Stellaris Dev Diary #163 - Juggernaut & Mega Shipyard

[Methone]

they have always been least optimal

Iirc, they have a bug where their minumum range and maximum range are both 10, so they can ONLY fire when they are EXACTLY 10 units away from the target.

 

[Fulgrymm]

Yup, that's definitely sub-optimal, lol.

 

[MarKr]

Stellaris has been in development for many years and, and if there’s something we know for sure its that big ships are cool, and bigger ships are even cooler. With this flawless logic in mind, we obviously wanted to add something even bigger than a Titan.

If the devs now follow this flawless logic, is there any chance we get the Defense Stations and Fortresses back? I mean...they are BIGGER versions of Defense platforms and bigger means better

 

[Zarpaulus]

If the devs now follow this flawless logic, is there any chance we get the Defense Stations and Fortresses back? I mean...they are BIGGER versions of Defense platforms and bigger means better

You want your systems to get cluttered with annoying little free-floating stations?

 

[BlackUmbrellas]

You want your systems to get cluttered with annoying little free-floating stations?

No, we want more sizes of platform to build attached to starbases.

 

[MarKr]

You want your systems to get cluttered with annoying little free-floating stations?

Not "free floating" but just as Defense Platforms can be build as a "support fleet" of the main system Star Base, it would be nice if we could also add to the "fleet" the bigger versions of the Defense Platforms so that defenses could keep up (at least kind of) with enemy fleet strength later in the game.

Currently with only Defense Platforms available, at certain point it makes no sense to build them because the platforms won't last longer than a few seconds while causing almost no damage even if you have maximum number of the platforms.

The models are already in the game, it's a shame they are not used anywhere.

 

[SeekingEtermity]

Not "free floating" but just as Defense Platforms can be build as a "support fleet" of the main system Star Base, it would be nice if we could also add to the "fleet" the bigger versions of the Defense Platforms so that defenses could keep up (at least kind of) with enemy fleet strength later in the game.

Currently with only Defense Platforms available, at certain point it makes no sense to build them because the platforms won't last longer than a few seconds while causing almost no damage even if you have maximum number of the platforms.

The models are already in the game, it's a shame they are not used anywhere.

Once you get Kinetic Batteries/Artillery and Proton/Neutron Launchers, you can kind of make platforms meaningful by giving the starbase some alpha strike capability. However, you can't "tune" platform computers (also, they're bugged; the L1 version gives +20 tracking but the L2,L3 give only +5,+10) for range - no artillery variant - and even if the starbase range-boosting building applies to platforms (anybody know?) a late-game fleet can have more than 50% range bonus anyhow (Rapid Deployment + L4 Artillery computer + Cautious), so the ships still get the first strike and the platforms (which can neither evade nor tank late-game weapons) are sitting ducks. That's leaving aside the fact that platforms can never get spinal weapons, which outrange even Neutron launchers.

I agree that there really needs to be something between standard platforms (available from the start, theoretically somewhere between destroyers and cruisers in effectiveness but in practice very weak) and ion cannon (extremely powerful against a single target but useless against a larger fleet, can't get meaningful tracking bonuses so too much of a crap-shoot if the enemy has meaningful evasion, costs an outrageous amount, still out-ranged by enemy titans, requires DLC).

EDIT: Got my threads crossed, ignore the stuff below here in the context of this thread specifically.

With all that said (and bringing this thread back to its roots): platforms have a huge impact on missile use today. Each level of starbase from 1-3 can give up to four internal missile launchers (if you build those modules), for a max of 13 (counting the one that outposts get) plus a bunch of miscellaneous M guns (especially if you push the base to level 4). However, each level of starbase from 0-4 can get 12 platform-mounted missile launchers! That's up to 48 platform-mounted launchers (without even counting ways to increase the number of platforms), and while they'll die much more quickly than the internal launchers, they'll throw a hell of a salvo first. On the flip side, platforms are the only way to give a starbase any PD (which is dumb), but they sure can mount a lot of it. Each level of starbase can mount up to 24 PD on its platforms, meaning even an outpost can mount enough PD to completely nullify the missiles of a very-early corvette fleet. This is a pretty bad use of platforms if the enemy isn't using missiles/strike craft, but if they are, it's ludicrously effective.

This brings us back to the general problem with missiles: their effectiveness is way too "swingy". Against little-to-no PD, they are highly effective (oversized damage plus shield-skipping) against anything they can track. Against massed PD, they are almost entirely useless, serving only to soak up the enemy PD so it isn't shooting at your ships, and PD fires so frequently they aren't even good at that (swarm missiles are the only thing that might soak more DPS from PD than the PD soaks from you, but missile HP doesn't scale with tech and PD damage does). What's more, you can almost always mount more PD, hull-for-hull, than the enemy can mount missiles.

Thus all my suggestions earlier about making missiles and PD more balanced against one another, by either always having a certain amount of PD, or letting you go all-in on missiles, or something like that.

 

[MarKr]

Once you get Kinetic Batteries/Artillery and Proton/Neutron Launchers, you can kind of make platforms meaningful by giving the starbase some alpha strike capability. However, you can't "tune" platform computers (also, they're bugged; the L1 version gives +20 tracking but the L2,L3 give only +5,+10) for range - no artillery variant - and even if the starbase range-boosting building applies to platforms (anybody know?) a late-game fleet can have more than 50% range bonus anyhow (Rapid Deployment + L4 Artillery computer + Cautious), so the ships still get the first strike and the platforms (which can neither evade nor tank late-game weapons) are sitting ducks.

Sure you can equip them with the L size long range guns but as you said - enemy fleets will most likely have the first strike benefit anyway and those L guns make the platforms expensive so paying pretty much any amount of alloys for something that is gonna get destroyed in the enemy's first volley and won't even get to fire back is just pointless. Even if the Station bonuses apply and the L size weapons on platfors got more range then you have 2L size weapons per platform, each gets to fire about once or twice before the enemy destroys them, first in range will most likely be some Corvette "meatshield" with high evasion so the guns will quite likely miss and again do little or nothing. So investing in them is pointless. Also the Platforms have several possible extensions but from what you say the only ones that have some use are the L and G, possibly PD but since people don't use rockets that much, PD sections are very situational. Hangars suck in general due to poor state of SC, small and mediums won't even get a chance to fire.

That's leaving aside the fact that platforms can never get spinal weapons, which outrange even Neutron launchers.

Pretty easy solution for this would be to make a new station type which would use scaled down Ion Cannon model and it would be possible to mount these with X size weapons. I've done that in my mod, works without issues.

I agree that there really needs to be something between standard platforms and ion cannon

That's the thing - and the improved "platforms" would easily be it. The models already exist, implementing them to work the same way as current "basic platforms" is question of a few minutes and the only thing that would need more time is balancing the stations in terms of durability, costs and availability.

In terms of durability they could/should be able to survive a single hit from X size weapons so that the enemy fleet actually gets close and the staion can open fire with something else than just the long range weapons (possibly even the S slots to fend off Corvettes).

In terms of costs they could cost significantly more than the Platforms because they would be more durable and provide significantly more firepower - Fortresses could cost as much as a Battleship (or even a bit more), while also having the same (or a bit higher) firepower.

In terms of availability they could be locked behind tech, ascencion perks and/or ethos - Platforms for everyone as it is now, Stations for (e.g.) pacifists, xenophiles and materialists, Fortresses for Fanatic pacifists (as they have heavy restrictions of declaring wars it would make sense such empires would rely more heavily on defending borders)...

If you have a peaceful empire and don't want to wage wars why shouldn't you be allowed to build defenses that could actually count for something even later in the game? If a player wants to spend dozens of thousands alloys on defenses that are able to fend off a fleet worth the same ammount of resources, then why not? It would still be tactically wiser to build a fleet because ships can disengage so there is a chance that you won't lose every ship if you lose a battle while stations are permanently lost + it is still static defense while fleets are mobile + jump drives would eventually bite you in the ass and if you spend all those resources on defenses, you'll only be able to get some smaller support fleets so it would have some drawbacks too.

 

[BlackUmbrellas]

In terms of availability they could be locked behind tech, ascencion perks and/or ethos - Platforms for everyone as it is now, Stations for (e.g.) pacifists, xenophiles and materialists, Fortresses for Fanatic pacifists (as they have heavy restrictions of declaring wars it would make sense such empires would rely more heavily on defending borders)...

The only lock should be tech IMO. Defence platforms are circumstantial. If you're playing on the defensive for any reason, you should have viable options.

 

[MarKr]

The only lock should be tech IMO. Defence platforms are circumstantial. If you're playing on the defensive for any reason, you should have viable options.

Sure, I was just saying that it could get implemented with restrictions in case people would object about "defenses everywhere" and whatnot...

 

[BlackUmbrellas]

Sure, I was just saying that it could get implemented with restrictions in case people would object about "defenses everywhere" and whatnot...

If theyre priced reasonably and take up multiple slots, I dont see how it'd be a problem.

 

[MarKr]

If theyre priced reasonably and take up multiple slots, I dont see how it'd be a problem.

At first I was also thinking they should take up more slots but after experimenting in my mod it showed up that having the bigger versions take more slots makes the defenses almost as useless as they are now.

It all goes down to the number of weapons that can shoot at the opponent. Platforms can have certain number of weapons (based on configuration), Stations can have double of whatever Platforms can and Fotresses can have double of what Stations can have. Platform takes 1 slot, if Station takes 2 and Fortress 4 then with the pure number of weapons you are still at the same number. Platform can be equiped with 2xL slots, Station with 4 and Fortress with 8. If you have starbase with 10 slots then Platforms give you 20 weapons, Stations give you also 20 and Fortresses leave you with 16 weapons + you can add one Station for total of 20 or 4 Platforms for the same total. The number shown as the "Fleet strength" of the base will be higher with the bigger stations but only because they have more HP/armor/shields but practically they wouldn't last much longer than 10 Platforms.
So the only thing that changes is how much damage can each of them take. Fewer bigger stations also mean that once one of them gets destroyed you lose more weapons at once. This might actually favor the Platforms because before the enemy weapons retarget from the destroyed Platform to another, the other platforms can still get out some shots, with bigger stations it is like losing 2 or 3 Platforms at once.
If every type of these defenses takes just one slot then a Starbase with 10 slots can get 20L guns with platforms, 40 with Stations and 80 with Fortresses and number of guns is what makes the difference in Stellaris combat.

In the end the ultimate limiting factor here is the cost (and possibly build times). You can technically have a Starbase with 20 "Fortresses" around but they will take a long time to build (so there might not be enough time for replacing lost ones in the middle of a war ) and they would cost as much or even more (based on the balancing done) than a fleet with the same firepower and fleet in this game is strategically more valuable than a static defense.

 

[BlackUmbrellas]

At first I was also thinking they should take up more slots but after experimenting in my mod it showed up that having the bigger versions take more slots makes the defenses almost as useless as they are now.

It all goes down to the number of weapons that can shoot at the opponent. Platforms can have certain number of weapons (based on configuration), Stations can have double of whatever Platforms can and Fotresses can have double of what Stations can have. Platform takes 1 slot, if Station takes 2 and Fortress 4 then with the pure number of weapons you are still at the same number. Platform can be equiped with 2xL slots, Station with 4 and Fortress with 8. If you have starbase with 10 slots then Platforms give you 20 weapons, Stations give you also 20 and Fortresses leave you with 16 weapons + you can add one Station for total of 20 or 4 Platforms for the same total. The number shown as the "Fleet strength" of the base will be higher with the bigger stations but only because they have more HP/armor/shields but practically they wouldn't last much longer than 10 Platforms.
So the only thing that changes is how much damage can each of them take. Fewer bigger stations also mean that once one of them gets destroyed you lose more weapons at once. This might actually favor the Platforms because before the enemy weapons retarget from the destroyed Platform to another, the other platforms can still get out some shots, with bigger stations it is like losing 2 or 3 Platforms at once.
If every type of these defenses takes just one slot then a Starbase with 10 slots can get 20L guns with platforms, 40 with Stations and 80 with Fortresses and number of guns is what makes the difference in Stellaris combat.

In the end the ultimate limiting factor here is the cost (and possibly build times). You can technically have a Starbase with 20 "Fortresses" around but they will take a long time to build (so there might not be enough time for replacing lost ones in the middle of a war ) and they would cost as much or even more (based on the balancing done) than a fleet with the same firepower and fleet in this game is strategically more valuable than a static defense.

IMO the appeal of larger platforms is durability, not firepower.

 

[Abiezer]

IMO the appeal of larger platforms is durability, not firepower.

Would it make matters more interesting if armour and weapons shared slots, allowing designs to trade off one against the other?

 

[BlackUmbrellas]

Would it make matters more interesting if armour and weapons shared slots, allowing designs to trade off one against the other?

Thats a totally different conversation.

 

[Fulgrymm]

Would it make matters more interesting if armour and weapons shared slots, allowing designs to trade off one against the other?

Yes indeed, that would make matters more interesting.

 

[MarKr]

IMO the appeal of larger platforms is durability, not firepower.

I mean, sure, one of the things that makes the bigger platforms better in general is their bigger HP pool and lots of L slots for armor/shields but durability alone is not enough. We might as well just add more repeatable techs for small platforms to boost their HP to several thousand but their low firepower won't make them stand out in late game...unless they'd have some crazy ammount of HP like 50 000 or something like that.

I know I repeat myself but the number of guns matters in this case a lot too. If a platform has 8000HP and 2 Neutron Launchers it will have damage of about 90/day. A fully equipped battleship with a Tachyon Lance, 2 Kinetic artillery and 2 Neutron Launchers will have damage of 332/day. Even if it has 3000HP, the Battleship will destroy the platform faster. Yes, there are also shields and armor and for the ship the evasion but you get the general idea...add to it that the limit of maximum platforms per starbase will always be lower than a limit of ships in a fleet (+ the option to bring several fleets). Also smaller ships are always in the front of formation so they get into range first and defenses target them first, smaller ships have higher evasion, while L sized weapons usually suck at tracking so there is a high chance that many of the shots of the first salvo will miss while the platforms have 0 evasion so they are easier to hit and less shots are wasted on them.
So if big platforms took more slots then you'd only have a few of them. If you only have like 4 of them and a fleet of several battle ships + accompanying smaller ships arrives, they will destroy those few platforms before the platforms can cause any significant damage even if each of them has triple the HP of a battleship. If you have many of them with lots of durability but little firepower, they will still get smashed simply because you get outdamaged. If you have numbers + durability + firepower then you can hope to deflect enemy attack or at least cause some noticeable damage before the defenses fall.

 

[BlackUmbrellas]

I mean, sure, one of the things that makes the bigger platforms better in general is their bigger HP pool and lots of L slots for armor/shields but durability alone is not enough. We might as well just add more repeatable techs for small platforms to boost their HP to several thousand but their low firepower won't make them stand out in late game...unless they'd have some crazy ammount of HP like 50 000 or something like that.

I know I repeat myself but the number of guns matters in this case a lot too. If a platform has 8000HP and 2 Neutron Launchers it will have damage of about 90/day. A fully equipped battleship with a Tachyon Lance, 2 Kinetic artillery and 2 Neutron Launchers will have damage of 332/day. Even if it has 3000HP, the Battleship will destroy the platform faster. Yes, there are also shields and armor and for the ship the evasion but you get the general idea...add to it that the limit of maximum platforms per starbase will always be lower than a limit of ships in a fleet (+ the option to bring several fleets). Also smaller ships are always in the front of formation so they get into range first and defenses target them first, smaller ships have higher evasion, while L sized weapons usually suck at tracking so there is a high chance that many of the shots of the first salvo will miss while the platforms have 0 evasion so they are easier to hit and less shots are wasted on them.
So if big platforms took more slots then you'd only have a few of them. If you only have like 4 of them and a fleet of several battle ships + accompanying smaller ships arrives, they will destroy those few platforms before the platforms can cause any significant damage even if each of them has triple the HP of a battleship. If you have many of them with lots of durability but little firepower, they will still get smashed simply because you get outdamaged. If you have numbers + durability + firepower then you can hope to deflect enemy attack or at least cause some noticeable damage before the defenses fall.

Jus make it work the same as ships. 1/2/4 slots. Same number of guns, but the Hp to actually use them. THATS the problem with defence platforms- they evaporate before getting a chance to fire.

 

[MarKr]

If you're investing into this type of defense (which would be quite expensive) you want them to actually sometimes survive, not to only shoot a fee times and then get destroyed. What ammount of HP are you talking then?

 

[BlackUmbrellas]

If you're investing into this type of defense (which would be quite expensive) you want them to actually sometimes survive, not to only shoot a fee times and then get destroyed. What ammount of HP are you talking then?

Thats a question for the developers to balance. I just care a lot more about having platforms that can survive than EVEN MORE useless guns that do nothing before exploding.