Why is this community seemingly against visualized ground combat?

[Coconut_Cookie]

not much point really with regard to combat armies atm just slow down the inevitable.

Well maybe ground combat and space combat should be intergrated? Maybe if armies had the possibility of shooting back or not recieving any damage at all would change things massively. This could be done with relatively small changes. Here are some things that could be changed;

1. Instead of focussing on what species comprises an army the focus could be on what type of equipment they have. Maybe armies could be modular like ships and have some different stats like 'hard' and 'soft' attack/defence like HOI. You could then choose the equipment they have like fighters, surface to space guns, infantry battalions etc. If armies were modular you could also get some variation in them while at the same time reduce their numbers. Right now it is too easy just to spam them and send them to where they are needed, it doesn't really matter what you bring as long as they come in overwhelming numbers.
2. Have each spaceship interact with ground combat based on their stats and modules.
   1. Space weapons shouldn't be that effective at bombing a place with an atmosphere. Maybe there could be different versions of each weapon type that has a dual purpose or perhaps bombs could be a different weapon type like in Master of Orion, that way you would have to spend at least a weapon slot to even be able to bomb places. Perhaps weapons like bombs could be a finite resource that has to be replenished so you can't bomb a place forever if you don't bring ships with that ability or have an 'open supply line' to get replenish your fleet.
   2. Maybe instead of the different fighters in the game simply being upgrades of the same thing they could be fighters suited for different purposes. For example fighters with atmospheric flying capabilities could be less effective in space combat but could help during an invasion or bombing campaign.
   3. There could be an added effect for ship sizes, perhaps smaller hulls could be able to land on planets. Or perhaps the smaller hulls could support your fighters in the upper atmosphere. I think there were plans at some point to have the combat happen in different stages because the ground combat screen is divided in those stages look at the gif that was posted on this forum a long time ago.
      
3. Planetary features could be intergrated into this too for example an atmosphere could give a lot of protection against space based weapons, perhaps there could be other planetary features that could also have a function in space/ground combat.

There are a lots of other ways to handle this issue but if planets could fight back against orbiting fleets than bombing wouldn't be the obvious choice anymore. Perhaps simply leaving a part of the fleet there to blockade the planet from a safe distance would then be a better choice. I think that any ground combat change would inevitably need to be a space combat change too because the way ground combat works right now also helps doomstacking.

 

[Ninking]

In my opinion, the ideal Stellaris ground combat would work somewhat like combat in the Dominions games. AI vs AI controlled troops on either a 2D world map construed by random tiles, influenced by the planet type and planet features, and in one corner there's one side and in another another. Attack forces run towards the nearest enemy, and pewpew.

 

[Ryika]

All this talk about making ground combat more complex, when really all some people want is just nice fireworks.

You say that, but do you regularly slow down the game to watch your 100k fleet go up against the 180 strength outpost?

Fireworks are cool and all, but if the outcome is predetermined anyway, and the light show isn't actually the result of any kind of strategic decision making that influences your odds of winning, then the amount of people who'd watch the show on a regular basis is, assume, pretty small.

 

[Strangedane]

i don't really care, but i'm just thinking of what would be a minimalist tweak to make ground combat/planets a bit more interesting.

i don't see 'having to build more armies' as 'unnecessary micromanagement', cos it's about thinking ahead and having the resources, which sounds like strategy to me.

I don't see any strategy involved in: "my minerals have stabilised, click recruit army 150 times on different planets."
I just see 150 clicks with a mouse. (+extra for changing planets.)
No strategy or planning needed.

 

[fourteenfour]

It really adds little to the game.

Logically it is a silly idea because to conquer any sufficiently size planet would require vast armies.

How would it work in reality?

Whomever had space superiority would win. Game mechanics wise, depending on empire type, civics, traits, and even factions, would determine if a planet surrenders and THEN you land occupying armies which would be used to maintain control until sufficient time passes you have full integrated the population.

How I would do it is....

• Achieve space superiority
• Order fleet to bombard
• Check for surrender
  • Create a surrender value (some weights to give ideas)
    • Surrendering to exterminator/devourer/assimilator +250
    • Xenophobe or Militarist +50 Fanatic of either +125
    • Fanatic Spiritualist when invaded by Spiritualist or Fanatic Spiritualist +50 / +125
    • Fanatic Pacifist -200
• Post Surrender
  • Spawn factions two or more factions
    • Default faction #1 adopts invaders ethics (in effect, they accept the outcome unconditionally)
    • Default faction #2 is resistance scored similar to prior to surrender
      • More population will be here when scored higher (faced with someone who wants to eat you isn't fun)
    • Any other factions created as resistance, Gestalt only get first two, spin off based on ethics opposition
  • Assign garrison, here is where all those armies you sent come in.
    • Each assigned army reduces chance for uprising by opposed factions
    • Each assigned army works to integrate all faction members to faction #1
    • Original empire can land armies to remove invader armies; even if they cannot control system!

The idea is that with space superiority and faced with being bombed into oblivion nearly any intelligent specie will choose surrender. How much devastation they are willing to accept before surrender needs to be determined. Then armies can be landed and occupy the world and covert/consume it. Landing armies to liberate a world could be an espionage activity or just brute force a transports to the planet even if you lose the fleet that got them there.

 

[methegrate]

cos it's about thinking ahead and having the resources, which sounds like strategy to me.

I would agree with that, except that there is no scarcity in Stellaris.

You're absolutely right. The system assumes that the mineral costs of armies will force the player to make strategic decisions about where to commit those resources. In practice, however, minerals grow on trees. There are no zero-sum choices to make once you have hundreds of minerals coming in per turn. Plus, by the mid-game you spend minerals relatively rarely. You put up a building or district from time to time, but minerals are by far most important in the early stages of developing your planets and empire.

I would argue that there really is no thinking ahead or strategizing when you have thousands of minerals sitting in the stockpile and hundreds coming in per turn.

 

[The Bored Chairman]

Probably because it would slow down the game without really adding anything to it.

Ground combat is more basic and bland than tofu. It would need a serious tune up before adding visuals.

And that's saying something. War in Stellaris is extremely bare bones, just yeet your ships at each other and whoever makes the biggest number wins. No logistics to take care of, no supply lines, no attrition, etc.