Re: Proportions and Facilities
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I think I still support my original math when designing the facilities to balance against the problem you are describing, which I don't think exists, even though it might appear to, without benefit of spreadsheet.

Let's take the example you list above. Yes, Minor City means you can upgrade to Metropolis for half of the cost of building a new Metropolis. But that does not mean doing so is more efficient than not using upgrades (unless the victory condition of your game is "the one with the biggest city, wins" http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif ).

So, say you have a planet with a constant construction rate of 2000x3, and you want to do intensive development that will maximize production over the next 30 or so turns. Plan A is to build a Minor City and upgrade to Metropolis. Plan B is to build two Minor Cities and then a City.

Plan A spends 15,000x3 resources over 8 turns building a minor city, and then 50,000x3 over 25 turns upgrading it to a metropolis. The result after 35 turns is 65,000x3 spent, with 8,525 produced while the Minor City was there, and 2,300 produced by the Metropolis, with 1,150 production/turn attained.

Plan A TOTAL: 184,175 in the hole, which will be paid off by itself in 160 turns (after turn 35).

Plan B spends 15,000x3 resources over 8 turns twice in a row, and then 25,000x3 over 13 turns building a City. This takes 29 turns (4 less than Plan A). After 35 turns, the result is 30,000x3 spent on the two minor cities, the first of which has produced 9,315, the second has produced 6,555. The City cost 25,000 x 3 and has produced 2550. Total production/turn attained is 1,115 (only 35 less than the Metropolis).

Plan B TOTAL: 146,580 in the hole, which will be paid off by itself in 132 turns (after turn 35).

Both plans suffer in efficiency comparison to just building ordinary industrial facilities as in the standard game. The only exceptions (I think) are if you are trying to compress as much into as little space as possible. That only pays off in the very long-term, as in, hundreds and hundreds of turns, assuming you are going to sit and develop your own local systems, instead of spreading and colonizing and conquering the quadrant.

So, the standard set tactic of sprawl and conquer still pays off, but the rate of payoff is a couple of orders of magnitude (or more) slower, and there are less efficient alternatives in intensive development, so a small isolationist or neutral can continue to develop as well. Also, of course, a larger empire is more difficult to protect, etc.

PvK

Re: Proportions and Facilities
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Yes, indeed. In Last game I over expanded myself and got into war with two AIs on medium bonus. Both fronts were 2-3 systems away from homeworld and I simply could not pay maintanance for two big fleets. Fortunately (well, unfortunately in fact) AI can not defend effectively against swarms of fighters or I would have to abandom few planets.

Re: Proportions and Facilities
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Indeed, if you have enough facility slots on each planet, the problem of upgrades does not present itself. That's why I posposed to have more facility slots in the first place.

But you will have a bunch of non-breathable worlds, with just a couple of facility slots on each, and you need to devise a development plan for those. What, do I just forget them? Then why have upgrades at all? obviously one does not need them for breathable planets, not for a very very long time!

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I am not trying to get rid of those less efficient ways of development. I'm simply saying they need not be done through upgrades.

If the facility upgrade cost is 100% (that is, you don't win anything by upgrading), and the Metropolis costs 65,000x3, your math still holds.

But now the plan C - "build a Metropolis right away" - will have comparable results, so I *don't have to upgrade if I decide to build a Metropolis*.

As things currently stand, *if* I want to go for a Metropolis, I *have to* upgrade. Your point that building a Metropolis may not be that efficient a strategy is true, but irrelevant http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Thanks! -- Aub

Re: Proportions and Facilities
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">As I've said before, it's supposed to be inconvenient to build large developed colonies on inhospitable planets. One approach which seems to work well is to mainly use them for minor military bases. Resupply depot, maybe a shipyard, maybe a cargo facility and a bunch of defensive units. This will often be much more useful than trying to invest tens or hundreds of thousands of resources on expensive production facilities in a relatively weak (low unit capacity) location. Another is to just build maybe one productive facility and use upgrades on it. This seems to work relatively well, to me.

"Why have upgrades at all?" As I said before, players asked for them, and they offer a whole spectrum of different choices, which seems to me more interesting. Also, because these are all very long-term investments whose payoffs are limited compared to the whole empire's production from homeworld and trade, and the effects of fleet actions, it's not really the same sort of balance concern that production facilities are in the standard game. You can analyze the production facilities to death until you have the best possible production strategy you like, but it's not going to be hugely unbalancing, because there are many more powerful forces at work, and the simple technique of building cheap production facilities first is plenty effective, and may be the "best way" for balance purposes anyway.

Quote:

I am not trying to get rid of those less efficient ways of development. I'm simply saying they need not be done through upgrades. If the facility upgrade cost is 100% (that is, you don't win anything by upgrading), and the Metropolis costs 65,000x3, your math still holds. But now the plan C - "build a Metropolis right away" - will have comparable results, so I *don't have to upgrade if I decide to build a Metropolis*. As things currently stand, *if* I want to go for a Metropolis, I *have to* upgrade. Your point that building a Metropolis may not be that efficient a strategy is true, but irrelevant http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Well irrelevance is a matter of opinion. Sure, if I buy your supposition that I want to build a Metropolis on a planet with no pre-existing Minor Cities, I can do it more quickly by upgrading. This seems kind of reasonable, and interesting, that along the way to a Metropolis, a Minor City will appear. Proportions tries to offer a wide range of choices and perspectives, which are all valid from some perspective, with different pros and cons to choose between. They may get to be complex if you try to find the best thing to do, but you don't really have to find the best way - there are plenty of ways that are reasonable, with different trade-offs, and colonial development optimization is not, it seems to me, likely to be crucial or decisive from a play-balance perspective.

PvK

Re: Proportions and Facilities
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Ok, I guess it's time to drop the ball. PvK, your point is, I think, best expressed in the quotation above. Mine is that I am, as a manic perfectionist, still trying to get the colonial development right... and the illogical mess that current upgrade mechanisms create drives me nuts. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon8.gif Well, I guess I'll have to learn to live with it http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...s/rolleyes.gif

Thanks -- Aub

Re: Proportions and Facilities
 

SE IV upgrade process is indeed far from perfect but I honestly think the idea to increse number of slots on the planet and decrease cost of facilities will result either even more micromanagemrnt or ridicule Proportions mod to the level of vanila SEIV.

Re: Proportions and Facilities
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Oleg, my latest proposal was to set the facility upgrade cost to 100%, and to adjust the cost of big facilities correspondingly.

(E.g. Metropolis now costs 100Kx3, but can be built as 15Kx3 for building a minor city + 50Kx3 for upgrading = 65Kx3; therefore, the cost for Metropolis should be adjusted to 65K. This should make upgrading possible - if you want the old facility to continue producing - but not vital.)

PvK made a couple of very valid points about why getting more facility slots is not a good solution, and I bought his arguments.

Aub

Re: Proportions and Facilities
 

But setting 100% cost of upgrade will affect
ships too... I would hate to pay full bill every
time I upgrade DUC III to DUC IV http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif

Re: Proportions and Facilities
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Nope! There are separate settings for facilities and ships:

Upgrade Facility Cost Percent := 50
Retrofit Cost Percent For Comps := 120
Retrofit Cost Percent For Comp Removal := 30

The facility value does not affect the comp values, and vice versa.

Re: Proportions and Facilities
 

Yes, of course. How could I forget ? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/shock.gif