quote:
Originally posted by Spoo:
But even if certain weapons could destroy infrastructure, it would take several months for the population to decrease from starvation.
Each (strategic) turn is 0.1 years, which is over a month. Also, famines don't usually kill people with outright starvation. Most of the people die from famine-related diseases. That is, the malnutrition makes them susceptible to stuff that wouldn't normally kill people. And keep in mind that famines on Earth usually involve _shortages_ of food, rather than a sudden total cutoff.
Try to imagine a society that relies on replicators, or similar "just in time" food delivery. Very little food is stored in homes, not even staples. Now they are suddenly attacked. There's no power, very little food, and no water except from the environment (which may be inhospitable).
Which brings up another point: Besides the population's EnvironmentalResistance and PhysicalStrength, the planetary conditions should generally be taken into account when determining population damage from bombardments. (Someone has already sensibly suggested that domed colonies should be more easily destroyed.)
Added: And planetary type should matter. For instance, rock dwellers should Last longer on a rock than ice or gas dwellers.
[This message has been edited by dmm (edited 22 January 2001).]
Re: A thought on killing planets
Threaded Mode