I understand that prior to 2.0, fortresses and static defenses existed which could be built in locations across systems rather than being fully localized to the central starbase? I didn't play at that point, but I'd love to see some variation on this return, with the game being balanced to accommodate, of course.
It seems strange to me that this feature was removed at the same time that, as I understand it, the game was modified so that hyperlanes were the primary method of galactic transit, and galactic "terrain" was given a greater emphasis. Surely the existence of system/hyperlane chokepoints would allow for dynamic defense installations to be ordained with wonderful strategic value? Place a defense installation at a hyperlane jump point to defend it from invaders, instead of potentially allowing them to slip by starbase range. Allow your weapons to engage with them as soon as they jump in, revoking any potential range advantage they may have from higher technology levels or different loadouts. It seems like the sort of thing that would make a lot of sense in a "real world" imagining of tactics under such a system.
Perhaps the issue was that this sort of thing was overpowered or unbalanced, but then surely the solution would be to modify costs to compensate. In fact, you can already do this with ships, and I very often find myself parking fleets at hyperlane entrance/exit points to serve this same purpose! That in itself proves that this concept cannot be entirely broken, and you could design a fortress/defense system that gained in effectiveness in a similar manner to a growing fleet. The only difference is that currently this concept isn't formalized, and these ship defense interdictions aren't true permanent defenses. You end up shifting them around a lot, because camping all your ships in one place doesn't make much sense. But the option of having static defenses would I think add more depth, because you could choose whether to guard a particular location in a system, perhaps with more durable defenses but with little to no maneuverability if the strategic situation changed, or whether you wanted to invest in ships, which can move but have their own disadvantages when used solely as defenses.
Also, solely from a "rule of cool" perspective, I love the imagery of the assault on a key system, defenses blazing with guns and slowly falling one by one to the cruel invaders seeking to reach the planet or starbase within. It just feels weird that you can built static defenses, but only in one place (around the starbase). Doesn't make much sense to me outside of perhaps gameplay considerations, and again, I don't think there's a solid case for why more dynamically placed defenses couldn't be a thing, because they sort of already informally are, in the form of ships. I would just like more options for how to play, flavour, consistency and depth.
I'm not saying to do away with centralized starbases and defenses, of course. I just think dynamic defenses would be a cool thing in addition, if properly balanced.
I'd be interested in hearing if there was a specific reason that I've overlooked why the devs decided to make them no longer a thing, because I can't think of a drawback that doesn't also apply to static fleets.
It seems strange to me that this feature was removed at the same time that, as I understand it, the game was modified so that hyperlanes were the primary method of galactic transit, and galactic "terrain" was given a greater emphasis. Surely the existence of system/hyperlane chokepoints would allow for dynamic defense installations to be ordained with wonderful strategic value? Place a defense installation at a hyperlane jump point to defend it from invaders, instead of potentially allowing them to slip by starbase range. Allow your weapons to engage with them as soon as they jump in, revoking any potential range advantage they may have from higher technology levels or different loadouts. It seems like the sort of thing that would make a lot of sense in a "real world" imagining of tactics under such a system.
Perhaps the issue was that this sort of thing was overpowered or unbalanced, but then surely the solution would be to modify costs to compensate. In fact, you can already do this with ships, and I very often find myself parking fleets at hyperlane entrance/exit points to serve this same purpose! That in itself proves that this concept cannot be entirely broken, and you could design a fortress/defense system that gained in effectiveness in a similar manner to a growing fleet. The only difference is that currently this concept isn't formalized, and these ship defense interdictions aren't true permanent defenses. You end up shifting them around a lot, because camping all your ships in one place doesn't make much sense. But the option of having static defenses would I think add more depth, because you could choose whether to guard a particular location in a system, perhaps with more durable defenses but with little to no maneuverability if the strategic situation changed, or whether you wanted to invest in ships, which can move but have their own disadvantages when used solely as defenses.
Also, solely from a "rule of cool" perspective, I love the imagery of the assault on a key system, defenses blazing with guns and slowly falling one by one to the cruel invaders seeking to reach the planet or starbase within. It just feels weird that you can built static defenses, but only in one place (around the starbase). Doesn't make much sense to me outside of perhaps gameplay considerations, and again, I don't think there's a solid case for why more dynamically placed defenses couldn't be a thing, because they sort of already informally are, in the form of ships. I would just like more options for how to play, flavour, consistency and depth.
I'm not saying to do away with centralized starbases and defenses, of course. I just think dynamic defenses would be a cool thing in addition, if properly balanced.
I'd be interested in hearing if there was a specific reason that I've overlooked why the devs decided to make them no longer a thing, because I can't think of a drawback that doesn't also apply to static fleets.
