[Dev Team] 4.0.22-Wilderness Open Beta 2025-07-08 Updated (checksum 26d5)

[Aid7en]

Redesign the warfare model so that it doesn't rely on tracking individual ships as discrete on-map entities that move around like RTS units.

As an added bonus, this addresses the combat lag caused by 100 artillery-computer missile corvettes dancing around trying to stay out of range of 100 swarm-computer gun corvettes.

I think that if this is implemented, then no one will play it.
I mean, the entertainment in the game will be lost. To see individual ships and their combat, you need to track these individual ships. If we don't track them, what will we see?
...
Tracking missiles and fighter jets creates the most stress in combat, but the game will become more boring without them too.

 

[RingworldUtopia]

Have they changed the requirements for choosing a second planet specialisation district? I get that they changed it to requiring a Planetary Capital (2500 pops), but sometimes it lets me choose one, and sometimes it doesn't. Can't figure out if a bug or in game mechanics...

give us a screenshot. the only example i can think of is habitats, which require the habitat expansion tech level 1 and not just the normal requirements.

 

[Trigaea]

I mean, the entertainment in the game will be lost.

Watching fleet battles is far from the only form of entertainment this game provides.

I’m sure there’s some % of people who play this game solely for the fleet cinematics, but these people are far from being the average player.

To see individual ships and their combat, you need to track these individual ships. If we don't track them, what will we see?

You don’t need to track individual ships for there to be cinematics.

There are plenty of games where the on-screen cinematics aren’t 1:1 with combat rolls.

 

[Thiend]

Watching fleet battles is far from the only form of entertainment this game provides.

I’m sure there’s some % of people who play this game solely for the fleet cinematics, but these people are far from being the average player.


You don’t need to track individual ships for there to be cinematics.

There are plenty of games where the on-screen cinematics aren’t 1:1 with combat rolls.

I don't play "solely for the fleet cinematics," but removing combat in exchange for a made-up cinematic being generated and then just rolling for battle outcomes is a reduction in depth and functionality that I find to be a red line I am unwilling to cross.

This is a strawman. It supposes that the only thing people object to is losing the "cinematic." There is gameplay functionality that cannot be maintained while abstracting out the fleet combat mechanics and I am unwilling to lose them.

I play games with abstracted out actual combat and with real-time combat. Most games with it abstracted out would be worse with it tracked in a more realistic manner. ALL of them with it tracked more realistic would he downgraded by abstracting it out. Feature loss is never a good thing unless the feature is bad, and the game having such bad optimization that we're talking about gutting otherwise-functional features to try to claw back some performance is not a problem with those features.

 

[Trigaea]

I don't play "solely for the fleet cinematics," but removing combat in exchange for a made-up cinematic being generated and then just rolling for battle outcomes is a reduction in depth and functionality that I find to be a red line I am unwilling to cross.

This is a strawman. It supposes that the only thing people object to is losing the "cinematic." There is gameplay functionality that cannot be maintained while abstracting out the fleet combat mechanics and I am unwilling to lose them.

I play games with abstracted out actual combat and with real-time combat. Most games with it abstracted out would be worse with it tracked in a more realistic manner. ALL of them with it tracked more realistic would he downgraded by abstracting it out. Feature loss is never a good thing unless the feature is bad, and the game having such bad optimization that we're talking about getting otherwise-functional features to try to claw back some performance is not a problem with those features.

What functionality is lost?

I agree that it would be a feature loss since the in-game visuals are a feature, but I'm not sure what functionality goes away unless you're assuming a level of abstraction that I don't think anyone here is suggesting.

 

[Thiend]

What functionality is lost?

I agree that it would be a feature loss since the in-game visuals are a feature, but I'm not sure what functionality goes away unless you're assuming a level of abstraction that I don't think anyone here is suggesting.

You don’t need to track individual ships for there to be cinematics.

I am assuming this level of abstraction.

If you cannot track individual ships, you have lost an enormous amount of functionality. I am not going to exhaustively iterate this because I am currently assuming you said this offhandedly and didn't remember it the second time. There is no possible way to think you can stop tracking individual ships without feature loss.

 

[Trigaea]

I am assuming this level of abstraction.

If you cannot track individual ships, you have lost an enormous amount of functionality. I am not going to exhaustively iterate this because I am currently assuming you said this offhandedly and didn't remember it the second time. There is no possible way to think you can stop tracking individual ships without feature loss.

Would it really be that big of a feature loss to track corvettes in, say, squadrons of three instead of individually?

Most suggestions put forward in this thread are some variation of consolidating individual ships into squadrons and I'm not sure there's a meaningful difference for the player if the game is tracking a single squadron of 3 corvettes versus 3 corvettes individually.

 

[Thiend]

Would it really be that big of a feature loss

Yes.

In order to improve performance, you must lose functionality or improve the code. I am not willing to cede any ground on functionality for performance. I would have been extremely unhappy to make that trade before 4.0, but as of 4.0 it has been proven that such a trade does not guarantee a performance improvement will actually happen. I have consequently changed my stance from "only very little functionality for very much performance" to "absolutely no functionality loss, just fix the code."

Squadrons as a concept are simply nonsensical. In order for that to improve performance at all, you would need to track them less than the individual ships. It would be far easier and less objectionable to reduce the number of ships directly, thus reducing the number of ships that need to be tracked without losing any functionality.

 

[Aid7en]

Yes.

In order to improve performance, you must lose functionality or improve the code. I am not willing to cede any ground on functionality for performance.

I agree with your opinion regarding the rejection of real entertainment.

In fact, if I were a developer, I would add to the game a multiplier setting for the cost of building and maintaining ships during map creation. This will reduce the number of ships in the galaxy and, as a result, increase productivity.

And the second addition is the recommended settings, depending on the characteristics of the PC.
That is, if you have a 4-core processor and 6 gigs of RAM, the game automatically recommends the small size of the galaxy and the increased cost of ships to you when creating the game. If you have a 20-core processor and 32 gigabytes, you are offered a huge galaxy and the standard cost of ships.

 

[Dawnshot]

I just filed a new bug report. Grey Tempest debris is giving nothing. Not tech, not generic research, nothing but a notification that I finished researching the debris.

I just experienced the same thing. I researched the debris and got nothing. Mechanical shipset, no crisis perk. But the techs listed in the debris are Grey Tempest weapons and nanite fighter tech that I don't think I have ever seen available to players before. The bug might not be the failure to get them after researching the debris but the debris being spawned with them in the first place.

 

[Trigaea]

In order to improve performance, you must lose functionality or improve the code. I am not willing to cede any ground on functionality for performance. I would have been extremely unhappy to make that trade before 4.0, but as of 4.0 it has been proven that such a trade does not guarantee a performance improvement will actually happen. I have consequently changed my stance from "only very little functionality for very much performance" to "absolutely no functionality loss, just fix the code."

On the other hand, I don't see many people complaining about the trade route system, which got entirely removed.

It's fair to be wary of performance promises, though. Can't argue with that.

Squadrons as a concept are simply nonsensical. In order for that to improve performance at all, you would need to track them less than the individual ships. It would be far easier and less objectionable to reduce the number of ships directly, thus reducing the number of ships that need to be tracked without losing any functionality.

I'd say this counts as feature loss.

Having giant space fleets feels intrinsic to running a space empire. It'd certainly be a loss of depth to slash total ship count for our trillion-person empires.

I don't think there are any free lunches here. Improved performance from fleets likely has to have some kind of trade-off. In your case, the trade-off you're suggesting is ship count, which I'd say also counts as a feature loss by the definitions put forward so far.

Between consolidating ships into squadrons and just slashing shit count, I consider the former preferable to the latter. And relevant to what started this conversation, I'm also fine if that means every single ship isn't rendered.

 

[RingworldUtopia]

I just experienced the same thing. I researched the debris and got nothing. Mechanical shipset, no crisis perk. But the techs listed in the debris are Grey Tempest weapons and nanite fighter tech that I don't think I have ever seen available to players before. The bug might not be the failure to get them after researching the debris but the debris being spawned with them in the first place.

View attachment 1334451

for me it didn't even show any traces of anything, but glad to see i'm not the only one. were you running bio shipset by any chance? cause i was.

 

[Dawnshot]

for me it didn't even show any traces of anything, but glad to see i'm not the only one. were you running bio shipset by any chance? cause i was.

No, I'm running the machine empire shipset.

 

[Dawnshot]

Ringworlds in 4.0.22 currently have colony designations for every district specialization they can build except for energy and fortress/defense. Please add them.

 

[Aid7en]

On the other hand, I don't see many people complaining about the trade route system, which got entirely removed.

It's fair to be wary of performance promises, though. Can't argue with that.


I'd say this counts as feature loss.

Having giant space fleets feels intrinsic to running a space empire. It'd certainly be a loss of depth to slash total ship count for our trillion-person empires.

I don't think there are any free lunches here. Improved performance from fleets likely has to have some kind of trade-off. In your case, the trade-off you're suggesting is ship count, which I'd say also counts as a feature loss by the definitions put forward so far.

Between consolidating ships into squadrons and just slashing shit count, I consider the former preferable to the latter. And relevant to what started this conversation, I'm also fine if that means every single ship isn't rendered.

It seems to me that combining ships into squadrons requires major interface improvements, and at the same time, the likelihood of increased productivity is very low.

In the absence of major battles, the game obviously slows down due to a bunch of single ships flying in for reinforcements. Even if you do not remove the possibility of reinforcements by one ship, in any case, you need to add the ability to send reinforcements in batches to the game and make it so that it is beneficial for the AI and the player to send ships for reinforcements in packs, rather than single ships.
If the AI stops sending 1 ship for each flotilla, that would be a significant increase in productivity by 100%. And I'm sure it's easy enough for developers to check it out.

It is also necessary to evaluate the logic of route assignment for the frequency of course changes for AI ships. Sometimes it seems that AI is just mindlessly chasing fleets back and forth.

The second problem with flotilla performance is slowing down the game during battles. In my opinion, this is due to the thousands of fighter jets and missiles that are being fired endlessly by ships, and the more carriers there are in the fleet, the more they can generate missiles and fighters. I think it's also not difficult to verify this by creating a battle between two flotillas of the same size, in one case with the use of missiles and fighters, and in the second case without them. Perhaps, to compensate for this a little, it is worth leaving a finite number of missiles and fighters for each battle. Although the limitations of missiles and fighter jets during combat can bring interesting new experiences to battles, I think it's worth conducting tests to see if this is appropriate.

 

[turtleturtle111]

In the absence of major battles, the game obviously slows down due to a bunch of single ships flying in for reinforcements. Even if you do not remove the possibility of reinforcements by one ship, in any case, you need to add the ability to send reinforcements in batches to the game and make it so that it is beneficial for the AI and the player to send ships for reinforcements in packs, rather than single ships.

So I modded my game to give every empire 8000 fleet command limit.

The game still runs dramatically slower then 3.14. I do not think the issue is actually fleets TBH. Like yes in battles they are an issue but I do not think that is what is making 4.0 so damn slow.

 

[fourteenfour]

a possible fleet performance fix is reduce how many of each ship is rendered. Titans would always be rendered. Battleships in multiples of three, cruisers and destroyers by five, and corvettes and frigates by ten. There can be a floating segmented bar indicating how many remain. It could be a simple advance options check box for those who want the clutter.

Second point I would be hugely against. Stellaris is much more visual than other paradox games which is one of its draws. Having ships be abstract icons floating around that don't actually represent what's in your fleet would be a significant downgrade.

Hence the reasons I specifically stated, with a check box to allow those who would trade performance for visuals. I would love to know how AI fleets are rendered, if they are fully rendered when the player is not viewing them then its a waste of resources and could obviously be fixed by such a solution I have proposed - its the old issue many early 3d FPS games had - rendering objects never in view but merely because map data said it existed.

Culling exists for a reason in any game heavy on graphics and Stellaris could certainly benefit if it is not aggressively doing so. I would love an explanation from the developers on how this is handled now.

 

[grommile]

if they are fully rendered when the player is not viewing them then its a waste of resources

I'm pretty sure they're not rendered (since the frame rate tanks when you go into a system that has an ongoing fight, then recovers when you go back to galaxy view), but I'm also sure hey're still modelled – the game tracks the position of each ship, missile, and starfighter, and does battle computer decisionmaking, and tracks weapon discharge, and...

 

[passeris]

I don't care much for warfare, though I do enjoy fleet maneuvers and strategy, but these can be handled at the Galaxy Map level. Once a fleet engages in battle, the only player input is giving the retreat order, but again this is done on a fleet-wide basis.

However, when I first got into Stellaris, the thing that impressed me the most was the fully-rendered space battles. I don't watch them these days, because they're all very similar, but it would diminish the 'Wow factor' and perceived scale of the simulation if this were removed.

In fact, if I were a developer, I would add to the game a multiplier setting for the cost of building and maintaining ships during map creation. This will reduce the number of ships in the galaxy and, as a result, increase productivity.

This already exists, it's called the Habitable Worlds slider and Guaranteed Habitable Worlds, but players turn these up to get larger economies and fleets, then complain that fleets/pops are lagging the game. The same would happen if you let them effectively choose how many ships they wanted.

I'm pretty sure they're not rendered (since the frame rate tanks when you go into a system that has an ongoing fight, then recovers when you go back to galaxy view), but I'm also sure hey're still modelled – the game tracks the position of each ship, missile, and starfighter, and does battle computer decisionmaking, and tracks weapon discharge, and...

So the way to make everyone happy is to only simulate ships that are being monitored by the player. Ships in other systems act as a massed fleet, and in combat only their total health and firepower are checked. Then, should the player observe that system, the wave-function collapses and fleet hit points are distributed randomly (or weighted random) across the individual ships. In other words, we have Schrödinger's Fleets.

So I modded my game to give every empire 8000 fleet command limit.

The game still runs dramatically slower then 3.14. I do not think the issue is actually fleets TBH. Like yes in battles they are an issue but I do not think that is what is making 4.0 so damn slow.

Nice. Could you perhaps disable migration (or migration treaties and Federations) next? Migration creates small pop groups.

 

[grommile]

So the way to make everyone happy is to only simulate ships that are being monitored by the player.

That... doesn't make everyone happy, because weapon and defence diversity mean the overall result of a battle won't be consistent with what would happen if it was actually modelled, so people who care about consistency will be upset.

(Also, once you build the sentry array, all ships are visible.)