• We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.

Stellaris Dev Diary #93: War, Peace and Claims

Hello everyone and welcome to another Stellaris dev diary. Today we're going to continue talking about major changes coming in the Cherryh update, specifically on the topic of war and peace. As said before, all of these changes are currently far away, and we cannot give more details on ETAs or the exact nature of the Cherryh update than we already have.


Wargoal Overhaul
The wargoal system in Stellaris has always felt a bit odd, and has been the target of some very well-reasoned criticism from players. In one way, the system is extremely unrestrictive, allowing you to declare war on anyone for any reason to take any planet, no matter if said planet is on the literal other side of the galaxy in the middle of enemy territory and could not feasibly be held by your empire, and then demand that planet in the peace even if none of your soldiers had ever set foot on it. On the other hand, the restriction to only being able to take planets meant that you had a fairly limited control over your actual borders after the peace, and might be forced to take planets you had no interest in just to get that system with a resource or colonizable planet that you *actually* wanted. Other issues include a rather messy wargoal interface (particularly when trying to set goals after being declared on) and a lack of ability as an ally in a war to affect what gains you were going to get in the peace, and that wars were very 'all or nothing' affairs with no real mechanics for any other outcome than total victory for one side.

With the change to borders discussed in Dev Diary #91, system control is now separated from planets, and so allows for systems to be conquered and traded even if they do not contain a colonizable planet. This, in addition to all the previously mentioned issues, means that we need a new wargoal system that can handle both limited wars fought over a few border systems, and massive wars that result in dozens of systems changing hands. The way we have decided to solve this is to completely rework wargoals, peace negotiations and to add the concept of claims.

Claims
Claims are effectively territorial ambitions - an empire claiming territory they do not currently control, for whatever justification they can come up with. Which systems can be claimed depends on an empire's war philosophy policy, with the unrestricted warfare philosophy allowing for the claiming of any system not owned by a fellow Federation member. Claims, however, are not free. Much like territorial expansion through building outposts, they require expenditude of Influence, to represent the political effort (or mind/processing power in the case of Gestalt Consciousnesses) required to claim and integrate the territory. How expensive a system is to claim depends on distance to your borders, how built up the system is (a remote mining system will be much cheaper than the homeworlds) and other factors such as traditions and technology. Overall, claims will be more expensive in the early game, and become less so later on to allow for more decisive wars to be fought in the mid- and lategame. Claims are managed through the claims interface, accessible from the topbar. From the claims interface, you can easily make and revoke claims (please note that the interface is currently a rough WIP, thus the weird-looking green arrows, among other unfinished bits of art). It is possible to claim the same system multiple times to gain a stronger claim on it, which is mainly useful when going to war together with an ally that is claiming the same system (more on this later in the DD). Finally on the topic of claims, as mentioned in Dev Diary #91, influence gain is going to be majorly rebalanced to reflect its new uses in expansion, and some things which previously cost influence may now use other currencies.
2017_11_09_1.png


Casus Belli and Wargoals
To go to war with another empire in the Cherryh update, you now need a Casus Belli - a reason for war. The simplest Casus Belli to get is the Claim Casus Belli, gained by creating a claim on another empire. Each Casus Belli grants access to at least one type of Wargoal, with some Casus Belli (like Subjugation) potentially allowing for several different Wargoals to choose between. When declaring war on another empire, rather than put together a list of Wargoals, you choose just one Wargoal allowed by one of your Casus Belli, and the defender similarly chooses one after being declared on, with the Humiliate wargoal always available to defenders regardless of Casus Belli. However, the Wargoal is always in addition to rather than instead of claims the two war sides have on each other. What this means is that the Wargoal is the overall purpose of the war (for example, to humiliate a rival) and any claims you have on the target and their allies is your territorial ambitions in the war (for example, a string of border systems). Some Empires (such as Fanatical Purifiers, Devouring Swarms and Determined Exterminators) have special Casus Belli that usually allow them to conquer their neighbors at will (exceptions being empires they don't hate, such as other Machine Empires for Exterminators), ignoring claims altogether, but are vulnerable to be similarly conquered by others who see them as a threat to the entire galaxy.
2017_11_09_2.png


War Exhaustion and Peace Negotiations
As wars can now be anything from a small border skirmish to a massive war of conquest (depending on the wargoal and number of claims), we felt that the Warscore system so common to our other games was inadequate for dealing with this variety, and tended to turn every conflict into a total war with one undisputed winner and another, utterly crushed loser. As such, Warscore is gone in the Cherryh update. Instead, we have introduced the concept of War Exhaustion. War Exhaustion goes from 0-100%, and measures the total weariness and attrition suffered by all empires on one side in a war (psychological and logistical). War Exhaustion goes up from having Planets and Starbases occupied by the enemy, suffering losses during Space and Ground Combat, and passive accumulation over time (called Attrition). When a war side's War Exhaustion hits 100%, they can be forced into a Status Quo peace (more on this below). The speed at which War Exhaustion accumulates is influenced by factors such as ethics, traditions, technology and the amount of claims being pressed - an empire that is fighting to hold onto a handful of border systems will tire of a costly conflict quicker than one whose very independence is being threatened.

There are three ways a war can end in the Cherryh update: With the surrender of either side, or with a negotiated Status Quo peace. When an empire Surrenders, it is usually either because they have been completely defeated, or because the war aims are limited enough that they view it as more costly to continue the war than to end it.

Surrender means that the victor's Wargoal (for example, to humiliate or vassalize the loser) is enforced, and any claims the winning side has on the losing side are automatically ceded regardless of occupation status. Surrender can only be forced on an enemy that is entirely or nearly entirely defeated - an empire can never be forced to cede territory that the enemy is not able to take control of with their military.
Status Quo means that the war has reached a point where total victory is unlikely for either side, and both sides agree to stop hostilities and settle for whatever gains or losses they have suffered. Under a Status Quo peace, all occupied systems claimed by an enemy empire is ceded to the enemy with the strongest claim. This is where multiple claims on the same system comes in - if you and an ally are both claiming the same enemy system, you can continue to invest influence into 'trumping' their claim so that you are the one given the system rather than your ally. In the case of a tie, whoever has the oldest claim on the system is considered the stronger claimant. As mentioned above, a war side that is at 100% War Exhaustion can not reject a Status Quo peace.

Status Quo being not a white peace but a "Uti possidetis" style peace where claimed and occupied (or in some special cases like the aforementioned Purifier Wargoal, just occupied) territory is kept is meant to be able to create more varied and interesting outcomes to wars, such as a war of conquest where the attacker started with the ambition to conquer an entire enemy empire, and easily took over the lightly defended border systems, but found themselves unable to make headway against the more heavily defended enemy core systems, eventually settling for only what they were able to control. Along with the way surrender works, it also means that empires are never forced to cede systems that they are able to militarily defend - no matter how much the enemy is overrunning your outposts, if your fleets and starforts can keep them away from your homeworld, you can't be forced to hand it over in the peace. It also makes it possible for an empire that is losing a war to still fight to minimize their territorial losses by fighting to inflict War Exhaustion on the enemy, making them pay for every system they take until they can be forced to make peace. Furthermore, it means that wars can end in a way that isn't one-sided, with gains and losses on both sides.
2017_11_09_4.png


It is currently not possible to make claims on an enemy when you are the aggressor in a war against them. Defenders are able to make claims as normal. This is subject to testing, balancing and tweaking and may change (more on that below).

Starbase and System Occupation
Finally, I wanted to write a short bit on how occupying systems actually works now. There will be more details on this (especially about ground combat) in later dev diaries, but the gist it is that a system is considered occupied only if the Starbase and all planets (excluding potentially neutral ones like primitives) are under enemy control. For a Starbase to be taken control of, it must first be disabled (brought to 0 hp) by the enemy fleet. Taking control of an enemy system will also take control of all mining and research stations in that system and allow the occupied to benefit from them economically for as long as the war continues. Similarly, Starbases that are taken control of are also able to be used by the controller - controlled enemy shipyards can be used to refit, repair and build your own fleets, and enemy fortresses to keep them from retaking occupied systems. All of this means that 'raiding' and striking at vital enemy systems becomes an important aspect of warfare, allowing you to turn the enemy's own economic, military and logistical assets against them if they do not do a good enough job defending them.
2017_11_09_3.png


Other Thoughts
We are still heavily testing and tweaking these new systems, and we have some other things we are thinking about and trying out to see how they work. They include:
- The ability to claim unsettled systems as a way to put 'dibs' on a system before actually going there to build an outpost
- Having claims be cheaper if you don't have a ton of them, to encourage smaller scale conflicts
- Potentially allowing claims to be made by attackers (rather than just defenders) during war, but have them be more expensive
- Ways to slow and reduce War Exhaustion at the expense of your economy and population

That's all for today! Next week we'll continue talking about war, on the topic of space battles, command limits and doomstacks. See you then!
 
Last edited:

Secret Master

Covert Mastermind
Moderator
95 Badges
Jul 9, 2001
36.589
19.900
www.youtube.com
  • 200k Club
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Victoria: Revolutions
  • Europa Universalis: Rome
  • Semper Fi
  • Sengoku
  • Ship Simulator Extremes
  • Sword of the Stars II
  • Victoria 2
  • Victoria 2: A House Divided
  • Victoria 2: Heart of Darkness
  • Rome: Vae Victis
  • Warlock: Master of the Arcane
  • March of the Eagles
  • 500k Club
  • Cities: Skylines
  • Crusader Kings II: Holy Knight (pre-order)
  • Pride of Nations
  • Mount & Blade: Warband
  • Mount & Blade: With Fire and Sword
  • Crusader Kings II: Way of Life
  • Pillars of Eternity
  • Crusader Kings II: Horse Lords
  • Crusader Kings II: Limited Collectors Edition
  • Crusader Kings II: Conclave
  • Hearts of Iron IV: No Step Back
  • Europa Universalis III: Chronicles
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Crusader Kings II: Charlemagne
  • Crusader Kings II: Legacy of Rome
  • Crusader Kings II: The Old Gods
  • Crusader Kings II: Rajas of India
  • Crusader Kings II: The Republic
  • Crusader Kings II: Sons of Abraham
  • Crusader Kings II: Sunset Invasion
  • Crusader Kings II: Sword of Islam
  • Commander: Conquest of the Americas
  • Deus Vult
  • Europa Universalis III
  • A Game of Dwarves
  • Divine Wind
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Europa Universalis IV: Conquest of Paradise
  • For the Motherland
  • Hearts of Iron III
  • Hearts of Iron III Collection
  • Heir to the Throne
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • King Arthur II
  • The Kings Crusade
This would actually be possible with the new border system, and something I'd like to do at some point. It could simply work by having two empires agree not to take systems next to each other, and have a CB to force out any other empire that tries to take those systems. It would be a good way to have stable borders with Xenophobic Isolationists and the like.

You know, Wiz, if you had a mechanic like this, it would mean we could build our own xenophobic FEs. You combine a neutral zone mechanic with Inward Perfection, and you are off an running on your path to being a big, mean, xenophobic empire that sits in its corner of the galaxy and kills anyone who tries to get too close.
 

Kajan451

Private
36 Badges
Sep 4, 2012
12
0
  • Dungeonland
  • Pillars of Eternity
  • Warlock 2: Wrath of the Nagas
  • Warlock 2: The Exiled
  • Starvoid
  • Europa Universalis III
  • Shadowrun: Dragonfall
  • Shadowrun Returns
  • Cities: Skylines - Parklife
  • Cities: Skylines - Parklife Pre-Order
  • Age of Wonders III
  • Mount & Blade: Warband
  • BATTLETECH
  • Cities: Skylines - Mass Transit
  • Shadowrun: Hong Kong
  • Stellaris - Path to Destruction bundle
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Stellaris
  • Cities: Skylines - After Dark
  • BATTLETECH: Flashpoint
  • Crusader Kings II: Horse Lords
  • Mount & Blade: With Fire and Sword
  • Magicka: Wizard Wars Founder Wizard
  • 500k Club
  • Warlock: Master of the Arcane
  • Teleglitch: Die More Edition
  • Europa Universalis III: Chronicles
  • Divine Wind
  • Heir to the Throne
  • Sword of the Stars
  • Sword of the Stars II
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Cities: Skylines
  • Crusader Kings II: Sword of Islam
  • Crusader Kings II: Sons of Abraham
While you are working on this, can we also please improve the way Federations handle their Wars? Whenever some Federation Member agrees to a war against someone, they randomly assign me Planets i do not even want. Please have them assign me a Warscore budget to make my own demands and not just assign me random planets i have no interest in.

I right now have a game where we founded a Federation, and our weakest member is trying to reclaim space from the guy that previously beaten them to a pulp. He has 2 remote systems on the left side of my empire, while his main empire is on the right side to me. Yet the Alliance constantly assigns me planets on the right side, while i would actually ask for the two systems on my left, just so i do not have him on both sides of my empire.

And i really dislike that i do not seem to be able to change that and say "no AI i do not want this planet, rather give me that planet", unless i start the war.
 

PirateJack

Lt. General
69 Badges
Jun 1, 2009
1.388
630
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Cities: Skylines - After Dark
  • Victoria 2: A House Divided
  • Semper Fi
  • Europa Universalis IV: Res Publica
  • Magicka
  • Hearts of Iron III: Their Finest Hour
  • Hearts of Iron III
  • For the Motherland
  • Europa Universalis IV: Wealth of Nations
  • Europa Universalis IV: Conquest of Paradise
  • Europa Universalis IV: Art of War
  • Europa Universalis III: Chronicles
  • Crusader Kings II: Charlemagne
  • Arsenal of Democracy
  • Crusader Kings II: Legacy of Rome
  • Crusader Kings II: The Old Gods
  • Crusader Kings II: Rajas of India
  • Crusader Kings II: The Republic
  • Crusader Kings II: Sons of Abraham
  • Crusader Kings II: Sunset Invasion
  • Crusader Kings II: Sword of Islam
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rights of Man
  • Stellaris: Digital Anniversary Edition
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Cities: Skylines - Natural Disasters
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Together for Victory
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Expansion Pass
  • Crusader Kings II: Monks and Mystics
  • Surviving Mars: First Colony Edition
  • Cities: Skylines - Mass Transit
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mandate of Heaven
  • Surviving Mars
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Death or Dishonor
  • Cities: Skylines - Green Cities
  • Stellaris: Humanoids Species Pack
  • Crusader Kings II: Reapers Due
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Stellaris: Apocalypse
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mare Nostrum
  • Europa Universalis IV: Dharma
  • Cities: Skylines - Parklife
  • Europa Universalis IV: Common Sense
  • Europa Universalis IV: El Dorado
  • Stellaris: Distant Stars
  • Prison Architect
  • 500k Club
  • Warlock 2: The Exiled
  • Stellaris: Nemesis
  • Victoria 2
One idea for this, could be to only allow the attacker to make claims, if the defenders begin making claims during the war. I still think it should be more expensive for the attackers to make claims during war if allowed, but this would mean that a defender makes the choice if they want to risk escalating the war, by themselves claiming enemy territory.

Alternately, you could tie the ability to make claims in a war behind some of those border growth perks that are now redundant. Merely making claims cheaper(or something similar) for that Border Growth Ascension perk, could be spiced up by allowing claims to be made while at war too.

The worry is more that the attacker could start making additional claims once they've already effectively won the war, making it really easy to snowball.
 

Tavior

Field Marshal
65 Badges
May 25, 2012
3.157
319
  • 500k Club
  • Tyranny - Bastards Wound
  • Majesty 2 Collection
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Crusader Kings II: The Republic
  • Crusader Kings II: The Old Gods
  • Crusader Kings II: Sons of Abraham
  • Crusader Kings II: Jade Dragon
  • Crusader Kings II: Reapers Due
  • Crusader Kings II: Way of Life
  • Crusader Kings II: Monks and Mystics
  • Crusader Kings II: Charlemagne
  • Crusader Kings II: Sword of Islam
  • Crusader Kings II: Rajas of India
  • Crusader Kings II: Sunset Invasion
  • Crusader Kings II: Legacy of Rome
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rule Britannia
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cossacks
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rights of Man
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Hearts of Iron III
  • Hearts of Iron IV Sign-up
From what I can tell, the war leader doesn't determine who gets which claims. That's entirely down to how much influence each empire spends to make their claim stronger. So say you're in a federation of five empires, three of which have a claim on a system. Each of the three claimants would spend influence to increase the level of their claim. Say that the system rates claims on a scale of 1-5, 1 being essentially the same as gold prospecting, 5 being a former homeworld. One empire in a federation could have just a level 1 claim, they're not that invested in the place, but staked it first so they'd have the greatest claim to it if everyone else only had level 1 claims. However, the other two empires could have level 3 claims. They've realised there's a primitive civilisation in the system that they'd like to force into the mines, so they've been in a bidding war to try and guarantee they win it at the end of the war.

So the war goes on, the federation eventually wins. Neither of the two empires have spent more influence to increase their claim on the system, so it goes to the one who staked the claim first without any involvement by the war leader.

This is not necessarily a good thing, though, as a slaver empire now has a very strong claim on a system of another federation member. This could form the basis of the federation collapsing after the war.

I was thinking along the line of winning the war and having to decide if you want to piss off your allies and take those claim. Otherwise you would end up with weird cases like "start a war" only to lose control over who get claim just because you are "not the war leader".

Edit: To use EU 4's language war leader is the closest thing I can think of. I don't think I would like losing control of who get claims either.
 

PirateJack

Lt. General
69 Badges
Jun 1, 2009
1.388
630
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Cities: Skylines - After Dark
  • Victoria 2: A House Divided
  • Semper Fi
  • Europa Universalis IV: Res Publica
  • Magicka
  • Hearts of Iron III: Their Finest Hour
  • Hearts of Iron III
  • For the Motherland
  • Europa Universalis IV: Wealth of Nations
  • Europa Universalis IV: Conquest of Paradise
  • Europa Universalis IV: Art of War
  • Europa Universalis III: Chronicles
  • Crusader Kings II: Charlemagne
  • Arsenal of Democracy
  • Crusader Kings II: Legacy of Rome
  • Crusader Kings II: The Old Gods
  • Crusader Kings II: Rajas of India
  • Crusader Kings II: The Republic
  • Crusader Kings II: Sons of Abraham
  • Crusader Kings II: Sunset Invasion
  • Crusader Kings II: Sword of Islam
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rights of Man
  • Stellaris: Digital Anniversary Edition
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Cities: Skylines - Natural Disasters
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Together for Victory
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Expansion Pass
  • Crusader Kings II: Monks and Mystics
  • Surviving Mars: First Colony Edition
  • Cities: Skylines - Mass Transit
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mandate of Heaven
  • Surviving Mars
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Death or Dishonor
  • Cities: Skylines - Green Cities
  • Stellaris: Humanoids Species Pack
  • Crusader Kings II: Reapers Due
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Stellaris: Apocalypse
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mare Nostrum
  • Europa Universalis IV: Dharma
  • Cities: Skylines - Parklife
  • Europa Universalis IV: Common Sense
  • Europa Universalis IV: El Dorado
  • Stellaris: Distant Stars
  • Prison Architect
  • 500k Club
  • Warlock 2: The Exiled
  • Stellaris: Nemesis
  • Victoria 2
While you are working on this, can we also please improve the way Federations handle their Wars? Whenever some Federation Member agrees to a war against someone, they randomly assign me Planets i do not even want. Please have them assign me a Warscore budget to make my own demands and not just assign me random planets i have no interest in.

I right now have a game where we founded a Federation, and our weakest member is trying to reclaim space from the guy that previously beaten them to a pulp. He has 2 remote systems on the left side of my empire, while his main empire is on the right side to me. Yet the Alliance constantly assigns me planets on the right side, while i would actually ask for the two systems on my left, just so i do not have him on both sides of my empire.

And i really dislike that i do not seem to be able to change that and say "no AI i do not want this planet, rather give me that planet", unless i start the war.

Read the Dev Diary again. The war goal system is being completely removed in favour of claims. Claims go to those who've spent the most influence on them, amongst allies on the victorious side.
 

chrisjwmartin

Captain
48 Badges
Mar 4, 2013
379
821
  • Crusader Kings II: Charlemagne
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Victoria 2: Heart of Darkness
  • Victoria 2: A House Divided
  • Semper Fi
  • Victoria: Revolutions
  • Heir to the Throne
  • Hearts of Iron III Collection
  • Hearts of Iron III: Their Finest Hour
  • Hearts of Iron III
  • For the Motherland
  • Europa Universalis IV: Conquest of Paradise
  • Crusader Kings II: The Old Gods
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Crusader Kings II: Legacy of Rome
  • Crusader Kings II: Rajas of India
  • Crusader Kings II: The Republic
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Crusader Kings II: Sunset Invasion
  • Crusader Kings II: Sword of Islam
  • Europa Universalis III
  • Crusader Kings II: Sons of Abraham
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cradle of Civilization
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Crusader Kings II: Reapers Due
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Crusader Kings II: Monks and Mystics
  • BATTLETECH
  • Surviving Mars
  • Age of Wonders III
  • Age of Wonders: Planetfall Sign Up
  • BATTLETECH - Digital Deluxe Edition
  • Imperator: Rome Sign Up
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Stellaris
  • Crusader Kings II: Conclave
  • Crusader Kings II: Horse Lords
  • Pillars of Eternity
  • Crusader Kings II: Way of Life
  • Europa Universalis IV: Pre-order
  • Cities: Skylines
  • War of the Roses
  • Victoria 2
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Stellaris - Path to Destruction bundle
What would be the use of such a white peace? If you're not making progress, you can settle for just what you have taken already.
1. The losing side would be more willing to agree to it. Sometimes the attacker suddenly wants to end a war quickly - they are being attacked by someone nastier, for example.
2. It could come with an opinion boost from the losing side. That is, they are grateful that you didn't annex their systems like you could have done. Not a big enough opinion boost to counteract the war you were in, but it would be less devastating to relations than an uti possidetis peace.
 

PirateJack

Lt. General
69 Badges
Jun 1, 2009
1.388
630
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Cities: Skylines - After Dark
  • Victoria 2: A House Divided
  • Semper Fi
  • Europa Universalis IV: Res Publica
  • Magicka
  • Hearts of Iron III: Their Finest Hour
  • Hearts of Iron III
  • For the Motherland
  • Europa Universalis IV: Wealth of Nations
  • Europa Universalis IV: Conquest of Paradise
  • Europa Universalis IV: Art of War
  • Europa Universalis III: Chronicles
  • Crusader Kings II: Charlemagne
  • Arsenal of Democracy
  • Crusader Kings II: Legacy of Rome
  • Crusader Kings II: The Old Gods
  • Crusader Kings II: Rajas of India
  • Crusader Kings II: The Republic
  • Crusader Kings II: Sons of Abraham
  • Crusader Kings II: Sunset Invasion
  • Crusader Kings II: Sword of Islam
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rights of Man
  • Stellaris: Digital Anniversary Edition
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Cities: Skylines - Natural Disasters
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Together for Victory
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Expansion Pass
  • Crusader Kings II: Monks and Mystics
  • Surviving Mars: First Colony Edition
  • Cities: Skylines - Mass Transit
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mandate of Heaven
  • Surviving Mars
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Death or Dishonor
  • Cities: Skylines - Green Cities
  • Stellaris: Humanoids Species Pack
  • Crusader Kings II: Reapers Due
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Stellaris: Apocalypse
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mare Nostrum
  • Europa Universalis IV: Dharma
  • Cities: Skylines - Parklife
  • Europa Universalis IV: Common Sense
  • Europa Universalis IV: El Dorado
  • Stellaris: Distant Stars
  • Prison Architect
  • 500k Club
  • Warlock 2: The Exiled
  • Stellaris: Nemesis
  • Victoria 2
I was thinking along the line of winning the war and having to decide if you want to piss off your allies and take those claim. Otherwise you would end up with weird cases like "start a war" only to lose control over who get claim just because you are "not the war leader".

If the ally doesn't want the claim as much as you do then you get it by sheer browbeating. If they do want it as much as you, then they'll spend more influence to guarantee receiving it at the end of the war. If it's a tie, well, you both want it equally as much. That's not something that is easy to work around. You just need to look at the Falkland Islands to see how minor claims can become major reasons for war, if both sides make them an issue.

Either way, the war leader plays no part in who gets what claim beyond choosing the overall wargoal, which would affect whether you'd get territory, influence, resources, etc. out of it. The empire that gets the territory only gets it because they spent more influence than their ally (or they staked the claim first).

EDIT: This being in the instance of a complete victory against the opponent, rather than a status quo or white peace (if it's included), of course.
 

Comando96

Recruit
74 Badges
Jul 1, 2014
7
2
  • Crusader Kings II: Charlemagne
  • Europa Universalis IV: Res Publica
  • Victoria 2: A House Divided
  • March of the Eagles
  • Victoria 2: Heart of Darkness
  • Heir to the Throne
  • Rome: Vae Victis
  • Hearts of Iron III: Their Finest Hour
  • Hearts of Iron III
  • Europa Universalis IV: Wealth of Nations
  • Europa Universalis IV: Conquest of Paradise
  • Europa Universalis IV: Art of War
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Divine Wind
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Crusader Kings II: Sword of Islam
  • Crusader Kings II: Sunset Invasion
  • Crusader Kings II: Sons of Abraham
  • Crusader Kings II: The Republic
  • Crusader Kings II: Rajas of India
  • Crusader Kings II: The Old Gods
  • Crusader Kings II: Legacy of Rome
  • Prison Architect
  • Mount & Blade: Warband
  • Mount & Blade: With Fire and Sword
  • Europa Universalis IV: Pre-order
  • Crusader Kings II: Way of Life
  • Europa Universalis IV: Common Sense
  • Crusader Kings II: Horse Lords
  • Cities: Skylines - After Dark
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cossacks
  • Crusader Kings II: Conclave
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mare Nostrum
  • Stellaris
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Europa Universalis IV: El Dorado
  • Cities: Skylines Deluxe Edition
  • Cities: Skylines
  • Victoria 2
  • Sengoku
  • Semper Fi
  • Rome Gold
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Hearts of Iron III Collection
  • For the Motherland
  • Europa Universalis IV: Call to arms event
  • Europa Universalis III: Chronicles
The worry is more that the attacker could start making additional claims once they've already effectively won the war, making it really easy to snowball.
Very true, but that would then merit the use of the surrender feature to prevent your enemy being able to take even more territory off of you. Ultimately it could be tied behind both, an Ascension Perk, and a defender making their own claims if other balancing failed. This way it would avoid the issue of snowballing, pretty much entirely, or at the very least the snowballing was enabled by your opponents hubris(or the need of further tweaks to the ai).
 

Riftwalker

Field Marshal
96 Badges
Feb 26, 2016
3.575
33
  • Crusader Kings II: Jade Dragon
  • Europa Universalis IV: Res Publica
  • Semper Fi
  • Sword of the Stars
  • Sword of the Stars II
  • Victoria 2: A House Divided
  • Victoria 2: Heart of Darkness
  • Stellaris: Apocalypse
  • Cities: Skylines Deluxe Edition
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Expansion Pass
  • Crusader Kings II: Charlemagne
  • Cities: Skylines - After Dark
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cossacks
  • Cities: Skylines - Snowfall
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mare Nostrum
  • Stellaris
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Knights of Honor
  • Stellaris - Path to Destruction bundle
  • Cities: Skylines - Natural Disasters
  • Magicka
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Crusader Kings II: Legacy of Rome
  • Crusader Kings II: The Old Gods
  • Crusader Kings II: Rajas of India
  • Crusader Kings II: The Republic
  • Crusader Kings II: Sons of Abraham
  • Crusader Kings II: Sunset Invasion
  • Crusader Kings II: Sword of Islam
  • Europa Universalis IV: Art of War
  • Europa Universalis IV: Conquest of Paradise
  • Majesty 2 Collection
  • Leviathan: Warships
  • For the Motherland
  • Knights of Pen and Paper +1 Edition
  • Hearts of Iron III
  • Hearts of Iron III: Their Finest Hour
  • Europa Universalis IV: Wealth of Nations
  • Victoria 2
  • Stellaris: Digital Anniversary Edition
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rights of Man
  • Crusader Kings II: Reapers Due
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Teleglitch: Die More Edition
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Crusader Kings II: Conclave
  • Warlock: Master of the Arcane
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Crusader Kings II: Horse Lords
  • Stellaris: Necroids
You know, Wiz, if you had a mechanic like this, it would mean we could build our own xenophobic FEs. You combine a neutral zone mechanic with Inward Perfection, and you are off an running on your path to being a big, mean, xenophobic empire that sits in its corner of the galaxy and kills anyone who tries to get too close.

first contact with a Xenophopbic FE they DEMAND you respect a DMZ around them, if you decline, they'll be very angry, and also very armed, with an enforce DMZ casus belli
 

ragehavoc

First Lieutenant
1 Badges
Jul 5, 2017
245
1
  • Crusader Kings II
This system seems to discourage making allies as I would not want to get into a bidding war over a system or even multiple systems, especially with a weaker ally who just so happens to have more influence than me, so I do all the work and get none of the rewards.... I also hope you improve the AI considerably as it doesn't seem the like the current AI would do very well with these conditions.
 

The Founder

Field Marshal
55 Badges
Mar 13, 2013
13.051
3.159
  • A Game of Dwarves
  • Stellaris: Synthetic Dawn
  • Sword of the Stars II
  • Crusader Kings II: Sword of Islam
  • Crusader Kings II: Sunset Invasion
  • Crusader Kings II: Sons of Abraham
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Stellaris: Federations
  • Surviving Mars
  • Age of Wonders III
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Expansion Pass
  • Stellaris: Humanoids Species Pack
  • Stellaris: Apocalypse
  • Surviving Mars: Digital Deluxe Edition
  • Cities: Skylines - Parklife
  • Stellaris: Distant Stars
  • Shadowrun: Dragonfall
  • Shadowrun: Hong Kong
  • Surviving Mars: First Colony Edition
  • Crusader Kings III
  • Surviving Mars: First Colony Edition
  • Stellaris: Ancient Relics
  • Age of Wonders: Planetfall
  • Age of Wonders: Planetfall Deluxe edition
  • Age of Wonders: Planetfall Sign Up
  • Stellaris: Lithoids
  • Age of Wonders: Planetfall - Revelations
  • BATTLETECH
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Stellaris: Necroids
  • Warlock 2: The Exiled
  • Warlock 2: Wrath of the Nagas
  • Cities: Skylines
  • Stellaris: Nemesis
  • Europa Universalis IV: Common Sense
  • Crusader Kings II: Legacy of Rome
  • Stellaris
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rights of Man
  • Major Wiki Contributor
  • Stellaris: Digital Anniversary Edition
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Together for Victory
  • Crusader Kings II: The Old Gods
  • Crusader Kings II: Rajas of India
  • Crusader Kings II: The Republic
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Death or Dishonor
  • Ancient Space
  • Stellaris: Distant Stars Pre-Order
  • Imperator: Rome
1) can you surrender immediately after you've started a war? (like if you declare a war on someone who has no claims on you...and surrender before he can make any to ensure a 10year truce)
Surrender means you give any claim to the other side, including ones not occupied.
While you do not even get teh claimed systems you occupy.

2)If claims are everlasting can you claim the whole galaxy...without waging any wars at all, given that you have enough influence? if yes will it mean that you'll get everything if you'll be able to win or there is a limit?
The cost of claims increases with Distance to personal borders and Development. And short of forcing a surrender, you have to actually occupy every last one of those systems.

3)if you can't downgrade occupied starbases...what will happen if you occupy all upgraded starbases from your enemy? he will not be able to upgrade more and so he'll loose ability to build more fleet?
I would guess occupation of all/most starbases is a requirement to force surrender.

4)can I use claims to stop colonizing planets near my space? or they'll just ignore it?(mostly apply to games vs ai)
The way to claim a System that is not owned is to build a Outpost there as the first guy. So far it seems claims are based on Systems with a existing outpost.
Under "futher thoughts" they talk about a way to "call dibs" on a System.

I wonder if there’s any change to fleet design, so ships are fewer or are more limited like in the screen shots. You’d think this would be the place to talk about that.
A "Fleet Command Limit" was teased in a number of Screenshoots and the Developer Corner. No details yet. Wich is a pitty, propably the core of the Anti-Doomstack measures.

While you are working on this, can we also please improve the way Federations handle their Wars? Whenever some Federation Member agrees to a war against someone, they randomly assign me Planets i do not even want. Please have them assign me a Warscore budget to make my own demands and not just assign me random planets i have no interest in.
That is another thing the Claim System takes care off. It deals with Federation and Defsive Warfare equally. Heck, the AI will propably pick enemies you have claims against.

This system seems to discourage making allies as I would not want to get into a bidding war over a system or even multiple systems, especially with a weaker ally who just so happens to have more influence than me, so I do all the work and get none of the rewards....
The cost of a claim is based on Distance to personal borders. If your ally try to steal a System far from him, it will cost him. And a lot more then you.
If you can not outbid someone that pays +50% distance surcharge, I think the ally deserves that system.
If it does not have such a surcharge, the ally has the same right to get it as you.
 

Riftwalker

Field Marshal
96 Badges
Feb 26, 2016
3.575
33
  • Crusader Kings II: Jade Dragon
  • Europa Universalis IV: Res Publica
  • Semper Fi
  • Sword of the Stars
  • Sword of the Stars II
  • Victoria 2: A House Divided
  • Victoria 2: Heart of Darkness
  • Stellaris: Apocalypse
  • Cities: Skylines Deluxe Edition
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Expansion Pass
  • Crusader Kings II: Charlemagne
  • Cities: Skylines - After Dark
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cossacks
  • Cities: Skylines - Snowfall
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mare Nostrum
  • Stellaris
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Knights of Honor
  • Stellaris - Path to Destruction bundle
  • Cities: Skylines - Natural Disasters
  • Magicka
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Crusader Kings II: Legacy of Rome
  • Crusader Kings II: The Old Gods
  • Crusader Kings II: Rajas of India
  • Crusader Kings II: The Republic
  • Crusader Kings II: Sons of Abraham
  • Crusader Kings II: Sunset Invasion
  • Crusader Kings II: Sword of Islam
  • Europa Universalis IV: Art of War
  • Europa Universalis IV: Conquest of Paradise
  • Majesty 2 Collection
  • Leviathan: Warships
  • For the Motherland
  • Knights of Pen and Paper +1 Edition
  • Hearts of Iron III
  • Hearts of Iron III: Their Finest Hour
  • Europa Universalis IV: Wealth of Nations
  • Victoria 2
  • Stellaris: Digital Anniversary Edition
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rights of Man
  • Crusader Kings II: Reapers Due
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Teleglitch: Die More Edition
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Crusader Kings II: Conclave
  • Warlock: Master of the Arcane
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Crusader Kings II: Horse Lords
  • Stellaris: Necroids
Surrender means you give any claim to the other side, including ones not occupied.
While you do not even get teh claimed systems you occupy.

from what i can tell, surrender is also only enforceable when you have totally defeated an enemy, war exhaustion to 100% is only to enforce status quo.

so, it's highly unlikely you'll ever need to just outright surrender unless you expect to be crushed.
 

eruditio

Recruit
6 Badges
Sep 29, 2013
7
0
www.odingaming.com
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Stellaris Sign-up
  • Cities: Skylines - Parklife
  • Cities: Skylines Industries
  • Stellaris
  • Stellaris - Path to Destruction bundle
I’m starting now to see the forest for the trees.

When @Wiz announced the changes to the border system in dev diary #91, I was sceptical. I enjoy the portion of the game that allowed me to passively assert my dominance through boosting border growth. Population growth was satisfying because of it. Some of my favourite Ascension Perks and Traditions took advantage of it. There was a certain enjoyment in enveloping another empire and choking its economy.

I see, now, why that concept had to go. The more subtle wargoals mechanism being proposed relies on more atomic “systems”. It’s systems, not planets, that are the crux of the Stellaris wargoals overhaul.

The Border Skirmish
I’d like to expand on the idea that this is a more subtle mechanism than the existing one. It’s more complex, for sure, though no more so than its equivalents in other Paradox titles.

Wiz has touched upon an interesting point and sparked the imagination with his mention of border skirmishes:

As wars can now be anything from a small border skirmish to a massive war of conquest (depending on the wargoal and number of claims), we felt that the Warscore system so common to our other games was inadequate for dealing with this variety, and tended to turn every conflict into a total war with one undisputed winner and another, utterly crushed loser.

This is an idea for which I’d be willing to trade my fondness of passive border expansion. The idea of a smaller border skirmish, for a few choice systems, is enticing. I mentioned in my first dev diary response that one of the big draws to Stellaris for me is its ability to pique the imagination, and this more flexible system of wargoals, claims, Casus Belli, and the ability to “Settle Status Quo” does just that. It allows for shifting borders even in a drawn out, unresolvable war.

Neutral Space
Star Trek. The Neutral Zone. Now the stuff of sci-fi legend, but conspicuously absent from – to my knowledge – any space strategy game. @pguyton wonders whether he’d be able to establish a neutral zone between himself and his hated neighbour. @Wiz takes his usual strategy of reeling us in:

This would actually be possible with the new border system, and something I’d like to do at some point. It could simply work by having two empires agree not to take systems next to each other, and have a CB to force out any other empire that tries to take those systems. It would be a good way to have stable borders with Xenophobic Isolationists and the like.​

Modding
I’m always on the lookout for modding stories. There are hundreds of Stellaris mods featured on Odin Gaming, so, naturally, one wonders how these new concepts can be exploited by modders. From @Wiz again:

Worth noting is that the CB/Wargoal system is entirely moddable and very easy to work with, so you can potentially set up all sorts of interesting Wargoals.​

A revoke claims and/or demand claims diplomatic interaction is something I’m considering.

Summary
The news of the Stellaris wargoals overhaul revealed today has made me more comfortable in general with some of the reforms being put forwards. I’m still not convinced that the most has been made of the opportunity to rework FTL, especially with the mention of system occupation, which adds further depth to FTL differentiation.

I can see that there are still a lot of ideas milling around behind the scenes. I’m excited to see it all pulled together in future diaries.

What about you? Strong opinions about the announcement? Leave a comment below and subscribe if you want to hear more about Stellaris updates in the future. Also consider checking out more Stellaris posts on Odin Gaming!
 

ragehavoc

First Lieutenant
1 Badges
Jul 5, 2017
245
1
  • Crusader Kings II
The cost of a claim is based on Distance to personal borders. If your ally try to steal a System far from him, it will cost him. And a lot more then you.
If you can not outbid someone that pays +50% distance surcharge, I think the ally deserves that system.

first of all that ONLY applies to allies far away, if they border you and the enemy empire, that wont apply and given that defense pacts, federations, etc. are typically based upon distance, you are less likely to have an ally far far away.

second if I do ALL of the work, the ally most certainly does NOT deserve the systems I took, just because they were able to outbid me on a claim, heck I can see easily abusing this system, by angering an empire through threats or rivalrys and having a very weak fleet but being in an alliance of sort with an empire equal to the one you anger, than you just simply have to save up your influence, sit back, and let the allies do all the work for you, no need to even bother with fleets.
 

JdeFalconr

Sergeant
21 Badges
May 7, 2016
54
110
  • Cities: Skylines Deluxe Edition
  • Stellaris
  • Stellaris: Synthetic Dawn
  • Stellaris: Necroids
  • Cities: Skylines
  • Stellaris: Federations
  • Stellaris: Lithoids
  • Stellaris: Ancient Relics
  • Stellaris: Megacorp
  • Stellaris: Distant Stars
  • Cities: Skylines - Parklife
  • Stellaris: Apocalypse
  • Stellaris: Humanoids Species Pack
  • Stellaris - Path to Destruction bundle
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Stellaris: Digital Anniversary Edition
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Cities: Skylines - Snowfall
  • Cities: Skylines - After Dark
  • Pillars of Eternity
"It is currently not possible to make claims on an enemy when you are the aggressor in a war against them."

I don't understand this in light of the rest of the Dev Diary. Does that statement only apply to a Status Quo peace? I don't think the intention was to say you can't take territory (make claims) if you start a fight. That sentence is in the War Goals and Peace Negotiations section.

Also THANK YOU for getting rid of warscore and warscore limits. They were an absurd and arbitrary means to prolong the life of a weak opponent. You shouldn't be forced to declare multiple wars over many in-game decades just to wipe out a wimpy empire with military force. I can much better appreciate you being limited not by some arbitrary number and instead by your own Influence.
 

John_Titor

Second Lieutenant
12 Badges
Oct 23, 2016
110
11
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Stellaris
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Stellaris: Synthetic Dawn
  • Stellaris: Apocalypse
  • Stellaris: Distant Stars
  • Shadowrun: Hong Kong
  • Stellaris: Megacorp
  • Stellaris: Ancient Relics
  • Stellaris: Federations
  • Stellaris - Path to Destruction bundle
Great stuff. I am really hoping that with the new CB system we can add even more diverse reasons to go to war. I would like a CB for xenophiles to defend primitive worlds from invasion/interference. Something like the Protected Planets Treaty from Stargate.
 

Comando96

Recruit
74 Badges
Jul 1, 2014
7
2
  • Crusader Kings II: Charlemagne
  • Europa Universalis IV: Res Publica
  • Victoria 2: A House Divided
  • March of the Eagles
  • Victoria 2: Heart of Darkness
  • Heir to the Throne
  • Rome: Vae Victis
  • Hearts of Iron III: Their Finest Hour
  • Hearts of Iron III
  • Europa Universalis IV: Wealth of Nations
  • Europa Universalis IV: Conquest of Paradise
  • Europa Universalis IV: Art of War
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Divine Wind
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Crusader Kings II: Sword of Islam
  • Crusader Kings II: Sunset Invasion
  • Crusader Kings II: Sons of Abraham
  • Crusader Kings II: The Republic
  • Crusader Kings II: Rajas of India
  • Crusader Kings II: The Old Gods
  • Crusader Kings II: Legacy of Rome
  • Prison Architect
  • Mount & Blade: Warband
  • Mount & Blade: With Fire and Sword
  • Europa Universalis IV: Pre-order
  • Crusader Kings II: Way of Life
  • Europa Universalis IV: Common Sense
  • Crusader Kings II: Horse Lords
  • Cities: Skylines - After Dark
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cossacks
  • Crusader Kings II: Conclave
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mare Nostrum
  • Stellaris
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Europa Universalis IV: El Dorado
  • Cities: Skylines Deluxe Edition
  • Cities: Skylines
  • Victoria 2
  • Sengoku
  • Semper Fi
  • Rome Gold
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Hearts of Iron III Collection
  • For the Motherland
  • Europa Universalis IV: Call to arms event
  • Europa Universalis III: Chronicles
I don't think the intention was to say you can't take territory (make claims) if you start a fight. That sentence is in the War Goals and Peace Negotiations section.
Would it make more sense if the sentence was changed to:
"It is currently not possible to fabricate further claims on an enemy when you are the aggressor in a war against them."
Because this is what I took it to mean.