The most recent changes to starbase construction, does alter the manner in which we spam constructors, (potentially) but they offer no real benefit.
It actually took less effort to set a rally point next to the starbase you want to construct, and move it around as you complete starbases, than it does to utilize the individual request constructor option that is available now. The old way required slightly more clicks, but was also slightly faster as several of those clicks just required left click spam to add a few dozen constructors to the queue.
Here is the problem. I have a system. no star bases yet. Optimal starbase setup requires a minimum of 5 economy starbases for a system. A decently loaded economy starbase mid game requires 15 construction points to complete. That means mid game, I need 75 constructor points to outfit one system. If I have 2 modules on a constructor, that means it takes 38 constructors to outfit one system (the initial starbase for each of the 5 included). If I haven't researched enough miniaturization to put two construction pods on one ship, and i'm not pragmatic, then it requires 80 constructors to outfit the same system. If I have a measly 3 systems to outfit, that means 240 constructors. God forbid I'm playing on a ginormous galaxy, where building up those starbases is even more critical early game.Some micro management can take longer than starbases (getting exact month production out of each planet upgrade etc.) but the benefit / time investment is very poor on these. Failure to properly build starbases makes massive differences in game play. Two players, doing a non super micro game... one starbase spams the other doesnt..... the starbase spammer will completely stomp the non starbase spammer. The same cannot be said even remotely for any other micro, other than customizing ships. (which is fun, unlike starbase management).
SOLUTION: the solution is easy. remove the need to apply so many starbases. Do not allow starbase benefits to stack. Problem solved. You could still build mutliple starbases in one system (like 1 influence, 1 military, 1 economy)... but you wouldn't need to spam out 5 economy starbases for a research world. You can increase the build time on a constructor module, and increase the benefits of a starbase module proportionately. Same benefit, same resource cost, 5x less spam.
Remember the good old days, when starbases just *were*, and this *type* stuff didn't exist?
I agree with throwing the star base spam out. They should only augment planets, not become the primary source of bonuses(which they will if you stack enough of them). Stop them from stacking, but let different types still be built near each other, mining near military near economy. Just doing that with the current mechanics will be great.
5 for the yor for any other race its 12 which using your numbers would boost it to something like 192 modules per system at this point 5 systems costs almost 1000 modules
Yes, so how about we drop the starbase stacking. Two different types, fine. Same type, no stacking bonuses please.
I disagree. I like the system as is. It shouldn't be possible to totally trick out a star system like you are describing. It should be a case of diminishing returns. This insistence that anything less than full optimal is somehow unacceptable just does not work for me. You compare a non-spammer with a spammer as though I were competing against someone desperately. That is not my mindset. Maybe you are talking multiplayer. If so, say so, and I will bow out of the conversation and deeply regret the devs ever introduced multiplayer if it is going to cause people to gut the game. (in my opinion)(sorry, touchy subject)
You talk about not researching enough miniaturization and of course that will add to your aggravation. Why are you using that as an example? It makes no sense to me that someone who cares so much about optimization would fail to have a full miniaturization by the time of a late game situation you describe. Why wouldn't you take the actions already available?
I can see wanting to streamline the process and the number of clicks needed, defintely, but I think you go far beyond that to the detriment of my playing experience. I can see the devs trying to compromise, but I worry about the whole tone of throwing the starbases and constructors out. It's like no one cares if other people actually enjoy them. Maybe I am in the minority here, but I am not sure that's true beyond this thread. I get the impression a lot of people like pushing constructors around just as they are at the moment. Then again, that may just be my perception. I can't claim to really know any more than any of us.
An earlier version of GC had starbases which were not differentiated by type (economic, military, cultural). There were also no restrictions on how close they could be placed, which led to starbase spam. A a change was made to restrict the number of startbases that could be built in a sector to try to prevent that (GC no longer has sectors, now it has a restriction on how close the startbases can be placed). One could argue that the need for constructor spam as discussed in this thread is itself an attempt to prevent starbase spam.
I'm agnostic on the question, as I rarely build more than one or two starbases in a planetary system anyway.
Apparently I'm really bad at this game as I tried doing the tall thing with massive numbers of starbases today and the best I could get was 4 starbases to a planet and most of the time I couldn't get more than 3 due to multiple planets to a system, other things in the way and the restriction on building starbases within the area of effect of a starbase. How do you get 5, let alone 12?!?
Generally I build 1 base to a system maybe 2 if I have lots of production to spam ridiculous numbers of constructors. I think no stacking of the same type would be best, I hadn't considered stacking bases for mining or relics but now that I do I think they should not give stacking bonues. Then we don't really have to worry about stacking and you can put a economic, mining and military bases next to each other and it doesn't really matter. I also think that leaving stacking starbases in will turn off casual players from multiplayer as reading this thread has pretty much done so for me.
5 is a bit of playing you place your first one at max range that will cover the planet
and then kind of go around in a circle placing each one at max range as close to the previous one as possible (this is only usefull for races that do not have the range extension techs)
as for 12 there are 2 techs that increase the range offered by starbases so the range increases from 5-7-9 setting these up is a bit more organized
what i do is number the directions heading out of the planet in order 1-6 where you start doesent really matter
your first 3 starbases can be placed 3 tiles away on either all the odd or all the even numbered tiles
your second 3 starbases need the first range tech, but they can be placed on the 6th tile's out opposite to where you placed your first 3 (odd-even) i usually count out these tiles to avoid obstacals before even placing my first starbase
the last 6 need the 2nd range improvement and they kind of fit into the corners of the first six the actual positions are 3 tiles out from your first 3 and then another 3 tiles out turned 1 tile to left or right from the original line (i know that sounds complicated heres a picture)
That is not the answer...
Not allowing starbases to stack actually reduces a fun tactical element of the game...
What is not fun, and has never been fun (not in Gal Civ II), is micromanaging constructors... SOOOO many constructors...
Ther is a simpler answer... Allow Starbases to upgrade themselves... Make them similar to a shipyard, needing the same amount of production (or more) to create a constructor to upgrade the Starbase... Allow an option to automatically upgrade the starbase each time a module is available... You will still need to pick what upgrades you want, and you can not upgrade more that one module at a time... This will eliminate much of the busy work and micromanaging... Using the colonies to sponsor creates the balance needed, the further the starbase is, the longer it takes to upgrade it... Of course, that doesn't mean that you will be able to use the starbase as a shipyard, it just means that a starbase upgrades using a similar concept... Best of both worlds...
Erischild: I'm not speaking about late game, I'm talking about mid game. Late game the numbers get absurdly insane. If you are not focusing your tech on reaching double up constructors, there are other technologies that may be taking precedence in each game. Sometimes it's viable, sometimes you'll get your ass kicked for teching out constructors. miniaturizing the modules to the point you can fit two helps alot with the spam, but in mid game it will only accelerate starbase construction by about 15%-20% Depending on your race there may be a more optimal way to gain this production boost. Anything from increasing populations of planets, to increasing factory levels if your worlds are not still building factories.While it is most directly an issue for multi player, it also has a huge impact on single player. If the difficulty levels are going to be honest, and they leave this system in place, you would lose every time on anything other than easy... (as the AI's should be constructed to use starbases effectively. As a result, as a player, you would have to do the same thing to win).
I didn't cite the full 12 starbases you can get on a planet in late game, or the full number of modules to have a fully effective starbase late game. Different tech trees offer different modules. But lets assume you are not building defensive or scanning modules. If you only build the economic, approval, production, and research modules for a starbase, and lets say each area has 6 modules... that leaves you needing 24 modules.Lets assume optimum setup. 2 modules per constructor. thats 13 constructors per starbase. for 5 starbases per system (again, most systems will have more than 5 before teching up range, unless they only have one planet.) 75 constructors late game per system. Now factor the range increase. fitting 12 starbases on a system may be possible, but is rare. so lets figure 10. 10 is very doable most of the time. 10 starbases with 13 constructors per starbase, is 130 constructors per system.now imagine this on one of the big maps. each starbase increases each production type by about 10% per module. some more, some less. but lets call it 10% per module. so 60% per starbase to construction. 10 starbaes, thats a 500% - 600% production bonus to *each planet in the system*. You can't compete with an AI that's doing this, unless you are doing the same thing.
Allowing starbases to upgrade themselves would fix the problem reasonably well, as suggested earlier in the thread. Diminishing returns would help to a degree, but even at 50% would still require 3-4 starbases per 1 planet system, or 4-5 per multi planet system to be competitive....I can't think of a viable solution to avoid it being "starbase construction game" other than make them not stack.
@Androshalforc, thanks. In early betas, I knew I would win before getting the second range increase and in the current beta I can't get to the first one as I keep hitting recurring crashes before that. Also that takes a lot of space between planets and I play with a lot of planets so most of the time 3 to 4 would be the best I would get anyway.
@maward00- I suggested that starbase modules be treated like buildings in January but didn't get much traction, I think part of it was I didn't know that know construction modules were no longer one per ship and titled the thread constructor spam. Most responses just said use a bigger ship size, but part of my problem with it is building economic starbases with military construction. Anyway here's the link if you're interested, there were other interesting suggestions too. https://forums.galciv3.com/460360/page/2/#3519591
Diminishing returns I think would be best but I also think its not that much of an issue to me as I play with lots of planets and will rarely if ever see that much space for a system to build all of those bases.
Amazing, I can't imagine playing the game this way. I don't have anything against it, but it is not my style and if it ever comes down to requiring 5-6 starbases per planet to beat the AI, I will probably stop playing.
I support all the efforts to reduce constructor micro since my pitiful 1-2 bases per planet and my resource/relic bases are a huge pain without doubling the output.
I spend a lot of time planning base placement so I build fewer not more.
I don't put starbases around single planets.. I put starbases around clusters of 3 or more planets. Paying all that maintenance for just one planet's bonuses doesn't make sense to me. (If the present maintenance costs make that a viable solution, maybe they can be balanced better. You could stack all the starbases you want around a single planet and still not have it pay off.) I can generally wrap three starbases around three planets without struggle. That's enough for me.
Maybe it's just me, but I don't get the production power to pump out as many constructors as you talk about. I don't see the AI having that much production either. I always have other priorities and needs and the other aliens are breathing down my neck. My three bases for three planets solutions seems generous to me. I have enough troubles keeping up with that!
And again, I will point out a major difference, I enjoy pushing around constructors. Doesn't that matter?
I don't enjoy calculating everything out to the last beaker, manufacturing point, research turn, etc. The push for optimization becomes a very burdensome chore instead of a game. I do not want to beat the game at maximum difficulty in minimum turns with all available opponents. I understand that others play differently. I can't support redesigning the game mechanics I enjoy to a point that would meet both your optimization and convenience. I do support making the present system even smoother in number of clicks, because I think that will help both of us. I am sure you do not see how your ideas would lessen my experience. I ask you to take my word for it and possibly take that in consideration.
In beta 5, a starbase can simply request a constructor and one is built and sent to it. I'm not sure what the micro management here is. A starbase, unto itself, does not have factories and it would be, frankly, not very fun imo to have to worry about how productive a starbase was in building its own stuff.
It sounds like more of a UI issue. Starbase stacking isn't going to go away. It's a super fun feature of the game. The issue has always been constructors. During the alpha, we had eliminated constructors for upgrading starbases entirely and it took away a significant choice from the player on what they should be building on their shipyards.
The shipyard is the finite resource and what you do with it is a big deal. Guns or butter. Without constructors, the shipyard builds only warships and the occasional freighter and nothing else.
I think the Beta 5 constructor system will be okay. Currently there is a bit of a problem with lag time from when the constructor is requested and when it is sent. If you have some constructor that were already being built and you send them to the star base it messes up the system to some extent. There should also be a way to cancel previous requests.
I don't think anyone wants to build fewer constructors we just wqant better ways to manage them
Now we need a similar system for colony ships
There is always a huge back and forth about this
I am in the camp that like upgrading their starbases into bigger and bigger constructions personally, I like the AOE effect and I like the idea of having a military starbase worth something for example that's tough to fight one on one.
That said I am fine with increasing cost and making them worth more proportionally. Also diminishing returns makes a lot of sense if they are all clustered together.
I have a simple solution to the constructer spam issue.
Simply remove the need to produce constructors to upgrade starbases.
Require one constructor to build the initial starbase then request the upgrades directly form the starbase itself.
My answer to Brads concern about shipyard use is to assign a shipyard to upgrade the starbase. So instead of producing countless numbers of constructers you can set the shipyard to a upgrade starbase project on turns when you are not building anything else. You could have tiny ships similar to the freighters in galciv 2 flying between the shipyard and the starbase until the starbase upgrade is complete. Not only would this remove the need for constructor spam but would add a stratrgic element where the ships could be attacked to delay starbase upgrades.
Thoughts?
The constructor issue is an important one, no doubt. That being said, I reduce the numbers of constructors I build because I specialize most of my colonies, and because I prioritize constructors placed to serve multiple planets. So for the early game I may have a couple of SBs serving two manufacturing planets, each SB with only econ and factory builds. I leave defensive stuff for critical border areas, even then ships I think are better than SB defenses.
Actually I think the request constructor works well but takes a bit of getting used to, changing old habits. The biggest problem I have with it is, for example, if you have the pragmatic ability that makes 2 constructors for every build. Then I get overflow. So far I just sigh and add some defense. Typical is a SB that serves a manufacturing and a research planet, and I need a lab and a factory on each, so each SB requests 2 constructors because brain isn't functioning and I get a lot of extra constructors. Course, that is sort of my own getting used to it, as I say.
I do want to reduce the number of constructors that need to be built for each starbase, I think its bad design that every starbase needs tens of constructors to be completed. I think Blacksox2004's idea of sponsorship and a starbase upgrade project is a good compromise, shipyards are used for more than just warship and I don't have to build ridiculous numbers of constructors. Although I do use my shipyards for more than just warships, I make sensor ships its the best way I've found to see what's coming at me and they are pretty good for exploration as well. That said I do want my shipyards to primarily build warships and colony ships but as it stands I build a lot more constructors than anything else.
I do want to make a few more suggestions while I'm thinking about it. First allow starbases to be built inside the area of effect of another starbase but don't allow that starbase to specialize in the same area. For example, an economic starbase and a mining starbase shouldn't interfere with each other and shouldn't be overpowered. Second I suggest renaming social and military manufacturing to planetary and orbital as they are more apt descriptions and if you want to call planetary manufacturing social, I will want to build non military items with it, like colony ships and constructors.
Could we consider a toggle to allow starbase stacking or not at game creation? I understand you find this to be a fun aspect of the game. A great many of us don't though.The request a constructor option is useful. but in practice I have not found it to be that much better than building them and sending them to a rally point used to be. ( I can't seem to get rally points to work at the moment for them). If I'm playing competitively, and I would hope the AI's will do so also, my screen is constantly covered by constructors in mid-late game on decent sized maps.Perhaps on larger maps, increase the radius and proximity limits by 1-2 hexes?
Pretty much I'm concerned more about having the right modules in my research tree, so I don't have to trade for other techs for me to use other nodules I've researched. Or an ai that can't buse its own starbase tech. Than starbase spam. I would like to see prettier, and more flexible starbases.You talk about not researching enough miniaturization and of course that will add to your aggravation. Why are you using that as an example? It makes no sense to me that someone who cares so much about optimization would fail to have a full miniaturization by the time of a late game situation you describe. Why wouldn't you take the actions already available? I can see wanting to streamline the process and the number of clicks needed, defintely,
I agree!
but I worry about the whole tone of throwing the starbases and constructors out.
I want starbases.
It's like no one cares if other people actually enjoy them. Maybe I am in the minority here, but I am not sure that's true beyond this thread. I get the impression a lot of people like pushing constructors around just as they are at the moment. Then again, that may just be my perception. I can't claim to really know any more than any of us. [/quote]
I think the starbase systemis fine.
This will eliminate much of the busy work and micromanaging...
I actuallydon't mind playing a game.with micromanaging.
Not my style either
I also spend tIme tryIng to cover multIple systems.
Agree 12 seems to high!
You could stack all the starbases you want around a single planet and still not have it pay off.) I can generally wrap three starbases around three planets without struggle. That's enough for me.
Agree even if I was going to do 5 or 12 I would to do math to wrap as many planets as possible.Maybe it's just me, but I don't get the production power to pump out as many constructors as you talk about. I don't see the AI having that much production either.
I do there are a lot of times where I can't build anything, but constructors by the dozens, or hundreds.
I feel you there especially when I'm going so fast they can't catch me.I can't support redesigning the game mechanics I enjoy
Agree I wan't galactIc cIvIlIzatIons not some other game.
I lIke the feature!
Starbase stacking isn't going to go away. It's a super fun feature of the game.
Agree I think so too.
I agreeI don't think anyone wants to build fewer constructors we just wqant better ways to manage themNow we need a similar system for colony ships
Agree
The stacking mechanic is most certainly not fun, in the current state of things. It distracts from the actually fun parts of the game by taking up a lot of time to place the bases, order constructors, upgrade them all, blah blah blaaaaaah. It's a huge hassle that I don't really want to bother with, but I don't want to feel like I'm not playing the game well, either. I agree with the suggestion that starbase effects should not stack...however...there may be a way...
The only way I think this can be resolved while keeping the stacking in place, is to (optionally) make starbases fully automated. If a starbase can be set to "build economic" for example, and order constructors without input from the player whenever a new upgrade is available, that would be OK. (perhaps this request could be limited to the nearest shipyard?) This would be somewhat less effective than micromanagement, as the base would attempt to build every module it can, but it would take a huge load off the player.
We desperately need one of these two things to happen. Either scrap the stacking, or allow us to automate the process of upgrading. As it is now, it just doesn't work. It's not fun. It is probably the number 1 problem with the game.
Nobody's advocating getting rid of constructors and starbases. Those are important parts of the game. It can get a bit ridiculous trying to manage multiple starbases around multiple planets though, that's the problem - and it will certainly be an even bigger problem once the game is officially released, non-beta. Galciv devotees certainly have less problems with the current mechanic than the average gamer will - most of whom will likely either not know of/care about the stacking effect or feel bogged down by all the time they waste on upgrading so many starbases. Like I said above, we need either fewer bases or hassle-free bases. It just can't go on like this.
I'm really not seeing this a big deal either way, but I would love to be able to dedicate a shipyard, or a few shipyards to upgrading a starbase. I also would like to be able to set multiple starbases to one shipyards, or set multiple resources to one starbase. Multiple starbases to the same multiple resources, and if the one starbase to multiple resources then build one constructure on one resource then go to the next resource untill there is no more resource. If a resource is taken before there is a starbase on it then go to the next resource. This would be like queing it up. I think this is a great idea. Also can I either be able to set qn idle starbase to build constructors as soon as you find a resource from exploring, and change production to constructors when a resource is discovered from exploration. let's just say I que one, more starbases to multiple resources can the computer not assign constructure to resource untill after it is built. What would be nice if.multiple.starbases claiming multiple resources one starbase gets done first claims resource. Then another constructure gets done that's closer instead of claiming the next unclaimed resource send the constructor to the other resource. Now the first constructor goes to the next unclsimed resource instead. I think survey ships should do the same thing. Currently if I have a survey ship going to a resource another survey ship will not survey that resource even if it right next to them because I have already assigned a survey ship to that anomaly on auto survey, and yes I usually have a flert of makeshift cargo survey ships of multiple generations.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
