Simple suggested mechanic to replace Corruption and Fleet Limits

#1

@joe

Hello all,

Usually simple is better, therefore I suggest a mechanic that will help limit taking planets, while still giving the air of freedom of expansion.

First, we have a research tree that can be researched up to 30 planets that can be taken without the effects of corruption (as long as they are within 150 LY of your Capital). After this, every planet you take incurs corruption. There are 3 factors to determining the total corruption felt by that planet.

A flat -1 happiness for every colony past 30.
Taking a -0.1 to happiness per 10 LY away from your stating position, known as your Capital (If you lose your Capital, your Capital reverts to your nearest planet and your entire empire is recalculated based on that).
Taking into account the size of the planet you wish to take: Starting at 14K Km being neutral, you gain or remove .1 corruption per 1K Km above or below 14K Km. Example, if you have a 5k km planet you would adjust corruption by adding a +0.9 vs a 23k km planet adding a -0.8 additional corruption.

This allows both size of the planet and the distance from your Capital to reflect just how bad the corruption is on that planet. It means at a certain distance its just isnā€™t feasible to try and colonize or take a planet. This also make smaller planets more strategic and gives them more value.

I also want to add 3 more rules about corruption.

  1. Corruption doesnā€™t just have an effect on happiness, but it also increases the time it takes to build a single building or ship on that planet. For every -0.1 corruption you increase the base build times by 10% (this isnā€™t negated by positive desirability buildings).

If you try to take a large planet 300 LY away, that is a large planet, that would be -4.5 corruption, which would increase the base build times by 450% (that is around an hour for your 12 min buildings). Even if you brought the resources, the people, and the money, because you are so far away from your supply lines it takes much longer to organize and build buildings, as well as the level of corruption among the colonists and leadership taking bribes and generally slowing construction.

This hinders your ability to keep a hold of that planet, takes much longer to be productive, and its much hard to establish a military foothold that far out from your main area.

  1. When you take an enemy planet it incurs a -1 corruption modifier for 24 hours after its taken. This represents over reach, rebellions, bribes, kick backs, terrorism, and other negative effects a conquered people deal with as they readjust.

  2. Down below I am suggesting bring in Upkeep for planets, within this, I am suggesting that corruption again be a multiplier for Upkeep. You are 300 LY away, you have to pay 400% increase in upkeep of all buildings. This means that you will have a hard time producing an industry far away from your Capital, however you can still make the tactical solution of paying all that extra upkeep for a strategic placement.

Now, this probably means people will be able to take 50-100 planets nearby, while still being able to take some planets at a distance. However The limitations really make it hard to get to that 200-300+ (sometimes 400-700) planet count that we had back in A2.

To add a bit more depth and to use up pools of resources, I am also suggesting that we have a very small amount of upkeep attached to each building.

What about Syntis? I actually think that Syntis should do away with research only options and limitations and adopt corruption. The reality of our scifi situation here is that even Syntis would deal with some kind of eroding factors. Instead of calling it Corruption, we can call it Interference.

Interference works exactly like Corruption, however Syntis can deal with it slightly different with slightly different effects. Syntis can use Signal Boosters on their planets, but since they donā€™t deal with happiness, these boosters will be EXTREMELY expensive in population, resources, and credits. This reflects the cost of multiple happiness centers vs a few Signal Boosters.

Secondly, instead of increasing the time it takes to build farther away, Syntis internal processing units malfunction decreasing their growth factor based on temperature and land mass to water ratio. This means instead of taking huge amounts of time to get started and maintain a colony like organics, Syntis have to throw population at sustaining a colony until the point where they actually can maintain growth (which will be minimal), requiring Syntis to maintain better supply lines of population to maintain their outer colonies.

OK OK OK FLEETS

Honestly, this is even more simple.

Upkeep based on the hull of the ship,
Then once you start getting bigger and bigger that upkeep on ships starts to increase. For every single planet past your 30 free planets, upkeep increases on all ships by 2%. I also suggestion using @DeicidE suggestion, and have upkeep reduced by 25% for all ships inside of a fleet, and a further reduction of 25% if the fleet is stationed in the planet orbit as a shipyard*.

*The shipyard has to have access to the same tier of the highest tier ship in that fleet for this to successfully give the reduction.

What do you all think?

2 Likes
#2

I understand where you are coming from, but I have a huge problem with this section primarily as a result of having to rely on timing luck to be anywhere near another alliance member. Until we can choose where to spawn, so we can know we will spawn near an ally, it wonā€™t work in times of war. You never know what kind of war you will fight, so be prepared for the worst and longest kind.

In A3, 3 of us were involved in a war that was remote to our homeworlds (ie Capital as youā€™re defining it Iā€™d guess). One was as close as 12-14 hours of travel at W3, another at 24 hours of travel at W3 and me 2 weeks away. And if we had continued, we had others that were prepared to move into the area from weeks away as well.

In order for us to fight in the war effectively we had to develop systems in or near the battlefield, as it was an ongoing war spread over a space occupying 2-3 days travel at W3 in all 4 directions. Iā€™m not good at calculating LY and @Emarel or @Morri correct me if Iā€™m exaggerating.

A system like this would heavily penalize us if we had to fight another war in this fashion which is entirely possible and probable. If you recall we didnā€™t initiate the war, but we did have to respond to it and come to our alliance memberā€™s defense.

As for the rest:

Happiness is difficult enough to deal with once you begin to suffer from corruption, I donā€™t think we need anymore penalties as a result of it. And in your heading youā€™re talking about ā€œreplacingā€ corruption, nothing Iā€™ve read replaces corruption, it only makes it worse and harder to deal with as both a player and for the developers to design. Right now corruption is spread among ALL the planets once you begin to incur it, this suggestion is now putting at the ā€œnewā€ planet level. The thought behind having corruption to begin with was that it is being incurred because the entire Empire is large enough for corruption to begin to occur, so itā€™s logical that once you get that large, it would affect all planets, not just the new one. In fact logically, the newest one might still be the purest one and not corrupt as yet, but Iā€™m good with the current concept overall, placing corruption on all and not complicating it more from that perspective.

As far as a penalty for taking an enemy planet, I donā€™t have an issue with that as long as itā€™s a temporary penalty. Once youā€™ve shown youā€™re a kind Dictator, King or whatever, things will ā€œcalmā€ down. How itā€™s implemented is up for debate. Iā€™d separate it from regular corruption and just carry it as a temporary penalty on that planet, possibly rectified from an expensive building of some sort that you need tech to obtain.

I donā€™t have a major issue with having upkeep for a planet or buildings, however I disagree with your implementation of it for the same reasons I have an issue with your recommendation on how to set up the corruption values.

Youā€™re probably right about Syntis, if we remember the Cylons from BSG, they evolved and became pretty corrupt in their own way lol. Iā€™d have to think on the implementation of it further, but if it or anything carries the penalties as corruption for organics based on it being per planet, based on distance from the Homeworld, I have the same issues I stated for organics.

Please add your fleet suggestions to the fleet topic so it doesnā€™t get lost. Combining two topics, means one will get lost in the discussion. That being said, I totally disagree with tying upkeep on ships to the planets and adding another penalty because you add more planets. Just tie it to the hull beginning at T2. If corruption overall contains the planets to reasonable levels, then fleets will be kept under control because youā€™ll have a limited number of SYā€™s.

#3

Letā€™s say the pre beta server had every player 930 with 75 planets. Thatā€™s around 67,000 planets needed. I doubt the availability of planets within the proposed range and the fact that players are so close together now.

#4

This idea doesnā€™t consider any of this, as its considering an actual fully realized game with alliance mechanics in place. You should be able to conduct war from your allies base of operations eventually, however I will point this out: Taking small planets in this system reduces the negatives over longer distances.

This line of thought is based around a lot of 4X games like Civilization III, where the closer you are to your capital the less corruption you take. The 30 planets is suppose to be the core of your Empire, and there are plenty of examples of the fringes being heavily corrupted vs the core. As it stands, yes corruption is hard to deal with, because it impacts everything at ONCE, which is a major complaint, because it requires MASSIVE micromanagement. This system does not, you deal with the corruption as it comes and you know exactly how much you have to deal with which allows you better preparation against it.

Agree here

Basically, mid to late game most people actually donā€™t have issues with credits or resources, the idea here is for this to be another sink. It makes credits much more meaningful, and actually more valuable. Maybe even to the point that they are worth trading at that point.

That is based around the assumption that no one is taking anything from anyone else. The whole idea of this game is conflict, and the various ways to solve it. This close, with an obvious shortage of planets mean that everyone will have to fight each other.

Also, I have about 300 planets within 100 LY of me, if everyone stayed active, I also have a total of 5 players competing for those planets. That either means sharing, conquering, or some kind of other solution (diplomatic, economic, militaristic threats, alliances, etc).

Most likely what would happen is alliances would have to pick and choose whom to support with extra ships and resources. Everything I have suggested above ultimately comes back down to making strategic choices.

#5

Ok gotcha on this being for Beta and not now. Once we understand how the mechanics of both fully featured alliances work and how the spawning algorithm will change we should look at this again. I understand the concept youā€™re suggesting.

Actually it doesnā€™t if you prepare every planet as if youā€™re going to take the next one, micromanagement is almost non-existent. I always kept a buffer of happiness on every planet to cover the anticipated corruption that Iā€™d have when I took the next one. And once corruption would drive even a 0 tax into negative territory, Iā€™d make sure there was both enough beron and population to get the effect to 0 within a day or less.

True, thinking about it further, I donā€™t have a real issue with it.

#6

Iā€™m not in favor of corruption for Syntis unless they remove the tax cap and treat us entirely like an organic. Canā€™t have it both ways.

1 Like
#7

Using the BSG as an example doesnā€™t exactly fly either as that assumes that Syntis are/were designed like Cylons. Do they have feelings? Have they evolved to the point they want to try and mimic organics in form and emotional chaos? Syntis malfunctioning simply because they are far away from the capital logically makes no sense, particularly for the population growth scenario. Either they are designed for the environment they are colonizing, which could be similar to homeworld, or they are not.

And to be honest i donā€™t really care for corruption as it is. A brand new colony should not be impacted by the burden of the rest of the empire because it is just a start up colony. New colonies have little to contribute to the empire so who would be throwing their weight around to bribe anyone or skim off the top or what have you? I think corruption could have two separate components: 1) planetary level which would impact happiness and resource production both of which can be dealt with SEPARATELY, 2) empire level is a leech on tax revenue as city/planetary governors begin to embezzle money which there is very little you can do about this. To be clear i think the happiness/resource level of impact should be PRIMARILY effected by the population size of the planet in question, and to a much much smaller degree the overall population of the empire. The leech on tax income could be effected by a combination of: 1) total empire population, 2) average size of populated planets.

I totally agree that there needs to be upkeep of some kinds on everything, although minor enough that it doesnā€™t hinder early game progression excessively.

3 Likes
#8

I agree with most of Cheatleā€™s proposal. Minor disagreements could be fixed after implementation.

Particularly:
There ought to be a relatively expensive process to willfully transfer your capital to a location of your choosing.
Penalties of invasion should scale viciously in accordance with the populationā€™s happiness prior to conquest.

Right, who would ever undermine British authority in the colonies? And again, who would pick some small slum to house their illicit activities? The ā€˜centralā€™ far-off government likely canā€™t afford to fully police and oversee these remote locations; crooked trouble makers should take that into account and stay away from such obvious vulnerabilities. 8P

And if thereā€™s a limited supply then there will be a ? demand. Hasnā€™t there been an ongoing complaint that we lack incentives for war?

Also, I doubt that clustered alliance members will fully engulf their capitalsā€™ radii individually. That would be inefficient for war, forcing too great a distance between capitals.

1 Like
#9

Syntis donā€™t deal with happiness in this system, and they donā€™t deal with corruption the same way happiness effects organics. Corruption, is called Interference and it messes with their growth rates. Organics still have to deal with happiness issues on their Prime 30 planets, where as Syntis do not. Syntis still have an advantage there.

What I would suggest, and have suggested before, is to allow Syntis the ability to change their tax levels from 1 to 50, but inversely effecting growth. If its 35, nothing happens, if its set to 0 a 35% increase in growth on THAT planet. If its set to 50, a 30% decrease in growth on that planet, as well as a reduction in unemployment/labor shortage % before Syntis cause problems.

Basically, this gives Syntis the ability to make more money with very very well managed colonies mid to late game, while also giving them the ability to grow some planets faster throughout the game. This system really gives Syntis player more nuanced strategy.

1 Like
#10

We already grow pretty slow as compared to other races, we canā€™t tax as high as organics and with your proposal that would allow us to tax more than 35% we would get yet another penalty on our growth rate. Not sounding that great to me. If you can present a reasonable example comparing Syntis to any organic with the same basic setup but with the ability to tax at 100%, maybe you can change my mind.

1 Like
#11

There is a trade off there.

You can go without taxing to increase your growth rate closer to Organics, or you can slow down your growth rate to increase taxes. You might not be aware of this, but taxing at 100% decreases happiness by 1 per hour, which massively impacts organics growth rates. If I tax at 100% for around 10-20 hours, my growth rate drops down to below Syntis growth rates. So there are checks and balances. Until you get around 30-40 Entertainment centers, you are always going to take that -1 to happiness per hour.

Also, I want to mention that Syntis ships are far superior to almost every other T1 and T2 ship in the game, and it isnā€™t until T3 when stuff starts to even out. Furthermore Syntis have extremely OP Utility ships that can only be countered by other Syntis, or T3 Ripchee.

Syntis arenā€™t suppose to have super expanded starts, or be rolling in money when they first start, the game overall is balanced towards that. Your home guard is so powerful, that T1 troops and transports canā€™t take your planets, from any race. You are so powerful, that your colony ships on are par with Ripchee and Human frigates.

In A3, the top power houses were all Syntis and a few Ripchee.

Honestly, with the balance for them to really come into their own mid game and later, and defenses and ships superior to multiple ships from other races up until that point I could make an argument for why taxes shouldnā€™t be increased, under any mechanic.

1 Like
#12

Sorry let me re look at this, I thought this was on the other post, didnā€™t look at the title.

  • Actually comments still stand. I need an example with numbers that compare late game Syntis with letā€™s say 35 planets vs any organic (you choose which) that has 35 planets with the same sized planets, a single population race that is maxed and the same structures. Assume that all the suggestions you are making for both organic vs Syntis apply to each example. Whatā€™s the hourly upkeep vs the hourly credit income for each?

This is great if you have the credits to build them. Thatā€™s hard to come by at least for the T1 ships early in the game. Itā€™s difficult but not as bad when you get to T2 hulls and everything really evens out credit wise when you get to T3 as most of us have excess credits by then. And Iā€™ve seen some pretty mean T2 PR ships out there, much better than my destroyer when outfitted properly. I think itā€™s the Solaris. Yes our corvettes are the best, but PRā€™s scouts will wipe me out hands down scout vs scout in the early game and be competitive against my corvette, though Iā€™d likely win.

I didnā€™t ask for a ā€œsuperā€ expanded start, just a more competitive start. Anyone can wipe me in early game if they are close by. I canā€™t keep up with even building scouts, much less anything remotely resembling a war ship. And it is NOT balanced at all in early game.

As for taking a defended planet, they might not be able to take it, but they can sure occupy my system and prevent me from using it. Thatā€™s almost as bad, if not worse.

AND AGAIN, I am talking about early game, NOT late game when we all have excess credits floating around. No one is even going to try to assault my system in early game.

#13

I understand you are talking about early game, but Syntis arenā€™t meant to be the best during the early game.

If you are wanting some numbers, lets look at this:

15k planet with perfect land/water ratio and temp for that race, this is what you get.

562,000 - Humans/PR
506,250 - Ripchee
708,750 - Syntis

Late game Syntis have access to much more man power, and they donā€™t require Fleet Support Buildings, which requires 1 Fleet Support, 7 T3 Power Plants, and 1 T3 Entertainment center PER PLANT, for a cost of 71,000 population. So, not only do Syntis have a much higher population, they require less population for fleet support on a significant level.

Even if we are talking the early gameā€¦Just to add ONE fleet support to your entire empire costs = 1 T1 Fleet support (20k people, 5k credits, 15k beron), 3 T1 Power Plants (12k people, 1200 credits, 6k beron), 1 T1 Entertainment center (3k people, 300 credits, 1500 beron)

So for 2 extra slots, early game, it costs 35,000 people, 6,500 credits, 22,500 beron.

Early game all those extra credits we get are actually being fed into our infrastructure, for buildings that Syntis donā€™t need. We have to have, literally DOZENS of Entertainment Centers to battle happiness, and all of this extra power for fleet support, as well as giving up massive amounts of population for happiness and fleet support.

At the end of the day, 150k population per planet maintains happiness and fleet support for Organics, while Syntis donā€™t require any of these extra things, and get another 100-200k population on top of what everyone else has.

To further this, Syntis have a 1.5 str per person, meaning that just in general they are harder to conquer, with much bigger populations coupled with troops and troop buffs to make them a 6 instead of a 4 for troop str, really helps their defenses. Just putting down 30 T3 Troops on a 15k planet with boosts, plus a T2 50% orbital defense, means that Organics can not take that planet unless they heavily bomb it first.

As for attacking others early game, Syntis Frigates have superior firepower and troop transport capacity. They can hold TWICE as many troops, at 1.5 strength, as compared to the nearest Frigate, making them the deadliest T1 invaders.

Going back to very early advantage, Syntis have access to a T1 transport/Freighter that has 2.5x the capacity of Organic Freighters, and it retains that advantage throughout the entire game. This alone means that they can transport more people, greater resources, handle teraforming better, and generally are more efficient and require less time. Even if you look at cost, they are cheaper than making 2 mankind/PR freighters, and give much more storage. This means that Syntis can strip mine 2.5x faster, both planets and asteroid fields.

Syntis get crappy ass credits, but they are superior in almost every other way when we first get started, from being able to handle better temps vs growth rate, better freighters, no happiness spending, no need for fleet support, much better defenses (even if you canā€™t get to it, and they canā€™t take it, you still get access to the credits it makes), more population to be allocated else where, and finally the best at early invasions.

So yeah, a few numbers for ya.

#14

Again, I didnā€™t say be the ā€œbestā€ I said be competitive, thereā€™s a huge difference.

I doubt thatā€™s the case in early game. Iā€™m sure it is an issue in mid-game. And an organic can tax at 100%, that is still a huge amount over what Iā€™m requesting which is 50%, just to give us enough to keep up a little bit better.

I appreciate the numbers, weā€™ll see where it leads. Again late game doesnā€™t matter with respect to what Iā€™m talking about here and I think your suggestion is overly complicated, but weā€™ll see where it goes. Iā€™m still just not convinced.