Galactic War Fundamentally Broken

I hate to say it, I really do. I hate to use such a provocative title, but it's nothing but the truth.

If the AI runs off to the moon, there is nothing you can then do if you don't have the appropriate tech. Easy solution:
Add either laser orbital satellites or nukes as starter tech.

I dropped a 76-strong group of infernos and tanks on top of the AIs base (about 25-50 metres from the commander) and they vanished in a puff of smoke within a matter of seconds. There was no way to get to that planet.

I'm stating a fact. I know that that fact is going to bug people. That's all.

So you are purposely saying something to get a rise out of people?

I actually have to agree here. There are situations you can absolutely get stuck in. Starting on a different planet (like in the boss battles) is one of them.
Another example for this: Fighting an AI focussing on naval on a planet with a huge body of water, while you don't have any naval tech at all.
A quick fix for these problems would be an option to surrender the battle, without losing the whole war.

Other than that, I already find the galactic war very enjoyable...I'm looking forward to future iterations

No, Geers is pointiong out a legitamate flaw in the game. However, a search would reaveal many similar threads, such as my own:
https://forums.uberent.com/threads/galactic-war-broken.59747/

No, are you?

Oops. I should've done that... I'm tired....

Inb4 brian tells me off.

He might be, but that was not the pose of the thread, the post of the thread is to fish for negative responses to the thread.

And that is a violation of the forums rules.

No, it isn't. I'm just acknowledging that people will probably react negatively. Like you for example.

I am not reacting to GW, I am reacting badly to you, and your thread which is riding a fine line between criticism and a plain insult.

No-one else is complaining.

**AHEM** rather than play internet lawyer (another rule you both broke, so shame on you) provide your own ideas as to why this unfortunate event does not "fundamentally break" GW or something silly like that. One event like this IN A FIRST PASS of GW is not indicative as to whether or not GW is actually a broken game type. Sheesh. My two cents are below...

This isn't a broken mechanic. You can drop a load of fabbers onto the moon and have them instabuild a teleporter which you rush your army through. I have done this successfully numberous times. Sure, this strategy is forced upon the player, something I do not condone Uber doing, but it does not make GW "fundamentally broken" at all. Rather, it is a current issue / unfortunate consequence of the way the AI is written (in which it tries to save its commander no matter what, even if it means running away to abandon its base) which will get fixed in future one of Sorian's AI iterations or another.

I actually tried that. Didn't work.

I don't think any plain insult would provide a possible solution:

That seems more like constructive criticism to me. Plus, if no one ever points out blatant errors for a game in development in its own forums, then how will Uber ever reach a polished, playable game?

That is my point.

Oh hey, you made me realize I forgot to specify "laser satellites". Good job.

I dont like the addition of orbital satellites OR nukes as inherent to the starting commander in a GW playthrough. For instance, I have yet to use nukes in GW because they inherently break whatever fragile balance the gametype is trying to create because they allow you to reach out and completely demolish someone else without ever needing to come into direct conflict with them. This, in my mind, is against the philosophy of GW which is to encourage you to beat your opponents through unfamiliar means / seat of the pants strategies. Nukes fit under neither of those two categories.

I agree it's a bit of a hamhanded solution, but I'm just trying to work with what we have.

True... I think on some other thread someone suggested the AI simply offer up a surrender vote when their base is destoryed & they have no chance at survival. This, in my mind, is also very realistic as an enemy commander would probably want to be a POW rather than a dead commander given the choice. This could also add some interesting meta to the GW campaign by allowing players to do stuff with captured commanders.

That, in my eyes is probably the best way to fix the problem - remove it from the game and try to add realism / additional functionality to GW to cover up for the fact that most GW wars will probably only occur on one planet.

Actually, that is what I view to be the biggest shame of GW in its current state. I, as the player, am never encouraged to go to another planet because either a)I will have too easy of a time winning, b) the subcommanders have too easy of a time winning, or c)its just not practical as there is no impetus for me to build orbital -> astreus -> micro to moon, etc etc. Its not like I will ever have the halley tech to crash moons back into the planets they're orbiting...

Well technically, he could've lived on that moon indefinitely. But that's not the point. If we're going to capture commanders it would be pretty neat if you could build fifty orbital radars, link them all together and send a virus to the enemy commander. That would probably be way overpowered, but at least it makes sense within the game.

Another way to solve things is give us console commands or something for such extreme scenarios.