This thread started as "ST makes war strategically different" and is now "Here's how Yamatai has a caste system because of ST", which isn't really about war at all and isn't really what people write on SARP, either.
I think with what's been talked about on the thread's topic, I see a lot of interesting "well what if" opportunities. It's well what if you want to write a peerless enemy, how do you make that interesting when numbers-wise the faction and ours would likely slap each other with their giant armies. But I've never seen a plot do that. It happens in site-wide battles, sure, but we're playing ships of max 20 players and a handful of NPCs. To fight a realistic war of attrition isn't something we do often, so it becomes more about that tactical thinking, outmaneuvering, taking out sources of soldiers rather than soldiers like Locked_0ut said. Focusing on the strategy over the bulk.
I have a lot to say about this but it'd just give away my next plot arc, but know that even with thousands of soldiers on the battlefield, I still gave the enemy more because it's boring to be unchallenged.
Challenge is the reason some of us GM, it's like playing chess with yourself except every other turn, one of your players moves a piece from the good guy side. It's a thought exercise.
Speaking of, we're writing difficult situations for our characters where dying IS a consequence. But it's about HOW it's a consequence. I've written Hoshi and Eden dying. When Hoshi died, she lost memories for three months (see my above post, it's the maximum) and someone who loved her that she had started dating in those months was a stranger to her. It caused lasting problems for the character that she had to grow past in order to love again. When Eden died, her wife was the one to kill her because she had Mishhu babies phased into her and was now their nursery. If she lived, they did too. Thus she had to die at the hands of her loved one. An incredibly consequential death.
Moments like those are available to all because we have the gift of being challenged by ST. Those consequences are very individual-based. I'll get to the large scale consequence of relying on ST, Nataria, below. And it's above since raz just posted :x lol
I'd say it depends on what you're fighting over and why. You'd get really into theories of limited escalation. Can't see two star nations immediately jumping to knock out blows over a border dispute. (Gotta do the india china thing and make sure people only bring bonking sticks)
If the war is inherently an existential issue then yeah I can see that. But sometimes if say, I want X system, I might be willing to go far enough to take and try to hold those systems but not really planning on completely destroying my opponent. That said, it probably will escalate to that point as the enemy funnels more troops in to defend that planet and I decide I need to stem their ability to do so
When you're watching a battles in a movie, it's best to have an existential "of course we have to fight them" enemy. If the audience questions why the hero is fighting you've lost your audience. It's why we don't write border disputes often. The last time I did, it was actually a misdirect to a larger existential threat. Having your whole heart behind what the heroes are doing and not leaving any room for audience or player questioning motives as altruistic or valid is the goal and why we mostly write existential threats.
It's also why the next big bad enemy for all of SARP is such a difficult setting element to make. Everyone wants to feel like they're against someone they cannot beat but can (inherently hypocritical but such is military RP) and that they're up against an enemy that has to be defeated no matter what for deeply moral reasons or it's too morally grey and suddenly it's genocide to kill them all.
It's why the Mishhu worked, they pulled at the heartstrings of a human playerbase; they're taking women and inseminating them. I've never fought in a war of old, but For Whom the Bell Tolls is a good example of being driven to fight to avoid that very thing, it's a very deep innate desire to protect that. It's why not a lot of people jumped on Kuvexians. They were slavers but their threat was morally ambiguous. Nobody really cared until they deleted millions or billions at Nataria. In a setting with immortality, they stopped that. It was their biggest defining moment as truly evil, truly something that had to be defeated no matter what or else the way of life as our characters know it would be eradicated. And then everyone was on board.
I think I walked away from the point a bit there, but I'm really just trying to recenter the conversation on war and not how the healthcare system is conjecturally messed up. Either way, the latter doesn't matter while war does- for our setting at least. It's probably opposite in our real lives, but this isn't that.