Stellaris Dev Diary #108 - 2.0 Post-Release Support (part 1)

[Zenicetus]

I could see something interesting happening like people playing the war carefully (as much gain with a little WE as possible) and as soon as they get the 2 year warning they will just rampage untill force peaced because WE does not matter at that point only time.

Right, and that's why the reinstatement of forced peace with a fixed timer is a terrible idea (IMO). It will allow the player to game a completely arbitrary system, knowing exactly when Space Cop will show up out of the blue, and say "Okay you guys, stop that right now!." Makes no sense thematically, and it's subject to player abuse.

Increasing attrition from WE without an endpoint was far better, if we had to have an arbitrary war mechanic at all. All it needed was tweaking, and allowing for different types of empires. At least this is exposed to modding, so that's some comfort.

 

[Jin_Cardassian]

Thanks for the update. This seems like an okay and reasonably balanced approach that, as you say, modders will be able to fiddle to their preference.

What I would request (and I'm not a modder, so please anyone else step into to inform me if this is definitely the case) is that you enable the functionality to institute penalties that are triggered by a refusal of a Status Quo offer, as some people have suggested. Better let, allow Status Quo to be a standing offer rather than a one-time thing, so the offer exists as long as the penalties do and people cannot simply cheese it by making an improbable offer early and then ride the one-sided malus to total surrender.

This I believe would obviate the problem of penalties effecting the loser more than the winner, which would otherwise likely be present in any mods that exchanged penalties for a forced peace.

 

[Ur-Quan Lord 13]

Step 1. Introduce new coke.
Step 2. Bring back orginal coke, call it coca cola classic.
Step 3. Profit.


Though, admittedly, it was more like:
1. Introduce new coke.
2. After raging outcry, bring in shit flavored coke.
3. Bring back new coke with mild improvements.
4. Profit.

(I'm cool with it, I liked new coke. In the frame of this analogy. I never tried the actual thing.)

 

[Foefaller]

I could see something interesting happening like people playing the war carefully (as much gain with a little WE as possible) and as soon as they get the 2 year warning they will just rampage untill force peaced because WE does not matter at that point only time.

I could see that being soft countered in some ways, like 3x the threat from systems taken after the force peace period, or a similar cost increase to any more wartime claims.

Right, and that's why the reinstatement of forced peace with a fixed timer is a terrible idea (IMO). It will allow the player to game a completely arbitrary system, knowing exactly when Space Cop will show up out of the blue, and say "Okay you guys, stop that right now!." Makes no sense thematically, and it's subject to player abuse.

Increasing attrition from WE without an endpoint was far better, if we had to have an arbitrary war mechanic at all. All it needed was tweaking, and allowing for different types of empires. At least this is exposed to modding, so that's some comfort.

Finding a penalty that works as well as forced peace that isn't practically forced peace is never going to happen. I could absolutly see the argument for having penalties before that time (another thing you could do to prevent abuse of the 2 year period) but eventually, you have to *make* it end, or it's open to even worse forms of abuse.

 

[Grimtalos]

Not a fan of this but can see why you reverted back to the old flawed system.
I just find the system so odd. Who is forcing you to make peace?
Ww should be different for each type of empire. It should effect your empire not just end the war.
Overall i feel this whole system is lacking and just a why try and balance wars. But it just doesnt work well. I think the dev need to go back to the drawing board on this whole feature.

 

[Jin_Cardassian]

Finding a penalty that works as well as forced peace that isn't practically forced peace is never going to happen. I could absolutly see the argument for having penalties before that time (another thing you could do to prevent abuse of the 2 year period) but eventually, you have to *make* it end, or it's open to even worse forms of abuse.

Real talk: some kind of forced peace has to occur at some point to obviate the problem of rage drags in multiplayer. One player gets sore about losing a war and decides to just drag it out, indefinitely refusing peace. Not to win the war, minimize losses or even to survive, but simply to impose penalties on the other side for the sake of being a dick and preventing them from doing other things for the next 25+ years of game time.

I do agree that be more organic to have penalties leading up to that, and/or to tie them to a refusal to make peace so that they wouldn't just empower a winner's ability to grind the loser further into the dust. What's so wrong with leaving that to mods though?

 

[Ur-Quan Lord 13]

Real talk: some kind of forced peace has to occur at some point to obviate the problem of rage drags in multiplayer. One player gets sore about losing a war and decides to just drag it out, indefinitely refusing peace. Not to win the war, minimize losses or even to survive, but simply to impose penalties on the other side for the sake of being a dick and preventing them from doing other things for the next 25+ years of game time.

I do agree that be more organic to have penalties leading up to that, and/or to tie them to a refusal to make peace so that they wouldn't just empower a winner's ability to grind the loser further into the dust. What's so wrong with leaving that to mods though?

Yah. Just give the opponent a hate filled stare as you slowly replace all your labs and mines with fortresses. "Make me surrender!"

 

[Jin_Cardassian]

Don't get me wrong, I would love to have some (actually immediately significant this time) WE penalties on the model of EU4 and HOI in Stellaris. A lot of us really enjoy the "homefront" roleplay element of war stories more than the war itself. Living through the rebellions, protests, work stoppages and intrigue of an unpopular war isn't just part of the appeal, but actually the core of it, and we play other PDX games because they model that far, far better than most other grand strategy games.

But . . . even amongst my people, they're never gonna get it perfectly to everyone's taste. So provided that the full range of tools are there, what's wrong with leaving it up to modders?

 

[NightshadeXL]

We're also definitely still looking into the numbers and rate of WE gain.

WE gains should be affected by ethos. Here's an idea but the numbers are to show the point more than a specific hard rule
Pacifists should have 200 attrition but 0% on defeated combats
Materialists have 100% attrition but 50% on defeated combats
Spiritualists have 50% attrition but 100% on defeated combats
and warlike have 0% attrition but 200% on defeated combats

Pacifists should just hate being at war, regardless of how it's going, winning or losing.
Warfaring should love being at war but be more concerned about being shamed and humiliated in battle.

WE rates should also be affected by how the war is going. If you're winning battle and taking planets your WE shouldn't be climbing, at least, not at any significant rate, especially compared to the loser. Maybe the rate is fine but each 'victory' should offer a reduction in WE. A celebration and morale boost. So you either keep winning or you grind to a halt on attrition and losses. That means if you can't do anything of significance in a certain amount of time you should be abled to be forced into peace.
This is similar to the 2 years forced peace but the difference is that progress stops the clock. If you're still actively in battle and actively winning the timer shouldn't be counting. It should only count down to forced peace when loosing or idle.

 

[Jin_Cardassian]

Yah. Just give the opponent a hate filled stare as you slowly replace all your labs and mines with fortresses. "Make me surrender!"

See the thing is, this is totally valid from a survival perspective but if you've done that I feel like your enemy's leader is gonna be like "ok folks, they're turtling up so we can kick back for a while until the nukes have done their work" and then the populace breathes a collective sigh of relief as War Exhaustion ticks back to zero. What you have is no longer really a war, but a "warantine".

Hence why I think if WE penalties are gonna be allowed they should be tied to a refusal of Status Quo. If you're facing Fanatic Purifiers bent on purging you to the last pop, Cadia can be a valid thing.

 

[WilliamTheIII]

One thing I noticed with the new mechanic was that wars ended too quickly. After one decisive battle or a few large battles, both sides will be at 100% and the war would end almost as soon as it started. I was wondering if anything has been done to reduce the rate at which war exhaustion is accumulated.

 

[Foefaller]

WE gains should be affected by ethos. Here's an idea but the numbers are to show the point more than a specific hard rule
Pacifists should have 200 attrition but 0% on defeated combats
Materialists have 100% attrition but 50% on defeated combats
Spiritualists have 50% attrition but 100% on defeated combats
and warlike have 0% attrition but 200% on defeated combats

Pacifists should just hate being at war, regardless of how it's going, winning or losing.
Warfaring should love being at war but be more concerned about being shamed and humiliated in battle.

WE rates should also be affected by how the war is going. If you're winning battle and taking planets your WE shouldn't be climbing, at least, not at any significant rate, especially compared to the loser. Maybe the rate is fine but each 'victory' should offer a reduction in WE. A celebration and morale boost. So you either keep winning or you grind to a halt on attrition and losses. That means if you can't do anything of significance in a certain amount of time you should be abled to be forced into peace.
This is similar to the 2 years forced peace but the difference is that progress stops the clock. If you're still actively in battle and actively winning the timer shouldn't be counting. It should only count down to forced peace when loosing or idle.

War exhaustion gains are affected by ethos in 2.0.2, Militarist gain less WE than anyone else for the same thing.

The real issue is that there isn't a real good way to judge what in EU4 would be called Manpower; I.E. you ability to reinforce and replenish your ships after a defeat, which is the main limiter on how ofter you can war in that game (at least until you make so many ducats that you can just spam mercs all the time) Pacifist empires typically have a lower than average naval cap (the current metric by which how much WE you gain from a lost ship is judged) because they tend to play tall with fewer pops and anchorages, but often capable of pumping out significantly more resources than their size would indicate because of their production bonuses from Pacifist, edicts, happiness from easy-to-please factions, and the tech/unity edge they have over wide empires. They get forced to tap out even though they could rebuild their fleet a couple times over before they are truly incapable of fighting any more.

One thing I noticed with the new mechanic was that wars ended too quickly. After one decisive battle or a few large battles, both sides will be at 100% and the war would end almost as soon as it started. I was wondering if anything has been done to reduce the rate at which war exhaustion is accumulated.

On top of the militarist thing, there have been several other changes in the beta patch that reduce WE; Occupation of planets no longer builds WE (which might be more of a quick fix thing) several technologies and at least one civic also reduce WE gained. The WE from losing ships was reduced... I remember seeing a recent post (I think in this very thread) about the War in Heaven ending in status quo before any territory was exchanged, but the one time it happened to me playing the beta it went until both the other AE and the League were utterly destroyed, despite both AEs losing almost their entire fleets and the League being all but destroyed long before all their systems were claimed.

 

[Admiral_Obvious]

The real issue is that there isn't a real good way to judge what in EU4 would be called Manpower; I.E. you ability to reinforce and replenish your ships after a defeat, which is the main limiter on how ofter you can war in that game (at least until you make so many ducats that you can just spam mercs all the time) Pacifist empires typically have a lower than average naval cap (the current metric by which how much WE you gain from a lost ship is judged) because they tend to play tall with fewer pops and anchorages, but often capable of pumping out significantly more resources than their size would indicate because of their production bonuses from Pacifist, edicts, happiness from easy-to-please factions, and the tech/unity edge they have over wide empires. They get forced to tap out even though they could rebuild their fleet a couple times over before they are truly incapable of fighting any more.

Why can't we tie actual ground based pops into the actual creation of fleets? Make it so that tiles of different types provide "manpower buffers" that the Empire can pull from. Possibly make them pull from fortresses first, and then start pulling from the rest of the grids, starting at farms if you lose the buffer for naval pops fortresses give. It would make forts even more appealing than just bombardment defense, and it would effectively work as a (somewhat Soviet style) equivelant to manpower.

 

[Matt516]

I was wondering if anything has been done to reduce the rate at which war exhaustion is accumulated.

If you mean in the beta relative to 2.0, yes. WE gain is much, much, much slower.

 

[Ari54x]

That's cool, I think the penalty, while steep, wasn't enough to allow indefinite war, and this is roughly what I expected you to do in the first place. 2 years should be plenty of time to see if you can't, say, reclaim a certain system that they snuck behind your lines to capture just as you came up to 100% WE. Good work.

Hopefully from here it's a matter of fixing the hotcode issues etc... before 2.02 is ready to go, I noticed a few the other day (such as machines starting off with an organic HQ, costing you extra early-game minerals if you wanted that energy!)

 

[SnakeInATopHat]

- There will be no penalties for war exhaustion.
The most disappointing sentence in this dev diary for me.
Just because forced peace 2 years after high exhaustion would be a thing doesn't mean there shouldn't be ANY penalties. I really fail to see the logic here.

agree

 

[Belaaron]

As long as the issue gets fixed where I can't view the wargoals of the war I'm in, because I'm not the one who started it, or the one who's the target of it. I've been in a war for decades now because my federation is at war with another federation, and we each control about a third of the galaxy. I can't see what our wargoals are because I didn't start the war, my ally did. I have no idea what systems they claimed. So, now I have to take EVERYTHING.

It's not difficult, but it's tedious. And...also apparently impossible. The enemy is at 100% exhaustion. My side is at 83%. Between us all, my side has taken every single system in every member's territory of the enemy federation. We've taken every system, occupied every colony, destroyed nearly every ship they have. I've even been sending my colossus around to nanobot everyone into borg. And yes, I'm a Driven Assimilator that is in a federation with organics. And I have enlightened primitives into protectorates and eventually peacefully absorbed them into my collective rather than conquered them outright. The Collective's arms are open to all who would willingly embrace the paradise of unity. So far, only spiritualists and xenophobes are the ones who hate me. Everyone else loves me in spite of the assimilator diplomatic penalty.

Anyway... We're STILL AT WAR... And as I didn't start it...I can't end it. And since we apparently haven't fulfilled the goals (whatever they are, and however that could possibly be at this point), the ally who DID start it...WON'T end it yet. If our side ticks up to 100% exhaustion as well, and the war still doesn't end...I'll just have to start a new game...because THAT is a damned bug. Which, will then be properly reported as such.

 

[Slynx]

It doesnt matter which ally captures the system. It's who has the most claims.

how so? it does matter. cuz you can't have the system you want and it's essentially became stolen from you. also iirc empires can continue to make claims after the start of the wars...which makes things even worse.

Any news on planet crackers etc having more impact in war regarding war exhaustion? When I destroyed someones capital system they got 2.5% to war exhaustion - which is tiny. Hoping its a bug i have

but isn't it good with the changes promised in a diary. with so little WE you'll have more time to destroy more of his planets. because in a 2 year time period colossus ideally will fire only once or twice.

 

[pieman]

how so? it does matter. cuz you can't have the system you want and it's essentially became stolen from you.

The way it works is if two allies have a claim on the same system, whichever party has the highest level of claim will get the system. In the event the claims are at the same level for both parties, the older of the two claims gets priority.

It's definitely working as intended, as a war i fought alongside my ally the other day had systems that he had claimed, but i had captured, and they were reverting to his control, not mine.

 

[Person012345]

See the thing is, this is totally valid from a survival perspective but if you've done that I feel like your enemy's leader is gonna be like "ok folks, they're turtling up so we can kick back for a while until the nukes have done their work" and then the populace breathes a collective sigh of relief as War Exhaustion ticks back to zero. What you have is no longer really a war, but a "warantine".

Hence why I think if WE penalties are gonna be allowed they should be tied to a refusal of Status Quo. If you're facing Fanatic Purifiers bent on purging you to the last pop, Cadia can be a valid thing.

As suggested in a thread I made in suggestions, the "offer status quo" button should be a toggle on/off and the side who hasn't toggled it on should have penalties applied once over 100% war exhaustion whilst the side with it on wouldn't take any. These penalties should begin relatively light but quickly ramp up and become completely unmanagable around 180% (rebalancing WE gain to be optimal for wars ending around 130% to 150%), ramping up even further beyond that. Penalties should only be applied after the other side has activated status quo for at least 1 month. If neither side toggles on, they should each take half penalties when they are over 100%.