Wow defensive platforms are just gone once destroyed?

[Chthon]

having the DP segmented is a need. it allows you to take on much stronger platforms with batch's of weaker fleet . go in, kill 2 or 3 platforms, retreat, the next time you hit it, its 2/3 platform weaker
linking them to the hp of the main structure would make FE near impossible to clear out with a weaker force. you would lose so much of your fleet just trying to clear the tower in one hit

As it currently is though, go in kill all the DPs for little to no cost, retreat to repair, and come back for the station. It isn't as incremental as it is meant to be.

 

[LeanneKaos]

So for you it's ok for ONLY fleets to be the defining factor in a war?
There's no other way of fighting a war rather than fielding massive fleets? There's no need for defensive structures?

"Need" is a funny word.
But I do feel that fleets should be the defining factor and defensive structures should be a supplementary one. ESPECIALLY in bloody SPACE fights.

Anyway, note that in no case I said anything about making the platforms overpowered, but instead BALANCED.

Yes?
And what I said was meant to parse out as "you'll never actually see that sweet spot even if you land on it."

I WANT TO BE ABLE TO CHOOSE to put all of my alloys into platforms and the result be AS EFFECTIVE AS FIELDING A FLEET. I'm not talking about making them the only viable choice, AS ARE FLEETS right now, but a choice. A REAL CHOICE.

I want to be able to fly around your skycastle and (as long as I keep out of range of it's guns and don't get ambushed by a fleet) just ignore the hell out of it and move on to the next system. I don't get what I want either.

Could be 1.3 Fleets or so in strength, necessitating either a tech advantage or a resource advantage/buildup. The point is for them to be cost-effective and demand some effort to deal with, rather than being a sideline. Remember, multiple Fleets can be present

Sure. And that's sort of the point: I won't bother trying until I can bring enough Fleets to take it down (and still have enough fleet to at least hold the point, if not press on.) So it will still look bad in every fight it actually gets into, even if it has had the effect of delaying when that fight actually happens.

Also, why bother invading when you can get to a large power imbalance ever?

Honestly, I can't think of a good reason to other than sheer desperation.

 

[SpectralShade]

"Need" is a funny word.
But I do feel that fleets should be the defining factor and defensive structures should be a supplementary one. ESPECIALLY in bloody SPACE fights.

Nobody is ever ging to fight for the sake of fighting, which you are suggesting with that comment.

Wars are fought for objectives.

Objectives can be defended/attacked, but as such they are known possibles areas of engagement and as such defensive constructs near possible AOs certainly make sense.

What does not make sense is some weird notion that wars suddenly are not about objectives, when the entire reason for a war is to achieve something. Doesn't matter that we are talking spacebased empires.

 

[methegrate]

Objectives can be defended/attacked, but as such they are known possibles areas of engagement and as such defensive constructs near possible AOs certainly make sense.

This is actually one of the biggest problems I have with the way the map is currently run and generated, which I feel like ties in with defenses.

I hate the move toward front lines, chokepoints and trench warfare. I can't understand the decision aside from it simply being easier from a game design standpoint.

Warfare should instead be modeled as you describe, around objective points. It should be a naval, island-hopping style. When I'm at war I should have to consider and prioritize my targets based on their strategic, economic and tactical value. That, in turn, creates a wide variety of systems for me to have to attack and defend.

Defense platforms would have more use here simply because it would encourage players to split their forces. Not knowing where the enemy might attack encourages me to hold some ships in reserve, and having to choose from among several options encourages me to hit several at the same time. Throw in the range/supply/logistics issues that players have been requesting for over 2 1/2 years and you might actually have an interesting war game.

Front lines, on the other hand, encourage consolidation. The whole war is mostly won or lost in a single engagement; you either break through or you don't. Choke points multiply that even more.

Defense platforms are useless in that environment because, as others have pointed out, they simply melt away in the face of a concentrated fleet. While they would be useful in a mixed tactics environment with ships spread out across the map, Stellaris has been built to reward ever greater doomstacking.

 

[LeanneKaos]

Nobody is ever ging to fight for the sake of fighting, which you are suggesting with that comment.

No clue where you're getting that from.

Objectives can be defended/attacked, but as such they are known possibles areas of engagement and as such defensive constructs near possible AOs certainly make sense.

Sure? This is why I said 'need is a funny word.' I've got no problems with the notion of defensive constructs near possible AOs; I just don't think they should be good enough to justify neglecting your fleet. Unsupported defensive structures have a habit of failing.
And then there's the maginot line, which turned into a nonfactor because the 'AO' it was guarding turned out to be not that important...