For what it's worth, I'm not talking about someone beginning with spamming starbases-just that if you ever run into a planet with 16 Vasari starbases, it's going to be about impossible to crack.

I'm not seeing why they'd need to cost a capital crew slot if they remained limited to one per gravity well and were modified in both initial cost and upgrade costs to reflect the capabilities that the upgrades give them...which should already happen as the upgrade prices are placeholders, and even the initial cost isn't set in stone, to my knowledge.

Starbases don't necessarily need to become increasingly more expensive as you build more of them-they just need to start weak(er) and cost increasingly more to make them stronger.  That way even though you may run into a starbase at every planet, most of them will have perhaps one or two upgrades on them, if that...but yes, if a game goes on long enough, which it is my understanding that MP games generally do not, then it could in theory be possible to have every planet fortified with a badass base.

-

I've been thinking about something like that, actually.  I'm not certain that a maintenance exactly would be the best way to go about it, as it would seem the best way to do that would be to tie the limits into the fleet supply tech.  But it might be a good idea to limit both mines and starbases based on the same kind of support tech that capital ship crew slots currently take up.

I'm not certain that even this will combat the mine spam present in the game at the moment, though.

And if there's going to be a starbase limit, it needs to be relatively high.  There's nothing quite so stupid as playing a map with a hundred some odd planets and only being able to place 5 or 6 starbases.  Even the 16 that the capital ships cap at currently would seem to be a bit low-then again, it seems others feel that the limit for capitals is too low as well.

This doesn't mean it can't start at a limit of 1 or 2 total, though, where you research your way up to be able to construct more.

Mines using tactical slots is not, I repeat not a good idea.  Mines using logistics slots is an even worse idea.  Whether it's a mine per tactical slot, a mine field per tactical slot, hell even a hundred mines per tactical slot (okay that might be worthwhile but you're missing the point-that's not a good idea)-mines are not going to be worth losing out on static defenses, particularly as Entrenchment has improved them, with any kind of minesweeping agent-which we'd still kind of need.

This is precisely why they need to be increasingly expensive = cost a capital ship crew.

What I don't want to see in multiplayer is someone building only starbases and defenses with no chance of ever winning the game but intentionally dragging out the inevitable outcome forcing you to fight a "badass base" at every planet.

The game should encourage you to build a balanced mix of fleet and defenses instead of having fleet become increasingly expensive but keeping defenses ever so cheap.

Not to mention Starbases cease to be anything special if it's more of a requirement to systematically spam them everywhere because they are far more cost effective than late game fleets.

Nothing you've said really supports the notion that starbases should cost a cap crew.  You're totally ignoring the problems that cap crew limitations already cause with medium and large maps.  The very same problems that starbases are meant to help alleviate.  You're going to put us right back where we started with too few resources.

If they're just building starbases, then you should be able to take them out rather handily.  Keeping the pressure on them with your ever-so-mobile fleets should prevent that from happening, or at least let you take out the bases before they get upgraded.

Yes, but your idea isn't really going to help solve that problem.  That's really a different set of issues that I still think warrant more consideration.  I really believe that some sort of resource scaling with map size is necessary.  I hope we see that soon.

They aren't more cost effective than fleets.  They serve a different purpose.  The problem is that you can't defend your worlds the way things are today, so games just devolve into both sides rampaging through each other's home systems because there's no possible way to defend them.

Which they're not.

Did you read the part where I said you could have a new support tree in with capital ship supply/fleet supply for starbases?

I just don't think it's a good idea for them to use capital ship slots.

If you're really that scared of someone fortifying every single planet of theirs with a badass base (i.e. all available military upgrades), and given the current (admittedly placeholder) costs, I have but one question for you:

How long are your MP games?

-

I want to have a starbase at every planet.  I want to put economic modules on them.  I want to be able to put a shipyard in a TEC starbase for a decent amount of credits and resources, for instance.  I want to be able to have most of my bases be a mild deterrent to enemy forces (in the same way that current defenses are), and support my empire.

Then, I want to have one badass base somewhere with every military upgrade known to man so that I have one planet that will take a concentrated effort to take down.

And to accomplish this, I want starbases to cost less initially, and cost exponentially more with upgrades-particularly military; I actually think civilian upgrades could stand to be a little cheaper.

I'm also for toning down the weapons portion of the initial starbase, actually.

No SB should be able to phase jump, first and foremost. On the other hand, some sort of movement for each would be nice. As they stand, i find myself building the base close to where ships are phasing in from hostile planets. Unfortunately, later in games, when things might change, my SB becomes useless as a defense mechanism, I think the balancing should be handled with the upgrades made available to each race. (Vasari-better weapon upgrades, TEC- trade port upgrade is great, and Advent- something culturally related?) I just hate upgrading my base and spending like 10000 credits and a bunch of resources on something that ends up working as a trade port, and a distraction when enemy ships attack my planets(i only play single player right now). The ability to move within the gravity well would definitely solve this problem. I think the biggest problem with increasing the range on the SB to be able to kill things from across the gravity well is ridiculous, since you wouldnt be able to get close enough to attack. im not an expert player, just a new guy with some suggestions, so please dont kill me if these are stupid ideas.

On a separate note...and i will go post this in the mine complaint forums, too...but we need a cap on mines allowed per gravity well or overall. I played a game for two hours and with only two Vasari planets left to destroy, i wandered into a mine-spammed asteroid belt(or other non-planet occupied gravity well). It destroyed over 30 ships and four capital ships of mine, and forced me to keep building ships just to send them to their destruction. I just quit the game and had to start over, because it stopped being fun after 20 mins of that. My suggestion is a separate supply of mines(similar to fleet supply), which could possibly be upgradeable to allow a larger capacity. i understand not making it use a logistics slot, but its too easy to just build a hundred mines in a single gravity well and it makes the game feel too repetitive and gets dull quick.

I dont see the point in including the starbases in the fleet supply or capital ship supply figures especially as the fleet is your only real means of taking territory so you dont wanna be depriving the player of  strong offensive arm just because they also like to have a decent defense, not to mention what ever way you look at it the starbases are a defensive structure for defending a grav well, not a fleet unit thus it makes no sense to me to add them to fleet supply

If you can afford to build them then i dont see whats wrong with a gravwell being able to maintain its own starbase perhaps 2 at a push, if its expensive enough to build then i reckon simple economics (aka the player not wanting to go bankrupt) should be enough to stop the player spamming them

or at the very least give the starbases their own unit cap that can be expanded with research as you progress, similar to the cap ship limit, this would mean a player wouldnt have any worries about trading offense for defense everytime they build a starbase as you would if you included it in the fleet supply but at the same time means they have to be mindful of where they build it

Actually in one of the pre-beta interviews, Blair and Craig said that that's how it would be. They must've tried it out and decided against doing a separate "starbase crews" upgrade line akin to capital crews/fleet supply. I imagine it's because they wanted some kind of limitation that does actually scale with map/empire size and isn't dependent on finite research options..

Good to know.

I wasn't suggesting it, actually, just didn't want to categorically rule it out, either.

Yeah I remember reading about it.

I'm glad they went with 1 starbase per grav well. Makes it balanced by the map. Very simple, very easy and does the job.

For what its worth, I think that there should be some way to relocate starbases that are already upgraded, as in phase jumping.

The Vasari have no dedicated anti-structure ship. Their SB, however, has anti-structure weapons. If you try to use the SB for offence to take down another SB, you are pretty much doomed to fail. If they have a supporting fleet, you can't just have yours sit on the side and upgrade, as it will be torn apart before it can be upgraded. If they have strikecraft, it will be extremely damaged by the time it is actually built. If you're fighting another Vasari, their SB (that is probably completely upgraded) will tear yours apart. Either the Vasari need a way to get an upgraded SB into an enemy gravity well, or they need dedicated anti-structure ship like the other races.

Front lines change, and it is kind of stupid to have a SB fully upgraded for defence sitting 3 planets away from the front because you advanced. Maybe their is some border world that you and some one else are fighting for. You build a SB their and max out its weapons and health. Eventually, you gain the upper hand and push back the enemy. Now you have completely worthless resource sinkhole sitting in the back of your base. You can't purchase any upgrades to make it more useful (like trade ports, colony pods, etc) because you already used all of your upgrades to make it a fighting machine. Scuttling it means that you just wasted a tremendous amout of resources. So what are you supposed to do? If SBs could be moved to other planets, then it wouldn't be a massive waste.

Of course there would have to be limits to their phase jumping. I think that they should only be able to make one jump away from your planets. Say you have three planets A, B, and C connected in a line by phase lanes: A--B--C You own A, and your opponent owns B and C. Your SB can jump to B, but can't jump to C unless you colonize B first. They also shouldn't be able to jump to planets that already have a friendly SB, or have one under constrution

Also, if they get the ability to jump, Vasari SBs should not be able to use phase stabalizers. Then they can't use it with the Kostura cannon to get a fully upgraded SB at some one's home planet.

People say that a phase jumping SB would be an uber capital ship. If people never use caps in MP, then why would they use SBs? Besides, the way SBs are now, a decent sized fleet can kill one pretty quickly with minimal loses. Its not like one can single-handidly smash an entire fleet.

Just my 2 cents.

+1

That's your fallback point.

Two points:
-If your economy can't sustain putting up a starbase where you need one, you don't need it there.
-You should not have, in a normal, relatively short MP game, every single planet fortified with a maxed out military starbase.

-

I'm arguing that the cost alone should be prohibitive enough for you to not be able to do that-you appear to be arguing that you should be able to, and that since you can't, jumping is a valid solution.

I can't agree with that.

Exactly. Because you can't afford to have a maxed out military one on every planet, you should be able to move the one or two that you do have to the places where they are needed. If the front line changes, then your SB becomes useless and all those resources you spent on upgrading it go to waste. You said earlier:

That "badass" base is rendered completely useless if the planet its on is no longer being contested.

If a Starbase jumps, it's no longer a starbase. (reiterating Sole Soul's point here). If a Starbase jumps, everyone will just build one at their home planet, upgrade it, and send it in with their fleet as offense.

The goal isn't to change a starbase into a super-capital. It's to make a starbase. Time to move off "make them jump", because it isn't going to happen.

I guess you're right. Its still going to bug me every time my SB gets render useless. And the Vasari need a dedicated structure killer. But I guess you're right. A phase jumping SB probably shouldn't see the light of day...

I certainly don't want a mandatory Starbase at every planet. That completely defeats the purpose of building a more powerful than usual defensive structure at a key location to complement the planetary defenses.

Starbases need to be good at their main job: mess up fleets that are trying to pass through its grav well or protect the planet from being taken over. And it needs to be powerful and expensive to pull this off efficiently. That means you can't spam them everywhere without gimping your fleet and losing the game. If they can't be used for this purpose they will never be used in multiplayer.

I really don't see a purpose building lots of weaker "mild deterrent" bases everywhere. They don't accomplish anything except making for attractive targets for the enemy fleet.

Anyway, it's more of an issue that Starbases fulfill their defensive purpose than whether they cost cap ship crews or not. I can easily live with the 1 per location limit if they get the long range abilities/weapons and squadrons needed to pull this off.

I'm also not against building a cheap unarmed starbase with only a Trade upgrade in an Asteroid belt to extend a trade lane. It might have its uses in a big game with diplomacy.

Again-what's the point of the civilian upgrades if I can't make civilian bases?

I don't mind complete customization but they do look rather imposing for a mere Trade Port.

And we already have the civilian structures available. Starbases shouldn't be a replacement for the old structures but something to entrench yourself with.

Some of these ideas have the potential to suck the strategic life out of this game.

If people want to Mine the spacelanes they ought to be able to. If people want to neglect their fleets in order to ***Entrench*** (the whole POINT of this expansion) then they ought to be able to try. If people wish to neglect Empire research in order to achieve a Strategic weapon in the military tech tree, then they should be able to. If a player strives to build nothing but defenses in a game, then yes he or she ought to turn into a tough drawn-out nut to crack. Why is that bad? Long game? Save it. Too tough to crack? Hit them with your mobile offensive fleets BEFORE they get to the stage of supposed uncrackability. Follow Pirates into a system and attack. Coordianate with allies to cooperatively crack them. Endeavour to overcome his system with influence so-as to fight with bonuses to your forces. I want MORE options, not less. I don`t want to play the same skirmish with the same tactics over and over and over again.

Mines: a good idea would be to dramatically delay salvage/trade/ore freighters as they pass through - the denser the fields, the greater the delay and thus the less the benefit over time from them. Should be exponentially consequential, density to benefit over time.

i thought we were on about starbases, where did the topic of mines spring from?

i agree with you there rofl

maybe as a last fun-expansion called 

"Sinny Idea's"

The way that starbases work right now is acceptable, if you ask me, but there's always room for improvement and modding and I sure wouldn't mind seeing some changes myself.

• Make starbases' capacity for upgrades based on levels. Stages maybe...
• Said levels will have to be bought, it will not gain Experience from combat or kills.
• With the increase of starbase level, the maximum number of upgrade slots available also increases.
• Make starbases cost money and resources to maintain still including the build price, upgrade price etc.
• As each level increases make the starbases cost more to maintain.
• The current upgrades available such as trade ports, refinery etc, will lower the costs of running the starbase and potentially create enough surplus to bolster your income.

I like the idea of an AVERAGE of one starbase per system but I should be able to put 2 in one system and none in the other.

I would of like to have seen cap ships work the same way, and fleet supply increase a certain percentage depending on how many planets you have..but oh well

i like that idea,  tough a problem occurs here,  when for exampel playing 1 vs 1 maps will have to have a fair number of planets,   i've had multiple maps where i get "stuck" with 4 asteroids belts out of 7 close-by  systems  if my oponent has some ice's vulcanoes and deserts instead,  i dont have to explain what a huge advantage that might give early game,   i'd have to spend more on fleet supply early game, wich in turn gives me less income   when i already have a low income (you can consider yourself lucky if all those 4 roid belts have 2 or more extractors)

so again, i really like that idea -. - but then again it can give some serious down-sides