Ground Combat Idea (MOO III inspired)

from Stardock Forums
I recently picked up MOO III for $10, just for the hell of it. While I found the design philosophy of the game bizarre, it did have some neat ideas. Specifically, I liked the way they had you build ground units and form them into divisions, corps, and armys. I was wondering if GalCiv could implement a similar system of building actual ground units, forming them into larger units, and using them to defend against invasion or to invade.
The main benefit would be to give the military queue something to do other than crank out outpost ships, and to do away with genocidal ground combat.
470 views 8 replies
Reply #1 from Stardock Forums Top
More micromanagement to me. I'd rather not have this.
Mu colonies can always crank constructors or start working on an avatar they'll never complete, or even do nothing. I don't need additional stuff in the military queue.
Reply #2 from Stardock Forums Top
I like the simple concept of ground invasions of GalCiv. The invasion tactics should be a bit tweaked though.
Sins of a Solar Empire: Rebellion
Reply #3 from Stardock Forums Top
The current system of simplified and instant ground combat ok as it allows fast gameplay, but I think it would be very positive if a planet could be contested instead of always having an instant win. Basically I'd just like to see the "20 billion died in an instant and the planet is now yours" system changed to a battle cycle that extends over several turns and gives players a chance to reinforce a contested planet.

It would open some interesting possibilities such as desperate tech trading to boost defenses during an ongoing fight, trying to dodge blockade ships to get more defense/invasion troops to a contested planet or having a planet contested for a long time to deny production/research resources for an enemy.

Contested planets should not allow any production or research and ships should not be allowed to enter orbit.
Reply #4 from Stardock Forums Top
Let's never, ever, ever mention MOO3 ground combat again. In my eyes I see infinite spreadsheets... mommy! No! Don't make me fill another spreadsheet! AHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (runs away)
Reply #5 from Stardock Forums Top
The combat is not always won automatically. I withstanded many Torian invasions successfully in a game a while ago. If the defenders have enough soldiering/population/defense improvements, you need several transports to take them away, sometimes having to use specific invasion tactics. So it's not always an instant win, it can be an instant loss.

Now a fight that lasts more than one turn might prevent alpha strikes. I don't know how gameplay would be affected but it could be worth playtesting.
Reply #6 from Stardock Forums Top
Now a fight that lasts more than one turn might prevent alpha strikes. I don't know how gameplay would be affected but it could be worth playtesting.
End of quote


Now that would be interesting. I like the idea of there being some counter operations available to the AI to some of the more used attack methods. Though, care would be needed to insure that micromanagement doesn't overwhelm the players.
Kelly
[Message Edited]
Reply #7 from Stardock Forums Top
Maybe as well as the options we've got now for special weapons (mass drivers, etc), there could be an option for how soon you want the result - with appropriate penalties and bonuses for each choice.

e.g.

1) Psycho paratoopers - no real strategy, your troopers just charge in and kill everything they see. There's a combat penalty for the lack of co-ordination, but you're guaranteed a result this turn.

2) Standard - Some time's taken to plan out a decent attack, and neighbouring units on the ground support each other. No penalty or bonuses, but a result's not guaranteed this turn (if the armies are similar strength, it's more likely to be a delayed result).

3) Cold, calculating, SOB - the attack is planned out to the last detail, and it's carried out slowly so all the ground units cover each other during the advance. There's a combat bonus for this, but you won't get a result until the second turn at the earliest.


Choices like these would make alpha striking more difficult, but a player who's attacking a planet and controls all the space around it (i.e. no reinforcements for the defenders possible, and the attacker can handle one or two rush-bought ships there) can take advantage of this and choose option 3.

Note also that in this idea, there's no defending strategies, and no rock-paper-scissors game where you have to guess the right attack for their defence, etc. It's just a tradeoff of power versus speed.
Reply #8 from Stardock Forums Top
The combat is not always won automatically. I withstanded many Torian invasions successfully in a game a while ago. If the defenders have enough soldiering/population/defense improvements, you need several transports to take them away, sometimes having to use specific invasion tactics. So it's not always an instant win, it can be an instant loss.

Now a fight that lasts more than one turn might prevent alpha strikes. I don't know how gameplay would be affected but it could be worth playtesting.
End of quote


Of course you are correct, my choice of words should have been "instant resolution" rather than "instant win". Indeed I think I once withstood 12 consecutive assaults on one of my systems, quite amusing how the enemy de-populated his entire empire to die messily in failed assaults (without ever learning from the experience). Must have been Russians...

I think the main impact to gameplay would be that tech stealing through planetary assault could be countered a little easier and that there might be an valid tactic (worst case: an exploit) where you would constantly invade planets to deny production rather than for conquest. IMHO if you can afford the CT's to do so, then good for you :)
[Message Edited]