Space Stations--Pros/Cons
 

Pro-Supplies: I will build a space station as a forward base/defense point in a system near my frontier. I then run my explorer ships back to it, merge into a fleet and then separate on the next turn. Both the station and my ship(s) now have full supplies.

Pro-Defense: They make good early warp point monitors until satellites can be researched.

Pro-Construction: The only way to get extra space yards, since planets can now only have one.

Con-Immobile: While I agree a space station should not be able to go flying across the universe (unlike the Death Star), I do believe that they should have movement capability in tactical combat. Not equivalent to a ship's movement, put enough to keep between a ship and a planet.

Con-Placement: Multiple space stations near a planet should be evenly distributed around it, not grouped near one another.

Re: Space Stations--Pros/Cons
 

Hey and they're big.
You're right about the immobile thing. Manuevar is a very important part of warfare.

Re: Space Stations--Pros/Cons
 

I have succesfully discovered a way to give stations movement points! Simpy add an emergency propulsion pod, you can then have 5 movement points for your station! I'm not sure if it will actually MOVE, but it shows up as having 5/0 movement points.
Telek R'tal
Grand Admiral
R'kallian Expanse

Re: Space Stations--Pros/Cons
 

Sorry, it doesn't work. You can include the component on your space station, and use it, but the station still can't move. The "move" and "warp" orders simply don't function, and if you include in a fleet with normal ships, the space station essentially turns off the move option for the whole fleet.

Kudos for thinking out of the box, but it doesn't get you mobile space stations. Guess your Death Star will have to be a base ship. http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/images/icons/icon7.gif

John

Re: Space Stations--Pros/Cons
 

Just to restate my point: I am not looking for a Death Star but some moving ability in combat. Another issue with space stations (which could be related to inability to move) is that when my spies take over an enemy space station I can not use the station to attack the planet it is orbiting.

Re: Space Stations--Pros/Cons
 

Lerchey is 100% right: the Base Ship is like a Star Base but with engines...
But I must say that this kind of ships are useless against human players... you need so many time and money to finish one of them.

General Hawkwing: yea... you can not start an attack against one planet, with a battle station... but anyway you will be blockading the planet.

Re: Space Stations--Pros/Cons
 

One way to work around the immobility of space stations would be to allow them a greater range of fire than ships for the same weapon. That would eliminate the ability of ships to move in to fire and then move out of range during one combat turn. The current system allows (early game example) and escort armed with meson II to defeat a space station armed with meson II without getting a scratch.

Re: Space Stations--Pros/Cons
 

That's a good idea. Not only does it balance things a bit, but it is also easy to believe a fixed and stable firing platform would have a longer effective range compared to something that is on the move.

Another option might be to increase the range for the larger weaponry mounts. That'd give the same advantage to larger ships as it would to stations of the same size, but it'd still add an advantage over the smaller varieties.

I realize it would require a lot of work to retro-fit into the current system, so this'd be something for the wish list, but an opportunity fire option would also be nice. Just hold your fire and wait, and bLast 'em when they come dancing into range! :-)

Re: Space Stations--Pros/Cons
 

I don't think weapons ranges for a fixed platform, space station, should be any longer then a ship. In space I don't really think such considerations would come into play as much as they do in an atmospheric enviornment. But, having bigger or different weapons that can only be placed on space stations I think would be a good idea. Allowing them greater firing range would offset their inability to move, but I still think there should be some limited movement allowed at least around a planet, not so much forward and back, as in changing the orbit of the stations so that it is between the planet and the attacking fleet - so just a circular movement kind of thing.

Re: Space Stations--Pros/Cons
 

Now we have heavy weapon mounts which do double damage or so if fired.
On thing could be the introduction of heavy long range weapon mounts which are more expensive but have a longer range. This is similar to MOO2 heavy weapons.
This could help a space station.
A second thing could be a space station "afterburner" wich allows it to move a number of tactical squares per turn.
For example if it has a station afterburner 2 (which should be a medium till high technology component) it could move 2 squares per tactical turn.
In this way a player can differentiate between combat stations (with afterburner and long range mounts ) and non-combat stations (for building or repairing)

klaus

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

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.

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.

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

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.

Re: Space Stations--Pros/Cons
 

Probably easier to just build a space station at the warp point with a Space Yard Ship.


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

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

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.

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.

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

Re: Space Stations--Pros/Cons
 

A lot of thoughts on the cons of space stations, any thoughts on the pros I listed.
One "realism idea" I wrestled with was the ability of stations to be merged with a fleet, transfer supplies to the fleet and then when the ships left still have full supplies. My work around thought is that the station receives numerous visits from trader vessels, which carry on the daily trading activity that is beneath the notice of us empire builders.

Re: Space Stations--Pros/Cons
 

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by General Hawkwing:
My work around thought is that the station receives numerous visits from trader vessels, which carry on the daily trading activity that is beneath the notice of us empire builders.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This makes sense, actually, considering the actions of the traders working the trade routes with other empires are also not explicitely laid-out. It's really only the results that are displayed.

I think most of the discussion has centered around the use of stations for planetary defense, but I've been using them more for deep-space style stations. I like placing them at warp points and in nebula systems and other places where a refuelling and/or hardened point is of value. I'll set up a station, surrounded by a nice mine field and/or some satellites, and have found it a nice strategy against all but the most determined enemy assualts.