Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Aoi]

Brain Slugs really make the genetics path the best one, don't they? My leaders live 210 years on average now anyway, and I can research the +5 years repeatable on an average of about a year with my tech output. They're functionally immortal, and everyone's slugged up and has 10% extra research speed just by default - meanwhile my machine leaders don't have slugs, and their greatest advantage of being actually immortal doesn't seem that amazingly overpowered in the face of a biological pop who can last until the length of this current game doubles, if I hire them now. 200 years from now, this game will be over, one way or another.

I just love how my first leader in my recent Stellaris binge, the homeworld governor of a mechanical hivemind, got Arrested Development as my L2 trait. Who I promptly terminated and installed a new one. Making this doubly awkward is that I rather like the idea that the starting hivemind leader is you-the-player, seeing as you are the master of the civilization.

[EuchreJack]

Brain Slugs really make the genetics path the best one, don't they? My leaders live 210 years on average now anyway, and I can research the +5 years repeatable on an average of about a year with my tech output. They're functionally immortal, and everyone's slugged up and has 10% extra research speed just by default - meanwhile my machine leaders don't have slugs, and their greatest advantage of being actually immortal doesn't seem that amazingly overpowered in the face of a biological pop who can last until the length of this current game doubles, if I hire them now. 200 years from now, this game will be over, one way or another.

I just love how my first leader in my recent Stellaris binge, the homeworld governor of a mechanical hivemind, got Arrested Development as my L2 trait. Who I promptly terminated and installed a new one. Making this doubly awkward is that I rather like the idea that the starting hivemind leader is you-the-player, seeing as you are the master of the civilization.

Oh the horror.

[Aoi]

Brain Slugs really make the genetics path the best one, don't they? My leaders live 210 years on average now anyway, and I can research the +5 years repeatable on an average of about a year with my tech output. They're functionally immortal, and everyone's slugged up and has 10% extra research speed just by default - meanwhile my machine leaders don't have slugs, and their greatest advantage of being actually immortal doesn't seem that amazingly overpowered in the face of a biological pop who can last until the length of this current game doubles, if I hire them now. 200 years from now, this game will be over, one way or another.

I just love how my first leader in my recent Stellaris binge, the homeworld governor of a mechanical hivemind, got Arrested Development as my L2 trait. Who I promptly terminated and installed a new one. Making this doubly awkward is that I rather like the idea that the starting hivemind leader is you-the-player, seeing as you are the master of the civilization.

Oh the horror.

Well, as it turns out, the game knew me better than I did. That round sucked so bad, that I'm pretty sure I DID hit my maximum potential five minutes into the game. -_-

[LoSboccacc]

I miss the old warp travel, lane travel makes doom stacks all more important and makes trench war where full stack fight for every inch the only option. sure you can fool the ai around, but once there's a choke point established that's that, the bigger navy can concentrate and just snowball from the engagement there all the way to the capital

this game need more reason to have the fleet fragmented in multiple places, so that at least a modicum of tactical warfare can be layered between the operation (builds, composition) and the strategic (economy, research) slices, making wars at least a little interesting and a bit unpredictable.

[Iceblaster]

They really tried to do that with fleet limits and slower travel speed, but it didn't work. I swear I recall there being a pre-release mechanic of essentially 'supply limit' in space for every system, and while it isn't exactly teh most realistic I think it'd help. Make a doomstack without the proper infrastructure to maintain it take penalties. IIRC the penalties my brain says were a thing were either slow damage over time, or penalties to ship stats. Forget which.

[Sindain]

It's been a while, but I feel like old warp travel really didn't do anything to decrease the importance of doomstacks. From what I remember, most wars back then were just each side popping there entire doomstack on the opponents capital like a month into the war. Then whoever wins that fight would just warp right to the opponents shipyard and blow up their entire fleet while its still damaged.

If anything, I feel like warp lanes do a much better job. Especially with how long travel times are its pretty easy to get your doomstacks overextended and not be able to respond to other threats. I've won many wars against stronger foes by using guerrilla like tactics or attacking them while they're preoccupied.

Though yeah, I would hardly say the current warfare system is great. I feel like the bigger issue is the same issue most Pdox games run into; Doomstacks always win agaisnt smaller fleets and there isn't much to stop you from doomstacking.

Supply limits are an idea, combined with combat width it kind of sort of works to counteract doomstacks in EU4, but supply limits are super super unrealistic for space ships. Which, pretty much by definition, have to be capable of being self sufficient for years of travel.

[E. Albright]

Yes and no. They may need to be self-sufficient to travel (or they have to be able to scavenge fuel in the wild), but that doesn't mean they need to (or can) replenish armaments on the fly. As long as they have nothing but simple need-nothing-but-power beam weapons that's fine, but if they need to replenish ammunition supplies become important again. There can be a balancing e.g. in terms of range of engagement or rate of fire with different finite vs. infinite arms types if you want to go down that road... but most people don't seem to find that level of logistics "fun". See e.g. oldCom vs. nuCom.

[LoSboccacc]

there's also the issue that most of the galaxy is at peace thorough the game. I can recount a couple wars that ai started, discounting fight with own rebels, the threat of other civilization taking advantage of you putting 100% behind an attack is integral to having to have pickets around.

that, or make pirate threat 10X stronger, but *something* has to be out there menacing you.

[Karnewarrior]

I would say a good way of undoing Doomstacking would be a "Supply Line" system. Something something if your fleet doesn't have a line of controlled systems going to a starbase with enough anchorage for it, it starts to suffer maluses which culminate with the fleet starting to take hull damage.

They don't really need to be self-sufficient for years just because they're spaceships - one of the caveats of the setting is that crossing a system takes hardly a couple weeks, and it only takes 3-4 years to cross the galaxy with better techs. Naturally the ships would become less self-sufficient in exchange for more space to put arms and armor type stuff. The trade-off to that being supply lines.

This would help discourage the worst doomstacking, since a couple enemy corvettes hitting the supply line at a bad time could seriously hurt your fleet. You would need to keep multiple fleets in operation and make sure you have multiple supply lines. The AI would need to be taught how to use those systems to their advantage though.

Basically, not Europa Universalis, but rather Hearts of Iron. Ships can't scavenge anyway, but those crews need food.

[EuchreJack]

I will point out there is a supply system in-game: Your ships need far more energy when they are moving then when they are at port.  I've groaned many a time when my energy economy was just making do, then immediately after declaring war I notice my energy tank as I send my ships off to fight.

And if you run out of energy, there are maluses.  I believe there is even an attack power reduction for the fleet.

Although, HOI supply in Stellaris would rock.  HOI supply is generally easy because HOI is about moving the front line.  Any army in HOI that advances too far ahead of the front line risks getting cut off, running out of supply, and then dying.  Space, with its multiple supply lines, would be more like managing a utility company during a storm: Keep that one connection working, and you're good.

[E. Albright]

There's a supply system, yes, but it's so abstract that there's no meaningful logistics in the game. Some sense of logistics would be very welcome, I agree - if for no reason beyond making raiding a thing. Although given how chokepoint-heavy this game often becomes, I'm not sure how effective it would be... though that could just be my fault for playing minimum hyperlane connectivity oft as not...

[Karnewarrior]

Yeah, the current logistics system is way too simplified. There's no reason I should be able to send a doomstack of ships to the other side of the galaxy via hyperlanes and use them as easily as I can a fleet defending my home systems, just because neither ship is in orbit of a space station.

I think I'd do what I described before with a necessary supply lane of occupied systems, with empty systems qualifying for the supply line but being somehow inferior, or cutting into the "supply" part such that you can't cross great gulfs of uninhabited systems. That makes isolationist FE's have a mechanical reason to do their isolating behavior too; as it stands, the only benefit keeping a buffer of empty systems provides you is the AI not being able to stack up on your borders, which AFAIK they don't do anyway. It doesn't slow an enemy at all and it doesn't change your sensor radius so it's not like it gives you significant warning, particularly with how slow movement between systems can be anyway.

Alternatively just transition the whole damn fleet mechanics over to HOI-style army management rather than EUIV style unit management. Give certain fleets goals to capture whole sectors and then let the AI fight the AI.

[LoSboccacc]

another point of frustration is faction unrest, planet unrest and the global/local economy.

so I'm doing a pacifist materialist run, to play tall and try to survive trough allies and federations, and of course when you do that stellaris spawn next to you a fanatical purifier.


war ensued, and I managed to catch a couple planets and work around their superior fleet power enough to reach a status quo agreement. now these two planets were at 5% or something stability. that immediately tanked my empire economy, because of course you get almost nothing out of them but you have to pay maintenance in full. and this caused an interesting conundrum: with the economy shot I could not build strongholds, with their planets being goods black holes I could no longer sustain happiness on my own colonies, so their economy tanked too, and it all went to shit until one of the planet finally rebelled: I gifted the rebels all the troubling planets and then went on a liberation war to change their ethic to pacifist, ending the purifier problem at the door for all.

at that point the economy kinda recovered and I managed to build some commercial zones and stronghold here and there, regained some stability, but because that takes time and the war angered my most prominent faction another rebellion ensued bearking the empire in half. and of course, while playing as a lost colony, my parent empire granted the rebel independence.


I understand having to deal with problems on captured planets, and rebels and factions and whatnot, but if defending completely ruins the economy in a downward spiral I'm left with no way to deal with it, short of creative wars (yay pacifist right?)

there's a lot of wrongs in this societal/economical model. pacification measure all drain on influence, which hits hard pacifists as influence gets drained already by faction management AND trade deals. a rebellious planet pop and building upkeep draining resources from stable planets, ruining their stability, is major bullshit. also, a recovering planet should not be rebelling that easily. and that you can't use armies to pacify planets, only strongholds defensive armies, is some other bullshit, as with the economy shot you can't build strongholds but you still have them armies, sitting there, watching rebel with a beer in one hand and their dicks in the other.

[EuchreJack]

That actually sounds awesome.  I actually see nothing wrong with that, and kinda wished my games played more like that.

Why didn't you just free the planets as a vassal as soon as the war was over?  They would have gotten your ethics as your vassal, and their problems would be their problems and not yours.  I think you even get some minor bonuses out of it.

Be like the US of A: You don't keep what you take, you set it up as an ally.

[LoSboccacc]

because I thought they'd get the pop ethic, not the parent ethics