Maintenance cost is based on Crew?!?!

[Zolokhan]

I am an idiot for just realizing .... but this makes maintenance cost a completely broken mechanic. No matter how expensive your weapons are your maintenance does not go up but if you make a troopship or boarding ship it is a very high maintenance cost .... this is very bad for gameplay.

I thought maintenance was based on total price of design ... like 5% of total cost = maintenance.

Can this be changed? It makes for some very imbalanced costs for ships.

TL;DR : After a lengthy discussion I have come to a conclusion that tying manpower and ship cost together is the problem. There should be a Manpower resource and a money resource with two separate maintenance costs. It is clearer, easier to understand, and less open to abuse by people who know how it works (once you learn how the current system works you can create ships with high firepower but lower maintenance - and you learn to never use berths). It also is more accepting of mods since upkeep is not programmed into modules but overall numbers (crew and cost). Right now upkeep is simply a number tacked on to specific modules - it makes mod balance more difficult.

If you make a high cost ship with low crew then you should have to pay for that in a flat 1% upkeep based on total cost. But your advanced ship should pay less in manpower.

Alternatively, if you make a giant wooden tugboat packed with grenades, filled with crew it should have a lower cost upkeep since grenades are cheap but a higher crew maintenance.

[FourGreenFields]

Troopships have the advantage of capturing hostile ships, rather than destroying. Bringing in a lot of money.

[Horcerer]

How is this unbalanced? Boarders are already very strong (absurdly OP against the AI, especially).

[Zolokhan]

If troopships have an unfair advantage in combat then their cost should reflect that when you attach it to your design NOT when calculating its maintenance. A marine barracks costs 132 gold and the Imperial Cannon cost 830. The combat ability of both modules should make sense .. the Imperial cannon should be roughly worth 6 marine barracks. but if i build a ship with 6 marine barracks that is going to cost me 24 maintenance cost while adding an imperial cannon adds zero. Even if we factor in the imperial cannons crew requirement (5) that is less than half the cost of one quarters or roughly $4 dollars in maintenance. It does not add up.

The cost calculation is unbalanced ... it is not determined by the cost of the modules used it is ONLY based on crew / troops used. This game has a cost system because a 4000 point design should be equal in combat potential of two 2000 point designs. But this is not the case when looking at maintenance. That one 4000 point design might have a 16 point maintenance but those 2 2000 points designs have a 32 point maintenance. So even if they have an equal chance to beat each other in combat - one side is losing money.

It is not just troopships ... if I make a ship with the same number of crew but one has much more expensive weapons then they will have the same maintenance cost but their power levels are not the same.

It does not add up. This has no bearing on multiplayer since that only uses total cost which is a good estimation of strength but during conquest the AI and yourself are paying maintenance that does not scale with ship strength. It "sort of" scales because larger ships have larger crews but you can manipulate it greatly.

I tested this out by making the most expensive 24 crew ship i could with vanilla modules and the cheapest 24 crew ship using vanilla modules.

The expensive one had 4 heavy cannons, heavy steel armor, etc.
The cheap one had like 7 cannons, wood armor for free.

Both had 24/24 crew members ... both had 16$ maintenance.

But one cost 2730 and the other cost 990.

When you put them in a balanced fight - three of the cheap ones vs. one expensive one ... it is sort of fair ... 50/50 on who might win. The cheap ones have a little cost advantage ...

but when comparing maintenance cost it is $16 vs. $48 ..... remember its three cheap ones that cost around the price of one expensive one.

So in Conquest ..... it is not worth using this strategy. Going for cheap ships will drain your money.

They only reason this does not matter is because the AI is crap in Vanilla conquest.

But even the AI suffers from this unbalanced maintenance .... if the AI spams cheaper ships and even worse if he spams ships with boarders, he will be burning his money. Once again this is not noticeable since you usually just give the AI bonus money.

But the math does not work our and is a silly way to work out maintenance. If the entire reason modules have a cost is to balance them out then the maintenance should reflect this - like a 5% flat maintenance cost on all designs.

[The Laughing Traitor]

The difference is that a troopship is functionally a completely new revenue stream, which means it would always be a better long-term investment in an equal-upkeep setting no matter how much more it costs.
Aircraft likewise have a minor upkeep cost, because they function as ablative armor and ultra-long-range weapons that are free to repair as long as the carrier is out of the thick of it.

Both of these mechanics would be economically broken in campaign if they didn't come with either a long term cost or a ridiculously prohibitive upfront cost.

As to the big ships vs little ships, it's probably worth noting that high end fittings also have a significant research investment involved. Also, as you laid out (though you didn't quite reach it), the current model encourages you to upgrade your ships as you unlock new tech along the campaign to free up more of your revenue. I consider that a good thing, personally.

[Zolokhan]

The "completely new revenue stream" from capturing vessels is irrelevant because this mechanic is NOT restricted to only boarding tactics - all modules that have a crew component are the only indicator of upkeep cost - if you use berths instead of quarters you artificially increase the upkeep cost of the ship even though its combat potential (i.e. its cost in game) is not higher.

This is assuming you even play with research - which i do not . The entire conquest game is usually determined early on in who spreads out the fastest so you have either already won or lost before you get to any really good tech. It also wastes money and slows everything down. Since the game has a point system - my high end ship that uses all the advanced modules should be roughly equivalent to a large spam of lower tech ships as long as the points (costs) are the same. It is not a perfect system but it is not terrible. The upkeep however is imbalanced - out of whack - broken.

When i use the term imbalanced I mean that the upkeep cost is not connected to the actual combat potential of the ship. That does not make sense .... why would a ship that is not as strong as another ship have a higher upkeep cost? It is a simple gameplay mechanic instituted to curb the growth of your empire so it is not out of control. If there was not upkeep cost then you can stuff your cities with infinite defenses and suffer no negative effect.

But .... if you build defenses that are cheap (weaker) but have the same upkeep cost as a defense that is expensive (stronger) it undermines this gameplay mechanic for both you and the AI. If the AI is spamming tiny defenses that are depleting his money pointlessly it makes for an imbalance because those weaker defenses could in fact have a higher or equal upkeep.

Please notice in my example - 3 cheap ships = 1 expensive ship IN COMBAT. That works great and is an intended. These ships only have price tags to indicate their relative combat potential. If this was not the case then multiplayer would be impossible. 5000 vs. 5000 point fleets have the potential to be a equal fight and is only impacted by your skill as a designer.

Upkeep cost is not balanced like this .... those 3 cheap ships have a much higher upkeep cost than that one expensive ship. If multiplayer was based on upkeep cost rather than total point cost - multiplayer would be broken.

Browse the upkeep costs of the default ships in the game's data folder - they do not make sense. The upkeep cost for the "_viking3_flagship" is 64 ... it costs 3505. The upkeep cost for "battleship8" is 43 and it costs 6360.

Like I said .. if you believe that boarder ships are super strong and can defeat another ship almost double its cost then that should be reflected in the COST of the modules. But it is not reflected there - boarding, troop, guard, and sailor modules are relatively cheap.

[The Laughing Traitor]

If you'd reread what I wrote, you'd note I never said anything about boarders being particularly strong, just that they convert enemy ships into money instead of scrap. Because of that they warrant an upkeep cost rather than an up front cost since they're the only type of ship that can actively bring in money in the campaign. If they were balanced as you seem to want them to be they'd be unwarrantedly nerfed in multiplayer battles and break the campaign economy.

As to regular crew, I guess your position makes sense now that I know you're playing without research. That said, upkeep cost is only relevant to campaign, so balancing it around the expected campaign experience (I.E. with research) seems pretty well handled really, especially since it keeps that advantage purely in the campaign as you noted yourself with the 24/24 battle. Your test honestly shows off -how well this is currently handled-, if you haven't noticed.

And finally, a few quick bullet points:

- Buildings actually don't actually use Airsailors, they use Soldiers which come at a notably reduced upkeep. As a result most buildings come in at upkeep costs between 1 and 6. I think there's a few AI designs that cost more, but most of the common ones have an upkeep of only 1.

- Berths probably have an inflated upkeep because you're paying a premium for it being an incredibly space efficient module, taking only a single space and having a ladder in it to boot. This one I definitely agree the cost should be represented upfront rather than over time, since this is an actual advantage for Battle ships that is prohibitive to use in campaign ships for little reason.

[Zolokhan]

Yes the actual cost of modules is mostly balanced ... the price of marines is a good indicator of their combat potential even when compared to non crew modules ... but the upkeep is not. I can play an entire campaign never using any boarders or guards and my designs will still have upkeeps that do not align with what i actually spent on them.

If upkeep is not tied to the relative strengths of the ships but only tied to crew number then you can have two ships of very different strengths but equal upkeep - that does not make sense. There is no question of breaking the economy or anything. The developer made a decision to tie upkeep to manpower - perhaps it was a band aid move or a quick fix and it is not totally off since larger crews usually mean a larger ship and more cost but it is not ideal and not very accurate.

Buildings have less upkeep but it still does not solve the problem of upkeep not based on actual cost of defenses. If I build a larger defense but give it less crew it will cost less upkeep. It wold make sense to just make massive buildings consisting of just corridors and armor since these corridors and armor do not cost any upkeep.

1% flat upkeep on all designs - problem solved.
You can make it 0.5% on buildings.

My 6000 dollar ship now has 60 upkeep. It is a much clearer system that does not penalize someone for using larger crews.

If i just design a ship with extra crew I am getting hit with an inflated upkeep cost even though that extra crew module only really gives me slight advantage in combat. This slight advantage is reflected in its upfront cost but then i get stabbed in the back on upkeep.

P.S. - There should really be way to collect scrap at the end of every fight with or without capturing ships. It is wasted.

[The Laughing Traitor]

I mean, I don't know what else to say. You're hyperfocused on micro and ignoring macro entirely, but complaining about a system that's purely macro based.

As I've laid out before, I'm of the opinion that crew scaling upkeep encourages the player to update designs to get the most bang for their buck as they unlock the tech to do so over the campaign. It also rewards players for building tight ships instead of just rolling up in a floating apartment block for some marginal advantage.

[HungryHunter]

This is how i see it:
Maintenance costs is you "unit limit" in Campain.
You can have many small ships that swarm your enemys on many fronts.
or
one single big ship that holds the line.
Both maybe cost the same over time but the entrycost and build time are different.

Repair cost and buildtime are not to be underestimated. Both blocks your shipyard. So many small kamikaze ships with high running cost can be better then having many big but damaged ships in queue for repairing.

Some special bosses focus one one ship only. You dont want the skybismark be the target no. You want the quick airboat to take the hit. And becouse one escord isnt enough you send 10 of them making them in pure maintanance cost maybe higher then the skybismark. But the Skybismark dishes the damage and have no time for repairs. The swarm dont care.

[Zolokhan]

Yes everything you said describes the purpose of having upkeep but the formula used to calculate that upkeep is broken. You can think of ways to use little ships but in the end the upkeep for those ships simply does not makes sense.

Upkeep should not be tied to manpower since this game ALREADY has a point system for ships that represents their overall combat effectiveness.

Making upkeep solely dependent on manpower does not fit. Can you make it work and try to justify it .. sure. But in the end it can be solved a much easier way ...

1% of cost of ship = upkeep ... done.
0.5% of cost for buildings = upkeep .... done.

This also has an impact on the AI ... certain factions are just getting hit with higher upkeeps but it does not translate into effective designs.

Look at "radula_medium_t4" it is an AI design in the data/ships folder. It costs 1828 and has an upkeep of 27 because it was designed with nothing but berths. It is just ineffective for the AI.

1828 x .01 = 18.28 upkeep. That is an upkeep that makes sense.

[FourGreenFields]

Originally posted by unarmedelephant:

this game ALREADY has a point system for ships that represents their overall combat effectiveness.

I have yet to see one.

Like, there's cost. But that's not really a point-system, and cost and upkeep most positively shouldn't be proportional to each other anyway. That'd be [Steam's lovely hearts]ing [Steam's lovely hearts]. It's allready bad enough that cost and build-time are.

[Zolokhan]

Why shouldn't cost and upkeep be proportional to each other? Larger designs need more upkeep ... cheaper designs need less upkeep. Makes sense to me. If this is because people are struggling with not getting enough money with vanilla conquest ... changing the difficulty settings is very easy to do and you can just boost ALL income levels.

[HungryHunter]

Originally posted by unarmedelephant:

Why shouldn't cost and upkeep be proportional to each other? Larger designs need more upkeep ... cheaper designs need less upkeep. Makes sense to me. If this is because people are struggling with not getting enough money with vanilla conquest ... changing the difficulty settings is very easy to do and you can just boost ALL income levels.

You seen to forget the techaspect of the game.
With crewupkeep removed and with % of total cost replaced you open the door for swarms of lowtech multi cannon ships.

[ling.speed]

Originally posted by unarmedelephant:

1% flat upkeep on all designs - problem solved.
You can make it 0.5% on buildings.

Crew was the single most costly thing upkeep wise on a warship, >by far<.

Other games usually treat upkeep as a anti exponential growth game mechanic. Where ship upkeep cost percentages effectively abstracts much of the economy, logistics and beurocracy. This is fine for some mobile crap, but if a game can work with more realistic upkeep (like this one) why taking a step back?

Like I said .. if you believe that boarder ships are super strong and can defeat another ship almost double its cost then that should be reflected in the COST of the modules.

Why? The best strategy games out there that stood the test of time include many asymmetric elements, like lack of cost/manitenance balance. It's those mechanics that often make the game good.

And anyways, cost and maintenance is only one small element in a big puzzle of what is good and when. A game in which higher cost = more power every time is just a step away from cookie clicker.

Browse the upkeep costs of the default ships in the game's data folder - they do not make sense. The upkeep cost for the "_viking3_flagship" is 64 ... it costs 3505. The upkeep cost for "battleship8" is 43 and it costs 6360.

have you considered doctrinal difference? Some nations ships are intentionally designed to have more crew than needed. And there are valid advantages for that too.

[Zolokhan]

It is not realistic upkeep ... sailors are not a resource. If we are supposed to act like sailors are valuable then put them in as a manpower resource. Upkeep's only function is, like you said, to curb exponential growth - it is a game mechanic and not based on reality. But if that mechanic is not tied to the relative strength of the ships it is not doing its job to well. You could end up curbing your exponential growth with ships that have unnecessarily high upkeeps.

I have been through all of the "factions" in this game and their force lists are far from balanced and the "doctrinal differences" amount to mostly comical themes that barely function well. There are only around 4 factions that even have sort of functioning force lists (the USS, Brygun, HMS, and the one with all the numbers .. you have to look at the ConstructionStrategy file). ) I have made a mod (Monofaction) that attempts to fix this by merging all factions into one faction and then deleting all the rest. So every faction has access to ALL designs (except the really bad ones ... i deleted those). I like the way it plays but I do not know yet if anyone else thinks so ... i have no feedback.

I agree, there are advantages to having extra crew in a ship but that should be reflected in the COST of the module. Multiplayer uses COST not UPKEEP because (hopefullu) COSTS are balanced to represent the relative combat bonuses of the module. If putting in extra crew is a good strategy it should be reflected in the build cost. And to be honest it is reflected - extra crew quarters are cheap and balanced but their UPKEEP is not balanced. That is the whole problem here.