This.
I've been using NSC for so long that sometimes when it becomes incompatible, I completely forget about the lack of starbase modules.
With NSC, starbases can become very viable but not op.
Wow defensive platforms are just gone once destroyed?
- Thread starter Kryndude
- 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.
This.
I've been using NSC for so long that sometimes when it becomes incompatible, I completely forget about the lack of starbase modules.
With NSC, starbases can become very viable but not op.
Just the citadel costs around 4k alloys and 8 years to build, spending just as much again for shitty turrets that die just from being sneezed at is not worth it.
Defense platforms need to cost a third of what they are now for them to even be considered for warfare.
It would also be something if pacifists got a bonus to defense to encourage them to use bastions over ships.
Actually, anchorages + naval logistic office + docking module can make for a self-contained bastion. 6 battleships with bonuses from the citadel is nothing to scoff at.
Defense platforms need to cost a third of what they are now for them to even be considered for warfare.
It would also be something if pacifists got a bonus to defense to encourage them to use bastions over ships.
Actually, anchorages + naval logistic office + docking module can make for a self-contained bastion. 6 battleships with bonuses from the citadel is nothing to scoff at.
Last edited:
Only build them up when I have spare allows, which is almost never. Why even bother, they don't even make a dent on a mediocre fleet.
mods cnanot be the solution. have to be implemented in the game. mods do not work for mp
Oh dear... Roman legionaries did not use spears. Perhaps you are thinking of Macedonian phalangites?
*occasionally* I will put down some point defense platforms after I have slots left over from building ion cannons but that's about it. I really like the auto-rebuilding idea, it would make platforms actually useful!
uuugggghhhh. it was a mix and they transitioned. https://www.quora.com/Why-did-the-Romans-use-swords-not-spears Pedantry is nonconstructive.
I see that there are a couple of people who hit disagree on my post, but as far as I can tell, there's three different things with which you could disagree- the cost, their nature, and their weaponry. Cost reduction is agreed on by others, though a fifth might be a bit too low for some tastes. Do you guys think the weapons should not be larger than your typical ships have? Or is it something else? All I know is that I basically never use them.
I'm not being pedantic. You gave spear-wielding Roman legionaries as an example of hammer and anvil combined arms tactics. But that is wrong in far too many ways to be allowed to go unchallenged.
It is true that, early in Rome's history, its soldiers used spears. But that was because they fought in the Greek style, in a phalanx; there was nothing distinctly 'Roman' about them, so singling out Roman soldiers as an example of spear-wielding soldiers is ignorant and misleading. Furthermore, when Rome fought in this Greek style, they were not using combined arms tactics, and the hammer and anvil tactic was not the purpose of their infantry.
Also, you said that 'Roman legionaries' used spears and were part of hammer and anvil tactics. But that is not true. By the time Roman soldiers came to be referred to as 'legionaries', they had long since discarded the spear in favour of the sword. Moreover, the Republican and Imperial Roman armies almost never relied on hammer and anvil tactics. Therefore, for you to use spear-wielding Roman legionaries as an example of hammer and anvil tactics, instead of someone like Alexander the Great, is just wrong.
Then GREEK phalanxes. For the same reason I'm not picking apart people's grammar, could you please address the idea rather than the historical inaccuracies?
EDIT- Seriously, look at the topic of the post. You've made two posts that address nothing about the topic. For WHOEVER used hammer and anvil tactics.You get the concept, right? You understand the idea? You get the concept? Do you like or dislike the concept? If so, why?
EDIT- Seriously, look at the topic of the post. You've made two posts that address nothing about the topic. For WHOEVER used hammer and anvil tactics.You get the concept, right? You understand the idea? You get the concept? Do you like or dislike the concept? If so, why?
Welcome to the internet, where you WILL be taken apart for the slightest misstep. I knew what you meant though and tbh, a good tactic to use with a Phalanx (or even the pre-marian Hastatii, Principes and Triiari) on Total War is to pin the enemy infantry with it and use your light cavalry to flank. Whether that is historically accurate, I don't know, but it works.
Have a nice day
Sorry going to be a super pedant here.
You are thinking of the Marian and Augustan armies. The armies of the Roman Republic post 300 BC did not fight in a phalanx and did indeed use spears, although by the time of the Marian reforms it was only the Triarii that kept them. These were the guys that conquered Italy, Spain, Carthage and Greece and beat Hannibal, Antiochos the Great and Phyrros, their tactics were every bit as Roman as those of Caesar's troops. Additionally late roman legionaries also made heavy use of spears as well.
That aside you are correct, the hammer and anvil tactic was never really something the Romans were know for.
I would like for them to have a chance to disengage or something. It is beyond costly. I have only used them sparingly due to this.
*backs away slowly, then a bit more, then turns to run as quickly as possible*
Seriously though, as my name suggests, I love Greek and Roman mythologies, but do we need to fight over it?
I don't know about not working for mp, but I really feel like it shouldn't be the go-to solution for bugs.
How about this:
All stations generate a defensive barrier. While this barrier is active, hostile ships cannot enter the interior of the system. The bareiers can be reduced at a rate based on the bombardment strength of the attacking fleet. Upgrading your starbase and reseachung techs can improve the strength of the barrier.
All stations generate a defensive barrier. While this barrier is active, hostile ships cannot enter the interior of the system. The bareiers can be reduced at a rate based on the bombardment strength of the attacking fleet. Upgrading your starbase and reseachung techs can improve the strength of the barrier.
- 1
DP should not be self repairing like stations. If they were, then they would indeed become useless since by the time you got a fleet to the system they would now belong to the enemy.
They are fine as is. I use them and they are useful for what they do.
If they were cheaper or stronger (instead of self repairing), this would also be bad. It would make most wars as static as WWI.
The purpose of DPs it to force the enemy to use a real fleet instead of only a small contingent to take the system. They also serve as a good fallback position for your fleets if the enemy has you outgunned.
They are not meant to be some grand citadel that holds off an entire armada single handedly. If you want the fortress to hold the choke point, support it with at least a secondary fleet.
They are fine as is. I use them and they are useful for what they do.
If they were cheaper or stronger (instead of self repairing), this would also be bad. It would make most wars as static as WWI.
The purpose of DPs it to force the enemy to use a real fleet instead of only a small contingent to take the system. They also serve as a good fallback position for your fleets if the enemy has you outgunned.
They are not meant to be some grand citadel that holds off an entire armada single handedly. If you want the fortress to hold the choke point, support it with at least a secondary fleet.