In war, whether it's in real life or in video games, the issue of quality vs quantity is often a concern. Is it better to have fewer but better units or to swarm the enemy with lots of cheaper but worse units? While Starmade currently favors only quality rather than quantity because the player can currently only bring one ship into battle (his own), I believe that the quantity vs quality debate will become real once the AI allows us to bring other ships with us.
I am going to explain why I think quantity is inferior to quality not just in Starmade, but basically any video game where units have to be replaced at an economic cost after being destroyed.
Basically the argument of those who are pro-quantity is that it is a more economical way of waging war and is a different strategy from favoring quality units. You don't get units that are as good, but you get lots and lots of them! And should they be destroyed, so what? You just produce a new army of them to take their place! Why build 10 X-wings when you can build 30 Tie-fighters?
Except that there are a number of holes in this doctrine.
First, let's start by taking a look at the claim that a quantity doctrine is more economical than the quality one. Yes, it is true that a single mediocre ship or unit is cheaper and easier to produce than a better and a more expensive one, but if this means that more of them have to be produced in order to stand a chance against even one stronger unit then it doesn't have to be cheaper or faster to build an army of comparable power that can defeat another smaller but more expensive army. Well ok, but while it may not be cheaper it's still not more expensive right? You just get more ships for the same cost. It's just a different strategy which is neither better nor worse than the quality doctrine right? I disagree.
There is one massive problem that pro-quantity people forget: That a part of the economic cost of war is not only to build units, but also to replace destroyed units with new ones...
Because units that are build with a quality over quantity mindset are valuable, those who own them are expected to keep them alive and make the most of them. All the while, those who favor a quantity doctrine are expected to treat their units like cannon fodder and have little regard for their safety. This means the later is more likely to end up paying an economic cost to rebuild his units more often.
Then there is also the problem of the firepower and defense of quantity units being split between a larger number of more easily individually destroyed ships/units. I will create a scenario to explain what I mean:
Let's say that you have 2000 firepower and 5000 shieldpower which 2 rival enemies can spend however they want to. Let's call them A and B. Let's say that A decides to invest all of the shield and firepower into one single powerful ship, while B decides to favor the quantity doctrine and builds 4 individually weaker ships and then splits the firepower and shielding between them. Then let's say that the sides fight a battle. Because A has invested all of the power into one single ship, B cannon beat him or make his weaker without taking down that one single ship. However, because B split his power between 4 different ships which are individually weaker to destroy, the moment A has destroyed even a single of B's ships then B's power has been cut by full 25%! This means reducing the overall power of B is much easier for A than it is for B to cut the overall power of A because A has invested all of his power into a single tough unit.
What this means, is that if 2 sides have the same level of overall firepower and defense, then the side that has concentrated this power into a fewer number of ships will by default have the advantage over the other side even if the overall level of firepower and defense is the same.
Besides not giving advantage in combat to the side that favors quantity, this also means that while stronger units may be more expensive to produce at first, those who made the stronger units can continue to use them for much longer because they are more able to survive battle after battle while the cheaper units on the other side have to be replaced over and over at regular rates. This means that in the long term, it's actually the quantity doctrine that is more expensive and economically wasteful.
There is also one other big problem with favoring a quantity doctrine, which is the poor utilization of space and supplies. Regardless of if your unit is cheap or expensive, it has to be able to move between places at a speed and rate that is acceptable during times of war. Fighting isn't the only part of war, logistics are so as well. And this is where a quantity doctrine falls flat on it's face. A single poorly trained soldier still has to be fed just like a highly trained one, and both take up the same amount of space in a transport. And yet, the former brings limited value to an army while the later brings lots. If you want more poorly trained and cheap soldiers on the battlefield then you need to invest in more food and more transports, which defeats the point in the first place, with the end result being that you aren't saving money and just end up with worse soldiers in your army. Though I admit that in video games this can depend largely on the game since not every game has the same kind of supply/resource management. An argument could be made that in the case of Starmade ships taking other ships into battle (carriers) aren't taking proper advantage of their space if they are being used to transport mediocre ships, and that it doesn't make sense to invest in jump drives for poor quality fighters who will just get destroyed anyway.
And then there is the issue of large armies having to fight in a limited space. I assume you have seen the movie 300? Yea...
I hope this explained my point
Feel free to give counter-arguments if you disagree.
I am going to explain why I think quantity is inferior to quality not just in Starmade, but basically any video game where units have to be replaced at an economic cost after being destroyed.
Basically the argument of those who are pro-quantity is that it is a more economical way of waging war and is a different strategy from favoring quality units. You don't get units that are as good, but you get lots and lots of them! And should they be destroyed, so what? You just produce a new army of them to take their place! Why build 10 X-wings when you can build 30 Tie-fighters?
Except that there are a number of holes in this doctrine.
First, let's start by taking a look at the claim that a quantity doctrine is more economical than the quality one. Yes, it is true that a single mediocre ship or unit is cheaper and easier to produce than a better and a more expensive one, but if this means that more of them have to be produced in order to stand a chance against even one stronger unit then it doesn't have to be cheaper or faster to build an army of comparable power that can defeat another smaller but more expensive army. Well ok, but while it may not be cheaper it's still not more expensive right? You just get more ships for the same cost. It's just a different strategy which is neither better nor worse than the quality doctrine right? I disagree.
There is one massive problem that pro-quantity people forget: That a part of the economic cost of war is not only to build units, but also to replace destroyed units with new ones...
Because units that are build with a quality over quantity mindset are valuable, those who own them are expected to keep them alive and make the most of them. All the while, those who favor a quantity doctrine are expected to treat their units like cannon fodder and have little regard for their safety. This means the later is more likely to end up paying an economic cost to rebuild his units more often.
Then there is also the problem of the firepower and defense of quantity units being split between a larger number of more easily individually destroyed ships/units. I will create a scenario to explain what I mean:
Let's say that you have 2000 firepower and 5000 shieldpower which 2 rival enemies can spend however they want to. Let's call them A and B. Let's say that A decides to invest all of the shield and firepower into one single powerful ship, while B decides to favor the quantity doctrine and builds 4 individually weaker ships and then splits the firepower and shielding between them. Then let's say that the sides fight a battle. Because A has invested all of the power into one single ship, B cannon beat him or make his weaker without taking down that one single ship. However, because B split his power between 4 different ships which are individually weaker to destroy, the moment A has destroyed even a single of B's ships then B's power has been cut by full 25%! This means reducing the overall power of B is much easier for A than it is for B to cut the overall power of A because A has invested all of his power into a single tough unit.
What this means, is that if 2 sides have the same level of overall firepower and defense, then the side that has concentrated this power into a fewer number of ships will by default have the advantage over the other side even if the overall level of firepower and defense is the same.
Besides not giving advantage in combat to the side that favors quantity, this also means that while stronger units may be more expensive to produce at first, those who made the stronger units can continue to use them for much longer because they are more able to survive battle after battle while the cheaper units on the other side have to be replaced over and over at regular rates. This means that in the long term, it's actually the quantity doctrine that is more expensive and economically wasteful.
There is also one other big problem with favoring a quantity doctrine, which is the poor utilization of space and supplies. Regardless of if your unit is cheap or expensive, it has to be able to move between places at a speed and rate that is acceptable during times of war. Fighting isn't the only part of war, logistics are so as well. And this is where a quantity doctrine falls flat on it's face. A single poorly trained soldier still has to be fed just like a highly trained one, and both take up the same amount of space in a transport. And yet, the former brings limited value to an army while the later brings lots. If you want more poorly trained and cheap soldiers on the battlefield then you need to invest in more food and more transports, which defeats the point in the first place, with the end result being that you aren't saving money and just end up with worse soldiers in your army. Though I admit that in video games this can depend largely on the game since not every game has the same kind of supply/resource management. An argument could be made that in the case of Starmade ships taking other ships into battle (carriers) aren't taking proper advantage of their space if they are being used to transport mediocre ships, and that it doesn't make sense to invest in jump drives for poor quality fighters who will just get destroyed anyway.
And then there is the issue of large armies having to fight in a limited space. I assume you have seen the movie 300? Yea...
I hope this explained my point
Feel free to give counter-arguments if you disagree.
Last edited:
