• 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:
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...
Wait, so now we can't:
1) Garrison freshly occupied planets to prevent the AI from retaking them
2) Hide armies on the planet if an enemy fleet enters the system
3) Use assault armies to defend planets in a defensive war?

all to save us one extra click? That...doesn't seem like a fair tradeoff.
 
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.
Well I can. Can you point me to the quote that makes you think it protects them from all types of damage?
 
I also agree that it would make more sense if a "Fort" or "Bunker" would protect an army from damage in general, not just bombardement. In fact, there could even be special "bunker buster" weapons that deal serious extra damage to fortifications for this exact reason - so your armies can deal damage against the defenders again.
 
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.
Even better than that. Slavery is absurdly powerful right now. Slavery unrest will be a better counterbalance to that power with the need to devote some tiles to forts.
 
Wait, so now we can't:
1) Garrison freshly occupied planets to prevent the AI from retaking them
2) Hide armies on the planet if an enemy fleet enters the system
3) Use assault armies to defend planets in a defensive war?

all to save us one extra click? That...doesn't seem like a fair tradeoff.

Not using assault armies for defense on your own worlds actually makes some sense to me, since it would defeat the point of limited production of defensive troops. Why remove the ability to build defensive armies if you can just build offensive troops somewhere else and ship them in? It's six of one.

But yes... defending conquered planets is my biggest question from this change. I'm loving the idea of a ravager or Klingon race with weak ships that have to assault your starbases in waves of horrifying losses, but once they land they're almost impossible to dig out. If you can't defend new territory, that doesn't work.

The other thought I had is that there maybe should be a cap on how many assault troops you can build. As someone else mentioned, we still kind of need to solve the spam problem. Once you've taken a star system you can just send endless waves of transports until you take the planet. Enough troops can negate any defensive changes or updates.

Although thinking out loud... would it be frustrating to win the war in space, but run out of buildable troops? Or would it validate a ground-focused playstyle to lose the war in space but still hold them off on the ground? Is war exhaustion enough to balance spamming troops?

Last note on a scattered post, I'm super excited for the idea of fortress worlds and hope the idea gets expanded on in the future. I'm ambivalent on anti-space weapons, but would love the idea of more unique buildings you can put on the surface, with abilities that you can't build on starbases or ships. A system with the starbase that can do A, B and C, and a fortress world that can do C, D and E sounds great.
 
Last edited:
The other thought I had is that there maybe should be a cap on how many assault troops you can build. As someone else mentioned, we still kind of need to solve the spam problem.
Currently, you can do just one assault army per pop, so, if you have 2 human pops and 12 lilarobius pops, you can do 2 humans assault armies and 12 lilarobius assaut armies.
I dont known how the system work for clone, xenomorph, etc attack armies.
 
Currently, you can do just one assault army per pop, so, if you have 2 human pops and 12 lilarobius pops, you can do 2 humans assault armies and 12 lilarobius assaut armies.
I dont known how the system work for clone, xenomorph, etc attack armies.

True, but that’s not really a limiting factor. I can build all those, throw them at a single planet, then rebuild them all again. I’ve never seen it work as a practical limitation.
 
They say if you are loosing troops that would also increase war exhaustion.

If you are throwing certain troops en masse at the meat grinder, why not increasing unrest as well?

For example if it was your own pops.
If they were clone troops, well too bad Stellaris doesn't distinguish between clone pops and normal pops.
Loosing great amount of slave troops, would increase slave unrest.
The only kind to be immune to this would be robots, unless they become semi-sentient or sentient and then you get Machine Rebellions.

What do you guys think?
 
Not using assault armies for defense on your own worlds actually makes some sense to me, since it would defeat the point of limited production of defensive troops. Why remove the ability to build defensive armies if you can just build offensive troops somewhere else and ship them in? It's six of one.

But yes... defending conquered planets is my biggest question from this change. I'm loving the idea of a ravager or Klingon race with weak ships that have to assault your starbases in waves of horrifying losses, but once they land they're almost impossible to dig out. If you can't defend new territory, that doesn't work.

The other thought I had is that there maybe should be a cap on how many assault troops you can build. As someone else mentioned, we still kind of need to solve the spam problem. Once you've taken a star system you can just send endless waves of transports until you take the planet. Enough troops can negate any defensive changes or updates.

Although thinking out loud... would it be frustrating to win the war in space, but run out of buildable troops? Or would it validate a ground-focused playstyle to lose the war in space but still hold them off on the ground? Is war exhaustion enough to balance spamming troops?

Last note on a scattered post, I'm super excited for the idea of fortress worlds and hope the idea gets expanded on in the future. I'm ambivalent on anti-space weapons, but would love the idea of more unique buildings you can put on the surface, with abilities that you can't build on starbases or ships. A system with the starbase that can do A, B and C, and a fortress world that can do C, D and E sounds great.
Hmm an interesting thought. Winning the space war but being unable to finish a ground war. I'm thinking like a small race with the weak modifier but has intelligent and a technocracy government up against a krogan like very strong race with militarist. The technocracy gets the upper hand in space due to advanced tech, but is unable to root out the militarists after a few planets due to running out of droid armies and having weaker normal troops forcing the war to grind to a halt.

The fix for spamming troops is simply to make the build times longer. You'd have to prep longer for war and plan attacks. Troop build or training time should be different for each type. Robots should take shorter than normal but not have as much health since they're cheaper and more spammable.

Im also thinking it'd be neat for the devs to add a new bombardment style for technocracies. Give them the ability to shoot gas on stubborn planets like with the krogans, but let the gas give a chance for mutations either positive or negative. Would bring more flavor to the game.
 
They say if you are loosing troops that would also increase war exhaustion.

If you are throwing certain troops en masse at the meat grinder, why not increasing unrest as well?

For example if it was your own pops.
If they were clone troops, well too bad Stellaris doesn't distinguish between clone pops and normal pops.
Loosing great amount of slave troops, would increase slave unrest.
The only kind to be immune to this would be robots, unless they become semi-sentient or sentient and then you get Machine Rebellions.

What do you guys think?
The more flavor the better IMO. Having to worry about choices is the whole point of grand strategy. If the synthetics think you are sending them to die as second rate citizens, then they should get angry.
 
The more flavor the better IMO. Having to worry about choices is the whole point of grand strategy. If the synthetics think you are sending them to die as second rate citizens, then they should get angry.

I agree. It would be great if you have a dynamic gameplay, where everything influences each other.

For example if you sent slaves to die, that would increase the ethic attraction of authoritarian / xenophobic. But may also lead to the creation/ increase of egaliterian / xenophile factions. Events such as the underground railroad may happen.

Perhaps after some time you may deal with more than slave revolts, but also deal with rebellion due to the xenophiles and egaliterians. The end result may not even be independence, but could also be; (take a pick); ethics shift of government, abolishment of slavery, autonomy of a sector where all the slaves and egalitarians/xenophiles may migrate to.
 
Yes, ground combat will be a relevant aspect of the game just in the day that lose space battle but hold your ground in planets become a viable strategy.

And could make special forces-type troops really viable. Instead of investing in ships, maybe I sunk my research into troops that orbitally insert and sabotage fortresses, shields or other ground installations...
 
Wait, so now we can't:
1) Garrison freshly occupied planets to prevent the AI from retaking them
2) Hide armies on the planet if an enemy fleet enters the system
3) Use assault armies to defend planets in a defensive war?

all to save us one extra click? That...doesn't seem like a fair tradeoff.

It seems pretty insane, actually.
 
Wait a moment...
Armies spawned by Fortresses are also impervious to orbital bombardment, and will not be able to be killed without first ruining the building itself
So let me get this straight those armies cannot be defeated by bombardment by i still need to bombard those planets in order to have a slight chance for the bombardments to ruin the fortress ? that doesn't seem right ¿aren't you afraid that the defense armies could become slightly OP ? i love the dev you finally made ground combat actually important but i don't know i think you need to make the "ruin mechanic more reliable at least so the first building to always goes first is the fortress or made the player be able to prioritize which buildings your armies get to destroy first because know it seems that a 3 defense armies can destroy 10 armies just because you didn't get lucky enough in the ruin rolls in the bombardments or with the armies and the fortress never got destroyed maybe it's me ¿am i misunderstanding something?
 
Wait a moment... So let me get this straight those armies cannot be defeated by bombardment by i still need to bombard those planets in order to have a slight chance for the bombardments to ruin the fortress ? that doesn't seem right ¿aren't you afraid that the defense armies could become slightly OP ? i love the dev you finally made ground combat actually important but i don't know i think you need to make the "ruin mechanic more reliable at least so the first building to always goes first is the fortress or made the player be able to prioritize which buildings your armies get to destroy first because know it seems that a 3 defense armies can destroy 10 armies just because you didn't get lucky enough in the ruin rolls in the bombardments or with the armies and the fortress never got destroyed maybe it's me ¿am i misunderstanding something?
The idea is that if you want take a planet with a preserved infrastructure you need significantly invest in armies, if you dont care about infrastructure you have the option of bombard the planet to weaken their armies, so, you can take the planet with a inferior army but the process will destroy buildings and kill pops (with diplomatical repercussions).
This tradeoff is what make ground combat relevant, if you want preserve the infrastructure and your diplomatical reputation you need invest in armies and in ground combat.
 
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".
Not only that it will actually better the game now because you cannot just take like 200 armies and just wipe them out in less than 5 days or seconds on times 4, even if they have full planetary defense. In addition to that you have to utilitze scouts and actually have a scouting network operational while making the Sentry array way more useful.