• 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:
Lasers do a lot of hull damage and projectiles do a lot of shield damage? Isn't that backwards?
No. Armor was made before shields to deflect incoming mass. Lasers were then created to burn through armor. Shields were created to disperse energy. However, shields spend FAR more energy to disperse objects with a lot of mass. Therefore, projectiles overload shields, but are still weak to the armor. Fortunately you equipped weapons designed to cut through armor (lasers).
 
classical weapons in sc fi
star treck : beam canons+plasma missiles + laser canons for close combat (best formation for classic space empire )
unsc halo : lot of missiles and railgun canons
covenet halo : plasma and beam canons
star wars : laser canon-plasma canon-huge missiles and few beam canon in admiral ships
battle star galactica : kintec kintec and kintec and agauin kintec + missiles
higaran homeworld2: beam+kintec and few missiles
vay gr homeworld 2 : sow many missiles and kintec + few huge laser canons
tec (human) (sins of a solaire empire): kintec + laser canons +missiles + beam canons (best for human empire)
advent (sins of a solaire empire ): beam + plasma

here the beast ever .
progenitor (homeworld 2) vasari (sins of a solaire empire) forrunners (halo univers) reapers ( mass effect )
phasic weapons +nanite weapons +subspace weapons
youzhane vong : biological weapons and acide weapons (very effectife )

no one can defeat them :cool:



for shield
vasari and progenitors and forrunners have a nanite regenatore of the hull if this was breached .
the reapers use a very powerfull shield (3 powerfull battlesip for each reaper).
the youzhanee vong use an organic coral bones for the hull .

all other with classic shield have almost no chance !!!
 
Last edited:
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions:
Metztli: "Paradoxian fans will probably hate me but why the player should have so little "power" during the combat phase ? Why not Stellaris be the first Paradox game that will offer a Total War style of combat or something simillar or anything more involving than just watch and chose to flee or not ?"

Well, TW might be a bit over the top, but maybe some buttons ready to press along the lines of "Breakthrough Attack", "Defence Formation", "Skirmish Tactics" were you can designate the basic tactic that your fleet should follow during specific parts of the battles could have been nice.

Consider the scenario where you may have multiple fleets in disparate parts of the map, all of which at some magical moment need you to perform one or more clicks... :(
 
I've seen this sort of comment throughout the thread ...
Stellaris Small Craft: Their own ship type, vulnerable to point defense, slow to regenerate, effectiveness unknown.

Let me chime in here with a couple thoughts of my own. First, I think you make valid points about not following the Space 4X cookie cutter method. On your last point about fighters, and about missiles etc.. these shouldn't be regenerating. Somewhere on a planet these things need to be manufactured and they need to get out into space via a transport or a fleet returning to a supply point or staircase. Organizing a huge OP fleet and running through system after system is dull. Where is the balance with that? It would be interesting to wear down a strike craft / missile based enemy of supplies and catch them in a tactical withdrawal to another system to resupply. These kinds of attacks bring the 'grand strategy' of the game up and take away the luck of dice rolls. Maybe missiles are the king of combat, but the resupply is their achilles heel?

Second, on organization, I see references to admirals. I recall in HOI (anyone heard about HOI4? I hear its due any day now ;) ) that generals of certain ranks could only command forces of a certain size. Once the force size exceeded their command ability, negative modifiers were added to their units. I hope there is something like this factored into the deployment of fleets. Putting together hundreds of corvettes and sending them off all armed with missiles should turn out to be a bad move for the attacker and not a good day for dice. If anyone here plays world of warships, imagine a fleet of all destroyers launching torpedoes willy nilly all over... it would be a gong show.

Last, resources. I like how EUIV has manpower thrown into the mix. We can plunder dozens of star systems and harvest boundless resources, but if we don't have a capable group of people trained to staff the fleets, we are doomed. Races that end up being robots or synthetics could have an adjustment where their fleets cost significantly more resources than regular ships or something of that nature.

Anyhow, in summary, I look forward to learning 1 more about supply, 2 organization or limits of organization and 3 how resources EG manpower work in the flux of making these ships.

Keep up the good work. This dev diary is the only thing I look forward to on a Monday.
 
  • 2
  • 1
Reactions:
I love Europa Universalis 4, it's a fantastic title that I still play regularly. Would it be improved if I could watch a 3D representation of a battles unfold? Sure! Why not!? That would be awesome as hell! Of course it would take a ton of work to implement so it will never come to pass but I think the game would be cooler if such a thing did exist.

Maybe you misread my original statement as "should" instead of what I actually said, which was "wish".
Consider the scenario where you may have multiple fleets in disparate parts of the map, all of which at some magical moment need you to perform one or more clicks... :(

Also consider that the "Total War" series, while it calls itself "Grand Strategy", is far from it. It's really a tactical battle simulator played on a large campaign map. You're the leader of the empire here - no need to concern yourself over the minutiae of tactical battles. What you care about is the result of the battle.
 
  • 4
  • 2
Reactions:
Lasers do a lot of hull damage and projectiles do a lot of shield damage? Isn't that backwards?

Depends on the point of view in my opinion.

Lasers cut through solid matter easily... so what do we do against them? -> Build shields to weaken the effect.

So ships have shields and our lasers are less effective or even useless. So we use projectile weapons which aren't caught by the shields.

Ever seen the Star Gate episode where they used a bow and arrows to penetrate Apophis shields because they couldn't adapt to such a low energy frequency/kinetic force?
The same is probably happening in Star Trek with the Borg when they can't adapt to bullet fire in First Contact and why hand-to-hand combat is possible with them in the first place.
That's what I imagine is happening in Stellaris as well or what should happen in rock-paper-scissor like 4x space games.

But yeah the final representation of such a logic in a game is really a matter of taste in my opinion. And somewhere they probably have to simplify stuff to make it somewhere balanced and manageable by the player.

[edit]

And also that's the reason why I don't really like rock-paper-scissor systems anymore than I used to in the past. While it was fun back with games like Castlevania Symphony of the Night back in the 90s for example... games like Diablo 3 with Blizzard changing/rotating the main elemental reistances around all the time to encourage people to get new gear and stuff is what eventually killed the fun for me.

Ever since I am like "well I don't care about that kind of crap" and I'd rather have strategy based on the selected battle location. With passive effects being in place depending on where exactly you chose to fight the enemy in the solar system. Then I at least might select a place where I have the advantage or the enemy trying to lure me into a location where he has the advantage like a real battle would be.
 
Last edited:
  • 1
Reactions:
Depends on the point of view in my opinion.

Lasers cut through solid matter easily... so what do we do against them? -> Build shields to weaken the effect.

So ships have shields and our lasers are less effective or even useless. So we use projectile weapons which aren't caught by the shields.

Ever seen the Star Gate episode where they used a bow and arrows to penetrate Apophis shields because they couldn't adapt to such a low energy frequency/kinetic force?
The same is probably happening in Star Trek with the Borg when they can't adapt to bullet fire in First Contact and why hand-to-hand combat is possible with them in the first place.
That's what I imagine is happening in Stellaris as well or what should happen in rock-paper-scissor like 4x space games.


But yeah the final representation of such a logic in a game is really a matter of taste in my opinion.


laser and ionic cute matter easily . plasma burn the matter . the phasic weapons disintegrates the matter easily .

kintec missils and railguns. do just external damages . or normal damages .(aguainst big ships of course)
 
No. Armor was made before shields to deflect incoming mass. Lasers were then created to burn through armor. Shields were created to disperse energy. However, shields spend FAR more energy to disperse objects with a lot of mass. Therefore, projectiles overload shields, but are still weak to the armor. Fortunately you equipped weapons designed to cut through armor (lasers).

It makes no sense to put armor on ships against kinetic weapons, because any material that would be able to bounce bullets/pieces off would have to be insanely stupidly strong to the point where its ridiculous and we would have no need for shields. The best defense against that is to a.) be fast so you can avoid getting hit and b.) shoot at pieces of stuff flying your way with other pieces of stuff to make them go elsewhere.

On the other hand armor makes sense against lasers; layered materials that diminish the burn effect (or something along those lines), but at the same time dont crack if hit by kinetic stuff.

But yeah the final representation of such a logic in a game is really a matter of taste in my opinion. And somewhere they probably have to simplify stuff to make it somewhere balanced and manageable by the player.

Youre probably right. I think however that Distant Worlds got it the best: you have a whole bunch of weapons that must first take down shields (effectively secondary hp pool) before they can deal damage to the ship hull - and you have rail guns. Rail guns have the ability to completely ignore shields and target ship hull right away. Thats pretty much what mass drivers are made for, dealing stupid amounts of physical damage, and thats what i personally find strange when DD speaks about mass drivers and low armor penetration (in fact the only way you can have higher "armor penetration" is if you can literally destroy matter).
 
Last edited:
Okay this got out of hand.

TL : DR Kinetic weapons and energy weapons fine.
Both short range and long range strike craft as well as missiles with comparable ranges would be nice.

My two cents on a couple of things.

First the kinetic/lasers vs armour

now most of my knowledge of this comes from xkcd and wikipedia but...

for kinetic weapons I'm assuming kinetic energy penetrator rounds. Since they would be going at a significant portion of the speed of light to cause damage to the ship the projectile would require an impact depth greater than the depth of the armour. Depth of impact ~ length of projectile x density of projectile/density of the armour. A bunch of things can impact armour depth in any given impact event such as angle of impact (think sloped armour) but basically a single impact will either defeat the armour (count as a hit) and do damage or be stopped entirely (count as a miss) multiple impacts on the same plate would of course do much greater damage but component damage isn't being tracked so this wont come into play. The energy transferred to the ship is based on kinetic energy or 1/2 mv^2 not e=mc^2 (nuclear reactions) as someone said earlier. This would still cause an hell of an impact crater in the ships armour and hull, but no deepr (or not much deeper) than the length in the equation above. More armour greatly reduces the penetration into the ship and therefore internal ship damage which i feels justifies the way in which armour reduces damage rather than negates or acts as a health bar given that component damage isn't tracked. Since component damage isn't tracked and armour doesn't degrade i think mechanically it is necessary for there to always be a minimum amount of damage as the devs have said there would be. I do wonder how critical hits and stuff work representing hitting an arsenal or power supply etc.

Energy weapons on the other hand are a lot trickier to determine. We're most used to dealing with lasers in the near visible spectrum such as ultraviolet or infrared. While we do have issues with things like ablation clouds with our current technology practical implementation would require overcoming this before wide spread weaponisation if ablation issues cant be overcome then laser weapons are not viable. (I'm not trying to fob this point off as 'magical future tech' when compared to the kinetic weapons, the major ability of kinetic armour to defeat kinetic weapons is its inherent physical nature changing this changes the nature of how these weapons operate and we're no longer talking about kinetic weapons but instead about inter-dimensional sniper rifles or teleportation bombs or something.) The energy of the laser would then be ablating the armour and hull of the ship while simultaneously releasing a massive plasma explosion in a more concentrated area than the impact crater caused by the kinetic impact and being able to penetrate further into the ship.

In the dev diary screen shots shields seemed to be operating in a 'hard fashion' and given that in terms of mechanics the operate as an extra health bar this appearance seams accurate. To compare energy and kinetic weapons at this point you need to compare kinetic energy in joules to watts. A hard energy shield that is projected away from the surface of the ship as pictured would have to completely counter the kinetic energy of any projectile headed roughly in the direction of the ship though some projectiles would be deflected if they where going to miss the ship anyway. It would also have to completely counter the energy from any energy based weapon.

Given my interpretation of how these two weapons systems work i think that a kinetic weapon causing X hull damage through Y armour, where the armour has a significant effect on a kinetic projectile, the amount of laser energy required to penetrate the armour and cause x hull damage would be lower. Since both lasers and kinetic energy have roughly the same effect watt for joule on a 'hard' energy shield, kinetic weapons would comparatively do more damage.

I think that committing to close combat to where your autocannons and laser turrets are in range should be an extremely aggressive manoeuvre basically a 'decisive battle' type strategy forcing casualties on both sides. On the other hand i think that many combats should be more standoffish with major ships staying back and launching missiles and fighters at each other, which have a relatively low chance of destroying enemy capital ships, and the screens skirmishing between the fleets in a positional battle trying to isolate enemy capital ships without compromising your own, though I do realise this would probably be impossible to code and not very interesting to watch as well as causing extremely drawn out battles that would normally be inconclusive.

Second on how missiles and strike craft should work.

I think that basically there shouldn't be a hard limit on range of missiles, instead their should be an limit on the maximum efficient range beyond which accuracy and point defense resistance (or whatever that mechanic is called) rapidly degrades representing a limit on correction burns. However I don't know how effectively that could be implemented mechanically. instead i would like to see two different paths developed in tech terms for missiles. One representing long range missiles that develop stealth tech trying to overcome the enemies point defense systems by reducing their efficiency these would be launched in relatively small numbers and secondly the 'swarm' type missiles that would be high speed but short ranged as mentioned by Jormungander that try to numerically overwhelm the point defense systems. (I'm imagining something like the Russian smerch fires lots of rockets quickly but a long reload time before the next round of fire). The long range missiles i think should have similar ranges to bombers.

I think that strike craft be developed along two different lines. 1 that has a relatively short range representing purely conventional propulsion with limited fuel reserves but is faster and more manoeuvrable, interceptors and short range bombers that fight with their host craft. The others would be much longer bombers and escort fighters that fight independent of their host craft but are less manoeuvrable and slower than the dedicated interceptors. This would to me represent the trade off of installing another form of drive in the craft as well as their combat thrusters that allow them to travel the much greater distance.

Bombers should be able to get some degree of point defence system, not enough to defeat fighters one on one, but enough that attacking bombers with your fighters isn't a completely bloodless, though having escorts with your bombers would still be preferable.

I also think that bombers should have a limited number of anti capital ship attacks whether it be missiles or plasma bombs or whatever before they have to return to their host vessel to refit. Having unlimited attacks on a vessel of that size that could damage a battle ship would make a mockery of the whole Corvettes<destroyers<Cruisers< Battleships idea. Again having more shots would make them less manoeuvrable and more vulnerable to fighters and point defence systems. To me the advantage of long range craft over long range missiles is that they are better able to pick their angle of attack and react to new situations. Long range missiles aren't quite fire and forget but they cant change target after launch.

I have no problem with the idea of ships replenishing theirs attack craft over time. A vessel of the size we're talking about could easily hold a manufactury and would need to to provide all the equipment that would maintain the ship. However i hope their is some form of supply system so if your ship is deep in enemy territory you could eventually run out of supply and not be able to build more attack craft and possibly missiles until you return to a zone where your fleet can be replenished.

Lastly I hope that the weapons mentioned and shown in the screen shots are just mid tier weaponry and that by late game we can build battleships with weapons capable of destroying enemy battleships in just a handful of hits, basically weapons that the ships are built around like massive rail guns or death star type lasers that are hard to get into place to fire but if you catch the enemy in your sights there dead.
 
Last edited:
  • 1
Reactions:
If people really have such a hard idea with shields being overpowered with kinetic weapons as opposed to the beams that you often see in scifi, Consider the second most common scifi shield, The plasma screen. Its not a wall of energy like star wars or star treck shields, Its basically a continuous low grade explosion taking place outside the ship, plasma emitters spreading a super heated cloud of plasma around the vessel and holding it in place with magnetic fields, this results in particles interfering with beam weapons that cant really ever overcome the disruption as the particles are replaced at a steady rate either by simply moving within the magnetic field (Plasmas highly energetic it will move alot and quickly) Whereas kinetic weapons will literally punch holes in the screen taking chunks of the plasma with it as it passes through. Granted this assumes a kinetic round both large and heat resistant enough to not be entirely vaporized by the plasma shield.

That pretty well sums up one side of the equation, The other largely depends on what type of round your kinetic weapons are firing, (I can only assume there will be some variation in round types unlockable through research) if their using something relatively low density, their not going to be very good against thick dense armor., even if they are ideal for punching holes in shield systems. Secondly if your using relatively small shells (Say like a howitzers) Your going to be able to achieve pretty fast reload speeds on your weapon, but again heavy armor will tend to negate your fire. Normally this would be overcome by cumulative damage fracturing and destroying armor sections, but the combat system isn't tracking that level of detail.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
That's because the latter is a dumb idea ;)

Thanks!

Albeit even one just designed to get it clear, will technically eventually carry it all the way, and it is going to be an appreciable percentage of the speed of light, ie whatever speed you ship was traveling when it launched plus X. X being the launchers speed imparted.

Did you read the dev diary? We are dealing with ranges (and a game) where railguns are viable, as per the dev statement. A missile launched running cold the initial distance, then running hot to correct for maneuvering the last bit would have advantages over a missile running hot the entire trip, unless you had opted for missiles with active ECM systems and such. Will the game include it? I doubt it, but we might see some sort of stealth application to missiles.
 
I expect rail guns are going to have a much shorter range as a weapon system than the missiles. They did say different ranges for different weapons after all.

By the time your in effective rail gun range, theres' better weapons to be using over missiles. Not that missiles should ever really stop firing during an engagement. (Prime examples being lasers or afore mentioned rail guns)
 
I'm a little disappointing the fighting mechanics aren't more like Sins of a Solar Empire :\

We already had this mechanic come from Endless space.
Well yeah, exactly what I thought when posting on the previous page of the thread.

I thought the whole point of making Stellaris RTS is so it may have more sophisticated combat mechanics. If it boils down to watching the outcome of the battle again it might as well be turn based with a special sequence that can be skipped (which is what I resort on doing after a while anyways because of how boring and repetitive watching battles you can't intervene in get).

Endless Space was a terrible game, but this is nothing like endless space. People who make this comparison clearly didn't read what they wrote in the original post.

Endless space had shitty little cards you played on three seperate parts of the battle then it ended.

In Stellaris each individual ship will have its own battle computer which dictates what each individual ship does, and they will be interacting dynamically with the opposing ships and their own battle computers tactics.

And I don't think anything says you HAVE to zoom in and watch the fleets duke it out, you can if you want and see how well your ships are doing, but since things are happening in real time I am sure you can just ignore them to do their own things.
 
  • 3
Reactions:
Assuming i was able to successfully translate the second half of that.... Your asking if we know that each ship is going to be on the screen and if the "light show" is going to be the actual fight then the answer according to what they've (they being paradox) has said is yes.
 
oh come on guys !!!!really??
hitting the main reactors ? the amunation chambre ? the power supllie ? only 2 games use this type of criticale hits (homeworld 2and starwars eawfoc) even the best 4x space warfar (sins of a solaire empire ) dont use this .and dont forget stellaris gonna use the same engine of CK2 and eu4.not the engine of homeworld or sins .
the battle gonna be just like EU4 naval battle but this time with vizualization .dont expect more !!this is not a warfare game like sins of a solaire empire or homeworld or eve online .
and we have any prouve that if you have 80 ship for example you gonna really se 80 individual ship or just 10 with 80 as number in number location .
if they are just 10 ships and you have 80 thats mean this just a normal vizualization who show you how the battle is. like in eu4 with the 1vs1 man firing but this time with more mouvement!but if you se your entire 80 ship fighting so here this is not a demonstration of battle .
it is the real battle .


EDIT: yes they are other game like sword of star 2 or gratuitus or others who use this but i speak about huge combat gamplay like sins and they 600 ships battle or star ruler and they 2000 ships .

example in men of war of WW2 you can destroy a king tigre with only 1 critical hit or almost 12 stupid righte to the front armor

in other hand in WW2 games with huge battles they d ont use this like RUSE


MEN of war is like homeworld or sword of star2 (close combat game with a well details combat)
RUSE (is a total war game) the battle d ont have much details like COH or men of war
 
Last edited:
  • 3
  • 1
Reactions:
Assuming i was able to successfully translate the second half of that.... Your asking if we know that each ship is going to be on the screen and if the "light show" is going to be the actual fight then the answer according to what they've (they being paradox) has said is yes.
are you sure what about 300 ships ? CAN YOU SEE THEM ALL ??? or just 20 ship with 300 as number
 
Yeah i kind of wandered off from what i was trying to say. I don't actually expect there to be crits or anything once i started writing my post kind of turned into verbal diarrhoea.

I get that different shield work in different ways and that this isn't freelancer or something.

Having collected my thoughts I'm more thinking about the advantages of long range vs short range combat, how the respective weapon systems work and how stances/battle computers should be able to effect things but got a bit side tracked by trying to justify future weapons.

I would like long range attack craft and missiles to be a much less dangerous form of combat than using laser or auto cannon batteries for capital ships. Not because the former have less destructive potential but because manoeuvre and point defense systems should be able to prevent launching waves of missiles at the enemy from the other side of a system being a decisive tactic unless you have a clear advantage in either numbers or technology however those same missiles and strike craft could be deadly when your fleets have closed with each other and the enemy has less time to react to the in coming fire as well as your short range weapons. Going by the dev diary what i would like to see is if you have two fleets in a system that are hostile and both have a passive stance and defensive computers they'll stay out of each others way taking pot shots at each other but not taking risks maintaining a fleet in being, however if one has an aggressive stance and an aggressive computer they will try to close with and destroy as much of the enemies force no matter the risk though i'm not sure how this would actually play out in the game.

Going back to strike craft i would really like to see the ability to focus bombers on either capital ships or escorts so if you're creating a carrier fleet you can have large concentrations of bombers as your main weapon system trying to take down the enemies large ships or you can tack a couple of wings of light bombers onto a battleship to try provide some additional defence against corvettes that might otherwise overwhelm the battleship while its focusing on the enemies capital ships.