I don't mean automatically after you discover the tech. That would be way too OP.
How about a system where, every few turns, your starbases would accrue enough "xp" to upgrade on their own. When they do, it also increases the maintenance a bit. When they level up, you pick the module you want.
There can be modifiers added to how fast a starbase grows, such as various techs in the engineering tree or events. Races like the Iconians would get a free module as usual (and that pragmatic perk would grant one as well). The Iconians with that perk, for example, would start with a level 3 starbase. Maybe race traits could modify starbase growth as well.
I can also see influence affecting growth rate. In your territory on a tile that is 100% yours, maybe the growth rate is doubled. In deep space, maybe it's slower, or in another faction's territory there is a malus to growth.
Every level it would take a little longer to level up, regardless. By end game, most of your starbases should be level 30 plus and very expensive, but you should be able to afford them with better money tech.
I like this mainly because it fixes the constructor spam issue. You only have to build one constructor per starbase which is very manageable and it still makes the constructor relevant. Increased maintenance costs make sense for larger starbases and is more realistic, and also balances the fact you no longer have to physically invest in it with another constructor. You ARE still investing, albeit passively, with money and more importantly, TIME. There should be an option for lowering starbase maintenance to have more control over how fast they grow/how much money you need to save. If push comes to shove, you should be able to decommission a starbase and get some of the money back, from scrapped materials and such.
I love the game but as many have noted, constructor spam can really suck, on the bigger maps especially. This would all but eliminate it.
As far as realism, I sort of see it as the maintenance you pay for starbases is also paying the leader of that starbase to invest in his domain in order to benefit you..,and like an investment, those benefits come back over time.
To summarize:
1. You don't have to spam constructors anymore. Yay!
2. Getting "high level" starbases is still rewarding, because it takes time (and money) to get them. They are also more valuable, because you CAN'T just build a 10x constructor and get it back. I think it would make sense, like interceptors, for starbases to get their weapons and scanner modules for free, at increased maintenance. This would make them harder to take down, and taking down a starbase becomes an even riskier proposition, which makes sense given that this system makes them more valuable, and prevents the player from abusing AI who don't upgrade their weapons.
To balance, maybe constructors can be twice as expensive to build.
Also, it might make tall play more viable. If you invest in starbases earlier, you will beat out civs who opt to expand early, at least in your core system. Your bases will get more growth, and investing in them early will net in the most benefits in the long run. Cost/benefit anaylsis is usually a good thing for 4X game.
Do you guys see this as being too powerful? Too weak? Too radical?
I like this model.
However, it probably needs to be tied to your economic model somehow, for instance a "starbase funding" slider, from which all starbases get their money to level up with.
The player will still want to fast-track certain starbases. Perhaps they could click a box like "[x] Rush"
Yeah, a slider would be a good idea...one global one and one for each base to fine tune) as needed. One can argue that is extra micro, but it's a far cry from moving constructors all over the place. Ideally, a player can right click on the starbase or something and that pulls up something similar to the govern screen where the sliders can be fiddled with without leaving the map. And maybe a small icon can be toggled to show starbases that are at full maintenance.
Obviously a player will want to rush everything but from a game play perspective it should be quite expensive to do so, especially early game.
Maybe by default a starbase can accrue 1 construction point (xp basically) per turn, before modifiers. The first level might take five points, the next a little more, so on and so forth. Races like the Iconians, or the pragmatic perk, could be made even better if level 2 is treated as level 1 or level 3 is treated as level 1, meaning all the rest of the levels come even cheaper. This could really buff the pragmatic tree, which IMO is probably the weakest one.
If the tech isn't available for the next module, I'm not sure what should happen. Either the points can get banked, or perhaps capped, which will make the player want to get that next tech quickly.
No, please, no micro-sliders. That just makes it unnecessarily complicated. Then players will feel compelled to micromanage each starbase slider every turn.
Let's say you have a global "starbase funding slider" which syphons off a percentage of your global econ (similar to the espionage slider in GC2):
Starbase Funding: [...............X......] 100 bc / week
And let's say you have 5 starbases. Your global funding gets distributed equally over all of them when you mouse over:
"Starbase Alpha-Bravo" - Funding: 20 bc / week
As i said, certain bases will need to get rushed. Click the rush button:
[x] Rush Develop
This would increase the funding it gets, but it takes away from the funding of the other starbases. Now you have one starbase getting extra funding and 4 other starbases getting reduced funding:
Total Weighting = (total number of starbases) + (total number of starbases with 'rush' checked);
Per-Weight Funding = Global Funding / Total Weighting;
Local Funding = Per-Weight Funding (times 2 if rushed);
So let's work out an example if we rush one starbase and leave the others alone.
Global Funding = 100;
Total Weighting = 5 + 1;
Per-Weight Funding = 100 / 6;
Local Funding = 16.6 (or 13.3 if rushed)
Now, if you thought you were being clever by clicking "rush" on every starbase, you end up right back where you started with no rush-weighting at all.
It's kind of like my job. Everything is a high-priority emergency, but i still only get one thing done at a time
Er...math is not really my strong suit, but I THINK I get what you're saying. I see your point, I'm not the type of player to micromanage everything, but I know many are, so maybe just removing the option is the best move.
The question is, should there be a limit for how much you can fund your starbases (as in, the value of the global slider)? If one had enough money, say in a larger game they're making 1,000 BC's per turn, they could literally just throw money at starbases and make them grow like weeds. I find that idea intriguing even if it was different from what I had in mind, where there was a cap on HOW quickly the starbase could grow.
I really don't think it has to be one way or the other, I think it's an interesting concept. Frankly, I would be happy with anything that didn't involve constant constructor spam.
To sound a contrasting note, I LIKE growing my starbases as fast as I can (well, actually as fast as I can whilst pursuing other things). And trying to grow starbases faster is ultimately the source of micro, whether it be via spam, sliders, or some other mechanism. If I am basically told, "LOLNOPE. You can't do a thing to make individual starbases grow faster except maybe researching a tech or three", I and others won't be particularly happy.
Now if you make it so starbases can grow on their own AND one can "jumpstart" the process by adding constructors, that might be something. Sure some will complain that they are being "forced" to micro for, I dunno, REASONS. But having the growth+constructors system allows players to do which ever way they feel like doing.
The other consideration is, this is fine and dandy for starbases built at the beginning of a game. But what about ones built 200, 300, and 400 turns into a game? If they will never "cap out" and I can't accelerate individual ones, why should I bother to build one?
PS: If my 10x constructors are taken away from me, I might just flip out.
I do think you need to make a distinction between mining/economic/cultural modules (the starbase could grow these after the initial type is set) and defense/sensor/other modules. I don't want my economic starbase next to my capital world, a hundred hexes from the frontier, to waste production on weapons and defenses.
One of my gripes is the ability to "rush buy" various things in a single turn (true of other games as well). Similarly, being able to swing an entire galactic economy into full reverse by fiddling with some sliders feels too gamey.
I feel like high-level decisions about which direction to take the economy should require some kind of commitment; either time to build, lag time to change directions, or some kind of penulty for going too fast or too hard in one direction.
This would also add some strategic complexity to the game. because you would have to play with forethought instead of knee-jerk reactions. Alas, no one will read these words and none of it will likely happen.
Thanks for sounding a contrasting note. Part of the reason I posted this to see if anyone could pick holes in it, so I'm glad you did.
You bring up some good points. Starbases late game would grow faster than starbases early game, because you would probably have unlocked a lot of the techs that would make them grow faster. They would perhaps grow at three times the rate as at the beginning of the game, or maybe it could be much faster, where you're getting an upgrade per turn for the first ten turns or so. To me that would be fine, (but for others, maybe not so much)I know it is definitely not the same as throwing several 10x constructors and having a fully operational starbase immediately, but at least for me, that sacrifice is worth it if I don't have to do tedious micro where my wrist literally starts to hurt from the all the clicking I have to do. I LOVE my 10x constructors as much as the next guy, but my most important starbases are built mostly by the humble 3x and 2x constructors, and if I have a large empire, then that is incredibly tedious. If constructors aren't to be the source of starbase growth, then that growth has to come from SOMEWHERE, preferably by a process that is somewhat "automatic" but still costs the player resources and investment to reap the reward.
I'm trying to think of a scenario where I still am building new starbases past turn 200. Maybe mining bases, but those wouldn't need too many "levels" to get as high as you need them to be. The only thng I can think of is when you conquer new systems and there aren't adequate starbases there. Perhaps a solution would be making it possible to "take over" enemy starbases? From a realism standpoint, why would you want to destroy something that could be a strong economic resource for you? I know it probably won't happen as far as a gameplay change, but if there's a fully developed mining starbase in the middle of nowhere, it would make sense that the attacker would want to keep it intact in order to utilize it once it's done, or if there is a very well developed economic starbase, why would an attacker want to blow it up?
I see your point, though. Not being able to have high level starbases late game is a weakness of this system for sure.
All kidding aside, I would remind that when it comes right down to it, this is still a game and not some sort of simulation of Real Life. If I have to constantly worry about how my moving a slider will affect things ten turns down the line, that adds yet another layer of micro and possibly, at least for me, unfun. I mean, I get the appeal. At the same time, most of the time, I just want to get my civ on and not have to fight the game to get what I want.
Besides, even with the way the economy can be abused by some, I still tend to think there are plenty of roadblocks/slowdowns in the game already. Not being able to move the civ slider around freely without penalty nd not being able to rush buy when needed just doesn't seem to be worth when it comes to added complexity versus (some) player frustration. Mileage may, and apparently does, vary, of course.
Yeah, that was what I had in mind. When you build the starbase, you choose what type it is. All the modules stay the same, the way they get upgraded is different (as outlined in my first post).
I'm not sure if I mentioned it in my first post, but I had the idea of just having sensor, armor, and weapon upgrades be automatic. If it happens for interceptors on carriers, why not for starbases? It's one less thing to click, and no one would have to worry about "wasting" a module by adding some guns that will never get used. I think to balance that, these modules should STILL cost mainteance, but I think having sensors upgraded automatically for starbases would be really cool. I would be inclined to research sensor techs earlier just so I could get that benefit.
I also sort of imagine there could be a governors system, where you can just set a focus and the governor upgrades as it sees fit. An ecoomic starbase could prioritize factory improvements over research ones, for example.
Yes, GC is a weird game that seems to attract seemingly opposed types of players: high-level strategy gamers, tactics-level micro-managery war gamers, and economic simulatorists; And they all want different things!
Interestingly, GC2 already did that. You could set the base on auto-upgrade with a priority list. It just hasn't made it's way into the GC3 UI.
I feel the same way. The game as it stands allows the player to have their cake and eat it too. In my own play style, I force myself to not abuse the planetary wheel because I find it more fun not to. (instead, I will never allow M/S/W to go above 50 perecent on a paritcular world). For some players that wouln't be fun, but for me it is, because realism is an important factor to me...and having the ability to instantly switch the trajectory of your empire in response to an unforeseen event is not fun for me, because it means te decisions I make have no real meaning, because they will all end up in the same place, anyway. If I set a world for 50 percent research and 25 percent the other two things, it feels more realistic to me and that the planet is filled with actual people who don't mindless obey me, their overlord. But that's sort of off topic.
As far as your point, say you are making a research world, and you build several starbase around it specializing in research (in the system I outlined above, where you use your level ups to focus research). Say a civ decalres war on you, and you could REALLY use some more ships. But because of your earlier decision to focus your level ups on research rather than production, you'll have less ships overall for the fight. (though you will have more science). In the current system of the game as it stands, this wouldn't even be an issue, because you'd already have fully developed research and factory improvements on your starbases already.
The fact that starbases would take time to grow, and to an extent, you couldn't MAKE them grow any faster (maybe you could throw money at it, but there would sitll be some limit of how fast they could grow), it will make those early decisions more important. Deciding to build labs before factories in your bases might hurt you in a war coming in the short term, while focusing research might help you in the long term. It just adds an additional layer of decision making.
I don't think a system like I proposed will ever get implemented. It's just far too drastic a change, and would be hard to balance for a game that is already out. As far as a realistic soultion, fixing the request constructor button to where you can set a speciic type of constructor for it to request would go a long way. If I can have that button summon only 3x constructors in the early-mid game instead of just the default ones, I would be much happier...and if I could change it to different types of constructors over the course of the game, that would also be swell.
Ahh, I didn't know that. I guess didn't pay attention to that screen. In that case it proably is going to find its way into the game.
Something like that would improve the game. When I think about starting GalCiv3 game I first remember interspecies politics, great fleets and grand strategy... And then I remember starbase management.
And this "ask for constructor" button doesn't help cause it builds big fancy constructor with latest engines and life support when in 99% I want to get cheapest crap ship. It gets there 2 turns later but it'll take 2 turns fewer to build!
Yep. The proposed system removes the need for spamming completely, but it does take power away from player who want to insta-build stuff late game. To me, though, I would be fine with that as long as late game bases were evolving faster due to tech and such.
I think if they could find a way for a base to request a specific type of constructor within the interface (maybe with a drop down or something) that would go a long way.
heres another gripe
life support is literally useless for requested constructors they can travel freely over space outside their reach as long as the destination is within range (something about the crew going into cryo-sleep or whatever is equivalent is) since you can only request a constructor from a starbase that generates its own range you dont need life support on them.
as for engines I agree in most cases their not needed. now lets put all that room we saved from the engines and life support and throw in a couple of extra constructor modules
I don't really mind constructor spam, tbh. All I'd really like is the ability to tag a given constructor model as the 'use this as summoned constructor'. Though really, provided you change the blueprint defs to make the constructors better, it's not problematic. Just generally improving stock blueprints would make the whole thing much less painful and micro-ey.
I said it over and over again in beta, but I'd love an in-game blueprint editor. Doesn't have to get into the nitty gritty, just let me select which weapon and defense types I want, what kind of support modules if any, and prioritize weapons, defense, speed, range, and modules. Then you would have a library of blueprints that you could activate and deactivate at any time. This would improve the flow of the game so much and allow you to quickly and easily adapt to the threats you are seeing.
I do. Or, actually, it's not the spamming of the constructors but the UI that requires me to choose and click-build every darn single module. In late game you can get like 50 "upgrade starbase" actions each turn needing to be resolved.
At minimum, there ought to be an auto-upgrade feature that you can toggle on so that the starbase automatically builds modules as constructors arrive. To make it even better that could then be complemented with an auto-send feature in the yard so that a constructor is automatically sent to a starbase that has available upgrade options. Then you could just fill the yard build queue with constructors of your choice and forget it.
But if they entirely rework how starbases are built and upgraded, I'll take that, too.
I envision a two-pronged approach:
#1) Give starbases a build-queue - that way, when you place the starbase, you can say that you want these 5 modules built, even if you don't have the constructors on-hand yet. Less tedium, because you can make more decisions at the start, just like colonies. Get rid of the "request constructor" button.
#2) Constructor ships should have an automation option (just like "Explore" and "Survey"), so when you pop one out, you press the "automate" button on it and it goes and flies off to the nearest starbase that is in need of a constructor.
Note: The "nearest" might need to be actual distance combined with a formula that takes into account how long ago the starbase requested a constructor. So a starbase that has been waiting for 10 turns should get a higher priority then one that has been waiting for 5 turns, unless the 10-turn base is very far away from the constructor.
While I'm not a fan of constructor spaming, I'm not too fond of what the OP suggested.
I think however, that the mechanic for 'requesting constructors' could be improved. Getting the max. number of constructor modules to a distant starbase is currently a optimization problem where one needs to decide on number of construction modules vs. speed of the ship vs. build time. Automatically requesting constructors leads to very inefficient constructor ships...
The best solution for me is simply,
1. Allow upgrade queuing on star bases.,the same way as planets.
2. Enable customization of constructors that would be produced as a result of the "request constructor" button, if no constructors with a path already exists on the map.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
