• 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:
As long as you aren't shafted, if you meet your 'counter', I think that would be okay. I think the game would be more interesting if the various races had incentives to focus on one or two offensive technologies. I want to see a primarily missile based race battle it out against a beam focused race. If Point Defense is causing a problem for the missile based race, rather than doing something as droll as switching to beam weapons, I'd rather see them create *better* missile weapons, add ECM to confuse the PD systems or simply double the missile load to overwhelm enemy PD systems. You should be able to stick with your current focus, but adjust it to deal with enemy countermeasures.

Absolutely. I hope we can see some counter-counter mechanism, like you run a special project to improve missile performance against enemy PD, then enemy will run their special project to counter your upgraded missile, then you run another. It's weird in 4x game to get to some point that one tech completely overwhelm another. As stellaris focus on replayable and different experience in each game, I pray for that.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
Would be very nice (and presumably not too hard) if PDS got it right on the physics and switched lasers to be weaker against armor, but strong against shielding, while kenetics are weak against shielding but strong against armor. It'd be interesting to have to focus of fleet composition/ship design with the goal of taking down shields quickly so that hard-hitting kenetics could get through to targets.
This is a matter of taste. The way I see it, it was first armor vs kinetic weapons. Armor got really good so energy weapons were created to cut through it. Then shields were created to stop the energy weapons. However, a lot of mass could easily overload the shields, so kinetics were put back into use to overload shields so energy weapons could cut through. It's kind of like lances in 40k.
 
  • 3
  • 1
Reactions:
Seems almost identical to Galactic Civilizations III. I hope they get the balance right because in most games a certain weapon/defense combination usually ends up OP and everyone goes that route.

Or you get things too equal to the point of "whatever" and weapons only differ by visual effects, which is bad too. Best possible system was IMO in Sword of the Stars, where you armed your ships with what you have, not what metagame said was the best.

I assume we'll be able to build armor and shields specialized against certain types of weapons. Like reflective armor for energy or reactive armor for ballistics.

And i hope not, i really hate that crappy rock, paper, scissors like in Endless Space, feels forced. And if you look at the screens of designer at DD#17, thankfully there is not enough slots for this kind of dispersion in defense methods.

What is it with sci-fi and their love for boarding action?

Because it's epic. Without it we have sometimes weird tries of inveting epicness in a space battles, like the missile apocalypses from Honorverse or SpaceDogfightersUberAlles from many other SF. Plus, i suspect sci-fi authors are mentally in the age of (idealised) pirates :D
 
  • 3
Reactions:
The speed of the ship is mainly dependent on the Thruster, which can be upgraded. In rare cases there might be other components that improve speed as well (such as a Combat Computer). Strike Craft do have a range-limit. We're still tuning that so not sure on range just yet, what do you all think makes more sense?

I would really love to see a carrier focused tech line with upgrades to strike craft, increasing range, speed, fire power etc. I wouldn't want to see Strike craft have a fixed range.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
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.

That's pretty interesting. How does this scale? Do you just add up the reduction value of all of the armor components to arrive at your overall armor score? Does a medium armor component on a destroyer provide the same reduction as a medium armor component on a battleship?

It's nice that it provides the concept of the ship being "adequately armored" against a certain range of weapon sizes. Past a certain point, more armor doesn't help versus the small hits, but just buys you extra insurance against the big hits. You could even have the concept of a battlecruiser, that doesn't try to armor against battleship-class weapons, but uses the space saved to optimize itself against light enemies.
 
Sounds cool!

This being my first post, I’ll shamelessly use it for some suggestions:

Why not make armor decrease over time as well? This will be another motivator to go and repair the fleet, and kinda makes sense being the armor gets slammed constantly.

It’s be great to have some basic feet-command controls during combat, for things like:

- Focus attack on specific ship

- Order a ship or group of ships to move to the back

- General formations control (flanks, spears, etc’)

Some controls can be limited to the admirals skills (for example: flanking split only for experienced admirals).

And most important – what about unique weapons? Stuff like self-AOE black-hole explosion, invading killer-bots that attack the crews, sticky goo to slow ships, special shields that reflect beams back at the attacker, holo-ships (fake clones), slow-charging mega-beams, giant drills/ram weapons, mind-control transmissions that turn enemy ships into allies and on and on…

Some can be race-specific, some can be based on random events or exploration and some can be mutual-exclusive research.
 
  • 4
  • 2
Reactions:
Was hoping for something a bit more involved with the combat, but there's nothing with going the route that other space games have tread before. Between the screenshots and combat system itself, I'm definitely having flashbacks to GalCiv II and Sins of a Solar Empire. Hopefully it takes more of the SoSE route though, where the factions were specialized to a degree but out-teching / outnumbering / combined arms could still win the day versus GalCiv where you would just scout to see what the enemy had and then used the appropriate counter.
 
Last edited:
  • 1
Reactions:
Won't lie, Stellaris is more and more appearing to be some sort of Endless Space-Aurora 4x-Sins of a Solar Empire grand strategy hybrid.

Excellent =-)
 
  • 3
  • 1
Reactions:
Missiles too OP or too Useless -> Depending on how anti-missile weapons will be calculated missiles can become super strong or super weak. They, like lasers have a fixed amount of damage no matter if they have armor, shields or just hull. So if avoiding them is hard and the damage big enough they can form only missile fleets, if avoiding them is easy even with few defenses no one will use it.

Yeah I think balancing missiles is the hardest thing to do. The basic problem is that point-defenses can basically take out only a fixed number of missiles at a time, so they are vulnerable to being swamped. If I have enough PD to burn down 20 missiles at a time, then either I have 100% protection against missiles if the enemy only brings 20 launchers, or 20% protection if they bring 100 launchers. The logic drives it towards using an all-missile fleet or a no-missile fleet, and if you are going with missiles, to use as big a fleet as possible (both to multiply the effectiveness of your missiles and maximize the effectiveness of your missile defense). Also sacrifice staying power to maximize the number of missiles you can get into space at once.

You need something to blunt the effectiveness of massed missiles. I wonder if you could do something with targeting and the spatial layout of fleets. If Player A's massed missile fleet fires on the closest enemy ship, sure they kill that leading corvette dead, but now they have to wait for a long cycle time for the next volley. If the ship AI doesn't automatically distribute missiles in the best possible way, then overkill and lumpy missile distributions will make massed volley less enticing. On the other side, if PD is a very local capacity, so it only protects very nearby ships, then even if the defending fleet has enough total PD to burn down all of your missiles, they might be locally overwhelmed in one area. That could make having "some" missiles a viable choice.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
Well this game will have fighters. A little disappointing but oh well it was invetible I suppose.
 
  • 6
Reactions:
I would really love to see a carrier focused tech line with upgrades to strike craft, increasing range, speed, fire power etc. I wouldn't want to see Strike craft have a fixed range.
^^ This essentially. Strike craft support modules, allowing a mothership to choose between more 'strike crafts' (higher dps), larger reserves (longer sustained damage since they die), longer operational range, increased durability, more damage per strike craft or speed upgrade.

Range balance for Strike Craft vs Missile I feel should benefit the missile more. This if there is only one type of missile. If there are different types of missiles; small, medium, large. Then I think it should be: small < strikeCraft < (by tiny amount, so with upgrade) medium < large.

This of course depends on how fast strikeCrafts are, if they can catch up the smallest ships and how fast they can reach their max range, since if an enemy spreads their forces it may cause strikeCrafts to travel long distances.
 
Well this game will have fighters. A little disappointing but oh well it was invetible I suppose.

Yeah, I guess it's too hard to subvert the sci-fi tropes here. Still, I do appreciate it when games at least make them unmanned drones. The US is already starting to phase out fighters for drones and it's 2016. You would definitely not see live humans aboard such small, poorly defended craft in the future.
 
  • 4
  • 3
Reactions:
Strike Craft do have a range-limit. We're still tuning that so not sure on range just yet, what do you all think makes more sense?

It would make sense for strike craft to have a significantly longer range than other weapons, because then you can replicate the strategic use of modern aircraft carriers, where if all goes well, the carriers are kept well out of range of actual combat and the strike craft do the fighting. On the other hand I can imagine that that would be difficult to balance, because if the fighters are too strong then everyone would exclusively use carriers, and if too weak then they'd get themselves destroyed trying to take on the enemy fleet single-handed.

Actually, it could be interesting to have different-ranged strike craft (if you don't want to overly complicate things by having lots of different strike craft models, perhaps this could be a possible feature of the combat computer aboard the carrier). So you could have "Interceptors" which have a short range but are better in combat, or "Fighters" which have excellent range but worse performance because they sacrifice firepower for fuel pods/better engines. Interceptors would be mainly useful for protecting a fleet from strikecraft or supporting it in a close engagement, whereas fighters would be intended to harass enemies at a great distance from the fleet, soften them up before battle is joined, or pursue a retreating foe.

Why yes, I am taking a lot of inspiration from Hearts of Iron there...
 
  • 3
Reactions:
What is it with sci-fi and their love for boarding action? ....

Because ships are seen as ships with vacuum instead of water, simple as that.

And the combat sounds good - sounds it will have enough variety to support multiple valid approaches to ship/fleet composition, but low on micro-management - really don't want "action cards" like Endless Space 2 or similar. Too granular for a grand space strategy game.
 
  • 2
Reactions:
Yeah, I guess it's too hard to subvert the sci-fi tropes here. Still, I do appreciate it when games at least make them unmanned drones. The US is already starting to phase out fighters for drones and it's 2016. You would definitely not see live humans aboard such small, poorly defended craft in the future.
I hope they don't say thy are unmanned or not. Mine will be manned.

Drones work now because we aren't fighting any super powers than can match our tech and counter them.
 
  • 2
  • 2
Reactions:
Strike Craft do have a range-limit. We're still tuning that so not sure on range just yet, what do you all think makes more sense?

I think that the range of strike craft should not exceed that of missiles, as I imagine them having a fuel limit permitting vast use of maneuvering thrusters during sorties, then having enough reserve to return. Missiles would only need the one way trip.

Question: What is the next DD going to cover?
 
As mentioned earlier, I truly hope with every fiber of my being that the laser-kinetic-missile/shield-armor-PD system will not be a hard-counter screwup like GalCiv. But, I am cautiously optimistic.

Now that the negatives are out of the way, how would these "computers" lore-vise work for the craft. Say I need to research the aggressive computer so I can put it on my ship, so I can have them charge the enemy like suicidal lemmings. What makes it so I cannot have the crew lore-vise do that anyway before the computer is ready?
 
All sounds pretty for a 4X space strategy game. Still interesting to read though