Starbase Suggestion:

[Sorry if this has been suggested already, but there is no search function on this forum.]

With the exception of resources, allow for the creation of starbases *ONLY* in the orbit of a colonized system.

BENEFITS:

1) Capturing resources would have much greater strategic value;

2) You'd be limited in the number of starbases you could build, which would help limit the 'effects of scale' currently somewhat easily done by building bases ad-naseum;

3) The AI would be much more likely to target these starbases around your system as opposed to 'not seeing' the mega bases tucked in the corner of a sector giving your defenders massive ability to survive wave after wave of attack. This, in turn, would give much more strategic emphasis to defending the space *around* your systems;

4) This would encourage colonizing otherwise 'worthless' systems thereby lending more strategic use of the map;

5) This would encourage building up your fewer starbases to maximum in a number of categories rather than having dedicated culture ones (for example) simply 'culture bombing' other sectors.

6) You could no longer 'push' starbases. You could only put them in a new sector once you've colonized a system there, lending more emphasis to actually using your military/colony ships.

7) This increased focus on colonizing more planets would help address some of the morale challenges of overcrowded planets and give you reason to keep trying to expand throughout the game.

8) Finally, as a potential side benefit, since the starbases would be in orbit of your systems, it would be much quicker to update the starbases with constructor ships (assuming the constructor isn't going to another orbit at some point, as it certainly will with later start-ups). This might help improve the pacing and decrease some of the micro-management associated with nearly endless constructor production and starbase updates.
2,988 views 73 replies
Reply #1 Top
Nice list of ideas Yin!

As an addon to #8 - How about a Starbase 'governor' so to set up a build order of modules thus decreasing micro-management even more.

Can't agree with #5 or #6 though, I like 'culture bombing' though it is really easy to do so currently.
Reply #2 Top
The problem with limiting starbases to the orbit of a colonized system would be range. Lets say you were playing on a gigantic map. You start out in a corner position and then colonize all the planets there. Now when you try to expand to another position that would normally be out of range of your colony ships you would have to build starbases to get there. However if you limit starbases to a planets orbit, that would effectively isolate you in that corner for the entire game unless you were lucky enough to find resources to build your starbases on or could capture a planet with a transport, assuming there was one in range.

~SDC~
Reply #3 Top
Perhaps, then, a special unit planted for the express purpose of extending your range?
Reply #5 Top
Right, or even an outpost sattelite. A cheap, cheap unit that comes from the start of the game and only serves to extend your range.
Reply #6 Top
i think most of these issues would disappear if the AI handling of starbases was improved. playing on "intelligent", the AI still has no real idea, aside from mining resources, of what to do with SBs and perhaps more importantly, how to deal with player SB tactics like "culture bombing" and "hidden defense".

this results in the player having a massive advantage which more than compensates for the AI's superior resource management abilities. but i'm sure Brad is working on it and you'll start seeing fortified AI party palaces in future versions.

cheers

h
Reply #7 Top
I like being able to have starbases all over the map. They certain take a lot of production to upgrade them to where they are effective, and they are difficult to depend during times of war.

Just planning on where you put starbases is a strategic endevour all to itself, considering the military, trade and influence bonuses you can procur.
Reply #8 Top
I think one of the issues, though, as posted in other threads is that the enemy AI isn't targetting key starbases tucked away in your sector.

This way they'd be almost certain to attack them (I think). I'm not sure if Brad could program the AI otherwise, unless it's rather easy to program it to explicitly go on starbase hunts?

Still, I find the ability to over-produce these things in any old space on the map not so strategic. Limiting them this way would, I hope, give you more important strategic considerations.
Reply #9 Top
So I guess most people are happy with starbases as they are? Reminds me of ICS (Infinite City Slease) in Civ., but perhaps that's just me. :)
Reply #10 Top
Yin, I would be happy if the starbase concept would be refined. It is not the much the ICS of Civ for me it is more like the crawler avalanche of SMAC.
Reply #11 Top
Yin, I agree with you completely. In fact, after a few games, I'm beginning to feel that GalCiv also suffers from ICS (infinite Constructor syndrom).

I also just read that bonuses spread accross multiple starbases in a sector are multiplied together, rather then added. This gives yet another reason to create an obscene number of starbases, rather then build up a few good ones, and as a result, reduces the incentive to research some of the higher level tech required for the best modules.

This is a strong statement, but although I really do like many of the ideas in galciv, in my opinion, the unlimited number of starbases which stack endlessly (and without maintenance) is practically ruinning the game for me.
Reply #12 Top
Infinite Constructor Syndrom = ICS. Nice!
"Crawler avalanche of SMAC" Ah, yes, a much more similar problem.

There is always the argument: "Well, just don't play the game that way." I understand this to a degree, but that is the same argument used against tech whoring. Thankfully the tech loopholes have been given a good look at.

I hope that the starbase issue will as well. Starbases are a GREAT addition to the game! But as with ICS in Civ or the crawler avalanche in SMAC, the current system begs for abuse.

It would be great to see starbases take a much more strategically important role in the game rather than a non-brainer way to win by scales of magnitude.
Reply #13 Top
I TOTALLY agree with you, Yin.

I have posted the isuue with SB before, but I dont think I got very far... :( . One question though: What about trading? One of the most vital ways to increase you trade income is through the construction of SB. And we all know that having a race depend on you because of heavy trade is something that has a lot of positive consequences.

My idea was to limit SB to one per sector. But then there were issues like Terror Stars, multiple number of res per sector etc etc...

I think a lot of problems would be solved if:

a) AI was taught how to use SB effectively.
b) AI understood where 'key' SB of their enemies are and destroyed them in times of war.
c) SB hit points were slightly reduced and were subsequently increased as you added more modules (i am not sure if thats the case at the moment).
Reply #14 Top
TLA-Russian:

Great! Well maybe we can keep this issue alive in a positive way until Brad has given the final word?

I like your ideas, though I guess I'm less optimistic about how much more Brad can squeeze out of the AI. So...

"a) AI was taught how to use SB effectively."

Yep, and that should be a goal for Brad over the coming months. But by limiting the starbase creation to only certain points in space, I think his job would be easier.

"b) AI understood where 'key' SB of their enemies are and destroyed them in times of war."

Agreed. Again I think if starbases were *only* found on resources and in orbit around colonized systems that the AI would have a much easier time of it.

"c) SB hit points were slightly reduced and were subsequently increased as you added more modules (i am not sure if thats the case at the moment)."

O.K. Now there's a nice idea, though I thought there were modules for that purpose already ... but does that only effect ships? I can't recall at the moment.
Reply #15 Top
What about limiting the number of starbases a civ. can have according to how many colonies the civ. owns?

Maybe like 2 SBs per 1 colony.

I don't agree with limiting SBs to orbiting planets or resources. Here's why:
Building SBs along trade routes and loading them with trade mods is a good way to make a buck. But playing in large or huge galaxies, very often the trade routes span across empty sectors - no systems, no resources = worthless sector. Being able to send an SB to an empty sector keeps that sector from being useless.

That's my 2 cents. Keep this discussion going guys!

And I agree enemy AI needs to be tweaked involving SBs.
Reply #16 Top
"Building SBs along trade routes and loading them with trade mods is a good way to make a buck. But playing in large or huge galaxies, very often the trade routes span across empty sectors - no systems, no resources = worthless sector. Being able to send an SB to an empty sector keeps that sector from being useless."

On this point --which is a good one-- I'd rather see the bonus be some calcuation based on the distance traveled and the starbase multipliers at the *starting* and *ending* sectors.

This way the bonus is effectively multiplied through all sectors the trade goes without having to multiply starbases in those sectors.
Reply #17 Top
It would be nice if Brad actually wrote a response to this (maybe they are working on something right now). I rememeber him saying that SB were implemented with A LOT of thought beforehand.

I also dont know if we are the majority here. Our chances of getting something implemented into the game (esp such a big issue as SB) are much higher if a lot more people support it. I am confident that Star Base diarrhea is a major problem in GalCiv and its a matter of time before everyone out there discovers it.

If its very hard to re-programm AI to use SB more efficiently then what about having a massive tax (or maintenance cost) imposed on a race if its non-resource star base number exceeds one per sector (or something similiar to this), which would make it unecenomical to build lots of star bases. This is obviously a temporary solution and I would definitely preffer Brad improve AI instead.
Reply #18 Top
I think the easiest method of solving the Infinite Starbase problem is not to limit the number or location of starbases, but to just say that a single planet/ship/whatever can only benefit from a given module ONCE. This completely fixes all of the problems with none of the drawbacks or complications of other solutions. The player should get a warning dialog when building a redundant module that states there won't be any effect.

This seems to be the implied design, after all what is the point of researching +15% production module when you can just as easily just build three starbases with +5% or +10% modules? The only two reasons not to currently are the one or two constructor overhead, which is trivial next to the saved research cost, and defense, which is negated by building all your starbases in the same space (or really close once that bug is fixed).

Reply #19 Top
Lets not make things more complex--you know like figuring out how many SBs we can build yet and where to put them.

My opinion is the same as Horatio--Teach the AI how to use and combat them.Getting them to utilize them like we do should be fairly easy to code.And when an enemy civ attacks you and the AI notices all the att.and defence bonuses or simply notices that their ships are now slower in your sector--this should throw up a red flag to the AI that there is a SB in the sector that should be found and destroyed.This may be harder to code but certainly doesnt seem impossible.

I dont want to be limited in the amount of SBs I can build--especially along trade routes.

just my $.02
Reply #20 Top
ith:

That's a nice compromise. You could go ahead and have duplicate builds just in case you lose a starbase in battle, etc.

If we really want to have starbases add up their influence, another way to look at it might be ith's idea plus tech upgrades that allow you to have more modules count.

Similar to tech that allow you to add more trades routes. ;) At least then you'd have to prioritize your research...
Reply #22 Top
I like ith's idea as well. The real problem is not the starbases themselves, it's the fact that the benefits stack. ith's solution is simple and elegant.
Reply #23 Top
I would still like the option through research to add more modules, but the tech to add more modules should operate on the same pacing as the tech to add trade routes -- doable if it's your concerted strategy but not something you simply walk into. :)
Reply #24 Top
Beyond adding more modules, how about new modules - say ones for increasing Research (besides the Research mining bonus from that certain resource). Of course, then there could be whole new techs.

I've been thinking about making some mods for this game, this might be a good direction to start from - techs and SB modules.
Reply #25 Top
I think a starbase mod that increases population growth on same-sector planets would be cool. Like 'hydroponic garden' or 'biosphere' or 'Genetic Farming Module I, II, and III' to all increase pop growth.