I'd say they are more vulnerable to space attack, myself - being smaller than a starbase, an orbital outpost can be destroyed much easier. While starbase shielding at such a position helps admittedly, a determined attack against an orbital outpost could at the least severely cripple most of an affiliation's maintenance/repair capability.

Perhaps "Orbital Lifts"?

Isn't that a good thing though? It would seem to me to be a little unfair to allow players the position of assumeing all docking craft that aren't allies can be attacked, if they also offer r&r and maintence and the like to third parties.

Of course there is always the arguement that the 100k strong force armed to the teeth with battletanks probably isn't there on hoilday.

Yes, and this would allow the whole issue of enemy landings and maintenance to be seperated:

At the moment, a starbase could have 'All KRT' on it's GROUND enemy list, because they worry about an an invasion. But are also openly offering maintenance at $75 per patch, to attract some refit business.

At the moment, the KRT land, and are wiped out.

If orbital docks allowed maintenence without landing, they would get maintenence, as intended, and not be subject to an ambush attack by the starbase.

It would even be good, in my opinion, if orbitals docks allowed, or even demanded, ships be built in orbit. It seems a bit nonsensical to build even a broadsword say - in the order of 60,000 tonnes of ship - to be build on the ground rather than in space, and then lifted up in giant ship-lifts, because they cant take off on their own, rather than being built in orbit like in every sci-fi film I've ever seen.

Being outside starbase sheilds, shipbuilding might be more vulnerable - therefore more realistic, perhaps?

TonyH

That seems more like security over realism than anything else, if you offer open access to r&r then why couldn't I dock an armed force without tripping any potential invasion (which is how it currently is).

Also the starbase is on the ground not in space, so unless your shipyards were in space (along with all of the other things you'd need) then you've lost the realism of building ships in orbit.

The outpost concept covers all of that without problems.

I am proposing something that is less secure... for those that have some, but less than total, security now, anyway.

Orbital docks... It depends how you visualize it: The 'Shipyard' complexes would be supplying the hulls, armour, internals to wherever the ship was being built - either the ground 'dock' as now, or an orbital dock.

I find this an easier concept to visualize than a ship being constructed on the ground, in a gravity field of anything up to 5g, and then having to be lifted into orbit by a big crane... which would only take ten complexes for a 250-hull ship, weighing A hundred-thousand tonnes in published in-game equivalences.
If this is what I'm being asked to accept... the possibilities are interesting - turning the shiplift complexes off when the damn thing is only a few kilometers up, for one. A fifty kilotonne ton space ship with thrust engines which cant lift it in the gravity field should make quite a hole in most starbases, even if at only a few hundred meteres per second.

As opposed to visualizing the guy in the space-suit waving the 'Enterprise' off from the proper 'orbital dock' in the film Star Trek. And, If anyone say that Phoenix is not Star trek, I have another thread in mind. Building on the ground would still be possible - as long as you put enough lift capacity in the ship to launch it; ether specced in, or temporarily added.


Recreation complexes - I hadn't considered. Allow those also to be interacted with, without landing, through orbital docks then (They'd better have a 'ship size' limit, rather than a capacity limit, like shuttleports, otherwse you'd need dozens and dozens of the things... on the other hand, is that a problem )

TonyH

Hmm, you see shipyard, to me, impiles where the ship is constructed. Much like the difference between where a naval craft is produced and where it berths. These would have to be huge workshops with the various tools and machines to seal hulls and plates together.

From such a view they'd have to exist in either orbit or on the ground and the ship could only be built on one of those two ways.

Another point, a complex is rated as something like 1000mus, that would be a lot of thrusters, plenty enough to lift 25hulls of ship, if you ignore the fact 1 million ships could use it in the same turn.

Definitions can be made more precise... and are not structly right anyway. A 'shipyard' is the whole place, as far as I'm aware; like 'Rosyth Dockyard', or 'New London navel base'. I think the things are actually built, repaired or just parked up for reloading/refuelling, in berths, maybe?

If the ship can land/takeoff under it's own thrust, these could just be considered to be a patch of starport, with plenty of builders scaffolding and 13-amp sockets available. If in space, they would be considered to be part of your 'Orbital dock' complex, of which you always have sufficient privided your orbital dock itself can handle ships of that size (i.e. have enough station-keeping tractor beams to cope with x hulls). Space is BIG. Even orbital space (and starports, remember).

OK, but a 1000 MU (3-4 thousand tonne) shuttleport complex, can only shift 1,000 MU's. If a single orbital dock complex is currently lifting 25 hulls (= 4-5,000 MU's), dozens or hundreds of times a week, why arnt we using those to lift cargo to orbit, and back?

Granted, we already ignore the infinite capacity of Hiports (now pretty derisory - hiports used to be an UNDERTAKING), but we should be working to reduce these gross oversimplifications, not using them as justification for more.

TonyH

Well a shuttle port would have to include shuttle mass etc, but I see you point. Maybe orbital docks should only be able to move about 10 hulls (based on 10 hulls x 100mus). On the other hand an orbital dock can only go from ground to orbit, shuttleports can deliver anywhere on planet or on associated moons. Specialisation would result in some extra capacity like that.

Regardless the scale is incorrect somewhere.

I'm still not convinced on the concept of splitting the starbase into inorbit/onground when you could just have two positions (starbase and outpost). Simiply due to the complexities in targeting (a split base would be effectivly two sepearate positions anyway, like a platform and uplink control)

They are split somehow already - if you require dome complexes, some complexes are 'inside', and some 'outside' and dont take up dome capacity. A similar flag to say they outside shield cover would be needed too, perhaps?

Under my casual assessment, shipyards would still be 'in' and orbital docks 'out' - but the ship itself would be created in orbit, and if part-built, would be destroyed if the orbital dock was destroyed.

And... it adds to realism. Why do we HAVE platforms, when the role could be filled by outposts, in orbit, instead? A whole element of the game which is totally uneccessary if a crude approximation is good enough.

TonyH

Outposts can't replace platforms, for one i'm not even sure outposts in space can attack anymore. Also they handle items differently and can go anywhere not just in orbit. Granted you could fix that to some degree but platforms are more on the ship side than the outpost side.

There isn't any reason you couldn't merge them, and I dissagree that a split starbase adds realism over two seperate positions. In fact i'd go the other way and make everything internal and limit hiports and orbital docks on a mu/hulls per week count like everything else.

I've heard this is true... but why? It's a simple rules 'flag' with no justifiction I've ever heard... and I only heard that orbital outposts cant shoot, recently. What 'realism' aspect is there to it? Do missile launchers fail to exist if placed in an orbital outpost? It cant be the lack of gravity upsetting the mechanism, they work fine in platforms. (This is a rhetorical question... I can make something up, thanks... spin-induced gravity perhaps? ).

Outposts could replace platform, if wanted. No the real reason that we have platforms, and space outposts cant shoot, is purely mechanistic - you'd be able to put a single comand complex in orbit and it would have an unlimited capacity to hold weapons and sheilds, and be able to outfight any ship. That's why I dont propose removing any restrictions on space outposts being able to fight. Because it's a loophole wich many, many players would exploit.

I disagree. I could put an outpost in orbit to build ships, yes. But it wouldn't be able to defend itself, and wouldn't be effectively defended by the 'Parent' starbase defences and sheilds, either. [Thinking about it, I not being able to put shipyards, and some other bits such as highports, beneath any starbase sheilding would be the way to go] And, 'seperate', but still part, is how I'd prefer to visualize my main starbase and shipyard, so we're going to just have to leave it at 'difference of opinion noted'.

I'm proposing this change because I like it, it is superior to the 'outpost' idea, and increases the... believability on one side of the game that I play; shipbuilding. Presumably just as much as the tweaking the combat side of the game has done for the people who play that side of the game. SOME (not accusing anyone) seem to want to keep the shipbuilding, colony management and trade sides of the game 'simple' so they can engage in combat without having to think about them, and not be at a disadvantage for doing so.

Which is why Phoenix is largely, and increasingly, a fleet combat game, with other minor elements tagged on. And proposing game changes is a waste of time because the only possible game change in the next eighteen months will probably be some urgently needed change to nova beam weaponry.

I shall move my posts to the 'how many angels can dance on the head of a pin' forum - more applicability

TonyH

I believe it was that weapons need to be mounted, recoil and the like, hulls are designed for it in space. On the ground this isn't an issue. One of the other suggestions, which personally I prefered, was a naval complex which would allow weapon mountings.

Isn't that fairly realisitic though, depending on how far shields can cover, what would be the 'spread' of a split starbase? And argueably isn't orbit to ground much further than from sector to sector? The starbase should still be able to shoot at whatever is attacking the outpost though (geo-syncronous orbit?)

I agree, hopefully the infrastructure changes will go a long way to fixing this.