How much damage can you cause to large empires in only 1 war?

[Ifreann]

Destroy their fleet. Destroy all their spaceports. Use heavy bombardment on their planets until they're covered in rubble. Hunt down their civilian ships. Destroy every orbital mining and research station, except in systems you'll control after the war. Destroy every frontier outpost and if possible replace them with your own, or colonise worlds in those systems. If applicable destroy every wormhole station. Drag the war out as long as your people will put up with it.

You might only get a few planets out of the first war, but make the cost of recovery high enough and you'll set yourself up for an easier war next time around. Maybe. We'll see over the course of the next few Blorg streams.

 

[talt]

This is something that has annoyed me as well, although I don't think to the same extent as the OP. It particularly annoyed me for instance that Alexios in the 1081 start for Byzantium couldn't reconquer Anatolia at a relatively quick pace.

I think one potential solution would be to give empires a stability/cohesion score. When that score is high or moderate, then the empire is holding together and you can only take a few planets from them in each war. If the score drops below a certain point, however, the empire becomes significantly less stable and it is possible to seize far more planets from them until the entire empire can fracture if it loses a major war.

 

[praftd]

This is something that has annoyed me as well, although I don't think to the same extent as the OP. It particularly annoyed me for instance that Alexios in the 1081 start for Byzantium couldn't reconquer Anatolia at a relatively quick pace.

I think one potential solution would be to give empires a stability/cohesion score. When that score is high or moderate, then the empire is holding together and you can only take a few planets from them in each war. If the score drops below a certain point, however, the empire becomes significantly less stable and it is possible to seize far more planets from them until the entire empire can fracture if it loses a major war.

Rebellions already take care of similar role you are describing. A unstable empire will constantly have rebellions, during which you can just snatch them up one by one.


But again, the system you guys are describing would cause huge blobs of death late game. I want a late game where there are a variety of powers at work, pushing back at each other. Not a late game where there is one that controls 50% of the galaxy while the rest twiddle their thumbs as they are gobbled up.

There NEEDS to be a restriction on how much you can take per war.



Also, how in the heck is 3+ worlds every 5 years not good enough? You have to remember, you are capturing PLANETS not countries. If a species were capturing that many worlds in that short of time, it would be extremely devastating.


There are only 5 years of mandatory peace between wars guys, not like you have to get a Casus Belli or wait a lifetime to start another one.

 

[Hardcore_gamer]

Can you bomb planets into dust forcing the enemy to rebuild them after the war even if you don't take them? Because if you can then you could in a way "destroy" their empire even without taking their planets.

 

[Turin the Mad]

Destroy their fleet. Destroy all their spaceports. Use heavy bombardment on their planets until they're covered in rubble. Hunt down their civilian ships. Destroy every orbital mining and research station, except in systems you'll control after the war. Destroy every frontier outpost and if possible replace them with your own, or colonise worlds in those systems. If applicable destroy every wormhole station. Drag the war out as long as your people will put up with it.

You might only get a few planets out of the first war, but make the cost of recovery high enough and you'll set yourself up for an easier war next time around. Maybe. We'll see over the course of the next few Blorg streams.

This.

Successfully implemented you will deplete their minerals stores and reduce them to a complete rebuild, putting them out of the strategic picture for a very, very long time.

Let us hope that the AI is smart enough to sit on its stockpiles when the picture is dire enough...

 

[chopak]

One of the big problems I have always had with the diplomacy/war system in the Paradox games is that while the idea of not being able to annex a whole empire in one war makes sense in many ways, it also means that often there is no reason to go to war with an empire that is as big as your own because the cost just isn't worth it. Why fight a long and a devestating great war if the only thing you get in return at the end are a few provinces?

Few provinces, or rather planets in case of Stellaris, are important as hell. There aren't infinite planets, taking them through war might be the only option you have. Moreover, you're taking them from enemy. Meaning you get more planets and your enemy losses planets. Your war may cost a lot, but winning it is rewarding.
I, personally, like the fact that war is so expensive. Makes you think more about declaring one and it's not a no-brainer anymore.

 

[beartjah]

You should take your own advice and look at the aftermath of WW1.

Germany lost chunks of clay everywhere but was still a large blob until they lost even more clay after WW2... Austria-Hungary got blown up and the Balkans got released, yet Austria still remained mostly intact while Hungary was still around despite getting completely eviscerated... the Ottoman Empire got blown up and the Middle East got paritioned, but after some rebel war of independence, the Turkey successor state kept most of their Anatolian holdings. Those major players didn't get wiped out from just one HUGE war.

While I agree with the general idea of empires no blowing up in one war, the austrians and ottomans are examples of exactly that happening. Yes, they still existed, but they went form being large empires to just having the core region where the austirans/turks lived, most of the other areas went indepent(or annexed by other empires).

I just think that WW1 is a bad example due to it's massive scale(relative to the world). If a war happens that basically involves all major powers in the galaxy(and most minors as well, up to the point that neutrality is the exception), then it might be reasonable to have the losing side end up being utterly devastated(basically similar to the great/world war mechanic in victoria), but otherwise they should be compared to your typical war in the EU4 era.

As for rebellion due to losing major wars, we see that already in the Blorg stream, the Qell'Nudar started getting rebellions because their government didn't protect those border planets. That other blob on the other side of the map lost nearly all of their once-impressive fleet and its military power reduced to Pathetic rating... that's as bad as the Blorg's pitiful vassal. Even the Blorg's potential friends the Hydari got tons of rebels after the Just League bullied them.

Wait, they revolted becuase thet weren't being defended? I thought it was just a normal rebellion that coincided with the war(or perhaps becuase the nation as a whole was weakened by the war, but not specifically those areas not being defended)?

 

[barny]

Have you ever heard of World war 1?

And? If you are talking about the Habsburgian Empire: That wasn't just annexed, it broke apart from the inside. Germany actually lost TWO World Wars and guess what: It still exists.

 

[Tim_Ward]

IDEA: de facto annexation.

An alternative way to end a war beside the standard negotiated peace treaty is simply to have control of all their provinces and have destroyed their fleets and armies. At that stage, there's no one you actually need to negotiate with. You control everything and have destroyed their capacity to resist. You now have the option to unilaterally declare the new territory part of your empire and start administrating it.

To balance this, if you should undertake such an action you suffer a *massive* amount of threat for being such a dick which increases exponentially with the size of the empire you annex, plus vastly increased unrest in your new conquests, since you haven't coopted the local government and ruling elites (and any of your own pops who aren't xenophobic or fanatic militarist, they just think you're a warmongering prick). Like, way more than you'd suffer if you totally annexed another empire the normal way, through a legit peace treaty. Also, everyone gets very cheap 'liberate planets' war goals they can use against you.

Might be a fun way to role play as a psychotic galactic conqueror, and pretty challenging if the diplomatic consequences are severe enough.

 

[ahhheygao]

While I agree with the general idea of empires no blowing up in one war, the austrians and ottomans are examples of exactly that happening. Yes, they still existed, but they went form being large empires to just having the core region where the austirans/turks lived, most of the other areas went indepent(or annexed by other empires).

The OP was advocating for whole-sale annexation of losing empires, yet like you've stated yourself, even after WW1 those empires kept most of their "proper" core regions. Less-developed border planets cost far less war goals to annex and even less to liberate (especially if oppressed minority species exist), not to mention the myriad of rebel problems that can stem from war exhaustion and unhappiness on the remaining planets.

Due to the strict alliance system in Stellaris, you'll have to get multiple separate alliances to declare war to simulate the multi-front land grab, but it can be done; if the Just League, that new Capitalist Federation, and one of those other major powers all gang up on the Blorgs, then you can get a complete dismantle of the Blorgs that you're looking for.

Wait, they revolted becuase thet weren't being defended? I thought it was just a normal rebellion that coincided with the war(or perhaps becuase the nation as a whole was weakened by the war, but not specifically those areas not being defended)?

Those POPs rebelled against their government because they were badly starved and unemployed as a result of being left undefended and hugged by the Blorgs.

 

[cosmeIII]

I'd also like to point out something from the wiki: http://www.stellariswiki.com/Leader#Governor There is an expansionist trait that lowers war demand costs. We don't know by how much, but I'd imagine it allows to ask for one or two more planets. Which in Stellaris terms is already quite a chunk of an empire.

 

[prismaticmarcus]

One of the big problems I have always had with the diplomacy/war system in the Paradox games is that while the idea of not being able to annex a whole empire in one war makes sense in many ways, it also means that often there is no reason to go to war with an empire that is as big as your own because the cost just isn't worth it. Why fight a long and a devestating great war if the only thing you get in return at the end are a few provinces?

So I am wondering, how much can you cripple a rival empire in a single war? Is it enough that you have an actual real reason to go to war with them? Because I don't want to spend years spending massive resources and manpower into a bloody war if the end result is merely that I get a few extra planets. Even if nothing else the enemy empire should be left seriously weakened for a large amounts of time.

so you'd want that to happen to you?

 

[CassCD]

One of the big problems I have always had with the diplomacy/war system in the Paradox games is that while the idea of not being able to annex a whole empire in one war makes sense in many ways, it also means that often there is no reason to go to war with an empire that is as big as your own because the cost just isn't worth it. Why fight a long and a devestating great war if the only thing you get in return at the end are a few provinces?

So I am wondering, how much can you cripple a rival empire in a single war? Is it enough that you have an actual real reason to go to war with them? Because I don't want to spend years spending massive resources and manpower into a bloody war if the end result is merely that I get a few extra planets. Even if nothing else the enemy empire should be left seriously weakened for a large amounts of time.

When you seize territory in Stellaris, you're not seizing a single planet. Not even a single system. The influence that comes from controlling a single system can control such a multitude of systems, that I'm willing to wager a guess that the chunks taken can be "equivalent" to taking something even greater than the worth of a single state in Victoria 2. Perspective is key.

 

[Turin the Mad]

Mid-to-late game (perhaps even early game in some occurrences) your own/the enemy's pops cost resources to maintain.

So if you methodically obliterate their resource production capabilities down to the bare tiles/have yours reduced similarly, some of your pops will suffer severely/deactivate from being unable to afford the maintenance costs... Nasty.

 

[[Q]uik]

One of the big problems I have always had with the diplomacy/war system in the Paradox games is that while the idea of not being able to annex a whole empire in one war makes sense in many ways, it also means that often there is no reason to go to war with an empire that is as big as your own because the cost just isn't worth it. Why fight a long and a devestating great war if the only thing you get in return at the end are a few provinces?

Well in paradox's games there's a few reasons to.
They may be a threat to you, so you may want to force them to release some lands, in which you can cause rather large damage to them.

Or - they may have actually valuable provinces that you want, considering that they're powerfull nations.

 

[BrownieDog]

Can you bomb planets into dust forcing the enemy to rebuild them after the war even if you don't take them? Because if you can then you could in a way "destroy" their empire even without taking their planets.

Yes, but only on heavy bombardment
http://www.stellariswiki.com/Orbital_bombardment

 

[Revan7719]

You should take your own advice and look at the aftermath of WW1.

Germany lost chunks of clay everywhere but was still a large blob until they lost even more clay after WW2... Austria-Hungary got blown up and the Balkans got released, yet Austria still remained mostly intact while Hungary was still around despite getting completely eviscerated... the Ottoman Empire got blown up and the Middle East got paritioned, but after some rebel war of independence, the Turkey successor state kept most of their Anatolian holdings. Those major players didn't get wiped out from just one HUGE war.

As for rebellion due to losing major wars, we see that already in the Blorg stream, the Qell'Nudar started getting rebellions because their government didn't protect those border planets. That other blob on the other side of the map lost nearly all of their once-impressive fleet and its military power reduced to Pathetic rating... that's as bad as the Blorg's pitiful vassal. Even the Blorg's potential friends the Hydari got tons of rebels after the Just League bullied them.

That is what really intrigues me about this game. It is very different from the "normal gaming experience nowadays".

 

[Turin the Mad]

Yes, but only on heavy bombardment
http://www.stellariswiki.com/Orbital_bombardment

First, we're gonna kill ya. Then we're gonna cook ya. Then we're gonna EAT ya!

 

[Jarac Rassen]

Realistically, you shouldn't be able to completely destroy a large empire in one war. The goal should be to cripple them so that you can more easily finish the job after another war or two.

An example: look at the Just League. The Blorg crushed the League's largest military power and has taken a lot of worlds. In the South, the Qell'Nudar are splitting apart from rebellions (probably thanks to war-weariness and beat so much).

The Blorg will not swallow the Just League in one war. But they have severely crippled them and have, no-doubt, made them more vulnerable to rebels and other empires hoping to take advantage of their weakness.

If the goal was to weaken their rivals, they succeeded.

 

[Turin the Mad]

IIRC the Blorg haven't finished their campaign as of yet.

Thinking there's a good chance that the Just League falls apart as a result of this Befriending.
Politicians do love to play the blame game when things go south...