I would like to see an expansion focused on ground combat, withbetter representation of planetary conquests with zones of control , machinery , infantry types, continental conquests and so on .
Will there be any improvement in ground combat?
- Thread starter Prometheus_1
- Start date
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
I am not sure ground combat will be that involved but there definitely needs improvements like less clicks to add attachments to multiple armies.
I would prefer pretty much the opposite. I'd like to see all offensive armies removed. A fleet would initially bombard fortifications down. Once fortifications are down then any defensive armies would start taking damage. Once all defensive armies are dead the planet is captured. In my view, I don't think a more complex ground combat will ever add much to the game.
There will no doubt be a military expansion although it is not this one
however I think the ground game should be made more simple not more complex
currently its not really any challenge or interest, its more a logistical annoyance
for example why do we need separate transport ships that are completely useless? Wouldn't it make sense to bring armies along in like a battleship or something
however I think the ground game should be made more simple not more complex
currently its not really any challenge or interest, its more a logistical annoyance
for example why do we need separate transport ships that are completely useless? Wouldn't it make sense to bring armies along in like a battleship or something
That sounds really boring.
Planetary invasions are actually my favourite part of warfare in this game because they're more involved and allow more tactics than space combat does.
Not in 1.5, but Wiz has said before that's something that's going to be worked on, along with warfare in general.
What tactics? Waiting for fortifications to hit zero and dropping stacks of troops?
Agreed... I'd like to see the number of clicks reduced, but I'm not sure what planetary tactics could add. Once you've beaten them in space and held the planet long enough to grind down their fortification, victory is basically assured. The rest feels like busywork. More complex tactics would be solved by just spamming transports.
Let me preface this: I don't "paint the galaxy". I find that boring and tedious. I tend to play smaller, with allies and no intention of hitting the victory conditions (because those aren't important).
With that in mind? Planetary invasions can be done without endless stacks of troops- and using smaller numbers of invaders makes invasions much more engaging. You have options- do I want to go for an army specced for morale damage, doing lightning drops that crush the enemy's will to fight with minimal forces and then sweeping them? Do I want to attack, retreat, and then heal up before attacking again? Should I use alternating waves of armies? How many casualties should I allow for before a victory stops being worth it?
I can understand the appeal for having more detailed ground combat to help capture some of great ground combats from science fiction, but with Stellaris it would be fairly difficult to do in a way that would be fun and would add any real value. The problem is simply that once you control space, your victory on the ground is absolutely inevitable. You can change the ground combat system all you like, the player that controls space is going to win. If you make the ground combat too complex, then all you've really added is another point of potential failure for the AI.
That's something that could be changed, no?
The current mechanics certainly support that conclusion, but its symptomatic of common points of complain surrounding the mechanics (like doomstacks for example). I'm unconvinced you couldn't change things and add new mechanics which could make starving out a siege force viable.
I am still convinced ground combat is just not that important in a 4x-ish game. It could propably be cut out and the game would still work well. Most of the 4x games just do that. And those are often turnbased, so they can acutually afford to swap over.
That being said, they are changing the number of Army slots on the planet with 1.5. We have to see where it goes from there.
At the very least, I would like the ability to have armies built with attachments already attached.
Many 4X's have already done it and they are very enjoyable.
Removing features from the game does not make it more fun. That is just a lazy cop-out. Advocating for the developers to gut bland features from the game instead of improving upon them makes zero sense to me. Might as well just get rid of the boring space combat too.
Factions were bad previously too. Should the devs just got rid of them instead of making them interesting in 1.5?
Stellaris already has a foundation to make ground combat fun and interesting. Abandoning the potential for interesting ground combat only makes the game more two dimensional.
Last edited:
If you control orbit, then your victory on the ground is assured, unless you are holding back from unleashing hell from orbit for some reason.
The question is how much of the planet you're willing to wreck to achieve victory. Having said that, it is absolutely impossible to take and hold ground without putting boots (or tentacles, or whatever) on that ground. If the other side has so much as a town alderman on the ground and you have nothing, you do not control that ground, they do.
This particular argument is one that's been had before, and suffice to say, an argument can absolutely be made for mechanics through which a planet has a chance of fending off attackers. Just to start with, surface-based anti-orbit weaponry would enforce attrition on an attacking fleet- there are also things that would have crossover from dealing with doomstacks, such as mechanics that encourage multiple smaller fleets operating in different areas instead of doomstacks, or actual attrition/supply line concerns.
Tell that to the Krogan and Rachni.
If a race is capable of spaceflight and FTL technologies, I'm pretty sure they are capable of withstanding orbital bombardment, unless you plane on totally glassing the planet.
Combat would probably be a little less lopsided if:
A few suggestions that would primarily increase depth with a minimal increase in complexity. Visually invasions would work the same way as before, but I feel the backend alterations would make the mechanic far more engaging.
1) 0 fortifications means no bonus for defenders, not a massive 100% penalty.
2) Penalty to damage taken at 0 is replaced by a morale penalty if bombarded while fortifications are down.
3) Army damage is focused on one unit at a time, not spread evenly. This means the attacker will invariably take some degree of losses, as opposed to the clean sweep that usually happens at the moment. This will make attritional losses more pronounced when jumping from planet to planet.
4) Collary to the above; damage is inflicted on units in the order they're arranged in. Units should be able to be rearranged by drag and drop on the army planet tab/fleet screen. Garrisons are always ordered before regular troops on the defence. Allows for meat shielding of elite or support troops, basically.
4.5) This could also allow for additional tactical depth. For example, a 'drop pod' attachment that would allow that unit to attack units starting from the rear. Or unit types that have the ability built in (gene warriors much?). Medical corps on the rear lines that add a damage reduction effect. Artillery corps that have decent damage output but paper thin armour (very low health). Possibilities are endless.
5) There's a cap on a maximum number of attackers that can be deployed at a time - same as defenders. Any overflow units wait in orbit. If the first wave is destroyed or retreats, the second wave (etc) immediately drops to replace them. Consequently there should be a distinction between retreating (wave pulls back to orbit, attack continues) and aborting (attack is called off altogether). Also makes orbital control very important for supporting large attacks.
6) As has been requested by innumerable others, simplified army design controls. The option to create army templates for attack and offence, for example. The option to add an attachment to all units in an army. Stuff like that.
7) A personal preference that might not be to all tastes is doubling unit health and reducing damage. This causes the actual fighting element of invasions to take much longer. Allows for counterattacks and more strategic manoeuvring.
2) Penalty to damage taken at 0 is replaced by a morale penalty if bombarded while fortifications are down.
3) Army damage is focused on one unit at a time, not spread evenly. This means the attacker will invariably take some degree of losses, as opposed to the clean sweep that usually happens at the moment. This will make attritional losses more pronounced when jumping from planet to planet.
4) Collary to the above; damage is inflicted on units in the order they're arranged in. Units should be able to be rearranged by drag and drop on the army planet tab/fleet screen. Garrisons are always ordered before regular troops on the defence. Allows for meat shielding of elite or support troops, basically.
4.5) This could also allow for additional tactical depth. For example, a 'drop pod' attachment that would allow that unit to attack units starting from the rear. Or unit types that have the ability built in (gene warriors much?). Medical corps on the rear lines that add a damage reduction effect. Artillery corps that have decent damage output but paper thin armour (very low health). Possibilities are endless.
5) There's a cap on a maximum number of attackers that can be deployed at a time - same as defenders. Any overflow units wait in orbit. If the first wave is destroyed or retreats, the second wave (etc) immediately drops to replace them. Consequently there should be a distinction between retreating (wave pulls back to orbit, attack continues) and aborting (attack is called off altogether). Also makes orbital control very important for supporting large attacks.
6) As has been requested by innumerable others, simplified army design controls. The option to create army templates for attack and offence, for example. The option to add an attachment to all units in an army. Stuff like that.
7) A personal preference that might not be to all tastes is doubling unit health and reducing damage. This causes the actual fighting element of invasions to take much longer. Allows for counterattacks and more strategic manoeuvring.
A few suggestions that would primarily increase depth with a minimal increase in complexity. Visually invasions would work the same way as before, but I feel the backend alterations would make the mechanic far more engaging.
