Retreating from battle is not a victory

[Lou the Lou]

Quite simply, if a fleet is forced to retreat from battle, that should not be a victory. That is ridiculously broken.

"Oh no, the enemy is attacking me with a 10k fleet. and all I have is 4k. Well, I'll just send them in, and as long as one ship survives the battle and I can retreat it, then his War Exhaustion will increase by 10%, and mine will increase by 0%!"

So. Broken. Fix this crap.

And don't give me that "hit and run tactics are valid" bs. It's not just counting hit and run tactics. It's counting literally every retreat as a victory. You don't win a battle just because you survive it. That's not how war works. The victor of a battle is the side that comes out of it with an advantage. Forcing your fleet to jump into hyperspace to avoid destruction at the hands of a superior enemy is not an advantage. It's turning a horrible defeat into a possibly manageable defeat - but it's still a defeat.

[Lou the Lou]

Again, that's strategy vs. tactics. It's also guerilla warfare/retreat as a strategy, not just simply retreating a force that's losing a battle. Guerilla warfare is not represented in Stellaris, and rightly so. It's a concept which is anti-themactic to a space game. You cannot be a poor and under-equipped space force. You can be smaller or less developed, but there cannot be such a thing as a guerilla space fleet.

That's not to say that a fictional universe couldn't be created in which such a thing exists, but if you're going to bring up real wars to support your posistion, then we should stick with realism. Simply put, a bunch of disgrunted farmers (or whatever) would not have the technical expertise, knowledge, or resources required to amass a significant fleet of military space-faring vessels. There aren't trees to hide in/snipe from or dirt paths in which to plant makeshift explosives.

But to the point... ok. If you enter into a war against an enemy that possesses greater forces and resources, you might decide to have your forces constantly engage in hit and run tactics to wear down the enemy's strength and reserves. That's a strategy. It describes how your individual forces will act in any given battle so that your overall goal is met.

If you are in a war, and one of your forces enters into battle with an enemy force, and you tell it to retreat because it is losing, that's not strategy. You might call it "hit and run" afterwards, but it's not. It's a tactical retreat to save your forces.

Either way, every time a force of your retreats, that is a loss. You can lose almost every battle and still win the war, as Vietnam proved - though Vietnam was a very different war, something of a special case, and not a very good example for this discussion. Territory was not held after being taken, the US was initially only involved to support the French, etc. Way more to it than simply "the North retreated a lot a demoralized the Americans until they lost the war".

[Ruinous]

The game is looking at it purely in terms of loss of resources. It matters what ships get destroyed rather than escape in each battle, and how costly it was to take a station or planet. Win and Loss of battles don't matter in the context of skirmishes, just what you are losing and what your opponent(s) is. Its a gameplay mechanic, maybe not the best abstraction of what it is supposed to be reflecting, but if you've a better one I'm sure the devs would be keen to know.

[Apeironic_Entelechy]

Again, that's strategy vs. tactics. It's also guerilla warfare/retreat as a strategy, not just simply retreating a force that's losing a battle. Guerilla warfare is not represented in Stellaris, and rightly so. It's a concept which is anti-themactic to a space game. You cannot be a poor and under-equipped space force. You can be smaller or less developed, but there is no such thing as a guerilla space fleet.

I don't see how this could possibly be true, hell one of the doctrines is called hit and run. Yes Guerrilla Warfare by civilian insurgents isn't something that's going to happen in space for the obvious reasons but employing hit and run tactics should absolutely be viable and seem to be.

But to the point... ok. If you enter into a war against an enemy that possesses greater forces and resources, you might decide to have your forces constantly engage in hit and run tactics to wear down the enemy's strength and reserves. That's a strategy. It describes how your individual forces will act in any given battle so that your overall goal is met.

If you are in a war, and one of your forces enters into battle with an enemy force, and you tell it to retreat because it is losing, that's not strategy. You might call it "hit and run" afterwards, but it's not. It's a tactical retreat to save your forces.

This seems rather arbitary, hit and run requires you to strategically withdraw from combat rather quickly. Because the longer you fight the more casualties you receive which isn't something you want (because if you could afford them then you wouldn't be relying on hit and run strategies).

Thus deciding to tell your forces to retrean is absolutely a strategy.

Either way, every time a force of your retreats, that is a loss. You can lose almost every battle and still win the war, as Vietnam proved - though Vietnam was a very different war, something of a special case, and not a very good example for this discussion. Territory was not held after being taken, the US was initially only involved to support the French, etc. Way more to it than simply "the North retreated a lot a demoralized the Americans until they lost the war".

And this is an oversimplistic view of warfare that would not serve Stellaris' purposes, retreating on its own should not add to war exhaustion because hit and run should be a viable strategy. Thus by counting WE on ships lost hit and run becomes viable in that you can whittle down your enemy forces and cause them war exhaustion, this would not be true if every time you treated you gained war exhaustion.

[Lou the Lou]

Hit and run should be a viable strategy, sure - but not one that is so strong that it's something you'd want to employ. You resort to a hit-and-run strategy when your force is not strong enough to defeat the enemy outright.

If you have a weaker military force than your enemy, you should lose. You might be able to mitigate your losses some by employing hit-and-run tactics to give yourself time to build up and become an actual threat to your enemy, but it should not be a winnable strategy by itself. Otherwise, wtf is the point of building up significant forces? If you can just hit-and-run any enemy to death, then screw wasting the resources on upkeep for a real military.

[Apeironic_Entelechy]

Hit and run should be a viable strategy, sure - but not one that is so strong that it's something you'd want to employ. You resort to hit-and-run tactics when your force is not strongh enough to defeat the enemy outright.

Yes and not counting retreats as losses would not make it overpowered, it just makes it viable (or rather more viable).

If you have a weaker military force than your enemy, you should lose. You might be able to mitigate your losses some by employing hit-and-run tactics to give yourself time to build up and become an actual threat to your enemy, but it should not be a winnable strategy by itself. Otherwise, wtf is the point of building up significant forces? If you can just hit-and-run any enemy to death, then screw wasting the resources on upkeep for a real military.

Sure and counting WE purely on ships lost has this exact effect, the greater force will still win but hit and run tactics are viable.

Make no mistake, all counting retreats in relation to WE does is make hit and run strategies less viable. It's not at-all necessary for balance.

[Lou the Lou]

It's either a loss or a victory. Every battle. I don't care that they removed the monikers. If you suffer more WE than your opponent for a given battle, you lost that battle. If your forces retreated from battle and you suffered less WE than your opponent who did not retreat, that is broken.

I have a 10k fleet. You have 5 systems with 2k fleets in each one. I engage each fleet one at a time, obviously winning each battle if they're allowed to finish - but they're not. You retreat each force. I suffer more WE than you for each battle as a result of your retreats. By the end of 5 battles, I have far more WE than you, even though I crushed each of your fleets and am occupying all your systems. You've effectively won the war, according to the game.

THAT is why I created this thread. Because that bs happeed to me. Not with those exact numbers, but the general idea. Broken, and nothing anyone can say will convince me otherwise. That was in 2.0.1, though. I'm playing 2.0.2, we'll see if it's different.

[VipreRX]

Either have no bonus for "winning" battles or fix the way wins are calculated. Losing a corvette killing a cruiser is never a loss for the corvette's fleet regardless of their empire's max fleet cap.

If there's no bonus reduction in WE for the "winner" how is it that a fleet can take losses and get 0% in the end?

[Crim]

Lou the Lou původně napsal:

It's either a loss or a victory. Every battle. I don't care that they removed the monikers. If you suffer more WE than your opponent for a given battle, you lost that battle. If your forces retreated from battle and you suffered less WE than your opponent who did not retreat, that is broken.

I have a 10k fleet. You have 5 systems with 2k fleets in each one. I engage each fleet one at a time, obviously winning each battle if they're allowed to finish - but they're not. You retreat each force. I suffer more WE than you for each battle as a result of your retreats. By the end of 5 battles, I have far more WE than you, even though I crushed each of your fleets and am occupying all your systems. You've effectively won the war, according to the game.

THAT is why I created this thread. Because that bs happeed to me. Not with those exact numbers, but the general idea. Broken, and nothing anyone can say will convince me otherwise. That was in 2.0.1, though. I'm playing 2.0.2, we'll see if it's different.

I don't know
If you keep losing Ships on your 10k Squad and I'm retreating without any significant losses...

It would make sense for you to have higher WE than me.

I think to fix it that would make sense for everyone is just have WE be based on Ships lost.
No 0% for anyone.

[Lou the Lou]

Talamare původně napsal:

Lou the Lou původně napsal:

It's either a loss or a victory. Every battle. I don't care that they removed the monikers. If you suffer more WE than your opponent for a given battle, you lost that battle. If your forces retreated from battle and you suffered less WE than your opponent who did not retreat, that is broken.

I have a 10k fleet. You have 5 systems with 2k fleets in each one. I engage each fleet one at a time, obviously winning each battle if they're allowed to finish - but they're not. You retreat each force. I suffer more WE than you for each battle as a result of your retreats. By the end of 5 battles, I have far more WE than you, even though I crushed each of your fleets and am occupying all your systems. You've effectively won the war, according to the game.

THAT is why I created this thread. Because that bs happeed to me. Not with those exact numbers, but the general idea. Broken, and nothing anyone can say will convince me otherwise. That was in 2.0.1, though. I'm playing 2.0.2, we'll see if it's different.

I don't know
If you keep losing Ships on your 10k Squad and I'm retreating without any significant losses...

It would make sense for you to have higher WE than me.

I think to fix it that would make sense for everyone is just have WE be based on Ships lost.
No 0% for anyone.

I know. If all your fleets are in hyperspace because they ran away and I'm occupying a bunch of your systems, you're not winning, regardless of whatever strategy you think you're employing. That's like saying, "My strategy is to lose, and because I'm losing, I'm actually winning! Ha!"

And there is no battle in which a 10k fleet takes significant losses and a 2k fleet does not. If you're retreating your forces, it's because you're losing, and retreats do not, cannot happen right away. There's no way you retreat before taking loses, unless you've done so before you're even engaged, which incurs no WE for anyone.

[kbmodigity]

Lou the Lou původně napsal:

Hit and run should be a viable strategy, sure - but not one that is so strong that it's something you'd want to employ. You resort to a hit-and-run strategy when your force is not strong enough to defeat the enemy outright.

If you have a weaker military force than your enemy, you should lose. You might be able to mitigate your losses some by employing hit-and-run tactics to give yourself time to build up and become an actual threat to your enemy, but it should not be a winnable strategy by itself. Otherwise, wtf is the point of building up significant forces? If you can just hit-and-run any enemy to death, then screw wasting the resources on upkeep for a real military.

I hope your not an American because without those Guerilla tactics and us doing things that werent right in times of war (like sniping officers) the USA wouldnt be here today.

We used the hit and run tactics against the long line of British troops. We were overwhelled and should have lost. According to you there should be no America by your thinking. We did what we had to do and are now a super power.

Also, in a previous comment by someone, there are no trees to climb up and hide to snipe from, why cant you hide behind a meteor, comet, nearby planet and shoot from there and ambush, hit as hard as they can , and then run away.

I would also think most people that play this game are familiar with sci fi and especially series like star trek. Look at DS9 with the bejorans with how they beat the Cardassians. Using old inferior model ships with hit and run tactics. Massive terrorism/revolt on planets. They won.

People complain about RPing only when they are on a losing side. Then they dont find it fun anymore because they arent steamrolling thier enemies.

[Straybow]

Lou the Lou původně napsal:

It's either a loss or a victory. Every battle. I don't care that they removed the monikers. If you suffer more WE than your opponent for a given battle, you lost that battle. If your forces retreated from battle and you suffered less WE than your opponent who did not retreat, that is broken.

I have a 10k fleet. You have 5 systems with 2k fleets in each one. I engage each fleet one at a time, obviously winning each battle if they're allowed to finish - but they're not. You retreat each force. I suffer more WE than you for each battle as a result of your retreats. By the end of 5 battles, I have far more WE than you, even though I crushed each of your fleets and am occupying all your systems. You've effectively won the war, according to the game.

THAT is why I created this thread. Because that bs happeed to me. Not with those exact numbers, but the general idea. Broken, and nothing anyone can say will convince me otherwise. That was in 2.0.1, though. I'm playing 2.0.2, we'll see if it's different.

It is hard to tell what happened, did they force a status quo in that war? was it a claims war and not an ideology/vassal war (which I think need some work)? If anything that sounds more like a balance issue between space battle/occupation (which I could probably agree with). Even the effectiveness of hit and run tactic within the game could be altered, I just don't have much problem with the fundamental premise.

[Lou the Lou]

kbmodigity původně napsal:

/clip

I'm going to go ahead and not respond to any individual point you've brought up, and instead say: let's remember that we're talking about a video game, and a specific one at that. Historical and fictional references might provide evidence that hit-and-run tactics are valid or not, but most of them have little-to-no bearing on what's actually being discussed here.

Basically, if anything more is to be said here, let's have it be focused on the topic of Stellaris' War Exhaustion mechanic, and the effect of Retreating in battle in relation to said mechanic, as opposed to the merits of hit-and-run tactics in real life, ground-based (a.k.a. planetary), historical warfare.

Lysimarkos of Ermor původně napsal:

/clip

I keep typing and retyping my response to this, but I just keep coming to the same conclusion: the war system is screwed right now. Claims, WE, CB... it's all ridiculous and broken. I don't need to diplomatically claim a system before I kill everyone in it and take it for my empire; that's stupid. My people don't get exhausted from war; they're machines, or fanatics, or belong to a hive mind, or are subdued by the military. I don't need to justify war; if I want to start a war to take your territory, I will, just because.

[Straybow]

Lou the Lou původně napsal:

I keep typing and retyping my response to this, but I just keep coming to the same conclusion: the war system is screwed right now. Claims, WE, CB... it's all ridiculous and broken. I don't need to diplomatically claim a system before I kill everyone in it and take it for my empire; that's stupid. My people don't get exhausted from war; they're machines, or fanatics, or belong to a hive mind, or are subdued by the military. I don't need to justify war; if I want to start a war to take your territory, I will, just because.

I don't follow you around the forums, I haven't seen in this discussion much about machines/hive whatever so I apologise if i missed it. You have also moved from retreating in a battle is not a victory to claims which is related topic but not the same topic.

I think many things in 2.0+ are in need of a great deal of refinement.The general premise that retreat cannot be a victory (in the sense of increasing the enemies war exhaustion) which I thought this discussion was about, is the thing I don't find particulary controversial (particulary for conventional empires).

For your more unconventional empires then yes obviously if you catagorically deny that militirists/hive minds/machines could suffer from war exhaustion (in the sense of being discouraged by defeat/occupation) then sure I could probably accept it in a roleplay sense. I suspect this as as much balance for them as anything.

If we are going full rp though I think that an empire an empire that catagorically ignores galactic diplomacy should probably have diplomatic status that reflect such a stance. No diplomacy catagorically for Tyranids or "purge the galaxy types". No peace whatsoever, always war.

[RodHull]

kbmodigity původně napsal:

Ive been rethinking this one and the one example that is realy bothering me is the Vietnam war. The USA killed the Vietcong at a ratio of 10:1. The Vietcong used hit and run tactics for the most part. The Vietcong ended up winning due to war exhuastion on the USA's citizens part.

The USA lost about 47000 troops. The Vietcong lost close to 1/2 a million.This does not count civilian casualties.

If a war like that can happen in real life then why cant it happen in a game?

Do I like it in the game? No. But thinking about it I can see how it should be allowed if we are going to look at history and the way wars have gone.

Also I think its fair to point out the difference in motivation for both sides, one side was a war of defending their homeland from invading force and defending their political ideology, the other was a foreign projection of force attempting to prevent a political ideology taking hold for which there was not much real will back home to be involved in.

Result was one side being prepared to fight to near extinction the other side not being to invested in it started to get cold feet as casualties started to pile up. This would be hard to accurately model in a game like this and would be too easy to exploit, taking this applying it stellaris purifiers, swarms, hive minds etc would never suffer war exhaustion and would be a bit op.

In game I see war exhaustion more as an abstract not just losses but also, political will, strain on infrastructure etc