Some UI improvements would help usability a lot. The "add to all" and "set default attachment" are good ideas. But also some really simple things just to make adding and changing attachments more smooth. Say, have the one attachment box pop up a list of icons for all attachments, plus an X to delete the attachment -- and remove the confirmation dialogs. Many fewer clicks just to add them.
Should attachments be removed or redesigned?
- Thread starter Me_
- Start date
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
I already posted a suggestion on this in the suggestion forum. If we can't be allowed to add or replace attachments en masse (one click for all armies in orbit/on a planet), and if we can't be allowed to add or change them while in orbit around owned planets, then they should be removed.
A template system with custom names similar to eu4 would solve the problem and allow you to change huge numbers of armies with minimal clicks.
.png){kind=avatar}
I think the UI for attaching them could be better, OK the UI could be a LOT better, but I don't want to see the system scrapped. I'd prefer to see them expanded and some of them given specific uses. Maybe an AA attachment that does a lot of damage during the initial landing phase but is pretty worthless after that. Other types could be an armored battalion, an air assault battalion, a CAS squadron, etc. All of them giving specific bonuses or just more general buffs like happens now.
I generally mix it up a bit. Have some clone commandos attached to a defensive army, my gene warriors riding xeno cavalry or psi warriors leading a clone army (that last one seems appropriate don't you think
).
I generally mix it up a bit. Have some clone commandos attached to a defensive army, my gene warriors riding xeno cavalry or psi warriors leading a clone army (that last one seems appropriate don't you think
).
Personally I have never used attachments so far. I did not see it in the first few games. Then I totally ignored it. Is it really useful ?
I believe this is too much micromanagement and does not bring enough value as such. I think one unit is already a abstraction of what an army should be: land, air, naval regiments plus support and logistics, amongst other things.
I like the idea of using an army experience system behind. That would increase the interaction with army division / batallion. That would maybe even help well trained smaller armies to defeat untrained larger armies. We could even imagine special buildings or events for army training. Why not dedicate a planet or a sector to military drills ? After all we can specialize a sector to research production.
Furthermore I don't want Stellaris to be a warfare simulator or a wargame. This is grand strategy in space, and as such I would not expect to micromanage armies in too deep details. On the military perspective, a unit level is too deep for me already, I'd rather see some more effort on logistic and supply chain instead.
I believe this is too much micromanagement and does not bring enough value as such. I think one unit is already a abstraction of what an army should be: land, air, naval regiments plus support and logistics, amongst other things.
I like the idea of using an army experience system behind. That would increase the interaction with army division / batallion. That would maybe even help well trained smaller armies to defeat untrained larger armies. We could even imagine special buildings or events for army training. Why not dedicate a planet or a sector to military drills ? After all we can specialize a sector to research production.
Furthermore I don't want Stellaris to be a warfare simulator or a wargame. This is grand strategy in space, and as such I would not expect to micromanage armies in too deep details. On the military perspective, a unit level is too deep for me already, I'd rather see some more effort on logistic and supply chain instead.
Not really, but the same can be said about most armies, given how one can juss mass produce them and swarm any defences.
Yeah what he said. Either you're investing minerals to reduce the overall maintenance (neo-crete is my boy for defense armies), or you're spending money to increase their damage, morale damage, health and also increasing their maintenance costs slightly.
Priorities would sum it up best I guess...
Or simply because there are not really enough (currently) units/attachments total (unlike ships) to spend very valuable Dev time building a FULL interface. Just add an "attachment for all of this type" button and move on, if they were to do anything at all.
Yes and no. Yes, to the extent that armies are useful. Which leads to the "no", in that ground defense of planets is next to impossible, especially against superior numbers. (The best you can do is slow them down a bit so the besiegers tie up their fleet for a week or two reducing your fortifications.* And the upgraded super-soldiers (of whatever flavor) can often be dropped right into defended fortifications and still win.) Your upgraded armies will be more cost-effective than more "naked" armies, but the army isn't likely to be much of your budget, so optimizing it isn't all that useful. Still can be fun just to know you have kick-ass space marines, but you'll win games just fine without attachments.
--
* That on top of the fact that taking a planet was 5 warscore, while leaving a corvette in orbit to blockade it was 7.5, so it's actually a bit counterproductive even to capture planets. Though there's an argument for taking planets just so you don't have to strand a lot of blockaders around where they're helpless against an enemy fleet. Once the main enemy fleet has been destroyed, though, I didn't see much reason for capturing a planet, making my warscore drop each time I did so.
Yes they should go as it's just fiddly busy work.Just have more army types and add more depth to the system of invasion/.
Maybe if fleets in orbit around a planet suffered attrition, maybe scaling to both the fortifications and armies...
As far as I know, blockade warscore has been removed for Banks, with planets specified as wargoals worth more score to compensate.
Yeah that's definitely an improvement, but it still doesn't really make stuff like planetary defence shield worth it. I think if there were attrition it might?
Well, that's better than the inverted values where taking a planet is a warscore loss. Though I don't think there's anything wrong with having positive warscore for maintaining a blockade. Blockades should be able to help force an enemy to the negotiating table. It's just that taking the whole planet ought to be worth more. If nothing else, owning the place would make it at least as "blockaded" as it was right before the transports landed.
(It would also be nice for the resources to matter, separately from just the warscore. The blockade would prevent the enemy from getting minerals, energy, research, etc., from the planet, while occupation should allow at least some fraction to the occupiers. So there would be a reason to take planets you don't intend to keep. You could also tie the economic effects to ethos, so the militaristic slave-drivers can squeeze out more from their resistant occupied territories at low levels in the short term, while the pacifists and xenophiles get more production in the longer term. Taking that even further, smuggling and patrol ships to counter that would be a whole new subsystem, also applicable to your own planets during peacetime. But we could start with the basic effects.)
There are already issues of rebounding from a defeat in a war. Adding the resources to it would only make it worse for the loosing side.
Blockades should get you a ticking warscore, that builds up over time to eventually be the equivalent of conquering the planet with an invasion.
I honestly feel that armies should be designed like ships are, given a particular set up and then commissioned on the planet from the strongest available pops. In fact, if we were given an army customization method similar to ships then we could also designate if they were an offensive or defensive army so we could design psionic defensive soldiers. I would very much appreciate having defensive psionic soldiers.
It would be easier to just remove assault armies, let defense armies add Foritifications and flip the planet to "occupied" the moment the foritifcations are 0.
I usually build armies in groups of 3, each with a different attachment. I especially love adding Psi Commandos to my Titans.
Really dislike the click fest, so I do not add attachments to anything but my assault and occupation troops, or to quick boost a planet that is about to be invaded.
Really dislike the click fest, so I do not add attachments to anything but my assault and occupation troops, or to quick boost a planet that is about to be invaded.