What can be done to ground combat?

[mighij]

Yeah. While you were writing "this needs a stage system" I had already begun

 

[Melendor]

Some ideas:

• Ground to Space Weapons: take control of the planet fast would be better;
  
  
• Specialized Troops: Race Habitability would intervene in the damage done by the troops. There would be some attachments to increase the troops habitability.
  
  
• Smart Transports: transports should not stay and fight the combat ships. It would be possible pass through a fight, take some damage and land your troops.
  
  
• Rock, Paper and Scissor: there must be some kind of troops and they must be good in a particular situation. Example : Psi kill Heavy Troops; HT kill Robots; Robots kill Psi.
  
  
• Sack: After take control of a planet, the troops would sack the planet if you have the proper police (pirates would love it). There would be some civil resistance, some building would be damage, but after some time the sack would generate energy and minerals (and maybe slaves).
  
  
• Live wildlife: Wildlife should not be as boring as a mountain. Troops should not be useless during peacetime. There should be many kinds of alien animals, some dangerous. Your troops would fight them.

 

[dying0d]

Yeah. While you were writing "this needs a stage system" I had already begun

Fair enough haha. It makes the most sense rather than what the turn based games do (more "realism", but that would be micro hell in an rts), yet adds some of the elements ground wars need to have represented

 

[Hype Train]

Some ideas:

• Ground to Space Weapons: take control of the planet fast would be better;
  
  
• Specialized Troops: Race Habitability would intervene in the damage done by the troops. There would be some attachments to increase the troops habitability.
  
  
• Smart Transports: transports should not stay and fight the combat ships. It would be possible pass through a fight, take some damage and land your troops.
  
  
• Rock, Paper and Scissor: there must be some kind of troops and they must be good in a particular situation. Example : Psi kill Heavy Troops; HT kill Robots; Robots kill Psi.
  
  
• Sack: After take control of a planet, the troops would sack the planet if you have the proper police (pirates would love it). There would be some civil resistance, some building would be damage, but after some time the sack would generate energy and minerals (and maybe slaves).
  
  
• Live wildlife: Wildlife should not be as boring as a mountain. Troops should not be useless during peacetime. There should be many kinds of alien animals, some dangerous. Your troops would fight them.

I agree with almost all of this. However, i think it should be possible to garrison troops inside of ships. Maybe it can be a special module for corvettes or destroyers that stays in the back of combat, idk, but i think it is extremely annoying when you have to babysit your transports.

 

[sdeezie]

So, I think that space-to-ground invasions definitely are a fun idea and have their place among the many sci-fi tropes that Stellaris draws from.

But, I agree that the current system is too complex for how simple the resolution mechanic is. It's tedious and not fun. I would, rather than the current system, prefer that planets surrender when their fortifications are bombarded from orbit. If you control orbit and have blown up their underground bunker systems, I think surrender at that point seems reasonable. The orbiting fleet is just as much a gun to their head as an army would be, and it makes sense that the besieged would treat it accordingly.

So, why not add "invasion policy" as one alongside the "bombardment policy"? Preferring an invasion (capture of strategic, military locations) over bombardment could be a pacifist/xenophile demand.

And, if you think about it, a pod with troops inside is just another kind of payload to drop through an atmosphere (admittedly a squishier one, but whatever). The game currently doesn't model bombardment payloads, why should it model invasion payloads? Just imagine cargo bays full of hardened space marines or whatever, and the same techs or traits that currently buff army damage or whatever could instead buff "invasion damage" or "invasion speed" or "invasion resistance".

If you added, I think, invasion events, that could occur while the fortification-bar was being reduced, then you could give the player some RP-like choices as well (take prisoners or execute them? maybe you capture them, but some of them are carrying bombs and your leader or admiral takes a popularity hit).

This would totally remove the "queue up armies and fly transports around" micro, but would be a significant rework instead to add depth to planetary invasion/bombardment along a different dimension.

That's my two cents.

 

[Tekadiel]

I think the first order of business is to make ground combat matter for the war as a whole. As long ground combat is an afterthought to the space battles it should be kept as simple as possible.
There might be ways to make ground combat matter but I would assume they need more new core mechanics like supply lines.

 

[Brickfix]

I think the first order of business is to make ground combat matter for the war as a whole. As long ground combat is an afterthought to the space battles it should be kept as simple as possible.
There might be ways to make ground combat matter but I would assume they need more new core mechanics like supply lines.

Ground Combat would be indeed way more important with supply lines. Taking a planet to further supply your fleet so it does not have to retreat home, and adding a system to determine how much supply a planet generates would make it quite the tactical decision which planet to attack first.

 

[Hype Train]

I think the first order of business is to make ground combat matter for the war as a whole. As long ground combat is an afterthought to the space battles it should be kept as simple as possible.
There might be ways to make ground combat matter but I would assume they need more new core mechanics like supply lines.

Well the way they are doing dlc im pretty sure pertains to at least 1 part of the game per dlc. This one being government annd politics. So perhaps we will get a better one in the next few dlcs?

 

[MutantPixel]

Well the way they are doing dlc im pretty sure pertains to at least 1 part of the game per dlc. This one being government annd politics. So perhaps we will get a better one in the next few dlcs?

I think I heard them talking about supply lines in the stream they just started up, or at least mentioned it. It would make the whole game better to be honest. I mean who doesn't like to interrupt the supply lines of an opposing empire/federation? Or, if you're much weaker it would be another viable way to beat a doom stack.

@MutantPixel Cool, a civil discussion on the internet where we didn't derail the thread completely with massive posts.
+ 1internet for both of us

Back on topic.

If paradox would change planetary invasion to a more advanced eu iv system perhaps something like this could work:

Preinvasion: siege weaponry of the fleet versus Planetary Defense System.
Negative Outcome -> ships can get damaged, in extreme cases destroyed but the last one is very unlikely.
Positive outcome -> PDS is reduced, fortification lvl is reduced, armies ,pops and buildings can get damaged. The last one is more likely if you go for full orbital bombardement. I do think there should be a more severe option which I'll dubb genocidal bombardment. This one allows for a nearly complete depopulation of the planet but is considered a war crime. It should also, perhaps, require specialized siege ships.

stage 1Invasion: foothold

Attackers: siege stat of fleet, strike craft modifier and invasion value of troops.

Vs the defenders: PDS, strike craft modifier and defensive value of defenders modified by fortification, natural phenomena and a negative modifier of there aren't enough armies to cover the entire planet.

Positive outcomes:
Option 1 minor/marginal victory: different levels of PDS reduction, army reduction, strike craft reduction, fortification reduction and/or pop reduction. Both sides loose strength but depending on the results the attacker's or defenders lose less.
Option 2 major victory: landing zone established, proceed to phase 2.
Option 3 massive victory: multiple landing zones, proceed to stage 2. This would be the case when a siege fleet with a decent army invades an almost defenceless planet.

Negative outcome:
Option 1 marginal/minor defeat: massive losses to the attacker, minimal losses to the defender. Depending on PDS lvl ships can get damaged or destroyed. Similar for strike craft.

Option 2: invasion repulsed. Massive losses for attacker. Invasion ends.

Stage 2: conquest of the planet.

To keep it short. Similar to stage 1 but strike craft and troops are more important then siege or PDS. Attackers get bonuses for every landing zone (like breaches in eu iv) and if the planet is still blockaded.
You need several victories to proceed to stage 3. A victory can give an additional landing zone. A major defeat though makes you lose a landing zone. If you no longer have a landing zone the invasion is defeated.

Stage 3: subdue pockets.
Fleet siege stat is no longer important. A few more victories and the planet is subdued. If a relieve force lands return to stage 2.
Each stage would take several ticks. 1 tick is 10 days. The fastest you can subdue a planet completly is 3 ticks. A well defended planet could easily take up to 4 or more.

Hey points are always welcomed, lol. But I really dig this idea since it fits in with the game as a whole. It would keep the game from turning in to a micro-hell and streamline it while keeping it interesting and fun to take part in. The current system is shallow to say the least, it gets boring after about the first invasion.

 

[Jormarn]

I think for ground combat to matter, we need armies to be useful for other parts of the game and not just planetary defense in case of an assault.

My favorite example there is the old Star Wars: Rebellion strategy game. While the ground combat there is very similar to the Stellaris combat, it still feels more important, as army units are also necessary for espionage defense and vital garrisons. Also planetary defense systems (shields and cannons) are more important. Just building a single shield generator or cannon deters most bombardment for the first part of the game and makes a ground assault necessary.

 

[Hype Train]

I think for ground combat to matter, we need armies to be useful for other parts of the game and not just planetary defense in case of an assault.

My favorite example there is the old Star Wars: Rebellion strategy game. While the ground combat there is very similar to the Stellaris combat, it still feels more important, as army units are also necessary for espionage defense and vital garrisons. Also planetary defense systems (shields and cannons) are more important. Just building a single shield generator or cannon deters most bombardment for the first part of the game and makes a ground assault necessary.

I actually really like the idea that perhaps the army should come in first to destroy the shield generator/space defenses or whatever on the ground before the ships bombard everything. The actual fleet can be important by staying there and making sure reinforcements dont come to add reinforcements to the battle, and the enemy has to muster a fleet to destroy the occupying fleet and add reinforcements. Ships can also bombard the planet and destroy what they wish after, whether it be pops or buildings, and the ability to do that can be done through politics and stuff like that. The people on the ground should be able to fight back though with land to space cannons that harm your ships as they orbit a planet.

 

[Meneliki]

I wouldn't hold your breath for large changes to ground combat.. now this was a while ago, but Wiz did say that "as long as he's game director", ground combat will not be a big focus of the game.

 

[safe-keeper]

This is a crazy idea that probably won't be implemented, but the more I think about it, the more I want planets to have actual procedurally generated maps instead of tiles. You would still have cities, to which you assigned pops, but the planet would have provinces and army movement like in Hearts of Iron. I think there should be empty provinces in addition to the cities, to allow armies more tactical maneuvering space. Planetary colonization, buildings, and planet management it would work exactly like it does now, the only difference would be in how ground combat worked.

This would turn invasions into a kind of "D-Day" scenarios. First you need to get boots on the ground, possibly with the help of orbital bombardment to destroy AA and land forts which the defending player would have deployed strategically (I imagine them having a "range" and a kind of zone of control), and bring in heavier stuff like tanks and heavy artillery pieces. Then you advance out from your landing site(s) to capture important objectives until the planet surrenders.

Either way, right now the system has some detail, but much of it feels arbitrary, and I wouldn't miss them if they were removed, like army attachments and generals. I actually feel the ground combat system would be improved by taking out features as much as adding them.


Edit: a compromise would be to be able to capture tiles, the same way you can besiege and capture individual holdings in a province in CK2. When invading a planet, you choose which tiles to go for, giving you some agency in planetary invasions.

 

[Tim_Ward]

A hybrid of EU4 combat and siege mechanics.

Phases like 'drop assault', 'securing beachhead', 'mobile warfare', 'urban assault', 'suppressing resistance' provide different conditions where different troop types excel.

Planetary assault to be a significant investment in terms of time and resources. Time span of invasions measured in years (depending on pop size), but with regular feedback to player ("We won a major victory on Planet Blahblah and now control the space port (-10 attrition to our troops) and world's second city. Our troops continue to battle across 5 continents...") and war score awarded as a fraction of planet occupied (i.e planet worth 20 warscore 50% occupied = 10 warscore) so peace doesn't have to wait for planetary campaigns to be concluded - planets can be surrendered in peace even if not fully controlled. Having fleet in orbit provides tangible benefit to ground forces but isn't an auto-win button*.

Then, ruthlessly expunge any and all micromanagement. All player agency is to be expressed in the design of their armies and where to deploy them. All other complexity can either be obsessed over arumba style or completely ignored as the player wishes.

* several on-going ground campaigns may even give you an incentive to - whisper it - not have a doomstack

 

[safe-keeper]

Some ideas:

• Ground to Space Weapons: take control of the planet fast would be better;

Yes, lots of us have been asking for this. "Firefights" between the planet's artillery and the orbiting fleet, rather than just the one-sided bombardment we have now, would be cool.

I agree with almost all of this. However, i think it should be possible to garrison troops inside of ships. Maybe it can be a special module for corvettes or destroyers that stays in the back of combat, idk, but i think it is extremely annoying when you have to babysit your transports.

Or pull a Stars! and let us give our ships a Cargo compartment to house armies, in the Auxilliary slot where you can currently put afterburners, shield capacitors, and so on.
I would give the player a choice, though, either build dedicated transports as we do now or use custom-built military ships.

 

[mighij]

I wouldn't hold your breath for large changes to ground combat.. now this was a while ago, but Wiz did say that "as long as he's game director", ground combat will not be a big focus of the game.

True, and it shouldn't be. The few things almost everyone can agree on though that it's severly lacking at the moment and the attachment system is too click intensive. Having an army designer where you can design some troops and a multi stage invasion would go a long way though without making it micro intensive and giving the player some more/better choices.

 

[safe-keeper]

So, I think that space-to-ground invasions definitely are a fun idea and have their place among the many sci-fi tropes that Stellaris draws from.

But, I agree that the current system is too complex for how simple the resolution mechanic is. It's tedious and not fun. I would, rather than the current system, prefer that planets surrender when their fortifications are bombarded from orbit. If you control orbit and have blown up their underground bunker systems, I think surrender at that point seems reasonable. The orbiting fleet is just as much a gun to their head as an army would be, and it makes sense that the besieged would treat it accordingly.

So, why not add "invasion policy" as one alongside the "bombardment policy"? Preferring an invasion (capture of strategic, military locations) over bombardment could be a pacifist/xenophile demand.

And, if you think about it, a pod with troops inside is just another kind of payload to drop through an atmosphere (admittedly a squishier one, but whatever). The game currently doesn't model bombardment payloads, why should it model invasion payloads? Just imagine cargo bays full of hardened space marines or whatever, and the same techs or traits that currently buff army damage or whatever could instead buff "invasion damage" or "invasion speed" or "invasion resistance".

If you added, I think, invasion events, that could occur while the fortification-bar was being reduced, then you could give the player some RP-like choices as well (take prisoners or execute them? maybe you capture them, but some of them are carrying bombs and your leader or admiral takes a popularity hit).

This would totally remove the "queue up armies and fly transports around" micro, but would be a significant rework instead to add depth to planetary invasion/bombardment along a different dimension.

That's my two cents.

I hate to say it, but I can't disagree. It would make sense to just have planets be sieged like in EU and CK, with defenses gradually weakened and the invasion being completely abstracted. Siege speed could depend on fleet size, the same way larger armies siege faster in CK; this would simulate greater number of troops being carried on the warships.

I'm not saying this is the best system I can think of, just that it'd be better than what we have now.

 

[MutantPixel]

Like I touched on earlier I seriously think at the very least we need to be able to design and equip our armies like we do the ships. Maybe not actually seeing a 3D model represented, but being able to assign weapon types, skills, armor types, exotic attributes ala' Psiarmy and such. This would add to the building of an army to beat the armies of those you're at war against. Not just spamming Assault army A to planet B and insta-winning every battle. This also builds off of having spy satellites and stealth corvettes and such in the game and them being a viable option. I would just like to see some more meat in the combat of Stellaris since it is a big chunk of the game.

 

[Webbco]

For me, a more detailed visual representation of the colony/planet surface would increase immersion greatly. It would help create distinctiveness between colonies and make ground combat more engaging.

Although games from slightly different genres, I used to love Imperium Galactica 2 and Empire at War which invested in both space and ground combat. I respect though that the vision of Stellaris may be going in a very different direction...I just long for a bit more visual feedback to what's going on on the ground!!

 

[Meneliki]

It would make sense to just have planets be sieged like in EU and CK, with defenses gradually weakened and the invasion being completely abstracted.

I dunno, sending drop ships down to the surface does have it's charm, at least for me.

"Come on, you apes! You wanna live forever!?"