Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[StagnantSoul]

think you also get like -50% strength after jumps for a month or something around that

Oh it's only a month? Easy, just wait ten seconds and then send to fleet in.

[forsaken1111]

I think it's actually 120 days or so, but yeah it isn't that hard to jump then wait for the penalty to wear off. Just don't jump directly into combat unless you massively overwhelm them

[StagnantSoul]

Though, researching jump drives means more likely to get unbidden, and I've fought enough of them before...

[Draignean]

think you also get like -50% strength after jumps for a month or something around that

Oh it's only a month? Easy, just wait ten seconds and then send to fleet in.

200 days, so close to seven months. It's still absurdly useful (particularly since I play at 0.75 hyperlanes), but you better be sure you can hold your ground on the other side.

For me, the unbidden are the easiest crisis, and generally get bitch slapped into nothing within a year of showing up. Unlike the goddamn prethoryn.

[StagnantSoul]

think you also get like -50% strength after jumps for a month or something around that

Oh it's only a month? Easy, just wait ten seconds and then send to fleet in.

200 days, so close to seven months. It's still absurdly useful (particularly since I play at 0.75 hyperlanes), but you better be sure you can hold your ground on the other side.

For me, the unbidden are the easiest crisis, and generally get bitch slapped into nothing within a year of showing up. Unlike the goddamn prethoryn.

Because of a bug they used to be practically the only crisis too spawn, so I am basically Unbiddened out.

[Telgin]

I had to look that up too and was pretty puzzled at first.

The thing puzzling me right now is how to load out my ships when they have a huge power excess.  I don't have the game open right now, but I seem to recall that my battleships had a couple hundred unused power, and I'm wondering if I missed something.  The only way I was able to use it all was to stack shields instead of putting any armor modules, which I did for the Contingency.

The wiki says I'll get a small damage and speed bonus for unused power, so maybe that's just how it is in the end game with balanced defenses.

[Nelia Hawk]

i dont really care about having too much power on ships... if i fight kinetic peoples and add more armors and end up with more power...
the problem is more when you dont have enough power to fit in what you want.. but then again i usually stuff the stuff i want in and hit auto complete and then it levels down a shield or so usually.

and yea you get a tiny boost from excess power. you can see that when you mouseover the stats on the right in the ship designer.

[Madman198237]

Is keeping the extra power for the small bonuses worthwhile? I usually just downgrade reactors wherever possible to save some small amount of cost for the ships.

[StagnantSoul]

Unless you're playing with 9000 fleet cap .05 more minerals per month or whatever the difference is will never matter, but the small damage boost will.

[Telgin]

I never considered downgrading the reactors to save cost, which is at least an interesting idea.  I think my battleships were costing in the 1700-1800 mineral range, so I doubt it would have made a ton of difference, but it is an idea.

I also keep seeing people mention gigantic naval caps like that and I'm sitting here, scratching my head over how you're supposed to even break 1000 in any reasonable way.  I know that was hyperbole just now, but I've also seen it mentioned in more serious contexts.  I'm sitting at 800 naval cap right now with just under 1000 pops and about 25 starbases, of which maybe 10 are dedicated anchorages with logistics offices, and literally every starbase has at least two anchorages.  I didn't get the ascension perk, which would put me at 880, but getting much past 1000 naval cap sounds challenging.  I'd probably have to dedicate the rest of my unbuilt starbases as anchorages to get that far, and maybe research more repeatables on top.

[StagnantSoul]

I never considered downgrading the reactors to save cost, which is at least an interesting idea.  I think my battleships were costing in the 1700-1800 mineral range, so I doubt it would have made a ton of difference, but it is an idea.

I also keep seeing people mention gigantic naval caps like that and I'm sitting here, scratching my head over how you're supposed to even break 1000 in any reasonable way.  I know that was hyperbole just now, but I've also seen it mentioned in more serious contexts.  I'm sitting at 800 naval cap right now with just under 1000 pops and about 25 starbases, of which maybe 10 are dedicated anchorages with logistics offices, and literally every starbase has at least two anchorages.  I didn't get the ascension perk, which would put me at 880, but getting much past 1000 naval cap sounds challenging.  I'd probably have to dedicate the rest of my unbuilt starbases as anchorages to get that far, and maybe research more repeatables on top.

I grab the perk all the time, as I've too often ran into scenarios where I'd win with 4 more battleships or such. I also dedicate nearly every starbase to anchorages, the only ones that aren't are chokepoints against opponents I'm afraid of or the original system shipyard. That and buffs like civics etc for bonus naval cap are usually grabbed. Hiveminds can reach huge amounts of fleet power just grabbing every single planet for example.

[Rolan7]

I haven't done the math, but I tend to favor trade-dedicated stations.  I bet that's more an early-mid game thing though.  For end-game it makes sense that planets would produce plenty of energy for the various sinks, while stations could focus on capacity. 

In my longer games I was running over my naval capacity and just absorbing it with my overabundance of energy income, and I *hope* that speccing stations for capacity is more efficient than having them chase that extra cost.  Even with the merchant republic-esque ethic that boosts trade posts.

Spoiler: Unrelated bitter criticism (click to show/hide)

I hope they port this to Clauswitz soon, so there'll be some option to zoom without mouse-scroll. /s
And yes, I booted it up just to make sure.  I've shot so many people down on the /vg/ thread for meming non-nonexistant or fixed issues.
But they can't bother to just implement something their engine already does.  Fuck me.

Touchpad scrolling is ass and I'm literally just asking for CK2's pgup/pgdown, ugh!

I enjoyed this game enough to buy it, then even buy a DLC, but I really don't blame people for pirating it.  It's unfinished and they don't listen.

[Telgin]

I was actually wondering about the math in regards to just using trade hubs and overextending your naval capacity.  I imagine there are circumstances where that's a better deal, but I doubt it's better in general.  I did overextend my capacity at something like 800/600 at one point during the crisis and was able to just eat the the maintenance costs by draining sector energy stockpiles, which was sustainable, but I'm not sure I'd call it a great method.

I've generally been trying to build up my stations with RP in mind, but I only play single player.  That is, I've been putting trade hubs, resource silos and off world trade company modules on stations over some of my planets, while putting ship yards mostly on outer rim stations.  Anchorages are kind of mixed all throughout, but every station gets at least two.  I've put some gun and missile batteries on chokepoint stations, but I'm unsure of how useful they actually are.  At least they can't be destroyed as easily as defense platforms.

Only a few times have I committed what I assume is a sin by building hydroponics bays on my stations, and that was when I hit a sudden and massive food deficit when one of my leaders died.  Can't remember if it was my ruler or a governor, but in any case, I didn't have the DLC that unlocked trader enclaves, and the fastest way I could make up the deficit was to spam hydroponics bays on some underdeveloped stations.  In hindsight, I probably should have tried trading with a neighbor for it... but I'm not sure I've ever started a trade deal with another empire of my own accord.

[Rolan7]

Ah, you reminded me of why I subconsciously trade posts wherever I could - because they can "only" be built in colony systems!  So I passively assumed that would be the best use of colony systems.

Even though, late game, I'm pretty sure all starbases will be in colony systems *anyway* for defensive purposes, with a few on chokepoints (if that, as has been discussed).  And fleet capacity is still probably the better bet.

[Shadowlord]

According to the wiki, if you're over the naval cap, your fleet maintenance costs are multiplied by naval capacity used / total naval capacity.
An anchorage adds +4 capacity and -1 energy (the maintenance cost).
A trading hub adds +4 energy.

Let's say you have M slots for modules, your base naval capacity is B, you want to use C capacity, your fleet (at C capacity) has a base energy maintenance cost of E, and let's say that C > B (if it isn't, you don't need any anchorages).

ceil((C-B) / 4) is how many anchorages you would need to bring your fleet cap up to C, and your energy income would change by -ceil((C-B)/4). If M > ceil((C-B)/4), you can make enough anchorages to bring your fleet cap to C. If not, your maintenance costs will increase still.

If you have ceil((C-B)/4) trading hubs instead of anchorages, your energy income would change by ceil((C-B)/4)*4 - (C/B)*E.

From that, you can determine whether your energy cost would be higher if you built anchorages or trading hubs.

However, overcapacity multiplies mineral maintenance costs as well, so the optimal approach is probably to build all anchorages regardless of the results of the math, to avoid crippling your mineral income...