Fwurg

[Dragonmaster352]

If I remember correctly (which I may not, to be honest) the problem with this tech was that it promotes spamming outposts and upgrading them. While the fact that outposts have gotten far more expensive then before, them being stupidly cheap originally, has already reduced the effectiveness of the tech, it still needs a revamp. So I had an idea for that.

Instead of making anything cheaper, I was wondering if it might be an idea to let one trade fleet pick up and supply goods to multiple outposts.

A special project is applied to each outpost the trade fleet would pass by on its route. The trade fleet must have enough capacity to carry all the goods transported times the trade factor over the entire route. The trade factor is calculated normally with the exception that the home sector is counted twice, once for departure and once for return.

An example:

Say the ACA (home sector: 7 -4) has an outpost in sector 6 -5 and one in sector 6 -4. 7 -4 has a quality 2 hyperspace lane, the other sectors have no hyperspace lane. The trade factor would be 3.0.

Visual representation of route taken:


The trade fleet picks up 600 products from each outpost and ships 120 products to each outpost as upkeep. The capacity the trade fleet would need is: (600*2+120*2)*3.0=4320 .

Thoughts?

[Gerben]

Mmm.. I think I like this idea. Will consider it some more..

[Brend]

I really like this concept!

Is the idea that the route always form a closed loop? If so, what about the situation where the second outpost would be in 6 -3 (that is, directly above the first one). That would mean that the trade factor is 5.0 = 0.5+1.0+1.0 +1.0+1.0+0.5 because it has to go to the farthest outpost and back again.

This seems to be in contrast with the special rules for trade fleets with regards to the Outpost:

As a special case, a trade fleet on a route between your home system and the outpost is allowed to take goods in two directions. This is a special case that only applies to one or more simple trade fleets flying directly between your home system and the outpost.

Maybe we can simplify the technology's impact based on this special case rule. I see two options (but have not done any work on their game balance, or costs):

1. Seeing how the normal rules for outposts allow for a two-way transfer, we could make it so that this improvement simply allows the fleet to fly to-and-from routes for multiple adjacent outposts;
2. Alternatively, we could make it so that the fleet can visit multiple outposts in the same Sector. This makes a lot of sense with regards to the amount of outposts that can be in a sector. The trade factor of that sector would count once for each outpost.

Since both alternatives have merit my preference would be to use the second alternative for the replacement for NCC. The rationale for the in-sector chaining first is the scale of a sector: logistically it is easier to fly to multiple locations in the same sector.

The first alternative can be a follow-up technology based on NCC.

[Dragonmaster352]

Since both alternatives have merit my preference would be to use the second alternative for the replacement for NCC. The rationale for the in-sector chaining first is the scale of a sector: logistically it is easier to fly to multiple locations in the same sector.

The first alternative can be a follow-up technology based on NCC.

I like that idea.

Is the idea that the route always form a closed loop? If so, what about the situation where the second outpost would be in 6 -3 (that is, directly above the first one). That would mean that the trade factor is 5.0 = 0.5+1.0+1.0 +1.0+1.0+0.5 because it has to go to the farthest outpost and back again.

I haven't really thought of that. Perhaps the two-way method that outposts currently have would be more appropriate. That means if the 7 -4, 6-5 and 6 -4 example would have a trade factor of 2.5 and the 7 -4, 6-5 and 6 -3 example a trade factor of 3.5. That just raises one question with me: What would the trade factor be if instead of 6 -4 or 6 -3 it would be 7 -3? Would it be 3.0 or 2.5?

I think it would be 2.5 from a point of view where each sector travelled through is counted once. I don't really thing that is OP but it might be.