I feel like this has to be an idea that's been discussed, but the forum search tool didn't turn up anything...
Currently it feels like there isn't really much of a decision about what to do in the early game. The advantage of going to HQ level 2 is SO HIGH (due to doubling the number of claims you have access to), that it's generally pretty safe to spend all of your level 1 claims on whatever structures will get you to that upgrade fastest (it's why we see so much early game steel + aluminum, and no one goes for power or life support early). This is often even true for hitting the level 3 HQ upgrade, as well.
What if the value of upgrading were reduced by changing the benefits of upgrading. The numbers would have to be tested and balanced, but what if (say) each upgrade level provided one fewer claim, and you got those extra 4 claims as a lump sum at level 1? So at founding you get 7 claims (or something larger than the current start), and then get two extra claims each time you upgrade.
Now, I'm not sure this is actually a good idea, but one thing it would do is mitigate the degree to which the only thing worth doing for the first level or two is get to your next upgrade. Under the current rules, a player at level 2 has 100% more claims than someone at level 1, but assuming we go with my totally made up and unbalanced numbers above, a player at level 2 has about 30% more claims than someone at level 1.
This might result in more varied openers as you have more claims to play with, and can afford to invest in things other than upgrade materials since upgrades aren't as valuable (while still being good investments).
Does this make sense? What are some of the unintended consequences of more than doubling the opening claim count for a player? Is this over-advantaged upgrading thing even really a problem, or is having that in place an advantage from a design standpoint as it provides clear sign-posting for players as to what they should be doing?