Official Carriers/Orbital Bombardment Thread

Since this is the deadest of the dead horse threads, I thought this picture belongs here.

Good idea with all the "dead horse issue" posts Kryo. Although I am in favor of the idea, as you said, the "man" said NO! But since this topic seems to be a severe dead horse, as opposed to a less severe dead horse, why even post it? Everyone at Stardock has made their position clear on this, whereas the multiplayer issue at least seems to have a little life left in it if I read the post correctly.

ES: To give the fanatics somewhere to go so that the sane people can safely ignore them.

And with that, WOO! no more carriers/bombardment do I need to read, ever!

I've been reading the posts and get it, the man said no carriers/bombardment. What I propose for GC3 whould be (if posible) two new techs. Or rather an advancement of two techs already in the game, ie. drones and point defence. Make them into pods for ships. Two drones per pod 20-30 space,and the pd could be 15 space. I don't know if the mighty overlords(devs) of the GC universe have thought of this yet or not. If not free idea ues it,if you did just ignore this post.

Yes, I know it's a sneeky way to get a carrier. I did say it was for GC3. hehe

ALL HAIL THE MIGHTY DEVS!!!

As for the "no carriers" position, it is possible for devs to make incorrect design decisions. They're not gods, after all.

They're not gods, after all.

It's blasphemy I tell you!! How can you say such a thing about the mighty devs?

it is possible for devs to make incorrect design decisions

True, but I feel safe in saying that "no carriers" certainly wasn't one of them.

 

They're not gods, after all.

In this universe they are.   

True, but I feel safe in saying that "no carriers" certainly wasn't one of them.

I thought you said:

And with that, WOO! no more carriers/bombardment do I need to read, ever!

Admit it, it's nice to have a thread you can just be silly in.

Admit it, it's nice to have a thread you can just be silly in.

I said "need", as in "no more irritating forum spam of 8 threads on the same topic". I didn't say I wasn't going to argue the points

I thought this picture belongs here.

Just staring at the dead horse for a very very long time, makes me almost think.. carriers might be good idea afterall..

...

or.. maybe not.

... Maybe dead horses could somehow be implemented in GalCiv III, my idea would be to have maybe a squadron of 20 dead horses per carrier or something like that.

Ok, now I'll stop being silly.

(no offence to the carrier-crazy people out there)

Orbital bombardment as a general feature has not been added explicitly because of the way it affects end-game gameplay in other games -- players going on a "genocide run".

Could you or frogboy explain this a little more?

Personally i WANT to go on genocide runs, I LIKE THEM. Like i've said many times before; a lot of times i want to crush an empire militarily, but i don't want to take all their planets b/c i already have enough on my plate. And i certainly don't want to let others have those worlds. So what do i want to do? Lay seige to them. Bomb them into the stoneage. Make them so undesireable and useless that they would do anyone little good.

How can this be implemented with some balance? Well there are some good precedents out there, that for the purpose of flame'ology' will remain nameless. But i will outline what i consider to be a good implementation of orbital bombardment.

(See next post)

A. Orbital Bombardment is done by non-transport warships.

B. Ships CAN NOT bombard a planet with defending ships in orbit. That is, like transports, ships must attack and defeat defending ships first.

C. The amount of damage done by bombardment is determined by the amount of damage points the ship/fleet is capable of. That is, a ship with more weapons, OR a ship with more advanced weapons does more damage when bombarding. Another example being that a fleet armed with lasers and stingers would do a TINY fraction of the damage done by a ship with phasors and photon torpedos.

D. Bombardment damage is incremental. Meaning it is dealt out over a period of turns, the amount of damage per turn being decided by "item C." above.

E. Bombardment damage is equated to Population, Planetary Improvements, and Planet Quality.

F. Bombardment damage affects Planetary Improvements more than Population, and Population more than Planet Quality. That is, once Bombardment damage reaches a certain point, X number of improvements are destroyed, Y amount of population is killed, and Planet Quality drops Z amount. It takes more damage to kill a certain amount of people than it does to destroy improvements, and even more damage to drop a planet's quality.

G. You cannot bombard a planet with any given ship/fleet more than once per turn.

H. You can determine what percentage of your ship/fleet's power is used in the bombardment via a slider. For example, you can bombard with 25%, 50%, 75%, or 100% of total power.



Alternatively you could bolster a planet's bombardment defenses with improvements, like is done with a planet's invasion defenses now. For example at some point you could develop planetary shields that could absorb a certain amount of bombardment damage each turn, or perhaps a certain amount of damage before colapsing and being destroyed, this could even take several turns.

my idea would be to have maybe a squadron of 20 dead horses per carrier

So what kind of attack value would you assign to said dead horse. I suppose it would have to be a mass driver attack as in "jette le vache" from Monty Python and the Holy Grail.

Look. As said, it's the ability of the AI, not just you, to use it. That's why Terror Stars were ditched.

i would like to see an orbital base

I doubt the Devs. will even read this, but:
What I'd love to see is a module that would let fleets use the life support of whatever unit had the module. call it a "fleet train". It would allow carriers _in effect_, but not in a way that I think would be complex to create AI for. Granted, I know nothing about AI...

Ascendancy bombabrdment. Nuff siad. Attack a couple tiles are destroyed randomly.

They're not gods, after all.It's blasphemy I tell you!! How can you say such a thing about the mighty devs?

I'm allowed to say that because I used to be a dev for typesetting software (a thankless task). heh.

I think people latch on to the carrier idea, only because it has been a staple of sci-fi for so long. The carrier is iconic in almost every sci-fi universe.

One way carriers could work: put a one-sector limit for movement on all small/tiny ships. Allow them to go further only if they're in a fleet with a carrier.

Or, create a new ship class smaller then tiny. I'm thinking maybe enough room for a weapon and that's it. Put some hanger bays on a huge/large they can dock in. Done.

While I agree this is a dead horse, and the word from Brad 'the man' Frogboy is no-way-

I was just curious on why there is a carrier in the default gfx/model folder- If ya don't belive me, its there in this location- I lie not

C:\Program Files\Stardock\TotalGaming\GalCiv2\Gfx\Models

and look for the S0_carrier files. They'll be three of them. You can even get it into the game. Thou it looks like a half finished model...

I personally don't understand the whole carrier issue. Since combat is determined strictly by numbers, any carrier implementation would only be jewlry. It might look cool, but it would serve no practical purpose.

Personally i WANT to go on genocide runs, I LIKE THEM.

Simply put, Brad doesn't.

What I propose for GC3 whould be (if posible) two new techs. Or rather an advancement of two techs already in the game, ie. drones and point defence. Make them into pods for ships. Two drones per pod 20-30 space,and the pd could be 15 space.

Hey Kryo what do you think of my advanced tech idea, think it would work? The space size I'm using here would be for a large hull.

ALL HAIL THE MIGHTY DEVS!!