Ground Combat

[Zenicetus]

With the Exterminatus mod, I do that sometimes...

But then all the other aliens hate me for it! Which is fine, I get that, but after your 10th time of turning a planet into a toxic sludgeball, you are pretty much the Stellaris version of Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot mixed together.

Or in sci-fi terms a Saberhagen Berserker, Mass Effect Reaper, or similar ideas. A machine intelligence programmed to reproduce itself and purge all organic life from the galaxy. Pest control, basically.

It's not my favorite way to play the game, but I like that it's an option.

 

[mudcrabmerchant]

I couldn't think of anything more dull and it detracts from the stated design aim of "making stories" - if all we're reduced to doing is blobbing planets until they surrender, without the planets so much as trying to fight back, an already barebones game becomes even thinner.

The only reason I am still playing this game at all is because of several mods which flesh out many of these features which lack meat (some of which is being addressed in the next patch, so I'll probably drop some mods), be they planetary buildings (vanilla has so few), techs and the space battles (which in vanilla consist of blob vs blob, winner takes all)

The only proper story of a planetary invasion is whether the population capitulates before they're bombed out of existence.

 

[ashbery76]

The only proper story of a planetary invasion is whether the population capitulates before they're bombed out of existence.

Not with a space Clinton.

 

[physics1915]

@physics1915 is pretty much right here.

On another note

I mean, a balancing nightmare, but do we really think that blue or red lasers (for example) could pierce the atmosphere and be weapons of mass destruction that you would need to reduce the planetary defenses? Not worth touching because of balance, I suppose because nukes are definitely viable and mass drivers are pretty viable as well (though you might need to make specialized ones to peirce planets.)

What if you had specialized bombardment weapon slots? That would mean that you would only be able to reduce enemies with either A. Armies or B. a fleet with significant "bombardment" stat?

Tricky to balance again, I recognize and it might not address the key problem.

It would make sense for Large and XL weapons to do exponentially more damage than smaller ones for bombardment purposes, thus limiting early game conquests. Perhaps a damage penalty for energy weapons due to atmospheric interference would work too; it would be good for balance if energy weapons reigned supreme in space, as they do now, but were virtually useless for planetary bombardment, while mass drivers might be at a disadvantage in space to space battles (low accuracy?), but could tear through stationary planetary defenses. Then if you attack anything bigger than a new colony with corvettes, you'll barely make a dent while taking heavy losses; and though you could still take a planet without destroying its defenses, by throwing enough assault ships/ships with assault modules at it, it would be a very, very expensive bloodbath.

With no planetary defences, perhaps something along the lines of 1 assault ship (taking up 1 hull point) per pop should provide a balanced battle. With defenses in tact, especially if upgrades have been built, maybe 5+ assault ships per pop and expect to lose a bunch of them...and if your assault ships are caught without an adequate escort, expect a slaughter.

This would also give more late-game variety in your fleets, you wouldn't merely optimize for fleet battles, but you optimize different fleets for different roles.

 

[alxgvr]

I think we need more units...
Like mix of xenowariors and humans = mutants.
Humans + robots = cyborgs.

It will make sense if transport capacity would not be expandable. More stronger units to fit limited slots for more successful invasion.

@Wiz , if you want to reduce micromanagement - cut that "fight modules" (or whatever) which are attached to every ground unit.
And if you will attach ground units to fleets, it will be less pain to build them. Like EU4 - select army (fleet), click "reinforcements', select units via fleet window, they will be builded automatically on nearest planets and moved to your fleet. No need to build them manually on planets, and transport to destination point.

P.S. yes, and let us build "Death Star"!

How about destroying planet instead of conquering it? You constructor ship builds "Death Star" station on planet's orbit, and it scorches all life from it, making it unhabitated. Like Prethotyns do.

 

[The_Red_Star]

The only proper story of a planetary invasion is whether the population capitulates before they're bombed out of existence.

The thing about soft scifi space opera and space fantasy is that it's not really concerned with realism beyond sufficient internal consistency to avoid breaking the suspension of disbelief for the majority of those consuming it. If the narrative demands an epic ground battle, then the narrative will receive one. Star Wars V would have been all the poorer for lacking the famous battle of Hoth (which would also not have been improved if it was cluttered with all manner of things to drag it from "world war two with a space aesthetic" to "modern military scifi wankery") where the Star Destroyers were kept at bay by little more than a single surface to orbit ion cannon and theater shield. Starship troopers would have been harmed as a story without the Klendathu drop.

It's a staple of the genre that Stellaris consciously places itself into, and thus it should be addressed in a manner befitting of soft science fiction and space fantasy operas. The hard science fiction boat sailed a very long time ago; never to return.

 

[Ephafn]

My issue with the current ground combat is not that it is not involved, but that it is pretty much an afterthought. Once a planet is besieged and I cannot free it, I assume it taken. Once I myself besiege a planet, I have the time to start pumping out cheap armies and bringing them by the time the shield is gone. And then I get to keep all those troops because none of them actually died (only took damage).

Making it such that assault armies always take damage that kill some of them would help. Or even better: make assault armies usable only once. For example, requires the construction of a dropship for each assault army (both built together to avoid UI annoyances). Once the dropship + assault army lands on a planet, the dropship is gone and the assault army acts as a defense army on that planet for now on (or until a replacement dropship is built).

 

[terrycloth]

Why not let defense armies attack ships in orbit? Or be able to build fighter squadrons as armies and have them launch strike craft at invading fleets?

But an easier (and probably moddable) solution is to make defensive stations cheaper (at least in upkeep) and more effective (probably by letting you build them closer together).

 

[Zcuron]

I think I can see Wiz's point in that there's a limited amount the user can handle before it becomes tedium, and the more 'tactical' you make something, the more focus you require from the user. With the way time passes in this game, the more there is to do in any particular sphere, the more you risk overwhelming the user should multiple things happen simultaneously. Pausing does exist, and is good for planning, but zooming back and forth between battles on opposite sides of the galaxy is already tedious in EUIV, though that's subjective in the end.

In this sense, you can't require user-input for both ground combat and space combat simultaneously, so if you want to have two 'tactical' systems, one will have to take place over time and be somewhat autonomous, as two 'micro-managing' tactical combat systems would be... unfriendly to the user. And if a choice has to be made between the two, I frankly don't know which ought to be the focus, as both seem viable options. But I think ground combat is more suited to a background mechanic, than space battles are. Campaigns stretching perhaps over a few months, requiring user input every now and then, where your choices have an effect over months. It seems a workable concept.

On the note of space-age ground combat, heavily arming any kind of large organized facilities just seems monumentally stupid to do. I'm naturally not familiar with space warfare, but it makes much more sense, to me, to intersperse the resistance amongst the population, as orbital bombardment will just massacre any heavy defenses you make.

So, ground combat could retain something of its current form, symbolizing the first engagement with the planet's inhabitants, with a continuing occupational presence required to suppress the population, gaining control of their production. But the idea of 'combat on the planet' could perhaps be better represented by a resistance movement amongst the population.

You could have it prompt the user, or put it among the policies, what the last//standing orders are for the pops being conquered. Prompting the user makes sense to me given the various stances on purging and orbital bombardment. Heavy resistance could be costly if one's enemy doesn't mind genocide;

• You could have a short-term heavy resistance, more overt and powerful but it burns out quickly.
  • This could perhaps weaken the defenses so that a recapture is easier.
• Or a long-term resistance, working in the shadows to hamper production and keep the population unhappy with their new suzerain.
  • This could play into the factions system, trying to spawn a rebellion or sabotage the planet's production.
  • Or if purged, could put a 'hidden resistance movement' modifier on the planet for a time. It seems unlikely that means other than bio-warfare could achieve total depopulation without effectively glassing, irradiating, or terraforming the planet. Though bio-warfare could be made a particularly relationship-damaging type of purge.
• Or you could opt to surrender.
  • This might keep the population safe as they are the acting agents in this hypothetical, and could die in their pursuit of freedom.

The ethos system could come in here, determining the focus of the resistance; (it will do multiple things, but pop ethos affects what's focused on, or perhaps how good they are at having the particular effect, with the focus being determined by either the user or the general, making them more relevant)

• Militarist - More focus on military resistance. (hampered defenses and such - higher chance of pop death?)
• Pacifist - Non-military resistance. (production slowing, seeding dissent and so forth)
• Materialist - More impact on 'production', sabotage of assets.
• Spiritualist - More impact on happiness, conversion of others.
• Individualist - Decreased duration of resistance.
• Hierarchical - Increased duration of resistance.

The above being an example, the details don't really matter, they're just illustrative.

So. The above is my attempt at a wiz-friendly 'ground combat//resistance' mechanic. I also believe it's my first post on this forum, though I might have forgot.

Lastly, while on the subject of ethos and the population, I think ethics divergence and such would make much more sense if the system was a set of sliders rather than outright categories. Where 'fanatic' would be 100-80%, 'normal' 80-60%, and 60-40% wouldn't have any particular effects. So a 'fanatic materialist' would be more than 80% on the material side of the materialist-spiritualist spectrum, then 'ethics divergence' would simply be the monthly movement spread across the different axes. It doesn't need to be directly visible, but as I understand the mechanic today, the divergence chance is a chance to change or add a category to one's ethos, whereas this would make it more apparent over time. Makes sense to me, but I digress.

 

[mudcrabmerchant]

The thing about soft scifi space opera and space fantasy is that it's not really concerned with realism beyond sufficient internal consistency to avoid breaking the suspension of disbelief for the majority of those consuming it. If the narrative demands an epic ground battle, then the narrative will receive one. Star Wars V would have been all the poorer for lacking the famous battle of Hoth (which would also not have been improved if it was cluttered with all manner of things to drag it from "world war two with a space aesthetic" to "modern military scifi wankery") where the Star Destroyers were kept at bay by little more than a single surface to orbit ion cannon and theater shield. Starship troopers would have been harmed as a story without the Klendathu drop.

It's a staple of the genre that Stellaris consciously places itself into, and thus it should be addressed in a manner befitting of soft science fiction and space fantasy operas. The hard science fiction boat sailed a very long time ago; never to return.

I understand that, and I can accept having the countdown timer tooltip mention armies landing. But as Wiz says, mechanically speaking it doesn't contribute to the game, and there's no reason you can't have a space opera that doesn't include every last space opera trope.

 

[Bob_Herzog]

Some of the suggestions here sound nice, if each war was like wars in either early game or quite small galaxies. If it was only a question of doing it for 2-4 planets per war more micro would be nice. But given the tiny amount of warscore each planet gives in a truly large conflict that would simply end up in becomeing a shore. I already loath assining each and every army a combat boost manualy in large conflicts (because you need quite a lot of them to not only invade but also hold planets when you go toe on toe with a 50+x planet empire). I certainly ignore the option for all those defence armies my sectors build.

And I have to agree with Wiz that the space combat decides the war in most cases anyway. Once one side lost the big fleet clash there is usually not come back since the other side now can destory all spaceports of that side. So the only reason to even field a massive army is that leaving already occupied planets unguarded can still be snatched back by landing a single army there (and those can be build anywhere regardless of spaceport or not).

 

[Haldan]

ayy

 

[The_Red_Star]

I understand that, and I can accept having the countdown timer tooltip mention armies landing. But as Wiz says, mechanically speaking it doesn't contribute to the game, and there's no reason you can't have a space opera that doesn't include every last space opera trope.

Space Combat itself is little more than a timer with some flashy animations you watch after slapping together a fleet and picking a place of engagement.

Ground combat can be more like that rather than anything particularly involved.

As I said, the Rebel Alliance could hold off Vader's entire fleet; including the Executor with nothing more than one ion cannon and a shield generator. So basically the equivalent of just two planetary improvements could greatly change the way combat works as ships cannot safely bombard planets without being devastated by a prepared defense; forcing the usage of ground troops so your fleet doesn't get demolished by planetary defenses. Ground troops can then be made about as involved as fleets; with more meaningful choices for unit composition and perhaps some simple animations in the ground combat progress tracking screen for a bit of eye candy.

 

[KopiG]

I already don't like ground combat and the heavy micromanagement it comes with. What I already do instead is that I have a blockade corvette fleet. This fleet I use to keep blockading planets by removing 1 corvette 1 by 1 and telling them to orbit a specific planet till the end of the war while my main fleet destroys the enemy's fleet. I am also curious why is a blockade worth more victory points than a planetary occupation? Shouldn't it be the other way around? Does not make sense and makes ground combat even less appealing for me to bother with.
So ground combat nay, more space combat yea.

 

[Aldahen]

Put simply, the idea that each planetary invasion should be some elaborate campaign in a game where you can have empires with hundreds of planets each is just a terrible idea from a scoping and development priority perspective. Every game should not have everything.

I'm so glad that there are clever people with clear vision maintaining a product I bought.

 

[Junkfist]

If I were to try to pinpoint the most important focus of Stellaris and the interactions between the space-faring alien governments, it would be Personality...people like making their unique races with all their influences and inspirations from popular culture and setting them out to encounter and engage in diplomacy with civilizations as weird as their own.

Nothing gets across the Personality of an empire more than Ground Combat and planetary conflict

Space lasers and exploding fleets look great, sure, but if conquering a Tropical jungle world of Solitary giant Leopard people with Individualism and Militarism feels the same as invading an Ocean planet of Spiritualist and Communal jellyfish?

Magic's gone. Story's not there. Investment's diminished.

The game will ultimately just feel like a pretty spreadsheet.

Whatever form it takes or mechanics get implemented to convey the feeling of empires viscerally clashing is a bigger conversation, but to say "No Ground Combat!" sounds as appetizing to me as "ribs, hold the meat".

 

[TempusxX]

I would rather never use armies and just have my fleet bomb a planet into submission which at that point they send a signal saying they surrender

 

[HP Delron]

I think ground combat is pretty much in a good spot already. I like that exists being able to click a "Land Troops" button and have guys take over is a good feature. I like that it isn't overly involved no troop designer or ground combat tactical map or anything, as that'd be a bit too granular and involved for the high-level space empire view of things. I do like that I have to buy & produce the troops from the planets, that has the proper feeling of an empire-wide effort. It works.

I have lots of minor tuning nitpicks I'd like to see (takes longer, fewer troop types etc...). However those are all easily taken care of in a mod.

What I would like to see in terms of a change is have troops be more a "Fleet Attachment" than their own thing. Currently the whole transports thing feels super tacked on and weird. I'd rather just be able to embark my troops into a fleet and drop them from a fleet. When the fleet moves the troops either move with it or stay on the planet rather than coming & going on their own.

 

[CastelloNova]

Put simply, the idea that each planetary invasion should be some elaborate campaign in a game where you can have empires with hundreds of planets each is just a terrible idea from a scoping and development priority perspective. Every game should not have everything.

This is incredibly disappointing. So much so that if i had know this at launch i would not have bought the game, as is if the limited amount we have is removed it would probably kill any remaining interest i have in this games development and future DLCs. We dont need tactical battles but even something like CK2 that takes place on the planets tiles would be a huge improvement.

 

[Philthy]

This is incredibly disappointing. So much so that if i had know this at launch i would not have bought the game, as is if the limited amount we have is removed it would probably kill any remaining interest i have in this games development and future DLCs. We dont need tactical battles but even something like CK2 that takes place on the planets tiles would be a huge improvement.

And have games go "very slow" during multiplayer? No, that's alright thanks.

TBH the tile game would have to be good enough that playing on very slow or slow would be compelling enough to focus on that and nothing else in your empire - which during a war is not such a guaranteed proposition. A land battle lasting a month could mean that your fleet is attacked from the side, or ships get around to get your starbases while you were in the tactical screen.

Don't take away what is there now, but no one is talking about doing that. It would be actively harmful to the game for us to manage troops once they land on a planet. If there were a tile system, we should have zero control. If we have zero control, it might as well be abstracted as it is now. Space combat being more interesting and engaging is where the focus should be. it's already compelling to watch, though a few strategies dominate.