Doomstacked Doomstack Doom-Thread: ReDoox

[CurseUppl]

If the devs implemented a proper fleet management system, I'd roll around with at least 5 fleets, but as it is now, it's such a huge pain in the ass maintaining ratio and reinforcing stacks that it's easier to keep it all in a doom stack, and occasionally use the split-in-half function to chase down stragglers while bombarding.

Though I do think, as some have mentioned earlier, ships should have a chance to emergency FTL when heavily damaged (not the fleet, but individual ships), with the success chance reflected by "damage control" modules.

The more ships in a system, the less the odds of the emergency FTL working (to reflect crowded conditions), which would be a benefit for the side with less ships. The emergency FTL can be set as a rally point, so the ships appear in a nearby system with a station for immediate repairs and reinforcements.

Bah, I don't even know.

 

[yerm]

I really think it all comes down to combat losses being widespread and permanent. If defeat in battle meant minimal total losses and relatively intact fleets, with destruction requiring catching a fleet in port lets say, you could feasibly operate independent stacks and not fuss over how losing a single engagement always costing you an entire war.

If losing a battle means losing that fleet, you're not going to risk a divided fleet being caught out and destroyed.

 

[BlackUmbrellas]

I would very much welcome an automatic "detach damaged" mechanic as in EU4. Possibly even optional during a fight, so if a ship reaches a defined % of hull damage it tries to emergency FTL and reach the next Spaceport. This might prevent one battle wars and the attacker would have to keep several fleets to catch the escaping ships before they get battle ready again.

While I love the idea of "emergency FTL", I don't think it'd fix doomstacks on its own; in fact, I think it might make them worse.

Whoever wins the doomstack battle and has had less ships retreat automatically or be destroyed is then in the exact same position they are now: readily able to fly around mopping up wayward ships and reinforcements with a drastically larger force that cannot realistically be caught up with.

 

[Schatten51]

While i do agree that Stellaris could use a decrease in ship count, i'm not sure if it is the correct game for such a dramatically low ship count. And besides, a significantly lower ship count doesn't mean doomstacks would outright disappear, but more likely they would just scale down. However, while not directly solving the issue at hand, more customization to the larger ships would definitely be welcome.

But just imagine how cool it would be to see a combat between 2 Ships ,that you care for and are remarkable as there only so few of them, where you have designed and placed every component, each with 100k Power, that fight themself for many days, slowly go more and more damaged, repaired etc. with all kind of weapons on them, effects and and and, not to forget with low lag compared to now 2 Fleets of smilar 100k Power that slowly lag together till you see than countless ships exploding, that you dont care but just spam the Spaceports production lines with new ones that replace them....

While big Fleets are cool in some way, as Stellaris and engine is now few real big ships would work way better.

What i mean with this Star Control 2 Design you can see here as example, how their Ship Designer looks

http://starruler2.com/images/screenshots/designs.png

You see the firing Arc´s of the Wepaons (ie if this design goes attack from behind it cannot fire back till it turns till at last one weapon can fire back), you see the armor and ares without, you see even that you can put a second armor layer internal in case the outside armor goes destroyed and also the magazines etc to give more protection to your core component like Brigde, Power Generators, Shield Generators...but you also can place them out side...its really absolutly free...now compare it to that what in Stellaris is called *Ship designer*...
And would you not care for such 1 Ship more as for 1000 nameless Battleships?

 

[BlackUmbrellas]

But just imagine how cool it would be to see a combat between 2 Ships ,that you care for and are remarkable as there only so few of them, where you have designed and placed every component, each with 100k Power, that fight themself for many days, slowly go more and more damaged, repaired etc. with all kind of weapons on them, effects and and and, not to forget with low lag compared to now 2 Fleets of smilar 100k Power that slowly lag together till you see than countless ships exploding, that you dont care but just spam the Spaceports production lines with new ones that replace them....

While big Fleets are cool in some way, as Stellaris and engine is now few real big ships would work way better.

No.

While I agree that smaller numbers of ships with greater personality is a viable game design, it is not the right design for Stellaris- a Grand Strategy/4X hybrid is, if anything, the exact wrong place for a "Star Trek" model of ship management. I want to have fleets defending my borders, striking deep into enemy territory, hunting down pirate raiding forces.

If you want that, go play Halcyon 13.

 

[Schatten51]

that is wrong since the Fleets and Empires in SR2 are in fact even bigger as those in Stellaris, only in total different and way better way....you simply directly control only the Flagships, if you design it to be a Carrier (aka much Support Command components) it can command hundreds and thousands Vessels that go from repair ships, long range stricke craft to bombers, fighters, supply ships and also Intercepotors that try to flank the enemy and attack his rear/supply ships in combat....way bigger as Stellaris can offer..yet still you command the Flagship and those crafts work automatically , depending on the strategy you want use and what for craft you have given to this ship....

but you can see it self, just look in youtube for Star Ruler 2 Combat Video or Lets Plays, or like here

jump to minute 20:30 and you see atypical fight between 2 Flagships, and that 2 small Flagships, yet ylready bigger as most Stellaris Space fights....

by the way that is only a Combat Simulator in your Ship Designer to test your design in *real* fights bevore you build them......something that dont even exists in Stellaris...

 

[BlackUmbrellas]

atypical fight between 2 Flagships, and that 2 small Flagships, yet ylready bigger as most Stellaris Space fights....

Because that game is using a fundamentally different combat model. If you like that model, cool- it seems interesting. But it's not the model Stellaris uses, and I remain adamant that it is the wrong model for Stellaris.

 

[S. Grundleplith MD]

Other possible partial solutions:

1. Space equivalent of fire ships. Would have area-of-effect self-destruct capability, damaging doomstacks more than smaller fleets.
2. Planetary/system defenses such as ground based missile batteries/guns and space based minefields, which would make planetary conquest harder & take longer, giving battle losers more time to recover.
3. "Deep space" shipyards. Location only known to player-builder, so losing the fleet doesn't inevitably lead to all your shipyards getting destroyed.

 

[BlackUmbrellas]

2. Planetary/system defenses such as ground based missile batteries/guns and space based minefields, which would make planetary conquest harder & take longer, giving battle losers more time to recover.

I dunno about the other two, but I definitely support planets having defences that can damage fleets until sieged down.

 

[GAGA Extrem]

Because that game is using a fundamentally different combat model. If you like that model, cool- it seems interesting. But it's not the model Stellaris uses, and I remain adamant that it is the wrong model for Stellaris.

To be fair, I could imagine a system based around flag ships that is using production templates for navy construction (sorta like EU4 does).
So instad of building single ships, you design and alter whole fleets, allowing the game (if the player wants it) to build (and rebuild) all vessels automatically in all available space ports.

However, the question would probably be if that would be worth the time investment at this point, while we have more severe design issues that need to be adressed.

 

[Antediluvian]

I'd rather see anti-zerg mechanics. Cleave or AE damage is the simple one to counter massive fleet size while % based damage would counter the use of all large ships.

While i agree that the introduction of AoE damage would be cool and fun, i don't see how that would affect doomstack superiority considering such weaponry can be mounted on said doomstack and even with decreased effect penalty, would annihilate smaller stacks even faster than currently.

edit: the core problem with most of these community solutions to doomstacks is that Stellaris' combat/warfare is shallow and in a number of ways frustrating, and like Elothan, I would not find it particularly fun to turn one big dumb brawl into a few dozen smaller but equally dumb ones.

I agree entirely, but i am working on one aspect at a time. What you speak of is comprised of so many game componants that achieving that with one small solution is near impossible.

There has to be some middle ground

Personally I think the optimal direction is one where you generally have 2-3 attack fleets but are also encouraged to keep some sort of garrison fleet over important holdings.

I agree, that's what i was aiming for, rather than aiming high at improving combat and wars in Stellaris as a whole. With that i'm afraid i can't help

I usually see a 10 day countdown on the leader tab when I move a leader.

However, the fleet or planet or science ship I move the leader to experiences the effects immediately.

That's how I remember it

That's what i remembered too but could not reproduce. I'm assuming it was removed or alternatively bugged.

1) Criminal activity, interior security. Those "pirates" are ridiculous. No government will leave its empire unguarded. No admiralty will send every available ship to fight.

2) Fleet size should be limited by admiral's experience. 25y/o green guy will hardly lead 200 ships. Make soft cap for fleet size based on admiral's skill level, specie traits, ethos, government, buildings and perks. Exceeding soft cap will result in penalties for the fleet. You know, poor communication, misunderstood orders, chaos on the command bridge etc.

1. Totally agree.
2. I can actually imagine many different races having no such penalties (logically), making balance even more of an issue. It sounds to me more like you imagine the entire galaxy is populated solely by humans or likeminded humanoids.

If the devs implemented a proper fleet management system, I'd roll around with at least 5 fleets, but as it is now, it's such a huge pain in the ass maintaining ratio and reinforcing stacks that it's easier to keep it all in a doom stack, and occasionally use the split-in-half function to chase down stragglers while bombarding.

Not to say i don't want better fleet management, but i dont think that alone would entice us (most players) to use multiple fleets. They don't need to be enforced, they need to be encouraged.

 

[YaanuCZ]

2. I can actually imagine many different races having no such penalties (logically), making balance even more of an issue. It sounds to me more like you imagine the entire galaxy is populated solely by humans or likeminded humanoids.

which one?
specie is defined by its traits, and there is no hive-mind trait that would bypass it.

 

[Antediluvian]

which one?
specie is defined by its traits, and there is no hive-mind trait that would bypass it.

Oh, i'm sorry if i wasn't clear. I was referring to fictional alien concepts and ideas. Besides, i personally consider the current list of traits as very much a work in progress and missing alot of more stylized options that would make races less mundane and more unique (IE: Hivemind, Telepathic, Lithovore, Cybernetic, Subterranean, etc. Actually, the End Game Crises factions are more like what player factions should be at first glance imho).

I think its safe to assume that new features planned are not designed to fit only the existing content.

 

[Antediluvian]

Other possible partial solutions:

1. Space equivalent of fire ships. Would have area-of-effect self-destruct capability, damaging doomstacks more than smaller fleets.
2. Planetary/system defenses such as ground based missile batteries/guns and space based minefields, which would make planetary conquest harder & take longer, giving battle losers more time to recover.
3. "Deep space" shipyards. Location only known to player-builder, so losing the fleet doesn't inevitably lead to all your shipyards getting destroyed.

I like these. Some i've seen suggested already, but still, i think more such content would be definitely welcome.
And to add to your list:
4. WMD's. Imagine a big construction project of a sort of station (or death star), that would allow you to spend a ridiculous amount of resources (energy, mostly) to fire at a designated static position within the station's range (increasable by tech), and afterwards bear the consequences of having half the galaxy hate you.

 

[BlackUmbrellas]

Actually, the End Game Crises factions are more like what player factions should be at first glance imho).

That would pretty much tank the diplomatic and POP management aspects of the game. So, uh, pass. There are other games one can play if they want to play truly alien aliens. Or mods, or potential DLC, for that matter.

 

[Ur-Quan Lord 13]

Really, this could be combined with my thoughts about how to allow conquering a whole enemy empire.

1. Make blockading a planet necessary to maintain occupation of it. Whether this is because the armies experience attrition without a blockade to allow reinforcements to get there, or as part of a removal of the army mechanic where the ground invasion is just assumed to happen under cover of the blockade. Now, to win a war, you must split your fleet up (after beating the first doomstack).

2. The warscore required to conquer a planet is, of course, far more than the warscore you get for occupying a planet. But, the occupation warscore will slowly tick up. If you want to conquer 3-5 planets of a 10 planet empire, you just occupy all 10 planets, and you're done. If you want to conquer all 10, you have to occupy all 10, for a couple decades, before the government in exile gives up. Meanwhile, paying all the upkeep for all your split up blockade fleets.

3. The government still has control of those planets you occupy. If your blockade leaves, they can immediately start building a spaceport, as your occupation starts to decay, and build ships. They can bribe people to attack you. They can incite revolutions. They can sabotage your blockade fleet.

So, the initial fight is still a doomstack. But then you gotta split up, and allies or rebuild can cut you to pieces.

 

[Gehennas]

Good evenin' all,

I've been lurking in the shadows for a while, following the various discussions on the boards and i think its time for me to contribute what little i can

Same here
I was thinking a lot about doomstacks lately, and got some suggestions too.

First of all, why the doomstacks are bad in my opinion:
1. Wars are resolved mostly by fleet cap. For the most of the time the winner in a war between two empires with the same technical progress is already determined in the beginning - about 15% fleet size difference is already enough.
2. Majority of the wars in human history were won "with gold" and not "with iron". This is not the case in Stellaris, because the outcome is mostly determined by one large fight. Attrition wars should be possible.
3. Defence stations is a useless feature at this moment.
4. Federations are not as effective as they should be - AI empires cannot coordinate fleets with human player.

Why the doomstacks are effective:
1. It is too easy to catch the smaller fleet with a doomstack - galaxy map movement is too fast and system map movement is too slow.
2. Because of the fast galaxy movement, logistics are not the problem. The larger empire may reinforce its fleet as fast as a smaller one.
3. There is no "frontline" that may force you to distribute your forces.
4. You can't actually do much harm inside the enemy territory - losing one spaceport is not a problem and invasion needs a lot of time. Because of this, waging war on two fronts is not a problem - you may simply destroy one fleet, destroy the second and retake your planet (if it was lost in process)
5. It is almost impossible to build enough reinforcements in timely manner

And here are my suggestions. Basically, I don't think that there should be some limitations like fleet size cap. Instead, three smaller fleets should be more effective strategically than the large one:
1. Population should contribute to the fleet capacity ONLY if the spaceport is available. Also, there may be additional penalties if the capacity is exceeded by 20% or more, for example. The spaceports will be more valuable this way and they will be worth protecting. Chasing one smaller fleet will be simply ineffective when another one is destroying your infrastructure. That should be enough for the early-to-mid game.
2. In the midgame loosing the capacity of one planet is not too harmful, I think there should be additional bombardment mechanics, that will allow the fleet to "disable" the planet if left unchecked. Additional bombardment options require placing the fleet near the planet until the bombardment is 100% complete. Bombardment speed should be capped by planet size. So, for example, fleet with size of 100 will bombard 20-size planet with maximum efficiency available. Examples:
- Blackout bombarment. Disables the planet production for one year (no energy/mineral/tech yield, no construction).
- Psychic bombardment (for spiritualist). Forces the population to surrender. Acts as capturing the planet.
- Lethal bombardment (for militarists or xenophobes). Wipes the population.
This will also reduce the need of boring planet invasion mechanic in the mid-to-late game. Still may be useful for additional warscore.
3. As someone already suggested in different topic, there should be a possibility to construct a large shipyard that allows the quick production of fleets. I suggest to add the lategame tech that allows to construct one heavily-protected shipyard, that accumulates, let's say, 50% production of all available starports including the ones in the sectors. This way building the reinforcements should be easier and require less micro-management. Also, if there is no fleed docked into shipyard, the new fleet rally point will be created automatically.
4. Space travel types require some rebalancing. I think warp shouldn't be forced to stay during the cooldown (it is already slow enough and too easy to catch). Wormhole opening speed should also depend on distance.
5. Travel speed inside the system should be faster.

Thank you for reading and sorry for mistakes.

 

[Wyrm]

I still believe one of the greater issues with doom-stacks is the FTL-speed. As long as you can move a fleet really fast you can respond to almost everything your opponent does. If speed was lower, a doomstack would be easier to evade and you could go around it with your smaller fleets and strike at enemy infrastructure, possibly crippling his fleet without having to fight it at all if you can strangle his energy income.

 

[Demantiae]

The core principles of how wrfare work are the problem. Doomstacks are a symptom not a cause. The game encourages doomstacking and leaping from one enemy planet to another sieging as you go. The way to resolve this is three-fold I think.

1.) impose a command cap on admirals. Admirals can command only x fleet strength of ships based on their level. With leaders being harder to come by then ships this would limit the effectiveness of mini fleets that are uncommanded allowing admirals to play the deciding role in combat.

2.) change the way invasions work. There needs to be a better mechanic than sitting your entire fleet over a planet and bombing into the Stone Age. We need siege ships (cruisers and battleships would have some siege potential by default). Maybe we need to build transport ships and have them provide some sieging value before and as they land their troops.

3.) change combat so it isn't a case of one fleet wiping out another. It should be easier to survive combat with damaged ships rather than destroyed ones. Have combats end through a fighting withdrawal. The whole "ships charge towards each other and shoot at point blank range" thing simply needs to go anyway. The fleet stances need to change to modes such as skirmish, pursue, stand your ground etc. Stances should determine how your fleet engages and when they withdraw from combat. Battles would be actual battles between elements of two empires forces rather than the one and deciding factor in a war.

 

[Wyrm]

The core principles of how wrfare work are the problem. Doomstacks are a symptom not a cause. The game encourages doomstacking and leaping from one enemy planet to another sieging as you go. The way to resolve this is three-fold I think.

1.) impose a command cap on admirals. Admirals can command only x fleet strength of ships based on their level. With leaders being harder to come by then ships this would limit the effectiveness of mini fleets that are uncommanded allowing admirals to play the deciding role in combat.

This. It would be a plausible way to restrict fleet-sizes. There would, however, have to exist a way for this cap to remain even if multiple fleets engage. HOI-style, where only one commander can be in command of a battle. If your combined fleet-size is larger than your best admiral's command-limit, then there would be massive stacking penalties.


I kind of liked how they did it in Sword of the Stars, with the CnC-ships. It wouldn't work well in Stellaris though since there is no tactical battle-interface that exists separately from the strategic one. But Admiral skill determining maximum size of fleet would be along the same line of thinking.