Stellaris Combat Rework & NEW Ascension Path
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 15 окт 2024
- Stellaris Combat is getting a rework, the Stellaris devs have announced this year at PDXcon 2022. Oh and we are getting a new ascension path. I was able to attend (and photograph the slides) and bring this PDXcon exclusive direct to your screen.
Oh, and the existing ascension perks are becoming more democratic. Cyborg hive-minded pops are coming...
Also, we might be getting a beta to try all this out some time after patch 3.5 drops.
All of this is still under construction and may be changed, but that aside...
Lets dive in!
Buy Stellaris DLC on Humble Bundle: www.humblebund...
If you enjoyed this video please leave a like & SUBSCRIBE!
Humble Bundle Affiliate link: www.humblebund...
Patreon: / montuplays
Channel Membership: / @montuplays
Twitter: / montuplays
Twitch: / montuplays
Instagram: / montuplays
Tiktok: / montuplays
And please comment with any feedback, any ideas or if you disagree!
SALE. 75% off Stellaris and up to 50% off DLC: www.humblebundle.com/store/stellaris?partner=montuplays
Sounds great but i still can't handle endgame since they removed the tile pops system. The band-aid they applied makes midgame playable but I'm getting tired of playing on small galaxies just to be able to make it to the crisis
How do I get to the DLCs through your affiliate link? That link only has the base game.
I hate to say it, but even with those savings that's still $116 CAD. I don't think any game should charge that much. Guess its back to just watching for me (or family sharing from a friend's account on steam).
Thanks for getting a sale for people though.
@Hot Take - You just have to scroll down for "associated content" and they're all there.
@@Davion197 Doing so removes the affiliate tag
Thanks. Bought $60 worth of DLC through this link. Their DLC menu is funny and difficult to navigate through that, but I hope you got the partner cut.
(Do more PvE centred fleet tutorial vids.)
Man I am so SO glad they're considering splitting synthetic and cybernetic ascension. SO many times I never fully committed to synthetic because I just wanted to have the cybernetics, but not go full robot.
It was also always strange that the fanatic materialist fallen empire was not synthetic, when that was the intended.
Exactly I just want to play adeptus mechanicus not necrons
@@bigbenhgy Well, fanatic materialists can also go with genetic ascension. Modifying their species until they literally have all the good traits
@@Watchmanskey they can also go with psionic ascension, they just have a hard time rolling psionic theory.
Agreed. If I was even retarded enough to go synthetic ascension, I'd just choose to start as a robot race anyway.
This is great and all, but if they push hard for the "mixed fleet" archetype they'd better fix the fleet manager, since mixed fleets are an absolute pain in the ass to "replenish".
What's broken about it? Noob asking
@@julessaviour5931 is bugged, auto replenishing and upgrading is trouble.
@@julessaviour5931 I'm assuming they are referring to the travel time for reinforcements. For me the fleet manager rarely has issues, bit I have noticed sometimes when I use it the ships have an almost 8 year or more arrival time. It gets so bad sometimes that my fleet has enough time to go home, upgrade, and go back to the front lines before the reinforcements arrive.
it's easier to separate out ship types for travel and refurbishment and combine them when nearing front lines
@@RDehuvyne exactly
I think Torpedo Corvettes as an entire separate frame seems unnecessary: I'd much rather see, say, the different Ship Sections have passive bonuses appropriate to them. So you could have the Interceptor grant bonuses to sublight speed, Picket Ship grant bonuses to tracking, Missile would grant bonuses to evasion, and Torpedo would grant bonuses to hull. Things like that.
yeah it Would be cool if they tied to ship sections bonuses to ships... also it would be great if they murder point defense slot and use small weapon slots for point defense...
Yeah, a new ship type sounds like a bad idea. Just playing around with the ship sections like you said is much smarter. I’m also not sold on the concept of torpedo corvettes having low speed and low evasion, since they’re basically based on torpedo boats, which had high speed and evasion in real life and was their main defense versus larger naval vessels.
Adding those modifiers to the torpedo hull would make more sense.
I think you guys are just set in your ways and don't like change...
Frigates and Gunships would be cool.
Now as the ascension system, I AM HYPED for this system, I get a lot of this is heavy Subject to Change, but I hope they keep the general idea of 1 ascension perk unlocking a tree instead of just two perks
I want the ascension path to give you a technology tree to go down. Not another ascension tree.
@@TheReal_birbwizard that could be interesting too, I kinda err on the side of a tradition tree because I more quickly run out of "must-haves" on that then on the tech tree, but both are improvements and more interesting than the current two perks system.
I'm hoping this unlocks mix and match. I miss choosing genetic ascension, then use migration treaties to spread my pops so they pick up cybernetics and psionics, only to the replicate all three ascensions onto my species.
Sigh. The good old broken and unbalanced days.
But it would be nice if you could choose to master one and dip into the others. Only get cybernetics and forgoe synthetics as well as get psionic without the ability to pierce the Shroud.
@@UnusualDeathCause I like the random “bullshit”. Getting technologies more at random seems more realistic and immersive than the more artificial tech trees where you just get to cherry-pick everything.
Plus, it could be worse. Masters of Orion had a “proper” tech tree, but you could only pick one of multiple uses (usually three) of a technology once you researched it, unless you played as the Psilons, and could only get the others through technology trading or stealing (with you only being able to reliably get them if the Psilons were in play, as the other empires might not research the alternates).
Edit: the Psilons were literally really weak, so they were bad at fighting, and very limited to where they could settle.
@@UnusualDeathCause idk I’ve always been fine with tech being random
Besides it would take much longer to find what you are looking for with so many paths in the tech tree
Honestly something I’d like to see is a separation in “Strike Craft” like there used to be: fighters for screening (with high evasion, low hp, high tracking) and bombers (higher hp, lower evasion, heavier guns with lower tracking) for killing ships.
I still can't fathom why this was removed anyway
I liked that the fighters were your more "defensive" strike crafts used to protect yourself against the enemy' and missile and could also somewhat deal with the small corvettes as well if needed whereas the bombers were supposed to be the heavy hitters made to snipe the enemy ships. Sure they sucked back then due to the mechanics of Strike craft, but nowadays where Strike crafts are viable I think they should give back the option
@@sephikong8323 I think they wanted to simplify the AI behavior for strike craft, since that had been a big issue for the longest time.
I miss the days of fighters and bombers in the early days of Stellaris, not gonna lie.
Endless space 2 moment
It'd be cool if having a carrier in orbit of a ground invasion would have a positive bonus, like "air superiority". Not necessary, but still a cool idea
Just by looking at it, Cybernetic ascension will be absolutely a beast in Assimilators and Hive Minds.
Also, Synthetic ascension for Machine Intelligence should have been the default option.
By the way, thanks for the summary. I really appreciate this.
Can’t have synthetic ascension with Hive Mind.
I hope they add a secound ascension for machine ascension. Maybe some turn your system into synthetic machines, imagine harnessing all the energy,minerals, etc of every planet and star.
This version still feels like a budget ascension for ME's instead of a proper one.
- Can assimilate all robots/machines -> should be a QoL-change and not an ascension perk
- +1 trait vs completely ignoring habitability + synthetic trait -> not even close in power
- Synthetic trait and +1 replicator vs +1 trait and +1 roboticist -> roboticist is double the efficiency of a replicator
I would say they tried to nerf synthetic ascension and didn't care that ME's would be caught in that as well.
@@Lukashoffmann94 I'm not thinking meta-gameplay-wise. I am thinking that a machine intelligence which can basically break into the shroud and become the crisis of the galaxy can have the technology for improving themselves just like the organics. That's why I said, Synth Ascension for the Machine Intelligence should have been a default option.
If I could rework the Synth Ascension, I would use 2 different types, organic>synth would have been different than machine>synth ascensions.
For example, organics > synth could have different results, like becoming a planetary supercomputer, living in a Matryoshka brain or in a utopian holodeck and so on. Machine > Synth could mean, that each drone will become a single ship, just like the reapers from Mass Effect.
@@cmdrtianyilin8107 Would be nice. I just don't see it happening with how much they are neglecting ME's.
I really hope they don’t just name the new ship class “torpedo corvette”. Sounds like a patch job. Name it “frigate” or something different and make the ship feel unique.
Overmarine (in opposite to a submarine) lol
@@Pedro_Colicigno hahaha, just a stone throw away from a spacemarine :D
I feel like they should just implement a frigate class (the pirates have frigates technically), can't figure out myself the function, but I don't want it to just be called Torpedo Corvette lol
@@Pedro_Colicigno extramarine.
@@Necromediancer In real life, Frigates aren't attack ships. They're for recon.
I'm liking the idea of starting out as a science directorate and cybernetically ascending into the Borg. Good rp potential in these changes.
The synth change to help machine empires assimilate other robots and become roving liberators of their kind is a fun take too.
Can you change government into driven assimilators?
@@forsakenquery I'm not actually 100% sure. If not, there are always mods.
And I was expecting ground combat rework 😭
sameeeee 😆
RIP
Don’t worry the ground combat rework will happen eventually…… hopefully.
One day, one day
Devs either too lazy, or lack the creative foresight
one thing i really like about this proposal is that they didn't change battleships, they simply made other roles more relevant than the single "long range killer"
The single biggest change that needs to happen for corvette viability is to adjust the evasion calculation order of operations. Cap at 90% AFTER applying tracking, not before.
So... basically allow an evasion of more than 90%
(which Corvettes can achieve if ships weren't hardcapped at 90% evasion),
but in the
hit chance = accuracy - (evasion -tracking) formula, the evasion minus tracking part is capped at 90%?
Which means that low tracking weapons
(for example Neutron Launchers with 90% accuracy and 0% tracking, can with max sensors +15% and auxiliary fire controls or similar things get up to 100% accuracy and 15% tracking
(At least that's how I think it works),
which results in 25% hit chance)
will now actually get their accuracy reduced by 90% or almost 90%, ending up with only 10% or slightly more hit chance instead of the 25% they can currently achieve.
No. The cheap throw away ships you field in massive numbers need to be exactly that, cheap throw away ships you field in massive numbers.
Extreme survivability would only break them back into absurd levels of OP, again.
@@ekscalybur exactly, I literally run a corvette fleet that only exists to keep my battleships from taking damage, and I'd still be running it even if they had 0% evasion, the real issue though is that there's too much tracking in general
@@Corundrom Weapons should get a bonus tracking multiplier, X weaponry getting as much flat bonuses as smaller ones makes those even more advantageous than they would already be on paper.
They have a use, late game you really want corevttes going toe to toe with titans?
Hive minds should be able to go Psionic, might be too powerful I suppose, but I feel like it makes sense.
The formics are a psionic hivemind, so it has a precedent in scifi. I'm sure there are plenty of other examples of it too, that's just the one I know.
I think the reason they can't is because psionic is basically like a proto-hivemind, you could say a hivemind achieved a psionic connection long, long ago.
@@POKENAR Which is still incredibly stupid
The real reason they can't is it that it would crash the game. They tried to do it but its apparently a technical impossibility
@@MontuPlays There's multiple mods that easily add psionic ascension for hiveminds just fine
I wish we could see species specific weapon types, like crystal tech for lithoids, organic weapons for hives, etc.. That way each species category has advantages and disadvantages. It feels strange playing a hive and building the same weapons as my food does...anyway, the coming changes look awesome! Toxoids...cannot wait!
Would be interesting to see Destroyers get a damage bonus against smaller ships (Corvettes and Torp Corvettes), or otherwise make them excel at killing smaller ships to provide screening and protection.
That said I do like the idea of making it much more of a counter-play-focused system where each ship has their own role to play.
Considering that's what Destroyers were built to do in irl Naval history, I definitely think that would be a good idea.
In real life WW2 combat (which stellaris heavily based it’s on) Battleships and carriers were the flag center of the fleet, with destroyers to counter other battleships and cruisers and corvettes to counter other destroyers.
@@trivipesnipe Destroyers were built to counter battleships, cruisers and corvettes were made to counter destroyers. Aircraft carriers were made to counter all of them pretty well but they still need backup
@@damonedrington3453 Not true. Destroyers is a shorthand that originates from "Torpedo Boat Destroyer" back in the early 1900s where small watercraft and patrol boats were hard to counter for larger vessels.
the name may have come from torpedo boat destroyer, but destroyers were armed with a lot of torpedos therefore making them a capital ship counter, light cruisers tended to have loads of lighter weapons and thus tended to counter destroyers. Corvettes are not a war ship, at best they are anti piracy, at worst they are patrol ships
a new ship hull would be interesting, but i do have to wonder exactly how it would fit into the existing system
Well, the "torpedo boat" as described is a corvette which moves slower and has lower evasion. So... a destroyer. but more fragile. But it murders capital ships with torpedos. BUT destroyers can equip neutron launchers and other weapons which also murder capital ships, while also providing screens if necessary. So... I'm not sure it actually does have a role, at first blush. If anything I would have expected to see "carriers" broken off into their own ship class.
You used to be able to design your construction ships, science ships, and transport ships way back when
I could also have imagined a stand-alone carrier hull, with fighters being more diverse instead of merely tiers. I'm curious to see how the torpedo corvette will fit in. Feels like a mid-late game alternative to handle battleship stacks.
@@poilboiler from what I can discern they’re experimenting in making a specific mechanical distinction between “normal” corvettes and “specifically torpedo” corvettes (which, from Montus PowerPoint overview, may also be able to equip a neutron launcher or kinetic battery or whatever in place of a torpedo.)
LOL they made it "much slower" and worse evasion because that's what you really want in a weak ship that needs to fire at very close range.
I think optimizing automated planetary management will massively improve gameplay because
1) less time spent on colony management, more time experimenting with fleet compositions and combat
2) the AI has a better economy, which should mean they field larger fleets esp. in higher difficulties
3) post-war management of conquered territories saps much less sanity
I feel you... even though I enjoy planetary management, over time it does make me insane...
hey thomas, i feel like automated planetary management is already fine, like not fully optimised but OK tier when you have the lead and too many wars at a time...
actually i think it's great to have a difference between somebody who's getting into planetary optimization, and somebody who has automated everything
@@lucasboyrie6031 is it? Haven't trusted it yet. So i could colonize a planet and letting the AI do what it does and it won't ruin me? In my last run i ended up with about 120 planets and habitats, would be nice to have it on a functional auto mode, especially after mid-game crisis, when you're just to busy for that micromanagement.
I think you may have missed the point in the 4X genre with these suggestions...
@@ShneekeyTheLost Nah, mate. Grand strategy is for macro management. The level of attention you have to pay to your planets to be running smoothly is excessively deep in micropmanagement. Especially once you get into later stages of the midgame, you are way too busy shuffling pops around and retooling conquered planets
I'm really looking forward to mixed fleets. I build mixed fleets now even though I know it's not meta. But in my mind you don't send your capital ships anywhere without escorts.
I do the same thing and usually it works pretty well.
Your battleships and dreads' escort are the cruisers xD
Or that ur dread's escort are the battleships and battecruiser
I've gone crazy over the meta and this comment reminds me that it's *just a game.* More RP for me.
Thank you for your work. As a fellow creator, I can understand how much energy it can take to create videos, especially when news are urgent.
You have no videos though?
Unless it's a different platform your on
@@nepnep1802 Because that's my personal account, sorry
@@RusCoon fair enough, I should've thought of that because I'm doing the same lmao, me got smooth brain
I feel like dedicated carrier cruisers should also be a thing (so next to the cruisers carrier core slot also a carrier bow slot and perhaps a carrier stern slot. But, no other weapons slots can be put on those hull parts)
Also, make it possible for ships to carry ground troops (instead of having the separate transport ships). But ground troops can only disembark when ships with a troops slot(s) are in orbit and a single slot can support up to (x) amount of ground troops
Your trooper hangar idea is so much better than it sounds, because that opens up the possibility of not only convenient ground combat (at the cost of fewer soldiers than transport ships,) but also the ability to hijack enemy ships mid combat! Imagine playing as a bunch of scrapper pirates winning wars with the enemy's own ships, only to scrap those same ships later on for a a quick profit. That would be hilarious!
I don't understand why they don't leverage a bunch of the mechanics from the Hoi4 naval system which ensures that you have to use mixed fleets to be effective. Its not a perfect system, but there are lots of things that would structurally help the stellaris naval system. Things like attack types, screening, positioning etc could all be easily implemented and would directly impact fleet composition and management regardless of balancing issues between components (i.e. if you don't want artillery battleships to be the best option, make artillery weapons worse or cost more)
No just no I have no clue how hoi naval works and I am very happy with the system in stellaris I don't like the combat much much prefer the economy but thats just me with every game
If they made ships more complex I'd just let the AI deal with it yeesh
I dropped out of Hoi4 when they started the naval rework. It’s too much work in an area I’m not interested in. Maybe people like this but I prefer I could drop the whole navy on ai management.
In space most of those wouldn’t matter also the hoi4 naval system is flawed because you only need good subs and destroyer’s to beat almost any navy
@@mannybear4691 No way, against the AI, maybe, but against a player or when outnumbered you must have good fleet composition.
@@mannybear4691 tbf thats close to how its become irl above water boats are sitting ducks for missile strikes and planes subs are the most valuable ship in the modern world cause they are hard to detect
So 1940's destroys and subs being the most valuable isn't that unrealistic
Endless space 2 ground combat is what we need or something like it.
Start attack after killing every army with orbital stike. Defender draft population forever in every round until planet is empty.
Division Designer when
Would be great to see quantum weapons class similar to Heagemonia with some damage-over-time effects.
You have an great name! :D
That would be really cool, not only to expand on the slightly small range of standard weapon types the game has, but also halt hull/shield regeneration enough to weaken them for your next attack. And in some hilarious cases, kill from the grave!
I’m excited for this, I’ve always played with mixed fleets because I enjoy it more, now it’s actually going to become the meta to HAVE mixed fleets and is being made worthwhile. The new Torpedo corvettes sound fun, and I’m looking forward to spamming them against my dad, who HEAVILY favours Battleships.
The new Ascension stuff looks great too, definitely going to be following this update, at long last I can finally take my Tyranid and Zerg races to full on Evolutionary dominance, can’t wait 😁
I hope we even got more Acsension paths in the future, something like that you evolve into energy beings, or you can do linit time manipulation
Looking foward to this patch :D
I've been watching since you had under 100 subs. So glad to see you doing so well for yourself. Your videos are of fantastic quality and you deserve every ounce of success!
Thank you so much!
@@MontuPlays No, thank you for the amazing content! Taught me so much about the game
One thing I've wanted for a while is to give cruisers higher evasion and to make tracking relative. That accuracy is a serious consideration against other battleships and that using artillery weapons against cruisers is a bad idea. That cruisers can avoid like almost half.
I know it's no a priority, but I really hope they'll fix fleet spacing, so large fleets no longer turn into one big amalgous blob.
Space armies should just be made with a cloning or robot making ship slot on ships, Fits in the fleets and command limit nicely.
Wait, ship-boarding? Or is ground combat now happening in space?
Actually, one of the game developers had been pushing for army modules on ships for years (I forget who - ASpec interviewed him one rime and he talked about it). Obviously, so far the other developers haven’t agreed with him.
I disagree, a more advanced transport ship selection could be interesting
Ie introducing planetary siege warfare
But slots would mean you just have to design a cheap corvette to carry only troops, the main ships would never carry any infantry slot. This would just be transport ships by any other name
Honestly I would have preferred a wider variety of modules for each ship class. For example, torpedo battleships and destroyers. Though I am very pleased with rebalancing everything. And the idea of changing ascension paths into traditions is awesome!
I really like the way they’re thinking with reworking ascension paths. Cybernetic particularly has me excited
As you said in the video, I think this update will make Intel (at least in MP) much more valuable. Not only for the ship types and weapons, but also positioning. As of right now, a full Corvette fleet will decimate battleships if the corvettes are right on top of the battleships as they enter the system. I think that a single torpvette fleet could kill 3-4 times the fleet power in battleships.
This is why you would want to enter a system with a destroyer fleet with PD and autocannons to take out the first missile volley and kill the potential corvettes then follow up with your missile cruiser fleet or you main battleship fleet.
To add on the Intel aspect of things, I think a starbase or planetary building that blocks sensors from seeing into the system, unless the enemy sensor is 1 level ahead of the jammer or if you have a certain level of intel from your spies. The jammer effect stacks on top of the nebula effect, wich means that to see with sensors the inside of a nebulaed system with the jammer, you would need lvl3 sensors against a lvl1 jammer. The jammers and sensors are both the same tech so when you level up your sensors, you level up your jammers too. This would give a better way of doing surprise attacks and once again make the spy system more valuable
I never MINDED the current method of braindead haha battleship goes brrrrr but I also welcome actually having some variety so I don't ignore 60% of the weapon tech in the tree.
I'm curious how the "new" ship types will work out. Torpedo corvettes to counter artillery battleships, carrier battleships to counter torpedo corvettes, destroyers to counter carriers, mid-range brawler cruisers to counter destroyers, artillery battleships to counter brawlers?
They’re probably aiming to be more WW2 like since that’s what it seems to be a mashup of anyway. The way it worked in WW2 was battleships are the strongest overall, but they’re slow and have big slow guns. Destroyers countered battleships by packing as much firepower into as small a place as possible, and cruises and corvettes were made to counter destroyers by being better armed or more agile respectfully
Corvettes did not do battle in ww2, why would they? They have light to no armour, they have light weaponry and destroyers can move just as quickly. and they certainly didnt counter battleships
@@hardcorelace5566 I know corvettes didn’t counter battleships, they counter destroyers. I meant to say counter and not countered since corvettes are the modern anti-destroyer ship
@@damonedrington3453 Except, corvettes aren't a counter to Destroyers either. During WWII, corvettes served as cheap escorts for supply convoys between allied nations. Destroyers were a counter to torpedo boats, aircraft and submarines, which were, in turn, all viable counters to cruisers and battleships. Destroyers were historically quite vulnerable to battleships due to their relative lack of armor and firepower.
@@damonedrington3453 The way it actually worked was Destroyers protect Carriers by hunting Submarines & shooting down aircraft. Cruisers acted as bigger Destroyers and Battleships were just fat targets mostly used for land bombardment and then Carriers trash everything else.
It’s cool that they’re still supporting this game after all this time. I have over a 100 hours on this game.
The changes to incentivize mixed fleets would probably also indirectly buff espionage, since you would need the infiltration to discover what ships you’re going up against.
As someone who likes to diversify my fleets for role-play purposes, I appreciate the efforts to make mixed fleets more sensible.
I've always felt that the command limit shouldn't decide how many ships you can have, but rather how many separate fleets you may control. Therefor having a low command limit could seriously handicap a player by making it impossible to efficiently fight a multi-pronged war where you may need two or three fleets per empire to successfully cut off enemy lanes and such.
maybe something similar to how HOI4 limits how many armies a general can have? Like, you get a "field Marshall" and thus can handle 4 fleets, each with an admiral that can handle between 20 and 50 ships depending on skill and traits. Would also make admiral choosing less "reroll until the guy with regen shows up"
Naval capacity combined with command limit already limits the number of fleets thought.
@@0x97B55C23D18 Barely enough, plus the AI still makes a thousand tiny fleets.
@@0x97B55C23D18 most late game players agree that after a certain point,you might as well build as many ships as you can and screw the limit
amazing video, mr. montu! i’ve followed you since early on, and i can’t help but feel energized by the excitement and passion you show in this video!
Wow, thank you!
Some things I would like to see.
The ability to properly design the load out for your stations (What Guns shields and armour where).
The ability to station a leader at a Star Base like a General for combat or other bonus's
Oh and Extra Large weapons for Citadels
It's all no good without ability to control your fleets in the battle, i.e. get somne part of the fleet back from the battle when new danger arrive or keep something in reserve and get them into battle when the time is right.
Montu, your voice sounds good, don't worry and don't strain yourself so hard!
Your work analyzing the combat system had a hand in these changes and I can't thank you enough. More interesting fleets sound so exciting! Thanks, Montu!
The Ascensions are really exciting.
If they want us building mixed fleets, they better fix the fleet manager, because right now it's a mess with ships constantly going MIA to get to their fleet and you can't select which shipyard to build at... With 1 ship design to build this doesn't matter, but with mixed fleets this will be very annoying.
idea: stellaris but every time you win a fleet battle you take a shot
every 10 years for a shot might be better actually
That's all cool and great but if the AI doesn't get improvements as well then a meta will return, and a one fleet beats all strategy will still exist.
The AI must use templates based on user experience (meta fleets) so that counters are required for different situations, if they just throw a crap-salad at you with an even number of hulls and random weapons, that is, in and of itself, a single template experience, so a single counter-template can beat it in every situation, which is why we have the current meta. Artillery battleships can beat every configuration of AI fleets, because every AI fleet is basically the same.
"Diverse" loadouts aren't diverse, it's just a single template.
Now, if the AI creates some meta fleets of their own, like 100% torpedo corvettes, or 100% artillery fleets, or 80% arty 20% PD, or something else, heavily specialized, you, the player, will also need to counter-specialize to beat their configurations, which can get wild when there are 19 empires all running with different prefered templates and strategies, so an arty BB spam might beat the shit out of your neighbor, but his ally is spamming quick torpedo cruisers that will trash your own fleets, so you'll need to think of what to use against each foe.
Oh, and also, combat needs to be longer, MUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCH longer, as it is right now there is no such thing as reinforcing, distracting or flanking as every combat ends before you can cruise through even a single system.
I think it would be cool if AIs made fleet composition based on ethics/civics.
It would great to be able to actually choose your synthetically ascended robot portrait instead of just being assigned a random one! Hope they can implement that as well
Isnt that part of a dlc?
I'm happy to learn what will be coming to console edition 6-9 months now...
More like 12-18 months
@@MontuPlays, I'm just trying to be an optimist...
Would love to see new ascension perks or specific traditions for certain especies, like the aquatics one, Hydrocentric, but for lithoids, plantoids, etc. Imagine a ascension perk for lithoids where you infuse your conciouness with world, turning sentient. "One with the world".
Ah yes, PDX recognize Montu going full-time by giving him more opportunities to do what he built his channel on - researching the endless possibilities to combine fleets. :P
I've always loved the idea of mixed ship loadouts in my fleets, and these potential ascension reworks are very exciting too.
I'm one of those people who stop at The Flesh is Weak and ignore the full robotic ascension perk
I can see why everyone is so excited about the cyborgs and ships rebalance
BUT FOR GOD'S SAKE WHY NO ONE IS TALKING ABOUT THE POPS WITH LEVIATHAN'S DNA COME ON
MA BOYS COULD BE A FIRE-SPEWING CHARIZARDS, HOW THIS IS NOT EXCITING I DON'T UNDERSTAND
I really, really love the change to synthetics to allow machine intelligences to get a decent ascension path, and the cybernetic ascension path sounds really cool for driven assimilators and as an alternate option for hive minds, not to mention being able to play as a normal empire and being able to keep your cyborgs without giving up significant bonuses to your robots.
I’m sort of dubious about the psionic finisher, though. It would be unpleasant to work your way all the way through though ascension path only to end up with the Eater of Worlds covenant or worse, the End of Cycle covenant. Hopefully that would instead be a covenant that could be relied on to not blow up in your face or force you to to reject it.
I mean you can always alt f4 haha
They should add scenario games. We enter a preset game where our species, traits, civics and origin are already predetermined and we have to acquire certain goals to achieve victory.
The good thing about the combat rework is that you can finally be the rebellion and smashing a bunch of unwieldy capital ships using smaller and more evasive ones
I don't see how any of these changes would destroy the NL spam meta
NL works because it benefits from all the useful repeatable techs and common combat buffs (range, fire rate etc) and are hitscan despite being a missile.
Increased HP , and they now require a G slot . so only cruiser - corvette will be able to have them . your BB will not have those, you will spam cruisers probably , but cruisers are not as resilient as BB , and BB will still have the range advantage with artilery . your alpha strike will come after theyr alpha. and we don't know yet if NL will be intercetable now.
The main change is turning them into torpedo weapons rather than large slot weapons, which limits them to cruisers and the new torpedo corvettes. (I assume regular corvettes will no longer have access to a G slot configuration, then.) They used the name "energy torpedo", although I haven't seen any mention that they might become susceptible to point defense. But still, moving them to G slots and giving them a minimum range is an interesting change, as it cuts battleships (and titans) from the possible ship types that could make use of them.
I assume the L slots now need to select between kinetic artillery and plasma cannons for increased hull damage choices.
Was really hopingg to see a dedicated carrier class plus a strike craft rework but hey, this is an awesome start! Also i love how he just glossed over the part about pops having *LEVIATHAN* DNA spliced into them like it was no big deal
So now even Battleships will need small slots for defense against torpedo boats
Or you bring smaller ships for defense, which is the goal
Best way to enhance combat is having combat abilities on capital ships that can be engaged at a specific time to change the tide of battle, like temp invulnerability or temp healing or shield regen/protection aura, with very slow cooldown times, be able to create unique flag ships from various modular parts for each faction, and preferavly have some kind of fleet stances, and perhaps even flanking damage etc
Everything in this video is something to get excited over. I love ship designing and super disappointed when I learned just how boring and rigid "The Meta" was, so this push to make multiple ship design fleets more viable puts a grin on my face.
As for the updates to the ascension paths that is also exciting. I love psionic but the cybernetic path looks super cool and is something I have been wishing for.
note on doomstacking - it always felt weird to have the command limit for a fleet where nothing stops you making multiple fleets according (or even going over) fleet limit and just having them go side to side. Some thoughts I had what could be done with this is to somewhat make a parralel to naval battles, where if you wave a lot of ships fighting things will get messy and it will be hard to maneuver. While I understand that you have much more space in...space...having multiple (your own) fleets in same system may give them small penalties to tracking/rate of fire/etc as assumption would be - you are trying to get a clear shot at enemy or maneuver in a way where you dont hit or collide your own ship, more fleets there are, harder it gets.
The combat tweaks fell really artificial. There is no good reason a torpedo wouldn't do as much damage to a smaller ship as to a battleship. Same with the minimum engagement range.
Changing the evasion values so as to make smaller ships much less likely to be hit by torpedoes and neutron launchers would make much more sence.
I liked battleship stacking because it was simple. There were fewer ships to worry about. I know fleet management can mitigate that, but it takes time for fleets to replenish. Furthermore, they often replenish from somewhere far away.
I wonder if damage multiplication on torpedoes will still be there when those are fired at the stations (and if there's a difference dependent on station tier as well), large space monsters and the like
Thanks for sharing. Sounds pretty cool. Looking forward to ascension changes and fleet rework.
22:22 The biggest weakness of Bio Ascension is still the micromanagement.
The other Paths are simple and conformity-based: Everyone becomes X.
I would not call giving everyone fertile, erudite, robust and fleeting traits a "micromanagement".
I've got a couple hundred hours in Stellaris, both modded, and vanilla. The one thing that has always overwhelmed me, regardless of game version, or if it's modded, is the combat...and it continues to change, which makes it harder to figure it out, I just hope they settle into something that works
I wastrying to find the words to describe how his voice sounds different, and all that came to mind was... "a bit american" lol
Hoarse*
Thanks for the update! Also, you can try some Thiamine tablets for the hangover. Helps for a lot of people
They should add carriers as a seperate class, and seperate light and heavy cruisers, and maybe add space submarines(invisible unless actuvely detected somehow, could disrupt trade and would give small empires a fighting chance to abush big deathstacks). They would be cheep and hard to detect but would be very vunerable to missiles
Commenting as I watch:
1. I fear increased base hull will just lead to more "naked" ship design that sacrifice armor and shields.
2. I'm happy that missiles will turn into S slot artillery weapons. It's an idea I toyed with for a mod that I never got around to making. SC ignoring missiles, but still fighting other SC is a thing I wanted for a while too. Good stuff.
3. Armor & Shield Hardening and PD specialization I'm not convinced by, but we'll see.
4. Torpedo changes are exciting. Multiplicative damage based on hull size is a brilliant idea.
5. Torpedo Corvettes as a separate ship class I'm unsure about, but we'll see. I guess being able to identify which ships are carrying torpedoes from a distance has some value.
6. Ascension path changes are great or at least the fundamental system of perk + tradition is. So is splitting off cybernetic ascension from synthetic.
7. A guaranteed covenant as reward for completing psionic tradition feels dubious. Whenever I go psionic I avoid covenants like the plague because they all just mess you up eventually. Like that one when the time the Composer of Strands removed Venerable from my primary species and all my leaders died overnight.
8. Using Zro as the Spice is super cool though.
If it's a 'guaranteed option to take the specific covenant you want, but you can pass on it/don't have to decide until you want to.' that could work nicely.
Rebalancing sounds fine, but they must explain logically a damage scaling: launchers size is same, caliber is same, but it’s damage reduces with target size. Lol, neutron launcher with caliber adopted for destroying battleships supposed to tear down ships triple smaller, that’s make sense!
Something like overpenetration could explain that. E.g. energy torpedoes partially dissipate without relevant effect because the target is so weak the shot just flies through and doesn't impart the full energy to the ship.
@@Llortnerof but these are space ships. Get through the shield and put a hole in the hull and *boop* depressurized
@@h3069 Unless you basically remove the entire compartment, depressurisation takes time. And since this is about combat ships, having seperate compartments to minimise pressure loss would be a basic necessity, since getting holes in the hull is virtually guaranteed to happen eventually. The shot might even pass through an unpressurised space if you're lucky.
The pressure difference to space isn't that big. A bike tire will lose its air faster than a space ship through an equivalent sized hole.
@@Llortnerof torps go bang on impact though. It'd just slam into the vettes armor and the small ship would just go bye bye
@@h3069 Realistically, so would a big one. But that'd make for bad game balance where every fight is just rocket tag.
The detonation would still hit a corvette less than a much bigger ship, and they'd likely have proximity fuses, so no slamming into ships anyway. A corvettes better acceleration would then let it get out of the danger area more easily.
At the end, though, you have to remember that Stellaris space combat isn't exactly particularly realistic anyway.
For combat rebalance, I think one thing that could/should be done (although it probably would be difficult to code) is removing Naval Capacity(do we REALLY need Naval Cap now that Fleets themselves are capped) and replacing it with some kind of Flag Capacity which determines the amount of fleets you can have "active" at once. That would heavily hamper doomstacks as then any fleet not stationed at their homebase (or moving to their homebase) would be unable to answer orders.
They need to rework ground invasions to actually make them fun. Like deploying strike craft from ships as an air force. I don't want to say it, but maybe like a mobile phone game. Gives you units equal to what you landed and then you tell them where to attack, like an autobattler or like civilisation style combat. Allow us to select targets using orbital bombardment, or send rading parties to kidnap pops.
Ground combat just isn’t the center of the game. It would be best when automatic, yet interesting. There could be more (any) events regarding it, yet not too common as to not overwhelm multiplayer players. The “graphics” need to be updated as well. Large battles consisting of tens of millions of soldiers entertain you via some balls with health bars going down. I would personally prefer a sci-fi battle map, with units in combat shown fighting each other
@@imbadatusernames6295 I disagree with some of what you said. Ground combat doesn't happen often enough that it'd be a hassle to do manually. I think invasions lasting a month or two is weird, it's an entire planet, the process should take a year or two without support from above, like I suggested. If we're to talk about what the game is "about" it's about space empires. Most of the game is spent managing economies. Explore, expand, exploit and exterminate. We should have more fun ways of waging war, instead of bigger number wins, click the enemy. I love stellaris, but I'd love it more if there was more to fortresses than just soldier jobs, more to different types of soldiers than "it costs more, does more damage and takes longer to build".
They did an update for diplomacy and federations that was cool, I'd like to see a similar update overhaul all warfare. Imagine fleet formations, specialist ship types, boarding, actual tactics like flanking, not just bigger number + rock paper scissors wins. Imagine commandeering enemy vessels.
@@ub3rfr3nzy94 I disagree, as soon as you let the little shits build habitats then you’re going to be invading/cracking 2-3 places per inhabited system. It gets ridiculous on 1k star galaxies. No ai habitats is a must have mod for me because of this. I feel like having to micro all land invasions would be terrible, and a hassle, add more of what everyone already hates, and would immediately cause me to disable the dlc after about half a game
While I agree invasions should take longer on occupied planets, however, planets with little to no garrison basically have no choice but to surrender (genocidal empires (non civics included) should have more resistance however, like guerrilla forces)
I do agree that warfare needs to be overhauled. It’s boring and completely dependent on how many artillery battleships and basically nothing else for the player in singleplayer and maybe a few other small niches in competitive multiplayer. However, if all it’s going to do is add more micro to an already micro-heavy game, then i don’t want it. In my opinion, choices about army creation are fine, but ground combat itself doesn’t need any player input except for maybe a little bit of clicking (why I suggested a little map that moves around). For example, order your fleets to stop food shipments on a 3k ecumonopolis, forcing them to surrender without a fight to not risk pop death, or something to that degree (also colossi should totally scare planets into surrendering)
I’ll be honest though, diplomacy still needs an overhaul. I open that screen to shove envoys in their face until they like me, start a spy operation, or do something relative to war; I have never made a federation, and I have had 1 vassal and have never been one (mostly because my play-styles aren’t great for it). It feels hallow to me. Of course, I still think a war overhaul is necessary, but Federations didn’t scratch my itch, so to speak
Thanks for always doing you’re best to keep us updated.
They could try out an EVE system where the bigger the ship/weapons the harder time they have tracking smaller ones
edit: pretty sure that just instantly kills the spamming of big ships as well as small ones, since smaller ships shouldn't be able to fill particular roles regardless
That's already the case with tracking. The biggest weapons have no tracking and are countered by the evasion of smaller ships
@@destroyer1667 but the problem is the smaller ships fill the same role as the large ones and I think what I suggested is more specific instead of relying on evasion as a flat thing for all ships vs ships
Command limit might be cool if it's based off the Admiral’s level. Just a thought
As someone who loves making mixed fleets, I’m excited for this.
Also, am I the only one who doesn’t really want a ground combat rework? I don’t want to exit my grand war against the militant isolationists just to command my soldiers against their colony garrisons.
It would add an entirely seperate gameplay tool in a game that doesn;t necessarily neeed it. I wonder if it would work adding an option to switch it off or function as a classic/reworked option. I personally would love more fleshed ot ground combat, but I totally get people not wanting an RTS added to a game with such a large macro lense
The only acceptable ground combat reword would be if you played an optional battle tech skermish for that map
Ground combat is just bland in general. It should either be reworked or removed completely.
Its not fun having to take on a +5k garrison especially when your army is much weaker and you have to wait for you to recruit and assemble.
Yeah, I don't see the point in a ground combat rework, either. Especially the position of "make it like hoi4"
Great video and very interesting changes they’re looking at. The combat changes reminds me a bit of how combat in Distant Worlds 2 with the armor/shield hardness and varying levels of defensive penetration. Really excited to see the meta shake up a bit.
New ship class and ascension path? Oh boy you know how to get clicks!
6:46 Star Ruler 2 was so nice! It's actually how I discovered Stellaris and the rest of paradox.
Still would like to see Missle Destroyers
Multiplicative size damage is a great idea for keeping certain frames relevant later in the game, really excited to see how that shakes things up.
Not really sold on two of these concepts:
- Multiplicative damage to larger targets. Game mechanics aside, weapons don't work this way. Damage is based on warhead size/type, not target type. A single torp should absolutely wreck a corvette, whereas a battleship could tank several before going down.
- Torpedoes are SHORT RANGE weapons??? That's not how torpedoes work. Not in naval combat. Not in any sci-fi setting (Expanse, for example, where torps are universally LONG range weapons with NO short range use).
You're dumb it's a game it's not supposed to be based on reality
Actually, I think multiplicative damage can make sense if you consider the word Overpenetration. If torpedoes have AP warheads, then on small ships they just punch straight through, a few areas need to be sealed down, but unless a lucky strike holes the reactor or life support, it passes through. On a battleship, however, piercing the hull slows the warhead enough for a secondary warhead to detonate and do massive damage without overpenetration. As well, I think in this case it’s meant to evoke PT boats and torpedo bombers, which had to draw close to their targets to line up the killing blow and not miss.
I honestly disagree, you’re looking at this from a realism perspective, not a gameplay perspective. Maybe it’s weird for damage multipliers to exist irl, but they could make the naval combat much more interesting. Personally it seems exciting to me that they are even looking at changing the boring meta and I’ll withhold my opinion until it comes out.
Yup, he really did talk about it, thanks Val Donchev
I was going to find the link to this video and post it on your other comment, didn't have a chance yet though!
My voice sounds very, very different here though. I can see why you didn't realise it was me!
@@MontuPlays Actually i saw the Aspec one, thats what made me curious about one of yours adressing the topic, i really just missed this one in my feed
Its really sad how for the majority of the stuff that would reeeealy need a rework they cant do...
Love you mate, no worries about how you are. You make good content, it's enjoyable, it can be funny, its informative, etc., etc. You're the only Stellaris RUclipsr I watch consistently, and its always a grand time.
Cheers.
Why does nobody comment on the name for 3.5? Fornax is literally the name of a porn mag from mass effect (ingame) lol
All of the builds are named after constellations, including Fornax which is Latin for furnace.
NSC has proven to me how much new ship designs spice up stellaris. Having proper massive carriers and a flagship powerhouse is so much fun for RP and just in general gameplay
first?
It would seem
I like this a lot. Making ascension paths consume only 1 ascension perk will free up a lot of strategy diversification. But it will push low value tradition trees further into oblivion, at least for now.
I do also like the shake-up for naval combat. Late game naval combat has been very one dimensional (outside of some meme-y stuff) for some time. I would like a titan rework though. I think they are a bit underwhelming and take too long to replace if *cough* when *cough* they get shot down. They aren't worth it unless your fleet is HUGE. And their value will go down further with the rework, as it will (probably) be easier to shoot them down. I'm a bit skeptical of corvette vs. torpedo corvette though.
“We had some great chats” they got hammered
I can neither confirm nor deny...
This will be interesting. Looking forward to your rework of the ship videos and new graphs.
A big issue for counterplay is how gaining intel of enemy fleet works. In the current shape it feels like getting to that intel is pretty inconvenient, even at high levels of intel the specific construction of enemy fleet is not visible. Maybe additional spy action or panel in espionage that shows what is currently known about make up of enemy fleet.
I would love to see a randomized tech tree or perhaps one that you can manipulate branches of somehow rather than the current tech system (not that it bothers me, would just be really cool)
I wish one day they rework the combat so it’s more then two blobs of ships fighting. I’d love to see something like the space combat of Empire At War or even Homeworld. (Homeworld might be a bit extreme to implement).
Carrier specific classes and the removal of carrier sections for battleships would be cool. Carriers would be 4 section and center pieces akin to how titans are, but where titans would be like a bigger battleships, leaving juggernauts being the bigger carriers.
Something I would like to see is System Defense Fleet Ships.
The idea behind system defense ships is no FTL drives.
Benefits:
1. This frees power for weapons beyond what a ship's power could normally support. or
2. It could mean significantly higher maneuverability due to the mass decrease from not having FTL engines. of much enhanced manuverability.
3. If you somehow, through salvage or events, acquire large or X class weapons early you can build a glass cannon ships loaded with power plants and the advanced weapon.
The roleplaying aspect of the balanced fleet type is something I always held to. So having it now be actually good will be very pleasing