Matrix Games Forums

Taltamir, I do agree that it's a nice thing, but (And this is just my personal opinion), strategy style games need to have advantages AND disadvantages to all major aspects
Eg. Colonization, Advantages = More planets, more resources, more income
Disadvantages = While building up said colonies, Takes resources away from other things, and if colonize too much too fast, your economy goes tits up
A little basic with the example, but I'm sure you understand my point

In life, 95% of decisions risk either a positive outcome, or a negative outcome (and quite alot have both in varying degrees)
Obviously, I'm not too hard up on this particular aspect, I personally will only bombard when I'm near untouchable anyway (If I do), and I'm guessing the AI isn't programmed to use this tactic at this time

Concerning multiples races in your empire... yes, I feel some sort of proper disadvantage is needed, and a rebellion risk might not be enough (I've not yet experienced this, so I can't yet say how much influence it would hold)... but this part of the discussion may be for another thread

Rebellion is a HUGE issue and it is plaguing all my games. a rebelling planet pays 0 taxes and doens't build anything and may defect...
it is actually pretty annoying and is always a huge problem... if anything it is exaggerated that they get as upset as they do because we are fighting "their race"... this is also a modifier that cannot be affected via forms of goverment... so you can have -2 war weariness with highly optimized "Evil empire" but still get the -20 for being at war with their race.

and not EVERYTHING has to have disadvantages in a strategy game. in chess you don't get penalties for taking enemy units... sometimes some things are just positive or negative.

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

Hiroshima argues otherwise. So does the Allied strategic bombing campaign. The good (?) guys are totally ok with this sort of thing under the right circumstances. Democracies at war are fearsome and the public will cheer for blood.

This is true, but look at every war the "Western World" has been in since WW2
Most of them have been condemned by the public
Vietnam and Iraq are just 2 examples
Hell, look at Afghanistan, we, with the US and a couple of other countries went in too get those responsible over 9/11, but that didn't stop half the public around the world having mass protests in the streets calling for the heads of governments for sending troops in

Only reason "War Weariness" is basically so low now IRL, is because the wars aren't at the forefront of many peoples mind, with the exceptions of those us directly affected by the wars themselves (Ie. since the media toned down on war reporting) - Of course, I can only speak for the UK on this matter

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

Hiroshima argues otherwise. So does the Allied strategic bombing campaign. The good (?) guys are totally ok with this sort of thing under the right circumstances. Democracies at war are fearsome and the public will cheer for blood.

also note that when the USA nuked hiroshima, they didn't have every other country in the world declare war on it (what happens in the game)... in fact, it resulted in the surrender of its enemies and no country daring to go to war with it since (insurgents aren't a country)

ORIGINAL: BigWolf

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

Hiroshima argues otherwise. So does the Allied strategic bombing campaign. The good (?) guys are totally ok with this sort of thing under the right circumstances. Democracies at war are fearsome and the public will cheer for blood.

This is true, but look at every war the "Western World" has been in since WW2
Most of them have been condemned by the public
Vietnam and Iraq are just 2 examples
Hell, look at Afghanistan, we, with the US and a couple of other countries went in too get those responsible over 9/11, but that didn't stop half the public around the world having mass protests in the streets calling for the heads of governments for sending troops in

Only reason "War Weariness" is basically so low now IRL, is because the wars aren't at the forefront of many peoples mind, with the exceptions of those us directly affected by the wars themselves (Ie. since the media toned down on war reporting) - Of course, I can only speak for the UK on this matter

only by the vocal liberal portion of the public. Conservatives still understand the difference between right and wrong... and actually admit to the existence of right and wrong.
And conservatives actually breed while liberals don't make any children anymore (on average) so its not like this will last.
actually, to be fair even conservative westerners do not breed enough to maintain their population...
it will be interesting to see how society in 100 years... very different populations.

Tempting ...
Keep politics out of here please.

Aye, I believe we've strayed a little too far off-topic

But, the points I was trying to make (albeit, the long way round)
I don't believe bombardment should reduce war-weariness unless you're a "blood-thirsty" race
I personally, can't think of anything to suggest in order to give it some sort of advantage (except you don't need to worry about loosing troops).  As pointed out, not everything has to have a disadvantage, on the flip side, not everything needs to have an advantage, maybe

If what you say about rebellions is true, then it's a major problem.
The "War-Weariness" should be largely influenced by governments, sure, under a democracy everyone is allowed to voice most opinions... but under other government types???  Nah, not really.
Also, since when would people under rule of a "Evil-Governed" Ruler be able to not pay taxes?  They would just have tax-collectors (wearing combats and carrying rifles) knocking (kicking down) their doors to take owed taxes and then make examples for disobeying the government

So, something else that might need rethinking in terms of game-design then

ok, stepping back a bit...

AI should have a "fear" value... a 1 colony "empire" shouldn't declare war on a 200 colony one, ever... I don't care if you eat babies for lunch they should have a healthy dose of fear and realism and realize that they don't stand a chance and it is suicide.

And the negative relationship modified for being "jealous" should be balanced with a modifier for... i am not sure how to describe it... when a 300 colony empire offers a 1 colony empire a protectorate they should jump on the offer... not decline because they hate you because they are jealous... empires that are close to you should see you as a threat (you are too big and dangerous)... empires much below you should see you as a superpower to beg stuff from. also ask you for financial aid.
the whole "your size gives an absolute penalty that is identical to everyone" thing doesn't make sense.

If what you say about rebellions is true, then it's a major problem.
The "War-Weariness" should be largely influenced by governments, sure, under a democracy everyone is allowed to voice most opinions... but under other government types???  Nah, not really.
Also, since when would people under rule of a "Evil-Governed" Ruler be able to not pay taxes?  They would just have tax-collectors (wearing combats and carrying rifles) knocking (kicking down) their doors to take owed taxes and then make examples for disobeying the government

exactly
I thought switching to way of darkness will have that result but no such luck

Have to completely agree about needing some form of fear factor
War should only be declared if there is at least a chance of victory, even if it means declaring war as an alliance against this larger threat

At same time, you can hate someone, but still bow down to demands... sorry, I mean "reasonable requests", just for the sake of surviving

Here's my take on this subject. You should be able to bombard from space without penalty under the following conditions; use only conventional weapons, primarily target military facilities and you weren't the one who started the war. If you started the war a small hit could be incurred if you only bombard using conventional weapons and primarily target military facilities. You get a medium hit if you target civilians and a big hit if you use WMD's. Colonies should not being rebelling when at war with the colony's race except when the colony wasn't happy to begin with or you are losing the war and they think it would be better to be part of the enemies empire instead of being invaded. I also think you should be able to kick out and/or exterminate any race you want that's in your empire. In fact the extermination part shouldn't cost you anything unless you lose a colony to another empire and that empire wants to disclose this fact or some spy finds out.

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

Hiroshima argues otherwise. So does the Allied strategic bombing campaign. The good (?) guys are totally ok with this sort of thing under the right circumstances. Democracies at war are fearsome and the public will cheer for blood.

I think they prove the opposite. The Allies did strategic bombing of civilian targets after the Germans introduced it into the war. It was more reprisal and a "reap what you sow" kind of thing in Europe.

Against Japan a large amount of industry was done in civilian homes that turned them into military targets. Again, since Japan started the war without a declaration of war it was very much again a "reap what you sow" situation.

In both these cases the Allied public opinion was just fine with rendering the perpetrators as the evil beings and crushing them by whatever means necessary. The same answer if you destroy civilian populations in DW.

Good Hunting.

MR

Good point!

Humans who mate with Alien species are here by deemed as "Traitors to the Empire" and will be cleansed along with any genetically impure offspring they may have. The Emperor's mandate is law. Long Live the Human Empire!!!
 

Mating with aliens... of course it could be done but would it produce children? The scientific assumptions often say no. I imagine that, for it to be possible, the alien mate would also have to be nearly as "Humanoid" as us. Even then there would likely be too different genetics to produce a child... or would there? Of course the alien evolved on a different planet and thus likely has too different genetic make up. But that is just a part of assumptions. Maybe the alien mate could have an enough similiar genetic makeup to produce a child.

Of course, I'm not a geneticist to fully contemplate and conclude on theoretical ideas.

ORIGINAL: RavenX

Humans who mate with Alien species are here by deemed as "Traitors to the Empire" and will be cleansed along with any genetically impure offspring they may have. The Emperor's mandate is law. Long Live the Human Empire!!!

You are far more likely to produce a child with a horse then you are with an extra terrestrial. At least the horse is shares direct ancestry with us and more then 90% of its DNA; heck, chimps share 99% of their DNA with us and we can't crossbreed... An alien's DNA analogue will potentially be completely different, and even if it is SOMEWHAT similar there will still be slight differences in the extraneous structure of it that make the whole thing completely incompatible (the fact it uses 4 specific compounds on a specific structure coding for 64 combinations of 3 "letter" codes each one coding for a COMPLETELY ARBITRARY protein structure to be attached to the protein chain, etc). In terrestrial biology, the only place where there are slight differences in DNA structure is bacteria and viri, because they are the only ones with simple enough DNA to be capable of surviving such a major change... there are some bacteria where the DNA is a mirror image of ours in terms of stereoisomerism, and then there are viri that produce unique RNA "types" with unique genetic machinery (proteins that act on DNA/RNA) that only handle that type of RMA.
Actually, you would have a better change of impregnating a POTATO or an APPLE then you would an extra terrestrial that does not share direct ancestry with us (aka, their ancestors were kidnapped off of earth by aliens or vice versa, or maybe an ancient human civilization that migrated off of earth or something).

Mad Russian, this is what I mean by "under the right circumstances."

Going back further, we can look at the Roman Republic's savage attitude towards Carthage.

The idea that representative governments can't practice terror in war due to public opinion is exactly wrong. Once aroused, they are capable of doing pretty much anything.