On the Art of Ground Combat

[Ixal]

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.

If you want to go that way you also have to realize that the idea to invade capitial planets with ground forces is extremely silly as you would need millions of ships to transport and supply an army which has a chance to conquer the planet. Instead "gunboat diplomacy" would be used.

From a gameplay point of view ground armies only add unnecessary micromanagement to the game with hardly any benefit as they are only used for one very specific thing. Instead abstract the whole system and improve other aspects of gameplay instead.

Doomstacking etc. is a completely different topic and has nothing to do with ground combat.

 

[Cordane]

If you want to go that way you also have to realize that the idea to invade capitial planets with ground forces is extremely silly as you would need millions of ships to transport and supply an army which has a chance to conquer the planet. Instead "gunboat diplomacy" would be used.

From a gameplay point of view ground armies only add unnecessary micromanagement to the game with hardly any benefit as they are only used for one very specific thing. Instead abstract the whole system and improve other aspects of gameplay instead.

Doomstacking etc. is a completely different topic and has nothing to do with ground combat.

I think that bringing up the doomstacks is meant to point out that there isn't much of any strategy in the game at all - one big hammer, and everything (fleets, stations, planets) is just nails. For those that would prefer a more simplistic planetary attack model, removing either separate transports (and somehow integrating them into warship fleets*) or armies altogether makes sense to them, but that just exacerbates that hammer mentality.

* I think you can already see that a planetary invasion would be logically a lot bigger and harder than Stellaris has made it out to be now - although you may have overshot how much by an order of magnitude or two, but even that is well beyond what has been done thus far. But I don't think that every planet - at least early on - would have the same kind of hyper-developed defenses of a homeworld (at least as presented in Stellaris - I actually would prefer a system that emphasizes homeworlds even more).

Planets have nearly everything that an invading empire wants and that a defending empire has, yet you would want to essentially just have the attacking fleet show up and go, "Alright, everything here is ours," either without a fight from the planet or with even MORE abstraction than we have now? Can't get behind that, but enjoy your hammer.

 

[Ixal]

I think that bringing up the doomstacks is meant to point out that there isn't much of any strategy in the game at all - one big hammer, and everything (fleets, stations, planets) is just nails. For those that would prefer a more simplistic planetary attack model, removing either separate transports (and somehow integrating them into warship fleets*) or armies altogether makes sense to them, but that just exacerbates that hammer mentality.

* I think you can already see that a planetary invasion would be logically a lot bigger and harder than Stellaris has made it out to be now - although you may have overshot how much by an order of magnitude or two, but even that is well beyond what has been done thus far. But I don't think that every planet - at least early on - would have the same kind of hyper-developed defenses of a homeworld (at least as presented in Stellaris - I actually would prefer a system that emphasizes homeworlds even more).

Planets have nearly everything that an invading empire wants and that a defending empire has, yet you would want to essentially just have the attacking fleet show up and go, "Alright, everything here is ours," either without a fight from the planet or with even MORE abstraction than we have now? Can't get behind that, but enjoy your hammer.

And instead having to simply bring a doomstack of armies improves the game how? And if you make ground combat so complex that you can't doomstack it you added so much micromanagement that players need to spend more time managing their ground armies than the rest of their empire. Not a good thing for a space game. It sounds nice on paper (for some) but it will not be fun. The novelty will wear out very quickly.

And any highly developed planet can field thousands of nuclear (or their advanced version) missiles, maybe thousands of gigantic ground to space lasers and likely a hundred million soldiers together with their billions of civilians. Good luck bringing in an army large enough to have a realistic chance of conquering that (without bombing everything to dust) and supplying them (especially when the planet is hostile for them).

Ground combat does not add anything to the game and the more complex you make it, the more you distract the player from the core gameplay. Doomstacks are an issue which won't be solved by more complex armies so even bringing that argument up is silly.

 

[Zarathustra_the]

And instead having to simply bring a doomstack of armies improves the game how? And if you make ground combat so complex that you can't doomstack it you added so much micromanagement that players need to spend more time managing their ground armies than the rest of their empire. Not a good thing for a space game. It sounds nice on paper (for some) but it will not be fun. The novelty will wear out very quickly.

And any highly developed planet can field thousands of nuclear (or their advanced version) missiles, maybe thousands of gigantic ground to space lasers and likely a hundred million soldiers together with their billions of civilians. Good luck bringing in an army large enough to have a realistic chance of conquering that (without bombing everything to dust) and supplying them (especially when the planet is hostile for them).

Ground combat does not add anything to the game and the more complex you make it, the more you distract the player from the core gameplay. Doomstacks are an issue which won't be solved by more complex armies so even bringing that argument up is silly.

Your actually wrong, there is a limit to what a defending force can actually do. Recently it was calculated that a nuclear exchange between Pakistan and India, with each using 50 tactical weapons, would cause a nuclear winter. In essence, there is a theoretical point in which the defense of a planet becomes at best a pyric victory at best. I think there is much to be said about modelling the limited nature of the ability to resist an interplanetary invasion, give the defender the option to commit suicide and render the planet useless, and likewise let the attacker do the same. In this sense the invasion mechanics now become a bit more of a game of chess, where both sides possess an option to overturn the board. A ruthless bloody regime is gonna scorch the earth, a nice placid democracy with rights and all that is gonna let the planet be invaded at the end of the day. The sheer scale of defense that you suggest is actually far more impossible than you can imagine.

 

[Ixal]

The sheer scale of defense that you suggest is actually far more impossible than you can imagine.

Not really. A few thousand ground based lasers, each of the size of a nuclear power plant, is completely feasible. And the nuclear weapons will of course not be used against landed troops but against the enemy while he is still in space. So after taking losses approaching the planet and landing troops they now have to battle it out with several tens or maybe a hundred million enemy soldiers while their supply lines are at best interplanetary and at worst interstellar and they possibly not only need to supply ammunition, spare parts, medicine and replacements but also food, water and air.

 

[Zarathustra_the]

It is infinitely easier to wreck a planet from space than it is to defend it. Likewise, there becomes a point in which the expenditure of energy itself will rip the planet apart. For instance, using high energy weapons will always cause heat dissipation issues. And waste product from intense energy production. Even zero point energy would have the issue of heat generation. Where are you gonna put it all? Dump it into the sea and cause your oceans to melt? Into the air to see it corrode the ozone layer? In essence there is a theoretical point to which you can resist an invasion, but really, it is like a war between nuclear superpowers, there is a point in which everyone loses.

 

[Ixal]

It is infinitely easier to wreck a planet from space than it is to defend it. Likewise, there becomes a point in which the expenditure of energy itself will rip the planet apart. For instance, using high energy weapons will always cause heat dissipation issues. And waste product from intense energy production. Even zero point energy would have the issue of heat generation. Where are you gonna put it all? Dump it into the sea and cause your oceans to melt? Into the air to see it corrode the ozone layer? In essence there is a theoretical point to which you can resist an invasion, but really, it is like a war between nuclear superpowers, there is a point in which everyone loses.

If wrecking the planet from space is an option you do not need a ground invasion in the first place and the capacity of a planet to store (or at least cope with) excess heat is magnitudes higher than any space ship can handle the same problem so the attacker is at a disadvantage. By the time there are serious negative effects because of excess heat on the planet how many (tens? hundred?) thousands space ships have been destroyed?

 

[Zarathustra_the]

If wrecking the planet from space is an option you do not need a ground invasion in the first place and the capacity of a planet to store (or at least cope with) excess heat is magnitudes higher than any space ship can handle the same problem so the attacker is at a disadvantage. By the time there are serious negative effects because of excess heat on the planet how many (tens? hundred?) thousands space ships have been destroyed?

Actually a ship has a better means to deal with heat, it can vent it into vacuum. Also remember, a ship can move in three dimensions, hitting a ship from a planet is likely to be more difficult than avoiding the shot will be with the ship. I mean have you seen the experiments done with airborne lasers? We still cannot dissipate the heat enough to make it viable, and as you miniaturize things the heat issues will likely get more intense. Now add in defensive shielding and the like, and your very likely to burn the planet that is being defended before you are overcome.

I think though any ground overhaul has to be done with those factors in mind, it needs to come with more options from space, including the one of just glassing the planet, and it also has to give the defender the opportunity to ruin the planet in a collective suicide pact. This I think adds more options, and will also give those who can't be arsed with ground combat the option to simply glass the rock and be done with it, and if you conquer it, terraform it back into something useful.

 

[Ixal]

Actually a ship has a better means to deal with heat, it can vent it into vacuum. Also remember, a ship can move in three dimensions, hitting a ship from a planet is likely to be more difficult than avoiding the shot will be with the ship. I mean have you seen the experiments done with airborne lasers? We still cannot dissipate the heat enough to make it viable, and as you miniaturize things the heat issues will likely get more intense. Now add in defensive shielding and the like, and your very likely to burn the planet that is being defended before you are overcome.

I think though any ground overhaul has to be done with those factors in mind, it needs to come with more options from space, including the one of just glassing the planet, and it also has to give the defender the opportunity to ruin the planet in a collective suicide pact. This I think adds more options, and will also give those who can't be arsed with ground combat the option to simply glass the rock and be done with it, and if you conquer it, terraform it back into something useful.

A planet is also constantly radiating heat into space and it has a lot more surface area to do so and a much higher capacity to store heat. For it to become a problem the battle would need to last for decades and you can imagine how many ships the attacker will lose in that time.
And that doesn't even address all the problems the attacker has once his troops have landed on the planet. Planetary invasions on developed planets are nonsense or rather massive undertakings where the costs far outweigh the benefits. Instead you either glass the planet, threaten to do so to make it surrender or engage in biowarefare etc. to reduce the defenders to a manageable level.

Adding the option for a collective suicide would be bad as it would be a no brainer to use. Why wouldn't you deny the enemy the planet?
Instead of expanding ground combat it should be replaced with a siege system like EU4. That, coupled with a supply system, will slow down the attacker so the defender can regroup and has not lost after a single battle and also removes the unnecessary fiddly army management which offers nothing to the game.

 

[Cordane]

Actually a ship has a better means to deal with heat, it can vent it into vacuum.

Radiating heat out into the vacuum of space is extremely inefficient as there is no matter to simply transfer the heat to, like you could in an atmosphere or attached to untold tons of rock. It requires massive and fragile radiators, which make for entirely tempting targets for opposing weapons.

 

[The Founder]

Radiating heat out into the vacuum of space is extremely inefficient as there is no matter to simply transfer the heat to, like you could in an atmosphere or attached to untold tons of rock. It requires massive and fragile radiators, which make for entirely tempting targets for opposing weapons.

Indeed. Space is not "cold". Temperature is a property of mater. The vacuum of space is defined as the lack of mater.

In Schlock Mercenary they once put a ship underwater to get rid of excess heat:
http://www.schlockmercenary.com/2016-10-07
http://www.schlockmercenary.com/2016-10-08

 

[Taciturn Scot]

Seeing as how there's not much interest at Paradox in adding considerably to the Ground Combat portion of the game, I would confine my suggestions to improve it (and it NEEDS it) as follows:

No more bombarding to reduce fortifications of ground troops. It didn't work at Stalingrad and just made the place an even worse nightmare to fight in. Instead, bombardment would serve three purposes:

a - support invading ground troops
b - damage or destroy planterary infrastructure - this would require buildings to have DAMAGED condition. And,
c - kill pops.

This fits in nicely with the bombardment policies we already have.

Second, Ground troops would receive the planetary defence bonus making them much, much tougher nuts to crack. However, as static units, they stand alone and can be fought one by one.

Defending 'assault' forces present on the planet could act in support of the defensive units making the initial landing really tough to take without a lot of support.

Invading forces could stack up against these defensive positions with bombardment bonuses to firepower to compensate for the fortification bonus. Perhaps a maximum of 4 units per level of tech researched on planetary invasions. Or stack up 4:1 against defenders. Whatever.

One important thing I would ensure was changed was that damage was more focussed so that the attacker doesn't just get a stack wipe, heal up and repeat. That is very bad and needs changing.

I could elaborate on that but I don't see the point in wasting my time in doing so unless Paradox indicates that they are interested in improving, if not expanding the existing ground combat.

 

[The Founder]

No more bombarding to reduce fortifications of ground troops. It didn't work at Stalingrad and just made the place an even worse nightmare to fight in. Instead, bombardment would serve three purposes:

Because the fleet destroying every airfield and surface communicaiton system will totally not affect the defenders abilities to defend?
Nor will it be a problem for defenders if the enemy can literally rain death on thier positions?
If you can fire orbit->ground, that is one level higher the air superiority. And Air superiority reduced most counter-actions to guerillia tactics.

The only thing with Air-Warfare that never worked out, was the oldest idea to: "Winning without ever having a soldier set a foot on the ground".
Short of the first two nuclear weapons, that never worked.

b - damage or destroy planterary infrastructure - this would require buildings to have DAMAGED condition. And,
c - kill pops.

Again, those are not bonuses of bombardment. Those are unintended side effects of (agressive) bombardment. You do not want the planet with less population (most of the times). And the times you want it, that is just another form of Purge. And you certainly do not want the buildings damaged. The blockade is already locking out the resource gain anyway.

 

[Taciturn Scot]

Because the fleet destroying every airfield and surface communicaiton system will totally not affect the defenders abilities to defend?
Nor will it be a problem for defenders if the enemy can literally rain death on thier positions?
If you can fire orbit->ground, that is one level higher the air superiority. And Air superiority reduced most counter-actions to guerillia tactics.

The only thing with Air-Warfare that never worked out, was the oldest idea to: "Winning without ever having a soldier set a foot on the ground".
Short of the first two nuclear weapons, that never worked.


Again, those are not bonuses of bombardment. Those are unintended side effects of (agressive) bombardment. You do not want the planet with less population (most of the times). And the times you want it, that is just another form of Purge. And you certainly do not want the buildings damaged. The blockade is already locking out the resource gain anyway.

Well, I wasn't expecting anyone to take my ideas particularly seriously . However, for laughs, sure, why not?

Given that planet's fortifications are based on Defensive Shields technology which are supported by ship-borne generators and thus limited, how much more powerful would the shields be for ground facilities? I don't think that's a particularly big stretch seeing as how unrealistic the system we're already working with is.

While I'd LOVE for us to see actual defensive shields attached to our units and the addition of air units or communications to planterary infrastructure, my reading of Wiz's comments is that it's not going to happen and he'd rather not have had ground combat in the game in the first place. I'm just trying to make a suggestion that uses what we already have to make the existing system somewhat better, in my opinion anyway

 

[The Founder]

Given that planet's fortifications are based on Defensive Shields technology which are supported by ship-borne generators and thus limited, how much more powerful would the shields be for ground facilities? I don't think that's a particularly big stretch seeing as how unrealistic the system we're already working with is.

Given the massive energy demands of such a shield, how many could you actually afford? Enough for an entire planet?
Stargate touched those issues of sheer scale a few times:

http://stargate.wikia.com/wiki/AG-3_satellite

No mater how much armor/shieldpower you got, if the enemy can shell you with impunity they will whittle it down eventually. Short of the Precusor Shield from Gal Civ 3, defense simply has it's limits.

 

[Taciturn Scot]

Given the massive energy demands of such a shield, how many could you actually afford? Enough for an entire planet?
Stargate touched those issues of sheer scale a few times:

http://stargate.wikia.com/wiki/AG-3_satellite

No mater how much armor/shieldpower you got, if the enemy can shell you with impunity they will whittle it down eventually. Short of the Precusor Shield from Gal Civ 3, defense simply has it's limits.

I'm not talking about protecting the entire planet. Just the military installations The fleets can still bomb the crap out of infrastructure and the pops from space.

But please remember that I'm really not expecting anything to change and therefore am not particularly interested in presenting a more fleshed-out proposal unless Paradox demonstrate a willingness to consider changes.