Ground Combat System Update/Overhaul

[The_Winterwolf]

So, on Jun 3rd, we heard about the custodians initiative by Paradox studios. To those who don't know what that is the TL;DR version is basically paradox has two teams working on Stellaris. The team that works on expansion content, and the custodians which clean up, polish, fix, and add more to the old content.

Now, I think this might lead the devs, or at least the custodian crew, to listen more to community feedback and implement changes.

Enter, the Ground Combat Update. Part of what the custodian crew does is fix, polish, and add to already existing parts of the game. Well, unless Paradox plans to dedicate an entire expansion to Ground Combat, I think the custodian team would be willing to tackle this challenge.

One of the biggest complaints I've seen is how meaningless Ground Combat feels. Realistically its just about spamming your strongest unit type at the enemy and badda bing badda boom, you win. Now this can be changed with some more strategic elements, things that would be... easier to implement.

We can look at RTS games like Total War for an idea on this. I'm not suggesting have big battle maps with all sorts of units. No, what I'm referring to is the rock-paper-scissors philosophy those games typically have. Spearmen counter Cavalry, Cavalry typically counter archers, etc. etc. Everything has a counter, and everything is strong against something else.

One mod, Better Army Types, has tried to implement some variety in this with some units dishing out more morale damage, some just have hideous amounts of health for their cost, others do a lot of damage overall including collateral. That... is a pretty good start. But what if... there were different weapon, armor, and shield types? What if... you could essentially design units much like a ship designer?

Bare with me on this, it sounds complicated but its rather simple in its core concept. You'd have a weapon slot, armor slot, and three utility slots, per unit you create. A weapon slot would dictate how much and what kind of damage you deal, so this could be energy based weapons like plasma projectors or lasers, or ballistic weapons like RPGs, coil guns, or gauss rifles (Each affecting the cost of the army).

Then you could have armor types, like reflective armor which greatly reduces damage taken from energy based weapons, or kinetic armor which greatly reduces damage from kinetic based weapons.

Now the spicy bit, the utility slots. These could be things like extra shields that protect health before it starts getting damaged, maybe the undead quality from Reanimated Armies civic (I'll let your imagination play with what that could do potentially), or maybe even a super soldier serum that buffs health and melee damage or maybe you decided this unit is gonna be a mech or armored division (That would be a utility slot usage). Of course racial bonuses would come into play with different statistics. Each unit has natural damage avoidance chance (Dodge), Physique (Their natural Health), Strength (Melee damage as an option for a damage type).

So you would basically kit out a custom unit. Say I'm going up against a guy who really likes his kinetic weapons and armor. Well, I'll just make some soldiers with Laser weapons, and kinetic armor to obliterate his armies and give them some extra utility pieces as well like having them reanimate the enemy into a weak zombie unit. Everything you add affects the cost of the army unit and could lead to much more strategic play while keeping things relatively simple. You could even multi-tier battle lines where melee based units are in the front and take damage before units in the rear (You could have a utility slot dedicated to say snipers which focus on taking out rear units first, thus avoiding damaging the frontline at the start which will naturally be a beefier target then the backliners) Certain utility pieces could exclude each other, like if you make a unit a robotic armored division, chances are its not going to be reanimated undead either.

Just having different stats that counter play each other and allowing players to customize their military to fight how they want it to will allow a greater field of strategy in ground combat.

You could even, on unit creation, design the unit type and that would set their order in the battle lines. So a unit designated as "Frontline/Melee" will be at the front of the line. A unit designated as "Midline/Ranged Support" would be just behind the frontline but not at the very rear. "Rear Support/Artillery" would be units like Artillery pieces that can hit frontline/midline and be 'out of range' until the frontline/Midline fall. These units can also be things like Medics that recover the health of various units on the battlefield, or necromancers that will raise dead units every so many days or so.

There's a lot of potential in this, and it keeps most of the original battle system in place without overcomplicating too much. It adds strategy, by making more types of damage/protection and a whole bunch of utility things to spice up units and make the cost of units worth it or not.

 

[The_Winterwolf]

You could even use the typical DND stats for armies. Strength, Dexterity, and instead of Con, call it Endurance. Strength indicates melee damage and high strength can lead to the wielding of more dangerous weaponry. So basically big, strong shock troops. Dexterity could play off avoiding damage entirely, and effect the accuracy of guns, leading to agile/accurate army builds. Endurance would be obviously for Health, but it could also introduce environmental factors. Environmental factors maybe dropping morale/health, and a High endurance negates/lowers the negative from it? All sorts of possibilities!

 

[GOLANX]

I hate to rain on your idea I truly do, but the devs said they didn't want to put a lot of effort into ground combat as it is a small part of stellaris and the reward is just not that high for putting development into it, and just the reality is they are right. The value they would get out of equipping armies and adding new stats is just not going to match the amount of development that it will take to make it. I think the best we can hope for is new army types that may use stats unconventionaly, perhaps similar to the RPS mechanics that are common to RTS games. Like you have the cannon Fodder Soldiers that have a lot of health but not a lot of morale, you have artillery that deal a lot of damage but are squishy, you have shock troops that deal a lot of morale damage but not a lot of actual damage.

 

[The_Winterwolf]

I hate to rain on your idea I truly do, but the devs said they didn't want to put a lot of effort into ground combat as it is a small part of stellaris and the reward is just not that high for putting development into it, and just the reality is they are right. The value they would get out of equipping armies and adding new stats is just not going to match the amount of development that it will take to make it. I think the best we can hope for is new army types that may use stats unconventionaly, perhaps similar to the RPS mechanics that are common to RTS games. Like you have the cannon Fodder Soldiers that have a lot of health but not a lot of morale, you have artillery that deal a lot of damage but are squishy, you have shock troops that deal a lot of morale damage but not a lot of actual damage.

All good, I take no offense : )

It's just to me ground combat has felt rather lacking compared to other games. Take an old game like Master of Orion 2, which featured simulated ground combat. Admittedly its turn based vs Real time when compared to Stellaris, but just something visual or something that shakes up how one uses armies would be nice. Though I do not think it is as complicated to pull off as you might think. For the most part its just transferring over the ship design feature and super dumbing it down for armies.

I mean my feeling on this has been, if they don't plan on improving the ground combat system, why have one at all? Ya know? Not all battles are won in space, many are won by grunts on the ground. Look to the Halo game series for perfect examples of this. I feel like the Ground Combat needs some love, maybe not as much as the space combat, but definitely at least half of the love of space combat XD They're two parts of the same war, ground and space. To dumb ground combat down to just throw in an army of 50 units vs a garrison of 10 and ggez win is just... lazy. It doesn't feel rewarding. Planetary invasions are basically a chore in the otherwise enjoyable aspect of war in this game. It needs some mix-ups, some variety, some spice to make things interesting. Otherwise, and I do hate saying this, just scrap ground combat entirely and just default to ships bombarding a planet into surrender. Ground Combat is not really interesting in its current state, my suggestion here is to give it that spice it needs by just adding a few more numerical values to be calculated into the combat to make things interesting and I truly do not think it would take that much work to implement.

Thank you for the pleasant response, tried posting this idea elsewhere and whew... you get some horrible people that just **** on an idea instead of responding with valid criticisms and critiques : )

 

[The_Winterwolf]

I hate to rain on your idea I truly do, but the devs said they didn't want to put a lot of effort into ground combat as it is a small part of stellaris and the reward is just not that high for putting development into it, and just the reality is they are right. The value they would get out of equipping armies and adding new stats is just not going to match the amount of development that it will take to make it. I think the best we can hope for is new army types that may use stats unconventionaly, perhaps similar to the RPS mechanics that are common to RTS games. Like you have the cannon Fodder Soldiers that have a lot of health but not a lot of morale, you have artillery that deal a lot of damage but are squishy, you have shock troops that deal a lot of morale damage but not a lot of actual damage.

Sorry, have another thing to add to that >.< New army types wouldn't really fix the problem of spamming assault armies or what-have-you. Artillery only works because it usually has some sort of protection or support from soldiers keeping it safe. Take Total War Warhammer as an example where if you leave your artillery out in the open, it gets shredded and all that damage means nothing. The game currently doesn't seem to have a way to implement something that would cause other units to take damage before artillery pieces. Likewise the cannon fodder idea, the game currently doesn't really seem to distinguish between army types as is and your more likely to have your stronger units get whacked before the cannon fodder does because they're all on the same line.

There is a mod called Better Army Types, which adds in a boatload of new army types and I like the idea, but at the end of the day you just still spam your strongest unit you currently can make. There is no counterplay then to just stack numbers really. With my idea, it at least adds a bit of depth to the ground combat system without overcomplicating things. Energy weapons good vs Kinetic Armor. Kinetic Armor good vs Kinetic Weapons. Kinetic weapons weak vs kinetic armor. Kinetic weapons strong vs Reflective. This rock paper scissors style of play, would punish people needlessly spamming their strongest unit, because their strongest unit might be ill-equipped to fight the weakest unit of another empire. Your stack of 50 units would potentially get whacked by the stack of 10 guarding a planet simply because they counter your weapons and armor.

 

[3ishop]

This type of suggestion has been quite common since the game released. It still doesn't fix the underlying problem but generally makes more and don't make sense.

Why am I equipping millions of people with the same equipment if I have multiple types? We don't do that. We have multiple unit types, vehicles, weapons and so on for our militaries. Why would that be reduced in the future? Why the current system has that be not an issue but the racial elements be the key.

There's also the issue that you now need to micro the battles or it's just luck of the draw where the armies go. If it's working as rock-paper-scissors you want your rock units to be hitting their scissors. If we let the AI do it then luck of the draw OR you just look at the most common enemy kit and then mass produce the counter to it and we have the same gameplay as today.

 

[The_Winterwolf]

You can choose what equipment to give each troop. You are essentially making different variants of army types. You can have a sniper unit that sits behind the mainline and shoots enemy ranged units. You can have big beefy melee brawler units that are made to soak damage on the front. Interchangeable pieces of armor and weapons for different units with different utility slots to make them fit the various roles of various units you may desire. It's not reducing that. Currently what's in game is a reduced version of weapon and armor variety. What is the difference between your assault army's weapons and mine? Nothing as of right now, all our armies basically use the exact same equipment, and racials make a little less sense in affecting the army's combat prowess as weapons and armor do so much more. Think of our own medieval history where the biggest and strongest guys with swords tended to fair the best. Guns leveled the playing field so even an emaciated peasant could take down the strongest warrior with a single pull of a trigger.

Like I said, I want variety in my armies and the need to counter design to fight your enemies more effectively. As of right now, we do have that minimalistic style of military in Stellaris. There is nothing really separating my assault army from your assault army other than racials really. There is so much more to warfare then racials and my idea compliments that idea. Another example is, Very Strong generically boosts your army's strength... but what about speed? A faster species would do just as well as a big strong brutish species? Or a hyper intelligent species would be able to use more advanced equipment more efficiently then the Dexterous or Stronger species. This suggestion of mine makes the racials have more depth and meaning to your militaristic playstyle. If you have strong bois, chances are you're going to favor using heavier weaponry or more melee based units. If you have a more dexterous species you're going to favor using units that have chances to avoid damage entirely and such.

Also we're never going to get full RTS with the ground combat, Paradox doesn't seem interested in that. But the whole luck of the draw where armies go can be sorted out by the design idea of a Frontline designation, Midline Designation, and Rear Designation. Upon unit creation you can designate where your units will be placed on the battlefield at the start of battle. Your sniper unit can be put midline (Meaning behind the frontline guys). Your frontline can be designated units for melee or just your beefiest units. When I say rock-paper-scissors, I do not mean that just because you don't have the counter means you automatically lose. It's just an advantage your forces can have over an enemy. Heck even with inferior counter tech, you can still win amazing battles just by applying the more strategic use of your units Utility abilities. Like I said, snipers to take out ranged units while the enemy ranged is focusing on your big beefy frontline. Artillery pieces that can rain devastation on the enemy front line even if their weapon types don't counter that frontline's armor, they will still do damage.

It encourages not only to think about what weapon and armor types you want to equip your various units with, but it also encourages you to think of what kinds of units you will be bringing to the invasion/defense. Mass producing the counter won't necessarily guarantee victory if the enemy has units that can counter your units simply by what they do. You'll have an advantage given your weapons and armor might be perfect counters to the enemy's setup, but if they make more tactical use out of certain utility abilities/traits/slots/etc. then they can win just as easily.

TL;DR Counter picking Armor/Weapons won't always win you fights. What units you bring matters just as much.

 

[The_Winterwolf]

This type of suggestion has been quite common since the game released. It still doesn't fix the underlying problem but generally makes more and don't make sense.

Why am I equipping millions of people with the same equipment if I have multiple types? We don't do that. We have multiple unit types, vehicles, weapons and so on for our militaries. Why would that be reduced in the future? Why the current system has that be not an issue but the racial elements be the key.

There's also the issue that you now need to micro the battles or it's just luck of the draw where the armies go. If it's working as rock-paper-scissors you want your rock units to be hitting their scissors. If we let the AI do it then luck of the draw OR you just look at the most common enemy kit and then mass produce the counter to it and we have the same gameplay as today.

I then propose to you, what would your suggestion be to improve ground combat?

 

[3ishop]

I then propose to you, what would your suggestion be to improve ground combat?

In general my suggestions are to reduce the micro more. An army fleet manager would help. Showing all the types of armies you can build across your empire and have them group together at a pre-set rally point and have replacements join armies on the move like we have for the combat fleets.

Would also stop generals leading from the front of the invasion.

 

[PK_AZ]

Bloat for the sake of bloat, micromanagement for the sake of micromanagement, and bonus breaking the last illusion of realism.

 

[The_Winterwolf]

In general my suggestions are to reduce the micro more. An army fleet manager would help. Showing all the types of armies you can build across your empire and have them group together at a pre-set rally point and have replacements join armies on the move like we have for the combat fleets.

Would also stop generals leading from the front of the invasion.

I agree with an army fleet manager, but that doesn't really add impact to the ground combat. It's not really an improvement to ground combat itself, the logistical aspect sure, but not really the ground combat itself. I mean in its current state, and I really hate to say this, it would probably be better just to outright remove ground combat. It's considered an afterthought, a chore, by most of the player base because it offers nothing real in the form of entertainment like the big flashy space battles.

Not trying to sound rude, mind you, but do you have an ideas that could improve the feel of ground combat, things that would make it seem more rewarding? More fulfilling of an aspect for the game as a whole? Cause honestly, any more reductions to the system and it should just be scrapped for pure orbital bombardment like Sins of a Solar Empire.

 

[The_Winterwolf]

Bloat for the sake of bloat, micromanagement for the sake of micromanagement, and bonus breaking the last illusion of realism.

But.. it's not? In fact the proposal I suggest is more realistic than what is currently in game. Are you telling me every unit in an army can counter anything they come across in current day warfare?

Let me use some medieval examples. So you're telling me, peasants with rusty dinner knives are on par with mounted cavalry in heavy armor with top of the line gear? Or to make a more balanced argument. Are you telling me that slashing through chainmail is more effective than stabbing/piercing it with a spear? Not every warrior is carrying around a spear or piercing weapon so they are not as effective against chainmail. Or what about piercing attacks against plate armor? Nah, you need a good mace for that or other blunt weapon to cave in the armor. Even in history we have counters to different types of arms and armor. There isn't a "One weapon solves every problem!" When it comes to boots on the ground. That's why the military employs a variety of different types of weapons and armor in current era. That's why we have SMGs, ARs, LMGs, Shotguns, etc. Each weapon for a different purpose, and the different calibers of bullet resistant armor that can withstand varying caliber of rounds.



Generic Assault armies break realism, because wars aren't fought nowadays by spamming as many generic soldiers as possible at a target. There are a variety of different soldiers with different skills, weapons, and armor working together to defeat a foe. I doubt the world of Stellaris has regressed back to the age of everyone standing in a straight line facing off against another group standing in a straight line, firing the same kind of muskets at each other, and wearing silk shirts so its easier to pull the shot out of their wounds. Ground Combat should be more complex and advanced, especially on a Sci-fi stage.

My reason for suggesting this proposal is because there is a lack of realism, and a huge lack of content for something that could be another fun part of waging war. In it's current state though, or if it's reduced even further. I say Paradox should just Yeet n delete Ground combat from the game entirely and just leave it to pure orbital bombardment to take planets. *Shrugs* Make it better, or just delete it, cause right now everyone thinks of Ground Combat as an afterthought, a chore, a bore, something no one really wants to do in its current state.

 

[PK_AZ]

Are you telling me every unit in an army can counter anything they come across in current day warfare?

I am telling you that current-day top-tier field army (which is smallest bunch of soldiers recruitable in Stellaris) can counter almost anything it can moce across. Jet fighters? Anti-aircraft missile launchers of short and medium range, plus vehicle-mounted or man-held AA missile launchers for self defence. Tanks? Attack helicopters and armored units, plus vehicle-mounted and man-held AT missile launchers for self defence. Infantry? Recconessaince units plus artillery. Artillery? Sound-based localizators + fast forces.

So you're telling me, peasants with rusty dinner knives are on par with mounted cavalry in heavy armor with top of the line gear?

Peasants that didn't have enough wealth to buy spears, or enough time to improvise some maces, or cannot at least get some axes, probably have much bigger problems than rock-paper-scissors.

Not every warrior is carrying around a spear or piercing weapon so they are not as effective against chainmail.

Spear was probably of the most popular weapon of most of european medieval. Actually it was generally expected that wealthy men will muster to war with spear, sword, shield and varying class of armour.

Or what about piercing attacks against plate armor? Nah, you need a good mace for that or other blunt weapon to cave in the armor.

Or you could bring opponent down and then hit in weakspot of his armor.

That's why the military employs a variety of different types of weapons and armor in current era. That's why we have SMGs

SMGs are used exclusively by special forces AFAIK. They were used in infantry during world war 2, but after that, they were surpassed by assault rifles, which are better than both SMGs and semi-automatic rifles in most common combat scenarios.

I doubt the world of Stellaris has regressed back to the age of everyone standing in a straight line facing off against another group standing in a straight line, firing the same kind of muskets at each other, and wearing silk shirts so its easier to pull the shot out of their wounds.

As far as I know, nothing in Stellaris suggest that army is composed of everyone standing in straight line, firing some kind of muskets, which btw is not true even for napoleonic infantry battalion. If anything, the term used (assault army) suggest big, combined-arms formation with organic services.

 

[3ishop]

I agree with an army fleet manager, but that doesn't really add impact to the ground combat. It's not really an improvement to ground combat itself, the logistical aspect sure, but not really the ground combat itself. I mean in its current state, and I really hate to say this, it would probably be better just to outright remove ground combat. It's considered an afterthought, a chore, by most of the player base because it offers nothing real in the form of entertainment like the big flashy space battles.

Not trying to sound rude, mind you, but do you have an ideas that could improve the feel of ground combat, things that would make it seem more rewarding? More fulfilling of an aspect for the game as a whole? Cause honestly, any more reductions to the system and it should just be scrapped for pure orbital bombardment like Sins of a Solar Empire.

In general because there isn't a way to improve it and keep it a minor none micro mess. So the general aim is to make it an easier system and remove pointless micro.

Well there's no additional reward that can be added. A successful use of assault armies captures you worlds, successful use of defensive armies saves you worlds. Not really much else. Same with fleets, you do well it destroys the enemy and captures you systems.

But.. it's not? In fact the proposal I suggest is more realistic than what is currently in game. Are you telling me every unit in an army can counter anything they come across in current day warfare?

No it isn't. It's needless micro that adds nothing and is unrealistic. No every unit in the army can't, but we are covering entire armies. In our world a single infantry unit can have both personal armour, vehicle armour, artillery, machineguns and anti-tank and anti-air weapons. So they can counter a lot of situations but not all. But then they can also call in support from more specialist parts of the army such as heavy artillery sections and the armoured core with battle tanks.

Let me use some medieval examples. So you're telling me, peasants with rusty dinner knives are on par with mounted cavalry in heavy armor with top of the line gear? Or to make a more balanced argument. Are you telling me that slashing through chainmail is more effective than stabbing/piercing it with a spear? Not every warrior is carrying around a spear or piercing weapon so they are not as effective against chainmail. Or what about piercing attacks against plate armor? Nah, you need a good mace for that or other blunt weapon to cave in the armor. Even in history we have counters to different types of arms and armor. There isn't a "One weapon solves every problem!" When it comes to boots on the ground. That's why the military employs a variety of different types of weapons and armor in current era. That's why we have SMGs, ARs, LMGs, Shotguns, etc. Each weapon for a different purpose, and the different calibers of bullet resistant armor that can withstand varying caliber of rounds.

Nope. But outside of peasant revolts there wasn't pure peasant armies. Medieval armies were a mix from the top lord and his retainers as the knights down to their levies which would be peasants. Actually most soldiers of the medieval period did have piercing weapons, only those with things such as clubs would have less piercing but then that can blunt force past chainmail. Against plate you can still use piercing weapons, they aren't a metal statue and a range of sword, daggers and polearms were built that could cut in to the vulnerable spots.


Yes there isn't a one weapon beats all, that is why armies through all history use multiple weapons. You're suggesting they should use just one.

Generic Assault armies break realism, because wars aren't fought nowadays by spamming as many generic soldiers as possible at a target. There are a variety of different soldiers with different skills, weapons, and armor working together to defeat a foe. I doubt the world of Stellaris has regressed back to the age of everyone standing in a straight line facing off against another group standing in a straight line, firing the same kind of muskets at each other, and wearing silk shirts so its easier to pull the shot out of their wounds. Ground Combat should be more complex and advanced, especially on a Sci-fi stage.

We don't equip each army with a single weapon system. They aren't specialist armies which is historical. We don't have the armies any more to focus it down too much compared to the last large scale war being WW2.

Yes there is and that is what makes up an army which is the smallest part of the ground combat.

My reason for suggesting this proposal is because there is a lack of realism, and a huge lack of content for something that could be another fun part of waging war. In it's current state though, or if it's reduced even further. I say Paradox should just Yeet n delete Ground combat from the game entirely and just leave it to pure orbital bombardment to take planets. *Shrugs* Make it better, or just delete it, cause right now everyone thinks of Ground Combat as an afterthought, a chore, a bore, something no one really wants to do in its current state.

It's less realistic and the content it adds will just harm the gameplay. It adds feature bloat and micro to the game with no actual benefit.

 

[The_Winterwolf]

I am telling you that current-day top-tier field army (which is smallest bunch of soldiers recruitable in Stellaris) can counter almost anything it can moce across. Jet fighters? Anti-aircraft missile launchers of short and medium range, plus vehicle-mounted or man-held AA missile launchers for self defence. Tanks? Attack helicopters and armored units, plus vehicle-mounted and man-held AT missile launchers for self defence. Infantry? Recconessaince units plus artillery. Artillery? Sound-based localizators + fast forces.


Peasants that didn't have enough wealth to buy spears, or enough time to improvise some maces, or cannot at least get some axes, probably have much bigger problems than rock-paper-scissors.


Spear was probably of the most popular weapon of most of european medieval. Actually it was generally expected that wealthy men will muster to war with spear, sword, shield and varying class of armour.


Or you could bring opponent down and then hit in weakspot of his armor.


SMGs are used exclusively by special forces AFAIK. They were used in infantry during world war 2, but after that, they were surpassed by assault rifles, which are better than both SMGs and semi-automatic rifles in most common combat scenarios.


As far as I know, nothing in Stellaris suggest that army is composed of everyone standing in straight line, firing some kind of muskets, which btw is not true even for napoleonic infantry battalion. If anything, the term used (assault army) suggest big, combined-arms formation with organic services.

1. Why recruit more than one army at all then? Why not just have 1 army since the army incorporates all these different pieces of equipment? I'd like to point out that Gene Seed Warriors are a separate unit you can get as well. Shouldn't they just be added to the base Assault Army? Why have a Xenomorph army type? Why have an undead army type? Why have clone armies be different too? Why have Titanic beasts be separate too cause they'd just be like tanks right? Psionics would just be the population wouldn't they, why would they have a different army type? Why have different types of armies at all and why have multiple ones if they all just are rolled up into one assault army? Basically, by this logic you're basically saying all these different army types should just be rolled into static bonuses for the Assault Army. Which honestly, I'd be fine with if thats what Paradox did, but they didn't. They felt the need to separate army types for a reason, because each 'army' is meant for different things in Stellaris or has different capabilities for dealing with different things. I don't think the armies are armies, but actually divisions you recruit. Look at the Titanic Beast army type for example. By your own logic it should just be a bonus applied to the assault army cause the assault army comprises all the technology/tools/equipment/etc. that your species has accumulated, right? However, it is its own separate Army. Same with Undead, even though they should be rolled into assault army as well.

2. I think you missed the point entirely on this one.

3. The spear was mainly developed as a means for defending against cavalry which was heavily favored at the time for its powerful charge as well as shock and awe value. Like you said above to my peasant example though, not everyone could afford the same equipment. Also you left out maces which were the counter to plate armor, not spears and swords.

4. Now you want to get complicated? Well currently in game there are no weak spots to be targeted *Shrugs* So by your counter arguments, that doesn't work in this game.

5. You picked one gun type out of the four mentioned... So you're just going to ignore Shotguns and LMGs, oh and lets not forget sniper rifles. Different weapons for different purposes. Shotguns for CQC, Sniper rifles for long range kills, etc. Also you brought up that SMGs are used for special forces, are special forces automatically rolled into the assault army as well?

6. You missed my point entirely once again. I'm not saying in Stellaris that they stand in a straight line and fire, I'm saying I doubt they have regressed to that point. Warfare used to be waged like that where everyone would stand in a line and fire volleys at each other until one side dies/flees/surrenders. It was when pretty much everyone had muskets and silk shirts, Mostly same equipment. Military nowadays is so much more complex, too complex to lump everything into a generic assault army. Despite an army being comprised of many different types of equipment, and units with different types of training and experience, they don't all operate the same way. Currently Stellaris is treating them as if they are all in one big glob called an Assault Army and dying/damaging/morale breaking all the same. What about specialized armies, and mercenary armies. Some specialize in certain forms of combat that cannot be represented by a generic Assault army. What if I have an entire army of just tanks? Why would my tanks take as much damage and do as much damage as your army of infantrymen? *Shrugs* I'm just saying military IRL is complex, and its really dumbed down in Stellaris. I'd say they'd be better off removing it entirely and just default to Orbital bombardment via ships if they aren't going to improve it.

 

[The_Winterwolf]

In general because there isn't a way to improve it and keep it a minor none micro mess. So the general aim is to make it an easier system and remove pointless micro.

Well there's no additional reward that can be added. A successful use of assault armies captures you worlds, successful use of defensive armies saves you worlds. Not really much else. Same with fleets, you do well it destroys the enemy and captures you systems.



No it isn't. It's needless micro that adds nothing and is unrealistic. No every unit in the army can't, but we are covering entire armies. In our world a single infantry unit can have both personal armour, vehicle armour, artillery, machineguns and anti-tank and anti-air weapons. So they can counter a lot of situations but not all. But then they can also call in support from more specialist parts of the army such as heavy artillery sections and the armoured core with battle tanks.



Nope. But outside of peasant revolts there wasn't pure peasant armies. Medieval armies were a mix from the top lord and his retainers as the knights down to their levies which would be peasants. Actually most soldiers of the medieval period did have piercing weapons, only those with things such as clubs would have less piercing but then that can blunt force past chainmail. Against plate you can still use piercing weapons, they aren't a metal statue and a range of sword, daggers and polearms were built that could cut in to the vulnerable spots.


Yes there isn't a one weapon beats all, that is why armies through all history use multiple weapons. You're suggesting they should use just one.



We don't equip each army with a single weapon system. They aren't specialist armies which is historical. We don't have the armies any more to focus it down too much compared to the last large scale war being WW2.

Yes there is and that is what makes up an army which is the smallest part of the ground combat.



It's less realistic and the content it adds will just harm the gameplay. It adds feature bloat and micro to the game with no actual benefit.

1. I mean if basically all the interaction from an army is removed, why bother having it in the game anyway? Just remove it and speed up the rate of orbital bombardment from ships at that point. You make a good point about there being a lack of a reward so what about this? What if successful ground combats grant influence, unity, and some amount of resources (Based on enemies destroyed) to the victor? Bigger battles = Greater Victories = More rewards to reap! Also, at the very least something can be done to improve the visual aspect to make it like Endless Space 2 or Master of Orion 2's ground battles. Simulations featuring small, generic looking figures (Which you could probably choose during empire creation) that battle in real time, you could minimize it or whatever and just let the battle rage on in the background (Like most people already let it do)

2. I'd like to direct you to my previous post addressing 3ishop up above.

3. I am not suggesting they use one. It makes more sense if you think of the armies as divisions rather than armies. I mean like I pointed out previously, why have the Titanic Beast army, clone army, Undead Army, Psionic Army, etc. etc. why have these different army types if they supposedly should just be in the standard assault army? Why not implement all your best weapons, tech, beasts, research, etc into your main army or your 'assault army'? Theres a reason that paradox made these different army types. These armies function more like divisions than armies in this regard so it makes more sense to treat the 'armies' like divisions. Heck even slave armies are separated and slave armies could rationally just be treated like forced conscripts which should technically roll over into the assault army if the assault army is this all encompassing military force of your empire. Back to my point, look at the military today. We have infantry divisions, armored divisions, etc. etc. Many different divisions that form, essentially, an army. The different army types like the Xenomorphs and Titanic Beasts and Clones are like these different divisions, why else wouldn't they just be static bonuses applied to the Assault Army? It makes no sense to separate them otherwise cause technically they'd be part of the army too! So think of the armies like divisions instead cause thats what it seems like Paradox is doing. Heck, look to Crusader Kings 3 and you'll see exactly what I'm suggesting. Basically I'm suggesting customizable men-at-arms, but that is basically your entire army, just the men-at-arms but you can customize em. In Crusader Kings 3 you can have Bowmen, Pikemen, Light Footmen, Light Horsemen, each with different counters and benefits and things they can be countered by.

4. I'll point you back to my argument that Paradox is treating armies more like divisions then actual armies. Divisions are indeed equipped very specifically to fit different purposes. Not every Armored division features the same tanks after all!

5. I've already argued the realism in my points above. I don't think more features are a bad thing and I do not think it would be harmful to add a little more nuance to ground warfare. I mean what is the current benefit to space combat? Isn't the myriad of weapon systems, ship types, shields, armor, etc. just bloat or redundant when everyone uses the same thing anyway? Why not have generic corvettes, all with the exact same stats, except number modifiers that come from research, why have the option to customize your ships at all? Personally I don't even bother with ship customization because I think its too much of a hassle to deal with and I think Paradox should remove it entirely and just give generic numerical bonuses to your ships then even bother with ship customization, yet... it is there. Many people I know don't even bother using it and guess what, with my idea proposed, the same autobuild feature with your best units would be available for custom army types. Just like some players customize ships and make them more effective than what the Ai would build for you, so too can people make better army types than the Ai would build for them, or you could just choose to let the Ai auto-matically create these army types for you and treat the game as it currently is. By your own arguments the ship designer isn't realistic, adds harmful content, and adds feature bloat and needless micromanagement. A system like that ship designer is basically what I am arguing for, but even more simplified, for army types.

 

[3ishop]

1. Why recruit more than one army at all then? Why not just have 1 army since the army incorporates all these different pieces of equipment? I'd like to point out that Gene Seed Warriors are a separate unit you can get as well. Shouldn't they just be added to the base Assault Army? Why have a Xenomorph army type? Why have an undead army type? Why have clone armies be different too? Why have Titanic beasts be separate too cause they'd just be like tanks right? Psionics would just be the population wouldn't they, why would they have a different army type? Why have different types of armies at all and why have multiple ones if they all just are rolled up into one assault army? Basically, by this logic you're basically saying all these different army types should just be rolled into static bonuses for the Assault Army. Which honestly, I'd be fine with if thats what Paradox did, but they didn't. They felt the need to separate army types for a reason, because each 'army' is meant for different things in Stellaris or has different capabilities for dealing with different things. I don't think the armies are armies, but actually divisions you recruit. Look at the Titanic Beast army type for example. By your own logic it should just be a bonus applied to the assault army cause the assault army comprises all the technology/tools/equipment/etc. that your species has accumulated, right? However, it is its own separate Army. Same with Undead, even though they should be rolled into assault army as well.

With how little impact it seems to have and the lack of links else where it is a question, but a simple reason is so you can assault multiple targets at the same time.

Reason there is a difference between the base type is their physical ability and the type of fighting that group is capable of. Xenomorphs do a lot of damage to enemy armies but they also do a lot of collateral damage. Other things such as psionics and titanic lifeforms are also limited by the number of pops you have with those traits. to cover how many your empire can support. There's also a big difference between something nearly everyone can use and different species with different requirements. A uniform for a plantoid isn't likely to work for an insectoid for example.

3. The spear was mainly developed as a means for defending against cavalry which was heavily favored at the time for its powerful charge as well as shock and awe value. Like you said above to my peasant example though, not everyone could afford the same equipment. Also you left out maces which were the counter to plate armor, not spears and swords.

No it wasn't. It's been developed by countless cultures, many of which didn't encounter horses till the last 400 years. Spears are easy to make, to train with and are a force multiplier in formation. It also took a long time for cavalry charges to become a straight threat to formation infantry.

1. I mean if basically all the interaction from an army is removed, why bother having it in the game anyway? Just remove it and speed up the rate of orbital bombardment from ships at that point. You make a good point about there being a lack of a reward so what about this? What if successful ground combats grant influence, unity, and some amount of resources (Based on enemies destroyed) to the victor? Bigger battles = Greater Victories = More rewards to reap! Also, at the very least something can be done to improve the visual aspect to make it like Endless Space 2 or Master of Orion 2's ground battles. Simulations featuring small, generic looking figures (Which you could probably choose during empire creation) that battle in real time, you could minimize it or whatever and just let the battle rage on in the background (Like most people already let it do)

There seems to be two reasons why they added armies in the first place, 1 it's a common sci-fi trope and 2 to raise the choice for players and spending resources. Do you bombard and have an easy win but tie up the fleet for a long time or do you throw armies at it and lose their investment cost.

But adding more resource reward would be a possible improvement to it, doesn't add more interaction however.

Visually seems unlikely to happen due to the cost for Pdox to make them and it being on a side screen that you don't need to look at compared to fleet battles which happen on the map.

3. I am not suggesting they use one. It makes more sense if you think of the armies as divisions rather than armies. I mean like I pointed out previously, why have the Titanic Beast army, clone army, Undead Army, Psionic Army, etc. etc. why have these different army types if they supposedly should just be in the standard assault army? Why not implement all your best weapons, tech, beasts, research, etc into your main army or your 'assault army'? Theres a reason that paradox made these different army types. These armies function more like divisions than armies in this regard so it makes more sense to treat the 'armies' like divisions. Heck even slave armies are separated and slave armies could rationally just be treated like forced conscripts which should technically roll over into the assault army if the assault army is this all encompassing military force of your empire. Back to my point, look at the military today. We have infantry divisions, armored divisions, etc. etc. Many different divisions that form, essentially, an army. The different army types like the Xenomorphs and Titanic Beasts and Clones are like these different divisions, why else wouldn't they just be static bonuses applied to the Assault Army? It makes no sense to separate them otherwise cause technically they'd be part of the army too! So think of the armies like divisions instead cause thats what it seems like Paradox is doing. Heck, look to Crusader Kings 3 and you'll see exactly what I'm suggesting. Basically I'm suggesting customizable men-at-arms, but that is basically your entire army, just the men-at-arms but you can customize em. In Crusader Kings 3 you can have Bowmen, Pikemen, Light Footmen, Light Horsemen, each with different counters and benefits and things they can be countered by.

Because they are different base races which have different traits and requirements and limitations that they can't roll them in to a single blob. Otherwise you have even more pointless micro calculations behind the scenes and other questions, you can only have 3 titanic armies, at which point if you only have 3 assault armies then fine they get full boost, you have more armies that buff will drop. But then we have unrestricted armies like the xenomorphs which could then make up 100% of our army.

In game slave armies are very different to conscripts.

Yes we do have different divisions that make up an army, so does the Stellaris armies. It's why we don't have tank armies, sniper armies and so on in the game.

5. I've already argued the realism in my points above. I don't think more features are a bad thing and I do not think it would be harmful to add a little more nuance to ground warfare. I mean what is the current benefit to space combat? Isn't the myriad of weapon systems, ship types, shields, armor, etc. just bloat or redundant when everyone uses the same thing anyway? Why not have generic corvettes, all with the exact same stats, except number modifiers that come from research, why have the option to customize your ships at all? Personally I don't even bother with ship customization because I think its too much of a hassle to deal with and I think Paradox should remove it entirely and just give generic numerical bonuses to your ships then even bother with ship customization, yet... it is there. Many people I know don't even bother using it and guess what, with my idea proposed, the same autobuild feature with your best units would be available for custom army types. Just like some players customize ships and make them more effective than what the Ai would build for you, so too can people make better army types than the Ai would build for them, or you could just choose to let the Ai auto-matically create these army types for you and treat the game as it currently is. By your own arguments the ship designer isn't realistic, adds harmful content, and adds feature bloat and needless micromanagement. A system like that ship designer is basically what I am arguing for, but even more simplified, for army types.

And it is entirely wrong. Forces swap out equipment as and when they need it and don't issue only one weapon to entire armies. The current armies aren't the equivalent of divisions which are also no uniformly equipped.

It doesn't add nuance to ground combat. It removes both immersion, it breaks with the games universe building and it harms the gameplay.

With ships it works much better. There are preset unit types where set builds are strong and weak against and we can control where these units attack. It's also fitting in both the theme of the universe and reality where ships have limited space for equipment. We can also equip ships with a range of equipment and not just one defence and one weapon. This is realistic, our ships have multiple weapon systems and defences.

Fleets are also fighting other built and designed fleets. Armies aren't. In game they are fighting automatically spawned defence forces. We've previously had it where we had to build defence armies on planets and could choose an item for them to have to give buffs. It was not fun, it added micro without adding any gameplay benefits. Invasion still worked the same way of dropping the larger doomstack on them which will still happen with your suggestion.

 

[The_Winterwolf]

With how little impact it seems to have and the lack of links else where it is a question, but a simple reason is so you can assault multiple targets at the same time.

Reason there is a difference between the base type is their physical ability and the type of fighting that group is capable of. Xenomorphs do a lot of damage to enemy armies but they also do a lot of collateral damage. Other things such as psionics and titanic lifeforms are also limited by the number of pops you have with those traits. to cover how many your empire can support. There's also a big difference between something nearly everyone can use and different species with different requirements. A uniform for a plantoid isn't likely to work for an insectoid for example.


No it wasn't. It's been developed by countless cultures, many of which didn't encounter horses till the last 400 years. Spears are easy to make, to train with and are a force multiplier in formation. It also took a long time for cavalry charges to become a straight threat to formation infantry.


There seems to be two reasons why they added armies in the first place, 1 it's a common sci-fi trope and 2 to raise the choice for players and spending resources. Do you bombard and have an easy win but tie up the fleet for a long time or do you throw armies at it and lose their investment cost.

But adding more resource reward would be a possible improvement to it, doesn't add more interaction however.

Visually seems unlikely to happen due to the cost for Pdox to make them and it being on a side screen that you don't need to look at compared to fleet battles which happen on the map.


Because they are different base races which have different traits and requirements and limitations that they can't roll them in to a single blob. Otherwise you have even more pointless micro calculations behind the scenes and other questions, you can only have 3 titanic armies, at which point if you only have 3 assault armies then fine they get full boost, you have more armies that buff will drop. But then we have unrestricted armies like the xenomorphs which could then make up 100% of our army.

In game slave armies are very different to conscripts.

Yes we do have different divisions that make up an army, so does the Stellaris armies. It's why we don't have tank armies, sniper armies and so on in the game.



And it is entirely wrong. Forces swap out equipment as and when they need it and don't issue only one weapon to entire armies. The current armies aren't the equivalent of divisions which are also no uniformly equipped.

It doesn't add nuance to ground combat. It removes both immersion, it breaks with the games universe building and it harms the gameplay.

With ships it works much better. There are preset unit types where set builds are strong and weak against and we can control where these units attack. It's also fitting in both the theme of the universe and reality where ships have limited space for equipment. We can also equip ships with a range of equipment and not just one defence and one weapon. This is realistic, our ships have multiple weapon systems and defences.

Fleets are also fighting other built and designed fleets. Armies aren't. In game they are fighting automatically spawned defence forces. We've previously had it where we had to build defence armies on planets and could choose an item for them to have to give buffs. It was not fun, it added micro without adding any gameplay benefits. Invasion still worked the same way of dropping the larger doomstack on them which will still happen with your suggestion.

1. That doesn't make sense for your original argument though. You said that an army "We don't equip each army with a single weapon system. They aren't specialist armies which is historical. We don't have the armies any more to focus it down too much compared to the last large scale war being WW2." So why should there be different army types, again, why not roll the xenomorphs into the assault army because the Assault army apparently includes tanks, planes, SMGs, AR's, Shotguns, Artillery pieces, etc. etc. By your own arguments you've defeated yourself here by acknowledging there are differences that aren't accommodated by the generic Assault Army type. It's either everything should go into the Assault Army as static number modifiers, or we have to start separating it more for it to make sense, cause it makes no sense why you wouldn't incorporate Titanic Beasts, Xenomorphs, Psionics, and clones into your base army, unless these aren't actually armies per say and more like divisions of troops, which are indeed specialized!

2. Well admittedly the spear was mainly developed for fighting off large predators in the primitive stages of civilization. It was good against big animals, to put it simply. It also offered reach when paired with say... a shield wall? Hmmmm sounds a bit like my idea... With melee soldiers on a frontline (Being the shield wall) with ranged soldiers (Being spears or archers hiding behind said sheild wall) on the midline. Also Cavalry charges have always been a threat to infantry that didn't have weapons to counter horses.

3. I'll Address each of these by letter format lol.
A. So no real reason, since most people just sit and bombard rather than fiddle with the armies anyway.
B. I agree it doesn't add more interaction, but part of your argument was that it didn't feel rewarding enough to participate in. This would offer a reward incentive.
C. I mean you don't actually need to look at Fleet battles either. I usually don't lol. I don't look at the stats screen or the actual battle taking place 95% of the time. So the same argument could be put forth towards fleet battles, or heck just the current version of the army battle screen. You could play the entire game on the Galaxy Map.

4. Again on this...."We don't equip each army with a single weapon system. They aren't specialist armies which is historical. We don't have the armies any more to focus it down too much compared to the last large scale war being WW2." The differing army types add 'bloat' and are 'needless micro' by your own words. They could very easily be rolled over into the Assault Army and Defense army as static Numerical values that add or subtract from the Assault/Defense Army's effectiveness. I mean.. do we separate our armies based on Race? Or how about this, are the K9 units in our military today considered K9 armies? They aren't. Also I like how you mention xenomorphs making up 100% of an army when you also have said, like the quote before "There aren't specialist armies." Yet an entire Xenomorph Army, an Entire Psionic Army, An entire Titanic Life army... that sounds pretty specialized to me if its an army comprised of 100% of just those things. Yet you've been arguing that armies are not specialized in such a way and in Stellaris the army encompasses all things your empire has for warfare. So which is it? Are armies specialized or are they not? Because if they aren't specialized, Xenomorph armies, Titanic beast Armies, Clone armies, Slave armies, they shouldn't be separate things, neither should racial armies, because racial armies would be a specialized army and you've been fighting me tooth and nail saying that armies aren't specialized.

That's why I've been saying that Stellaris/paradox, treats the armies of Stellaris more like divisions than an actual army. We have different army types in Stellaris because they are essentially divisions, not actual armies. Army just sounded better and is a simpler term. Here's some mindscrew for ya. If you have 8 Assault armies together... you have 8 assault armies in AN army. What does a general do... they lead AN army, meaning one. I mean look at the Total War series for an example on this. A single general commands many different troops in one type of army. Why can't we assign multiple generals to this army of assault armies? Technically each assault army would require its own general? Unless they are actually divisions that make up an army, and not armies in of themselves... thats where things make more sense.

5. A. You are wrong, A tank division does not give up its tanks to trade out to become infantry when its needed, they are a tank division and stay a tank division, their equipment will always be... tanks. The current armies are exactly uniformly equipped Divisions. I repeat myself, CLONE ARMIES, XENOMORPH ARMIES, TITANIC BEAST ARMIES, need I go on? These are uniformly equipped, so ergo, the 'armies' in stellaris are actually divisions, not armies.

B. It does add nuance and immersion by making the combat more realistic and giving it depth. Explain how it would harm gameplay.

C. We can't control where these units attack when they are engaged in space combat, no interaction there. Other than that, dude this is literally the same argument for the armies and why they should be more nuanced and improved. You literally are arguing my point for me. We can equip different units with different weapons and armor, not just generic bonuses to damage. Shouldn't it also be fitting in theme that you can choose whether your army uses ballistic weapons or energy based weapons and such? I mean look at Halo, humans use assault rifles, sniper rifles, shotguns, etc. while elites use plasma guns, energy rifles, etc. Which actually proves a point in how an army can have a specialized type of weaponry and specialized type of armor that counter other weapon types and armor types.

D. It wouldn't happen the same with my suggestion because there would be actual counter play. A good 85% of people that play this game don't design their ships, the Ai does it for them and the players just build the pre-fabs, which is what you could do with my suggestion on armies. If you drop a generic Ai generated army that isn't built to counter the planetary defense forces, even if you have 10:1 odds, you'd still get your teeth kicked in cause the enemy has superior weapons and armor compared to you, so just launching globs will not always work. I mean do you remember the corvette spam with ships? I mean, I remember it, but there are ways to counter play it, and likewise there would be ways to counter play launching a glob of units at a planet simply by countering them with a variety of troops with different strengths and weaknesses.


---------- Let's be real here, you just don't like the idea, and that's fine, but your reasoning isn't there. Your logic isn't consistent and in fact you've argued my point quite a few times for me. It's okay not to like an idea, but to try and strawman issues that aren't really issues is a bit... disingenuous. Just be real and just say "I don't like this idea, I want to keep the system as is." You don't have to make paper-thin arguments that end up just working against you in the end anyway.

I don't think I'm going to convince you of the merits of this proposed idea, and you aren't going to convince me that its a bad thing. So let's just agree to disagree and leave it at that. Fair? : )

 

[3ishop]

1. That doesn't make sense for your original argument though. You said that an army "We don't equip each army with a single weapon system. They aren't specialist armies which is historical. We don't have the armies any more to focus it down too much compared to the last large scale war being WW2." So why should there be different army types, again, why not roll the xenomorphs into the assault army because the Assault army apparently includes tanks, planes, SMGs, AR's, Shotguns, Artillery pieces, etc. etc. By your own arguments you've defeated yourself here by acknowledging there are differences that aren't accommodated by the generic Assault Army type. It's either everything should go into the Assault Army as static number modifiers, or we have to start separating it more for it to make sense, cause it makes no sense why you wouldn't incorporate Titanic Beasts, Xenomorphs, Psionics, and clones into your base army, unless these aren't actually armies per say and more like divisions of troops, which are indeed specialized!

No it's not. It's entirely fitting with what I said. We have previously had split formations in regiments and divisions made up of cultural and religious groups in militaries however and that is for the same reason. It's easier to fulfill their needs and to get the benefits of their strengths. Example is British Imperial forces in WW1 had a lot of Indian formations, they were sent to France and performed well but suffered due to the climate and local food supplies. They were instead shipped to the Middle East which for many was a climate they were more used to and was easier to bring food they were used to. So again in reality we would still likely split forces up with a range of different species to make logistics easier for their personal needs and to benefit from their strengths. Again my example of Titanic life forms are far more useful combined in a few strong armies than split up and being so diluted you don't get any benefit from them.

Because the Xenomorphs replace the need for most of those units and weapons for the defending force. They have biological tanks and such. We can grow them in labs and replace entire armies with them and not have to risk any of our citizens as a result. Why we can replace our entire invasion force with them.

Even if they were akin to divisions which they aren't, it still doesn't back your suggestions. They still wouldn't be equipped identically in the division.

2. Well admittedly the spear was mainly developed for fighting off large predators in the primitive stages of civilization. It was good against big animals, to put it simply. It also offered reach when paired with say... a shield wall? Hmmmm sounds a bit like my idea... With melee soldiers on a frontline (Being the shield wall) with ranged soldiers (Being spears or archers hiding behind said sheild wall) on the midline. Also Cavalry charges have always been a threat to infantry that didn't have weapons to counter horses.

Sounds more like combined arms which existed through history. Standard issue was mixed formations with missile troops in the group so they can see what they are loosing their attacks on. So not like your suggestions but like mine. Mixed formations with a range of weapons, one of the best known is pike & shot with the Spanish tercios.

3. I'll Address each of these by letter format lol.
A. So no real reason, since most people just sit and bombard rather than fiddle with the armies anyway.
B. I agree it doesn't add more interaction, but part of your argument was that it didn't feel rewarding enough to participate in. This would offer a reward incentive.
C. I mean you don't actually need to look at Fleet battles either. I usually don't lol. I don't look at the stats screen or the actual battle taking place 95% of the time. So the same argument could be put forth towards fleet battles, or heck just the current version of the army battle screen. You could play the entire game on the Galaxy Map.

A. I don't. AI does as it's stupid. I send in the army and take the world while my fleet continues to push the enemy back and protect my lines.
B. This doesn't provide any reward for doing so. You will get as many penalties as buffs and for something that doesn't matter it's not worth the time investment.
C. You don't need to but you also don't need to go looking for them. You can still witness them while also managing the rest of your empire so no it doesn't apply. But the cost is why we have so few shipsets and they are so rare to comeout despite that seeming to be an obvious DLC path.

4. Again on this...."We don't equip each army with a single weapon system. They aren't specialist armies which is historical. We don't have the armies any more to focus it down too much compared to the last large scale war being WW2." The differing army types add 'bloat' and are 'needless micro' by your own words. They could very easily be rolled over into the Assault Army and Defense army as static Numerical values that add or subtract from the Assault/Defense Army's effectiveness. I mean.. do we separate our armies based on Race? Or how about this, are the K9 units in our military today considered K9 armies? They aren't. Also I like how you mention xenomorphs making up 100% of an army when you also have said, like the quote before "There aren't specialist armies." Yet an entire Xenomorph Army, an Entire Psionic Army, An entire Titanic Life army... that sounds pretty specialized to me if its an army comprised of 100% of just those things. Yet you've been arguing that armies are not specialized in such a way and in Stellaris the army encompasses all things your empire has for warfare. So which is it? Are armies specialized or are they not? Because if they aren't specialized, Xenomorph armies, Titanic beast Armies, Clone armies, Slave armies, they shouldn't be separate things, neither should racial armies, because racial armies would be a specialized army and you've been fighting me tooth and nail saying that armies aren't specialized.

That's why I've been saying that Stellaris/paradox, treats the armies of Stellaris more like divisions than an actual army. We have different army types in Stellaris because they are essentially divisions, not actual armies. Army just sounded better and is a simpler term. Here's some mindscrew for ya. If you have 8 Assault armies together... you have 8 assault armies in AN army. What does a general do... they lead AN army, meaning one. I mean look at the Total War series for an example on this. A single general commands many different troops in one type of army. Why can't we assign multiple generals to this army of assault armies? Technically each assault army would require its own general? Unless they are actually divisions that make up an army, and not armies in of themselves... thats where things make more sense.

No they aren't. It requires no more clicks to recruit the different armies as you build them all from the same screen. So no more micro from the current system, other than trying to find some races that might have bonuses which my previous suggestion of an invasion force designer would fix.

No, as K9s are considered equipment. Same for the range of other animals. It's harsh but how they are viewed in the system.

As I mentioned above we have previously split them based on race. We've also split allied forces apart for similar reasons in combat zones to ease logistics and why after WW2 you have NATO and Warsaw-Pact nations standardize quite a bit to make working along side a lot easier.

The general system for the armies is broken considering how often they get killed in combat. But is also tied to a different issue that we have leadership limits.

5. A. You are wrong, A tank division does not give up its tanks to trade out to become infantry when its needed, they are a tank division and stay a tank division, their equipment will always be... tanks. The current armies are exactly uniformly equipped Divisions. I repeat myself, CLONE ARMIES, XENOMORPH ARMIES, TITANIC BEAST ARMIES, need I go on? These are uniformly equipped, so ergo, the 'armies' in stellaris are actually divisions, not armies.

B. It does add nuance and immersion by making the combat more realistic and giving it depth. Explain how it would harm gameplay.

C. We can't control where these units attack when they are engaged in space combat, no interaction there. Other than that, dude this is literally the same argument for the armies and why they should be more nuanced and improved. You literally are arguing my point for me. We can equip different units with different weapons and armor, not just generic bonuses to damage. Shouldn't it also be fitting in theme that you can choose whether your army uses ballistic weapons or energy based weapons and such? I mean look at Halo, humans use assault rifles, sniper rifles, shotguns, etc. while elites use plasma guns, energy rifles, etc. Which actually proves a point in how an army can have a specialized type of weaponry and specialized type of armor that counter other weapon types and armor types.

D. It wouldn't happen the same with my suggestion because there would be actual counter play. A good 85% of people that play this game don't design their ships, the Ai does it for them and the players just build the pre-fabs, which is what you could do with my suggestion on armies. If you drop a generic Ai generated army that isn't built to counter the planetary defense forces, even if you have 10:1 odds, you'd still get your teeth kicked in cause the enemy has superior weapons and armor compared to you, so just launching globs will not always work. I mean do you remember the corvette spam with ships? I mean, I remember it, but there are ways to counter play it, and likewise there would be ways to counter play launching a glob of units at a planet simply by countering them with a variety of troops with different strengths and weaknesses.

A. You are wrong. I never said they did swap types. I said equipment. Divisions are made up of a range of smaller units, and even armoured divisions aren't all tanks and not all the tanks are historically the same model.
No they aren't. They are uniformly cultured armies. Big difference and matches our current one where everyone in our armies is human.

B. It doesn't as has been repeatedly pointed out. It's less realistic and nonsensical which also destroys the immersion. It doesn't add depth it just adds more needless clicks. It harms the gameplay by just adding a large amount of clicks to use for no payoff and of course the development cost. Again we've previously had a more realistic system with less clicks and it was removed as it was bad for gameplay.

C. Once engaged no, but we can choose where they go and on which fronts and generally against who they fight. I've often changed fleet loadouts for their location. Had a few choke points that nullifies shields, I changed the loadout of my fleets there to not have shields and to not use anti-shield weapons as a result.

We can equip all the weapons and armour you suggest for armies at the same time, they don't have a tiny limit like ships do. So no it's not the same. We also can't impact where they fight like fleets or which enemy units they engage which is required for your rock-paper-scissors gameplay.

I'm not a follower of the Halo universe, but does the Human faction have the advanced tech to mass produce reliable energy weapons? Also most universes have energy weapons in the same weapon types as traditional ballistic ones. It's effectively just a different missile system in the combat. And yet they also show the use of multiple armour and defence technologies in the game trailers.

D. There isn't. As already pointed out unless we turn invasions in to mini games which pauses the rest of the campaign it doesn't have counter player.

So now you are arguing against the idea as majority of players according to you wont use it and it will then have no impact on the gameplay.

If you outnumber them that much, only unless you are a early empire attacking a fallen empire would that happen. They wont have superior weapons or armour unless they have superior tech at which point you lost the battle long before the invasion. AI system can be bad at designing ships but it would also apply the bad design to the AIs defence forces and can just as likely give them an inferior loadout and be beaten. OR as I'd expect it creates mixed armies for both sides and it's luck of the draw where they get placed in combat so the bonuses are wasted.

---------- Let's be real here, you just don't like the idea, and that's fine, but your reasoning isn't there. Your logic isn't consistent and in fact you've argued my point quite a few times for me. It's okay not to like an idea, but to try and strawman issues that aren't really issues is a bit... disingenuous. Just be real and just say "I don't like this idea, I want to keep the system as is." You don't have to make paper-thin arguments that end up just working against you in the end anyway.

I don't think I'm going to convince you of the merits of this proposed idea, and you aren't going to convince me that its a bad thing. So let's just agree to disagree and leave it at that. Fair? : )

No I don't and have explained why it's been rejected repeatedly from the start of the game. I have given reasoning, you seem to disagree because it's what you want added rather than for a gameplay reason as you're still failed to address the issues I've raised from the start. So far out of three people responding to you none is supporting your idea either.

You are strawmanning here, as I've said I do want changes to the existing system but I want ones that will improve and address issues. This fails to address the issue you bring up in the OP.

 

[PK_AZ]

unless these aren't actually armies per say and more like divisions of troops

Divisions, especially "standard" divisions, are combined arms almost by definition (let's ignore general brigadization of western armies for a while). They

apparently includes tanks, planes, SMGs, AR's, Shotguns, Artillery pieces, etc. etc.

(I'm not sure if SMGs and shotguns are really used in enough numbers to be on that list, through)