I like the idea of all of this, but isn't that basically what planetary defense does? I'm assuming that's basically like fighter squadrons and such, but it seems possible to do something similar as in like orbital defense. Or groundside weapons. Planetary defenses already covers the transport/ground invasion part but possibly add an orbital defenses building? You could have it like the Ion Cannons from C&C3 or Orbital MAC cannons from the Halo series. Of course it would have to have a limit and be pretty exorbinant costwise but it would be nice to just build a bunch of orbital defenses and focus your fleet elsewhere. Another possibility is to make the cost of maintenance variable based on distance from your nearest planet, you know, simulate supply lines. Like freighters only increasing cost instead of profit. Just some thoughts I had on the matter

It remains a cost saving measure. If it's unmanned, it doesn't need an artificial intelligence (it'd need "programming" anyways), it only needs a radio link to a ground control center. Eavesdropping and hacking would be concerns with such a setup... reliability ALWAYS is an issue with a remote controlled machine. Nothing in there would make that setup more expensive than manning a station. The costs saved on supplies, life support, and crew more than make up for any measures that need to be taken to ensure the security of the station.

Besides, the encryption technology of an interstellar civilisation would be nothing to sneeze at.

Duh, the bottom line here is that a nearly immobile orbiting defense station, manned or unmanned, is always, ALWAYS going to be cheaper to maintain and operate than it's warp capable, space faring counterpart.

@Iamcatfu

The idea being thrown around here is basically just allowing ships to be built without engines... they'd become like orbiting defense stations because they couldn't leave the planet, and the space they'd save on engines, life support, and sensors would give them a combat edge.

Phaedyme:

"The "My soldiers land and kill off your entire population" thing is an abstraction. You don't actually exterminate everyone on the planet, and a lot of the conquered just plain go off the grid.

Battles are resolved in a week because the game doesn't focus on military operations to the same extent that, for example, Master of Orion III does. It might be more realistic, but it might also add more micromanagement for little advantage."



Ok so in this example, the computer take your planet with 20 billion on, you retake it the next turn, as I recall you only have the population that survived the invasion... so no the population dont just go off the grid.

While you are right that this is a question about realism, then all that I am asking for is that as defender you at least get the option to actually defend yourself. While I could come with many ways to do this, then just for simplicity why not give the defenders some of the same choices as the invader except of course cases like Mass drivers. But if you have Mini soldiers, then why not be able to get the choice to use them? Yes even Gas warfare and Tidal waves (btw. how do they work on a planet with no water on? hehe) , while it will lay waste to your own planet, then it is better then losse it in some cases!

All in all I still think it is posible to add extra layers to planetary combat without compromiseing the simplicity that helps to make the game fun!

Dude, if you want to argue over whether the entire population really rather than game mechanically is exterminated, take it up with Brad Wardell. He's made this point before: Only the Korath exterminate instead of conquer, and then only with spore ships.

As I understand it, it's a citizen vs resident issue. Think of Starship Troopers (the book, not the movie) What the game reports as the population of the planet is the population of citizens of your empire, not the total population of the planet.

If your approval rating is 100%, you don't think that boost is because the beings are reproducing faster, do you? That doesn't make much sense. However a surge in residents becoming citizens because of the good job you are doing does make sense. The reverse is also true..low approval ratings don't make people reproduce less (in fact, in RL, the reverse is true. Times of troubles often make birthrates spike.) However, citizens revoking their citizenship because you suck does make sense.

Further, if you take a class 4 world and drop 3 farms on it...do you REALLY think it can support more people than the class 29 super-gaia world in the next system with no farms? No, it's barely habitable. But on the super-gaia, your empire is not providing the food for more citizens, so the residents of the planet get food from non-government sources.

Cultural flipping also makes sense from the citizen vs resident standpoint, as the foreign empire attracts higher and higher numbers from a planet's resident factor, until it's powerful enough to take over planetary government from the ruling empire.

So, yeah....when you invade a planet, you aren't killing the entire population. You are wresting control from the controlling empire, and losing survivors of the battle are disenfranchised, so don't count as your population.

From a gameplay perspective, it's really a moot point. We already use Medium or Small ships essentially as oribtal defense plaforms. No engines, all weapons, or mostly defense or somesuch.

Whatever the verisimilitude of it, the real question is: how much planetbound defense would be fun to have?

Would you care for a Huge Hull thousand attack Ship to be stationed at every enemy planet at no maintenance cost to the defender? How about a Large one instead? Several Large Ships? 20 Large ships, perhaps?

In Civ4, the same "soft target" paradigm exists, and it exists for verisimilitude (no one has an army for every city)and for fun. Civs have one or more armies that form strong military points of attack and defense, but individual cities are essentially sitting ducks apart from Cultural Defense.

I could also comment that Master of Orion 2, great game that it is, essentially also has peanuts for planetary defense at some stages and game situations. It's a rare game that you can't arrange for one of your faster fleets to decimate fleet-less planets.

Ultimately, I don't think that anything large than a Medium Ship's power ought to be coded as planetary defense, and it's already possible to station a cheap Medium ship in orbit around every planet as a defensive measure. You can change up the graphics and call it an orbital station - easy enough to do that.

Heh, medium and small? in late game on key planets I use Huge. Other wise as an Isolationist I leave most my planets undefended. I keep my space ships in space where they can interdict the buy eyed alien scum. If I have eyes then I dont use Tattler Cargo hulls (2 engines, basic support and lots and lots of sensors). I make sure I get Tir Quan and all the land military techs so if one gets through that the granny brigade can have a fun turkey shoot. The only thing I cant defend against is spore ships but they make pretty pretty colors when they go boom.

Ok Starstrike I see what your saying now. I still dont mind the cost its not a biggy to me unlike that auto choose or where I choose a ship and move it but its actually another ship on the other side of my empire... That is not a feature its a bug or user malfunction.

Duh