Space battles are broken and it ruins the game

[CantGetNoSleep]

Is it me or are all space battles in Stellaris totally and utterly boring? The game has huge depth when it comes to tech, economy, biology, etc. But space battles are incredibly tedious. It's all a case of 1 big battle determines the entire fate of your entire empire, and whomever has the bigger fleet wins and annihilates the enemy with disproportional losses, so the loser can never make a come back. In other words: win the first battle, and it's all over. Lose it, and you've lost the game. That is such a huge let down for a game that otherwise has a lot of depth.

Devs: make it harder: the deeper you get into enemy territory, the harder your fleet should be to reprovision and therefore the weaker it should become. Allow withdrawal at all times so hit and run tactics are interesting, don't have the silly modifier of space jumps and the ludicrous cool down period - defending home planets should be hard and attacking an enemy therefore be a risky proposition rather than just a look at the table of "is my fleet bigger right now".

 

[Pancakelord]

what hyperlane settings do you use?

 

[ASGeek2012]

It's not always about who has the bigger fleet. Fleet composition matters as well.

I had a Fallen Empire declare war on my ally. One of his fleets came at my territory. I met his 72K stack with my 56K stack and beat it. How? I saw he was heavy into shields, so I redesigned all my ships with shield bypassing weapons. Those fleet power numbers are only a calculation of raw gun power. It doesn't take into account things like weapons that bypass defenses.

So make sure you get intelligence on the composition of the enemy ships. Does he have lots of missiles? Deck out your ships with point defense. Also make sure of the reverse; if he's using massive amounts of point defense, don't waste your time shooting missiles at him.

 

[CantGetNoSleep]

what hyperlane settings do you use?

Default mostly. I’m sure you can make it more of a cat and mouse by changing it, but really it’ll still be just a case of head for the enemy home planet.

 

[CantGetNoSleep]

It's not always about who has the bigger fleet. Fleet composition matters as well.

....

Yeah you can optimise the fleet to fight your enemy, but... but it’s still a one single battle determines the rest of the game. Hours spent trying out a style of play; refining and polishing your game, and then it’s all over in one battle, which you don’t even have any tactical control over. It’s just so badly thought out.

 

[otro_dia]

It's not always about who has the bigger fleet. Fleet composition matters as well.

I had a Fallen Empire declare war on my ally. One of his fleets came at my territory. I met his 72K stack with my 56K stack and beat it. How? I saw he was heavy into shields, so I redesigned all my ships with shield bypassing weapons. Those fleet power numbers are only a calculation of raw gun power. It doesn't take into account things like weapons that bypass defenses.

So make sure you get intelligence on the composition of the enemy ships. Does he have lots of missiles? Deck out your ships with point defense. Also make sure of the reverse; if he's using massive amounts of point defense, don't waste your time shooting missiles at him.

Question: Do neutron launchers count as projectiles? the game says they are energy weapon, but they look like torpedoes. Are point defense weapons useful against them?

 

[Pancakelord]

Question: Do neutron launchers count as projectiles? the game says they are energy weapon, but they look like torpedoes. Are point defense weapons useful against them?

They're instant-hit unguided weapons, like kinetic artillery, they are unaffected by PD.
if they were missiles they'd say type = missile in game files.
Only missile type weapons can be targeted by pd.

 

[FlyingPhoenix]

Largely agree with the concept behind the OP. I think this is a problem and that ships in Stellaris should be cheaper but cost the same in maintenance per hull.

Edited with further thoughts:

I am uncertain that disproportionate losses are a problem. In a counter system, you want disproportionate losses.

The problem with Stellaris combat is the simplicity of the combat system and the lack of a counter system.

When someone drops 60 corvettes on you during the early game, the correct counter to that is to have spent more alloys on corvettes than your opponent and have 80 corvettes instead. Smart spending doesn't trump large spending. That's the problem. The issue is that combat is so hands-off once it begins so you can't outsmart your opponent during combat. You also can't really outsmart your opponent before combat.

Until Cruisers and their strike craft come along, the composition of your ships within your fleets doesn't seem to matter. I've never figured out a way to favourably make trades during combat in such a way that I can reliably take on bigger fleets with a smarter fleet composition.


I also don't think that defenders need an inherent advantage more so than they already have. I could get behind a ship fuel mechanic and other changes to support building support ships.

Question: Do neutron launchers count as projectiles? the game says they are energy weapon, but they look like torpedoes. Are point defense weapons useful against them?

There used to be energy torpedoes, and proton torpedoes and neutron torpedoes were replaced with the L-slot launchers, because those torpedoes were immune to PD.

 

[otro_dia]

View attachment 632091
They're instant-hit unguided weapons, like kinetic artillery, they are unaffected by PD.
if they were missiles they'd say type = missile in game files.
Only missile type weapons can be targeted by pd.

Largely agree with the concept behind the OP. I think this is a problem and that ships in Stellaris should be cheaper but cost the same in maintenance per hull.

Edited with further thoughts:

I am uncertain that disproportionate losses are a problem. In a counter system, you want disproportionate losses.

The problem with Stellaris combat is the simplicity of the combat system and the lack of a counter system.

When someone drops 60 corvettes on you during the early game, the correct counter to that is to have spent more alloys on corvettes than your opponent and have 80 corvettes instead. Smart spending doesn't trump large spending. That's the problem. The issue is that combat is so hands-off once it begins so you can't outsmart your opponent during combat. You also can't really outsmart your opponent before combat.

Until Cruisers and their strike craft come along, the composition of your ships within your fleets doesn't seem to matter. I've never figured out a way to favourably make trades during combat in such a way that I can reliably take on bigger fleets with a smarter fleet composition.


I also don't think that defenders need an inherent advantage more so than they already have. I could get behind a ship fuel mechanic and other changes to support building support ships.

There used to be energy torpedoes, and proton torpedoes and neutron torpedoes were replaced with the L-slot launchers, because those torpedoes were immune to PD.

Ok, I just wasn't sure. So shields are the answer. Thanks!

 

[MichaelJanuary]

While there are issues with battle tactics, the real issue for me is more of a strategic game-design problem.

Fleets can just advance forever without any supply, fuel, garrisoning, or territorial consolidation requirements. i.e., if you lose a forward battle, that fleet can just keep coming with no requirement to consolidate gains or extend supply range.

It's like Patton had infinite fuel, food and parts, and was just told to "go to Berlin".

There are no options to cut off its supply, retake territory behind it, or regroup while its garrisoning or subduing the star system it just took.

 

[caffrn]

Is it me or are all space battles in Stellaris totally and utterly boring? The game has huge depth when it comes to tech, economy, biology, etc. But space battles are incredibly tedious. It's all a case of 1 big battle determines the entire fate of your entire empire, and whomever has the bigger fleet wins and annihilates the enemy with disproportional losses, so the loser can never make a come back. In other words: win the first battle, and it's all over. Lose it, and you've lost the game. That is such a huge let down for a game that otherwise has a lot of depth.

Devs: make it harder: the deeper you get into enemy territory, the harder your fleet should be to reprovision and therefore the weaker it should become. Allow withdrawal at all times so hit and run tactics are interesting, don't have the silly modifier of space jumps and the ludicrous cool down period - defending home planets should be hard and attacking an enemy therefore be a risky proposition rather than just a look at the table of "is my fleet bigger right now".

Combat in Stellaris is basically like the combat in EU4 without Attrition. Actually they tried to get rid of Doomstacks with 2.0, but to be honest, that's still a problem. Fleet composition doesn't matter when it comes to meta fleets. Battles are still extremely decisive. Rebuilding, after losing a major battle is possible but unlikely, at least not against a human. That also depends on your empire size, of course.

 

[Elm0__]

There is no valid logistical system in any Paradox game. Attrition limits usually do not matter at all as they are too lenient to influence anything, also because it is known beforehand how many soldiers you could feed. The maluses are laughable. It models neither supply lines nor foraging. It's just an unimaginative weak cap for army size.

And in Stellaris there isn't even such a cap.

 

[correctamundo]

While there are issues with battle tactics, the real issue for me is more of a strategic game-design problem.

Fleets can just advance forever without any supply, fuel, garrisoning, or territorial consolidation requirements. i.e., if you lose a forward battle, that fleet can just keep coming with no requirement to consolidate gains or extend supply range.

It's like Patton had infinite fuel, food and parts, and was just told to "go to Berlin".

There are no options to cut off its supply, retake territory behind it, or regroup while its garrisoning or subduing the star system it just took.

What is fuel? Traditionally in sci-fi gas giants are the fuel depots of interstellar travel. Gas giants are everywhere. Rations in nutripaste form hardly take up any ship space. So in that instance I don't see how WW2 is particularly relevant for interstellar warfare.

I know that people in these discussions also want borders to mean something but how can they? FTL inhibitors are there but space have no natural bordes. A star system cannot realistically be overcrowded as well. So even if we have command limits to limit the doomstacks there is nothing to stop anyone from deploying all their fleets in one star system.

 

[Zagreb 887]

I don't think they really try to get rid of doomstacking, I mean, seriously, the fleet cap never had been a solution for this. OK, you can't put all your ships in the same fleet, so you make the same numbers of ships in several fleets and stack them on top of each other.

The problem is, IMHO, they never beta test any features they implemented in the game to see issues or oversights, they just "fire-and-forget"

It would be nice to have a deeper, more strategic warfare, but my biggest concern is about the AI, who is already unable to just use his fleets, add attrition and line of supply to this... Omg, war would be so sad in SP

 

[Andy_Dandy]

Build fortress worlds. Best way to slow down an enemy.

 

[Zagreb 887]

Build fortress worlds. Best way to slow down an enemy.

Yes it's nice to make Cadia, but it's another broken balance of the game, with just one fortress world on a choke point, you just deny any AI to harm you in war.

They don't use jump drive, and they don't doomstack ground army, so if you manage to get at least 3k of defensive army, they just can't pass you, even if they have a colossus, it is too busy going back and forth somewhere...

 

[FlyingPhoenix]

Doomstacks are a problem because fleets are so expensive. At 3 alloys per metallurgist, a 100 alloy corvette is worth 34 pop months of production. Similarly, an 80 Corvette fleet is worth two centuries of production by a single pop. As long as ships are expensive, I predict that doomstacks would be the dominant strategy because players want to protect their investment and losing ships is incredibly expensive to the loser.

Make navies cheaper or scale alloy production up and I reckon it would make sense to split up your fleets.

 

[MichaelJanuary]

What is fuel? Traditionally in sci-fi gas giants are the fuel depots of interstellar travel. Gas giants are everywhere. Rations in nutripaste form hardly take up any ship space. So in that instance I don't see how WW2 is particularly relevant for interstellar warfare.

STRATEGIC DEPTH
Realism isn't so much the issue as strategic depth and game mechanics. What I would look for are models/mechanics that allow for player response and adds strategic depth. (this is sci-fi, we can make up anything). You can have sci-fi universes where ships go anywhere they like for any distance they like, or are restricted to freeways in space, or are required to restock from time to time on either radioactives, antimatter or hydrogen/helium isotopes or some fake pseudo-science rare gas.

FUEL MODEL
What a "fuel" model offers is that either ships are forced to return to a fuel depot (starbase) to restock from time to time, limiting their ability to advance indefinitely, or are dependent on built technology (cloud scoops) to provide that fuel, or can mine the fuel themselves but it takes lots of time, forcing them to layover for an extended period. This can be very easily added to Stellaris, but more on that below.

GARRISON MODEL
Probably NOT easy to add to Stellaris given its current design, but consider games like CIV or TW where a captured settlement can easily revolt or revert to its previous owners if not garrisoned and subdued for some period of time. Rapidly capturing enemy territory is self-limiting due to the need to suppress revolts, or consolidate the captured territory.

EXAMPLE OF HOW FUEL SYSTEM COULD BE ADDED EASILY TO STELLARIS
Adding a secondary cooldown on the number of sequential jumps a ship/fleet could make would simulate fuel. i.e., if a ship could make 5-10 consecutive warp jumps, but would then need to 'recharge' for an extended period. This 'timer' or 'fuel tank' could be reset when a fleet arrives at a friendly (fully charged?) starbase, or recharge very slowly (from solar power or gas giant or whatever floats your boat) whenever the fleet is idle.

This would make it tricky to operate fleets more than 3-4 jumps away from a friendly starbase, requiring you to build forward staging posts for invasions, or secure travel routes within your empire, without totally trapping or immobilising a fleet. Wormholes and Gateways would still offer you more strategic depth, and the infrastructure to required refuel large fleets would be self-limiting (a natural local supply limit).

EXAMPLE OF IMPLEMENTATION:

1. A ship carries 10 units of negative matter.
2. A warp jump consumes 1 unit of negative matter.
3. It takes 1 year for a ship to manufacture 1 unit of negative matter.
4. once a ship has used up its onboard stocks, it would be limited by the rate at which it could manufacture negative matter.
5. Starbases manufacture negative matter at a faster rate (say 1/month * level), and can store them in bulk.
6. Starbases will restock friendly fleets that dock at the starbase.

GAME IMPLICATIONS

• Surveying ships wont be affected (they can recharge in the time it takes to survey a system).
• Exploration ships will be slowed down significantly once they are 'out of range'.
• Small fleets can be easily resupplied by a low level starbase.
• Large fleets will require a high level starbase to instantly resupply.
• Multiple fleets operating out of the same star system will overwhelm the local starbase capacity in short order (even a citadel).

 

[CantGetNoSleep]

What is fuel? Traditionally in sci-fi gas giants are the fuel depots of interstellar travel. Gas giants are everywhere. Rations in nutripaste form hardly take up any ship space. So in that instance I don't see how WW2 is particularly relevant for interstellar warfare.

I know that people in these discussions also want borders to mean something but how can they? FTL inhibitors are there but space have no natural bordes. A star system cannot realistically be overcrowded as well. So even if we have command limits to limit the doomstacks there is nothing to stop anyone from deploying all their fleets in one star system.

I agree with this really. But it should work both ways: if your entire fleet is in one system, then where it is not is guarding your home planets. Therefore, it should be possible, even easy, for someone to go and nuke those planets into barren wastelands. I'm pretty sure that if someone invents FTL tomorrow and we find a fanatical purifier is lurking a few systems away, we'll be hiding lots of nukes in deep space just in case they decide to do something stupid..

Also, since space is vast, running away from a fight you don't want to have should be straightforward. Ok, there is that mechanic with the retreat button, but it seems to take months to power up those escape drives, by which time your fleet is going to take a severe pounding - particularly since they always rush at the enemy, no matter how unlikely the odds...

 

[DiscoRay]

On top of some of the points made here, the thing I don't really like about space battles is the fact they can rattle on for many in-game days, and as a result you're constantly getting interrupted with other things in the empire you need to micromanage. (Particularly late game.) Would be very nice if we could just exclusively observe battles with game time only advancing a few days at most.