Conquest should be system based

[scaper12123]

I'm getting tired of these confusing mixed borders you get in the late game of Stellaris after everybody takes single planets from every system, leaving the whole galaxy a colorful mess. I've occasionally taken control of planets just to give them away to certain empires in order to resolve the issue.

Conquest needs to work by system. If there's more than one planet in the system, then just scale up the warscore cost of taking over the system.

EDIT: Maybe it's just my OCD tendencies talking but it really frustrates me when the galactic map looks so messy that way. And, yes, the wasted resources and uncolonizable planets are a huge annoyance. Honestly though, the thing that inspired me to make this thread was the fact that every AI in the game scrambles to shared systems to establish frontier outposts there. Without missing a beat. 5 construction ships from various empires building frontiers. Makes the map even more messy!

 

[DukeLeto42]

One of the familiar elements of scifi universes is environments where systems are shared, either in cooperation or in competition, between empires. As a result, this idea would prevent such dynamics. That being said, the management of colonization and resources in disputed systems could stand improvement.

 

[scaper12123]

One of the familiar elements of scifi universes is environments where systems are shared, either in cooperation or in competition, between empires. As a result, this idea would prevent such dynamics. That being said, the management of colonization and resources in disputed systems could stand improvement.

Maybe it's just my OCD tendencies talking but it really frustrates me when the galactic map looks so messy that way. And, yes, the wasted resources and uncolonizable planets are a huge annoyance. Honestly though, the thing that inspired me to make this thread was the fact that every AI in the game scrambles to shared systems to establish frontier outposts there. Without missing a beat. 5 construction ships from various empires building frontiers. Makes the map even more messy!

 

[extrapancake]

Stellaris is one of the few games where border gore does not bother me, since you can just zip from planet to planet. Actually the idea of borders in space at all is a bit confusing to me

 

[Surimi]

Just to give a concrete example of why this doesn't work.

Let's say I've got a big old home system and I get the horizon signal event chain. For spoilerific reasons which I won't spoil, all the rocky planets in my home system become habitable worlds! Yay! I can now colonize all those worlds and have the best system ever! WHAT WAS SHALL BE WHAT SHALL BE WAS!

Now someone declares war on me because they want my home system. At present, they would pick which of my home system's planets they want to take in the war and get them at the end.. but if they have to take the whole system at a time, presumably the system's warscore cost is determined by the inhabited planets in it. So the warscore value to take my home system could conceivably be higher than a single war would allow.. meaning it is impossible to take my home system. Good game, I am invincible forever now! Praise the worm!

Alternately, we could just have each system cost a flat cost in terms of warscore, but this actually encourages bordergore by making it more rewarding and efficient to take whatever systems have the most inhabited planets in them, rather than expanding logically.

 

[The_Human_Oddity]

Stellaris is one of the few games where border gore does not bother me, since you can just zip from planet to planet. Actually the idea of borders in space at all is a bit confusing to me

Borders in space: a 3-dimensional ****show which also changes almost constantly due to the movement of celestial bodies. This would be even more confusing in shared systems as you would have to decide if there will be a certain cut-off line, will the territory be split by the orbital paths of the inhabited planets, or will there just be a small territory extending from the planet to its moon and everything else in the system is a free-for-all that is decided by a system committee from each of the planets?

As for the OP. No, unless a mechanic is added that changes 'maximum number of core planets' or 'maximum number of core systems'.

 

[Drowe]

Borders in space: a 3-dimensional ****show which also changes almost constantly due to the movement of celestial bodies. This would be even more confusing in shared systems as you would have to decide if there will be a certain cut-off line, will the territory be split by the orbital paths of the inhabited planets, or will there just be a small territory extending from the planet to its moon and everything else in the system is a free-for-all that is decided by a system committee from each of the planets?

As for the OP. No, unless a mechanic is added that changes 'maximum number of core planets' or 'maximum number of core systems'.

You already have a maximum number of core systems, even if it's a soft cap. In my opinion it doesn't make much sense to have a value limiting core systems, but then ignore core systems and only focus on individual planets. This only going to get worse in Utopia, just imagine how chaotic it gets if there are five habitats in a system with each one belonging to a different empire.

It would make a lot more sense to manage everything on the system level instead of the planet level, including things like governors and research penalty. The only way to share a system between empires should be if a primitive empire reaches the space age, and another empire already has a colony or frontier outpost in the system.

 

[Summin Cool]

I don't believe the warfare system works at all. It's drab, boring and monotonous.
It can also be pretty accurately described as a autoresolve simulator.