Search

Forum Home | Login

Wraithius

Join Date 11/2003

0

Constructors - Not Very Fun

Seriously, less constructors, please.

So I guess sometime around pre-alpha is probably when this kind of comment would have been helpful. This is my single biggest complaint with GalCiv, though, so here goes...

I'm tired of constructors. The game mechanic that they are a part of has an important and interesting part to play, of course - in the territory grab at the beginning of the game, and in reinforcing your positions as the game progresses - but how is it fun to have to mindlessly send 30+ constructors after every starbase you build? You have to keep track of how many are headed for each base, how many planets you should be producing them at, etc., etc. It's a huge micromanagement headache. And it's not even satisfying micromanagement; it's just recordkeeping that you mostly have to do in your head (as there is no real in-game support for the task of managing starbase development).

What I would like to see is a more abstracted starbase construction model. Just require one constructor to build the thing. Adding modules after that should just be a cash transaction. Want some battle stations? Okay, that'll be 400bc. Mining barracks? 225bc.

If it's deemed necessary, there could be a limit on the number of modules that can be added per turn. Some could require multiple turns to build. I wouldn't see much point to this personally; after all, there's nothing to stop you from piling 30 constructors onto one square and building an enormous starbase in one turn using the current model, but I imagine some people would see this as being too easy or powerful or something. If you ask me it would just be convenient.

The only place I see any downside to this revised construction model is in that there is slightly less opportunity to intercept constructors en route to a base. However, anytime from about the midpoint of the game onward, the stack-o'-constructors = instant starbase tactic is pretty viable (and generally advisable, exactly because it reduces vulnerability to interception). Besides, the interception mechanic could still play a part, just an abstracted one - just increase the cost of adding modules to starbases outside of your own territory, or something like that. The increase could be proportional to the distance from your territory, even.

What it comes down to is that the current starbase construction model is largely a chore that detracts from my enjoyment of the game. It can be dramatically simplified and streamlined with practially no loss of depth. Here's hoping something along these lines makes it into one of the greatly appreciated continuing updates!

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!

While I agree to some extent, I would say that it would be better to fix it another way. I think there should be the ability to create a factory on the starbase itself that would allow the manufacturing of these items. As with anything, it should not be too easy to create the huge monstrosity but I do not enjoy the hassle of constructors either.

Successfully updated karma reason!

I feel your pain! BUt intead of allowing starbases to construct their own parts, I would love to be able to add multiple construction pods on a cargo hull. This way, a single constructor could be used to create several modules be being depleted. I feel this way you still have to produce multiple constructors, but it would remove alot of the chore of producing a high quality starbase.

Successfully updated karma reason!

I agree with Teancum and Citizen Wraithmaster. I think both of these ideas would work well. However for the first idea just buying a new module would have to cost a WHOLE lot more than it does now! Besides the original 200bc or 400bc you have to add the cost and time of a constructor. I like the Teancum's idea a lot also. Although for that they would have to up the cost and size a constructor module to make that work out. So that's just my idea, I hope someone else can improve on what I think are improvements to the precious improvements, lol

Successfully updated karma reason!

Or maybe you could build just one constructor for each starbase and they could travel back and forth between the starbase and the constructor's home planet. sort of like how trade routes work with the exception being it costs money to maintain and improve starbases. ((add modules))

Successfully updated karma reason!

Maybe a combination of all three, depending on the engine's ability to do this kind of thing. I don't know if it can handle starbases producing things on their own...

Successfully updated karma reason!

yeah, it is a bit chore for what starbases are worth. at the same time, i think the need to build a new constructor per module is a significant tatical element in the game. you mention a hypothetical fleet of 30 constructors. well, if you're trying to send them behind enemy lines, and for some reason they get separated from your escort and run into a loan scout, you may still be able to get many of them through if you're close to your target (unless this scout has 30 movement points). it also makes it possible to 'blockade' an existing starbase from further development....

that's an interesting turn of phrase. how cool would it be if there were starbase supply lines that could be blockaded (maybe a random module becomes inoperation/destroyed each time the supply runner is destroyed), also through which a starbase could be automatically or semi-auto upgraded (like, add a new construction module to a military production queue somehow, or add additional industrial spending for starbase construction to the budget.

but short of a radical change, it isn't all that bad. you have the tools you need. i usually just wait until later in the game when i can churn out constructors like no one's business, send 'em to a pool and move fleet upon fleet to my bases. i've found renaming the bases can help me keep track of them.

but i'm lazy, and i don't like a lot of rally points. what you can also do is use lots of rally points, just name them after the bases. for example, "Sol EconBase North" and the rally point, "Sol EcoSB-N". you can delete the rally point when you're done from the management pop up. when there's a base over it, you have to click on the RP down at the bottom of the screen, next to the fleet manager and all that (it'll appear after the starbase and any units in that square ...(at least, if i remember the UI correctly)). just dedicate a planet to that base and forget about it. or lots of planets, and hop around their RP from the planet governor every few turns. the only hard part is setting it up...

the thing i'd really like to see would be a way to "cross reference" some of the info in the governor screen. right now, you can say "all planets building X, now build Y," and "all planets with rally point A, now have rally point B." what i'd like, or haven't figured out, is "all planets building X, now have rally point B". that would be so useful to me.

Successfully updated karma reason!

think allowing multiple modules on a constructor ship is the best solution. It still allows for interception of constructors.

The only realy difference is that instead of pumping out a constructor per turn, then managing a huge stack of them; you pump out a constructor with 5 modules on it every 5 turns (insreased cost), and manage a much smaller stack. Just a convenience issue.

It seems sometimes on huge maps with lots of planets that the majority of my turn time is spent micro managing stacks of constructors and keeping track of shich starbases need which upgrades.

-Neb

Successfully updated karma reason!

Agreed, a lot of times later on in the game I send a constructor to a starbase and realize I've missed that last two econ developments for the last 30 turns or so.

Successfully updated karma reason!

only problem i can see is if your planets arent building constructors then they are building warships.

constructors are designed to be a time sink so that you cant just churn out a few constructors as seed bases then churn out a ton of warships and sweep the field.

i do like the idea of being able to add more than one constructor module to a hull though. with the increase in build times adjusted to reflect it, it would indeed cut down on the math.

though i have to say that all that math gives us something to do while wating for something else to finish like a tech, or building a fleet in another part of your empire, or your economy to get back on track or your exploration to be finished, or your spying to cap out and so on.

it feels to me like runing constructors is what your expected to do while wating for those rare something elses to happen, if you didnt have to micro manage then the game would involve long stretches of doing nothing but clicking next turn.

i would really like it if they could fix the whole way point system though, having to go 2 screens deep in every planet building a ship just to change the waypoint settings is rather clunky imo, not to mention that you cant put a way point ON a star base if you expect to want to delete it at a later date. it wont allow you to click on it to delete it since the starbase is on the square too, that means that you either have to put the waypoint beside the starbase (pita) , put the way point on the starbase and just live with it allways being there (annoying as hell) OR as i stumbled into by a fluke, move a ship onto the SB too THEN you can delete the waypoint.

i dont see why we cant have a screen like the build govenor that allows way points to be changed. i know i know you can change the waypoints of ships allready launched, but for some reason , atleast for me, it doesnt change the ship yards waypoints, even when i use the govenor to change all current ships , all future ships being built are still being sent to the old waypoint unless i go in each individual ship yard and change them all one by one.

fixing the waypoint system along with allowing more than one constructor module per ship would cut alot of the 'grinding' out of the game

Successfully updated karma reason!

Why not make it so, that you need a new constructor for every new branch for a starbase, but a simple cash transaction is enough for subsequent upgrades? IE, you need one cunstructor to build the base, and then one (each) to add a "Defense module", "Offence Module", "Party Palace" and so on.

But once you've built that module, you can upgrade it from the starbase itself by buying the next bit, as long as you have the credits and technology.

Successfully updated karma reason!

I like the idea with multiple constructors per hull ( late game "advanced construction module" tech can be added) and about the way points - i still cant figure out why they didnt make it like in all other strategy games - just select the planet and right click where you want your ships to go and voilla

the current waypoint system is useless

Successfully updated karma reason!

I think CatBoris has got a good idea here. It would strike a balance between the two main ideas. Because lets face it, its not building the base or even putting on the first 4 modules or so. Its the upgrading the base modules again and again and again and again and again....

Successfully updated karma reason!

Hm, how about this...I agree that the constructors are what is supposed to occupy your starbases. I like the idea of sending a new one for each new branch, as it makes sense that new materials would be needed for different branches. What about setting one for each branch (possibly even a different constructor module for each branch), and have that set up a trade route, and then you could dedicate your starport to building the upgrades for the starbases directly? That way, you still have to produce the modules, but you're cutting the middleman, and it still allows interception (can't build modules if the constructor route gets fried) in a similar way to trade. That way, you have something to do with your starports that doesn't involve keeping horrible track of what starbase has what. And, if you want to upgrade one quickly, send a constructor from multiple planets. Then, you could limit the number of these constructor routes by logistics.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Another possibility I thought of is to have some type of governor type thing that will allow you say keep building the next X constructors and send each one to this location unless I tell you otherwise.

Successfully updated karma reason!

I don't really understand the whole game mechanic of making constructors despensable. Wouldn't it have been easier to just have one expensive constructor, and building the base or upgrading takes a set amount of time and money. After the project is done you resuse the constructor for the next upgrade. During the upgrade your constructor is sitting there so that it can be intercepted, significantly less constructors need to be built/micromanaged, it doesn't unbalance the game, and everyone is happy

If you wanted to take it to the extreme, a starbase would have only one hit point during the upgrading process

I'm guessing though that this idea would probably require a large overhaul of the game engine. That, and programming the AI to gaurd it's bases during an upgrade could be a real bugger.

Successfully updated karma reason!

I agree that it gets a bit tedious sometimes.

I disagree, however, that sending constructors can be a logistical challenge.

If we didn't have to send constructors to starbases, then we could just build influence starbases next to enemy planets and upgrade them at will, providing you have the money. (which wouldnt be that hard)

The way we have it now, the enemy will destroy your constructors before it reaches the base. (if your at war)

(When we're not at war) I havent seen the AI get pissed off at me when I put influence starbases next to his planets, but i've only played up to the tough level.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Wow, lots of good replies. I find the "constructor route" idea (trade route style mechanic) to be quite interesting. I think Saguinius had a particularly useful insight in post #13 where he/she points out that this mechanic could be done in such a way that it both keeps your planets occupied in the same way as building constructors and preserves the interception mechanic while greatly reducing the constructor hassle. Multiple constructor modules on one hull would be a welcome compromise as well.

Knute112 (post #9), you seem to be the most vocal critic of a proposed constructor overhaul. However, the arguments you present just illustrate other problems with the game, in my opinion. The key point here is that micromanaging fleets of constructors is inherently boring (well, to me anyhow...). It doesn't matter if there's nothing else going on; I'd much rather just hammer "End Turn" until something interesting happens than drag it out with turn after turn of dealing with constructors.

If the game is empty without the drudgery of constructors, then there needs to be more to the game! Costs in any or all of the various areas (research, construction, spying, etc.) could be tweaked to increase the pace of the game, supplanting a tedious task with more engaging decision-making and strategizing.

Bottom line, a game designer's first priority should be to keep the player playing the game. The very term "player" should make this obvious - we are not called "users" or "clients" after all; we are players. Let us play!

Successfully updated karma reason!

Another idea would be to let you place multiple contructor modules on a single ship allowing for multiple upgrades. The mechanic is already in the game, it just doesn't seem to let you actually *USE* any past the first.

Not only would this cut down on the need to build a million constructors and constantly micromanage them, it would also make things a bit more interesting. Jamming a ton of modules onto a ship takes up engine room and makes the ship much more expensive... you might be able to squeeze four or five modules onto a single ship but it would be expensive and slow moving making it a much more juicy target. On the upside if you are upgrading a base that is basically in your own solar system it cuts down the time and micro investment immensely. On the downside sending a constructor like this into enemy territory without an escort would be much more risky.

Successfully updated karma reason!

I vote for letting us put more than one working "Constructor" module on a hull design.

That way you could decide on speed (resource grabber) or utlity (multipe modules, less ships).

But I agree with many, starbase construction /constructor management is the most boring part of the game by far.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Here's a thought or two:

1) Automation - you set the starbase to build a queue of modules just like you set a colony. When the resources (whether it be a constructor ship arriving, or supplies, or some other mechanism) arrive, the module is constructed (or progression towards constructiojn occurs).

2) Self-control - when you assign a starbase to build a module, it sends out a special ship that "comes with" the initially constructed starbase (i.e.: the Defiant

) to retrieve raw materials or "production points" from a planet or planets.

3) Conglomoration - ships can be built with multiple construction modules, just like they can have multiple troop modules, multiple engines, multiple weapons, etc.

4) Automation (second version) - A planet or planets are set to build constructors continuously and automatically send them to starbases based on some "plan", such as "Base X needs to max influence, then base Y needs to max combat ability, then base Z needs to max economy". This would of course be memory intensive due to the n:n relationship between source planets and destination starbases.

This could be taken to such an extrreme degree that you could literally have "governors" to manage the progress of starbases, and even write your own AI scripts for them.

Successfully updated karma reason!

so how about u have to build the starbase on a planet and specify the modules then. After that a specail towing ship would be needed to put it in position. After that upgrades would have to be done the old fasion way.

Successfully updated karma reason!

I'd be happy if ships could carry multiple constructor modules. As for getting constructors where you need them, rally points have always done the trick for me.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.

There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting and posting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!

Sign in or Create Account

View all recent posts

Mark all posts as read Delete cookies created by the forum Return to Top

Stardock Forums v Server Load Time: Page Render Time:

About us | Contacts | Privacy Statement | Register

©1995-2025 Stardock Entertainment. Galactic Civilizations is a registered trademark of Stardock Entertainment. Steam and the Steam logo are trademarks and/or registered trademarks of Valve Corporation in the U.S. and/or other countries. Bank Gothic is a trademark of MyFonts and may be registered in certain jurisdictions. All rights reserved.