• 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:
So far i really like the changes

Will we get a button/checkbox in ship designer which will allow us to hide obsolete weapons/modules? It is (at least for me) frustrating to always go through all ship equipment to find the best one I am looking for (which ends up at the end of the list, so I have to always scroll all the way down)
 
  • 13
Reactions:
You can still design unconventionally, like anti-corvette corvettes or long-range destroyers. Some unconventional designs won't be available though (like battleships that are strong against corvettes) because it would nullify the entire point of the roles.

What a waste of time on questionable mechanic. Will it be better than current system? Hard to say. Even if it will by how much 5%, 10%? Whats the purpose of it? How players decision pipeline should look like? For example i have minerals, i open building menu, what type of ship should i build ? Is there best fleet composition player should maintain? Should i micromanage my fleets so hard: ok here is 5 corvettes, 1 cruiser, 2 destroyers, 1 battleship, so i should build another 5c, 2cr, 5d, 3b ok let me write this on paper because i definitely will forget and then repeat that after each battle. What even the point of ship designer if ships have predisposed roles?

Confusing mechanic with a lot added artificial micromanagement which does not change much when there are other areas that must be improved and profit will be enormous instead of miserable more 5% fun.
 
Last edited:
  • 19
  • 10
Reactions:
Well. i actually like that roles-thing, but i feel it isnt the best for everyone. So i ask only for posibility change all this for modders. Because this type of logic... it isnt work perfectly. And for some mod-worldsconversion-mods it tactic feel... stupid.
Given the way the game handles ship types, modding of them and addition of new ones I see no reason why any of the proposed changes would necessarily be hardcoded.
 
Well the second formula, at least, is bogus. With that one low accuracy weapons are always better than high accuracy ones. Consider a weapon that deals 1 damage with 100% accuracy vs one that deals 100 damage with 1% accuracy. No matter how much evasion you get the second weapon will always deal more damage. For instance with 1000% evasion the accurate weapon is dealing 1/11, while the low accuracy one deals 100/1001. It's easy to show that this will be the case with any amount of evasion.

The first one is more interesting and might be worth thinking about.


Regarding accuracy versus evasion, exploiting the insane nice exponential function is very good.

1 - exp (-C(A-E) )

when A >> E, and:

50%+A-E

when A approximatly E, and

exp C(A-E)

When A << E


This will then approach zero and one respectively :) No weapons will ever have 0 % of hitting. Likewise, no weapon will ever have 100% hit rate either. And more evation is ALWAYS better, but will be limited usefulness when E is much higher than A. Further, getting the effective hit-ratio down from 15% to 10% would be hard!

You could also include accurazy into the weapon sizes, making X weapons more difficult to hit with.
 
Last edited:
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions:
And I was just writing that emergency FTL should set fleets to MIA because seems logical... I'm glad to see that I wasn't the only one that think that.

Looking good Wiz, keep with the good work!

What’s in the next DD if you can tell?
 
  • 2
Reactions:
having fleet speed depend on how far away you are from friendly space (and thus resupply)
I would love this! It would add a sorely needed strategic element to fleet movement, and create an equally sorely needed defender's advantage.
 
  • 9
  • 1
Reactions:
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.
Will torpedoes be keeping their ability to completely ignore shields?

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.
Any chance that civilian ships will have a different emergency FTL mode than combat ships? It is really frustrating to keep losing scientists and science ships to space monsters and the like because of the increased eFTL charge time.

Also, seconding the request for a "disengage from combat" button, for use when attacking a stationary target like a mining base or space station. If It can't pursue, why can't I choose to have the ships break off the attack?

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.
How would that work in tandem with the eFTL sending fleets back all the way back home? Wouldn't that make catching fleets nigh-impossible?
 
  • 4
  • 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).

Even if it is a minor feature I really hope the reduced speed in enemy territory makes it to the final patch.I am really looking forward to this patch.
 
When will there be more achievements added into the game? When is this patch releasing? Will it have a beta? Is it combined with the first expansion or is this another free content patch? Love everything about the patch so far. I especially love how you guys totes stole my idea of making emergency FTL put ships MIA. its especially needed for all hyperlane games.
 
  • 4
Reactions:
I like the changes. Needing a balance of ship types and adjusting that balanced based on your enemy sounds fun.

Not sure if it's included in the 'reevaluate strike craft' line, but I would love to see the possibility for true carrier craft. Might be a bit much for this patch, but I'd love to be able to field a fleet of true strike-craft carriers--battleships that do the vast majority of their damage via strike craft. Right now, even if you pick the most hangar-laden modules, you still end up with battleships that primarily do damage themselves, just with a handful of guns swapped out for hangars. It seems like it can fit in well with the current balances. PD destroyers would be the counter to such tactics.
 
  • 6
  • 1
Reactions:
While we are at it, reactors need a power boost (no pun intended). Or we need another tier of reactor tech. My ships end up being 80% reactors because they dont produce worth crap.
 
  • 25
Reactions:
Cruisers and destroyers will wreck a corvette/destroyer combo, which means you'd want some battleships or cruisers of your own to counter their cruisers. That's the idea anyway - it will of course require playtesting and tweaking on our balance to get the balance right.

My one concern with this concept of specialization is that the ship classes are tech based aka in early game destroyers are your capital ships! In mid game your cruisers are your capital ships!

That makes specialization of those ship types a tad problematic. A corvette only becomes a torpedo boat when there are bigger fish around so the other tactics become suicidal.
Just check ww1 dreadnaughts vs ww2 battleships. Built for the same role the later where nearly twice as big. In a similar vein modern destroyers can rival ww2 cruisers.

so overall I hope you can still create different hull selections with or without that specialization so you have at first the new class as the biggest general purpose ship and only later with access to more ship types they specialize.


Overall I would however see the main problem in the lack of tactics and strategies. With the lack of such to turn an unfavorable numbers game into your favor you are left with optimizing said numbers as the only means to affect a war (with the additional problem that wars are difficult to predict and worse to recover from).

Oh, and I second a disengagement mechanic allowing you to stop combat and run away without emergency ftl. In a sense a better choice if you nearly destroyed an enemy but reinforcements are on their way and you need the precious few minutes to get away.

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 could see limiting the upgradable slots in a ship. Maybe you can switch tier 2 railguns for tier 3 railguns but you cannot replace them with torpedoes or somesuch.

The main issue to completely removing it is usability in handling the ship classes and organizing your fleet (what to retire, what to keep). Currently the upgrade button is essentially a quick fix so your fleet composition does not get completely scrambled.

Maybe a bit too much HOI but I'd really see more a light vesion of its "order of battle" / "army system" where you create dedicated fleets/army structures with units you build and order those. Then replacing certain ships might also be easier.
 
Last edited:
  • 5
  • 1
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
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 like that eFTL is changing to set your fleet as MIA even with the increased risk of ship loss. The notion of fleet speed being diminished in some way the further you are from friendly space is also an appealing one. I do have two small requests to go along with these changes:
  • Can FTL inhibitors be made to pull fleets out of emergency FTL before they reach friendly space? This would be a neat boost to their usefulness (and military stations in general) as well as requiring that an attacker maintains a clear line of retreat to their allied systems.
  • Can eFTL warmup time be halved by having a scientist leader aboard? It's frustrating to have your science vessel pulled into combat and find yourself hovering over the eFTL button in the vain hope that you won't be destroyed before being able to jump out.
    And if anyone could boost the ships emergency jump time it would be Mercedes Romero and colleagues ... :D
We're looking into fleet formations and some basic orders during combat (priority targeting, etc).

I really hope that "Disengage" might be considered for one of those orders, as it's sorely needed! (even at the cost of some penalty to the disengaging party along with a cooldown)
Obviously trying to disengage a hostile fleet would be pretty pointless unless you have a speedy hit & run style fleet to gain distance). BUT this would at least allow you to break off attacking a spaceport to intercept an incoming fleet or jump back to defend your homeworld for example.


Also - minor request (though I guess more one for @Aerie ...) could the ship designer be changed to use a "dry-dock spaceport" type skybox instead of the usual system background? It's pretty hard to admire the details and texture work on the ships when viewed against the starscape. You even use a lovely one in the loading screens!
 
Last edited:
  • 4
Reactions:
I will only become interested in an update when you work out the problems with sectors. I'm having to manually set up every colonized planet with basic buildings just to make sure the colonies will actually have buildings when I give it over to a sector, rather than just letting a large portion of my population sit and be unemployed.

regardless, I appreciate the attention being put into ship combat. I'm most interested in seeing the fleet formations and how the different ones will let us customize which ships get into combat first. It would be nice if, along with all of these ships, you would introduce some sort of stealth ship that can ignore closed borders as a means to spy on the enemy and discover what kind of fleet they're building.
 
  • 4
Reactions:
One or two more patches and I might buy Stellaris as well :p Looking forward to it actually.
Paradox Games tend to become so good after a while of patching, DLCing and modding.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
I will only become interested in an update when you work out the problems with sectors. I'm having to manually set up every colonized planet with basic buildings just to make sure the colonies will actually have buildings when I give it over to a sector, rather than just letting a large portion of my population sit and be unemployed.

regardless, I appreciate the attention being put into ship combat. I'm most interested in seeing the fleet formations and how the different ones will let us customize which ships get into combat first. It would be nice if, along with all of these ships, you would introduce some sort of stealth ship that can ignore closed borders as a means to spy on the enemy and discover what kind of fleet they're building.

There certainly will be work done with sectors in Heinlein.
 
  • 24
  • 1
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 don't like this idea. I never heard Captain Kirk say "Intercept the Klingon ship at warp 2 because we are running low on anti-matter and need to rendezvous with a collier for a fuel top up".
 
Last edited:
  • 10
  • 9
Reactions:
Status
Not open for further replies.