Since this account is less than a day old- I don't want to push my luck with spamming multiple "suggestion" threads. That being said- I feel both of the topics, Forum Filters in particular, will have a large impact on communication with the Devs in a positive way. I also feel they are related, in that better streamlining of forum interaction would allow for easier discussion of suggestions and discussions on game balance for the Devs to consider- which ground combat has been an example of something overlooked far longer than most would expect.
Forum Filtering is rather simple, while you allow the meta data of a forum to be looked at- there isn't much in the way of differentiating between topics. If someone wants to do a suggestion for the forum itself? Same grouping as if they were suggesting for the game, from what I can tell. Being able to differentiate by the [What] you are talking about and [Why] they feel it is an issue, this would allow people to know if their concerns have been brought up before. This also means that it would be easier to gather an overall community consensus on certain things in unique ways.
For example: Maybe forum threads using game versions as "benchmarks" for overall quality and reception, based on affected criteria and mechanics (Changing [What] a civic does and [Why] you made the design choices you ended up on, players could note if the changes brought were successful in execution or theory). You could have them note how things improved or declined in quality, giving you an idea of how players in general want the direction of the game to head towards. You could even Have players create "personal" Dev diaries for versions of the game they've played, where they note aspects from that update in particular they like and why.
The rest is more changes I hope to see in the game, rather than anything about the forum, but I REALLY want to see more done on both fronts.
Armies is much simpler in terms of desire-
I want them to actually matter, and I think the recent changes to districts might actually go a LONG WAY in giving us a blueprint to make that happen.
in the current version of ground combat, armies have functionally 4 "options" where armies are either "in orbit/transit" (in a ship), Garrisoned (defending a planet they are on), Assaulting (attacking a planet they are on), or in Reserves (not fighting, but ready to replace lost armies). Each of these options boil down to essentially [able to fight] yes/no [Actively fighting] yes/no. Which feels a bit simplistic and small scale for a galactic conflict- at least with how little that can be changed to alter the outcome.
Before anything can be improved though, there needs to be a REASON to use armies. Reducing the impact of orbital bombardment from "destroying defenses" to "redirecting focus/covering fire" would allow armies to take up the role of being the "boots on the ground" that actually let you HAVE control of a planet. It could also help you actually deny area or stagger an offense, depending on "how" you orbit-ally bombard them, and with "what" you use, helping determine battle outcomes in one way or another. Essentially- space combat is just a form of pressure you can place on the battlefield- but doesn't give you the means to conquer territory (in ground combat now? Armies are just cleanup after orbital bombardment, no engagement in practice, having armies actually matter would also give generals and troops more importance overall). Moving away from "destructive bombardment" as the default- it becomes the sledgehammer to the army scalpel (destroying almost anything useful, but getting rid of the obstacle quickly and effectively without much manpower). This creates an opportunity for creativity. Are the space ships being used to protect troops making landfall? Attacking military/civilian infrastructure? damaging valuable resource harvesting districts? An uncountable number of ways to leverage your fleet's power to control the flow of battle!
So- if orbital bombardment isn't how you take areas, what is? Well, this IS about ground combat after all.
I think it would be better using each district as it's own 'territory' where control is a more dynamic conflict separate from other infrastructure of the planet. The space available for army engagements could be based on the districts and specific buildings in that sector (such as city districts having reduced soldiers if it's economically focused, or more if there are defensive structures- yet having multiple of the same district also grant that space ). This means larger colonies would require more resources and effort from both the defender AND the attacker to gain and keep control. When taking a territory- "breaching" the district as a whole is much harder for assaulting armies than it is when actively fighting IN the district. This gives the defender an initial advantage, but once that advantage is lost turns into a snowball effect for the assaulting force. This also neatly makes each territory owned matter- if you have NO presence in a district you will have a much harder time making headway, and each district itself can hold more troops (with potentially reduced upkeep for actually being on a planet) you may distribute across the planet as needed for battles. That being said- I don't want it to be a pure numbers game. I think Stellaris is at it's best when we consider it from a strategic AND role play perspective) which are easier to transport and make full use of based on which territory they are holding temporary residence.
This all has a side benefit of directing ground combat away from 1 on 1 encounters, meaning multiple forces could fight in the same sector taking their own space. This would allow for allies to assist in taking a planet or a multi-front war where everyone is mutually an enemy (A standoff is all the cooler when you've got more people in the fray!)
However, not every army is the same.
We should strive to reflect that! Each additional layer will both widen AND deepen the ability to interact with this system (which is good when you consider how other than fleet combat and resource usage, most military focused empires don't have as much to focus on)! Especially if an empire wants to focus on quantity or quality for their troops.
On the topic of troops- I feel that having each army be tied to a specific population could make it easier on computers. Instead of needing to constantly update multiple unique armies with their own variables, each army is associated with a certain population (and any relevant traits from their species) on a specific planet which dictates simplistic details like base stats. The stats shouldn't be too complicated, as the rest of this system will more than fill any void this leaves behind. an example would be a set level of "base" morale and health determined by pop happiness and living standards, then anything relevant for planetay combat determined by civics, ethic, species, and authorities. The "result" of all of those calculations is what gets used for any army based on that particular population, and any alterations specifically for combat only affect the resulting values AFTER the "default" information is established.
For example:
jobs (logistically "brought in" from your empire using the trade resource- armies march on their stomachs after all!) could effect the final amount of upkeep and how "big" the army can be without incurring more upkeep.
Ethics and Civics (militarist pops would be synonymous with "strong soldiers"! Not to mention the reanimators civic is DYING for some attention.) what they belief and your society at large can impact their morale and things such as "potency" "durability" and "speed" (not a hard example of the stats- just a general idea of more than a single number determining what they are capable of).
I feel having your commanders be required to engage in more "refined" control of an army should be bare minimum (They are meant to COMMAND your troops, not just pass around buffs and wait for things to settle down). Allowing you to differentiate HOW the army fights could have a huge impact on WHAT they do to help you win, and if they interact with systems such as espionage/diplomacy or anything that might be added later (hint hint, nudge nudge). This would also allow the opportunity to have "fodder" armies requiring less upkeep due to having no general, but in exchange "default" to a preset "combat style" and be less potent overall for everything they lose access to.
"Combat Styles" is a system simply to capture that earlier mentioned "how they fight" a commander gives them. You could have a small and elite unit of robots that fill the role of assassins benefiting from espionage in various ways, massive hordes of undead being directed by a psychic coordinator to be unusually competent, or just glorified wranglers directing savage beasts "that way" to disrupt and harm anyone nearby. Each combat style would have different ways of determining what is relevant for making that army effective, and potentially buffing those already suited to such methods. The army size before incurring additional upkeep, how powerful they are, what they do to turn the tide of battle, and how much upkeep that specific army takes up (it would always be more than having no commander, but by how much could vary)- all of it affected by combat style.
I think this would be a GREAT addition for a DLC, or as part of a larger update tangentially related to planets and territorial fighting in general.
Thank you for anyone reading, and any official devs of the game or forums for your time.
Forum Filtering is rather simple, while you allow the meta data of a forum to be looked at- there isn't much in the way of differentiating between topics. If someone wants to do a suggestion for the forum itself? Same grouping as if they were suggesting for the game, from what I can tell. Being able to differentiate by the [What] you are talking about and [Why] they feel it is an issue, this would allow people to know if their concerns have been brought up before. This also means that it would be easier to gather an overall community consensus on certain things in unique ways.
For example: Maybe forum threads using game versions as "benchmarks" for overall quality and reception, based on affected criteria and mechanics (Changing [What] a civic does and [Why] you made the design choices you ended up on, players could note if the changes brought were successful in execution or theory). You could have them note how things improved or declined in quality, giving you an idea of how players in general want the direction of the game to head towards. You could even Have players create "personal" Dev diaries for versions of the game they've played, where they note aspects from that update in particular they like and why.
The rest is more changes I hope to see in the game, rather than anything about the forum, but I REALLY want to see more done on both fronts.
Armies is much simpler in terms of desire-
I want them to actually matter, and I think the recent changes to districts might actually go a LONG WAY in giving us a blueprint to make that happen.
in the current version of ground combat, armies have functionally 4 "options" where armies are either "in orbit/transit" (in a ship), Garrisoned (defending a planet they are on), Assaulting (attacking a planet they are on), or in Reserves (not fighting, but ready to replace lost armies). Each of these options boil down to essentially [able to fight] yes/no [Actively fighting] yes/no. Which feels a bit simplistic and small scale for a galactic conflict- at least with how little that can be changed to alter the outcome.
Before anything can be improved though, there needs to be a REASON to use armies. Reducing the impact of orbital bombardment from "destroying defenses" to "redirecting focus/covering fire" would allow armies to take up the role of being the "boots on the ground" that actually let you HAVE control of a planet. It could also help you actually deny area or stagger an offense, depending on "how" you orbit-ally bombard them, and with "what" you use, helping determine battle outcomes in one way or another. Essentially- space combat is just a form of pressure you can place on the battlefield- but doesn't give you the means to conquer territory (in ground combat now? Armies are just cleanup after orbital bombardment, no engagement in practice, having armies actually matter would also give generals and troops more importance overall). Moving away from "destructive bombardment" as the default- it becomes the sledgehammer to the army scalpel (destroying almost anything useful, but getting rid of the obstacle quickly and effectively without much manpower). This creates an opportunity for creativity. Are the space ships being used to protect troops making landfall? Attacking military/civilian infrastructure? damaging valuable resource harvesting districts? An uncountable number of ways to leverage your fleet's power to control the flow of battle!
So- if orbital bombardment isn't how you take areas, what is? Well, this IS about ground combat after all.
I think it would be better using each district as it's own 'territory' where control is a more dynamic conflict separate from other infrastructure of the planet. The space available for army engagements could be based on the districts and specific buildings in that sector (such as city districts having reduced soldiers if it's economically focused, or more if there are defensive structures- yet having multiple of the same district also grant that space ). This means larger colonies would require more resources and effort from both the defender AND the attacker to gain and keep control. When taking a territory- "breaching" the district as a whole is much harder for assaulting armies than it is when actively fighting IN the district. This gives the defender an initial advantage, but once that advantage is lost turns into a snowball effect for the assaulting force. This also neatly makes each territory owned matter- if you have NO presence in a district you will have a much harder time making headway, and each district itself can hold more troops (with potentially reduced upkeep for actually being on a planet) you may distribute across the planet as needed for battles. That being said- I don't want it to be a pure numbers game. I think Stellaris is at it's best when we consider it from a strategic AND role play perspective) which are easier to transport and make full use of based on which territory they are holding temporary residence.
This all has a side benefit of directing ground combat away from 1 on 1 encounters, meaning multiple forces could fight in the same sector taking their own space. This would allow for allies to assist in taking a planet or a multi-front war where everyone is mutually an enemy (A standoff is all the cooler when you've got more people in the fray!)
However, not every army is the same.
We should strive to reflect that! Each additional layer will both widen AND deepen the ability to interact with this system (which is good when you consider how other than fleet combat and resource usage, most military focused empires don't have as much to focus on)! Especially if an empire wants to focus on quantity or quality for their troops.
On the topic of troops- I feel that having each army be tied to a specific population could make it easier on computers. Instead of needing to constantly update multiple unique armies with their own variables, each army is associated with a certain population (and any relevant traits from their species) on a specific planet which dictates simplistic details like base stats. The stats shouldn't be too complicated, as the rest of this system will more than fill any void this leaves behind. an example would be a set level of "base" morale and health determined by pop happiness and living standards, then anything relevant for planetay combat determined by civics, ethic, species, and authorities. The "result" of all of those calculations is what gets used for any army based on that particular population, and any alterations specifically for combat only affect the resulting values AFTER the "default" information is established.
For example:
jobs (logistically "brought in" from your empire using the trade resource- armies march on their stomachs after all!) could effect the final amount of upkeep and how "big" the army can be without incurring more upkeep.
Ethics and Civics (militarist pops would be synonymous with "strong soldiers"! Not to mention the reanimators civic is DYING for some attention.) what they belief and your society at large can impact their morale and things such as "potency" "durability" and "speed" (not a hard example of the stats- just a general idea of more than a single number determining what they are capable of).
I feel having your commanders be required to engage in more "refined" control of an army should be bare minimum (They are meant to COMMAND your troops, not just pass around buffs and wait for things to settle down). Allowing you to differentiate HOW the army fights could have a huge impact on WHAT they do to help you win, and if they interact with systems such as espionage/diplomacy or anything that might be added later (hint hint, nudge nudge). This would also allow the opportunity to have "fodder" armies requiring less upkeep due to having no general, but in exchange "default" to a preset "combat style" and be less potent overall for everything they lose access to.
"Combat Styles" is a system simply to capture that earlier mentioned "how they fight" a commander gives them. You could have a small and elite unit of robots that fill the role of assassins benefiting from espionage in various ways, massive hordes of undead being directed by a psychic coordinator to be unusually competent, or just glorified wranglers directing savage beasts "that way" to disrupt and harm anyone nearby. Each combat style would have different ways of determining what is relevant for making that army effective, and potentially buffing those already suited to such methods. The army size before incurring additional upkeep, how powerful they are, what they do to turn the tide of battle, and how much upkeep that specific army takes up (it would always be more than having no commander, but by how much could vary)- all of it affected by combat style.
I think this would be a GREAT addition for a DLC, or as part of a larger update tangentially related to planets and territorial fighting in general.
Thank you for anyone reading, and any official devs of the game or forums for your time.
Upvote
0
