The moment you restrict doomstacks.....

[Dalinski]

...will be when hundreds of people will complain they can't make a doomstack

 

[Kayden_II]

Stellaris system travel is much to fast.

The slow traval times means you need defence fleets placed over your empire.

This was an Answer, Which was quite good ...
There wouldn't be any Doomstack-Restriction, but until your Doomstack-Fleet has engaged the Enemy, probably Half of your Empire is destroyed ...

But to be honest - It needs an AI-Behaviour to split its Fleet, too.

 

[jazzglands]

This was an Answer, Which was quite good ...
There wouldn't be any Doomstack-Restriction, but until your Doomstack-Fleet has engaged the Enemy, probably Half of your Empire is destroyed ...

But to be honest - It needs an AI-Behaviour to split its Fleet, too.

Slow travel times are indeed a good answer. Unfortunately I think people would still make doomstacks, then complain that they can't defend their territory with one giant doomstack off doing war somewhere. In fact, I think I remember a lot of complaints to that effect on these forums already, back when the AI split up its navy more.

 

[Summin Cool]

Slow travel times are indeed a good answer. Unfortunately I think people would still make doomstacks, then complain that they can't defend their territory with one giant doomstack off doing war somewhere. In fact, I think I remember a lot of complaints to that effect on these forums already, back when the AI split up its navy more.

Yeah I recall as well. There isn't any point in dumbing the game down more than it already is for us however.

 

[Tim_Ward]

the more you tighten your grip, the more doomstacks will slip through your fingers

 

[GC13]

Slow travel times aren't the only answer. We need a large temporary supply infrastructure that fleets operating in hostile territory have to make use of, so that a weaker defender can try to attack it and remove the attacker's supply. Right now the best a weak fleet can hope to do is base race the other fleet, which is neither realistic nor fun.

 

[Slarkon]

ive said it a few times, so apologies if someone has explained why it wont work but please do so again
doomstack fix should be
the more ships = less rate of fire (not all ships in a massive fleet have line of sight 100% of the time)
when a smaller fleet engages a bigger fleet = higher accuracy rate (less chance to miss cause you know more targets)

 

[Darustet]

ive said it a few times, so apologies if someone has explained why it wont work but please do so again
doomstack fix should be
the more ships = less rate of fire (not all ships in a massive fleet have line of sight 100% of the time)
when a smaller fleet engages a bigger fleet = higher accuracy rate (less chance to miss cause you know more targets)

People would just split one doomstack to smaller ones and use them in tandem. You would need to give the said negative modifiers based on how far apart the fleets are from one another and yet, people would just keep them in the same system at max range and attack from the sides when needed. More micro but the number of ships per system would remain the same. And if we would be realistic, a huge fleet would face the enemy as a wall, with ships on top of another so no line-of-sight problems.

Now I don't mind micro at war, but it should be kept at strategic level, that's the scope of the game after all. Flanking bonuses do seem nice but ships should do that automatically anyway. Fighters already do to some extent.

 

[Elfwind]

Minefields make some sense, more ships in an area would mean less room to maneuver so maybe mines do more damage and aoe?

 

[Kryndude]

Slow travel times are indeed a good answer. Unfortunately I think people would still make doomstacks, then complain that they can't defend their territory with one giant doomstack off doing war somewhere. In fact, I think I remember a lot of complaints to that effect on these forums already, back when the AI split up its navy more.

If PDX were to discourage doomstacks in any way (which I think they should but), they first need to improve game UI and unit control or else I'll just keep using doomstacks for the sake of my right wrist.

 

[wthree]

I personally like the idea a few people have mentioned which ties max fleet size to the admiral.

There would be a standard fleet limit per system, going over the limit would incur problems. Having an admiral increases this limit, as would being in home territory, or a system with a spaceport.

Adding supply lines would also be a good move, although not necessarily a cure for doomstacks. The system I envision would see the requirement for clear travel to the nearest friendly spaceport. If this chain is broken, the fleet counts as 'out of power' after a certain amount of days, again relating to the size of the fleet. This would would mean small fleets could stay behind enemy lines longer, encouraging the use of small strike forces.

 

[Kinkness]

I personally like the idea a few people have mentioned which ties max fleet size to the admiral.

There would be a standard fleet limit per system, going over the limit would incur problems. Having an admiral increases this limit, as would being in home territory, or a system with a spaceport.

Adding supply lines would also be a good move, although not necessarily a cure for doomstacks. The system I envision would see the requirement for clear travel to the nearest friendly spaceport. If this chain is broken, the fleet counts as 'out of power' after a certain amount of days, again relating to the size of the fleet. This would would mean small fleets could stay behind enemy lines longer, encouraging the use of small strike forces.

I like the idea of a soft cap limit of ships per fleet, something which both tech, Admiral skills, and maybe even faction traits, or governments can give bonus's too.

Think of Ships like Navies irl, your fleet can only be so big, before you start having issues in terms of management, and such. One Admiral can only keep tabs on so many things at once. You need to split up the fleet into smaller parts, as realistically this would result in better management for the admiral, making the most effective use of his fleet.

Now of course that's alot of micro management, instead of putting on random negative modifiers, just simplify it to Admirals having a soft cap on how many ships they can have in their own fleet. Tech, govt's, etc. as I said can boost this number over time. This nullfies "death stacks" and allows multiple fleets to work together.

This also opens up more strategy to fleet formations, and fleet composition of ships. Different loadouts and ship types for different types of fleets. Suddenly you have some real strategy going on with something as simple as limiting number of ships per fleet.

 

[Mummolus]

Area attack weapons.

The game even references 'Subspace Bombs' and the like in some events, if certain weapons did damage to an area rather than just one target then doomstacks would be more vulnerable the bigger they were.

 

[Darustet]

I like the idea of a soft cap limit of ships per fleet, something which both tech, Admiral skills, and maybe even faction traits, or governments can give bonus's too.

Think of Ships like Navies irl, your fleet can only be so big, before you start having issues in terms of management, and such. One Admiral can only keep tabs on so many things at once. You need to split up the fleet into smaller parts, as realistically this would result in better management for the admiral, making the most effective use of his fleet.

Now of course that's alot of micro management, instead of putting on random negative modifiers, just simplify it to Admirals having a soft cap on how many ships they can have in their own fleet. Tech, govt's, etc. as I said can boost this number over time. This nullfies "death stacks" and allows multiple fleets to work together.

This also opens up more strategy to fleet formations, and fleet composition of ships. Different loadouts and ship types for different types of fleets. Suddenly you have some real strategy going on with something as simple as limiting number of ships per fleet.

Wouldn't solve the issue of using smaller fleets side to side in the same system and "fleets per system" cap, however soft, feels forced.

In game it has often been necessary for me to divide my fleet just to manage fighting on different fronts and to chase raiding parties. The solution, at least part of it, is already in the game and we just need to emphasise it a little more. There is no strategy involved if I need to divide my fleet because otherwise the negative modifier would kill me, but there is a strategy to choose where to fight what, with what, when and at what cost. Make battleships and large fleets slower to FTL, bulky but powerful "mothership" fleets, while everything under it blitz and pillages until the enemy is forced to retaliate and you can lure them to engage your battleships where you want.

Skills, edicts and research can still play a part of that. Fleet admirals command your capital ships and emphasise armour and battleship firepower. Vice admirals command blitz parties and boost FTL and sub-FTL speeds and evasion of smaller ships. With research and policies, defensive player can make ships FTL faster and cost less naval capasity inside your own territory. Attacking player can diminish the negative speed modifiers inside enemy territory to quicker raid outposts and thus force the enemy to divide his fleets. Here a supply system is implemented when fighting deep inside enemy territory. You can manage that by research, pillaging or using your mothership fleet as a base of operations.

Needs a lot of work and this is but brainstorming but I really think that player should be guided by meaningful choices and decisions, not by arbitary caps.

 

[Dalinski]

Minefields make some sense, more ships in an area would mean less room to maneuver so maybe mines do more damage and aoe?

I'm totally for effective minefields

 

[Tim_Ward]

I can't help but feeling that the one month cooldown on emergency FTL contributes to the present trends towards doomstacks - when every loss is a potential stackwipe keeping everyone together is only prudent.

 

[gathomas88]

...will be when hundreds of people will complain they can't make a doomstack

Eh. I actually kind of like doomstacks, tbh.

What's the alternative? Scrambling around like a madman trying to keep track of dozens of dinky little friendly and enemy fleets all headed in different directions?

In real time???

Yeaaaah... No thanks. This is supposed to be more of a "thinking man's" strategy game, not a Starcraft style masochistic spaz-click microfest.

 

[Tim_Ward]

Eh. I actually kind of like doomstacks, tbh.

What's the alternative? Scrambling around like a madman trying to keep track of dozens of dinky little friendly and enemy fleets all headed in different directions?

In real time???

Yeaaaah... No thanks. This is supposed to be more of a "thinking man's" strategy game, not a Starcraft style masochistic spaz-click micro-fest.

 

[gathomas88]

View attachment 224140

That's a giant pain in the butt even as the game stands now when it comes to trying to corner just one ai fleet. Do you really want to do it with three or four at the same time, while yet another makes a b-line decapitation bid for your homeworld?

Fighting with multiple armies only really works in other Clausewitz games because they're terrestrial in setting. Everything moves a lot slower, and Terrain restricts and canalizes movement along just a few predictable paths. The emphasis on extended siege warfare in CK2 and EU4 also tends to pin armies down to a few key locations, where they can be further delayed and subsequently rallied against.

Stellaris doesn't have any of that. Fleets can whiz in from basically any vector, and be gone before you even really know what's happening; let alone have a chance to try and counter.

Frankly, even in CK2 and EU4, warfare still tends to boil down to a couple of doom stacks duking it out for supremacy sooner or later. I never had a problem with that.

 

[Summin Cool]

That's a giant pain in the butt even as the game stands now when it comes to trying to corner just one ai fleet. Do you really want to do it with three or four at the same time, while yet another makes a b-line decapitation bid for your homeworld?

Fighting with multiple armies only really works in other Clausewitz games because they're terrestrial in setting. Everything moves a lot slower, and Terrain restricts and canalizes movement along just a few predictable paths. The emphasis on extended siege warfare in CK2 and EU4 also tends to pin armies down to a few key locations, where they can be further delayed and subsequently rallied against.

Stellaris doesn't have any of that. Fleets can whiz in from basically any vector, and be gone before you even really know what's happening; let alone have a chance to try and counter.

Frankly, even in CK2 and EU4, warfare still tends to boil down to a couple of doom stacks duking it out for supremacy sooner or later. I never had a problem with that.

It's a real pain in the butt to press the pause button?