Taking enemy homeworlds way too easy?

[Data]

you can edit them out

[Jim D Burns]

Another possible solution to the problem might be to increase the time it takes to capture a world based on the world’s current population size. So large home world sized planets should take several years to capture no matter how large the attacking force is, though higher odds should help the timetable of course, but no taking a multi-billion pop world by storm anymore. All the while the planet serves its own empire as usual, allowing the planet to build new troops and ships if they can during the fight for the planet.

That would add an epic feel to the invasions and allow defenders time to recover from the shock of a huge invasion and get reinforcements to the scene if they have them. At the same time the attacker would need to bring in his own reinforcements to replace badly depleted units as the years wear on. You’d have to greatly increase the time it takes to destroy a combat unit, but that would be a good thing I think.

I don’t think it’s beyond comprehension for very large planets to have to take at least 10 or more years to be fully conquered militarily. Even longer if the defenders can keep a steady stream of reinforcements getting through to the planet from his other empire worlds.

Long fights like these would allow time for large relief fleets to form and move to the location in an effort to break the siege. Several large attempts like these should be possible when you’re talking about a home world planet. I would be happy to see back and forth fights last 50+ years if each side kept pouring reinforcements into the fight.

You might handle it by creating a planetary control bar that ticked a small amount in favor of the side that wins the majority of ground battles that month. Then the size of the planetary control bar would be governed by the planets population, so small worlds go down relatively fast and huge worlds are massive efforts lasting years.

Jim

[Kayoz]

Jimmy -

I don't see how slowing down ground combat will help.

First, the AI must be able to respond appropriately with troops. If you're playing an "epic" game, then unless it's VERY late in the game or that opponent has been successful in its aggression against another AI, the AI under siege will quite simply lack the resources to be able to make, transport and land troops. Remember - ostensibly the orbital defences have been creamed - you've probably concentrated most of your firepower over the world being invaded, so the AI is going to have to bring back everything possible to counter it. Can the AI realistically get enough troop? Can it get its transports past the siege force?

Second, will slowing down the ground combat actually change anything? If you're dropping 200+ troops on the target world, then how much will the devs have to slow down the combat before it makes any difference? AI usually has a max of 20 or so defending troops. 10-1 odds. The devs would have to make it hideously slow for it to make any difference.

Third, extending the time required to the length you're suggesting to 10+ years would make it practically IMPOSSIBLE for anyone playing a non-warmongering race to win. Given a government like democracy with its nasty war weariness - that empire will have a civil war and split long before the invasion is complete. Your suggestion would make races with reduced war weariness virtually unbeatable, short of a quick nuke campaign on their HW - which presents its own issues.

Finally, I'm not sure what your objection to the "taking a multi-billion pop world by storm" is based on. Iraq was crushed in - what - 1 week of active battles? Or was it 2? War is getting faster and troop concentration is going down year by year. If you're asserting that it's unreasonable/unrealistic to quickly invade and suppress a population - then I'm afraid that military trends are strongly against your assertion.

No, I disagree with you that ground combat speed will improve this. This is looking much like a StarCraft zerg-rush. If you're running around with 200+ invasion troops in your back pocket - well, you should have won long before that, and any balance problems are of your own creation. Pat yourself on your back and start a new game - you've already won.

[ASHBERY76]

Are you actually comparing invading a weak middle eastern country to invading a planet,lol.

[Jim D Burns]

ORIGINAL: Kayoz
Jimmy -

The name is Jim, use it or don’t reply to my posts. Cheap childish insults like this bring nothing to the discussion and will rapidly earn you a green button.

ORIGINAL: Kayoz
First, the AI must be able to respond appropriately with troops. If you're playing an "epic" game, then unless it's VERY late in the game or that opponent has been successful in its aggression against another AI, the AI under siege will quite simply lack the resources to be able to make, transport and land troops. Remember - ostensibly the orbital defences have been creamed - you've probably concentrated most of your firepower over the world being invaded, so the AI is going to have to bring back everything possible to counter it. Can the AI realistically get enough troop? Can it get its transports past the siege force?

Not if the planet is allowed to continue building troops of its own. This capacity could be reduced or increased as the control of the planet shifts back and forth between sides.

ORIGINAL: Kayoz
Second, will slowing down the ground combat actually change anything? If you're dropping 200+ troops on the target world, then how much will the devs have to slow down the combat before it makes any difference? AI usually has a max of 20 or so defending troops. 10-1 odds. The devs would have to make it hideously slow for it to make any difference.

Yes it will. Sure 200+ troops will probably guarantee you get the tick on the control bar each month. But the control bar's size is dependent on world population (perhaps 50 mil per tick) so you can’t really speed things up any faster other than guaranteeing you win the monthly tick.

But if you then also have to maintain the blockade for 10+ years (to prevent the planet rebuilding orbital structures and to stop outside reinforcements) and defend your own holdings at the same time? That is a huge change to the sail up and drop everything rush we see now.

ORIGINAL: Kayoz
Third, extending the time required to the length you're suggesting to 10+ years would make it practically IMPOSSIBLE for anyone playing a non-warmongering race to win. Given a government like democracy with its nasty war weariness - that empire will have a civil war and split long before the invasion is complete. Your suggestion would make races with reduced war weariness virtually unbeatable, short of a quick nuke campaign on their HW - which presents its own issues.

It’s a simple scale increase. So for example if making epic planet fights increases the time to take a planet by 1000% or whatever, then simply change war weariness to scale with the change.

ORIGINAL: Kayoz
Finally, I'm not sure what your objection to the "taking a multi-billion pop world by storm" is based on. Iraq was crushed in - what - 1 week of active battles? Or was it 2? War is getting faster and troop concentration is going down year by year. If you're asserting that it's unreasonable/unrealistic to quickly invade and suppress a population - then I'm afraid that military trends are strongly against your assertion.

Iraq’s population is about 30 million. Compare that to the almost 7 billion people on the planet and you haven’t even scratched the surface of conquering anything on a planetary scale.

Add to that the fact that the Iraqi army was totally outclassed by the US and your point is no longer valid to the discussion. In game terms Iraq’s military was tech 0 or 1 and the US was at max tech.

To put it another way, the Iraq war took 6 weeks I think, but to make things simple let’s say a month. So 30 million people conquered in a month.

Now 7,000,000,000 people divided by 30,000,000 people equals 233 months of fighting. That would be 19.4 years of fighting.

A better comparison would be WWII. Both sides were within 1 or 2 tech levels of each other, and huge percentages of the worlds populations had to be conquered to end the war. That took about 6 years (39-45) if you ignore the early Sino-Japanese conflict that started in 1937.

Now factor in the fact only about one third of the world’s population was actually conquered, the rest either being the conquerors or not involved, and 10+ years of fighting no longer seems an implausible timeframe.

ORIGINAL: Kayoz
No, I disagree with you that ground combat speed will improve this. This is looking much like a StarCraft zerg-rush. If you're running around with 200+ invasion troops in your back pocket - well, you should have won long before that, and any balance problems are of your own creation. Pat yourself on your back and start a new game - you've already won.

Um isn’t changing all that the purpose of the discussion?

Jim

[Jim D Burns]

double post, deleted

[Shark7]

ORIGINAL: ASHBERY76

Are you actually comparing invading a weak middle eastern country to invading a planet,lol.

That was my thoughts exactly when I first read it. Like I said, Operation Downfall would have been a better example...and it would probably be too small scale.

[gmot]

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns
Another possible solution to the problem might be to increase the time it takes to capture a world based on the world’s current population size. So large home world sized planets should take several years to capture no matter how large the attacking force is, though higher odds should help the timetable of course, but no taking a multi-billion pop world by storm anymore. All the while the planet serves its own empire as usual, allowing the planet to build new troops and ships if they can during the fight for the planet.

Intriguing idea. Something I've always wanted to see in 4x games is more strategic control over actual planetary invasions. Perhaps its beyond the scope of DW, but I'd love to see a lengthy invasion with reinforcements being brought in as you've described. To me seems perfectly realistic that battling for control of a whole planet (especially a homeworld with presumably highly motivated defenders (should be homeworld bonus for that) would take a long time. And the invaded empire would pull out all the stops to bring its troops/ships from elsewhere to stop the invasion from succeeding.

Would I also like so see is separating the world out into sectors so you could divide your invasion force to focus on various sectors, and then win control (or lose of course) of a sector at a time. Of course, that would work best if sectors were related to planetary facilities. So no tactical control obviously but strategic decisions to make for invasions beyond simply how many troops to dedicate. This would well with having different troops types, as we discussed in other threads (or maybe this one, can't remember).

I think this would greatly enhance any 4X game without adding too much RTS micro-management of invasions. Usually invasions seem like an afterthought in a 4x game whereas they are critical to winning a game and should be treated as such.

[Data]

this would prolong the game quite a bit but an option to automatically resolve planetary battles would satisfy those that are not intersted in this (i also would like to see lengthy invasions with reinforcements)
not sure if you can find on youtube this but Space Rangers 2 had an interesting idea for planetary battles, a mini game within the main game

[gmot]

I have Space Rangers 2 and loved that game. Frankly the mini-game RTS of it is my least favourite part of the game, compared to the other parts. Definitely wouldn't want any RTS component to DW.

[Kayoz]

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns

The name is Jim, use it or don’t reply to my posts. Cheap childish insults like this bring nothing to the discussion and will rapidly earn you a green button.

Tetchy, ain't we? Being called "Jimmy" is an insult?

Trust me - if I'm going to insult you, I can do far better than calling you "Jimmy".

You're a Yank - you had a president who was referred to as "Jimmy". Was that a derogatory term? Give yourself a couple of dozen "green buttons" - your country has managed to elect and then slur your own president.

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns

Yes it will. Sure 200+ troops will probably guarantee you get the tick on the control bar each month. But the control bar's size is dependent on world population (perhaps 50 mil per tick) so you can’t really speed things up any faster other than guaranteeing you win the monthly tick.

You're making suggestions as "tweaking", whereas they are wholesale refactoring of the code. Rewrite the ground combat code from scratch. You're asking for a LOT of work from CodeForce for a pretty trivial gain. And then rebalance the war weariness, since you WILL be at war for literally DECADES. Not to mention all the racial bonuses and such. You haven't thought this through - your myopic "fix" creates cascading problems.

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns

Yes it will. Sure 200+ troops will probably guarantee you get the tick on the control bar each month. But the control bar's size is dependent on world population (perhaps 50 mil per tick) so you can’t really speed things up any faster other than guaranteeing you win the monthly tick.

Hold on - you're invading with 10-to-1 odds and you're suggesting that it takes a DECADE to win???? I can't think of many military engagements where 10-1 wasn't resolved pretty damned quickly.

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns

But if you then also have to maintain the blockade for 10+ years (to prevent the planet rebuilding orbital structures and to stop outside reinforcements) and defend your own holdings at the same time? That is a huge change to the sail up and drop everything rush we see now.

A HUGE change indeed. Congratulations. You've just made the game unwinnable using a democracy government - they'll fall into civil war. And that's only the beginning. How will this change affect Ikkuro and Securans, with their pansy troops. Will it help them because it takes longer to kill their rubbish troops off, or make it impossible for them to win, since each successive "tick" will mean that the invaders are winning and gaining experience and thus strength with each round of combat?

You haven't even considered the taxation impact it would have on the owner of the planet. With the chaos and destruction of planet-wide combat, the economy is going to grind to a halt. The invader may not really care if he wins or loses - he's wiped out the economic output from that world for at least a decade - not to mention the damage to environment and development. It's not just the attacker who has to concern himself with maintaining a decade-long siege. The defender has to deal with his economy being crippled for a decade at least - no matter what he does. Remember, the ENTIRE combat process is slowed down, so kicking the invaders off is ALSO slowed down.

Simple fact - you haven't thought this through. You're suggesting a wholesale reworking of the invasion mechanics, and not giving ANY thought whatsoever to the secondary impacts of the change.

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns

Iraq’s population is about 30 million. Compare that to the almost 7 billion people on the planet and you haven’t even scratched the surface of conquering anything on a planetary scale.

Add to that the fact that the Iraqi army was totally outclassed by the US and your point is no longer valid to the discussion. In game terms Iraq’s military was tech 0 or 1 and the US was at max tech.

First off, you're WRONG about the tech. Iraq was using tech that was about 25 or so years out of date. That's hardly the same as Maxos Blaster armed escorts versus Death Ray armed World Destroyers.

Second, you've obviously missed the point - once again. It's a trend in military engagements for troops to be more spread out as firepower and range of their weapons increases. And engagements are getting quicker and quicker all the time - the old days of pitched battles over days are long gone. Modern engagements are won decisively in a very short period of time. More mobility, more lethality - it adds up.

Iraq was an example to draw your attention to the increasing speed of warfare. But since you're not getting the message - well, you need to do some reading.

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns

To put it another way, the Iraq war took 6 weeks I think, but to make things simple let’s say a month. So 30 million people conquered in a month.

Now 7,000,000,000 people divided by 30,000,000 people equals 233 months of fighting. That would be 19.4 years of fighting.

*sigh* You really don't get it, do you?

It's not 7-billion divided by 30-million - you're talking about PLANETARY invasion. Millions of troops dropping out of the sky with kill-o-zap guns. They aren't rolling across the desert in petrol powered tanks - they're DROPPNG FROM THE FREAKING SKY! Combat will be spread out all over the freaking planet - and each victory/loss will inevitably mean changing control of millions of people.

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns

A better comparison would be WWII. Both sides were within 1 or 2 tech levels of each other, and huge percentages of the worlds populations had to be conquered to end the war. That took about 6 years (39-45) if you ignore the early Sino-Japanese conflict that started in 1937.

Now factor in the fact only about one third of the world’s population was actually conquered, the rest either being the conquerors or not involved, and 10+ years of fighting no longer seems an implausible timeframe.

Huh? What? One third of the world's population? Bullcrap! Most of the world's population was untouched by the war. South America, India, Africa and North America, Australia - sod all land or population changed hands. The number of Europeans and Russians involved was minuscule compared to the ENTIRE population of the world.

Check your numbers - you have no idea what you're talking about.

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns

Um isn’t changing all that the purpose of the discussion?

No, you're asking for wholesale changes to address what's essentially an end-game situation. If you haven't won with that advantage, then you're artificially extending the game. And you're not considering the effect for any earlier stage of the game. Is that what you really want? A game that's balanced for the end-game situation, but is horribly unbalanced for early to mid game?

[Kayoz]

ORIGINAL: ASHBERY76

Are you actually comparing invading a weak middle eastern country to invading a planet,lol.

DING! Wrong! Thank you for playing, Mr. Ash.

You didn't read the post. I pointed out the trends in warfare. You completely missed the warfare trends. Iraq isn't significant in itself - it's an example of how trends are going. Fewer troops per square meter. Quicker, more decisive engagements. That's how war is going. Look at the changes in warfare from the ancient Greek phalanx, to the modern armour blitzkrieg - it's the trend.

LOL right back at you. Or rather - LTR - learn to read.

[HectorOfTroy]

Guys, it's a game and not real life.
So there's no point comparing it to the Middle East and USA. The main thing should be finding some way to make it work better in the game, not findinga way to make it more realistic.

[Kayoz]

HectorOfTroy -

The trends in warfare was brought up to point out the flaws in Jimmy's arguments calling for decade-long invasions. You're completely correct - if it isn't balanced and it isn't fun, then it doesn't have a place in the game.

However, my biggest problem with Jimmy et al, is the lack of consideration of the knock-on effects of the changes they're suggesting. Game design requires a lot of balancing of priorities - and they've given absolutely no thought to issues like war weariness and economy. "Make it slower" isn't the answer but that's all their myopic view can see.

[J HG T]

ORIGINAL: gmot

I have Space Rangers 2 and loved that game. Frankly the mini-game RTS of it is my least favourite part of the game, compared to the other parts. Definitely wouldn't want any RTS component to DW.

Off-topic:

Aye. RTS in SR2 was kind of change of pace and cash-machine for me, nothing more.

HectorOfTroy has a point. Trying to make A GAME "realistic" isn't the way to make game more fun and interesting to play. Sometimes you have to make game a bit unrealistic to make it feel "realistic" and fun.
Also, using real-world warfare examples to describe how planetary warfare should be around year 3000 is pure, random speculation.
Heck, I think that most races in DW could have nano-machines that could easily disintegrate any planet, or its defences, completely in matter of days or weeks. Also, antimatter weapons; Single shalecracker warhead could destroy moon sized objects instantly. Biological warfare, Von Neuman machines, genenetically modified soldiers and/or fauna, the list goes on and on. I won't even try to describe what hypometric weapons could do in the right hands.

Sorry for wall of text. The main point still is that we are playing game that isn't nowhere near "realistic" and we should develop it with that in mind. Games are meant to be fun, challenging and interesting. Realism is many times more of a burden than help for games.

And my suggestions are still to increase the size of troop modules and to do something to Homeworlds supreme value issue.

Ahh... the coffee fuelled morning rushes.

[Shark7]

Kayoz: Huh? What? One third of the world's population? Bullcrap! Most of the world's population was untouched by the war. South America, India, Africa and North America, Australia - sod all land or population changed hands. The number of Europeans and Russians involved was minuscule compared to the ENTIRE population of the world.

Check your numbers - you have no idea what you're talking about.

Not entirely true either. While a large portion of the world's population was not affecting by actual fighting, they were in fact affected in other ways.

Did you know:

Most South American countries did declare war on the Axis by wars end?
Many of the non-combatants were responsible for supplying materials to build war supplies to the belligerents?

Some that had direct combat operations:

Mexico supplied an air force unit to the Philippines Campaign
Brazil entered the war in 1942 conducting ASW operations in the South Atlantic and providing 25000 troops and air force personnel during the Italian campaign.

The following countries declared war on the Axis Nations following the Pearl Harbor attack:

Panama, Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Haiti, Honduras, Nicaragua, Guatemala, Cuba, Czechoslavakia, China, Philippines

Additionally, these nations joined in Declarations of War on the Axis nations at various points during World War II:

Before D-Day: Mexico, Brazil, Ethiopia, Iraq, Bolivia, Columbia, Iran, Liberia, Peru

After D-Day: Ecuador, Paraguay, Uruguay, Venezuela, Turkey, Egypt, Lebanon, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Argentina, Chile

This list is in addition to the Countries that actually saw fighting.

For the Axis:

Japan, Germany, Italy, Romania, Bulgaria, Hungary, Finland and Thailand took part in actual combat operations.

My point being that to some degree or another World War II did in fact have some effect on the world's population...while some of them might not have seen direct combat, they did support the war effort in one way or another. Now does a farmer in South America actually know he's participating? He might not, but his crop very well could go to help feed one of the fighting armies.

It is of course obvious that peoples in Europe, Asia, India, Africa, Australia, North America, and the Pacific Rim were directly affected by the fighting...that only leaves the South American continent that was not directly involved in fighting, and even the South Armerican nations played a part in the war, some of them through combat missions. In other words, it would seem that a lot more people were involved in the war than were not involved in the war.

That's the reason it is called World War II, most of the world did participate in some form or fashion.

[Kayoz]

Shark -

The original statement from Jimmy was:

A better comparison would be WWII. Both sides were within 1 or 2 tech levels of each other, and huge percentages of the worlds populations had to be conquered to end the war. That took about 6 years (39-45) if you ignore the early Sino-Japanese conflict that started in 1937.

Now factor in the fact only about one third of the world’s population was actually conquered, the rest either being the conquerors or not involved, and 10+ years of fighting no longer seems an implausible timeframe.

Note, he said 1/3 of the world's population was conquered. I refuted his claim that 1/3 of land/population changed hands - which is grossly inaccurate.

[Jim D Burns]

ORIGINAL: Kayoz
Note, he said 1/3 of the world's population was conquered. I refuted his claim that 1/3 of land/population changed hands - which is grossly inaccurate.

It was a rough estimate, but probably close to accurate. We’d need a population census report for the era, but considering about half of China was conquered by Japan, I doubt 1/3rd would be far from the truth. Countries that were totally or partially conquered during the war:

France, Belgium, Holland, Denmark, Germany, Italy, Poland, Yugoslavia, Greece, Bulgaria, Hungary, Rumania, Finland, big chunk of Russia, North Africa, about half of China (includes Manchuria and Korea), Burma, Siam, Philippines, Dutch East Indies, and Japan.

Jim

[Jim D Burns]

ORIGINAL: Kayoz
The original statement from Jimmy was:

Now you're just being an ass. PLONK

[Shark7]

ORIGINAL: Kayoz

Shark -

The original statement from Jimmy was:

A better comparison would be WWII. Both sides were within 1 or 2 tech levels of each other, and huge percentages of the worlds populations had to be conquered to end the war. That took about 6 years (39-45) if you ignore the early Sino-Japanese conflict that started in 1937.

Now factor in the fact only about one third of the world’s population was actually conquered, the rest either being the conquerors or not involved, and 10+ years of fighting no longer seems an implausible timeframe.

Note, he said 1/3 of the world's population was conquered. I refuted his claim that 1/3 of land/population changed hands - which is grossly inaccurate.

Actually, he might be closer than you think when you look at not one side conquering the other, but all territories that changed hands at least once.

Most of Europe, and a large portion of the Ukraine was conquered at one point by Germany.
Most of Northern Africa was conquered by Germany.
More than half of China's land area was conquered by the Japanese.
Add to that all of Indochina, Malaysia, Singapore, Burma, Indonesia, Micronesia, Papua/New Guinnea, New Britain, the Marshals, the Marianas, part of the Aleutians, the Philippines and the Solomons were Conquered by Japan. Also, include numerous small islands that I can't even begin to list.

Then it reversed...

His esitmate, considering the population concentrations, is probably not far off. And to be honest, Europe and Asia were far more populous than the Western Worlds (North and South America) at that point in time. Population in the America's in 1940 was somewhere around 260-300 million, for Asia was over over 1 billion, and Europe was ~600 million. Asia had at that time, and still does, roughly 60% of the world's population.

Obviously, not every citizen of Asia or Europe was conquered, but a large portion of them would have been. I would be cofortable in saying 25%-33%, given the 1940 population concentrations.