Feedback Requested: War and War Resolution

[eklu65]

If it’s pops the raider will get 1-4 pops added to one of the worlds at that end of the situation

I like most of what you're saying here, and I actually had the same idea about creating stealth detection blackout areas through the espionage system. However, I'm not going to go through all of that for just 4 pops. I'm just going to save up ~100-200 influence, claim the planet, and then get all of them. I know you're just throwing out numbers and the idea is what really matters, but the devs hold that view of raiding currently, and the effort:reward ratio is way way off. I want to make it worth it to actually bother with raiding

 

[Amordisk]

I think my main gripe with the war system is claiming and the war goal system.

With claiming it feels like if my main goal is to secure territory I am incentivized to drag the war out as long as possible, because to claim I need influence and that comes rather slowly, just doesn't feel enjoyable having to constantly claim new territory in an ongoing war.

When it comes to the war goal system I just think its really archaic and in dire need of a rework, I quite prefer the war talks system in HOI4 and its a shame we have nothing like that here, say you accumulate points during the war depending on what you do then at the end you can spend them, obviously that system has its own downsides and it'd need a bit of changing but I do think its better than the current one.

Speaking of war exhaustion I personally think its mostly fine, although it is a bit annoying and I would prefer it changed. I know its easier said than done but having a way to simulate the logistics of a war instead of hand waving it as war exhaustion would be really nice.

 

[American_legion]

Planet warfare

Planet warfare should be kept relatively simple but I would love it if planetary Invasions were changed to be different for types of planets.

For urban worlds for example, there would be limited food produced on these worlds - definitely not enough to sustain a population under blockade. Which if one empire controls the system, then the planet should be under this blockade. In this case, there should be a few possibilities.

Invader
1. Supply food shipments - this would be good for conquest where I want to take the planet intact. Here enemy soldiers would be eliminated from direct engagements with ground forces but this would be the slowest way to remove a enemy from the planet

2. Prevent food shipments - here the planet would largey starve - quickly- useful if the planet would not be able to be kept or if the goal is extermination.


3. Occupation stance- once a planet is taken, the attackers should decide how it is managed. Are pops purged, are pops reduced to slavery, are pops left as is? Etc

Defender
1. Food reserves
Here planets could have a default storage of food allowed (applicable for planets with food deficit. For planets were there is a Surplus then they could sustain the populace indefinitely) this could be supplemented by resource storage silos. In these cases defenders could choose to keep planets reserves full or could risk keeping them not full.

2. In the event that a planet is blocked and loosing pops the defender should be able to forfit the planet.

3. Overwhelmed, in most cases, a defender will not flight to the last. In these cases, the defender should surrender before destroyed, to counter this attackers should need a more significant force to take a planet

4. Insurgency- often once a planet is taken (what ever way that may have occured) this often ends everything and the attackers move on, here if all troops and ships left. Then the planet would likely rebel. This should force some number of invading troops to stay on the planet to keep the peace (number should be dependent upon pops, planet type, and occupation stance)

These settings should be kept to defaults for each world but should be able to be set for each world but would become locked once a planet is blockaded

 

[Wise Strategist]

I like most of what you're saying here, and I actually had the same idea about creating stealth detection blackout areas through the espionage system. However, I'm not going to go through all of that for just 4 pops. I'm just going to save up ~100-200 influence, claim the planet, and then get all of them. I know you're just throwing out numbers and the idea is what really matters, but the devs hold that view of raiding currently, and the effort:reward ratio is way way off. I want to make it worth it to actually bother with raiding

Yeah I get what you're saying, the pops numbers I kept low because I thought it was a number most players would find acceptable especially if you're the victim of it. A better number for pops taken would be somewhere around 10-15 max or one pop being taken per raiding vassal in the fleet depending on the size: 1 pop for corvettes, 2 pops for destroyers, 3 for cruisers, creating the possibly of all, but the last 10 pops being kidnapped.

While taking the planet and system would be more optimal you also have to contend with managing the place and any possible rebellions that may trigger, and that's if you can overcome your opponents military. While, raiding allows you to strike your enemy unawares. Especially if you add in the ability to temporarily jam an empire's communications so they don't even get a notification they're being raided until it's too late. I'll edit the post to add this, but also to mask the raiding fleet as a pirate force so as to hide it's official affiliation.

 

[Thiend]

The biggest thing that I didn't really find a good spot for in the feedback form is number of ships.

There are just way too many ships, which causes lag, makes elements like admirals empowering fleets in different ways irrelevant, and makes defenses basically useless. Much better on all counts to limit fleets at a far, far lower number.

 

[Amordisk]

The biggest thing that I didn't really find a good spot for in the feedback form is number of ships.

There are just way too many ships, which causes lag, makes elements like admirals empowering fleets in different ways irrelevant, and makes defenses basically useless. Much better on all counts to limit fleets at a far, far lower number.

Completely agree with you on this.

I played a nanite build recently and oh my god does it completely destroy the game lol, the amount of ships you end up having in a fleet is insanity. I'd be completely fine with it being a bit more abstract and maybe not representing a ship in your fleet on a 1:1 scale.

Also yeah I think having defenses become useless late game and sometimes even mid game is really annoying, I understand that there are ways to use them smartly and to buff them up but imo it just requires too much work to get them to that point.

 

[3ishop]

For urban worlds for example, there would be limited food produced on these worlds - definitely not enough to sustain a population under blockade. Which if one empire controls the system, then the planet should be under this blockade. In this case, there should be a few possibilities.

Original edition of Stellaris did have a stockpile of food on each planet and a policy on how much should be stored. Not quite sure why it was removed, might have been to force invasions...which is now in the strange point of also having bombardment to surrender.

 

[Domozabijaka]

please change ground battle's i need this more attractive and funny ://

 

[eklu65]

I better number for pops taken would be somewhere around 10-15 max or one pop being taken per raiding vassal in the fleet depending on the size: 1 pop for corvettes, 2 pops for destroyers, 3 for cruisers, creating the possibly that all, but the last 10 pops being kidnapped.

Oh I think I misunderstood, pops stolen per raiding vessel in a fleet actually makes a lot of sense, I thought you meant 4 overall from start to finish. That idea creates a neat little "risk" for the raiding player too. "Do I go greedy and throw more raiding vessels into this fleet for more pops stolen at the expense of combat ships, or do I take the safe route with a lower reward and throw more combat vessels in to ensure the operation is successful?" I like that

 

[Nawlins34]

Hello all, here's a list of ideas, I hope it helps inspire something

1. Enemy of My Enemy: If one empire goes to war, other empires with a grudge against the aggressor might jump in to help.


2. Proactive Response to Shared Threats: Empires with similar values to the one being attacked might jump in sooner, especially if they think they’re next.


3. Lending Fleets to Allies: Allies can share fleets, not just overlords with their subjects. It’s all about backing each other up.


4. Borders Should Matter More: Closing borders should really mean something, affecting trade routes (No diplomacy, no trade, no trade route passing through) and more. Plus, getting caught with cloaked ships should have consequences.


5. Mediation in Wars: Any empire can step in to mediate conflicts, offering a neutral ground for peace talks. Send troop transport to pick up refugees and ferry them out/back afterwards.


6. False Flag and Backchannel Mechanisms: Add ways to stir up trouble secretly or negotiate behind the scenes.


7. Internal Politics and Espionage: Reveal internal conflicts and use espionage to get the inside scoop on other empires.


8. Trade Agreements and War Impacts: Trade agreements should mean something. If your trade partner is at war, it affects you too. Plus, empires with better intel can share it for a price. Empires who see thr writing on the wall should adjust/end deals ahead of time.


9. Federation Access with Information: Empires with valuable intel should use it to negotiate entry into federations.


10. Galactic Community Resolutions: Militaristic empires can penalize interference in their wars, while pacifists can push for peace and penalize aggression.


11. Progressive Red Lines: Empires can set specific conditions for going to war, like defending a holy planet or an ally’s capital. (I.e. if you enter THAT specific system, or land troops on THAT specific planet, we go to war, we'll otherwise look the other way)


12. Proxy Wars: If an empire (Empire A) has the resources and military assets, they can provide them to another empire (Empire B) to go to war with a third empire (Empire C). This allows empires to influence conflicts indirectly and use their allies to achieve strategic goals.

 

[sherlockholmesV]

Others have mentioned a lot of really neat points - my personal addition would be to have more opportunities to get relics (such as during total war) without having to have the barbaric despoilers civic and despoilation casus belli. Additionally, I'd really like more options to adjust or use multiple war goals - e.g., I want to both invoke secret fealty AND subjugate the loser when I win - having to do multiple rounds separated by ten years of peace is annoying. Additionally, an option to use influence to shorten preiods of peace, favours to convince people to join wars, etc. would be huge QoL improvements.
I'd also like a lot of the bugs fixed around supporting independence, etc. that seem to trigger inconsistent wars and generally make things smooth.

 

[Cybersbe]

If possible, I’d accept a simple visual component to ground combat, where you can actually watch the units fight each other. (Heck, even a simple background animation would suffice.)

 

[eklu65]

If possible, I’d accept a simple visual component to ground combat, where you can actually watch the units fight each other. (Heck, even a simple background animation would suffice.)

It's not realistic to expect at all, but it would add so much life to the game. I would love to watch my cybrex warforms light up a city. I'd love to be able to build starcraft style siege tanks and thors.

 

[shiro the bushi]

I feel the Starbase trade/piracy suppression system could be modified into an interesting supply line system. travel can take years in Stellaris and while various progressions make that lower and lower a lot of hazards in the early game tend to feel more like speedbumps or walls as opposed to actual dangers.


If each starbase and planet in its collection range served as a reliable supply outpost with each ship having a finite amount of supplies it could help make wars, especially early game wars have more risk to them, going through unclaimed space to flank would be more of a gamble, and large swaths of unpopulated space shifts from being a thing that just blob over the enemy to a hazard where one has to plan more target strikes to before their supplies run out. With this, I would say a new ship class that serves as cargo haulers or supply vessels that have no combat power but serve to keep a fleet or fleets going would also give players more of a risk-reward to fleet comp, less damage/more range to more damage/less range.

Pirates, barbarians, and space fauna should also be more of a prevalent hazard. with ways to use them against your opponents, right now the best is sending a raid to your opponent to weaken their stocks or distract their army before a war, or if allowed by your civics to weaken them with crime. For example, if you are going for a space fauna build, you should not only be able to stock your fleet or guide them to systems but also get them into a 'stampede' or breeding frenzy, making more of a risk to your opponents.

Empires should also be able to make more manmade space hazards, like minefields, or booby-trapped salvage to help damage fleets and support vessels like science ships or subject vessels.

All this should come together where with careful planning, intentionally leaving systems empty, traps and galactic terrain can make an area truly risky and dangerous to invade. It would be hard for an AI to weigh it but I think from a player's perspective it would make PVP warfare a lot more interesting.

Also bring back shared systems, god I loved the mess that was shared systems

 

[Cry_Havok]

I feel the Starbase trade/piracy suppression system could be modified into an interesting supply line system. travel can take years in Stellaris and while various progressions make that lower and lower a lot of hazards in the early game tend to feel more like speedbumps or walls as opposed to actual dangers.


If each starbase and planet in its collection range served as a reliable supply outpost with each ship having a finite amount of supplies it could help make wars, especially early game wars have more risk to them, going through unclaimed space to flank would be more of a gamble, and large swaths of unpopulated space shifts from being a thing that just blob over the enemy to a hazard where one has to plan more target strikes to before their supplies run out. With this, I would say a new ship class that serves as cargo haulers or supply vessels that have no combat power but serve to keep a fleet or fleets going would also give players more of a risk-reward to fleet comp, less damage/more range to more damage/less range.

Pirates, barbarians, and space fauna should also be more of a prevalent hazard. with ways to use them against your opponents, right now the best is sending a raid to your opponent to weaken their stocks or distract their army before a war, or if allowed by your civics to weaken them with crime. For example, if you are going for a space fauna build, you should not only be able to stock your fleet or guide them to systems but also get them into a 'stampede' or breeding frenzy, making more of a risk to your opponents.

Empires should also be able to make more manmade space hazards, like minefields, or booby-trapped salvage to help damage fleets and support vessels like science ships or subject vessels.

All this should come together where with careful planning, intentionally leaving systems empty, traps and galactic terrain can make an area truly risky and dangerous to invade. It would be hard for an AI to weigh it but I think from a player's perspective it would make PVP warfare a lot more interesting.

Also bring back shared systems, god I loved the mess that was shared systems

Shared systems 100% need to come back because it would fix the nonsense that is pre-FTLs for Xenophiles and pacifists, and if we don't get a wholesale war rework it would fix some of the weirdness with total wars.

Hard disagree though on pirates. There has never been a good implementation of pirates in Stellaris, and the current one tacked on to the resource hog and weird behavior generating trade system just needs to be killed off. Unless we are going to get a third total piracy rework then the system needs to be scrapped entirely

 

[Thiend]

Shared systems 100% need to come back because it would fix the nonsense that is pre-FTLs for Xenophiles and pacifists, and if we don't get a wholesale war rework it would fix some of the weirdness with total wars.

Hard disagree though on pirates. There has never been a good implementation of pirates in Stellaris, and the current one tacked on to the resource hog and weird behavior generating trade system just needs to be killed off. Unless we are going to get a third total piracy rework then the system needs to be scrapped entirely

Have you agree. They're just annoying, and they don't add any benefit, they just cost a shocking amount of power to calculate them + current trade.

 

[shiro the bushi]

Shared systems 100% need to come back because it would fix the nonsense that is pre-FTLs for Xenophiles and pacifists, and if we don't get a wholesale war rework it would fix some of the weirdness with total wars.

Hard disagree though on pirates. There has never been a good implementation of pirates in Stellaris, and the current one tacked on to the resource hog and weird behavior generating trade system just needs to be killed off. Unless we are going to get a third total piracy rework then the system needs to be scrapped entirely

I agree pirates have never been in a good spot but i feel a war overhaul is probably the best spot to work on them as well. I don't think the trading system is perfect but it is also so thoroughly underutilized that its could also be retailored to fit supply lines without anyone suffering. I have had games with newer players who don't even notice the trade routes due to how little presence they have and anyone of some skill knows how to manage it that piracy will never become an issue on them. its a very pointless system atm that really does nothing but make the post-war cleanup a bit more of a hassle

 

[RhysTheT00n]

Also, this isn't really the "war resolution" system, but while I'm here, I'm not really a fan of how with the two Player Crisis options, Cosmogenesis and Galactic Nemesis, you're forced to choose between technological superiority and "death to everyone". I'm always a big fan of any changes to the game that allow me to enhance my Reaper roleplay from Mass Effect, so call me a little biased, but Galactic Menace seems to capture the *threat* of the Reapers, but several aspects of Cosmogenesis capture the *theme* and *strength* of the Reapers. Tell me the Synaptic Lathe isn't just the Collector Base from Mass Effect 2, and the Fallen Empire ships basically being the same "class" as every empire's normal ships, but significantly larger, more advanced and heavily armed. The Fallen Empire ships basically represent the mastery of technology that other empires can't even grasp, which is *exactly* what the Reapers are in Mass Effect.

I like the idea of going back to a single Crisis perk, but you select your empire's "intentions" so to speak, which dictates generally what kind of path you're trying to follow (event chains, basically). Then with each Tier, you can select a number of perks yourself rather than being given one or two good ones per Tier and just sort of tolerating others. Like, I've never used Menacing Destroyers or Cruisers, and I've only ever used Corvettes for the 25x Crisis factions. Of course, you wouldn't be able to just select ANY perks you want, they wouldn't be able to contradict with one another. If you're trying to achieve technological superiority and mastery and you pick the Fallen Empire ships and techs, you wouldn't be building thousands of cheap and easily-manufactured haphazardly-constructed corvettes meant to headbutt your enemies to death, but I don't see why you wouldn't be able to get the +40% ship damage buff or the +20% Starbase damage one.

Can I just ask what exactly in the post people are disagreeing with? Call it a pet peeve, but I've almost never used the rating system instead of actually replying to something I disagree with. It just allows an actual discussion to take place rather than just saying "I disagree", and I'm just left to ask "with what?". I mean, I said a few things here, could you be at least a little bit specific?

 

[Calvax]

Can I just ask what exactly in the post people are disagreeing with? Call it a pet peeve, but I've almost never used the rating system instead of actually replying to something I disagree with. It just allows an actual discussion to take place rather than just saying "I disagree", and I'm just left to ask "with what?". I mean, I said a few things here, could you be at least a little bit specific?

I didn’t react to your comment but I disagree with it because I think it’s too simplistic and enacting it would be dev time better spent elsewhere. Sounds like your main issue is you want the technology of cosmogenesis with the aggression of nemesis, in which case you can get that by playing a genocidal empire and picking cosmo. Trying to fit all crisis events and systems in one will likely make a mess.

I’d argue that this basically already happened in miniature already. Galactic nemesis is, IMO, poorly done. It tried to be too many things at once and tonally is a mess. There’s no sensible link between menace points and the unlocks you get from them (how does genociding lots result in the technology for mineral corvettes or star killers?), whereas advanced logic and the means to get them completely fit the cosmogenesis path. Also aesthetically nemesis is trying to be both an ork Waaagh! where swarms of low-tech scrap ships are thrown at enemies and incorporate eldritch hypertech evocative of intellects vast, cool, and unsympathetic.

If the devs tried to combine the two I feel we’d have even more of a thematic mess where the flaws of nemesis undermine the polish and coherency of cosmogenesis. If anything I feel we should have the opposite to all-in-one. Instead nemesis should be broken into two different crises, one thematically appropriate for an empire that Waaagh!s with scrap ships and one that focuses on eldritch hyper tech. But I wouldn’t say that this should be any sort of priority, since there are better things the devs could work on.

 

[Anry de Kornelle]

It would be great if during the war we could use agent networks for sabotage. For example, so that we could smoke out an enemy admiral, make an attempt on the life of the Minister of Defense, conduct propaganda among the enemy military by bribing them or moving them towards deserting to the pirate flotilla, or going over to our flags, or even disappearing from the fleet by hijacking ships and then asking for political asylum from a third party. In peacetime, it is possible to add operations that will open access to the construction of revolutionary headquarters on the planet, so that having gained enough training to organize a revolution during which the planet will free itself from its empire. Operations to steal technology with the destruction of all knowledge about a particular technology from its owner, so that he would have to study it again, or simply the destruction of data on some technology in the enemy state. Operations to conduct propaganda so that the enemy population does not want to help the government in the war or in every possible way sabotage the work of the same shipyards, for example, canceling the construction of a ship at 99% readiness