Author Topic: C# Aurora Changes Discussion  (Read 442010 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Hazard

  • Commodore
  • **********
  • H
  • Posts: 643
  • Thanked: 73 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #2250 on: June 18, 2019, 07:15:13 AM »
No need to worry about that too much, especially at this stage. Even if Hazard's tactic of instant hostile terraforming to game the terrain bonuses turns out to be 100% effective, it's still just one 'exploit' among many, nor will it ruin the game. I know I won't use it except for specific story purposes.

I assume the new spoiler race will have some surprises up their sleeve that Steve hasn't shared with us yet.

It's not cheap either. You need to expend thousands of warhead strength equivalent in either missiles or beam weapon shots, most likely in the face of fairly hefty orbital defenses. It's really going to be a question of whether or not the effort is worth it versus just sending in the drop ship swarms with many thousands of tons of men and materiel. If nothing else it does slowly become a little cheaper as technology escalates, if through no other reason than the fact that as technology improves so does the ground side collateral damage rating increase, with the concurrent increase in planetary dust levels.
 

Offline Jovus

  • Lt. Commander
  • ********
  • J
  • Posts: 220
  • Thanked: 81 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #2251 on: June 18, 2019, 11:21:57 AM »
It's not cheap either. You need to expend thousands of warhead strength equivalent in either missiles or beam weapon shots, most likely in the face of fairly hefty orbital defenses. It's really going to be a question of whether or not the effort is worth it versus just sending in the drop ship swarms with many thousands of tons of men and materiel.

Or vs just avoiding that planet, if the enemy is known to be planetbound. Maybe it's rich in minerals, but how many minerals of what types are you risking to get what's in the ground?

Which is as it should be.
 

Offline swarm_sadist

  • Lt. Commander
  • ********
  • s
  • Posts: 263
  • Thanked: 21 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #2252 on: June 18, 2019, 05:21:05 PM »
It's not cheap either. You need to expend thousands of warhead strength equivalent in either missiles or beam weapon shots, most likely in the face of fairly hefty orbital defenses. It's really going to be a question of whether or not the effort is worth it versus just sending in the drop ship swarms with many thousands of tons of men and materiel.

Or vs just avoiding that planet, if the enemy is known to be planetbound. Maybe it's rich in minerals, but how many minerals of what types are you risking to get what's in the ground?

Which is as it should be.
I can see siege warfare, blockading and just planet hopping being good strategies to deal with fortress worlds. Let them wither on the vine. I don't see massive ground invasions being very common, they are just too costly and produce too much dust.
 

Offline JustAnotherDude

  • Sub-Lieutenant
  • ******
  • J
  • Posts: 114
  • Thanked: 56 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #2253 on: June 18, 2019, 08:33:09 PM »
I think large ground battles are inevitable tbh, I don't think that being unable to pay maintenance on your ground units disbands them so they'll just sit their, waiting for your to come down and take their stuff. I think that beam based bombardment, perhaps even with STOs on nearby moons, will become a common strategy, however, as they cause much less environmental and structural damage.
 
The following users thanked this post: Darkminion

Offline Bremen

  • Commodore
  • **********
  • B
  • Posts: 743
  • Thanked: 150 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #2254 on: June 18, 2019, 09:57:21 PM »
I can see siege warfare, blockading and just planet hopping being good strategies to deal with fortress worlds. Let them wither on the vine. I don't see massive ground invasions being very common, they are just too costly and produce too much dust.

On the other hand, the economic gain from taking a major colony, let alone a homeworld, is absolutely immense, so I think there's a balance there - spend massive amounts on a ground invasion and gain an intact economy, bombard it and just gain a mostly empty world, or some combination of the two.
 

Offline Peroox

  • Petty Officer
  • **
  • P
  • Posts: 18
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #2255 on: June 19, 2019, 01:26:59 PM »
If only in game will have matter of food supply or trade goods shortage, then siege are worth. That could be to complex but still wealth is something.

If planet have low fertility then will "have to" import food via civil lanes and that's mean than attacker can make population (and army) starve. Less impact with trade goods shortage that could make unrest on higly populated word. 

Otherwise siege could be endless if planet have all mineral with good availability, and don't even need to be Earth-like planet to be stronghold.
 

Offline totos_totidis

  • Chief Petty Officer
  • ***
  • Posts: 32
  • Thanked: 3 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #2256 on: June 19, 2019, 04:35:15 PM »
If a planets costs more to take than it is worth then the player will use the nuclear option.
 

Offline amram

  • Lieutenant
  • *******
  • a
  • Posts: 154
  • Thanked: 79 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #2257 on: June 19, 2019, 07:07:43 PM »
If a planets costs more to take than it is worth then the player will use the nuclear option.

If they are trapped on that rock, unable to ever threaten me in space, I'd just leave a buoy in orbit to remind myself that the natives are tiny bit unpleasant, and forget they even exist.  Why waste the effort to smash forces guarding something I don't care to have.

If its worth it, then I decide if it will be nukes or boots.
 

Offline Hazard

  • Commodore
  • **********
  • H
  • Posts: 643
  • Thanked: 73 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #2258 on: June 19, 2019, 11:31:31 PM »
Relative tech level also matters. By the time you are two or three tech levels above the local defenders your troops should be near immune to enemy ground forces while casually slaughtering them with relatively light weapons.
 

Offline Bughunter

  • Bug Moderators
  • Rear Admiral
  • ***
  • Posts: 929
  • Thanked: 132 times
  • Discord Username: Bughunter
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #2259 on: June 20, 2019, 02:35:52 AM »
Maybe let them consume their TN minerals, so the longer you leave them the less there will be for you?

Or let them occasionally "recover" some old artefacts like a bunch of ground to space missiles, or some FAC:s they could cause trouble with for whatever traffic is passing by.
 

Offline hubgbf

  • Warrant Officer, Class 1
  • *****
  • h
  • Posts: 83
  • Thanked: 6 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #2260 on: June 20, 2019, 02:55:37 AM »
Or just poison the atmosphere with some terraforming modules...

If not allowed, you can also remove oxygen, or rise the temperature.

Cost only time. Once an ennemy own the higher orbital, you're doomed as it must be.

Edit : work only to kill population and get an intact economy. Land troops are unaffected, which is strange after several decades.
« Last Edit: June 20, 2019, 02:57:36 AM by hubgbf »
 

Offline Bughunter

  • Bug Moderators
  • Rear Admiral
  • ***
  • Posts: 929
  • Thanked: 132 times
  • Discord Username: Bughunter
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #2261 on: June 20, 2019, 03:22:14 AM »
Edit : work only to kill population and get an intact economy. Land troops are unaffected, which is strange after several decades.

Not that strange considering infrastructure has all you need to support a bunch of civilians in a hostile environment for decades in this universe. The military would have plenty of resources to adapt in this scenario.
 

Offline Hazard

  • Commodore
  • **********
  • H
  • Posts: 643
  • Thanked: 73 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #2262 on: June 20, 2019, 04:27:30 AM »
The main issue is that the military isn't getting new recruits to replace the soldiers who retire or injured to the extent they cannot continue. That's not that big a deal when you are talking about a couple of years, but if you are talking about 5 decades it's really odd.
 

Offline totos_totidis

  • Chief Petty Officer
  • ***
  • Posts: 32
  • Thanked: 3 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #2263 on: June 20, 2019, 04:34:49 AM »
Personally i do not feel comfortable leaving an uncontrolled planet in the middle of my empire. Thus my dilemma is always nukes or boots.
 

Offline hubgbf

  • Warrant Officer, Class 1
  • *****
  • h
  • Posts: 83
  • Thanked: 6 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #2264 on: June 20, 2019, 07:35:37 AM »
Edit : work only to kill population and get an intact economy. Land troops are unaffected, which is strange after several decades.

Not that strange considering infrastructure has all you need to support a bunch of civilians in a hostile environment for decades in this universe. The military would have plenty of resources to adapt in this scenario.

Part of the civilians are working to grow food, and others tasks, and they have infrastructure. As an abstract mecanism, part of infrastrucutre is dedicated to these jobs, workshop and all.
But the soldiers have only armor and some vehicules.

Perhaps TN technology allow fabricators and near infinite recycling ?

Anyway, imagine 20 years without getting out of your armor, just think about the smell !!!