Large major orders like defend 10 planets over a week should have stated degrees of success and failure. It would be similar to failing a check by 1 or a rolling a crit in a tabletop rpg. There can also be hidden penalties and rewards.
It could be done within the observed toolset Joel has.
Number of planets successfully defended
0-2: Automaton forces are building on recent victories. 4 Super Earth planets immediately get a Defence campaign. Include below penalty.
3-4: -1 stratagem slot modifier on bot planets for 24 hours. High Command has reallocated funds to other areas of the war in order to find opportunities.
5-6: no bonus or penalty. Average success state.
7-8: 2 bot planets set to 50% liberated. Automaton forces were spread thin due to the failed attack.
9: +380mm barrage mission stratagem on all all planets. The Helldivers have halted the bot surge with acceptable loses. High command has increased funding to Automaton front to build off the recent victory
10: No bot defence campaigns for a week. The bot attack has failed. They depleted their combat power and will not be able to launch another offensive in a while.
Personally i would hate to see that. It takes away from the “mindless grunt with guns“ role we are playing to be able to predict the future.
We dont know shit, we just shoot anything not human and listen to the weekly directives from the glorious motherland to know where to go next.
How or why would the most expendable class of soldiers the SEAF have, be involved in large scale tactical decisions? It is already barely believable that we would be allowed to decide where our destroyer goes (not to mention that everyone gets one).
This line of thought matches the lore. It reinforces why we can’t see FTL lanes.
We aren’t individual helldivers, we are the destroyers, or whatever the top of the management on them is.