As for how limited it is, I think they initially want to see how things go with this baseline change before they really go nuts with it. I personally await planetside defenses that cause attrition to enemy ships in orbit so long as they have a population on them.
inb4 planetside dlc
From what I can tell, full doesn't prevent the destruction of all the buildings, it just prevents the destruction of the last five populations. Basically consider the difference as being that Armageddon seeks to kill everyone while Indiscriminate misses some people as it focuses on the buildings.
There is no full bombardment. They're getting rid of it.
Right now we have:
Light bombardment - Military targets only, civilian collateral actively avoided.
Limited bombardment - Carpet bombing military targets, without regard for infrastructure damage. However, only light ship weapons are used, minimizing disruption to civilians
Full bombardment - Unleash every weapon in orbit upon the planet, guaranteeing elimination of military fortifications without regard to civilian casualties
Armageddon bombardment - Unleash every weapon in orbit upon the planet, actively pursuing all inhabited centres
At least that's the description for each. In reality it's more like:
Light bombardment - No one dies, no one's buildings will be smashed, planet will be cleared slowly
Limited bombardment - No one dies, no one's buildings will be smashed, planet will be cleared slowly
Full bombardment - You might ruin a building, planet will be cleared quickly
Armageddon bombardment - You'll get two pops max, but planet fortification will be cleared pronto
Planned:
Selective - Deals collateral damage, last 10 pops invincible
Indiscriminate - Blows up buildings, last 5 pops invincible
Armageddon - Purifiers and Exterminators only, no pops invincible
So basically they've condensed full and light. So there's no more light, and full & limited both got nerfed to have invincible pops. So if you bombard a planet with plasma lances for 5000 years there will always be 5 pops chilling there
Get enough defensive armies on a planet with an FTL inhibitor, you could lock down an enemy fleet in one system for months to years.
If it's capable of holding back a clever AI or just prethoryn levels of offensive army spam for years, or decades, that's be pretty moisturizing. If it's just a speedbump for a few months it's really not worth it, the fleet blowing up your planet is just going to move onto your next planet full of dudes. I think this will definitely be something that will be fun to mod to extremes, like having 40k tier bullshit Fortress worlds that can take in waves and waves of prethoryn for centuries.
And FFS, the bonus to outnumbered isn't enough to win battles, all it does is get the smaller side able to get a little bit more damage in than before and would help out an empire that gets screwed by the RNG to be able to do something against a larger force.
m8 you do see how it's an inherently stupid idea right?
Why is an inferior force increasing its fighting capabilities the weaker its strategic position is.
There is no logic behind the weaker force fighting the far larger force in a conventional battle and inflicting such disproportionate casualties, the chance of them winning should not even be "likely to lose," it should be "almost certainly going to lose." I can't think of any strategy game that rewarded you for fighting on your opponent's strengths in this manner. For a grand strategy game it's even more puzzling, because the game is not about the fine managing of units, it's about amassing the resources and making the decisions which make the chances of victory certain before you've even declared war.
Right now militarily weaker states can use federations & defensive pacts to stall greater powers until such time as their economic and technological might overpowers them. But they possess no other means of fighting asymmetrical warfare short of funding a rival's enemies. This is a major weakness of the game, and I think the fact that the developers removed the ability to transfer planets because players were making locust pops is evidence enough that the devs are not only disinterested in adding asymmetrical avenues for undermining rivals, but is actively opposed to it for whatever reasons they keep to themselves. Thus in order to "solve" the problem that a militarily overwhelming foe annihilates its opponents in conventional battles, these measures have been introduced.
Thus I can play a pacifist nation that abhors violence and does not train its admirals or fleet, my tradition points spent on harmony, prosperity and discovery. My technology and economy is superior to my militiarist neighbour who spends much more on defence and devotes more of their planet to industry than me. If they do not challenge me militarily, I will assuredly become superior to them with the passing of time, as my technological and economic advantage increases exponentially. They double their fleet to twice the size of mine, putting an immense strain further upon their state, planning to invade me and thus reduce my advantage to their gain.
They declare war.
They have twice the ships I do, their admirals are more skilled, their people are geared towards war in tradition, having completed the supremacy traditions and naval exercise training. This is not their first war either, so they possess many veterans. My admirals have never seen battle before, my people hate the very idea of violence, their one advantage is they will fight harder to defend their homelands. I do no clever strategy, no devious trick. I do not conceal my ships in a great galactic ambush, I do not call in allies, I do not deploy devious weapons or politics, subversion or fast-raids. I attack this overwhelmingly superior foe head on in a conventional battle. Every one of my ships fights with superior skill and strategy, exacting a terrible toll upon the enemy. My species have no idea what they're doing but for reasons unknown they are superior to even the most elite enemy veterans. We are evenly matched, but I am far more capable of replacing my losses, with better industry, with more and more technologically advanced ships. I will win this war despite having made no preparations for it.
It breaks the game's verisimilitude for me. I do not see a mechanic which is logical or in accordance with any reality, I just see a mechanic the devs put in because they don't like large fleets causing decisive battles in space and couldn't think of anything better.
Consider that a fanatic militiarist government is one that is built around war first and foremost, whose peoples prepare for war in peace and look forward to it as an inevitable tradition of their species that must be continued. They get +20% to fire rate to represent their skill and experience at war. Consider that the fanatic purifier government represents the utmost extreme of a martial society, a peoples whose purpose in life is foremost war and extermination of all other life. Their dedication to this extreme militiarism renders them incapable of forming any diplomatic ties, but each of their ships gets +53% to fire rate.
An enemy whose peoples are not at all trained at war but are outnumbered 2 to 1 will find their ships fighting just as well as the enemy which spends entire generations of lives practicing at nothing but war. Not because they made any strategic decision, or had superior leadership, or the proper preparations. They are outnumbered therefore they fight as good as the best-trained elite navies in the galaxy.
Now imagine a fanatic purifier government is being invaded by a federation which has banded together to stop their extermination wars. Unfortunately they overwhelmingly outnumber the fanatical purifiers, so now if they fight a conventional battle their enemy will have a +103% fire rate. Thus to band together and have one fleet lead all allied fleets would be to make an incredibly poor life choice, despite all logic pointing to the contrary.
tl;dr cost-effective battles win wars
A state that made the correct choice in momentarily inflating their navy to exploit a weaker enemy that was teching up is now being punished, their fleets are suffering disproportionate damage despite the economic risk they took in bulking up their military. Thus if they are to profit from this decision, they must strike an overwhelming victory, otherwise the inferior foe will overcome them with their later game economic and technological advantage. Under this system, that state is punished for making the right decision, whereas there is no downside to getting tech hungry, because your smaller, technologically advanced fleet will be competitive with a purifier fleet twice the size of yours. And if you are a purifier yourself? Lmao +103% fire rate without traditions or admirals because your enemies band together instead of 1v1 you
*EDIT
Basically the design philosophy where you streamline the game experience into a monotony of grind into technofederation doesn't make sense. Because if there's one thing Stellaris needed, it was less choice? Nah what, PI team you guys are drunk
Author
Topic: Stellaris: Paradox Interactive IN SPACE (Read 1677389 times)