For the record, I never said one way or another, as I didn't know. All I did was give the backtstory explanation for minifreighters not paying.

In fact, I don't think PeskyFly said so either. He only mentioned minifreighters to explain that he didn't want maintenance for them, only normal freighters.

Please be civil.

I really don't see why any single factor such as this should earn complete opprobrium. Isn't it more important how the whole balances out than whether any particular detail is in harmony with someone's individual imagination and/or philosophy?

I'm reading Michael Pollan's The Omnivore's Dilemma right now, and it has reminded me about all sorts of real and rhetorical reasons that running at 100% (or above, as Federation ships so often do on TV) should be an exception, not a rule. Take the long-term value of a car as an example. If you keep it moving at maximium velocity as much as you can, it will not be able to travel as many klicks as it could if you ran at optimum rather than maximum speed.

That said, in my DA games I always assume that 100% spending with growing income means the game is going OK.

Although it's logical that non-combat ships shouldn't be totally free of maintenance, there are some ways this plays out in the game that I don't like much. And it's not just that it makes the economy tighter. I can handle that, as part of the game's challenge.

First, it forces more attention to scrapping ships you don't need, and building only what you actually need at any given moment. That's something the player should be doing anyway, but I don't like having an economic gun held to my head, forcing me to be ultra-efficient in managing my fleets. It also makes late-game, "epic" sized fleets and battles harder to pull off.

It also forces me to research (or trade for) the faster engine techs much earlier than I normally would, to minimize the economic impact of one-shot, throwaway ships like colonizers, initial freighters, troop ships, and (especially) constructors. They'll put less of a dent in the economy if they can reach their goal a few turns earlier. I do generally prioritize speed for my ships anyway, and I try to stay one or two levels ahead of the AI for strategic reasons. But again, I don't like being forced to go there by a game mechanic. This also might be a player exploit, because I don't usually see the AI prioritizing ship speed. The AI will always be at a slight economic disadvantage if it doesn't know about building faster constructors, for example.

If non-combat ships had maybe 20%-30% the maintenance of a combat ship, it might feel a little more reasonable. I know at 20% I wouldn't feel so rushed to get those engine techs.

Having an initial grace period for disposable ships -- say 10 turns free maintenance then add 10%/turn until full maint. is reached -- might be a decent compromise. You wouldn't be forced to put fast engines on 1-shot disposable ships, but you'd still be penalized for hoarding them for blitz tactics.

You can also build a horde of worthless ships and dump them on an enemy to tank their economy.

I don't think this analogy really works for GC2. Your research labs and manufacturing centers don't wear out if you run them too hard. More importantly, they cost the same maintenance no matter how much or how little you use them, and maintenance is a huge expense. It's far better to scale your production infrastructure to match your economy than to build too much and run at 50%. The colony rush is a different situation, of course, as it is usually worth it to expand a bit beyond your means to secure the best real estate.

Unfortunately, the above is not necessarily really true.

Better engines = smaller engines, that possibly can move faster = more cost, both per engine (increased tech level) and in total number of engines to put on the ship. Plus they are slower to build, so if you max out your colony ships with hyperwarp 3s (as an extreme example) you are taking more time to put out a much more expensive ship to build and maintain. I am in the mopping up stage of a game, (just finished taking the last colonizable world) and with max miniturization, and hyperwarp 3s, my colony ship speed is 37. For a ship without engines my speed is 8.

So, roughly speaking, if the maintenance on my souped up colony ship is more than 5 times the maintenace of a basic colony ship (which would have a speed 9, 1 hyperdrive) then the basic ship is more efficient economically. (in 5 turns the basic colony ship will move farther than the souped up ship moved in 1 turn, is where I get that factor from) Throwing out some imaginary, but possibly realistic numbers. Say a basic ship has a maintenance of 7. It might even be that, the number sticks in my head. Now say that the souped up ships maintenace is 50. (which strikes me as low) Now consider a target 74 spaces away. The souped up ship (move 37) gets there in 2 turns, for 100 total maintenance. The basic colony ship gets there in 9 turns (move 9) for 63 total maintenance. Considering the expense of building my souped up ship is an order of magnitude higher than a basic one, I suspect this to be sn example lessening the real effect.

You are getting there faster, with the better engine techs. It might not be true that you are getting there cheaper.

Interesting, I had never paid a lot of attention to the increased maintenance due to the short life of the ships.

There may be a sweet point with more speed that will cost less than the basic. For instance, the ion ship is no change for colony and 8 vs 7 for a builder. The cost jumps dramatically with the impulse drive.

Yeah, I can see the diminishing returns for the advanced engine techs. I haven't run the numbers yet, but I suspect there's a sweet spot (like Franco fx mentions) for the early phase of the game, and the first engine techs.

One other thing to consider: when a one-shot, throwaway ship is being used for something that has a direct contribution in income (i.e. constructors for economic starbases, or the initial freighter for a trade route), then whatever extra income you get by reaching the goal faster, should be factored in. That might offset the higher maintenance of more or better engines. At least in those specific cases. Obviously it's just a cost you eat with other one-shot ships, like military or influence starbase constructors.

Well, while your calculation is probably completely correct, that still doesn't mean the fast colonizer is worthless, since it gives you a very important benefit: Your chance of beating the competition to the planet in question is simply way better.

No doubt about it. Nothing ticks me off worse than losing the race for a 20+ planet or a resource mine. Getting there first is cheap at almost any price

I didn't say it was worthless. I did mention I was building colony ships with a speed of 37 after all. However the original post I was replying to was talking about getting the engine techs to make it cheaper to colonize a planet, cause the colony ship doesn't hit the economy as hard since it gets there quicker.

I was purely speaking to economic efficiency.