• 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:
Meh for republics though whenever civilisation has collpased we've never seen republcs emerging we usually see warlords who over time become nobility.

That's probably where Caesar's Legion came from, conceptual wise. Fallout 3 Las Vegas, by Obsidian, used many conceptual work from Van Buren, the almost F3 sequel that got canceled due to company collapse. So it was nice seeing what would have gone into what came after F2. I always wondered what happened to that line of games, when I looked at 2003+ games. All the old classics just seemed to have died off and without wikipedia, it was rather difficult to find out where the staff went.

I played F1 and F2, although I liked turn based tactical games (not as complicated as war games, but just as fun on the tactical plane) such as Xcom or Master of Magic's weird but very fun turn based chess/tactics field. F1-2 was the same era as the infinity games series, so Baldur's Gate trilogy and Planescape Torment were around that same time period. XCOM old and MOM was a few years, perhaps even a decade before that. Still 2d sprite based.

I preferred wordy games like Torment, so good thing I got in on the Torment sequel kickstarter. Also why I like Japanese visual novels. I think the earliest computer game I played was Legend of Kyrandia and Hand of Fate adventure games, point and click graphical user interface. Difficult for me at the time, since they wanted you to put money on "hotline" hint phone calls. Took me months to finish one game. Still remembered all the puzzle crunches, so when I replayed those two a few years ago, I breezed through em via the Power of Nostalgia.
 
Last edited:
That and we would also like to come into contact and deal with races such as this.
Yeah but as I said here I think those will work better as NPCs if they are designed to be NPCs.
 
Is there a way to add Wargoals (like Vicky 2), or are you interminably stuck with your stated wargoals? I know it's definitely not the EU4 system where you can basically demand anything you occupy, but can you, say, trade infamy or diplomatic points (or warscore) for more wargoals if you're smashing the enemy?

I also had a suggestion (because I'm kind of a warmonger)... what if you are able to annex occupied enemy territories after so many years of occupation. There'd have to be some sort of development function, whereby you'd feed troops, military police, and money, into the place to try to "extend the occupation," and it would have to be REALLY expensive and take a REALLY long time, but eventually you'd be able to annex enemy territories while at war with them. That way, if you utterly smash an enemy, you can start to pick away at their planets over, say, twenty years of continuous warfare. At the end of the war, the enemy would still have a core on said planet, and if they occupied it, it would immediately be their system again. You'd have rebellions etc. in the area until you could fully pacify it, which would take a really long time unless you just depopulated the whole place, but after that process (which would probably be much like another round of occupation), it would be your territory, and the enemy would lose their core. With his system, you could undertake a hostile takeover of an enemy system outside of diplomacy, but it would still support diplomacy because just seizing this place via war-goals would take less time and cost less...
 
I hope at 100 war score, that's simply the score at which one can do a complete take-over of an entire empire, and starting such a take-over wars is always an option.

Being limited by war goals to chipping away only x provinces in y years was a very annoying grind of a mechanic in older games. Slowing down player success by a factor of y/x is not making a game any better. Let me expand, progress, conquer, and let me have multiple options to fully deal with any and all problems that might entail.
 
  • 11
Reactions:
I hope at 100 war score, that's simply the score at which one can do a complete take-over of an entire empire, and starting such a take-over wars is always an option.

Being limited by war goals to chipping away only x provinces in y years was a very annoying grind of a mechanic in older games. Slowing down player success by a factor of y/x is not making a game any better. Let me expand, progress, conquer, and let me have multiple options to fully deal with any and all problems that might entail.
I disagree strongly, it takes more than one war going well by chance to subdue another empire fully.
 
  • 7
Reactions:
I hope at 100 war score, that's simply the score at which one can do a complete take-over of an entire empire, and starting such a take-over wars is always an option.

Being limited by war goals to chipping away only x provinces in y years was a very annoying grind of a mechanic in older games. Slowing down player success by a factor of y/x is not making a game any better. Let me expand, progress, conquer, and let me have multiple options to fully deal with any and all problems that might entail.

I disagree!
Did you realize Paradox games are not the "rush and win" type of games?
I wanna spend my time and manage the empire and win slowly against the competitive AI. I wanna feel the empire is growing and growing slowly.
I don't wanna win or lose fast because of a stupid mechanic.
 
  • 6
Reactions:
I hope at 100 war score, that's simply the score at which one can do a complete take-over of an entire empire, and starting such a take-over wars is always an option.

Being limited by war goals to chipping away only x provinces in y years was a very annoying grind of a mechanic in older games. Slowing down player success by a factor of y/x is not making a game any better. Let me expand, progress, conquer, and let me have multiple options to fully deal with any and all problems that might entail.

Only if such a scenario results in a very high chance of your empire collapsing if they weren't small enough for you to annex normally to begin with.
 
  • 4
Reactions:
Only if such a scenario results in a very high chance of your empire collapsing if they weren't small enough for you to annex normally to begin with.
Exactly, this I could get behind, in fact I'd love to see a game where collapse was almost inveitable where you built your empire and it collpased then you got to play one of it's successors and build up again until that collapse. That has been the nature of human civlisation for pretty much the entire course of history I don't see why the step into space would change that. But alas Paradox seems to have taken another direction with the game.
I'm still hoping for moddable game over conditions (so that you could potentially turn them of entirly and make something akin to what I suggested).
 
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions:
I disagree strongly, it takes more than one war going well by chance to subdue another empire fully.
Why does it take more than one war? If you essentially having destroyed any real chance of organized opposition (I say that's what 100 should mean), who should stop you from replacing the government of the other empire?

I disagree!
Did you realize Paradox games are not the "rush and win" type of games?
Usually, wars were exactly just that. You only couldn't win on one go, you did it a many times. But it was basically always rush to win tactics, with fairly long semi-forced pauses in between.

I wanna spend my time and manage the empire and win slowly against the competitive AI. I wanna feel the empire is growing and growing slowly.
I actually would like that to be within the scope of the struggle to win a big all-in war instead of many rounds. Maybe it could make the other empire fight a bit harder (or perhaps just polarize loyalist and rebel factions inside it more on either side of the war?), and more outside empires looking to interfere, perhaps even as third external alliance.

The methodical chipping away of small pieces off other nations in older games sure spent a lot of time, but it didn't feel terribly competitive or exciting to repeatedly beat up an opponent that just is weaker every time, with forced breaks in between. While I certainly think this should be one option in the game, military conquests shouldn't be forced to be very limited.

I don't wanna win or lose fast because of a stupid mechanic
The only thing I feel that happened in past games is that you necessarily won or lost slowly because of some specific mechanics (rebel whack-a-mole, CB generation speed and limit on gains through wars, 100 year naturalization periods, monarch points, nations having advantages you couldn't overcome unless you had immense patience, and so on).

Forcing slow expansion wasn't really making the games more clever as far as I'm concerned, though.
 
  • 9
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions:
Why does it take more than one war? If you essentially having destroyed any real chance of organized opposition (I say that's what 100 should mean), who should stop you from replacing the government of the other empire?

Can you name one war where an entire empire has fallen instantly form that one war? And I mean was completely and legally annexed as a result of a single war. Not a puppet state.
 
  • 4
Reactions:
Can you name one war where an entire empire has fallen instantly form that one war? And I mean was completely and legally annexed as a result of a single war. Not a puppet state.
Closest thing I can think of is poland versus the teutonic order.
 
Let's think a bit!
Your enemy has 15 planets and you have 15 too. You spent ~50 hours to play the actual game, and you have a very nice empire..
If we follow YOUR idea you lose the whole game if the enemy hit the 100 score first. In this case your entire game is over. You can cheat and load the saved game but that's not fair right? Like I said it's cheating, you lost the war deal with it.

Now if we follow OUR idea and the enemy want only 4 planets of the 15 (because let's say 4 planets fit the 100 score) you can't lose the entire game. You lose the war but you still can win because you have 11 remaining planets. Now you need different strategy but you still can play.
 
Being limited on the provinces you can take is your ability to integrate them not just your ability to take them
 
Closest thing I can think of is poland versus the teutonic order.

The Teutonic knights weren't annexed. They lost a lot of territory but they still were there. After 1466 they became vassals of Poland but keep to be around. After Protestant revolt they became the Duchy of Prussia which finally turn into the Kingdom of Prussia,
 
  • 1
Reactions:
Can you name one war where an entire empire has fallen instantly form that one war? And I mean was completely and legally annexed as a result of a single war. Not a puppet state.

Woudn't the conquest of Alexander the Great qualify? (He conquered the Persian and Egyptian empires in 1 big ass war.)
Thing is though that it all fell appart before his body was cold.

I think that not being able to conquer my enemies in one war does add strategic depth;
Yeah sure they are weaker than me next time but they may also find new allies i might need to consider.

IMO it also adds to the diplomacy of the game.
In civ or galciv where you can have these al in wars to completely annex an enemy diplomacy doesn't really add anything for me.
Yet in paradox games, because i need to go to war multiple times with the same enemy the diplomatic status with the neighbouring nations becomes important.
(though the fact that you can peacefully vassalize and annex helps in this department aswell)
 
Woudn't the conquest of Alexander the Great qualify? (He conquered the Persian and Egyptian empires in 1 big ass war.)
Thing is though that it all fell appart before his body was cold.

I think that not being able to conquer my enemies in one war does add strategic depth;
Yeah sure they are weaker than me next time but they may also find new allies i might need to consider.

IMO it also adds to the diplomacy of the game.
In civ or galciv where you can have these al in wars to completely annex an enemy diplomacy doesn't really add anything for me.
Yet in paradox games, because i need to go to war multiple times with the same enemy the diplomatic status with the neighbouring nations becomes important.
(though the fact that you can peacefully vassalize and annex helps in this department aswell)


Wouldn't it make sense to differentiate between occupied land and conquered (agreed-ownership within majority of international community)?

You could have an empire for a few years but technically you have only occupied said territory. Neighbours and/or the international community doesn't recognize you as the rightful owner because there is no peace agreement.

You would get a diplomacy hit with other races. This hit to relations could differ between races. Militaristic races would be less bothered by this unless it's their territory. Peace-full nations might be more inclined to 'restore order' and band together (cesus belli on you).

The occupied land would have (in the long run) less income, more instability compared to 'officially' annexed land.

Advantages for occupying: Temporary heavy resource extraction to fund your expenses and as such your current war (increasingly limiting returns)
Disadvantages for occupying: Heavy dissent; possible widening of the war because you are the baddie. Sparking 'world wars' (increasingly worse badboy)

Occupying land should only be viable for a limited amount of years. A short boost to your empire. Making an Alexander style conquest possible. But the 'empire' is unstable without recognition. When you eventually make peace then the occupied lands wil return. But they might remember the occupation.
 
Long time ago limits on how much you can conquer were there to compensate for lack of mechanics. Today we have a got agressive expansion model in EU4 and good models of upraisings/internal economic problems everywhere. It makes sense if on 100% victory you can ask for anything you want, but annexing any decent empire should be shooting yourself in the leg.

Vassal size limits make sense though.
 
  • 1
Reactions: