My Wishlist, Dream, Suggestion whatever for the Fabled Ground War Rework we hopefully get one day ^^

  • 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.

TheRevanchist25

Banned
64 Badges
Dec 18, 2018
376
1.136
  • Shadowrun: Hong Kong
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Death or Dishonor
  • Stellaris: Synthetic Dawn
  • Cities: Skylines - Green Cities
  • Crusader Kings II: Jade Dragon
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Expansion Pass
  • Stellaris: Humanoids Species Pack
  • Stellaris: Apocalypse
  • Surviving Mars: Digital Deluxe Edition
  • Cities: Skylines - Parklife
  • Stellaris: Distant Stars
  • Shadowrun Returns
  • Shadowrun: Dragonfall
  • Surviving Mars
  • Surviving Mars: First Colony Edition
  • Cities: Skylines Industries
  • BATTLETECH: Flashpoint
  • Stellaris: Megacorp
  • Crusader Kings II: Holy Fury
  • Imperator: Rome
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Expansion Pass
  • Prison Architect
  • Surviving Mars: First Colony Edition
  • Cities: Skylines - Campus
  • Stellaris: Ancient Relics
  • BATTLETECH: Season pass
  • Stellaris
  • Hearts of Iron IV: No Step Back
  • Hearts of Iron IV: La Resistance
  • BATTLETECH: Heavy Metal
  • Stellaris: Federations
  • Crusader Kings II: Sons of Abraham
  • Stellaris: Lithoids
  • Cities: Skylines
  • Crusader Kings II: Way of Life
  • Pillars of Eternity
  • Crusader Kings II: Horse Lords
  • Cities: Skylines - After Dark
  • Crusader Kings II: Conclave
  • Prison Architect: Psych Ward
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Colonel
  • Crusader Kings II: Reapers Due
  • Tyranny: Archon Edition
  • Stellaris: Digital Anniversary Edition
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Cities: Skylines - Natural Disasters
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Together for Victory
  • Stellaris - Path to Destruction bundle
  • Cities: Skylines - Mass Transit
Have you considered that maybe, there is no "borderline forum hive mind", it's just filled with many individuals with differing opinions and preferences?

Not really. Every time things like this come up, the instant knee-jerk response is "Ugh too tedious, too much micro, I don't wanna have to do things". Almost every single time topics like this crop up. This topic in particular. Every topic I come across talking about in depth improvement is like 50% of people whining about too many clicks, basically. The Crusader Kings section is even worse. Try to ask for Crusader Kings to actually add more strategy elements? you get downvoted to oblivion because everyone just wants to play the Sims and jerk off because their banging every woman in the game and ERPing.

Half the time in these Stellaris sections, it seems like anything that goes beyond "right click, attack system" is "too tedious, too much micro" that no one wants to bother with, and it's absolutely ridiculous. You all realize these are strategy games right? the entire genre could be renamed "micromanagement" and it would not be inaccurate. Homeworld makes my damn wrist hurt I have to click so much, and I wouldn't have it any other way. Granted I limit my play time to avoid permanent damage, but still. The fact that a dev actually came in here and said "remove one of the most important aspects of Sci Fi writing is the correct decision" with a straight face is incredibly alarming frankly, and makes me wonder what his priority actually is as a developer, because it's clearly not making an in depth strategy experience.

ANd before anyone tries to counter with "it's not really a strategy game, it's a story game" or w'/e your about to say. The lore and fluff is utterly gone halfway through the mid game aside from the Crisis stuff, so I don't wanna hear that crap. From the Mid game onwards it is a pure strategy experience (cough offensive deathball simulator cough) with basically no story pop ups. Your head canons are not game mechanics, and do not matter when it comes to improving the game. Clearly the devs want mechanical improvement as well (well in some areas anyway) because their DLCs these days are focused on new mechanics, half baked (The Empire being worse than hegemon in most ways) and sometimes worthless mechanics (hello Espionage) but still.

Granted they've made it clear that the very concept of Defense is vile and evil, and not a proper method of warfare, because they've gone above and beyond to remove any possible method of defense, in even the smallest of ways. I suspect their next patch will remove weapons from Star Bases entirely and replace it with a picket sign that says "Free Real Estate" since they love their memes so much. After all, we can't afford to have the AI/Crisis hindered in any possible way while it beelines for you in the most brain dead manner possible because the devs need their terrible gimmick Nemesis mechanic that makes the Crisis worse than it was before, which I didn't think was possible. So I honestly don't understand the devs priorities at all at this point. Their making the game as smooth brained as possible in terms of actual strategic options, while constantly adding mechanics that add more theoretical options that don't actually do anything. Probably because of all the folks on here whining about "too many clicks" and just wanna live in their own little head canon world of make-believe where they play Palpatine/Prequel memes in their head on repeat and not actually challenge themselves with strategy mechanics. In truth that's probably what the devs do as well, it would explain their complete and utter lack of logic in their strategic design.

I welcome any Devs who reads this to respond and explain and discuss anything I've said and why I might be wrong. But I know it won't happen, because this post, and me by extension will be labelled as "too toxic" and ignored, because critical feedback hurts feelings and we can't have that. Just ask Youtube about their removal of the Dislike meter, or the devs from Jason Schreier's Battlefield article, where project leads told his sources to not give critical or negative feedback on design decisions because it would hurt their co-workers feelings (this is not a joke). Devs don't want to actually debate their decisions, or even conceive of the concept that they might be wrong in their decision making. I've seen it too many times in my life to be convinced otherwise. Devs are convinced their always right, and always know better than the player. I again welcome any dev here to disprove that assertion with a calm back and forth, but I know it won't happen, because I know how this works. I've just said all the quiet parts loud, and that's a big no no, and I will be shunned and downvoted into oblivion as a result. I don't care. At least Paradox hasn't hidden their downvotes yet, so I'll give em credit for that.

Make sure you show the attacking fleet travelling to the system's asteroid belt to simulate the collection of rocks to drop on the planet...

The current army mechanics are annoying and boring because... they're annoying and boring, not because they're army mechanics. They could be done better, absolutely, but planetary invasions are one of the major tenets of science-fiction writing, so they shouldn't simply be thrown out.

There are a few issues with armies and planetary invasions that I would look at first:
  1. Invasions are portrayed as an "oh, yeah, that too" function of warfare, both on attack and planetary defense. There needs to be emphasis ADDED to planetary invasions, not removed. Certain megastructures notwithstanding, planets are the end-all, be-all of interstellar warfare. Taking a planet should be meaningful, and the process of doing so should be, as well.
  2. Planets right now are defenseless against fleets without fleets of their own in vanilla. There are no surface-to-orbit weapons, no massive launches of SC, and certainly not in the numbers that an entire PLANET should be able to bring to bear. Part of this has to do with the false balancing of resource value between space projects (including fleets) and planetary projects. Individual warships are most likely infinitesimal compared to even the smallest planets, and the only advantage they have over the defenses of a planet is all of their weapons can bear on one target on a planet, while any given direct-fire weapons on a planet are limited by their firing arcs (SC and GW have far fewer restrictions).
  3. Defensive armies, as a factor of planetary populations, would be colossal, and assault armies would have to be comparable. Not only for the personnel involved, but all of their weapons, equipment, vehicles, planet-side fortifications, supplies, ammunition, etc. It should require a big clunky fleet to bring them across planetary systems, and it should require escorting and baby-sitting to make sure they get to their target relatively unscathed and prepared for invasion. If the escorting/baby-sitting is too much for the normal ship-to-ship main battle fleet, add escorts to the transport fleet and/or configure them to be able to defend themselves.
  4. Armies/transports need to be as easy to configure, build, upgrade, and replace as regular pure-warship fleets (assuming you can get the Fleet Manager to cooperate). You need to be able to determine species, training, equipment, and transport systems quickly and easily.
  5. Planets would not just sit there peaceably after being invaded - troops and blockading ships would need to be left behind to ensure compliance. Lightly- or unarmed transports would be sitting ducks for counter-raiding by the owning empire's warship fleets, even in small numbers. Rules would have to be in place for what happens to armies when their transports that are chased away or destroyed (e.g., does a transport have to wait for its army to "die" before it can be "re-armied"?).
There are plenty more issues to cover, but I'll leave by saying: keep armies and invasions, treat them as the important things that they are, have them make sense and be natural (but not overly simplistic) to work with.

Happy holidays to everyone!

In conclusion, and to bring this all back around. This guy is 100% correct and spot on. I have nothing more to add from what he said.
 
  • 5
  • 2Like
  • 2
Reactions:

PK_AZ

Lt. General
40 Badges
Feb 9, 2015
1.517
1.107
  • Crusader Kings II: Charlemagne
  • Europa Universalis IV: Wealth of Nations
  • Europa Universalis IV: Conquest of Paradise
  • Europa Universalis IV: Art of War
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Crusader Kings II: Sword of Islam
  • Crusader Kings II: Sunset Invasion
  • Crusader Kings II: Sons of Abraham
  • Crusader Kings II: The Republic
  • Crusader Kings II: Rajas of India
  • Crusader Kings II: The Old Gods
  • Crusader Kings II: Legacy of Rome
  • Cities: Skylines - Mass Transit
  • Hearts of Iron IV: No Step Back
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mandate of Heaven
  • Surviving Mars
  • Stellaris: Synthetic Dawn
  • Age of Wonders III
  • Cities: Skylines - Green Cities
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Expansion Pass
  • Cities: Skylines - Parklife
  • Cities: Skylines Industries
  • Crusader Kings II: Holy Fury
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Expansion Pass
  • Cities: Skylines - Campus
  • Crusader Kings III
  • Stellaris - Path to Destruction bundle
  • Crusader Kings II: Monks and Mystics
  • Crusader Kings II: Reapers Due
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Stellaris
  • Crusader Kings II: Conclave
  • Cities: Skylines - After Dark
  • Europa Universalis IV: Common Sense
  • Crusader Kings II: Way of Life
  • Europa Universalis IV: El Dorado
  • Cities: Skylines
  • Victoria 2
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Sengoku
Half the time in these Stellaris sections, it seems like anything that goes beyond "right click, attack system" is "too tedious, too much micro" that no one wants to bother with, and it's absolutely ridiculous.

That's because half the time suggestion is pushing micro to hide lack of any strategic depth.
Perfect example is rock-paper-scissor-based ground warfare. You know, "there are tanks, infantry and bombers, tanks kill infantry, infantry kill bombers and bombers kill tanks". So when you want to invade planet that is protected only by tanks, then you have three options: use tanks, use infantry or use bombers, with exactly one option not being retarded. At the same time, no solution is given to other problems with ground warfare, like having de facto unlimited amount of armies.

You all realize these are strategy games right? the entire genre could be renamed "micromanagement" and it would not be inaccurate. Homeworld makes my damn wrist hurt I have to click so much, and I wouldn't have it any other way. Granted I limit my play time to avoid permanent damage, but still.
I prefer my strategy games to be challenge for my brain, not my wrist, thank you very much.
That being said, from all grand strategies and 4X I played and remember (Civ V and VI, Total War series, most other Paradox games post-CK2), Stellaris is most or second most micro-heavy (depends how we rate CK3 military micromaneuvers). Saying that grand strategy have to be more micro-heavy than current Stellaris, when most real-life examples are not, is risky at best.

Devs don't want to actually debate their decisions, or even conceive of the concept that they might be wrong in their decision making. I've seen it too many times in my life to be convinced otherwise. Devs are convinced their always right, and always know better than the player.
You know, Stellaris is literally The Game I Lost My Trust Towards Paradox At, and I talk about how much I hate it every time anyone wants to hear (which is not so often I would like to),
but
there's about 20k players concurently in the game in any given moment. I would not exclude such option that it's not Paradox that is wrong, we are.
 
  • 1Like
  • 1
Reactions:

Cordane

GW/SC/PD/Flak Wonk
16 Badges
Sep 25, 2013
533
290
  • Cities: Skylines Deluxe Edition
  • Tyranny - Tales from the Tiers
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Cities: Skylines
  • Pillars of Eternity
  • Stellaris
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Tyranny: Archon Edition
  • Stellaris: Digital Anniversary Edition
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Stellaris - Path to Destruction bundle
  • Stellaris: Apocalypse
  • Stellaris: Distant Stars
  • Crusader Kings III
  • Crusader Kings III: Royal Edition
  • Stellaris: Synthetic Dawn
In conclusion, and to bring this all back around. This guy is 100% correct and spot on. I have nothing more to add from what he said.
Flattery will get you everywhere...
Not really. Every time things like this come up, the instant knee-jerk response is "Ugh too tedious, too much micro, I don't wanna have to do things". Almost every single time topics like this crop up. This topic in particular. Every topic I come across talking about in depth improvement is like 50% of people whining about too many clicks, basically. The Crusader Kings section is even worse. Try to ask for Crusader Kings to actually add more strategy elements? you get downvoted to oblivion because everyone just wants to play the Sims and jerk off because their banging every woman in the game and ERPing.

Half the time in these Stellaris sections, it seems like anything that goes beyond "right click, attack system" is "too tedious, too much micro" that no one wants to bother with, and it's absolutely ridiculous. You all realize these are strategy games right? the entire genre could be renamed "micromanagement" and it would not be inaccurate. Homeworld makes my damn wrist hurt I have to click so much, and I wouldn't have it any other way. Granted I limit my play time to avoid permanent damage, but still. The fact that a dev actually came in here and said "remove one of the most important aspects of Sci Fi writing is the correct decision" with a straight face is incredibly alarming frankly, and makes me wonder what his priority actually is as a developer, because it's clearly not making an in depth strategy experience.

ANd before anyone tries to counter with "it's not really a strategy game, it's a story game" or w'/e your about to say. The lore and fluff is utterly gone halfway through the mid game aside from the Crisis stuff, so I don't wanna hear that crap. From the Mid game onwards it is a pure strategy experience (cough offensive deathball simulator cough) with basically no story pop ups. Your head canons are not game mechanics, and do not matter when it comes to improving the game. Clearly the devs want mechanical improvement as well (well in some areas anyway) because their DLCs these days are focused on new mechanics, half baked (The Empire being worse than hegemon in most ways) and sometimes worthless mechanics (hello Espionage) but still.

Granted they've made it clear that the very concept of Defense is vile and evil, and not a proper method of warfare, because they've gone above and beyond to remove any possible method of defense, in even the smallest of ways. I suspect their next patch will remove weapons from Star Bases entirely and replace it with a picket sign that says "Free Real Estate" since they love their memes so much. After all, we can't afford to have the AI/Crisis hindered in any possible way while it beelines for you in the most brain dead manner possible because the devs need their terrible gimmick Nemesis mechanic that makes the Crisis worse than it was before, which I didn't think was possible. So I honestly don't understand the devs priorities at all at this point. Their making the game as smooth brained as possible in terms of actual strategic options, while constantly adding mechanics that add more theoretical options that don't actually do anything. Probably because of all the folks on here whining about "too many clicks" and just wanna live in their own little head canon world of make-believe where they play Palpatine/Prequel memes in their head on repeat and not actually challenge themselves with strategy mechanics. In truth that's probably what the devs do as well, it would explain their complete and utter lack of logic in their strategic design.
I very much agree on the thoughts about "right-click, attack system". I play Stellaris exclusively as single-player, so the concerns of "never-paused action" in multiplayer (or even just "Fastest" SP) aren't usually high on my list to be worried about - not that they aren't in and of themselves worthwhile, just not for me. I can intellectually accept that keeping the number of clicks to a reasonable level is a logical and admirable goal, but I can't do the same for knocking clicks down to the bare minimum and the sacrifices to game complexity and depth that come with that.

I also understand the general line of thinking that removing a hard-to-do-right system may seem easier and more cost-effective than spending the resources to get it done the right way, potentially without enough return on that investment. Getting planetary invasion right is obviously very difficult, and leaving a half-baked system in place isn't really an option either. I don't necessarily have too much of an issue with a single developer coming here and stating that their preference (personal or professional) would be to remove the system - that's their opinion, even if theirs is going to have a larger voice than any one (or even many) of ours.

Lastly, I'm definitely in agreement with the assessment that apparently Defensive Play Is Bad, based on the timeline and vector of changes to the game. Again, that direction certainly makes for easier programming and game management, but I know I play strategy games for complexity and rewarding smart choices, not simple "push button, receive treat" gameplay loops. If I'm in the minority with that opinion, so be it, but I will make my efforts to convince those in the other camp to at least keep my thoughts on Stellaris in mind when they make changes to it.

Happy New Year, everyone!
 
  • 4
Reactions:

TheRevanchist25

Banned
64 Badges
Dec 18, 2018
376
1.136
  • Shadowrun: Hong Kong
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Death or Dishonor
  • Stellaris: Synthetic Dawn
  • Cities: Skylines - Green Cities
  • Crusader Kings II: Jade Dragon
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Expansion Pass
  • Stellaris: Humanoids Species Pack
  • Stellaris: Apocalypse
  • Surviving Mars: Digital Deluxe Edition
  • Cities: Skylines - Parklife
  • Stellaris: Distant Stars
  • Shadowrun Returns
  • Shadowrun: Dragonfall
  • Surviving Mars
  • Surviving Mars: First Colony Edition
  • Cities: Skylines Industries
  • BATTLETECH: Flashpoint
  • Stellaris: Megacorp
  • Crusader Kings II: Holy Fury
  • Imperator: Rome
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Expansion Pass
  • Prison Architect
  • Surviving Mars: First Colony Edition
  • Cities: Skylines - Campus
  • Stellaris: Ancient Relics
  • BATTLETECH: Season pass
  • Stellaris
  • Hearts of Iron IV: No Step Back
  • Hearts of Iron IV: La Resistance
  • BATTLETECH: Heavy Metal
  • Stellaris: Federations
  • Crusader Kings II: Sons of Abraham
  • Stellaris: Lithoids
  • Cities: Skylines
  • Crusader Kings II: Way of Life
  • Pillars of Eternity
  • Crusader Kings II: Horse Lords
  • Cities: Skylines - After Dark
  • Crusader Kings II: Conclave
  • Prison Architect: Psych Ward
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Colonel
  • Crusader Kings II: Reapers Due
  • Tyranny: Archon Edition
  • Stellaris: Digital Anniversary Edition
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Cities: Skylines - Natural Disasters
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Together for Victory
  • Stellaris - Path to Destruction bundle
  • Cities: Skylines - Mass Transit
That's because half the time suggestion is pushing micro to hide lack of any strategic depth.
Perfect example is rock-paper-scissor-based ground warfare. You know, "there are tanks, infantry and bombers, tanks kill infantry, infantry kill bombers and bombers kill tanks". So when you want to invade planet that is protected only by tanks, then you have three options: use tanks, use infantry or use bombers, with exactly one option not being retarded. At the same time, no solution is given to other problems with ground warfare, like having de facto unlimited amount of armies.

You realize you can't get more depth without more micro right? That is fundamentally impossible. More clicks is REQUIRED to have a more in depth system. You cannot have a complex, in depth system when your goal is limited to "right click, attack system".

I prefer my strategy games to be challenge for my brain, not my wrist, thank you very much.
That being said, from all grand strategies and 4X I played and remember (Civ V and VI, Total War series, most other Paradox games post-CK2), Stellaris is most or second most micro-heavy (depends how we rate CK3 military micromaneuvers). Saying that grand strategy have to be more micro-heavy than current Stellaris, when most real-life examples are not, is risky at best.

How amusing, your self-righteous assertion that these two things are mutually exclusive. You've clearly never played Homeworld in order to make such an ignorant statement.

Also ignorant to assume Stellaris is more micro heavy than Total War. As someone with over 5k hours in total war that assertion is laughable. You need to min/max to a ludacris degree on any difficulty that is actually above Normal in order to not be ground into the dirt. Stellaris on Normal is brain dead simplistic much like Total War is. However Total War even on normal has a micro layer that Stellaris does not. Combat. Stellaris combat is literally "right click, attack system" and nothing more. Total War requires formations, flanking, using terrain differences to handle buffs or debuffs in stats, having your generals in crucial locations on the line in order to maximize their abilities. managing how much ammo your units have to make sure you have enough to finish the engagement. The most micro aspect of Stellaris is planet management, and on Normal such a thing barely matters, barely requiring any sort of plan beyond common sense "I need more food, build agriculture" and if you min/max the planets on normal you could almost literally sleep through the entire campaign and still win.

on total war? Even on normal you can get absolutely overwhelmed by a single battle depending on the size of the engagement. If your fighting late game armies and multiple stacks the micro is a borish hellscape that makes you wanna kill yourself at times. It's sometimes to a point where it's too much for 1 player to realistically manage if the battle is large enough, needing to play the entire battle in Slow Motion just to keep up with the non stop Repositioning you need to manage.

It sounds like you either haven't played many games beyond Civ, which is basically a board game and is Turn based, not Real Time with Pause. Or your just talking out of your bum in order to justify simplistic systems that you enjoy and don't want to see any change.

You know, Stellaris is literally The Game I Lost My Trust Towards Paradox At, and I talk about how much I hate it every time anyone wants to hear (which is not so often I would like to),
but
there's about 20k players concurently in the game in any given moment. I would not exclude such option that it's not Paradox that is wrong, we are.

You know, there was a time when developers actually cared about their product, and cared how GOOD people thought it actually was. But as history has shown that is no longer the case. All that matters is getting sheep players, who have no standards, to stick around and keep their wallets open. COD is the ultimate example of this. Every COD player I've ever met, thinks the newest COD is terrible, and is the same rinse and repeat swill every year (and it is) yet those same people, knowing that fact, just keep buying it, because their sheep, who don't think, just consume. So player retention numbers is indicative of nothing other than how many players are playing the game. It does not mean the game is good, or well crafted, or finely polished. It just means, literally, that people are playing it, and players have a bad habit of playing games they hate, for basically no reason, simply because it's part of their routine. Fortnite is basically a swear word to every gamer I've met in the past 5 years, spitting at the mere mentioning of its name. It is the most hated game in the community, and yet its Fortnite all the same. Popularity does not mean quality.
 
  • 2
  • 1
Reactions:

PK_AZ

Lt. General
40 Badges
Feb 9, 2015
1.517
1.107
  • Crusader Kings II: Charlemagne
  • Europa Universalis IV: Wealth of Nations
  • Europa Universalis IV: Conquest of Paradise
  • Europa Universalis IV: Art of War
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Crusader Kings II: Sword of Islam
  • Crusader Kings II: Sunset Invasion
  • Crusader Kings II: Sons of Abraham
  • Crusader Kings II: The Republic
  • Crusader Kings II: Rajas of India
  • Crusader Kings II: The Old Gods
  • Crusader Kings II: Legacy of Rome
  • Cities: Skylines - Mass Transit
  • Hearts of Iron IV: No Step Back
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mandate of Heaven
  • Surviving Mars
  • Stellaris: Synthetic Dawn
  • Age of Wonders III
  • Cities: Skylines - Green Cities
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Expansion Pass
  • Cities: Skylines - Parklife
  • Cities: Skylines Industries
  • Crusader Kings II: Holy Fury
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Expansion Pass
  • Cities: Skylines - Campus
  • Crusader Kings III
  • Stellaris - Path to Destruction bundle
  • Crusader Kings II: Monks and Mystics
  • Crusader Kings II: Reapers Due
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Stellaris
  • Crusader Kings II: Conclave
  • Cities: Skylines - After Dark
  • Europa Universalis IV: Common Sense
  • Crusader Kings II: Way of Life
  • Europa Universalis IV: El Dorado
  • Cities: Skylines
  • Victoria 2
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Sengoku
You realize you can't get more depth without more micro right? That is fundamentally impossible. More clicks is REQUIRED to have a more in depth system. You cannot have a complex, in depth system when your goal is limited to "right click, attack system".
Yes and no. First off, current system may be simply non-optimal when it comes to clicks/decision ratio. Let's imagine you have eight planets, and you want every of them to spawn single assault army. In current system, you have to click Planet 1, click army, click Planet 2, click army ... then you have to wait (waiting here is important step) till construction is complete, click on all your armies, click where they are supposed to concentrate, wait till they get to the system, click Merge. Thats about 26 clicks and two waiting periods.
For comparison, in Europa Universalis you have to click macrobuilder, click Build Armies, create template (or use existing one), click template, click on the map, and then wait till regiments are created and merged. Thats about 13 clicks and one waiting period, to handle actually slighty more complex system (in EU4 there are three types of units, with their unique advantages and disadvantages, expected to work in combined arms).

Another thing, sometimes more mathematically complex and more realistic system may actually demand less player input, because it assumes some decisions are taken at lower level of command. Naval warfare in HoI4 is more complex than in EU4, but if you want to blockade Japan, you need just few squadrons on automatic 'hunt convoys' mission.

As far as I see, you did not show any example of 'right click, attack system', so I cannot answer that argument.

How amusing, your self-righteous assertion that these two things are mutually exclusive. You've clearly never played Homeworld in order to make such an ignorant statement.
Well, you make it quite visible that writs-challenge is important part of Homeworld for you, so...

on total war? Even on normal you can get absolutely overwhelmed by a single battle depending on the size of the engagement. If your fighting late game armies and multiple stacks the micro is a borish hellscape that makes you wanna kill yourself at times. It's sometimes to a point where it's too much for 1 player to realistically manage if the battle is large enough, needing to play the entire battle in Slow Motion just to keep up with the non stop Repositioning you need to manage.
You have slow, you have pause and you have one single battle to take care of. It's true that sometimes battles are overwhelming, but I would take managing one single battle in Total War over managing three fronts in any Paradox Game any time.
 
  • 2
Reactions:

TheRevanchist25

Banned
64 Badges
Dec 18, 2018
376
1.136
  • Shadowrun: Hong Kong
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Death or Dishonor
  • Stellaris: Synthetic Dawn
  • Cities: Skylines - Green Cities
  • Crusader Kings II: Jade Dragon
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Expansion Pass
  • Stellaris: Humanoids Species Pack
  • Stellaris: Apocalypse
  • Surviving Mars: Digital Deluxe Edition
  • Cities: Skylines - Parklife
  • Stellaris: Distant Stars
  • Shadowrun Returns
  • Shadowrun: Dragonfall
  • Surviving Mars
  • Surviving Mars: First Colony Edition
  • Cities: Skylines Industries
  • BATTLETECH: Flashpoint
  • Stellaris: Megacorp
  • Crusader Kings II: Holy Fury
  • Imperator: Rome
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Expansion Pass
  • Prison Architect
  • Surviving Mars: First Colony Edition
  • Cities: Skylines - Campus
  • Stellaris: Ancient Relics
  • BATTLETECH: Season pass
  • Stellaris
  • Hearts of Iron IV: No Step Back
  • Hearts of Iron IV: La Resistance
  • BATTLETECH: Heavy Metal
  • Stellaris: Federations
  • Crusader Kings II: Sons of Abraham
  • Stellaris: Lithoids
  • Cities: Skylines
  • Crusader Kings II: Way of Life
  • Pillars of Eternity
  • Crusader Kings II: Horse Lords
  • Cities: Skylines - After Dark
  • Crusader Kings II: Conclave
  • Prison Architect: Psych Ward
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Colonel
  • Crusader Kings II: Reapers Due
  • Tyranny: Archon Edition
  • Stellaris: Digital Anniversary Edition
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Cities: Skylines - Natural Disasters
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Together for Victory
  • Stellaris - Path to Destruction bundle
  • Cities: Skylines - Mass Transit
Yes and no. First off, current system may be simply non-optimal when it comes to clicks/decision ratio. Let's imagine you have eight planets, and you want every of them to spawn single assault army. In current system, you have to click Planet 1, click army, click Planet 2, click army ... then you have to wait (waiting here is important step) till construction is complete, click on all your armies, click where they are supposed to concentrate, wait till they get to the system, click Merge. Thats about 26 clicks and two waiting periods.
For comparison, in Europa Universalis you have to click macrobuilder, click Build Armies, create template (or use existing one), click template, click on the map, and then wait till regiments are created and merged. Thats about 13 clicks and one waiting period, to handle actually slighty more complex system (in EU4 there are three types of units, with their unique advantages and disadvantages, expected to work in combined arms).

Another thing, sometimes more mathematically complex and more realistic system may actually demand less player input, because it assumes some decisions are taken at lower level of command. Naval warfare in HoI4 is more complex than in EU4, but if you want to blockade Japan, you need just few squadrons on automatic 'hunt convoys' mission.

As far as I see, you did not show any example of 'right click, attack system', so I cannot answer that argument.


Well, you make it quite visible that writs-challenge is important part of Homeworld for you, so...


You have slow, you have pause and you have one single battle to take care of. It's true that sometimes battles are overwhelming, but I would take managing one single battle in Total War over managing three fronts in any Paradox Game any time.

Yes, the process of producing armies requires too many clicks, this I can agree with, if your trying to use more than 1 planet to produce them. But that ties into the Planet Invasion system just being objectively terrible and needing reworked. There's no reason Paradox cannot create an Army Manager, a mirror of Fleet Manager, and construct the same types of templates. 3 of these, 6 of these, 2 of these etc and just click recruit. This is something that 100% needs to happen in a planet invasion rework, and if they didn't change that, I would legitimately question Paradox's intelligence.

As for having no example of "right click, attack system"? I feel like you're pulling my leg now. That's all Stellaris combat is. You click attack system, and watch the pretty light show until it's over, with no input on your end at all.

Your last comment proves, that you have very little, if any, Total War experience. In end game, it's never just 1 battle. You're lucky if it's 1 battle per turn. More often than not, it's 4 battles per turn, sometimes more. Across 3 or more fronts, each battle lasting upwards of 20 minutes, sometimes a bloody hour! Each one requiring insane amounts of micro that makes you beg for death. Depending on which Total War you're playing, you have to also manage a Naval Battle, along with your Land Battle, at the same time, on the same damn map! I'm sorry, but no matter how you slice it, Late Game Stellaris, is a cake walk in comparison to late game Total War, the micro isn't close. The only point I say, in favor of Stellaris (and paradox games in general really) being more annoying, is the stupid Whack A Mole bullshit you have to do with the AI, where they run from you, non stop, and have to pin them in with a second force down a choke point hyperlane. However it's worth noting, that wouldn't be an issue at all, and neither would multiple fronts, if you were actually allowed to Effing DEFEND, in ANY capacity! Stellaris multiple front wars suck, because the devs refuse to let you defend. That is the only reason. They've removed every Defensive option from the game, and forced players to deal with way more clicking and micro than they should.

This again, is a problem that lays at the Devs feet. if you could actually build a REAL starbase, using the old Defense Fortress options they removed from the game, you wouldn't have to manage 3 fronts. You could build 2 Star Fortresses at 2 choke points, let the enemy take whatever you own in front of that, and hold on until you knock out the first enemy nation, or first 2, if you can manage that. Total War finally figured this concept out in their last 2 titles. Introducing Fortresses that defend choke points that can hold your flank, but most of the map does not have these options because it's a new idea they added with DLCs and reworks post release. Stellaris has taken the opposite approach. The game came with these options, and they removed them to make war more tedious and obnoxious. This is the point myself and many others' are making. You guys are whining about the amount of micro, but the devs are bloating the micro by stripping features and not fixing others. This is why many of us question their motives or their design objectives, because their creating a lot of frustration and unnecessary micro with their changes and, on the case of this topic, their adamant refusal to make changes. Their changing the game, and making it harder for us to play and enjoy, but easier for them to work on. Their focus is, ultimately, wanting to do less work, and put forth less effort on their end, at the expense of how tedious and annoying the changes are for us. That is likely why that Dev from earlier wants the whole system removed, so he does not have to ever hear about it ever again, and won't have to consider all the time and effort it would take to properly address. You might think that's very understandable, and too harsh towards them by picking on that. You would be 100% correct, except for 1 very simple fact. They want to be lazier and do less, but charge the same amount of money.

Again, I invite any dev into this thread and disprove that assertion with their input...but they won't, because I know how this works, and I'm saying the quiet parts loud. I'm too "toxic" to engage with.
 
  • 3
  • 1Love
  • 1Haha
  • 1
Reactions:

ArmChairAttila

Pimp Daddy
49 Badges
May 14, 2006
1.248
207
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Expansion Pass
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Together for Victory
  • Stellaris - Path to Destruction bundle
  • BATTLETECH
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Death or Dishonor
  • Stellaris: Synthetic Dawn
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Expansion Pass
  • Stellaris: Humanoids Species Pack
  • Stellaris: Apocalypse
  • BATTLETECH - Digital Deluxe Edition
  • Stellaris: Distant Stars
  • BATTLETECH: Flashpoint
  • Stellaris: Megacorp
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Stellaris: Ancient Relics
  • BATTLETECH: Season pass
  • Stellaris: Lithoids
  • BATTLETECH: Heavy Metal
  • Hearts of Iron IV: La Resistance
  • Stellaris: Federations
  • Battle for Bosporus
  • Stellaris: Necroids
  • Stellaris: Nemesis
  • Hearts of Iron IV: By Blood Alone
  • Hearts of Iron IV: No Step Back
  • Semper Fi
  • Darkest Hour
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Europa Universalis IV: Art of War
  • Europa Universalis IV: Conquest of Paradise
  • Europa Universalis IV: Wealth of Nations
  • Europa Universalis IV: Call to arms event
  • For the Motherland
  • Hearts of Iron III
  • Hearts of Iron III: Their Finest Hour
  • Hearts of Iron III Collection
  • Europa Universalis IV: Res Publica
  • Arsenal of Democracy
  • 500k Club
  • Europa Universalis IV: El Dorado
  • Europa Universalis IV: Pre-order
  • Europa Universalis IV: Common Sense
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cossacks
  • Stellaris
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Stellaris Sign-up
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Stellaris: Digital Anniversary Edition
Your last comment proves, that you have very little, if any, Total War experience. In end game, it's never just 1 battle. You're lucky if it's 1 battle per turn. More often than not, it's 4 battles per turn, sometimes more.
End game Total War, even on legendary/very hard requires 1 click on the auto resolve button in 90% of battles which takes about 10 seconds to resolve. You can easily build doomstacks that can auto resolve 3 legenday enemy armies at once with out taking much damage. Not really sure what you are going on about with that example. These people are not lazy, they simply want a garbage mechanic removed from the game. This has already been done several times during the life cycle of Stellaris.
 
  • 2
  • 1
Reactions:

TheRevanchist25

Banned
64 Badges
Dec 18, 2018
376
1.136
  • Shadowrun: Hong Kong
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Death or Dishonor
  • Stellaris: Synthetic Dawn
  • Cities: Skylines - Green Cities
  • Crusader Kings II: Jade Dragon
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Expansion Pass
  • Stellaris: Humanoids Species Pack
  • Stellaris: Apocalypse
  • Surviving Mars: Digital Deluxe Edition
  • Cities: Skylines - Parklife
  • Stellaris: Distant Stars
  • Shadowrun Returns
  • Shadowrun: Dragonfall
  • Surviving Mars
  • Surviving Mars: First Colony Edition
  • Cities: Skylines Industries
  • BATTLETECH: Flashpoint
  • Stellaris: Megacorp
  • Crusader Kings II: Holy Fury
  • Imperator: Rome
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Expansion Pass
  • Prison Architect
  • Surviving Mars: First Colony Edition
  • Cities: Skylines - Campus
  • Stellaris: Ancient Relics
  • BATTLETECH: Season pass
  • Stellaris
  • Hearts of Iron IV: No Step Back
  • Hearts of Iron IV: La Resistance
  • BATTLETECH: Heavy Metal
  • Stellaris: Federations
  • Crusader Kings II: Sons of Abraham
  • Stellaris: Lithoids
  • Cities: Skylines
  • Crusader Kings II: Way of Life
  • Pillars of Eternity
  • Crusader Kings II: Horse Lords
  • Cities: Skylines - After Dark
  • Crusader Kings II: Conclave
  • Prison Architect: Psych Ward
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Colonel
  • Crusader Kings II: Reapers Due
  • Tyranny: Archon Edition
  • Stellaris: Digital Anniversary Edition
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Cities: Skylines - Natural Disasters
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Together for Victory
  • Stellaris - Path to Destruction bundle
  • Cities: Skylines - Mass Transit
End game Total War, even on legendary/very hard requires 1 click on the auto resolve button in 90% of battles which takes about 10 seconds to resolve. You can easily build doomstacks that can auto resolve 3 legenday enemy armies at once with out taking much damage. Not really sure what you are going on about with that example. These people are not lazy, they simply want a garbage mechanic removed from the game. This has already been done several times during the life cycle of Stellaris.

Yes, you can...but then I question why your playing Total War at all, if your choosing to skip the entire point of the game. You making that decision, does not change how much micro is actually involved with the franchise if you actually play it. Might as well play Civ, if your one of those people who just auto resolve all day. Your point is irrelevant regardless of how hard hitting you think it was.

And I'm sorry to break this to you, but removing a garbage mechanic, instead of properly fixing it, is the definition of laziness. Period.
 
  • 5
  • 1Like
Reactions:

PK_AZ

Lt. General
40 Badges
Feb 9, 2015
1.517
1.107
  • Crusader Kings II: Charlemagne
  • Europa Universalis IV: Wealth of Nations
  • Europa Universalis IV: Conquest of Paradise
  • Europa Universalis IV: Art of War
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Crusader Kings II: Sword of Islam
  • Crusader Kings II: Sunset Invasion
  • Crusader Kings II: Sons of Abraham
  • Crusader Kings II: The Republic
  • Crusader Kings II: Rajas of India
  • Crusader Kings II: The Old Gods
  • Crusader Kings II: Legacy of Rome
  • Cities: Skylines - Mass Transit
  • Hearts of Iron IV: No Step Back
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mandate of Heaven
  • Surviving Mars
  • Stellaris: Synthetic Dawn
  • Age of Wonders III
  • Cities: Skylines - Green Cities
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Expansion Pass
  • Cities: Skylines - Parklife
  • Cities: Skylines Industries
  • Crusader Kings II: Holy Fury
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Expansion Pass
  • Cities: Skylines - Campus
  • Crusader Kings III
  • Stellaris - Path to Destruction bundle
  • Crusader Kings II: Monks and Mystics
  • Crusader Kings II: Reapers Due
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Stellaris
  • Crusader Kings II: Conclave
  • Cities: Skylines - After Dark
  • Europa Universalis IV: Common Sense
  • Crusader Kings II: Way of Life
  • Europa Universalis IV: El Dorado
  • Cities: Skylines
  • Victoria 2
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Sengoku
As for having no example of "right click, attack system"? I feel like you're pulling my leg now. That's all Stellaris combat is. You click attack system, and watch the pretty light show until it's over, with no input on your end at all.
What exactly do you want from warfare?
Also, I strongly protest against calling that light show 'pretty'.

Your last comment proves, that you have very little, if any, Total War experience. In end game, it's never just 1 battle. You're lucky if it's 1 battle per turn. More often than not, it's 4 battles per turn, sometimes more. Across 3 or more fronts, each battle lasting upwards of 20 minutes, sometimes a bloody hour!
Yes, and each and every of them is separated and closed affair. You never micromanage your cavalry chasing fleeing opponents, just to find out that enemy broke your defensive line 200km south or that your expeditionary corps sent to America is in combat against 20x stronger enemy you failed to notice.

That is likely why that Dev from earlier wants the whole system removed, so he does not have to ever hear about it ever again, and won't have to consider all the time and effort it would take to properly address.
You know what was the biggest design flaw of vanilla Stellaris? It was designed from grounds up with concept that it will be expanded later. It was working system of features, expect that instead of features you had feature slots with placeholders put into them, with promise they will be expanded later.
The problem with such approach (not counting periodical removal of features) is that some mechanics are so important that they have to be built into core design, and core design has to be created with them in mind. Warfare is such a mechanics for game as whole, and ground operations are such mechanics for warfare as whole. If you do that Stellaris-style, then ground operation will always be peripheral, because system is not designed to make use of it. And warfare will always be core aspect of the game with periphery-worth quality of design, because system is not designed to cooperate with it.

What I'm trying to say is that you put it like that dev wanted to remove ground warfare, but the only thing he can remove is five-years-old promise that they will be ground combat one day.

Now, to put it straight: I for one believe that Stellaris was unique chance to put standard paradoxian warfare upsite-down, by having fleets winning battles, but armies winning sieges (as opposed to 'army win battle and then win siege'). But than chance is already dead. And if you put it this way: you can either keep it, axe it, or design game from the grounds up with it in mind risking popular rage of forumites, total removal doesn't sound THAT bad.
 
  • 2
  • 1
Reactions:

MacKenzieSVFD

Corporal
28 Badges
Jul 13, 2017
43
50
  • Stellaris: Apocalypse
  • Stellaris: Nemesis
  • Stellaris: Necroids
  • Stellaris: Federations
  • Stellaris: Lithoids
  • Stellaris: Ancient Relics
  • Stellaris: Megacorp
  • Cities: Skylines Industries
  • Shadowrun: Hong Kong
  • Shadowrun: Dragonfall
  • Shadowrun Returns
  • Stellaris: Distant Stars
  • Cities: Skylines - Parklife
  • Cities: Skylines - Parklife Pre-Order
  • Cities: Skylines
  • Stellaris: Humanoids Species Pack
  • Cities: Skylines - Green Cities
  • Cities: Skylines - Mass Transit
  • Stellaris - Path to Destruction bundle
  • Cities: Skylines - Natural Disasters
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Stellaris: Digital Anniversary Edition
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Stellaris
  • Cities: Skylines - Snowfall
  • Cities: Skylines - After Dark
  • Stellaris: Synthetic Dawn
  • Cities: Skylines Deluxe Edition
making transports part of the regular ship modules
There's a mod that does this, and I find it works quite nicely, at least in terms of reducing micro-management. With how it's actually implemented into game there are a few downsides (when the ground battle is over, the troops are technically just despawned, and the game sees that as them being killed in terms of war exhaustion score, but that's a minor thing).

But, overall... yeah, that one mod has made the game FAAAAAAR more enjoyable for me. It doesn't solve most of the ground combat issues, but not having to muck around with transports as a whole separate entity, micromanaging them... having the invasion force as effectively an auxillary module on my ships just makes the game so much more streamlined.
 
  • 1
Reactions:

Bezborg

Grumpy Old Man
Nov 12, 2008
2.110
4.750
This Topic is purely my Personal Wishlist or Dream for how Ground Forces would work.
It can be seen as a Suggestion as well.
Albeit I do actually think at this point Paradox has some idea of what they might want to do with it in the Future.



1.
I think Armies should be alot more Relevant for Warfare.
Armies should not be an Endless Produced throw away Unit. Instead being limited in some way.
Maybe each Badge of 10 Armies costing a Population. Or maybe there being a Similar Limit as with Fleets so that only a Limited number of Armies can be Sustained depending on how much Population and Industry a Player has.

2.
I think Armies should work similar to Fleets. With an Army consisting of Multiple Units which its filled with and which are Grouped together as an Army under a General.
Which can then be Rebuild with 1 Click similar to how Fleets are Build and Structured.
This would also remove the Doomstacks which are currently the most common form of Army and thus actually make it meaningful for Planets to have Defenses.

How many Troops an Army can have will be decided by the Transport Capacity of its Invasion Fleet.
The Invasion Fleets Command Points will be decided by its own Tech and will work the same way as Normal Combat Fleets. But with a much smaller Limit.
Starting on 5 Points and going to Max 80 Points.
Ships for the Invasion Fleet are Standard Ships Equipped with the Invasion Middle Section of the Ship.
This System will work Similar to Weapons Platforms. Where the Main Section of a Ship being Changed will Automaticly move it to that Category.
So if the Main Section of a Ship is Changed to a Normal Ship Section it will only be available for Normal Fleets and if its an Invasion Section it will be a Ship only available for Invasion Fleets.

the Invasion Ship Section has Special Slots which can be used for Transport Hangars of different Sizes. As well as Invasion Support Modules that will Provide additional Benefits for an Invasion like Buffs if the Invasion Fleet Stays in Orbit of a Planet after Dropping their Armies.
Its each Players Decision if he wants to use these Slots for more Capacity and thus more Units in that Army. Or if he wants to instead use Fighter Hangars, Repair Pods, Ammo Supply Storage etc etc to give Buff to an Army at the Expense of having less Units in that Army.
This would also mean if Armies were to cost Population this would allow him to put more Cost on the Ressources side instead of Pops.

Transport Hangars have different Sizes and thus Decide what Units can be Carried with them. Heavier Units like Tanks or Warforms etc would require Larger Sized Hangars.

For example A Standard Assault Army which is mostly Infantry and light Vehicles would cost 1 Point. The Starting Setup for Invasion Fleets is 5 Points. Which at start would be 5 Corvettes each with a Single Transport Hangar and thus each Ship having 1 Point to Transport.
Which means the Starting Invasion Fleet would be able to Drop 5 Assault Armies.

In later game. A Cruiser might have Improved Hangars. Thus actually being allowed to Carry up to 6 Points of Armies in his Belly. And thus also being able to for example Carry 3 Tank Units instead of 6 Standard Assault Units. Thus if you got 20 Points for the Invasion Fleet and thus have 5 Cruisers in it right now. You would then be able to have a total of 30 Points for the Army. Thus for example being able to Drop 10 Assault Armies and 10 Tank Units.

Invasion Ships go up to Battleship Size.
Advantages and disadvantages can be Set. I personally would use a System where Bigger Ships have more Capacity for Buffs but less Carrying Capacity.
For example. A Corvette Starts with 1 Hangar Slot and Costs 1 Point same as normal Corvettes. The Cruiser will have 3 Hangar Slots but same as normal Cruiser Costs 4 points.
So he actually has less Hangar Slots per Points. However he does have Bigger Weapons and has a Medium Slot for Support Modules thus providing Bigger Buffs than a Corvette.
But this can also be reversed or otherwise handled. This is just a side Suggestion on my Part.


Pls note. Invasion Fleets can Fight and can be Armed with Space Weapons on the Bow and Stern Section (if applicable) They can also be used for Bombardment before an Invasion.
However. Any Ships lost will also lose Ground Units equivalent to the Transport Capacity of the lost Ships.

Once an Invasion Starts. Invasion Ships will become Immune to the Attrition Damage of Orbital Guns as now their Damage and the Damage to Landing Forces will be decided on the Special Projects mentioned in Point 5 below.
During the Invasion. the Invasion Ffleet will move into Low Orbit to Avoid Detection and Attacks from Space Fleets which cannot enter Low Orbit to Fight them.


4.
Planets which are Bombarded should cause Attrition Damage to Fleets from Defensive Fire. (Only if they have Fortresses)
This is a Simple Mechanic that would allow for Fortified Planets to Defend themselves a little and thus it not being possible to just put a small Fleet there which will bomb it endlessly for years to avoid the planetary defenses having any effect.
A New Building which is Planetary Missile Silos or Defense Guns would also be added which allows for Planets to massively Increase this Attrition Damage that Enemy Fleets Suffer when Bombarding a Planet.




5.
And Finally the Invasion itself.
I would love to see the following System.
Invading a Planet works like an Archeological Dig Site. With the General being the Scientist. And the Army he has being his Power Level which is boosted by his Skill level.
The Planetary Defenses meanwhile being the Difficulty Level for that Invasion Site.
Thus the Invader constantly running up Progress for the Invasion. While the Defender will get a Special Project similar to the First Contact Event.
If a General was on the Planet he will be automaticly assigned to that Project. Otherwise the Player can afterwards assign a General to it. The Garrisson Armies and any Armies Stationed on the Planet will be the Power Level of the Defender. Buffed by Defensive Buildings and the Skill Level of the Defending General.
Both sites will get Decisions to make and Events from their respective Sites.
The Invader gaining Progress and allowing to Progress to the next Stage or Weaken the Defenses etc.
While the Defender can Reduce the Power Level of the Attacker slowing down his Progress or if he has Superior or Equal Forces even push back the Progress form the Invader ultimately forcing him to retreat from the Planet.

This would make Invasions especially for Big Planets with alot of Defenses into a quite a Big Event :)
And would also mean that a Fortress Planet can be a very Valid Defense.

At the same time. The Attacker of course has the Choice to Sacrifice Ships into the Attrition to Bombard Down enemy Fortress Planets if he doesnt have Sufficient Ground Power to Invade them.

If the Defender Manages to Sneak Reinforcements onto the Planet. He will get a Special Buff to his Progress with the Invader getting a Special Malus.
Afterwards the Reinforcements will be added to the Defending Power Level.

Likewise having a Fleet either from the Invader or Defender will of course Buff that sides Power level.


An Example for the Progress Stages is.

((Special Stage if the Planet has Planetary Shields and Orbital Defenses)) with Events Focused on Bypassing or Destroying the Shield to Land.
Landing, (Events Focused on Initial Losses during the Landing as well as Damages to Ships and Buffs from Ship Modules etc.)
Securing a Bridgehead. (Events Focused on First Assaults and the Struggle to Create a Safe Landing Zone to Receive Reinforcements and Supplies)
((Special Stage if the Planet has Fortresses to Defend)) with Events Focused on breaking the Resistance and Defensive Installations.
Obtaining Superiority (Events focused on the actual War to Control the Major Cities and Strategic Points of the Planet)
Final Stage of Subduing Resistance (Events signifying that Victory is Close with last Pockets of Resistance being Eradicated and the Population being bought under Control for Occupation by a Garrisson Force so that the Invasion Force can Take off from the Planet again and go for the next Mission)

The Defense is Mirroring these Stages.

((Special Stage if the Planet has Shield or Orbital Guns)) with Events Focused on preventing the Landing.
Landing (with events for causing damage to the landing Forces)
Throwing the Enemy Back into Space (with Events focused on Denying the Enemy a Bridgehead and force him off the Planet)
((Special Stage with Fortresses)) with Events were the Defender will Fortify his Positions to Fight the Enemy off from its Fortresses))
Defending the World (with Events of the actual War to Fight over Major Cities and slow down the Enemy advance)
And Final Stage (of Events trying to Resist Occupation by Guerillia Actions and Hit and Run Attacks of the last remaining Forces)

And Finally. An In between Special Stage for Reinforcements from an Defending Invasion Fleet.
This Special Stage can happen at any time in the Situation. And will contain Special Events of Invasion Fleet Ships causing Losses to each other. As well as Landing Reinforcements taking losses or launching Reargard Attacks on the Invasion Force etc.
This Stage will be Time Limited rather than bound to Progress. Which means once the Reinforcements have Landed it will go back to the Original Tug of War between the Two Sides.
Albeit with now new Forces on the Defender Site.

A Similar Special Event also is possible to happen for the Invader if he decides to Send a Second Invasion Fleet as Reinforcements.



Which means a Planet can have 5 to 7 Stages depending on how well Fortified it is. And can have Extra Stages in between if either Side manages to get Reinforcements into the Fight.
Pls note. For the Defender the Stages are reversed in Order.
Meaning if the Defender is Stronger. He can actually Progress his Stages towards the Landing and thus Force the Enemy off the Planet.
Or if the losses for the Attacker are too big. Deny the Landing entirely already at the start.



Greetz Sun.
ps
Hopefully we will one day see something

And now I wish everyone Happy Holidays and a Happy New Year.
Stay Healthy and Happy :)
All good ideas. Same as already suggested by many enthusiasts before, myself included. Sometimes it gets more likes, sometimes more dislikes, but usually around 50/50, depending which crowd is awake and logged in that particular week or two before the topic goes into oblivion, until next time.


Stellaris seems to be winding down its development, it's creatively spent since Megacorp, the technical debt is gigantic... I would not be surprised if the sequel game is already being worked on.


I still think these threads serve a purpose, if only for inception on the sequel's devs.


So yes, I support your ideas fully, as I supported all the similar ideas before. I really enjoy ground warfare and invasion tropes in sci fi, I think the game has focused too much on spreadsheet balancing of production/consumption number-crunching and too little on gradn-scale fun.

I hope someone in charge takes the game back into the realm of grand-scale fun, before they call it and go on to a sequel.
 
Last edited:
  • 3Like
  • 3
  • 1Love
Reactions:

Secuter

Lt. General
54 Badges
May 13, 2012
1.327
3.939
  • Europa Universalis IV: Pre-order
  • Stellaris
  • Crusader Kings III
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Tyranny: Archon Edition
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Colonel
  • 500k Club
  • Age of Wonders III
  • Europa Universalis IV: Res Publica
  • Europa Universalis IV: Wealth of Nations
  • Europa Universalis IV: Conquest of Paradise
  • Europa Universalis IV: Art of War
  • Europa Universalis IV: Third Rome
  • Stellaris: Synthetic Dawn
  • Europa Universalis IV: Dharma
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mandate of Heaven
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cradle of Civilization
  • Stellaris: Humanoids Species Pack
  • Stellaris: Digital Anniversary Edition
  • Stellaris: Apocalypse
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rule Britannia
  • Stellaris: Distant Stars
  • Stellaris: Megacorp
  • Crusader Kings II: Holy Fury
  • Europa Universalis IV: Golden Century
  • Stellaris: Ancient Relics
  • Stellaris: Lithoids
  • Stellaris: Federations
  • Europa Universalis 4: Emperor
  • Stellaris: Necroids
  • Stellaris: Nemesis
  • Crusader Kings II: Legacy of Rome
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rights of Man
  • Europa Universalis IV: El Dorado
  • Mount & Blade: Warband
  • Mount & Blade: With Fire and Sword
  • Crusader Kings II: Way of Life
  • Europa Universalis IV: Common Sense
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cossacks
  • Crusader Kings II: Conclave
  • Crusader Kings II: The Old Gods
  • Crusader Kings II: The Republic
  • Crusader Kings II: Sons of Abraham
  • Crusader Kings II: Sunset Invasion
  • Crusader Kings II: Sword of Islam
  • Semper Fi
  • Stellaris - Path to Destruction bundle
  • Europa Universalis IV: Call to arms event
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mare Nostrum
And the "correct" answer is remove it

(This is the personal opinion of a single dev, and not the views of the team as a whole)

In the current format you may as well. But conquering the galaxy also means fighting on a ton of different planets. Your arctic-suited-race soldiers should do terrible on a desert planet for instance. I see a lot of good ways to go about combat, but none that has been implemented. OP's idea is also fine, and being on the defensive with powerful planets should be a viable strategy.

Any ideas that involve turning involved gameplay mechanics into ever more automated progress bars are terrible ideas.

Ground combat is dull, but at least it's SOMETHING that allows some level of skill expression and tactical gameplay during wars.

I can sort of agree with the progress bars. They are not engaging at all, and really doesn't add much to the gameplay.
But I really don't agree with the second part. Currently you take your huge army stack and dumps it on a planet and they finish the defenders off themselves. Something they often do in a ridiculous easy fashion. What "expression of tactical gameplay" do you find in comparing the defender strength to your invasion force? I don't find any.

What could be changed somewhat easily are various modifers:
  • A race fighting outside of its preferred habitat should incur penalties. Imagine an aquatic species fighting in tundra or desert and vice versa. It's strange that there are all sorts of penalties for holding a planet outside of your own preferred habitat, but not fighting on them. But, this can be altered by the "habitability" teach, which also allows your soldiers to do better on different planets.
  • Like in HOI4, Fortresses should provide defensive bonuses.
  • Fighting on planets that have been hold by an empire for X number of years should give the defenders a bonus because they know the terrain.
  • Having a Military Academy should also give the defending garrison the XP bonus. It's strange that only newly trained soldiers get it and not defenders.
  • Defenders, if bunkers are intact, should be able to retreat from combat and regain its morale/strenght although somewhat slowly. They shouldn't just retreat and be inactive until they eventually are slaughtered by the attacking army.
  • Civilian/guerilla/reserve units should be able to join the defenders. Although these aren't necessarily particularly good, they can still make it more difficult for the attackers. More of such should join depending on their allegiance to their current empire, number of inhabitants on the planet and how scared they are of the attackers. Purifiers or those who want to eat everything on the planets may have a hard time taking very populous planets.
Generally, it shouldn't be a breeze attacking very populous planets who are loyal to their empire or very scared of the invaders.
 
Last edited:
  • 3Like
Reactions:

TheRevanchist25

Banned
64 Badges
Dec 18, 2018
376
1.136
  • Shadowrun: Hong Kong
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Death or Dishonor
  • Stellaris: Synthetic Dawn
  • Cities: Skylines - Green Cities
  • Crusader Kings II: Jade Dragon
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Expansion Pass
  • Stellaris: Humanoids Species Pack
  • Stellaris: Apocalypse
  • Surviving Mars: Digital Deluxe Edition
  • Cities: Skylines - Parklife
  • Stellaris: Distant Stars
  • Shadowrun Returns
  • Shadowrun: Dragonfall
  • Surviving Mars
  • Surviving Mars: First Colony Edition
  • Cities: Skylines Industries
  • BATTLETECH: Flashpoint
  • Stellaris: Megacorp
  • Crusader Kings II: Holy Fury
  • Imperator: Rome
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Expansion Pass
  • Prison Architect
  • Surviving Mars: First Colony Edition
  • Cities: Skylines - Campus
  • Stellaris: Ancient Relics
  • BATTLETECH: Season pass
  • Stellaris
  • Hearts of Iron IV: No Step Back
  • Hearts of Iron IV: La Resistance
  • BATTLETECH: Heavy Metal
  • Stellaris: Federations
  • Crusader Kings II: Sons of Abraham
  • Stellaris: Lithoids
  • Cities: Skylines
  • Crusader Kings II: Way of Life
  • Pillars of Eternity
  • Crusader Kings II: Horse Lords
  • Cities: Skylines - After Dark
  • Crusader Kings II: Conclave
  • Prison Architect: Psych Ward
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Colonel
  • Crusader Kings II: Reapers Due
  • Tyranny: Archon Edition
  • Stellaris: Digital Anniversary Edition
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Cities: Skylines - Natural Disasters
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Together for Victory
  • Stellaris - Path to Destruction bundle
  • Cities: Skylines - Mass Transit
Yes, different planet biomes should 100% affect the invaders effectiveness. That adds another layer of planning, so you either need...gene warriors...altered for particular Biomes, or you get other types of troops that aren't affected, like robot soldiers, or species that originate from the same type of biome.

bonuses for knowing terrain, taking advantage of Fortresses to recover, possibilities of civilian militias interfering in the battle either for the defenders or attackers depending on how that planet feels. combine these ideas with giving people planetary shields to mitigate bombardment and force an invasion, along with Orbital defense guns that can shoot back at enemy ships bombing the planet. all incredible ideas that need to be seriously considered in the future. I know there's gotta be a lot of people out there, who when they first heard of "Fortress World" they thought "oh shit, it's time for Cadia!" only to find out Fortress Worlds are toothless, defenseless worlds whose only purpose is to just eat bullets until the planet dies. It's honestly a disgrace what passes for a Fortress World in Stellaris, but whatever, even those are almost worthless now anyway since the Crisis can just go right past them and ignore it because reasons.
 
  • 1
Reactions:

Cordane

GW/SC/PD/Flak Wonk
16 Badges
Sep 25, 2013
533
290
  • Cities: Skylines Deluxe Edition
  • Tyranny - Tales from the Tiers
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Cities: Skylines
  • Pillars of Eternity
  • Stellaris
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Tyranny: Archon Edition
  • Stellaris: Digital Anniversary Edition
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Stellaris - Path to Destruction bundle
  • Stellaris: Apocalypse
  • Stellaris: Distant Stars
  • Crusader Kings III
  • Crusader Kings III: Royal Edition
  • Stellaris: Synthetic Dawn
It's honestly a disgrace what passes for a Fortress World in Stellaris, but whatever, even those are almost worthless now anyway since the Crisis can just go right past them and ignore it because reasons.
I don't necessarily have an issue with the general idea of a purely mobile enemy bypassing a defensive world, if the enemy has no need to protect lines of supply. Against those with supply lines, however, a non-subjugated, non-blockaded world would be a heinous thorn in the side of a nominal occupation.

Warships up to maybe Destroyer size (at least early on, maybe bigger later) might be able to be constructed and launched from a planetary surface, but would likely take longer (harder to manage the super-builds in full gravity). Armies might be able to form to try to retake the planet, waiting to attack until they've reached a critical mass. Significant orbital surveillance could discover these actions and nullify/delay them, but that requires the enemy to place resources.

Unless occupation and blockades are expensively crippling, resistance forces will continue to do damage to enemies in the system while they have reason to be active. This damage could take the form of reduced healing/repair of armies or fleets, no healing/repair, or damage over time (beyond the ability to heal/repair normally).

Supply lines through a system with a non- or lightly-subjugated/blockaded world would lose effectiveness or require higher costs (e.g., lost container ships, more escorts required).

I get the idea (at least from a programming perspective) of having the controlling aspect of a system of planets be the Starbase, but it is kind of a crap mechanism from a realistic standpoint. There need to be more gradations available to show the levels of control each of the contending powers have in any given system, and just knocking out the Starbase or even defeating the initial placement of fleets or armies on (one or more of) the planets in a system isn't going to be enough to totally lock down that system. There needs to be actual effort and resources put into securing those systems, and there will always be attrition to contend with, until the system is fully and permanently subjugated.
 
  • 1
Reactions: