i think there should be a tactical conquest option, and also a boarding option (kinda like the advent mind control take over ship whatever) but that would require a whole new cruiser to carry ur peeps and launch boarding parties and invasion shuttles

first, thankyou for not being offended, im not here to make enemies,

now, easiest points first, why do i enjoy the game? i enjoy the game because it has a unique style of play and offers many things that other games dont (or as far as i know, Sins is the only space based RTS i have atm), it challenges me to think in a more strategic way, and even allows me to play around a bit and make the game a little more realistic to myself (i.e. sending a small (5 ships) fleet with a colony ship to capture some asteroids in a neutral GW), rather than just capturing as much territory as possible and using brute force to win, as is common in most land based RTS games. once again, its also a challenge, but i do not feel uneasy about following a game mechanic just in order to acheive an end result, that, if not executed, cuts out a VERY large part of the game (i.e. massive, powerful fleets become useless as you just need to use culture and a small specialty fleet to conquer a planet). i also dont see how playing games are irrational, or how that relates to your main point, which was the fact that carpet nuking planets makes you feel uneasy because your are "slaughtering innocent civilians" who, next time you play, will be right back there populating entires planets in a matter of minutes after colonisation. thinking rationally in an RTS game is very important and not at all stupid, because that way, you would play like a FPS gamer, and would simply throw fleets into the grinder without upgrading or securing territory, because thats how FPS work, you rarely have to watch out for your own neck because of the little known fact that Superman is the secret guest star in all FPS games and so you somehow will not die unless someone shoves a nuke up your ass... and EVEN THEN, sometimes that isnt enough. rationality in all things, even video games are neccesary and i will explain why.

now, if it makes you feel uneasy, i have to and can/will accept that, after all, i used to be the same (vis a vie Lemmings) but the thing i take issue with is that you want to change a part of the game, BECAUSE you feel uneasy slaughtering civilians. now, lets say we implement a mechanic whereby you can send troops down to the planet to take it over. you and me are playing, i decide to nuke the planet rather than spend time and money on troops. i am now seen as a monster because i sat up in the clouds on my white horse and rained nuclear fire upon you... we now have division in the community between people who feel as you do and those who are indifferent, because, lets face it, ITS A GAME! you arent killing anyone. to clarify i dont mean YOU you, but people who believe as you do could possibly take things further. because now we have people who wont play with other people because of their style of planet conquering, or who will change aliegences due to their planet take over policies... or even bring things into the physical world, and harm people and property because of their beliefs.

THIS IS WHAT I TAKE ISSUE WITH!

yes the above mentioned may sound like an extreme outside chance, but it has happened before, peoples beliefs over a small thing became blown up so much that it was crazy.

To be fair, i do see merit in the ability to choose how you conquer a planet. the examples made (like using troops saves infrastructure whereas bombing is faster) are good ones, but they have to be made for the RIGHT reason, which is, to improve how the game functions, and to give more styles of gameplay. maybe we could make it that bombing planets make them uninhabitable for a while, for the reason that nuclear explosions on ice planets melt the ice, volcanic planets cause severe tectonic disturbances, desert planets become "glassed" and terran worlds become irradiated and less productive due to environmental damage. i agree, that, in principal, nuking planets isnt the best way to go in the spirit of the game. for instance, the high yield warheads upgrade for TEC is, in my opinion, totally useless and stupid, because all it does is lower your own population growth on that planet for a period of time (at least considering my style of play).

why nuke a planet which has potentially new tech on it? or the riches and intelligence of that planet/race. i think that the planet bombing could be looked at again, maybe in the next expansion they could re-work that entire side of the game, because simply replacing TEC nukes with precision missiles (etc etc for the other races) will not handle all the other problems that then come out of the woodwork

for instance, TEC conquers a Vasari planet, the poplation below are waiting for their fates... how do you remove the local populace with the least amount of damage to planetary structures and the least risk to your own forces? how do you reconcile the phisiological differences between humans and Vasari, let alone the vastly superior nature of Vasari tech?

Stardock will have to think long and hard about this.

but that is all just balance and how things will work and what will believable as seen from the context of the Sins story bible. i have to maintain that changing the game for what is purely a subjective moral objection is wrong. if the game involved you pulling the trigger to murder 'innocent' children, or rape the women, then i could imagine more people having an objection, in which case the game should be changed, but in this case, you are looking to add an option that allows players to take the 'moral high road' or not. and we are then setting precedent for potentially hazardous disagreements within the community.

sorry if i sound melodrammatic, but just look at the hostile reaction to those who spam carrier cruisers, or those FPS players who camp and rack up tons of kills. if there are as many people who think as you do as you say, then this may not be far from a reality, if the solution is not carefully monitored and executed.

If we make a change to the game, it cannot be because of a subjective moral objection to what is, essentially, an entirely fictional game mechanic.

Issues of morality aside (and it's really quite a futile thing to discuss in a game where the objective is to rule an entire galaxy...nothing moral about that!) I think being given a choice between bombing and invasion would add more depth to the game beyond moving to a planet, killing the ships, killing the civs, moving to another planet, killing the ships, killing the civs, etc. etc.

As has already been said in this thread, bombing isn't rewarded as it is: you lose planet upgrades, you start from scratch.  So, invasion would be a good alternative.  However, being able to acquire fully max'd out planets all the time wouldn't make for a balanced game.  I think some degree of randomness (or perhaps other factors like the number of surrounding friendly planets) should affect the likelyhood of success by invasion.  So when you invade you'd get almost like a tug-of-war graphic over the planet; your planets colour pushing against theirs as the battle rages on above.  

Given that the game already measures the ratio of friendly to hostile ships in a grav well, perhaps this could also have an impact.  Overwhelming hostile forces would crush moral on the ground.  Likewise, a defeat on the ground could cause a moral drop to ships in the system.

Obviously there's only so complex you'd want to make it.  But I think it'd really open up possibilities for new technologies to be researched, and new special abilities that could influence the fight for a planet.

Plus, if invasion fails due to any of these factors, you can just go all out and level the place

On the other hand, it is not necessarily inconsistent that

- if this is mostly TEC space, the TEC might have an easier time conquering human worlds (being that the population is going to be mostly human, even if temporarily ruled by Vasari); even formerly neutral worlds may conceivably prefer the TEC to the others

- Advent might be inclined to forcibly convert (in which case such worlds may be very reluctant to rejoin TEC or Vasari)

- Vasari might be inclined to enslave through intimidation, if they've chosen the Path of Now and Forever instead of the Eternal Doctrine (slavery / imprisonment versus extermination, for those never exposed to Star Control)

well, if you use ships to destroy the planet, your killing the people anyway

new tech means technology that is only available to the advent or vasari... i meant that if the TEC captured a Vasari planet they could probably salvage some of their advanced technology

now, all of the above mentioned ideas are good, (some more than others) however i didnt bother to mention them because in the spirit of the OP's message, i dont see why using a virus to kill the population is any less 'morally objectionable" (or would make the OP feel any less uneasy) than nuking the planet. i was looking at ways to take over the planet while leaving as many civilians, infrastructure and alien technology intact, hence, precision bombing.

i completely agree with your ideas, in order to save infrastructure u have other options, but i was trying to mention ideas that would enable some degree of discussion, rather than the OP saying "how is a virus different from a nuke?"

but thanks or you comments again, i completely agree, however, on the other hand, HOW it is done is complete semantics (lore), all that matters is that instead of wiping a planet clean you save some o the existing infrastructure and technology, and that whatever is done, the numbers in the game reflect that

I don't feel queasy about bombing the planets, but this would be nice from a gameplay perspective. It's annoying to keep rebuilding infrastructure on planets that are frequently contested, etc.

I must agree with the OP.

Do not mistake me for a pacifist or idealist. I often really enjoy bombing planets, too. Or Kostura/Novalith Cannon effects.

But often I also think, even if it is only a game, it is rather depressing that I cannot take the whole planet hostage but always have to bomb it with radioactive bombs or whatever else.

For FUTURE EXPANSIONS: Invade versus Bomb. You would have to deal with some kind of civil unrest and resistance if you decide to invade, but bombing a planet to stone age would cause damage on a political level. i.e. other empires would see you as a merciless bastard or unnecessary cruel. Or some would like it, as they are exactly looking for someone like you...^^

good idea!

Nuking is fine. There are only a couple hundred people on those planets anyways (unless you count each single number as a million) so I doubt that anything except your fragile concience will really be damaged.

In the end, its really just a game (I realise you stated this above)

After WoW, and just before Sins, I had a very spirtual friend say "HOW can you play World of Warcraft; all it is is killing, killing, killing.  I DARE you to enjoy that game without killing stuff!".  That really made me stop and think.  Then, as I started enjoying Sins, every time I bombed a planet, I would think to myself "omg, I'm  bombing an entire palnet, and enjoying it.

Anyway, after about a couple months of Sins being out, there was a spider in my bathtud.  Before then, it was "Kleenex and Flush".  But I grabbed it in a Kleenex, and dropped it outside my front door.  The lesson "I" learned was, what I would do in a video game had NOTHING to do what I would do in real life.  Even flushing a spider became a moral choice for me, before Sins/Wow, I wounld have not have thought twice.  So for "me", computer games acutally make me think MORE about life and killing. . . .

Hmmm... do you know its just a game?  I think no pixels were harmed in making of this game.