Energy Managament and Fortresses

[Diazo]

Okay, trying to pull numbers and I've found a couple minor things.

1) Regardless of the number of home planets, the energy collector description says it generates 150,000 energy, even though in my 2 HW test, each is actually generating 300,000 energy.

2) Energy Collectors do not show in the Detailed view of the Resource Flows page. Matter Converters show correctly. Energy Collector production shows correctly in the summary view of the Resource Flows page and the Galaxy Map planetary summary.

Working on numbers now.

[chemical_art]

Just tested, Diazo's assessment is correct.

Home command stations and Human Cyro pods produce the same amounts of energy for multi HW games, but on a two HW game each energy collector produces twice the energy.

EDIT:

HOWEVER! You can still make only one energy collector per planet, so it mimics the old behavior that you can have X number of [free or cheap] energy collectors before you get [expensive or inefficient] ones where X is based on HW number.

This is due to in multiplayer games you being able to build energy supplies on allied planets, and multi HW games are meant to simulate that effect.

[Toranth]

Turning off energy (powering down) was just micro.

You should not be able to build everything from one planet, nor two.

Forts have been repeatedly shown to be great values for K with a above average cost in M + C but a horrendous cost in Energy.

After you have 3 or 4 planets, about the only thing that can threaten your energy supplies is multiple fortresses.

If you choose to not unlock additional star ships nor forts, energy is never a problem beyond three worlds. After 5 worlds about the only thing threatening your energy is forts.

Its ok to not have everything, otherwise whats the point of energy at all?

The problem is that energy was rebalanced based on production cost, but then consumption was increased.

Want to see real problems with energy?  Try playing a Starship heavy game.  10,000 Energy EACH.  Using just the freebies, that's 19 starships, for 190,000 energy.  That's more than you have from your homeworld, including the Energy Collector and up to 40 Cryogenic Pods.  And that's without building a single fleetship, turret, scout, or anything else.  Neinzul Enclaves start at 15K, and actually go UP in energy costs.
"I shouldn't be able to build everything?"  Using nothing more than the starting 10,000 knowledge to enhance my starships, I can get to the point I require 390,000 energy without including Nienzul, cloakers, or scouts.  That's more than 2 planets of energy, for what should be my starting fleet.


10,000 energy is a lot.  Know what uses more energy than a starship?  Golems, H/Ks, the Mothership - and Fortresses.  That's about twice as much as a Mk V Guardian.  That's 4 times as much as a Mk V Guardpost.  It's 50 times the average fleetship's energy cost, and 5 times the highest 'fleetship' cost.

10,000 Energy?  That's 25% higher than the point where the Impulse Reaction Emitter hits the MAX CAP of the damage multiplier. 
90,000 Energy?  That's the highest energy consumption of anything.  That's about 5 times what the MOTHERSHIP uses.  It's completely off the scale of the rest of the game.

Basically, the energy changes made brownouts a more likely, and more dangerous.  So people developed workarounds (CHEESE!) already, but that's just more micro - exactly what this was supposed to avoid.  At the same time that the energy changes were forcing expansion, while increasing AIP effect and decreasing reducers, they made losing a system more painful, which forced people to consolidate to fewer ingress points - at the same time that changes were being made to attempt to force people to spread out and allow more ingress points.

Like Armor, Energy needs a real in-depth review.  The one it got managed to make energy more relevent to the game, sure, but brought major issues of its own.

Sorry for the minor rant.  I just feel that the system is broken, and saying 'you shouldn't expect to have everything' is both obvious, meaningless, and ignoring the problems that DO exist.

[chemical_art]

And yet, it still highlights my point.

You can't have everything.

Some things have low energy consumption. Turrets and fleetships come to mind.

Some things have higher energy consumption. Spirecraft and starships come to mind.

Something are expensive in both resources of both M + C and energy (but not K). Golems and forts come to mind.

If everything had low energy use, then energy doesn't matter at all.

The only thing that might matter is that MK I fleetships get half energy cost but no other mk I units do. That could be changed.

You get 5 starships, and the flagship cap alone has the hp of both the missile frigate and the bomber combined. Starships are tough and avoid # of unit defenses and have unique niches  and a slightly better K cost if you don't get a adv factory / lose it, in return for a bit less offense and more cost in resources (energy and M + C)

[Hearteater]

Single ZPG and you are set for the rest of the game.

[Toranth]

And yet, it still highlights my point.

You can't have everything.
<snip>

And yet, I'll say again - that's an obvious, nay, specious, statement.  No one has claimed that the player should be able to get everything.  There are already major limits on what the player can get.  Time/M+C/Knowledge, not to mention that 99% of the ship types are unavailable.  The energy issue completely closes down one formerly viable approach to the game, and greatly reduces another.
And, actually, it's not even much of a hard limit:  As long as I can maintain a +1m+c/sec, then I could build as many extra Converters as possible.  It'd drag the game out to death-by-boredom, but you seem to think that's a fine result, since hey - I'm not supposed to have everything.


If I'm not supposed to have everything, then tell me:  what AM I supposed to have?  Is 1 Fortress ok?  What about 2?  How about 15 Starships?  Can I allowed 20 if I take a second planet?
If I'm only allowed to have 1 Fortress, than why is the cap 5?  The unit should be rebalanced to reflect the actual cap of 1, then.

If I need to make choices, then those choices need to be balanced.  And right now, those choices are NOT well balanced.  That's why people are complaining.
Not because we "can't have everything'.


BTW:  Spirecraft have an average energy usage of about 3000.

[chemical_art]

It's been implied many, many times that a starship only game is not the most optimal path by the devs, so you must juggle many hoops to do so. Having a +1 resource game with the rest matter converters is not a matter of boredom: You forgot you still have to rebuild / repair, and even if you disable waves you still have CPA's, and you will almost never get those out of the way with a starship only game, so you simply cannot sustain it. There is a very real M + C cost from having CPA's, let alone exo waves or regular waves.

I'm sorry your desired playstyle is not as viable as it once was, but the devs have said many times starship only games are not the most optimal path. If you get 4 or 5 worlds you can still power them all the same; Starship only games only hurt when you are trying ultra low aip.

As for the spirecraft, that average 3k per spirecraft is for MK I's, it doubles for MK II's, and spirecraft have much greater caps, so at MK II the average cap of a single spirecraft is around the cap of any level of starships, and it doesn't diminish until said spirecraft hit MK IV, where their greater individual energy costs are matched by their rarity and caps.

What I am saying is that everything has pluses and drawbacks, and if energy is not a threat to anything, it serves no purpose. At 5 - 9 planets, which is the typical "goal" for games (but can vary greatly) energy is not a problem AT ALL for starship only games.

[Faulty Logic]

I support the current system: energy is a factor, restrictive in some cases, and it should be impossible to power everything if you choose to unlock lots of high-energy techs. Losing any system can constitute a problem, and there is no "pause, put lots of stuff in low-power" cheese.

[TechSY730]

I like the new system too, but I would agree that some of the energy costs need to be reviewed now that changing how much power you are producing and consuming is no longer a trivial operation.
It's not far off, but still could use some tweaking.

It is interesting though that we now have to care (in a non "fake cost" type way, like wall clock but not game time) about a new issue now, energy. This sort of changes things quite a bit, and the "meta-game" hasn't quite fully adapted to it yet.

[Wanderer]

I agree that there's not enough power on your initial planet (or two) to power up everything you own.  However, I believe you're looking at this poorly.

Instead of there not being enough to power everything at start, you have more options then your power can handle, and you need to decide what's best for your tactics.  Reducing options until you can power all your starter gear is not what I'd prefer to see, but what I'd expect as an outcome if the primary build choices were all able to be built and powered out of the gate.

If power doesn't restrict the game, what is the purpose of it?  Why would planet count be important?

[Diazo]

The thing is, right now it's too restrictive, especially in the case of fortresses.

My current game that started this thread has me controlling 6 systems from a single HW start.

Building up my fleet, I only have energy left over to build 3 fortress Mk I and I still have 10K knowledge banked that I can't use as I don't have the energy to build anything I do unlock.

Note that I have not been able to build leech starships as my energy balance is low enough I can't afford those.

Now, to me that is too restrictive. I've captured 5 systems which is a decent amount of real estate, I'm having to bank 10K knowledge and 2 forts I want to build as I don't have the energy for it? That sounds off to me.

(Still working on numbers)

D.

[Volatar]

If power doesn't restrict the game, what is the purpose of it?  Why would planet count be important?

Resource income? Not enough of a motivator.
Knowledge is a good reason to take planets though.

I've captured 5 systems which is a decent amount of real estate

No, that's rather low still. I think Keith is aiming for about a dozen in normal gameplay IIRC.

[Wanderer]

If power doesn't restrict the game, what is the purpose of it?  Why would planet count be important?

Resource income? Not enough of a motivator.
Knowledge is a good reason to take planets though.

Research is a catch and release kind of thing.  Only power and resources force you to hold territory.

I've captured 5 systems which is a decent amount of real estate

No, that's rather low still. I think Keith is aiming for about a dozen in normal gameplay IIRC.

Agreed.  5's still early game, usually, if not golden-hour.  You're runnin' ultra-low, Diazo.  Not that I don't too, but that's part of the pressure in an ultra-low AIP game.  No mats, no juice, high research, highest end gear you can field.

[Diazo]

Erm, a couple more details on that 5 systems thing.

My 'defensive beachead' around my homeworld is going to be 8 systems before I expand out into the galaxy taking CSGs, ARSs and systems to attack the AI homeworlds. Of those 8, I have captured 5 so far and am working on my defensive line for when I leave my 'homeword defensive' behind, of which I was planning to build around forts.

As I am playing/testing the multiple ingress points change, I was intending to put a fort I and II in each of my 4 systems that form my defensive line. That was before I hit the energy requirements for that and realized it was impossible. (It has been ages since I unlocked Fort IIs).

For reference, a single fort Mk I and single fort Mk II cost 210,000 energy, that is an energy collector and a matter converter per system and I'm still 10,000 energy short.

A cap of Mk I and Mk II forts cost 930,000 energy, that's 6 energy collectors and 1 matter converter, with 20,000 energy left over.

I only have 8 systems and I have to run the rest of my empire still.

Now, I can buy the argument that at 8 systems I should not be able to support a cap of both Mk I and Mk II fortresses. So, as I have 4 systems exposed to attack, I go with only a Fort Mk II per system. That's 120,000 energy per system for 480,000 energy. That's 40% of the energy output of an 8 system empire to support 4 fort Mk IIs. That sounds high to me still.

Anyways, numbers.

I did the number crunching and there was one big thing that jumped out at me. Because of the way energy collectors scale up and the home commands don't, as the number of home worlds increase the value of Energy Collectors increases for producing energy.

Single Homeworld: Energy Collector produces 78% of the energy at game start.
4 Homeworlds: Energy Collector produces 94% of the energy at game start.

This means that as systems are captured, a multi homeworld game gets effectively more energy.

Doubling the number of worlds controlled:
Single Homeworld controlling two systems: 178% of energy produced  at game start.
4 Homeworlds controlling 8 systems: 193% of energy produced at game start.

Now, changing that would not allow me to magically build fortresses, but it does validate my feeling that single HW games do have harder energy requirements then multi-HW games.

I want to examine fortresses closer, but I'm out of time for tonight so it will have to wait.

D.

[LordSloth]

I brought this up offhand earlier in the mantis, it wasn't a huge issue for me, and someone else had a similar ticket.

However, worth mentioning. Since the military commands are buffed and logistics might end up buffed after 6.0, economic command stations could be buffed significantly in terms of energy production. I'm not at all confident they *should* be any more, given their resource generation.. but they produce 2000, 4000, 6000 energy. A non-trivial amount for mark 2 and mark 3s might be of interest to those weird people who only take a few systems, instead of take recklessly take everything and get crushed underneath the mighty space-boot of the AI like me. Or, people who play with Golems on Moderate, along with Spirecraft from asteroids.

I'm not at all convinced things need changing any more, but if they do, where does the zenith power generator fit in? Doesn't offer much on a high AIP game, but on a low AIP game...

Currently, I'm too interested in dying horribly to the fallen spire or hybrid hives to reflect much on the energy game, but if costs did need to be lowered, I think it would be more interesting to force the player to consider giving up harvester upgrades, a military or logistics upgrade, or some other sacrifice in order to get the power to match their playstyle. Trading harvesters for eco is currently more of an interesting decision than it used to be, but throwing in something like forty or eighty thousand power would be a draw, while not unbalancing a high AIP game. Whether it would ruin a low AIP game, however?

I certainly wouldn't want to buff power of the mk1 eco station beyond something like a mere 10k token value.