Fleet Upgrading

[Jorgen_CAB]

Yes, I do not care for experience cause its inconsequential. All I care about is an admiral who btw can die off now seemingly at random during the fight now(I had a fight where my losses were exacly one corvette and I guess my admiral decided that it should be flagship, but whatever, Ive already established that leaders in stella are competing with potatoes on the sapience scale). Back to the topic at hand, ripping an old gun and installing a new one isnt comparable to making a car into a cabrio, its comparable to changing an engine. Which, again, can be done with less than cost of an entire brand new car. Much less than 90% of the cost in fact. Besides, when upgrading between weapon tiers and not weapons in general you also get insane jump in cost. You arent even mounting a new cannon, at best you are installing a new barrel when upgrading from blue to ultraviolet lasers so that the material is more resilient to melting. Also dont compare modern military to space wizards. Theres no comparison. The ammount of time doesnt make sense as well. Again. Matter replicators. Physics bending machines. Unobtanium. Black hole mineral mine because ripping matter from a star thats been compressed to the size of an atom is super easy. But upgrading fleet? Bah. See you in 30 years sonny. Remember to bring grandpa his OJ when you are back.

I am going to argue this over and over because not only this one particular thing is just so SO immersion breaking its not even funny anymore, it also grinds the entire game to a full stop. And playing the game as intended (2300 mid, 2400 late) is actually factually impossible with current upgrading system, both resource and time wise.

But you DON't pay the cost of a new ship... you pay a small fraction of it... have you followed the thread at all?!?

When you change weapons you don't change the barrel... you change the whole system. Tech levels in Stellaris are pretty big steps in the way of new equipment.

It might be immersion breaking for you but it certainly is 100 times more realistic than it used to be.

 

[Jorgen_CAB]

It's almost certainly broken or poorly designed. You have to upgrade since otherwise one ship with an old thruster will slow the whole fleet down. And the Fleet Manager gets more an more confusing/broken the more ships you mix into your fleet who are not the same design/tech level. The only current work around is to use No Retreat doctrine to try to just kill off your old ships. Since upgrading them costs nearly as much as building a whole new fleet, and may take longer than they would to build fresh if your building from multiple shipyards. lol

But it does not cost that much... the math is out there.. no point in arguing it. Just repeating the mantra does not make it true.

 

[Craysus]

It's almost certainly broken or poorly designed. You have to upgrade since otherwise one ship with an old thruster will slow the whole fleet down. And the Fleet Manager gets more an more confusing/broken the more ships you mix into your fleet who are not the same design/tech level. The only current work around is to use No Retreat doctrine to try to just kill off your old ships. Since upgrading them costs nearly as much as building a whole new fleet, and may take longer than they would to build fresh if your building from multiple shipyards. lol

Fleetmanager is absolutely broken, I want to refill and get 5 new fleets with autoconfiguration which i always delete...
Sometimes I get free ships cause I wanted to upraged in fleetmanger -> 5 cruiser spawn far away in a system of a ai which I have a commerce agreement

 

[Pyoro]

I'll admit: while I hate a lot that's been mentioned about the upgrade system - notable the issue with star ports - I do like the longer upgrade times. It really puts a fleet out of commission for the time it's happening; and frankly that to me makes sense (it's not like you just have to change the equipment, crews also need retraining, a new supply structure and whatnot). From an immersion standpoint, I don't mind.

However, with the overall balance all over the place right now it's really tough to tell anything from a gameplay perspective. And that's ultimately what matters. So I'm not sure - maybe fleets need signifcant morale like in EU and have that take time to build up after upgrades in exchange for quicker build times?

 

[Jorgen_CAB]

In real life wet navies phase out older ships with newer ships. Upgrading is just one option we can use in Stellaris to save time.

Now we can't respec the fleets on a whim and have to live with our decisions for a long time OR face the consequences and pay up.

 

[Sifer2]

But it does not cost that much... the math is out there.. no point in arguing it. Just repeating the mantra does not make it true.

It varies. Sometimes it barely costs anything. Sometimes it really does cost almost nearly the same as building fresh. I guess it depends on the part being upgraded possibly but it could also be bugged since some report getting negative costs. In any case it never worked like this before. And there was nothing in the Dev Diary's about them wanting to overhaul how ships were upgraded. And it doesn't mesh with the current game systems for reasons I already said. It's more than likely bugged.

 

[Jorgen_CAB]

It varies. Sometimes it barely costs anything. Sometimes it really does cost almost nearly the same as building fresh. I guess it depends on the part being upgraded possibly but it could also be bugged since some report getting negative costs. In any case it never worked like this before. And there was nothing in the Dev Diary's about them wanting to overhaul how ships were upgraded. And it doesn't mesh with the current game systems for reasons I already said. It's more than likely bugged.

I have already addressed all that in the thread!!!

 

[Z.A.W.I.S.Z.A.]

But you DON't pay the cost of a new ship... you pay a small fraction of it... have you followed the thread at all?!?

When you change weapons you don't change the barrel... you change the whole system. Tech levels in Stellaris are pretty big steps in the way of new equipment.

It might be immersion breaking for you but it certainly is 100 times more realistic than it used to be.

1. Base corvette: 100 alloys. Corvette refurbishing: 90 alloys. Yes, im not paying the cost of the new ship but I might have as well. If 20 corvettes cost me almost 2k alloys to upgrade and im not jumping from red lasers into subatomic desintegrators or whatever the Unbidden is using, theres clearly some goof. For the record, the same corvette fresh from the dock cost about 150ish. So ive "saved" 50 alloys. Oh joyous day.

2. You realise that weapons based around the SAME science tech thing arent the entire systems right? If you want a mag AK47, you dont change everything down to the ironsight. You slap electromagnetic accelerator on top of it and change the barrel to have no serration (as it would shred your gun and probably your face with mag weaponry projectiles relative speed).

3. Space wizards. I will hammer this down until the tiyankis come home. You want realism, I want consequence.

Look, I woudnt even mind if that was just an issue for bigger units if i have had an option to micro my way out of this and painstackingly upgrade every single ship without chopping my fleets. But I cant. And also we are still talking about corvettes. Small units dedicated to go in swarms and die by the hundreds. I cant even dare to think how long and pricy upgrading a flagship would be. And look, youve went with your argument and you are stuck in the trenches here, so am i, but people are telling you that the calculations are somehow fucked and sometimes you can see negative upgrade costs and such. Thats clearly not WAD.

 

[Jorgen_CAB]

1. Base corvette: 100 alloys. Corvette refurbishing: 90 alloys. Yes, im not paying the cost of the new ship but I might have as well. If 20 corvettes cost me almost 2k alloys to upgrade and im not jumping from red lasers into subatomic desintegrators or whatever the Unbidden is using, theres clearly some goof. For the record, the same corvette fresh from the dock cost about 150ish. So ive "saved" 50 alloys. Oh joyous day.

No... the math is in the thread so you are just full of BS or you don't understand how it works. You just spouting numbers that make no sense and out of context does not prove anything. Give the the cost of the ship, cost of the old components and cost of the new components and I will show you how it ACTUALLY is?
You are very likely changing EVERYTHING... including the type. This will be expensive and perhaps not something you should do.

2. You realise that weapons based around the SAME science tech thing arent the entire systems right? If you want a mag AK47, you dont change everything down to the ironsight. You slap electromagnetic accelerator on top of it and change the barrel to have no serration (as it would shred your gun and probably your face with mag weaponry projectiles relative speed).

To some degree sure... but we talk about averages in an abstracted mechanic and one laser to another laser should perhaps be slightly cheaper and the reverse slightly more expensive. But the systems are really different and require very different power supplies and infrastructure, training and engineering skills. By all measures it is very different systems.

3. Space wizards. I will hammer this down until the tiyankis come home. You want realism, I want consequence.

The consequence is long term planning, this is good.

Look, I woudnt even mind if that was just an issue for bigger units if i have had an option to micro my way out of this and painstackingly upgrade every single ship without chopping my fleets. But I cant. And also we are still talking about corvettes. Small units dedicated to go in swarms and die by the hundreds. I cant even dare to think how long and pricy upgrading a flagship would be. And look, youve went with your argument and you are stuck in the trenches here, so am i, but people are telling you that the calculations are somehow fucked and sometimes you can see negative upgrade costs and such. Thats clearly not WAD.

I'm not entrenched I have EVIDENCE on my side... the math works out as it should. I have tested it in the game and it works exactly as it should. You can gladly test me if you wish.

The calculation is correct!!!

I can also prove how negative numbers can come up, that is when you build something which is cheaper than what it was before, this can give negative numbers.

 

[Z.A.W.I.S.Z.A.]

No... the math is in the thread so you are just full of BS or you don't understand how it works. You just spouting numbers that make no sense and out of context does not prove anything. Give the the cost of the ship, cost of the old components and cost of the new components and I will show you how it ACTUALLY is?
You are very likely changing EVERYTHING... including the type. This will be expensive and perhaps not something you should do.



To some degree sure... but we talk about averages in an abstracted mechanic and one laser to another laser should perhaps be slightly cheaper and the reverse slightly more expensive. But the systems are really different and require very different power supplies and infrastructure, training and engineering skills. By all measures it is very different systems.



The consequence is long term planning, this is good.




I'm not entrenched I have EVIDENCE on my side... the math works out as it should. I have tested it in the game and it works exactly as it should. You can gladly test me if you wish.

The calculation is correct!!!

Dont. Just dont. I have enough flame wars on steam over stupid shit. Dont call names, dont scream, dont be a retard. Lets have a nice conversation here. If i wanted a flame war i would stated im glad that tumblr is tumblng over the cliff, aaight? That said.

1. The math done by you and nobody else. Meaning its viability is questionable until tested. And I dont really want to whip out pen and paper atm. And yes, im not trusting nobody. Very useful skill.

2. For the crew? Eh, maybe. Im not really sure. Its still thing that shoots beam of photons and while one is shooting a beam of more photons than the other, lets say for the sake of the argument, it is different. For the crew. For the mainentnance "staff", highly sophisticated automated shipyard residing in zero g? I dont think those care what you are putting in the ship. But but we need to make the entire thing and such. Yes, we do, but heres the catch. Every technology ever is using ideas, materials and whatnot from the previous generation. Again with the AyKay. AK74 a younger brother of the iranian (is it iranian? damn all of my gun trivia escaped me, why cant stellaris have swords and shit?) assault rifle. What does it change? Clip size, higher fire rate and a sweet lifting. This upgrade took them 70 years. Not because ak is complicated but because there wasnt anything to modernise really. Or why do we still have serration barrels. Why our shooty stuff comes in shells that litter the ground? Because whats not broken, shouldnt be really tempered with cause that ellevate the cost. Ergo, If you have a bfg and want bfg 4000, you replace only those parts that require it. Lasers or not, this logic still should apply. Need to change the power source, the focusing lens, the barrel of the gun? Do that. And nothing else. Because otherwise you are doing exacly how 3rd reich did with their entire armored division. Look it up, its hilarious. No nazi tank was ever mass produced. And you want mass production in case bigger angry angry gestalt hippos come knocking.

3. Propose already. Long term planning this, long term planning that. Consequence has NOTHING to do with long term planning. At least in this context.

4. See the first point. Just because you said it works doesnt mean it works. And stop screaming.

 

[Jorgen_CAB]

Dont. Just dont. I have enough flame wars on steam over stupid shit. Dont call names, dont scream, dont be a retard. Lets have a nice conversation here. If i wanted a flame war i would stated im glad that tumblr is tumblng over the cliff, aaight? That said.

1. The math done by you and nobody else. Meaning its viability is questionable until tested. And I dont really want to whip out pen and paper atm. And yes, im not trusting nobody. Very useful skill.

2. For the crew? Eh, maybe. Im not really sure. Its still thing that shoots beam of photons and while one is shooting a beam of more photons than the other, lets say for the sake of the argument, it is different. For the crew. For the mainentnance "staff", highly sophisticated automated shipyard residing in zero g? I dont think those care what you are putting in the ship. But but we need to make the entire thing and such. Yes, we do, but heres the catch. Every technology ever is using ideas, materials and whatnot from the previous generation. Again with the AyKay. AK74 a younger brother of the iranian (is it iranian? damn all of my gun trivia escaped me, why cant stellaris have swords and shit?) assault rifle. What does it change? Clip size, higher fire rate and a sweet lifting. This upgrade took them 70 years. Not because ak is complicated but because there wasnt anything to modernise really. Or why do we still have serration barrels. Why our shooty stuff comes in shells that litter the ground? Because whats not broken, shouldnt be really tempered with cause that ellevate the cost. Ergo, If you have a bfg and want bfg 4000, you replace only those parts that require it. Lasers or not, this logic still should apply. Need to change the power source, the focusing lens, the barrel of the gun? Do that. And nothing else. Because otherwise you are doing exacly how 3rd reich did with their entire armored division. Look it up, its hilarious. No nazi tank was ever mass produced. And you want mass production in case bigger angry angry gestalt hippos come knocking.

3. Propose already. Long term planning this, long term planning that. Consequence has NOTHING to do with long term planning. At least in this context.

4. See the first point. Just because you said it works doesnt mean it works. And stop screaming.

You go and do the math yourself... if you don't believe it then I'm sad for you and you are not wiling to even try it either. So please that ends the argument right there.

The way the cost is calculated is correct whether you like or believe it or not. i just politely now tell you that you can test it for yourself and you will see.

The difference between my and your argument is that ANYONE reading this can disprove me by doing the calculation in the game themselves. You just refuse to believe because you don't like it.

You can believe all you want about the difficulties of changing weapons system. The Japanese did swap out some main guns on some of their cruisers during the early days of WW2 that was some pretty hefty refit and costly. That is basically what we are talking about here.

 

[KingAlamar]

Why is using no work, no thought and effort always equal fun for some?!?

Now you have to make actual meaningful decisions, take notice of enemy designs before a war every breaks out and try to figure out what the best composition will be long before anything happens. You should perhaps no longer put all eggs in one basket and potentially make you very vulnerable.

If you just can flip strategy on a dime where is the actual strategy... you also gain a very strong advantage of the AI which we frankly don't need.

While you bring up some valid arguments in general I notice that you didn't address the specifics of the situation I brought up. Specifically that the combat system is A > B, B > C, C > A [rock/paper/scissors]. IMHO the combat system as implemented does not lend itself well to the system that you are proposing as there is no clear best [or often "good"] composition when you need to guard against differently designed fleets.

Now if the combat system results didn't swing so wildly depending on ship design then your argument would make more sense as you could develop workable middle-of-the-road compromises that wouldn't leave you needing to roll the dice and guess which empire may decide that it's time to expand in your direction. As it is now if you want early PD to guard against your neighbor's missiles then you're down 50% firepower [per ship] to a bordering empire that didn't go missiles. If you don't choose PD you might well get your clock cleaned if the power of your starbase is largely irrelevant to the outcome of any battles.

This leaves us with the options:

• Adjust the combat system so you don't have so many "hard counters"
• Allow for quick refits so you can counter the enemy

As for strategy with a quick refit system you do need one. Specifically you need an economy & military infrastructure to allow for the high costs of a refit within a relatively narrow time frame. If you don't make tough decisions on what to stockpile, where to have ShipYards, how many, etc. then you won't be able to take advantage of the mechanic.

Devil's Advocate: There's likely a happy middle ground between us. Allowing for quick refits relatively early on [Corv + Destroyer] allow the players to have a fighting chance against AIs that may have bonuses the player doesn't. For mid & late game when the player is likely outpacing the AI then make such rapid refit options not viable so you need to have a plan & manage RISK well.

 

[Jorgen_CAB]

While you bring up some valid arguments in general I notice that you didn't address the specifics of the situation I brought up. Specifically that the combat system is A > B, B > C, C > A [rock/paper/scissors]. IMHO the combat system as implemented does not lend itself well to the system that you are proposing as there is no clear best composition when you need to guard against differently designed fleets.

Now if the combat system results didn't swing so wildly depending on ship design then your argument would make more sense as you could develop workable middle-of-the-road compromises that wouldn't leave you needing to roll the dice and guess which empire may decide that it's time to expand in your direction. As it is now if you want early PD to guard against your neighbor's missiles then you're down 50% firepower [per ship] to a bordering empire that didn't go missiles. If you don't choose PD you might well get your clock cleaned if the power of your starbase is largely irrelevant to the outcome of any battles.

This leaves us with the options:

• Adjust the combat system so you don't have so many "hard counters"
• Allow for quick refits so you can counter the enemy

As for strategy with a quick refit system you do need one. Specifically you need an economy & military infrastructure to allow for the high costs of a refit within a relatively narrow time frame. If you don't make tough decisions on what to stockpile, where to have ShipYards, how many, etc. then you won't be able to take advantage of the mechanic.

Devil's Advocate: There's likely a happy middle ground between us. Allowing for quick refits relatively early on [Corv + Destroyer] allow the players to have a fighting chance against AIs that may have bonuses the player doesn't. For mid & late game when the player is likely outpacing the AI then make such rapid refit options not viable so you need to have a plan & manage RISK well.

You can build a relatively balanced fleet and react with different parts of it to different threats. Nothing say your entire fleet must be built around ONE strategy.

There should often be time enough in war for you to upgrade part of a fleet or build new ships to give you a significant advantage in design over the opponent.

The way it was before was pretty ridiculous since all you needed was a single yard and you could easily sprinkle them around without little effort. Then upgrading ships was a no brainier. As I said before it was a huge AI weakness and we really don't need a weaker AI now do we.

 

[KingAlamar]

You can build a relatively balanced fleet and react with different parts of it to different threats. Nothing say your entire fleet must be built around ONE strategy.

There should often be time enough in war for you to upgrade part of a fleet or build new ships to give you a significant advantage in design over the opponent.

The way it was before was pretty ridiculous since all you needed was a single yard and you could easily sprinkle them around without little effort. Then upgrading ships was a no brainier. As I said before it was a huge AI weakness and we really don't need a weaker AI now do we.

Oddly enough I mostly agree with you. I would still contend that if quick refits aren't supposed to be a viable strategy any more then changes to the combat system to compensate for the other changes would be welcome. Basically I oppose changing systems in isolation without looking at other impacts.

 

[Jorgen_CAB]

Oddly enough I mostly agree with you. I would still contend that if quick refits aren't supposed to be a viable strategy any more then changes to the combat system to compensate for the other changes would be welcome. Basically I oppose changing systems in isolation without looking at other impacts.

I don't like the obvious rock/paper/scissor mechanic that much to begin with, it is a bit simple. Some of it should obviously be there but not in the extreme as it currently is. I don't disagree that changing things in isolation is good either.

They could start with fixing the fighters/carriers at least...

 

[SpectralShade]

Well... you pay maintenance on ships which represent things like changing oil filter in a car. Ripping out a laser cannon to put in a missile system is more like converting a regular car into a flat top or putting in a new engine. It is rare for wet navy ships in real life to completely replace their large weapons system after they are built.

The US did not rip out the main guns on their battleships when they modernized them with missiles for a good reason!

And we all agree that a six shipyard station should upgrade fleets six times as fast... NO ONE is arguing otherwise. THIS is what we should complain about.

you are arguing that changing large caliber cannons into missiles (different hardpoints) is the same as upgrading lasers1 to lasers 2? (same hardpoint and weapontype)

I advise you to check up on fighterplanes in the real world and see just how many revisions and upgrades they've had over the years. Something tells me you will be surprised. Take the f-16 fighting falcon design for example. Production began in the '70ies, and isn't phased out yet, although plans are that the new f35 will one day do it. The fighter have undergone massive changes in components and weapons over the years.

 

[Savior59]

In real life wet navies phase out older ships with newer ships. Upgrading is just one option we can use in Stellaris to save time.

Now we can't respec the fleets on a whim and have to live with our decisions for a long time OR face the consequences and pay up.

Do not use real life as a basis for your arguement. We are not a society that runs off clean energy and we do not have access to FTL travel.

 

[Jorgen_CAB]

Do not use real life as a basis for your arguement. We are not a society that runs off clean energy and we do not have access to FTL travel.

That argument goes both ways... ...you can win any argument with technobabble.

We can only refer to real life, that is the only frame of reference we have.

 

[Jorgen_CAB]

you are arguing that changing large caliber cannons into missiles (different hardpoints) is the same as upgrading lasers1 to lasers 2? (same hardpoint and weapontype)

I advise you to check up on fighterplanes in the real world and see just how many revisions and upgrades they've had over the years. Something tells me you will be surprised. Take the f-16 fighting falcon design for example. Production began in the '70ies, and isn't phased out yet, although plans are that the new f35 will one day do it. The fighter have undergone massive changes in components and weapons over the years.

Sure if we were talking about fighters and small combat units... we are talking more about naval vessels and the closest thing we have are water navy ships. You should also consider that planes usually are not upgraded that much, they produce new variants. Sure some components are upgraded and they certainly are not free.

Did I also not say that it was NOT the same thing to swap a laser to missile than it is from laser to laser. I just literally said there would be a difference a few posts up.

Anyway... you can argue this anyway you want. Fact is that is how it work. If you don't like it that is one thing I just give a reasonable explanation to how it usually work in our reality.

I also know that many new ship designs are built around customization and be easy to swap components in and out, that is the new trend in ship design but mostly smaller ships.

 

[Savior59]

That argument goes both ways...

We can only refer to real life, that is the only frame of reference we have.

I have refrained from using real life as a basis of my argument, as should you. It is not a logical nor is it a sound basis for an argument to compare how our primitive Navy operates to how a Science Fiction navy operates.