It's already been pointed out how easy it is to destroy an opponent by camping and blasting their Starports and this is worse than in GC2.
I would like to see the planets retain some level of ship building capability, say only Tiny or Small hull types (and maybe medium at a higher cost.) Build the larger ships in space, but you'd still be able to build smaller ships (and constructors) on the planet.
The ability to only construct a single starship at a time at the starport/planet is/was a little lame. Consider adding the ability to have multiple build channels (kind of like naval shipyard slipways) and allow multiple smaller ships to be constructed at the same time (both planet and starport) with larger hulls requiring more of the "build channels" so that a starport might only be able to build a single capital ship at a time. Perhaps allow constructors to add/enhance build channels to a starport. You could then build a seriously large shipyard in a secure area to pump out ships.
An alternative way to accomplish this would be to allow a single planet to service multiple starports. Then I load up the planet with manufacturing capability and surround it with starports.
Probably too late at this point, but I think the Starport/shipbuilding capability could have been just a starbase option/module. This would allow adding weapons and defense to the ship building capability.
I'm not seeing a way to get rid of a starport that I don't want and the game insists that I attach it to a planet before I can continue the turn.
--David
I figured it was put in orbit in pieces, kind of like how we built the ISS. I really don't see that it should have _interstellar_ movement. Perhaps move it around within a certain range of its building planet, but the existing movement implies some kind of warp engine was built onto the dock--a waste if never moved.
Perhaps if it was towed (by a constructor), then it would be more like some of the floating dry docks that can be moved around to a limited degree (but I'm not sure there's any/many that are moved in the oceans.)
In any case, since stardocks are so cheap or quick to build I'm not sure what the utility is for making them mobile. What's the game play reason? (There may be one, I'm just not seeing it.)
No, if you build a starport from the planet screen it places it on the map, there is no constructor involved.
Yes, they can be built both ways, but that doesn't mean they should be mobile, especially at 1 parsec per week. That's hyperspace travel.
I think a better system would be to make starports an upgrade ring on starbases, there's really no reason to separate them into two distinct entities.
The reason is not apparent now because we are in early alpha. Imagine we are playing a game with 100 different main civs. that would require a map that has thousands of hex differences. How long would it take to move your main battle fleet and maintain the numbers on that fleet when the closes civilization is 200 hexes away. It would be nice to cut that distance in half with a stardock. IT would also be nice to say we have defeated a civilization by destroying all their stardocks instead of eliminating their 100 planets they have, after you have taken 50 of these planets.
I anticipate as we start to play larger games, that the mobility of the starport will become more appreciated as i can build a central starport for my empire. Or slowly move a starport into enemy territory as my forward base. It provides a rather interesting "king" type chess piece.
The reason is not apparent now because we are in early alpha. Imagine we are playing a game with 100 different main civs. that would require a map that has thousands of hex differences. How long would it take to move your main battle fleet and maintain the numbers on that fleet when the closes civilization is 200 hexes away. It would be nice to cut that distance in half with a stardock. IT would also be nice to say we have defeated a civilization by destroying all their stardocks instead of eliminating their 100 planets they have, after you have taken 50 of these planets.I anticipate as we start to play larger games, that the mobility of the starport will become more appreciated as i can build a central starport for my empire. Or slowly move a starport into enemy territory as my forward base. It provides a rather interesting "king" type chess piece.
You can do all that without having mobile starports. Just send constructors to build them. Every upside to mobile starports can be accomplished by just sending constructors. It just makes no sense to me that starports (that are really just starbases that build ships) can zip around the galaxy at hyperdrive speed. They should be treated exactly as starbases.
If I build a starport at home, then I find a better spot for my starport, I would then deconstruct my other starport and build a new one in the more central location... But then I find another planet, then I want to deconstruct my central starport and build a new one in the better location, but I don't want the other ones to be staying there. When I build a starbase with its traits, they have functionality directly for that location for the entirety of the game, but don't take resources from my planets, but give bonuses in these locations.
I also, don't see starports as starbases. When we fix and build things on the planet the construction yards are in one location, although the construciton / delivery spots are in others. I look at starports as specialized constructor ships. Which all constructor ships do move.
I can understand this view. I tend to see starports as starbases that build ships, like the Utopia Planitia shipyard in Star Trek.
I agree, I would like to see MASSIVE starport at some point. Don't get me wrong when it comes to starbases, I like to think that Starbases are HUGE, and starports are relatively slim in size. Collecting all the supplies they need from a planet in order to survive in space
A forward base or centralized stardock makes sense, but my assumption was that the farther it was from the support planet(s) the less building capability the stardock had so you may end up with having to have it near your planets anyway in order to build anything in a useful timeframe. Unless you buy them...hmmm.
True, but imagine that you have 30 planets sponsoring that one forward base. It will slow manufacturing and even at a 80% loss of production it still will produce quite a bit of ships as a forward operating base. Mind this is only a large game aspect that I truly like. I cannot wait to see what the AI will do about defending the starports. That will really identify the vulnerability and viability of the starbase option. I think the beta will bring in some good pieces to the game.
Why?
Since starports are currently unarmed and have minimal/no upkeep, there's little reason to limit yourself to one starport, and plenty of reasons not to.
Redundancy: if your forward starport meets an unfortunate end, you can switch production to the ones a few sectors back and carry on production without a hitch.
Efficiency: paying to run a 100+ point manufacturing planet, only to get 5 points of that manufacturing as usable output at a distant starport makes very little economic sense.
Output: using multiple starports allows you to build many more ships at a time. The less-well-supported ones can still build light ships, transports, constructors, etc. and have those ships move to the front faster than trying to build all of them out of one port sequentially.
Although, looking at starports in game, they definitely look like huge stationary "starbase-y" structures. Not ships.
I'll say again, all the pluses to having mobile starports that you list, can easily be solved by using constructors and stationary starports. Even better, because you can upgrade the constructors engines and range, so you can get a forward manufacturing facility built in a good spot much quicker than moving a starport 1 parsec per turn.
Can you name any plus to slowly moving a starport that can't be solved by sending a constructor and building one? You don't need to deconstruct the early starports, you can build many.
You can already build starports from constructors. I just checked that in the game (didn't pay attention to this before), so leaving them move, therefore is just an extra bonus to the starports.
I think it is easier to make the starports move than have the player build one from a planet, then open up the galaxy screen to select a spot to build one, and then accept the move. So, for UI purposes it is nicer to have them just move.
Also, we do not know if they are going to add an upkeep to the starports, where if you have x number of starports then production is lower.
Also, constructors can be expensive and therefore I would have to design a cheap version and leave it in my build menus in order to build near my planets and not have it cost me too much to make. Leaving it the current way is a clean UI and leaving the movement allows for adjustments to the starports.
I'm very new hear, so apologies if this is already covered elsewhere, but in terms of the issue in the OP, it seems like one of the problems is that planets can't defend themselves. Maybe make it possible to build defensive installations on the surface, which can handle a small garrison fleet/early ships, but not a proper invasion fleet, which can be rebuilt if destroyed.
Combine this with the capacity to build smaller hull sizes on-planet (presumably in secret underground facilities) and you could come up with a force to have a crack at retaking the local space around the planet.
As for mobile stardocks, I don't think there's any reason in principle they couldn't exist, but they would need a source of materials, and need to be very big and expensive. The extra need to factor in materials for production (as once they're no longer attached to a planet, the stardock wouldn't need to be near a materials base) would add another layer of micromanagement to the game that may not be worth it. Or we end up with an endless stream of ships appearing out of nothing in space, which I wouldn't be keen on.
This isn't really all that much of an issue if the invasion mechanics work out to a similar balance to that seen in GCII. If you can secure control of the space around the colony, the colony will eventually be taken; the only question is how much it'll cost.
The issue that concerns people is the ease with which you can theoretically permanently secure space supremacy by an early rush that takes out the shipyard, after which point all you need to do is park a fighter or two by each of your opponent's colonies and destroy new shipyards as they're completed. It doesn't matter how many invasions your worlds can hold off if you have no way to ever even attempt to break your opponent's space supremacy. There may also be an underlying question of whether or not in-space shipyards are too rewarding for the player who manages to take out a large number of these in one fell swoop against a distracted or inadequately prepared opponent, but most of what is being discussed pertains to the early game.
Additionally, given that the issue under discussion is the early-game balance implications, planet-based defenses are unlikely to be an adequate counter. If I don't get rushed, building these kinds of structures early was a waste of time and money which could have been better spent setting up proper infrastructure, while if I do get rushed and lose my shipyard(s) and enough of my fleet to be unable to push my opponent out, then I'm effectively out of the game and it's only a matter of time until one of my opponents finishes the job even if I do build the planetary defenses, unless my opponents happen to get distracted fighting one another and afford me the opportunity to rebuild, which is somewhat unlikely since all it takes to keep me out of the game is a single tiny hull with one point of attack for every couple of my colonies (dependent on spacing and fighter move actions). In short, planetary defense structures are only useful if I can expect to hold out long enough to regain control of the space around my colony or colonies. In the situation under discussion, this simply will not happen barring a turn of events which pulls my opponent's forces away from my worlds for a long enough time period for me to build a shipyard and at least a small fleet, and by the time such an event comes to pass I may possibly have been set far enough behind everyone else to have little real chance at winning the game anyways, depending on just how early and how successful the rush was and how long my opponent was able to block me in. Even if I can render my worlds effectively impregnable, at least for a time, to the person who rushed me, they don't really need to take my worlds immediately to gain a benefit from what they've done, because they just took me out of the colony race and they've made it so that they'll only ever need a minor military commitment to keep me out of the picture. Worse is that there's not really a good reason for anyone to really come to my aid if I do lose my shipyard(s) and fleet to a rush; while it's in no one's interest to see me swallowed up by a single enemy empire, I'm also likely not in a position to be an ally of worthwhile strength were I given the opportunity to recover, and so it may be at least as worthwhile to jump in to steal the rusher's prizes as to help me get my empire back on its feet; alternatively, the other neighboring empires could be spending their resources grabbing colonizable worlds to secure a lead over both myself and the rusher. Either way, planetary defenses don't help me fend off a rush or help me recover from it, they just increase the amount of time and effort I can force my opponent to expend before they get to reap the rewards of a successful rush.
I believe there is, if I remember correctly a starport pauses shipbuilding during movement, something similar should apply if the give starbases movement...
I believe you a correct in why starports were developed with movement... when a starport is built from a constructor, the constructor goes to the point of deployment and builds there... whereas when the starport is built from planetary resources it is built into an adjacent hex, to get it to the same deployment point (as in the case of build by constructor) the starport needs movement capabilities...
-David S.
Now on to the topic of desirability of movement for starbases
As I said before I'm all for it and here are the reasons why...
1) First and foremost is that there is a cap in the number of starbases you can have/support at any one time!!!
I found this out when I played game on a large map with no habitable planets... I used starbases to extend my influence/boarders and I also attempted to monopolize the resources... when I attempted to build one starbase too many, I could not... I had the constructor but the constructor would not transform into a starbase... turns out that I had insufficient 'logistics'!
I have not checked if starbase logistics is linked to fleet logistics, at this time I think they are different caps but both related to the logistic techs... (and I don't know if starports count against the starbase cap, but I'm assuming so) if so then the cap(s) can be raised...
2) Next, starbases are used to mine resources, what if certain (if not all) resources are exhaustible!!
The underling assumption of 'build it, park it, use it' for the lifetime of the game is now a fallacy... moving to the next closest resource becomes a very valid strategy (if it were available)...
3) Finally, constructors are relatively more expensive in gc iii than in gc ii, constructors now are equal in cost to a colony ship!
So even though it appears that it takes fewer constructors to upgrade a gc iii starbase to equivalent functionality as a gc ii starbase it is probably just as expensive (or even more)... therefor, a more economical strategy for deploying starbases may be to build -> use -> move -> reuse rather than build / use then repeat or the even more wasteful build -> use -> destroy -> build -> use.
Put those three new 'wrinkles' together makes moveable starbases very desirable in my eyes.
For those who feel that warp travel should not be in the base starbase feature set - well can we do "there's a 'module' for that" deal, where the starbase module deploys additional structural integrity and a warp drive?
Besides, no self respecting emperor bent on galactic domination that I know would pass up the chance to build a 'deathstar', or a 'basestar', or a 'battlestar' (which is, imho, nothing more than a super carrier) in addition to all the carriers, battleships, etc. that the empire could support
Bet they don't ask, what am I going use this for before they build it - they just build it and use it for what they use everything for... galactic domination
Here's to me being the first in MY galaxy to get one !
I don't understand this logic, even if it needs to move to it's initial tile to be built, it doesn't need to be able to move at hyperdrive speeds for the rest of the game. The only 'movement' of starports that I would support is extremely slow movement (like four turns or more for one hex) to represent the starport being towed around the local system.
Then they should have made death stars part of the game. Part of the problem with mobile starports is that it turns them into half-assed deaths stars or super ships that build more ships, instead of what they should be, simple shipyards where ships are built. It seems like most of the arguments for mobile SP's is simply "why not? Mobile starports are cool!"
Hyperdrive in this game is not speed it is the folding of space. The speed is conventional and the folded space makes it so the ship doesn't travel the excess distance between folding. It is not like faster than light travel.
Starbases shouldn't move starports do.
Because...?
That is somewhat backwards from reality where some types of military bases are constructed and then perhaps abandoned or moved closer to the front lines or more important areas while ship building yards or shipping ports are static (and juicy targets.)
Then let carriers do the moving for the base then.
I know they do, but why? Maybe a dev could chime in with the thought process behind this decision. Why should that starbase move (and it really is just a starbase that builds ships) and no other?
I don't think this is how it works. Otherwise on the game screen, your unit would wink out and then reappear somewhere else. But they move in a traditional way...1 parsec (about 3.5 light years) per week.
This is the tech description (from the wiki here, but you can find it in the game files)
"We've got Hyperdrive, the great contribution to the galaxy made by the Humans. But Hyperdrive is pretty basic stuff. To go faster, we need to come up with other ways to go faster. There's basically two ways to increase how fast we travel. The first way is to bend space more. That's basically all Hyperdrive does. Ships still cannot move very fast in normal space; so Hyperdrive used immense amounts of energy in order to slightly warp space to make a 10 million mile trip seem the same as taking a one light year trip. The second way to make ships travel faster is to increase how fast they move in normal space. Bigger thrusters and what have you. We have some great ideas that, with some good research grants, will allow us to come up with much more advanced stuff."
The first way is to bend space and that is what the hyperdrive does. The second is the conventional drive thrusters.
I actually do like the mobility. I will often look at my empire and optimize where I should put a Starport so I can send production to it. What is the decrease in production against distance from Sponsoring planet? The red number does not indicate if the planet is actually contributing.
In any event I play some games where I can have 5 or even 7 planets sponsor 1 starport. This in turn has that port cranking out ships nearly every turn.
+2 coppers...
This is the tech description (from the wiki here, but you can find it in the game files)"We've got Hyperdrive, the great contribution to the galaxy made by the Humans. But Hyperdrive is pretty basic stuff. To go faster, we need to come up with other ways to go faster. There's basically two ways to increase how fast we travel. The first way is to bend space more. That's basically all Hyperdrive does. Ships still cannot move very fast in normal space; so Hyperdrive used immense amounts of energy in order to slightly warp space to make a 10 million mile trip seem the same as taking a one light year trip. The second way to make ships travel faster is to increase how fast they move in normal space. Bigger thrusters and what have you. We have some great ideas that, with some good research grants, will allow us to come up with much more advanced stuff."The first way is to bend space and that is what the hyperdrive does. The second is the conventional drive thrusters.
The lore says that, but that isn't how the game works. Otherwise when you sent your ship to a location, it would disappear for a number of turns (weeks) and then reappear at the destination.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
