Defense doesn't work that way. It would have to have weapons, because with only defenses, no matter how great, it would still be destroyed by any ship with any level of attack.

I could be wrong... I'll check it out tonight if I have a chance.

Why can't Shipyards be protected by varying levels of Orbital Defense Platforms? Weak platforms could be researched and built easily early on and further tech could lead to stronger more powerful ones. Perhaps certain races could start with one as a starting unit.

What about space mines? These could at least provide some sort of barrier to approaching ships.

I do like the idea of having the defenses/hitpoints of the shipyard be stronger the closer it is to its main sponsor and weaker the further it is away. This would mean that you would knowingly put the shipyard at risk if you move it out away from the main sponsor to get closer to other sponsors to increase production. I see strategy in that. Would make you really think hard of optimal placements on the map.

I do not see how giving the Drengin early weapons has any effect on whether one builds ships on planet versus at a shipyard. Basically one will lead to Drengin fleet camping until the planetary assualt is researched, but there would be little counter to the massive fleet that they can amass in the time you research enough to counter that fleet. Basically it is still a loss of the game in either case. But I wanted to know if there was a difference that I missed.

Having ships docked at the star port would be equivalent to all the defensive needs of the base in general. I don't see a reason as to why a star port would need any defense platforms or more weaponry the closer it is to your planet. It would not stop any assault anyway.

I for one find the star ports rather powerful at filling the map with ships to fight everyone. I can't wait to see what the AI brings to the table in defense of the star port and attacking of star ports.

As to pirates, a simple solution to that is that the pirates do not destroy star ports but raid them for goods making you run the star port at 50% production for a few turns. Remember pirates are their for the money. So if they get your starport a dialogue should come up with a ransom note... pay us a percentage for x turns or lose your starport

Thanks for the clarification parrottmath, and I again agree. I don't see much of a difference other than if the Drengin are immediately next to another player, they could theoretically win the game within the first 4 or 5 moves before the other player has a chance to research military and build a defensive ship. In my opinion, that is the only window of time in which starports are too vulnerable--because no strategy can make success possible. After that point, any player can have defenses stationed at their starport.

As for pirates, I love your idea of having some level of dialogue and decision-making involved.

Lucky Jack, thanks for the response--I thought that was how it worked. And yes DARCA, that means the attacking vessel would win in the end.

I apologize for my ignorance. I would like to input that with a large and diverse game like this it is a shame a really crappy situation like this can manifest.

As a solution it might be best to give a "special weapon" to the stardock, were it can circumvent the current rules to survive combat by using its hit points as a weapon. Or give it real weapons. Or maybe just accept the senario and do nothing realizing any action may do more harm than good...unless you have a creative solution.

Now I have nothing more to add to this discussion that I can tell, best to everyone.

DARCA.

Just for grins I played a couple quick game starts on GCII--playing casually as the Drengin, planetary invasion took about 16 turns to get. I never really pursued quick conquest victories, so I imagine other players know how to get planetary invasion a touch faster.

But that being said, 16 turns isn't very long to build defenses to thwart the Drengin invasion--considering getting any military vessel will take several turns of research plus however long it takes to produce the ship--you would have to pursue military research and production from the very start. If the Drengin are sending transports by turn 20 and you don't have defense yet, by the time you research space militarization, you've probably already lost.

So as parrottmath said, there isn't really a difference.

Of course, GCIII is a new game, and so while a comparison is helpful, it doesn't mean this game should be just like GCII. Nonetheless, I see this as a non-issue with the exception of the remote possibility of a starport being attacked on turn 4 before it is able to build a defensive ship.

If i have the energy production to initiate FTL flight &

If i am able to launch billions and billions of $ into space &

If i know that there are enemies out there, and pirates too

THEN

it will be MUCH cheaper to put a metric ton of missiles and point defense on that station from day one than loosing my only ever hope to survive that space race. Also i must make sure anyway that the first meteor or spacetrash floating around isnt just punching through my new shiny stuff, so i would put some armor and shields on it too.

It will also be MUCH cheaper than putting whole fleets on guard duty, which will also cost more than just putting that stuff on the base itself, because you would then need even more supplylines and administration.

I also think that moving starports / spacefactories are a bad idea. Maybe as lategame tech, but not from start.

perigrine, I'm not so sure about point 2--I think it has some lore issues and tech implications that make it kind of... difficult for me to accept. But I don't see a huge problem with it as a gameplay mechanism.

I have similar reservations about point 1, but I think it is a bit more feasible--but not because it can't be destroyed--just that it can't by earlier weapons. I think this is similar to something DARCA has mentioned, i.e. that defense on starports be treated differently in that they don't have to have weapons to thwart attacks. Ultimately, this would be a short-term solution (attackers will just bring more/higher powered ships), but perhaps enough to allow players flexibility in how they start their games (not being forced to focus 100% on military from turn 1).

Point 3, I think, is very interesting. I like the idea of lower maintenance when docked--maybe not free maintenance--but in any case, a nice, subtle way to encourage keeping ships docked.

Only skimmed the thread so probably covered in some respect before but:

Even without hyperdrive potential space-faring races would have knowledge of how to get into space and how to operate weapons/defenses there.  Having the game start you without any military capability makes no sense to me.  Allow me to put weapons on the starport AND ships but basically they will be pretty much useless except for defending system assets (startports and starbases) since they won't have sensors, hyperdrive, or life support.

If you must add realism then those people starting as a pacifist race - without any weapons capabilities - and discovering the Drengin next door are supposed to and going to lose - unless a quick alliance (or just AI goodwill) with another military power can be made quickly enough to save you.

Yes, I know the game is not chess, nor starcraft. But there are similarities to both. Each are a strategy game (including Gal Civ). Starcraft gives the ability to build up troops and defenses to destroy the enemy, similar to Gal Civ. There are other overarcing similarities that I could mention, but that is not the point of the analogy.

My point is that with or without star ports the point that Drengin has guns in the beginning forces the condition you mention. It is not going to be a product of whether or not your star-port has or does not have defenses. Whether you have a star-port or don't have a star-port. This is where I'm confused as to why people are so focused on the star-port as being the problem that needs to be adjusted.

You are missing the point and failing to address the example I provided.  Since your only avenue of expansion is starport and if starports are basically defenseless what happens when it gets destroyed by a single enemy fighter attack in the very first turns of the game and you get camped?  At that point it doesn't matter how cheap starports are because every new starport you build will immediately be destroyed by a simple enemy ship.  The enemy will be able to destroy all your new starports with impunity and expand while preventing you from expansion which means you lose.  This is why what you propose is a terrible idea.  Because it reduced an otherwise grand strategy game that would last for thousands of turns into a simple one of early game rush focused on military tech.

Camping wasn't really an issue in gal civ 2 since each planet itself is an unsinkable starport until it is invaded and successful planetary invasion is pretty hard to pull off early games without significant effort so you can easily build new defense ships from planets to counter any long term camping efforts or even just colony ships with alot of engines to outrun any enemy fighters to claim new colonies under their noses.

This is also exactly why civ 5 had the innate city defense and offense feature in order to prevent early game rushes and why a similar feature needs to be implemented for starports in gal civ 3.