Fleet Upkeep costs » Forum Post by nickunavailable

No it has been made this way on pourpose. If you chose to go to the next level of fleet size, you must bare the cost. That way you can't jsut spam ships nonstop. You lose a sizeable fleet, it takes longer to rebuild because your income is reduced. This has been the intention of the game designers, and havign had seen this ina ction I fully support it.

Successfully updated karma reason!

I understand the point. I might be new to sins, but I'm not new to these types of games.

It's simply my opinion that a sliding scale based on actual, rather than potential, upkeep would make more sense.

Taking build times and reinforcement points (and traveltimes) into consideration, I don't think it would allow for spamming ships any more effectively.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Basically it's, "Are you sure you're ready to do this?"

...

"How about a date first?"

Successfully updated karma reason!

Quoting Kitkun,

reply 3

Basically it's, "Are you sure you're ready to do this?"

...

"How about a date first?"

Sure, pick you up at 7?... ... Don't hurt me!

*runs away*

Successfully updated karma reason!

The way I look at it, this is based on the Vasari improved phasic tranmission tech, what your paying for is the infrastructure to support that many ships. And I guess if you don't need all your government employees running administrative detail to support your fleet, you're still paying for their unemployment anyway.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Nick does have a point though. It makes it harder to stage a come back.

On the "stage a come back" topic... I scuttled a research temple and could not build another trader until it was replaced. Yep, I had the tech and had 3 traders up and running at the time.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Nick does have a point though. It makes it harder to stage a come back.

But, that's also the intention. The idea is that players should be careful with their fleets and playing smart, rather than throwing masses of units until eventually making a dent somewhere (see Command & Conquer) .. which is something a sliding upkeep model would encourage since it would allow you to easily rebuild the fleet. In late game on big maps, you could easily have 100+ credit income per second without heavy upkeep.

Successfully updated karma reason!

RonLugge

Join Date 05/2004

+50

On the "stage a come back" topic... I scuttled a research temple and could not build another trader until it was replaced. Yep, I had the tech and had 3 traders up and running at the time.

By design. You need to have the research facilities available for each stage of technology.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Idea #431,592.4

If you had the option to "downgrade" ship slots. It would cost you time and money, but would give you the opertunity of being able to at least have a fighting chance to defend your last few "fleet-to-expensive-to-build-while-being-endlessly-bombarded" remaining planets and to possably even stage a comeback from your rapidly shrinking empire.

Successfully updated karma reason!

By design. You need to have the research facilities available for each stage of technology.

(only for building new ships/buildings, all passive research like damage/hp modifiers keeps working when you lose the required number of labs)

Successfully updated karma reason!

The other snag is that it is a percentage of total income. I had my AI boxed into 2 worlds on a quickstrike map. They were still able to fleet up to about 800 or so fleet points. How the heck can they afford to build a fleet that massive on a 2 world budget I wondered. Well fleet upkeep is only a percentage of the total budget not a budget based on actual percentage of unit costs. I just don't think a 2 world faction should be able to build an armada that massive.

of course I was the dummy that gave them the time to do it so....

Successfully updated karma reason!

Quoting mbaron888,

reply 11

The other snag is that it is a percentage of total income. I had my AI boxed into 2 worlds on a quickstrike map. They were still able to fleet up to about 800 or so fleet points. How the heck can they afford to build a fleet that massive on a 2 world budget I wondered. Well fleet upkeep is only a percentage of the total budget not a budget based on actual percentage of unit costs. I just don't think a 2 world faction should be able to build an armada that massive.

of course I was the dummy that gave them the time to do it so....

Are you sure about it being a percentage of your present income? As I understand your statement the maintenance cost would change based on income only and not on numbers and types of ships built. I've noticed that when going to the next level that the cost instantly increases and I certainly had assumed that it was based on applying the new percentage to the existing fleet elements based on their current construction costs. I know that once the level is activated and the instant increase is seen that as I build new ships the maintenance cost does increase further.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Quoting mbaron888,

reply 11

The other snag is that it is a percentage of total income. I had my AI boxed into 2 worlds on a quickstrike map. They were still able to fleet up to about 800 or so fleet points. How the heck can they afford to build a fleet that massive on a 2 world budget I wondered. Well fleet upkeep is only a percentage of the total budget not a budget based on actual percentage of unit costs. I just don't think a 2 world faction should be able to build an armada that massive.

of course I was the dummy that gave them the time to do it so....

If you gave them the time then you cant complain they built a large fleet. Are you suggesting a maximum fleet supply based on number of planets?

Successfully updated karma reason!

Quoting Annatar11,

reply 10

By design. You need to have the research facilities available for each stage of technology.
(only for building new ships/buildings, all passive research like damage/hp modifiers keeps working when you lose the required number of labs)

See, I think that losing labs should affect passive modifiers like mining/armor as well. Then raiding labs would be an even better tactic than it is now, helping you into the mid and late game as opposed to just the early game to stop a rush.

It would also force you to make redundant labs. Right now, I never have to build more than 8 of each.

Successfully updated karma reason!

See, I think that losing labs should affect passive modifiers like mining/armor as well. Then raiding labs would be an even better tactic than it is now, helping you into the mid and late game as opposed to just the early game to stop a rush.

IF that were the case, then it should only apply to new ships being built. Technically as u get new armour/ammo upgrades the ships are retro-fitted, but once they have the upgrade and u lose the technology for it, that doesn't mean the existing models of that technology automatically dissappear. I THINK that makes sense

Successfully updated karma reason!

Quoting Annatar11,

reply 7

Nick does have a point though. It makes it harder to stage a come back.

But, that's also the intention. The idea is that players should be careful with their fleets and playing smart, rather than throwing masses of units until eventually making a dent somewhere (see Command & Conquer)

I thought I micro-ed combat enough that it was pretty effective against the AI opponent, so it's not as if I'm spamming cobalts then wondering why I just got owned Then again, I'm sure I still have a lot to learn.

.. which is something a sliding upkeep model would encourage since it would allow you to easily rebuild the fleet

Sure seems like the AI can spam carriers pretty darn fast though...

Successfully updated karma reason!

Idea #431,592.4

If you had the option to "downgrade" ship slots.

Not that I mind the current state too much but this is the idea that I've always stood behind.

If the rationale behind the current upkeep model is that you're keeping facilities open to support X capacity, it would make sense that an empire would be able to mothball those facilities in favor of other projects (for a price, of course).

Successfully updated karma reason!

Quoting ,

quoting post

I'm finding a bit of imbalance with the game's fleet upkeep system. It seems that it's based on total available crew capacity, not USED crew capacity. I'm not entirely sure this makes a lot of sense to me.

Say you've used all your available fleet capacity, and begin a large engagement with most of your fleet. The enemy reinforces more quickly or effectively than you do, and you're forced to retreat with substantial losses.

Now, you find yourself in a position with decent enough credit income, but are extremely stunted in your ability to rebuild fleet as such a large chunk of income is lost to "fleet upkeep".

Seems more like you're paying for the ability to build x amount of ships, when in fact you do not own (or can afford) x amount of ships.

I think it makes sense to have to research the ability to increase your fleet capacity, however I think the actual upkeep cost should be based upon ships owned, not on such a seemingly inefficient scale as it is now.

My nub .02 anyways.

so, what you are proposing is that the fleet upkeep be dynamic? based on the amount of ships you have? so I am guessing the breakup point on which you will be charged would be based on the research?

Successfully updated karma reason!

Pretty much, yeah.

You'd still have to pay increasing costs to get higher levels of capacity, but the upkeep cost itself would be based upon total fleet you currently own.

In keeping with the comment about being able to just spam ships out after losing them, perhaps add some sort of modifier to the upkeep research, so that it would increase by a certain % automatically with each research upgrade (as it sort of does now) while still being based upon the number of ships you had.

That way, you'd still pay more to be able to *potentially* build more ships, but it wouldn't be as steep as it is currently.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Quoting Tom Porter,

reply 12

Are you sure about it being a percentage of your present income? As I understand your statement the maintenance cost would change based on income only and not on numbers and types of ships built.

Yes that is it exactly. The fleet level is pecentage of total income. You can see this by rolling the mouse over the credit box at the top.

To Myles:

quote "If you gave them the time then you cant complain they built a large fleet. Are you suggesting a maximum fleet supply based on number of planets?"

No not at all. I don't want it changed. And I was wasting time building cap ships thinking I would harass them at will. The AI had other plans. Like I said I gave them the time. No complaints.

Successfully updated karma reason!