Please fix relative power metrics. This isn't funny anymore.

[Salami Tsunami]

It's always been this way. It didn't used to be a problem, since it didn't actually mean anything. But now that it's necessary for vassalization and tributaries, it's gotten ridiculous. I assumed this would get fixed following the update that started this off, but...

Naval capacity should not count toward relative power. It's utterly ridiculous. Is there a mod for this or something?

[tempest.of.emptiness]

I think that naval capacity is calculated into relative power to prevent the loss of one battle (resulting in the loss of a significant portion of your fleet) from causing a massive swing in your relative power. Fleet strength can potentially rebound very quickly, and so a temporary dip in fleet size doesn't necessarily make you that much less powerful. Adding naval capacity into the calculation mitigates the dip somewhat, because even if you lose every ship you have your naval capacity doesn't change.

That being said, I agree that there's room for improvement in the way relative power is calculated. Naval capacity probably counts for more than it should, and if there was a way to calculate relative power without naval capacity while still insulating the calculation from wild swings tied to fleet strength, that would be even better.

For example, maybe relative power could be based on tech level and your average fleet strength over the past year. A temporary dip in fleet strength would not have much impact, and excluding naval capacity would mean that the value would more accurately reflect your actual power rather than your potential power.

[Nemund]

Your suggestion isn't bad, but doesn't allow for large mineral reserves + large shipyards baiting someone into an attack then suddenly slamming your power up. Perhaps Naval capacity should only count if you have x mineral reserves per capacity to back it up for an example. But naval capacity counting is important.

[Salami Tsunami]

Originally posted by tempest.of.emptiness:

I think that naval capacity is calculated into relative power to prevent the loss of one battle (resulting in the loss of a significant portion of your fleet) from causing a massive swing in your relative power. Fleet strength can potentially rebound very quickly, and so a temporary dip in fleet size doesn't necessarily make you that much less powerful. Adding naval capacity into the calculation mitigates the dip somewhat, because even if you lose every ship you have your naval capacity doesn't change.

That being said, I agree that there's room for improvement in the way relative power is calculated. Naval capacity probably counts for more than it should, and if there was a way to calculate relative power without naval capacity while still insulating the calculation from wild swings tied to fleet strength, that would be even better.

For example, maybe relative power could be based on tech level and your average fleet strength over the past year. A temporary dip in fleet strength would not have much impact, and excluding naval capacity would mean that the value would more accurately reflect your actual power rather than your potential power.

If that's the case, then better to model it on economic factors and shipyard capabilities. Something along the lines of "how many warships could I build in X amount of time, and do I have the economic backline to support them?"

But basing this purely on fleet capacity is no indicator of a temporary dip in fleet strength. All it does is offer an inaccurate relative power rating to large empires.

[tempest.of.emptiness]

Those are both good critiques. Factoring in economy in some way to account for your potential to (re)build ships would probably be even more meaningful.

[Nemund]

Originally posted by tempest.of.emptiness:

Those are both good critiques. Factoring in economy in some way to account for your potential to (re)build ships would probably be even more meaningful.

I'm pretty sure the AI does take your mineral reserves into account for declaring a war, not sure if it factors honestly into the power levels equation directly or the AI sneak peaks for a clue at what you might be earning etc.

[Salami Tsunami]

Originally posted by nevyn0ad:

Originally posted by tempest.of.emptiness:

Those are both good critiques. Factoring in economy in some way to account for your potential to (re)build ships would probably be even more meaningful.

I'm pretty sure the AI does take your mineral reserves into account for declaring a war, not sure if it factors honestly into the power levels equation directly or the AI sneak peaks for a clue at what you might be earning etc.

The AI does seem to take economic factors into account. It also accounts for border defenses, but only as a tactical factor, not a diplomatic one. I presently have a star fortress at each of my borders, loaded up with the maximum number of defense platforms. Stronger AI empires frequently declare conquest wars against me, but will never actually attack since their fleets are less powerful than my forts.

[CYBERfailzor]

You could just pick a militarist empire or smtg tbh.

Have you stopped to think this might have been a nerf of otherwise pacific empires suddendly turning into power-hungry vassallizers retaining their starter bonuses? Or, that you're NOT MEANT to do what you're trying to do? Unless it's an extremely hurt empire that just won't come back but is still lagging at your borders.

[Salami Tsunami]

Originally posted by CYBERfailzor:

You could just pick a militarist empire or smtg tbh.

Have you stopped to think this might have been a nerf of otherwise pacific empires suddendly turning into power-hungry vassallizers retaining their starter bonuses? Or, that you're NOT MEANT to do what you're trying to do? Unless it's an extremely hurt empire that just won't come back but is still lagging at your borders.

I'm not sure what you're getting at. You seem to have a very specific idea of how I play the game. Which is odd, since I have no idea who you are.

I am a militarist empire. Fanatically so.

I am surrounded by other empires who do not have the fleet power to resist an invasion.

I have superior technology.

Yet I cannot forcibly subjugate them because the game has decided that they are somehow equal to me.

This is a problem which must be fixed. If I am strong enough to soundly beat them in war, surely I should be strong enough to subjugate them.

[CYBERfailzor]

Originally posted by Meat Baton:

Originally posted by CYBERfailzor:

You could just pick a militarist empire or smtg tbh.

Have you stopped to think this might have been a nerf of otherwise pacific empires suddendly turning into power-hungry vassallizers retaining their starter bonuses? Or, that you're NOT MEANT to do what you're trying to do? Unless it's an extremely hurt empire that just won't come back but is still lagging at your borders.

I'm not sure what you're getting at. You seem to have a very specific idea of how I play the game. Which is odd, since I have no idea who you are.

I am a militarist empire. Fanatically so.

I am surrounded by other empires who do not have the fleet power to resist an invasion.

I have superior technology.

Yet I cannot forcibly subjugate them because the game has decided that they are somehow equal to me.

This is a problem which must be fixed. If I am strong enough to soundly beat them in war, surely I should be strong enough to subjugate them.

Hmmm... so what's the problem? Vassallization is inferior to what you could achieve just declaring war to them with militarists is it not?

[Salami Tsunami]

No, having tributaries is superior to what I could achieve through stealing their territory. Ask the Romans.

[CYBERfailzor]

Originally posted by Meat Baton:

No, having tributaries is superior to what I could achieve through stealing their territory. Ask the Romans.

Could you walk me through it? I mean, in the game.

[What is your ip]

Their a mod for that. https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=683277624

[Salami Tsunami]

Originally posted by CYBERfailzor:

Originally posted by Meat Baton:

No, having tributaries is superior to what I could achieve through stealing their territory. Ask the Romans.

Could you walk me through it? I mean, in the game.

If I were to outright steal people's territory and annex their planets, this would make my empire larger. This is beneficial up to a point. But it has some severe disadvantages.

There is a debuff for research based on the number of systems owned, number of planets, and number of pops.

Defending my borders becomes geometrically more difficult the larger my empire gets, because of the increased number of access points. Additionally, although I will have the resources and fleet capacity to support more ships, an individual fleet's response time to a particular point of incursion will be much longer. I could divide my forces to include more fleets comprised of fewer ships each, but then they're less likely to overcome a strong invading force.

After the ship upkeep rework, it's beneficial to have as few ships as possible. Things might be different if there was a capability to deactivate ships or mothball them during peacetime, but as it stands now, there's not. A ship requires the same amount of upkeep when engaged in constant combat as it does floating around an empty system. A larger empire requires more ships to defend it. Ships require a serious investiture of energy and minerals for upkeep, and I'm loath to commit those resources purely for a defense force.

With a smaller empire, I don't usually need defense forces. I just have a selection of attack fleets, and a fortress at every border crossing. Even when I am under heavy attack, I can aggregate my fleets together into one big doomstack, place them next to a fortress, and repel an invasion from anyone but a Fallen Empire. I cannot do this with a larger territory.

The purpose of accquiring more territory is to accquire more resources and infrastructure. Tributaries give those resources with none of the drawbacks associated with larger territory.

Is there a particular reason you're so interested? It seems like you have some sort of problem with how I play the game.

[CYBERfailzor]

Originally posted by Meat Baton:

Originally posted by CYBERfailzor:

Could you walk me through it? I mean, in the game.

If I were to outright steal people's territory and annex their planets, this would make my empire larger. This is beneficial up to a point. But it has some severe disadvantages.

There is a debuff for research based on the number of systems owned, number of planets, and number of pops.

Defending my borders becomes geometrically more difficult the larger my empire gets, because of the increased number of access points. Additionally, although I will have the resources and fleet capacity to support more ships, an individual fleet's response time to a particular point of incursion will be much longer. I could divide my forces to include more fleets comprised of fewer ships each, but then they're less likely to overcome a strong invading force.

After the ship upkeep rework, it's beneficial to have as few ships as possible. Things might be different if there was a capability to deactivate ships or mothball them during peacetime, but as it stands now, there's not. A ship requires the same amount of upkeep when engaged in constant combat as it does floating around an empty system. A larger empire requires more ships to defend it. Ships require a serious investiture of energy and minerals for upkeep, and I'm loath to commit those resources purely for a defense force.

With a smaller empire, I don't usually need defense forces. I just have a selection of attack fleets, and a fortress at every border crossing. Even when I am under heavy attack, I can aggregate my fleets together into one big doomstack, place them next to a fortress, and repel an invasion from anyone but a Fallen Empire. I cannot do this with a larger territory.

The purpose of accquiring more territory is to accquire more resources and infrastructure. Tributaries give those resources with none of the drawbacks associated with larger territory.

Is there a particular reason you're so interested? It seems like you have some sort of problem with how I play the game.

Not at all, I just thought maybe there was something I was missing or you were missing, anyway, I can see your point, I think there are some workarounds just off the top of my head:

-Conquer as many territories as needed as to cripple'em enough to vassallize'em then gift said systems as a trade.
-Conquer enough to cripple as previously mentioned and give up the stations if you were having momentary problems with upkeeps and whatnots, leaving then the expansion up to its AI.
-You can send all the pops on the planet away to make it "colonizable" again.
-You should probably target their starbases first since anchorages can play a big role in that score you want down.




I think it's important to also note that tributaries are AI so, they won't be running at max power like your own empire, they can't be trusted, also, they'll lack technologies and there will be risks of other empires helping those vassals/tributaries.

They may also become targets of other empires if used like that, which may turn your advantage to a disadvantage since it'll be even harder to defend'em.

[Salami Tsunami]

Yeah, or the developers can undo a ridiculously flawed game mechanic. I much prefer that solution. I'm here to conquer stuff in space. If I wanted a crippling micromanagement simulator, I'd play Hearts of Iron.

Also it adds a bit of much needed spice to the mid game when my tributaries rebel.