• 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:
Assuming hyper-lane generation is done right a large empire will have areas that aren't and can't be practically locked behind fortress worlds.

Unless they completely rewrite their galaxy generation code from scratch... you can put that point already at "Negative"...
Meaning, the rest of your argument is also a hard "Negative".
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Neither do you btw. so why the fudge are you happy and positive until you played it?

Sorry if I slide in here off-topically, but that question just sounds silly. Maybe being happy and positive is just, y'know, generally preferable?
 
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.
View attachment 322405
(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.
View attachment 322403
(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.
View attachment 322404

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!
very intresting
 
1) We're still in the process of finalizing exactly how Planetary Damage works. At the very least it will ruin buildings.

so will there be a "xx% damage: Building produce only half the amount unless repaired" in this?
or still just a "building intact and well running" and then a "ruined" change?
 
Sorry if I slide in here off-topically, but that question just sounds silly. Maybe being happy and positive is just, y'know, generally preferable?

It's far from silly... Sure, being that is preferable... laughing in the face of ruin however is not :)
If I shall not be "salty" about these updates because I haven't played them, then it is only logical that he shall not be happy about them because he equally has not played them and does know exactly only what I know... No more, no less.

As I said again and again... I want a better game, as everyone else, these changes however, by logic and the way Paradox handled things so far are not going to make it better.
The update so far is restricting, reducing and roundabout minimizing the variety of gameplay for this game to press it into a certain mold to better fit the other games.
Presumably so they can "switch around" Team Members easily but I don't know, that's just a wild guess.

I want more variety, I want more depth, I want more options to play with... I want espionage, I want black ops, I want true tactical and strategic gameplay, fleet positioning, angle of attack, guerilla warfare in asteroid belts, actually useful minefields, surprise attacks, flanking... these Updates bring these things farther away from the game, they dull it... mute it... drain the color out of it.

They fester and cement down even harder on certain gameplay styles... they do not open the game, with these changes there are fewer and fewer actually viable styles... for example with the changes to Subspace Snares and Fortresses anything but having a Fortress World on a Chokepoint is absolutely stupid and outright suicide... you have no choice but to rush for them and fortify or you'll have to face an impenetrable roadblock on your way into the enemys territory.

How is that good? How can you sit there and say "Yep, that's what I want!"?
 
Having read the dev diary in full rather than just a summary elsewhere, I can say the only thing that really worries me now is dealing with unrest. If unrest isn't dealt with as well while your making these changes, it could become... difficult to deal with in the future. And not in a way that makes things fun and interesting.

Other than the issue of how unrest might get handled alongside this, it all sounds good.
 
My understanding is that forts have to be ruined before the defenders generated by them can be damaged. Some have interpreted that as applying to orbital bombardment only, but the way it was worded in the original post sounds to me like it applied to troop combat as well.

Which, if true, means at least *that* much of the defense infrastructure is not yours until you invest in rebuilding it. The basic garrison provided by the capital building is more likely to still be there for you, for whatever it's worth.
It's still not going to be a one army assault affair some people are making it out to be unless you have bombed the planet to absolute dust. Then left it without anything in place to control it

Does anyone actually do that?
I've yet to bother in any of the games I've played, and I've yet to see it done in any of the streams or youtube videos I've watched.
You don't have to in the current game. Planets with full fortifications take so many resources to brute force that it's not happening, so a long drawn out orbital bombardment is required to take back a planet, meaning a fleet is needed, which can be stomped into dust. The only reason to do something like this is to stop the enemy rebuilding their starbases, which you can do to render a empire harmless, but that isn't necessary because a dead fleet puts them 99% of the way there.
 
I'm liking the sound of the update so far-kinda like a Stellar-universalis. I wonder how much content there will be in that suspected DLC, and how much will be in the free update...
 
Having read the dev diary in full rather than just a summary elsewhere, I can say the only thing that really worries me now is dealing with unrest. If unrest isn't dealt with as well while your making these changes, it could become... difficult to deal with in the future. And not in a way that makes things fun and interesting.

Other than the issue of how unrest might get handled alongside this, it all sounds good.
So instead of building a few defense armies on every planet you build a fort. Where is the problem?
 
So, I was listening to a stream about this dev diary. It sounds a wee bit more interesting. In that you can spam military forts on planets, along with giving a planet a ftl inhibitor.

I get this mental of picture of a star that negates shielding, a 20 tile world.. The star fortress specifically designed to exploit the shieldless enemy. The world, literally filled with defense bunkers. In theory, such a world would be a serious pain in the butt to invade. You would need to bomb the world to ruins, and unleash xeno swarms.
 
So, I was listening to a stream about this dev diary. It sounds a wee bit more interesting. In that you can spam military forts on planets, along with giving a planet a ftl inhibitor.

I get this mental of picture of a star that negates shielding, a 20 tile world.. The star fortress specifically designed to exploit the shieldless enemy. The world, literally filled with defense bunkers. In theory, such a world would be a serious pain in the butt to invade. You would need to bomb the world to ruins, and unleash xeno swarms.

Well that's what armageddon bombardment seems to be for, although that planet wouldn't really be of any use to a large empire, except for unity!
 
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.
After 21 pages chances are slim that this post in going to be noticed, but please don't do this. Improvement in micromanaging is negligible and it is in my opinion an immersion-breaking factor. Imagine the conversation:
"Sir, an invading fleet is headed toward our world, but we can send reinforcement to hold the ground and gain some time for our fleet to regroup..."
"Lieutenant, what a silly idea. Ground is for defense troops. We don't touch ground. We can't touch ground. We are spesss mehreeennn, and we constantly must float in space."


No, seriously, this update is going to have a lot of things that are going to be hard to accept (even if I totally support you guys and the courage in your vision), don't force this onto us as well.
 
My understanding is that forts have to be ruined before the defenders generated by them can be damaged. Some have interpreted that as applying to orbital bombardment only, but the way it was worded in the original post sounds to me like it applied to troop combat as well.

Which, if true, means at least *that* much of the defense infrastructure is not yours until you invest in rebuilding it. The basic garrison provided by the capital building is more likely to still be there for you, for whatever it's worth.
That would be absurd and is almost certainly not the mechanic. I for one read it that they can't be hurt by bombardment until the fort is destroyed and this is also the only thing that makes sense.
 
This seems such an improvement!
I want to know these:
1 Combat width is a term used in eu4, and seems rather archaic for this time period. Wouln't Terrain Accessibility be more fitting?
2 Fortesses seem now rather punishing to build on tile yield rich planets, as they will always remove the base tile yield. Maybe let them not remove these?
3 I hope it will not become required to build fortresses
4 How does one protect conquered worlds? It would seem illogical to me that you would gain defensive troops from the conquered population. Also important is the fact that you wouldn't have a starbase in conquered systems, so the enemy could just sneak in a ground force.

Small requests:
- Please improve my gameplay by making me able to build, at hihger cost, higher tier buildings skipping the lower tiers. Now my game is largely just hitting the upgrade building. Please :) ?
- Also, I have not for a long time the hive mind dlc, decided to try one, and didn't like the low amount of trait/civics. Even more, several interesting mechanics are disabled for them ( factions and their influence, most species rights things etc). I quickly abondonned that game. Can they receive in some near future some more love?
 
As I said again and again... I want a better game, as everyone else, these changes however, by logic and the way Paradox handled things so far are not going to make it better.
The update so far is restricting, reducing and roundabout minimizing the variety of gameplay for this game to press it into a certain mold to better fit the other games.
Presumably so they can "switch around" Team Members easily but I don't know, that's just a wild guess.

I want more variety, I want more depth, I want more options to play with... I want espionage, I want black ops, I want true tactical and strategic gameplay, fleet positioning, angle of attack, guerilla warfare in asteroid belts, actually useful minefields, surprise attacks, flanking... these Updates bring these things farther away from the game, they dull it... mute it... drain the color out of it.

They fester and cement down even harder on certain gameplay styles... they do not open the game, with these changes there are fewer and fewer actually viable styles... for example with the changes to Subspace Snares and Fortresses anything but having a Fortress World on a Chokepoint is absolutely stupid and outright suicide... you have no choice but to rush for them and fortify or you'll have to face an impenetrable roadblock on your way into the enemys territory.

How is that good? How can you sit there and say "Yep, that's what I want!"?
1) These changes by logic and the way Paradox handles things so far will likely make things better.

2) This isn't the espionage update. I'm sure that paradox will eventually focus on espionage if you give them some time.

3) Tactical and strategic gameplay is the focus of this update... and don't you think that things like fleet positioning, angle of attack, guerilla warfare in asteroid belts, and flanking might be out of the scope of Stellaris? This isn't a tactical fleet battle game, this is an empire builder game. If you want that stuff you might be playing the wrong game, I would suggest forgetting about Stellaris and finding a new one.

4) Huh? What? Removing variety? Is this about the FTL changes again? Literally nothing else Paradox has done with Cerryh has removed variety, unless you count removing attachments I suppose.

5) How, and on what evidence do you build that claim on? What evidence do you have that these defenses will be impenetrable? Have you gotten the chance to play a secret 2.0 build we haven't? Building a well defended system on a chokepoint would be a good idea for a pacifist Empire with good chokepoints, but I seen no reason why not doing so would be suicidal. Keep in mind that the stronger you want to build your defenses, and more resources it will take. War mongers would want to invest the majority of their resources in their fleet, so that they can actually defeat any fortifications, at the cost of less home defense. These defenses may or may not be stronger then an attacking fleet, and it is important to keep in mind each starbase defense fleet can only defend one system, so they are useless if the enemy doesn't need to enter the system or find a way to move around them. Consider this: in order to fortify your border, you build 4 10k (just spitballing here, the numbers don't matter) Starbase defense platform fleets, your enemy gathers up all of their fleets and attacks a single system, they defeat your starbase and now can move around in your empire and attack your coreworlds and outpost systems, that means that 30k fleet power in defenses is now useless because the enemy has no reason to go into those systems and fight them.

. An attack could overwhelm one Starbase defense, punching a hole through the enemy fortifications, and then go on capturing poorly defended lvl 1 starbases to hurt the enemy economy and drive up war exhaustion. Use some imagination. And I'm willing to bet that, because hyperlane generation is procedurally generated, that not every empire will be able to lock down their borders like you describe. It usually probably won't be impossible to find a less well defended hyerlane into their empire.

6) Even if what you assume to be true is true, how is that any worst then the current warfare system? You know, the one where it is usually a bad I idea to do anything but pile all of your ships into one fleet and then crush the enemy fleet, while the rest of the war is just a mop up action. Oh, but I suppose their were so many "styles" of ways in which you could send your doomstack to their doomstack and destroy it.

7) Because I've read the developer dairies, analyzed them, and decided that I agree that these changes will improve the game. And because I'm willing to give Paradox enough credit to believe that they do in-fact test out their ideas before pushing them out into an update.
 
Why do planets have no offensive/defensive planetary weapons? The non-upgrade-able weapons space port is easy swept aside, even with other defensive platforms, if there are no garrison fleets, after that the planet is helpless. Force an invader to do their homework on an intended target or suffer heavily for underestimating. They should never have a clear picture of the defensive forces on a planet, unless you introduce espionage. When I think of a planetary invasion, I think of movies such as "The Chronicles of Riddick". There, the invaders won handily, but at least they faced planet based fighters and weapons batteries. While I'm on it, why can I not, this far in, upgrade my outposts, especially the military type. Right now a super stack waltzes in with little repercussion.
 
1) These changes by logic and the way Paradox handles things so far will likely make things better.

2) This isn't the espionage update. I'm sure that paradox will eventually focus on espionage if you give them some time.

3) Tactical and strategic gameplay is the focus of this update... and don't you think that things like fleet positioning, angle of attack, guerilla warfare in asteroid belts, and flanking might be out of the scope of Stellaris? This isn't a tactical fleet battle game, this is an empire builder game. If you want that stuff you might be playing the wrong game, I would suggest forgetting about Stellaris and finding a new one.

4) Huh? What? Removing variety? Is this about the FTL changes again? Literally nothing else Paradox has done with Cerryh has removed variety, unless you count removing attachments I suppose.

5) How, and on what evidence do you build that claim on? What evidence do you have that these defenses will be impenetrable? Have you gotten the chance to play a secret 2.0 build we haven't? Building a well defended system on a chokepoint would be a good idea for a pacifist Empire with good chokepoints, but I seen no reason why not doing so would be suicidal. Keep in mind that the stronger you want to build your defenses, and more resources it will take. War mongers would want to invest the majority of their resources in their fleet, so that they can actually defeat any fortifications, at the cost of less home defense. These defenses may or may not be stronger then an attacking fleet, and it is important to keep in mind each starbase defense fleet can only defend one system, so they are useless if the enemy doesn't need to enter the system or find a way to move around them. Consider this: in order to fortify your border, you build 4 10k (just spitballing here, the numbers don't matter) Starbase defense platform fleets, your enemy gathers up all of their fleets and attacks a single system, they defeat your starbase and now can move around in your empire and attack your coreworlds and outpost systems, that means that 30k fleet power in defenses is now useless because the enemy has no reason to go into those systems and fight them.

. An attack could overwhelm one Starbase defense, punching a hole through the enemy fortifications, and then go on capturing poorly defended lvl 1 starbases to hurt the enemy economy and drive up war exhaustion. Use some imagination. And I'm willing to bet that, because hyperlane generation is procedurally generated, that not every empire will be able to lock down their borders like you describe. It usually probably won't be impossible to find a less well defended hyerlane into their empire.

6) Even if what you assume to be true is true, how is that any worst then the current warfare system? You know, the one where it is usually a bad I idea to do anything but pile all of your ships into one fleet and then crush the enemy fleet, while the rest of the war is just a mop up action. Oh, but I suppose their were so many "styles" of ways in which you could send your doomstack to their doomstack and destroy it.

7) Because I've read the developer dairies, analyzed them, and decided that I agree that these changes will improve the game. And because I'm willing to give Paradox enough credit to believe that they do in-fact test out their ideas before pushing them out into an update.

1) Well... Your logic is flawed...
2) Those were only examples, not direct demands for this update, on what I would like to see in this game in the future instead of just a load of Hard Caps and Influence Sinks
3) To quote a Meme: "Why not both?" I see no reason why it couldn't be, would add a lot of depth to the gameplay.
4) Only partially... It's more of whole playstyles that get the shaft or at the very least made very annoying and "harder" to play... for example being an expansionist militarist empire is going to be very very annoying and a lot harder with the new update.
5) What who would want to do is exactly the problem... I am forced to do either this or that, no balance... not "my way" just either this way or that way". And its not just about the Starbase... plop a Chokepoint Planet full of Fortresses and a Single Subspace Snare and you're golden, at the very least for a very long time. Add to that the changes to Fleets in general and you have a recipe for disaster...
At least now I have Options, bribe someone else so I can build Wormhole Stations and surprise my target, attack key installations directly... destroy infrastructure, cut them off from resources.
The new Changes all in all mean one thing: The only way for War is to brute force your way through the Border... System by System... every little unimportant and unnecessary System needs to be taken and held to properly advance.
No Tactic... No Strategy... Just Micromanage your low Slot fleets and smash every goddamn thing on the way.
Hooray! Grand Strategy indeed...
And don't start with this "But Endgame will have certain Techs"... No, as long as they do not Change the Tech-Lottery you can very well end up with Low Fleet Caps and absolutely NO "improved" Warp and Wormhole Tech right until the very end where it will be completely useless.
6) I have never once said the current system is any good, I want it to be better... not this, actually better... give me options, give me variety, don't force me into certain ways with Hard Caps and Space Magic, again... give us different styles to fight and Doomstacks will naturally go away... like flanking, smaller Fleets can flank more easier and have the defense bonus from attacking the rear and such as an example.
Right now the Doomstacks will just be the same Issue as before, just that one fleet will follow another and so on.
7) Given that their Solution to all those problems is Caps, Caps and even more Caps... well I am so not sure about all of that.