If by 'battles' you mean how many times I should have to move one or more transports onto a target planet, select an invasion type, tell the game to resolve the engagement, and succeed, my answer is "one." I'd be perfectly fine with invasions taking more than one turn to resolve, but the implementation suggested fails to do that. What you've suggested differs from the current model only in the scale of the force I need to bring; I can still blitz any target (and, if I spend enough time building up, all targets) in a single turn, and in fact if defenses recover at anything like a reasonable rate I may in fact have a strong incentive to bring sufficient forces to launch as many of the required attacks as possible on a single turn. The only thing that this accomplishes is to waste my time; instead of having a single round of clicking to go through to resolve an invasion, I now have to do the same thing half a dozen times to conquer a world with five military improvements despite every one of the attacks being successful (which wastes my time on the turn or, less likely since it's probable that the system would encourage single-turn invasion resolution wherever possible through allowing previously-defeated defenses to recover to the point of having to be attacked again, turns in which those attacks take place) and further wastes my time due to the increased buildup required (at least one transport disappears with each attack; I can make no more than one transport per shipyard per turn, so if I need to make five times as many attacks to take an 'average' planet I need to spend five times as many shipyard-turns building transports).

A better way to slow invasions would simply be to have the invasion type set by the initiating event (or if you really want to be able to change the invasion type then be able to set the invasion type at the start of each turn) and then all subsequent transports moved onto the planet just reinforce the appropriate side, with the number of defenders being reduced by the strength of the attacking forces and the number of attackers being reduced by the strength of the defending force at the end of each turn, with the invasion being resolved when one side is eliminated.

Yes, and I see that as a problem, because it means that your system is "current system but with more clicks." Basically, what your revisions boil down to is a waste of my time. It doesn't give the defender any more time to react to an invasion. It doesn't make the invasion mechanic any more engaging, interesting, or fun. All it does is require that I spend more time clicking things to make the attack happen.

None of this appeared in your original suggestion. Nor, for that matter, does setting the composition of the forces carried on each transport sound particularly interesting to me, especially if it's done at the time the transport launches (as is likely if no additional transport module types are added, and could also be the case even if additional transport module types were added since you could argue that you might want to distinguish between a transport being half full and a transport carrying its full infantry complement but none of its equally-large armored complement) rather than being something baked into each transport's design. Transports are among the cheapest ships in the game as far as upkeep is concerned; even were you to distinguish the upkeep costs of differing troop types by requiring different types of transport modules for each troop type, it's quite unlikely that the upkeep costs would be significant enough that it'd be worth taking a suboptimal troop loadout to cut costs.

Furthermore, your suggestion is not "an engagement that I can reinforce," except conceptually* - that would require, at minimum, that each event be resolved at the end of a turn (allowing me to bring in more transports if I need them for the event to be resolved in my favor; if you wanted it to be more complicated you could have the order in which the transports arrived, determined by the fraction of actions they consumed prior to hitting the planet, have some effect upon when the forces carried by each transport come into play during event resolution), whereas your suggestion has events resolved upon the player ordering the transports in, essentially making each attack a distinct assault on the target, with each assault succeeding or failing based only upon the forces in the initial assault force and the opposition at the start of the assault. Basically, your suggestion looks like Overlord would have if the Allies had decided that they would not send in the next assault wave into the area containing an objective until the preceding assault wave had ceased fighting in that area, rather than looking like how Overlord actually happened, where subsequent assault waves joined ongoing engagements begun by previous assault waves, with the forces involved in the engagement being made up of surviving elements of all the assault waves involved.

*Events that take place sequentially within a turn can conceptually be taking place at the same time. This includes events that take place during an opponent's turn but in the same round of turns, unless you want to argue that your units only take the actions that occur in your turn in the space of (time period represented by one round of turns) / (number of players who take turns during the round) and do not act at all during the remainder of the time period represented by a round of turns except when an opponent interacts with them, which is ridiculous. Thus even if I had to resolve five separate attack events to defeat one target it is conceptually possible that all of those events took place simultaneously or nearly simultaneously within the game universe.

I would further add that each assault involves forces comparable to the planetary population, assuming that the 'population' claimed within the game really does represent the planetary population rather than the total number of military personnel on the planet (the latter being an interpretation suggested by transport and invasion mechanics) and assuming that you actually fill your invasion transports to something close to capacity (even if you don't, you're probably within an order of magnitude of the planetary population). Even if the 'population' claimed by the game is assumed to be total military personnel as suggested by transport and invasion mechanics, it is unreasonable for the entire defending force to be present at each landing location, even for landings over as large a region as sevend planetary tiles. The invading forces have the ability to choose the landing sites, and the defending forces have at most a week to respond to the attack; even if the invading force is for some strange reason concentrated entirely into the 7 tiles adjacent to or containing a specific improvement, it is unreasonable for the defending forces to be similarly concentrated as the invading forces, being in orbital assault ships of some kind, can change their point of attack and reach a target which is literally on the other side of the planet within minutes whereas the defending forces do not have that kind of flexibility. For it to be reasonable for the entire complement of a transport or group of transports to be facing a remotely comparable force if the transport or group of transports hit only a single improvement per assault, then, the size of the force carried per transport needs to be reduced considerably.

Well joeball, any kind of improvement to current invasion system will require an increase in clicks. There is simply no way around it, because it is currently very bare with super minimum possible amount of interaction. And that addition was kind of what I'm thinking of and I tried to make it more clear because I kept the first post simple enough. Only way to decrease the amount of clicks required is to have the planet surrender the moment someones fleets point their guns towards it so that invasion isn't necessary. If the planet refuses to surrender, you can bombardment it until it becomes Class 0 Planet. A dead planet.

Larsenex, huh, I never played distant worlds so I never knew that. I'm surprised at the similarity lol. Thanks for enlightening me.

I'm generally in favor of making the process of taking planets more interesting. I am not for making the process of taking planets take more of my time without any real change in the level of engagement with any particular assault. The proposal made in the original post, even with Ericridge's additions in his responses, does not increase the amount of time the defender has to respond to an invasion (all battles can be, and possibly must be, completed within a single turn), so the proposal fails to add interest in the "secure and maintain control of space around the target" area because the defender can't reinforce and the attacker doesn't need to control local space for any more than a single turn anyways (and the original poster's additions in later posts within this thread continue to permit invasions to be resolved in the space of a single faction's turn). The proposal made in the original post does not allow the player to choose targets for each attack, though it's possible that this was implicitly added with Ericridge's first response (reply #2 in this thread); even so it's not clear that the improvement chosen as the target for the current assault actually matters in any way (whether for the quality of the opposition faced in this assault or for the quality of the opposition faced in subsequent assaults; it's also not clear that taking out certain military improvements even should have an immediate impact within the turn, as losing a military academy or recruiting center or something like that is unlikely to have a significant immediate impact on the number or quality of the forces available, beyond whatever was lost defending the facility), and it's not at all clear that the fall of any given improvement would be remembered from one turn to the next by the game unless the improvement were destroyed as planets cannot at present be owned by multiple factions. It's unclear what effects, if any, the differing troop types in Ericridge's first response would have on invasions, or if and how they'd interact with different invasion and planet types, or if there would be a sufficiently large cost to the different unit types that there'd be a reason to have anything other than the 'optimal' invasion force.

Winning the same battle five or ten times to take a single planet is no more interesting or engaging than winning that battle once. I'd go so far as to say that winning the same battle five or ten times is less interesting than winning that battle once. And as the only change suggested in the original post is that I'd have to win that battle five or ten times in order to do what I can do now by winning the same battle once, I'm against the proposal given in the original post. The subsequent replies that Ericridge has made to this thread have not added anything of substance, other than a vague suggestion for additional troop types and an even more vague implication that it could be possible to choose an improvement as the target of each assault and that the order in which improvements are targeted might matter (that, however, is all an assumption on my part; there is no clear indication in Ericridge's original post or in reply #2 that which improvements fall to which assaults actually matters, nor is there an indication that each assault's difficulty would be divorced from the overall planetary defense/resistance and instead be more dependent on the improvement targeted and the number of defensive improvements relative to total population).

Moreover, the goal of making planetary conquest more interesting and engaging can be achieved simply by making the resolution of a planetary assault be postponed to the end of the player's turn (or even until the end of the round of turns) and making it very unlikely that one side or the other will be defeated at the end of the turn (maybe it could still be possible if the invader brought along enormously overwhelming force, but if the invading forces could expect to inflict, say, ~10% + modifiers of their numbers as casualties on the defending forces and the defending forces could expect to do likewise to the invading forces, you'd be looking at needing a roughly 10:1 numerical advantage to win an invasion against a similarly-advanced opponent in a single turn). This only sends the player clicking through the planetary invasion screens preferably only once per invasion (surely the game can remember if I chose conventional, biological, or information warfare, orbital bombardment, tidal disruption, or core detonation for the duration of the invasion; allowing me a way to change that mid-invasion might not be a bad thing, but asking me to choose which one repeatedly for the same invasion certainly is), while still allowing both the invading and the defending player to reinforce the invaded planet and providing some reason to be interested in controlling the space around the invaded planet for more than just the turn or so it currently takes to clear out opposition and then move on to the next set of shipyards while the fast transports swoop in.

I agree with the general view that the Planetary Invasion set up is a bit odd so far.  

Now before I talk game mechanics.  I want to speak to my thoughts on a space invasion in general.  With that in mind.  I see this as a balance of defense and attack.  I also see people as self-interested and wanting to not die. So colonies will not fight to the death.  Invaders will not risk billions to take a colony.  So the idea that people will dig into holes in the earth and resist to the end is maybe some what true but not the expected norm.  Most would just surrender at a certain point.  If nothing else expecting to be liberated some day.  So an attacker would hope to bombard a planet to surrender, trying to avoid complete destruction as that would require a lot of rebuilding.  The planet would want to defend itself from bombardment as in a siege a whole planet normally would have more supplies than a fleet and could hold out forever.  Of course barren world or new colonies would be an exception but then again they would likely have little in defense.

So in game.  A fleet can fly up to a planet. If it has no defense at all.  It might just surrender immediately.  To balance this a fleet might be required to have planetary bombardment weapon on them or basic defense is a low tech.  If they did have defenses.  The fleet can engage in bombardment, there would be a time limit in which the planet would surrender.  (5 turns) for example.  During this time the planet is considered blockaded, so if its a trade route planet that route no longer brings in money.   Now advanced defense, force fields for example might make this (500 turns).  The planet might also have defensive guns which can inflict damage on a blockade fleet, causing damage to the fleet.  So given long enough the ships in orbit would be destroyed.  So now the fleet has to consider an invasion.  The battle is to destroy the shield generator/ defense guns not subjugate the planet inch by inch. 

So attacker techs would focus on bombardment, then marine attack techs, improved soldiering, mechs, bio-weapons.  Same as before.  I do like the peaceful attack, with information warfare that encourages a colony to switch sides. 

Defenders would focus on defense, including shields, and planetary weapons, orbital defense platforms.

With this system you would still need the transport. But no more transport attacks as you have to establish the blockade/bombardment fleet first. 

This tactics make the game borring. Im currently modding my game to disable enginemonsters. It is ridiculous that you can double your speed by putting more engines on a ship. If that would work, we would be traveling to other stars already and my car could drive at the speed of light. Same apears to sensors. The whole concept must be reworked to give more ballance to the game.

Battles where every army gives 110%.  I love it.

One problem with multi-turn invasions is that you permit the defending player to use planetary resources to rush-build troops and defensive structures.

If I'm the attacking player, I just hit them with enough transports to get it over with in one turn anyway.

If you permit planetary bombardment then you need to allow the defender a structure like a planetary shield to defend against it. And if you do that, then how do you land troops?

This is correct. There's simply no way to get around this one simple fact. At most the defender only can attempt to make the attacker change his mind about invading or make sure the planet cost the attacker very dearly.

If the attacker feels like he is going to lose ten transports or more for every single planet he takes, he might just change his mind about starting a war and choose peaceful path for victory. Deterrent.

Other way to boost the difficulty of planetary invasion is to simply grant the human player the command of planetary defenses of their own planets. If you're the invader, you'll have to rely on numbers and the AI smarts to try overwhelm the defending human player.

Bad Idea i'm guessing but worth a mention.

I understand the pros and cons each an everyone has brought up and they are all very valid points, since it will affect or add or detract from your enjoyment of the game.  An the only option for something like this is to make it an option, most likely an option, that is the obvious answer, an it should be an option that can be scaled to the desires of the player(s).

 As for how far should it go?

I am 100% completely for more; more being better (as far as content goes) also to note I'm a firm believer of go big or go home attitude.

 I want to have research pertaining to the variation of unit types available as well a way to build+design and outfit ground forces.  Organizing them into named platoons/battalions/brigades, or specialized units.  Heck, give them an experience system (rookie/green/regular/veteran/elite) matched with a rest/recovery system to boot (just like damaged ships have to recover so too should ground troops).  Experience could add in modifiers to success rookies (-10%), green (0%), Regulars (5%), Veterans (10%), Elite (15%).  

Ground combat could be as simple as the Civ games element.  An I think that would be the ideal approach.  Units based on experience + tech, could be valuable in specific terrain or counters to specific units, or all around good universally but not strong in or against any specific category (land/air/urban/woods/water...etc).


Scaleable option on startup.  Ground Combat

Novice / Standard (as is current format)

Regular - Opens more variable invasion/defense factors, extends siege, gives a weekly viewable battle (or autoresolved) adds a weekly report with player selected responses to enhance the course of the RNG battle.

Advanced - Opens up new research tech tree+design element for ground units/troops.  Instead of a simple viewable ground battle, give players a choice to take the reins an micromanage a turn based style fight, of 7 turns or 1 week.  The layout for the planetary map an the requirements for success could be based on the planets size, current pop, development and built structures.  So a huge planet that is poorly developed and low pop could be a quick 7 move win, or a civilization capital could require multiple 7 round turns.  Again with battle reports adding ways to speed up that outcome, ie orbital bombardments, supply drops, repairs, blockading supplies.. etc.  

Now expanded planetary ground warfare can also be defaulted by AI micromanagement, just like ship battles can be auto-resolved or viewed.

It would add more value to the game FOR ME, if I could build up an Elite unit akin to Rico's Roughnecks, who would be capable of tackling tougher defenses, would also make defending their transports more of a priority.  Would add more character to Fleet design and a crushing loss if such cherished assets were suddenly lost by a costly mistake.  Adds more intelligent thoughtful design to an already great TB strategic game.

I know no one's posted here for a while but I thought I'd try and spark moreinterest in this topic. The invasion mechanic/s need to be changed. It's just boring. What if military expenditure also contributed to a planet's defence? In galciv2 there was a clip sort of thing on when you invaded, a more updates invasion of that? I don't think it should be one click and your either invaded or not. It should last several turns, how long depending on various factors, so there's time for you to provide reinforcements  and destroy the orbiting fleets etc. It's definitely something I by that needs looked at.