In light of the recent change to probes, I vote for a similarly theme-based change to Sats.

Rapid Fire on Solar Satellites should be removed. In any realistic situation, a ship would be shooting and other ships first, not at the satellites. I've heard that it's a problem when people are crashing Lunar Guardians into your defenses just to take out sats, and it's a bit unfair because it's unlockable. So take off the Shield and attack points that a Solar Sat has and remove it's rapid fire against probes, and take off all rapid fire everything has against it.

to be honest using LG to chip out SATs is actually a good tactics but you do that only a two or three times in your career (when you upgrade your grav techs)

considering how rare the use of that tactic i dont see any reason not to support what ace posted here.

i am ok with SATs having no RF from any ship.

It could also help to end the annoying accidental death of sats during moonshots.

I think crashing LGs on miner/turtle just to take out their solar sats is an effective tactic. Why remove it?
If you hate that happening to you then why not switch to plant based power supply?

I'm more inclined to agree with neoshagrath.
solar sats are a cheap expendable power source which is easy to destroy.

In times of pure war, it makes sense to destroy your enemies solar sats after they go to bed every night.
The idea supports peacetime.
I can almost see the opposite post asking for anything (other than rips) to have rapidfire on solar sats when a full on war breaks out.

It would make more sense to have some manual control over rapidfire but this gives the attacker too much power.

Or perhaps more control over what a built ship has, in other words manually constructing a ship type. <-- this is also the idea of equivalent exchange, for every advantage there is a disadvantage, the final result is summed up by the cost.
If rapidfire is removed against solar sats, I can see them costing about 4x as much to build.

I won't oppose the idea, but probe changes were due to unexpected use of probes (if I am correct) and the changes were balanced (can't raid but doesn't cost deut), this is for convenience, if rapidfire is removed from solar sats then at the least I would like to see their cost go up or their energy yield go down (ratio's would probably take some time to consider).

I don't hate it happening; I have honestly not even built a solar sat since coming back. I just think it would be more fair if nothing had RF against Sats. We've already changed it so that probes so that they do what they're designed for. I mean, the argument you just used, you can't be serious? The plants cost a ton more than the mines they're powering at higher levels. It's impossible. And it's unfair for people who mine and work hard to FS to not be able to protect their sats in ANY way at all. I just feel that if you're gonna crash the sats, you might as well have to destroy the defenses as well.

And in real war you wouldn't be able to fire faster at any one ship than the other, anyway. And more than likely, your government wouldn't sacrifice countless lives just to kill a couple of power producing ships unless it would be catastrophic for the defender's internal systems, not just a slight hindrance. So this isn't really about realism.

you have a fair point from a miners point of view.

this is zorg, i wasn't aware that i was making a link to the real world. Although from my understanding solar sats are satellites, and defences are ground based..

Like i said I'm not opposing the idea but unless the solar sats are currently unbalanced, it would be fair to either reduce their yield or increase their cost.

Perhaps solar sats should be able to be fleetsaved as well? this allows them to be protected. ignoring the impact of having more fodder to send.

My apologies, I misread what you said earlier. I thought it was written "In real warfare", but it seems I can't read. I blame Karroth and dyslexia.

The idea of them being movable makes absolutely no sense to me, but the idea of yours to Nerf them sounds good. Maybe redo the current way of deciding the energy output for sats (the temperature formula and whatever) to include Energy Tech level, but majorly reduce the initial output. Maybe with level 16 or 18 energy tech, it would have the same output as now.

Aha, all good
And as long as balance is kept the energy adjustment seems good.