• We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.

Dev Diary #99 - Ground Combat & Army Rework

Hello everyone and welcome to another Stellaris dev diary. Today's dev diary is about some changes coming to ground combat and armies in the 2.0 'Cherryh' update. This will be the last dev diary before we take a break for the holidays, so there will be no diaries in the next week or the week after that. Stellaris dev diaries return on Thursday January 11th, 2018.

Defense Armies and Fortresses
Constructing Defense Armies have always been largely a meaningless exercise in Stellaris. While they are useful for reducing Unrest and occasionally might be able to beat off an unprepared attacker, the fact that a planet is capped on how many armies can be defending it while the attacker is *not* capped on how many armies are attacking, coupled with the general weakness of defense armies, means that defending a planet against a ground invasion is generally an exercise in futility and will at most delay an attacker by a few weeks. However, if we solved this by just making defense armies a lot stronger or capping the number of attacking units, the result would turn every invasion of a backwater colony into a big affair - something that is not particularly desirable when a war can involve several different actors with hundreds of planets between them.

For this reason, we have decided to rework Defense Armies into something that is actually useful, but requires a significant investment of resources to muster more than a token defense. Instead of being directly buildable by the empire, defense armies are created from certain buildings. The capital building will produce defense armies depending on its level, as will some other planetary uniques like Military Academy. If you want a planet to be well defended, however, you will need to construct Fortress building on its tiles. Fortresses require a pop to work them, do not produce any other resources than a small amount of Unity, but provide a significant amount of defense armies to protect the planet. Armies spawned by Fortresses are also impervious to orbital bombardment, and will not be able to be killed without first ruining the building itself. The armies generated by a building have their species and type set by the pop working it, so a Very Strong Battle Thrall will produce several powerful defense armies if placed on a Fortress, and special pops like Droids will produce their own variants like Robotic Defense Armies rather than the normal ones. Fortified worlds will also be able to be fit with an FTL inhibitor (the exact way they get them is not yet determined) that prevents enemy fleets from leaving the system unless the world is captured, which allows for the creation of Fortress Worlds to protect strategically important systems.
2017_12_21_3.png

(Building icon is a placeholder)

One more important change related to Defense Armies is a change to Unrest: Armies on planets no longer reduce Unrest directly. Instead, to handle a planet with high Unrest, you will need to construct Fortress-style buildings or take other measures (such as using Edicts) to reduce the planetary Unrest. This means you cannot simply capture a planet and then spam a dozen defense armies to immediately zero out the Unrest. As part of this, we will be balancing certain events and effect to ensure newly captured worlds do not instantly defect back to their former owner.

Finally, as part of all these changes Defense Armies have received a general buff and there are several new technologies that unlock additional tiers of forts and various improvements to Defense Armies' combat ability, meaning that they will grow stronger alongside the invention of new, more powerful assault armies.

Assault Army Management
A major aim of our changes to armies is to reduce the amount of unnecessary micromanagement of armies. For this reason, and to make Assault Armies' role more explicit, we have decided to change Assault Armies to always be based in space. Whenever not directly engaged in an invasion, Assault Armies will now always automatically embark onto their transports, ready to be used to invade another world. We also aim to fix the minor but immersion-breaking bug where transport fleets are giving endlessly increasing sequential names whenever they land and embark again.

Combat Width, Retreating and Collateral Damage
Another change to ground combat is the introduction of new mechanics in the form of Combat Width. Combat Width is determined by the size of the planet, and decides how many armies can be taking and receiving damage at the same time: For example, if 20 assault armies invade a world held by 10 defense armies with a combat width of 10, all 10 defense armies will be immediately engaged in battle while only half the assault armies will be able to deal and receive damage, with additional assault armies joining the fray as the armies in front of them are destroyed. This means that it is no longer possible to take a well defended world without losses by simply throwing a hundred clone armies at it: If you wish to minimize losses (and thus War Exhaustion), you will need to invest in expensive, high-maintenance elite armies.
2017_12_21_1.png

(Interface not final)

We've also added the concept of Collateral Damage: As armies fight on the planet, civilians and civilian infrastructure is caught in the fighting. Each time an army deals damage in battle, it will inflict a random amount of Collateral Damage, which increases Planetary Damage similar to Orbital Bombardment (see below) and can lead to the death of Pops and the destruction of buildings and tiles. Some armies will deal more Collateral Damage than others: For example, Xenomorph armies are highly destructive and cost-efficient, but will wreak immense havoc on the planet, potentially leaving it in ruins in the process of capturing it for your empire.

While working on combat mechanics we also took the time to change the way Morale Damage works, making it something that is suffered by both sides (instead of just the loser) and making the effects of it more gradual, so that armies suffer a drop in combat efficiency once they are <50% morale, and then another, sharper drop when they are broken (0% morale). This should make certain armies, such as Psi Armies, highly effective against low-morale opponents like Slave Armies, but less effective against an unfeeling army of Droids. Finally, we've also tweaked the damage-dealing algorithm so that damage is less evenly spread among combatants, making it so that even an outnumbered force can destroy regiments and inflict war exhaustion on the enemy.
2017_12_21_2.png


Finally, we have made some changes to retreats. When an attacker retreats from a ground combat, there is now a significant chance that each retreating regiment is destroyed while attempting to return to space, making retreat a risky endeavour and eliminating the tactic of simply send in the same army again and again in wave attacks, instead making retreats something you do in order to preserve at least some of your army in a poorly chosen engagement.

Orbital Bombardment Changes
Finally, again in the interest of reducing the micromanagement needed during war, we've changed the way orbital bombardment works. Fortifications have been entirely cut from planets, so that there is no need to bombard lightly defended worlds before going in with the ground troops. Instead, we have added a requirement that planets cannot be invaded if there is a hostile Starbase in the system, so that transports cannot snipe worlds that are protected by defensive installations present in the same system. Orbital Bombardment, instead of being something you have to manage and wait for in every single planetary engagement, is now something you do to soften up a particularly well defended target, or simply to wreak havoc on the enemy's planet and drive up their War Exhaustion.

As a planet is bombarded, the fleet will deal Planetary Damage, ruining buildings and killing Pops. Bombarding fleets will also do damage to armies present on the planet (unless those armies are protected by a Fortress), and over a long enough time can decimate a defending force, though doing so will likely cause heavy damage to the planet and may delay the attacker long enough that the owner of the planet has time to build up their forces or inflict enough war exhaustion to force a peace. The rate at which the planet is damaged can also be slowed with the construction of buildings such as Planetary Defense Shield, further dragging out the process.

As part of these changes, we've consolidated the Bombardment Stances into the following:
  • Selective: Deals normal damage to armies/buildings and light damage to pops. Cannot kill the last 10 pops.
  • Indiscriminate: Deals heavy damage to armies, buildings and pops. Cannot kill the last 5 pops.
  • Armageddon: Deals massive damage to armies, buildings and pops. Can turn planets into depopulated Tomb Worlds with enough bombardment. Only available to certain empires such as Purifiers.

Attachments
Finally, on the topic of attachments, we have decided to cut them entirely from the game. We discussed a variety of ways to improve the way you assign them, but ultimately decided that we already have so many types of armies and not nearly enough combat mechanics to justify a significant investment of UI time that could go towards something like the Fleet Manager instead. The technologies that previously unlocked attachments will be changed to give other effects, such as direct buffs to certain army types.

That's all for today! As I said, we're now going on hiatus, so I'll see you again on January 11th with a dev diary about... well, that's a secret, actually. You'll just have to wait and see!
 
Last edited:
  • 1
Reactions:
Love this change, particularly the ability to build FTL inhibitors on fortified planets.

It seems like there will actually be a point to specialising in ground combat now, but the need to sacrifice planetary tiles should hopefully prevent it becoming overused or overpowered. All in all, it sounds like a great move and I'm excited to see how it plays out in game.
 
Fortified worlds will also be able to be fit with an FTL inhibitor (the exact way they get them is not yet determined) that prevents enemy fleets from leaving the system unless the world is captured, which allows for the creation of Fortress Worlds to protect strategically important systems.

I love all of this, but I think this is the part I'm absolutely most excited about. Planets won't just be tougher nuts to crack, they'll actually play a major strategic role.

As-is (and the same with most space games), ground combat is just a routine chore. Once you win the fleet battle, taking the planet is a foregone conclusion. You get to it as a matter of box-ticking.

But this seems like it will change all that! It won't be enough to win in space, now that planet will actually threaten your fleet and your strategy will have to account for taking it. Very excited for these changes.

Edit - Plus, ground strength will now mean so much more! I'm just picturing the hyper-advanced race of weaklings bottled up at the border because they can't defeat the planetary garrison. Or the aggressive but backwards race that needs twice as many ships to defeat your starport, but once they're dug in you can't seem to get rid of them. Although I suppose the latter would depend on how holding a conquered planet is done, given that your assault trips automatically re-launch.
 
Last edited:
Has it been decided how will we take over systems? Like what count as “I hold this system” in a war: throwing missile at the platform until they surrender ? How are system retaken? Does it work like say hoi4 where frontline just evolve as ships go through them (occasionally stopped by actual opposition) or am I getting this wrong. Will we use army to take over spaceport or just fleet to disable them.
Please read the developer dairies before asking questions like these. All of this was covered in Diary #91, Starports.
 
Will there be any change in how you actually send the invasions? Will it be the same Army X land here. Then Army X go land here now that you're done. Or has the system been changed into something else?

One of the tedious things about invasions is that there's so much waiting to give orders, if we could mark planets for invasion instead and have our armies gradually go through this list landing and conquering these worlds that I've marked it would be a massive improvement to how it feels. That would make me more inclined to lock the enemy down and control their territory while my armies mop up the groundwork.

Considering they're all space now and auto-reembark it should be possible to shift order the armies to a bunch of planets, maybe even add a way to do it from galaxy map easily.
 
The problem was that with warp and wormholes they could just jump over systems with inhibitors. So nothing has changed.
Well, if this was the only trouble, there are other ways to tackle the problem. Inhibitors could straight up block wormholing to systems unless from a small percentage of range or something. Against Warp, it could project a slowing field around the star, smaller speed reduction at maximum range and really high at the holder system.

Currently i'm of opinion that Devs should have gone for Warp + new Wormholes as gates instead of Hyperdrives + new Wormholes. The reason is that Hyperdrives are too limiting, too indirect, too slow and have been done in other games to death. In SoaSE, sending ships across half a star system is an absolute chore and takes half an hour of real time (and more on larger maps).
 
Last edited:
But why do you make this effort if you don't actually want to? Attachments are by no means necessary, a lot of people (including the AI) just use the armies as they are. There is no reason to feel "forced". If you still opted to use attachments, you had a reason that would persist when they are removed (most likely flavor), meaning you too should miss them?
Some people want to play optimally and don't want playing optimally to be a chore.
There's a difference between optimal play being a confluence of good decision making & sound strategy and optimal play being a lot of uninteresting clicking in awkward UI to get better numbers. I know I certainly but clicked all the buttons so that my pixel mans would shoot the other pixel mans slightly better, I did not find it engaging. If they were removed, it would be a thing I didn't particularly enjoy that I no longer had to do just to not being leaving an edge on the table.

In an ideal world, optimal play is interesting play. Using attachments was optimal, but hardly interesting in terms of gameplay. Narratively, they were somewhat interesting, but always seemed too fiddly a detail for the scope of the game to me personally.
 
Well, if this was the only trouble, there are other ways to tackle the problem. Inhibitors could straight up block wormholing to systems unless from a small percentage of range or something. Against Warp, it could project a slowing field around the star, smaller speed reduction at maximum range and really high at the holder system.

Unless this field works on THE ENTIRE EMPIRE and then magically teleports you far from where you tried warping to into the chokepoint, then no, there aren't other ways to tackle the problem. Warp/wormholes let you attack an otherwise choked off empire sideways. Not simply skipping over intentionally defended chokepoints, but not even going near the defended chokepoint to begin with.

A chokepoint in the middle of the arm of a spiral galaxy can be made useless by warping in from a different arm and attacking the Empire from the rear. Or the side. Or anywhere else! Fortification and defense of the choke is meaningless. There is no solution to this short of the equivalent of a black hole that sucks any unauthorized breach of Empire space to a specific system. And that's getting a bit weird.
 
Yes. We realize this is a bit odd, but compare the amount of times you would actually use an assault army to defend a planet compared to the amount of times you have to click 'embark' after invading one...

How bought just make it so you can tell them to attack from the outliner and they'll embark for you.
 
Yes. We realize this is a bit odd, but compare the amount of times you would actually use an assault army to defend a planet compared to the amount of times you have to click 'embark' after invading one...

Out of curiosity, how will holding a conquered planet work then? Especially if they can built FTL inhibitors, and given how war exhaustion will work, it seems like keeping conquered territory will be much more important. What is the mechanism to keep the defender from just ninja'ing in a transport once you leave the system?
 
Out of curiosity, how will holding a conquered planet work then? Especially if they can built FTL inhibitors, and given how war exhaustion will work, it seems like keeping conquered territory will be much more important. What is the mechanism to keep the defender from just ninja'ing in a transport once you leave the system?
once the system is yours, the starbase is yours and they have to take that down also.
 
Hi, one question:
You have the combat width, where some armies die before one side wins, and the damage is distributed more unevenly, which also results in more causalities.

Does that mean army generals can randomly die in a fight?
Because at the moment they are the leader of ONE army. (the small star on the army) When this army dies, the general is gone.
ATM this happens only if you lose. But with the combat width and unevenly distributed damage one army can be killed earlier than the others. -> General can randomly die in a fight.
 
Last edited:
Attachments
Finally, on the topic of attachments, we have decided to cut them entirely from the game. We discussed a variety of ways to improve the way you assign them, but ultimately decided that we already have so many types of armies and not nearly enough combat mechanics to justify a significant investment of UI time that could go towards something like the Fleet Manager instead. The technologies that previously unlocked attachments will be changed to give other effects, such as direct buffs to certain army types.

I'm pretty okay with the elimination of attachments. I liked them but I'd forget about buying them when I made troops and then have to tediously go one by one to make sure they all had it. Turning them into a buff to armies? Sounds good to me. I will miss robots riding around on xenomorphs though.
 
But why do you make this effort if you don't actually want to? Attachments are by no means necessary, a lot of people (including the AI) just use the armies as they are. There is no reason to feel "forced". If you still opted to use attachments, you had a reason that would persist when they are removed (most likely flavor), meaning you too should miss them?
If they're effectively useless and have no relevancy to the game, they shouldn't be in the game. And, again, I say that as someone who actually sits there and adds attachments to my armies methodically.

But they do still exist, as flavour text and select stat buffs, just "baked in" ones instead of fiddly ones you need to waste time manually enabling.

But as Wiz pointed out, this is not going to happen.

Unless they some day rework ground combat mechanics again, with something on top of the planned integration into starships. It would be nice, but any expectations would be about as realistic as hoping for other features the devs haven't even hinted at yet.
Cool, still prefer to see this aspect of the game streamlined and for attachments to get axed.
 
Unless this field works on THE ENTIRE EMPIRE and then magically teleports you far from where you tried warping to into the chokepoint, then no, there aren't other ways to tackle the problem. Warp/wormholes let you attack an otherwise choked off empire sideways. Not simply skipping over intentionally defended chokepoints, but not even going near the defended chokepoint to begin with.

A chokepoint in the middle of the arm of a spiral galaxy can be made useless by warping in from a different arm and attacking the Empire from the rear. Or the side. Or anywhere else! Fortification and defense of the choke is meaningless. There is no solution to this short of the equivalent of a black hole that sucks any unauthorized breach of Empire space to a specific system. And that's getting a bit weird.

We just look at this very differently.
I don't think a chokepoint has to be "Be all and all" stopgap you seem to want it to be. So, yes, i think if there is a chokepoint, one should be able to walk around it eventually. Keyword is eventually.
And frankly, the Devs, seem to agree with me, seeing how Jump Drives will become sort of wormholes with some limitations. The difference is the tech level (Time) when such capacity becomes available.
With my idea, if FTL inhibitors will indeed become automatic tech for space stations, then basically your whole empire would be covered in that FTL slowing field by default. That gives a set of implications: FTL travel will be significantly slower in the region the opposing empires control, but still possible. I do like being able to fly around the enemy empire to some distant space. Maybe there is a Leviathan i want to snipe, or a region of space locked to the enemy empire, but one that i can access without having to conquer my neighbouring enemy.
As it currently is envisioned, with Hyperdrives and FTL-inhibitors as locks, no travel in that region will be possible at all. This is a choice that has been made and it shapes gameplay in a specific way.
The idea of FTL inhibitor as locks is to force the enemy fleet to move in a certain way and very slowly, spending time to capture each and every system on the hyperway leading to your important planets and the capital. On one hand this will give you a lot of time to build up a fleet to counter the enemy. Allowing to build FTL-Inhibitors on planets is a further slowdown in this vein as sizable assault armies will be needed to storm each defended planet. While the frontier planets are being invaded, you will be able to build the second (and so on) line of defenses to even further slow down the enemy. But on the other hand this will be such a massive slow down of a game... I'm not sure it will be all that fun to play as conqueror.
Still I really hope that the functionality for warp travel will remain in the game and we'll be able to access it and maybe even modify it. At least i'd like to try to mod in my idea.

Anyway, all this boils down to how invading will play out in 2.0. A slow extremely hard to kill deathball of a fleet(fleets?) that simply rolls over the enemy opposition? Will the pathways will be diverse enough so that there won't be too many roadblock planets? Will roughly equal strength empires will be able to overcome the deathball with some clever maneuvering and turn the tables?
As I said, the Devs have made their decisions and they definitely have their rationale for it, including development time and how the code on the engine level works. Overall, all the changes unveiled so far are visibly for the better of the game. Some (like the Hyperdrive change) i have reservations about, but we'll only be able to judge the results when 2.0 becomes available. Hopefully in a public Beta first (I'd love to help with that if possible in any way).
 
Last edited:
What happens with the...what is it called?..."Garrisson armies" - those that form automatically when invasion beggins (I believe their number is dependant on number of pops on the planet). Are they still there? Do they form when the number of defensive armies is lower than "Combat width" number? Or are they cut from the game?

If they will be removed, will the "Resilient" racial perk be removed too or will it gain other impact on the ground combat? Are you planing some more racial perks/civics/edicts affecting ground combat?
 
With armagedoon bombardment stance beeing able to turn planets into a tomb world wouldnt that make Robot Exterminators op?
THEY can live on a tomb planets but NO organic-life will be able to reconquer it. (Without heavy genetic changes)
Togheter with the maschine worlds thats a bit to much.

You can cripple enemys early game.

Maybe solving the problem would either be removing the tomb world armageddon function or adding a terraforming option for swarms or other organics to "infest" a planet like the Prethoryan crisis does.

What do you guys think?

I doubt it would be that easy or efficient to do that for every planet for every enemy empire. Seeing how long it NORMALLY takes for pop loss even now, it would be faster and more efficient to just conquer the planet normally. Besides, killing pops means you can’t turn them into energy.

Obviously it’s an option for RP purposes, sure. You could also use it as a way to intentionally create a literal dead zone around your empire.
 
Keyword is eventually.
There's nothing eventually about warp and wormholes. They are immediate invalidation of chokepoints from early game on. Jump drives are eventually. They're late game and they have drawbacks forcing them to only be used in some tactical situations.

Slowing down a warp will not force that empire to ever consider fighting at the chokepoint.
 
I like most of the changes, just not the ones around offensive armies.

It appears I cannot use my offensive armies to defend. This needs to be fixed. If a ravening horde is marching across my space, I need to stop their advance and would use my assault armies to defend a fortress world if necessary.

Or perhaps the border was breached and a vulnerable core world without defences is in the path of the enemy and there is not time to build fortresses and so on, so the assault armies should be used as a defensive force.

There are advantages to local defence armies of course (they know the terrain etc), that assault armies would not have. This could be reflected in a penalty on assault armies when they are defending a world instead of assaulting one.

And what about bio-plagues? Or nanoswarms? What if I wanted to cleanse a world and leave the infrastructure intact? When are we getting those as an option? What about hurling rocks at worlds? What about war crimes?