MasterNecromancer wrote:
Dynamite wasn't supposed to be a weapon but look it became one. Everything can be corrupted and used in sinister ways.

Just like the force. Or rockets. Or whips and handcuffs...

MasterNecromancer wrote:


Dynamite wasn't supposed to be a weapon but look it became one. Everything can be corrupted and used in sinister ways.

Good point.

Aureon wrote:
No, we just need a way for the conquering faction to kill off all population and de-colonize the place.

That's more or less all.

That should be an option as well.



This creates an opportunity to introduce espionage too. Your spies try to hide the truth of your atrocities while enemy species try to uncover and disseminate it. Very Babylon 5'ish.



Es has soooooooooo much potential.

I have a few issues with the discussion. The first is, who is doing the scorching? There are times a defender may, but sometimes an attacker may as well if they feel they cannot hold the system. However, there are a couple of game considerations:



1 - You can already sell every improvement if you wish, so that is already in the game

2 - Resistance - it may be that an occupier could do this, or a defender, but sometimes the people who live there may not wish to! The Nazis who tried this were not able to at the end of the war because resistance, for example.

3 - The above is even more so if you ask people to commit suicide - i.e. raze their world forever - who would do that?



So, in fact, I propose the following:



1 - You can only SELL 1 improvement per Turn (so defenders who do this degrade their system as it happens, and attackers can't do it all in 1 turn)

2 - Damage can also happen through invasion and various weapon modules (if the attacker wants to do so)

3 - The defender may have certain techs that can do this but it should vary by race. Pilgrims who may be able to escape, maybe some races that are hive like, doomsday devices, etc.



We may also need to track types of population which we do NOT do now, like when you take over cravers, they are cravers not your race, but that is a much harder game choice.

The_Quasar wrote:
this is a good one...this assumes you have time to invent the virus, and make enough to poison a complete planet/systemdestroying a planet is not difficult, but putting it back together is... and takes a lot of time (probably centuries or millennia)surely a last resort, and potentially dangerous for nearby systems too...same as 4... if you destroy the star, the system will die anyway



I don't really understand why the game needs to go above 2... even with 2 you'd have to do research to counter the virus, then actually do it, which would take time, and even then you'd have to begin colonisation all over again. Supposing that this virus technology was fairly late in the tech table, would it be worth trying to re-colonise? As for putting the planet together again, that is unrealistic in the game time-scale.

I was just giving examples.

The_Quasar wrote:
These virus bombs, and the genesis device were the results of many years of study... and the genesis device was not supposed to be a weapon, but a means of terraforming. As regards to virus bombs, surely wouldn't these be used by an attacker rather than a defender?

The virus bombs can and are used by all parties in WH40k.



The defenders use it to deny resources the invading fleet or sieging forces. The attackers use it to punish/scare or completely annihilate the defenders so that no one can attack from the back.



I can imagine that I would use it offensively if I was marching against the cravers and didn't want to bother with their worlds. I would change the craver mechanic so that any planet short of a gas giant they could strip mine into something less than barren. Why would I want to capture and colonize and rebuild those worlds again?

Nasarog wrote:
Actually I'd like to disagree with you. Here are two instances where this is has happened. WH40k - virus bombs. Star TRek - genesis device. I could come up with many more, just nothing comes to mind at this exact moment.

These virus bombs, and the genesis device were the results of many years of study... and the genesis device was not supposed to be a weapon, but a means of terraforming. As regards to virus bombs, surely wouldn't these be used by an attacker rather than a defender?

Nasarog wrote:
That's the problem with the game now. All the factions use basically the same planets. In order to implement the Razed Planet correctly, they'd first have to differentiate how each faction utilizes and exploits the various planet types. This "scorched earth" tactic would have to have multiple levels to it.



1) Poisoning the planet so, a special tech is needed to restore it. Level 1

this is a good one...

2) Virus bombing the planet, " " " " " . Level 2

this assumes you have time to invent the virus, and make enough to poison a complete planet/system

3) Destroying the planet! Planet restoration tech that could also be used on asteroids.

destroying a planet is not difficult, but putting it back together is... and takes a lot of time (probably centuries or millennia)

4) Destroying the Sun. Very late game tech.

surely a last resort, and potentially dangerous for nearby systems too...

5) Destroying the whole system.

same as 4... if you destroy the star, the system will die anyway

Something along those lines.



One faction that wouldn't be affected as much would be the Cravers. THey would get a lower bonus for the planet and higher Malus quickly. The system destruction would infuriate them.



Automatons would go to war over strip mined planets and destroyed systems.

I don't really understand why the game needs to go above 2... even with 2 you'd have to do research to counter the virus, then actually do it, which would take time, and even then you'd have to begin colonisation all over again. Supposing that this virus technology was fairly late in the tech table, would it be worth trying to re-colonise? As for putting the planet together again, that is unrealistic in the game time-scale.

The_Quasar wrote:
Your example above, of this planet, is not scorched earth, or the razing of a city, but something much more sinister, it's killing all resources on the planet, something that would take, at the very least, a couple of decades, probably considerably more. It's not something that could be undertaken while an attack was in progress.



Imho, the way scorched earth (or razing) should be applied in ES should be something that is possible in a relatively short time... like destroying every important building, mine and crop... then, what would happen, is that any faction taking over that planet/system, would have to begin all over again with a first stage outpost by colonisation.

Actually I'd like to disagree with you. Here are two instances where this is has happened. WH40k - virus bombs. Star TRek - genesis device. I could come up with many more, just nothing comes to mind at this exact moment.

Your example above, of this planet, is not scorched earth, or the razing of a city, but something much more sinister, it's killing all resources on the planet, something that would take, at the very least, a couple of decades, probably considerably more. It's not something that could be undertaken while an attack was in progress.



Imho, the way scorched earth (or razing) should be applied in ES should be something that is possible in a relatively short time... like destroying every important building, mine and crop... then, what would happen, is that any faction taking over that planet/system, would have to begin all over again with a first stage outpost by colonisation.

That's the problem with the game now. All the factions use basically the same planets. In order to implement the Razed Planet correctly, they'd first have to differentiate how each faction utilizes and exploits the various planet types. This "scorched earth" tactic would have to have multiple levels to it.



1) Poisoning the planet so, a special tech is needed to restore it. Level 1



2) Virus bombing the planet, " " " " " . Level 2



3) Destroying the planet! Planet restoration tech that could also be used on asteroids.



4) Destroying the Sun. Very late game tech.



5) Destroying the whole system.



Something along those lines.



One faction that wouldn't be affected as much would be the Cravers. THey would get a lower bonus for the planet and higher Malus quickly. The system destruction would infuriate them.



Automatons would go to war over strip mined planets and destroyed systems.

This is a huge mechanic and I would like to see it done right so this thread is mandatory in my opinion.



They said that this will be done so that the scorched earth tactic can be used.



For anyone who doesn't know what scorched earth tactic is, in the wars past, while retreating, armies burned villages and fields so that the advancing enemy couldn't use reassures and so that they don't have anything to conquer. This tactic would drive the enemy mad and they would also starve.



So what I propose is that when you use Raze System ability, on the planets that you will select (of those you own), they will change their visual appearance and become Scorched Planets that will have 0 on all FIDS and will not be habitable.



Example of a scorched planet:







What do you guys think?

Aureon wrote:
No, we just need a way for the conquering faction to kill off all population and de-colonize the place.

That's more or less all.

As far as I know you can do that with the Pilgrims no? I mean you don't kill everyone but you decolonise and emigrate the populous.



Come on razing systems is a valid tactic, a drastic one but tactical, you can make a border of scorched systems so that the enemy isn't close to you, if you see the enemy with a big fleet coming your way and you know you are going to loose good planets with huge amount of resources you can scorch the system so he doesn't get them but at the risk that you only assume that he is going to attack that system, you can be like a Mongol horde and when invading system do so only to cripple and scorch enemy planets, etc, etc...



I don't see reason to disapprove.

Simply add the ability to add a negative anomaly of either tier, depending on your tech. I would charge an increased industry cost to place it and not allow it to be bought with gold. It should be something that always takes a minimum number of turns and better yet, cannot be canceled once past the 50% mark unless you lose control of the planet. You can already terraform to unfavorable planet types so that option is there.



Nasarog pointed out one of the biggest limitations that this game has, namely all the races are the same.





Yet the big big problem is, you don't invade planets, you invade systems. That is another short coming of this game, probably right behind races being the same. So the point of razing a planet is really kind of pointless unless your really just going to make the game silly. About the only option I would accept is that you nova the star or similar. Something that does one of two things to every planet, inner radius planets go to asteroid or barren and all outer orbit planets go barren. Planetary exploitations are obviously lost and system improvements are most likely lost. Again I would limit to a non purchasable unit you must build in system. The kicker would be, its very obvious your doing it and it can randomly work before completion wiping out all units and improvements in system. Regardless of out come, for the duration of the build out all your systems suffer a -20 to happiness and -50 once it explodes which degrades 5 points per turn. Throw in any allies or similar should not like you much either.

Shivetya wrote:
Simply add the ability to add a negative anomaly of either tier, depending on your tech. I would charge an increased industry cost to place it and not allow it to be bought with gold. It should be something that always takes a minimum number of turns and better yet, cannot be canceled once past the 50% mark unless you lose control of the planet. You can already terraform to unfavorable planet types so that option is there.



Nasarog pointed out one of the biggest limitations that this game has, namely all the races are the same.





Yet the big big problem is, you don't invade planets, you invade systems. That is another short coming of this game, probably right behind races being the same. So the point of razing a planet is really kind of pointless unless your really just going to make the game silly. About the only option I would accept is that you nova the star or similar. Something that does one of two things to every planet, inner radius planets go to asteroid or barren and all outer orbit planets go barren. Planetary exploitations are obviously lost and system improvements are most likely lost. Again I would limit to a non purchasable unit you must build in system. The kicker would be, its very obvious your doing it and it can randomly work before completion wiping out all units and improvements in system. Regardless of out come, for the duration of the build out all your systems suffer a -20 to happiness and -50 once it explodes which degrades 5 points per turn. Throw in any allies or similar should not like you much either.

That would work with existing mechanics in place until they differentiate the races. I would also move some stuff around the tech tree to compensate. They'd need more anomalies, and some kind of code to make sure that a gas giant doesn't have fertile soil. But we are going off point unto another topic. I like the razed system, and there has to be a class bellow barren too, and the Cravers slowly turn all their planets to that class.

MasterNecromancer wrote:
As far as I know you can do that with the Pilgrims no? I mean you don't kill everyone but you decolonise and emigrate the populous.



Come on razing systems is a valid tactic, a drastic one but tactical, you can make a border of scorched systems so that the enemy isn't close to you, if you see the enemy with a big fleet coming your way and you know you are going to loose good planets with huge amount of resources you can scorch the system so he doesn't get them but at the risk that you only assume that he is going to attack that system, you can be like a Mongol horde and when invading system do so only to cripple and scorch enemy planets, etc, etc...



I don't see reason to disapprove.

Provided the penalties in game are severe enough to warrant players weighing the options. This should not be something people do to just spite another player. Given the lack of flexibility in race design it comes down to affecting how your people feel and your opponents feel about you.



1) If you raze your own systems to prevent others from taking useful systems it should hurt your own populations morale immediately and for some extended period of time. It should also reduce any view friendly races have of you, after all your destroying perfectly good planets!



2) If you raze your opponents systems, you should incur large negatives from any race not aligned to you. Currently friendly but not allied races would also look at you as a threat.

If there's going to be approval penalties for razing systems and killing population it should be directly proportional to the amount of people on the system killed, and should work on your people no matter whether or not it was a system you owned or just recently conquered (although perhaps have the approval penalty be half as much for razing systems you just conquered, you can play off of xenophobic tendancies). This will mean there's a huge negative if you raze one of your opponents main systems, as it could be considered a 'fabled' system, and everyone is sad to see a brilliant place die (even if it was occupied by damn foreigners! :P) yet a colony recently established could be razed with almost impunity since no one's heard of it/cares about it.

I could see the penalty for razing an outpost being less, still other races should be miffed you damaged/destroyed any system regardless of contents. Your race should only care if you do it to yourself, especially if that "EVIL" designation some races have actually was meant to mean something

Nasarog wrote:
Why do you say that? Killing off the population and wiping out the resources of the planet/system would make perfect sense against the Cravers.

This IS what I am saying.



What I don't like is the prospect of completely removing entire planets/systems from the galaxy.



BTW, the definition of Razing is: Completely destroying, removing, or otherwise annihilating.

I assumed by razing a system you would be blowing it up and you'd end up with an asteroid field of some description.

Stealth_Hawk wrote:
This IS what I am saying.



What I don't like is the prospect of completely removing entire planets/systems from the galaxy.



BTW, the definition of Razing is: Completely destroying, removing, or otherwise annihilating.

Why do you dislike that?



Here's how Moo2 handled it http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4dO01h3d2xs



Here's how GalCiv2 Handled it http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z97EhYC3B5g



Works for me.