Occupation and Resistance

[Cordane]

Another thing that doesn't sit well with me regarding Assault Armies and such attacking an enemy planet is the idea that they are somehow able to "heal" (and quickly) during an occupation period. First off, they're not some singular soldier that's able to actually heal damage - it's a very large number of soldiers that just suffered loss-of-life casualties on a hostile world, most likely without even the same species stock to draw reinforcements from. It's also shuttles, aerofighters, armored surface vehicles, and armaments that need to be replaced, without having any legitimate opportunity to convert planetside factories. I could see a period without "healing" followed by a reduced rate, as some sort of fleet tenders finally arrive with newbies and spares, but not the rapid recovery seen normally.

I would also like to see a Resistance form to the occupation, which would further cripple "healing" rates, if not causing outright damage, unless reinforced with sufficient forces, both planetside and in orbit.

 

[Secret Master]

Considering you don't even have to leave armies on a planet to garrison them after you occupy a planet, I don't understand your suggestion.

If armies couldn't heal on occupied planets, I'd just move them off. I already RP having to actually maintain an occupation of some sort, even though it's not required by the rules.

 

[Cordane]

1. My apologies - I've been assuming that I needed to leave a garrison behind, because...

2. Why wouldn't you need to do that?

It's not some kind of schoolyard game where everybody is just going to play nice once you've taken out the orbiting and planetside forces - it's a war. I understand that it would add some micro, and then there's the constant refrain of "the AI wouldn't have a clue of how to do that", but there's no way an actual occupied planet would just sit in the corner like its parent told it to "take a timeout" or something.

Have to say: I shouldn't really be surprised, considering all of the other counter-intuitive crap in this game.

 

[Elothan]

Well, it kinda build up a garrison, but yeah, the invations are a bit underwhelming..

 

[Secret Master]

2. Why wouldn't you need to do that?

That's why I wish you were required to leave some troops behind. Solve that problem first, but then go from there.

I suspect this may be a crutch for the AI.

 

[Elothan]

I actually suspect it was an attempt to decrease micro in regards to having large armies.

 

[Xeorm]

1. My apologies - I've been assuming that I needed to leave a garrison behind, because...

2. Why wouldn't you need to do that?

It's not some kind of schoolyard game where everybody is just going to play nice once you've taken out the orbiting and planetside forces - it's a war. I understand that it would add some micro, and then there's the constant refrain of "the AI wouldn't have a clue of how to do that", but there's no way an actual occupied planet would just sit in the corner like its parent told it to "take a timeout" or something.

Have to say: I shouldn't really be surprised, considering all of the other counter-intuitive crap in this game.

Micro reasons I'm betting. Plus, they're assault troops. Policing work is usually a different beast than the actual assault, and I assume it's rendered as such. I know it might seem odd, but heavy, active resistance to an armed invader with overwhelming force is rather abnormal. If we liken planets to cities, they did settle down after the initial assault and after the chaos had died down. Since we're going with a setting where taking enemy planets is a definite boon for your empire and is handled in a way similar to previous Paradox games, I'm going to assume it's closer to the city model of conquest, rather than the type of invasion and resistance that happens in recent military history.

 

[quetzilla]

Perhaps occupied planets should have some kind of upkeep cost? Influence? Maybe an Occupation Policy that determines influence cost vs chance of rebellion?