I saw some comments about the large (and easy to produce) masses of military ships used in Stellaris, sometimes called Doomstacks, which are often described as "faceless" or "generic".
A comparison with the other big Paradox brands gives me the impression that there are actually two different ideas about naval warfare in the works of the Paradox Development Team.
Firstly, Navies in Vic and EU are similar to Stellaris, they are easy to produce, come in large quantities, and must be updated quite often.
Some characteristics, weighed against each other after my opinion:
Pro:
- historic lifespan (Ships wouldn't survive 300 Years or the impact of the industrialization)
- historic and logical quantities (Hundreds/Thousands of ships for large colonial empires like Great Britain and France)
- little micromanagement
Contra:
- Little Roleplay, Ships seldomly leave an impression with the player, names become irrelevant in late gameplay
- Losses are easily reproducible, multiple waves of freshly produced ships in larger wars
- Little to no tactical gameplay, Doomstacks just fight each other
- Bases have no use, only an "Open Sea Doctrine", battling other doomstacks, is successful
Secondly, the Hearts of Iron way of simulating naval warfare focuses on individual ships and different tactics. Rather than just producing doomstacks, the player has to choose between different production goals and various tactics to control the sea, using either the control of naval bases to prevent the enemy from reaching its territory due to supply shortages, Air units to weaken fleets, concentrated large-ship fleets to destroy enemy squadrons, or smaller squadrons to control a larger territory, submarine anti-supply warfare, or coastal defense.
Few countries in the HoI timeline were able to outproduce all other countries, which makes the gameplay more challenging. Time is as important as industrial capability, as is technology and strategy.
Pro:
- Historic and logical as well, up to 200 - 300 ships
- high immersion, one can follow the killing count of ships and their names stay for most of the game
- Admirals make a difference and are recognizable
- Different successful tactics
- Different production goals
- Victories feel more rewarding
- limited fleet size (in total and in battle; no doomstacks)
Contra:
- more micromanagement
- easily frustrating if Ships need 1/5 of the games time to complete and are quickly destroyed afterwards
- Defeats are more painful
In my opinion, the approach used in HoI is much more fun. Navies aren't just numbers and statistics. The vessels have a history, which the player can follow, through killing statistics, as well as the higher importance and significance of individual ships. Strategies differ more, and multiple approaches can be equally successful. Tactical differences are highlighted through three major "Navy Policies", that either emphasize on battle ships/cruisers, carriers, or submarines.
The problem with Stellaris is, that no one knows how naval warfare will turn out if resources and production capability become nearly infinite. EU and Vic also represent much larger timeframes, with multiple technological breakthroughs, thus being more suitable to Stellaris' timeframe.
But I still think one could combine elements of both approaches, to make warfare in general more interesting. Here are some ideas on how to improve Stellaris Naval Warfare, in my humble opinion:
a) different sets of mutually exclusive fleet strategies and technologies
b) production concentration based on those strategies
c) highly fluctuation of smaller ships (every 15-30 years or so on average) combined with longer lifespans of cruisers and battle ships (up to 150 years), maybe based on policy
d) taking crew education (something like sailors in EU?) into account, so no complete rebuild in 1-2 years if the entire (!) fleet was annihilated
e) expand supply management by enhancing the importance of space bases
f) Kill Count for ships (e.g. "This Battle-Ship has destroyed 3 Blorg-Cruisers, 1 Zenon-Destroyer and 1 Space-Fox Naval Station)
e) Flagships with bonuses
What do you think?
A comparison with the other big Paradox brands gives me the impression that there are actually two different ideas about naval warfare in the works of the Paradox Development Team.
Firstly, Navies in Vic and EU are similar to Stellaris, they are easy to produce, come in large quantities, and must be updated quite often.
Some characteristics, weighed against each other after my opinion:
Pro:
- historic lifespan (Ships wouldn't survive 300 Years or the impact of the industrialization)
- historic and logical quantities (Hundreds/Thousands of ships for large colonial empires like Great Britain and France)
- little micromanagement
Contra:
- Little Roleplay, Ships seldomly leave an impression with the player, names become irrelevant in late gameplay
- Losses are easily reproducible, multiple waves of freshly produced ships in larger wars
- Little to no tactical gameplay, Doomstacks just fight each other
- Bases have no use, only an "Open Sea Doctrine", battling other doomstacks, is successful
Secondly, the Hearts of Iron way of simulating naval warfare focuses on individual ships and different tactics. Rather than just producing doomstacks, the player has to choose between different production goals and various tactics to control the sea, using either the control of naval bases to prevent the enemy from reaching its territory due to supply shortages, Air units to weaken fleets, concentrated large-ship fleets to destroy enemy squadrons, or smaller squadrons to control a larger territory, submarine anti-supply warfare, or coastal defense.
Few countries in the HoI timeline were able to outproduce all other countries, which makes the gameplay more challenging. Time is as important as industrial capability, as is technology and strategy.
Pro:
- Historic and logical as well, up to 200 - 300 ships
- high immersion, one can follow the killing count of ships and their names stay for most of the game
- Admirals make a difference and are recognizable
- Different successful tactics
- Different production goals
- Victories feel more rewarding
- limited fleet size (in total and in battle; no doomstacks)
Contra:
- more micromanagement
- easily frustrating if Ships need 1/5 of the games time to complete and are quickly destroyed afterwards
- Defeats are more painful
In my opinion, the approach used in HoI is much more fun. Navies aren't just numbers and statistics. The vessels have a history, which the player can follow, through killing statistics, as well as the higher importance and significance of individual ships. Strategies differ more, and multiple approaches can be equally successful. Tactical differences are highlighted through three major "Navy Policies", that either emphasize on battle ships/cruisers, carriers, or submarines.
The problem with Stellaris is, that no one knows how naval warfare will turn out if resources and production capability become nearly infinite. EU and Vic also represent much larger timeframes, with multiple technological breakthroughs, thus being more suitable to Stellaris' timeframe.
But I still think one could combine elements of both approaches, to make warfare in general more interesting. Here are some ideas on how to improve Stellaris Naval Warfare, in my humble opinion:
a) different sets of mutually exclusive fleet strategies and technologies
b) production concentration based on those strategies
c) highly fluctuation of smaller ships (every 15-30 years or so on average) combined with longer lifespans of cruisers and battle ships (up to 150 years), maybe based on policy
d) taking crew education (something like sailors in EU?) into account, so no complete rebuild in 1-2 years if the entire (!) fleet was annihilated
e) expand supply management by enhancing the importance of space bases
f) Kill Count for ships (e.g. "This Battle-Ship has destroyed 3 Blorg-Cruisers, 1 Zenon-Destroyer and 1 Space-Fox Naval Station)
e) Flagships with bonuses
What do you think?
- 16
- 5
- 1
