Combat could use a bit more randomness?

[Lumpy]

One thing that has bugged me since release was the relatively predictable combat outcomes of the battles. This, combined with the lopsidedness of the outcomes of most battles (the new underdog modifier that was added in 2.0 didn't really have that much of an impact) leads to quite static gameplay, and most wars are more or less decided before the first battle is even fought.

Now, I know that too much randomness can be highly frustrating, and I don't necessarily want a system akin to EUIV (which uses a 10 sided dice, thus quite harshly random), but currently I feel that wars lack some kind of unpredictability. There are always things like lucky hits, unforseen circumstances, and so on in real world naval battles. Some more randomness would provide, in my opinion, a better experience than the rather rigid outcomes we have now.

What do you think?

 

[SirAlexius]

I agree. Related to this, I also think that there should be some type of feature that allows a smaller fleet to meaningfully harass/damage a higher fleet to simulate hit and run guerrilla warfare. In a way I am glad that star systems do not have a maximum number of ships they can support at any time, but if they did that could make wars more dynamic and interesting as well. That way having a massive stack enter a single system to take on a much smaller fleet would not necessarily always be the best option.

 

[Peace Weaver]

A challenge in strategy games with narrative focus is making randomness not feel arbitrary. The random chance of an underdog coming out on top is great fun when it’s the result of some unforeseen circumstance as you put it, but can be frustrating when’s it’s just the RNG hating you.

So I agree that having more variable outcomes would be interesting, but it has to be done in a really clever way that makes it seem not entirely random.

 

[pttaylor]

Honestly, the lack of randomness is realistic. Sure, each individual shot might miss or whatever but at the scale of fleet battles the averages win out. Also, for this kind of shooting war firepower matters much more than numbers - if your ships are a factor X better than the opposition, they'd need a numerical advantage of X^2 to make the fight even.

As to the subject of guerrilla raids, I agree that that would be a cool feature, but it isn't implemented in any of the Paradox games and it's a more obvious fit for the others than it is for Stellaris so I wouldn't hold my breath.

 

[Bouchart]

Smaller fleets do get a bonus to rate of fire when fighting a larger fleet.

As for randomness, I'm not sure you can really do anything when you have a large number of ships fighting and making combat rolls all the time. You are going to end up close to the mean of whatever distribution you are using.

 

[Xaelyn]

One the one hand I love it when I win battles that I really should have lost, on the other, I really hate it when I lose battles that I really should have won. On balance, that's a no from me, unless of course it's implemented as a slider.

EDIT: Some small amount of randomness is ok (already exists due to hit chances and such, i believe), but having battles almost entirely decided by chance like in V2 and EU is definitely a no.

 

[Blurb]

So instead of having a single decisive battle which one party is sure to win, then there's one decisive battle decided by a coin toss? I'd rather not.
As I see it, the main cause of stellaris's relatively static warfare is down to the difficulty of economic harassment versus its payoffs.

It's not like in Starcraft where you can sneak a few cheap units into a poorly defended base, where they'll destroy the soft workers.
In Stellaris, planets are the mainstay of economies, and to take one requires that you first get your forces into the relevant system, take its starbase and destroy the garrison.
Two problems:
1) Getting units into enemy territory is difficult, especially in the mid-game. FTL inhibitors turn every upgraded starbase a roadblock, and upgraded sensors mean your opponent knows your every move. Until you get jump drives, you'll find it very difficult to get into the soft underbelly of an enemy empire.
2) Taking down an upgraded starbase requires a fleet more substantial than a handful of corvettes, and its not uncommon for a planet to have an accompanying upgraded anchorage.
Particularly in the midgame, this means the required minimum size of a raiding party means you'll be heavily detracting from your main force.

Given that there's no point in attempting harassment, Stellaris warfare usually comes down to smashing a maximum concentration of force into the enemy who's doing the same.

 

[Tim_Ward]

Aren't the accuracy mechanics already random?

 

[glee8e]

guerrilla raids are already a thing. an asteroid drifting towards a primitive world can block my entire trade route. they just need jump drives to overcome FTL inhibitors.