Stacking starbases poll question

While I voted for choice #2, i did so with the expectation that v1.2, with the addition of the logistics ability, will make starbases a much more valuable commodity.

cheers

h

Picked #2, but there is a caveat here: I'd like to see the costs for subsequent starbases in a sector to be higher. Think of it as an inefficency issue when you have your admirals fighting for budget allocations for the sector... or something like that.

And it's not the military bonuses that are bad... those additions see less use then lets say, pleasure palaces.
[Message Edited]
[Message Edited]

No stacking (or at least a huge loss of efficiency) if the bonus is given by the same module on different starbases (e.g. only one party palace should count). On the other hand, more modules available.

The main problem with starbase stacking, is that the AI does not properly take advantage of it.

Also that the "starbases must be 3 squares away" rule now puts a cap of 9 starbases per sector, not counting resources and terror stars.

Summary: only culture effects need to be changed.

- Military effects should stack. If you want to make a strong assault or defense on one sector, why not allow it? The real problem is that the AI does not use this strategy. Also, +military starbases fool the AI as to your real military strength, when your military power is calculated.

- Production effects are already capped at 3xPQ. No change is needed.

- Trade is difficult enough already. There's no need for a cap here.

- Culture is currently a problem. Culture bombing still is too easy, and the AI does not object to culture starbases built in adjacent sectors. The problem is that culture starbases MULTIPLY rather than add. If this was changed to be merely additive, then it should be fine. The effect of a culture starbase in adjacent sectors should be decreased, or the AIs should disapprove of culture starbases in adjacent sectors.

I've never seen the AI culture bomb.

nice summary fsk.

You are right that the influence is the biggest problem. I also don't like military stacking as it leads to situations where small ships can anniliate vastly superior ships. A cruiser killing a battleship due to a single starbases bonus ios fine. A cruiser taking out an avatar due to 9 starbases is a bit excessive.

I still vote for non stacking, but would love to see further refinement. Specialised starbases appeal to me, which means some limit on expansion of some increasing cost with expansion. In the early days of starbase development much talk was given to possible ideas such as module limits. Most of these ideas fizzled out though. Any idea which adds to much macromanagement is unlikely to appeal, but lets be honest, hundreds of cunstructors at present is macromanagement. Some further refinement of the system would be good.

What I would love to see is,

a) each additional module costs +1 constructor (1st module costs 1 constructor, 2nd costs 2, ...)
- this creates the starbase specialisation though is not an important addition
medium and large constructors (3 and 5 modules each, but require higher techs)
- this removes the later game tedium
c) building time (only 1 module addition per turn to a starbase, though many could be stacked and automatically add over the following turns)
- this stops instant fully kitted starbases giving the AI or player time to respond to new military or influence starbases.


Paul.

~SDC~

Stacking is broken in my opinion. It's been abused to make ship catapults, culture bombs, super trade sectors. The ai is unable to cope with these things, so they should be banned.
I voted no despite the fact that I think +military could be allowed. Are there many people who use lots of military starbases?

Speed bonuses or penalties no longer stack - so no more speed catapults or dead zones.

Some inconsistency here - speed currently does not stack but other traits do.

~SDC~

Need to correct myself. Speed does still stack but in a limited fashion.

Speed bonuses are lost once the boosted ships leave the starbase sector while speed penalties cannot cause an enemy ship to go to zero movement. 1 movement is the lowest one can go.

~SDC~

This doesn't bother me at all, since I don't view it as the cruiser which has been enhanced, but rather its cover and support fire, which I think is wholly consistent with the names given to the +attack modules. Sending the cruiser is just the signal for the battle to begin. Yes, I realize under this interpretation, the starbases should be able to initiate attacks without a friendly starship, but that's a small point to me.

I voted yes but I think there should have been a third option to choose from: yes but with limitations. For example the first starbase gives you the full bonus, the second 90%, the third 80%, etc, until it's not cost effective anymore. You can still have 20 starbases in a sector, but only the first 5-10 will really make a difference, the rest would be just for, maybe the sake of collectioning.

But if I had to stick exactly to what is writen "Let starbase abilities stack. Building 20 starbases in a sector should let me have mega abilities in that sector." I I would have said "No they shouldn't stack". But in the past frogboy & Co put limitations in order to avoid imbalances. So I trust them on this one: stack, yes, but within the limits of galactic wisdom.

~SDC~