Stellaris Fleet and Space Combat System

[Imp0815]

Dragatus pointed out i should move my Post to a Topic and not a Reply, so here it is:

03.05.22: In further discussions, some wording came up that could make more sense. Please feel free to replace "Fleet" with "Task Force" and "Flagship" with "Capital Ship". Their basic meanings would be "Task Force"/"Fleet" as the smallest controlled unit on the map, and "Capital Ship"/"Flagship" as the big, heavy-hitting core of your Task Forces. 15.07.23: I've cleaned up the text and formatting a bit, and I hope this makes it easier to read. Please feel free to discuss or challenge my suggestions; perhaps we can refine these ideas together!

I think we need a more hands-off approach for this management-heavy game and align the warfare with the rest of the laid-back experience.

I would suggest stepping back from the idea that ships individually are used for any metrics or balancing approach. I would rather see a rework on the task force level so that task forces are the main unit to balance around. This would entail a rework on how big a Fleet can be and a system behind it that allows us to further customize and build our empire doctrines.

In short, I would like to see a system inspired by how Hearts of Iron 4 manages its army and unit design and warfare.

In my personal opinion, it would fit Stellaris, an empire-building and management game, quite well because it would convey the much larger scale we are operating on. I find it quite jarring that we mostly maneuver 1-4 Fleets around, primarily stacked together to avoid risking losing the decisive battle against the opposing stack.

Here is what I imagine the changes would look like:

• Task forces are our new main units.
• They consist of a Flagship(s) and Support/Escorts.
• Flagships: (Battle) Cruisers, Battleships, Carriers, Titans
• Support/Escorts: Corvettes, Frigates, Destroyers, Cruisers
• You retain the "Fleet designer".
• These new task forces are much smaller in comparison, and there could be an option to research capacity increases or completely fill the task force anyways, but this will focus on different stats and lower others.
• "Smaller in size" is a relative term when it comes to representation. There could be a "Number of Ships per Unit" stat that gets represented based on how many ship models are in the task force on the map. For example, a Corvette Unit could consist of 5 Corvettes, and a task force of four Corvette units could have 20 Ships. So, the scale would even increase purely representation-wise.
• This could also tie into the stats, giving the player another option on how to design task forces.
• Each task force gets a Soft HP system (going to call it "Organization" for now).
• Each task force has Supply.
• Supply will be a system which dictates how long and where the task force can operate without access to home territory or other means.
• Each Planet and Starbase Module provides Supply to a system and adjacent systems.
• In this range, your task forces will be supplied.
• The Supply is hard-capped; if you overextend, all task forces in range will use up their own Supply Storage, and after that, receive very harsh penalties.
• The Supply cap and range could be extended with research but not to ridiculous means (not make it obsolete).

How I imagine the Task Force Designer (a really quick mock-up I made, numbers are not final!):

This is just shamelessly plucked from HoI and a little remodeled. But the overall system in HoI really works well and is somewhat intuitive. Basically, you create a Task Force template that consists of a set number of ships. The more ships you stack in the task force, the more organization penalty and supply usage you will stack.

Organization would work nearly the same as in HoI; you could call it "Morale" to differentiate it, which dictates when a Task Force will not be able to fight, where ships take extra damage, or emergency warp out of combat.

This would result in a more natural back and forth as we know it from HoI, and a defeat would not mean waiting for 200 days and then having to drive back to the front while the enemy stomps your stations.

Screening would be a similar mechanic as in HoI Naval combat whereby your Flagships are protected against Strikecraft and Missiles. Ships with PD or Strike Craft provide better screening. A good foundation to fiddle with numbers and composition to suit your play styles.

What this would look like on the Galaxy Map:

1. Three task forces (two Backbones and one Carrier) at the border of your Empire.
2. Six fast task forces outside of the Empire territory and out of supply.
3. Three task forces from the neighboring empire.I thought about the color coding and realized that on the left, there are always the planet icons for inhabitable planets. Because you won't really colonize a system with enemies in it, why not ALWAYS put the enemy task forces on the left side so it's easier to read? Right side for your ships - left side for enemy ships. Also, this would allow using color coding for ship status even more. I sat down again and made some mock-ups of a highly experimental (numbers are not final) representation of how I imagine the UX of the Supply system.

I thought about the color coding and realized that on the left, there are always the planet icons for inhabitable planets. Because you won't really colonize a system with enemies in it, why not ALWAYS put the enemy task forces on the left side so it's easier to read? Right side for your ships - left side for enemy ships. Also, this would allow using color coding for task forces status.

I sat down again and made some mock-ups of a highly experimental (numbers are not final) representation of how I imagine the UX of the Supply system.

I came up with two Supply Map modes A & B to convey the Supply system to the Player; I did not decide which one is more useful/better:

Map Mode Type A:

• Supply is displayed by an icon underneath a system, along with the current available cap. Starbases that have the right buildings (Anchorages, Supply Depots, etc.) and planets provide supply cap to neighboring systems (shown by the hexagon around the Supply Symbol).
• Here, I chose three jumps as a basic supply range (similar to how the trade collection range works). As mentioned before, the numbers are not final. For simplicity's sake, the Backbone fleet needs 50 supply, and the Fast fleet needs 25.
• As we can see, the three task forces down in Nordak have overstretched and breached the system supply limit, resulting in being undersupplied.
• Our starbases are too far from the northern borders, and we should build up another one with a supply hub to be able to deploy task forces there. This is just in case the blue neighbor decides to dislike us. Or maybe we want to build up a base at the border to be ready to start an invasion ourselves, with the maximum supply range when operating outside home territory.
• In theory, we could abandon our posts in the Qeb Daraan system because here, the border is protected by our starbase, just like in Calima'el.

Map Mode Type B:

• The situation didn't change from Type A, but I went for a system that highlights all hyperlanes/systems that are in supply range of the bases.
• You can imagine something like the trade lane map mode we already have. It can be interchangeably used with a bubble that wraps around all supplied space, something akin to sector map mode.
• This mode would also allow us to see directly how far we can advance into neighboring territory before we need to build up another base or capture a planet.
• I played with the idea to also show the supply nodes under the systems in foreign territory in Map mode A, but I think it should be dynamic based on the diplomatic state. These include:
  • At War
  • Open Borders
  • Allied

Finally, this is what the 'normal' map mode would look like with the system:

• Only important stuff is shown, like the three task forces out of supply and suffering, and the Supply Hubs to perhaps read the map and calculate in your head how far your task forces can go.
• However, this will be supported by either a context-based map mode or a tooltip coming right up.

Finally, I'd like to suggest an easy-to-read tooltip when moving task forces to support the system:

• I know I removed some information, but this can be added beneath or based on context.
• Context-based information is already in the game (only see anomalies when selecting a research ship, for example, which is a great feature by the way).
• The tooltip could be expanded by showing where the station lies that is providing the supply or how far the next supply hub is.

The keen reader might ask at this point, "how does all this work with Jump drives and the YEET Machine we will get in Overlord?" And it's pretty simple. This system balances these functions out pretty well by the fact that, yes, you can jump directly into the heart of an enemy empire, but you will run out of supply there, making the whole affair a high-risk - high-reward scenario. As mentioned before, task forces will get an internal supply storage that keeps them afloat for some time outside of supply range but not indefinitely. So, when you decide to make an offensive jump, do it within your respectively predicted supply range behind enemy lines to open up another attack direction, or take the risk by taking out an important shipyard or taking the homeworld in one swoop and hope for the best.

Another thing that surely comes to mind is how supply is handled if you operate inside allied territory. This is another aspect that needs to be play-tested. But for the sake of balance, and to not give allied empires (or diplomatically focused ones) the benefit of circumventing the stacking by giving each empire their own "Allied Supply Cap" in a system, they should share the Supply Cap. However, supplies should not be shared if you just have open borders without any military connections like fighting the same enemy.

This would allow for a larger reserve but never the idea of being able to bring more guns to a fight and keep it fair.

On a side note of allies: Federations could get a Shared Fleet Cap whereby you can field a set amount of task forces, based on contribution level. It would be far easier to manage and control such task forces. Because you could just add the Type to the Designer whether the player is President or not:

One thing that is still not fixed by this is how you design ships for them. I think that must stay inside the federation window for now.

Also, don't get distracted by how cramped the window seems; it can be scaled up and a slider could be added. I think most players won't design more than 3-5 designs, but it should be possible to go for nearly unlimited ones.

In order to make the organization and interaction with task forces more fluid and easy to handle, I propose that 'fleets' now be viewed as a higher hierarchical organizational unit, with task forces as part of a fleet. Within this organizational unit, admirals can be appointed, allowing their skills to benefit the entire fleet.
If admirals are now leading a fleet of task forces and the command cap is based on the task force rather than the ships, we could reintroduce the 'command limit' as a skill and level bonus
This would also increase the value of high-level admirals as they could extend their significant bonuses to more task forces.

By making fleets a possible method of controlling a larger amount of task forces with a single click, I believe a semi-light frontline system, as in HoI, would be necessary. This would allow players who prefer less micro-management in their game to easily deploy task forces along a frontline and have combat somewhat automated.

This would also keep the outliner in check, as we currently have the problem that it often explodes as soon as we have fleet splitting or reinforcements drop out of hypertravel when their target fleets get defeated. It could function in the same way as the sector section in the outliner where you can expand the fleet to get individual task forces listed. However, you do not have to do this, as you can simply click the fleet and set deployment and frontline commands.

How a war would be conducted with this system:

• Firstly, I think the hyperlane density must be set to a higher minimum value to create more broad front lines and have maneuver space.
• When a war starts, you can command your front line to attack, and the ships start to move into the enemy territory automatically until the war is over or you command them to stop. To clarify this: you can always do everything by hand, of course.
• When two opposing task forces meet, a space battle is started in this system:
  
  
• The phases should roll each month, mainly to bring the combat flow in line with the rest of the game. The whole damage calculation should be based on each roll. But this is so in-depth, it needs testing and a more complex understanding of how the values interact with each other.
• The green bar displays the organization/HP/ships because these values all intertwine with each other; if one of the values drops too hard in comparison to the rest of the task force, the willingness to fight drops.
• The orange bar is the supply. This can be used to overstack for some months to make a breakthrough but at the risk of losing heavily due to lack of supply. This window could also be used to display the system and its modifiers better.
• While the battle occurs, you can enter the system and still watch the animations, but they are not a 100% representation of what is happening(Just as it is right now). It would open the door for a much more cinematic presentation of space combat with maneuvers or big stand-offs, and no more death ball of doom light show.

The best thing about this change would be how it simplifies the balancing of starbases. In vanilla Stellaris pre-Overlord, you can just stack up fleets until you outnumber the base, which quickly happens. To compensate, we got the new planetary rings to boost our rather weak starbases with even more defensive numbers, so a system can be a significant roadblock, even in the endgame. But this forces an attacking player to concentrate all their military fleets to overcome such a system - quite the opposite of what we wanted when addressing doomstacks.

So, why does this "fix" these problems?

• Starbases can be balanced around fending off 1-2 fleets based on the supply limit and the time/state of the game. For example, a Citadel should be able to withstand an attack from 4-6 fleets in the endgame, but late-game fleets are also stronger.
• They now serve as a reliable way to defend borders where you don't want or can't position a fleet. They offer a formidable alternative without draining your alloy budget on immovable firepower.
• When combat is slowed down, starbases dedicated to defense can slow down or bind an enemy fleet until the empire's fleets arrive (if they make it in time).
• Starbases are still inferior to fleets because they don't have evasion. This means a specialized artillery fleet with long-range torpedoes could be designed to take out bases slowly but surely. And you can now design such fleets because you have much more flexibility without compromising your main force since you don't need to put all your eggs in one basket.
• One thing to consider is that a defending player has an advantage if they use the full potential of adding fleets and starbases to a system and getting both engaged in a space battle. But I see no real issue with that because defending should be easier than attacking, and an inferior empire, tech-wise, will not be easily defeated.

One factor that should be changed is how fast fleets and bases repair. This should be slowed down, so a defense can be worn down over time. This would mean the defending player could be gradually worn down, or they switch out their fleets with reserves or maybe invest some resources to make emergency repairs. So the warfare is tied more closely with how good your economy is. This needs playtesting, however.

Starbases can be used as staging grounds for a war and specialized as a supply hub, adding another decision a player can make when choosing where to place their bases.

I imagine players handling 2-15 fleets in the early game and having starbases at positions they won't focus their fleets on. Maybe go all-in with a war and leave the rest to defend with their starbases and a reaction force in the inner systems (Fast-Fleet, remember?). Or just the border to a neighbor that is just really peaceful for now. More gameplay decisions to make.

After military use is balanced around game progression, starbases could also get much more civilian uses like mining or research, because you don't need to litter your whole empire with 70k stepping stones to hold off the 550k doomstacks for an extra half-second. More choices, more options, I like it.

It took me 3 hours to make this post, but I think it was about time to create some mock-ups of how I envision a better combat system for Stellaris.

 

[Cordane]

Your suggestion for fleets seems to be simplifying the effects of ship design without at all explaining that's what you're doing. Really need to see more information on your intentions here.

You seem to be going for really crippling "supply" penalties, with smaller fleets, dissuasion from using even the smaller capacity in those fleets, and then pushback on stacking multiple fleets together, despite indications that multiple fleets will be required to take down system/planetary fortifications.

 

[Stardance]

I'm not an HOI player, but I like the overall design of what you've presented. It feels cleaner than the current implementation. I'm guessing it would require a near complete rework of how stellaris handles warfare though, which means it is unlikely to be implemented. That said, Overlord came up with some very creative solutions, so maybe they can find a way to implement some of these ideas you've presented. Assigning roles within a fleet such as flagship, escort, screening, supply/organization, etc. might go a long way to making the fleets feel more unique and meaningful than the current mockup. Right now, you have to either dive kind of deep into how design works (current 'meta') or ... just build more ships. Supply/organization could add a nice additional dimension and tie into power projection. Do you have the economic power to send your fleet anywhere on the map? Or do you field large short-range numbers that are only able to defend near your starbases? Or do you have to raid to keep your ships functional?

Adding more to 'fleet' and 'fleet vs fleet' and 'supply/organization' allows a more unique interaction with the game. I like it.

 

[Imp0815]

Your suggestion for fleets seems to be simplifying the effects of ship design without at all explaining that's what you're doing. Really need to see more information on your intentions here.

You seem to be going for really crippling "supply" penalties, with smaller fleets, dissuasion from using even the smaller capacity in those fleets, and then pushback on stacking multiple fleets together, despite indications that multiple fleets will be required to take down system/planetary fortifications.

To be honest my suggestion mostly requires knowledge on how Combat and "Fleet" design works in Hearts of Iron.

In HoI you also have a designer for Tanks and Ships(The ones on water), where you alter the equipment to alter the stats and the role of the Tank/Ship, it has more depth than Stellaris and mostly functions the same as Stellaris.
To be fair Stellaris would be somewhat better with this because you have direct control over which ship is used in which fleet. In HoI you design a tank which gets passively produced and you say "This Division should use Heavy Tanks" and if you not specifically go in a separate menu to say "ONLY the Model T" they will just use every Heavy tank they will get their hands on and will get the stats of these tanks and i don't even know how this is reflected in the stats or how to find out how this affects the division.

So you will keep the Ship designer as it is and slot the Ship designes in each slot in the Fleet Designer. This will give you much more control and insight what your Fleet units are good at and incentive's more ship designs if you want special Fleets, like i mentioned the Artillery fleet with long range Torpedos with low tracking that are good at disabling Stations for Example.
Or light fleets with high speeds as reactions forces.
Or Maybe ships that get Supply modules to extend the time on how long the fleet can operate out of supply range at the cost of firepower because the slots is used for a supply ship and not combat.
So you see this would give the Ship designs far more Impact because you can see the impact of each design directly inside your fleet designer reflected in the stats. In my opinion this would increase the transparency and the enjoyment of Space Combat because the possibly of understanding what your fleet, and the fleet stats consist of the stats of the ship designs that you designed and you put into it, is good at and what not is far more easier.

All i mentioned is somewhat existent in Hearts of iron but for WW2 techs and divided between naval and land combat and a bit more complex.


Overall its about control and depth added to the System. You will still see massive battles in the mid to endgame, because players should be able(through tech,preparation and risky overextension) to stack some amount of fleets in one battle but never their whole Empires might. This is what i want to achieve with that, Maintain the Epicness while giving depth and perspective to the spectacle.
As an Example reducing the System so only one Fleet which can fight in a System you can run into trouble balancing Starbases again and you remove the flexibility to mix fleets with different focuses.
The Supply Penalty should be mostly affecting Organisation heavily so that even if you make the mistake of under supplying or stacking to high, your fleets just naturally retreat when in combat because the willingness to fight, or without ammo its impossible to fight, so they will try to fall back while taking some losses but not all. A Retreat should result in falling back to the System they attacked from or to the System next to the System where they lost the battle, first home territory, then neutral and if this is not possible the fleet should be wiped.

I hope that clarified some of my suggestions.

 

[Imp0815]

I'm not an HOI player, but I like the overall design of what you've presented. It feels cleaner than the current implementation. I'm guessing it would require a near complete rework of how stellaris handles warfare though, which means it is unlikely to be implemented. That said, Overlord came up with some very creative solutions, so maybe they can find a way to implement some of these ideas you've presented. Assigning roles within a fleet such as flagship, escort, screening, supply/organization, etc. might go a long way to making the fleets feel more unique and meaningful than the current mockup. Right now, you have to either dive kind of deep into how design works (current 'meta') or ... just build more ships. Supply/organization could add a nice additional dimension and tie into power projection. Do you have the economic power to send your fleet anywhere on the map? Or do you field large short-range numbers that are only able to defend near your starbases? Or do you have to raid to keep your ships functional?

Adding more to 'fleet' and 'fleet vs fleet' and 'supply/organization' allows a more unique interaction with the game. I like it.

Thanks for your Feedback! I'm happy that you liked it.

I also think there are far better ways to implement it and some parts only for sure.
Off the top of my head:

• The Fleet manager needs to be remade to grant a better overview for your Empire Fleets.
• If you are not bothering with Ship designs you wont bother with fleet designs, so there should be an Auto design system for Fleets.
• I don't know if a deep dive is needed if your Fleets always reflect what your fleet is good at, for example you see each DMG typ, whereby each typ could already be loosely broken down to: Is good VS Shields, is good VS Armor, is good VS Hulls. Armed with that knowledge and good Intel you could take a look at the fleets of your enemy and how they are composed.
  For example one empire has very high Shields, to benefit from the passive re-gen out of station range, on their fleets so you go heavy on Kinetic DMG with your fleets and so on.
  As of now it's broken down to individual ships which is far harder to understand and you never know(as far as i know) how many of these ships are fielded. You would also know how many Fleets they field and you could respond accordingly - which would also mean Espionage would also benefit from this change which is also awesome!
• To briefly touch the "meta" i know so far that there is something called an "alpha-strike" which favors heavy dmg weapons, like neutron Launchers. I think this would also be slightly countered by the slower combat and the idea that screening could be a more effective thing. But overall i think the game could be balanced more easily with such a system.

 

[Stardance]

• To briefly touch the "meta" i know so far that there is something called an "alpha-strike" which favors heavy dmg weapons, like neutron Launchers. I think this would also be slightly countered by the slower combat and the idea that screening could be a more effective thing. But overall i think the game could be balanced more easily with such a system.

Some others can better describe the meta, but the developers have stated they are highly interested it correcting it.

The basic idea is… well think of it like artillery. If you can fire first at long range, and totally blanket the enemy with fire, there will be either no one left to fire back or that initial strike is so massive it will carry the rest of the battle.

It is a bit boring if players engage it it. The AI doesn’t (unless you use mods). NSC (modding community) has discussed in detail and come up with creative solutions, and various modders have their own spin on fixing it. It IS fixable, we just don’t know what will be officially done by developers when they get to it.

And yes NSC found a way to slow down combat for those heavy hitters, and it does help. They also made destroyers better at screening. They just add a lot of other stuff too so I don’t tend to use their mod, but the combat solutions they came up with are quite effective.

 

[Imp0815]

Some others can better describe the meta, but the developers have stated they are highly interested it correcting it.

The basic idea is… well think of it like artillery. If you can fire first at long range, and totally blanket the enemy with fire, there will be either no one left to fire back or that initial strike is so massive it will carry the rest of the battle.

It is a bit boring if players engage it it. The AI doesn’t (unless you use mods). NSC (modding community) has discussed in detail and come up with creative solutions, and various modders have their own spin on fixing it. It IS fixable, we just don’t know what will be officially done by developers when they get to it.

And yes NSC found a way to slow down combat for those heavy hitters, and it does help. They also made destroyers better at screening. They just add a lot of other stuff too so I don’t tend to use their mod, but the combat solutions they came up with are quite effective.

I play NSC and i can say from my experience that it doesn't do far enough. Because i did not notice any changes to the overall combat feel. You still stack fleets ad absurdum and if you don't you will get a worse outcome or even loose.

It's a good example why just changes to numbers and underlying background mechanics wont fix the overall problem with the combat.

As i can imagine it being with the Fleet focus system and the limited amount of Ships and Fleets you can deploy in one space battle it will not be the Meta to just stack Battleships with Artillery if the enemy could employ fast Corvette/Cruiser fleets that evade your big shots annihilate your screen and torpedo your battle ships. Also the question is if you prepare your heavy hitting Fleet with Battleship and Cruiser/Destroyers screens that eat Corvettes and Strike crafts for breakfast, how many of these fleets can you employ until you hit the supply cap? A halve one? Maybe one or two in the late game? Could be viable but by no means "meta" if balanced right.
There could be terrain effects like asteroid belts reducing hitting chance for large weapons so choosing your field of battle could also be factored in.

This whole idea makes me excited, if implemented it could elevate the whole warfare aspect of Stellaris to a whole new level.

 

[currylambchop]

Feels like you just ripped off HOI4, which probably has the most boring and dragged out warfare of any PDX game IMO. I don’t want battles to be super long and what I want to focus on is building my empire, rather than micromanaging division templates and combat width, something that doesn’t even make sense in space.

If you wanted to use HOI4 battles you l could use the naval battles instead, they still suck (they literally removed range for Christ’s sake) but at least it would add more depth and fit space combat more. Maybe the pre Man the guns combat but in 3D would be pretty good.

 

[Imp0815]

Feels like you just ripped off HOI4, which probably has the most boring and dragged out warfare of any PDX game IMO. I don’t want battles to be super long and what I want to focus on is building my empire, rather than micromanaging division templates and combat width, something that doesn’t even make sense in space.

If you wanted to use HOI4 battles you l could use the naval battles instead, they still suck (they literally removed range for Christ’s sake) but at least it would add more depth and fit space combat more. Maybe the pre Man the guns combat but in 3D would be pretty good.

It is indeed heavily inspired from HoI IV combat i did not make any secrets out of it. Of all Paradox games it fits the "Grand" aspect of these games the best and it works the best. No more individually pushing around whole Armys and more real conflicts of epic proportions. And you answered the question: "why such a system is better suited for Stellaris" yourself. We are normally occupied and engaged in building an Empire and we don't want to micro manage fleets around to whack the AI Fleets or keep on our toes to not run into the enemy doomstack to early.
So a System with a drawn out combat System, without an immediate fail state, would allow us to pace the wars more comfortable around the rest of the game play of Stellaris. You should be able to just let the Front do its thing while you go back and manage some planets or research without the risk of loosing your doomstack to another because you were in a different menus for 5 seconds.
The Naval combat is really not really engaging in HoI IV its too hands off and you don't have a really good level of control over it. The things i would like to add from the Naval system in Hoi IV are the Composition and screening mechanics.

 

[currylambchop]

We are normally occupied and engaged in building an Empire and we don't want to micro manage fleets around to whack the AI Fleets or keep on our toes to not run into the enemy doomstack to early.

HOI4 requires more micro than any other paradox game because you have to control each and every division. The battle planner is really useless and I end up micromanaging all of my divisions to prevent them from getting destroyed and wasting manpower.

You should be able to just let the Front do its thing while you go back and manage some planets or research without the risk of loosing your doomstack to another because you were in a different menus for 5 seconds.

No reason why frontlines or another form of fleet automation couldn't be implemented without doing HOI4 combat. You could always just have automated fleet missions where the fleet either focuses on occupying enemy systems or hunting down enemy fleets.

 

[Imp0815]

HOI4 requires more micro than any other paradox game because you have to control each and every division. The battle planner is really useless and I end up micromanaging all of my divisions to prevent them from getting destroyed and wasting manpower.

No reason why frontlines or another form of fleet automation couldn't be implemented without doing HOI4 combat. You could always just have automated fleet missions where the fleet either focuses on occupying enemy systems or hunting down enemy fleets.

The system in HoI is really good because, as you describe, you can engage in micro to be more efficient but you don't have to.
And the Micro game play can be really rewarding too.

What in particular do you like how Combat is done in Stellaris? I find it really bad in comparison to how HoI it's doing it. i dont want a 1to1 copy but i really like the idea of it being heavily inspired by it.

 

[currylambchop]

The system in HoI is really good because, as you describe, you can engage in micro to be more efficient but you don't have to.
And the Micro game play can be really rewarding too.

What in particular do you like how Combat is done in Stellaris? I find it really bad in comparison to how HoI it's doing it. i dont want a 1to1 copy but i really like the idea of it being heavily inspired by it.

Stellaris combat is much more fire and forget. Tbh, sometimes I don’t even bother designing ships because i want to focus on my internal empire management.

I just really dislike HOi4 combat because it’s very tedious in my opinion. If anything it could be applied to the ground combat instead where at least it makes sense, each planet being 10 provinces or something.

 

[Stardance]

Some of the things I like: Zooming in and watching the battles. Designing the ships, naming fleets or unique ships I’ve found (I would enjoy more in designing fleets as well), patrolling (yes I’m weird), ‘garrisoning’ ships in particular areas - like this fleet represents this planet and imagining it is people from that planet on those ships, and organizing fleets to beat really tough foes.

Some things I wish for: Escorts for civilian ships (why can’t I protect my science / construction vessel from seizure and vivisection? ugh!), a game reason to have fleets stationed in different areas (it still encourages stacking), starbases to be better at holding out than planet fortresses (maybe in Overlord?), more engaging / variety in ground combat, border skirmishes that aren’t full blown war (please please please), better pirates and ‘unexpected dangers in space’, and probably half a dozen other things if I put my mind to it.

 

[Imp0815]

Stellaris combat is much more fire and forget. Tbh, sometimes I don’t even bother designing ships because i want to focus on my internal empire management.

I just really dislike HOi4 combat because it’s very tedious in my opinion. If anything it could be applied to the ground combat instead where at least it makes sense, each planet being 10 provinces or something.

Yes you are right Stellaris Combat is forgettable because as long as you just remember to have the bigger number on your fleet you are more likely to win. A system where by you really can rely on your fleets to hold the border and a slower system which gives you time to react is far less tedious than having to babysit your doom stack and 12 border systems so you do not get overrun or loose it all in one engagement.

You need to free yourself from the boundaries on where the system is used in HoI. A Land combat system for Planet invasions with a system in HoI would make the game tedious because have to stop your whole Empire management and the Space Combat to start Watching at one planet of 20 to capture. I think the Land combat could be improved but i think it such a small part of the overall game play aspect that a hands off system is the right way to got here.
In the beginning i was advocating for a real time tactical system for Fleets like in Sins of a Solar Empire but i see now that the strength of Stellaris lies in the Buildup and Management aspects and mostly in the laiedback nature of them. So i came up with a Space combat system that plays into these strengths and wont demand your full attention in a War situation. Drawn out Border centric Conflicts with long lasting space battles will fit perfectly in the game pace of these strengths.

 

[Imp0815]

Some of the things I like: Zooming in and watching the battles. Designing the ships, naming fleets or unique ships I’ve found (I would enjoy more in designing fleets as well), patrolling (yes I’m weird), ‘garrisoning’ ships in particular areas - like this fleet represents this planet and imagining it is people from that planet on those ships, and organizing fleets to beat really tough foes.

Some things I wish for: Escorts for civilian ships (why can’t I protect my science / construction vessel from seizure and vivisection? ugh!), a game reason to have fleets stationed in different areas (it still encourages stacking), starbases to be better at holding out than planet fortresses (maybe in Overlord?), more engaging / variety in ground combat, border skirmishes that aren’t full blown war (please please please), better pirates and ‘unexpected dangers in space’, and probably half a dozen other things if I put my mind to it.

Thank you! It seems you get my idea very well

I often played with the idea of a more Passive System where by fleets get fielded by your sectors and sectors take up a much bigger part in your Empire again(Just like the basic idea of Overlords Vassals). This would mean that each Sector has a Fleet capacity based on Economy and Pops and a softcap. Each Sector would gain Traits and "cutlure" based on its position in your empire and the ecological environment it has. Rocky and "hard" worlds would generate harden soldiers that are good at fighting and have high Moral in combat. Agrarian worlds would field much more fleets but not as Technological advanced and maybe not as brave. Just give each sector some personality that is reflected in the fleet and soldiers that come out of these systems. If a Sector would revolt these fleets could turn against you or maybe only part of them. Fleets could get traditions and be a long serving veteran unit in your empire having thousand of battles under their belts etc..
The list of interesting and fun interactions are limitless and just need the time and the courage to be implemented and tested.

The idea of border skirmishes without a war, would be far easier to implement with the System i suggested. It would be cool if this was a mechanic that enables if you have a borders with a rival or the right civics and Ethics. Then you could send fleets to attack the border systems without taking them. Raiding on the other hand could be more viable because of the system, send fleets to border systems and raid them without taking them. This would mean there is a rule set in place when your fleets successfully win a space battle for a system, without a war, they would sit their for some Weeks and raid the system. If they succeed or retreat they get the loot they gather in the time they spent there. This could be a mechanic for Driven assimilation, Despoilers and Empires that take the Nihilistic Akquise perk. And due to the nature of how many fleets are engage in these battles not a high risk for the attacker nor a high damaging or disruptive event for the defender.

To be honest i'm not sure how the ground combat would be handled in this system. I tough about giving each fleet a "Marines"-Stat or ships a "Troop" module just like they get to choose thrusts or Scanners. So there could be all the current Troop types still represented in the game and have an impact on how good your invasion progress. And when the Space Battle is over they automatically start Bombing and invading planets.
Maybe when Fleets are in a system with a Planet you can order them to Bomb them and based on the setting of your bombardment they stop the bombing and land troops(Armageddon for nuking everything that moves(Eradication), Tactical for destroying Armies then Land Armys(save and slow), Raiding for raiding(Special), And Invasion for Landing Troops and supporting in the battle(quick and dirty)).
But this would also require some balance and rework of how planetary defense army's work and the question how long a fleet can deploy Invasion armys until they run out and how long it takes to fill them back up. Maybe they use up Supply and when they run out they need wait for some time to fill up again. Which would mean a Fleet that is currently busy staging a Invasion is vulnerable to attacks. This would however be a cool balance mechanic because it would give the defender a chance to take back the system if the attacker gets too greedy. Due to the nature of the Supply cap the attacker must choose how many fleets hold the line and how many are engaged in the invasion.
Planetary defenders could also use the supply system. For example a agrarian world would have plenty of food but not many defenses thus they run out of "ammo" before they run out of food. A Industrial world would run out of Food before they run out of "Ammo". A Fortress world would have large supply storage protected by bunkers and defense systems and fortresses so they would still be formidable way to defend your border worlds.
To not just have supply storage fight it out the Armys should stay and do the fighting with stats and supply usage in the background. A Planet falls when the supply runs out or the Armys get defeated by superior fire power.

But the good thing is Fleet Combat is completely detached from the land combat as it is. So the landing fleets and ground combat could just stay the same without any issue. For now.

 

[Stardance]

I’m not finding the discussion thread at the moment but I remember reading some very interesting ideas that tie ground troops to coming from a planet/sector.

You have a hand in their composition (type of troops), and you decide where to send them - which I think would fit in your system. If a fleet has x ground troops ‘attached’ in some manner, support ships, then you don’t have to micromanage and build so many transports and determine where they go. It also allows for them to get reinforced if they are destroyed, if there are sufficient jobs to support that.

It steps a little away from ‘making armies out of minerals’ and ties the number and type available closer to job types. It isn’t so much about making the fights more complex, but reducing micro and making them more representative of a given planet / pop jobs.

 

[currylambchop]

Yes you are right Stellaris Combat is forgettable because as long as you just remember to have the bigger number on your fleet you are more likely to win. A system where by you really can rely on your fleets to hold the border and a slower system which gives you time to react is far less tedious than having to babysit your doom stack and 12 border systems so you do not get overrun or loose it all in one engagement.

You need to free yourself from the boundaries on where the system is sued in HoI. A Land combat system for Planet invasions with a system in HoI would make the game tedious because have to stop your whole Empire management and the Space Combat to start Watching at one planet of 20 to capture. I think the Land combat could be improved but i think it such a small part of the overall game play aspect that a hands off system is the right way to got here.
In the beginning i was advocating for a real time tactical system for Fleets like in Sins of a Solar Empire but i see now that the strength of Stellaris lies in the Buildup and Management aspects and mostly in the layed back nature of them. So i came up with a Space combat system that plays into these strengths and wont demand your full attention in a War situation. Drawn out Border centric Conflicts with long lasting space battles will fit perfectly in the game pace of these strengths.

Combat width doesn’t make sense in space at all, there are 100 million kilometres in a system, and it’s all 3D.

HOI4 doesn’t make it easier. It’s tedious and takes hours in real life to advance a bit and capitulate one country. you have to micromanage to get any progress.

 

[Imp0815]

Combat width doesn’t make sense in space at all, there are 100 million kilometres in a system, and it’s all 3D.

HOI4 doesn’t make it easier. It’s tedious and takes hours in real life to advance a bit and capitulate one country. you have to micromanage to get any progress.

I'm sorry if i repeat myself but you need to free yourself from the boundaries on where the system is used in HoI or how its used.
You see, i never used any notion of Combat width in a direct sens because yes, it does not make sens in Space.
That's why i suggested to constrain the Fleets that can operate in a system with the supplies that can be provided to that system. With this you can make a system that makes sens and constrain the numbers of fleets in one system and make the Warfare and the whole Empire aspect of Warfare more believable.

You put the parts out of HoI4 that makes the warfare fun and engaging and remodel them to fit Stellaris while keeping in mind that Stellaris should not be a full warfare focused game but more of a empire building and story game. Warfare already is much slower than before because it takes time to completely kill an empire.
Plus with the new system, a player that only wants to focus on Warfare gets a system that really is deep enough to engage with it.

I might add that Stallaris Warfare is basically the exact thing you describe, it's tedious, it takes hours to capitulate one Empire, completely, and you HAVE to micromanage. there isn't even a way to automate Combat in Stallaris, and you always have to check for mini AI fleets that start to recapture the systems behind you.

Also that a Game takes hours is really subjective. I really like long lasting games.
Overall i must sadly say that i have the feeling that your perspective on HoI is really different from mine, no offense.

 

[PK_AZ]

Idea is interesting, but honestly I fail to see one thing I could agree with.
1. Basic idea of having divisions instead of ships - sorry, no. Divisions works ok in HoI4, because that is world war 2 game, and basic unit of world war was division. But Stellaris is space game. There is just too much flavor in having warships.
2. Fleet as basic combat unit - sounds acceptable, but there are too many little problems. What are fleet stats if some ships are not available? How damage is distributed? Is it fleet-level? Because if so, then check point 1.
3. Fleet bloat - with current mechanics, number of formations active at once is more or less ok. With your idea, there will be (quick check on screenshot) 17 of them
4. You answer point 3 by automatization, but HoI4 shows clearly that automatization is not solution, and no system should be designed with assumption that player will automate it.

5. Hard differentiation between escorts and flagships.
a) per definition, there is one flagship per fleet
b) it leads to absurds like early destroyers being classified as escorts, through there is nothing they can escort and the are actually heaviest component of the fleet
c) it shows depressing lack of imagination; why exactly cannot I use battleships as escorts?
d) what is added value of that differentiation?

6. Organization as limiting factor in fleet designer, akin of HoI4 - ...no. Just no. Averaged ORG of HoI4 is somehow forgivable, because this game is so much about divisions, but even then it creates enough small problems to be considered anti-feature.

7. Supply. Well, that is actually something I can, in general principle, agree with.

What should be done imho is
1. Total rework of operational level, to make it less build around 'fleets easily moving through territory' and more about 'naval bases allowing fleets to move where they want'
2. Rework of tactical level, into something more akin of HoI4 naval battle.

 

[Imp0815]

Idea is interesting, but honestly I fail to see one thing I could agree with.
1. Basic idea of having divisions instead of ships - sorry, no. Divisions works ok in HoI4, because that is world war 2 game, and basic unit of world war was division. But Stellaris is space game. There is just too much flavor in having warships.
2. Fleet as basic combat unit - sounds acceptable, but there are too many little problems. What are fleet stats if some ships are not available? How damage is distributed? Is it fleet-level? Because if so, then check point 1.
3. Fleet bloat - with current mechanics, number of formations active at once is more or less ok. With your idea, there will be (quick check on screenshot) 17 of them
4. You answer point 3 by automatization, but HoI4 shows clearly that automatization is not solution, and no system should be designed with assumption that player will automate it.

5. Hard differentiation between escorts and flagships.
a) per definition, there is one flagship per fleet
b) it leads to absurds like early destroyers being classified as escorts, through there is nothing they can escort and the are actually heaviest component of the fleet
c) it shows depressing lack of imagination; why exactly cannot I use battleships as escorts?
d) what is added value of that differentiation?

6. Organization as limiting factor in fleet designer, akin of HoI4 - ...no. Just no. Averaged ORG of HoI4 is somehow forgivable, because this game is so much about divisions, but even then it creates enough small problems to be considered anti-feature.

7. Supply. Well, that is actually something I can, in general principle, agree with.

What should be done imho is
1. Total rework of operational level, to make it less build around 'fleets easily moving through territory' and more about 'naval bases allowing fleets to move where they want'
2. Rework of tactical level, into something more akin of HoI4 naval battle.

Hey at first i want to thank you for your constructive feedback. I came across one to many posts that get hung-up on details, fail to see the wider picture or just derail into a subjective argument about a non issues. Really appreciated!

1. I stole the division designer because i like how orderly it is and how easy it would be to build a System with it to design Fleet templates. If you want to have a Empire size navy that has many Fleets you wont get any fun out of it if you have to manually design each new fleet.
   The system is out of necessity. For Example: One-Fleet-beats-all needs to go -> give me multiply Fleets -> Multiple Fleets are more micro intensive to build with the new system -> give me templates so i can order 10 Fleets of typ A and 10 Fleets of type B
   If you don't like the idea/taste of divisions Call it "Task Forces" and the connection to Warships are back again. You could have Multiple Tasks forces form a Fleet and a Fleet would be commanded by an Admiral:
   
   
   
   
   
2. As of now you don't get any information what your fleet really does and you can only speculate on it based on your individual ships. Overall a Player just works with the "BIG NUMBER" and prays for the best. I find that unacceptable. This point how ever needs to be play tested. With the smaller Fleets and a exact stta information you get in a designer you can make far more informed and decisions as a player. this comes in as a win-win because it would be far easier to fight an enemy empire based on their fleet/Task Force design and not their individual ships, which is borderline useless because you don't really know how many there are based alone on the designs available. So to answer your question i think battles should be based on ship to ship bases. For easy access you work with Task Force stats to determine the effectiveness. The willingness to fight or when a Fleet starts retreating is based on Fleet level. But this is so far into numbers that it is decided in a play tests, by a QA team or in the design process/prototyping.
   
   
3. "Fleet bloat" could become a valid concern for some players. To counter act this either you go and design really big Task forces and deploy less of them because of the supply limit(Bigger Task Force -> More Supply -> can't field many) and players solve their own problem at their own agency. Or you Cap the fleets soft. Or you implement an easy to use automation system for deployment like "front lines" that help organised them.
   One issue i see with the current game is that our Star Empires does not feel like a Empire at all when you just push around 3-4 Fleets in one big blob. And a Space Navy that consists of 30-60 Tasks forces stretched along your borders or spread out over your empire much more conveys the fleeing of how big and powerful you are. As of now its only reflected in numbers and map painted which feels less Grand and more RTS.
   
   
4. I don't know what it's all about the automation of HoI4 and the problem people having with it. I find it really convenient to automate parts of the game that are nearly impossible to do manual like setting up an Army at a front line(ever tried that in HoI 3?). I don't really have problems with it but i do not rely entirely on it. I know it can be janky at times but that just adds to the idea that sometimes a little manual work is required to set things back on track. If the system where perfect a player would not be needed to play the game.
   For my suggestion a basic: "Take these 10 Tasks Forces and spread them at the border to that empire" and a "Take these Systems in order"-Arrow + buttons to say "Go", "Go harder" and "Stop" would also be enough. So i would not suggest to design a System that Automates everything but is a Tool to support it for people who also don't like micro management. A good point i find to support my argument for a automation system here, would be the fact that we are getting more automation for Planets in the next patch. I just lean out of the window here and be a little bit obnoxious and say "Well if they automate planet management why even have that whole economy rework in the first place, planets could just put out resources like mining stations and the management aspect could be removed."
   
   
5. Hard differentiation between escorts and flagships
   a) per definition, there is one flagship per fleet
   No and Yes, i know "Flagship" per definition is just one ship but i forgot to use the Term "Capital ship" here which would fit better. I think the Designer should allow for more of these big ships in one Task Force(As shown in my beautiful mock-up) and as a trade off the Task force should require more supply and have no escort shielding. The amount of Big ships per Task force should be a soft cap that can be extended with research or other traits/perks/civics based on the play test outcomes.
   
   b) it leads to absurds like early destroyers being classified as escorts, through there is nothing they can escort and the are actually heaviest component of the fleet
   There are two solutions to this:
   1. At the start you don't have any Flagships in your Tasks Forces and you unlock this by Researching Battleships. -> Quick and easy to implement/balance.
   2. At the Start you already have Cruisers/Destroyers unlocked and these are your first "Flagships", A Cruiser/Destroyer can be Flagship if you uses a "Flagship" Section in your Ship designer. -> Takes research out of the tree and needs to be balanced and can be controversial.
   
   To be fair i see this point more as a "what flavor are we going for" than a real blocker. Also the question is to be asks if you want to add more shiptypes/subtypes. Which is another topic.
   
   c) it shows depressing lack of imagination; why exactly cannot I use battleships as escorts?
   You can't have your cake and eat it too. - The overuse of them or the Problem that Alpha strike DMG, as the current meta dictates, makes Battleships far more useful at the moment then all your previous ships. A player can be 100% successful if he only builds battleships. They should be put in a more fitting place of a real expensive show of power and not a thing you spam and deploy like corvettes. It takes away of the nature of a flagship or Capital ship in my opinion. As i wrote in a) i don't want to take away the possibly to field only battleships but i want to make it expensive and not the solution for everything. Balance aspects whereby escorts shield your battleships(something similar on how Naval combat is done in HoI) is far more engaging and believable and puts the other ships in a far better place.
   
   d) what is added value of that differentiation?
   Putting Battleships/Carrier's in a place where they belong as a Central part of your Task forces and Expensive Spearhead for your fleet. Give them weight and meaning.
   Escorts on the other hand form your Shield and the Backbone or the Shaft on which the Spearhead rests(haha i love that analogy). They provide shielding against enemy Escorts, Battleships and Strike Crafts.
   This gives all ships a viable use even in endgame without taking away too much design freedom on which ships a player wants to field. We already have a soft version of these mechanism in the game but its not fully embraced and not really conveyed nor must it be abide by. Which i personally find dull and unengaging(Or outright frustrating).
   
   
6. I thought about how far i can go with my ripp-off but i think it makes the system in HoI really good and it would also add the kind of depth to Stellaris that no battle is a decisive win or lose situation. It would tie in with supplies really well. One issue i see with this would be the fact that without constant looses in battle a player would soon have so much alloys laying around that the snowball becomes too rampant. But one could argue if you play a Diplomatic empire and completely ignore Fleets and ships you also have the same result. All in all if Task Forces become less frequent expenses based on losses, with a organization based system, the ship prices could be adjusted. This however needs to be play tested, As of now we already have a really abstract Organisation system whereby ships jump out of the system at chance if they loose, so why not make it a less arbitrary dice roll and more stat based system that is transparent to the player?
   
   
7. So there is at least one point you agree with

I dislike how you have control over fleets with deployment zones in HoI4, it's too arbitrary, random and you don't have much control over it. Its the way it is because the players need to set it up and it runs in the background without the need to babysit it so they can concentrate on the land combat where wars are won.
I saw multiple people talking about how Fleets are handled in Sword of the Stars with bases and missions but i think it would remove too much control of the fleets and the background systems for that would be even more dice rolls and blackboxes that can't really be conveyed good.


One thing that came to my minde to spice up the scale would be to replace the individual ships with Squadron of ships so each slot in the designer represent 3-5 ships depend on the class. So the fleets would not shrink compared to now. If that ever was a point of concern.
For Example:
Crovett Squadron: 5 ships
Destroyer Squadron: 3 Ships
Cruiser: 2 Ships

Cruiser Capitals Squadron: 3 Ships
Battleship Capitals Squadron: 3 Ships
Carrier Capitals Squadron: 3 Ships

Then you add another layer of Balance and different Empires could have different Squadron sizes based on Civis/ethics/techs.
A Hivemind could have 10 corvettes in a Squadron but only one Battlehip in a Squadron to convey "This is a Swarm with one big Queen and many small drones" or something. I'm just brainstorming now.

Best whishes