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? - 1/2/2011 6:58:27 AM   
the1sean


Posts: 841
Joined: 5/11/2010
From: Texas, USA
Status: offline
Immigration rates is something that I brought up during the ROTS Beta process. It has actually been significantly increased compared to vanilla DW, but could probably use a bit more of a boost.

One thing that (AI designed) defensive starbases and starports need more of is Ion Blast weapons and Ion Cannons to slow invasion forces down. In addition, dramatically lowering the cost of troop upkeep(halved?), and then setting the AI to station tons more troops at the empire capital would make a big difference.

(in reply to Sabin Stargem)
Post #: 61
RE: Taking enemy homeworlds way too easy? - 1/3/2011 3:51:41 PM   
gmot


Posts: 123
Joined: 11/22/2010
Status: offline
I agree it's too easy to take over planets right now. I play with the house rule that I have to remove the defenses before attempting to invade, but still I can take over lots of planets with fairly minimal troops. The AI should really have more troops defending colonies - I often run into a planet, which has been settled for awhile, with 0 or 1 troop only.

(in reply to Sabin Stargem)
Post #: 62
RE: Taking enemy homeworlds way too easy? - 1/4/2011 1:03:42 PM   
the1sean


Posts: 841
Joined: 5/11/2010
From: Texas, USA
Status: offline
Yet I feel that the AI defends planets about as well as I usually do. Ground armies are amazingly expensive!

(in reply to gmot)
Post #: 63
RE: Taking enemy homeworlds way too easy? - 1/4/2011 2:39:20 PM   
gmot


Posts: 123
Joined: 11/22/2010
Status: offline
That's a good point - should troops actually be that expensive? How about if there was a defensive troop kind only - militia I guess - that the AI could pump out lots of - but couldn't be used for invasions or loaded onto ships. The maintenance on these would be minimal so the AI could build lots of them. That would then make invading harder as the typical planet would be better defended.

(in reply to the1sean)
Post #: 64
RE: Taking enemy homeworlds way too easy? - 1/4/2011 4:10:18 PM   
jalapen0

 

Posts: 122
Joined: 4/10/2010
Status: offline
Another thing that maybe has been mentioned is that it takes a laughably short period of time to take over a planet. Invading a planet should take a considerable amount of time....which will give the AI and/or player time to pour troops in from neighboring planets with transports while the battle rages, both above and on the planet surface.

(in reply to gmot)
Post #: 65
RE: Taking enemy homeworlds way too easy? - 1/4/2011 5:02:34 PM   
Data


Posts: 3909
Joined: 1/3/2011
Status: offline
+1

_____________________________

...Igniting stellar cores....Recharging reactors...Recalibrating hyperdrives....

(in reply to jalapen0)
Post #: 66
RE: Taking enemy homeworlds way too easy? - 1/4/2011 9:54:23 PM   
hewwo

 

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: jalapen0

Another thing that maybe has been mentioned is that it takes a laughably short period of time to take over a planet. Invading a planet should take a considerable amount of time....which will give the AI and/or player time to pour troops in from neighboring planets with transports while the battle rages, both above and on the planet surface.


agreed!

(in reply to jalapen0)
Post #: 67
RE: Taking enemy homeworlds way too easy? - 1/5/2011 3:11:23 AM   
lancer

 

Posts: 2929
Joined: 10/18/2005
Status: online
G'day,

I also agree that planetary invasions are too easy.

One suggestion to improve the situation - without involving major game rejigs - is to simply tweak the ground combat algorithim to give the defenders more of an advantage. What this would in effect do is up the number of troops required to successfully carry out an invasion.

At present you can roll into town with roughly a 2:1 advantage and be confident of a win. By 2:1 I'm referring to total combat strengths, not number of units. A couple of experienced Human battalions can be worth more than six Teekan ones due to their low starting base strength. Rodents are cr*p at fighting.

Given that I'm in the dark about what odds are reasonable to successfully carry out a planetary invasion, I'll go out on a limb and say that 2:1 is way too low.

Here's a few wild thoughts on the subject.

From the perspective of the invader you have the advantage of mobility. You can insert ground forces anywhere on the planet at will. I'm assuming you wouldn't bother conducting an invasion if you didn't have space superiority.

The only example of an invasion in recent history that went ahead without clearly defined air superiority, that I can think of, was the Falkland Islands. Very nearly went pear shaped because of that. All other examples such as D-Day, the Pacific Islands, Korea, Desert Storm etc. had effective air superiority as a prerequisite.

So the invader can drop troops anywhere and can be assumed to have orbital bombardment capabilities which could take out any fixed military installations.

The sounds like an overwhelming advantage that would tend to favour success in situation of 2:1 or less odds.

But I think the defender has one key advantage that would go along way towards offsetting most of the above. To capture a planet the invader needs to take and control the main centres of population.

No point taking over vast swathes of jungle or plains. If you want effective control of a planet, its resources and its population then you have no choice but to take and hold the cities.

Nobody is asking but if I was in charge of defending Earth I'd concentrate all my forces inside the big cities. Straight away I've largely negated the invaders orbital bombardment capability. Sure they could bomb the bej*sus out of New York but there would be serious civilian casualities and unrest as a result. Plus a lot of infrastructure damage.

I'm also forcing the invader to fight an urban street battle on ground of my own choosing. Difficult to do and history shows that your force multiplier needs to be significantly above 2:1 in order to prevail. Look how well a small number of insurgents did against the Marines in Fallujah.

The Distant Worlds model of planetary invasion assumes minimal civilian and infrastructure damage. Given this and an urban defence strategy, I reckon 5:1 odds would be more appropriate.

If the DW model was enhanced at some point you could give the invading player a choice immediately prior to invasion. Something like 'Choose you preferred doctrine'.

Fight a standard urban battle for control of the cities while attempting to minimise collateral damage. To win you need roughly 5:1 odds.

Alernatively go in boots and all with orbital bombardment and heavy weapons. Shoot or fry anything that moves.

In this case you may only need a 3:1 advantage but it would be offset by a decrease in population and development levels plus a more antagonistic population once conquered.

A third option could be to lay siege to the cities. Cut off their food supply. Easy to do but it would prolong the invasion and give the defender time to insert off-planet reinforcements.

Cheers,
Lancer

(in reply to hewwo)
Post #: 68
RE: Taking enemy homeworlds way too easy? - 1/5/2011 5:01:11 AM   
Puzzlemaker

 

Posts: 19
Joined: 12/31/2010
Status: offline
Options sounds like a very interesting idea, but it's entirely possible to do it without explicitly choosing.

You have the default assault, just land troops.

Then you have the orbital bombardment, but all you should really have to do for that is to bombard the planet with troops on the ground (maybe an extra option to do a slight bombardment).  It should target the enemy troops without hurting your own.

Then you have blockades.  If you put a blockade on a planet with your troops on it, it should turn into a siege instead.

So all three options, without the extra option selection, which is always nice.  I dunno, seems like it should fit to me.

(in reply to lancer)
Post #: 69
RE: Taking enemy homeworlds way too easy? - 1/5/2011 9:42:28 AM   
unclean

 

Posts: 163
Joined: 12/31/2010
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: kenata
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.

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.


As someone who likes to play as the lizards or bugs and go for an early troop rush, I think these really hit the mark. 3 especially is a huge one, as others have said, and something like 1 is definitely needed as you just get an instant, imbalancing jump in power the second you take a HW.

With that said, I think suggestions that defense platforms should block invasions entirely are a bad idea. Governments like despotism and feudalism really need to lean on their troops early on as they have a hard time competing economically, and taking that out of the equation would make them pretty useless. It would make a really good mid game tech though, and would probably be the simplest way to make the AI defend against invasions better later on.

(in reply to kenata)
Post #: 70
RE: Taking enemy homeworlds way too easy? - 1/5/2011 9:52:20 AM   
the1sean


Posts: 841
Joined: 5/11/2010
From: Texas, USA
Status: offline
One simple change is to give Homeworlds/Capitals a +100% defense bonus, and Regional Capitals a +50% defense bonus.

Adding this on top of the current +100% bonus fighting on native planet type and +100% from defensive bunkers, it should make Homeworlds/Capitals significantly harder to take. Also, partisans/militia are supposed to aid native troops during invasions of highly populated worlds. If this isnt happening there may be a bug to blame, or the +100% native planet defense bonus isnt being applied.

(in reply to unclean)
Post #: 71
RE: Taking enemy homeworlds way too easy? - 1/5/2011 10:29:33 AM   
sbach2o

 

Posts: 378
Joined: 3/26/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: the1sean

One simple change is to give Homeworlds/Capitals a +100% defense bonus, and Regional Capitals a +50% defense bonus.


Just make sure that such bonuses are applied after any cap to troop strength. Or all would be in vain.

There already is the Fortified Bunker installation which also should work after any individual troop's cap, and I am a bit worried about how it may be handled right now.

I just made the discovery that it is all too easy to reach the individual troo's cap with freshly recruited armies already. First, the cap is 30.000. A Boskaran army has a strength of 14.000. Build it on the planet with the fortress ruin special (+100% strength) you already get to 28.000 and it is questionable whether having an Academy on that planet is still worth it.

I am not sure about this, but I also have the impression that armies take the longer to produce the stronger they are, so that any recruiting planet adds a more or less constant strength rating over a given time. The planet with the Fortress special should be just twice as fast as the standard. (Take this as a working hypothesis, not as an observation or hard fact.) This is why I think an Military Academy, on the planet with the Fortress may be counter productive. It actually overproduces the strength of its armies, they go above 30K while under recruitment, then drop back to 30K when finished.

I got a bit sidetracked, but the way the Fortress including Academy produces armies lets me fear that the cap of 30K on troop strength is global, affecting also defending troops with the Bunker special. That would be bad indeed.

(in reply to the1sean)
Post #: 72
RE: Taking enemy homeworlds way too easy? - 1/5/2011 2:19:44 PM   
gmot


Posts: 123
Joined: 11/22/2010
Status: offline
I think it was GalCiv2 that gave you the option of how to invade a planet - the less destructive options required more troops to be successful. I thought that was good, but still fairly basic .

Personally, I would like a lot more control over my troops - e.g. different kinds of troops with different areas of expertise (equivalent to ship weapon types), battles taking much longer, setting some troops as defensive, while others as invasion specialists (e.g. marines). Invading seems like a bit of an afterthought right now. I know it's a space 4x game so I'm not expecting a RTS each time a planetary invasion happens. (However, anyone remember Space Rangers 2? I've loved the RTS mini-game that had).

But taking over planets is a key component of DW so I'd like to see it enhanced in a future patch/expansion.

(in reply to sbach2o)
Post #: 73
RE: Taking enemy homeworlds way too easy? - 1/5/2011 4:31:25 PM   
Data


Posts: 3909
Joined: 1/3/2011
Status: offline
i totally agree, SR2 and DW are the only ones I play now....remember also the quests in SR2? if something like that could be implemented in DW also it would bring this rich game to an even richer level; from all points of view :)

< Message edited by Data -- 1/5/2011 4:32:28 PM >


_____________________________

...Igniting stellar cores....Recharging reactors...Recalibrating hyperdrives....

(in reply to gmot)
Post #: 74
RE: Taking enemy homeworlds way too easy? - 1/5/2011 4:48:42 PM   
gmot


Posts: 123
Joined: 11/22/2010
Status: offline
Haven't played SR2 in a couple years, but remember having a blast. The quests were great and I loved the quirky humour and translations. I should really give it another go through.

(in reply to Data)
Post #: 75
RE: Taking enemy homeworlds way too easy? - 1/5/2011 4:51:46 PM   
J HG T


Posts: 1093
Joined: 5/14/2010
From: Kiadia Prime
Status: offline
Even though I love SR2 (Duh! My avatar!) the quest system don't really go well with 4X game where you rule your own empire. You already have enough stuff on your hands. It works in SR2 style games because you are basically a freelancing hero doing what you wan't for profit and fame, not the grand Lyacuzha of the Pelengs. Which made me think: SR2 shipsets would be rad for DW. Pity that I suck at modding.
Sins of the solar empire has mission system, but even though I don't hate it, I really don't wan't to see mission/quest system in DW.

Going a bit off-topic. Sorry.

_____________________________

Nothing is impossible, not if you can imagine it!
"And they hurled themselves into the void of space with no fear."

(in reply to Data)
Post #: 76
RE: Taking enemy homeworlds way too easy? - 1/5/2011 5:25:44 PM   
Kayoz


Posts: 1516
Joined: 12/20/2010
From: Timbuktu
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: lancer

The only example of an invasion in recent history that went ahead without clearly defined air superiority, that I can think of, was the Falkland Islands. Very nearly went pear shaped because of that. All other examples such as D-Day, the Pacific Islands, Korea, Desert Storm etc. had effective air superiority as a prerequisite.


Vietnam? Afghanistan? In Vietnam, the USA had air superiority the whole time - and still they lost the war. Afghanistan is another place - and you can use both the Russians and the current USA-led invading force. I'm afraid your historical perspective on warfare needs some research.

quote:

ORIGINAL: lancer

No point taking over vast swathes of jungle or plains. If you want effective control of a planet, its resources and its population then you have no choice but to take and hold the cities.


None? How about food, fuel, logistics? How long do you think you can keep your masses of people in the cities fed, without any food coming in from the farms? How long do you think your tanks and troops can operate with no food, fuel, ammunition or supplies?

And to top it off, by retreating to the cities, you've completely given up any ability to manouver. You can't reinforce or otherwise reposition your troops. I point to practically every successful general in history in stating the importance of manouver. Read up on the tactics of Rommell, the Mongols, the Romans - hell, anyone who's fought and won battles. You lose the ability to manouver, you're dead.

quote:

ORIGINAL: lancer
Nobody is asking but if I was in charge of defending Earth I'd concentrate all my forces inside the big cities. Straight away I've largely negated the invaders orbital bombardment capability. Sure they could bomb the bej*sus out of New York but there would be serious civilian casualities and unrest as a result. Plus a lot of infrastructure damage.


So, in essence what you're saying is that you'd use your population as human (or otherwise) shields?

quote:

ORIGINAL: lancer
I'm also forcing the invader to fight an urban street battle on ground of my own choosing. Difficult to do and history shows that your force multiplier needs to be significantly above 2:1 in order to prevail. Look how well a small number of insurgents did against the Marines in Fallujah.


1350 insurgents killed, 95 US marines KIA. Not very good odds in my book. The marines were extremely restrained in their use of firepower - well, compared to Israelis in Palestine. I highly doubt any professional military commander would support the destruction of a religiously and culturally city as a "fair trade" for 15-1 losses.

quote:

ORIGINAL: lancer
The Distant Worlds model of planetary invasion assumes minimal civilian and infrastructure damage. Given this and an urban defence strategy, I reckon 5:1 odds would be more appropriate.


Don't forget the massive reputation hit you'd take for using your own civilians as shields - purposefully dragging the battle into heavily populated areas. Expect your other planets to rebel in short order, once they realize what sort of leader they have.

The DW model is based on current perceptions of civilians in warfare. In WWII, we were happy to fire-bomb Dresden into ash, without batting an eye. However, nowadays a drone missile strike killing 10 kids makes international news. I believe that the DW coders assume that the defenders will try to preserve the planet and the infrastructure, which explains why an attacker takes such a reputation hit for bombing out population. If the defender is allowed to make similar choices (human shields, for example), then they will have to model in that effect (reputation hit, planets rebelling, etc) - it's a level of complexity that I don't think CodeForce would be happy to implement.

(in reply to lancer)
Post #: 77
RE: Taking enemy homeworlds way too easy? - 1/5/2011 5:27:48 PM   
Data


Posts: 3909
Joined: 1/3/2011
Status: offline
I'll follow the fayean guy a little bit off-topic also....we have plenty of discoveries in DW, more so than in any other game. A way to controlling the advantage we're getting over the AI with this would be a little secondary story line / quest to go with each discovery. If we fail them we don't get either the money or the research boost or the ships that come with them...or any of them. This will bring more depth to the main story lines as well.

There are a lot of implications to debate over on this, maybe it needs a thread of it's own. But I'm also not so keen on having them in DW so I'll stop here if there is no further interest for it; remains as an ideea that may spark another one.

_____________________________

...Igniting stellar cores....Recharging reactors...Recalibrating hyperdrives....

(in reply to J HG T)
Post #: 78
RE: Taking enemy homeworlds way too easy? - 1/5/2011 5:45:56 PM   
caerr

 

Posts: 113
Joined: 6/18/2010
Status: offline
I agree that minigames do not suit a grand strategy game like DW. It would be so easy to lose focus on the big picture if the game would take you away to do some sort of minigames all the time.

There are some interesting thoughts by Sid Meier on this, he calls it the "Covert Action rule", after the Covert Action game. Focus on what the game is.

I do love Space Rangers 2 though.

(in reply to Data)
Post #: 79
RE: Taking enemy homeworlds way too easy? - 1/5/2011 11:44:18 PM   
Shark7


Posts: 7865
Joined: 7/24/2007
From: The Big Nowhere
Status: offline
Enemy homeworld defenses could use an improvement for sure.

Part of the problem is that stations tend to be less robust than they need to be. I was able to send in 2 salvaged Shakturi Cruisers and 2 Shakturi destroyers (IE the derelicts you find...these had Shakturi Firestorm Torpedos), and essentially knock out the AI defending fleet and all 4 bases (3 defense bases and the starport).

Here is a solution I suggest:

For stations and bases, we could allow for the doubling of certain stats such as weapon range and damage, and for defensive stuff, double armor value for armor and double shield value for shields.

For example:

On a ship the Maxos Blaster: Range 190, Damage 5, Size 5
On a base the Moxos Blaster: Range 380, Damage 10, Size 5

Armor slab: Size 1, armor 10 vs Size 1 Armor 20.

Shields: Size 10, Strength 100 vs Size 10, Strength 200

Essentially, it would amount to doubling the defense and power of the bases over the ships...and since bases are stationary and structurally larger, this makes sense (to me at least) in that bases don't have to devote space or power to main engines (only station holding thrusters) allowing for larger weapons and heavier armor/shields.

_____________________________

Distant Worlds Fan

'When in doubt...attack!'

(in reply to caerr)
Post #: 80
RE: Taking enemy homeworlds way too easy? - 1/6/2011 12:08:48 AM   
Setekh


Posts: 178
Joined: 12/12/2010
From: Norfolk, England
Status: offline
Basically like weapons mounts in SEV

_____________________________


(in reply to Shark7)
Post #: 81
RE: Taking enemy homeworlds way too easy? - 1/6/2011 1:20:41 AM   
Shark7


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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Setekh

Basically like weapons mounts in SEV


I wouldn't know, never played SEV.

_____________________________

Distant Worlds Fan

'When in doubt...attack!'

(in reply to Setekh)
Post #: 82
RE: Taking enemy homeworlds way too easy? - 1/6/2011 5:30:31 PM   
Sark

 

Posts: 5
Joined: 4/23/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shark7

Here is a solution I suggest:

For stations and bases, we could allow for the doubling of certain stats such as weapon range and damage, and for defensive stuff, double armor value for armor and double shield value for shields.

...

Essentially, it would amount to doubling the defense and power of the bases over the ships...and since bases are stationary and structurally larger, this makes sense (to me at least) in that bases don't have to devote space or power to main engines (only station holding thrusters) allowing for larger weapons and heavier armor/shields.


This would be a great improvement and go a long way toward giving the homeworlds/developed worlds some staying power.

This would be a great Tech to add - Starbase weapon mounts/clusters etc. Possibly have weapons start out at 1.5 times or double the power for bases and be able to increase them to 3 or even 4 times as powerful.

Heck if you just moved the default distance that defense bases are from the planet and each other so that they had overlapping fields of fire and could support each other it would help.

While we are wishing... I would also like to see a planetary based warp inducement facility that covers the whole solar system and only affected enemy ships. Make it where fleets have to come in on normal engines from the edge of the system basically giving the defender some time to rally their ships.



(in reply to Shark7)
Post #: 83
RE: Taking enemy homeworlds way too easy? - 1/6/2011 11:02:17 PM   
jalapen0

 

Posts: 122
Joined: 4/10/2010
Status: offline
Let's keep the modern day comparisons to a minimum. In my opinion, there really is no comparison. These are aliens with alien histories and alien morals. A hive does not care about the individual, only the hive. They should not care if civilians get thrown to the meatgrinder, as long as it advances the hive's goals. Therefore, no "human shields" I think for a sci-fi game like this, you have to think outside the box. Most likely, if an alien empire is out to destroy another empire, they aren't going to fight for the cities, farms, resources, etc. They are going to glass the planet, kill every organism that could cause them harm, and repopulate. If they don't, they still aren't going to care about infrastructure. They'll blow it to hell and enslave the leftover population. They don't care if it's on cnn the next day or not.

For these reasons, I think any invasion should cause significant civilian casualties and infrastructure damage. Civilians will also fight and die to protect the planet along with troops. Pick whatever game mechanic to represent this, but it should be done....along with taking a significant amount of time to take over a planet...possibly 10x as much or more. Right now, it seems the troops fight one battle, the attacker puts it's flag in the ground, and it's theirs. It just seems kinda rediculous. Without a large technological advantage, it should take months or maybe years to take a planet. It'll also be a meatgrinder, needing to constantly send in new troops to reinforce troops on the ground. Meanwhile, the planet is getting blackend, possibly some permanent damage will result and will reduce planet and resource quality.

(in reply to Sark)
Post #: 84
RE: Taking enemy homeworlds way too easy? - 1/7/2011 2:54:32 AM   
gmot


Posts: 123
Joined: 11/22/2010
Status: offline
That's a valid point about aliens behaving completely differently with different morals on an invasion but it could equally go the other way. Perhaps the green ladies (forget their name) would be especially scrupulous on an invasion to avoid any civilian casulaties at all.

But I think we're all in agreement here that the invasion logic/AI could really use some beefing up and there's been some great suggestions in this thread. Hopefully the devs will take a look and incorporate something in a later patch/expansion.

(in reply to jalapen0)
Post #: 85
RE: Taking enemy homeworlds way too easy? - 1/20/2011 9:40:45 PM   
Kayoz


Posts: 1516
Joined: 12/20/2010
From: Timbuktu
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: jalapen0

Let's keep the modern day comparisons to a minimum. In my opinion, there really is no comparison. These are aliens with alien histories and alien morals. A hive does not care about the individual, only the hive. They should not care if civilians get thrown to the meatgrinder, as long as it advances the hive's goals. Therefore, no "human shields" I think for a sci-fi game like this, you have to think outside the box. Most likely, if an alien empire is out to destroy another empire, they aren't going to fight for the cities, farms, resources, etc. They are going to glass the planet, kill every organism that could cause them harm, and repopulate. If they don't, they still aren't going to care about infrastructure. They'll blow it to hell and enslave the leftover population. They don't care if it's on cnn the next day or not.


What you're describing is interesting, but requires a complete overhaul of the diplomatic workings. Each race responds to different events in different ways. Boskara, for example, wouldn't give a toss what anyone else thinks of them, nor would they suffer or benefit from happiness levels. This makes a horrendously complex balance and testing matrix for the CodeForce QA members.

Given the current diplomatic method, I don't see an alternative to measuring all races by the same moral standard. Yes, it's imperfect, but look at sci-fi - any race is nothing more than an existing Earth creature morphed into a sentient shape. Talking dogs, thinking termites, sentient frogs. It's quite unique if a race in any sci-fi literature is so different as not to resemble anything in existence on Earth. But given a completely different evolution environment, how could they be anything BUT completely different?

Look at human history - our attitudes have changed dramatically over the last few hundred years alone. Not too long ago, the organized genocide of the North American Indians was greeted with public joy. Sacking cities and enslaving the entire populace was once considered the norm. During the crusades, King Richard executed 2000 prisoners of war, and he was considered a hero in his time. Morality is a funny thing that changes from decade to decade, from society to society. It would take a great deal of innovation on the part of a game development company, to be able to reflect this in a game - and so far, I haven't seen it done.

quote:

ORIGINAL: jalapen0

For these reasons, I think any invasion should cause significant civilian casualties and infrastructure damage. Civilians will also fight and die to protect the planet along with troops. Pick whatever game mechanic to represent this, but it should be done....along with taking a significant amount of time to take over a planet...possibly 10x as much or more. Right now, it seems the troops fight one battle, the attacker puts it's flag in the ground, and it's theirs. It just seems kinda rediculous. Without a large technological advantage, it should take months or maybe years to take a planet. It'll also be a meatgrinder, needing to constantly send in new troops to reinforce troops on the ground. Meanwhile, the planet is getting blackend, possibly some permanent damage will result and will reduce planet and resource quality.


I agree with you on the point of the flag-in-the-ground. Iraq was taken over in short order, but the insurrection following the "mission accomplished" pronouncement has tied up tens of thousands of troops for years. And that's only a culturally different group invading. How might people react to aliens, whose behaviour and thought processes are completely incomprehensible?

But it's unavoidable. How else can we model civilian reaction to being invaded. Are you suggesting that each race react in a different way to different races? Humans fighting to the death versus Boskara, but content to accept the new governorship of Securans? Can Dayhut be absorbed into the hive mind of the Gizureans, or is the operation of their hive minds so radically different, that genocide is the only option? Think of the matrix and its complexity - how do you balance it all? And more importantly, is it worth it in terms of resulting enjoyment for the players for the development and testing time involved?

< Message edited by Kayoz -- 1/20/2011 9:43:19 PM >

(in reply to jalapen0)
Post #: 86
RE: Taking enemy homeworlds way too easy? - 1/20/2011 9:56:33 PM   
jalapen0

 

Posts: 122
Joined: 4/10/2010
Status: offline
Really when it boils down to it, all I was asking for was for it to take a long time to capture a planet. It should also cause alot of casualties and infrastructure damage.

(in reply to Kayoz)
Post #: 87
RE: Taking enemy homeworlds way too easy? - 1/20/2011 10:11:14 PM   
Tree Dog


Posts: 110
Joined: 3/27/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kayoz

But it's unavoidable. How else can we model civilian reaction to being invaded. Are you suggesting that each race react in a different way to different races? Humans fighting to the death versus Boskara, but content to accept the new governorship of Securans? Can Dayhut be absorbed into the hive mind of the Gizureans, or is the operation of their hive minds so radically different, that genocide is the only option? Think of the matrix and its complexity - how do you balance it all? And more importantly, is it worth it in terms of resulting enjoyment for the players for the development and testing time involved?


I think it'll be even harder, considering there are often different civilisations of the same race. I mean, there's no reason all Boskaran hives would want to completely enslave any planet they'd conquer (especially if, as I get it from the Human description, races tend to forget/lose their history and develop differently in different places). Why would Humans fight to death Boskara providing food, medicine and autonomy, but be fine with dictatorial Securan slavers ?

Also, yes, I think it'd totally be worth it.
Currently, all you have to do is to drop the tax rate to 0, wait for the war to end, and then, tax back with no problems...

It would be better if we had to cope with that kind of problems. A system similar to HoI3 would be good in that regard, in that game, in the land you occupy (I think a per-planet basis here would be better, instead of per-country), you can choose how repressive your government is with occupied territories, the more you are, the more resources and industrial capacity you get, but the more they're likely to rebel and the less you get manpower, and probably some other things I forget. In time, the planets conquered should get in line with others and progressively adapt to a certain point, though.

(in reply to Kayoz)
Post #: 88
RE: Taking enemy homeworlds way too easy? - 1/20/2011 11:10:05 PM   
Data


Posts: 3909
Joined: 1/3/2011
Status: offline

quote:

It would be better if we had to cope with that kind of problems. A system similar to HoI3 would be good in that regard, in that game, in the land you occupy (I think a per-planet basis here would be better, instead of per-country), you can choose how repressive your government is with occupied territories, the more you are, the more resources and industrial capacity you get, but the more they're likely to rebel and the less you get manpower, and probably some other things I forget. In time, the planets conquered should get in line with others and progressively adapt to a certain point, though.


don't know for what HoI3 stands for (and I'm to lazy at this hour to google it) but I like this idea, brings more options and diversity to the table

_____________________________

...Igniting stellar cores....Recharging reactors...Recalibrating hyperdrives....

(in reply to Tree Dog)
Post #: 89
RE: Taking enemy homeworlds way too easy? - 1/21/2011 12:05:22 AM   
Sabin Stargem

 

Posts: 140
Joined: 12/29/2010
Status: offline
Hearts of Iron 3, an World War II simulation game.

(in reply to Data)
Post #: 90
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

0.168