Let us address the initial rush of the game and the problem of the rush in the beginning of the game. At what turn would you deem it plausible that one can destroy an enemy starport? In a tiny game, I was able to destroy the enemy in 3 turns, for Gal Civ 3.

Now, in Gal Civ 2, which doesn't have starports. I did (I played it out just now to see) effectively blockaded and dominated the other opponent at turn 10. By that turn I was pushing out a combat ship per turn and eventually when I got planetary invasion I couldn't do much to counteract my invasion. Having 15 ships around each of their planets effectively destroyed them. The only reason it was turn 10 was because i didn't have military ships to start with and had to research the tech. For note my main planet had nothing but research centers and my other planets had nothing but research centers. By the time I started researching planet invasion, it took me 30 turns to get that. But it was inevitable that I won since they couldn't keep up with the number of ships I had compared to them and the speed at which I can research.

I did address your issue, and the issue is not the fact that starports are too easy to destroy. Give the starport 1000 attack for each of their beams, kinetic, missles with 1000 defense. I would still win the game within 3 turn (unless their starport can attack)  because I would be able to destroy every ship that comes out of that starport. Because I could have 15 ships surrounding it by turn 15. Each turn there after I could let myself build up what I will to win the game. It is not the fact that the starport is too easy to destroy, it is the fact that Drengin start with weapons and can start too close to the enemy to dominate them militarily.

Civ 5, does not have this problem, why? The cities are difficult to take yes, but more importantly EVERY empire can build weapon bearing troops at the start of the game. I've played against the tiny game rush, guess what I couldn't win because I was effectively cut off from building settlers (I didn't expect my enemy to rush warriors to destroy my initial build off)... I would have to build troops to counter them, which I did (too late though) and they effectively matched my troops, soldier for soldier. They had a better economy than I did since they were able to expand more than I was able too. Having troops stationed on a tile prevents me from getting the resources of that tile. But I didn't feel helpless in the game because I was able to build weapon bearing troops from the start to fight against that onslaught. Even though I knew I lost the game. Solution, play a bigger map or start building more defensive troops at the beginning of the game.

My Solution:

I would like to see prototype weapons at the start of the game for each race. Weapons that have horrible accuracy, can overheat, overload and not fire. The research is to make these weapons more stable and consistent. Then the Drengin starting with effective weaponry doesn't make them dominate as easily in the rush game as they would have to counter act these prototype weapons. Sure they can do so, but I can now defend myself from that onslaught. When I see it coming then I can research the weaponry to defend myself better and match the Drengin. It would also make other players wary about invading to doing the cheap tactic of destroying the starport early game.

Another option since we don't know how tactical battles will take place, we could force defending scout ships (tiny or small ships only or possibly larger ships) the defensive option of Kamikaze. Giving them the ability to destroy attacking ships at the loss of them. The defense against this tactic is kinetic and they do as much damage as their HP or half their HP. But only as an option at the beginning of defensive combat, so you can either choose to use this tactic at the beginning or not at all.

Your logic is flawed and your "solution" is hypocritical. How can a smart guy like you believe such nonsense?

Where is the flaw in logic?

Parrot math isn't real math...bird brain.

logan0178 & Larsenex, as parrottmath said in this last post and as I've said elsewhere, the timing isn't all that different between GCII and GCIII.

In GCII, playing casually as Drengin, I was able to have planetary invasion by turn 16--and I bet it can be researched faster than that. And as parrottmath said, blockading in GCII can be done within the first 10 turns.

In GCIII, on the other hand, the Drengin can blockade you in as few as 3 turns, but if they take 5 turns, you can already have a military ship built and stationed at your starport to protect it. That would mean you'd have to research military right away, and that changes the flavor of the game--which is a concern of mine.

But parrottmath brings up a very cogent point:

I disagree slightly with the idea that the Drengin having weapons to start with is the main problem--I think the real issue is proximity. As parrottmath said, "they can start too close to the enemy."

My suggestion for the devs is to work on the starting placement algorithm and to possibly limit (very slightly) the range of military ships (by increasing the size of the initial weapon components and/or the initial life support components). This means that everyone who wants to pursue a rush will have to research something first, slowing the rush down and giving opponents the opportunity to expand out of reach and/or build defenses.

I think these are also interesting and viable options.

And not to derail this thread, but not knowing how diplomacy will work, I wonder if there is a diplomatic solution to the issue of starport vulnerability. For example, in GCII, I don't think you could declare war until after you had universal translator researched (somebody correct me if I'm wrong). Perhaps diplomacy and/or ideology will have some effect on declaring war, which in turn would have an effect on rushing...

Agreed.

You could just attack one of their ships (or invade one of their planets) and you'll automatically declare war on them, if you say "yes" to the prompt. No UT required.

Thanks. I couldn't remember--you just couldn't declare war via the diplomacy screen without UT, right?

I think the key is to make attacking the square a starport is in suicidal at the start of the game.

A high hp starport with basic weapons would deter an early fleet. 

Also, I'd make early game warships really maintenance heavy so that having more than 1 or 2 ships out is a real drain on the economy.   Techs later on in the game can allow for more ships in the field.

Correct.

Building continuously ships for 15 turns is not the same as enforcing a blockade with only one ship. By the former strategy, you take out one opponent but you impede your economy and should lag behind everyone else.

I agree this is only a problem in early game, and there are many ways to solve it. Giving initial defense to the starport, or spacing out starting positions will work, imo.

You still seem to not get it.  My point is if that is the effective early game strategy then everyone would be forced to do it in a multiplayer setting, thereby negating the point of the different victory types and leading to degenerate gameplay.  Also needing 15 ships around each planet to effectively win at blockading in GC2 is vastly different than only needing to have 1 armed ship before the other side can build their first one to completely shut down the opposition in GC3 which is also my point.

You still didn't pay attention to what I wrote.  I stated a system like in Civ5 need to be implemented.  In Civ 5 cities had a ranged combat attack as well as innate combat stats for defending.  This is to punish early game rushes.  So in fact if starports had a ranged combat attack it would naturally defeat any weak early game ships attempting to camp in the area.

No, the main difference is that the city had natural defenses and a ranged attack which makes early game rushes hard to succeed.  Whereas stardocks in GC3 can be killed by a single minimally armed low tier fighter and from that point on you are permanently locked out.  Which basically gives almost an insurmountable advantage to whoever that can build an armed ship first and get to the other side's stardock.

Your solution is bad because it would just force people to build toward military in the beginning of the game which defeats the purpose of the other victory types.  It would make impossible a route to victory which involves say diplomacy or science.  It would also not resolve the main issue which is the fact that the game is over the moment one side has 1 armed ship before the other side.

What happens if I attack you early game with say 1 armed ship while you have no armed ships or maybe if I attacked with 12 armed ships and you only had 10?  The moment I destroy your ships and have say 1 or 2 ships surviving I win the game because I would go on to destroy your stardock and prevent you from ever recovering.

You can't account for this in your "solution".

dup post.

The simple solution here would be to get rid of this shipyard system completely or make it a mid/end game optional feature but still allow for construction of ships from planets.  To make something so defenseless the sole way of expansion and survival is a bad idea because it just makes it a mandatory target and forces players into degenerate gameplay that avoids all the other victory paths in order to win/survive.

I don't quite understand you point. I would like to understand it and I read all your posts carefully to see the main point. But I think I carry your argument in my mind to other cases that are never addressed which probably leads to my miss-understanding.

I guess I would understand it more if you explain in detail how the removal of the shipyard would prevent me from moving a small tier 1 fleet to your main planet(s) as you can only have 2 in a tiny map, and destroying every single ship you build (as you can only build 1 ship at a time). Mind you this rush will only allow you to have 2 planets at most, since I can destroy every last one of your ships (even docked at your planets) with no military attack. Each turn there would be another military ships at your planet side and I still can produce colony ships with my other planet.

Mind you I really do like to understand everyone's viewpoint. This above situation is where my confusion lies.

OK, let's say there is no shipyard and you moved 2 tiny ships around my planets, attacking every ship I build while you research Planetary Invasion.

At this point, I will focus on military research and build military ships continuously in order to break your blockade. I won't succeed immediately, but I am bound to damage or kill some of your blockading ships (depending on how production and combat works).

So, in order to maintain the blockade, you must also research military techs and build military ships of your own. For 30-50 (?) turns. You can still expand, but this kind of military focus will impede your early game economy and slow your expansion.

So you've slowed your expansion in order to stop mine. It's very good strategy on 1v1 (I expect 1v1 games to be very aggressive anyway). On a 4-player map, you take 3rd place in order to ensure I'm 4th, it's not so good.

...my head wasn't so far up my...

Couldn't resist doing it, your a ok village idiot by the way Parrotmath. and I don't just mean that in a off hand sarcastic way because you can actually be ok at times.

DARCA.

In essence this is the only response by the individual. Problem is you would never succeed in breaking the blockade as you can only build 1 ship at a time same as myself. Since I already had the advantage to begin with it will end with my having the advantage ultimately. Since I can add planets to build ships and you would be unable too. This is why I don't so much as see the starport as the problem vs. the imbalance of the military ships for a close proximity game.

I do understand that the stopping of a civilization by getting a 'Lucky' shot on the starports can happen. But, then one doesn't have just 1 starport people should have many from many different areas making it unlikely to destroy all starports at once in mid to late game combat.

How many people have played this multiplayer with the starports? I'm on a trip now so I cannot play at the moment, but I'm curious whether people are playing the multiplayer and finding the starports too vulnerable in their current state.

I'm not sure how I'm suppose to take this... Is this a complement by calling me an idiot or is it a compliment that you find me ok some of the times, but not other times. Frankly, I don't appreciate being called an idiot. If you have something constructive to say, then say it, otherwise you're just being a troll on the thread, trying to insult me. I am learning and giving providing a variety of feedback as well as others as to whether it is a good idea to change the way the starports operate. The developers like these conversations as it gives them more time to work on the game and then take these ideas and implement game play balances. Based on their experiences and the arguments presented here. That is why I appreciate Logan's arguments he has presented thus far.

It may turn out that they do not like the vulnerability of the starports and move to more of the suggestion of Logan, which wouldn't bother me. Or they may find that it would be nicer to leave the vulnerability, but give free maintenance to the starports for ships that are docked. Encouraging people to dock ships to keep maintenance costs down. There are quite a few different ideas that have stemmed from this conversation and more that can stem if you add to the conversation vs. name calling.

The military balance of the game hasn't come into play and I would like to see what they come up with in the future.

Yea yea yea, a classic nostalgic rant by yours truly. Bravo Parrotmath.

Really, your a good tenacious bastard and I like you. You've stuck with this and put up some good ideas. Though I do not like many of them. I read this because its fun and I saw a opportunity to make fun of you.

DARCA.

This is exactly my position. A lucky shot is extremely crippling during early game, but not during mid game. Mormegil talked about putting a bit of defense on starports, I think it will adress this issue.

The imbalance of Drengin weapons early game is another issue entirely, on which I have no real opinion...

Yes... I like to get a good conversations and to find imbalances in the game and get all the creative juices of others going. I find a lot of merit in each of these solutions / ideas, but as with everything, there is no one idea that will fix every problem.

I hope to see some changes to the start of the game, so the Drengin do not present such an obvious "I win platform"

Who knows, the game may evolve so you can have a starports on planets only with Moons and call them moon-ports where you can build any spaceship from these planets. Most of the homeworlds, that I see have moons, and would take care of some of these problems presented here. But they haven't made clear what moon bonuses there will be. I also don't know how the functionality would work on a moon-port.

I wouldn't give starports a ranged attack, but they definitely should have good built in defenses that would require a pretty hefty fleet to destroy, think Babylon 5. 

But then should the star-ports have a maintenance cost? Since I could fly this star-port to the other persons territory and they need a pretty hefty fleet to destroy it, while I keep pumping ships beefing the starport up in their territory. Or would this defense shield on the starport be a reduced maintenance cost of ships docked at the star-ports, say maintenance reduced by 75%. Thus, you can build quite a few ships and dock them on the star-port at a lower cost than usual. Giving the starport rather strong defense, but initially be weak, until you build up a fleet of ships. I do support reduced maintenance for docked ships.

I do not know if an enemy attack on a star-port requires the enemy to attack with another fleet at the star-port for destruction, or if the initial fleet destroys the star-port whenever all the ships are destroyed that are defending the star-port. I haven't game tested this to find out if this is the case.

Starports should definitely not be mobile, and also should have to be built right near your own planets...is that not how it is?  Can you really fly them around?

Also, strong defense for them is good, but there has to be some offense as well, otherwise the attacking ship will just keep attacking until the SB is destroyed, no matter what the defense rating is (assuming it works like GC2).

Correct. That is why I have reservations about inherent starport defense.

Also, starports are mobile (1 move per turn) and this is, IMO, a great aspect of the space-based starports because you can arrange them around multiple systems for increased output. Adding weapons makes this have an entirely different dynamic and brings with it its own balance issues.

I had no idea they could move, that's a pretty bad idea IMO.  I'd prefer to see immoble SP's with weapon systems.  An SP really shouldn't be mobile.  Unless you tug it with some huge tug boat ship.  But moving on their own makes in not really a port, but a huge ship.  

Maybe when you build them, you could choose the tile they end up in...?  That might work.

And with no weapons, what's to stop even the smallest ship from destroying them easily?