• 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:
This somewhat reminds me of an arms race*; 'well, we have this ship, what would beat it?' --> destroyers developed --> 'what beats this then?' --> cruisers developed --> 'and this?' --> battleships developed... I think there's potential here, for both atmosphere and strategy. (*actual arms races didn't work like that afaik)

For example, there could be tech options which would help your corvettes to fight destroyers, perhaps at the cost of something else.

I'm wondering how such a tech tree ought be formatted though. Should 'anti-destroyer' things for corvettes be tied to the destroyer tech, or should it be a result of corvette research?
Either way, it would be something of a departing from the current 'researching this tech lets you build it at any size'. (which... doesn't really make sense? I mean, if the principles of a weapon are understood, you can of course scale it up, but there are usually engineering issues to be solved when you do such a thing overmuch - segmented tech? researching a principle unlocks a small version, and enables (cheap?) upscaling research? (upscaling tech should perhaps be sticky, so it's always an option?)

Well, I'm rambling.

I'm curious to see what we end up with.
 
  • 2
Reactions:
002.png


A Ship with an Aggressive Computer isn't to get its Weapon-Damage-Bonus (5%) ...
It is a Bug a long Time ago ...
Fixed ?
 
  • 4
Reactions:
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.

Comparing these things is EXACTLY the point. You say nobody knows is the answer. I say they in fact do know and the answer is because it wouldn't work and would have been dumb to do it that way. Occam's razor.

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.
And in Stellaris you have this. Corveets going up just aginast BB's will kill the BB's. You need DD's for protection. Thnik back to our history. If we didn't have escorts subs would sink all the capital ships.

I'am the player and I want options.
You do have options. You need to build and create fleets with PROPER counts of ships. Too many captials with no escorts means you can lose. Too many escorts and no capitals means you can lose. And you can create strike fleets with cruisers like the Germany's tried with the heavy CA's to sink mechant ships.
 
  • 8
  • 6
  • 1
Reactions:
I continue to be more and more intrigued with these changes but there's really no way to know if it will be good or bad until we have experienced them first hand. I can't wait to try it out and see.

From the first screen shot, it looks like large kinetic artillery slots are still in the game and the new weapon in the X slot is named giga canon. So has the artillery just been nerfed somehow? I'm curious to see how the artillery is balanced with the normal projectile weapons if it's no longer the long range death dealer of the group.

Also, since Torps will no longer be very effective against smaller ships, will those weapons focus on the large ships. In other words, if you have a wing of Torp corvettes in your fleet that race straight at the enemy, will the targeting be random at all the ships in the enemy fleet or will your vettes focus on just the capital vessels? If you switch your vettes to regular missiles, will the targeting change?

Will Auxiliary slots be the only place you can place those specific types of systems?
 
  • 1
Reactions:
You do have options. You need to build and create fleets with PROPER counts of ships. Too many captials with no escorts means you can lose. Too many escorts and no capitals means you can lose. And you can create strike fleets with cruisers like the Germany's tried with the heavy CA's to sink mechant ships.

There is no merchant ships to hunt tho. The only thing your stack of ships is used for is to fight the other stack of ships. If you say that it's only the count of ships that matters, why have ship designs at all ?
 
  • 9
  • 1
Reactions:
Why werent there massive (bismarck-class) anti-submarine ships ? Nobody knows. Dont compare these things.
Actually, intelligent people applying a moment's thought to the problem will realize why there were never ASW battleships: for the same tonnage, ASW ships built on WW2-era destroyer hulls will let you protect a lot more convoys (or search a lot more water for roving submarines) simultaneously than ASW ships built on WW2-era battleship hulls will.

Of course, the increasing use of fleet air power over the course of the war changed the equation somewhat, since a carrier can have multiple kinds of plane on board and at least some carrier aircraft can be outfitted for multiple roles.
 
  • 3
Reactions:
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.

Especially given the disparity in sizes between ship types. Soldiers wouldn't be as interchangeable if some were the size of monkeys and some where the size of elephants.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
Comparing these things is EXACTLY the point. You say nobody knows is the answer. I say they in fact do know and the answer is because it wouldn't work and would have been dumb to do it that way. Occam's razor.


And in Stellaris you have this. Corveets going up just aginast BB's will kill the BB's. You need DD's for protection. Thnik back to our history. If we didn't have escorts subs would sink all the capital ships.


You do have options. You need to build and create fleets with PROPER counts of ships. Too many captials with no escorts means you can lose. Too many escorts and no capitals means you can lose. And you can create strike fleets with cruisers like the Germany's tried with the heavy CA's to sink mechant ships.

OK, I give up.
What are we talking about ? You say there are "options", and everything is well balanced and lot of strategic fun. This is unimaginative ! "Count your ships and win" is not the kind of "strategy" I prefer to play! The most important decision I have to make is to choose which empire I declare war on next.
Warfare could be so much more than using a completly useless Shipdesigner with all these stupid roles given to the ships.
 
  • 4
  • 4
Reactions:
I'm interested in how the cruiser role will play out. Certainly when they are introduced, there are there to smash destroyers with heavy armor and lots of medium weapons. However, they can also mount torpedoes, so they have the possibility of being a threat to battleships as well. Could a well-designed group of cruisers smash the escorting destroyers and then take out the BB's with torpedoes?

I'm also wondering how point defense and fleet concentration will interact. The main (non-BB) threat to BBs seems to be torpedoes. But the way PD normally works, something like torpedoes won't be effective unless deployed in enough numbers to overwhelm the PD. Which makes concentrating the fleet so it's hard to overwhelm PD very attractive. Will this further drive doomstack syndrome? Can a smallish force of torpedo corvettes really threaten a large concentration unescorted BBs or CRs?
 
There is no merchant ships to hunt tho. The only thing your stack of ships is used for is to fight the other stack of ships. If you say that it's only the count of ships that matters, why have ship designs at all ?

Count of what type. BTW the sub hunting is an anology to recent past events. Subs also went after capital ships in case you didn't know. Inf act Germany was the ONLY country that specifically restricted their subs to merchants unless given a unique opportunity.

So this is a more evoled rock paper scissor with counts of each rock paper and scissor. If fleet A has corvettes and cruisors and goes up against fleet B with DD's and BB's the number of ships matter. Can the cruisers take out the DD's before the BB's take out the cruisers while seeing if the DD's can take out the corvettes. So the cruisers kill off the DD's and the BB's kill off the cruisers. The DD's do not finish off the torpedo corvettes and now the BB's are toast.

Jus one possible example.
 
  • 3
  • 1
Reactions:
OK, I give up.
What are we talking about ? You say there are "options", and everything is well balanced and lot of strategic fun. This is unimaginative ! "Count your ships and win" is not the kind of "strategy" I prefer to play! The most important decision I have to make is to choose which empire I declare war on next.
Warfare could be so much more than using a completly useless Shipdesigner with all these stupid roles given to the ships.

See my previous post on how cruisers and corvettes might fight DD's and BB's.
 
Have to admit I don't actually like this. Seems unnecessarily restrictive and not particularly logical. Still looking forward to the DLC and not complaining about the game as a whole by any means, I just think this particular set of changes is moving in the wrong direction.
So many fanboys on this forum, they don't like criticism.
After the early game ended, the game is simply boring and the fleet designer is one reason for it.
I remember I had so much fun in designing my fleets in Master of Orion 2. You had so many special modules and interesting combinations because of it. You were able to equip everything depending on your ship capacity (sounds logic hu?) and constantly incoming technologies made you think "shall I equip this or that?".
I also think exploring is happening way too fast in the early game. After I've found 8 alien races in the first years, the galaxy feels kinda small to me.
Thanks to user mods at this point, otherwise paradox settings still would feel dead and not comprehensible.
 
  • 11
  • 3
Reactions:
This is not strategy, but tactics. In fact, you are not allowed to have different strategys in battle. Think it over

Pedantry adds nothing to any discussion, and this is no different. You knew exactly what was being talked about.
Furthermore, fleet composition is absolutely strategy. You can't change it once you're in combat, but it decides what situations a given fleet is suitable for. If you're going to insist on being an insufferable pedant rather than making good contributions to a discussion, at least get it right.

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.

The current situation, where there are no well-defined roles, means it's much easier to min-max. This makes it much easier to get situations where there is one optimal strategy and anything else underperforms. Enforcing roles means enforced variety, and although optimal compositions might exist, it's less likely that they will and also easier to balance - you don't have to worry as much about, say, destroyer swarms with tachyon lances being able to outperform battleships for DPS if a powerful counter to destroyers exists.

Yes, a balanced fleet is probably the way to go here (and that's obviously by design). But there is far more variation to be had within a balanced fleet than there is within a system that explicitly lets min-maxing happen.

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.

You do realize you're still saying these changes are better than the current system. Improvement is improvement, even if it's not all the improvement you want. Also, nothing you said here is actually related to the discussion, which is whether it's better from a mechanical standpoint to have the current system or the new one with defined ship roles.

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 ?

No, we don't, because your complaint is still a useless one. You're considering a "soldier" (or group of soldiers or whatever you want to define) as a generic "ship" in Stellaris, and saying the equipment defines the role and how well they perform at it.

With the new changes, the way to look at it is that the general type of equipment given to the soldier (be it small arms, a vehicle, a plane, whatever) defines the role, and specific equipment given defines how well they do at it. You're essentially doing nothing other than complaining about semantics. It's not a reasonable complaint.

You do not send a squad of infantry to get air superiority. Giving them anti-air weaponry would help some, but doesn't change the fact that it's simply not the role they're suited for.
 
  • 6
  • 1
Reactions:
I remember I had so much fun in designing my fleets in Master of Orion 2. You had so many special modules and interesting combinations because of it AND you were able to equip everything depending on your ship capacity (sounds logic hu?).

Been years but what fun is there in just having a huge class that equipped everything and there was no need to ever make any smaller ship ever again?
 
  • 1
Reactions:
Then we invented guided missiles and those ship classes became irrelevant though.

Yes and no, I'd say. Destroyers, cruisers, and carriers are still around and still play their parts. Battleships aren't currently much of a thing anymore, the fact that the firepower-cost ratio isn't favorable for battleships in the present day seems like a poor reason to cut them out of a sci-fi game.

Which kind of brings me to my other point: guided missiles have changed the game for water-based combat on Earth at this particular blip of time. We're talking a matter of decades, when the game starts centuries in the future. The entire history of guided missiles on Earth could be passed in game time in what? An hour of gameplay, maybe? All that to say: a lot of time has passed and is passing in this game, and what's old could very feasibly become new again as technology continues to change the effectiveness of different weapons and their countermeasures.
 
So many fanboys on this forum, they don't like criticism.

Because clearly it's impossible that anyone could actually agree with the changes. Everyone must be part of the Great Paradox Conspiracy where they've brainwashed us into blindly agreeing with everything they say.

Luckily we had you here to wake us sheeple up from our stupor. All hail FurorGermanicus! Savior of the Paradox forums! A glorious age of flawless game development, led by our new messiah, awaits!

Grow up.
 
  • 9
  • 7
Reactions:
Yes and no, I'd say. Destroyers, cruisers, and carriers are still around and still play their parts. Battleships aren't currently much of a thing anymore, the fact that the firepower-cost ratio isn't favorable for battleships in the present day seems like a poor reason to cut them out of a sci-fi game.

You are correct that firepower to size ratio's today mean that BB's are not needed. But that wasn't the case in history nor in sci-fi. The dev's even point to this in saying that the weapons are spine sized. Basically you need a large ship to hold that weapon. They couldn't put 16 inch guns on a DD or CA because the ship simply wasn't large enough to remain stable if fired. Ship sizes grew to allow tha capability of larger weapons that could fire longer ranges. Then the missle changed this.

But sci-fi introduces new wepaons that require massive space. Hence the need for BB sized ships. Works for me.
 
  • 2
Reactions:
Which kind of brings me to my other point: guided missiles have changed the game for water-based combat on Earth at this particular blip of time. We're talking a matter of decades, when the game starts centuries in the future. The entire history of guided missiles on Earth could be passed in game time in what? An hour of gameplay, maybe? All that to say: a lot of time has passed and is passing in this game, and what's old could very feasibly become new again as technology continues to change the effectiveness of different weapons and their countermeasures.

But suddenly in 2200 everything stands still and every ship has a fixed role for the next 200 years ?
 
  • 6
  • 1
Reactions:
But suddenly in 2200 everything stands still and every ship has a fixed role for the next 200 years ?

Why not. Things stood still for over 200 years in the past.

Now what is your alternative? People love to bash the ideas others have laid out but then never offer their solution or alternative. Just some obscure comment that they wouldn't assign fixed roles. So what would you do for the 4 ship types then?
 
  • 5
  • 3
Reactions: