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

[TheBeautifulVoid2]

It looks as though one of the key design decisions in Stellaris was to emphasise "bounceback"; that is, that defeated empires should be able to recover to the point where they can once again be a threat to the victors. A key part of enabling bounceback is ensuring that a military defeat does not have long-term economic or political consequences.

As such, I wouldn't be surprised to see that there was very little ability to do real damage during a war. At most, you destroy their fleets and cost them a lot of minerals, which limits their diplomatic and economic options in the short term but doesn't knock them out of the game.

 

[Meraun]

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.

Well i EU IV you coud annex the Empire complete, i guess you can do the samt in Stellars... War aggression will kill you....
There is a reason why it never happen in Realy History as well... Make them Vassals or pay you Tribute. But you can occupie a hold Space Empire. you woud have to occupy every single planet, miningstatio and Space station.

Actually one of my best EU IV is this:

I was playing with two Buddies in Inda, we had a equal Strong Coaltion of 3 against us.

it took us 138 Years and 8 Wars (we lost 2 of them) to finally break that Coalition and weaken them so they woud get irrelevant... tank god... right before the british Invasion...

 

[Turin the Mad]

Cool beans. I'm be inclined to wage total war as described above to see how the theory plays out in-game. Sounds like the threat/other diplomatic negatives that might come from such a campaign may outweigh the benefits...

 

[Lowki]

I think I prefer the idea that each war needn't be one and done. But I'd imagine if you have a major war with another large Empire and you destroy their fleets, spaceports and occupy a lot of their worlds, they'd likely never recover, even if the warscore only allows you to reduce their size. They "bleed to death" in the long run.

 

[Njordin]

Op. How about playing some eu4 and then come back and tell us again how bad that design desigion is which we all love here.

 

[Edopardo]

I think I prefer the idea that each war needn't be one and done. But I'd imagine if you have a major war with another large Empire and you destroy their fleets, spaceports and occupy a lot of their worlds, they'd likely never recover, even if the warscore only allows you to reduce their size. They "bleed to death" in the long run.

Think of a very large series of wars between your empire (say Space Byzantium) and a large similar rival (let's call them Space Sassanids). You'll keep destroying each others planets, mining stations and fleets to the point where you're both stagnating, devoid of minerals, energy, your planet's buildings razed and your population weary, exhausted and about to rebel. Then your neighbours (space Arabs) will sweep in and take a large part of both empires, then begin slowly eating you both away until you are absorbed by them.

 

[Belty]

It is also not realistic that large empires just die in one war.

Oh? You might want to tell Antiochus III, Queen Elizabeth, Tsar Nicholas, Kaiser Wilhelm II, Darius III of Persia, George Bush, and Hirohito about that.

To be honest I just really wanted to post this picture.

 

[Jarac Rassen]

Oh? You might want to tell Antiochus III, Queen Elizabeth, Tsar Nicholas, Kaiser Wilhelm II, Darius III of Persia, George Bush, and Hirohito about that.

To be honest I just really wanted to post this picture.

To be fair, it took 3 wars to completely wipe the Carthagian Empire from the face of the map. The Third Punic War was pretty much just to rub salt in the wounds (literally).

 

[hagen_hase]

you can destroy their whole navy and every spacestation, that could cripple them for some time while you are getting back in position to destroy em again.

 

[Koopatin]

In most 4x games you just have to destroy the biggest other empire and take everything from them, after that the game is done. We have a lot of such 4x games and we do not want paradox to just make another 4 game like all the rest. soo.. no...

RP wise i still find it somehow strange that all species will negotiate about such things as peace (have an understanding of it) but I think its fine

 

[Chyll]

We also have the example from the Blorg stream. The Blorg inflicted enough damage in the early phase(s) of the fighting that one of the powers began to destabilize.
That is one clear way to cripple an opponent in one war.

 

[Ifreann]

We also have the example from the Blorg stream. The Blorg inflicted enough damage in the early phase(s) of the fighting that one of the powers began to destabilize.
That is one clear way to cripple an opponent in one war.

The Qell'Nudar were probably less than stable to begin with.

 

[Chyll]

The Qell'Nudar were probably less than stable to begin with.

Well, sure.... and is neither here nor there.

It appears, so far, that factions are a thing in the game for anyone. Losing, or getting weakened, in a war is going to raise faction threat. So, as a crippling strategy, it seems pretty valid.

 

[Ifreann]

Well, sure.... and is neither here nor there.

It appears, so far, that factions are a thing in the game for anyone. Losing, or getting weakened, in a war is going to raise faction threat. So, as a crippling strategy, it seems pretty valid.

Oh definitely. What I'm getting at is just that it would probably take a longer war than what we saw in the Blorg stream to provoke uprisings in stable empires.

 

[Jarac Rassen]

Oh definitely. What I'm getting at is just that it would probably take a longer war than what we saw in the Blorg stream to provoke uprisings in stable empires.

It also depends on ethics. I'm sure an individualist nation (thanks to high ethics divergence) would be likely to go into rebellion pretty badly in case of a losing war more than, say, collectivist states. Also, if you have a very diverse empire with a lot of sectarian factions only being held at bay. A badly losing war will give those factions opportunity to rebel.

 

[barny]

Oh? You might want to tell Antiochus III, Queen Elizabeth, Tsar Nicholas, Kaiser Wilhelm II, Darius III of Persia, George Bush, and Hirohito about that.

Okay, how many of those empires got actually conquered and annexed? Wilhelm and Nicholas got couped, Hirohito didn't even lose his position.

 

[Chyll]

Oh definitely. What I'm getting at is just that it would probably take a longer war than what we saw in the Blorg stream to provoke uprisings in stable empires.

Quite possibly... or maybe not the length of the war, but the losses within key battles. If large fleets met early and the damage was sufficient...

It is going to be fun to find out!

 

[apoc527]

The war mechanics and inability to immediately absorb an enemy nation is precisely why Paradox games are "grand strategy" and not traditional 4X. In most 4X games, you hit a point of critical mass where the game is over. Most games are interesting for only the early and (sometimes) mid-game. Late game is usually clean up or time to start over.

In PDX games, the game doesn't end because you are powerful. There are OTHER powerful empires and the inability to just take it all away from opponents is what makes the game interesting and long lasting.

 

[Timelordwho]

Planets cost a lot less warsscore after their industry has been bombed, their populations decimated, and their fields reduced to radioactive husk.

The reconstruction effort would however, be a bitch.

 

[Timelordwho]

T

It also depends on ethics. I'm sure an individualist nation (thanks to high ethics divergence) would be likely to go into rebellion pretty badly in case of a losing war more than, say, collectivist states. Also, if you have a very diverse empire with a lot of sectarian factions only being held at bay. A badly losing war will give those factions opportunity to rebel.

A ethnically unified, collectivist, militarist, spiritual state would probable be fairly hard to break with rebels. (Space Japan.)