Why all the hate for static defenses?

[mangalore]

...

(I noticed in other paradox games players tend to ask questions like "How can I blitz like the German Wehrmacht" or "How do I play like Frederick the Great?" where in Stellaris it's "why won't my fortresses work!"... says something about the players ^^' )

Not sure this is a fair assertion. Baring a geography and front lines in Stellaris every move is blitzing as it's easy to bypass strongpoints and hit whatever is in your reach added by fast deceisive victories in fleet clashes allowing to roll up even large empires once the fortune of war turned into your favor and the broken remants of their main fleet is on the run.

I think the main idea behind fortresses and defenses (e.g. mine fields) is to create something resembling a geography in a system because overall currently you only have either the enemy's main fleet or easy targets ready to die.

There is no geography to the wars which would inform strategy, logistics and the like.

 

[Almond_Brown]

Perhaps just have the footprint (red circle) be a indicator for the max range of the biggest weapon placed aboard, then one can stack based on the weapons load-outs and even design multiple fortress that compliment each other at given ranges. I assume the BIG RED circle is the "Foot Print" in question here right?

P.S. They need X sized weapons slot already fcol.

 

[BlackUmbrellas]

Perhaps just have the footprint (red circle) be a indicator for the max range of the biggest weapon placed aboard, then one can stack based on the weapons load-outs and even design multiple fortress that compliment each other at given ranges. I assume the BIG RED circle is the "Foot Print" in question here right?

P.S. They need X sized weapons slot already fcol.

The red circle is the "footprint", yes. I don't mind there being a footprint- it stops you from putting a dozen stations on the exact same spot, which seems reasonable. But the footprints are definitely too big for military stations, in my opinion, and reducing them would help make station-based defences viable.

 

[zanaikin]

Not sure this is a fair assertion. Baring a geography and front lines in Stellaris every move is blitzing as it's easy to bypass strongpoints and hit whatever is in your reach added by fast deceisive victories in fleet clashes allowing to roll up even large empires once the fortune of war turned into your favor and the broken remants of their main fleet is on the run.

I think the main idea behind fortresses and defenses (e.g. mine fields) is to create something resembling a geography in a system because overall currently you only have either the enemy's main fleet or easy targets ready to die.

There is no geography to the wars which would inform strategy, logistics and the like.

My point was that in most other Paradox games, the players were willing to learn military doctrines of the era to improve their gameplay. And when they cited a mechanic that should be implemented, they also cited historical anecdote -- often in-depth -- for how and why it played a major role in warfare.
In Stellaris, people want the game mechanics to adjust to their own styles.
(of course, we don't have military books and battle analysis from the future... and competent military scifi writers are in the niche).

Stellaris' terrain is simple: gravity wells.
Learn to abuse it. Keep your fleets slippery and make sure the enemy fights on your terms.
Author David Weber did it beautifully in At All Costs.

 

[BlackUmbrellas]

Stellaris' terrain is simple: gravity wells.

That would hold water if there was any variance in engagement conditions.

Every star is equal. That's not "terrain", and it certainly has no reflection of any hypothetical relevance of "gravity wells".

Make different types of planet and star have different impacts on conditions local to them, then maybe you'd have an argument.

 

[Derp]

Planets and stars having local conditions still won't make this game Forts 'n' Frontlines, and some vocal people clearly want it to be.

Personally I'd be all for more interesting strategic elements to the map as long as they're not just hamhanded space mountains and space rivers.

 

[harvesarmy]

How would you even introduce a fort like system from EU IV in a space game? Can't one just argue planets are effectively self sufficient? What would a siege look like on the map? Would the fleet be inside the system? Doing what?

If forts act as blockers, as they do in EU IV then what is to stop players putting one of these ftl blockers in combination with snares, making all kinds of manoeuvre warfare impossible.

Perhaps if forts are going to block movement, then they should only do so at higher levels, and at a large degree of expense.
I suppose it would be possible to have each fort block a certain amount of fleet power, and all ships above that fleet power can move through as normal, but this would be difficult and complicated to model.

 

[Meneliki]

In Stellaris, the only option for military victory is basically "attack attack attack"- you can't so much fortify yourself, make yourself an unappealing target, weather a siege and then counter-attack.

You could fortify yourself with a combination of your static d and your fleet. If I knew my target was actively using his fleet as a defensive tool in tandem with his fortresses, that would be a very unappealing target.

If someone did get overzealous enough to attack, take advantage, kill them, and if the battle was sufficienly decisive, counterattack.

 

[milamber81]

How to introduce such a system? Say goodbye to the buildable forts and hello to a new system, where you can produce something like a fortification project. This project would fill the space with mines, would construct your best weapon platforms on not colonized stellar bodies if they have a solid surface and cloud cities full of strike crafts ready to attack as soon as a fleet enters the system. Also jump inhibitors all around the system with a high density but high radius, so that a fleet has to destroy a lot of them before they can retreat. And each day they are there they would get damage from the minefields, from the weaponry, from the strike crafts. Also the project gets only dismantled, when you succeed in destroying all defence post. If just one tiny laser cannon on a damned asteroid survives, the project will regenerate and a year later the system is as strong as it was...
That would be a system similar to the EU IV forts, at least in a all-hyperdrive game. With total freedom of movement you simply can't copy the effect of EU IV forts. But those systems would still be more useful than today's forts. They would trap your opponents fleets long enough, so that you could either attack there space, if you want or you could visit your own system...

 

[krios41]

I'm going to draw a comparison to Sins of a Solar Empire Rebbelion, but that game does static defenses right in my opinion.

ghaus cannons and hangars: those are weak but do a good job at delaying the enemie fleet. Do not expect these to win against any sizable force.

Mines: cheap, but take a conciderable time to complete as every mine is made seperatly. These are good against large fleets and will make anyone cautious. It will not stop a fleet, but it will kill a few ships and seriously harm others. After usage mines have to be re-build

Defense fortresses: Super expensive to make, slow to build. To combat these you need a very large force to take them out or a medium sized fleet with constant reinforcments. These will delay fleets for long enough for your army to reinforce. They will usually lose but that victory will come with heavy losses.

I'm not going to say PD should copy this, but this is how i think static defenses should work.
Now static defenses are like rebbels trying to stop Darth Vader, you just swat them aside without effort. Static defenses should be a full stop sign instead.

 

[Almond_Brown]

Perhaps as a start, something easy, how about make Minefields not suck so bad.

"Proximity Mines: Only available to Military Stations; causes enemy ships in the area of effect to have a 20% chance of taking 5-15 damage (75% armor penetration) every day that they are in the minefield."

20%? With a chance to Dodge. Really? Fortress die in a short week and so goes their minefields with them. At least make the Minefields remain after the Stations death and increase the Chance to Hit to >70% with damage having some meaningful value already.

 

[Mder1]

Paradox's design disdain towards static defenses is simple.

This is a studio whose foundation lay in games like Europa Universalis, Hearts of Iron, and Crusader Kings.

Notice that static defenses in any of those games will NOT win you wars. They only buy time until your enemy sieges them down, starve them into submission, flank around and isolate, or simply punch a hole through them with superheavy artillery and tanks.

Paradox's design philosophy is well grounded in real-world military theory where turtling is simply not a viable strategy and will only bring a slow death. The only purpose of defense is to buy time for a counterattack.

Stellaris is one of the only titles that opened up to the casual crowd, who are more interested in their own playstyles rather than learning military doctrines that the rest of us HOI or EU veterans already know -- like advance along parallel lines of mutual support; mobility is the key to victory (force march!); and blitz, isolate, and exploit.

(I noticed in other paradox games players tend to ask questions like "How can I blitz like the German Wehrmacht" or "How do I play like Frederick the Great?" where in Stellaris it's "why won't my fortresses work!"... says something about the players ^^' )

EU games do not even a simulate supply system.* They teach you next to nothing about military theory. Also 'turtling' can be a viable strategy: Just look at the Eighty Years War and the attrition the Spanish took by sieging down all these forts.

Also in EUIV if you're enemy lacks the ability to siege down the latest forts, he will never be able to win a war.

In HoI 2+3 defences were so strong that often in multiplayer games these were restricted. Ever tried to punch through a completely fortified French boarder as the German player against a capable enemy? Good luck.

It's not that these strategies are not viable, but they are not very fun. Sieging was in the time period of EU as important as field warfare (if not even more important). So it should receive a similar level of love. We've got manpower, discipline, soldier pips, leader pips. moral in field warfare. And while some are in siege warfare as well it usually comes down to putting enough artillery on the siege to keep it going. Fortresses lost importance when Napoleon turned up, but not before then.


*Walking with an army from France to Beijing? Not a problem.

 

[Adamsrealm]

Range is king in stellaris combat, and entering combat slows ships down. Why not create specific weapon variants for defence platforms that have extended ranges, but balanced damage. It'll slow large fleets down, giving you time to send reinforcements and provide effective chip damage against smaller fleets.

 

[Adamsrealm]

Perhaps as a start, something easy, how about make Minefields not suck so bad.

20%? With a chance to Dodge. Really? Fortress die in a short week and so goes their minefields with them. At least make the Minefields remain after the Stations death and increase the Chance to Hit to >70% with damage having some meaningful value already.

Why not just make mine fields their own construction, like SOASER, requiring special ships to detect them so they can be shot at (why not just a science ship? Thats requires a scientist to perform the function?).

 

[terrycloth]

EU games do not even a simulate supply system.*

*Walking with an army from France to Beijing? Not a problem.

But go sailing with the same army, and half of them die in transit.

I think the problem with walking armies is that winter supply is far too forgiving.

 

[Drekivoli]

In current Stellaris, static defenses don't make much sense in the first place.

In the future, if we have more and more useful civilian ships (like visible migration) or stealth ships, or spaceports that aren't tied to planets, or more interesting things than planets, or trade, or more interesting kinds of structures, or more and more interesting pirates/NPE, or basically anything else you can think of that isn't just 100% Space Navies With No Logistics + Monsters + Planets in space, then more static defenses will make more sense.

There's about a million things you can do with space structures and defenses, but just building immobile fleets for the sake of immobile fleets isn't one of them.

There is no such thing as Stealth in Space. Of course, Stellaris pulls more from Science Fantasy and Space Operas. Unfortunately the argument that it's "Sci fi" and it must inherently have these things is wrong on multiple fronts. And as many unrealistic things Paradox has in the game, Stealth in space is kind of crossing the line of complete impossibility. The laws of thermodynamics are ironclad. (That's not to say that you can't have Stealth like in the Expanse where you alter your ship somehow to make it look like a civilian ship, and I suppose Mass Effects version of it makes some sense.)

Anyway onto the subject matter, I don't see what else Static defenses could be use for? But that's mainly due to my never using it. I'm still kind of learning how to play the game and creating/discovering optimal strategies for my Empires.

 

[BlackUmbrellas]

There is no such thing as Stealth in Space. Of course, Stellaris pulls more from Science Fantasy and Space Operas. Unfortunately the argument that it's "Sci fi" and it must inherently have these things is wrong on multiple fronts. And as many unrealistic things Paradox has in the game, Stealth in space is kind of crossing the line of complete impossibility. The laws of thermodynamics are ironclad. (That's not to say that you can't have Stealth like in the Expanse where you alter your ship somehow to make it look like a civilian ship, and I suppose Mass Effects version of it makes some sense.)

Oh, please. "Stealth in space" is hardly the point where Stellaris crossed into "the impossible". It's space opera- there's nothing wrong with a cloaking field being added to the game if it brings interesting gameplay with it.

 

[Metaluser]

I still think the solution to most of the problems would be planetary defenses:
For example you could install a planetary laser battery (having the latest weapons as xl design) - it should deal some damage but not a huge amount of damage, maybe holding 2-4 XL weapons ( or you could upgrade the battery for more power later in the game).
This way your opponent is forced to bombard your planet which will take some time (could be increased by better planetary shields) during which his fleet will take damage.
This concept would basically work like a fortress in EU4. You have the attrition damage and buy some time as well.
One could even go further than that and get missile bases for torpedos or hangars on the planet (good enough for early-mid game combined with the starbase).

Of course it should only take 1 tile on the planet to build those defenses or maybe not even 1 tile just some ressources.

 

[Dalinski]

An idea that might help.

Could make Fortresses have special armour and XL weapons have a special modifier to penetrate it. So at least you need battleships with XL weapons to take on a fortress.

 

[Drekivoli]

Oh, please. "Stealth in space" is hardly the point where Stellaris crossed into "the impossible". It's space opera- there's nothing wrong with a cloaking field being added to the game if it brings interesting gameplay with it.

There are better ways of having "stealth" than fundamentally breaking the laws of physics. I actually offered a few ideas. But by all means obsess over a fraction of my post.