Delete

Yah, I believe that's been brought up before. My question is does the increased revenue from doing this offset the cost of the starbases, plus the maintenence of all the ships required to protect all the starbases?

Although, it is probably better to build the freighter and establish the trade route before building the starbases.

Then you just build the bases along the route as the freighter chugs along, and you don't have to worry about 'figuring out where the path is going to be' since it will be clearly marked.

You talking about something like this?   

The one you have arrowed is how all econ bases should be - exactly on the trade route so the freighter is in its sphere of influence for the longest time.

Those were placed there before the trade route. most of the lower ones are boosting my tech cap. and manu cap., which are the homeworld(manu) and the one to the left of it(tech). I built it kinda playing around toward the end of a game. Was building fully upgraded influence bases and gifting them to the Terrans to keep the destination planet from flipping to me alittle later in the game.

To help me with the trade route bonuses, I look for a pair of somewhat shabby PQ planets that can fall under the sphere of infulence of one economic starbase. I then build every trade good on these two planets and, of course deploy all my freighters from them. As my economy streghthens, I can buy new trade goods as soon as they are available. Since trade routes tend to merge, after I have established all my routes, I can usually put a second starbase on a better location that simultaneously covers all the trade routes.

Why? There's no connection between the planet a trade good is built on and your revenue from trade. Trade goods aren't really even traded, unless you choose to do so in the diplomacy screen.

I'll step in and answer even though I didn't make the comment. I think it has more to do with the 'realism' of having a dedicated 'trade' planet or two. I myself do this, even though I know that something such as Harmony Crystals is not actually being 'placed' on the freighter and ferried off for trade. It just adds another small layer of depth to the game, more customized than functional. Did I do okay jangerel or was my reason different than yours?

The amount of time the freighter spends within the sphere of influence has no bearing on the amout you get as a bonus... its either 10%, 30% or 60%. the trade route only has to touch it.




I like that idea. But since you get the most out of trade routes based on their length and the planet of origin (not sure if its based on population or PQ or whatever). In so instances the planet where you would build the trade items isnt going to be this planet. I usually wind up building them on an industrial world. even though I'm losing a factory at least it will be constucted quicker. same with the wonders.

Here's where most of you guys get into the game and the stats waaaaaay more than I do. My main reason for researching the 'trade' items in the first place usually isn't for the bonus that comes with the item... it's because I am an item/tech whore!!! You know, I just want to have 'everything' before the AI, whether I need it or not. True, I can't play this way beyond the Normal difficulty, but lately I've been playing just to have some fun and try new strats. Lost more than I won doing this but who cares, it's been quite entertaining. But as you pointed out, obviously, using a planet as the themed "Bartertown" usually isn't going to reap you maximum benefits/efficiency, especially when trying to get the most out of your trade.

Sorry it took so long to get back CornhuskerMac. Let me explain myself. I try to focus planets for specific jobs (tech, shipyard, economy, political and trade). I don't like to waste spaces by planting a trade good on a tech world, once they're there you can't move them. I to try place my trade planets in a remote corner of my empire to get the most money for route length. I balance that with planet quality; however it wouldn't make sense in some situations. By sending all the freighters from those two planets, I reap the following benefits:
1) All the trade routes converge, taking fewer ships to defend and generating similar predictable revenues.
2) Placing one star base to cover both planets will also cover all my routes.
3) I can hit each foreign planet only twice, avoiding trade deficits. Trade deficits are bad, the AI doesn't like it.
Trade is more economical this way. It would not be as effective to send freighters from 9 of my worlds to Altaria.

Economy drives the military. By keeping the all the eggs in a hard to reach basket I create two very low maintenance worlds (check how much it costs to maintain a trade good) generating revenue to fund quite a few worlds, which will be very hard to take and hold (unless they're my last two). An enemy won't destroy the colony and they can't demolish the trade goods to make it more defensible.
And even though production on these worlds STINKS (I only put one factory, which eventually goes away), after it takes off, I have that couple of 10,000 BC to outright buy the new trade goods as I develop them.

And that's my reasoning. It's just a plan to lower the expense of maintaining a strong economy.

Not true. The bonus to the money earnt is applyed for every turn that the freighter is inside that sphear of influence, once it is outside it wares off. So therefore if you build the starbase so that the freighter is in the sphear of influence for the longest posible time, you get more money from it and it is a much better investment.

OK, so there really is no connection between the trade goods and the trade routes, it's just that you're using the same planet(s) for both things. Makes sense!

BTW, what makes you think AI doesn't like trade deficits? That's the first I've heard of it. If it's true, it would be another factor to take into consideration, one which I've never thought about. I always thought AI sent most of its traders to the strongest in the game, with no regard for how the trade between races will be balanced.

I'm at "work"   right now, so I can't look it up. But I do remember reading that you should avoid trade deficits, that it makes you less popular. I think it was on a quarterly report that described trade. I'll find it and let you know where it was.

Or it could be that this game is just making me paranoid. I played quite a bit this past weekend. I finally won one long session Friday afternoon. I lost real quick to the Drengin on Saturday. And in the game I'm playing now, the Drath don't like me at all. It's not looking good. I had nightmares about the dang game all last night!

Wow, I hardly read the quarterly reports, so that might be right. More likely is that you're paranoid, though! Dreams about Drengin and Drath, man I envy you!

What the..... You have dreams about galciv. Man thats scary. I like this game alot but come on!

For my part, I usually consolidate all my trade routes into one or two close paths that I then stud with Econ starbases. The starbases are placed for optimal multiple coverage - large areas of overlap between adjacent starbases boosts the trade income like nobody's business, and the effect on the nearby planets' manufacturing isn't too shabby either.

Since I overlap the bases, placing them all on optimal lines is less of an issue. I optimize the bases by weighing both route coverage and planet coverage.

In a previous DL game I experiemented with different configurations for trade income. I created a political capital on a class 15 world with a capital, and diplomatic centers. I built a starport created a freighter and then built over it with another d-center. I tried the same with my economy capital world, using stockmarkets, and my tech world using labs. I also used my manufacturing capital world to compare differences. All the worlds except the manufacturing capital world and my tech world were population 18B to 20B. I experiemented using various employment settings for military,social, and tech. What I discovered (in general terms) is that trade income on my economic capital was greatly influenced by my social employment setting, trade income on my tech world was greatly influenced by my tech employment setting, and trade on my industrial world seemed affected by my military employment setting. Each one had dramatic effects, even beyond population factors. However, the industrial/economic world never broke even and at higher military employment settings the return was neglible. What impressed me the most however, was that my tech capital, which had only 6B population produced more trade income than my economic capital, despite the fact that my economic capital world (altaris) was farther from the trade world and had 20B population loaded with stockmarkets. What that means is that trade is dependent on how many shields/beakers/hammers your world produces. My tech employment setting was at 80%, 10% social, 10% military. When measuring my economy capital world, my military/tech employment was 10%/10% each with social employment at 80%. In both my tech trade experiment and my economy capital experiment the additional income was sufficient to exceed my military capital/industrial world total maintenance (about 700 to 800 shields unfocused + buildings). I haven't tested this in DA yet so I don't know how much, if any is transferrable. I would love to test my theory on a 17k to 20k tech world with 16 starbases to see what my results would be.

Addendum: Economic/Civ Cap Altaris PQ13 pop 18B
Political Cap World PQ21 pop 20B
Military Cap World PQ17 pop 6B
Tech Cap World PQ13 pop 6B

Q:Which has a greater impact on trade income shield/beaker/hammer production or population/improvements?

A:In general production is the driving factor, with improvements secondary and population a close third for DL.

I've started a mod to study trade in DA. My first experience is a 5bc per turn maintenance fee for starbases as the Terran. What's wrong with this picture??? Thats 433bc per 52 turns (1 game year) which means that a starbase placed for maximum income (i.e. 17 pc coverage) needs an average trade route return at or above 26 bc (assuming a maximum trade bonus of +60%). This also affects bonus production for worlds within the sphere of influence. That is to say, every starbase used strickly for bonus tp/iu's must produce a minimum of 37 bonus units to be cost effective. How this translates is that on a medium or smaller map, inorder to test trade I have literally had to create a PQ39 and several PQ32 worlds to support the infrastructure to test my trade hypothesis(something a regular game would never have), since insufficient worlds are available at abundant settings to support the required infrastructure (and I'm not going to spend a year creating a test senario on a large or greater map). The purpose of this experiment is to determine the DA trade mechanics. Although it is too premature to make a firm judgement - at this point, the initial data seems to favor a negative judgement, in that the entire trade tech tree and the supertrader ability appear to be useless for medium or smaller maps as income, especially when one considers the average income a trade route would need to generate to be cost effective. It is taking me substantial time and effort to mod in pre-existing AI trade routes and starbases, as well as planets, and improvements inorder to study this one aspect of the game. I will report on my results when I complete my study.

I have regular dreams about being killed, not about games...XD

Sorry if the numbers seem odd, its 260 bc for starbase maintenance at 5bc per turn for 1 game year. With a starbase trade bonus of 60% a trade route needs to make 433 bc for a year, or 26 bc average per turn, inorder to break even. Sorry about my confusing explanation above. Got rushed and did a poor explanation it seems.

The use of a starbase with both trade and industry modules positioned on a trade route that makes enough money to break even is equal to the maintenance of the starbase plus the cost of the bonus production. At 5 bc per week, that's 260 bc in expenses plus 1bc per every 2 IUs or tp produced. Since 3 is an odd number, I use multiples of 6 for easier calculation (i.e. 2 mp, 2ep, 2tp at a cost of 3bc), therefore 36 bonus production costs 18 bc. That's 936 bc per game year (52 weeks) plus the maintenance cost for the starbase at 260 bc per game year. Thus the total cost is 1196 bc per game year, or 23 bc per game turn. To recoup this expense from trade, the starbase needs to make 1196 bc for the entire time a freighter is within its sphere of influence(a maximum of 17 pc's [8+1+8] or about 71 bc per turn). If your starbase is maxed out at 60% trade bonus, then 71 bc equals 71/1.6 or ~45 bc average income per turn to break EVEN on your maintenance and production expenses. Otherwise, a starbase needs to produce 260 bc worth of free bonus production, i.e. 5 units per turn. This doesn't include the construction costs for upgrading which adds additional expense. To include that and break even within 1 year you really need to produce around 37 bc bonus production per turn for a 41 module economic star base. That includes production cost for the constructors and installation expenses totalled. if you've been reading this post and understanding what your experiencing is a diminishing ROI (return On Investment) for the priviledge of building and owning an economic starbase. My investigation is to determine if a home world can produce sufficient trade income to justify the expense of researching the required techs for trade and economic starbases as well as the cost of using them, and at what point there is a ROI, if any(i.e. how many planetary improvements are required by type, and at what labor ratios.)

OK, I found out. I found out this is a lot more complex than I thought.

Trade can affect popularity. However the information is not on a quaterly report. I still don't understand the relationship between trade and foreign relations and popularity, because it is not simple.

I have observed the following factors that I think impact popularity and the profitability of the trade route:

- Alignment affects the impact trade has.
- Isolationism trait affects the impact.

The Yor didn't like me, they had just lost a war to me, so I sent a freighter to start trade. Initially our relations improved to neutral. I adopted good as my alignment and the relations dropped off to "cool." I dropped the route later to look for something more profitable and the relations climed to neutral. This is only a recent example from playing over the weekend (DA, normal).

I have also made the following observation, that no matter the route length the initial report is always that the route will generate 11 bc per week.

Break out your notepads and keep up with what slabster is working on.

It's been a little frustrating trying to accurately measure starbase trade returns at this point. The AI likes to attack the trade recipient inorder to destroy the routes. This is particularly true with minor races. I was attempting to create economic starbases at multiple trade junctions only to have the AI destroy the trade routes I was using before I could fully upgrade the starbase itself. This type of active dynamic doesn't lend itself to study very well. I'll have to create a minor race deep in my own territory to study this further.