I like this idea. I love playing with pirates, my friend doesn't. Neither of us like playing with super weapons.

The Starbase needs little research while the nova needs more and higher tech researches. Given the Loyalists get it a tad too cheap research-wise. But that is a problem with it's current research order.

Besides that your estimation fails to take into account that starbases might already be present on the planets where you need the auxiliary government, seeing how they are an important defensive structure and how they give additional boni to you (like boosted trade income, better allegiances or colony pods). I for one almost always have starbases on most of my planets before being shelled with Novas, in which case it's just an 1800/275/150 investment.

That's actually a pretty good rebuttle, hadn't thought of that. I usually tool mine for pure offense and neglect the economic aspects. Curious, do you find the bonuses strong enough to warrant a starbase even when novaliths are out of the picture? Also, do you play more against AI or humans?

Advent starbase: Tradeport that is about as effective as two normal tradeports, 30% extra allegiance (equals 30% stronger resource and planet income), extremely strong temple of communion. Takes up 6 starbase slots, frees up 20 logistic slots (if all abilities were maxed out) on backwards planets. Leaves open two slots (1 can be used for aux gov if needed).

TEC starbase: Tradeport as effective as 3.5 to 4 normal tradeports (on step 2), frigate factory that builds 2 times/3.5 times as fast as a normal one. Takes up 4 starbase slots, frees up 28 logistic slots. Leaves 4 slots on the SB.

Vasari Starbase: Phase stabilizer, tradeport roughly as effective as 2 normal ones, colony pods are immune to planetary bombardment. Takes up 4 starbase slots, frees up... 8 logistic and 8 tactical slots I think. The weakest economic effect of all starbases, but the freed up tacticals can be very useful.

The Vasari starbase is the least useful to use on backwards planets right now, but the immunity of their colony pods from all sorts of eco debuffs can be valuable in certain situations.

 

Edit: I don't have the exact numbers in my head right now, but I think that is bout the gist of it.

 

Right now I play versus AI a lot more, but in diplomacy the rate is about... 50/50 I guess. I'm more of a defensive player so I'm more prone to have starbases out early than someone who tries to steamroll players early on with fleet, but I always try to balance increasing my fleet size and securing my lines.

i dont understand the problem

an ai or human player using novalith is not a problem is it? it only costs 2k for a starbase builder and what 1200 or 1800 to research the enforced loyalty - done. just do it in every system in every game - you might as ell do it anyway because of rebel attacks - it solves both problems in your back systems and its cheaper than building hangers and turrets

The argument I was trying to make was, although already having starbases for defense/economics weakens said argument, is that a counter which can cost 10x+ as much as the problem (the Novalith) for full coverage is a poor counter. Add in the fact it only prevents the planet from going neutral, and does nothing to address the population loss or the trade reduction/population growth debuff, and you're left with what is, all and all, a mediocre plan. All it really does is saves you the downtime from having to send a new colony ship. You still take the punch right in the teeth.

EDIT: Since I'm talking so much about it, I might as well be clear on my stance on the Novalith. I do not think it's OP. I think against unprepared enemies it's devastating, and versus prepared ones it borders on a waste of resources. It's almost like a nuke in the sense that the mere threat of it is arguably more effective than the weapon itself. It would be nice if they could make it less of a oneshot planet killer, while allowing it to never become useless. Hopefully Mr. Haze won't kill me in my sleep for suggesting it needs a buff, but it really is... odd. It just doesn't seem to fit in with the other two, and suffers for it.

The problem with the Nova is that it doesn't actually give the player using it any advantage in battle, it can only be used to whittle down the enemy economically. The Kostura has great strategic value in terms of being able to soften an enemy for an incoming attack, and even providing you with the means of getting there. The Delivarence has great potential to weaken enemy battle strenght in the influenced well, if the manage to fix the "can easily be blocked through culture centers" problem.

The Nova just busts down your eco for a while, unless you were broken to begin with it'll take quite some time till you actually feel the impact. It needs this omgwtf bombing damage in order to keep any significance compared to the other two.

As for any limits, I would prefer they fixed AI behaviour before we decided on that, since it seems many players complaining here are put off because the AI spams them so much. After that I would suggest being able to enable and limite them by player choice, as this amends best to all kinds of players (thoas that like superweapons as much as those that dislike them).

XubXub, what mcintire was saying regarding the presence of starbases is my same philosophy.  It's not uncommon at all for me to use Orkies for their economic benefits.  If I'm going to turtle, I'm going to spam starbases and make stupid amounts of trade ports and will put an orky on every neutral that increase my length.

The closest thing the Vasari have to Hardened Cities or Planetary Shields is their tier 1 civilian tech that lets them build planet shelters for something like 20% of their default cost and at an accelerated rate.

Yeah, I kind of feel foolish for not even considering that as a possibility, I usually have my hands full just spamming trade ports. Going to have to try that playstyle out. Sorry for coming off as (or being?) a tool over it.

why do all these people think they get to whine about something a say it needs to be changed? Super weapons weren't really a problem... ever unless i missed something

They're probably new so they aren't familiar with the defenses against them yet.  They just see the TEC loyalists spamming Novaliths and cry OP.

if the nova was tied back into the missile tech then the tec loyalist lose their early advantage/bonus and their would be no point in playing them since they r a turtle race cant get their twin starbases till tier 8 and after some rly expensive and long research while the other races can get some of their bonus early like the tec tebel with truce among rogue and the advent loyalist global unity and w/e the advent rebels do i havent played as them much and atm the tec loyalist have their early novas if they r tied back into the missile tech it will fuck them up just like they will be when the super weapons r limited

I think an option to turn off super-weapons would be great.

You don't get it.

SOASE Engine has about as much chance of getting options asked for back in 2008 as Forest Gump has of being Obama's father.

What you see is what you get. 

hey semaz so what up with the engine/? did they create one from scratch? and how can they switch to a new one? can they like buy an engine from a firstperson shooter and make soase out of thaT??? i dont get the whole engine thing....

They made the Iron Engine which SOASE uses.  I'm not sure if the new medieval game they're making also uses it or something else (though I think it does), though I'd assume that they're updating it for the new game.  Sins II would probably use a newer redesigned version.

OPs really should put more thought into thier post otherwise they just end up clogging an allready busy forum.