My argument is that it exists for no good reason. The limits of the weapon are annoying and needless.  when I first heard about this weapon I was hoping we were getting something along the lines of master of Orion's Stellar converter. a weapon that would do strong single ship damage, and have an out of combat ability that allowed it to destroy a world. what I got is a super-heavy civilian ship. if they were going to treat it like this it would have been better that they just had a ship model for the planet cracker, not something that takes up aweapon mount. right now what it is has the functionality of a tool, not a weapon. 

With the Advent of the blast effect weaponry  I'm hoping that they can revisit this and turn it into an actual weapon. Single Target one shot kill three times in combat.

Evil713 wrote:

My argument is that it exists for no good reason. The limits of the weapon are annoying and needless.  when I first heard about this weapon I was hoping we were getting something along the lines of master of Orion's Stellar converter. a weapon that would do strong single ship damage, and have an out of combat ability that allowed it to destroy a world. what I got is a super-heavy civilian ship. if they were going to treat it like this it would have been better that they just had a ship model for the planet cracker, not something that takes up aweapon mount. right now what it is has the functionality of a tool, not a weapon. 

With the Advent of the blast effect weaponry  I'm hoping that they can revisit this and turn it into an actual weapon. Single Target one shot kill three times in combat.

+1. IMO the planet cracker should just be an upgrade of the blast effect battery, with the planet-destroying ability as a nice side effect, and with a maybe 1 turn warmup. Planet destruction really is not very powerful in a stage where your fleets carry 3000+ manpower without any upgrades (carrier alone 1350), and you can take basically any system in 1-3 turns. The one time I built the Core Cracker module in its current form (you guessed it, Vodyani campaign) I found it almost offensively useless.

Kray wrote:

KnightofPhoenix wrote:

If anything the planet cracker should incur massive diplomatic and approval maluses...

On the contrary. All that makes the Emperor happy and this definitely includes the planet cracker, should make the people happy, too. 

What's not to love about it? 

You should sit there in shame and change your avatar picture to Heretic. I'm disgusted.

It should have approval maluses for pacifists, but massive approval bonuses for militarists. 

fgalkin wrote:
It should have approval maluses for pacifists, but massive approval bonuses for militarists. 

Now, that is a suggestion I really like. A workout through the political party system. Much more elegant than nerfs and maluses. 

KnightofPhoenix wrote:

Evil713 wrote:

With the Advent of the blast effect weaponry  I'm hoping that they can revisit this and turn it into an actual weapon. Single Target one shot kill three times in combat.

That would be ridiculously overpowered.  The AoE missile also fires 3 times and the warhead can be destroyed by flak.  The cracker wouldn't have a counter and it would guarantee 3 kills even if they are carriers.

AT MOST, the cracker can fire once and only in the last round, giving the opposing fleet the chance to destroy it before it charges up.  

 you seen the blast effect batteries in action right? they are death at 3rd tier research,  equipping medium ship's with at least one each it's absolute chaos and destruction across an entire division of ships.  I have wiped out medium-sized divisions of ships with them. having the world cracker have the same capability but limited to a single Target three times a round may  actually be less damaging than the blast effect battery.

Have it fire near the end of a third of a round, blast effect can stay firing at the beginning of a third. Have planet cracking cost an action point, and add a mechanic so it only goes off when everyone hits end turn.

Kray wrote:

KnightofPhoenix wrote:

If anything the planet cracker should incur massive diplomatic and approval maluses...

On the contrary. All that makes the Emperor happy and this definitely includes the planet cracker, should make the people happy, too. 

What's not to love about it? 

You should sit there in shame and change your avatar picture to Heretic. I'm disgusted.

Kray you make some of the best posts :)

Evil713 wrote:

KnightofPhoenix wrote:

Evil713 wrote:

With the Advent of the blast effect weaponry  I'm hoping that they can revisit this and turn it into an actual weapon. Single Target one shot kill three times in combat.

That would be ridiculously overpowered.  The AoE missile also fires 3 times and the warhead can be destroyed by flak.  The cracker wouldn't have a counter and it would guarantee 3 kills even if they are carriers.

AT MOST, the cracker can fire once and only in the last round, giving the opposing fleet the chance to destroy it before it charges up.  

 you seen the blast effect batteries in action right? they are death at 3rd tier research,  equipping medium ship's with at least one each it's absolute chaos and destruction across an entire division of ships.  I have wiped out medium-sized divisions of ships with them. having the world cracker have the same capability but limited to a single Target three times a round may  actually be less damaging than the blast effect battery.

Have it fire near the end of a third of a round, blast effect can stay firing at the beginning of a third. Have planet cracking cost an action point, and add a mechanic so it only goes off when everyone hits end turn.

Yes, it's extremely strong. Probably to the point that it needs to get a nerf. But it's also countered by flak (I've had Craver flak fleets shoot mine down), so you've wasted a large weapons module if your opponent decides to counter it. What you were suggesting is basically a big GG gun, which again raises the problem of making superweapons so strong that they effectively end the game - which just turns the game into a rush for them. 

Having to sit there for 5 turns gives opponents ample opportunity to stop you if they are able, which is fair. It also means that you've got to make some decisions on the best systems to hit with it so the investment pays off. If it was just an action point, then these things wouldn't matter. Seeker fleet to a system, take it all out in 1-5 turns, travel to the next. Which is not only overpowered, but pretty dull IMO.

Evil713 wrote:

It is annoying to use, you cant mount weapons on the carrier, or fighters, and it does no damage durring combat,  and I found that you can usually invade and Conquer at that level and half the time it takes for the damn thing to charge.

I d argue, that you still can choose not to use the cracker.

Suis3i wrote:

Bottom line is that the DEV's probably wouldn't have added the planet cracker module unless there was some sort of use for it in game. And as @WeLoveYou and @PotatoesAreBland point out, it's actually quite useful to blow up another empires planets, especially if you're competing with them for the victory or trying to secure an easy truce. Or you may want to create a sort of wall of uncolonizable systems to separate you and the "Cravers", or if you just want to play the bad guy and blow up all of the Sophons "Core Worlds". The list could go on. 

I totally agree, there is a use for those weapons, even if it is a special case solution. (But in my opinion it is a good thing that it is limited like this.

It s probably the Vod Questline that should be adjusted a bit, instead of the planet cracker, if you ask me.

KnightofPhoenix wrote:

fgalkin wrote:

Kray wrote:

KnightofPhoenix wrote:

If anything the planet cracker should incur massive diplomatic and approval maluses...

On the contrary. All that makes the Emperor happy and this definitely includes the planet cracker, should make the people happy, too. 

What's not to love about it? 

You should sit there in shame and change your avatar picture to Heretic. I'm disgusted.

It should have approval maluses for pacifists, but massive approval bonuses for militarists. 

Hey, Emperor Zelevas is not a mean dictator....I mean yea eternal god emperor of man but this is not warhammer 40k!

But yes massive dissaproval from pacifists and ecologists vs massive approval from militarist is fine by me. 

He's more like Padishah Emperor Shaddam IV on spice (or dust). More competent though.

KnightofPhoenix wrote:

Hey, Emperor Zelevas is not a mean dictator....

Of course he's not a mean dictator. You've got that absolutely right. He's the good guy here! He runs a Federation after all. You can't compare him to megalomaniacs as Horatio. He just wants to help other backwards races who aren't that fortunate as we are here in the Empire. 

The planet cracker is merely a helpful tool on the workbench which will help shape the galaxy the way he seems fit. To a place worth living (and dying for.)

As a citizen of the Empire, I have to state that I definitely wasn't initimidated by the recent election action to say that. 

Long live the Empire!

#dontnerfplanetcracker

#Zelevasrulez

#supportourtroops

Leraje wrote:

He's more like Padishah Emperor Shaddam IV on spice (or dust). More competent though.

I 100% approve of this comparison.

okay some of the posts were really long.

planet cracker is late game and for games with supremecy orconquest victory. Obviously a game with science, score or eco victory enable will never reach it.

It is not too late in the game. If it were early game, too many players would destroy too many systems, making the Universe a mass grave, with nearly no way to end the game victorious anymore.

Second of course it has strategic value. Some military systems which act as borders to enemy territory can be nearly impossible to take over. If the system is reinforced by adjacent star systems with great output and has lots of ground defences, chances are that the game would be a draw. With planet destroyer you can take away high yield systems from the enemy, without giving them a chance to react. 

It also serves as a way to take away strategic ressources. An enemy player with green laser ships would be on a high disadvantege if you kill the planet that has the quadrinx deposit.

It has plenty of tactical uses, it's actually the weapon that counts for the victory in end game. If two empires late game controll the universe and only one can win, the planet destroyer decides who it will be.

The problem is it takes way too long to destroy a system. Even a two planet system will take, far, far longer to destroy with a planet cracker than it would to simply invade it. As systems get larger, the time investment gets even more insane. Certainly, permently nuking resources is powerful, but it's not powerful enough to justify the investment when you compare it with anything else you could be spending those resources on.

YertyL wrote:

thiasss wrote:

(...)

Second of course it has strategic value. Some military systems which act as borders to enemy territory can be nearly impossible to take over. If the system is reinforced by adjacent star systems with great output and has lots of ground defences, chances are that the game would be a draw. With planet destroyer you can take away high yield systems from the enemy, without giving them a chance to react. 

It also serves as a way to take away strategic ressources. An enemy player with green laser ships would be on a high disadvantege if you kill the planet that has the quadrinx deposit.

It has plenty of tactical uses, it's actually the weapon that counts for the victory in end game. If two empires late game controll the universe and only one can win, the planet destroyer decides who it will be.

I have to ask, since this is really, really counter to my experience: Are you theorycrafting, or speaking from your own experience?

Because I have a really hard time imagining a scenario in which it's not better to outfit the same carrier with, say, beam weapons and siege modules, and research basically any other T5 military tech. If you win the space battle(s) above a system, which a core cracker is actually much worse at, holding the system for more than 5 turns is basically impossible in the late game. Also in my experience a war between empires is effectively decided in 1-3 space battles, which, again, your core cracker will not help with. When is that ever a good enough option to waste T5 tech and a carrier on?

Nope definitely not theory asking. It comes to how powerful your enemy is and how their ressource lines are.

The guys I play with usually wouldn't give up a high yield system easily and have of course extreme defences deployed and reinforce with ships who supply the ground forces once they reached a system. Core cracker is a weapon to decide the outcome against strong players, for me it seems like you want to use it against some inferior AI or someone who you can outproduce easily. I think you're all building battle ships, getting systems near by from weaker players.

So first of, Planet destroyers can move faster since they only need engines on their module slots. They're a tactical weapon. If you can conquer an enemies system so easily with an attacking fleet, than simply your opponent isn't strong enough, you're playing against an AI or something. 

All you guys seem to be telling me, that an enemy player would simply let you take away their core systems without constantly trying to supply and hold the system, which means you can't play against humans. Try to tune up the difficulty or go play against other humans in multiplayer and you'll see that you need it.

Even with its tactical uses (fair point: taking away enemy strategic resources) the weapon still feels tacked-on and incomplete imo.

I really liked some of the suggestions involving politics/diplomacy. Using a weapon of mass destruction as a powerful tool for negotiation would make sense. Additionally, populations would be utterly terrified if someone could just waltz up and obliterate everything you know and love, yes? Perhaps having a world destroyed by Core Cracker could apply a significant Approval malus to the affected system and empire, so it further emphasizes the hit to your economy.

Planet cracker can charge during coldwar/truce so once war declared you instantly lose planet. This alone is a biiiiig oversight.

Normally these are an end game mop up thing but they take too long to attack each planet.I would make them star killers.

Taking over systems is a huge bother. Destroying their worlds is a way better way to get rid of ugly neighbours who already contributed to Horatio's perfection.

OMG you destroyed Tor! Haha!

Your post gets a score of Horatio/10.

Oh dear, poor Tor!

Heretic Isyander approves, gone with the corruped!

I think the diplomatic modifiers could make planet crackers a lot of fun.  They probably also don't need to be so horribly gimped in so many ways, the idea of them needing to be installed on otherwise unarmed carriers after you've already invested so much wasted science into just getting the damn things, and then having to babysit them for a few turns... it's probably overkill.

Anyone remember how much fun Doomstars could be in Master of Orion 2?  If a game actually goes long enough for the factions to be producing planet destroying superweapons they probably shouldn't feel like a joke.

I like using planet cracker to deal with Craver-occupied worlds. Just think of it as a giant can of Raid. :P

I ve an idea, make the planet cracker a t4 tech and reduce the charge time to 1 tirn but with a cooldown of 5 turns , it would make it more useful but bot op.

It's only in there because a few people thought it was a good idea to have it.

Imho, it's a white elephant that really has little purpose in the Endless Universe.  So I ignore it.  There is so much that is good in the game, that one indulgence for the few is tolerable.

So, is the planet cracker as useless as it seems?  I finally built one to complete the Vodyani questline today and it was just a pain, with almost no strategic value whatsoever.  To make the thing work I pretty much already needed all the tools to secure a star system in vastly less time, and with vastly less specialized tools.

The_Quasar wrote:

It's only in there because a few people thought it was a good idea to have it.

Imho, it's a white elephant that really has little purpose in the Endless Universe.  So I ignore it.  There is so much that is good in the game, that one indulgence for the few is tolerable.

I don't think I'd ever accept this as suitable logic for leaving a half-baked element in a game, or being unwilling to fix something that is clearly not functional.  If the mechanic just junk, remove it.  Plus it doesn't even apply - it's part of one of the two quest endings for Vodyani, so you have to play around it if you are doing their quest or accept that one branch is closed to you.  That's unacceptable to me.  And that's assuming there aren't other half-baked, poorly concieved elements in ES2 that could stand to be ironed out, which there are many, many, many of.

I also don't really think a planet destroying superweapon is inappropriate for the Endless verse, when we've seen what else Dust can do.  If anything there aren't ENOUGH planet destroying superweapons :p

NauticalSoup wrote:

The_Quasar wrote:

It's only in there because a few people thought it was a good idea to have it.

Imho, it's a white elephant that really has little purpose in the Endless Universe.  So I ignore it.  There is so much that is good in the game, that one indulgence for the few is tolerable.

I don't think I'd ever accept this as suitable logic for leaving a half-baked element in a game, or being unwilling to fix something that is clearly not functional.  If the mechanic just junk, remove it.  Plus it doesn't even apply - it's part of one of the two quest endings for Vodyani, so you have to play around it if you are doing their quest or accept that one branch is closed to you.  That's unacceptable to me.  And that's assuming there aren't other half-baked, poorly concieved elements in ES2 that could stand to be ironed out, which there are many, many, many of.

I also don't really think a planet destroying superweapon is inappropriate for the Endless verse, when we've seen what else Dust can do.  If anything there aren't ENOUGH planet destroying superweapons :p

What quest ending for Vodyani requires that you destroy a planet? The religious/military definitely doesn't require it. And I thought the other questline just requires that you control the Academy. It's been a while since I've gone down the non-religious route, so remind me if I've misremembered.

I don't think the system is half baked. It's a very powerful late game tool that can turn a whole game around if you choose to use it. Permanently turning an excellent system into a poor one is a big deal. Even destroying a single planet can result in hundreds, or even thousands, of FIDSI loss depending on how developed that system is, how big the planet is, and what population types are there. And it's permanent, unlike the possibility of recapturing a conquered system.  

The thing with easy to access superweapons is that they are fun for the first couple of times, but then eventually everyone just realises that you should rush for them. I remember watching some of the best Civ5 players in multiplayer, and every game was essentially a cold war until someone got nukes, then that person won. You'd never see any other kind of victory type, and never see any tech past nukes. It eventually made the game one dimensional and dull. This is something the ES2 has tried to avoid, making all the victory types viable, and part of that means limiting the power of superweapons by making them difficult to attain. The other superweapon in the game is the Riftborn Orich/Quad singularity that freezes a system for ten turns. In many ways, it functions similarly to the planet killer - you can permanently shut down three enemy systems and there is nothing they can do. You can effectively destroy an empire without lifting a finger. In tech terms though, it's about three times as much as any of the Endless techs, and rightly so.  

The other quest line requires you destroy two hot planets (wat) before the academy occupation thing happens.  It's actually pretty ludicrous, since if I have enough tech and resources that I can afford to waste it researching planet destroyers, building them, and destroying totally arbitrary planets, I can probably just steamroll any remaining opposition anyway.  I think the Vodyani heretic quest line is my least favourite that I've encountered so far, and it DEFINITELY feels half-baked.  The lore justification for it is kind of insane, where you're supposed to be scrubbing the galaxy clean of Endless relics, and somehow that translates to blowing up exactly -two- planets, as long as they're also -warm-.

As others in this very thread have pointed out already, the planet cracker isn't super, it's pathetic.  "Joke weapon" would be a better way to describe it.  If you think this is adding value to your war efforts, you're clearly doing something terribly wrong - it's rare indeed to even require five terns of sieging + invasion against any star system that late in the game.

WeLoveYou wrote:

NauticalSoup wrote:

The_Quasar wrote:

It's only in there because a few people thought it was a good idea to have it.

Imho, it's a white elephant that really has little purpose in the Endless Universe.  So I ignore it.  There is so much that is good in the game, that one indulgence for the few is tolerable.

I don't think I'd ever accept this as suitable logic for leaving a half-baked element in a game, or being unwilling to fix something that is clearly not functional.  If the mechanic just junk, remove it.  Plus it doesn't even apply - it's part of one of the two quest endings for Vodyani, so you have to play around it if you are doing their quest or accept that one branch is closed to you.  That's unacceptable to me.  And that's assuming there aren't other half-baked, poorly concieved elements in ES2 that could stand to be ironed out, which there are many, many, many of.

I also don't really think a planet destroying superweapon is inappropriate for the Endless verse, when we've seen what else Dust can do.  If anything there aren't ENOUGH planet destroying superweapons :p

What quest ending for Vodyani requires that you destroy a planet? The religious/military definitely doesn't require it. And I thought the other questline just requires that you control the Academy. It's been a while since I've gone down the non-religious route, so remind me if I've misremembered.

I don't think the system is half baked. It's a very powerful late game tool that can turn a whole game around if you choose to use it. Permanently turning an excellent system into a poor one is a big deal. Even destroying a single planet can result in hundreds, or even thousands, of FIDSI loss depending on how developed that system is, how big the planet is, and what population types are there. And it's permanent, unlike the possibility of recapturing a conquered system.  

The thing with easy to access superweapons is that they are fun for the first couple of times, but then eventually everyone just realises that you should rush for them. I remember watching some of the best Civ5 players in multiplayer, and every game was essentially a cold war until someone got nukes, then that person won. You'd never see any other kind of victory type, and never see any tech past nukes. It eventually made the game one dimensional and dull. This is something the ES2 has tried to avoid, making all the victory types viable, and part of that means limiting the power of superweapons by making them difficult to attain. The other superweapon in the game is the Riftborn Orich/Quad singularity that freezes a system for ten turns. In many ways, it functions similarly to the planet killer - you can permanently shut down three enemy systems and there is nothing they can do. You can effectively destroy an empire without lifting a finger. In tech terms though, it's about three times as much as any of the Endless techs, and rightly so.  

Here ya go, this is the Quest right before you have to secure the system where the Academy is located

Your point about the superweapons is spot on; it wouldn't be fun if they were too easy to use, otherwise, you'd just rush for them and start blowing up planets as if you were Palpatine on steroids. Wars would end too easily, there wouldn't be a challenge to it, and it would make the game very boring. Also, the AI would literally make even more ships with planet crackers smh 

Anyway, hope the pics helped refresh your memory 

Just found it in my own game! Thanks though Suis3i!

NauticalSoup wrote:

The other quest line requires you destroy two hot planets (wat) before the academy occupation thing happens.  It's actually pretty ludicrous, since if I have enough tech and resources that I can afford to waste it researching planet destroyers, building them, and destroying totally arbitrary planets, I can probably just steamroll any remaining opposition anyway.  I think the Vodyani heretic quest line is my least favourite that I've encountered so far, and it DEFINITELY feels half-baked.  The lore justification for it is kind of insane, where you're supposed to be scrubbing the galaxy clean of Endless relics, and somehow that translates to blowing up exactly -two- planets, as long as they're also -warm-.

As others in this very thread have pointed out already, the planet cracker isn't super, it's pathetic.  "Joke weapon" would be a better way to describe it.  If you think this is adding value to your war efforts, you're clearly doing something terribly wrong - it's rare indeed to even require five terns of sieging + invasion against any star system that late in the game.

The thing that wins games is FIDSI, in particular, industry and science. The most effective way to ensure that someone has less FIDSI than you is to reduce the number or effectiveness of their systems. The best way to do the former is to conquer the system - but this is no guarantee you will keep it, especially if it's on the other side of the galaxy. *Sometimes* the most effective way to do both is to destroy their systems especially on larger galaxy sizes. I don't use planet crackers very often, but when I do it's usually because someone else on the other side of the galaxy is as close to winning as I am. Other than that, it's a fun thing to play with at the end of the game. Let's try not to say things like 'you're doing things terribly wrong'.  

WeLoveYou wrote:

Just found it in my own game! Thanks though Suis3i!

Haha no problem ! 

Bottom line is that the DEV's probably wouldn't have added the planet cracker module unless there was some sort of use for it in game. And as @WeLoveYou and @PotatoesAreBland point out, it's actually quite useful to blow up another empires planets, especially if you're competing with them for the victory or trying to secure an easy truce. Or you may want to create a sort of wall of uncolonizable systems to separate you and the "Cravers", or if you just want to play the bad guy and blow up all of the Sophons "Core Worlds". The list could go on. 

It is annoying to use, you cant mount weapons on the carrier, or fighters, and it does no damage durring combat,  and I found that you can usually invade and Conquer at that level and half the time it takes for the damn thing to charge.