Ground Combat

[-SNiGS- JAM]

Is it not entirely off hand and weird how para(iwantyourmoney)dox has literally never even hinted at making a Ground Combat dlc?

Like what gives? Why do they not like peoples money when the subject suddenly becomes ground combat?

[Toddasaurus Rex]

A seperate game as a full expansion to play ground battles would be absolutely sinister and don't think for a second everyone wouldn't pile into that with a charm, it'd be sick as hell to play co-op with one person just doing ground invasions and wartime movements while another player does economics and stuff.

[Person012345]

Originally posted by Urk_da_WAAAGH!:

Originally posted by Person012345:

People saying "ground combat isn't the focus" are being stupid. What they mean is, they don't care about ground combat, probably largely because it's never been good in this game.

The "focus of this game" was always as a love letter to sci-fi. Let me tell you in most large scale sci-fi universes, ground combat is a FAR more prominent and important than having a handful of magical leaders who can suddenly make mineral production across the entire empire go up by a bunch.

It's a bad excuse for not even trying to improve an aspect of the game that many people like in concept and many people see as important in sci-fi, just because you personally don't care.

Edit: Also, if anyone is more interested in the mechanical side of things and less interested in the visual side of things, I'd recommend giving Aurora 4X a try (it's free). The ground unit design and combat system in that game is pretty in depth (though the most you'll see is a huge scroll of text detailing how each of your ground units died or killed the enemy). Whole thing has quite a steep learning curve though.

Isn't the focus of the game, the game excels in other areas.

Saying that ground combat is boring/empty/should be remade is like saying that you want Victoria 3 economy on HoI4, each game has its focus and abstracts other areas of the game making them simpler so it receive more attention on it's focus.

I'd rather receive content updates with more races, event's, archeology sites, origins than a remake of ground combat.

Refer back tot he post you are quoting. You didn't counter a single point I made, you effectively just said "yeah well I don't care".

I don't mind *simple* ground combat, I'm not looking for them to implement full total-war style battles or some 3d ♥♥♥♥ like some people want, I just want it to be mechanically satisfying. It's less like saying "you want vicky 3 economy in hoi 4" and more like if in hoi 4, tanks were completely nonfunctional and saying "HoI IV's focus isn't tanks so it's fine if tanks are literally useless".

Stellaris has always had ground combat effectively consisting of "bomb the enemy until they go away then land an army", and recently moved to "bomb the enemy until they go away". There was a small window where there was a legitimate time tradeoff between fully bombing a planet and invading early, but it was never super satisfying and the AI has always been terrible at defending it's planets anyway. I'm just asking that ground combat be a meaningful mechanic, and again, it's part of sci fi, much more than any leader rework BS.

[xycotta]

I personally want to know how people are going to manage ground battles and space battles simultaneously in the middle of a war. Sounds like they will be going turn based.

Whereas some people are very invested on both sides of the issue. IMO it would add another level of complexity for new players that I am not sure would be well received.

[Elitewrecker PT]

Originally posted by Person012345:

Originally posted by Urk_da_WAAAGH!:

Isn't the focus of the game, the game excels in other areas.

Saying that ground combat is boring/empty/should be remade is like saying that you want Victoria 3 economy on HoI4, each game has its focus and abstracts other areas of the game making them simpler so it receive more attention on it's focus.

I'd rather receive content updates with more races, event's, archeology sites, origins than a remake of ground combat.

Refer back tot he post you are quoting. You didn't counter a single point I made, you effectively just said "yeah well I don't care".

I don't mind *simple* ground combat, I'm not looking for them to implement full total-war style battles or some 3d ♥♥♥♥ like some people want, I just want it to be mechanically satisfying. It's less like saying "you want vicky 3 economy in hoi 4" and more like if in hoi 4, tanks were completely nonfunctional and saying "HoI IV's focus isn't tanks so it's fine if tanks are literally useless".

Stellaris has always had ground combat effectively consisting of "bomb the enemy until they go away then land an army", and recently moved to "bomb the enemy until they go away". There was a small window where there was a legitimate time tradeoff between fully bombing a planet and invading early, but it was never super satisfying and the AI has always been terrible at defending it's planets anyway. I'm just asking that ground combat be a meaningful mechanic, and again, it's part of sci fi, much more than any leader rework BS.

There are pros to using armies.
Much quicker, and you won't have destroyed the entire infrastructure and wasted many pops.

[Yhvh10]

Originally posted by Elitewrecker PT:

Are we going to transition the game into a HOI4 match everytime we invade a planet?

I would unironically be down for this

[chorion]

Originally posted by Person012345:

Originally posted by Urk_da_WAAAGH!:

Isn't the focus of the game, the game excels in other areas.

Saying that ground combat is boring/empty/should be remade is like saying that you want Victoria 3 economy on HoI4, each game has its focus and abstracts other areas of the game making them simpler so it receive more attention on it's focus.

I'd rather receive content updates with more races, event's, archeology sites, origins than a remake of ground combat.

Refer back tot he post you are quoting. You didn't counter a single point I made, you effectively just said "yeah well I don't care".

I don't mind *simple* ground combat, I'm not looking for them to implement full total-war style battles or some 3d ♥♥♥♥ like some people want, I just want it to be mechanically satisfying. It's less like saying "you want vicky 3 economy in hoi 4" and more like if in hoi 4, tanks were completely nonfunctional and saying "HoI IV's focus isn't tanks so it's fine if tanks are literally useless".

Stellaris has always had ground combat effectively consisting of "bomb the enemy until they go away then land an army", and recently moved to "bomb the enemy until they go away". There was a small window where there was a legitimate time tradeoff between fully bombing a planet and invading early, but it was never super satisfying and the AI has always been terrible at defending it's planets anyway. I'm just asking that ground combat be a meaningful mechanic, and again, it's part of sci fi, much more than any leader rework BS.

you are totally wasting your breath.... he plays for the corporation not the gamers

Urk_da_WAAAGH! 23 hours ago 
    
Originally posted by chorion:

translation, green dots versus red dots gameplay is perfectly right in a $300 game after 8 years development...... dont try harder PDX and charge as much as possible

"Exactly, next in line please"

[-SNiGS- JAM]

Originally posted by mss73055:

Game-wise the future of ground combat is boring. You can already see this in Russia and China. Industry no longer passes from loser to victor. (Waste)land and raw materials do, children and organs maybe.

"Game-wise", proceeds to talk about the real world. What point are you trying to make??

Originally posted by Cellar_Cat:

To be honest, it's not ground combat. It's combat. This game just doesn't focus on it, really. Even though they've technically been more active in developing the space combat, that's mostly for balance reasons and still all you can really do is wind them up and watch them go. The mechanics are so simple and the AI so bad, I think they *only* look even remotely tolerable because they take place in a literal vacuum. No terrain, obstacles, nothing. Literally units swirling around on a 2D plane and they're not even good at *that*.

Trying to pull off something similar on the ground, I think firstly the game would grind to a halt performance wise. Secondly it would look utterly, unforgivably awful, unless they actually went well above and beyond the depth of the space combat.

It's basically something to wish for in another game, and I don't think it will be a Stellaris game, or probably even a Paradox game.

I have no idea what you're imagining, but literally every 4x space game that HAS ground combat visualized has it on a separate screen that pauses the overworld galaxy, and still allows you to jump into the ground map or back into the galaxy whenever you want.

I'm seeing little dudes and little tanks run around on little maps that help visualize who's shooting at who and who's dying because of what. If your performance grinds to a halt from that? You probably need a PC from after 2015, like baseline.

Originally posted by Xaphnir:

For the 489489618th time, there is absolutely no reason to rework ground combat, and it's highly likely any ground combat rework would just make the game worse. It's a small part of the game that does not need additional complexity added.

Originally posted by -SNiGS- JAM:

Yes Endless Space 2 and Distant Worlds 1 both have a direct visualization of individual units/squads.

Endless Space 2 is turned based and has far fewer systems and planets than Stellaris.

For the 489489619th time, i have yet to hear a compelling argument as to why not. Crossing your arms and saying "nanana because i said so" literally doesnt count, like what?

Distant Worlds 1 isnt turn based AND visualizes ground combat that is calculated at the same inworld speed that the galaxy renders in hours and days. Where. Is. Your. Argument.

Originally posted by xycotta:

I personally want to know how people are going to manage ground battles and space battles simultaneously in the middle of a war. Sounds like they will be going turn based.

Whereas some people are very invested on both sides of the issue. IMO it would add another level of complexity for new players that I am not sure would be well received.

Ground Battles, planetary invasions, can only happen after you've already obtained fleet superiority. You already have to of beaten a fleet in the sector in order to even invade a planet in the first place. If you're in a huge war with a giant empire, who can send a reinforcement fleet when you're in the middle of looking at an invasion screen, all it takes is a single alert message to pop up and alert you of the change in enemy fleet proximity. Stellaris already has enemy fleet proximity warnings.

The entire idea is based around ground battles being automated with the same small controls as fleets, order attacks, or order retreats.. Watch an invasion start to finish if you want because you want to see the new rail rifles, or pop in at a random invasion during a blitzkrieg operation and order a retreat on a general unit you forgot about at the last second. Micro it if you want. Ignore it if you dont. Or dont even buy the DLC in the first place.

Originally posted by Yhvh10:

Originally posted by Elitewrecker PT:

Are we going to transition the game into a HOI4 match everytime we invade a planet?

I would unironically be down for this

Im all for making them add layers, but tbh, all they need is basic infantry/armor models to go with shipsets. Use the same basic formula as the ship battles, basic attack/retreat micro, some basic unit-role AI functions (infantry take cover, armor targets cover, spec-ops target planetary defenses), and presto, you get to see your new tech being used and you have a chance to actually save a general before they get squished.

Modeling the offensive/defensive techs into tank guns, small arms and shields for the infantry/armor shipset models, making the basic AI/micro functions, that would be enough to warrant 10$-15$. I hate micro-transactions, but im also not a liar.

I'd buy that.

[Crusaderjack]

Originally posted by xycotta:

I personally want to know how people are going to manage ground battles and space battles simultaneously in the middle of a war. Sounds like they will be going turn based.

Whereas some people are very invested on both sides of the issue. IMO it would add another level of complexity for new players that I am not sure would be well received.

The same way combat is handled in space? You order them to go somewhere and they fight on their own - I don't think anybody wants to manage frontlines and order artillary barrages and such, we just want a *tad* more to the ground combat, whether visually or mechanically.

[Granatapfel]

I loved the animated ground combat in Master of Orion 2.

[xycotta]

Originally posted by Crusaderjack:

Originally posted by xycotta:

I personally want to know how people are going to manage ground battles and space battles simultaneously in the middle of a war. Sounds like they will be going turn based.

Whereas some people are very invested on both sides of the issue. IMO it would add another level of complexity for new players that I am not sure would be well received.

The same way combat is handled in space? You order them to go somewhere and they fight on their own - I don't think anybody wants to manage frontlines and order artillary barrages and such, we just want a *tad* more to the ground combat, whether visually or mechanically.

If it is just visuals you are looking for, go for it. I was thinking the request was something akin to Total War. Personally, I always thought your troops strength should also get stronger with certain weapon and armor upgrades.

[FlashXAron ☕ (Alex)]

The only ground battle system , which would make sense and would be possible also for mp could be that from DOMINIONS (Army templates and behavior of troops) It even has a strategy value, where the human player is the reason, why you win or loose and everything could be set before the battles, when you play the normal game. And would reduce that random level a lot

[-SNiGS- JAM]

Originally posted by FlashXAron ☕ (Alex):

The only ground battle system , which would make sense and would be possible also for mp could be that from DOMINIONS (Army templates and behavior of troops) It even has a strategy value, where the human player is the reason, why you win or loose and everything could be set before the battles, when you play the normal game. And would reduce that random level a lot

Thats a great idea. Dominions 5 style with scripting, group composition, putting it all into preparation and letting the combat be automated. Give each battlefield some basic doodads for each unit type to interact with.

That would work perfectly.

[KLS]

My Idea for ground Combat would be:


Battle:
similar to how it is now but the battlefield is devided in three sections:

Front(attack the enemy front every few days):
Infatry: basic , cheap and effective
Tanks (Tank with infantry): more expensive and takes reduced damage from infantry and artillery (but with a small chance to receive a big hit) but receive high damage from air or anti tank
(infiltration troops: infantry but higher breakthrough chance (see below))

Back (attack everyday, 1 slot per 2 Front):
Artillery: deals good damage on infantry and moderate on tank units
Air defence: attacks enemy air units
(engineers: raise defence of units/ damage reduction
command units: if they receive damage the moral is lowered
guards: protect back against breakthrough (they receive the damage)

Air (attacks every few dasy, 1 per 3 Front):
Close air support (against front)
Bombers (against back)
Fighter (against air and maybe infantry)
(recon plane: no offensive role, hard to hit and raises the breakthrough chance of your units)

Defensive armies have access to:
Defensive positions against infantry OR tanks: can not attack but have high hp (they attack enemy front units that attack their front)
positioned artillery and air defence: more hp

Mechanics:
Defensive armies are made of units (the nuber rises later in the game, you can make a default template, no air/little air later)
a fortress provides a special army (bigger and with air slots)
Breakthrough: every attack has the chance to attack the back instead of the front
Units( maybe except defensive units) cost extra energy/alloys/minerals when they are fighting in an invasion
(Orbital bbombardement: you can use ships (with a special module?) in orbit to provide additional firepower (to some extend) at the cost of collateral damage (and maybe some lossen in your own army))

You can set strategies for the attack:
Front:
offensive: more damage dealt and taken, they attack more often, higher collateral damage
normal
defensive: less damage taken, they attack less often, lower collateral damage

Back:
offensive: more damage dealt, higher costs, higher collateral damage
normal
defensive: lower damage dealt, lower costs, lower collateral damage

Air:
offensive: more damage dealt nad taken, higher collateral damage
normal
defensive: less damage dealt and taken, lower collateral damage

So you have to choose between a fast takeover with high losses und destruction or a slow and expensive but you get a functional planet

[syphonax]

If Paradox is ambitious then ground combat should have actual battle maps like starship troopers, I particularity would love the "Flying Saucers DLC" you know the one where you are making peaceful contact with a Pre-FTL species but you're really just messing with their heads while they think their world is coming to an end and going mental, all the while your sucking up their Oceans through huge vacuums to bath in your mothership and having a grand old time eating very tasty and well cooked soylent green.

[talemore]

Add strikecraft and food cost and use them as secondary fleet. Very expensive but it creates small fractions. Pretty much the military becomes a military stock market who flux with the planet stability.

So when you are at the endgame and both sides are just two meme looking at each other, what now? The fleet is not capped on fleets and instead capped at production value of the planets.

You will then not be able to simply win by having the biggest fleet. There's no resource higher valued than the will to survive. You kill their fleet they come back with the military fleet. You kill them again they come back. Since you can not use a single army to defend against the planets own will to defeat their enemies.

You will then have to defend your planets with the military fleet. Who is the ground Defense of the planets.

For empires who end up just being a void in space you have no planets to defend and no reason to invade one of those.

The idea of invading a planet is pointless if your never going to use a planet for anything.

Endgame introduce planet destroying devices that there won't even be any planets but in its wake there be bigger fleets of ships.

The concept is early vs late game supremacy. The military ships are many but they won't be able to be produced without a planet.

What stopping the military fleets is bases. These bases are otherwise 100% useless.