I like the influence and military starbases but the economic ones are a pain. It really isn't the idea of economic starbases itself - it's the fact that you CAN get up to 6 starbases to cover a planet - which means that if you want peak production you HAVE to make 6 starbases covering EACH planet. I think planets should only be affected by 1 economic starbase each, that would be much more reasonable.
Nothing says you have to have max output per planet. If you want it..build it. Otherwise its not required at all. I rarely ever build more than 4 around one or two banking prime planets and that's it.
Planning starbase deployment is a significant strategic element to the game, and you are limited by the five tile rule, and the individual nature of the random map. I think the balance is about right as it is.
6 pfft.... try 14. You have two range extensions to play with. I think the ideal starbase strategy involves 5 starbases before the first range extension, 9 with the first and 14 with the second.
But I kind of agree with you, placing all these for all your planets is tiring. Though 1 starbase per planet would feel to little for me I think.
Depends, if you balanced it out by increasing the modules bonus's(Say Double) and extending the min range(6) it would cut the micro in half.
Yeah but that would still leave the calculation of an idea pattern. In that sense I would actually consider a per planet cap the more elegant solution. And maybe with a planetary upgrade that increases the starbase slots.
It is also not that big an issue that I would mod it. GC3 is singe player sandbox (for me) so I can play without min-maxing everything. Would be different for multiplayer though.
I object to complaints based on a player's compulsive completeness syndrome. You are not compelled to reach peak production on EACH planet. You make that choice. Just because you CAN doesn't mean you MUST.
I have large empires on Insane maps and plant a ton of economic bases. In between war campaigns, it is something useful to do. With the starbase module request system, it is already a little more automated than I prefer, but is still quite satisfying. But I don't try to max out each and every planet. I focus on multi-planet clusters and high PQ singletons.
+1
If you want one starbase per planet go for it. There is no rule, or reason that the planets don't do great without that. It is up to you to decide how you allocate your resources. obviously you build more starbases than me.
14 pfft try 18
the vigilint ability increases base starbase range by one this allows 6 starbase's with no range extension and another 12 after both techs are researched(at least it did last time i played which was a while ago)
You are all super awesome with your 18 starbases per planet. I know you guys think it's hardcore to spam click module lists every 3 seconds for a new starbase. I wish I could be more like you. I bet you're so hard core you don't even need modems to connect to the internet you've all trained your vocal cords to shriek and intone over the phone lines to make your connections. And you're so pro you don't need m/k you just use an electrical switch to send 0's and 1's super fast and the computer knows what to do. Pros.
You are ALL wrong.
Planets should be affected by just one economic starbase. It does not matter than you aren't required to do it. What matters is that it IS required for optimal use of your colonies. It is not good design for optimal production to require 6-18 starbases PER COLONY, each of which requires multiple dozens of modules. Not to mention the AI doesn't understand this. A whole separate issue. A large empire would require thousands upon thousands (and then thousands more) of modules. Starbases can be fun - but the game shouldn't be Multi Module Constructor Spam: Starbase Tycoon 2016.
Besides being an absolute PAIN IN THE ASS, having a starbase every 5 hexes also just looks like crap. Needs to be changed. End of discussion. For me at least, I don't care what the rest of you think. Because you're wrong.
Never really thought about it, but i suppose the starbase clutter can spoil the otherwise marvelous space graphics of the game.
The problem is that their trying to change the size of the starbase to indicate visually how many modules it has, but its not really practical since its useless above a certain size, so may as well not bother at all and just have small nice looking starbases who's only job visually speaking is to look cool just like planets and stars and all the rest of it looks cool.
In my very early days of network engineering I did a lot of work with modems. I learned to make this warbling whistle sound into a handset that would fool a 1200/2400 baud modem into trying to sync up. There wasn't any successful link or data, but I could verify an end to end connection and it impressed people that I could "talk" to a modem. True geek that.
I love i! Stand your ground! Play your way!
No, you are ALL wrong! (Because I say so )
You should love me, I play my way!
*Rides into the sunset - while whistling modem sounds to 14 starbases orbitting above him - programming sentience into them with an electric switch - to the sound of 8 old floppy drives playing the mortal combat theme*
~The Hardcore Tycoon
Got a chuckle from you guys' replies, thanks 🙂
Okay I'll pop in on this one. I'm with the majority here saying play the game as you want, that's what's great with this game. There is no one way to play. Now with that being said could I spam economic star bases everywhere, sure. Does it benefit me? Yes. Should it be limited? No. It would be great if the AI could exploit this, which they try but, are poor at it depending on difficulty and faction playing against. Does one have to build star bases around every planet to stand a chance? No you could use your resources many other ways instead.
Now with that being said I would love the ability to add Culture/Military modules to Economic bases but, that would get a little out of hand and OP as time goes on but, I still wouldn't be against it. Instead what I would like to see return is the cost of maintaining Star bases to increase so eventually it's not economical to have 100 fully upgraded star bases floating around but, instead it only makes sense to have 20, depending of course by the number of planets/resources and credits you have.
Another work around to this issue would be to create a whole new resource that's needed for star base construction, (why well that's too scientific to go into right now). This way you need to have X of this trade resource to build X star bases see below...
1 Zfert Crystal = 20 Star base Modules (not star bases as a whole)
5 Zfert Crystals = 100 Star base Modules (not star bases as a whole)
Then with this you could also add on additional technologies to increase the effectiveness of them by 25%/50%/100% ect...
I would do this similar to Snuggler colonies trade resource vs. mining resources thulium...
Wow i'm wrong because I think I have never built more than a hundred starbases, and they are generally resource. Maybe on my best games it was a thousand modules, and this was in two. I don't have the resources to spam six bases per planet fully loaded. Never been that big on bases, but this gives me no reason to knock on those who play this way. Because this gives me no reason to why then would I try and change this; because I don't play that way.
Now about the Ai not handling this. In the beginning that wasn't the problem, but they had to patch it out. The Ai was stealing all the resources including minors. Planets take up only one tile if there is a problem It's either the developers don't want to spend the time, or no one can do the math. The tiles almost never change for most planets; even if it did multiple versions with if then else statements would fix this. to plant six starbases per planet the Ai does not have this kind of logic problem it's just stardock does not want it there. It would be more of an econy problem than anyone else. People complained, and it got removed. Same reason we don't have the economic wall in two, or more of a Ai colony rush. people complain about things that don'tmake sense.
Who got rid of starbase maintence cost that needs to come back. Must be an oversite.
Oh yea, that's rite, the AI used to flog all the resources in Galciv2! Its not a race that the player has any reasonable chance to win except on low difficulty level. but luckily resources don't do all that much in Galciv2, so i just ignore them until later on in the game and then park a constructor nearby and wait for an enemy of that AI (or me) to destroy their starbase, then i flog it.
But what is the use in having starbase maintenance costs when you have all those economic modules? starbases are going to be giving positive economic growth, so maintenance costs are not going to be a relevant factor for the player to consider like it is with ships.... Its kind of a 'moot' change to ask for? Unless your saying get rid of the economic modules to which i say i do not like that idea at all!
Starbase Maintenance is already present, it is just set to 0.0
Nevertheless it's because of sloppy AI coding which didn't include a FOW to the AI, instead the AIs did flag object as [permanently] known once they encounter it (and could only send colony ships to planets once these were flagged) but the resources weren't included, and given that rangemods were spamable and even the most basic did literaly take no space any constructor could reach practically any place in a galaxy right away - which is not only unfair but also posed a problem in itself as every time a resource got free all AIs did send tens after tens of constructors to a distant spot investing thousands in maintenance costs, and wouldn't even cancel that futile attempt before the (already claimed) resource was reached by every individual constructor itself.
Well you add a new module to a starbase - irrelevant of what it does it needs to be powered, repaired sometime etc pp in short there maintenance cost. If that ultimately pays out in positive cash would actually pose an interesting choice to a player - most likely the spot and number of affected planets will greatly decide that. Things that are totally free are usually nobrainers, bad for a strategy game whose gameplay revolves about making meaningful choices.
Take planetary structures for example..... who actually bothers to look at the maintenance cost of planetary structures? Not me.... And also the maintenance cost of planetary structures does not affect my decision making on what i will build on the planet. As much as i have nothing against having starbase maintenance costs if it was already there, i just don't see the benefit to bother changing it.
Maintenance cost on planets does affect my building planning. I'm not saying to get rid of economic star bases. besides there are more than one type. It does cost money to run things. Maintenance costs work there is no reason to get rid of it.
That is correct.
In all seriousness, the right resource cost would have the desired effect as well. Maintenance is probably not the best route, otherwise maintenance of econ starbases would outweigh their benefit and render them useless entirely. Unless it was based on some exponential growth of cost in relation to number of bases, and started low enough that a couple are useful but more are an albatross, but that would be too spreadsheety I think.
Another idea - maybe a logistics-type mechanic on the empire-level, for number of starbases allowed. Research could allow for incrementally more much like it does with fleets.
Oh i remember now! in Galciv2 i am pretty sure each new starbase was incrementally more expensive, plus only 4 starbases allowed per sector.
Also in Galciv2 other races starbases did not effect the number of starbases you could build like it can now.
These are all effective ideas for the purpose, but probably hard to justify logically.
Stacking 18 starbases around a planet is really really retarded micromanagement hell, but since the AI never abuses the capability, I don't really mind so much. One per planet is probably a better game design decision though. You're restricted from stacking benefits like this with other starbases and it's really somewhat inconsistent that planets can be heaped with massive production modifiers like that. Even six is pretty absurd, just the initial raw production boost is a huge difference in output. It does require a shipyard though, the actual cost/benefit ratio from one starbase to the next doesn't change so it's not really exploitative.
OK I don't mind the mechanics as is, but if I was going to a one star base route. Instead of a one per module limit I would implement a size limit. And I would allow multiples of modules making the build or price more expensive.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
