General Summation of Stellaris's Warfare Problems

[MichaelJanuary]

This advocates doomstacking - carve a path from home to the enemys home as fast as possible. If they dont have home they dont have supply. If home flips to a new planet, carve a path to there.

No. It would advocate using small fleets to cut off routes back to enemy space, or using small fleets or garrisons to keep supply lines open. Your doomstack would be as subject to being cut off from supply as the enemy doomstack.

And assuming the supply origin was even a single point.

 

[grommile]

Meanwhile, in Europa Universalis 4, you can secure your border for half a year, sometimes even for more than year, by building fortresses.

If the Mandate of Heaven DLC is enabled, fortresses can fall before the first siege tick if the attacker can afford 55 MIL (and a buttload of manpower/gold) to force a breach and launch an assault.

 

[Zahn82]

Sensor range uses a simpler calculation as it doesnt need to consider closed borders or alternative routes, it just asks "how far can I go down the hypernet from this point?" [edit: Nebulae are the only check on this] If its slightly wrong it also doesn't cost you a war. But for supply:

• Will supply work through gateways?
• Will it be obstructed by closed borders?
• Will it be obstructed by FTL inhibited enemy systems?
• Will It come from friendly planets / stations?
• Will it come from Allied/Vassal planets/stations?
• How frequently is the supply update, polled? (intra month?) per month? Quarterly? etc, faster = more cycles burned on it.
• Then there are ship balancing factors like how much supply does a big fleet vs a little one use? or big ships vs little ships use? (case to be made that a big fleet can bring more supply, or that A BB will have more supply/cargo space than a corvette, relatively ... enhancing doomstacking lol)

If yes to any of these, you raise the order of calculations done manifestly, and if no you get a forum filled with cheesed off players asking why they cant cutoff enemy supply with FTL inhibitors or why they cant supply through gateways or from their long time federal buddy, costing their main fleet a battle and losing them a war. Can. Of. Worms.

As mentioned in my first post.
Supply should be based on starbases, range and supply cap are raised by supply modules you have to built.
Gateways and Wormholes should obviously extend supply Range. It should not travel through enemy space (with or without inhibitor)
Allies can use supply of their partners, but its shared.

I doubt that its so cpu intensive compared to HoI4.
1. Setting the supply limits for a system has to be done only if
- a supply module is built
- borders are changed
- alliances are changed

2. This has to be done only for affected systems/Areas
2.1 new supply Module
- do a "sensor Range" calculation
- add a flag with supply depot id, and naval cap to affected systems. (1st Module will always work on all neighboring systems)
2.2 changed borders/alliances
- if a flagged system is a border system or bordering a neutral system check if all flagged depot ids are within reach when the exact distance is calculated. (not through impassable systems) This exact calculation has only to be done through "supplied" systems wich passed the easy test.
If a system fails this exact test, set the system as "currently unsupplied" and calculate the test for the next neighboring system.

3. Check supply status of fleets on a daily basis, this could also be skipped for fleets under a basic threshold wich each system has as base. (really small reinforcements...)
This could also be skipped if an Empire is at peace.

 

[Prisoner881]

FLEET COMBAT
Missiles should do a lot more damage, and should have a volley attribute, i.e., they are fired from a limited magazine, which then takes a long time to recharge. So you might get 4-6 missiles fired in rapid sequence, but then a long time before the magazine recharges. Fighters should also do a lot more damage, but should be destructible. Damaged fighters return to the carrier for repair and re-arm, while destroyed fighters take a long time to be rebuilt.

Fixed Defenses (starbases) would have an advantage in that would have much larger magazines, and much faster recharge rates on magazines, as well as more fighters, and able to rebuild fighters. However, All the facilities that support them are DISABLED when the outpost is disabled, and the outpost doesn't start repairing for several months after combat. So if the outpost becomes disabled, fighter and missile construction stops, until the outpost is fully repaired.

I would like to suggest a supply/logistics mechanic from a space empire game I played long ago. The concept went like this:

• Ships each have a fixed "supply" amount based on hull size. This can be enhanced with additional "supply" modules in lieu of fitting other components.
• All ships in a given fleet pool their supply before and after battles but not during battles; non-fleet ships never share supply.
• Movement depletes supply, albeit by a small amount; ships without supply may still move but at a greatly reduced rate (say, 25% normal speed) and could perhaps be incapable of hyperlane transit (thus stranding a fleet that is unfortunate enough to run out of supply but not leaving them completely immobile within a system). Or, if hyperlane transit is not disabled, it at least takes much longer to charge.
• Weapons fire depletes supply but at a much faster rate. Energy weapons fire uses the least supply, followed by kinetic, and explosive weapons use a very large amount of supply. There would be a "reserve" cutoff (say, 5% of total capacity) to leave something left over for movement (i.e. "fuel") but a ship would be unable to fire any weapon that would deplete supply below that value. Ships unable to fire due to low supply would retreat out of weapons range but no further.
• Total supply would be sized such that a given fleet could fight at most one or two full-scale engagements against similarly-sized fleets before exhausting supply (assuming no resupply is available). Again, this mirrors the weapons expenditures you would expect in real-world battles.

The above concept satisfies a number of goals without being overly complex:

• Smaller ships like missile frigates can fire volleys but can now run out of ammo, leaving a small reserve behind for mobility, energy weapons, or PD for example but being unable to continue firing missiles/torps. This would realistically model how an actual missile frigate would behave.
• Larger ships would have much more staying power (due to larger supply) and would be valuable for fleet resupply post-battle. They conversely become bigger targets for the same reason.
• Fighters/bombers would have very limited supply and would return to the carrier to resupply (and slowly depleting the carrier's supply, which could be offset somewhat by having hangar modules come with extra supply capacity).
• It puts a bit of strategy into weapons selection beyond the current rock/paper/scissors model. Spamming missiles/torps must be balanced with supply, whereas going all energy makes supply less of a concern and kinetic falling in the middle.
• Stuck in enemy territory and low on supply? Sacrifice some ships by decommissioning them. Any supply present in the discarded ships is transferred to the remaining fleet, allowing them to escape an otherwise hopeless situation but leaving your navy overall in poorer shape.

Beyond the immediate effects on ships, there could be the following supply mechanics to simulate logistics:

• Ships in friendly systems get automatically resupplied at a moderate fixed value over time to max values, giving a home-ground advantage when fighting. Resupply rates could also be dependent on the number of colonized worlds in a given system, making systems with more colonies more valuable for defense and capture. Or the relative size of colonies. Or both.
• Building supply-oriented planetary buildings or starbase modules can increase the above fixed value to decrease resupply times and/or increase the max size of of fleet that can be reasonably supported in a given system.
• Ships outside friendly systems get reduced supply if in non-friendly territory, with the reduction being scaled based on how far away they are so long as the fleet has an unobstructed path back to a friendly system. For example, a fleet one jump away from from a friendly system might have its resupply rate reduced by 25%, two jumps 50%, and so forth. Beyond three jumps they receive no resupply at all.
• Ships with no direct path to a friendly system receive no resupply at all regardless of distance from friendly territory.
• To buff starbases a bit they could get immediate and infinite resupply, giving them an advantage in longer battles but not making them so OP they become a hindrance to gameplay.
• Fleets docked at a starbase can share supply while docked, giving you a way to resupply a stranded fleet without juggling ships back and forth between fleets or if you're unable to add ships to a stranded fleet due to max fleet size.

It also offers enhanced strategies which mirror real-world "live off the land" campaigns. Conquering planets can now feature capturing supplies, useful to extend a raiding fleet's operational range. Sherman used this "live off the land" strategy during the his campaign through Georgia and the usefulness of it is apparent. As an additional strategic option, you can tie the amount of captured supply to planetary devastation, making capturing planets intact more rewarding from a supply standpoint but more difficult from a combat and time consumed standpoint. Beyond just capturing supplies, capturing planets now becomes a necessity if you wish to engage in extended combat in foreign territory, both for the immediate one-time benefits of captured supply and also for the ongoing benefits of having a source of fresh resupply. Planetary devastation could also reduce resupply rates until the planet recovers.

While it's possible I haven't thought through all the ramifications of this, I think this idea adds a lot of new situations and strategy for very little effort and complication. Doomstacks become difficult to maintain if they become too large for a system to reliably supply. Deep penetration raids become more difficult and riskier; difficult because extended engagements will leave you with no bullets, riskier because if your supply lines are cut you may be unable to fight your way out. The concept of making "supply ships" also becomes a thing where you may choose to make a ship type focused solely on supply capacity (minimizing or excluding weapons and other components) so your fighting ships don't have to but opening up a weakness if such ships are destroyed while far from friendly territory. It offers the potential of sending a relief force of supply-heavy ships to a besieged fleet to save the day. Even the tech tree could benefit with higher propulsion tech reducing supply consumed by movement, or late-game ship tech that generates supply (at a low rate) automatically...assuming you want to dedicate hull slots for it . Edicts like "Empire Logistics System" could extend the range of resupply in enemy territory, or increase resupply rates, or perhaps both. Certain empire types could have innately better (or worse) logistics, impacting resupply rates and distances. Exceeding your fleet cap/admin cap could negatively affect resupply rates empire-wide. You get the idea.

This one concept could quickly add depth to an otherwise stale tactical and strategic model, and all it requires is adding one attribute -- supply -- to ships/fleets/planets. I'm curious what others may think so please weigh in.

EDIT: I realized I didn't adequately define what constitutes an "unobstructed path to friendly system". What I mean is a path must be present from the fleet to a friendly system that consists of captured starbases and is free of any enemy vessels. Troop transports and civilian vessels would not count, nor would unoccupied planets. In the case where there may be multiple paths to friendly systems, resupply rates would be calculated on the path that gives the highest rate of resupply. This opens up the idea of "sitting on your enemy's supply line" to slow, stop, or even reverse their attack momentum. Even an inferior force could cause an invader to pause in such a situation, giving the "little guy" a way to harry a superior attacker. An attacker could ignore this -- at least temporarily -- if they have adequate supply. Or they could detach small groups to "guard the supply lines" with the tradeoff being diminished fleet capacity the longer your supply chain gets. This is the kind of stuff real-world militaries have to consider on campaigns and it adds considerable strategic complexity.

 

[Jorgen_CAB]

If you want an interesting space combat simulation and how important logistics, raiding and protecting economic interests is I would look no further than Distant Worlds (even GalCiv makes for a better war simulation game). This is a game that is even greater in it's scope in regard to size of the Galaxy and still they manage a full fledged logistic system, raiding, patrols, fleets, invasions and how costly it is to conduct a war, especially an offensive war. A fleet that is mainly defensive in nature in that game can manage to build way more efficient combat ships and need to invest very little in long range logistical chains.

Space is more like a really big ocean and ships can for the most part easily retreat from a bad engagement (with some exceptions) which make it harder to pin down an enemy if they don't want to fight you then and there.

Stellaris lack depth in both economic, logistics as well as political reasons for the need to protect pretty much anything which is why the only important thing in Stellaris is the fleet. It is way too easy to know what the enemy is doing and where their ships are going and gathers, there are little in the way of scouting in Stellaris. There are no raiding or use of sensors and cloaking.

In Distant Worlds space is vast and en enemy fleet can potentially show up at any time and any where. It is important to keep patrols, sensor stations and build up defensive structures. Your stations can be boarded and taken by the enemy rather than destroyed. A large fortress station can usually hold off a fleet long enough for fleet assets nearby to come to its aid. You can effectively build defensive fortresses that will take huge resources to crack, but at the same time it only protect one tiny spot and you can end up being stripped of all resources and civilian traffic.
Defending your trade routes and space lanes is super important, it will take both time and resources to fix interruptions and even small interruption can leave a large impact, especially of you collected some important resources at those specific location. Even minor disruption to the flow of resources can have big impact, even if it is not directly felt.
Ship design actually matter in Distant Worlds as different ship types will fill different roles and there always are the issue of range versus firepower or speed and defence to avoid an unfair engagement. There is no one right design to do every task you need to be done.

Doomstacking in Distant Worlds will also work and concentration of force is as important as it should be, but it can have negative consequences if you don't leave a strategic reserve some place or keep patrolling your trade lanes or mineral extraction sites.

To be honest I don't think you can fix warfare in Stellaris in its current iteration because the underlying economic model are too simplistic and lack depth, there is nothing that really can be done, it is set in stone. You can add all the fake logistics you want, it will not really change the dynamics of war in Stellaris... it still is only the ships themselves that matter in a war.

 

[Prisoner881]

If you want an interesting space combat simulation and how important logistics, raiding and protecting economic interests is I would look no further than Distant Worlds

I'll stop you right there. Without getting into a debate about whether game X is better than game Y on a specific detail, I'll just say it's irrelevant to the conversation. This is not about choosing a different game to scratch our real-time space opera itch; it's about making the one we already like/love as good as possible. It is inaccurate to say Stellaris is incapable of getting "good enough" to scratch this itch. Indeed, it may be possible to make it "good enough" with relatively simple modifications. The bigger question is whether PDX will listen to its fanbase at all.

 

[Jorgen_CAB]

I'll stop you right there. Without getting into a debate about whether game X is better than game Y on a specific detail, I'll just say it's irrelevant to the conversation. This is not about choosing a different game to scratch our real-time space opera itch; it's about making the one we already like/love as good as possible. It is inaccurate to say Stellaris is incapable of getting "good enough" to scratch this itch. Indeed, it may be possible to make it "good enough" with relatively simple modifications. The bigger question is whether PDX will listen to its fanbase at all.

That was not what I was trying to say... I was trying to convey that due to how other mechanic work in the game you will not be able to "fix" warfare to a satisfactory degree in the game. I just pointed to that other game to show what would be needed in order to make it work. As you don't have any of those foundations in Stellaris the point is moot.

No matter what you do the result will be the same, people will doomfleet and destroy the opponent fleet no matter what you do. As long as there are no way to really destroy the opponents economy or logistics which will effectively destroy the opponents fleet then the fleet is the only asset left to care about.

Given how inept the combat AI already is then adding and more complexity to it will not make things better, especially not any form of logistical system The AI will not really be able to deal with it. It probably will work in multi-player between players though and perhaps if the AI can cheat and ignore it.

I don't think it is about Paradox listening to its fan base or not, I honestly thing they can't do it in the current iteration of the game.

 

[MichaelJanuary]

@Prisoner881

Thank you. Agree mostly. I would do a few things differently though.

Energy = Supply?
I know that ship upkeep already increases significantly when not docked, but this is not sufficient to model the requirement to maintain or attack supply lines.
Also, currently when you run out of energy, the only penalty is -100% shields.
I would still equate energy to supply, but using a different model, to emulate supply lines (though somewhat abstractly).

PROPOSED SUPPLY MODEL

• All ships start with 100% supply, and do not use supply while docked at a starbase.
• Ships lose between 1% and 5% of supply per month during operations, rate of usage proportional to whether they are in friendly or enemy space, or whether they are in combat, or cut off from friendly space (no viable route back for an unarmed ship).
• Fleets that are cut off from home, therefore lose supply at a prodigous rate (but still takes some months before it hurts).
• Docking at a friendly/allied starbase replenishes supply (by converting Energy at the rate of upkeep*supply).
  • A ship with upkeep of 5 energy per month, needing 20% supply, will cost 100 energy to resupply, deducted immediately from your global energy.
  • If you have no energy, you will be unable to resupply your fleets.
  • Being on home territory is therefore no guarantee of supply, as supply costs energy.
• When down to 50% supply, various penalties start kicking in:
  • Slower sublight speed, Slower fire rate, longer hyperjump warm up time, reduced shields. (energy for shields has been converted to other uses).
  • penalties escalate as supply keeps dropping.
  • A Fleet at 40% supply might only have mild penalties, but a fleet at 0% supply would be severely compromised.
• Replenishing Supply
  • fleets can replenish by converting energy from stars, but it requires being stationary in orbit of a star for an extended period. This is very slow and inefficient.
• Piillaging:
  • New bombardment stance: Pillage (if your ethics allow). Pillage is an atrocity, and will cause others to hate you.
  • You can pillage any planet (including your own).
  • Pillaging provides X% of supply for every Y% of devastation, inversely proportional to fleet size. Thus a doomstack might only recover slightly from reducing a planet to 100% devastation, but a small fleet could get to 100% supply, by inflicting say 20% devastation.
  • This will allow fleets to 'live off the land', but they have to take the time to pillage, and there is only so much supply you can extract.

Strategic Impact:

• Energy is vastly more important for running wars. Energy = Supply.
• Fleets can be cut off from supply, causing them to be significantly compromised (not completely stranded).
• Without an economic base (energy), fleets will become compromised very quickly.
• Extracting supply from planets is possible, but limited.
• Doomstacks is still possible, but unless they allocate resources to defending supply lines, your entire fleet could be compromised in its operations no matter how strong your economy.
• The need to gather supplies (Replensih or Pillage) will significantly slow down operations.

CODING IMPACT?

• Fleets will need a new attribute (Supply%), that is updated monthly according to status (docked, combat, distance or viable route home).
• When merging fleets, Supply is averaged in proportion to fleet size (capacity).
• Fleet combat/operational penalties based on Fleet Supply level.
• On Docking, Energy is deducted from your resource stockpile at the rate of [ship upkeep] * [supply required] * [factor]

 

[Ffc]

I didn't read everything but I agree that Supply seems like necessary, also, I think Ships are a bit too slow, it's very long even in Fastest speed; it's thought to be to avoid doomstack but it's still better to have a huge slow strong fleet than several fleets which get destroyed, it's simply not worth it to lose ships

Also, I don't think it was talked a lot about but I think that how Armies are used is a bit annoying, I think you should be able to merge them with your fleet or transform transport ships in Ship modules or something, so don't have your Armies destroyed by a 189 power star base or something for no reason
It's just annoying, and maybe it would help AI but it's secondary.

I would also like a HUGE rework of Armies and ground combat, so you can feel differences between your Jedis, your Xenomorph armies, your slave armies, your reanimated armies, your robot armies and have some interest about Civics related to that because it's so underwhelming

 

[Prisoner881]

CODING IMPACT?

• Fleets will need a new attribute (Supply%), that is updated monthly according to status (docked, combat, distance or viable route home).
• When merging fleets, Supply is averaged in proportion to fleet size (capacity).
• Fleet combat/operational penalties based on Fleet Supply level.
• On Docking, Energy is deducted from your resource stockpile at the rate of [ship upkeep] * [supply required] * [factor]

I considered the idea of stockpiles as you described but I was trying to avoid the issue of having yet another "resource" in the game that needs to be managed directly. Many of your other ideas I like with the exception of equating energy to supply. This would make implementation much more complex due to so many other things needing rebalancing. The idea of a simple "supply" that is tied to ships and ships alone is something PDX could implement without a lot of ancillary economic impact. In this case, I'm preferring a more abstract model -- with the necessary but acceptable oversimplifications -- over something more realistic because it is more likely to be doable by PDX. If I got what I really wanted, each ship would have a "fuel" and "ammo" resource, with energy weapons consuming only fuel and kinetic/explosive consuming ammo. However, I considered that overly complex to achieve the primary goal, that being adding a mechanism to limit doomstacks, make far ranging raids difficult, and creating the concept of logistical supply lines.

One paradox left unresolved in your proposal is the idea that ships consume supply as soon as they undock. I considered this, as it is realistic. However, it ruins the concept of supply lines and the strategic depth supply lines creates. You need to have the concept that fleets can be resupplied at a distance, but with increasing difficulty (i.e. lower resupply rates) the further they get from a logistical node. In my head, the concept is swarms of (invisible) small supply shuttles automatically running back and forth from the nearest supply point to the fleet. The longer these supply runs are, the fewer of them can be completed in a given time, hence lower resupply rates. Since these supply shuttles would be small and vulnerable, any enemy vessel sitting on the supply route would immediately disrupt it. So you get the strategic depth of logistics without the micromanaging complexity of dealing with tens or hundreds of little supply ships all over the place.

 

[Prisoner881]

That was not what I was trying to say... I was trying to convey that due to how other mechanic work in the game you will not be able to "fix" warfare to a satisfactory degree in the game. I just pointed to that other game to show what would be needed in order to make it work. As you don't have any of those foundations in Stellaris the point is moot.

No matter what you do the result will be the same, people will doomfleet and destroy the opponent fleet no matter what you do. As long as there are no way to really destroy the opponents economy or logistics which will effectively destroy the opponents fleet then the fleet is the only asset left to care about.

Given how inept the combat AI already is then adding and more complexity to it will not make things better, especially not any form of logistical system The AI will not really be able to deal with it. It probably will work in multi-player between players though and perhaps if the AI can cheat and ignore it.

I don't think it is about Paradox listening to its fan base or not, I honestly thing they can't do it in the current iteration of the game.

Doomstacks cannot be made impossible but they CAN be made impractical, especially for anything beyond short time periods. This, again, makes sense. Things like the Normandy landings or the Battle of Britain could not be sustained. Even more recent conflicts like Desert Storm were limited more by logistics than they were by supplies of troops, tanks, and aircraft. In my opinion, the lack of logistics is the key weakness of the current Stellaris conflict model, and adding it in a simplified form would revitalize the entire concept. Just think how many military outcomes were decided not by bombs and bullets but by whether you had enough fuel to get to/from the combat area in the first place! Even more relevant, Churchill said the only thing that really scared him was the U-boat menace, and that was because it threatened to disrupt his SUPPLY LINES, not because it was threatening warships.

As for AI ineptitude, I think you both overestimate the complexity of adding "supply" and underestimate the AI's ability to handle it. Indeed it could HELP the AI as it would limit the number of choices it has when planning attacks (i.e. it could only plan limited attacks of shorter duration as anything beyond that becomes logistically impractical). The AI would have a strategic goal ("defeat empire X"), which translates into theater goals ("examine border systems for value vs. defenses and target the best candidate") which hands off to tactical goals ("which of the targets can I reasonably gain given my fleet strengths and logistical limitations"). This process necessarily REDUCES choices for the AI, and having to weigh too many choices is what exposes the weakness of any AI in the first place.

 

[Vlad123]

I would like to suggest a supply/logistics mechanic from a space empire game I played long ago. The concept went like this:

• Ships each have a fixed "supply" amount based on hull size. This can be enhanced with additional "supply" modules in lieu of fitting other components.
• All ships in a given fleet pool their supply before and after battles but not during battles; non-fleet ships never share supply.
• Movement depletes supply, albeit by a small amount; ships without supply may still move but at a greatly reduced rate (say, 25% normal speed) and could perhaps be incapable of hyperlane transit (thus stranding a fleet that is unfortunate enough to run out of supply but not leaving them completely immobile within a system). Or, if hyperlane transit is not disabled, it at least takes much longer to charge.
• Weapons fire depletes supply but at a much faster rate. Energy weapons fire uses the least supply, followed by kinetic, and explosive weapons use a very large amount of supply. There would be a "reserve" cutoff (say, 5% of total capacity) to leave something left over for movement (i.e. "fuel") but a ship would be unable to fire any weapon that would deplete supply below that value. Ships unable to fire due to low supply would retreat out of weapons range but no further.
• Total supply would be sized such that a given fleet could fight at most one or two full-scale engagements against similarly-sized fleets before exhausting supply (assuming no resupply is available). Again, this mirrors the weapons expenditures you would expect in real-world battles.

The above concept satisfies a number of goals without being overly complex:

• Smaller ships like missile frigates can fire volleys but can now run out of ammo, leaving a small reserve behind for mobility, energy weapons, or PD for example but being unable to continue firing missiles/torps. This would realistically model how an actual missile frigate would behave.
• Larger ships would have much more staying power (due to larger supply) and would be valuable for fleet resupply post-battle. They conversely become bigger targets for the same reason.
• Fighters/bombers would have very limited supply and would return to the carrier to resupply (and slowly depleting the carrier's supply, which could be offset somewhat by having hangar modules come with extra supply capacity).
• It puts a bit of strategy into weapons selection beyond the current rock/paper/scissors model. Spamming missiles/torps must be balanced with supply, whereas going all energy makes supply less of a concern and kinetic falling in the middle.
• Stuck in enemy territory and low on supply? Sacrifice some ships by decommissioning them. Any supply present in the discarded ships is transferred to the remaining fleet, allowing them to escape an otherwise hopeless situation but leaving your navy overall in poorer shape.

Beyond the immediate effects on ships, there could be the following supply mechanics to simulate logistics:

• Ships in friendly systems get automatically resupplied at a moderate fixed value over time to max values, giving a home-ground advantage when fighting. Resupply rates could also be dependent on the number of colonized worlds in a given system, making systems with more colonies more valuable for defense and capture. Or the relative size of colonies. Or both.
• Building supply-oriented planetary buildings or starbase modules can increase the above fixed value to decrease resupply times and/or increase the max size of of fleet that can be reasonably supported in a given system.
• Ships outside friendly systems get reduced supply if in non-friendly territory, with the reduction being scaled based on how far away they are so long as the fleet has an unobstructed path back to a friendly system. For example, a fleet one jump away from from a friendly system might have its resupply rate reduced by 25%, two jumps 50%, and so forth. Beyond three jumps they receive no resupply at all.
• Ships with no direct path to a friendly system receive no resupply at all regardless of distance from friendly territory.
• To buff starbases a bit they could get immediate and infinite resupply, giving them an advantage in longer battles but not making them so OP they become a hindrance to gameplay.
• Fleets docked at a starbase can share supply while docked, giving you a way to resupply a stranded fleet without juggling ships back and forth between fleets or if you're unable to add ships to a stranded fleet due to max fleet size.

It also offers enhanced strategies which mirror real-world "live off the land" campaigns. Conquering planets can now feature capturing supplies, useful to extend a raiding fleet's operational range. Sherman used this "live off the land" strategy during the his campaign through Georgia and the usefulness of it is apparent. As an additional strategic option, you can tie the amount of captured supply to planetary devastation, making capturing planets intact more rewarding from a supply standpoint but more difficult from a combat and time consumed standpoint. Beyond just capturing supplies, capturing planets now becomes a necessity if you wish to engage in extended combat in foreign territory, both for the immediate one-time benefits of captured supply and also for the ongoing benefits of having a source of fresh resupply. Planetary devastation could also reduce resupply rates until the planet recovers.

While it's possible I haven't thought through all the ramifications of this, I think this idea adds a lot of new situations and strategy for very little effort and complication. Doomstacks become difficult to maintain if they become too large for a system to reliably supply. Deep penetration raids become more difficult and riskier; difficult because extended engagements will leave you with no bullets, riskier because if your supply lines are cut you may be unable to fight your way out. The concept of making "supply ships" also becomes a thing where you may choose to make a ship type focused solely on supply capacity (minimizing or excluding weapons and other components) so your fighting ships don't have to but opening up a weakness if such ships are destroyed while far from friendly territory. It offers the potential of sending a relief force of supply-heavy ships to a besieged fleet to save the day. Even the tech tree could benefit with higher propulsion tech reducing supply consumed by movement, or late-game ship tech that generates supply (at a low rate) automatically...assuming you want to dedicate hull slots for it . Edicts like "Empire Logistics System" could extend the range of resupply in enemy territory, or increase resupply rates, or perhaps both. Certain empire types could have innately better (or worse) logistics, impacting resupply rates and distances. Exceeding your fleet cap/admin cap could negatively affect resupply rates empire-wide. You get the idea.

This one concept could quickly add depth to an otherwise stale tactical and strategic model, and all it requires is adding one attribute -- supply -- to ships/fleets/planets. I'm curious what others may think so please weigh in.

EDIT: I realized I didn't adequately define what constitutes an "unobstructed path to friendly system". What I mean is a path must be present from the fleet to a friendly system that consists of captured starbases and is free of any enemy vessels. Troop transports and civilian vessels would not count, nor would unoccupied planets. In the case where there may be multiple paths to friendly systems, resupply rates would be calculated on the path that gives the highest rate of resupply. This opens up the idea of "sitting on your enemy's supply line" to slow, stop, or even reverse their attack momentum. Even an inferior force could cause an invader to pause in such a situation, giving the "little guy" a way to harry a superior attacker. An attacker could ignore this -- at least temporarily -- if they have adequate supply. Or they could detach small groups to "guard the supply lines" with the tradeoff being diminished fleet capacity the longer your supply chain gets. This is the kind of stuff real-world militaries have to consider on campaigns and it adds considerable strategic complexity.

Ironically enough, I had created a similar system for a game, which the developer never put into the game because he was lazy and left the game as it was, with everyone doing "doomstack" with the difference that if here at least ships have upkeep there, it was 0, for everything. So one with a few cities created a gigantic army. The system I had created was the "force" as in hoi4.
Except that if you marched into neutral (no right of way) or enemy territory you would lose a% strength. While standing still in friendly territory you regain strength. A fairly easy system to code. But the game in question was a giant RTS ... and it was beautiful but had a lot of problems that could have been easily solved if the creator had the will.

If you want an interesting space combat simulation and how important logistics, raiding and protecting economic interests is I would look no further than Distant Worlds (even GalCiv makes for a better war simulation game). This is a game that is even greater in it's scope in regard to size of the Galaxy and still they manage a full fledged logistic system, raiding, patrols, fleets, invasions and how costly it is to conduct a war, especially an offensive war. A fleet that is mainly defensive in nature in that game can manage to build way more efficient combat ships and need to invest very little in long range logistical chains.

Space is more like a really big ocean and ships can for the most part easily retreat from a bad engagement (with some exceptions) which make it harder to pin down an enemy if they don't want to fight you then and there.

Stellaris lack depth in both economic, logistics as well as political reasons for the need to protect pretty much anything which is why the only important thing in Stellaris is the fleet. It is way too easy to know what the enemy is doing and where their ships are going and gathers, there are little in the way of scouting in Stellaris. There are no raiding or use of sensors and cloaking.

In Distant Worlds space is vast and en enemy fleet can potentially show up at any time and any where. It is important to keep patrols, sensor stations and build up defensive structures. Your stations can be boarded and taken by the enemy rather than destroyed. A large fortress station can usually hold off a fleet long enough for fleet assets nearby to come to its aid. You can effectively build defensive fortresses that will take huge resources to crack, but at the same time it only protect one tiny spot and you can end up being stripped of all resources and civilian traffic.
Defending your trade routes and space lanes is super important, it will take both time and resources to fix interruptions and even small interruption can leave a large impact, especially of you collected some important resources at those specific location. Even minor disruption to the flow of resources can have big impact, even if it is not directly felt.
Ship design actually matter in Distant Worlds as different ship types will fill different roles and there always are the issue of range versus firepower or speed and defence to avoid an unfair engagement. There is no one right design to do every task you need to be done.

Doomstacking in Distant Worlds will also work and concentration of force is as important as it should be, but it can have negative consequences if you don't leave a strategic reserve some place or keep patrolling your trade lanes or mineral extraction sites.

To be honest I don't think you can fix warfare in Stellaris in its current iteration because the underlying economic model are too simplistic and lack depth, there is nothing that really can be done, it is set in stone. You can add all the fake logistics you want, it will not really change the dynamics of war in Stellaris... it still is only the ships themselves that matter in a war.

I confirm, I played DS, especially as a pirate and one thing I always asked about Stellaris was to play as a "norse" raiding like the Vikings do on Ck2 (no, as a racian on Ck3 is boring and unrealistic for me, except maybe for the thing that you can carry the loot by land, but Ck2 ships for me are unbeatable as a function). The DS system is beautiful and although the game is "recent" it has no lag etc why? Because graphically it is very "outdated" but PDX did that too.
First PDX was
Gameplay> Music> Graphics
now it is
Marketing = Graphics> Music> gameplay ... just look at the latest games since it became a joint stock company in 2017 (and maybe even a little earlier) that the beauty of games has faded. PDX maybe with the famous "helium" he wanted to do something like DS, but then he took it off, I don't know why, but I noticed that in the last games it is simplifying everything, a little too much, or it makes it take strange turns. Like Hoi4 the memes and Stellaris that instead of ruling an empire you have to be careful with every pop in the empire, build everything by hand and that the pops grow indefinitely (but this last thing I read will be solved). I stopped playing with the arrival of the corporations because the "economic" system was too much trouble, too much work ... then the wars too slow and boring ... and if it takes me a lot to make a war and I know which is always the same thing (merge everything in a mega-fleet and send it against the enemy) at least in the other PDX you have more strategy ...

 

[MichaelJanuary]

If I got what I really wanted, each ship would have a "fuel" and "ammo" resource, with energy weapons consuming only fuel and kinetic/explosive consuming ammo. However, I considered that overly complex to achieve the primary goal, that being adding a mechanism to limit doomstacks, make far ranging raids difficult, and creating the concept of logistical supply lines.

Me too. Missiles should be extremely limited. Kinetics also limited, but vastly more ammo. Missiles, Ammo, Fighters should be 'resources' constructed or manufactured. Fleets would have to replenish their stocks of ammo, missiles, fighters between engagements, and this would be the primary weakness they had against fixed defenses (starbases) which would have massive supplies of fighters, missiles, ammo at their disposal.

Spoiler: Me rambling on about HOI4

The system I kind of envision is the HOI4 logistics system, where you manufacture components (planes, tanks, trucks, artillery pieces, infantry equipment, etc.), that go into a 'reserve pool'. Fleets/Divisions that are not in combat draw from the reserve pool to replace their operational losses, but replenishment rates are limited by local supply conditions and internal infrastructure.

In my Space4X game, I would have orbital infrastructure manufacturing kinetic ammo, fighters, torpedoes, missiles, armor plating, shield generators, beam projectors, turrets, etc., which go into local stockpiles (starbases). These supplies are distributed (off-map) to fleets to replace operational losses, but only if there is a viable route, and the rate of distribution is proportional to the economic development level of the intervening star systems.

When tech unlocks new equipment, you have to manufacture it into your reserve pool, and it takes time for the new equipment to replace the equipment that is in-service. Ofc, you also have to account for new manufacturing techniques. So maybe ships have the ability to slowly upgrade themselves by printing their own replacement parts, but they would be limited by available raw materials, and maybe the construction requirements for some exotic parts is beyond the capability of the printers.

Unfortunately, I do accept that it might not work in the Stellaris scenario, as fleet orders and tactical control is very limited. It would be easy to game fleets into expending their missiles or ammo on cheap targets, rather than holding it back for viable targets. Maybe not impossible to code for, but hard.

Therefore, its easier to just abstract this into 'reduced fire rate' due to 'low supplies'.

You need to have the concept that fleets can be resupplied at a distance, but with increasing difficulty (i.e. lower resupply rates) the further they get from a logistical node.

I agree. Rate of supply usage should be proportional to distance (jumps), as well as territorial ownership.


Also just adding .... every General since forever has known what Clausewitz, Napoleon and Churchill crystallised. An Army marches on its stomach. They key to prosecuting a successful war is logistics. if you abstract logistics too much, then you lose the entire underlying basis of warfare, and its just batman v superman.

 

[Tamwin5]

Absolutely. I'd like all of that.

I feel like starbases are absolutely phenomenal in theory, but in practice they just don't play an important role in your empire. I mean, maybe it's just me, but does anyone even use more than one building slot on theirs? You put in the crew quarters/logistics office/offworld trading company and most of the time that's pretty much it. The only exception for me is if I'm building a fortress base.

Much of that is because the economy is still almost entirely based on planets. Trade has lots of problems, including the fact that it just doesn't generate anything you need. It's a nice bonus, but your planets fill out everything your empire needs to run. (Not to mention that you can collect all the trade in the empire with just one or two trade bases. The smart move is to never put a starbase above a planet, so you never have to deal with an actual trade network.)

But however it gets done, I'd love it if your network of star bases was vital to keeping the empire running as a whole.

In terms of starbase buildings, I generally try to build them over planets or in nebulas, so I can take advantage of the black site or nebula refinery building. Storage silos are also always an option, and you need a few of those if you plan on building an ecumenopolis. Now admittedly I tend to keep my anchorages at star fortress level, but they almost always have full buildings.

In terms of trade and piracy, I actually try to encourage maximum piracy. Why? Because it's effective training for admirals. Depending on when you go to war, you can often get an admiral up to level 3 before a war starts, which is a significant bonus. Also, you can use trade protection from a citadel starbase to prevent any of the adverse effects of piracy, while still letting piracy build up.

Because of this, I basically never use trade hubs. Anchorages with the hyperlane register are sufficient to gather basically all the trade you have, and so you don't need to waste any slots on collecting trade. The 36 naval cap you get from a full anchorage will more than cover for the handful of corvettes you need to protect the extra trade lanes.

 

[Tamwin5]

For people talking about supply systems, I offer my own proposal. In addition to incentivizing a spread front of conflict, it also turns anchorages into valuable strategic targets and offers a more natural way to model war exhaustion.

 

[LordMM]

I did not have the time to read through 8 pages so Apologies if this has already been mentioned. This is not a complete solution. But a small part of it.

- When you battle an enemy fleet, the enemy ships should retreat when their health is low. This allows large number of ships to survive the initial engagement.
- Damaged ships should take actual resources, alloys and time to repair. So if a ship is damaged, they have to retreat back to the shipyard. Spend some time there for a full repair while deducting a percentage of the resources from your pool based on the damage.
- Research could improve the speed and efficiency of the repair.
- Any base could have a limit to how many ships it can dock. Which means a shipyard with not enough(addons?) can only repair (example)5 ships at once. Repairing an entire fleet could take a considerable amount of time and resources.
- Ships can be repaired only by shipyards and not by defensive bases

This I feel allows a few more possibilities.

- War is essentially a lot more costlier and you might end up in a situation where your planetary development gets effected due to the drain on your resources.
- Allowing ships to retreat allows majority of the enemy fleet to survive the engagement and possibly have multiple retreating battles, instead of a single battle.
- Any attacking force will need to be prepared for an offensive as their ships will need to go further back for repair while defenders might have an advantage due to the less time taken to retreat
- A smaller fleet with better logistics and repair techs might be able to survive a lot more often. If the drain on resources is high enough. This might encourage empires to have multiple raiding fleets to hit the allows/minerals production centers.
- Also might mean that one planet producing large number of allows might suddenly become as valuable as a target as your fleet or your starbase is.

This isn't the entire solution and definitely needs some balancing. Feel, this idea is part of a solution.

 

[Tamwin5]

I did not have the time to read through 8 pages so Apologies if this has already been mentioned. This is not a complete solution. But a small part of it.

- When you battle an enemy fleet, the enemy ships should retreat when their health is low. This allows large number of ships to survive the initial engagement.
- Damaged ships should take actual resources, alloys and time to repair. So if a ship is damaged, they have to retreat back to the shipyard. Spend some time there for a full repair while deducting a percentage of the resources from your pool based on the damage.
- Research could improve the speed and efficiency of the repair.
- Any base could have a limit to how many ships it can dock. Which means a shipyard with not enough(addons?) can only repair (example)5 ships at once. Repairing an entire fleet could take a considerable amount of time and resources.
- Ships can be repaired only by shipyards and not by defensive bases

This I feel allows a few more possibilities.

- War is essentially a lot more costlier and you might end up in a situation where your planetary development gets effected due to the drain on your resources.
- Allowing ships to retreat allows majority of the enemy fleet to survive the engagement and possibly have multiple retreating battles, instead of a single battle.
- Any attacking force will need to be prepared for an offensive as their ships will need to go further back for repair while defenders might have an advantage due to the less time taken to retreat
- A smaller fleet with better logistics and repair techs might be able to survive a lot more often. If the drain on resources is high enough. This might encourage empires to have multiple raiding fleets to hit the allows/minerals production centers.
- Also might mean that one planet producing large number of allows might suddenly become as valuable as a target as your fleet or your starbase is.

This isn't the entire solution and definitely needs some balancing. Feel, this idea is part of a solution.

Ships retreating at low health already exists: It's called disengagement.

 

[PK_AZ]

- Any base could have a limit to how many ships it can dock. Which means a shipyard with not enough(addons?) can only repair (example)5 ships at once. Repairing an entire fleet could take a considerable amount of time and resources.

Base have a limit how many ships can dock, or can be repaired at once? That's important difference.

- Ships can be repaired only by shipyards and not by defensive bases

Long story short: I don't think separating civilian and operational infrastructure is good idea (you talk about defensive bases, but I guess the same concern trade stations). First, the problem is, number of starbases is already limited. If you limit it even more, when it comes to military use, how many operationally important points will you have. On the other hand, pairing military and civilian infrastructure will lead to more organic (as opposed to planned) military landscape. "You do not build bases where you want to defend, you defend where other concerns forced you to build base".

- War is essentially a lot more costlier and you might end up in a situation where your planetary development gets effected due to the drain on your resources.

It may be only my experience, but I don't think costs of war could reasonably influence planetary development. Not counting very early game, I have absolutely no problem with providing resources for my planetary development. What is problematic is POP-lock on building slots, therefore lack of space for industry and administration, and to lesser degree lack of workforce.

- Any attacking force will need to be prepared for an offensive as their ships will need to go further back for repair while defenders might have an advantage due to the less time taken to retreat

That's actually interesting point. What kind of preparations, in your vision, can aggressor do before invasion?

 

[Pancakelord]

- Damaged ships should take actual resources, alloys and time to repair. So if a ship is damaged, they have to retreat back to the shipyard. Spend some time there for a full repair while deducting a percentage of the resources from your pool based on the damage.
- Research could improve the speed and efficiency of the repair.
- Any base could have a limit to how many ships it can dock. Which means a shipyard with not enough(addons?) can only repair (example)5 ships at once. Repairing an entire fleet could take a considerable amount of time and resources.
- Ships can be repaired only by shipyards and not by defensive bases

Currently any non-outpost starbase can perform ship repairs & shipyards are only needed for upgrades.

I agree that ships repairing pretty much at any port is silly. Doubly so for ones you capture in war (it makes war even more heavily slanted in the attackers favour than it already is - and do all empires use the same voltage power outlets and phillips head screws or something?)

Thankfully, there is a game rule [below] that controls which starbases can perform repairs, it should be easy to add an exception to

1. only allow ones with shipyards to perform repairs.
2. and maybe not allow occupied starbases to repair their occupiers (either ever - or not if you own enigmatic engineering).

There is currently a limit on ship upgrades - only one ship can upgrade at a time per shipyard module (so you can upgrade 6 in parallel in a big shipyard). But I cant see a way to limit the number of ships repairing simultaneously.

I suppose if this isnt possible for repairs, lowering the base repair speed to be 1/10th what It is now and then making each shipyard increase repair speed by (say) +25% would be reason enough to want to go to a "big" shipyard for repairs.​

# this = starbase, megastructure or planet
can_orbitable_repair_ships = {
    OR = {
        AND = {
            is_scope_type = starbase
            OR = {
                has_starbase_size >= starbase_starport
                has_starbase_size = juggernaut
            }
            fleet = {
                is_disabled = no
            }
        }
        AND = {
            is_scope_type = megastructure
            OR = {
                is_megastructure_type = mega_shipyard_1
                is_megastructure_type = mega_shipyard_2
                is_megastructure_type = mega_shipyard_3
            }
        }
    }
}

 

[Panzerslothen]

Does anybody know of any good mods which contribute towards a better Stellaris combat experience?