Ok this is ridiculous

[TerrBear]

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.

The war length factors into it accepting a peace deal as does the might be purged modifier etc but that isn't the same as having to get 100% warscore to just humiliate you're being ridiculous.
I think if you were to remove this then in multiplayer people could just ignore your demands for example "nah you have taken half my planets but im going to make you capture every single one till i let you get the 1-3 planets you want.".

 

[Stadhouder]

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.

If you let enough of your planet get occupied to get to -54 warscore, you've clearly choose the wrong strategy for the war. You can actually split your fleet, you don't have to doomstack. You should have split your fleet and defended your 'fringe' worlds. You still have your core worlds, so what, so had 4 out of your 5 enemies. You can't see sectors of foreign empires, and that is because it doesn't matter. Core or sector worlds is an internal thing only, in war a planet is a planet and the only thing that matters is it's size.

Sure the war score system could use some tweaks, but that the game needs to be played by it's current rules, not as how you wish the rules are. And for the current rules your approach was not optimal and so you lost.

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?

1. They apparently had enough fleet left to take down space port and planetary fortifications. Although I agree that military might should be factored in, there should also be a possibility of asymmetric warfare. Let's turn it around, an AE attacks your federation, your main fleet get's crushed but with the federation fleet and and the help of your AI allies you manage to occupie some of their planets in a faster pace than they're occupying you, you get to +54 warscore, but the AE refuses to accept any peace deal in your favour because they have a bigger fleet. Would be pretty annoying wouldn't it?
2. You pay influence if you refuse a peace deal the AI would accept. Since they AI would sooner accept a white peace as a peace in which you make demands, this is already the case. As a player you already have an advantage since you have a choice to pay influence if you think you can turn the war around soon. Soon as in a few months, not in a few years.
3. I fully agree.

 

[Cagliostro]

There are many problems with war score and war generally, and how it works now. This will hopefully be fixed over time, but we'll see.

But for god's sake, if you go to war in a Paradox game, check your war score; don't just let it run up without looking at it. That's freakin' crazy. This might have been preventable if you were looking at how much war value things actually are in the game (whatever version it is). If the game actually tells you how well you're doing in a war, look at it.

 

[praftd]

There are many problems with war score and war generally, and how it works now. This will hopefully be fixed over time, but we'll see.

But for god's sake, if you go to war in a Paradox game, check your war score; don't just let it run up without looking at it. That's freakin' crazy. This might have been preventable if you were looking at how much war value things actually are in the game (whatever version it is). If the game actually tells you how well you're doing in a war, look at it.

Pretty much sums up this thread.

I think everyone here can agree the warscore has major issues. Like, core planets should be worth more than fringe ones. However, if you were at -54 even after capturing a few of their planets, that means they had to have taken quite of a few of yours. Which means you let that go on for quite some time and did nothing about it.

Crappy warscore or not, warscore is the end-all-be-all. The moment you saw that thing drop into negative, you should have B-lined to smash their fleets and take those planets back.

 

[Kat Tsun]

There are many problems with war score and war generally, and how it works now. This will hopefully be fixed over time, but we'll see.

But for god's sake, if you go to war in a Paradox game, check your war score; don't just let it run up without looking at it. That's freakin' crazy. This might have been preventable if you were looking at how much war value things actually are in the game (whatever version it is). If the game actually tells you how well you're doing in a war, look at it.

tl;dr "git gud"?

Perhaps this is more akin to simply "know the genre you're playing" though.

 

[Cagliostro]

tl;dr "git gud"?

Perhaps this is more akin to simply "know the genre you're playing" though.

Yeah, I was trying to actually give productive advice - check whether the *game* thinks you are winning the war, not whether you think you are.

 

[Lehran]

This is not some kind of new mechanic. EU4 does it too. If you decline a offer, that is 50 WS better than the current WS, you lose 1 stability. If you cannot afford this, you autoaccept (So declining a 20 WS offer at - 70 WS).
This systems are especially created for multiplayer to be able to force someone to peace. Without this, human players could seriously hurt their enemy by just refusing to ever make peace. I don't know how the actual numbers are in Stellaris. When exactly do you have pay influence to decline?

 

[Mackus]

This is not some kind of new mechanic. EU4 does it too. If you decline a offer, that is 50 WS better than the current WS, you lose 1 stability. If you cannot afford this, you autoaccept (So declining a 20 WS offer at - 70 WS).
This systems are especially created for multiplayer to be able to force someone to peace. Without this, human players could seriously hurt their enemy by just refusing to ever make peace. I don't know how the actual numbers are in Stellaris. When exactly do you have pay influence to decline?

It made sense in Eu4.
But Stellaris already has mechanic for forcing peace. Get to 100%, enforce the peace. Influence cost for rejecting peace offers is redundant.

 

[Mackus]

I want "Great Patriotic War" Ascension Perk, that makes you immune to influence cost for rejecting peace offers, and your enemy cannot enforce cede/liberate/cleanse planet war goals on planets he doesn't occupy.

 

[Tim_Ward]

1. They apparently had enough fleet left to take down space port and planetary fortifications. Although I agree that military might should be factored in, there should also be a possibility of asymmetric warfare. Let's turn it around, an AE attacks your federation, your main fleet get's crushed but with the federation fleet and and the help of your AI allies you manage to occupie some of their planets in a faster pace than they're occupying you, you get to +54 warscore, but the AE refuses to accept any peace deal in your favour because they have a bigger fleet. Would be pretty annoying wouldn't it?

No? Why would they?

Let's remember what the whole war score / influence penalty concept is supposed to represent - an abstract model to represent the political/diplomatic side of warfare, and the difficulty in prolonging a war you're obviously not winning. If the system is producing situations that don't represent that very well, then it's failed.

The AE in that situation *isn't losing* they have the capability to go and simply retake the worlds you've managed to occupy there would be no internal pressure for them to make peace at the cost of ceding territory, quite the opposite.

 

[Drakonn]

the sum of an alliance planet count was a good basis for warscore

Probably my number one issue here. The scoring should depend on the main two fighting it out. If I can take all my war goals before my enemies allies can react to defend him then should I not have won the war?

Granted, this leads to surprise wars probably being the best and quick strategies number one. I'm all for having allies come to the rescue and kick off a foreign power off an allies soil but surely there is a middle ground here. Maybe wargoals being occupied giving a larger percentage towards winning? (techs that decrease warscore cost/let you set more demands per war are a separate issue i feel). Now, if two Federations are involved then it should scale higher.

there were a lot of complaints back when you had to occupy the war targets in order to actually annex them.

Wait, what really? Honestly, this bugs me the most about wars. When I occupy my wargoals and don't win. (though that's probably tied to the dumb scaling of Defensive Pact Allie's planets counting for the warscore needed as well.)

Isn't the warscore gained from a blockade still greater that a successful occupation?

Still is bugged that way yes. Submitted a bug report a while back on that. Didn't hear anything.

 

[prismaticmarcus]

Why shouldn't I let some minors slog through my fringe colonies while I keep my eyes on the prize?

because you might end up with -54 warscore

 

[Angelic_Daemon]

You should always be weary of the warscore in Stellaris, as far as I know in EUIV you won't peace out at 100%, you do, however, in Stellaris. But like EUIV if you're below -50% you can be stab hit, in this case you lose influence, once that's all gone you lose. Get the score above -50% and you can't be forced out.

 

[C4st1gator]

The war length factors into it accepting a peace deal as does the might be purged modifier etc but that isn't the same as having to get 100% warscore to just humiliate you're being ridiculous.

What I meant to say was, that the AI will not accept peace, if you just started a war. Some time needs to pass in order to make the AI even want to sue for peace.

I think if you were to remove this then in multiplayer people could just ignore your demands for example "nah you have taken half my planets but im going to make you capture every single one till i let you get the 1-3 planets you want.".

I already managed to turn worse situations around. Early game War against advanced AI Empire. Granted, the AI I fought was using a full missile fleet, so I only needed to prolong that early war until I had point defense. After that the enemy lost their fleet and got liberated.

Then again, I can take more than 1-3 planets. Closer to 5-7.

But still, many situations can be salvaged. The influence drain is a stupid mechanism. The reason is, that I can drain another player's leader pool, colonization ability and other things, by spamming white peace demands. I could potentially do this as the aggressor even!
Maybe in the future you lose unity, or the People eventually tire of you and your ruler is deposed via coup d'etat, but this mechanic is too exploitable.
It works in EU4, because diplomacy in that game is actually engaging and interesting. (And you don't need to pay unity for leaders and expansion.)
Meanwhile, I can't even send mercenaries, or lend lease equipment to my friends to support them indirectly.
Nor can I trade planets with other empires.
The warscore system should be more like CK2, in that the majority of warscore is gained through the actual war targets.

Also, I can't imagine that you would just let a another player run off with your homeworld. I'd rather fight until all is said and done, than give out my first planet.

Also, am I the only one who would like to see, that you can only annex a planet that is occupied? It makes sense, if you think about it. Why should the People of the planet "boule de glace" allow another empire to take over, when they were not involved in any fight?

Liberation is different, since you just tell them they gain self determination, but even then, if the ethics of the people are too drastically different from the puppet government you set up, I'd like to see them rise up and depose of the foreign puppet. Maybe they should even try to reunite with their parent empire.

 

[ZomgK3tchup]

because you might end up with -54 warscore

Yes, and I consider that a problem.

Like I said before, wars scale poorly in Stellaris.

 

[mergele]

Why beeing at -54 warscore is and should be problem?
"Our totally superior army has occupied Danzig. On other news, aside from Danzig the poles now control everything east of the rhine."
That is what -54 warscore means.

 

[Cagliostro]

There is a very simple reason war score is broken at present. After your navy is of sufficient size to overwhelm stations, planets are easy to take and trivial to hold.

That means that you need to have a war score system that prioritizes sheer number of planets to show 'winning'. It makes obvious war score prioritizations, like 'control what you're asking for', not really practical, because holding two worlds forever costs you nothing if your fleet is bigger than the enemy's fleet. It makes for weird conceptualizations, like 'blockading a planet gives you more war score than controlling it'. That is logical in a system where blockading a planet is harder than controlling a planet. But it's not logical in a reality-based system.

Armies are a total afterthought. You don't need armies to control a planet, and the planet will never revolt - and if it somehow does, the citizens of your occupied planet will rise up to defend you from the rebels. You only need to win the war; there is no 'winning the peace'.

Look, if you want a realistic overhaul of war score mechanics, you have to include the concept that holding on to a packed civilized world full of billions of people (deeply alien people, who may in fact know for a fact you plan to exterminate and/or eat them) is somehow challenging, and perhaps more challenging than blowing their navy out of space. Once you start having worlds that are difficult to secure, war can start becoming something other than doomstack vs. doomstack.

 

[Marinaliteyears]

I like the current system, though planetary warscore values should probably be tweaked.

I mean, when I first noticed that declining a peace offer drained influence, I was deep in a losing war, and hoping to build back up to pull a surprise victory, or atleast scan enough debris to make up for the loss with valuable tech, And I felt pretty peeved at the time, but in hindsight, I think its a neat way to make a decision when it comes to war, do you push the war, and risk your influence, or do you peace out to maintain? (for the Record, I won the war, and barely had enough influence to weather the bad part of it, but it was my stockpile of influence that kept me in long enough to turn things around, and I loved the idea that my leaders barely kept up spirits until the turning point.)

Also, It should be noted that declining a peace offer doesn't drain influence when the offer isn't 'reasonable', so its not like the AI can tank your influence when they are losing, From my experience. Unless you do something silly like, Oh I don't know, ignore the majority of your empire as unimportant sector planets, I suppose.

 

[Kat Tsun]

Look, if you want a realistic overhaul of war score mechanics, you have to include the concept that holding on to a packed civilized world full of billions of people (deeply alien people, who may in fact know for a fact you plan to exterminate and/or eat them) is somehow challenging, and perhaps more challenging than blowing their navy out of space. Once you start having worlds that are difficult to secure, war can start becoming something other than doomstack vs. doomstack.

Please provide real world data corroborating your claims that control of deep space and faster-than-light travel do not constitute sufficient control over a planet's population. Martian Revolt of 1904 doesn't count because the British Empire lacked thermal imaging sights to see the Martian swordsmen.

Or in other words, what you're saying is the easiest and best method of balancing the game is to remove armies altogether. Don't worry, it's probably going to happen. When your only means of controlling a planet are "sit boats above it to bomb them so they can't make another spaceport", it's really easy to break up doomstacks. Especially if you need a fleet of certain strength rather than a single corvette or something.

I suppose that means super hard mega industrial worlds will need 30 or more fortification damage daily to remain "pacified"?

The actual problem with space combat is simple: armies let you control planets without doing a thing. Thus, remove the source of the problem and make spaceships the centerpiece instead of the sideshow. Remove armies. Remove "ground combat" as it exists. Require the player to put effort into controlling planets rather than being able to hop around with a doomstack or two and playing planetary checkers. Problem solved.

 

[Cagliostro]

Please provide real world data corroborating your claims that control of deep space and faster-than-light travel do not constitute sufficient control over a planet's population. Martian Revolt of 1904 doesn't count because the British Empire lacked thermal imaging sights to see the Martian swordsmen.

Or in other words, what you're saying is the easiest and best method of balancing the game is to remove armies altogether. Don't worry, it's probably going to happen. When your only means of controlling a planet are "sit boats above it to bomb them so they can't make another spaceport", it's really easy to break up doomstacks.

I just mean that it shouldn't be a trivial task to hold 15 billion aliens in bondage, with no men at all, when the explicit war goal is to murder every last one of those aliens.