• 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.

Stellaris Dev Diary #20 - War & Peace

Hello everyone!

For today’s dev diary, I thought I’d talk about a crucial part of Stellaris; waging wars and making peace, because as you know, not all ETs are nice... The system is different from most strategy games out there, but should be familiar to anyone who has played a Paradox Development Studio title. In fact, it is probably most reminiscent of how these things work in the Europa Universalis games.

Let’s start at the beginning. When you declare war in Stellaris, you have to state what your aims are; what the war is actually about. You simply choose from a list of possible goals, where each one is listed with a certain cost. The total cost of your picked goals cannot exceed 100. If you have a good reason to take something, the cost will be reduced. This might be the case if, for example, members of your founding species happen to live on a planet, or if it has previously been a part of your empire.

If you are a member of an alliance, the other members will need approve your list of selected goals before you can actually start the war. This is of course more likely if you are not too greedy and want to take everything yourself. That is, you will probably want to assign some goals to other alliance members to get them to approve the war.
stellaris_dev_diary_20_01_20160208_declare_war.jpg

When a war has been declared, the defending side is allowed to add war goals in the same manner, but they have an important advantage; they have a one-year grace period, and can thus choose targets depending on how the war is already progressing.

You need to gain “war score” in order to win, just like in our other games (-100 to 100.) At any time, you can negotiate for peace by selecting specific goals from your own list or that of the other side, very much like in Europa Universalis (except that you are limited to the stated war goals.)

Of course, wars are not always waged simply to seize territory: Other valid goals could be vassalization, for example, or securing a treaty of some kind. Sometimes, you might not really care about your stated goals at all, but just going in there and destroying the enemy’s space ports and stations...
stellaris_dev_diary_20_01_20160208_war_overview.jpg

Like in most of our games, occupying a planet with your armies does not mean it immediately becomes yours, of course; you need to demand it in the peace talks. There is a notable exception to this rule though; so called “first contact wars”. Before you have established communications with another civilization, it is possible to simply attack them and even take one of their planets (but once you take a planet, communications are immediately established.) Of course, such early hostility will never be forgotten, and will sour your relations for the rest of the game… There are other exceptions to how wars are waged, in the form of special types of civilizations, but that will have to wait for another dev diary.

That’s all for this week folks, stay tuned next week for “Administrative Sectors”!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • 128
  • 54
  • 1
Reactions:
So if you are an aggressive society that eats other races, is your reason to "feed" valid? What about those that are xenophobic and go to war with anyone in close proximity?

maybe those races will just have the possibility to start war after war after war for each and every planet (it would be a possibility for a mod I think). Swarm War for Alpha Centauri! Followed immediately with a Swarm War for Earth ^^ Still to HAVE to negotiate peace with your enemies seems rather unsatisfactory RP wise... buuut i think it would be like with hordes in EU4. Fun to play something other than the normal nations but in the end 90% of our time we will not play them. SO I guess it's ok if the devs don't spend so much time on such special kinds of races now (but I want a space horse lords dlc :p)
 
  • 1
Reactions:
It's seems a lot more like the war system from Vicky 2, except you can't add war goals in progress. Still, love it!
I feel like it's actually more like CK2 just with the option to add in multiple goals and instead of each goal having the success neutral fail options (Enforce, WP, Surrender) it's EU4 with a Yes/No success system.
 
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions:
So if you are an aggressive society that eats other races, is your reason to "feed" valid? What about those that are xenophobic and go to war with anyone in close proximity?

I imagine you'd get a permanent CB against all your neighbors (or something along those lines). I also imagine you'd be able to grow very quickly but everyone else who knows about you would be more likely to join coalitions against you (or the space equivalent).
 
There are other exceptions to how wars are waged, in the form of special types of civilizations, but that will have to wait for another dev diary

ooooh!! I (we?) did not read the Diary properly enough maybe ^^ I mean that does sound as if the devs had our ideas in mind already ^^
 
"Oh yeah we shall have peace foul xenos... right after i mount your head on my wall and turn your world to cinders and ash. But yeah we will have peace"

Like 85% of us when it comes to diplomacy i reckon.

Also great dd.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
THey would be closer to the nomadic hordes in Ck2, they would get special casus belli, lower cooldown timers, etc.
I don't get people's fascination with playing purely destructive forces.
 
  • 2
  • 1
Reactions:
GoOzqOP.jpg


There is no reason. You do it for the evulzs.
Quite frankly that's one of the things I don't liek in post apocalyptic games like fallout. That you can create so little, even in elder scrolls you can join the nobility and such but in fallout you are this powerful ass guy (or gal) yet you can't just conquer the scattered villages and set up some srt of system of government.- Granted I haven't player number 4 yet so that may change it.
 
  • 4
Reactions:
Because due to those stupid "Law" things, most of us can't be evil and destructive (and get away with it for very long) in the real world....
Well you governments kind of do that destruction thing for you (I really don't belive in evil, neglect is however something I do belive in). Even more in the era of most paradox games. Truth is that most of us at all times contrubiute to a destructive system, I'd say the opportunities of being able to contribute to building up, creating and making things better is much scarcer than being able to help feck things up.
 
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions:
Well you governments kind of do that destruction thing for you (I really don't belive in evil, neglect is however something I do belive in). Even more in the era of most paradox games. Truth is that most of us at all times contrubiute to a destructive system, I'd say the opportunities of being able to contribute to building up, creating and making things better is much scarcer than being able to help feck things up.

I like ordering mans to pile up and murder each other with lasers.

Let me have this.
 
  • 2
Reactions:
Quite frankly that's one of the things I don't liek in post apocalyptic games like fallout. That you can create so little, even in elder scrolls you can join the nobility and such but in fallout you are this powerful ass guy (or gal) yet you can't just conquer the scattered villages and set up some srt of system of government.- Granted I haven't player number 4 yet so that may change it.

NCR, New California Republic, was a faction the player helped in F1 or F2, which tried to bring order back. Also Fallout 3 Las Vegas had a lot of the story content from Van Buren, sequel to F2, that was canceled put back in.

The faction diplomacy had to be simulated well enough for the player to take a direct role though, since previously it was more of an indirect role in quests and writers coming up with an organization or faction. This is perhaps a limitation of the single player sandbox world. In games like Eve O or Crowfall, internal politics are simulated by the human players themselves.

I'd say the opportunities of being able to contribute to building up, creating and making things better is much scarcer than being able to help feck things up.

It is always easier to destroy than to create. There are people who obey the Law because of the fear of being punished, such as police states. Then there are authoritarian cultures like Japan, which try to fix problems via social consensus and de centralized solutions, before dealing with the authorities like the police. Then there are more individual orientated cultures that believe a person's word is their bond, their limitation, because some individuals are hard to eliminate even for entire tribes of guerilla fighters: feudalism and vassal relations between clans/tribes.
 
NCR, New California Republic, was a faction the player helped in F1 or F2, which tried to bring order back. Also Fallout 3 Las Vegas had a lot of the story content from Van Buren, sequel to F2, that was canceled put back in.

The faction diplomacy had to be simulated well enough for the player to take a direct role though, since previously it was more of an indirect role in quests and writers coming up with an organization or faction. This is perhaps a limitation of the single player sandbox world. In games like Eve O or Crowfall, internal politics are simulated by the human players themselves.
Yeah I'll admit I never played the first two games, I like many others got on the train with the first 3d version. Meh for republics though whenever civilisation has collpased we've never seen republcs emerging we usually see warlords who over time become nobility. But I guess the american demographic wouldn't be ready for that.


It is always easier to destroy than to create. There are people who obey the Law because of the fear of being punished, such as police states. Then there are authoritarian cultures like Japan, which try to fix problems via social consensus and de centralized solutions, before dealing with the authorities like the police. Then there are more individual orientated cultures that believe a person's word is their bond, their limitation, because some individuals are hard to eliminate even for entire tribes of guerilla fighters: feudalism and vassal relations between clans/tribes.
Well creation also happens naturally, but it happens much slower, thus few of us have any chance to see how history changes with out own eyes. That's the appeal of historical games to me to see humanity's progress over a longer time. Also why I never saw the appeal of playing purely destructive forces because quite frankly destruction have a way of happening on it's own. Usually as a byproduct of far better reasons than sure appetite for destruction.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
I think the wish of a purely destructive race in stellaris is less the wish to destroy but to "RP" all kinds of Alien races we know from sci fi. And it will not be the one and only way we want to play it either. I would love to play all kinds of options. A Federation that never starts an offensive war, an empire that fights for purely strategic reasons and ends its war when it achieved its goals but also a race without the understanding of something like peace. I would not over think that and ask why people enjoy destroying more, for the most part they don't i would say. Some people may like to destroy in games but create in RL.
 
I think the wish of a purely destructive race in stellaris is less the wish to destroy but to "RP" all kinds of Alien races we know from sci fi. And it will not be the one and only way we want to play it either. I would love to play all kinds of options. A Federation that never starts an offensive war, an empire that fights for purely strategic reasons and ends its war when it achieved its goals but also a race without the understanding of something like peace. I would not over think that and ask why people enjoy destroying more, for the most part they don't i would say. Some people may like to destroy in games but create in RL.
Well my argument with it is that such races may actually be handled better when the mechanics for them don't have to be built in a way so that they make them intresting for players to play.
 
If your policies allow full orbital bombardment, it is possible to severely damage planets, but not to completely depopulate them.
So, no planet-buster bomb or supernova weapons :( somewhere the spirits of John Gordon and Shorr Khan are a-weeping!

Will it be possible for a stellar polity to fall apart for any reason (internal rebellion, polite partition (look at Czechoslovakia in 1993), forced split by conquering power, internal conflict after a lost war)?
Will it be possible to set complete extermination as a war goal? (see Shiva Option)
 
I think the wish of a purely destructive race in stellaris is less the wish to destroy but to "RP" all kinds of Alien races we know from sci fi. And it will not be the one and only way we want to play it either. I would love to play all kinds of options. A Federation that never starts an offensive war, an empire that fights for purely strategic reasons and ends its war when it achieved its goals but also a race without the understanding of something like peace. I would not over think that and ask why people enjoy destroying more, for the most part they don't i would say. Some people may like to destroy in games but create in RL.

That and we would also like to come into contact and deal with races such as this.
 
  • 2
Reactions: