Supply crawlers, need some opinions

[Nexii]

A hard cap for SP per base would be pretty reasonable.  Of course putting everything in one base can be really risky too (Planet Busters). 

Rather than adding an option to convoy minerals, I had a thought.  What if by working on an SP in more than one base, the base(s) that are behind on the SP would automatically feed 80% of their minerals into the base in the lead?  Though I imagine it's not quite that simple since base production goes in a set order and can be changed while producing.

[Yitzi]

A hard cap for SP per base would be pretty reasonable.

I dislike hard caps, as they tend to yield corner solutions.  A soft cap (maybe each project in the base slightly increases the cost of more projects in that base) might work, but I'm currently leaning toward limiting the effectiveness of convoying resources instead.

Of course putting everything in one base can be really risky too (Planet Busters).

That's what orbital defense pods are for.

Rather than adding an option to convoy minerals, I had a thought.  What if by working on an SP in more than one base, the base(s) that are behind on the SP would automatically feed 80% of their minerals into the base in the lead?  Though I imagine it's not quite that simple since base production goes in a set order and can be changed while producing.

There is already an option to convoy resources from one base to another; it's just never used because it's only at 1.  However, setting it to be able to be less than 100% efficiency might work well, especially if combined with a population-based limit on convoys per base (which I think might be a good idea anyway).  Either a simpler percentage, or something based on EFFIC...

[Yitzi]

Actually, maybe a better way is to give the option to have a penalty for a base that is sending away too much of its resources.

[Geo]

I dislike hard caps, as they tend to yield corner solutions.  A soft cap (maybe each project in the base slightly increases the cost of more projects in that base) might work, but I'm currently leaning toward limiting the effectiveness of convoying resources instead.

An SP cap based on number of pop in a base?
Or else, based on the number of (and perhaps types of) specialists in a base. And if the player for some reason puts the specialists back to worker status, the SP('s) is/are disabled.

[Yitzi]

An SP cap based on number of pop in a base?

It would still result in every base but one having either the maximum number (or what was the maximum when the last project was built) or none.

Or else, based on the number of (and perhaps types of) specialists in a base. And if the player for some reason puts the specialists back to worker status, the SP('s) is/are disabled.

Not only would that be somewhat tricky to program, it would encourage specialists more than I really want.

I like the idea of making it so that if a base sends a large portion of a type of resource to other bases, it takes a penalty to that resource.  The formula I came up with, which I think will work well, is:

-The basic penalty, applying with EFFIC 0, is one half the total amount sent away (counting the amount carried by all crawlers and the penalty itself) times the portion of the base's production which is sent away.  So if the base sends away all its production then 50% of it is lost, but if it sends away only half then only 25% of that (12.5% of its total production) is lost.

-With positive EFFIC, each base gets an exemption to the penalty equal to EFFIC/(4+EFFIC) of its total production.  So with +1 the first 1/5 is exempt, with +2 the first 2/6=1/3 is exempt, with +3 the first 3/7 is exempt, with +4 the first 4/8=1/2 is exempt, etc.  The amount of the exemption is removed from "total amount sent away" and both the numerator and denominator of "portion sent away", so with +4 EFFIC a base sending away 80% of its production would still suffer a penalty equal to (1/2)*30%*(30/50)=9%, meaning that the recipient(s) could only get 71% of its production.

-With negative EFFIC, after applying the penalty, the amount recieved by the recipient is multiplied by (4+EFFIC)/4.

[Geo]

I don't know, but my gut feeling is a player would rather rebase crawlers then endure a resource loss for crawling a resource from one base to another.
Perhaps, to sweeten the pie, decrease the eco damage normally caused by the crawler shuttling the resource?

[Nexii]

It would still be very powerful if a crawler could funnel any amount of resources rather than the existing one (which admittedly is useless).  There's a mineral cost to doing the same on a per-square basis by rehoming.  In fact I think it'd venture on too powerful to exempt anything.  At higher EFFIC you'd always funnel the complete exempt amount to a specialist city.  It would really break down the need to make facilities in many cities, thus being very Pro ICS.  Exempting the ecodamage would only make this worse.

I would say that mineral funneling should be limited just to SPs.  Not sure EFFIC should play in since it doesn't affect mineral production in any way. 

[Yitzi]

I don't know, but my gut feeling is a player would rather rebase crawlers then endure a resource loss for crawling a resource from one base to another.

That's assuming (a) that the resources in question are only coming from crawlers rather than worked squares, and (b) that a base can benefit from any number of crawlers (which I plan to make into an option; I think limiting each base to benefitting from pop/4 (rounded up) crawlers at a time would make for some more interesting play, and make "base-to-base vs. crawl squares" into a real choice.)

Perhaps, to sweeten the pie, decrease the eco damage normally caused by the crawler shuttling the resource?

I think that clearly any minerals convoyed from one base to another should not count for ecodamage of both bases; I think it makes more sense to have them count only for the base that gets them in the end.

It would still be very powerful if a crawler could funnel any amount of resources rather than the existing one (which admittedly is useless).  There's a mineral cost to doing the same on a per-square basis by rehoming.  In fact I think it'd venture on too powerful to exempt anything.  At higher EFFIC you'd always funnel the complete exempt amount to a specialist city.  It would really break down the need to make facilities in many cities, thus being very Pro ICS.  Exempting the ecodamage would only make this worse.

Well, firstly I think that funneling energy should be subject to both bases' inefficiency, so that would limit that.  And while you could funnel the complete exempt amount to a specialist base, each convoy used for base-to-base would reduce the number of convoys that base could benefit from crawling squares, so it'd be used only if there's substantial benefit, and then it might be worth doing more than the exempt amount.  (One clever idea to get around that would be to have the specialist city get from several bases, each of which gets from other bases and crawlers...but then you end up sending only part of what you get from each step onto the next.)

I would say that mineral funneling should be limited just to SPs.

I don't really like that idea, as the concept seems to have been intended to apply to everything.  However, since you'll want mineral-enhancing facilities in large bases anyway (since you won't funnel everything), and can't funnel more than a few bases to a single location (assuming pop-based crawler caps; the high penalties for sending nearly everything will ensure you can't do it effectively in stages), it's not going to have such huge effect and will probably be used only for SPs, maybe front-line bases so they can crank out units (though that means risking your crawlers), and setting up new bases quickly.

Not sure EFFIC should play in since it doesn't affect mineral production in any way.

It does, however, affect two different things that are more important for large empires (inefficiency and bureaucracy drones), so it does fit.

[Nexii]

Limiting crawlers to Pop/X sounds like an interesting option.  I originally really favored this but then thought that it's not smooth breakpoints and favors ICS with its size 1/2 cities.  Maybe something more like 1-3 FOPs per population, would scale better. 

Agree on ecodamage being at destination base from gameplay perspective.  Although, one can argue this point thematically...is it the mining or consumption of minerals that pollutes?

Exempting amounts would lead to chaining, and specialist bases which only get funnelled in resources.  It's much cheaper to build 2 crawlers (60 mins) and funnel it all to specialist bases, than to make all make the production facilities.  I see it as rather game-breaking.  Instead of exempting any amount I would just have the sliding scale based on EFFIC/distance.  I do like the concept of specalist bases...my bigger concern is just keeping it in check.  The labs SPs especially come to mind.

One fix to chaining might be to not allow a base to both convoy and receive the same resource?

[Yitzi]

Limiting crawlers to Pop/X sounds like an interesting option.  I originally really favored this but then thought that it's not smooth breakpoints and favors ICS with its size 1/2 cities.  Maybe something more like 1-3 FOPs per population, would scale better.

I'd rather have it be by crawlers than FOP, as then you can get a much larger amount from base-to-base crawling, but at the downside of not actually increasing your total empire-wide production any.  As for ICS, it doesn't come out to such a big boost (as with 1-2 population it'd only be 1 crawler per base, meaning that at least half your land is neither a base nor crawled), and there are other means to weaken ICS (multiplier facilities and bureaucracy drones.)  And with only 1 crawler per base, you couldn't even effectively chain resources to a few central locations to remove the need for multiplier facilities without losing the vast majority of it (either leaving it in bases on the way or just losing it to the penalty).

Agree on ecodamage being at destination base from gameplay perspective.  Although, one can argue this point thematically...is it the mining or consumption of minerals that pollutes?

The genejack factory, robotic assembly plant, quantum converter, and bulk matter transmitter increase ecodamage by increasing mineral production, and minerals from fungus still produce ecodamage.  On the other hand, minerals from Nessus Prime don't...

Exempting amounts would lead to chaining

Not really.  Even with really good efficiency (Dem/Green, or Gaians/Dem or Gaians/Green), it'd still mean only half the amount is exempt, so a base that's 2 away in the chain can only have 1/4 of its production reach the target base with no penalty, and a base 3 away can have only 1/8, etc.  You'd usually be better off not chaining, and moving stuff around somewhat to focus it on bases already high in that resource, but you'd have to balance between focusing resources on your best bases and crawling mines and so on.

It's much cheaper to build 2 crawlers (60 mins) and funnel it all to specialist bases, than to make all make the production facilities.

Except that if you don't make all the production facilities anyway, you'd lose a substantial amount because you can't send all of it.

What I'm not sure you realize is that the penalty and exemption would be calculated on a per-base basis, not per-crawler.  A base sending 50% of its minerals away with each of two crawlers would still be treated as sending 100% away.

I see it as rather game-breaking.  Instead of exempting any amount I would just have the sliding scale based on EFFIC/distance.

And how would that scale with the amount sent away?  Part of the idea here is that as you send more away, the portion lost increases; that way, you have a reason to send part but not all.

I do like the concept of specalist bases...my bigger concern is just keeping it in check.  The labs SPs especially come to mind.

That gets a double hit (triple if you consider the fact that you're limited to 1 tech per base per turn); not only is there the penalty, but I'm planning to have base-to-base crawled energy be subject to inefficiency at both bases, so chaining it a few times will really cut things down unless you've got really good EFFIC.

One fix to chaining might be to not allow a base to both convoy and receive the same resource?

I considered something similar, but it just doesn't fit that well; I think that the inability to pass on more than a fraction of what it gets without high penalties (a base sending 100% of a resource will lose an amount equivalent to the inefficiency you get when you lose your HQ) will suffice to keep chaining in check.

[TarMinyatur]

Here's an idea...

You begin the game with a convoy potential of 2.
You discover Adaptive Econometrics, which allows you to convoy 4.
You later discover Sentient Nanomachinery, which allows you to convoy 8.
You finally discover Photonic Disambiguity, which allows you to convoy 16.

I might use a crawler for city-to-city transfers, if this were the case.

[Geo]

Here's an idea...
I might use a crawler for city-to-city transfers, if this were the case.

I smell a CiV influence here.

[Yitzi]

Here's an idea...

You begin the game with a convoy potential of 2.
You discover Adaptive Econometrics, which allows you to convoy 4.
You later discover Sentient Nanomachinery, which allows you to convoy 8.
You finally discover Photonic Disambiguity, which allows you to convoy 16.

I might use a crawler for city-to-city transfers, if this were the case.

None of those are actually techs.  But having it start at a constant and increase with techs is an idea...I don't like it as much, though, as (1) it means every base has the same capability, which I don't think will work as well, and (2) making it possible to set which techs in alphax.txt would be a pain to program.

[Buster's Uncle]

Hmm.  I wonder how gameplay would be affected by crawler transfers automatically being whatever minerals the originating base produces in excess of support costs?

[Yitzi]

Hmm.  I wonder how gameplay would be affected by crawler transfers automatically being whatever minerals the originating base produces in excess of support costs?

It'd completely remove the need to spread production among different bases, and probably not be very good for the game.