Turtling helps playing a tall empire

[enpi]

Many guys here are enarmored to play a tall instead of a wide empire. IMO one of the reasons it does not work very well in practice is that in fact turtling does not work very well.

So my suggestion to Pdx is - make turtling great again. Which means allow ascension paths, tactics or tecs which boost considerably system defenses and planetary defenses, which are able to hold off large fleets and troop forces from players with wide empires. Give an advantage to taller empires in aquiring these turtle tactics.

 

[Ezumiyr]

Tall empires are already supposed to be more effective at unlocking traditions and ascension perks, so that's several bonus you can use to have a better economy and a stronger fleet. A combo of Prosperity, Harmony, Exploration, and maybe Diplomacy (since federations is the way to go when playing tall) + habitats and whatever Perks give you defensive bonus should do the thing.

Btw, for the Ascension Perks, I saw a summary somewhere but I'm unable to find it again. Captain?

 

[Rorin_yt]

Planetary defenses are needed. Even if only is to introduce the attrition mechanic into de game.

 

[JMensch]

Planetary defenses are needed. Even if only is to introduce the attrition mechanic into de game.

Other than the shield, there isn't much point of putting defenses ON a planet, especially one with an atmosphere. Orbital defenses are the way to go.

 

[Sheriff Godwin Law]

So my suggestion to Pdx is - make turtling great again. Which means allow ascension paths, tactics or tecs which boost considerably system defenses and planetary defenses, which are able to hold off large fleets and troop forces from players with wide empires. Give an advantage to taller empires in aquiring these turtle tactics.

There are ascension paths that dramatically increase border spread and add a significant number of fleet support. Mega Structures also are billed as a way to enhance tall play. Now all of those expansion only features so consider purchasing Utopia and see how tall feels to you come April 6th.

However, in my experience isolating yourself is a a poor way to play tall. It's trickier but arranging a network of vassals and tributaries is the best way to get you the force necessary to compete with a wide empire while still keeping your empire lean and mean.

 

[Rorin_yt]

Other than the shield, there isn't much point of putting defenses ON a planet, especially one with an atmosphere. Orbital defenses are the way to go.

Gauss Cannons, Laser Turrets, Plasma Cannons, Missile Launchers... Ogame is your perfect example that it can make sense to have defenses against orbiting ships.

 

[JMensch]

Gauss Cannons, Laser Turrets, Plasma Cannons, Missile Launchers... Ogame is your perfect example that it can make sense to have defenses against orbiting ships.

Shooting through an atmosphere will slow your projectiles and weaken your beams. Any missile or rocket has to carry exponentially more fuel to make up for what is consumed going through the atmosphere. It makes 0 sense to have weapon defenses on a planet.

 

[TheDeadlyShoe]

there are already buffs to defensive gameplay - try playing a military republic with Fortifier and Corps of Engineers.

the problem is that defenses are preeeetty much impossible to balance right now because the requirement for usefulness is 'can hold up an entire similarly sized space empires warfleet for a reasonable time' which is ridiculous

 

[Rorin_yt]

Shooting through an atmosphere will slow your projectiles and weaken your beams. Any missile or rocket has to carry exponentially more fuel to make up for what is consumed going through the atmosphere. It makes 0 sense to have weapon defenses on a planet.

dude, you are really speaking about physics in a game that have FTL travel

 

[Dinkelman]

Planetary defenses would deter invasion forces though. Maybe it would damage them as they are landing on the planet. I feel like planetary battles need some work, if it got some, it could end up being much more interesting, dynamic, and engaging. One change that I think is needed is to make light, and limited bombardment only destroy a portion of the planetary fortifications, not all. With light, you only target identified military fortifications to avoid civilian casualties, some fortifications are bound to survive.

It is also problematic that you can just invade with a whole stack of hundreds of armies at the same time. It makes trying to defend pointless. All the features involving planetary defense are obsolete, that is no fun. Maybe only 12 armies (as many as the maximum garrisoned armies) should be able to be attacking at one given time, giving some balance, and reason to the defense vs offense situation. If your transport fleet has more armies, the rest would reinforce as the ones on the ground die. Introducing this change wouldn't cause more micromanagement, but it would make planetary battles and strategies into something intriguing. This might make generals and attachments useful as well to get an edge. You could then get more creative with generals traits, armies, and attachments. It keeps things simple, but makes them way better. There is a lot of room for improvement currently, but that doesn't mean you have to over-complicate things.

Also, I noticed that there is a part of the UI that shows the defending fleets vs the attacking fleets, but currently, it is impossible for to fleets to meet in battle while in orbit of a planet as they would engage before that happened. Maybe that would work if the game was turn-based. I don't know if this is left from when the game was in a different developmental state. I don't know if there is a way to make it work now, but if you did, I'd be interested in fleets battling in orbit as well as performing ground support. But fleets are a bit too large relative to the planets, visually speaking. Eh, I got a bit sidetracked.

I just think that the game would be more fun if offensive strategies were balanced vs defensive strategies. Right now, you can just forget about trying to defend except in early game.

 

[An Elder Thing]

dude, you are really speaking about physics in a game that have FTL travel

And what is essentially the Warp from 40k, Mind Uploads, what is essentially a demon from hell sticking out of a blackhole, a sapient temporal paradox, what is essentially daemons from 40k, Space Dragons from a previous Universe, energy beings...

Really shooting things from planet is what people find as a deal breaker for immersion and realism.

 

[Foefaller]

IIRC one of the traditions in the Prosperity tree gives you buffs whenever you're fighting on home turf in a defensive war. I think it was 15% fire rate increase and improved ship construction speed. Not Final Numbers Numbers Not Final of course.

Wiz has also confirmed in another thread that simply blockading a planet won't give warscore anymore So an attacker will actually have to go through with invading worlds, not just winning the space battles. Depending on what other possible changes there could be (pleasepleaseplease be a cap on the number of invading armies on the planet at once) you could see serious slowdown on achieving wargoals if the invading empire doesn't have enough armies to attack more than one world at a time.

However, buffing defenses for the sake of a small empire holding off a larger empire can only go so far. Otherwise you risk having wide empires that are as well protected as tall ones, only with the kind of fleet a wide empire can support backing it up.

 

[Chieron]

Shooting through an atmosphere will slow your projectiles and weaken your beams. Any missile or rocket has to carry exponentially more fuel to make up for what is consumed going through the atmosphere. It makes 0 sense to have weapon defenses on a planet.

At the same time, ground installations can be huge compared to space stations of similar cost and do not require anything to stay in place. The atmospheric attenuation works both ways, too.
It doesn't have to be overpowered, but a fleet orbiting a hostile planet should not just sit there unopposed.

 

[Slynx]

you already have planetary defense module vs enemy fleet - it's called spaceport. yes it suck. even on lvl6 with multiple def. fortresses around it can hardly delay anything. but it's function is still the same that you want. (maybe you should ask to buff it instead?)

 

[TheDeadlyShoe]

At the same time, ground installations can be huge compared to space stations of similar cost and do not require anything to stay in place. The atmospheric attenuation works both ways, too.
It doesn't have to be overpowered, but a fleet orbiting a hostile planet should not just sit there unopposed.

Not true at all! Most minerals are shipped from other planets and from mining stations; it is actually easier to put them in orbit than onto the planet. Orbital structures also do not have the need for foundations or other means of combatting the effects of gravity, nor the vulnerabilities of destructive collapse when those measures fail. Missile warheads are dramatically more destructive in atmosphere than they are in space; bombarding missiles get a boost from gravity and defending missiles must spend enormous effort just to get into orbit. And, a bombarding fleet can orbit directly above the target they wish to destroy, facing a minimum of attenuation; other ground installations attempting to assist face greater and greater amounts of attenuation owing to planetary curvature. Damaged ships can move off, while installations must stand and be destroyed. There is no factor that actually favors ground installations, other than possibly being built far underground (which is still comparable to being built in a handy asteroid.)

 

[Sheriff Godwin Law]

Not true at all! Most minerals are shipped from other planets and from mining stations; it is actually easier to put them in orbit than onto the planet.

Depends on the planet. My mining world full of abused slaves living in squalid shanties and working 18 hour shifts in the refinery, most of my minerals come from there.

On the other hand, I'm not wasting any of those minerals protecting those pathetic wretches.

 

[Alblaka]

Tall empires are already supposed to be more effective at unlocking traditions and ascension perks,

HOLD IT RIGHT THERE!

No.
It was already math'd several times and confirmed by Wiz, that Tall empires are not 'more effective' at gaining Unity. Harmonious empires at more effective, regardless of size.
Unity cost increases per planet, yes, but due to all the buildings you can build to create Unity, each planet as well produces new unity. Even with only the base +1 from capital and +2 from monument you can go up to 20 planets before 'more planets = slower unity generation'. But with all the additional building every ethos can unlock, we're somewhere on 60-70 planets.

Now, if you call 70 planets 'tall' and declare everything past that as 'wide' yes, tall beats wide in unity. But I'm pretty sure you're referring to something <20.

The point of the Unity increase per planet is not to give tall empires something they are better at then wide empires, but to make sure that rapid expansion does not mean exponential unity gain.

 

[Foefaller]

HOLD IT RIGHT THERE!

No.
It was already math'd several times and confirmed by Wiz, that Tall empires are not 'more effective' at gaining Unity. Harmonious empires at more effective, regardless of size.
Unity cost increases per planet, yes, but due to all the buildings you can build to create Unity, each planet as well produces new unity. Even with only the base +1 from capital and +2 from monument you can go up to 20 planets before 'more planets = slower unity generation'. But with all the additional building every ethos can unlock, we're somewhere on 60-70 planets.

Now, if you call 70 planets 'tall' and declare everything past that as 'wide' yes, tall beats wide in unity. But I'm pretty sure you're referring to something <20.

The point of the Unity increase per planet is not to give tall empires something they are better at then wide empires, but to make sure that rapid expansion does not mean exponential unity gain.

One tiny caveat here:

Ethics Divergence still exists in 1.5. It's now called Empire Ethics Attraction and had gone through a THAC0-To Hit change in how it's displayed, but the net effect is the same; the further a pop is from the capital, the increased likelyhood that said pop will acquire an ethic that doesn't match the empire's. Ergo the increased chance of said pop joining a faction who you either will not or cannot please, ergo the increased chance of that pop become very unhappy and unharmonious, negatively affecting Unity.

So going wide can negatively affect your ability to unlock traditions, if only because it increases the likelyhood of pops joining factions that do not match the empire's ethos and are unhappy the current political establishment. A Tall empire with most of their worlds and habitats close to the capital would be able to better keep everyone in ethics and factions that agree with what the Empire is doing, keeping everyone happy, productive, and harmonious.

 

[TheDeadlyShoe]

yeah, unity was specifically introduced as a tall vs wide thing.

the dev diary:

One thing we have mentioned as a big priority for Stellaris is adding more empire customization and more ability to roleplay diverse empires. We have also talked about our desire to allow for the existance of 'tall' empires. Traditions and Unity is a feature that aims to tackle both these topics by adding 7 new Tradition trees and a resource called Unity that is used to unlock them.

 

[doc_miller]

I'll throw this out as an idea for improving system, as opposed to planetary, defense: Ships with no FTL drive only use a fraction, say between 1/4 and 1/2, of the maintenance and fleet capacity of a similarly equipped FTL ship. This would allow you to turtle up, at the expense of giving up a big chunk of your offensive ability.