Useful Starbases! ? Modders, please respond.

dmm · #1 January 8th, 2001, 10:02 PM

In another topic, WhiteHojo made a suggestion that might be a very good one. So that it doesn't get overlooked, I've made this new topic. I quote him below, with some editing.

quote:
Originally posted by WhiteHojo:
I'm no gaming expert but might there be some way to ... mak[e] the computer think a base is similiar to a WP? Maybe changing the classification of all Bases to units w/a size of 0 and the displacemnt of 0 so as to not take up space in a planet's cargo hold,instead of labeling em as ships?

How about it, modders? Is it possible to introduce into the game a special huge WP with the capacity of a starbase, and yet trick the program so that it doesn't take up any cargo space on the planet?

I can see some potential problems right away:
1) You don't need a spaceyard to build units, so you could build starbases on any planet.
2) It wouldn't show up on standard long-range scans of a system. Has the effect of giving starbases a sort of cloak for free.
3) It wouldn't have any maintenance costs.

Puke · #2 January 8th, 2001, 10:18 PM

its not a shabby idea, but it does have the drawbacks you mentioned. in addition to the drawbacks you bring up, there are a few more:

unless the game its self is edited (not just text files) tonnage available for components is directly related to the ammount of space it consumes in storage. possibly there is an undocumented ability called 'reduce storage space required for this unit' but thats rather fancifull.

if you change the hull type of a starbase to a different designation that can be stored as cargo, it will have to end up like a fighter or sat (there are only so many documented hull types to choose from, take your pick) that can be stored (lets pretend that you can even store it for free) but now its in cargo and it cant fire until it is launched. unless you make it a weapon platform, which wont require a spaceyard (sorry, no require spaceyard flag - its built into the hull type) keep in mind that when you change the hull type, you are changing the class of mounts that can be used.

the only possible workarrounds (that have not been mentioned) that I can think of, is to give a space station one tactical movement point, and somehow keep it from haveing any strategic movement. this is very doubtfull, but has the highest odds of working. it still wont 'orbit' a planet or anything, but it might be enough to get it into range if someone is pounding a planet from the far side. or you could just further increase the range of its mounts.

maybe some of these ideas will spark some other thoughts, im defintitly not the final word on se4 mods or anything close to that.

[This message has been edited by Puke (edited 08 January 2001).]

Jubala · #3 January 8th, 2001, 10:23 PM

I've been toying with the idea of either giving bases and sats inherent combat movement bonuses or creating combat thrusters for them that does.

I also want to be able to use my tractor and repulser beams on my own ships! Would be a good way to get cripples out of the line of fire or bases into the line of fire. I also want to be able to tow ships and bases in strategic mode so I can get cripples to a repairbase/planet and move bases to warp points.

dmm · #4 January 8th, 2001, 11:23 PM

quote:
Originally posted by Puke:
unless the game its self is edited (not just text files) tonnage available for components is directly related to the ammount of space it consumes in storage. possibly there is an undocumented ability called 'reduce storage space required for this unit' but thats rather fancifull.

Hmmm, yes, that may be an idea-killer.

quote:
Originally posted by Puke:
if you change the hull type of a starbase to a different designation that can be stored as cargo, it will have to end up like a fighter or sat (there are only so many documented hull types to choose from, take your pick) that can be stored (lets pretend that you can even store it for free) but now its in cargo and it cant fire until it is launched.

As satellites they'd have the same problems that they have now. But hey, fighters wouldn't be so bad! A fighter-spacestation (FSS)! Fighters automatically don't have strategic movement, right? Unfortunately FSSs could have engines and a huge number of ion boosters (or whatever the extra fighter engines are called), which would allow them to go zipping all over the tactical map. And they could be loaded into carriers and launched during combat! Pretty hilarious unintended consequences. Not what anyone had in mind.

quote:
Originally posted by Puke:
unless you make it a weapon platform, which wont require a spaceyard (sorry, no require spaceyard flag - its built into the hull type) keep in mind that when you change the hull type, you are changing the class of mounts that can be used.

Yeah, WP was the original idea. It gets around the problem of overly-movable fighter-spacestations. And changing the class of mounts is a bonus, IMHO. Spacestations should get mount bonuses over ships of the same size.

quote:
Originally posted by Puke:
the only possible workarrounds (that have not been mentioned) that I can think of, is to give a space station one tactical movement point, and somehow keep it from haveing any strategic movement. this is very doubtfull, but has the highest odds of working. it still wont 'orbit' a planet or anything, but it might be enough to get it into range if someone is pounding a planet from the far side.

I certainly don't see why modders (or MM, anyway) couldn't do this. Here are three ways:
1) They already give fighters combat movement but no strategic movement. (I don't know if this is true in the latest Versions, but it is for the old demo I'm fooling with, so I know they can do it.)
Just do the same for bases. (But limit the number of engines!)
2) Allow bases to have emergency propulsion units, but allow EPs on bases to work only in combat. This would be really sweet because it would introduce a lot of strategy into the use of the limited number of EPs. Actually, I don't see why EPs can't be used during combat for all ships.
3) Allow ships to fire on their fellow ships during combat. In particular, allow tractor and repulsor beams to do this. This would allow players to put attractor/repulsor beams on ships and/or WPs that they could use to maneuver their bases and/or satellites into position during tactical combat. You could repulse it out to within weapons range, fire, then attract it back close to the planet. Gives new meaning to the concept of shoot-and-scoot, eh?

[This message has been edited by dmm (edited 11 January 2001).]

Baron Munchausen · #5 January 9th, 2001, 01:29 AM

Trying to break the design classes like this seems awfully desperate to me. Load your starbase with MISSILES. They have enough range to cover any planet. You could make a missile mount for bases that extends the range a bit more, even. Or load it with fighter bays... That would be fairly cheap compared to weapons. You could also make weapon mounts for WPs more powerful as I have so that a given WP is equivalent to a much larger ship or base.

The changes we have been requesting to how planets can be damage would help, too. If you had to close in and use special weapons to kill off a planet's population it would be easier to protect. As things are now, you can just stand off and fire whatever standard long-range weapons you have on your ships.

Puke · #6 January 9th, 2001, 02:02 AM

i think fighters do get strategic movement. i have not tried it, but i hear people talking about moving them with fleets, or launching and moving them independantly. also, i remember from way back someone mentioned deploying them at a warp point and moing them back to a planet to resupply. I believe their limitation is that they cant warp.

so you would have little spacestations flitting about your system. what do you think this is, deep space 9?

[This message has been edited by Puke (edited 09 January 2001).]

Daynarr · #7 January 9th, 2001, 08:18 AM

Well, I know that in MOO2 tactical combat you would have a base right between the planet and enemy. Why, for crying out loud, can't this be done here? If somebody wants to get to the planet he would need to get through that base or go all the way around to get to the far side. If he does go around he would lose lots of turns, so he just won't be able to do much damage to planet.

As for that tactic that is used on bases it can be countered by making larger size mounts for point-defense cannons that will have longer ranges (that will make them fire more then once on the incoming seekers) for both bases, weapon-platforms and satellites. It is a solution that AI will be able to use. Also you can add a +1 range per mount size to all weapon-platforms. It will make them much more useful (I already did that in my games).

The satellites are even more useless as they are now. I think that the player or AI should be able position them before the tactical combat starts, and to be able to divide them in Groups (AI would use 5 unit Groups like fighters, and would position them all around the planet).

I really think that these changes would fix the problem and that it wouldn't take too long for MM to make it work.

Mephisto · #8 January 9th, 2001, 01:07 PM

You are right, Daynarr. These changes would help a lot.

dmm · #9 January 9th, 2001, 05:00 PM

quote:
Originally posted by Baron Munchausen:
Trying to break the design classes like this seems awfully desperate to me.

Desperate times call for desperate measures.

quote:
Originally posted by Baron Munchausen:
Load your starbase with MISSILES. They have enough range to cover any planet. You could make a missile mount for bases that extends the range a bit more, even.

You'd have to REALLY extend the range, if the enemy fleet is on the other side of your huge planet. And what if the enemy fleet has very good PDCs?

quote:
Originally posted by Baron Munchausen:
Or load it with fighter bays...

That's not an option early in the game. And again, it's a strategy that is defeatable by PDCs. Also, fighters are susceptible to wars of attrition, because ships often escape from a battle badly damaged but fixable, whereas fighters have to be rebuilt. The attacker can bring a lot of repair ships and fix everything in one turn, but fighters can only be built so fast. (Because of the one shipyard/planet limitation. Yet another reason to get rid of it, or better yet, overhaul the construction system entirely.)

quote:
Originally posted by Baron Munchausen:
You could also make weapon mounts for WPs more powerful...

Yes, but WPs are limited to combat-type stuff, they're not as big as bases, and they take up storage space so they're not as good for defending tiny planets.

quote:
Originally posted by Baron Munchausen:
If you had to close in and use special weapons to kill off a planet's population it would be easier to protect.

Yes, that would help, but attackers could still go to the far side of the planet and remain mostly untouchable by a base.

dmm · #10 January 9th, 2001, 05:28 PM

quote:
Originally posted by Puke:
i think fighters do get strategic movement.

I believe you. But I know for a fact that fighters did NOT get strategic movement in early demos. So my point is that it would be easy to put code in to allow bases to have tactical (i.e., combat) movement but not strategic movement. Or maybe the code is already there, and some flag in a data file controls it.

Of course, you'd also have to limit the number of engines to one. Maybe even limit the movement to one, or make base engines not usable every turn, or make them expendable, or make them unreliable, etc. Bases should move ponderously; they should not flit under any circumstances. But they shouldn't be rendered useless just by being on the wrong side of a planet.

Warning: Repetitious rant coming.
If MM is intent on not allowing bases to move and modders can't find a way around it, then at a BARE minimum (and this has been pointed out often):
a) bases should be positioned between planet and enemy, and/or
b) multiple bases should be distributed symmetrically.