Useful Starbases! ? Modders, please respond.

Baron Munchausen · #1 January 9th, 2001, 05:33 PM

You know, it's just possible that starbases, or any bases, are not the best option for defending a planet! The thing that was UNrealistic was the old SE II/MOO system of forcing you to go through the bases to reach the planet. It's quite realistic to be able to go around them as you can now.

Try satellites. Launch them in Groups of no more than 20 (I recommend 10, actually) so the Groups will be spread around and give better coverage. Increase the cargo space of all planets in the planetsize.txt file so there's more room for WPs. We have discussed this issue in the beta forums. There's no realistic limit for planet capacity. It's just a convention required by the game to have a finite setting. Ten times more cargo capacity for planets would not be unrealistic, though maybe the game couldn't handle it.

Maybe you could even increase the size of WPs then. If they were 400/600/800kt instead of 200/400/600kt you could have more efficiency. You might add a "Mega WP" of 2000kt for that matter and build your "ground starbase".

WhiteHojo · #2 January 9th, 2001, 06:11 PM

This "Ground Starbase" idea is interesting. If you did make some super WP is there anyway to flag it so that it would be the recipeant of all fire untill it is destroyed?

Not very realistic but dangit, it's what I want...

Also, I believe there is some way to adjust the amount of damage a specific weapon type does against a planet in one of the data files, but my question is how many of the files have to be modded? Is it just one main file or does each race have its own file that would have to be modded?

------------------
Character is best defined as that which you do when you believe nobody is watching.

HreDaak · #3 January 9th, 2001, 06:28 PM

Star Bases that have combat but no strategic movement are already possible. I have included this in my mod (1MP max). Made a special Station Keeping Engine for bases only (similar component could be made for satellites too). Only problem with these moving bases/satellites is that AI tends to attack with them, leaving the planet defenseless against smart player

.
I have been searching the files for a way to limit bases movement on planets orbit, but atm i think it's not possible.

Puke · #4 January 9th, 2001, 10:01 PM

quote:
Originally posted by Baron Munchausen:
You know, it's just possible that starbases, or any bases, are not the best option for defending a planet! The thing that was UNrealistic was the old SE II/MOO system of forcing you to go through the bases to reach the planet. It's quite realistic to be able to go around them as you can now.

you know, bases are not all that mobile, and even if they orbited, they would not orbit durring the course of an attack. if you had multiple bases, they should obviously be space equidistantly about the planet, but come on, if you were attacking a planet, why would you NOT go arround the starbases? this is a neat discussion, but i think its trying to find a solution for a problem that isnt there.

If the starbases were always in front of the attacker, you can bet I would be peeved about the psychically-teleporting-starbases. starbases are, however, a very good defense for warp points (if you can get them built there.

dmm · #5 January 10th, 2001, 01:25 AM

Well, must admit that Puke has a point. I wouldn't want movable bases so badly if
1) multiple bases were distributed around a planet, and
2) single bases were put between the attacker and planet INITIALLY (I never meant to imply that they'd get adjusted throughout combat), and
3) bases used opportunity fire or had greater weapons range.

However, you have to keep in mind during these mobility discussions that bases are not the only things in orbit around a planet. Once an attacking ship comes close to a planet, it will also be in orbit (in a sense). So I don't see why bases must be inherently immovable while ships are free to travel any way they please.

Also like Baron's points about storage space (points that he and others have made more extensively in previous topics). But again, you need opportunity fire or greater weapons range for the defense platforms.

Daynarr · #6 January 10th, 2001, 09:42 AM

Well, there are 2 reasons why I don't like to have bases move in combat:

1) AI doesn't use them well. He will go after the attackers and leave planet undefended. Also, that doesn't help bases against the move in-fire-move out tactic. Ships can have 4, 5 or 6 combat movement and against that 1 movement is as good as none. Basically that movement has no use at all.

2) They look just plain silly. A moving starbase that is chasing my ships across the space??? Or a bunch of satellites??? The whole point of having bases and satellites is to have static planetary defenses around the planet in combat. Having movement on them just kills the only reason of their existence. It is NORMAL to be able to go around some of the static defenses. Think of the planet as some sort of the base camp, and Starbases as some sort of the defensive towers around camp (and satellites as gun emplacements). How would you feel to see those towers move around the base in combat??? Silly is an understatement.

The whole problem is in placement guys. Whey they get placed well around the planet, they will be useful. It is the easiest solution and only MM can do it. So what I suggest is, since that issue appears to be important, that everybody mail MM about this problem so they can start working on it (and initiative too - it is sort of a cheating against AI as it is now).

[This message has been edited by Daynarr (edited 10 January 2001).]

dmm · #7 January 11th, 2001, 07:54 PM

Puke said:

quote:
i think fighters do get strategic movement.

And I responded:

quote:
I believe you. But I know for a fact that fighters did NOT get strategic movement in early demos.

Sorry everyone, I was totally wrong. The fighters just didn't get any movement for the turn on which they were launched. After that, they had strategic movement (but no warp point transiting). My bad.

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