Small idea about doomstack discouragement

[kalauer]

Fellow Stellarians,

I just had an idea bout the in my opinion ever looming issue of doomstacks in space combat. But as I am in this forum merely intermittendly, I am unsure whether this idea has already been discussed and dismissed. Anyhow, here I go.

Problem: Due to the well discussed validity of Lanchester's square law (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lanchester's_laws) in Stellaris, concentrating your fleet is always better and you are going to win disproportional when you face a smaller fleet. In fact, you often end up with total destruction against losing maybe only some corvettes. Thus, doomstacks are in many cases the best way to go. Or the only one.

Idea: Mobility is an underrated property in this scenario. So what about reducing fleet sublight speed based on its size? There would be an incentive to split fleets in order to be faster and you would think twice before deploying your entire fleet to the other side of the galaxy for a small enemy. Maybe you just send a medium fleet because it is faster.
However, you would still concentrate your fleets for decisive battles, which is fine. But you would split them again afterwards, or at least there would be incentive to do so. This of course also depends on the topography. Also fine. When there is a single point to defend or attack to, sure I put my forces there.
For this modifier to speed fleet, there could be even some 'reality'-arguments (although I don't think they are necessary if it helps gameplay). For example fleet coordination. That's always a good one.

Implementation: This is the tricky part I believe. Just basing the speed penalty on nominal fleet size (maybe better: weighted ship size and count) would just add micro because you'd split the fleets and still let them fly together. So maybe this should be about number and size of shipd in a given system-radius? So when you have 50 corvettes inside 3 systems range, you get no penalties, but with 100, all of them move slower.

So again, what do you think of the idea? Would the intended effects be worth the effort? Would implementation be possible? Looking forward to your opinion.

 

[Zoolimar]

How is it going to work with current FTL? I could see it working with warp FTL as it was free movement but with hyperlanes you rarely even have a lot of choice where to concentrate your forces. You'll just make wars slower and more tedious with big doomstack still winning all the confrontations.

 

[kalauer]

How is it going to work with current FTL? I could see it working with warp FTL as it was free movement but with hyperlanes you rarely even have a lot of choice where to concentrate your forces. You'll just make wars slower and more tedious with big doomstack still winning all the confrontations.

Yes, indeed. With the current layouts, there are bottlenecks by design. And at these points, you would still have to concentrate your forces. However, I also feel that there is pretty much no movement at these points, so the slower movement would not matter so much. It would matter more in areas where there are more movement options.

This is probably also an issue of the hyperlane settings. But this hints to another issue: The current layout was introduced on purpose to make fortresses worthwhile. Quite successfully, I would argue. It is now a viable strategy to build stron space stations at choke points at least in early and mid-game to defend against strong fleets. In late game not so much.

Balancing this; i.e. viability of fortresses vs. usefulness of movement penalties in large fleets indeed seems like a conflict.

 

[Weserübung]

IF such a thing is even necessary I would not limit the speed - it takes ages to go anywhere already.

I'd suggest to use a supply based system. Ships use upkeep and this generates "weight" in supply needs. Starbases could provide a supply capacity and buildings and even dedicated plattforms could increase it and spread it to more distant systems - sort of like trade collection and protection.

If your fleet exceeds the capacity it gets a penalty, maybe fire rate drops, less damage value, stripping off a percentage of shield/armor/hull values or something like that and you might not even be able to move into systems that are totally beyond your supply reach. Allies and conquered systems need to be considered of course.

That way you cannot just send your big fleet all over the place but must build the infrastructure to maintain them, or use less ships. To support far away missions there could be a supply ship type or ship special components available for ship designs.

 

[slv]

If you reduce fleet speed based on its size it will merely cause players to split their 200 stack battleships into 200 different fleets with 1 battleship each and move them together as a stack. This won't change anything, except will cause more lag and clutter the outliner.

Instead if you want the idea to work impactfuly the speed debuff should be applied depending on the amount of ships in the system (and not in the fleet).

 

[methegrate]

Fellow Stellarians,

I just had an idea bout the in my opinion ever looming issue of doomstacks in space combat. But as I am in this forum merely intermittendly, I am unsure whether this idea has already been discussed and dismissed. Anyhow, here I go.

Problem: Due to the well discussed validity of Lanchester's square law (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lanchester's_laws) in Stellaris, concentrating your fleet is always better and you are going to win disproportional when you face a smaller fleet. In fact, you often end up with total destruction against losing maybe only some corvettes. Thus, doomstacks are in many cases the best way to go. Or the only one.

Idea: Mobility is an underrated property in this scenario. So what about reducing fleet sublight speed based on its size? There would be an incentive to split fleets in order to be faster and you would think twice before deploying your entire fleet to the other side of the galaxy for a small enemy. Maybe you just send a medium fleet because it is faster.
However, you would still concentrate your fleets for decisive battles, which is fine. But you would split them again afterwards, or at least there would be incentive to do so. This of course also depends on the topography. Also fine. When there is a single point to defend or attack to, sure I put my forces there.
For this modifier to speed fleet, there could be even some 'reality'-arguments (although I don't think they are necessary if it helps gameplay). For example fleet coordination. That's always a good one.

Implementation: This is the tricky part I believe. Just basing the speed penalty on nominal fleet size (maybe better: weighted ship size and count) would just add micro because you'd split the fleets and still let them fly together. So maybe this should be about number and size of shipd in a given system-radius? So when you have 50 corvettes inside 3 systems range, you get no penalties, but with 100, all of them move slower.

So again, what do you think of the idea? Would the intended effects be worth the effort? Would implementation be possible? Looking forward to your opinion.

I'm not sure how much it would change anything. If an empire is much smaller than you right now, you can send a handful of ships to squish them like a bug. If they're much bigger than you, the only option is to avoid a war.

So this really only applies to enemy empires that are somewhat in parity. In that case, the incentive would still always be to doomstack because who ever does would still win the war. You might want to reserve some ships back in case you need them elsewhere but, unless the enemy does the same thing, that split force will get beaten. So you should concentrate forces to prevent that (and take advantage if the enemy has split their own forces).

They already kind of tried this. Travel actually used to be much faster. In the 2.0 update they slowed it way down (so much so, in my opinion, that I don't understand how anyone can stand to play on any setting but fastest). The goal was exactly to your point. If concentrating your fleets leaves your empire exposed, because that fleet can't reinforce another border in time, then players will split their fleets. It hasn't worked because the certainty of losing against a concentrated opponent is virtually always worse than the risk of another empire declaring war on an undefended border.

 

[JabberwockySR]

Perhaps a hyperlane/stargate capacity limit? Hard to determine how to manage that against having doomstacks be impenetrable defense, but would provide added agility to *actual* small fleets but not 200 fleets of 1 ship each.

ETA: The more I ponder this, the more I like it. Beachhead losses, meaningful bonuses for flanking (2+ hyperlanes to come in), gives a reason to engage in blitzkrieg. Have the hyper lane registrar or some minor structure improve capacity so you have highways in your empire.

I would base transit capacity off some # of fleet capacity/day, have the big ship take a day to themselves.

 

[kalauer]

If you reduce fleet speed based on its size it will merely cause players to split their 200 stack battleships into 200 different fleets with 1 battleship each and move them together as a stack. This won't change anything, except will cause more lag and clutter the outliner.

Yes, good point. That's also the first thing that came to my mind. Thus I assumed one would rather implement system-modifiers or something similar, as these hyperlane limits, as proposed by@JabberwockySR . Just any means to give incentive to split the fleets in some circumstances. While there surely will always be situations where stacking is the best option. And limiting mobility seems one possible approach. I mean, there is this 'smaller force' bonus, but it didn't really help. Maybe modifying the combat won't help but working on the strategic deployment will.

I'm not sure how much it would change anything. If an empire is much smaller than you right now, you can send a handful of ships to squish them like a bug. If they're much bigger than you, the only option is to avoid a war.

I think you are right that in strong empire strenght disparity, these measures won't help. But I would argue they are not supposed to. When one empire is clearly way stronger, of course they must crush the opponent. Anything else would be very frustrating. This point is more about somewhat equal strategic positions, in which you currently have to concentrate your forces, ending up with doomstacks. Adding reasons why splitting the forces can be beneficial is something that has been pursued for a long time, from what I can tell. And the thought is that influencing mobility could be a way. Especially since moving around does take quite some time now.
Maybe one could think it the other way around and give small fleets a movement bonus, if that sounds better .

In general, I would envision a mechanic that incentivizes sending task forces just strong enough to do the job (or a bit stronger to be safe) instead of deploying everything I have to minimize losses. And if being at the front fast is a relevant thing, this change might just do it.

 

[Zoolimar]

When one empire is clearly way stronger, of course they must crush the opponent. Anything else would be very frustrating.

The problem with this point is not doomstacking per se. It's the fact that deployment of the fleet doesn't cost you anything. In fact you gonna save yourself money on replacing the ships if you send them all to fight a single enemy. The only reason you may have to leave some ships at home is if you have other aggressive neighbours but with 10 year unbreakable truces it's rarely a problem as you will fight a big enemy first to a standstill, get a truce and then gobble up the weaklings around you while the truce lasts.

Deployment costs, supplies, whatever are needed so that throwing your whole fleet at a much smaller enemy is not always economically viable. Or just remove the magic truce rule. That will allow you to doomstack weaker opponents only if you have completely secured all other borders.

 

[Snoipah]

In every game I play on I never have just one fleet, but several at max fleet command. Same goes for the AI, but I play on grand admiral.

 

[Derp]

this solution sounds worse than the supposed problem

 

[kalauer]

The problem with this point is not doomstacking per se. It's the fact that deployment of the fleet doesn't cost you anything.

Well there are the lowered maintenance costs if your fleets are in port and I also thought about that for some time now. Maybe just raising those would help. But I believe this has been tried before and it did not work. You would jsut have to gear the economy differently to support doomstacking. But you would still do it.
That's actually the point why I thought that addressing soft factors (getting things done faster) rather than another resource modifier might help.

this solution sounds worse than the supposed problem

I can see that if you don't perceive doomstacks as a problem, that is true. But what exactly is the 'worse' part?

In every game I play on I never have just one fleet, but several at max fleet command. Same goes for the AI, but I play on grand admiral.

Sure, I mean this fleet limit was, in my interpretation, also introduced to tackle doomstacking to some degree. And I feel it worked a bit. I for once usually have a fast fleet consisting only of corvettes for the minor everyday tasks and wars and several balanced or adaptable fleets for major threats. And actually, this idea is building upon this structure to have fast fleets and 'stronger' fleets. However, both according fleet strength and performance, I hardly see differences between corvette-only fleets and blaanced ones in most encounters.

Now, having an incentive to use smaller fleets because you can move around faster would feel rewarding. But I can acknowledge this is also an issue of taste.

 

[Zoolimar]

Well there are the lowered maintenance costs if your fleets are in port and I also thought about that for some time now. Maybe just raising those would help. But I believe this has been tried before and it did not work. You would jsut have to gear the economy differently to support doomstacking. But you would still do it.

That depends on the cost. If the price of supporting your whole fleet in war indefinitely is removing all the labs on all the worlds that may very well be too much of a price. Gearing economy to something always comes at a cost to something else. In this case you clearly will need sacrifice more of your research and unity. Thus time of the war and ability to throw fleets at the enemy is now naturally set at your capacity to store resources before starting a war.

If you suffer income setbacks for fleet deployment hard enough that you are in the red you also won't be able to easily replace lost ships as each replaced ship cuts into your ability to continue deployment of your fleets. Drag the war long enough or deploy the ships far enough and you risk eating all the penalties for the lack of resources in stockpile and not being able to pay upkeep on your buildings.

 

[Deggial]

Perhaps a hyperlane/stargate capacity limit? Hard to determine how to manage that against having doomstacks be impenetrable defense, but would provide added agility to *actual* small fleets but not 200 fleets of 1 ship each.

ETA: The more I ponder this, the more I like it. Beachhead losses, meaningful bonuses for flanking (2+ hyperlanes to come in), gives a reason to engage in blitzkrieg. Have the hyper lane registrar or some minor structure improve capacity so you have highways in your empire.

I would base transit capacity off some # of fleet capacity/day, have the big ship take a day to themselves.

This was exactly my idea, when I started to read the first posts in this thread.
This concept reminds me to the gates in “The Expanse”, where only so and so many ships can pass per time.

I don’t know, if the solution would be desirable for the enjoyment of the game, though.
But it think it would at least effectively serve the purpose of the OP’s suggestion.
(And it would certainly invalidate the idea of splitting and micromanaging fleets to speed up travel times.)

 

[Zoolimar]

This was exactly my idea, when I started to read the first posts in this thread.
This concept reminds me to the gates in “The Expanse”, where only so and so many ships can pass per time.

I don’t know, if the would be desirable for the enjoyment of the game.

Gonna lead to Vorkosigan books universe situation where nations are more or less incapable to attack each other as it is impossible to push enough ships through a wormhole to beat the defences on the other side. The only way it can be done is through different underhanded tactics, spies and sabotage. Otherwise losses will be absolutely atrocious.

 

[Aotrs Commander]

In general, I would envision a mechanic that incentivizes sending task forces just strong enough to do the job (or a bit stronger to be safe) instead of deploying everything I have to minimize losses. And if being at the front fast is a relevant thing, this change might just do it.

But that's just forcing bad strategy, though, because in order to make that happen, you're having to artifically enforce a game rule to make one of the most fundemental concepts of warfare not apply.

You can't NOT have doomstacks happen, because concentration of force is literally a corner-stone of military strategy.

The only thing you can do it mitigate it (as they have done, with the low travel times almost making Gaeways a necessity in the late-game); and the best way of doing that would be to implement a full-on proper supply system with little to no abstraction (i.e., actually have supply points or whatever have a travel time).

(I've said this many a time.)

But the problem with using a real-world-level supply system is, basically, that it is fracking hard and a sort of hard most people really don't want do deal with. (We have had people complainging that they don't like even having to use the ship designer, even.) So while I'd be quite happy doing that - and maybe you would - but it's a level of complexity (and necessarily micro-management) that would put most people, I think, off.

Not to mention anything you add that complicates the system makes it even HARDER for them to program the AI, and the AI being too easy is one of the most frequent complaints I see on these forums.

 

[Ryika]

We already have anti-doomstack mechanics: The one where smaller fleets get a combat bonus to increase the losses of the larger fleet, and natively the fact that one big fleet is less mobile than 8 smaller fleets. If they can roam freely, smaller fleets will totally wreck you in terms of warscore if you insist on staying with that one, immobile doomstack.

The reasons why that doesn't quite work:
- By default the galaxy really isn't designed in a way that gives the space to maneuver around a lot.
- Stations are strong enough that splitting your fleets is often not an option
- The AI isn't very good at outmaneuvering other players

Is that a problem? Maybe. If we want to change that, I don't think we need to introduce new, weird mechanics though. We would simply need more connections between star clusters (the hyperlane setting does not affect this as far as I can tell), so ships can fly around larger fleets into undefended space and counter-attack instead of running into a starbase that they can't deal with. The strategy against a large doomstack should be to never engage it.

 

[kalauer]

But that's just forcing bad strategy, though, because in order to make that happen, you're having to artifically enforce a game rule to make one of the most fundemental concepts of warfare not apply.

You can't NOT have doomstacks happen, because concentration of force is literally a corner-stone of military strategy.

I totally agree on the point that not making force concentration a thing would both be in vain and counter-intuitive. But that's also not my intention. The idea merely is to create rules that allow for situations where splitting the forces is indeed the better option, as it is in reality sometimes.
At the moment, the best incentive to do this is to grab as many undefended systems as possible quickly, but that only applies when the war is practically over already and no enemy fleet poses a serious threat. Implementing movement benefits for smaller fleets would extend the war phases where splitting the forces could be a valid strategy to both preparation and execution of operations. There was a quote for this about marching and striking somewhere.

To add to the supply-system: Yes, there are mechanics that would certainly go over the top and any meaningful supply system might be just one of those. And your concers about the AI are very much valid. Even after the last update which supposedly enahnced the war AI, I've seen some serious strategic errors. But I still ahve to follow the respective dev diary's suggestion to play a game with the AI's intention visible. Maybe this helps understanding their predicament.

edit:

The strategy against a large doomstack should be to never engage it.

Also agreed. And that's actually another argument for increasing smaller fleet's speed. As of now, they can't really outrun big fleets. With this modifier, they could, making hit and run tactics much more viable.

 

[Dazz]

So what about reducing fleet sublight speed based on its size?

Unpractical. The player can split fleets so that each fleet have exactly ONE ship for a doomstack of FULL SPEED.

 

[Derp]

I can see that if you don't perceive doomstacks as a problem, that is true. But what exactly is the 'worse' part?

the worse part is that now i'm dicking around with things to try to circumvent a pointless penalty instead of just playing the game