.com.unity Forums

.com.unity Forums (http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/index.php)
-   Space Empires: IV & V (http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/forumdisplay.php?f=20)
-   -   Space Stations--Pros/Cons (http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/showthread.php?t=14057)

wingte September 13th, 2000 04:07 PM

Re: Space Stations--Pros/Cons
 
Ok,, it is clearly an imbalance when a small ship with a realitivly low power weapon can defeat a space station.

One part of this problem stems from the turns base nature of the game. In a "real time battle" the advantage of the dance in and out tactic would be significamtly reduced.

Another part of this problem is that the game doesn't spread the space stations (or satalites) evenly arround the planet allowing the small ship to dance in and out of range or attack the planet without even facing the space station. The ability of space stations to change orbit is a great idea since it would at least give the player the ability to spread the stations (and satalites) properly arround the planet.

Another part of the problem is the lack of really effective planetary weapons. Planets should always get at least a 2x multiplier on the range and speed of missle weapons.
An additional problem is that ships get unlimited supplies of missles (and bombs) to fire.
Someone made a partially correct observation that weapons in the absence of an atmosphere should show little range difference just because of mount size,, but this should only apply to "beam" weapons. Missle weapons should get better range since the "heavy mount" Version should mean "greater fuel capacity" resulting in greater range. Weapons such as plasma torpedos should also get improved range since a larger mount shoud translate into higher starting energy levels and by extension ,, longer ranges.

But,, we must remember. There is no single ultimate weapon. A properly defended planet would require a mix of ground and space based weapons. I suspect that in the gold Version we would find that simply adding 5-10 medium or heavy fighters to the planet would stop the single small ship problem. The fighters are cheap, don't seem to require any maintanence, dont take up much planetary space and might at least fill in the range gap of the planetary and space station missle bases.



------------------
Wingte

Iron Giant September 13th, 2000 06:13 PM

Re: Space Stations--Pros/Cons
 
I would think that a solution to the "dancing in and out" bug is a good idea. I like the solution of having the larger weapons with a longer range, or even have a weapon or two that will auto fire (if not used) during the enemy ships turn so you can't dance in, then out, of range.

However, I don't think that bases should be able to move. Spread them around a planet = yes, but move = no.

A moving Starbase is called a ship. If we want a ship, we can build one.

I think its realistic that a ship would attack a planet from the otherside away from the starbase right? So it doesnt surprise me that a starbase can't protect the planet totally and completely. For this you need fighters in addition to a starbase or multiple starbases.

Mark Pavlou September 13th, 2000 06:42 PM

Re: Space Stations--Pros/Cons
 
One solution to the positioning problem with space stations would be to allow them orbital movement, i.e. slow (1-2 squares) movement restricted to a path going clockwise or anti-clockwise around the planet.

Lerchey September 14th, 2000 02:34 AM

Re: Space Stations--Pros/Cons
 
Wingte wrote:

> Ok,, it is clearly an imbalance when a small ship with a relatively low power weapon can defeat a space station.

I beg to differ. There are at least a couple of examples in science fiction (and folks, SE IV ain't science fact!), where small, lightly armed ships pose a SIGNIFICANT threat to space stations. Look at the Honor Harrington series where the space stations have big fire power, but are considered to be "sitting ducks" 'cause they can't MOVE. Another is the Chanur series. A SINGLE ship moving at a % of C is a real threat to space stations 'cause they can launch projectiles at VERY high velocities. In neither case are the mechanics "dodge in an out", but that's just a mechanical issue... the point is that space stations, while useful are NOT mobile forces, and are therefore vulnerable, much like the vaunted Maginot Line at the beginning of WWII.

John

Noble713 September 14th, 2000 04:23 AM

Re: Space Stations--Pros/Cons
 
I'd like to see some kind of towing component added, so I can move stations built at a planet to cover my warp points. Stations would then be able to move, but they wouldn't have their own engines and if the tug gets destroyed they are stranded.

wingte September 14th, 2000 04:38 AM

Re: Space Stations--Pros/Cons
 
Probably easier to just build a space station at the warp point with a Space Yard Ship.


------------------
Wingte

Klauss September 14th, 2000 06:00 PM

Re: Space Stations--Pros/Cons
 
I see no problem in the developement of another type of "large mounts" which dont increase the damage but the range of a weapon.
Or both (like MOO2)

Or there could be a special component called "weapon stabilizer" which enables a bonus on range of every station weapon according to its techlevel. This component should use alot of kt to favorize the use in space stations or other big structures.

klaus

General Hawkwing September 14th, 2000 06:34 PM

Re: Space Stations--Pros/Cons
 
Good thoughts everyone. I believe the move, fire, move issue would be resolved by ending your combat turn once you have done both once. If you move some and fire, end turn. You could still fire, move, fire. Now some will say that this is unrealistic, but so is turn-based combat.
Under the current system, an immobile unit will ALWAYS be defeated by an equally armed (has far as range goes) mobile unit. Something needs to be done to make the battle more even.
Stations are still "sitting ducks" because once you locate them they can travel to a different location.

Noble713 September 14th, 2000 11:50 PM

Re: Space Stations--Pros/Cons
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by wingte:
Probably easier to just build a space station at the warp point with a Space Yard Ship.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The problem with this is that the SYS will be exposed while sitting at the warp point and vulnerable to a warp point assault if you don't have anything monitoring the other end. If you could build them at one of your fleet bases, where you have battlestations and weapon platforms and whatnot for defense, all you have to do is tow them, and sense they will already be finished they'll be much less susceptable to
being destroyed.



wingte September 15th, 2000 02:07 AM

Re: Space Stations--Pros/Cons
 
Noble,
In SE III protecting the underconstruction items is an issue. In SE VI the item being build isn't really there until it is complete. So in the Gold Version I would be building it with one of the ultra big space ships and since in SE VI I can only put one ship yard,, there will be plenty of room to put weapons so it would take a pretty large attack force to get past it.

Actually in SE III I use 2 of the the ultra large ships with two shipyards each for repairs and replacement building,, to guard warp points so I can move it forward as I advance through the galaxy. I expect to do the same thing in the Gold Version. I use the Warp Point pods to close all but one Warp points so I only need two of the ultra biggies at any given time.

------------------
Wingte


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:40 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©1999 - 2025, Shrapnel Games, Inc. - All Rights Reserved.