If i remeber correctly, you want to keep things rather abstracted/simplified.

Why not have an efficiency factor. Starts at 100%. At some point a stack becomes harder to handle and efficiency softly drops, so it makes sense to not make stacks of doom.

navy size efficiency navy combat strenght

<100 ships 100 % 100

150 ships 85 % 127

200 ships 70 % 140

250 ships 55 % 138

300 ships 40 % 120

>350 ships 25 % 88

You get the point, this needs tweaking of course but the point is that its a simple system that the player can easily moniter.

It makes it better to have several small/medium sized fleets than one huge.

If you have that level of complexity the area of effect weapon idea is good. It counters big stacks efficiently if it deals dmg to all ships in a stack, no matter how big the stack is.

Why not have an efficiency factor. Starts at 100%. At some point a stack becomes harder to handle and efficiency softly drops, so it makes sense to not make stacks of doom.

navy size efficiency navy combat strenght
<100 ships 100 % 100
150 ships 85 % 127
200 ships 70 % 140
250 ships 55 % 138
300 ships 40 % 120
>350 ships 25 % 88

The thing is it's still benefitial (if possible) to bring huge forces because if you fire with more ships you have a higher chance to end up with lower casualties (you killed the enemy before they could kill you). So, I think we should pursue a mechanic where "if you have too many ships you have more % wise casualties on your side".

So, I like your >350 ships example, since it's weaker than 100 ships (88 vs 100 strength).

Also I recall several Steam comments/ratings "I have grabbed all units, dropped at the enemy, lost [THUMBS UP] 10/10", players love it

I would make some arbitrary, easy to remeber, number as the turning point like 500. If you have above 500 ships these start to perform poorer than if you had less ships.

Example:

100 ships 100 power

200 ships 200 power (recommended, full power per ship)

300 ships 250 power

400 ships 300 power

500 ships 320 power

501 ships 99 power

EDIT: Actually, it's a stupid idea :) Suliman's smoother one is better.

But simply altering the efficiency... I don't know, maybe achieve this by some other mechanic? Like "above 500 ships you skip the first combat turn" (in addition to the regular efficiency drop)? So there is a clear message to the player "you did poorly, you brought too many ships to the battle, you are punished, don't do it again".

Why not have an efficiency factor. Starts at 100%. At some point a stack becomes harder to handle and efficiency softly drops, so it makes sense to not make stacks of doom.

I would make some arbitrary, easy to remeber, number as the turning point like 500. If you have above 500 ships these start to perform poorer than if you had less ships.

I don't think it would be good to ever make more ships worse in battle than less ships. Just less efficient, so they don't add much or anything to the fleet. Like they're just hanging back waiting for their turn to fight and don't get used. One way you might do this is comparing the relative size of two fleets. So that huge fleet would be good against another huge fleet, but unnecessary overkill against a small one.

Area of effect attacks are good against large numbers. Maybe a specific type of attacks like EMP or bombs would be more effective against large fleets.

- you can't touch strategic level (so no "it's too expensive to maintain a huge fleet" or "you have to defend other planets" etc), you can only change the way battle works

You sure you don't want to consider strategic solutions? The problem you're describing is a strategic one, so the strategic level is a great place to look for solutions to this. For example, massive ships might be slow at the strategic level, slowing down their whole fleet as the fast ships wait for the slow one to speed up.

You sure you don't want to consider strategic solutions? The problem you're describing is a strategic one, so the strategic level is a great place to look for solutions to this.

Let's say this discussion is "what to do when the strategic level failed and the player moved all ships to one battle".

Well, that and there was another "avoid stacks of doom" thread that was more strategic in nature. I suppose one could go over and post to that thread, even though it's old, if they had read through it and come up with some unique solution that wasn't discussed.

The thing is it's still benefitial (if possible) to bring huge forces because if you fire with more ships you have a higher chance to end up with lower casualties

I would make some arbitrary, easy to remeber, number as the turning point like 500. If you have above 500 ships these start to perform poorer than if you had less ships

I think you misunderstand suliman a little?

With sulimans example you also have a specific turningpoint.

It's at 200 ships.

With > 200 ships, the total power of the army starts to diminish.

so 250 ships are weaker then 200 ships, but 200 ships are stronger then 150 ships.

Sulimans model also has the advantage of having a logical, smooth, and easily modeled curve, not just a steep drop at some arbitrary point. (its not logical that 500 ships would be much stronger then 100 ships, but 501 ships suddenly is weaker then 100 ships)

Fast acting warp drives so the weaker fleet can immediately flee. Now the stack of doom can dominate any sector, but at the cost of leaving the rest exposed. If you have limited travel lanes (the universe is a graph) always fleeing larger forces isn't necessarily a good strategy because your opponent can herd you into a corner. A time penalty for the force that fled to regroup also gives an iniative cost.

I'd pair instant fleeing with cheap local defenses. That way you have to trade off a less efficient military (all ships is expensive for the same firepower) with a less flexibile military (if you have local defenses, fleeing leaves them vulnerable to massacre by the stack of doom. But on the flip side, if you counter-stack-of-doom on the defense, your local military gives you the advantage when it attacks)

Larger fleet should always be stronger just as larger army is. Unless taken by surprise or the enemy use terrain advantage (not quite possible in space) However there could be different outcomes of such unbalanced battles:

1. You may consider both fleets fire simultaneously so smaller fleet can't be destroyed before it can fire. Then one of the following can happen:

- After [put relevant number here] casualties combined on both sides both fleets have to back off as they can't maneuver around debris to catch each other.

- Smaller fleet is destroyed, however casualties on the "stack of doom" are larger because of easier targeting and/or ships running into each other and into debris.

2. Large fleets beyond some number may be very vulnerable to suicide attacks of very small groups. Something like 10 ship squad can destroy 100 ships on fleet of 500, but non against fleet of only 100 ships (due to better spotted / recognized and shot down before they reach anyone)

I think an important reason why players would want to use a huge fleet is lower casualties (kills enemy faster, battle ends earlier). While in real warfare it's not exactly the case, there is a notion of "using just enough forces for the task". Like if you defend a fort and have enough troops to hold it, adding twice troops won't change much (it could be even worse since they would consume supplies faster :)) So, dealing with the casualties formula might be the key... Or some sort of "integrity/organization" stat which you reduce during the battle and the side that got it zeroed is forced to autoretreat (regardless of casualties, actualy they could have low casualties).

I think you misunderstand suliman a little?

Anyway, I agree that larger fleet being equal in power to smaller is enough of a penalty.

Oh, since you just made a "how to deal with ground combat"- thread;

Needing BOTH space-superiority and ground-combat superiority to take a planet only makes bigger stacks superior,

since if the fleet fails at one of the two, the other is useless as well.