Should you ignore Starbase Cap?

[Badesumofu]

The question you need to ask when considering going over the cap is: 'is the value of my least valuable starbase greater than the cost of being over the cap?'

I think it is highly unlikely that the answer to this is going to be yes outside of some extreme edge cases.

 

[CrowScape]

What is this trade value you speak of, and how do you cook it?

 

[kirell]

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.

I would never waste a civic or ascension perk just to save some money. Energy credits are one of the easiest resources to get. Also, i don't ask for nor need a higher starbase cap, i just think the investigation of the OP whether going above cap is a good idea (and when, and how much) is worthwile.

 

[ragehavoc]

I would never waste a civic or ascension perk just to save some money. Energy credits are one of the easiest resources to get. Also, i don't ask for nor need a higher starbase cap, i just think the investigation of the OP whether going above cap is a good idea (and when, and how much) is worthwile.

You were compalining about it, so I told you how to fix it, which you clearly ignored since only one of those examples was an ascension perk, if you know what you are doing you will never have to go above cap.
The question if its a good idea is pointless if the actual question should be, why are you going over cap when you shouldnt have to.

 

[kirell]

You were compalining about it, so I told you how to fix it, which you clearly ignored since only one of those examples was an ascension perk, if you know what you are doing you will never have to go above cap.

I was not complaining about it. Just because i could use more starbases than the cap allows does not mean i complain about it. I am interested in the question how important the cap is. I mean, the question is valid for the administrative cap (i go above it all the time, gladly), its valid for the fleet cap (if my economy allows for it, sure i ignore that cap as well) and i think its also a good question for the starbase cap, but much less discussed so far.

I don't understand why so many posters like you want to take down any discussion about it. Its not about me having a problem with the game mechanics. I can play perfectly fine without going above cap. Its about when & why & how much ignoring this cap makes as much sense as with the other caps. And some posters said something alike "i could never use more starbases than cap, why discuss this" so i tried to explain some situations where i could use more starbases and going above the cap was a good decision for the economic bottom line.

Examples for imo interesting considerations:
1) Paying extra 250 energy energy credits upkeep might sound like much. But, wouldn't you gladly pay 250 upkeep for an extra civic (equivalent +4 starbase civic), or 375 for an extra ascension perk (equivalent +5 starbase perk). Thats just 2-3 planets of trade value (of non-trade focused planets). Mid to lategame i certainly have enough energy to afford this, but never enough civics or ascension perks... (and in case you wonder, this is not a complaint about too few civic slots^^)
2) Another poster helpfully said he uses fortresses instead of anchorages so more starbases are available. Fortress costs upkeep of 1 mote + 1 energy, an building slot and 3 specialist pops for +12 naval cap. So 3 fortresses bring the same bonus as an anchorage starbase. Assuming 1 mote = 10 energy, thats 33 energy and 9 specialists (1.1 food and 0.9 amenities in my empire, housing is included in the fortress). Lets say thats the equivalent of 3 energy/pop. So the 3 fortresses needed to replace an anchorage starbase cost 60 energy upkeep. Now, couldn't it make sense to buy an extra anchorage instead and use the building slots and pops for something else? Upkeep difference - even above cap - is just about 10 credits...

 

[ragehavoc]

I was not complaining about it. Just because i could use more starbases than the cap allows does not mean i complain about it. I am just interested in the question how important the cap is. I mean, the question is valid for the administrative cap (i go above it all the time, gladly), its valid for the fleet cap (if my economy allows for it, sure i ignore that cap as well) and i think its also a good question for the starbase cap, but much less discussed so far.

I don't understand why so many posters like you want to take down any discussion about it. Its not about me having a problem with the game mechanics. I can play perfectly fine without going above cap. Its about when & why & how much ignoring this cap makes as much sense as with the other caps. And some posters said something alike "i could never use more starbases than cap, why discuss this" so i tried to explain some situations where i could use more starbases and going above the cap was a good decision for the economic bottom line.

Example for imo interesting considerations: Paying extra 250 energy energy credits upkeep might sound like much. But, wouldn't you gladly pay 250 upkeep for an extra civic (equivalent +4 starbase civic), or 375 for an extra ascension perk (equivalent +5 starbase perk). Thats just 2-3 planets of trade value (of non-trade focused planets). Mid to lategame i certainly have enough energy to afford this, but never enough civics or ascension perks... (and in case you wonder, this is not a complaint about too few civic slots^^)

The problem with the examples you are giving though is that they are situations in which a lack of starbases is forced by the player. Which is the reason why it isnt discussed very often, you have to go out of your way to not have enough starbases.

 

[kirell]

The problem with the examples you are giving though is that they are situations in which a lack of starbases is forced by the player. Which is the reason why it isnt discussed very often, you have to go out of your way to not have enough starbases.

Lack of starbases is really the wrong way of looking at it imo, otherwise any cap below the number of owned systems is "too low", since more starbases are almost always good. i never had the situation when i did not build up to cap (at least mid to lategame). If we can agree that more starbases are good, the question is only whether the price tag of ignoring the cap is worth it, and in which cases. This is whats interesting to me, not whether people consider the cap too high or too low.

 

[ragehavoc]

Lack of starbases is really the wrong way of looking at it imo, otherwise any cap below the number of owned systems is "too low", since more starbases are almost always good. i never had the situation when i did not build up to cap (at least mid to lategame). If we can agree that more starbases are good, the question is only whether the price tag of ignoring the cap is worth it, and in which cases. This is whats interesting to me, not whether people consider the cap too high or too low.

more starbases are not good though, lol you dont actually need that many because trade hubs dont overlap, so you dont need to build one on every single planet anymore. That is why I have stated most people are usually under the cap by 2-3 or more.

Its really really easy to hit the required fleets for mid and end game, you dont need many trade hubs, and for the most part basic bastions cover most of your trade routes, if anything there are too many starbases.

which is why i also stated you have to go out of your way to have issues with starbases.

 

[kirell]

which is why i also stated you have to go out of your way to have issues with starbases.

Why do you alway say those are issues or problems? That is no problem for me. A program can run just fine, but it can still be optimized. My empires runs just fine without going above the starbase cap. Doesn't mean it cannot be optimized and run even better...

 

[ragehavoc]

Why do you alway say those are issues or problems? That is no problem for me. A program can run just fine, but it can still be optimized. My empires runs just fine without going above the starbase cap. Doesn't mean it cannot be optimized and run even better...

It doesnt really work like that, if you have everything covered, trade routes all covered and protected, not worrying about fleet strength etc. etc., adding another starbase would be a cost not a gain.

 

[kirell]

It doesnt really work like that, if you have everything covered, trade routes all covered and protected, not worrying about fleet strength etc. etc., adding another starbase would be a cost not a gain.

Everything is a tradeoff in the game. But i am sorry to say, this discussion is getting nowhere so i will disengage.

 

[Jmes Snowscoran]

If we can agree that more starbases are good, the question is only whether the price tag of ignoring the cap is worth it, and in which cases.

I think you have the right approach but draw the wrong conclusions.

Yes, a cost-benefit analysis is important, but it's not sufficient- it doesn't follow that you should always go above your starbase cap if building a new station will bring more income than it costs. You also have to make a cost-minimization analysis: How can I achieve what I'm trying to do most efficiently? And the answer is, as people have pointed out before me in the thread, rarely to go above starbase cap. Optimizing your starbase layout (for trade collection and piracy protection) and getting rid of redundant stations is almost always better than just going above cap when you really need to keep a newly acquired base to collect trade from your recent conquest or whatever (this is the most common situation I find that I have to make hard choices about which bases to keep and which to downgrade). When it comes to naval cap there are also alternatives that you have to consider, and if that analysis doesn't include a consideration of taking an ascension perk you're not taking the problem seriously.

Going above starbase cap for trade collection is bad mojo. The reason for that is that unlike the simple analysis on the first page, the actual cost of expanding your empire's trade network isn't just the upkeep cost from the new hub and going above cap, but the piracy effects that cascade downstream and require even more starbases to counter. It's still possible that it's the right choice in some situations, particularly in the case of piracy suppression (if you're generating enough trade to have starbase cap issues, adding a star fortress full of hangar bays is often a lot more impactful than adding another trade collection base) but it should be a sign that you've misplayed somewhere and you're taking efficiency losses as a result.

That leaves anchorage bases, and yes I can agree that in some cases (eg gearing up for a war scenario where you need to build above your regular naval cap) it makes sense to expand beyond the starbase cap to increase your naval cap. It's still contingent on not having better alternatives (galactic force projection, naval cap tech, strongholds and certain edicts come to mind) but it's not inconceivable.

In the final analysis, though, you want to a) avoid going above starbase cap if you can, and b) try not to stay above cap any longer than you have to.

 

[Chthon]

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.

Not exactly true, you can get 2 extra trade per trading module installed with a certain building. Up to 12 per station. Not really worth it on it's own though I admit. Just throwing that out there.

 

[TheDeamon]

Not exactly true, you can get 2 extra trade per trading module installed with a certain building. Up to 12 per station. Not really worth it on it's own though I admit. Just throwing that out there.

One thing nobody seems to have brought up. The trade routes AND trade collection can use the Gateways last I checked. So max out a starbase with trade modules, and start seeding your empire with Gateways every 10 or so jumps and everything is covered.

 

[osric_athanasius]

Ok, I had to reupdate the Spreadsheet, v3 now. The most major changes are we are purely looking at energy cost only and there is a yellow cell in which you can plug in your current starbase cap.

Two new analysis option where created as columns.
1) The difference in cost between the current starbase and previous starbase. This should give a clue if just including a starbase to capture region of trade value is a net gain based on that starbase alone. Please note, if you are not using wealth creation then double the amount of trade value required.
2) The average cost per starbase. This would be useful if you are deciding if your smallest income capturing starbase is pulling it's weight.

 

[osric_athanasius]

Current thoughts:
50 citadels under the cap requires about 1k energy where if they are over the cap than requires 12k energy.
Second, lower tiers of starbases are much more managable in costs than upgrading every thing.
10 Starforts under the cap is about the same cost as 10 Starbases above the default 3 cap.

As for finding any clear ideal cost benefit points beyond the cap is unclear to me. It looks like if the strategic situation demands it and you can afford it then do it otherwise avoid it.
It will depend on your current empire.

Some examples I can think of:
Building a forward operating base for an offensive to cut down on reinforcement travel times.
Choke-point defenses.
Tapping a TV pool that will exceed the increase in costs.
A deep space black site above a developed world for that slight increase in efficiency on the planet. The exact value of this has not been explored.

However, it is clear that staying within your cap is clearly a benefit.
In fact, the less star-bases are better in terms of costs to cover your trade value collection. But this must be weighed against less naval cap, defenses, strategic flexibility, construction potential and planet efficiency. Honestly, it looks like your mileage may vary depending on your strategy and play style.

 

[osric_athanasius]

One other thought: A starbase in a system makes it hard to claim due to the increase in the influence claim cost. However, the occupation warscore of the system goes up as well. So you could park a starbase on a border then once it is claimed downgrade it and shift it a little deeper in your borders. That will at least hurt your expected enemies rate of claiming your territory and make the impact of losing those systems less.

 

[Blurb]

Current thoughts:
50 citadels under the cap requires about 1k energy where if they are over the cap than requires 12k energy.
Second, lower tiers of starbases are much more managable in costs than upgrading every thing.
10 Starforts under the cap is about the same cost as 10 Starbases above the default 3 cap.

You're drawing conclusions from a flawed calculation.
Your sheet does in no way account for how many outposts the empire in question has, but their upkeep is also affected by being above starbase capacity.
Consider briefly that empires have upwards of 8 or 9 outpost per starbase (when going above capacity), and you'll see that this is a large margin of error.

As for your examples, you're far into the extremes. I don't think it takes much math to convince anyone that +1250% starbase upkeep is bad.

As for finding any clear ideal cost benefit points beyond the cap is unclear to me. It looks like if the strategic situation demands it and you can afford it then do it otherwise avoid it.
It will depend on your current empire.

There is no clear and objective point where it pays off. I simplified the problem to the best of my ability, and was left with three variables and only one independent equation.
When a system has more variables than independent equations, then it is unsolvable. At best you can introduce parameters or fix the variables via assumptions

 

[kramsikrams]

You're drawing conclusions from a flawed calculation.
Your sheet does in no way account for how many outposts the empire in question has, but their upkeep is also affected by being above starbase capacity.
Consider briefly that empires have upwards of 8 or 9 outpost per starbase (when going above capacity), and you'll see that this is a large margin of error.

As for your examples, you're far into the extremes. I don't think it takes much math to convince anyone that +1250% starbase upkeep is bad.


There is no clear and objective point where it pays off. I simplified the problem to the best of my ability, and was left with three variables and only one independent equation.
When a system has more variables than independent equations, then it is unsolvable. At best you can introduce parameters or fix the variables via assumptions

The game doesnt really make it clear that outpost upkeep is affected though.

I think you are overcomplicating this; Starbase upkeep (SU) (the game give you this number), upkeep for the new starport (NS), and 25%. (SU+NS)*1,25= The number to beat.
This seems very niche, yes early and mid game you can find examples where it will pay off, but as mentioned earlier it is probaly better to downgrade another base.

 

[Blurb]

The game doesnt really make it clear that outpost upkeep is affected though.
I think you are overcomplicating this; Starbase upkeep (SU) (the game give you this number), upkeep for the new starport (NS), and 25%. (SU+NS)*1,25= The number to beat.
This seems very niche, yes early and mid game you can find examples where it will pay off, but as mentioned earlier it is probaly better to downgrade another base.

You're at the same level of complexity: three variables and one independent equation.
Given that you've picked a different set of variables to work from, you've of course got a different equation.
On a side note, your equation is flat wrong. the number to beat is = 0.25 SU + 1.25 NS.

Regarding Outpost upkeep, I was about to write a post about how obvious it was, but ended up having to check it ingame to quiet my own doubt. Outpost upkeep increases if you go over cap.
I did also notice something very strange: starbase upkeep wasn't affected by going 1 above capacity, and going 2 above capacity only added +25% upkeep.
Can someone verify this?