Well the way the invasion model works is that when you invade a planet regardless of your alignment pretty much all of the planets population is wiped out and the planet is resettled as a new colony by your own species.

Which is kind of a kick in the pants for the Drengin plans for galactic domination isnt it?

It also makes the subject of "Liberating" a planet a moot point...

I would also like to see this idea in the game.

Ok perhaps it is just me... but as far as I am concerned then people all die in invasions, and as far as I can see I got the numbers to back me up as well.

A generic example. I have 100% happiness, 0% tax (All income from trade and tourism)

I losse a planet with 20 billion people on it one turn this leaves the 1500 troops that survived the invasion on it.

In the next turn, I retake it with 2000 troops, here only about a 1000 survives... now I press end turn, and next turn there is still only the 1000 troops plus the bit that have been born etc over 1 turn.

Now I watch the planet closely for the next 40 turns.... it experience no out of the ordinary population booms, actually it follows the ordinary planet growth as one would expect normally. This I did just to rule out that "people where poor after the invasion arguments and only come back after a while when they have rebuildt their lives".

This leaves me with no other conclusion that the people are all killed in the invasion. So why do people keep on insisting that this is not the case?

and btw.. I love the liberation idea! It would be lovely to have implemented along with a better tactical combat model!

Yes the game mechanics are an abstraction true... but kinda hard to support that abstraction when nothing in the game mechanics support anything but complete genocide.

But there is no real point in argueing over this, since nothing can solve this issue until a more advanced population model is introduced into the game. Sadly this liberation idea cannot be implemented until the that when that happens.

I could however also see complications doing it to the game as it is, since I imagaine it would require a rather large rewrite of the diplomacy part of the game, and how the AI tackles this.

I guess that is the most annoying thing about this game, on one hand we have a great AI that can actually pull some fancy tricks out of the bucket... and on the other we would all proberly like some more details into the game, which would compromise the same AI that makes the game so fun to play!

They should put together a decision system for planet invasions, to allow for liberation. I don't see why a good or neutral civ, or even most evil civs, would wipe out billions of civilians during an invasion. Off the top of my head (and I apologize in advance for a huge post)...

First there should be a good option to keep everyone. There'd be a cost over time, and a temporary morale drop, but after that passed you'd get an influence bonus on that planet. Plus you keep your taxpayers. After a certain number of turns with morale >= to what it was pre-invasion, the people become yours and can no longer be liberated (turns where morale is lower don't count for this total, so killing morale before invading is a good idea). The length of the morale penalty and the number of turns before you own the people could depend on that civ's loyalty stat.

Second, a neutral kick-em-off option, which would be free because the exiled people are taking their own stuff with them, not yours. Population resets as usual, no bonuses or penalties. The planet may be liberated later. After a certain number of turns these people are permanently resettled and liberation is no longer an option. This duration would also hinge on loyalty.

Third, enslavement. You get a permanent production increase and morale penalty. You keep your taxpayers, and get some evil points. The planet can always be liberated later, and will never like you.

Fourth, genocide. Big evil points, population resets, and there can be no liberation on that planet. There could also be some short term, hefty penalties as civilians fight their extermination, dependent on the courage of the that civ.

Last, of course, is liberation, when applicable. Big kudos from the civ it's being restored to, and it's free (the AI might restore planets to strong friendly civs to make alliances). If any alignment changes result, it should be dependent on who you're handing the planet to (e.g.: handing something back to the Korath != good). And, of course, if the liberated civ was wiped out, it gets revived. You also decide whether to exile or exterminate their conquerors.

If you decide not to liberate a taken world, it works as above, except it reflects your actions on whomever the people are loyal to; if you genocide a slave world, the civ they used to belong to will be mad; if you take the good route, you have to win them over from their original civ, not the conqueror. If you exile conquerors from a world that already has an exiled population, both await a return until they resettle, and either could be restored, depending on who's doing the restoring.

I like the idea of liberations... sometimes a friend gets wiped out and I reload so I can pass them a planet to keep them alive. Anything that takes the place of using reloading as a sort of fake prescience, I support.

In the DL campaign, the Terrans liberate the planet Tiniath from the Drengin in order to convince the Torians into an alliance. But they don't liberate it in the sense that the Torians get the planet back. Instead, they rescue the Torian leader, abandon the planet, and flee from the Dread Lords.