Doomstacked Doomstack Doom-Thread: ReDoox

[HAL.9000.1]

As much as I would like that, I don't think we're going to get that level of control. The reason is mostly that programming the AI to handle that would be a pretty major task. As far as I can tell, the AI does not really have a concept of targeting a movement order on empty space. Fleets ordered to a system may hang out in empty space and move around a bit because of an aggressive stance, but other than that, any movement order the AI gives has a fleet/ship/structure/colony as target. The sole exception are defense stations.

My suggestion was meant to make it relatively easy for the AI to handle, since it's just a binary choice between moving towards or away from the enemy, based on a very simple criteria, a battle it has a very low probability of winning. It's not quite as easy, since one side may use multiple fleets, but you get the gist.

Would it be so bad if the AI didn't have that kind of control, but just continued to manage battles the way it always has? It has many advantages already, including the ability to multi-multi-multi task and react instantly to anything a human might do, and frequently comes into battle with a preponderance of strength. If we get a chance to exercise a little human ingenuity it might increase the 'fun factor'. Well, at least for human players, at least. But as far as I know, we still buy most of the games, not the AI.

 

[Drowe]

Would it be so bad if the AI didn't have that kind of control, but just continued to manage battles the way it always has? It has many advantages already, including the ability to multi-multi-multi task and react instantly to anything a human might do, and frequently comes into battle with a preponderance of strength. If we get a chance to exercise a little human ingenuity it might increase the 'fun factor'. Well, at least for human players, at least. But as far as I know, we still buy most of the games, not the AI.

I didn't say it was bad, I just said we are unlikely to get that level of direct control over combat and gave one of the main reasons for why not. The amount of control Stellaris offers is already more than any of the other Paradox games allow. I just don't see a real chance this would be implemented.

The AI is already pretty weak and rarely poses a threat to a player, simply because a player can think and the AI can't. The player can design ships to beat even 2:1 odds against an AI. A player can manage his empire properly to get the most out of what he has. The player really holds all the cards.

Is this a compelling reason against implementing it? No it isn't, but it is not a bad reason either.

 

[HAL.9000.1]

I didn't say it was bad, I just said we are unlikely to get that level of direct control over combat and gave one of the main reasons for why not. The amount of control Stellaris offers is already more than any of the other Paradox games allow. I just don't see a real chance this would be implemented.

The AI is already pretty weak and rarely poses a threat to a player, simply because a player can think and the AI can't. The player can design ships to beat even 2:1 odds against an AI. A player can manage his empire properly to get the most out of what he has. The player really holds all the cards.

Is this a compelling reason against implementing it? No it isn't, but it is not a bad reason either.

I apologize. The "would it be so bad" was more of an aside to any devs who might be following the thread than an attempt at a characterization of what you said. I am in fact in agreement that it would be difficult to upgrade the AI's performance to allow it to maneuver; I just don't think it would be a game-breaker to give humans that advantage.

You mention a lot of AI weaknesses, whereas I see a lot of AI strengths. The AI can manage 25 fleets at once without even blinking; humans cannot do that. But if humans can maneuver in battle but the AI won't, that seems like a change that would be possible to offset in other ways, if you think it would be unwise or unbalanced to give humans that additional advantage (for example, giving the AI slightly more resources, or slightly less maintenance cost, so that we would on average be exercising our maneuvering skills in the face of slightly larger enemy fleets).

 

[Drowe]

I apologize. The "would it be so bad" was more of an aside to any devs who might be following the thread than an attempt at a characterization of what you said. I am in fact in agreement that it would be difficult to upgrade the AI's performance to allow it to maneuver; I just don't think it would be a game-breaker to give humans that advantage.

You mention a lot of AI weaknesses, whereas I see a lot of AI strengths. The AI can manage 25 fleets at once without even blinking; humans cannot do that. But if humans can maneuver in battle but the AI won't, that seems like a change that would be possible to offset in other ways, if you think it would be unwise or unbalanced to give humans that additional advantage (for example, giving the AI slightly more resources, or slightly less maintenance cost, so that we would on average be exercising our maneuvering skills in the face of slightly larger enemy fleets).

Don't worry, I didn't take it personally. I just clarified my opinion on the matter because you appeared to have misinterpreted what I said. After your own clarification, it was me who misinterpreted you, so no apology necessary, but appreciated none the less.

 

[Diezy]

Yes, they might have their work cut out for them, so that the AI doesn't get 'checkmated' too easily and figuring out the best place for ships to be, and what other silly oversights might come with those changes. Since a lot of the magic still happens on its own, and you only control where you want the ships to be (draw an arrow and watch the magic happen), things aren't going to be micro-intensive.

Another thing I thought of that might discourage stacking would be if battles lasted longer. Considerably longer, a many-month, even year-long slugfest that could last even the entire war. Blocking a planet invasion or passage during all that time, like a front-line. Construction ships could go in and rebuild FTL inhibitors to block passage, and reinforcements could pour in, constantly blocking that system.

You'd have to push on other fronts and find un-defended weak spots, and also try deny the enemy any beachhead, starting other fronts elsewhere, targeting their industry, until one side can't keep up and a front breaks, so you can finally invade planets!

 

[Legendsmith]

@Diezy Yes, longer lasting battles has been something that's been brought up. While they can already last ingame days it's still a relatively short time. As has been said, battles are too deadly, which is why they're so short. Reducing deadliness will make them longer.

 

[Drowe]

Yes, they might have their work cut out for them, so that the AI doesn't get 'checkmated' too easily and figuring out the best place for ships to be, and what other silly oversights might come with those changes. Since a lot of the magic still happens on its own, and you only control where you want the ships to be (draw an arrow and watch the magic happen), things aren't going to be micro-intensive.

I don't think micro is the problem with your suggestions of more combat control that wouldn't add too much micro. I fear the AI would need to much work to deal with it or become even more of a pushover. It also goes against Paradox design philosophy on tactical control over combat.

Another thing I thought of that might discourage stacking would be if battles lasted longer. Considerably longer, a many-month, even year-long slugfest that could last even the entire war. Blocking a planet invasion or passage during all that time, like a front-line. Construction ships could go in and rebuild FTL inhibitors to block passage, and reinforcements could pour in, constantly blocking that system.

I don't think that is a good idea, it would encourage the exact opposite of what you think would happen. You would try to smash through the line as quickly as possible by using an overwhelming force, or even just bypass a defended system for a less well defended system. It would also make combat a more tedious and boring affair. Stellaris is not suited for the Hearts of Iron land warfare model, there simply isn't enough territory worth defending. Building up a front only makes sense if your enemy can't go around you, and except for hyperdrive empires, there is no way to prevent somebody from just going to a different system deeper in your empire. This would require very extensive and fundamental changes to the whole game, not just the warfare system. The game would need to be more focused on warfare and less on empire building.

@Legendsmith battles lasting longer and being less deadly are two different things, they already can last for months, that's long enough. They need to be less deadly, but not take longer.

The reason for them being so deadly is the fact that there is no way to retreat except for emergency FTL, which requires the battle to last for 30 days. And during all that time your fleet charges directly into enemy fire. Fleets need to be able to move away from an enemy fleet to stay out of range until they can jump out of the system, preferably to a system of your own choosing. Emergency FTL should only be used if that isn't an option. Once that is achieved and you have more targets to attack and defend than just fleets, killing the enemy fleet becomes just one possible strategy for winning but is no longer the only one.

 

[Legendsmith]

Yeah you're right. @Drowe It was a spur of the moment reply. It seems rare that they last that long because someone always emergency FTLs ASAP when it's clear they're losing but of course by the time they can emergency FTL to retreat they've lost so much. But yes, you're right.

 

[HAL.9000.1]

It also goes against Paradox design philosophy on tactical control over combat.

Is design philosophy a Trait, or more like an Ethos? Not having played any other Paradox games, this is news to me. Good to know, however. Makes your proposed solution seem like the best that can be expected under the circumstances.

 

[Drowe]

Is design philosophy a Trait, or more like an Ethos? Not having played any other Paradox games, this is news to me. Good to know, however. Makes your proposed solution seem like the best that can be expected under the circumstances.

I have not played all of them, but looking at Hearts of Iron 2, 3 & 4, Crusader Kings 2 and Europa Universalis 4, I inferred that this is the case for their other games as well. All those games use the same engine as Stellaris, which is another indicator for certain similarities. All of them have in common that you don't have tactical control over combat. But Stellaris is the first Paradox title I'm aware of that has some rudimentary RTS elements, so there is a very slim chance for those to be expanded.

 

[HugsAndSnuggles]

Rebuilding Speed Once a fleet is destroyed it cannot be rebuilt in any kind of timeframe relevant to the war. (Suggested by @Summin Cool ).
This might not matter so much if there was less need to rebuild entire fleets.

Main problem with rebuiulding speed comes from UI that helpfully hides most of your spaceports (thank you, sectors), thus making any kind of specialization or utilization of said spaceports almost "army attachment management"-level of chore. If we had saner 'fleet template' system that would automatically fill HOI4 or EU4-style - that would help immensely with a rebuilding speed.

Another - the sheer number of ships in need of rebuilding. This can also be adressed by increasing upkeep, which (in addition to universal reduction of fleet sizes) will make standing fleet more of an investement that requires healthy economy, and make losing said fleet have less of an impact on your ability to rebuild.

But it all comes to the main problem: with current battle mechanic, whole concept of rebuilding is kind of pointless. Until there is a hope of dealing meaningful amount of damage to a slightly larger doomstack (or, ideally, damage your enemy in some other way with your slightly smaller fleet), being able to quickly replace small chunks of fleet won't help you any. Just wanted to point out that it's not the speed, but the concept that is an issue here.

 

[Legendsmith]

@HugsAndSnuggles you're right of course, especially the point about the fact that most spaceports are hidden from the player. I sorely wish that Stellaris had something akin to the 'System' view from Star Ruler. It was THE best UI feature from the game; a single unified interface that allowed building on any planet or spaceport (Both could build ships in Star Ruler). The Planets & Sectors view is like that, except that you can't build ships there. Star Ruler had a great "build on all" or "build on best" setting that allowed players to easily and quickly queue up desired ships on either every planet/spaceport that met the current parameters or just the one that was the most suited to it. The planets and sectors screen will even show us spaceport size and free module slots, but we can't manipulate them from there. Frustrating indeed.

But yes of course, rebuilding would have to matter as a concept first.

 

[nosavynada]

First, thank you Legendsmith for the summary of proposals and their pro / con.

I do have a question. So the hard cap / system limit - I can see why it would be tedious and perhaps something of a arbitrary limiter.
However, what if the hard cap limit were not system based but on largest ship in the fleet based with the addition of every 10% increase in max fleet size (via technologies research or civ bonus) adding +1 to that max fleet size as well.
So pick a base number for corvettes - say 5 and double or whatever works each larger hull size. 7 for destroyers etc.
In system defense such as stations also have a fleet size bonus - thus giving an advantage to the defender. Defense stations through fortresses.
Home worlds may be an exception - but I would think not.

This would not be an artificial cap as much as a command and control cap.

Further it would bring added bonus to those early events that leave you with larger / odd ship sizes.

Additionally add a # of separate fleets an admiral can command - 2 per Star or 1 plus 1 per 10% researched fleet size (and or civ bonus. as above for fleet limits)

This would make defensive stations more important.
It would delay the doom stack syndrome until late game when you have more leaders and thus can have more admirals.


some cons I can see...
early game it makes it tougher to take enemy systems. If you have corvettes and they can only amass 300 power - you are not taking a spaceport with less than 5 fleets.
Does give an advantage to tick boy types who prefer to defend and research. But defense has generally been an easier path except when breakthrough technology or leadership occurs it seems. So if an aggressor researches and chooses traditions to help in their goals they can gain the advantage.


Perhaps worth some experimentation. Would not seem to difficult to add the overlay / modification to Fleet Power techs and abilities which then modify fleet size attributes for admirals, stations and hull sizes.

I will put on my flame retardant clothing now.

Cheers

 

[Drowe]

@nosavynada
No need for flame retardant, I would say the discussion here is quite civilized we all want to come up with ideas to make the game better, we just disagree on how to get the best results.

To your suggestion, the first question that comes to mind is, what is the difference between one large fleet and five smaller fleets? If you have 50 corvettes and can only put 5 per fleet you have 10 fleets with 5 corvettes each. But if you move those 10 fleets to attack a spaceport together you did still form a doomstack just a doomstack of separate fleets instead of individual ships in one big fleet. You don't even need admirals to do that, most of your ships just won't get the admiral bonus. So it only creates more fleets but doesn't bring any benefits with it. The bonus for defenses also has very little impact.

 

[nosavynada]

@Drowe
True, what I had in vision though failed to cover was that if you have corvettes 5 no Admiral, fine but that is the most you can bring to a system, multiple stacks require an Admiral - which has a stack / fleet limit. You can bring multiple Admirals but that limits you in other areas unless you have increase leader in your empire. So yes I could have 5 admirals but I wont have very many scientists, generals, sector / planetary governors.
It is a trade off. You want to have better offensive capability - you need to research to it or have few scientists, etc. It is a valid choice. If you prefer science, you have less offensive capability until you overcome it via research or swap scientist for Admirals. It makes certain choices more meaningful. You want that energy lance now or do you expand your fleet capability. You want that extra scientist for Assistance or an extra admiral. You want that Science ascendancy or Empire to gain more leaders.

I admit it will not be for everyone, as with much it should perhaps be an option to enable - like other game options.

 

[NilusBavarius]

If I may,

@nosavynada
... But if you move those 10 fleets to attack a spaceport together you did still form a doomstack just a doomstack of separate fleets instead of individual ships in one big fleet.

Agreed, but I think the main question in this particular case is: are we talking about AI or Multiplayer?

@Drowe ... It is a trade off. You want to have better offensive capability - you need to research to it or have few scientists, etc. It is a valid choice.

Also agreed and as sayed above - is it for Singleplayer/AI or for the Multiplayer?

You can't blame a human Opponent who gathered resources for a couple of years and established a big Doomstack which he uses to demoralize you - that's absolutely legit! On the other hand - in the meantime he has no other Fleets at home, so he's going "ALL-IN". Tactic and Strategy could still offer you many opportunities and possible Targets, while he is overpowering somewhere.

If we are talking about the AI, well... I've seen both ... Doomstacks and small attack fleets. And tbh, the small ones are pesky nutters and a pain in the $&/%. OFC the AI tries to get an Advantage against you (even coded to have a certain Ratio bevore even considering an attack). If you are hoarding a doomstack at home, I don't wonder why the AI gets his on top of it.

EDIT: Adding a Vessel Limit or Size Limit per Fleet could help, but touching the AI for better Evaluation of Fleetpower vs. Target Defense should be done as soon as possible, agreed!

 

[Drowe]

@NilusBavarius
What you failed to recognize is that this is the exact situation we have now. It doesn't matter if you have one fleet or ten, if they move together it's still a doomstack.

@nosavynada
How is that enforced? You would need to prevent a fleet from entering a system that already has a fleet without an admiral in it, which would be very annoying, and in essence a system based cap again. Alternatively you could limit the number of fleets that can use FTL at the same time to one fleet without an admiral per system, which would mean I could simply send the fleets one at a time, so I could still form a doomstack, it just takes a bit more time, which is arguably not so bad. But to speed it up I would micromanage admirals, basically send the first batch, reassign admiral and do it again.

Another problem is your proposed bonus to fleet size based on local defensive structures. That goes away if the fleet leaves the system, so what happens? Either the limit is only checked when you want to merge one fleet with another, in which case you can circumvent the restriction by merging fleets in a system where you stacked fleet size boni, or once you enter another system those ships fall out of the fleet so to speak, so the admiral could command the fleet before FTL but not after.

If number of ships is determined by the largest hull, then you would only build your largest ship type, no sense wasting a slot on your fleet for a cruiser if you can put in a battleship.

 

[Phil76]

@NilusBavarius
How is that enforced? You would need to prevent a fleet from entering a system that already has a fleet without an admiral in it, which would be very annoying, and in essence a system based cap again. Alternatively you could limit the number of fleets that can use FTL at the same time to one fleet without an admiral per system, which would mean I could simply send the fleets one at a time, so I could still form a doomstack, it just takes a bit more time, which is arguably not so bad. But to speed it up I would micromanage admirals, basically send the first batch, reassign admiral and do it again.

Not a problem, just allow to assign an admiral only if the fleet is stationed at the homeworld

@NilusBavarius
If number of ships is determined by the largest hull, then you would only build your largest ship type, no sense wasting a slot on your fleet for a cruiser if you can put in a battleship.

Sure but at last it encourages to build larger ship and counter a bit the corvette swarm, which I think should be corrected : corvette should be used to protect systems against pirate, to protect larger ships, but should be useless alone against large ships. So a fleet cap based on larger hull in fleet (with possibly an admiral modifier) would be a good thing.

And I would push this idea a bit more : a fleet should have a bonus/malus based on its composition, so we would not see only one ship type in a fleet. A corvette swarm is as stupid IMHO as is an only cruiser fleet.
I would like something similar to what we had in federation & Empire (the strategic boardgame in the starfleet battles universe) : we could have as many ships as we wanted in a system, but those that would be able to fight would be determined by the command capacity of our flagship (modified by admirals). After each battle we would have a reinforcment phase, which would also allow one player to disengage.
When fighting a base, the attacker would be allowed to use all his ships as soon as he destroyed the defenders. Once the all ships against base has begun, there would be no more fleet cap, even if the defender bring new ships, until either the base is destroyed, or the attacker stops his attack.

This last sentence brings another proposal : against a fixed defense, and without enough defending ships, the attacker should always be able to stop his attack.

 

[Drowe]

Not a problem, just allow to assign an admiral only if the fleet is stationed at the homeworld

So when an admiral dies you have to recall your whole fleet. They do die of old age after all. Oh wait, you can't do that because you can't move your ships together anymore.

Sure but at last it encourages to build larger ship and counter a bit the corvette swarm, which I think should be corrected : corvette should be used to protect systems against pirate, to protect larger ships, but should be useless alone against large ships. So a fleet cap based on larger hull in fleet (with possibly an admiral modifier) would be a good thing.

But mixing fleets would be discouraged, so you can't use them to protect larger ships without sacrificing fleet power, ergo you get exclusively fleets with battleships only, every other ship type becomes obsolete once a larger one is unlocked.

And I would push this idea a bit more : a fleet should have a bonus/malus based on its composition, so we would not see only one ship type in a fleet. A corvette swarm is as stupid IMHO as is an only cruiser fleet.

You can mix fleets already, and I regularly do that, often using battleships as the main force but with a screen of cruisers armed with flak cannons, destroyers with point defense and corvettes as cannon fodder. It doesn't work too well, since I can't tell my cruisers to stay back and guard the battleships, so they suffer heavier casualties than I'd like. But my battleships don't get destroyed. If you could assign roles to a ship class when you design it, that would probably help in doing that. But forcing the player into a specific tactic is not good game design.

I would like something similar to what we had in federation & Empire (the strategic boardgame in the starfleet battles universe) : we could have as many ships as we wanted in a system, but those that would be able to fight would be determined by the command capacity of our flagship (modified by admirals). After each battle we would have a reinforcment phase, which would also allow one player to disengage.
When fighting a base, the attacker would be allowed to use all his ships as soon as he destroyed the defenders. Once the all ships against base has begun, there would be no more fleet cap, even if the defender bring new ships, until either the base is destroyed, or the attacker stops his attack.

The fewer rules a game has, that force the player to behave in a certain way, the better. Ideally the game just defines what each piece can do and lets the players do the rest. If a game designer has to enforce a behaviour through a rule, there needs to be a good reason to do that. And using a rule to fix a different rule is just causes more problems. Doomstacks are a consequence of rules that already exist, better fix those rules than adding new ones.

 

[Legendsmith]

Summary of Reasons the Doom-Stack is King™
p 40K Edition, for the God Emperor of Dune by Frank Herbet

"Every battle in Stellaris is Midway, only more decisive and with more damage. Every battle is like Midway with US carriers parked in Japanese ports a week later" - @durbal
"The fewer rules a game has, that force the player to behave in a certain way, the better. Ideally the game just defines what each piece can do and lets the players do the rest. If a game designer has to enforce a behaviour through a rule, there needs to be a good reason to do that. And using a rule to fix a different rule is just causes more problems. Doomstacks are a consequence of rules that already exist, better fix those rules than adding new ones." - @Drowe

1. Every engagement is a full pitched battle. This makes doomstacking the best because in a pitched battle you want your maximum force there. There's no squadrons of fast torpedo corvettes raiding the lumbering enemy battleship blob with bombing runs. Also related to Issue #4 as every battle ends with total, or near total annihilation of the loser.
2. The Enemy fleet is the only meaningful target for each side. Doomstacking is the safest way to win any war because hostile fleets that are not targeting your fleet can be ignored, and then mopped up. Nothing has an meaningful impact on your current war situation except losing your fleet. Nothing impacts your post-war status except a loss or win. Pyrrhic victories are virtually impossible.
3. Non-fleet defences are useless. Fortresses and starports are speedbumps at best."The impotency of starports and fortress' means that stellaris does multi-front or pan-galactic war very poorly, as of now your only defensive force is your blob fleet, which is also your offensive fleet." - wastedswan
   We could also include defensive armies in this category, as they're irrelevant at best.
4. A losing fleet loses hard, and is quickly wiped out, this makes smaller fleets suicide because they die so quickly with no chance of reinforcement. Admirals apparently never fight delaying actions in Stellaris. (Related to #1) The speed at which a doom stack can mop up smaller fleets contributes to its superiority.
   At the moment unless a reinforcement fleet warps on top of the fight, by the time they get to the fight it'll already be over. Therefore sending reinforcements is useless because the friendlies will already be dead.
5. You can't outrun the enemy except with superior technology. Every fleet has the same strategic movement capability and thus the same capability to respond to threats. This is related to #1. Again, there's no squadrons of fast torpedo corvettes raiding the lumbering enemy battleship blob with bombing runs. (if there was, defence stations/forts/platforms might be actually useful.)
6. Smaller fleets are currently too risky. See #1, #4 and #5, for reasons why smaller fleets are discouraged, and additionally #2, because there's no incentive.
7. Rebuilding Speed Once a fleet is destroyed it cannot be rebuilt in any kind of timeframe relevant to the war. (Suggested by @Summin Cool ).
   This might not matter so much if there was less need to rebuild entire fleets.

These reasons are quite varied, and no single change can address all of them. Thus critiquing any suggestion because it will not solve doom-stacking completely is not a valid critique, it must be shown why it would only slightly change the problem, such as that of admiral fleet capacity caps turning the problem into everyone having 2 doomstacks instead of 1.

Summary of Suggested Solutions & Changes (and some Problems/Rebuttals)
These are in no particular order. Not all of these are necessarily good, but must be included in the summary so they're not re-suggested for the Nth time.
Red topics have been discussed to death and need to stay dead.
Green topics have been regarded as near universally good moves by the denizens of Paradox Forumland
White topicscould be good, could be not good, or where the consensus is unclear.

• Slower FTL For Military Ships
  • Might be a good idea. Details here by @EntropyAvatar.
    1. Takes longer for a doomstack to chase down small fleets
    2. Takes longer for a doomstack to reach core worlds
    3. 1 and 2 mean that there is more time to build more ships before the war is decided
    4. Makes it easier for a player to simultaneously control multiple independent fleets
    5. Gives more time for an outmatched fleet to run away (and for a player to notice that an outmatches fleet is in danger)
  • This change could scale with ship size, corvettes (And civilian ships) being the fastest, while the increasing sizes of other ships = progressively slower FTL, whether it be windup, cooldown, or transit time. This partially addresses #4
• Admirals as a size limit for fleets
  • Not a solution because everyone just has their doomstack turned into 2, 3, or 4 mini doomstacks that behave exactly the same way. Even combined with other changes it would be those other changes having the impact, rather than this one.
  • @Airowird's way of putting it: A flat fleet cap is pointless, because 2 half-doomstacks flying together still have the same effect as a single one...It provides no incentive to split fleets, only rules. Game Design 101: Any arbitrary rule to limit players only limits enjoyment of min-maxing, not the reason/source of the problem.
• Rebuildable/Reinforcable/Redeployable Fortresses & Other Static defences.
  • Making defences less of a waste of minerals that can't survive encourages people to build them. A fortress that could actually be defended by a friendly fleet rushing to its aid allows smaller fleets to have a 'home turf advantage' from the fortress's firepower.
  • This could make defences more annoying
  • But defences are supposed to be inconvenient.
  • What if fortresses could be captured?
  • Redeployable fortresses makes them less of a permanent minerals sink that can never be moved from a position that could become strategically irrelevant later.
• Directly increase fortress & other static defence HP/Damage/Power
  • This doesn't solve doomstacks itself because the increase in power means that fleets want to concentrate more firepower in order to beat the strong forts, but combined with other factors it could have a place
  • They'll still get outclassed if this is all, but static defences do need some kind of buff.
• Faster retreat times
  • Nobody really wants this, but it's been suggested. Faster retreat times are extremely frustrating and turn warfare into a game of "chase down the enemy fleet" or "run from the enemy doomstack" as soon as one side starts to lose the first battle, especially due to the AI's ability to hit it ASAP.
• Flanking Bonuses.
  • As far as I can see, the general response to this is that it is a post-hoc mechanic that has more elegant solutions. It's also very situational and suffers from the same problem that @Drowe elaborated on with AOE weapons (below); it stops doomstacks in name only.
  • "Flanking has already been talked to death, that only increases micromanagement but does nothing to solve doomstacks." - Drowe
• Planets as high value targets aka Consequences of invasion & bombardment
  • This seems to be universally accepted as a good idea.
  • THIS DOES NOT JUST MEAN MAKING PLANETS WORTH MORE WARSCORE, though it could include that.
  • Suggestions that fall under this:
    • Long term happiness debuffs for any planet that's invaded, or bombarded.
    • Harsher Bombardment penalties.
    • The ability to destroy buildings with invasion and/or bombardment. Planetary combat has to happen somewhere, why doesn't a mine get wrecked or a farm shelled to bits?
    • The ability to capture and, destroy, steal, or render-inaccessible portions of the enemy's stored resources upon capturing a planet.
    • Loot resources, possibly from enemy's stored reserves by destroying buildings on occupied worlds - Suggested here by @Undar
    • Auto-enslavement of occupied populations.
    • Diversion of produced resources to occupier's empire.
• Supply limits/chains. This could really be done well or awfully.
  • Done well, supply chain/supply limits discourages sending a doomstack around for every single task, and makes sending a fleet deep into enemy territory a costly endeavour.
  • Done poorly this just creates another variation on the doomstack theme that will be immediately min/maxed out again.
  • A proposed implementation is Weighted supply range by @EvilKnievel82
• Diminishing firepower returns for large vs small fleets (Slow down the rate of death for losing fleets)
  • This can be called combat width, coordination penalty, or whatever. Basically it means that larger fleets will still defeat, but not immediately 'delete' smaller fleets. They will kill them more slowly, up to a point (unless the smaller fleet is very significantly smaller in which case it'll still be deleted). This slows down battles a bit and makes splitting fleets up a less risky move. The slowing of battle also means that it's not a great idea to send your whole fleet to kill something a quarter of its size because it'll be tied up for too long in a battle that yes it will win, but it's just so much overkill.
  • Rebuttals: Doesn't make sense, everyone's easy to hit in space.
  • @Airowird's rebuttal: "(Relative) Fleet power reduction does nothing outside of making fights lasts longer, as you still want to build up a doomstack as much as possible just in case the other guy brought more friends than expected." (But making fights last longer still helps mitigate doomstacks)
• Hearts of Iron TFH style combat tactics.
  • Pretty sure someone suggested this, it seems like it might be good, it could help address issues #1 and #4. It could also make admirals more important. It's related to to "Diminishing firepower returns for large vs small fleets.", as the different tactics that the combat AI uses could slow down the combat with 'fleet manouvers' that provide -#% damage to enemy, and similar things.
• System Wide Auras for Stations.
  • Suggested by @Drowe and expanded here by Legendsmith. This concept allows stations to be a meaningful kind of defence without encouraging doomstacks. Defence auras affect whole systems, and yet do not require a doomstack to kill, thus achieving the goal of delaying the enemy. Every station contributes to an aura score for the system, which maxes out at 100%.
• Auto-Retreat/Morale mechanics Fleets currently fight to the death every single time unless the player hits emergency FTL. Is every captain and crew a fanatic? Apparently so. There's no way to defeat an enemy without just crushing them physically, which means there truly is no recovery for the losing side. This is related to Issues #1 and #4 .
• Faster Ship building Suggested by @Summin Cool, this change would make ship building faster and allow a loser to recover faster. (Details are apparently to come.)
• In-Combat Controls/RTS Controls. I'm putting these two things under one header because they are both a similar thing; the ability to affect fleet behaviour during combat (other than emergency FTL which just ends combat).
  • @Airowird 's post here has some suggestions. Summary: "The option to set a fleet to Evasive during combat. Evasive fleets have 30% more Evasion, but 30% less Accuracy and Damage, and will try to move out of the gravity well to jump back to the last 'safe' system."
  • This seems unlikely to happen as Stellaris is not an RTS and does not operate on an RTS scale, plus it would create a lot of micro if doomstacks weren't the go-to strategy, because there'd be more fleets to manually manage.
• Movable/Redeployable stations/Fortresses
  • Stations that can FTL but are rendered inoperable during and for a period afterwards
  • Alternately, allow construction ships to deconstruct and then reconstruct stations for an energy-credits cost.
• More cost-effective Defensive fleets that can't leave an Empire's borders.
  • Extremely arbitrary and can't chase enemies, only attractive to pacifists.
• Organisation/Fleet Cohesion loss After a big engagement, your ships suffer from cohesion loss resulting in diminished combat stats. Fleets regain cohesion, and when they do it at a spaceport, the cohesion gains are a lot faster
• Moving under fire, aka "Not charging into battle just because you're in the enemy weapon range". This basically removes Issue #1 altogether.
• Greater Abstraction/Automation:
  • Strategic box variant Suggested by Hammer54: One possibility is to introduce a strategic "box" for each system, where you can leave raiders in enemy systems and gurilla warfare ships/escorts in your own. This could force the larger empire to disperse fleet power in more systems, and gives the weaker party something to do when they cant engage the blob. The point with a strategic "box" is that you dont have to micro it, you can just leave the corvets there. They'll do damage over time, and wont be killed off instantly.
  • System-Battlefield Suggested by @skydiver1: ? Why not treat the entire system as one big battlefield where the player can influence events but ships can manage complex behaviour on their own, attacking targets, chasing and being chased. Then mechanics can be introduced that allow smaller fleets to serve as effective "partisan" harrassers, that cannot be ignored and quickly dealt with but require multiple sizable fleets to keep them at bay
• AOE weapons. To discourage large blobs, AOE weapons that damage large numbers of ships a once could be used. Suggested by @REJS7
  • This would just make AOE weapons the most OP thing in the game, and what's to stop a larger AOE equipped doomstack from just killing a smaller fleet faster?
  • "This has already been brought up multiple times, it doesn't solve doomstacks except for in the strictest sense of the word. People would get around it by RTS style micromanaging multiple smaller fleets within the same system, which technically is still a doomstack in all things that matter." - @Drowe
• Hard Cap on Fleet size with tech (or some other way) to raise it.
  • Doesn't solve doomstacks because the problem is more than just the size of fleets.
  • The doomstacks will just be made out of a number of fleets flying together, rather than one fleet.
  • The only reason to research the tech will be to utilize a really good admiral on as many ships as possible.
  • Hard Cap on fleet size per hull. (falls to every other argument against Hard caps).
• Maximum fleets/ships per system
  • Doesn't solve doomstacks because the problem is more than just the size of fleets.
  • People will just send fleets in one after another as ships are lost in battle. It'll be doomstack-by-degrees. Slightly better but not a solution, plus frustrating gameplay.
• Fleet Police Activities. Give fleets something to do during peacetime (That also might need doing during wartime), such as protecting 'trading routes.' Suggested by @Drowe here.
• Fuel & Fleets Fuel Harvesting Suggested by @sterrius here. A concept where fleets have fuel. Fuel is automatically harvested by a fleet from celestial bodies in a system, prolonging a fleet's own stockpile. Fleets inside an empire's borders are always fuelled.

New things from Last Summary: Added Drowe's quote about game rules. Renamed the fuel idea. Renamed "Give fleets something to do during peacetime" to "Fleet Police Activities."

Summary end.
Nothing really new at this point since discussion is currently focused around existing points.