• 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 #45 - Ship Balance

Hello everyone!

Today we will go into the sixth part in a multi-part dev diary about the 'Heinlein' 1.3 update and accompanying (unannounced) content DLC. The topic of today's dev diary is the changes to ship roles and ship balance.

Ship Roles
The new design intends to give each ship a more unique combat role. Some ships will be defensive, while others will be more offensive.

Corvettes
Small and aggressive ships with high evasion that can be equipped with torpedoess. They will be very effective against large ships like battleships due to their high evasion and access to torpedoes. They have very low armor, but a very high chance to evade.

Destroyers
Defensive ships that are designed to counter corvettes, which is why they receive an innate +10 bonus to Tracking. They can be equipped with point-defense weapons, to shoot down the torpedoes fired by corvettes. They have moderate armor, and a moderate chance to evade.

Cruisers
These aggressive ships should be able to put out a lot of damage, but at the cost of less defense. Cruisers, like corvettes, can also be equipped with torpedoes. But unlike corvettes, they can also be equipped with hangars for strike craft. They have somewhat high armor, and a small chance to evade.

Battleships
The new role for battleships will be durable capital ships that fire at its enemies from a long distance. They are the only ship size that can be equipped with extra large weapons. They have very high armor, but minimal evasion.

upload_2016-9-12_14-53-30.png


Evasion, Tracking & Armor
A new feature in the Heinlein patch will be the Tracking stat. Each weapon will have a Tracking value that determines how effective they are against ships with high evasion. Every point of Tracking reduces the target’s chance to evade that attack by the same amount. Small weapons will have high Tracking, medium weapons will have medium Tracking, and large weapons will have minimal Tracking.

This means that large weapons - with a poor Tracking value - will still be very effective against large ships like cruisers or battleships, but almost useless against small ships like corvettes due to their high evasion.

The armor penetration of weapons has also been rebalanced so that large weapons have a much higher armor penetration values than smaller weapons.

In effect, this means that small weapons are good at shooting at small ships, while large weapons are good at shooting at large ships.

Another note is that missile weapons no longer ignore evasion, and can be evaded like normal. Most missiles, however, will have a very high Tracking value.

upload_2016-9-12_14-53-50.png


New Slots
Something new in the Heinlein patch will be the introduction of a couple of new slot types.

x.png

The extra large slot will contain powerful spinal-mounted weapons that are designed to target and take out enemy capital ships. Only Battleships will have a ship section with this weapon slot.

t.png

The torpedo slot, as evident by its name, will hold torpedoes. Torpedoes are slow firing weapons that deal massive damage, perfect for taking down larger ships. Unlike other missiles, however, torpedoes do not have good Tracking, which means they are very ineffective against ships with high evasion, such as corvettes or destroyers.

a_ux.png

The auxiliary slot will hold components that have ship-wide effects. Crystal-Forged Armor, Shield Capacitors and Regenerative Hull Tissue are examples of components that will now be equipped in this slot.

pd.png

Point-defense weapons now have its own slot size. The idea is that you should need to specialize some ships into countering enemy torpedoes

upload_2016-9-12_14-53-13.png


Major weapon rebalancing
Most weapons have been rebalanced to better suit the new design.

That's all for this week! Join us again next monday when we’ll be back with another dev diary!
 
Last edited:
  • 147
  • 51
  • 13
Reactions:
The analogy is absolutely asinine. It's insisting on not recognizing the differences between different types of guns.

If you think any weapon can have the same application as any other type of weapon if you just switch out parts and ammo, you might be delusional. Why else do different types of weapons exist? If you were correct, there would be no need.

He thinks any vehicle can have different application depending on the type of weapon they're fitting. I don't know what you are talking about
 
  • 6
Reactions:
What about Support ships/Command ships ? You can have a fleet with more than a few hundred ships and only one commander is leading them ? Cap the fleetsize limit, so you are forced to have more than one commander. The ship he is leading from is more valueable than others, because it can lead into an unorganized fleet with less effectiveness if the leader dies / the leading ship is disabled.
"Protect the flagship" doesn't work as a game mechanic when you have no tactical control.

We will not be getting tactical control.
 
  • 7
Reactions:
I actually think it's pretty logical.

This model makes Corvettes equivalent to the torpedo boats of naval combat in Earth's history.

Destroyers are also placed in the role of destroyers in naval combat as we know it (originally torpedo boat destroyers, shortened to destroyers).

Cruisers can now be built as traditional cruisers or traditional carriers.

Battleships are now what battleships have historically been.

Then we invented guided missiles and those ship classes became irrelevant though.
 
  • 8
  • 5
Reactions:
Well at least these tracking addition fixes the 120 range strat with particle lances on destroyers and battleships. Not exactly sure how this going to work out, but it is interesting. I wish there was some type of graph that visualizes ship X vs ship Y.
 
The analogy is absolutely asinine. It's insisting on not recognizing the differences between different types of guns.

If you think any weapon can have the same application as any other type of weapon if you just switch out parts and ammo, you might be delusional. Why else do different types of weapons exist? If you were correct, there would be no need.

I agree the analogy is sub par. Though the point about swapping out ammo for other ammo types, or re-tooling is valid, but it just means there should be SOME flexibility, not that you can make any gun (ship) do any job.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
without necessarily detailing everything out with tiresome complexity.

Hopefully, and I'll grant you I'm not placing an enormous amount of stock in this, but hopefully the tiresome complexity will be optionally provided as a future DLC. :)
 

Will there be new art for the combat computers? From the screenshot, it seems rather odd that the balanced behavior combat computer has the shield.


Also, is there any chance of us getting the ability to disengage from combat? If my ships are fast enough to outrun the enemy, shouldn't I be able to escape that way instead of needing to use the emergency FTL? Or tell them to break off the attack on a mining station in favor of an enemy fleet that just jumped in?

On a similar note, what about the possibility of giving fleets standing orders? Things like "Only engage high priority targets" (i.e. stop going after every single mining station you see), "Maintain current task" (Yes, I see that a single enemy corvette entered the system. Ignore it and keep bombarding), and "Escort" (follow and protect this ship, don't wander off.)
 
  • 14
Reactions:
I wonder, how will target-priority be handled in combat? I don't want my corvettes to launch torpedoes on the enemy corvettes if there is a juicy battleship or cruiser available. Same, I don't want my battleships to fire their large and XL weapons on small ships they won't hit unless that is the only thing available.
 
  • 11
Reactions:
The analogy is absolutely asinine. It's insisting on not recognizing the differences between different types of guns.

If you think any weapon can have the same application as any other type of weapon if you just switch out parts and ammo, you might be delusional. Why else do different types of weapons exist? If you were correct, there would be no need.

Last week, Kim Jong Un used a FLAK to execute one of his ministers. He could and he did, but it would be best to shoot a plane instead. HE decided the role of his weapon, not the weapon, what to shoot at.
I dont want to nitpick about this. Fact is, you should can use a ship of what you want and not be forced to build things, because its the way it meant to be.
(criticism on my language abilities are welcome!)
 
  • 4
  • 1
Reactions:
So your saying we can't have other options to ships aside from the intended role because they are not the most effective

I'm saying that this blind insistence on player choice always being superior to any kind of restriction whatsoever, even when those restrictions lead to a more well-defined game is a terrible thing that people absolutely need to get out of their heads.

Games are restriction on player choice. Inherently. Sometimes restrictions from game rules are bad, which result in poorly-implemented mechanics and bad gameplay. Other times they create interesting and engaging mechanics that lead to good gameplay.

Without well-defined ship roles, we very easily end up with the current situation where ludicrously unbalanced mono-type fleets win the day. Ship roles at least change the "optimal" fleet to being a balanced one where no ship class becomes obsolete. I feel this actually has more opportunity customization of fleets for individual playstyle and strategy - you have more options when more ships are viable. You can tune ships to perform in different ways within their roles, which can greatly affect how effective your fleet is.
 
  • 10
  • 7
  • 2
Reactions:
I wonder, how will target-priority be handled in combat? I don't want my corvettes to launch torpedoes on the enemy corvettes if there is a juicy battleship or cruiser available. Same, I don't want my battleships to fire their large and XL weapons on small ships they won't hit unless that is the only thing available.
this actually. "we have specialized roles for ships!"
Corvettes attack corvettes
Destroyers attack battleships
Battleships attack corvettes with huge weapons an low chance to hit
cruisers sit in the corner and cry.

This would be bad and I realize I'm giving a horrible example.
 
  • 3
Reactions:
Last week, Kim Jong Un used a FLAK to execute one of his ministers. He could and he did, but it would be best to shoot a plane instead. HE decided the role of his weapon, not the weapon, what to shoot at.
I dont want to nitpick about this. Fact is, you should can use a ship of what you want and not forced to build things, because its the way it meant to be.

That's the stupidest possible objection.

An execution is not a battlefield. Nobody cares how effective a weapon is at a shooting one person who can't fight back.
 
  • 7
  • 5
Reactions:
I could not disagree more, especially about ground combat. I've never played a space 4x that had ground combat that was anything but annoying, for exactly he reasons that Wiz has stated. Detailed ground combat just has no place in a game spanning hundreds or thousands of stars.
I don't recall the game off hand, but I like watch my invasion force go down and slaughter their adversary, but ultimately don't have a problem with invasion, just wish they helped with separatists.
 
I'm saying that this blind insistence on player choice always being superior to any kind of restriction whatsoever, even when those restrictions lead to a more well-defined game is a terrible thing that people absolutely need to get out of their heads.

Games are restriction on player choice. Inherently. Sometimes restrictions from game rules are bad, which result in poorly-implemented mechanics and bad gameplay. Other times they create interesting and engaging mechanics that lead to good gameplay.

Without well-defined ship roles, we very easily end up with the current situation where ludicrously unbalanced mono-type fleets win the day. Ship roles at least change the "optimal" fleet to being a balanced one where no ship class becomes obsolete. I feel this actually has more opportunity customization of fleets for individual playstyle and strategy - you have more options when more ships are viable. You can tune ships to perform in different ways within their roles, which can greatly affect how effective your fleet is.

^
It was already the case that you couldn't build corvettes with 1 large weapon. This is just changing the restrictions, and tbh, I welcome them. It would require huge changes to be totally freeform. If you want that, there is always stardrive's ship creator...
 
  • 3
Reactions:
I'm saying that this blind insistence on player choice always being superior to any kind of restriction whatsoever, even when those restrictions lead to a more well-defined game is a terrible thing that people absolutely need to get out of their heads.

Games are restriction on player choice. Inherently. Sometimes restrictions from game rules are bad, which result in poorly-implemented mechanics and bad gameplay. Other times they create interesting and engaging mechanics that lead to good gameplay.

Without well-defined ship roles, we very easily end up with the current situation where ludicrously unbalanced mono-type fleets win the day. Ship roles at least change the "optimal" fleet to being a balanced one where no ship class becomes obsolete. I feel this actually has more opportunity customization of fleets for individual playstyle and strategy - you have more options when more ships are viable. You can tune ships to perform in different ways within their roles, which can greatly affect how effective your fleet is.

In general I agree, but in this particular case it feels too artficial. And smaller vessels can be made more effective through balance and tech upgrades, not only restrictions on loadout of bigger vessels.
 
  • 2
Reactions:
I can't help but worry that this is just going to feel more like it's encouraging everyone to play the same way and make space empires feel more generic. Not sure how to fix that though... :(
 
  • 10
  • 3
Reactions:
I'm saying that this blind insistence on player choice always being superior to any kind of restriction whatsoever, even when those restrictions lead to a more well-defined game is a terrible thing that people absolutely need to get out of their heads.

Games are restriction on player choice. Inherently. Sometimes restrictions from game rules are bad, which result in poorly-implemented mechanics and bad gameplay. Other times they create interesting and engaging mechanics that lead to good gameplay.

Without well-defined ship roles, we very easily end up with the current situation where ludicrously unbalanced mono-type fleets win the day. Ship roles at least change the "optimal" fleet to being a balanced one where no ship class becomes obsolete. I feel this actually has more opportunity customization of fleets for individual playstyle and strategy - you have more options when more ships are viable. You can tune ships to perform in different ways within their roles, which can greatly affect how effective your fleet is.

So you are saying it's a bad idea because it could end up being detrimental to the game?

Don't get me wrong I like the new roles, but being able to throw a curve ball instead of a fast ball all the time (which is what this update appears to being going for) seems like a fun way to change things up.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
I can't help but worry that this is just going to feel more like it's encouraging everyone to play the same way and make space empires feel more generic. Not sure how to fix that though... :(

It's all in the execution I think. We need to be given more options than just what we are being given here. I think we should be able to research different ship sections for alternative roles than what this update is forcing us into that way we should have the option of having a single type fleet and so on. The key is in the quality of balancing I feel
 
  • 3
  • 1
Reactions:
I can't help but worry that this is just going to feel more like it's encouraging everyone to play the same way and make space empires feel more generic. Not sure how to fix that though... :(

Same to me, thats what I talk about : I don't like the way they want us to play the game. If everything is meant to use, why should I play the game ? I want little more decision making with the option to fail, instead of count the amount of enemy ships to adapt my fleet. That easiliy can be automated, if theres only one best way. I want to find out and have more than one option to win a battle, especially if there is no best option.
 
  • 7
  • 4
Reactions: