Discussion: Player Economy

[Fluffiest]

As mentioned above, an alternative idea - which would get around the issue of rebuilding harvesters of variable marks - would be to replace the Harvester upgrades with a Harvester Efficiency Enhancer, which would sit on a world and increase the production of all harvesters on that world. Static structure, pretty durable, small cap, and either needs a 1/planet cap or needs to be coded such that only one per planet actually has any effect. Mark II and possibly III upgrades do the same thing but better, but have even lower caps; and you can't stack a Mk I and an Mk II on the same planet (or rather you can, but only get the benefit of the Mk II).

That's your optimal small-empire choice (it doesn't prevent you having Logistics stations, and you can have one on your homeworld). The Economic Command Station is uncapped, and is a better choice for large empires.

[KDR_11k]

Caps aren't going to change the balance in empire size between the two options.  In order to have a place for an econ station, you need to have several worlds around it either neutered, or controlled, making the econ station the defacto large-empire solution.  Even though it has a cap.  You can't even HIT the cap (for MkII+III) until your empire exceeds some 15 planets, depending on layout (minimum would be 14, if you have an end on a snake map: home + 12 econ + 1 border world)

Why is it necessary to have the border world if I'm playing in a snake (or X, or other easily chokepointed map type)? If I'm going to make a fortress world, the command station type that I use doesn't really matter, because:
1. It's going to be on the wormhole leading further into my space, or otherwise far from the wormhole(s) enemies will enter the system through.
2. It's going to be buried under as many forcefields as I can throw on it while still blocking the wormhole(s) leading into my space to a reasonable extent and leaving a few to cover the home command station.
3. I'm going to have at least half, and probably more, of my turrets (and any other defensive structures I have) on that planet.
4. It will have a major minefield around any entry wormholes, and some strategically placed tractor beams and gravity turrets to hold enemies where I want them to be.

At that point, the type of command station is immaterial for all but the heaviest attacks or waves that ignore tractor beams and gravity effects, and the firepower I provide for defense should be able to handle that kind of attack on a fortress world. Certainly the military command stations are slightly superior in terms of survivability

Mil stations also give a planet wide munitions boost, Mil IIIs basically double the damage output of all units on the planet.

[Aeson]

Mil stations also give a planet wide munitions boost, Mil IIIs basically double the damage output of all units on the planet.

Which is a nice bonus, but it's not particularly necessary when using a single fortress world.

[Lancefighter]

I disagree. The munitions boosting effect is absolutely CRITICAL when dealing with exo-waves.

[Kahuna]

What happens when a Mk3 is blown up?

It's rebuilt. Rebuilding has priority over upgrading.

Except that harvesters don't leave remains.

Not to mention the 5 or so minutes during which it will not auto-rebuild because there are enemy units present.

Oh crap

[Draco18s]

Oh crap

Right, so a different harvester gets upgraded, and removes the ability for the player to decide WHERE those higher mark harvesters go.

[Lancefighter]

This is all solved when you move the harvester upgrades into a 'harvester control post' thing >_>