How about conquering planets without killing millions of creatures?

I've asked about this in another thread somewhere, related to the new DA environment stuff I think.

I certainly agree that it is one of the larger "realism" bumps in core GCII, but I can talk myself into thinking that the DA environments make it a bit more plausible b/c you need the appropriate enviro tech to take over a world.

That said, I wouldn't hold your breath for a major change here b/c it would require a whole new approach to population mgmt that would track individual populations by both species and birthplace.

Right now, the population is pretty abstract, and if you want to work point 3 as you talk to yourself while playing, just imagine the survivors of an invasion all heading for the hills (i.e. off the tax rolls) while the invader installs their own colonists.

Something like point 2 is probably my favorite reason for advocating a change. It could enable you to go on an invasion binge that didn't damage your diplo status as much, or go on one that was, well, vividly murderous.

You do have a choice, and it is called Cultural Takeover.

Planets conquered through influence retain their populations.

If you go to war and use force to invade a planet, billions will die.
But violence is not the only option.

>>You do have a choice, and it is called Cultural Takeover.

Cultural takeover is cultural takeover. It doesnt cover points 1&2. If you take Sid Meyers Civilization - there is a cultural takeover too, yet there is not need of slaughering civil population. Only military units. I think thats correct. 90% of civil people cant fight anyway. So why and for what must they die?

1)War Balance trashed.

So you capture a planet, then use its population to fill your transports to capture another ...

2) Economic Balance Trashed.
The war is economically damaging. The troops you move in transport and loose are money you loose. Also, it will take time for the new planet to be economically OK. (or if you micro manage, you can bring citizens from other planets). If the pop would be preserved, the war as it progress would bring you more and more money, thus inflating the war exponentially.

3)Devlopment Time wasted.
Too much change in the game design. I mean, instead of putting HUGE amount of time to redesigning the whole pop cyste, AI, and interfaces, the dev should put their time in something which would make their time worth more.

Cultural takeover is cultural takeover. It doesnt cover points 1&2. If you take Sid Meyers Civilization - there is a cultural takeover too, yet there is not need of slaughering civil population. Only military units. I think thats correct. 90% of civil people cant fight anyway. So why and for what must they die?

If you only want to take out military units, then only target ships.
Reduce their military might to zero for a couple months and they will often surrender (maybe not always to you, but it happens).

But in this game the population fights as a unit to protect their planet. And I do not think that is unreasonable. If the Earth were to be invaded I doubt that civilians would not be in the thick of the fighting, nor would they be spared by the invaders. They would be either enslaved or dead. Or, in the case of a Drengin invasion, eaten.

And a Cultural Takeover does cover the first two points, because it provides the option of conquering a planet without killing off the population.

It may not cover a possibility of invading a planet without loss, but that was not the topic.

There's a problem to non-genocidial invasions of planets, and that's assymetrical warfare. A planet is really big. Really really big. There's going to be at worst a billion combatants and billions more saboteurs fighting your army. There's only one way to solve this- massive application of force such as orbital strikes, or converting the populace (cultural and/or information warfare).

In orbital strikes, there's a massive, massive amount of damage done. Or even less techy, imagine a vietnam-like fire team moving up a block, kicking down doors and investigating for rebelliousness or enemy soldiers. Repeat this- five million times a day. There will be collateral damage. A lot.

Further, the ecological and economic consequences of an entire planet being invaded will be terrifying. The defenders will probably use scorched earth tactics, and the offensive side will bombard the hell out of any terrain they can for the advantage. Invading a planet is a very, very messy business. The fact that in a week it's over is way oversimplified. Even the Gulf War took longer than that.

Myself, I like to imagine that troop numbers are divided by 100, producing invasion ships made of 5 million troops per module and that there's a lot of collateral damage explaining why the planet dropped from 5 billion to 0.2 billion residents post-war. If it really matters that much to you, grab a few cheap colony or troop transports with you on the invasions and dump some populace from another planet there to simulate survivors.

What if you play Yor that have 100% loyalty, then some planets joins you, how come they have 100% loyalty too? They are not robots they should have their bonuses, not yours!

Also, population figures in Gal Civ 2 represent how many people are active in the economy and paying taxes. Population figures are not supposed to represent the literal number of people living on a planet. So after invading a hostile planet it only makes sense for the population figure to be small because your economy on that planet is going to be miniscule. If you're worried about realism, it isn't realistic to have a planet you just invaded up and running at anything near 100% its pre war tax base, or even 50%. As people have mentioned, war is supposed to be expensive, and conquered planets should not be able to immediately finance further invasions with money and population.

Planets conquered through influence retain their populations.

To me, this fact is part of why it seems so weird to have invasions totally eliminate original pops. The diff between military and cultural conquest is too extreme. But I concur that the point is probably moot until GCIII becomes a glimmer in Brad's eye.

p.s. to "realism" folks: anyone know an example of one industrialized power conquering another and completely destroying the rival population? Killing on the scale GCII currently claims should require a special planetary building with some scarifying name like Hypercrematorium. Except for the spore-wrecked worlds possible in DA. This peacenik is glad to see planetwrecking, albeit limited, show up.

The diff between military and cultural conquest is too extreme.

Too extreme?

It is the difference between sending in the troops to kill all who oppose, and waiting for the planet to join you of their own free will.

So just how can it be too extreme, when the methods are polar opposites?

I think this will be solved in Dark Avatar. There are barracks there that add troops. Hopefully, these troops are used for defense and for filling transports, and the rest of the population is left alone.

If you only want to take out military units, then only target ships. Reduce their military might to zero for a couple months and they will often surrender (maybe not always to you, but it happens).

I think your misinterpreting him. That is not the way he wants to play Gal Civ. He is bringing up CIV 4 to prove a point.

I think your misinterpreting him. That is not the way he wants to play Gal Civ. He is bringing up CIV 4 to prove a point.

ROFL!

That was SO funny.

That is not the way he wants to play the game?
Then, find a different game.

I did not misinterpret anything. He wants to invade a planet without losing the population of said planet. It is unrealistic to the extreme, both to think that the general population would not be fighting to the death an invasion by hostile aliens, or that those hostile aliens would leave those they are conquering alive to fight from within after the takeover.

Bringing up a different game to make a point is silly.
Go play that game if you like the mechanics better. I like the way GalCiv2 is set up just fine.

As it is, there are several ways to victory. Invading a planet is destructive, culture flipping is not. Take your pick.

It is unrealistic to the extreme, both to think that the general population would not be fighting to the death an invasion by hostile aliens, or that those hostile aliens would leave those they are conquering alive to fight from within after the takeover.

You dont get it, it not like stupid "Independence day" where aliens want to make "total annihilation" . That's the point. NO one should threaten to life of civil poputation. Maybe in some cases the population of the planet would be happy to leave former master, but still they are just civils and they dont want (cant) fight.
Of couse there always would be some loyal % of nationalists. So something should be done with them in special way.
If you find Civ so much diffrent - take other game: Alfa Centauri, Imperium Galactica
Or even take a look at our own history. WW2 for examle. Germans didnt kill civil population when it didnt try anything like sabotage. As far I know russians didnt do it as well when they occupied Berlin.

Or even take a look at our own history. WW2 for examle. Germans didnt kill civil population when it didnt try anything like sabotage.

Right, Germany never bombed London.

You are making up story lines in your head, and expect the game to follow along.

It is not me that doesn't get it.

Oh gosh. Are people arguing about the invasion realism thing again?  

Yup.

You noticed, huh?

Yor invading a Terran planet would be like the future depicted in the Terminator movies.

You see any civilians refusing to fight?
Only those already dead/destroyed.

You see any survivors kept alive?
Only those intended to be utilized in a specific task.


Assuming you are a civilian taxpayer already,,what would your own choise be should someone like Drengin invade,,fight to death or just give your self up as ape-food?

Should Earth be conquered by Altarians,,would you return to normal life before you had convinced yourself it was safe?
As already pointed out,,the population on the planets are NOT the entire stock but only those with Citizenship á la Starship Troopers.

Serenity now said it best,

You are both arguing over a point of view about invasions when the actual value of population is calculated as "taxable" population. Whether a peaceful invasion occurs (if thats even possible) or mass destruction can be explained as:

1) Almost everyone is killed. There are very few people "left" to pay taxes or hop onto a transport to invade other worlds. It takes time to "replenish" the population.

2) Very few people are killed. There are very few people "willing" to pay taxes or hop onto a transport to invade other worlds. It takes time to "win over" the population.

While we're at it, can we argue about the invasion realism of the game Risk?

This is invading another planet. Kill the men, eat the children, and rape the women. If you don't want to be violent, go play "Hello Kitty Adventure" with Butters.

I think there's actually a fairly simple sollution to this problem, it does however require a UI change. Instead of just listing the amount of population just list both the total population but add a number that displays the amount of taxpayers/soldiers. You could just list a fixed percentage of population as soldiers.

For example: The planet Earth: Pop: 40.000.000.000 / amount of soldiers/taxpayers 12.000.000.000. This way you don't really have to change any game dynamics and you still won't have to slaughter every enemy planet to the last inhabitant.
You could even ad a bit tot the battle display window about the ammount of inhabitants surviving the invasion. You could also calculate a random bit of no taxpayer dying just to add a bit of flavor. Not to mention the possibility to ad a bit more humor into the game.

End of battle display.
Troops destroyed: 12 billion.
Troops lost: 3 billion.
Buildings destroyed: 1
Civilian population destroyed 2 billion, strangly enough they where all telphone sanitizers, lawyers, marketing execs.

It is the difference between sending in the troops to kill all who oppose, and waiting for the planet to join you of their own free will.

It is exactly b/c they *appear* (in flavor text terms) as polar opposites that the thing seems off to some of us. For some stories, Moosetek13's take will be perfectly appropriate, e.g. a Borg invasion in Trekland. But would invading Ferengi want to kill all those potential customers and employees, even with their disgusting eating habits and wickedly clothed females? Bad for profits...

In and around the excess snarkiness in this thread, we have some reasonable questions about and responses to how ground combat results are presented to the player. IMO, the OP had some (re)fresh(ed) points to make, and perhaps DA is an opportunity add a strategic choice or two to our options for taking planets.