bypass UCGWs, or bypass planets by jumping from UCGW to UCGW (though they would have to be rather close together), but all civilian ships (including colony frigs) must route through the UCGW's...

this way size in Sins becomes fully realised without slowing the game down too much, and an assault on trade lanes behind enemy lines is feasible and even interesting

though, i doubt it will happen

Reply #2 from Sins Forums Top

With trade spam making up a large element of revenue from the early game on, I've been experimenting in an attempt to create a viable trade interdiction strategy.

That's not quite right.  Early-game trade is extremely overrated.  The AI is a very poor attacker, so you can often get away with this in single-player, but in multiplayer this is the fastest way to lose.  Late-game trade becomes insane, this is true, but early-game this is not the case, and unless one player begins in an isolated location even mid-game trade rarely makes up more than half of your total income.

DeskScapes - Bring your desktop background to life.
Reply #3 from Sins Forums Top

You really only need one planet and roid-free well amongst the trade routes to have a vulnerability to significant interdiction.  Also, if the trade ships were far slower there might be more of an opportunity to hit them at lightly guarded planets.

I suspect that Darvin's comments may be aimed more at 4s and 5s rather than 1v1?  Playing 1v1 its standard to have trade before the first battles with the enemy, though not necessary- of the stronger 1v1 replays I've seen only one player didn't have early trade?  Also it depends what you mean by early game.  But if you're one roid away from an enemy homeworld then trade may not be a great plan- even against the AI.

Trade might not make up more than half of income, or even nearly that, however depriving your opponent of a third of his income is a great plan!  What I'm reassured by, though, is that neither of you have objected that it would harm the game in any way.  If it's easy to implement, and there are no evident drawbacks, perhaps it might be good even if it won't affect every game?  I'd like the trade and refinery ship speeds reduced to about a third of what they are, my experiments suggest that it could be fun, and it might make a couple of unused techs more valuable.

There have been complaints that the second expansion doesn't bring much, but to be fair players don't seem to be using all of what we already have.  Mines could use help, especially TEC, and most of the defence techs have hefty price tags, enough to deter players who badly need more LRF to survive.  A general problem with most of the techs is that they just don't do enough!  Though the combat upgrades do have an effect, the game might be improved if they had an evident effect.  The civics upgrades would be scoffed at by players of most other RTS games.. a tech that takes 15 minutes to pay for itself?  That Advent resource focus I'm still unclear about- is the effect confined to a single grav well, or is it like a refinery, a tech used by none of the other factions anyway?  Is it a tech with a negative impact if it is used?  That is.. ungenerous.

I'd like to see the second expansion used to restructure the game.  Double the effect of refineries, and most of the civics upgrades, so that we get to see them in games.  Double the effect of the military upgrades as well, so that they become vital, like the military upgrades in most RTS, rather than a useful option, strong at later levels.  Change the counters system, with LF equal to or counter of LRF, heavies stronger against LF and LRF and LRF the counter to support rather than LF.  Then fast agile units would counter ranged units... and specialist units counter support units, like most RTS.  Cut the cost of turrets, hangars- and even starbases at the lower levels.  Improve mines.  Bring all the capitals up to the same level.  There's so much that can be done with what exists already, rather than complaining about stuff that won't appear that wouldn't be used anyway.  

I dunno, there are posts claiming that the game is much closer to balance and I can't understand the basis for them.  At 1v1 level, there is almost no balance or variation and most of the techs seem to be unused.  For the game to be balanced the top players would have to play 1v1 regularly with all factions, then 1v1 strategies would begin to emerge and be discussed on the forum, like most RTS.  Smurf 5s aren't advancing the game at all- are there any other RTS games where most of the multiplayer is large teams of players using temporary names to mess up the initial team selection?  A huge step forward would be if the second expansion would include one or two set 1v1 maps that weren't rush maps, balanced maps as large or larger than the random 1v1s.  Then a ladder might be possible that wasn't based on rush-only play, or the whim of the random map generator.  Mods will never be popular enough for multiplayer, its entirely up to the devs.  I wish they were more active on the forum.    

+1 Loading…
Reply #4 from Sins Forums Top

I wish they were more active on the forum.

I second this point completely

but i agree with what you are saying heaps, its like everything iv ever thought about Sins but havent had the time or patience to put into words... WELL DONE! totally agree

Reply #5 from Stardock Forums Top

Sounds like a good idea to me. Also IMO to make harassing better the owner of the trade ship should lose credits when it gets blown up = to credits another player gets when they blown it up. It would make protecting trade ships more important and makes going after enemy trade ships a better way too hurt a someone's economy

Reply #6 from Sins Forums Top

it already does ^^that^^ but like i said, planets generate so much 'untouchable' (as in you cant attack any ships to disrupt it) income that blowing up a trade ship or two wont get you much... i mean in a game where we routinely deal with thousands, tens of thousands and hundreds of thousands of credits and resources, whats destroying a trade ship going to do? the only way to make THAT worthwhile is to give you a percentage of his total income like 1-2% or something similar

Reply #7 from Stardock Forums Top

Or make trade ships carry an order of magnitude more credits. Maybe 6 OOM instead.

Reply #9 from Sins Forums Top

I'm not sure that you lose credits when a trade ship is destroyed, just future income.  It might be a further improvement if the trade ships were slower to contribute to finances once they had been destroyed, perhaps they should be slower to build.

I agree that the bounty should scale with the value of trade, perhaps use the same sort of formula as the trade route.  The pirate ships would be very useful for trade warfare if they could somehow be captured... or bought directly from the pirates?

Good to have the devs back on the forum, even if they seem a little secretive about the direction of the next patch!  If we are to get a balanced game it will probably take a few patches after all the assets have been finalised, I hope they can keep going.