Maybe it would appear to you as a ridiculous or displaced comment but the fact is that I don't like nuking planets. Not especially because it means loss of ressources or planets when you are bombed or a painful wait as you have to annihilate a 6000 defended planet but mostly because, well, it is slaughtering civilians and even if it is a game, i feel uneasy about it.
So, i have a suggestion : Would it be possible to add a new capacity to siege fregates ? With the classical nuclear attack, i would like to see an "Invade planet" button. Instead of nuke, there would be landing barges sent from the ship and it would mean a slow decrease of the defense points of the planets every time a barge land.
The process could be slower than mere bombing but it would kill far less population and would end by either the capture of the planet or a bonus when you colonize it by, for exemple, allowing the half of planet upgrades built by the previous owner to be kept.
I have been thinking about this idea for some time and i have seen a similar one in a topic untitled "changes you would like to see in sins" or something like that so i suppose that it could interest some other people, maybe even a dev.
Thank you for reading.
play as advent or vasari
advent is basicly smash every one to death
and vasari is beaming them to death
Haha. Or maybe they can sell more games with Mortal Kombat approach; when you nuke a planet you see stuff gets blowned up and some blood oozes out. When ships die they have debris and corpses floating in space.
I have thought about this as well and I figured there should be an invasion option, and some way for the defending player to counter it. While nuking/beaming the planet to death is fast and efficient over the long haul its espensive to rebuild while an invasion would take longer you would be able to bring the planet back to 100 a lot faster. In short I am all infavor of being able to simply passify a planet and assimilate it as fast as possible to ensure my coffers are overflowing with credits And not having to spend lots of my valuable credits is a bonus. And I also do the culture take over as well but an invasion thing would be fun as well.
When I first started playing sins I assumed that there would be an alternative to planetary bombardment, and given the role of culture I assumed it would be that. I was surprised the first time I lost a planet to culture that it just went neutral. I had just assumed that it would simply flip to the race whose culture had overthrown the planet.
I guess technically, with a culture 'kill', you don't drop any bombs, but given how difficult it is to take down a planet with culture it might be nice to see some additional rewards. Taking over the planet with all planetary upgrades would be a nice reward, I think.
It almost never happens anyways, so why not?
My guess is that culture will be made a much better alternative to bombing in the next expansion. It would be kind of cool to have an "invasion" tool of sorts, something slower than bombing, but faster than culture. It could breakdown like this:
Bombing: Relatively the fastest, destroys all pop and infrastructure enhancements- Fits the Vasari lore the best
Invasion: Send in the Marines. Fairly fast(rate could possibly be affected by planet type/planet bonuses/research), and a chance of maintaining most of the pop and some infrastructure upgrades(random depending on what has been upgraded)...downside is a hefty onetime fee as well as increased upkeep on the invasion force for the duration of the invasion(because invasions are expensive) This doesn't really fit any faction really well because the Vasari control from orbit, the Advent either convert or kill outright, and the TEC has(implied) severe manpower shortages, making wasting valuable troopers on costly invasions unattractive. However, space marines are awesome, so this could be the preffered TEC method*
Culture: Slow, compared to the other two, but it maintains pop with minimal loss(strife and such) and a much higher chance of maintaining more infrastructre upgrades. Its downside is that it is slow and can be countered easily. Fits Advent lore the best and the TEC pretty well.
But since we are talking about right now: culture is the alternative the OP wants. Oh, it takes too long or you just can't do it? Tough, bomb the planet then. It's called having choice and making hard decisions.
*Another thought: The game(so far) takes place in and around TEC space, with the impliction that there are (normal) humans on(most) every planet....so why would the TEC want to bombard its own people(and more importantly, possibly costly war infrastructure)? This explanation, if you accept it, could justify how invasion could be the "TEC method" of taking over a planet.
No one got my Watchmen reference, just an oversensitive gender reply? That's disappointing...
About the invasion, i was also thinking about other ideas : the siege fregate can not move when it invades. So, they would be more vulnerable to surprise attacks, they would need to be protected and it can create strategies where you engage an ennemy fleet, even if you can't win, just to destroy the siege fregates (because actually, they will run away).
Moreover, there could be some new tech that would improve the efficiency of invading (like upgrading mere marines to elite soldiers or heavy armored combat vehicules). you won't see the fight, as it takes place to the planet but this could make some great lines "Prepare to drop !"
For culture, i completely agree, it is disappointing and not very efficient. I succeeded in killing someone with culture once, but i was already having a big advantage so i could have done it military easily before starting to build broadcasting stations. Actually, i just use it for defense and for the 10% bonus in economy. By the way, the advent superweapon is completely useless. A
Converting the planet to your culture instead of making them neutral is a minimum.
I had a similar thought as well, only my stipulation was that the ships couldn't leave the grav well. I also wouldn't use siege frigates, I'd make a new ship-Assault cruiser or Transport cruiser or something of the like, but definitely a cruiser-type ship.
"There is nothing like a big boom in the morning!" - Me
I just love to blow stuff up, even if you count millions of civilians, as long its a game!
Yeah gamerking345, NOVALITH!!! MOHAHAHHAHA
The advantage of cruisers is that they are tougher than fragile siege fregates but personally, i would like to add it as a new feature to siege fregates as i find them not very useful in the actual state of the game.
Most experienced players view the Advent superweapon as the strongest. It's not used to turn planets neutral, but instead to deprive defenders of their culture bonus while giving you your own on the attack. In a huge late-game fleet battle this is actually considered far more powerful than any other superweapon.
Well, i suppose i shouldn't have said "completely" but considering how much it cost in research and deployment for a non permanent effect that can be fought with anticultural power of capital ships and broadcasting stations, i would rather spend the money on ships. It's hard to believe that's it's more powerful than the vasari canon to attack a defended planet.
Nevertheless, i almost never play with culture so i can be mistaking but i am sceptical about the effectiveness of the advent superweapon for battle compared to the same amount of money used in ships.
U can colonize a planet with enemie pop. using Culture?
No, that's just an idea to improve the game.
okay, look, this is the way i see it, the game is set in trader space, so each soverign planet already has a human population with human infrastructure... so, im not sure with advent, but the vasari wouldnt have to bomb a planet, so much as destroy any land based defenses and set up their orbital lock down structures, as they dont need land based infrastructure so much, advent would have to do the same probably but set up any land based C&C centers, TEC would have the least problems, as they can adapt any of the soverign planets' existing structures, and would probably even have a bonus because they would best understand how the soverign tech works
however... that would be largely unbalanced... and very complicated... this is a game, there is no necessary reason to over complicate things, and for balance, the simpler the better.
so, my arguement basically is that rather than making a specialised way for each race to colonise planets, leave it as is, sure its not the most realistic, or the most proctiacal, or the most morally comfortable way to do it... but its a game, and its war.
if it makes you feel any better, think of it like this: "Infrastructure", could mean weapons and ammo factories, land based defense systems, C&C centers and systems etc, it says so in the little blurb about the Vasari, they dont populate planets with their own people, but use the locals as cheap labour and taxable citizens etc. that said, if you'd really like a change to the way planets change hands, maybe TEC nukes could be interchanged with space-to-surface precision missiles to take out precision targets, and radiation-less nukes for the larger C&C centers.
however, i think that sending in ground troops as and unneccesary change. to be honest, im indifferent either way (though i think the TEC heavy fallout upgrade is totally stupid), one argument i can see FOR troops is for planets with upgrades or useful features, that way those thigns can be preserved.
but i have to say, that making a change to a video game because of a weak stomach or being an incredibly morally conscious person, is wasteful. if its for a good reason, that imporves the game, fine, but for the OP's reason, just a waste. im not being personal, but its the same old arguement with swear words, its a word! being upset by an assortment of letters, is silly, YOU are the only one who gives the word power, and YOU are the one letting the word offend you. same with video games, if you think that a game mechanic is morally wrong or offensive, well, to be blunt, build a bridge and get over it. i realise it may not be easy, and that the word you used was it makes you un-easy, but.... its a game, simply a way of facilitating one aspect of play.
so, i could re-iterate my points and make more points, but its late and i cant be bothered... that and ill probably just offend the OP some more. believe me i do not intend to, im simply saying that changing a video game mechanic because of an irrational un-easiness due to killing numbers (which in themselves are in-conclusive as to what you are actually killing/destroying), is stupid and wasteful.
i would like to, however, finish on this note: do you remember the game lemmings? where u get a number of little green men, 5 pixels high, and you have to assign jobs to them so they can direct the civilisation to the safety of the exit door? well, i used to play that when i was 5, and one of the game mechanics was that once you set a lemming to the blocker job, the only way to win the game was to wait till all the other lemmings got the the exit door and then detonate all the remaining blocker lemmings. i would cry and cry and cry and curse the world and the developers for not programming in a better way to finish the game. i do know how you feel, but Sins is alot less personal than lemmings, and the changing a game because mass genocide makes you uneasy, well, not a good enough reason for me, sorry, but it isnt
I don't take offense. In the same way I am able to be conscious that it's a game and play it the way it is, i can read your post and understand your point of view.
Nevertheless, i have to disagree about that :
If you just think in game mechanics in a rationnal way, i am surprised you could be having fun in playing a video game, which is rationally speaking totally useless and unproductive. It's not even logic to have fun by watching a space battle, the whole point of sins.
My point is that : the fun factor depends of YOUR personnal point of view. I love sins because i am a Sci-Fi and science fan and that every battle is telling an exciting story. But bombing planets don't add to my fun, it spoiled it.
The whole point of a game is to give fun to the player. I didn't open that topic because i wanted to make you cry about poor little digital aliens or to bring the light of moral to you, numeric mass-killing heretics, I did it because i had that thought : "Thousands of people are playing to that game, i am probably not the only one that it bothers. Maybe it could interest some." And the fact is that, according to the answers, i am not the only one even if the majority don't feel concerned.
So, I don't think making this change is stupid because gaming is after all stupid, so is thinking only rationally in a video game. Nor i think it is wasteful because i don't want the nuking option to be removed, i want the players to be given the possibility to play the waythey are having the much fun with.
easy solution: just pretend that the "6000" represents the politicians, then you'd be doing that planet a favor by getting rid of them. 2nd solution, just wait for those 6000 politicians to bribe you with 1 trillion $$'s for no dam good reason. oops, too close to home.
Pssh, I want more death and misery. It should be like Black and White 2 i want to hear women weeping and men crying in fear as they are bombed to oblivion. Before I launch the bombs i want to hear intercepted transmissions like: "Mommy, im scared where daddy he left to fight the bad guys but he should be hime by now"
"Dont worry honey everything will be fine, i love... BOOM"
Transmission cut out commander
In multi star system games...
Step 1: Fortify your planets
Step 2: Build Novaliths on as many planets as possible.
Step 3: Set all Novaliths to autocast
Step 4: ???
Step 5: Profit.
the main point he was trying to say is that he dosnt like killing people, then y did u buy the game
it is based on war, abeit with culture and black market, and people die in war, if you dont like it, dont play
there may be an adjustment on methods to take over a planet but people will still die, as illustrated by many replies on the first page of the thread
another option would be to stop humanizing the game, in this case i think alittle apathy is needed
Exactly if you want games with fluffy cloud heaven and cute kitties with rainbows I suggest you find something else. In war people die in miserable surroundings. Even in peace much suffering exists in the world. Just take first person shooters if you shot somebody like they do in the games there would be lots of blood and gore and pain or people crying and dying painfully. People dont flop around in silly manners with ragdoll physics.
War is hell you cant sanitize it without burying your head in the sand. Evil exists on a massive and all encompassing scale. To represent reality or war or society you need to stop being ignorant of the cold hard truth. Most people want games like this to depict war and "society" realistically as possible with certain exceptions so you cant make this a 8 year old game. People resent it when somebody tries to sanitize a game or act like their mother with a v-chip.
The OP doesnt seem to realize he isnt bombing planets he is causing a program to lower the number next to a text line that says population and planet health. Nobody has died yet.
I suppose i made a mistake by making such a polemic title for that subject.
the result is that you come, read the title, think "oh, he is such a ridiculous and naive man, i will tech him how to properly think in our real world". Thank you a lot. But i am old enough to take care of myself, thank you again.
I will say it once again : i don't like nuking planets, even if does not prevent me from sleeping. I just think the game would get better if you can have the choice between nuking and conquering a planet so it would avoid destroying structures to rebuild them after. Moreover, it would allow players to choose between the good and the dark side exactly like in the black and white game.
If you like to play evil, it's your choice and your right, as well it is my right to not finding it fun. So, stop patronizing me and please give me your opinion or your ideas about a way to conquer planets instead of nuking them. Thanks.
that certianly clarifies things...
There would need to be a large difference in feasibility between attempting to occupy a lightly populated settlement on some extremely inhospitable enviroment (asteroids, for instance) and attempting to invade a heavily populated, life-friendly world (like Terran class planets). Inhospitable worlds would be quite vulnerable to orbital bombardment -- cracking domes, damaging power plants, and the like -- and the residents would have to be aware of that.
With the latter, unless you have some form of mind control (Advent speciality), you'd probably have to rely on intimidation through threat of planetary devastation or technologically assisted genocide, because carrying enough combat troops to firmly suppress several billion people with similar levels of technology and who hate you would be a logistical nightmare. Advent again would stand out in likely being more fanatical than the rest, although nothing would be likely to compare to a genuine hive mind that completely lacked a notion of individuality (and thus the notion of self-preservation of individual components of the hive) or to machines programmed w/o regard for self.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
