Doomstacked Doomstack Doom-Thread: ReDoox

[Jeryen]

I don't know if this has been said, but one particular way you can handle doomstacks is to add a 'attrition warp' for ships jumping to different systems. Where making more ships jump at once whether they are as one fleet or in a group of smaller fleets, causing ship damage or even ship loss.

That way you can make systems into bottlenecks, or have technology that can increase a systems 'attrition warp' so your defense fleet has a better chance to hold a system as the enemy troops pile into the system at a slower pace.

If you add to that a 'warp lag' where ships cannot enter the system from the jumped system for x amount of days, then you have to be smarter, like having to spread your ships around to enter at different directions. Or even add a tech that can be fitted to a defense station that can pull a handful of ships going to one system and bring them to another with waiting troops, as added risks to going into deep enemy territory.

 

[Drowe]

I don't know if this has been said, but one particular way you can handle doomstacks is to add a 'attrition warp' for ships jumping to different systems. Where making more ships jump at once whether they are as one fleet or in a group of smaller fleets, causing ship damage or even ship loss.

That way you can make systems into bottlenecks, or have technology that can increase a systems 'attrition warp' so your defense fleet has a better chance to hold a system as the enemy troops pile into the system at a slower pace.

If you add to that a 'warp lag' where ships cannot enter the system from the jumped system for x amount of days, then you have to be smarter, like having to spread your ships around to enter at different directions. Or even add a tech that can be fitted to a defense station that can pull a handful of ships going to one system and bring them to another with waiting troops, as added risks to going into deep enemy territory.

Hmm, it would probably be pretty annoying and hard to justify, but as a mechanic it might work. It depends on how harsh it is, it would need to be pretty harsh to have a noticeable effect. The downside is that a turtle strategy would become optimal, because it would be pretty hard to crack defenses. It at least deserves some serious thought though.

 

[Airowird]

<snip>

Agreed, but then, I basically stated as such in the summary. The jump-capable forts are interesting, but I'd rather see them 'redeployed', that is, torn down by a construction ship to be rebuilt somewhere else. (No mineral refund, but rather just reconstructed with a slight speed bonus). How about Drowe's system-wide Aura's idea?

And what if I attack the construction ship? Does it then instantly destroy your fortress? Hmmm... Maybe combine the 2 ideas and have construction ships 'tow' stations at a very low (10-20%) speed, so that if they are attacked, they release the station at that location, which then becomes active in a short period. Prevents single Corvette ganks, but does nothing vs bigger fleets. Also realistic, as it's simply the construction ship providing its thrusters and FTL 'bubble' (as most sci-fi describe warp & hyperspace techs) for the entire station. As for system-wide aura's, I'm generally not a fan. I'm not even a fan of half the current station auras (exceptions being the FTL magnet, mine field and the repair aura)

It seems that you didn't actually read what high-value planets meant, because you've suggested something very similar. When I say "planets as high value targets," I'm not talking about warscore. There have been many ideas about how to make planets more valuable in a war. If attacking planets hits the enemy's economy, happiness, or whatever, then that means that smaller fleets have something to target that the enemy actually has to care about, unlike now. That has been suggested and discussed.

I missed a couple of those posts with suggestions it seems, as I have read a lot of posts just pointing out the issue (enemy fleets are 90% of the actual war effort) but didn't see as much thoroughly built ideas. Re-reading your summary more slowly does actually seem like a good starting point in this direction.I'll concede on being a bit hasty on this one.
(Although I don't think invasion should destroy buildings and enslaving the planet to give you resources imho makes more sense than a 'looting/raiding' bonus, because then you'ld wonna give the planet back and attack again to steal more. Added benefit: it also ties up troops longer to prevent uprisings, thus shifting economic war cost also towards maintaining your spoils over building a massive fleet and smacking the other dude with it)

Yes, it does nothing outside of making fights last longer, but that is all that suggestion is trying to achieve, because currently fights are too fast, and too deadly. That does need to change. Furthermore, your suggestion about 'evasion mode' is very similar, it'd make fights last longer, except the player would have to trigger it creating more micro, especially if there are more fleets to be concerned about.
That aside, making combat last longer WILL help in conjunction with other changes. If planets matter more then having your whole space-navy tied up in a long battle, even one you're winning, means that all your planets are undefended for that entire time. Currently the speed at which a doom stack can mop up smaller fleets contributes to its superiority.

I tried to keep my explanations on these short as to not make a giant wall of text, but maybe I should explain a bit more:

The reasoning behind the first part is that the combat speed does nothing to counter doomstacks itself, because you still want to max your fleet power (you'll just feel less powerful or even punished for being stronger doing so) to engage the enemy and annihilate their doomstack, after which the war is no different then it is now. Yes, your planets will be defenseless, but so will theirs be. And if they aren't, your doomstack is probably so much larger than the defending fleet that it'll still be winning relatively fast. To me it's just a different way of trying to implement combat width. But even in EU4, with width & attrition, I often ended up with a "stack&blanket" strategy of having very few, but large armies hunt the enemy while your small troops occupy territory. The efficiency loss here was countered by the efficiency loss of massive micro on several fronts, something AI can do better. In fact, my most exhausting wars were with several fronts of 5-10 small to mid sized armies invading, as I spent most of the war chasing each one while they kept conquering. (If anything, the combat length suggestion makes both FTL & bombardments go relatively faster, which is the opposite of earlier suggestions making FTL slower. To me, this indicates that the causal effect here is not clear enough to intervene without studying the effects first.)
I agree that the relative power is exponantial (firing power * life), and most games solve this with combat width, limitting fire power, but I think this simply doesn't (logically) work in Stellaris.
What would help atleast diminish the issue is a better combat AI that sticks to a max number of current/damaged targets, as right now, I often see the AI leaving battleships alone at 20% HP and targetting the one next to it on 90% to bring it down low, only to end up losing vs 5 battleships that together don't even have the HP of a single one.

PS: Be careful with penalties on relative power (RP), because you should never encounter a situation where adding a corvette (or mining station or a fart in a bag) should cause your total power to decrease. The only modifier I can think of would be a damage or fire rate mod of ( 1 + RP ) / ( 2 * RP ) with RP being your military power divided by theirs. Personally, I'm for Fire Rate change (makes the most sense, prevent hitting your own cannon shells from being hit by your plasma cannon etc.) And it means that it'll cap out at 50% Fire Rate for you, while the game already caps it at the other side at 200% for the opponent, thus 4x difference max if you're >10 times larger. Update dynamically and you got yourself a fighting chance if the difference is only 10-15%, and it even benefits torpedoes, as the initial strike would have a shorter cooldown period, while still being able to dish out a burst of damage and bring the balance more towards your favour. Perfect initial strike weaponry!


As for the evasive suggestion: It was mostly to counter the death sentence of fleets encountering a doomstack. You can already see the AI try to escape the system the moment your doomstack enters, but once you engage them, they are completely destroyed while you lose very little. Evasive Maneuvers would help smaller fleets escape (without having to implement the whole Morale system for fleets, not to be confused by how Army Morale works) and allow you to regroup should the attacker not chase you. This means the most effective way to attack smaller fleets is to box them in ... with multiple fleets of your own. Heck, you could even bait others with a small fleet and have your own larger one waiting. For those that play RTS games: What I propose is the sort of "tanks driving backwards while retreating" kind of option, which adds more tactical choices to counter stronger enemies outside of "everything but the kitchen sink" fleet dumps we have now. And I know Stellaris is not an RTS game, but it does lack the optional combat control that a lot of others have. If anything, adding a policy for auto-evasion could help out those that don't care as much about actual fights, similar to the auto-build option for ship layouts.

That's why I post this summary every page.

And for those that haven't read the fist 30 ages by now, it's great! (Also, thanks for the mentions )

Edit: I accidently the Post button before I was ready.

 

[Francech]

I feel that this 34 pages miss quite a lot the root of the problem. Players use doomstacks because the AI uses doomstacks. If the AI would use smaller stacks to attack at 20 different space stations every war would end in 6 months less, because the human player with the doomstack would just be crippled by naval capacity loss.

The system in Stellaris is perfect as it is. You get high value targets to cripple the economy of the enemy (space stations) and they are all valuable and have to be defended. So the game sets you in a situation with multiple offensive and defensive objectives, which is perfect.

The problem lies in the AI not being aggressive enough to destroy the human player space stations with multiple smaller fleets. Solve that and you get rid of any doomstack whatsoever. Because then suddenly you need to build stations, have multiple fleets to cover multiple targets. Because let's face it, once you destroyed every enemy space station you won a war. The loss in naval capacity will skyrocket the maintenance costs, and with no more energy and mineral left the fleet will lose effectiveness.

Why no one can see this fundamental thing, and instead everyone is focusing in very elaborate ways to change things?

 

[Summin Cool]

I feel that this 34 pages miss quite a lot the root of the problem. Players use doomstacks because the AI uses doomstacks. If the AI would use smaller stacks to attack at 20 different space stations every war would end in 6 months less, because the human player with the doomstack would just be crippled by naval capacity loss.

The system in Stellaris is perfect as it is. You get high value targets to cripple the economy of the enemy (space stations) and they are all valuable and have to be defended. So the game sets you in a situation with multiple offensive and defensive objectives, which is perfect.

The problem lies in the AI not being aggressive enough to destroy the human player space stations with multiple smaller fleets. Solve that and you get rid of any doomstack whatsoever. Because then suddenly you need to build stations, have multiple fleets to cover multiple targets. Because let's face it, once you destroyed every enemy space station you won a war. The loss in naval capacity will skyrocket the maintenance costs, and with no more energy and mineral left the fleet will lose effectiveness.

Why no one can see this fundamental thing, and instead everyone is focusing in very elaborate ways to change things?

Because the logic is flawed, the AI and the Human empires are the exact same, they play by the same rules. Due to this if not using doomstacks is better than why is the human player using doomstacks?

 

[Foefaller]

I feel that this 34 pages miss quite a lot the root of the problem. Players use doomstacks because the AI uses doomstacks. If the AI would use smaller stacks to attack at 20 different space stations every war would end in 6 months less, because the human player with the doomstack would just be crippled by naval capacity loss.

The system in Stellaris is perfect as it is. You get high value targets to cripple the economy of the enemy (space stations) and they are all valuable and have to be defended. So the game sets you in a situation with multiple offensive and defensive objectives, which is perfect.

The problem lies in the AI not being aggressive enough to destroy the human player space stations with multiple smaller fleets. Solve that and you get rid of any doomstack whatsoever. Because then suddenly you need to build stations, have multiple fleets to cover multiple targets. Because let's face it, once you destroyed every enemy space station you won a war. The loss in naval capacity will skyrocket the maintenance costs, and with no more energy and mineral left the fleet will lose effectiveness.

Why no one can see this fundamental thing, and instead everyone is focusing in very elaborate ways to change things?

AI has stopped using doomstacks exclusively in 1.5, now they will split their fleet once they reached certain size/power thresholds, and use these fleets to run multiple attacks/defenses at once.

This is made fighting the AI late game arguably the easiest it has ever been. AEs, which once terrified me, are now a joke because that 400k fleet is now split into 5-6 60-80k fleets which my single 100k fleet can easily destroy one at a time.

I can do this, because the increased upkeep from going over capacity when I lose stations is a slap on a wrist when I already have 9k EC as reserve, a mineral income that's several times larger than my energy deficit and a friendly empire or trader enclave on speeddial.

I can do this, because my planets are only going to get minor damage when they are being bombed or occupied.

I can do this, because I can rush back from my offensive to retake any and all worlds they did capture almost faster than they took them in the first place, and head back to the front line before they can rebuilt enough to present any sort of threat to me whatsoever.

You *might* have been right a patch ago when blockades counted for warscore, but now that they don't, AI splitting their fleets just makes fighting them that much easier.

 

[Francech]

The human player plays like he plays because he is lazy. Attacking 20 targhets at the same time requires a lot of work. And i am talking AI splitting like in small fleets of 6-7k. Just enough to kill space stations fast. Then once that is done regroup. While the doom stack can destroy only one objective at time.

That's the same reason why in EU 3 in multiplayer no one ever used doomstacks and won a game. If the AI splits only in two it makes no sense. I am talking to split a 150k fleet in 15 fleets attacking 15 space ports at the same time. Then you can tell me how good your doomstack of 150k will be at dealing with that.

And let's say that every one of this 15 fleets has enough troops to conquer a planet. You lose 15 planets in less than 6 months. What good is your doomstack then if you cannot even pay for it?

 

[Foefaller]

The human player plays like he plays because he is lazy. Attacking 20 targhets at the same time requires a lot of work. And i am talking AI splitting like in small fleets of 6-7k. Just enough to kill space stations fast. Then once that is done regroup. While the doom stack can destroy only one objective at time.

That's the same reason why in EU 3 in multiplayer no one ever used doomstacks and won a game. If the AI splits only in two it makes no sense. I am talking to split a 150k fleet in 15 fleets attacking 15 space ports at the same time. Then you can tell me how good your doomstack of 150k will be at dealing with that.

And let's say that every one of this 15 fleets has enough troops to conquer a planet. You lose 15 planets in less than 6 months. What good is your doomstack then if you cannot even pay for it?

As Sun Tzu writes, "He who defends everything, defends nothing." As long as I stop enough of those initial attacks that the warscore isn't high enough to force me to admit total defeat, I can turn around and win it. Every. Single. Time.

Again (and this is really where your argument falls apart, IMO), naval capacity penalties are a joke. With enough EC, enough minerals, and someone willing to trade my minerals for more EC, I can fund a war for decades even if my EC deficit is triple digits (I know this, because I have done it.)

Though I really only need to fund it for *a* decade. Why? because that's when the Length of War penalty reaches 0 and the AI starts to make demands based on what it can get (or offer surrender based on what it has to give up) until that point, the AI will only make demands if the warscore reaches 100%, or their total is enough to meet all their demands (which, considering that they always try to go for everything they can, is basically the same thing) This isn't something you can really change, either, because there is no easy way program the AI to tell the difference between "you're one step away from total victory" and "your gains are built on a house of cards, make your demands now."

The long-term loss isn't much to worry about either. Yes I might have sunk thousands of minerals in each of those stations, but the actual effect to my economy would probably be 45 (15x3) EC, even less food, some research, and... that's it? If the AI is taking the planets in under 6 months, they aren't doing a lot of bombing either, so those worlds should be pretty much intact, majority of which not losing anything and maybe *one* where a pop died.

So I just hunt down the fleets, one at a time, warscore from those victories and my ever-increasing fleet advantage (you are not rebuilding a 150K fleet in a decade) sustaining the gap from the AI's total victory. If they go together right after the initial push, that just makes this part quicker. Maybe I take back a couple worlds; Not so much as an reclamation, but again to keep from loss.

Once that's done, then I split my fleet to hunt down and destroy every one of their stations so they can't rebuild, leaving something behind to bomb each of their worlds so they can't rebuild their stations, then I take my semi-sweet time to reclaim all my worlds and begin taking theirs until I win.

Splitting your fleet before you decimate the enemy fleet is a *bad* idea, because there currently no realistic way to do significant enough damage to their economy to cripple their fleet in that way in time to matter at all, much less in the war in question.

PS. Doomstacking is less about "keeping everything in a single fleet" as it is "keeping everything close enough that they can immediately respond to threats on the other" first is silly in some cases, second will let you see victory 99% of the time no matter how much the other size tries to out-micro you. There is currently no reason to ever spread out your fleet beyond that point unless you are the only thing left in space.

PPS. You know why blockades no longer generate warscore? because people were splitting their fleet 20 ways at the start of the war, positioning them so they were in range of all the enemy worlds, and then declaring war and wining within the first two months based on the warscore from blockades alone.

 

[Summin Cool]

@Francech
Whats stopping me from splitting my doomstack into 10 fleets and destroying a couple of your fleets with little damage to my own total stack? (Assuming we both are equally prepared for the war, It's safe to say that a surprise war would generally decide this as at 150k empires are xbox heug) We both know that rebuilding any ships lost takes far too long to reasonably replace losses, so any initial advantage decides the war, assuming perfect play and two equal empires.

 

[Francech]

First of all, if you lose planets, you lose naval capacity and generation of resources. How can you miss that point?

@ Summin cool

If me splitting fleets to attack you on several places at once forces you to split, then the doomstack problem is solved. To me it seems you just said that i am correct in my analysis to solve the doomstack problem.

 

[Foefaller]

First of all, if you lose planets, you lose naval capacity and generation of resources. How can you miss that point?

@ Summin cool

If me splitting fleets to attack you on several places at once forces you to split, then the doomstack problem is solved. To me it seems you just said that i am correct in my analysis to solve the doomstack problem.

How can you miss the point that I could have enough in reserve that nothing you can do will hamper my fleet until after the war is already over?

 

[Foefaller]

Also, your belief that making him splitting his fleet means you've figured out the doomstack problem forgets one tiny little oversight:

By splitting your fleet first, you've lost the war.

Doomstacking is not a result of laziness, it's reaching the lowest common denominator of finding the most idiot-proof way to win wars. That is not to say splitting fleets is something you should never do, nor does it mean that doomstacking it the absolute best way to win in every given scenario.

What it does say is that by doomstacking, you are far less likely to lose so much of your fleet that any chance of a comeback is an impossibility. You can plan to micro your way into a 6 month victory, or you can plan to move like a slow-mo wrecking ball through each enemy fleet and system until you accomplish the same. Both can win, but the later has a significantly smaller chance of blowing up in your face.

 

[Francech]

what if i tell you that after taking over all planets i can make my demand and win the war without even fighting your fleet once?

 

[Foefaller]

what if i tell you that after taking over all planets i can make my demand and win the war without even fighting your fleet once?

If we're talking 150k fleets, you've only taken half at most.

It takes nearly 900 fleet cap to realistically get a 150k fleet in space, 15 worlds will only give you just over 400.

Considering you need to take about 80% of their worlds to get 100% warscore, your current warscore is probably at best just above 50%. Length of war penalty is -48 to start, goes down to about -40 in about six months, which, even if I'm foolishly enough sticking to one fleet after seeing what you are doing, is enough time for me to have taken out a couple of yours, likely most of them before they could bomb the planet enough for the troops to do jack (did you remember you need 15 transport fleets as well? blockades don't give warscore anymore because of this very scenario) so your actual warscore is probably around 40-45, meaning length of war + my fleet advantage for now have more fleet strength as you cancels all your gains out.

Which means, if you can get any demands, you'll get, what? one or two worlds for all that micro, and now I know sort of game you're trying to play. Thanks for the heads up!

 

[Francech]

what if i settle to get 30% war score demand or 20% war score demand and just snatching 5 planets, while doing massive amount of damage to infrastructure and economy. On a good situation you can drag this out and go for higher demands or go for total disruption of enemy economy in preparation of future wars.

Also if a doomstack fleet comes by, you can just run away, and still continue your attack on every other planet that it's around. In 12 month time you can virtually blockade/occupy 90% of an enemy empire without ever having to face an enemy doomstack fleet.

My point is that with two empires with same fleet power you would have always a winner with the empire that splits fleets as it is now in the game without any change whatsoever proving my point that Doomstacks is an invented problem of laziness of the AI to split well and the player who follows suite.

 

[Foefaller]

what if i settle to get 30% war score demand or 20% war score demand and just snatching 5 planets, while doing massive amount of damage to infrastructure and economy. On a good situation you can drag this out and go for higher demands or go for total disruption of enemy economy in preparation of future wars.

Also if a doomstack fleet comes by, you can just run away, and still continue your attack on every other planet that it's around. In 12 month time you can virtually blockade/occupy 90% of an enemy empire without ever having to face an enemy doomstack fleet.

My point is that with two empires with same fleet power you would have always a winner with the empire that splits fleets as it is now in the game without any change whatsoever proving my point that Doomstacks is an invented problem of laziness of the AI to split well and the player who follows suite.

1st: I just discussed why you're not going to make 30 warscore worth of demands in 6 months. Unless my fleet is off doing something else in another empire, it's highly unlikely you'll get enough to make demands worth more than 10.

2nd: *breathe*

YOU ARE NOT GOING TO DO ANY ECONOMY DAMAGE WORTH A DAMN IF YOU DON'T WIN ANY WORLDS. STATIONS GENERATE ALMOST NO RESOURCES, IN-SPACE MINERAL/EC PRODUCTION IS PATHETIC COMPARED WHAT PLANETS PRODUCE, AND FOR YOU TO BOMB WORLDS ENOUGH TO CAUSE MEANINGFUL DAMAGE TO THEM YOU WILL HAVE TO STAY IN ORBIT MORE THAN LONG ENOUGH FOR ME TO GET THERE AND STOP YOU. I MIGHT HIT 0 AFTER THE WAR, BUT THOSE STATIONS WILL BE FULLY REBUILT WELL WITHIN TEN YEARS, MEANING YOUR NET DISRUPTION TO MY MILITARY CAPABILITIES IN ROUND 2 IS CLOSE TO ZERO.

The real economic factoring comes with what it takes to rebuild the *fleet* for round two. If I manage to destroy 50% of your fleet before I'm forced to concede, I'm in a very good position to win next round even with my lost worlds; it takes an income of ~625 minerals a month to replace a 75k fleet (not counting any reserves already on hand, of course) regardless of the number of stations cranking out new ships. If you're producing less than that, you are almost certainly going to have fewer ships by the time we can go to war again than you did the first time, even if you technically have more worlds than I do now. Since my larger fleets will have fewer losses, there is less for me to replace, and perhaps, depending on what happens in the meantime, a good chance for me to exceed what I had before.

3rd: Unless I'm wormhole, I'm not going going to suffer any lost to my travel speed by staying in larger fleets than yours. If you flee the system as soon as I enter, I just wait in the edge until you jump and jump right to the system you go to, and unless your warp and I'm Hyperdrive, or you have (Psi) Jump Drives and I don't, there is nowhere you can jump to that I cannot immediately follow.

If you stay at the planet, then I just kite the edge of the system until I'm between you and the closest edge before attacking... Or I just jump around until I would hop in at an angle that is between you an the edge. Again, unless you're warp and I'm not, you're not going to get enough of a distance to jump out before I either catch you either in-system or at your next jump (even jump drives struggle to get off in a chase like that. If you think you can be clever and sit in the middle of the system, I can split my fleet (which started larger than yours) send one half after you, and the other when it either engages or you run and jump to a new system, with the first jumping right behind me. Loses might be greater, but I would almost certainly still be the victory

Defenders have home-field advantage when it comes to FTL travel charge times and speed; it is highly unlikely for you to avoid every single attempt for me to catch one of your fleets, and even less unlikely that I don't split my fleet and defend (or retake) enough of my worlds to keep you from finishing me off.

IN SUMMARY: By splitting your fleet first, you opening yourself to getting picked apart by larger, albeit fewer, fleets, who can zip around their empire faster than you can in theirs, almost irregardless of FTL matchups. Unless you can claim significant victory, you are NOT going to do enough to ruin his or her capability to support that fleet you didn't destroy in the long term, while run the very real risk of coming off with a Pyrrhic victory if you are unable to replenish your own losses and exceed any of their gains in ten years.

I'd also very much *love* to hear how you are going to mirco 15 fleets and their transports to invade attack 30 worlds in under a year while avoiding every single enemy fleet, and why you aren't out winning SC2 tournaments instead of slumming it out with us Grand Strategy folks.

 

[Foefaller]

Also, and I feel this is important to say; As a player, not an AI, I can ignore surrender demands (though I have to pay influence to do so, so not indefinitely) You cannot reliably take X number of my worlds and immediately demand my surrender and force me to eat it, because I might just say no and keep fighting.

 

[Airowird]

First of all, if you lose planets, you lose naval capacity and generation of resources. How can you miss that point?

@ Summin cool

If me splitting fleets to attack you on several places at once forces you to split, then the doomstack problem is solved. To me it seems you just said that i am correct in my analysis to solve the doomstack problem.

On naval capacity:
Fleets require both naval cap & upkeep.
So either I'm limited by naval cap, which means I should have more economic reserve to overcome a small period of lost naval cap.
Or I'm limited by economic power, at which point I don't even notice you removing naval cap. (And again, I should have some reserves built up for war anyway, so losing 10-20 energy & minerals a month when I'm knee deep in red numbers doesn't matter if I can win the war in a couple of years)
ONLY if I'm at that special snowflake balance point where I max out naval cap with just enough resources for my upkeep, does your tactic have any impact. But again, reserves will quite often tie me over for several years to come, so I'll still be playing the long game.

Also, I can easily split my fleet into 2 75k ones, send one out to with attacking each of your 10 15k ones queued up and the other one quickly taking back my planets or capturing yours without issue. With an FTL jump following yours in a chase ending up in the same location, thus immediately attacking (and destroying) your paltry 15k fleet, you can't actually outrun me and you need to cut your own strategy more than in half (and organise/regroup all of them) to counter me. AT that point, you're literally rebuilding your doomstack to fight me, yet you said your strategy works better than doomstacks?

 

[Summin Cool]

First of all, if you lose planets, you lose naval capacity and generation of resources. How can you miss that point?

@ Summin cool

If me splitting fleets to attack you on several places at once forces you to split, then the doomstack problem is solved. To me it seems you just said that i am correct in my analysis to solve the doomstack problem.

However, dropping the assumptions, three things:
We are assuming perfect play. I doubt anyone could possibly micromanage more than 3 fleets reasonably well let alone 15.
We both have 150k fleets, At what point does doomstacking becomes obsolete in the game?
Regardless of me splitting to counter, you have lost the war have you not? My point is that whoever has slightly less fleets wins - This leads onto the fact that your only way to feasibly counter my play is to have less but larger fleets. This ultimately leads to a doomstack vs doomstack battle.

 

[Legendsmith]

No page 35 Summary yet, as I can't see enough to add as page 34/35 at this point contains discussion of existing things.
Thanks for the feedback everyone, it's good to know people are finding the summary useful.

And what if I attack the construction ship? Does it then instantly destroy your fortress? Hmmm...

My idea was that when a fortress is deconstructed it immediately goes into the same mysterious place that your empire's minerals are stored.

As for system-wide aura's, I'm generally not a fan. I'm not even a fan of half the current station auras (exceptions being the FTL magnet, mine field and the repair aura)

How else are we going to get terrain in space though? The Auras you mention there are the main ones I was thinking of anyway.

I missed a couple of those posts with suggestions it seems, as I have read a lot of posts just pointing out the issue (enemy fleets are 90% of the actual war effort) but didn't see as much thoroughly built ideas. Re-reading your summary more slowly does actually seem like a good starting point in this direction.I'll concede on being a bit hasty on this one.
(Although I don't think invasion should destroy buildings and enslaving the planet to give you resources imho makes more sense than a 'looting/raiding' bonus, because then you'ld wonna give the planet back and attack again to steal more. Added benefit: it also ties up troops longer to prevent uprisings, thus shifting economic war cost also towards maintaining your spoils over building a massive fleet and smacking the other dude with it)

"Bouncing" planets to get the raiding bonus over and over again has an easy fix; a planet can only be raided every X months, years or whatever. There has to be a way to touch stored minerals (and energy maybe) for reasons that you actually already stated in your last post:
"(And again, I should have some reserves built up for war anyway, so losing 10-20 energy & minerals a month when I'm knee deep in red numbers doesn't matter if I can win the war in a couple of years)."

The reasoning behind the first part is that the combat speed does nothing to counter doomstacks itself, because you still want to max your fleet power (you'll just feel less powerful or even punished for being stronger doing so) to engage the enemy and annihilate their doomstack, after which the war is no different then it is now. Yes, your planets will be defenseless, but so will theirs be.

...
PS: Be careful with penalties on relative power (RP), because you should never encounter a situation where adding a corvette (or mining station or a fart in a bag) should cause your total power to decrease. The only modifier I can think of would be a damage or fire rate mod of ( 1 + RP ) / ( 2 * RP ) with RP being your military power divided by theirs.
...
As for the evasive suggestion: It was mostly to counter the death sentence of fleets encountering a doomstack. You can already see the AI try to escape the system the moment your doomstack enters, but once you engage them, they are completely destroyed while you lose very little.s.

I like wall of texts though!

Anyway, to respond to this. We're actually trying to achieve the same thing, that is, address Issue #4 in the summary, doomstacks near-instantly deleting smaller fleets. That's what I'm saying too. My suggestion has an automatic introduction of 'evasive manouvers' but without the penalty to damage. (Your -30% hit chance and damage is VERY harsh by the way). You must not have read what I suggested regarding my RP penalty, the addition of a single mining station or corvette to a midgame fleet engagement would have an effect so small that it would be rounded off, because the formula I proposed makes the bonus for evasive manouvers scale to the actual ratio of outnumbering, with values clamped to a certain range so beyond a certain difference it wouldn't matter. (If you've got 2x evasion or whatever the max bonus is, but I've got 10x your forces you're still going to die quick).
Now, does slower combat speed have an effect by itself? No
But does that matter? No. I wasn't talking about doomstack vs doomstack combat. I was talking about doomstack vs smaller, split fleets.
Like I said before, you can't consider any change in isolation. Let's assume the changes we have is something from the high value planets plus this. What is the result? The result is that it's no longer desirable to use a giant fleet to engage things a fraction of its size. The giant fleet will still win handily, but because it takes longer, the side with the split fleets will have time to invade multiple worlds at once.
At the moment, using a giant fleet to kill much smaller fleets is rewarded, overkill is good because you lose nothing and it's so quick you can mop up the enemy so fast.