Change Starbase Capacity Computation

[Rubik]

The current computation for Starbase Capacity does not seem to scale well for what I believe it is intended for.

Here is my philosophy on what I believe (upgraded) starbases are intended for:

Priority 1:

• Defend inhabited systems
• Build and repair fleets

Priority 2:

• Defend trade
• Defend empire borders
• Defend choke points
• Suppress pirates
• Add buffers to slow enemy advances
• Intimidate enemies / impress allies and weak empires

Current Computation:
(This is for reference. It was copied from the Stellaris Wiki.)

The base Starbase Capacity is 3, which can be increased by the following:

• +1 for every 10 systems owned by the empire
• +2 adopting the Supremacy tradition tree
• +2 Stellar Expansion technology
• +2 Manifest Destiny technology
• +4 Trading Posts civic
• +5 Grasp the Void ascension perk
• +10 Covenant: End of the Cycle
• +1 Interstellar Expansion repeatable technology (can only be researched 5 times)
• +2 for each Strategic Coordination Center level

Proposed Change:

1. Instead of giving +1 for every 10 systems owned, give +1 for every inhabited system owned (where "inhabited system" means a system that contains at least one planet, habitat, or ring world that has at least one pop unit).
2. Remove the base value of 3.
3. Optional: Reduce the values for "Stellar Expansion technology" and "Manifest Destiny technology" from +2 to +1.

Rationale for Change:

• Since most players care about the Priority 1 objectives listed above regardless of their playing style, increasing Starbase Capacity for inhabited systems would help the majority of players stay in line with their goals more easily.
• Inhabited systems tend to produce more resources than uninhabited ones, so it seems more realistic to give inhabited systems more weight than uninhabited ones.
• With the current system, the Trading Posts civic and Grasp the Void ascension perk are more necessities for heavily populated empires trying to achieve Priority 1 objectives. However, by shifting the computation to focus on inhabited systems, the techs, civics, and perks that provide additional starbase capacity become fun options for those players who want to achieve Priority 2 objectives.
• Removing the base value of 3 and reducing the contribution of the tech values is intended to be a trade off for shifting the weight to inhabited systems.

 

[InvisibleBison]

I think your priorities are mistaken. In particular, inhabited systems don't need to be defended - border systems need to be defended. And of course, past the early game starbases alone aren't particularly effective at defense.

 

[Rubik]

I think your priorities are mistaken. In particular, inhabited systems don't need to be defended - border systems need to be defended. And of course, past the early game starbases alone aren't particularly effective at defense.

"border systems need to be defended"
Not all threats can come from outside your borders. Things like space monsters, pirates, rebels, and raiders often ignore national borders and can even show up inside your boarders in some cases. I understand that some people may choose different defense strategies. However, from what I have seen the AI players usually seem to focus on defending their inhabited systems before other things. Based on that, I would argue that defending inhabited systems is not only a valid strategy, but also the "default" one.

"I think your priorities are mistaken."
Regardless of which defense strategy you choose, the ultimate goal is the same - to minimize your losses in the event of an attack. In other words, defending your important systems is always a high priority no matter how you choose to do it.

Just to be clear, my purpose for proposing this change is not to try to dictate where people should put their starbases, but rather to change the number of starbases that they can support.

Example:
Let's say you have 2 space empires. Empire A has 1 inhabited system and 100 unihabited systems while Empire B has 10 inhabited systems and 0 uninhabited systems. Empire A would control a larger area of the map, but since inhabited systems can produce more income than uninhabited ones, Empire B would likely be outproducing Empire A. Therefore, Empire B would have a stronger economy that, in theory, could support more starbases. However...

With the current system:
Empire A: 3 base + (100 total systems / 10) = 13 starbases
Empire B: 3 base + (10 total systems / 10) = 4 starbases

With the proposed system:
Empire A: 1 inhabited system = 1 starbase
Empire B: 10 inhabited systems = 10 starbases

Regardless of where those empires would choose to build their starbases, I believe it makes sense that Empire B should have a higher star base capacity than Empire A.

The Bottom Line:
I believe the number of inhabited systems is a better representation of an empire's power than a raw total of systems controlled. The computation for Starbase Capacity should reflect that.

 

[Rubik]

Something I forgot to mention in my previous posts is that the current Starbase Capacity computation system does not scale as well in the mid and late stages of the game.

In the early game, players are usually focused more on expansion, and most of the new planets they acquire are uninhabited. This means that for most players, the rate at which they gain total systems is much higher than the rate at which they gain inhabited systems. The current Starbase Capacity computation system actually works fine for this stage of the game.

However, when you get to the mid and late stages of the game, empires are building habitats and ring worlds and conquering their neighbors inhabited systems. This means that the rate at which they gain inhabited systems is much closer to the rate of gain for total systems. The current computation system does not allow you to scale your defense along with acquiring these new assets in these stages of the game.

In one of the recent updates, the habitat building system was changed so it is easier to start building habitats, and you can also get the technology to start building them earlier in the game. I think this is going to make the scaling issue much worse.

 

[Dr. Von Goosewing]

The current computation system does not allow you to scale your defense along with acquiring these new assets in these stages of the game.

Yes, I want more starbases in late game.

 

[Pancakelord]

The current computation for Starbase Capacity does not seem to scale well for what I believe it is intended for.

Here is my philosophy on what I believe (upgraded) starbases are intended for:

Priority 1:

• Defend inhabited systems
• Build and repair fleets

Priority 2:

• Defend trade
• Defend empire borders
• Defend choke points
• Suppress pirates
• Add buffers to slow enemy advances
• Intimidate enemies / impress allies and weak empires

Current Computation:
(This is for reference. It was copied from the Stellaris Wiki.)

The base Starbase Capacity is 3, which can be increased by the following:

• +1 for every 10 systems owned by the empire
• +2 adopting the Supremacy tradition tree
• +2 Stellar Expansion technology
• +2 Manifest Destiny technology
• +4 Trading Posts civic
• +5 Grasp the Void ascension perk
• +10 Covenant: End of the Cycle
• +1 Interstellar Expansion repeatable technology (can only be researched 5 times)
• +2 for each Strategic Coordination Center level

Proposed Change:

1. Instead of giving +1 for every 10 systems owned, give +1 for every inhabited system owned (where "inhabited system" means a system that contains at least one planet, habitat, or ring world that has at least one pop unit).
2. Remove the base value of 3.
3. Optional: Reduce the values for "Stellar Expansion technology" and "Manifest Destiny technology" from +2 to +1.

Rationale for Change:

• Since most players care about the Priority 1 objectives listed above regardless of their playing style, increasing Starbase Capacity for inhabited systems would help the majority of players stay in line with their goals more easily.
• Inhabited systems tend to produce more resources than uninhabited ones, so it seems more realistic to give inhabited systems more weight than uninhabited ones.
• With the current system, the Trading Posts civic and Grasp the Void ascension perk are more necessities for heavily populated empires trying to achieve Priority 1 objectives. However, by shifting the computation to focus on inhabited systems, the techs, civics, and perks that provide additional starbase capacity become fun options for those players who want to achieve Priority 2 objectives.
• Removing the base value of 3 and reducing the contribution of the tech values is intended to be a trade off for shifting the weight to inhabited systems.

I've never had an issue with station cap (if anything I struggle to find a use for all my extra stations, usually filling them with Anchorages which is boring). You can also exceed your station cap if your economy is strong enough (e.g. as a megacorp - which is funny, it invalidates the need for the trading post civic).
IMO for players to have more stations... we actually need something to do with them.

Here is what I personally use starbases for:

Early game - stabases keep your chokepoints safe and I usually have 2+ 2-slot shipyard station for more corvette spam (there is no need to defend colonies as bombardment is so weak at this point that it's ignorable, so long as you shoot down enemy armies it doesnt matter, can mop up systems an enemy took later).
Mid game - they keep your trade safe (build a "highway" of stations along your trade network to completely void piracy spawns)
Late game - forget stations, spam habitats with a few fortresses everywhere, their FTL inhibitors and defence armies will do more to slow down an enemy fleet (so your own can find it) than a starbase ever will.

• I don't need to defend my internal systems as defence-in-depth is not viable in Stellaris. I just defend chokepoints/wormholes/Lgates (or frontiers if you play with higher hyperlane counts) to slow down enemies whilst a backup fleet flies over.
  • Real defence comes from defence fleets.
• Shipyard production is only an issue in the first 1-3 decades if you're going for an early war, after that you can trickle-build and only need high shipyard capacity if you're taking heavy losses in a war (e.g. losing to a crisis - and the mega shipyard has removed lategame construction issues too).

Also, tying station count to inhabited systems with 1+ pop means that your station cap will equal your system count, given enough time. As you could put a habitat in almost every system if you really wanted to... that doesn't sound balanced to me (not that you'd have much to do with all those stations, you'd already get ample fleet cap from fortress habitats).

 

[Tamwin5]

I think your priorities for starbase uses are off

Priority 1:

• Defend Border Chokepoints
• Build/Repair ships

Priority 2:

• Collect Trade
• Anchorages for Fleet cap

Priority 3:

• Suppress Pirates
• Internal Chokepoints
• Speciality buildings (Curator think tank, Trade office, Black Hole observatory, etc.)
• Blacksites over inhabited systems.

Often a starbase can fulfill multiple roles. Anchorages can be put in systems with colonies or enclaves. Internal chokepoints can suppress piracy. Multiple priority 3 things can add up to be more than a priority 2 thing. These also depends on situation: If you are already superior to all potential enemies, you don't really need more naval cap, while black sites are always helpful.

I don't think that starbases should be based on number of colonies, mainly because so many other things are already based on that. Larger empires also need more starbases to defend larger borders, collect trade from those systems, and either protect piracy or give enough supply so that a fleet can patrol the routes.

 

[Rubik]

I don't think that starbases should be based on number of colonies, mainly because so many other things are already based on that. Larger empires also need more starbases to defend larger borders, collect trade from those systems, and either protect piracy or give enough supply so that a fleet can patrol the routes.

Even though larger empires need more starbases to defend their territories, I don't think using the number of systems they control is a good metric to determine how many star bases they can support. Economy seems to be a more realistic metric. In other words, the more money and resources an empire has, the more starbases they should be able to support. The reason I suggested using the number of inhabited systems as a metric is because I thought it would be an easy way to represent economy (or at least the potential of an economy).

Even if different math is used than what I proposed, I believe the scaling issue still needs to be addressed. When you reach the point in the game when every system has been claimed by an empire, their populations, economies, and number of colonies can still continue to grow. I believe the Starbase Capacity should also be able to continue to grow along with them.

If you have two empires that control the same number of star systems, the empire with more resources and an better economy should be able to support more starbases than the empire that has mostly empty systems with a few remote mining outposts.

For example, the Ukraine has about three times the land area of Great Britain, but that does not mean the Royal Navy cannot have more naval bases than the Ukrainian Navy.

 

[Tamwin5]

Even though larger empires need more starbases to defend their territories, I don't think using the number of systems they control is a good metric to determine how many star bases they can support. Economy seems to be a more realistic metric. In other words, the more money and resources an empire has, the more starbases they should be able to support. The reason I suggested using the number of inhabited systems as a metric is because I thought it would be an easy way to represent economy (or at least the potential of an economy).

Even if different math is used than what I proposed, I believe the scaling issue still needs to be addressed. When you reach the point in the game when every system has been claimed by an empire, their populations, economies, and number of colonies can still continue to grow. I believe the Starbase Capacity should also be able to continue to grow along with them.

If you have two empires that control the same number of star systems, the empire with more resources and an better economy should be able to support more starbases than the empire that has mostly empty systems with a few remote mining outposts.

For example, the Ukraine has about three times the land area of Great Britain, but that does not mean the Royal Navy cannot have more naval bases than the Ukrainian Navy.

Sorry I wasn't clear about this, but my argument isn't from a "what makes sense" perspective but a game balance perspective. As long as something is reasonably justifiable, better gameplay should be prioritized over what is the most accurate.

As for Great Britain and Ukraine, clearly Great Britain researched more "+starbase cap" technologies.

 

[Rubik]

Sorry I wasn't clear about this, but my argument isn't from a "what makes sense" perspective but a game balance perspective. As long as something is reasonably justifiable, better gameplay should be prioritized over what is the most accurate.

As for Great Britain and Ukraine, clearly Great Britain researched more "+starbase cap" technologies.

Ha, I'm glad to see you are taking the correct level of seriousness with this.

Your comment about better game play is really the main point I have been trying explain all along. The game play in the late game is affected by the Starbase Capacity because once you get to the end of the main tech tree, the capacity hits a plateau. This will happen even though your empire can continue to expand and grow.

Even if you are playing as a Fanatic Pacifist and never conquer any new systems, your empire can continue to expand and grow in the late game if you build habitats. To me, at least, it just does not feel like the Starbase Capacity scales well for that phase of the game. If you can build more habitats, why can't you build more starbases?

 

[mrt1212]

I've never had an issue with station cap (if anything I struggle to find a use for all my extra stations, usually filling them with Anchorages which is boring). You can also exceed your station cap if your economy is strong enough (e.g. as a megacorp - which is funny, it invalidates the need for the trading post civic).
IMO for players to have more stations... we actually need something to do with them.

Here is what I personally use starbases for:

Early game - stabases keep your chokepoints safe and I usually have 2+ 2-slot shipyard station for more corvette spam (there is no need to defend colonies as bombardment is so weak at this point that it's ignorable, so long as you shoot down enemy armies it doesnt matter, can mop up systems an enemy took later).
Mid game - they keep your trade safe (build a "highway" of stations along your trade network to completely void piracy spawns)
Late game - forget stations, spam habitats with a few fortresses everywhere, their FTL inhibitors and defence armies will do more to slow down an enemy fleet (so your own can find it) than a starbase ever will.

• I don't need to defend my internal systems as defence-in-depth is not viable in Stellaris. I just defend chokepoints/wormholes/Lgates (or frontiers if you play with higher hyperlane counts) to slow down enemies whilst a backup fleet flies over.
  • Real defence comes from defence fleets.
• Shipyard production is only an issue in the first 1-3 decades if you're going for an early war, after that you can trickle-build and only need high shipyard capacity if you're taking heavy losses in a war (e.g. losing to a crisis - and the mega shipyard has removed lategame construction issues too).

Also, tying station count to inhabited systems with 1+ pop means that your station cap will equal your system count, given enough time. As you could put a habitat in almost every system if you really wanted to... that doesn't sound balanced to me (not that you'd have much to do with all those stations, you'd already get ample fleet cap from fortress habitats).

I haven't had an issue with Starbase cap because I go over it anyway and don't care because I hate patrol fleets for pirates. I just go over and find a way to pay.

 

[Tamwin5]

Ha, I'm glad to see you are taking the correct level of seriousness with this.

Your comment about better game play is really the main point I have been trying explain all along. The game play in the late game is affected by the Starbase Capacity because once you get to the end of the main tech tree, the capacity hits a plateau. This will happen even though your empire can continue to expand and grow.

Even if you are playing as a Fanatic Pacifist and never conquer any new systems, your empire can continue to expand and grow in the late game if you build habitats. To me, at least, it just does not feel like the Starbase Capacity scales well for that phase of the game. If you can build more habitats, why can't you build more starbases?

You can, you just either need to spend more (go over your cap) or invest in technologies (there is a +1 starbase repeatable).

But mainly, I don't think you should have starbases scale that much. The player should not have enough starbases to do everything they want to do. Making choices and decisions is interesting.

Furthermore, colonies isn't an accurate representation of economic power, pops are.

 

[Rubik]

You can, you just either need to spend more (go over your cap) or invest in technologies (there is a +1 starbase repeatable).

The repeatable tech is currently limited to 5 repeats, so that can still contribute to a plateau effect once you reach the end of the base tech tree.

Furthermore, colonies isn't an accurate representation of economic power, pops are.

That is a fair observation. I would gladly choose pops as a metric over number of systems owned.

 

[Phlopsi]

I'd advocate overhauling the starbase formula altogether, but keeping the x-starbase-per-system approach.

Instead of modifiers giving a flat starbase cap bonus, they should be changing the x starbases per system, from the base of 0.1 to a maximum of 1. That means, you may achieve 1 starbase per system without going over the capacity, if you get all possible modifiers. This would smoothly scale with all galaxy sizes, i.e. no longer will tiny galaxies have a much higher starbase-to-system ratio than huge galaxies.

First of all, I'd replace the starbase cap modifiers from the "Trading Posts" civic and "Covenant: End of the Cycle" with something else, because they're not available to all empires. As for the formula, I don't like a linear approach, because the impact of going from 0.1 to 0.2 starbase cap per system is much bigger than going from 0.9 to 1.0 starbase cap per system. The formula I like the most is [0.1 * 10 ^ (x / 22)] starbases per system. 0.1 is the base of 1 starbase per 10 systems, x is a value that goes from 0 to 22. 22 is simply the sum of all current +starbase modifiers (except the ones I mentioned above). The goal of this formula is for every point in x to have the same impact.

EDIT: Simplified the formula

 

[Tamwin5]

I'd advocate overhauling the starbase formula altogether, but keeping the x-starbase-per-system approach.

Instead of modifiers giving a flat starbase cap bonus, they should be changing the x starbases per system, from the base of 0.1 to a maximum of 1. That means, you may achieve 1 starbase per system without going over the capacity, if you get all possible modifiers. This would smoothly scale with all galaxy sizes, i.e. no longer will tiny galaxies have a much higher starbase-to-system ratio than huge galaxies.

First of all, I'd replace the starbase cap modifiers from the "Trading Posts" civic and "Covenant: End of the Cycle" with something else, because they're not available to all empires. As for the formula, I don't like a linear approach, because the impact of going from 0.1 to 0.2 starbase cap per system is much bigger than going from 0.9 to 1.0 starbase cap per system. The formula I like the most is [0.1 * 10 ^ (x / 22)] starbases per system. 0.1 is the base of 1 starbase per 10 systems, x is a value that goes from 0 to 22. 22 is simply the sum of all current +starbase modifiers (except the ones I mentioned above). The goal of this formula is for every point in x to have the same impact.

EDIT: Simplified the formula

One starbase per system is a bad idea. The player is strongly encouraged to always stay at starbase cap, and early tests of the 2.0 release showed that allowing starbases to be upgraded without any cap made for poor gameplay.

Rather then going from 1/10 starbases to 2/10 starbases, it should go from 1/10 to 1/9. That way you have gradual scaling with much simpler math. If all starbase modifiers were turned into percentage modifiers, the base value of 1/10 should be changed, since the max should only be like 5/10 or maybe 7/10. So it would start at like 1/15, and maybe only decrease by 0.5 at a time.

Overall though, I don't think making all modifiers based off of the number of systems is a good idea. Having a base amount means even small trapped empires can have a number of starbases to defend themselves and build up a fleet. A few ways to increase the percentage density of starbases would be nice though, and I think they would be best placed as the civics/Ascension perks that affect starbase count.

 

[Phlopsi]

One starbase per system is a bad idea. The player is strongly encouraged to always stay at starbase cap, and early tests of the 2.0 release showed that allowing starbases to be upgraded without any cap made for poor gameplay.

Rather then going from 1/10 starbases to 2/10 starbases, it should go from 1/10 to 1/9. That way you have gradual scaling with much simpler math. If all starbase modifiers were turned into percentage modifiers, the base value of 1/10 should be changed, since the max should only be like 5/10 or maybe 7/10. So it would start at like 1/15, and maybe only decrease by 0.5 at a time.

Overall though, I don't think making all modifiers based off of the number of systems is a good idea. Having a base amount means even small trapped empires can have a number of starbases to defend themselves and build up a fleet. A few ways to increase the percentage density of starbases would be nice though, and I think they would be best placed as the civics/Ascension perks that affect starbase count.

Changing the denominator instead of the nominator with simpler math and the same effect is a great improvement over my formula! I also agree with keeping a flat base value. IMO, the current value of 3 is ideal. As for not being able to get to 1 starbase per system, I disagree. You'd have to build a megastructure, pick an AP and finish the starbase repeatables to achieve that. I find the current AP, that gives starbase cap kinda underwhelming.