I feel that the small planets you have to build 25 halleys on should absolutly destroy, if not send a huge crack thtough the panet it hits. I can see how the small ones leave craters but this thing took 25 halleys to move x)
Planet smashing isn't finished yet, frankly it's still basically first pass and very similar to what we had when it was first introduced. The focus/priority just hasn't shifted to them yet. Mike
I feel like there should be a finer granularity to how many engines it takes and how much damage planets do based on their size. Going from 3 to 25 isn't exactly straightforward.
I believe that it should correspond with the size slider. But like KNight said the devs are working on many other things to get good game play, they will get to it in time.
In all honesty even the moons that take three halleys would do serious damage. As in, liquefying the surface.
Yea I gave that some thought and to me it seems a great function would be n=10^(R*0,003)-1, rounded where n= number of halleys and R =radius. This would yield pretty good results I think: [link google docs]
I'm hoping for a more gradual scale on the number of halleys required, thus incentivising invasions which are supported by robust invasion mechanics, and that the damage of a planet bombardment remains unchanged. Planet smashing (or the threat thereof) should be a stalemate breaker and drive continued conflict rather than everyone camping with a "come at me, bro" stance.
you now how big haleys are but bigger planets mebay bigger engines for big celestial bodies and i think that planet cracking isnt realy in the game yes but if you watch the forum its coming soon
