• 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:
Not thrilled about the idea of having to use multiple tiles to properly defend a planet, not if they aren't going to produce anything other than a "small" amount of unity.

I would hope that the higher upgrade tiers of fortresses would also be able to support more armies instead of just upgrading the effectiveness of whatever their base number of armies is. Either that or allow more specialized military buildings like the academy which give research versus a standard fortress. Perhaps one upgrade path for a fortress that turns it into a subterranean fortress that is all but impervious to orbital assault. More stuff along those lines.

From a roleplaying perspective when I'm playing an empire with multiple species I'm also not happy that in order to have troops pulled from my different citizen species I would need to use multiple tiles with a different pop on each one. Perhaps the capital building armies should be generated automatically with a number of armies belonging to all species on the planet relative to their population ratio.

And regarding assault armies what happens if a planet comes under attack while they have assault armies stationed in orbit? Logically they should defend the planet but under the current game mechanics their transports would instead engage in and lose a fleet battle.

Assault armies should definitely be able to hold captured planets.

The problem with letting you use them to defend friendly territory is that would defeat the whole purpose of the defense army overhaul. It would be useless to do all this if you could just build a stack of assault armies and land them anywhere you wanted. Players would just ignore the whole fortification system and do that instead.
 
I would rather they just do away with the distinction between an assault army and a defense army all together. It never made sense to me in the first place where even in the real world military organizations that by design exist for defensive purposes are still sometimes deployed to foreign nations. Like the National Guard in the US where units have been sent overseas.

Working within the bounds of this new planned system I would give each planet the ability to generate x number of armies that can either be left stationed there to defend the planet or called up for offensive action. When deployed off planet they would generate transports and be sent wherever while their spaces planetside would be filled by a less effective reserve force. When you are done using them you hit a button and they return to their home post. Should the army be destroyed it would automatically be built again on it's home planet over x amount of days.

When fortifying captured planets, or if you simply wish to increase the number of troops on one of your own planets that is at risk you should be able to deploy them from other planets but at the cost of higher upkeep due to a lack of dedicated facilities to house the extra troops. Although naturally you should be able to occupy surviving existing enemy installations with the reduced upkeep that would come with it.
 
Last edited:
Don't think it would make any sense to stop invaders from landing more armies.
I was thinking of a 'Quantity has a quality of its own' Edict where you can cram more armies into a smaller planet. Something like that.
Combat width isn't about maximum number of armies on the planet. The attacker can still bring 100 armies. Combat width is a limit to how many can fight at once. So if the defender has 10 armies and the attacker has 30 armies, combat width of 5 means both sides only have 5 armies fighting at once and when an army is defeated one from the backend gets shuffled in. The previous example is a very likely ratio in current Stellaris so you can see why combat width is such a huge benefit to the defender. Increasing it would be a benefit to the attacker. No reasonable person would be willing to spend influence to make it easier to conquer their own planet.
 
Will this make slave armies and clone armies no longer viable for combat? And if armies don't counter unrest how am I supposed to play as a despotic slaver empire?
1)well i'm pretty sure slave and clone armies are gonna drive up war exhaustion less than regular armies.
2) the fortresses reduce unrest, or did you not read it?
 
have you considered adding a map editor were you can make map like in the game Sid Meiers civilization 5 with its (same name with sdk at the end) or is that a thing and i just haven't seen it?
 
Not being able to invade a planet with a 'system' starbase is kind of stupid, and really gimmicky.
It is a huge leap to assume a starbase around a star somehow prevents you landing transports on a planet, I personally do not like this because it doesn't make logical sense.
But I don't like the idea of system starbases either, it ruins the empire sim aspects and makes it more... eh, 'gamey' I guess? Like in a boardgame sense, not in a fun way.

Either way, I really hope they leave this stuff opened to modding so that we can change certain mechanics back to the current system, I don't like such drastic changes to the game that I'm quite happy with, but I don't want to be stuck on an old version and forced to forgo any more updates.
 
Saying that a video game is, or even just can be, too "gamey" is such a bizarre notion.
 
1)well i'm pretty sure slave and clone armies are gonna drive up war exhaustion less than regular armies.
2) the fortresses reduce unrest, or did you not read it?

I can't just build a fortress on every newly conquered planet and on every world with a bad environment. Even if fortresses weren't expensive there'd still be the problem of opportunity cost - every fortress built is a tile that can't be used for a mine or an art.
 
I can't just build a fortress on every newly conquered planet and on every world with a bad environment. Even if fortresses weren't expensive there'd still be the problem of opportunity cost - every fortress built is a tile that can't be used for a mine or an art.

Well, depending on how potential upgrades to fortresses work, you actually might. Fortresses/castles and the like are (usually) not exclusively military bases, they also host scientists and engineers who create and test new technology. Maybe there are special "army academy" and "army science lab" upgrades that, while weaker than the civilian science lab versions, produce a little research on top of the unity and defenders. As an incentive to get them, they could offer bonii for research on war technologies, such as weapons, shields and the like, while purely civilian technologies don't get that bonus (but civ-tech could get it in some other way). A 3-type system of "purely military", "purely civilian" and "mixture", where one gets full bonus of a given bonus-applier for the first two where applicable, and the "mixture" type gets half the bonii, but benefits from every military or civilian bonus-applier. This would encourage a player who plays a militaristic empire to get more of the things, while a pacifistic empire could go more for the civilian techs research enhancers.
 
Not being able to invade a planet with a 'system' starbase is kind of stupid, and really gimmicky.
It is a huge leap to assume a starbase around a star somehow prevents you landing transports on a planet, I personally do not like this because it doesn't make logical sense.
But I don't like the idea of system starbases either, it ruins the empire sim aspects and makes it more... eh, 'gamey' I guess? Like in a boardgame sense, not in a fun way.

Either way, I really hope they leave this stuff opened to modding so that we can change certain mechanics back to the current system, I don't like such drastic changes to the game that I'm quite happy with, but I don't want to be stuck on an old version and forced to forgo any more updates.
One could say that an operating starbase in the system would be able to scramble fighters that could easily shoot down transports in their most vulnerable stage.

A planet of course could also do that but in this theory you would work under the assumption that air fields would be destroyed by the orbiting fleet. There would still be the matter of distance between the two however.

In my own opinion though I would agree with you, I don't think it should stop one from taking a planet but it should prevent them from claiming ownership of the entire system. There should be contested systems still in the game. A war should be able to stall with one player holding a conquered planet(s) but the defender holding the starbase that controls the access to and from the system.
 
Last edited:
Just because the starbase renders in the center of the system for simplicity and understand-ability doesn't mean it is literally orbiting the star, or a continuous object. One space station couldn't secure a large asteroid let alone a solar system.

I think of the starbase as an abstraction of thousands of facilities, defense emplacements, and stations throughout the system. Think the defensive orbital batteries from halo, there are hundreds, if not thousands of space stations involved. And taking down the starbase only represents gaining space-borne superiority over the system.
 
I can't just build a fortress on every newly conquered planet and on every world with a bad environment. Even if fortresses weren't expensive there'd still be the problem of opportunity cost - every fortress built is a tile that can't be used for a mine or an art.
That's the point, do you build more mines or do you protect the ones that you do have? It's a choice that you have to make and it's not really just you that's making that choice, Every empire has to make it. Also, once you take over a planet it's gonna have it's own fortresses that you can use.
 
I can't just build a fortress on every newly conquered planet and on every world with a bad environment. Even if fortresses weren't expensive there'd still be the problem of opportunity cost - every fortress built is a tile that can't be used for a mine or an art.
Well yes there is an opportunity cost, that choice is the heart of strategy games though isn't it?
 
2) the fortresses reduce unrest, or did you not read it?

Which means that you won't be able to play effectively as a Despotic Slaver Empire because you must spend all those Resource Tiles on... useless Fortresses just to quell any Unrest.

Such Empires simply won't be viable anymore because either you will be crushed by the first 'Fed Builder Democracy' that you encounter simply because you didn't have the Resources to build enough defenses and ships or you will be crushed by your own slaves revolting.
That's a HUGE oversight... but so far on par with the update, with the whole reducing playstyles theme going on.
 
Sounds alright to me. Not gonna build those fortresses anyway for unrest reduction. Unrest will now be managed by offensive armies stationed in orbit of newly conquered worlds for me. :D
The only interesting thing is the inhibitor in the fortress. I might consider to fortify a few worlds in choke points if only for that. Unless AI is improved to always have sufficient assault armies nearby that should give enough time until my doomstack ähh I mean my micromanaged ten admiral lead mini non-doomstacks arrive. ;)
 
Not being able to invade a planet with a 'system' starbase is kind of stupid, and really gimmicky.
It is a huge leap to assume a starbase around a star somehow prevents you landing transports on a planet, I personally do not like this because it doesn't make logical sense.
I can somewhat agree with this. Instead there should be a defensive interference bonus to the planet if the starbase hasn't been dealt with first making a successive invasion more unlikely.
 
Last edited:
Which means that you won't be able to play effectively as a Despotic Slaver Empire because you must spend all those Resource Tiles on... useless Fortresses just to quell any Unrest.

Such Empires simply won't be viable anymore because either you will be crushed by the first 'Fed Builder Democracy' that you encounter simply because you didn't have the Resources to build enough defenses and ships or you will be crushed by your own slaves revolting.
That's a HUGE oversight... but so far on par with the update, with the whole reducing playstyles theme going on.
Yes, because they won't be building those expensive buildings either to make sure they don't get conquered. (Sarcasm intended)