• 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:
Making Auras into their own ship class is a great idea. However, it's counter to the attempt to find a use for every ship class. Why build Battleships post-changes?

XL-slots.
 
  • 4
Reactions:
To lay waste to all before you.

I'd rather have 3 Cruisers, in most situations. Without Aura stacking you're generally not going to get combat self-repair in any case.

Currently, most of my games use point-defense Corvettes with Cruisers for the medium-size weapons in most slots, Battleships are only there for the Flak and multiple kinds of Auras.

Interestingly, I'd imagine that Flak cannons are going away because L/XL anti-fighter weaponry is being depreciated.

I can probably find a use for Bombardment, which is good because I'll need to have Super-Aura-Battleships in my fleet in any case, I can mount them there.
 
Last edited:
I am hoping that some day we will get away from the lame rock-paper-scissor model. It really is a poor model for simulating combat. I was hoping that the changes to the combat system would allow more and better choices; predefined ship roles seems a step backward. The current design set up works pretty well and while it could use a bit of tweaking, actually gives (gave) me the ability to set roles for my ships depending on the load out I used (or vice versa). It's the lack of tactical combat choices, not bad design features that cause most of the issues for me.

Small ships (corvettes, frigates, or whatever you want to call them) do not have targeting big ships as a primary mission in real warfare -- not ever. Their job is to look for things too big to handle themselves so they can call in the big girls (all ships are called "she"). They are an escort screen to take out the lead wave if possible, or slow it down and reduce attack effectiveness. Big ships destroy big ships, and carry small guns to protect against the small attackers getting through the screen, but they rarely have small ships as a primary target. Can a swarm of small ships take out a big one? Of course: you can't swat every mosquito landing on you, and the accumulated damage will get you eventually. But that's why Big ships have escorts.

Stellaris' ship designs are not detailed enough to cover all the various ship missions (attack ship, EW ship, support ship), and I doubt it ever will since that isn't a necessary focus of a GSG. The simple expedient of not having large weapon slots on small ships -- corvettes are around 2,000 - 3,000 tons IRL -- and maybe not even medium slots (but that would be a bit too restrictive IMO for a game). A destroyer (~ 8,600 tons) carries main armament of 5" guns (considered medium). And Cruisers and the like go up from there. If you want to limit the weapons available just make them too big to fit. Keep in mind that missile corvettes are a real thing. To say I can't put those on a small ship is just gamy.

I'm more concerned that upgrading my ships have been changing class. I have a PD corvette and an attack version. Every time I upgrade they all change to the last one I upgraded the design for. Destroyers, oddly, didn't do this.
 
  • 2
  • 1
Reactions:
I'm more concerned that upgrading my ships have been changing class. I have a PD corvette and an attack version. Every time I upgrade they all change to the last one I upgraded the design for. Destroyers, oddly, didn't do this.
Do you change the names of upgraded designs? Something like PD-Corvette mark2 upgraded to PD-Corvette mark3? I heard about that problem and the reason was that game is looking specifically for design name, when it decide how your ship should be upgraded.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
No, adding MK n or something similar would cause that to happen. If you make no changes to the names upgrading should work with several classes of the same hull size.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
Will the new stellaris combat see the use of AoE/Splash Damage weapons?
f27EV0h.gif
 
  • 2
Reactions:
Splash weapons and area effects may be a very needed tool in my view. Don't think it will appear this turn around though :)
But it has some advantages as a design feature.

1: it is fun
2: it makes a weapon better the larger and more dense the enemy is
3: it is a weapon which is better at small's than versus large units.
4: if setup is correctly, it ay be a counter to the 'one big massive fleet' tactic which is so über powerful.

Looking forward to see the new stats for the weapons.
 
  • 2
  • 2
Reactions:
better if the Admiral choose the right formation (or fails miserably if much worser as enemy Admiral) and the right range for his Ships and Weapons, depending of what he and the Enemy have. That would make the guys more usefull and also better for Game lore.
Ah and high time for Espionage to see what Equipment enemy Ships have without the cheap trickt of klicking a enemy or neutral Ship if you see one to look for.
 
These changes sound interesting, but don't address one of my own disappointments with the game — the look of your ships. The modular components is a great start, but I find my ships end up looking just like everyone else's far to often. Its no longer fun to zoom in and watch the battle as there are times you cannot tell your fleet from your opponents. This could be easily fixed by adding a few more modules where the difference is visual appearance. I haven't played enough to be sure, so correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the model used in the game get determined by the combination of modules? If this is true, is it not possible to create a feature where a module an be re-coloured with your empire's colour? Even a choice of generic, empire colour one, and empire colour two would help provide visual variation to fleet clashes. And to simplify, you could limit this colour change to a specific module, i.e. the nose and rear or just the middle etc. I would be really interested in knowing what the limitations in programming are in a game like this.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
Really needs intermediary ship sizes. Frigates, carriers, "dreadnaughts", and so on. Those would really help with the ship roles, rather than changing the entire modules system. Not to mention fixing the weapons so they are no longer "Rock Paper Scissors" which just makes the combat dull. I saw somewhere some person mentioned the idea of arms races, which is an idea I very much enjoy.
As for the actual combat, well that needs a fix, too. The ships just coalesce (still, would have hoped this was fixed when the ship computers were fixed) into giant balls that swirl around and around. Oh, there're those you set up with defense AI, which act a lot better and more realistically than the aggressive AI, but not all of your ships can support sitting back and waiting for the enemy.
Flying in a giant wedge is also rather aggrevating to watch.
From the looks of the screenies and what not, the capitol ships will still just be token pieces that you toss in for that added aura buff, or to counter big ship spam from the AI who are still attrocious.
I don't know, the game needs a ton of work, and it just looks like the team is going in a direction I don't think will work.
 
  • 5
  • 2
Reactions:
Really needs intermediary ship sizes. Frigates, carriers, "dreadnaughts", and so on. Those would really help with the ship roles, rather than changing the entire modules system.
How?
 
  • 1
Reactions:
The system they want to implement here will only make a minor fix. Adding intermediaries will increase module slot size variation (say, a Frigate will have 2 module areas like a Destroyer, but the modules you choose will be between a Corvette and a Destroyer in slots, or it might be more inclined towards kinetic/energy/PD than missiles/torps, and so on).
Thus, instead of having Destroyers fill three roles (energy, kinetic, and PD/explosive) you would have the Frigates fill one (or even two) of those roles while also being one point above the Corvettes, thus Destroyers will fulfill more of a unified role.
Carriers are self explanatory, I hope.
And Dreadnoughts/larger-than-Battleship would be able to house a larger array of weaponry.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
a little suggestion that really simplify life when separating a fleet to several. why when you select an unit, the scrolling menu back every time to the top of the menu ! when there are only ten units, it's not too serious. but when there are 100 or more, it quickly becomes boring to compose fleets. why not just let the menu in place after unit selected or simply 'check' the desired Units and only after, carry out the separation of the fleet piece.
 
  • 2
Reactions:
Aux is horrible because they cut down on the number of things you can put in (doesn't matter for corvettes, but really hurts the larger ships).
Torpedoes are useless due to having one or two or three slots per ship. Who cares? They're also all mid-sized, now. It's pointless to use them, just use bloody missiles (now they have the swarm missiles as mid-sized).
Corvettes have 0 PD capacity. Once you get enough credits and minerals for a fleet of 20+ destroyers, you can ditch corvettes completely and forget about them forever.
I like the new space fauna, mostly the Leviathan stuff, and the Giga etc cannons are pretty cute, but it's just so bland without mods. The Heinlein changes fix nothing.
 
  • 2
Reactions:
I do like this concept but having played with it now for quite some hours I have to say there are elements here I am finding very disappointing.

I like the idea of ship roles. I always did like this concept and manually built my own balance of specialized hulls of all sizes. I like the idea of game mechanics lending to this mentality however I feel that these changes have in some ways done more to reduce your options and the options of your hulls. An example; would often have two corvette at minimum. One with close range laser/and or kinetic which would use an offensive posture similar to this new post patch "swarm behavior" and another hull class which would use a a defensive stance to fire torpedo's at range. Now I have no options there. I much preferred the ability to manually create either close range or long range ships of all hull sizes by using defensive or offensive AI's. What adds to my frustration here; is you gave us the option to actually load torpedo's on corvettes but they still close to point blank range. That is ridiculous and defeats the point of a torpedo ship.

I like the mentality but removing all player choice from players regarding ship combat behaviors is a back step and a massive disappointment. Ships should have roles, I think many of the more in-depth players made effort to simulate this in their designs anyway but if this is the path we're going down then it needs to be more diverse than this. Some of us want bombard corvettes or brawling battleships. At the very least we need more than one combat behavior option for each hull type. Personally I think the weapon and utility slots combined with the original defensive or offensive AI systems would have been far, far better than this.
 
I do like this concept but having played with it now for quite some hours I have to say there are elements here I am finding very disappointing.

I like the idea of ship roles. I always did like this concept and manually built my own balance of specialized hulls of all sizes. I like the idea of game mechanics lending to this mentality however I feel that these changes have in some ways done more to reduce your options and the options of your hulls. An example; would often have two corvette at minimum. One with close range laser/and or kinetic which would use an offensive posture similar to this new post patch "swarm behavior" and another hull class which would use a a defensive stance to fire torpedo's at range. Now I have no options there. I much preferred the ability to manually create either close range or long range ships of all hull sizes by using defensive or offensive AI's. What adds to my frustration here; is you gave us the option to actually load torpedo's on corvettes but they still close to point blank range. That is ridiculous and defeats the point of a torpedo ship.

I like the mentality but removing all player choice from players regarding ship combat behaviors is a back step and a massive disappointment. Ships should have roles, I think many of the more in-depth players made effort to simulate this in their designs anyway but if this is the path we're going down then it needs to be more diverse than this. Some of us want bombard corvettes or brawling battleships. At the very least we need more than one combat behavior option for each hull type. Personally I think the weapon and utility slots combined with the original defensive or offensive AI systems would have been far, far better than this.
And yet that's pretty much exactly what I pointed out, before it was released, and everyone just disregarded it.
Honestly, if we had a larger ship variety of different sizes, we would have actual roles. This is so artificial, ridged, and dull.
 
How about we don't bump 5 month old threads. Start a new thread if you want to discuss ship balance.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.