• 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:
Interesting, almost got a little EVE feeling reading about the different systems again (a few years ago I stopped) although this will be quite different in nature.

Question:
-Will there be some kind of speed upgrade to ships, so they can move faster?
-Does 'strike crafts' have any range limit inside a solar system, and if so, is it shorter than missiles?
-Is there any missile upgrade/type which can mitigate point-defense damage, like making the missiles go faster, being tougher or splitting into many smaller?

As you can judge from the above I'm thinking about a design which tries to kite the enemy :) being fast enough to stay out of enemy range and keep hitting from afar, using shields as defense so they regenerate when out of range.
 
I'm a bit disheartened with this release. Still excited, but slightly apprehensive. My fears that micromanagement will be the order of the day appear to be on target.

As new technology is developed, how is this new tech to be deployed? An in-place upgrade, or a completely new ship design? Will we be able to control the upgrade process somehow, so that this class of ship will incorporate minor design changes to the laser weapons, but not shield upgrades? And can some of the components (like structural elements) not be upgradable? It really shouldn't be possible to replace a megaaluminum hull with a hullmetal or a scrith hull. Can I control what elements in a design can be changed -- like this class ship will always use the most recent kinetic missles, but not upgrade the lasers? A new gizmo may simply not work in an older frame -- a plasma beam might replace an ion beam in the technology plan, but the connections and practicalities of their mounting might simply not be compatible.

And please have a cost for designing a ship! The schematic is a difficult endeavor in itself, and has an inherent cost to develop. Once finished, the schematic can be used to construct ships.
 
  • 5
  • 2
Reactions:
Can components take damage and be destroyed until they are repaired?

No, we don't track individual component-damage.

Interesting, almost got a little EVE feeling reading about the different systems again (a few years ago I stopped) although this will be quite different in nature.

Question:
-Will there be some kind of speed upgrade to ships, so they can move faster?
-Does 'strike crafts' have any range limit inside a solar system, and if so, is it shorter than missiles?
-Is there any missile upgrade/type which can mitigate point-defense damage, like making the missiles go faster, being tougher or splitting into many smaller?

As you can judge from the above I'm thinking about a design which tries to kite the enemy :) being fast enough to stay out of enemy range and keep hitting from afar, using shields as defense so they regenerate when out of range.

The speed of the ship is mainly dependent on the Thruster, which can be upgraded. In rare cases there might be other components that improve speed as well (such as a Combat Computer). Strike Craft do have a range-limit. We're still tuning that so not sure on range just yet, what do you all think makes more sense?

Also, there might just be a thing called Swarm Missiles that do overwhelm point-defenses (somewhat).
 
  • 24
  • 3
Reactions:
What is it with sci-fi and their love for boarding action? Why would you launch dozens of shuttles at an enemy holding hundreds of space marines instead of a few missiles? The missile have a smaller size and can accelerate at much higher speeds and they don't have to slow down when approaching the target. Also, when they hit they instantly deal damage to the ship unlike boarding crews which can take minutes to subdue the enemy crew. Minutes that they can use to kill your ships.
And to what end? The boarding parties won't come as a surprise to them, so they will destroy all sensitive information beforehand and might even attempt a kamekaze strike against the enemy, because they are already lost. And the boarding crews will have little chance to stop these things, as all bulkwards will be closed due to the battle taking place and the ships will be designed with chokepoints and killzones protecting the bridge, armory and engineering decks.
And even killing the enemy crew in its entirety won't help you much, as there is such a thing as encryption, AI and self-destruction. (Sensors tell the AI that it is overrun with unregistered personnel? Ship can't reach the captain, or the bridge doors were breached? Overload the reactor.)
You can hack a ship with such security mechanisms, rendering them useless and allowing your boarding troops to take over the enemy ship. The engines could also be disabled. Their friends will most likely not shoot at them, because they would kill their friends on the captured ship then, and in some societies this could mean dishonoring that crew or simply murdering them. But some species don't think that way...
If you had the choice between your planet getting exterminated because of insufficient defense technology, and capturing the enemy's ships in dangerous missions to be able to develop a defense, what would you do? Personally, I would try to get these ships, because it either helps your planet to survive or does nothing.
 
  • 7
  • 1
Reactions:
Does ships efficiency degrades according to the damage it has received?
ie, a ship with 80% damage would have an fire efficiency of 20% (oversimplification)...
 
  • 1
Reactions:
Does each fleet need so many screening ships per capital ship?
 
I'm very glad to see the combat is mostly hands-off. Detailed tactical combat tactics should be left to one's generals on the scene, not handled by the ruler himself.
 
  • 12
Reactions:
You can hack a ship with such security mechanisms, rendering them useless and allowing your boarding troops to take over the enemy ship. The engines could also be disabled. Their friends will most likely not shoot at them, because they would kill their friends on the captured ship then, and in some societies this could mean dishonoring that crew or simply murdering them. But some species don't think that way...
If you had the choice between your planet getting exterminated because of insufficient defense technology, and capturing the enemy's ships in dangerous missions to be able to develop a defense, what would you do? Personally, I would try to get these ships, because it either helps your planet to survive or does nothing.

Usually not until it is too late, they need terminal or such I would assume, and I Believe that he referred to the fact that while the boarding action is going on the ship may still fire (indiscriminately or there would not be any Point in the boarding), as for culture, not everyone is playing by the same rules and if they don't then the boarding could become pointless at best. as far that choice it is not as if you couldn't beat the fleet without boarding and if couldn't then you would not stand a chance anyway.
 
Last edited:
  • 2
  • 2
Reactions:
Would one of the people saying kinetic works well against armor tell me why? im curious as to the arguement.

First, consider the case of shields versus kinetic. If the shields can extend a good distance from the hull (and shields in Stellaris seem to follow that model), and they can affect kinetic attacks at all (which shields in Stellaris do), then they only need to change the path of the kinetic projectile a little bit to generate a miss. Rather than try to stop all of the kinetic energy of the shot, just shove it to the side a little. However, it does depend on exactly how you explain shields.

The perception that armor is good for kinetics is based on relatively slow-moving projectiles like machine-gun bullets or battleship shells. You put on armor and the bullets just bounce off, their kinetic energy mostly wasted. In space combat, the projectiles would be moving much faster (or they wouldn't have much chance of hitting a maneuvering ship at long range). At these higher speeds, the molecular bonds that make armor tough don't make much of a difference and all materials basically act as fluids. Armor still helps, but it's more of a game of how much mass you can afford to put between your vitals and the enemy projectile and that gets very expensive mass-wise. Easy deflections aren't really possible, so you have to absorb the energy, and a fast-moving kinetic projectile will be a lot of energy hitting one small spot in a microsecond.

In contrast, a sort of sustained laser that they show in the screenshots basically needs to systematically vaporize a path through the armor, layer-by-layer. The problem if you want to do that quickly is that the first layer you vaporized doesn't go away but turns to plasma and continues to absorb a lot of your beam energy. If you do it slowly enough for the vaporized armor to dissipate, the problem is that you have to keep hitting the exact same spot on the armor for an extended period of time while everything is moving. Given that ships in Stellaris have a chance to evade shots entirely, it doesn't seem like the technology is up to sustaining that sort of pin-point lock.

Anyway, at the end you can explain the mechanics either way. I see it as a choice of aligning with people intuitions about how armor works versus the somewhat counter-intuitive physics. I guess I don't blame them for going with intuition.
 
  • 7
  • 2
  • 1
Reactions:
I'm sure this has been brought up (don't want to read through 8 pages of replies to be sure) but like the FTL systems (Warp is more like "Jump" drives in traditional scifi, whereas one of the other FTLs is closer to traditional warp drives), you seem to have gotten the weapon types backwards....

Kinetic (bullet) weapons should (theoretically) do MORE damage against the hull, whereas laser weapons should deplete shields but do minimal damage to the hull. This is based on hard science and while yes it's a game, this inconsistency really breaks immersion imho.
 
  • 5
  • 2
Reactions:
usually the traps os such a system i can see.

LAsers becoming op -> As lasers have medium dmg, armor and shield penetration it is not rare in a 4x for them to become the most used weapon. Instead of facing the tons of variations and counters other weapons face you just use lasers and you will know your fleet will always perform "ok".

Fighters > Bombers -> As fighters are both anti-bomber , anti-missile and still do a little damage to capital ships its usually better to just use fighters. Bombers are nice but they will not help you if you don´t know for sure you have 100% fighter/missile superiority. So better just be safe and don´t use that min-max.

Missiles too OP or too Useless -> Depending on how anti-missile weapons will be calculated missiles can become super strong or super weak. They, like lasers have a fixed amount of damage no matter if they have armor, shields or just hull. So if avoiding them is hard and the damage big enough they can form only missile fleets, if avoiding them is easy even with few defenses no one will use it.

Remember im talking about "traps". Bad balance that affected weapons in other games. Its very hard to balance so much different weapons and combinations in a way that you need to have all in a battlefield. Still hoping paradox :).

My suggestion to Fighter/Bomber problem!

1-> Lots of squadrons -> Don´t make a carrier carry only 2-3 slots each. Less slots means less variation and room to maneuver full bomber or full fighter squads. More slots means we can add more variation and make harder to exist a best Fighter/Bomber ratio.


More types of fighters/bombers (4, two of each) . Their difference being more about the weapons they carry for the mission and less about the hull.

With fighters/bombers also having weapons you can research and upgrade you can actually specialize them more to become a monster in what they do best or make them more of a multi-role fighter.
Bombers at start are really only 100% bombers. You can go two routes of research.

Bombers -> You will have two doctrines routes. The Super bomber that emulate the big B-29 Super fortress plane from WWII, or the Fast Bomber that emulate the F 4 - Phantom (A fighter/bomber).


A-> Super bomber -> Those bombers will become bigger, slower and carry bigger atomic, neutron etc missiles. They will rip a ship apart if they launch their missiles. They will also have lots of laser turrets for anti-fighter but don´t expect them to win any fights with this. (they move more like B-29´s from WW2, they can´t focus their super firepower on 1 ship so while a fighter will most likely get damaged close to them as they use saturation fire, alone they are not enough to kill a squadron of fighters, but don´t underestimate their anti-fighter power, its enough to tip a battle to their favor if they have escort and can take down fighters that are not fully specialized in ait combat.

B-> Fast Bomber -> Those bombers are faster, have a high maneuver (for a bomber), and still have 1 or more turrets. They can actually fight vs fighters and hold themselves for a while. They are better than super bombers in a air-fight and can actually drop some fighters or even win if they have a huge tech advantage. Still in a even fight they will end up losing, but not without taking some fighters with them. Of course this means their bombs are not that powerful and can take multiple refuels in a carrier to take down a big ship. but still enough to hit the hull instead of only subsystems.

Fighters -> Fighters are very close to multi-role fighters like the F18, Rafale, Eurofighter. They can do anything but they need the weapons for it and this will determine how good they are on their missions. They can go 3 routes of research.

Air superiority -> This will give them anti-fighter missiles and guns. They will rip apart any ship in a 1-1 fights, usually it will be best to have at least one squadron in this role. Those ships have the best evasion of all fighters. The problem is this ship can be overwhelmed as missiles are limited leaving them only with guns. (Still a good damage but not so good as missiles). How much missiles a ship can carry increases with tech.

Anti- Missile -> Those ships goes with lasers and fewer missiles, the punch of a laser is not big as guns or missiles, but its good against missiles as its a lot more easy to hit with them. They can also go well vs other fighters and bombers and have the best maximum speed of all fighters. (to get the missiles). They will face trouble against bombers that also use lasers and have better armor, and a lot of trouble vs super bombers but they can do any other job very well.

Both fighters above can also target capital ships subystems like point defense systems, engines , etc. But they can´t actually take down a capital ship on their own. (A bomber target both a subsystem and the hull at same time).

PS: If limited number of missiles to fighters/bombers is not a option this is not a problem, just a matter of balance.
 
  • 5
  • 4
  • 1
Reactions:
I don't really like the retreat mechanics all the space games use. I understand that starting up and running the FTL may require all the energy a ship can muster but if you designed a ship that had to retreat from combat would you really want it to stop shooting at the enemy as you do it. You'd probably give it enough power or capacitors of some sort to keep all the ships functions online. I feel in a tactical sense what might happen is you'd have a choice of reducing different systems that would compromise your defense, offence and maneuvering capabilities while FTL is prepared the amount would be dependent on how long you want to take to do it. To me its a system that the space battle genre 4x and rts could work to improve for a lot more depth.
 
  • 4
Reactions:
While it is common in space games to have armour protect again kinetic weapons, in terms of physics, it's a bit backwards. It would be very hard to make an armor-piercing laser since you basically have to vapourize the armor layer-by-layer and plasma from the previously-vapourized layers tends to get in the way. On the other hand, once kinetic speeds reach high enough, it would be very hard to armor a ship again kinetic strikes. The kinetic damage arrives all in one instant and molecular bonds aren't strong enough to deflect high-speed impacts. However, if a species has some influence over gravity, some sort of shield to deflect projectiles seems plausible.
Would be very nice (and presumably not too hard) if PDS got it right on the physics and switched lasers to be weaker against armor, but strong against shielding, while kenetics are weak against shielding but strong against armor. It'd be interesting to have to focus of fleet composition/ship design with the goal of taking down shields quickly so that hard-hitting kenetics could get through to targets.
 
  • 3
Reactions:
Cool stuff, but i wanted to ask, can i ram enemy ships? If one of my ships is going down i want to give it one last chance to take some of the space fungus bastards with it.

Also purely cosmetic question, can you alter the colours of certain weapon types? Like lasers etc. Or would it all be one default colour per weapon.
 
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).

As long as you aren't shafted, if you meet your 'counter', I think that would be okay. I think the game would be more interesting if the various races had incentives to focus on one or two offensive technologies. I want to see a primarily missile based race battle it out against a beam focused race. If Point Defense is causing a problem for the missile based race, rather than doing something as droll as switching to beam weapons, I'd rather see them create *better* missile weapons, add ECM to confuse the PD systems or simply double the missile load to overwhelm enemy PD systems. You should be able to stick with your current focus, but adjust it to deal with enemy countermeasures.
 
  • 5
Reactions:
The speed of the ship is mainly dependent on the Thruster, which can be upgraded. In rare cases there might be other components that improve speed as well (such as a Combat Computer). Strike Craft do have a range-limit. We're still tuning that so not sure on range just yet, what do you all think makes more sense?

Could be a good way to encourage the player to diversify their battle-group ship types, if smaller ships with bigger engines are capable of catching up with and striking at long-range carriers that would ordinarily stay just outside combat range.