To this end, there are several reasons that I keep advocating this being done at a facility, be that a planetary shipyard, or a capable starbase. One reason would be that if you just tore your ships apart in the middle of deep space, it would be pretty vulnerable, and would need to be attackable by enemy forces during that time. Another reason is that it just doesn't make sense that one would haul all the upgrade pieces out into the middle of deep space on a fleet of freighters, rather than just sending the ship to the facility instead. That's really backwards, if you think about it. It's like taking the restaurant to the house, instead of the family going to the restaurant.

Reminds me of the Fifth Element, where the chinese food "boat" pulled up to the window to do business. LOL

VAgabondNomad, your sugested upgrade system is absolutely acceptable to me, I would prefer the last methode, with a little addition, give the player an multi refit command, that would send all ships of a given model/or all selected ships to base for upgrade. Naturally the player would have to chose between methode a, b, or c.

Finally, yes upgrades should cost something, money, production, or both, and take some amount of time.

I'll be interested in seeing you try to turn that into me advocating only 25 ships

Vags, you have repeatily advocated being emotionally attached to every one of your combat ships in GC. You have stated repeatily that you should and would form an emotional attachment to about 25 ships, and that should be the norm, in your view, of the GC game play experience. According to your earliest statements, the game should limit the number of ships to 25. When multiple people have called you out on the issue of how having only 25 ships would affect gameplay, you have elaborated that you are in favor of allowing more ships, up to 100, but stated that you'd only care about 25 or so ships, and that is the upper limit of combat ships that you felt should be allowed, as it would be all that should be needed. The other ships would be throw away or non-combat items like colonizers, unarmed scouts and drones, transports, freighters, and constructors. If you really want to hunt for it, look for the thread where I stated that most people would only be able to become attached to between 12 to 24 ships. AIR, that is the thread where you first stated your magic number of "25" as being how many ships you could get emotionally attached to.

My point to you is, and has always been, that at any hard limit you've suggested, it's going to be too small for people that play on the larger sized maps. I know from experience that a 100 hard limit on my ship numbers would completely destroy the later gameplay on Large maps with Rare worlds, in GC1. I believe it is best to not limit set a hard limit on the ship numbers other then what the base code architecture (ie, MAX_INTEGER which is quite large number for ships in the current MS architecture being used by Star Dock) or memory space imposes, so that even at the maximum size settings, players still won't bump up against it.

So what should we use to limit ship numbers? Money. Plain and simple economics. Each ship has some cost to maintain, and the game's economics will limit the total number of ships any empire might support. That allows larger empires to afford more ships then a smaller empire. This builds in an effective scaling factor, both for play time in game (early game, you cannot afford a huge armada because you have few worlds generating significant income to support the ship costs), and by empire size (the more worlds generating cash, the more ships you can afford). It also would allow players to tweak their empires to be better money generators, at the cost of production and research capacity, if players need to support more ships for a particular span of time. For instance, for a big slug out with your main, cross galaxy rival. Does that not sound more strategic then just building the biggest ship you can because you have some hard limit that you are going to bump against? That's what hard limits that players hit to easily cause. It forces players to build the biggest combat ship possible at all times, as they need to maximize their fighting capacity. And when you players are forced to do a particular thing, that take away their choices. And that reduces their fun.

As for your cited refitting issues, let's examine those, as they are about pertainent fun with the game.

#1 - Costs: In reality, even a modest refit will often cost more then just building new. This is a simple reference point, as we can choose other models for GC2. What are the game effects of choosing to make it cheaper to refit/upgrade (versus using a realistic upgrade model)? Players will upgrade rather then retire their old units and build new units as their replacements. Is it more fun to upgrade old units? Upgrading a unit is neither fun nor unfun in itself, although the UI and MM involved can make upgrading unfun. Should upgrading be free? I believe not. Why not? Because if upgrading was free, it would encourage micro-management upgrading of all your ships whenever you got a new tech, and would lend itself to serious cheese exploits. I'd personally find a cost to upgrade being cheaper then building new to lead to a faster game experience, which would permit more games to be played. More games, more fun.

#2 - Time: It is realistic that it should take some amount of time to perform an upgrade. However, if you allow upgrading "in the field", this is unfun. It does add strategic concerns to the game (should I upgrade my units here, or retreat them to better observed/defended area?). However, the net effect on most players game play is that they would just not upgrade line combat units while action is deemed likely. This has the effect of making a game take longer to play. Anything that makes the game take longer, encourages players to find a more efficent alternative.

#3 - Location: Having to take a ship to a facility to upgrade is a well understood game mechanic. What effect does this have on game play? Again, front line units won't be upgraded while action is deemed possible. This will make the game significantly longer, as ships will have to traverse from their current station to the upgrade facility and then back to the front again. This mechanic makes it faster to (rush) build new and ship the new units to the front. This impact is further aggravated if the facility has some production value that it applies to the time it takes to refitting, so that less industrially developed worlds take longer to refit a ship then heavy industry worlds.

The question is, where do people think the balance point of what is acceptable, versus what isn't? Between the delays and dealing with the MM of upgrading (whether its just clicking an "Upgrade at..." menu choice and then clicking on a location on the main map (and then, what to upgrade to)), it is easy to push the point of dealing with the details to "unfun". GC2 isn't exactly heavy on the details and MM, although it is headed that way with the new planet tile management and the design your own ship functionality. Too much MM may become a real issue with the GC1 customer base, and I know Brad has stated that he wants to avoid adding in too much MM into GC2.

Those are my concerns. I don't see refits mattering much on the larger maps (large, huge, and gigantic), because the travel time will become too great for getting older ships back, upgraded, and returned to the front in a timely fashion. On smaller maps, refitting will be highly efficent, as travel time will be very small factor in comparison to the gains of improved ship capacity. I believe this is the reason that Brad has decided you should be able to instant upgrade anywhere you have influence, at a cost. To make upgrading an option on the larger map, cut down on MM, and keep the gamer on track and focused on his strategy, rather then worrying over rotating out older ships while trying to maintain an effective border guard and getting ready for the next territory annexation.

...According to your earliest statements, the game should limit the number of ships to 25...

Star Pilot, I challenge you to find a single instance of me saying that the game should be limited to only 25 ships. You won't, because I've never said that - never suggested that.

I feel like I'm talking to a wall here, but I'll repeat myself yet again, and please try to clear your mind and comprehend what I'm saying. Yes, it is true that I said I would only be intimately interested in following the progress of about 25 or so ships. But I also went on to explain that I believe there should be a maximum around 100 ships. Do you understand the difference? I have 100 ships, but only 25 or less interest me enough to follow their progress. That doesn't mean I don't think I need the other 75 ships. Of course I do - they're my Star Trek "red shirts". I'm not sure why this concept has been the cause for so much miscommunication between us, but hopefully this will finally put to rest the laughable myth of me advocating only 25 ships

And just to clarify, I've never said there should be a hard-coded limit. Rather, I've said that there should be a point where, when a civilization is at its peak economic / industrial research level, it can support X number of ships without running a deficit. One could still artificially support a larger number of ships by running a deficit, provided one had the available funds. And this opens up the question about whether we'll be able to mothball ships for a drastically reduced maintenance cost for later use. Which would also open up the possibility of diplomatic negoatiation over arms control, perhaps focused on eliminating mothballed ships.

Anyway, I would appreciate it if you would discontinue propogating the untruth regarding my views on ship numbers. I've said it countless times, and I don't know how many more ways I can say that I don't think the game should be limited to 25 ships. But I can tell you that it's starting to tick me off because it makes me think you're being intentionally deceitful.

So what should we use to limit ship numbers? Money. Plain and simple economics. Each ship has some cost to maintain, and the game's economics will limit the total number of ships any empire might support.

I have already been flexible in accepting and promting this idea. We both agree that economics should be the factor that limits ship numbers. Where we probably differ is that I support a higher ship cost so that the one can wield far fewer ships. At a civilizations maximum economic / industrial research level, one should only be able to maintain X ships without running a deficit. My X would be around 100, while yours, I presume, would be far higher.

...Upgrading a unit is neither fun nor unfun in itself...

Star Pilot, with respect, this is an example of you projecting your opinion as a representation for everyone. I understand that you may not find it fun to upgrade a unit. Speaking for myself, which is something you may want do more often, I do find upgrading a ship to be fun. This doesn't mean you're wrong and I'm right, or vice versa. It just means we have different preferences.

...the net effect on most players game play is that they would just not upgrade line combat units while action is deemed likely...

This makes perfect sense. If you could be in battle at any moment, you don't say, "Time out! Time out! I have to refit my ships!" That's a game choice that the player needs to make. And it's not all or nothing. Perhaps they send some ships to for refit, while keeping others at an acceptable level. Those are choices that I find interesting - it's a gamble that you've made the right choices, which I find fun.

...I don't see refits mattering much on the larger maps (large, huge, and gigantic), because the travel time will become too great for getting older ships back, upgraded, and returned to the front in a timely fashion...

This is a danger that I see as well. As a possible solution, I have suggested that ship speeds be greatly increased to compensate for the increased travel times.

...To make upgrading an option on the larger map, cut down on MM, and keep the gamer on track and focused on his strategy, rather then worrying over rotating out older ships while trying to maintain an effective border guard and getting ready for the next territory annexation...

This brings up an interesting philosophical point, which may explain why you and I appear to be debating this subject so frequently. You appear to be more interested in the execution of strategy - please correct me if I'm wrong. Whereas, while I definitely enjoy the strategy aspect of the game, I also am looking to enjoy the experience of the "universe" in which I'm playing. This is why I have an interest in following certain ships. This is why I want certain processes in the game, such as the refitting of ships, to follow a plausible set of mechanics, which I feel gives the player the opportunity to make even more strategic choices. These additional touches of "believability" are appreciated by me, as I find it fun to pretend that I'm actually controlling an empire, not just pushing around game pieces in an overglorified game of chess. Having said that, I agree that the right balance needs to be struck, as I hate tedious micromanagment as much as the next person.

Vags, you brought up the old subject. I don't know why, since it was over a month old when you did that. I thought we had settled that issue on equitable turns. It seems you want to project yourself into a fantasy world centered around a few ships that you find interesting in your GC games. I want to play the game, and am willing to accept the odd game construct if it means I get to spend more time playing the game. I think that's why we are staying at logger heads.

Reviewing a few of the past thread, I see you did state you could play with signiifacanlty fewer number of ships, but that you would prefer 75 to 100 ships as the game's (that's hard) limit on ships. That had us comparing how many ships one needs versus how many ships people truly notices or care about, which is where you first stated that you get emotionally attached to upwards of 25 ships. There was talk about how smaller numbers (7 (you) , 10 (other), and 12 (me) ) would cramp the game too much for everyone. You did state you could live with only 25 interesting ships, with the rest of the 100 being disposable. A side point: If only 25 ships are interesting, then Star Dock should just cap the game there for you, and therefore you'd never go past what you find fun.

As long as there are no hard limits, I do not care. That leaves the game scalable. We can change the balance point for a particular tech point by changing the economic costs. Star Dock likes to let us mod the game, and I'm sure they'll make the cost to build and cost to maintain moddable. That's just the kind of thoughtful developers they are.

For a better, more immersive experience of being in command in a SF universe, have you looked at X2 (Egosoft's X2: The Threat)? You build a trade and/or fighting empire in space. It's a lot of fun, and I get seriously attached to some of my ships in that game. When you are piloting the ship through its routes and fighting off pirates or crazed aliens, it does tend to make it more interesting to you. Seriously. X2 itself is quite fun. I'm looking forward to X3.

I hate to break this to you, but GC is an overly complex game of chess. It doesn't have the diplomacy to be that more challenging game... poker. Not yet. It's got a long way to go to be as immersive as SMAC. But if we support Star Dock long enough, it may get there, at this rate.

Just to clear up a minor matter. I said upgrading a ship is, in itself, a fun neutral thing. It's all the extra MM that, though more realistic, can push it out of the neutral zone. At least for me. Although when a much needed uber unit comes off the upgrade just in time to save my bacon, then, upgrading is fun for me. I don't see how pushing the upgrade button would be fun, but if you say so, I'll accept that you are the obvious exception to the rule.

We will need some way to automate it, in most games, to help keep the MM down. I think we will need an option to skip the "return" bit of your otherwise intelligent suggestion. If it's a long process to upgrade and/or a long time to travel to the upgrade station, then where we need it to return is liable to have changed by the time the upgrade itself is complete. Although for shorter upgrade processes, a return option would be handy.

Just a suggestion, after reading through the thread....

Refitting ships can fall into three categories.

Complete Refit - ie new hull composition upgrades, entire new weapon systems ie one system being pulled out another being replaced. New engine designs etc. Decide what constitutes a complete refit and have those choices force the ships to go to a planet or a space station, which would make space stations a bit more of a necessity and add more strategic and tacticl sense to it.

Partial Refit - upgrading multiple systems such as, ecm, eccm, etc. or family level upgrades form Laser Mark I, to Laser Mark II, to Laser Mark III etc. but to pull say Lasers and put in Rail guns that would be an instilation and thus a complete refit. You could make a class of ships for this that this is all they do, again it adds a bit of strategic and tactical sense. In the modern navy you have ships that can do this. the cost to refit would be to the individual ships, in the fleet and could be spread out over time saying that you would have this fleet upgraded and then five turns later you do the next fleet.

Component refit - say you have a single component that you wish to refit across the board and its a small component. then have it take say 5 turns have a cost and its instantly done to all ships. You would have to limit these types of refits to simple systems, but symple systems can make or brake a ship. If your sensors see farther than someone else and all it is is a new module, you could basically send out probes to where the fleets are. But these would by neccessity be small ugrades.

*shrugs*

Just an idea.. and yes it would make for a bit more micromanaging than universal refits etc, but it would add tactical and strategic possibilities to the game, *Chuckles* take out a fleets supply colliers and you have effectively taken that fleet and frozen it at that tech level until a new collier can get there.