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

[TheBeautifulVoid2]

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

It would be amazing, in fact, if surrendering when you're playing such a nation caused factional unrest because your people think you're a wimp.

 

[Solismar]

So I guess we'll see more how this works during the next blorg event, but I noticed that lots of facilities were left alone in systems that had conquered planets. Can you only utilize the conquered planet once the war is over? And if so do you automatically get all the system bases when you finally acquire the planet. Or should it all just be bombed?
Other factions can share systems as we saw with the uplifted race.

 

[Jarac Rassen]

So I guess we'll see more how this works during the next blorg event, but I noticed that lots of facilities were left alone in systems that had conquered planets. Can you only utilize the conquered planet once the war is over? And if so do you automatically get all the system bases when you finally acquire the planet. Or should it all just be bombed?
Other factions can share systems as we saw with the uplifted race.

I assume that until you control the planet by gaining it in a treaty, you won't be able to use it.

 

[pommiebastard]

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.

Wait, whut?

Which Queen Elizabeth are you referring to?

If it's those of England/Britain, Elizabeth I didn't lose any major wars (if anything, she beat the navy of Europe's principal superpower at the time, Spain, and gained breathing space for England and Protestant Northern Europe in the process) so I assume it can't be that.

And if you refer to the collapse under Elizabeth II of the British Empire back into the United Kingdom (and a bunch of islands, tax havens etc strung around the world), that wasn't caused by defeat in a war - I don't think she's ever actually had one that was lost under her reign - rather, it was a consequence of the costs of winning the Second World War (especially the debts to the Americans) and of changes in ethos and belief system that meant nobody thought it worth the cost and/or morally right to fight to hold onto huge territories around the globe when the locals so obviously wanted independence.

The biggest loss (India/Pakistan/Bangladesh) happened before she came to the throne, and the others were, with the notable exceptions of Kenya and Malaya, relatively peaceful hand-backs, so how do you see that as the consequences of "one climatic defeat"?

(the fact that you threw Bush in there, who whatever his other faults did not have an Empire to throw away, suggests your grasp of history is somewhat loose...)

 

[saint242]

So I guess we'll see more how this works during the next blorg event, but I noticed that lots of facilities were left alone in systems that had conquered planets. Can you only utilize the conquered planet once the war is over? And if so do you automatically get all the system bases when you finally acquire the planet. Or should it all just be bombed?
Other factions can share systems as we saw with the uplifted race.

IIRC, Wiz mentioned that you get to keep the intact facilities in a system if you take that whole system (not sure how it works if you only take a fraction of the planets in a system with multiple inhabited worlds.)

In the case of resource stations in systems he doesn't plan to take, I guess it's one of two reasons. Either he's in a rush to get a lot done on the stream; or it's possible that he doesn't even feel like it's worth it to spend the time to blast all those stations. It's not like mining stations and whatnot seem that expensive to build.

 

[Vasious]

Would it not be possible to occupy all their planets, destroy every star base, research station, mining station and frontier station (and wormhole station) before suing for peace?

Thus the damage to them would be having to start from scratch in terms of space infra structure.

Loss of such infrastructure might cause energy debt as they wont be able to support the buildings planet side

Just a questions of effort/cost to benefit.

How much to you want to hurt them, vs the investment of time and energy into hurting them.

 

[Solismar]

I guess I don't see the point of not leaving a squad of a Corvette or three in a system, on aggressive to hassle the enemy. If they engage, you pin point their fleet, if they don't you cause damage. The blorg went out of their way to destroy all the enemy space stations to keep them from amassing a fleet. The aggressive Corvettes should destroy any construction ships as well I hope, to prevent things being rebuilt. Would hopefully work in your own systems to keep enemy warp stations from being built as well.

 

[IamOzymandias]

I actually kind of like the idea laid out. A long, bloody war spanning multiple generations over 6 or so border systems. It would leave them crippled to the point that their economies are left in shambles and they would have suffered a massive loss of life. Several planets left as wastelands in order to remove any enemy assets as the principle of total war takes its toll, and finally one empire makes a gamble and launches a campaign to conquer their rivals core worlds, either butchering the population and leaving the worlds in ruins and forcing them to sign a peace treaty, or the attaking fleet being devastated and sent back to it's home base licking it's wounds and leaving the empire woth no further means of engaging in the conflict. From what I understand, Vicky2 has a Great War mechanic that could probably simulate this scenario.

 

[Turin the Mad]

I guess I don't see the point of not leaving a squad of a Corvette or three in a system, on aggressive to hassle the enemy. If they engage, you pinpoint their fleet, if they don't you cause damage. The blorg went out of their way to destroy all the enemy space stations to keep them from amassing a fleet. The aggressive Corvettes should destroy any construction ships as well I hope, to prevent things being rebuilt. Would hopefully work in your own systems to keep enemy warp stations from being built as well.

Nice idea, Solismar.

 

[Turin the Mad]

I guess it boils down to how much time/energy/maintenance it costs you to smash them into non-spacefaring rubble vs. how long it takes them to rebuild from as close to scratch as you can accomplish.

If they've spent nearly all of their stored resources to fight back - which seems to be what the AI is currently likely to do in the Blorgstream - it strikes me as very, very likely that they'll take far longer than 5 years to recuperate from the losses inflicted upon them, even if you don't take any planets as part of your spoils.

Does anyone know offhand if a long NAP is a wargoal? " If we win = NAP for (x) years plus we have (y and z) transit rights for that duration. Plus research assistance from you to us. " Would be a nice wrinkle to add less conventional stuff to the wargoals asides from the better known "all your base on (X) belong to us".

 

[Kayden_II]

The Creator of this Thread has a valid Issue and for That, I hope, that the "Bombardement" is more adjustable ...

For Example:
"Light Bombardement" could allow the Bombardement of Tiles with Military-Structures and (logically) the POPs on those Tiles ...
"Medium Bombardement" could (additional) allow the Bombardement of Tiles with Energy-Credit-/Mineral-/Research-Point-Production-Structures ...
"Strong Bombardement" could (additional) allow the Bombardement of Tiles with Food-Production-Structures ...

And for the strategical Aspect, It is necessary, that the War-Score-Weighting drops for those Worlds, Which You have bombed ...

That gives You at Least - 1 new War-Strategy, because in the Case, that You want to annex a lot of Border-Worlds of an Enemy-Empire/Federation, You could bomb those Border-Worlds, so that the War-Score-Weighting for those Border-Worlds (in Relation to the other Enemy-Worlds, Which You haven't bombed (Enemy-Home-World for Example)) drops ...
And obviously, that new War-Strategy only functions in the Case, that You "spare" those Enemy-Worlds, Which You don't want to annex, Which is a Balancing-Aspect, that the Player does not exploit the Bombardement-Feature ...

But Yeah, for the Problem, to bomb out the Hell of an Empire/Federation, We could need - additional Balancing-Stuff^^ ...
For Example, a Relation-Malus with other Empires/Federations ...
The More - You bomb out the Hell of an Empire/Federation, the More those other Empires/Federations - hate You, Which could lead to additional War-Declarations.

 

[Hardcore_gamer]

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.

Which makes me ask again, can't you just use bombing to pretty much destroy a whole enemy empire even if you don't take their planets? And if so would doing so raise your infamy levels? (The game has infamy like other paradox games right?)

 

[Ifreann]

I guess I don't see the point of not leaving a squad of a Corvette or three in a system, on aggressive to hassle the enemy. If they engage, you pin point their fleet, if they don't you cause damage. The blorg went out of their way to destroy all the enemy space stations to keep them from amassing a fleet. The aggressive Corvettes should destroy any construction ships as well I hope, to prevent things being rebuilt. Would hopefully work in your own systems to keep enemy warp stations from being built as well.

Planets build spaceports, not construction ships.

Which makes me ask again, can't you just use bombing to pretty much destroy a whole enemy empire even if you don't take their planets?

Only if you can completely depopulate their planets, and in all likelihood you can't do that.

And if so would doing so raise your infamy levels? (The game has infamy like other paradox games right?)

It's called threat, yes. And while the threat will decay over time, alliances that form in response to increased threat won't.

 

[Aries666]

Which is very bad game design. There SHOULD be a big fallout from losing a big war. Losing a small war should not change everything, but if you spend years fighting a huge war and then everything goes sour in the end then the fallout should be huge. There should be revolutions and rioting. Massive political chaos and wrecked economy. Just look at the aftermath of World war 1. Otherwise you just create a lower skill ceiling while making it needlessly hard to cause damage to your enemies.




Have you ever heard of World war 1?

The Roman Empire lost many big wars it still endured 2000 years.

 

[delassa]

While it is fun to create the snowball of death empire, it is a design that almost always cheapens the end-game and ends up with either 1 empire just plowing over the rest or a huge war between the snowballs from either side of the mountain (or galaxy in this case). The way I see it with the system that is in place, the end-game becomes much more dynamic with conflicts that trade back and forth for a while before a major victor can be determined, and even the little guy can have big friends (or a whole lot of little ones).

 

[Revan7719]

While it is fun to create the snowball of death empire, it is a design that almost always cheapens the end-game and ends up with either 1 empire just plowing over the rest or a huge war between the snowballs from either side of the mountain (or galaxy in this case). The way I see it with the system that is in place, the end-game becomes much more dynamic with conflicts that trade back and forth for a while before a major victor can be determined, and even the little guy can have big friends (or a whole lot of little ones).

It should be a whole new way to play this style game. Just the politics and dynamics from the blorg stream show how effective the alliances are. It will be nice to say have a galaxy that maybe you got cornered early and couldn't expand as you normally would. You can still be a factor with alliances and so forth.

 

[Oscot]

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, this exact consideration is a major real-life aspect of warfare and really the question you should be asking is why don't all other games reflect it?

That there really is a cost-benefit calculation to do with regards to war in Paradox games, as opposed to the Wheeeeee, loot and land! no-downsides bonanza that war gives in almost all other empire-building games, are one the things that makes them... grand strategic.

 

[Hardcore_gamer]

Only if you can completely depopulate their planets, and in all likelihood you can't do that.

In pragmatic terms, what exactly is the difference between bombing their planets until all their buildings are gone and they have only 1 weak pop left, and actually destroying everything?

 

[Highlordelliot]

T


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

Blow up a star system or two that should get their surrender.