On the Art of Ground Combat

[Comm Cody]

If this is in the wrong place mods, I am more than willing to move it, but I think this is best served being in the main forum, not the suggestion forum, which no one seems to read at all.


Ground Combat in a Space Game. Unknown, unloved, and a micromanagement hell. Stellaris has been out for about eh, six months now and has seen four major patches and two major DLCs. There is an upcoming patch and DLC going through dev diaries now with an unknown release date ( I have money bet that it will come out late February-early March, please feel free to prove me wrong devs ) Even the lead dev, Wiz has said that ground combat needs a rework, and hell, if Sectors can cause ¼ of this forum to be filled with complaints about how the Sector AI sucks, then allow me to fill up 1/10 of that ¼ with this post.

Common complaints are that attachments are useless and too fiddley, there is no use in defending, ground combat isn’t engaging, there’s no limit on how many armies you can have and that the transport/invasion aspect is too micromanaging. So I will offer my assessments on these five complaints, mention two mods that seem to be going in the right direction and explain why I think they are going in the right direction.



*Allow the AI to control attachments then or remove attachments (no one uses them, too fiddly, not enough bang for buck)

Side note, it is possible for armies to have up to four attachments (have not tested with more) but said attachments are locked behind experience of an army (and does not seem to work, an veteran army still only has one attachment slot when it should have two [may need to tinker with the file a bit more])


The issue here is that no one really like attachments, they don’t offer enough of a noticeable difference to an army, cost too much for too little effort and is pretty much micromanagement hell. Also, why add an attachment to an army when you could get another army for just about double the price of an attachment? Offer more choice in attachments, allow us to pre-choose attachments when building an army, allow us to use more attachments for more experienced armies, and make attachments have a noticeable effect. The Expanded Army Attachment mod adds in several attachments which certainly makes the armies more noticeable in difference.

This leads to the second issue

*put a width limit on invasions, limit attackers to 12 armies perhaps (need to stop just spam 100 assault armies and be done)

Why bother using any army besides Assault Armies? Why bother even defending a planet to the maximum capacity if the AI or the player can just spam 100 cheap assault armies or slave armies and be done with it? There is a limit on how many units can defend a planet, why is there not a limit on how many armies can attack a planet? With a limit on how many units can attack, then it would be more viable for you to put EFFORT into defending a planet. Or copy from HOI3/HOI4 and introduce a frontage system where any army above a certain limit is heavily penalized in damage and in morale.

Side note, speaking of AI planet invasions, have anyone EVER seen the AI invade one of their planet? I’ve been playing for about 460 hours and have never seen the AI invade one of my planet. Not sure if lucky or if the AI has the same issue with invasion as it does in the four other Paradox titles.



*or, change the system so that bigger planets can stack more armies on defense and attack, one army per tile perhaps? (could lead to ground invasion micro game [that's an issue] )

This would once again, make bigger planets harder to take and smaller planets easier to take. This does lead to the issue of micromanaging, hell, all three subjects I have touched on increase the micromanaging needed, which is a big X against it. Back to this, a ten tile planet could allow for 10 armies to be stationed on it and 15 armies to attack it, a 25 tile planet would allow for 25 armies to be stationed on it and 40 armies to attack it. The numbers would have to be determined with balancing. This could also lead to clamoring for a microgame in which you could control the armies invading the planet. (I’m not for it, too much work tbh)


*find a way to limit armies’ numbers.

Here is where I’d call on the Victoria II model of the army. You needed 1,000 solider pops to support a 3,000 men. If you didn’t have the pops, no army brigade. Larger countries with more solider pops could have a larger army and it snowballed from there. Of course, there was no upper limit on how many people could live in a province. While on planets, there’s a lower bound of 8-9 and a upper bound of 25 pops at the most, and there is no such thing as a solider pop in Victoria II. My idea behind this is that every army except for three (four-five?) are bound by the pop restriction. If you have three pops of super strong Groot, you are only going to get three armies of super strong Groot soldiers. Now the three that aren’t bound by pop standards are

Clone Armies (you can clone them with no problems)
Robot Armies (build more robots)
Droid Armies (build more droids)

Now, this can be unfair, because this will allow bigger countries to snowball over the smaller countries, so I can agree with the idea that perhaps Defense armies should NOT be restricted by POP bounds. I think they should be restricted, but I can see how that could hurt smaller countries. Ethos could be factored in, Pacifism requiring two pops to make one army, but they get cheaper defense armies and Militarism allow half a pop to make one army. Not sure if government ethics or species ethics should be used for this. I’d say the species ethics should be used, but seeing that the 1.5 patch is only allowing one ethic per pop, might not work or probably will handicap this idea.



*attach armies to ships and make it so that when a planet reaches 0 fortifcation, the ships take it over (then what could defense armies do?)

This would probably remove the transport ship requirement and heavily simplify the ground combat system to the point where armies would be removed and gone. Wiz has made it clear that armies will not be removed, but this is a potential option.




I am going to mention two mods that I use that I find make the ground combat game a bit more fun and less ‘lol attacker spams 100 slave armies and wins, btfo’ Bolded parts are the parts that I think are done right and make the ground game more enjoyable to me.

Ground Combat Evolved by shuulleech

- Orbital bombardment takes much longer and has severe effect on infrastructure. Light bombardment is now mostly precise strikes against military targets and will not damage infrastructure. Full bombardment will cause collateral damage and you can wipe planet with it, but it will take some time.

FINALLY, I CAN KILL THE XENO SCUM

- To kill any POP fortification must be reduced below 1%. For building to be destroyed fortification must be reduced below 50%.
But I have to bombard the HELL out of them.

- Ground combat now takes much longer and there are less Win-Or-Loose situations, sometimes you will need multiple attacks to take the planet.
Still doesn’t solve the spam 100 slave armies issue but it’s a start.

- All armies are now rebalanced with increased cost and maintenance, but they are more powerful. Less armies needed so less micro. Damaged armies regen slowly and have 3x maintnance cost during regen to make planet assault a bit more impactfull to attacker economy.
Yes, make it more expensive to maintain armies, which require a decent economy to support your army.

- Garrisons now make sense.
The spawnable POP garrisions, they’re okay, but they only take on the trait of your founder species. Bit sad to see Human garrisons on a planet full of super strong space horses.

- Max armies on planet is now 10 - less micro. Z

I disagree with a low limit, I’d put the limit at 30 seeing that size of a planet makes no difference at the moment

- Opinion mauluses for using Limited and Full bombardment for Xenophile and Pacifist empires as bombardment is quite powerful now (Pacifists really dont like bombs now!).
Can’t argue against this. Cheese eating surrender birds don’t like me to purge the world clean in hell fire.


SD's Ground Combat Evolved Tweaks by SalsaDoom

- Makes planetary bombardment quicker in most cases so AI can actually attack usually
Haven’t really noticed this much, /shrug

- Planetary shield generator MASSIVELY buffed +300% fortifications so you can make a "fortress world"
Makes sense. A 50% buff is just weak.

- Defensive armies are MORE powerful than most assault armies
I absolutely agree with this. If I can’t transport my defense armies, they better be a lot stronger than my assault armies. And this ties back into trying to counter the ‘spam 100 slave armies and win lol’

- *No limit* on number of armies on a planet now
Disagree here; you end up seeing in the 2300s a planet with like 30-40 armies on it. Bit too over powered for my tastes.

- Fortification bonus's increased, and defenders suffer no penalty for no fortifications
YES YES YES. At 0 fortification the defenders should be on level playing ground with me, at 100% fortification, I should be really regretting a decision to assault or I better have a numerical advantage over the defender.

I’d also like to give a shot out to Enhanced Army Attachment by Raumfahrer Spiff which added in more army attachments and tech to go along with it. It is compatible with 1.4.1 and works well with GCE and SD’s tweaks

Another shout out to Prepare for Ground Assault by Ventessel who inspired Ground Combat Evolved and was perhaps the first modder for the ground combat aspect of Stellaris

And a final annoying shout out to Starfoth The Burgundy Silk Rug for his Tougher Primitives mod which is sadly outdated but made it much fun to invade those damned primitives

In short, I like this game, I want to like the ground combat system, but there are issues with it that need to be solved. While most of these proposals are unfeasible in the current version, I believe that Paradox needs to consider looking at how the modders on the Steam Workshop and in the Forum Modding section are trying to solve or balance ground combat before they consider radical changes or no changes to the current system.

-Cody

Feel free to comment on this and to quote this post out of context.


tl;dr, I spent 50 minutes typing this up, you go back and read this.

 

[smjjames]

I'd like to add one.

Make stronger ground defenders for mid and late game.

If the enemy gets stronger, it only makes sense to make your defenders stronger. With assault armies, you have to bombard the defenses down, otherwise your assault units will get shredded. However, with 12 gene warriors (and using a species with the strong trait), I don't even need to bombard at all, just plop them down and they'll win easily.

To use EUIV metaphorically, it's like being forced to use tier one fortifications the whole game while armies get stronger technologically and in strength.

*Allow the AI to control attachments then or remove attachments (no one uses them, too fiddly, not enough bang for buck)

Side note, it is possible for armies to have up to four attachments (have not tested with more) but said attachments are locked behind experience of an army (and does not seem to work, an veteran army still only has one attachment slot when it should have two [may need to tinker with the file a bit more])

I agree here, I never use them as it's too fiddly to open every single army (defenders especially) and put them in one at a time. Besides, I can fight just fine without them.

 

[The Founder]

*Allow the AI to control attachments then or remove attachments (no one uses them, too fiddly, not enough bang for buck)

Side note, it is possible for armies to have up to four attachments (have not tested with more) but said attachments are locked behind experience of an army (and does not seem to work, an veteran army still only has one attachment slot when it should have two [may need to tinker with the file a bit more])


The issue here is that no one really like attachments, they don’t offer enough of a noticeable difference to an army, cost too much for too little effort and is pretty much micromanagement hell. Also, why add an attachment to an army when you could get another army for just about double the price of an attachment? Offer more choice in attachments, allow us to pre-choose attachments when building an army, allow us to use more attachments for more experienced armies, and make attachments have a noticeable effect. The Expanded Army Attachment mod adds in several attachments which certainly makes the armies more noticeable in difference.

Attachments make sense on defending armies at least. You can not just bring more of them. The moment the armies are limited, Attachments make sense.
The other army also costs energy resources and production time. Wich is very high for later armies. I agree on allowing us to select the attachment when building.

It is interesting that you could mod an amry to have 4 attachments. Implies that something likethat was at least planned during production, if the code is still around.

*put a width limit on invasions, limit attackers to 12 armies perhaps (need to stop just spam 100 assault armies and be done)

Why bother using any army besides Assault Armies? Why bother even defending a planet to the maximum capacity if the AI or the player can just spam 100 cheap assault armies or slave armies and be done with it? There is a limit on how many units can defend a planet, why is there not a limit on how many armies can attack a planet? With a limit on how many units can attack, then it would be more viable for you to put EFFORT into defending a planet. Or copy from HOI3/HOI4 and introduce a frontage system where any army above a certain limit is heavily penalized in damage and in morale.

Side note, speaking of AI planet invasions, have anyone EVER seen the AI invade one of their planet? I’ve been playing for about 460 hours and have never seen the AI invade one of my planet. Not sure if lucky or if the AI has the same issue with invasion as it does in the four other Paradox titles.

Defense amries have one big advantage: They cost less maintenance. If you plan to put a 12-stack on every planet in your empire, those differences mater. A LOT.
However they do not scale with technology at all. Maybe add a passive health, morale and damage bonus to them and garissions for every Army tech you unlocked?

If it was limited with how many can attack, then higher number empire would still win. It would just throw additional armies onto the planet as soon as slots become vacant. The attacker would be more likely to take damage/losses. But the superior force would still win.

Yes, the AI does invade. I have even seen it throw superior armies onto planets with full defenses. Because they could totally take it.

*or, change the system so that bigger planets can stack more armies on defense and attack, one army per tile perhaps? (could lead to ground invasion micro game [that's an issue] )

This would once again, make bigger planets harder to take and smaller planets easier to take. This does lead to the issue of micromanaging, hell, all three subjects I have touched on increase the micromanaging needed, which is a big X against it. Back to this, a ten tile planet could allow for 10 armies to be stationed on it and 15 armies to attack it, a 25 tile planet would allow for 25 armies to be stationed on it and 40 armies to attack it. The numbers would have to be determined with balancing. This could also lead to clamoring for a microgame in which you could control the armies invading the planet. (I’m not for it, too much work tbh)

That bigger planets can stack more armies is supposeldy solved via the Garissions.

*attach armies to ships and make it so that when a planet reaches 0 fortifcation, the ships take it over (then what could defense armies do?)

This would probably remove the transport ship requirement and heavily simplify the ground combat system to the point where armies would be removed and gone. Wiz has made it clear that armies will not be removed, but this is a potential option.

That would propably be the simplest solution, especially for the AI.
The AI is terrible at rebuilding armies or prebuilding them. Basically the admiral can order a bombardment. And can order the existing troops to attack. But it can not order any planet to build a new army. It has to wait until there is money in the Budget for it (quite literally, that is what the game calls it - a Army Budget).
Just rolling them into the Fleet would make the Admiral AI operate much smoother.

I would propably add some damage from planets to fleets during bombardment (as long as fortificaitons are left).

Funny enough, it might be possible to code that in right now.

Ground Combat Evolved by shuulleech

- Orbital bombardment takes much longer and has severe effect on infrastructure. Light bombardment is now mostly precise strikes against military targets and will not damage infrastructure. Full bombardment will cause collateral damage and you can wipe planet with it, but it will take some time.

FINALLY, I CAN KILL THE XENO SCUM

- To kill any POP fortification must be reduced below 1%. For building to be destroyed fortification must be reduced below 50%.
But I have to bombard the HELL out of them.

- Ground combat now takes much longer and there are less Win-Or-Loose situations, sometimes you will need multiple attacks to take the planet.
Still doesn’t solve the spam 100 slave armies issue but it’s a start.

- All armies are now rebalanced with increased cost and maintenance, but they are more powerful. Less armies needed so less micro. Damaged armies regen slowly and have 3x maintnance cost during regen to make planet assault a bit more impactfull to attacker economy.
Yes, make it more expensive to maintain armies, which require a decent economy to support your army.

- Garrisons now make sense.
The spawnable POP garrisions, they’re okay, but they only take on the trait of your founder species. Bit sad to see Human garrisons on a planet full of super strong space horses.

Actually the Destruction of Pops and Infrasturcture is a unwanted side effect of the Orbital Bombardment. It is not a feature, it is a bug. Even if you plan to purge the pops anyway, the buildings work just as well for your colonsits.
Purging via Bombardment in turn is a bug, not a feature. You should not be able to get around the Purge penalty. Well, we have to see how the Purge rework will look.

- Fortification bonus's increased, and defenders suffer no penalty for no fortifications
YES YES YES. At 0 fortification the defenders should be on level playing ground with me, at 100% fortification, I should be really regretting a decision to assault or I better have a numerical advantage over the defender.

One side having a fully armed battlefleet in orbit that can shell the defenders with impunity is far from a "level playing field".
As I see it, Fortifications are stuff like Airbases. May be able to intercept a orbital ordonance and space-based bombers from the enemy fleet. You having air superiority switched to the enemy having it.
That (together with armies being able to heal) could be a positive effect of the planetary shield generator. With teh shield creating a "Hoth Effect".

 

[Comm Cody]

It is interesting that you could mod an amry to have 4 attachments. Implies that something likethat was at least planned during production, if the code is still around.

It can be done, the issue is that the three new slot are locked behind army experience, and that seems to be bugged.

 

[Dalinski]

Love it and agree to most of these items.

would love to see some species dependent attributes affecting ground combat even more (subterranean & special trait that gives a symbiosis bonus when fighting on your habitat)

 

[Dalinski]

I'd also like to see rebel armies that grow but are difficult to "find"

 

[Crenickator]

I would like to add one thing:

Planets will shoot back at enemy ships in range, the effect being similar to a minefield around every inhabited planet, damage over time with possibility to evade. Parking a fleet in orbit to bombard a planet should not be a riskless endeavor. Having defensive armies on a planet should buff the effect, so a planet bursting its seams with defenders will be both a difficult thing to bombard and a difficult thing to assault. Additional buildings, such as the Planetary Shield Generator, should also be available to buff defense.

 

[Corvid]

I would like to add one thing:

Planets will shoot back at enemy ships in range, the effect being similar to a minefield around every inhabited planet, damage over time with possibility to evade. Parking a fleet in orbit to bombard a planet should not be a riskless endeavor. Having defensive armies on a planet should buff the effect, so a planet bursting its seams with defenders will be both a difficult thing to bombard and a difficult thing to assault. Additional buildings, such as the Planetary Shield Generator, should also be available to buff defense.

I think one way to make planets sting more is allowing you to put fighter and bomber hangars on planet tiles. Upgradeable to hardened hangars(presumably underground, safe from bombardments).

That way you can launch attacks on the fleet in orbit, possibly in conjunction with a relief fleet coming in to try to break the blockade.

I wrote a lengthy exposition on ground combat in Stellaris over on Reddit, probably also relevant to this discussion.

Ground combat is such an important trope of science fiction, particularly military science fiction that you can't just hand-waive it away. You have to do it properly.

I´ve been thinking about it a lot in the last few days in response to just about all the misgivings you mention in your post - a game this complex and ambitious in scope NEEDS a ground combat system that does it justice.

So here is a rough sketch of how I imagine things might work(I´m gonna cross-post this into the pinned post on what people want to see in Stellaris as well).

First, some concepts to keep in mind:

Thou shalt not be tempted by descending into micromanagement - complexity must be injected into the system, not by demanding that the player change things on the fly

Thou shalt craft a system that allows for multiple means to suceed - there should be no one "no-brainer" army build that trumps all others. For different planets defended by different forces, there should be more than one army build that is likely to suceed.

Thou shalt integrate ground combat into the wider strategic game, particularly space warfare.

OK, so here are the basics:

A ground war now has four phases:

Shock
Maneuver
Attrition
Occupation

The Shock Phase is short in time duration but very, very bloody. This is the initial invasion with drop pods falling from the sky, massive fighting, skylines on fire, orbital bombardment raining down and the ground defenses belching fire towards the incoming enemy. Both sides take massive damage, although by default the attacker eats proportionately more casualties in this phase, especially against an entrenced defensive force. If the defender is decisively beaten in this phase, the savage shock of the invasion is enogh to shatter the defenders and force the capitulation of the planet. Proceed straight to the Occupation phase. If the defenders win, the invasion force is rebuffed "on the beaches" so to speak, and whatever remains of it must retreat back into orbit or be destroyed. The war ends with substantial warscore going to the defenders. If both sides are still in the fight when the time runs out for the Shock phase, proceed to the Maneuver phase. In the Shock phase attrition, logistics and environmental factors do not factor into things as much as later on, given the short, sharp nature of the fighting in it.

The Maneuver phase is mechanized warfare as we generally envision it. The invader has established a foohold on the surface, he controls some regions but not others, and massive armies clash on sea, air and land to shatter each other. This phase is much longer than the shock phase and can easily last for several years or even close to a decade in extreme cases. The rate of casualties decreases substantially from the Shock phase though. Attrition and supply factors begin to weigh much more heavily on both attackers and defenders at this point, although not as heavily as later. Terrain bonuses, both racial and due to doctrines/attatchments, however are king in this phase, as does having a competent general.

If the attackers win in this phase, they have forced the enemy to surrender through their brilliant warfighting, and proceed to the Occupation phase. If the defenders win, they have outmaneuvered the invader, who must now eiher retreat off the planet if he still has a fleet in orbit, or if that exit route is bloced, must endure the humilitation of surrender. If the battle is still undecided, proceed to the dreaded....

Attrition phase! At this point the fighting has become decidedly bogged down. The armies have been clashing for years, the battle lines have either become entirely static in a global re-creation of the First World War, or disappeared entirely as attacker and defender have become embroiled in asymmetrical warfare with no safe haven anywhere.

Attrition can go on for a LONG time. Decades even. Most casualties are now due to terrain/supply induced attriton than actual fighting between the armies. At this point whoever can keep their armies properly supplied is likely to be able to last longer, but keeping an invading army in the field under these conditions is expensive as hell, and unless an invader can somehow break the deadlock, he may be better off just voluntary disengaging and nuking the planet from orbit. It's the only way to make sure. It is in this phase that pops start to have a not-insignificant chance of dying, and terrain blockers of "bullet-riddled wasteland" start popping up.

The final phase is the occupation phase. The attacker has now total nominal control of the planet, and all formal military resistance has ceased. But in this system, the war isn't really over until the peace treaty is signed. This phase can be really easy or really challenging for the invader, depending on his supply situation, how adapted to the terrain he is, and how warlike the native population is. Regardless, a certain amount of men under arms need to be kept on the surface to keep the planet under control lest a rebellion break out.

This kind of system allows you to have a massive variation in the length and character of wars, and you will need troops with different skills and equipment at different phases of the war. If the war on a desert planet has bogged down in a game of attrition, sending elite shock troops isn't the ideal solution. Better to send troops with modifiers that allow for decreased attrition, improved supply and adaptability to the terrain. Attrition due to environmental and supply factors decrease...but they do not go away completely.

This means occupying many planets in a single war is expensive as hell to maintain.

No more defensive or offensive armies. Instead, each army is comprised of three Corps. Each Corps can be Robotic, Synth, or any alien species resident in your territory.

Each Corps, when raised, is given a Doctrine. This is essentially how they are trained and represents their skillset rather than their equipment. Some Doctrines are good for all-round operations,while others give specialized bonuses under certain conditions while decreasing efficiency in other situations. For example: an elite corps trained in shock-tactic orbital assaults in the face of enemy resistance are unlikely to be well-suited to patrolling the streets of an occupied planet, and vice versa.

Each Corps is also given an attachment similar to the ones armies get now. This represents specialized equipment given to the Corps to aid in it's mission. Stuff like "Heavy Armor Support" or "Close Air Suppor", or "Robotic Logistics System" that reduces the need for supply. The sky's the limit when it comes to these, and the combination of Doctrine and Attatchment alone create immense variety when combined with the Shock/Maneuver/Attrition/Occupation system.

Then, with three Corps to an Army, you can create synergistic effects of grouping together say, Corps with different attatchments, or certain combinations of Doctrines and Attachments etc... Example: All corps have the doctrine "Maneuver Warfare", while 1 Corps has Armor Support attachment, one has Close Air Support, and the third has Amphibious Support. The whole army now gains a bonus for fulfilling the preconditiosn for "Combined Arms Warfare", giving substantial bonuses in the Maneuver phase of combat. You get the picture.

Each invading army also has a supply line back to its home systems. This is essentially a colored line in space that when hovered over shows how much energy, minerals etc. the army is drawing to remain fully functional. Send a warfleet to step on the supply hose and the ground army begins to function at a greatly reduced level of effectiveness. The opponent must therefore keep his supply lines clear, and not try to launch an invasion too deep in enemy territory.

 

[Crenickator]

I think one way to make planets sting more is allowing you to put fighter and bomber hangars on planet tiles. Upgradeable to hardened hangars(presumably underground, safe from bombardments).

Yes, that would be nice. Fighters and bombers may already be a part of the "planet shooting back" part, but additional buildings should exist for those so inclined to make a fortress world.

In my mind, defensive armies are the backbone of this idea. They can't leave the planet, currently can't do anything unless attacked, and there's a cap on defenders but no cap on attackers. They're next to worthless. They need some utility, and shooting back at enemy fleets suddenly makes them enormously useful, even without a cap on attackers (though that's also needed).
Planetside Hangars, Orbital Gun Emplacements, Subterranean Bunkers, Planetary Shield Generators, and other things will increase the effectiveness of defending armies in one way or another, but will require Defensive Armies to work at all. Planets won't shoot back if there's no one to man the guns. This also aids in Tall vs. Wide play, as you'll need many more resources to man and fortify many worlds.

 

[rcasale]

I like the sounds of those mods you mentioned. I'll have to give Ground Combat Evolved a try.

 

[Comm Cody]

I think one way to make planets sting more is allowing you to put fighter and bomber hangars on planet tiles. Upgradeable to hardened hangars(presumably underground, safe from bombardments).

That way you can launch attacks on the fleet in orbit, possibly in conjunction with a relief fleet coming in to try to break the blockade.

I wrote a lengthy exposition on ground combat in Stellaris over on Reddit, probably also relevant to this discussion.

Ah, you were the one who wrote that?

That post inspired me to write this up, so thanks!

I will admit, your ideas are pretty good and I'd love to see them in game.

 

[Valyrian_Knight]

Everything that could make the combat system better is welcome, because it isn't really good right now.

 

[Shachza]

I know nobody likes a clone, but I was always impressed by the pre-ground combat options planets could field in Master of Orion 2.

IIRC Planetary Shields prevented landings and had to be shot down for that to even be attempted. They also protected the other buildings from bombardment to greater or lesser extents.

The "other buildings" were generally of 4 types: a ground battery supplied with the "best" general weapons your empire had available (spaceports already get this option, though its built in at the beginning rather than constructed later), a ground hangar witha complement of the best fighters/bombers your empire had (it would restock itself even in combat), a missile battery much like the two already mentioned, and then a ground-to-space "superlaser" (a high end tech).

These would take part any nearby space battles, and would have to be dealt with before any invasion. Was very disappointed to find Stellaris had nothing like that.

Yet.

 

[The Founder]

These would take part any nearby space battles, and would have to be dealt with before any invasion. Was very disappointed to find Stellaris had nothing like that.

The question is if that translates. As with any defensive structure, the attacker could just bring more ships.

 

[Ixal]

The question is do we really need a other rather limited layer of gameplay? And would expanding this layer really add to the fun? I don't think so. Stellaris is first and formost a space game and making ground combat even more complex and fiddly does't add to the game but distract from it.

Instead I would remove ground combat in its current version and instead add several ways to conquer a planet.

1. Force a planet to surrender by setting up planetbuster weapons in the system
Pro: Safe for the attacker as the weapon can be build far away from the planet.
Con: Need to be constructed in system as the weapon is too large for a ship (until late game) and has to be guarded.
Once the weapon is finished enemy morale quickly deteriorates and the planet surrenders.

2. Sap the morale of the enemy by orbital bombardment
Pro: Quick and low tech, just have your fleet start dropping bombs until the defenders are decimated and surrender
Con: You take damage as planets can shoot back. Also it damages the planet (but maybe thats exactly what you want?)

3. Blockade the planet until it surrenders
Pro: Works really well against planets that are not self sufficient (might require new mechanics to determine that)
Con: If they are self sufficient it won't work at all.

There can be other methods like propaganda warfare etc. when Stellaris gets more mechanics like culture, etc. but I think those 3 (or even just the first 2) would be better than ground combat.

 

[Corvid]

The question is do we really need a other rather limited layer of gameplay? And would expanding this layer really add to the fun? I don't think so. Stellaris is first and formost a space game and making ground combat even more complex and fiddly does't add to the game but distract from it.

I disagree vehemently and completely. Not only is futuristic ground combat stylistically an integral part of much of military science fiction, but I think improving and more efficiently integrating ground combat into Stellaris and combining it with a supply line system is fundamental to fixing the problems with space combat i.e the Doomstack problem.

My argument is that people doomstack because that is the most efficient way to win the way things are now, and that it is that way because warfare in Stellaris simply isn't positional in nature.

Planets need to become bountiful islands in an ocean of nothingness, their capture needs to be essential to driving further into enemy territory, and denying an invading enemy the capture of said planets is a key strategy in keeping the invader out of your core systems while you raise enough fleets to go meet him.

Again: warfare has to become positional in order to become interesting and fun.

 

[Tyrannical Prince]

I think more varied units would be better for the ground combat part of the game.
armies are good and all but there are 3 layers to the ground combat game.

How about planets can build nukes that could be launched at attackers both in space/in orbit/on the ground.
What about satellites that could be deployed after the invasion starts (and the enemy fleet is not in close proximity)
What about "flying" units that operate in the second layer. Suborbital Fighter squadrons, or maybe independence day style city killers
Would be nice actually if you could have fighters that could operate in space and in orbit
One thing that I think would be useful would be if the defender (or maybe the attacker too) could "hide" their armies. Say you're defending and the battle isn't going well. You could "hide" your troops, surrendering the planet but preserving your armies for a future "rebellion" to activate at a later time

 

[Cordane]

I had previously written up a set of suggestions under Ground Combat IS Science Fiction:

I think the major reason why we don't have a marginally realistic planetary invasion/defense setup is that there is No Sense Of Scale, in virtually anything in this game. The defensive armies for a moderately developed planet should number in the millions, if not tens of millions. Assuming any decent level of investment in defense, the defensive "armies" should not be just infantry, but mechanized and armored ground forces, air interdiction forces, and surface-to-orbit space fighters (and SFs should be available much earlier than current).

Fixed defensive armies (ones that cannot transport to another planet) could be built out like multi-tiered space stations, being placed on a tile in a secondary "plane" over the existing production tile. Each army tile or "base" would start off with just the first unit of troops, etc., along with basic fortifications for their equipment - if the base is completely "defeated", then the army would have more difficulty stopping invading forces. But while it's intact, it can have systems installed to help defend the planet. Install surface-to-orbit weapons, with shields and armor similar to military ships (protects the weapons and the troops). Add VTOL transports for extended range from base for the army to respond to invasion forces (e.g., a Tier 0 "empty" transport slot would only be able to immediately defend the next tile over, while a Tier 3 would cover the entire planet (even 25 tiles) from one corner, allowing more armies to immediately respond to any landing). Add space fighter booster launchers for pre-bombardment defense support, or aero-fighter hangars to start invader casualties during the insertion phase (bombardment fleet carriers can have their hangar craft run counter-interdiction to keep losses down here). Until you can build the larger bases, each army would have to establish their own base on a separate planetary tile.

What do you do with tenant assault armies? One possibility is that assault armies are based on a given planet, using the same type of bases as defensive armies, but with a larger army slot required to account for the transport launch facilities and/or logistics stockpiles. Assault armies can re-base to another planet, especially if you're training them on an academy planet, with the re-basing taking a number of months and requiring a compliant base on the new planet. They can also bivouac to another planet in a defensive role, putting down a temporary base, with (at first) minimal counter-attack fortifications and supporting installations - advanced technologies and additional home-base modules would allow for transporting more extensive facilities (possibly including defensive S2O weapons) through space.

Invading assault armies use similar systems to attack a planet. First is the initial "beachhead" phase, where the first tiles are attacked (default to the least defended - fortifications and aero-transportable armies elsewhere on the planet). Once those bases are defeated, the invasion force establishes their bivouacs and starts bringing in additional forces that launch out attacks like a defensive army aero-transports to support other tiles (or even counter-attack the bivouacs). Assault armies can even upgrade their bivouacs to include police forces that are more accomplished at pacifying occupied planets without resorting to overly aggressive tactics (i.e., less discontent during occupation). If a given bivouac isn't big enough to support the number of armies you want planet side, you will probably have to do another landing under fire or you might be able to route them through the initial bivouac (takes longer but safer).

How much should these armies and bases cost? The different sizes of military ships and (modded?) stations set a decent standard for the improved bases, so the army would cost probably close to what it does now, but with a fully kitted-out Tier 1 base costing probably the same as a comparably equipped Corvette or Destroyer and going up from there. But a Tier 1 base can take more than one defensive army and higher-level bases taking even more. I would probably set up some standard base designs, but I would want to avoid too strict of an upgrade path, to allow for some of the individualized improvements (e.g., maybe move the planetary shields or military academies here). I admit I haven't really used the army attachments, so I can't speak to how my modules would compare to attachments in pretty much any way.

Would it be easier to start the game with "armies" that are closer to Earth/human army divisions (approximately 10-20,000 human-like soldiers)? And then have either a consolidation unit (combine similar type/size units) or a larger starting unit like a "corps" (several divisions, 30-60,000 soldiers) or even an actual "army" (multiple corps, 100-150K), for ease of management? The smaller assault units would likely fit into one Colony Ship-size vessel (once they're appropriately sized), with larger units taking more vessels or even bigger ones.

Bombardment fleet ships could include accessory modules to improve their bombardment effectiveness with their regular weapons, or possibly be outfitted extensively with bombardment-class weapons. Pure bombardment ships would be well suited to that duty, allowing open-space fleets to move quickly onto other targets, but might be ill prepared to defend against a counter attack without an escort fleet.

That's all I've got for now - I apologize for the infodump. Please let me know if you have any counter ideas, and I'll see if I have anything more on this subject later.

I've since had an opportunity to think about this further, and I think the real way to handle armies is with a very similar format to warships. Unlike warships, armies can be upgraded not just in components but in size - a starting unit may be in the division range, and then upgrade to corps level and finally to "army" status (similar to destroyer, cruiser, battleship). Each unit would be composed of multiple modules:

1. Core species and type (e.g., Strong arthropoid defender, droid assault)
2. Fortifications or Transports (depending on type of army)
   
3. Response or Invasion support (e.g., aero interdiction fighters, heavy armored vehicles, shuttle escorts)
4. Auxiliary (other modifiers, some specific to type)

Each land unit starts off similar to how warships do, with new unit sizes being akin to ship classes and a new auto-generated unit being generated, usually with the dominant species for the base troops. An empire that has integrated additional species should be able to build new units on all of their planets using whichever species they want, but if you try to build the unit on a planet that doesn't have that particular species in residence, you would see increased build costs, build time, and upkeep.

Defensive units would then pick the Fortification module that best suits what they're after, including surface-to-orbit weapons (which can include hangar craft) and shield/armor/PD components. (Question: would you want surface weapons to have anything beyond anti-blockade/bombardment range, i.e., could they help defend the spaceport?) At the same stage, assault units would kit out their FTL Transport ships, with similar components to what is currently in the game.

Response or Invasion support would include components that impact the insertion phase (e.g., aero-interdiction fighters would be able to cause damage to attackers, while shuttle escorts would greatly limit damage) and the movement across tiles once landed (e.g., defenders are fixed to their fortifications but can aero-deploy to any tile they can reach, while attackers make landfall and then can expand out to any tiles that don't have defensive units stationed there).

Auxiliary components can include some command & control, sensors, and other things that might impact the entire battlescape (e.g., planetary shield emitters, police forces).

I would set up Transport fleets using a rally system, where individual assault units can land on their own planets separately, but when a call goes out to assemble the fleet, the units would embark and then rally to their "flagship" unit in orbit. Transport fleets can be brought to a planet to invade, where their stance can be set to automatically launch once the average fortifications are below different thresholds. The AI will normally frontload larger and/or stronger assault units during the beachhead phase, but you can also send your cannon fodder units in first (i.e., to ensure the good units make it to the surface).

Attackers need to make their beachhead on an open (no defensive unit) tile - AI will tend to make landfall either on an already open tile or on the least defended tile (which takes longer). Once landed, that assault unit is no longer subject to interdiction and can get to task clearing more room for other units or defeating specific defenders (e.g., one that has a planetary shield) - the AI will weigh out which objectives are more impactful. They can try to make landfall on more than one tile at a time, as well.

Once an invasion is successful (i.e., all defensive units are defeated), the assault units in the fleet will sort out to determine how many units staying behind will be necessary to maintain a given level of control. The player or AI can accept the recommendation and the fleet will one-click split to meet that need, or pick the units they want until they've reached the recommended level.

I probably have more, but I'm too tired to put more in now.

 

[Chapter Serf]

Just gonna toss this here:
https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/foru...uld-not-be-the-top-tier.993137/#post-22286082

Seems a bit more relevant here than it does there.

 

[Zarathustra_the]

I will be honest the lack of proper focus on ground warfare in Stellaris makes me increasingly dispair with the game itself. I really wanted something more, Space and Land Combat, that was what sold me, well that and victoria II style pops... The more I hear of streamlining ground combat out of existence, the more I regret purchasing the game, and that is feeling I don't like getting from a Paradox game.