1.4.1 Warscore/wargoal system must be reworked/overhauled.

[KopiG]

So I will show you a picture, tell me what is wrong with it.
Note: I am the Blorg Sovereign Holdings in green (half the galaxy)


Okay but to be serious: 3 planets? Seriously? Really? Have you seen the size of my empire? Okay let me ask again: 3 planets? Whaaaaaaaaaaat?

Okay next pictures:


So I had to occupy / bombard 20 planets to reach 100% wargoal. For a 3 planet war! This is serious issue which must be looked at!
The wargoal system absolutely fails after mid / late game. Early game is okayish but is an absolute a failure in mid / late game.
Okay last picture:
Why does an occupation worth 5 warscore while the blockade worth 7.5 . This makes zero sense . Must be the other way around!

 

[KopiG]

Gonna attach save file if you wanna look at it

 

[Adamsrealm]

Wargoals should be the goals of the war, and should be the only way to earn warscore. However each wargoal should only give ticking warscore and no immediate warscore, this way you HAVE to aim for and complete your goals to win and as a result the war would actually take time instead of these bullsh*t blitzkriegs we have at the moment.

The drawback of choosing larger amounts of wargoals should be added through, diplomatic, pop & empire penalties that increase with the amount of wargoals chosen. Attacking stations and planets outsides of your war goals should incure (temporary) negative ticking warscore that starts at a set value and reduces slowely overtime, as well as incuring further diplomatic, pop & empire penalties (this would prevent the spaceport wiping of enemy empires)

I also think that the only way to win a war should be through 100% warscore and ending a war without that should have much greater consiquences in the negotiations (e.g. Both sides get some of their wargoals, or all sides get none)

Additionally having temporary ceasefires or truces, without ending the war, would allow an empire time to recover from being slammed with a case of doomstack-itus, but you had to give the enemy a slight warscore boost to have one?

All in all the war system needs a complete rework and planet capturing needs to be fleshed out a lot and made into a task of its own instead of this "point, click, fireworks, armies, mine know" that we have.

 

[GuildenSpur]

I've mentioned this also. 3 planet war should be over after you take 3 planets otherwise why bother with specifying what planets you want?
I think Wiz mentioned something about not being totally happy with the warscore thingie.

 

[Zavaleta]

The EU4 system works great in my opinion. I don't see why parts of that system should not be incorporated.

 

[zanaikin]

Yeah they already fixed this in EU4 simply by allowing late game wars to grab more territory for the same warscore...
Sometimes I wonder if Paradox's different development teams don't talk to one another...

 

[CrazedSeal]

Maybe they should add additional technologies to lower the amount of warscore to take planets and other wargoals. Note: the galactic ambitions tech and the Manifest destiny techs already decrease the warscore by 5% each.

It wouldn't take much effort to change the warscore calculations to include the amount of planets the attacker has, the only real challenge is balancing it.
Also a suggestion is that if the war is a large size then it should become some galactic conflict of sorts.

 

[Adamsrealm]

Maybe they should add additional technologies to lower the amount of warscore to take planets and other wargoals. Note: the galactic ambitions tech and the Manifest destiny techs already decrease the warscore by 5% each.

It wouldn't take much effort to change the warscore calculations to include the amount of planets the attacker has, the only real challenge is balancing it.
Also a suggestion is that if the war is a large size then it should become some galactic conflict of sorts.

Techs should play no part in war other than offensive/defensive systems. Tech that directly influence wargoals and warscores are a bad idea. Techs that mitigate possible effects of choosing wargoals possibly, but allowing straight up more goals is seriously unbalanced.

 

[henzington]

Something like administerive efficiency would be useful to allow larger conquests but the issue is lack of a mechanic like overextension. I was able to conquered pops as frantic individualist and have zero faction issues with them.

 

[Darustet]

Wargoals should be the goals of the war, and should be the only way to earn warscore. However each wargoal should only give ticking warscore and no immediate warscore, this way you HAVE to aim for and complete your goals to win and as a result the war would actually take time instead of these bullsh*t blitzkriegs we have at the moment.

That would create other problems. Imagine a 20 planet empire, from which you are trying to conquer 3 planets. If you'd conquer over half of it, you should be entitled to more warscore than just holding the three specific planets you want as a spoils of war. If you would take only the said three and nothing else, that would give the opponent a chance to take the initiative and why would you want to let that happen? Why should the opponent want to surrender having lost but a mere 15% of its planets and retaining its ability to fight? Why not push on to cripple the said opponent? Even if you wouldn't get any extra warscore, you'd still weaken him and keep the upper hand.

And I'm not sure what is the alternative to blitzing.. declaring war and not attacking? If that really is a problem, then it has more to do about how the combat works and not about the warscore.

I do agree that late game warscore is broken and tickin warscore sounds promising, as do any extra value from occupying the actual wargoal planets, but other planets should still give warscore. Otherwise your war might become umwinnable, if your targets end up under occupation by some other random empire already fighting your opponent and now you have no means of gaining that warscore. That has happened to me a lot, last time was yesterday and my only solution was to conquer everything else and win the war before the other empire could or I would had permanently lost the warscore I had reserved for that planet during my declaration of war. After all, Stellaris doesn't give you the option to change the target after war declaration.

 

[Seryss]

Ticking is probably the best way to go. Whatever system is in place has to give the defenders a chance to defend; so a pure 1:1 planet demand to war score ratio just isn't going to work. They should also allow other ships the option to continually blockade even if another army has taken a planet. Also, change the maximum demands to something like your planets divide by 5 (rounding down to nearest whole number) plus 3.

 

[Adamsrealm]

That would create other problems. Imagine a 20 planet empire, from which you are trying to conquer 3 planets. If you'd conquer over half of it, you should be entitled to more warscore than just holding the three specific planets you want as a spoils of war. If you would take only the said three and nothing else, that would give the opponent a chance to take the initiative and why would you want to let that happen? Why should the opponent want to surrender having lost but a mere 15% of its planets and retaining its ability to fight? Why not push on to cripple the said opponent? Even if you wouldn't get any extra warscore, you'd still weaken him and keep the upper hand.

And I'm not sure what is the alternative to blitzing.. declaring war and not attacking? If that really is a problem, then it has more to do about how the combat works and not about the warscore.

I do agree that late game warscore is broken and tickin warscore sounds promising, as do any extra value from occupying the actual wargoal planets, but other planets should still give warscore. Otherwise your war might become umwinnable, if your targets end up under occupation by some other random empire already fighting your opponent and now you have no means of gaining that warscore. That has happened to me a lot, last time was yesterday and my only solution was to conquer everything else and win the war before the other empire could or I would had permanently lost the warscore I had reserved for that planet during my declaration of war. After all, Stellaris doesn't give you the option to change the target after war declaration.

First of all "Blitzkrieg" = (is german for) lightning war (just so you know )

Secondly I didn't say you couldn't attack other objectives, I just suggested penalties that dicourage wiping an empire to balance the game in the long run (especially pvp)

Lastly you are assuming the war would be unwinnabled based on current warscore values. For this, a simple thing just as adding a warscore modifier of +1000 for completing all objectives (but that would be broken and not solve lightning wars)

A better way would be to divide a value of 100 up amongst all of the wargoals.

E.g (you have 5 wargoals)

Cede planet - 20
Liberate planet - 20
Open borders - 20
Cleanse planet - 20
Humiliate - 20

20x5=100

However I do know that means larger amounts of goals would allow quicker completion via ticking warscore.
So i'd replace the ticking warscore given per month with a calculated percentage of the max warscore for that goal.
E.g. Give 5% ticking per month of 20, which means 20 months to complete a goal (regardless of overall value) with the percentage given each month varying for different goals based on goal type and the target in question.

The solid number display of the scores in the war tab should be replaced with a percentage display. This would allow much more intricate mechanism to be implemented in wargoal/score system without overcomplicating the tab. Though the option to switch back to the solid number tabs would be a nice addition.

So all we would see is:

(Example)

Warscore: 47% (true value 47.2, rounded to nearest percent)

Wargoal 1 - 48%. (9.6/20)
Wargoal 2 - 100%. (20/20)
Wargoal 3 - 32%. (6.4/20)
Wargoal 4 - 2%. (0.4/20)
Wargoal 5 - 54%. (10.8/20)

(ALL VALUES ARE PLACEHOLDERS FOR REPRESENTING THE CONCEPT)

 

[Darustet]

First of all "Blitzkrieg" = (is german for) lightning war (just so you know )

Secondly I didn't say you couldn't attack other objectives, I just suggested penalties that dicourage wiping an empire to balance the game in the long run (especially pvp)

I do know the meaning of the word blitzkrieg, but the closest you can get to actual blitzkrieg in Stellaris is a rabid deployment of forces on multiple fronts as soon as the war stars, aiming to overpower individual fleets before they can form a doomstack, crippling the opponent and penetrating deep into the enemy territory before they can muster any real opposition. That is something every attacker should strive for, as not blitzing is essentially handing the initiative to the enemy, both in the current warscore system and in the one you proposed.

To the warscore itself, I like your idea of cumulative warscore from controlling the target planets, but I see no reason why player who controls half of the empire's planets along with the target ones, should gain no additional warscore bonus from that. Balancing pvp is a good thing, but your system doesn't stop me from effectively wiping out the enemy, that is, destroying his fleets and infra. If the war would drag on because of me needing to wait for the warscore to slowly tick up, I would have even more time to occupy everything the other player has, crippling him even more if allowed to continue for extended period of time.

Lastly you are assuming the war would be unwinnabled based on current warscore values. For this, a simple thing just as adding a warscore modifier of +1000 for completing all objectives (but that would be broken and not solve lightning wars)

You got it backwards. In the scenario I gave, the war would be unwinnable only if it would use your system. In your system, I would not be able to gain warscore, if the targeted systems are under third party control by the time I get a chance to invade them. Currently, you can circumvent that by occupying everything else, while in your system that wouldn't gain me warscore.

Also, I can't get that +1000 warscore modifier you mentioned, because it is literally impossible for me to complete all my objectives required for that, because the said objectives are under third party control and thus invulnerable. If I could complete those objectives, I wouldn't need the bonus +1000 in the first place.

 

[pieman]

I think you just need to be able to spend influence to add war goals to a war after you've started, and current war goals should become worth less and less % the longer you've held them.

Also, would be cool if you give third party empires the ability to enter ongoing wars in some way that wont lead to instant gang-ups.

 

[Angelic_Daemon]

In my most recent game I couldn't get to one of the members of a federation to finish the war. I had taken everything I wanted and two of the empires didn't even show up even though they could get to me. Having a rather distasteful empire most wouldn't let me pass through their space, I was forced to declare war on another federation, just to get through their territory. I chose to humiliate the empire that I was passing through, ultimately I had to capture their capital world and destroy their fleet and sack a few other systems before they would cede.

 

[Adamsrealm]

I do know the meaning of the word blitzkrieg, but the closest you can get to actual blitzkrieg in Stellaris is a rabid deployment of forces on multiple fronts as soon as the war stars, aiming to overpower individual fleets before they can form a doomstack, crippling the opponent and penetrating deep into the enemy territory before they can muster any real opposition. That is something every attacker should strive for, as not blitzing is essentially handing the initiative to the enemy, both in the current warscore system and in the one you proposed.

To the warscore itself, I like your idea of cumulative warscore from controlling the target planets, but I see no reason why player who controls half of the empire's planets along with the target ones, should gain no additional warscore bonus from that. Balancing pvp is a good thing, but your system doesn't stop me from effectively wiping out the enemy, that is, destroying his fleets and infra. If the war would drag on because of me needing to wait for the warscore to slowly tick up, I would have even more time to occupy everything the other player has, crippling him even more if allowed to continue for extended period of time.



You got it backwards. In the scenario I gave, the war would be unwinnable only if it would use your system. In your system, I would not be able to gain warscore, if the targeted systems are under third party control by the time I get a chance to invade them. Currently, you can circumvent that by occupying everything else, while in your system that wouldn't gain me warscore.

Also, I can't get that +1000 warscore modifier you mentioned, because it is literally impossible for me to complete all my objectives required for that, because the said objectives are under third party control and thus invulnerable. If I could complete those objectives, I wouldn't need the bonus +1000 in the first place.

Having third parties take control of your objects preventing you from completing them is kind of a good thing. It wouldn't be a problem if the 3rd party was part of your war as it would count towards the groups wargoals completion. But an independent body in it's own war with its own obiectives should be able to block you from completing your wargoals, it's ups the stakes for declaring war and means you have to keep an eye of the global events (such as 3rd party war declarations) and punishes you for making bad decisions (such as taking ages to invade after declaring war).

You could declare on the third party in order to complete you goals, but then you'll have another war to commit to, and who will that drag into the conflict? Will the rest of the galaxy hate you for declaring war on the 3rd party? Will they all then declare war on you? You don't have the rite to be able to complete your wargoals, that's why you are at war to earn the rite to them, and if someone else blocks you then tough, you've got to make a decision.

either you can;
- Back out completely
- Dig in for another war (with the 3rd party & Co)
- Or compromise on your current obiectives.

The main thing stellaris is lacking is consequences for your actions. The game should not be focused around simple smash and grab wars, it should be about strategy, it's a god damned "GRAND Strategy Game" for crying out loud, it's not supposed to be simple. You should have to really consider whether you can potentially survive with the consequences of your actions, quick easy wins should not exist by default, only stupid mistakes should open up those opportunities.

And if you took that long to invade that a 3rd party took control, then that is your fault for not acting quickly and strategically, and I'll say it again that the game requires consequences. You softened up at target so a 3rd party took the intiative an grabbed what they could before you. If your wargoal is to take control of a planet from an enemy, but that planet is controlled by a 3rd party then you really have no grounds to take control as you don't control the planet, and neither does the party that you are trying to beat in a war.

Come on? Please tell me you see the sense in that? ^_^

 

[scaper12123]

In my mind, the warscore system is fine but it does not take into account enough information about the situation between the two empires to be entirely functional. As it stands now, the cost of wargoals seems to scale according to the size of your empire compared to the enemy. So if you have hundreds of planets under your control with the backing of all the angels of paradise and super mega god lasers on your space ships, it'll think your empire is super huge compared to the enemy. Thus the war goals against them will be expensive. In my mind, there should be a point at which the power of your empire compared to the enemy empire tips over from making things more expensive to being less expensive. Obviously, for an empire spanning half the galaxy and qualifying for a victory condition, this would be beyond the tipping point.

And, while i'm thinking about it, one thing that absolutely bugs me is the fact that taking the capital of an empire doesn't drastically cripple it in some way. I mean, you've basically taken over washington DC at that point - the enemy is going to be writhing in shock! It should at the very least give a lot of warscore. The same should go for taking targets of the war - it should be worth a whole bunch of warscore for taking them.

 

[Adamsrealm]

In my mind, the warscore system is fine but it does not take into account enough information about the situation between the two empires to be entirely functional. As it stands now, the cost of wargoals seems to scale according to the size of your empire compared to the enemy. So if you have hundreds of planets under your control with the backing of all the angels of paradise and super mega god lasers on your space ships, it'll think your empire is super huge compared to the enemy. Thus the war goals against them will be expensive. In my mind, there should be a point at which the power of your empire compared to the enemy empire tips over from making things more expensive to being less expensive. Obviously, for an empire spanning half the galaxy and qualifying for a victory condition, this would be beyond the tipping point.

And, while i'm thinking about it, one thing that absolutely bugs me is the fact that taking the capital of an empire doesn't drastically cripple it in some way. I mean, you've basically taken over washington DC at that point - the enemy is going to be writhing in shock! It should at the very least give a lot of warscore. The same should go for taking targets of the war - it should be worth a whole bunch of warscore for taking them.

I agree that taking a captial should have more drastic effects. I've thought of a few possibilities; it could kill your current empire leader (possibly all three of your scientisimain scientists as well). This would cause a war of succession within autocracies, which whilst unde whelming atm could be turned into something interesting.

Another option would be to make your capital be your influence storage depot and taking it pretty much depletes the enemies influence stores and rewards you with as much of the captured influence as you can take. Long term (but temporary) Empire wide debuffs for losing your capital would be a nice alternative as well, though I'd imagine they'd have to be balanced reletive to empire size as a debuff may cripple a smaller empire whilst barely scratching a larger one.

Though you would have to ensure that moving you capital was either not possible in war or took a long time to do, like a research project possibly? Moving your capital is very exploitable in war and with some of the mods I use that make capitals tempting targets if my enemy is about to cap the world I simply demolish all important buildings and relocate my captial with the click of a button, which is a fairly borked and broken mechanic

(A very good point you've raised here)

 

[scaper12123]

I agree that taking a captial should have more drastic effects. I've thought of a few possibilities; it could kill your current empire leader (possibly all three of your scientisimain scientists as well). This would cause a war of succession within autocracies, which whilst unde whelming atm could be turned into something interesting.

Another option would be to make your capital be your influence storage depot and taking it pretty much depletes the enemies influence stores and rewards you with as much of the captured influence as you can take. Long term (but temporary) Empire wide debuffs for losing your capital would be a nice alternative as well, though I'd imagine they'd have to be balanced reletive to empire size as a debuff may cripple a smaller empire whilst barely scratching a larger one.

Though you would have to ensure that moving you capital was either not possible in war or took a long time to do, like a research project possibly? Moving your capital is very exploitable in war and with some of the mods I use that make capitals tempting targets if my enemy is about to cap the world I simply demolish all important buildings and relocate my captial with the click of a button, which is a fairly borked and broken mechanic

(A very good point you've raised here)

I think killing leaders is a bit drastic, and a drain on influence wouldn't be nice either. All things considered, losing control of the capital is already a drain of influence since the empire capital complex is shut down during occupation. I don't think it should be possible to move the capital at all during a war, for obvious reasons.

What I think should happen is a) it becomes a major source of warscore, and capitals are buffed with more fortifications and tougher garrisons to make taking them significantly harder, and b) losing the capital during wartime results in a happiness/ethics divergence penalty. Those would be effective punishments without screwing over the player in a tight spot.

 

[pieman]

Having third parties take control of your objects preventing you from completing them is kind of a good thing. It wouldn't be a problem if the 3rd party was part of your war as it would count towards the groups wargoals completion. But an independent body in it's own war with its own obiectives should be able to block you from completing your wargoals, it's ups the stakes for declaring war and means you have to keep an eye of the global events (such as 3rd party war declarations) and punishes you for making bad decisions (such as taking ages to invade after declaring war).

You could declare on the third party in order to complete you goals, but then you'll have another war to commit to, and who will that drag into the conflict? Will the rest of the galaxy hate you for declaring war on the 3rd party? Will they all then declare war on you? You don't have the rite to be able to complete your wargoals, that's why you are at war to earn the rite to them, and if someone else blocks you then tough, you've got to make a decision.

either you can;
- Back out completely
- Dig in for another war (with the 3rd party & Co)
- Or compromise on your current obiectives.

The main thing stellaris is lacking is consequences for your actions. The game should not be focused around simple smash and grab wars, it should be about strategy, it's a god damned "GRAND Strategy Game" for crying out loud, it's not supposed to be simple. You should have to really consider whether you can potentially survive with the consequences of your actions, quick easy wins should not exist by default, only stupid mistakes should open up those opportunities.

And if you took that long to invade that a 3rd party took control, then that is your fault for not acting quickly and strategically, and I'll say it again that the game requires consequences. You softened up at target so a 3rd party took the intiative an grabbed what they could before you. If your wargoal is to take control of a planet from an enemy, but that planet is controlled by a 3rd party then you really have no grounds to take control as you don't control the planet, and neither does the party that you are trying to beat in a war.

Come on? Please tell me you see the sense in that? ^_^

One note i would have to make with your idea about 3rd party war meddling is that it would make for a very frustrating new player experience, not necessarily a wise move.