• We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.

Stellaris Dev Diary #20 - War & Peace

Hello everyone!

For today’s dev diary, I thought I’d talk about a crucial part of Stellaris; waging wars and making peace, because as you know, not all ETs are nice... The system is different from most strategy games out there, but should be familiar to anyone who has played a Paradox Development Studio title. In fact, it is probably most reminiscent of how these things work in the Europa Universalis games.

Let’s start at the beginning. When you declare war in Stellaris, you have to state what your aims are; what the war is actually about. You simply choose from a list of possible goals, where each one is listed with a certain cost. The total cost of your picked goals cannot exceed 100. If you have a good reason to take something, the cost will be reduced. This might be the case if, for example, members of your founding species happen to live on a planet, or if it has previously been a part of your empire.

If you are a member of an alliance, the other members will need approve your list of selected goals before you can actually start the war. This is of course more likely if you are not too greedy and want to take everything yourself. That is, you will probably want to assign some goals to other alliance members to get them to approve the war.
stellaris_dev_diary_20_01_20160208_declare_war.jpg

When a war has been declared, the defending side is allowed to add war goals in the same manner, but they have an important advantage; they have a one-year grace period, and can thus choose targets depending on how the war is already progressing.

You need to gain “war score” in order to win, just like in our other games (-100 to 100.) At any time, you can negotiate for peace by selecting specific goals from your own list or that of the other side, very much like in Europa Universalis (except that you are limited to the stated war goals.)

Of course, wars are not always waged simply to seize territory: Other valid goals could be vassalization, for example, or securing a treaty of some kind. Sometimes, you might not really care about your stated goals at all, but just going in there and destroying the enemy’s space ports and stations...
stellaris_dev_diary_20_01_20160208_war_overview.jpg

Like in most of our games, occupying a planet with your armies does not mean it immediately becomes yours, of course; you need to demand it in the peace talks. There is a notable exception to this rule though; so called “first contact wars”. Before you have established communications with another civilization, it is possible to simply attack them and even take one of their planets (but once you take a planet, communications are immediately established.) Of course, such early hostility will never be forgotten, and will sour your relations for the rest of the game… There are other exceptions to how wars are waged, in the form of special types of civilizations, but that will have to wait for another dev diary.

That’s all for this week folks, stay tuned next week for “Administrative Sectors”!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • 128
  • 54
  • 1
Reactions:
Still want to know what that flame icon is.
I assume it represents "firepower" with the number next to it being the numerical value.

Eh... most galaxies are flat. Ingame we have spiral, elliptical and ring. All of them are generally really flat. I really see no reason to make the game 3d... this would just make everything more complex than neccessary.

Indeed, even as someone who liked SOTS2 I must admit 3D maps for the sake of it don't really do much for the player.
 
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions:
Well if wars have artificial limit of goals I can set, then I hope I can
a) declare total wars
b) when one war ends immediately declare another (peacebreaker? Like I care.)
Only thing I am afraid of is running out of CB, which is always sad thing in CK2.
 
yeah but paradox uses client state in eu4 as an artifical created state so in paradox terms client state would be "wrong"

Paradox terms are wrong in this case. Vassalage is a thing from feudalism. It implies the exchange of land for loyalty. Conquering a foreign power and keeping a puppet government in charge has nothing to do with vassalage.
 
  • 2
Reactions:
Paradox terms are wrong in this case. Vassalage is a thing from feudalism. It implies the exchange of land for loyalty. Conquering a foreign power and keeping a puppet government in charge has nothing to do with vassalage.

I know, but to be fair, an interstellar empire would be able to call this form of client state what the hell it wants ^^ But different terms for these states depending on your empire would add a nice flavour too. Our hive queen demands thee homage unworthy vassal!
 
  • 2
  • 1
Reactions:
  • 5
Reactions:
It actually looks more like the Vicky II system than anything else, except that you can't add wargoals partway through a war - something which I really don't like. Vicky II allowed you to fill up with as many wargoals as you wanted, although you couldn't demand more than 100% in a peacedeal no matter what. You also had a soft limit on adding new wargoals - you needed to be winning the war, your population needed to support it, and their support would drop somewhat after each added goal.

Of course I can't be sure how the new system will feel, but impressionistically the Vicky II system seems a lot better than the proposed one for Stellaris.
 
  • 3
Reactions:
  • 12
  • 1
Reactions:
I know, but to be fair, an interstellar empire would be able to call this form of client state what the hell it wants ^^ But different terms for these states depending on your empire would add a nice flavour too. Our hive queen demands thee homage unworthy vassal!

To be even more fair, they're aliens. They don't speak English. They don't speak a language that has any relationship whatsoever to English. They almost certainly speak a language that is virtually untranslatable into English because their culture and psychological makeup are completely alien. And some of them might not even have a spoken language in the first place.

So the game can use whatever English words it feels like, so long as it communicates the meaning to the player.
 
  • 6
  • 1
Reactions:
To be even more fair, they're aliens. They don't speak English. They don't speak a language that has any relationship whatsoever to English. They almost certainly speak a language that is virtually untranslatable into English because their culture and psychological makeup are completely alien. And some of them might not even have a spoken language in the first place.

So the game can use whatever English words it feels like, so long as it communicates the meaning to the player.

soooo.... is that a yes for the word vassal? ^^
 
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions:
Vassal is fine, yeah :eek:
 
Last edited:
  • 3
  • 1
Reactions:
Ugh I need to stop reading these things...the wait is getting painful!

Two war-related diplo options I've always wanted (that exist in some form in a couple PDS games but have never been satisfactory):

1. The ability to offer to join any war you want without limitations. That'd be enough for me alone, but even better would be potential rewards weighted toward your military strength. You could, for example, offer to help another empire that's your equal in exchange for money/trade/rights/a big IOU, or tell a smaller empire "I'll help you out if you become my vassal after we win." And even without demands, there should be some sort of reason for someone to refuse your offer. Maybe joining there war gives you a big chunk of bargaining leverage against them for the future or something.

2. The ability to convince another empire to stop their war against someone else, whether you're involved or not. This has never been in any strategy game I've ever played, and I've never understood why. I think the opposite would be nifty too - I'd love to be able to manipulate nations into fighting each other without getting my hands (publicly) dirty.
 
  • 2
Reactions:
Ugh I need to stop reading these things...the wait is getting painful!

Two war-related diplo options I've always wanted (that exist in some form in a couple PDS games but have never been satisfactory):

1. The ability to offer to join any war you want without limitations. That'd be enough for me alone, but even better would be potential rewards weighted toward your military strength. You could, for example, offer to help another empire that's your equal in exchange for money/trade/rights/a big IOU, or tell a smaller empire "I'll help you out if you become my vassal after we win." And even without demands, there should be some sort of reason for someone to refuse your offer. Maybe joining there war gives you a big chunk of bargaining leverage against them for the future or something.

2. The ability to convince another empire to stop their war against someone else, whether you're involved or not. This has never been in any strategy game I've ever played, and I've never understood why. I think the opposite would be nifty too - I'd love to be able to manipulate nations into fighting each other without getting my hands (publicly) dirty.
1. That seems like it would extremely annoying in the hands of the AI. Imagine declaring war on a single, tiny empire just barely out of the Atomic Age, and then suddenly their gigantic, technologically advanced neighbor joins in for no reason and wrecks you. It wouldn't really be fun.
2. EU4 has an Enforce Peace option, although you have to be pretty scary to the target for it to work.
 
So if you are an aggressive society that eats other races, is your reason to "feed" valid? What about those that are xenophobic and go to war with anyone in close proximity?
 
  • 1
Reactions: