I agree it isn't much fun to be a superpower. There's nothing like taking on a superior foe and it's even better to beat him. I don't have a problem with after some time and effort being able to eventually bombard a planet or star to dust. But I think it would be too overpowering to destroy a planet or star in one or two shots. If you can do that you've already won.

That said, I think it would have to be implemented in moderation. The ability to complete wipe out a planet in single strike shouldn't be allowed. But the ability to destroy one or two buildings in a turn should be allowed. I think there are additional restrictions that need to be in place to prevent players and AI opponents from creating fast ships

Terror stars are special starbases that need a while to construct, during which everyone will probably gun for you (kind of like espionage nukes in civ). Check the UP resolutions.xml, they already have four restrictions to terror stars, including permaban from game. But, it's not buildings being destroyed etc, the actual planet is obliterated. That, and terror stars will be slow (I think)

terror stars aside... (that's a whole 'nother thread!!)
...Orbittal Bombardment an option for fleets...

..Orbittal Bombardment an option for fleets...

I really doubt it.

I couldn't find the file to check out the restrictions (i'm hoping limited defenses and/or weapons) and since it looks like it is already going to be implemented i'm not going to argue for or against the terror stars but how about these as a couple of counters to it:

1) all other civilizations are able to see where it is when it is completed so they have ample warning and can go after it (yes it goes against the fog of war and using sensors to find it but I figure word might get around about the location of a massive, moving, planet destroying starbase - you already seem to know about all the ships and starbases the AI has in the trade screen whether you can see them or not)
2) the ability to create a unified fleet (with your allies - or maybe some kind of temporary alliance until the threat is dealt with) to go after it (probably not feasible but figured i'd throw it out there)

I couldn't find the file to check out the restrictions (i'm hoping limited defenses and/or weapons) and since it looks like it is already going to be implemented i'm not going to argue for or against the terror stars but how about these as a couple of counters to it:

There aren't weapons. Or defenses. They can't fight. They just destroy planets. The limitations are to stop them being improved (like starbases) or ever built.

The AI's ability to gang up on aggresors being tested in 4a should help even it out.

Scratch everything I said. (For the second time since I said Orbital Bombardment would never ever be around )
Link

#35 by Frogboy [Stardock] Thursday, April 20, 2006 8:36 PM GalCiv II has orbital bombardment already in the form of transports and selecting mass drivers. We just don't alow orbital bombardment for the sake of genocide runs. GalCiv will NEVER EVER have that. I appreciate the feedback of fans but at the end of the day, it's my game too. And orbital bombardment was one of the features in MOO 1 and MOO 2 that I thought really wrecked the fun in those games -- for me

Huzzah!

If I had to wager a guess, it would that most of the most adament individuals who are 'for' Orbittal Bombardment would be among the same individuals who either forget to properly manage their transport-fleet proportion in regards to their level of open hostility... ...or simply hate micro managing so many transports (but do it anyways) and would prefer to keep their fleets busy while their acceptable level of micro managed transports slowly absorb othecivs.

Or those of us that have studied way too much military history and theory...

#35 by Frogboy [Stardock] Thursday, April 20, 2006 8:36 PM GalCiv II has orbital bombardment already in the form of transports and selecting mass drivers. We just don't alow orbital bombardment for the sake of genocide runs. GalCiv will NEVER EVER have that. I appreciate the feedback of fans but at the end of the day, it's my game too. And orbital bombardment was one of the features in MOO 1 and MOO 2 that I thought really wrecked the fun in those games -- for me

I concur with the sentiment regarding MoO series... the implementation of Orbittal Bombardment was terrible and it is this kind of faulty implementation that can lead to such bitter tastes on the subject. I would not like to see that system taint the beauty that is what we all have right now.
Personally... I still feel it could be implemented meaningfully and still be enjoyable for all. But I as an individual would only enjoy the experience if planets could exercise sufficient defense at sufficient cost to a sufficient galactic extent that such a proposition would return very minimal gains, while still lending to a strategic return from such investment.

IE: "ya you got the guns, so ok... go ahead and fire them at the planet... it won't hurt ya to do so, but you're still gonna have to land some troops at some point if you want to end this war."

All in all a tall order.
Balance would be key, and I'll take no OB over poor OB mechanics any day.

Oh and Stardock, you're right... it is your game... and I'm very thankful you let me pay you to play it

I think it is a pity
-a properly implemented orbital bombardment would be a useful option.

If an enemy is threatening your civilisation's survival-why not wipe him out before he does you when things get desperate: "we're in it for the species". You don't need to kill ALL your enemie's population-too hard and impracticle unless you have a death star-just let the survivors die slow agonising radiation-related deaths-or fight each other for the little resources that aren't destroyed or contaminated. You don't need to land troops-the threat is already neutralised as the planet is a mess-and wont recover for millions of years.

Such an option would have been good to use as your own side as well-a 'scorched earth' plocy of evacuating a planet then rendering unihabitable so your enemy cannot use it.

Making a planet uninhabitable would not mean the instant death of all life on it-but rather poison the eco system, nuke habitated areas to ruin the planet and put back the survivors to stone age tech.

This could only be done if a planet was defenceless of course-which means that with sufficient troops you could take it anyway-this option would mean that you loose the planet too-NO-ONE gets it.

A defenceless planet is yours if you bring sufficient troops in a ship-so why is it so bad and unbalanced if you bring a suffiently advanced ship laden with WMDs and Bio weapons and just wreck the planet?

To use a real-world example-if a full-scale nuclear war kicked off we would not all die-but the planet would be ruined.
So in the future of gal civ 2 -we should have 'better' WMDs and so be EVEN more capable of making planets uninhabitable.

But if the Gal Civ team are dead set against it then I guess that's that-but it would have been nice to see it implemented-they could have it as an option at least like minor races and tech-trading.

Extremely serious Diplomatic sanctions and consequences could have been levied against any player (and after all the A.I could do it too) who practised genocide against a race-such as trade, direct economic -as you are a member of the U.P who can take your money with a majority vote, being expelled from the E.P and being declared a rouge civ , etc.-it really is not unbalanced if you make it so!

As for a player strategy of 'genocide runs'-you could simply have it as part of the tech tree needing research like other planetray invasion tactics, thus preventing players from having it at their disposal early on to prevent them from easily wiping out defenceless worlds before the inhabitants have had a chance to research any form of planetary defence.

you could even have counter-technologies making it impossible for an enemy to take out your planet even if no ships are available, thus making the game even more balanced.

To the stardock team: I appreciate you may not have liked the orbital bombardment system in MOO but aren't you guys up to the challenge of improving on that? Simply refusing to attempt it because the way it was implemented in another game did not work well seems a shame really.

-you guys have improved so much on the game already-this task would definately not be beyond you-
well I am only one humble customer of many-and indeed 'tis your game too, but I hope I've at least given you something to think abot!

Extremely serious Diplomatic sanctions and consequences could have been levied against any player (and after all the A.I could do it too) who practised genocide

Like maybe all other civs allying against you and declaring war? Oh - wait .... that's an alliance LOSS isn't it?

I vote for orbital bombardement,for planet killers and for star (system) killers too.
Planet bombardement is similiar to shore bombardement in these days. Planet killers to nukes and stars killes ? Hmmm, I dont know.

Not happening Czert. Planet destruction (not bombardment, just BOOM gone) will be the only thing happening, and that hasn't been heard about for a long time, so not sure if it's still planned. I think system destruction got the boot.

Yep, terror stars didn't make the cut (again) for DA.

I think it would be doable. Rules something like this --

Planetary bombardment becomes a new upgrade for a military starbase which has to be built in say 10 stages (let's call it Galactic Domination X). It takes one month (four turns) to charge, during which time all starbase weaponry becomes useless. Only the ship speed modules, Stellar Wake, Inverse Tractor Beam, and Interdiction, remain online. For that matter, let's have Galactic Domination increase the range of those modules by 1 hex per level, so it ends up performing interdiction over a huge area. Whether ship assist components get the increased range, or are effective while the bombardment guns are charging, would be a matter of balance.

Then, if you have a fully charged starbase in range, you get an additional option during invasion (still need the transport) -- radioactive blanket. It would eliminate 90% of defenders and change all tiles except the initial colony into red (requiring terraforming). You win easily because all the defenders are gone, but the planet will take decades to build back up.

Due to the immense hyperspace distortion involved in the projectors, any starbase having the Galactic Domination component at level V or higher becomes visible regardless of fog of war. Also due to the immense size of the structure, the exact level of Galactic Domination installed is visible without any espionage (to nearby ships for levels 0 to 4, and everyone from 5-10).

Unlike the other invasions, which have a cost associated, there should be a price for installing the modules, and another for activating the charging sequence. If you have to turn off the projectors to defend yourself, you lose the money and have to start charging all over again.

A good idea would be for orbital bombardment to be one of the thing that you select in the game costumization just like tech trading, that way everyones happy, those for orbital bombardment could have it, those that hate orbital bombardment won't have to use it. The best idea possible on this topic.

Of course it would be doable. It's not going to happen. And Azrune, there have been better ideas equally shot down. It's been said time an again, it's not happening.

Leave the horse alone.