Yes, they can be built both ways, but that doesn't mean they should be mobile, especially at 1 parsec per week.  That's hyperspace travel.  

I think a better system would be to make starports an upgrade ring on starbases, there's really no reason to separate them into two distinct entities.

You can do all that without having mobile starports.  Just send constructors to build them.  Every upside to mobile starports can be accomplished by just sending constructors.  It just makes no sense to me that starports (that are really just starbases that build ships) can zip around the galaxy at hyperdrive speed.  They should be treated exactly as starbases.

I can understand this view.  I tend to see starports as starbases that build ships, like the Utopia Planitia shipyard in Star Trek.

A forward base or centralized stardock makes sense, but my assumption was that the farther it was from the support planet(s) the less building capability the stardock had so you may end up with having to have it near your planets anyway in order to build anything in a useful timeframe. Unless you buy them...hmmm.

--David

Why?

Since starports are currently unarmed and have minimal/no upkeep, there's little reason to limit yourself to one starport, and plenty of reasons not to.

Redundancy: if your forward starport meets an unfortunate end, you can switch production to the ones a few sectors back and carry on production without a hitch.

Efficiency: paying to run a 100+ point manufacturing planet, only to get 5 points of that manufacturing as usable output at a distant starport makes very little economic sense.

Output: using multiple starports allows you to build many more ships at a time. The less-well-supported ones can still build light ships, transports, constructors, etc. and have those ships move to the front faster than trying to build all of them out of one port sequentially.

You can already build starports from constructors. I just checked that in the game (didn't pay attention to this before), so leaving them move, therefore is just an extra bonus to the starports.

I think it is easier to make the starports move than have the player build one from a planet, then open up the galaxy screen to select a spot to build one, and then accept the move. So, for UI purposes it is nicer to have them just move.

Also, we do not know if they are going to add an upkeep to the starports, where if you have x number of starports then production is lower.

Also, constructors can be expensive and therefore I would have to design a cheap version and leave it in my build menus in order to build near my planets and not have it cost me too much to make. Leaving it the current way is a clean UI and leaving the movement allows for adjustments to the starports.

This isn't really all that much of an issue if the invasion mechanics work out to a similar balance to that seen in GCII. If you can secure control of the space around the colony, the colony will eventually be taken; the only question is how much it'll cost.

The issue that concerns people is the ease with which you can theoretically permanently secure space supremacy by an early rush that takes out the shipyard, after which point all you need to do is park a fighter or two by each of your opponent's colonies and destroy new shipyards as they're completed. It doesn't matter how many invasions your worlds can hold off if you have no way to ever even attempt to break your opponent's space supremacy. There may also be an underlying question of whether or not in-space shipyards are too rewarding for the player who manages to take out a large number of these in one fell swoop against a distracted or inadequately prepared opponent, but most of what is being discussed pertains to the early game.

Additionally, given that the issue under discussion is the early-game balance implications, planet-based defenses are unlikely to be an adequate counter. If I don't get rushed, building these kinds of structures early was a waste of time and money which could have been better spent setting up proper infrastructure, while if I do get rushed and lose my shipyard(s) and enough of my fleet to be unable to push my opponent out, then I'm effectively out of the game and it's only a matter of time until one of my opponents finishes the job even if I do build the planetary defenses, unless my opponents happen to get distracted fighting one another and afford me the opportunity to rebuild, which is somewhat unlikely since all it takes to keep me out of the game is a single tiny hull with one point of attack for every couple of my colonies (dependent on spacing and fighter move actions). In short, planetary defense structures are only useful if I can expect to hold out long enough to regain control of the space around my colony or colonies. In the situation under discussion, this simply will not happen barring a turn of events which pulls my opponent's forces away from my worlds for a long enough time period for me to build a shipyard and at least a small fleet, and by the time such an event comes to pass I may possibly have been set far enough behind everyone else to have little real chance at winning the game anyways, depending on just how early and how successful the rush was and how long my opponent was able to block me in. Even if I can render my worlds effectively impregnable, at least for a time, to the person who rushed me, they don't really need to take my worlds immediately to gain a benefit from what they've done, because they just took me out of the colony race and they've made it so that they'll only ever need a minor military commitment to keep me out of the picture. Worse is that there's not really a good reason for anyone to really come to my aid if I do lose my shipyard(s) and fleet to a rush; while it's in no one's interest to see me swallowed up by a single enemy empire, I'm also likely not in a position to be an ally of worthwhile strength were I given the opportunity to recover, and so it may be at least as worthwhile to jump in to steal the rusher's prizes as to help me get my empire back on its feet; alternatively, the other neighboring empires could be spending their resources grabbing colonizable worlds to secure a lead over both myself and the rusher. Either way, planetary defenses don't help me fend off a rush or help me recover from it, they just increase the amount of time and effort I can force my opponent to expend before they get to reap the rewards of a successful rush.

Now on to the topic of desirability of movement for starbases

As I said before I'm all for it and here are the reasons why...

1) First and foremost is that there is a cap in the number of starbases you can have/support at any one time!!!

I found this out when I played game on a large map with no habitable planets... I used starbases to extend my influence/boarders and I also attempted to monopolize the resources... when I attempted to build one starbase too many, I could not... I had the constructor but the constructor would not transform into a starbase... turns out that I had insufficient 'logistics'!

I have not checked if starbase logistics is linked to fleet logistics, at this time I think they are different caps but both related to the logistic techs... (and I don't know if starports count against the starbase cap, but I'm assuming so) if so then the cap(s) can be raised...

2) Next, starbases are used to mine resources, what if certain (if not all) resources are exhaustible!!

The underling assumption of 'build it, park it, use it' for the lifetime of the game is now a fallacy... moving to the next closest resource becomes a very valid strategy (if it were available)...

3) Finally, constructors are relatively more expensive in gc iii than in gc ii, constructors now are equal in cost to a colony ship!

So even though it appears that it takes fewer constructors to upgrade a gc iii starbase to equivalent functionality as a gc ii starbase it is probably just as expensive (or even more)... therefor, a more economical strategy for deploying starbases may be to build -> use -> move -> reuse rather than build / use then repeat or the even more wasteful build -> use -> destroy -> build -> use.

Put those three new 'wrinkles' together makes moveable starbases very desirable in my eyes.

For those who feel that warp travel should not be in the base starbase feature set - well can we do "there's a 'module' for that" deal, where the starbase module deploys additional structural integrity and a warp drive?

Besides, no self respecting emperor bent on galactic domination that I know would pass up the chance to build a 'deathstar', or a 'basestar', or a 'battlestar' (which is, imho, nothing more than a super carrier) in addition to all the carriers, battleships, etc. that the empire could support

Bet they don't ask, what am I going use this for before they build it - they just build it and use it for what they use everything for... galactic domination

Here's to me being the first in MY galaxy to get one !

-David S.

Hyperdrive in this game is not speed it is the folding of space. The speed is conventional and the folded space makes it so the ship doesn't travel the excess distance between folding. It is not like faster than light travel.

Because...?

That is somewhat backwards from reality where some types of military bases are constructed and then perhaps abandoned or moved closer to the front lines or more important areas while ship building yards or shipping ports are static (and juicy targets.)

--David

I know they do, but why?  Maybe a dev could chime in with the thought process behind this decision.  Why should that starbase move (and it really is just a starbase that builds ships) and no other?

I don't think this is how it works.  Otherwise on the game screen, your unit would wink out and then reappear somewhere else.  But they move in a traditional way...1 parsec (about 3.5 light years) per week.

I actually do like the mobility. I will often look at my empire and optimize where I should put a Starport so I can send production to it. What is the decrease in production against distance from Sponsoring planet? The red number does not indicate if the planet is actually contributing.

In any event I play some games where I can have 5 or even 7 planets sponsor 1 starport. This in turn has that port cranking out ships nearly every turn. 

+2 coppers...