PanzerInTheSky

Join Date 02/2006

Constructor Headaches

I am really enjoying the game but having to build hundreds of one shot new constructors to upgrade a starbase is a real chore. Wouldn't it make more sense to allow starbases to upgrade themselves like planets? Make the player use a constructor to establish a starbase but than allow them to "build and buy" upgrades on site for them. Of course upgrades should not be instant and all of them should cost money and time to build like planatary improvements but this feature would get rid of a lot of the tedious micromanagement of building a ship, launching it, directing it to the starbase, selecting the upgrade than repeating the process a dozen more times for every base. Logically one could assume that the original "constructor" stays on site to make these upgrades and that the parts arrive in the supply shipments.

While I'm on star bases, I think it would be nice if military ones could build tiny ships.

Thoughts?

ideas

Locked Post

Advanced Search

Watch this post

Do not email me updates for this post Email me updates for this post

Successfully updated karma reason!

Constructors give more game place choices. You have to successfully get them to a starbase to upgrade it. You can interdict other player's Constructors. You can gather a bunch together to quick build a military starbase next to an alien planet you are going to take over.

I don't think they are too much to micro-manage when repeat building and waypoints for navigation are used.

Tony

Successfully updated karma reason!

Well you wouldn't have to do away with them and there is no reason to stop the player from spamming constructors to quick build improvements though I think that makes the game a bit to easy any way. As for killing enemy constructors, I've rarely seen the need except in the race to gobble up resources. Otherwise I am already at war and their starbases are gone are will be soon. Likewise I think I might have lost 5 construtors to enemy fire over the course of 30+ hourse of play time

Successfully updated karma reason!

I agree with the poster. This is one aspect of the GalCiv design/gameplay that I've always thought of as less fun than dysentery.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Franco fx

Join Date 04/2003

+59

I mainly want the game nuances to stop being changed and leave the changes to the mods. Surely there is a way to mod the game to allow multiple upgrades with 1 constructor.

The changes up to now have been dramatic and have required some big changes in strategy. I can't fault any change that makes the AI play more like a human or to eliminate a bug but enough with the minor details.

I have also had pet ideas that I have left behind. Learn to like the game as is or mod it.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Yeah, why not have Froginol stop releasing tweaks- hell, while we're at it, why not abandon the stardock business model altogether! Then when the company turns into a flaming wreck, we can all thank Franco for his brilliant idea

.

Seriously, the constructor thing is a major pain in the ass, the ability to automate it somehow would be a godsend.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Franco fx

Join Date 04/2003

+59

I can't fault any change that makes the AI play more like a human or to eliminate a bug

Is this being against changes?

the constructor thing is a major pain in the ass

IS NOT!

Successfully updated karma reason!

I'd say thats trolling. If you disagree, by all means explain why but what is the point of downing someone elses ideas simply because you are tired of updates? Stardock ASKS for our ideas so I don't see the problem with giving them.

Successfully updated karma reason!

For a long time I was an opponent of the rants for "more realism" in the game (mainly because 90% of the ideas were just plain silly). But, I'm gonna put on my hypocrite hat here with this (sorry!). The need to route multipleConstructors to a starbase to upgrade it adds to the realism of the game -- Where is the starbase getting its raw materials to perform the upgrades... from thin air? Look at it this way... during the building of a Constructor, it is also loaded up with all of the necessary raw materials.

Sure, this doesn't allleviate the micromanagement issue of having to endlessly create and pilot Constructors to a Starbase, but it makes it all seem a little more believable.

Successfully updated karma reason!

I too feel that the constructors are a mixed blessing.

They're a great idea - I love that starbases can be critical in expanding your range, in making an influence cuturally in some far flung place on the map, acting as a resource for your military, etc...

The downside is the way that SBs and constructors are implemented. (I felt the same way in GalCiv I, btw).

Fundamentally, they're a chore. Its absolutely amazing to me how many such ships are required over the course of a game - I mean seriously, I probably make many hundreds of buggers in order to deck out a few dozen SBs! Which generally takes a majority of my military spending for the majority of the game, and I'm still never finished - there's almost always 'one more module' to add - or can be if I get more tech in that direction.

I love the idea of a starbase, and wholly support their being in game. I would just like to see them:

1. become multifunctional
allow the same base to have influence, military, mining, economic modules

2. be able to be built with a fraction of the current number of constructors required (like 6-12 for even the most sophisticated SB).

They should be stronger, too, since they represent an enourrmas sized ship - hence they should get a major set of weapons. Not unbalanced - they should not be unbeatable, but certainly they're currently very weak until you send maybe 10-15 constructors just to upgrade their defenses and weaponry. 10+ constructors can take many, many weeks at full military output with no other strategy in mind during that time.

The idea of having them be self-upgradable is cool.

Another thought would be to requrire a constructor in order to upgrade the starbase, but don't consume the constructor. Just make it take time & cash proportional to the module being added / upgraded, so that the later / more advanced modules take more time & money, and you still have the strategic implications of having to move a constructor there, and it can still be blown away (but of course the SB would protect it once it got there).

Anyway, the bottom line is that constructors end up being more of a chore than a real pleasure (the SBs themselves are a pleasure though).

Cheers!

Successfully updated karma reason!

You give me an interesting idea with the "realism" piece about supplying the upgrades...

Perhaps you could have "constructor routes" like you have trade-routes, where a mini-constructor moved between some port world and your starbase, continually making runs to keep it supplied.

Then all kinds of cool strats could be executed: you could try starving the starbase by killing the mini-constructors and denying the base food / materials for upgrading / etc.

The game could limit the number of such routes, just like it does with trade routes, giving a hard limit to the number of SBs you could maintain..

Fun

Successfully updated karma reason!

My favorite idea for Constructors is the ability to cram in more than one Construction Module. Stick 2 or 3 on a constructor and it provides 2 or 3 upgrades to the starbase. Then add an extra set of modules to the Starbase Fortification line that creates smaller Construction Modules. Size 30 at first, then size 25, and then size 20. Combined with miniturization, you could plunk down 4 upgrades on a Starbase per ship late in the game.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Heh, about mid-way down this thread, I had a similar idea.

The problem with the 1-for-1 upgrade idea of Jim's, imo, is that it assumes all upgrades take the same amount of resources. My idea is to stick not a 1-for-1 module, but a module that supplies a certain number of social production, but for SBs. For example, the initial Constructor would carry, say, 5 SP, which, when docked with a base, is added to a Production Pool that then you can build improvements from, over time of course. This way, you can still get a benefit for having multiple modules (seriously, my 32 parsec/turn Constructors are just silly

) while also adding a bit more management strategy to the game. And, instead of the "max module" movements in the UP, add "max production" movements. When you can only add 40 points, where would you put them? That, in turn opens up the generic SB idea of Mordachai's.

So, in short
- Have Constructors supply "Starbase Production," not instant upgrades.
- Max Production movements in the U.P.
- Generic Starbases (can build military, influence, and economic)

Successfully updated karma reason!

I was thinking the same thing about "trade routes" when I started reading this thread, as the constructor micro-management can be a pain for me as well.

The nice thing about making constructors like trade routes, is that like trade routes, they can use similar mechanics for revenue! ...albeit a negative number

Think of it, your constructor "route" costing 8bc a turn (avg) to maintain / steadily upgrade the base. If the designers had it so that each time the mini-constructor reaches the base it gets an "upgrade" we can have our realism and eat it too!

If your constructor had multiple construction-modules, you would get multiple upgrades each time the mini-constructor reaches the base

The more costly your constructor (because of extra modules/engines/etc) the more the route would gut your economy per turn... This "cost" would equate to what it would normally cost for you to build/produce/buy another constructor (or some meaningful factor of that nature) over the course of it's round trip

And if you want to send multiple constructors, and establish multiple routes, you could.

Hell, you could still build uber military bases in a single turn with the equivalent number of constructors under this system, same as before... just be sure to 'kill' those 'constructor routes' lest your economy take an unwanted hit

And if you kill an enemy mini-constructor, perhaps it could be coded to immediately 'kill' the route, so as to keep with how things work currently.

...

Only thing bad about this idea, is that I would REALLY need to remember to name my bases something meaningful, lest I forget the intended purpose of "Military StarBase 0568" ... I mean, was that the one which needed the ray shielding or the atlas sling? I can't remember!

Successfully updated karma reason!

I'm not sure if realism can really be argued here as supply itself is not taken into acount with Starbases. For example, I have a starbase deep within enemy space and war breaks out, how exactly are those people getting food, arms and supplies or for that matter how are they getting it on a regular basis? How is it more realistic to build countless constructor ships when a single ships could do the job with enough supplies? Instead of charging the player to build a ship and a constructor unit, factor the cost into the price of upgrades, which of course means no upgrades are free. Think about the reality of our universe, we don't build a crane to install one floor of a new building and when it finishes scrap it. Where exactly does that first constructor go? Wouldn't it make more sense if it became a part of the starbases "upgrade and repair" crew ready to take on the duty of building a new upgrade when the money/supplies arrive on the same tender that brings their normal supplies and amuntion.

Successfully updated karma reason!