Stronger Stations

posted on February 17th, 2006, 7:03 pm

I was talking with cube the other day and he said to me that stations should be a lot more stronger, I guess I kind of agree with this but the problem is with strenght their cost and size should increase as well so that the balancing isnt affected.
This brings some positive sides and some negative sides to the game though.

Positive:
1. This is simply how it is in the shows, DS9 destroyed like 50 dominion ships before it was finally taken.

2. People would have to use strategy much more and maybe build more than 2 ship classes in the whole game. This is a huge plus side IMO, you just dont attack a starbase with only 8 ships which have pulse weapons. This would also probably all those quick online games when you get rushed or something as your base could actually hold off the little ships with relative ease.

3. No more über turreting. A lot of people do a wall of turrets around their bases, this is both time consuming and it looks stupid. This way far less turrets would do the same job and again people would be far more careful in aproaching a base with a small force.

Negative:
1. Freaks who nevertheless of the new strenght make a turret wall. This would effectivly kill off any multiplayer game. I mean one player would have a crapload of ships while other would be like he is in a WW2 German bunker, gamess would get boring and could go on till forever. This is actually one of my main concerns about this feature, cause if online games do get boring why would anyone still actually play FO than?

2. A HUGE blow if your starbase gets destroyed. Eventhough it would be much stronger and stuff, it would also be a lot more expensive. So if your opponent actually manages to destroy your starbase you effectivly loose means to get new freighters, crew and construction ships. Now imagine you dont have enough crew to actually start a new starbase, than the game is effectivly over for you.
For this point I actually dont know if its a negative or a positive effect cause nevertheless loosing a starbase SHOULD be a huge blow, but so huge that the game could be over for you? You decide.



With this request I would also like to add, that I think it would be great if all stations had some sort of weapons, just enough to defend themselves against like 1 bird of prey shooting at them so I dont have to send my entire fleet like across the whole map to intercept that bop untill it kills my resource stations :-S


This might have been discussed b4, but it wasnt recently cause I just dont remember it lol, so what are your thoughts about it? Should stations get stronger, bigger, more expensive or are they ok as they are now??

[The Black Baron]

posted on February 17th, 2006, 9:52 pm

Last edited by The Black Baron on February 17th, 2006, 9:57 pm, edited 1 time in total.

deleted.... (sorry)

posted on February 17th, 2006, 9:53 pm

well i pretty much agree with you as you already know, main starbases should be strong enough to deal with any rush attacks and i also believe they should be strong enough, that when you actually hit a starbase with 16 sovies you would know you will loose at least 5 or more, this way arty and strategy would come more into play, it isn't necessary for turrets to be as strong as a station, neither should they be very weak, they should be as strong as the strongest battleship(not counting cubes and tavaras) about all station having weapons, i think this is not necessary, but i think it would be okay to have, but inspite of that i believe that it is a necessity for ALL ships to have weapons, even freighters, one way or another weapons are required on either all stations or all ships, but they should only be strong enough to deal with a bird of pray if they outnumber them 2 to 1 or 3 to 1. Now you might say, that if freighters, being relativelly cheap and if they have defencive capabilities, they could be used in rush attacks, but no, if the stations are stronger, and all ships heave weapons this would not be the case.

posted on February 17th, 2006, 10:00 pm

i believe that it is a necessity for ALL ships to have weapons, even freighters, one way or another weapons are required on either all stations or all ships, but they should only be strong enough to deal with a bird of pray if they outnumber them 2 to 1 or 3 to 1.

Thats FARRRRRRRR too strong for freighters to have, cause in that case why would anyone build bird of pray or any small ship??
Im all for stations have weapons but on ships that is just redundant and it would cause just further lag

posted on February 17th, 2006, 10:01 pm

well if a freighter is 3 times weaker than the bird of pray, you can still make a mess and be very annoying with the birds.

posted on February 17th, 2006, 11:12 pm

aye stations should be stronger and more expensive, not aloney that as you say with the SB is more realistic, but you should still be able to build them, but its going to cost you big time, where you are going to have to rely on previious defenses and not get news ones anytime soon if you know what i mean

posted on February 18th, 2006, 12:41 am

i agree with the stronger starbases. When you think about it in the films/series, it is likely that a full retreat would be in effect if a force large enough to destroy a starbase came. i like it but perhaps this shouldf have been made as a poll *shrugs*

[The Black Baron]

posted on February 18th, 2006, 2:00 am

Last edited by The Black Baron on February 18th, 2006, 2:03 am, edited 1 time in total.

i like it but perhaps this shouldf have been made as a poll unsure.gif *shrugs*

Nope because then some people just vote and dont say anything, I feel people must state their reasons for their choice in this case
Its PERFECT the way it is, dont doubt me

posted on February 18th, 2006, 2:06 am

Turrets could be nerfed by making the space immediately around wormholes in particular unbuildable.

In practically every other circumstance all one needs is even 1 artillery vessel to smash entire turret walls. ANd if they spent that much on turrets, you can count on it that they don't have much in the way of a fleet.

posted on February 18th, 2006, 9:04 am

i usually go with a mix of defensive ships and turrets/starbases. but i do think that the starbases are lacking in defensive capabilities. and strengthening stations would be cannon (IMHO), and i would even be for adding basic weapons to all stations, but not to construction ships, freighters, or cargo ships (if we ever add them), except for the klingons.

posted on February 18th, 2006, 9:57 am

so instead of an wal of turrets you can make a wall of starbases. why not have one starbase, remve turrets, and you can buil as replacement for a turret an outpost that weaker is then the starbase now

posted on February 18th, 2006, 10:57 am

In practically every other circumstance all one needs is even 1 artillery vessel to smash entire turret walls. ANd if they spent that much on turrets, you can count on it that they don't have much in the way of a fleet.

Yeah Im pretty sure everyone would have enough ships to destroy that one arty(they arent very strong u know )
If someone knows how to defend well, you aint getting past that wall, trust me I know

so instead of an wal of turrets you can make a wall of starbases. why not have one starbase, remve turrets, and you can buil as replacement for a turret an outpost that weaker is then the starbase now

Yeah a wall of starbases....
...thats kind of stupid AS Ive already said that would increas its buildtime, resource cost and size.
The bit about 2 kinds of starbases is actually quite good, but I dont think we should cancle turrets alltogether :-S

posted on February 18th, 2006, 12:52 pm

no, turrets must stay, otherwise there is no way to build a perimeter defence around your base, you don't want 50 klingons ships in the center of you base do you?
starbases should be stronger though

posted on February 18th, 2006, 7:07 pm

Well, that's my experience from playing Warcraft III. If one guy spends all his money building up a wall of turrets and one guy builds up an army with 3 artillery units, it's the army that's going to win.

Perhaps then artillery units should have longer range. After all, as I said, all you need is 1 artillery ship to take down a wall of turrets. Invariably the guy who bought the turrets will have a smaller fleet than the guy who bought just the fleet.

Then, when the smaller fleet comes to take out the artillery ship, then it's protected by a fleet twice its size.

posted on February 18th, 2006, 8:21 pm

yeah but that fleet doesnt have to engage the whole fleet, just the arty

Lets say Im a rommie and I build a wall of turrets, you are fed and u're attacking me with an arty plus a very big fleet. ALL I need are THREE rhiens(maybe even just 2) to take out that arty and then run like ****, its very simple.

In W3, if im not mistaken, things take longer to die, plus in FO arty and long range arent that different one from another so its relatively easy to kill the arty