Administrative capacity, civil and military logistics

[drawar]

I find the system of administrative limit and fleet unattractive, so here are some ideas to improve that, in my opinion.

Administration :
The administration is at three levels: local, sectoral and "imperial".

Local administration :
The local administration is the administrative apparatus of a planet, habitat or segment of a ring world.
It is produced first through capital buildings through administrators and equivalents.

The administrative needs of a planet increases for each sector and building built, some buildings require more administrative capacity.
A planet with an administrative deficit will be less effective, the pops will consume more to satisfy their personal and employment needs, they will produce less, buildings will be more expensive, construction is slowed down, crime increases, stability drops ...
The capital building will not be enough to satisfy the administrative needs of a developing planet.

Fortunately, a planet with a planetary administration can build administrative offices.
These buildings create jobs for officer who will increase the local administrative capacity.
But the officers consume goods, unity and scientific research.
Yes, the public administration is voracious!
The administrative office can be improved in administrative agency on the planets with a planetary capital.
The local administrative capacity can not be "exported".

Developing the administrative capacity at cost, but not developing it too, everyone is free to find his balance between the two extremes of an "anarchist" world to a bureaucrat autocracy.

Sectoral administration :
The sectoral administration is the administrative capacity of a sector. This makes it possible to meet the needs of the planets in local administrative deficits.
It is produced by high officer, it is like basic officer, but more voracious.
These jobs are created by the bureaucratic complex (planetary capital) and the mega bureaucratic complex (system capital-complex ).

The local administration is more economical, but it occupies space on the planet and workers.
The sectoral administration is more expensive, but it can be relocated to other worlds. It becomes possible to specialize entire planets in bureaucracy. The ideal place for unforgettable family vacation.

The governor of a sector according to its level (traits and others) provides some sectoral administrative capacity.

Imperial administration :
The imperial administration is essentially generated by the ruler of various empire modifiers.
One can also imagine another level of even more voracious officer who provides an imperial administrative capacity.

The imperial administrative capacity is to use for edicts (edicts still have a cost in influence or others, but also consumes during the time of the imperial administration), they can also be allocated to sectors to increase their sectoral administrative capacity.

The administrative capacity is no longer a non-interactive element that arbitrarily increases by a fixed number with such and such a bonus, that one ends up simply forgetting.
It becomes an interactive system allowing choices.
To have administrative deficits bring penalties, but to develop the administrative capacity at a cost which can become very elevated, if one wants no deficit.
But this is no longer global, a sector or planet to have a serious administrative deficit, while another sector or planet can be perfectly administered. This offers various choices and strategies.

Technology, civics and others will help improve the efficiency of the administration, but a bureaucratic apparatus will always remain voracious.


Civil and military logistics
The logistics capacity is the ability of the empire to maintain its spatial structures and fleets.
It is not abstract, simple bonuses with numbers. It requires an infrastructure, resources and personal ...

Civil logistics :
Civil logistics capacity is used for the operation of mining and other stations, starbases and megastructures (including habitats and gateways).
The more a starbase is developed, the more modules and buildings it has, the more they consume civil logistic capabilities.
Civil logistics capacity is produced by logisticians. These consume alloys and goods.

Some logisticians jobs are created by the capital buildings, but to fill the needs of a real space empire, it will be necessary to build: small warehouse or warehouse.
These buildings also consume a significant administrative capacity.

Habitats require a high level of logistics, but once developed, the balance can be positive.
The trade district creates as employment: 1 merchant, 2 clerks and 2 logisticians. The Gestalt Consciousness would have an equivalent.

The megastructures would have a phenomenal logistical need, but it would no longer be limited in number.

Civil logistics is managed by sector. However, surpluses are redistributed throughout the empire.

A spatial structure with a logistical deficit works less well, until it becomes inactive, if less than 25% of its needs are met.
Habitat with less than 25% of its needs will be completely inactive and habitability will be 0 for organics, if they are not relocated or if the problem is not resolved. Organic pops will start to die.
A special decision that costs the influence makes it possible to mount an emergency evacuation operation, the pops will be relocated elsewhere, but they will be traumatized for a moment, a major loss of mood.

It is possible to disable spatial structures and define priority spatial structures.

Military Logistics :
The military logistics is similar to civilian logistics, but it is dedicated to the maintenance of space fleets.
The soldiers no longer increase the naval capacity, but they generate instead a little unity while consuming alloys.

The military logistics is created by sailors by consuming alloys and goods.
These jobs are created by the small military base and the military base.
Like warehouses, they consume a significant administrative capacity.

If the military logistics capacity is exceeded, some ships will suffer from a deficient maintenance (be less effective). At the bottom of 25%, the ship become inactive.

Priority fleets can be defined. Dockside fleets consume less logistics.

A fleet can be decommissioned, its logistic capacity and maintenance will be greatly reduced, but its shields will be deactivated and the armor and hull will be 25%.

 

[Martydi]

So, what's the point of all that? I see no reason to add this into the game, other than to throw more artificial obstacles at the player, making micromanagement of everything even worse and taking up even more performance.

 

[drawar]

Artificial obstacles?
The limitations already exist and they are just completely arbitrary and artificial, so boring.

Administration :
Administrative capacity is useless. It is an element that can be completely ignored over which we have no control, except to unblock, in a bonus, an arbitrary increase in administrative capacity.
Moreover, it is global, so it prevents local variations and creates a homogeneous and inert empire internally.
A more local administration with local impacts could also be used to improve the crime aspect.
This is not micromanagement, simply management that is not present today. It is no more complicated than building homes as the population grows.
Moreover, the goal is not that administrative capacity equals the administrative need.

An administrative deficit creates local penalties, but the creation and maintenance of administrative capacity also has a cost.
Yes, it involves management, but offers the choice.
Players who do not like being in administrative deficit will be able to invest as much as they want in the administration to avoid penalties. This may not be the best strategy, but they have the choice now, they no longer have this sense of helplessness and can not do anything to solve the "problem" of administrative inadequacy.

I know very well that the current administrative capacity has been designed to be exceed so that expanded and expanded empires are penalized. This makes the penalties more visible than the old system, but this system lacks interaction and offers no real choice for the players.
With a more local administration, the penalties are more concrete. Instead of having mandatory penalties for expanding empires, players can cancel them.
Even if in fact the penalties are still there (but of a different nature), they have simply been included in the maintenance of the administrative apparatus.

It also offers the opportunity to prioritize. Major and important planets and sectors could be well administered, but lesser planets or secondary sectors to administer and more subject to crime, which could both have drawbacks and advantages with an interesting crime system, especially with criminal megacorporations.

Civil logistics
The civil logistics also aims to give players the choice.
Currently, the starbase limit is very arbitrary (well, especially the bonuses that increases the limit). On the other hand, we are encouraged to develop starbases as much as possible, since there is no real cost in not doing so. Construction costs are not necessarily a problem with a good economy.

There, if a player wants more starbase without penalty, he can, but he must devote resources to the longterm. It is not enough to build, but also provide a logistical capacity that consumes resources every month in addition to asking for workers.
Moreover, if logistical capacity is exceeded, it does not simply entail costs that can be easily absorbed by a good economy or temporary thanks to accumulated resources.

If the logistics capacity is exceeded, it is the effectiveness of starbases that will be affected, so make them less effective. Build, improve or not becomes a real strategic choice.
And this more flexible system allows different strategies.

In addition, civilian logistics also include mining and other stations, habitats and megastructures.
This adds a real strategic depth.
Developing an extended empire to maximize resources through stations will require investing in a logistical capacity. If the logistics capacity does not follow, the stations will work less well, or even become inactive.

This could even allow to remove or reduce the cost in influence of starbases.
In fact, the cost in influence is there to slow the expansion rather arbitrarily.
However, with a logistics system, the limit becomes the logistical capacity to maintain as many spatial structures.
An empire that wants to expand rapidly will need to invest in its logistical capacity, so neglect other aspects.
This can therefore offer different strategies at the beginning of the game and thereafter.

The logistics is also a way to put a stop to a habitat. Indeed, it is not enough to pay for the cost of construction, but it is also necessary to provide a logistic capacity to its good functioning which requires resources, buildings and also workers.
A habitat can provide a logistical capacity greater than its consumption but, for that, it must be developed, which takes time, and is therefore more demanding than simply accumulating alloys and influence.

It also removes the arbitrary limit of some megastructures. Why can not I have two spheres of Dyson? Because it's too powerful, too easy to multiply them? Yes.
But with a logistics system, this is no longer the case. Great, I finished my first sphere of Dysons. I have enough alloy, I'm building a second one?
Maybe, if you have the logistics capacity.
The Dyson sphere provides a lot of energy, but that is not what will directly increase logistical capacity, it requires resources, infrastructure and workers. This does not multiply as easily as alloys.
If you build a second sphere of Dyson, but then fall in logistic deficit, it may not even work or you will have to disable other structures or live with many penalties ...

We must also see what it could give at war. Indeed, if one paralyzes the logistic centers of an enemy empire, it is the whole empire that can become paralyzed or parts of it.
In my first message, I said that the civilian logistics was managed by sector and that the surpluses were shared with the other sectors, but that could be provided that the sectors are connected.
This offers new possibilities for wars and also a way to force an empire to surrendera

Military logistics :
Why add military logistics?
Most naval limit increases are very arbitrary, they do not increase efficiency, but add a simple "+ X" bonus.

The naval limit is also increased by the soldiers, except that this is a bad idea, because these increase at the same time the naval limit, thus the naval power, but also the defensive power of a planet! And besides, their job has no maintenance costs!
Having a large naval capacity should be an investment and maintaining this naval capability should have a real cost.

It also adds an aspect of a strategic aspect to the war. Paralyzing the military logistics of his enemy can be a way to force him to surrender.

Moreover it removes the arbitrary penalties in case of lack of resources. If military logistics become deficient, ships will have their maintenance level dwindling over time and not in a rude way.
In addition, the player will be free to prioritize fleets. Some of its ships could be weakened or paralyzed, but it could maintain one or more fleets still perfectly functional, depending on its available logistic capacity.

 

[Martydi]

And how are your solutions better? They are no less arbitrary than the current system, add nothing interesting to the game and just necesitate even more tedious micromanagement in big empires. And in some cases, its just stupid od redundant. Planetary administration? We on Earth do well managing all the economy without quarter of the population in administration works, why would a hyperadvanced interstellar empire be different? Sector administration cap is just redundant, we can't control what goes into the sector anymore, and this system penalizes us for having sectors with more micromanagement, the one problem sectors are supposed to fix. And why is current fleet cap bad? It is no less arbitrary than your system. Its a representation of empire's ability to manage a fleet, it can be increased by buildings. Ship upkeep costs are the investment and cost you want. Being free to prioritize fleets? Oh please, I spend most of my game time over the fleet limit and just tank the increased costs. Military logistics in the war? Knocking out the enemy fleet infrastructure would consist of capturing planets and killing starbases, which, surprise surprise, is redundant, because that is already the objective in war. Don't like the way naval cap is increased? Then suggest to change that, instead of asking for a new system entirely. Megastructure limits? How is that in any way, shape or form related to admin cap? I can't understand what do you want implemented here. How would major penalties when making several megastructures make the game better?

 

[drawar]

What I propose is not arbitrary, quite the opposite.
What is arbitrary is the current system that adds bonuses of a fixed value based on nothing.
Ex : Colonial Bureaucracy give +20 Administrative Capacity.
Where does this +20 come from? How come a small empire or big empire has exactly the same bonus, when a big empire is supposed to have a bigger administration?

This bonus gives no control to the player on the mechanism and offers no choice to a player. And not being able to have control, it is not positive for the players.

Seriously ... without the government administration and also without the administration in the companies, the current economy could not work.

The sectoral administration is not redundant, quite the contrary.

The local and sectoral administration are two elements that can be complementary, but also offer different strategies.
The local government is more economical, but it needs to be developed on a planet, so it takes local space and local workers.
The sectoral administration allows delocalized administration. And which also makes it possible to centralize the administration of a sector on or planets in particular, if one wishes it. It is even a way to reduce the management, you manage the administration for all a sector instead of planet.
But in return the sectoral administration is more expensive.

With this system, technologies (and others) that give bonuses is no longer arbitrary, but serve to unlock new administrative means or improve efficiency.
For example, Colonial Bureaucracy unblocks Administrative offices.
Administrative Efficiency (repeatable technology) gives more 10% in the efficiency of administration production.
There, they are no longer bonuses of an arbitrary value. The first unblocks a possibility.
The second improves efficiency, so takes into account the size of the empire. An empire with a small administrative apparatus will have a "small" bonus, an empire with a large administative apparatus will have a "big" bonus.
In both cases, the bonus is the same, but the result of this bonus is different and reflects the nature of each empire.


The current system of the fleet limit is completely arbitrary, it does not reflect the nature of its empire. It is only the accumulation of fixed bonuses that have no cost (except research technology) and the multiplication of soldiers who have no real cost for maintaining this naval capability.
Logistics is the nerve of war. Having 10,000 tanks on the front and full of carburan in the warehouse is good!
But you also have to be able to get this carburan to the tanks.
That's logistics and it's a cost. This requires infrastructure and staff.
Which is right now absent.
Logistics is not limited to an object and a resource to make this object work.

And I remain nice, with such a system, I would like to implement a refueling system. A ship that is not docked consumes a small of its reserves. When it is exhausted, the ship begins to suffer from a lack of maintenance up to paralysis.
And to go further, I would even add that the supply capacity of a starbase would be limited, it regenerates over time. The anchorages would not serve to increase the naval limit (but this could still be a possibility via some bonuses), but the supply capacity of a starbase.
This would add a whole new dynamic to wars and fleet management.

Ask to modify the current system, without adding that, it's already done!
Post one does not prevent the other, we are on an idea forum.


Megastructures are related to civil logistics capacity, not administrative capacity. Even if developing the civil logistics capacity implies an administrative need.
Megastructures do not generate a penalty if the logistical capacity of the empire is adequate. Although this logistic capacity has a cost, the benefit of a megastructure largely offsets this cost.
The difference is that creating and maintaining this logistic capacity is more demanding than simply accumulating alloys and influence and paying a pittance energy maintenance.
We can very well multiply the megastrucures without penalty, but we must at the same time improve its logistical capacity, which is more complex and slower.

In a war, one can even imagine to succeed in neutralizing the functioning of an enemy megastructure without seizing its system by paralyzing enemy logistic of the sector for example.
In addition, it also means that for an enemy who seized one or more megastructures, they might be unable to use them without improving their civilian logistics capacity, if they are not enough. ...

 

[Methone]

Where does this +20 come from? How come a small empire or big empire has exactly the same bonus, when a big empire is supposed to have a bigger administration?

The 'bigger administration' is empire sprawl. The Admin Cap is how efficient it can be before getting overwhelmed.

Consider it as you're in a group project. You're the leader, you have 2 followers. You can generally get them to follow along with you.

Now you have 20 people on your team. Bit of a 'too many cooks' situation, huh? What the tech does is it makes you a better leader more able to get even those 20 to follow along and work efficiently.

It's not arbitrary just because you don't understand it.

 

[drawar]

No, the administration of the empire does not increase with the spreading of the empire.
You can build 10,000 System Capital-Complex, the administrative capacity remains unchanged.
You improve the efficiency of the administration that you have 10,000 System Capital-Complex or just 1, the result is the same...

If an administration is overwhelmed too much, it will just be paralyzed and ineffective.
We could say that the penalties of exceeding the administrative limit are there for that, but it is not really the case. As long as the economy increases at the same time, there is no real penalty, you can have double, triple, and so on. Despite this, it continues to work.
- Hi, official number 5, the empire has grown bigger, we will double your salary and in return you will work 72 hours per day.
- Thanks boss!

A leader can not run everything, in any great self-respecting empire secondary structures are created to administer part of the empire.
These structures can be as much an increase as the central (imperial) adminsitration or the more local administration creation.

However, the fixed bonuses independent of the nature of the empire can nonetheless be justified as you say by the ability of a leader to manage by himself and via his personal team a part of the empire.
This can join the idea of the imperial administration.

The imperial administration could not be increased through buildings and jobs (or these are very expensive), but through an improvement in the effectiveness of governance (leader and team more competent or with tools to facilitate management).
Imperial administrative capacity could be used to manage the edicts, campaigns, and other projects affecting the entire empire.
It could also be used to directly administer sectors. The directly administered sectors would be called "central". Other sectors would be classified as peripheral (for example).
The peripheral sectors could still manage by the player. This does not imply delegation to an AI.
However, these peripheral areas would be less productive. Some of the resources do not return to the central authority.
The pops could also more easily diverge from the ethics of the empire.

Having several central sectors could therefore be interesting to avoid the penalties of peripheral sectors, but this implies a lesser imperial administrative capacity available for the overall management of the empire.

 

[Martydi]

This bonus gives no control to the player on the mechanism and offers no choice to a player. And not being able to have control, it is not positive for the players.

Neither does your system, it just clogs up already scarce building slots with more buildings.

The sectoral administration is not redundant, quite the contrary.

Yes it is. It would make at least some sense with the old sector system, where you could decide what goes into the sector. As it is now, the system just penalizes people for using sectors, as it forces you to waste more building slots and adds more micromanagement. Sectors are supposed to reduce micromanagement, not increase.

The current system of the fleet limit is completely arbitrary, it does not reflect the nature of its empire. It is only the accumulation of fixed bonuses that have no cost (except research technology) and the multiplication of soldiers who have no real cost for maintaining this naval capability.
Logistics is the nerve of war. Having 10,000 tanks on the front and full of carburan in the warehouse is good!
But you also have to be able to get this carburan to the tanks.
That's logistics and it's a cost. This requires infrastructure and staff.
Which is right now absent.
Logistics is not limited to an object and a resource to make this object work.

Fleet cap represents the ability of empire's administration and infrastructure to support the fleet. When its exceeded, more resources need to be spent on keeping ships in working condition. The cost you want is included in fortress and ship upkeep. Soldier jobs represent not only troops, but also all the suport personel and stuff.

In a war, one can even imagine to succeed in neutralizing the functioning of an enemy megastructure without seizing its system by paralyzing enemy logistic of the sector for example.
In addition, it also means that for an enemy who seized one or more megastructures, they might be unable to use them without improving their civilian logistics capacity, if they are not enough. ...

What's the point? Seizing megastructures is as easy, maybe even easier, and more profitable than disabling them would be.

No, the administration of the empire does not increase with the spreading of the empire.
You can build 10,000 System Capital-Complex, the administrative capacity remains unchanged.
You improve the efficiency of the administration that you have 10,000 System Capital-Complex or just 1, the result is the same...

These buildings represent planetary level administration you wanted. That's two issues solved.

A leader can not run everything, in any great self-respecting empire secondary structures are created to administer part of the empire.
These structures can be as much an increase as the central (imperial) adminsitration or the more local administration creation.

That's what planetary capitals and admin techs mean.

However, the fixed bonuses independent of the nature of the empire can nonetheless be justified as you say by the ability of a leader to manage by himself and via his personal team a part of the empire.
This can join the idea of the imperial administration.

When new methods of improving administration are discovered, they don't scale. Bigger empire has more resources to spend on administration, but also more difficulty admninsitering its larger territory. It evens out.

The imperial administration could not be increased through buildings and jobs (or these are very expensive), but through an improvement in the effectiveness of governance (leader and team more competent or with tools to facilitate management).

That's what admin techs mean, better management facilities and techniques.

Imperial administrative capacity could be used to manage the edicts, campaigns, and other projects affecting the entire empire.

Exceeding admin cap increases cost of camapigns (certain edict type).

It could also be used to directly administer sectors. The directly administered sectors would be called "central". Other sectors would be classified as peripheral (for example).
The peripheral sectors could still manage by the player. This does not imply delegation to an AI.
However, these peripheral areas would be less productive. Some of the resources do not return to the central authority.
The pops could also more easily diverge from the ethics of the empire.

What would be the point of sectors then? Just waste more building slots of different admin buildings and add more micromanagement.


And one more concern is resources. All the capacity increasing jobs you proposed use alloys (for some reason) and consumer goods. But shortages of both these resources are already pretty common, adding more consumption of these while reducing the numer of factories and foundries that can be build by clogging building slots by admin buildings. Implementing what you say would require rebalancing of entire alloy and CG economy.

Although I guess ecumenopoli would get an enormous boost to value, as the now scarce consumer goods and even more scarce alloys can be produced in massive amounts without using up building slots.

 

[Methone]

Although I guess ecumenopoli would get an enormous boost to value, as the now scarce consumer goods and even more scarce alloys can be produced in massive amounts without using up building slots.

The last thing city worlds need is to be MORE valuable.

 

[Martydi]

The last thing city worlds need is to be MORE valuable.

Haven't used them, can't say, just stating the obvious result of proposed changes.

 

[Methone]

Haven't used them, can't say, just stating the obvious result of proposed changes.

Even after the 2.3 nerf, they're pretty silly.

 

[drawar]

Neither does your system, it just clogs up already scarce building slots with more buildings.

No, players have a choice. If they want to improve their administrative capacity, they can build buildings for it.
The player therefore has the choice to choose to remain in deficit, the size of this deficit or to partially or completely fill this deficit.
As currently, it is not mandatory to have an administrative capacity equal to its needs.
Each approach has its advantages and disadvantages.

A deficit leads to various and increasingly significant penalties, but the creation of an administrative capacity at cost in terms of resources, location and employees.
That's having a choice.

Yes it is. It would make at least some sense with the old sector system, where you could decide what goes into the sector. As it is now, the system just penalizes people for using sectors, as it forces you to waste more building slots and adds more micromanagement. Sectors are supposed to reduce micromanagement, not increase.

The sectoral administration has advantages and disadvantages in relation to local administration.
It is more expensive, but it can be relocated to other worlds.
So a young colony can develop without being in administrative deficit or having a big deficit, even if it does not develop its local administration.
It also allows to fully specialize a foundry world and that it is fully administered.

Fleet cap represents the ability of empire's administration and infrastructure to support the fleet. When its exceeded, more resources need to be spent on keeping ships in working condition. The cost you want is included in fortress and ship upkeep. Soldier jobs represent not only troops, but also all the suport personel and stuff.

Not really, a lot of the bonuses of increasing the limit of the fleet rests on nothing and will be as important as a small empire with the limited infratrusture that a great empire with the extended infrastructure.
Which is absurd in part, if you have carburan and a ship that needs carburan, but there is no supply ship available. Put as much money as you want, it will not create a supply ship by magic
How do you send people in rowboat with cans of gas?

However, on this side, the two visions can defend themselves to the limit. Injecting more money can be said to make the infrastructure work overcapacity.
But, personally, I prefer a more concrete logistic capacity.
This does not mean that one can not exceed one's logistic limit. Just that if it is exceeded ships will suffer from poor maintenance, but that is not necessarily serious.

The penalty can be low as long as the maintenance is greater than 90%. Lower down, the penalty grows faster. At the bottom of 75%, the penalty increases even more quickly and at 25% (or lower, it is worth to discuss) the ship is no functional.

This may be more interesting than the current system in the event of a shortage that suddenly affects all vessels regardless of the size of the deficit.
It may also allow the option of prioritizing refueling for some fleets, so that these fleets could be fully functional, but other fleets would be even less operational.
One could even imagine an option to prioritize certain systems for ships in maintenance deficit.
Not necessarily managed by ships, but by fleet, or type of ship of the fleet.
The different systems would be: weapon, hull, armor, shield and engine.

One can imagine a simple system or a little more elaborate, but still simple.

For example, in a system that manages the distribution of the maintenance. Each system would have a value ranging from 0 to 100.
In the basic settings, all systems are at 20.
The sum of the values of the different systems is always equal to 100.
This system determines the maintenance sharing of the ship, when it is at 100, all systems work at 100% regardless of settings, unless you introduce a system of overcapacity (with decreasing efficiency).
For example, if the arming is 30, the shield is 10 and the rest is 20 and the ship is at a maintenance level of 80%.
This means that the weapon will have a maintenance of 80 * 0.3 = 24 and the shields of 80 * 0.1 = 8
This value compared the normal value of 20 (100 * 0.2 = 20).
In this example, the arming works at 100% (24/20*100%=120%), and even overcapacity, if there is no such system, the surplus is redistributed another system.
For shields, it gives 8 / 20 * 100% = 40%
So the shields have a maintenance level of 40%, so quite high penalties, while the arming works normally.
If the value falls to 25% (value to be debated), the system is no longer functional.

The hull will always be a minimum priority system whose maintenance value does not fall below the 25% of maintenance to not threaten the structural integrity of the ship.
The armor has no threshold of non-functionality, it will just become less effective.

I know, it adds micromanagement (well, for those who like it, we can always keep the basic settings). But it's just an idea like that.

The maintenance cost of the stronghold (1 energy) does not reflect the material cost of logistics. Logistics does not just deliver equipment, logistics also consumes equipment to ensure its own operation.
Ok, the fortress also has a volatile particle cost, but the jobs of soldiers do not consume resources, while most jobs consume resources to function (even if their building has a cost as a strategic resource).

Moreover, it is a bad idea that the soldiers ensure both the safety of a planet and the increase of the size of the fleet, without real cost.
Multiplying the soldiers allows both to increase the defense of a planet (the military power of a planet) in addition to increasing the military power of the fleet.

After, I know that the system for land combat is unattractive and that they should be improved.
But I think soldiers should only have an impact on the security of a planet. It could increase the number of defensive army and decrease the crime, but less than the enforcer or generate a little unit or service.
With the idea of an administrative deficit that could increase the crime, it could give another concrete usefulness to the soldiers, even if they are less effective at this task than the enforcers, but they ensure a less good defense of the planet. .

What's the point? Seizing megastructures is as easy, maybe even easier, and more profitable than disabling them would be.

It depends on the position of the megastructure is defense present in the area. I'm just saying that this can be a possibility in some cases.
Moreover, with the idea of civilian logistics to make the megastructures work, it might not be so simple to operate a megastructure captured during a war during a war ...

These buildings represent planetary level administration you wanted. That's two issues solved.

Yes, they must represent in RP the administration. Does it really embody an administration, I strongly doubt it.

That's what planetary capitals and admin techs mean.

Yes, they must represent this in RP. Does he really embody that, I strongly doubt it.
They have absolutely no impact on the administrative capacity, these jobs are interesting, but technically not mandatory for the functioning of a planet.

When new methods of improving administration are discovered, they don't scale. Bigger empire has more resources to spend on administration, but also more difficulty admninsitering its larger territory. It evens out.

I'm not sure I understand.
The problem is that a larger empire does not have more resources to spend in its administration. Technically, it suffers only the penalty of a deficient administration precisely, because it is impossible to invest his administration ...
And if you improve the efficiency of an administration, if it is bigger, the efficiency gain should be greater in absolute value.

That's what admin techs mean, better management facilities and techniques.

Really?
Colonial Bureaucracy : Local administrative developments allow for closer supervision of colonial affairs without excessively burdening central decision-making.
What local administrative development? If there is more local administration, should not it have more administration capacity?

Exceeding admin cap increases cost of camapigns (certain edict type).

That campaigns are more expensive in a big empire is normal.
Nevertheless, there is a difference in the ability to administer a campaign and its resource cost.
If the campaigns require an (imperial) administrative capacity, then we could perhaps make them more impacting because they would no longer be possible to activate all when we have an economy that runs at full speed.

What would be the point of sectors then? Just waste more building slots of different admin buildings and add more micromanagement.


And one more concern is resources. All the capacity increasing jobs you proposed use alloys (for some reason) and consumer goods. But shortages of both these resources are already pretty common, adding more consumption of these while reducing the numer of factories and foundries that can be build by clogging building slots by admin buildings. Implementing what you say would require rebalancing of entire alloy and CG economy.

Although I guess ecumenopoli would get an enormous boost to value, as the now scarce consumer goods and even more scarce alloys can be produced in massive amounts without using up building slots.

I think I already answered that previously.

The goods and alloys represent "objects", so it is normal for logistics to consume them.
The civil logistics could consume more good than alloy, and the military, the opposite.
Yes, it may be necessary to review some production value, but that is not a calamity.
And the shortages, it depends. Yes, in the beginning, after, if we manage to install its economy, you can build habitats and megastructures in series, improve all starbases and etc ...

If you want, I propose that we create a recycling building, all the resources consumed on a planet are partly recovered or, in a simpler way, it reduces the resources consumed by jobs.
But recycling is less effective in case of administrative deficit...

Finally, I think we have mostly different visions. And both can be worth.

Despite the disagreements, thank you for your participation on this subject.



For Ecumenopolis worlds, if arcology requires a high level of administration ... It can be balanced ... Even add a need for civil logistics ... After all, it's a bit like a megastructure ...

 

[Martydi]

No, players have a choice. If they want to improve their administrative capacity, they can build buildings for it.
The player therefore has the choice to choose to remain in deficit, the size of this deficit or to partially or completely fill this deficit.
As currently, it is not mandatory to have an administrative capacity equal to its needs.
Each approach has its advantages and disadvantages.

A deficit leads to various and increasingly significant penalties, but the creation of an administrative capacity at cost in terms of resources, location and employees.
That's having a choice.

This is not choice, its either pay resources and waste building slots on no real gain or gets penalties to all production. Its not a choice, its just bad design. Depending on how you balance that, it will bea no brainer one way or the other.

The sectoral administration has advantages and disadvantages in relation to local administration.
It is more expensive, but it can be relocated to other worlds.
So a young colony can develop without being in administrative deficit or having a big deficit, even if it does not develop its local administration.
It also allows to fully specialize a foundry world and that it is fully administered.

So it replaces local administration? That isn't anymore logical than the current system. And if it costs more, what's the point? You either build a building on five planets, each costing a certain amount of alloys, or you build five buildings on a single planet each costing double that alloys.

Not really, a lot of the bonuses of increasing the limit of the fleet rests on nothing and will be as important as a small empire with the limited infratrusture that a great empire with the extended infrastructure.
Which is absurd in part, if you have carburan and a ship that needs carburan, but there is no supply ship available. Put as much money as you want, it will not create a supply ship by magic
How do you send people in rowboat with cans of gas?

If you discover a method to more efficiently pack boxes onto a cargo ship, the amount of boxes you can pack onto a ship is exactly the same for the big empire as for the small. But that besides, bigger empires DO get more fleet cap than small ones, just because they have more soldier jobs and station buildings. So the entire point goes out of the window.

Put as much money as you want, it will not create a supply ship by magic

Buying or building moree ships is EXACTLY how you get more ships. And news flash, money can be used to get new ships, either by buying materal to make tchem or by buying the ships.

This does not mean that one can not exceed one's logistic limit. Just that if it is exceeded ships will suffer from poor maintenance, but that is not necessarily serious.

And with the current system, ships do suffer from poor maintenance. Increased maintenance costs represent more resources being poured into the ships themselves and additional infrastructure overcapacity maintenance, to make up for the poor maintenance.

and at 25% (or lower, it is worth to discuss) the ship is no functional.

NO. I DO NOT want to lose ships because I dug up the Grand Herald and exceeded the fleet cap suddenly. I am fine with paying increased maintenance for a little while before I can build more infrastructure, but I DO NOT want to lose my ENTIRE FLEET just because I got a big ship suddenly.

This may be more interesting than the current system in the event of a shortage that suddenly affects all vessels regardless of the size of the deficit.
It may also allow the option of prioritizing refueling for some fleets, so that these fleets could be fully functional, but other fleets would be even less operational.
One could even imagine an option to prioritize certain systems for ships in maintenance deficit.
Not necessarily managed by ships, but by fleet, or type of ship of the fleet.
The different systems would be: weapon, hull, armor, shield and engine.

MICROMANAGEMENT HELL we don't need anymore of that.

One can imagine a simple system or a little more elaborate, but still simple.

For example, in a system that manages the distribution of the maintenance. Each system would have a value ranging from 0 to 100.
In the basic settings, all systems are at 20.
The sum of the values of the different systems is always equal to 100.
This system determines the maintenance sharing of the ship, when it is at 100, all systems work at 100% regardless of settings, unless you introduce a system of overcapacity (with decreasing efficiency).
For example, if the arming is 30, the shield is 10 and the rest is 20 and the ship is at a maintenance level of 80%.
This means that the weapon will have a maintenance of 80 * 0.3 = 24 and the shields of 80 * 0.1 = 8
This value compared the normal value of 20 (100 * 0.2 = 20).
In this example, the arming works at 100% (24/20*100%=120%), and even overcapacity, if there is no such system, the surplus is redistributed another system.
For shields, it gives 8 / 20 * 100% = 40%
So the shields have a maintenance level of 40%, so quite high penalties, while the arming works normally.
If the value falls to 25% (value to be debated), the system is no longer functional.

HOW THE FECK IS THAT SIMPLE. I don't want every ship redesign to be a math olympics.

The maintenance cost of the stronghold (1 energy) does not reflect the material cost of logistics. Logistics does not just deliver equipment, logistics also consumes equipment to ensure its own operation.

That's what ship upkeep cost is for.

Ok, the fortress also has a volatile particle cost, but the jobs of soldiers do not consume resources, while most jobs consume resources to function (even if their building has a cost as a strategic resource).

Not every job has to draw resources. Mines and generators normally would also consume alloys or something to get all the workers equipped, paid and in working conditio, but it does not. Sometimes, gameplay has to take priority over realism, and in such cases, it always should.

Moreover, it is a bad idea that the soldiers ensure both the safety of a planet and the increase of the size of the fleet, without real cost.
Multiplying the soldiers allows both to increase the defense of a planet (the military power of a planet) in addition to increasing the military power of the fleet.

Cost is already in building and upkeeping a fortress.
About the dual purpose, think of it as fortress being not only a big fortification, but also complexes of barracks, offices and logistic centers for military, and soldier jobs not only being just ground troops, but all the associated administrators and suport personnel. Splitting all this would just make no gameplay sense, increasing tedium and frustration while not making the game anymore fun.

After, I know that the system for land combat is unattractive and that they should be improved.

Agreed.

It depends on the position of the megastructure is defense present in the area. I'm just saying that this can be a possibility in some cases.
Moreover, with the idea of civilian logistics to make the megastructures work, it might not be so simple to operate a megastructure captured during a war during a war ...

Let me put it another way. In what scenario capturing a starbase with a Logistics module, that draws resources to operate, is better than capturing a starbase next door instead, and getting a megatructure with a huge bonus to you?

Yes, they must represent in RP the administration. Does it really embody an administration, I strongly doubt it.

Representing the planetary administration is the entire reason for this buildings existing.

No, these things are not administrative complexes at all. All this office space? Its just for storing air. These all new administrators we hired? Oh, we just pay them to play cards all day.

Yes, they must represent this in RP. Does he really embody that, I strongly doubt it.
They have absolutely no impact on the administrative capacity, these jobs are interesting, but technically not mandatory for the functioning of a planet.

They ARE necesary for proper functioning of a planet because you LITERALLY CANNOT have a planet without it, and more advanced buildings are locked behind higher levels of planetary capital.

Really?
Colonial Bureaucracy : Local administrative developments allow for closer supervision of colonial affairs without excessively burdening central decision-making.
What local administrative development? If there is more local administration, should not it have more administration capacity?

Nope, can't see any admin cap increase. No such thing here. Don't even try.

I'm not sure I understand.
The problem is that a larger empire does not have more resources to spend in its administration. Technically, it suffers only the penalty of a deficient administration precisely, because it is impossible to invest his administration ...
And if you improve the efficiency of an administration, if it is bigger, the efficiency gain should be greater in absolute value.

So what do you want these techs to do? Percantage increase in admin capacity? Effect will be the same, admin cap progressing along with empire development.

That campaigns are more expensive in a big empire is normal.

What is your issue here then?

Nevertheless, there is a difference in the ability to administer a campaign and its resource cost.
If the campaigns require an (imperial) administrative capacity, then we could perhaps make them more impacting because they would no longer be possible to activate all when we have an economy that runs at full speed.

Having an economy running at full speed is EXACTLY the moment when empire would launch campaigns, to try to keep this good time moving or trying to secure more growth for the future.

I think I already answered that previously.

If that was the case, I wouldn't have brought that up.

The goods and alloys represent "objects", so it is normal for logistics to consume them.
The civil logistics could consume more good than alloy, and the military, the opposite.

If you need so much realism here, why are the administrators having the alloy upkeep, instead of the Logistics themselves.

Yes, it may be necessary to review some production value, but that is not a calamity.
And the shortages, it depends. Yes, in the beginning, after, if we manage to install its economy, you can build habitats and megastructures in series, improve all starbases and etc ...

But what about the early game? In the early game, when you don't have all these foundries and ecumenopoli set up, you are in permament resource shortage. And with these shortages, you are not going to reach late game techs to make them go away.

If you want, I propose that we create a recycling building, all the resources consumed on a planet are partly recovered or, in a simpler way, it reduces the resources consumed by jobs.

Oh great. Even more foundries replaced by something else. Why not, you know, not force players to go into deficyt in the first place?

For Ecumenopolis worlds, if arcology requires a high level of administration ... It can be balanced ... Even add a need for civil logistics ... After all, it's a bit like a megastructure ...

So all the resources from an ecumenopolis go back into managing it? Great, the one thing that could break the cycle of endless deficit undone by the entire system its supposed to uphold.

Finally, I think we have mostly different visions. And both can be worth.

Yes we do. That really didn't need to be stated, we wouldn't be here if not for that.

 

[drawar]

I'm going to make it short, I think everything has been said.

This is not choice, its either pay resources and waste building slots on no real gain or gets penalties to all production. Its not a choice, its just bad design. Depending on how you balance that, it will bea no brainer one way or the other.

There is a choice an administrative deficit generates a global penalty, but not necessarily catastrophic as long as it is not important.
Administration production consumes specific resources: good, science and unity; no energy, no alloy, no food, no minerals (indirectly yes, but we can eventually raise the goods) ... And as you like to say the place and jobs.

As said earlier, the goal is not to force players to completely fill their adminsitrative need.
As at present, one can exceed one's adminsitrative capacity, it creates penalities, as now.
The difference is to allow the players to really be able to act on their administrative capacities with the advantages and disadvantages that it brings.

It can also offer two types of empire management: a very bureaucratic and a more "anarchist", as well as having the ability to be in between and it may differ from a planet (or sector) to the other.

Authoritarianism allows for a strong bureaucratic administration, while egalitarianism could alleviate the disadvantages of a lack of administration.
Civics and others may also favor one of two aspects.

One last thing, I say that the creation of a sectoral administration is more expensive than a local. However, its buildings could generate more jobs and / or these are more productive. In other words, it is more expensive with equal amounts of administrative production, but more efficient per occupied space.
There can be several ways of distinguishing local and sectoral administration, each with its advantages and disadvantages.

So it replaces local administration? That isn't anymore logical than the current system. And if it costs more, what's the point? You either build a building on five planets, each costing a certain amount of alloys, or you build five buildings on a single planet each costing double that alloys.

In what way, it is illogical to have a delocalized administration?
Yes, it is more expensive, but we must not forget the planetary bonuses (like those provided by the special planets), it frees space on other planets for more priority buildings to ensure the good development of new colonies and it reduces micromanagement for those who want it by being able to manage the administration by sector or to provide a complement to a local administration.

Representing the planetary administration is the entire reason for this buildings existing.

They ARE necesary for proper functioning of a planet because you LITERALLY CANNOT have a planet without it, and more advanced buildings are locked behind higher levels of planetary capital.

Nope, can't see any admin cap increase. No such thing here. Don't even try.

It is only RP, builds these buildings remove the jobs of administrators and the planet will work normally.
These are just jobs providing interesting bonuses compared to other jobs, but by no means a necessity for the proper functioning of a planet.

Colonial Bureaucracy : Local administrative developments allow for closer supervision of colonial affairs without excessively burdening central decision-making.

If this technology makes it possible to develop local administration under the supervision of the central administration. If there are more local governments developing, should not they have a greater administrative capacity created globally in the empire?
To emphasize the absurdity of this, even if you do not have a colony, only your main planet and only your solar system, you will have the same gain as an empire with dozens of planets having developed their supposed local administration.

NO. I DO NOT want to lose ships because I dug up the Grand Herald and exceeded the fleet cap suddenly. I am fine with paying increased maintenance for a little while before I can build more infrastructure, but I DO NOT want to lose my ENTIRE FLEET just because I got a big ship suddenly.

You lose nothing, to exceed the military logistic limit implies that certain vessels will have a deficient maintenance, it does not necessarily become non-functional. It depends only on the size of the logistics deficit and the prioritization of logistics distribution, if you decide to declare some fleets as a priority.

If a ship receives 90% of its maintenance a month, it will have a 90% level of maintenance. If the next month, he still receives only 90% of his maintenance, he will still have a level of maintenance of 90%.
Unless you want me to complicate this with changes in the level of maintenance progressively according to the maintenance level received each month.
What might be interesting to create a kind of attrition system on a fleet is going too long without refueling at a spaceport (but hey, that would be even more management).

MICROMANAGEMENT HELL we don't need anymore of that.

But not compulsory, only for those who like to be punctilious.
I do not say that we must implement this, it is only a possibility with this system.

 

[Martydi]

I'm going to make it short, I think everything has been said.

Oh come on, if you can't respond to my criticism, at least admit that my points are right, don't chicken out like that.

There is a choice an administrative deficit generates a global penalty, but not necessarily catastrophic as long as it is not important.

So its a choice between producing resources but wasting building slots and the produced resources on administration or producing less of normal resources and having similar balance of processed resources. This is not the kind of choice people should be forced to take.

Administration production consumes specific resources: good, science and unity; no energy, no alloy, no food, no minerals (indirectly yes, but we can eventually raise the goods) ... And as you like to say the place and jobs.

The soldiers no longer increase the naval capacity, but they generate instead a little unity while consuming alloys.

Civil logistics capacity is produced by logisticians. These consume alloys and goods.

The soldiers no longer increase the naval capacity, but they generate instead a little unity while consuming alloys.

The military logistics is created by sailors by consuming alloys and goods.

Nah, no alloys consumed anywhere.

As said earlier, the goal is not to force players to completely fill their adminsitrative need.

So what IS the point of this system? Current admin cap is supposed to give tall players a fighting Chance against wide players (how well does it do its job is a debate for another thread), and current fleet cap system aims to prevent fleets getting too big for empire size. What does your system do, aside from creating artificial resource shortages by means explained earlier? It doesn't help tall players to stay more or less competetive. If anything, it penalizes tall players even more. Wide empires manager well by the player MIGHT have the resources to pay for bloated, unecesary administration you propose, tall players won't and will still need to dish out the moolah. At the same time, wide players get rid of the few minor penalties that were supposed to keep the closer to what tall players achieve. Your imperial administration system fails at its job and is just not fun at all.

In what way, it is illogical to have a delocalized administration?

One of the reasons for creating this thread is you not liking the current system of delocalized administration. At least how I understand it, correct me if I'm wrong. It wasn't your only concern, but one of them.

The difference is to allow the players to really be able to act on their administrative capacities with the advantages and disadvantages that it brings.

But again, why should a bigger empire have easier time managing itself than small one, as said above? Tall players have space to place foundries and factories to pay for your proposed administration, tall players wont. The entire point of admin cap is for tall playstyles to be at the very least competetive, even if not as good as wide. Your system utterly fails at it.

It can also offer two types of empire management: a very bureaucratic and a more "anarchist", as well as having the ability to be in between and it may differ from a planet (or sector) to the other.

Its a choice between losing resources or spending resources to not lose resources. Can you not see how badly designed it is? And if playing without making admin buildings is viable, why would one waste precious building slots on something that just gobbles up resources without giving any benefit in return?

it frees space on other planets

But it still takes up the same amount of space, point moot. And stuffing all your administration on one pplanet is just a pure bad idea, because it creates a vulnerability.

it reduces micromanagement for those who want it by being able to manage the administration by sector or to provide a complement to a local administration.

If the local administration is still a thing in sectors, then it just doubles the micromanagement and resource consumption while not giving any real benefit. If it deletes the planetary administration, then the micromanagement stays the same. I wouldn't trust Stellaris AI to keep the balance of resources or administration positive.

It is only RP, builds these buildings remove the jobs of administrators and the planet will work normally.
These are just jobs providing interesting bonuses compared to other jobs, but by no means a necessity for the proper functioning of a planet.

I literally bashed you in the face with proof that planetary capitals are administration centers for the colony, and now what? They aren't actual administration because the planet can function without it? You physically CANNOT remove or even downgrade these buildings, there can be no colony without it, IT LITERALLY IS NECESARY FOR THE COLONY HOW CAN THAT BE MORE OBVIOUS.

Colonial Bureaucracy : Local administrative developments allow for closer supervision of colonial affairs without excessively burdening central decision-making.

If this technology makes it possible to develop local administration under the supervision of the central administration. If there are more local governments developing, should not they have a greater administrative capacity created globally in the empire?
To emphasize the absurdity of this, even if you do not have a colony, only your main planet and only your solar system, you will have the same gain as an empire with dozens of planets having developed their supposed local administration.

Okay, I don't have the answer to that one, but there is no need to replace a perfectly fine working system with this abomination you propose just because one description makes no sense.

You lose nothing, to exceed the military logistic limit implies that certain vessels will have a deficient maintenance, it does not necessarily become non-functional. It depends only on the size of the logistics deficit and the prioritization of logistics distribution, if you decide to declare some fleets as a priority.

If a ship receives 90% of its maintenance a month, it will have a 90% level of maintenance. If the next month, he still receives only 90% of his maintenance, he will still have a level of maintenance of 90%.
Unless you want me to complicate this with changes in the level of maintenance progressively according to the maintenance level received each month.
What might be interesting to create a kind of attrition system on a fleet is going too long without refueling at a spaceport (but hey, that would be even more management).

Going with the example I gave, lets say I have at the beginning of the game 24 naval capacity, filled to the brim with corvettes. Then I dig up the Grand Herald, and suddenly I am at 40 fleet size with 24 cap. I am not going to go through the math olympics you laid out as a "simple" system for determining what happens when naval cap is exceeded, but it would most likely pass through the threshhold you set for the ship stopping functioning. What happens then? What happens then is that my Logistics collapse, and I lose the newly acquired titan and the rest of my fleet due to a stupidly designed system. No thank you.

And on top of that, your new solution misses the one thing that sets apart Stellaris fleet cap from pop caps in other games, which is the ability to safely exceed it if you can bear the cost. Your system throws the one thing making Stellaris naval cap enjoyable and unique out of the window, by making any fleet expansion beyond the naval cap useless due to the penalties and eventual ship loss. That is a horrible move to make.

But not compulsory, only for those who like to be punctilious.
I do not say that we must implement this, it is only a possibility with this system.

No, under your system it is mandatory. Fleets get affected by naval cap no matter what, and with your horrible system, everyone has to set the priorities for that, and set them again with each major new tech or fleet redesign, going through the extremely complicated line of calculation you outlined several times per recalibration.

 

[drawar]

No, just that I do not want to go into a quote war. I think I've said enough and I'm going to avoid going around in circles.

I literally bashed you in the face with proof that planetary capitals are administration centers for the colony, and now what? They aren't actual administration because the planet can function without it? You physically CANNOT remove or even downgrade these buildings, there can be no colony without it, IT LITERALLY IS NECESARY FOR THE COLONY HOW CAN THAT BE MORE OBVIOUS.

The building is necessary, that jobs be occupied no. That's a difference.

One of the reasons for creating this thread is you not liking the current system of delocalized administration. At least how I understand it, correct me if I'm wrong. It wasn't your only concern, but one of them.

Currently, it is not a decentralized administration, but a non-existent administration concretely.

Going with the example I gave, lets say I have at the beginning of the game 24 naval capacity, filled to the brim with corvettes. Then I dig up the Grand Herald, and suddenly I am at 40 fleet size with 24 cap. I am not going to go through the math olympics you laid out as a "simple" system for determining what happens when naval cap is exceeded, but it would most likely pass through the threshhold you set for the ship stopping functioning. What happens then? What happens then is that my Logistics collapse, and I lose the newly acquired titan and the rest of my fleet due to a stupidly designed system. No thank you.

And on top of that, your new solution misses the one thing that sets apart Stellaris fleet cap from pop caps in other games, which is the ability to safely exceed it if you can bear the cost. Your system throws the one thing making Stellaris naval cap enjoyable and unique out of the window, by making any fleet expansion beyond the naval cap useless due to the penalties and eventual ship loss. That is a horrible move to make.

The calculations are not complex in themselves and the player calculates nothing. It's the game that calculates and players can see the impact and judge for themselves, especially with a little experience.

«stupidly designed system»
The current system which imposes on all the ships an immense penalty for a minimal shortage compared to the filled need ... It is better?

No, you can still exceed the limit, the only difference, which some ships will have a deficient maintenance, so that will be less perfomant, but as already said, a low lack of maintenance creates only minor penalties.
It may therefore be advantageous to exceed its limit to a certain limit depending on the conditions.

No, under your system it is mandatory. Fleets get affected by naval cap no matter what, and with your horrible system, everyone has to set the priorities for that, and set them again with each major new tech or fleet redesign, going through the extremely complicated line of calculation you outlined several times per recalibration.

No, you keep the default settings, that's all. With an interface, it's not complicated.
I'm not saying that we need to implement this, just that it could be a possibility brought by the military logistics system.

 

[Martydi]

No, just that I do not want to go into a quote war. I think I've said enough and I'm going to avoid going around in circles.

Its how discussion works, you bring up points, I respond, you respond. There is othing worng with that.

The building is necessary, that jobs be occupied no. That's a difference.

But the building itself is there and intended to be manned. If you decide to disable the jobs, don't blame the game.

Currently, it is not a decentralized administration, but a non-existent administration concretely.

Planetary administration is represented by the capital buildings, imperial administration is represented by admin cap, sectoral administration is represented by limited numer of things that can go into sectors. It is nowhere near nonexistent.

The calculations are not complex in themselves and the player calculates nothing. It's the game that calculates and players can see the impact and judge for themselves, especially with a little experience.

If I want to redesign a ship, then I need to know how exactly will it be affected if the naval cap is exceeded. This means, I need to calculate how much of a penalty the ship will take when exceeding fleet cap, how will it be distributed, and how will different levels of fleet cap overflow affect it. And if the parameters are changed, I will need to repeat thtat several Times until I get to the point where I am satisfied with the result. It is complex, unnecesary and not fun.

The current system which imposes on all the ships an immense penalty for a minimal shortage compared to the filled need ... It is better?

Mhm, immense penalties no matter the relative naval cap. These penalties are mediocre even in extreme cases, and scale when you exceed the cap more.

No, you can still exceed the limit, the only difference, which some ships will have a deficient maintenance, so that will be less perfomant, but as already said, a low lack of maintenance creates only minor penalties.
It may therefore be advantageous to exceed its limit to a certain limit depending on the conditions.

What would be the point of exceeding it if your fleets fight worse then? Under the current system you are not only able, but also encouraged to go over fleet cap if you can pay the increased maintenance, which is good, as it gives choice and differentiates Stellaris from other games with hard caps. While not directly, your system is a hard cap on fleeet size, making any buildup over it just a waste of resources.

No, you keep the default settings, that's all. With an interface, it's not complicated.
I'm not saying that we need to implement this, just that it could be a possibility brought by the military logistics system.

And I am replying with criticism. You posted an idea, I think its a poor idea, so I responded and explained why. That's how discussion works.

 

[drawar]

Planetary administration is represented by the capital buildings, imperial administration is represented by admin cap, sectoral administration is represented by limited numer of things that can go into sectors. It is nowhere near nonexistent.

The capital buildings represent in RP the planetary administration. But they do not participate in the actual management of the administration.
Each solar system, each planet and each district increases the administrative need. The capital buildings do not provide an administrative capacity, nor do they alleviate the administrative burden that a planet with all its districts imposes on the empire.
When you have a planet with 25 districs with a Reassembled Ship Shelter or System Capital-Complex, there is no difference.
Yet the System Capital-Complex is supposed to provide a bigger administration...

Mhm, immense penalties no matter the relative naval cap. These penalties are mediocre even in extreme cases, and scale when you exceed the cap more.

My mistake, I was not clear enough. I wanted to talk about penalties in a resource deficit (energy and etc).

What would be the point of exceeding it if your fleets fight worse then? Under the current system you are not only able, but also encouraged to go over fleet cap if you can pay the increased maintenance, which is good, as it gives choice and differentiates Stellaris from other games with hard caps. While not directly, your system is a hard cap on fleeet size, making any buildup over it just a waste of resources.

It depends on the gain against the loss.
For example, imagine:
- a fleet of 100 corvettes that consumes a military logistics of 100;
- each corvette at a power of 20;
- 20 additional corvettes are built .;
- the generated deficit is spread over all the corvettes, since we do not choose a priority fleet.

The starting fleet has a power of 2000.

With the 20 new ships, it takes 120 military logistics, but the empire has only 100, so each ship will only 83.3% of its maintenance, so a deficit of 16.7%.
Let's say that with a 83.3% service a ship is running 83.3% of its potential.
In this example, the new power would be 2000. The same, but with as many ships, which can have advantages.

Now imagine the maintenance deficit does not affect the efficiency of a ship linearly. Efficiency may decrease slowly at first, then accelerate and accelerate further.
There, we could do a lot of calculation and graphics. For example, say that a lack of maintenance of 16.7% generates a penalty of 12% and another of 8%.
That would give a new power of 2112 or 2208, less than 2400 (if the empire would have a military logistics of 120), but more than 2000.

The questions to ask are:
- what percentage of the exceeding of the fleet limit we consider acceptable before being really penalizing?
- what should be the relationship between the level of maintenance of a ship and its effectiveness?

- 10%, 15%, 20%, 30%?
- 90% (maintenance) = 95% (efficiency), 80% = 85%, 70%= 70%, 50% = 40%, 25% = 0%?

Then, there may be many other questions:
- are there campains, policies and others to increase the production of military logistics that can be activated in case of necessity?
- are there any civics or others to modify the impact of a maintenance deficient on the effectiveness of a ship?
- and etc.

Do not forget that there is an option to demobilize a fleet if it is at a starbase.
Demobilized ships will have a minimal level of maintenance. For example 25%, so 4 demobilized corvettes would consume as much logistics as an active corvette.

This is another way to increase your fleet while limiting your logistical need. If necessary, these fleets can be remobilized (repair) to go to war, which is faster than building new ships and is also another way to manage its logistics to adapt to a situation.

One can also imagine being able to remobilize a fleet more quickly in the event of a defensive war with the Harmony (bulwark of harmony) for example.

 

[Martydi]

It depends on the gain against the loss.
For example, imagine:
- a fleet of 100 corvettes that consumes a military logistics of 100;
- each corvette at a power of 20;
- 20 additional corvettes are built .;
- the generated deficit is spread over all the corvettes, since we do not choose a priority fleet.

The starting fleet has a power of 2000.

With the 20 new ships, it takes 120 military logistics, but the empire has only 100, so each ship will only 83.3% of its maintenance, so a deficit of 16.7%.
Let's say that with a 83.3% service a ship is running 83.3% of its potential.
In this example, the new power would be 2000. The same, but with as many ships, which can have advantages.

Now imagine the maintenance deficit does not affect the efficiency of a ship linearly. Efficiency may decrease slowly at first, then accelerate and accelerate further.
There, we could do a lot of calculation and graphics. For example, say that a lack of maintenance of 16.7% generates a penalty of 12% and another of 8%.
That would give a new power of 2112 or 2208, less than 2400 (if the empire would have a military logistics of 120), but more than 2000.

The questions to ask are:
- what percentage of the exceeding of the fleet limit we consider acceptable before being really penalizing?
- what should be the relationship between the level of maintenance of a ship and its effectiveness?

- 10%, 15%, 20%, 30%?
- 90% (maintenance) = 95% (efficiency), 80% = 85%, 70%= 70%, 50% = 40%, 25% = 0%?

That is what I meant. Each time I want to change something in my ship designs, I'll have to do this to see how they are affected by naval cap. Any idea that necesitates such situations is bad.

Then, there may be many other questions:
- are there campains, policies and others to increase the production of military logistics that can be activated in case of necessity?
- are there any civics or others to modify the impact of a maintenance deficient on the effectiveness of a ship?
- and etc.

Do not forget that there is an option to demobilize a fleet if it is at a starbase.
Demobilized ships will have a minimal level of maintenance. For example 25%, so 4 demobilized corvettes would consume as much logistics as an active corvette.

This is another way to increase your fleet while limiting your logistical need. If necessary, these fleets can be remobilized (repair) to go to war, which is faster than building new ships and is also another way to manage its logistics to adapt to a situation.

One can also imagine being able to remobilize a fleet more quickly in the event of a defensive war with the Harmony (bulwark of harmony) for example.

Add this massive micromanagement and even more calculations to the above. Even if this will have no impact on performance of the game, which is possible, that's even more calculations and variables for me to accout for when changing my ship designs and fleet composition.

My mistake, I was not clear enough. I wanted to talk about penalties in a resource deficit (energy and etc).

Then talk about resource dificit, not admin or naval cap.

The capital buildings represent in RP the planetary administration. But they do not participate in the actual management of the administration.
Each solar system, each planet and each district increases the administrative need. The capital buildings do not provide an administrative capacity, nor do they alleviate the administrative burden that a planet with all its districts imposes on the empire.
When you have a planet with 25 districs with a Reassembled Ship Shelter or System Capital-Complex, there is no difference.
Yet the System Capital-Complex is supposed to provide a bigger administration...

So what exactly do you want them to do? Add admin cap? This defeats the entire point of admin cap, which is to give tall players a chance when fighting, by making penalties imposed on wide players much lower. Delete or reduce impact of districts on admin cap? Again, defeats the point of admin cap entirely. And yes, there is a difference. Advanced buildinggs and building upgrades are locked away behind higher levels of planetary capital.

 

[drawar]

That is what I meant. Each time I want to change something in my ship designs, I'll have to do this to see how they are affected by naval cap. Any idea that necesitates such situations is bad.

Just keep a certain margins of maneuvering and it also depends on how much the need for logistics increase with the use of more advanced modules.
And as said, the penalties for a lack of vessel maintenance is low at first.
In addition, with a little experience, we can judge the impact.

One can even imagine an auxiliary component permitting to reduce the cost in military logistics. This module does not directly increase the power of the ship, but potentially allows for larger fleets.

Add this massive micromanagement and even more calculations to the above. Even if this will have no impact on performance of the game, which is possible, that's even more calculations and variables for me to accout for when changing my ship designs and fleet composition.

Activate a campaign, choose a civic, demobilize / remobilize fleets, it's intense migromanagement?

Then talk about resource dificit, not admin or naval cap.

The idea is that if the ships consume a military logistic need, they do not consume energy and alloys directly, this is included in the logistics.
And the logistics system (depending on how it works) makes it possible to manage the distribution of logistics needs in the event of a shortage in a more refined way.

So what exactly do you want them to do? Add admin cap? This defeats the entire point of admin cap, which is to give tall players a chance when fighting, by making penalties imposed on wide players much lower. Delete or reduce impact of districts on admin cap? Again, defeats the point of admin cap entirely. And yes, there is a difference. Advanced buildinggs and building upgrades are locked away behind higher levels of planetary capital.

Yes, adding administrative capacity or reducing administrative consumption can be one way.

But the goal is not necessarily to allow balance. Because the penalties are wanted for several reasons.
That's why my idea where one could balance need and administrative production that administration production consumes resources to maintain penalized, but different from a lack of administration.

However, it is possible with the current system to allow capital buildings to increase the administrative capacity and that technologies and others providing an administrative bonus take into account the nature of the empire (or better respects the nature of their description).

But the goal is not to achieve a balance (not without other costs in return).
The goal is simply to have an administrative ability that better reflects the nature of the empire whose player has some control over it.

Currently, the administrative capacity is a limit that is useless, if not exceeded and still outdated and still outdated and still outdated. On which player has no control or almost if not sought technologies providing an arbitrary amount.

As it develops, the administrative need only increases and the administrative production stagnates (finally, it is even technically null).