How do you beat the AI's jump drive cheese?

[X3KJ]

On that note, I think supply lines could add a lot to Stellaris' wars.

When not even my allied fleet can keep up with the erratic jumping i have to do in order to catch an enemy fleet, how exactly is a supply ship supposed to catch up with the fleet? That's just stupid.

So to use your example, all that can happen in Stellaris is war around each island/land mass, the open sea does not exist as place combat can occur.

You can't combat in it, but you can traverse it. And therein lies the problem. With hyperdrive enemies you can't prevent them from jumping, even if you are in the same system. They can skip right past your fleet.

 

[Dnote]

When not even my allied fleet can keep up with the erratic jumping i have to do in order to catch an enemy fleet, how exactly is a supply ship supposed to catch up with the fleet? That's just stupid.


You can't combat in it, but you can traverse it. And therein lies the problem. With hyperdrive enemies you can't prevent them from jumping, even if you are in the same system. They can skip right past your fleet.

I was actually thinking some a little more abstract, like each space stations above a planet has a radius that equates to supply range. Defensive stations also have a supply radius so can be used to extend it beyond that. If a fleet is within the supply radius, it operates at 100% efficiency, the further outside the radius it goes, the less efficient it becomes (what nature this takes I don't know).

That way you are always relatively safe fighting in your own space, but going deep into enemy territory requires some planning and support of the fleet. Creating a front line if you like, that has to be progressed.

 

[Holy.Death]

Did you try to set up defense platforms/stations with Subsnare? If I recall correctly battleships should have this component as well.

 

[X3KJ]

Did you try to set up defense platforms/stations with Subsnare? If I recall correctly battleships should have this component as well.

defense platforms get popped in seconds, as they are weak. When warping in the system the enemy lands right on top of it -> all the fleet can pound it immediately. You are actually at a dissadvantage to place them, as the enemy will exit somewhere else then you do with your fleet -> you can't jump ontop of him to engage immediately -> time for enemy to slip away again, after killing the defense station.

I don't think the battleship snare works. I have several BS with it, and the enemy can jump away as normal and very quickly when in range of the aura. Also, enemies that jump in are not trapped by the battleship to come out at it's position. Also, the other buff aura's affect enemies as well. I think they are all bugged.

I was actually thinking some a little more abstract, like each space stations above a planet has a radius that equates to supply range

That doesnt make sense. If my fleet can jump into the heart of the enemy within 2 months gametime (a few seconds Realtime), why would transports that also have FTL not be able to do the same? It works for army transports... so why not for supplies. Also, what if my fleet does not need constant supplies? My ships are not crewed, they are machines (after all i can't choose a race that controlls it)

 

[Cauldyth]

Distant Worlds does represent supply, to some degree, and quite nicely. All ships use fuel, and they use more fuel during combat. You can't conduct indefinite warfare deep in enemy territory. Sooner or later (usually sooner) you need to withdraw to refuel at a friendly port. Alternatively, you can research and build Resupply Ships, which can then be deployed on the location of a fuel resource, and act as temporary refueling stations - and also act as a targets for the enemy. Conducting protracted long distance warfare is something you need to plan for.

 

[SamuraiProgramr]

I have a few comments based on several posts in the thread.

Space is big. The remark about all of space not being there (only the area in system) is technically correct but still wrong. Transit time and delays between transits soften the size but represent the distance in a meaningful way that allows you a chance to catch the enemy.

Someone mentioned WW2 Pacific as an analogy. I agree. A tenet from an old tabletop space series that had both tactical and strategic games was 'never fight a battle you don't have to win'. Playing 'tag' with the enemy fleet should, imho, be part of any self respecting space game. Stellaris does this pretty well, I think.

Sure, playing whack a mole is no fun. So, be the mole! Not the hammer!

I do think bases should be buffed considerably. If you can build a mobile fleet of X power, shouldn't you be able to build a static defense of the same power for half the cost? I am not arguing the exact percentage, but making a point. Imo, bases should be strong enough to give the cavalry time to show up. I think fleet strength is currently growing much too fast compared to base strength. (I would like to hear the other side of that argument.)

Someone mentioned supply lines. I think this has merit but must be considered carefully. Any reasonable implementation will probably buff wormholes and nerf warp.
However, something should represent the added difficulty of operating in enemy territory.

Maybe it can be as simple as a fleet having to dock at a friendly base within some period time or start to suffer lack of efficiency. Maybe it is small random damage that starts after a period that has to be repaired at base. I know this is just more micro on a macro game. I am just looking for something that might help.

Comments?

 

[X3KJ]

Playing 'tag' with the enemy fleet should, imho, be part of any self respecting space game. Stellaris does this pretty well, I think.

The devs particulary wanted to avoid micromanaging and tactical combat. And micromanaging fleets to catch the opponent IS turning into something tactical instead of strategic. Particulary if you play MP this can turn into an issue, as you can't just pause to keep up with erratic AI behaviour to constantly switch fleet movement. And that can quickly become just frustrating, as FTL travel is incredibly quick in lategame, so that fleets zip around.

 

[SamuraiProgramr]

X3KG, I understand your point. I also want a game without tactical decisions. However, the balance between a stack of doom and defense in depth is something that must be dealt with by the player. I do think that changing the relative growth curves of fleet vs base will help with this.

Do we not play tag with cavalry in EU4?

Respectfully

 

[Dnote]

I wonder if their intention for defensive stations was something similar to forts in EU4, with their zone of control forcing you to deal with them? Because they obviously don't work like that.

 

[208]

That way you are always relatively safe fighting in your own space, but going deep into enemy territory requires some planning and support of the fleet. Creating a front line if you like, that has to be progressed.

Sounds like Wormhole tech.

 

[Pen Name]

I tend to use Warp Drive, and I actually really like it when I find out that my rival has Worm Holes. You either simply jump in and wipe out the Wormhole Generators straight away, or you wait for them to jump into your space and start killing mining stations before jumping into their systems and destroying the generators, trapping them in your regions. Then it's just a case of mopping up.

Wormholes are the most powerful FTL method by far when in the players' hands, but they're the weakest of all in the hands of the AI.

 

[GrayFiend]

They don't. They just want to mess all your stations and avoid a big battle. Its super annoying.

This whole wormhole drive is ridiculous, it gives the AI the ability to strike wherever and whenever. Its ludicrous.

From now on, in all my games, I'm going to force ALL empires to use hyperspace drives, that way it will force them to use proper lanes of attack and deal with potential defenses, instead of running amok as they are want to do.

I had a war of my hyperdrive-using empire vs wormhole-using AI empire. After declaration of the war, while my fleet moved through hyperlanes, enemies jumped directly to my homeworld. I didn't return to defend. While the enemy fleet destroyed my spaceport and defense stations and then started to bomb the planet, my fleet destroyed WH gates and spaceports in two colonies and jumped into enemy homeworld (last WH gate!). Enemy fleet left my homeworld without a peep and run for pitched battle.
WH user can't afford attacks on his gates. When all gates will be destroyed, all ships will be imprisoned inside starsystems where they were. One of my previous empires was beaten in such situation.

 

[Pyoro]

Place defense station on the "entry" on side of the system, then another one on the other side of said system. I'm not sure whether the AI can actually pop out of the system and pop back in, as so far I've only observed them crossing the space in sublight-space, which obviously takes "ages". You can do this for several systems in a row depending on how much time you need them to waste.

 

[WuphonsReach]

There's a bunch of problems with the current Stellaris combat strategy.

1. Defensive stations simply can't tank long enough, and have overpriced maintenance cost (in EC/month). They should probably be given 10x more HP and a lot more base armor. The tier 3 "fortress" should be able to tank the output of a 30k fleet for 60-90 days. Then it might be worth spending 15! EC/month.

2. Fleet range when passing through hostile territory should be cut drastically. Preferably via modules that mount on defensive stations and which cover a circle around the star system with drive instability (slowing down or cutting range).

3. Defensive station "snare" should be made stronger, to trap any fleet there for at least 30 days.

4. Stack of doom always wins (mostly). That should probably be limited by the level of the fleet admiral, and a fleet without an admiral over a certain size should be pretty useless.

Let's say a WH civ has range 100, if their travel vector passes through one (or more) of the defensive station snare bubbles, then the range should be chopped down severely and they get shunted to the nearest system along that line of travel. So they might try to jump 100 distance, but due to hitting hidden (unless they've scouted), snare bubbles would put them at a system that is only 25 from where they started.

Warp / jump drives could be treated similar. Attempt to jump to system X that is max-distance away, end up at system Y instead (closer to where you started).

Hyperlanes already have choke points.

Basically, if the empire constructs defensive fortifications along the border / chokepoints, you shouldn't be able to jump over them and hit their homeworld with warp / jump / WH technology.

 

[Jelbert]

I have a few comments based on several posts in the thread.

Space is big. The remark about all of space not being there (only the area in system) is technically correct but still wrong. Transit time and delays between transits soften the size but represent the distance in a meaningful way that allows you a chance to catch the enemy.

Wat?

You jump massive light year distances between systems, nothing happens or can happen in that space, transit time in systems happens with sub light drives and the space that happens in represents a tiny tiny tiny % of total space.

Contrast to DW, where space has to be traversed, things can happen in that space whilst using warp drive including deep space interceptions but also has sub light travel within systems.

Just because you can catch an enemy when it is using its sublight drive does nothing to counter the observation that space is not really there in this game.

 

[X3KJ]

You jump massive light year distances between systems, nothing happens or can happen in that space, transit time in systems happens with sub light drives and the space that happens in represents a tiny tiny tiny % of total space.

The silly thing with hyperdrive is that it's faster to jump "over" a system and come through the "back exit", then trying to fly from the original "exit" to another at sublightspeed. So you can only catch the enemy by jumping smack on top of them.

 

[kazper]

The silly thing with hyperdrive is that it's faster to jump "over" a system and come through the "back exit", then trying to fly from the original "exit" to another at sublightspeed. So you can only catch the enemy by jumping smack on top of them.

Hyperdrive closely followed by Psi drives are definitely the hardest to catch and deal with. I imagine the "best" drive solution is to start hyperdrive for lightning expansion and to be able to see the network and then try to get Psi drive late-game to deal with FE and end-game threats.

 

[SamuraiProgramr]

Wat?

You jump massive light year distances between systems, nothing happens or can happen in that space, transit time in systems happens with sub light drives and the space that happens in represents a tiny tiny tiny % of total space.

Contrast to DW, where space has to be traversed, things can happen in that space whilst using warp drive including deep space interceptions but also has sub light travel within systems.

Just because you can catch an enemy when it is using its sublight drive does nothing to counter the observation that space is not really there in this game.

Can you imagine the difficulty of catching someone in open space... The complaints here about playing whack-a-mole would be increased by a factor of 10.

Imo, the cooldowns after reaching a system are a mechanic to avoid having to 'vector in' on a fleet while it is travelling between systems.

The point I was trying to make in my first post on this thread was that *if* this were realistic, it would be nearly impossible to force a battle anywhere there was not a strategically valuable resource (mine, population, etc.) that needed to be protected. If the enemy is outgunned, they will run. To quote an old sea addage (that has been used in sci-fi as well) - "A stern chase is a long chase". Will you really follow if they are headed toward reinforcements that outnumber you?

When will they stop running? Not until they get to something they cannot stand to lose.

My favorite space style game of the past was the original Space Empires (paper - not computer) written by Steve Cole and expanded by David Weber. It would be represented in this game by limiting every player to hyperlanes. Then every single game would mature into a turtling exercise. No fun at all.

My second favorite space style game of the past was Star Fleet Battles / Federation & Empire (again paper - not computer) written by Steve Cole. It was based heavily on Star Trek but had a much more 'wet navy' feel to it. The tactical version was sweet but the battles were usually balanced. The strategic version was closer to what we are looking at here. Planets, big fleets, no tactical maneuvers. In it, one of the tenets was that you could not force a stand up battle (barring out of supply situations). If you wanted the fleets to clash, you had to hit a target the defender was willing to fight for.

I had a friend that continually wanted to design a space battle game that relied on Newtonian physics. Again, unless the battle was for a resource that had to be defended, everything turned into at most a 'boom & zoom' followed by a retreat.

You can argue that if it were a chase, you might catch them. You would be right. But how is that violated by the battle happening on the edge of the system where you catch them in Stellaris?

 

[Jelbert]

Can you imagine the difficulty of catching someone in open space... The complaints here about playing whack-a-mole would be increased by a factor of 10.

Not really as if space actually exists, you can tell the trajectory and direction of ships as they pass through it, providing you have sensors in space, which again is something you can build if space actually exists. If you have the right tech, you can tell your ships to attempt an intercept as they pass through space and pull them out of warp using a module that can be fitted on the smallest type of spacecraft.

in DW you can do all this and it creates very strategic emergent game play, as I said in an other thread, you can build stealthed spotting stations at key locations just outside of sensor range of the opfor, have a small fast interceptor fleet set to auto engange and interdict any targets spotted and then have a larger fleet that will then warp in, fight, refuel and repair itself.

The space combat and fleet logistics is magnitudes deeper in DW than Stellaris, but that is what that game really focuses on.

 

[SamuraiProgramr]

The explanation behind what I am about to say is going to make sense to some and be utter dreck to others. The reason it will be so widely interpreted is because we are dealing with fictional situations and one cannot look up an authoritative answer to the crucial question of 'How long does it take to turn 180 degrees and climb back to cruising speed?' If your answer to that is 'an insignificant amount of time,' then my arguments do not apply. If your answer to that is 'a significant amount of time,' then you probably already understand.

Typically, it works like this... you see someone (attacker) coming and you (defender) head toward them to cut them off. You do this because you are superior to them and it is a good day for a victory. If they change course, you change course and unless they turn around, you will meet more or less head on. This is where it gets interesting. If you can turn on a dime and maintain contact, you will have a battle. If you cannot turn on a dime and maintain contact, there will be a full salvo (or two) and then they will continue to their target and you will be out of position. It depends on your ability to turn and maintain speed.

Or...

As you sally forth to fight in the vast reaches of space, just before you meet them, they turn and you follow laterally. Then, after a little while, a smaller fleet comes in from the other direction and pounds whatever you were defending and there is nothing you can do about it since you are just a little too far away. So a numerically equal fleet split in two can wreak havoc on you and escape with almost zero casualties.

It may make sense to stay in your system until you are mounting an offensive of your own.


Of course this only applies to warp travel.

(I know you understand how the game works so that is not my point in the following.)

Hyperlanes are different. Once you begin the journey, you are committed. In that case, you would always await their arrival to defend. Unless of course you are retreating.

Worm hole travel is similar. Once you begin the journey, you are committed.

Does it really matter if the battle occurs in the space between the stars or near the edge of a system? I don't see how it has material impact on the outcome.

Interstellar travel without violating relativity is a staple of science fiction. These rationalizations have been used by Clarke, Heinlein, Niven, and Weber just to name a few.

If you don't like hyperlanes and warp stations, turn them off. It is one of the precious few things that are settable without modding.

I, for one, am glad that they are there. I fully intend to play a game with only the hyperlanes allowed and may even mod things so that the transit time is effectively zero. I plan to do this because Stellaris is the closest thing I have seen to Cole & Weber's Imperial Starfire and I am stoked!

I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of people would have been less likely to buy this game if it did not have these alternative movement styles. I know I would not have been as interested in it.

But again. What material impact is there on the outcome of a battle if it happens in deep space or merely on the edge of a system?

Maybe it would be better (and I think appropriate) to lobby for a buff to warp drive.

Having said all of that, I would add this. If movement of resources were discrete instead of abstract (i.e. convoys existed), I might be convinced that it mattered. I would certainly think that a warp race would be behind the 8 ball in a manner that knew no bounds. Perhaps this mechanic is in place to facilitate their ideas for an expansion or DLC.