Brainstomring: Status of Command Stations

[Draco18s]

Wow, so Faulty Logic lays out why he uses Logi stations over Mil, which I laid out myself not to long ago, and people disagreed with me.

Well then.

[Diazo]

The modular command station has been brought up before and it has also been made clear it is a no-go from a design perspective on the part of the devs.

So, we have the 3 types of command stations we do and need to see what we can do with them.

One thought I had on the logistics was to make it a combat support station without being a direct combat station like the military command is.

A thought I had was something like giving a logistics station a planetary wide repair rate of 0.25 but give it a limitation of not being buildable unless all adjacent systems do not have an AI command station so it has to be build behind the lines.

This totally guts the speed special they currently have and it is not really that great a suggestion, but it shows what I mean by combat support as opposed to direct combat.

Wow, so Faulty Logic lays out why he uses Logi stations over Mil, which I laid out myself not to long ago, and people disagreed with me.

I don't disagree with you, rather I can't as I don't use Log stations so I don't have a point of comparison.

Where I disagree is that the logistics is more useful in a combat system then the military station from a design standpoint. If the logistics station has significantly more military value then the military command station, something's gone wrong somewhere.

D.

[Hearteater]

Agree with Faulty Logic on the usefulness of various CS.  Note that Logistics stations are +Speed so they benefit slower units more than faster units.

At the Mark I level, I think all three CS have uses.  But at the Mark II and III levels, at least in higher difficulty games, you just don't capture enough systems to need that many CS.  I'd say the best change they could receive would be cap reductions with corresponding stat buffs.  Caps of 4 of Mark II, and 2 for Mark III would probably be a better option.

As for each individual CS type at the Mark II+ level:

Economic: These break down to a simple K-cost per increased M+C/sec and are directly comparable to Harvester upgrades.  At current caps, Harvester III works out to be better than Eco CS upgrades in basically all cases, and it doesn't have the opportunity cost of not being able to put a Military or Logistics CS in a system.  Keeping the total cap M+C output the same for Eco CS upgrades but lower the caps to 4 and 2 would actually make Eco CS slightly better than Harvesters for small empires.  I still feel they might be a little weak, but at least they'd be usable.  Maybe a Construction Bonus to all Build Queues in the system would be good.

Military: Oddly this is really a stalling CS, not a combat one.  I think I'd really prefer if Translocation shots went to a forth CS type (maybe even move to the Warp Jammer CS?) and the Miltary CS got a more meaningful combat attack like long range missiles.  Then Mark II and III could expand its combat ability more.  So Mark II might get AOE missiles (aka, Grenade Launchers) and Mark III Engine Damage added (remember, the cap would be 2).  Mark II and III benefits could be reversed.

Logistics: The upgrades here are a little spotty.  I'd inclined to think at Mark II giving it a +x% engine damage boost (like attack boost, but only applies to engine damage) might be interesting and in theme.  Mark III's anti-teleport is nice, but maybe another defensive like Absorb EMP or even prevents enemy tractor beams from working.

Warp Jamming: If this got the Translocation shots, it would fit perfectly with its use as a stalling/satellite CS.

[Cinth]

I just don't like the translocating shots from Mil CS, so I never use them. I play single choke layouts starting at mid AIP so I don't need Logistics either. So it leaves me with only Econs. Any cap on the higher ranks would significantly nerf my m+c econ and  the strength of that really determines how far or how much AIP I can accumulate over the course of the game.

[Mánagarmr]

The trans shots of the mil station is one of its more useful features when it comes to placing it on islands or open border worlds. It's capable of dealing with a rather substantial border trickle before it gets overwhelmed.

[Diazo]

That actually synergizes quite well with the mini-fort as the mini-fort has a 2,000 longer range then the translocating shots so that trickle of ships dies faster. At least the Mk I station. The Mk II and III stations have a longer range then the mini-fort.

That actually gives a boost to the Mk I stations over the II and III stations oddly enough.

D.

[Draco18s]

Wow, so Faulty Logic lays out why he uses Logi stations over Mil, which I laid out myself not to long ago, and people disagreed with me.

I don't use Log stations

That is what I'm saying.  You don't use Logistics stations, I do.  I said, "I use logistic stations for  my outer worlds because of the speed difference" and people came along and said "BUT MILITARY IS BETTER THERE."

So yes, you do in fact disagree with me, otherwise you'd be using Logistics stations.

[Cinth]

The trans shots of the mil station is one of its more useful features when it comes to placing it on islands or open border worlds. It's capable of dealing with a rather substantial border trickle before it gets overwhelmed.

I don't keep a large front against the AI. One or two planets is all I would ever want.

And translocating shots are the last thing I ever want to have on my team. A lot of times I'll place long ranged units on the far side of the planet. I don't want something popping up in the middle of them, ever.

I'm not saying Mil CS aren't useful. Just that I want the enemy right where it is, not scattered to the four corners.

[Hearteater]

When using Mil stations, you place your long-range stuff right next to the Mil CS.  A Mil CS + 5-10 Spider turrets can hold against an amazing amount of stuff.  Again, you put the Spider turrets right next to the Mil CS Force Field, or even under it if the AI has too many long-range units.  Engine Damage isn't reduced by being under Force Fields.

[Cinth]

Me thinks folks forget the way my games tend to go

I know how to use them (thanks to reading AARs). I just don't like that mechanic. Preference on my part, sure, but I don't discount them just because they don't suit me

[Mánagarmr]

I don't keep a large front against the AI. One or two planets is all I would ever want.

And translocating shots are the last thing I ever want to have on my team. A lot of times I'll place long ranged units on the far side of the planet. I don't want something popping up in the middle of them, ever.

I'm not saying Mil CS aren't useful. Just that I want the enemy right where it is, not scattered to the four corners.

Which is why I mentioned island or open border worlds I wouldn't want anything less than a Mk III mil station on my whipping boy. But there it's more for the turret boost than trans shots. The idea is that they aren't supposed to reach the station on the whipping boy

[Cinth]

Fortresses. Lots and lots of Fortresses

On a side note, I wouldn't have even posted since I do a lot of beach head blockades and those don't get any commands, but the strength of my game is tied up in the strength of my econ. I just don't care for low AIP play at all and it seems like a lot of the discussion here is centered around that style of play. I'll just chime in to remind you all that high AIP players might be a minority, but we play too

[Mánagarmr]

Hey! I'm a semi-high AIP player too I've only just set my feet into 8+ diff, so

[Cinth]

I've had a stable front at 400 AIP in a 10/10. Wish I could push it higher... might need a better map.

[Kahuna]

I've had a stable front at 400 AIP in a 10/10. Wish I could push it higher... might need a better map.

Let me guess.. you're not playing with 1 home planet?