Cost of Starships; expensive or forcelimit?

[palomer]

I see two possible extremes regarding the cost of our starfleets. I expect to get something in between, but I am very curious where Stellaris will land on the spectrum.

One extreme is the woefully oversimplified and uninteresting EU4 forcelimit approach where the size of your navy is based on how many coastal provinces (planets) you have. Losses are at worst expensive, but usually just result in rebuilding right back up to tbe forcelimit. There is rarely any interest in the fates of individual ships. Old ships can even be upgraded to new ships somehow (I have never understood this).

The other extreme I imagine is represntative of the naval arms race from the 1880's until the Pear Harbor raid. Capital ships take years to build, and are so expensive that building too many can damage your economy. These ships are each built larger and more technologically advanced than the last. The nation places it's pride in the fleet's flagship and there is a significant emotional attatchment to it. The huge cost of capital ships incentivizes the development of smaller, more expendable ships that have a chance of destroying capital ships with less conventional weapons (torpedo boats). The existance of smaller, more nimble threats to capital ships creates the need for intermediate sized vessels (cruisers) to screen the capital ships from them. The difficulty of replacing capital ships incentivizes the use of strategies which limit the danger they are placed in such as the Fleet in Being Doctrine (Tirpitz). Full fleet battles such as the Battle of Jutland will be rare because even the victor stands to lose too much to justify the victory and therefore such battles will normally only occur after cheaper options are exhausted.

Obviously the second extreme offers a much richer game and I think the closer Stellaris gets to that, the happier I will be. I know we wont be getting the first extreme because Paradox already stated that there will be ship customization (I am extremely excited about this).

What are your preferences and expectations in these regards?

 

[m4st3rm_]

Hmm...
I imagine it will be a combination of an largish initial cost and a smaller upkeep. I'd think that some version of this is pretty much guaranteed, based on their other games.

In addition to that-
Maybe higher upkeep in wartime/for active ships. Hopefully, large ships would take time to complete. That way, it would take some effort to build a navy when at peace, but would require more effort in wartime because of the higher upkeep load. Losing a fleet would be painful for two reasons- ships can't be replaced fast, and heavy cost. Maybe a maintenance mechanic, where ships that are deployed too long begin to lose effectiveness, making massive land grabs and long wars harder.

So, I guess I pretty much agree, though I think full fleet battles will likely occur with some regularity, due to the lack of other options. That depends on what planetary defense looks like I suppose.

I think that something of this nature would make for a very interesting game, as you would want to pick your battles very carefully. It would also make for some interesting strategic choices- in a situation where you are preparing to launch a major war, you could build more ships than you could indefinitely support, and as long as things didn't drag on to long, you could win and be fine, maybe with putting some ships into storage afterwards. The appropriate defensive strategy would then be to drag the war on until the enemy could no longer support their war effort and was forced to stop- or, failing that, counterattack as soon as possible after losing before they can rearm/repair worn ships or make use of their new territory.

 

[Meraun]

Waht i wodu love to see is beeing able to demobilize your fleet (like in EI IV) in Peacetimes.
Likle the Solarian Battlefleet in Honorverse!

So you have light units for Borderdisputes and Piratfighting. and iN case shit hits the fan, you mobilize your Mainbattlefleet. Wich is extremly expensive, depending on the size of course.

you woud also be forced to keep it upgraded. Otherwise you have a big ass fleet wich and, after a long peacetime, when you mobilize it you realise its worthless
because of the progress your enemys technology has made.

 

[HeartsofMetal]

I hope I can have thousands of ships in one single fleet.

 

[13Foxtrot]

There should be a cost prohibitive limit on starships.....basically they should be expensive and it should be painful to lose them. What I don't want to see is having the ability to send wave after wave of ships to their death with little repercussion. They should be expensive to maintain and should be able to be mothballed and refitted. In fact it should be economically sound to mothball fleets. This would be the creation and de-banding of armies in wartime, EUIV style.

 

[Meraun]

There should be a cost prohibitive limit on starships.....basically they should be expensive and it should be painful to lose them. What I don't want to see is having the ability to send wave after wave of ships to their death with little repercussion. They should be expensive to maintain and should be able to be mothballed and refitted. In fact it should be economically sound to mothball fleets. This would be the creation and de-banding of armies in wartime, EUIV style.

well since it a paradox game, i doubt we will see Wave after Wave style.. woud be untypical

 

[13Foxtrot]

well since it a paradox game, i doubt we will see Wave after Wave style.. woud be untypical

I agree. It just seems to be typical in these space games. I am sure there will be a limit on the amount of ships in a fleet based on the skill of the admiral and the tech level as well.

 

[henzington]

Given how EU4 works I would probably say both as there is a soft force limit but if you have enough money you can go over it.

 

[desiriel]

I like the OP's reference to the naval race of the age of imperialism and I find his arguments are quite valid . But personally I don't think EU4 system is so bad. It's a combination of a province "natural" naval capability and the naval infrastructure the player eventually decides to build. But building a diproportionate fleet in regards to your capability has greater and greater costs.
I agree with you that probably we'll get an intermediate mechanic but I'm eager to hear something official from the devs or in a DD.

 

[EntropyAvatar]

Maybe a maintenance mechanic, where ships that are deployed too long begin to lose effectiveness, making massive land grabs and long wars harder.

I think this is brilliant. I am generally in favor of making capital ships expensive and requiring a long time to replace them. The drawback is that if you push that too far, then an empire that loses a single battle could be in a completely hopeless situation. If you have some kind of "operational readiness" battery that only supports a limited set of offensives before requiring rest and refit, it at least gives the defender some breathing time (though it couldn't be the whole solution). It also would be a good way to model putting ships in mothballs - their readiness is low to non-existent, so they will take some time to be useful.

Hopefully it wouldn't be the same thing as an org bar (drains to zero then lose effectiveness, or retreat). Maybe doing stressful things (hyperspace, battles, sieges) generates hits on readiness. If maintenance is 100% or above, it just drain the maintenance level a bit. If you are below 100% maintenance, then the "hit" has a chance to cause a system failure on the ship. So at 90% maintenance you are accumulating the occasional system failure and at 20% maintenance your ships are building up failures at 8x the rate.

 

[EntropyAvatar]

I hope there aren't direct force limits in the game. Rather than having planet count or starbases/shipyards determine a force limit, it would seem more natural to let friendly starbases and planets provide a certain amount of maintenance, split among the ships in the system. That way player can decide their ratio of ships to maintenance capability. If they skimp on the maintenance capacity, it will take a long time to large fleets useful again, and they will really need to stay away from long wars.

 

[bz249]

What about having an approach how it was at age of sail? You have some dedicated capital ship (mostly in mothball, since you do not need a "first rate" unless there is an all out naval war) some dedicated light ships for "police/patrol" and in case of war you can confiscate/press civilian ships into the military role after a quick refit (with a significant loss on trade efficiency). While these ships will not be as efficient as a fullbread warship they can still contribute as transports, convoy raiders or second rate warships. After the war you can release those ships to civilian duties to allow trade to regenerate.

Here is for an example what a complete mess the Spanish Armada was

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ships_of_the_Spanish_Armada

 

[palomer]

I remember reading about Bismark's breakout into the Atlantic. The Brits knew Bismark was on her way out, and had lots of battleships. However, The British Empire was vast and convoys between the plethora of ports around the world needed protection. In the end, the only two capital ships available were the Hood and the Prince of Wales. The Prince of Wales was not even completed yet and the Hood was a Battlecruiser and consequently not protected against 15 inch shells. They knew it was a bad decision to put these ships against Bismark, but despite their vastly superior numbers, they only had those 2 ships close enough to respond. Of course the Prince of Wales had low rate of fire problems, the Hood blew up, and the incident made international headlines.

In Stellaris, convoys supplying a multitude of planets could be even more critical than the convoys Britain had to protect. In theory, a strategy of diluting a superior enemies fleet by threatening their far flung supply lines and using a small strike force to "hit and run" could work. I would say if Stellaris is capable of modeling this, then Paradox has done a good job.

 

[bz249]

I remember reading about Bismark's breakout into the Atlantic. The Brits knew Bismark was on her way out, and had lots of battleships. However, The British Empire was vast and convoys between the plethora of ports around the world needed protection. In the end, the only two capital ships available were the Hood and the Prince of Wales. The Prince of Wales was not even completed yet and the Hood was a Battlecruiser and consequently not protected against 15 inch shells. They knew it was a bad decision to put these ships against Bismark, but despite their vastly superior numbers, they only had those 2 ships close enough to respond. Of course the Prince of Wales had low rate of fire problems, the Hood blew up, and the incident made international headlines.

In Stellaris, convoys supplying a multitude of planets could be even more critical than the convoys Britain had to protect. In theory, a strategy of diluting a superior enemies fleet by threatening their far flung supply lines and using a small strike force to "hit and run" could work. I would say if Stellaris is capable of modeling this, then Paradox has done a good job.

OFF
They had more (there was another group with King George V and Renown) but they are dispatched to cover another route. And while Hood was a battlecruiser it had armor equal to the contemporary battleship (but it was significantly larger, more expensive and on ton-for-ton/pound-for-pound basis carried much less firepower than a contemporary battleship). Hood's problem was that she was a WWI-era ship fighting against a WWII era ship.

/OFF

 

[palomer]

Well, the Admiralty was aware Hood was not properly armored against 15 inch shells and they were proven correct. Battlecruisers were battleships which traded armor for more speed. Britain discovered this was a poor trade-off at Jutland when multiple battlecruisers suffered magazine explosions. They immediately abandoned the battlecruiser concept, and Hood was the last battlecruiser Britain built. Renown was also a battlecruiser. I may have forgotten about Renown and KGV, but the need to split your forces to increase your likelihood of spotting the enemy may be equally applicable in Stellaris. It depends on how good the sensors are.

 

[bz249]

Well, the Admiralty was aware Hood was not properly armored against 15 inch shells and they were proven correct. Battlecruisers were battleships which traded armor for more speed. Britain discovered this was a poor trade-off at Jutland when multiple battlecruisers suffered magazine explosions. They immediately abandoned the battlecruiser concept, and Hood was the last battlecruiser Britain built. Renown was also a battlecruiser. I may have forgotten about Renown and KGV, but the need to split your forces to increase your likelihood of spotting the enemy may be equally applicable in Stellaris. It depends on how good the sensors are.

The problems the British faced that time that they had only 5 ships which can hurt Bismarck and had a reasonable chance to catch it: King George V, Prince of Wales, Hood, Renown and Repulse... everything else was too slow. Indeed even the above were too slow to force an engagement on the Bismarck without very favorable conditions like it was in the actual battle of Denmark Straight.
About the battlecruiser thingy, they are just fast capital ships, you can achieve it in many ways. The most obvious is to install a more powerful engine (Hood: 111 MW, Queen Elisabeth class: 42 MW) but this require a different hull form and in general more displacement (Hood: 47.000 t, QE: 33.000 t) and essentially you got a ship with equal punch (both 8x15") and equal armor (belt Hood up to 12", QE up to 13", deck both 1-3", turrets Hood 13-15", QE 11-13") but for vastly more money. The pre-Jutland British battlecruisers had weak armor, after that they do the same everyone else: battlecruisers are faster, bigger and more expensive battleships (aka: the fast battleship concept).

Anyway this is a serious design issue with the ships, will you spend more money on a supership which can dictate the rules of engagement or favor cheaper design and let the numbers decide.

 

[SonGoku]

Go back to HoI IV with your naval force debate.

Here we are in space and space navies will work differently than our traditional navies. Artificially created limits are an laughable excuse to model space navies correctly. If a spacefaring civilization decides to industrialize their entire solar system what sense do "limits" have? None.

Think about it: we have trillions of tons of resources in our solar system alone. If a super dreadnought needs 3-7 million tons to construct and roughly 10k tons maintainence material per year you still can build millions of them and operate them, if you have the yards to build and maintain them. So, money and resources should NOT be the problem.

Your limits are your yards and their capacity. Aurora has a nice system to manage the maximum starship output of your empire. The more yards and the bigger the yards (both, tonnage and slipways) are, the more and bigger ships you can build. But have in mind that you have to increase your maintainenace facilities as well. Pretty much as in real life and ocean going navies the size and quantity of your space navy is limited by the size and quantity of your manufacturing infrastructure in space. Stellaris should use this approach and not implement limits other than that.

 

[Galleblære]

I think there needs to be a concept of "war tradition" and "practical experience" in the game. One of the problems with many 4x games, is that once you reach a certain tech level or economic level, you can suddenly decide to divert 100% of your economy and industry to the production of war ships with no penalties.

I think there should be an incentive to have a certain fleet size in order to avoid min-maxing like that. With an existing fleet, you could gain war tradition, maybe various engineering perks to ship systems and ship classes you have actually built (to reflect engineers and scientists solving practical problems that you would not stumble over just by looking at a blueprint; you actually have to build the thing)

 

[LittleJP]

Go back to HoI IV with your naval force debate.

Here we are in space and space navies will work differently than our traditional navies. Artificially created limits are an laughable excuse to model space navies correctly. If a spacefaring civilization decides to industrialize their entire solar system what sense do "limits" have? None.

Think about it: we have trillions of tons of resources in our solar system alone. If a super dreadnought needs 3-7 million tons to construct and roughly 10k tons maintainence material per year you still can build millions of them and operate them, if you have the yards to build and maintain them. So, money and resources should NOT be the problem.

Your limits are your yards and their capacity. Aurora has a nice system to manage the maximum starship output of your empire. The more yards and the bigger the yards (both, tonnage and slipways) are, the more and bigger ships you can build. But have in mind that you have to increase your maintainenace facilities as well. Pretty much as in real life and ocean going navies the size and quantity of your space navy is limited by the size and quantity of your manufacturing infrastructure in space. Stellaris should use this approach and not implement limits other than that.

Well, the rate at which you can get raw resources (yay vicky 2 RGOs?) and workforce required to maintain resource extraction and extraction should also have something. Also, the number of officers you can train based on your Empire's level of education and manpower to crew the ships should be another factor.

So, you're basically limited by population, manufacturing capacity, and education. Cost should also be another factor, since you're taking x amount away from the civilian economy.

 

[aruon]

i think it will be a mix of both cost and limits. while the costs for upkeep of capital starships works a little different from oceangoing ships that have to deal with everything up to and including the salt water they traverse, i'd say the real permanant limit is how much of a strain on your income they are, even when mothballed and depressurized.