• 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:
Yeah... its so great to not have to deal with actual tactics and just barge in, no worries, my space is safe, just crush them system after system... so great... no real defense necessary, I have my impenetrable Fortress World on my Chokepoint.
So just like it is now?
 
Hello guys,

let me get this straight.. by imaging this scenario

--

-Overseer, we have arrived in the human system.

>Order all to engage!

-Overseer, multiple defenses detected surrounding the Star Fortress. Also it has a FTL inhibitor. Our fleets are unable to FTL out!

> It doesn't matter. If it is destroyed our fleet can safely FLT out.

- Star Fortress has been neutral... Overseer! Inhibitor signals detected on one... no.. two.. no three planets.
Incoming message!

MESSAGE: WELCOME TO HELL SYSTEM. YOU HAVE STARTED WITH THE "GATE OF PAIN". THE LESSON HAS ONLY BEGUN. - END

---

There would be nothing to prevent this from occurring doesn't it?; having multiple planets with inhibitors. This would allow the defender the time to rally and strengthen it's defensive fleet.

It is likely that Stellaris 2.0 would favor defense. And without alternatives communicated by the devs. Brokenly so.
 
Hello guys,

let me get this straight.. by imaging this scenario

--

-Overseer, we have arrived in the human system.

>Order all to engage!

-Overseer, multiple defenses detected surrounding the Star Fortress. Also it has a FTL inhibitor. Our fleets are unable to FTL out!

> It doesn't matter. If it is destroyed our fleet can safely FLT out.

- Star Fortress has been neutral... Overseer! Inhibitor signals detected on one... no.. two.. no three planets.
Incoming message!

MESSAGE: WELCOME TO HELL SYSTEM. YOU HAVE STARTED WITH THE "GATE OF PAIN". THE LESSON HAS ONLY BEGUN. - END

---

There would be nothing to prevent this from occurring doesn't it?; having multiple planets with inhibitors. This would allow the defender the time to rally and strengthen it's defensive fleet.

It is likely that Stellaris 2.0 would favor defense. And without alternatives communicated by the devs. Brokenly so.
In that scenario?

The moment you realize that you're pinned down by multiple FTL Inhibitors, you'd want to hit "Return" and engage your Emergency FTL Jump. The fleet will go MIA for a bit. If it's not your only fleet, you can continue to defend against the enemy or press other fronts. Furthermore, it should be entirely possible to assess if a system has an Inhibitor field ahead of time- either by having sensor coverage from something nearby or by sending in a scout ship to check if there's something blocking your sensors, like a nebula.

I don't think we can really say the game will "brokenly favour defence" until we've seen it, and I think the devs will be actively working to preventing the defensive options from being "broken".
 
Furthermore, it should be entirely possible to assess if a system has an Inhibitor field ahead of time- either by having sensor coverage from something nearby or by sending in a scout ship to check if there's something blocking your sensors, like a nebula.

Unless of course if the planetary FTL inhibitor is a building you can de-active / activate (at the last moment). ;D huhuhuh.. a defender who does that is a troll.

Two FTL inhibitors are ok and should be the limit. However more than that are a pain in the derriere. What if you don't have other fronts, meaning that are forced to attack that system and remove those FTL inhibitors one by one.

I don't think we can really say the game will "brokenly favour defence" until we've seen it, and I think the devs will be actively working to preventing the defensive options from being "broken".

I believe you. So I am curious on how the devs will solve this.

I suppose we have seen the "invincible" shield.

Now we only need to see the "invincible" spear.

Maybe a Titan or a Siege ship?
 
Unless of course if the planetary FTL inhibitor is a building you can de-active / activate (at the last moment). ;D huhuhuh.. a defender who does that is a troll.
I doubt it. Inhibitor fields will work a bit differently than they do now in 2.0, but I imagine it's an "always on" effect (which would match well with the emphasis on predictable, comprehensible galactic terrain and the way upgraded Starbases are clearly advertised.

Two FTL inhibitors are ok and should be the limit. However more than that are a pain in the derriere. What if you don't have other fronts, meaning that are forced to attack that system and remove those FTL inhibitors one by one.
I don't think a limit is needed at all. If someone is lucky enough to get a system with 2 or more planets at a strategic chokepoint, they should by all means be allowed to fortify it extensively. All that means is that the enemy will need to find a way around or they'll need to invest in armies to break those planets.

I believe you. So I am curious on how the devs will solve this.

I suppose we have seen the "invincible" shield.

Now we only need to see the "invincible" spear.

Maybe a Titan or a Siege ship?
Except its not "invincible". Not by a long shot.
 
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.

1) No you! Just saying my logic is flawed is meaningless, so let's move on from this point.
2) This update isn't just adding a load of hard caps and influence seeks. That isn't opinion, that is literally factually incorrect. Either you are uninformed, in which you should go read the dev diaries before debating this, or you are knowingly presenting factually incorrect information to support your argument. (infact, the only new hard cap related to old machnics I can think of is the new fleet cap, and the only influence sink I can think of is claiming systems)
3) Because that isn't the focus of the update. The developers have decided to invest their time and resources into different aspects of the game for the time being. They have decited that espionage isn't a the most important priority right now. What's it to ya?
4) Uh, again, how? If you mean "you will no longer be able to simply build a doomstack and destroy their doomstack, now you will actually have to work for your conquest" then sure, it will be I guess. Of course, militaristic expansion is still one of the only ways in which you can complete the game's victory condition, so unless they are removing those your argument doesn't work.
5) "Plop fortifications down and you're golden" again, I see no reason why that should be true, you are making a lot of big assumptions about how this update will play out without evidence. I can already think of ways to wage war against someone who's heavily invested in static defenses. I would try and concentrate my fleet and punch a hole, or maybe I would try and circumvent their defenses and capture outpost with space resources to buff my economy and bleed their's dry until they surrender. It's true that the developers are trying to making static defenses a more viable tactic, I guess if you just don't lake any sort of useful static defenses then you fundamentally disagree with the update.
And why would every little system need to be taken? And you realize the vast majority of these systems are undefended (not counting mobile fleets) outpost right?
And if you don't want more micromanagement then why would you want things like "angle of attack, guerilla warfare in the ateroids, flanking"
6) I never said you think the current system is any better, but if you agree the current system sucks anyway then, even if you don't like the new one either (which you haven't gotten the chance to play yet) then why bother getting so down and gloomy about the changes?
And sorry, but I'd like to see you actually propose a "better" solution to doomstacks. With the current one, engaging a larger fleet with a smaller one will actually not be suicidal, because of the force concentration bonus, while the disengagement mechanic will ensure your entire fleet isn't whipped out in one failed engagement. The fleet limit cap is not intended to solve the problem by itself, Wiz made that very clear, and I don't know how you got that in your head.
7) Yeah sorry, again, you are presenting factually incorrect information. Did you actually read the developer diary? Only one of their solutions to doomstacks involved a cap at all. Where the hell did you get this idea in your head?

I would recommend that you stop making baseless assumptions about how 2.0 will play out with no evidence, even when you are skeptical on the direction of the game.
 
Last edited:
1) No you! Just saying my logic is flawed is meaningless, so let's move on from this point.
2) This update isn't just adding a load of hard caps and influence seeks. That isn't opinion, that is literally factual incorrect. Either you are uninformed, in which you should go read the dev diaries before debating this, or you are knowingly presenting factual incorrect information to support your argument. (infact, the only new hard cap related to old machnics I can think of is the new fleet cap, and the only influence sink I can think of is claiming systems)
3) Because that isn't the focus of the update. The developers have decided to invest their time and resources into different aspects of the game for the time being. They have decited that espionage isn't a the most important priority right now. What's it to ya?
4) Uh, again, how? If you mean "you will no longer be able to simply build a doomstack and destroy their doomstack, now you will actually have to work for your conquest" then sure, it will be I guess. Of course, militaristic expansion is still one of the only ways in which you can complete the game's victory condition, so unless they are removing those your argument doesn't work.
5) "Plop fortifications down and you're golden" again, I see no reason why that should be true, you are making a lot of big assumptions about how this update will play out without evidence. I can already think of ways to wage war against someone who's heavily invested in static defenses. I would try and concentrate my fleet and punch a hole, or maybe I would try and circumvent their defenses and capture outpost with space resources to buff my economy and bleed their's dry until they surrender. It's true that the developers are trying to making static defenses a more viable tactic, I guess if you just don't lake any sort of useful static defenses then you fundamentally disagree with the update.
And why would every little system need to be taken? And you realize the vast majority of these systems are undefended (not counting mobile fleets) outpost right?
And if you don't want more micromanagement then why would you want things like "angle of attack, guerilla warfare in the ateroids, flanking"
6) I never said you think the current system is any better, but if you agree the current system sucks anyway then, even if you don't like the new one either (which you haven't gotten the chance to play yet) then why bother getting so down and gloomy about the changes?
And sorry, but I'd like to see you actually propose a "better" solution to doomstacks. With the current one, engaging a larger fleet with a smaller one will actually not be suicidal, because of the force concentration bonus, while the disengagement mechanic will ensure your entire fleet isn't whipped out in one failed engagement. The fleet limit cap is not intended to solve the problem by itself, Wiz made that very clear, and I don't know how you got that in your head.
7) Yeah sorry, again, you are presenting factually incorrect information. Did you actually read the developer diary? Only one of their solutions to doomstacks involved a cap at all. Where the hell did you get this idea in your head?

I would recommend that you stop making baseless assumptions about how 2.0 will play out with no evidence, even when you are skeptical on the direction of the game.
Everybody make fun of the nerd who actually "reads things" and "takes facts into account" and "thinks about more than one thing at a time". NERD!!

The Cherryh dev diaries are supposed to be filled with emotional supergeniuses who saw FTL types being removed and now know for a fact that Stellaris is doomed and fit everything they read into that assumption, and mindless fanboys who can't see the truth. Well, don't worry, they'll call you a mindless fanboy who can't see the truth anyway, because they're right about everything.
 
So instead of building a few defense armies on every planet you build a fort. Where is the problem?

Oh yes, that's such a useful idea given that this would require you to mircomanage the worlds to make sure that's what actually happens to conquered worlds, and possibly take up useful tiles if you don't have empty blank ones. And of course, using planetary edicts is a temporary thing and costs influence, which is something your going to need even MORE of to expand from now on...

I look at this and basically say that honestly, these fortresses as currently laid out seem useful only for spamming at chokepoints. I'd actually probably do what I've done in many of my games and IGNORE defensive armies and fortifications for anything except worlds with high unrest (which this might not solve if it's high enough) and chokepoints. All my other worlds would get the bare minimum unless my defenses somehow get broken through.

Unrest would be less troublesome in conquering worlds with this change if there were occasions where some pops decided to simply accept the new rulers or even become super friendly to the rulers (eg collaborators). This change currently makes me think it will be more useful to bombard worlds down to the five pops thing (and ruin tons buildings and leave tile blockers) then try to rule worlds with high population centers.


At the very least, Assault armies should be able to land on worlds if needed certainly though, I can share that opinion.
 
One thing to bear in mind for everyone who's unhappy to see attachments go - 'just leave it in' is not 'free'. Code - and therefore features - always needs maintenance.

Every time the devs think about changing anything, there's one more thing that needs to be tested, one more place to remember to change. Any UI changes, localisation to a new language, adding new army types, tweaks to the ground-combat damage calculations - every one gets a little bit more complicated with attachments in the game. Everytime the devs do anything that touches armies, another few man-hours get swallowed up in making sure that attachments still work properly. Perhaps not a huge amount - an hour here, half a day there - but that adds up.

Even if we ignore dev time/effort - it sounds like ground combat is going to get fairly limited attention, after all - think about the QA team. Every minute spent testing the army attachment system* is a minute not spent testing for naked corvettes. Or for Sectors paving over irreplacable F.E. buildings. Or whether the AI ever actually uses the 'declare war' button. Or any of a thousand other things.

I understand that it's a cool feature (Commissars! Xenomorph Cavalry!), but there's other ways to approach that. Perhaps we can have techs that give a bonus to all your troops automatically, rather than needing to manually add them to armies. (And then we can have Xenomorph Cavalry Commisars...) Either way, though, the current implementation isn't worth the maintenance cost.

*And retesting, and retesting, and retesting again - this stuff has to be done over again every single patch...
 
I for one am satisfied with the rework. It isn't amazing, but it looks like it will add in a bit more strategy then the current "bombard planet, then land a bunch of armies and you win".
I don't think ground combat needs anything that more complicated then the 2.0 rework it will get either, space combat is (and should be) more important then ground combat in Stellaris, so ground combat is rightfully a considerably smaller and simpler part of the game.

Anyway, if these changes are successful that should make army bonuses like warrior culture and strong trait, as well as generals, useful.
 
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...

I'm worried about how this will work for the defense of occupied planets. It won't make sense for occupied pops to generate defensive armies to defend the occupied planet against liberation from their original empire, would it? (It may make sense for certain cases, depending on species or ethos, but it would be complicated to manage, maybe involving some sort espionage system to be implemented). And this potentially will lead to some very strange planetary campaigns.

I would make assault armies raised from starports in colonised systems to reduce micromanagement of embarking them after trained, but able to be used garrisoning certain planets.

And would a planet be able to "fight back" against a bombarding fleet? It might be silly if a single corvette can bombard a planet indiscriminately and kill pops without taking any damage whatsoever
 
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?

This is actually one of my favorite parts of the new system. I like the idea of having to choose between more production and better defense. It should be hard to decide what to do with a rich world at a strategic crossroads.

Stellaris really needs more trade offs and tough decisions, more times when you have to choose what to have and what to give up. Anything that adds to that is good in my book.
 
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".

They've already explicitly stated they're reworking Hyperlane Network generation to go with these changes.

As an aside it's extremely presumptive to be making statements about what would or wouldn't require a "rewrite of the galaxy code from scratch". It's far more likely this is controlled by variables on how many paths get added to a node based on the number connections it already has and the nodes it is connected to already has.
 
They've already explicitly stated they're reworking Hyperlane Network generation to go with these changes.

As an aside it's extremely presumptive to be making statements about what would or wouldn't require a "rewrite of the galaxy code from scratch". It's far more likely this is controlled by variables on how many paths get added to a node based on the number connections it already has and the nodes it is connected to already has.
It's not that hard to make an okay HL map, just use a cluster system,1-12 per cluster, 2-5 connections each, 2 connections have exterior lines to other clusters. Then jiggle each cluster to make it understandable.

Edit: probably wrong, this answer must be simple, easy, and wrong.
 
I know its a bit counter intuitive to the current streamlining of armies, but is there any thought of adding an Army Design screen similar to ship design, where you can customize what units, technologies, and 'attachments' a trained army uses, rather than the painful amount of clicking that attachments had? It could add some fun technology options like upgrades to power armor as well, so you can make SPESS MAHRINES with big, wonky power armor on your gene seed soldiers. Or maybe equip your slave army with antimatter bombs.

I think it would reduce micromanagement since you can customize an army once and build it as you want it and change it with the army option. You could also build your defensive armies in a similar way, and have a simple option to 'assign' what template a building uses based on different factors maybe.

On a note on the Fortress, however, I don't quite like the idea of it being a basic unity building. But, considering the different ethics and civics of Stellaris, I think it should be one of the most varying buildings depending on how your empire is set up.

I think, as a suggestion, the 'basic' Fortress should reduce unrest (guards and military presence to keep people in line), and happiness (the population feels secure and happy in the knowledge that there's an army to protect them against hostile invasions). From there, there should be a myriad of bonuses or technologies you can research depending on your civics/ethics that allows Fortress' to perform different functions.

For example, with the National Zeal civic, it should cause Fortress to produce Unity (It needs something with the change to border expansion, after all, and it fits the idea that a National Zeal produces culture from its military buildings). Pacifist empires should have a different function added to their fortress' as well. And hey, I think the feudal civic should allow you to build a Fortress Upgrade Castle - or change your planetary capital buildings to be a fortress as well! Another fun idea would be adjacency bonus between your defense/army buildings, for bonuses of tucking your Fortress, Military Academy, and Shield Generator and other buildings together.

Edit: Also as it is, Fortresses, Military Academies, and Planetary Shield generators aren't things you'd want next to your capital building, unless its in a diagonal. Considering how in reality 'unity/culture' buildings tend to cluster around capitals (see the museums and bases around Washington DC, for example), will there be any potential change to Planetary Capital adjacency bonuses to make it so that it doesn't feel like you're being punished for wanting to keep your 'culture' or military buildings next to your capital?
 
Last edited:
This is not how I would have solved ground warfare.

The issue, as I see it, with ground warfare is that it is basically nothing but a predetermined end stage to taking a planet. If there was a button that showed up after you got fortifications to zero that had you automatically invade and take the planet, it wouldn't really be any different.

Some of the changes here are good, others serve to cut down some of the annoyance surrounding this system, but all in all it doesn't really address that core issue. My idea would be to try and separate space warfare and ground warfare much more, try to create two different theaters of war.

I would change the basic function of fortifications to draw out ground battles if the defending side is inferior. I would make ground warfare last longer on each planet to begin with. The idea is that you want to buy time as a defending side, because the default will be that the opposing player has the necessary forces to defeat you. You therefor win by getting reinforcements there in time.

You no longer bombard to get rid of fortifications, it's instead a set number. Fleets only help take a planet by providing orbital support. You need a certain amount of firepower in orbit compared to fortifications to effectively provide that. It's a threshold, exceeding it doesn't help. Depending on your orbital bombardment setting, you help deal some damage but also negate part of the effect from fortifications, with the same drawbacks as mentioned above.

This means that your fleets will be mainly used to fight space installations and other fleets, and prevent actual access to planets. You no longer stand a huge fleet over a planet and bomb it to pieces. Instead, your fleet will move on leaving behind a smaller detachment to support the war effort. By giving you incentive to leave behind orbital support for ground warfare, there are even more reasons to split up your fleets and not just have one big blob. This leads to less doomstacking along with the other changes for 2.0.

As for the ground warfare, this goes the other direction from what the devs do here. They want to get rid of some micro-management, and this adds management. But that's because it opens up a new theater of warfare. The idea is that instead of having an offensive side that invades and takes planet after planet in succession, where ground warfare is just the actualization of such, you're more likely to have battles fought on a number of fronts that require some orbital support, troop movements, and supporting tactics. I like the changes to how defensive armies work, but the other armies should be mobile forces, not just invasion forces. They should have a role for defense and for providing reinforcements and support as well as actually attacking.

To illustrate how this might change things with examples:
Vanilla warfare have you beating enemy fleet. You then proceed into a star system, you take out military base and space port and start bombarding. Move in a transport fleet, attack once fortifications are gone, automatic win. Move on to the next system, repeat until victory.

With my suggested changes, you beat that first fleet. You move to their system, take out their space installations, and start to invade. You leave behind orbital support, and move on with your fleet. You smash the orbital defenses in three systems, start invasions on all before the fleet moves on. Perhaps you leave one fleet behind to support so that none of the orbital support groups get ambushed. Instead of taking those systems one by one, you might fight on all three at the same time. It'll likely take longer, but how much longer depends on how much of a fight the opposing empire puts up. They'll likely try to get rid of your orbital fleets if they can, and to get more armies on the fronts you have opened up. Or perhaps they open up a new one by clearing a path to one of your systems, and force you to delegate troops to defend one of your own planets. You win the war by beating them both in space and on the ground, and both require some work.

This also opens up some defensive tactics. How far will your military go to defend their worlds? Ruthlessly utilizing bombings might lead to some long-term happiness issues, but could win the planet for them.
 
Last edited:
So instead of building a few defense armies on every planet you build a fort. Where is the problem?

Based on shown numbers: 270 minerals versus 90, 3 energy upkeep versus .45, and a planet tile producing a single point of unity instead of something else.

Which I'll grant is almost nothing in the lategame, and I guess if that's the only part of the game even worth thinking about there's no problem.

That would be absurd and is almost certainly not the mechanic.

Not that absurd; I mean isn't that the point of a "fort" - to protect the armies bunkering down in it until it's ruined? So why would they only be protected from space bombardment?

Also, before Cherryh I would have thought the idea of removing starting FTLs from the game was absurd too; now they've gone and done it, so I can't really take "that would be absurd" as leading to "they wouldn't do that" with any degree of certainty.

I don't think we can really say the game will "brokenly favour defence" until we've seen it, and I think the devs will be actively working to preventing the defensive options from being "broken".

And yet, if they weren't vulnerable to error the balance would have been worked out long ago - maybe even before initial launch - and all of this would have either already been done or not seen as "needed" in the first place.

I remain cynical. Everything they've said so far leads me to the strong impression that - whether by design or by accident - they are going to overshoot the mark on making defense "viable" and stray into making offense unviable.