4 Starbase per Sector Limit = Bad Idea

I can think of at least 2 exploits with this off the top of my head

from GalCiv2 Forums
I know that Brad wanted to change the rule from there can be no starbase within 3 parsecs of any other starbases to a hard 4 starbase limit per sector. While I believe that this would be a great rule for Gal Civ 1, it doesn't make much sense for Gal Civ 2. Here is why:

In Gal Civ 1, the starbases were sector based. This meant that every star base in that sector would affect only that sector, but would affect it completely. A hard limit on starbases would make perfect sense here.

In Gal Civ 2, the starbases are area based. They affect things within an area, not just the sector. The current system of having a minimum distance between starbases makes perfect sense for area based bonuses. (Not for sector based bonuses however.) If there are problems with people exploiting this, you can easily fix this by ajusting either A) the area of effect, or B) the minimum distance between starbases.

Here is where I really have a problem with enforcing a simple 4 starbase per sector hard limit: I can think of two simple exploits that this brings.

1) On small maps, it would be easy for the player to just spam the entire map with 4 basic starbases in every sector, and force the AI to destroy one of their starbases to build any of their own.

2) The player could easily spam a corner with SIXTEEN (16) starbases (4 on each sector where any four sectors meet), making a short trade route into a massive cash cow.

I don't understand what is wrong with the current system. I hope that someone will let me know, and tell me why the change is being made.
ideas
6,840 views 10 replies
Reply #1 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
One thing to take into account - the AI already uses the 4 starbase per sector rule - not the minimum distance rule.

Now as far as I can remember, it only said that you would only be allowed to build 4 starbases in 1 sector.... not that there would be a total, all races included hard cap of 4 per sector. I might be wrong as it has been a while since I read it!

On your points
1) Theoretically, you could do that if the AI followed the same rules as the human did now. It would take a larger number for sure but it is equally possible. Further, I think, should the new rule come in (and it is a hard cap 4 total per sector), that the AI would be made to be aware of the potential monopoly and simply destroy your crappy starbases.
2) At present you can nearly match that anyway seeing as the radius of a starbase allows for 8 sectors between in a vertical/horizontal line (depending on just how short you mean the route is). You start with 1 on the first point of the trade route, let's say it's running directly horizontal, then put 2 each way vertically. Move down four squares along the route and repeat. You would only need a 9 parsec route to achieve 16 (actually 17!) starbases under present conditions.
Obviously, your way would mean that each starbase would give full coverage... but it would only be able to run for 16 or so parsecs under those conditions and you could add more on my little picture to simulate more cash.

Hmmm time to try and draw a funky dot picture to illustrate my point.

o = empty parsec
X = starbase - the middle line being ones directly on the route
p = planet
R = route

ooooooooXoooooooo
ooooooooooooooooo
ooooooooooooooooo
ooooooooPoooooooo
XoooXoooXoooXoooX
ooooooooToooooooo
ooooooooToooooooo
ooooooooToooooooo
XoooXoooXoooXoooX
ooooooooToooooooo
ooooooooToooooooo
ooooooooToooooooo
XoooXoooXoooXoooX
ooooooooPoooooooo

That's 16 without putting a further one 3 parsecs beyond the planet that the route terminates at. It's more a case, I think, that if someone could be bothered to do that then they would also be bothered to do it under the new system. I personally like longer routes to make more money!
And, there is the cost factor (and sheer hassle) of getting that number of starbases up and running anyway - as long as the route has coverage, I dont bother overlapping intentionally.


The main thing I think wrong with the current situation is AI starbase spam. It doesnt particularly bother me as I just declare war if they are in my way, or buy them off a (purportedly) friendly AI.
Reply #2 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
If each player could put 4 per sector that wouldn't be bad. If you could lock a player out by squatting on sites early, though...
Object Desktop - Get all of our enhancement utilities in one suite
Reply #3 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
My main point is that since the starbases aren't sector based, why should there be a sector limit? The current system makes much more sense. If people are taking advantage of it, then all you need to do is adjust either the area of effect, or the minimum distance between starbases, or both. A sector based limitation on sometihng that has nothing to do with sectors just doesn't make sense to me.

(It wouldn't affect me considering how I play, but it just doesn't make any sense to me.)
Reply #4 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
I think, should the new rule come in (and it is a hard cap 4 total per sector), that the AI would be made to be aware of the potential monopoly and simply destroy your crappy starbases.


The point is that they would need to declare war on you to do this. If they are going for a cultural victory, then that would be counter-productive. (Or you have a much bigger military, or you are allies, or they have a lot of trade with you, etc...)
Reply #5 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
I'm guessing that either you guys must always be able to generate massive amounts of cash, or your Logistics ability is WAY up there. As I'm sure you well know, if you try to build a starbase above the number allowed by your current Logistics, you're charged an exorbitant amount of cash... So, the only way a player could exploit by spamming is if they're ultra wealthy (or taking on massive debt by going with "Mitrosoft" to build them), or they've focused all of their research on Logistics, right?

Or (as per the usual), there's something I've missed in this game that allows you to either quickly develop a ton of cash, or avoid the Logisitics restriction... Maybe it's just the plain and simple fact that you're all A LOT better than me at this game! . I really wouldn't mind sitting down for the first 40 or so turns with some of the regular posters here to see how they get started.

Anyway, with me, money is too hard to come by in this game at times, and I'm too concerned about "spreading my money around" my empire to keep it healthy. So, I don't have the resources to spam the galaxy with SB's, via direct spending. And to "Keep up with the Jones'", er, I mean the Drengin, I can't focus my research into Logistics that way, but I could trade for it I suppose...

Crap, too many ideas. Now all I want to do is go home and play. Damn you work!!
Reply #6 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
Vernholio - not at all, you are totally right and I did mention that. This exploitative strategy would cost a ridiculous sum of money and the AI could easily counter it. I usually get a much larger number of starbases than my logistics allows.... much larger but nowhere near the numbers we're talking here. It was theorywork.

The point is that they would need to declare war on you to do this. If they are going for a cultural victory, then that would be counter-productive. (Or you have a much bigger military, or you are allies, or they have a lot of trade with you, etc...)


If they didn't declare war on me for totally abusing them, I'd be disappointed! It's the same idea as those who say that the AI does it to them... you just declare war and wipe out their massive investment. Not that you really would be able to go out and grab 4 starbases in every sector before the AI did.... it's just not going to happen whatever way we look at it.

A sector based limitation on sometihng that has nothing to do with sectors just doesn't make sense to me.


There is already built in the idea that Starbases affect navigation.... this could easily be extended to infer that on sectors. From a reality point of view no, but then the current system doesn't fit in a reality perspective either.... a starbase in 1 parsec is a very long way from a starbase in the next.

Let's wait and see what they do, from what I can tell they haven't fixed the idea totally yet, so it might be that we get to play with it in the beta coming out this week then we can feedback about how it works in gameterms.
Reply #7 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
Stupid theory crafting at its best..... just play the game and you will see how useless your ideas are....
Blocking off Starbases even on a small map would cost very much and give you no return at all.
The amount of starbases is limited by your logistics value (even a fraction of it). After you exceed that value you pay a whole lot of money for each of the following starbases ( you need 64 and i think 6-8 are free at the start)
even if the price doesnt raise after the first one you need 64 constructors and about 30k BC.

The most important thing about starbaseplacement right now is: "there can be no starbase within 3 parsecs of any other starbases WITHIN the same sector". So basically you can build 4 starbases right next to each other in the corner of one sector.
Reply #8 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
there can be no starbase within 3 parsecs of any other starbases WITHIN the same sector


Cool. I didn't know that... I will have to use that in my current game.
Reply #9 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
I like the idea of limiting just 4 starbases per sector. This gives the AI another added advantage since I've seen them come over into my sectors and just build the 1st phase of an influence starbase. This would mess up my strategy pretty good the way I play now, but, open up whole new strategies and ways to play if/when they change it to 4 max. Good idea Stardock I'm all for it.
Reply #10 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
I have heard (but not confirmed) that 3 parsecs distance rule only applies to starbases in the same sector, thus you can have 4 starbases next to each other if they are located in the corners where the 4 sectors meet.