This is a really bad counterpoint, in my opinion. Space may be endless, but the area a battle is waged within is not. Seriously, think about the battles in Stellaris, you have tons of ships snaking around each other in a fairly confined area, and in those situations, the larger fleet has to worry more about losing their own ships to friendly-fire compared to the smaller fleet. That's probably what is being simulated with the bonus.
Thinking about the battles in Stellaris simply adds to greater disappointment. Space is endless and the area a Stellaris battle is waged in is this clusterfuck of corvettes simply because that's how the game is designed, not because it
must by this concentrated mess. That the logic has to be fit to Stellaris and Stellaris not fit to logic illustrates my point; it is entirely artificial that this must be the only way because it is how the developers want it to be. Considering how even the densest conglomeration of fighters, corvettes and prethoryn do not at all have a single semblance of collision or friendly fire, it seems odd to justify this arbitrary measure by these grounds. For example, a bunch of swarmvettes assaulting a numerically inferior group of battleships would see the battleships gaining the fire rate bonus, despite the battleships in such a scenario being at the greater risk of shooting each other, with the swarmvettes attacking in between all the battleships. Furthermore if we ran on the assumption that the vast expanse of space could not be used, because Stellaris only runs on 2 dimensions and the scale is terribly small, why then is it that it is not the fleet who has better admirals, better training and better computers which prevents friendly fire, but simply the one which has fewer ships? Is the largest, most experienced, best train and best equipped Navy unable to stop itself from shooting itself to such an extent that it drastically alters the course of battle? Why do the ships even bother with formations if they are apparently so inept?
Could you imagine arguing that a game simulating ocean battles on Earth should have superior navies sink their own ships because the space of the ocean battle was small and experience, discipline, formation and navigation would count for nothing? That one could expect to see the Royal Navy defeated if it made the mistake of building more ships? If such men could avoid destroying their own ships in closer enemy engagements and much less space than the literal endless void, why is it that no matter how militiaristic and experience a space navy is, they cannot avoid incurring such penalties against smaller foes?
It is simply because it is an arbitrary measure meant to punish the building of large armadas in space.
I have to wonder where people seem to be getting the impression that the bonus means that the smaller fleets will be the ones winning the battles. Far as I can tell, the bonus is going to be scaled depending upon comparative fleet sizes. And taking the example they gave, the fleet that has 50% the strength of the other will be getting only a bonus of half their own strength (not the enemy's strength), meaning they are acting closer to a 75% rather than the original 50%. That's still quite a bit weaker than the enemy fleet, so the smaller would still be likely to lose. It's just now they'd be inflicting some casualties upon the greater force rather than nothing/basically nothing.
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.
Author
Topic: Stellaris: Paradox Interactive IN SPACE (Read 1671825 times)