• 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.
Status
Not open for further replies.

Stellaris Dev Diary #41 - Heinlein patch (part 2)

Hello everyone and welcome to another Stellaris development diary. This is the second in a multi-part dev diary about the 'Heinlein' 1.3 patch that we are currently working on. This week's dev diary will be focusing on a series of changes made to ship design and fleets that we call the Fleet Combat Overhaul.


Dedicated Roles
One frequent critique of the ship types in Stellaris is that they don't really have roles - besides corvettes being unable to mount large weapons, there is basically no difference in what type of weapons can be mounted on what type of hull, meaning that there is no actual reason to use a proper mix of ship types - often the best strategy is just to find a single effective design (such as all-corvette fleets on release version or the currently popular destroyer tachyon lance fleet). To address this we sat down and thought about what the roles of each type of ship should be, and came out with the following:
  • Corvettes are fast, agile ships that excel in taking out capital ships at close range.
  • Destroyers are screens for your capital ships that excel in taking down corvettes and countering missiles and strike craft.
  • Cruisers are close-range capital ship brawlers that tank enemy fire and engage enemy destroyers and capital ships.
  • Battleships are artillery and carrier ships that provide long-range fire support.

Somewhat simplistically, you could say that corvettes are good against cruisers and battleships, destroyers are good against corvettes and strike craft, cruisers are good against destroyers/cruisers/battleships (depending on how they are designed) and battleships are good against cruisers, other battleships and fixed installations. This change should give each ship a clear purpose, while allowing for some flexibility within by purpose through the ship designer (for example, cruisers can either be tough battleship killers or fast attack ships that clear the way for your corvettes depending on design). It's worth noting that designs may not start with a dedicated role like this - at the very start, corvettes not have torpedoes and destroyers will lack the targeting that makes them such effective corvette killers. Their roles instead come fully into play as technology advances and capital ships enter the stage.

In order to make this specialization possible, we have made a few changes to ship design. First of all, we have added three new weapon slot types:
  • Torpedo slots mount Torpedo and Energy Torpedo weapons, which are short range extreme damage weapons meant to take down capital ships. They can only be used by corvettes and cruisers.
  • Point Defense slots mount point defense cannons, which is the primary defense against missiles, torpedoes and fighter craft. Destroyers can be designed to field large amounts of point defense weapons.
  • Extra Large slots mount massive long-range weapons that can only fire in a fixed arc ahead, such as Tachyon Lances, Arc Emitters and Mega Cannons. These can only be mounted on battleships and take up the whole bow section.

We've also tweaked ship modules and retired a couple of modules that we feel did not fit the new design, so that it is no longer possible to make a 'corvette killer' battleship with huge amounts of small weapons, for example. While there realistically is no reason you couldn't mount small weapons on a battleship, going with a realism angle would simply put us right back where we are now, so we chose to sacrifice some realism for what we feel is better gameplay.


Utility Slot Rework
Another area we felt sorely needed some attention is the utility slots - right now there is often little meaningful choice, with the best strategy usually being to stack either armor or shields depending on ship size, enemy weapons and tech level. Most of the special utilities, such as shield capacitors or regenerative hull, are either woefully underpowered or extremely overpowered. To address these issues, we've made the following changes:
  • The amount of damage reduction provided by armor now depends on the size of the ship, so a single piece of armor will do more for a corvette than for a battleship. This should make armor useful even for smaller ships.
  • The 'special' utilities (crystalline hull plating, shield capacitor, etc) will use their own slot type that is limited by hull size, and so will only have to be balanced against each other instead of having to also be balanced against shields and armor.
  • A new utility type, afterburners, provides additional combat speed, allowing you to design ships that can closely quickly with your opponents.


Misc Changes and Notes
  • As part of these changes we're looking over the balance of every weapon in the game, especially strike craft, point defense and creature weapons.
  • Combat computers will be changed from being universal to being based on ship type, so corvettes have specific corvette computers that focus on boosting evasion, while destroyers have computers that impove targeting, allowing them to keep up with corvette evasion better than other ship types.
  • We're changing emergency FTL so that it sets the fleet as MIA, meaning that fleets that successfully escape combat will always be able to flee to friendly space rather than getting stuck and ping-ponged to death. To compensate, we're making it so every ship (no matter how undamaged) has a chance to be lost when you use emergency FTL, so it's always a risky maneuver.
  • We're looking into creating a special class of flagships that are limited in number by your fleet size, and are the only ones able to use auras, instead of all-aura battleship fleets.
  • We're looking at balancing the different FTL types and making it less hard to catch enemy fleets. Some of our current ideas is having fleet speed depend on how far away you are from friendly space (and thus resupply) and boosting the speed of warp.
  • We're looking into fleet formations and some basic orders during combat (priority targeting, etc). At minimum the basic fleet formation will be changed to be more sensible (no more suicide corvette leading the charge).

Note that the changes listed in this DD are not fully done, so some of them may not show up in below screenshots.
iUSvWHQ.png

S0eS3HZ.png

TAqi5VO.png

DD980B8.png

apVYe0u.png


That's all for this week! Next week we'll talking about yet more features and changes coming in Heinlein.
 
Last edited:
  • 262
  • 51
  • 14
Reactions:
Regarding corvettes being close combat ships.
Once ships enter combat there is no real way of commanding the fleet as it engages its enemy.
Now that ships have roles will there be a prioritization system? Will the current combat ai know to move the corvettes in closer so they can do their job as effectively as possible? Will destroyers focus on corvettes since their model is built in such a way? Will cruisers ignore corvette and focus on the capital ships as to protect the destroyers that are protecting them. Will battleships at least make an attempt to stay out of range from enemy guns and provide supporting fire (like artillery in modern day life) while the rest of the fleet engages the enemy?
 
  • 8
Reactions:
These look like some really good changes. I'm glad you guys decided to rethink ship combat. Hopefully you'll do something with land combat as well.
 
  • 3
Reactions:
We're changing emergency FTL so that it sets the fleet as MIA, meaning that fleets that successfully escape combat will always be able to flee to friendly space rather than getting stuck and ping-ponged to death. To compensate, we're making it so every ship (no matter how undamaged) has a chance to be lost when you use emergency FTL, so it's always a risky maneuver.

I really, really don't like this. If I'm desperate enough to retreat mid-battle, the enemy should damn well be able to pursue me if they so please. And I want to be able to do the same to them. That's one of the risks of war.
 
  • 4
  • 3
Reactions:
Do you feel there is a gap because there are ship roles missing, or do you feel there is a gap because there is a gap? I don't think it's a good idea to add ship sizes *just* to add more ship sizes.

I agree that you shouldn't add more ship types just to have more ship types. But I feel that Battleships aren't big enough. Sure, they are very powerful and menacing, but in the late game we can build fleets of them, having them in large numbers.
What I would like to see is one even larger ship, but limited in numbers. For example 1 for every 200 naval capacity, capping at 5 ships for full capacity research (1000).
They should be more like a flying fortress imo and really hard to take down. Something very late game.
 
  • 2
Reactions:
  • We're looking at balancing the different FTL types and making it less hard to catch enemy fleets. Some of our current ideas is having fleet speed depend on how far away you are from friendly space (and thus resupply) and boosting the speed of warp.
I really like this, but since people seem to have problems with the term "resupply" how about naming it "navigational efficency" or something similar technobabbly. After all, travelling through space at FTL speeds is a risky prospect unless done right (you don't want to pop out too close to an errant asteroid or a star and who knows what effects gravity wells can have on subspace), and you're sure to be more sure about your navigational calculations in space where you have observation posts in every system compared to knowing the levels of hyperlane flux on the other side of the galaxy.
 
  • 3
Reactions:
Couple interface suggestions:

1) Make player able to change ship building order in Spaceport

2) More informative headbars on incoming diplomatic request windows. Currently I can not understand what incoming message is about, until I read all text. Just simple headbars like «trade offer accepted», «trade offer rejected», «peace offer», etc. Also, complex information about AI Empire, when mouse pointer hovered over their Logo (see attached screenshots) — enemies, allies, rivals, relation, etc. (it is big problem, when someone invite you to alliance, and you have no idea who are his friends and enemies).

3) Be able to see battle statistic of specific ship or class in you fleet. I look through it in the end of the battle, it is important to understand what weapon types more effective. It will be much more info, if I be able to understand how different ship classes with specific weapons acting in the battle.

4) New split options for your fleet. «Remove ships of specific class» button in split dialog, and «Remove ships of specific type». So you will be able to select, as an example, all corvettes, or specific class of corvettes. Very handy. (see attached screenshots).
Make word «class» in Fleet info window dark gray (not red). Red should be class by itself (easy to catch with an eye) — valuable info. Word «class» - it is not info at all… I think it should not distract your attention. (see attached screenshots)

5) Planet info window should provide more information about what sector it belongs to, and level of happiness on that planet. Also, total empire happiness should be displayed in the top bar near resources icons. (see attached screenshots).

6) «Hide all old weapon items» button in ship designer screen. Why do I need to look at Red laser (level 1), when I have Gamma laser (Level 5)? I use only latest weapons in my ships, and never use outdated ones. So why do I need them? They only distract my attention... I want be able to hide them from weapon list — leave only actual models. (see screenshots attached).

7) When you build Battlestation — show it sensor radius BEFORE you build it.

8) Specific fleet maintenance info in fleet window. When I select specific fleet, sometimes, I want to know how much it costs to me (for instance: is captured mother Prethoryn ship with supporting swarm costs something to my budget or not?). Also, more deep info when you hover mouse pointer (how much all ships of specific class costs in this fleet). This suggestion actual for EU4 game too ;)

9) Special interface design for different species (actually, it is an Idea for new DLS). Remember Starcraft? When you play Zergs — you have stylish alien interface, Protos and Terrans have their own… So why not make unique interface design for each specie? I mean Art style (window borders, buttons, etc) but not to change structure of course. This will add deepness and individuality for all species (things current game lacks). Also, draw diplomatic windows for specie you empire dealing with in that specie style. If you play Humans, you will use current (human) interface, but when you send or receive diplomatic request from Plantoids, diplomacy screen will be decorated with leaves, thorns, lianas, whatever…

1.png 3.png 4.png 5.png
 
  • 9
  • 3
Reactions:
Are mixed fleets really that useless though? Yesterday I conquered a 15k power fleet which was full of battleships, with my 9k varied fleet that was mostly full of destroyers, corvettes, and a few cruisers. I always have a ton of ship designs at the ready and just kind of combine them experimentally, which apparently paid off when I completely tore this guy's fleet apart and I was still left with 5k fleet power afterward. Granted, him having mostly battleships meant that once the first one went down, there was a drastic drop in power instantly. I thought I was done for, though.
 
  • 2
Reactions:
I wouldn't mind seeing a larger variety of ship classes/roles. Like frigates, and dedicated minelayers (maybe be able to lay down minefields away from defensive positions, in the path of an enemy fleet? Maybe as an aura effect that sets down mines that over time diminishes naturally?), minesweepers (destroy mines without taking damage)? Maybe add in the ability for boarding operations, only your ships have to have a marine unit pod or somesuch? Just my thoughts.

Maybe a dedicated carrier class as well, that are extremely limited compared to all other classes? And maybe different size carriers (ie: escort carriers that are fast, but can carry almost no fighters/bombers vs fleet carriers, slow and poor evasion but basically tons of fighters/bombers).
 
  • 1
Reactions:
I like the idea of being able to lay mines outside of station radius'. Old mines from previous FE wars could be scattered to provide another exploration hazard and hide better anomalies too.
 
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions:
The upgrading system in Stellaris has to be one the most immersion breaking features in my opinion. Sure, there may be more effort in running a game system where there is limited upgrading, but it would be so much more immersive to have older ships fighting alongside newer models. Star Trek, Babylon 5 and many science fiction books all have this as a core part of their imaginary worlds. It's all based on real life, of course, where we see ships gradually made obsolete as newer models are made.

I know this is quite a few pages back but I was wondering if there's a potential to set an option where if the player/host chooses, the upgrading system is disabled. I think that one should also be able to be refunded some resources for dismantling a ship, much like getting scrap metal from dismantling a car or ship.

Regardless, I like the attempt to rebalance the game. I'm hopeful to hear more come from this.
 
  • 2
Reactions:
Thinking about firing rates and ranges and ship sizes, an idea sprung to my mind. What if ship stats where based on "volume" and "time needed for targeting" instead of damage, rate of fire, evasion and accuracy?

I was thinking the following -

first:
Each ship section of each shipclass has a certain volume, aka occupied space by that section(and ship in general). This could also make certain hull modules more useful for certain roles during combat. Example: PD-weapons occupy less volume than kinetic accelators(mass drivers) or energy emitters(beam weapons), making the ship harder to hit but less useful in damage dealing to enemy ships. weapontypes should be dependant on available space.

second:
all stats of a ship or a weapon are based on its volume. Different hull modules occupy different quantities of space.

third:
Each unit of volume can generate a certain max amount of energy and protection(similar to how it is handled now with slot sizes, but based on a definite value, which is used as base value for every other stat of a ship class, weapon or module.), aka damage and armor/shields. This would only by definition make bigger shipclasses the better damage dealers and takers, because the can install the necessary machinery within their boundaries to deal or prevent/absorb damage.

forth:
Each ship section of each shipclass has a certain timeframe required for being locked on based on their volume and evasion stats. This could f.e. lead to PD only corvettes or strike craft being almost impossible to hit for large weapon types(because they need time to redirect their big machinery(volume) on their target(considering smaller volume and distance) , but would also lead to battleshipsections being hit most of the time by small weaponry, but due to their volume and therefor damage soaking abilities to an negligible effect.

fith:
Making weapon and ship stats dependant on volume could also solve accelartion and deceleration issues. More volume would simply require more energy and time to be pushed in one direction - or, as it is in some scifi stories and space combat scenarios, it could lead to bigger ships being better no matter what, depending on the chosen design paradigma.

sixth:
Upgrades. Developing new hull sizes or armor tech could lead to hull upgrades, meaning volume increases per role. It could be handled with old destroyer types becoming new corvette class, old corvettes becoming strike craft and strike craft becoming obsolete, due to the fact that there damage output per unit of volume is so ridiculous compared to newer models, that there is simply no point in keeping them in service.

seventh:
i am a bit drunk and really, really tired atm, so i am not sure if i communicated my idea clear enough or if it make sense at all(of course it does, at least my brain is telling me this :) ), but i really think that basing damage on volume and developing/evolving volume occupied by hull sections via tech(f.e. hull sizes/based on spaceportupgrades or whatever) is the best solution to combat and closest to reality as well. There has to be a definite choice between passive taking/dealing(hull/defense/fire power) and active evading/moving/evasion, accelartion, time required to lock on target). If both mirror each other quite close, RNG favoring of equal sized fleets should become unpredictable.

I like the changes and your effort put into the game, kudos to that.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
Cheers for the DD Wiz :). Those fleet changes sound excellent, and I'm looking forward to getting back into Stellaris once I'm up for a break from HoI4 :).

A though - ignore if not helpful - I'd expect it'd be possible to balance the weapon stats to make it inefficient to mount PD weapons on a battleship (so you could have a battleship that could fend off corvettes, but it wouldn't be good for much else so why bother with it) and allow most weapons on most ship types (for example, you could allow torpedoes on battleships, but not unlike battleships historically, the ranges of gun engagements became so large that (almost) no-one bothered with torpedoes on BBs after WW1, and in WW2 there was only one "possible" BB-fired torpedo hit in the whole war - but you could perhaps have it so that early game engagement ranges are a bit closer, so maybe torpedoes make a bit of sense on larger vessels early, but are pointless after a while, with the pointlessness depending a bit on tech choice and enemy, so no 'clear' choices as when the best time to evolve ship design is).

This kind of approach of having different weapons being effective at different ranges at different stages of the tech tree (which you could already be doing) could help evolve ship design over the course of the game, and give fleet development more dynamic tension (as the decision as to when to shift to certain technologies would depend on circumstances, as well as the enemy fleet composition, which wouldn't be known precisely until entering combat).
 
  • 1
Reactions:
Real space warfare will probaby be fought by swarms of small autonomous AI drones at ranged where sensor lag is a serious concern and the one able to change vector in random directions as fast as possible wins. A large manned ship would just get pricked to death by the swarm due to having neither the manoeuvrability nor the reaction time to actually hit any of the swarm.
Good thing is, Stellaris is a game, not a realistic space combat simulator, so real space combat is mostly irrelevant as any measure of realisticness is immediately subordinate to the Rule of Cool.
Only if ships don't have shield generators which require massive amounts of power. Then it will be big ships carrying some particles weapons and launching drones with antimatter missiles and stuff. If no shield against solid object will exist, then it will be thousands of drones, but they will probably need carriers.
Ofc no human will / can control any of this efficiently.
Ofc we almost can connect humans to computers, so humans won't really be humans in the future.
 
Are mixed fleets really that useless though? Yesterday I conquered a 15k power fleet which was full of battleships, with my 9k varied fleet that was mostly full of destroyers, corvettes, and a few cruisers. I always have a ton of ship designs at the ready and just kind of combine them experimentally, which apparently paid off when I completely tore this guy's fleet apart and I was still left with 5k fleet power afterward. Granted, him having mostly battleships meant that once the first one went down, there was a drastic drop in power instantly. I thought I was done for, though.

Even with the last changes, a corvette meat shield (backed up by destroyers with tachyon lances...or the closest tech you have...and just enough battleships for the aura bonuses, or two of each when you can afford it, if you're paranoid like me) is still the way to go and it will continue to be until targeting changes dramatically. Because of the current targeting system, a single corvette can take an entire fleet's salvo, which, in the late game, this is all a battleship can take making a corvette just as useful as a battleship for taking damage; with torpedoes, this is even worse, multiple salvos may be launched at a single corvette, and all the 'extra' torpedoes just disappear after it is destroyed, making torpedoes virtually worthless as they stand now. Corvettes may be easier to destroy with the latest tweaks, but corvettes surviving a salvo is just a bonus, they are there to be destroyed, their real purpose is just to force the enemy to waste massive amounts of damage on them, due to overkill with the current targeting system, and distract the enemy long enough for your damage dealing ships to have an effect.

And if things do go badly and you run out of corvettes, just FTL out of there, you may have lost the battle, but you'll probably have seriously damaged the enemy while keeping the core of your fleet (the expensive bit that takes a long time to build) in tact, in less than a year you can have new corvettes and be ready for battle again, against a significantly diminished foe. On the plus side, in theory at least, this is the only thing that undermines the prevalence of the Mahanian decisive-battle doctrine in the game (whoever wins the first major fleet engagement wins the war), in practice, it just further weakens the AI.
 
  • 2
Reactions:
I kind of hate the MIA system as a whole. Just earlier I went to war with someone clear across the galaxy, tripped up and bumped into a tiny little empire I hadn't discovered on the way, who promptly told me to get out - so being 90% of the way there, I then had to wait for my fleet for 6 months to appear all the way back at my borders. I don't understand this feature at all. Why wouldn't they just say "hey okay see ya" and then go to the star system they were previously at? I'm not fond of it integrating into the war declaration system either - sometimes I feel like there's not much point to closing borders, because an enemy moving their military ships through your borders is useless anyway if it's in an effort to attack you. And you can't build stations inside someone else's borders. Because border-closing seems to be mostly a feature used to block people from resources you've yet to reach or to counter their war efforts elsewhere (perhaps for your friendly neighbors), I think you should equally be able to use an empire's trust against them and attack them from within their borders immediately. Otherwise what's the point of closing anyone off other than just to be a dick? I could understand them not wanting me to move a gigantic fleet through their territory on my way to war, but I don't understand why my fleet makes a panicked escape to my borders completely under the table. And actually I sort of take that back - I don't understand them not wanting my fleets to move through their borders, because as far as they should be concerned because of the gameplay's mechanics they are safer with my fleets IN their borders if I were to declare war on them. Making moving military fleets through someone's borders the least threatening action you could possibly take. I'd be worried if someone was amassing something right OUTSIDE my borders, but that doesn't really make any sense. If I let them in, that should be my error and I should have to pay for it. I could see it working nicely, if someone gets too close to the heart of your empire, close your borders and have them go MIA and shortly appear right OUTSIDE your borders. If they declare war before then they should be left where they are. Meaning they would have to hold off on declaring war and not attract too much attention to themselves, maybe even acting deceptively (using a pathway to a previous enemy) making it a gamble how long they wait. If you are prepping an invasion and you wait too long to declare war and someone closes you out just before you get where you wanted to be, then you have to suffer the consequences of a short MIA that sends you back to the beginning of your trip, giving you time to re-evaluate whether or not you even want to attack. If you are too trusting and let people move through your territory willy nilly, you're more likely to have a major planet bombed before you can react appropriately.
 
Last edited:
  • 2
  • 2
Reactions:
Status
Not open for further replies.