Frogboy has said there will be no Planetary Bombardment. Never.

No disrespect intended, but do a forum search - there are dozens and dozens of threads discussing this topic ad naseum. It has been beaten to the bones.

Is this deja vu, or is it just this weeks PB thread?

That is the most important reason IMO, and its really really lame.

What's IMO? It'd be nice if people just typed a little more...

-Wade

he means "in my honest opinion

Thanks.I thought he was trying to mention some other game.

-Wade

Maybe since theres so much interest just make it an option to Enable or Disable.. *Shrug*

This seems like a great idea.Post it and bump it. "Attention Stardock".

-Wade

Planetary bombardment doesn't have to mean 'destroy the entire planet immediately'.

It could just destroy say one (random) building and a certain number of people. To actually obliterate the planet would take many turns. It could also be expensive to use. And a long way up the tech tree.

There are all sorts of ways to make it balanced. Frankly, if you leave your planets undefended, you're just asking for it.

In a civilized universe, the citizens of the galaxy would be apalled at such tactics, even citizens belonging to the offending civ. What if each bombardment caused a drop in Diplomatic relations, and caused an approval rating drop. Perhaps this drop could be a permanent 5% per bombardment, or 30% for a year, or something like that. That way, if you do it too often you will have no friends, no economy, and no support. You will probably be overthrown and executed (well, maybe in GC3).

And how is this worse then the genocid you make when you invade a planet.

Btw. no planetary bombardement and personally I'm glad about it.

In a civilized universe, the citizens of the galaxy would be apalled at such tactics, even citizens belonging to the offending civ. What if each bombardment caused a drop in Diplomatic relations, and caused an approval rating drop. Perhaps this drop could be a permanent 5% per bombardment, or 30% for a year, or something like that. That way, if you do it too often you will have no friends, no economy, and no support. You will probably be overthrown and executed (well, maybe in GC3). Evil MuppetView Evil Muppet's ProfileEmail Evil MuppetFind Posts By Evil Muppet

Bull, look at history. America and numerous other countrys where celebrating when Hiroshima was nuked.

Planetary bombardment of the type discussed here would break the combat system of the game.

Currently, there is a tradeoff made between weapons based ships to clear the field of enemy ships and transports, which actually do the direct long term damage to the enemy economy but are extrordinarily weak, cost population, and are entirely 'spent' once used. Bombardment, in the form of a module that could be used at all, would make the military option too powerful.

The expansion will add espionage, which accomplishes some of the more reasonable effects people would like to see for bombardment, but that is not attached to the manufacture/military builds, but will rather be funded through good economies, and any effets will require constant upkeep (if i'm not mistaked). Because it mostly involves number crunching and isn't particularly spacial, the a.i. will also be more likely to be able to handle it.

And all the imbalances applied to MOO as well. Options doesn't always equal strategy. Sometimes they are just easy exploits.

I suppose that would be true, but I tended to prefer to invade and capture colonies intact in Master of Orion... Any amount of bombardment tended to destroy all the improvements that may have been useful before it killed off the population or defending troops - just like using the Mass Driver option when sending in a transport (which is the result of researching a technology called PLANETARY BOMBARDMENT). The few instances where I preferred to nuke a planet, it was because I didn't want to bother taking on new worlds. Which sometimes happens. Also when I'm just really pissed at a race and want them to be just as utterly spiteful towards me. Nothing says 'I hate you' like dropping a few bombs on an enemy race.

In Master of Orion 3, it was very hard to bombard a planet effectively unless you had Indirect Fire fleets. And I tended to have just Long-Range, Short-Range, or Carriers. Carriers are great for anti-ship actions, but utterly suck for bombardment. Seriously, my carrier fleets barely do anything to the population and troops. You /need/ those heavy missiles to nuke the everliving crap out of a planet.

Master of Orion 2 had the Stellar Converter, which only came in near the end of the game- as well as the specific 'bomb' weapon type that could only used against planets. That Stellar Converter was basically the Death Star laser, if I remember correctly. Could blow planets away.

Heh... surprisingly nice post, Evil Storm.

Yes, planetary defences do tend to do something when you try to go and bomb the $h!t out of the planet in games like Master of Orion. Once those defences are gone, however, it's only a matter of time before the planet has been cleansed of all life. A matter of time. Pay attention to that term. That means it takes time. Time and resources, as you are constantly supplying more bombs to your fleet, technically.

The point of the matter is, it should and must cost both time and resources to wage a proper planetary bombardment, just as it does in Master of Orion.

In MoO3, it will take dozens of turns to try and bombard a planet and finish off the population residing on it completely. Many turns. Especially if you use a Carrier fleet. Those things are near-worthless against planetary targets. Even the 'Artillery ships' (the Missile-boats. The Indirect Fires) take a few turns to wipe out a colony.

The same was true of Master of Orion 2. It took a few years to waste a planet, but the job got done eventually.

And the whole while you're trying to bombard that planet, it and the other colonies of that race are trying to muster up a defence against your genocidal assault fleet.


On the matter of other games with a more "military" style... the Homeworld series is a prime example of focusing on the military. As well, there is another game I was reminded of recently called Hegemonia: Legions of Iron which is an RTS that has colonization of planets and multiple star systems. As well, in a similar vein, is Conquest: Frontier Wars. it's more RTS than empire-builder, but it also has multiple star systems. I'd like to see this Sword of the Stars I keep hearing about...

There's also something called Nexus: The Jupiter Incident which is more of a space fleet simulator than anything I've mentioned so far. I've played its demo, and it seemed pretty good.

But I figure if you want to build an empire through the slaying of your enemies, your cities running red and green and blue and purple and (etc)... from the blood of your alien foes, then the Master of Orion series does the job quite nicely. Plenty of stellar warfare and empire building, and a limited amount of politics.

Heh... surprisingly nice post, Evil Storm.

Methinks you keep slamming me today PaladinStorm. Quite okay. Some of my own posts and replies embarass me when I go back and peruse,,,,. But thanks for the info. Never played the MoO games so it may be worth it to check into them. But yes, sometimes something intelligible manages to pour forth from my cranium. Oh, and with regards to the sound/energy debacle, just wanted to throw in my 2 cents worth, even if it was redundant. Gotta love online access at work!

Often a good reason- the guy making the game doesn't like it.

Well there you go! Nuff said.