One was blown up because Starfleet decided that it wasnt worth repairing after it got disabled in its first fight in the 4YW, and the other was all but captured save for a very desperate saving roll involving a member of Starfleet going on a suicidal spacewalk with an overloaded phaser directly into an anti-matter containment tank.
That's pretty bad. Sorry if you see it otherwise, but uhhhhh....Yeah I got nothin'
Starfleet did with Pharos Seven.
Huh. So after we made repeated poor tactical decisions inviting a war with an Empire who is
5-8x our size and strength, with general technology 20 years ahead of us and battle technology 30 years ahead, 2 of our logistics stations were destroyed, we retained all our territory and forced a peace treaty with said power.
Oh yeah, terrible outcome, our stations obviously did an awful job keeping our fleet supplied and forcing the enemy into well-defended chokepoints that caused such disproportionate losses and delays that it stalled the entire Klingon Empire. We obviously made an awful choice that our resupply stations with outdated weapons couldn't survive a direct massed assault by the Great Houses of the Klingon Empire at historical peak strength relative to the Federation. /s
In all seriousness, I'm torn between 2 choices if we get another station build.
One would be large stations for core worlds, with a balance between logistics, civilian commerce and defense. That way we make our core worlds so well-defended attack is unattractive; it's less likely they'll be attacked directly, plus the obvious economic and military benefits.
The second is small-size defense stations for our outer territories. They wouldn't be able to stop mass incursions but they can help secure important, growing colonies against pirates and also blunt enemy spearheads and intruding skirmishing forces. Again, realistically we can't
defeat all our enemies, but we can make action against us so problematic, expensive and bloody no one wants to try it.