Enemy building in your system

[Jerev]

Not by unarmed workers behind enemy lines without armed forces to back them up. And you seem to mistake wormhole stations with Military stations. An analogy to wormhole stations are rather supply Depots. And no, you don't build those behind enemy lines.

Well a landing zone can have unarmed personnel and the wormhole station is like landing boats or bridges over a strategically important river. That the AI didn't guard their stations does not mean that they weren't legitimate camps in enemy territory since they served the purpose of transporting troops to the front lines.

 

[kalauer]

Let me tell you, mass-building wormhole stations and the defender doing their best to destroy them WILL become a strategy in multiplayer. Why should the AI not engage in it as well? Personally I think this is something that needs to be automated.

What should be automated? building them or destroying them?

Because it gives you complete access to enemy systems, and makes it extremely difficult for that access to be disabled. Remember, wormhole's biggest weakness is the fact that your ability to FTL is tied up in that one station. Building a ton of them eliminates that weakness.

I agree that having the stations is a benefit for wormhole-civs. But they only have them if the Player does not want to bother. If he thinks that they are worth his effort, the stations will never be constructed since the ships get destroyed before they finish them. My Point being that sending only unarmed construction ships to build the wormhole stations is either useless or not feasible, depending on the opponents reaction.

If you don't defend your borders, anyone can move across them, even if it's not legal. Heard of a certain North American country that has issues with this?

While that is true, it implies that those "defending" should be explicitly simulated by the combat fleets. I say it should be abstracted and simulated by a General denial of buildings inside enemie's country. To be honest, I do not know what incident you are referring to with the North American Country... I mean there are not that manybut still .... However, while border violations in war are normal (duh), it is not normal that unarmed construction troops enter enemy territory to buil supply depots in the enemies cities (but on meth, it is).

Well a landing zone can have unarmed personnel and the wormhole station is like landing boats or bridges over a strategically important river. That the AI didn't guard their stations does not mean that they were legitimate camps in enemy territory since they served the purpose of transporting troops to the front lines.

I would agree IF These stations and the construction ships were guarded by combat fleets. It may be hard to Balance but one might think of a System where fleet presence in a System creates the ability to build stations there. My Point being that unarmed troops in war Need protection to do their work, especially behind enemy lines. Without power projection of any Kind in an enemy System, one should not be allowed to build there.

 

[KonradKurze202]

Please excuse the double post, I forgot to quote in my first response.



Because they are still considered in "my territory". Hence under "my control". If an unarmed ship can build something there, there is not much control.

It isn't your territory, it is contested, that is what happens when you are at war. The Germans didn't stay on their side of the border in 1939 after all.

Not by unarmed workers behind enemy lines without armed forces to back them up. And you seem to mistake wormhole stations with Military stations. An analogy to wormhole stations are rather supply Depots. And no, you don't build those behind enemy lines.

You do build supply depots in enemy territory. Maybe not behind enemy lines, but as you advance into enemy territory you certainly do build supply depots in their territory. That's the main reason Rommel proved succinctly unable to be a good strategic commander, he refused to acknowledge any need to establish supply lines and depots in North Africa, he just pushed forward, over extended, ran out of fuel, and got pushed back, then called in reinforcements and resupplied way back at the german/italian controlled territory and started the process all over again.

 

[Jerev]

I would agree IF These stations and the construction ships were guarded by combat fleets. It may be hard to Balance but one might think of a System where fleet presence in a System creates the ability to build stations there. My Point being that unarmed troops in war Need protection to do their work, especially behind enemy lines. Without power projection of any Kind in an enemy System, one should not be allowed to build there.

Your logic is flawed. Why would they HAVE to be protected? They managed to build the stations without protection and why shouldn't they? Even in war you have to send patrol fleets out to secure your border so that the enemy can't just send unprotected worker into your territory . Otherwise there must be some magic that prevents people from doing stuff only because no escort is also present. THAT would make no sense.

 

[SobakenKusaken]

Except for the challenge or RP, no-one would pick WH if it was too limited in war.

People still picked Hivers in SotS, even though their gates were more limited than wormholes in Stellaris.

Depending on the activity of the enemy, you would have to send small fleets back and forth or have them stationed in every System

I hope there's something like a patrol order, so you could just tell a fleet to move between several systems looking for enemies and intercepting them. Otherwise, it is to much micro to keep a large empire under control.

 

[kalauer]

It isn't your territory, it is contested, that is what happens when you are at war. The Germans didn't stay on their side of the border in 1939 after all.

A territory does not get contested by declaration of war but by force projection from multiple sides in it; though, to some extent, I would give you in the case of Stellaris, by the set wargoals.

But by this reasoning, my capital planet was contested in war, even if it was on the other side of the galaxy and not in the war Goals. And I believe you somehow consented with my Position in the WW2-comparison: the Germans entered the border with combat troops, not construction workers to set up camps.

As Long as there is no enemy presence in a System, it clearly is under my control, isn't it?

You do build supply depots in enemy territory. Maybe not behind enemy lines, but as you advance into enemy territory you certainly do build supply depots in their territory. That's the main reason Rommel proved succinctly unable to be a good strategic commander, he refused to acknowledge any need to establish supply lines and depots in North Africa, he just pushed forward, over extended, ran out of fuel, and got pushed back, then called in reinforcements and resupplied way back at the german/italian controlled territory and started the process all over again.

I marked the part of the quote that seems to be the main Point here: I do absolutely agree that you build supply Depots in enemy territory once you control it. But at this time, it is only enemy territory by name/ de jure. De facto, it is yours. And as you perfectly stated: you don't build them behind enemy lines. That is my Point. The Ai does and it is allowed by the game. I argue that it should only be allowed if you have Military power in this area, hence some reason to assume control over it.

Your logic is flawed. Why would they HAVE to be protected? They managed to build the stations without protection and why shouldn't they? Even in war you have to send patrol fleets out to secure your border so that the enemy can't just send unprotected worker into your territory . Otherwise there must be some magic that prevents people from doing stuff only because no escort is also present. THAT would make no sense.

I believe you just said the logic one as a nonbinding opening sentence since I did not apply logic. I couldn't because we argue about assumptions, not reasoning. Your assumption being that territorial control should be modeled explicitly and mine, that it should be capped and abstracted on a certain Level. I say this Level should be where you "defend" against unarmed ships that try to build behind enemy lines. I would argue that there is some Kind of Police force in that area that could take care of unwanted, unarmed intruders. But that is on a "realism Level", which does not reach far in scifi.

The game-mechanic reason for this is, that it turns into Micro Management to hunt down single ships that pose no thread or challenge on themselves but only if you do not do the Micro. And that this Micro potentially gets extensive since Ai is generally very good at sending large amounts of small fleets around.

 

[KonradKurze202]

A territory does not get contested by declaration of war but by force projection from multiple sides in it, to some extent, I would give you in the case of Stellaris, by the set wargoals. But by this reasoning, my capital planet was contested in war, even if it was on the other side of the galaxy and not in the war Goals.

And your capital is contested, the enemy could build worm hole stations there to their hearts contentment.

I marked the part of the quote that seems to be the main Point here: I do absolutely agree that you build supply Depots in enemy territory once you control it. But at this time, it is only enemy territory by name/ de jure. De facto, it is yours. And as you perfectly stated: you don't build them behind enemy lines. That is my Point. The Ai does and it is allowed by the game. I argue that it should only be allowed if you have Military power in this area, hence some reason to assume control over it.

There doesn't need to be some artificial barrier, the barrier is that building Worm Hole gates too deep in enemy territory will result in their destruction. I'm sure there are numerous times in human history where one side got overconfident and started building farms/castles/supply depots in uncontrolled territory and then got routed. There is no reason to be able to build a Worm Hole Station in a system where you have military ships involved in a pitch battle, but not in one closer to your empire where there are no enemies, but also no friendly fleets. Artificial limits are generally bad, soft limits are usually better. The soft limit here is, as I said, undefended stations will waste your resources as they are destroyed.

 

[Jerev]

I believe you just said the logic one as a nonbinding opening sentence since I did not apply logic. I couldn't because we argue about assumptions, not reasoning. Your assumption being that territorial control should be modeled explicitly and mine, that it should be capped and abstracted on a certain Level. I say this Level should be where you "defend" against unarmed ships that try to build behind enemy lines. I would argue that there is some Kind of Police force in that area that could take care of unwanted, unarmed intruders. But that is on a "realism Level", which does not reach far in scifi.

The game-mechanic reason for this is, that it turns into Micro Management to hunt down single ships that pose no thread or challenge on themselves but only if you do not do the Micro. And that this Micro potentially gets extensive since Ai is generally very good at sending large amounts of small fleets around.

So if I understand you correctly you want to make civilian ships to be unable to cross borders without military support because the opponent has an invisible border patrol? Or do you want a system-crossing patrol order for fleets so that borders are secure without micromanagement?
The first option seems a little unimmersive for the player in my opinion and the second should be easily integrated if it isn't already.

 

[kalauer]

And your capital is contested, the enemy could build worm hole stations there to their hearts contentment.

Yes, as it is now, they could. My Claim is that it is unreasonable to assume it is since the enemy has no power projection there.Hence I think he should not be able to do so.

There doesn't need to be some artificial barrier, the barrier is that building Worm Hole gates too deep in enemy territory will result in their destruction.

There are two Scenarios for this:

A: The stations are irrelevant, I as a Player do not care for them because he enemy's fleet is too weak to do any Thing to me even with these stations (or AI is not using them). In this case, it is just bad AI and will most likely be fixed by release.

B: The stations are relevant. In that case I will want to destroy them and I will be able to do so without spending resources that are by any account significant (Minerals, ships ...). Except one: My Attention! I would have to Micro this. And I personnaly do not want to tend to things which only challenge is that I click on them regulary. That's why I do not play games on Facebook (not even if I was registered there). And from what I perceived from PDS, they tend to think the same way (looking at changes to EU4 with the fort system, for example).

I'm sure there are numerous times in human history where one side got overconfident and started building farms/castles/supply depots in uncontrolled territory and then got routed. There is no reason to be able to build a Worm Hole Station in a system where you have military ships involved in a pitch battle, but not in one closer to your empire where there are no enemies, but also no friendly fleets.

Overconfident is one Thing. Overstretching one's lines etc. and getting oushed back, okay. But what we saw was not an overestimation, it was outright suicide, sending These construction ships out there. If it wasn't for the necessary Micro, they would have been destroyed immediately.

Artificial limits are generally bad, soft limits are usually better. The soft limit here is, as I said, undefended stations will waste your resources as they are destroyed.

In General, I agree. But what we have here is no Limit, neither artificial/ "hard" nor "soft". It is no Limit at all. The only Limitation we see here is the one of the willingness to act against the strategy, imposed by micromanagement. I perceive it as a soft Limit to make the Player have Military control over an area before he can build there (e.g. having a fleet in the vicinity of the construction site).

So if I understand you correctly you want to make civilian ships to be unable to cross borders without military support because the opponent has an invisible border patrol? Or do you want a system-crossing patrol order for fleets so that borders are secure without micromanagement?
The first option seems a little unimmersive for the player in my opinion and the second should be easily integrated if it isn't already.

I could live with civilian ships being unable to enter the war Zone or dangerous space, but it might lead to Problems when you have to cross this Region to get to some other parts of your empire. So a third Option might be, that they may enter (and may be destroyed) but can not build there. Or cause any other Kind of Trouble that is military relevant.

Yoursecond Option might alleviate the micro issue but not remove the inconsistency (perceived by me) in the rule set. But then it would have to be sure that a patrol on the border will always be able to intercept passing civilians, which is also a far stretched assumption and hard to do in the on-map fleet System, I guess.


edit, off Topic: is there a way to Change language Patterns in the message Editor? Always get the capitals and grew tired of Fixing it by Hand.

 

[Jerev]

I could live with civilian ships being unable to enter the war Zone or dangerous space, but it might lead to Problems when you have to cross this Region to get to some other parts of your empire. So a third Option might be, that they may enter (and may be destroyed) but can not build there. Or cause any other Kind of Trouble that is military relevant.

Yoursecond Option might alleviate the micro issue but not remove the inconsistency (perceived by me) in the rule set. But then it would have to be sure that a patrol on the border will always be able to intercept passing civilians, which is also a far stretched assumption and hard to do in the on-map fleet System, I guess.

And that is exactly what would seem very strange to me. Since this is a game where every unit is always visible unlike e.g. citi guards or castle troops in CK2 making borders unpenetrable or deadly for civillians is something I don't want to see.
So I guess we have to agree to disagree

 

[Beric]

YB: The stations are relevant. In that case I will want to destroy them and I will be able to do so without spending resources that are by any account significant (Minerals, ships ...). Except one: My Attention! I would have to Micro this. And I personally do not want to tend to things which only challenge is that I click on them regulary. That's why I do not play games on Facebook (not even if I was registered there). And from what I perceived from PDS, they tend to think the same way (looking at changes to EU4 with the fort system, for example).

This doesn't address the issue that the game is being balanced for multiplayer. There will most definitely be some players who DO want to micro, and this will give them a distinct advantage. The only way for Paradox to counteract this is to either:

1. Automate the construction/destruction of mass numbers of wormholes.
2. Make building building mass numbers of wormholes in enemy systems have strongly negative consequences.

Per what I can see so far, it is already highly beneficial to have a wormhole constructed in every one of your colonized systems, as your fleet can then be only one wormhole away from defending your planet no matter where it is. Unless wormholes are incredibly expensive to build and have high maintenance costs, I really don't see why NOT to build them. And even if they do, an economic-based empire could clearly nullify these weaknesses.

At the same time, I seriously worry about the micro involved as a wormhole civ when you empire spans 100+ systems, or even worse when you are invading an empire with 100+ systems. I am really thinking you will want some automation.

 

[cedi]

And on a more conceptual-Level: How is this "my territory" when unarmed enemy ships can go there and do what they like? I would understand it when they send a strong fleet that protects the construction ship, but not if it is alone.

Build defensive stations?

 

[kalauer]

And that is exactly what would seem very strange to me. Since this is a game where every unit is always visible unlike e.g. citi guards or castle troops in CK2 making borders unpenetrable or deadly for civillians is something I don't want to see.
So I guess we have to agree to disagree

We certainly disagree, no Argument there. And it does seem to be a matter of personal taste to some extent. If one likes to Micro a lot , this might very well not be an issue at all. But I have to add that not all Units are visible in Stellaris: moving Pops, civilian ships other than construction and science, trade, supply, Police ... There are a lot of elements of a Society that are not modeled explicitly, and for good reasons and rightfully so. PDS always focused on some important elements in the Grand strategy titles. That's why I think that implicit modeling of border control against unarmed ships is viable and consistent with other mechanics.

Build defensive stations?

Definitely possible. But that is very much a mismatch to have to build a defense Station against one(!) unarmed(!) ship. Considering the upkeep costs, this seems a highly- beneficial trade-off for the wormhole empire to have the enemies buid defense stations in all Systems or face Micro-hell (they wouldn't even have to sacrifice the construction ship, the possibility alone to "invade" with it would create the effort on the opposing side).

 

[macd21]

There are two Scenarios for this:

A: The stations are irrelevant, I as a Player do not care for them because he enemy's fleet is too weak to do any Thing to me even with these stations (or AI is not using them). In this case, it is just bad AI and will most likely be fixed by release.

B: The stations are relevant. In that case I will want to destroy them and I will be able to do so without spending resources that are by any account significant (Minerals, ships ...). Except one: My Attention! I would have to Micro this. And I personnaly do not want to tend to things which only challenge is that I click on them regulary. That's why I do not play games on Facebook (not even if I was registered there). And from what I perceived from PDS, they tend to think the same way (looking at changes to EU4 with the fort system, for example).

Seems like B is a viable strategy to me. If you're busy sending fleets to destroy wormhole stations in your territory, you are not attacking his territory and you're potentially leaving your flank vulnerable elsewhere. If you send only a ship or two to destroy the station, they may drop a fleet on top of you, destroy your ships, then leave again - this means you have to commit a decent chunk of your forces to destroying wormhole stations.

The problem with the wormhole stations in the stream wasn't that the AI was building them in Blorg space, but simply that he was building too many, especially given he'd taken a defensive stance. Wiz knew they weren't going to (say) launch a strike against Blorg, so he ignored them. Had the enemy been more aggressive though, they could probably have run rings around the Blorg, forcing Wiz to waste time blowing up the stations - which would have allowed his enemies to recover from their losses and mount a counterattack.

 

[kalauer]

Seems like B is a viable strategy to me. If you're busy sending fleets to destroy wormhole stations in your territory, you are not attacking his territory and you're potentially leaving your flank vulnerable elsewhere. If you send only a ship or two to destroy the station, they may drop a fleet on top of you, destroy your ships, then leave again - this means you have to commit a decent chunk of your forces to destroying wormhole stations.

You could (and should), as Defender, send the one Corvette before the Station is completed, of course. And this would not bind resources other then Attention. And in any Scenario I can think of, this is no viable tactic going for "distraction" of the enemy, since normally, such really really minor nuisances would never get to the Attention of the chief strategist. There would be a local commander taking care of the unarmed ship trying to set up an enemy presence. So in MP, I would consider this abuse, although it draws just as much Attention from the attacker as from the Defender. It would just be about who has more resistance against Frustration by chores.

The problem with the wormhole stations in the stream wasn't that the AI was building them in Blorg space, but simply that he was building too many, especially given he'd taken a defensive stance. Wiz knew they weren't going to (say) launch a strike against Blorg, so he ignored them. Had the enemy been more aggressive though, they could probably have run rings around the Blorg, forcing Wiz to waste time blowing up the stations - which would have allowed his enemies to recover from their losses and mount a counterattack.

Yes, the AI was not using the stations, which is most likely a AI ug or Balance issue that will be fixed. But if the AI had used it, (I wished it did), we would have seen a constantly screaming wiz, out of the pain he would heve felt for having to run behind the Little construction ships. Against AI, that is just streets better in managin multiple Tasks like small fleets, this converts from Micro chore to Micro-hell. As I said earlier, imagine five Ai each sending two construction ships in your thirty-System space. Does this Sound like a fun game element?

 

[KonradKurze202]

My Attention! I would have to Micro this. And I personnaly do not want to tend to things which only challenge is that I click on them regulary. That's why I do not play games on Facebook (not even if I was registered there). And from what I perceived from PDS, they tend to think the same way (looking at changes to EU4 with the fort system, for example).

War is really the only time I play on a speed that isn't 3 or 4 (or paused), it is a bit more micro than EU sure, but splitting your stacks and sieging an enemy while repelling their attacks is part of the fun. I don't think it is too much micro to have to deal with small enemy fleets or stations.

As for forts: Defense stations work in a very similar fashion, they prevent the enemy from warping out. Notice how the Quell'Nudar had to destroy the 'hug box' before they sent out their construction ships? This is a scenario where they broke through the Blorg's defenses and then started constructing the stations. If you build better/more defense stations you won't have to worry about this so much.

There is no reason to add an additional layer of 'a single enemy ship prevents station construction'. You are imagining problems where none exist.

 

[kalauer]

War is really the only time I play on a speed that isn't 3 or 4 (or paused), it is a bit more micro than EU sure, but splitting your stacks and sieging an enemy while repelling their attacks is part of the fun. I don't think it is too much micro to have to deal with small enemy fleets or stations.

It is part of the fun when you are reacting to meaningful maneuvers. But spamming wormhole Station is not one of them. It is like sending 1k stacks in EU4 all over the enemy: useless but aggravating.

As for forts: Defense stations work in a very similar fashion, they prevent the enemy from warping out. Notice how the Quell'Nudar had to destroy the 'hug box' before they sent out their construction ships? This is a scenario where they broke through the Blorg's defenses and then started constructing the stations. If you build better/more defense stations you won't have to worry about this so much.

As I answered to macd21, if you had to build defense stations just to prevent this Scenario, it would be a huge mismatch. The construction ship presents absolutely no Military power ot threat in General. The only way it could is if Micro gets so heavy that one neglects them. Issuing workload on the Player should not be a viable strategy to gain an Advantage. This is not starcraft.

There is no reason to add an additional layer of 'a single enemy ship prevents station construction'. You are imagining problems where none exist.

I don't get the "single enemy ship"-Thing. Problem is, nothing prevents construction, but I Claim territory control should (unless the enemy seizes control).

I might just say "you refuse to see existing problems" but where would that get us? You like to Play whack-a-mole (there, I said it!) with enemy construction ships, I don't. Furthermore, I believe that forcing Micro where a simple rule set suffices is bad game design.

let me try to um it up again: If the defender tends to his territory, he can easily (i.e. without using significant in-game resources) stop wormhole-building. So doing it by Hand is no different than not allowing or removing These Station automatically, except for the fact that it burdens the Player with clicks.

 

[KonradKurze202]

Well I suspect (given what we've seen of the game) the devs agree with my point of view.

let me try to um it up again: If the defender tends to his territory, he can easily (i.e. without using significant in-game resources) stop wormhole-building. So doing it by Hand is no different than not allowing or removing These Station automatically, except for the fact that it burdens the Player with clicks.

No it isn't. You are spending resources to account for enemy tactics. That is no where near the same thing as flat out preventing the enemy from doing it.

As many others mentioned across various threads Worm Hole is at an incredible disadvantage if you cannot build Stations in enemy territory. You might not even be able to reach the enemy core worlds if you can't build Stations in their territory. And for putting some artificial limit up as to when you can/cannot build them: it would never be perfect. If the criteria is: you need at least 1 military ship accompanying the constructor, then you can cheese it by just putting a single ship next to the constructor (50 minerals worth of military might) and proceed exactly the same. By your own logic this should be prohibited because it can be easily done by hand. So the limits are you need a fleet of X strength? Well what is X? Is it based on your total fleet strength? Why would it be when you could be fighting an enemy who has a fleet 1/20th the size of yours? So maybe it is based on the enemies power? Well you are fighting a Fallen Empire, with 3-5 of your good friends, so you now need your entire fleet to build the station. That sounds fun.

Bottom line: if you put up an artificial limit on when you can/cannot build Wormhole Stations in enemy territory while at war, it won't work well. It is either meaningless (single ship), or unreliable (as demonstrated above).

Even Bottomer Line: the devs want it the way it is (albeit Wiz indicated the AI went a little overboard in Station production, so by the release they might only build 1/2 the stations these guys did).

 

[Kyle Lionheart]

The AI was building WH stations all over our territory for two reasons:

1) By Wiz's admission, the AI went a bit overboard and he would look into that.
2) Wiz did absolutely nothing to stop it.

1 is only a fairly quick code fix away from being toned down. It has likely been done already in the latest build.
2 explains why the behavior was triggered. The AI tried, succeeded, and kept doing what worked. Although perhaps with a bit too much zeal, which brings us to 1 again.

I expect that any reasonably coded AI would stop trying that stunt after losing the first 2 or 3 stations and/or a constructor, and begin adding some armed escorts to these advance forces. A human player certainly would.

In general, though, I don't see why this should be artificially prevented. If you are at war you don't care about your enemy's territory claims, so why shouldn't you build if you keep getting away with it?
And as the "defender", why should you be surprised that this happens if you don't do anything to prevent it?

 

[Jarac Rassen]

The AI was building WH stations all over our territory for two reasons:

1) By Wiz's admission, the AI went a bit overboard and he would look into that.
2) Wiz did absolutely nothing to stop it.

1 is only a fairly quick code fix away from being toned down. It has likely been done already in the latest build.
2 explains why the behavior was triggered. The AI tried, succeeded, and kept doing what worked. Although perhaps with a bit too much zeal, which brings us to 1 again.

I expect that any reasonably coded AI would stop trying that stunt after losing the first 2 or 3 stations and/or a constructor, and begin adding some armed escorts to these advance forces. A human player certainly would.

In general, though, I don't see why this should be artificially prevented. If you are at war you don't care about your enemy's territory claims, so why shouldn't you build if you keep getting away with it?
And as the "defender", why should you be surprised that this happens if you don't do anything to prevent it?

I noticed this as well. Wiz did nothing to stop the enemy constructors from running around in his empire and building up WH stations.