Enemy building in your system

[kgaa]

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.

Yes, this is a good point. Russians building the city of St. Petersburg comes to mind, although I wouldn't call that overconfident, since it was successful. I believe they started building the city during the Great Northern War on Swedish-owned territory.

 

[kalauer]

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

I suspect, based on what they developed EU4 and HoI4 to, that they want to get rid of unneccessary Micro as much as possible. And I Support that.

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.

What resources do you spend? I Claim you spend no significant amount of resources, except your own Attention. The one ship you Need to destroy the constructor hardly qualifies as relevant.

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.

I answered that Point lthough it was not followed up later: We do not know the range of wormhole stations. When a Station is built at the border, you might only reach the nearest enemy worlds (but I doubt it). Much more, I guess that in the given case of the blorg, they could reach like Ijaagin from Chertan. While that is a guess, it seems like a sensible range to me. So yes, they can not reach Blorg immediately. But that is no huge disadvantage but a trade-off. The wormhole Empires can Bypass the entire front-line defenses and jump in much more Systems directly instead of passing through others. This reduces the time the enemy has to react significantly.

Now this depends heavily on the range of the stations and I Claim it is about balancing this range properly.

A Hyperlane empire may also not be able to reach the enemy's core worlds if there are no lanes. And Warp Empires might have to do multiple jumps, taking a Long time to get to the core worlds (and they have to fight defense stations on their very much predictable way).

So I can't see the huge disadvantage of wormhole stations if their range is properly balanced.

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.

This is just a classic balancing issue, but I would assume your last proposal is the right one. You'd want the Project power in the System that is enough to assume that you have some control there. So when you are fighting an enemy with pathetic fleet strength, you don ot Need much of your own fleet to do so. When you are fighting much stronger Opposition, you would have to use a large chunk of you fleet, and this is okay. If you want to engage in offensive Actions against a far superior foe, why would it be easy? It ould have to be a very much all-or nothing. And it mayalso very well be that your fleet strength dos not suffice to assume control over a System. But in that case, you had no Chance to win to begin with.

For your "X", I would assume a fraction of the enemy's fleet strength that makes it relevant and in some way a valid target for fleet Action. Maybe 15%? So you can not spam this in General and when the enemy attacks you, he binds a significant part of his fleet but also has accomplished something when he destroys you. Defending against it would not be just occupational therapy.

But this is, as I said, a balancing issue.

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).

I believe I answered that quite well. And while I guess ou don't Change your mind now, I hope you can value that I am honestly trying to work out a concept here.

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).

I do not agree that just because something is in the game, that it is the perfect solution the devs wanted. Sometimes, it is just the way it is and "Kind of works". I still believe there are better Solutions (e.g. the one I proposed).

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.

Point 1 is taken and given. It is an AI Balance issue and will be fixed. But that is not part of my Argument. Point 2 is. Why did Wiz nothing to stop it? Because it was a true kerfuffle to do so and would have yielded no benefit. If he started to do it, he would have been busy. But if we imagine the AI actually used These stations, Wiz would have had to destroy them, resulting in a rat chase, which is no fun.

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.

Yes, it is reasonable to protect the constructors. And if the AI and human Players do that by themselves, great. No Need for this rule. But since you can build without protection, it seems more likely to me that this will be done. And the only way to stop it is doing heavy non-rewarding Micro. We can achieve the same result without the threat of this Scenario if we impose the rule that constructors must be protected. Just as the rule is imposed that borders can not be crossed during peace (unless you have certian treaties). If you want to Micro unarmed shipsof the enemy in war, you might just as well Micro unauthorized border crossing in peace. And I guess, nobody wants that.

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 would be surprised if an unarmed enemy ship builds up an enemy presence in my backyard and noone stops it. Why does the commander in chief would have to give an order to do so? It is unarmed. A traffic policeman (if they have that in blorg space) could stop them. But I have to send the navy?

 

[kalauer]

Yes, this is a good point. Russians building the city of St. Petersburg comes to mind, although I wouldn't call that overconfident, since it was successful. I believe they started building the city during the Great Northern War on Swedish-owned territory.

They did not build it next to stockholm, though. But on a territory they controled at that time. Controled with Military, not their construction workers.

 

[Jorgen_CAB]

What the AI did in the stream was stupid and only a waste of resources. Any behaviour like this could easily be abused by a player to entice the AI to waste their mineral buffer in a war.
How difficult would it be to send a small squadron of corvettes to destroy them all and the construction ship?

A human player would not need to perform any stunt like that and would not do it if they could not defend that base, it would just be a waste of resources.

I would not go around building WH station all over the edge of my empire, I would build them for strategical reasons where I intended to strike at the enemy in a defensive position, otherwise I just invite disaster when my fleet is cut of by a raid on an undefended WH station.

Some people might not like to micromanage their fleets but doing so will give you an advantage. Sending out small squadrons or lone scouts to gain intel and engage civilian targets will become a real thing. The AI might even be taught how to conduct such operations as well, hopefully. Given how easy it is for certain FTL types to do this the AI should be instructed to use these strategies, especially if on the defensive.

 

[kgaa]

They did not build it next to stockholm, though. But on a territory they controled at that time. Controled with Military, not their construction workers.

But the point here is that you can build in systems that are controlled by neither party. If a system is within your borders but you don't have any military presence there, then the enemy doesn't need to bring warships to take it over. Just because something is claimed by you doesn't mean you control it per se.

 

[stumason]

I don't know why some people are gettign funny about the AI building WH stations, it seemed like a perfectly sensible tactic to me.

I work in Telecoms and I look at WH stations like nodes in a meshed network - the more you have, the more you can mesh and the more your network is protected.

Those advocating having a few "strategical" - no such word, btw - WH stations are actually putting all their eggs in one basket.

Multiple WH stations with overlapping spheres of influence, while more costly, is definitely the better strategic decision and offers flexibility and mobility to your fleets.

 

[Hanebuch]

What the AI did in the stream was stupid and only a waste of resources. Any behaviour like this could easily be abused by a player to entice the AI to waste their mineral buffer in a war.
How difficult would it be to send a small squadron of corvettes to destroy them all and the construction ship?

Depends, if the ai has a fleet nearby it could just send this fleet to destroy your corvettes. The AI seem to be good enough to destroy weak fleets.

But I agree that the ai build too many stations and most of them were never used. It should have only build stations so that the ai could have reached the northern alliance partner.

 

[Number 7]

Commander, i am aware that we require wormhole stations for our fleets to move, but this is enemy territory

Oh, right you are, send the construction ships home, it would be rude to build here

 

[kgaa]

Depends, if the ai has a fleet nearby it could just send this fleet to destroy your corvettes. The AI seem to be good enough to destroy weak fleets.

But I agree that the ai build too many stations and most of them were never used. It should have only build stations so that the ai could have reached the northern alliance partner.

Now that you mention it, their northern ally might be exactly why they went rampage with the WH stations. I think if they'd been able to unite their fleets and the southern empire had gotten no revolts, the just league would've been in a much better position.

 

[Jorgen_CAB]

Depends, if the ai has a fleet nearby it could just send this fleet to destroy your corvettes. The AI seem to be good enough to destroy weak fleets.

But I agree that the ai build too many stations and most of them were never used. It should have only build stations so that the ai could have reached the northern alliance partner.

That would not work very well since you could just flee as soon as that fleet appear and repeat the process until those stations are destroyed, it would also tie up a much bigger enemy force for nothing. It simply is not worth it.

I'm pretty sure these stations are not exactly free to build or maintain.

I don't see the strategic value in this tactic, non what so ever.

I would rather send in raiding forces to engage my enemies civilian stations and destroy them and force a decisive fleet engagement if I have a stronger fleet. Or any other more productive endeavours.

If I do have the fleet forces to protect that station I might as well leave them in the system to protect it and use it as my base of operation, but it will need to be protected if I like to use it to jump further into enemy territory.

 

[kalauer]

But the point here is that you can build in systems that are controlled by neither party. If a system is within your borders but you don't have any military presence there, then the enemy doesn't need to bring warships to take it over. Just because something is claimed by you doesn't mean you control it per se.

No, the Point is that when they were building it (I assume the Story is correct), they had Military control over the area, which you clearly do not have in enemy territory by having a construction ship there. And while one may question the General "control" over an area, one indicator clearly is that it is inside your territory. What you propose is that territory means nothing. And while I know there are People here that want it that way, teritory in stellaris clearly has a meaning.

Commander, i am aware that we require wormhole stations for our fleets to move, but this is enemy territory

Oh, right you are, send the construction ships home, it would be rude to build here

Not helpful, but in Addition missing the Point of the discussion. It is not about wanting to build there but being able to. Stellaris Abstracts a lot of elements that are by all sensible means exisitng in an empire. Like local militia or Police force. By allowing construction ships to build in enemy territory, you just assume that These elements are not there at all and that the only (!) way of projecting power in you own territory is by fleets and defense stations. And while These are obvious since they are explicitly modeled, they are not the only ones. Or to put it on your Level of discussion:

"Commander, sending this unarmed ship deep into enemy territory would be suicide!.

Yeah, I know. But if we send enough, the enemy's commander will be busy ordering single ships around and he won't be able to tend to the war. DO IT!"

 

[KonradKurze202]

"Commander, sending this unarmed ship deep into enemy territory would be suicide!.

Yeah, I know. But if we send enough, the enemy's commander will be busy ordering single ships around and he won't be able to tend to the war. DO IT!"

This is your core problem. You want the game to tell you not to do something because it is a bad idea. I don't want to play a game that plays itself, if I did I would be played Distant Worlds. In EU you can train new regiments in territories where an enemy has a 100k doomstack. Is it a bad idea? Yes, your 1k manpower is going to waste. Should the game prevent you from doing this, specifically because it is a bad idea? No, we are human beings capable of not being idiots (I presume) with a bit of thought.

If I want to send my construction ship on a suicide mission then I am going send that construction ship on a suicide mission. Considering the Blorg never killed that damn little construction ship, apparently it wasn't as suicidal as you think. If you need a game to hold your hand and prevent you from making mistakes Stellaris probably isn't going to do that. You can research a level 5 anomaly with your level 1 scientist giving you a 10% success rate, should the game say: 'NO, bad player, you must wait until your chances are better!'? No, it shouldn't.
The logic is the same, and all the points you bring up are irrelevant. You want to pretend there are local PDFs? Mod it in, it isn't in the game right now. Projecting power? That only applies during peace time, if you are war with your enemy why would you respect their borders as sacrosanct? If they send a fleet into your system should that mere act prevent you from constructing in your own territory? That is exactly what you are suggesting.

 

[kalauer]

This is your core problem. You want the game to tell you not to do something because it is a bad idea. I don't want to play a game that plays itself, if I did I would be played Distant Worlds. In EU you can train new regiments in territories where an enemy has a 100k doomstack. Is it a bad idea? Yes, your 1k manpower is going to waste. Should the game prevent you from doing this, specifically because it is a bad idea? No, we are human beings capable of not being idiots (I presume) with a bit of thought.

The core Problem is not that is it a bad idea, but that it harms the Player that is affected by it. Not in terms of game mechanics or anything Military relevant, but solely in Terms of annoying him and forcing him to Micro against it. It is not about the loss of the AI in Terms of Minerals, but the annoyance of the Player.

If I want to send my construction ship on a suicide mission then I am going send that construction ship on a suicide mission. Considering the Blorg never killed that damn little construction ship, apparently it wasn't as suicidal as you think.

With my proposal, you can still issue suiside missions, if you want to. You just wouldn't be able to force another Player int opointless micro-management by doing so. That Wiz did not kill the construction ships was not an issue of game mechanics but his decision that he did not want to bother. I said that multiple tmes but you Keep insisting that the wormhole-spam was Kind of a success because Wiz refused to Micro them away. Again, if the enemy would have used These stations, Wiz would have to be forced to remove them and ract to each and every construction ship. Did you try to imagine how the game would have turned out then? Please do.

If you need a game to hold your hand and prevent you from making mistakes Stellaris probably isn't going to do that. You can research a level 5 anomaly with your level 1 scientist giving you a 10% success rate, should the game say: 'NO, bad player, you must wait until your chances are better!'? No, it shouldn't.

Again, you did not understand my Point: the loss of the wormhole-spamming Player is not. I mean, the AI should do better, but we settled that, I guess. The issue is that by doing this pointless Action, the Player is forced to react. In tiny, pointless, potentially never ending interception orders to Military meaningless intruders.

The logic is the same, and all the points you bring up are irrelevant.

It is easy to say that the Points of the opposing side are irrelevant. And useless too.

You want to pretend there are local PDFs? Mod it in, it isn't in the game right now. Projecting power? That only applies during peace time, if you are war with your enemy why would you respect their borders as sacrosanct? If they send a fleet into your system should that mere act prevent you from constructing in your own territory? That is exactly what you are suggesting.

"Mod it in" is not a way to react to proposals. Just say this to every thread here, what good does it do? And it is not about respecting borders. I already said that civilian ships too should be allowed to enter the enemy's space. But entering and building there are different things.

The Thing is, that if the enemy has a fleet in my territory, and I have not, he obviously has control over the area (at that time). So I couldn't build there, the fleet would destroy the construction ship and the Station immediately. Difference is, he would not have to Micro that because it is automated in the behavior rules of the fleets.

To Abstract it a little bit: Think of the territory as a small threshold of control over an area. It can be overridden by enemy fleets of sufficient power. But unless it is, the area is considered inaccessible to construction efforts (not ships).


And if I may, do we agree that one has to control an area to engage in unarmed construction activities? Maybe if we could settle this, the discussion gets more productive.

 

[Chrysaetos]

Right OP... Picture for a moment that this is a multiplayer situation.

What's so wrong about forcing the other player to micro to curb your mobility?

 

[stumason]

The core Problem is not that is it a bad idea, but that it harms the Player that is affected by it. Not in terms of game mechanics or anything Military relevant, but solely in Terms of annoying him and forcing him to Micro against it. It is not about the loss of the AI in Terms of Minerals, but the annoyance of the Player.

Is it an annoyance though? Wiz comfortably ignored them to concentrate on his own war goals.

Again, if the enemy would have used These stations, Wiz would have to be forced to remove them and ract to each and every construction ship. Did you try to imagine how the game would have turned out then? Please do.

If the enemy had used these stations, then the Blorg would have been in for a world of trouble. Multiple WH stations, providing overlapping cover of his Core worlds, to be raided by fleets the Blorg would have no way of catching.

You might think it a "micromanaging annoyance" but it is a perfectly valid tactic and one you are very likely going to see in MP games at the least. As I said earlier, having multiple WH stations is strategically a sound move as it provides cover in case any are destroyed.

And once again, it is worth highlighting that the stream game has been played over many builds, with various bugs rearing their heads so we should in now way take the stream game as an indication of how a game started on the release build will pan out or behave.

 

[kalauer]

Right OP... Picture for a moment that this is a multiplayer situation.

What's so wrong about forcing the other player to micro to curb your mobility?

Yeah, I mentioned the differences I see between SP and MP earlier. Headline for me there is that this would be a race between the Players about who has a higher Frustration tolerance in either to issue or react to Actions that, seen at the global scale, are insignificant. If you issue wormholestation construction, you do not bind significant forces of the enemy, possibly just one ship. But both you and the Defender must spend some time to organize this one ship. Thaht is what I meant by saying that no significant resources are needed to defend against the wormhole-station tactic, except the attention of the Defender.

If you make the wormhole-construction side commit a considerable force to build them (as one would do in "reality", protect the builder), it would actually mean something to hunt them down, because you face a not insignificant part of the enemy's fleet. The whole Action becomes one of real strategic value.

Is it an annoyance though? Wiz comfortably ignored them to concentrate on his own war goals.

He did so because they were not used, which brings us to your next Point.

If the enemy had used these stations, then the Blorg would have been in for a world of trouble. Multiple WH stations, providing overlapping cover of his Core worlds, to be raided by fleets the Blorg would have no way of catching.

I totally agree. And that is why, assuming that the AI is fixed in this aspect, you would have to destroy theses stationsbefore they were built. And you'd have to hunt These construction ships down because you can not allow them to have a Station Network in your territory. Hence a lot of micromanagement.

You might think it a "micromanaging annoyance" but it is a perfectly valid tactic and one you are very likely going to see in MP games at the least. As I said earlier, having multiple WH stations is strategically a sound move as it provides cover in case any are destroyed.

I do not question that. Yes, it is of high value for wormhole-Empires to have a decent Network. But since it is, I would assume that they also have to put Military effort into building it inside the enemy's territory. IF they realy want a Network there, they should have to use their fleet to get in, not just one lousy construction ship that succeeds because the enemy overlooks it or does not care to Micro. Right now, the importance of a decent Network stands in no relation to the effort used to create it.

And once again, it is worth highlighting that the stream game has been played over many builds, with various bugs rearing their heads so we should in now way take the stream game as an indication of how a game started on the release build will pan out or behave.

Well, I hope that this is changed, hence I posted this here. But I don't think that the General ability to build in enemy space is a bug. The Ai behavior on the other hand, is, we heard that.

 

[Kyle Lionheart]

Point 1 is taken and given. It is an AI Balance issue and will be fixed. But that is not part of my Argument. Point 2 is. Why did Wiz nothing to stop it? Because it was a true kerfuffle to do so and would have yielded no benefit. If he started to do it, he would have been busy. But if we imagine the AI actually used These stations, Wiz would have had to destroy them, resulting in a rat chase, which is no fun.



Yes, it is reasonable to protect the constructors. And if the AI and human Players do that by themselves, great. No Need for this rule. But since you can build without protection, it seems more likely to me that this will be done. And the only way to stop it is doing heavy non-rewarding Micro. We can achieve the same result without the threat of this Scenario if we impose the rule that constructors must be protected. Just as the rule is imposed that borders can not be crossed during peace (unless you have certian treaties). If you want to Micro unarmed shipsof the enemy in war, you might just as well Micro unauthorized border crossing in peace. And I guess, nobody wants that.



I would be surprised if an unarmed enemy ship builds up an enemy presence in my backyard and noone stops it. Why does the commander in chief would have to give an order to do so? It is unarmed. A traffic policeman (if they have that in blorg space) could stop them. But I have to send the navy?

There's a lot of abstraction going on in Stellaris. If we assume that controlled territory has an abstracted police force patrolling it by virtue of being controlled territory (and it is a very reasonable assumption), then we can also assume that a constructor ship has an abstracted armed escort too. We can also assume that both are "civilian" forces, equipped to handle minor abstracted threats but not proper military ships. Otherwise they would need to leave the realm of abstraction and be directly represented.

In peacetime, if the local police meets a foreign constructor+escort it goes "nope, you can't be here guys", and the constructor backs down because there a sovereignty treaty going on and doing otherwise would mean war.
In wartime, if the local police meets a enemy constructor+escort the latter blasts the former out of the void, then resumes its behind-the-lines activities. You want to stop the constructor? Then yes, you need to send properly equipped, military ships against which the escort is no match.

It's not a perfect system...but it does work to minimize micro and simplify the game. Would I be happy if a future DLC/patch expanded the system? Sure. But it's not so bad right now...

 

[stumason]

He did so because they were not used, which brings us to your next Point.

They weren;t being used at that time, no. But Wiz did suspect that at least one enemy was holding back and building a fleet, so if they had reached a point where they had a decent one, the tables would have turned quickly with the pre-positioned WH stations.

I totally agree. And that is why, assuming that the AI is fixed in this aspect, you would have to destroy theses stationsbefore they were built. And you'd have to hunt These construction ships down because you can not allow them to have a Station Network in your territory. Hence a lot of micromanagement.

I don't see the problem, personally. So you have to do a bit of work to defend your Empire.... So?

At any rate, if it's such an issue for you, just build a few small fleets and position them in border systems (cheaper than defence bases and mobile). Set the to attack any enemy in system and problem solved. No more "micromanagement" for you and no more WH stations for them.

I do not question that. Yes, it is of high value for wormhole-Empires to have a decent Network. But since it is, I would assume that they also have to put Military effort into building it inside the enemy's territory. IF they realy want a Network there, they should have to use their fleet to get in, not just one lousy construction ship that succeeds because the enemy overlooks it or does not care to Micro. Right now, the importance of a decent Network stands in no relation to the effort used to create it.

Why? If you're not actively defending your space, why should the enemy be prohibited from exploiting that? As a human player, I am willing to bet you would happily exploit it if the worm was turned, no?

Well, I hope that this is changed, hence I posted this here. But I don't think that the General ability to build in enemy space is a bug. The Ai behavior on the other hand, is, we heard that.

No, the ability to do so is not a bug and is in fact necessary for WH players. The AI behavior, though, should be taken with a pinch of salt.

 

[kalauer]

There's a lot of abstraction going on in Stellaris. If we assume that controlled territory has an abstracted police force patrolling it by virtue of being controlled territory (and it is a very reasonable assumption), then we can also assume that a constructor ship has an abstracted armed escort too. We can also assume that both are "civilian" forces, equipped to handle minor abstracted threats but not proper military ships. Otherwise they would need to leave the realm of abstraction and be directly represented.

In peacetime, if the local police meets a foreign constructor+escort it goes "nope, you can't be here guys", and the constructor backs down because there a sovereignty treaty going on and doing otherwise would mean war.
In wartime, if the local police meets a enemy constructor+escort the latter blasts the former out of the void, then resumes its behind-the-lines activities. You want to stop the constructor? Then yes, you need to send properly equipped, military ships against which the escort is no match.

It's not a perfect system...but it does work to minimize micro and simplify the game. Would I be happy if a future DLC/patch expanded the system? Sure. But it's not so bad right now...

The assumption of an escort can be made for the sake of Argument and it would indeed resolve the issue I have about this regarding "realism" or better "reasonable assumptions". What does not fit is that this escort obviously is less powerful than one single Corvette, yet it shall be powerful enough to overwhelm the non-Military resistance of an entire System. And if you say that These ships should have escorts when going deep into enemy territory, give them an escort! You can, you have your navy ready to do so. That was, by the way, one amendment to my proposal: Enable building in enemy territory when you have Military control there by projecting power through fleet presence.

This also does the opposite of reducing Micro, it creates it, as I stated multiple times. Regarding the release Version /DLC: I tend to believe that this Feature will be in rlease at we saw it, but this does not mean I like it. And if this thread raises awareness and an overhaued System makes it in a DLC, I would be more than happy about it.

They weren;t being used at that time, no. But Wiz did suspect that at least one enemy was holding back and building a fleet, so if they had reached a point where they had a decent one, the tables would have turned quickly with the pre-positioned WH stations.

So although Wiz expected the stations to be used, he still did not want to bother destroying them, because (admittingly, that is a guess) thought it would be too much Trouble chasing These construction ships. And while this surely is connected to the Special situtation being a stream, I fear this is exactly what would happen ingame: You know you should destroy the stations but do not bother because you do not want to Micro.

I don't see the problem, personally. So you have to do a bit of work to defend your Empire.... So?

I think, in Terms of games, there is good "work" and bad "work". Maneuvering your fleet can also be very Micro-heavy but if it is meaningful, that is okay. But clicking around single ships without militar significance so that the enemy gets a deserved punishment for stupid Actions? That is something that should be automated.

At any rate, if it's such an issue for you, just build a few small fleets and position them in border systems (cheaper than defence bases and mobile). Set the to attack any enemy in system and problem solved. No more "micromanagement" for you and no more WH stations for them.

I would have to Station a ship in every System, because with some clever Diversion from real fleets, a construction ship may very well slip through or outright use a wormhole beyond the front-line. And while this would surely be cheaper than defense stations, it would just be a UI-nightmare (outliner, fleet representation on galaxy map). Additionally, if I have to Station a fleet in each System anyway, why shouldn't it be modeled implicitly? Why shouldn't the game assume that there always is a fleet in each System strong enough to do what one expllicitly modeled ship can do: deter an unarmed construction ship.

Why? If you're not actively defending your space, why should the enemy be prohibited from exploiting that? As a human player, I am willing to bet you would happily exploit it if the worm was turned, no?

Second first: I would probably exploit it when I think it is necessary to win. But certainly not happily, since it also causes Micro for the attacking Player.

For the first sentence: My Claim is that one can assume that own territory has some sort of inherent control, which is modeled implicitly, and stops enemy unarmed ships. The enemy is welcome to exploit it when I am not tending to my space. But then he'd better do this with a Military force, not with an unarmed ship. At the current state, this tactic, of which many of you said it was a stupid one (and I agree), to send unarmed ships into enemy space, has a decent Chance to either aggravate the enemy (by Micro) or if he does not bother, create a significant Advantage. Does that Sound like a good game mechanic?

No, the ability to do so is not a bug and is in fact necessary for WH players. The AI behavior, though, should be taken with a pinch of salt.

I argued above that may not be necessary for wormhole Empires, depending on the range of the stations, which is subject to balancing. There are some other advantages to wormholes that make up for the lower Overall range (compared to multiple warp/hyperlane jumps in sequence). A base assumption of this is, that wormholes have a higher base range than a single warp jump, which seems reasonable to me (although we do not know it for sure).

 

[macd21]

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.

If you send just one corvette to destroy the construction ship, the enemy can jump in a squad of ships to destroy it, then jump back out again. If you want to stop them building stations in your systems, you have to devote a significant force to doing it, or risk being ambushed.

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?

Yes. That would be great AI and an interesting challenge. The entire point of wormhole stations is they give you unprecedented striking distance within their range. The need to counter enemy forces building them in your territory presents a problem for the player to solve - does he ignore it and focus on achieving his objectives, counter it with defence stations to hold off enemy strike forces, or split his forces in an effort to engage the construction ships while also attacking enemy systems?

A few weeks ago people were complaining about the seeming simplicity of Stellaris warfare - two huge doomfleets smashing into each other and resolving the war in one fight. Wormhole strategy demonstrates that this is not the case - the player has to carefully position his forces, counter enemy strikes etc. Where you see a micro-management chore, I see fun and engaging warfare.