Should you ignore Starbase Cap?

[osric_athanasius]

Greetings,

I have been doing some theory crafting about starbases. What I have been looking at suggests that the costs of maintaining a starbases above the cap are quite reasonable based on some pessimistic assumptions. Sure it escalates significantly but it looks like planet Trade Values will compensate for the costs.

I have attached the Excel for criticism.
I would like to hear if people have tried this idea.

 

[Piotrzeci]

I just don't get why you would like to ignore the cap.
If your empire is small, then the starbases you have without increasing the cost are enough to collect all planet trade value in your borders
and if your empire is big, then the increased cost applied to all outpost is pretty much sure to be bigger than income from average planet.

I mean, how do you earn extra credits by building starbases over the cap to pay for going over the cap?

 

[Badesumofu]

You should be able to collect all your trade value without going over the cap or it even being an issue. The only reason I could see to go over would be to get more naval cap, but then you'd have to determine whether it wouldn't have been cheaper to just go over naval cap. Or just build some fortresses.

Prior to 2.2 it was at times worth going over because Starbases weren't reliant on trade value to generate income. In 2.2 I'm struggling to see the scenario where it would make much sense.

 

[Stars_and_Bars]

I'm looking at your excel file and I quite get it. So there's the normal cost of having your full limit of starbases, but where is the increase cost of an additional starbase above the limit? and does each successive starbase above the limit increase it at a non-linear rate?

 

[Piotrzeci]

Basically you gain capacity for a station per 10 systems owned and a single station could collect from 6 systems in every direction, which in just one line would collect from 12+1 systems, so you can cover the whole empire with "free" starbases.

 

[Matoro_TBS]

1. Trade value is independent from the amount of starbases. Meaning that you cannot get more trade value with more starbases, and I've yet to see a situation where starbase cap wouldn't be enough to collect from every planet you own.
2. For naval capacity you can build fortresses, which is preferable to going over starbase cap.

So... sure, with enough trade value you could go over your cap, but that would't be profitable except some niche cases where you own huge amount of high population worlds far apart without owning many systems between them, so you'd lack starbase cap to starbase all of those distant planets.

 

[osric_athanasius]

I'm looking at your excel file and I quite get it. So there's the normal cost of having your full limit of starbases, but where is the increase cost of an additional starbase above the limit? and does each successive starbase above the limit increase it at a non-linear rate?

The thing is that the excel table at the bottom is the increased cost of going over the limit for all existing starbases. In examining you question I have notice that I missed a calculation and will update the results.

 

[osric_athanasius]

1. Trade value is independent from the amount of starbases. Meaning that you cannot get more trade value with more starbases, and I've yet to see a situation where starbase cap wouldn't be enough to collect from every planet you own.
2. For naval capacity you can build fortresses, which is preferable to going over starbase cap.

So... sure, with enough trade value you could go over your cap, but that would't be profitable except some niche cases where you own huge amount of high population worlds far apart without owning many systems between them, so you'd lack starbase cap to starbase all of those distant planets.

Well there are a couple of benefits I can see. The first is your niche case which is pretty close to the situation that I first considered this. I had worlds with 30ish TV untapped and I was at my max cap already. Second, frees up starbases from strategic positions as forward wartime border bases. Third, if you deploy for max TV coverage then I find I am not able to exploit the Deep Space Black Site for the extra Stability on worlds.

 

[kirell]

The thing is that the excel table at the bottom is the increased cost of going over the limit for all existing starbases. In examining you question I have notice that I missed a calculation and will update the results.

Looking forward to it, i always go over the Starbase Cap by 1-2 bases in mid to lategame but it would be nice to know what good breaking points and in which conditions.

Regarding why one would go there, both extra naval capacity and extra trade value are a good reason, but trade value is more easily measured. But trade value really needs defending, even in my technocracy with only a single commerce megaplex/planet i get ~170/planet by 2340. Currently have 56 planets and 18 starbase cap, so the extra bases allow for a lot more TV protection and collection. And I guess a xenophile thrifty megacorp with the civics etc will get a lot more trade value per planet...

 

[osric_athanasius]

So I made some "corrections" but it is 1am here. The result are very different. So I am questioning my methodology at the moment.

But for completeness and more criticism. It would be nice to figure out how to factor in under the cap starbases well as it is a changing variable.

One noticeable error was the misuse to the TV multiplier. It should have been a divisor. Hence the original was under valued by a factor of 4.

Second, I shifted from focusing on the change to the total costs.

Will reexamine after some sleep.

 

[Jmes Snowscoran]

You should avoid going over starbase cap if you can. It might be worthwhile in some circumstances for anchorages if the alternative is to go massively over your naval cap, or for hangar bays if you're losing a massive amount of trade to piracy. In the latter scenario it's a sign that you've misplayed, because your trade won't be competitive if you're paying extra starbase upkeep to protect it.

Sometimes it's also alright going over the cap for a bit if you know you're expanding your cap soon, but you're generally better off accomplishing whatever you were trying to do in some other way.

 

[kirell]

You should avoid going over starbase cap if you can. It might be worthwhile in some circumstances for anchorages if the alternative is to go massively over your naval cap, or for hangar bays if you're losing a massive amount of trade to piracy. In the latter scenario it's a sign that you've misplayed, because your trade won't be competitive if you're paying extra starbase upkeep to protect it.

Sometimes it's also alright going over the cap for a bit if you know you're expanding your cap soon, but you're generally better off accomplishing whatever you were trying to do in some other way.

I disagree. If paying more upkeep for starbases increases your total income (be it from more trade or less payment for going less over fleet cap), its obviously the right choice. So generally its always a good idea to go over the cap whenever you get more energy (or energy+alloys) than if you did not. When exactly this is the idea is a very good line of inqueriy by the OP...

 

[Matoro_TBS]

I disagree. If paying more upkeep for starbases increases your total income (be it from more trade or less payment for going less over fleet cap), its obviously the right choice. So generally its always a good idea to go over the cap whenever you get more energy (or energy+alloys) than if you did not. When exactly this is the idea is a very good line of inqueriy by the OP...

So basically if the trade value you aren't getting is more than 25% upkeep for you starbases it's a good deal. This is the case mostly when you have very high trade value planets but not much starbase capacity (=few systems), so your starbase upkeep wouldn't be that high either.
However if you do have a super-high trade value planet without a starbase, and you would get more money by going over starbase limit, you would get even more (25% of your starbase upkeep) by dismantling a starbase that is not necessary for trade. Even if it was profitable to go over starbase cap, it would nearly always be better option to find a way to collect that trade without going over starbase limit.

 

[kramsikrams]

Interesting idea, most of the time not worth it though.

Included the spreadsheet with extra cost from under cap starbases as you go beyond the cap. Also used 0 energy upkeep for buildings.

 

[Blurb]

Assumptions

• A: The empire's number of owned systems is a multiple of 10 (10, 20, 30, and so on)
• B: The Empire is already at starbase capacity
• C: The Empire has no flat increases to starbase capacity outside of the base +3
• D: The extra upkeep of an upgraded starbase is in the range of 1 (starport, no modules or buildings) to 18 (citadel, max modules, 4 buildings of 2 energy each)
• E: The additional upkeep incurred from being over capacity is additive with respect to other upkeep modifiers (eg. the one from expansion tree)

It follows that the empire has a total of 10n starbases, of which n+3 are upgraded, where n is a positive nonzero integer.
With a base upkeep of 1 per starbase, the empire's energy upkeep before upgrade (EUi) is then the sum of its systems plus the additional upkeep (AU) from starbase upgrades:
EUi = 10n + (n+3)*AU

Upgrading one starbase to go above capacity then results in a total of 10n starbases of which n+4 are upgraded.
The empire's upkeep after going above capacity (EUf) is then:
EUf = (10n + (n+4)*AU))*5/4

The extra upkeep incurred by upgrading a starbase is then EUf - EUi, which reduces to
EUf - EUi = (10/4)n + n*AU/4 + 2AU

With that out of the way, it's easier to do some analysis.
Firstly, note that the extra upkeep increases as n grows larger, meaning a larger empire will pay more for going over cap.
What this means is that the trade value collected from the extra base needs to also be larger for this overcap thing to pay off.
Secondly, note also that AU increases the energy upkeep - remembering that AU is basically the average cost of your starbase upgrades, meaning a highly developed empire will pay more for going over cap.

Take an example, an empire with 50 systems and an AU of 6 (meaning all upgraded bases are starholds with 4 modules).
Plugging n=5, AU=6 into the above expression:
EUf - EUi = (10/4)*5 + 5*6/4 + 2*6 = 32
In this case, upgrading one starbase to the same level as the others (and thus going 1 over cap) would increase the nation's total energy upkeep by 32.
I'll leave it to the readers to make their own conclusions regarding when it's worthwhile to go over cap - try plugging in values from your own games.

 

[kirell]

So basically if the trade value you aren't getting is more than 25% upkeep for you starbases it's a good deal. This is the case mostly when you have very high trade value planets but not much starbase capacity (=few systems), so your starbase upkeep wouldn't be that high either.
However if you do have a super-high trade value planet without a starbase, and you would get more money by going over starbase limit, you would get even more (25% of your starbase upkeep) by dismantling a starbase that is not necessary for trade. Even if it was profitable to go over starbase cap, it would nearly always be better option to find a way to collect that trade without going over starbase limit.

Ok, example: I currently have a starbase limit of 18. I own 93 systems, 43 of them colonized, 16 sectors with a total of 56 colonies. 5 borders/chokes. Total Starbase upkeep is ~250, another bastion would add 13 energy (-20%) = 10.4 cost, and a 25% premium on all bases. So new cost is 260*1.25 = 325 which is only 65 extra cost. 2 over limit is 405 or 67.5 extra cost per base, 3 over limit is 490 which is 70 extra cost per base etc. So extra bases cost more, but once you are over the limit the increase for going more over limit is not that bad. So if i want to go over naval capacity, an extra starbase will almost certainly be a better deal than going 36 over capacity (which increases enery and alloy consumption). For trade value, i don't have "super high" value, usually 130 per planet (and most systems are single planet). But since a single base can add multiple systems to the trade network (or protect multiple systems), it is usually a good deal. But thats only for my specific empire, so a more general check of the break even points is a good idea imo.

 

[ragehavoc]

I'm confused, do people think trade hubs overlap?
I've never had any issues with starbases, usually I have 2-3 extra i can build before even reaching the cap around mid to late game, maybe if you would go way over naval cap otherwise, but I have not found myself to be in that situation very often with how many bases youre given.

Typically I only have 2-3 trade hubs because of how much they can cover, with choke point bastions next to other empires which usually gives coverage over the trade hubs, and the rest are anchors placed either over planets or blackholes/nebulas/enclaves for the bonus'.

 

[AlanC9]

People are running out of starbases before they run out of trade?

 

[kirell]

People are running out of starbases before they run out of trade?

Yes. I play with 1.5x planets and no advanced empires, so maybe its not happening in the default settings but for me a lack of starbase cap for all my needs (trade collection, trade protection, chockepoint protection, naval cap increase) is certainly happening most of the time.

I usually only start to go above cap after about 100years (before that its often not yet worth it). I also like to add a commercial zone or two to my planets to get amenities, energy and (from trade policy) without resource intake and also to keep using tier 1 research labs & buildings (no special resources needed -> more minerals for alloys), which creates decent trade value that needs protection.

 

[ragehavoc]

Yes. I play with 1.5x planets and no advanced empires, so maybe its not happening in the default settings but for me a lack of starbase cap for all my needs (trade collection, trade protection, chockepoint protection, naval cap increase) is certainly happening most of the time.

I usually only start to go above cap after about 100years (before that its often not yet worth it). I also like to add a commercial zone or two to my planets to get amenities, energy and (from trade policy) without resource intake and also to keep using tier 1 research labs & buildings (no special resources needed -> more minerals for alloys), which creates decent trade value that needs protection.

we would have to look at how you are doing things, but from this description it sounds like you play outside of normal standards and should look for some mods, there are 2 +2 techs, a +4 civic, and a +5 ascension perk and a +2 from just choosing supremacy. thats +15 right there, before repeatables.