Useful Starbases! ? Modders, please respond.

[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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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).]

[Jubala]

quote:

---

Originally posted by dmm:
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).

---

Which I think is wrong. It should maybe at the most cost them one movement point to launch but the whole can't move after launch thing is kind of silly imo. Fighters should be quick reaction forces and I don't call that a quick reaction.

[Trachmyr]

I think that restriction is to make sure you don't use carries to form a chain and allow "endless" movement...

Consider, you have a single carrier and there are several enemy vessels around all in diffrent locations, you could launch and attack one enemy then go back to the carrier and get "recovered", then launch again and have full movement! Even if they coded the fighters to "remember" how much movement they EACH have (which I do not think would be easy, and would be a drain on memory if you had Hundreds of fighters), you still have the problem of a carrier chasing down an opponet... In one turn you get the carrier's movement + the fighter's movement, but this is all in the same .1 year... fighter's have to travel at the speed of the carrier to get to the location and then their .1 year is up...

Well, this is ofcource IMNSHO...

[Barnacle Bill]

I think Trachmyr is exactly right about why fighters don't move on the turn of their launch. It is probably more a programming limitation than MM's idea of how it "should" work.

A few ways to change that without having to track the movement points of each fighter would be:

(a) Track whether a fighter has been recovered this turn and don't let it launch again if it has. This still requires individual tracking of fighters, but only a "bit" for each (recovered or not) instead of a "word" for each (number of movement points remaining).

(b) Don't let carriers & planets both launch and recover in the same turn. I think this would be an improvement over the current system because you could launch & execute a strike in the same turn. You still could not launch the strike, recover after the strike and beat feet all in the same turn, though (which is proper carrier-like behavior).

(c) In combination with (a), make fighters have to land by the end of the turn or be lost. This would be my preference ("fighters" sitting in space indefinately seems unrealistic). To cut down on the record keeping, you could somewhat adapt what Starfire does. There, you can't launch individual fighters. You have to launch Groups of 6 (which they call "squadrons" but I would call "flights" because of the small number). I would propose creating fighter units in SE4, under whatever name, which would work like fleets. There would be a minimum & maximum number of fighters allowed when you create a fighter unit, although casualties could reduce it below the minimum (you could not add above the max. All fighters in the same unit would have to be of the same design. Whether a fighter has launched or not would be tracked by unit, not by individual fighter (to cut down on the record-keeping). You can transfer fighters between units (but not while in space), or between units and cargo storage, but not OUT of any unit which has already recovered that turn. That allows you to freely reorganize before you launch, but not to put fighters which have already sortied into a different unit where they can sortie again. If you try to land a fighter unit someplace that can hold some but not all of its fighters, you would lose the excess (with a warning & chance to change your mind, of course). Fighter units could be part of a fleet, and would gain experience like a ship (individual fighters would not).

I also have some thoughts on the subject of moving bases. In tactical combat, the defender should be allowed to set up where he likes before the attacker is placed on the board. Assume bases have some inherent "station keeping drive" that can handle that sort of movement, but can't move them during combat or between sectors on the system map. Can attackers hit the planet from the other side? Sure, that is the inherent problem with static defenses. Build multiple bases so you can put them all around. Less efficient that ships, but again that is the inherent problem with static defenses. I would support a new type of "ground base", though, which would be on the planet surface and thus "on" the planet during combat like a Weapon Platform, but not cargo and not moveable. Rather, it would count as a facility. Each hull size of ground base would get a certain amount of "free" armor (doesn't count against its tonnage), to reflect that it is buried under rock, concrete, etc...

As far as stategic movement of bases goes, I have some thoughts there as well. I don't like the idea of space yards in ships (ever been to a real shipyard?) so I changed the space yard components in my data set to only be allowed in bases. However, I 'd like an ability as in Starfire to assemble a base remotely. You would have an option when building a base to "build as cargo", in which case it would appear when finished as a cargo item and be non-functional. You could use more than one ship to carry it as long as all of them are in the same fleet. When the ship(s) carrying it get where you want it, you would need something with repair capability to assemble it (there would be an "assemble base" order available to anything having repair capability). The base would then appear as a with all the components in need of repair (as if it had undergone a retrofit affecting every component), and have to be repaired. The process could be reversed (again using something other than itself having repair capability) to disassemble it to be reassembled or scrapped elsewhere.

One Last idea about space yard components. Even mounted in a base (or ship, if you haven't made my mod), they should not be allowed to build anything unless the base is at an inhabited planet that the base's owner controls. Again, real shipyards are not operated by a "crew" that lives on board. They employ wads of civilian workers who live in the surrounding community. No surrounding community (i.e. co-located colony), no workers. No workers, no construction.