Admiral levels will now increase command limit (from stream)

[Zentay]

I don't understand why people and the devs think this is a good change. Why does admiral level have to give increses in fleet size, with its potential problems, when it could be another bonus that causes no problerms at all? What is so good about fleet size increases that justifies introducing other problems?

 

[hart30]

All this will do for me is basically making equipping admirals outside of the council irrelevant.
If fleets without a admiral are smaller than now and having an admiral there causes the danger that the dead of it causes a fleet split i wont do the tedious calculations to stay under the limit.
Just for the sake of no micro i wont use admirals. Just have more individual fleets in my fleet doomstack.
With the leader softcap i rather use the free leaders for stuff like scientists or governors.
Wouldnt be able to equip enough fleets with an admiral to feel much effect anyway - and who in the right mind will still hire a general, if it limits the capability to hire a better leader instead?

 

[Panzerslothen]

How will it, in any way, shape, or form, mitigate Doomstacking?

By limiting Fleet Size such that Fleet size is dependent on an Admiral being present.

And there will be fewer Admirals around now. Therefore, you can have all the fleets you want, but they'll be more likely to be individual fleets, rather than a mass of ships all in a single fleet.

 

[Calvax]

By limiting Fleet Size such that Fleet size is dependent on an Admiral being present.

And there will be fewer Admirals around now. Therefore, you can have all the fleets you want, but they'll be more likely to be individual fleets, rather than a mass of ships all in a single fleet.

That doesn’t solve doomstacking because that’s not what the term means. Doomstacking refers to having most/all of your army travelling and fighting in one group. It doesn’t literally need to be one navy. Whether one fleet or a hundred it doesn’t change the fact you can just order all the navies to travel together.

 

[Pancakelord]

That doesn’t solve doomstacking because that’s not what the term means. Doomstacking refers to having most/all of your army travelling and fighting in one group. It doesn’t literally need to be one navy. Whether one fleet or a hundred it doesn’t change the fact you can just order all the navies to travel together.

Tbf I don't think this change is meant to stop doomstacks in so much as it's meant to make countering them a bit easier. By making quality a bit more valuable over quantity.

Imagine 2 sides

1. 3x fleets of 100-caps worth of ships each with an admiral and good traits, (300 naval cap total)
2. 5x fleets (1x 100cap with an admiral and 4x 50-cap no admiral fleets) (300 naval cap total)

Assuming similarly competent ship designs, in a simple battle (no supporting starbase), Side 1 "should" wipe the floor with side 2, thanks to the leader traits. Even if side 2 was 1.5x-2x bigger (450-500 naval cap) (without hiring on another admiral), it should still be hard to win vs side 1.

• This indirectly makes vassal and federal play stronger Vs the one empire to dominate them all playstyle too.

However, this change does not prevent side 2 running 1000 naval cap, though (20x 50-cap fleets all without an admiral).
For that, you would need some sort of 'cohesion' statistic. Such as,

• "fleets without admirals perform worse outside of own/vassal/federal territory"
• (defence is hard enough as is in stellaris, so admiral less ships should be fine when not outside of friendly borders - total war border shifting makes for a tricky edgecase though?).
• This effect could scale up with the number of admiral less fleets, in battles outside of friendly space, or be a flat penalty.

 

[Edorath]

yeah, the penalty should be just being unable to reinforce the fleet until you hit your old limit again.
while the idea is really good, the execution of it will lead to more trouble than it's worth, imo.

 

[Tannhäuser Cake]

However, this change does not prevent side 2 running 1000 naval cap, though (20x 50-cap fleets all without an admiral).
For that, you would need some sort of 'cohesion' statistic. Such as,

• "fleets without admirals perform worse outside of own/vassal/federal territory"
• (defence is hard enough as is in stellaris, so admiral less ships should be fine when not outside of friendly borders - total war border shifting makes for a tricky edgecase though?).
• This effect could scale up with the number of admiral less fleets, in battles outside of friendly space, or be a flat penalty.

Or penalize using multiple fleets in a battle, with starbases not counted as an additional fleet.

Optionally, there could also be a starbase FCL bonus within some range from anchorages, which could further help defenders (aggressors could build anchorages right on the border to extend their range but that would make their anchorages more vulnerable, and they would also need one at every expansion frontline, whereas defenders might get by with just one or a few deep inside their borders). This would be an abstraction of logistics and supply lines and could also replace anchorages producing naval capacity, making the latter more of a societal and pop resource - the "Soldier" (quote signs due to discrepancy between job title and job description) job might actually become important from the start of the game, and thereby help slow down economy-research-unity snowballing. Hypothetically.

 

[Calvax]

Tbf I don't think this change is meant to stop doomstacks in so much as it's meant to make countering them a bit easier. By making quality a bit more valuable over quantity.

That makes sense and I don't really disagree with that design goal. It's more the micromanagement of it in this current implementation that I'm worried about. We'll have to see how it shakes out of course because with all the changes maybe it won't be such a problem. But in my usual games by the late game I aim for 8-10 fleets (hotkeyed in pairs) and simply due to age admirals die fairly frequently. If I had to start remerging fleets or getting new small ones to follow others (all within a messed up outliner) that sounds like more frustration than the gains.

 

[The5lacker]

By limiting Fleet Size such that Fleet size is dependent on an Admiral being present.

And there will be fewer Admirals around now. Therefore, you can have all the fleets you want, but they'll be more likely to be individual fleets, rather than a mass of ships all in a single fleet.

Right, but you can put multiple fleets in the same combat. You... you do know that, right? That Doomstacking isn't caused by a single infinitely large fleet, it's caused by an arbitrary large number of fleets in a single combat?

Like, if you have a Fleet Cap of 100, and 2000 Supply worth of Ships, you can still cram all of those ships into the same combat. If you increase your Fleet Cap to 200, all that changes is the number of Admirals you need to cover all of your ships. Which, considering the benefits from Admirals isn't *great*, isn't a huge factor. Plus, you don't even *need* an Admiral. You can have a fleet with no Admiral, it works just fine. All they provide is a miniscule Firing Speed increase, a Trait which might be relevant but probably isn't critical, and, apparently, now Fleet Supply. Nothing you can't live without, especially if you outnumber the enemy four to one.

 

[Zentay]

This will change nothing whatsoever about doomstacks because it doesn't change the fact that concentrating all your fleet in one place is the best strategy.

There is also nothing wrong with doomstacks. There is simply a lack of alternative strategies that is caused by the way war has been designed (FTL inhibitors shut down hit an run tactics, you have to fight their fleet to make the AI give up unless you can invade and occupy all of their planets, and so on). The default hyperlane density is also low and favors doomstacks. It has all been (unintentionally) designed for doomstacks.

We used to have hit and run tactics way back when some empires could travel via wormhole generators (or early jump drives, I can't remember), but this was removed because it made it impossible to create fortified chokepoints and outmaneuvering the enemy was too powerful. Now the only strategy is massing your fleet in one place and trying to make sure you have the bigger fleet.

 

[GloatingSwine]

By limiting Fleet Size such that Fleet size is dependent on an Admiral being present.

And there will be fewer Admirals around now. Therefore, you can have all the fleets you want, but they'll be more likely to be individual fleets, rather than a mass of ships all in a single fleet.

Fleet size doesn't interact with doomstacks though. Every ship could be in its own fleet and they'd still be a doomstack.

The only effect of fleet size is making you hire more admirals. That's where its limits apply.

 

[Imp0815]

This will change nothing whatsoever about doomstacks because it doesn't change the fact that concentrating all your fleet in one place is the best strategy.

There is also nothing wrong with doomstacks. There is simply a lack of alternative strategies that is caused by the way war has been designed (FTL inhibitors shut down hit an run tactics, you have to fight their fleet to make the AI give up unless you can invade and occupy all of their planets, and so on). The default hyperlane density is also low and favors doomstacks. It has all been (unintentionally) designed for doomstacks.

We used to have hit and run tactics way back when some empires could travel via wormhole generators (or early jump drives, I can't remember), but this was removed because it made it impossible to create fortified chokepoints and outmaneuvering the enemy was too powerful. Now the only strategy is massing your fleet in one place and trying to make sure you have the bigger fleet.

They could build upon the foundation they created with the lanes but as i posted earlier "they" think that every solution to solve doomstacking is worse than the doomstacking itself.
Every battle i fight in Stellaris makes we question this decision more and more. I made numerous posts and a big suggestion about how they could improve the system.
I think fumbling with the Fleet Cap, admirals and the Fleet manager might be a step in the direction of a more slowed down and Strategical approach and maybe a system to resolve doomstacking.
I would really like to know and discuss what solutions are tested to solve doomstacking and why they are "worse" that the dull systems we have now.

P.S. i did not find the right place for this thought so here it is anyways: Is it just me or do the Devs in their presentations avoid playing an Empire that can and will go to war because they subconsciously think the war and battle system is not fun or engaging or distracting from the rest of the game?

 

[Panzerslothen]

They could build upon the foundation they created with the lanes but as i posted earlier "they" think that every solution to solve doomstacking is worse than the doomstacking itself.
Every battle i fight in Stellaris makes we question this decision more and more. I made numerous posts and a big suggestion about how they could improve the system.
I think fumbling with the Fleet Cap, admirals and the Fleet manager might be a step in the direction of a more slowed down and Strategical approach and maybe a system to resolve doomstacking.
I would really like to know and discuss what solutions are tested to solve doomstacking and why they are "worse" that the dull systems we have now.

If what the other guy who replied to me above says about what a Doomstack really is, is right (maybe he is, maybe he isn't, but I've not heard his definition of 'Doomstack' before), then pretty much the only solutions I see are:

• Some form of Logistics supply system, meaning that large numbers of large fleets operating far from a friendly base need a secure route back to that friendly base in order to continue functioning (i.e. in game terms, not suffer from some significant maluses) - meaning that masses of fleets can be isolated by cutting off supply lines, etc (for example, by capturing intervening systems), AND/OR:
  
  
• A system in which Systems and/or Sectors of an Empire demand a certain level of base Naval protection, and they get unhappy (and unstable) without them. Afterall, would the population of your Empire REALLY be happy with every single warship the Empire could muster being off on an offensive campaign? Who's going to make sure they can sleep soundly in their beds at night? AI would need to be taught not to send everything forwards in one go, and to keep something in reserve, AND/OR:
  
  
• A system in which fleets can only enter enemy territory if they are commanded by an Admiral. Fleets already in enemy territory - or territory which is captured by an enemy - and don't have an Admiral would be able to stay there, but wouldn't be able to leave it (particularly to venture further into enemy territory) unless it was returning to your own territory, neutral territory, or the territory of an ally.

P.S. i did not find the right place for this thought so here it is anyways: Is it just me or do the Devs in their presentations avoid playing an Empire that can and will go to war because they subconsciously think the war and battle system is not fun or engaging or distracting from the rest of the game?

The Dev playthroughs are based around showing off new features. They'd only show off war features if new war features were being added. However, yes, I agree, the current approach of going to war feels somewhat limited. That there is no way of dropping out of a war a stupid ally of yours gets you into is one huge problem. The lack of a 'threaten' mechanic - such as "Give me that border system I have claimed, or I will invade you", is also a problem. War in Stellaris is very all-of-nothing, and I think there should be (and is scope for) a lot more 'gradient' in it.

 

[Abdulijubjub]

I'm late to the party, but I think this entire thread is vastly overestimating the number of admirals we'll actually have available. Your entire empire cap is 10-12 leaders.

Granted, it's easy to go over, but you'll probably be spending all that extra unity on governors, rather than extra admirals.

90% of your fleets will have no admiral and hence have exactly the same size, and your admiral will instead be commanding one main fleet.

 

[Asyranok]

I really don't like the idea of an admiral dying splitting a fleet. Particularly during battle. Hopefully there is at least a caveat that prevents the split from happening while the fleet is in active combat.

 

[Zentay]

I believe that it will cause problems like this in practice:

If you have 5 fleets, and 2 admirals that give some fleet size increase that you're actually making use of, then whenever you re-assign these admirals to a different fleet, that fleet will split, and the fleet the admiral was assigned to now needs more ships assigned to it as well to actually make use of the admiral's skill. If It switch the admiral back, I have to merge two fleets.

I reassign admirals for various reasons, for example to help a slow fleet catch up with the main fleet (if I have admirals with speed increases), or to give a bit of extra combat power to a fleet about to start combat (like in the separate my doomstack and take systems phase of a war).

Also, if a fleet split happens due to an admiral dying or being reassigned, will the excess ships continue to carry out the same order they had?

 

[Chicossauro]

Honestly I really dislike this change, and I'll most probably keep the "normal fleet size" in mind and never make use of the admiral fleet size bonus. Eventually, if I get a machine or imortal admiral or whatever, then fine. I just don't want any more source of micromanaging to worry about.

 

[Imp0815]

If what the other guy who replied to me above says about what a Doomstack really is, is right (maybe he is, maybe he isn't, but I've not heard his definition of 'Doomstack' before), then pretty much the only solutions I see are:

• Some form of Logistics supply system, meaning that large numbers of large fleets operating far from a friendly base need a secure route back to that friendly base in order to continue functioning (i.e. in game terms, not suffer from some significant maluses) - meaning that masses of fleets can be isolated by cutting off supply lines, etc (for example, by capturing intervening systems), AND/OR:
  
  
• A system in which Systems and/or Sectors of an Empire demand a certain level of base Naval protection, and they get unhappy (and unstable) without them. Afterall, would the population of your Empire REALLY be happy with every single warship the Empire could muster being off on an offensive campaign? Who's going to make sure they can sleep soundly in their beds at night? AI would need to be taught not to send everything forwards in one go, and to keep something in reserve, AND/OR:
  
  
• A system in which fleets can only enter enemy territory if they are commanded by an Admiral. Fleets already in enemy territory - or territory which is captured by an enemy - and don't have an Admiral would be able to stay there, but wouldn't be able to leave it (particularly to venture further into enemy territory) unless it was returning to your own territory, neutral territory, or the territory of an ally.

A more short and easy answer is clearly a supply system. EVERY GSG from paradox has a supply system for the Armys, its only Stellaris which is lacking and the issue with Doomstacks is the obvious result of it.
Well will see arguments like "Stellaris is not a War game!" but CK3 is also not a war game and also has one! So why not Stellaris?!

I really enjoy HoI IV. I think it has the best Systems for a simulation of large scale Warfare and right amount of automation to micro with real player engagement. It baffles my mind why we always getting ideas from CK or EU or even Vici into Stellaris but not HoI. And it shows. The warfare, which by the way is a far larger part in Stellaris as in CK, is completely disconnected in terms of pacing, depth and design iterations compared to the rest of the game. The core concept of amassing ships as one blob and clubbing other enemy blobs has not changed since 2016.

 

[Panzerslothen]

A more short and easy answer is clearly a supply system. .

Supply, logistics - same need, different words. I think we're in violent agreement, hah.

Well will see arguments like "Stellaris is not a War game!"

Of course it is! It isn't just a wargame, of course, but it is a wargame.

 

[Zetesofos]

Supply, logistics - same need, different words. I think we're in violent agreement, hah.



Of course it is! It isn't just a wargame, of course, but it is a wargame.

Logistics is like...how wars are won. It really does need to be added. Fighting a border war vs a conquest campaign halfway across the galaxy should feel very different.

Now, I'm not familiar with how logistics are done in other PDX games, but if I were to think of it off the cuff, I wonder if this would work:

1. Each ship has Supply value from 0 - 100.
2. While a ship is in orbit around a colony you own, or a starbase with the correct modules, its supply increases by 1 amount.
3. While deployed, the ship loses 1 supply per month. You could have this rate be reduced while in friendly territory, or within X number of jumps of your territory, based on a Starbase Logistics Module.
4. In addition, whenever a ship engages in a battle, it loses 1 supply per day of the combat.
5. At 50 supply, a ship has suffers a -1 penalty to sublight speed, ship fire rate, and experience gain, for each supply below 50.
6. Finally, you can increase the supply value a ship can carry in the following ways:
   1. An auxulliary module on a ship might increase the supply by 20/40/60 or some number
   2. An admiral increases the Supply value of every ship in its fleet by X%
   3. War doctrine policy might be a supply option
   4. Edicts, Traditions, Technology, etc

I dunno, would this make for interesting decisions or planning, or just be annoyong?