• 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:
Oh... I see what you are saying. I misunderstood earlier, lol.

The "phased pulse" weapons or whatever would probably just fall under late "laser" tech. Organic weaponry would be interesting, but I don't think it would be the "superior" option.

Also, there would probably be some late game kinetic weaponry that would match the late game super advanced laser tech (like the phased pulse weapons you are talking about. For example, Space Empires has what is called a Null Space Cannons or something. Basically it shot a round of super dense mass that was small, but was super powerful for reasons (it's been ages since I have played). Either way, there is no reason a super old race can't have super advanced kinetic weapons that create small black holes or something like that.

By the way, I was not the one that disagreed with you, so don't be offended at me for that X.

Also, boarding parties can make sense, just not in the way they used to. For example, you might want to capture the ship intact to get intelligence, tech, etc, so you would need to disable the ship. After it has been disabled, you would send a boarding party to get on and collect what they can collect. It would either be a quick in and out, or if it was a similar design with similar controls, they could get it to run and pilot it back. If it was completely alien, they would get in, hook up what they need to download information, or just disconnect what they need and leave.

Sort of like how Free Space does it. Boarding the disabled ship was the only way the humans were able to get any information at all on the alien species, and they ended up making out with what the aliens looked like, and how their shields operated, which allowed the humans to 1) defeat their shields (which they could not), and 2) replicate their shields.

That's how a boarding party would work.
 
Last edited:
  • 2
Reactions:
I counter with my black hole generator weapon. It stops you weapon and destroys your ship.

For defense I engage my multi-verse dimensional travel pod that moves my ship to another dimension in the multi-verse just before you weapon comes near me. I then phase back in after the danger is gone.

I believe that is called god-moding.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
Brilliant - I am usually an advocate of the tactical style of space battles, but this looks a really great way to handle 'hands-off' space combat. Really looking forward to this.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
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?

The answer to that question is simple, not every infantrymen should be able to disable a tank, although if properly equipped he obviously can destroy all that money with not even a thousand of the cost, although reactive armour is a whole lot better against that stuff. If Rockets can easily destroy not only the military capacity, but also other things, why do we still have infantryman? Cuz Bullets, and rockets don't cover ground and if you want to pacify civilians your tank should at least be able to repel most of the arms they have.
 
The answer to that question is simple, not every infantrymen should be able to disable a tank, although if properly equipped he obviously can destroy all that money with not even a thousand of the cost, although reactive armour is a whole lot better against that stuff. If Rockets can easily destroy not only the military capacity, but also other things, why do we still have infantryman? Cuz Bullets, and rockets don't cover ground and if you want to pacify civilians your tank should at least be able to repel most of the arms they have.
Our tanks don't need half the armor they have to stop civilian weapons. We have advanced armor because weapons are developed to defeat armor, so new weapons are devised to defeat the new armor. In the case of this game, armor has gotten very good at stopping shots (as it does in real life). So the weapon designed to defeat the new armor is the energy weapon. It is the newest armor beating weapon. So shields were designed as the new "reactive armor" to counter that. My point is that armor is specifically designed to stop projectile weaponry. So it is reasonable to assume it is better at stopping projectile weapons...
 
why do you not like fighters ?

There was an entire thread about physics and physical limitations to fighters in terms of manpower, costs, power projection, etc on the forums.

But since Stellaris isn't about physics simulators, it's just going to bypass all of that. We're going for feeling/atmosphere, and they have a lot of experience working with Carriers in HOI4 and HOI3, so they can maybe duplicate a similar feeling for space.

Before, it wasn't so certain. Now, it's more certain.

They can still work to address some of the problematic issues with fighters, logistically. Or as a gameplay mechanic. Like the "regeneration" thing.

My point is that armor is specifically designed to stop projectile weaponry. So it is reasonable to assume it is better at stopping projectile weapons...

With the system they have, it's just a framework. I think people are reading too much into it.

Nothing mechanically stops them from designing a laser with a high damage to penetrate shields. Or advanced mass drivers designed to penetrate armor using high rate of fire or heavy initial damage.

I see it as a framework, just like the combat stats in CK2. It's designed to emulate some kind of feeling in battles. Skirmish, melee, pursuit, horse archers vs cataphracts vs heavy infantry vs light infantry. They'll tweak the values until it feels whatever they want it to feel like.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
Nothing mechanically stops them from designing a laser with a high damage to penetrate shields. Or advanced mass drivers designed to penetrate armor using high rate of fire or heavy initial damage.
Of course not. What my entire argument is against is the, "That's dumb, ballistics should be better against armor than lasers!"

I disagreed, but even said that they will probably still have armor piercing ballistic rounds. My point is that a) we can't really say if lasers would be worse at armor piercing because we don't have those kinds of lasers yet and b) that armor was specifically made to stop projectile rounds, so it would stand to reason that armor is better at stopping bullets than lasers.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
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.

not the unique in fact, also VGA Planets (now PlanetsNu) has free movement between systems, fuel consumption, terraforming and other similar concept built in.

I played and own both Stars! and VGA Planets: they are very good 4x space games but both far away to be the best space 4x games in my opinion.
 
why do you not like fighters ?

Basically I feel they are unrealistic and are gratuitous fantasy and I just don't like them. It is a personal taste thing and others do like them.
 
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions:
you want do huge battles ? ;)
my tactics is . play in EU4 roma mod and when a huge battle happens i end the game go to rome 2 totale war and recreate this battle with a huge semi-realistic number of man and return the EU4 after the end of battle same things with naval battles .
in normal eu4 ; if i do a huge naval or land battle . i recreate the battle in empire and napoleon totale war .
victoria 2 . in napoleon TW WW1 and men of war as2 mod WW1
CK2 : attila age of charlemagne and medieval mod rome 2tw (and wait for medieval 3 )
stellaris :maybe sins or star rulers2 i dont know the game is not historical like the other who have same historical ships and soldiers :confused:.
for ground battle of stellaris easy i can recereate battle whit :ashes of singularity -planetary annihilation- and supreme commander1 :cool:

HOI4 : probably R.U.S.E for huge campagne and men of war for close combat .
future cold war game ? easy i can recreat the huge battles in wargamme :red dragon

at first sound interesting but..

how do you insert the final result of the clash re-created with Total War or Sins of a Solar Empire or whatever in the original Paradox game ???
 
at first sound interesting but..

how do you insert the final result of the clash re-created with Total War or Sins of a Solar Empire or whatever in the original Paradox game ???
oh is just a re-creation for fun . like if i love a specific battle or war or a civil war in CK2&eu4 i note all what happen in a book or something like that .
and remake all what happen in Totale war games . especially the naval battles
(CK2= attila tw and stil wait for med3 tw) (EU4=empire&napoleon tw for land and naval battles) + roma universlis mod of eu4 = rome2 tw . its just i love know how the battles in EU4 and CK2 look likes especialy the big one like 100k vs 100k (thats why i do this ).
for stellaris i dont know if i gonna do this or not . maybe the game gonna be perfect
 
  • 1
Reactions:
Basically I feel they are unrealistic and are gratuitous fantasy and I just don't like them. It is a personal taste thing and others do like them.
Unrealistic and gratuitous fantasy in a science fiction game of intragalactic empire building? Say it isn't so?!!! :O

Personally I am in favour of fighters, and even boarding parties, for these reasons:
Also, boarding parties can make sense, just not in the way they used to. For example, you might want to capture the ship intact to get intelligence, tech, etc, so you would need to disable the ship. After it has been disabled, you would send a boarding party to get on and collect what they can collect. It would either be a quick in and out, or if it was a similar design with similar controls, they could get it to run and pilot it back. If it was completely alien, they would get in, hook up what they need to download information, or just disconnect what they need and leave.

And also just because they're both fuckin cool.

Mostly, I see Stellaris as having the potential to be the ultimate sci-fi universe sandbox, jam packed full of as many solid tropes of the genre as humanly (or otherwise) possible. Both to increase the flexibility of the randomly generated/evolving "setting" of each playthrough and more importantly because I think a lot of people are going to be trying to sort of steer things towards becoming something like their favourite sci-fi setting in some of their playthroughs. A HUGE amount of these settings involve fighters and/or boarding actions. So to that end I think the ease of such goals should be facilitated as much as possible. Also think of all the inevitable mods! Can you imagine a Battlestar Galactica mod without the possibility of having any fighters?!?!? A warhammer 40k, or even Star Trek, mod without boarding actions?! Star Wars relies on both!

I'll understand if there's no boarding in the game, though I'll be a bit disappointed. But I think an enormously larger portion of the playerbase would be very disappointed by the omission of fighters, than those that'll be miffed by their inclusion.
 
  • 3
Reactions:
  • 1
Reactions: