Thing is, they cost alloys, at a rate of about 3 or 4 stations for the cost of one battleship. And, despite my post above, strictly speaking, spending those alloys on a bigger fleet is the 'better' option.
Okay... defense platforms are out of commission...
- Thread starter Sinister2202
- 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.
Up through mid-game they still add enough to Starbases to be able to assist in standing off enemy fleets. You can have a starbase with platforms backed up by a small fleet and it can defeat larger enemy fleets that attack the system. If you're up against the fleet cap and you need to protect multiple borders, a small fleet + station defenses might be the best answer.
That said, didn't they once get a maintenance break on stations?
That said, didn't they once get a maintenance break on stations?
The idea of 'stationary' platforms in a space game is a bit silly. I'd much prefer essentially 'system defence' fleets that are not equipped with hyperdrives, local garrisons, or something, that are called up when needed. Reduce their maintenance and have them cost like 1/4 fleet cap, but have them based on the station...
I have suggested this very idea before, but now that I think of it, this isn't worth it. It'll still be pointless to build and rebuild platforms, purely because of them being alloy sink. Ships are alloy sinks in wars as it is, and ships are the most active source in wars. They get destroyed and have to be replenished etc.
However, stations and platforms only engage when enemies are present to capture the system. The concept of having semi-permanent defense platforms that gets repaired along with the star base, and does not become completely destroyed, would also show the significance of such a heavily defended system.
Defense platforms are infrastructure and are "part" of the star base's defense network. Right now they feel like temporary measures, which are not worth the cost. If you take an enemy's fortification, you can technically repair and turn it against them. That's what I was suggesting basically, to sum it up.
As a trade off, though, there's still the upkeep for them.
As a side note, it seems a bit ridiculous to have separate stationary platforms around the star base, which is located at the center of the system, where the local star is. It'd be logically more ideal to strengthen and enlarge the star base itself rather than having to invest heavy loads of alloys on temporary measures like the vulnerable and separated platforms. Even pillboxes away from FOBs are temporary, but they are cheap to maintain BECAUSE they are temporary way to secure locations. However, the defense platforms are not. They aren't worth it.
It's better to have more solidified structural integrity with additional weapons than divided / weaker structures that cannot maneuver..
If that semi-permanency bothers people, then at least allow the enemy that captured the station dismantle its fortifications.
Finally, I'd just like to add that I respect all of your opinions.
Last edited:
Okay, fair enough. Then how about this?
Have them as "modules" as I have suggested, but have them join in the battle separately as usual. They'd act as star base's components. Each downed components in the battle should weaken the star base's firepower as more and more are destroyed. When the enemy ships win and star base is being repaired, have those modules come online as well, without us having to press "replenish" or other ideas others have suggested. That to me is far more streamlined than us having to micro.
Each would still cost upkeep and we still shouldn't have to rebuild them again and again.
Yeah I could definitely see that as a valid way to handle them, though I would suggest adding a "platform reconstruction" modifier to their upkeep while they are getting repaired from destruction that amounts to something like 30% of the initial construction cost payed out over the whole time they are being fixed.
That way losing them would actually be a resource drain on the defender without requiring the player to actually go and repair them, or just suddenly losing lots of alloys for no apparent reason.
The idea of combined arms, in this case fleets plus bases together defending a key system, seems really painful to you.
I suggest that you avoid WWII games like Hearts of Iron. Plans that involve 100% infantry or 100% tanks or 100% planes without any of the other two are notoriously ineffective.
I don't think static defenses are ever going to work in this game. They're either tuned enough to be useful and encourage camping which makes it insanely easy to game the AI (2.0) or they end up being pointless (now).
Planets are the destination. Regardless of the hyperlane map, they are the "choke point". People want to sack planets. So make them the defense! I would love to see a border worlds system that designates your outermost planets separately from your inner core worlds. In war, enemies would have to hit your border worlds before they could carve a path in, giving you the means to create ever-evolving defensive worlds on the outside of your territory. As you expand, your old border worlds become part of the core planets, and then you build up. No awkward defense platforms, and combat will cut to the chase a little more than it does now because you'll be directly contesting planets. Attacking enemy core worlds before border worlds could impose a penalty to make sure that people don't just skip through to the middle.
A happy side effect of this is that if taking border worlds was mandatory before continuing in, every FTL type would function in war because they would all share the common destination of an empire's outer rim instead of the hyperlane choke points.
Planets are the destination. Regardless of the hyperlane map, they are the "choke point". People want to sack planets. So make them the defense! I would love to see a border worlds system that designates your outermost planets separately from your inner core worlds. In war, enemies would have to hit your border worlds before they could carve a path in, giving you the means to create ever-evolving defensive worlds on the outside of your territory. As you expand, your old border worlds become part of the core planets, and then you build up. No awkward defense platforms, and combat will cut to the chase a little more than it does now because you'll be directly contesting planets. Attacking enemy core worlds before border worlds could impose a penalty to make sure that people don't just skip through to the middle.
A happy side effect of this is that if taking border worlds was mandatory before continuing in, every FTL type would function in war because they would all share the common destination of an empire's outer rim instead of the hyperlane choke points.
But they could. You just need a small push to make them much more interesting:
https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/foru...e-once-destroyed.1146842/page-4#post-25095195
https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/foru...e-once-destroyed.1146842/page-4#post-25095195
well that doesnt make any sense.... considering they are literally platforms, stations devoid of any propulsion and thus means to escape combat
The disengagement could reflect the platform having its weapon systems disabled and being unable to continue fighting. An attacking fleet has no reason to keep firing at an nonoperational platform when there are other targets shooting back at them.
^eh.... i have to disagree here.... barbaric despoilers, warmongers, purifiers and more would just destroy these things for a means to
1 make a statement
2 blow stuff up
3 weaken their prey
4 blow stuff up
i mean, it literally is warfare 101 to destroy any means of defence for your enemy, unless you can use those defences AGAINST your enemy... and since we are talking about "space", thats not really a thing with defence platforms
ALSO, what people dont seem to consider, is that TAKING systems might result in getting a space station with many defence plattforms THAT ARENT REALLY OBVIOUS TO THE PLAYER... so it could create alot of upkeep for no reason for the player (or conquerer) since dismantling defence stations is as much of a hassle as building them
1 make a statement
2 blow stuff up
3 weaken their prey
4 blow stuff up
i mean, it literally is warfare 101 to destroy any means of defence for your enemy, unless you can use those defences AGAINST your enemy... and since we are talking about "space", thats not really a thing with defence platforms
ALSO, what people dont seem to consider, is that TAKING systems might result in getting a space station with many defence plattforms THAT ARENT REALLY OBVIOUS TO THE PLAYER... so it could create alot of upkeep for no reason for the player (or conquerer) since dismantling defence stations is as much of a hassle as building them