Wow defensive platforms are just gone once destroyed?

[methegrate]

Check the comments: how many arguments can be boiled down to "I have to pay for them?"

None of them.

The general criticism on cost is that they're too expensive for what they are. A defensive platform can cost about as much as a fully loaded cruiser or several corvettes. But it has no evasion in an environment where that is still the king of all combat stats. It can't move, so unless this is a key chokepoint the enemy can just fly around it. And it has no chance of emergency disengagement, so is almost always destroyed even if you win the fight.

Defense platforms have cost and upkeep comparable to a similarly situated ship but their only real benefit is that they don't eat up your fleet cap. So in almost any given situation you're better off just building a cruiser or a few corvettes for the same alloys.

If the map were more fluid and modeled after naval war they would have more use. You could build platforms around high-value targets like your anchorages and trade hubs, knowing that those are places the enemy is going to want to hit and your fleet can't be everywhere at once.

But with the FTL change the devs made the (imo entirely absurd) decision to model Stellaris after ground warfare with defined front lines and chokepoints. So players don't choose targets by value, they choose targets based on a trench warfare model of a static front line. By the time that line crumbles, the war is over. So there's no attacking anchorages, shipyards and trade hubs, because by the time they're in range of your ships it's all a moot point. And there's no "my ships can't be everywhere at once" problem, because you can defend the entire front line with one fleet. As a result there's no need for building static defenses around them.

Anyhow, that's what people mean. Platforms are too expensive to be cost effective. Not "people want free defenses."

 

[LeanneKaos]

I agree it can be annoying to face a turtle in combat if there are no tools to deal with that and that sometimes people want mechanics to favour their own preferred playstyle (singleplayer or multiplayer, tall or wide, aggressive or peaceful etc.).

But personally I'd like for tougher stationary assets (to fortify borders during peace time AND to present more of a challenge in my offensive wars) and I suppose that does also indicate there would be a need for more ways of "bunker busting" when encountering something seemingly impossible to break. So you have to change your tactics when fighting different foes, vary your fleet designs and composition and maybe bring a second smaller fleet just to siege a starbase/world more efficiently.

I know it's a different game but I remember really really enjoying the fortifications in Sins of a Solar empire.

I don't remember many details about that game, but I remember not really caring all that much for it and feeling that the single player felt shallow and more like a tacked-on "practice mode" than a proper game.

Starcraft, I recall made the SP work by having a story-mode campaign that changed the rules. Techs were gated by how far into the campaign you were, and the objectives varied by what scenario you were in. The single-player skirmish that was more or less "like MP, but versus bots" was kind of lackluster.

It is a good idea to consider counters though, not just the late game jump drive but also earlier so you don't buff platforms, reintroduce fortresses and end war as an early-mid game option.

Honestly, from where I'm sitting that's actually what it sounds like people are asking for: a hard-counter to early game wars, or aggressive playstyles in general. I mean, you got a *huge* buff to static defenses in 2.0 both stat-wise and with the forced-chokepoint FTL. But now even that isn't enough...

 

[methegrate]

Honestly, from where I'm sitting that's actually what it sounds like people are asking for: a hard-counter to early game wars, or aggressive playstyles in general. I mean, you got a *huge* buff to static defenses in 2.0 both stat-wise and with the forced-chokepoint FTL. But now even that isn't enough...

This touches on what I would really like, which is a lot more unique play styles with hard counters.

Like with warfare. I'd like it if you could play an aggressive empire or a defensive/turtling empire or a hypermobile empire, with each hard-countering the one before it. So your all-attack fleets would pulverize the zippy raiders of the mobile empire, which would run rings around the turrets of the defenders, which in turn could hammer big ships.

I'd like that, but with almost an order of magnitude more options. I'd like (frankly) dozens of unique play styles, balanced by the fact that each has at least one or more hard counters that could potentially just ruin their day.

For example, just to create a few, for military play styles you could choose to build your empire into aggressive, defensive or mobile. Then choose your weapons development along kinetic (guns and armor), energy (lasers and shields) or explosive (missiles and... let's say chaff). Then... let's say you can choose to specialize in small hulls, big hulls or fighter craft/platforms.

Each would have a unique play style, each would hard counter the one before it. In exchange for creating nine unique, specific play styles and their accompanying technologies and traditions, you've opened up 27 diverse empires that would look, feel and play entirely differently. Hard-counters would be balanced by diversity. You might be an offensive empire fighting against a defensive turtle, but maybe you have energy weapons and they have guns, helping to balance their advantage.

And every now and again when your mobile, explosive, strike craft empire meets an aggressive, kinetic small hull empire... Well, sometimes life throws your flagship into the path of a Borg cube. That's what alliances, vassals and the "New Game" button are for.

 

[Hyomoto]

None of them.

The general criticism on cost is that they're too expensive for what they are. A defensive platform can cost about as much as a fully loaded cruiser or several corvettes. But it has no evasion in an environment where that is still the king of all combat stats. It can't move, so unless this is a key chokepoint the enemy can just fly around it. And it has no chance of emergency disengagement, so is almost always destroyed even if you win the fight.

Defense platforms have cost and upkeep comparable to a similarly situated ship but their only real benefit is that they don't eat up your fleet cap. So in almost any given situation you're better off just building a cruiser or a few corvettes for the same alloys.

If the map were more fluid and modeled after naval war they would have more use. You could build platforms around high-value targets like your anchorages and trade hubs, knowing that those are places the enemy is going to want to hit and your fleet can't be everywhere at once.

But with the FTL change the devs made the (imo entirely absurd) decision to model Stellaris after ground warfare with defined front lines and chokepoints. So players don't choose targets by value, they choose targets based on a trench warfare model of a static front line. By the time that line crumbles, the war is over. So there's no attacking anchorages, shipyards and trade hubs, because by the time they're in range of your ships it's all a moot point. And there's no "my ships can't be everywhere at once" problem, because you can defend the entire front line with one fleet. As a result there's no need for building static defenses around them.

Anyhow, that's what people mean. Platforms are too expensive to be cost effective. Not "people want free defenses."

I disagree. Don't confuse "the way I play" with "the way the game must be played". If you've never used a station as a force multiplier in an invasion, well okay. But I have. I also use stations at choke points so if my "front line" fails, I can fall back to a more sensible position. That's how I play, and the cost of another cruiser is not the same as building up a wall to blunt an enemy fleet. Yes, stations are overrun eventually, platforms numbers are less malleable than fleet sizes, they have weakness. But that isn't day one.

I will agree wars are not fought to exchange resources, such as taking over strategic depots, and are usually fought through attrition or overwhelming forces. Outside of planets, however, systems are all sort targets of opportunity.

That said, I stick by my original point, how much of this can be boiled down to "they aren't free?" Or, if you prefer, if they were free what issues would you have left? Even your comment boils it down to, "a cruiser is a better use of alloys," suggesting the core of your argument is cost. Again, I concede they may be too expensive given some of their limitations, but their cost is offset by no war score penalty, cheaper upkeep, no fleet cap cost, and they are a force multiplier. To me, managing the rebuild of even one station is more obnoxious than having to pay for the platforms. I can reinforce my fleet with one click.

 

[SpectralShade]

I disagree. Don't confuse "the way I play" with "the way the game must be played". If you've never used a station as a force multiplier in an invasion, well okay. But I have. I also use stations at choke points so if my "front line" fails, I can fall back to a more sensible position. That's how I play, and the cost of another cruiser is not the same as building up a wall to blunt an enemy fleet. Yes, stations are overrun eventually, platforms numbers are less malleable than fleet sizes, they have weakness. But that isn't day one.

I will agree wars are not fought to exchange resources, such as taking over strategic depots, and are usually fought through attrition or overwhelming forces. Outside of planets, however, systems are all sort targets of opportunity.

That said, I stick by my original point, how much of this can be boiled down to "they aren't free?" Or, if you prefer, if they were free what issues would you have left? Even your comment boils it down to, "a cruiser is a better use of alloys," suggesting the core of your argument is cost. Again, I concede they may be too expensive given some of their limitations, but their cost is offset by no war score penalty, cheaper upkeep, no fleet cap cost, and they are a force multiplier. To me, managing the rebuild of even one station is more obnoxious than having to pay for the platforms. I can reinforce my fleet with one click.

you do realize there is a huge gap between "costs so much that I rarely want to waste reources on them" and "free", right?

You are not doing yourself any favour in the discussion by immediately jumping to extremes.

 

[methegrate]

you do realize there is a huge gap between "costs so much that I rarely want to waste reources on them" and "free", right?

You are not doing yourself any favour in the discussion by immediately jumping to extremes.

This right here.

None of this can be boiled down to "I want this to be free" because that's not what anyone is saying. The argument is that they aren't cost effective, by a pretty wide margin.

You can certainly disagree with that if you find platforms useful. But it's better to disagree with what people are actually saying than to invent a straw man.

 

[Hyomoto]

you do realize there is a huge gap between "costs so much that I rarely want to waste reources on them" and "free", right?

You are not doing yourself any favour in the discussion by immediately jumping to extremes.

You use the phrasing, "rarely want to waste materials on them." So, you see buying them as a waste of resources you rarely indulge in?

Even if you aren't abdicating for free stations, you are suggesting they are valueless: a waste of resources. So, should be cheap enough to build simply because they have a negligible effect on your resources? Feel free to disagree, but when I read your comments I hear someone asking for free stations, not someone suggesting they should be 10% cheaper.

 

[Don_Quigleone]

You use the phrasing, "rarely want to waste materials on them." So, you see buying them as a waste of resources you rarely indulge in?

Even if you aren't abdicating for free stations, you are suggesting they are valueless: a waste of resources. So, should be cheap enough to build simply because they have a negligible effect on your resources? Feel free to disagree, but when I read your comments I hear someone asking for free stations, not someone suggesting they should be 10% cheaper.

He's saying they're poor value for money.

A) they cost ~300 alloys, but are less durable then a 100 alloy corvette.

I don't build DPs, because they always get destroyed at the beginning of every battle. Stations, and modules on the other hand are excellent value for money.

I think that DPs should cost the same as a corvette, or should be destroyed after the rest of the station's hit points are depleted (rather than first as they are now). Or give them evasion and make them semi mobile.

 

[SpectralShade]

You use the phrasing, "rarely want to waste materials on them." So, you see buying them as a waste of resources you rarely indulge in?

Even if you aren't abdicating for free stations, you are suggesting they are valueless: a waste of resources. So, should be cheap enough to build simply because they have a negligible effect on your resources? Feel free to disagree, but when I read your comments I hear someone asking for free stations, not someone suggesting they should be 10% cheaper.

you really like to put words in other peoples mouth.

I'm not going to bother anymore replying to you since you ignore what people say and instead reply to what you want them to say.

have a nice day

 

[Ciderglove]

Anyone who thinks that Defensive Platforms are worthwhile in their current form hasn't played the game enough.

 

[Todie]

Defensive platforms are supplimentary static defense. They can be used sparringly inside borders for piracy suprrssion.

But mainly, to max out defensibility of certain chokepoint fortresses. I can see their efficiency is higly disputed in this thread.

I recognize that their lack of evasion makes them fragile and prone to immediate focusfirr from larger weapons. ... and that they are legit destroyed every time.

As for pros, everyone seems to aknowledge that platforms dont take any fleetcap.

...However i’ve also been under the impression that platform maintenance is strictly paid in energy - not alloys. Am i misstaken? (AFK tonight so cant confirm ingame)

If im correct in this, platforms as-is come a lot closer to being a sound investment whenever trying to keep long term alloy-consumtion down.

 

[Ciderglove]

Defensive platforms are supplimentary static defense. They can be used sparringly inside borders for piracy suprrssion.

But mainly, to max out defensibility of certain chokepoint fortresses. I can see their efficiency is higly disputed in this thread.

I recognize that their lack of evasion makes them fragile and prone to immediate focusfirr from larger weapons. ... and that they are legit destroyed every time.

As for pros, everyone seems to aknowledge that platforms dont take any fleetcap.

...However i’ve also been under the impression that platform maintenance is strictly paid in energy - not alloys. Am i misstaken? (AFK tonight so cant confirm ingame)

If im correct in this, platforms as-is come a lot closer to being a sound investment whenever trying to keep long term alloy-consumtion down.

Defensive Platforms do not help suppress piracy, as far as I remember.

 

[Ancillary]

Defensive Platforms do not help suppress piracy, as far as I remember.

They do after the pirates show up.

 

[LeanneKaos]

This touches on what I would really like, which is a lot more unique play styles with hard counters.

IME, hard counters don't usually work that way; what they generally do is make certain play styles *entirely nonviable.* Soft counters leave a bit more room for viability.

Anyone who thinks that Defensive Platforms are worthwhile in their current form hasn't played the game enough.

I ran some comparative numbers, and it looks like platforms do get a discount for the lack of evasion (maybe not enough, but that depends on how good evasion really is against accuracy - a topic being argued in another thread)

But you're not getting any discount for the lack of mobility. So there is room to argue that they should be somewhat cheaper.

 

[g4borg]

I would give an option in policies. Station defense protocols.

A) last command - stations activate a self destruct upon capture. Downgrading of course
B) (Default) repair teams. Defense platforms regenerate like proposed. There might still be a chance for destruction.
C) extended shields - platforms will donate their shield to the station and in return only take damage if shield is lost.

I would generally increase the time needed to turn over stations in war. And add a fee. That system is ridiculous

 

[SteveRaptor]

The main issue with defense platforms as I see it is that they are way too expensive, like others pointed out, not cost efficient for what they give.
This can be easily fixed in one of two ways:

1) Decrease their alloy cost, at least by 50% and keep them at their current state.
2) Slightly increase their cost or keep as it is and let them re-spawn.

 

[Bossman Zero]

...However i’ve also been under the impression that platform maintenance is strictly paid in energy - not alloys. Am i misstaken? (AFK tonight so cant confirm ingame)

Defense platforms have both energy and alloy maintenance.

 

[Urza1234]

As for pros, everyone seems to aknowledge that platforms dont take any fleetcap.

or warscore

I would give an option in policies. Station defense protocols.

A) last command - stations activate a self destruct upon capture. Downgrading of course
B) (Default) repair teams. Defense platforms regenerate like proposed. There might still be a chance for destruction.
C) extended shields - platforms will donate their shield to the station and in return only take damage if shield is lost.

I would generally increase the time needed to turn over stations in war. And add a fee. That system is ridiculous

Pretty neat notions

 

[methegrate]

IME, hard counters don't usually work that way; what they generally do is make certain play styles *entirely nonviable.* Soft counters leave a bit more room for viability.

I guess what I mean is a rock/paper/scissors dynamic, where one play style is particularly strong against another. So, basically like how kinetic counters energy and vice versa right now. (Or like how medieval style games will use archers/soldiers/cavalry.)

So it isn't that one play style entirely invalidates the other, just each style has one that's particularly strong against it.

Then I'd build the system so that your choices are generally mutually exclusive, and that there are a lot more of these choices to make.

 

[The Dadinator]

The main issue with defense platforms as I see it is that they are way too expensive, like others pointed out, not cost efficient for what they give.
This can be easily fixed in one of two ways:

1) Decrease their alloy cost, at least by 50% and keep them at their current state.
2) Slightly increase their cost or keep as it is and let them re-spawn.

Have you seen my mod that allows them to respawn?