• 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.
Status
Not open for further replies.

Stellaris Dev Diary #41 - Heinlein patch (part 2)

Hello everyone and welcome to another Stellaris development diary. This is the second in a multi-part dev diary about the 'Heinlein' 1.3 patch that we are currently working on. This week's dev diary will be focusing on a series of changes made to ship design and fleets that we call the Fleet Combat Overhaul.


Dedicated Roles
One frequent critique of the ship types in Stellaris is that they don't really have roles - besides corvettes being unable to mount large weapons, there is basically no difference in what type of weapons can be mounted on what type of hull, meaning that there is no actual reason to use a proper mix of ship types - often the best strategy is just to find a single effective design (such as all-corvette fleets on release version or the currently popular destroyer tachyon lance fleet). To address this we sat down and thought about what the roles of each type of ship should be, and came out with the following:
  • Corvettes are fast, agile ships that excel in taking out capital ships at close range.
  • Destroyers are screens for your capital ships that excel in taking down corvettes and countering missiles and strike craft.
  • Cruisers are close-range capital ship brawlers that tank enemy fire and engage enemy destroyers and capital ships.
  • Battleships are artillery and carrier ships that provide long-range fire support.

Somewhat simplistically, you could say that corvettes are good against cruisers and battleships, destroyers are good against corvettes and strike craft, cruisers are good against destroyers/cruisers/battleships (depending on how they are designed) and battleships are good against cruisers, other battleships and fixed installations. This change should give each ship a clear purpose, while allowing for some flexibility within by purpose through the ship designer (for example, cruisers can either be tough battleship killers or fast attack ships that clear the way for your corvettes depending on design). It's worth noting that designs may not start with a dedicated role like this - at the very start, corvettes not have torpedoes and destroyers will lack the targeting that makes them such effective corvette killers. Their roles instead come fully into play as technology advances and capital ships enter the stage.

In order to make this specialization possible, we have made a few changes to ship design. First of all, we have added three new weapon slot types:
  • Torpedo slots mount Torpedo and Energy Torpedo weapons, which are short range extreme damage weapons meant to take down capital ships. They can only be used by corvettes and cruisers.
  • Point Defense slots mount point defense cannons, which is the primary defense against missiles, torpedoes and fighter craft. Destroyers can be designed to field large amounts of point defense weapons.
  • Extra Large slots mount massive long-range weapons that can only fire in a fixed arc ahead, such as Tachyon Lances, Arc Emitters and Mega Cannons. These can only be mounted on battleships and take up the whole bow section.

We've also tweaked ship modules and retired a couple of modules that we feel did not fit the new design, so that it is no longer possible to make a 'corvette killer' battleship with huge amounts of small weapons, for example. While there realistically is no reason you couldn't mount small weapons on a battleship, going with a realism angle would simply put us right back where we are now, so we chose to sacrifice some realism for what we feel is better gameplay.


Utility Slot Rework
Another area we felt sorely needed some attention is the utility slots - right now there is often little meaningful choice, with the best strategy usually being to stack either armor or shields depending on ship size, enemy weapons and tech level. Most of the special utilities, such as shield capacitors or regenerative hull, are either woefully underpowered or extremely overpowered. To address these issues, we've made the following changes:
  • The amount of damage reduction provided by armor now depends on the size of the ship, so a single piece of armor will do more for a corvette than for a battleship. This should make armor useful even for smaller ships.
  • The 'special' utilities (crystalline hull plating, shield capacitor, etc) will use their own slot type that is limited by hull size, and so will only have to be balanced against each other instead of having to also be balanced against shields and armor.
  • A new utility type, afterburners, provides additional combat speed, allowing you to design ships that can closely quickly with your opponents.


Misc Changes and Notes
  • As part of these changes we're looking over the balance of every weapon in the game, especially strike craft, point defense and creature weapons.
  • Combat computers will be changed from being universal to being based on ship type, so corvettes have specific corvette computers that focus on boosting evasion, while destroyers have computers that impove targeting, allowing them to keep up with corvette evasion better than other ship types.
  • We're changing emergency FTL so that it sets the fleet as MIA, meaning that fleets that successfully escape combat will always be able to flee to friendly space rather than getting stuck and ping-ponged to death. To compensate, we're making it so every ship (no matter how undamaged) has a chance to be lost when you use emergency FTL, so it's always a risky maneuver.
  • We're looking into creating a special class of flagships that are limited in number by your fleet size, and are the only ones able to use auras, instead of all-aura battleship fleets.
  • We're looking at balancing the different FTL types and making it less hard to catch enemy fleets. Some of our current ideas is having fleet speed depend on how far away you are from friendly space (and thus resupply) and boosting the speed of warp.
  • We're looking into fleet formations and some basic orders during combat (priority targeting, etc). At minimum the basic fleet formation will be changed to be more sensible (no more suicide corvette leading the charge).

Note that the changes listed in this DD are not fully done, so some of them may not show up in below screenshots.
iUSvWHQ.png

S0eS3HZ.png

TAqi5VO.png

DD980B8.png

apVYe0u.png


That's all for this week! Next week we'll talking about yet more features and changes coming in Heinlein.
 
Last edited:
  • 262
  • 51
  • 14
Reactions:
There certainly will be work done with sectors in Heinlein.
Can we hope for some of the most annoying issues with sectors (e.g.: slavery) to be resolved through hotfixes and minor patches, or will we have to wait until October?
 
All defensive stations need the ability to expand into larger and larger stations with more guns and more fortitude. One of the main problems right now is the 50v1 scenario (which is easily attained by year 30). Since a Fortress can only have 4x8 guns at maximum, the most it can target is 32 ships with pathetic small weapon damage. Buffs need to be able to keep pace with the exponential increase in naval capacity as the game moves towards huge numbers of ships. If they are just static tin cans, then no one will use them as the current iteration.

Some ideas for you going forward:
  • The maintenance for Fortresses needs to be way lower than it currently is. One energy per "platform" is plenty in my opinion.
  • Construction ships should be able to expand defensive platforms by building add-ons (ie copies of currently designed platforms). This would mean each platforms resources are self-sufficient.
  • Snare needs to be reworked on stations. Right now, it is an invitation for the platforms own destruction, which is kind of stupid in my opinion. Perhaps restricting only X many enemy ships into a system + its current bonus? Not sure, but something has to change...
  • Tech specifically for defensive platforms needs to be massively buffed. Furthermore, there needs to be huge attack speed and damage increases per weapon out of the gate. A static ship doesn't need propulsion, meaning it should have much better weapons.
 
  • 19
  • 1
Reactions:
Cool changes! I like the ship and slot specializations a lot. I'm curious to see how strike craft fit into the rock-paper-scissors model you have here. Obviously DD are good against them, but what are they good at, and how would bombers be different than corvettes?

I also echo the desire for having some sort or orderly retreat or withdrawal that doesn't cost anything to the user (other than time compared to eFTL). Could easily be countered in large battles with a military station or ship mounted jump inhibitor/delayer. But something to withdrawal from an attack on a civilian structure or small raider fleet is desperately needed.
 
I'm not sure if this has been asked already but will there be anyway to build fleets along the line of the EUIV fleet and army designer? I know you said the fleet designer will be the patch after this but I'm specifically talking about the problem of building ships in shipyards within sectors. At the moment you have to go to each system then each planet and then the ship building screen or go through the empire screen, open each sector and go to each planet. This is a problem which only gets worse as your empire (and the numbers of planets and sectors) expands. Maybe a tab on the Empire screen which shows shipyards. Something like that would be a real quality of life improvement.
 
  • 5
  • 1
Reactions:
The changes sound interesting and I’m curious where they go with it but I also think it might be overkill for a problem that seems fairly easy to correct. The design for ship combat that I recall during development was that armor would block a ‘fixed amount’ of damage rather than a percentage. If that were the case, the balance falls into line much better:

Larger weapons have poor accuracy but high damage. Smaller ships have higher evasion and are harder to hit. Larger ships have more armor and are hard to damage with smaller weapon output.

You provide weapons and sections which can allow a player to design ships for any role desired. If you WANT to have a BB that can smoke large numbers of smaller ships, that would be fine…many small guns. BUT those same guns are much less effective vs armored targets and essentially useless vs heavily armored BBs. On the other hand, if you want a BB that can chew through armor with massive single-hit damage, that would be fine, but then that ship has a hard time hitting anything with a high evasion with any of those heavy weapons. Of course you could follow traditional naval architecture and design a BB with a heavy main armament and some secondary armament to hit smaller ships (16in main battery and 5in secondaries). But then that ship might lose out to either a swarm of light ships (not enough secondaries to beat them all) or again capital-ship killer BBs (it simply doesn’t have as much heavy armament to compete).

To ‘fill in the blanks’, you could have torpedoes and energy weapons for smaller mounts that can chew through some armor, but are less accurate and take more power/slots from your smaller ships. And then you add missiles to mix which have long range, but can be intercepted adding another range of possibilities for ship design. Finally, layer Strikecraft in there are infinite possibilities for ship design. ;)

And all that is really needed to make that system work is for armor to be absolute rather than percentage based and then balance the weapons, defenses, and evasion to match. I know it wouldn’t be THAT simple, but at the end of the day, it’s the ‘balance’ that existed historically for quite some time… ;)
 
  • 9
  • 1
Reactions:
Hello. Currently weapons like tachyon lances have a 75% reduction to armour. This makes them a hard counter to ships with armour, so much so that it is often impossible to overcome this disadvantage with numbers. I was wondering if the balance of counters like this would be reevaluated to be "softer" or if the rock paper scissors style is the one intended for this game.
 
Please make an option for a "semi-emergency FTL retreat" where your ships are disabled for the time it takes to make a normal travel between a system and keep the only 1 system retreat-distance rule.
So we can get rid of this following scenario:
-This is the homeworld calling the main battle fleet. We are under attack by the enemy. Repeat, under attack by the enemy. He is bombarding the planet and an army of xenomorphs have just entered orbit. Rape and pillage is impending.
-This it the main battle fleet, our strike crafts have just been launched on a mission to take out an enemy mining station half way across the system. We expect the fighting to be tough but we're sure that we will destroy the station in 2-3 months from now and then be ready to return home and defend our homeworld.

This!
 
  • 9
Reactions:
What if some weapons need special resources to shoot? Tachyon lances maybe. Every shot will consume some amount of resources. I think something like that was in Victoria 2 (coal and iron). So you will not use your best ships everythere. You will keep them in reserve for some realy important battle.

Or implement limited ammo for every ship. In that case you will need to return for reload after big battle, or build supply ships. So you will not be able just to build big fleet and conquer whole galaxy. You will plan you war carefully.
 
  • 10
  • 1
Reactions:
The upgrading system in Stellaris has to be one the most immersion breaking features in my opinion. Sure, there may be more effort in running a game system where there is limited upgrading, but it would be so much more immersive to have older ships fighting alongside newer models. Star Trek, Babylon 5 and many science fiction books all have this as a core part of their imaginary worlds. It's all based on real life, of course, where we see ships gradually made obsolete as newer models are made.

I also think the current system it is a bit unrealistic.

I would like to see a system, where it is no longer cost effective to upgrade a very old design.

E.g. take a war situation, where you are desparately trying to build your latest/best designs in large numbers very quickly.

It is like, say, you take an american civil war design (E.g. a monitor) and upgrade it to a WW2 Fletcher class destroyer
almost instantly.

Currently mothball ships and in an emergency situation you have an instant modern fleet with the fast/cheap upgrading.

What could probably done is maybe an upgrade from laser 1a to laser 1b is comparativly cheap and quick.

If you however upgrade from laser 1a to 3c it is prohibitvly slow and expansive (simulating a virtual rebuild).
Each missing step adds a certain price/delay. e.g. 1a to 1b is 1 time, 1a to 1c is 2 times, 1a to 2a is 4 times
in time AND resources, something like that.

It also rewards a certain precation in having some kind of reserve fleet (obsolate but serviceable designs) and
upgrading your mothballed ships in certain intervals not to to be totally flatfooted if war breaks out.

Contrast this e.g. with someone pacifistic but economically strong having a very old fleet/mothballs never
upgraded totally neglacting any precaution. We all know that everybody else will always totally resonable about
the waste of resourses on wepons, right ? Using all recources on peaceful development. Currently he just "buys"
a fleet (time being more of a factor than resources in building a fleet). All emergency war programms
start with very cheap, quickly build designs, not the superweapons you maybe can also build.

There can also be some kind of roleplaying aspect/risk taking in a slighty complexer upgrading making the game
more interesting.

Sorry for the long rant, but the idea just got flowing.
Maybe it is also total idiotic, but it just poured out

Otherwise happily awaiting Heinlein 1.3
 
  • 4
  • 2
Reactions:
Thanks Wiz. Could you also change the layout so that my fleet of battleships doesn't head towards the enemy in a triangle? At the moment only my front ship gets to fire for the first few days, and by the time the rest of the fleet is in range that front ship has taken a bit of a pounding. I want them to advance in a sort of line so that they all start firing at once without leaving one ship out at the front on her own.
yep, that is in the DD talking about looking at formation options - last bullet under 'misc changes and notes'.

The upgrading system in Stellaris has to be one the most immersion breaking features in my opinion. Sure, there may be more effort in running a game system where there is limited upgrading, but it would be so much more immersive to have older ships fighting alongside newer models. Star Trek, Babylon 5 and many science fiction books all have this as a core part of their imaginary worlds. It's all based on real life, of course, where we see ships gradually made obsolete as newer models are made.
Which is really easy to do already.
If you change the name and keep each of the class saved as you update it. When you hit upgrade, it won't replace the old versions that way.
 
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions:
I think we'll just have to wait and see how this gets implemented before deciding if its too restrictive or not. Personally I'm hoping for the less restrictive side of the ledger because I like making specialty ships.

For the ship designer itself, in addition to the need to hide obsolete equipment, if we are going to be restricted in what weapons can be put on a ship, it would be better if those were greyed out or some sort of other color coding to show that you cannot use this weapon type on this ship. I'd also appreciate some color coding on the ship itself to show obsolete weapon types. If I'm not at war I'll frequently wait to do a full pass change on ship design until I have a few upgrades in and it's possible to lose track of what you need to change. So if I've got blue lasers on a ship but have researched x-ray lasers, it would be nice if the blue laser modules on the ship showed their obsolete status (perhaps a red box around them).
 
  • 2
Reactions:
But there is absolutely no reason to do that.
I was simply responding to the comment about it breaking immersion, and pointing out that if it is that large an issue, you don't have to let it happen.

Is it optimal? No, but it is entirely plausible for RP in the current setup (and there is the reason - RP)
 
Can you make the fleet splitting interface better? Trying to split a fleet into thirds, or any other fraction that isn't 1/2, is an exercise in frustration, especially since I have 8 to 10 unique ship designs mid to late game.
 
  • 5
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions:
find the idea total stupid idea
any Large ship would totally destroy anything includding small/smaller ships.
why would a race build a LARGE ship with a ton of weapons including small tracking turret mounts to counter against small crafts including fighters.
the whole idea is repulsive to think about it you spend years building a ship and bomb a figher destroys it with a torp to much starwars is bad for the brain.
 
  • 14
  • 4
Reactions:
Most of this sounds good, but I think it would be a mistake to have a variable fleet speed based on distance from the homeworld (or colonies). Especially if it's rationalized as "resupply".

That is a land army concept that doesn't fit a space 4x game (IMO). We already have nuclear powered subs that can go out on extended cruises without resupply. It just doesn't make sense that an advanced starship would be more limited. It would feel like an arbitrary, gamey restriction.
 
  • 19
  • 1
Reactions:
Love all the proposed changes. Re-working the slots like torpedoes, point-defense, capacitors etc. definitely encourages diversity in fleet design over one universal min-maxed design.

I am really excited about the possibility of specialized flagships being added to the game. Could this finally be the 4 section titan we have all been waiting for? Flagships should definitely stand out in the fleet and making them limited in number and larger in size would go a long way for that!

PS: The fungoid colony ship is the most badass colony ship I have ever seen. I always think when I make a colony ship how I would love to convert that baby into a massive flagship like the mon calamari cruisers.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
find the idea total stupid idea
any Large ship would totally destroy anything includding small/smaller ships.
why would a race build a LARGE ship with a ton of weapons including small tracking turret mounts to counter against small crafts including fighters.
the whole idea is repulsive to think about it you spend years building a ship and bomb a figher destroys it with a torp to much starwars is bad for the brain.
Yeah, why would nations spend tons and tons of money building bigger and larger ships just to be countered by fast moving vessels with destructive short range power and be forced to build escort vessels to fill various specialised roles. Oh wait, it's called the evolution of naval warfare 1890-1945.
 
  • 9
  • 1
Reactions:
Status
Not open for further replies.