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.