Starbase module limit law is too harsh . . .

from GalCiv2 Forums
Does anybody else dread seeing this law come up at the UP? While I find many of the proposals there to be far too trivial (anomaly rights anyone?) I think this one is just over the top.

There seem to be two versions of this particular law. The lesser version comes with a three year expiration date, so as much as I hate it I at least have the option of riding it out. The other version is the really nasty one since it stays in effect permanently, and its passage at a limit of two or four modules has prompted me to withdraw from the UP immediately on more than one occasion. Such a low module limit effectively renders new starbases completely useless except as refueling stations (unless you think your 5% econ bases are hot stuff), and this is a real shame since starbases are such an important and well-integrated part of the game.

Also, I'm under the impression that the law is intended to be used by weaker civilizations as a weapon to chip away at the power of the stronger ones. However, in practice it really just screws the weaker ones over. By the time this law shows up the strong civs have alread fortified their positions and established their bases of industry and economy, and since the law isn't retroactive its passage drives a permament wedge between those nations that have already built up their empires and those that haven't. Furthermore, the strong nations are usually in the best position to ram its passage through the UP if they wish. Still, I'm not really sure how the AI actually decides how to vote on this one . . .

I think a *much* more fair implementation would be a tax on all starbase modules in excess of the given limit. Such a law would correctly penalize the nations already possessing starbase networks while keeping the door open for other civs to construct their own.

I love this game though . . . I just think this particular law needs another look . . .
6,202 views 11 replies
Reply #1 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
I don't like it, not as a mechanics problem in the game, but as a strategic problem; that said it is a game challenge for me that forces me to try new strategies.

Regardless, I'd vote to keep it.
Reply #2 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
since I am not planning on install beta version, but I have been exercise my strategies with the rule in the 1.0x in order to get myself a new overall strategy so I can jump in once the official update release. I could say, with the rule it will be less effective, but there are ways to overcome the problem by learning more about the game, I think, it help us grow!
ObjectDock - Access shortcuts and frequently used applications from an animated dock.
Reply #3 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
So just dick your way around it. Build your constructors, put them near the starbases you want to improve, leave the UP, improve the bases, then rejoin (assuming you can rejoin). It will suck to have to rebuild your trade routes, but it can be dealt with.

And misery loves company. As soon as that law is passed, destroy every well developed starbase you can find.

END COMMUNICATION
Reply #4 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
makes the game interesting..
Reply #5 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
Lord Z hit the nail on the head.
Reply #6 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
You can rejoin the UP? I thought once you left you were out for good.

Anyway, I don't dislike the potential for limiting starbases in general though. It does add a different spin on the game, and I suppose I can deal with that.

Still, I wonder if the AI understands the ramifications of passing it. Using it to keep me from going for an influence victory by spamming influence bases across the galaxy makes good strategic sense. It also makes sense to enact it if I'm working on laying down a military base backbone throughout their empires . However, using it to rein me in once I already have a large starbase network in place seems foolish to me. Sure I can't pump out even more bases now, but unless the other civs have equally big networks established they've lost a lot more potential economic and military power than I have. The only thing they accomplish is freezing the status quo . . . a move not likely to be to their benefit when they're lagging behind.

Anyway, the point of my rambling is that although the law is phrased in a way that suggests it favors the weaker races, depending on the circumstances it might actually take away one of their better chances of making a comeback (like mass producing econ bases to try to build up a competitive industry or defending their turf from superior invaders using military bases).

Admittedly I haven't really paid attention to how the AI votes on this particular law . . . I'm usually too busy cursing and switching production from constructors to my nastiest warships. If they don't want my shopping malls maybe they'll be happier sucking on the business end of my disrupter beams?
Reply #7 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
My question is what will happen if a starship with the speed of 1 parsec comes within the range of a starbase with an interdiction beam.
Reply #8 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
I've never had it pass - every Empire voted against it the times it's come up in the UP.

I find the UP meets way too infrequently, myself.
Reply #9 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
i agree with eratosthenes...

any way to increase the freqeuncy of events???
Reply #10 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
ive noticed that the UP has regular revotes on this proposition and the one about evil trade routs. ive seldome had to endure a SB limit for more than 2-3 years. even the 'perminent' one.

given the fact that in the 1.X build and lower the AI doesnt upgrade SB worth a damn, i would seem to be aimed at the heart of the human players.

wate and see maybe it will get fixed. if the AI actualy upgrad their SBs in the patch (as promiced) it would be a much more interesting proposition. as it is now , no one gets really hurt but the human players
Reply #11 from GalCiv2 Forums Top


"I find the UP meets way too infrequently, myself. "


Agreed. Seems like a long time between sessions, but then I've just started playing.