Forget about Doomstacks. They arent the real problem.

[kreissig]

I'm not doubting that a Stellaris II is possible- I'm inherently frustrated that people would try to discuss it and their expectations/anticipations of it before Stellaris has solidified.

Its more than "possible", its probable. (Shoot...who are we kidding! There will be a II) As for your frustration....I'm not here to ease your frustrations. My opinions of this game stand, whether they frustrate you or not.

Now back to the discussion on the flat, one-dimensional depth of doomstack strategy.

 

[Xoatl]

Fortress defenses should be crushingly powerful. The instant death mines are good. The warp disrupter should damage every ships hull by 25%-50% on arrival as it's pulled from warp in a way it wasn't intended.

 

[Kanaric]

There is really no solution to doom stacks. If you limit fleet size you just have your fleets follow a main fleet.

People say supply would help but it wouldn't. Supply exists on Distant Worlds, you still doomstack on that game. The only game that you don't have ridiculous doom stacks on is Galciv because it plays like Civilizaiton and has fleet size limitations based on tech. The fleet size limitation wouldn't work on this game for why I said in the last sentence.

They need to give fleets morale.

Think of how Sci-Fi works as well. Aside stray ships there was "The Rebel Fleet" in starwars. Not Rebel Fleet 1 or 2, not A rebel fleet, THE rebel fleet. In Star Trek DS9 there is the massive cardassian/federation battle which basically ended the war.

There has to be a strategic reason for players to split fleets. In WW2 the US didn't doomstack their ships because areas needed to be protected and there was a continent in the way between the atlantic and pacific.

Now people say a war is one in one deceisive battle in this game. This is not true.

Before a war I amass resources, if my fleet is severely damaged and I retreat or is destroyed I rebuild them and fight again. A war is about economy on this game, and how many ships you can field is even part of that economy. You lose if you lose the battle AND cannot replace your ships. You can even lose a war if you win battles and the opponent can replace their ships and you cannot. I have won many wars of attrition in this manner in this game when I was numerically inferior.

The game just needs smarter AI. The AI needs to manage their economy, prepare resources for war, and take opportunities like defeat of the human player to seize a bunch of worlds as he tries to rebuild. That is all. I think the doomstacks thing is fine. Every 4X space game i've played was in such a manner aside Galciv and Galciv is IMO shit.

 

[Kanaric]

Fortress defenses should be crushingly powerful.

Not with how they are in every system like they are now.

 

[The 14Deadsouls]

This reminds me of Legend of Galactic Heroes, where the alliance fleet invades the empire. However, the empire adopted a scorched earth strategy and the alliance invasion fails due to lack of local supplies and using their own supplies to help the local people rebuild.

Even if it's simple and based on distance from friendly territory as in Vicky2 and EU4, a supply system would be a big benefit for the game.

DAMMIT I was just on that part last night. Didn't expect to get minor spoilers on these forums haha. No fault of your own though, no worries. Great series so far.

 

[stlemur]

Space mines to stop a doomstack were good enough for Benjamin Sisko.

 

[EccentricJoe]

supply has been the historic limiter on doomstacks as well as lack of maneuverability and so forth. introducing these elements in one of the many ways it has been suggested would be great. i honestly dont care if it doesnt fit the theme or make alot of sense for advanced societys to need supplys, if it makes the game more fun, im down.

 

[Wyrm]

Think of how Sci-Fi works as well. Aside stray ships there was "The Rebel Fleet" in starwars. Not Rebel Fleet 1 or 2, not A rebel fleet, THE rebel fleet. In Star Trek DS9 there is the massive cardassian/federation battle which basically ended the war.

There has to be a strategic reason for players to split fleets. In WW2 the US didn't doomstack their ships because areas needed to be protected and there was a continent in the way between the atlantic and pacific.

Well, if we look at Star Wars - outside the movies - there are lots of battles involving battlegroup-sized forces. And the Empire sure as hell never committed their ENITRE fleet in any single engagment. The Rebels fought using asymetrical warfare, hitting the empire where it was weak and always avoiding confrontations with superior forces. THIS is what this game needs. An ability to avoid combat and striking at weak-spots of the enemy.

For the WW2 reference, the main issue wasn't soley to protect areas, but more locating the enemy. A concentrated fleet don't see as much as a dispersed one, and if you can't find the enemy, you can't engage him.

 

[mangalore]

...

For the WW2 reference, the main issue wasn't soley to protect areas, but more locating the enemy. A concentrated fleet don't see as much as a dispersed one, and if you can't find the enemy, you can't engage him.

You had a lot of interesting dynamics, e.g. one German battleship meant the Royal navy slotted 4 British battleships for a theatre to ensure its destruction when it would sail out. I guess that 4:1 ratio is a bit based on your detection point aka you needed exponential force superiority so you could have multiple task forces to run around and find the enemy. Similarily you had battle squadrons assigned not just to fight but to show presence and dissuade an attack in the first place which meant that forces could not be concentrated nilly willy.

I wonder if some kind of garrison/fleet presence connected to piracy and border control would be nice aka you need forces in territory or you lose some level of control over the territory (not full mineral+energy income and possibly border pressure lapses which might make you lose systems to other empire's border pressure, as far as getting more secession pressure from local systems).

This way you'd have an incentive why you might get an incentive to have detachments all over your empire and only concentrate forces temporarily for a battle and have to consider if you want to pull your border detachments from regions far away.

Another thing could be to get a reaction malus to fleets raiding systems without a fleet presence aka the enemy can more safely attack unprotected systems as you only get informed when it is already happening.

The last idea would be logistics aka not all forces can be combat ready all the time but that would be to lifelike aka difficult to model. In essence baring extraordinary efforts only one third of a fleet is ready for operations which means nations did never commit all their fleets even if they wanted to because a good number of ships would be in drydock, being repaired, reequipped etc.

Some dynamics like that.

 

[Wyrm]

If I look at this problem from another angle I can see a different problem: The engagement-model. Once engaged, you can only fight-to-the-death or emergency FTL. There is no tactical withdrawal or manuvering. You are locked in engagement, sometimes giving rise to bizarre situations where your entire fleet gets held up by a mining station and construction ship long enough for the enemy main fleet to catch up to you.

Doing away with this locked-in-engagment-mechanic we would open up for another type of combat - hit-and-fade. You have a speedy torpedo-armed fleet of small ships that makes a quick attack on the enemy, pops a few cruisers or a battleship and then runs away. Pin-pricking the enemy fleet, but at less cost for you than for them.

This could also mean a faster fleet with long-range weapons could stay out of reach of a slower fleet - dishing out damage without getting hit back.

THIS would open up a need for multiple fleets, since you would suddenly have to manoeuvre two or more fleets in order to catch or trap the enemy, or they will just dance around you.

I can even see this finally giving missiles a role in the game as long-range, high-damage fire-and-forget weapons that will excel at hit-and-fades.

 

[Meneliki]

"There is nothing tactical about moving a doomstack around"

Sure there is. You're taking the gamble of, "Gee, I sure hope he doesn't have a minefield set up right where I'm going to be warping in!"

Maybe some in-depth mechanics about how Governors create, decomission, and recommission static defenses such as minefields and fortresses. Something like:

Maintain Fortresses on:
( o ) Core systems
( ) Frontier systems

Mantain minefields on:

( ) Core system links
( o ) Frontier system links

Then the AI is micromanaging the placement of your static D for you. Combine this with a slight buff to mines and possibly warp magnets... aaaannnd there ya go.

 

[Wyrm]

"There is nothing tactical about moving a doomstack around"

Sure there is. You're taking the gamble of, "Gee, I sure hope he doesn't have a minefield set up right where I'm going to be warping in!"

Well, that would only be countered by a doomstack + a scout-corvette...

 

[Poh]

Reason why i dont think minefields would work.
basically your fleet needs to run into a minefield to hit it, this means either minefield the whole damn thing or people will micro their fleet around. If you cant micro around it you mightaswell have system wide defense missiles or similar which would be easier to implement due to the general weapon and how it works already being in the game.

Personally i think its annoying that you cant really establish a proper frontline in the game. You basically cant slow people down or protect the core areas of your systems. Shipyards and production facilities and defense systems to make systems more like provinces and defense in depth possible would be what i would prefer to see in the game.
In short, specific production increasing facilities and a type of stellaris euiv province/fort system along with changes to invasions of planets.

 

[vanin]

If invading planets ended up a slower, more tedious affair maybe wars can be slowed down, akin to how in EU4 wars can drag out for a long time and a side which has lost 10 big battles can turn around and win the 11th and get back into the war. This does not really happen in Stellaris. There should be more incentives to split up the fleet and siege planets and space fortresses in order to conduct a war successfully. Instead a bombarded planet can fall in a week - I haven't read much sci-fi but are there many instances were a defended planet can fall in a week of fighting?

I think that in addition to an invading army pummeling the defenders, a navy securing supply to the inading army and providing orbital bombardment should be needed. And it should take a long time to overcome a prepared enemy - it should not be just one battle lasting a few weeks, it should represent the slow pace at which a planetary campaign is conducted if resistance is stiff enough. Several months, even years, should be necessary. This will force a winning side from one of the "doomstack" battles to split up their navy and army to press their advantage, just as in EU4. The same should apply to space stations, that should be possible to occupy in addition to completely destroy, so that an invader can entrench themselves in hostile space.

 

[mangalore]

If invading planets ended up a slower, more tedious affair maybe wars can be slowed down, akin to how in EU4 wars can drag out for a long time and a side which has lost 10 big battles can turn around and win the 11th and get back into the war. This does not really happen in Stellaris. There should be more incentives to split up the fleet and siege planets and space fortresses in order to conduct a war successfully. Instead a bombarded planet can fall in a week - I haven't read much sci-fi but are there many instances were a defended planet can fall in a week of fighting?

...

I think realistically and most SF assumes that once the battle for control of a system ends and the planet has no planetary shielding of some sort the planet will surrender to not get bombarded in the first place. After all space weapons are destroyed what precisely can a planet do about a fleet sitting in its orbit lobbing asteroids (cheap on location megaton warheads essentially) on its head? You usually need rather convoluted reasons why this wouldn't apply.

In reverse that however would mean if the enemy fleets withdraws it loses control of the system again because planets only surrendered at gunpoint in the first place.

In Stellaris I don't think making the planets hardier helps that much because they still become useless for resources and ship building. At best they create a corvette every two months that gets immediately destroyed by a small picket force in orbit. In EU4 you still go for the enemy's army most of the time (or you plan some shenanigans to trap it somewhere where it cannot reach. Now with fortresses you have some semi plausible reason why you need to siege a front line first, however in space or ocean going this makes less sense. Fleets can go anywhere.

 

[Meneliki]

In reverse that however would mean if the enemy fleets withdraws it loses control of the system again because planets only surrendered at gunpoint in the first place.

Not really. If an alien force warped in, decimated a civ's fleet/defenses, and said 'submit or die' and they submitted, then the invaders warped away, im pretty sure the civ wouldn't consider themselves 'free' by any means. In galactic terms, the invaders are basically 'in the next room', and could return at any moment.

 

[Arkona]

Imho, you can kinda counter the huge doomstacks by not engaging with them and instead going for many planets and space ports at the same time. Once you've taken down enough ports the penalties will quickly crush your opponent's economy. This might or might not work against human players because then you'd also have the real-time element, so the micro will be unbearable.

I see two fairly easy ways to limit doomstacks. The first is to limit/rethink the system-to-system maneuverability of fleets in terms of how much HP you can transfer per second, basically as you're trying to warp more and more fleets into the system it becomes exponentially more expensive in terms of time to do that. Basically, the ships have to constantly communicate back and forth between each other, and the more ships you have the task becomes more difficult. You could even have some additional tech that tries to speed up things a bit. The problem with this is that you have three methods of transportation and making sure that all of them are balanced could be a difficult task. If I were Paradox I'd kill the two other transportation methods.

The second way is to allow for more strategic freedom once you're in battle. Just because someone's ships are in range that doesn't mean that I want to fight them, I'll just quickly disengage and leave the system. Quick-and-dirty engagements are still difficult to achieve because you can't control the targeting of individual fleets. I've had many times when my entire fleet had gotten hold up because the ships were fighting a mining station.

Anyway, I don't think that doomstacks have been tackled by Paradox. I think they're still working on other things but in the future they should revisit this problem once again.

 

[scaper12123]

Imho, you can kinda counter the huge doomstacks by not engaging with them and instead going for many planets and space ports at the same time. Once you've taken down enough ports the penalties will quickly crush your opponent's economy. This might or might not work against human players because then you'd also have the real-time element, so the micro will be unbearable.

I see two fairly easy ways to limit doomstacks. The first is to limit/rethink the system-to-system maneuverability of fleets in terms of how much HP you can transfer per second, basically as you're trying to warp more and more fleets into the system it becomes exponentially more expensive in terms of time to do that. Basically, the ships have to constantly communicate back and forth between each other, and the more ships you have the task becomes more difficult. You could even have some additional tech that tries to speed up things a bit. The problem with this is that you have three methods of transportation and making sure that all of them are balanced could be a difficult task. If I were Paradox I'd kill the two other transportation methods.

The second way is to allow for more strategic freedom once you're in battle. Just because someone's ships are in range that doesn't mean that I want to fight them, I'll just quickly disengage and leave the system. Quick-and-dirty engagements are still difficult to achieve because you can't control the targeting of individual fleets. I've had many times when my entire fleet had gotten hold up because the ships were fighting a mining station.

Anyway, I don't think that doomstacks have been tackled by Paradox. I think they're still working on other things but in the future they should revisit this problem once again.

I think the spaceport strategy works well enough against an AI since they often don't know how to retake their planets, but for a player they might end up responding by splitting up their own fleet to take down your smaller fleets. When I'm in a war I usually try and divide my fleets to conquer a lot of planets quickly.

But I think ultimately the doomstack will have to be limited in potential (not eliminated completely, but nerfed in such a way that it's suitable only for major space battles). Quite honestly, I think that the biggest issue with doomstacks is how quickly battles can be decided between two uneven fleets, when surely a massive devastating space conflict would end with major losses for both sides. Maybe addressing that would be a good start.

 

[Tibi088]

I still maintain that really strong minefields would at least give another layer of the game. And simply sending 1 corvette as one suggests wont take out a whole field. And if you have to sacrifice a sizeable fleet of corvettes its already done something to help you and if you have to do this to destroy every fort or conquer every planet than thats a huge step in the direction of slowing down the enemy.

In some thread the Legend of the Galactic Heroes was mentioned. Remembering it gave me another idea: Planetary level fortresses. They would put the whole defensive game to a new level: you couldt destroy them (at least as long as you arent able to destroy planets) only conquer them which is already much harder. I havent thought yet about what would be the best way to implement them but together with mines they would add new layers to the this far nonexistent defense game. You would have time to weaken the enemy and strenghten your forces before the Decisive battle.

Another interesting idea would be if the time and cost to build ships would be drastically increased. This would mean even a war won could cripple or seriously weaken even the winner for a long time. Im not sure if ths would be better or worse than what we have know.

 

[Knightroglycerine]

IMO, the problem is that there is no cost for prolonging a war. In EU4, you have war exhaustion going up, manpower going down due to attrition, etc. This means that it is often a better strategy to end the war and take only what you really need then to go for a 100% victory, or you may weaken your empire and fall prey to revolts or an ambitious rival. In Stellaris, after the first battle is won the victor can just clean up at leisure without any consequences. This is also what makes the ground combat system so pointless: The only resource it takes to bombard and invade is time, which is unlimited.