The smaller the planet, the better?

[barakek]

but a larger area is harder to defend if your trying to defend say 1 acre of land you only need say 10 men for example but if your defendin 100 acres you not only need more men but you also need to buy APC's and air support to make sure they can react to the deployment of enemy troops let alone how much extra it will cost to establish supply lines ect

i think the idea of increasing cost with planet size makes sense BUT i think the real problem is the lack of power behind the defensive wepons themselvs this would not be such an isue if planetery defences were stronger

[Thufir_Hawat]

UGHHHHHHH

If you want jutification think of it as even though you are buying so many weapons they need to be more powerfull to cover the larger area of the sphere equally so are more expensive.

Forum designed it where there is a stepped system when the planets start off tiny to small.

I dont know how many people found normal planets or if all finds are tiny to small?


Probably all the larger planets we see are from people experimenting with the new toys.

[Fenrir Oorgata]

each weapon... no matter the planet size, does the same damage, adds the same amount of power to your defense. As the planet gets larger, yes you do need to protect a larger area, but taht is why you have to buy more weapons, the weapons should have the same capability...

as to the beretta van analogy...
Considering that these weapons are more than likely land based turrets... you don't have a van... they don't move... ^_^ yes part of your planet would be undefended... but making the weapons more expensive doesn't make them cover that space any easier... it makes it harder to cover more space... as oppsed to be the same to cover more space....

larger planet merely means that it would be defended less adequetly... but that shouldn't mean an increase in price per weapon

[Denny Crane]

Warfare is complex. You can't narrow it down to a linear relationship no matter how simple it makes things for you. Both sides will keep going round and round because warfare just has that many angles to look at it from. Can't you just not care?

[Fenrir Oorgata]

actually... now that I think about it... if you have a larger planet... don't you have more people to work on production?

so technically shouldn't prices be down?
plus shouldn't your bonus go up because of more people to work on it?

[Groupthink]

The larger planets use the same weapons, therefore the damage stays the same.

Unfortunately, in order to defend the much larger surface area, the weapons are required to be mounted on faster and faster mobile platforms. This increase is speed is what drives the price up.

We cannot do anything about the price, but this Saturday we're having free burgers and balloons for the kids...so come on down and buy your planetary defences from the dealership that cares.

[Fenrir Oorgata]

The larger planets use the same weapons, therefore the damage stays the same.

Unfortunately, in order to defend the much larger surface area, the weapons are required to be mounted on faster and faster mobile platforms. This increase is speed is what drives the price up.

We cannot do anything about the price, but this Saturday we're having free burgers and balloons for the kids...so come on down and buy your planetary defences from the dealership that cares.

I'll be there

but wouldn't faster mobile platforms increase the abilities of the weapons? they stay the same through each planet size... very nice attempt... but still looking for adequet reasoning...

[axemaster]

Aren't you guys arguing the wrong point? I don't have a problem with the various differences in cost and all the little technichal issues - I'm having an equality problem. My point is this: Guy gets planet, puts on lots of guns, makes it bigger. Second guy attacks and takes planet (at big cost to his MS), tries to build defences, and finds it incredibly more expensive to do so - effectively destroying the point of bothering to attack in the first place since he will never be able to hold it. It would be sooooooooo much better if the costs were cumulative, or if upon capture a planet reverted to "small". These technical things you're talking about are irrelevent. This isn't a real world, it's a game - and the point of a game is to have strategy and fun, not realism.

[Thufir_Hawat]

Exactly the point, it should be more difficult if you just stole it. and the cost are not bad on the MS is you succeed. But the guy you just stole it from has just lost many billions.

Remember also you don't have to upgrade the planet like the last guy did improving the bonuses, so in the end depending how much they improved it you may still be saving Naq.

If it you dont like it then go search for a small undefended one and build it up yourself, if you think it is cheaper.