Ground Combat

[Tim_Ward]

The question is this: is it possible to design an implement a design for ground combat which:

a) has a decent amount of depth which results in an improved and enriched experience but
b) does not require micromanagement and
c) fits within the general Paradox design ethos and with Stellaris in particular?

The answer, as far as I am concerned, is that yes that is absolutely possible. I don't think anyone would seriously disagree that good Paradox-esque ground combat system is something that could be made.

So, really, given that it can be done, is there a good reason why it shouldn't be done? "It's outside of Stellaris' scope" seems like a crock. I'd like to think the game's scope is a bit broader than "Space battle Simulator 2016". You can't just make the game about space battles, it doesn't even have tactical combat. If I wanted that I'd pick up Battefleet Gothic or something.

What should ground combat be like?

Ground combat should:

1) through its presentation, represent the scope and scale of a planetary invasion
2) have some EU4 style behind the scenes depth in terms of the mechanics of the fighting
3) have lots of different type of unit with different bonuses and drawbacks, allowing the player fiddle with the composition of their armies
4) but not make constructing those armies as micromanagey as fleet construction, i.e. an army designer or HoI style templates
5) some kind of interplay between the fleet and the ground forces, but not make having a fleet in orbit an insta-win button
6) last a good amount of time, so both sides can bring in reinforcements if they're able. some ground campaigns could go on for the entire length of the war.
7) automate the movement of armies between planets as much as humanly possible - no arsing around with transports!
8) have some kind of phase mechanism borrowed from EU4 siege mechanics ("establishing beachhead", "surpression of oribital defences" that sort of thing) with different bonuses at different stages and different unit types working better at different stages to feed back into how the player designs their armies - drop troops for establishing a beechhead, armoured units for general fighting, infantry for attacking cities, that sort of thing
9) not allow the player to do anything once combat has started, except order a retreat as in other paradox games
10) differentiate between planets, whether it be giving malus's to armies fighting on inhospitable planets or allowing the construction of buildings on the planet that give bonuses to defenders
11) a very macro approach to how the player deals their armies during wartime - "the 5th army will defend Alpha Centauri, but the 12th Army will reinforce the flagging assault on Colthium IV"
12) maybe peacetime garrison mechanics (?) - or maybe not. idk.

 

[Junkfist]

The more I think about it, the more I agree that ground combat should be almost entirely removed. Stellaris is a strategy game. To make planetary combat interesting, it needs to involve choices at a tactical level, which would turn the game in to Stellaris: Total War. I love sci fi ground wars and I would love a Total War game in space, but Stellaris does not have room for those extra mechanics. If Stellaris is to have tactical gameplay decisions, they have to occur in space. Planetary tactical decisions simply become an distracting extraneous layer of tedium when all the other visually and mechanically interesting stuff happens in space.

Micro is not necessary to make planetary combat interesting, just like micro wasn't necessary to make fleet combat interesting.

There is no tactical-micro-Total War gameplay in Stellaris' fleet combat. You don't make subgroups of ships and maneuver them in a battle, nor activate their cooldowns and tell them when to charge or direct which particular allied units to attack which particular enemy units. Once two fleets begin combat, all tactical decisions are up to the Admirals and at the end you get a report of how the battle went. The only decisions you get to make is in preparation (entry vector, in the future possibly formations) and the order for a full retreat.

Similarly, once boots are on the ground, all tactical decisions would be up to the Generals.

 

[Tsjernobyl!]

I don't know wether this was mentioned before or not, but I have an idea about ground combat for quite some time.

increase the length of the battles, decrease the micromanagement.

like your ships, create a setup for your army units. (like weapons, utility slots for your ships.) hit the save button and your army composition is there. For your ships, create an XL utily slot where you can equip an army deployment module. An X amount of armies are automatically created (like fighter aircraft). Lets say 4 armies, for example.

When you are about to invade a planet it will go like this. (like EU4) Your fleet will attempt to breach the enemies defenses to create an LZ for your ground troops, once it is there the ground forces will automatically send off to the planet surface where they will fight the enemy oposition. This fight could be vanilla like for all I care, just make it last a little longer. Should you have lost a ground unit entirely, it remains lost until your fleet docks for repairs. If your armies are damaged, they will be healed once back on the ship.

A militia like defense force should be automatically created once you capture the planet, and the assault force will return back to the ship.

EDIT: For the defending party on the planet there should be a building that uses up a tile called something like "planetaryHQ".
Level 1: It creates some more defending armies
Level 2: It also shoots rounds back at the attackers in space
Level 3: It also generates a shield for your planet to make it harder for the attackers to make a breach for the ground forces.

Creating multiple planetaryHQ's will stack these effects.

 

[Pyramid_Head]

Space strategies should focus on space combat? Sure, no arguing with that. But why Master of Orion II have decent ground combat system? Why godawful Galactic Civilizations II and II have ground combat, which is one of the redeeming features of this games? Why Endless Space I and II have ground combat? Stardrive, and other 4X strategies.
We are not asking for a mini-HoI\EU game, but just above-average mechanics when dealing with planetary conquests. Mechanics that will make preparations be rewarding, because no joy comes from win-buttons. Fights for 25 tile planets should be hard if enemy is entrenched there. I am sure Paradox devs have statistics how many players actually hire generals and they must know that this situation is clearlly not right and that whole ground combat needs serious attention, maybe not right now with Heinlein but with upcoming patches.

 

[Wizzington]

Ugh and the worst part is when your fleet finishes obliterating the 1 corvette that they HAD to attack, they don't even go back to sieging automatically. It's rather odd considering Wiz's supposed dislike of micro, seeing as it's one of the biggest sources of (annoying) micro in wars. Kinda makes me think he's full of it.

I consider the fact that they don't go back to bombing a bug we need to fix, actually.

 

[Xykon]

I don't think ground combat should be struck from the game entirely, but it definitely isn't the focus of the game. Right now, it isn't great, but it works, and I don't think the devs should focus on changing it much right now (except for attachments; either make them easier to use or get rid of them entirely).

It would be neat to see an overhaul of the system that makes it engaging without needing lots of micromanagement, though.

 

[Dalinski]

I'd like to be able to storm a planet while a space battle is in progress.

 

[prismaticmarcus]

This probably isn't going to be popular with a lot of people here, but my view is that ground combat is a completely superfluous part of the game that adds little more than a pointless micromanagement layer. The game is about space and I'd much rather spend development time adding depth to space warfare.

i do like that troop transports are underpowered and you have to consider what planet they'll leave from and how they'll get to their destination. this aspect of the game is good

 

[enpi]

I don't think ground combat should be struck from the game entirely, but it definitely isn't the focus of the game. Right now, it isn't great, but it works, and I don't think the devs should focus on changing it much right now (except for attachments; either make them easier to use or get rid of them entirely).

It would be neat to see an overhaul of the system that makes it engaging without needing lots of micromanagement, though.

Its nonsensical to play a 4x game without the love of doing micromanagement. 4x in fact is nothing without micromanagement. I mean did you ever play civ?

Stellaris Ground combat is neither broken nor tedious (in fact I like the current system - its much better than most of other ground combat system of other 4x games on the market) , so removing it would be idiotic. This does of course not mean that there could be no improvement in mechanics and tactical choices with the current system or make it a little bit more streamlined.

 

[The Shacks]

Yeah, the 'micro' some of the posters on this forum harp on about - half the time - seems to me to be rather minimal micromanagement at best, hardly a cumbersome burden. Unless your constantly wardeccing to paint the map your color then I fail to see how ordering troop transports around to at most a half dozen planets is too tedious to consider. Y'all not grow up playing strategies? Just hotkey fleets. Or chillax and play it on slow when your at war.

Ground-Combat could obviously be more nuanced though. But as with all Paradox games I presume that'll come in time with a DLC/accompanying patch.

 

[Zoston]

Imo, the best way to fix Ground Combat is to heavily 'buff' planetary bombardment and make it capable of capturing planets too.

Players would have three choices:

1) Nuke the planet from orbit - In this scenario the bombardment is continually destroying buildings and exterminating pops till the planet becomes uninhabited or surrenders. The speed of surrender depends on the war score and ethos, government and racial modifiers. (If the other side is losing the war, they'll be more willing to surrender than die for a lost cause, but ethos etc. effects this. Fanatical purifiers will be much more likely to hold out till their dying breaths, Migratory Flocks much more likely to surrender as soon as pops start dying.)

2) Blockade the planet - A lot like now except you'll get some modest warscore from having a blockade. A blockaded planet might surrender, but it's not guaranteed (it's more a potential random event than a siege tick). And of course blockaded planets do not provide any resources to their owners. It should be a viable choice if you don't want to invest too much in the war and are happy with getting a white peace and/or some reparations.

3) Invade the planet - This then becomes a much more protracted ground war. You don't micromanage it, but the model becomes an EUIV siege and not a battle. It's a strategic decision to invade and it requires considerable more resources and time. But it's the only way to capture a planet intact with its pops and buildings alive and functioning. Unlike now where you pretty much always take over intact planets, it's a strategic choice which planets you want to truly conquer and which you just want to glass and re-populate yourself.

This way, you decrease micromanagement while increasing meaningful decision making. Invading is something you plan and choose. You'll want a good general and strong armies, you'll look at the planet's defenses. You can add more complexity to army-composition. For example, add defensive buildings that lower the enemy siege tick, thus requiring them to add bunker-buster armies next to their regulars if they want to take that planet (while a less fortified planet can still be zerg-rushed with basic infantry). But if it's a meaningless outpost you're only attacking for warscore, you just bomb it from orbit instead.

 

[Nelfe]

Even if you dislike ground combat, could you please add the possibility to rename armies ? At the moment, you can't rename them (only their transport ships once they embark), and it's something I miss.

 

[Verenti]

I think there are two principle problems: transports are fragile and troops take a long time to build.

This means they're just a headache to keep at the forefront of the war and are just a nightmare of micro. The enemy keeps sneaking troops into systems and taking back planets as you push deeper into their space.

Maybe ships should have troop compartments components, which replenish troops over time, but leave a garrison on planets you take over. Get rip of dedicated troop transports completely.

 

[Mathrafalovich]

I think it would be a mistake to leave ground assault to rot since it's already in the game. Since it in and not going away it really ought to be fun.

The crux of the issue is that planetary assaults feel... small. You don't get even an abstracted feeling of great Sci-Fi moments like the Battle of Hoth, Reach, 40K, Starship Troopers etc. Landing assault waves of Gene Warriors against Psionic Commandos should be fun and feel epic, even if the underlying systems are very simple. Even a simple graphical overhaul to planetary bombardment and surface combat would go a long way.

I also think that planetary assault should be a major logistical undertaking, but that should be mostly on the space side of things, tying troops to warships rather than dedicated transports would make that easier to implement.

 

[Pchang]

The biggest problems about ground combat all have to do with the UI. Attachments are a pain in the butt. Building and marshalling troops is a pain in the butt. Healing injured troops is a pain in the butt. At least Heinlein will remove the need to heal injured troops manually.

 

[prismaticmarcus]

The crux of the issue is that planetary assaults feel... small. You don't get even an abstracted feeling of great Sci-Fi moments like the Battle of Hoth, Reach, 40K, Starship Troopers etc. Landing assault waves of Gene Warriors against Psionic Commandos should be fun and feel epic, even if the underlying systems are very simple. Even a simple graphical overhaul to planetary bombardment and surface combat would go a long way.

couldn't agree more. even changing the little circles to dynamic portraits that showed e.g. triumph, anguish or despair would make a big difference

 

[Praetori]

Adding ground combat and generals was not my decision, and it's something I think we should not have done. I don't think it adds anything to the game. I'm not just going to just cut it without replacing it with some sort of planetary capture mechanics that aren't just the current bombardment mechanics and a use for the various army techs, though.

Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. Just because the current ground combat mechanics doesn't meet the curve doesn't mean it can't be a immensely engaging feature in the future. After all there are plenty of good IPs out there that caters both to the massive space battles as well as ground warfare (although seldomly done in gaming). The Empire Strikes Back would've been pretty bland if Vader had had the means to nuke Hoth from orbit.

As long as it's immersive and not a chore or micro madness I like it. The fact that it's even there (compared to most other games of today) is part of the list of features that constitutes the selling point IMO.

 

[TheAmerican]

Not sure if this has been said yet, but I honestly think that you should just be able to attach "invasion" modules to your ships to replace the current invasion mechanic. Basically you'd just add space or weapons on your ship that would provide a bonus for ground invasion. So you could take a battleship and turn it into a giant marine transporting death machine with some orbital weapon attachments. That'd be more interesting and it would remove the annoyance of moving transportation fleets and combat fleets separately.

 

[MichaelJanuary]

I would be happy to drop armies/generals totally from the current game, and change the bombardment mechanic to abstract a ground invasion.

What I am suggesting is a TWO PHASE approach to taking control of enemy planets.

1. SECURING ORBITAL SPACE
First, fleets shouldn't attack planets automatically as they currently do, you would have to give an explicit command to bombard a colonised world. Once you do, the fleet moves into orbit and stays there. This works similar to the current mechanic.
Planetary Defenses: Planetary Shields, Bomb Shelters, Hardened Fortifications, Anti-Missile Point Defenses.
Planetary Offenses: Ground-to-Orbit batteries (damages ships over time)
Fleet Options: Light, Medium, Heavy bombardment, with increasing risk of destroying infrastructure/population and taking more damage to ships in low orbit.

2. GROUND INVASION (Abstracted)
Once the fortifications (planetary shields) have been reduced to zero, the player has to command the fleet (or a second fleet) to move in and
Raid for slaves - x% chance of 1 pop per month being enslaved;
Raid for resources - X resources per month raided from planet;
Blockade/Siege - attempts to take temporary control of the planet until a diplomatic peace is secured.
Invade - permanently adds the planet to your empire, lengthy and costly exercise.

The more ships "supporting" the ground operations, the faster it occurs, and the better the chances of success. Should the invading fleet leave or be destroyed, the planet re-asserts its defenses.
Fleet Stances: Light, Medium, Heavy collateral damage. High chance of damage to infrastructure and population over time, at the risk of high damage to the ships over time (to abstract loss of men and equipment).
Ship Modules: Marines. Ground Attack Vehicles. Atmospheric fighters. Droid Armies, etc. all give options to accelerate rate of invasion or chance of success.
Planetary Defenses: Ground fortifications, army barracks and installations (various types - tech) - all contribute to seeing off or slowing down the invasion.

And all this is done without requiring any micro from the player, except at the strategic level in terms of how fleets and ships are designed, or how many terrain squares is committed to defensive installations. Gives the player the option to design specialised fleets for planetary invasions.

New strategies .... combat fleets to secure star systems, and (optionally) specialised invasion fleets to secure planets, maintain blockades, or raid planets for resources/slaves.

 

[stumason]

I just don't understand the desire by some to "reduce micro" to the point where the player just sits back and watches stuff happen. I stopped playing HOI4 because they "simplified" it, making the game way to easy, less engaging and as shallow as a puddle on a hot day.

Actually having something to do is a good thing and what drew me to Paradox games is their depth and the things you can do - just take CK2 for example, one of PDS best sellers, yet it is a micro nightmare by some people's standards. Please for the love of all things holy don't dumb down Stellaris (any more than you already have) to appease those who can't actually be bothered to play a deep and involving game