it is already known as a bug in beta2.5 where the phase stalizer is not given any am, but needs am, the workaround is to add the shield upgrade as well as the shield and one other upgrade each get am. hopefully it will be fixed in beta3 or final

harpo

The moving did not seem logical except within the realm of staying within a planet actual gravitational rotation. It through me for a loop. Given the fact that moving a vessel of that size would not only take a LOT of power....but would also be incredibly SLOW!

Cheers and Thanks

As harpo99999 said, you need to buy one of the other abilities that supply antimatter.  The Frontal Deflector Shield and Debris Vortex both add 150/300, and the phase stabilizer costs 100 I believe, so one rank of either would suffice.  (I recommend the deflector shield, myself.  Even one rank of it makes a huge difference.)  While the stabilizer used to be a must-have back when it was a passive, now I almost never bother with it, as it requires too much micromanagement to be worthwhile in all but the most specialized situations; Kostura Cannons are far better to create temporary phase lanes.

As for the movement, as the others have said, that's intentional.  The Vasari needed a moving starbase for two reasons:

1> They have no dedicated anti-structure cruiser (a la the Ogrov and the Adjudicator).  Personally I'd say the SB fails to make up for this, as it's horribly tough and time-consuming to build one and upgrade it in an enemy system BEFORE attacking that system's defenses.  It does have some utility when placed around an ally's planets, though; when your cease-fire with that ally inevitably breaks, nothing short of his own fully-upgraded starbase or battle fleet can stop yours from wiping out everything in the well.

2> The Vasari planetary defense nets suck.  The Advent and Terrans can create synergistic networks of beam/gauss defenses, repair stations, hangars, etc.; plop a starbase down into the middle of that, and you have a VERY tough nut to crack with anything short of a huge battle fleet.  Plus, consider the size of the defenses; on a 35-point planet, a Vasari player will only have 25 points of defense structures at most, because he needs ten for a phase stabilizer (a must-have IMO), while the Advent player will have as many as 45.  So, since the Vasari can't create a heavy defensive net around the planet itself, they have to be more proactive... Vasari systems are harder to bypass, but easier to crack, so it's a tradeoff.

The speed of the SB is horrible compared to even a capital ship, so it's not like you can pursue a fleeing enemy well, but it's great to be able to reposition; I caught one of my recent enemies by surprise because he, an Advent player, didn't notice that I'd constructed a new SB on the far side of a gravity well (which I then moved across while his scouts were gone), so when his invasion fleet arrived, it wasn't expecting a fully-upgraded Vasari SB parked right on top of the incoming ships.

Unfortunately, no.  Prior to the 2.5 update, yes, you were better off using one SB slot for the stabilizer and using the ten spare tac points for two hangars and a nano jammer (or PJI if you didn't have one yet).  This was ESPECIALLY true back when SB hangar upgrades only gave two squadrons, but even now with them giving four, it'd still be a worthwhile tradeoff if the stabilizers still worked the way they used to (always on); you'd be gaining two tac points (8 vs 10), not to mention the extra benefits hangars now give.  (Also, putting a stabilizer on a starbase around an asteroid was great as it let you use 18 of the 25 tac points for a Kostura without making the roid unreachable by your response fleets.)

But after 2.5, it's not even close; stabilizer structures are now FAR superior to the SB-mounted ones IMO.  There are two basic reasons for this:

1> The structures are always on.  No need to activate them by hand, no need to spend AM that could be used for deflector shields.  Also, IIRC the current stabilizer is a channeled ability, so if the SB moves during the process you lose the gate...

2> The structures can summon reinforcements (if you have the tier 8 tech, of course).  SB-mounted gates can't do that.  However, you only really need a couple "normal" gates to do this, as you can then send them to the planet of your choice fairly quickly, so it's not a huge loss to ignore this factor; you'll have a few normal gates around back-line systems anyway, in systems you colonized before you had the cash for starbases.

The biggest downside is that an enemy fleet can blow up the stabilizer with carrier bombers without having to whittle down twenty thousand HP of a heavy-armored mobile starbase to reach it.  Against the AI this is a non-issue, against a smart human opponent it could be major.  But I'd still rather go with the always-on structure, simply to save on micromanagement.

Again, though, this is only about "defensive" starbases.  If you're building an "offensive" base, i.e. in someone else's system, the structure isn't an option.  But even there, the Kostura IS an option, and a generally better one at that.  Sure, its fire rate sucks, but the damage+stun is tremendously useful in its own right.  Plus, it frees up the eighth slot in those offensive starbases for more offense/defense.

Ironically, then, the best use for the SB-based stabilizer is in truly neutral wells.  That is, asteroid belts, plasma storms, wormholes, around stars; anywhere there isn't a planet.  That's because you simply can't target those with Kosturas and can't build stabilizer structures, so the SB stablizer is literally your only option.