Yep. That is why the "ownership" all and every player with access to the stars GW should be able to build something like a space station like I said before just to make things interesting.

but then you have the issue of a super-powered choke point, even more super powered than before.

Yeah that is the point to facilitate battles at the stars - hopefully massive ones.

but I doubt it would be so useful. you make the offendor's job too hard with such a thing. there are plenty other, smarter alternatives.

If stars have extra large gravity wells, and fleets are allowed to jump in formation... perhaps allowing a larger randomized exit point within the gravity well would negate the concerns about static defense chokepoints, and defeating in detail a staggered fleet arrival.

Perhaps a new ship class can be researched to allow fleets to jump in formation?

Perhaps also allow research for faster capital ship engines, to allow fleets to move past "turtle" defences slightly quicker -thus reducing the overall effectiveness of a chain of guns near the pathway.

Another solution may be to have regular "solar storms", where extra solar winds will push objects away from the star until the winds subside... this way, constructed guns and other static placed defenses are shifted far away from their originally placed location, eventually forced ridiculously far out of range.

Ships would be pretty much immune, as they have powerful engines that maintain their orbits... this will strongly encourage ship vs ship as opposed to easy static ambushes.

Platforms around stars is a very bad idea. Fleet versus fleet battles over possession of stars I can deal with. But add ANY platforms to the mix, and the defender will be given too big an advantage. Platforms around stars will guarantee stalemated games...unless of course, platforms built around stars are made extremely expensive. But then you would simply build a ship instead anyway.

As for the 'lore' reasons for platforms not being allowed around stars, several semi-plausible reasons could be used.

-Platforms don't have the necessary propulsion system for compensating for solar winds
-the construction technologies that would be necessary for building platforms are easily damaged by solar flares
-the construction materials are too costly to transport through Phase Space to a star for building a platform. It is far more cost effective to just make a ship.

oh sure, lets ignore the planets around the star and the quarter hour jumpstart the defender automatically has...

Schem, if Ironclad allows upkeep to go up beyond 100%, the fleet versus fleet battle at the stars will be more even than you think.

when did that get mentioned?

Hehe, I said 'IF'. But I would be willing to bet that Ironclad will be making some changes to the upkeep system.

I would very much like to see space instalations of all kinds - but I also agree with Paradoxnt that with choke points it would tip the balance in the favour of the defender. As I already wrote, with the lack of surprise factor (which is eliminated with choke points) the instalations should be weak.

Somehow I am more in favour of the surprise - no or at least less choke points and stronger instalations.

As I said before I'm against platforms around the stars. I'm however 50/50 on space stations for science, culture, communication, AM storage and repair services.

Yeah, but the problem would be the lack of logic in having space stations for all those things, but for some reason not being able to mount weapons or hangars. I don't know about you, but illogical and forced game concepts really bug me.

You should be able to build platforms around stars for the simple reason that it really isnt all that much harder to do then it is around a planet. Sure you'll need better cooling, shielding, and stationkeeping systems then normal, but that could simply serve to actually make these platforms more powerful against an attack. For that supposed reason that it would be too expensive to ship all the materials out to the star I simply have to point out that in the real world if the military could find a spot that would be very expensive to build at, yet if they built there then they could significantly increase their defense capabilities, then they will more often then not simply hand a blank check (not quite literally but you get the picture) to the builders.

Okay MazonDel, so to keep things straight, are you suggesting that the platforms around stars be more powerful than the platforms around planets? Good thing that people don't always get what they want.

Personally, I wouldn't mind platforms being built around stars. They should be just as powerful as the platforms around planets. BUT, they should cost 20 times as much as they do around planets. Why 20 times as much, let's look at my reasons.

-Additional systems would need to be built in to compensate for solar winds, radiation, and solar flares (these systems are already included on all ships). This would increase the total and maintenance cost of the platform.
-Massive amounts of building materials would need to be shipped to the star through Phase Space. Sounds expensive.
-Temporary housing/logistics for the contractors who make/maintain the platforms would also need to be shipped through phase space.
-Longer Logistical trail through Phase Space would increase the basic operating cost of these platforms.

Anyway, the point here is that if platforms around stars cost 20 times as much...NOBODY will even bother with them because it is far more effective to buy 3 captial ships. So, it is simpler to just not allow them in the first place.

I like para's reasons. they make me ooze "what a shitty idea" nonsense. which of course, achieves perfectly what we want.

Glad you enjoyed my post Schem. I really doubt that there is any danger of Ironclad including any uber powerful/ultra cheap platforms around stars. The developers are just as eager to avoid stalemates as the rest of us (excluding MazonDel, of course).

I do think there will be Phase Inhibitor ships though (at least for the Vasari). Memory seems to recall some of their ships had the Phase Inhibitor ability. Maybe the TEC and the Advent will have to do a lot more research to make ships with that ability. I also think that these ship bound Inhibitors will be using an AM cost and timer effect to balance their power.

Ships with this ability are going to force a lot of battles at stars. Personally, I like this because it will help make stars more relevant.

I do however see what you are saying about the defender being able to reinforce his star sooner than the attacker. This would give the defender an edge. However, this edge would be reliant on the Defender AND the Attacker both controlling at least 1 full star system as well as being equal in terms of resources, research, and military power.

Maybe sensors shouldn't be able to pick up incoming fleets from distant stars? If sensors can only detect incoming ships between planets, star to star attacks will be made a bit less difficult.

@Para - that is part of the reason why I'm on the fence about space stations.

"Maybe sensors shouldn't be able to pick up incoming fleets from distant stars? If sensors can only detect incoming ships between planets, star to star attacks will be made a bit less difficult."

Anyway, If the devs do allow stationary platforms of an offensive nature around the stars then I'm all for at least a 500% increase in building costs.

Another thing the devs could do to promote fleet to fleet combat is have certain random solar events (RSE) that stop phase travel around stars for several minutes at a time.

Well, even a bare minimum 5 times the cost for defensive platforms would make them pointless (which is fine by me). I mean, you could spend 3000 on a hangar or a gauss canon. Or, you could spend 3000 on any capital ship which could easily defeat either of those defense platforms.

I think 'realistically', defense platforms would not be as cost effective as ships for fortifying stars (for the reasons I gave a couple of posts ago). So the question is should Ironclad even bother implementing them?

If they do decide to implement them, they will need to come up with some sort of star facility/construction ship (I don't even like the present construction ship concept). This means more work and balancing for the developers over something no intelligent commander will ever use.

Or they could simply take the easier way and say that since it is far too costly and problematic to make platforms around stars instead of fleets, why bother even giving the option to make star platforms. In the 'Lore', they could even state my earlier reasons for why it makes no sense to try building platforms around stars.

Then again, the devs can ignore everything and let us continue to "turtle" with insane amounts of guns at the first set of chokepoints... thus leaving stars as dead space.

What can we suggest at stars to provide an incentive to use them? They are wasted real estate, and defenders can easily go the static route on the only set pathways from the star... the advantages for the defender are always defences in depth, short supply lines, quick reinforcements, etc.

Without encouraging the use of mixed fleets in the open areas, the game will devolve into static Maginot-lines of guns with hundreds of zergling scoutships and hanger defences to chew down invaders.

Perhaps if there was an option to have a "Capture the Star" type play, it would force gameplay into the solar gravity wells, adding another element that prevents static repetition.

  

Yeah.

Phase Space Inhibitor ships will encourage battles around stars. IF there are no such ship in the game, then defenders will always attempt to turtle behind the standard planet to star connections. Still, the defender will need to defend four points while the attacker will be able to focus all his strength on one point. Of course, the defender will have a backup fleet to bolster a attack on any of his star-to-planet points.

I really do hope that Phase Space Inhibitor ships are in the game. It would suck if EVERY battle was about beating down platforms, bombarding a planet and then colonizing it.

@Para - sadly that is all there is to the game right now.

@Nes - the capture the star could be done as it is now if one owns all the planets the the star changes "ownership". Then maybe it could provide some energy benefits until an enemy fleet manages to sit the grave well for a few minutes or all ships from the owner are removed from the GW.

Well, since planets are the primary source for everything, that wouldn't be really surprising. To hurt your opponent and make yourself stronger you need to take his planets. There is no reason to attack anything else - unless there are very important (scientific, economy, military...) starbases built elsewhere, too (GC reference). The only other way to prevent it is choke points.

The GC-like starbases could be a great addition. Let's say that you have a pack of asteroids between a few planets. Its zone of influence includes those planets. If you build a military starbase there an extra fleet (size depending on the level of the starbase) would always reinforce the planet's defences. An economy starbase would bring those planets extra money etc. This would make deep-space battles worthwhile. I'd definitely rather attack the military starbase first than see it's fleet show up every time I attack each of those planets.

I think that starbases would have to have something to set them apart though, and a limit of one per system.

Either a module system, where a starbase would have modules placed on it, making some starbases more powerful over others

or

Multiple types of starbases.

Scout starbase: Your basic outpost. Weak but affordable!
Fighter base: Obviously, contains hangers and can dispatch tons of fighters/bombers, as well as defend against them.
Battle base: All out combat, defends against enemy fleets.
Shipyard base: Kind of like a mix of a shipyard repair station, it has weapons, so it is powerful and defends the area, but at the same time it repairs fleets and can build new ships.


I imagine you could only build say one of each starbase, so it would be like a galactic achievement for your race. If it gets destroyed you can rebuild it. Each starbase would just be a unique achievement, but generic to all sides.

Imagine having a starbase in a system, and having it get ambushed by an enemy fleet and just totally getting wiped out.
Like the attack on Pearl Harbor, your starbase gets ambushed, and you've just lost some crucial part of your attack/defense strategy.