Arioch wrote:My goal is not to eliminate glassing planets as a viable strategy; it's to give it a significant opportunity cost, since right now the costs of recolonizing from scratch are trivial. I also think it hurts the sense of immersion and internal consistency when you can unleash a life-exterminating bombardment on a planet and then set up shop there as if nothing had happened.
Glassing planets would still be possible and used as part of a strategy but the consequences would be higher:
1. Making affected planets uncolonisable for the rest of the game
2. Having neutral factions and even your allies turn against you if pushed too far (I think this just makes sense logically and mechanically)
Arioch wrote: it can't be rush-built, so having tons of cash won't let you completely avoid the cleanup time.
Yes that was my understanding if its done via projects (continuous effect untill there is something to do and no rushing) - If implemented I believe this is the best way as far as micro goes. Buildings should only contribute to shovel production and thus have an indirect effect instead of being necessary to terraform/cleanup at all
Arioch wrote:Making a glassed planet permanently uncolonizable doesn't make sense to me either in gameplay terms or in the internal logic of the setting. Completely removing the option to glass a planet is not my goal, as I don't think that's fun; if a player really wants to smash planets flat and is willing to accept the resulting costs, that's fine with me.
The option would not be removed comletely only the scale of the cost would be extended to an endpoint which did not yet exist. This both serves variety and a larger scale of negative effects leaves more room for nuances of the mechanic.
Similarly to enslaving: if we enslave eveyone in a medium sized empire, the moral of our citizens will not jsut drop to neutral
Their moral will keep dropping untill the player is pushing for more enslavements. In case of planets it doesnt make sense to have negatvie habitabiltiy of course but there can be similar diplomatic precautions and the area around the player could be made effectively unusable. Its up to the player how far they push it, but if the worst case scenario is bascialyl getting the lowest tier (but still valuable) planet, then it is not that much of a deterrent to be overused in early game and absolutely no deterrent in mid to late game
I believe that mechanically the ideal scneario would be to even have negative habitability cascading beyond a point which in this case I guess would mean that planets close by would also get their habitabiltiy reduced (on top of making the bombarded planet uninhabitable) but such a mechanic is defintively too complex for the current system. It would of course be able to throttle usefullness of excessive bombardement a the player woul effectviely reduce the habitabiltiy of their existing colonies... but diplomatic penalty and unusable but visually engaging planets shoudl also do the trick to some extent
This is likely the reason why we didnt have WW3: the detterant to reduce the hability of your own county worked wonders when conteplating if another country on another continent should be bomded
Arioch wrote: From an internal logic point of view, I don't think bombardment of a planet could make it less colonizable than a Barren or Inferno world, which require pressure domes that isolate the colonists completely from the environment outside. A bombardment that strips off the atmosphere and destroys all life would essentially make the planet a Barren world, and a bombardment that turned the planet into a radioactive cloud-socked hellscape would functionally be the same as an Inferno world.
They would be worse as having massive clouds of nuclear fallout is bad condition for operating electronic devices needed to build anything (as well as biological ones
) But we can of course rationalise both viewpoints
To be clear: I do think glass bombing should be viable and should be used but I also think it should only be used in small quantities
It should be a real decision instead of a reflex: deciding to glassbomb a planet should be contemplated across the entrie game: Can I afford to have a useless planet here and the permanent diplomatic penalty that goes with that till the netire game? I already glass-bombed 2 planets which lefft a hole on the easert border egion making progress lower there... and my ally might leave our alliance if I glass-bomb one more planet... Then agan this enemy faction is very strong. If I glass-bomb just one more planet, which one should be it? Which one brings the highest busst to the war effort? Or shall I leave it for another enemy that might be even worse to tackle?
If there are no permanent downsides to this, the effect can be ignored and the above equiation changes to:
Can I produce a new colony ship to colonise the barren world? How long will it take to build up the colony again? In early game the loss of time for both might be enough to not trivialize glass-bombing but as soon as the player has some god productio nand icome going on (from early mid game on) the answer is likely yes, and not too long
Also consider: Colonising barren worlds is already a not very fun aspect of the game as they are barely worth something and micro-intensive to build up (colonise, move suitable pops regularly mostly minor species) and then manually building the relevant districts to squeeze value out of them. The problem is that it is still worth doing so ignoring barren planets wil lput oyu in a relative disadvantage. Would not create new planets like these to micro-manage for some minimal value where the only reason not to do it if we are lazy and want ot avoid micro