planet quality vs invasion

from Stardock Forums
isn't it strange that you can use the nastiest attacks on plantes wothout reducing their quality as long as you dont succeed in invading the system that turn. e.g. you reduce the defenders with mass drivers in one round and then invade the planet with traditional warfare in the next round: the planet will remain unharmed. I mean thats nice but also not very logical ... :notsure:
423 views 9 replies
Reply #1 from Stardock Forums Top
I agree, and I use this tactic constantly, unfortunately, once in awhile, my troops do better than expected and succeed, only to destroy the planet. :-)

This is probably stupid, however fixing it would create a different problem. You could attack with 1 troop, do some attrocity to reduce the planet quality, never having the real potential to do any damage.

So I think this is a very tricky area to work with.
Reply #2 from Stardock Forums Top
...
This is probably stupid, however fixing it would create a different problem. You could attack with 1 troop, do some attrocity to reduce the planet quality, never having the real potential to do any damage.
End of quote


thats right: maybe the degree of destruction ought to be related to the amount of troops you use for the invasion.
Sins of a Solar Empire: Rebellion
Reply #3 from Stardock Forums Top
#8 by Citizen Stydracos - 10/20/2003 10:49:26 AM Hmmm by what you said you gave me an idea Matthew.The effect of the attack with mass drivers could be related to the number of troops attacking to try and limit the exploit. So every 1 million troops attacking increases the advantage by 1-2% with a cap on it at 150%. That way the more troops you commit the better the advantage, the more likely success and well more likely you get a hurt planet. Perhaps the costing should be based on troops deployed as well. At least this would limit mass drivers to major invasions, instead of any invasion.Not a finished concept but what do you think?
End of quote


Just something I said in the GC Strategies forum, we seem to be thinking the same way Aeddy so help me out with my ideas here mate :) .

~SDC~
Reply #4 from Stardock Forums Top
I think Paguma hit the nail on the head. Later in the game, I'd gladly lose a full transport to make an alien 64 billion pop system useless.

Taking out PQ and improvements in this situation would make the planet ungovernable and cause the major all sorts of debt....

It doesn't seem like it could be balanced, I think this would be a valid tactic as is if the AI elected to use invasion tactics on you... I;ve only ever lost 3 systems so I don't know how often the majors use them.

- Cypher

~SDC~
Reply #5 from Stardock Forums Top
It doesn't seem like it could be balanced, I think this would be a valid tactic as is if the AI elected to use invasion tactics on you... I;ve only ever lost 3 systems so I don't know how often the majors use them.
End of quote


Personally, I've been mass drivered many times by the AI. It always pisses me off.
Reply #6 from Stardock Forums Top
Yes, Mass Drivers is a favorite tactic for the Evil AI. :notsure:
Reply #7 from Stardock Forums Top
What would a perfect invasion tactics system be ?

1) Traditional warfare should be used very often. Slightly advanced invasion tactics should be used for some major battles. Highly effective invasion tactics should be used only for key worlds.
2) The invader should be penalized for using highly effective invasion tactics. So using an invasion tactic should be carefully planned.
3) The defender should not be penalized too heavily if the invasion is repulsed, i.e. the cost for the invader should be higher than the cost for the defender.
4) The soldiering ability should be a key factor.

A few suggestions :
1) The efficiency of an invasion tactics should be related to the number and the soldiering ability of invading troops. Full efficiency for full loads (5k M).
2) The cost of an invasion tactic should be related to the defending population, the soldiering ability of the defender and/or the PQ sum of all planets (with a minimum cost). The stronger the defender, the more expensive the invasion.
3) The damages to the planet quality and improvements should be maximum only if the invasion succeeds. If it fails, it should be dramatically lowered, and related to the number of defending troops killed.


Reply #8 from Stardock Forums Top
Grrr... unable to edit my post. Nevermind.

I think it is a good thing to be able to hurt your opponent's undefended planets. After all if he's unable to defend properly its planets, he deserves to be be spanked right ?

A minor correction to my suggestions 1): The full load would only be required for complex invasion tactics. Gas warfare for example would only require 1000 M troops to have full effect, etc.
Reply #9 from Stardock Forums Top
I think if you ever make it possible to damage a planet without winning the battle, you have to not only take into consideration how many troops are attacking, but also the relative strength compared to the defenders.

Even with 15 million attackers, it's small if the planet hosts 100 million inhabitants. Especially if the defender has more advantages in soldiering as well.

Very tricky area, although I think the status quo should be revisited, because it's just too easy to abuse it now. You simply do the math, and if you can't win, use whatever kills the most with no fear of damaging the planet, and bring in people to finish them off with traditional warfare later. Every once in awhile you may goof it up, but big deal.

Although the status quo is WAY better than the opposite of having it affect it each time you attack even if you lose. That would be way too easy to reduce an empire to rubble.