Slightly longer answer: Not yet

We all miss the Terror Star from GC1, but it's not coming back unless it's balanced and the AI knows how to use it (unlike in GC1). Probably in the expansion pack.

THERE WILL NOT BE BOMBS! The bombing is incorporated into the invasion. Any ship big enough and with enough firepower to bomb a planet is surely big enough to outright destroy it (ooops). That is why there are no bombs. There might be a terror star later on, but nothign what you describe.

I would like that actually. Reduce a planet to class 0. Although I'd prefer to just outright destroy it with a Terror Star

Because Frogboy hates the idea, and he makes the game? No bombs, ever. That much is definate. Also, Terror Stars in the expansion, and not all of us miss them (I prefer to win a game on my own merit, not cheat. Blowing up a planet because you aren't good enough to take it is cheating in my eyes).

It's not limiting. It just stops lamers cheesing the game to hell and complaining it's easy.

Scorched earth policy has long history. It's not that cheesy. Modifiying an invasion tactic is simply reduce the PQ to 0 is possible, but it still takes a transport capable ship to do that. Bombing the snot out of a target is just as useful as scheduling a D-day invasion, and usually more doable, if all I need to do is deny the enemy the ability to operate in a location.

It does change the game flavor if the planet is vulnerable to ships other than transports. As it now, I could do a strategy where all I do is target the other sides' transports- if they have no transports, my planets are safe. My trade fleet isn't, however, but thats a small price to pay. If you give some planet-damaging capability to non-transport ships, then the defense of any planet becomes much more serious. The game already recognizes that starbases need defenses, and those can be destroyed by regular ships.

If you don't want to call it bombing, fine. But anything moving at high velocity is dangerous- Robinson's First Law of space combat is that something hitting at 3 km/sec (kips) delivers kinetic energy broadly equal to its mass in TNT. I think we can get stuff up to that speed in this universe...

If necessary to preserve game balance, add in all sorts of negative influence (or positive fear modifiers) for the use of planet crackers. But, sometimes, the fight is really to the death.

I reiterate my statement. Blowing up a planet, or large numbers of planets, because you haven't got the ability to take them normally is cheating in my eyes. This is not about scorched earth. This is about the fact that people will rush the bombardment, and then just blow up everything.

This is about the fact that people will rush the bombardment, and then just blow up everything.

No, no it's not. This is about the fact that you (and, sadly, the developers) think that's a problem. It would be entirely feasible to balance the game such that such an action would be a valid tactic, and from a realism perspective it should be anyway.

The only reason we want to do this at all is that ships are destroyed when launching an invasion. Taking over a sector of space, right now, requires (literally) hours and hours of micromanagement for every half hour or so of actual fleet action. Invasions and starbases each require dozens upon dozens of ships, and since you can only make one ship per turn per planet--even if you have enough production to make five per turn per planet--you absolutely, positively, can NOT do anything fast. Granted starbases are worse in this regard (since you actually need thousands of ships), but having to manage your population doesn't help either.

There are many, many ways that all this micromanagement could be corrected, but bombardment would be a simple and logical way to take five or ten hours (or more!) off of each game.

I might mod in a total destruction invasion tactic, though. Transports already work like missiles, may as well make them have the effectiveness and results of missiles.

>: )

No, no it's not. This is about the fact that you (and, sadly, the developers) think that's a problem. It would be entirely feasible to balance the game such that such an action would be a valid tactic, and from a realism perspective it should be anyway.

Bull. This has been done before (MoO) and was cheesed the hell out of. Bombing will simply not happen.

The only reason we want to do this at all is that ships are destroyed when launching an invasion

Wrong. If there are more than 1000 survivors, the ship survives.

There are many, many ways that all this micromanagement could be corrected, but bombardment would be a simple and logical way to take five or ten hours (or more!) off of each game.

Goodbye replayability.

I might mod in a total destruction invasion tactic, though

Go ahead, no-ones stopping you. Just don't ask for it to be part of the main game, so the rest of us don't have to mod that crap out.

Which means there's a minimum of one ship lost per planet

No it doesn't. Just don't get people killed, simple.

Wait, what? Less options = more replayability?

For the unimaginative people here who have no chance to play fairly and troll on the forums about how the AI cheats, they will cheese, and then in ever asked say "oh yeah, so easy, crap game". We already have enough reasons for idiots to whine.

Besides, I don't want the AI to blow my planets up. I happen to like them.

Wait, what? Less options = more replayability? How the heck does that work? As it is, all military campaigns are EXACTLY THE SAME

I take it you haven't done any modding? at all? the campaign isn't the main game anyway, it's the training ground. If you want campaign variety, a) stop asking for it to be handed to you and mod it or wait for DA.

Only if there are enough soldiers to completely fill a transport, will it survive. So you can only take a planet without losing any transports if you don't lose any soldiers but that never happens.

Yes, Scorched earth is normally a defensive policy. For 4x games, however, where you are limited in range by the extent of your colonies (or starbases), destroying the fringe or border outposts prevents the enemy from penetrating into your sphere of influence. This is similar in effect to what a scorched earth policy tries to accomplish- i.e. keep the enemy from benefitting from the use
resources in an area. If you have better terminology, tell us.

As to Robinson's law, I was being a bit sarcastic in claiming that it's possible to get objects up to 3km/s. We have lightspeed travel in the game, which gives us the whole 186,000 km/s if necessary. The point is that it's fairly trivial to come up with weapons that can destroy a planet. Having the ability to do pretty much cries out for an explanation in game as to why it doesn't happen.

It would certainly suck to lose your planet just because the Evil Drengin had sufficient ships, the technology and the will to do so. That's why they are evil, no? I suppose that what I'm asking for might be a better explanation in game as to why I can't simply blew up a troublesome outpost. Something more than just the whim of the developer?

I also like Paxd's idea about interdiction. If I put enough enough ships or fleets in an area, I'd like to think that I can cut off a planet.

Ever tried researching the entire soldiering tree in about a year? Believe me, IT HAPPENS.

I have 153 Soldiering in my current game (+30 from ability bonus, +15 from political bonus, +25 from Tir-Quan, +3 from anomalies, +the entire tech tree). Further, I am Neutral and get a soldiering bonus against Good and Evil. When invading my weakest enemies, who have 63 Soldiering and are evil (silly Korx), the easiest planet I've ever taken had only 0.6 billion on it. And I still lost a couple soldiers while using Orbital Bombardment. Aaaand I invaded many, many other planets with less than 5 billion (but not that much less!) with similar results. And several other civs with varied better Soldiering, maxing at 106 (Arceans, in this case), sometimes with sparsely-populated planets, and I always lost someone.

You, sir, are full of it.

For the unimaginative people here who have no chance to play fairly and troll on the forums about how the AI cheats, they will cheese, and then in ever asked say "oh yeah, so easy, crap game". We already have enough reasons for idiots to whine. Besides, I don't want the AI to blow my planets up. I happen to like them.

Again, if bombing a planet from orbit was extremely difficult or of highly limited effectiveness, that wouldn't be an issue.

the campaign isn't the main game anyway, it's the training ground. If you want campaign variety, a) stop asking for it to be handed to you and mod it or wait for DA.

I was talking about sandbox mode. "A campaign" is defined (by dictionary.com) as "A series of military operations undertaken to achieve a large-scale objective during a war." I'm sorry for the confusion; I forgot that the game had a story mode, and that such wording might be confusing. My bad.

I make no assertions as to the effects of such changes on Campaign/Story Mode. I haven't played it, so I wouldn't know what might screw with it too much.