Blockade vs. Occupation?

[Bryartuck]

We're also supposed to be getting larger warscore for occupying war goals in banks.

 

[Pavane]

I don't mind too much if a blockade doesn't contribute to the Warscore (though a small contribution would be welcome) as long as a blockaded planet does not contribute resources or research to that empire. If the resources are stockpiled on the planet and released to the owning empire when the blockade is lifted then there would be an incentive to relieve small blockading squadrons with smaller fleets rather than your Doomstack; which would be interesting.

 

[Accrsd]

Why would armies in space not heal? It doesn't make sense that troops would stay injured, potentially forever, unless they land on a planet.

well mostly because we've yet to actually get any kind of system to imply that armies are "in supply" mostly armies in space without a secure resupply route would be unable to tend to the injured without a steady supply of goods. This could be achieved by garrisoning occupied worlds, returning to friendly unoccupied space/ports or even just simply having a medical attachment that gets used up after a set number of times. Right now we have a really unrealistic way to win invasions with just a meager blockade and small armies that cycle their attacks until built defenders are exhausted, especially since passive garrison spawns are so pathetic