Inorganic Planets

hostergaard

Newcomer

12 years ago

Jun 5, 2012, 5:31:45 PM

It could be interesting with an option for construction in space. Like space stations or large military installation. Especially interesting late game where one have a lot of unused resources to spend, why not on large space constructions? An expensive habitat for extra population, a huge fortress like defensive installation that can protect the system, research stations, you name it!

I would really like for an option that could solidify a factions hold on a system, expensive and maintenance hungry space station could be a option.

Landhund

Newcomer

Landhund

Newcomer

12 years ago

Jun 6, 2012, 12:57:44 PM

Also true. But then the exploitation options should be other ones then that ones you can build on planets, as you said trading/dust, ship production, defending, stuff like that.

Mansen

Enthusiast

Mansen

Enthusiast

12 years ago

Jun 6, 2012, 10:20:29 AM

The exploitation bit was only to serve as an abstract concept - the less complexity, the better.

As they say - perfection is achieved not when you cannot add anything more, but rather when you cannot remove anything more.

Landhund

Newcomer

Landhund

Newcomer

12 years ago

Jun 6, 2012, 8:49:29 AM

I think the idea of Mansen is very good. Maybe they can "grow" with time (like the ISS, just bigger) and get more powerfull or create more FIDS or whatever. Another idea is, that instead of setting one type of exploitation, you can build some kind of "modules" that gives you a certain bonus.

Igncom1

Craver

Infantry win firefights. Tanks win battles. Artillery win wars.

Igncom1

Craver

12 years ago

Jun 5, 2012, 10:45:08 PM

Wouldent be the internet if i did. lol

Mansen

Enthusiast

Mansen

Enthusiast

12 years ago

Jun 5, 2012, 10:13:22 PM

Igncom1 wrote:
Still doesent stop it from bing just a big space ship, even in reality bigger is not better, just a bigger single target that costs too much for most people, and so will only be aquired by people who can eaisly win anyway and so has no purpose.

You seem to have some sort of prejudged view that a starbase equals "death star". In most 4X games this is not the case at all. They serve as offplanet stations for population, trade, industry and science. And occasionally defense.

Big ships can field modules that smaller ships cannot. In fact a large number of the star system improvements are abstracted space stations of some kind or the other. In terms of ES gameplay it would make sense to use starbases in such a way that each system can field one (it'll become a pseudo planet), with one possible "exploitation" - i.e. focus. Defense (it will appear in system combat on top of any fleets), trade and so forth.

You don't have to agree of course. But I've said my piece.

Igncom1

Craver

Infantry win firefights. Tanks win battles. Artillery win wars.

Igncom1

Craver

12 years ago

Jun 5, 2012, 9:16:31 PM

Still doesent stop it from bing just a big space ship, even in reality bigger is not better, just a bigger single target that costs too much for most people, and so will only be aquired by people who can eaisly win anyway and so has no purpose.

Mansen

Enthusiast

Mansen

Enthusiast

12 years ago

Jun 5, 2012, 9:12:20 PM

idolord wrote:
actually terraforming a barren from an asteroid field.

Asteroid fields cannot be terraformed - neither can gas planets.

Igncom1 wrote:
Because a ture moving starbase (As in not just around a star and such) is just a big spaceship, and is really just a stupid looking deathstar that makes no sence anyway.

[CitationNeeded] - Just basing your entire view of large space stations on star wars doesn't exactly make that a valid argument. There are plenty of purposes of large stations that can be moved at will.

Igncom1

Craver

Infantry win firefights. Tanks win battles. Artillery win wars.

Igncom1

Craver

12 years ago

Jun 5, 2012, 9:01:51 PM

Mansen wrote:
And if you take a look at SINS moving starbases work just fine. I never understood the obsession with not wanting a moving starbase, heh.

Because a ture moving starbase (As in not just around a star and such) is just a big spaceship, and is really just a stupid looking deathstar that makes no sence anyway.

idolord

Newcomer

idolord

Newcomer

17 300g2g pts

12 years ago

Jun 5, 2012, 8:05:29 PM

actually terraforming a barren from an asteroid field also seems to be overpowered if a specie is able to do that they might also be able to build a planet for me asteroids field would only be good for setting starbase structures.

if planetoids could be built for me that will be system improvement oriented even if it give also slight bonus to fleet around.

Mansen

Enthusiast

Mansen

Enthusiast

12 years ago

Jun 5, 2012, 7:48:12 PM

Igncom1 wrote:
As long as it can't move, i never understood peoples obsession with moving starbases.

Any of you guys seen the starbases in SOTS2 (If you will excuse the launch of the title), the types of stations they use and the way they are uses is very interesting and very very sicence-fiction.

And if you take a look at SINS moving starbases work just fine. I never understood the obsession with not wanting a moving starbase, heh.

Draco18s

Newcomer

Draco18s

Newcomer

6 000g2g pts

12 years ago

Jun 5, 2012, 7:46:46 PM

Igncom1 wrote:
As long as it can't move, i never understood peoples obsession with moving starbases.

I'd just like to point out that there are very real methods for relocating an entire star system via an asymmetrical dyson dome (aka Shkadov thruster). The thrust is negligible, but would move the system long distances give enough time.

(1 million years would result in a velocity of 20 meters/second, and a billion would see a velocity of 20 km/s with a total displacement of 34,000 light years)

Igncom1

Craver

Infantry win firefights. Tanks win battles. Artillery win wars.

Igncom1

Craver

12 years ago

Jun 5, 2012, 7:17:51 PM

As long as it can't move, i never understood peoples obsession with moving starbases.

Any of you guys seen the starbases in SOTS2 (If you will excuse the launch of the title), the types of stations they use and the way they are uses is very interesting and very very sicence-fiction.

Eminent_Waffle

Newcomer

Eminent_Waffle

Newcomer

12 years ago

Jun 4, 2012, 12:24:49 AM

I was just thinking that since all of the races, especially war oriented ones, are capable of building such massive ships, why not planets? Similar to the Death Star, I think you should be able to reach a point in research where you are able to build moving docks. They would be like any other ship, so you'd choose the special hull that would be particularly slow with massive tonnage. The hull would be able to support such devices as ship repair and construction as well as possibly a weapon capable of eliminating whole planets. At the very least, I'd like some way to repair my fleets, and build new ones, over recently claimed planets that are still on strike against my rule. It would provide another level to strategy, some players would be inclined to wait the game out and then wipe everyone out in a single sweep, while others would enlist its construction as a forward command base.

VIPFinalStrigon

Sheredyn

VIPFinalStrigon

Sheredyn

33 000g2g pts

12 years ago

Jun 5, 2012, 3:19:19 PM

Draco18s wrote:
Sci-fi has been doing planetary sized constructions for decades.

Hollow Planet (quick read).

Well of Souls (see: Setting)

Dyson Sphere (and related objects such as Ringworld)

That said, I think they're out of scope for the kind of game that ES is, even though theoretically, the Endless would be able to build whole star systems.

Ah, right, true, I forgot about those. The sci-fi I've been dealing with lately (Mass Effect, The Lost Fleet book series) don't have them, and I...well, I forgot. Like you said, though, I don't think they're really the kind of thing that a game like ES would want.

Again, I'd be perfectly happy with space stations in systems. Anything more than that, though, I personally don't think would fit. Maybe, maybe, if we get an expansion down the line that has the Endless return with their tech to do something. But as it is now, by the time the current empires research anything that puts them on par with the Endless, well, the game is over.

Draco18s

Newcomer

Draco18s

Newcomer

6 000g2g pts

12 years ago

Jun 5, 2012, 3:03:20 PM

FinalStrigon wrote:
Nothing moon-sized, though. I find that to be just a bit unrealistic, really, even for sci-fi.

Sci-fi has been doing planetary sized constructions for decades.

Hollow Planet (quick read).

Well of Souls (see: Setting)

Dyson Sphere (and related objects such as Ringworld)

That said, I think they're out of scope for the kind of game that ES is, even though theoretically, the Endless would be able to build whole star systems.

Hollow

Newcomer

Hollow

Newcomer

500g2g pts

12 years ago

Jun 5, 2012, 2:27:33 PM

Well, Master of Orion allowed you to turn asteroid belts into planets but that's because asteroids weren't inhabitable in that game at all. However, both MOO and GalCiv had ideas for starbases, with either having them per planet unit and then using it to aid defence or, in GalCiv, free-build across the map to give bonuses to influence, military or economy.

The former would have to be modified to work across a system but then it would work like any other system improvement and I don't think that's really... well... interesting. What I prefer the idea of, because it's something new and not just another button to click to add to the build queue, is more of a free-build idea with building being allowed wherever your current technology allows you to move to (either on or off the star links). The bases could give a boost to invasion defence, trade income or dust income, friendly ships engaged in battle or simply their own influence and sight ranges.

Clearly then they'd have to be attackable as well so that opponents can remove them. GalCiv had them upgraded with weapons if you chose to, maybe they'd come with a flat rate in ES or could be upgraded, but I don't know where the FIDS would come from to do so unless you used constructor ships (ships with a construction module, again as in GalCiv) to do so. Build them in a system using system FIDS, send them to the starbase, upgrade one thing and the ship is used up (the ship materials are re-purposed into becoming part of the station itself).

MODNosferatiel

Informer

"God's in his heaven, all's right with the world." Nerv Motto, Neon Genesis Evangelion

MODNosferatiel

Informer

47 300g2g pts

12 years ago

Jun 4, 2012, 5:59:35 PM

Moved to the proposals section.

VIPFinalStrigon

Sheredyn

VIPFinalStrigon

Sheredyn

33 000g2g pts

12 years ago

Jun 4, 2012, 5:40:07 PM

orionsyndrome wrote:
Perhaps it is ultra slow and very weak if left undefended?

Perhaps you must fulfull some condition and then wait some time in order to destroy a planet?

Germany had the best tanks in WWII and lost.

Darth Vader had the Death Star and lost. He made one kill with it tho.

I think it can be balanced.

The devs have already said that there will be no super weapons/planet killers/doomsday devices/etc.

Space stations I'd be cool with, perhaps a mid- to late-game system enhancement to give some kind of military bonus (faster repair on ships, perhaps?), as long as we actually would be able to see them in the system view. Nothing moon-sized, though. I find that to be just a bit unrealistic, really, even for sci-fi.

eltro102

Newcomer

eltro102

Newcomer

12 years ago

Jun 4, 2012, 1:28:53 PM

I was pretty surprised we weren't allowed to build space stations in systems, or even in open space as some form of refuelling or resuppling point, maybe if you ship passed through the station it refills partially the movement points, along with acting as a listening station.

n18991c

Old

n18991c

Old

13 100g2g pts

12 years ago

Jun 4, 2012, 12:18:19 PM

thegreedyturtle wrote:
I'd incorporate it with the current moon mechanic. Moons are great for shipyards, so add more things you can do with a moon, and then have planets be allowed to build a moon.

Yes now that sounds more like it, I second that. The problem with big death star like weapons is that they're simply overkill and give the owner too much of an advantage. Also, just like with the death star or, imdeed the dreadnought class ships in ES, all it takes to take it down is a pack of smaller ships...

thegreedyturtle

Newcomer

thegreedyturtle

Newcomer

12 years ago

Jun 4, 2012, 11:04:27 AM

I'd incorporate it with the current moon mechanic. Moons are great for shipyards, so add more things you can do with a moon, and then have planets be allowed to build a moon.

orionsyndrome

Newcomer

orionsyndrome

Newcomer

12 years ago

Jun 4, 2012, 10:52:15 AM

Perhaps it is ultra slow and very weak if left undefended?

Perhaps you must fulfull some condition and then wait some time in order to destroy a planet?

Germany had the best tanks in WWII and lost.

Darth Vader had the Death Star and lost. He made one kill with it tho.

I think it can be balanced.

Godsninja

Newcomer

Godsninja

Newcomer

12 years ago

Jun 4, 2012, 4:09:47 AM

Yea I agree with Igncom1. A death star is too much, but a space station sounds amazing !

Igncom1

Craver

Infantry win firefights. Tanks win battles. Artillery win wars.

Igncom1

Craver

12 years ago

Jun 4, 2012, 12:28:41 AM

Well one, planet destrying weapons are a stupid idea, and are a thing that could only be balanced for a person who is already winning, and so have no point.

But the other part of your suggestion would be a space station with engines, so a dreadnaught? We have that coverd.