• 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.

Stellaris Dev Diary #18 - Fleet Combat

Good news everyone!

Today’s Dev Diary will be about Fleet Combat and the different things affecting it. Like always it is important for you to remember that things are subject to change.

In Stellaris we have a number of different types of weapons that the player may choose to equip his/her ships with. All weapons can be grouped into either energy, projectiles (kinetic), missiles, point-defenses and strike craft. Their individual effects and stats vary somewhat, so let’s bring up a few examples. One type of energy-weapon is the laser, using focused beams to penetrate the armor of a target dealing a medium amount of damage. Mass Drivers and Autocannons are both projectile-weapons with high damage output and fast attack-speed, but quite low armor-penetration. This makes them ideal for chewing through shields and unarmored ships quickly, but are far worse against heavily armored targets. Missiles weapons are space-to-space missiles armed with nuclear warheads. Missiles have excellent range, but they are vulnerable to interception by point-defense systems. There’s of course far more weapons in the game than these mentioned, but it should give you a notion of what to expect.

Strike crafts are different from the other weapon types since they are actually smaller ships that leave their mothership. Cruisers and Battleships can in some cases have a Hangar weapon slot available, in which you may place a type of strike craft. Currently, we have two types of craft; fighters and bombers. Fighters will fire upon ships, missiles and other strike craft. Bombers however may not fire on other strike craft or missiles, but they will do more damage than fighters against capital ships. Point-defense weapons can detect incoming missiles and strike-crafts and shoot them down. These weapons may also damage hostile ships, if they are close enough, but will do significantly less damage against those.

1.jpg


When it comes to defenses, you may increase the durability of your fleet in combat by placing armor and shield components in the utility slots on your ships. Armor components will reduce the incoming damage and can’t be depleted during combat. Shields work much more like an extra health bar to your ships and will be depleted if they take too much damage. Shields will automatically regenerate after combat, unless you have certain components that allow your shields to regenerate during combat. Both shields and armor can have their efficiency reduced if the enemy uses armor and/or shield penetrating weapons.

The different components you place on your ships will also affect certain other key combat values:… Hull points is a value corresponding to the “hit points” or health of your ship. Evasion affects the chance for your ship to evade a weapon firing at it. You may also affect the overall stats (values) of your fleet by assigning an Admiral to it. The stats of your fleet will both be affected by the skill and the traits of your leader. But be aware that traits will not always have a positive effect. I would recommend everyone to always have good admirals assigned to their military fleets since they can really improve your stats, like +20% fire rate and +10% evasion.

Once the combat has begun, you very few options to control what happens, much like it works in our other grand strategy games. For this reason it is really important not to engage in a battle that you are not ready for. As a fallback, it is possible to order a full retreat through the “Emergency FTL Jump” option, this will basically cause your fleet to attempt to jump to the closest system. However, during the windup for the EFTL jump your ships will not be able fire back at the hostile ships, so you put yourself in an exposed situation. Depending on what type of fleet you have, you might want them to always engage in combat or always try to avoid it; for this purpose we have different fleet stances. The evasive stance will try to avoid combat and the fleet will leave a system if a hostile arrives. Civilian fleets have this stance on per default. Aggressive stance will actively make your fleet attempt to attack any hostile that enters the same system as them. Passive stance will, like the name suggest, make your fleet only engage in combat when enemies are within weapon range.

2.jpg


The combat might be off-hand, but you can still indirectly affect how each individual ship will behave. When you design your ship you may specify what combat computer to use on the ship. These computers range from making your ship super aggressive, and basically charge the enemy, or be really defensive and keep formation. At the start of the game only the default combat computer is available, but more are unlocked through normal research or reverse engineering.

It is very possible that your fleet might end up in combat with multiple fleets. This means that you can have a combat with three different empires that are all hostile to each other. To help you keep track of everything that happens we have a combat view, which will appear as soon as a combat is initiated. This view will list you (and any other friendlies or neutrals) on the left side and every hostile on the right side. The combat view is currently being reworked, so you will get to see that interface at a later date, but the idea is to provide you with crucial feedback on how effective your weapons and defenses are.

Once the battle is over, you may want to investigate any debris left from destroyed vessels. If you weren’t the one being wiped out, perhaps you can salvage something?

3.jpg


Sadly, neither the “Picard Maneuver” nor the “Crazy Ivan” are currently possible in the game, but who knows what the future might hold…

Stellaris Dev Diary #19 - Diplomacy & Trade
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • 142
  • 48
  • 4
Reactions:
Here is another thing that i find confusing:

Although i can see that there is a certain romantic(?) element to the concept of missiles in space, i really dont understand the concept of missiles in space.

Why on earth would you want missiles in space?

First and foremost, unlike mass drivers, where you effectively only carry a "bullet", with missiles you have to carry the actual boom part, the fuel section and its engine - on board. (needless logistical cost)

Second if missiles are your primary weapon, every time after X time of combat, you have to go to some base, or a supply ship and rearm yourself with missiles. (needless logistical cost)

Third unless you can make missiles fly faster than speed of light, if you engage someone with a missile at a reasonable range, wont they have the ability to see that, have even today's computers with today's computational power calculate trajectory and engage the missiles with even systems that we can build today (in theory), and destroy them...

I mean compare missiles to something like lasers. If you can build something that produces enough power to allow you to do phew phew in space, why on earth would you go through the logistical troubles and cost issues of having missiles in space?

Missiles in space sound like someone attempting to throw rocks at enemy armed with AK47.

What am i missing?
Actually, missiles makes the most sense off all weapons to use in space. Because they have a varied payload and guidance, and with no atmosphere to stop them they can achieve great velocities with quite extreme acceleration. Space is big, and shooting accurately with a gun is wasting time and energy in a fight where you could dump a shit load of missile and then get the hell out before you are hit.

This is of course assuming somewhat realistic ranges. I highly doubt any ships of the future would actually fight close to each other... that is just a romantic picture painted by TV shows like star trek. Likely ships would fight across light seconds, or even more. Good luck with shooting a gun at those ranges and hitting while the enemy is moving... super accelerated missiles however with a guidance system and shaped energy charges though...

It is the same in the real world. It is a reason things are done remotely and you don't have big battleships coming close to each other to fight with their artillery. You send the cruise missiles and nukes.

I disagree completely; strike craft must have a range greater than missiles, otherwise... what on earth's the point of strike craft? Bombers, I mean. Fighters could still have some utility as a point-defense screen, but... that's pretty weak. Carriers are powerful on earth because they allow fleets to attack ships at ranges well beyond what they'd normally be capable of. The only way to translate that into space combat is to give fighters and bombers more fuel, or at least make them more fuel efficient.

Missiles should move faster (much, much faster) than strike craft, but their powered range has to be smaller for attack craft to have any utility at all.
With no atmosphere to slow them down, that make little sense. Missile could conceivably have the best range there is. I mean, you don't need constant acceleration in space as you do in an atmosphere. That is silly :) You either launch it from a tube at high velocity, or have a high initial burn, and then once you close in you burn again to hit.
 
  • 6
Reactions:
TL;DR: In space, missiles could be invisible rocks for 99% of the journey, and your worst nightmare for the last 1%.

I supposed that's a reasonable strategy for an enemy that is sitting still. For a moving enemy, your course-correction would probably be larger than 1%. In any event, it's the last 1% where the point-defenses are most effective.

Also I think the acceleration from launching missiles at extreme speeds from a railgun is likely to be bad for the onboard electronics and other delicate components. Unless you have really long rail gun.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
I was expecting this and think it's the right way of doing it (for the type of game Stellaris will be). I'd much prefer spending time crafting ships than to micro them in combat. :) Although a tactical combat system wouldn't bother me either.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
This is such a classic weapon system. They had good implementations so far, don't get me wrong, like in GalCiv1/2/3 and Endless Space, but I somehow expected something different. I would really look forward to lots of hybrid weapons or weapons that are unique and don't fit in any of these categories. I recommend having a look at the X games (X-Tension, X2 and all X3s) for some inspiration.
 
  • 2
Reactions:
I supposed that's a reasonable strategy for an enemy that is sitting still. For a moving enemy, your course-correction would probably be larger than 1%. In any event, it's the last 1% where the point-defenses are most effective.

Also I think the acceleration from launching missiles at extreme speeds from a railgun is likely to be bad for the onboard electronics and other delicate components. Unless you have really long rail gun.

Why would you want to burn fuel, reveal the location of your missiles long before you are even within effective range of enemy ships? Better to run silent and close the gap uninterrupted. High closing speeds and short reaction time is key.

Also, we are talking about ships accelerating to extreme sublight speeds with no problem, why would acceleration suddenly be a problem only in futuristic super missiles? Inertial dampeners seems commoplace in most sci fi settings, and nobody bats an eye.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
This is such a classic weapon system. They had good implementations so far, don't get me wrong, like in GalCiv1/2/3 and Endless Space, but I somehow expected something different. I would really look forward to lots of hybrid weapons or weapons that are unique and don't fit in any of these categories.

I've seen this sort of comment throughout the thread and I find it completely mystifying. As far as I can tell, the only thing the Stellaris combat model has in common with GalCiv is the names of the three broad weapon and defense types. Apart from the names, how these things actually work is very different from GalCiv. Sometimes I get the feeling that if the designers of Stellaris had exactly copied the GalCiv model but named the three weapon types Antimatter Streams, Dissassemblers and Psionics, they'd be getting kudos for their original approach.

Galciv Shields: Extra health bar that regenerates between battles (only stops beams).
Stellaris Shields: Extra health bar that regenerates between battles (OK, you got me there!) with some regen during battle. More effective against beams but stops everything.

Galciv Armor: Extra health bar that regenerates between battles (only stops kinetics).
Stellaris Armor: Reduces damage from every single shot that hits it. Very good against small, rapid fire weapons, weak again slow, heavy-hitting weapons.

Galciv Point Defense: Extra health bar the regenerates between battles (only stops missiles).
Stellaris Point Defense: Targets and burns down approaching missiles and small craft to prevent them from reaching your ships and doing damage. Since they can only engage a number of missiles at once and have limited range, they are vulnerable to being overwhelmed in a local part of the battlefield.

Galciv Fighters: Free corvettes that are replaced instantly after battle, scale to ridiculous damage levels, and each can soak up the firepower of an entire battleship for a couple of rounds (due to ships combining all weapons of the same type into one shot).
Stellaris Small Craft: Their own ship type, vulnerable to point defense, slow to regenerate, effectiveness unknown.
 
  • 5
Reactions:
Shouldnt mass drivers actually have the best armor penetration properties?
Yes I agree. They don't seem to be going for "hard sci fi" though. Were it up to me I would have drones instead of pilotted strike craft, kinetic weapons being boss for cost to damagr and nukes instead of missiles. That probably would be less interesting or palatable to as many people though :p
 
Why would you want to burn fuel, reveal the location of your missiles long before you are even within effective range of enemy ships? Better to run silent and close the gap uninterrupted. High closing speeds and short reaction time is key.

Also, we are talking about ships accelerating to extreme sublight speeds with no problem, why would acceleration suddenly be a problem only in futuristic super missiles? Inertial dampeners seems commoplace in most sci fi settings, and nobody bats an eye.

I'm skeptical that a gun that can fire the missiles at high speeds is going to be less detectable than the missiles turning on their engines.

As for the acceleration, it's a matter of degree. Few SF settings allow ships to completely ignore acceleration, and the difference between a missile boosting itself and being fired out of a gun is very dramatic. As you say, high closing speed is key. A missile that boosts itself for a few minutes to reach a high coasting speed might undergo extreme acceleration, but nothing like what it would need to reach that speed in some sort of super-gun that has to reach that speed in a tiny fraction of a second. A while we are at it, that super-gun is going to be pretty freaking massive to accelerate missile-sized bodies to attack speed.

I think incorporating a coasting phase in a missile flight could make a lot of sense, but you seem quite focused on firing them out of a gun. I'm not sure why.
 
So is combat real time? or is it a separate sequence?
I don't understand the zoom function you refer to in the diary.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
This was my thinking. If I'm firing meteors at your ships from my space cannons, they're going to stick lovely holes/dents in your hull without something to bounce off first (like shields).

Agreed, and there's something else, One of the devs said something about the guns of battleships firing slugs at slower speeds then, for example, a cruiser. Now that's something that I don't think makes sense at all (although fair play, its just a game).
 
Agreed, and there's something else, One of the devs said something about the guns of battleships firing slugs at slower speeds then, for example, a cruiser. Now that's something that I don't think makes sense at all (although fair play, its just a game).
I think they meant the gun itself fires slower. For example, the cruiser would fire a three shots a minute, the battleship would fire one shot a minute, so to speak.
 
I'm skeptical that a gun that can fire the missiles at high speeds is going to be less detectable than the missiles turning on their engines.

As for the acceleration, it's a matter of degree. Few SF settings allow ships to completely ignore acceleration, and the difference between a missile boosting itself and being fired out of a gun is very dramatic. As you say, high closing speed is key. A missile that boosts itself for a few minutes to reach a high coasting speed might undergo extreme acceleration, but nothing like what it would need to reach that speed in some sort of super-gun that has to reach that speed in a tiny fraction of a second. A while we are at it, that super-gun is going to be pretty freaking massive to accelerate missile-sized bodies to attack speed.

I think incorporating a coasting phase in a missile flight could make a lot of sense, but you seem quite focused on firing them out of a gun. I'm not sure why.


Most scifi settings have the missiles launched from rail guns or similar features. Electronics designed with extreme G forces in mind are significantly less susceptible than us squishy flesh and blood types to damage from said acceleration, allowing the same inertial compensator design to give a higher max speed to the missile then would be survivable for the crew of a ship.

The missile has to out accelerate or at least out "speed" the ship that its being fired from long enough to be able to bring up its own engines without damaging the launching ship, hence the rail gun or similar launches. The only other solution is to "brake" your ship every time you launch a projectile of any kind be it missiles, fighters, flack, or projectiles.


Generally speaking, You really only want to use missiles against targets in their powered envelope unless your targeting a "stationary" object. Going "cold" and coasting like some have suggested doesn't work against ships for the same reason extreme range rail cannons are ineffective, Ships are traveling at significant fractions of the speed of light meaning a ballistic course is liable to get you completely off track on the target. Missiles don't have simple launch and forget targeting systems either, no one builds them which such for the very simple reason they don't want them to blow their own ships up by mistake. Its not a fire and forget weapon its a weapon that receives telemetry and targeting data from the ship that fires it. Which in turn barring ftl coms and sensors that can be readily equipped to the missile limits effective engagements to a couple of light minutes at most. (Which is also why strike craft should significantly out range missiles especially since strike craft are liable to have their own missiles they can launch)

As for why the missile relies on telemetry from the launching ship, that's a matter of processing power and sensors. Starships are going to have more processing power and bigger and better sensors than any missile could possibly carry. Add to that that ships are going to be using all manner jamming and decoys, on-board tracking systems on missiles are liable to be overwhelmed. If your missiles using a certain frequency of radar for instance to track a target, and the ship its targeting starts blasting white noise on that frequency your missiles likely to be overwhelmed with static. The same holds true for any other tracking system, it just varies in what exactly the other ship has to broadcast to overwhelm said sensor.

As for the detectibility issue, odds are you cant hide the launch or the burns of the missile (Or any other projectile) in the first place as such the best defense for them is active maneuvering random jigs and jogs that through the missile off course a bit to make it a harder target. Anyone missile will always be overwhelmed and destroyed by point defenses which is where the saturation effect for missiles come in. The only real way to beat point defense is to overwhelm it with numbers.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
The missile has to out accelerate or at least out "speed" the ship that its being fired from long enough to be able to bring up its own engines without damaging the launching ship, hence the rail gun or similar launches. The only other solution is to "brake" your ship every time you launch a projectile of any kind be it missiles, fighters, flack, or projectiles.

There's a lot to talk about in the rest of your post, most of which I agree with. I'll just say here that a launcher designed to get the missile clear enough of the ship to use it's own engines is a very different thing than a launcher designed to get the missile 99% of the way to the target. The former makes a lot of sense but the latter seems a bit over the top.
 
There's a lot to talk about in the rest of your post, most of which I agree with. I'll just say here that a launcher designed to get the missile clear enough of the ship to use it's own engines is a very different thing than a launcher designed to get the missile 99% of the way to the target. The former makes a lot of sense but the latter seems a bit over the top.


That's because the latter is a dumb idea ;)

Albeit even one just designed to get it clear, will technically eventually carry it all the way, and it is going to be an appreciable percentage of the speed of light, ie whatever speed you ship was traveling when it launched plus X. X being the launchers speed imparted.