• 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:
That's it! They should not insert this ridiculous limitations with corvettes torpedoes and stuff. Damaged ships fight less efficiently, so damaged big ship will have less small guns working. They can balance stuff with other things like battleships have troubles navigating battlefield and getting close enough to enemy ships to fire *effectively*. So we can have formations and battlegroups during battle...
Why Paradox thinks they had to make crazy limitations?

That could work, but that was just my random babble and there's no telling what the effect on the grand scale would be. They are now still playtesting it now, I hope what comes out in the end is the most immersive and balanced combat mechanism.

Real space warfare will probably 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 maneuvrability 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.

+1, good point.
 
I fear this route would take away some of the greatest fun for me: building my ships like I want. I love the different modules and weapons, and the different designs. If however we are going to a hard counter system, every battleship for example would probably look big nosed with one XL slot in the front as the sole option, because gameplay wise "it wouldnt make sense otherwise". I feel this would be severely limiting.
 
  • 11
  • 3
Reactions:
So far I'm either loving, or have no complaints about about the combat changes.

Though one idea I would like to bring up for brainstorming is a sort of tracking speed mechanic for ship mounted guns, where the premise is that turrets can only turn so fast, and thus larger turrets that turn more slowly have harder time hitting smaller, faster targets. And unlike a flat accuracy change, it does not affect all ship classes equally. So a Small guns have no problems hitting any ship, and in fact might even have a bonus to his bigger ships since their tracking speed can more easily keep a bead on that target, mitigating it's evasion. Mediums and more so with large guns will have a harder time hitting destroyers and corvettes. Unlike a flat evasion bonus to the nimble ship classes, this does not affect all weapons chance to hit you equally as well. So small guns would have a better chance at hitting corvettes/destroyers than their medium/large counterparts.
 
I like the changes that add an actual fleet mechanic.

I know some moan about enforced ship classes but no 4x game had made fleets matter so it's not so easy as some simple change some are asking for.In every space 4x game small ships are just not relevant for very long.
 
It sounds to me that the better way to think of the ships, once you get all of them unlocked, is that corvettes are more like submarines than regular small ships. They're really good at taking out really big ships like battleships with their torpedoes, but have a lot more trouble with small ships that are specifically designed to counter them. Then the other ship names all fit with their modern ocean faring counterparts.
 
  • 2
  • 1
Reactions:
I feel the need to voice concern about the ship changes...

Is not the point of having multiple customizable ship sections to allow any ship to fit any role? What then is the point in having all of the sections customization if we're locking down ship roles from the start; when the amount by which we can effect the roles of said ships is limited heavily because of the ship's pre-designated role?

I'm interested to see what you all decide on and I'm not saying don't go through with the changes, just voicing cautious concern.
 
  • 7
Reactions:
Personally I think total ship re-design is a waste of time and resources especially when this game has other areas that need attention. From my impressions this is now nothing more than a glorified war game. There is little choice on how to win unless you go war, and this is a 4x game with two victory conditions. Call it grand strategy if you want, but I dont buy it. The role play is limited and mainly happens in your head. It's a great canvas but very empty at the moment. There seems to be plenty of people enjoying it so I'm not knocking it, I got a good 100 hours out of it. But building ships is literally one of the elements I enjoy the least in these games. I want strategic decisions, events, victory conditions that encourage different ethic choices, I want planets to be special, rare, unique and memorable, leaders that mean something, elections that actually have an impact on gameplay, civil wars, better federations, I could go on, but vessels and their weapons is not my highest priority.
 
  • 9
  • 4
Reactions:
When can we expect more ship types to be added? The most disappointing thing to me so far is that I'm limited to 4 basic ship sizes.

I would like to see super-carriers and Dreadnaughts etc.

I also feel like there's too large a gap between destroyers and cruisers that another ship type should fill. (Perhaps Aegis cruiser which projects a radar effect so that missiles etc can fire at targets typically outside of their range)
 
  • 4
  • 3
Reactions:
When can we expect more ship types to be added? The most disappointing thing to me so far is that I'm limited to 4 basic ship sizes.

I would like to see super-carriers and Dreadnaughts etc.

I also feel like there's too large a gap between destroyers and cruisers that another ship type should fill.

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.
 
  • 25
  • 3
Reactions:
Not really, but when compared to such a gigantic ship and its huge guns, the tiny ship has crazy evasion.
If we are talking about realistical space battle (and it seems we for some reason are), evasion has very little to do with ship size, and much more with your ability to fight enemy radar system. Simply if enemy can predict where will you be at the moment of hit, he will shot you with laser before you will be able to see the laser. On the other hand, if you can detect enemy attack before being hit - probably by detecting his active sensors - you can easily evade it just because ship is so small when compared with fire distances.

why do you think carriers have miniguns? they shot down missiles and aircrafts
Carrier point defence systems are the last line of defence. Shooting down enemy missiles and aircraft is escort cruiser job.

in space the biggest ship will win.
I would rather say that in space fleet with better reconnaisance and big enough space-artillery will win. When I say "big enough" i mean total number of missiles it is able to shoot at any given period of time.

If however we are going to a hard counter system, every battleship for example would probably look big nosed with one XL slot in the front as the sole option, because gameplay wise "it wouldnt make sense otherwise".
Well, that's kinda what happened historically.

I would like to see super-carriers and Dreadnaughts etc.
Fun fact: dreadnoughts are already represented in game. Dreadnought was the first battleship using "only big guns" (older designs used combination of 2-4 big guns and some number of smaller). Dreadnought was so cool that all battleships built after him use only big guns and were called "dreadnoughts", when his precessors were called "pre-dreadnoughts".
 
  • 2
  • 2
Reactions:
One interesting concept visited upon in the "Realistic ships" mod is the use of the same ship sections for Cruisers and battleships to make larger variants of the same vessels for battlecruisers and dreadnoughts
or to rephrase: the mod adds battlecruisers by using the base of the cruiser, only with 2 middle sections
Same with Dreadnoughts with 2 middle sections

there is a little bit of clipping-overlap with some of the models but otherwise it makes for a fairly easy means of adding ship classes if one is really necessary. Something similar could be done with Destroyers to make Light Cruisers to fill this supposed "gap" if necessary with little in the way of painstaking model-making
 
While I welcome the upcoming changes, I wouldn't mind seeing the ship roles better reflect real world navy fleet roles. Namely:

Destroyers: Best at attacking big gun battleships with torpedoes. Also good for countering submarines (if they ever add a submarine equivalent).
Cruisers: Best at attacking incoming aircraft with point defense, as well as destroyers (with their medium guns and relative high speed)
Battleships: All big gun ships that are best at attacking cruisers and other battleships. Can also have decent point defense.
Carriers: Lightly armored. Relatively fast. Carry attack craft that carry torpedoes (good for cruisers and battleships) or gun/lasers (for destroyers/corvettes/other attack craft)
Corvettes: Basic "starter" craft. Decent for what they are, but easily outclassed by more modern ships

The roles described by Wiz kind of make it sound like his role for corvettes = what a destroyer really does, and his destroyer = what a cruiser really does. And maybe his cruiser = a battlecruiser. Just a thought

EDIT: Wiz, when you guys add commerce to the game, that would be a great time to add a submarine equivalent that could do commerce raiding. And then corvettes could be assigned to convoy duty
 
Last edited:
  • 5
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.

The gap in power between destroyers and cruisers feels larger to me than the gap between frigates-destroyers and cruisers-battleships. Perhaps it's because of the addition of the H slot at cruiser level, or the fact that BS and cruisers have the same # of sections.
 
  • 2
Reactions:
The roles described by Wiz kind of make it sound like his role for corvettes = what a destroyer really does, and his destroyer = what a cruiser really does. And maybe his cruiser = a battlecruiser. Just a thought
Corvettes are clearly supposed to work as torpedo boats, when destroyers realise their first historical role as torpedo boats destroyers. Battleships are something between battlestars from space opera (think of imperial star destroyers) and real battleships. The only big looser are cruisers - their historical archenemy were vile tradeships (and enemy cruisers hunting for our glorious tradeships), but they do not seem to be represented in Stellaris.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
Corvettes are clearly supposed to work as torpedo boats, when destroyers realise their first historical role as torpedo boats destroyers. Battleships are something between battlestars from space opera (think of imperial star destroyers) and real battleships. The only big looser are cruisers - their historical archenemy were vile tradeships (and enemy cruisers hunting for our glorious tradeships), but they do not seem to be represented in Stellaris.
Well, they also worked as scouting ships and for independent missions, neither are much use in Stellaris and due to the lack of range limitations often better fulfilled by corvettes. If anything I guess based on how the Royal and US navies started turning their cruisers into anti-aircraft platforms they should be the point defense platforms, or at least having the option to be. Perhaps if a late game long range ASM analog would appear compared to the short range torpedoes they would be the favorite launching platform.
 
Glad to see that FTL systems are going through some balance- On that particularly note, will trespassing be allowed despite closed borders as closed borders are a particular imposing road block to hyper drive.
 
I don't agree with needing to resupply the warp core.
Using a nuclear powered sub as an example.
As of 2007 a US nuclear powered sub can sustain power for 25 years without the need to refuel.
They can also use nuclear power to create purified water as well as oxygen.
The only real limitations to keeping a nuclear powered sub from being permanently out to sea is the crew and food (which is due to the space constraint).
In the future when flying around in ftl ships I have no doubt that a sizable greenhouse and some sort barn per say would be implemented until the advancement to protein synthesizers such as in star trek.
In conclusion I feel that the need to slow ships speed because they need to resupply is a good or realistic idea.
I would suggest a system such as eu4, have routed fleets be un-engageable for a number of friendly systems.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.