Minor Race

Join Date 02/2007

Ways to improve Starbases

Some ideas and problems

If you have a way to improve starbases, post it here. I've come up with the following ideas, but there are many ways to make starbases better. If you have one, or several, just say it here.

The first is what happens when you are done with the starbase. After an Influence base conquers everything in it's radius, what then? What about when fighting draws away from a military starbase? Some people say that starbases should be able to be 'towed' by other ships. That is a good idea, but there has to be restrictions. How can a tiny-class fighter or a small-class destroyer 'tow' a massive space station? The towing module should be about size 40. That way, smaller ships cannot tow. Larger ships would have less space available to weapons, support, sensors, defenses, and engines at the expense of being able to tow a starbase. And the speed should be extremely low- 1 parsec a turn.

The second solution to that problem is allowing range-increase improvements. A technology trail (maybe off of life support) should allow starbases to add modules that increase their range, similar to sensors. +1, +2, +3, and +4 might not seem like much, but when added together, you get a range increase of +10.

Next is espionage. I'd really like the option to place an agent on a starbase. The menu that shows all of the starbases' improvements would come up, and you could pick one to disable. What's an influence starbase without any influence improvements? Or a mining starbase with no mining modules? A second espionage idea would have other benefits. Agents would be able to do other things besides disabling modules. An agent could redirect a mining starbase to your empire instead of the enemy's. You'd be able to do similar things to other starbases.

Lastly, I think starbases shouldn't be destroyed in battle, that's just a waste. You should have the option to bring a transport, capture the starbase, gain the benefit it provides without destroying it.

Locked Post

Advanced Search

Watch this post

Do not email me updates for this post Email me updates for this post

Successfully updated karma reason!

Being able to place agent to disable starbases sounds interesting.

I kinda think starbases are ok as is - they aren't the focus of the game, just a part of the game, they're easy to create, and can be very helpful if used well.

Increasing starbase range could be unbalancing, and allow way too much overlap.

Allowing starbases to be towed somewhat decreases the strategic importance of using and placing them intelligently.

The whole starbase mechanic also needs to be something the AI can do reasonably well too. AI would have problems moving starbases, for ex - and if players can do it well for an advantage and AIs can't do it well or at all, then it equates to cheese for players.

Successfully updated karma reason!

The biggest issue I have with starbases is survivability. While they are static, I generally have found that if you're building them on large maps, it's easy to gain enough constructors for a new one, and if you're building them on a small map, they (military starbases especially) don't need to be moved.

But they die too easily. While I've some of my top-level bases do plenty of damage in the mid-game, they simply do not survive later on. Beyond simply needing to be more powerful, as would be fitting their size and expense, they need more HP and a faster repair ability.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Ways to improve starbases:

- Increase hp, alot. They are many times the size of the biggest ships yet their hps are comparatively low. Not to mention that, once upgraded, they cost alot to build. Maybe their hps should increase for every upgrade.

- Increase their sphere of influence.

- Allow them to take part of battles inside their sphere of influence and, if attacked, allow other ships, again inside the starbases sphere of influence, to assist in the battle. Alternatively allow ships to form fleets with starbases, which would then ofcourse make an immobile fleet. This suggestion would mean that building starbases with any kind of military power close to another empires planets would constitute an act of aggression leading to detoriation of relations.

- Allow them to upgrade themselves, instead of building constructors to do it. Would rid alot of micromanagemnt needed to maintain starbases.

This would solve the problems of starbases being semi-useless/useful and the micromanagement needed to upgrade them aswell as increasing miltary starbases usefulness for defence.

Successfully updated karma reason!

A am particularly fond of the way space miners build asteroid mines. The semi-automation is particulary helpful.

I think constructors have to be destroyed when building/upgrading a starbase, otherwise it would be way to easy to spam starbasses in mass. However I think thre needs to be a better way to manage the building and upgrading of starbases. Using rally points is too cumbersome and what happens when you have more bases then you have starports?

A possible solution would be to have a "Starbase" screen similar to the colonies screen. I would list all of teh starbases, HP, Att, def. Clicking on a starbase would cause a list of installed modules to come up (in addition to informing the player if the maximum # of modules have been installed). Lastly, there would be a column where you can set the Upgrade Priority. This would let you list your starbases in the order you wish them to be upgraded (1st 2nd, 3th, etc). In addition it would let you specify if you want the station totally upgraded before moving on to the next station or if each station would just receive one constructor before moving on to the next station. After setting up their "Station Que" all the player would need to do is, go to a planet, tell it to build constructors, and set its Rally Point to "Auto-upgrade stations" (its a fake rally point, simply there to activate the proper code). This would have the advantage of allowing players to manage the Builfing of Constructors and the "Rally point" from the governor screen.

I feel that this would still give players a large amount of control over their starbases, but would remain fairly simple and efficient to use. With the exception of the "Upgrade Priority", and subsequent "auto-upgrade" rally point, all of the information that the Starbase screen would provide, etc is already available in the game, this method would just centralize it to make it easier to access along with giving the player several powerful features.

Successfully updated karma reason!

I have been thinking that it would be useful to be able to upgrade a starbase to be able to build ships (by adding building a "Dry Dock" enhancement or something). However, the starbase would need to get resources from somewhere in order to build ships or else these ships would essentially be free (this is why the starbase uses the parts from the constructor to build a module). Therefore, I think that it would add some more options if it was possible to make miners go to a starbase instead of to a planet. The resources brought by the miner could then go towards military production to build ships. If the resources are not used then they would be wasted.

I don't think that this would upset the balance of the game too much because the player would have to sacrifice a bonus to production on a planet in order to allow a starbase to build ships. Also, it would not be feasable to sit a starbase deep in foreign territory and churn out ships because there would be no where for the resources to come from.

This method could also give starbases the resources necessary for social production in order to upgrade themselves. Again, these upgrades would no longer be free as resources would be needed from asteroids as starbases do not produce any resources themselves.

I also think that it would be good if it was possible to improve the attack and defense of a starbase. I would be thinking of a simplistic approach though so it is not as complex as for ships as starbases are not a major focus of the game.

For example, once lasers have been researched then a laser module would give 1 beam attach regardless of what laser tech has been researched. Then, once the next beam weapon tech is researched (disrupters?) it would be possible to build disrupter modules with 2 beam attack. Each successive tech type would then give an extra beam attack. Ditto above for the other attack types and defenses.

This is more simple than for ships where there are 4 laser techs and each more advanced laser tech decreases the size of the weapon. This would allow starbase attacks and defenses to be customised depending on who they are close to (if they are close to Terrans with high beam attack then they can be customised to have a higher defense against beam weapons).

Successfully updated karma reason!

I think starbases lack 2 important attributes that are really needed in the game:

1) they should be able to support planetary systems and improvements within their sphere of influence - economic benefits should apply to income generated by their associated planets. There is no need for different types of starbases, there should only be one type with economic, military and influence modules added via tech upgrade.

2) they should house fleets as planets do now - planets shouldn't have had this capability in the first place (since they have atmospheres). and they should also be captured as planets - meaning they should have population - i.e. small planetoids.

Perhaps they shouldn't have an attack/defense rating and shouldn't be destroyed or moved. these changes would greatly alter the importance of starbases to facilities versus big ships in space

Successfully updated karma reason!

star bases should have shipyards that require less cost to use than planets for building fleets - that should be the norm - and only one type with modules for expanded capability. I want to be able to design my star base like we do ships with manufacturing, economic, or technological support modules, or weapons and defense just like ships in the shipyard. then i could send contructors to build my design at its location.

Successfully updated karma reason!

I would like have back some of my constructors when i dismantle a starbase. Something like the 50% of constructors i used to build it. In this way you can, so tosay, move your starbase from a position in the space to another. Also it would be nice if the dismantled starbase should remain as a wreck in the space.

I agree with the idea to have only 1 kind of starbase with different modules. In this case there should be a limit to modules you can built depending, for example, on your logistic so you can't have all the modules in one starbase.

...A possible solution would be to have a "Starbase" screen similar to the colonies screen...

this is a very good idea.

richard

Successfully updated karma reason!

The alternative is to accept starbases as they are, and work within their limitations.

Or is that, just in keeping within game mechanics too very much?

Successfully updated karma reason!

Hi!
Empty starbase hull could get a capability to manufacture its modules (an "Initiall colony" building in space, with ~5 points of military production only), and you'd upgrade it like a planet: by double-clicking on various available modules you'd put them in SB build queue. Money for production would be deducted (like for planets) from the treasury.

BR, Iztok

Successfully updated karma reason!

I think the star bases in the system are ok overall, but I'd like two things:
- more hp, they really die waaayy to easy
- some icons around the star base, like around a planet, so that I can see by looking at the map which star bases can be upgraded for weapons, shields, ship assists and mining modules.

When you play on gigantic maps, it becomes tiresome to check all your star bases to see which could build another mining module and which is already full. Some simple icons would improve that a great deal

Successfully updated karma reason!

Or, you could simply learn how many modules can be fit on each type of starbase.
Then you could simply query each starbase to see what it has, and how many more modules you need.

Outfitting starbases, really, is not rocket science.

More hit points?
It is a moddable feature. Simple.
Perhaps you can't do it in Metaverse, but this is, after all, a single player game.
You can make them as powerful as you wish.

Successfully updated karma reason!

The easiest solution to me would be too give a starbase screen like the colony screen.

Allow starbases to fleet with other ships, and when attacking a starbase you cannot target the base itself until you have destroyed all of the ships fleeted with it.

that would allow you to defend your bases and make tehm far more survivable

Successfully updated karma reason!

Eliminate the micro-management of upgrading them. Use a 'fire and forget trade Route' system - i.e. you send one starbase constructor to it to establish the route, (it becomes a 'mini-constructor' like a freightor will on a regular trade route) then pay a small weekly fee to maintain the route, and a large one-time fee whenever you want to upgrade. You can make upgrades automatic - just like planetary improvements.

The routes are suseptible to enemy attack just like mini-freighters.

Other than that I think starbases are ok. By the end game they are not as useful, and if destroyed can be re-built fairly quickly if you are running things right. I don't see the small HP as a problem.

Successfully updated karma reason!

The towing module should be about size 40. That way, smaller ships cannot tow.

You're not forgetting miniaturization, are you? Some races have it innately too.

An agent could redirect a mining starbase to your empire instead of the enemy's.

A little far fetched, don't you think?

Beyond simply needing to be more powerful, as would be fitting their size and expense, they need more HP and a faster repair ability.

Regarding their size, well, the game isn't very good at those details. A starbase basically has the stats of a large hull, the HPs, the base sensor radius, and the "cost" (as displayed in the Intelligence Report screen, but not really relevant). However, its base crew is a little over that of a huge hull, and its base (no modules) mass is somewhere between a large and a huge hull. Now, the base mass and base crew values for the hulls are very bad and unrealistic:
medium: 20 crew, ~1Kt
large: 220 crew, ~250Kt
huge: 1200 crew, ~3Mt
cargo: 1400 crew, ~500Kt
starbase: 1500 crew, 750Kt

Tiny and small hulls do have some relistic values for fighters and heavy fighters, they just don't feel like them - more like patrols and corvettes. But that's really more of a QA problem, and doesn't really affect gameplay - would be nice if it was given a bit of thought though (hint).

The crew of a starbase does increase dramatically though when you add certain modules, like 5250 with BattleStations, and a whooping 14000 with Devastator Beam - that's a lot of gunners for sure

- Increase hp, alot. They are many times the size of the biggest ships yet their hps are comparatively low.

Actually, the base mass is 1/4 that of a huge hull, and 3x that of a large. See above. As far as actual size, there's no real indication of the span of a starbase, though a huge is not so much longer than a large to justify being 12x as massive; the difference is even greater between a medium and a large, the latter being over 250x more massive. Oh well, just numbers I guess. But I wonder why they "wasted" time implementing the mostly-eye-candy Intelligence Report if it doesn't do a good job at providing "intelligent" data

The gfx are hardly worth it, IMO.

- Allow them to take part of battles inside their sphere of influence

Not sure about this since that would imply them having to fire automatically whenever a ship/fleet entered its SoI. Anyways, the whole SoI I think would be exagerated, maybe only adjacent parsecs?

- Allow them to upgrade themselves

I can imagine Space Miners using resources from the asteroids to build the mining bases (even though "beaming" the resources to the planet, hmm...), but starbases?
Micro isn't nice, sure, but...

Allowing starbases to be towed somewhat decreases the strategic importance of using and placing them intelligently.

Agreed.

2) they should house fleets as planets do now - planets shouldn't have had this capability in the first place (since they have atmospheres). and they should also be captured as planets - meaning they should have population - i.e. small planetoids.

It's a fact that there should be some kind of orbital facility where fleets would be stationed around a planet. Heck, they should be *built* there - and the Colony screen does say Orbital Construction...

But there's no point in trying to make sense of any of it.
Starbases, they do extend the range of ships, which implies some docking capabilities. Capturing them could be a nice thing, Stellar Marines? But I guess it wouldn't be easy to balance, and could become a source of some more cheese.

Or is that, just in keeping within game mechanics too very much?

Maybe they shouldn't even start "what would you like..." threads too, huh?

Not that I'm holding my breath or anything.

Successfully updated karma reason!

I disagree that starbases are unimportant in the end game. True they are vulnerable and must be protected, but they can still be extremely valuable. For, example, each influence starbase generates 1 bc per turn in trade when fully developed. The ROI is virtually non-existent since that permanent 1 bc costs massive bc's to establish and could be improved. The capture of an enemy world is hard to measure. I haven't found a limit on star bases yet, (though I think it might be 24 in DL???) ... that would make starbases practically worthless by itself as a source of income. I always use SB's for my excess production, a carry over from CIV I guess. Economic starbases cost every turn for that extra production so when I don't need it I scrap them. 5 worlds that produce ships every 5 turns can be staggered so that one ship is produced every turn like a pipeline. I use 1 or 2 defenders for each planet and a small fleet of fast attack ships to defend my borders - usually 1 per enemy - so my ship maintenance is usually very low. When I'm not building replacements for my fleets I build constructors. It would be nice if constructors could be used to add shields to military or social projects on different worlds, as well as build SBs.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Only improvement i'd like to see, would be that constructors weren't used up after installing modules, being able to set an auto-route back and forth from planet to base to keep upgrading.

Successfully updated karma reason!

I think it would be nice to be able to have the ships that you have stacked on your starbase fight alongside with the starbase when its attacked. Maybe an attach fleet option or what not. Sometimes when my SB is attacked Ill either get the ships or the SB...dont see why the SBS cant fly in tandem with the base...they do it when attacking one.

Successfully updated karma reason!

The one thing I wish we could do is add more construction modules to constructors so that one constructor could add more then one module to a starbase. This will add some stragic thinking, do you want to put more engines so the starbase gets upgraded faster, or more construction units.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Tetrasodium

Join Date 03/2006

+17

Most of the changes that keep getting mentioned can be done by modding the starbase in GC2Ships.xml to use a different hull (it uses large or huge) and then making that hull (just copy the huge and change the hp/sensors/etc).

Personally I want to see

1. The ability to have a module increase a starbase's sphere of influence.
2. The ability to have multiple things on starbase modules, currently they are [starbaseability]SomeAbility[/starbaseability] [StarbaseAbilityValue]SomeNumber[/StarbaseAbilityValue] so you can only have a given module do one thing on top of attack/defense. It would be better if it were handled more like the bonus's in the tech tree where it's [SomeAbility]SomeNumber[/SomeAbility]
3. The ability to force 'evil races get free starbase modules' to be ignored for a given module.

Successfully updated karma reason!

add more construction modules to constructors so that one constructor could add more then one module to a starbase.

Like trade modules to a freighter to increase trade revenue.

Successfully updated karma reason!

I agree that starbase building requires too much micro-managemant. One of the better suggestions was:

I think that this is a very interesting idea. I was thinking of something rather similar. Perhaps there could be a new construction class of starbase whose only job is to build other starbases from the resources it obtains from a 'miniconstructor' trade route. From the construction starbase you could queue the various upgrades you want added to the starbase being built.

The speed of the upgrade constructions will depend upon the particular upgrades and how many resources are sent to via the mini constructor routes leeding to it. Maybe the option could put be in place that a planet supplying the resources via the mini-constructors can allocate a certain ammount of its military build points to the construction starbase. There would be a max number of allocatable resources depending upon how many mini-constructors form the route (or how big each miniconstructor is).

Construction starbases and the larger constructor ships that turn into them should be quite vulnerable to enemy attack and therefore need ship defence. Or perhaps it could make temporary mini-defences around it.

This may take more work to set up but it sure beats directing constructors all the time and keeping count of them.

Lovely,
Red Priest

Successfully updated karma reason!

How about just being able to set a starbase as a rally point? Then you can have a nearby planet set the base as a rally point. When the constructors arrive, it automatically goes to the upgrade screen, you choose your upgrade, move on.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Starbase weapon upgrades should be counted as individual weapons. If you upgrade it fully, you only get a few shots out of a hundred guns. MAJOR drawback for swarms of fighters.

Upgrades could be done with mini-freighters. Establish a route to it and slowly upgrade it...

Successfully updated karma reason!

In regards to Themocaw's suggestion:

I think that it certainly has the advantage of simplicity, but part of the problem I find is that I don't want to have to continually deal with upgrade screens many turns after I have already decided (in my own mind) what function and what upgrades I want the starbase to have. As the game presently is I often will be building several different starbases (often of the same type) around different places on the map. Some of the econ bases I want to add trade income bonuses (those around trade routes) while others I do not want to add such upgrades. Some of them I will also want to add some defenses on while others I don't think are threatened enough to warrant adding defences. When I get the upgrade screen from a constructor going to a stating on autopilot I often don't even know which station it is that I am being asked to upgrade. I therefore hit 'cancel' and then have to move the constructor manually so I know which station it is I am looking to put upgrades on.

Also there is the issue of trying to keep count of how many constructors you have travelling across the map to your various starbases. Rally points alone would not resolve the issue, but this might be resovled if you could specify how many constructors to send to a given rally point. I think that could sort of work but it would require me to know how many constructors I would in fact need. It's not a big deal, but it is a hassal.

There is indeed a question of whether what I am suggesting (see reply above) requires even more management. I think that when you are not building many starbases with a lot of modules, what I am suggesting would be more annoying. But if you are making many highly upgraded stations, I think that what I am suggesting would be much more useful. You could always use both methods in the game depending on whatever you find more convenient. If you followed my suggestion, then it could be another whole line of research forcing you to use the tranditional constructor method early on until you have researched more efficient means of creating starbases later on.

Successfully updated karma reason!