Fleet chain of command

[krios41]

I'm in a creative mood today so i was thinking for a way to reduce the 'doosmtack' problem. I hate it when the limits on fleet size feel forced, they ned to be organic and above all, feel as if it is logical. Hence i came up with: Chain of command. Since an enormous fleet can't be effectivly commanded by 1 person.
Before i elaborate a litle bit more, if i give numbers, they are arbitrary.

So, chain of command.
Basicly, how i see it, for every number of ships/fleet cap present in a fleet (Stil debating wich one should actually be counted here since fleet cap count favors corvettes and ship count Battleships.

How would it work?
Let's say that for every 25 ships you need 1 seargant to command them.
and for every 2 seargants you need a Corporal, If you want to add a 3rd Saergant
For every 2 Corporals you'd need General, If you want to add a 3rd Corporal
For every 2 Generals you need a marshal.
Etc... you get the point by now

How would it help the doomstack problem?
Well, your leader cap is not infinite, you have a certain number of slots that you need to devide between governors, scientists, your generals and your fleet leaders.

Example:
You have 200 ships.

If you want to doomstack those you'd need (we'l take the arbitrary numbers i gave)
8 saergants, 4 Corporals, 2 Generals and 1 marshal with a total count of 15 leaders used for this fleet.

If you put them in 4 seperate fleets of 50 each you'd need
Just need 2 corporals for each fleet. with a total count of 8.

Same number of ships, but 7 leaders difference.

This could potentionaly also tie in with the Militarist ethos and give their leaders a boost to their Saergants so they can command more ships instead of the army damage.

I mean, if you just send 4 small fleets to the same system at the same time, they act no differently from one big fleet.

True! didn't think of this at first, now i did. To solve this we could have a 'tag' for every enemy fleet fleet that enters the system. If one of your fleets is batteling against another person/AI then all his fleets that enter the system during said battle will not engage the fleet that is already fighting and they will also get a tag that prevents the fleet from attacking that fleet for a certain duration after the battle so you can't just wait there with another fleet until the battle is done. if each side has 2 fleets in the system they will each engage a different target.
This does not prevent a third party from entering the battle though.

How does it sound? constructive feedback please ^-^

 

[Sheriff Godwin Law]

Is there anything stopping a guy with 4 separate fleets from sending them all to the same fight in the exact same system at the exact same time?

And for your 4 separate fleets example you said you need 2 corporals per fleet, but I'm pretty sure you meant you need 2 sergeants.

 

[krios41]

Is there anything stopping a guy with 4 separate fleets from sending them all to the same fight in the exact same system?

Nope, should i have tought of that?
Give me a few day's and maybe i can come up with an acceptable solution for that

 

[Emraldis]

Nope, should i have tought of that?
Give me a few day's and maybe i can come up with an acceptable solution for that

I mean, if you just send 4 small fleets to the same system at the same time, they act no differently from one big fleet.

 

[krios41]

I mean, if you just send 4 small fleets to the same system at the same time, they act no differently from one big fleet.

Give me a few day's and maybe i can come up with an acceptable solution for that

^-^

 

[Emraldis]

^-^

Yeah, I was just explaining why it was an issue.

 

[krios41]

Yeah, I was just explaining why it was an issue.

aparently i didn't need a few day's. i updated the OP with a posible solution, tell me how it sounds

 

[Sheriff Godwin Law]

True! didn't think of this at first, now i did. To solve this we could have a 'tag' for every enemy fleet fleet that enters the system. If one of your fleets is batteling against another person/AI then all his fleets that enter the system during said battle will not engage the fleet that is already fighting and they will also get a tag that prevents the fleet from attacking that fleet for a certain duration after the battle so you can't just wait there with another fleet until the battle is done. if each side has 2 fleets in the system they will each engage a different target.
This does not prevent a third party from entering the battle though.

It does create an interesting tactical situation where you can use a blocker fleet to tie up a larger fleet, while your other fleets slip right past the enemy defenses.

However, it would make it impossible to send one of your fleets in to rescue another. Unless you require the relief fleet to include sufficient officers to take full command of the combined fleet. That all seems fairly counter-intuitive. Which means you'll get alot of complaints about it not making sense and quite a bit of frustration.

 

[krios41]

However, it would make it impossible to send one of your fleets in to rescue another.

It's war, shit happens and you will lose ships and fleets.

I'm also thinking of a way to deal with the modifiers of each setion, i can't have them stack because that would be ridiculous.
But i was thinking of something along the lines of:

• seargant gives a flat x combat speed to it's section

 

[terrycloth]

I'm in a creative mood today so i was thinking for a way to reduce the 'doosmtack' problem. I hate it when the limits on fleet size feel forced, they ned to be organic and above all, feel as if it is logical. Hence i came up with: Chain of command. Since an enormous fleet can't be effectivly commanded by 1 person.
Before i elaborate a litle bit more, if i give numbers, they are arbitrary.

So, chain of command.
Basicly, how i see it, for every number of ships/fleet cap present in a fleet (Stil debating wich one should actually be counted here since fleet cap count favors corvettes and ship count Battleships.

How would it work?
Let's say that for every 25 ships you need 1 seargant to command them.
and for every 2 seargants you need a Corporal, If you want to add a 3rd Saergant
For every 2 Corporals you'd need General, If you want to add a 3rd Corporal
For every 2 Generals you need a marshal.
Etc... you get the point by now

How would it help the doomstack problem?
Well, your leader cap is not infinite, you have a certain number of slots that you need to devide between governors, scientists, your generals and your fleet leaders.

Example:
You have 200 ships.

If you want to doomstack those you'd need (we'l take the arbitrary numbers i gave)
8 saergants, 4 Corporals, 2 Generals and 1 marshal with a total count of 15 leaders used for this fleet.

If you put them in 4 seperate fleets of 50 each you'd need
Just need 2 corporals for each fleet. with a total count of 8.

Same number of ships, but 7 leaders difference.

This could potentionaly also tie in with the Militarist ethos and give their leaders a boost to their Saergants so they can command more ships instead of the army damage.


True! didn't think of this at first, now i did. To solve this we could have a 'tag' for every enemy fleet fleet that enters the system. If one of your fleets is batteling against another person/AI then all his fleets that enter the system during said battle will not engage the fleet that is already fighting and they will also get a tag that prevents the fleet from attacking that fleet for a certain duration after the battle so you can't just wait there with another fleet until the battle is done. if each side has 2 fleets in the system they will each engage a different target.
This does not prevent a third party from entering the battle though.

How does it sound? constructive feedback please ^-^

That sounds really terrible, especially the last part where you have enough ships to win the fight but for some reason they sit around doing nothing until all their friends are dead. Really, really terrible. Game-breakingly awful.

Basically, there's nothing at all good about any part of this suggestion.

 

[Praetorian44]

I don't know, but this sounds a lot like HOI3's OOB system. The OOB system was far more accurate than HOI4's complete lack of a chain of command, but it was sooo micro intensive that I hated dealing with it. This just seems like far too much micromanagement IMO.

 

[krios41]

especially the last part where you have enough ships to win the fight but for some reason they sit around doing nothing until all their friends are dead.

then go conquer planets with them instead of doing nothing

This just seems like far too much micromanagement IMO.

is it realy? depends on the way you'd implement it i think.

Basically, there's nothing at all good about any part of this suggestion.

How about you give some constructive feedback instead of just saying "looks bad" hm? I can't expand/improve the idea if al you're saying is "looks bad".

 

[LordMagus]

Not keen on fleets just sitting there doing nothing. While in HOI there was combat width, in space.... there's lots of space. I'd prefer it if combat wasn't just one side wins overwhelmingly. While battles tended to be quite decisive in history, in space combat, the enemy can run away whenever they start losing too much. Battles then have to be forced by engaging targets the enemy can't afford to not defend. If one big doomstack no longer crushes the enemy fleet, as they keep running away, it would necessitate splitting up the fleet into different combat elements to cover a larger area of space.

 

[krios41]

Battles then have to be forced by engaging targets the enemy can't afford to not defend.

Like, his planets?

 

[terrycloth]

then go conquer planets with them instead of doing nothing

is it realy? depends on the way you'd implement it i think.

How about you give some constructive feedback instead of just saying "looks bad" hm? I can't expand/improve the idea if al you're saying is "looks bad".

Okay. Don't do any of it. Don't have a chain of command requiring dozens of leaders specifically for your fleet, because the leader system can't even begin to handle it. Don't claim that you're making things feel 'organic' or 'logical' when an invisible force field arbitrarily prevents reinforcements from helping. Reinforcements not being able to help breaks the entire idea, so until you can fix that part there's no point worrying about any of the other details.

For all the complaining people do about doomstacks, the reverse problem (as seen in at least the early versions of Endless Space) is a hundred times worse -- when a slightly more advanced fleet can hold off an infinite number of opponents because of arbitrary engagement limits.

 

[GC13]

Like, his planets?

Bombardment and occupation are only minor, temporary nuisances. There is absolutely no reason in the game not to let the enemy occupy your capital if there is even a 10% chance that you'll lose the battle if, two years from now, you'll have a fleet big enough to retake it with 100% certainty.

 

[gramis]

Stellaris could use in OOB system but not complex as HOI s one. Something like a commander (that provides bonuses) for every x number of ships to create a fleet and an admiral (that provides an extra bonus) to x number of fleets to create an Armada. Each Armada could contain specialized fleets with specialized comanders giving the appropriate bonuses.
Players and AI should be able to create fleets and armada's without said leaders but those should have some penalties like lack of coordination or something along that line

 

[Praetorian44]

is it realy? depends on the way you'd implement it i think.

True, but when I was reading the OP it made me picture a system similar to HOI3's

 

[krios41]

on't claim that you're making things feel 'organic' or 'logical' when an invisible force field arbitrarily prevents reinforcements from helping. Reinforcements not being able to help breaks the entire idea, so until you can fix that part there's no point worrying about any of the other details.

1. I'm not trying find an organic solution here, but a logical one, and to me, i succeeded in being logical.
2. That was something i came up with in order to adress a point someone made. I'm not going to claim siad solution is perfect, but i'm not going to let you complain about it when you yourself don't offer any idea's yourself.
3. Maybe think of a way we could allow reinforcements without breaking the core diea hm? that'd be helpfull, i'm only a human myself and i can't think of everything.

fleets and armada's without said leaders but those should have some penalties like lack of coordination or something along that line

I'm against adding penalty's for not doing a thing, we should reward good behavior. But i'l look into it and see if i can improve my idea by combining it with yours somehow

 

[WhiteWeasel]

1. I'm not trying find an organic solution here, but a logical one, and to me, i succeeded in being logical.

Time to out do you with a solution that is both organic an logical. Target saturation and sensory overload. If there are a lot enemy ships nearby in combat (so it does not matter if they are in one, or many fleets), your ships get a small bonus to accuracy to reflect the fact that a large group is easier to take aim at and hit something. And in the case of sensory overload, the more of your allied ships are nearby in battle, a worse average accuracy your fleet has as your ships generate a lot of sensory clutter that they got to sift through to hit their mark.

So it's very easy for a small group of ships to hit a larger group of ships - not enough to make of for the fact they have less guns to bring to bare, but does allow them to punch above their weight class. And it's harder for a larger group of ships to hit things in general. In same size vs same size, these effects more or less cancel out. But in small vs large the bigger fleet would still beat the smaller one due to having more guns to bring to bare, but the bigger fleet will be take a disproportionately larger amount of damage.

That system could also make flanking like the the pincer maneuver very effective as the central cluster will have those accuracy penalties while the two flanking fleets are getting their accuracy bonus for fighting a larger group, but are not close enough to each other to receive a significant accuracy malice that will cancel out their bonus.