Stellaris Dev Diary #128 - Decisions and Planetary Bombardment

[The Kombinator]

since you can't build more than 1 habitats for time, hero you go . even with bonusses (all of them) you go with 280-300 influence by the time the habitats is over .

And you are wrong. You CAN build as many habitats as many systems you have with celestical objects with possibility to place habitats on them. The limit is one habitat at one time in one system. You can build multiple habitats as long as you build them in different systems.

 

[Verx90]

And you are wrong. You CAN build as many habitats as many systems you have with celestical objects with possibility to place habitats on them. The limit is one habitat at one time in one system. You can build multiple habitats as long as you build them in different systems.

dude , you can build 1 habittats at time ... thats what i mean with " for time" . you can spam them , you you are forced to build 1 at the time ... how can i explain it better?

 

[The Kombinator]

dude , you can build 1 habittats at time ... thats what i mean with " for time" . you can spam them , you you are forced to build 1 at the time ... how can i explain it better?

You are wrong man. Just try it out. Unless they changed since 2.1.2 you can build any number of habitats as long as they built in different systems. The global limit only applies to "galactic wonders". There is nothing to explain here. Must i post a bunch of screenshot to prove it? Can be arranged at night. Got a pretty dope cheated save for testing purposes (only console commands used, and no modding).

 

[Verx90]

You are wrong man. Just try it out. Unless they changed since 2.1.2 you can build any number of habitats as long as they built in different systems. The global limit only applies to "galactic wonders". There is nothing to explain here. Must i post a bunch of screenshot to prove it? Can be arranged at night. Got a pretty dope cheated save for testing purposes (only console commands used, and no modding).

oh, they are no more considerate galatic wonders , but they still take 5 years to be build , they cost 200 influence ,so you can build one evry 20 months ( if you make 10 influence) .

still not seeing why a tall should not pick the new ascension with the decision to increase planet size (IF it have no cap) since a tall empire can probably spam both ( resource wise) , wide empire would pick it only if they don't want to build galatic wonders and are not interested in wasting too much time - minerals\alloys on habitats .

we will see i assume .

 

[The Founder]

I can't help but to wonder why Planetary Guns aren't already in Vanilla...

It would result in players simply not going into Orbit before their Army is there. And it being more of annoyance then an actall deterent.

For the Topic: Curiosity: How would people feel about Habitat Viability if Habitats could stick a couple Starbase-like Guns onto them & actually defend themselves, unlike Planets & their sorry excuse for lack of Guns...?

Because even the US invading Iraq was smart enough to go for the AA systems first?
101 of getting air superiority includes "get rid of them groundbased guns that can affect you".
Why would 101 of space superiority not include that?

And you are wrong. You CAN build as many habitats as many systems you have with celestical objects with possibility to place habitats on them. The limit is one habitat at one time in one system. You can build multiple habitats as long as you build them in different systems.

dude , you can build 1 habittats at time ... thats what i mean with " for time" . you can spam them , you you are forced to build 1 at the time ... how can i explain it better?

These are the current rules from 2.1.2:

habitat_0 = {
    entity = ""
    construction_entity = "orbital_habitat_entity"
    portrait = "GFX_megastructure_construction_background"
    place_entity_on_planet_plane = yes
    entity_offset = { x = -7 y = -7 }
    build_time = 1800
    build_cost = {
        minerals = 10000
        influence = 200
    }
    construction_blocks_others = no

    potential = {
        OR = {
            has_ascension_perk = ap_voidborn
            has_civic = civic_diadochi
            has_civic = civic_great_khans_legacy
            has_country_flag = democratic_khanate_flag
        }
    }

    possible = {
        exists = starbase
        custom_tooltip = {
            fail_text = "requires_inside_border"
            is_inside_border = from
        }
    }

    placement_rules = {
        planet_possible = {
            custom_tooltip = {
                fail_text = "requires_surveyed_planet"
                is_surveyed = {            # prevent leaking habitability information
                    who = prev.from
                    status = yes
                }
            }
            custom_tooltip = {
                fail_text = "requires_no_anomaly"
                NOT = { has_anomaly = yes }
            }
            custom_tooltip = {
                fail_text = "requires_no_existing_megastructure"
                #can_build_megastructure_on_planet = yes
                NOR = {
                    has_planet_flag = megastructure
                    has_planet_flag = has_megastructure
                    solar_system = {
                        has_star_flag = ring_world_built
                    }
                    is_planet_class = pc_ringworld_habitable
                    is_planet_class = pc_ringworld_habitable_damaged
                    is_planet_class = pc_ringworld_tech
                    is_planet_class = pc_ringworld_tech_damaged
                    is_planet_class = pc_ringworld_seam
                    is_planet_class = pc_ringworld_seam_damaged
                    is_planet_class = pc_habitat
                }
            }
            custom_tooltip = {
                fail_text = "requires_no_orbital_station"
                has_orbital_station = no
            }

             # balance for habitats
            custom_tooltip = {
                fail_text = "requires_not_minor_planetary_body"
                NOR = {
                    is_asteroid = yes
                    is_moon = yes
                }
            }
            custom_tooltip = {
                fail_text = "requires_not_star"
                is_star = no
            }
        } # use these for all non-star megastructures
    }

It is not using hte broad "blocks others" lockout, that affects all the galatic wonders.
And I can not even see one that prevents building multiple in teh same System, but that might be part of some non-modable code.

 

[The Kombinator]

It is not using hte broad "blocks others" lockout, that affects all the galatic wonders.
And I can not even see one that prevents building multiple in teh same System, but that might be part of some non-modable code.

Last time i did in 2.1.2 you couldn't. Probably hard coded stuff yet. Would be great if i could build multiple in one system though.

 

[The Kombinator]

It would result in players simply not going into Orbit before their Army is there. And it being more of annoyance then an actall deterent.

It would also prevent, or make painful to bombard planets. With planetary shield, and some guns you would be forced to use armies. If guns strong enough, then it could grant colossus immunity. However, if it's restricted to planets, and not habitats, then you would need to luck out those planets on chokepoints.

 

[The Founder]

It would also prevent, or make painful to bombard planets. With planetary shield, and some guns you would be forced to use armies. If guns strong enough, then it could grant colossus immunity.

And what exactly would that add to the gameplay?

Giving planets the abilty to hurt fleets is not a terminal goal. It is a intermediate goal. What is the terminal goal taht you to solve with "Planets can shoot upward?"

 

[sortulv]

I can't help but to wonder why Planetary Guns aren't already in Vanilla...

For the Topic: Curiosity: How would people feel about Habitat Viability if Habitats could stick a couple Starbase-like Guns onto them & actually defend themselves, unlike Planets & their sorry excuse for lack of Guns...?

Also, this is my first Post here. Hiya everyone!

First of: welcome to the forum

Realism wise: Gravity and atmosphere works against planetary guns. It is much better using orbital defenses. For both habitats and planets, their big size works against them being useful for gun mounts - in the same way WW2 bombers had to mount a LOT of gun emplacements to be have any chance of warding of fighters. The starbases has a similar problem, but they are dedicated to primarily defense - not habitation, and as such have less problems with mounting REALLY big weapons...

Gameplay wise: Since this would completely prevent any landing until the guns are disabled (due to ongoing combat with the transports), this would lead to a balance problem with defenses either being too strong, or utterly useless. At the moment a bastion is good when combined with a fleet, but otherwise it will fall quickly without doing any damage to a real fleet. Planetary/habitat guns would have to be pretty much the same, except they would take up some space on the planet. They would have to be a lot easier to destroy than a fortress.

In my mind, it is best to consider fortresses equipped with some guns. Not enough to prevent landings or to do any real damage to warships, but enough to force the ships to target the guns rather than the soldiers, and make landers land some distance away from the forts.

 

[BlackUmbrellas]

Realism wise: Gravity and atmosphere works against planetary guns. It is much better using orbital defenses. For both habitats and planets, their big size works against them being useful for gun mounts - in the same way WW2 bombers had to mount a LOT of gun emplacements to be have any chance of warding of fighters. The starbases has a similar problem, but they are dedicated to primarily defense - not habitation, and as such have less problems with mounting REALLY big weapons...

Making a realism argument against planet-side defence platforms is silly for multiple reasons. For one thing, you're speculating HARD when it comes to the practicality and potential downsides. For another, Stellaris isn't a realistic game, it's space opera, and planetary defence guns are a staple of scifi.

 

[The Founder]

Making a realism argument against planet-side defence platforms is silly for multiple reasons. For one thing, you're speculating HARD when it comes to the practicality and potential downsides. For another, Stellaris isn't a realistic game, it's space opera, and planetary defence guns are a staple of scifi.

It is no speculation that Gravity is a thing empires still have to work with/against during planetary combat.
If anything you have to proove why it would not be an issue under combat conditions. When it is a issue under travel condtions for us right now.

 

[Pointyearedgit]

Making a realism argument against planet-side defence platforms is silly for multiple reasons. For one thing, you're speculating HARD when it comes to the practicality and potential downsides. For another, Stellaris isn't a realistic game, it's space opera, and planetary defence guns are a staple of scifi.

Yea, also speculation on what is important for a future conflict is problematic. Perhaps planets will make more sense due to concealment or fortification? It really depends on what weapons are being used.

For example, planes get better range and speed flying higher, yet we still have planes and missiles flying low, even though they have to go slower and consume more fuel. It is worth it, however, to hide from radar, a far more important consideration in some cases.

 

[sortulv]

Making a realism argument against planet-side defence platforms is silly for multiple reasons. For one thing, you're speculating HARD when it comes to the practicality and potential downsides. For another, Stellaris isn't a realistic game, it's space opera, and planetary defence guns are a staple of scifi.

Planetary guns are hardly the staple of Sci-fi. Unless you're thinking about Starkiller base?
There are a lot of Sci-fi with planetary defenses in orbit, and also typically guns designed to prevent easy landing. But that is much better represented by planetary defense armies.

The reason I included realism is that nobody has given any gameplay arguments that actually suggest planetary defenses would be a good idea, most argue that "in real life" we should be able to put up a big gun...

 

[BlackUmbrellas]

Planetary guns are hardly the staple of Sci-fi. Unless you're thinking about Starkiller base?

Do I have to bust out the list again?

Because trust me: big guns that shoot things in orbit to defend a planet? Those crop up lots.

 

[The Founder]

Do I have to bust out the list again?

Because trust me: big guns that shoot things in orbit to defend a planet? Those crop up lots.

Looks like there is a lull in twiter Teasers. So shoot away. Let me dismantel it

 

[Mastikator]

you trolling right? you litteraly just have to do the math , with no costruction speed bonus , you spend 200 influence , the time to build 1 habitats is 5 years , if you make 10 influence a month , you make 600 influence by the time you complete 1 habitat.

since you can't build more than 1 habitats for time, hero you go . even with bonusses (all of them) you go with 280-300 influence by the time the habitats is over .

if you are wide, you would take AGES to build them up on all planets , you are better off with ringwolrd for evry system.

You can build multiple habitats simultaneously as long as you build them in different systems. So no, I'm not trolling.

 

[stumason]

Looks like there is a lull in twiter Teasers. So shoot away. Let me dismantel it

Warhammer 40k - Planet bound macro cannons, missile batteries, plasma weaponry, void shields etc - planets make careers out of being tough as balls, causing twonky Chaos generals to fail taking them 12 times over 10k years and resorting to smashing a huge starbase into one to make it go away.

Star Trek - Mixed bag here, lots of orbital defences and some planet bound ones, depending on series/race

Star Wars - Plenty of examples, but the most obvious is the Battle of Hoth were Imperial ships were engaged by Ion cannons (and disabled) and also prevented from bombarding the base because of a shield array, forcing a troop landing.

Star Gate SG-1/Atlantis - Those advanced humans in SG-1 held the Goa'uld at bay for centuries with their plasma guns (until Anubis developed ancient-tech shields for his mothership). Ancient drone weapons, launched from a buried base in Antartica, destroyed Anubis ship when he attacked Earth.

Now, you can try to "dismantel" (dismantle) the real-world practicality of those all you want, but the argument was planetary defences are a sci-fi staple. They are.

Also, it makes no sense that something as vast as a planet simply just has to sit there and be repeatedly hit by tiny, insignificant little ships from orbit. Whether the defences are orbital, ground based or mixed is neither here nor there - it's very odd, considering that planetary defences ARE are staple of Sci-Fi, that Stellaris has none whatsoever. There's not even anything to try and deter a landing, not a single AA gun, much less anti-ship weapons.. It's as if your people just look up and shrug their shoulders

"Oh, here come some of those filthy Xenos, shouldn't we try and shoot them down or something? After all, we ignored them in orbit whilst they kept bombing our shopping centres and schools"

"Oh no, Bob, that would be unsporting. Let them land first, we wouldn't want any of them to be hurt before they're out of their drop ships and are slaughtering our soldiers"

 

[Verx90]

Also, it makes no sense that something as vast as a planet simply just has to sit there and be repeatedly hit by tiny, insignificant little ships from orbit. Whether the defences are orbital, ground based or mixed is neither here nor there - it's very odd, considering that planetary defences ARE are staple of Sci-Fi, that Stellaris has none whatsoever. There's not even anything to try and deter a landing, not a single AA gun, much less anti-ship weapons.. It's as if your people just look up and shrug their shoulders

the reason planets don't have weapon in the game is purely meccanic , if you think about it , its stupid that ships stop theyr air-supremacy bombing because the army dropped on the planet . even more if you are using disposable armyes ( slave , robots ,psionic avatars of death) .


i can understand the feeling over being just bombed onesidely , but till they will not improve land combat , anything they do to bombardement \ air-land defense will feel like empty .

i do thing that a fleet bombing a planet should take dmg based on the number of fortress on the planet.

but i can't see them shotting a fleet from the distance ( i mean, out of the planet "bombing" distance) , ( i can thing of a CANNON building , but it make no sense to build a cannon on a planet to shot in space , you know, the planet rotation would make it useless . ) but i can see why all "long range" defence are placed in space, because its more simple using them .

 

[stumason]

the reason planets don't have weapon in the game is purely meccanic , if you think about it , its stupid that ships stop theyr air-supremacy bombing because the army dropped on the planet . even more if you are using disposable armyes ( slave , robots ,psionic avatars of death) .

Indeed - in Distant Worlds, once landed, the attacking army got a 25% bonus if orbital space was controlled.

i do thing that a fleet bombing a planet should take dmg based on the number of fortress on the planet, but i can't see them shotting a fleet from the distance , ( i can thing of a CANNON building , but it make no sense to build a cannon on a planet to shot in space , you know, the planet rotation would make it useless . ) but i can see why all "long range" defence are placed in space, because its more simple using them .

Not sure I buy your argument about a fixed emplacement being useless due to rotation - a ship also has to be in a specific position to hit a target (it cant shoot through the planet), either in a geosynchronous orbit, or as it passes overhead in a standard orbit. 6 of one, half a dozen of the other.

Also, the buildings in 2.2 represent not one single building, but facilities all over the planet. If you build planetary guns, you build them to give you coverage (see SG-1 when they were planning to obtain those plasma guns from the advanced Humans - they needed around 31 for full coverage). You don't just build one gun on a world and declare yourself safe, that's daft.

 

[The Founder]

Now, you can try to "dismantel" (dismantle) the real-world practicality of those all you want, but the argument was planetary defences are a sci-fi staple. They are.

If you do not want to bother with those distractions, answer the real question:
"And what exactly would that add to the gameplay?

Giving planets the abilty to hurt fleets is not a terminal goal. It is a intermediate goal. What is the terminal goal that you to archieve with "Planets can shoot upward?""