Late game, defensive structures and more

[methegrate]

Fleet cap on systems would be awkward and super un fun. See my above suggestion for defensive systems that cripple larger numbers of enemy fleets, that's a counter that can be as hard or soft as needed and adjusted as needed.

I agree, I don't particularly like any version of fleet/system caps. (From my earlier post: "People do float the idea of putting a fleet cap on systems. I tend to think that wouldn't work..." Emphasis added.)

Re: defenses that scale with the number of ships/fleets, that might work. @Pancakelord noted the same idea above, but with more detail.

Personally I don't tend to prefer that kind of solution for two reasons. First, it doesn't change the basic incentives of warfare. We'd still have the same problem we do right now, that the only way to decide a war is by destroying the enemy fleet. Second, relatedly, it only deals with system defenses. It doesn't change the fact that the only way to fight a doomstack that doesn't attack your fortresses is with another doomstack.

Not to say that you're wrong, certainly. I just would prefer a solution that comes at this from the strategic level. The tactical approach is to say "if they have a doomstack, how do I win the fight?" I think it would be better to say "if they have a doomstack, how do I win the war?"

 

[Pancakelord]

Since this thread is turning into an interesting collection of ideas, thought I would throw this out.

What would you think if starbases could have a small arsenal of troops stationed on them that required transports to invade?

Starbases aren't destroyed (usually), and the mechanics of sieging a planet DO function as a choke point. So why don't we just move some of that functionality into the starbase? Make it so starbases can be invaded, like a habitat - Make it so a fortified starbase would require a few transports to fight (and that fight does take a bit of time, usually). The starbase doesn't grow in power - it isn't still shooting at ships - but it Does slow the fleet down, much like a planet would, and re-establishes the importance of starbases as chokepoints.

Not all starbases would have garrisoned troops, only if you built the appropriate building. In essence, choosing for it to function as a chokepoint.

The other idea would be to have FTL inhibitors not function as an all-or-nothing-your-fleet-cannot-pass. But instead borrow the idea of attrition, much like in crusader kings. Sure, you could march through that castle area, but it is going to cost you some troops. Sure, our ships could go through that mined gateway, but they will take some damage and we might lose some.

One thing I was thinking about the other day is that it's funny how (top tier) starbases are called citadels, yet they are the first thing to fall in a system, rather than the last thing to fall - as the citadel in an ancient city might be.

• This is done to mimic other/older paradox map painters (siege the fort, make the territory stripy - even though stripes were gutted from stellaris - etc).

But it does make me wonder how gameplay would change if you have to bombard (not invade) any planets first, before then invading (not destroying) the starbase (or go right for the starbase if no colonies present). Probably not workable at all with how the game is currently set up with its tiny solar systems and military buildings, though. (Its hardcoded to need starbase control, to launch an invasion currently, too).

Per your point about starbases having their own troops, whilst armies can't be done right now (and I don't think PDX is keen on touching ground troops), Its possible to mod in stuff like parasite Corvettes. For example, build a "defense ship berth" and on battle starts, the starbase spawns N Corvettes ( [N = X * starbase tier * #these_modules] - so there is some scaling over time), the designs can be randomly picked from your existing ones by the script. On battle end they de-spawn. This also works when done with planets/buildings - it's also possible (though quite buggy) to spawn an invisible Def platform inside a planet and have it fire on ships (a la sword of the stars - planets would fire missiles at enemy ships)

 

[GloatingSwine]

Not to say that you're wrong, certainly. I just would prefer a solution that comes at this from the strategic level. The tactical approach is to say "if they have a doomstack, how do I win the fight?" I think it would be better to say "if they have a doomstack, how do I win the war?"

On the other hand, there are game options which are clearly structured as if stations and defence platforms should remain relevant into the endgame. The entire Citadel upgrade, ascension perks and traditions, repeatable techs for defence platforms, etc.

The endgame should be structured such that this intent is realised. A fully upgraded Bastion Citadel with a full complement of defense platforms should be costly to assault with any fleet of equivalent tech level.

 

[stern]

One thing I was thinking about the other day is that it's funny how (top tier) starbases are called citadels, yet they are the first thing to fall in a system, rather than the last thing to fall - as the citadel in an ancient city might be.

• This is done to mimic other/older paradox map painters (siege the fort, make the territory stripy - even though stripes were gutted from stellaris - etc).

I don't often play multiplayer in Stellaris, but I imagine that most of the strategy to defeat real human players is to simply amass a big fleet with a big transport army in the system(s) where his or her mega structures are clustered.
I say this because in EU4, enemy castles would block the free passage of troops to the most important provinces, they would need to be conquered piece by piece, to conquer them you would need cannons; even if I conquer a few important provinces I won't break his economy completely. Whereas in Stellaris everyone is using the same unit with different designs, battleships, the fortress planets don't block movement in adjacent systems and are easily conquered by armies, and if I conquer the enemy system with the dysons sphere or the matter compressor, I'll win the war, since he won't be able to sustain his fleet without the energy from the dysons sphere, or he won't be able to reinforce without minerals that are transformed into crystals or something else. It seems extremely strange to not be able to defend these structures in a more complex way than a starbase with cannons and weak platforms.

 

[Louella]

You should be able to make forts like the habitat stations.
Only placeable around planets, rather than moons. Requires pops to operate. Can be garrisoned with armies.
Or have weapon buildings for habitat stations.

Thus, you could fortify a system, if it has enough celestials to anchor things around. But it'd require a substantial investment in construction, populating them, and garrisoning them.

 

[GloatingSwine]

You should be able to make forts like the habitat stations.
Only placeable around planets, rather than moons. Requires pops to operate. Can be garrisoned with armies.
Or have weapon buildings for habitat stations.

Thus, you could fortify a system, if it has enough celestials to anchor things around. But it'd require a substantial investment in construction, populating them, and garrisoning them.

It doesn't matter where the fortifications are. Putting them in the system centre and combining them with the thing that determines control of the system is fine, they just need enough hitpoints and weapons to be relevant in the lategame (again, with the caveat that you need to drag X weapons and neutrons back in line with the general progression of single hit damage so that anyone can be relevant in the lategame), and low enough upkeep that they're worth maintaining (another problem with defensive platforms is that their upkeep is way too high for something that can't move. Their upkeep should be about 20-25% of what it is now especially in the lategame).

 

[malakhglitch]

In quite a number of sci-fi literature where the action focusses on fleet actions, it's usually not possible to assault a planet due to the nature of stationary defenses, i.e. their power plants and munitions are effectively unlimited. This is usually explained by the system defenses being built out of planetoids, which usually makes them unassailable except through stealth infiltration and sabotage.

If we translate that into Stellaris terms, any system station beyond an outpost would need a Colossus-equivalent weapon to crack it open, an Espionage action to take it out of commission, or an extended fleet bombardment to bring it to 100% devastation.

Perhaps instead of giving system stations beyond an outpost shield, armor and hull points, it would be better to give them planetary health with bombardment defense increasing depending on the size of the station. This would probably necessitate removing weapons from the station itself and having defense platforms act as the weapons for balance.

 

[Louella]

It doesn't matter where the fortifications are

It kind of does, as if they're spread over a number of celestials, then the opposition can't focus-fire on them, which will allow them to endure somewhat longer, and get in more shots before they are neutralised.

system defenses being built out of planetoids

Yeah, that's something I was thinking of. My personal preference in sci-fi, is where invading a planetary system is a protracted affair, with siege guns mounted on moons and so on, to harass enemy ships etc. There was a short story I remember, where there were "sniper" bases on moonlets of a ringed planet. They'd power up their gun, take a few shots at enemy convoys, then shut down and go to silent running, before the enemy could get an accurate fix on their position.

Something I noticed the other day, was that in how the buildings are defined, it seems the planetary shield generator is set up so that AI countries don't build planetary shields, and will destroy any shields on player planets that they do manage to capture, thus making their recapture by the player easier.

anyway, a fun bit of reading about static defences:

Diamond Rock - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[GloatingSwine]

It kind of does, as if they're spread over a number of celestials, then the opposition can't focus-fire on them, which will allow them to endure somewhat longer, and get in more shots before they are neutralised.

?????

That's not how that works. Fleets can focus fire on anything in range, and will focus on things as they come into range. The only advantage this might give is if the fleet gets distracted by each new combatant until it stops bringing new ones into range at which point it will focus that down until it is killed (which may not work if all of them have the same expected damage profile). But if you bring enough giga cannons and neutron launchers to immediately delete the defense stations with a single salvo as happens now that doesn't matter anyway.

Until defense stations can survive a meaningful amount of time in combat in the late game everything else is rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic. The problem is that as soon as fleets get into range with their gigantic X class weapons defense platforms and even citadels last for one maybe two full salvoes.

 

[Louella]

That's not how that works.

Is it not ? I thought defence platforms & starbases have a considerable range advantage over ships, even more so for starbases with that upgrade.

defense platforms and even citadels last for one maybe two full salvoes.

Yeah. They wilt fast under fire. Even against relatively low tech ships. I think a defence platform only has 1000 hp.

There's still files in the base game for medium & large military platforms, I'm not sure if they can be brought back right away though. They have much more HP and more slots to add more defence with.

I still want to be able to install a long range gun on an asteroid, and a battery of guns on a moon. There's plenty of celestial objects in many systems in Stellaris that serve little or no purpose. I mean like, a planet with 4 moons, and none of them have deposits on them, that's like... almost entirely useless, the only thing that planet can really do is serve as an anchor point for a handful of megastructure.

Should be able to anchor a starfort above it, and put some Moon Cannons on the moons.

Maybe as something that you can do with Army transports. In the star trek "birth of the federation" game, transport ships that you needed for capturing planets, they also could build deep space outposts and starbases. That could be a thing too...

Build an army transport, send it to a moon, tell it to construct a defence base. It builds a base that can shoot at enemy shipping, and has a ground defence strength equivalent to its original army strength, so it matters what kind of troops you use.

Just cos a planet is an airless barren or frozen rock, and you can't build a colony on it, doesn't mean you shouldn't be able to build a military base on it.

 

[GloatingSwine]

Is it not ? I thought defence platforms & starbases have a considerable range advantage over ships, even more so for starbases with that upgrade.

They do, but late game ship weapons can still fire at least 40% of a system width away before juggernaut aura, ship computer, and admiral traits, so they'll pretty much always be in range of everything anyway.

So again, what matters is whether platforms can survive combat, not where they are.

 

[Louella]

what matters is whether platforms can survive combat, not where they are.

Yes, of course.
Still, it's fun to design things with overlapping fields of fire, and "kill zones" and all that kind of stuff.

 

[Louella]

what matters is whether platforms can survive combat

Been playing about with modding, made it so that the mid-size and large-size platforms can be built again. Also gave starbases some more utility slots, and made the small-size platforms a bit tougher by upsizing their utility slots from medium to large. I gave the medium-size platforms a battleship-sized power core, and the large sized ones a titan-sized power core, because otherwise they were stuck with the tiny one.

With the stats I gave the platforms, I had a starbase (starfort? - one size down from citadel) with some of the mid-size platforms (I made it so that only the larger starbases could build the larger platforms), and it was able to hold off (with the aid of ~100 corvettes), the Great Khan's chosen, without the starbase itself being destroyed (the platforms were though)

if you want to have a look at it, it's here: https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=2647374040

 

[CBR JGWRR]

I'm not a fan of nerfing X-guns on battleships and Titans etc. Sooner or later, it becomes viable to build that kind of weapon into a ship. Or build a ship around that kind of weapon, whichever way you want to look at it.

But, a ship has the fundamental problem that it is a ship - ships have lots of disadvantages that stations don't have. Most important is that you want to move this thing, which inherently means a limit to size, and therefore, hard-capping the ultimate amount of deployable firepower.

Static defences however, there's nothing wrong with going much bigger than Attack Moons. To an Endgame Stellaris Civilisation, given the constraint of needing to protect the starbase, the ultimate static defence is a Dyson Sphere powering an incomprehensibly strong energy weapon that doesn't so much fire a laser as rip a void in the space-time-velocity metric where the target used to be. If you want the ultimate chokepoint fortress, that's a good starting point.

And if the finished Dyson Sphere plus the uber-hyper cannon array cost 60k+ Alloy and decades to build, then it isn't that unbalanced.

 

[killer260111]

my thoughts on the matter
defensive platforms regenning is something i semi agree, and semi disagree with, imagine if fleets regenned after each attack with them? it would be broken. (just something about the idea seems off to me)

on other fronts however, upkeep. defensive platforms should fall under the starbase upkeep and starbase discounts and build speed (currently they work via ship modifiers, idk why).

they need much stronger platforms, its strange how they removed all the high level platforms and gave us a single platform now, remember fortresses and defence stations? they weren't that good due to how death stacks ruled that stellaris. but i feel like adding them back alongside platforms would be useful.

the idea of a second starbase also sounds like an awesome idea, maybe add it onto eternal vigilance?

 

[malakhglitch]

What the game actually needs is this...

 

[grommile]

If defences were this hard, why would I ever engage a peer power in a war?

 

[Franton]

Considering the fact that there is only a very limited number of entry points, why don't we have defensive structures that take advantage of that, e. g. right near the hyperlane exits, gateways and wormholes? Waiting in the center of the system like a duck on a silver plate seems like a very bad idea, when you could instead rain death on intruders right upon entering the system! That way, the main advantage of X-weapons would be greatly eliminated, and efficient short range weapons could be employed for defense.

 

[Zagreb 887]

Gigastructures mod has the Maginot world, which has so many OP defenses all over it, even if you SOMEHOW get a colossus to fire on it, it has a failsafe self destruct that will destroy the colossus too. and invading? the garrison with JUST gigastructures mod will easily be 500k+ millions if fully developed. it also even blocks jump drives in like a 2 jump radius.

It makes Cadia look like a joke, lol. (Heresy!)

Combine it with ACOT obelisk of light fortress, those worlds take years IRL to invade

 

[exi123]

Considering the fact that there is only a very limited number of entry points, why don't we have defensive structures that take advantage of that, e. g. right near the hyperlane exits, gateways and wormholes? Waiting in the center of the system like a duck on a silver plate seems like a very bad idea, when you could instead rain death on intruders right upon entering the system! That way, the main advantage of X-weapons would be greatly eliminated, and efficient short range weapons could be employed for defense.

In the early versions of Stellaris there were FTL snares as far a i know (i started with 1.6, were they stil in the game then?). So defense structures could soak fleets to a certain point, with the upper tiers of defense platforms a gamechanger even in the lategame. Of course the AI wasnt able to use it... but this could also work well in todays gameplay. With a nerf to the current meta, setting an operating range for X weapons for example (half the range to max), a snare on a starbase soaking artillery ships direct from the hyperlane out of their range to close combat could work.

We would at least have some strategy to counter these kind of ships.