OUTPOSTS impose unnecessary limitations

[MichaelJanuary]

CURRENT SYSTEM

• To claim ownership of a star, you build an OUTPOST.
• The outpost orbits the star, and you can not choose the location.
• The outpost can be upgraded to a starbase, fortress, etc, in a linear fashion, with most of the starbase design being hardcoded (armor, shields, weapons) though you can add some modules.
• Because a system can only have one outpost, it can only have one starbase, and you cant decide where it goes.
• Defensive platforms are a joke. Wont go there.

============

PROPOSAL

(1) REPLACE OUTPOST WITH COMMUNICATIONS ARRAY, HAVING SOCIAL/POLITICAL FUNCTIONS

• Rename the OUTPOST to a COMM ARRAY.
• It effectively serves the same function as the current Outpost.
• It provides FTL services, and links the star system to your empires comm network, effectively establishing OWNERSHIP of the star system.
• It can be upgraded to larger variations of COMM ARRAYS, with appropriate modules at each stage
  • Entertainment - improves happiness for pops in the star system.
  • Propaganda - improves ethic attraction to your core ethics.
  • Generally is aligned with your Government, Ethics, and Social systems
  • It may include light armor, shields, weapons, but would never be a 'military' base.
• It is completely separate from, and unable to perform the role that a military or economic starbase would perform.
• Whoever owns the comm array:
  • would take control of all remotely operated stations in that system (mining, energy, research).
  • would shift the ethics of pops on any colonised planets in that system over time, to their own empires core ethics.
    • i.e., you could have an enemy or foreign colony in the system if you had captured it, and the pops would shift their ethic alignment to yours over time.
    • Of course you could just invade it, and accelerate the process.

(2) MILITARY FORTRESS (Star base, Star hold, Star Fortress, Citadel)

• Is completely separate from the outpost / comm array model.
• Can be constructed around any major orbital body in any system that you own.
• Is generally aligned with your military, defense and fleet services
  • Crew Quarters
  • Weapons Modules
  • Sensors
  • Engineering Bays (facilitate repairs, refits)
  • Has bonus to armor, shields, weapon damage for any installed modules.
• Optional Mechanics
  • can have exclusion radius, so that you cannot build multiple fortresses on top of each other.
  • Can have a system limit for how many you can build (maybe through techs).
  • Should be able to be placed to block FTL/STL routes through the system (its not locked to the centre of the star system)

(3) ECONOMIC STAR BASE / TRADE HUB / SPACE MALL

• Is its own line of starbases, separate from military starbases, or comm arrays.
• Can be constructed only in orbit of colonies.
• Is generally aligned with economy and trade, and provides services to boost the economy of the planet it serves.
• Optional modules may include:
  • Trade hubs (or Bars, Casinos, Convention Centres, Mud pools, as your species prefers)
  • Shipyards (new construction, repairs, refits)
  • Passenger transit
  • Solar Arrays, Geological Survey Satellites, Hydroponic farms, Weather satellites
  • Resource storage
  • is mutually exclusive of a military starbase orbiting the same planet.

IMPACT
In general, this will provide for three "upgrade lines" or three "types" of starbases. It will not change the ownership model at all, but will separate military and economic starbases from the "outpost". The "outpost" will now also provide a real effect, of linking your pops to your government, managing their happiness, loyalty, ethics, and so on. By separating out military and economic functions, you wont have the problem of military starbases collectiing trade, or being unable to build a trade hub and a defensive starbase in the same system. I believe this will generally give players more choice as to how to customise individual star systems, and provide a more realistic separation of social, economic and military spheres.

There are a few areas that other fans may have input into or varying personal preferences. Personally, I would place Shipyards on the Economic Starbase, as generally this falls in the domain of production, while still giving military starbases the capacity to repair or refit ships.

 

[Four eyed fish]

Radio free Blorg coming at you through the comms array.
I'd like to influence another empires ethics.

 

[Mastikator]

So instead of upgrading the central station we just go back to 1.9 when we built bastions and/or trade stations and/or shipyards on the planets... of all the things in the game this is what you think need improving?

 

[MichaelJanuary]

So instead of upgrading the central station we just go back to 1.9 when we built bastions and/or trade stations and/or shipyards on the planets... of all the things in the game this is what you think need improving?

It opens up other avenues of change.

 

[Mastikator]

It opens up other avenues of change.

...like?

Okay here are some questions:

How does this interact with starbase capacity?

Am I limited to habitable planets or can I build one per planet period? What about moons? What if the planet is a moon?

What about binary and trinary systems? Can I put bastions on every single planet? What about moons? Can I build them on asteroids? Can I build them on stars?

Can I potentially have 30 maxed out bastions in a single system? Will it use 1 or 30 starbase capacity?

What does passenger transit do? (I mean in game, what is a passenger in game)

What does a weather satellite actually do in game? Can I put it on a barren world?

 

[exi123]

In general i am with the op, the way we claim systems and "settle" them feels a bit to easy. I would love to have more ways to develop my systems, with or without populated planets.

How would your proposed mechanics feel if they would go even further: The "starbases" (or in this case "bases" orbiting planets) could be a structure which comes in different tiers, every class can be build once per system. They get upgraded with influence and alloys and extend the yield for all kind of resources within the system. Modules for mining, science and trade grant a massive bonus to local deposits. A military base grants stability on planets when under martial law, armies on planets and reduce piracy.
When build in systems with planets and habitats, other interesting interactions would be possible. Use a local leisure station to generate amenities on all planets, create jobs from deposits and bind them to planets the get independent from planetary resources, commuter hubs grant shared pools of the systemwide workforce. In general a new layer of buildings and mechanics to bond systems together and developing systems without habitable worlds/structures and pops.

Mechanics like this are the way to go in my opinion to eleminate the mid-game boredom. Bonded to influence, these structures could be a step into the direction of playing tall. Not every production needs to be bonded to planets and pops.

 

[MichaelJanuary]

...like?

Okay here are some questions:

How does this interact with starbase capacity?

Am I limited to habitable planets or can I build one per planet period? What about moons? What if the planet is a moon?

What about binary and trinary systems? Can I put bastions on every single planet? What about moons? Can I build them on asteroids? Can I build them on stars?

Can I potentially have 30 maxed out bastions in a single system? Will it use 1 or 30 starbase capacity?

What does passenger transit do? (I mean in game, what is a passenger in game)

What does a weather satellite actually do in game? Can I put it on a barren world?

Some of these I addressed in my original post, but i think you are beiing caught up on the wrong details here, and these would be mostly decided through game balancing.

But I will address your questions directly.

1. Starbase Capacity?
   • Outposts do not detract from Starbase Capacity currently. Only upgraded outposts do. Nothing would change. A level 1 comm array would not count against starbase capacity, however a level 2 comm array would (or could), and a Military or Economic Starbase would. Just as it does now, except we dont call them different things, we just put different modules on them. NOTHING WOULD HAVE TO CHANGE ON THIS FRONT. Personally, I would allow a slightly higher base number of starbases.
   • Examples:
     • A basic level 1 comm arrayy, with a citadel elsewhere in the same sytem, would still cost 1 starbase capacity.
     • However, a level 2 comm array, with a citadel somewhere in the system, and an economic starbase in the same system, would account for 3 starbases.
     • The only thing would be the degree of flexibility you had as a player.
     • See also #2 below.
2. What about moons, planets, asteroids?
   • I said "major planetary bodies".
   • I also said you could have rules like "exclusion zones". Size to be determined. Can be balanced.
   • Currently, the game has an algorithm for determining where you can build a habitat. A similar algorithm could be used to determine where you could build a starbase.
   • Examples:
     • Assuming a star system was large enough, you could put three bastions, and two economic starbases, and an upgraded comm array in ONE system, accounting for 6 starbases.
     • I dont think ANY star system has enough planetary bodies to allow for 30 starbases.
     • Multiple bastions in one system? Yes, planetary bodies and exclusion zones allowing. But you wouuld be detracting from your starbase capacity, and would possibly be leaving yourself open elsewhere.
3. 30 bastions in one system?
   • Sigh, See #2.
4. Passenger Transit?
   • A passenger transit module was somethiing proposed by the Devs in a dev diary to facilitate migration and/or resettlement. Perhaps read the dev diaries?
5. Weather Satellites? GeoSurvey Satellites? etc.
   • Use your imagination for god's sake.
   • We currently use survey satellites and weather satellites to plan farming, boost agriculture, hunt for minerals, track extreme weather. These have economic implications. An "Economic Starbase" with the appropriate modules could be used to boost specific aspects of a planets economy.
     • +x% minerals, +y% agriculture, +5 hab (weather prediction)
   • Furthermore, we could have weather controlling satellites, that mitigate anomalies on a planet, or assist in terraforming.

I deliberately left some things open to the player's imagination, as there is huge scope for new ways of doing old things, or better ways of doing current things. I assumed players would have an imagination. My bad.

 

[Mastikator]

@MichaelJanuary But it just seems like you're renaming the star base and splitting it up into multiple starbases. Besides craming more stuff into a smaller space what avenues does it open up?

 

[MichaelJanuary]

@MichaelJanuary But it just seems like you're renaming the star base and splitting it up into multiple starbases. Besides craming more stuff into a smaller space what avenues does it open up?

Besides allowing for more concentrated system development. You wouldn't have to build your shipyards in a different system just because you already had a military citadel or a trade hub in that system. Say you had a system with two or three colonised planets, you could have shipyards orbiting each, with double or triple the ship building capacity you would normally be able to fit into a star system, and you could connect this star system with one gateway, instead of spreading your shipyards over multiple star systems, with each requiring a gateway. Or you could mix it up with a trade hub.

It would also allow for better defense of warp lanes (through placement of bastions). Larger star systems might allow for two or even three bastions, which working in concert with a fleet, could possibly make them more viable at end game, instead of near irrelevant as they are now.

Also, you could have completely different base levels of armor/shields/damage for each type of starbase. This would allow you to develop proper military bastions, without every economic or social starbase becoming a bastion by default. A military starbase would have a higher base armor/shields, and higher weapon damage multipliers..

Comm arrays would allow for developing systems like ethic drift, faction manipulations, different government models (comm arrays and related social techs).

Economic Starbases would allow for developing trade networks that weren't constrained by your military bases (military bases and communication arrays wouldnt collect trade). They would also allow for an extra layer of economic development on your major planets. Currently, when you have filled in every district, and upgraded every building, you never revisit that planet. You just depend on tech to improve productivity. With an economic starbase, there would be options to further enhance selected planets, improving their value even further.

The player would be faced with a choice to boost their best planets with an economic starbase which is militarily useless, but could still add a bastion separately elsewhere in the system, but it would cost starbase capacity. It just feels more immersive to me, with a wider array of choices.

The other thing I left the door open for, is you could be faced with a situation where you have captured a star system, but NOT invaded all the planets. Now you have a star system shared with someone else, but you have control over the ethic drift of those pops through your comm arrays. You could also sign a colonisation agreement with an ally that you are allowed to colonise in their systems (maybe you have opposite habs). They would own still own the star system, and your pops would be subject to drifting to their ethics. maybe one day they decide to switch allegiance (revolt?). Maybe this affects your relationships?

EDIT: The last one, I will explain a bit more. A possible ally agreement could be that you are allowed to colonise tropical planets in their space, while they are allowed to colonise desert planets in your space. However, this would leave both empires open to those planets ethics drifting away.

 

[sillyrobot]

Originally, military star bases were constructible freely in systems. Death blossom designs (overlapping fields of fire from a variety of stations) were particularly popular. The game walked away from that design for a reason.

 

[MichaelJanuary]

Originally, military star bases were constructible freely in systems. Death blossom designs (overlapping fields of fire from a variety of stations) were particularly popular. The game walked away from that design for a reason.

I dont know what the reason was, but I am not sure that I am proposing the same thing.

1. The old space fortresses did not count to your starbase capacity.
2. They were heavy weapons platforms, NOT starbases, and did not offer any starbase services.
3. They could be placed anywhere, and did not have to be in orbit of anything.

 

[TTJ]

I think, one starbase per system is enough and also reduces the micro management. I also see the problem that military and civil starbases seem to be mutually exclusive today due to the number of building slots.

Ways ro solve this could be:
- Always reserve some building slots within a Starbase only for civil modules.
- Allow some different upgrade options in parallel. So in parallel to the upgrade to citadel/star fortress, you can additionally upgrade to "administrative base" and "star system government" which adds additional civil building slots
- or allow exactly one military and one civil base in one system (preferably with a predetermined orbit around the star). The latter would not count towards starbase capacity.