1.4.1 Warscore/wargoal system must be reworked/overhauled.

[Adamsrealm]

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.

Good point. But still I think all the veterans are get sick of this newby pandering, knewer generations of gamers lack the tolerance and willing to persevere today because of all the casual easy mode crape the industry produces. Why not just allow settings for this or something so that vets can turn the difficulty up? :/

 

[Adamsrealm]

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.

I think ethics divergence should be left alone in this case, it would have no effect on individualistic empires and cripple collectivist ones, this again highlights floors in the games over simplification for newbies

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.

Pie man makes an argument for not discouraging new players with complex mechanics, but there has to be a limit because the easiness of the game will not hold onto people very long as it becomes boring way too fast, I had to turn to modding (which I in turn had to seriously modify to balance them out) just to keep playing. The hardcore mode in this is nothing compared to other games I've played and I had it beat within about a week of the games release and almost the same again when they patched corvette spamming, so it's real easy for me to burn out on this game due to its over simplification for the sake of people that don't have skills or the patience and drive to better themselves and develop them. I didn't get good by playing easy games and I've seen 1990's games with better coded ai than stellaris.

Back to planetary invasions though

The current fortifications and army system needs a total redo in my opinion, it unfortunately in effect represents the smash and grab nature of wars at the moment as there is no strategy to defending against a large scale bombarment regardless of army numbers on a planet. There's no strategy to it at all, just point, click, bombard, land army, done, it needs to serious fleshing out, mainly because if you can mount giant death rays on ships? Why can't you have a planetary defence system (not military stations) to defend a planet somewhat or at least systems to mitigate the damage from the orbiting glassing swarms?

Open bombardment makes no sense, the policies for it need serious tweaking and it should have so much more consequences for it besides a -5 modifier for terror bombing :/

If a (better than the current one for ships) rock paper scissors for armies was introduced and bombarding was a last resort to breaking through an oponents planetary defences (with significant diplomatic repercussions) planet capturing would be more interesting than the current, and mostly pointless time buffer/chore it is currently (occupation gives less score than blockading, seriously? whats up with that?)

(Again good ideas and points raised ^_^ , balance is the key, but over simplification is bad this isn't a game for 10 year olds)

 

[pieman]

It's not really a matter of simplifying mechanics, but an issue of visibility. Rocking up to a planet and suddenly you can't capture it because of arbitrary rules. It's the same reason I don't like the 10 year truce as a hard enforced rule, it's arbitrarily enforced. You should be able to go back to war right away with penalties and consequences.

 

[Madzai]

It's not really a matter of simplifying mechanics, but an issue of visibility. Rocking up to a planet and suddenly you can't capture it because of arbitrary rules. It's the same reason I don't like the 10 year truce as a hard enforced rule, it's arbitrarily enforced. You should be able to go back to war right away with penalties and consequences.

As much as i agree on arbitrary enforcement being a bad thing, without a complete rebalancing a bunch of things there is no way around it. F.e. 10 year truce - it looks bad, but that penalty will suffice and make sense at the same time to stop players from using it. Diplomacy? We already have some builds that are almost cut from diplomacy at all - purge some POPs here and there, and you can just forget about diplomacy tab. With 1.5 we'll have even more atrocities at our disposal - if you terror bomb around, purge and eat POPs, why should diplo-penalty matters? Penalize economy or happiness? It doesn't make sense - as your POPs are either support such course of action or being enslaved\eaten\purged.

 

[Darustet]

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? ^_^

Currently you can only keep an eye on whether or not your enemy is at war with somebody, but not on the said war's wargoal. If I could see what the goals are at any point, that might actually affect my choices. Making a war unwinnable because of arbitary mechanic doesn't lead to interesting choices.

Currently the problem in your wargoal system I refer to boils down to the following situation:
1. player A declares war on player B for the control of the first 3 of his 20 planets,
2. player A destroys every bit of player B's fleet and infra and conquers every other planet but the said three, because the first three are occupied by player C
3. player A has a warscore of 0
4. player A can't win the war, even when the player B has no fleet and every planet under enemy occupation

A game like Stellaris is full of mechanics that are designed to make playing balanced, interactive and challenging that might be a bit odd in the real world (even if they try to represent real world), but are necessary for the game to work. Warscore is one such thing, since it prevents snowballing and gives the loser a chance to get his/her revenge at the next war. It might not be totally realistic, but it makes the game better and doesn't strike so unrealistic that you can't get used to it. But I can't understand how anyone can look at the situation I laid down and think that it would make any sense irl or be a good use of game mechanics. It stalls the play of at least two players and all three, if player A controls wargoals of player C who then can't win either. For the very least, player A and C should be able to negotiate with each other on how they want to divine their wargoals, because that would be both a meaningful interaction between players and a logical way to solve the problem they share. I should point out, that this option doesn't take away those three possibilities you mentioned, but adds one more.

What adds frustration, is that those three original goals were probably chosen because they were conviniently close to you and not because they hold any significant economical or tactical gain over any other three planets available. In mid and late game differences between individual planets in terms of production are often insicnificant for the player to care, excluding possible rare resources and possible hyperlane routes.

I do agree that player B shouldn't be able to give you control of planets you or he/she doesn't occupy, but you should be able to pick other three planets, because as I said earlier, mid to late game it usually doesn't matter to player A which three planets he/she at the end gets.

Pie man makes an argument for not discouraging new players with complex mechanics, but there has to be a limit because the easiness of the game will not hold onto people very long as it becomes boring way too fast, I had to turn to modding (which I in turn had to seriously modify to balance them out) just to keep playing. The hardcore mode in this is nothing compared to other games I've played and I had it beat within about a week of the games release and almost the same again when they patched corvette spamming, so it's real easy for me to burn out on this game due to its over simplification for the sake of people that don't have skills or the patience and drive to better themselves and develop them. I didn't get good by playing easy games and I've seen 1990's games with better coded ai than stellaris.

I don't think the point was about not adding complex mechanics, but about arbitary penalties. There is a difference between making a game challenging and hard to beat and game being hard because of bad mechanics. If a boss is frustrating in Shadow of the Colossus, it's because the game is hard and I should stop whining and get better. If a boss is hard in Superman 64 because the controls are bad, then the issue lies in bad controls. Both types of games are frustrating, neither holds your hand, but only one of them is fun to play.

 

[pieman]

I think having more flexible war goals, as well as buffing defensive options a bit, and having some sort of attrition or supply system is the go.

Also, if you've been at war for 20 years, and for 19 of those years planet A has been under your occupation, you really should be able to start using that planet as a frontline base. I really think occupied enemy territory should be able to be exploited in some way, maybe to further your network of supply etc.

This advantage of being able to use occupied planets would be counterbalanced by the buffed defensive options, making taking a planet a bigger deal.

 

[Zenicetus]

It's not really a matter of simplifying mechanics, but an issue of visibility. Rocking up to a planet and suddenly you can't capture it because of arbitrary rules. It's the same reason I don't like the 10 year truce as a hard enforced rule, it's arbitrarily enforced. You should be able to go back to war right away with penalties and consequences.

The wargoal system, and that 10 year forced truce, is one reason I don't play Stellaris more than I do. If I'm a powerful empire, then who exactly is stopping me from doing anything for 10 years? Some deity that isn't explained in the lore? Or just the heavy hand of the game designer showing from behind the curtain?

I keep hoping the wargoal system will make more sense one day, but it's getting to be a while since game release without resolving these issues. So I guess it's working as intended. I still don't like it.

 

[Adamsrealm]

The wargoal system, and that 10 year forced truce, is one reason I don't play Stellaris more than I do. If I'm a powerful empire, then who exactly is stopping me from doing anything for 10 years? Some deity that isn't explained in the lore? Or just the heavy hand of the game designer showing from behind the curtain?

I keep hoping the wargoal system will make more sense one day, but it's getting to be a while since game release without resolving these issues. So I guess it's working as intended. I still don't like it.

I completely agree with this. Making wargoals dynamic may help this e.g. Instead of saying you want "this" planet when selecting a wargoal you select how many of each action you wish to perform by winning the war e.g. You want to cede 3 planets but you are not locked to those specific planets, upon winning the war you then get to negotiate with, or if the circumstances allow you to force your demands onto, the losing empire.

You then have a set number of negotiation points to spend, you then choose what you want to spend those points on, but you can only choose a max amount of actions identical to and the same number as the war goals you selected.

So say you chose to cede 3 planets, you can only cede a max of three planets, though you are only restricted by the amount of points you have an what the enemy is willing to give up. (I'll elaborate on this next) You can choose to cede less than 3 planets if you wish in a planet costs more negotiation points and don't have enough to cede 3.

Now onto what the enemy is willing to give up in negotiations. If a planet is occupied then it'll have a majorly reduced negotiation point cost and an enemy will always have to surrender them if you pick them (would work for liberate and cleanse), blockaded planets would have a slightly reduced point cost but the enemy (dependent upon ethos and opinion, potential military strength, though not current fleet power, only tech and capacity) may or may not give it up.

As mentioned before by myself & Darustet:

Currently the problem in your wargoal system I refer to boils down to the following situation:
1. player A declares war on player B for the control of the first 3 of his 20 planets,
2. player A destroys every bit of player B's fleet and infra and conquers every other planet but the said three, because the first three are occupied by player C
3. player A has a warscore of 0
4. player A can't win the war, even when the player B has no fleet and every planet under enemy occupation

I do agree that player B shouldn't be able to give you control of planets you or he/she doesn't occupy, but you should be able to pick other three planets, because as I said earlier, mid to late game it usually doesn't matter to player A which three planets he/she at the end gets.

If the party you are at war with doesn't control one of their planets, and neither do you, then you can't request it in negotiations.

Onto the truce, This is a tricky one as you obviously don't like being forced into a ten year truce, which is fine, but it does give buffer zones between wars, for some obvious reasons. Though being able to negotiate this, or if you wish refute it and continue to be at war with them immediately then that's ok, but it would require some offset to balance it out as continuous wars aren't really fair in pvp, and we can't have one set of rules for players and another to ai (though the ai do have certain rules bent for them).

Negotiating a truce would obviously give you an opinion boost with the oposing side, and make them more likely to submit to your wargoal demands, I'd imagine the oposite should be true for refusing to form a truce post war, so they will give you none of the wargoals you demand except the ones they have no choice to (e.g. Occupied worlds) with the addition to a negative opinion modifier. This would make continuous wars risky othewise it could end up having the same effect as purging does currently, which is you are hated competely and constantly by most ethos types of ai. This could probably be implemented through the threat modifier already present.

 

[Drakonn]

I completely agree with this. Making wargoals dynamic may help this e.g. Instead of saying you want "this" planet when selecting a wargoal you select how many of each action you wish to perform by winning the war e.g. You want to cede 3 planets but you are not locked to those specific planets, upon winning the war you then get to negotiate with, or if the circumstances allow you to force your demands onto, the losing empire.

You then have a set number of negotiation points to spend, you then choose what you want to spend those points on, but you can only choose a max amount of actions identical to and the same number as the war goals you selected.

So say you chose to cede 3 planets, you can only cede a max of three planets, though you are only restricted by the amount of points you have an what the enemy is willing to give up. (I'll elaborate on this next) You can choose to cede less than 3 planets if you wish in a planet costs more negotiation points and don't have enough to cede 3.

Now onto what the enemy is willing to give up in negotiations. If a planet is occupied then it'll have a majorly reduced negotiation point cost and an enemy will always have to surrender them if you pick them (would work for liberate and cleanse), blockaded planets would have a slightly reduced point cost but the enemy (dependent upon ethos and opinion, potential military strength, though not current fleet power, only tech and capacity) may or may not give it up.

As mentioned before by myself & Darustet:

Actually having to negotiate would add a nice layer to this. Especially if it's done right.

Right now wars are a pain about 15+years in because everyone has defensive pact or higher. Which is fine except when I declare war on Empire A for his final 2 planets and I can't get them because Empire B was drawn into the war by treaty. Even if I take out Empire A and occupy his planets the Warscore is now dependent on the size of Empire B and I have to occupy a half dozen or more of his planets I don't even want or will be rewarded with for having done so. (True story in my last game. I actually only got 1 planet because Empire B and myself could only fight each other to dead even for 40 years. Even though I'd wiped out Empire A and occupied both his planets within the first year of the war.)

 

[Adamsrealm]

Actually having to negotiate would add a nice layer to this. Especially if it's done right.

Right now wars are a pain about 15+years in because everyone has defensive pact or higher. Which is fine except when I declare war on Empire A for his final 2 planets and I can't get them because Empire B was drawn into the war by treaty. Even if I take out Empire A and occupy his planets the Warscore is now dependent on the size of Empire B and I have to occupy a half dozen or more of his planets I don't even want or will be rewarded with for having done so. (True story in my last game. I actually only got 1 planet because Empire B and myself could only fight each other to dead even for 40 years. Even though I'd wiped out Empire A and occupied both his planets within the first year of the war.)

Yeah, defensive pacts are a pain, They need to include a visual aided diagram that shows what effects certain actions, such as declaring war will have.

And personally I really think they need to add levels of War between empires,
e.g.
Stage 1 - you are hostile to any ships entering your own space, and vice versa for the enemy,
Stage 2 - Can attack enemy ships and stations within their border, same for enemy (can't attack settlements)
Stage 3 - full blown war (basically how it is now) you set war goals upon entering this stage

 

[KopiG]

@Wiz
Can we expect a major overhaul / rebalance for the Warscore system in 1.5? I have not seen a dev diary yet on the matter, of course I know you have a lot more to reveal I am just simply asking if its in the scope for the current 1.5 or not?
The current system truly fails mid / late game so a minor tweaking (duct taping quickly) would be very much appreciated if its possible.