Nevets posted:

I think there should be an 'invasion' war policy thst lets you mod how your armies attack a planet. Right now there still isn't much point in having more than one army since even with combat width slowing down invasions it still takes only amonth or two to conquer most planets. I'd like an option to 'siege' planets: land my guys and leave them there for half a year or more. Armies would deal less much less damage and have a higher chance of disengaging, so you probably wouldn't lose any armies in each invasion but they would each take upwards of a year or more. This would encourage multiple armies with multiple generals. Right now you only need 1 army with (combat width + expected casulaties) troops.

Nevets posted:

I think there should be an 'invasion' war policy thst lets you mod how your armies attack a planet. Right now there still isn't much point in having more than one army since even with combat width slowing down invasions it still takes only amonth or two to conquer most planets. I'd like an option to 'siege' planets: land my guys and leave them there for half a year or more. Armies would deal less much less damage and have a higher chance of disengaging, so you probably wouldn't lose any armies in each invasion but they would each take upwards of a year or more. This would encourage multiple armies with multiple generals. Right now you only need 1 army with (combat width + expected casulaties) troops.

Autonomous Monster posted:

Those armies have to slowboat around like everyone else. If you have enough fleets to cover them and the enemy's large enough it is totally worth having multiple armies to gently caress up different sections of their empire at the same time.

Though I'm totally down for slowing the pace of invasions. If invasions lasted long enough that the defender could launch a counter-attack and bring in a relief force that might add an interesting wrinkle to warfare. You'd have to actively hold the system while the armies were at work, rather than just blowing off the station and pushing on.

I don't think a policy option is a good fit, though. As it stands, ground combat has only two dimensions: time and casualties. There's not enough room there to construct an interesting array of options.

Splicer posted:

Oh god I just synthetically ascended and remembered why I avoid the synthetic and genetic ascensions like the plague.

Wiz and/or LordMune for the love of god please implement one or more of the following:
1) An edict or policy or species right to allow self modding. Every few months each allowed pop checks its current tile against the available templates, and if there's something that will increase their total yield they have a chance to go offline or jack up their cost of living or remove X from the relevant science for a month or so to morph into the new template.
2) Another button by "Resettle" to allow you to directly apply a template to a pop.
3) A way to select multiple templates to apply to one or more existing pops on one or more planets and have which one is applied to which based on likely tile increase.

GotLag posted:

Re: ground combat:

Perhaps there could be something between current slow-rear end bombardment and outright destroying the planet with a colossus, some sort of specialised bombardment weapons that are ineffective in space combat, but better at destroying armies/defensive structures on planets?

GotLag posted:

Fake edit: what about dramatically increasing attacking troop performance while they have friendly ships in orbit actively bombarding, like they can call in fire missions or whatever.

Zulily Zoetrope posted:

Well Colossi do come with a universal Total War casus belli, so part of the Perk benefit is that your society has finally reached the point where you can drop all the space nukes on Space Japan without anyone protesting.

GunnerJ posted:

The "build multiple" interface for buildable pops could probably be used for things like selecting multiple specific pops to modify/purge/whatever.

Zulily Zoetrope posted:

Well Colossi do come with a universal Total War casus belli, so part of the Perk benefit is that your society has finally reached the point where you can drop all the space nukes on Space Japan without anyone protesting.

ulmont posted:

Only if Space Japan is your rival. If Space Japan is less than "Inferior" you can't do anything at all since you can't make claims.

GotLag posted:

Real edit: oh god yes, the ability to choose per-tile which pop to modify would be a godsend for machine empires

Hipster Occultist posted:

Can someone tell me what the gently caress is going on with the new border system?

I'll be fighting a war, lose a few border outposts, and when a status quo peace gets forced on me my enemy keeps all the territory they gained. I've lost several resource rich systems that that not mystically lie within their borders and I can no longer build outposts in.

Deformed Church posted:

Is there a way to lower disengagement chances? The enemy keeps running away before I kick his teeth in and it's annoying me, I need to strap tractor beams to my destroyers or something.

OwlFancier posted:

You can only add one jammer, it's a building not a module, alas.

Milky Moor posted:

So. Weird game.

One side of my galaxy, literally split down the middle, is full of peaceful Federation Builders and Erudite Explorers and so on, who have blobbed up into a Federation since pretty early.

The other side of the galaxy is filled with Hegemonic Imperialists, Fanatic Purifiers and Slaving Despots and other mean types.

It's... kind of odd?

Zulily Zoetrope posted:

Yeah, you still want Artillery on anything with X- or T-size guns, since those can only fire on ships they're facing directly, so you want to keep as far from the field as possible. Swarm does its best to gently caress up large guns, while Line will set up at medium range and focus on anything trying to make a move for your Artillery backline. Picket also gets all up in the enemies face, but tries to screen the Line, as well.

really queer Christmas posted:

I don’t have synthetic dawn, and the contingency popped up in my game. Do I need to worry about the ghost signal and not use sapient computers or can I keep those sweet bonuses?

Hipster Occultist posted:

Can someone tell me what the gently caress is going on with the new border system?

I'll be fighting a war, lose a few border outposts, and when a status quo peace gets forced on me my enemy keeps all the territory they gained. I've lost several resource rich systems that that not mystically lie within their borders and I can no longer build outposts in.

Deformed Church posted:

I didn't notice until about fifteen minutes ago and suddenly it's very important to me, but there's no shuffle button on the rename planet dialogue so I can't make all these planets I stole go with my namelist.

AAAAA! Real Muenster posted:

Can anyone explain the difference in these two types to me? I have occupied a few additional systems that are not part of the war goal/something I have claims on, and the Acceptance numbers showing for each choice are different so I just dont understand what is going on.

Jazerus posted:

in this case? nothing, because you've occupied all of your claims and the enemy has no occupation on you. if they did have anything occupied in your territory that they have claims on, then status quo would give them the claimed systems they occupy while you get the claimed systems you've occupied. achieve war goals would give you all of your claims on them and not give the other side any of their claims on you.

Mundrial Mantis posted: