Will there be any improvement in ground combat?

[Magdaki]

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.

That actually does't work very well because in the abstract you end up with one of the following:

1 - If space forces can destroy ground defenses, then you encourage bombarding with the largest fleet possible to kill the ground defenses as quickly as possible.So this changes nothing.
2 - If space forces cannot destroy ground defenses, then you encourage just sending in a massive transport fleet and accepting that some transports will get shot down.
3 - If the mechanics prevent you from landing without bombarding, i.e. you cannot do #2, then all you've added is a space fleet cost to take a planet.

You have not changed the inevitable. Since the player in control of space is in absolute control of when and how to engage the ground force player cannot win all they can do is increase the cost. Additionally in all three of these scenarios you've created an additional thing for the AI to understand to fight properly and all the additional computation that goes with it. And for what? The necessity of a few extra clicks or slightly more careful management of timing.

Again, I understand the appeal but not every game has the design space to support every possible feature. It isn't to say that it is impossible to make a space 4X with deep ground combat. I can't think of any space 4X that a deep, complex ground combat that did not focus heavily on ground combat over space combat, e.g. Emperor of the Fading Suns. All of the big ones, Master of Orion, Endless Space, Distant Worlds, etc. all have some variant of either landing some ground troops or a simple-time-to-capture.

 

[ShadowDragon868]

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.

Surface-based weaponry is dogshit. If you're shooting any kind of projectile (like a mass driver, or a missile,) you're fighting against gravity, the enemy's weapons are assisted by it. If you're firing a particle beam or laser, any kind of atmosphere is going to diffuse it.

Using enough power to overcome these limitations is going to wreck the very planet you're hoping to defend. Additionally, you have no ability to dodge. Hitting an immobile target on a planet is a trivial question of orbital mechanics. Hitting even a mobile one is not that difficult, if you're throwing enough weight, unless its surface speed is fast enough as to render it ineffective against orbital targets.

Additionally, literally any ship at all would be able to accelerate an asteroid of extinction-level WTFery into a collision course with your planet.

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.

You're assuming. You know what they say about assuming. Also, yes, this is what I said upthread.

A defending army can't actually defend a planet unless they have backup on the way, and the enemy is desperate to take the planet, desperate enough to keep attempting to make a ground invasion until their backup arrives, or for whatever reason failing to conquer the planet is a more acceptable outcome to the enemy than sterilizing it. All they can do is raise the bar high enough that the enemy decides not to commit to a ground invasion and just turns them into slag.

But if the enemy controls space and you don't, you do not get to win. All you can do is choose the manner in which you lose: conquered, or annihilated.

 

[Stadhouder]

I would settle for army templates.

Although there are moment I wish ground combat has more depth, there are other games where ground combat feels just tedious. Depends on how big the galaxy is I'm playing with and how expansionist I'm playing.

 

[youpi ck]

In this post I propose a review of the war but also of the invasion maybe this suggestion will please you

 

[Prometheus_1]

Whatever but I would lieka a zone of control on the planets like continents, capitals to conquer etc.

 

[The Founder]

Whatever but I would lieka a zone of control on the planets like continents, capitals to conquer etc.

Stellaris is a realtime game. You can not simply shift attention towards ground combat for extrended periods of time.
Indeed I know of exactly two games that tried to add such a 2nd layer:
Lords of the Realm 3 and Pax Imperia 2.
PI2 did it by slowing down gamespeed massively while in combat. Wich is unsuiteable in a larger multiplayer environment.
LotR 3 was just bad. And it's realtime combat/strategy part did not help.

If you are thinking about games "where it worked": They are all turnbased at least on the strategic level.