Sabotage Starbase

[Cat_Fuzz]

They didn't say it was a 2k base destruction mechanic, they say that it's current implementation needs a buff, but they believe that 2k energy (plus other factors you have listed) is to low for the effect to be to complete destruction of a starbase or the disabling of a starbase for an extended period of time.

I mean all of this is conjecture until tomorrow, but based on how it's described one destroyed module is far too weak.

I do believe there is a misconception with how people define 'disabled' starbase. I think many think temporarily disabling a base means instant take over once your fleet goes rolling in. I think it would instead effectively make the starbase have the offensive capability of a regular un-upgraded outpost, but it would still have the same health and defensive capability of whatever type it is. That means it's effectively the same as taking the starbase normally but without taking nearly as much damage. There would still be time to send your fleet over to try to deal with the aggressors (at least by my understanding)

If that's not enough, then what else could be proposed to make it worth the expense (which is mostly time) to make it worthwhile?

 

[Chant]

There may be additional things that can happen if you assign an appropriate Asset to the operation. The tooltip lists the baseline effects.

I think some people who are participating in this thread might not have seen this post, and it's a key source of uncertainty that should be considered when we're trying to judge the value of this operation.

The operation doesn't only ever destroy one module. We haven't been told what else it has the potential to do, given Asset synergy.

 

[Cat_Fuzz]

I think some people who are participating in this thread might not have seen this post, and it's a key source of uncertainty that should be considered when we're trying to judge the value of this operation.

The operation doesn't only ever destroy one module. We haven't been told what else it has the potential to do, given Asset synergy.

Hmm, that does make a difference I guess but would be curious to see if that just means '+/-' no. of destroyed modules...

 

[DanielPrates]

This post is very ironic considering your estimates of the relative values of effects are completely off the mark. The energy credits aren't even the real cost of the operation. Conducting an operation weakens your spy network that you will have spent a lot of time and resources building up. An envoy sitting there being a spymaster is an envoy not being used for something more immediately valuable like federations or the galactic community. And disabling a starbase has very little direct economic impact.

Exactly and besides what does comparing costs have to do with anything? Gavrillo Princip caused billions in losses and millions of deaths with a single 1 dollar bullet, so what is the point of comparing prices/costs?

 

[Chant]

Exactly and besides what does comparing costs have to do with anything? Gavrillo Princip caused billions in losses and millions of deaths with a single 1 dollar bullet, so what is the point of comparing prices/costs?

One of the things that distinguishes a game from reality is that a game is explicitly trying to be fun (Monopoly notwithstanding), and that usually requires it to be fair to some degree, even though intrinsic fairness is a departure from reality.

 

[DanielPrates]

One of the things that distinguishes a game from reality is that a game is explicitly trying to be fun (Monopoly notwithstanding), and that usually requires it to be fair to some degree, even though intrinsic fairness is a departure from reality.

Very true but still not a good explanation as to why the target of a sabotage has to correlate in equivalent proportions to the cost of the act of sabotage. In fact the mere notion of sabotage it to cause damage with disproportional means. In facto the whole idea of sabotage, spy ops etc. is to have incomparable efforts/assets causing damages. Comparable efforts/assets causing comparable damage would be more like fleets being thrown against fleets.

EDIT: it remains to be seen how this actually plays out, but I doubt the cost of setting up spy offence is merely that of the operation itself. Boy I do hope having an invested effort in espionage represents a permanent, constant investment that builds up over time. If it doesn't than I will have to agree, it is a bad mechanic if limited to merely paying the price for an effect. That would make ops a mere new function of edicts or ambitions ... those indeed are mere 'pay for effect' type of things and I never really liked them very much.

 

[Chant]

Very true but still not a good explanation as to why the target of a sabotage has to correlate in equivalent proportions to the cost of the act of sabotage. In fact the mere notion of sabotage it to cause damage with disproportional means. In facto the whole idea of sabotage, spy ops etc. is to have incomparable efforts/assets causing damages. Comparable efforts/assets causing comparable damage would be more like fleets being thrown against fleets.

That's important to keep in mind. What I intended to defend was the notion of comparing costs and benefits, not that the benefit should be equal to the cost.

In any context, game or otherwise, one can be expected to only make choices that one expects to have more benefit than cost; those value judgments are sensitive to one's value system and one's circumstances, so a given choice might not always meet that criterion.

 

[DreadLindwyrm]

Oh this for sure. Whether spy ops affect a starbase with destroyed modules or a temporaty disabling or whatever, I consider that any successful attack on a starbase should be a rare and difficult thing to happen. Heroic, if you will, that being the reason why I think it should be possible: smaller empires winning by smarts against a tougher opponent, in extremely special circumstances. For sure a 'push button disable starbase' thing would be a game killer.

Hmm... Idea I am going to float on your direction: what if there was a 'rebuild starbase to last configuration' button, same as there is a reinforce fleet button? Sure would be a QoL improvement, spy ops or not.

What I'd love to see would be being able to build a limited number of templates for starbases (anchorage station : 6 anchorages + naval logistics office + (whatever the migration boosting building was) + (probably a resource silo) ; shipyard : 6 shipyards, naval academy, migrationboost thing,collosus bay, titan bay ; trade defence bastion,y : 6 hangar bays, relevant buildings; combat bastion : 6 gun slots, uplink computer ; trade port : 6 trade hubs, trade company, hyperlane registrar), and be able to just tell the system to build to those templates when materials are available.

 

[Cat_Fuzz]

What I'd love to see would be being able to build a limited number of templates for starbases (anchorage station : 6 anchorages + naval logistics office + (whatever the migration boosting building was) + (probably a resource silo) ; shipyard : 6 shipyards, naval academy, migrationboost thing,collosus bay, titan bay ; trade defence bastion,y : 6 hangar bays, relevant buildings; combat bastion : 6 gun slots, uplink computer ; trade port : 6 trade hubs, trade company, hyperlane registrar), and be able to just tell the system to build to those templates when materials are available.

I've actually played with this in my playthroughs (by limiting what I can build depending on what type of designation I assign) and I agree that having some sort of starbase designation that restricts what's available to build makes starbases far more strategic. The loss of a dedicated shipyard or naval base has greater co sequences.

 

[-Marauder-]

This is 100% the kind of stuff I was worried we'd get with an espionage dlc. Now just wait for the Ai to spam this constantly.

 

[Alucardvincent]

This is 100% the kind of stuff I was worried we'd get with an espionage dlc. Now just wait for the Ai to spam this constantly.

I made another very unpopular thread about espionage, reading this one most people discuss what THEY can do and worry if this thing is underpowered and worthless and very few are considering what will be the consequences of the AI applying it to you, if the AI can’t What’s the point?

That’s why in my opinion espionage is a bad idea, very, very rarely is well implemented, or it ends being pointless or annoying (even game breaking); and it’s not rare that in many cases it ends being both.

Right now I am waiting to see reports from people in the mid/late game; but the DLC has few hours.