• 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:
Equipment limitations based on completely arbitrary "roles" don't appeal to me in the slightest.

Those kind of restrictions are very obviously artificial and feel extremely gamey, which is pretty much the exact opposite of what stellaris needs.
 
  • 6
  • 1
Reactions:
Couldn't one simply design the modules so that a battleship strong against corvettes would be ineffective at normal battleship roles?

Equipment limitations based on completely arbitrary "roles" don't appeal to me in the slightest.

Those kind of restrictions are very obviously artificial and feel extremely gamey, which is pretty much the exact opposite of what stellaris needs.

Paradox: Hey, guys. We give you four hull sizes and you can mount them with everything you want!
Fans: It sucks! Ships should have strictly defined roles, for example BBs kills CAs, CAs kills DDs, DDs kills corvettes and corvettes kills BBs!

Paradox: Hey, guys. We decided to give every ship strictly definied role, for example BBs kills CAs, DDs kills corvettes, corvettes kills BBs etc.
Fans: It sucks! Equipment limitations based on completely arbitrary "roles" don't appeal to me in the slightest. Couldn't one simply design the modules so that a battleship strong against corvettes would be ineffective at normal battleship roles?

Gamedev. Sounds like fun :)
 
  • 13
  • 3
  • 2
Reactions:
I think we really need some more/better victory conditions. So far, in every game, I have been conquering happily along when all of a sudden, the Domination victory screen pops up. It feels like I won by accident.
 
  • 3
Reactions:
Very interesting.

Can you create battlecruisers in the classic mold? . . . hunters of cruisers and destroyers (in this game strucure) heavily armed, fast, not heavily armored?

Historical development (often mirrored in sci fi as well) was in leaps forward that upset the balance damage and protection until countered or outmatched, with some paradigm changes in the process. Such as the way steamships outclassed sail, and ironclads outclassed them - with that brief era a century and ahalf ago where ramming was considered a tactic until armament to better penetrate armored ships was deployed.

Just accumulating incremental levels or somewhat generic components is easy to set up but does not have the right feel.
I think you could actually do something like this in the game by having the heavy weaponry modules have few equipment slots. For example, the Battleship's XL weapon component could offer no equipment slots at all, same with heavy carrier modules. That way using those weapons forces you to commit almost all of the equipment slots you do have with power, and a battleship that's good at everything simply can't be built since it wouldn't have the equipment slots needed to power everything.
 
  • 2
Reactions:
Paradox: Hey, guys. We give you four hull sizes and you can mount them with everything you want!
Fans: It sucks! Ships should have strictly defined roles, for example BBs kills CAs, CAs kills DDs, DDs kills corvettes and corvettes kills BBs!

Paradox: Hey, guys. We decided to give every ship strictly definied role, for example BBs kills CAs, DDs kills corvettes, corvettes kills BBs etc.
Fans: It sucks! Equipment limitations based on completely arbitrary "roles" don't appeal to me in the slightest. Couldn't one simply design the modules so that a battleship strong against corvettes would be ineffective at normal battleship roles?

Gamedev. Sounds like fun :)
Hey, I never demanded strictly defined roles.I can't help it if other poeple are wrong.:p
 
  • 4
  • 1
Reactions:
I for one, after some consideration and thought, fully support the more specialized ship types.

With a few pretty big caveats, however (and some of these have already been mentioned by others):

Fleet management needs to be greatly improved.
If we're supposed to build and balance our fleets and then shift the composition on the fly depending on what the opponent has, we need more robust tools to support that.
Not just with a 'fleet designer' to make building, repairing and updating fleets more workable, but also with better information display regarding opposing fleets.

Not just the weapons, but also research and several other game features probably need to be rebalanced a lot more than you think.

Right now the game offers players a choice of three starting weapon types and even if you choose not to stick with that type all the way to the late game it still means that the first (few) starport(s) you build will have that weapon type as their one and only defence (and indeed sometimes the only defence the planet has)... If Destroyers in the mid-to-late game are all about PD and killing Corvettes, then a player who is rushing specifically to even the start of those techs is going to brutally destroy anyone who chooses Missiles as their starting type. The way that the game forces you to research into energy weapons even if you chose to start with Kinetics or Missiles to have a chance in the late game already makes the starting weapons choice pretty much pointless. Making one of these choices suicidal does not improve things.

If all of this is truly solely and only for the 'late game', please don't actually bother.

To be perfectly blunt, it looks like this entire size=role system is designed and 'balanced' solely for the late game where players are expected to have researched all the different ship sizes and most of the weapons and utilities. As cool as it is as a concept, having a system like this in the late game isn't going to actually fix any of the rushing/blobbing issues in multiplayer, it's not going to add all that much to single player (because the AI either isn't going to be able to handle proper fleet composition anyway or has such a high production bonus that it will become unbeatable if it can) and over all it's going to make the late game even more boringly homogeneous by taking all the choice and creativity out of how you build your fleet by forcing everyone to use every weapon type in the game or be 'not viable'.
So ff it is indeed the case that this whole system mainly affects the (end of mid to) late game, I personally would actually prefer that you expend your efforts on fixing and expanding the current systems in place to allow more weapon variation and better theme/type viability and not on all this specialization stuff that's going to be a lot of effort for little actual gains.
 
  • 2
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions:
...
So ff it is indeed the case that this whole system mainly affects the (end of mid to) late game, I personally would actually prefer that you expend your efforts on fixing and expanding the current systems in place to allow more weapon variation and better theme/type viability and not on all this specialization stuff that's going to be a lot of effort for little actual gains.

Just a spontaneous idea about this issue of ship types early to late game. Possibly would be interesting to have to research all the various hull modules (would also be nice to have even more of them) to allow specialization so you start out with a tier 1 utility corvette but as you reach destroyers you already have most variants of hull modules for corvettes so possibly a first destroyer is not that much better than a fully fledged corvette in terms of combat specialization. You could pace the "advancements" of your hull types better aka the extra large gun battleship might be the hull modules coming late in battleship research so you have more reason to have battleship designs that aren't as awesome or specialized blurring the lines between the differet classes.

By adding passive buffs (+armor, +shields,...) certain hull sections might play towards sub classes like having battlecruisers (-armor, + speed), battleships(+armor, +hull) and carriers(-armor) as specific variations of a class.

While balancing would be a bitch you'd break up the issue that a lot of hull modules are pretty worthless (e.g. never built a utility corvette) as usually those ship types will get their specizalized spot the second they are researched and only rarely change (should imo also be not possible to upgrade ships with differing hull modules) so you have little variation.
 
Paradox: Hey, guys. We give you four hull sizes and you can mount them with everything you want!
Fans: It sucks! Ships should have strictly defined roles, for example BBs kills CAs, CAs kills DDs, DDs kills corvettes and corvettes kills BBs!

Paradox: Hey, guys. We decided to give every ship strictly definied role, for example BBs kills CAs, DDs kills corvettes, corvettes kills BBs etc.
Fans: It sucks! Equipment limitations based on completely arbitrary "roles" don't appeal to me in the slightest. Couldn't one simply design the modules so that a battleship strong against corvettes would be ineffective at normal battleship roles?

Gamedev. Sounds like fun :)

It's perfectly fine to have a dissenting opinion on what ship role design should be. The chances of us switching back to 'every ship can do everything' is probably close to zero, though, as dedicated ship roles is the way the entire design team wants to go (and have wanted to go for some time). No design will please everyone, but this is the design we think will be best for the game overall and so we're going for it.
 
  • 14
  • 6
  • 3
Reactions:
Adding to my above idea on having modules define ship roles, it might also be a good idea to have some modules be locked behind technologies and have certain built in modifiers to the ship solely due to being that module. For example, maybe there is only one variation available for corvettes at the start of the game that has a built in -75% damage to spacestations and defense platforms, but +25% damage to space monsters and other corvettes. Researching the tech for corvette assembly yards lets you use an all-round module for corvettes. Destroyers might not be able to take their dedicated anti-corvette module until after cruisers become available. This creates a power triangle right from the get-go and you need to be several techs ahead before you can build things that counter other player's only options.
 
  • 3
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.

So, if your opponent uses corvettes and cruisers only e.g., there is no point in having battleships? Does not make much sense to me.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
So, if your opponent uses corvettes and cruisers only e.g., there is no point in having battleships? Does not make much sense to me.
Destroyers to counter the corvettes, battleships to counter the cruisers. Or rather, a mixed fleet of all four types with a few carrier battleships for variety and you'll be able to match up against most things the enemy throws at you.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
Very interesting.

Can you create battlecruisers in the classic mold? . . . hunters of cruisers and destroyers (in this game strucure) heavily armed, fast, not heavily armored?

Yeah they could allow you to be able to add more engines, back section for more speed, middle and front sections for more evasion and less accuracy.
 
Last edited:
you known..unlike to Movies and Books, Warships (or nearly any military Equipment) that are designed to fullfill multiple Roles are bad till medicore in all of them compared to spezialists if they meet. Battlecruisers are perfect example and were fast dropped. Designed as fast big guns with low armor for hunting smaller Ships and run away from big guys they were in reality still too slow to catch the small ships they should hunt and too slow to run away from the real big guys.

So if they dont work here...is in fact real :D
 
  • 2
Reactions:
I think battle-cruisers get a bit of a bad wrap.

The British stop building them after Jutland because they had a tendency to spontaneously combust. This was more a product of poor ammunition handling on the part of the British. (The memoirs of captain Alexander Grant are here: http://www.scotlandswar.ed.ac.uk/sites/default/files/pdf_Battle_of_Jutland_Memoir.pdf and describe some of the alterations on HMS Lion (The one that didn't blow up)).

as for hood it was an obsolete ship with an obsolete armour scheme going up against a modern vessel.

Either way it doesn't matter. The battlecruiser concept was obsolete by 1940. Though this had more to do with better powerplants and gunnery than with a flaw in the concept. going from 21 to 28 knots isn't all that impressive if you are stuck in a battleline and the enemy can hit you anyway. And with the naval treaties there was little incentive to build a faster fleet when every navy wanted to maximize its striking potential.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
I suggest ,all shipsizes/types should be buildable from the beginning, without researching a technology.

- the size of the ship doesnt need a special technology
- you can decide to build 2 corvettes or one destroyer to have the military power you need
- fleet size is already a hard limiter, ship size depends on race philosophy
- Military Technology level limits the amount of weapon / shield / utility by energy you can provide

Suggestions :

- Make a techtree to improve the amount of slots a ship can have
- Techtree could improve energ yconsumption of devices
- Techtree could improve buildtimes / costs
- Unbind the amount of slots of weapon and utility per shippart, because the shipdesign should be more individual. Every slot costs resources/buildtime, why to limit the design by the game ? If I suggest to build a very powerful battleship, with all slots filled with weapons and shields, I need the same ressources / time as another one who decides to build a bigger fleet with less fulfilled slots. But I have the advantage, that my fleetsize doesnt expire. On the other hand, if one of my ship is destroyed, it has more meaning for my fleet.
 
  • 6
  • 1
Reactions:
Honestly adding a ship type (and hence, role) would spice things up now that options have been "restrained".
i.e.
Add dem dreadnoughts pls
 
  • 4
Reactions:
The only thing I request is that when you guys redesign the flight computers, that you'll actually make it so things like the Bombardment Computer AI's will actually hang back and just hammer the enemy from afar, rather than slowly charging into range. Further, it'd be wonderful if we could have some kind of fleet stance dealy, where we can tell various classes of ships where we want them to hang in the fleet, and how we want them to behave (though I'd settle for things like my battleships actually hanging WAY THE HELL BACK and not charging into the range of =multiple= enemies and just pounding them one by one)
 
  • 1
Reactions:
Status
Not open for further replies.