Ah, fix up invasions sure but dont make them last more than a turn! Remember its Galactic Civilizaions DA not Invade Planets AD(all day).

Ok, better graphics is all we need. Maybe a better "Planetary Invasions are an Immense undertaking" video.

Oh, and I stand corrected.

I still say I like something brought up in Reply 2.

It isn't making invasions mini-gamey if the extended invasion can benefit by backup troops being sent in. I have no interest in controlling the ground battle, but there's no reason that my logistics capabilities should make a difference in the number of transports that can orbit the planet being invaded.

Each planet has a maximum number of ships for orbit to begin with. Taking multiple turns adds the ability for the AI to move in with reinforcements. Which then adds the requirement that the player keeps some ships in the area to intercept or risk losing due to changing statistics.
The hardest part would be to make it so that once a planet is "under attack," troop transports of the two sides are both allowed to enter orbit, but no other ships. Although I would also support having a troop transport give an advantage modifier, therefore if the enemy comes with an attack ship and destroys a transport, the troops continue to fight but at a reduced ability, therefore allowing people to partially defend planets without troops.

Another thing is that tying up the fleets reduces the Blitzkrieg//Sneak Attack thing that Stardock doesn't like that much--only a player who has a vast advantage in numbers could pull it off so effectively if the fleets have to stay near the planets for a few turns to ensure victory.

Sorry, what do you mean by that?

I think it would be neat if rather then have the transports disappear after each successful invasion, they were reusable and they would gain experience. This way you can have you "elite" invasion transports that would gain experience from planet to planet.

Of course if you lost you would lose the transport and something would need to be done about picking up all the troops again and moving on, but it would put some value into transports.

Fleet A (Player 1) is taking over Planet Q (Player 2).
Takeover lasts... 3 weeks, let's say as an example.
Week 1: Fleet A's Transports enter orbit, deploy troops. Player 2 has nothing aside from the planet available, at the moment. Let's say Player 1 has 2000 troops, Planet Q has 6000. (Player 1's advantage is 5:1, so he should win by almost double).
Week 2: Player 1 moves Fleet A with Backup Transports B to assault Planet R. Player 2 seizes the opportunity and moves in with (Ships (A), Transports ().
A: Player 2 continues to destroy the undefended transports (considered orbiting Planet Q) from Player 1. Player 1's advantage drops from 5:1 to 3:1, making the battle about even.
B: Player 2 deploys 2000 troops, making the ratio 1:4 (troop numbers). The advantage changes because troop transports add advantage (as I said before). Advantage is now (say) 3.5:1, making Player 2 the leader.
Week 3: Player 1 realizes he made a mistake. (Maybe he sends in more troops, now, maybe he doesn't). ((BALANCING DISCUSSION: If Player 2 changes conditions, realistically and to be fair, Player 1 should be able to react. There must be a limit, however, or else players will wind up sending everything they can as backup (epic, but unproductive). Maybe each situational change adds 1 week to the battle, to a maximum of 6 weeks. Something like that.))

Therefore, with this system, Player 1 now has to keep some sort of defense fleet in the area to try and keep Player 2 from sending reinforcements (or attacking the transports), or risk losing the battle even though he had the advantage (5:1 Advantage factor, 1:3 troop factor).

Stardock has done things in the past (engine nerfage) and proposed others (right-of-passage treaty) to try and prevent the player from committing the sneak attack/Blitzkrieg strategy. If the players fleets are tied up for a (slightly) longer time with each planet, only the player that has a fleet for every two of his opponent's planets can safely attempt to overtake the opponent in two weeks (and it won't be two weeks, it'll be two planet battles).

(sry, thread revival)


To be clear: it is not changing much to the quantity of management.
I see the limits to all this, but it's the computer which should take more time fighting, not the player. In its simplest form - zero gravy added - it's close to the exact same battle but less generic and being more like battles. Management isn't the point if it is as simple as ABC for players.

Easy solution: logistics brings the same usual limit on troops.



Rasori:
I get it now, great. Blitzers can't just carry on with population from one enemy planet to the next.

WIllythemailboy:
See above. It don't think it changes much to cultural flips that ground battles take a few turns, and flips already take a few turns with "discontentment" on planets. From what I understand, if anything, it could only help regarding blitz.


On my side, I just don't know why turns were chosen to be in weeks instead of years or even months, if anyone knows.

This is great idea, I myself had put a post about it in the GalCiv section of this called new way to fight and one of the replys was relly good, so go right ahead and see it if you want to.