How should war be made more complex?
- Thread starter scaper12123
- 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.
Chess also doesn't allow you to move all of your pieces on the same turn.
How about ships generate border extrusion while in enemy space and friendly ships reinforce extrusion while in friendly space.
The idea being that if you don't have ships in every system you want to defend they are very vulnerable to being taken.
Friendly and enemy ships being in the same place cause it to be contested until those fleets retreats or is destroyed.
Also has the side benefit of making the war progress easily visible to others.
The idea being that if you don't have ships in every system you want to defend they are very vulnerable to being taken.
Friendly and enemy ships being in the same place cause it to be contested until those fleets retreats or is destroyed.
Also has the side benefit of making the war progress easily visible to others.
How about a system of limited and total war? Wars should cost influence. Total war would obviously cost a lot, but limited border skirmishes would cost less. This would allow you to define a few systems (or even a single system) as a war zone for a small amount of influence. Sending ships would also cost influence. Think of it as the cost to convince your people and or government for the need or want of conflict.
Limited wars could also spiral into total wars. Simply declaring total war on an unsuspecting (and possibly friendly) neighbor would cost a hefty influence price - whereas an empire you've been feuding with for centuries would probably cost less.
I'm just spit balling, but you could declare the Deneb system as a zone of conflict for 20(?) influence and commit x number of starships/capacity for 40 influence. Defending should cost less influence. You could then have a limited war for the Deneb system (which would not result in the capture of the Sol system which can happen now with the current warscore system, where blockading 5 rim worlds allows you to take an empire capital + major worlds).
At any time either side can 'escalate' the conflict (either by adding more ships or by broadening how many systems are counted as war zones)- each escalation makes 'total war' a cheaper option. So escalating may not be a good idea - especially if you cannot win a total war.
Escalations could also induce other empires to become involved in the conflict - and this could get cheaper the more escalations there are.
This system would model our system globally - there are lots of small conflicts around the world that do not devolve into massive global wars. I'd imagine space conflict would be similar.
The equilibrium of the galaxy would likely tend towards stability rather than constant massive territorial swapping. IE limited conflict and 'nibbling at the edges' is expected and even normal. But Empires that constantly edge towards total wars would increasingly see other empires get involved against them (for only minor influence costs).
This would not eliminate doomstacks, indeed there would still be epic space battles with a massive amount of ships. It's just that total wars would be far less common. Most conflicts would involve a small number of ships and be more intimate in nature. Warscore for limited wars/conflicts would have some different dynamics, where things like eliminating mining/science stations could count. Military stations if they exist, spaceports obviously. Killing the assigned admiral should obviously count, as well as ship losses, blockades and actual invasions.
Each escalation could also have additional (somewhat random costs) to blend in with the new faction systems in 1.5. This would also add flavour to conflict.
Limited wars could also spiral into total wars. Simply declaring total war on an unsuspecting (and possibly friendly) neighbor would cost a hefty influence price - whereas an empire you've been feuding with for centuries would probably cost less.
I'm just spit balling, but you could declare the Deneb system as a zone of conflict for 20(?) influence and commit x number of starships/capacity for 40 influence. Defending should cost less influence. You could then have a limited war for the Deneb system (which would not result in the capture of the Sol system which can happen now with the current warscore system, where blockading 5 rim worlds allows you to take an empire capital + major worlds).
At any time either side can 'escalate' the conflict (either by adding more ships or by broadening how many systems are counted as war zones)- each escalation makes 'total war' a cheaper option. So escalating may not be a good idea - especially if you cannot win a total war.
Escalations could also induce other empires to become involved in the conflict - and this could get cheaper the more escalations there are.
This system would model our system globally - there are lots of small conflicts around the world that do not devolve into massive global wars. I'd imagine space conflict would be similar.
The equilibrium of the galaxy would likely tend towards stability rather than constant massive territorial swapping. IE limited conflict and 'nibbling at the edges' is expected and even normal. But Empires that constantly edge towards total wars would increasingly see other empires get involved against them (for only minor influence costs).
This would not eliminate doomstacks, indeed there would still be epic space battles with a massive amount of ships. It's just that total wars would be far less common. Most conflicts would involve a small number of ships and be more intimate in nature. Warscore for limited wars/conflicts would have some different dynamics, where things like eliminating mining/science stations could count. Military stations if they exist, spaceports obviously. Killing the assigned admiral should obviously count, as well as ship losses, blockades and actual invasions.
Each escalation could also have additional (somewhat random costs) to blend in with the new faction systems in 1.5. This would also add flavour to conflict.
If the planetary edicts to boost productivity were actually powerful enough to be meaningful and if maintenance cost of ships was high enough to be meaningful, you would be very close to a system where limited and total wars happened automatically; all you would need would be an unpleasant way to harvest Influence, and you could make it a game of which empire is willing to pay the most for a win.
@Syntax_VI Well, you could create a "Flashpoint" sector. This allows you to enter to a certain distance the enemies border areas and attack things at will. Basically everything is in a state of war along this border. Has considerable trust penalties of course. Kind of like making territory claims and having border skirmishes. Should cost ongoing influence as well.
I like the idea of separate "Total War" war goals. I even like the idea of being able to escalate a war, though I would limit it to adding wargoals after the beginning of the war, perhaps at an influence cost. Sometimes you find the tough fight you thought you had is actually a walkover and you want more. Sometimes you just want it all, and you don't care how long it takes or how much it costs.
EDIT: The most obvious "total war" wargoal that comes to mind, after some thought, is "Vendetta". It can only be used against your rival, who rivals you, who you have fought at least one war with already. Atriedes-Harkonnen feud, as an example.
EDIT: The most obvious "total war" wargoal that comes to mind, after some thought, is "Vendetta". It can only be used against your rival, who rivals you, who you have fought at least one war with already. Atriedes-Harkonnen feud, as an example.
Last edited:
Ship range has been brought up and isn't a bad idea. What if military ships had a fairly limited range past owned or allied systems? Not the hops that they have to do now with engine/wormhole gate range, but in addition to that. Or a "military range," past which they can't really fight worth a damn.
So, my fleet of cruisers can travel 10 light years at a single jump, but needs to stay and/or can only fight within 20 light years of an owned or allied system. (Just making the numbers up.) That might create that "front line" idea we keep shooting at, and create new diplomatic dynamics, without the messiness of introducing entire new supply mechanics. And as long as it's restricted to military ships, exploration and colonization can carry on as before.
So, my fleet of cruisers can travel 10 light years at a single jump, but needs to stay and/or can only fight within 20 light years of an owned or allied system. (Just making the numbers up.) That might create that "front line" idea we keep shooting at, and create new diplomatic dynamics, without the messiness of introducing entire new supply mechanics. And as long as it's restricted to military ships, exploration and colonization can carry on as before.
Last edited:
I feel that by giving the player full control over his fleets is just not the right thing to do.
Why not make sectors more important in wars?
- Governor's will build defensive fleets. Rather small ships that are not fit for space travel and can only remain within their home star system.
- Governor's will build offensive fleets just like you do now. Those fleets can be used for defense or offense.
- Governor characteristics will determine what the defense/offense ratio is
- Orders can be assigned to sectors.
- Slider's would determine how much of their own budget the sectors can spend on their fleets
- Players still have their own, but now smaller fleet that can be used to support the sectors in their efforts
- Invasions are still only handled by the player
In general that leaves the player in the early stage with full controll over one big fleet. The bigger his empire gets the more direct command will get seperated from the government, with only basic instructions given.
Let's say you have 3 sectors bordering one enemy sector, all three of them set to offense.
It feels so wrong to have an empire that spans multiple systems just to doomstack everything, especially since you can determine the outcome of every battle. But by splitting up your fleets and not giving full control over them wars would get much more tense than they are now.
I realize that players could just designate one huge sector, but would then face the problem of being unresponsive to several smaller enemy fleets that could cripple you by destroying your stations and sieging whenever there's a timeframe for it.
Why not make sectors more important in wars?
- Governor's will build defensive fleets. Rather small ships that are not fit for space travel and can only remain within their home star system.
- Governor's will build offensive fleets just like you do now. Those fleets can be used for defense or offense.
- Governor characteristics will determine what the defense/offense ratio is
- Orders can be assigned to sectors.
- Defense: Offensive Fleet will be used to defend own sector.
- Bolster: Offensive Fleet will be used to defend another sector
- Tactical Offense: Offensive Fleet will attack enemy planets, but will retreat to fight in own sector if defenses are not sufficent
- Full Offense: Offensive Fleet will only retreat to repair.
- Slider's would determine how much of their own budget the sectors can spend on their fleets
- Players still have their own, but now smaller fleet that can be used to support the sectors in their efforts
- Invasions are still only handled by the player
In general that leaves the player in the early stage with full controll over one big fleet. The bigger his empire gets the more direct command will get seperated from the government, with only basic instructions given.
Let's say you have 3 sectors bordering one enemy sector, all three of them set to offense.
- Your highest skilled Admiral A decides to destroy mining stations and siege down vulnerable planets
- Your 2nd one B, that's pretty aggressive tries to chase down an enemy fleet X, preventing them from engaging your other fleets or sieging planets
- Your lowest skilled Admiral C just sieges the closest system and gets caught offguard by another enemy fleet Y. Admiral B decides to help him and abandons his chase
- The enemy X that was chased now sieges one of your systems, so that your Admiral A now pulls back to defend his sector
- To buy time your personal fleet engages the sieging enemy X until your other fleet arrives
- In the meantime the fleet of your low skill Admiral C has retreated to repair the damage he took from his last encounter, while the aggressive B hunts down newly build enemy ships and engages mining stations
It feels so wrong to have an empire that spans multiple systems just to doomstack everything, especially since you can determine the outcome of every battle. But by splitting up your fleets and not giving full control over them wars would get much more tense than they are now.
I realize that players could just designate one huge sector, but would then face the problem of being unresponsive to several smaller enemy fleets that could cripple you by destroying your stations and sieging whenever there's a timeframe for it.
This gives rebellious sectors all that much more bite.
Basically, ck2, in space.
I think the structure should be less feudal and more apropos to government pick, but seeing how the government's (in name only) are now a series of picks, why not (this would require a non feudal system for sectors too... don't even want to try and Crack that egg)
It's interesting, but I'm not sure how much game there'd be left to play. By the time the (questionable) sector AI is controlling most of my economy, most of my ships, most of the war strategy... I feel like Stellaris would become more of a cut scene than an actual game.
