Fortresses are a joke in the current version

[Tyrannical Prince]

In one game, I was lucky and spawned near the sanctuary system (the heavily defended ring world with 4 habitable sections on it). I eventually was able to capture it and colonize everything. What I ended up doing was placing a "trap" (cheap static structure with only the ftl snare on it) in the middle of the ring and later added a layer of fortresses around the range of the trap (6 total). the fortresses had long-range weapons and mine fields. Any fleet that warped into the system would instantly be surrounded with 4 fully upgraded stations, 6 decked out fortresses and then any fleet i had in the system.

I never got a chance to see it in action because I lost 1 big battle against an enemy resulting in a large federation declaring war on me in my weakened state. I am still convinced that any fleet entering this system would not have an easy time

 

[Secret Master]

In one game, I was lucky and spawned near the sanctuary system (the heavily defended ring world with 4 habitable sections on it). I eventually was able to capture it and colonize everything. What I ended up doing was placing a "trap" (cheap static structure with only the ftl snare on it) in the middle of the ring and later added a layer of fortresses around the range of the trap (6 total). the fortresses had long-range weapons and mine fields. Any fleet that warped into the system would instantly be surrounded with 4 fully upgraded stations, 6 decked out fortresses and then any fleet i had in the system.View attachment 231884
I never got a chance to see it in action because I lost 1 big battle against an enemy resulting in a large federation declaring war on me in my weakened state. I am still convinced that any fleet entering this system would not have an easy time

That's the set up I use in systems where I don't intend to fight the enemy fairly.

Prethoryn fleets would show up in a system like this and spend a couple of weeks chewing through the fortresses while my fleet would get to the system and crush them. It kept them from wandering around and making a nuisance of themselves.

 

[GAGA Extrem]

I'd argue that Sins of a Solar Empire has shown pretty well that static defence buildings can work in a 4x-ish game.

However, when it comes to Stellaris it's a bit more tricky to adjust the power level of defences, given that tech has a pretty massive impact on ship quality and that Stallaris doesn't have as big of a diminishing returns for having a giant fleet size.

 

[Squizzy77]

Simple way to make space fortresses great again, reduce the exclusion zone.

Think of a massive (and costly) group of space stations bristling with weapons all within easy support range of each other.

This may even make going tall over wide more viable.

 

[Pyramid_Head]

And all that fortresses will hog up all your income. No thanks, I'd rather build more ships.

 

[Squizzy77]

Make the power ratio to resource higher for fortresses. More power for your dollar, but no mobility. fair trade off for a defensive minded species.

 

[The Founder]

In one game, I was lucky and spawned near the sanctuary system (the heavily defended ring world with 4 habitable sections on it). I eventually was able to capture it and colonize everything. What I ended up doing was placing a "trap" (cheap static structure with only the ftl snare on it) in the middle of the ring and later added a layer of fortresses around the range of the trap (6 total). the fortresses had long-range weapons and mine fields. Any fleet that warped into the system would instantly be surrounded with 4 fully upgraded stations, 6 decked out fortresses and then any fleet i had in the system.View attachment 231884
I never got a chance to see it in action because I lost 1 big battle against an enemy resulting in a large federation declaring war on me in my weakened state. I am still convinced that any fleet entering this system would not have an easy time

Yup, that is a "Death Flower" all right. The spaceports are just icing on the cake.
This kind of firepower is not to be trifelled with.

Make the power ratio to resource higher for fortresses. More power for your dollar, but no mobility. fair trade off for a defensive minded species.

That i could agree with. Right now it is -25% compared to a equally decked out ship. It should be -50%, maybe even -75%.

 

[Slarkon]

i use the tier4 cidel station mod. starts at 14K and ive upgraded to 22k or more but thats still too weak

 

[pieman]

I think people are using static defenses in Stellaris wrong

In my first game of Stellaris when I got battleships I wanted them to be indestructible leviathans that could roflstomp any fleet the AI sent at me. When I played according I lost one battleship at a time until I realized that I was being an idiot, not playing the "strategy" part of the strategy game, and demanding the game confirm to my wishes instead if having fun with what is. I'm not going to argue about what should be changed in the combat system or how fortresses should be buffed, but I'm going to attempt to argue working with what fortresses are now and critically examining if in fact they are useless or if they can be situationally useful

This afternoon I started a game with the explicit purpose of the game being to try various strategies concerning static defenses. I will put up some screenshots of my immediate impressions later, but if the time being my strategy is to use defenses as killing grounds. True, you can't build them next to each other, but their ranges can overlap. If you build just one fortress, don't expect it to take on a fleet, build a defense network

My basic design is a gravity well in the center surrounded by a ring of defense platforms with either scout fighters or large weapons, or both, utilizing all of the buff/debuffs that stations can have from day 1. Supplemented by a small fleet, and utilizing my homeworld spaceport weaponry, I can take on a fleet of superior opponents by baiting them and then assimilating their technology from the debris. I've yet to progress far enough to experiment with larger fortresses against larger fleets at this time

But at least I'm not limiting myself to just theorycrafting

This is definitely more in the right direction.

a few patches back a single snare fortress surrounded by Neutron torpedo/Bomber craft fortresses was able to indefinitely hold off continuous waves of unbidden.

Building them offensively in systems you've seized is also an excellent way to lock down space you've captured, not only will snare fortresses covered in autocannons or other short range weaponry shred scouting fleets and raiders, but with a few large artillery or hangar fortresses built around them with minefields, the system actually starts to bleed enemy fleets pretty severely, let's not forget if they fail to take a fortress, it basically insta-repairs.

The most useful thing about stations though is not their (very good) attrition properties, but the tactical advantage it gives to your fleet being able to outmaneuver the enemy. Even if an enemy fleet warps in and insta-pops the station, you can snare them into the center of the system, forcing them to fly all the way back out to the rim to warp again. This gives your fleets plenty of time to catch them/ gain the upper hand in another battle while your stations delayed the enemy, etc.

Basically, stations are a lot more useful than I think people are giving them credit for, a properly set up death flower can bleed fleets heavily for relatively modest expense.

 

[Jularbo Kizn]

We use a mod called "improved fortresses" I think its called.

Basically it reduces the maintainance cost With about 80%.
Increases HP With 100%
And lets you build them right NeXT to each other.

This greatly improves gameplay, and lets you compete with Hard AI since you can finally take strategy into account and create chokepoints, real planetary defenses etc.

Though the low maintainance cost makes it very hard player vs player. But the double HP and possibility of building them Close together fixes the problem of no defensive play in stellaris.

 

[Almond_Brown]

Just so you know, the fleet power of fortresses isn't very accurate to their actual strength.

I agree that they aren't great. But a 3k fortress is far stronger than 3k would have it seem.

But the 16 Fleet Cap is real and the 2 Battleships it also can generate are much more flexible in an environment where going places with your military might is a much better use of that Cap in 99% of cases.

I have built crazy Fortress flowers or whatever, with smaller stations filling every nook and cranny to maximize overlap. When the enemy comes for you and their Fleets are not stopped outright, they just chew through any configuration from Range and move on, or avoid and come back later.

The Fortress needs the [X] weapons slot, with as many as 2 or 3 allowed per Fortress to properly defend themselves. 2-3 Tachyon or Particle Lances each and then perhaps they will be able to hurt enemy fleets before they die.

 

[Derp]

I'd argue that Sins of a Solar Empire has shown pretty well that static defence buildings can work in a 4x-ish game.

However, when it comes to Stellaris it's a bit more tricky to adjust the power level of defences, given that tech has a pretty massive impact on ship quality and that Stallaris doesn't have as big of a diminishing returns for having a giant fleet size.

Starbases in SoaSE weren't meant to be impregnable walls that you can turtle behind forever, though, which is what some posters seem to want fortresses to be. They were there to stop opportunistic attacks and to buy time in the face of major ones. And like most RTSes, SoaSE favoured proactive gameplay, not reactive/passive gameplay.

 

[Harle]

1) I do think that defense stations need a buff, but I don't think that is the actual problem. The problem is broader than that, as some others have stated. The current dynamic of combat (doomstacks, basically) does not make static defenses viable, and if you simply buff defenses to the point where they are viable, you are just reinforcing doomstacks as a requirement for invading systems. Buffing stations is putting a bandaid on a broken leg. But if you fix the doomstack problem, then you fix the station problem by relation.

2) Snares should not be a feature of defense stations, they should be a separate object placed by construction ships that are relatively cheap and serve one purpose: to snare fleets at positions that are advantageous to the defender. Right now you could, theoretically, just build cheap dumb defense platforms whose only job is to act as a snare, but it would still take much too long to build and would be subject to the same placement restrictions as any other station. If a snare was a one-per-system object that constructors can build, then you could place it anywhere, it could be cheap, quick to build, and allow players to design defended entry points to systems.

 

[Afrotoaster7]

Starbases in SoaSE weren't meant to be impregnable walls that you can turtle behind forever, though, which is what some posters seem to want fortresses to be. They were there to stop opportunistic attacks and to buy time in the face of major ones. And like most RTSes, SoaSE favored proactive game-play, not reactive/passive game play.

I think what made the star-bases of SoaSE so great is that they could be upgraded to fit a variety of different strategies. Yes, you could build them for the purpose of buying your fleet time to reinforce the system, but they could also be built to do other things. You could use them to progressively wear down your enemies fleet as he dug further into your territory. (Star-bases did not often fend off entire fleets, unless the attacker was new at the game, but the losses were noticeable if you built them right.) You could build them to be death traps for entire fleets with the TEC Loyalist's self-destruct button. (A risky move, but oh so hilarious when you pulled it off.) The Vasari could even make their star-bases mobile, and in combination with the Vasari super weapon, could be flung straight into the enemy's capital world. (Again, risky, but so much fun.)
Star-bases were great because the game provided the means for the players to use them in creative, and strategic, ways. They were not just "set it and forget it" static defenses. They were something the player built with a plan in mind. I think an in depth defensive system like this would be really beneficial in making war in Stellaris far more interesting.
That's not to say adding depth to defenses will breath new light into combat in Stellaris by itself. In my opinion, anything related to war and combat could really use some more depth.

 

[Afrotoaster7]

1) I do think that defense stations need a buff, but I don't think that is the actual problem. The problem is broader than that, as some others have stated. The current dynamic of combat (doomstacks, basically) does not make static defenses viable, and if you simply buff defenses to the point where they are viable, you are just reinforcing doomstacks as a requirement for invading systems. Buffing stations is putting a bandaid on a broken leg. But if you fix the doomstack problem, then you fix the station problem by relation.
.

I agree with you, about the problem being broader than just defensive stations needing a buff, but I don't agree with the idea that doom-stacks are the real problem. Rather, I think doom-stacks, and defenses, are symptoms of a lack of depth within the games combat systems. I think, though I am by no means an expert on this game, one of the reasons (there are a few) doom-stacks are such a problem is because they're really the only strategy available to the players. Sure, we can introduce mechanics to get players to split up their fleets, but pointing them at other fleets and clicking attack will still be just about all we can do with them. One giant fleet, or many small fleets, I don't think it matters too terribly much. Yes, doom-stacks are a problem, but I think if we only added mechanics to fix doom-stacks we would still be stuck with a rather shallow combat system.

 

[GAGA Extrem]

I think what made the star-bases of SoaSE so great is that they could be upgraded to fit a variety of different strategies. Yes, you could build them for the purpose of buying your fleet time to reinforce the system, but they could also be built to do other things. You could use them to progressively wear [...]

Don't mind me, just putting down 4 Advent Bases with T3 culture upgrades next to the main star.

 

[Harle]

I agree with you, about the problem being broader than just defensive stations needing a buff, but I don't agree with the idea that doom-stacks are the real problem. Rather, I think doom-stacks, and defenses, are symptoms of a lack of depth within the games combat systems. I think, though I am by no means an expert on this game, one of the reasons (there are a few) doom-stacks are such a problem is because they're really the only strategy available to the players. Sure, we can introduce mechanics to get players to split up their fleets, but pointing them at other fleets and clicking attack will still be just about all we can do with them. One giant fleet, or many small fleets, I don't think it matters too terribly much. Yes, doom-stacks are a problem, but I think if we only added mechanics to fix doom-stacks we would still be stuck with a rather shallow combat system.

I don't disagree at all. I just think that doomstacks are the most prevalent symptom of the broader combat problems, and the thing which currently impacts gameplay the most. It's just easier to say 'basically doomstacks are the problem' than to go into a dissertation on probable causes for doomstacks. I also don't put fortifications and doomstacks on the same level because honestly, if you solve the issues that are resulting in doomstacks being the only viable strategy, you have probably also largely solved the issue with fortifications not being viable.

You are right though, that you could probably 'fix' doomstacks in a very mechanical, unimaginative way that would result in combat that is still pretty dull. But I'd also argue that even in that scenario... at least it'd still largely fix the fortification problem. So yeah. There's a lot of ways to fix doomstacks, some are better than others. I am with you though, I think combat could be a lot more interesting, and I believe that carefully adding depth to the mechanics could very well solve a lot of these problems. But I do think that any major combat changes that don't solve doomstacks will still result in a paper-thin strategy game, no matter how deep the mechanics are within the doomstack structure.

 

[Afrotoaster7]

Don't mind me, just putting down 4 Advent Bases with T3 culture upgrades next to the main star.

Probably off topic for this thread, but now that you've mentioned it I think a culture war mechanic would make a lovely addition to Stellaris. I am biased in that I am an obscene SoaSE fanboy. lol

 

[Melabranche]

In one game, I was lucky and spawned near the sanctuary system (the heavily defended ring world with 4 habitable sections on it). I eventually was able to capture it and colonize everything. What I ended up doing was placing a "trap" (cheap static structure with only the ftl snare on it) in the middle of the ring and later added a layer of fortresses around the range of the trap (6 total). the fortresses had long-range weapons and mine fields. Any fleet that warped into the system would instantly be surrounded with 4 fully upgraded stations, 6 decked out fortresses and then any fleet i had in the system.

I never got a chance to see it in action because I lost 1 big battle against an enemy resulting in a large federation declaring war on me in my weakened state. I am still convinced that any fleet entering this system would not have an easy time

Sorry to say it friend, but... My 787k fleet power will not be amused.
True - I'am almost in 2800+ year, but still, fact is a fact. Static defence suck. 20k fortress die in 6 seconds, and they are lucky, if they shoot once (80 x Giga Cannon mk2).

And in this picture you give, you make, in my opinion, one fatal flaw - FTL Snare. When enemy fleet teleport there, it will insta-shoot with everything they got to everything in rage. So, if that fleet have 30-40k+ FP, every space port, and fort in center, is destroyed instantly, and rest of your defence can take some damage from long range weapons.

ps. I build Static Defence only in my "special" systems as a RPG element.

 

[ashbery76]

Pointless to build when one doom fleet does the job of defending your whole empire.