|
SirTagz posted:However I disagree with most which just tries to push the game into EU in space category because it is a familiar format - like max fleet size supported per system. That just makes no sense for me. The fleets cannot forage off planets like they can off land in EU. Also there is no terrain or spacing problems in space. bla bla gameplay over realism but I think there are better options than going this strict limitation way (like your leader idea) Yeah I don't like it as much either, because I think logsitics limits per system is just a little bit too abstract for Stellaris. It's also way more work because you need entirely new UI and it changes how combat works to a very signficant degree. That system would touch much of the game in some way. I think Wiz and the team could make it work though. Certainly wouldn't be mad if that kind of more EU-ish system is what we end up with. The fact that bombardement is free is actually a good point. It's true that it usually costs something. Even in the games where it's "free" like MoO2/3 or SotS, you do "pay" for it with ship design because to get it to happen in any reasonable timeframe at all you trade off direct combat power for bombardement power. In SotS there's also the additional penalty where you are getting shot at by the planet, so even though shooting the planet doesn't cost anything but time, you want to spend less time doing it to minimize the damage your ships take. Don't think this is fixable outside of an army overhaul though - if you just made bombardement harder in a vacuum you'd just increase the tedium of capturing planets.
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2017 12:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 12:02 |
|
|
I don't even bother bombarding planets past the early game, it's trivial to take fully fortified planets after you have researched some decent assault armies. I find it also takes a lot of the busy work out of the invasions when you can just have your fleet roam around and knock out enemy space stations/ships while your transport fleet bounces around their empire capturing planets unopposed.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2017 12:38
|
|
|
Right, unless you're still running around with corvettes and destroyers, load up with some xenomorph armies, drop them on a planet, hit the Embark All when they're done eating the defenders and tell them to follow the murderball on its way to the next system to strip them of anything that might take a potshot at the transports. Still, if that's the case why even bother in the first place? An empire without a fleet is utterly defeated, they just don't know it. No, the occasional corvette you manage to scrounge up and throw at my battleship fleet isn't gonna turn the tide of the war.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2017 13:14
|
|
|
SirTagz posted:The fleets cannot forage off planets like they can off land in EU. Also there is no terrain or spacing problems in space. bla bla gameplay over realism but I think there are better options than going this strict limitation way (like your leader idea) Sure they can. Fleets already consume supplies, there are already spacing problems, and there's already terrain. It's just none of these are implemented in a sensible way on the tactical level.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2017 13:24
|
|
|
Planetary invasions should just work like sieges in EU4. The planet will give up given time, with the option of launching an assault at a greater cost. That's a pretty boring solution, but it does work.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2017 13:24
|
|
|
DatonKallandor posted:Yeah I don't like it as much either, because I think logsitics limits per system is just a little bit too abstract for Stellaris. It's also way more work because you need entirely new UI and it changes how combat works to a very signficant degree. That system would touch much of the game in some way.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2017 13:33
|
|
|
Splicer posted:A per-battle soft cap (as per a post by demiurge a while back) would bypass a lot of these problems. Battles are already a kind of pseudo-glob of multiple fleets, your ships could take accuracy, tracking, and evasion penalties based on how much your side's total numbers exceeds your side's CnC score. This is what I've always wanted when I talk about limiting fleet size. It's really less about limiting the raw size of the fleet, as it is the effective size of an engagement. Some kind of soft stack limit, in a similar being as the soft total ship limit. You can exceed but, but it will work against you in key engagements. This would open up other possibilities, in that maybe hive minds or psychic empires are better at swarm fleets. Doctrines to make empires more unique, rather than "loads of Kinetic Artillery and not much else."
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2017 14:28
|
|
|
Dreylad posted:Planetary invasions should just work like sieges in EU4. The planet will give up given time, with the option of launching an assault at a greater cost. There's so many things you'd lose though. I guess the army techs aren't THAT important but there's a lot of things based around more/less army damage.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2017 14:38
|
|
|
Nah, invasions should work like combat in EUIV, with combat widths equivalent to the size of the planet, different phases (spaceborne, airborne, and land) and corresponding bonuses in each phase depending on the type of bombardment you choose. Sure, you can murder everyone from space and just land your guys to hold the planet (and have everyone hate and the planet be a smoking ruin) or you can send billions of troops down to the surface to fight and die for the Empire while your ships carefully pick off their futurecopters, occasionally hitting factories by accident. This allows you to retain the flavour of attachments, which now provide specific bonuses for given phases, and tailor your army around your bombardment policy.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2017 14:50
|
|
|
Aethernet posted:Nah, invasions should work like combat in EUIV, with combat widths equivalent to the size of the planet, different phases (spaceborne, airborne, and land) and corresponding bonuses in each phase depending on the type of bombardment you choose. Sure, you can murder everyone from space and just land your guys to hold the planet (and have everyone hate and the planet be a smoking ruin) or you can send billions of troops down to the surface to fight and die for the Empire while your ships carefully pick off their futurecopters, occasionally hitting factories by accident. Which would also pave the way for an 'Exterminatus' option which is a tool that should be available to every good Xenophobe anyway.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2017 14:57
|
|
|
My fanatic purifiers game is making me realize how useless the cleanse planet war goal is. It costs more than cede planet and they'll probably just recoloize it in the 10 year truce. It's been way faster to just vassalize, integrate and then purge the pops getting it done in 1 war versus 3 wars which seems backwards. Also you can't cleanse the xeno scum from their capital which I don't get.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2017 15:21
|
|
|
imweasel09 posted:My fanatic purifiers game is making me realize how useless the cleanse planet war goal is. It costs more than cede planet and they'll probably just recoloize it in the 10 year truce. It's been way faster to just vassalize, integrate and then purge the pops getting it done in 1 war versus 3 wars which seems backwards. Also you can't cleanse the xeno scum from their capital which I don't get. It's annoying having to capture their capital world and spend 30 years cleaning it off, for sure. Just let me cleanse them all thanks!
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2017 16:23
|
|
|
imweasel09 posted:My fanatic purifiers game is making me realize how useless the cleanse planet war goal is. It costs more than cede planet and they'll probably just recoloize it in the 10 year truce. It's been way faster to just vassalize, integrate and then purge the pops getting it done in 1 war versus 3 wars which seems backwards. Also you can't cleanse the xeno scum from their capital which I don't get. I put in a mod for more powerful bombardments just so I could clean a planet off from orbit and send a colony ship of my own without having to deal with the nonsense.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2017 16:42
|
|
|
imweasel09 posted:My fanatic purifiers game is making me realize how useless the cleanse planet war goal is. It costs more than cede planet and they'll probably just recoloize it in the 10 year truce. This is something that could probably be fixed easily with a timed modifier to the planet that prevents colonization for 10 years. Even better if it only prevented the cleansed empire from colonizing it, but I'm not sure if that's possible.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2017 17:10
|
|
|
Taear posted:It's annoying having to capture their capital world and spend 30 years cleaning it off, for sure. Just let me cleanse them all thanks!
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2017 17:14
|
|
|
Cleanse is most useful as a pacifist/xenophobe so you can clear their poo poo out from around you so you can have more lebensraum. Since they don't have any space ports and are probably economically destroyed after the war I've never had issues snapping up the planets before the AI can do a drat thing about it. Alternatively, if you are a purifier or something with a bunch of those minus war cost techs just destroying all life you can cleanse a *lot* of planets in one go.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2017 17:15
|
|
|
Aethernet posted:Nah, invasions should work like combat in EUIV, with combat widths equivalent to the size of the planet, different phases (spaceborne, airborne, and land) and corresponding bonuses in each phase depending on the type of bombardment you choose. Sure, you can murder everyone from space and just land your guys to hold the planet (and have everyone hate and the planet be a smoking ruin) or you can send billions of troops down to the surface to fight and die for the Empire while your ships carefully pick off their futurecopters, occasionally hitting factories by accident. It's kind of funny that EU4's combat is very similar to what an automated version of MoO3 ground combat would look like. There was a huge amount of possible tactics to choose from, and both players would choose one tactic to run with for upcoming turn - each tactic would have different effectiveness based on how each army is built, what the other side has chosen and the terrain of the regions being fought over plus some randomness. With additional toggles for allowing NBC weapons for the upcoming turns fight. And that's how EU4 combat works - with the difference being your AI generals automatically decide what tactic they think is appropriate based on terrain, army they've got and skills and tactics they know. It would be nice to bring that system back into a space 4x where it started in the more refined form EU4 turned it into. DatonKallandor fucked around with this message at 18:20 on Aug 15, 2017 |
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2017 18:14
|
|
|
eu4's tactics system is based on ck2's, and both games are both hopelessly arcane and counterintuitive as a result. how tactics affect combat in both games is never explained to the player, and indeed often creates counterintuitive results where it's better to have a low-skill general just because he's italian or irish, or where a trait that claims to give you +X% combat damage is actually bad because it activates a suicidally useless combat tactic.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2017 18:24
|
|
|
Is there some way to tell my fleets to stop attacking useless poo poo? My ally just lost their fleet because my reinforcing fleet decided to stop during travel to attack two transports, a science ship, and a mining station.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2017 19:49
|
|
|
Spaseman posted:Is there some way to tell my fleets to stop attacking useless poo poo? My ally just lost their fleet because my reinforcing fleet decided to stop during travel to attack two transports, a science ship, and a mining station.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2017 20:12
|
|
|
I had two weird things happen in my most recent game. First, I had the event where the nomadic wandering fleet wanted to drop some people off in an uninhabited planet in my space. I said sure, and they colonized the planet. The empire created around that planet was a fanatical purifier. I know it's random government/ethics but it's just funny to imagine there being one nomadic ship clamoring for galactic purification and the rest of the fleet going fine, here's a planet good luck with that. So after some liberating, I had a new protectorate. However I realized that the planet they got dropped off on, I was actually terraforming at the time. I wasn't sure if the process would be completed, but after a couple of years their desert planet turned into a nice continental world. So now they're really unhappy with forced migration and no where to go lol. In a few years after I integrate them, I'll just move the pops to another desert planet but it's funny to imagine those aliens regretting their decision to settle down almost immediately.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2017 20:15
|
|
|
Splicer posted:Set the fleet to passive, send it to where you want it to go, set it to aggressive again. This won't really work, as the fleets will still engage if they happen to get within combat distance while traveling across a system.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2017 20:20
|
|
|
It would be nice if there were more indicators for planets in the process of terraforming, maybe have their outliner biome picture include a miniature picture of the biome type they are turning into in the bottom corner.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2017 20:26
|
|
|
There's a mod on the workshop called something like SGM supply lines where fleets more or less have baggage trains of civilian ships, and if the civ ships are destroyed in route to their fleet you wind up with some pretty massive supply penalties. If the AI had any idea of how to use it that system seems like it could be turned into a good way to discurage doom stacks blitzing a line through space.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2017 20:36
|
|
|
SirTagz posted:I have another great idea inspired by the upcoming planetary invasion mechanics. Lets remove fleets alltogether and just add an 'INVADE' button to the diplomacy screen that calculates your win chances from your leader stats / production capability etc. Micro is such a drag Yes, a dislike of having to personally micromanage means I don't want to play the game and just hit the win button, just like the only reason that I don't like this proposed mechanic is that I'm a Hardcore Paradox Fan. Chill the hell out, dude. I agree that the combat is simplistic, but I disagree with the way you are proposing to "fix" it. If they want me to get into the fight tactics, they need to be more interesting, not just more of the same that I have to handle myself.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2017 20:38
|
|
|
Cease to Hope posted:eu4's tactics system is based on ck2's, and both games are both hopelessly arcane and counterintuitive as a result. how tactics affect combat in both games is never explained to the player, and indeed often creates counterintuitive results where it's better to have a low-skill general just because he's italian or irish, or where a trait that claims to give you +X% combat damage is actually bad because it activates a suicidally useless combat tactic. Still better than the Stellaris tactics system where every ship type has one fixed behavior that it always follows regardless of ship loadout, positioning, admiral, or fleet composition. People go on for pages here about how to minmax their ships and fleet to best exploit the lovely default ship behaviors, and I don't think that's really any better than minmaxing your retinue stacks or choosing the optimal set of general traits. At least in CKII it's easier to ignore minmaxing if you want to, since levies and mercenaries have fixed compositions and terrain bonuses have more than enough impact to reward player tactics.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2017 20:43
|
|
|
Really just make a system along the lines of where the closest friendly space port paints a line to a fleet, and if a hostile ship sits along that line somewhere that counts as a supply line being blocked and starts draining the combat power of whatever fleet it's linked to.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2017 20:45
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:Still better than the Stellaris tactics system where every ship type has one fixed behavior that it always follows regardless of ship loadout, positioning, admiral, or fleet composition. People go on for pages here about how to minmax their ships and fleet to best exploit the lovely default ship behaviors, and I don't think that's really any better than minmaxing your retinue stacks or choosing the optimal set of general traits. At least in CKII it's easier to ignore minmaxing if you want to, since levies and mercenaries have fixed compositions and terrain bonuses have more than enough impact to reward player tactics. this is something that's weird to me considering there's literally a module slot already in game for ship ai behavior. like there already seems to be support built in to allow different models of the same class of ship engage in different roles AriadneThread fucked around with this message at 20:56 on Aug 15, 2017 |
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2017 20:53
|
|
|
AriadneThread posted:this is something that's weird to me considering there's literally a module slot already in game for ship ai behavior. like there already seems to be support built in to allow different models of the same class of ship engage in different roles Yes there's even a mod called advanced ship behaviors that adds a variety of AI modules to have ships perform different actions.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2017 21:05
|
|
|
Cease to Hope posted:eu4's tactics system is based on ck2's, and both games are both hopelessly arcane and counterintuitive as a result. how tactics affect combat in both games is never explained to the player, and indeed often creates counterintuitive results where it's better to have a low-skill general just because he's italian or irish, or where a trait that claims to give you +X% combat damage is actually bad because it activates a suicidally useless combat tactic. Those results are great in CK2, though, because yeah you could crunch all the numbers and design a perfectly efficient meritocratic state where the leadership caste is all the people with the highest numbers, but the actual proper way to play is to nepotize and discriminate against outsiders and reward loyalty over competence like a real medieval lord Stellaris's combat is a lot more opaque and doesn't have as clear a logic, by comparison. Destroyers are optimized towards standoff strikes with one huge gun while cruisers are meant to charge right into the scrum for no reason that's ever made apparent to the player, that's just how the game was balanced under the hood, tough luck all your attempts to focus on fast engines and close-range weaponry have culminated in a flagship that's a dedicated missile boat. DatonKallandor posted:Yeah I don't like it as much either, because I think logsitics limits per system is just a little bit too abstract for Stellaris. It's also way more work because you need entirely new UI and it changes how combat works to a very signficant degree. That system would touch much of the game in some way. I kind of wish it was possible to build ground armies that could shoot back at spaceships, or locked down invading forces for the duration of an 'occupation'. Ground combat as it is currently is never going to be much of a game but it might be less of a pointless drag if it was integrated with the space battle aspect such that a heavily militarized hostile world was a a threat to your fleets in its own right instead of just a dot you cleared of orbital defenses and then squatted a spare corvette over until your murder-ball transport fleet with the combined armies of your entire empire got around to it. A Wizard of Goatse fucked around with this message at 21:54 on Aug 15, 2017 |
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2017 21:34
|
|
|
turn off the TV posted:Really just make a system along the lines of where the closest friendly space port paints a line to a fleet, and if a hostile ship sits along that line somewhere that counts as a supply line being blocked and starts draining the combat power of whatever fleet it's linked to. How does that work with different FTL types? Wormholes for example, by definition should not have any supply lines. Can hyperlanes interdict warp travel?
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2017 21:36
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:Still better than the Stellaris tactics system where every ship type has one fixed behavior that it always follows regardless of ship loadout, positioning, admiral, or fleet composition. People go on for pages here about how to minmax their ships and fleet to best exploit the lovely default ship behaviors, and I don't think that's really any better than minmaxing your retinue stacks or choosing the optimal set of general traits. At least in CKII it's easier to ignore minmaxing if you want to, since levies and mercenaries have fixed compositions and terrain bonuses have more than enough impact to reward player tactics. Yeah, this is a good point. Behaviors should be able to be set in some way. That would be something I could super get behind. A Wizard of Goatse posted:Stellaris's combat is a lot more opaque and doesn't have as clear a logic, by comparison. Destroyers are optimized towards standoff strikes with one huge gun while cruisers are meant to charge right into the scrum for no reason that's ever made apparent to the player, that's just how the game was balanced under the hood, tough luck all your attempts to focus on fast engines and close-range weaponry have culminated in a flagship that's a dedicated missile boat. And god knows this is true. I can't do much more than smash things into things because it's not terribly clear what I'm supposed to do or how it's supposed to work.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2017 21:57
|
|
|
I want planet destroyers and WMDs.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2017 22:09
|
|
|
However they do it (being in supply to wherever, admiral skill, techs, etc) they really need to implement some version of unit width. That single innovation made doom stacks no longer a viable tactic in HOI. Maybe something where your admiral can only command a certain fleet cap at any one time before he gets increasingly bad maluses, and if there are multiple fleets the senior commander takes general command and can go over his command limit. However it's done something needs to be worked out to make having the most gigantic blob of ships possible in a single system not be the ultimate tactic. It makes the mid and late game REALLY boring as far as warfare goes. edit: maybe also negative modifiers the further you are from your own space. It's hilarious bullshit that I can take my 500k fleet power doomstack into the heart of a sprawling empire so that I can squash their capitol without having to worry about my supply lines.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2017 22:46
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:However they do it (being in supply to wherever, admiral skill, techs, etc) they really need to implement some version of unit width. That single innovation made doom stacks no longer a viable tactic in HOI. Maybe something where your admiral can only command a certain fleet cap at any one time before he gets increasingly bad maluses, and if there are multiple fleets the senior commander takes general command and can go over his command limit. I'm less sold on the supply lines things because of endgame crisis events. Sometimes your 500k stack needs to get to the other end of the galaxy to stop the AI from being eaten by scourge or the unbidden.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2017 23:31
|
|
|
imweasel09 posted:I'm less sold on the supply lines things because of endgame crisis events. Sometimes your 500k stack needs to get to the other end of the galaxy to stop the AI from being eaten by scourge or the unbidden. The answer to that is to rework the end game crisis stuff. Maybe have an event fire to create a temporary alliance, like you see wit the War in Heaven, and have allies let your supplies through or something. The fact that your fleet doesn't need to worry about how far outside your borders it gets is one of the bigger issues in the core game. To see what I mean try a game where you restrict everyone to wormholes. That restricts how far your doom stack can march into anyone's territory and really, REALLY encourages you to keep small garrison fleets to make sure someone doesn't blow up all your warp stations a jump or two back from the front line. The flow of the game ends up being entirely different.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2017 23:36
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:However they do it (being in supply to wherever, admiral skill, techs, etc) they really need to implement some version of unit width. That single innovation made doom stacks no longer a viable tactic in HOI. Maybe something where your admiral can only command a certain fleet cap at any one time before he gets increasingly bad maluses, and if there are multiple fleets the senior commander takes general command and can go over his command limit. a fleet cap just means instead of rolling your 400k doomstack around the galaxy map you're bandboxing 4 100k fleets and rollign them around the galaxy map, there needs to be radically more that can be accomplished with small fleets of like 5-10 ships so putting all your military power in one big murderfleet and shoving it at the enemy capital is a risky and costly move that leaves your undefended worlds exposed to raids from a distributed enemy as it is planetary defenses are just strong enough that you're not often able to do anything useful with an undefended world before the doomstack comes back from halfway across the galaxy and interrupts you, and just weak enough that you never stand a chance of actually losing unless the enemy's doomstack shows up, and there's nothing else for a smaller detachment to do except squash the occasional void cloud for your science ships. Part of what made stuff like SOTS fun was that the game really rewarded finding clever ways to sneak a handful of cruisers through some unguarded backdoor into enemy territory to absolutely wreck poo poo before the front-line fleets could be pulled back to defend, so the combat always stayed dynamic and you had to really be actively trying to outthink your opponent the whole time rather than just optimizing your Mineral Point production and calling it a day A Wizard of Goatse fucked around with this message at 00:20 on Aug 16, 2017 |
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2017 23:50
|
|
|
Nuclearmonkee posted:Cleanse is most useful as a pacifist/xenophobe so you can clear their poo poo out from around you so you can have more lebensraum. Since they don't have any space ports and are probably economically destroyed after the war I've never had issues snapping up the planets before the AI can do a drat thing about it. I can do loads at once. I just have to capture their homeworld, it should allow me to cleanse it too.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2017 00:01
|
|
|
The game definitely needs more soft targets to play into wars. Things like hyperspace gates or warp nav beacons, which could be destroyed to disrupt an empire's innate FTL bonus for being in their borders, would be cool. Akin to bombing transit networks. I'd also like to see civilian stations accept some level infrastructure investment so that losing a highly developed one would be an actual blow.OwlFancier posted:How does that work with different FTL types? Wormholes for example, by definition should not have any supply lines. Can hyperlanes interdict warp travel? Wormholes already kind of have a similar system built in with larger fleets taking longer to move through them, so you could have a similar system of stations maxing out their capacity when running supplies to large fleets. turn off the TV fucked around with this message at 00:49 on Aug 16, 2017 |
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2017 00:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 12:02 |
|
|
turn off the TV posted:The game definitely needs more soft targets to play into wars. Things like hyperspace gates or warp nav beacons, which could be destroyed to disrupt an empire's innate FTL bonus for being in their borders, would be cool. Akin to bombing transit networks. I'd also like to see civilian stations accept some level infrastructure investment so that losing a highly developed one would be an actual blow. I thought it was confirmed that Hyperdrive is becoming the only FTL? Hell, I'd forgotten the others even existed.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2017 01:04
|
|