A mining ships doesn't dismantle themselves to build a mining station, so why should constructors have to? Mining ships have asteroids from which to make the bases. Constructors don't have anything to use apart from their own hulls.
They are enough to provide a significant navigational hazard (especially at the kind of velocities in GC2). A good example would be they Kuiper or Oort belts in our own solar system.
The biggest complaint I seem to hear about Gal Civ, is that space is pretty boring... this would add a little something to liven things up. I was considering ways of adding in that terrain flavour, that so many people seem to miss from other 4x games such as the Civ series. I realised that it could be done relatively easy, in the form of gas nebulae and asteroid fields. Nebluae would have effects such as reducing the sensor range of ships, or reducing/increasing the effect or a c
I found out a sneaky tactic to take advantage of this. Mars is usually an awful planet, so I always let the AI take control. Meanwhile, I have built one or two influence starbases right next to it. The planet revolts, I give it back to that civilisation in return for money/tech/influence, the planet revolts again, etc etc. As you get the bonus each time you capture the planet, you can end up with Mars (or any other low PQ planet) being PQ 30+. My highest to date is PQ 32 <img src="http://images.
Also take into account that most 'defenders' would be untrained civilians.
Gravity Accelerators and Hyperion Shipyard? All I can say is "Hell yes". Speed does matter when trying to defend an empire that spans a good percentage of a large or gigantic map. It is not 'just' movement, it is also an additional attack against stacked ships (or planets without an Orbital Manager). As for the high-end weapons, if you are only choosing them for the cost/damage/power ratio, then you are making a big mistake in your games. I always modify my fleets to take advantage of
