Navies in Vic/EU and HoI vs. Stellaris

[TheDungen]

Maybee even a perk system where you get to pick a perk from a few ones randomly drawn from a stack cards (like the tech system) when you get an exp level, so that over time you end up with unique ships.

 

[Airowird]

Within the current system:
I think we need more differentiated computers again.
As much as I liked them streamlining ship design, the computers nowadays don't really matter anymore, because it's simply a "be better" thing, as interesting as a repeatable tech. If anything, I wish they took the concept of the Advanced Ship Behaviour Modules mod and made a secondary slot for tactical AI.
It could even be part of the computer tech, adding more advanced tactical computers in the later stages.

e.g. A standard Corvette at the start would have its basic 'systems' computer and the choice of say ... Charge and Hold Formation tactical options. The next rank of computers would then give it the Corvette computer I and allow tactics such as maintain range, defend, ... all the way up to flanking maneuvers etc. This would help create 'tank' Battleships that DO go to the front and soak damage like hell, while their comrads in the back go ham with their Tachyon Lances, Giga Cannons, Strike Craft and other long range weaponry. In my opinion, these could even have a stat balance (+5% damage/Accuracy, -10% Armor for Artillery behaviour anyone?) although that is certainly something they could leave up to modders if they prefer.

The logic with maintaining the system computer part is then
a) Hints toward intended use + RP value that the ship AI is better at balancing all systems at once.
b) Noticable improvements in ship value as you research
c) More custom tactical possibilities to counter things such as doomstacks

 

[mudcrabmerchant]

In HoI4, it's still pretty much "the best doomstack wins". Smaller navies can perform some kind of role, like commerce raiding, but the nation with the larger/more advanced navy (both factors being represented in fleet power in Stellaris) is going to win the naval war. The main difference is that land-based planes can play a significant role, but that's roughly comparable to the role that fortresses play in Stellaris.

The example of Germany's navy playing a major role despite being totally outmatched can't translate well to Stellaris. Stellaris is like HoI4, but every state of every country is an island. A large fleet of elite, unmatched commerce raiders is impressive, to be sure, but it isn't going to let you launch a successful Sealion, and it sure as hell isn't going to help you when the Brits are shelling Berlin Island with their battleships, surrounded by a 200+ destroyer screen.

IMO, it's alright that navies are just a translation of your total economic and technological power into a giant, crude sledgehammer. Like almost every other Paradox game, victory in war is primarily about preparing for war. Flashy fleet battles that end in your favor are your reward for setting that up well via good research, expansion, and/or diplomacy.

The one idea for improving the military that I really liked was about implementing something like a galactic terrain system. It won't make battles themselves more interesting, but it will make the planning phase more interesting. Stuff like FTL dead zones that create chokepoints even for non-hyperlane FTL, or areas where certain types of weapons or ships gain advantages or disadvantages (such as a nebula where tracking is severely nerfed, or one where evasion is nerfed).

 

[JPS]

I would like to see spaceships flying with more newtonian-like physics. For example a ship shouldn't be able to make a dead stop as they (at least nearly) do in Stellaris right now and it should take some time for them to gather speed.

This would make interesting space combat possibilities: Fleets would accelerate towards each other and fire while passing. Then they would start braking and accelerating again towards the enemy for another pass. Or they could try to flee after too heavy losses. This would propably require that fleets should be able to move in a specific formations (light ships as escorts etc.).

I'm not entirely sure if this would make good gameplay but it would be interesting to see. Those who have read the Lost Fleet books should understand what I'm trying vision.

--

On Spacetrade: I don't mind the lack of trading. Spacetravel should be so expensive that using spaceships to ferry stuff from on star system to other should be profitable. If it has to be implemented in-game I would like to see it being dependant on some certain technologies (e.g. sustainable enough FTL-system). And yes, by this logic the mining stations in systems without colonized planets don't really make any sense either.

 

[Technotopia]

I think Stellaris needs some logistic and/or attrition systems similar to *land* armies in EU or HOI. To discourage doomstacks, avoid losing wars after one decisive battle, add some tactical depth and help winning long war of attrition against superior military. It may also give reason to play tall, instead of trying to build mass of lo-tech ships.

Now ships just consume minerals and energy. There is only hint of supply system , because ships stationed at bases consume less.
What if supply actually needs to be transferred from bases to ships and the cost of transportation is a multplier? Number of hops needed to get supply from closest system with a starport is a factor.

Supply cost factor is:
Docked = 0.5
In system with starport = 0.8
+ 0.1 for every hop needed to get from starport to the fleet through systems in your control.
+ 0.3 for every hop through enemy controlled systems.
(Of course values above should depend on FTL type)

Attrition is a penalty for being above supply cap, which is depending on the system owner and presence/proximity of starports. Ships with insufficient supply are getting various combat maluses. So splitting fleet into lesser armadas can help avoiding it.

Third option is to change purpose of admiral skill. Instead of adding rate of fire, allow admirals control bigger fleets without penalty for mismanagement.

 

[Lys91]

What Stellaris needs:
- smaller fleet;
- ships that have chance to individually escape when they took damage << ala HoI 4 I think, they just pop back eventually in their home station/rally point
- longer reparation;
- retrofitting ship is not so easy (you can switch between vastly different design); << that also imply less +5dmg weapon that changes nothing else...
- rework the ground military too: either it does not matter, or it does and is interesting.

 

[Drakonn]

This is such an important thing. Stellaris is *screaming* for some form of civilian interstellar trade. Right now every empire is basically communism with state controlled industry. Space trading (and trade routes, smugglers, merchant organizations) is such a huge trope of most space sci-fi worlds, and it's sorely needed in Stellaris. Doing so would open up the trade interdiction method of warfare, where it's very reasonable to send a bunch of small fleets to raid your enemies trade routes to sabotage their industry, and a Doomstack has to go chasing around all the fleets (and smaller fleets can escape to hyperspace a lot faster).

Seems like something that would be a good focus for an exapansion.

Trade wars, piracy, and ensuing economic havoc when someone starts wrecking your well laid out economy really needs to be in this.

 

[Dalinski]

One way that could combat doom stacks is to filter the number of ships that enter warp in a time click. Fleets then become strung out across multiple systems if you need them to move quickly. Encouraging setting multiple Fleets in different systems to be able to react quickly or go on the attack into enemy territory.

You will also see interesting games of cat and mass and reward players for patient build of fleets in multiple systems before making a multi-fleet jump from multiple systems in an epic escalated space battle.

The BIGGEST pro to this idea is that the attack is very likely to take a certain level of attrition damage if the defender plays their cards right.

 

[Admiral]

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?

While I am not a Stellaris player, I do own a naval-focused game that I think could add to the discussion. It's called Rule the Waves, and it puts the player in command of one of the great (or growing) naval powers of the early 20th century. Like Stellaris you can build your own ships, but like HOI you also get a certain attachment to ships as well as historically large sizes. In many ways I see RTW as a gold standard, the high bar against which all naval combat and management gameplay in any game is to be judged against. Again I don't play Stellaris, but if anything I say is applicable allow me to explain what works with RTW and leave it up to you guys how to apply it:

1. "Outdated" never meant "Useless".
RTW takes place against a backdrop of immense technological change; forget any idea of a "lifespan". It is entirely possible for ships to become obsolete before they are even finished building, and even cutting-edge ships will be obsolete within a few years. Yet RTW was never frustrating because any and every ship had a purpose. Outdated destroyers could still work anti-submarine patrols, outdated cruisers could still hunt down the ever-defenseless merchant ships, and outdated battleships could still find use keeping peace in colonial regions or guard outposts against inferior opponents. If nothing else every warship still contributed to the Blockade Value, a crucial measure used in comparison to enemy fleets to determine whether you were blockaded or you were the ones doing the blockading.

2. A Nigh-Perfect Balance
RTW is one of the most fantastically balanced games of all time. Being based on real life arms races and real-life design considerations, you will see no RTW complain about something being overpowered, nor will you see players ditch entire parts of the game since they've decided it's not worth it. This is because believe it or not, it turns out real-life is pretty well balanced.

On the level of individual ships, tonnage was always a concern. Each ship has a size measured in tonnage, and bigger engines, thicker armor, and more powerful guns all takes up the tonnage of a ship. You can go over the allotted tonnage for performance penalties, or simply increase the tonnage but make the ship more expensive.

On the fleet level, balance was maintained simply by the fact that every ship type was needed. Even a single destroyer had enough torpedoes to sink a battleship, but you couldn't swarm with destroyers because even a single light cruiser could rip a flotilla to shreds. Light cruisers were small and fast enough to dodge torpedoes while armored enough to be immune from destroyer guns while also having guns that were more powerful than a destroyer's but not so big to the point where they couldn't reliably hit them, all while being fast enough to keep pace and keep distance with destroyers.

On the other hand, battleships could tear through cruisers while also taking no damage themselves and battleships, in turn, were countered by even bigger and more powerful battleships.

You, on a fundamental level, need every single kind of ship because relying on weak ships just means you'll get destroyed the moment a stronger ship comes into play. On the other hand you can't just build strong ships because cruisers are better at taking on destroyers and destroyers are valuable for their torpedoes. And this is without even considering there are some strategic and operation tasks that all-but-require certain ships. Nobody fills their anti-sub patrols with battleships, and destroyers can't raid merchant ships.

3. Real Incentives to Keep your fleet alive.

Having designed a battleship all by yourself, waiting years and spending so much money to produce it, making the fateful decision to deploy it, and seeing it go down in smoke certainly sucks, but the true incentive to keeping ships afloat was Prestige. While Prestige may sound like just another flavor for "score", it was actually a huge factor in how much income you received, and it was increased by winning battles and decreased by losing battles. The winners and losers were determined by the relative amount of "damage points" inflicted, with sunk ships being worth lots of points. By extension this meant that every battle, from the smallest destroyer skirmishes to the largest main fleet slugouts, was a chance to either decrease or increase your income.

This, in turn, meant that carelessly throwing away ships knowing you could always replace them was not an option. If you acted careless and lost ships you'd be considered the loser of the battle. If you lost a battle you'd lose prestige, which would mean less money, which would mean less money. Swarm-and-replace tactics would result in a severely slashed budget, crippling all aspects of your navy from tech research to construction.

3. Soft but Effective Restraints on Production and Size:

Obviously battleships takeyears to produce, and even destroyers take almost a full year to produce, but what makes RTW work is that it is far more expensive to build ships than refit and maintain them. A battleship can cost several million a turn to produce, but only a couple hundred thousand a turn to maintain. Since construction costs are easily an order of magnitude more than maintenance costs, navies are slow to expand. A megapower like Great Britain or late-game US might be able to build 4 or 5 battleships at once, but that will soon crawl to a stop as there are the maintenance costs themselves. Generally speaking most countries will only have between 10-20 battleships and maybe 40-90 cruisers and destroyers. No matter how there is a point at which adding more ships means you will have to mothball others, effectively negating the point of adding more ships.

4. Tactical Depth.
What if I told you that in RTW it was totally possible to take on a fleet double the size of your own and win, so long as you played smart?

In the RTW era ships lined up and fired at other lines of ships, always trying to outmaneuver the other lines and "cross the T" for maximum firepower on a single ship with minimum return fire. As an experienced player, let me tell you that this style of battle means that it is about the amount of firepower and not the number of ships. Let me give a practical example: 15 battleships vs. 5 may seem like a curbstomp, but assuming that the 5-ship fleet was able to keep towards the front end of the 15-ship fleet, most of the larger fleet's battleships will be too far behind to contribute. Thus numerical advantages are still advantages, but don't count as much as you'd think. A 15 vs. 5 battle may really only be 6 or 7 vs. 5 when you take into account that not all of the larger battleline can be engaged.

In addition, destroyers are key here. While their cheap cost may think that destroyers only lend themselves to swarm tactics, they are in fact one of the most difficult to use units in the game. While you can afford to lose quite a few, knowing when to launch a torpedo run is one of your greatest skills. A well-timed torpedo run can force enemy ships to "turn away" from your damaged capital ships or obliterate a fleet that's let itself get too close. A bad torpedo run, meanwhile, can leave half your destroyers sinking while having never made it past the light cruiser screens. One of the most important lessons I've learned in RTW is that torpedoes are not just for sinking ships but for controlling the movement of enemy ships in response to even the possibility of a torpedo attack on your part.

I call torpedoes "the great equalizer" due to the fact that they allow even small naval powers to have a fighting chance against larger ones, while at the same time not being overpowered or easy to the point where you can use them as a crutch.