How do you guys think Doomsday weapons should be balanced? Personally I'm not a big fan and think they should be put in the same category as espionage, aka "we will do this but it needs a long think on how to correctly implement it". The Reason I think this is that having played mods where doomsday weapons are allowed, all I ever used them for was to get rid of all of an opposing empires planets after I had hit critical mass and had already essentially won, basically just using them to wipe out habitable planets to get to victory quicker. In others game doomsday weapons are generally expensive and are never build because it's just better to invest in more ships or buildings.
How do you think Doomsday / Super weapons should be balanced?
- Thread starter Penguincat
- Start date
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Super weapons should be an ascension perk, and have the same costs of a Normal Megastructure, and the build time of one..
I think super/ doomsday weapons should be balanced by having extremely high diplomatic penalties / threat generation, as well as working as a deterrent. Say, if you have a planet destroyer, people will be super reluctant to declare war on you.
And if you do actually go around destroying planets and star systems, everyone will hate you and band together to stop you.
And if you do actually go around destroying planets and star systems, everyone will hate you and band together to stop you.
I don't know if planet destroying really fits the system of war that Stellaris uses.
Well you couldn't use the annex planets casus belli. Though in one of the DDs/Twitter pictures it shows a trait where all you can do is purge in wars. That would be the perfect species for super weapons.
This would be a sensible approach - I like the general idea of a big bump in AIs power estimation about you and negative modifiers if used. What is missing are positive modifiers in current diplomacy.
Unfortunately Stellaris Diplo is a bit upside down. In EU4 having the biggest stick (army/navy) increases chances for alliances. If you are big blue baguette , everybody wants to be your friend ( unless you got modifiers for aggressive expansion of course, which is sensible). In Stellaris, having a large fleet only generates threat and everybody hates you. So any game, where you expand at all you'll eventually wake up one morning and realize the galaxy sees you once more as space hitler. @Wiz Please separate threat (aka aggressive expansion) and opinion modifiers for military power estimations.
TL;DR Until they fix diplomacy, a super weapon would upset the balance even more (more hate due to increased military power).
traditionally 'planet killers' and nukes and such are used to force the military situation into end-game, rather than things continuing to drag out. I am not sure it's really necessary in Stellaris.
Something of that nature might be suitable as an endgame crisis-like event though, like a cult or fanatic purifier empire that has constructed a bomb that destroys hyperspace or something
Something of that nature might be suitable as an endgame crisis-like event though, like a cult or fanatic purifier empire that has constructed a bomb that destroys hyperspace or something
As far as I know you only generate threat when you use your military power for offensive wars
However, in GalCiv for example, doomsday weapons are superficial becouse of snowball effect, that stellaris limits pretty well. To be Planet/System destroyers effective, doomstack meta must be first dealt with.
Also planet/system killers of any sort should be obviously banned for Xenophile and Pacifist species, or maybe even limited to fanatic xenophobes. They are excelent mean to make pacifist fallen empire - they would hate the guts of anyone who will try build one abandoning their "non-intervention" policy.
Edit: I would do the stationary planet/systemkiller that when fired triggers a counter to every civilisation (in days - farther the planet/system is - longer you must wait)
Offcourse there could be also stationary superweapons (like Black Sun from Supremme Commander) that trigger a counter when they are fired (in days to detonation - farther target is, more days you must wait). In that case - every empire is aware what is happening (especially targeted one) and have time to react by, f.e., attacking before it fires - but I see a serious issues with border mechanics here
Last edited:
The problem is that destroying planets goes against the idea expressed by Wiz in one of the streams that you should know what you will lose in a war unlike eu4. Unlike many 4x games, occupying a planet doesn't transfer ownership.
apologies, worded my OP poorly, what I meant to say was that I don't really think Superweapons under the current idea of them have much of a point, if you had an equivalent opposition at the time you've gotten Superweapons you would likely be better off just investing more minerals into ships or buildings, instead of spending god knows how much in a project that will likely need to be heavily escorted, and if the enemy has spent those minerals on ships instead they could probably just overwhelm your fleet and destroy your fleet and your expensive superweapon. If you don't have a equivlent enemy then superweapons become (atleast in my games) a sort of cheaty way to quickly remove every other empire
I think it could work if superweapons were like Nuclear missiles IRL, they can hit from far away, and quickly. This would push the idea of them being a deterrent atleast, although the issue of being used by very advanced empires to just erase others is still a problem
I think it could work if superweapons were like Nuclear missiles IRL, they can hit from far away, and quickly. This would push the idea of them being a deterrent atleast, although the issue of being used by very advanced empires to just erase others is still a problem
@ayrton I had another look at stellaris wiki and it seems you are right the threat. only if used aggressively, even for "liberation". Still, there is a modifier missing to join the biggest bully on the block I feel.
I think that the need of an Ascension Perk (or even several of them) is almost granted, that the obvious way to add DW to Stellaris.
I also think that each type of superweapon should have its own weakness(es). It makes sense in a space opera melting pot like Stellaris.
For example, a Death Star would be weak against fighters/bombers and very slow, and would also need to be in the same system as the target. But it would have very strong defense against everything else, and be quite fast at loading compared to other Doomsday weapons.
A sun ray weapon would work like the Dyson Sphere (so very costly to build), and it would be impossible to counter it since it doesn't need to be in the same system, but it would be very slow to load, and there would only be a limited number of uses until the star is exhausted.
A doomsday laser could be build for a lesser cost and more quickly, and also be effective against moving weapons, but you would need 3 scientists to maintain it and it would be the easiest doomsday weapon to destroy.
A nova bomb that needs to be brought to a star (to turn it into a supernova) with usual ships (so you don't know what's happening until it's too late), but is also highly unstable so it has a very little chance to explode each month. You don't want your novas next to your fleet.
Those are only examples, but I feel that DW should remain exceptional, and an element of surprise. It would be nice to have a concealment mechanics along with DW (as a part of the espionnage system), so it can be the hidden asset in a war. Once the DW is used or revealed, I don't mind a diplomatic penalty. But the fun thing about DW in sci fi is often that nobody saw it coming.
I also think that each type of superweapon should have its own weakness(es). It makes sense in a space opera melting pot like Stellaris.
For example, a Death Star would be weak against fighters/bombers and very slow, and would also need to be in the same system as the target. But it would have very strong defense against everything else, and be quite fast at loading compared to other Doomsday weapons.
A sun ray weapon would work like the Dyson Sphere (so very costly to build), and it would be impossible to counter it since it doesn't need to be in the same system, but it would be very slow to load, and there would only be a limited number of uses until the star is exhausted.
A doomsday laser could be build for a lesser cost and more quickly, and also be effective against moving weapons, but you would need 3 scientists to maintain it and it would be the easiest doomsday weapon to destroy.
A nova bomb that needs to be brought to a star (to turn it into a supernova) with usual ships (so you don't know what's happening until it's too late), but is also highly unstable so it has a very little chance to explode each month. You don't want your novas next to your fleet.
Those are only examples, but I feel that DW should remain exceptional, and an element of surprise. It would be nice to have a concealment mechanics along with DW (as a part of the espionnage system), so it can be the hidden asset in a war. Once the DW is used or revealed, I don't mind a diplomatic penalty. But the fun thing about DW in sci fi is often that nobody saw it coming.
I think a simple way to do it is to make fallen empires awaken if you make one and destroy to many planets, have a war goal to dismantle the super weapons, and have coalitions be made against you if you make them.
Maybe planet destruction could be a "special project" that appears only when you have a planet-destroyer weapon in an enemy system, or similar. Starting it gives everyone an alert & a chance to intervene - maybe even giving neutral countries cause to declare war on you. The "project" can represent the time spent preparing, charging, aligning, or whatever the weapon needs to get ready to fire.
Completing it turns the targeted planet into an asteroid belt, gives you a huge "purger" relations penalty, plus the warscore that occupying that planet would have given you, plus some more warscore for "demoralization" of the enemy, sorta like nukes in HOI4 damage national unity.
Completing it turns the targeted planet into an asteroid belt, gives you a huge "purger" relations penalty, plus the warscore that occupying that planet would have given you, plus some more warscore for "demoralization" of the enemy, sorta like nukes in HOI4 damage national unity.
Not even that. You only generate threat from imposing cede planet wargoals as far as I know. In my current game, I've been slowly consuming my quarter of the galaxy through liberation wars, vassalisation and integration.
Even better, ceding planets to your vassal seems to generate threat for them but not you. Obviously if their threat gets too high, people will eventually declare war on you to get at them, but if you're regularly integrating vassals that's a moot point anyway. My neighbours still think highly enough of me to skip association status and try to invite me directly into surrounding federations.
A similar comparison that springs to mind is the reputation system in Medieval II: Total War. Most people assume that it's broken seeing as players almost inevitably end up with despicable reputations. Turns out that's actually due to breaking NAPs and aggressive expansion. If you goad enemies into attacking you, you can easily maintain saintly reputation while acing the diplomatic game from all the goodwill you're reaping.
It just doesn't occur to people not to go for balls-to-the-wall hostility in an attempt to snowball as quickly as possible.
The problem with super weapons is they are almost impossible to balance.
-The ability to consume a planet you own and drain all its resources and life to fuel your war machine? Sure, that works and we will already have something similar.
-The ability to build a giant deathstar that is almost invulnerable and hugely powerful? Sure, that's pretty cool, if likely not very effective.
-Giving that deathstar the ability to destroy planets in the system its in? Uh, maybe, at least you have to beat the enemy fleet first anyway. Needs a high cooldown.
-Having a superweapon that can destroy systems from across the galaxy? That sounds OP.
It is really difficult to find a middle ground with super weapons. Either they are really effective and strategies are based around researching and building them as fast as possible, or they are not worth the cost and no one builds them. I don't think I have ever played a game in which super weapons have been balanced, it is always one way or the other. Don't get me wrong, super weapons are cool, but the ability to destroy a planet that took 300 years to build up in an instant is just too much of a strategy game.
Also, I really doubt the AI will be able to handle them very well. A human might be able to attack the system you have based the weapon or adopt a position of MAD, but an AI will really struggle.
-The ability to consume a planet you own and drain all its resources and life to fuel your war machine? Sure, that works and we will already have something similar.
-The ability to build a giant deathstar that is almost invulnerable and hugely powerful? Sure, that's pretty cool, if likely not very effective.
-Giving that deathstar the ability to destroy planets in the system its in? Uh, maybe, at least you have to beat the enemy fleet first anyway. Needs a high cooldown.
-Having a superweapon that can destroy systems from across the galaxy? That sounds OP.
It is really difficult to find a middle ground with super weapons. Either they are really effective and strategies are based around researching and building them as fast as possible, or they are not worth the cost and no one builds them. I don't think I have ever played a game in which super weapons have been balanced, it is always one way or the other. Don't get me wrong, super weapons are cool, but the ability to destroy a planet that took 300 years to build up in an instant is just too much of a strategy game.
Also, I really doubt the AI will be able to handle them very well. A human might be able to attack the system you have based the weapon or adopt a position of MAD, but an AI will really struggle.
If I'm remember the right conversation, I believe Wiz said that, while he likes the idea that both sides knows what is at stake at the start of the War, and the loser knows what they will have to give up for peace, that there are still issues with the current war system that needs to be address, possibly with an overhaul.
Also, he's always seemed pretty adamant that you will be able to make your own Doomsday weapon someday, it's just a matter of when.
