• 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'm gonna be brutally honest, and I know people will disagree with me, but there shouldn't be size-based tracking issues for large vessels in a space strategy game where the technology exists to allow a RINGWORLD.

If you start that route we would not even have or need ships.It's a game that needs solid design for fleet combat.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
Cheers for the DD Grekulf :D. Changes sound good, and will go a good way to adding depth to combat. Not sure if it's thought about for the future (and am sure it'll have been mentioned elsewhere), but combat formations (the way the ships are arranged) could potentially add further depth without a huge rework of hwow things are done.
 
@grekulf would I be right in assuming that even though large weapons would be weaker against small ships due to evasion, that if these weapons do hit these small ships they can do very high damage/one-hit-kill them?
 
  • 1
Reactions:
I haven't played in the recent patches, but apparently currently all-destroyers fleet win everything.
In the first iteration of the game, all-corvettes, or all-corvettes with a couple battleships for auras, won everything (admittedly with two types of corvettes, one for shooting at missiles and one carrying energy weapons).
It seems that this iteration will be designed so that the optimal fleet composition is balanced, and that a balanced fleet should be able to win against an unbalanced fleet of similar firepower.
I believe this is better gameplay though, because all other things being equal, a balanced fleet is harder to produce. You need construction installations for four different ship types, with well-matched strategic resource improvements. Therefore sacrificing some of your fleet balance to gain in raw numbers could be a decent tradeoff. There is no such trade-off when you're building all corvettes, since you're only ever building one ship type you couldn't in any way make things cheaper.
 
  • 3
  • 3
Reactions:
I went back and looked at the 2nd DD for this patch and it has a screen shot of a battleship with PD so now I'm wondering if we are wrong and that PD can go on any ship or if that has changed since that previous DD to today.

Edit: But that raises a whole other issue of why didn't they just keep PD as a small weapon mount.

It could be that somethings changed. It could be that I'm reading it wrong. I'm not perfect, by any means.

I don't know. It feels like they're "fixing" an issue that isn't there. Yeah, combat could do with an overhaul, but this doesn't seem like addresses the actual issues. At best it seems like it's going to add more tedious micro to the game, because now you have to use multiple ship types, and keep track of exactly how many of each you lose each battle. At worst it's just going to add more balance problems that'll need to be fixed.
I tend to stop using the smaller ships because it's such a pain to keep replacing them each battle, and that's not an option anymore. It's one of those things that seems like it's better on paper than in practice, but everyone's so excited about the change simply because it is a change that none of the potential pitfalls are really being considered.

Maybe I'll be proven wrong. I hope I am and that it's awesome. I'm not too proud to eat my words. But I don't think that's going to happen.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
@Wiz


Hi all, I have been reading developer diaries with interest and I just created an account to make this post, so please bear with me. I love Stellaris, and I cannot imagine any other game I was able to spend 300+ hours without so much so a blink so I feel quite strongly about this game and this particular set of changes.


I am by no means a ‘veteran’ paradox player, some 80 hours on HoI 3 aside, I am okay with strategy games and accept that sometimes in strategy games you have to think a bit and the game will reward you with a win. I also need to think to myself what is ‘fun’ about this game and go pursue that, and for me, that actually involves putting tachyon lances on destroyers and battleships and pretend I’m a Fallen Empire… (hehe)… (speaking of which, I hope there are more of them in galaxy settings not just the maximum two in medium map…)


Actually, I am okay with lances being moved up to XL slots, it will make me sad, but I understand that weapons need to be rebalanced and I can’t live the Fallen Empire dream anymore. But what I have severe reservations about is the new designated ship roles because I feel the greatest strength of Stellaris is customization and to take any portion of that away will hurt this particular strength. I say I have reservations because I can see merits in the changes but we haven’t been given enough information to see how exactly it will work. A cursory glance at the forums indicates about 52% of the people are in agreement with the changes and 48% against. Whichever path this game goes risk half the population being disenfranchised and not being listened to. I of course believe you guys will do a lot of playtesting and beta testing before rolling out the patch.


I think the majority of concern regarding ship classes and roles is one of how ‘absolute’ it is that one class beats the other? I understand that in real life people just build bigger ships to beat previous ship designs, so it almost makes no sense that I spent years researching until I get a battleship, years researching until I get Tachyon Lance, and the happiness that comes with equipping a battleship with lances and having the resource and time to finally build one… only for it to be shot down by a couple of corvettes. If not a couple, then how many would bring down a battleship? Four? Five? Regardless, it does take away some of the rewarding feelings of accomplishments away. And the idea that the first ship you can build can be in any way a threat to the most advanced ship you can build also undermines the technological progress you have made as a nation.


I have looked at the arguments and came to the conclusion that this is what people want: a more dynamic and intricate system of combat which uses multiple ships for multiple roles. But people also want freedom to customise, and I for one enjoyed selecting different weaponry for my ships and the freedom of choices I was given.


Here is what I suggest. It’s not dissimilar to what is proposed in the patch, but my idea revolves giving fighter/bomber a much more significant role which keeps all ship classes relevant in late game:


Corvettes are small, nimble vessels capable of evading attacks and shooting down other corvettes, fighters and bombers.

Destroyers can mount torpedoes which enables them to take on bigger ships, but also can be used to defend larger ships with more PD slots than Corvettes (but less evasion)

Cruisers can have hanger slots, and bombers being a big threat to bigger ships. Cruisers can also be aggressively attacking destroyers to protect their own battleships and corvettes from torpedoes.

Battleships can have XL weapons which are devastating to all ships, but are vulnerable to swarms of bombers.


So in theory you CAN make an anti-fighter battleship by putting on lots of PD at the expense of your DPS, but at least the option is there. This way you make fighters/bombers almost their own ship class which takes away the feeling that primitive corvettes can hurt big bad battleships, but due to their evasion corvettes provide best air defense against fighters...


It just makes far more sense for bombers to take down capital ships than corvettes in my opinion, and corvette’s roles should be to protect capital ships from bombers. In order to make your bombers effectively you want destroyers to take down enemy corvettes. You want Cruisers to stay flexible, either to provide a little air support and downright destroy smaller ships. Battleships should be able to kill all ships, but enough firepower or fighters should be able to bring it down too.

Anyway, just my thoughts. I will probably still play the game regardless, and I don't intend to argue with others here... I will just find other ways of pretending I'm a Fallen Empire...

P.S. If more cute races are on the way, can you PLEASE do the space dolphin?? <3

Thanks for reading and happy coding!
 
  • 6
  • 1
Reactions:
I'm not huge fan of these changes, tbh. Rock, Paper and Scissors type of setup is always totally unadvantageous towards AI, because they tend to build fleets with more or less certain fleet compositions.

Since corvettes now are "best tool" against battleships, I'm feeling like AI will rely quite bit on those. So all in all player just needs to build 2 types of ships in their initial doomstack.

Destroyers and Battleships. Huge bulk of destroyers to work as meatshields and take to out enemy corvettes, while battleships with massive guns (plus some medium ones) can take out pretty much all other types of ships. Eventhough Cruisers are apparently meant to take out destroyers, if you have enough battleships, they can more or less take fairly effectively cruisers out of play fast. While destroyers more or less are mostlikely neutral against each others (hitting and damage wise), so which has more destroyers beats enemy destroyers.
Also was pointed out that you can build quite bit of PD destroyers, thus it also renders carriers types less effective, thus even more raises its value as meatshields.
Possibly if one wants bit of flexibility, you could add couple cruisers too, just to make sure that their Destroyers goes down easier (though probably wont need to). But for me Corvette seems to become obsolete against AI.

So in nutshell Destroyers = Destroyers >> Corvettes. Battleships = Battleships >> Cruisers, Battleship = / > Destroyers. Pretty much all these types of choices against AI goes like this. Even in total war series my doomstack always ended up being 45% best defensive unit (meatshield), 45% best ranged unit (practically takes out all), 10% rest (leaders & fleeting enemy chasers), could annihilate practically all enemy AI army compositions with decisive wins even if quite heavily outnumbered.

Well in multiplayer I doubt it's as huge problem though, since players can adapt to extent at least, but for me who only plays Singleplayer it seems quite gamebreaking. Only one who breaks out of that system is most likely fallen empires due their Titan class seems to be something which that might break that mold. Then again when you go to voluntarily war against Fallen ones you're usually superior to them one way or another. Be it numbers and/or tech.

Unless I see miraculously intelligent AI's which actually learns to adapt. Aka can build fleets to counter those (never really seen that in any strategy game so far though). Usually just seen them to possibly change weaponry or armor types in some games (even that is fairly rare feature).
 
Last edited:
  • 5
  • 2
  • 1
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.

If you are going to add the FC being move vulnerable then you need to add some way to change a fleets target after they get into combat. Idk if they plan to do that didnt see it anywhere but i really think if the FC can die and cause a real problem for the fleet you need better ways to both protect that ships and target it.
 
I'm gonna be brutally honest, and I know people will disagree with me, but there shouldn't be size-based tracking issues for large vessels in a space strategy game where the technology exists to allow a RINGWORLD.

-snip-

I get that this is supposed to be entirely some balance thing, but it just doesn't make sense to me.
I'd refer to it less in terms of whether the computer can calculate it, and more in the precision of the aiming equipment itself. Larger objects are heavier, and have more inertia. Being able to accurately aim your large cannon 0.00001' to the left so you'll hit the shot, rather than missing by 10,000Km may be much harder to do when its inertia will carry its motion approximately 0.00002' on average beyond where it was supposed to move to, while a smaller object with less inertia may have a 0.000005' drift with aiming, and still be able to hit its target.

And that said, the ranges they'll be operating at differ greatly as well. Small weapons don't have as long range, and thus may be able to have an error of 0.001' on their firing arc, while a Battleship twice as far away would be able to have an error of 0.00001' on their firing arc and still hit.

Rather than being able to calculate where it needs to fire, I'd consider this each weapon's ability to actually physically point itself where it needs to fire. On Earth with ranges of a couple Kms for non-guided weapons, that's pretty easy. In space with ranges of millions or billions of Kms? Much, much harder to point your gun where it needs to be.

]-snip-
Go ahead and disagree with me, but this is the way I see this new system going.
If someone proves me wrong outside of a very-specific example, I will retract my statement. To that person, in advance, thank you for a solid argument.
I agree it'll be a concern, but not necessarily a game ending one.
One of the big problems is to do with FTL snares themselves. They go on stations. Stations are reasonably expensive. Most, if not all, players do not have a station in every last one of their star systems. They also don't have a fleet stationed in every last one of their systems to take advantage of this.

Why are autocannons not the best weapon in the game? They deal higher DPS overall compared to Tachyon Lances, costing less energy allowing more defence on each ship. In practice, in a close range engagement, an optimal autocannon fleet will destroy a optimal lance fleet. Same with the Unbidden Weaponry - it devastates and eats fleets up in close range. Why are these not the only weapons used, that always win the game?

Because Lances are longer range, and remove the ability of these smaller weapons to even fire on your ships. Yes, snare fortresses could trap a lance fleet and allow it to get eaten, but that never happens. The same issues you fear to do with Titans and BBs, are the issues with long range weapons in general and their weakness - and at present long range weapons are THE Meta play. You simply can't create a defensive net wide enough to defend your empire properly. If you do as you say, and put a small fleet and a station in each system, that small fleet will get eaten by the larger fleet, because even if it suffers a 90% damage reduction due to large weapon accurassy loss [Which it won't, it'll be far less than that], the fleet will easily be more than 11 times as large as your defending fleet, and will eat it up by the time your other fleets arrive to engage, giving the attacking fleet a range bonus again.

This would be more of a concern if fortresses and sizeable defensive fleets were in every system, but they won't be, and the simple sending of a single corvette to any system you plan on attacking would reveal whether that system is safe to attack or not, and there are numerous balances that could be used to further reduce the amount of Fortress stations you're able to use [Though a whole rework of that mechanic in general, IMO, would be better].

Even with smaller empires, they'd lack the resources to be able to build and maintain these defences in all their systems, though they'd likely get a better proportion. This won't really be an issue to be honest. The problem in the game with fortresses currently is that they are near useless, not that they are too powerful. This may slightly increase their effectiveness, but since they're still so easily countered it won't really make them viable to use everywhere all the time, and that means their slight increase in effectiveness becomes highly situational, rather than all encompassing.
 
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.)

This needs to be a thing
 
  • 2
Reactions:
In the second screenshot it looks like that battleship doesn't have an aura slot. I wonder what's going on with that.

Came in to make the same point. Are auras being removed, or just switched over to the Auxiliary slot?

@Red Death @HandofBane Sorry if that has already been answered, I didn't see any so far. In Dev Diary #41 Wiz mentioned the auras being moved to a new ship class:

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.

https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/foru...is-dev-diary-41-heinlein-patch-part-2.962953/
 
  • 1
Reactions:
Will one be able to issue and standing orders, like I don't want my battleships to shoot at the closest target, but the biggest target. Something like that aas a standing order?
 
I haven't played in the recent patches, but apparently currently all-destroyers fleet win everything.
In the first iteration of the game, all-corvettes, or all-corvettes with a couple battleships for auras, won everything (admittedly with two types of corvettes, one for shooting at missiles and one carrying energy weapons).
It seems that this iteration will be designed so that the optimal fleet composition is balanced, and that a balanced fleet should be able to win against an unbalanced fleet of similar firepower.
I believe this is better gameplay though, because all other things being equal, a balanced fleet is harder to produce. You need construction installations for four different ship types, with well-matched strategic resource improvements. Therefore sacrificing some of your fleet balance to gain in raw numbers could be a decent tradeoff. There is no such trade-off when you're building all corvettes, since you're only ever building one ship type you couldn't in any way make things cheaper.

Also it is easier, albeit not trivial, to balance towards multiple Nash equilibriums in terms of composition. At least a cookie cutter effective against most variations and one specifically designed against it could be expected.
Furthermore I hope for sparse special resources, they help a lot with diversifying as the optimal composition varies depending on what is available. The dev diary about different regions in space points toward that direction. (At least I hope so :rolleyes: )
 
  • 1
Reactions:
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 how will the extra large weapon be useful against small ships? Will handful of corvettes always be able to take down battleship?
This ship roles change seems to me a little bit like the problem of balance is swept under the carpet by rock-paper-scissor (-lizard-Spock) system. Maybe it will be for the better, dunno, will have to try how will it play out. In most other games I ended with fleets of battleships and discarder smaller vessels so if there will be mechanism to use all of ship types then good. Still this solution looks a little bit artificial to me though.

I understand the concerns, but far from illogical or artificial, it appears developers went back to old naval roots for this one. These new ship mechanics closely mirrors naval practices associated with weaponry in the very late 1800s and early 1900s. Fast and nimble torpedo boats were intended to be the scourge of capital ships. Yes, a squadron of torpedo boats (aka corvettes) were expected to be able to take down unescorted capital ships on their own. Torpedo boat destroyers were soon developed in response and were indeed intended to protect the capital ships. Cruisers were the "jack of all trades" in the turn of the century fleets and battleships were still intended to duke it out at long range from within the battle line.
 
  • 4
  • 1
Reactions:
@Wiz

Any change of mentioning the changes (if any) for the modding side of things in one of the upcoming Dev diaries?

Imaginary example: Spaceport modules can be upgraded, similar to buildings. No new spaceport modules added with this mechanic, but it allows mods to do so now.
 
  • 2
  • 1
Reactions: