I have now played large campaigns in each race.
After playing the Vasari, and then playing Advent and TEC, my first reaction was that of many here on the forum: Why don't TEC and Advent starbases move?
When I played Advent I tried to utilize the Advent culture abilies of the Starbases to maximize my culture. I was disapointed that, even though I had several starbases with Evangilization Nodes maxed out, and they virtually sourounded the enemy planet, the enemy planet did not evacuate. It seemed proximity to home planet was enough to keep hostile culture at bay. Point being, for three starbases bordering the planet and three Evangilization Nodes on each one, and culture tech tree maxed out, Deliverance Engines shooting every which-way, I would think that would be enough to smother an adjacent planet. The Antimatter upgrades don't seem to be as powerful as they should be. Meteoroid Control doesn't seem balanced with Phase Stabiliser Nodes of the Vasari or Security Overide Protocol of the TEC. Mass Disorientation seems to work OK... I've seen it used againts me, anyway.
The only use I had for TEC Starbases was Safty Override Protocol. It is a singularily brutal attack, and I completed any number of "Destroy Ships" missions by using it. The one I found least useful was Auxilary Government (which all races get). All the others have their own, case-by-case usefulness. But as TEC, I usually put two points in Safety Override, one in Structural Integrity, and wait for an ememy fleet to attack it. Also, I haven't been able to confirm, do Docking Booms provide antimater to ships like the Advent Antimatter Recharger? I haven't confirmed this ability. It would be more useful if it provided Antimatter to structures as well, since odds are, if you left a Starbase there, you don't have your fleet there too.
The Vasari Starbases seem overpowered with their colony pods and their movement ability.
The starbases are nice: they allow trade ship routes to span uncolonizable areas, sometimes build more fleet (although this should sync with any construction facilities on the planet - it's anoying to have multiple waypoints set, one for the Starbase and one for the planet, as is the case with TEC), and provide short and long range attacks of dubious usefulness.
For the record, I don't think any race needs phase stabilizers built into the base. I don't think TEC and Advent Starbases should even, necessarily, move. But what they do need (at least TEC and Advent) is a weapon that is capable of taking out a ship. I shouldn't be able to destroy a maxed out 15000 hp starbase and loose nothing.
In the current build, the Advent starbase is pretty buggy. The meteor abilities for example don't actually work correctly. In my experience, not all the guns work either, it's damage is FAR lower then the stated numbers.
In general, the Starbase civilian abilities are weaker then the equivalent building. So the culture upgrade is weaker then a Temple of Communion. If your culture was smothering his planet, Advent has a tech to let you see it (since its in your culture), so you could have checked what its allegiance was. Maybe he built 5 broadcast centers there to counter what you were doing.
I'm not a fan of moving Starbases personally. They're bases, they shouldn't be flying around like Capital Ships (Vasari excepted, theirs is also a siege weapon against enemy Starbases so probably does have to move). I agree that they need the range and/or abilities to properly defend though.
I also agree about Auxiliary Government. It should prevent the planet from being wiped out, which it presently doesn't. (0 population and 1 health after bombardment while the Starbase is up or something, so you retain control and can still build).
Well i am not sure but movement of bases between stars is a bit much for my 2 cents. But i was really really disapointed that my base was not able to at least some limited form of movement in the gravity well to be able to defend.
Last game i built 2 TEC bases at the same time in seperate systems and placed them roughly 1/2 way between 2 jump points a bit more than 3/4 out from the planet towards the endge figuring i could cover a good amount of traffic that way as they both lead to pinch point that i was having a hard time taking from a huge pirate fleet..
Sadly it was pretty much useless as the jump points are so wide and they all but ignored the bases almost all flying past them to target the planet and other defenses closer into the planet not once but twice.
I could have sworn that the pirates gave me the finger as they drove by TWO of my TEC starbases on their way to bombard my least defended system.
I think starbases need to be able to move if they're going to be able to defend a planet successfully. As is they're just too easy to bypass, and even if you stick phase inhibitors in them it doesn't gaurantee they can actually do any defending. At the least they should be able to orbit a planet and stop to engage when necessary. If they can move from system to system, though, they should come with long deploy/undeploy times so people don't just start using them as death stars.
I agree that the advent base's guns need work, and both varieties of meteroid control could be better. I made a point of building a starbase in orbit of an enemy planet to try the planetary bombardment version, and I was not impressed with the results.
Take this with a large grain of salt, but in my limited experience it seemed as well that they are severely underpowered. I understand that they are not balanced in regards to cost but I think that a fully maxed Starbase should be able to go toe-to-toe with a medium fleet with 2 CAPs.
As it is right now, bombers literally slaughter them as they don't have much of an anti-strikeship capability and their damage potential is low.
I think that an option would be to lower the cost of their upgrades, allow them to have more and give them more options that one can use to counter the playstyle of your opponent (that you've discovered through smart scouting of course)
This for now
Perhaps tripling the range on starbase weaponry would solve the majority of engagement issues? I agree giving them some type of anti fighter weaponry (either by default or an upgrade option) would make them more able to stand on their own and not get taken apart by a few wings of bombers.
Also perhaps allowing 2 starbases per system instead of one would help make up for the lack of mobility?
I agree - no self respecting base has no flaks - starbases severly need flaks - im not saying enough to stop a full fleet but enough to give a smaller fleet reason to not try it.
I didn't mind the movement ability I just felt it was unfair - if the Vasari base can move - then you must extent the range of the other races bases. They should be able to defend at least half the range of the gravity well. In my opinion you should not be able to bomb a planet without engaging the starbase on some level. or worse case scenario allow the other two bases to orbit the planet.
The starbases also need to be hyperjump blocking - you should not be able to bypass a starbase and attack the next planet - yes it slow the game down - but shoot if Im going to spend 1800 per ability X 10 it better be able to mop up a lot of stuff so I say increase weapon range and double the damage - nothing short of a 1000 ship point fleet should be able to attack this thing without taking losses. or 500 fleet points - but expect to take some loses.
I really don't get it. Everywhere I go, people are screaming about how unfair it is that Vasari's starbase gets to move while their starbase doesn't. Here are reasons why I think you are wrong in your bitching.
1) YOU GET A TORPEDO CRUISER FOR CHRIST'S SAKE - VASARI DOESN'T! Comprehende'?
2) Gamers always complain that they want more variety in the races so they aren't all the same. So the developers go out and make the races a little different - in this case one starbase moves while the others don't. Then everybody screams they want moving starbases too. I bet the next step is, the developers make everyone's starbase the same, and then the same people bitch and moan that everyone is the same!
I also hear people screaming that bases are defensive, not offensive. Who says? Ever heard of the Death Star in Star Wars? It was a base (a huge base), it moved, and it was offensive as well as defensive. What's wrong with that? You know German flak cannons in WWII? They weren't just defensive anti-air cannons. They were also offensive ground weapons. Quit with the mindlock about defensive/offensive. It is possible for a unit to do both.
I also hear people screaming that either the Vasari base should not be able to move to another star system, or that the Vasari base should not be able to be built in someone else's grav well. Well, if either of these things are true, then one of the weapons and purposes of the Vasari starbase is now useless - the ability to do large damage to STRUCTURES.
What you managed to totally neglect in your ranting is that the Vasari Starbase is also the one that most effectively does its job as a defensive structure, because it can move. You can simply sit on the other side of a planet and bomb it to hell while the Advent/TEC Starbases do nothing, but you have to deal with the Vasari Starbase. It's also the best at preventing fly by attacks on worlds behind it for the same reason, it can actually pound the fleet as it passes through.
If the other Starbases could do their job as defensive powerhouses properly, you'd see a lot less talk about movement. Right now its coming up because its a solution to the problem.
I wonder if it would be game balance wrecking to give the TEC & Advent star bases the ability to attack at extremely long range (aorund 1/4 a grav well) with one or more group of weapons? (or at the least give their bases weapons range = to about 10% further than the longest ranged ship weapon in the game) Combine that with a near total lock down on phase jumping and they would be able to perform their task nicely as system defenders in that:
-No fleet could breeze past them to assault the planet or head to another system
-No fleet could engage it from beyond it's field of fire making them less of a sitting duck
-They would be worth the cost investment
-The Vasari base able to move would no longer be a huge advantage, and more of a moderate tactical/strategic one.
I wouldn't mind if the Advent Starbase stayed stationary and got an ability to pull enemy strike craft towards them - kind of like the reverse of the guardian's push ability.
the problem with the vasari starbase moving is that it is unfair, it is unbalanced. why should it be allowed to fullfil its purpose, but the other two not? and besides, we dont want a death star because we dont want a super death machine.
to rectify this, i have a few suggestions:a) give advent/TEC starbases longer range instead of saying that the vasari starbase must move because it is their only anti-structure weapon, simply GIVE THEM A TORPEDO CRUISER!
now, there is nothing wrong with a vasari sb moving in a gw. that is fine. but movng between gws is not fine.
other suggestions - a fully upgraded sb should be able to hold its own against a medium sized fleet. therefore, the devs should make them more powerful, give them more hangar bays, give flak cannons, etc etcalso, a way to force combat, to rpevent enemy fleets from just bypassing them to attack the undefended gws, is amust. for example, a phase jump inhibitor or some form of tractor beam
edit: the smiley face is supposed to be a b! second time i did that. i should start using 1), 2) etc
My 2 cents for the Starbase issue (yes I have used all three bases) and on Entrenchment in general.
1. Starbases should have flak, perhapes a gun or two per structure upgrade.
2. Advent and TEC bases should have better strikecraft upgrades as that is one of their most potent combat abilities system wide. (perhapes 3 squadrons per upgrade)
3. TEC and maybe Advent should get higher levels of trade upgrades reflecting that they are taking advantage of existing populations in contrast to the Vasari who are moving in with thier colony pods.
4. The Torpedo Crusier (and the Advent equivelent though I've never seen it in action) should have some sort of anti-cap ship attack (maybe a light torpedo special attack).
5. Mine should cost money for each race, the drone host and the ruiner should have construction options opened to them to build mines or their scial ability should cost a little bit in resources (this is possible as Returning Armada proves).
Here are my solutions to these problems
Advent Starbase-Give an extended range so that the starbase is able to effectively protect 1/2 of the gravity well that is inhabits. Increased firepower because at the moment, the starbase is outgunned by the Radiance Battleship. The Starbase should be able to take on a substantial fleet and the enemy does lose some ships; in other words, the enemy fleet should be hurting from taking on a Starbase. The asteroid abilities need to do more damage than they already do. One of the abilities is able to attack but only does about 500 in damage (but it's not worth the trouble because the cooldown is long), while the other that bombards the planet needs to be overhauled because it does nothing to the planet. Should also be given a Telekinetic Push ability like the Halcyon carrier.
TEC Starbase-Give an extended range so that it covers 3/4ths of the Gravity well. The TEC always had the range advantage and the starbase needs to reflect that. Slightly increased rate-of-fire since I find the guns on the TEC base the most balanced of the three. And also that problem with the glowing square needs to be fixed becasue halfway in the game, it appears to the side of the starbase. Also needs to be given a flak guns so they can take out fighter and bombers.
Vasari Starbase-IMO the Vasari SB is the most balanced of the 3. Only minimal adjustments should be made such as increasing the rate-of-fire, and giving it an anti-bomber/fighter ability.
that's my 2 cents anyway.
I think that as the Advent or the TEC you should be able to build a ship that will slowly tow the starbases around, but let the Vasari Starbase have the most mobility (speed). Starbases do need better antistrikecraft weapons and maybe more hp.
The solution isn't to make the vasari SB not fulfill its purpose. Neither is the solution to give the advent or tec the vasari's SB. The solution is to make adjustments to tec, advent, and possibly vasari's SB so that all fulfill their purposes. Also, don't forget that tec and advent get torpedo cruisers.
Who said anything about a super-death machine? No SB currently qualifies as such. No SB will ever qualify as such, even if the vasari SB retains its powers of movement.
For Christ's sake, must people always think in terms of direct symmetries? How freaking boring! Look, there is nothing wrong with having symmetry between races from a theoretical perspective, but it lacks creativity, and it's also BORING! And the more direct symmetry between the races, the more BORING they are. I for one congratulate the devs for trying to put a little asymmetry between the races. The problem isn't the asymmetry - that's a good thing, and we need more of it. The problem is getting the balancing right, the stats right on the new units, yadda yadda, and that's what beta and play-testing are for.
What good reasons do you have to find this objectionable?
I couldn't agree more with Agent. We should have the starbases be as different as possible. Personally I could even go for one race foregoing starbases altogether in exchange for something different. It's probably too late now but even the very big similarities that exist in all races annoy me to an extent. Why do all of them have to have the same types of ships instead of going for all out difference. Blizzard does this all the time where no race has the same capability units or even the same resource management in between races. This is what makes races unique.
Sure it's more difficult to balance but balance is an ongoing process and can be achieved if you get the popularity. And you get popularity by being varied. I'm going on a tangent now so I think I'd better stop.
To the topic at hand, the optimal thing would be to find each SB fulfill its duties in a different way. The Vasari one can move and thus can cover all the planet defense. To this end, the TEC one could be given very long range weaponry, so that it's weapon range, when built right next to the planet can cover the siege distance all around the planet. This would allow it to both defend the planet from being destroyed by a small siege fleet while also giving adequate defense from the direction it is built. The Advent SB could be a supercharged hangar. Give it 4 strikeships on build and 4 strikeships per upgrade and those will then be able to defend the planet at any distance. This would be superior to the normal hangar defense since your starbase would take much more time to take down and would also really hurt if you went to shoot at it (unlike the hangars)
Another solution for any race would also see them have the ability to build two starbases per planet but have them be of less effectiveness. This way the player will be able to cover both "halves" of the planet with two starbases.
I agree every race doesnt need a match for every ship. You could have a race that has no cap ships, a race of all fighter and bombers, and of course every race or future race doesnt need a starbase. Though we are seeing that now w some races having mine layers and some not............
I found a cool strategy: while playing Advent (although you can do it with anyone) I built a starbase in a phase storm. Normal ships can't launch fighters or bombers in a phase storm, so I put it way off to the side with max armor and 10 bombers. It made a nice little caltrop to any AI that tried to go that way.
The starbase anti-strikecraft upgrade is the hangar. It's just too pricey right now to be worth it.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
