The way might be to make only rockets capable of damaging hull directly. FAE is ridiculously powerful weapon and with NL, maybe voidbeam battleship dps is all based on two blue repeatables. It is just too convenient.
- 2
How do we make Destroyers and Cruisers more desirable in the late game?
- Thread starter Jman5
- Start date
-
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.
Something I'd love to see - and that comes up occasionally in these discussions - is ship roles in a logistical system. Broadly, imagine a system where all ships have a supply capacity and a supply usage rate (which might increase in battle). If ships outside of friendly space can't resupply, and ships that are out of supplies suffer really bad penalties (like being out of energy, or jump-drived, or both at once...), you can do interesting things with fleet comp that way. Add a new semi-military design (like transports or construction ships) called Colliers, which haul additional supplies for a fleet and move like destroyers.
- Corvettes: low supply usage (3x) but very low supply storage (2x). By themselves, good for defense and short excursions (very short, if there's much fighting). Require colliers to be effective for longer-distance campaigns. This negates much of the Corvette speed advantage when operating deeper in enemy territory.
- Destroyers: 4x supply usage, 3x supply storage. Only slightly better at deep attacks than corvettes, but operating at the same speed as colliers makes them a solid offensive fleet composition.
- Cruisers: 6x supply usage, 14x supply storage. The only truly long-distance "cruising" hull, these ships are their own colliers and are ideal for when you want a deep strike force that is neither vulnerable to having its colliers killed nor indeed require you to waste alloys on building colliers at all.
- Battleships: 22x supply usage, 16x supply storage. Incredibly demanding to operate, and with only slightly more storage than a cruiser, they require colliers or a large cruiser escort to go anywhere far outside your borders.
- etc.
- 4
- 2
- 1
So like most problems it needs the AI to be fixed first.
- 1
That battleships dominate would not be a problem in my personal opinion if research would be slower. For me its often so at the moment:
I build a corvette fleet early on if i want to attack or if i dont i try to avoid building a fleet.
Then i focus on research ( there is no reason to not do that either) and there is often no reason to build destroyers or cruisers because i already have battleships around 75. Then i build some of those , one or two megastructures and then abandon the game.
If research would have a more drastical cost increase towards the late game techs there would be more time to build cruisers . As its now i can build cruisers and then only a few years later battleships. So no real reason to build those.
I build a corvette fleet early on if i want to attack or if i dont i try to avoid building a fleet.
Then i focus on research ( there is no reason to not do that either) and there is often no reason to build destroyers or cruisers because i already have battleships around 75. Then i build some of those , one or two megastructures and then abandon the game.
If research would have a more drastical cost increase towards the late game techs there would be more time to build cruisers . As its now i can build cruisers and then only a few years later battleships. So no real reason to build those.
- 3
- 1
I think monofleets will always be a thing (either lvl 1 laser corvette spam or battlefleet spam), even with great concepts like synergy effects or whatnot. The reason is as simple as the motivation behind it: simplicity. It is far easier to design one single ship and build it a hundred times over than designing, building and keeping track of a variety of ships across several fleets. Lower micromanagement will almost always win the debate.
There's only one way to force the players into the idea of mixed endgame fleets: artificial limits. For it to work each ship class would need a separate naval capacity, like we already have with how Titans work in that regard. But I doubt it would be met by much love, as funneling players into a certain playstyle kind of needlessly violates their freedom of choice. I for one would dislike such a change.
Overall I see nothing wrong with the idea of old ship tech going obsolete. I mean, the same goes for starbases and nobody complains about Starports and Starholds being inferior to Citadels. We also have the same with weapons: once you have Laser IV, why would you still use Laser II?
There's only one reason to use inferior/old tech over better tech: a lack of resources. If the latter isn't the case, then it will always be new tech > old tech. It might hurt the rp aspect a bit, but its not like the game goes out of its way to prevent you from using mixed fleets, right?
There's only one way to force the players into the idea of mixed endgame fleets: artificial limits. For it to work each ship class would need a separate naval capacity, like we already have with how Titans work in that regard. But I doubt it would be met by much love, as funneling players into a certain playstyle kind of needlessly violates their freedom of choice. I for one would dislike such a change.
Overall I see nothing wrong with the idea of old ship tech going obsolete. I mean, the same goes for starbases and nobody complains about Starports and Starholds being inferior to Citadels. We also have the same with weapons: once you have Laser IV, why would you still use Laser II?
There's only one reason to use inferior/old tech over better tech: a lack of resources. If the latter isn't the case, then it will always be new tech > old tech. It might hurt the rp aspect a bit, but its not like the game goes out of its way to prevent you from using mixed fleets, right?
- 7
- 2
Wait you think real WW1 fleets where all battleship. hahaha. No. Combined arms has been standard in navies since pretty much as far back as navies go, even in the age of sail, ships of the line weren't remotely the onyl things fielded and heavily used. That tendency only got worse over time. There's nothing realistic about monofleets based on real world naval history. Real world naval history, combined arms where key. Jellico's entire decision to not chase the German High Sea's fleet at Jutland when it disengaged came down to fear of what the torpedo boats and U-Boats could do in a protracted chase.
- 3
- 1
There is nothing wrong with allowing for monofleets. It can have an important role in its own right. For example, a corvette monofleet being used as raiders. I think people just don't want Battleship monofleets to be quite as good at so many things as it currently is.
Regarding starbases, I don't see it being comparable. Smaller ships are not meant to go obsolete. They maintain distinct advantages over larger ships in their own right such as higher subspace speed and evasion. A starbase meanwhile is simply a straight upgrade.
The big problem right now as discussed earlier is that those two advantages are not working as intended. Speed is bugged so that battleships and titans can travel at corvette speed nullifying the speed advantage of using anything smaller. Evasion's cap coupled with very high tracking on certain large battleship weapons make evasion not very good.
Last edited:
One simple solution that would just require some balancing of numbers would just to completely change the role of Cruisers, Battleships, and Titans (perhaps with corresponding name changes).
Turn Battleships into pure Carriers and make them the ONLY ships that can have hanger slots. Maybe they can have one L-slot
Then, the Cruisers become what the battleships once were, but give them more flexibility in terms of armament - more possible G slots, PD, L-slots, etc.
Then the only ships with XL slots become Titans, which I think should be the case anyway. Titans then become flagships (as they sort of are anyway), Battleships become pure carriers that protect Cruisers and Titans from small ships and missiles, Cruisers become the main overall damage dealers, and Destroyers stay as PD specialists while Corvettes remain as clean-up/chasers.
Turn Battleships into pure Carriers and make them the ONLY ships that can have hanger slots. Maybe they can have one L-slot
Then, the Cruisers become what the battleships once were, but give them more flexibility in terms of armament - more possible G slots, PD, L-slots, etc.
Then the only ships with XL slots become Titans, which I think should be the case anyway. Titans then become flagships (as they sort of are anyway), Battleships become pure carriers that protect Cruisers and Titans from small ships and missiles, Cruisers become the main overall damage dealers, and Destroyers stay as PD specialists while Corvettes remain as clean-up/chasers.
- 5
But who said that this has to be true?
The concept of mixed fleets might be true here on our planet, but that has more to do with a lack of technology: armor is just not viable anymore and propulsion is lacking. That's the only reason why smaller ships are used (as they punch well above their weight class) and why aircraft carriers are as slow as they are. If we had armor that could only be penetrated by big enough guns, if big ships could move as fast as small ones, I assure you we would see a strong trend towards big ships. Or - in terms of Stellaris - if a Corvette was always ten times faster and always had enough firepower to kill any battleship, I'm confident that everyone would avoid building those in favor of Corvettes.
That's why battleships in Stellaris are superior to everything else, because both aforementioned problems are eventually solved by technology: shield/armor tech keeps up with weapon tech (which makes bigger always better than smaller) and propulsion tech allows for moving big ships at a fast enough rate to keep up with smaller ships.
Solving long-standing issues like those is reflected ingame by gaining certain tech (meaning Gateways, endgame Thrusters and also targeting computers), which causes all three ingame advantages of smaller ships - speed, evasion and piracy-suppression - to lose their edge. That is the very definition of the word obsolete: becoming out of date and being replaced by something better. That's why it is comparable to starbases, as it is a very straightforward approach by offering upgrades without drawbacks (aside from the resource and time costs of course).
I understand that from a realistic viewpoint one could say that troops/ships/armies/navies always needed to be diverse and the same should go for warfare in space, but arguing for realism in a galaxy that has giant dragons and undead is quite a moot point. It is believable enough that tech solves problems and reduces micromanagement, so good enough for me I guess.
And funnily enough, a bit of the dreaded realism to the whole question of speed would even invalidate the very idea of smaller ships being always faster than bigger ones, as the whole thing is just a matter of propulsion and mass. If the ratio of both remains the same, even a Juggernaut might become as fast as a Corvette.
Anyways, the game doesn't forbid mixed fleets, you may use them as much as you like. It may give you a bit of a disadvantage in competetive multiplayer, but then again, so do other things as well, like choosing the 'wrong' Ascension, traits or origin.
I see no need to change a working system. There are a few things that are broken in this game, but this here isn't one of them.
- 6
- 2
The game's developers for one and really they're the only ones whose vote counts. This thread is intended to provide solutions to something that many people and the developers want, which is more Destroyer and Cruiser usage.
No. They can keep up with smaller ships because of a bug that lets slower ships cheat their speed. Battleships are not intended to be as fast as they are, but when coupled with a token force of corvettes it bugs the battleship's speed to match ultra-fast corvettes.
- 3
- 1
PDX is taking feedback into account for how they want to handle this, so what I do is a valid part of it: telling that the thing isn't as broken as some people might think it is.
And yes, I do know about that 'feature'. A fleet should be as fast as the slowest ship in it and not the other way around, so I agree that the bug should be fixed.
But if we were to go for more realism (or arguing from that standpoint, as many do), there should be no need to apply different speed values in the first place. It puts, however small in the grand scheme of things, an artificial disadvantage on bigger ships for gameplay reasons, which I'm okay with. What I try to say is that it would be a shame to try 'fixing' the problem by devaluing bigger ships further and maybe even beyond what most would consider believable.
- 6
Just wondering, assuming space battles occur over extreme distances and spaceships can move in any direction, wouldn't evasion play a much larger role in space warfare then in naval warfare? Even if a larger ship can move just as quickly as any other, it seems logical to me that it would still be a bigger target that would have trouble dodging as well as multiple smaller ships would.
- 1
I've actually had great success with missile cruiser spam, enough missiles and no point defense is enough. mix it with corvettes with swarm missiles too, and some artillery/carrier battleships.
I do wish ship classes would have more segment types. Why can't I put missiles on a Battleship? why can't I have missile destroyers? why no hangars on a titan?
I do wish ship classes would have more segment types. Why can't I put missiles on a Battleship? why can't I have missile destroyers? why no hangars on a titan?
No, battleships should remain battleships, I'm definitely not against Battleship tech becoming Battleship and Carrier tech, enabling both Battleships with now reduced hangar options, and true carriers which are pretty much all point defense/missiles and strike craft, mostly strike craft.
- 1
Assuming most weapons are either equipped with a homing system, manned (strike craft) or travel at (near) light speed (beam weapons certainly do), then evasion becomes tricky. Even more so since we can also assume that tracking computers can predict flight paths with a high certainty. That's basically how i.e. Iron Dome works, with technology that is available to us right now; tracking isn't as impossible as it sounds.
So since your movement can be tracked, but you cannot track incoming laser or kinetic fire in return, it becomes something akin to having a sniper shooting at you: when you see/hear the shot, either it wasn't meant for you or they missed. Active evasion would mean a constant erratic/unpredictable movement, without any predictable repetition. This would be quite hard I imagine.
But to a certain extent you're still right, smaller targets are harder to hit than bigger ones. It is only logical. That much, however, is already in the game. But the actual size of Battleships shouldn't also be exaggerated. If the alloy costs are somewhat of an indicator, a Battleship is around 15 times the mass of a Corvette. Given the extreme distances we're speaking of, the size difference might even be considered neglectable altogether.
- 3
- 1
.png){kind=avatar}
One interesting side note in this discussion, look at the fallen empire fleets. They basically have 2 ships: a capital ship and an escort. Period. So if they are supposedly the pinnacle of knowledge and technology (which should include strategy, tactics and doctrine), then it's hard to argue that the younger races in the galaxy wouldn't emulate them once they started approaching that level of technology. Even if the game were changed to make cruisers and destroyers more viable against other empires, how do you also make that apply to fallen empires. both as them against the player and the player against them?
- 2
- 1
If using energy weapons and neutron launchers with 90% chance to hit then half of that +20% bonus chance to hit is wasted as 110% is the same in practice as 100%. Chance to hit adds to base accuracy of the weapon (citation: youtuber Montu). Aux fire controls for +10% and then artillery computers for the range bonus works better, especially against crisis ships. Range bonuses add together from Hit and Run war doctrine (10%), artillery combat computer (10% or 20%), and cautious admirals (20%) for a total of either +40% range or +50% range, which is a huge advantage that only gets better with weapon technology repeatables.
If you want people to want to build mixed fleets you need to give each ship size unique features that, and this is important, compliment your other ships. If cruisers were the only ships with two augment slots that would be unique, but it wouldn't compliment the other ships because your battleships don't care if you have extra shields on your cruisers. If only cruisers could be carriers though then you would have a reason to add a few cruisers to each fleet, because strike craft with the carrier computer module have the greatest range and can help force fleeing ships to engage, so splashing in a few carrier cruisers boosts the fleet as a whole.
The problem with this is that the game probably doesn’t have enough levers to give four categories of ships their own special abilities, and it definitely doesn't without the limitations feeling artificial or unintuitive. Battleships can have the XL guns and the most hp/bang for your naval capacity. Cruisers can have carriers, except why logically can't battleships be carriers? And cruisers should really have two cool things to prevent them from being one trick ponies. Corvettes can be canon fodder that soak the big guns and are cheap to replace, and their current speed boosting powers definitely count.
So where does that leave destroyers? What's left? A different flavour of canon fodder? Take point defence, an already niche component, away from everything else? Destroyers are usually support ships, give them auras in some way that both makes sense and doesn't break the game? And don't forget we're still missing a second cruiser niche.
I just don't think it's mechanically possible to give people reasons to want to use all four different ship sizes in a fleet without adding a hell of a lot more levers.
The problem with this is that the game probably doesn’t have enough levers to give four categories of ships their own special abilities, and it definitely doesn't without the limitations feeling artificial or unintuitive. Battleships can have the XL guns and the most hp/bang for your naval capacity. Cruisers can have carriers, except why logically can't battleships be carriers? And cruisers should really have two cool things to prevent them from being one trick ponies. Corvettes can be canon fodder that soak the big guns and are cheap to replace, and their current speed boosting powers definitely count.
So where does that leave destroyers? What's left? A different flavour of canon fodder? Take point defence, an already niche component, away from everything else? Destroyers are usually support ships, give them auras in some way that both makes sense and doesn't break the game? And don't forget we're still missing a second cruiser niche.
I just don't think it's mechanically possible to give people reasons to want to use all four different ship sizes in a fleet without adding a hell of a lot more levers.
- 2
After reflecting on my previous post, I had another idea; doctrines. (This is my hearts of iron fanboy talking so take it with a grain of salt.) What does everybody think about different doctrines that can be researched? There could be a fleet carrier doctrine that gave bonuses to cruisers and strike craft (ie battleship carriers), a grand battle fleet doctrine that would give bonuses to battleships and maybe destroyers, and a corvette swarm doctrine that would obviously give bonuses to corvettes. You'd have to make the different doctrine trees exclusionary so only one could be researched. This wouldn't make every ship viable to the player on every play through but it would give the option to try different combinations on different playthroughs.......and at least ensure they would see different types of fleets from the AI (which could be good or bad).
The problem of course is if the three doctrines aren't balanced well enough, somebody will figure out the meta and we'll all be back in another discussion in the future titled "how do we make x and y doctrines desirable in the late game". I feel for the Devs, it's impossible to make everybody happy.
The problem of course is if the three doctrines aren't balanced well enough, somebody will figure out the meta and we'll all be back in another discussion in the future titled "how do we make x and y doctrines desirable in the late game". I feel for the Devs, it's impossible to make everybody happy.
- 2
Yes, in long distance engagement in space only rockets can hope to hit anything. Or some field weapons that are not limited by the speed of light. Otherwise shooting something from Earth orbit to Jupiter orbit (point blank range in Stellaris terms) requires the shot to travel over 600 mil km, which at speed of light would take about 2k seconds/half an hour and rely on the target not moving by half its radius to the side in any direction/not deviating from its projected course by the same distance. Actually it is worse, because at the time of firing you will only know where the target has been half an hour ago. Rockets, unlike beams and slugs have the advantage of course correction.
- 2