That 'well known rule' has to be adjusted for surprise, mobility and firepower. Study the invasions in the Pacific in WWII and you'll see that overwhelming superiority in numbers wasn't necessary: control of the air (orbital space), freedom to select the point of attack and the ability to reinforce as needed are all powerful force-multipliers.

If the AI isn't getting very far with its invasions it could be because you snapped up the Tir Quan Center, or because it hasn't researched all the invasion and planetary defense techs.

uhm, the enemy also have mass drivers you know, and that pwnz a big population planet, then just send a second transport for mopping up. It works both ways (you and your enemy). and dont you think having cover with big massive capital ships overhead doesnt give you and advantage??? if an f16 can fire a couple of missles and destroy a freaking neighborhood(look at lebanon, its south is FUBAR{fuck up beyong all recognition} right now cuz of Israel) then wut about a mile long ship, with lots of more space for missles and guns????

it makes perfect sense to me...


Monc34

ok ok...quick example here

My Soldiering is +90, my tech is 769444
Arceans soldiering +70, tech 671594

Case 1
I invade (traditional invasion)a planet of 15 billion with 5 billion.
I lose, but planet now has 2.4 billion left.

Case 2
They invade my planet, population 21 billion, with 2.6 billion
I win, but population down to 14 billion.

So, tech and soldiering aside...

Case 1
Invaders:defenders = 1:3
Kill Ratio = 1:2.5 (one invader killed per 2.5 defenders)

Case 2
Invaders:defenders = 1:8
Kill Ratio = 1:2.7 (one invader killed per 2.7 defenders)

Conclusion? The invader has a large statistical advantage, and invader:defender ratio is meaningless (which I realized after playing my first game).

Now some further points. I don't know about you, but on the occasion that I do get one of my planets taken over, I do not see the drop in PQ (or loss of structures)that would correspond to the use of "nasty" tactics by the AI (ie. mass drivers.)

And using the examples of "they have capital ships in orbit" or "they can choose their point of attack" doesn't really satisfy me. First off, last time I checked, I could not actually use my capital ships to bombard from orbit, and even if I could, I would expect a planet to have similar ground to orbit based defensive capabilities. As to choosing point of attack? Well, I understand the tactic of throwing a concentrated force at a specific point of an enemies defences in order to establish a beachhead, but you are attacking a dug in foe who knows the terrain much much better than you. To any such arguments however, I would simply say that they go beyond the scope of this game.

The fact remains, I have found attackers to have a huge advantage out of skew with the technology or soldiering levels involved.

Now some further points. I don't know about you, but on the occasion that I do get one of my planets taken over, I do not see the drop in PQ (or loss of structures)that would correspond to the use of "nasty" tactics by the AI (ie. mass drivers.) Most of the time theyll be using the non damaging Mini soldeirs, but once in a while, after failing to take the planets a couple times, they will use mass drivers, and even then, PQ is NOT automatically going down just because they've used it, Ive seen it myself lots of times by now, I do it myself.

perhaps, but my example, which I consider typical of my experiences, shows about the same kill ratio advantage to attackers of relatively equal tech and soldiering. I think alternate invasion options does not even factor in to my point.

And using the examples of "they have capital ships in orbit" or "they can choose their point of attack" doesn't really satisfy me Ok, just so you can imagine wut size the capital ships are: Capital Ship Sizes As you can see, the largest there is 19,000 meters, thats 57,000+ feet long, or 10.7 miles long, or the size of a small city on itself.

Quote a little further here..."...last time I checked, I could not actually use my capital ships to bombard from orbit". Your 19 km ship cleans the orbit of my planet from hostile vessels. It does NOT participate in the ground battle. You HAVE noticed that you can just send a lonely undefended transport to take a planet right?<-- (rhetorical question)

I would expect a planet to have similar ground to orbit based defensive capabilities. Maybe, but the only thing in this game close to anything like that is the Hyperion Fleet Manager, and that is just for a Sub-Space field to sorround ships and allow them to fight in close formation, or so the description states. I agree, however, that we need a type of Ion cannon or something.

That quote was in counter to people who used the "I have capital ships in orbit" line of reasoning. Yes, you may but as above, they don't participate in the battle. If you want to imagine that they do, then of course you must also imagine that the planet would have "ion cannons" or some such equivalent.

As to choosing point of attack? Well, I understand the tactic of throwing a concentrated force at a specific point of an enemies defences in order to establish a beachhead, but you are attacking a dug in foe who knows the terrain much much better than you. Only 1 word here, NORMANDY.

Bad example. Consider D-Day. The allies had close to 200 000 troops while the Germans had 4 understrength divisions , poorly supplied and poorly trained (except for the 352nd which participated at Omaha Beach), probably under 40 000 men in total. D-Day casualties included 10 000 allies and about 6 000 Germans (no exact number here). Losses at the Battle of Normandy included about 220 000 allies and 200 000 Germans. So, this battle, if anything, would support my argument. But regardless, I'm sure you could come up with a historical battle to support your argument either way. In general, however, one cannot deny that the defender usually has a statistical advantage.

Now, in game terms, there is a lot that is generalized and simplified to a high degree in this game, including Planetary Invasion. I would like to see a more complicated system, since other than defection, this is the only way to expand territory after the initial colony rush and is thus a very important part of the game and should not be dumbed down to such a degree in my opinion. My point is just that there seems to be an obvious advantage to attacking, which I personally do not understand and which frankly makes invasion much too easy. Now, I am not whining because I keep getting my worlds invaded. On the contrary, I am whining because it is just too damn easy to invade other worlds!

Sorry for the rant!

Oh, P.S.
I do love this game. Best game of its sort since MOO2 imo. But MOO2 did do planetary battles much better, even if it was still very simplistic.

Well yeah your correct on the simplified invasion, I'd LOVE to see a more complicated system, but the 1 we have makes it more streamlined, and on a gigantic galaxy it makes the game go a little smoother inbetween planet invasions. Even MoO2 was very similar to this 1, the only diference was there was a race that could use mind control, in effect taking slaves, and didnt even have to take the time to build transports, everything else is like GC2, without inspace ship battles,of course. True that you could build tanks and such, but thats just the same thing as a normal soldier, its just with more stats, and a diferent graphic when fightin.

I mentioned Normandy cuz of wut you were sayin, that the defenders know the territory, and the allies didnt know it would go so well, It may have failed miserably, but a lot of variables came into effect into that invasion, like rommel not being on the front giving orders, hitler not giving orders, and that sort of thing, you know?

Anyways, the lead programmer wich I think is frogboy, correct me if Im wrong, has disagreed with planetary bombardment since, forever, and is NOT planing on incorporating that, just like he also decided to eliminate terror stars, wich I think was a bad move, but not that important since its not even close to being a game breaking thing, in fact, it probably makes the AI use everything it has at their disposal.

And about the capital ships, yeah a heavy fighter can kill a same-or-bigger ship, only if it had better weapons of course, but itll probably die in the fightin, or end up with very low HP, therefore be a target, but you wont see 1 fighter killing a large, huge ship, and those are the real capital ships I consider the tiny, small ships bigger than planes, but still , only be able to fly inspace, and not inside the atmosphere, I guess your undefended transport has some kind of shuttle inside to deliver the troops to ground fightin like in Battlestar Galactica, or Starship Troopers, so yeah, an undefended planet is easy prey for big cargo ships, just pray the AI doesnt buy 1 tiny ship with little more than 1 atack, or youll loose, waste ,your 1-3 trillion troops for nothing.  

Oh yeah, and about the Ion Canon thingy, I was just using the galactopedia and I saw the Planetary Defense thingy, and it gives you a 25% bonus for defense, and you put that together with the 5% bonus defense, and thats 30% defense right there, maybe youll want to use that on your vulnerable planets, just a thought, I dont know why but I never really use it, I always buy off from my friends the appropiate Soldering bonus techs, or research them myself.


GALACTOPEDIA DOWNLOAD LINK






Monc34

As people have said, GC2 uses a simplified model that cannot take in all real-world factors.

Having said that, for invasions one would presume that the invading fleet consists of trained soldiers--not Wal-Mart greeters. In my mind, when I load transports up with soldiers, I am conscripting people from the planet, training them up as soldiers and then loading them on transports.

Then when they arrive on the planet to be invaded what do they encounter? Some soldiers, but a lot of research scientists, manufacturing laborers, and Wal-Mart greeters. Therefore I am not surprised at a 2.5:1 (or so) advantage to the invader. This is genocide we are speaking of, the extermination of an alien race, not a set-piece battle of professional soldiers.

But we alrdy knew that, at least in my mind I did...  

Also, as far as the hypothetical defending airforce. I think we are talking about so many attacking and defending troops, that the invaders would have an airforce of their own, think about that for a second.

Yes , it is obvious they alrdy have control of space around the planet, so in effect they have a "Space Force"

Also, can you have Air Superiority if you do not have orbital superiority?

Well yes, Look at us, Earth , for example. If you put all of Earth's Nations Air Forces together, it IS a PREETTY BIIIG AirForce, but yet, no "Space Force", not yet anyways, or not that the public know about it. The USA is the only nation with a US Space Command, and even with that, it is just a network of sattelite defenses, NOT a fleet of Ships. If they do, it is secret, and that wouldnt surprise me with the history of secrecy like Roswell in 1947, but that is another topic altogether.    


Monc34  

AFAIK, those ships cant enter our atmosphere, though the tiny and small ships are like planes, so they Might enter a planet's atmosphere, but I doubt it. Look at the Space shutle, it moves in space using compresd gases, and when it returns to our atmosphere, it can only move cuz of its surface controls, and that is using aerodynamics principals that could only be developed using airplanes, and even then, it is gliding, and as Im sure you know, in space there is no air, so there is no aerodynamic controls there. Maybe those type of invasion ships can enter our atmosphere and use antigravity engines, but in GalCiv2 I have not seen anything related to that, so I dont see how could they move around on our atmosphere. It may verywell be they drop down in pods or something like that, Like in the movie Alien vs Predator, and like in the game Battlefield 2142, they use Pods to invade the ship overhead.


Just a thought  

Well mate, thanks for that info, even though I never really use em, that tile is very important you know   , but I was going to tryn it out and see how it worked, but Ill wait till thursday to try it then.   


Monc34

I would prefer a civilian population, with any race being able to be at 1 planet at 1 time, even at war, and having 2 systems for raising armys, obligatory like in most Nations here on earth, like in Israel that you have to serve for a period of some years, or a Voluntary system that the USA has now, even if WW3 happened right now, im pretty sure the USA would draft As many ppl as they could.

That would be pretty cool, dont you think???



Monc34

From a realism standpoint, I think the attacker in a planetary invasion might have a pretty significant advantage. Napoleon said "The defense is to the offense as 3 is to 1" if I remember correctly. A large portion of this is that the defense has the advantage of interior lines of communication and can move reinforcements to problem spots without as much trouble as the attacker might have. In a planetary invasion, all of this turns around. Planets are BIG. The defender has to shuttle reinforcements to problem areas (probably doing so under fire from whatever weapons the attacker's fleet can bring to bear) all the way around the globe. The attacker can just hop back on the transport, boost into orbit, and drop down whereever he wants to cause mischief next. Just my possible logical explanation (as opposed to game-system explanation) of why the attacker is so favored on planetary invasions.

If it was any different the ground battles would be to drawn out, and games last way too long.

The key to defending planets is too not let the Enemy Troop ships attack in the first place.

I'd like to point out that, while, logistically speaking, the attacker has the advantage, as well as surprise. 3:1 is still the ratio. Figure in that the entire population of the planet is fighting against you, and is resisting to the death (yes, you're committing genocide). Now, given that you're not trying to capture any specific objectives invading the planet, just trying to kill off the whole of the native population. That means they pick where, when, and how most engagements happen. All the defense has to do is hole up and not get killed. Read: Massively fortified STATIC defense positions. Now, static defenses such as the maginot line may be out of favor, but the fact is, there is NOTHING better at simply holding on to a position than static defense. Sure, you can go around it, but when you need to kill the people in it, you still have to tackle it.

Dien Bien Phu. The french inflicted far more than three casualties for every one they took. Before you say that the french were a modern military force fighting a bunch of ragtag rebels, keep the following in mind. At a per-batallion level, the Viet Minh had significantly more firepower than the french. In addition, the Viet Minh had more firepower than the french in terms of artillery of every caliber. As if this weren't enough, the French were effectively cut off, depending on airdrops(which were severly hampered by flak in unheard of quantities) for supplies, and unable to leave or evacuate the wounded. Also, before you say that these were all crack french troops... the paratroops and the foreign legion troops were indeed crack troops. The tai units as well as the algerians proved to be next to useless later in the battle, and another 2000 troops were tied up at a secondary position.

In Essence; A force with inferior firepower, poorly dug positions, that was numerically inferior by more than 5:1, and that was partially cut of from reinforcement and resupply inflicted casualties on their attackers that range from anywhere 3:1 to 10:1 (in their favor, depending on the statistics used). In their favor, the french had approx. 10 light tanks, and (minimal, negligible by today's standards) close air support.

^^^ If you need more convincing on static defense, read up on WWI. The point is, even with orbital advantages and whatnot, there's no way whatsoever that the force attacking a planet should have an advantage of any more than 2:1, most certainly not the 5:1 or 10:1 ratios we're seeing.....