Logistics in GalCiv 1.2

I usually end up with 600B in a gigantic game(after culturizing) and in a smaller game 250B. Got over a trillion in one game I played tho.

I normally get well over a trillion in huge and gigantic maps. It's at about 400 - 600 billion in smaller maps.

Final results from three huge games (1 was 1.05, 2 were 1.1):

2154.2 pop 104 starbases
2763.2 pop 108 starbases
2431.6 pop 101 starbases

Hmm, pretty consistant, huh?

Perhaps more significant the point when I launched my latest cultural attack my population was 1003.9 and I had 63 starbases.

IMHO if the intent is to limit the strength of a massive cultural attack, your numbers are too high. Frankly, I don't understand limiting the number of starbases by population at all. After all, I can kill my cultural bases after the AI's have flipped, then build them again elsewhere -- I just never bother *wink*.

I read elsewhere that the point of charging a flat rate for starbases rather than per-module was to disadvantage humans early. Maybe there should be a flat fee in the $1000 - $5000 range for the initial construction, which could increase with range.

a) better value for the AI's -- they won't trade them as willingly.
much more difficult to build many early
c) doesn't penalize ostrich playing style, nor reward agressive playing styles
d) avoids the critical mass issues -- i flip 3, increase pop by 20% so I can flip 6 more

Cheers!

I've only recently been submitting my scores, however I've been playing since the first day it hit the shelves. I've also been toying around with everything.

I like playing the larger maps and I usually have a population over a trillion. The smaller maps usually between 400 to 600. 600 if I'm just fooling around.

Excellent feedback.

Basically what we're looking for is some way to keep the # of starbases under control. But we're not sure of a good mechanism yet.

how about one per sector for each race? Allowing for more than one resource though.
[Message Edited]

Me likey. This would solve many starbase abuses (especially by me) and result in a more realisic game all around.

Edit: BTW, my last game end up with a population of 1.9 trillion, playing on maso huge and culture flipping the A.I.


[Message Edited]

I on the other hand, and totally against the starbase limit. I hate being limited in any way. The only exception is maintanance. I like being able to have as much as I possibly can to do(see my perfect game).

The idea for one starbase per sector being that having two starbases in one sector belonging to one civ could be counter productive. One starbase is enough to provide a center of activity (whatever it may be) and having two would be expensive overkill. This is assuming that the starbases are not on a resource.

Having one starbase provides a place for traders and what-not to congregate. Having two starbases shouldn't increase the amount of traffic. It would just conceivably split the traffic between the two starbases. So with two you would be paying twice the maintenance, etc. etc., while still doing the same amount of business with one.

I personally find it cheasy to put more than one starbase in a sector (although I'm probably the king of it ). I don't believe a civilization would even consider such a thing. It would be counter productive cost wise. Let's say the U.S. becomes the world gov't. It's now the distant future and we're now a thriving space-based society. For what reason (other than possibly war) would the gov't put more than one starbase in a sector?

I'm looking forward to people shooting holes in what I just said LOL
[Message Edited]
[Message Edited]

Playing a medium map now. It is 2189 and I have 75 billion people.

Maso Huge
2186, 204B pop, 12 SBs.

Just below the 14 SBs that my pop would support under this system.



~SDC~

if it's one starbase per sector - maybe have a look at the rationale behind sector size and shape?

The number of starbases per sector might work with the current game mechanics, but.... I believe that Frogboy mentioned something about letting starbases have a circle of influence, rather than relying on imaginary (and artificial) sector lines.

If that idea were implemented (and most of the comments about it were very supportive), then the number of starbases per sector would be meaningless. In this case, the rule should be that no 2 starbases could have an overlapping area of influence.

yeah.....what Qui-Gon-Jinn said

He happened to phrase my idea better than I did LOL

Actually, I would say that if you move to a "Zone of influence" model for starbase effectiveness, the rule should not be 'No Overlap' but rather 'Larger Bonus Wins' within the overlapped range. Especially if there ends up being techs to increase your SB's zone of influence. You can build two starbases that overlap (or that end up with overlap after being enhanced), but if one of them has +25 trade and the other has +50, then the +50 is all you'll get in the overlapped area; and upping the first to a +50 won't do you any good in the overlap, either.

hmm.....if the starbases were recoded for spheres of influence and what not....wouldn't you pretty much need to do the same with planets/systems? I think the "sector" idea would have to be ditched in favor of some other idea that would take advantage of sphere influence.
[Message Edited]

For the current sector-based situation, though, having the "Zone of influence" defined as the SB's current sector would effectively mean that a second starbase is completely meaningless. I don't like that idea; artificially limiting the number of bases in a sector doesn't seem like the right way to go. It's like saying that you can't have more than one gas station on a block; while a gas station doesn't WANT a competitor across the street from it, two or three gas stations often do coexist in close proximity. They all suffer for it, I'm sure, but they don't all go out of business.

Maybe you'd want to take a page from the old "Diminishing returns" handbook. The maint cost of each starbase will still be 10bc, but for any sector with multiple bases, the bonus factor is determined thus:
sort SB bonus factors in decreasing order. Number them 1 through N. Total bonus = the sum for i = 1 to N of (bonus for starbase I)/I.

An example is probably in order:
Four starbases, trade bonuses of 50, 25, 50, 10. Arrange them in descending order: 50,50,25,10.
Divide each bonus by its position in the list:
50/1 = 50, 50/2 = 25, 25/3 = 8, 10/4 = 2.
Add the results: 50+25+8+2 = 85.
That's instead of getting 135 for straight addition. If you maxed out all four bases, instead of 200 you'd get 50+25+16+12=103.

I'd have to think more about what mechanisms could be used to limit starbase numbers... but I do think the number of modules should be taken into account somehow. A basic starbase used only to extend a ship's range shouldn't be counted the same as a party palace that's also mining a resource.

I guess I'm being more realistic than I should be...but......

Where would the extra influence come from? Let's say you got two starbases side by side, each one with a party palace. You go to one starbase, party it up, and leave happy. You go the the other starbase, party it up again, and NOW you're TWICE as happy??

From a military point of view having more than one starbase makes sense for obvious reasons.

Here...let me explain my theory (idea) this way......

You have one starbase in a sector. There is one inhabited planet in that sector. That planet has a pop. of 100m. That population goes to that starbase to live it up. So now you have that one starbase making 100m people happy.

Now you have two starbases in that same sector with the same planet etc etc. The population from the planet can't go to both starbases at the same time, ie: I can't be in Florida and California at the same time. So now the population, in effect, divides itself on which starbase it goes to. Both starbases (same civ) possess the same technology. Just for the sake of argument say that now the pop splits itself 50/50 on where it goes. Both groups will leave feeling exactly the same.

I'm not going to be happier if there are two Disney Worlds that are exactly the same. I can only experience one at a time. And why would I go to the other one if it's an exact duplicate of the one I'm already going to?

Here's some numbers:
100 pop
influence of 2 (or whatever # you like)
ONE STARBASE (starbase A)
100 x 2 = 200

TWO STARBASES (starbases A and
A) 50 x 2 = 100
50 x 2 = 100
add the two starbases "influence" together and viol'a! You get 200 still.
[Message Edited]

Let me try THIS way LOL

I own a restaurant in a park. People from the park come in and have a good time. I decide to build another restaraunt right next door to the one I already have. It's an exact duplicate. Everything is the same. My area of "influence" is still the park with the same people going to it. I'm not reaching people outside the park. Nobody from outside the park will come to my restaraunts. So I'm affecting the same amount of people. My "influence" hasn't changed an iota even though I now have two restaraunts.

So now I've just wasted money to offer something that I've already been offering before.

Am I making sense??

Yeah, I see what you're saying. But let's say they're two restaurants, but slightly different - mexican and thai. Once someone's there, they can only eat one meal. But the variety of choice could get more people there in the first place. Would you rather visit the Drengin Mall with two shops, or the Arcean Arcade with twenty?

Two party palaces might have the same amount of money spent on them, but slightly different themes. I agree with you that their influence shouldn't simply be doubled, but.

Using the economic reasoning of citahellion. You could think in terms of supply and demand, if there's 1 party palace x million people visit and then they go back home and tell their friends. However if there are 2 pp's then x+y million go there at the lower cost provided through competition. Some of the y's we're the ones that otherwise would have been only told by the x's, thus when they go home and tell THEIR friends the number of new friends told are less than in the first case. This is the law of diminishing returns, economics 101, as calculated on effect, even though the maintenance cost doubles the returns on your investement (2 instead of 1 pp's) doesn't yield twice the influence. In other words less bang for your buck .

I don't know if this is how the system works now but I think it's a feasible strategy, at least it's realistic.

[Message Edited]

Thank god you understood me....I wasn't sure if I understood me

Granted offering me more things (choices) will make me happy. Obviously the Arceans would have more of an effect on me. But would the Arceans adding anything new later on have much, if any, effect. They've already won me over.

I live in Central Florida, wich is like the Theme Park Capitol of the World. Disney has four parks here. Universal has two and Sea World has one (or two..not sure). I go to Disney all the time. Like it better than Universal and Sea World. They plan on making, I think, 3-4 new parks within 10 years. That really won't effect people here. We already go to Disney. So no change there. We'll be just as happy going to one Disney park as another. And I can only spend money in one place at a time.

Now for the tourists coming in they come to see everything and spend their money everywhere. They plan on going to see Universal for a day and check out Sea World for a day then go to Disney for a day. There may be more choices at Disney but the tourists will still spend the same amount of money no matter what Disney offers them.

That makes obvious sense.
So one starbase is not effecting the WHOLE population of a sector. Only part.