| Author |
"Fortress Planet" Can it be built? |
DMC-13
Admiral
Evil Empires Inc.
Joined: February 16, 2008
Posts: 187
From: Huntington Beach, California, USA
|  Posted: 2008-03-19 14:57
I've really gotten into the engineering aspect of DarkSpace and since the bombing and capture of planets seems to be done rather quickly and easily, I was wondering if a "Fortress Planet" could be built to withstand or nullify the constant bombing which takes place? If so, I'd appreciate the information or "blueprint" on how to build one quickly and efficiently for each of the factions. If not, then what would be the quickest and best defensive set up to build for each of the factions? Also, I would like to know if the new patch could include the option to build a "Fortress Planet"?
My idea is that the "Fortress Planet" would have an extended range for sensors and defences compared to regular planets and would be impervious to bombing and would only receive a small amount of damage from Carrier based long range fighters. Only the long range Sensor/anti-sensor ships would be able to confuse/counteract the planets sensors. Now I'm not talking about making it totally invincible. My idea to capture one of these "Fortress Planets" would not be by bombing it to death. Instead, it would be a group effort consisting of Escort ships, Carrier ships, long range Sensor/anti-sensor ships, Scouts, Supply ships and Troop Transports. The Scouts would keep an eye out for enemy ships. The Escort ships would intercept enemy ships and/or defend the Carriers, Supply and Sensor/anti sensor ships from being attacked. The Supply ships would of course resupply everyone. Long range Sensor/anti sensor ships would counteract/confuse the planets sensors while the Carriers launch fighters which occupy/distract the planets defences. Both of these ships working together with a Supply ship would enable Troop Transports to sneak in and drop Infantry creating a "ground war" which would be the only way to capture this type of planet. The capture of this "Fortress Planet" would then depend on the amount of troops dropped verses the amount of troops stationed there along with the status of all troops involved, such as Elite, Heavy or Standard. Since the maximum amount of troop units able to be stationed on a planet is 32, only 32 opposing troop units can be dropped. When the amount of invading troop units gets below 32, more can be dropped. With a constant siege from the long range Sensor/anti sensor ships, Carriers and Troop Transports, the "Fortress Planet" would eventually be captured with all defences intact and operational thus making it a rare and valuable prize. In theory, you wouldn't need the Scout or Escort ships to capture this planet but then you would be leaving yourself open for an attack from the faction that controls the "Fortress Planet". To minimize the exploitation of this type of planet being built, each system according to it's size would only be allowed a set number of "Fortress Planets" and all the planets within the system must be controlled or captured first before any can be built.
Now I'm not a military tactician and there are probably some flaws to the above mentioned scenario. This is just an idea which could be expanded on and maybe in the future be incorporated into the game. Other than that, I actually just wanted to know the answers to the questions contained in the first paragraph of this post.
Sincerely,
DMC-13
_________________
|
Smartin
Grand Admiral
Joined: August 04, 2005
Posts: 1107
From: Michigan
| Posted: 2008-03-19 15:02
Here's the long and short of it. There really is no such thing as a fortress planet currently that I am aware of. As for the questions about the future patch here is the Development Log for 484. Not to far down the list you will see all the current changes that have been made to bombing.
_________________
DarkSpace Community Website
|
Doran
Chief Marshal
Galactic Navy
Joined: March 29, 2003
Posts: 4032
From: The Gideon Unit
| Posted: 2008-03-19 15:13
Quote:
|
On 2008-03-19 14:57, DMC-13 wrote:
impervious to bombing
|
|
[in the current version]
no one single planet's going to take a fleet, regardless of how well its built. a couple bombers, supply for each bomber, and maybe a ecm boat or two. bombing is currently such that you dont need a fleet, even large clusters like maurbon can be felled by a few ships. too, teamwork is so lacking you're unlikely to have that much organization to get a large cohesive fleet, even if there's that many players on.
nobody flys transports anymore either, not in the mv anyway, so dumping tranny load after tranny load of inf isnt really feasable. and bombs simply negate the need for it.
yeah it'd be nice if that worked, and in 484 it might, as we'll be closer to what we had in the past, bombing wise. but not as things are now
_________________
|
DarkScorpion
Marshal
Sanity Assassins
Joined: September 14, 2004
Posts: 237
From: London England
| Posted: 2008-03-19 15:13
with bomber dreads around as they are no the never will be such planets
_________________
|
DMC-13
Admiral
Evil Empires Inc.
Joined: February 16, 2008
Posts: 187
From: Huntington Beach, California, USA
| Posted: 2008-03-19 15:51
Ok, thanks. I guess the "Fortress Planet" and having a "ground war" to capture it wasn't really a very good idea. I'd still like to know what's the best defence setup and the quickest way to build it for each of the factions.
DMC-13
_________________
|
Bardiche
Chief Marshal
Joined: November 16, 2006
Posts: 1247
| Posted: 2008-03-19 17:11
My own planets are often ineffective against bomber attacks and tend to deal little damage. Although I have no definite setup yet for most types, I do have my Barren standard type setup already. While I do not want to share my Barren build setups with just about everyone (even though Neuting shows you how I build, throwing it all out here would make it just easier if you know how/what I build), but I'll PM you my findings. (:
Generally I tend to save on Shields/Sensors and go for as many guns as possible.
_________________
|
DMC-13
Admiral
Evil Empires Inc.
Joined: February 16, 2008
Posts: 187
From: Huntington Beach, California, USA
| Posted: 2008-03-19 17:58
Bardiche, thanks. I usually try to do the same thing too. I try to place as many lvl3 defence bases as I can, then drop to lvl2 bases. I also try to add a couple of fighter bases as well but it just doesn't seem to do any good. I think I'm building them wrong. I also place 1 shield (when I'm ICC), 1 dictor, 1 depot and a couple of sensors. Would more sensors help? I,ve seen some planets with 5 or 6 sensors on them.
_________________
|
Delando
Marshal
Joined: May 04, 2007
Posts: 260
| Posted: 2008-03-19 18:02
Not really, unless ur planet happen to be in a nebula, then ur want to counter for it's sig damping effects. 1 sensor for each side of the planet should sufice, more would just take away from building slots.
[ This Message was edited by: 1stRA Rick Hunter on 2008-03-19 18:03 ]
_________________
|
Fattierob
Vice Admiral
Joined: April 25, 2003
Posts: 4059
| Posted: 2008-03-19 19:42
Back in the day, infantry coudn't stack on planet squares. So, the smallest possible planet had exactly 32 squares - basically, a "deathstar".
The only way to capture it was to somehow bomb at least one of the structures off the planet, and land inf.
Mind you, these things had like 18 defence stations. And back then, bombing was harder. And defence stations actually did their job.
_________________
|
Fatal Command (CO)
Marshal
Fatal Squadron
Joined: November 27, 2002
Posts: 1158
From: over here in New York noticing some ppl are like canoes.....they need to be paddled.
| Posted: 2008-03-19 22:32
the days of 480 fattie,when bombing required skills and testicular fortitude to bomb a deathstar (which I did very well at and earned 98% of my bombing stats).you couldnt straight on bomb but had to slice the edge and do it with such pricision that turning too early meant a wasted run and too late meant BOOM dead ship.I hope to heaven that 484 is that way,so the bombers of today become the cannon fodder of tomorrow and they will learn real quick,they DONT have bombing skills at all.
_________________
|
LAG
Marshal
Lethal Assault Group
Joined: September 19, 2004
Posts: 323
From: Margaritaville
| Posted: 2008-03-19 22:50
sensor base location is of no relevance, fyi. Regardless of where they are located on the planet, they contribute just the same.
_________________
|
Eledore Massis [R33]
Grand Admiral
Templar Knights
Joined: May 26, 2002
Posts: 2694
From: tsohlacoLocalhost
| Posted: 2008-03-20 01:09
to comment on LAG
If you got a LARGE size planet it matters to a degree.
The sensor basses have a effective range, if you don't plan your planet accordingly you might create a weak spot in the planets early warning system.
Not that this info is no longer of any use in this current version. 
because not being detected for a other 300 gu is not relevant in this version as if you plan correctly you can survive even the best defended planets.
_________________
DS Discordion
|
English
Deutsch
Nederlands
)
