Wow defensive platforms are just gone once destroyed?

[Mikhail_Mengsk]

Platforms could have a lower up-front cost but a higher maintenance cost, making it impractical to maintain a lot of them during peace but possible to spam then when war is on the horizon (or already started).

Unless production time is also lowered significantly, the enemy will arrive there before they are ready in most cases, i fear. At least at the border, where they are usually more useful.

 

[Mikhail_Mengsk]

The whole "doomstack is how you win" thing *is* unfortunate, and making static defenses viable would probably reinforce that. There are ways you could mitigate the doomstack issue (which arguably needs mitigating already, without any changes to defenses) but it would then be necessary to consider platform balance in light of those changes.

I don't know. In all this time countless proposals has been made about it, but no one seemed to assure that doomstacking doesn't work. After all, concentration of force has always been the key. Technology is another mean to achieve local superiority, but in Stellaris (usually) if you have better tech you also have a strong economy, so you can also afford a lot of ships.

I doubt that changing defense platform can, in any way, affect doomstacking.

 

[methegrate]

I don't know. In all this time countless proposals has been made about it, but no one seemed to assure that doomstacking doesn't work. After all, concentration of force has always been the key. Technology is another mean to achieve local superiority, but in Stellaris (usually) if you have better tech you also have a strong economy, so you can also afford a lot of ships.

I doubt that changing defense platform can, in any way, affect doomstacking.

Yes and no... Doomstacking is definitely about a lot more than defensive platforms, but I think they do affect it.

Getting static defenses right does seem to matter. If you can build a super-fortress, then the enemy will need a doomstack to break through it. If you can build that super-fortress someplace that the enemy has to attack, then you pretty much guarantee that the whole war will be a doomstack battle. (I cannot say often enough, I do not understand the pro-chokepoint position.)

But otherwise, I agree. Doomstacking is about much, much more than static defenses.

Personally I've always thought this has a lot to do with the fact that Stellaris has no concept of logistics. Ships have infinite range with no supply lines or support issues to worry about. If those were real concerns, with players having to secure operating bases and fleets vulnerable to being cut off by raiding parties, then doomstacks might become much less of an issue.

 

[Greenslade]

This is something that has bothered me for a while and I really wish the developers would rethink it. Unlike starships, defense platforms do not have a chance to disengage, cannot retreat and they have no evasion. What this means is that even if you win a fight, the defense platforms will tend to get completely obliterated. Meanwhile most of the attacking ships will still be alive or have safely disengaged.

The result is that it's ruinously expensive, it takes forever to rebuild clogging up the starbase's queue, and annoying to micromanage.

Solution:
Ideally, what I would like to see is that after you build defense platforms, a starbase will automatically repopulate them over time. Invaders who capture the system will have to wait until the end of the war for the defense platforms to begin repopulating. Once a starbase no longer serves its purpose, you can permanently disband platforms and they will no longer repopulate.

There was a mechanic shift that I thought of which would solve a few combined issues - both this and the somewhat "bolted on" feel of armies.

Basic points:

• Remove transport ships and have armies move to fronts from a pool (also remove distinction between defense and assault armies)
• Invade systems, but have multiple fronts on planets, stations etc.
• Introduce an "occupation level" system.
  • At 0%: starbase disabled, defense platforms disabled, system "controlled" by invader but no resources produced.
  • As occupation ticks up, invader gains more access to resources. 50% occupation = 50% resource yield.
  • 50% marks the point where control changes hands even if fighting does not stop at the front. At this point starbase defenses but not platforms come back online, FTL inhibitors on starbases and platforms are turned off (for both sides), etc.
  • After 50% occupation the defenders are essentially a "resistance." As occupation ticks up to 100%, more resources are produced for the invader.
    • Also at this point the "recently invaded" mod kicks in. This gives support to "resistance" armies, but only for a time.
      • So, for eg, a long, dragged out resistance campaign will end up seeing public opinion turn against the resistance, while a short invasion will still leave the population resentful and unproductive.
  • At various occupation levels, defense platforms, FTL inhibitors, planetary shields etc come back online, representing the invading side taking control of more of the planet's infrastructure. Defense platforms could be marked as in need of repair, requiring an investment of alloys (not as much as building them in the first place), depending on how the balance plays out in testing.
  • At 100% occupation the system is considered fully won/lost. Any "recently invaded" modifier remaining is left to play out, but other than that the invader has full access to the system.

 

[Greenslade]

Yes and no... Doomstacking is definitely about a lot more than defensive platforms, but I think they do affect it.

Getting static defenses right does seem to matter. If you can build a super-fortress, then the enemy will need a doomstack to break through it. If you can build that super-fortress someplace that the enemy has to attack, then you pretty much guarantee that the whole war will be a doomstack battle. (I cannot say often enough, I do not understand the pro-chokepoint position.)

But otherwise, I agree. Doomstacking is about much, much more than static defenses.

Personally I've always thought this has a lot to do with the fact that Stellaris has no concept of logistics. Ships have infinite range with no supply lines or support issues to worry about. If those were real concerns, with players having to secure operating bases and fleets vulnerable to being cut off by raiding parties, then doomstacks might become much less of an issue.

Also +1 to logistics, supply lines and to making "home base" meaningful for fleets.

 

[LeanneKaos]

The lack of mobility, evasion, or range, and the hard cap on the number you can have per system, means that platforms should honestly be *more* cost-effective than ships. Why the heck does mounting thrusters and a hyperdrive on a hull make it, in effect, cheaper than an equally-strong stationary platform? That's just bizarre.

Comparing the starting auto-design platform to the starting auto-design corvette:
A platform costs 2.5 times what a corvette does, but offers: 3.33 times the hull, 7.5 times the amour, 3.75 times the shielding, and about 3.5 times the damage per cycle.

Comparing my current game, based on what the auto-design would offer me:
Platform costs 1.5 what a destroyer does, offers 1.4 times the hull, 2.5 times the armour, 2.5 times the shields, and 2.13 times the damage.
Cruiser costs 1.6 times what a platform does, offers 1.8 times the hull, 1.3 times the armour, even on shields, and 1.6 times the damage. This is *close* to even - damage ratio is equivalent to the cost ratio, I'm losing a bit of hull on the platform but gaining a bit of amour and a fair bit more on shields.

Don't have battleships in that game yet, so I can't run the numbers for that one.

I'll note that I didn't factor in evasion (which the defense station has none of) or range; but otherwise, at least on paper I *am* getting more power per alloy out of my stationary platforms than I would from mobile ships on the auto-designs.

Now, whether the actual performance per-alloy matches what the numbers themselves imply... I'm actually not sure how to test that without interference from the station itself.

 

[Tim_Ward]

That is traditionally what 'destroyed' means, yes.

 

[Jman5]

What would you say to a mod that made defense platforms behave like starbases, meaning at the end of failed combat they disabled like starbases and came back to life like them?

Nice!

Is it possible for the platforms to only come back online slowly and sequentially? So one defense platform heals up in about the time it takes to build one, then the next, and then the next. You don't want to make it too hard for defenders to retake systems they lost in a sudden war. You also want to give attackers a chance to wear down a system.

Ideally, captured defense platforms should not come online for invaders until after the war is won.

 

[The Dadinator]

Nice!

Is it possible for the platforms to only come back online slowly and sequentially? So one defense platform heals up in about the time it takes to build one, then the next, and then the next. You don't want to make it too hard for defenders to retake systems they lost in a sudden war. You also want to give attackers a chance to wear down a system.

Ideally, captured defense platforms should not come online for invaders until after the war is won.

I will see what can be done with sequentially bringing them back online but healing is done by the game itself so no easy way to slow it down. I will also look into not allowing them to come back online until after the war is won but no promises there as the logic to get that working properly gets way more complex... like what happens when there is no war? Like attacked by a Wraith, the Marauders, or other non-default "country". What happens if it is a total war where instant ownership takes place? Can I detect that properly?

I also suggested above maybe gating the return of the defense platforms to a special project but was informed by other modders that the AI would probably never do them so that is a non-starter.

 

[Jman5]

I will see what can be done with sequentially bringing them back online but healing is done by the game itself so no easy way to slow it down. I will also look into not allowing them to come back online until after the war is won but no promises there as the logic to get that working properly gets way more complex... like what happens when there is no war? Like attacked by a Wraith, the Marauders, or other non-default "country". What happens if it is a total war where instant ownership takes place? Can I detect that properly?

I also suggested above maybe gating the return of the defense platforms to a special project but was informed by other modders that the AI would probably never do them so that is a non-starter.

Yeah, edge cases might be tricky. I tried my best to mod this myself a while ago, but couldn't figure it out. At the time I thought I might find some clues by looking at how the Enigmatic Fortress does things with its defenses platforms re-activating after a time, but I couldn't find the right files.

 

[The Dadinator]

Yeah, edge cases might be tricky. I tried my best to mod this myself a while ago, but couldn't figure it out. At the time I thought I might find some clues by looking at how the Enigmatic Fortress does things with its defenses platforms re-activating after a time, but I couldn't find the right files.

This is all it does (event leviathans.2160):

event_target:disabled_enigmatic_fortress = {
    set_disabled = no
    repair_ship = yes
}

Which is essentially what mine is doing but I don't need the repair_ship part because that is baked into the defense platforms.

 

[Belhedler]

Comparing the starting auto-design platform to the starting auto-design corvette:
A platform costs 2.5 times what a corvette does, but offers: 3.33 times the hull, 7.5 times the amour, 3.75 times the shielding, and about 3.5 times the damage per cycle.

You're factoring neither the fact that platforms are for a large part of the game dead weight that cannot be moved at all nor that a corvette has a very high evasion. The corvette beats by a large margin the platform with that considered. Most platforms won't ever see a fight in all your game.

My own suggestion: each platform gives +5% in defense and offense to their starbase. They don't change themselves: they remain an expensive fancy toy that goes of rather quickly. When the platform is destroyed the corresponding bonus is removed. Make it so that high-end starbase gets L slots too otherwise the range will completely beat the starbase at all time like they do currently. Then I would consider platforms more of a strategic piece on my chess board and worth the investment they require. That also gives you more reason to increase the corresponding techs and ascension perk as stronger platforms means the bonus will remain longer making starbases and platforms more of a threat, which was the point in choosing these techs and perk wasn't it?

This fills most holes and can easily be implemented. It scales, makes density a real thing, justifies the cost of a feeble platform including their long construction time (since queued), justifies more the heavy cost of a citadel, while still preventing a starbase from ever becoming an unstoppable force since platforms are always taken down quite quickly. And above all, you won't get the nasty side effect of having to face your own fully upgraded starbase and platforms because it was taken down before (or the other way around, I see no reason for you to profit from a stronghold you defeated a moment ago). And if the tests show that the platforms don't survive long enough, make the defensive bonus stacks on them too (although it seems more of an issue to implement)

 

[The Dadinator]

OK my mod is up right now with the default behavior of the defense platforms coming online with the starbase. I will look into other methods to give the mod more options for the user.

https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=1633386532

 

[MightyFox]

Defense platforms as they are implemented currently just don't work that well. I often forgo building them at all, and just focus on increasing the starbase level even well into the late game. Only during times of war will I bother building them, and even then, only in the early to mid game, since they just get vaporized in late. It's as many others have said, they can be singled down, and can't escape, adding to costs, while providing little in the way of benefits.

Unfortunately, the problem can't really be solved without redoing the way starbases work. As is, even a citadel can be focused down far too quickly to be truly cost effective when dealing with crises or FEs. Only my ion cannons really cause casualties at that point, and they are really expensive in thier own right.

 

[Chthon]

I will see what can be done with sequentially bringing them back online but healing is done by the game itself so no easy way to slow it down. I will also look into not allowing them to come back online until after the war is won but no promises there as the logic to get that working properly gets way more complex... like what happens when there is no war? Like attacked by a Wraith, the Marauders, or other non-default "country". What happens if it is a total war where instant ownership takes place? Can I detect that properly?

I also suggested above maybe gating the return of the defense platforms to a special project but was informed by other modders that the AI would probably never do them so that is a non-starter.

You could put the defensive platform back into the build queue of the starbase for free, even do it on a %chance when it's destroyed. That way the construction won't be instantaneously at all.

 

[Wildwiredweasel]

honestly, i think that'd give the construction ships some midgame usefulness

 

[LeanneKaos]

You're factoring neither the fact that platforms are for a large part of the game dead weight that cannot be moved at all nor that a corvette has a very high evasion.

The first part was the (unspoken) premise - that *because they are stationary* you should get a discount on the price (which I agree with,) and the objection being that you were actually paying more - which is what I was looking to verify.

And I admitted to the second part, that I hadn't factored in evasion. Mostly because I wasn't quite sure how to - other than to note that as the evasion of the ship approaches that of the platform (ie 0) the numbers get closer - at least up to cruiser size. I'd have to actually graph them out (ideally with data from battleships and titans, which I didn't have at the time) to see how closely they come to converging.

But that's more work than I care to put into for a feature I don't really care for in the first place. Even as they are, I'm still able to 'turtle up' behind a starbase and hold off even an overwhelming AI indefinitely at least up to the beginning stages of the midgame - which IMO is too strong as it is, and severely warps my early game play.

 

[The Dadinator]

Right now I am working on 3 options for the restart:

• Adding a delay before they come back online - default is 30 days... options are 90, 180, 270, 360 days
• Adding a timed performance penalty modifier - -30%, -40%, or -50% (shields, armor, hull, damage) for 90, 180, 270, 360 days
• Adding a percent chance of catastrophic failure on restart - 10%, 20%, 30%, 40%, 50%... if failed, the defense platform is destroyed

Hopefully you will be able to combine them to your hearts content.

 

[AGenericAccount]

There was a mechanic shift that I thought of which would solve a few combined issues - both this and the somewhat "bolted on" feel of armies.

Basic points:

• Remove transport ships and have armies move to fronts from a pool (also remove distinction between defense and assault armies)
• Invade systems, but have multiple fronts on planets, stations etc.
• Introduce an "occupation level" system.
  • At 0%: starbase disabled, defense platforms disabled, system "controlled" by invader but no resources produced.
  • As occupation ticks up, invader gains more access to resources. 50% occupation = 50% resource yield.
  • 50% marks the point where control changes hands even if fighting does not stop at the front. At this point starbase defenses but not platforms come back online, FTL inhibitors on starbases and platforms are turned off (for both sides), etc.
  • After 50% occupation the defenders are essentially a "resistance." As occupation ticks up to 100%, more resources are produced for the invader.
    • Also at this point the "recently invaded" mod kicks in. This gives support to "resistance" armies, but only for a time.
      • So, for eg, a long, dragged out resistance campaign will end up seeing public opinion turn against the resistance, while a short invasion will still leave the population resentful and unproductive.
  • At various occupation levels, defense platforms, FTL inhibitors, planetary shields etc come back online, representing the invading side taking control of more of the planet's infrastructure. Defense platforms could be marked as in need of repair, requiring an investment of alloys (not as much as building them in the first place), depending on how the balance plays out in testing.
  • At 100% occupation the system is considered fully won/lost. Any "recently invaded" modifier remaining is left to play out, but other than that the invader has full access to the system.

I feel like this is a very well thought out army mechanic. As it is right now it kinda plays out like galciv 2, which is just spam people onto a planet.

We could use more thought out "boots on the ground" mechanics.

 

[Urza1234]

There was a mechanic shift that I thought of which would solve a few combined issues - both this and the somewhat "bolted on" feel of armies.

Basic points:

• Remove transport ships and have armies move to fronts from a pool (also remove distinction between defense and assault armies)
• Invade systems, but have multiple fronts on planets, stations etc.
• Introduce an "occupation level" system.
  • At 0%: starbase disabled, defense platforms disabled, system "controlled" by invader but no resources produced.
  • As occupation ticks up, invader gains more access to resources. 50% occupation = 50% resource yield.
  • 50% marks the point where control changes hands even if fighting does not stop at the front. At this point starbase defenses but not platforms come back online, FTL inhibitors on starbases and platforms are turned off (for both sides), etc.
  • After 50% occupation the defenders are essentially a "resistance." As occupation ticks up to 100%, more resources are produced for the invader.
    • Also at this point the "recently invaded" mod kicks in. This gives support to "resistance" armies, but only for a time.
      • So, for eg, a long, dragged out resistance campaign will end up seeing public opinion turn against the resistance, while a short invasion will still leave the population resentful and unproductive.
  • At various occupation levels, defense platforms, FTL inhibitors, planetary shields etc come back online, representing the invading side taking control of more of the planet's infrastructure. Defense platforms could be marked as in need of repair, requiring an investment of alloys (not as much as building them in the first place), depending on how the balance plays out in testing.
  • At 100% occupation the system is considered fully won/lost. Any "recently invaded" modifier remaining is left to play out, but other than that the invader has full access to the system.

I think what this, and detractors of the Defense Platforms, both generally miss; is that both defense armies and platforms provide zero war exhaustion when they die. Thats an incredibly important mechanic unless you're streamrolling already.

The lack of war exhaustion, and their exclusion from Naval Capacity, make Defense Platforms incomparable to regular ships on a per resource for resource basis.