Stellaris Dev Diary #96: Doomstacks and Ship Design

[Shadow_Hand]

I think you are going overboard in search of hidden meaning. Wiz most probably just meant that for every side, all their ships's FP are added to one total.

I agree I might be overthinking it, but given that Wiz was specifically using words like "smaller" and "larger" in reference to the numbers of ships/fleets this seems more logical. Namely, it would mean that the introduction of the FDCB would actually have a chance to resolve the DoomStack issue instead of just altering the appearance of it. If it was just down to FP, then yes, the FDCB is completely, totally useless. However, if it's actual raw numbers then it actually makes sense.

It also mitigates the complaints regarding a hardcap on the size of an individual fleet. Commanding 30 Cruisers is presumably no harder than commanding 30 Corvettes - you've got the same number of pieces on the board, as it were. If you have a restriction on bringing only so many ships to a single battle, it makes much more tactical sense to adopt proper fleet compositions and have a mixture of lights and heavies, including point-defence/pickets and carriers along with a glass-cannon or two in order to maximise your fleets ability to be useful/adaptable in different circumstances. If you look at real-world naval strategy, you never see a fleet deploy without a mixture of different combat roles, and you also never see multiple fleets trying to operate in the same area above a certain number of ships per square km. If the entire US navy were to try and effectively fight that of North Korea there would be a lot of ships getting in each others way or not being able to contribute to the battle, even if the battle took place in the middle of the pacific with hundreds of square km available per ship (not unlike the availability of room to maneuver in space!)

 

[Devanor]

Do components which repair ship hulls will also repair armors? If not will there be new components able to repair armors without going to the nearest spaceport ?

There's no doubt there will be at least be a component that can repair armor, but I think armor and hull repair won't be mutually exclusive: armor is just tougher hull after all.

 

[elektrizikekswerk]

- A "chief of what-ever" is the head of all of my "fleets"/ships, so that the combat bonuses of this "chief of what-ever" applies to all of my "fleets"/ships ...

It's called "Warmaster"


"You are like a son and together we have all but conquered the galaxy. Now the time has come for me to retire to Terra. My work as a soldier is done and now passes to you for I have great tasks to perform in my earthly sanctum. I name you Warmaster and from this day forth all of my armies and generals shall take orders from you as if the words came from mine own mouth. But words of caution I have for you for your brother Primarchs are strong of will, of thought and of action. Do not seek to change them, but use their particular strengths well. You have much work to do for there are still many worlds to liberate, many peoples to rescue. My trust is with you. Hail Horus! Hail the Warmaster!"
—The Emperor of Mankind, the Triumph of Ullanor

 

[Cenwulf]

In regard to the new ship computers, have you considered an escort type?

I was thinking this type could be for smaller ships and would make them distribute themselves between the line and artillery ships to defend them from enemy swarm and picket ships.

 

[skydiver1]

Been following the topic with interest and quite like the ship retreat mechanic and how the starbases and the dreaded FTL change give some depth to warfare.

I'm still skeptical if those changes go far enough though to prevent wars from being decided by 1-2 decisive automated battles due to two factors, and on both of them there is improvement but not sufficient
- Conquests you build rather than win - No logistics/supply range and the presumably low starbase limit mean once a fleet breaks trough the outer defense it's back to a doomstack slowly occupying systems and chasing the enemy doomstack to inflict further casualties. Still bether than the current system but not a radical improvement.
- Options for inflicting harm on a significantly stronger opponent - Due to no stealth/harrassment element the game lacks on the small-scale tactics department. Small ships and fighters are relevant for praying on supply lines and individual ships isolated from the main fleet. (and of course for doing recon to counter this from the enemy). If their usage is limited to swarming the enemy in large battles, they'll continue to be rather hard to balance. Giving corvettes a chance to bolt gives them some flavor but it's still just a tanking buff. It all boils down to the fact that fleets are represented by their DPS value, tanking value and sometimes range value. The shields/armor and laser/proj/missile is elemental resistances in space - in small-scale squadron battles your frost wizard ships can really damage their fire demon ships but in a large-scale battle all-round builds will win most of the time. Sure, you can refit your entire fleet to do a hard counter but if you have time to do this on the defensive, while losing starbases and systems, the enemy can do this even easier.

 

[Ur-Quan Lord 13]

this is offset somewhat by the notion of it 'representing the smaller force having an easier time maneuvering and targetting.' (Am still sure there will be long arguments about how 'realistic' that is in space, involving infinite room versus effective engagement distances and the like.)

Well, I've posted this a few times, but you actually understand half of the argument already so that makes it quicker! So, the second half: how does an admiral make ships fire faster? Better position and coordination. That's the only explanation. So, if anybody says the FDCB is unrealistic in space, tell them they need to get rid of admirals too, since they have the same explanation.

Regarding this phrase: "and the FTL changes that makes it so it's harder to cover your entire empire with a single fleet" - I feel this is going to be more than offset by how the introduction of chokepoints & the buffing of static defenses reduces the amount of empire you have to actually cover - unless you're faced with a fleet capable of busting through the fortified points, but such a fleet is likely to require a doomstack to answer it anyway. Overall, I'm not convinced the FTL changes aren't just treading water on this facet of the game - though in conjunction with the other changes coming with it that water is likely to be quite muddy. (Ie. it will be difficult to be certain what is actually having an affect on the use of doomstacks and what is just coming along for the ride.)

What if the enemy has a fleet big enough to be stopped by one of your fortresses + a quarter of your fleet? If you leave that quarter behind, maybe you can stop their assault at the first choke point.

Computers: The others are obvious, but I'm curious to see what the practical difference between swarm and picket will be. I'm guessing Swarm is more like a 'charge, fire while passing and circle back for another charge' kind of thing (ideal for fast ships with a high alpha strike) while picket is more "move to and hold at brawling range" (better for short range, 'tanky' ships hoping to screen.)

They said swarm computers make you act like strike craft. I'd assume they just circle the enemy and fire. Isn't that pretty much what corvettes do now? Giving them a pocket option is a bonus.

Edit: for fun, let's guess which ships get what! Obviously corvettes get picket and swarm. I'd assume battleships can only choose from artillery and line. My guess is, destroyers will get every option but swarm, and cruisers will get every option but artillery...

 

[klingonadmiral]

But I'd think Accuracy (target rich environment) and Evasion (more maneuverable) would be buffed for the smaller fleet as well.

On the other hand, the larger fleet should also get a Evasion Bonus/Damage Reduction due to Target Saturation.

 

[Frizzy]

Also, although FINAL NUMBERS ARE NOT FINAL, how would the "Force Disparity Combat Bonus" work in each of these situations:

• a single 1K fleet vs. a single 3K fleet
• a single 1K fleet vs. three 1K fleets

All depends on demage and hull ponits (including armor and sheilds per ship). The bonus is to firing speed, up to 50%. Simple Scenaria, 6 corvetted 300 (group A) hull points each so a total of 1800 meet 12 corvettes (group B) 300 hull points each total of 3600. Each corvette deals 100 demage.
Assuming a shot per every second, so in the first second the 12 corvettes fire a total 1200 points of demage to corvette group A, group A looses 1200/300 - 4 corvettes 2 corvettess left, group a fires on group B in the same time span 6*100*1,5(50% faster) so 900 poinst of demage, group B looses 3 corvetts has 9 corvettes left. second second of engagement, group a fires 2*100*1,5 (2 corvettes left, I left the same combat bonus) so300 poins of demage, group b looses a signel corvette so 8 left. GRoup B fires 9*100 so 900 points of demage killing the two remaining corvettes. So 12 corvettes vs 6 corvettes, the bigger fleet wins losses 33%, demage dealt 150% of losses suffered 4/6. Grop A dies glorioussly losses 100%, kills 66% of losses.

 

[pcavalcanti]

For today´s standarts? yes. For THAT particular period of time? No.



Which is the question I made in my first comment in this thread: How has the doomstack problem been solved?

The proposed solution will result in exactly what we have right now, but with the extra hassle (clicks) to assemble extra fleets



You realize that the point is that, if an ancient admiral can command hundreds of vessels using primitve means, a futuristic admiral using futuristic means can do the same, right?

You also realize that the "smaller forces in those examples" had several dozens to a about a hundred and half vessels under the command of an admiral, right?

Nowadays we have unmanned drones, self-driving cars... why is there a need for a fleet crew? In the future you could probably control all forms of transportation from a main computer very much like a videogame. So, an admiral could control large fleets from a main computer, no problems. It would of course kill much of the roleplaying fun of the game...

 

[varonel]

There have been any number of real world issues repeatedly brought up as points of disagreement with the changes being worked on that even a basic search through military history would prove fallacious. I just have to put in a few pennies worth....
Lanchester's Laws don't really apply to Stellaris in the current and earlier builds simply because combat casualty infliction (damage) doesn't follow the formulas. For what ever reason larger fleets rarely take casualties expected by the formulae. You can debate the math all you want, but the laws never say either side large or small would suffer zero casualties. The issue really is about command and control.

Before the 1600s there were no coherent and effective methods of controlling large forces engaged in battle. Basic commands were set before the battle began with changes made and sent by runners, small boats, horse, bicycle, motorcycle, or foot -- depending on the period. Once engaged, local commanders of sections made decisions based on what they thought was the best choice of the moment. Out numbered and out gunned forces actually did win battles, or cost the enemy such heavy casualties the war pretty much ended.

Even after the first use of flags for signaling, large fleets and ground forces could get outside the view of the command ship/general's signals. Naval Flag signals started with the command ship and were relayed down the formations taking time to reach who they were meant for. The larger the force, the more difficult C&C gets. Smoke from guns, fires and any other blockage to communication makes it that much harder. Electronic Battlefield Warfare still causes modern armies to keep runners handy in case of communication disruption. Why would this change if you have a fleet of ships covering light seconds or minutes of space?

I think the bonuses to smaller fleets make an excellent attempt at finding a way to mimic C&C issues for this game.

I like most of the ship design changes as well, and look forward to seeing how the final changes work out.

I am a little concerned about Hypertubes being the FTL choice, however. But I'll wait to see how it all goes together.

In all: nice work, Wiz.

The reason for not losing ships as expected is the fact that you have regenerating defenses, aka shields. So if the battleships get in range of each other, one salvo from the smaller fleet will generally be split around and just damage the shields or slight damage some of the other side before they die from overwhelming fire of the other side. In real life war, casualties cannot be avoided this way.

 

[chrisjwmartin]

War Doctrine: No Retreat

Pour encourager les autres!

 

[Frizzy]

What happens when I split my 30k fleet in 3 x 10k and engage in a battle with a 15k enemy? Do I get more fire rate for having the smaller fleet(s)?

It said "force" - so all fleets in the same battle.

 

[Frizzy]

EXACTLY!

You have just given and excellent reason why "sending a smaller fleet elsewhere in enemy territory while their doomstack rampages in yours" is NOT a viable option in the new version of the game.

Which (again) begs the question: How has the doomstack problem been solved?

So you can sned them one hyperlane further, unleass you are fighting a 1-3 system empire connected to hyperlanses that are also connected to you, in which case there is no need for a recon force, is there ?

 

[pieman]

Yeah... I always thought the leader limit was a bit too low and limiting. They counteracted that by removing planetary leaders and making the core sector governed by a single leader as well, but I still would prefer to deal with a more diverse set of characters. Then again, that's probably the CK2 player in me speaking.

There's also something to be said for keeping the total pool of leaders relatively low. Scientists are already nameless bundles of stats to me, with no personality, throwing in more leadrs doesn't seem to be something that would make the ones we already have seem more special.

 

[Ixal]

I've rather hoped for some sort of an actual "command-chain":
- A "captain" is commanding a single ship, so that the combat bonuses of this "captain" only applies to his/her ship ...
- A "commodore" is commanding a single "squadron", a sub-unit of an actual "fleet", so that the combat bonuses of this "commodore" only applies to his/her "squadron" ...
- An "admiral" is commanding a single "fleet", so that the combat bonuses of this "admiral" only applies to his/her "fleet" ...
- A "chief of what-ever" is the head of all of my "fleets"/ships, so that the combat bonuses of this "chief of what-ever" applies to all of my "fleets"/ships ...

That sounds like HoI(2 I think) style command chain which I think would be a nice addition to Stellaris, especially when the overall organistational structure would be ethos based (And the individual bonus the leaders offer should also be influenced by their personal ethos).

One big downside would be that you would have to constantly restructure your command chain as leaders die.

 

[[Q]uik]

I feel like you addressed many things, but missed the core of what makes combat in a game like this interesting.
This will not fix the doomstack issue, but rather make doomstacks more complex - but still mindless to make.
It will still be several smaller armies which eventually will combine into a doomstack upon fighting.

Adding terrain (like one ship being in a asteroid field gaining defensive capabilities) or FLANKING - which makes Maneouvers an actual interesting part of combat, and makes positioning for combat a lot more interesting, would add a lot more to the current system.

It will probably help a bit, but it will not make encounters any more interesting.

 

[Silens]

It said "force" - so all fleets in the same battle.

So when my 30k starbase gets attacked by a 50k fleet, my fortress will have a bonus to fire rate. And when my own 30k fleet arrives, the fortress will not only lose its bonus, but the enemy will have a higher fire rate, since the force disparity shifted from 30k vs 50k to 60k vs 50k? Is that how it works?

 

[Zergor]

I really think that there should be weapons designed to fight from behind/harass :

-Very long range weapons even for the small-medium slots.
-Explosive weapons on the X slot that can hit multiple ships. The bigger the fleet, the higher the number of ships touched
-Laser beams on the X slot that can pierce multiple ships. Again, the bigger the fleet the more ships should be aligned an hit.
-For authoritarian species, special unstable reactors that allow the ships to detonate in the middle of the ennemy force, damaging a high number of ships.
-Making big fleet have a malus in combat speed du to the harder coordination, that would make hit and run tactics more effective.
-Specific FTL that are less effective/way more costly but that have safer emergency jumps.

Other than that I love all the changes already.

 

[Dreadlord]

Good dev diary, this new patch already feels like a new game. I mean you can add a few more years worth of developing time and sell this as Stellaris II at this point

 

[AdamantError]

With the missiles being limited to torpedo slots, will we be getting a hull type for destroyers and battleships that will allow them to use missiles?

I have always liked missiles as a weapon choice, so I was just wondering if they will be mostly relegated to a secondary weapon role.

Overall, excited for the Cheryh update! Hopefully I can make use of raiding tactics to get rid of the xenos ability to maintain their infidel fleet without being utterly stomped if I get caught.