A suggestion...

well since the starbases are obviously MUCH MUCH bigger than ships. it might not be obvious in the main game screen, but in the battle screen you get an idea of the scale.

So a module would have to require some powerful engines in order to propel the starbase

as for a ship towing the starbase, again you have to take into account mass and inertia here. Cool sounding idea but dunno if its really feaseable for the game.

That's another reason (apart from game balance) that I suggested a very slow moving rate, cause it's one thing to get starbase moving, it also requires the same amount of energy to stop it from moving...

Starbases obviously require some type of 'attitude' correction mechanism in order to stay in their place, nudging them in a direction doesn't seem far fetched... Anyhow, since the planets themselves just spin around their axis, maybe we will have to wait for GCIII to get planets to revolve around their stars, at which point being able to move starbases around, however slow it might be, may be possible...

Moving such a large object is a challenge in of itself first of all the amount of thrust to be able to move the thing is going be a huge number. second if the station goes to fast you risk tearing the station apart the structural integrity of stations is not meant for movements on a large scale maybe a few hundread miles or something but not great distances. you would need to come up with a integrity boosting field and surround the station with it to move it very far at all.

when you place an a station were you want it you are going to need twice as much thrust as it took to get the station moving to slow to a stop.

also you suggest ships you would need a massive number of ships to move a starbase they are larger than even huge hulled ships I believe.

actually a large starbase does not need alot of thrust to move the station...

remember in space, friction is negligeable... and all starbases are already equipped w/ small thrusters. why? to counter anything in space that would accidentally hit the station and force it to move.

a starbase could move by applying a small force until the starbase picks up enough speed so that it's not moving at a crawl... and then counter the velocity appropriately when it needs to begin it's stop.

you only need large thrusters if you need to move the base quickly.

also considering friction is negligible, the starbase would probably continue to accelerate untill such time as reverse thrust is applied.... I think..

there is an exploit related to this that ive been trying to figure out how to post: first take a constructor and tell it to upgrade to something like a colony ship. then make it into a military starbase and add a bunch of modules. when it upgrades, it will be a colony ship but still project attack and defense support around it like a starbase, giving you a mobile starbase: a rediculous advantage.

What? You can do that? Giving it a shot.....

also considering friction is negligible, the starbase would probably continue to accelerate untill such time as reverse thrust is applied.... I think..

Dodo the integrity wouldn't hold you would need somthing to keep it from tearing apart...

Why would the starbase tear apart if you were applying an even thrust from all parts? Yes, one giant thruster on one side of the starbase firing could damage it, but if you equalize the amount of pressure being put on it, it doesn't matter how much force, it's all moving at the same speed... just like a ship.

Why would the starbase tear apart if you were applying an even thrust from all parts? Yes, one giant thruster on one side of the starbase firing could damage it, but if you equalize the amount of pressure being put on it, it doesn't matter how much force, it's all moving at the same speed... just like a ship.

Lol.
What would happen if you applied a force only on 1 side would just make it rotate and move in circle, and it might actualy end up moving in a straight line on average, depending on so many things its hard to say.

The hole pressure thing doesnt make much sense the way your saying it.

Anyway as others have stated yes a small force would be able to move it and what not, i think it should be something like you set where you want it to go and it calculates something depening on distance. So it ends up being roughly 1 square per 2 turns.

ok so now you have your starbase moving

starbase being up to several miles wide and massive

oh no there is a big rock in front of you that you didn't see before going now stop

Why would the starbase tear apart if you were applying an even thrust from all parts? Yes, one giant thruster on one side of the starbase firing could damage it, but if you equalize the amount of pressure being put on it, it doesn't matter how much force, it's all moving at the same speed... just like a ship.

the integrity of the vessel is not good enough for fast travel a huge ship needs large engines and needs to be able to hold together at fast speeds. If I was to go on a rocket track strip and subject myself to 9+ G's and have no protection against the force I would tear apart into a million peices. same with a large vessel that is not equipped to travel at all.

something I found I know I got this from Star Trek. the GCII universe might compensate somehow.


In the Star Trek universe, the Structural Integrity Field System (or SIF) is an array of multiply redundant power systems designed to provide structural support to a starship's spaceframe to keep it from deforming under the extreme stresses of spaceflight. Basically, the system is a way to keep a starship from deflating like a blimp whenever the sublight drive (impulse engine) is engaged.

How this works is a bit hazy (it's one of those things that needs to be there in theory for the physics to even slightly work) but to put it simply: power conduits run through the a starship's skeletal structure. These conduits feed power from a number of field generators that keep the supports from buckling during relativistic (sublight) flight, akin to feeding power to an electromagnet. The system is designed with numerous redundancies to keep the system up and running during any and all flight operations - a Galaxy Class Starship like the Enterprise-D, for instance, incorporates five SIF generators when two would be more than enough.

Speaking of that particular Enterprise: because the Galaxy Class is essentially two starships joined together as one functional unit (see Saucer Separation for more details on that design aspect) one of the unique challenges faced by her designers was how to keep the field systems functional and safe when operating under independant operation. To that end, the SIF conduits have retractable hardpoints along the docking plane that allow for the transfer of field energy. These hardpoints are capable of passing power from the generators located in the ship's stardrive section up to the saucer or vice versa allowing the whole ship to be stabilized by one section's power generators.

The SIF fulfills the same role during warp flight, but for a slightly different reason - because warp acceleration is non-relativistic there are no classical acceleration problems, however fluctuations in the warp field density can create a subspace shearing effect that imparts a different (though related) kind of structural stress. Yeah, I don't know what that means, either, though I think is has something to do with different parts of the ship being influenced by the warp field in slightly different ways, causing different parts of the spaceframe to behave in different manners at warp.

Needless to say, failure of the SIF is a very, very bad thing.

It should be noted that relativity applies - If the Structural Integrity Field System were ever to fail during high relativistic speed, the thing that would cause damage to the spaceframe wouldn't be the speed, it would be the next acceleration. To that end (and assuming all the generators have failed AND that power could not be immediately restored) the only course of action would be an extremely gradual negative acceleration to a point of relative rest.

This system should not be confused with the Inertial Damping Field System which provides the same kind of support for the crew - the SIF is designed to keep the ship...er, shipshape (sorry), habitable and functioning.

>>In the Star Trek universe, the Structural Integrity Field System (or SIF) is an array of multiply redundant power systems designed to provide structural support to a starship's spaceframe to keep it from deforming under the extreme stresses of spaceflight...<<


Well... you said it: "In the Star Trek universe", last time I've checked, this is the GalCiv universe, i.e. no Klingons, no Vulcans and maybe no SIF... Maybe the hulls are constructed in such a way not to require SIF. In any case, I didn't ask for relativistic speed, I'm asking for just a way to slowly tug starbases around, not transform them in full fledged space ships that travels at a 50 times the speed of light...

Maybe the hulls are constructed in such a way not to require SIF. In any case, I didn't ask for relativistic speed, I'm asking for just a way to slowly tug starbases around, not transform them in full fledged space ships that travels at a 50 times the speed of light...

Read the tech descriptions in the Hulls line, some time. They DO require such things, which is the story reason why you can't make dreadnoughts at the start of the game.

I agree that starbases should be able to move at 1 parsec per week. If I can move a fleet of 5-kilometer dreadnoughts 90 or more parsecs a week (which is several hundred times the speed of light, not 50), and if they can stop or turn on a dime while doing it, I don't see why I can't move a starbase AT ALL with the same technology. There are already starbase modules that you get from the hulls line, why not add one more tech that gives you barely mobile starbases?

I could see that being a new tech at the very end of hull research.