Ok this is ridiculous

[kourada2]

I got hyped again for the game after the admittedly impressive new expansion. So I started playing again . God my memory is short with this game.. I start a war to liberate two planets. I am alone and strong against 5 minors that surround me. and I just lost.. My empire is large with five sectors surrounding my core worlds in the middle. The war starts I immediately defeat the main enemy occupying his 3 planets. Meanwhile the other minors have a field day with my sectors occupying planet after planet. I win every engagement and start occupying the planets of the other minors. Of course this is stellaris so naturally you cant knock opponents out of the war for.. reasons. Then suddenly a proposal for peace demanding my home world! I check the warscore -54 against me! ( All my core worlds were under my command by the way the enemies had just occupied some fringe world sectors) This is the main opponent with all his planets occupied mind you. I ll just decline I say to my self and then I see it..100 influence cost for declining!!! I have some hundred hours of stellaris under my belt and I never saw this before. Is this new? This is ridiculous! Then he starts spamming the proposal, I run out of influence, I auto accept, I rage quit and I come here to vent.

How is this a thing?? Give me penalties, war exhaustion, unrest, just anything I can have a say and deal with but this?? Auto accepting peace offer?? no this is just bad gameplay even total war games haven't stooped this low. What creative genius is behind a decision like that? Ha s he/she ever played a Paradox game before?

Why are things so automated and restrictive in this game for Gods sake? Wars just end abruptly with enemies surrendering and the player auto accepting, you cant demand things in real time and just have to stick to pre declaration demands, you cant send a counter proposal in diplomacy, forced sectors (ok this is just for sympathy points I like sectors) , artificial leader cup and so on.

This a Paradox game, things like these are solved years ago, why aren't they standardized in every game? Is it to feature them in some future DLC that the community here will cheer about as if its some new feature? I get it that stellaris is a new game and all that, but no just no. As the title says this is just ridiculous.

 

[MinerSebas]

What werde the reasons for the negative warscore?

As for the 100 influence, You lose Ghostbusters when You have -50 warscore and decline a Peace oder that the ai Wolldecke have accapted.

 

[Playwars]

I got hyped again for the game after the admittedly impressive new expansion. So I started playing again . God my memory is short with this game.. I start a war to liberate two planets. I am alone and strong against 5 minors that surround me. and I just lost.. My empire is large with five sectors surrounding my core worlds in the middle. The war starts I immediately defeat the main enemy occupying his 3 planets. Meanwhile the other minors have a field day with my sectors occupying planet after planet. I win every engagement and start occupying the planets of the other minors. Of course this is stellaris so naturally you cant knock opponents out of the war for.. reasons. Then suddenly a proposal for peace demanding my home world! I check the warscore -54 against me! ( All my core worlds were under my command by the way the enemies had just occupied some fringe world sectors) This is the main opponent with all his planets occupied mind you. I ll just decline I say to my self and then I see it..100 influence cost for declining!!! I have some hundred hours of stellaris under my belt and I never saw this before. Is this new? This is ridiculous! Then he starts spamming the proposal, I run out of influence, I auto accept, I rage quit and I come here to vent.

How is this a thing?? Give me penalties, war exhaustion, unrest, just anything I can have a say and deal with but this?? Auto accepting peace offer?? no this is just bad gameplay even total war games haven't stooped this low. What creative genius is behind a decision like that? Ha s he/she ever played a Paradox game before?

Why are things so automated and restrictive in this game for Gods sake? Wars just end abruptly with enemies surrendering and the player auto accepting, you cant demand things in real time and just have to stick to pre declaration demands, you cant send a counter proposal in diplomacy, forced sectors (ok this is just for sympathy points I like sectors) , artificial leader cup and so on.

This a Paradox game, things like these are solved years ago, why aren't they standardized in every game? Is it to feature them in some future DLC that the community here will cheer about as if its some new feature? I get it that stellaris is a new game and all that, but no just no. As the title says this is just ridiculous.

Okay, first, calm down, you don't need to blow up a fuse for this, second, you lost, what's so surprising ? You go all out 1 vs 5, and you're surprised they outmanoeuver you ? What did you thought was gonna happen ? That they would just wait until you killed them ? Of course they're going to attack ! You can't just go full offense, you also have to defend your worlds, remember that your sectors are part of your empire, and as such, need protection, you can't just ignore your enemy and go head on into their territory while they destroy your empire, that's called suicide, don't blame the game for your own mistakes.
Third, you haven't lost, you lost one planet, only one world, you can recover from it.

 

[Repeats]

The warscore system is pretty broken right now. The AI seems to get massive bonus' for occupying a single planet of yours, while you have to slog 10-20 planets to get enough for a victory. Whoever thought that the sum of an alliance planet count was a good basis for warscore should really examine the choices made. Also, the ticking warscore for planet occupation is either bugged or has been removed, so occupying a planet doesn't really matter...

 

[ZomgK3tchup]

Whoever thought that the sum of an alliance planet count was a good basis for warscore should really examine the choices made.

This.

It makes late-game wars tedious: you have to occupy a significant part of an alliance just to take 2-3 planets.

Wars would be a lot better if the war leader's planets were weighed heavier in warscore calculations and if you got ticking warscore for occupying your targets.

You can't just go full offense, you also have to defend your worlds, remember that your sectors are part of your empire, and as such, need protection, you can't just ignore your enemy and go head on into their territory while they destroy your empire, that's called suicide, don't blame the game for your own mistakes.

If I have a hundred planets, I don't care if the enemy takes a few fringe colonies. Wars don't scale well as empires get larger.

Also, it's completely reasonable to bleed your enemy with attrition tactics like this. Why shouldn't I let some minors slog through my fringe colonies while I keep my eyes on the prize?

Also, you can't knock enemies out of war, so what's the point of flying halfway across the galaxy because they occupy a couple colonies?

 

[Mackus]

Okay, first, calm down, you don't need to blow up a fuse for this, second, you lost, what's so surprising ? You go all out 1 vs 5, and you're surprised they outmanoeuver you ? What did you thought was gonna happen ? That they would just wait until you killed them ? Of course they're going to attack ! You can't just go full offense, you also have to defend your worlds, remember that your sectors are part of your empire, and as such, need protection, you can't just ignore your enemy and go head on into their territory while they destroy your empire, that's called suicide, don't blame the game for your own mistakes.
Third, you haven't lost, you lost one planet, only one world, you can recover from it.

BS. He was at -54 warscore, not at -100.
If warscore is -99 or more, it doesn't mean that one side had lost, it means that its closer to losing than to winning. That's not the same.
You shouldn't be able to enforce a wargoal, unless you won, nor should AI.

 

[FrosT37]

Okay, first, calm down, you don't need to blow up a fuse for this, second, you lost, what's so surprising ? You go all out 1 vs 5, and you're surprised they outmanoeuver you ? What did you thought was gonna happen ? That they would just wait until you killed them ? Of course they're going to attack ! You can't just go full offense, you also have to defend your worlds, remember that your sectors are part of your empire, and as such, need protection, you can't just ignore your enemy and go head on into their territory while they destroy your empire, that's called suicide, don't blame the game for your own mistakes.
Third, you haven't lost, you lost one planet, only one world, you can recover from it.

What I dislike about the current AI is that, even if you have a defensive pact with them, they will enter defensive pacts with your rivals. Therefore, when you want to attack a rival, you have to fight your allies at the same time, which makes no sense.

Please Paradox, make the "allied to rival" modifier stronger in this game, like it is in EU4.

 

[terrycloth]

This.

It makes late-game wars tedious: you have to occupy a significant part of an alliance just to take 2-3 planets.

Wars would be a lot better if the war leader's planets were weighed heavier in warscore calculations and if you got ticking warscore for occupying your targets.


If I have a hundred planets, I don't care if the enemy takes a few fringe colonies. Wars don't scale well as empires get larger.

Also, it's completely reasonable to bleed your enemy with attrition tactics like this. Why shouldn't I let some minors slog through my fringe colonies while I keep my eyes on the prize?

Also, you can't knock enemies out of war, so what's the point of flying halfway across the galaxy because they occupy a couple colonies?

You knock an enemy out of a war by destroying their fleet and occupying their planets. Usually just destroying their fleet is enough to knock them out for all practical purposes. Defense stations (or a tiny garrison fleet) can take care of the stragglers they build.

You can also sometimes recapture planets they occupy just by spamming armies. Militia on an occupied planet fight on your side, so you don't need to siege them down unless they left a garrison.

'Just ignore the enemy and let them walk all over your territory' doesn't work as well as in EU4 because you can't scrap all your fortresses to make your territory not count for warscore.

It is pretty annoying that they can demand random planets that they didn't occupy in the peace deal, but there were a lot of complaints back when you had to occupy the war targets in order to actually annex them. So it's a 'can't please everybody' kind of thing.

 

[General Retreat]

BS. He was at -54 warscore, not at -100.
If warscore is -99 or more, it doesn't mean that one side had lost, it means that its closer to losing than to winning. That's not the same.
You shouldn't be able to enforce a wargoal, unless you won, nor should AI.

-100 is an immediate auto lose. The reason for the influence cost on rejecting peace deals is because they only start occurring at the point the AI would have surrendered. So basically, yes, at that point you've lost the war - human players are just stubborn enough to fight it out.

If you throw your colonies away as bait, yes this will happen. I do fully agree that the warscore system needs amending though, particularly to include ticking score for achieved goals (I use mods for this currently) and also to seriously reconsider late game wars with large empires/alliances.

 

[C4st1gator]

Isn't the warscore gained from a blockade still greater that a successful occupation?
That used to be the case and I cannot excuse a warscore system, where occasionally you lose warscore by winning a battle. A pyrrhic victory is still that, a victory.

Also, the AI empires and the player empire are not treated equally, when it comes to the calculation of losses. Your fleet will cost you a big chunk of warscore, smashing the AI's fleet seems inconsequential as far as the warscore system is concerned.

-100 is an immediate auto lose. The reason for the influence cost on rejecting peace deals is because they only start occurring at the point the AI would have surrendered. So basically, yes, at that point you've lost the war - human players are just stubborn enough to fight it out.

If you throw your colonies away as bait, yes this will happen. I do fully agree that the warscore system needs amending though, particularly to include ticking score for achieved goals (I use mods for this currently) and also to seriously reconsider late game wars with large empires/alliances.

What is this madness? Why would you force the player to conform to retarded AI behaviour? You just need to look at history to find ample examples of wars, that were won, despite favouring the other side earlier.
This is not good design.
I mean can I pull this in Multiplayer? Just spam demands until the other player runs out of influence and has to auto agree to my demands?
I only need to get to 50% Warscore and exploit the heck out of a broken, dysfunctional warscore system?

 

[ZomgK3tchup]

You knock an enemy out of a war by destroying their fleet and occupying their planets. Usually just destroying their fleet is enough to knock them out for all practical purposes. Defense stations (or a tiny garrison fleet) can take care of the stragglers they build.

This isn't a reason for why I can't negotiate peace with individual empires. I don't want to babysit a mostly occupied empire because it believes that literally every war it fights must be fought to the bitter end.

'Just ignore the enemy and let them walk all over your territory' doesn't work as well as in EU4 because you can't scrap all your fortresses to make your territory not count for warscore.

This is a viable strategy depending on the size of the enemy fleet since they presumably have to fight through whatever stations you've built. In fact, the whole point of military stations is exactly this: wear down your enemy while your fleet is either in transit or is fighting elsewhere.

It is pretty annoying that they can demand random planets that they didn't occupy in the peace deal, but there were a lot of complaints back when you had to occupy the war targets in order to actually annex them. So it's a 'can't please everybody' kind of thing.

I didn't say that you should have to occupy war targets, but you should get a ticking warscore for sitting on your war target for a long period of time, i.e., the enemy has been unable to reclaim the war target for so long that their populous and/or their government is losing the will to fight for it.

 

[kourada2]

Okay, first, calm down, you don't need to blow up a fuse for this, second, you lost, what's so surprising ? You go all out 1 vs 5, and you're surprised they outmanoeuver you ? What did you thought was gonna happen ? That they would just wait until you killed them ? Of course they're going to attack ! You can't just go full offense, you also have to defend your worlds, remember that your sectors are part of your empire, and as such, need protection, you can't just ignore your enemy and go head on into their territory while they destroy your empire, that's called suicide, don't blame the game for your own mistakes.
Third, you haven't lost, you lost one planet, only one world, you can recover from it.

Did you even read what I wrote? I did not lose, that's what's so infuriating. I won every battle without losing a single ship! My fleet was intact, my core planets were intact and the enemy didn't even come close to them, I occupied all of my main opponents planets and lost a bunch of planets in one big sector in the other side of the galaxy.

That's how its done in stellaris, you cant split your forces into multiple fleets its doomstack battle after doomstack battle. Inevitably when facing multiple forces on all fronts you are going to lose planets there is no way to defend only to attack. I'm all all for facing the consequences of letting my sectors fall but the decision to end the war still has to be up to the player.
Auto accepting a peace deal or any deal, for that matter, is not a part of any paradox game. Choice and consequence that's what is all about.

If it seems I m blowing up a fuse its because games like these are a significant investment of time and money. When something is broken and it ruins your game its a big deal, you feel cheated. I don't generally post on these forums I only visit to read and stay informed. But this I had to share it was a big let down for me.

 

[Emraldis]

Did you even read what I wrote? I did not lose, that's what's so infuriating. I won every battle without losing a single ship! My fleet was intact, my core planets were intact and the enemy didn't even come close to them, I occupied all of my main opponents planets and lost a bunch of planets in one big sector in the other side of the galaxy.

That's how its done in stellaris, you cant split your forces into multiple fleets its doomstack battle after doomstack battle. Inevitably when facing multiple forces on all fronts you are going to lose planets there is no way to defend only to attack. I'm all all for facing the consequences of letting my sectors fall but the decision to end the war still has to be up to the player.
Auto accepting a peace deal or any deal, for that matter, is not a part of any paradox game. Choice and consequence that's what is all about.

If it seems I m blowing up a fuse its because games like these are a significant investment of time and money. When something is broken and it ruins your game its a big deal, you feel cheated. I don't generally post on these forums I only visit to read and stay informed. But this I had to share it was a big let down for me.

but you still lost a bunch of planets somewhere, apparently enough to offset your warscore. You should probably have focused on retaking those first. I'm not defending the implementation of the system, just pointing out that retaking your own planets was probably a higher priority...

 

[Tim_Ward]

If there's going to be a mechanic like this, then I would suggest the following changes should be made

1) Warscore should give a lot more weight who has the greater force, you shouldn't be being hit for 100 influence at 54% warscore if you've just crushed their fleet and are about to roll over them with a massive doom stack
2) The size of the influence hit should scale to the type of peace being offered - refusing white peace when you've got occupied worlds should cost you influence, but not be required to give up your homeworld and 2 other core worlds because they enemy occupied a few sector planets
3) Can we not have this thing where the AI picks it's wargoals with a dart board, for maximum bordergorn? Like, maybe scale warscore costs with a distance modifier so as to encourage empires to pick wargoals which preserve contiguous borders?

EDIT: can we also have cool wargoals like 'break alliance with x' from EU4? The network of alliances makes tends to make for a static midgame and beyond.

 

[praftd]

BS. He was at -54 warscore, not at -100.
If warscore is -99 or more, it doesn't mean that one side had lost, it means that its closer to losing than to winning. That's not the same.
You shouldn't be able to enforce a wargoal, unless you won, nor should AI.

Warscore doesn't mean the same thing it does in CK2 and the like.

Warscore calculates how much is needed to take planets. So if the AI only wants 1 planet for 14 warscore, if you are at -50. You lost as they only needed half that to take the planet.

You can reject it for awhile at the cost of influence, but unless you bounce back quickly you lost.

 

[C4st1gator]

Warscore doesn't mean the same thing it does in CK2 and the like.

Warscore calculates how much is needed to take planets. So if the AI only wants 1 planet for 14 warscore, if you are at -50. You lost as they only needed half that to take the planet.

You can reject it for awhile at the cost of influence, but unless you bounce back quickly you lost.

No? I'be been there. If you have just enough to humiliate and peace out, the AI will still reject proposals unless you force 100%.
The war fatigue modifier has to kick in before the AI would even consider that demand.

The elephant in the room is Multiplayer, though. Can I inflict this on another player? If so, this is broken beyond a mere crutch for the AI.
If I can drain another player's influence pool during a war and then override his ability to reject my demands, this is a priority issue.

 

[praftd]

...because games like these are a significant investment of time and money. When something is broken and it ruins your game its a big deal, you feel cheated. I don't generally post on these forums I only visit to read and stay informed. But this I had to share it was a big let down for me.

No offense, but if you see Stellaris as a "time investment" that feels wasted just because you lose, I don't really see why you are still playing the game. Same goes for any game.

---

I think everyone agrees the warscore system needs major tweaking, but the game currently sees all planets as equal weight.

If you were losing so many planets you should have taken them back. If you were at -54 warscore then the AI must have taken quite a few of your planets.

 

[praftd]

No? I'be been there. If you have just enough to humiliate and peace out, the AI will still reject proposals unless you force 100%.

I rarely fight wars to wars to 100% The AI usually just gives up or takes your demands. I'd say less than a quarter of my wars end at 100%.

Must be your bad luck then. Sometimes they do, but if you send them a couple times they take it eventually.

If I can drain another player's influence pool during a war and then override his ability to reject my demands, this is a priority issue.

Influence is only drained if he rejects demands. All he would have to do is give up.

And you canno propose demands until your warscore matches the demands.

The game will not let you submit a demand for a 39 warscore planet if you are at 0.

 

[Kat Tsun]

No offense, but if you see Stellaris as a "time investment" that feels wasted just because you lose, I don't really see why you are still playing the game. Same goes for any game.

I think everyone agrees the warscore system needs tweaking, but the game currently sees all planets as equal weight.

If you were losing so many planets you should have taken them back.

http://dwarffortresswiki.org/index.php/DF2014:Fun

 

[TerrBear]

Urhm they all have auto accepting peace deals, CK2 and the EU series do it differently but they do have auto accepting peace deals if you're destroyed.
Clearly you should have seen how the warscore was going and think shit I need to reclaim those worlds as im losing but you didn't... and so you lost... and now you will know next time.