When I first started playing Entrenchment I mostly played Vasari - Starbases were fun, dynamic, and bolstered defenses admirably.
Then I went back to playing TEC and Advent and it's just... annoying. With only being able to build one starbase (this problem would go away if you could build two, or just a second, watered down one), it's pretty much impossible to even hope to get a FRACTION of the useability out of an immobile starbase. The only solution I've found is to sandwich all the civic structures between the starbase and the planet, which tends to draw attackers into the fields of fire. Needless to say this is a pretty moronic solution to a problem that shouldn't really exist...
For the immobile starbases, why does the range have to suck so bad? The way Phase Lanes work mean enemies could really end up at either (and complete opposite) sides of the gravity well, and a single starbase cannot really even cover ONE effectively... the thing is all the Starbases have a level 2 weapon upgrade that promises an 'extremely long ranged attack', but I've yet to see anything I'd even call 'Long'. In fact, I think LRM frigates have more range than Starbase missiles. I expected the long range level 2 attack to be something that could at least pelt targets across the gravity well (not necesarilly ALL of it).
More than one starbase in a planet grav field, sounds like a fun tiwst to play... but im not much of a modder myself. Can someone who is lay out a step-by-step prosses to do this?
I think the extended range on non-Vasari bases sounds like a good way to compensate for their mobility, but I do not think it should be too much bigger, nor do I think it necessary. I manage to screw just about anyone with a starbase, short of one recorded loss.
No complaints here.
That's strange - Strikecraft go through the planet just fine...
Yeah, but that's a strikecraft. If it was a beam weapon, THEN we would have anarchy.
Sure, you can ignore the starbase, and move on just fine. You can't kill the planet if the starbase has the government upgrade, and you can't run away without losing all your antimatter and taking severe damage.
So go ahead, pretend that starbase isn't there, and jump away. That won't be a lethal mistake.
um.... just a simple change here guys, but... what if the starbases could orbit the planet?
yes, now they move, the orkulus loses its unique advantage, but not really, by orbit, i mean it can move around the gravity well like a moon, staying at one uniform distance from the planet, but can swivel around?
atm i cant decide whether to let it orbit by itself like a moon, or just to give it the ability to change its location in the gravity well along its originally placed orbit (that is, the orbit where you constructed it originally)
if you are really worried about making it too much like vasari, you could say that the TEC and Advent starbases can only move once every 30-60-90 seconds or so, that way you can move it into th enemy fleet and cause havoc, then if the enemy fleet changes course away from it, 60 secs later you can move him again, and you dont effectively have an orkulus... that, or enable more starbases in a system...
still, i like the orbiting idea better... no reason why not IMO?
Orbiting is an interesting idea, and as long as the SB's stay in one orbit, the Orkulus still has a movment advantage in that it can move anywhere in the grav well.
The only problem I see is what happens to the players that put 30+ gaus platforms around their planets? What would the checks be so the SB didn't just plow right into the gauss platforms, or resource extractors, or repair platforms, you see the what I'm getting at? It's a great idea, but I don't know what the coding would be like. I'm not a programmer, but it sounds like this would be kind of code intensive, and I'd hate to slow the game down.
Love the idea, and think it would work without upsetting the balance.
I think the idea would work fairly well as long as the orbit path is shown like a building before construction, where there has to be a clear path. Likewise, if a building is put somewhere in the orbital path, it won't be allowed to construct there.
As for the Orkulus, it does seem a crappy thing that they have the advantage of mobility and phase gates. On the other hand, I've actually lured the path of an Orkulus into a cluster of civil structures and got it caught up in them, pinning it down for long range craft to finish the job.
perhaps they could double the weapon range and reduce the starbase damage output to 1/2 or 1/4. I mean, if there are no big battles against a starbase, because it is so easy to fly around it, then where is the fun? (Ogrev and Starfish could be changed too - so that their range is even greater - then ogrev and starfish would be a real threat, because they could destroy structures from very far away and appropiate counter measures are needed (fighters, minefield, starbase or fleet)).
if starbase damage would then be to low to scratch capitals, they could expand starbases with a big single target firing gun, like starwars deathstar, building slowly up and then firing at a capital. That was also the biggest thing, i missed, when I first saw the advent station in action... where are the big beam weapons i dreamed of...?
or how about we make starbase fire into other grav wells. come on guys, as cykur said a well placed starbase can defend a planet and its logistical structures no problem. and the orbiting thing would be way too annoying if an enemy attacks because your SB could just float away, and it makes them extremely weak because advent and TEC starbase need static defences to be useful otherwise they can be easily killed with a couple of caps or some ogrovs and flak.
and if you place your logistical structures around your starbase your enemy would be stupid to leave it there because all the logistical slots would be used up.
or you have the ability that makes it impossible to colonize with the starbase still there.
and even though you can go around starbases for choke points they severely damage your fleet if you do that. phase jumping out of a well with a starbase gets rid of all the antimatter on all ships and causes 30% dmg to the hull, so all you need is a medium sized fleet to finish them off. or if you were TEC you could use a lvl 6 martza to kill their fleet because they have no antimatter to interrupt missile barrage. the strategic uses of starbase go far beyond being able to kill all the ships in the grav well.
And if Starbases had increased range it would make them too powerful because someone could go to enemy grav wells and build tons of them on all his planets making it impossible to counter because the SB have rediculous range.
IF USED PROPERLY ALL THE STARBASES ARE BALANCED.
the vasari just happen to have the only one that can be used effectively for offence.
And don't forget the Trade (especcially TEC), culture (Advent) and Population (Vasari) upgrades of the SB's.
If you Advent are you can force the enemy to attack the starbase with the full culture upgrade, if you have some time.
I dissagree with this. If a star base had the ability to move within its orbit it would be a simple matter to lure the orgrovs into following the SB, reverse the direction of the SB, then destroy the ogrovs. I think haveing only one SB that moves is a distinct defensive disadvantage to the other two races.
Could you explain this, top vasari? I have no idea what you're trying to say here.
I do agree that the range on SB weapons shouldn't be changed. The range itself is balanced well with all the other weaponry in the game.
what I'm trying to say is when you build logistical structures around a planet they take up logisical slots. even when the planet is destroyed they still take up logistical slots. so If you have a desert planet with 9 trade ports. if the enemy destroys the colony and recolonizes they will not be able to build any logistical structures( that also means no frigate factories, which you would need on a front line planet) until those trade ports are destroyed. now if those 9 trade ports are all around a starbase your enemy would have to destroy the starbase to be able to build any logistical structures. unless of coarse they are tec and they have ogrovs, but you could have fighters on your SB making ogrovs useless.
so starbases can be used to slow down or totally stop an enemy advance.
Okay, it all made sense, except for this. lol Starbases on their own don't support logistical structures.
Were you responding to Draakjacht post,
If you were, he was just saying he forced the Orkulus to get stuck in a cluster of already built logistic structures that were around a planet.
I'm not trying to be difficult here. We just have a mis-communication that I'd like to fix.
Speak the same language, understand nothing..... lol
c'est la langue.
we could say, for some reason, that starbases can only orbit 45 degrees either side of its starting position, that way, it could be moved to intercept enemy forces, or move away... though i dont know why you would want to move away...
besides, i was thinking that, considering the size, it wouldnt move very fast, making it simply a tactics thing. im not saying it could or should outrun an Ogrov or Solanus.... im not yet certain about Orkulus Starbases... but it should be able to orbit... i mean, orbital structures we have today orbit... so making a starbase orbit shouldnt be that hard...
someone said we have to make the enemy want to attack our starbases... i dont want to make him want to, i want to make him HAVE to. if he wants to, it means it fits into his battleplans and he wont loose anything he laments loosing by taking on my starbase. if i make him, it means he wanst planning on taking on my starbase, at least not yet, and im screwing him up.
at the very least, id rather he have to attack my starbase first, that way, the planet and orbital structures remain largely unharmed, his fleet suffers attition, and gives me time to bring in or build re-enforcements. and if he tries to get around it, then i can move my starbase to intercept. makes sense in my opinion.... and if your biggest concern is that the enemy starbase will float away... well.....
like i said, starbases are massive weapons platforms, why would you make it run away from the enemy? it only makes it easier for him to run past you and cause problems... however, this 45 degree orbit idea would mean that after a while, he cant run any further, your Ogrovs catch up (if they havent been in firing range all along) and he cant do anything except stay and get shot at or engage.
lastly, i agree with this thing that the long range attack should be long range, i mean, not sure about advent beam weapons, as they are very line of sight oriented, or the Vasari long range weapons, because im not sure of the nature of the weapons themselves (maybe they can be directed and manipulated magnetically?) but TEC missiles should and would have the ability to change trajectory mid-flight, meaning tht they should be able to fire at a target on the other side of the planet.
now, im not advocating starbases firing at targets on the other side of the planet, but i REALLY think the long range weapons need to be LONG RANGE.
you know, im thinking about it, i dont think ive ever seen a TEC starbase fire its missiles? or if it does, they dont look like LRF missiles...
The missiles are a bit underwhelming visually. I use the Distnat Stars mod which makes them very noticeable.
As for the orbit: all objects within a gravity well have to orbit or constantly use thrusters to counter-act the gravity. Orbit is easier and less stressful on a structure. In fact, there is no current satellite incapable of manipulating its orbit.
As for long range weapons, you do have a valid point. Ignore what makes a fun game. Basic physics says that an object in motion stays in motion. Outside of the influence of gravity (which ranges based on distance), a missile would not have to continue the use of its engines past attaining maximum velocity unless it decides to change direction. So if an Advent Whateverthehell stood still and started to fire on a gauss turret (which would also have no range limitations), a missile could be fired from a starbase on the other side of the gravity well and easily arrive to the target.
What does this mean? Well, it means that a lot of TEC weapons should have unlimited range within a well. BUT the enemy uses a mixture of energy shielding and ferro-ceramic plating. The energy shield is a wild card of sci-fi. It could have the effect of current EM shields on missiles, causing them to detonate prematurely and cause little to no harm, even to the shielding itself. The gauss turret fire could be less effective against energy shielding because of a magnetic or repulsive influence on the ammunition. Of course, the close-range energy weapons of the Argonev shouldn't be too different from what tehy are now. So it makes sense that the TEC would have unlimited range with projectile weapons, with the limitation that they are far less effective than the Vasari or Advent weaponry.
Ta-da!
With the orbit, something that has been bugging me, the planet rotates, but none of the asteroids or structures in orbit will move.
Now there is an inherent problem in Sins that in order for Phase lanes to remain the same and for the map to stay the same, no GW's can orbit around the star (because as we know with our solar system, all planets etc will orbit at a different speed). so because the planets dont orbit the structures cant orbit etc etc. im not saying its impossible, its just a choice i assume IC made to keep a few things constant and more game relevant (i.e. hiding a phase disruptor behind a planet to keep it alive a little longer)
I probably didnt explain that well but nevermind, its not that important. i was going to say that stricktly speaking, relative to the planet, everything already is orbiting, but relative to... i dont know, galactic north? (yes, i know theres no such thing). anyway, it shouldnt be a problem for a Starbase to manipulate its orbit by slowing down (i.e. moving backwards along its orbit) or speding up its orbit.
Now, lets get to the fun bit. first and easiest of all, ferro-ceramic plating is highly effective against dispersing the damage potential of energy weapons. lets break the word down: ferro, means iron (although could be used to describe whatever metal they use, tungsten is an example), ceramic, means the stuff you make vases and statues out of. the properties of this type of armor are that when an energy weapon hits, rather than absorbing the hit at the expense of structural integrity, it absorbs and disperses the energy (much like a lightening rod). its not 100% effective, you still loose some armor integrity with every shot, but its better than anything else.
now, if you take a big ass gauss slug, and fire it at your ferro-ceramic armor, imagine using a BB gun or air rifle against a vase... or at least a sufficiently large hardened ceramic block reinforced with metal (iron, tungsten etc) remember, we are pretending the BB gun is firing a huge Gauss round against relative armor plating, so make sure u imagine the scales right, now, a BB gun or air rifle make not shoot right through, but itll DEFINITLY compromise the armor, fire a few more and armor is toast.
Now, the hard part, i acknowledge that energy shielding is a wildcard, but we can make some assumptions about what energy shielding would do. So, yes, there exists now the ability to shield things against intelligent and dumb projectiles (i.e. missiles and bullets) that is, missiles are scrambled with countermeasures, and bullet trajectories can be altered or slown down with a strong magnetic field.
Which is what Draakjacht was saying. However, in terms of a Gauss round, you would need an exceptionally strong field, maybe even a couple of kilometers of magnetic interference, to interfere with a gauss round trajectory. thats what it is, a gauss shot travels so fast that unless it has to travel through kilometers of magnetic interference, probably from a few ships, its very hard to change its trajectory. Autocannon fire is a different matter, it does now have the velocity to overcome magnetic interference, so that could be overcome. Same with plasma weapons, unless the controlling magnetic force is greater than the interferring one, plasma will become dispersed before it reaches its target. As for EM shields, i cant see a way to overcome those, but rest assured it will happen... perhaps a program that shuts down the computer and increases speed to overcome the EM field... perhaps launching multiple warheads and attamping to use AoE to damage the target, or simply having a much larger payload (nuclear?) so that even if the missile is detonated before reaching its target, it could still damage something.
(Side note, why doesnt the TEC use nukes in space? Or any race for that matter? Or even using their own planet bombarding tech?)
However, these two forms of shielding dont counter energy weapons (barring plasma) as of the moment, i do not believe it is possible to counter a laser beam, other than by A) ferro ceramic plating and the like or simply being out of range so that the beam disperses before it reaches you.
Lastly, shielding is not just to protect against weapons fire, it is to protect against debris, meteorites (small ones), micro-particles, etc. As well as enemy fire. Radiation in a Suns gravity well, magnetising the hull in a magnetic cloud, damage from plasma ribbons in a plasma cloud, the explosive gasses in a gas giants GW. all sorts of things. and besides that, 90 if not 100% of all energy shielding (emphasis on the energy part) relates to a field of highly charged particles surrounding a target in order to create a protective barrier to absorb the impacts of anything hitting it.
What i would call the EM fields and Magnetic field that Draakjacht is talking about is more like countermeasures that actual energy shielding. not that they arent great ideas, i personally dont know why they arent implemented (i do know why, its for the sake of gameplay, and because its not needed) but it makes total sense. however, as it stands, Sins has energy shields, not countermeasures
so yes, Draakjachts theory is correct, however, most TEC weaponry requires impact (in fact, almost all weaponry requires an impact) to cause damage. a gauss round wont cause damage if it doesnt hit anything, a missile wont damage anything if nothing is in its blast radius.
so, in theory, Draakjacht ideas are good, except that the other two races use energy shields as i described above, (which, on a side note, is why phase missile work) therefore, TEC weapons should have unlimited range withing a GW, but why the damage shouldnt, realisticly, be reduced.for balance, you could do it sure, lets say acuracy or something... but from the science's point of view, there is no reason why TEC weapons should be less damaging at long ranges (barring lasers)
Still, Kudos to Draakjacht for a great post
When you lose a control of a planet, any leftoever structures you have their still occupy logistics slots. For example, let's say you lost control of a volcanic planet with a metal asteroid. If someone takes over the planet, they can't build a new mine there because you're mine is still taking up the space. The same thing applies to logistics slots. So even if you lose a planet, you still prevent your opponent from making the most use of the planet. The same should also apply to defenses, so if you maxed out all your tatical slots as well, he shouldn't be able to build any defenses like gauss cannons or phase jump inhibitors.
Although you have a few points, we both have little flaws in our thinking.
You're right, manipulating orbit should be possible. Also right, things should orbit.
Ferro-ceramic armor is actually a modern development (why are we researching it in the future?) and it deals with projectiles fairly well and disperses heat too. With energy weapons, this works. If the weapon is designed to interupt atomic cohesion, such as a neutron bombardment, the armor will mean little difference. So a nuke is pretty fatal still.
The Marza uses nukes. Why not more ships? Dunno.
An EM field would have to be very carefully designed to affect a slug, so shields might not do jack there.
I still think that missiles would be interfered with, as is the case with the IDF EM tank defense. It's a passive system just like the shields here and based on many of the same general principles as shielding theories.
Actually, a laser would never be harmful. One of two cases exist. 1) The vessel has what NASA calls 'navigational shields' which are designed to counter deep space dangers, such as hard radiation. Lasers are merely synthetic hard radiation. 2) The energy shields are the navigational shields, in which case the crew would begin to suffer radiation poisoning as soon as shields are brought down in combat.
But we have to forgive the game for a lot because for most games to work, physics goes down the toilet.
Or become so complicated that the gameing experience gets left out.
Couldn't a powerful enough laser simply overload the shield? Nothing is invincible and everything has a point of failure. What about a very tightly focused laser? One that could overload a shield locally and punch through the hull to do pinpoint damage. Even if the laser is only 1/4 of an inch in diameter a hit to the drive or amunition magazines would cause significant damage.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
