• 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:
Can we stop making appeals to hard science and physics about how these completely undefined energy shields are being modeled wrong? Without knowing what kind of handwavium that these shields run on, it is impossible to say that their "science" is wrong.
 
  • 11
Reactions:
Well to be honest kinda underwhelming because we already knew most of the information in this DD.Apparently the whole "Fleet combat" is still not finished yet and Paradox are testing what can work and how to look properly.At least the fights will look cool as in the screenshots when you zoom in the camera.

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 ?


I would love if we had to roll the dice ourselves or decide on a certain tactic f.E with a card system and more decesive battles.
 
  • 2
Reactions:
Can we stop making appeals to hard science and physics about how these completely undefined energy shields are being modeled wrong? Without knowing what kind of handwavium that these shields run on, it is impossible to say that their "science" is wrong.
This.
Especially seeing as how most people's arguments are based on this:
Usually (ie in other games)
 
  • 7
Reactions:
So it's not inconceivable that laser frequencies could be used that would essentially pass through the ships hulls and start frying its internal electronics and systems etc, causing massive damage to various ship systems, in other words causing a lot of damage to the ship without the mitigating effect of the ship's armour doing much to stop it.

A lot of the energy from lasers would transfer as heat. Thus even as the armor absorbs it, it still heats the components past it, via thermal conductance. Once things get hot enough, stuff just stops working right.

Some extrapolation of science tech would be to create an armor that adjusts to the frequency and wavelengths of the laser itself, and reflect the energy back, so the armor doesn't get heated nor absorbs the energy of the laser itself.

There's a lot of technical problems with that kind of system. How to make armor into a passive sensor that automatically reacts. It would make it closer to an organism.
 
Last edited:
  • 1
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).



Efficiency-wise we'd like it to be Corvette < Destroyer < Cruiser < Battleship < Corvette. This is of course an over-simplification but that's the general idea. We do a few things to try and achieve this, such as Corvettes gaining full Evasion from all sources while Battleships only gain 25% (Destroyers and Cruisers gain 75% and 50% respectively). This in combination with the fact that the larger weapons used by Battleships have lower attack speed, higher damage per attack and somewhat lower hit-chance should make it less cost-efficient to overkill small corvettes with huge weapons (lots of missed shots, those that do hit deal far more damage than needed). Corvettes in turn will struggle with the higher armor and shields of a Destroyer etc. up the chain.



No, we've decided not to go in to such detail. Strike Craft come in sets of units (or Wings) that can be placed on ships with hangar-capabilities.



All fleets having some type of FTL-capability can use EFTL. Ships relying on Wormholes to travel will need a functional Wormhole Station within range. If there is no station in range, the fleet is stranded and can not EFTL (doooooooooooooooooooooooooooom!).



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.



Armor subtracts a set amount of damage from each hit, up to a limit. Armor can never reduce damage taken to zero. Armor-penetration is percentage-based.



Yup yup!

Can strike craft be assigned to non-ship things like planets and bases?
 
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 .
SOTS2 uses this type too, and they even track every turret and armor plate. The tactical combat part of SOTS2 runs well in my 4-years-old laptop with about 20 ships so I believe a much more simplified mechanism like possibility of hitting the main reactors in a combat with 80 ships is possible. They only need to add some ship modifier like main reactor down and one single determination on whether or not hit the reactor based on a dice after they did on hitting/missing.
 
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 .
Actually, more than two games do that. All of the Space Empires games have destructable components, which are destroyed until you repare it. In SE IV, shields go down first, then armor gets hit. If the damage was enough to destroy the armor, the armor component gets destroyed and the rest of the damage bleeds over to the next armor component. So let's say you have six armor components, you could hit it with a weak shot and no component gets destroyed, or you could hit it with a powerful weapon and one or more of the armor gets destroyed. After that, "outer components" get destroyed, and then "inner components" which would include life support, crew quarters, the bridge, etc.

You could even research weapons that targeted specific components, like a weapon overloading beam, or an engine missile.

I'm fine with Stellaris not doing that, but it definitely adds depth in the terms of damage.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
Erm, in real we have the problem, kinetic projectiles are extreme superior at penetrating armor plates then laser. Tanks, ships and buildings are at their economic limit of armor usability, sure, we can build really well armored building, but that will cost amounts of money, time, material and workforce.

I can tell you as an infantryman, I wear body armor to stop bullets. I can also assure you, as an infantryman, that we have yet to actually go against an enemy that has large laser beams of any type, let alone lasers that glow bright blue.

This argument is stupid, because you have NO WAY of telling me that laser cannons are inferior bullets at piercing armor.

I can tell you, however, that my body armor was specifically designed to stop bullets, and it does a pretty damn good job at it.
 
  • 4
Reactions:
I would love if we had to roll the dice ourselves or decide on a certain tactic f.E with a card system and more decesive battles.
I would love if we actually lead the battles in real time and not just being an observer but actually using tactics and outsmart the enemy like in Total War games.Too bad the people in this forum hate this idea apparently.It's really a shame because for me the dream strategy game will be the deep gameplay on the campaign map from Paradox and the combat style of fighting from the Total War games (and graphics) from Creative Assembly.
Also I'm really curious what are the arguments of all those 41 people who downvoted me for no reason.
 
  • 6
  • 4
Reactions:
I would love if we actually lead the battles in real time and not just being an observer but actually using tactics and outsmart the enemy like in Total War games.Too bad the people in this forum hate this idea apparently.It's really a shame because for me the dream strategy game will be the deep gameplay on the campaign map from Paradox and the combat style of fighting from the Total War games (and graphics) from Creative Assembly.
Also I'm really curious what are the arguments of all those 41 people who downvoted me for no reason.

The problem with doing direct control like total war is that the game is real time. Also, I can understand the other sides argument with letting the admiral and captains direct t.
 
  • 3
Reactions:
The problem with doing direct control like total war is that the game is real time.
I don't see the problem.The fighting could be like in Sins of a Solar Empire but the Total War of fighting can work as well (game being "paused" and you engage in battle and control your units.People who don't want to bother can auto-resolve in a similar way that Paradox right now offers).
 
  • 3
  • 1
Reactions:
I would love if we actually lead the battles in real time and not just being an observer but actually using tactics and outsmart the enemy like in Total War games.Too bad the people in this forum hate this idea apparently.It's really a shame because for me the dream strategy game will be the deep gameplay on the campaign map from Paradox and the combat style of fighting from the Total War games (and graphics) from Creative Assembly.
Also I'm really curious what are the arguments of all those 41 people who downvoted me for no reason.
I can only speak for myself, but I hate the tactical combat system of the Total War games. When I used to play Medieval TW back in university, I autocalced every battle even though the autocalc AI was really sub-optimal. I would not want to play a Paradox game that implemented a TW-style combat control system. I like management style combat where I setup the units and they fight on their own (i.e. Paradox titles, the Ogre Battle series, Soul Nomad).

Mine would actually be a "respectfully disagree", you are entitled to like that sort of game and your opinion is valid, but it is not a game I want to play.
 
  • 2
Reactions:
I don't see the problem.The fighting could be like in Sins of a Solar Empire but the Total War of fighting can work as well (game being "paused" and you engage in battle and control your units.People who don't want to bother can auto-resolve in a similar way that Paradox right now offers).

OK what about multiplayer (which has been a major push point for Stellaris thus far). Does everyone wait for a player to resolve a battle? Does going into manual control of battle mean that your empire is run by an AI and the rest of the players just pile on to you?

I wouldn't mind it being an option for single player, although I'd probably never use it. Honestly though, I'd prefer if they just focused on and made the Grand Strategy perfect, instead of trying to add little RTS elements that end up being more micromanagement than is necessary. I don't want this game to devolve into "whoever clicks the faster wins".
 
  • 3
Reactions:
I can only speak for myself, but I hate the tactical combat system of the Total War games. When I used to play Medieval TW back in university, I autocalced every battle even though the autocalc AI was really sub-optimal. I would not want to play a Paradox game that implemented a TW-style combat control system. I like management style combat where I setup the units and they fight on their own (i.e. Paradox titles, the Ogre Battle series, Soul Nomad).

Mine would actually be a "respectfully disagree", you are entitled to like that sort of game and your opinion is valid, but it is not a game I want to play.
What about a Sins of a Solar empire style of combat ? Or don't you agree that pretty much everything else that gives more options than Fight/Run away will be better and more fun to play ?

OK what about multiplayer (which has been a major push point for Stellaris thus far). Does everyone wait for a player to resolve a battle? Does going into manual control of battle mean that your empire is run by an AI and the rest of the players just pile on to you?

I wouldn't mind it being an option for single player, although I'd probably never use it. Honestly though, I'd prefer if they just focused on and made the Grand Strategy perfect, instead of trying to add little RTS elements that end up being more micromanagement than is necessary. I don't want this game to devolve into "whoever clicks the faster wins".
I actually am ready to welcome anything more complex than Fight/Run away style of fighting.
 
  • 2
  • 1
Reactions:
What about a Sins of a Solar empire style of combat ? Or don't you agree that pretty much everything else that gives more options than Fight/Run away will be better and more fun to play ?
I played Sins of a Solar Empire when it first came out and didn't care for it much. It was too RTS and not enough 4X for me. I do like some games with more of a focus on the tactical combat, but if I'm in the mood for one of those, I'd play a game that isn't grand strategy.
 
  • 2
Reactions:
And we are just talking about laser then the game probably will have much more advanced stuff then just plain laser like phasors. Ship armor is very advanced. The speed of ships and projectiles are probably not that fast in stellaris given the game time and all FTL travel is based around taking shortcuts, not around speed.

Missiles that are super accelerated at lunch would basically just be normal mass drivers as the massive speed vector would not allow for much turning, detection technology is also very advanced, possibly multi dimensional so it would not be as great as it sounds.

Early mass drivers are probably the railgun, late mass drivers are probably based around FTL technology, massivly reducing the distance the projectile need to travel before it reach its target.

It is a science fiction game, it don't need to explain everything physically correct.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
I played Sins of a Solar Empire when it first came out and didn't care for it much. It was too RTS and not enough 4X for me. I do like some games with more of a focus on the tactical combat, but if I'm in the mood for one of those, I'd play a game that isn't grand strategy.
Sins of a Solar empire had many problems but the combat was fun.I think such kind of combat can work way better than current one that Paradox showed.I mean they already made the models of the ships and are planing to show us thousands of ships on the battlefield fighting why they didn't go one step further and let us control them ?
 
  • 2
  • 1
Reactions:
I can tell you as an infantryman, I wear body armor to stop bullets. I can also assure you, as an infantryman, that we have yet to actually go against an enemy that has large laser beams of any type, let alone lasers that glow bright blue.

This argument is stupid, because you have NO WAY of telling me that laser cannons are inferior bullets at piercing armor.

I can tell you, however, that my body armor was specifically designed to stop bullets, and it does a pretty damn good job at it.

Ehehe, tried armor piercing ammunation?

If you want pierce an armor plate with a laser, you need more time for piercing it, your gun need to hold this spot for some time and then you have only a nice hole in the armor plate and the area behind it, if you are lucky enough, you will hit something like a powercore, battery, fueltanks or ammunation dumps, thats nice, but with a railgun sabot you will plow throught the armorplate with a small hole at entry and a big hole at the exit, so the chance of destroying important stuff is much higher.

Sure, laser are far superior with their range, you can zap away enemies at long range, but i dont know, if Stellaris let us fight long range battles. I mean, i would prefer lasers too, if i could fight enemy ships, when they are 10 lightseconds away, that would be a range of 30 million km, its like the old gunfight at sea in the first worldwar.
 
you want do huge battles ? ;)
my tactics is . play in EU4 roma mod and when a huge battle happens i end the game go to rome 2 totale war and recreate this battle with a huge semi-realistic number of man and return the EU4 after the end of battle same things with naval battles .
in normal eu4 ; if i do a huge naval or land battle . i recreate the battle in empire and napoleon totale war .
victoria 2 . in napoleon TW WW1 and men of war as2 mod WW1
CK2 : attila age of charlemagne and medieval mod rome 2tw (and wait for medieval 3 )
stellaris :maybe sins or star rulers2 i dont know the game is not historical like the other who have same historical ships and soldiers :confused:.
for ground battle of stellaris easy i can recereate battle whit :ashes of singularity -planetary annihilation- and supreme commander1 :cool:

HOI4 : probably R.U.S.E for huge campagne and men of war for close combat .
future cold war game ? easy i can recreat the huge battles in wargamme :red dragon
 
Last edited:
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions:
Ehehe, tried armor piercing ammunation?

If you want pierce an armor plate with a laser, you need more time for piercing it, your gun need to hold this spot for some time and then you have only a nice hole in the armor plate and the area behind it, if you are lucky enough, you will hit something like a powercore, battery, fueltanks or ammunation dumps, thats nice, but with a railgun sabot you will plow throught the armorplate with a small hole at entry and a big hole at the exit, so the chance of destroying important stuff is much higher.

Sure, laser are far superior with their range, you can zap away enemies at long range, but i dont know, if Stellaris let us fight long range battles. I mean, i would prefer lasers too, if i could fight enemy ships, when they are 10 lightseconds away, that would be a range of 30 million km, its like the old gunfight at sea in the first worldwar.
I am glad you have access to super advanced laser technology that no one else in the military has, but I can assure you we have at least some kind of armor to counter most armor piercing rounds.

You know what else I am willing to bet? That there are in fact ballistic cannons in the game that do less damage but have more AP capabilities. Because armor piercing rounds today do less damage non armor piercing rounds.

You have no idea how much damage the laser can do. It is obviously more powerful than what we have, so it would probably burn through the armor pretty dang fast.