|
Having landing armies/invasion forces/land battles is not a bad idea but the current implementation doesn't engender the kind of immersion that other mechanics do. It needs an overhaul. It doesn't need to be disposed of. Literally, every game I just build a bunch of army type x - then when I get an upgrade I build a bunch of army type y. When I'm in a war I have the army follow one jump away from my fleet to keep it out of harm's way and then manually go from planet to planet until I feel it's ready to go. Right now it's just tedium. But I also appreciate that you can use armies as another branch of my civ's narrative. Maybe I have a giant army of clones? Maybe my species is super strong and very honorable and wouldn't tolerate robots or clones to do their fighting for them. I just think it needs a total overhaul to make it all more interesting and judging how much love the rest of this game's systems have gotten I'd be somewhat shocked if ground combat didn't get the same kind of treatment.
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2018 18:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 12, 2024 21:25 |
|
|
There's an argument to be made that Stellaris doesn't need granular combat or engaging tactics. It's 4x/grand strategy game, not a wargame.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2018 18:39
|
|
|
Or if you are going to have granular combat it makes infinitely more sense to integrate it into the fleet combat or the economy, because those are the two developed areas of the game. Hence the wisdom of tying ground combat into fleet strategy decisions and economic development directly. You can not have a well functioning combat system that is wholly relegated to what happens after you conquer a planet, a thing that is entirely decided by fleet combat and does not integrate into the rest of the game. What you have created in that instance is a minigame, and minigames are bad. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 18:44 on Nov 28, 2018 |
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2018 18:40
|
|
|
Zurai posted:How do you use your battleship to develop a planet? Zurai posted:How do you use it to explore anomalies? Zurai posted:How do you use it to claim a neutral system? I don't actually agree with OwlFancier, I think armies as individual pieces add a lot to a game like this. But as currently implemented the amount of busywork they require is not reflected by their in-game utility, and they're poorly integrated into the game as a whole. Unlike OwlFancier though I would like to see this fixed by expanding the mechanic into something engaging and with a more streamlined interface rather than just abstracting the whole thing away.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2018 18:40
|
|
|
I would be surprised if they straight up removed ground combat entirely, but it will probably at some point it'll probably get reworked to some unrecognizable form as they did with FTL travel and planet management. And I look forward to that.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2018 18:45
|
|
|
Gobblecoque posted:I would be surprised if they straight up removed ground combat entirely, but it will probably at some point it'll probably get reworked to some unrecognizable form as they did with FTL travel and planet management. And I look forward to that. This I definitely agree with. I know Wiz has said in the past that he knows the current ground combat is not great and it's on his list of things to look into when the time comes. Given how willing the team is to go back to the drawing board and come up with a better way of doing things that aren't working, I expect the improved ground combat will be very different from the way it is now, and significantly better (not that that's a high bar to clear).
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2018 18:48
|
|
|
ZeusJupitar posted:'Physical' playing pieces that you can manipulate and move around are vastly preferable to abstract number mechanics and I think it's a drat shame that they've done away with tiles and pirates, even if they got clunky in the endgame. Agreed on the pirates. They were good because you got to use your spaceships to have space battles even when you weren't engaged in active war - especially good for pacifists. And space battles are the whole point of Stellaris. On another note I hope we get the Ruler specific ships back someday. It was really cool having a bigger, better flagship and with the combat changes of 2.0 they'd actually stick around longer because of disengagement. It also turned short-lived into a cool perk for gimmick dictatorship builds, because (if you could afford to) you could build a new ruler flagship every time one of your short-lived dictators bites the dust.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2018 19:09
|
|
|
If it's a choice between keeping the current ground combat or just abstracting it right out of the window and treating bombardment like sieging a fort in EU4 I'll choose the later. I'd of course love to see an actually interesting/engaging ground combat system that isn't just pointless busywork of wrangling transports and spamming enough troops to get the job done. Personally I've never liked that war doesn't really feel costly in Stellaris, you never have a "lost generation" or a sense of massive casualties. I'd like to see bombardment a lot faster and more deadly to both pops and infrastructure, and also a V2 style manpower system using soldier jobs. Every soldier job adds X troop power to your army pool, you spend this pool during the siege/bombardment of a planet to attack and occupy planets. Significant losses would actually start killing off your pops. A particularly grueling war could see a noticeable chunk of your population lost. You could have a army screen/policies too where you can fine-tune your abstracted armies. Do you have deep manpower pools and want to zerg rush the enemy with cheap disposable troops? Do you want a super-professional mostly mechanized army to minimize your pop losses? Is your military geared more towards the total destruction of the enemy with collateral damage ignored, or more of a humane occupying force? Your choices would influence the cost and abilities of the troops you "buy" to invade a planet. New technologies could unlock new invasion options and tactics as well. Think something a little like the invasion screen for Gal Civ 2. Bombard the planet to poo poo before invading it to make it easier on your troops but as the cost of the near total destruction of infrastructure and huge civilian losses? Spend a ton of energy on a propaganda campaign to weaken the resolve of the defenders and perhaps even bribe some key officials? Send in commando units to start a slow guerilla war to weaken the enemy before a larger scale invasion? Those to me are interesting memorable options that tell a story and define the character of your empire.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2018 19:28
|
|
|
Streamlining: Make troop transports customisable, containing a single army slot (maybe even bring back attachments). They cost 0 naval and fleet cap (maybe they cost a manpower resource to build) but are otherwise built just like every other ship, either manually from starbases (or maybe the appropriate planets) or by adding them to a fleet in the fleet manager and reinforcing them. If you try to build a troopship which you don't have enough of the right pops for, you get whatever behaviour occurs in LeGuin when you try to build a ship you don't have enough <special metal> for. Give fleets two leader slots, one for your admiral and one for your general. If your fleet lacks troopships there's no point in adding a general, and if it's for some reason all troop ships there's little (but not no) point in adding an admiral. If you invade a planet all your troops and your general vanish as they do now and turn up on the planet. When you pull them back up again they immediately attempt to catch up with and merge with their original fleet, if it's still alive. Implement a button for telling your troop ships to ditch whatever combat is going on and make a break for the nearest invadable planet. SniperWoreConverse posted:I think maybe full stargate army attacks could be a weird extreme form but you should be able to really heavily invest in your planets and your pops, even to the neglect of the navy, and get some kind of benefit from it. Or as you said, merge it all into one thing so troopships are a form of strike craft. Launching strike craft eats into a ship's army healthbar and it regenerates when (if) they return. If your army health is at 0 you can't launch strike craft or invade any more. If you invade a planet or starbase your army spawns with health equal to their on-ship healthbar. If your army takes off from the planet with no carrier to return to then they spawn oldstyle troopships.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2018 19:31
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Or you could have just bombed them some more and dropped some more assault armies on them. If you're in a position where you've got time to build and ship armies across the galaxy you've clearly already won. Really, if you think about it, all you need is a colossus and a construction ship. If there's an enemy planet, just send the colossus in to blow it up, and then build a mine on the fragments. There, I just solved your military and economic needs and got rid of all the useless stuff that clutters the game up, like diplomacy and navies and armies and trading.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2018 19:32
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:Personally I've never liked that war doesn't really feel costly in Stellaris, you never have a "lost generation" or a sense of massive casualties. I'd like to see bombardment a lot faster and more deadly to both pops and infrastructure, and also a V2 style manpower system using soldier jobs. Every soldier job adds X troop power to your army pool, you spend this pool during the siege/bombardment of a planet to attack and occupy planets. Significant losses would actually start killing off your pops. A particularly grueling war could see a noticeable chunk of your population lost. You could have a army screen/policies too where you can fine-tune your abstracted armies. Do you have deep manpower pools and want to zerg rush the enemy with cheap disposable troops? Do you want a super-professional mostly mechanized army to minimize your pop losses? Is your military geared more towards the total destruction of the enemy with collateral damage ignored, or more of a humane occupying force? Your choices would influence the cost and abilities of the troops you "buy" to invade a planet. New technologies could unlock new invasion options and tactics as well. Think something a little like the invasion screen for Gal Civ 2. Bombard the planet to poo poo before invading it to make it easier on your troops but as the cost of the near total destruction of infrastructure and huge civilian losses? Spend a ton of energy on a propaganda campaign to weaken the resolve of the defenders and perhaps even bribe some key officials? Send in commando units to start a slow guerilla war to weaken the enemy before a larger scale invasion? Those to me are interesting memorable options that tell a story and define the character of your empire. Yes, as long as armies are more than just a single number this sounds great. And IMO it would work just fine with some of the proposals to add troop transport sections/modules to ships; you could assign armies to a fleet in the fleet management interface and they would fill up available transport space, and if ships with troops aboard blow up you lose those troops and suffer the consequences, up to and including losing whole pops as you describe. I do think that there should be some element of actually transporting troops to the destination planet because that opens up the possibilities of forcing the opponent to respect supply lines and combat patrols or to make the sacrifice of efficiency and arm their transports. Those are interesting decisions if approached well, IMO.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2018 19:33
|
|
|
85 replies to the Stellaris thread, must have been an excellent wiztweet... 
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2018 19:41
|
|
|
Gyshall posted:85 replies to the Stellaris thread, must have been an excellent wiztweet... To be fair, there was an excellent wiztweet (or stellaristeamtweet, anyway, I don't know if it was Wiz who tweeted it). We just got distracted from there.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2018 19:43
|
|
|
Gyshall posted:85 replies to the Stellaris thread, must have been an excellent wiztweet... this is what happens in every pre-release thread back to the beginning of
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2018 19:46
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:If it's a choice between keeping the current ground combat or just abstracting it right out of the window and treating bombardment like sieging a fort in EU4 I'll choose the later. I'd of course love to see an actually interesting/engaging ground combat system that isn't just pointless busywork of wrangling transports and spamming enough troops to get the job done. If you were going to keep in actual armies, then having them be completely abstracted except as a kind of point buy system when you go to invade would be a very good way of doing it. So you take something like your or my earlier troop point system, a supply line system, and then your tech and soldier economy determines whether you can deploy robot battalions, tanks, infantry etc. You might be able to make it interesting if planetary features determined what kind of armies perform best, like infantry in mountains, fighters and tanks in open fields etc. Though I would suggest you run into the risk of making it again just a minigame, needlessly complicated to minimal benefit, even if it's sort of fun by itself there's a lot to be managing in the game and it doesn't stop just so you can play tic tac toe with armies on a planet. I guess possibly if your standing army was something you set up like the fleet manager, so you have X number of tank divisions, infantry divisions, robot divisions etc available. Then you get to deploy them in wars, and what sort of disposition you set up vs what your enemy has set up and where you're fighting, determines how the war goes. Sort of a microcosm of fleet mechanics I guess but where the actual movement of armies between planets is abstracted. If you invested heavily in tanks and fought an enemy on a series of mountainous worlds then you might find yourself stalling etc. Whether or not that's enjoyable or not I don't know though given that it kinda has the same problem of specialized fleets. Though if the nature of the planet has a fairly strict determinor of how it combat on it goes, then at least that's more concrete than fleets where you and the enemy might have entirely random fleet compositions. How you manage defensive deployment though is a question to ask. You could perhaps do it whereby military jobs on the planet give you access to a certain amount of defensive point-buy. But that gives you the problem whereby you need to resolve the defences being in place before the attacker sets down. Neither delaying an invasion until the defender picks their army, nor penalizing the defender for not doing so quickly, fit with the game very well. You could also have the option of deploying forces to a planet in advance of an invasion, but that then gives you problems of forgetting you did it, how do you handle redeployment etc? You'd need a whole army manager screen or something. Doable certainly but potentially a lot of work. Though that might be helpful if you gave some armies secondary benefits, like engineer corps being deployable to accelerate construction on worlds etc. Being able to redeploy armies via a screen and handling the transfer abstractly could also open opportunities for more internal ground conflict, like small scale rebellions that necessitate sending the army to put down etc. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 20:24 on Nov 28, 2018 |
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2018 19:59
|
|
|
I'm a huge proponent of funslinging ideas for how to improve a game mechanic but this discussion about ground forces has been going on for 4 or 5 pages and its not going anywhere. @Zurai: Using a mod as your argument why ground forces should be kept as mechanic is so  . Like... I dont disagree with you but dont argue it should stay "because I did something fun with a mod".We really need Le Guin to drop.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2018 20:02
|
|
|
All you guys taking about removing armies except as a ship module need to remember that armies do more than attack, they also defend. Right now you can build armies in anticipation of invasion (or Titanic life) and they can help reduce unrest on newly conquered planets. You don't frequently need those options, but they're nice options to have and it's be a shame for an already narrow feature get even narrower.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2018 20:11
|
|
|
e: Fortresses are always going to be a thing, so you can always build defensively that way.Baronjutter posted:Bombard the planet to poo poo before invading it to make it easier on your troops but as the cost of the near total destruction of infrastructure and huge civilian losses? Spend a ton of energy on a propaganda campaign to weaken the resolve of the defenders and perhaps even bribe some key officials? Send in commando units to start a slow guerilla war to weaken the enemy before a larger scale invasion? Those to me are interesting memorable options that tell a story and define the character of your empire. you could already do the first; its pretty much the point of the bombardment policy, to make that part of your story. In practice, when you can have bombardment affect the armies, the only real point of defense armies is to force attackers to bombard the planet a bunch, buying some time and reducing the value of conquests. It has relatively little impact on the course of a war. The second is a no brainer (either always worth doing or never worth doing), the third also would be a no brainer sort of thing where its always worth doing but its additional and annoying micro. It is actually quite difficult to make decisions for this sort of thing that have actual gameplay value, since the attackers are always at a ridiculous advantage. The proof is kind of in the pudding on this since 4x games almost universally have poor to mediocre ground combat modules. AIs are typically coded to build excessively large invasion armies for most purposes because the AI tends to get stuck and confused when it runs into a ground defense it cant overwhelm. For players that tends to be a thing where ground defense feels totally pointless until you waaay overcommit to it and then it fucks the AI and is totally awesome. TheDeadlyShoe fucked around with this message at 20:19 on Nov 28, 2018 |
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2018 20:15
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:I mean, yeah. There is no modelling of limited resources with armies, basically. You always can build enough armies, it's just that doing so is a faff. You also always can deploy as many armies as you have. Again it just controls badly. This should be fixable with a mod by making armies a direct factor of soldier pops. Want more armies? less pops doing other jobs. Long expansive wars will actually reduce your pops, even if you are winning, because a depleted soldier pop will have to be replaced.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2018 20:16
|
|
|
Right now the objectively correct strategy is to build 50 Assault Armies at the start of the game and just select all>right click enemy planets as your fleet clears them. Swap them out for 50 robot armies/gene armies/xenomorph armies if you feel like it as those get unlocked but it's not at all necessary. It's just making you do some busywork clicking, there's no actual strategy to it beyond remembering to order replacements now and then. I think Stellaris certainly could include a good, interesting, and fun ground combat system in the future but right now it's entirely redundant.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2018 20:19
|
|
|
TheDeadlyShoe posted:e: Fortresses are always going to be a thing, so you can always build defensively that way. Yeah, but I can ship out assault armies to the next hotspot afterwards when things have cleared up instead of dedicating building slots and pops.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2018 20:21
|
|
|
I don't get what the relationship between ground combat and space combat is supposed to be anyway. Space fleets are important it's how you control space, engage enemy fleets, destroy transports, deal with menaces and pirates, all that jazz. Ground troops help you retain control of your planets. By having separate ground forces and space forces you can come up with a scenario where a fleet gets rolled but the ground troops are strong enough to hold out until more space forces come and bring more ground forces or whatever. I don't know that any of that really works in Stellaris. I just don't see individual planets holding out being an interesting thing. I don't see bastion planets that are a big struggle to take in an offensive campaign where you already have space superiority are a very interesting thing. So if armies are going to continue and maybe even have resources put into them down the road, then I'd look at how can they serve a purpose that provides compelling gameplay. Because I don't see it right now.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2018 20:22
|
|
|
AAAAA! Real Muenster posted:@Zurai: Using a mod as your argument why ground forces should be kept as mechanic is so I didn't use it as an argument, I used a modded game as an example. Like, what, I can't use any examples because I play exclusively with modded games? I didn't say it was something which happened in a core game, I explicitly said it was modded, it's not like I was being misleading. I also wasn't arguing for ground forces to be kept as-is (and that game would be a terrible argument for it anyway because my initial post about that game was to complain that I couldn't just nuke the planets from orbit to skip the ground combat). I was simply using an example to refute OwlFancier's argument that all that can be done is "build 50 assault armies and have them follow your fleet around".
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2018 20:23
|
|
|
I will say that Baronjutter's suggestion of being able to customise a ground force which is abstracted in deployment is quite appealing as it really is the handling of individual armies that I utterly detest and presents the biggest detriment to gameplay because the AI can't do it and it is tiresome for the player to have to do it. An empire wide army pool and possibly force disposition that you can set up in advance, tied to economic investment and technology, which is deployed via a manager screen as and where it's needed would be a big improvement.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2018 20:28
|
|
|
Zurai posted:False again. As an example from a game I finished just a little while back and was talking about in thread, I was experimenting with the Sins of a Fallen Empire mod and had to conquer what amounted to a super end game crisis ringworld with tons of troops. However, after examining the properties of their troops, I found that they did massive amounts of morale damage but relatively nominal amounts of regular damage, so I specifically built my army out of units that were immune to morale damage. I was able to successfully invade their worlds with relative troop "strength" parity because I designed my army composition to counter theirs. This is something which actually happened in a real game of Stellaris. So there was an obvious counter, and all you had to do was build it (probably involving dozens of clicks), gather it, and assault? I.e. a bunch of tedious micro with almost zero thought involved? Exciting!
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2018 20:34
|
|
|
The new planet stuff will shake up ground combat anyway, because blockading a planet has potentially disastrous consequences for an empire now that agricultural worlds can exist. You’ll be able to literally starve out an industrial focused world or potentially an entire empire if you blockade the right planet.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2018 20:36
|
|
|
Demiurge4 posted:The new planet stuff will shake up ground combat anyway, because blockading a planet has potentially disastrous consequences for an empire now that agricultural worlds can exist. You’ll be able to literally starve out an industrial focused world or potentially an entire empire if you blockade the right planet.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2018 20:38
|
|
|
Staltran posted:So there was an obvious counter, and all you had to do was build it (probably involving dozens of clicks), gather it, and assault? I.e. a bunch of tedious micro with almost zero thought involved? Exciting! It's also not a situation that ever actually occurs in normal games of Stellaris, it's a niche situation from a mod that should not be taken into account when thinking about the development of vanilla Stellaris. Invulnerable worlds packed with a zillion enemy armies literally never happen in unmodded Stellaris, you can always always always just right click a planet with either 50 armies or a Colossus and it's out of your way, no strategy or meaningful decisions needed. Crazycryodude fucked around with this message at 20:40 on Nov 28, 2018 |
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2018 20:38
|
|
|
Staltran posted:So there was an obvious counter, and all you had to do was build it (probably involving dozens of clicks), gather it, and assault? I.e. a bunch of tedious micro with almost zero thought involved? Exciting! You can poo poo on it all you like, but it was an example of something which was supposed to not exist.  I didn't say the mod did a good job of making ground combat more interesting (the mod had nothing to do with ground combat), it was just an example of the fact that it is possible with the current version of the game to make ground combat more complex than just "throw a stack of basic assault armies at it". Not much more, but still more.And, again, you can say the exact same thing about navies in the current version. You can either overwhelm them with superior numbers of generically designed ships or you can look at your opponents' ship designs and create specialized ships designed to counter their strengths and exploit their weaknesses.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2018 20:39
|
|
|
Demiurge4 posted:The new planet stuff will shake up ground combat anyway, because blockading a planet has potentially disastrous consequences for an empire now that agricultural worlds can exist. You’ll be able to literally starve out an industrial focused world or potentially an entire empire if you blockade the right planet. Like, how would this play out. You have a bigger neighbor that you can't beat so you just blockade one planet but they don't send their fleet over to bust it up? *or* you have space fleet superiority over your neighbor and instead of conquering them or forcing a white peace or whatever you decide to blockade some planet for reasons? I think the blockade / food shortages would have to have some pretty serious effects. Even if you assume a blockade for 5 years, I'd be curious to see the actual impact that would have.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2018 20:42
|
|
|
Will blockades actually be disastrous? Stellaris is really really shy about war hurting planets in a meaningful way outside of late-game planet-killing weapons. Is starvation actually going to finally kill pops?
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2018 20:53
|
|
|
Zurai posted:You can poo poo on it all you like, but it was an example of something which was supposed to not exist. You cant say the same thing about navies. There's legit shallowness in Stellaris combat, exarcebated by 4x problems of no even fights, but there's a lot more dimensions to the combat and there's not much in the way of straight up tech gating like in your example. Also your example is like, the game (and the war!) is over anyway. You just need that fat army lady to sing.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2018 20:57
|
|
|
Staltran posted:So there was an obvious counter, and all you had to do was build it (probably involving dozens of clicks), gather it, and assault? I.e. a bunch of tedious micro with almost zero thought involved? Exciting! "interacting with the game" == "tedious micro" continues to be the worst take. "Ugh another empire attacked me so I had to build a fleet (probably involving dozens of clicks), gather it, and move it to their fleet (even more clicks?!??) so they would shoot at each other. What tedious micro!!1!!!!11!!" I get that ground combat is boring, but there are solutions to this beyond just reducing the amount you actually get to engage with the game. I'm personally in favour of giving troop transport capabilities to all navy ships (optionally configurable with troop transport modules), having fleets interact with invasions beyond the "nuke it all to the ground" phase, and moderately deepening the planetary siege game.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2018 20:59
|
|
|
Zurai posted:False again. As an example from a game I finished just a little while back and was talking about in thread, I was experimenting with the Sins of a Fallen Empire mod and had to conquer what amounted to a super end game crisis ringworld with tons of troops. However, after examining the properties of their troops, I found that they did massive amounts of morale damage but relatively nominal amounts of regular damage, so I specifically built my army out of units that were immune to morale damage. I was able to successfully invade their worlds with relative troop "strength" parity because I designed my army composition to counter theirs. This is something which actually happened in a real game of Stellaris. That mod sounds real dumb, but for the record stacking morale damage is always the correct move, even in regular Stellaris. If you can knock out the morale of a defending unit, they only do 10% damage or something, and then the rest of your armies will mop them up, even if it takes a while.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2018 21:05
|
|
Yes, it's like a lava lamp.
|
Ham Sandwiches posted:Like, how would this play out. You have a bigger neighbor that you can't beat so you just blockade one planet but they don't send their fleet over to bust it up? Or you've got similarly sized navies/economies but they withdrew and are going to take ~3-6 months to even come back (ignoring repair and new ships), meanwhile you can cause them massive starvation penalties which will impact their ability to build back up quickly and you could take the re-arm advantage.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2018 21:07
|
|
|
PittTheElder posted:That mod sounds real dumb, but for the record stacking morale damage is always the correct move, even in regular Stellaris. If you can knock out the morale of a defending unit, they only do 10% damage or something, and then the rest of your armies will mop them up, even if it takes a while. Unless, of course, you're fighting robots, or anyone who's put a robot on a fortress. It's also worth remembering that ground combat used to worse before the implementation of combat width meant that you actually suffer attrition and lose warscore from attempting to drown enemies in your armies, and there's a good reason to take advanced combat troops now.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2018 21:13
|
|
|
All I'm getting from this thread at the moment is that the AI needs to be able to identify hyperlane choke points and found fortress worlds in them.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2018 21:19
|
|
|
In all my games the best troops I could build are droid armies, an early game tech that never gets better throughout the entire game. Everyone else seems to have xeno's and gene troops, specially fallen empires. They also love to land their 20 gene troop assault army on their planet making it nearly impossible to take. The last time I was fighting a fallen empire I had about 200k worth of ships bombard for years making almost no dent, and eventually had to send about 300+ droids to take the drat planet. Wave after wave of carefully timed droid armies. The war was over, it was just agonizing busy work. The AI loves to land their assault armies and turn them into defenders.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2018 21:22
|
|
|
ZeusJupitar posted:'Physical' playing pieces that you can manipulate and move around are vastly preferable to abstract number mechanics and I think it's a drat shame that they've done away with tiles and pirates, even if they got clunky in the endgame.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2018 21:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 12, 2024 21:25 |
|
|
ChickenWing posted:I get that ground combat is boring, but there are solutions to this beyond just reducing the amount you actually get to engage with the game. I'm personally in favour of giving troop transport capabilities to all navy ships (optionally configurable with troop transport modules), having fleets interact with invasions beyond the "nuke it all to the ground" phase, and moderately deepening the planetary siege game. Planetary invasion could be incredibly fun if every planet is a fully rendered Clausewitz map with 100+ provinces, each with their own leaders, buildings and economy 
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2018 21:51
|
|