Lowa11

Join Date 06/2005

A new idea for Planet Invansions

Maybe this idea can "help"?

What if you had a 2D tactial invasion (3D is too complicated and would fry a computer) so you would see groups of soilders procede into combat (and the Advantage factor is not Space bar dealt its according to the Warfare tech and Soildering and Weapons) then after a (possibly epic) Battle and eventually the battle will end with one side victor I think a portion of the Planet's current pop can be taken into soilders rather than the entire BUT it still will be a huge defending force Also i wrote a note about a possible planetary bombardments idea i was thinking to have the devs put in ships that can bomb a world and destroy its improvements (if any) and possibly its planet class-(a bad thing but Bombs make craters which are hard to get rid of and it makes it a difficult choice for pre-invansions) oh with bombardments it also can take outs its defenses making invansions even easier however this ship cannot attack a defended planet so its simmilar to a transport but instead of already invading the ship just bombs it away AND THEN you send in a transport full of hardy men

But anyways it makes it a easier game for assaulting worlds

warfare

Locked Post

Advanced Search

Watch this post

Do not email me updates for this post Email me updates for this post

Successfully updated karma reason!

I also forgot to note About the 2D tactial invansion you should be able to issue General tactics like Agressive(they try as hard as they can with increased movement rates and Attacks however they are more vun its like charging and charging won't work aganist huge battries of Machgun nests or somting tech could be better...) ,Retreat (to save some troops if the invansion fails), Passive (regular invansion tactic Soilders are able to defend themselfs better but move at slower speed)

Successfully updated karma reason!

and perhaps the invasions could take a few turns to be complete? It would make more sense. I mean in GC1 you could wipe out billions and billions of people in just the turn of a month. And keep in mind that was when the entire population of a planet would literally fight to the death (something I hope they fixed this time around). And now with 1 turn being 1 week, I think it would just make more sense for an invasion of an entire world to take a little longer, dont you think?

Successfully updated karma reason!

Lucky_Jack

Join Date 01/2002

+62

Keep in mind that:

1). The Stardock people have been saying that programming in 3D is easier than in 2D.

2). FrogBoy (Brad Wardell) has been saying that he wants to concentrate on keeping the game multidimensional by providing many ways of winning the game; not just with military might, but cultural influence, economic prowess, technological superiority, etc. etc..

The utter concentration on the code to support invasions and provide such rich military conquest scenes would give the game such a lopsided appearance that GC would loose its flavor. In order to balance what you are asking for, they would have to enrich the other methods of winning to retain that balance. So how about some suggestions for enriching the other methods of winning the game?

Successfully updated karma reason!

its a idea however ill come up with ideas for other methods of winning the game im more focused into warfare however i have that idea if the company can't do it oh well maybe next time or maybe a exp? who knows but Lucky is right the game has more methods of winning than just military might so its important all methods are good

Successfully updated karma reason!

I would add a suggestion here - you have a choice of orbital bombardment or not. No bombardment gives you a developed planet, but increases casualties, while a bombardment decreases casualties but destroys improvements. Adds a tactical decision to an invasion.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Its ironic because normally bombardment would INCREASE casualites rather than traditnal warfare....

Successfully updated karma reason!

Lucky_Jack

Join Date 01/2002

+62

Its ironic because normally bombardment would INCREASE casualites rather than traditnal warfare....

Depends on which view point you choose, yours or the enemies. Since the use of orbital bombardment would preceed the landing of troops, orbital bombardment increases enemy (and, perhaps, colateral) casualties and decreases casualties to your troops, while traditional warfare without orbital bombardment risks a comparative increase in casualties to your troops.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Well its progress...

Successfully updated karma reason!

What is the point of planetary defenses then if the enemy can just bomb the crap out of them?

Successfully updated karma reason!

What is the point of planetary defenses then if the enemy can just bomb the crap out of them?

Atm planetary defences haven't been added to GC2, although there were mumblings from stardock about having ideas for them.

Successfully updated karma reason!

What is the point of planetary defenses then if the enemy can just bomb the crap out of them?

In the real world this is a hard question to answer without "Star Trek" or "Star Wars" levels of technology. When someone in orbit can literally destroy all life on a planet by, essentially, throwing rocks it's very hard to defend a world.

It's much cheaper to attack than to defend in this instance and the best defense would be to destroy the launch vehicle before it can launch.

Successfully updated karma reason!

You don't need Star Wars/Trek tech to lob rocks at a world. We can do that now. It just takes dropping a rocket engine on an asteriod or comet, and patience. The faster you want that bit of rock to hit another target, the bigger the engine.

In GalCiv, there are no left over citizenry to be assimilated. This could be an interesting thing (ala MoO or Civ), but right now, everyone fights to the last working body, no exceptions. This means that orbital bombardment should already be considered as part of the standard tactics employed, rather then an option. It would be needed on the more developed worlds that have hardened defence bunkers that can sustain themselves for years. Obviously, every inch of possible military targets are killed from orbit with high energy tactics (including the possibility of bits of matter going at a significant fraction of c), and nerve toxins are dumped into the atmosphere to quickly kill off all the surviving non-hardened targets (ie, the aliens). Then your environmentally protected infantry move in, and kill anything left moving (calling in orbital strikes on anything to hardened that might have missed in the initial attack).

War in GC is a serious thing. The destruction of an entire world's worth of people. No survivors. No quarter. It would be nice if there was something a little less total, but then, you'd have problems... if a society can live for years in a starship, they can just as easily live for decades under the oceans. Consider, you take over that Drengin world, but do you really own it? They could have evacuated to the deep ocean... and still be fully functional there! You can catch the new starships they send up, but how do you deal with them sending out massive waves of suicidal clones on your civilian infrastructure? How much of your navy would you need to keep your own world blocaded, so that they couldn't recieve reinforcements from the Drengin Empire?

It could be intriguing to be able to have "shared worlds". But it would lose its fun if you had 100 such worlds in a gigantic galaxy every game. If you cannot have shared worlds, then logically speaking, this means that you cannot have any previous occupants left over when you take over a world (not until you have a practical total mind control tech, anyways, and then there's the risk that they have it, and have a hidden, stealth base to use such things against you!).

Leave world conquest simple, so we can concentrate on where the real action is... the galaxy map. That seems to me to be the option that lets us have the most fun with the least non-fun distractions.

Successfully updated karma reason!

not sure which forum topic to post thsi in :

As the above poster, I don't think I would want to get bogged down in too much more detail on invasions as I like the strategic over tactical. I wouldn't want to much more detail than the current lvl of brevity (Ground defenses might be nice but...). As not exclusively a war game or a tactical game it has to balance lvl of detail in a variety of areas. However I always lamented the fact that my ships in GC1 (could they if you left the United Plantets ?) generally couldn't use planetary bombardment. I hope they include ship to ground weapons, if they include ship design in GC2. Bombardment could quickly and simply damage the population and but also take out improvements, as a possibly unfortunate side effect, relative to the amount of weaponry brought to bear.

Also I didn't like that all the defending population are soldiers and I have to use my population on a 1-1 basis vs. defending population. I could wipe out an enemy fleet, orbit the planet with dreadnaughts but have to pull 30k of my pop to take out 40k of their population, spend money and only wind up with 1k pop planet. As suggested in another thread if your capital ships orbit a planet perhaps it should hurt moral or production of a planet through blockade.

Invasion in GC1:
1) It's a great strain on the populations of my planets, 2) Is difficult unless I have a decisive tech advantage or enough money to afford the invasion tactics. 3) You have to eliminate the entire population even if you are good or they were formerly your citizens.

Most modern wars involve a fraction of the population. A few hundred thousand to invade and occupy tens of millions. Perhaps if you didn't have to genocide every last member of the population (especially if they were origionally part of your empire but seceded) but could instead occupy and slowly integrate them with reduced production, if you had high influence. Perhaps the closer you are in morality, government type and the like could influence assimilation. Maybe troop ships could have higher support and costs, or even moral penalties but not require such a decimation of your population (although that was a nice way to eliminate pop pressures on planet moral). Wiping the enemy population out totally might be a preferable, although vile, option if you dont' want to deal with possible rebels in the future or moral problems on an occupied planet but it would be a choice. Just some thoughts, I'm sure it will be a great game which ever direction they take it

Successfully updated karma reason!

You don't need it to do the lobbing but you do need something close to it for complete protection against the ones doing the lobbing.

Successfully updated karma reason!

It would be extremely difficult to halt a rapidly descending meteorite from imploding onto a planet. It could go incredibly fast as in several kilometers every several seconds?

Furthermore if you developed railguns, you could accelerate them onto soil also.

Successfully updated karma reason!

It wouldn't be any more difficult then shooting an ship in orbit. They go several kilometers per second, after all. Ships that aren't on the exact same vector have to be able to do that, so being able to shoot a meteor wouldn't be any more difficult.

Railguns don't change things. They just let you throw something that is somewhat ferrous.

Successfully updated karma reason!