How colonies should be conquered

[LoBlo]

The process of conquering colonies is weird.

1) they are still smiling and happy even though they are being slaughtered by the billions
2) after a simple administration building they are ready to build and fight for you.

Here's some suggestions

1) a blockade or bombardment should induce a mandatory -10 colony mood. Only the presence of troops and military development like barracks should save the colony from rioting.
2) after takeover there should be mandatory troop present for at least 50 years to prevent rebellion. Can you imagine having to obey a bunch of insect monsters and affiliate with them just after 1 building? Think Germany's occupation of France during WWII.
3) The forgiveness from being conquered should take a very long time, but can be promoted by researching the traditions and culture of the conquered race. The more research, the faster the rate of forgiveness (not an instantaneous rating).

Just some suggestions.

[Jorgen_CAB]

Some pretty good ideas.... taking over worlds with military power should be VERY cost inefficient in the short run and the corruption of these worlds should go through the roof. Most worlds should cost you more than you get from them for a very long time, requiring large military presence is one way and increased corruption another.

Like in reality, the biggest gain from taking land should be natural resources, not a better economy.

I think that most games allow too much gain in the form of economic growth from military conquest, this is not realistic.

I also think that ground force maintenance should be modified for troops depending on where they are and the planet they are on or if they are in space. Ground forces on stable happy planet should be MUCH cheaper (to make defending planets worthwhile). Troops stationed at a hostile planet should have troop maintenance increase allot. Having your troops in space should also increase their maintenance cost allot too.

This would make invasion more costly and it would be quite realistic too.

I would make it so that happy stable planet not only reduce troop maintenance to a lower level, the local government should also pay for some of their cost as well as long as they remain on the planet. It could also be a cost that is transferred to the local government over time, so you can't just dump troops on a planet and immediately get the planet to pay for the troops, there also need to be a limit on how much the planet can afford to pay for ground troops based on the planets economic strength.
But troops garrisoned on a planet more or less permanently should eventually be payed mostly from the planets income (private economy) not the state economy.

As it is right now there is NO incentive to actually defend planets except one or two where you have most of your forces. As ground forces simply are too expensive and counter invasion a much cheaper and using the maintenance on ships protect you planets way better than infantry garrisoned on the planets.

I would definitely like to see some re-balance along these lines in the game at some point. I only keep defensive ground forces on my capital world in the early part of the game and then switch to all armoured forces stationed either in space or in s few locations for counter invasion purposes in defence. Having a fleet that is 25-50% larger is way more effective. You also can completely ignore many very costly defensive buildings too, simply not worth the investment.

Loosing a world for a few weeks or month does not have any real effect on an empire in any meaningful way... and even loosing the worlds with a larger fleet is quite small chance in and of itself as strong offence is a good defence most of the time.

[LoBlo]

Maybe we should look at real world stuff to help guide the population behavior. Some real life examples

1. Russia in Crimea.
2. UK in Northern Ireland
3. Japan in China and Philippines in WWII

Also how quickly a species assimilates should relate to the species lifespans. As generations that don't remember the previous government grow, the assimilation of the new culture should increase. It should take at least 1.5 generations or more to assimilate fully. We will need a description of lifespan for each species.

The ability to recruit troops should be almost 0 for a while.

The similarity between previous government types can be factored in as well.

Using species for slave labor needs to be more frequent in hive and dictatorship governments.

[WiZz]

Some pretty good ideas.... taking over worlds with military power should be VERY cost inefficient in the short run and the corruption of these worlds should go through the roof. Most worlds should cost you more than you get from them for a very long time, requiring large military presence is one way and increased corruption another.

I'm disagreed here. What the sense of conquests and warfare in the game will be then? Especially in early stages of the game. There are no peaceful ways to annex colonies, even if they have same race as your empire.

Like in reality, the biggest gain from taking land should be natural resources, not a better economy.

Inappropriate in DW2 economy. Like 95% of resources in the game go from mines not from planets. Planets are for cash only.

[Jorgen_CAB]

I'm disagreed here. What the sense of conquests and warfare in the game will be then? Especially in early stages of the game. There are no peaceful ways to annex colonies, even if they have same race as your empire.

I think this is the whole problem with the gaming industry... people can't wait for a proper return of investment and need it now. Even if it is not realistic in any way. It is a gamey way to think that needs to die. This just leaves conquest as the only effective way to expand where we should be able to expand equally well with diplomacy and trade if we want to. Trade and diplomacy should always be the better economically way to expand short and mid term.

Conquest also make your rivals weaker, it should not also make your economy allot stronger too early on.

Trade instead focuses on cooperation. The game just have too weak diplomatic options for this way to play to be truly viable at this time, we need more than bilateral deals possible between different empires.

Inappropriate in DW2 economy. Like 95% of resources in the game go from mines not from planets. Planets are for cash only.

Planets will act as bases for fleets and will eventually pay huge dividends in money. You should NEVER get immediate gratification from invading enemy planets, that is both unrealistic and in my opinion wrong. War should always be VERY expensive and only very long term profitable... so, in the short term you generally should become weaker. This provide for a much better dynamic effect in a game... do you risk war against one rival in order to become weaker against another in the short term, but stronger perhaps in the long term. Conquering something might even make you weaker long term if you can't control the population. Sometimes the differences between you and them should just be too big.

Most games just allow conquest to snowball your economy out of control, that is not fun... no real decision making process needed.

[AKicebear]

I largely agree with Jorgen and loblo, hope to see these in a mod or base update

[LoBlo]

I largely agree with Jorgen and loblo, hope to see these in a mod or base update

Thanks,

Maybe we could roll it out simply at first. Populations that are conquered should stay angry and need troops to keep from rebellion for a long time. Not sure if the resource rates should be otherwise reduced beyond the population mood. Private economies are full of people who have to make a living whether conquered or not. Farmers are going to farm and factories are going to crank their assembly lines.

Then again, if you were conquered and the new president declares your community tax-free for a decade, .... maybe we'd all be ready to switch sides instantly anyway!

[Jorgen_CAB]

I largely agree with Jorgen and loblo, hope to see these in a mod or base update

Thanks,

Maybe we could roll it out simply at first. Populations that are conquered should stay angry and need troops to keep from rebellion for a long time. Not sure if the resource rates should be otherwise reduced beyond the population mood. Private economies are full of people who have to make a living whether conquered or not. Farmers are going to farm and factories are going to crank their assembly lines.

Then again, if you were conquered and the new president declares your community tax-free for a decade, .... maybe we'd all be ready to switch sides instantly anyway!

It really depends... are the planet feeling liberated or conquered. Those are two different things.

It probably also make a huge difference on the the philosophical stands between the aggressor and the invaded population in general as well.

In general there should not just be ONE method or rule for how a conquered planet behaves as it should depend. A human population that is within a Boskaran rule "liberated" by a republic of Acdarians probably would not feel that rebellious for example. There still should be problems but perhaps not huge ones for as long a time.

[LoBlo]

It really depends... are the planet feeling liberated or conquered. Those are two different things.

It probably also make a huge difference on the the philosophical stands between the aggressor and the invaded population in general as well.

In general there should not just be ONE method or rule for how a conquered planet behaves as it should depend. A human population that is within a Boskaran rule "liberated" by a republic of Acdarians probably would not feel that rebellious for example. There still should be problems but perhaps not huge ones for as long a time.

Well remember that the USA thought they were "liberating" Iraq from Saddam Hussein. How did that turn out? How many times in history has an outsider conquered a people and been welcome? No matter what the hideousness of the original government. As soon as that government is gone, what's left is a lot of outsiders in your homes controlling you and telling you what to do. Doesn't go down that well in actuality. The assumption of the welcomed liberator is probably wrong most of the time.

[Jorgen_CAB]

I'm just saying that it will differ, it has historically been very different in different places how a conquered people reacted to the new overlords.

I also fail to see the likeness in Iraq as the US did not really "conquer" the lands and never intended to do that. That they did not have a solid plan for what followed is a different thing.