• 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:
Am I 100% certain no not until I actually have the game. For now we can only go off of what the dev's have said. And they've said each ship would be modeled, as would the weapons fire if we zoomed into that level, Missed shots will miss shots that hit will hit. And based on the screen shots provided in this DD if its blocked by shields it'll show that aswell.

They aren't tracking damage to individual components, but they are tracking damage to each individual ship, its not nearly as abstract as combat in eu4 or ck2 (Honestly i cant stand vic2 or hoi3 so i have no idea what their combats like)
 
They did say ballistic weapons do more damage, they just have lower armor, which makes sense because armor would be designed to stop mass from hitting it. Lasers would be designed to counter the armor (by cutting through it), and so shields would be designed to counter lasers. However, shields overload when shoved full of mass rather than absorbing lasers.

Erm, in real we have the problem, kinetic projectiles are extreme superior at penetrating armor plates then laser. Tanks, ships and buildings are at their economic limit of armor usability, sure, we can build really well armored building, but that will cost amounts of money, time, material and workforce.

Naa, when i want to kill an enemy spaceship, i would use my batteries of 200 mm railguns, their projectiles should smash through their armorplates like a golfball penetrate the international space station, its like a bullet fired into a block of styrofoam. What is actual a big problem in our orbit around earth, space debris. An example from wiki: A fleck of paint struck its front window, creating a pit over 1 mm (0.04 in) wide. On STS-59 in 1994,Endeavour's front window was pitted about half its depth. I think, this fleck of paint could had a speed of 10 km/s, now think about a 200 mm block of solid tungsten hitting a spaceship with nearly 40 km/s, its the total overkill.

In germany, one of the max planck instituts testing this kind of stuff too, they showed a test, were they shoot a projectile, had the proportion of a coca cola-can, but was mostly made of plastic with copper wires at the sides (not on top and bottom of the can) and fired it into 4 separate plates in line of 10 cm thick steelplates, the first plate was penetrated and the second plate had a massive crater. Awesome for only being a plastic projectile.
 
  • 3
  • 1
Reactions:
Nice. Also @Zoft you haven't mentioned what will be in the next week's dev diary. :x
We haven't decided if we want to shuffle the order somewhat.

Will there be a cap in fleet sizes?
Yes, but I can't comment on any specific numbers at the moment (it's subject to change). Sorry.

So is combat real time? or is it a separate sequence?
I don't understand the zoom function you refer to in the diary.
Real-time
 
  • 10
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions:
Also consider that the "Total War" series, while it calls itself "Grand Strategy", is far from it. It's really a tactical battle simulator played on a large campaign map. You're the leader of the empire here - no need to concern yourself over the minutiae of tactical battles. What you care about is the result of the battle.
Actually, by definition it is a Grand Strategy game, you don't get to say it isn't just because you have a twisted view of what Grand Strategy is. But yeah, it is a Grand Strategy Game with a Tactical Battle Simulator, rolled into one. And again, you aren't the leader of an Empire, you are THE empire.
 
  • 2
  • 1
Reactions:
Hi Everyone!

Nice DD!

I realy like the visual style of combat.

But I am a little concerned about the Combat system. Not that I think it would not work or not be fun, but it really seams as the "optimal" fleet is one that is the most heterogeneous you can get. I mean a Carrier + Missile only Fleet for example is doomed, after the first surprise attack if the enemy refits his vessels with point defence. And as Zoft pointed out, for example a Battleship centred Fleet with no smaller ships would have a hard time once the enemy adapts using mainly smaller ships.

So what you want is a mix of every think, weapons and Ship Classes, that's what's hard to counter.

My concern is now that this will lead to basically every empire ending up with more or less the same mix (At least after some time and at least in multi player) because every specialisation could be easily(?) countered by the enemy. And this is even true, it the counter (i.e. Point defence against Figther) is just more cost efficient, because doing non cost efficient wars, will lead to doom at some point.

And all of this would not be a problem in a medieval or WW2 setting but IMO are such specialised empires whats the flavour of a space game. I think it feels wrong if the war against an insect swarm empire feels exactly as the war against an Human race.

So, because most of my writing was based on guessing, finally my question:

How well will specialised fleets do and is there any mechanism stopping me from going to a "perfect"(?) mix with some guns of every type and some of every ships size?
 
It's more of a cost-efficiency thing. Lasers will still do decent damage against shields, but it will not be the perfect choice. If you know an enemy fleet has gone 100% missile-weapons and you can get full point-defense coverage you'll do very well (though not win unharmed).

Armor subtracts a set amount of damage from each hit, up to a limit. Armor can never reduce damage taken to zero. Armor-penetration is percentage-based.

Oooooh it warms my heart to see this. I was worried about the hard counter mechanic making its way into Stellaris.

Hopefully there will be auxiliary mods you can research to mitigate drawbacks or enhance the strengths of your empire's preferred weapon system, albeit at the cost of using up a slot.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
Also, being able to customise the colour of the beams/projectiles your ships fire would be a nice touch. Not essential, but nice.

*hint hint*
 
  • 1
Reactions:
Interesting diary.

Though I do wonder about the missiles. Will we have different warheads, by which I don't just mean fusion and anti-matter, but something like bomb-pumped laserheads?

As for the range on strikecraft, I'd say long range would be best. They should give a fleet reach, let them probe an enemy's defenses before committing their more valuable warships. That's the sort of role that would give their existence meaning, rather than simply being more expensive, less capable missiles.
 
What is the next Dev Diary about, Zoft?
 
Sexy: Range on strike craft should be long enough to strike across a small/average sized star system but not a large one.
 
Let's hope it won't be a godawful hard counter system and race with extremely highly advanced lasers could beat shields. Hard counters are one of the worst designs ever to see in a strategy game. It's Galactic Civilizations-level horrible.
Yes, I hate that as well. Galciv games are the worst with that shit
 
  • 2
Reactions:
If I may ask, I was wondering, will the game have some sort of supply system (e.g. like Star Ruler), where for example ammunition, fuel, material for new fighter/bomber spacecraft and material for repairs are drawn from for each fleet? Or even a more simple mechanic like EU4's naval supply range?

Perhaps it would mess with balance, but I'd very much like to see a system for once where ammunition and destroyed spacecraft don't regenerate by themselves over time, but instead need some sort of depleting resource. It would add a lot to the exploration experience as well, as it'd make ships that are "stranded" to actually be stranded and in real danger, only able to survive by the cunning of their crews. Distant Worlds does this with fuel and resupply ships, which is another thing I'd like to see in Stellaris.

Thank you.
 
  • 2
Reactions:
Kinetic (bullet) weapons should (theoretically) do MORE damage against the hull, whereas laser weapons should deplete shields but do minimal damage to the hull. This is based on hard science and while yes it's a game, this inconsistency really breaks immersion imho.

I love how people keep citing the "Hard Science" and "basic Physics" of non-existent science fiction technologies..

First, consider the case of shields versus kinetic. If the shields can extend a good distance from the hull (and shields in Stellaris seem to follow that model), and they can affect kinetic attacks at all (which shields in Stellaris do), then they only need to change the path of the kinetic projectile a little bit to generate a miss. Rather than try to stop all of the kinetic energy of the shot, just shove it to the side a little. However, it does depend on exactly how you explain shields.

The perception that armor is good for kinetics is based on relatively slow-moving projectiles like machine-gun bullets or battleship shells. You put on armor and the bullets just bounce off, their kinetic energy mostly wasted. In space combat, the projectiles would be moving much faster (or they wouldn't have much chance of hitting a maneuvering ship at long range). At these higher speeds, the molecular bonds that make armor tough don't make much of a difference and all materials basically act as fluids. Armor still helps, but it's more of a game of how much mass you can afford to put between your vitals and the enemy projectile and that gets very expensive mass-wise. Easy deflections aren't really possible, so you have to absorb the energy, and a fast-moving kinetic projectile will be a lot of energy hitting one small spot in a microsecond.

In contrast, a sort of sustained laser that they show in the screenshots basically needs to systematically vaporize a path through the armor, layer-by-layer. The problem if you want to do that quickly is that the first layer you vaporized doesn't go away but turns to plasma and continues to absorb a lot of your beam energy. If you do it slowly enough for the vaporized armor to dissipate, the problem is that you have to keep hitting the exact same spot on the armor for an extended period of time while everything is moving. Given that ships in Stellaris have a chance to evade shots entirely, it doesn't seem like the technology is up to sustaining that sort of pin-point lock.

Anyway, at the end you can explain the mechanics either way. I see it as a choice of aligning with people intuitions about how armor works versus the somewhat counter-intuitive physics. I guess I don't blame them for going with intuition.

This guy, EntropyAvatar, put some more thought into it than most, instead of just claiming unspecified "Hard Science" to justify his biases. But like he said, you can argue it either way, although the majority do seem to be claiming that lasers are useless against armour and good and shields, while armour would be useless for projectile weapons and shields would be king.
Well, how about some "Hard Science" to justify my bias in favour of the approach the devs have taken?
Lasers have pretty precise frequencies right? It's a defining feature. So if your electromagnetic shielding were to operate at the same frequency as the laser it could create destructive interference and essentially eliminate the power carried by the laser pulse. Pretty effective. This sort of shielding would also have very little effect on projectile weaponry.
Regarding the ships armour, well EntropyAvatar gave some good reasoning as to a pitfall lasers could face against armour, but how about something for their potential effectiveness? Well we all know that some light can pass through some materials, (the frequencies that can do so being dependent on the material in question) if you don't believe that, just have a look out the window and think about it. So it's not inconceivable that laser frequencies could be used that would essentially pass through the ships hulls and start frying its internal electronics and systems etc, causing massive damage to various ship systems, in other words causing a lot of damage to the ship without the mitigating effect of the ship's armour doing much to stop it.

Armor subtracts a set amount of damage from each hit, up to a limit. Armor can never reduce damage taken to zero. Armor-penetration is percentage-based.

As for armour being useless against projectile weapons, there is now way of knowing what materials could/would be used in the construction of such vessels, but safe to say, it's probably not just good ol' fashioned steel! Nanotechnology is a huge and ever growing area of research these days, and if you've never heard of graphene or carbon nano-tubes then I recommend some research. EntropyAvatar said that at high projectile velocities "all materials basically act as fluids", in that case they would be densely concentrated colloidal fluids which would probably have been treated to ensure that they shear thicken on impact. Shear thickening is a very interesting phenomenon where some materials have a MASSIVE increase in viscosity (resistance to deformation) with higher rates of shear (attempted deformation). Look up liquid body armour, this is the principle it functions under. There are also some cool videos on youtube of people playing with cornstarch and water (the simplest mixture that displays this).

I mean really, what doesn't make sense is shields "running out". Surely the ships have a nuclear reactor or some similar immense power source, so for the shields to die, that power source would have to have been drained completely or gone into meltdown or some such, in either case you're totally fucked anyway. Maybe shields should just be damage mitigation (like armour is) but for different damage types.
They're too solidly established in the cannon of space fantasy as an extra (sometimes recharging) health bar though, so no one ever argues about that. I wouldn't.
Stick to your guns (and laser cannons) Paradox, Stellaris looks amazing!
 
  • 3
  • 1
Reactions:
It's more of a cost-efficiency thing. Lasers will still do decent damage against shields, but it will not be the perfect choice. If you know an enemy fleet has gone 100% missile-weapons and you can get full point-defense coverage you'll do very well (though not win unharmed).



Efficiency-wise we'd like it to be Corvette < Destroyer < Cruiser < Battleship < Corvette. This is of course an over-simplification but that's the general idea. We do a few things to try and achieve this, such as Corvettes gaining full Evasion from all sources while Battleships only gain 25% (Destroyers and Cruisers gain 75% and 50% respectively). This in combination with the fact that the larger weapons used by Battleships have lower attack speed, higher damage per attack and somewhat lower hit-chance should make it less cost-efficient to overkill small corvettes with huge weapons (lots of missed shots, those that do hit deal far more damage than needed). Corvettes in turn will struggle with the higher armor and shields of a Destroyer etc. up the chain.



No, we've decided not to go in to such detail. Strike Craft come in sets of units (or Wings) that can be placed on ships with hangar-capabilities.



All fleets having some type of FTL-capability can use EFTL. Ships relying on Wormholes to travel will need a functional Wormhole Station within range. If there is no station in range, the fleet is stranded and can not EFTL (doooooooooooooooooooooooooooom!).



Strike Craft use their own type of weapons and are not dependent on what type of lasers etc. you've researched. Any Strike Craft lost during a battle slowly regenerate over time automatically. They can be upgraded should a new rank of them be researched and the design of the carrier-ship updated.



Armor subtracts a set amount of damage from each hit, up to a limit. Armor can never reduce damage taken to zero. Armor-penetration is percentage-based.

Love where you're taking this, the clarifications and especially that strike craft are included.

No component damage- fair enough. Combat damage wise though, just curious is there a Critical Hit small % chance to do double damage or something?
 
All fleets having some type of FTL-capability can use EFTL. Ships relying on Wormholes to travel will need a functional Wormhole Station within range. If there is no station in range, the fleet is stranded and can not EFTL (doooooooooooooooooooooooooooom!).
i just thought of an interesting tactic because of this...when a wormhole based empire invades your system instead of moving in to attack the enemy fleets you move your fleet toward the staging systems where you destroy the wormhole station. this would mean the enemy fleet would be stuck in a system without any way of retreating...this would be in interesting way of blunting an invasion.
 
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.

View attachment 155747

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.

View attachment 155748

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?

View attachment 155749

Sadly, neither the “Picard Maneuver” nor the “Crazy Ivan” are currently possible in the game, but who knows what the future might hold…
could there be a case of people using nuclear warheads to often in a sector for testing or fighting and irradiating the sector or system? also, awesome dev diary, can't wait for the release
 
Usually (ie in other games) lasers have been good at reducing shields (which are energy based) and kinetic are good at armour (which is physical), strange to see this game doing the opposite - not sure that makes sense myself.

This game seems quite interesting, not seen much different to other 4x games so far though. I would prefer to have some impact on battles.

I dont like the wormhole/stargate approach - the best 4x game ever was Stars! which had fully free movement between systems. In fact its probably the only game to ever feature that. Stars! had some great concepts such as packet flinging race, a mine layer race, requirement for fuel to travel meant tankers had to be employed in your fleets. Also the way Stars! managed planet terraforming/habitability was superb - your race was only tolerant of heat etc within a certain range but you could move the planets band by terraforming.

Stars was underrated genius IMO, if this game is half as good it would be an achievement. If anyone was to remake Stars! with modern graphics it would be the best 4x game ever I am sure. I am hoping this game will end up almost as good as that very old forgotten game.
 
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions: