Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: Taking enemy homeworlds way too easy?

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Distant Worlds Series >> RE: Taking enemy homeworlds way too easy? Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Taking enemy homeworlds way too easy? - 12/30/2010 7:52:18 AM   
adecoy95


Posts: 420
Joined: 3/26/2010
Status: offline
i still think the orbiting starbase is the key to improving the invasion tactics... it has an upkeep, they take some time to build, and they are stationary on top of the planet. all of these things can create a pro/con situation that planetary shields just dont... since planetary shields cost no upkeep, take hardly any time to build, and have no means of upgrading/customizing. there is no decision making with planetary shields.

i would imagine that large highly populated worlds would have medium/large spaceports, or even customized mega ports that would need to be destroyed before troop transports could invade. this would....

1: eliminate troop transport fleets as a strategy. you would need more balanced fleets.

2: tie your warships in attack AND defense instead of just defense. since you need them to help destroy the space port.

3: combined with fortified bunkers, it makes taking large worlds EXTREMELY difficult without nuking it and your rep to oblivion.


but i couldn't imagine how the ai could make good choices with this. it might just be easier to remove maintenance cost of troops for the ai and give them lots of extra.

i have been doing more peacful games lately, so i havent had alot of testing with the beta patch for invasions, but i am thinking about making an AAR soon where everyone i meet i immediatly declare war with. i will see how i do


< Message edited by adecoy95 -- 12/30/2010 7:53:45 AM >

(in reply to Nibelung44)
Post #: 31
RE: Taking enemy homeworlds way too easy? - 12/30/2010 8:30:08 AM   
PDiFolco

 

Posts: 1158
Joined: 10/11/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: nammafia

Like most players, I also agree that it is too easy to take over home planet and planets with star base and defend stations.  Star bases and stations must have destroying troop transports and troop carrying ships as its highest priority. 

Seems useless to me given my strategy: I have a combat fleet to destroy the bases, followed by a transport invasion fleet... I don t expect anything better if I mix them, as invasion is lengthy.
To me the AI HW just need plenty more troops.

(in reply to nammafia)
Post #: 32
RE: Taking enemy homeworlds way too easy? - 12/30/2010 8:36:50 AM   
Okim


Posts: 209
Joined: 1/29/2010
From: Russian Federation
Status: offline
A new type of weapon\component representing a some kind of barrage cannons or interceptor missiles could be a nice salvation to this problem. Let`s say it is a component that is a branch-off from the current Point-Defence techs that cripples one of the troops with a up to a certain amount of damage per tech level (up to 25% - 50% - 75% etc.). Multiple numbers of these components can target larger amount of troops (only one per each weapon), but wont increase the damage per troop.

This way AI will get a better chances to defend itself from surprise attacks or any troop landers that will break through the defences. The greater the tech - the more attention you`ll have to pay to the destruction of the bases with these systems as 50% and 75% damage is enough to make even Shakturi to think twice before invading.

The size and resource/energy requirements and max number per base can be used to balance these components quite well.

(in reply to adecoy95)
Post #: 33
RE: Taking enemy homeworlds way too easy? - 12/30/2010 11:27:18 AM   
Sithuk

 

Posts: 429
Joined: 12/17/2010
Status: offline
Kenata: I agree that the underlying issue is the massive bonus from capturing enemy homeworlds (HW) early in the game. Once you have one, you then have double the troop training capability. Population is everything. It's simple a matter of time to roll over the next and the next. Grabbing them early gives the human player an unassailable lead. The colonised planets, or even independent worlds which have ~100m pop, take a long long time to grow to be the equal of a starting HW. The balance issue needs to stop the homeworlds from being grabbed so easily until they stop being such a game winner, i.e. the other planets grow to be their equal. When an AI has multiple worlds the same size as their HW then losing the HW isn't going to be such a game breaker for them.

Nibel: I like simple rules are best too. This is a SP game and I want the AI to cope (without cheating!!).

I like the following changes to slow down rushing to grab homeworlds at the start (I'm agreeing with Nibel and others):
1) No invasion if a base is present in orbit of a planet. Good luck taking down a 3000 shielded base with 15 destroyers with two T1 missiles each.
2) Militia generated is less than the one per billion population it is currently. Also create a militia icon (little guy with a pitchfork :) alongside the standard troop garrison unit so we know it is there.

The exact number of militia raised will be a matter of balance. It will depend on troop training time, troop maintenance cost, troop transport cost and other factors. I do like the idea of lowering it from the 1 per billion it is currently. If only to slow the time til we can invade to allow their other colonies to develop so losing the HW isn't as crippling as it is now.

Planet defences are twofold:
a) space based; and
b) ground based.

Space based:
Making it tougher to invade until space defenses are taken down will mitigate the risk of losing a large world with heavy space defences that can simply be circumvented with a heavily shielded transport which walks right past them.

Ground based:
Increasing the number of militia raised per population will start to make researching and deploying space bombarding ships attractive due to the daunting prospect of taking out the ground defenders. I considered increasing the maintenance of troops to delay the number that can be raised so early in the game but that does nothing to make ground bombarding techs relevant.

Please do not make this a tech dependent issue. Some of the players here set the research cost to 999 in game options so tech discovery is slow. Whatever is done must stop high pop planets falling so easily early in the game when everyone is at tech level 1. Tech discovery is not the answer.

I am heartened to see the interest in providing feedback. I think it is reflective of how much we all enjoy this game. Its already more fun than Galciv and Birth of the Federation (which is high praise). Congratulations to the dev team on a fine job.


< Message edited by Sithuk -- 12/30/2010 11:41:32 AM >

(in reply to Nibelung44)
Post #: 34
RE: Taking enemy homeworlds way too easy? - 12/30/2010 6:44:12 PM   
fierceking

 

Posts: 235
Joined: 7/24/2010
Status: offline
Why not just keep it simple.

How about make the AI fleet focus fire on transports and have it so that the transport loses troops as it takes damage.

So if the transport takes 50% damage before it lands its troops then only 50% of the troops gets to land. Since when taking damage usually you get casualties.

Most of the homeworlds have defensive bases and they have AoE damage. Therefore a lot of the incoming transports can lose their troops even before they land. You don't have to completely destroy the transports. So even if some of the transports gets thru your defenses only a portion of the the enemy troops lands.

This can even be moddable by being able to change that percentage higher or lower or put on a slider bar before a new game to set the difficulty of the game.

The only problem is that posting in this long thread, none of the devs will see this.

< Message edited by fierceking -- 12/30/2010 6:48:40 PM >

(in reply to Sithuk)
Post #: 35
RE: Taking enemy homeworlds way too easy? - 12/30/2010 9:10:46 PM   
ehsumrell1


Posts: 2519
Joined: 8/17/2010
From: The Briar Patch Nebula
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: fierceking

Why not just keep it simple.

How about make the AI fleet focus fire on transports and have it so that the transport loses troops as it takes damage.

So if the transport takes 50% damage before it lands its troops then only 50% of the troops gets to land. Since when taking damage usually you get casualties.

Most of the homeworlds have defensive bases and they have AoE damage. Therefore a lot of the incoming transports can lose their troops even before they land. You don't have to completely destroy the transports. So even if some of the transports gets thru your defenses only a portion of the the enemy troops lands.

This can even be moddable by being able to change that percentage higher or lower or put on a slider bar before a new game to set the difficulty of the game.

The only problem is that posting in this long thread, none of the devs will see this.


Trust me fierceking, the dev team and us beta testers do read all the posts. I DO like your idea out of the many I've read also. It brings to my mind the part
of the Starship Troopers movie when the "bug plasma" was destroying both the
motherships in orbit plus some of the descending landing craft. Good idea! I
say put your idea in a post in the Master Wishlist thread.

_____________________________

Shields are useless in "The Briar Patch"...

(in reply to fierceking)
Post #: 36
RE: Taking enemy homeworlds way too easy? - 12/30/2010 10:27:40 PM   
Shark7


Posts: 7865
Joined: 7/24/2007
From: The Big Nowhere
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: adecoy95

i still think the orbiting starbase is the key to improving the invasion tactics... it has an upkeep, they take some time to build, and they are stationary on top of the planet. all of these things can create a pro/con situation that planetary shields just dont... since planetary shields cost no upkeep, take hardly any time to build, and have no means of upgrading/customizing. there is no decision making with planetary shields.

i would imagine that large highly populated worlds would have medium/large spaceports, or even customized mega ports that would need to be destroyed before troop transports could invade. this would....

1: eliminate troop transport fleets as a strategy. you would need more balanced fleets.

2: tie your warships in attack AND defense instead of just defense. since you need them to help destroy the space port.

3: combined with fortified bunkers, it makes taking large worlds EXTREMELY difficult without nuking it and your rep to oblivion.


but i couldn't imagine how the ai could make good choices with this. it might just be easier to remove maintenance cost of troops for the ai and give them lots of extra.

i have been doing more peacful games lately, so i havent had alot of testing with the beta patch for invasions, but i am thinking about making an AAR soon where everyone i meet i immediatly declare war with. i will see how i do



That is exactly how most games deal with the situation.

As a human, I will look at the situation, weigh my options and act accordingly....not always taking the most intelligent course of action, but that is human error.

The AI will look at its perameters, and perform the result of the if/then algorithm without regard to the intelligence of doing such a thing.

The improvement comes in with coding in a few more if/then statements, for example:

If enemy firewpower >/= (2 * current empire firepower), then 20% of ships should patrol Empire Capital.

etc

You can add in as many as you need to get the AI to perform the desired actions. You can even help weight the actions by the race attributes:

If Caution >/= 125, then 70% of ships defend home territory.
If Caution >/= 100, then 40% of ships defend home territory.
If Caution </= 99, then 10% of ships defend home territory.

So forth and so on.

DISCLAIMER: I am not a coder, so while I understand the IF/THEN theory, this may be completely different from how DW or any other game is currently coded.

_____________________________

Distant Worlds Fan

'When in doubt...attack!'

(in reply to adecoy95)
Post #: 37
RE: Taking enemy homeworlds way too easy? - 12/30/2010 10:42:18 PM   
ASHBERY76


Posts: 2083
Joined: 10/10/2001
From: England
Status: offline
It's a tricky one because you can not make the A.I defend its homeworld to such a state it can not have offensive fleets and troops lauching its own attacks, that would be very dull gameplay.

_____________________________


(in reply to Shark7)
Post #: 38
RE: Taking enemy homeworlds way too easy? - 12/30/2010 11:05:57 PM   
pipewrench


Posts: 450
Joined: 1/5/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: fierceking

Why not just keep it simple.

How about make the AI fleet focus fire on transports and have it so that the transport loses troops as it takes damage.

So if the transport takes 50% damage before it lands its troops then only 50% of the troops gets to land. Since when taking damage usually you get casualties.



then we would just build many transports to make all things equal. I agree with your ideas but then I would just send in empty transports first to focus the fire.




(in reply to fierceking)
Post #: 39
RE: Taking enemy homeworlds way too easy? - 12/31/2010 12:01:52 AM   
lordxorn


Posts: 768
Joined: 12/6/2009
Status: offline
MOO2's homeworlds were usually guarded by the top Starbase, Weapons, and a decent fleet at times, which was sometimes not effective either.

I think the solution is to allow the AI to relocate capitals. The Russian were ready to evacuate Moscow (I think Stalin already did) by the time the first panzer had eyes on it.

This way the race does not immediately lose the whole game.

Maybe this can give the second capital tech more meaning allowing a race to just have the second largest capital become the defacto main capital.

_____________________________


(in reply to pipewrench)
Post #: 40
RE: Taking enemy homeworlds way too easy? - 12/31/2010 12:06:16 AM   
ASHBERY76


Posts: 2083
Joined: 10/10/2001
From: England
Status: offline
You might relocate Moscow but you cannot relocate the massive population which is what kills the A.I.

< Message edited by ASHBERY76 -- 12/31/2010 12:16:13 AM >


_____________________________


(in reply to lordxorn)
Post #: 41
RE: Taking enemy homeworlds way too easy? - 12/31/2010 12:39:05 AM   
BigWolf


Posts: 539
Joined: 3/31/2010
Status: offline
Perhaps immigration should occur faster to offset a lose of the capital?

Most planets will remain with small populations throughout the entire game
So from a gameplay perspective, have people move around faster maybe?
Might not be realistic, but then very few players will play long enough games to have a realistic population increase
For starters the tech tree is far too small for such a long length game


_____________________________


(in reply to ASHBERY76)
Post #: 42
RE: Taking enemy homeworlds way too easy? - 12/31/2010 12:54:02 AM   
ASHBERY76


Posts: 2083
Joined: 10/10/2001
From: England
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: BigWolf

Perhaps immigration should occur faster to offset a lose of the capital?

Most planets will remain with small populations throughout the entire game
So from a gameplay perspective, have people move around faster maybe?
Might not be realistic, but then very few players will play long enough games to have a realistic population increase
For starters the tech tree is far too small for such a long length game



I agree high population planets like your capital should include a massive push factor for emigration.It would solve the issue of losing homeworld being such a blow to your entire game.

_____________________________


(in reply to BigWolf)
Post #: 43
RE: Taking enemy homeworlds way too easy? - 12/31/2010 1:53:42 AM   
forsaken1111

 

Posts: 281
Joined: 3/30/2010
Status: offline
Yeah I would like to see migration pushed much more, especially to colony worlds that are your race's native type.

(in reply to ASHBERY76)
Post #: 44
RE: Taking enemy homeworlds way too easy? - 12/31/2010 3:46:58 AM   
Gargoil

 

Posts: 389
Joined: 1/6/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: ASHBERY76


quote:

ORIGINAL: BigWolf

Perhaps immigration should occur faster to offset a lose of the capital?

Most planets will remain with small populations throughout the entire game
So from a gameplay perspective, have people move around faster maybe?
Might not be realistic, but then very few players will play long enough games to have a realistic population increase
For starters the tech tree is far too small for such a long length game



I agree high population planets like your capital should include a massive push factor for emigration.It would solve the issue of losing homeworld being such a blow to your entire game.


I must also agree. It is one thing that growth is slow. But all colonies that start from scratch never amount to anything really, even late in the game.

(in reply to ASHBERY76)
Post #: 45
RE: Taking enemy homeworlds way too easy? - 12/31/2010 4:41:15 AM   
frugaldude

 

Posts: 85
Joined: 3/22/2010
Status: offline
Maybe the solution is a change in the universe generation.  

Capitol planet populations begin significantly larger than their colony planets.  No matter what slider variations are used the end result is effectively the same.  This is creating an environment of concentrated wealth which is easily exploitable.

An initial distribution of wealth might be desirable.  Each empire could be generated , depending upon its age, with one or more of their initial colonies having nearly equal population and tech development as the capitol planet.  

Losing a capitol wouldn't be as critical.  Smaller colonies would have more sources of colonists.  Game mechanics would not have to be changed.

This could be randomized to create a more varied universe.  Young empires could have 0 to 1 equivalent colonies.  Expanding could have 0 to 2.  Mature could have 0 to 3.  And old empires could have 0 to 5.



< Message edited by frugaldude -- 12/31/2010 4:43:46 AM >

(in reply to Gargoil)
Post #: 46
RE: Taking enemy homeworlds way too easy? - 12/31/2010 11:37:01 AM   
Sithuk

 

Posts: 429
Joined: 12/17/2010
Status: offline
Frugal: Agree. Good ideas on making colonies becoming more important and the HW less so as time progresses. I think play is far too skewed towards the homeworlds for the majority of a game timeframe. Other planets rarely grow their population to be as large. Colony significance remains relatively minor. Independent colonies which start with higher pop are slightly more relevant.

I like the idea of enhancing private emmigration, driven by the private passenger ships. I like this a lot. Perhaps put in a slider to stop immigration to a planet at a certain pop? Prioritise immigration by planet quality / proximity?

I still would like to see the no invasions until space defences are removed to stop the heavily shielded troop transport tactic. It makes grabbing planets too easy. Including grabbing the all important homeworlds of neighbouring empires at the start of the game.

(in reply to frugaldude)
Post #: 47
RE: Taking enemy homeworlds way too easy? - 12/31/2010 12:10:06 PM   
Litjan

 

Posts: 221
Joined: 3/27/2010
From: Butzbach, Germany
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: fierceking

Why not just keep it simple.

How about make the AI fleet focus fire on transports and have it so that the transport loses troops as it takes damage.

So if the transport takes 50% damage before it lands its troops then only 50% of the troops gets to land. Since when taking damage usually you get casualties.




I absolutely agree. Most of the other solutions seem a bit artificial. This is the most realistic option, in my opinion. And any decent starport can easily demolish most troops transports within seconds, if they concentrate their fire.

Jan


(in reply to fierceking)
Post #: 48
RE: Taking enemy homeworlds way too easy? - 12/31/2010 12:14:01 PM   
Litjan

 

Posts: 221
Joined: 3/27/2010
From: Butzbach, Germany
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sithuk

I like the idea of enhancing private emmigration, driven by the private passenger ships. I like this a lot. Perhaps put in a slider to stop immigration to a planet at a certain pop? Prioritise immigration by planet quality / proximity?



Yes, I think immigration/population growth for new colonies could use another boost. It has been improved somewhat in the expansion, now I actually get some tax from new colonies (in longer games), something wich basically never happened in the original. But I would be all for another lift in migration.

(in reply to Sithuk)
Post #: 49
RE: Taking enemy homeworlds way too easy? - 12/31/2010 1:32:24 PM   
hewwo

 

Posts: 276
Joined: 4/22/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Litjan


quote:

ORIGINAL: Sithuk

I like the idea of enhancing private emmigration, driven by the private passenger ships. I like this a lot. Perhaps put in a slider to stop immigration to a planet at a certain pop? Prioritise immigration by planet quality / proximity?



Yes, I think immigration/population growth for new colonies could use another boost. It has been improved somewhat in the expansion, now I actually get some tax from new colonies (in longer games), something wich basically never happened in the original. But I would be all for another lift in migration.



+1

(in reply to Litjan)
Post #: 50
RE: Taking enemy homeworlds way too easy? - 12/31/2010 3:24:26 PM   
Shark7


Posts: 7865
Joined: 7/24/2007
From: The Big Nowhere
Status: offline
Something else that could be tried to encourage migration to a certain planet would be to have a toggle policy that would 'Entice' people to migrate to a planet at a cost of Imperial funds. Like a tax credit to buy a house (in a current world example).

Basically it would work like this:

You go to the planet in question, click on a button to 'Enact Migration Incentives". Once enacted, the planet will experience 3-4 times normal migration from larger planets. The downside is that it costs you money each month (example 5k/month).

If you were to see an advertisement for the program it might read:

'Come to exotic Outworld, be a pioneer! Guaranteed jobs for all immigrants. Government sponsored program guarantees 1 acre of land and a house at no cost to you!'

Then when they get there they find out they'll be working 16 hours a day in a salt mine...

_____________________________

Distant Worlds Fan

'When in doubt...attack!'

(in reply to hewwo)
Post #: 51
RE: Taking enemy homeworlds way too easy? - 12/31/2010 3:36:14 PM   
ASHBERY76


Posts: 2083
Joined: 10/10/2001
From: England
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Litjan
I absolutely agree. Most of the other solutions seem a bit artificial. This is the most realistic option, in my opinion. And any decent starport can easily demolish most troops transports within seconds, if they concentrate their fire.

Jan




Any decent human player will just wait until the bases are destroyed first and then invade with troopships so this solves nothing.Human players can plan you know.

The only solution is massive emigration increase to make homeworlds less important.

_____________________________


(in reply to Litjan)
Post #: 52
RE: Taking enemy homeworlds way too easy? - 12/31/2010 3:48:06 PM   
Sithuk

 

Posts: 429
Joined: 12/17/2010
Status: offline
Ash: Enhanced emmigration solves the unbalanced importance of HWs throughout the entire game.

Stopping troop transports from invading until space defences are destroyed solves the early game HW rush.

(in reply to ASHBERY76)
Post #: 53
RE: Taking enemy homeworlds way too easy? - 12/31/2010 5:13:30 PM   
Dannyboy99

 

Posts: 10
Joined: 12/22/2010
Status: offline
Now that DW has fighters and such could troop ships not require dropships? So a single dropship carries 1 troop then returns to the ship to pick up more. These dropships will be vulnerable to enemy fighters and point defence. This would allow a number of different troopship strategies: Carrier ships with bombers and fighters escorting troops, heavily armed and armoured ships standing off and landing armies 1 troop at a time, etc

(in reply to Sithuk)
Post #: 54
RE: Taking enemy homeworlds way too easy? - 12/31/2010 6:27:03 PM   
fierceking

 

Posts: 235
Joined: 7/24/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: pipewrench


quote:

ORIGINAL: fierceking

Why not just keep it simple.

How about make the AI fleet focus fire on transports and have it so that the transport loses troops as it takes damage.

So if the transport takes 50% damage before it lands its troops then only 50% of the troops gets to land. Since when taking damage usually you get casualties.



then we would just build many transports to make all things equal. I agree with your ideas but then I would just send in empty transports first to focus the fire.







Every tactic has a counter.

YOu can have the AI scan transports and if its empty ->> ignore focus on the one with the most troops.

(in reply to pipewrench)
Post #: 55
RE: Taking enemy homeworlds way too easy? - 12/31/2010 6:38:20 PM   
fierceking

 

Posts: 235
Joined: 7/24/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: ASHBERY76


quote:

ORIGINAL: Litjan
I absolutely agree. Most of the other solutions seem a bit artificial. This is the most realistic option, in my opinion. And any decent starport can easily demolish most troops transports within seconds, if they concentrate their fire.

Jan




Any decent human player will just wait until the bases are destroyed first and then invade with troopships so this solves nothing.Human players can plan you know.

The only solution is massive emigration increase to make homeworlds less important.


You're missing the point. Thats what your suppose to do. You are suppose to take out the defenses first before you do an invasion to minimize troop losses.


Right now you dont. You can just send your transports to take over a homeworld w/o taking out the defenses. You can take over a homeworld with the enemy defenses intact. Which is dumb.

So no kidding your suppose to take out the defenses first. That's the point of this thread.


(in reply to ASHBERY76)
Post #: 56
RE: Taking enemy homeworlds way too easy? - 12/31/2010 6:50:04 PM   
forsaken1111

 

Posts: 281
Joined: 3/30/2010
Status: offline
By using the 'fighters' system could we make troops land on small lander craft which could be shot down by point defense systems?

(in reply to fierceking)
Post #: 57
RE: Taking enemy homeworlds way too easy? - 12/31/2010 7:40:14 PM   
BigWolf


Posts: 539
Joined: 3/31/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: fierceking

You're missing the point. Thats what your suppose to do. You are suppose to take out the defenses first before you do an invasion to minimize troop losses.


Right now you dont. You can just send your transports to take over a homeworld w/o taking out the defenses. You can take over a homeworld with the enemy defenses intact. Which is dumb.

So no kidding your suppose to take out the defenses first. That's the point of this thread.





However, regardless of space defences, you don't need many troops to take the homeworld over, because it is poorly defended on the ground as well

_____________________________


(in reply to fierceking)
Post #: 58
RE: Taking enemy homeworlds way too easy? - 1/1/2011 12:17:08 AM   
kenata

 

Posts: 28
Joined: 12/16/2010
Status: offline
As I read through this thread, it occurs to me that maybe I am not attacking enemy home worlds correctly. In all the games I have played, the enemy usually has around 8-20 troops stationed at their home world and I need to bring about 16-20 to effectively take the world. That is, if they have not built a fortified bunker, which makes it take about 25 troops to take the world. Some people here have talked about sneak invading a home world, but I think I have never been lucky enough to find one which has just loaded up its own transports so its stockpile is low.

That said, I can believe that some people have played enough to come across this situation. However, most of the solutions here seem to be far too top down, that is, they deal with the approach before the invasion. My thoughts are kind of like this.

1) Planets of a certain size should never simply roll over on an invading force. Ultimately, 16 units of troops should not really be able to hold 16k pop planet. I think that planets should have a huge penalty similar to civ where the people themselves are trying to rejoin their own empire for a time. Maybe something like a year per 1k people of happiness penalty.

2) Planets should never give up the fight because all their defenders are gone. In fact, I think that per 1k pop, a 1/2 strength unit is added to the defending units. This way, a 16k planet have all its defenders gone, but the planet will still defend against invaders. These units also won't count towards loadable troops.

3) Transports too close to a planet are immediately considered a foe by all ships in an empire, war or no war. This way you can't just slip a transport real close to a planet then sneak invade.

4) Transports should have to send drop pods to a planet to invade. This was a really good idea from above to make it so that you can't just slip a transport in real close and invade. Additionally, this will allow for things like planetary flak or point defense to take out the drop pods.

5) Ion weapons should affect the troop pods of a ship. This is a bit of a weird one, but it would have drastic effects on the ease a fleet of capital ships with troop pods can drop their troops.

(in reply to BigWolf)
Post #: 59
RE: Taking enemy homeworlds way too easy? - 1/1/2011 3:12:51 AM   
Sabin Stargem

 

Posts: 140
Joined: 12/29/2010
Status: offline
In MOO2, one of the nifty things about planet defense is that your planets automatically populate themselves with defensive units once the infrastructure is in place. This feels alot like how Distant Worlds should be, in that you issue an one-shot order to improve defenses at a planet ("build ion cannon"), then the game takes care of the rest according to the planet's population, racial stats, technology, ect. Unfortunately, Distant Worlds is currently fairly limited in terms of defending planets, and the overall process of how that would work out. Things like the time and personnel required for an invasion is too small. Furthermore, it seems that having soldiers on a planet doesn't improve morale, which is odd since an military presence should lend itself to creating order on an planet, be it comforting or disquieting. It would be nice if we had a war planner, and one of the screens in it was about how the takeover of an planet should be conducted, recommending how many troops are needed, how long, and how much control they are projected to exert upon the planet's population, and carries out the intention once the orders are given.


(in reply to kenata)
Post #: 60
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Distant Worlds Series >> RE: Taking enemy homeworlds way too easy? Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.203