taltamir
Posts: 1290
Joined: 4/2/2010 Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Fishman quote:
ORIGINAL: taltamir there is no need to make things TOO hard... As opposed to too easy, with an AI that doesn't do its damn job? Yes, exactly as opposed to too easy. things are too easy, there is no need to make them too hard. Some of the suggestions here are terrible and would make things insanely difficult, but not REAL difficulty but "fake difficulty"... it would just make things tedious. quote:
quote:
ORIGINAL: taltamir The idea with having all planters automatically recruit troops to a 10% of their tax means that every planet has a sizeable force... No, it means LARGE planets have sizeable forces, MAYBE, but SMALL planets have insignificant forces not worth the bother and upkeep to recruit in the first place. Garrisons have a minimum effectiveness size. Anything smaller than that, namely, about the size of a transport or two, is not worth the upkeep to hire in the first place! 1. Transports can pick up troops from those planets, so it is worth it. 2. Not every WORTHLESS BACKWATER planet needs a huge and massive garrison to make it invasion proof... it should be easy as pie to invade such worlds quote:
quote:
ORIGINAL: taltamir planets shouldn't be uninvadable, and if some of the suggestions made here were incorporated planets would be a huge and PITA undertaking to invade, near impossible, and require massive effort and massive amounts of troop from hundreds of worlds to take one damn planet... it would take forever to wage war. That actually sounds rather realistic. Have you seen what a major hassle it is just to invade a backwards Middle Eastern country? On the other hand, if invasions become sadistically difficult, rather like it is in real life, bombardment may start sounding more attractive. First, in regards to IRL 1. for your example, it was easy as pie to invade those countries, they folded quickly. having a few casualties that are blown out of proportion in the press is a different thing. 2. the surge worked wonders, sending more troops works... and we are still at a tiny fraction of our actual capacity. 3. do we really need to go on that kind of tangent? Second, in regards to the game. 1. **** realism. You want realism? there is no such thing as warp, the reach of lasers is "anywhere within a star system", "there is no sound in space", and I got a dayjob instead of being the megalomaniac conquerer of galaxies. (among many other issues) Realism should only be given a sufficient nod to to avoid breaking suspension of disbelief. 2. You should not need to mobilize troops from hundreds of worlds to conquer one. 3. If you DO require mobilizing troops from hundreds of worlds to invade one, then how the hell would you invade anything if you only have 50 planets or less? how would the AI ever invade anything? the answer is they could not and would not. 4. The troops do use bombardment... putting "nuclear exterminators" on a space ship and nuking everything on the planet dead is completely different to using conventional bombardment tactics, which your troops obviously use. 5. I am not spending 3 weeks of IRL time micromanaging the conquering of one pitiful 5 planet alien empire if I have a 100 planet empire. Sorry but it is not happening. AI should invade more (invade you, and invade for you when you enable automation), and should keep a slightly larger basic garrison, and maybe make troop pods take up more space (so you have less troops per ship)... but don't go too far on those. Don't implement even half the "features" suggested in this thread since they would ruin the game.
< Message edited by taltamir -- 5/4/2010 8:05:06 AM >
_____________________________
I do not have a superman complex; for I am God, not Superman.
|