Doomstacked Doomstack Doom-Thread: ReDoox

[skydiver1]

I don't think there is a 'simple and elegent' solution that will make doomstacks disappear without making some other element of warfare equally frustrating. What would be necessary would be a major overhaul of the entire naval system including a large degree of automation (in the way of hoi4) that doesn't currently exist withing the game.

I agree on the problem, I don't think forcing the player to split their doom stacks and micromanage more has any chance of being fun. On the other hand I don't think HOI4-ing it is such a stretch.

Fleets could be merged with armies and have "areas of operation" that function similar to sectors but are not limited to your territory. Within the AO the player will set some macro-priorities (e.g. careful vs risk-taking, aggressive vs defensive, conquest vs raiding, ect.) and the AI admiral can handle the rest. Then the AI can do all the things that are too much of a hassle for the player - dispatch corvettes to get sensor data and pinpoint targets/threats, dynamically split the fleet into task forces to hit stations, bombard planets, then unite them in time to meet an enemy fleet for a showdown. The AI can be much better at avoiding doomed battles, emergency-warping and canceling invasions to preserve your ships and armies.

So a minimalist approach to HOI4-ing it is basically copy/pasting the sector system for fleets and improving the tactical AI. (or maybe unshackling it cause I believe the current tactical AI is intentionally allowing its fleet to get wiped to appear more "human")

Coincidentally it could have positive effects on the core strategic game:
- fleet wipes / army wipes will no longer be as common, thus fighting a losing war will be feasible
- less micro means war no longer requires the player to be constantly focused on their fleet/armies during war, thus making long wars more feasible for the human player

 

[Ixal]

The big problem with a supply system is the variable ftl types. while for a hyperlane empire you have to move through multiple systems to reach any target a wormhole or warp empire or jump drive late game can strike deep into their enemies territory and send supply ships directly to internal systems without having to make vulnerable stops along the way. This still doesn't stop doomstacking without other major changes to how combat works. At the moment you could send out a dozen corvettes to raid your enemy destroying there mining and research stations and being faster than almost any fleet sent to hunt them down. But this means a dozen corvettes that aren't in your doomstack if the enemy doomstack turns up for a fight.

Warp can be handeled by assuming that the supply ships have a lower range than real fleets and have to pass through systems the normal fleet can skip if that is even necessary. Wormhole is problematic though but I do not know if that advantage is countered by having your supply lines cut completely when your weak wormhole stations get blown up. That is hard to do as hyperlane but very doable as warp or other wormhole empire.

I detailed my idea of a supply system in the suggestion forum (works imo best if heavily damaged ships try to flee and ftl away instead of fighting to the death so one battle is not decisive)
https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/foru...-fix-for-doomstacks-and-deepstriking.1014767/

 

[Myr]

When the goal is to break fleets up into manageable smaller fragments without overwhelming the player with micro management and stress i would like to suggest a naval capacity overhaul.

Whether this is yay or nay i'd also like for ship cost to go up and capacity to go down to have overall less ships.

I don't think there is a 'simple and elegent' solution that will make doomstacks disappear without making some other element of warfare equally frustrating. What would be necessary would be a major overhaul of the entire naval system including a large degree of automation

Regarding Automation:

Sectors could field their own fleets by (similar to the tax settings 50%, 75%, 100%) allowing them to keep a certain percentage of Fleet Capacity to themselves. This could give rise to military sectors that can be given multiple modus operandi..

Dedicated defense sectors who's fleets won't leave your borders and act as your empires immune system to invaders for example.


Regarding the major overhaul:

I'd like a shift from naval capacity to fleet capacity.

Fleets could only hold certain numbers of certain types of ships based on the fleet formation.
Fleet formations could be researched or simply be available but improved with research to hold more ships or grand more boni.
It might also determine the fleets behaviour instead of the combat computer. (which in my mind is little more than a assistance AI to the crew)
In addition it solves my personal pet peeve of one admiral buffing up insane numbers of ships.

A made up example:
A strike fleet can hold 10 corvettes and grants boni to sublight speed and evasion. Research could improve it to the point of holding 15 corvettes and 3 destroyers. Still for only 1 Fleet Capacity point. Corvettes try a pincer movement while the destroyers follow a direct path but keep a little more distance as to not be targeted first. Those numbers are of course just placeholders.

While not preventing you from moving your fleets as one blob it would at least make it feel more natural to split your forces.
To not incentivise doomstacks different fleet types might have different jump times.



This also opens up some interesting options for military civics or edicts. Again just some examples.

Hive Mind
Swarm Tactics - Every fleet can fit X additional corvettes
Egalitarian
Self Reliance Policy - Secors have increased fleet capacity

Or even ethic specific fleets like Xeno Fleets for Xenophiles or Slave Crew Fleets for Autoritarians.




Such a Overhaul would ofc require us to have something like a Fleet-Designer functioning similar to the Ship designer.
Imagine Selecting a Fleet Formation similarly to selecting a Ship Type and Filling the available slots with your ship designs instead if modules.

Part of the problem at the moment is that it is next to impossible to set up any sort of strategic plan due to the multiple nature of ftl travel in the base game. For this reason i have taken to playing hyperlane only games (and my bad memory seems to recall a comment on the thursday night streams that a lot of people do this). This lets me plan out invasion routes and set up choke points adding a layer of depth to the game thats lost when your enemy can just attack anywhere avoiding any sort of defensive position.

Maybe the Subspace Snare should be reworked to pull in ships that try to jump towards nearby systems as well. Defensive structures in general should be a bit more of a roadblock. In my opinion they need a drastic buff in hull points to at least buy some time.

 

[Czaristan]

The big problem with a supply system is the variable ftl types. while for a hyperlane empire you have to move through multiple systems to reach any target a wormhole or warp empire or jump drive late game can strike deep into their enemies territory and send supply ships directly to internal systems without having to make vulnerable stops along the way. This still doesn't stop doomstacking without other major changes to how combat works. At the moment you could send out a dozen corvettes to raid your enemy destroying there mining and research stations and being faster than almost any fleet sent to hunt them down. But this means a dozen corvettes that aren't in your doomstack if the enemy doomstack turns up for a fight.

I'm on the record as having said the multiple FTL drives need to go. Too many balance issues. I play my games on hyper-lane only as it actually makes defense stations worthwhile.

Additionally I think war exhaustion would be a good mechanic to import from other games so that hunting fleets and destroying/besieging actually pushes the war forward. I've seen 30 year wars that are stalemated at 0 war score even though both sides have lots untold numbers of ships and armies which doesn't make a whole lot of sense. I digress...

In additional to making defensive structures more powerful, I see no reason why they aren't currently allowed to be defensively stacked. Really fortifying important planets would be pretty cool, especially if they had the ability to shoot up. Better seiging/supply/attrition mechanics would cut down on doomstack problems.

 

[crazyewok123]

Here is a Idea:



Bring in a station called the starbase (or use existing spaceports)



Get rid of overall naval capacity.



Tie in navel capacity to individual starbases. Each star base can support a certain number of ships. If you assign more ships to the starbase than its capacity then the maintenance goes up and ship efficiency’s go down.



A star base has a set range. If you go beyond the range father you go outside of the range the efficiency of ships drops. Range can be increased with upgrades and research.

This would spread fleets out a little more and make certain systems of extreme strategic importance.


Starbases can be upgraded to supply more navel capacity.


Starbsaes can be given orders for its controlled ships to reduce micromanagement like intercept hostile fleets or patrol.


You can build supply deports to increase the range of stabases in neutral or enemy territory’s.


Lastly make it a option at game set up so the insane people that like the boring doomstacks can keep them

 

[PanzerMan7]

You can't disengage your fleet without it getting rekt by the retreat penalty. As long as we can't disengage our fleets or even move them at all, there's no tactics to be had.

I hate this mechanic.

 

[TheDeadlyShoe]

Ridiculous. Retreat does barely noticable damage.

 

[GC13]

Ridiculous. Retreat does barely noticable damage.

You do, however, have to allow your enemy to tear you to shreds for a month before you can escape. It doesn't matter if you were a day away from exiting the system when you entered their aggro radius, you have to sit and take their attacks before you can flee.

 

[4o1XOHBV6In4]

And your ships actually start flying towards their certain doom to maximize your losses, when all they had to do was close their eyes for a day and pretend they didn't see anyone arriving.

Imagine the faces of his crew, when Science Officer Blogr tells them that instead of jumping out of the system as they were about to, they should turn around and "Show that hostile fleet of barely 50 warships who's boss!" If that's not sufficient reason for a mutiny then I don't think there ever was one...

 

[domein]

I don't understand why any fights happen at all, basically everyone should always retreat on day 1 unless at hard point or with numbers advantage

 

[PanzerMan7]

Me thinks paradox didn't want to write the code for RTS esp engagements, so they just said fuck it and make it automatic

Edit: Maybe not

 

[TheDeadlyShoe]

The combat code is actually more in depth than many RTS games. It's remarkably simulationist, all things considered, and there are several, selectable, AI behavior models for ships. That sort of feature is more commonly seen in extremely niche games such as dominions or space empires. It's the combat design that has proved lacking, even with the attempted revision post-release.

 

[kviiri]

It's remarkably simulationist, all things considered, and there are several, selectable, AI behavior models for ships.

Eh, they dropped the selectable AI models. Now it's fixed per ship class. Can't have hit'n'run corvettes or kiting destroyers anymore - what a shame, really.

 

[TheDeadlyShoe]

It's still in the code is the point. You can change computers with mods and its something they can put back in. It is only restricted for design reasons to give *some* depth to combat.

The point was that the notion that they were too lazy to code 'proper combat' is ridiculous.

 

[The Founder]

Imagine the faces of his crew, when Science Officer Blogr tells them that instead of jumping out of the system as they were about to, they should turn around and "Show that hostile fleet of barely 50 warships who's boss!" If that's not sufficient reason for a mutiny then I don't think there ever was one...

Won't happen.
a) Civil ships do not do that
b) Civil ships have a 4-6 days cooldown on emergency retreat
c) Civil ships actually do not cancel their FTL process. So they might still make a regluary sheduled jump (rather then emergency retreat from combat) to thier next destination.

You can't disengage your fleet without it getting rekt by the retreat penalty. As long as we can't disengage our fleets or even move them at all, there's no tactics to be had.

I hate this mechanic.

The penalty is 20% damage. Plus a chance to loose ships that were alread damaged BEFORE the retreat damage. A short stay in port can fix that and it no longer costs any minerals either with 1.5.
And since you had to retreat, you propably have to wait for reinforcements anyway. Best place for that is a defended port.

The first 2 Naval Capacity techs unlock the bulk of the Fleet related structures and traits. If you want a strong military, do not ignore them.

I don't understand why any fights happen at all, basically everyone should always retreat on day 1 unless at hard point or with numbers advantage

Did you seriously just asked for this game to be turned into a "chase the fleet"?
We HAD that in the earlier versions. It sucked. We that lived with it do not want it back.

 

[domein]

Did you seriously just asked for this game to be turned into a "chase the fleet"?
We HAD that in the earlier versions. It sucked. We that lived with it do not want it back.

You missed the irony font there. However as the current fleet combat works, it only makes sense to retreat asap from any combat where you don't hold the clear advantage.

 

[The Founder]

You missed the irony font there. However as the current fleet combat works, it only makes sense to retreat asap from any combat where you don't hold the clear advantage.

1) There is no such thing as Ironny Font.
2) You used the default font anyway.
3) Irony never travelled across a textbased medium. I asume that understanding to be common sense by now.

 

[domein]

1) There is no such thing as Ironny Font.
2) You used the default font anyway.
3) Irony never travelled across a textbased medium. I asume that understanding to be common sense by now.

Now you missed it twice, come on, don't go crazy dull beggar on me here friend

 

[Diezy]

Traditional RTS ship control would be the greatest breakthrough, with direct commands and selection of unique ships, while within the system.

After all, XL's have facing requirements, turning speed is a thing, point defense and auras make ship positioning very important, it's far different from the other atlas games where battles are just a number crunch.

 

[kineticspartan]

Right now raiding orbital mines is hardly worth the effort past the early stages of the game, with a few exceptions like the dragon lair or the hive asteroids, the income from mines is pretty low. A single dedicated planet can easily produce as much as 50-75 mining stations. Past the early game, you'll hardly notice loosing a few of them and in the late game, they are only a drop in the bucket.

Perhaps a solution to this would be to have a two tier mineral system? Minerals start off as RAW minerals, RAW minerals are readily available in large quantities (significantly more then they currently are) but are effectively useless. They are are sent to a refinery station to be converted into USEABLE minerals. The more refineries you have, the faster the conversion. This means that whilst the mines themselves remain a minor target, if you wanted to do lasting economic damage , you'd go for the refineries. (Perhaps the amount of refineries you can have is tied to the amount of RAW minerals you produce?)