• 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:
Some issues with this:
  • Even today most bigger ammunition is already 'intelligent', .i.e. able to correct its trajectory.
  • Can't be really applied on beam weapons. Even today we can move mirrors (which would be the last stage of a beam weapon) with piezo elements within nanometers and nanoseconds.
  • The inertia of the target is much bigger then the one of the gun as long as the target is much bigger.
So this can be used to explain why a huge battleship gun can't hit a fighter. But for everything else a better explanation for "tracking" is imho the problem of detecting. If you move at relativistic speeds (i.e. not so much slower then em waves, like radar for instance) it becomes hard to detect stuff in front of you in time, as long as your targets are small enough to not cause substantial changes in space time due to their mass. (Big variables are the engines, as we don't really know how they could work, they could make tracking easier, but whatever)

Noooo smart guided rockets are not available in year 2200++ that's just ancient tech for cave people. o_O
 
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions:
i also completely disagree that these ships need to have defined roles. i like being able to make revisions to my fleets as the game goes on.
having the ai for example completely destroy my cruisers and battleships but totally ignore my corvettes and destroyers. i had to repurpose my fleet so that the small ships did all the damage and my meer 2 or 3 cruisers were all the point defenses. In just one particular game i had.

doing this will take away the randomness that can happen in the game and ultimately stop the gameplay once a particular part of the fleet has been shattered.


all this will do is make people only want the regarded "meta" ship cost reduction president.

having undefined roles makes this game so unique. and i believe it should remain that way. alot of people i know like using destroyers defensively. but i dont prefer that. i prefer other ships to do the job.
 
  • 1
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions:
Maybe it would be better to give each class of ships some physical properties that make them valid choices for different situations/tasks?

Like fighters are small strike craft without FTL and only limited life support.Therefore they are strong for their size but can only operate from a base (carrier, military station, planet?, planetary base?). This distinguishes them from all other ships. The main difference of corvettes, destroyers, cruisers and battleships seems to be their size. So far this only means small = better evasion, big = bigger guns. I suggest an additional factor: The influence of gravity.

If we allow planetary production of ships and more involved ground combat, we could have:

1) Fighters can be produced on planets. They are small enough to fight during ground combat on both sides. If necessary they can be hidden in planetary bunkers. Ideal to defend a system and important for ground attacks.

2) Corvettes are similar to fighters but with FTL and advanced life support. More expensive than fighters but they can operate independent of a base.

3) Destroyers are to big to make combat maneuvers near the planetary surface, but they can land/be produced on planets and attack enemy fighters/corvettes during a ground attack with PD, if installed.

4) Cruisers are to big to land on a planet, no active involvement in ground assaults apart from orbital bombardment.

5) Battleships being even bigger need some other property to distinguish them from cruisers. The possibility to install XL-weapons with superior range or auras could be enough. If you don't need XL-weapons/auras you just use cruisers.

So one could build system defense fleets with fighters based on planets, raiding forces with corvettes that land/hide on your planets and can only be taken out by ground assault, destroyers with lots of PD to engage the fighters, etc. And of course big space battles should be won by massive fleets of cruisers and battleships! And if you loose against that doomstack you can still try to mass produce corvettes and destroyers on your planets even if all your spaceports are gone...
 
  • 2
  • 2
  • 1
Reactions:
Noooo smart guided rockets are not available in year 2200++ that's just ancient tech for cave people. o_O
Consider the giant freaking distances involved. Space battles are waged over a period of days, even weeks or months. They feel very fast to us, but hours pass between each shot. How much fuel is involved in a missile traveling? How fast is it going? How fast are the ships it's targeting going? As it approaches it's initial impact point it has to correct again and again and again, even assuming that there is ansible communications (as we must given the way the game works) and light lag is not a factor, the ability to adjust and shift those things is limited because your missiles very obviously use reaction drives. That means each missile has to balance between reaction mass and detonation mass, you want to maximize both, but you reach a point of diminishing returns eventually. So missiles missing small, fast ships, given that every target is super small and battles are waged at light hours or light minutes distances (and we know this due to how days pass between firing a rocket and it impacting and dealing damage, it's not just a conceit of the interface), being able to miss because the things run out of fuel and can't TURN fast enough is a big deal.

Also any missile is going to lose a stern chase in space, it will lose too much momentum in it's turn, and burn even more reaction mass reaccelerating in the opposite direction, while the ship it's chasing would be constantly accelerating.

Case and point. Missiles would be MUCH more accurate than just about anything else you could fire (including lasers, as lasers would take minutes, even hours, to traverse the distance involved and thus be able to be dodged), but they could still miss because space is freaking huge and their reaction mass is limited, and they could be evaded because any ship that manages to get behind the missile will never be hit by that missile unless it is forced to decelerate by something else.

So missiles that can miss are, in fact, more realistic.

Edit: Also we need to use the Sol System as a baseline for judging at what % of C various ships can travel. How many days does it take for a science vessel to leave earth orbit to get to the Sun? That would tell us at what % of C we're talking. I suspect it's somewhere around the 0.2C mark.

edit: Also, given the weapons in question and such, relatavistic combat still allows for dodging and evasion because you get warnings WELL ahead of anything, and while relativistic dialation will screw with your ability to see things, it all depends on your relative velocity. IE: if something is moving at about the same speed as you, then you'll notice it more easily. Granted I'm not sure if that still applies if you are moving towards a thing and it is moving towards you, if that would make your combined relative velocity larger than your personal velocity or the same...
 
Last edited:
  • 2
  • 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 am not going to lie i kinda want torpedo torpedo now as that would be hilarious.
The energy weapons guys standing beaming with pride over their basically photon torpedoes, the kinetics looking smug with their basically self guided artillery shells of torpedoes, and the missile guys standing in the corner with their torpedo torpedoes .
 
  • 7
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.
How is it not logical? Torpedoes destroy things with very high damage, missiles have good tracking, and small to large is a big difference in chance to hit. All of this makes perfect sense to me. And it being restrictive makes no sense to me either, you can still put tons of small guns on ships if you want to, or switch out a particular bulwark for something that isn't small guns, or switch out a bulwark for different passives. It actually seems less restrictive to me than it is currently, where you can pick anything and it will work exactly the same as any other outfit.
 
  • 3
  • 3
Reactions:
Completely agree with you. Having a static rock-paper-scissors style of restrictive combat in a sci-fi, progression and research environment, both feels illogical and unfit.

I feel the game is going in the wrong direction in most areas for a while now. Removal of core concepts instead of fixes is a big part of the issue. Another big part is: instead of fixes and additions to the game, months after release, we are still balancing lasers etc. as big patches.

With this speed, 2 years later we will still be getting major patches about how fast corvettes are.
 
  • 9
  • 2
Reactions:
i also completely disagree that these ships need to have defined roles. i like being able to make revisions to my fleets as the game goes on.
having the ai for example completely destroy my cruisers and battleships but totally ignore my corvettes and destroyers. i had to repurpose my fleet so that the small ships did all the damage and my meer 2 or 3 cruisers were all the point defenses. In just one particular game i had.

The only reason you can get away with that is because the AI is not very good at using optimal loadouts. If the AI was using one of the two or three best set ups you would be forced to do the same.

It's just sort of an illusion of choice.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
This whole tracking stat thing reminds me of Eve Online (I'm sure other games used it too, but I've only seen it in Eve Online).

Another cool thing from Eve Online was the notion of shields that had variable regeneration rates. For instance, the regeneration rate was low if you were at 0% and close to 100%. It would be really fast around 80%. Additionally, ships just had a flat shield regeneration time, say 2 minutes. So it didn't matter how many shield points you had, your shields would be fully regenerated in 2 minutes. All these features made the 'shield game' interesting when commanding a single ship, but I suppose they have no place in a game like Stellaris.

My main point is though, you can do more interesting stuff with shields besides 'regen x amount per second'. Perhaps for another time.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
Well it all looks good to me,

At the start of the game there is a race to get your Destroyers out to dominate Corvettes
Then there is a race to get cruisers to dominate Corvettes and Destroyers
Then there is a race to get Battleships to range dominate
Then Corvettes and destroyers become useful again and multiple fleet tactics are a possibility. Cruisers 'might' be still viable because they appear to be a jack of all trades.

Example: an enemy fleet with battleships warps in and is engaged by two blocking fleets from both flanks to minimise spinal mount weapon effectiveness. Then you warp in a fleet of corvettes from where the enemy warped to immediately engage the unprotected battleships......GOLD.
 
  • 2
  • 2
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...

Well, it is a game but. You are not taking into account that both target and firer could also be moving at near the speed of light and that their weapons mounts are probably not. I'd imagine nano seconds and computer calculation beyond our comprehension could be the difference between life and death.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
Dont like the change.
So battleships cant mount pds, because of reasons?

Perhaps it is uneconomic to do so, the vessels needs to dedicate its entire structure to a certain percentage of PD to cover all angles of attack. It also needs to dedicate a bank of computing power and energy to its PD arsenal. Who is to say that pd is more nimble on a small ship by that ship adjusting its position to best let loose a salvo? Perhaps it was found that PD is only useful fired metres in front of its targets intended target. Perhaps adding PD to a battleship might pose a risk to its defensive matrix or armour weightings.

Just perhaps it has been found that the obvious choice for PD defence is from a smaller class of ship. Not unheard of in many SiFi titles.
 
Last edited:
  • 2
  • 2
Reactions:
I'm noticing yet another completely baseless complaint about this change. Another wild assumption, leapt to because...well, I have no idea why someone would so blindly jump to such irrational conclusions. Moving on...

There is nothing, anywhere, in any Dev Diary, that says Battleships CAN'T mount PD weapons at all; nor does it say anywhere at all that only Destroyers or something can mount them. The picture displayed with this DD shows only a single configuration of battleship sections. Other selections may grant PD slots to Battleships. This could be the only configuration that has no PD slots, or there could be only one Battleship section that actually has any. We have no way of knowing. The only restricted slots at this time are torpedo slots, hangar slots, and X slots.

Stop jumping to completely baseless and irrational conclusions.
 
  • 4
  • 2
Reactions:
Battleships may or may not have point defence, but does it matter either way if they don't? This isn't a game where individual ships are important. It's a game where you fight fleet versus fleet and the best combination wins (at this stage that combination is a ton of tachyon lances on destroyers or battleships). So given that reality, why does it matter if the point defence is on destroyers or battleships? Is it just because restriction in choice is viewed as always bad? If so I disagree on every single level. Games are designed to be challenging for a reason, because a game that doesn't challenge you (especially in the 4X or GSG genres) isn't fun.
 
  • 3
  • 2
Reactions:
Really looking forward to the new ship roles - I think this is a great move forward. However I think in order for it to fully succeed, will there be changes to how the AI manage their ship components and fleet arrangements? Eg, if you attack them with corvettes, will they build destroyers to counter the players corvette tactics or stick with their previous builds?

I assume the answer is an obvious one but just not seen any clarification on this element.
 
@grekulf With the Weapons rebalance, I assume the AI choices in what weapons they use be adjusted too.
Will the Regular AI Empire have similar learnings towards certain weapon types, like how the Fallen Empire will favour certain types by Ethos?
"For example, Keepers of Knowledge exclusively utilize energy weapons to strike their enemies at a distance, while Militant Isolationists combine afterburners and projectile weapons to get up close to their foes and tear their ships up at point-blank range."
Since we have Lasers, Plasma, Disruptors, Rail guns, Auto Cannons, and Missiles as the base types, would we see certain ethos favouring certain ones, assuming in late game when most Empire have most unlocked anyway, as opposed to the current trend toward, Lances, Plasma, and Torpedoes whenever an Empire Has everything unlocked (often enough at least ships seem to be uniformly armed)
 
  • 1
Reactions:
@grekulf With the Weapons rebalance, I assume the AI choices in what weapons they use be adjusted too.
Will the Regular AI Empire have similar learnings towards certain weapon types, like how the Fallen Empire will favour certain types by Ethos?
"For example, Keepers of Knowledge exclusively utilize energy weapons to strike their enemies at a distance, while Militant Isolationists combine afterburners and projectile weapons to get up close to their foes and tear their ships up at point-blank range."
Since we have Lasers, Plasma, Disruptors, Rail guns, Auto Cannons, and Missiles as the base types, would we see certain ethos favouring certain ones, assuming in late game when most Empire have most unlocked anyway, as opposed to the current trend toward, Lances, Plasma, and Torpedoes whenever an Empire Has everything unlocked (often enough at least ships seem to be uniformly armed)

As i mentioned in my previous post, this is my only concern with new ship roles - if the AI uniformly selects an optimised setup rather than select it's choices on ethos (or better, reactive to its neighbours setups) then this will to the player doing the same and THEN I can understand concerns of how this is a limiting factor.
 
This whole tracking stat thing reminds me of Eve Online (I'm sure other games used it too, but I've only seen it in Eve Online).

Another cool thing from Eve Online was the notion of shields that had variable regeneration rates. For instance, the regeneration rate was low if you were at 0% and close to 100%. It would be really fast around 80%. Additionally, ships just had a flat shield regeneration time, say 2 minutes. So it didn't matter how many shield points you had, your shields would be fully regenerated in 2 minutes. All these features made the 'shield game' interesting when commanding a single ship, but I suppose they have no place in a game like Stellaris.

My main point is though, you can do more interesting stuff with shields besides 'regen x amount per second'. Perhaps for another time.

You have that now. Shields regenerate at a default rate. But, if you put shield capacitors or are inside a shield aura buff, your shields will regenerate at faster rates. The rate varies with the size/number of capacitors. Later on, I build battleships with shield capacitors, and I can see them regenerating their shields in the middle of battles.
 
Last edited: