Trade terror star - a vagabonding cash cow?

Are you sure the starbase will offset its own cost? 5 constructors + starbase maintenance + 5000(!)bc for terror star itself is a lot. You should check how much the trade routes actually give you back to see how long is needed for the terrorstar investment to pay off.
Now, since it moves at only 1 parsec/month, it's probably the most convenient protection you can afford. Grouping all minifreighters together is probably a good idea too. As for the sensor drone, unless you check the route every turn, I don't think it will be very useful.

Well, assume that Walldorf has "follow ships" on...but I agree that the ROI on the terror star is probably awful. Now if you're going to alpha strike the trade partner when the TS gets there...

That's a Trojan horse of sorts:
(Altarian leader) "Hey, look, our trade partner brought us a new big huge freighter ship! Let's open the gates and take it into our solar system."
(Cassandra) "Maybe we shouldn't. I find this big freighter terrifying."
(Altarian leader) "Noooo! Look, there isn't a single warship in sight. They all retreated long ago and we made peace since."
(Terror Star) "BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOM!"

#2 by Citizen Hermann the Lombard

I assume 5 trade routes with an average value of 300 BC each. => 750 BC additional profit (50%).

Maintenance for a terror star is 10 BC (according to JavaScout's page, right? For two Overlords it's 50 BC.

Building costs are
Terror Star 5.000
Two Overlords 3.600
22 Constructors 4.400 (1 + 9 Mil., 9 Dev. 3 Trade)
= 13.000

13.000 / ( 750 - 60 ) = 18,84

Surplus in 19 months. That's pretty good or did I miss anything?

This calculation does not even count the diplomatic value of the additional trade and the deterrence of the military power this fleet has.

My major fear is that a neighbor of the route gets pissed off by the terror star and declares war on me.

Unfortunately I can't continue my game before the next weekend.

nice theory but impractical. I am finding short, straight trade routes with minors and multiple trade starbases in each sector to be quick to initiate, easy to deffend, and highly profitable.

#5 by Veteran Maxtipherous

Oh, you found out that I'm a physicist Please tell my why you think that. When you share your wisdom I can skip my tests planned for the weekend

I did not get any facts yet. You are right that it is more micro management. But several trade star bases are not more effective. A star base costs 17 constructors when you add all defenses and a minimum on military enhancements (i.e. speed, repair and defense). This is 3.700 plus 10 BC maintenance. I assume that you go through four sectors. That's 14.800 and 40 BC maintenance in comparison with 9.400 and 10 BC maintenance. When you use multiple star bases per sector, you can simply multiply the numbers.

But the most important thing is that long trade routes create much more income.

Thus I would bet that it is worth a try. Unless you can give me some counter-arguments I don't have yet.

I like straight trade routes as well, it gives you some kind of speed way on the map

But this is the fascination of GC you can always try something different. This is why this is the second game ever I bought for the full price. The first one was GC2 Gold
[Message Edited]

I think it sounds like a great idea (hate the micormanagement though)

I would reconsider the overlords and just build full defence on the terrorstar. Your trade partner probablt wont like those overlords in his sector.

Hmm...other than having to have all the freighters arrive on the same turn, assuming that the TS and the mini-freighters have the same speed, there isn't that much micromanagement (assuming a straight-line trade route). You can have the TS on auto-pilot and click once near the destination planet. [Not *on* the destination planet, for very obvious reasons!]



Not to mention the neighbors as your innocent caravan trundles past! And not to mention the TS itself, if Stardock modifies the code so that the AI perceives a terror star as a threat!! But we are talking about the existing sim.



At the risk of putting words in Maxti's virtual mouth, what he has in mind is a short (perhaps two sector) route, most likely with a minor, with concentrated trade SBs. He believes the ROI is better than the long trade route, where the mini-freighters will spend so much time in sectors without multiple trade SBs. Easy to defend the route with the home fleet, and easy to preserve the minor by surrounding it with drones and scouts. I believe he's getting trade income of about 5000bc per turn this way.

I haven't been trying this because I've been making my routes with the majors for diplomatic purposes. I'm fomenting war to break up major-to-major trade routes, intending that they end up with almost all their trade going to me, making it much less likely that they will attack me. In the "lightning alpha strike" games I've been taking a bonus of +2 trade routes to facilitate this strategy. My trade route income doesn't get over 500 bc per turn, but that is more than adequate in this strategy, even though that is typically the largest part of my income. On a small map maso it's enough income that I can typically buy all but one of the terror stars without going into debt, and I only go into debt on the last one. -- HtL

unfortunately your numbers are flawed. One-time costs of 5BC per starbase are basically irrelevent considered against the duration of the traderoute. The only costs that need to be considered are maintenance.

here are my numbers from the thread "trade starbases are a farce"

~~~~~~~~~
start with 8 trade routes to a minor 2 sectors away.
[when the trade route is initiated the popup] says estimate is 7BC per month
(stats say trade bonus is 50%, economics 176%)
trade route screen reports all routes worth 29BC
Each little trader says 29BC
Total trade revenue reported as 544BC
Saved Game

killed all trade routes
Total trade revenue reported as 312bc
(I assume 312 is trade from other races to me)
312+(8*29)=544

Loaded Game
Build 3 trade center starbases in each of three sectors.
Maintenance 90BC
Trade route screen and little traders show value as 70bc
total trade revenue reported as 872bc
312+(8*70)=872

so 90bc maintenance gives 328 increase in revenue
for 238 profit, or 264% ROI

I have easily achieved 3000bc/mo using this method, wich is more or less my max sending traders across the map, with much less effort.
~~~~~~~
The overriding issue with long trade routes is IMHO when they are lost for whatever reason your entire economy crashes. The secondary issue is how long it takes to start generating revenue. The terciary issue the micromanagement required to implement fixes to the first two uissues *wink*

Hey, I am not saying your idea isn't clever and unique and probably very valuable -- just that it would be a pain in the starbase. hehe

Cheers!

#8 by Citizen Hermann the Lombard

Yes, I guess it is not a good idea to auto route war ships. Thus this seems to be a disadvantage since you have micromanagement, i.e. stop the warships before the fleet reaches foreign territors. By the way, what does the AI take as an offence? Own territory according to influence or according to the localizations of their planets?

#8 by Citizen Hermann the Lombard

That's what I hope. But shouldn't the auto pilot route be the same as the trade ship route? Thus this would be another advantage. You are not bound to straight lines.

#8 by Citizen Hermann the Lombard

Yes, that's what I understood. I just made the calculations for one base per sector, but you can easily send several terror stars on the way as well. Thus you can stock up the effects as well. You can combine the advantages of short straight routes (same way for both directions, good to defend, good trade star coverage, stable income) with the long range trade routes (higher income, more flexibility). 5000BC should not be a problem.
[Message Edited]

Hi Maxtipherous,

our post just overlapped.

#9 by Veteran Maxtipherous

I just argued against the 5kBC argument from "#1 by Citizen LDiCesare"

You have three sectors, thus you need three times the star bases. Thus maintanance is 90 BC against 30BC when you use three terror stars. Thus when you use the same short route and the same ROI calculation it's 993% ROI (30/298)

Hey, why not combine the two methods and stack a fleet of nine terror stars wandering in your short three sectors straight route :notsure:


The first issue is basically the same for all income sources, isn't it? The second issue is indeed a disadvantage. But my initial scenario is that you alread have a stack of freighters near by your desired trade partner. You can park a stack of 5 constructors or a trade star base at your home planet. When you suddenly loose a bunch of routes you can replace them all at once and rush build the missing constructors.


Wow, that's all I wanted to hear


I apologize, but I didn't get this one.

Umm...what about the cost of 4 constructors per starbase? That's a big opportunity cost unless you have military production going to waste.

I've gone the 9 terror star route and i was pulling in between 20k-30k per turn, i sold all my techs around to put up the starting capital to build them, but once i got it going i was unstoppable, i was producing the constructors at a phenomenal rate in my core worlds and i maxed the defense and trade on all of the terrorstars and from the gitgo i was rolling in the cash

The Terrible Trade Juggernaut!!!

That old trick...

#13 by Citizen haskellal

Hi haskellal, this sounds impressive. But this should even increase significanlty when the mini frighters are farther away from their home planet. How many routes did you create on the same turn?

Did you have a lot of micro management, i.e. does the autopilot use the same route as the mini frighters?

Unfortunately I still didn't got time to test it by myself. Don't get a wife and children when you love your game

Yes, it works!

I love it when a theory can be verified in the experiment ...

In the year were the great epic war began I killed all my remaining rootes and started ten trade roots at once to the remaining minor. The root goes throug six sectors and is neither a straight line nor fully diagonal. (Thus the worst case for statianary trade star bases.) The mini frighters appeared in the same turn at my starting planet.

I started with my first terror star on top of the mini frighters and just auto pilot it to the minor planet (or better just one step before LOL ).

It took the same way. No micro management at all!

You just have to send it back when it reached it's target. On long routes this can take nearly forever and you can't forget it because the game sets the focus on your fleet when it reached it's destination.

I added three other TS and thus my total income from my own routes oscillated from 1000 to 4000 BC. And only 40 BC maintenance.

You still can get better results with more and longer routes to better planets (this minor planet wasn't really a economic giant.) And you can always add some more TS whenever you like.

Just don't add any speed assist modules. The mini frighters react on them but the terror stars don't. That's a pitty.

Unless terror stars are rated as a thread by the AI they are a great alternative to Maxtipherous's straight short lines. It just depends on the lay out of the card and if you already have terror stars available.

Don't forget that UP can sometimes ban Terrors Stars...

Terror stars are not considerd a threat by the AI if they have no cultural modules. I don't know for sure the AI would complain about a terror star with culture, but it sure does complain about regular starbases with the same modules.



Short straight lines can be setup within the first 3-4 years of the game. Setting up a terror star trade route will take at least 10 years if you research straight to terror stars.



The UP bans the construction of new terror stars, it doesn't remove existing one, at least I don't think so.

~SDC~

I think also that it is the case. But it could be the issue of the first meeting of the UP and the outcome depends mainly of the votes of the "good guys" (who ban it) against the votes of the "evil guys".
And for the first UP meeting, there are good chance that the outcome will be against the resolution you vote for.
[Message Edited]

#18 by Citizen JaxomCA - 1/23/2004 6:39:32 AM

Not only cultural modules are considered a thread but military as well. Hence I don't know how TCs are handled. Does anybody know?

Well I know for sure the AIs don't complain about trade only starbases in their sectors. They also don't complain about plain terror stars in their sector. So an educated guess would be the AIs will not complain about a terror star with only trade modules if it enters their sector.

~SDC~

Yes I know. The question raised by JaxomCA was about TCs with culture modules. I meant that I don't know if TCs with culture and military modules are considered a thread or if TCs are generally ignored.

I've had wars started when my Terror Stars accidently ventured in the wrong sector. They do not ignore them.

They do ignore them when they have no extra modules.

~SDC~

So it's OK if you only have the harmless star-destroying modules, eh?