One starbase per star?

[Cikomyr]

So, I was thinking.. How would I replicate a "Manticore Playthrough"? I'd probably need a binary starting system, 3 inhabited worlds, and.... 2-3 space stations in my starting location. Yhea, crap.

And this led me to consider : what if we could have one starbase on every star, for multi-star systems? What if you want one gigantic trade network hub, or an absurdly large shipyard. What if you wanted to combine defense stations with a trade station?

Within in game mechanics, would there be anything bad if binary and trinary systems were allowed more than one Starbase? They are not, by default, choke point locations so I doubt it would be game breaking defensive positions.

 

[The Founder]

This is the only definition for "Manticore" I can think off:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manticore

But i fear that is so not what you meant...

 

[Cikomyr]

This is the only definition for "Manticore" I can think off:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manticore

But i fear that is so not what you meant...

Hahaha

Manticore is the Star Nation of Honor Harrington of the Honor verse. The protagonist nation.

 

[The Founder]

Hahaha

Manticore is the Star Nation of Honor Harrington of the Honor verse. The protagonist nation.

Yes, that does make slightly more sense. Even if I know nothing of that setting.

what if we could have one starbase on every star, for multi-star systems? What if you want one gigantic trade network hub, or an absurdly large shipyard. What if you wanted to combine defense stations with a trade station?

The the question would be:
Why can we only do that in multiple star Systems?

The reason we can build only one to begin with, is a balance side one and not a lore one.

Once you can build unlimited/less limited Space Stations, all hell would break loose with balance. Defenses tend to be either:
a) So useless they are not worth investing a single resource in
or
b) So powerfull that they can not be overcome once spammed
or
c) limited to one per System, period. So they can be balanced

After spending the entire time before 2.0 between a and b, the game is now sitting comfortably at c.

 

[DreadLindwyrm]

For your mult-star system the facilities of the star base (as in game) might be divided between the (in system) bases, or the extras might be treated as defensive platforms.

But yes, there would be something bad if a trinary system could have three star bases.

Imagine 3 full citadels with full weapons and (between them) all the buff/debuff modules; and also full complements of defensive platforms, using the perk that gives more defensive platforms per starbase.

Now have that on the rare chance that they're either an actual or effective choke point (perhaps there are two paths from the actual choke point, but either both are trinaries equipped this way, or one of the two has a leviathan of some sort in it.

Even more fun if you've also parked your navy there.

 

[Typee]

Yeah right now the game is balanced so that building star bases when you get the tech protects you for a few decades, until the AI fleets become big enough to threaten you again, and then you upgrade your base again and so on until the final level that will be overcome by fleet in the late game.
Having three citadels in one system would make that system impregnable forever.

 

[methegrate]

Just to play devil's advocate, would that be such a bad thing?

We'd probably want to ratchet down the spawn rate of binary and trinary stars, but it could make them an interesting special system. Like how pulsars kill shields and black holes reduce movement, the rare trinary system can have an absolute monster of a defense force. The solution might just have to be to surround and lay siege to that system. If it's directly in your way, maybe go around it.

Then again, I am on the record for despising chokepoint-based gameplay. I think they should be occasional map features, not a core element of gameplay. So I can see how this might be more of a problem given how likely it is that a single trinary could cut off access to half the map for someone.

 

[bmt17]

It would go against their current design direction so I don't see it happening. They explicitly switched from a system of placeable military stations and per planet shipyard to having a single outpost/starbase that represents the entirety of the systems defenses and shipyard capacity. As long as they continue to treat binary and trinary systems as a single system I doubt that will change, the same balancing reasons would apply to limiting the number of defenses/yards per system.

 

[Typee]

The concept of sieging a whole system would start to really push the boundaries of believability for me. As in, what is sieging going to accomplish? The people living on the planets in this system could sustain the siege for at least thousands if not millions of years, they are not going to run out of food. They grow the food there.

 

[methegrate]

The concept of sieging a whole system would start to really push the boundaries of believability for me. As in, what is sieging going to accomplish? The people living on the planets in this system could sustain the siege for at least thousands if not millions of years, they are not going to run out of food. They grow the food there.

I don't think it would be about food. It would be about minerals, energy and alloys. If you build a massive series of bases that need the resources of several systems to sustain them, then a siege is a problem.