• We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.

Stellaris Dev Diary #18 - Fleet Combat

Good news everyone!

Today’s Dev Diary will be about Fleet Combat and the different things affecting it. Like always it is important for you to remember that things are subject to change.

In Stellaris we have a number of different types of weapons that the player may choose to equip his/her ships with. All weapons can be grouped into either energy, projectiles (kinetic), missiles, point-defenses and strike craft. Their individual effects and stats vary somewhat, so let’s bring up a few examples. One type of energy-weapon is the laser, using focused beams to penetrate the armor of a target dealing a medium amount of damage. Mass Drivers and Autocannons are both projectile-weapons with high damage output and fast attack-speed, but quite low armor-penetration. This makes them ideal for chewing through shields and unarmored ships quickly, but are far worse against heavily armored targets. Missiles weapons are space-to-space missiles armed with nuclear warheads. Missiles have excellent range, but they are vulnerable to interception by point-defense systems. There’s of course far more weapons in the game than these mentioned, but it should give you a notion of what to expect.

Strike crafts are different from the other weapon types since they are actually smaller ships that leave their mothership. Cruisers and Battleships can in some cases have a Hangar weapon slot available, in which you may place a type of strike craft. Currently, we have two types of craft; fighters and bombers. Fighters will fire upon ships, missiles and other strike craft. Bombers however may not fire on other strike craft or missiles, but they will do more damage than fighters against capital ships. Point-defense weapons can detect incoming missiles and strike-crafts and shoot them down. These weapons may also damage hostile ships, if they are close enough, but will do significantly less damage against those.

1.jpg


When it comes to defenses, you may increase the durability of your fleet in combat by placing armor and shield components in the utility slots on your ships. Armor components will reduce the incoming damage and can’t be depleted during combat. Shields work much more like an extra health bar to your ships and will be depleted if they take too much damage. Shields will automatically regenerate after combat, unless you have certain components that allow your shields to regenerate during combat. Both shields and armor can have their efficiency reduced if the enemy uses armor and/or shield penetrating weapons.

The different components you place on your ships will also affect certain other key combat values:… Hull points is a value corresponding to the “hit points” or health of your ship. Evasion affects the chance for your ship to evade a weapon firing at it. You may also affect the overall stats (values) of your fleet by assigning an Admiral to it. The stats of your fleet will both be affected by the skill and the traits of your leader. But be aware that traits will not always have a positive effect. I would recommend everyone to always have good admirals assigned to their military fleets since they can really improve your stats, like +20% fire rate and +10% evasion.

Once the combat has begun, you very few options to control what happens, much like it works in our other grand strategy games. For this reason it is really important not to engage in a battle that you are not ready for. As a fallback, it is possible to order a full retreat through the “Emergency FTL Jump” option, this will basically cause your fleet to attempt to jump to the closest system. However, during the windup for the EFTL jump your ships will not be able fire back at the hostile ships, so you put yourself in an exposed situation. Depending on what type of fleet you have, you might want them to always engage in combat or always try to avoid it; for this purpose we have different fleet stances. The evasive stance will try to avoid combat and the fleet will leave a system if a hostile arrives. Civilian fleets have this stance on per default. Aggressive stance will actively make your fleet attempt to attack any hostile that enters the same system as them. Passive stance will, like the name suggest, make your fleet only engage in combat when enemies are within weapon range.

2.jpg


The combat might be off-hand, but you can still indirectly affect how each individual ship will behave. When you design your ship you may specify what combat computer to use on the ship. These computers range from making your ship super aggressive, and basically charge the enemy, or be really defensive and keep formation. At the start of the game only the default combat computer is available, but more are unlocked through normal research or reverse engineering.

It is very possible that your fleet might end up in combat with multiple fleets. This means that you can have a combat with three different empires that are all hostile to each other. To help you keep track of everything that happens we have a combat view, which will appear as soon as a combat is initiated. This view will list you (and any other friendlies or neutrals) on the left side and every hostile on the right side. The combat view is currently being reworked, so you will get to see that interface at a later date, but the idea is to provide you with crucial feedback on how effective your weapons and defenses are.

Once the battle is over, you may want to investigate any debris left from destroyed vessels. If you weren’t the one being wiped out, perhaps you can salvage something?

3.jpg


Sadly, neither the “Picard Maneuver” nor the “Crazy Ivan” are currently possible in the game, but who knows what the future might hold…

Stellaris Dev Diary #19 - Diplomacy & Trade
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • 142
  • 48
  • 4
Reactions:
Now we know that different hulls are worth different points with regards the fleet cap.

A fleet of say 120 pts

20 Corvettes = 20 Pts 1pt per ship
10 Destroyers = 20 Pts 2 pt per ship
6 Cruisers = 20 Pts 4 pt per ship
2 Battlesships = 16 Pts presumably 8 pt per ship

Assumed composition due to the Corvette<Destroyer<Cruiser<Battleship<Corvette paradigm

24 Corvettes = 24 Pts
20 Destroyers = 40 Pts
10 Cruisers = 40 pts
2 Battleships = 16 pts

Shamlessly replying to my own post. Please view the below as a treatise on fleet construction and composition. I have written this on my phone on a train I will format it later.

So assuming that Corvettes can be set up to be glorified anti battleship torpedo carrying super bombers. There role is very limited. In that you need enough to alpha strike a battleship and no more.

Similarly the primary screen will be Destroyers armed with anti Corvette and anti fighter weapons. And a second claws of Destroyer armed with area point defence to cover the bulk of the fleet

My estimation is such that Destroyers will be the bulk of large action group fleets.

(1) Corvettes up to alpha strike capacity.
(2) Destroyers to provide screening capability and anti Corvette duty.

So what role does this leave Cruisers. Well. I envisage two. A number of escort sized carriers if your Battleships are not set up as carriers, or as anti screen and PD vessels. A number of guns aimed at taking care of Destroyers and also a good degree of personal and area of effect point defence to protect the Corvettes and Battleships.

This brings us to our third priority

(3) Escort carriers if no battleship carriers to provide fighter screens
(4) Cruisers to provide anti Destroyer long range salvos and also to enhance the PD network.

Finally we come to Battleships and Carriers. I believe they will be the lowest priority of a fleet. The role is clear to provide the heavy firepower to take down Cruisers to ensure that your Destroyers stay standing to protect you from the Corvette alpha strike.

The role or carriers to provide bombers to enhance alpha strike capacity of your Corvettes and fighters to screen the fleet from opposing carriers

(5) Battleships of number able to ensure hostile Cruisers are neutralised thus protecting your screens.

(6) Carriers to provide screening and additional alpha strike capacity.

Final suggested priority.

(1) Corvettes up to alpha strike capacity.

(2) Destroyers to provide screening capability and anti Corvette duty.

(3) Escort carriers if no battleship carriers to provide fighter screens

(4) Cruisers to provide anti Destroyer long range salvos and also to enhance the PD network.

(5) Battleships of number able to ensure hostile Cruisers are neutralised thus protecting your screens.

(6) Carriers to provide screening and additional alpha strike capacity.



How construction capacity impacts fleet composition.

The reason I believe that the highest priority (1) is actually the smallest class if ship is down to production capacity.

If you can only build a limited number of ships you are better off building enough Corvettes whereby you can alpha strike heavy targets. Then with excess capacity building screens and Cruisers. As opposed to bigger is better.

This is in my view a good thing as we will see fleets that are diverse as opposed to stacks of Battleships only.
Will the priority be different for non major fleets?

Yes. The fleet compositions and priority order above I believe will be accurate for the main combat fleets of an empire the future equivalent of the Home Fleet. I believe stations and squadrons used for defence will primarily be small units of the higher priority rules. A small number of Corvettes and a pair of Destroyers to act as screen. A raiding party of Destroyers and Cruisers due to the multipurpose role.

Glossary of terms

Escort carrier - a Cruiser in carrier configuration

Carrier - a battleship in carrier configuration.



Ps I may post this as a separate thread later, with more detail.
 
  • 2
Reactions:
Paradoxian fans will probably hate me but why the player should have so little "power" during the combat phase ? Why not Stellaris be the first Paradox game that will offer a Total War style of combat or something simillar or anything more involving than just watch and chose to flee or not ?
Because this isn't Total War, this is a Paradox game. A lot of people actually LIKE the abstraction of combat. I enjoy TW games for the tactics from time to time, and I enjoy EU/CK/HoI/Vichy for the strategy. When I am playing EU I don't want to worry about having to micromanage all 5 of my in combat armies, telling specific regiments where to go and who to shoot, I want to tell my army to take London, and let it do its thing.
I am not a huge fan of Star Craft level micromanagement, and in Sins of a Solar Empire I typically end up just telling my navy to go somewhere and then let them work because I can't be bothered to separate out every different unit type and prioritize targets for each of them accordingly. If Stellaris was not abstracted like EU/Etc it would be a huge reason to reconsider it as an auto-buy.
 
  • 10
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions:
Here is another thing that i find confusing:

Although i can see that there is a certain romantic(?) element to the concept of missiles in space, i really dont understand the concept of missiles in space.

Why on earth would you want missiles in space?

First and foremost, unlike mass drivers, where you effectively only carry a "bullet", with missiles you have to carry the actual boom part, the fuel section and its engine - on board. (needless logistical cost)

Second if missiles are your primary weapon, every time after X time of combat, you have to go to some base, or a supply ship and rearm yourself with missiles. (needless logistical cost)

Third unless you can make missiles fly faster than speed of light, if you engage someone with a missile at a reasonable range, wont they have the ability to see that, have even today's computers with today's computational power calculate trajectory and engage the missiles with even systems that we can build today (in theory), and destroy them...

I mean compare missiles to something like lasers. If you can build something that produces enough power to allow you to do phew phew in space, why on earth would you go through the logistical troubles and cost issues of having missiles in space?

Missiles in space sound like someone attempting to throw rocks at enemy armed with AK47.

What am i missing?
The power of a nuke >>>>>>> the power of a railgun. Do you need to hit an enemy with a railgun to do damage? Yes. Do you need to hit an enemy with a nuke to do damage? No, just explode it within a reasonable range.
There also exists stealth technology today for both missiles and fighter craft, idk why it wouldn't still exist in the future (at that time it might even have visual invisibility, rather than just radar invisibility). When you combine stealth bombers with tactical nukes you get fighters that can approach enemy fleets undetected and launch 100 nuclear weapons at the center of the fleet and wipe it out without even a battle.

Better yet, put a warp drive on a nuke, FTL it in the enemies face. Even better yet, open a worm hole right next to the enemies capital ship, throw a few nukes through, and close it. Boom.

As for logistics: everything ballistic will have the same issues, railguns need ammo (very large metal slugs) so they will need resupply as well. Lasers are the only ammo independent weapon, however a ship can only produce so much power at a time. If you want to power a super laser you need to cut power to other systems (or harness some potentially unreliable power source, containment breach on the anti-matter reactor anyone?).

There are legit reasons to use any of these in a real worldish scenario. Lasers in space would have essentially infinite range, railguns would require getting close, but being far more devastating than lasers, nukes would be even more powerful and can be combined with stealth tech to great effect.
 
  • 4
  • 4
Reactions:
I disagree completely; strike craft must have a range greater than missiles, otherwise... what on earth's the point of strike craft? Bombers, I mean. Fighters could still have some utility as a point-defense screen, but... that's pretty weak. Carriers are powerful on earth because they allow fleets to attack ships at ranges well beyond what they'd normally be capable of. The only way to translate that into space combat is to give fighters and bombers more fuel, or at least make them more fuel efficient.

Missiles should move faster (much, much faster) than strike craft, but their powered range has to be smaller for attack craft to have any utility at all.
In addition to this:
Missiles fired from a ship have range x
Strike craft can move distance y (where y < x) from the ship without running out of fuel
Strike craft can launch missiles at range x
Thus the effective range of strike craft is y + x, where as missiles are x.
 
  • 2
  • 1
Reactions:
I don't quite understand how the picard maneuver was supposed to be unbeatable as the description doesn't quite make sense.

According to the description the ship is
1) In one place far away out of firing range
2) Seemingly in 2 places at once for the target's sensor. One is position 1) and the other is close to the target in firing range and position
3) Firing at a confused target who aims at the wrong ship.

The effect of surprise might work the first time, you ever use it on a target not aware of the technique. But if the target is aware this maneuver exists, it can easily countered by firing at the ship's second location once the sensors pick it up.
Space battles will likely be handled 90% by computers, as the distances are too great and things can happen so quickly (ftl missiles for instance) that human/biological being reaction time is far too slow. FTLing into an enemies face could confuse sensors, and thus confuse the computer, allowing for a brief window (a few seconds at most) wherein an attack would be hard to counter. It isn't the greatest strategy, I'll grant you, but in a 1:1 combat it could be very useful for an alpha strike to cripple the enemies ability to respond.
 
  • 2
Reactions:
Well yeah, exactly what I thought when posting on the previous page of the thread.

I thought the whole point of making Stellaris RTS is so it may have more sophisticated combat mechanics. If it boils down to watching the outcome of the battle again it might as well be turn based with a special sequence that can be skipped (which is what I resort on doing after a while anyways because of how boring and repetitive watching battles you can't intervene in get).
This is a PDS game, combat was always going to be abstracted. Why? It is what the players want, it is one of the reasons people love EU, CK, Vichy, & HoI. Paradox games are always psuedo turn-based real time games, combat is always abstracted.
 
  • 4
  • 1
Reactions:
Better yet, put a warp drive on a nuke, FTL it in the enemies face. Even better yet, open a worm hole right next to the enemies capital ship, throw a few nukes through, and close it. Boom.

This sounds pretty cool tbh.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
This is a PDS game, combat was always going to be abstracted. Why? It is what the players want, it is one of the reasons people love EU, CK, Vichy, & HoI. Paradox games are always psuedo turn-based real time games, combat is always abstracted.

To address Medu's comment first, even in CK2, the combat wasn't merely watching. There are some things the player can micro to get an edge.

And while Paradox tends to make strategic combat rather than tactical, in order to speed up time and gameplay, the Stellaris combat will be the least "abstract" out of CK2 and EUIV families.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
Because this isn't Total War, this is a Paradox game. A lot of people actually LIKE the abstraction of combat. I enjoy TW games for the tactics from time to time, and I enjoy EU/CK/HoI/Vichy for the strategy. When I am playing EU I don't want to worry about having to micromanage all 5 of my in combat armies, telling specific regiments where to go and who to shoot, I want to tell my army to take London, and let it do its thing.

Total War games also have the map segregated from the combat, whereas Paradox games have them both happening at once. Trying to control an army in real-time, while also taking care of your economy, diplomacy and any other battles that might be happening simultaneously (possibly on the other side of the map) would require at least three sets of eyes and a plethora of spare hands.
 
  • 4
Reactions:
Total War games also have the map segregated from the combat, whereas Paradox games have them both happening at once. Trying to control an army in real-time, while also taking care of your economy, diplomacy and any other battles that might be happening simultaneously (possibly on the other side of the map) would require at least three sets of eyes and a plethora of spare hands.
Well not really since the games shortest time frame is a day and very few battles took more than a day.
 
They do in Paradox games! In the Revolution I had month long battles with 200k Casualties! A good time was had by all!
Yeah I obviously meant in reality.
 
Yeah I obviously meant in reality.
To be sure. It looks like Stellaris will follow the 'prolonged battle approach' judging by the video uploaded today. A relatively early and easy battle ended after about 10ish days of combat (it apparently can take days for a missile to go from a ship to another ship).
I dunno if I like this particular mechanic, but I don't dislike it. It's just pretty much the way PDS games tend to go. Its an acquired taste.
 
To be sure. It looks like Stellaris will follow the 'prolonged battle approach' judging by the video uploaded today. A relatively early and easy battle ended after about 10ish days of combat (it apparently can take days for a missile to go from a ship to another ship).
I dunno if I like this particular mechanic, but I don't dislike it. It's just pretty much the way PDS games tend to go. Its an acquired taste.
You could also choose to think of the battles as more of a series of skirmishes taking place over the course of what you see happen on the map, especially as the areas in which they take place are so large. Just a thought.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
I am a fan of many things in these games but not that part.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
" one type of energy-weapon is the laser, using focused beams to penetrate the armor of a target dealing a medium amount of damage. Mass Drivers and Autocannons are both projectile-weapons with high damage output and fast attack-speed, but quite low armor-penetration. "

... that sounds stupid ... i mean lasers vs shields and autocannons vs armor would make much more sense for me
 
  • 2
  • 1
Reactions:
" one type of energy-weapon is the laser, using focused beams to penetrate the armor of a target dealing a medium amount of damage. Mass Drivers and Autocannons are both projectile-weapons with high damage output and fast attack-speed, but quite low armor-penetration. "

... that sounds stupid ... i mean lasers vs shields and autocannons vs armor would make much more sense for me

Depends on the shield type. There is more than one version of the scifi shield after all.

The most realistically feasible one being a plasma shield, basically its a cloud of plasma held in place by magnetic fields. It would be almost totally impervious to energy weapons like lasers while projectiles would rip holes in it.


Also I know this has been forgotten already and will not be a part of stellaris, but there are already a number of games, where the combat either runs automated or you can manually control it in real time if you so choose while the rest of the world carries on. This means you usually let the fight auto play, but if nothing much is happening at the moment, or its an important battle you zoom in and take control.


FTLing into an enemies face could confuse sensors, and thus confuse the computer, allowing for a brief window (a few seconds at most) wherein an attack would be hard to counter. It isn't the greatest strategy, I'll grant you, but in a 1:1 combat it could be very useful for an alpha strike to cripple the enemies ability to respond.


If we'll allow our ftl system to work to such a precise degree, and near gravitational bodies, and somehow maintain our own sensor locks on the enemies while in ftl, and not have any form of substantial charge up be it charging capacitors or simple time to open your wormhole, or really any other standard of ftl in scifi then sure.

And as a general rule, only your most primitive iterations of missiles would use nukes. Nukes in space are pretty anemic, there's no overpressure from a shockwave which is how nukes in atmospheres do most of their damage. Meanign you have to explode within at most a couple of kilometers of the target to do damage. And a rail guns actually going to impart more kinetic energy with a direct hit than a nuke would with a direct hit. Your far better off upgrading to a laser head or something similar on your missiles, they've actually got the range you want to hurt something without a direct hit.
 
Last edited:
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions:
Depends on the shield type. There is more than one version of the scifi shield after all.

The most realistically feasible one being a plasma shield, basically its a cloud of plasma held in place by magnetic fields. It would be almost totally impervious to energy weapons like lasers while projectiles would rip holes in it.


Also I know this has been forgotten already and will not be a part of stellaris, but there are already a number of games, where the combat either runs automated or you can manually control it in real time if you so choose while the rest of the world carries on. This means you usually let the fight auto play, but if nothing much is happening at the moment, or its an important battle you zoom in and take control.





If we'll allow our ftl system to work to such a precise degree, and near gravitational bodies, and somehow maintain our own sensor locks on the enemies while in ftl, and not have any form of substantial charge up be it charging capacitors or simple time to open your wormhole, or really any other standard of ftl in scifi then sure.

And as a general rule, only your most primitive iterations of missiles would use nukes. Nukes in space are pretty anemic, there's no overpressure from a shockwave which is how nukes in atmospheres do most of their damage. Meanign you have to explode within at most a couple of kilometers of the target to do damage. And a rail guns actually going to impart more kinetic energy with a direct hit than a nuke would with a direct hit. Your far better off upgrading to a laser head or something similar on your missiles, they've actually got the range you want to hurt something without a direct hit.
Eh the most feasible type of shield is a spinning polar magnetic field, it'd deflect projectiles but have little effect on electromagnetic radiation like lasers.
We actually have those, it's one of the things we attempt to use to contain fusion.

Do you have any idea how quickly plasma would lose it's energy to vaccum? You'd deplete any energy source insanely fast trying to do what you're suggesting. If you wanted a shield to defelct energy you should use a magnetic shield using a cloud of particles held in palce again by a spinnign magnetic field the heat would dissapate into the cloud. But even that is fairly inefficient when you consider that armour already does kind of the same thing, it dissapates energy into the hull like a heatsink meaning you'd have to slowly eat your way through it.
 
Last edited:
  • 2
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions: