" Starbases should build their own modules"

+1 for this.

I'd rather just have the starbase allow me to 'order' the modules I want from the list and then summon the necessary constructors, tbh. Do that and remove the 'basic' versions, and we get the best of both worlds; those who want to automate it can just lay out what they want the starbase to become on placement, while those who like constructors can continue to tailor them as they do presently.

Good proposal - if you happen to have several constructors sitting around doing nothing, just point them to the star base and the SB's build queue would use the constructor.  You would run into a possible situation however that a constructor is seeking shelter from an enemy fleet at a star base, and dont want it to use the constructor points at that time.  Perhaps a "pause build queue" option per star base could be the simple solution to this possible scenario.

Besides just summoning constructors, I still feel you should have control over where the constructors are coming from (pick the shipyard) and exactly which constructors to build.  As of now, the only empire wide shipyard view on the right info tab doesnt show how many turns of production are currently queued in each ship yard.  If that info was available in the SB menu when requesting a constructor, it would go a long way to making the optimal decision.  

As well, we all build MANY types of constructors.  Range, move, and # of constructor modules can vary greatly.  Such as list would be small, as it would be filtered on your ships that actually have constructor modules.  Being able to pick the constructor type summoned in the SB menu would be needed IMO.

Do we? I generally just use the best one that's available, based on the modified blueprint I use. The main reason for having half a dozen variants is due to the base model and the blueprint being fairly awful.

I don't disagree with letting you pick the 'favoured constructor' module, or picking a shipyard to male the constructors, but I genuinely don't use more than 1 version of my constructor ship on purpose at any given tech level in the majority of games. Just having the 'basic' version work as a blueprint (one that wasn't designed by someone with a strange fetish for life support modules and an aversion to engines) rather than a flat ship type would probably suffice, tbh.

You totally read my mind and agree.  Question:  how have you modified the blueprint now that summon calls the "basic constructor" which afaik can't be upgraded as tech progresses.

Before the "basic constructor"  IMPROVEMENT  , i had a modified constructor that worked great >best single engine, no life, no sensors, and as many constructor modules as will fit.   It worked great and took away much of the spam pains.

Agreed that most constructors fall into the design of "best single engine, no life, no sensors, max constructors", but there are scenarios where you might not want to follow that design:

-starbase is in contested enemy territory, where more engine speed drastically improves its chance of survival to the starbase.

-the shipyards near your starbase are soley focusing on military vessels, and the only avail shipyard is very far away, hence you might sacrifice 1 constructor for more engines

-you may only need 1 constructor for a very long time (a single SB scenario, not a cluster of SBs in which a multi-constructor is often used)

Granted, these still are not the common use.  Perhaps allow one to select as I have proposed, but also allow an option to disable this per starbase and select a "preferred" constructor design.  The preferred constructor selection would be an empire wide decision, not a per starbase decision.

 Agree with you on all points.  the 'exception' scenarios is where i would do designs to fit the need.  Wouldn't it be nice if you only had to design the exceptions and the most common use auto evolved .

Yes, but the evolution algorithm would then later be a source of debate.   Better to allow you to choose it, after you decide to design your next line of common constructors.  A few added button clicks every few dozen turns would be a nice compromise to snuff that issue before it even starts.

I didn't I have to manually queue them up and just assign them to a rally point next to a Starbase like everyone else. I don't mind too much, tbh - by the time they next request my attention, I they're 1 move away and I can quickly check the area to see what I want the starbase to do. 

And Dan - the point is, those are very definite exceptions. Even the most militant hater of starbase construction can probably cope with manually dealing with that particular base (in exactly the manner I presently do for ALL starbases   ), if he's going to go to the effort of designing a constructor specifically for it.

One thing that would hugely help with the starbase spam is to make mining rings work like the Xeno-Archaeology line. I.e. can fit on any base. Then you'd see a lot less starbase spam because you could cover the same ground more efficiently. I'm not honestly sure why their separate. Lets be fair even a fully upgraded starbase has crap for defences so it's basically helpless in an actual fight they seem to be there to limit the power required to kill them, not make them tough on their own. So i don't see any mechanical issues with them working that way. Anyway think of any mechanics that would break down?

You know there is a mod out there to do this..  Haven't tried it yet but planning to

Just to pipe up, I build lots of different types of constructors.  I build double constructors, triple constructors, far constructors, fast constructors, and cheep constructors.  One faction has two cheep constructors pre-designed.  One is based on a cargo hull, and a cheeper constructor becomes available with small hulls and some miniaturization.  When the cheeper constructor becomes available, I obsolete the first one and make the new one the default minimum constructor.  Some constructors chase relics.  Others fill in economic starbases.  If I ever find a real use for military starbases, there will be a category of constructors called camp followers, constructors who can keep up with a moving fleet.

I do a similar thing with transports and how many transport modules or engines they have.  There are only  three design variants for colony ships, minimum, fast, and far. 

No idea if any of this is useful in my games, but it feels so.  My point is that indeed some people do design and fiddle with constructors.  No idea how many, but at least one. 

Tried it myself, it;s not a cure all but it really cuts down on the spam. But as Naseulus has noted i'm sure i'm quite big on not messing with intended mechanical aspects of the game, i'm just not sure if there's a specific mechanical reason to keep them separated.

Yeah military bases are just so Pathetic. the radius is too small to be useful, that's the issue, military bases probably need a separate extra military starbase specific radius of effect enhancer and much better specialised defensive upgrades.

That's one of the first changes I implemented tbh. I think it's fine to either have mutually-exclusive rings OR the exclusion range, but both is just overkill.

those are some really good ideas though I think military star bases would be a bit more useful if they could:

A : Militarily support the planets under their influence and not just the players ships

B : Allow for a setting of space superiority and promote an area of enemy free or at least a support for a DMZ fortification

C : Be allowed to upgrade into a Star Destroyer with a slow speed of movement but the ability to level or destroy planets or suns at the expense of the station 

                     because of the sun blowing up.....

D : and be able to deconstruct station rings or modules from the station instead of needing to completely decommission the station entirely