My experience with space-based 4X games generally either goes like scenario 1 or scenario 2:



1. I get a decent start on production and tech and colonized a couple of new planets. I've done a good job with my fledgling empire -- or so I thought. For some reason faction A decides to wage war on me and easily demolishes my fleet around planet "OhGodNo!" The planet is subsequently sacked and I feel absolutely terrible, then load an earlier save to try and find a way to prevent planet losses.



2. Same thing as scenario 1 except faction A doesn't decide to go to war with me. My empire expands until pretty much the whole galaxy is claimed by a faction. Of course, there are skirmishes with other factions, but nothing my empire can't handle. With no neutral territory to claim, I wage war on other factions, relieving them of all of their planets. Sometimes I lose a planet or two, but it doesn't really matter.



The last sentence in scenario 2 is the problem. Losing a planet should always matter! It's a planet! There are millions or billions of people on those planets with relatives that might live elsewhere in the empire. There should be a general outcry and mourning within the empire.



I have a couple of ideas here. The first idea is this: perhaps losing a planet would trigger an empire-wide bonus to defense or production (or maybe players would get a choice). The second idea is that planets' power scale better to late game. In many 4X games, ultimate ships/units simply decimate planets/cities. Players should at least have the option of building up planet defenses to make a dent in attacking fleets.



Any further ideas out there, or am I just crazy?

Hm. You could get some options after losing a planet. For example:

• Hold a rousing speech, boosting morale for your ship crews, temporarily. Downside: Holds as long as you are able to retaliate. If you just loose or don't do anything, the moral will drop even below what would've happened otherwise.
• Hold a blood, sweat and tears - speech, boosting military production but bringing down any other production and or income for a couple of turns.
• Try to fund resistance nets on the captured planet, if not everyone has been annihilated. Just to make the planet a living hell for the conquerors. Very costly and your own empires morale is lowered by time until the planet is retaken.
  
  

Just a few ideas.

Loosing a planet should trigger an economic and social meltdown proportionally to the importance of the planet across the empire. A morale loss is to be expected, but also negative bonuses to research, industry and trade empire wide should take place. On the other hand depending on the aggressor tactics(use of WMDs for example) and it's galactic history(bullies or prey fighting back?), it should also decrease the invaders "stature" among other species(no one likes a bully but other bullies). What Nosferatiel proposes are more like decisions you could take, if faced against such scenario. I think they are great, but as a gameplay mechanic, they should be governed by some resource; so each one has a greater cost/benefice ration and such benefice has some random factor to it.

Has this not always been the problem in most computer games, the lack of perceived compassion and or psychological effect of war and loss of life.



The hit to moral or overall reaction would as always be based on the event and the importance of the event. If a planet fall during a war that has already raged for several years would not impact as much as that first planet that fall in a surprise attack. How do you really model this in a computer game without things becoming too complicated, not to mention alien psychology and morality?



It is also about restraining the obvious problem of success feeds success, in real life things are not as clear cut as things usually are in a computer game. An empire that expand through war and conquest will usually struggle with many internal political problems and the larger an empire gets the bigger problems usually get, history has tought us this so many times, why would the future be much different?



I have no clear cut answer to any of these questions but I would really like for the game developers to at least ponder some ideas about what en empire really is and how an empire can both grow and be stable at the same time. Most big empires will have a tendency to break down at one point and spawn new smaller part of its former self for one reason or another.

Why must all games be about conquering the whole galaxy can't it just be about the gaming experience?



I for one would like to at least play one strategy game before I "die" that really would never end and you would be able to set your own goals to what you would call a victory and just play the game. I do understand that a tech tree and graphics have it's limits, but if technology didn't progress to fast you could at least give the illusion that you have all the time in the world, at least enough that time is the only ultimate end game.

Thus, there could be many things that would hamper huge empires and more or less make it nearly impossible to conquer every corner of the universe without your own empire imploding in on itself and you have to start all over again...



I have personally never finished a strategy game in over twenty or so years because they always get to that point of no return and that ride are just one I'm not interested in, in either direction (winning or loosing) because you know it is just tedious work and no real challenge any more for the stronger side.



Just food for thought...

reynanuy wrote:
...proportionally to the importance of the planet across the empire...

That is an important point. But I think it should only affect the morale. I like the idea of these morale effects.

I think In GalCiv2 there is an effect if you use biological weapons.