But what about an Empire whose only access to your systems lies in one single choke-point guarded by a doomstack of fleets?
Stellaris Dev Diary #96: Doomstacks and Ship Design
- Thread starter Wizzington
- 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.
But what about an Empire whose only access to your systems lies in one single choke-point guarded by a doomstack of fleets?
As for me, fire rate bonus for lesser fleet looks a little bit artificial. Is it more logical, to add an evasion buff to smaller fleet?
In that case concentrating all your fleets makes perfect sense, at least until the front-line has advanced to a point where this is no longer the case.
The intention is not that you should *never* concentrate your fleets, just that it shouldn't always be the de-facto best option regardless of the circumstances.
Wait, if it can't path through enemy fleets/starbases (which are in every system) how is one supposed to fight in enemy systems away from your bases? Doesn't this just result in a very obvious frontline you can't go around or have I misread something? Also seems like this would result in a fleet base being taken out and the attached fleet also being wiped out if engaged in a battle in an enemy system.
I would like to assume you've covered the following use case but I'll ask to be certain: can a player game the Force Disparity bonus by deliberately splitting up their fleet? Consider this hypothetical behaviour: I send the first half of my fleet to fight the enemy. Once that first half did some boosted damage and is now beat up, I send the other half immediately afterwards. Assume the timings were perfect such that this second fleet initiates a new combat instead of extending the previous ones, so Emergency FTL timers are reset. The two halves need not have the same ship designs: maybe I wanted the missile ships to enjoy the Force Disparity bonus and get out before I send my non-missile ships in. The more realistic scenario is when one 'half' of the fleet is weapon platforms around my starbase - I now have a choice to deliberately not send my ships into my system when the enemy begins fighting my immobile starbase 'fleet'.
Are the numbers being tuned while considering this kind of extra-micro? I understand the goal will be for my other Y ships to go do other strategically crippling moves while my X ships are keeping the enemy fleet tied up. Will the system ensure that if I want to commit X ships into a fight, it's always better to send the full X ships in at once as opposed to this degenerate 'by waves with minimal delay inbetween fights'?
Are the numbers being tuned while considering this kind of extra-micro? I understand the goal will be for my other Y ships to go do other strategically crippling moves while my X ships are keeping the enemy fleet tied up. Will the system ensure that if I want to commit X ships into a fight, it's always better to send the full X ships in at once as opposed to this degenerate 'by waves with minimal delay inbetween fights'?
Step in the right direction, but...
I'm not sure the fleet cap (issue #3) makes all that much sense to be honest. Wiz ourtight says there is still no limit to the size of the battle. So instead of 1 doomstack, now you have three seperate fleets, all set to follow one another ... but still working as a doomstack (and now with more micromanagement!).
Issue #1 and the solution of "Force Disparity Combat Bonus" is stupid if you ask me. Especially combined with the command limit. What happens when I decide to split my 3-fleet doomstack into a 6-fleet doomstack - how do these bonuses stack (hopefully it just takes all combatant into account).
In any case, this is a band-aid patch if I ever I saw one. "Hey, bigger fleets are too strong, let's just make a magical buff to smaller fleets to compensate!" I don't buy it. Sure, it will help even the playing field, but it's painfully artificial.
Issue #2 with the retreat mechanics looks great, makes sense, and will have a nice impact. My only worry though is that fleet battles will snowball more quickly. If ships start vanishing at 50% damage your force strength will drop very quickly. But in that case you were going to lose the battle anyway. Realistically, if you get into an engagement you won't win, your best option is still to FTL jump away the entire fleet as soon as you can to minimize damage, get your fleet back quickly, and repaired more quickly. So really, nothing has changed.
The problem with Doomstacks, IMHO, that developers don't seem to acknowledge is that doomstacks are a symptom of how strategic warfare is structured in most 4X games. All of the typical well-intended solutions (fleet limits, emergency retreating, yadda yadda) are all tactical-level band-aids that don't change the underlying strategic-level incentives.
The basic question to ask is this: what incentive is there for the player to have multiple fleets?
In most 4X games, there are NO incentives at a strategic level. Hyperlanes and fixed defenses protect your empire and don't require you to spread around multiple smaller fleets for defense. For offense, you want your whole fleet doomstacked to quickly overcome those same chokepoints. There are no incentives for raiding fleets to blockade or disrupt supply lines (because there are no supply lines). Fleets all move at the same (or close enough speed) so there is no real gameplay in strategic position + manuever. There are no stealth or detection mechanics in most games that could, for example, make smaller fleets harder to detect and therefore able to be more effective at raiding back lines. Games rarely have mechanisms for pinning hostile forces and making it risky to have your eggs in one basket. Ironically, Stellaris got rid of their battleship modules that did exactly this. That was a big WTF moment for me.
In short, 4X games - especially 4X space games - do an absolutely miserable job creating an interesting strategic-level system for warfare. And until dev's realize this and actually make some interesting mechanics that create INCENTIVES for something other than doomstacks, we're just going to be reapplying the same old band-aids over and over.
I'm not sure the fleet cap (issue #3) makes all that much sense to be honest. Wiz ourtight says there is still no limit to the size of the battle. So instead of 1 doomstack, now you have three seperate fleets, all set to follow one another ... but still working as a doomstack (and now with more micromanagement!).
Issue #1 and the solution of "Force Disparity Combat Bonus" is stupid if you ask me. Especially combined with the command limit. What happens when I decide to split my 3-fleet doomstack into a 6-fleet doomstack - how do these bonuses stack (hopefully it just takes all combatant into account).
In any case, this is a band-aid patch if I ever I saw one. "Hey, bigger fleets are too strong, let's just make a magical buff to smaller fleets to compensate!" I don't buy it. Sure, it will help even the playing field, but it's painfully artificial.
Issue #2 with the retreat mechanics looks great, makes sense, and will have a nice impact. My only worry though is that fleet battles will snowball more quickly. If ships start vanishing at 50% damage your force strength will drop very quickly. But in that case you were going to lose the battle anyway. Realistically, if you get into an engagement you won't win, your best option is still to FTL jump away the entire fleet as soon as you can to minimize damage, get your fleet back quickly, and repaired more quickly. So really, nothing has changed.
The problem with Doomstacks, IMHO, that developers don't seem to acknowledge is that doomstacks are a symptom of how strategic warfare is structured in most 4X games. All of the typical well-intended solutions (fleet limits, emergency retreating, yadda yadda) are all tactical-level band-aids that don't change the underlying strategic-level incentives.
The basic question to ask is this: what incentive is there for the player to have multiple fleets?
In most 4X games, there are NO incentives at a strategic level. Hyperlanes and fixed defenses protect your empire and don't require you to spread around multiple smaller fleets for defense. For offense, you want your whole fleet doomstacked to quickly overcome those same chokepoints. There are no incentives for raiding fleets to blockade or disrupt supply lines (because there are no supply lines). Fleets all move at the same (or close enough speed) so there is no real gameplay in strategic position + manuever. There are no stealth or detection mechanics in most games that could, for example, make smaller fleets harder to detect and therefore able to be more effective at raiding back lines. Games rarely have mechanisms for pinning hostile forces and making it risky to have your eggs in one basket. Ironically, Stellaris got rid of their battleship modules that did exactly this. That was a big WTF moment for me.
In short, 4X games - especially 4X space games - do an absolutely miserable job creating an interesting strategic-level system for warfare. And until dev's realize this and actually make some interesting mechanics that create INCENTIVES for something other than doomstacks, we're just going to be reapplying the same old band-aids over and over.
Only upgraded Starbases inhibit FTL. Sure, your enemy might have fortified every system along the border, but if you capture those fortresses while their entire fleet is off somewhere else then *you* get to use them. The way Starbase capture works opens up a lot of strategic options for detached fleets.
Just imagine shields work by warping gravity (similar to Mass Effect).
The less mass an object has, the more they are affected.
Particle streams get nearly repulsed by the warped gravity. Small projectiles get curved away 30 degrees so that they usually hit the armor at a sharp angle. Missiles? They get moved a fraction of a degree, not enough to make them miss (even before the guidance system corrects their course).
The trouble is if I have to declare war on a third party to bypass a "single starbase" that they are defending and either side can't break through. Then you in effect created "trench warfare in space".
Space Prussian FLeet Confirmed !
Ps again i ask or this will be cover by further DD ?
Why the ship Behavior is a setting choice when you build your ship ?
WIth the rework of how work admiral and fleet cap , the behavior could be choose at fleet level ? ( with each fleet in battle having is main goal ) ?
Ps again i ask or this will be cover by further DD ?
Why the ship Behavior is a setting choice when you build your ship ?
WIth the rework of how work admiral and fleet cap , the behavior could be choose at fleet level ? ( with each fleet in battle having is main goal ) ?
Do you accrue war exhaustion from ships that retreat in battle? Could you stack retreat ability and actually win a war against a bigger opponent by doing hit and run battles, taking next to no losses, and still inflicting minor ones on the enemy, until they've been weakened enough to win outright engagements?
It might make sense to have a limited period in which a fleet can sustain itself out of supply before degrading, making actions behind enemy lines possible. Also, maybe having mobile supply vessels to extend that time could be an option. I don't think it should be a "destroy base - fleet is gone" binary type of deal, simply "destroy base - fleet gets large debuff until reassigned to a new base".
Then again, I'm just spitballing here as this doesn't seem to be the direction they're going. I definitely do support having a bit more of a distinction between the "frontline" fleets and possible raiding groups as this is really where there could be a lot of meat in space warfare.
Great idea that ships will disengange if they are too badly damaged. I'm not sure what I think about the fleet caps and the fact that you have a set amound of energy per ship tho.
That's the only thing that I severly don't like in this DD. This makes the empire starts even more symmetrical. Well, at least you don't consolidate all basic weapons into one, that's something, I guess.
That's the only thing that I severly don't like in this DD. This makes the empire starts even more symmetrical. Well, at least you don't consolidate all basic weapons into one, that's something, I guess.
I doubt the early and even to a certain point the mid game will devolve too much into a single choke point scenario. Unless one is very lucky in their early scramble to claim systems. Will also depend greatly on the game creation settings on how many connections will be formed between systems.
And even than, it just changes your tactics to instead consider an all out slugfest to break through the choke point. Or perhaps consider going around by attacking a weak neighbor that also borders your target.
And by the time you get to the late game. Then Jump drives will be a factor, which will essentially function like para troopers. Dropping fleets behind enemy lines. And possibly drawing forces away from front-line choke points, which your main forces can exploit.
@Wiz
I'm curious as to why you guys decided to have the fleet disparity bonus as purely fire rate. The over all intent makes perfect sense but were there any iterations that gave a little bonus evasion/hull points/range etc.? Just curious mind you, I'm not pushing for that or anything.
I'm curious as to why you guys decided to have the fleet disparity bonus as purely fire rate. The over all intent makes perfect sense but were there any iterations that gave a little bonus evasion/hull points/range etc.? Just curious mind you, I'm not pushing for that or anything.
Various modifiers were discussed but the problem with most modifiers is that they're too unevenly useful - evasion would be a far better buff to corvette fleets than battleship ones. Fire rate is simple, can be calculated on and directly addresses the problem.
I like it in general, but I'd prefer if they actually made research paths matter more and include exclusive choices. It makes sense for an empire to have missiles, lasers and mass accelerators, but various empires might use them differently. I would be fine with choices like developing high-tech autonomous missiles but having the other weapon types mostly serve as point defense and to carve up shields (since the main assumption in that hypothetical empire is that warfare is missile-based), while another empire might field huge mass catapults but operate missiles mostly as scouting drones and lasers to to track and prepare targets (since mass accelerator projectiles are slow).
Right now, I suppose this exists on a very low level in the sequence in which you research things, but I'd like to see more customization of how a race actually fights long-term.
Last edited: