I think the current income penalty for supply upkeep doesn't make sense. If a massive fleet gets taken out the supply upkeep should drop, not stay at the same level. This allows for recovery and a chance for the player to come back. Instead of having set upgrades I think upkeep cost should increase as a function of number of ships active and also decrease accordingly. What do you guys think?
its an age old debate
one that the devs came out and said
nope it aint going to change
personally I don't mind it, can even make sense when you consider that you are paying for things like the stations/ammo dumps/refueling points for the ships and they are supposed to be much more permanent
Devs said this is like this to make you think about just sending your massive fleet meatgrinder style into the enemy. Also it forces players to expand their econ.
At any rate, Ryat explained it well. Your not playing for ships, but the behind the scene stuff required to field a fleet.
The whole point of upkeep is to bring the game to an end if you do take too many casualties. Especially in the late game when 100 credits per second after upkeep is very normal, games would never end without this feature.
I agree with the OP, it doesnt make sense not just because what you said, but also because player with better econ pays MORE for THE SAME amount of ships than player with worse econ (since FS in set as percentage) - that is the real issue here. If the whole point is to make player recovery harder because of military infrastructure costs, why not have upkeep a function of ONLY fleet supply research, and not fleet supply research AND income? Or make fleet supply the function of the total number of ships as OP suggested and add some delay to its decrease (scrapping infrastructure)?
Current system just doesnt make sense. Do you pay more for the same product if you earn more? Why not use for example GalCiv2 upkeep system?
An absolute cost, while perhaps more realistic, wouldn't work well and probably wouldn't even be implementable.
Think about, how would you balance upkeep against variable resource incomes. I might have 40 credits per second income, 2 metal per second, and 8 crystal per second. Meanwhile my opponent has 20 credits per second, 10 metal per second, and 7 crystal per second. How can you possibly create a one-size-fits-all tax given these wildly diverging incomes? Similarly, the economies supported by maps vary dramatically. How can you create one upkeep cost that won't cripple someone with 30 credits per second income but is still meaningful for someone with 200 credits per second income? Can't be done.
It may not be realistic, it may not be popular, but I'll stand by upkeep for what it is: one of the best features that adds strategic depth to this game.
Lol, the only battles that I ever had were meatgrinders for both teams. What is the point of a battle if there isn't a chance of losing your entire fleet
Ok, let say that the feature of the cost of upkeep is based on the number of ships you have... and you have research lvl 8 and wish to downgrade to lvl 6. Ask yourself, how will this be done, thru research? engine automatically fixes it? What if you want to rebuild your fleet? Do you have to research lvl 7 and lvl 8 again?
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
