Another attempt to bring extraneous discussion back here from buildings public review II...
Geoff the Medio wrote:
So we need to make big limitations on the balancing that can be done on ships, so that the restriction that was put into place so that you can't build something too powerful too fast still works, so that the system of shared production doesn't lead to huge imbalances... This level of "fixing the fixes" seems to indicate that the system if flawed and that an alternative rule would work better.
It's not like that at all. It is the same kind of decision you make when you say, "Right, this ship has these stats, what is a reasonable price?". Then, you work out the cost.
My concern is that, in order to make the "X / turn for Y turns" system (designed to prevent death stars from being built in one turn) work for multiple smaller ships that take less time individually, you've added the requirement that small ships must be less effective for their cost than big ships. This decision is not based on "what is a reasonable pirce for a ship with these stats"... it is based on "the player can't be allowed to build a whole lot of little ships quickly, since that would circumvent our solution to prevent building too much too fast in one place"
The same thing exists for local build queues - you decide how much a ship should cost given its benefits.
I'm not arguing for individual planet build queues or against pooled production anymore. I've accepted pooled production, since that's what the concensus seems to want. What I'm saying now is that the suggested fix for imbalances due to pooled production, namely the "X / turn for Y turns" does not fully fix this problem, and that your "fix for the fix", namely that many small ships must be inherently less useful than a single large, is also flawed.
Note that I'm not arguing against using "X / turn for Y turns"... I want to add
limits on spending at a particular shipyard to this system. I think this would achieve the goals of limiting imbalances caused by pooled production better than the alternative (weak ships suck)
I agree that, regardless of the system we use, we'll need to balance ships.
There's nothing about my statements that states we can't make small hulls have an inherent advantage that larger hulls lack. Just a simple rule applies to all these decisions: you should get what you pay for. No more, no less.
If a small fighter has certain advantages, then his cost should reflect that. This is true regardless of our build system.
I didn't say you said that small ships couldn't have some advantages big ships lack, but you did say this:
Regarding the 400 small fighters vs 1 ship:
If 400 ships take 4000RP and 2 turns, while a deathstar takes 4000RP and 10 turns, then the answer is obvious - a deathstar should be superior to 400 small fighters. We will balance the ships for the game we make.
This proves my point. Your system was designed to make the "4000RP" that go into building a death star take 10 turns, meaning 400RP/turn. If you can, instead, spend 2000RP/turn for 2 turns and get 400 small ships, then you've just avoided the limitation... now you can spend 2000RP/turn.
This isn't so bad in of itself, except when you consider balancing issues. It is, I believe, necessary to balance things primarily in terms of "RP" -> things with the same "RP" cost need to be about equally effective (not necessarily evenly matched in a one-on-one fight, but in general)
Turns can help a bit, but unless you need the ship right now
, turns don't mean much. It needs to be equally "combat effective" to spend 4000RP, no matter what sort of ship class you spend it on. If both are 4000RP, but as you say "A deathstar" is "superior to 400 small fighters", then there's no, or very limited, opportunity to balance deathsars and small fighters. (ex: with a third option, "cruisers", that with "death stars" and "fighters" makes a rock/paper/scissors triangle. make one option better, and the balance system breaks down).
Thus, I suggest limiting PP / turn at a shipyard.