• 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:
I can tell you as an infantryman, I wear body armor to stop bullets. I can also assure you, as an infantryman, that we have yet to actually go against an enemy that has large laser beams of any type, let alone lasers that glow bright blue.

This argument is stupid, because you have NO WAY of telling me that laser cannons are inferior bullets at piercing armor.

I can tell you, however, that my body armor was specifically designed to stop bullets, and it does a pretty damn good job at it.

His point stands though, it is damn easy to penetrate stuff with kinetic projectiles, unless you have a 100% titanium casing in which case even .50 BMGs AP fired from a barret won't do much. But Liquid magnesium will pierce through it like there is no tomorrow. Then again your point still stands as that ammunition isn't used against infantry, I think.
 
Sins of a Solar empire had many problems but the combat was fun.I think such kind of combat can work way better than current one that Paradox showed.I mean they already made the models of the ships and are planing to show us thousands of ships on the battlefield fighting why they didn't go one step further and let us control them ?
We'll have to agree to disagree about Sins of a Solar Empire.

As for why not in Stellaris: because that is not the design scope of the game.
Think about it, late game you will probably have at least a dozen fleet battles going on at once. Since the game is real time, not turn based, do you think it is reasonable to personally intervene in combat? Direct tactical control of battles basically requires either a limited scale or turn-based gameplay.
I feel the same arguments as to why direct tactical control of individual battles won't work in Hearts of Iron 4 apply here as well.
 
  • 6
Reactions:
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.

Mass drivers should have very good armour penetration. This makes little sense.

You are accelerating a mass to high sub-luminal velocity would cause that mass to contain incredible kinetic energy.


Missiles weapons are space-to-space missiles armed with nuclear warheads.

Nuclear weapons do the majority of their damage with the pressure wave that would only form inside an atmosphere.

They would not be very useful in the vacuum of space.

Unless the missiles are penetrating the armour and exploding inside the ship, but that would be a one-shot one-kill weapon.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
Nuclear weapons do the majority of their damage with the pressure wave that would only form inside an atmosphere.

They would not be very useful in the vacuum of space.

Unless the missiles are penetrating the armour and exploding inside the ship, but that would be a one-shot one-kill weapon.

Project Rho has a nice description of nuclear weapons in space. There is a lot of stuff to consider (e.g. how vulnerable is the crew/interior to radiation), but if a large nuclear weapon gets close to your ship it is probably toast.

Please understand: I am NOT saying that nuclear warheads are ineffective. I am saying that the amount of damage they inflict falls off very rapidly with increasing range. At least much more rapidly than with the same sized warhead detonated in an atmosphere.

But if the nuke goes off one meter from your ship, your ship will probably be vaporized. Atmosphere or no.

Also lots of stuff on bomb-pumped lasers, shaped charges, nuclear shotguns, etc. With so much energy to play with, I'm pretty sure an advanced race can find a way to make nukes effective against spacecraft.
 
  • 2
  • 1
Reactions:
We'll have to agree to disagree about Sins of a Solar Empire.

As for why not in Stellaris: because that is not the design scope of the game.
Think about it, late game you will probably have at least a dozen fleet battles going on at once. Since the game is real time, not turn based, do you think it is reasonable to personally intervene in combat? Direct tactical control of battles basically requires either a limited scale or turn-based gameplay.
I feel the same arguments as to why direct tactical control of individual battles won't work in Hearts of Iron 4 apply here as well.
By this logic current combat system will not work as well because you might want to withdraw from some battles and to stay in others.Just because you can have the option to control your ships doesn't mean that they can't have some kind of auto-resolve AI for combat ( the computer modules).
 
  • 5
  • 1
Reactions:
A lot of the energy from lasers would transfer as heat. Thus even as the armor absorbs it, it still heats the components past it, via thermal conductance. Once things get hot enough, stuff just stops working right.

Some extrapolation of science tech would be to create an armor that adjusts to the frequency and wavelengths of the laser itself, and reflect the energy back, so the armor doesn't get heated nor absorbs the energy of the laser itself.

There's a lot of technical problems with that kind of system. How to make armor into a passive sensor that automatically reacts. It would make it closer to an organism.

Well it would definitely be possible to determine the frequency and wavelength of the lasers using even current photodetector technology, (http://www.google.com/patents/US7282691) which will only improve and be miniaturised further with time, so embedding these into your hull probably wouldn't be the biggest problem. And in stellaris-verse where your shields are the primary defence against lasers this feedback could be used to modulate your shielding to correct for the frequency of incoming fire. I think quite a few sci-fi settings have explored this.

If you wanted your armour to usefully absorb the energy of laser weapons probably the best approach would be broad spectrum thin-film photovoltaic coatings (solar cells, but not just for sunlight). Thin-film PVs are a booming area of research to supersede the old silicon tech, (http://search.proquest.com/openview/cafdbdfb3aa2fcc12f01cefdd158f746/1?pq-origsite=gscholar - sorry it's not a link to the full article, but with a bit of digging you might find it), so they are in the works, just need to be further refined and mass fabricated. A lot of them are also composites of multiple layers, some of which can absorb different spectra of light and so you could create ones to cover a large amount of the bandwidths that could be weaponised, turning the incoming laser fire into an additional energy source for your ship. I mean essentially the same concept has been explored for over 20 years as a means of beaming power from space (http://arc.aiaa.org/doi/abs/10.2514/3.11491?journalCode=jpp).

Could be pretty cool to have as a researchable tech, add energy weapon DR to you ship's armour, maybe at the cost of compromising some of it's regular projectile weapons DR.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
We'll have to agree to disagree about Sins of a Solar Empire.

As for why not in Stellaris: because that is not the design scope of the game.
Think about it, late game you will probably have at least a dozen fleet battles going on at once. Since the game is real time, not turn based, do you think it is reasonable to personally intervene in combat? Direct tactical control of battles basically requires either a limited scale or turn-based gameplay.
I feel the same arguments as to why direct tactical control of individual battles won't work in Hearts of Iron 4 apply here as well.

By this logic current combat system will not work as well because you might want to withdraw from some battles and to stay in others.Just because you can have the option to control your ships doesn't mean that they can't have some kind of auto-resolve AI for combat ( the computer modules).

The only effective way to mesh these two systems that I can think of would be a nobunagas ambition style. The game is turn based, everything plays out in a turn that lasts x amount of time, and you set building orders and army movement ect ect in-between turns. But once you hit end turn the entire game starts playing out in a simultaneous turn for everyone, and during this phase, you can give movement orders and personally zoom in to command battles in real time. If the battles still raging when the turns clock runs out, no big deal, the world freezes just like with every other tbs and resumes exactly where it left off when you next hit end turn.

Its too late to see such a system in stellaris, but such a system in a similar game (Which is honestly basically how paradox titles play out anyway except the pause happens automatically every x days instead of just when you hit spacebar) would make for a pretty interesting game in my opinion ;)
 
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions:
His point stands though, it is damn easy to penetrate stuff with kinetic projectiles, unless you have a 100% titanium casing in which case even .50 BMGs AP fired from a barret won't do much. But Liquid magnesium will pierce through it like there is no tomorrow. Then again your point still stands as that ammunition isn't used against infantry, I think.
It's not damn easy to penetrate armor. Every time a new weapon is developed, new armor is developed. So let's say WW2 tanks have armor Mk I. Previous cannons cannot penetrate the armor, so a new shell is made. Then, armor Mk II comes out, and invalidates that shell. So a new round is developed. Then Armor Mk III comes out. By the time we get to armor Mk X, a high intensity laser is developed that incenarates the armor. Now, to protect against that, shield Mk I is developed. But! The shield is easily overloaded when a large amount of mass Rams into it, because it takes more energy to keep out solids than an energy wave that can feed the shield.

However, the Devs said that those are the three types of weapons, but not all of the weapons. I am willing to bet three dollars that they will have projectile cannons that offer better armor piercing than the others.

But here is something else: if shells can so easily pierce armor, why do we still have it?
 
  • 2
Reactions:
The fights happen in the vacuum of space so there should be no range limit on kinetic weapons. Once fired they will continue at their exit speed till acted upon by gravity or hitting something. So if a kinetic weapon does damage at range A it will do the exact same damage at range A times 1000 etc.

Laser on the other hand will lose power over distance because the focus of the beam diminishes over distance meaning the destructive force will get smaller.

Missles ont he other hand will have guidance till their fuel runs out and then proceed on their last course just like kinetic weapons.

Finally a small breach in the vaccum of space can be just as dangerous as a larger one if it can't be sealed or isolated.

EDIT: Remember F=MA so even a small mass object traveling at a high enough speed will have a force that can destroy almost anything.
 
Nuclear weapons do the majority of their damage with the pressure wave that would only form inside an atmosphere.

They would not be very useful in the vacuum of space.

Unless the missiles are penetrating the armour and exploding inside the ship, but that would be a one-shot one-kill weapon.

This http://history.nasa.gov/conghand/nuclear.htm site explains the effects in nice detail. Here are some excerpts:

"If a nuclear weapon is exploded in a vacuum-i. e., in space-the complexion of weapon effects changes drastically:
First, in the absence of an atmosphere, blast disappears completely.
Second, thermal radiation, as usually defined, also disappears. There is no longer any air for the blast wave to heat and much higher frequency radiation is emitted from the weapon itself."

"Third, in the absence of the atmosphere, nuclear radiation will suffer no physical attenuation and the only degradation in intensity will arise from reduction with distance. As a result the range of significant dosages will be many times greater than is the case at sea level."

So the actual killing effect is radiation. In addition EMP effects are greater so that can fry electronics of the ship.

To be honest I'm not sure having nukes in space is a decent weapon unless it leaves the ship intact and kills the crew.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
But here is something else: if shells can so easily pierce armor, why do we still have it?
I agree, if armor was useless it would no longer be used. A beam weapon should have an easier time to concentrate its energy on a single spot compared to a mass driver and that is probably the most important ability if you wan't to penetrate armor.

Would not a nuke with a shaped charge be pretty powerful against a space ship.
 
The range limit on kinetics isn't, because they do less damage with the distance traveled its because they cant hit anything that isn't "stationary" at much over a light second. Even traveling at .2 C an object 1 light second away takes 6-7 seconds (depending on whether you use radar or optical sensors). during which time a target also moving at a speed of .2 C has a range of 223,538 miles in a straight line, now this when combined with evasive maneuvers like you'd have in combat results in a possible envelope easily 30,000 miles in diameter. Even the largest space ships ive heard of in scifi would be a pretty hard target to hit in such an area.


A laser does of course get weaker the further it travels, which leads to the range on lasers, But with the same scenario, a laser takes 2-3 seconds to impact its target Or a total length of range the other ship could move in as 74,512 miles and assuming the same maneuverability, only a diameter of roughly 10,000, still massive numbers, (This is why missiles are usually considered the primary weapons platform on most harder scifi) but much much more likely to get a hit than a projectile.


As for nuclear missiles effectiveness in space, I can only assume/hope that nukes are the low end of the tech spectrum for missiles, after all they do still make a bigger explosion than pretty much any other explosive compound currently known. It would make sense for them to be replaced with bomb pumped lasers in due time (Or something similar that I've never thought of.)
 
Would not a nuke with a shaped charge be pretty powerful against a space ship.
No. There is zero blast effect in a vacuum.
The range limit on kinetics isn't, because they do less damage with the distance traveled its because they cant hit anything that isn't "stationary" at much over a light second. Even traveling at .2 C an object 1 light second away takes 6-7 seconds (depending on whether you use radar or optical sensors). during which time a target also moving at a speed of .2 C has a range of 223,538 miles in a straight line, now this when combined with evasive maneuvers like you'd have in combat results in a possible envelope easily 30,000 miles in diameter. Even the largest space ships ive heard of in scifi would be a pretty hard target to hit in such an area.


A laser does of course get weaker the further it travels, which leads to the range on lasers, But with the same scenario, a laser takes 2-3 seconds to impact its target Or a total length of range the other ship could move in as 74,512 miles and assuming the same maneuverability, only a diameter of roughly 10,000, still massive numbers, (This is why missiles are usually considered the primary weapons platform on most harder scifi) but much much more likely to get a hit than a projectile.


As for nuclear missiles effectiveness in space, I can only assume/hope that nukes are the low end of the tech spectrum for missiles, after all they do still make a bigger explosion than pretty much any other explosive compound currently known. It would make sense for them to be replaced with bomb pumped lasers in due time (Or something similar that I've never thought of.)

1) It takes a long distance and lots of energy to change direction of an object moving at that speed. So evasive action is science fiction and not real science.

2) The speed of kinetic can also be pretty fast at maybe 1% of light speed based on size of projectile and amount of energy you have available.

3) Nukes in space are dumb and do nothing outside of having a longer and more sustained radiation damage. There is zero blast and thermal will be many times lower than the radiation level damage. There is NO large explosion in a vacuum. More science fiction.
 
That's why I limited the evasive maneuvering to 14% of the ships velocity, Sharp turns are indeed a myth, fractional changes that result in thousands of miles difference are real science welcome to the real world small changes in vector result in large changes in the movement envelope. ;) The easiest way to accomplish such a thing from an engineering standpoint, is attitude thrustsers or some form on the ship that rotate the ship allowing its main engines that are clearly powerful enough in the first place to create such speeds, to also generate thrust in other directions giving you the sheer for your potential movement envelope.


In the math i just gave you the projectile was using 20% of the speed of light do please read before attempting to correct.


And last but not least you need a refresher on physics, there is blast in space, its far smaller than what you have in atmospheres, but if your going to go through the effort of lobbing explosives in the first place, you might aswell have the necessary fuel/mass to provide said explosion a little more teeth. The missile itself would provide some blast, and even more is readily obtainable if you for instance included compressed gasses in a chamber to feed said blast. By far most effective with a shaped charge of course but that's because explosions are relatively anemic in space, and tend to rely on actually hitting the target as opposed to near misses like depth charges versus submarines.
 
Sharp turns are indeed a myth, fractional changes that result in thousands of miles difference are real science welcome to the real world small changes in vector result in large changes in the movement envelope. ;)

It is for the same reason why super accelerated missiles would not be that useful.

I think the ships are rather slow in stellaris given the game's time frame. As the combat length is short we can assume that the weapons are not so powerful that they can accelerate projectiles close to lightspeed.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
It is for the same reason why super accelerated missiles would not be that useful.

I think the ships are rather slow in stellaris given the game's time frame. As the combat length is short we can assume that the weapons are not so powerful that they can accelerate projectiles close to lightspeed.

A likely scenario, although, given the time scale on the ship movements we've seen so far, they are still moving an appreciable chunk of the speed of light, not .2 perhaps but definitely up there with crossing the entire system measured in days
 
Last edited:
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.

+1000! I am praying that Stellaris will shop up with some of the better Stars! mechanic. Stars! was extremly ugly but had a stratgic depth I have never seen since - definitely underrated genius. Would be interesting to know how many Stars! veterans are here in the forum and what they think about Stellaris.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
That's why I limited the evasive maneuvering to 14% of the ships velocity, Sharp turns are indeed a myth, fractional changes that result in thousands of miles difference are real science welcome to the real world small changes in vector result in large changes in the movement envelope. ;) The easiest way to accomplish such a thing from an engineering standpoint, is attitude thrustsers or some form on the ship that rotate the ship allowing its main engines that are clearly powerful enough in the first place to create such speeds, to also generate thrust in other directions giving you the sheer for your potential movement envelope.


In the math i just gave you the projectile was using 20% of the speed of light do please read before attempting to correct.

I read what you wrote but it was full of logic holes. First off you never aim at where the target is but where it might be in the future. Now the defending ship has to spot a very tiny object moving at vast speeds and determine it's track. NOT an easy thing to do. And this information travels at the speed of light so it takes time to reach the object and come back to your sensors. If you originally had 7 seconds to impact you just lost 2 or maybe 3 in even finding and evaluating the threat. All important things you left out. Now a computer (human actions would be too slow) ahs to take evasive action.

The real math involved is the energy required to cause a deviation in trajectory along the current path. Since the time to impact is 3-4 seconds that means you need a large impact sooner rather than later. Now assuming there are various gravitational dampining effects this can be done else the people inside are plastered against the walls of the ship and die from that force.

But the hardest thing is actually spotting a 1 meter obect hundreds of thousands of kilometers away moving at high speed and distinguishing it from all the other objects in space. That is the real hard part.

EDIT: And I doubt you can actually cause a shaped nuke charge. The "explosion" would go out in all directions. Not sure how they could pull off a directional explosion considering the action of fission/fusion in a thermonuclear bomb.

And last but not least you need a refresher on physics, there is blast in space, its far smaller than what you have in atmospheres, but if your going to go through the effort of lobbing explosives in the first place, you might aswell have the necessary fuel/mass to provide said explosion a little more teeth. The missile itself would provide some blast, and even more is readily obtainable if you for instance included compressed gasses in a chamber to feed said blast. By far most effective with a shaped charge of course but that's because explosions are relatively anemic in space, and tend to rely on actually hitting the target as opposed to near misses like depth charges versus submarines.

You need the refresher or maybe a first year physics book . What part of this sentence do you not understand:
"First, in the absence of an atmosphere, blast disappears completely."

And that is straight from NASA on the effects of nukes in a vacuum. There is ZERO blast effect. None NADA, zip. It's easy to look up on the internet.

Now maybe you are confusing blast with the gamma rays and heated gas from the casing and what that would do to the ship. Thermal ablation should result in damage provided the blast was close enough, say 30 meters for a 1 Megaton warhead.

I would imagine any blast would be directed energy at the target. Space is so huge, honestly the blast would have to be incredibly massive to make a difference

There can't be ANY blast. To have a blast you need a medium like an atmosphere for it to work in. Space is a vacuum and has not medium for the bast to travel in. Just like there is no sound in space.
 
Last edited: