Obsolescence of defense platform.

[Verx90]

i mean... they try to buff starbases and platforms, but platforms have at least a shipdesign .

starbases use M weapons , have 1 missle slot , and for all L use standard shields\armor, if you have psionic shields or the like, they will still use standard armor and shields.




there exist Ion cannons, that are the tentative to have starbases being able to at least kill some battleships , but you can have at most 6 of them on a starbase (it takes almost 30 years to build them, or at least feels like it. ), against fleets of 20-30 battleships.


there is the need of a total rework for starbases , as they are actualy usefull only against the AI and theyr pathetic fleet management.

with all the buff you can get them, you can reach the fleet power of a mixed fleet ( 1 titan, 15 battleship, 10 cruiser, 10 destroyer , 10 corvet) but they are nothing in the face of a min-maxed fleet.

 

[GloatingSwine]

Yeah - defense platforms can be compared with corvettes.
Using them in lategame is like using an all corvette fleet, while everyone roams around with battleships and titans. The exception is that there is no survivors from retreat.

The difference is that all-corvette fleets actually work against battleships and titans, and defence platforms in the late game don't really work against anything...

 

[Charybde]

I'm not sold on military capacity, defense turret vs military unit is always a tricky balance that even games like starcraft regularly get wrong, and I don't think Paradox would be any better (no offense). Mobility is a pretty huge benefit, immobile static defenses regularly will never see action while warships will almost always see action, if the 2 are otherwise the same you'll always pick the mobile unit. We do need to make sure they get Survivability and are modifiable to meet their unique needs. In particular they should always have alpha strike, just making sure they get passive bonuses to range, accuracy, and survival stats will be great benefits. Just making Supremacy and Unyielding mutually exclusive will be good.

I agree on captured starbases but would suggest the ability to run a science ship up and do a special Project to reactivate it based on codebreaking/encryption all starbases should need a construction ship for repair (yay more things for them to do). You can do an operation to steal the enemies starbase codes and reactivate them more quickly, and they can perform an operation to change their codes and make their bases harder to capture. Sabatoge Starbase will now disable a starbase via this method requiring a science vessel to complete the project to reactivate. Enigmatic Engineering will prevent the ability to reactivate starbases, at the conclusion of a war they will always downgrade to an outpost. Sorry I've thought about this idea a lot.

Fortress worlds should have a cap on bombardment reduction. Fill a planet with enough military bases and hitting a Civilian target will become hard. I also think bombardment/devastation in general should result in ruining buildings, with selective bombardment that only applies to military buildings, you will be reducing their effect on your Bombardment. Defense armies should not be created instantly or disbanded instantly by loss of soldier job via Bombardment. Defense armies will be added and get stronger over time, last minute preparation shouldn't work out very well.

Hey no problem, thinking about things is why we are here. I also think these are great ideas, it would give Espionage more weight and purpose. However I still think that you should not be able to both take and repair enemy bases in the same war, here is why. The whole idea of using separate doctrines is to decide what your main focus will be.

"if the 2 are otherwise the same you'll always pick the mobile unit."

This is the one point I disagree on. If more aggressive and passive styles of play are both viable (with their respective drawbacks), not everyone might need the same capability in terms of "power projection". For more pacifist or trade minded nations, fleets could play a support role to their main means of defense. Yes mobility is a major factor and I think it should be taken into account when balancing the strength and cost of both fleets and static defenses. They would still require fleet support to be effective, however the role of those ships would be different. Probably smaller, more agile, with less firepower than those available under the supremacy doctrine, but also less expensive. Without enemy logistics being available immediately for repairs, damaged ships on the offensive would rely on their own to keep it going, else they face severe attrition or total destruction. That does mean in the course of large scale invasions, needing to turn back for repairs/refitting. That's one realistic way to slow the pace of a war down and allow the rebuilding of ships without relying on a crutch mechanic.

As you can see both unyielding and supremacy would still require the use of ships and stations. It is simply their role and relative strengths that would differ. They wouldn't be "the same", just overall equally viable. It's also one of the reasons why I suggested including prosperity in the unyielding camp. As it is prosperity, is so good that everyone should take it, there is no opportunity cost involved. Locking certain traditions behind doctrines might make the pacific route more enticing since peace generally favors prosperity growth while war most often rely on the exploitation of conquered people and resources. That's the idea anyway. I am aware that there would be a long way between this and that.

I really like the changes you suggested in regards to how bombardment, fortresses and soldier generation should work. It would keep planetary defense relevant as a zone of control strategy but wouldn't be so situationally strong.

 

[HFY]

The difference is that all-corvette fleets actually work against battleships and titans, and defence platforms in the late game don't really work against anything...

Stations can work against pathing.

You can (sometimes) make the AI pick a stupid path to your empire by leaving a door open on the other side of a long, circuitous route.

 

[GOLANX]

Hey no problem, thinking about things is why we are here. I also think these are great ideas, it would give Espionage more weight and purpose. However I still think that you should not be able to both take and repair enemy bases in the same war, here is why. The whole idea of using separate doctrines is to decide what your main focus will be.

"if the 2 are otherwise the same you'll always pick the mobile unit."

This is the one point I disagree on. If more aggressive and passive styles of play are both viable (with their respective drawbacks), not everyone might need the same capability in terms of "power projection". For more pacifist or trade minded nations, fleets could play a support role to their main means of defense. Yes mobility is a major factor and I think it should be taken into account when balancing the strength and cost of both fleets and static defenses. They would still require fleet support to be effective, however the role of those ships would be different. Probably smaller, more agile, with less firepower than those available under the supremacy doctrine, but also less expensive. Without enemy logistics being available immediately for repairs, damaged ships on the offensive would rely on their own to keep it going, else they face severe attrition or total destruction. That does mean in the course of large scale invasions, needing to turn back for repairs/refitting. That's one realistic way to slow the pace of a war down and allow the rebuilding of ships without relying on a crutch mechanic.

As you can see both unyielding and supremacy would still require the use of ships and stations. It is simply their role and relative strengths that would differ. They wouldn't be "the same", just overall equally viable. It's also one of the reasons why I suggested including prosperity in the unyielding camp. As it is prosperity, is so good that everyone should take it, there is no opportunity cost involved. Locking certain traditions behind doctrines might make the pacific route more enticing since peace generally favors prosperity growth while war most often rely on the exploitation of conquered people and resources. That's the idea anyway. I am aware that there would be a long way between this and that.

I really like the changes you suggested in regards to how bombardment, fortresses and soldier generation should work. It would keep planetary defense relevant as a zone of control strategy but wouldn't be so situationally strong.

Vehicles used on Defense can't typically be circumvented by the enemy the way Defense turrets can. If Battleships can be a good defense you won't build Defense Platforms, if Defense Platforms are too strong you can slow the game down to a crawl and just reinforce the need to doomstack. That system would have a high need to be well balanced and I just don't think it can be done, balancing them separately makes things a lot easier.

Witch capturing starbases you have to keep in mind that a agile defender could easily fly in with a coupple of Corvettes and recapture their starbase, this can be a major setback for the offensive player if the defender can repair it. In order to secure their gains the offender will need a science ship and a construction ship, the whole process may take years. The defender may even leave behind friendly islands in a total war. This is also where Enigmatic Engineering is really helpful because it does prevent the enemy from capturing your starbases or use them ever, in the kind of Scorched Earth tactic that it represents.

 

[Charybde]

Vehicles used on Defense can't typically be circumvented by the enemy the way Defense turrets can. If Battleships can be a good defense you won't build Defense Platforms, if Defense Platforms are too strong you can slow the game down to a crawl and just reinforce the need to doomstack. That system would have a high need to be well balanced and I just don't think it can be done, balancing them separately makes things a lot easier.

Witch capturing starbases you have to keep in mind that a agile defender could easily fly in with a coupple of Corvettes and recapture their starbase, this can be a major setback for the offensive player if the defender can repair it. In order to secure their gains the offender will need a science ship and a construction ship, the whole process may take years. The defender may even leave behind friendly islands in a total war. This is also where Enigmatic Engineering is really helpful because it does prevent the enemy from capturing your starbases or use them ever, in the kind of Scorched Earth tactic that it represents.

True. I had considered this difficulty and it might be tricky but maybe not as hard as you think. Let's say we reserved battleships and titan chassis for those who choose the "offensive doctrine" and a "zone of control" effect to ftl modules on stations so that you could not just circumvent them anymore. Cruisers fleet on their own might not be competitive with battleships however with stations passive buffs, strong defenses and anti large weaponry such as a new 'ion cannon" it might even the odds. Also since the enemy does not have the advantage of stronger combat stations, defeating the invader might signal victory for you. Battleships might take much longer to (re)build. On the opposite perspective an offensive player would probably have little to fear from a defensive player, since without the support of their stations, their feet's wouldn't be much of a treat on their own. You'd need several of them to band up together for that to happen. Supremacy would become a "high risk, high reward" doctrine. Not much would change in the Offensive vs Offensive scenario. The bigger fleets would still win.

The one thing that would be tricky to balance would be the damage of small versus medium versus large weapons. You could no longer have large weapons obliterate smaller ships in one volley for example, or the tracking would have to be adjusted to make it extremely unlikely. That would make bigger artillery vessels extremely vulnerable to smaller ones. You could no longer just go around with just battleships and launchers, you would need support from smaller ships and make use of combined arms tactics. That's not easy. But both ships and stations could share similar modules that way all you'd have to do is balance them in a "rock paper scissors" type formula similar to now. Once that is down then you only need to balance auras and "special" weapons and shields specific to each faction.

I'm not saying it would be a cakewalk, but contrary to you I don't see it as being impossible. Games like StarCraft are fiendishly difficult to balance because you need to consider the effects of every unit both on the individual level and within a group against things like static defenses. In stellaris most battle are fought with fleets, I don't think it requires the same amount of minutiae in the details. If there is something I'm missing though feel free to point it out.

Recaptured stations would not be operational right away, they would also need repairs and resources for those repairs (probably with the use of a construction ship, I really like that idea) before they could be useful again. The main difference is that it probably would not take as much time (since you are close to your bases of operation) and that recaptured star bases could be rebuilt in the same war, just like ships can. So no you could not just "tag" a previously destroyed station with corvettes for it to automatically rebuild itself. Auto repairing stations would definitely need to go. I'm sorry I should have probably explained this further in my last post. If I had the knowledge, I'd probably try to write a mod exposing the concept so that it could be tested and people could try it. Sadly I do not at the moment.

I just want to say that it's all just suggestions at this stage. If people have other ideas or want to add their own, by all means you are welcome to do so.

 

[Keith_C]

DPs need to be cheaper, stronger, and faster to build. You should be able to concurrently build a number at least equal to the number of modules you have (note: not shipyard modules, just modules), they should have twice the armour, twice the slots, and cost significantly less: without the ability to move I have more reactor power for weapons, don't have to worry about trading armour thickness for manoeuvrability, and as engines are expensive not having them is a money alloy-saving tip,

I want to build x-slot DPs. I want to give them DP-only upgrades like stealthing to give an evasion-analogue to increase survivability. I want a fully-equipped Citadel to be something even a FE raises an eyetentacle at. I don't want to have to spend more alloys than a major fleet nor take longer than building a Dyson sphere to fully equip that citadel with DPs.

I like the idea of being able to upgrade a starbase into a populated fortress - make it a tough nut to crack. Talking of cracking, that then happens to become a way of dealing with a particularly big fortress/citadel. If I can build a Juggernaut, I sure as heck should be able to build a bigger static version.