oh god that's too funny

but they are uncontrol, I rather starbase has a anti-strikecraft rather than  strikecraft going too far without our command them to do so. You could docked them I think but it's too much troble to find and undock when enemie fleet come up. so strikecraft not do good job to keep starbase safe if they wander too far.

Then you have a wrong fleet.

A SB with hanger and flak upgrade with 14 SC from carriers can hold a fleet 4x bigger.

I agree, we should be able to upgrade them with AAA capability, perhaps as part of the offense upgrades.

disagree...... bombers are meant to be anti-structure, so anti-starbase is what they do, if u are having trouble defending your SB then bring in ur fleet to counter carriers. a solution to carrier spam should be dealt with ur play style not to reverse  game mechanics where u make structures to be anti-carrier vs carrier been anti-structure

No one is saying to make starbases immune to strike craft, we're just advocating that they should not be defenseless to such a basic unit when they are meant to be the ultimate defense.   Also, everyone knows to build tec hangers around them for defense, that should not always be required.  Not all starbases have that luxury either, what about bases build to guard nodes or to bridge trade lanes?  I think it'd be fine to have them be about as effective as flak hangers, or make it a 3rd upgrade for their weapons.

I personally like playing Internet Spades while on ICO, but to each his own...

Ive wondered for a long time why star bases did not have point defenses, and the same for capital ships.  It just seems like an huge missed opportunity to add a little more challenge and realism.

I know that the Advent and TEC can field a decent number of strike craft without taking away from defenses and firepower but the Vasari star base can not.  Maybe if point defenses are added they could balance them based on how the star bases are already able to fend off strike craft.  Or maybe add point defenses as a research upgrade, or a skill you upgrade on the star base like increasing hull points/shields, and add a point or two to how many upgrades a star base can have.

In addition, point defenses could be used to mitigate anti structure cruisers, because as it stands they can chew up a star base pretty easily.

As things are now bombers are a necessary counter to starbases.

If every faction had a non-titan means of blowing starbases of as potent as the Ogrov, bombers wouldn't be necessary.

As it stands though the Advent has no such tool(adjudicators suck) and the vasari only real such tool requires them to build a starbase in a a hostile well(which while easier for them then most factions is still difficult).

Unless other counters are given bombers need to counter starbases. 

I could see it argued that bombers kill starbases too quickly, but the point is that starbases should not be able to defend themselves effectively against bombers without severely compromising their ability to defend against a direct assault(which they can currently do by upgrade strikecraft capacity and fielding a large number of fighters ordered to hold position near the starbase.

That said, I would like to see starbases buffed a bit in regards to their ability to defend against direct assaults a bit.  The appearance of titans has made their current durability a bit outdated.  But they should not get flak added to weapons systems IMO.

When the Starbase is throwing meteors at me and shooting down ships five at a time, I really don't care that the Adjudicators are also shooting resource extractors. I care that Ogrov can sit outside the Starbase's range and blast it to smithereens a LOT faster then the Adjudicators can (hell, do the Adjudicators even get outside of the Starbases longest range weapons?), even if you spend more supply on Adjudicators. For equal supply the comparison is so lopsided that it's hillarious.

And how long is that? If I bring 30 carriers, the damn thing deserves to die. Starbases are not meant to be invincible.

People are actually talking about the Advent who don't have that and use bombers as their main Starbase attack method.

Why would I ever spend a third weapon upgrade slot and the high cost of that to do what a oouple of hangar bays put near the Starbase can do? The TEC ones provide their own flak (and fighter cover), and the Advent ones give even more fighters and add shields to the Repair Platform that's going to make the Starbase bloody hard to kill without a ton of bombers.

On their own perhaps, but the titan won't be on it's own.  The point is the addition of titans have increased the total potency of fleets by a bit, making the direct-assault method more easily effective then it was before.

Titans don't HAVE to be able to 1v1 starbases to make them by and large a less efficient defense.

I hope you're kidding.  Adjudicators deal less damage from a shoter range as compared to Ogrovs.  Oh yeaha nd they cost a lot more resources & supply per ship....on advent, the faction with the worst economy(whereas the extremely efficient ogrovs belong to the faction with the best economy).

The amount of investment required to make adjucators a force to be feared will utterly hamstring the advent fleet's general potency, especially given that the advent is already on a  tight budget.

The multiple targets aspect has finicky targeting sometimes and frankly isn't really very important.  Like Is aid, remove bombers and the advent need a strong counter to starbases, not a mediocre starbase counter that also simultaneous does mediocre damage to a few other nearby structures.

The high cost of these units as compared to ogrovs is also a big issue as they have worse survival rates due to their shorter range.  Even with extra armor/shields they still have a cruddy armor type, and due to their high supply cost & low damage per ship they will invariably have a smaller ship combat-fleet guarding them then Ogrovs would.

This is a silly argument.  Everything needs a counter, being the "ultimate defense" does not exempt it from having a means of countering it.  That means is currently primarily bombers.

That said as I implied in my OP, I could see bombers being made to take a bit longer to kill a starbase(perhaps modifying it's armor type?).  Whether bombers counter a bit too hard is IMO open to debate.

But whether or not they currently counter too hard atm, they need to remain a counter.  In the long run starbases cannot be given a means of sustainably defending against bombers.  If supporting fighters or antistrikecraft capital ships aren't brought to support the starbase, it should just be a matter of time before it falls.  

 Their SB is a fairly strong counter, but it's also one that takes  a great deal of time(since the Orky will need to e upgraded to attack an upgraded starbase), giving the enemy fleet plenty of time to show up.  This can sometimes make the vasari counter impractical.

 That said, It is certainly a counter, my biggest point was really the advent.  Their only real starbase counter is bombers.

Again I disagree.  At least in the absence of giving every faction a counter as reliable and effective as Ogrovs I think it is a very bad idea to improve starbase resistance to the only counter every faction has available.

Agreed.  Bombers have always been in a weird place as their damage type in it's self isn't all that strong BUT they have so much raw damage that 50% is actually high ratio for them even though it would suck for most ships(a single carrier can field what? about 35 DPS or so worth of bombers, half again that for advent compared to most frigates dealing 10-18 DPS).  Sure carriers are expensive, but when fielding bombers their raw DPS:cost ratio is unparalleled by any other frigate. As a result they deal great damage to pretty much anything.