'If someone does take the time to build so many bases, then that sector would have super colonies? and ships in that sector would be super powerful? the amount of influence produced would be enough to overwhelm the stupid AI.'

Except that it's not feasible except until late in the game...it takes too long to get enough constructors into the same area to do so without severely neglecting your military. By the time you actually accomplish the task of constructing three fully equipped starbases in a single sector, the game is already over, either because you've been conquered for not having any military but your three starbases or because you've been delaying winning the game to build said bases.

late in game an average colony makes a constructor in 3 turns. On big map, player would have about 54 colonies. So every turn, player could produce 18 constructors.

The way AI uses its ships, player needs only strong 1 ship per 20 AI ships in order to prevent AI harassments.

When next update comes out, I'll prove my theory and make save file available.

I have to agree with Master Lame. Unless you're playing on the highest AI levels it is totally possible to construct multiple bases in one sector. Even worse, each base can add 60%+ production, so each folowing base becomes easier to build. Each base also adds a large bonus to +ATT and so becomes harder for the AI to defeat. Once you have enough bases built, you build 1 ship, declare war and watch the AI attack you.

While this is going on you stack fleets of constructors along the edge on a sector and then in a single turn move them in and build DEF and +ATT mods. Conquer any planets and continue.

Alternatively just build all those cultural mods. Though the AI could just conquer those planets back, unless you build new bases in the new sectors.

The AI can NEVER defeat that initial sector and you can add sectors one by one. The AI can only hope to beat you to a tech win or match your tactics.

Paul.

Just to put my oar into the water on this. I have never been a fan of restrictions on player actions that boil down to "because", which is what, to me, this arguement seems to be.

If the player wants to sink a ton of resources into building a gazillion starbases I would much rather that happen then have the player run into a hard-coded limit of 2 starbases per sector where that limit exists for no other reason than "because".

If a player is really in a position to build that many starbases the game is over anyway and the building of the bases is merely prolonging the end.

Magus said it best. This discussion has been about making a rule that really adds nothing to the playability of the game. The strategy CAN be circumvented if Brad is clever enough with programming the AI. He has stated many times that his phylosophy is to make the AI smart and strong in place of putting in a bunch of arbitrary rules, so lets just leave it at that.

Building a bunch of Starbases isn't what I call "fun" either, and I know I'm the minority when I say this, but I still play games for "fun" and even if the Starbase issue isn't touched before 1.0, I still will never use that cheesy tactic because what is the fun in that?

Why do people assume that a rule is required. I also don't like arbitary rules. No need to add a rule though, just balance. Some suggestions

i) Up the cost of starbase maintenance.
ii) Reduce upgrade percentages (as already mentioned by Brad)
iii) Apply starbase offensive bonus to ships beside the starbase and not in the entire sector.
iv) require super constructors for advanced modules (cost more to build)
v) limit starbase expansion (slots / weight)
vi) add resource moral hit for mining requirements (increases production but lowers moral due to having to work in space)

Paul.

Solitair
I have no quibble with some of your suggestions and indeed would welcome them if they were implemented (number 1 and 2) but I have serious misgivings about suggestions 3-6.

> 3) Apply starbase offensive bonus to ships beside the > starbase and not in the entire sector.

The starbases in the game are supposed to be these gigantic constructs that are host to a vast array of space based industries for the use of your race.

These aren't units whereby the puny ships only get shelter or assistance if they hide in the shadow of the base these are platforms for high intensity weapons and launch pads for hordes of figher craft. They should be able to cover an entire sector just fine.

4) require super constructors for advanced modules (cost more to build)

The more advanced modules already have a built in limiting factor in that you have to get the tech necessary for building them first.

5) limit starbase expansion (slots / weight)

Again this is a huge space-based construct with no real reason why it couldn't grow to the size of a good-sized moon if not larger. A limit of the type proposed smacks of the "because" type of reasoning.

Brad asked for thoughts on this area when the concept of the starbase was to be added to the game and things came down pretty much on the side of don't put a limit on the number of modules. If someone wants to put all their metaphorical eggs into one basket they may do so freely.

6) add resource moral hit for mining requirements

This also leans toward the "lets put a rule in place, just "because" and then try to rationalize it".

There are already enough things in the game that lower morale I don't think we need yet another. The lure to working on the station should be monetary which would dovetail nicely with increasing the cost of starbase maintenance.

Now I think we are getting somewhere. Making an abusive strategy prohibitive through cost makes much more sense than having a dumb pop-up jump out at you sayng you are violating some arbitrary rule. In addition, the costs would have a natural limiting affect: If your maintenance costs get too high your treasury will tank, followed shortly by your morale tanking. Also, making constructors more expensive to begin with would slow down someone trying to use the massive numbers of star bases strategy rendering the strategy even less affective.