• 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:
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... :(

Making different techs more dependant on ethos/traits/events would be a good start

Gameplay, and so techs should reflect the background of my empire as well as the choices I made throughout the game. It feels like the intent is there in the game design (the tech tree slightly change based on your ethos), but ultimately they didn't go far enough and every empire feel samey.

In a symmetrical start kind of game, if everyone get the same events, same gameplay and more or less the same techs, there is no replayability.
 
  • 11
Reactions:
These shiproles are ridiculous, the shipdesign should give them a role, not their size. Why cant I build a fat battleship with cluster artillery to shoot corvettes like clay pigeons, that would give others the reason to build a battleship with anti-battleship weapons. Now it seems only dangerous to build battleships.

Give a soldier a bazooka, his role is anti-tank
Give a solder a machine gun, his role is fire support or fire supremacy.
Give a soldier a rifle, his role is anti-soldier, medium range.
Its always a soldier, his utilities makes the role. Please let shipdesigns be free, if wanted, so I can decide which role it should play.

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.

Soldiers aren't crewed by thousands of people. Soldiers are tiny bits of a strategic resource. Ships are a strategic resource in and of themselves. As cold as it sounds, if you lose 6 soldiers, no ability to project your power is lost. Losing 6 ships is a completely different story, especially early game.

You are comparing apples to orbital mechanics.
 
  • 7
  • 7
Reactions:
So you are saying it's a bad idea because it could end up being detrimental to the game?

What?

I mean, yes, if something were detrimental to the game I think anybody in their right mind would agree that it would be a bad idea to implement it. But I'm honestly not sure what you're referring to with this.

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.

Nobody does that, though. From what I've seen on these forums, the current optimal fleet to build is just destroyers. Forever. "Throwing a curve ball" means you do worse - it's like how CK2's overly-complicated tactics mechanics result in very specific retinue combinations vastly outperforming anything else in any situation. Doing anything different doesn't give you an advantage.

And you still have the ability, again, to tune ships to focus on different strengths within their roles, or to counter specific ship loadouts your enemies use. The only thing that's changed is that it's been made more concrete what each class is supposed to be for and what it can feasibly do.
 
  • 4
  • 2
Reactions:
I'm feeling disappointed. The rebalancing was supposed to introduce different builds for each ship class, not once per ship class. I hope that what was said in dev diary 41 is still valid. And in fact, chances are that it is.

I'm talking about that part :
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.
 
  • 8
  • 1
Reactions:
Nobody does that, though. From what I've seen on these forums, the current optimal fleet to build is just destroyers. Forever. "Throwing a curve ball" means you do worse - it's like how CK2's overly-complicated tactics mechanics result in very specific retinue combinations vastly outperforming anything else in any situation. Doing anything different doesn't give you an advantage.

It will be the same here, i reckon, if everyone is forced to build a bit of everything to counter the bit of everything that everyone uses, surely the ultimate composition that will outperform every other in every situation will come to light.
 
  • 2
  • 1
Reactions:
It will be the same here, i reckon, if everyone is forced to build a bit of everything to counter the bit of everything that everyone uses, surely the ultimate composition that will outperform every other in every situation will come to light.

You don't see how fleets entirely composed of just one ship type and loadout is more ridiculous than the optimal strategy being a balanced and diverse fleet?

Like, even worst-case, this is clearly more reasonable.
 
  • 13
  • 1
Reactions:
You don't see how fleets entirely composed of just one ship type and loadout is more ridiculous than the optimal strategy being a balanced and diverse fleet?

Like, even worst-case, this is clearly more reasonable.

This is not strategy, but tactics. In fact, you are not allowed to have different strategys in battle. Think it over
 
  • 3
Reactions:
What?

I mean, yes, if something were detrimental to the game I think anybody in their right mind would agree that it would be a bad idea to implement it. But I'm honestly not sure what you're referring to with this.



Nobody does that, though. From what I've seen on these forums, the current optimal fleet to build is just destroyers. Forever. "Throwing a curve ball" means you do worse - it's like how CK2's overly-complicated tactics mechanics result in very specific retinue combinations vastly outperforming anything else in any situation. Doing anything different doesn't give you an advantage.

And you still have the ability, again, to tune ships to focus on different strengths within their roles, or to counter specific ship loadouts your enemies use. The only thing that's changed is that it's been made more concrete what each class is supposed to be for and what it can feasibly do.

I'm saying that your too cautious with the design, You need to give the player choice in order for the game to have replay-ability. Otherwise you end up with what Stellaris seems now. Take a look at Deus ex for example.

If throwing a curve ball means you always do worse, and not better in some scenarios then it's poor design that detracts from the fun from the game. The exact same result if you railroad everyone down the same route with designs and tactics. Adding some tactics that are niche but if employed right can really throw a spanner into works are always good imo. But you may suffer from the result of poor game design if it's executed wrong. Which is what I am referring to above.

There always needs to be a couple options as to what you need to do in order to give the player some replayability and to get him some fun.

You don't see how fleets entirely composed of just one ship type and loadout is more ridiculous than the optimal strategy being a balanced and diverse fleet?

Like, even worst-case, this is clearly more reasonable.

But still bad design if that is the only choice you can take. That is what Stellaris suffers from the most I think.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
You don't see how fleets entirely composed of just one ship type and loadout is more ridiculous than the optimal strategy being a balanced and diverse fleet?

Like, even worst-case, this is clearly more reasonable.

The current state of things in stellaris is a broken mess, so yeah i see that pretty clearly.

Let me put it this way, what is described here look like a improvement over what we currently have. However i'm not sure it's the right kind of improvement and/or enough to make ship design and combat in stellaris interesting.
From a meta game perspective if you replace a one unit killer combination by a diverse fleet killer combination, the issue remain the same : there will eventually be one killer combination.
So yeah it will be more satisfying from a gameplay and eye candy perspective, but it probably won't add that much replayability or depth on the macro game.
 
  • 8
  • 3
Reactions:
These shiproles are ridiculous, the shipdesign should give them a role, not their size. Why cant I build a fat battleship with cluster artillery to shoot corvettes like clay pigeons, that would give others the reason to build a battleship with anti-battleship weapons. Now it seems only dangerous to build battleships.

You have two major points going against your argument. History and lore of sci-fi based ships.

You never saw in history a battleship turned into a sub hunter or anti-DD platform. The reason they used bigger ships is because the ship needed to be larger to support and house the larger guns.

Sci-fi lore is the same way. Like in Mass Effect. You needed larger ships to house the larger weapons. History and lore support the large ships carrying the large weapon and not being used as anti-small ship platforms.

The only ship that is both anti-large and anti-small is the carrier because the planes can perform multiple roles.

And your analogy to a soldier is a fallacy in argument. What would be more appropriate is comparing a soldier that is over 2 meters or say 6 feet tall vs. a small soldier of 5 feet in height. Now which could carry a large heavy 50 pound weapon better? If you've ever been in the army you would know this. The size of the soldier goes a long way in determining what weapon they got to carry and use.
 
Last edited:
  • 11
  • 6
Reactions:
You never saw in history

Larger guns which actually became useless very fast in ship to ship warfare. In the end air power decided the major battles of WW2. And now guided missiles changed everything again.
Also we have submarines that can wipe a country off the face of the earth, how about that ?

ship roles changed actually pretty damn fast. What was defined at the end of WW1 was already obsolete at the start of WW2 which in time was obsolete in the cold war.
 
  • 6
  • 1
Reactions:
It would be cool if bombers fired torpedoes instead of energy weapons. Have a fast moving but vulnerable platform to get a slow moving torpedo into range so there is less chance of interception.
 
  • 6
Reactions:
You have two major point sgoing against your argument. History and lore of sci-fi based ships.

You never saw in hisoty a battleship turned into a sub hunter or anti-DD platform. The reason they used bigger ships is because the ship needed to be larger to support and house the larger guns.

Sci-fi lore is the same way. Like in Mass Effect. You needed larger ships to house the larger weapons. History and lore support the large ships carrying the large weapon and not being used as anti-small ship platforms.

And your analogy to a soldier is a fallacy in argument. What would be more appropriate is comparing a soldier that is over 2 meters or say 6 feet tall vs. a small soldier of 5 feet in height. Now which could carry a large heavy 50 pound weapon better?

In history, many things happened, and many not. Because of ships someone build submarines. And because of big ships, someone build bigger ships. Why was the cellphones short message service this succesful ? Nobody knew before. Why werent there massive (bismarck-class) anti-submarine ships ? Nobody knows. Dont compare these things.

Have you ever played X2/X3 ? This somehow is the style I would like to see in stellaris. Small ships, small arms, in masses dangerous to any ship size. Very big ships meant as what you want : Carrier, Missile boat, flak gun, anti small vessel base ship. You have the choice and arent restricted to templates.

I'am the player and I want options. There shouldnt be a most effective way, but in combination a good "One way" against "the second way". The "second way" is ineffective against "the third way". Look at MoO 2, they gave you options and you had to think to counter....

Forget my analogy to the soldier. The soldiers role is what I tell the soldiers role is. He will pick the right utility to make the job. D'accord ?
 
  • 3
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions: