• 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:
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?
Smaller ships in MoO2 also had more evasion and were far cheaper.
If you have the biggest fleet with the most advanced offensive and defensive systems, you win. It's a question about technology or mass, not about flavour rules like in sports.
And of course, the biggest problem of the current fleet designer is that you have too less choices to improve/individualize your ships.
 
  • 3
Reactions:
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.

No need of hitting me !

I think I made my statement as you did !
And I still dont think that this is interesting warfare. With Heinlein the game will be much better than before, and I still will have fun playing, but the disappointment still resists.
 
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.

I'm with you 100% there. Works for me.
 
One other thought comes to mind. One of the minor things that has always bothered me about fleets was the random formation, where a new ship just took the next empty slot in the formation leading to lopsided formations so to speak. This has always been minor, more of an aesthetic thing than anything else, but with the new emphasis on ship rolls will formations be looked at? Under the current system, you could end up with 22 of 25 destroyers on the left side of the formation and all 8 battleships on the right or some variation similar to that. Could this lead to a situation where vettes attacking the right side have several seconds of almost free reign before the destroyers can be brought to bear? Will this impact be negligible in actual gameplay? If so, then no worries. But if not, can formations be balanced so that screens actually spread out evenly on both sides of the formation with capital ships in the center?
 
  • 2
Reactions:
The list of ship classes we get are in the game because it's just what you'd expect from your standard space opera.

An attack boat in space.

An escort vessel.

A mainline ship.

A capital ship.

Given Stellaris' nature as a mish mash of shout outs and references to the entire space opera genre it's not really surprising we get these four classes in Stellaris as well.

(As a note, in space there's really no reason to launch a strike craft instead of an equally sized missile; while you'd definitely want a big ship to have the biggest and most destructive weapons possible so a spinal gun is very much the optimal choice; at least in realistic warfare, but this is a soft space opera so who cares?)
 
  • 2
Reactions:
I remember that I had a fun with the Hearts of Iron 3 divisions-are-made-of-brigades system for about three weeks. After that I had worked out the optimal solution and then the system was just unnecessary clicking. If I want every infantry division to consist of Inf-Inf-Inf-Art, then the ability to swap brigades in and out of the division is basically meaningless.

In my experience, this is true of almost all design-your-own-thing subsystems in games: we find the optimal solution after a while and just use that. These optimal solutions mostly fall into two categories:

A) It is optimal to pick a particular setting and then ignore it entirely for the rest of the game (for example the soldier upgrades in XCOM 2012).

B) It is optimal to constantly tinker with the settings of every unit on every turn of the game (for example the city worker placements in Civilisation.)

Option A is the same as not having that system in the game at all, except for the headache at the start where you have to set it up. Option B adds enormous and maddening micro. It also makes good AI harder to develop because the AI has to be able to handle a larger set of situations. In my opinion, the best solution is for the designer to abstract away everything which would fall into Option A, and spend their time developing a good UI for things which would fall into Option B.

In this case, it looks like Wiz is doing exactly that for us, and I applaud him.
 
  • 3
  • 2
  • 1
Reactions:
This sounds awesome. I hope there is also some overhaul of the ship designer UI? It sounds like in this new world I might want to have:

Corvettes for fighting big ships
Destroyers for fighting small ships
Cruisers for fighting small or medium ships
Cruisers for fighting big ships
Battleships for fighting cruisers
Battleships for fighting battleships/stations

all depending on what tech I've got and what I'm trying to do? And perhaps I will also want to break this out by weapon type as well?

Right now, the ship builder is irritating to use - auto-upgrade overwrites the weapon composition you want to use, but not auto-upgrading means you have to remember to go back and tag in your new weapons/armor/shields as you research them, which is a moderately frequent occurrence. Can we get a button for 'this ship automatically uses the best lasers I have, but never switches design over to torpedoes?'

Basically, I'd like to be able to design my fleet once or twice, and then basically forget about it, without having the ship designer automatically overwrite me.
 
I believe devs mentioned that there'll still be options to allow ship classes to "spill over" into different roles and I seriously doubt corvettes will only ever be able to equip torpedoes and nothing but. The ship design process shouldn't end up being completely rigid but we'll see. The shields-armor axis should provide some additional considerations as well. Your anti-large gun may be good vs. enemy large ships but it's anti-armor and they're focused on shields so it's something you have to deal with, I dunno. Same with pds vs. missiles/strike craft.
 
  • 2
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.

You cannot build a fat battleship with cluster artillery, because people that actually know how to design strategic games tried to implement that option and came to conclusion it was bad idea. They also decided that having fleetlimit is stupid, because the only thing it do is forcing player to micromanage his doomstack.

2) Have torpedoes hit above the weight of a corvette or destroyer, but about average for a cruiser with large weapons, so that torpedoes mechanically make the most sense on Corvettes and the least sense on Battleships, purely from DPS.
So having simply useless options? Doesn't sound like good design.

He thinks any vehicle can have different application depending on the type of weapon they're fitting.
Actually no, it can't. You need some weight class for tanks, SPART and infantry fighting vehicles.

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.
No, or at least not for sure. With random technological progress optimal composition changes. If you get better targetting computers, you do not need that many destroyers. Having the best X-weapons means you kill enemy BBs with your BBs, not corvettes, etc.

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.
Small ships with small arms were not dangerous to big ships, at least not from times of ironclads. Small arms simply cannot penetrate heavy armor. Small ships were able to kill BB only when they were equiped with big weapons, like torpedoes or guided missiles. Which are not equivalent of Stellaris missiles, because Stellaris works on different power level (i.e. railguns, lasers, guided missiles and ship able to take hit of any of them and still fight back).

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".
It doesn't sounds like good design. In empire building games you go to war with whatever you have, so whatever you have must be able to fight with same-tier enemy empire. It's not RTS.
 
  • 4
  • 1
Reactions:
The problem with this new role system that you are punished for NOT having each type of ships. So there is no reason to deviate or experiment with the builds. It will be the same fleet in every game, with alternatives heavily punished.
 
  • 6
  • 5
Reactions:
You're already having trouble finding a balance between weapon types, and now you're adding in (artifically restrictive) ship roles.

Larger ships have to be researched, take longer to build, cost more to build, take more fleet capacity, and have a higher upkeep cost. Just let them be a straight upgrade over early game ships. It's more intuative, will be simpler to balance and and easier for the AI to handle. This simply seems like complexity for the sake of complexity, and overly restrictive. I don't foresee it going well.
 
  • 6
  • 5
Reactions:
Is there going to be a way to change the basic color scheme of our ships in Heinlein?

It looks like those are Molluscoid ships with a silver-blue aesthetic instead of dull light brown.
 
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?

Ship design should allow us to change the abilities of different ship classes. May be rather than using your corvettes as torpedoe boats hunting battleships, you want them to be a screen against strike crafts.
May be you want your battleships to be faster at the cost of armor to seek an destroy smaller enemy fleets
May be you want to add long range missiles on my cruisers to strike battleships from afar
etc.

May be those design will be utterly useless in some situation, but extremely effective in certain others.

The issue being if ship class are as absolute as the Dev Diariess make them seem to be, there is no point to use specific ship designs at all. You just have to count your number of rock, papers and scissors and make them best at what they do won't matter at all which is no fun at all.
 
  • 7
  • 2
Reactions:
Want more options then this. Fleet A has 14k of corvettes with torpedoes. Fleet B has 14k fleet of BB's and fleet C has 14k fleet of 7K DD's and 7K BB's. Gues what the outcomes are?

The problem with this new role system that you are punished for NOT having each type of ships. So there is no reason to deviate or experiment with the builds. It will be the same fleet in every game, with alternatives heavily punished.

Nope not at all. And how many corvettes in your fleet vs. how many of the other types?

And you never give your alternative? Single ship type fleets?
 
  • 1
Reactions:
In general, I dislike huge mono-fleets more than rock-paper-scissors mechanics; the latter can be fairly effective if they are well-designed, e.g. Homeworld. So this is probably going to be an improvement for my play.

What I wish for, on the other hand, is to experience _stories_ for a war. A few examples:

- You encounter an alien race that uses nanotech-laced kinetic weapons to infect your hulls (though maybe you have more (or unpredictable?) resistance if you have regenerative hulls). Your fleets literally crumble to dust over a few months, until you rummage through debris of one of their science stations (the location of which you discovered from a science vessel debris before) to find the antidote and gain an advantage.

- Your 4-star admiral is brilliant, and pulls off an unexpected fleet maneuver by hiding your crystal-hulled cruisers in the corona of a red giant and making mince meat of attacking fleet's destroyers.

- The bug alien race that you attacked turn out to use hundreds of thousands of drones (based on battleship-sized hive ships) that harass your best fleet screens to the bone and can assemble into critical mass near your own large hulls to take them out with fusion bombs. You run like hell for a year, giving up significant territory until you manage to surreptitiously board a hive ship with a stealth-hull destroyer rigged with an EMP to knock out its defenses temporarily long enough to capture a data core, study it to figure out drone communication and encryption, and equip your ships with scramblers that confuse the drone clouds into behaving like drunk flies.

The scripted events in Stellaris are a big favorite of mine, and creatively working them into game mechanics to weave stories out of battles would be such a unique way to make conflict exciting.
 
  • 7
  • 1
Reactions:
The problem with this new role system that you are punished for NOT having each type of ships. So there is no reason to deviate or experiment with the builds. It will be the same fleet in every game, with alternatives heavily punished.

You really think there will be no variation within fleets? The ship designer is still there. You still get to choose how many ships of each class are in each fleet and what specific sub-role they're tuned for with their equipment.

You're already having trouble finding a balance between weapon types, and now you're adding in (artifically restrictive) ship roles.

Larger ships have to be researched, take longer to build, cost more to build, take more fleet capacity, and have a higher upkeep cost. Just let them be a straight upgrade over early game ships. It's more intuative, will be simpler to balance and and easier for the AI to handle. This simply seems like complexity for the sake of complexity, and overly restrictive. I don't foresee it going well.

Arguably, restrictive roles make balancing easier. You no longer have to worry about a gun intended to be used mainly on capital ships being unintentionally overpowered when used on a much smaller ship (*cough*Tachyon lances*cough*). You can now just balance weapons within the role they're intended for. It's much easier to do - in terms of different classes of ships you only need to balance how the roles of the classes interact with eachother.
 
  • 4
  • 3
Reactions:
Ship design should allow us to change the abilities of different ship classes. May be rather than using your corvettes as torpedoe boats hunting battleships, you want them to be a screen against strike crafts.
And wher edid it say you could ONLY put torpedoes on a corvette and that corvettes could only ever carry torpedoes? Did we read the same DD?

May be you want your battleships to be faster at the cost of armor to seek an destroy smaller enemy fleets
May be you want to add long range missiles on my cruisers to strike battleships from afar
etc.
And agin where did it say you couldn't do this? The only real restriction is the huge mount must be on a BB.

Once again you make some big assumptions here. The DD was specifiying the best role for the ship types and what innate bonus they have. I'm sure you can place all the small lasers you want on a BB but it will still have issues because it's a big slow ship compared to smaller faster ships. Innertia is a bitch after all.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
So how does starting weapon technology factor into this?
Do Laser get energy torpedoes, Kinetics get Fast torpedoes and Missles get torpedo torpedoes?

I don't think that any starting choice will give torpedoes as they are not needed in the beginning and you can still research every weapon no matter the starting choice.