o.O



Why is everyone treating pop and improvements as separate things? Pop creates Fids. every high yield imrpovement works by taking pop into account.



Loosing 30-40 pop from a good system you spent howeve many turns and fleets on conquering IS a huge debacle.





Well, i sugggest that these thigns be implemented:



While your system is under invasion, you cannot scrap imrpovements or decimate the population. (exception: pilgrims racial affinity).



Yes you could still waste a system before i get there, you know that i can deal with. i can then just skip it and walz right over the next one which you perhaps will also scrap meaning i win via you losing.



What i have problems with is when the invasion has begun and THEN the system gets pilfered. Right now we at least keep the pop, but if that is to be gone too..

Well, I see the reason for a raze option, as it's a known strategy (scorched earth) - but I can also understand the worries that it may be a nerv for certain factions. What about these options:



- razing is an option, that can either be on or off in singleplay AND multiplayer



Me personally, I won't use it - so I would simply disable it. But having the option to activate it would be quite nice

ørret wrote:
Yes i know that there are ways to deal with this. What i am doing now is playing pilgrims and "evacuating" every "garbage" system wich i conquer. This actually "destroys" the system because all population except one and every building is gone. What remains is the completely senseless expansion dissaproval because you can not get rid of the system ruin. So the question is if there are already ways to factualy "destroy" a system (including population) what would be the problem to completely get rid of it?

None, as it is an upcoming feature.

I'm pretty sure razing will reduce that owner percentage when you capture an enemy colony.

Wipe out the angry locals and replace them with your happy subjects. This would obviously take time since you also need to build the system improvements.



Scorched Earth/Galaxy is a viable strategy, if that upsets you then you should probably spend some brain power and develop new strategies around it... (The point of this kind of game is to think up strategies and counter your opponents..)

Firehound wrote:
For the Destroy system you control: I would like the ability to depop a colonized planet. Though there should be repercussions. Whether it be a happiness penalty for killing a ton of people or otherwise displacing them, it should be a penalty to the razer. And shouldn't be instantaneous.

For that it would be nice to have some kind of "stasis chamber" or "cryogenic storage" system improvement that gives the ability to "store" population without adverse effects, rendering the stored populace inactive in terms of happiness and production.

You can "depop" a planet with your colony-ships, up to 6 Pop can be carried at once and restock another system. But it takes some time.

NewHorizon wrote:
I honestly dont see the purpose of a raze option anyhow, unless im missing something like a limit on how many buildings you can scrap in a turn. Heres a for instance: scrapping takes no time at all so you can just scrap everything and then spend a little dust terraforming down your system if you are about to lose it. Has basically the same effect id imagine. Id never do this though cos a lannister always pays his debts... (i always take my system back)

This is something the game absolutely must have, whether they implement raze or not. Even if it isn't being abused currently it is a loophole that should be closed. It should not be possible to just delete all improvements on a world you are about to lose.

Nosferatiel wrote:
For that it would be nice to have some kind of "stasis chamber" or "cryogenic storage" system improvement that gives the ability to "store" population without adverse effects, rendering the stored populace inactive in terms of happiness and production.

Somehow I don't think I would want to be one of the citizens "nominated" to be stored for a while because he's taking up valuable space... lol

I dislike the razing idea as it allows people to completely ignore one aspect of the game (managing an empire) and just be on the offensive. Currently, the game is balanced in a way that forces you to do both, and I can only imagine all the ways that game balance will fail if this is ever implemented.

Considering possible diplomatic and civil problems from razing a planet, it could still be quite balanced.

Igncom1 wrote:
This is why i play UE, and build up my money before invasions so i can spam any needed approval improvements otherwise all i can say is take your invasion in steps and only invade parts of the enemy you can efficiently hold with good approval.

Yes i know that there are ways to deal with this. What i am doing now is playing pilgrims and "evacuating" every "garbage" system wich i conquer. This actually "destroys" the system because all population except one and every building is gone. What remains is the completely senseless expansion dissaproval because you can not get rid of the system ruin. So the question is if there are already ways to factualy "destroy" a system (including population) what would be the problem to completely get rid of it?

NovaBlazer wrote:
I dislike the razing idea as it allows people to completely ignore one aspect of the game (managing an empire) and just be on the offensive. Currently, the game is balanced in a way that forces you to do both, and I can only imagine all the ways that game balance will fail if this is ever implemented.

No its quite the contrary! Currently you can focus barely on offense and take one system after another without much "Empire Management" and (even more important) without having to care much about defending your own empire. This is because one thing: Your Systems are "invincible". Ok let the enemy capture one or two of my star systems while i crush his empire. I will take them back within one turn when i have finished him. If an enemy fleet could actually destroy a complete system, defending systems would be much more importent. Moreover if a system can be bombed back to "uncolonized" state, empire management would become more important because you have to rebuild those systems from nothing.

Honestly, what I want out of Raze Planet is not as a defender option, but rather as an attacker. Rather than claim the system, you nuke it from orbit.



I don't want your filthhole in my empire. I want you to BURN.

Working on a Dalek mod right now that EXTERMINATE! EXTERMINATE! EXTERMINATE! population upon invading. They kill off a population, purifying the planet and taking the pure DNA fragments. Each pop EXTERMINATE! EXTERMINATE! EXTERMINATE! gives +100% bonus to the empire's growth rate for 15 turns or so.

I dont think you can raze a planet that has no industry. This fact is currently killing me in a game im in.

FinalStrigon wrote:
I think the purpose of Raze would be for the times you have a new system. You just colonized it, haven't had time to do much for it...and for some reason or another, the AI or another player want the system and will invade for it. Razing a system might put some negative anomalies on it to hamper the new owner.



Also, in terms of always tacking a system back, that's true...But there have been a few times where it's taken me a while to get a system I built up back. If I could have, I would have razed it simply so the enemy couldn't benefit from what I built up.

I still dont get it.....why is this tech even in the game when you can manually go over your improvements and delete em anyway? Its exactly the same isnt it?

@Mortiferus_Rosa: You don't raze planets, you raze systems. And any system with at least one planet settled has at least five base industry.



@MTB-Fritz: It isn't exactly the same. Razing a system removes all population as well and sets the system to unowned. It also creates a single colony ship in orbit of that system.

I think that razing a system should also create a resistance or new pirate faction with a high tech level, kind of like the badlands in Star Trek.

Radioactive_Piranha wrote:
@Mortiferus_Rosa: You don't raze planets, you raze systems. And any system with at least one planet settled has at least five base industry.



@MTB-Fritz: It isn't exactly the same. Razing a system removes all population as well and sets the system to unowned. It also creates a single colony ship in orbit of that system.

Ahaa, thanks for clearing that upo. I admit I ve been a chicken and never used it simply because I couldnt see the use in it at all from the description.

MTB-Fritz wrote:
Ahaa, thanks for clearing that upo. I admit I ve been a chicken and never used it simply because I couldnt see the use in it at all from the description.

Once they patch up and balance Disharmony, I will use this tactic. I would love a scorched system policy.

Edited the title.

Isn't this the same with any invader?



Its not about what you actually conquer, its all about the spoils of war. Cravers use the FIDS bonus to get systems back to full strength in no time at all, and the Hissho use the Bushido bonus mainly for their actual colony's anyway.



If you always got good stuff from taking enemy worlds, the Craver and Hissho would be the most dominant forces in the game! Its a balancing factor.

I honestly dont see the purpose of a raze option anyhow, unless im missing something like a limit on how many buildings you can scrap in a turn. Heres a for instance: scrapping takes no time at all so you can just scrap everything and then spend a little dust terraforming down your system if you are about to lose it. Has basically the same effect id imagine. Id never do this though cos a lannister always pays his debts... (i always take my system back)

NewHorizon wrote:
I honestly dont see the purpose of a raze option anyhow, unless im missing something like a limit on how many buildings you can scrap in a turn. Heres a for instance: scrapping takes no time at all so you can just scrap everything and then spend a little dust terraforming down your system if you are about to lose it. Has basically the same effect id imagine. Id never do this though cos a lannister always pays his debts... (i always take my system back)

I think the purpose of Raze would be for the times you have a new system. You just colonized it, haven't had time to do much for it...and for some reason or another, the AI or another player want the system and will invade for it. Razing a system might put some negative anomalies on it to hamper the new owner.



Also, in terms of always tacking a system back, that's true...But there have been a few times where it's taken me a while to get a system I built up back. If I could have, I would have razed it simply so the enemy couldn't benefit from what I built up.

I like the idea of a negative anomaly as a sorta F you to the invader but if you blow up everything that is on the planet i feel like there should be some repercussions politically. Cant go around blowing up peoples homes. I understand the benefits of razing your planet when you are running from an enemy but i could see it being abused somewhat if restrictions arent placed on it.

NewHorizon wrote:
I like the idea of a negative anomaly as a sorta F you to the invader but if you blow up everything that is on the planet i feel like there should be some repercussions politically. Cant go around blowing up peoples homes. I understand the benefits of razing your planet when you are running from an enemy but i could see it being abused somewhat if restrictions arent placed on it.

I'm not sure...In World War II, for example, the Soviets employed a scorched earth strategy when Germany invaded. They destroyed everything they could as they retreated so that the invaders couldn't make use of any of their new conquests. When the tables turned and Germany was put on the retreat, they did much the same, so that the Soviets couldn't use anything.



Seeing as you're taking hits as well, giving up systems (and thus, losing all of the time and money you pumped into building those systems up), that should be enough of an incentive to draw the line somewhere for defense.

So the Soviets and the Germans in WW2 were both Pilgrims affinity right ?!

No, they were not that benevolent to the locals.

i see no "raze planet" ability anywere.... or auto explore...wtf man...why did we vote on it?

Auto explore is low in terms of the community's wish list and so keep getting shelved.



And as to raising planets people mean destroying all of the improvements, abandoning systems is a affinity for the pilgrims however.

Both Faction are basically required to expand by conquest. If all they ever get is broken down, burned wrecks of systems how can they be expected to play?

Cravers need to conquer systems in order to make use of em via their fids bonus. This is only useful if they do not have to spend 20+ turns rebuilding the systems. With raze, it will ruin the cravers main gameplay aspect: conquer stuff and turn it against the former owners.

Hissho are somewhat less relaint on the conquered system i nquestion but they still should not get a big fat nothing everytime.

In fact: noone should get a big fat nothing just because the defender cannot defend.

I hope these concerns are adressed at some point.

Razing systems will address the problem some people experienced with expansion disapproval resulting from having to conquer a lot of enemy systems in order to prevail in a war. Previously, all the conquered systems would really jack the expansion disapproval of the conqueror. With system razing, less than ideal conquests can just be exterminated.



I understand system razing to mean eliminating all the population. If it only means getting rid of the improvements, the above does not apply.



The Pilgrims' ability to evacuate a system leaves one pop behind, so it doesn't actually empty the system.

The OP and several others have mentioned removing improvements as a core focus of razing (and OP finds this to be a significant problem), but as you can do this for free already that clearly isn't the point of a razing feature. My personal preference, in fact, would be for a razing feature to leave (at least some) improvements intact, and only remove the population. I'd be happy either way though, as long as the population can be removed.



There are two potential opening states for a world to be razed: colonized by your faction, or colonized by an enemy faction. The former case would allow you to eliminate the population of a system targeted by your enemies (or which you colonized in error, derp-click!), denying your opponent the benefit of an established population base to contribute to their rebuilding efforts, or allowing you to tempt your opponents into investing resources colonizing a region you can easily retake at a later time. I'm sure there are plenty more strategic reasons for abandoning colonies that would come up in multiplayer. The latter would allow you to wrest control of a system from your opponents without saddling yourself with an unwanted planet, or leaving an easily re-takeable system should you be forced to retreat from that sector.



I haven't played as Pilgrims yet, so I'm not clear on the mechanics of the feature that Theodotus mentioned. An advantage in the area of planetary abandonment is fine, but I don't think it should be a monopoly on all strategic evacuation/elimination.

The Pilgrim affinity ability takes all pop except one and all improvements in a system and packs it into a colonizer called Fleet Errant. When the Fleet Errant arrives in a new system, it uses all the pop to colonize planets there, as well as transferring the improvements. More than one planet can be colonized this way all at once, assuming there is enough population in the Fleet Errant and the Pilgrim player has the requisite tech necessary to colonize the different plant types in the destination system.

Given that description (and now I really want to play as Pilgrims!), I don't think a global ability to depopulate a colony would undermine the Pilgrims in any way.

Theodotus wrote:
Razing systems will address the problem some people experienced with expansion disapproval resulting from having to conquer a lot of enemy systems in order to prevail in a war.

Yep, this is me is the primary reason people want razing.



Now...that doesn't necessarily have to be the only way, there may be other ways to mimick that effect.

You can already effectively "raze" a planet. Scrap the improvements a turn before. Then the system collapses into a perpetually unhappy cesspool with 1 pop/planet before the ownership goes up unless it was a really good system to begin with.



For the Destroy system you control: I would like the ability to depop a colonized planet. Though there should be repercussions. Whether it be a happiness penalty for killing a ton of people or otherwise displacing them, it should be a penalty to the razer. And shouldn't be instantaneous.

I would really appreciate the "raze" feature if that would mean i can wipe out an enemy colony without the need to own it myself. I really hate it to conquer an"toxic gas giant system" only to prevent the enemy from building cheap "block ships" in my backyard. In especially if you consider the expansion dissaproval malus in "Endless" difficulty. You cant offord owing masses of garbage systems when each of them ruins your empires approval.

This is why i play UE, and build up my money before invasions so i can spam any needed approval improvements otherwise all i can say is take your invasion in steps and only invade parts of the enemy you can efficiently hold with good approval.