• 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 #18 - Fleet Combat

Good news everyone!

Today’s Dev Diary will be about Fleet Combat and the different things affecting it. Like always it is important for you to remember that things are subject to change.

In Stellaris we have a number of different types of weapons that the player may choose to equip his/her ships with. All weapons can be grouped into either energy, projectiles (kinetic), missiles, point-defenses and strike craft. Their individual effects and stats vary somewhat, so let’s bring up a few examples. One type of energy-weapon is the laser, using focused beams to penetrate the armor of a target dealing a medium amount of damage. Mass Drivers and Autocannons are both projectile-weapons with high damage output and fast attack-speed, but quite low armor-penetration. This makes them ideal for chewing through shields and unarmored ships quickly, but are far worse against heavily armored targets. Missiles weapons are space-to-space missiles armed with nuclear warheads. Missiles have excellent range, but they are vulnerable to interception by point-defense systems. There’s of course far more weapons in the game than these mentioned, but it should give you a notion of what to expect.

Strike crafts are different from the other weapon types since they are actually smaller ships that leave their mothership. Cruisers and Battleships can in some cases have a Hangar weapon slot available, in which you may place a type of strike craft. Currently, we have two types of craft; fighters and bombers. Fighters will fire upon ships, missiles and other strike craft. Bombers however may not fire on other strike craft or missiles, but they will do more damage than fighters against capital ships. Point-defense weapons can detect incoming missiles and strike-crafts and shoot them down. These weapons may also damage hostile ships, if they are close enough, but will do significantly less damage against those.

1.jpg


When it comes to defenses, you may increase the durability of your fleet in combat by placing armor and shield components in the utility slots on your ships. Armor components will reduce the incoming damage and can’t be depleted during combat. Shields work much more like an extra health bar to your ships and will be depleted if they take too much damage. Shields will automatically regenerate after combat, unless you have certain components that allow your shields to regenerate during combat. Both shields and armor can have their efficiency reduced if the enemy uses armor and/or shield penetrating weapons.

The different components you place on your ships will also affect certain other key combat values:… Hull points is a value corresponding to the “hit points” or health of your ship. Evasion affects the chance for your ship to evade a weapon firing at it. You may also affect the overall stats (values) of your fleet by assigning an Admiral to it. The stats of your fleet will both be affected by the skill and the traits of your leader. But be aware that traits will not always have a positive effect. I would recommend everyone to always have good admirals assigned to their military fleets since they can really improve your stats, like +20% fire rate and +10% evasion.

Once the combat has begun, you very few options to control what happens, much like it works in our other grand strategy games. For this reason it is really important not to engage in a battle that you are not ready for. As a fallback, it is possible to order a full retreat through the “Emergency FTL Jump” option, this will basically cause your fleet to attempt to jump to the closest system. However, during the windup for the EFTL jump your ships will not be able fire back at the hostile ships, so you put yourself in an exposed situation. Depending on what type of fleet you have, you might want them to always engage in combat or always try to avoid it; for this purpose we have different fleet stances. The evasive stance will try to avoid combat and the fleet will leave a system if a hostile arrives. Civilian fleets have this stance on per default. Aggressive stance will actively make your fleet attempt to attack any hostile that enters the same system as them. Passive stance will, like the name suggest, make your fleet only engage in combat when enemies are within weapon range.

2.jpg


The combat might be off-hand, but you can still indirectly affect how each individual ship will behave. When you design your ship you may specify what combat computer to use on the ship. These computers range from making your ship super aggressive, and basically charge the enemy, or be really defensive and keep formation. At the start of the game only the default combat computer is available, but more are unlocked through normal research or reverse engineering.

It is very possible that your fleet might end up in combat with multiple fleets. This means that you can have a combat with three different empires that are all hostile to each other. To help you keep track of everything that happens we have a combat view, which will appear as soon as a combat is initiated. This view will list you (and any other friendlies or neutrals) on the left side and every hostile on the right side. The combat view is currently being reworked, so you will get to see that interface at a later date, but the idea is to provide you with crucial feedback on how effective your weapons and defenses are.

Once the battle is over, you may want to investigate any debris left from destroyed vessels. If you weren’t the one being wiped out, perhaps you can salvage something?

3.jpg


Sadly, neither the “Picard Maneuver” nor the “Crazy Ivan” are currently possible in the game, but who knows what the future might hold…

Stellaris Dev Diary #19 - Diplomacy & Trade
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • 142
  • 48
  • 4
Reactions:
Dreams of the future,...

A fleet of my mighty empire starts an attack on my enemies outer systems, to destroy an important supply station.
But it is only a trap, at the arrival ships from an older race uncover and slice my ships one by one apart.

I need some nasty surprises, I need!
-----
? what we are talking about weapons? sorry I was distracted,...
 
Going to have to disagree here. This is a grand strategy game. Leave the details of tactical combat to your on-site generals/admirals.

Well, the idea is about very limited control, nothing close to micro-managing or such. Something like one decision during the start and one mid-fight, ideally related to the admiral skill.
btw - I thought about it mostly because the main post mentioned per-ship controls of some sort, which are a lot more micro-control than this.
 
Here is another thing that i find confusing:

Although i can see that there is a certain romantic(?) element to the concept of missiles in space, i really dont understand the concept of missiles in space.

Why on earth would you want missiles in space?

First and foremost, unlike mass drivers, where you effectively only carry a "bullet", with missiles you have to carry the actual boom part, the fuel section and its engine - on board. (needless logistical cost)

Second if missiles are your primary weapon, every time after X time of combat, you have to go to some base, or a supply ship and rearm yourself with missiles. (needless logistical cost)

Third unless you can make missiles fly faster than speed of light, if you engage someone with a missile at a reasonable range, wont they have the ability to see that, have even today's computers with today's computational power calculate trajectory and engage the missiles with even systems that we can build today (in theory), and destroy them...

I mean compare missiles to something like lasers. If you can build something that produces enough power to allow you to do phew phew in space, why on earth would you go through the logistical troubles and cost issues of having missiles in space?

Missiles in space sound like someone attempting to throw rocks at enemy armed with AK47.

What am i missing?
 
  • 2
  • 2
Reactions:
I have to say I am really excited for this. The space combat looks far more advanced and beautiful than anything GalCiv could muster and that was my previous fav space game
 
Here is another thing that i find confusing:

Although i can see that there is a certain romantic(?) element to the concept of missiles in space, i really dont understand the concept of missiles in space.

Why on earth would you want missiles in space?

First and foremost, unlike mass drivers, where you effectively only carry a "bullet", with missiles you have to carry the actual boom part, the fuel section and its engine - on board. (needless logistical cost)

Second if missiles are your primary weapon, every time after X time of combat, you have to go to some base, or a supply ship and rearm yourself with missiles. (needless logistical cost)

Third unless you can make missiles fly faster than speed of light, if you engage someone with a missile at a reasonable range, wont they have the ability to see that, have even today's computers with today's computational power calculate trajectory and engage the missiles with even systems that we can build today (in theory), and destroy them...

I mean compare missiles to something like lasers. If you can build something that produces enough power to allow you to do phew phew in space, why on earth would you go through the logistical troubles and cost issues of having missiles in space?

Missiles in space sound like someone attempting to throw rocks at enemy armed with AK47.

What am i missing?
We face all of those mentioned issues today... Yet we still use missiles. Missiles are guided, can carry more payload, and can do a variety of other things.

And yes, you can engage and destroy missiles... That is a defense against them, so it's not like they aren't taking that into account. It's a pay off of risk vs reward.
 
  • 4
  • 1
Reactions:
Strike Craft use their own type of weapons and are not dependent on what type of lasers etc. you've researched. Any Strike Craft lost during a battle slowly regenerate over time automatically. They can be upgraded should a new rank of them be researched and the design of the carrier-ship updated.

I hope there will be some supply radius where that "slow regeneration" would be possible. I'm quite sceptical about any violations to conservation of energy law. And by "supply radius" I see : Spaceport with production capacity and all logistics required to deliver ammo/SC (cargo ships at start and maybe some kind of teleportation later).
 
Here is another thing that i find confusing:

Although i can see that there is a certain romantic(?) element to the concept of missiles in space, i really dont understand the concept of missiles in space.

Why on earth would you want missiles in space?

First and foremost, unlike mass drivers, where you effectively only carry a "bullet", with missiles you have to carry the actual boom part, the fuel section and its engine - on board. (needless logistical cost)

Second if missiles are your primary weapon, every time after X time of combat, you have to go to some base, or a supply ship and rearm yourself with missiles. (needless logistical cost)

Third unless you can make missiles fly faster than speed of light, if you engage someone with a missile at a reasonable range, wont they have the ability to see that, have even today's computers with today's computational power calculate trajectory and engage the missiles with even systems that we can build today (in theory), and destroy them...

I mean compare missiles to something like lasers. If you can build something that produces enough power to allow you to do phew phew in space, why on earth would you go through the logistical troubles and cost issues of having missiles in space?

Missiles in space sound like someone attempting to throw rocks at enemy armed with AK47.

What am i missing?

Maybe ships with projectile weapons have to actually worry about inertia? I don't know the math, so feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.
The way I see it, lasers are the weapon of choice for long range warfare. And they are practically invisible in space, unless the target is your eye. ;)
Also can't missile weapons be homing or something so they can be actually useful? But since they are relatively slow moving in comparison, I can only imagine them to work in short to melee range so the enemy won't have time to counter them.
 
We face all of those mentioned issues today... Yet we still use missiles. Missiles are guided, can carry more payload, and can do a variety of other things.

And yes, you can engage and destroy missiles... That is a defense against them, so it's not like they aren't taking that into account. It's a pay off of risk vs reward.

There are 3 reasons why we use missiles today:

1.) We still dont have good enough power source that would allow us to go phew phew

2.) I could be wrong here, but as far as i understand it, nuclear bombs are only useful to us because atmosphere and earth itself magnify the effect of explosion, in space nuclear bombs would be way less effective?

3.) We have systems that can intercept small missiles and defend things like ships / strategic objects etc, what we have problems with are ballistic missiles that can go many times the speed of sound (and change trajectory on top), because our computers cant calculate interception trajectories fast enough (because the Earth is small and it doesnt take long for those missiles to fly from A to B). In space engagement distances could be 10s or 100s or 1000s of kilometers, wouldnt computers have much easier time with calculations and stuff?
 
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions:
So in the end, we have more or less a rock-paper-scissor system:

  • Energy beats armor but does less damage so less effective against shields
  • Projectiles beat shields but not armor
  • Missiles and strike crafts beat armor and shield but are beaten by point defense

Folks can disagree with the above as much as they want, but in the end that is clearly what it is. Of all the mechanics explained so far, I feel like ship combat is by far the least innovative.

To be fair to Paradox, coming up with something unique in this arena would be pretty tough.
 
  • 7
  • 2
Reactions:
There are 3 reasons why we use missiles today:

1.) We still dont have good enough power source that would allow us to go phew phew

2.) I could be wrong here, but as far as i understand it, nuclear bombs are only useful to us because atmosphere and earth itself magnify the effect of explosion, in space nuclear bombs would be way less effective?

3.) We have systems that can intercept small missiles and defend things like ships / strategic objects etc, what we have problems with are ballistic missiles that can go many times the speed of sound (and change trajectory on top), because our computers cant calculate interception trajectories fast enough (because the Earth is small and it doesnt take long for those missiles to fly from A to B). In space engagement distances could be 10s or 100s or 1000s of kilometers, wouldnt computers have much easier time with calculations and stuff?
Fortunately, your empire can mimic how you feel about missiles, and you can not use then on your ships ;)
 
Here is another thing that i find confusing:

Although i can see that there is a certain romantic(?) element to the concept of missiles in space, i really dont understand the concept of missiles in space.

Why on earth would you want missiles in space?

First and foremost, unlike mass drivers, where you effectively only carry a "bullet", with missiles you have to carry the actual boom part, the fuel section and its engine - on board. (needless logistical cost)

Second if missiles are your primary weapon, every time after X time of combat, you have to go to some base, or a supply ship and rearm yourself with missiles. (needless logistical cost)

Third unless you can make missiles fly faster than speed of light, if you engage someone with a missile at a reasonable range, wont they have the ability to see that, have even today's computers with today's computational power calculate trajectory and engage the missiles with even systems that we can build today (in theory), and destroy them...

I mean compare missiles to something like lasers. If you can build something that produces enough power to allow you to do phew phew in space, why on earth would you go through the logistical troubles and cost issues of having missiles in space?

Missiles in space sound like someone attempting to throw rocks at enemy armed with AK47.

What am i missing?

All the same limitations you describe, also apply to mass drivers. You have to carry the ammunition. Either you need to carry their "fuel" (if they are fired by an explosive) or have a lot of electrical power available (if we're talking some kind of gauss gun). Mass driver rounds would hardly be any more difficult to detect than missiles (since we are in a vacuum, a missile would not need to continuously burn its engines, but only for maneuvering). Your ship would have to stand up to all the force applied to the round without flying off in the opposite direction - that means some kind of rocket engine on the opposite side of the ship, which will need fuel.

Missiles would be vastly better in space than some kind of mass driver because they are guided. Space is HUGE and even the tiniest error in accuracy is likely to have you missing by kilometers if your projectile is unguided. Trying to hit a spacecraft with a mass driver would be like trying to throw rocks from the Moon and hit the ISS. Missiles, on the other hand, can simply home in on their target, and the only issue is who can shoot it down.

As for lasers, the biggest technical problem with them is that they diffuse over a distance, limiting their effective range, whereas missiles could be fired from the next planet over if you want (or any distance at all, if you are patient enough). But lasers would certainly be extremely effective at close range given the computational and technical ability of a civilisation that could deploy armed spaceships.

My suspicion is that any kind of realistic space combat would consist of both sides chucking huge numbers of missiles at one another from, to our mind, ridiculous ranges, with 99+% being destroyed by laser point defence before hitting the target. Lasers might be harder to stop, but they would not be used very often because the ship carrying them would never get into laser range before missile fire had decided the engagement. It would be like putting musket-armed marines on a 20th century battleship.
 
  • 10
Reactions:
It's more of a cost-efficiency thing. Lasers will still do decent damage against shields, but it will not be the perfect choice. If you know an enemy fleet has gone 100% missile-weapons and you can get full point-defense coverage you'll do very well (though not win unharmed).
What will stop me from sending a suicide craft and then instantly refitting my fleet to hard counter right before general battle engagement?
 
  • 3
Reactions:
Here is another thing that i find confusing:

Although i can see that there is a certain romantic(?) element to the concept of missiles in space, i really dont understand the concept of missiles in space.

Why on earth would you want missiles in space?

First and foremost, unlike mass drivers, where you effectively only carry a "bullet", with missiles you have to carry the actual boom part, the fuel section and its engine - on board. (needless logistical cost)

Second if missiles are your primary weapon, every time after X time of combat, you have to go to some base, or a supply ship and rearm yourself with missiles. (needless logistical cost)

Third unless you can make missiles fly faster than speed of light, if you engage someone with a missile at a reasonable range, wont they have the ability to see that, have even today's computers with today's computational power calculate trajectory and engage the missiles with even systems that we can build today (in theory), and destroy them...

I mean compare missiles to something like lasers. If you can build something that produces enough power to allow you to do phew phew in space, why on earth would you go through the logistical troubles and cost issues of having missiles in space?

Missiles in space sound like someone attempting to throw rocks at enemy armed with AK47.

What am i missing?



in all modern space fiction +2006 missils are very smart very effectifs and very powerfull like in halo or star wars or mass effect or any +2006 movies or games . they are more like smart kamikaze fighters
in -2006 movies missils was like a strange ball of plasma (not balistic at all ) like in babylone 5 star trek and star gate .

the missiles in space sc fic are very important . so many alien in many games and movies use missiles two !!! other like the advent of sins of a solaire empire or the covenant of halo or higaraan of homeworld 2 love the ionic and plasma cannons
 
Crap, kinetic weapons do low armor damage and energy weapons do high armor damage? Uhm, then why the us navy testing railguns? Fighting the chinese surface navy with their energy shields?

They should swap this. I mean, if i want destroy a planet, i redirect asteroids or comets to the planet and do not shine with a better led flashlight on the planet.

Energy weapons like laser are faster then kinetic weapons too, their energy is transmitted with lightspeed, kinetic stuff like projectil are much slower, but they will do more damage, when they hit.

Kinetic weapons: Slow traveltime, high potential energy (remember: e=mc²), weak again shields
Energy weapons: Fast traveltime, low potential energy, painful for shields
 
  • 2
  • 1
Reactions:
Three things are missing. Fleet formation info, weapon range, optimal weapon range. If we are going to have combat computers for each ship, there has to be a reason to use them. I certainly wouldn't want a ship to break formation and "charge in" when there is no benefit. However if I have a ship with very powerful short range weapon systems it could be beneficial to "close range."

What about benefits of staying in formation? Linking computers that improve various systems on ships within formation could be interesting. Modules that increase optimal range, modules that increase power at the expense of range. etc etc.

My biggest fear is simplistic Arcade combat rather than proper naval fleet engagements. If i see ships speeding around like race cars it will ruin it for me.
 
  • 1
Reactions: