Doomstack Mitigation Discussion -- hard cap vs. soft cap

[Imp0815]

And that, in my opinion, is the missing puzzle piece that these last couple pages of conversation are lacking. Without it, you will never be able to solve doomstacking, because the player will always be pressured to use this only lever of control they have to try to overcome the general lack of control inherent to the black box that is Stellaris' combat.

Which isn't to say that the ongoing discussion about an attemp to add supply lines isn't interesting. But, at least on the surface, it seems to fail to solve for this aspect. So if it were to be implemented, it would just lead to players being even more dissatisfied with the state of combat than they are now. Because right now, at least you have the option to overcome the issue through doomstacking. Remove it, though, and combat will just feel like a series of coin flips that the player has little-to-no control over.

Thank you for your perspective on the issue. I agree the combat calculations are also not up to par, and things could improve. As you guessed, I touched on that subject some pages ago by addressing that the combat, as of now, is not really good-looking and has some awkward choices in how it’s conducted, with behavior, positioning, and real-time animations mixing with background calculations, creating visual clutter and leading to poor combat decisions.

To give you the TL;DR about my suggestion: Just trash the whole animations = calculations setup. Move everything into a background calculation with a turn-based system that can be analyzed and understood, and make the visuals top-notch cinematic material in the meantime. No more questionable target choices and no more visual clutter.

There is also an aspect that keeps dropping under the table here: it’s not just about adding supply and being done with it. It’s a deep-rooted problem within the game, and changes need to start at the root and cascade throughout the game. So any discussion about doomstacking—why, when, and how we do it and what solutions might look like—is inherently connected to game systems like combat calculation, diplomacy, and especially economy. And despite all the valid critiques I've read in the past 27 pages, the major issue is that the game is so fundamentally structured around doomstacking that this is the strongest counter-argument against any fixes to the issue; it’s just so ingrained in the game's DNA that it might be impossible to change.

And this is coming from me, the one who hasn’t dropped the topic for over a year and keeps hammering this issue into anyone’s mind who might be receptive to it.

P.S. You just had to adhere to the game rules and bring the bigger doomstack to your galleon fight. That would be more effective.

 

[PK_AZ]

the major issue is that the game is so fundamentally structured around doomstacking that this is the strongest counter-argument against any fixes to the issue; it’s just so ingrained in the game's DNA that it might be impossible to change.

For the record, I disagree with that opinion and I saw no argument supporting it. What I did saw, were arguments that game boils down to one feedback loop of pushing alloys into ships. But more ships do not imply doomstack.

 

[Ikael]

High ship numbers do not lead to doomstacks. Cutting ship numbers would merely make doomstacks smaller, leaving combat as uninteresting as ever.

The real problem is that in the end, dumping resources on your fleet is always the best option, if not the only option. I mean, what else are you going to do with all those alloys? Unless you depend on habitats or want to start a megastructure vanity project, there is simply no other endgame for the economy production chain.

Kilostructures and Planetary Rings are the only things that remotely change that dynamic, but if you ask me, things like city districts or Ecumenopolis should cost alloys as well, so you actually need to decide between military VS economic development.

 

[Calvax]

The real problem is that in the end, dumping resources on your fleet is always the best option, if not the only option. I mean, what else are you going to do with all those alloys? Unless you depend on habitats or want to start a megastructure vanity project, there is simply no other endgame for the economy production chain.

There are some other options but they could be better. It's possible to play the diplomacy game and build a large federation that itself can act as a deterrent and defend you in event of war. Also while they're weak you can push the pacifist GalCom resolutions to the pont pacifist ethics is increased and naval capacity is reduced.

But these are weaker options and they don't work in event of a crisis. Since crises aren't wars allied AI doesn't behave in the same way, it won't defend your territory and if you get attacked you instantly lose territory that your allies might then dumby start expanding into.

I can't imagine any massive reworks that would ever make military not a good option to go for. Maybe the diplo stuff could be balanced, some AI behaviour in crises improved, and perhaps one day we'll get a rework of internal diplomacy that would allow us to manipulate factions of other empires into power without war. But I really don't see some huge economy rework where you have soft power by being a cornerstone to galactic economics or anything like that.

 

[Imp0815]

For the record, I disagree with that opinion and I saw no argument supporting it. What I did saw, were arguments that game boils down to one feedback loop of pushing alloys into ships. But more ships do not imply doomstack.

Ok, you are somewhat correct; it should say, "More Economy means bigger Fleet power, and bigger Fleet power means more economy or more Fleet power." Whether you achieve this by building more ships or researching more % modifiers are details that accumulate into the same thing. And as long as you endlessly stack up ships in one location, you can strongly imply that this means more doomstacking.

 

[Imp0815]

High ship numbers do not lead to doomstacks. Cutting ship numbers would merely make doomstacks smaller, leaving combat as uninteresting as ever.

The real problem is that in the end, dumping resources on your fleet is always the best option, if not the only option. I mean, what else are you going to do with all those alloys? Unless you depend on habitats or want to start a megastructure vanity project, there is simply no other endgame for the economy production chain.

Kilostructures and Planetary Rings are the only things that remotely change that dynamic, but if you ask me, things like city districts or Ecumenopolis should cost alloys as well, so you actually need to decide between military VS economic development.

Exactly my observation, but I’d like to add that I think it should be more like the military is a need to be fulfilled—a tool for specific purposes like defense, policing, or offense. We should then shape non-military projects that can’t be weaponized, like terraforming, research, diplomacy, welfare, prestige, etc. This would lead the game in a direction where it’s redefined from a lackluster war game into a true 4X GSG, with different playstyles, builds, and game goals (besides the RP stuff we already do to handicap ourselves for fun). I somewhat like the prestige mechanic from Ara: History Untold. We already have something like this in the form of points, but it’s somewhat hidden and not really used in the game as a tangible game goal. We could elevate it and nerf the impact military and conquest have on it. But maybe that’s not what the game should be about—nor the topic of this thread. Or maybe it is?

 

[Ikael]

There are some other options but they could be better. It's possible to play the diplomacy game and build a large federation that itself can act as a deterrent and defend you in event of war. Also while they're weak you can push the pacifist GalCom resolutions to the pont pacifist ethics is increased and naval capacity is reduced.

But these are weaker options and they don't work in event of a crisis. Since crises aren't wars allied AI doesn't behave in the same way, it won't defend your territory and if you get attacked you instantly lose territory that your allies might then dumby start expanding into.

I can't imagine any massive reworks that would ever make military not a good option to go for. Maybe the diplo stuff could be balanced, some AI behaviour in crises improved, and perhaps one day we'll get a rework of internal diplomacy that would allow us to manipulate factions of other empires into power without war. But I really don't see some huge economy rework where you have soft power by being a cornerstone to galactic economics or anything like that.

That's the thing, I don't believe that you need massive reworks for the game in order to move away from "always invest in your fleet". A higher ceiling for planet development plus more expensive "basic" planet development would achieve just that. The player would at least be forced to think about short VS long-term returns of alloy investment.

Being able to win over an empire by means other than sheer military force, however... now that would indeed, require an in-depth rework, I agree, even if diplomacy does mitigate that to an extent (crises are just gonna be crising', tho).

Exactly my observation, but I’d like to add that I think it should be more like the military is a need to be fulfilled—a tool for specific purposes like defense, policing, or offense. We should then shape non-military projects that can’t be weaponized, like terraforming, research, diplomacy, welfare, prestige, etc. This would lead the game in a direction where it’s redefined from a lackluster war game into a true 4X GSG, with different playstyles, builds, and game goals (besides the RP stuff we already do to handicap ourselves for fun). I somewhat like the prestige mechanic from Ara: History Untold. We already have something like this in the form of points, but it’s somewhat hidden and not really used in the game as a tangible game goal. We could elevate it and nerf the impact military and conquest have on it. But maybe that’s not what the game should be about—nor the topic of this thread. Or maybe it is?

Someday, something akin to victory conditions or "prestige points" will be introduced, and the game will be better for that, I believe. Until then, let's keep focusing about how to make warfare more interesting since we are going off-topic

 

[PK_AZ]

That's the thing, I don't believe that you need massive reworks for the game in order to move away from "always invest in your fleet". A higher ceiling for planet development plus more expensive "basic" planet development would achieve just that.

Changing basic dynamics of the game IS massive rework.

 

[Ikael]

Changing basic dynamics of the game IS massive rework.

It is a very minor thing that could be easily modded. It might have hefty gameplay implications (or at least I hope so!); but we aint talking about adding a new mechanic or removing entire systems.

 

[KingAlamar]

Some recent posters have made the point that [much?] of the fundamental structure of the game encourages doomstacking. While I won't argue this one thing I would contend is that discussion of what the actual goals are should be well understood [and largely agreed on] by those people discussing the problems & solutions.

Some important considerations off the top of my head may be:

1. Does the new system add significant "down time" [delaying the inevitable / lowering the fun per hour]
2. Does the new system system force the player into drawn out "whack a mole" types of interactions [as they deal with many small AI or player attacks for example]
3. Does the new system take away the possibility that you could completely overrun "weaker powers" when that can be done in the real world
4. Is the new system immersive? Does the new system mesh with existing game systems?
5. How complex are the systems in question? Is the learning curve steep? How much [micro?] management do the new systems force on the player?

I'm sure there are plenty of other considerations also ...

 

[Imp0815]

Some recent posters have made the point that [much?] of the fundamental structure of the game encourages doomstacking. While I won't argue this one thing I would contend is that discussion of what the actual goals are should be well understood [and largely agreed on] by those people discussing the problems & solutions.

Some important considerations off the top of my head may be:

1. Does the new system add significant "down time" [delaying the inevitable / lowering the fun per hour]
2. Does the new system system force the player into drawn out "whack a mole" types of interactions [as they deal with many small AI or player attacks for example]
3. Does the new system take away the possibility that you could completely overrun "weaker powers" when that can be done in the real world
4. Is the new system immersive? Does the new system mesh with existing game systems?
5. How complex are the systems in question? Is the learning curve steep? How much [micro?] management do the new systems force on the player?

I'm sure there are plenty of other considerations also ...

That's a good idea, and I can immediately voice my opinion that I disagree on the need for point 3, as we should never go down the route of "but it works in reality" or "this does not work in reality." Asymmetrical warfare is painfully lacking in Stellaris, and I think it should have a place in the game based on gameplay opportunities.

Reasons why could be:

• Sci-fi fantasy of a small rebel group fighting an Empire
• Representation of quality over quantity mechanics
• Tall vs. Wide balance aspects
• Interesting underdog stories
• If internal politics thus civil wars happen, a breakaway faction has a real chance to fight back
• No more sure downward spiral when losing wars
• Interesting tactical and strategic decisions around fighting a larger foe

That being said, if a larger empire truly tries to crush an enemy that is "smaller"—whatever that means*—it should win. But this comes down to balance aspects.


Overall, it feels like your considerations only watch out for negative outcomes, when the goal should be positive improvements.
I would propose this:

• How does the new system introduce engaging comeback opportunities and unique forms of asymmetric warfare?
  (Encourages creative mechanics for both strong and weak factions, turning the tides of war into dynamic experiences.)
• How does the system expand fleet strategy beyond doomstacking, introducing fresh challenges in fleet composition, positioning, and multi-front warfare?
  (Focuses on encouraging thoughtful, diverse strategies that elevate gameplay depth.)
• In what ways does the new system empower smaller forces to hold their own and foster epic, strategic narratives, even when facing larger foes?
  (Promotes the sci-fi fantasy of rebels vs. empires, and allows for skillful play and tactical genius to make a difference.)
• How does the system deepen immersion and integrate with Stellaris’ broader gameplay, enhancing both wartime and peacetime decision-making?
  (Adding nuance to war without detaching from the core game loop.)
• What new layers of depth does the system offer without adding unnecessary complexity, ensuring that players can easily understand and leverage advanced tactics?
  (Pushes for complexity that rewards player investment meaningfully, providing clear benefits for those who master it.)
  

* Currently "smaller" is pretty easy to define as we just compare doomstack numbers or doomstack potential. I wish we would meet a point were it is not that clearly anymore when engaging in warfare.

 

[PK_AZ]

Sci-fi fantasy of a small rebel group fighting an Empire

Can I ask for example of narrative piece that make use of such fantasy?

 

[Imp0815]

Can I ask for example of narrative piece that make use of such fantasy?

Some more or less have exactly this undertone as it is fun to read an underdog story:

• The Expanse - Belter Partisans, resource-poor and outmatched, defy Earth and Mars' militaries, relying on sheer will and guerilla tactics to fight for their freedom.
• Star Wars - The Rebel Alliance, vastly outgunned and outnumbered, uses clever strategies and relentless courage to stand up to the galaxy-spanning Empire.
• Star Trek - The Maquis, small and fiercely independent, break away from the Federation, standing up against both the Federation’s power and the ruthless Cardassians.
• Perry Rhodan - Earth, a lone planet, bands together to fend off superior alien threats, battling against overwhelming forces as an undeniable underdog.
• Firefly - The Independents, or "Browncoats," face the vast Alliance with minimal resources, driven by their resolve to fight for autonomy in an unforgiving galaxy.
• Dune - The Fremen, humble desert dwellers, take on the might of House Harkonnen and the Emperor, using their terrain and resilience to even the odds.
• Battlestar Galactica - Humanity, nearly extinct, fights to survive against the advanced Cylons, desperately clinging to hope and unity against incredible odds.
• Warhammer 40,000 - Countless rebel groups and alien races challenge the Imperium's vast power, risking everything in the face of near-certain destruction.
• Mass Effect - Multiple species, pushed to their limits, unite against the all-powerful Reapers, finding strength in cooperation and defiance.
• Halo - The UNSC, constantly at the brink, battles the alien Covenant’s superior firepower with every last ounce of humanity’s determination and ingenuity.
• Foundation - The Foundation, small and scholarly, struggles to preserve knowledge and withstand the decaying Empire’s reach, thriving on wit over might.
• Red Faction - Mars miners, equipped with only basic tools, rise up against the tyrannical Ultor Corporation, fueled by desperation and a desire for justice.
• Babylon 5 - The Narn, Earth rebels, and others resist oppressive forces like the Shadows, risking everything as they fight for survival and independence.
• Andromeda - The crew of the Andromeda Ascendant, a last relic of the Systems Commonwealth, battles to restore order against overwhelming chaos.
• Gundam Series - Factions like Zeon, often undermatched and undermanned, take on the powerful Earth Federation with courage and unconventional tactics.
• The Hunger Games - The Districts, oppressed and poorly equipped, rise against the Capitol's totalitarian rule, driven by the sheer force of their collective will.
• The Matrix - Humanity, enslaved by machines, fights an impossible war in the shadows, clinging to freedom with everything they have left.
• Farscape - The crew of Moya, few and vulnerable, resists domination by the massive powers of the Peacekeepers and Scarrans, fighting for survival.
• Ender's Game - Humanity, vastly outgunned and initially unprepared, unites to resist the technologically advanced Formic threat.
• Code Geass - A Japanese rebellion, outmatched but strategically brilliant, stands up to the British Empire, winning through ingenuity and fearless resolve.

 

[KingAlamar]

That's a good idea, and I can immediately voice my opinion that I disagree on the need for point 3, as we should never go down the route of "but it works in reality" or "this does not work in reality." Asymmetrical warfare is painfully lacking in Stellaris, and I think it should have a place in the game based on gameplay opportunities.

Reasons why could be:

• Sci-fi fantasy of a small rebel group fighting an Empire
• Representation of quality over quantity mechanics
• Tall vs. Wide balance aspects
• Interesting underdog stories
• If internal politics thus civil wars happen, a breakaway faction has a real chance to fight back
• No more sure downward spiral when losing wars
• Interesting tactical and strategic decisions around fighting a larger foe

That being said, if a larger empire truly tries to crush an enemy that is "smaller"—whatever that means*—it should win. But this comes down to balance aspects.


Overall, it feels like your considerations only watch out for negative outcomes, when the goal should be positive improvements.
I would propose this:

• How does the new system introduce engaging comeback opportunities and unique forms of asymmetric warfare?
  (Encourages creative mechanics for both strong and weak factions, turning the tides of war into dynamic experiences.)
• How does the system expand fleet strategy beyond doomstacking, introducing fresh challenges in fleet composition, positioning, and multi-front warfare?
  (Focuses on encouraging thoughtful, diverse strategies that elevate gameplay depth.)
• In what ways does the new system empower smaller forces to hold their own and foster epic, strategic narratives, even when facing larger foes?
  (Promotes the sci-fi fantasy of rebels vs. empires, and allows for skillful play and tactical genius to make a difference.)
• How does the system deepen immersion and integrate with Stellaris’ broader gameplay, enhancing both wartime and peacetime decision-making?
  (Adding nuance to war without detaching from the core game loop.)
• What new layers of depth does the system offer without adding unnecessary complexity, ensuring that players can easily understand and leverage advanced tactics?
  (Pushes for complexity that rewards player investment meaningfully, providing clear benefits for those who master it.)

* Currently "smaller" is pretty easy to define as we just compare doomstack numbers or doomstack potential. I wish we would meet a point were it is not that clearly anymore when engaging in warfare.

You have a good reply and I think an even better (?) solution would be to balance off BOTH the "good" and "negative" aspects with the goal to be that more fun / hour AND total fun over the life of Stellaris is had. I assume you and most of us would tend to agree. As an FYI: I focused on the negative aspects as many of the proposals I saw seemed (??) to not give credence to those concerns or possibly never even considered them as concerns in the first place.

As for my point "3" [The reality of amount of time it takes a massively overwhelming force to conquer a completely pathetic force] I tend to agree that "reality" shouldn't be the end-all-be-all for game design -- things like "fun", "engagement", "immersion", etc. are all more important goals. The only reason that I brought that up at all is what seemed like a belief [or strong bias?] of others that a "massively overwhelming" empire shouldn't be able to easily take out one or more pathetic AI empires in a quick and efficient manner. Note my focus is on "massively pathetic AI" empires and not "human" empires.

To address your proposals point-by-point:
1. I'm actually all for having systems that can help out with asymmetric warfare. For example I'm good with most "ship offenses & defenses" having some "hard counters". I'm also good with a now old update that causes more proportionately more damage to superior forces while in a fight than the Stellaris simulation would otherwise imply. I'm also all for systems in place where [esp. human players] you don't necessarily engage in purely "brute force" tactics [spying, espionage, politicking, etc.] to cause problems for enemies.

2. I'm all for introducing "challenges" in things like individual ship design, fleet composition, admiral choice & abilities, and other synergies where well thought out counters would make sense. Having to consider positioning, fog of war, and other things are good and should be encouraged but they also have diminishing returns if a "quantity over quality" approach is made. If we can deepen gameplay, enjoyment, etc. without "overloading" players then I think that would likely be fine.

3. I'm not convinced that I agree with your opinion that it would be good to have David vs. Goliath being the norm as opposed to the rare exception. If a human player has outplayed you for a hundred in-game years [esp. if by a significant margin] then it's only FAIR for that human player to be able to capitalize on their BETTER play. Now if you're focused more on human "Davids" vs. AI Goliaths then I'm with you 100% as I don't care if some things are "unfair" to an AI if the human players have more fun and can spin the epic yarn of how they held off a fallen empire, crisis, overthrew their overlord, played a successful AI rebellion, etc.

4. Hard to argue with you their Improving the core gameplay loops doesn't leave much to argue against ...

5. See reply to 4 -- rewarding good gameplay [esp. in competitive settings] seems like a clear plus to me.

 

[PK_AZ]

1. I'm actually all for having systems that can help out with asymmetric warfare. For example I'm good with most "ship offenses & defenses" having some "hard counters".

Personally I consider counters to be poor man ersatz for actual depth. It is quite telling that Imperator: Rome, game that went hardest into counter-based warfare, not only failed (which, to make it clear, is almost surely NOT because counters), but few plazans that still play it do not seem to bring countering as reference for good play.
There are few problems with counters:
1. Such systems tends to be complex, but also can be reduced to three winning setups, and that in best case scenario. What is the point of creating complex system, that has primitive solution?
1a. Granted, I have feeling that rule of three may be more about human psychology, than actual math. But is it good idea to make system that players most interested in it use in, like, 50%?
2. They tend to favor monofleets
3. If they do not favor monofleets, then how they want to counter well-balanced fleet?
4. Considering how big investment army is in Paradox-style grand strategy, counter-based warfare push resolution of war long before war even started. If that is objective, then why care? Let's just allow two doomstacks to clash, and then the one better prepared - almost surely aggressor - takes whatever he wants.
5. It works against real-world phenomena that nations go to war with forces they have, not the one they want to have, and then it is on generals, officers and NCOs to minimize weaknesses and maximize advantages.

 

[Imp0815]

3. I'm not convinced that I agree with your opinion that it would be good to have David vs. Goliath being the norm as opposed to the rare exception. If a human player has outplayed you for a hundred in-game years [esp. if by a significant margin] then it's only FAIR for that human player to be able to capitalize on their BETTER play. Now if you're focused more on human "Davids" vs. AI Goliaths then I'm with you 100% as I don't care if some things are "unfair" to an AI if the human players have more fun and can spin the epic yarn of how they held off a fallen empire, crisis, overthrew their overlord, played a successful AI rebellion, etc.

Personally I consider counters to be poor man ersatz for actual depth. It is quite telling that Imperator: Rome, game that went hardest into counter-based warfare, not only failed (which, to make it clear, is almost surely NOT because counters), but few plazans that still play it do not seem to bring countering as reference for good play.
There are few problems with counters:
1. Such systems tends to be complex, but also can be reduced to three winning setups, and that in best case scenario. What is the point of creating complex system, that has primitive solution?
1a. Granted, I have feeling that rule of three may be more about human psychology, than actual math. But is it good idea to make system that players most interested in it use in, like, 50%?
2. They tend to favor monofleets
3. If they do not favor monofleets, then how they want to counter well-balanced fleet?
4. Considering how big investment army is in Paradox-style grand strategy, counter-based warfare push resolution of war long before war even started. If that is objective, then why care? Let's just allow two doomstacks to clash, and then the one better prepared - almost surely aggressor - takes whatever he wants.
5. It works against real-world phenomena that nations go to war with forces they have, not the one they want to have, and then it is on generals, officers and NCOs to minimize weaknesses and maximize advantages.

These two concepts are closely connected, in my opinion. For any new system designed to reduce doomstacking, it’s crucial to address both topics effectively. On one side, we could consider local restrictions on fleet concentration to prevent larger forces from simply crushing smaller ones through sheer numbers. On the other, a strict rock-paper-scissors system would be too simplistic and could quickly become boring. We already see some of this in Stellaris, as certain crises favor specific setups that can be directly countered, reducing the excitement of major game events.

A solid middle ground might involve creating a system where it’s easy for players to understand which fleet, ship, or weapon designs are more effective against others (such as frigates with torpedoes being strong against star bases or battleships). However, counters should not be overly decisive. Slowing down battles significantly and introducing a soft cap on battle sizes could help achieve this balance, so that what you bring to a fight matters more than how many ships you have, allowing smaller forces a fighting chance.

The balance could shift in a way that allows large empires to bring more reinforcements and maintain specialized fleets tailored to specific tasks, while smaller empires might focus on defense or flexible forces that offer them security and a realistic chance of success. Large empires would face the added challenge of maintaining control over a vast area, which would limit their fleet accessibility and reinforcement capabilities. This would make each offensive push an economic investment, requiring more fleets to secure and hold territory but also giving them a comfortable level of safety.

Such a system would encourage experimenting with specialized fleets and counters, enabling a “David vs. Goliath” scenario. In this setup, David would need to adapt and counter strategically, while Goliath would have to avoid overextending—failure to do so could lead to defeat. Both would have a genuine opportunity to succeed and compete.

To return to the main point, in my view, this approach only works if there’s a limit on the number of ships or fleets that can enter a battle. Otherwise, empires can simply overwhelm opponents by piling everything into one battle. Limiting factors are essential to give both players and AI room to adapt, creating more interesting scenarios and adding depth to combat, rather than making military challenges solvable simply by amassing larger numbers.

 

[Uburian]

To return to the main point, in my view, this approach only works if there’s a limit on the number of ships or fleets that can enter a battle. Otherwise, empires can simply overwhelm opponents by piling everything into one battle. Limiting factors are essential to give both players and AI room to adapt, creating more interesting scenarios and adding depth to combat, rather than making military challenges solvable simply by amassing larger numbers.

This hits the nail in the head I think, and as others have said already in this thread this should be achieved by conducting a broader economic and logistics rework that is not only limited to the military part of the game.

 

[Imp0815]

This hits the nail in the head I think, and as others have said already in this thread this should be achieved by conducting a broader economic and logistics rework that is not only limited to the military part of the game.

Exactly, the military snowball is so entrenched in the game, as all our decisions somewhat feed into the endless loop, that it is impossible to find a good solution for the doomstack issue without addressing the economy.

As the last Developer Diary stated, they are now reviewing the original vision for the game and how players have perceived it. I think, and I hope, we are on the verge of something big that could elevate Stellaris to the next level, moving away from the simplistic fleet power growth loop and truly embracing asymmetrical RP empire management. This could add meaningful impact to the game and offer multiple, diverse ways to play and achieve some form of "victory" or create successful and interesting experiences.

 

[Ikael]

"Asymmetrical warfare is possible" does not mean "now small fleets beat bigger fleets, always and forever".

It is an over-exaggeration based on a worst-case scenario. Kinda like how empire sprawl was going to kill wide empires and "punish success".

Implementation is always key. I have my personal tastes like anyone else, but I always try to avoid my own biases about "how things should be", as in, disliking game systems "on principle" (ex: "defenses should never be powerful"). Heck, the game is still quite good even if my beloved ground combat was orbital-bombed into irrelevance *sigh*

That being said, I am quite surprised to see the recent player's feedback. Many people also don't appreciate the warfare part of Stellaris (and, apparently, the trade system as well). It seems that we will soon know which kind of course correction the developers have in mind.

 

[Imp0815]

That being said, I am quite surprised to see the recent player's feedback. Many people also don't appreciate the warfare part of Stellaris (and, apparently, the trade system as well). It seems that we will soon know which kind of course correction the developers have in mind.

I'm also relieved that most feedback in the recent Vision DD on the military aspect was about the need for change. I mean, it's not really too complex to see what the system currently is.