One aspect of Terror Stars I'd like to see in DA

...I think it should be possible to slowly move these at great expense, perhaps requiring some new tech or new type of ship to accomplish this.

One way could be through a 'maneuvering thrusters' module that could be installed, giving the base a velocity of 1 pc/week. In the pilot for Star Trek: Deep Space Nine, the space station orginally orbited a planet, and it was moved through its maneuvering thrusters to a more stategic location to protect a wormhole. It was suggested in dialogue that the procedure was somewhat dangerous over long distances, and could possibly cause significant damage to the station since it wasn't designed for such operations.

perhaps requiring some new tech or new type of ship to accomplish this.

Fleet tugs with will be was engines.

Only if you can fix the current status quo of having starbases so lightly defended in the latter game. I think we can agree that the micromanagement bottleneck happens with starbases. Last thing I'm going to do is spend even more time microing these massive moons of steel when they become such liabilites anyways.

Ok, sounds good, but what if you're trying to move a star base to a sector that already has 4 star bases?

One of them would probally have to move, or go offline for a while.

Only if you can fix the current status quo of having starbases so lightly defended in the latter game. I think we can agree that the micromanagement bottleneck happens with starbases. Last thing I'm going to do is spend even more time microing these massive moons of steel when they become such liabilites anyways.

One military SB requires 24 modules to add 54 points of attack and 9 points of defense per ship. A few of these really boost the attack of ships within their umbrella. Surely these SB's would be the enemy’s prime target but I don’t think they would need their own attack and defense. The fleets they support do that in and of themselves.

As far as the 4 SB’s per sector limitation, AFAIK that only applies to your own SB’s not any your opponent may have in the sector. I see no issue with this, if you already have econ or influence or even other military SB’s in the sector you would either have to move them or destroy them yourself.

When I saw you mention this in another thread, I thought it was a good, original idea. Glad you brought it mainstream. I'd love to be able to shove,pull, or drive these things around. As the military bases are now, I only build them as a range extender at times. It be cool; here comes a fleet with four SBs tagging along behind them. Just have to get the AI to be able to do this to you though.  

I like this idea a lot, and with the extreme limitations on speed, if you're planning on using them in a major offencive manner, the enemy (or you, if you're the one being attacked) would have plenty of time to organize a defence or out maneuver in order to attempt to nullify the attackers advantage. Kinda keeps it from being too game unbalancing, you know? 1/week sounds like the best speed, stretching it with 2/week later on. Unless they have some kind of uber-stripped down support ship that acts kind of like a mobile military starbase... Carrier equiv possibly?

hmm... Anyway, like the idea, and I hope it is implemented.

AFAIK that only applies to your own SB’s not any your opponent may have in the sector.

Correct.

I see no issue with this, if you already have econ or influence or even other military SB’s in the sector you would either have to move them or destroy them yourself.

Point taken.


Also, I just thought of something somewhat OT but interesting. What if you build some economic SB's inside of an opponent's territory and then he surrenders to you? I suppose that way you could get past the 4 star base rule, and get *massive* bonuses.... I wouldn't be surprised if that tipped the cheating flag though. Kyro?

"The terror star code is disabled within the game itself. Without that, you can't mod in any sort of mobile starbase." This is a quote from Kryo from the previous thread on Terror Stars. Please don't misunderstand my sympathies here. I am fully in favor of being able to move starbases around. This ability could save enormous amounts of resources. Since this idea has, to my knowledge, virtually complete approval from the posters on the forum, I can only assume that there is some basic, underlying reason for it's lack of implementation. A best guess would be AI and/or balancing issues.

I second Mumblefratz' idea. I think starbases still have a lot of potential, with limited engines and +X% battle modules being two of them. A few well directed additions could really make them much more interesting.

Just have to get the AI to be able to do this to you though.

Absolutely. If the AI can't do this as well as the human then there's no hope of getting it in.

What if you build some economic SB's inside of an opponent's territory and then he surrenders to you?

I don't see how this would get you past the 4 SB rule. When an AI surrenders to you all his SB's go bye bye. If you had 4 SB's in the sector before he surrendered you'd still 4 SB's in the sector after he surrendered. Plus I think 4 SB's per sector is quite enough.

"The terror star code is disabled within the game itself. Without that, you can't mod in any sort of mobile starbase."

Yes I saw that quote. Clearly this isn't something that could be modded. It would have to be implemented by the developers which means it would need to be: something that's reasonably possible to implement, something that the AI could effectively use, and, something that's of interest to enough people to make it worthwhile.

Since this idea has, to my knowledge, virtually complete approval from the posters on the forum

The last time I brought this up it got very little attention so I'm not so sure that this does. I'm sure if all three conditions are met, (enough interest, implementable and usable by the AI) then I'm sure they'll at least consider it. If any one of the three conditions are lacking then there's virtually no chance of this.

But if the implementation is not too difficult they may be willing to support this at least to the extent that you *could* mod it in even if the AI doesn't use it so well. I still think they would need to see sufficient interest to justify this. Remember this is all *free* work we're asking them to do. Just the fact that we're talking about this as a legitimate possibility indicates the extent to which we've been *spoiled*. What other software company would even consider such a thing.

I don't see how this would get you past the 4 SB rule. When an AI surrenders to you all his SB's go bye bye. If you had 4 SB's in the sector before he surrendered you'd still 4 SB's in the sector after he surrendered. Plus I think 4 SB's per sector is quite enough.

Oops, for some reason I thought that it was only when you conquered them that their star bases disappeared. Hmmm... I guess I should have a fleet of fast moving constructors ready for if one AI surrenders to another then!

@Mumble: Aren't you too extreme about "after a planet or two has been flipped or once the battle has moved on to a new area they become useless."

Lower strategic value I don't question, but doesn't an influence base always add to your overall empire's influence and don't you always get some less-quantifiable benefit from a star fort's ability to boost speed for passers-by and help guard growing or lightly armed fleets?

@Fuels Chief: Is "tugs with will be was engines" a hasty typing thing, or do you mean something like "engines good for just one big job?"

Its an original idea and have nothing against slow moving star bases. I would however like developers first to handle the current micromanagement issue conserning star base construction. Before that I really wouldn´t want any more added micromanagement with star bases.

Personal opinion only

"tugs with will be was engines"

I believe I've heard the term "will be was engines" before in a movie, or it kind of sounds Dr. Suess like. Can't place it, but definately sound familiar.

I like your idea Mumble, I find myself tearing apart useless starbases in just about every game. Being able to move them, although slowly, would really extend their life.

How many times have you sent out hoards of constructors to a sector in order to build a starbase, only to be jumped by pirates or a newly acquired enemy?

It would be feasible to build a starbase rather quickly and completely, in your own back yard and then slowly move (by tug or positioning thrusters) it to the position where it would be most useful.

Not that this would be done on a regular basis, but could be done if needed.

Good Idea Mumble.

I really dig the tug boat idea to move starbases around, i think that's a great solution.

It's got the added bonus of not being yet another starbase module to send a constructor out for.

@Mumble: Aren't you too extreme about "after a planet or two has been flipped or once the battle has moved on to a new area they become useless."

Maybe useless was a bit harsh, but at least they become not worth the effort it took to build them. THe military SB in particular takes 28 modules just to max out the ship assist potential. This doesn't include any attack/defense for the SB itself (which I also consider not worth the effort), nor does it include any speed assist or speed interdiction (which I would consider worth the extra 3 modules).

So it takes 31 modules to build out a military SB that does nothing once the battle moves more than 8 parsecs away. Yeah, I consider that pretty useless. Even being able to move this 1 parsec a week may make the overall effort worthwhile, particularly once speed is reduced and the front is not so dynamic.

I would however like developers first to handle the current micromanagement issue conserning star base construction.

Yes. I believe there was value in that discussion as well. Yet again the scale of the galaxy comes into play big time. In a gigantic galaxy where you might colonize 75 planets or so, 31 constructors might take a single turn. In a small galaxy with 10 planets it's probably closer to 6 turns. This doesn't seem fair. Also I did like (I think it was Evil's) idea to allow more than a single constructor module per ship. But I wouldn't want to put one idea dependent on the other. It just makes it less likely that either gets implemented.

doesn't an influence base always add to your overall empire's influence

Actually, no - an influence starbase only raises your influence level within its 8-parsec effectiveness radius. I can't point to any recent posts about this, but it's been debated before. Once I've flipped every planet within that radius, I immediately destroy influence bases so that I can build the next one more cheaply - unless it is also holding back another empire's influence in that area.

Getting to the original idea of "starbase creep", though, I have to say that this is one of a few good, solid ideas for enhancing the game experience that I've been following lately. Rather than looking for a way around the proposed speed change, mobile starbases takes a different tack that could measurably enhance the power of slower-moving fleet; particularly on the defense, which really needs some help.

It would also breathe new life into starbase-related strategies. I honestly can't remember the last time I built a military starbase. This is in small part from constructor micromanagement fatigue, but mostly because they get left behind too quickly for their starship enhancement modules to have an effect on the game that merits their high cost. Even as an evil faction there is a high opportunity cost to military starbases, as they consume time and resources that I feel are better used on warships.

If it were implemented, I'm sure it would be as a starbase module. I think having space tugs to pull starbases would be extremely cool, but it sounds like a lot of extra coding and may not be something the AI could handle well. That would be the biggest obstacle I can see, actually - can the AI be 'taught' to make good use of a starbase that can be moved?

How many times have you sent out hoards of constructors to a sector in order to build a starbase, only to be jumped by pirates or a newly acquired enemy?

I used to have that problem too. Now I just create a waypoint where I want to build a star base, and auto-send my constructors there. I also make sure my constructors are fast enough to get to their destination in a single turn, if possible.

I believe I've heard the term "will be was engines" before in a movie, or it kind of sounds Dr. Suess like. Can't place it, but definately sound familiar.

@Fuels Chief: Is "tugs with will be was engines" a hasty typing thing, or do you mean something like "engines good for just one big job?"

L Ron Hubbard. Mission Earth.

If the code that they disabled was the same from GC I I don't think they will have alot to start with. Of the 400ish games of GC I I played I only recall seeing the AI build a terror star a few times. And then they just sat there. I have no clue about the coding of this type stuff but I'd imagine it would be intensive but I hold out hope anyway.

For those coders out there who do have a clue. How much would something like this cost in $$$ and manhours to develop, code, test and implement?

Once I've flipped every planet within that radius, I immediately destroy influence bases so that I can build the next one more cheaply - unless it is also holding back another empire's influence in that area.

You know reading this about destroying SB’s once they’re no longer needed gave me an idea that could essentially provide the desired functionality while at the same time staying as close as possible to current game mechanics.

What if instead of destroying a starbase you could disassemble it back into the constructors it took to originally build it, or at least a reasonable portion of them. That would allow you to do pretty much exactly as we've been discussing. I do think slowly towing these things while having to protect them from attack would be a lot cooler, but the end effect would be pretty much the same.

I think it still would be reasonable to have these reconstituted constructors be extremely limited in speed, 1 or 2 parsecs/week tops. Another aspect of moving SB’s that I haven’t seen mentioned is that the starbase should not provide it’s normal benefit while in motion. If the SB was disassembled into constructors then I think this would be pretty much how it would work by default.

Still, the ability of the AI to effectively use starbase movement is probably the prime determinate of whether or not this has a chance of eventually getting into the game. I would think that in the best case something like this might get considered for GalCiv3 (if there is such a thing planned). It’s very unrealistic to see anything like this in DA even if everyone involved thought it was the best thing since sliced bread, and if the developers felt it’s implementation was trivial (which I’m sure it’s not).

Of the 400ish games of GC I

   400   

Still, the ability of the AI to effectively use starbase movement is probably the prime determinate of whether or not this has a chance of eventually getting into the game

Getting the AI to defend against the strategy could also be hard.