There have been many suggestions regarding strategic warfare. Many of these suggestions aim to create a new game-play dynamic. I will attempt to describe the dynamic I wish to achieve and then explain the specific suggestions I have to achieve them.
Currently warfare revolves around fleets. If you can get an initial advantage over your opponents fleet than you usually win the war as you can press your advantage to prevent the enemy from regrouping. Additionally the fast refit times allow you to re-purpose your fleet to meet the aggressor relatively quickly. Finally traditional targets (planets and key shipyards) can be ignored as fast build and refit times ensure that the destruction of the enemy fleet takes absolute precedence.
I feel that the above are, to varying degrees, issues that should be resolved. Of course this is not HOI and I do not expect warfare in stellaris to achieve anywhere near the level of complexity inherent in that game. I feel that by adjusting the relative importance of certain game factors we can get a more dynamic conflict system.
I would like to see conflict in stellaris revolve around a series of "fortress worlds" or "fortress systems" as well as "strategic worlds" and "strategic systems". These are simply locations that are hard to take and/or important to hold. Fortress system, for example, is only a game-play term. It is not meant to be a specific modifier or trait.
What constitutes a strategic system. A strategic system must be strategically important. strategic importance in stellaris comes from resources and production. If a system has a high level spaceport it is important. If it has important planets (for energy and minerals) then it is important. Currently wars revolve more around fleets than strategic sectors. I think that this can be changed by drawing out the progress of wars and increasing the importance of shipbuilding capacity.
A fortress system is one which is highly defensible. Fortress systems should be costly to take (for an equally matched opponent). Taking a fortress system should slow fore the attacker to pause and rebuild their strength. This is important because it also allows the defender to rebuild. If an aggressor does not deal with the opponents economy (the unprotected sectors that give the opponent resources). Then the defender may gain the advantage from the pause after taking a fortress system. I feel this can be achieved by removing or drastically reducing the placement inhibitors on forts, as well as decreasing their cost.
So my suggestions.
1. Fleets should take longer to upgrade repair and possibly rebuild. This was the case in version 1.0 but I feel that that version did this incorrectly. Ships should upgrade relatively quickly. Switching a cruisers guns from kinetic 3 to kinetic 4 might only take a month or two. However ships should be upgraded individually, in sequence. Each level of shipyard should allow for the upgrade/refit of one ship point (cor=1 des=2 cru=3 bat=4). A level 8 port could upgrade 2 battleships simultaneously. The upgraded ships would be broken off from the fleet and returned when done. In peacetime a fleet will disperse its ships across an empires shipyards to upgrade them. During wartime it will only use the shipyard capacity of the current system (to avoid ships running off only to get ambushed alone).
If a player needs the fleet in wartime then they are only locked out of the ships currently in refit (which should be done in a few months at most). If a players fleet is damaged, however, they may have to pause a campaign for a few months to repair.
Additionally crippled ships should auto-retreat from battle. This will intentionally clutter shipyards with crippled ships. Given time a player who's fleet was crippled may regain their strength If those shipyards are destroyed than the crippled ships are worthless for the rest of the war. This may help wounded players recover
2. Fortress should have a reduced cost and maintenance over equivalent fleets. A player who masses forts will suffer in attack. And because they have to distribute those forts across an empire it requires a greater investment to protect all their planets than it would building a fleet. The advantage of forts is as a force multiplier to slow the enemy. To this ends the cost of forts must be reduced drastically (to perhaps 1/4 of their current cost).
If the defender builds forts to protect every strategic sector then they will be weaker than the aggressor in every engagement. If the defender concentrates their forts in one or two sectors than the aggressor can pick off every other planet in the empire thus crippling its economy. The war may be long but eventually the attacker will amass a large enough fleet to break the defender (who is reduced to just their capitol).
Additionally the cost in taking a fortress world may reduce the attackers strength below that of a defender who carefully uses forts. As a result the defender may successfully counter-attack after a fortress system falls. This would make warfare more dynamic.
TLDR
Ships should repair and refit faster but be repaired individually such that the fleet repairs and refits take much longer (perhaps as long as in 1.0). Shipyards should be able to repair ships in parallel based on the shipyards level (and ship size). so that shipyards become immensely important in wartime.
Crippled ships should have a high chance to retreat so that empires with a high shipbuilding capacity may regain some of their strength. This drastically increases the importance of shipyards.
Fortresses should stack better and be much cheaper. They are already much less effective than fleets because they only protect one system and so an empire can be starved if they only build forts.
This means that a turtling player must be defeated by starving their resources and outproducing them. A wounded player may retreat behind forts to rebuild. And taking shipyards becomes more important than destroying fleets.
An aggressive player with more fleets than forts may have an initial advantage but if they don't hit their opponent hard then early losses may put them behind their opponent.
A militarist with a poor economy must win wars quickly as they will fall behind in a protracted war where enemy ships repair and refit.
EDIT:
I am curious about your opinions on my vision of gameplay; Even more so than the suggestions themselves. If any of you have ideas for a game dynamic then I would love to hear them.
Currently warfare revolves around fleets. If you can get an initial advantage over your opponents fleet than you usually win the war as you can press your advantage to prevent the enemy from regrouping. Additionally the fast refit times allow you to re-purpose your fleet to meet the aggressor relatively quickly. Finally traditional targets (planets and key shipyards) can be ignored as fast build and refit times ensure that the destruction of the enemy fleet takes absolute precedence.
I feel that the above are, to varying degrees, issues that should be resolved. Of course this is not HOI and I do not expect warfare in stellaris to achieve anywhere near the level of complexity inherent in that game. I feel that by adjusting the relative importance of certain game factors we can get a more dynamic conflict system.
I would like to see conflict in stellaris revolve around a series of "fortress worlds" or "fortress systems" as well as "strategic worlds" and "strategic systems". These are simply locations that are hard to take and/or important to hold. Fortress system, for example, is only a game-play term. It is not meant to be a specific modifier or trait.
What constitutes a strategic system. A strategic system must be strategically important. strategic importance in stellaris comes from resources and production. If a system has a high level spaceport it is important. If it has important planets (for energy and minerals) then it is important. Currently wars revolve more around fleets than strategic sectors. I think that this can be changed by drawing out the progress of wars and increasing the importance of shipbuilding capacity.
A fortress system is one which is highly defensible. Fortress systems should be costly to take (for an equally matched opponent). Taking a fortress system should slow fore the attacker to pause and rebuild their strength. This is important because it also allows the defender to rebuild. If an aggressor does not deal with the opponents economy (the unprotected sectors that give the opponent resources). Then the defender may gain the advantage from the pause after taking a fortress system. I feel this can be achieved by removing or drastically reducing the placement inhibitors on forts, as well as decreasing their cost.
So my suggestions.
1. Fleets should take longer to upgrade repair and possibly rebuild. This was the case in version 1.0 but I feel that that version did this incorrectly. Ships should upgrade relatively quickly. Switching a cruisers guns from kinetic 3 to kinetic 4 might only take a month or two. However ships should be upgraded individually, in sequence. Each level of shipyard should allow for the upgrade/refit of one ship point (cor=1 des=2 cru=3 bat=4). A level 8 port could upgrade 2 battleships simultaneously. The upgraded ships would be broken off from the fleet and returned when done. In peacetime a fleet will disperse its ships across an empires shipyards to upgrade them. During wartime it will only use the shipyard capacity of the current system (to avoid ships running off only to get ambushed alone).
If a player needs the fleet in wartime then they are only locked out of the ships currently in refit (which should be done in a few months at most). If a players fleet is damaged, however, they may have to pause a campaign for a few months to repair.
Additionally crippled ships should auto-retreat from battle. This will intentionally clutter shipyards with crippled ships. Given time a player who's fleet was crippled may regain their strength If those shipyards are destroyed than the crippled ships are worthless for the rest of the war. This may help wounded players recover
2. Fortress should have a reduced cost and maintenance over equivalent fleets. A player who masses forts will suffer in attack. And because they have to distribute those forts across an empire it requires a greater investment to protect all their planets than it would building a fleet. The advantage of forts is as a force multiplier to slow the enemy. To this ends the cost of forts must be reduced drastically (to perhaps 1/4 of their current cost).
If the defender builds forts to protect every strategic sector then they will be weaker than the aggressor in every engagement. If the defender concentrates their forts in one or two sectors than the aggressor can pick off every other planet in the empire thus crippling its economy. The war may be long but eventually the attacker will amass a large enough fleet to break the defender (who is reduced to just their capitol).
Additionally the cost in taking a fortress world may reduce the attackers strength below that of a defender who carefully uses forts. As a result the defender may successfully counter-attack after a fortress system falls. This would make warfare more dynamic.
TLDR
Ships should repair and refit faster but be repaired individually such that the fleet repairs and refits take much longer (perhaps as long as in 1.0). Shipyards should be able to repair ships in parallel based on the shipyards level (and ship size). so that shipyards become immensely important in wartime.
Crippled ships should have a high chance to retreat so that empires with a high shipbuilding capacity may regain some of their strength. This drastically increases the importance of shipyards.
Fortresses should stack better and be much cheaper. They are already much less effective than fleets because they only protect one system and so an empire can be starved if they only build forts.
This means that a turtling player must be defeated by starving their resources and outproducing them. A wounded player may retreat behind forts to rebuild. And taking shipyards becomes more important than destroying fleets.
An aggressive player with more fleets than forts may have an initial advantage but if they don't hit their opponent hard then early losses may put them behind their opponent.
A militarist with a poor economy must win wars quickly as they will fall behind in a protracted war where enemy ships repair and refit.
EDIT:
I am curious about your opinions on my vision of gameplay; Even more so than the suggestions themselves. If any of you have ideas for a game dynamic then I would love to hear them.
Last edited:
- 5
Upvote
0
