Somebody posted on Reddit showing that Sabotage Starbase costs 2000 energy credits and just disables a random module or building on a Starbase.
Seems... underpowered?
Seems... underpowered?
- 11
- 3
- 2
Sabotage Starbase
- Thread starter Liggi
- 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.
It is. Here you have the screenshot.
I've already posted something about that in another thread and it's absolute underpowered. I would never spend energy or spy network capacity on this.
Last edited:
- 7
- 3
- 2
If it would aim specifically at defensive Buildings, maybe it would make enough of a difference to matter. Stripping a chokepoint of its +10% fire rate buff, or its shield and speed penalties to invaders, might be a big enough deal to justify the existence of this operation.
I wonder what happens to defense platforms if you knock out a Defense Grid Supercomputer.
I wonder what happens to defense platforms if you knock out a Defense Grid Supercomputer.
- 2
It's the exact kind of "useless but annoying" spy operation that everyone including the developers knows that no one wants to see. What are they smoking?
At minimum the operation should completely disable the starbase for some time, allowing for a sneak attack. That would be far less annoying to be hit by as well despite being more powerful, since it wouldn't require tediously rebuilding destroyed buildings.
At minimum the operation should completely disable the starbase for some time, allowing for a sneak attack. That would be far less annoying to be hit by as well despite being more powerful, since it wouldn't require tediously rebuilding destroyed buildings.
- 38
- 7
- 1
This. And set the timer for it's regeneration up ten times, from 30 days to 300. That would be fair and acceptable good i think for that price.
- 5
- 4
- 1
Wow that looks like a completely useless waste of money. Could the cost possibly be scaled based on some other factor?
- 2
Maybe with a fitting asset. But that wouldn't change it's underwelming result. I've written in my other post about this, that a complete destruction would be over the top epecially because the system would be unclaimed again but a deactivation for a extended period of time would be the perfect way. I really hope this will be changed as well as more "operation capacity" (parallel operations).
Until then, i'll build a mod for that.
- 3
- 1
I find it amusing that terraforming AN ENTIRE PLANET is cheaper than this, costing only 2000 credits.
- 12
- 11
- 2
Honestly, I had been assuming that was what it was. I thought the point was to disable a Starbase at a vulnerable chokepoint temporarily to get the jump on an opponent when starting a war.
- 8
- 2
I second that for this sort of cost the starbase should be disabled for a set time so that it actually changes combat odds.
Tangentially, I would be more interested in an operation that disabled hyperspace inhibitors/gave you the access codes to actually raid an opponent.
Tangentially, I would be more interested in an operation that disabled hyperspace inhibitors/gave you the access codes to actually raid an opponent.
- 1
This would automatically happen if you fly through a system with deactivated starbase. Inhibitors only work on active ones. Of course thats only on and even with prallel operaions (if exists) that would most likely only a few of them.
Two problems:
- Completely disabling a defensive starbase, even temporarily, isn't very different from destroying it. You're only going to execute the operation when you have a fleet poised to take advantage of the opening. And, if I need to post big fleets at all my defensive starbases to protect them, why am I bothering to spend alloys on the starbases? I think the operation you describe would mainly discourage anyone from factoring starbases into their defensive strategy in the first place.
- Disabling a starbase that's responsible for trade protection, for any meaningful amount of time, would be disruptive enough to the victim's economy that they wouldn't bother relying on starbases for that. Again, if I need to have a lot of extra corvettes prepared as a backup plan, why entrust any of that work to a starbase?
- 7
- 2
- 1
- 1
Besides being able to just run past a starbase without getting bogged down by it, you could also ignore ground based FTL inhibitors.
It would be impact full but not game breaking
If they disable one defense star base you still have the other ones to protect your flanks, it's not useless at all to build them
Also defense star base are not meant to stop enemies, just to slow them so you would have to use your fleet anyway
I think that this kind of Sabotage action is the right balance, keep in mind that this is a difficult operation, it won't happen every two days
If your Empire fall apart because one of your stations was disable for a year, I think you have bigger problems
What I think is the current version of this operation is just useless in my mind
- 7
- 6
- 1
I think the problem is that there’s just no tangible benefit to this, gameplay-wise. It’ll be a minor annoyance when it happens to you... you just need to rebuild whatever it disabled. And it won’t damage the AI enough to be worth doing, ever... especially since it’s random so you can’t really plan ahead or capitalise on the opportunity.
- 5
- 1
you're right, forgot about the ground based ones. I rarely fight in wars.
That just seems to be way for AI empires to annoy the players with random crap. Didn't the old crisis pre-contigency have similar really annoying random event blowing up random buildings?
Shame that the Espionage seems to be turns out exactly like I suspected it will be: annoying and useless.
Shame that the Espionage seems to be turns out exactly like I suspected it will be: annoying and useless.
- 7
tbh, I would say the exact opposite - that it should target economic buildings/modules. After all, if you're going to invade, you can always just buy more ships. What espionage offers uniquely is the opportunity to bodge up someone's economy without being at war and, in fact, without diplomatic repercussions at all (unless you get caught). Plus it just makes more sense: what's going to be easier to sabotage, a sealed military module or a trade hub that people go in and out of all day?
Now the objection you're probably thinking is that economic buildings are barely worth caring about in the first place, and I must agree. But if they were going to change up starbases to make them more suitable for spying on, that would be my recommendation.
Not to mention you could just cut to the chase and spawn pirates.
- 2
I agree that I'd never bother with Sabotage Starbase as it is now. If a starbase is so tough that the loss of one defensive module or building makes a meaningful difference to me, that's a fight I'm not going to pick. I hope I'm not misconstrued as advocating for the Sabotage Starbase that they've shown us.
I also agree that starbases are not a complete defense strategy. If you're gonna end up in a war, you need fleets. But they do matter. Guarding a choke point with a fleet and a starbase is more secure than guarding it with just the fleet. But, given the ability to disable starbases outright, that would stop being true. One would always have to plan around the assumption that the opening shots in a war will coincide with this operation.
You say that the other starbases besides the disabled one will still offer protection, but ... I really think they won't, at least not to a degree that justifies their cost. In the extreme case, I have two starbases in a row, on a one-lane path, and when you disable one I fall back to the next without having lost much. More commonly, you've gained access to a sector-sized swath of my territory where you won't have to contend with any of my static defenses. And it's entirely possible that I don't have enough good choke points beyond the outer layer for my next line of defense to be effective. (And heavens forbid you're in a federation, and your buddy is also poised to set off the same operation on my next line ...)
I maintain that the existence of a way to completely nullify one starbase's entire set of functions, for any meaningful amount of time, is such a nasty threat that it would deter investment in starbases for defense and trade protection. It doesn't matter how difficult it is; knowing that it's possible, I have to assume an enemy is ready to execute it at basically any time.
You're right that it's not game-breaking. But it's game-changing: it reduces the number of interesting choices players have, because it means your starbases are going to be useless at exactly the time when they would actually matter.
- 11
- 1