I have that always. I need my starbases for anchorages, not trade hubs.
Having said that, I hardly ever build fortresses.
2.2 & Megacorp Teasers
- Thread starter Mitchz95
- Start date
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
I have that always. I need my starbases for anchorages, not trade hubs.
Having said that, I hardly ever build fortresses.
on a MP or even SP game its funny if you use a Chokepoint planet and build only fortress there +1 planetary shield. It also does produce quite a bit of unity that way.
This can hold quite a big fleet for years and years as they need to reduce the planet to around 5-10 fortress to finally invade ^^.
But Fortresses are rather useless though...
sure they have gotten better as before.
but only once did i have a situation where i thought "well damn, if i had built a few more platforms i would've won that fight" affter that i did invest in more platforms (15 minuts later) and then i thought "well that was a waste of rescources" as the enemy jsut rofflestomped them.
They have become better, but only marginaly so.
Everytime me and/or my friend run into a 40K-ish starfortress our reaction can be summed up as this:
I await the day that investing in a fortress will be worth it. I'm not demanding it to be able to win from a 70K stack or something. But what i do want that it kills a few ships before going down. A fortress with max platforms should be able to hold out (or otherwise significantly damage) your average 2300 fleet at the very least.
But Fortresses are rather useless though...
sure they have gotten better as before.
but only once did i have a situation where i thought "well damn, if i had built a few more platforms i would've won that fight" affter that i did invest in more platforms (15 minuts later) and then i thought "well that was a waste of rescources" as the enemy jsut rofflestomped them.
They have become better, but only marginaly so.
Everytime me and/or my friend run into a 40K-ish starfortress our reaction can be summed up as this:
I await the day that investing in a fortress will be worth it. I'm not demanding it to be able to win from a 70K stack or something. But what i do want that it kills a few ships before going down. A fortress with max platforms should be able to hold out (or otherwise significantly damage) your average 2300 fleet at the very least.
....the discussion is about *planetary* fortresses, not Bastion Starbases.
On an unrelated note: I'd celebrate it if tomorrow comes a dev diary about added background music.
And I can totally see Wiz pulling that.
And I can totally see Wiz pulling that.
I'd like to note that in regards to Chokepoints, the game doesn't always have a decent supply of them. Even when I draw back Hyperlane density as low as I can I still wind up with areas where there are several options on where to go, and the only real way you can say we have chokepoints is via planets with the FTL inhibitors. Because if your in a chokepoint system with a starbase but no habitable planets, it's not a chokepoint, it's just something to slow you down because all you have to deal with is the Starbase.
Now again, one solution to this issue that some bring up would be a bombardment mode that has more options like targets. The FTL inhibitor thing is only usable so long as the fortress stands, and you CAN bombard those things into ruined buildings and free up your ability to move on without invading a planet. However, planet bombardment is very RANDOM and so you could end up in orbit for a while pounding at the place (and before you say well land armies and invade that's not always an option if you want to actually TAKE the planet- sometimes that fortress has given them enough defensive armies that you'd need an overwhelming force and would be sitting there for a good while waiting for them to blib each other to death)
Having an ability to target military structures, even going after specific civilian structures, would make this less of an issue. Then if you didn't want to actually take the world itself you just blast the fortress and move on (plus being able to say, target farms or mines, would allow you to further damage the opponents economy without having to worry about the worlds your occupying.)
Now again, one solution to this issue that some bring up would be a bombardment mode that has more options like targets. The FTL inhibitor thing is only usable so long as the fortress stands, and you CAN bombard those things into ruined buildings and free up your ability to move on without invading a planet. However, planet bombardment is very RANDOM and so you could end up in orbit for a while pounding at the place (and before you say well land armies and invade that's not always an option if you want to actually TAKE the planet- sometimes that fortress has given them enough defensive armies that you'd need an overwhelming force and would be sitting there for a good while waiting for them to blib each other to death)
Having an ability to target military structures, even going after specific civilian structures, would make this less of an issue. Then if you didn't want to actually take the world itself you just blast the fortress and move on (plus being able to say, target farms or mines, would allow you to further damage the opponents economy without having to worry about the worlds your occupying.)
I think the idea is that they, like fleets, only do well when their going against equal or lower numbers. My citadels armed to the teeth were very useful for protecting my Driven Assimilators borders against the rather decently sized and powered fleets the enemy was throwing at them... which meant they weren't throwing them at my main invasion force.
I don't know if the AI is good at using them though except at higher difficulty levels, though I've taken decent losses to some before when a fleet shows up and joins the fray (which basically means the bigger fortresses are there to slow you down in the hopes a fleet gets there in time.)
I'd jump more for joy if we learned they were planning a big story pack that adds a ton more events to the game.
But Fortresses are rather useless though...
sure they have gotten better as before.
but only once did i have a situation where i thought "well damn, if i had built a few more platforms i would've won that fight" affter that i did invest in more platforms (15 minuts later) and then i thought "well that was a waste of rescources" as the enemy jsut rofflestomped them.
They have become better, but only marginaly so.
Everytime me and/or my friend run into a 40K-ish starfortress our reaction can be summed up as this:
I await the day that investing in a fortress will be worth it. I'm not demanding it to be able to win from a 70K stack or something. But what i do want that it kills a few ships before going down. A fortress with max platforms should be able to hold out (or otherwise significantly damage) your average 2300 fleet at the very least.
Like said below, its not about a space fortress. Look this video for what im talking about
. A planet with 13 fortress + 1 planetary shield for a total of 4000 troop Strenght
. Of course also a FTL jammer. You will need quite a lot fleet strenght to bombard that planet into submission or a huge army where losses are expected to defeat this.
Bombarment is based on Naval Capacity used, not Fleet Power. It also used to be capped at 200 NC.
He still has a point though. That makes for the nessecity of planetary FTL inhibitors to be so constraining. Bastions are quite nice when backed with a fleet, but platforms fall way too quickly, and they're a pain to replace. Some bastion designer to reinforce lost platforms according to several templates you could make would be nice.
Just a bit that I forgot to address, if during WWII Germany successfully put in place enough France based canons able to reliably shoot at ships, it would have blocked any transit here until bombing or troops would have debunked these. Like if ground based anti-ship weaponry or devices weren't a thing. Strawman?
Space defenses are eitehr:
* too weak to count
* too powerfull to overcome
With a very narrow margin in between.
Unless there is some other system like Espionage to get around them, they are exactly where they need to be power wise.
oh, those kind of fortresses... nevermind then, they indeed do serve their purpose. i misunderstood about the type of fortresss we wre talking about.A planet with 13 fortress + 1 planetary shield for a total of 4000 troop Strenght
You will need quite a lot fleet strenght to bombard that planet into submission or a huge army where losses are expected to defeat this.
but point stil stands regardles of my litle derp.
Like said below, its not about a space fortress. Look this video for what im talking about
A planet with 13 fortress + 1 planetary shield for a total of 4000 troop Strenght
You will need quite a lot fleet strenght to bombard that planet into submission or a huge army where losses are expected to defeat this.
I don't get the idea of doing this with any planet. Seems a waste of a planet. Maybe a habitat.
Distant stars still didn't add enough in my opinion. I don't always get to late game time frame, but mid and late game can get... well, rather boring if your not waging war and have nowhere else to explore.
Stellaris needs a big semi-truck full of events to add more spice during all parts of the game. Faction related events, events related to civics and ethics, government type. Events for the capital and various leaders... border events and special events during colonization or for early settled worlds...
Habitats get "security Zones". While they spawn armies and supress unrest, they do not carry a FTL Inhibitor and might not even protect from bombardment.
Because it was way to easy to just spam them in one System, particular in MP.
Agreed. Mostly what I complain about is the hassle it is to replace platforms. With a fleet it's nice to have their added firepower, but since they cost minerals as well, are near useless alone and are replaced manually I keep reinforcing moar ships instead of replacing platforms, and I end up not using them. Costs a bit more but I fund my laziness happily. With a template system I would certainly use them though. The other end of the narrow margin.
It really isn't. The argument has nothing to do with wanting the old FTL back, so stop strawmanning. It's a complete misrepresentation of the argument to say that wanting FTL inhibitors to work differently is equivalent to wanting multiple types of FTL back.
I don't appreciate the imagery in that message - why are you talking about choking someone, and me in particular? That really has no bearing on our discussion about a game?
By the way, nozzles actually increase flow rate of the flowing fluid. I suggest brushing up on your basic physics before doubling down in unrelated discussion where you are so woefully wrong. Further, with regard to semantics, the word we are talking about is inhibit, not chokepoint, or had you forgotten that? The reason you were asked to google is because you are wrong about your definitions in your corrections.
And yes, planetary FTL inhibitors are blockers - they block all hyperlanes from being used except the one used to enter the system.
Correct, it's not fun. What would be more fun is warfare which wasn't the battle of the Somme in Space. Which is, incidentally, what the current system promotes - a war of attrition because the game mechanics are such that strategic choice doesn't come into it. And it definitely isn't instead of, but in addition to.
I don't think you understand that having to follow the hyperlane network means that the defender can set-up effective chokepoints. That's the whole point of the reason hyperlane network was chosen to be the default FTL.
I don't think you know what a strawman is.