Just so you, dev have shot down the idea for the other bases moving.

B/c that sounds complicated to code. Idk, im not a coder. I think they are fine the way they are. I just requires you to use other defensive things plus the starbase to compensate for lack of moment.

I never liked to play the Vasari but with thier star bases being the only to move they are the only race i play now.

Thier bases moving in the well is just to huge a edge.

Why not make a tech that players have to research to be able to move thier bases in the well.

Why not make a tech that players have to research to be able to move thier bases in the well.

That is a great idea!

I am wondering why TEC & Advent have anti-structure ships and the Vasari dont,

I know that the Vas starbase is considered an anti structure weapon, but I would like to be able to create a FLEET of ships to raid and destroy enemy structures, move in kill all, move out again without having to build a starbase (a defensive intallation design to protect planetary bodies, starbases are NOT offensive weapons, it should be impossible to build one inside an enemy control territory!!!!!!)

The humans aren't that advanced. Do it the way Weber would - give them fragile tow boats making movement out of combat a possibility (a slow one) but in combat an impossibility.

Jeez Ue_Carbon, you got a stick up your butt? All these people are doing in making suggestions.  If anything, you must pay or use antimatter to move them...as well as upgrading...

I dont think people understand the true concept for Entrenchment, maybe I have it wrong. IMO, starbase are not the end all be all many people want. I do want them to hard to defeat but not impossible WITH support. No starbase should be able to solo any fleet worth its salt. But with proper supporting fleet and defensive structure, and even some well placed mines. A starbase should be a task to defeat.

So Im sorry if it seems Im being a bit ass like. Its nothing personal against the OP or any other persons suggestions. Im was just pointing out that IC had deemed moving starbases a no go for Advent and TEC. And like he/she are allow their suggestions, these are mine.   I mean nothing negative against anyone.

So, rather than letting each race have their own huge advantage, you'd prefer that no race had any significant advantage over any other race in any area of the game? That sounds boring to me. Going that direction the Advent shouldn't have the tactical advantage of being able to upgrade tactical slots everywhere via tech and TEC not the advantage of being able to upgrade logistics slots everywhere with tech, and yet, their very different focuses and being consistently strong within their focus is what makes all three factions interesting to play.

This is very nicely continued in Entrenchment.

The Vasari gets a bad-arse mobile close combat Starbase with a very heavy focus on defensive abilities for its own use and the ability to use another core Vasari playstyle: the phase gate. It should be noted that this does not automatically make it easy to bring forces into somebody elses rear area, nor does it strictly speaking bring an ability to the Vasari that they did not already have - you need to get there with a migrator and finish building and upgrading a Starbase, and what you can accomplish when you have done that is exactly the same as you'd have done by flying a level 6 Marauder there instead of the migrator (apart from not needing to spend the time building and upgrading). Economically, the Starbase provides a colonists-in-space bonus for more credits, useful in all non-frontline systems. On the other hand, the starbase brings nothing to help a friendly fleet in the area - it is a combat juggernaut, everybody else can look out for themselves. Now, Entrenchment is not just about the Starbases but also the other defensive installations, and the extra abilities to their old defensive systems are rather meh: the hangar's get to immobilize strike craft and their phase missile launchers get to halt the hull/shield/antimatter regeneration of their targets - again, this is very much in line with the Vasari ideas, but most people would probably prefer something like the TEC upgrades - and that's fair enough.

Advent gets superior civilian starbases via higher allegiance (mimicking their Allure of the Unity tech and playing to what is already a strength of theirs - getting more resources out of each individual planet than anybody else), and can throw even more squadrons around in a gravity well than they are used to (one of the Advent focuses). Their Starbase might, in some cases, make sense to be used as far away from the expected entry point of hostile fleets as a sniper starbase - max squadrons and the ability to fling meteors at fleets as they approach may not be as effective at defending planets, but for survival, damagedealing, and making sure that no torpedo boats get into range of the starbase itself it probably cannot be beaten. On the other hand, their standard defenses get a considerable boost: Hangar platforms capable of shielding nearby buildings and beam weapon platforms gaining in strength and survivability when clumped together. This plays very well with their current ability to get up to ten more tactical points than anybody else and heavy focus on squadrons and shielding. One of those cases where placing the starbase behind normal defenses and hugging the planet would make sense - you tell me.

TEC Starbases give the TEC a genuinely new option: the ability to pump out frigates and cruisers on the spot even in neutral or hostile systems. This plays to the TEC strength - production. Likewise, their Starbase Docking Boom module is pure fleet support of the type that TEC lives on - more antimatter, more time to live for the heavily armoured fleets.  While a Vasari Starbase might be individually more powerful than a TEC one, if you add an equivalent fleet to either of them the odds are likely to even out. The ability to blow itself up may not seem like much, but let us see how that plays out in practice. The extra abilities to TEC's old defenses are very substantial: Hangars now shoot down strike craft and Gauss Cannons are upgraded to be able to deal both with longer range threats and multiple close range threats.

For a breakdown of mines - somebody else must answer; I have very little experience with them yet.

Focusing solely on one aspect of the defensive changes, to whit, Vasari having moving Starbases, to the game in analysing future gameplay seems a wee bit narrowminded.

-----

The one thing I guess we can all pretty much agree on is that it would be very, very, much appreciated if we could decommision Starbase upgrades selectively, thus allowing us over time to change the function of a Starbase without having to dismantle it entirely and rebuild from scratch. The Starbase that once defended your frontier could be retrofitted to an economic base once it is no longer relevant due to an advancing front; the Starbase that once was based on short range weaponry to have them ripped out and replaced with hangar bays.

You know, Im glad you said this. This is what Ive been trying to tell people with very little results. Im am glad to see Im not the only one who see a bigger picture beyond mines and starbases. Im sure there are other just not as vocal as some of us.

That's a crying shame, Matthew, when you could be playing your favourite race instead and be using your valuable experience to support reporting the issues it has through your experiences.

After all, the beta period is ultimately about testing the game, not about playing the race you think is most powerful.

Some good input. Excellent post Peter Ebbesen; you make a few points I hadn't thought of and, I will confess, slightly dampen my enthusiasm for moving starbases. But do not remove it, for reasons I'll go into in a second.

-Ue_Carbon, thanks for your repeated emphatic reminders. : ) I realize ICO has heard this debate before and ruled against my position, but we are in a beta and it's our job to talk about percieved weaknesses in the game design. The devs wanted to balance TEC/Advent bases in other ways - ways which are very well described by Peter's post. But I submit that they did not balance enough.

Here's the basic issue (at the risk of oversimplifying):

1) When Varari build a star base, they can cover an entire well, possibly with minimal additional defenses if they upgrade. TEC and Advent must spend the same amount of money to get a base that has some (admittedly very useful) abilities that really play to their strengths, BUT they are also forced to build defenses and mines much more aggressively than Vasari. The discrepancy between what a Varari player has to spend to get fleet-replacing defenses and what the other two factions have to spend is not compensated for by the stationary base's cool noncombat abilities. From a defensive standpoint, a stationary base is just a cluster of defenses that may, if upgraded, have to be destroyed before you bomb the planet to bits.

Vasari bases can respond to threats anywhere in the well, making their defensive application greater than that of the stationary bases by several factors.

Aspauldarkside pointed out and may of us have experienced firsthand, building a starbase to defend against attacks from phase lane 1 and then colonizing up phase lane 1 and wishing the base were covering phase lane 2 is an all-too-common and very frustrating experience. All those combat upgrades become nearly useless on a stationary base, but Vasari can just reposition and keep reaping rewards.

Vasari bases should absolutely move faster than their analogs and have the offensive/flexible dynamic going on. I'm simply arguing that the Argonevs and Transcencias should have SOME engine on them to keep them from going obsolete when the geopolitical situation changes. Let it take five minutes for them to move across the well if need be, but please let them move.

I'm not looking for a moving starbase. I'm looking for a balanced game. I'm not the only Advent player who is now playing Vasari kicking and screaming because they're the only ones with moving bases. I love everything about the Transencias and wish I could use them but they just can't price compete with something mobile for the same price - not even with large hangars and meteor attacks.

Much love all around.

I wish you could dismantle/destroy/scrap the additions to a starbase just like you can do with ships or orbital structures.  Lets say (and like written above, happens to most all of us) you build a maxed out defensive starbase; the front changes and moves forward a planet or two.  That starbase is a bit useless, or it "feels" like a huge waist of money.  But, if you could scrap many of the upgrades, you can then recoup some of your investment and even put it into other upgrades if you want (for one example, as TEC you could put in Trade Ports ect). 

Well consider this please:

Here you are, TEC player with that nice juicy planet. You seek to defend it. What do you do?

Usualy, one would put up a shield generator. Then guard it with turrets (as they suddenly were made useful), repair bays and hangars. Even mines if youre generous. Now, you put a station into that. A big honking Piece of solid Tank.  A piece of solid honking Tank that will Restore anti matter to the rapair bays forever, a base that will start murdering any ship that dares attack the shild generator and a base that prevents the planet from ever seeing enemy hands.

Oh, and it will hurt ppl if they jump away.

A Planetary Shield increases the time it takes to succesfully rape a colony quite a bit.  Paired with a station that will punish you even if you succed.

If you ask me, the whole raiding idea just got seriously unatractive.

If there EVER was ANY change to be made oncerning Station balance, i suggest TEC/Advent Stations to give a number of bonus TAC slots for the grav well they are stationed too.

Because it would help you force your ops hand.