Small Changes That Would Solve A Lot of Problems

[w1zard9169]

-Claiming a system should only cost 1 administrative cap.

Claiming systems is a waste of administrative cap unless the system contains a planet or is strategically important. Systems just don't have the raw resources to justify their administrative cap expenditure, especially when districts only cost 1 administrative cap and are capable of generating 8 minerals, 8 power or 12 food.

-Mining and generator districts should generate 6 minerals/power per job instead of 4... like how farms generate 6 food.

Minerals and power feel too scarce lategame, this change would help that problem, along with making machine empires not feel so strapped for cash. This change will also eliminate the whole "farming food to sell for energy is more energy efficient than simply generating energy" thing.

Feel free to agree or disagree.

 

[Typee]

System property is more about strategic map control than resource generation.

 

[evilcat]

The advantage of having more systems is not only that you have generally more resources but also more starbases and more fleets. But also more resources than opponents, which is generally good since you can conquere them and do bad things to them. There is a hard time of balancing tall vs wide. And tall being somehow viable is generally hard in game about conquering stuff with diplomacy being limited so far.
So, while on paper system is much worse than district we can just leave it, and adapt. Just do not blob too early.

There is a mod which changes resources yield to 555 and it is so much better. Even thou the change is minimal like 6.6%. However it fixes selling biofuels for energy. And if you want strategy heavy on energy or minerals it is a bit better.

666 seems like a lot of resources. Even now you can manage and it gets better over time with all bonuses stacking. Maybe start with 555 and if that is not enought late game add tier V technologies +1 yield from base jobs.

 

[DrFranknfurter]

I just assume strategic resource deposits haven't been ported over to the new system yet. Most deposits and rewards are the exact same values as 2.0 when everything else has changed. The only thing that's changed is the new +% output techs but I do hope they go back and increase the output of every star to make it more significant.

I remember the devs once talking about how there was a time when not all stars produced any resources after the switch from frontier outposts to claiming systems individually but playtesting revealed that people hated having to build outposts without gaining anything useful back. So they made sure each star gives you something. Now that planetary resources have increased significantly I'd argue that we're back to the situation where most systems are effectively empty and give you little to no net gain. I don't like it. I'd much rather have space deposits be increased to match the new system. Play around with the numbers certainly, I don't know how much they should be buffed but I'd like for space deposits to account for a significant percentage of my total income, say 25-50% not ~0-10% (the figures are worse for technology too as they have smaller % boosts that apply to smaller amounts).

 

[Borgratz]

Systems serve strategic purposes in top of just giving you ressources, so it seems alright that they are more expensive than sectors.

I think they should make the admin cap cost per cluster and not per system, though.

That would fix the problem of not wanting bad single systems and you would have more of a reason to attack neighbours owning part of your clusters.

 

[Typee]

Systems serve strategic purposes in top of just giving you ressources, so it seems alright that they are more expensive than sectors.

I think they should make the admin cap cost per cluster and not per system, though.

That would fix the problem of not wanting bad single systems and you would have more of a reason to attack neighbours owning part of your clusters.

Sounds pretty good. Even more reasons to actually bring in that fixed clusters/sectors system.

 

[Dewarden]

I have to disagree with your suggestion about changing the administrative costs of systems because systems provide much more than a single district, as already mentioned above. Still the amount of administrative power needs to be raised to avoid that larger empires (>1000 imperial size) fall behind in tech even when all planets have some scientists on it.

I also think that an Exterminator should not be forced to produce food in agrar districts and convert it into energy by food processors - that simply does not make any sense... A terminator shall produce something he does not need, even worse when trying to get rid of any biological life? Lore and stuff - maybe an alternative district for machine empires would do the job where the transfer from food into energy is already done in conversion rate 1 food = 0.75 energy.

 

[zukodark]

I do feel like space deposits shoudl be boosted a bit to compensate for 2.2 balance.

 

[WhapXI]

-Claiming a system should only cost 1 administrative cap.

Claiming systems is a waste of administrative cap unless the system contains a planet or is strategically important. Systems just don't have the raw resources to justify their administrative cap expenditure, especially when districts only cost 1 administrative cap and are capable of generating 8 minerals, 8 power or 12 food.

Admin cap is cheap. If expansion becomes cheaper then the penalties for being over should be tweaked up for balance. I think the system is fine as is. And long as you're growing even slightly effectively then expanding is always worth it.

-Mining and generator districts should generate 6 minerals/power per job instead of 4... like how farms generate 6 food.

Minerals and power feel too scarce lategame, this change would help that problem, along with making machine empires not feel so strapped for cash. This change will also eliminate the whole "farming food to sell for energy is more energy efficient than simply generating energy" thing.

Agreed with this. It would certainly smash the "food-only economy" thing. I think Machine Empires need a little more to make them competitive. Either slash their pop energy upkeep in half or boost the energy they get from districts by 50%. Something like that.

 

[Sigma 582]

Mind you, space stations don't need pops to work them. Sure you could build 2 districts instead of claiming a system and those would give more resources, but you have to wait until you grow 4 pops to fill the jobs while space stations start giving income immediately.

Also, admin cap is not a big issue anyway (unless you are megacorp), and claiming systems is usually worth those 2 points. So, ¿porque no los dos?

 

[Mikhail_Mengsk]

The reason for Systems to add 2 Empire Sprawl is because they represent an heavier logistical problem than simply mining/farming a strip of land in an already inhabited planet. You have to keep communications and supply to an outpost: at the very least your supply ships have to reach the outskirt of a solar system to reach the hyperlane, and then navigate from the outskirts of the Outpost's system to the station itself. And this if there is a single hyperlane between them.

So, systems being more Sprawl-costly has sense.

Claiming systems in itself, however, is usually not really worth it for resources alone. In Stellaris, even more with 2.2, planets are like the 99% of your resource production. I'm all for them being the key of any empire, but claiming space now only serve strategic purpose (chokepoints and such) and it's economically relevant only in rare cases (special systems) and for trade routes. Right now having "holes" of unclaimed space has no downsides except for aesthetic purposes.

I think spaceborne resources should be way more plentiful: mining asteroids is easy and even in "real life" there are projects that suggests that an entirely spaceborn civilization with rotating habitats could do without planets just by mining asteroids and moons. This way, you could effectively wage wars for significant systems, while now you either take a planet or it's pointless. So you "snake" your way toward a planet, spending influence to claim useless systems on the road, just to reach a planet.

 

[w1zard9169]

System property is more about strategic map control than resource generation.

It shouldn't be. It makes non-strategically important systems practically useless in comparison with planets.

Claiming systems in itself, however, is usually not really worth it for resources alone. In Stellaris, even more with 2.2, planets are like the 99% of your resource production. I'm all for them being the key of any empire, but claiming space now only serve strategic purpose (chokepoints and such) and it's economically relevant only in rare cases (special systems) and for trade routes. Right now having "holes" of unclaimed space has no downsides except for aesthetic purposes.

I think spaceborne resources should be way more plentiful: mining asteroids is easy and even in "real life" there are projects that suggests that an entirely spaceborn civilization with rotating habitats could do without planets just by mining asteroids and moons. This way, you could effectively wage wars for significant systems, while now you either take a planet or it's pointless. So you "snake" your way toward a planet, spending influence to claim useless systems on the road, just to reach a planet.

Agreed.

I was assuming that spacebourne resources would stay the same and reduce the admin cost of claiming the system to 1. But, doubling spacebourne resources and keeping the admin cost of a system at 2 achieves the same effect and is something that I would be ok with.

 

[DreadLindwyrm]

I have to disagree with your suggestion about changing the administrative costs of systems because systems provide much more than a single district, as already mentioned above. Still the amount of administrative power needs to be raised to avoid that larger empires (>1000 imperial size) fall behind in tech even when all planets have some scientists on it.

I also think that an Exterminator should not be forced to produce food in agrar districts and convert it into energy by food processors - that simply does not make any sense... A terminator shall produce something he does not need, even worse when trying to get rid of any biological life? Lore and stuff - maybe an alternative district for machine empires would do the job where the transfer from food into energy is already done in conversion rate 1 food = 0.75 energy.

You don't have to use the agri-districts to grow food.
You can build housing districts instead, or when you get the Machine World perk switch over to that, and you can effectively replace the agridistricts with generators or mines.

But "food processor" is a bad description here. It could well be converting pond scum and water weed into biofuel to provide energy - effectively letting the waste energy from the sun on otherwise unusable land/water do some good rather than being left as waste.

 

[w1zard9169]

But "food processor" is a bad description here. It could well be converting pond scum and water weed into biofuel to provide energy - effectively letting the waste energy from the sun on otherwise unusable land/water do some good rather than being left as waste.

If we are using real life logic, then why don't you just use solar panels instead? Taking an intermediate step by generating plant life or agriculture is always going to cost you energy efficiency. There is no way that generating plant matter to turn into energy is ever going to be more energy efficient then simply generating the power in the first place, it's just thermodynamics.

There is absolutely no reason why machine empires should ever have to grow food unless they are rogue servitors or driven assimilators.

 

[Urza1234]

If we are using real life logic, then why don't you just use solar panels instead? Taking an intermediate step by generating plant life or agriculture is always going to cost you energy efficiency. There is no way that generating plant matter to turn into energy is ever going to be more energy efficient then simply generating the power in the first place, it's just thermodynamics.

There is absolutely no reason why machine empires should ever have to grow food unless they are rogue servitors or driven assimilators.

Thats not necessarily true.
Photosynthesis is actually theoretically about 26% energy efficient, though a good deal of that energy goes into just keeping the plant alive.
Modern high-ed plants for instance are only about 3-4% energy efficient, in terms of sunlight translated into stored biomass. When compared to your average solar panel's 15-18% efficiency that might not seem great. However, at the end of the day you also have to think about manufacturing, maintenance, and storage.
Plants are self-replicating, require fewer complex and rare materials than solar panels, and produce an easily storeable and transportable chemical energy.
Solar panels might be pretty good at supplying power to a grid, during the day, but how are you going to store that power and get that into orbit?

TBH, if we're using 'real life logic' I think the gravity well issue probably invalidates the potential of any profitable planet/ground based energy generation system.

 

[DreadLindwyrm]

If we are using real life logic, then why don't you just use solar panels instead? Taking an intermediate step by generating plant life or agriculture is always going to cost you energy efficiency. There is no way that generating plant matter to turn into energy is ever going to be more energy efficient then simply generating the power in the first place, it's just thermodynamics.

There is absolutely no reason why machine empires should ever have to grow food unless they are rogue servitors or driven assimilates.

Not all areas that can be harvested for biomass are suitable for solar panel installation. Perhaps they have the wrong facing, perhaps the light level isn't consistent enough, perhaps the area is physically unstable (water surfaces, soft ground, subject to movement or earthquake). It also depends on the relative efficiency of the plants and panels in question, as well as what form the energy or fuel is extracted in, and how it is going to be stored and transported.

And then there are running costs. If you set an area up to grow algae, and extract the algae every so often there may be less overhead and maintenance involved than keeping a large solar farm clean, and dealing with the heating effects to the surrounding area.

It's also missing the point that what the "food" processor is using doesn't have to be anything that would be recognisable as a food crop. It can be whatever fast growing, high yield plant, fungus, or bacterium (or other equivalents) are available, even if their structure would preclude anything reasonable eating it.

 

[Zenopath]

Heres a random idea, what if outposts had 1 module slot? This wouldn´t be that unbalancing, and you could put a single gun battery there to help your trade lanes, an outpost with 1 gun battery would not get 1 system protection range, just 10 defence on that system and be slightly tougher to take. Or you could put a naval outpost, which would mean that the system would generate 4 naval capacity. Or if you had 1 trade outpost in system, it would pick up trade in that system and send it somewhere.

So you would have more options with what to do with your outposts, at cost of an additional 50 alloy and maintence, so not ¨free¨.

If nothing else, any modders want to use that suggestion, go ahead and link me your mod, would be interesting.

 

[Typee]

It shouldn't be. It makes non-strategically important systems practically useless in comparison with planets.

Well, maybe there should be a system that would be a hybrid between the old and the new one.
Something akin to Civ V, where planets would slowly generate influence and automatically but slowly "grab" unoccupied systems adjacent to your empire. But you could still spend influence to grab systems instantly. That way you would pay your influence to secure your chokepoints fast, but eventually even those strategically useless 1 resource systems would get assimilated into your empire and that would prevent border gore.

 

[DreadLindwyrm]

Well, maybe there should be a system that would be a hybrid between the old and the new one.
Something akin to Civ V, where planets would slowly generate influence and automatically but slowly "grab" unoccupied systems adjacent to your empire. But you could still spend influence to grab systems instantly. That way you would pay your influence to secure your chokepoints fast, but eventually even those strategically useless 1 resource systems would get assimilated into your empire and that would prevent border gore.

One problem with automatically spreading borders would be running up against the fanatic xenophobe Fallen Empire - it can, and *will* declare war on you if your borders touch.
Now that's avoidable by simply not claiming those systems. With automatically spreading borders though, (as was sometimes the case with the old border system) you've got no way to stop that spread from happening. Especially if you're unlucky enough to spawn with your starting system a couple of jumps from their border.

 

[w1zard9169]

Thats not necessarily true.
Photosynthesis is actually theoretically about 26% energy efficient, though a good deal of that energy goes into just keeping the plant alive.
Modern high-ed plants for instance are only about 3-4% energy efficient, in terms of sunlight translated into stored biomass. When compared to your average solar panel's 15-18% efficiency that might not seem great. However, at the end of the day you also have to think about manufacturing, maintenance, and storage.
Plants are self-replicating, require fewer complex and rare materials than solar panels, and produce an easily storeable and transportable chemical energy.
Solar panels might be pretty good at supplying power to a grid, during the day, but how are you going to store that power and get that into orbit?

TBH, if we're using 'real life logic' I think the gravity well issue probably invalidates the potential of any profitable planet/ground based energy generation system.

It is true. Even with our crappy level of technology we currently have in the modern day, power generation is much cheaper and more energy efficient than growing plants to turn into power. There is a reason why ethanol fuel isn't seriously considered as an alternate fuel source from gasoline, and not just because oil companies pour money into lobbying against the ethanol industry... it would take THREE football fields of corn to make ONE flight from New York to Chicago... completely unsustainable.

Not all areas that can be harvested for biomass are suitable for solar panel installation. Perhaps they have the wrong facing, perhaps the light level isn't consistent enough, perhaps the area is physically unstable (water surfaces, soft ground, subject to movement or earthquake). It also depends on the relative efficiency of the plants and panels in question, as well as what form the energy or fuel is extracted in, and how it is going to be stored and transported.

As stated before, even our crappy level of modern power generation technology outstrips the efficiency of turning plant matter into energy.

And then there are running costs. If you set an area up to grow algae, and extract the algae every so often there may be less overhead and maintenance involved than keeping a large solar farm clean, and dealing with the heating effects to the surrounding area.

It would be cheaper to spend the money to develop the area into something that can be used for power generation and spend the money on maintaining complicated infrastructure that generates that power because as I said before, even our crappy level of modern power generation is so much more energy efficient than farming plant matter to turn into energy. The difference is THAT big, and it is only going to get bigger in the future as we discover more energy efficient ways of generating power.

MAYBE, if the upfront costs for development cannot be met, and the land would otherwise go unused what you are saying MIGHT be feasible... but that is a huge maybe, and it would certainly only exist as a stopgap measure.