Deemphasize Starbases. » Forum Post by Ashbery76

Tridus

Join Date 03/2008

+110

Quoting Frogboy,

reply 69

We like Starbases. We don't like constructor spam, however.

Next round is on me. That's great news!

Successfully updated karma reason!

Quoting wuphonsreach,

reply 73

With starbases having "slots" (just like planets have surface slots for improvements), you can mix/match the focus of the starbase. (For game-balance, you may still need to restrict some modules to only being mountable on military / economic / influence / mining bases.)

I don't know what is the limit of modules, but it is an aweful lot. This concept might work if the starbase would have the quality as big as the module limit. Remember that the things U build would not be the same. The stats would not be the same as a planet. What is wrong with construstor spamming.

Successfully updated karma reason!

MarvinKosh

Join Date 08/2005

+87

Quoting WIllythemailboy,

reply 71

Quoting MarvinKosh, reply 68Freighters spawn a mini-freighter when they set up a trade route, starbases could similarly set up a supply freighter which ferries supplies (production) from a designated planet. This would default to the closest planet which isn't over-committed to providing building supplies.

This would make setting up remote starbases a teeny bit more problematic, as the longer the supply line is the more chances that a supply freighter will be raided by enemies (just like trade freighters). But if you want to do an upgrade you can just select it on the starbase, or let the auto-builder do it for you.

Losing a supply freighter would temporarily halt the current upgrade and reduce the starbase's repair rate, until the new supply freighter reaches the point where the previous one was attacked.

It doesn't make them problematic, it makes them nonfunctional. How fast would this model allow someone to build a fully functional starbase (10+ modules or the equivalent if GC3 doesn't use modules). What timeframe are you looking at? 5 weeks to full production? 10? 20? Range-dependent?

Full production once the starbase is built. The supply freighter is there to maintain supply so if it's destroyed, it temporarily disrupts the supply leading to a delay in construction.

A faraway outpost needs more supplies in each shipment to continue upgrading because of the infrequency of arriving shipments, but it works out to the same total production as a nearby outpost, so the production per turn devoted to maintaining supply can be averaged out over time, rather than there being a huge loss of production whenever a shipment needs to go out.

Successfully updated karma reason!

U know when I thought about it I couldn't figure out why I was arguing this. I don't understand the problem with constructor spam. The constructor module problem is only a problem at the beginning of the game. In the end game this concept was not a problem for me. When I first started playing the game in 2007. I fealt the starbases were ugly and to limited, and I wish I had an option to increase my economics without freighters. That was my problem with starbases. It;s not even a problem for me when some of my starbase modules don't work, or when I have to trade for some modules. The real truth is that I don't use them enough in the early game. Sorry for joining the argument. The reason I haven't posted in awhile is that I don't know why I was joining the argument when I thought about it. How can I argue realism in the 23rd century I don't know. That was just a way for me to argue a point. I am always in support for better starbases I just don't care about how u do them. Sorry. If u still want to comment with me I'm game. If u want to yell at me for this I probably deserve it.

Successfully updated karma reason!

I'm not sure whether to add my two cents here or not. I've only managed to get halfway through the posts in this forum and there seems to be a lot of back and forth on this subject.

I guess what I am wondering is what is the point of a Starbase if it's not a Base? To me, for the most part, setting up a starbase that wasn't constructed over a resource seemed rather pointless (unless I did it to enhance a trade route). On the other hand, I tried to seize as many resources as possible and did my best to defend those fledgling starbases to the best on my abilities.

But that's where the excitement ended; as building them up was all fine and dandy; but they didn't really function as anything I would consider a base.

This of course, brings me back to a post I made elsewhere about the need for a more refined "logistics" system to be incorporated into the game. A Starbase should be a logistics focal point. Whether it's purpose is to help with trade or to "defend the frontier against the Khodan armada" it needs to be a Base of operations. Perhaps for refueling ships. Maybe for extending communications.

So, quit bickering back and forth about what they were or weren't and flat out say what you want them to be now!

Please, and thank you.

SK

PS. I had a tendency to send module less constructors out to the location and then upgrade the ship with the module. it was the fastest and most cost effective way to get the job done!

Successfully updated karma reason!

Quoting Stohrm,

reply 80

A Starbase should be a logistics focal point. Whether it's purpose is to help with trade or to "defend the frontier against the Khodan armada" it needs to be a Base of operations. Perhaps for refueling ships. Maybe for extending communications.

In GC2, starbases did extend your ship's range. I admit, this was more a side effect than the original purpose of the base. A base useful for fleet operations would be fine. Refitting was never a problem in GC2, because you could upgrade your ships everywhere (not very realistic imho). A military starbase with a shipyard module for refitting/repairing would be nice.

Other aspects in military operations (refuleing, re-ammonition etc. ) where never an issue in GC2, fuel or ammo were unlimited in your fleets, so no need for a base.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Quoting michaelwhittaker,

reply 64

I agree with willy. This fits my play style better. In a pinch I would rather build a whole bunch of constructors. My play style usually leaves me in debt unless I am the Yor. If I can run off a whole bunch of contructors in a turn after the colony rush. Usually after the colony rush my starbases become almost fully upgraded. If constructors r to slow U can research better engines or minIterization to make them faster. I dont like how u can put only one module on a ship. I want to be able to put multiple modules on a ship. I do agree that your starbases need to defend themselves. I get tired of having only 3 kinds of starbases. I would like to see economic starbases give economic bonuses over the planets in range. I would like tl see more creative starbases.

The only problem I had with constructors was their un-going cost from the time you built one until it arrived at it's destination. However, I solved this by building the ship without the module (which allowed me to build a faster ship) and then simply upgraded the ship with the module once it reached it's destination. Granted, that might be considered "cheating" by some, but then I never understood why constructors were so dang expensive per turn in the first place.

Just saying,

SK

Successfully updated karma reason!

Quoting Cikomyr,

reply 3

A single constructor should be needed to startup the starbase. Once it's been initiated, we should simply have it build by planetary production, with a penalty linked to the distance between planet and starbase.

Edit: Sorry I didn't read all the posts above me and someone already suggested this

I was thinking about this and it could be like how freighters work.

You build a starbase with one constructor and select a "base" planet where it needs to be resupplied from
You then select a module (or modules) to be constructed and the funding/capabilities for it comes from the base planet
Tiny constructors come out of the planet like how it works with freighters to resupply and upgrade the starbase
When a certain number of mini constructors arrive, the module is complete

Positives to this

Upgrading starbases become like a planet's social production and you have freedom to use your shipyard on projects other than constructors
The power and capabilities ramp up slowly or quickly depending on how how you much you can fund or how many manufacture points you have, instead of being able to stick down one very powerful starbase quickly with 5-6 constructors
Less boring micro or having to set up rally points, more time to focus on fun micro

Successfully updated karma reason!

androshalforc

Join Date 03/2007

+62

i had a post about this in another thread, the suggestions i had for starbasses were this

1 constructor required to start building

1 new constructor required for each module type (battle stations I)

after that its own Que tied to a planet (battle stations II-V could be upgraded through base)

however if you sent out another constructor it could finish the current module instantly

Successfully updated karma reason!

Quoting Breadshaped,

reply 83

Quoting Cikomyr, reply 3
A single constructor should be needed to startup the starbase. Once it's been initiated, we should simply have it build by planetary production, with a penalty linked to the distance between planet and starbase.

Edit: Sorry I didn't read all the posts above me and someone already suggested this

I was thinking about this and it could be like how freighters work.

You build a starbase with one constructor and select a "base" planet where it needs to be resupplied from
You then select a module (or modules) to be constructed and the funding/capabilities for it comes from the base planet
Tiny constructors come out of the planet like how it works with freighters to resupply and upgrade the starbase
When a certain number of mini constructors arrive, the module is complete

Positives to this

Upgrading starbases become like a planet's social production and you have freedom to use your shipyard on projects other than constructors
The power and capabilities ramp up slowly or quickly depending on how how you much you can fund or how many manufacture points you have, instead of being able to stick down one very powerful starbase quickly with 5-6 constructors
Less boring micro or having to set up rally points, more time to focus on fun micro

I like the idea. One change I'd make is that I would consume the build resources not from the planets civilian production but from its military.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Quoting yarodin,

reply 81

Quoting Stohrm, reply 80
A Starbase should be a logistics focal point. Whether it's purpose is to help with trade or to "defend the frontier against the Khodan armada" it needs to be a Base of operations. Perhaps for refueling ships. Maybe for extending communications.

In GC2, starbases did extend your ship's range. I admit, this was more a side effect than the original purpose of the base. A base useful for fleet operations would be fine. Refitting was never a problem in GC2, because you could upgrade your ships everywhere (not very realistic imho). A military starbase with a shipyard module for refitting/repairing would be nice.

Other aspects in military operations (refuleing, re-ammonition etc. ) where never an issue in GC2, fuel or ammo were unlimited in your fleets, so no need for a base.

I love the idea of having starbases that refuel and replenish ammunition reserves. Although I could see this being quite unpopular in some circles. Perhaps it can be included in a Hardcore Mode? I know hardcore settings are in vogue these days. Then again this is a strategy game so taking more casual gamers into consideration doesn't really apply.

Successfully updated karma reason!