Ok this is ridiculous

[methegrate]

Ideally the game would have a 10-way split be better than a doomstack. So by the time a doomstack has hunted down let's say 5 of the sub-fleets, the doomstack player has lost. However, all else being equal, a 5-way split should be able to kill the 10-way split 5x faster than a doomstack (each battle takes somewhat longer and more losses, but 5 hunter fleets could also more easily trap a raiding fleet). So you try to set the parameters such that a raiding strategy can win before a doomstack can take them down, while it will be wiped out by a 5-way split before being able to achieve enough warscore. Theoretically I think there should be room in between those two.

Agreed. But we have to remember that any system which can be min/maxed, will be. So the catch is making sure that a doom stack could beat the 5-way split (good strategy name, the "hunter fleet"). To take our hypothetical again:

- Raiders can take territory faster than a doom stack, so they win, but

- Hunters can kill raiders faster than they can take territory, so they win, but

- Doom stacks can ...? Maybe overpower hunters, but without some new function we'd have to be super careful. I feel like it would be tough to keep balanced without the scales tipping to one side or another.

Alternative might be the system defenses you mention below. If it costs a lot to invest in system defenses (or fleet cap) then a player can absolutely turtle to shut down raiders, but a doom stack can smash through.

I think part of this is a question of how quickly you can react to changes in your opponent's ship distribution. That depends on how easily you can tell where they are and how quickly you can concentrate or disperse your fleets (or change their existing orders). I think slower-moving fleets with limited sensor range and orders that can't be quickly reversed would make for more satisfying operational gameplay.

Interesting! I would actually go in the opposite direction and say that a more responsive battlefield would be better. If I see them doom stacking, I respond by splitting my fleet, and they respond with hunter packs, etc. I would think that much larger sensor grids and faster fleets would make wars more fluid and interesting.

Like in the OP's situation, if I could see their fleets coming in time, I could change up my strategy.

The other element I think would help would be more variance in system defenses. So you have fringe systems that don't require a strong fleet to capture, moderately defended systems where you can do some damage to mining and so but which would require strong forces to actually take the planet, and fortress systems where you'd need a highly concentrated force to even survive a raid and taking the planets would be a long siege.

Yeah... system defenses are the part I keep wondering about. Stronger defenses could also counter raiders, but it would create two potential problems:

- If they're too easy to build, then everyone does it and raiders aren't viable anymore.

- If they're expensive to build, then they make a good third way (stops raiders, but doom stacks can smash through). But you have no flexibility. You're completely invested in those immobile bases, and an offensive war might be next to impossible because all your resources are stuck in place.

Other options, though, might include:

Strong system defenses need influence to build? Could allow for the situation you describe above, where you can lightly defend outposts and fortify the living crap out of a few worlds, but have to be choosey. (Imho influence should be a much bigger part of the game. As the only truly limited resource, it could play a huge role in making empire-defining choices.)

Defense strength builds up over time? So a defensive station that's been orbiting Earth for 100 years can take on entire fleets, but a platform I chucked up on an outpost can handle little more than pirates.

 

[Nosforontu]

One idea that I just had while reading this is regarding WS tweaking is, what if neg warscore counted each month as a source of negative influence at 1/10th the value of the negative warscore value. For example you are at -54 warscore divide that by 10 and you are at negative 5.4 influence that month. Turning down peace treaties might cost as much as your war score value under this system. The system could be further tweaked with ideas like perhaps you lose influence each month during a defensive war or while your fleet has a higher fleet strength than the enemy.

 

[Silversweeeper]

The 100 influence drain and eventual auto-accept is comparable with the EU4 stab hit and eventual auto-accept if you refuse a generous peace offer that the AI would accept in your position, though perhaps a bit harsher as 100 influence tends to be a bit harder to gain than 100-ish ADM with a decent ruler. Without such a mechanic, the only way to make the AI behave similar to the player would be to code it to basically never agree to anything other than a white peace until WS has been brought to 100 %, which would lead to bad gameplay as a strong empire trying to do a very minor border adjustment still would need to go for 100 % WS against someone that has no chance.

The inability to change your demands during a war is a bit annoying, yes, particularly if there are other ongoing wars and some third party snags the planets you declared for. However, it is comparable to the CK2 system where only a few CBs allow you to take something beyond the title(s) you declare for, so there is a precedent for that in other PDS games, and with allied wars generally requiring that more than one ally gets part of the spoils it would be messy if you had to have a vote on a revised proposal and exploitable if that was not necessary as you could change the terms to get more planets for yourself.

The ability to take non-occupied planets (especially the capital/home world) without 100 % WS (or a surrender) is rather annoying, though as the demands can't be changed and the AI is somewhat poor at picking planets close to its empire to demand it would be a bit powerful if you only needed to hold on to the planets that it demands and could let the rest of your empire burn as long as you didn't drop to -100 % WS. However, I think that it might be a good thing to make the capital impossible to demand without a complete surrender (or even to make it impossible to cede except as part of a full annexation), as many empires probably would be willing to cede quite a bit before even considering handing over their capital (and, in some RP instances, literally would sacrifice everything before letting the capital fall to another power).

 

[DeathSheep]

It would be nice to see combat rebalanced somewhat to make using fixed defenses a more viable option. I mean, in my most recent game, I had two fleets of 20 BBs, 20 CAs, 20 DDs and 40 corvettes stooging around, with 35,000 to 40,000 combat power (very near the top of the tech tree in all categories) depending on which one had an attached admiral. But, the most you can have for static planetary defenses is about 4,000, with a starbase and a fortress. The exclusion zones make it very, very difficult to build multiple fortifications that can support each other.

 

[Drowe]

To really solve the problem, there needs to be a mechanic that alters the current balance and make doomstacks not the "best" option. If you apply game theory to the problem, you can see if there is a solution in which neither side can change anything without getting a worse result. Currently that's doomstacks, splitting up your fleet makes them vulnerable to be attacked separately and that is exactly what the opponent is going to attempt by keeping his fleet together. And once one side has lost their fleet, in most cases the war is decided. A player might be able to turn it around, but the AI almost never will recover.

To change this, every kind of fleet distribution needs to have a counter strategy. So splitting your fleet makes it vulnerable to getting wiped by a larger fleet, but if you manage to catch the larger fleet between your two smaller fleets, you gain a decisive advantage. A mechanism like that would make doomstacks still a viable choice but splitting your fleet is equally viable if you plan the battle right. Might be hard to teach the AI to be so flexible though.

Another way might be, to create either a downside for doomstacks or an upside to splitting your fleet. One way to do that is to have sectors demand that a certain portion of your fleet gets assigned to them. They may become unhappy if too few ships are protecting them, but on the other hand they pay a portion of their upkeep (either paying the full cost but before taxes are applied or paying part of the cost with their income after taxes).

It could also be achieved by punishing doomstacks with stacking penalties, the more ships take part in an engagement, the less effective each individual ship becomes. At some point adding more ships will provide little actual fleet power. Or by setting a limit how many ships a leader can command without losing combat effectiveness, with each additional leader having their cap lowered while fighting in the same battle

Example: You have 150 ships, for a total of 1500 power, your leaders are capped at 50 ships each. Putting all ships in one fleet gives a big penalty to each ship, let's say 0.5% per ship over the cap, in this case reducing your fleet power effectively to 750 or 50%. Splitting them up in two fleets gives you a 25% reduction on the first fleet giving you 563 plus the second fleet now with a cap of 45 giving you a 27.5% reduction adding 544 fleet power to a total of 1107 fleet power. Adding a third one with an even distribution gives you 50+45+40 fleet cap, if each one has 50 ships you get 500 + 488 + 475 for a total of 1463 fleet power. (All numbers are arbitrary and just an example, especially the penalty additional fleets suffer probably has to be higher) This would break up doomstacks into smaller fleets, making a strategy of small reaction forces possible, but comes at a price of a lot more micro. So maybe not the best idea.

 

[Drakonn]

imho the only change that should be made is that demands can not be forced on planets that are NOT occupied or at least blockaded for X months. So for the AI to influence drain and force surrender of your homeworld it should've had to occupy it first.

It makes for a way more sensible game

-edit- also the technique to deal with this is to not click on the peace offers, and let them expire automatically, this gives you a bit more time to take back enough planets before the AI can force you. If I recall correctly the moment you decline the AI can send another offer.

Agree except for the blockading part as the player can always just cheese it and leave one corvette in orbit.

 

[EntropyAvatar]

- Doom stacks can ...? Maybe overpower hunters, but without some new function we'd have to be super careful. I feel like it would be tough to keep balanced without the scales tipping to one side or another.

Doom stacks should be better than hunters, since they will tend to severely outnumber the smaller fleets. It's an interesting question of whether the balance pattern of small < medium < large < small tends to work out in practice or not. Originally in Stellaris, they wanted to have that pattern or the various ship sizes but I think messed up the details.

Interesting! I would actually go in the opposite direction and say that a more responsive battlefield would be better. If I see them doom stacking, I respond by splitting my fleet, and they respond with hunter packs, etc. I would think that much larger sensor grids and faster fleets would make wars more fluid and interesting.

Like in the OP's situation, if I could see their fleets coming in time, I could change up my strategy.

I think fast fleets and good detectors tend to lead to simplistic strategy that favors doomstacks. The ability to quickly change up your strategy makes it less of a strategy and more of a tactical decision. More like hitting the block button in a fighting game than a chess move. As ship speeds increase and sensor coverage gets better, where your ships are right now matters less and you ability to quickly order them to a new place matters more. At the limit, when you know where everything is and ships can move instantly anywhere, it's going to be all about reaction speed. Much easier to grab one doomstack than adjust the vectors of a dozen sub-components. Faster movement allows a doomstack fleet to crush more siege attempts in the same time frame. In Stellaris, fleet movement is MUCH MUCH faster than other space 4x games.

If fleets are slow and you can't see the enemy coming from too far away, you have to really think about how you position your ships so that you aren't caught in a fatally bad position when a war starts. Who might I be at war with? What paths can they take? How much warning of an attack will I have at each location. In a game where fleets are slow, a single doomstack can't defend much space. It might be viable as a Hail-Mary strike on the enemy's home system, but can't respond to spatially-distributed contingencies.

Slow fleets means that each decision has consequences, and you have to think far ahead. If you send that doomstack on a deep raid, you are committing that firepower for a long time. Geography matters. While your fleet is heading toward the target, things can change. New players might enter the war, you might discover enemy fleets coming towards you.

Now you don't want to carry this too far or you have a situation where you try to attack your neighbor and by the time you've arrived technology has advanced five generations and the officers commanding the battle are the great-great-grandchildren of the officers who started out. But I think there is a recognition in other parts of the game that being able to turn the ship of state on a dime doesn't lead to compelling strategy.

 

[General Retreat]

Okay I'll agree I probably read into it a tad too much because yes the warscore would imply he was getting destroyed. As I said I'm glad he lost to such a tactic as enemy gaining a bunch of victories faster than him. However, (and this is just reading into the post and could be 100% wrong!) it seemed implied that his fleet was much stronger than their combined forces and he could have destroyed them had he just gone after them from the start. The issue I'm seeing is that the game isn't really able to handle war on multiple fronts (which to a degree, this should be an advantage anyway!) And that his inability to simply -end- one of his opponents so that he COULD turn around and focus on the others ultimately cost him the game.

Quick question, why do you think smarmy people tend to say "America never technically lost Vietnam [militarily]", despite losing by the important metrics that actually matter? Yes, the colossal American military machine would have rolled over the Viet Cong and reduced them to finely spread jam if they'd ever been polite enough to group all of their troops together and have it out in one big decisive battle. That's not what actually happened though.

Dispersed forces made for a tougher target, and the protracted and grueling conflict eventually ate up all the US' influence points until the public forced them to pull out (ceded all their ally empire's planets in this case). Military might is completely irrelevant if it's ineptly directed. This chap could have destroyed his enemies if he'd gone after them at the start, but he didn't and ended up losing the war by ignoring what the others were getting up to. That seems pretty fair to me. Almost like a strategic gambit that failed to pay off.

 

[newtlord]

Quick question, why do you think smarmy people tend to say "America never technically lost Vietnam [militarily]", despite actually losing by the metrics that actually matter? Yes, the colossal American military machine would have rolled over the Viet Cong and reduced them to finely spread jam if they'd ever been polite enough to group all of their troops together and have it out in one big decisive battle. That's not what actually happened though.

Dispersed forces made for a tougher target, and the protracted and grueling conflict eventually ate up all the US' influence points until the public forced them to pull out (ceded all their ally empire's planets in this case). Military might is completely irrelevant if it's ineptly directed. This chap could have destroyed his enemies if he'd gone after them at the start, but he didn't and ended up losing the war by ignoring what the others were getting up to. That seems pretty fair to me. Almost like a strategic gambit that failed to pay off.

On the other hand, I don't think the Vietcong could have convinced America to turn over Washington D.C to them at the negotiating table.

 

[BlackUmbrellas]

My two cents: I enjoy the "landing armies and managing them during the invasion" part far more than the "crash doomstack A into doomstack B" part.

It might be because I play on smaller maps and don't do the "paint the galaxy" slog, but smaller armies mean you have to be more careful with your troops and start making decisions about how many you allow yourself to lose before retreating- there are different ways to juggle damage, from high-health builds to alternating waves of invading troops to a longer campaign with lots of rests in between attacks to army composition focused on morale damage.

 

[Felfox]

Quick question, why do you think smarmy people tend to say "America never technically lost Vietnam [militarily]", despite losing by the important metrics that actually matter? Yes, the colossal American military machine would have rolled over the Viet Cong and reduced them to finely spread jam if they'd ever been polite enough to group all of their troops together and have it out in one big decisive battle. That's not what actually happened though.

Dispersed forces made for a tougher target, and the protracted and grueling conflict eventually ate up all the US' influence points until the public forced them to pull out (ceded all their ally empire's planets in this case). Military might is completely irrelevant if it's ineptly directed. This chap could have destroyed his enemies if he'd gone after them at the start, but he didn't and ended up losing the war by ignoring what the others were getting up to. That seems pretty fair to me. Almost like a strategic gambit that failed to pay off.

On the other hand, I don't think the Vietcong could have convinced America to turn over Washington D.C to them at the negotiating table.

I did say I agreed and liked that he lost due to multiple smaller forces wearing him out and I'd still stand by it. However, as the second person said, the little bleeding cuts shouldn't suddenly mean "Oh god, back out of Vietnam and give them D.C so that they're appeased!"

Look, I get that he lost by a substantial amount but all I'm saying is the game is flawed. The States may spend a lot on military compared to other countries but they tend to use it for liberation/protection and not for full on conquest. Stellaris is trying to represent a bunch of different mentalities and some would be more willing to keep going or not give a damn compared to others. I appreciate the Vietnam reference but I doubt a species like the klingons would care as much, or the Krogan or insert other warrior/conqueror species in fiction.

My point was that I'm GLAD he lost, but ALSO that the way the game was scoring against him may not have been properly scaled. The warscore is very black and white and this does the game a disservice. Each ethic should influence what you care about, each kind of world should be scored differently and even the potential (size of your fleet) vs enemies' potential should change how the warscore or just influence is handled.

To use a starwars example, it took the destruction of TWO deathstars and tons of victories before the empire finally fell. (heck it's still sorta going) And if you believe in the EU, it took even longer then that! Warscores should not be even between empires. Flattening a rebel aligned world is a huge blow, freeing a few imperial worlds means next to nothing to the empire.

 

[kourada2]

I did say I agreed and liked that he lost due to multiple smaller forces wearing him out and I'd still stand by it. However, as the second person said, the little bleeding cuts shouldn't suddenly mean "Oh god, back out of Vietnam and give them D.C so that they're appeased!"

Look, I get that he lost by a substantial amount but all I'm saying is the game is flawed. The States may spend a lot on military compared to other countries but they tend to use it for liberation/protection and not for full on conquest. Stellaris is trying to represent a bunch of different mentalities and some would be more willing to keep going or not give a damn compared to others. I appreciate the Vietnam reference but I doubt a species like the klingons would care as much, or the Krogan or insert other warrior/conqueror species in fiction.

My point was that I'm GLAD he lost, but ALSO that the way the game was scoring against him may not have been properly scaled. The warscore is very black and white and this does the game a disservice. Each ethic should influence what you care about, each kind of world should be scored differently and even the potential (size of your fleet) vs enemies' potential should change how the warscore or just influence is handled.

To use a starwars example, it took the destruction of TWO deathstars and tons of victories before the empire finally fell. (heck it's still sorta going) And if you believe in the EU, it took even longer then that! Warscores should not be even between empires. Flattening a rebel aligned world is a huge blow, freeing a few imperial worlds means next to nothing to the empire.

This guy gets it +1

 

[Noeky]

Has there been any information / updates from the developers side regarding these flawed wargoals, as in fixes / changes in the upcoming patch ?