Stellaris Dev Diary #128 - Decisions and Planetary Bombardment

[Verx90]

Yeah, I understand the "real world" problems of planetary based weapons, but I also understand the "real world" problems with going FTL or shooting a laser across several AU's of space (in game, weapons seem to have extreme range). Even in space, a laser beam loses it's punch - called divergence - the beam fired from earth to the moon after Apollo leaves the laser as a tight beam, but by the time it gets to the moon it's extremely wide (many metres!).

My point is, in a Universe were lasers can reach across star systems with no power loss and ships can go FTL, I don't think it's much of a stretch to imagine that systems exist to overcome issues that planetary guns would probably encounter.

stellaris is not a realism game. but it has a lore that it try to follow .

by lore, the FTL system is based on the hyperlanes , by lore weapons can't shot to planets, you still "bomb" them, meaning that you have to be in the orbit , so even if you give planets weapons, they would still need the enemy fleet to be in the orbit of the planet .

titan weapons, that are the weapons that actualy shot from half a system , are reached with tecnology and are costy , they should put a build that put 6 titan weapons on a planet ( for all direction), even if the game is not realism , they are bulky , heavy weapons , if you think that 1 ion - cannon take 6 space of a starbase, you should considerate that they should take 6 building slot each

 

[Haltin]

because realistically, any living standard lower than social welfare would result in the majority (who most likely will be at the bottom strata) using the power of democracy to bring up their living conditions

Unless you can convince them their misery is good and right, they're just about to pull themselves up by their tentacle-straps, and in any case it's all the fault of those filthy xenos pouring in and stealing their jobs and females.

I know, it sounds far-fetched and no human would ever fall for that, but if we can pretend 1000 stars makes for a huge galaxy why couldn't we pretend such fools might exist there?

 

[The Founder]

Exactly - the larger fleets have more bombing power, reduce the size of the fleet via planetary guns, you reduce the amount of damage your planet gets, prolonging the time it takes for the world to be ready for an invasion unless the enemy has brought significant fleet assets to ride out the counter-fire, making conquering a planet a significant endeavor and not an after thought as it is at present.

So one could say Groud/Orbit weaponry prevents small fleets from freely bombing the planet already?

Quite frankly, I fail to see why you're insisting on a "terminal goal" or indeed why you insist the goal I provided isn't one. It is - the goal is to make it so planets are harder to take, they should be after all, they're a goddam planet. That's the goal. It doesn't matter how you want to dress it up with fancy terms to try and avoid dealing with the argument, that's it.

So you want them hard to conquer, because you want them hard to conquer?
Or because you think realistically they should be harder to conquer*?

*Despite Stellaris having thrown realism out the airlock with FTL, Wiz having said "Stellaris never was and never will be realistic" and us providing arugments why nope, Ground/Space Guns are not realistic even with tons of FTL magic.

 

[UltimateTobi]

Unless you can convince them their misery is good and right, they're just about to pull themselves up by their tentacle-straps, and in any case it's all the fault of those filthy xenos pouring in and stealing their jobs and females.

I know, it sounds far-fetched and no human would ever fall for that, but if we can pretend 1000 stars makes for a huge galaxy why couldn't we pretend such fools might exist there?

Until some (filthy xeno) steals you a female.

 

[The Founder]

Unless you can convince them their misery is good and right, they're just about to pull themselves up by their tentacle-straps, and in any case it's all the fault of those filthy xenos pouring in and stealing their jobs and females.

I know, it sounds far-fetched and no human would ever fall for that, but if we can pretend 1000 stars makes for a huge galaxy why couldn't we pretend such fools might exist there?

One Idiot I can accept. A whole race of idiots that managed spaec travel? Nope.
What you have here might call itself a democracy. It might even pretend to be a democracy (with varrying degrees of success). But it is not one. You do not get any gameplay effects.

The GDR had Democrcatic in it's name (that is literally what the D in the middle stands for). But the reality was:
Single Party State with Secret Police and manipualted voting results. And no effective free speech.

"Names are smoke and mirrors" - Friedrich Schiller

I can call myself the King of America all I want. Still will not get anyone of revelevance over there to listen to my royal decrees.

 

[Haltin]

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

Of course, in Distant Worlds this bonus is often lost because the fleet leaves to get upgraded in the middle of an invasion.

 

[stumason]

For all of your examples - they are aimed at:
A) Protecting ground forces against bombardment (in other words: shields)
B) Hurt landing troops.

Er, no they're not - in fact, in every example, they were for hurting starships in orbit.

 

[stumason]

Why would planetary guns lock out landers?

Just because you say it would work that way, doesn't mean it would have to. Troop transports could be immune to the guns for gameplay reasons.

In the mod I use, it doesn't prevent landings but you can tell the guns to prioritize targeting the transports if you wish.

 

[stumason]

So, you want a special system to handle combat between planets and ships - what happens if the owner of the planet has any ships in the system? Will the planet not engage until all other defenders are gone?
Will you then have a special case were the defender ships are fighting warships + troops and the planet is fighting just warships?

Note special case scenarios almost always leads to a lot of new bugs - (meaning extra QA and developer time)

Once again, in the mod where guns have been added and are working, it only targets ships in orbit. Leave orbit, and the two fleets fight as normal.

You're inventing problems that don't exist.

 

[Tyrax Lightning]

Yea, but just tossing it in will add more to the balancing of everything else, so they may as well flesh it out. Never underestimate the complications of adding in a new mechanic to the core game.

With the limited building slots, perhaps an update that adds special "slots" for defensive weapons and ground fortifications would make sense along with an expansion of ground combat?

Honestly I think the Anti-Orbit Guns/Planetary Defense Strike Craft/etc. Planetary Defense should be Installed, Operated, & Maintained by the Strongholds/Fortresses themselves rather then being a separate thing.

Personally I don't think like it sounds like it would be any fun, it's just a minor buff to defence. Starbases and planets have to be balanced to slow down fleets from equivalent empires (at best) otherwise the game becomes a galaxy of turtles.

IMHO actually, it already IS a Galaxy of Turtles, cause those Fortresses Turtle like a Turtle Shell trying to just stall, rather then being able to also fight back. If they could also fight back, then they would be doing MORE then just Turtling.

IMHO it'd add to Depth if there was times when it'd be useful to Bombard before Landing Troops, & if sometimes one needed to use the Bombardment AND the Troops to get a Planet Conquered. Us Fanatic Militarists running a Race with the Very Strong Trait + Warrior Culture wanna have fun too!

& run the Resilient Trait & be able to actually DO anything with it vs Planet Attackers... If you can't Counter-Attack the Enemy attacking you, you can only lose faster or lose slower for your options, but still have no choice but to lose. (Can't count on auto-success of Reinforcements coming to save you... plus imho one who cannot attack an enemy cannot beat them...) Maybe Defenders wanna be able to possibly have the option to win as well. & should a Colossus Planet Cracker fell the Planet, may the Guard in its dying breath proudly proclaim "The Planet broke before the Guard did!"

They... really aren't, though. Plenty of scifi has guns that shoot down orbiting warships. 40k definitely has that, and off the top of my head both Star Wars' Ion Cannon and the Bombardier Bugs from Starship Troopers definitely do more than "hurt landing troops"- they disable or destroy large warships.

Thats the whole point- we want planets to be able to inflict attrition on a bombarding fleet. Causing damage to said fleet makes the process of conquering a planet more difficult and introduces a tradeoff between "park there and bomb the surface and ground armies to rubble but take fleet losses the whole time" and "invade before all the defences are down and fight a much tougher ground battle".

& allows stuff like "Very Strong", "Resilient", & "Warrior Culture" to have an actual reason to exist!

Why would planetary guns lock out landers?

Just because you say it would work that way, doesn't mean it would have to. Troop transports could be immune to the guns for gameplay reasons.

I envision Landers having to evade Planetary Attack & already being built with this in mind, in addition to Bombarders also pulling double duty as Aggro Pullers to prevent Landers from getting all the Planetary Defense attention... would only be sound Strategy.

So, you want a special system to handle combat between planets and ships - what happens if the owner of the planet has any ships in the system? Will the planet not engage until all other defenders are gone?
Will you then have a special case were the defender ships are fighting warships + troops and the planet is fighting just warships?

There's no "I" in "Team". All Attackers should be fighting as one & all Defenders should be fighting as one.

Note special case scenarios almost always leads to a lot of new bugs - (meaning extra QA and developer time)

[Hank Hill] "Hey, do you want it done fast, or do you want it done right!?" [/Hank Hill]

I would rather it be done right.

stellaris is not a realism game. but it has a lore that it try to follow .

by lore, the FTL system is based on the hyperlanes , by lore weapons can't shot to planets, you still "bomb" them, meaning that you have to be in the orbit , so even if you give planets weapons, they would still need the enemy fleet to be in the orbit of the planet .

titan weapons, that are the weapons that actualy shot from half a system , are reached with tecnology and are costy , they should put a build that put 6 titan weapons on a planet ( for all direction), even if the game is not realism , they are bulky , heavy weapons , if you think that 1 ion - cannon take 6 space of a starbase, you should considerate that they should take 6 building slot each

I envision this as Warship Weapons don't fire on the Planet cause it'd guarantee devastation the likes of would ruin the Planet... if one wanted to ruin the Planet on purpose, the Planet Cracker says "Hi!", & if one is not using a Planet Cracker for the job then it's assumed one wants to have any actual use for the World after it's Conquered or what was the point in attacking it in the first place only to waste its Resource Potential the Attacker coulda benefited from instead... Going through all the trouble to Invade a Planet only to destroy it with the Warship Weapons would feel kinda like a Gauntlet Style "Shooting of the Food".

Accepting correction from the Devs on this if i'm wrong... I very well could be as new to this Game as I am, & considering i'm still awaiting the next Sale to actually get the game so I can actually start playing it.

So one could say Groud/Orbit weaponry prevents small fleets from freely bombing the planet already?

Only if those Planetary Guns can MAKE the Bombardment stop... the hard way... while the Bombarders are fighting tooth & nail to rip the Planet from the Defenders's cold dead hands.

So you want them hard to conquer, because you want them hard to conquer?
Or because you think realistically they should be harder to conquer*?

I vote 'realistically harder to conquer'. IMHO any Game Design that requires some peeps in the game to be carrying an Idiot Ball in order for that aspect of Gameplay to be explained is in & of itself faulty Game Design & there's room for tweaks, fixing, & improvements.

*Despite Stellaris having thrown realism out the airlock with FTL, Wiz having said "Stellaris never was and never will be realistic" and us providing arguments why nope, Ground/Space Guns are not realistic even with tons of FTL magic.

This is a Sci-Fi World... surely there's gotta be ways to be able to Sci-Fi-ize the Planetary Defenses to become able to do what RL Tech cannot... Psi-Cannons... Phase Torpedoes... Futuristic Strike Craft... hell, maybe even Space Invaders-like Ground to Air Tanks if need be.

One Idiot I can accept. A whole race of idiots that managed spaec travel? Nope.
What you have here might call itself a democracy. It might even pretend to be a democracy (with varrying degrees of success). But it is not one. You do not get any gameplay effects.

The GDR had Democrcatic in it's name (that is literally what the D in the middle stands for). But the reality was:
Single Party State with Secret Police and manipualted voting results. And no effective free speech.

"Names are smoke and mirrors" - Friedrich Schiller

I can call myself the King of America all I want. Still will not get anyone of revelevance over there to listen to my royal decrees.

This I can agree with... if one wanted to, they could make a Genocidal Shroom Race & name them the "Ultimate Beautylicious Pacifists" if they felt like it & the game would let it fly. XD (& for extra luls, give them the Charismatic Trait!)

 

[Verx90]

I envision this as Warship Weapons don't fire on the Planet cause it'd guarantee devastation the likes of would ruin the Planet... if one wanted to ruin the Planet on purpose, the Planet Cracker says "Hi!", & if one is not using a Planet Cracker for the job then it's assumed one wants to have any actual use for the World after it's Conquered or what was the point in attacking it in the first place only to waste its Resource Potential the Attacker coulda benefited from instead... Going through all the trouble to Invade a Planet only to destroy it with the Warship Weapons would feel kinda like a Gauntlet Style "Shooting of the Food".

Accepting correction from the Devs on this if i'm wrong... I very well could be as new to this Game as I am, & considering i'm still awaiting the next Sale to actually get the game so I can actually start playing it.

let me tell you about the fun story of some strange empire called Fanatic Purifier , they bomb words to ashes and dust because they want.

"basic" weapons of the game , would have no effect on a planet , laser would need to be colossal to actualy do dmg to the planet itself, and missle need to be shotted from inside , or they burn before reaching the planet , same for bullet and the like . stellaris is not about realism, but i don't think its so wrong to think that without realy big weapon ( like launching meteorites , or titanlasers ) you can do a efficent bombing of a planet (from a distance of the orbit) .

edit: yea, i know they use nuke missle, but you should realy notice that 1 nuke doesn't even destroy a corvette , why should it do any more serius dmg against "futuristic" building of the planet. thats why you can bomb a planet into an atomic world, but you can't destroy it without a colossus.

 

[antoca]

I still play a 1.9.1 version. And will continue to do so.

 

[The Founder]

I still play a 1.9.1 version. And will continue to do so.

That is fine for you. But why do you feel the odd need to tell us that in a DD for version 2.2?

This seems to be the last place it could have any effect.

 

[Tyrax Lightning]

let me tell you about the fun story of some strange empire called Fanatic Purifier , they bomb words to ashes and dust because they want.

"basic" weapons of the game , would have no effect on a planet , laser would need to be colossal to actually do dmg to the planet itself, and missile need to be shotted from inside , or they burn before reaching the planet , same for bullet and the like . stellaris is not about realism, but i don't think its so wrong to think that without really big weapon ( like launching meteorites , or titanlasers ) you can do a efficient bombing of a planet (from a distance of the orbit) .

edit: yea, i know they use nuke missile, but you should really notice that 1 nuke doesn't even destroy a corvette , why should it do any more serious dmg against "futuristic" building of the planet. that's why you can bomb a planet into an atomic world, but you can't destroy it without a colossus.

If I remember right, Lasers are a form of Heat... I think I remember somewhere... was it that Fantastic 4 Movie? Anyway, that said something about being possible to Ignite the Atmosphere & turn a Planet into a huge flaming ball if the Atmosphere got heated up hard enough. Unsure if this is true or not though... i'm no Scientist.

Missiles, are a good point... Burn Up on Re-Entry is indeed a thing... wonder if that would apply to Kinetic stuff as well...?

I like the sound of 'launching meteorites'... now I envision Ships with Tractor Beam-like Tech grabbing Meteorites & other rocky Space Debree of good size & pushing it towards a Planet Bulldozer-style to cause an Artificial Armageddon... That could revolutionize Planetary Siege... (Though the Planetary Shield would need blown up first or it'd just laugh the debree off...)

 

[Verx90]

If I remember right, Lasers are a form of Heat... I think I remember somewhere... was it that Fantastic 4 Movie? Anyway, that said something about being possible to Ignite the Atmosphere & turn a Planet into a huge flaming ball if the Atmosphere got heated up hard enough. Unsure if this is true or not though... i'm no Scientist.

it was a film , in theory that is "possible" with a realy strong heat ray , but considering the power the ray needs , you should be more worryed about the damage that it could do to the core than the atmosphere . if you think about stellaris weapons, only titan laser could do some dmg to a planet ( maybe) , or the colossus laser weapon .

wonder if that would apply to Kinetic stuff as well...?

the problem to enter an atmosphere ( even the orbit ) is the same for anything that have mass , the friction with the atmosphere and the gravity pool tend to "consume" anything that is not big enought , we use intercontinental missle that can go in the orbit and come back, but they never realy leave the gravity pool, if you shot a missle from space into earth, it will need to be on the big side, or just slow itself in some way , meaning that you are not using the missle that you use in space battles, but specials one .

bullet have a great penetration, but they are still subject to friction and gravity , you need to shot realy big bullet ( big at least half a meteor, if you can give them the shape for having penetrating force in the atmosphere) , if you want to shot from outside the orbit .

 

[Tyrax Lightning]

it was a film , in theory that is "possible" with a really strong heat ray , but considering the power the ray needs , you should be more worried about the damage that it could do to the core than the atmosphere . if you think about stellaris weapons, only titan laser could do some dmg to a planet ( maybe) , or the colossus laser weapon .



the problem to enter an atmosphere ( even the orbit ) is the same for anything that have mass , the friction with the atmosphere and the gravity pool tend to "consume" anything that is not big enough , we use intercontinental missile that can go in the orbit and come back, but they never really leave the gravity pool, if you shot a missile from space into earth, it will need to be on the big side, or just slow itself in some way , meaning that you are not using the missile that you use in space battles, but specials one .

bullet have a great penetration, but they are still subject to friction and gravity , you need to shot really big bullet ( big at least half a meteor, if you can give them the shape for having penetrating force in the atmosphere) , if you want to shot from outside the orbit .

Wow... I may well need a refresher on Science 101...

So I guess Planetary Guns would only really need to worry about Bombadiers entering the Planet Atmo to attack, & not need to worry about the guys in Orbit...? Which could still mwork out perhaps...?

 

[Mastikator]

The problem isn't that we don't have planetary weapons. The problem is that fortress buildings suck. They're not worth having but they're all we have. Perhaps if in 2.2 whatever equivalent was good enough we'd actually build them.

 

[Tyrax Lightning]

The problem isn't that we don't have planetary weapons. The problem is that fortress buildings suck. They're not worth having but they're all we have. Perhaps if in 2.2 whatever equivalent was good enough we'd actually build them.

Fortresses suck cause who cares how long they can Stall when they can't fight back? If they can't fight back, they can't possibly win no matter what. Who cares if ya are losing faster or losing slower, you're still losing as one's only choice.

 

[WhiteKyubey]

Fortresses suck cause who cares how long they can Stall when they can't fight back? If they can't fight back, they can't possibly win no matter what. Who cares if ya are losing faster or losing slower, you're still losing as one's only choice.

I guess the idea was to fight back with your fleet and all planet defences were just buying time.
Empire A fights with Evil Empire. Empire A loses a fleet battle, and all their planets have zero protection. While their defeated fleet is MIA. Evil Empire takes 7 systems and 3 planets.
Empire B also loses fleet battle the same way, but they have planet shields, fortresses and stuff. While they rebuild their fleet their first planet is still holding.
Still even with all stuff they added like "smaller fleet get bonuses" and "some of the ships run away to fight another day" one lost battle means you'll lose all the rest battles quite every time. I think even more comeback mechanics are needed (just an example) - a fleet during bombardment should have x2 upkeep for spending lots of ammo. Or some new diplomacy options to find allies during war are needed - like "help me, and I'll take your ideology/become your vassal/give you some systems".

 

[Mastikator]

Fortresses suck cause who cares how long they can Stall when they can't fight back? If they can't fight back, they can't possibly win no matter what. Who cares if ya are losing faster or losing slower, you're still losing as one's only choice.

Stall longer = more time to accumulate war exhaustion = more chance to enforce status quo instead of losing.
If they are sending troops to the ground then you've basically already lost anyway and the best you can do is lose less.