All taxpayers fight to the death?

from Stardock Forums
When using a transport to launch an invasion of an enemy system, I can't help but notice that the enemy population (AKA "taxpayers") *ALL* fight to the death!!! You can use information warfare, which can can convert 20-40% of the unhappy population, but other than they ALL fight to the death.

That doesn't make ANY sense!!! In reality if there are 15 billion taxpayers on a planet, you shouldn't have to kill all or nearly all 15 billion of them to take the planet. You should have to destroy the military, and garrison the planet. Understandably morale would be an issue, but if you manage things properly you should be able to get the system to be a productive part of your empire (like in Civilization 1-3).


GalCiv doesn't seem to allow this. Does anyone else seem to thing this is a glaring omission?


Realistically, if the enemy population were facing strong attacker's influence, low morale, and they are out-numbered and out-gunned, they would REASONABLLY surrender, not *ALL* fight to the death!!!

Hopefully, there is something I'm missing!!! Please let me know if there is a way to use your military to take over a planet, without killing EVERYONE!!! (or nearly, assuming you're using information warefare)
3,861 views 13 replies
Reply #1 from Stardock Forums Top
Yeah these aliens have a very strange kind of fighting wars ;p

I liked this feature in MOO2.

This feature was discussed several times but never implemented. You should know that there are only limited development ressouces and a game should not be too complex. Thus you need to focus. Maybe they will improve GC2 at this point.
Reply #2 from Stardock Forums Top
Aliens indeed got suicidal tendencies. ;)

I was surprised too but maybe it´s the reason why humans and aliens simply can´t live together...

It´s weird though, but I can live with this.
Siege of Centauri
Reply #3 from Stardock Forums Top
Very strange though that the aliens would be willing to join another civilization if their influence was high enough...

Very very very VERY VERY strange..., TOTALLY WEIRD

It also affects the balance of the game, since conquering a planet is far less advantageous if everyone is DEAD!!!
Reply #4 from Stardock Forums Top
You could always choose to look at this as a way to reduce the population on the planets in your empire that have a "poor" morale in comparison to your others. Simply build a colony ship with however many you want to "relocate" and move them onto that planet.

A wise emperor might even consider having "bonus" colony ships loitering in a quiet part of the galaxy waiting for such an opportunity.

(HINT) This can be a very effective way of improving morale on those "troublesome" planets in your empire.

Be aware that population effects not only morale, but production and tax income. Only by successfully managing population can you hope to optimize these 3 things.
Reply #5 from Stardock Forums Top
@Chipperoo:

In my present game I now came to the point struggling with the perfect balance of morale and income for the reasons exactly as you told.

But I thought building colony ships is only suitable for colonizing uncolonized planets, and when one plans to "transfer" population you have to build transports. True ? And another question, am I right that transports carry up to 1,000 pop and battle transports up to 5,000 ?
Reply #6 from Stardock Forums Top
But I thought building colony ships is only suitable for colonizing uncolonized planets, and when one plans to "transfer" population you have to build transports. True ?
End of quote

Not quite. Colony ship is a one shot ship used to move an unlimited amount between a system and a planet (you must target a planet) not owned by an other race
Transport are reusable ships that allow you to move a limited number of people betwen a system and another , owned by any race (including your)
Reply #7 from Stardock Forums Top
Transport are reusable ships that allow you to move a limited number of people betwen a system and another , owned by any race (including your)
End of quote


i.e. when moving my transport to another system I invade their system = all inhabited planets. The remaining soldiers after the fight then represent the own population which is split over all formerly inhabited planets of that system. And moreover that means there are not systems inhabited by more than one race !?!

So if I take 1,000 people in a transport and move them to a star system with two inhabited planet, both of them get additional 500 pop.

´k that´s clear then for me ! :)

Reply #8 from Stardock Forums Top
when moving my transport to another system I invade their system = all inhabited planets
End of quote

Nope, only habited planet. SOrry, I wasn't enough clear.

that means there are not systems inhabited by more than one race !?!
End of quote

In galciv I, system are owned by only one race. So yo better need to grab system first, and colonize planets in your system after :)
Reply #9 from Stardock Forums Top
when moving my transport to another system I invade their system = all inhabited planetsNope, only habited planet. SOrry, I wasn't enough clear.
End of quote


Still not understood. Does that mean I have only to fight once, but against their combined defense power ?

Honestly, the game mechanics are indeed somewhat sophisticated... it´s nice that even when you think you understood how the game works, there still might be something you probably missed (thinking of events, at least !)

By the way. It´s not your fault explaining that clear. I could or should have experienced that on my own, but I won my first game thoroughly by cultural flip-overs... really, every single planet, and thus won the militaristic way cause I set the game win-settings only to it ! :D
Reply #10 from Stardock Forums Top
Still not understood. Does that mean I have only to fight once, but against their combined defense power
End of quote

Yes, you don't fight for a planet but for all colonized planets in the whole system.

And I think I have read too fast: I have read "unhabited" instead of "inhabited". Not quite the same meaning :)
Reply #11 from Stardock Forums Top
And I think I have read too fast: I have read "unhabited" instead of "inhabited". Not quite the same meaning
End of quote


Sorry but for that instance you shall suffer eternally in hell :sniff!:
*checking the sharpness of guillotine´s cutting-edge*


Uhmm... no better not - I still might have good use for you ;)


(hope you can take a little joke ! :) )
Reply #12 from Stardock Forums Top
I haven't any problem with joke :)

Well, the problem is that in french, "in" at the beginning of a word is the equivalent to the english "un" at the beginning of a word
Reply #13 from Stardock Forums Top
Ah! Seems you escaped from my wrath.

;)

Jep. Then wait and see when you´re going to read german texts hehe ;)

(but don´t even try to interprete asian letters... :SURPRISED: )