changes that should to be made to entrenchment

1. Star bases need to move or have greatly increased range as of now TEC and Advent are to easy to get around and still take out the planet and or fleet.

2. Agree

3. Agree vastly increase range or allow at least 2 per well

4. Disagree other wise to easy to build multiple bases to fast.

5. Feel 50 - 50 on this.

6. What would be the point?

7. Agree

for point numer 6, the ability to shoot a 360 degree radius without the planet obstucting fire

I just dont see the point in wanting a base on top/below it would look wierd and then why not be able to place other things on top like ship or research buildings. Plus not sure if it would even be possible to build on top coding wise since clicking on the planet opens the planet options.

It would be far better to really increase range or allow them to move in the grav well or if they can't move allow at least 2 bases per grav well.

Excellent suggestions, especially #6, doubly so if the field of fire is increased to cover more of the grav well.

LOL.  I'm sure that's what the Vietnamese said after the war with the USA.  In fact, I'm sure that's what every country has said since WWI - "the war is over now - we should be able to press a button and all these mines go 'boom' ".  I mean, come on, that's ridiculous.  Why should such a thing exist?  What about a button that vaporizes any remaining enemy fleet once control of the planet is achieved?  What about other magic buttons?

Why don't you want minelaying on par with mine removal, instead of the advantage going to removal?  Answer - because you hate mines.

I hope the devs hear this, PLEASE LISTEN DEVS:  WE ALL DON'T HATE MINES.  THE PEOPLE THAT LIKE THEM JUST AREN'T AS VOCAL, BECAUSE PEOPLE GENERALLY ONLY SPEAK UP WHEN THEY HAVE SOMETHING TO COMPLAIN ABOUT.

The real answer is to have a toggle, not only for the mine, but for virtually every other unit (superweapons, phase jump inhibitors, siege frigs, etc).

I like the idea of no limit on how many can be constructed per grav well.

What?  Another "magic button?"  Another arbitrary rule?  Either they can fire when incomplete, or they cannot.  What's with this magic aura your grav well has which makes it so an SB can't fire when incomplete (but somehow can when it is complete)?  LMAO

I agree with Agent of Kharma. I like the mines they add a whole new defensive advantage. The only problem is lag. But I disagree with multiple starbases in grav wells. One is hard enough to kill with a large fleet if you make more than one some grav wells will be invincible. I think the starbases are pretty well balanced right now.

and I love the Vasari starbase in how it can move. It is by far the best starbase.

i know the vasari stabase is cool on how it can move, but if you are tasked with defending a planet with billions of people on it would you just build one starbase that couldn't move or would you build as many as the resources at your dispsal allowed? would you build a stabase "west" of the planet and leave the "east" and parts of the "north and south" also undefended.

Agent of Kharma it's no that i hate mines, it's the fact there is no real pratical way to deal with them, i would like for some type of way to remove them without having to expend my entire fleet. that would be nice if there was a button to disable them at the start of a game. ok maybe starbases should be able to fire when incomplet, but only when it is finished up to the place where the weapon firing is. here's an example, when i first played entrenchment, i was confronted by an enemy fleet that built a stabase right in my home system. it was only 5% complet, but all the weapon batteries were already firing. I think those batteries should have started firing when the base was completed up to that point, or they shouldn't do full damage, say 75 or 50% damage

I understand what you are saying here, but I am also inclined to disagree.  The starbase, in my view, is a great addition to building a very effective defense in Sins, but it is not and should not be a save all, do all.  Making multiple starbases within the same gravity well would ultimately dwarf any reason for setting up other defenses or even for them to exist in the game as well.  This requires a person to diversify.

If I was to defend a planet with billions of people, I would set up a starbase in the west, mine the crap out of the the other directions, set up many gun emplacements throughout the gravity well, place multiple hanger defenses to fill the area with fighters and bombers, and laugh when someone is foolish enough to try an invasion.

Wow, a perfect idea. Why hasn't anyone else thought of this.....OH WAIT, we have! We can add another great thinker to our group!! Welcome Ordian!!!!

ROFL.

Im sorry, I shouldnt laugh. But everytime I hear the same rant about mines being stupid and the need for a 'super clear mine button' I think of the Staple's commercial. EASY BUTTON!!!

You know, Im starting more and more to like the idea of mines being hard to remove. After all, like it was mention above. There are still places that are mined from WWII. So yes, mine are ment to be that pain in your ass. Granted, this CURRENT build of the mines allows for major spam. I suggest waiting for the next build thats due this week.

Thanks Carbon, your sarcasim is noted

I was using that example to prove my idea that multiple starbases should not be used, not that I disagree with mines.  I love mines, and love the potential of them. 

Well, I was proving a point too. That your example is how  to use ALL of your your tools defence wise to create great defence. We who dont complain have figured this out awhile ago.

Most people want starbases to be build and forget. But thats not how it works. They should be build and forget IF you give them support I.E. weapon platformsm hangers, etc etc etc. Then where the starbase cant defend you mine it. As I said in another post, Its a choice the attacker has. Fight the base or brave the mines.

Think of mines like this....In most any other RTS  you can build a 'wall'. Some kind of thing that blocks and controls where your enemy can come from. Mines are SINS versions of that classic wall. Granted the CURRENT build is lame due to spam.

 Double Post

I would like to see GOD (global orbital defense grid) like that of babylon 5 (EA Defense grid for earth)....

Although shield, flak turrets and lasers, missles.....

Also, have them rotate around the planet. range = 1500 around the planet. just enough to defend from planetary bombing.....

Of, course let them be weak weapons...

Let it cost a bunch!!!!!!

the best offense is a good defense!!!

GOD+Starbase+Hangars+Guass+Inhibator (cose range, medium, and long range defense!!!!)

My opinions on the OP, most of which I disagree with:

1> Starbases should ALL move, but very slowly.  Think of them as being towed from point A to point B, or overcharging their "station-keeping" engines (which they'd have to have to maintain orbit).  Concept aside, they simply NEED to be a little mobile, or else they become tactically useless without an insane range increase.  And there's no comparison to capships; bases are SLOW, and take forever to cross a gravity well.  Within combat, their movement is negligible.

2> No "Easy Button", please, but I would say that more things should be capable of spotting mines.  Starbases, for instance, should duplicate the scouts' mine-detection ability.  This'd allow systems to automatically clear out enemy minefields over time, using only their existing hangars and such.  Of course, with the announced change to scout AIs, this isn't really necessary; leave one scout behind in each seized well, and it'll clear out the mines itself (or use the hangar fighters to do so).  I fully expect most players to have a few small, dedicated "minesweeper" squadrons with a couple scouts and a handful of flak frigates, solely to quickly clear out enemy minefields in newly-seized systems without any micromanagement.

3> Definitely no to multiple starbases; you'd very quickly reach the point where a system is utterly impregnable.  As for the range increase, I'd be for that IF it only applied to a single weapon type.  Say, missiles; the beams and guns on each SB would have normal ranges, but the missile banks would reach further (some sort of "capital missile" that wouldn't fit on a normal ship).  This'd be enough to guarantee the base couldn't be bypassed, without creating the sort of range advantage that'd prevent an enemy fleet from ever entering the base's range in the first place.  (Imagine placing the base at the far end of the grav well, but with enough range to reach all the way across, and figure out how much damage it'd to do a fleet trying to reach it.)  Problem is, this change isn't really needed any more; fighters and bombers already cover the entire well, so just put more of those on your SB if you're worried about bypassing.  And note the change in the patch notes about "rebalancing" SB hangars; if a starbase can now have a dozen or more bomber squadrons with ease, then nowhere in the grav well is safe for enemies.

4> Yes, it should, or else you'd only ever need one, and it'd become a much more high-priority target.  If the cost of the constructor was raised tremendously then maybe it could be balanced this way.  Also, if the constructor had to sit there and actually construct the SB for two minutes or more, and the enemy pops in and destroys it while the SB is half-finished, then what happens?  Under the current system, there's no way for a base to be stuck in that half-finished state; you either destroy the constructor before it starts (in which case the builder hasn't spent resources), or you try destroying the constructing base itself.

5> Incomplete starbases should not fire, period, IMO.  But if they do, the same rules should apply in enemy wells as in friendly.  The easiest way is to scale damage by completion percentage; a 50% done base does half damage, etc.  Since building in enemy wells now takes considerably longer than in friendly, it'll spend far more time in that incomplete state.

6> No z-axis, please.  Adding another element to the game's strategy should not be done lightly, and starbases are not a good reason to do so; you'd have to add a third dimension to every other part of the game.  As long as the bases can move a little (#1), there's no need for up/down placement, since the blind spot wouldn't be permanent.

7> As long as you don't get anything back for a destroyed module, I'd be all for this, although the balance could be a bit funny for modules that duplicate structures (trade port).

Mines in space are a 3D problem unlike those buried in some jungle where you are limited in travel.

Plus this is a game not a real life combat sim.

There should be a much better way to remove mines in the game.