Maybe the defense upgrades to the SB's can also add the defenses to strikecraft and torps.  Like 1st upgrade gives flak and 2nd one gives torp intercept lasers of some kind which would account for the 1/4 or 1/3 damage reduction.

What does the advent have in terms of anti-strikcraft?

While you are right about their value in uncolonizable systems, that would make phase inhibitors worthless in other systems that host a starbase except as a backup. There seems to have been a deliberate design decision to make sure that starbases do not replace the existing tactical structures but supplement them, and that any module that mimics a defensive structure should provide about 10 tactical points worth (see hangars, vasari phase gate).

It might make sense for one faction to have it available as a faction specific module, but all those slots are already filled and with things relating more to the core phiolosophies of the factions.

More micromanagement and harder to balance. While I'd probably find it fun if we could individually configure every single weapon hardpoint, I know that I, and others, would be working overtime to come up with degenerate solutions depending on just what we were facing, and that we'd find them. It leads to the usual issues of "if I allow you to build as many of X, Y, Z up to the sum being N, and somebody makes N X's and it turns out to be too effective, how do I change this without making other number of X's (say N/2 X') ineffective?" Cue diminishing returns, penalties for overstacking &etc.  Given the focus of this SoaSE, adhering to the KISS principle where starbase construction, management, and maintainance is concernced is probably the best solution.

In other words, a platform that's pretty capable of handling most things that are thrown at it rather than having glaring weaknesses against some types of attacks* - with the exception of the dedicated anti-structure vessels.**

* Such as lone heroes attacking critical weak spots without being hit because the defenses aren't trained to deal with their skill at maneuvering.

** And huge numbers of strikecraft, greater than the number you may, or may not, have chosen to put on the starbase. But then, if somebody attacks a starbase with huge numbers of strikecraft and the defender doesn't bring up anti strikecraft buildings, flak, or their own strikecraft, the starbase doesn't deserve to live.

In playing for several hours the past weekend (albeit the crazy scientist mod), I think the starbases are pretty much perfect.

Starbases were never meant to be the be all end all (don't need another defensive structure in the well) platform.  They were meant to make fleets think twice before engaging a planet and make it extemely difficult if you do choose to engage. 

In playing I found that if I grouped my other defensive structures around my SB (as TEC/Advent since vasari SB Moves) it became almost impossible for the SB to be lost.

In regards to your comment about SB's in nuetral sectors, your anti-strike craft defense is your own strike craft.  That is the beauty of only 8 upgrades.  Do you go for full armor and weapons with only 4 or 8 strike craft or do you up the strike craft for lower hull/shields/armor?  In my game I had a SB at a wormhole and in an asteroid belt.  I was playing TEC and had both weapons upgrades, 3 infrastructure and 2 strikecraft, and 1 trade post upgrade.  I was able to withstand two very large assaults from two different factions.  My SB's lost all their shields and over 70% of their HP, but they survived.  Would they have lasted against a human player? Probably not, but they did against two hard AI.

It just comes down to prioritizing the upgrades to match the opponent's strategy and keeping a small reinforcement fleet nearby to flank the enemy fleet and take out their carrier cruisers and any anti structure ships.

My only gripe is the lack of an anti structure unit for the Vasari.  I can't build a SB in a well that already has one and how am I suppose to kill a well defended and upgraded SB without suffering dessimating losses?

I disagree, moreso because that for two of the races, the starbase cannot move. IMO once you put the required resources into a starbase and its position is permantly fixed, it should be the "be all end all" of defensive emplacements. It should by no means be invulnerable though.

Consider how much a fully upgraded SB costs , and know that there is 75% of a planets grav well that the SB cannot defend (TEC/Advent), and it seems a very expensive but easily avoidable defense, even with maxed SC.

Another thought: how about a mining upgrade?

And perhaps SB's should generate some form of tax income? In most ways they are already like a colony anyway.

I agree with Burnout, the SB should be a more defensively entrenched and potent structure. Those who want to make it just another chink in a rock-paper-scissors srtategy miss the point and degrade the entire idea of the 'Starbase as space-castle.' The starbase looses a great deal of its allure if we make it a castle in a 16th century European setting -- make it a castle-type unit in a 12th century respect and we have an entirely different story! (hopefully this historical reference is somehow useful...)

I disagree. A reduction in build time for SC would compound the SC spam problem at hand now.

If turtles were paranoid, they would live in burrows even thou they got shells on their backs.  That's what these arguments feel like, you guys are bunch of paranoid turtles. A starbase already has anti strikecraft abiltiy, it's called a buttload of fighters!  Alreadya  prospect of running into fully upgraded starbase in an MP game is making me uneasy.  You guys are jsut taking this turtle thing and running away with it.

I just wanted to add my 2 cents! While I haven't played the Beta, knowing that a Starbase doesn't have any kind of Flak turrets sounds a bit weird to me. Imagine the Deathstar without any anti-fighter guns! Or better yet, anyone here played Freespace 2? Remember what it was like bombing the Satanas Class Juggernauth? The second you were in range for bombing, a dozen flak guns (and a very big one which was a secondary objective to take out) would try to tear you to pieces... ahh good times.

It hit a couple in the first movie.

Then again, that's why there was a big 'ol fleet at the second one.

The Death Star guns took down at least 2 in the first movie. The X-wings in the trench got hit by them and blew up, also it generally made things difficult for them helping the Ties make micemeat out of them. 

Starbases need FLAK GUNs, jesus come on. Who doesn't actually agree to this? I mean its not like they get a Planet Killing Death Ray! it's FLAK GUNS for Christ sake. 

The easy answer for why Starbases need better anti-strikecraft ability is that a squad of Carriers will completely flatten a Starbase from the other side of the well, with no risk to itself whatsoever. Bring enough of them (20 bomber squads) and they can take down even a max defense Vasari base before it can cross the well. Incidentally a max defense Vasari Starbase also can't get enough strikecraft to actually make a difference.

Carriers right now are more effective then Adjudicators at taking out buildings, and they also happen to work at taking out ships at the same time. Aside from more carriers, there's no real defense against them (Flak Frigates are pretty pathetic right now).