There actually is a real issue with being able to build and use something which have no related cost to it... I don't think the cost should be enormous... just enough so you can't spam a commercial fleet and stations without ANY support cost. I don't think that freighters or fuel ships will be very expensive... I would rather target things like terraforming stations, habitats and maintenance facilities that require no population to actually have a cost.
You also would need to pay the merchant marine and do some rudimentary maintenance on ships and neither can be free.
The exact cost would be about balance.
Okay, but you're defining imperial wealth generation as 'every centicredit collected' and then complaining that salaries and supplies aren't accounted for, and I'm defining wealth as what the government has left over after paying for all thise things. Neither one of us is more right than the other.
In your view, the merchant marine & space 'infrastructure' is a net drain on imperial coffers, and therefore should cost increasing wealth as it expands.
I counter that those things can be a net gain for "the economy", and that the wealth Aurora shows us is profit after paying for those things you are complaining aren't being paid for. I say that Aurora is simply not line-item listing that it's paying for them.
- - - -
But really, your point seems to be "you can't spam a commercial fleet and stations without ANY support cost." And whether -- or to what extent -- that is true I say depends on the empire's overall financial situation. Which means it should be debated alongside that overall financial situation. Your point (as I understand it) is essentially "Aurora empires have too much wealth; here's how I would reduce it." My point is "Aurora empires only have 'too much wealth' due to exploiting commercial shippping. If epires don't do that, they in fact do not have enough wealth."
You're right, I can't spam a commercial fleet, as hard as I try, because I can't afford it without the large wealth boost of exploiting commercial shippping lines.
- - - -
To ruthlessly summarize all of the recent posts, I think it is a fundamental part of Aurora's DNA to present the player with the choice of the cheap, worker intensive installation (e.g. Mine); the expensive, low- (or no-) manpower version (e.g. AutoMine); and the restricted (perhaps less efficient) ship-mounted module (e.g. Asteroid Miner) that has the benefit of high mobility.
I always changed the tolerance levels for human colonisation in Aurora to 0.7-1.3 as that are probably more realistic (although high gravity are way more dangerous), anything else would need some gene modification. In addition to this I always removed allot of the initial wealth with SM in conventional starts. So I'm not that well versed in exploiting the moon or mars... I always also restricted the subsidisation of civilian fleets as I felt it could be a bit ridiculous, especially in a conventional start where you swim in wealth without restrictions on yourself.
So... wealth have always been an issue to monitor in all of my games so far so I'm not approaching this from the perspective of exploiting the civilian trade. Just to be clear...
I probably don't' agree that it is a zero sum game to run the commercial ships for the same reason you need to pay for civilian ships to move things and operate for you instead of generating wealth moving trade goods. If you could use your commercial ships to move trade goods then I would not argue this, but you can't... might be an interesting thing you could do. There could be a "state" company and if you assign freighters or colony ships they would operate as civilian ships but you built them. You could then take them of this duty and control them directly but you still have to pay for any trips they take in some wealth as well as paying for the fuel when you want to make more controlled missions. While part of the "state" company the state could actually earn wealth with them as all the income goes directly to the state.
In my opinion state controlled freighters should be more expensive to use long term, but there also are strategical benefits of using them.
I also fail to see how a supply or ammunition ship part of a fleet is an economical zero sum game type of ship, they should be nothing but a drain on resources other than build cost and fuel. A small wealth cost would be fine and really easy to implement.
I do agree with Steve that it should not be done without testing and balancing, I would never suggest that. I clearly stated it needed to be tested and balanced first. As Steve already changed allot of the the economic underpinning foundations I would be fine if this was considered at a later date.