Explore a vast galaxy full of wonder! Paradox Development Studio, makers of the Crusader Kings and Europa Universalis series presents Stellaris, an evolution of the grand strategy genre with space exploration at its core.
Featuring deep strategic gameplay, a rich and enormously diverse selection of alien races and emergent storytelling, Stellaris has engaging challenging gameplay that rewards interstellar exploration as you traverse, discover, interact and learn more about the multitude of species you will encounter during your travels.
Etch your name across the cosmos by forging a galactic empire; colonizing remote planets and integrating alien civilizations. Will you expand through war alone or walk the path of diplomacy to achieve your goals?
Main Features: -Deep & Varied Exploration. -Enormous procedural galaxies, containing thousands of planets. -Explore Anomalies with your heroic Scientist leaders. -Infinitely varied races through customization and procedural generation. -Advanced Diplomacy system worthy of a Grand Strategy Game. -Ship Designer based on a vast array of technologies. -Stunning space visuals.
Take the traditional 4X Space genre add in a blend of some strong paradox grand strategy and we have a very promising addition to the Space games
With release coming steadily closer I thought I might just post this now.
Burn the Heretic. Kill the Mutant. Purge the Unclean. For the Emperor of Mankind! (23)
36%
FOR THE SWARM (21)
33%
Blorrrrg (10)
16%
boring standard humans (10)
16%
64 total votes
Your vote: Your first game will be as?
(Vote): Blorrrrg (Vote): FOR THE SWARM (Vote): Burn the Heretic. Kill the Mutant. Purge the Unclean. For the Emperor of Mankind! (Vote): boring standard humans
This will probably be one of the few games I pre-purchase this year... Hype train running at full steam!
I've checked out Quill's pre-play (but as usual don't enjoy the personalities of his little cadre) and also watched Asher's pre-release overviews/speculation vids. Any other suggestions? Dev Diaries (from eu4 experience) tend to be over-long for my tastes.
On April 22 2016 00:54 Kronen wrote: This will probably be one of the few games I pre-purchase this year... Hype train running at full steam!
I've checked out Quill's pre-play (but as usual don't enjoy the personalities of his little cadre) and also watched Asher's pre-release overviews/speculation vids. Any other suggestions? Dev Diaries (from eu4 experience) tend to be over-long for my tastes.
Did you check out the Blorg stream from the devs? It is helping me a lot to deal with the wait and the silly Blorg empire they have running just adds to the fun
I've been watching the stream after a friend told me to check out this game. Damn, I got hooked almost imidiately, can't wait for a release day. My first playthrough plan is zerg hell bent on conquering everything!
On April 22 2016 00:54 Kronen wrote: This will probably be one of the few games I pre-purchase this year... Hype train running at full steam!
I've checked out Quill's pre-play (but as usual don't enjoy the personalities of his little cadre) and also watched Asher's pre-release overviews/speculation vids. Any other suggestions? Dev Diaries (from eu4 experience) tend to be over-long for my tastes.
On April 25 2016 13:41 Yurie wrote: So am I understanding it right when one game will take weeks to complete? Or do they have a spread of sizes and objectives?
I haven't seen anything about different options for wincons but seems like a single campaign will take a while
My favorite part of the game so far is the “war score” which puts a limit on how long you can be at war. I love the idea that your population is unwilling to be at work for unlimited amounts of time. This is the 4x game I am looking for, where your population limits what you can do, rather than just doing what you command.
On April 28 2016 22:54 Plansix wrote: My favorite part of the game so far is the “war score” which puts a limit on how long you can be at war. I love the idea that your population is unwilling to be at work for unlimited amounts of time. This is the 4x game I am looking for, where your population limits what you can do, rather than just doing what you command.
If it works like EU4, the main function of war score is to determine how much land/treaties you can enforce. At 100% warscore you've effectively won the war, so ther is no need to be at war any longer. War exhaustion on the other hand...
On April 30 2016 02:30 xuanzue wrote: the swarm is not possible yet, a zerg race needs 3 traits that cannot be combine ATM
Adaptive Nomadic Rapid Breeders
You don't need nomadic at all for a Zerg swarm. It just affects the time it takes to migrate, not the ability to do so. According to the one SC novel that I've read, the Zerg travel very slowly through space.
the teased picture from the late game disaster does feel very zerg/tyranids though, so even if we cannot play a appropriate "Zerg swarm" we might just all get murdered by one :D
I haven't watched any gameplay vids or whatever of Stellaris yet. Going into it without any knowledge. It's the best way to learn and approach a paradox game imo. Gonna be a lot of fun.
I've been watching Quill and Marbozir play this on youtube and it looks amazing D: I'm actually tempted to buy this. Is it digital only or will there be a physical edition at stores?
On May 06 2016 20:24 Latham wrote: I've been watching Quill and Marbozir play this on youtube and it looks amazing D: I'm actually tempted to buy this. Is it digital only or will there be a physical edition at stores?
Have started watching youtubers play this game as well and I am really excited. I still cannot decide on which FTL method to use, as they all seems useful in different ways
On May 06 2016 20:28 Laserist wrote: Why you release a game on monday!! !!
Apparently Monday is a holiday in Sweden so their own country players will be able to play it
I live in Sweden and no Monday is not a holiday (last Thursday was though) I think they releases on a Monday so that if they have to hotfix the game for whatever reason they don't have to bring in staff on the weekend.
Feels like they are taking a lot from swords of the stars regarding the travel methods at least. I will probably use the gate system based on the hiver's.
On May 06 2016 22:47 Hesmyrr wrote: I hope AI offers enough challenge. What I've seen from few streamers do not really impress me.
I am 99% sure that I have seen that AI difficulty is among the options you can choose from when setting up the game. It is very much possible that the streamers are using an easy difficulty
Yeah, I'm pretty sure my method of entertainment isn't really suited for many gamers Still hope AI can be modded to be better (rather than flat advantages), like in Civ4 or Starcraft.
I hope they implemented an AI which brings a challenge without cheating and adjustable at the same time. I enjoyed playing CK2 so far and find it challenging.
If the game turns out to be too easy for you, paradox will make it progressively damn harder as the expansions introduced as usual.
AI's cheat because writing an AI that learns and can beat actual good players without cheating is super difficult. Your basically trying to re-create something like AlphaGo.
On May 07 2016 02:03 Gorsameth wrote: AI's cheat because writing an AI that learns and can beat actual good players without cheating is super difficult. Your basically trying to re-create something like AlphaGo.
People forget that it took decades to create an AI that could be a skilled human at GO. Video games that happen in real time are more complex than GO. So AIs must cheat to provide some higher levels of challenge.
I remember reading a tweet from Wiz (The AI lead) a couple of month's ago that the AI does not cheat and that he intended to try and keep it that way. I don't know how that will work, but if he can pull it off without cheating that will be awesome.
I thought he said it doesn't cheat on that difficulty setting to which the AI was set at, though I could be wrong. No one asks for an AI as skilled as a master level human for anything short of board games. An AI only has to undertake actions that makes the bare minimum of sense to provide satisfaction.
The problem is just when the bare minimum of time is used to code AI, such as the some of the more recent total war series, where units run backwards and forwards continuously under fire, never shooting back, or can't hold a formation together once the unit enters a certain range and just charges whatever is nearest, or when it sends single units to suicide on the campaign map, or when the AI couldn't even send an army over water on an ocean.
On May 07 2016 02:51 WindWolf wrote: I remember reading a tweet from Wiz (The AI lead) a couple of month's ago that the AI does not cheat and that he intended to try and keep it that way. I don't know how that will work, but if he can pull it off without cheating that will be awesome.
I watched the first Let's play video of Marzibor (or sth. along those lines) and he explained the difficulties as follows: The higher the difficulty, the further ahead the AI STARTS in the game. IIRC no ressource boost, "just" a head start. That still is cheating though.
On May 07 2016 02:51 WindWolf wrote: I remember reading a tweet from Wiz (The AI lead) a couple of month's ago that the AI does not cheat and that he intended to try and keep it that way. I don't know how that will work, but if he can pull it off without cheating that will be awesome.
I watched the first Let's play video of Marzibor (or sth. along those lines) and he explained the difficulties as follows: The higher the difficulty, the further ahead the AI STARTS in the game. IIRC no ressource boost, "just" a head start. That still is cheating though.
It also means that once you survive the early game your likely to steamroll. Which is a problem for a ton of games in this genre. Once your ahead the AI cant hope to beat you and it comes a question if your willing to spend the time to clean up.
Oh well, don't wanne get to doom % gloom, we will see how it is when the game comes out :p
On May 07 2016 02:51 WindWolf wrote: I remember reading a tweet from Wiz (The AI lead) a couple of month's ago that the AI does not cheat and that he intended to try and keep it that way. I don't know how that will work, but if he can pull it off without cheating that will be awesome.
I watched the first Let's play video of Marzibor (or sth. along those lines) and he explained the difficulties as follows: The higher the difficulty, the further ahead the AI STARTS in the game. IIRC no ressource boost, "just" a head start. That still is cheating though.
It also means that once you survive the early game your likely to steamroll. Which is a problem for a ton of games in this genre. Once your ahead the AI cant hope to beat you and it comes a question if your willing to spend the time to clean up.
Oh well, don't wanne get to doom % gloom, we will see how it is when the game comes out :p
I would assume that depends on how the technology curve is done. If you gain technology slower early on then you will always be behind in tech. Making the challenge keep up longer. Usually isn't done that way though, doubt this game is that way either.
It also looks like races are way more likely to gang up to stop you if you get to aggressive/powerful. I don’t think this game is going to fall into the Civ trap of setting your win condition machine and then waiting for it to crank out the victory condition.
Dont compare it to Civ. Compare it to other Paradox titles where all those concepts come from.
It will have an okayish AI (definatelly not nearly as bad as Civ or TW) that will be abusable like most AIs and while the game should have mechanics that try to stop you from blobbing too fast, it will probally get a bit stale as soon as you get as big or bigger than your enemies. But the core of the game is getting there.
I am aware it is more like other Paradox titles, but a think a lot of folks might see it as more similar MOO2 or CIV. Which Paradox titles are very much not. You are not the all seeing god emperor in this game. I think you are very limited to the number of planets you can directly control. I think 5 was the number I heard from people.
I mean, you arent supposed to be the god emperor of Earth in EU but that doesnt mean you cant rule the world as glorious Okinawa. I'm sure you will be able to conquer the galaxy.
It shouldnt be nearly as bad as Civ or TW but this game is more susceptible to AI issues or lack of difficulty because it lacks the historical asymmetry thing. I guess it makes it a better multiplayer game but I wouldnt mind a galaxy filled with empires at diferent power levels. It was the one thing that made paradox games challenging no matter how good you got without having to resort to absurd AI advantages.
On May 07 2016 09:09 SKC wrote: I mean, you arent supposed to be the god emperor of Earth in EU but that doesnt mean you cant rule the world as glorious Okinawa. I'm sure you will be able to conquer the galaxy.
It shouldnt be nearly as bad as Civ or TW but this game is more susceptible to AI issues or lack of difficulty because it lacks the historical asymmetry thing. I guess it makes it a better multiplayer game but I wouldnt mind a galaxy filled with empires at diferent power levels. It was the one thing that made paradox games challenging no matter how good you got without having to resort to absurd AI advantages.
Fairly sure adding civilizations at different levels of development through mods will be a thing.
On May 07 2016 09:09 SKC wrote: I mean, you arent supposed to be the god emperor of Earth in EU but that doesnt mean you cant rule the world as glorious Okinawa. I'm sure you will be able to conquer the galaxy.
It shouldnt be nearly as bad as Civ or TW but this game is more susceptible to AI issues or lack of difficulty because it lacks the historical asymmetry thing. I guess it makes it a better multiplayer game but I wouldnt mind a galaxy filled with empires at diferent power levels. It was the one thing that made paradox games challenging no matter how good you got without having to resort to absurd AI advantages.
The Balad of DDRjake and the Empire of three mountains.
On May 07 2016 09:09 SKC wrote: I mean, you arent supposed to be the god emperor of Earth in EU but that doesnt mean you cant rule the world as glorious Okinawa. I'm sure you will be able to conquer the galaxy.
It shouldnt be nearly as bad as Civ or TW but this game is more susceptible to AI issues or lack of difficulty because it lacks the historical asymmetry thing. I guess it makes it a better multiplayer game but I wouldnt mind a galaxy filled with empires at diferent power levels. It was the one thing that made paradox games challenging no matter how good you got without having to resort to absurd AI advantages.
Fairly sure adding civilizations at different levels of development through mods will be a thing.
Hes riffing on the "fallen empires" having a lot higher initial tech thats going to be in the game already.
On May 07 2016 02:51 WindWolf wrote: I remember reading a tweet from Wiz (The AI lead) a couple of month's ago that the AI does not cheat and that he intended to try and keep it that way. I don't know how that will work, but if he can pull it off without cheating that will be awesome.
I watched the first Let's play video of Marzibor (or sth. along those lines) and he explained the difficulties as follows: The higher the difficulty, the further ahead the AI STARTS in the game. IIRC no ressource boost, "just" a head start. That still is cheating though.
It also means that once you survive the early game your likely to steamroll. Which is a problem for a ton of games in this genre. Once your ahead the AI cant hope to beat you and it comes a question if your willing to spend the time to clean up.
Oh well, don't wanne get to doom % gloom, we will see how it is when the game comes out :p
Unlike other games, GSG tend to have internal problems that get to the surface when you hit a critical mass of empire size. E.g., one of the Blorg previews showed that each citizen in the empire got a set of preferences/beliefs taht can differ more the bigger your empire/if you absorbed other races poulation, leading to internal conflict taht might tear your empire in 2, according to devs. Also, the late game crises can be seen in a 200 year time lapse video, where the AI commands 1/3rd of the Galaxy at the end (while the biggest other empires are at max 1/10 of space)
So while there wont be a miraculous AI that is challenging to hardcore gamers on even footing (and would beat 90% of normal gamers all the time), there seems to be other systems to keep the "end game" interesting/challenging enough.
Not sure how much fun I can derive from a GSG w/o historical setting, I mean in EU you cant conquer the world as a mini state, but you can set your goal to survive for 200 years, or triple your land size, or get an alliance with france etc... hard to set such persoanl goals w/o historical context....
PS: The lets play videos I skimmed through look like it might be a good starting point for ppl coming from 4X games to dabble into GSG though. You arent thrown into a fully developed complex of treaties/standing armies/established routes, but can explore and build up to that point, so at least the first 100 years should be a door opener for ppl who ditched CK or EU (or others) due to the overwhelmingly overloaded start in there.
Looks nice so far, doubt it attracts the oldschool hardcore GSG/Paradox players (no context, only GSG in later stages), but could act as a treat not only for players looking for a space themed GSG but also for newcomers to dabble in Paradox games... lets just hope now that it wont need 3 patches until its playable ad balanced :D :D
On May 07 2016 09:09 SKC wrote: I mean, you arent supposed to be the god emperor of Earth in EU but that doesnt mean you cant rule the world as glorious Okinawa. I'm sure you will be able to conquer the galaxy.
It shouldnt be nearly as bad as Civ or TW but this game is more susceptible to AI issues or lack of difficulty because it lacks the historical asymmetry thing. I guess it makes it a better multiplayer game but I wouldnt mind a galaxy filled with empires at diferent power levels. It was the one thing that made paradox games challenging no matter how good you got without having to resort to absurd AI advantages.
The Balad of DDRjake and the Empire of three mountains.
On May 07 2016 09:09 SKC wrote: I mean, you arent supposed to be the god emperor of Earth in EU but that doesnt mean you cant rule the world as glorious Okinawa. I'm sure you will be able to conquer the galaxy.
It shouldnt be nearly as bad as Civ or TW but this game is more susceptible to AI issues or lack of difficulty because it lacks the historical asymmetry thing. I guess it makes it a better multiplayer game but I wouldnt mind a galaxy filled with empires at diferent power levels. It was the one thing that made paradox games challenging no matter how good you got without having to resort to absurd AI advantages.
Fairly sure adding civilizations at different levels of development through mods will be a thing.
Hes riffing on the "fallen empires" having a lot higher initial tech thats going to be in the game already.
From what I could gather fallen empires are not really an AI player with higher tech like France or Kebab, they are more like neutrals that players can abuse or get abused by. There are also only 2 levels, you and them (and maybe a third if you turn on that setting) as opposed dozens. And yeah I'm sure there will be mods, but that's ussually not quite the same thing.
Who knows, maybe they managed to make fighthing other civs at an even footing challenging since that's the whole point of the game, unlike the other titles where the challenge was being the underdog.
On May 07 2016 11:12 BLinD-RawR wrote: is this CK in space or more like MOO?
It still is a Paradox Grand Strategy game but it looks more similar to classic 4X games than their previous stuff. It is closer to EU than CK though since it is no breeding simulator.
What I really want to know is if they managed to create a system where rebels aren't unbearable.
On May 07 2016 12:41 Just_a_Moth wrote: You can be a Fungus or a Plant.
That alone is a sellingpoint for me. All hail the glorius mushroom Godemperor.
This will be my first paradox strategy game, i liked Endless Space and the old MOO so i will give it a try. I just hope that you can win by beeing really evil. In most games i have the feeling that you are kinda punished for beeing a homicidal maniac and always rewarded for beeing "nice", which i find super boring.
On May 07 2016 11:08 Talaris wrote: [...]I mean in EU you cant conquer the world as a mini state...
But you can.
But that feat is impossible for casual players. You have to invest a lot of time to be able to conquer the world in EUIV as middlesized or small state.
You might run out of time before you're officially 'done' but it's fairly simple to reach unstoppable status as most nations in EU4 without abusing anything as long as you understand key mechanics and have some common sense. AI usually isn't aggressive enough at punishing weaknesses to make it a real challenge.
This game looks really fun, when it was first announced I wasn't very interested at all but the latest dev diaries and every youtuber making Stellaris videos convinced me to buy it, can't wait to make my boring standard human empire on monday!
On May 08 2016 18:26 WindWolf wrote: Tomorrow is the day! I don't know what race or FTL method I will choose first, but I will play a more economical game rather than a militaristic game
On May 08 2016 03:41 JacobShock wrote: it sucks that games always come out on mondays..
Knowing Paradox they'll support this game for years so no worries.
And given that this game is not based on history, Paradox has much more freedom in what they can do
I find it that there is no "history" particularly refreshing. You start with a clean sleet. Everyone, save for a few "more advanced" species starts randomly and on even footing. For me that's amazing. This will make the games unique and different every time. If they'll provide the same level of support to this as to previous games this will be absolutely amazing.
On May 08 2016 20:57 Gorsameth wrote: Anyone know of a good introduction video into the game to see if it is something I might want to buy?
You can watch some Let's Plays on youtube. If you wanna go in blind and not see too much just watch the 1st video of the series that just explains the mechanics of the game. If you wanna see how the game plays, watch more than 1 video I guess.
On May 08 2016 20:57 Gorsameth wrote: Anyone know of a good introduction video into the game to see if it is something I might want to buy?
You can watch some Let's Plays on youtube. If you wanna go in blind and not see too much just watch the 1st video of the series that just explains the mechanics of the game. If you wanna see how the game plays, watch more than 1 video I guess.
both Marb and Quill mostly talk for their episode 1. Paradox channel plays the first few years in their episode 1.
I'm going to echo Paradox's Blorg series as well. While they are RPing, Martin (The AI lead) can also take a step back temporarily to explain game mechanics.
Edit: Around 18:00 CEST seems to be the time the game releases. Perfect time for me, I get home around that time and the download is rather small
On May 08 2016 20:57 Gorsameth wrote: Anyone know of a good introduction video into the game to see if it is something I might want to buy?
You can watch some Let's Plays on youtube. If you wanna go in blind and not see too much just watch the 1st video of the series that just explains the mechanics of the game. If you wanna see how the game plays, watch more than 1 video I guess.
4 more hours boys D: The download will supposedly be around 4GBs thankfully, so those of us with slower interwebz will still be able to play today, I think.
On May 09 2016 22:38 Laserist wrote: I don't understand why they didn't utilize preload for plebs don't have infinite BW and quota.
Probably because the game is only 4gb, and they figured it unnecessary then. I've heard there's some hoops to jump through to setup preload on Steam, too.
At minimum, preloading the game means you have to make it so it can’t be cracked open easily and coding for it to unlock. Since the download is so small, I bet it just wasn’t worth the man hours or worrying about it working.
I remember that I pre-loaded XCOM 2 but still hade to wait at launch for it to unpack properly before I could played it. And Stellaris is much smaller, so it should not be a big hassle to download.
And if you log into your paradox account in the game you get a chirpy bird race as well (Source: Paradox's stream). A cross-game promotion that I did not thought that I needed
Three moves ahead has a 2 hour episode about the game and its really good stuff. They touch on all the stuff you want to know. I’m pretty bias because they pretty much mirror my opinion about 4X space games and that they have become stale.
And they get into the neat parts of the game, like the end of a 300 year peace between two races that shouldn’t get along and how that influenced the way the war played out. And space turtles.
Pc gamer is on the same page sadly. A shame the fears I had for this game are coming true. Not a first time purchase like EU4 was for me, I'll wait till the DLCs are out.
I always take reviews (be it good, bad or neutral ones) with a huge grain of salt since I find myself disagreeing with the general reception quite often (Like, I think Civ: Beyond Earth is a good game) and I've never been fond of scores for reviews.
Eurogamer review calling it "the Paradox grand strategy game you need to play." and giving it a recommended. They've been the only publication I read for a long time now so I trust their review a bit more than PC Gamer and IGN.
To be fair, I understand the IGN review. It sounds like the loved the game, but the more complex it got, the more the menus got in the way of gathering information efficiently. So the closer to late game you get, the more the game bogs down as you search for the information to make good decisions. And some frustration with the trial by fire nature your first alliance pulling you into a war you are not ready for.
Not going to slow me down, but I do hear that the UI has some short comings.
Edit: Personally I dislike review scores and wish they would go away forever. That review isn’t that bad and has a lot of praise for the game, but it sounds like the person playing was pretty disappointed with the games short comings cutting into the parts they liked.
Yep, reading the reviews, you can get a better grasp of the expectations of the reviewer and then form your own opinion. But the scoring proccess uses nothing quantitative to really justify its existence. Hence why metacritic is completely useless.
That's in large part why I read Eurogamer and not other sites. They had the same revelation, and got rid of the score system entirely. Instead they slap a "recommended" or "essential" on really good games though. Much, much better system imo.
On May 09 2016 23:58 Godwrath wrote: Yep, reading the reviews, you can get a better grasp of the expectations of the reviewer and then form your own opinion. But the scoring proccess uses nothing quantitative to really justify its existence. Hence why metacritic is completely useless.
Some places don’t even have the person who writes the review set the score, but have their editor do it based on how the review sounds. Of course, after a discussion with the author to confirm they are ok with it. But 90% review sites ditched quantitative review systems well over a decade ago. Because as Jeff Gerstmann said, “We didn’t need some complex system to get every score to around a 7. We can just do that on our own.”
But scores are pretty dumb in general. It’s all just opinion and impressions anyways. Personally, I find review where the person didn’t 100% love the game to be more interesting than ones that heap on praise. Talk to me about the short comings of a pretty great game, because that is the stuff I care about.
On May 10 2016 00:04 Dysisa wrote: That's in large part why I read Eurogamer and not other sites. They had the same revelation, and got rid of the score system entirely. Instead they slap a "recommended" or "essential" on really good games though. Much, much better system imo.
There are so many places to get information about games, I rarely even need that. I pre-ordered this game and I’m going to play it. But the reviews are a good way to for me to understand what its problems are. And for the developer to look into what they could fix if there are flaws.
Eurogamer have a much better system, but Rowan Kaiser is definitely someone I listen to. So ignore the score but definitely read what he has to say. Guy is a huge EU4 (in fact after reviewing Stellaris he went back to playing EU4 lol) and CKII fan and for him to get frustrated with the game is saddening because the problems he highlighted are things I was worried with too.
On May 10 2016 00:10 Ysellian wrote: Eurogamer have a much better system, but Rowan Kaiser is definitely someone I listen to. So ignore the score but definitely read what he has to say. Guy is a huge EU4 (in fact after reviewing Stellaris he went back to playing EU4 lol) and CKII fan and for him to get frustrated with the game is saddening because the problems he highlighted are things I was worried with too.
You'd think he'd do at least one playthrough into lategame to see how it pans out, what a late game crisis thing might look like, etc. Seems pretty dumb that a professional reviewer who is apparently 'into' GSG genre would not even play through a single campaign prior to writing a review.
Yeah, considering that most publications don’t pay more than a few hundred dollars for a freelancer to write a review, I find that theory to be pretty dumb. The fact that video game fans looses their minds if all the review scores are not the same is even dumber.
On May 10 2016 00:10 Ysellian wrote: Eurogamer have a much better system, but Rowan Kaiser is definitely someone I listen to. So ignore the score but definitely read what he has to say. Guy is a huge EU4 (in fact after reviewing Stellaris he went back to playing EU4 lol) and CKII fan and for him to get frustrated with the game is saddening because the problems he highlighted are things I was worried with too.
You'd think he'd do at least one playthrough into lategame to see how it pans out, what a late game crisis thing might look like, etc. Seems pretty dumb that a professional reviewer who is apparently 'into' GSG genre would not even play through a single campaign prior to writing a review.
True you can fault him for not pushing through his boredom with the game till reaching the later stages, 20 hours is on the low side for a play through. Anyway I'm sure I'll give this game another look over once the DLC hits, in the mean time I'm just going to play what I already own.
I totally left reading review sites after F4 disaster where all the critics lick Bethesda by giving 99\100 while the other people giving the half.
Paradox's grand strategy games are hit or miss for most players and they developed a significant experience on that particular genre. I don't think I am deeply disappointed about this game.
On May 10 2016 00:10 Ysellian wrote: Eurogamer have a much better system, but Rowan Kaiser is definitely someone I listen to. So ignore the score but definitely read what he has to say. Guy is a huge EU4 (in fact after reviewing Stellaris he went back to playing EU4 lol) and CKII fan and for him to get frustrated with the game is saddening because the problems he highlighted are things I was worried with too.
You'd think he'd do at least one playthrough into lategame to see how it pans out, what a late game crisis thing might look like, etc. Seems pretty dumb that a professional reviewer who is apparently 'into' GSG genre would not even play through a single campaign prior to writing a review.
True you can fault him for not pushing through his boredom with the game till reaching the later stages, 20 hours is on the low side for a play through. Anyway I'm sure I'll give this game another look over once the DLC hits, in the mean time I'm just going to play what I already own.
I mean, it's his job to be thorough; that's what he gets paid for. Getting bored of the game really shouldn't be an excuse to not finish it as a reviewer.
On May 10 2016 00:10 Ysellian wrote: Eurogamer have a much better system, but Rowan Kaiser is definitely someone I listen to. So ignore the score but definitely read what he has to say. Guy is a huge EU4 (in fact after reviewing Stellaris he went back to playing EU4 lol) and CKII fan and for him to get frustrated with the game is saddening because the problems he highlighted are things I was worried with too.
You'd think he'd do at least one playthrough into lategame to see how it pans out, what a late game crisis thing might look like, etc. Seems pretty dumb that a professional reviewer who is apparently 'into' GSG genre would not even play through a single campaign prior to writing a review.
True you can fault him for not pushing through his boredom with the game till reaching the later stages, 20 hours is on the low side for a play through. Anyway I'm sure I'll give this game another look over once the DLC hits, in the mean time I'm just going to play what I already own.
I mean, it's his job to be thorough; that's what he gets paid for. Getting bored of the game really shouldn't be an excuse to not finish it as a reviewer.
On May 10 2016 00:10 Ysellian wrote: Eurogamer have a much better system, but Rowan Kaiser is definitely someone I listen to. So ignore the score but definitely read what he has to say. Guy is a huge EU4 (in fact after reviewing Stellaris he went back to playing EU4 lol) and CKII fan and for him to get frustrated with the game is saddening because the problems he highlighted are things I was worried with too.
You'd think he'd do at least one playthrough into lategame to see how it pans out, what a late game crisis thing might look like, etc. Seems pretty dumb that a professional reviewer who is apparently 'into' GSG genre would not even play through a single campaign prior to writing a review.
True you can fault him for not pushing through his boredom with the game till reaching the later stages, 20 hours is on the low side for a play through. Anyway I'm sure I'll give this game another look over once the DLC hits, in the mean time I'm just going to play what I already own.
I mean, it's his job to be thorough; that's what he gets paid for. Getting bored of the game really shouldn't be an excuse to not finish it as a reviewer.
I'm not disagreeing with you here...
It’s not hard for him to find out what that late game content looks like and if that would change his impressions or not. Or he could have played through on one of the faster settings. From the impressions I am seeing, the game seems to be hitting some Paradox fans the wrong way.
It's supposed to be around 4GB when unpacked, 1.6 gb for DL sounds fine.
@reviews: For me part I do not expect any high score from reviewers. Its a very special category (GSG) set in a special setting (space, not historical), so considering that 80 is already supposed to be a great game in a niche genre/for die hard fans (or a good game for the masses), I'm not concerned with reviews around 80.
Considering that paradox has a tendency to hit the spot only after 2-3 patches *cough*, AND they have a tendency to release tons of DLC to add on a barebone of game, I can get 60-70's reviews as long as the core is fine.*
PS: E.g., Cities:Skyline started with a ton of 75-80 / 4out-of-5 reviews as well, and for me it's THE current SimCity King...
*of course you should not need DLC to get a good game, but blank EUIV was alot worse than it's now as well.
On May 10 2016 01:35 Talaris wrote: It's supposed to be around 4GB when unpacked, 1.6 gb for DL sounds fine.
@reviews: For me part I do not expect any high score from reviewers. Its a very special category (GSG) set in a special setting (space, not historical), so considering that 80 is already supposed to be a great game in a niche genre/for die hard fans (or a good game for the masses), I'm not concerned with reviews around 80.
Considering that paradox has a tendency to hit the spot only after 2-3 patches *cough*, AND they have a tendency to release tons of DLC to add on a barebone of game, I can get 60-70's reviews as long as the core is fine.*
PS: E.g., Cities:Skyline started with a ton of 75-80 / 4out-of-5 reviews as well, and for me it's THE current SimCity King...
*of course you should not need DLC to get a good game, but blank EUIV was alot worse than it's now as well.
I think the base game should be playable but dlc certainly adds things you want, like pressing vassal claims and shit. before i had art of war i didnt know how you were supposed to play most countries since you couldnt attack half the countries around you(poland for example) really just a quality thing.
I think the issue is that the game is halfway between 4x and grand strategy, so you have reviewers used to 4x complaining about the UI being complicated and pdx fans saying the game is too simple.
It will probably be a good entry point to grand strategy but I dont think it have the longevity of EU. Should still be fun until you master it and that can always take a while.
The people I am hearing complain about the UI are huge Pardox fans and have played those games. It sounds like there are a lot of short comings, including some menus to review things like “every races military strength” and “which races are in this alliance” without clicking on reach race one by one. I am sure it will be addressed later on.
On May 10 2016 02:01 nnn_thekushmountains wrote: Do you control one dude in this?
no, completely wrong genre for that.
Technically, one could say that you control one dude in every game, namely yourself, and that dude is then controlling other stuff. So it is not technically wrong.
I wanna colonize another world in the name of the United Earth Directorate but the colonization green tech is not popping back up again for research. Pls send halp D:
I agree UI looks very different compared to the hearts of iron series. As far as i know it was one of there goals to revamp/make UI easier (same with HOI IV) - currently working through the tutorial - Soundtrack is awesome by the way
On May 10 2016 01:55 SKC wrote: I think the issue is that the game is halfway between 4x and grand strategy, so you have reviewers used to 4x complaining about the UI being complicated and pdx fans saying the game is too simple.
It will probably be a good entry point to grand strategy but I dont think it have the longevity of EU. Should still be fun until you master it and that can always take a while.
Is there really meant to be a difference between 4x and grand strategy? To me the only really big difference between Paradox games and, say, Civilization, is Paradox's focus on historical plausability and authenticity (which, of course, would be absent in a space empire game).
For a more useful answer, they are different. 4X games in general are about exploiting the economic systems in the game to work towards an over arching goal/end game. You are in complete control of all aspects of empire and can do anything at all times.
The Paradox games,(which I don’t have as much experience with) take away a lot of the direct control from the player and require them to manage aspects of the empire indirectly. Also parts of your empire can do shit you don’t want or need to be managed. The same with politics. Unlike some 4X games, Paradox is has not been interested in “fair” or the idea that everyone starts on a level playing field.
On May 10 2016 03:53 Dangermousecatdog wrote: A lot? It's like asking if there really is meant to be a difference between a moba and an RTS? Or an FPS and a first person RPG.
Hyperbole much?
On May 10 2016 04:03 Plansix wrote: For a more useful answer, they are different. 4X games in general are about exploiting the economic systems in the game to work towards an over arching goal/end game. You are in complete control of all aspects of empire and can do anything at all times.
The Paradox games,(which I don’t have as much experience with) take away a lot of the direct control from the player and require them to manage aspects of the empire indirectly. Also parts of your empire can do shit you don’t want or need to be managed. The same with politics. Unlike some 4X games, Paradox is has not been interested in “fair” or the idea that everyone starts on a level playing field.
They are very different types of games.
I'm not sure how in Civilization you're "in control" and in Paradox games you're not "in control". Except for elements of randomness (which, ok, Civ only has early on and in battles), both games have mechanics that are predictable to the player that knows them. Is that in Civ I can choose which citizen will be an engeneer while in Vic2 I can't change my citizens to clerks on the drop of a hat that defining of a characteristic that it warrants a different name? In reguards to fairness, Civ has a difficulty slider, while in Paradox games you can start with a smaller nation, so both allow you to pick and choose what playing field you prefer, level or otherwise. To me these differences are minor compared to the glaring similarities: you, the player, controls a society as it goes through history by managing what's being built across your land, controlling armies, conducting diplomacy and whatnot.
I agree that, like you said in your first paragraph, Paradox games generally don't have a "win condition" and that's really important to how you're meant to enjoy the game. Maybe that's the key difference
Hey everyone, I'm a strategy games twitch streamer who was fortunate enough to play this game for 30+ hours already and I wanted to share my opinion/review/rant on this game LIVE at twitch today. I'm going to officially start my LIVE review coverage at 4 PM EST (30 minutes from now) at www.twitch.tv/KoreanUsher. Feel free to ask any Q&As and I'll also be doing a live "RANDOM CIV" run afterwards!
You are entitled to that opinion, just as I am entitled to think that view is extremely reductionist and simplistic. They are both video games on a computer with a difficulty slider where you control armies and empires, so they are the same in those aspects.
If you think it's a boring discussion why are you engaging it at all? It's not as if I was asking about something else and the topic happened to come up.
Well when you first ask I assumed you didn’t know much about Paradox games and I was answering a question trying to provide information. Once I realized that you just wanted to debate the semantics of genre, my interest in the discussion dropped off steeply.
On May 10 2016 03:53 Dangermousecatdog wrote: A lot? It's like asking if there really is meant to be a difference between a moba and an RTS? Or an FPS and a first person RPG.
Hyperbole much?
I've put more intelligent thought into the aswer than your question. Like my examples, the interfaces my be similar, but the experiences and style of play are totally different, which is why they appeal to different swathes of people and why they are different genres. You might as well say MOBA and RTS are the pretty much the same, except for team play. Anyways, I'll look forward to seeing if Stellaris will fulfil it's promise of basically EU4 married with 4X in space.
Oh well, played 5 hours nonstop. Time for dinner, leisure reading and sleep. Today has been a good day.
I am enjoying it, but i certainly need to start over and over a first more times as i always feel i could had do things better. The random tech system is actually pretty good, i was kinda surprised by it. In general i haven't played any other paradox grand strategy or 4x or whatever game, so i can't really talk about them, but i had played plenty 4x and the interface doesn't seem problematic or anything.
On May 10 2016 03:53 Dangermousecatdog wrote: A lot? It's like asking if there really is meant to be a difference between a moba and an RTS? Or an FPS and a first person RPG.
Hyperbole much?
I've put more intelligent thought into the aswer than your question. Like my examples, the interfaces my be similar, but the experiences and style of play are totally different, which is why they appeal to different swathes of people and why they are different genres. You might as well say MOBA and RTS are the pretty much the same, except for team play. Anyways, i'll look forward to seeing if Stellaris will fulfil it's promise of basically EU4 married with 4X in space.
I've asked why they are different and your answer is essentially "it's obvious!". So much intelligent thought!
The differences between the two are self evident to anyone who has interacted with a Paradox game. If those differences are significant enough to make those games a different genre from 4X game is matter of opinion. They are all games about empire management and no one will dispute that.
My original question was quoting SKC saying there were reviewer issues because the game is "halfway between 4x and grand strategy". If this distiction is simply a matter of opinion then this whole discussion, including SKC's original post, is moot. Now THAT would make this a boring discussion for sure. But that won't stop us from having it will it P6
Less inane genre discussion, more actual game discussion pls.
Dumped almost exactly 3 hours into the game, and I'm really enjoying it so far. It's a bit odd though as it both feels like a typical Paradox grand strategy game, but at the same time it feels very Civilization V too. Not complaining though, since I enjoy both games a lot. The menus feel a bit unwieldy to jump through at times, but knowing Paradox I have a feeling they'll be improved on in patches over time, so no real cause for worry. All in all, good stuff from Paradox as usual.
I went to war with some empire and his vassal... Owned them badly. At the same time i somehow lost my spaceport.
Did you know, if you don't research missiles, you can't build another one... There is also no missile research popping up anymore... Still won the war handily whiteout reparing but well.. Game over.
thats just stupid.
Other than that, my one main gripe is, that you can't just zoom out with the mousewheel... I don't care if its 2 diffrent UI's, but for fucks sake let me just zoom out and in.
That isn't true. It could pop up again. Research is drawn from a "deck" and you might get it or an more advanced version of the same tech. Or your people will learn know to look into it if you go to war with someone who has it. The game doesn't have a tech tree because civilizations don't all develop tech in the same order
But waiting for dunno how long for it to eventually pop up, my lazers/projectiles are tech 3, is not really an alternative. Why I would need basic Missiletech is another question...
That is sort of the risk/reward system they have going for them. That you might not know when the tech will come back up. To be fair, I heard about this in a bunch of podcasts, but it would likely bother me if I was on my first play through.
But waiting for dunno how long for it to eventually pop up, my lazers/projectiles are tech 3, is not really an alternative. Why I would need basic Missiletech is another question...
I got a tech in my run which gives me one additional choice of technology each time. Might be worth keeping your eyes out for that one.
The game looks good, not a 10/10 for sure as much as I'd love it to be since there are some issues with pacing, balance, UI etc but what makes me happy enough is that even with the issues it's still a fun game, and all of them appear to be fixable with future updates / mods which is something Paradox is usually good at.
The biggest dislikes I've had so far in my game; pacing / pricing balance on stuff can be weird at times. I don't like that most planetary buildings are cheaper than a single corvette (smallest combat ship). A destroyer -- second ship size -- actually costs about as much as a unique one-per-ruler building or half of what a new colony is priced at, which is kind of iffy imo.
Diplomacy isn't actually much different from what you see in, say, EU4 or CK2 but for some reason it still feels more flat somehow. Many races don't really want to interact with you much at all unless you're sharing a border, maybe that's why, either way it's something definitely to be improved.
Few minor gripes about fleet combat as well. Damaged ships should try to limp out of battle imo, also non-combat stations (mining, research outposts) have barely any guns but a lot of health yet your fleet still often focuses those while an inferior enemy fleet is flying around killing them while they try to get through the 2k hp of the station. Stations also repair way too quickly; damaging one then sending in some more ships or coming back later to finish it off should be at least theoretically possible, as it stands they fix everything up so quickly it might as well be EU4 siege where moving away for a day resets the siege timer completely.
UI can be really annoying at times -- it's not broken or anything but for example I'd like an option to quickly queue up ships for construction without having to select each planet's starport > clicking build individually, something like production interface from EU4 at least for building ships / armies would be great. Also queuing up multiple buildings / ships should only bill you when the time comes to build w/e object rather than the moment you add it to the queue; I rarely had enough minerals to order more than 1-2 things at a time and going back and forth adding ships / buildings one by one on multiple planets was a chore.
Other than that, I'm really having a hard time coming up with things to not like. For sure it's my favorite space strategy game since like, Imperium Galactica or something. Even without any patches / dlcs / mods that are sure to come and make it better, this is a better space game than any of its direct competitors like MoO / GalCiv3 / Polaris Sector etc. A lot for other devs to learn from this game as well, will hopefully make the genre more exciting as a whole.
On May 10 2016 07:13 Velr wrote: my first iron man just ended...
I went to war with some empire and his vassal... Owned them badly. At the same time i somehow lost my spaceport.
Did you know, if you don't research missiles, you can't build another one... There is also no missile research popping up anymore... Still won the war handily whiteout reparing but well.. Game over.
thats just stupid.
Other than that, my one main gripe is, that you can't just zoom out with the mousewheel... I don't care if its 2 diffrent UI's, but for fucks sake let me just zoom out and in.
Either you missed something or it's some weird bug. You should be able to build a starport with any of the 3 starting weapon techs (of which you ALWAYS have one from the moment you start the game). You get 3 buttons to pick which weapon you want to put on your starport, you definitely aren't supposed to 'need' missiles to build one as I haven't researched a single missile tech in my game 6 hours in and I've built a dozen starports.
Yep, i was about to post it. To me it seemed like he got confused by the weapon choice that you can do before building an spaceport, because that technology comes by default (is a different one, check the wiki).
Or a bug.
And yes i want to be able to scroll with the mousewheel too... the zoom is only thing that annoys me. And now i will go to sleep for reals, damn game.
On May 10 2016 01:55 SKC wrote: I think the issue is that the game is halfway between 4x and grand strategy, so you have reviewers used to 4x complaining about the UI being complicated and pdx fans saying the game is too simple.
It will probably be a good entry point to grand strategy but I dont think it have the longevity of EU. Should still be fun until you master it and that can always take a while.
Is there really meant to be a difference between 4x and grand strategy? To me the only really big difference between Paradox games and, say, Civilization, is Paradox's focus on historical plausability and authenticity (which, of course, would be absent in a space empire game).
Edit: and lack of win condition.
And the fact any kid above the age of 10 can play Civilization without a lot of help, while Paradox games its usually not the case.
Granted I don't consider Civ/Eu for example to be in the same genre of games anyway
Having never played a game of this genre, my first experience was... a disaster
At first I though Frontier Outpost were the only way to extend my frontiers so I made one prior to my first colony which resulted in a massive reputation income loss early on, and I made another one soon after. I also lost a scientist to a random event event pretty early one, causing me to invest some more rep to replace him.
Anyhow I ended up with very little rep and a low rep income quite early in the game slowing my growth. Then I understood colonies also extended my frontiers so I tried to make one kinda far away (not that far tho) and in a good spot with lots of resources, my frontier ended up not connecting and later on another empire decided to make a colony the middle of it... alright not that bad i'll just play around it... negative, the other empires frontiers in addition to the new colony made it so I couldn't travel from my main "land" to my colony, effectively stranding not only my colony, but also my biggest (and only) fleet. I tried to make an open frontiers deal to the friendliest empire but they were having none of it.
So deeming the game lost, I tried attacking another empire to see how wars went, and I got promptly destroyed ^^
Hopefully my next game goes a bit better
P.S. Anyone knows how to upgrade building on colonies ? It says I need Planetary Administrative, but I never figured out what that was, since apparently, it's not appointing a leader to the colony.
On May 10 2016 10:58 SpiZe wrote: Having never played a game of this genre, my first experience was... a disaster
At first I though Frontier Outpost were the only way to extend my frontiers so I made one prior to my first colony which resulted in a massive reputation income loss early on, and I made another one soon after. I also lost a scientist to a random event event pretty early one, causing me to invest some more rep to replace him.
Anyhow I ended up with very little rep and a low rep income quite early in the game slowing my growth. Then I understood colonies also extended my frontiers so I tried to make one kinda far away (not that far tho) and in a good spot with lots of resources, my frontier ended up not connecting and later on another empire decided to make a colony the middle of it... alright not that bad i'll just play around it... negative, the other empires frontiers in addition to the new colony made it so I couldn't travel from my main "land" to my colony, effectively stranding not only my colony, but also my biggest (and only) fleet. I tried to make an open frontiers deal to the friendliest empire but they were having none of it.
So deeming the game lost, I tried attacking another empire to see how wars went, and I got promptly destroyed ^^
Hopefully my next game goes a bit better
P.S. Anyone knows how to upgrade building on colonies ? It says I need Planetary Administrative, but I never figured out what that was, since apparently, it's not appointing a leader to the colony.
If you select a building on your colony you should get an upgrade button, Planetary Administration is an upgrade from the initial colony building. however it requires 5 population.
Jesusholyfuckingchrist. I just came up for air after playing for what steam tells me was 7 hours of black hole fell into the abyss of grand strategy. I can't properly articulate the many things that I'm enjoying but here are a few standouts.
The sector system: It forces you to hand off control of your planets and at the same time hands off control of your planets but at the same time you have to balance out the super planets like Reach that you form your military around and the economic and research planets you build and hand off to your ever growing sectors.
The graphics. So good oh soo soo good.
Exploration Its literally everything they told us it was going to be and it works really wel I think.
Little things like borders and the "zone of control" of your empire is pretty frustrating and I wish was either better expressed or you had more control over. Just a nitpick that I think probably can either be patched or modded easy.
I spent the first day goofing around, trying out mechanics and such and here is what I have noticed so far in the very early game 1) You want to have a second science ship rather early for exploration 2) Build a couple of extra corvettes since I always seem to get a couple rebels early on 3) Like a expected, early on it is much closer to a 4x game than a GSG. However as seen from streams 4) Voice acting in a PDS game was something that I did not think was needed, but Stellaris has caused me to revisit that thought
This is apparently outside my territory... yea fuck you
EDIT: Should have probably highlighted it in the screenshot, but that system has 3 credits, 6 minerals and 3 science available...
Yeah that also frustrated me quite a bit. Unfortunately it is the little hexagon that counts :/ Other than that and a couple of minor UI issues (we really need mapmodes) I have been having an absolute blast.
On May 10 2016 11:01 Plansix wrote: What speed to people play at normally? I can't tell if I am not doing enough or if I just have the game running to slow.
I have been switching between normal and fast always seems like there is a lot to do
Either you missed something or it's some weird bug. You should be able to build a starport with any of the 3 starting weapon techs (of which you ALWAYS have one from the moment you start the game). You get 3 buttons to pick which weapon you want to put on your starport, you definitely aren't supposed to 'need' missiles to build one as I haven't researched a single missile tech in my game 6 hours in and I've built a dozen starports.
Your right, i'm a Retard. But to my defense, the tooltipp to build the Station does say you need some Tech instead of "Chose a weapon".
The biggest problem I have with the game right now is how binary war outcomes are. I think warscore cost for demands should scale much more with the sizes of empires involved and also some sort of threat / reputation system similar to aggressive expansion in EU or whatever should exist as a limit on how much one empire can gobble at a time; vassalizing / annexing equally sized empires shouldn't be a thing unless you're both sitting on literally 1-2 planets tops, imo. As it stands wars are basically all in, either you win and take over their entire empire, or you lose and you're done -- which especially sucks for multiplayer.
I don't think going full scientist vessels or construction at the beginning is really worth it. You barely have the minerals to sustain 1 construction vessel doing stuff nonstop.
On May 10 2016 18:17 Godwrath wrote: I don't think going full scientist vessels or construction at the beginning is really worth it. You barely have the minerals to sustain 1 construction vessel doing stuff nonstop.
Two science ships is good, definitely not worth getting a second constructor though, yeah.
On May 10 2016 18:17 Godwrath wrote: I don't think going full scientist vessels or construction at the beginning is really worth it. You barely have the minerals to sustain 1 construction vessel doing stuff nonstop.
Exactly this is how I crushed in my first play through. Teched too much with oceanist pacifist hairy dudes. Strange hairy birds crushed me with more colonies and more ships.
Even though I fully focus on producing ships, the opponent also produce ships with the same rate and the gap never closed anyways. I was out of limit probably because of late colonization and being the flower boy.
As stated by someone before, wars are too binary and early game looks like a war race to me(very early impression though). I feel like I am playing against terran stim bio .
UI also looks too large compared to other titles, you can't even see more than 3 scientists at the same menu. I'd subscribe a proper UI mode if any.
2 Science Vessels seem basically mandatory, 1 Construction ship is plenty enough for a long time.
How much bigger was that AI then you? I was a bit outnumbered yesterday but due to tech i just totally shredded thru his ships/stations. My fleet of about 850 (20 Ships) vs his ~1000 still had about 70% "strenght" left (but a part of the opponents fleet was most likely a Vassal that joined space just recently, so he probably didn't do much ).
I was pretty fast with colonising (first research i did, I was faster on my second planet than any known AI) and after some time i had 2 construction ships just "queued" thru my space, 5 Planets + 2 outposts building with 2 x "range" upgrade to territory, just building all the Mining/Research stations possible.
I'm also playing on fastest. I didn't get the new planet type colonies for a long time, but overall I had a very lucky start with lots of room to expand freely. My first war was a disaster, lost my entire fleet and then had to build up an entirely new one over 5+ years. Conquered 2 planets in 1 system, purged the filthy individualists and the system fell back into enemy territory, because the planets were uncolonized once again. I have 2 science ships since the start and they can't entirely keep up with my rate of expansion. 4 construction ships are sufficient for now. Wormhole FTL really gives a lot of range. I had +2 influence for a super long time, until I realized that you can just add frontier outposts to a sector and then you no longer have to pay for them. My fleet is so busy hunting down space creatures that block my science vessels, that I haven't gone to war in 15years or so. Now I've enountered a fanatic xenophile fallen empire and they will be super mad if I continue my policy of purging all the filthy individualists and enslaving everyone else. I've also rivaled some pacifists to get a bit of influence and they immediately started forming a huge alliance because they were so scared. I'm looking forward to crushing them or getting destroyed by friendship.
Well, like every other 4x game, reaching certain tech points is absolutely game changing, which is fairly irritating when you can't choose the one thats necessary. Building ships when they're cheap and upgrading a lot at a time is an excellent choice as far as i can tell, seems very efficient to get to cruiser tech, then upgrade to whatever.
Self healing hull is op until you get good shields, armor drops off late game drastically. A second science vessel seems incredibly inefficient in both influence and construction cost/maintenance. Especially early game. Late game you need probably 4-5.
Definitely do the Amoeba and Crystaline and Cloud based events, they're extremely rewarding.
I find it fairly irritating that the two win conditions are basically conquest based in a sci fi game, the way Alpha centauri did it for example is significantly more thought out imo.
As for the discussion as to whether its a 4x or a brand new genre that paradox games alone fall into, Aurora 4x is a 4x game more complicated then this by far, which is funny because this game almost copied and pasted it and put some new graphics on it.
Three Moves Ahead noted that the lack of historical context is both a blessing and a curse. While limiting, the historical context did allow for big, dramatic events and huge titans of history like the Holy Roman Empire to provide texture in the game. And more importantly, pressure and push back for the player. Without that, they might need to make things up that don’t seem unfair or arbitrary, which will be a challenge. But I have faith.
It is interesting how peoples expectations change once that historical context is gone.
Also watch out if you let your people start genetically modifying themselves. It could be cool, but they also could start to consider themselves a different, superior species.
Biggest problem for me after a while is that I have no clue where stuff is constructed or not since I expanded through three large wars. Then a new resource is added and you have to go through all systems looking for them and trying them out. Auto constructor and survey would be a godsend. Turn based games have them where you lose no time microing them. It simply isn't fun microing them but very necessary. It would be an option using whatever logic the AI uses for it I guess. You can always micro it manually for better results and more work. (Adding unit to AI control would probably be nice regardless of unit, with setting at build screen already.) As an example if you have the economy up and running it doesn't matter which planet you colonize, you want all of them (when you want a specific one then create one without ai control or remove it after creation).
Like in EU where you had to manually hunt pirates until they finally fixed it. Stationing 1 ship in each square or patrolling so they won't spawn.
edit
Oh and scrolling in or out far enough should be treated as switching map mode. Same as clicking the button with mouse or keyboard.
i dont know what my ai neighbour is doing, i have 4 planets and 1 invaded and enslaved primiteve species and he is still 1 planet no colony.
also, maybe i had the best start ever, i get more resources than i can reasonably spend, im currently upgrading everything to the max. Or maybe im playing wrong and should have expanded even more, currently waiting for some building up because the next colony means sector creation.
On May 10 2016 22:32 Plansix wrote: Three Moves Ahead noted that the lack of historical context is both a blessing and a curse. While limiting, the historical context did allow for big, dramatic events and huge titans of history like the Holy Roman Empire to provide texture in the game. And more importantly, pressure and push back for the player. Without that, they might need to make things up that don’t seem unfair or arbitrary, which will be a challenge. But I have faith.
It is interesting how peoples expectations change once that historical context is gone.
I also think the historical context did a lot for the difficulty in the game, since as you got better and better at EU4, for example, you could graduate from countries like Castille and France to smaller and smaller powers in order to increase the difficulty. That's really hard to do in a 4X game where you always start at the same size, but their advanced AI starts seems to combat this a bit.
Got a chance to play for about 4 hours yesterday and I am in love. I agree with some of the complaints regarding the UI, but I am also aware of Paradox's pedigree when it comes to improving their games over time. People have pointed out how different EU4 was 2 1/2 years ago, and they will be steadily improving Stellaris with UI enhancements and feature updates, I have no worries about that.
Wanted to play an evil empire. But now I am cranked between 2 Fallen empires that don't like evil people lol. But I had a to good start I think, just perfects worlds everywhere for me.
How do you resettle pop between planets ? I got it enabled in the government screen but cant find a way to move them between planest (good old drrag and drop just work when reshuffling on the same planet)
PS: and got a planetary government building on both planets...
i subjugated an arctic pre warp race and kind of planned to use them to conolize arctic worlds, indocrinating them with my fanatic collectivism, but they dont seem to change ethics at all
fuck yeah robots. was stuck in a cold war with another bloc for 40 odd years until the robot revolt triggered and was enough to break them up for me to eat and win my first game.
I've been following this game for a while since it looks refreshing to the genre. I love Alpha Centauri but have never managed to get into another 4X game because they seemed to be lacking when compared to SMAX/SMAC, but Stellaris seems to have a lot of depth to it.
How similar is this game to Alpha Centauri? Right now I'm thinking about buying Stellaris sometime in the future, when it's on sale or after seeing what mods people come up with for the game.
Are there any mechanics in the game where some kind of hero units/ships gain experience/levels? Also do your general units get old as time passes and have to be replaced?
On May 11 2016 04:52 Talaris wrote: How do you resettle pop between planets ? I got it enabled in the government screen but cant find a way to move them between planest (good old drrag and drop just work when reshuffling on the same planet)
PS: and got a planetary government building on both planets...
Click on a pop on the surface tab and click on resettle. Its there with the Slavery/Purge buttons.
On May 11 2016 06:24 Jimmy Raynor wrote: Are there any mechanics in the game where some kind of hero units/ships gain experience/levels? Also do your general units get old as time passes and have to be replaced?
Only your leaders gain XP. And yeah, they get old and die. You can have long longevity races to offset that but Im not sure its worth it.
On May 11 2016 05:18 LaNague wrote: anyone know if slaves can change in ethics?
i subjugated an arctic pre warp race and kind of planned to use them to conolize arctic worlds, indocrinating them with my fanatic collectivism, but they dont seem to change ethics at all
You need ethics divergance -% so the ethics of pops on a planet slowly align. I learned this by having robots who have no ethics and lots of ethics divergance -%, so my fanatic materialists lost their boost to science over time :'( Don't put robots on a planet you build colony ships from if you have -% modifiers.
There was an empire waging a war against another one, so I decided it was a good opportunity to get some more territory while that guy is fighting a war so I declared war and took some cities.
Then some weird stuff happened, a subsection of the empire I was attacking declared independence or some shit , creating a new faction at peace with me (as I was invading a city, like my landing troops were fighting) resulting in my armies "winning" the planet, giving it away, and my troops staying stationed on the planet. When I made them embark, they were forced out of the new faction's territory (obviously). So that was weird.
EDIT : Yeah never mind that part I'm just stupid xd
Then there's the case of the rest of the empire that didn't declare independence... this guy sure doesn't like to give up. I have control of his 3 remaining cities, leaving him with none. He's still at war with me and the other guy though, and won't surrender despite my war progress thing being at a 100%. Nice xd I think the other dude he was fighting was trying to liberate the cities control by that guy and partially succeeded but for some reason he won't accept my demands probably because they are conflicting or something, not sure
On May 11 2016 15:07 Jimmy Raynor wrote: does the game end after a certain amount of time has passed or it's more like sandbox and you can play a game endlessly?
There are 2 victory conditions: colonize 40% of galaxy, or defeat everyone.
So after 20 hours or so here is my first impression of it: Its fun but i dont understand.
I really like the earlygame with the exploration of the nearby systems (played spiral with 600 planets), it feels right for me and has good pacing. Also i find the colonisation cool because it feels like the choice what to do is really important and meaningfull were in other games you just colonise everything thats there (or i am doing it wrong). I like the tech"cards" and the systems and everything "feels right" at least for me. Also it seems really viable to play in the most evil way possible, which is great!
But there were some things i dont understand yet: - I dont quite understand what makes my people happy and what not. At some point i had 2 colonies, one close to the main planet one further away, and the close one was much less happy then the underdeveloped, 0 food production far away colonie. Is there a statistic i am missing that tells you what makes them happy and what not? - Do the general slavery acceptance and the alien slavery acceptance stack? Or are these completely seperate values for "my" people and everyone else? There are some other things were i think they could interact but i dont really know for sure. - Is it just me or does the ai focusfire better then my guys? Has it something to do with the chosen weapon (used projectile)
On May 11 2016 22:33 Micro_Jackson wrote: So after 20 hours or so here is my first impression of it: Its fun but i dont understand.
I really like the earlygame with the exploration of the nearby systems (played spiral with 600 planets), it feels right for me and has good pacing. Also i find the colonisation cool because it feels like the choice what to do is really important and meaningfull were in other games you just colonise everything thats there (or i am doing it wrong). I like the tech"cards" and the systems and everything "feels right" at least for me. Also it seems really viable to play in the most evil way possible, which is great!
But there were some things i dont understand yet: - I dont quite understand what makes my people happy and what not. At some point i had 2 colonies, one close to the main planet one further away, and the close one was much less happy then the underdeveloped, 0 food production far away colonie. Is there a statistic i am missing that tells you what makes them happy and what not? - Do the general slavery acceptance and the alien slavery acceptance stack? Or are these completely seperate values for "my" people and everyone else? There are some other things were i think they could interact but i dont really know for sure. - Is it just me or does the ai focusfire better then my guys? Has it something to do with the chosen weapon (used projectile)
-Mouse over the bar below the population on a planet and you can see what effects their happiness -Not a clue, I plan to play a slaver on my next playthrough so I'm hoping to find out :p - I don't even think its the weapon type. I have had my missiles go all over the place while the ai's missiles snipe off ships 1 by 1. I have no idea what causes it.
Something of my own that I wonder, am I missing something with the building upgrades or are they hilariously expensive? the level 1 buildings are 60 minerals and 1 power for 2 resources. The level 2 is 90 minerals and 1.5 power for 3. level 3 120/2 for 4, seems to all make sense. However to upgrade from 1 > 2 costs the full 90 rather then the difference like I would have expected. This means your paying 90 minerals for 1 mineral a month from a mine. taking 90 months (or 7.5 years) to just pay off the initial investment. A level 3 mine would take 10 years before it made a single usable mineral.
Yes you can drown in resources and have nothing better to spend it on anyway but the cost before return is so high Oo
I am not so sure about the buildings but I think with the pops working them and the additional modifiers like edicts etc it is not as bad as it sounds. What helps a lot with the accuracy is either higher Tech of the weapon type or the computer parts of your ships, so make sure to keep them up to date too
On May 11 2016 22:33 Micro_Jackson wrote: - I dont quite understand what makes my people happy and what not. At some point i had 2 colonies, one close to the main planet one further away, and the close one was much less happy then the underdeveloped, 0 food production far away colonie. Is there a statistic i am missing that tells you what makes them happy and what not?
From a youtube series I watched recently, it was explained that happiness is affected by your habitability. In fact the maximum that can be reached is the % of that statistic. So for example if you have 80% habitability on a planet, your people can have a maximum of 80% happiness as far as I understood that.
There are bonuses you can gain that affect happiness directly ( some traits you can choose for example do that ).
In a general way as to what increases / decreases it other than that I do not know yet since I've only played a couple of hours myself unfortunately and it wasn't explained in the videos an further.
My race are collectivists and they have 100% Slave tolerancy... So now my Pops like being enslaved (and i have tons of slaves), but sometimes the very same pop gets a happiness penalty due to slaves on its planet when i "free" it.
Suddenly a dimensional portal opens smack in the center of my empire and a bunch of 17k power fleets out to kill me start gushing out, all while no one in the whole fucking galaxy has more than like 5k power fleets at best; in total. Is this really their idea of how to make the game difficult? Because that's honestly just fucking retarded. I was having a lot of fun with the game but they can go fuck themselves with this sort of crap. I even joined a federation but the diplomacy options in the game are so shit that I couldn't do anything like tell them to come help or w/e. All they did was send fucking scientists to survey my territory instead, lol.
I still like the game a lot, but fuck does that piss me off. Spending all those hours building something only to have it destroyed in moments because "lol fuck you" is just silly.
On May 12 2016 00:35 Dysisa wrote: Suddenly a dimensional portal opens smack in the center of my empire and a bunch of 17k power fleets out to kill me start gushing out, all while no one in the whole fucking galaxy has more than like 5k power fleets at best; in total. Is this really their idea of how to make the game difficult? Because that's honestly just fucking retarded. I was having a lot of fun with the game but they can go fuck themselves with this sort of crap. I even joined a federation but the diplomacy options in the game are so shit that I couldn't do anything like tell them to come help or w/e. All they did was send fucking scientists to survey my territory instead, lol.
I still like the game a lot, but fuck does that piss me off. Spending all those hours building something only to have it destroyed in moments because "lol fuck you" is just silly.
One of the elder civilisations in a game had a three planet home system where all were big and highly developed Gaia planets. That along with the rest of their small territory allowed them to send out like 7 14k fleets of ships and pump out 1k a month.
That is when one realises that corvettes win against bigger ships cost for cost or estimated dmg vs estimated dmg. At least that has been my experience. Only issue is that they lose out in range and max ship population efficiency.
Velr, did you pop maybe lose the collectivist ethic? Dont think there is a list or message for ethic drift, i once had a whole planet a different ethic because the first colonist drifted and i didnt see it.
On May 12 2016 00:35 Dysisa wrote: Suddenly a dimensional portal opens smack in the center of my empire and a bunch of 17k power fleets out to kill me start gushing out, all while no one in the whole fucking galaxy has more than like 5k power fleets at best; in total. Is this really their idea of how to make the game difficult? Because that's honestly just fucking retarded. I was having a lot of fun with the game but they can go fuck themselves with this sort of crap. I even joined a federation but the diplomacy options in the game are so shit that I couldn't do anything like tell them to come help or w/e. All they did was send fucking scientists to survey my territory instead, lol.
I still like the game a lot, but fuck does that piss me off. Spending all those hours building something only to have it destroyed in moments because "lol fuck you" is just silly.
One of the elder civilisations in a game had a three planet home system where all were big and highly developed Gaia planets. That along with the rest of their small territory allowed them to send out like 7 14k fleets of ships and pump out 1k a month.
That is when one realises that corvettes win against bigger ships cost for cost or estimated dmg vs estimated dmg. At least that has been my experience. Only issue is that they lose out in range and max ship population efficiency.
Well, this was a game with no advanced civilizations and it was listed as some kinda special event with a little weird little dialogue window of some alien hologram talking to me. So I dunno if it's just the same as some douchey elder civilisation, but I dunno.
I probably should try using corvettes over destroyers/cruisers a bit more though. With the corvette assembly you pump them out so damn fast too. All part of the learning process I guess! Just makes me so upset that my first game had to end like this.
On May 11 2016 22:33 Micro_Jackson wrote: So after 20 hours or so here is my first impression of it: Its fun but i dont understand.
I really like the earlygame with the exploration of the nearby systems (played spiral with 600 planets), it feels right for me and has good pacing. Also i find the colonisation cool because it feels like the choice what to do is really important and meaningfull were in other games you just colonise everything thats there (or i am doing it wrong). I like the tech"cards" and the systems and everything "feels right" at least for me. Also it seems really viable to play in the most evil way possible, which is great!
But there were some things i dont understand yet: - I dont quite understand what makes my people happy and what not. At some point i had 2 colonies, one close to the main planet one further away, and the close one was much less happy then the underdeveloped, 0 food production far away colonie. Is there a statistic i am missing that tells you what makes them happy and what not? - Do the general slavery acceptance and the alien slavery acceptance stack? Or are these completely seperate values for "my" people and everyone else? There are some other things were i think they could interact but i dont really know for sure. - Is it just me or does the ai focusfire better then my guys? Has it something to do with the chosen weapon (used projectile)
-Mouse over the bar below the population on a planet and you can see what effects their happiness -Not a clue, I plan to play a slaver on my next playthrough so I'm hoping to find out :p - I don't even think its the weapon type. I have had my missiles go all over the place while the ai's missiles snipe off ships 1 by 1. I have no idea what causes it.
Something of my own that I wonder, am I missing something with the building upgrades or are they hilariously expensive? the level 1 buildings are 60 minerals and 1 power for 2 resources. The level 2 is 90 minerals and 1.5 power for 3. level 3 120/2 for 4, seems to all make sense. However to upgrade from 1 > 2 costs the full 90 rather then the difference like I would have expected. This means your paying 90 minerals for 1 mineral a month from a mine. taking 90 months (or 7.5 years) to just pay off the initial investment. A level 3 mine would take 10 years before it made a single usable mineral.
Yes you can drown in resources and have nothing better to spend it on anyway but the cost before return is so high Oo
Paradox games are always about long-term returns and decisions. The mine will cost you right now, but if you expect the game to not end in the next 10 years, it is going to start becoming useful, and the longer it takes, the more useful it becomes. The question you should ask yourself is whether you can get a better return of investment someplace else. Maybe a few more corvettes allow you to lose less stuff in a war, or you can colonize a new planet with the money. These are decisions you have to make, instead of just always auto-upgrading everything. The idea is "Build mines everywhere, upgrade them when you can not do anything more useful with the money." Which is probably quite often.
I don't understand how slavery works either. Playing basically space mind flayers, enslave everything(even my own people, ELDER BRAIN DEMANDS SLAVES).
Like I had these pops on new planet and they were unhappy at like 40-50% value then I enslaved them and their happiness actually increased over time, wtf. Have the collectivisim+xenophobia ethics. Seems also slavery decreases happiness of other pops nearby, but that weirds me out as clearly states that you get 100% slavery tolerance. Maybe it's because enslaving home-planet species is bad in every case or something.
Played for 8 hours. Game has a great atmosphere but suffers from huge UI problems and half the game mechanics such as slavery aren't explained or properly explained. Why is creating/adding sectors such a pain, and it doesn't even make much sense, thus spoiling the feeling of immersion. That certain cultures have different trade willingness is just wierd and spoils game immersion. presumably, if the Ai trade with each other, they are under no such restriction. Why for instance, I cannot set certain pop ups to appear and for them to automatically pause the game and to stay paused when I close the pop up EU4 style? It's just irritating when you are at fastest speed and there is combat or enemy sighted or a science research occurs or any number of events occur simultaneously. Why is finding and moving a spacecraft so difficult on the galactic map? Why can't I see colonisable planets without having a colony ship. Each and every time. Why can't I find anomalies that I've passed over initially. Why do I have to work out that green numbers are resources I am currently collecting and white is potential ungathered resources. Why can't I spin the galaxy map and then press a button to return it back to defualt angle. Why can't I see who is at war with whom easily on a galactic map? Why are all the stats hidden in an era of galactic space travel and instantaneous communication whilst in other games, you have an idea of how other factions are faring? It all adds up to a fustrating experience. These are UI issues that hopefully paradox will fix, before releasing dlcs.
Ah, this game is the greatest time-thief I've played in a long, long time. Loving it as is, and can't wait to see where it goes. Been waiting for a game like this since I played Gal Civ and realized the game sucked, despite its awesome concepts.
I think I even enjoy it more than Paradox's other titles. CK2 I was never a big fan of (inherit, fight rebellion, repeat a hundred times). EU4 felt like a step backwards from EU3 in many respects. This game, on the other hand, has been nothing but good. I see people's complaints, but honestly, none of the things they mention bothered me at all. The UI could be more informative, but it's nothing that actually hindered me.
Anyone found a good image to see the tech trees ? Or shrubber or however you want to call it, but i would like to something where i can know what technologies will X unlock, and looking it at the wiki is well, not very helpful.
On May 12 2016 03:57 Dangermousecatdog wrote: Played for 8 hours. Game has a great atmosphere but suffers from huge UI options and half the game mechanics such as slavery aren't explained or properly explained. Why is creating/adding sectors such a pain, and it doesn't even make much sense, thus spoiling the feeling of immersion. That certain cultures have different trade willingness is just wierd and spoils game immersion. presumably, if the Ai trade with each other, they are under no such restriction. Why for instance, I cannot set certain pop ups to appear and for them to automatically pause the game and to stay paused when I close the pop up EU4 style? It's just irritating when you are at fastest speed and there is combat or enemy sighted or a science research occurs or any number of events occur simultaneously. Why is finding and moving a spacecraft so difficult on the galactic map? Why can't I see colonisable planets without having a colony ship. Each and every time. Why can't I find anomalies that I've passed over initially. Why do I have to work out that green numbers are resources I am currently collecting and white is potential ungathered resources. Why can't I spin the galaxy map and then press a button to return it back to defualt angle. Why can't I see who is at war with whom easily on a galactic map? Why are all the stats hidden in an era of galactic space travel and instantaneous communication whilst in other games, you have an idea of how other factions are faring? It all adds up to a fustrating experience. These are UI issues that hopefully paradox will fix, before releasing dlcs.
Agreed, like most other Paradox titles, there are some UI and quality-of-life issues that exist right out of the gate. This is typically something they are very good at addressing through patches and expansions down the line, and I'm pretty confident they will get it right eventually.
My biggest gripe right now is that my hyperlane Science Directorate is boxed in completely and I seem to still be a ways off of the tech that would allow me to conquer my aggressive neighbor. Rather than wait around for that while the other empires continue to grow, I'm thinking about just starting over. I will probably end up going FTL/wormhole in the future just to avoid situations like this, although I'm sure I could have played around it better.
On May 12 2016 03:57 Dangermousecatdog wrote: Why can't I see colonisable planets without having a colony ship. Each and every time.
Dunno about the rest but for this there is a box you can check in the bottom right that makes ressources/habitables planets visible without the need to have a construction/colony ship selected.
On May 12 2016 03:57 Dangermousecatdog wrote: Played for 8 hours. Game has a great atmosphere but suffers from huge UI options and half the game mechanics such as slavery aren't explained or properly explained. Why is creating/adding sectors such a pain, and it doesn't even make much sense, thus spoiling the feeling of immersion. That certain cultures have different trade willingness is just wierd and spoils game immersion. presumably, if the Ai trade with each other, they are under no such restriction. Why for instance, I cannot set certain pop ups to appear and for them to automatically pause the game and to stay paused when I close the pop up EU4 style? It's just irritating when you are at fastest speed and there is combat or enemy sighted or a science research occurs or any number of events occur simultaneously. Why is finding and moving a spacecraft so difficult on the galactic map? Why can't I see colonisable planets without having a colony ship. Each and every time. Why can't I find anomalies that I've passed over initially. Why do I have to work out that green numbers are resources I am currently collecting and white is potential ungathered resources. Why can't I spin the galaxy map and then press a button to return it back to defualt angle. Why can't I see who is at war with whom easily on a galactic map? Why are all the stats hidden in an era of galactic space travel and instantaneous communication whilst in other games, you have an idea of how other factions are faring? It all adds up to a fustrating experience. These are UI issues that hopefully paradox will fix, before releasing dlcs.
Agreed, like most other Paradox titles, there are some UI and quality-of-life issues that exist right out of the gate. This is typically something they are very good at addressing through patches and expansions down the line, and I'm pretty confident they will get it right eventually.
My biggest gripe right now is that my hyperlane Science Directorate is boxed in completely and I seem to still be a ways off of the tech that would allow me to conquer my aggressive neighbor. Rather than wait around for that while the other empires continue to grow, I'm thinking about just starting over. I will probably end up going FTL/wormhole in the future just to avoid situations like this, although I'm sure I could have played around it better.
Meh you still get boxed in mid game when lots of Empire's border start to collide with FTL since you can't send ships through another Empire's territory, it's just the nature of expansion. Maybe WH travel helps with it but I guess the similar scenario is always bound to occur.
isnt that kind of what the game is about if u play against AI? You could also just lower the number of opponents next time if you are concerned about getting boxed in. What kind of tech is needed to fight your neighbors? You need corvettes and armies, that's it.
On May 12 2016 03:57 Dangermousecatdog wrote: Why can't I see colonisable planets without having a colony ship. Each and every time.
Dunno about the rest but for this there is a box you can check in the bottom right that makes ressources/habitables planets visible without the need to have a construction/colony ship selected.
On May 12 2016 03:57 Dangermousecatdog wrote: Played for 8 hours. Game has a great atmosphere but suffers from huge UI options and half the game mechanics such as slavery aren't explained or properly explained. Why is creating/adding sectors such a pain, and it doesn't even make much sense, thus spoiling the feeling of immersion. That certain cultures have different trade willingness is just wierd and spoils game immersion. presumably, if the Ai trade with each other, they are under no such restriction. Why for instance, I cannot set certain pop ups to appear and for them to automatically pause the game and to stay paused when I close the pop up EU4 style? It's just irritating when you are at fastest speed and there is combat or enemy sighted or a science research occurs or any number of events occur simultaneously. Why is finding and moving a spacecraft so difficult on the galactic map? Why can't I see colonisable planets without having a colony ship. Each and every time. Why can't I find anomalies that I've passed over initially. Why do I have to work out that green numbers are resources I am currently collecting and white is potential ungathered resources. Why can't I spin the galaxy map and then press a button to return it back to defualt angle. Why can't I see who is at war with whom easily on a galactic map? Why are all the stats hidden in an era of galactic space travel and instantaneous communication whilst in other games, you have an idea of how other factions are faring? It all adds up to a fustrating experience. These are UI issues that hopefully paradox will fix, before releasing dlcs.
Agreed, like most other Paradox titles, there are some UI and quality-of-life issues that exist right out of the gate. This is typically something they are very good at addressing through patches and expansions down the line, and I'm pretty confident they will get it right eventually.
My biggest gripe right now is that my hyperlane Science Directorate is boxed in completely and I seem to still be a ways off of the tech that would allow me to conquer my aggressive neighbor. Rather than wait around for that while the other empires continue to grow, I'm thinking about just starting over. I will probably end up going FTL/wormhole in the future just to avoid situations like this, although I'm sure I could have played around it better.
Meh you still get boxed in mid game when lots of Empire's border start to collide with FTL since you can't send ships through another Empire's territory, it's just the nature of expansion. Maybe WH travel helps with it but I guess the similar scenario is always bound to occur.
I started with a Wormhole species and you can still get boxed in but its a lot harder, Playing a elliptical galaxy one empire has cut from the center to the right and is thicker then my current WH travel range so I cannot cross over them.
Getting boxed in as an Hyperlane race will always happen, it is the starter recommendation because it has the fewest options and doesn't overwhelm a player.
Edit: To whoever had the sudden wormhole invasion. I just had the same happen in my game (not my space tho). It is an event "The unbidden". I guess you got real unlucky it triggered early and inside your space.
On May 12 2016 03:57 Dangermousecatdog wrote: Why can't I see colonisable planets without having a colony ship. Each and every time. Why can't I find anomalies that I've passed over initially. Why do I have to work out that green numbers are resources I am currently collecting and white is potential ungathered resources.
Did you check the little box on the bottom right that gives you more info on the map? (The same thing that pressing ALT does, but permanent). Here: https://imgur.com/Nn5jEGx
Then anomalies and colonizable planets have icons.
On May 12 2016 03:57 Dangermousecatdog wrote: Why do I have to work out that green numbers are resources I am currently collecting and white is potential ungathered resources.
Did you think that was hard to work out? I found that really, really intuitive and not worthy of any explanation.
But yeah, in general I agree. Many basic things are not explained at all, like happiness, habitability, everything with combat and more.
And the controls are also sometimes really unintuitive, you should be able to do more things from the big "zoomed out" map.
After playing just 2 hours or so of Stellaris, I already thought "Oh, this is probably going to be quite a decent game, in two years future." Right now I think the game is lacking in many ways. The combat is somehow even more boring than EU4, the diplomacy is surprisingly nearly non-existent, only the initial macro-ing up is kinda fun, in my opinion.
On May 12 2016 03:57 Dangermousecatdog wrote: Played for 8 hours. Game has a great atmosphere but suffers from huge UI problems and half the game mechanics such as slavery aren't explained or properly explained. Why is creating/adding sectors such a pain, and it doesn't even make much sense, thus spoiling the feeling of immersion. That certain cultures have different trade willingness is just wierd and spoils game immersion. presumably, if the Ai trade with each other, they are under no such restriction. Why for instance, I cannot set certain pop ups to appear and for them to automatically pause the game and to stay paused when I close the pop up EU4 style? It's just irritating when you are at fastest speed and there is combat or enemy sighted or a science research occurs or any number of events occur simultaneously. Why is finding and moving a spacecraft so difficult on the galactic map? Why can't I see colonisable planets without having a colony ship. Each and every time. Why can't I find anomalies that I've passed over initially. Why do I have to work out that green numbers are resources I am currently collecting and white is potential ungathered resources. Why can't I spin the galaxy map and then press a button to return it back to defualt angle. Why can't I see who is at war with whom easily on a galactic map? Why are all the stats hidden in an era of galactic space travel and instantaneous communication whilst in other games, you have an idea of how other factions are faring? It all adds up to a fustrating experience. These are UI issues that hopefully paradox will fix, before releasing dlcs.
This UI is probably very set in stone. It's very similar to EU4's UI. You get used to it.
On May 12 2016 03:57 Dangermousecatdog wrote: Played for 8 hours. Game has a great atmosphere but suffers from huge UI problems and half the game mechanics such as slavery aren't explained or properly explained. Why is creating/adding sectors such a pain, and it doesn't even make much sense, thus spoiling the feeling of immersion. That certain cultures have different trade willingness is just wierd and spoils game immersion. presumably, if the Ai trade with each other, they are under no such restriction. Why for instance, I cannot set certain pop ups to appear and for them to automatically pause the game and to stay paused when I close the pop up EU4 style? It's just irritating when you are at fastest speed and there is combat or enemy sighted or a science research occurs or any number of events occur simultaneously. Why is finding and moving a spacecraft so difficult on the galactic map? Why can't I see colonisable planets without having a colony ship. Each and every time. Why can't I find anomalies that I've passed over initially. Why do I have to work out that green numbers are resources I am currently collecting and white is potential ungathered resources. Why can't I spin the galaxy map and then press a button to return it back to defualt angle. Why can't I see who is at war with whom easily on a galactic map? Why are all the stats hidden in an era of galactic space travel and instantaneous communication whilst in other games, you have an idea of how other factions are faring? It all adds up to a fustrating experience. These are UI issues that hopefully paradox will fix, before releasing dlcs.
This UI is probably very set in stone. It's very similar to EU4's UI. You get used to it.
I believe that the UI is an upgrade compared to that of EU4, especially for handling saves.
This game interests me a lot but I don't have much experience with the genre in general, just maybe a dozen hours in Civ 4 and 5 each, and none of Paradox's previous titles (though I'm familiar). Can someone elaborate on the "no win condition" aspect? I really like the option of being able to start a new game now and then, try something strange or different than the last run, and finish within the scope of a few hours, or day, or casual weekend, rather than commit to one single 30+ hour "board" that keeps on going. Is that sort of flexibility in there, in the choice of game speed or "map" size or difficulty at all? Or is there pretty much the one way to play without much variance to starting conditions? The latter seems to be what a lot of folks are choosing from the reviews I've seen and stuff, but I thought that might just be the way that interests fans of the genre, rather than being the only choice.
On May 12 2016 13:22 Duka08 wrote: This game interests me a lot but I don't have much experience with the genre in general, just maybe a dozen hours in Civ 4 and 5 each, and none of Paradox's previous titles (though I'm familiar). Can someone elaborate on the "no win condition" aspect? I really like the option of being able to start a new game now and then, try something strange or different than the last run, and finish within the scope of a few hours, or day, or casual weekend, rather than commit to one single 30+ hour "board" that keeps on going. Is that sort of flexibility in there, in the choice of game speed or "map" size or difficulty at all? Or is there pretty much the one way to play without much variance to starting conditions? The latter seems to be what a lot of folks are choosing from the reviews I've seen and stuff, but I thought that might just be the way that interests fans of the genre, rather than being the only choice.
The smallest possible galaxy is 'kind of' small, but game speed doesn't change very much. There will probably be mods that make the game go faster / slower soon enough, but by default it's not an option.
On May 12 2016 13:22 Duka08 wrote: This game interests me a lot but I don't have much experience with the genre in general, just maybe a dozen hours in Civ 4 and 5 each, and none of Paradox's previous titles (though I'm familiar). Can someone elaborate on the "no win condition" aspect? I really like the option of being able to start a new game now and then, try something strange or different than the last run, and finish within the scope of a few hours, or day, or casual weekend, rather than commit to one single 30+ hour "board" that keeps on going. Is that sort of flexibility in there, in the choice of game speed or "map" size or difficulty at all? Or is there pretty much the one way to play without much variance to starting conditions? The latter seems to be what a lot of folks are choosing from the reviews I've seen and stuff, but I thought that might just be the way that interests fans of the genre, rather than being the only choice.
You can choose how big you want the galaxy to be and what kind of galaxy it is. You can also choose how many AIs there are and other settings to configure the difficulty of the game
There are two win conditions, but the AIs doesn't care about those. And even if you fulfill one you can keep playing
Really don't like the sector management so far, the ai is freaking retarded, spams food buildings and doesn't upgrade the capital. Had a section (7 planets+) that just stayed on reassembled ship shelters for more than 20 years. No surprise it generated barely any income and i was forced to spend a lot of influence and time and micro each planet, build it up to where I wanted it and put it back into the sector, just to do the same thing with the next one. Could have done it for all planets at the same time, but that isnt possible because of planet cap <.< I really don't get why I can't just circumvent it, put my sectors to giving me all their actual income and influence the planet sections by hand. I'll probably just search for a mod that removes planet cap :/
On May 12 2016 14:18 Blackfeather wrote: Really don't like the sector management so far, the ai is freaking retarded, spams food buildings and doesn't upgrade the capital. Had a section (7 planets+) that just stayed on reassembled ship shelters for more than 20 years. No surprise it generated barely any income and i was forced to spend a lot of influence and time and micro each planet, build it up to where I wanted it and put it back into the sector, just to do the same thing with the next one. Could have done it for all planets at the same time, but that isnt possible because of planet cap <.< I really don't get why I can't just circumvent it, put my sectors to giving me all their actual income and influence the planet sections by hand. I'll probably just search for a mod that removes planet cap :/
As far as I know you can still build stuff on planets in sector control? At least I could build ships there when I needed a constructor or scout near the front. I really like the idea with sector control, microing 100 + planets as a new tech arrives just isn't fun.
On May 12 2016 14:18 Blackfeather wrote: Really don't like the sector management so far, the ai is freaking retarded, spams food buildings and doesn't upgrade the capital. Had a section (7 planets+) that just stayed on reassembled ship shelters for more than 20 years. No surprise it generated barely any income and i was forced to spend a lot of influence and time and micro each planet, build it up to where I wanted it and put it back into the sector, just to do the same thing with the next one. Could have done it for all planets at the same time, but that isnt possible because of planet cap <.< I really don't get why I can't just circumvent it, put my sectors to giving me all their actual income and influence the planet sections by hand. I'll probably just search for a mod that removes planet cap :/
As far as I know you can still build stuff on planets in sector control? At least I could build ships there when I needed a constructor or scout near the front. I really like the idea with sector control, microing 100 + planets as a new tech arrives just isn't fun.
You can build stuff in space but do nothing on the surface (except for space stations). No resettling, no slaving, no moving nor building stuff. Not sure about purges. Ty for the link.
I agree that the sector idea isn't terrible, it's just terrible in some actual cases, i.e. if you give them your planet before you upgrade it's capital. If I still could build I'd have less of a problem.
and the sectors do what i tell them to relatively effectively. i told one with ~5 planets to produce energy and about a decade later i got 100 energy from them. solved my energy problems for good.
edit: you can enslave pops in sectors. maybe you need the right policies for that but i do it all the time to circumvent the -10% decadent modifier i get. not sure about purging though.
The fact that they are too dumb/don't produce influence to upgrade capitals and remain on the +1 buildings for almost forever still remains a big hurdle to their usefulness.
100% sure I tried resettlement and it didn't work, which was always the big one for me. But yeah might be that the other non-drag-pop-interactions work.
On May 12 2016 15:21 digmouse wrote: How is the learning curve this time?
There doesn't feel like there is too much depth and the help messages are mostly good. I would say it works well for 2h then you hit a wall you need to break down as things the help didn't prepare you for start hitting. Then after 5-6h you can play it decently and only some strange details are confusing.
As with all releases there are bugged things. Especially the dynamic bonus missions can be horribly broken where they can't be completed. Doesn't really matter for overall game play though, just ignore them.
On May 12 2016 15:21 digmouse wrote: How is the learning curve this time?
Surprisingly low. After the first 4-6 hours of actual gameplay you should have a good grip on the game's mechanics. They did a really good job with their tutorials and in-game information and the game is less complex than ck and eu f.e.. To the point where you can just start a game and learn play by play without feeling totally helpless. That was probably the biggest surprise for me, normally paradox is terrible at introducing the player to their game.
On May 12 2016 14:18 Blackfeather wrote: Really don't like the sector management so far, the ai is freaking retarded, spams food buildings and doesn't upgrade the capital. Had a section (7 planets+) that just stayed on reassembled ship shelters for more than 20 years. No surprise it generated barely any income and i was forced to spend a lot of influence and time and micro each planet, build it up to where I wanted it and put it back into the sector, just to do the same thing with the next one. Could have done it for all planets at the same time, but that isnt possible because of planet cap <.< I really don't get why I can't just circumvent it, put my sectors to giving me all their actual income and influence the planet sections by hand. I'll probably just search for a mod that removes planet cap :/
The AI does actually an "ok" Job, what i tend to do if i colonise a new planet is immediatly remove all tile blockers and after that is done i give the sector over. Then you pump them full with Minerals/Energie so they can build up quickly and immediatly set the focus on your goal for the sector and leave it there. Before i did this i had some issues too but now it seems to work pretty good. Alternatively you can just give them your allready built up core worlds and don't allow them to rebuild stuff.
Imho you really shouldn't grow too attached to planets.
Now what is truely annoying is that you don't see Spaceports in sectors and colony ships built there are also not showing up on the right side.
On May 12 2016 15:21 digmouse wrote: How is the learning curve this time?
AI on normal is a pure pushover (just keep a fleet around and upgrade your weapons). If you don't kill yourself somehow by going bankrupt you have plenty of time to explore the game and its functions. EU3/4 was WAY harsher in this regard and thats imho the main diffrence. In EU when you didn't know what your doing, you probably didn't make it far in the timeline, here its a very diffrent story.
A question regarding sectors. When they reach max in a resource, is it transferred over or lost? For example setting a region to max science they sooner or later max out on minerals and energy since they have built everything they need to build.
On May 12 2016 13:22 Duka08 wrote: This game interests me a lot but I don't have much experience with the genre in general, just maybe a dozen hours in Civ 4 and 5 each, and none of Paradox's previous titles (though I'm familiar). Can someone elaborate on the "no win condition" aspect? I really like the option of being able to start a new game now and then, try something strange or different than the last run, and finish within the scope of a few hours, or day, or casual weekend, rather than commit to one single 30+ hour "board" that keeps on going. Is that sort of flexibility in there, in the choice of game speed or "map" size or difficulty at all? Or is there pretty much the one way to play without much variance to starting conditions? The latter seems to be what a lot of folks are choosing from the reviews I've seen and stuff, but I thought that might just be the way that interests fans of the genre, rather than being the only choice.
Yes there is a difficulty option, haven't played with them. still on my first game to learn the ins and outs. Map options include shape (elliptical, ring, spiral 2/4 arms) and size (200-1000) Gamespeed settings are in game and chance be changed as desired.
The win conditions are only colonize 40% of the galaxy or sole survivor. Considering what you said you are more likely to try out your thing and succeed or fail and then make another game rather then finish each one. Just like in Civ playing a game to its full conclusion can take a fair bit of time after you have already become unstoppable.
On May 12 2016 18:18 Yurie wrote: A question regarding sectors. When they reach max in a resource, is it transferred over or lost? For example setting a region to max science they sooner or later max out on minerals and energy since they have built everything they need to build.
They appear to be lost. I have not found a way to take out resources and it will max give you 75% of surplus.
On May 12 2016 15:21 digmouse wrote: How is the learning curve this time?
Started my first game on normal with full tutorial, never played other paradox titles (EU was always to spreadsheety for me) but played a lot of 4x. The game does a good job guiding you through setting up your empire and the normal AI is not a threat so long as you keep your fleet up if your close to anyone aggressive (expansionist xenophobes)
On May 12 2016 14:18 Blackfeather wrote: Really don't like the sector management so far, the ai is freaking retarded, spams food buildings and doesn't upgrade the capital. Had a section (7 planets+) that just stayed on reassembled ship shelters for more than 20 years. No surprise it generated barely any income and i was forced to spend a lot of influence and time and micro each planet, build it up to where I wanted it and put it back into the sector, just to do the same thing with the next one. Could have done it for all planets at the same time, but that isnt possible because of planet cap <.< I really don't get why I can't just circumvent it, put my sectors to giving me all their actual income and influence the planet sections by hand. I'll probably just search for a mod that removes planet cap :/
Did you feed the sector resources to build up with?
A sector uses the resources it produces to improve itself (after giving away 0-75% to your overall empire) but especially early on it will not have the resource production to sustain itself. You can give a sector credits and minerals from the empire screen so that it has resources to spend on upgrades.
If you keep it fed I have found that the sector AI does a good job of building new building (but only if a pop requires it, the AI won't building for the future) and upgrade buildings. Including the reassembled ship shelter when it hits 5 pop.
If a planet gets to many food buildings it may be because a lot of tiles have base food income and the sector is set to respect these and not build something else on them.
My biggest gripe of the sector AI is its tendency to build spaceports when I don't want them and would rather have it save up resources for developing planets.
I don't know if a sector set to mineral/tech will try to stay atleast energy neutral. testing is required.
I played 33 h in 2 Days and now i am kinda burned out :D
Game is still very buggy, the UI has some really annoying shortcomings, the lack of historical context will probably cause a loss in replayability and i wish technology would be a bit better.
All in all i really enjoy my time, but i don't think i would invest as much time as i did with EU or CK, as the goals are just missing. Too little achievements and all races are only different in your own imagination.
Also, United Nations of rhgeuirghuei have rivaled the regouergh Combine. Should that be important to me?
On May 12 2016 20:29 Broetchenholer wrote: I played 33 h in 2 Days and now i am kinda burned out :D
Game is still very buggy, the UI has some really annoying shortcomings, the lack of historical context will probably cause a loss in replayability and i wish technology would be a bit better.
All in all i really enjoy my time, but i don't think i would invest as much time as i did with EU or CK, as the goals are just missing. Too little achievements and all races are only different in your own imagination.
Also, United Nations of rhgeuirghuei have rivaled the regouergh Combine. Should that be important to me?
Yeah, achievements, historical context and asymetrical starts were what made EU replayable, I like stellaris so far but i'm a bit worried for the future.
Adding achievements linked to preset races and allowing more asymmetry in the galaxy generation would be a good start.
And yeah the ui could use a bit of work. Map modes, a ledger and pause/poput settings would go a long may in making the mid/lategame less tedious.
How paradox reacts to all this in the first patch and the first expansion is going to condition the future of the game a lot imo.
On May 12 2016 15:21 digmouse wrote: How is the learning curve this time?
I've never played any of their games before, and I got the gist of it really fast. The beginner tutorial is really good, sure it pops up fairly often but for my next game I dont think I need it at all.
Yes, but iirc it stops doing that once a planet is full? At least i tought thats what i saw yesterday.
Imho the way to settle a new planet in the mid/lategame is this: Colonize --> Remove all Blockers + Enact Immigration Edict --> Queue every building --> Wait for Pops to arrive --> Add to a sector.
They send over 100% income of the choice you make (I think).
A question. Why do you want multiple sectors instead of 1 huge one that can afford to fix up its own planets? Where you send colony ship, then hand it over and its 100 income a month handles all the buildings without you doing anything more. (Assuming you have borders that allow one to add all systems.)
On May 13 2016 00:18 Yurie wrote: They send over 100% income of the choice you make (I think).
A question. Why do you want multiple sectors instead of 1 huge one that can afford to fix up its own planets? Where you send colony ship, then hand it over and its 100 income a month handles all the buildings without you doing anything more. (Assuming you have borders that allow one to add all systems.)
then the sector decides it doesnt want you anymore and overthrows you with its 50 planets against your 5
On May 13 2016 00:18 Yurie wrote: They send over 100% income of the choice you make (I think).
A question. Why do you want multiple sectors instead of 1 huge one that can afford to fix up its own planets? Where you send colony ship, then hand it over and its 100 income a month handles all the buildings without you doing anything more. (Assuming you have borders that allow one to add all systems.)
then the sector decides it doesnt want you anymore and overthrows you with its 50 planets against your 5
Manage your happiness/factions better so that an independence faction doesn't get 75% or more support :p
Mostly to allow fine tuning. I had a large 28 planet sector that was pretty well developed and my income was good so I switched it from energy to research. Later I wanted to expand a bit more and make a new sector for that (now 10 planets) that are still set for energy.
Otherwise I am in the same boat as you, why do I want many sectors?
On May 13 2016 00:18 Yurie wrote: They send over 100% income of the choice you make (I think).
A question. Why do you want multiple sectors instead of 1 huge one that can afford to fix up its own planets? Where you send colony ship, then hand it over and its 100 income a month handles all the buildings without you doing anything more. (Assuming you have borders that allow one to add all systems.)
then the sector decides it doesnt want you anymore and overthrows you with its 50 planets against your 5
Manage your happiness/factions better so that an independence faction doesn't get 75% or more support :p
Mostly to allow fine tuning. I had a large 28 planet sector that was pretty well developed and my income was good so I switched it from energy to research. Later I wanted to expand a bit more and make a new sector for that (now 10 planets) that are still set for energy.
Otherwise I am in the same boat as you, why do I want many sectors?
I am sure it will be tweaked, but it prevents them from rebelling or changing if your empire needs to take a new course. To divide up the sectors after the fact cost a lot of influence. So you might not have the influence to space germander if shit goes wrong.
But it might be to easy to game that system at this point. But my buddy is having a real problem with some anti slave, pro personal achievement people he just took into his empire. They do not like his holy space collectivist and are refusing to pay taxes.
On May 13 2016 00:18 Yurie wrote: They send over 100% income of the choice you make (I think).
A question. Why do you want multiple sectors instead of 1 huge one that can afford to fix up its own planets? Where you send colony ship, then hand it over and its 100 income a month handles all the buildings without you doing anything more. (Assuming you have borders that allow one to add all systems.)
then the sector decides it doesnt want you anymore and overthrows you with its 50 planets against your 5
Manage your happiness/factions better so that an independence faction doesn't get 75% or more support :p
Mostly to allow fine tuning. I had a large 28 planet sector that was pretty well developed and my income was good so I switched it from energy to research. Later I wanted to expand a bit more and make a new sector for that (now 10 planets) that are still set for energy.
Otherwise I am in the same boat as you, why do I want many sectors?
I am sure it will be tweaked, but it prevents them from rebelling or changing if your empire needs to take a new course. To divide up the sectors after the fact cost a lot of influence. So you might not have the influence to space germander if shit goes wrong.
But it might be to easy to game that system at this point. But my buddy is having a real problem with some anti slave, pro personal achievement people he just took into his empire. They do not like his holy space collectivist and are refusing to pay taxes.
Whenever I have problems with some ethnic group I just enslave them so that they know their place. the trick is to enslave the ones that are in the resistance movement and leave the loyalists free.
I fully endorse this policy with every ethic group that gets uppity if you know what I mean.
I just enslave everyone. If you are on energy/research duty you might get a break if you are nice, but that's it.
There are no slave rebellions on stellaris as far i know. Like synthethics for example won't raise against everyone with the AI. Eventually i switch all my pops for synths.
After around 40 planets I just purged anybody that messed around, any new aliens or robots get instantly purged then if possible I recolonise the planet. I rather lose a planet at that point than bother managing populations. Maybe I shouldn't play evil human xenophobes. The genocide modifier makes diplomacy so easy. Nobody wants to deal with me in good faith, so I just kill them.
I never had a problem with diverging populations due to that. Later on you get several -ethic drift options and it gets even easier to manage a large sector. I also build all colony ships using my starting ethics so the drift isn't too bad. I think I once got a drift I had to use influence on, so didn't know that sectors could even be a problem even at 100 planets.
Only downside I see with mass purging is cost of new colonies, not possible to colonise type opposite your starting one, or whatever the red colonise tag is even with full tech researched. Oh and if you care about the AI nations a large - modifier.
When I first started following this thread when the game was jsut released all the criticism made it seem bad. But all these recent comments make it sound so awesome.
it is awesome, it just has some problems like paradox games at release tend to have.
i especially love the expansion options you have early, you can grow your normal people or you can try to attract everyone in the galaxy to your planets or you can send robots or you can help non space faring civs and let them join you or you enslave them or you enslave your neighbours or you go feudalism in space and get some vassals or you make your own species from primitive live and make them fight for you or you change yourself to fit on more planets or you change the planets themselves.
Its pretty fun....
Just the AI in general has issues, including the AI that is supposed to manage parts of your own empire. I hope they can make it better, it must have been quite a change going from EU where the challenge comes from unfair starting conditions to this game where you start relatively the same.
right now im sure you can get 50-100 really fun hours out of it, but to get to EU levels it needs more stuff and fixes.
a real benefit of multiple sectors: sectors build their planetary buildings according to the focus you give them, with multiple sectors you can diversify your output and have a more well rounded empire.
I got this annoying situation where I started the First League plot line ages ago. Basically one of my science ships came across an anomaly and found the remnants of a two-billion year old empire called the first league, then it told me to research six more anomalies that I'd find about the first league. However, I've never found any more and I've scoured the area where I found the first one. Any ideas what's up?
On April 30 2016 02:30 xuanzue wrote: the swarm is not possible yet, a zerg race needs 3 traits that cannot be combine ATM
Adaptive Nomadic Rapid Breeders
You don't need nomadic at all for a Zerg swarm. It just affects the time it takes to migrate, not the ability to do so. According to the one SC novel that I've read, the Zerg travel very slowly through space.
Sounded to me like they devoured stuff pretty regularly and were hell bent on taking over the whole galaxy.. Don't see why they would take their time when under control of the overmind, its hardly as if they do anything leisurely (I will admit my info is only from the original SC manual as a kid and playing the games)
On May 13 2016 03:13 nnn_thekushmountains wrote: When I first started following this thread when the game was jsut released all the criticism made it seem bad. But all these recent comments make it sound so awesome.
Its not for everyone in my opinion. I think the game makes the most fun if you kinda do your own "story" like wanting to be genocidal space nazis or making a star trek federation or something like that. Thats what is the most fun part at least for me. If you play it just to win it feels a bit flat to me.
I am really looking forward for (deep) warhammer/starwars/starcraft etc. mods, i think the game will be more fun with that.
On May 13 2016 14:16 Heartland wrote: I got this annoying situation where I started the First League plot line ages ago. Basically one of my science ships came across an anomaly and found the remnants of a two-billion year old empire called the first league, then it told me to research six more anomalies that I'd find about the first league. However, I've never found any more and I've scoured the area where I found the first one. Any ideas what's up?
The planets are really spread out. Can be on other side of the galaxy. Mine bugged out after doing all 6 places. The final one doesn't work at all.
meh lategame wars are annoying as hell. no way to catch a starlanes using enemy with superior FTL tech and they just stroll through your empire, destroy all starbases and surrender once you get enough warscore. then its 5+ years to rebuild everything with a billion clicks because the UI doesnt allow for an easy access.
On May 13 2016 17:25 hfglgg wrote: meh lategame wars are annoying as hell. no way to catch a starlanes using enemy with superior FTL tech and they just stroll through your empire, destroy all starbases and surrender once you get enough warscore. then its 5+ years to rebuild everything with a billion clicks because the UI doesnt allow for an easy access.
Yeah the game needs some automation buttons like auto build mining/research stations and auto survey.
I'm also missing some information screens. Where can I see defensive armies? I should have a lot of them around from conquered empires but the only option to find them is to manually check every single planet.
On May 13 2016 17:25 hfglgg wrote: meh lategame wars are annoying as hell. no way to catch a starlanes using enemy with superior FTL tech and they just stroll through your empire, destroy all starbases and surrender once you get enough warscore. then its 5+ years to rebuild everything with a billion clicks because the UI doesnt allow for an easy access.
Yeah the game needs some automation buttons like auto build mining/research stations and auto survey.
I'm also missing some information screens. Where can I see defensive armies? I should have a lot of them around from conquered empires but the only option to find them is to manually check every single planet.
I find the mining/research stations fairly easy. On the galaxy map you can just shift-queue "build mining/research station" on all the systems where you want them and then forget about the constructor until he's done.
You can also queue "survey system", though anomalies and potential enemies are a bit disruptive for that, so some automated survey which also does all the anomalies and debris would be amazing. Or at least a setting in the options to automatically research all anomalies.
Combat is currently my biggest gripe. If you install one very long range weapon, ships will stay at that range even if they have much more firepower at closer range. For example installing a single Lance and a few medium mass drivers on a battleship will make it only use the lancer while the mass drivers idle until enemies close in. That means you have to make sure your designs are using the same range weapons for all slots, which limits your options. Weapons also need a bit of a re-balance since Lances are a bit too strong and fighters are completely useless since they just circle around your ship unless your ship has short range weapons. I made the mistake of using a Lance + Bomber layout and the Bombers never did anything since they had a much shorter range than Lances and so my Battleships died, because they only used half the firepower.
this war negotiation is terrible: -I declared war to one of my neighbor when I realized I finally had a better fleet than his. -In my war goal, I asked for 2 of his planets (half of his empire). -Just few days after (I don't even have the time to move my fleet to his first star), he gives away exactly the 2 planets I asked for to a 3rd party he was already in war with (I didn't see that). -I continue the war since the war progression at the bottom right of the screen is still 0%, and since I don't know how a war ends I just go the 2 others planets he still owns. -I destroy his remaining fleet, and capture his 2 planets with my army, meaning he controls no planet at all -War progression is at 100% and here is what I have:
I won the war, control his planets, and I can't ask for anything at all except a White Peace which means I won't be able to attack him for the next 10 years... How is that fair? Why am i able to receive _only_ what were my goals at the moment of the declaration? If I realize later in a war that I can get a lot more, why is it not possible to change? I don't know if I'm missing something, but this feels totally wrong.
On May 13 2016 21:47 Yhamm wrote: this war negotiation is terrible: -I declared war to one of my neighbor when I realized I finally had a better fleet than his. -In my war goal, I asked for 2 of his planets (half of his empire). -Just few days after (I don't even have the time to move my fleet to his first star), he gives away exactly the 2 planets I asked for to a 3rd party he was already in war with (I didn't see that). -I continue the war since the war progression at the bottom right of the screen is still 0%, and since I don't know how a war ends I just go the 2 others planets he still owns. -I destroy his remaining fleet, and capture his 2 planets with my army, meaning he controls no planet at all -War progression is at 100% and here is what I have:
I won the war, control his planets, and I can't ask for anything at all except a White Peace which means I won't be able to attack him for the next 10 years... How is that fair? Why am i able to receive _only_ what were my goals at the moment of the declaration? If I realize later in a war that I can get a lot more, why is it not possible to change? I don't know if I'm missing something, but this feels totally wrong.
There is a reason I tend to just demand vassalization. it is as expensive as 2 planets ><
It gets worse when your fighting big nations or federations who holds dozens and dozens of worlds and your still limited to 2-4 cede planets or a single vassalization for a war.
Anything related to diplomacy really is the weakest part of the game imo.
Calling my first game finished. Control half the galaxy, almost all tech researched. kicked the unbidden and a fallen empire but to conquer the other half of the map is going to take ages and nothing like a tech victory to avoid it.
played a large galaxy (800 stars) and it just takes to long. Mostly I think its the invasion mechanic which, while fine, takes a good while to bomb off fortifications and then invade compared to other games where you often have the option to quickly destroy a colony from orbit, allowed for much swifter endgame conquests when planets are no longer a concern.
Im the Rutharian Hive. the Spyran Principary (right,blue) Combined Vissan Colonies (left brown) and everything in between are my vassals. Took some 40 hours but I didn't play on fastest.
You can also just walk in with a 30+ ground force stack and win the planet without any bombardment. When you get genetically modified super soldiers that's just 4-5 units.
Uhh, this may be a stupid question but I bought the version with the downloadable OST and I literally cannot find where it is. Where would it download to by default? I can't find it in the steam folder or anywhere that comes to mind.
edit: Ugh, found it literally the second I posted after searching for 20 minutes tt
On May 14 2016 03:16 nnn_thekushmountains wrote: Are the minimum specs lower than Witcher 3: The Wild Hunt?
google has your answer and will happily provide it if you ask
Not really. The answer requires a knowledge of both the Witcher's specs and Stellaris' specs, which is online, but what is not online is how those two compare. If one needs a gtx something and one needs at least a raedon hd 5700 then I dont know if one needs more than the other.
So what I'm really looking for is someone with good knowledge of computer hardware and system requirements, or more likely someone with a crappy computer who has played both games and can compare how their computer did with each.
On May 14 2016 03:16 nnn_thekushmountains wrote: Are the minimum specs lower than Witcher 3: The Wild Hunt?
google has your answer and will happily provide it if you ask
Not really. The answer requires a knowledge of both the Witcher's specs and Stellaris' specs, which is online, but what is not online is how those two compare. If one needs a gtx something and one needs at least a raedon hd 5700 then I dont know if one needs more than the other.
So what I'm really looking for is someone with good knowledge of computer hardware and system requirements, or more likely someone with a crappy computer who has played both games and can compare how their computer did with each.
My computer is not working. Some wires are lose or something I think. I would have to rebuild my computer to play this game. I dont want to take it apart just to find out the hardware if I can't run the game. Therefore my only recourse is so compare it to the last game I tried to play. Which I could but the fps was really bad.
Stellaris mins: Core 2 Quad Q9400 2.66GHz Athlon II X4 640 GeForce GTX 460 v2 Radeon HD 5770 1024MB 2 GB Win Xp 32 DX 9 4 GB
On May 14 2016 03:32 nnn_thekushmountains wrote: My computer is not working. Some wires are lose or something I think. I would have to rebuild my computer to play this game. I dont want to take it apart just to find out the hardware if I can't run the game. Therefore my only recourse is so compare it to the last game I tried to play. Which I could but the fps was really bad.
Stellaris mins: Core 2 Quad Q9400 2.66GHz Athlon II X4 640 GeForce GTX 460 v2 Radeon HD 5770 1024MB 2 GB Win Xp 32 DX 9 4 GB
So is it fair to say if my computer ran Witcher at 15 fps on lowest it could run Stellaris decently on lowest?
Yes its requirements are a good bit lower then Witcher 3. Depending on what the bottleneck is (CPU or GPU) you might want to stay on small galaxy sizes, late game in a large galaxy I can notice the game slowing down from all the ships.
Been trying to do multiplayer for a few nights now. Turns out the multiplayer platform is real shit. Can't even join games unless you add everyone to steam friends and then create game and invite to game. No dedicated servers so everyone connects to host, which of course always has tons of issues associated with that. Then the 'lobby' isn't even working right because all of the games listed have already started so you need to hot join in to play, which most people don't want to do cause they have to wait forever to load you in.
Perhaps one of the worst online multiplayer experiences I've seen, which is a shame since it is more fun to play with actual people.
Has anyone seen AIs being rather passive while at war? I am the green empire Hayxacca. Both Avabbian and Ikarzuri declared separate war at Hiff but has so far done nothing against them. So I declared a war (which I was going to anyway, I just waited for some upgrades of something) to liberate some planets (Zum) in my war
On May 13 2016 21:47 Yhamm wrote: this war negotiation is terrible: -I declared war to one of my neighbor when I realized I finally had a better fleet than his. -In my war goal, I asked for 2 of his planets (half of his empire). -Just few days after (I don't even have the time to move my fleet to his first star), he gives away exactly the 2 planets I asked for to a 3rd party he was already in war with (I didn't see that). -I continue the war since the war progression at the bottom right of the screen is still 0%, and since I don't know how a war ends I just go the 2 others planets he still owns. -I destroy his remaining fleet, and capture his 2 planets with my army, meaning he controls no planet at all -War progression is at 100% and here is what I have:
I won the war, control his planets, and I can't ask for anything at all except a White Peace which means I won't be able to attack him for the next 10 years... How is that fair? Why am i able to receive _only_ what were my goals at the moment of the declaration? If I realize later in a war that I can get a lot more, why is it not possible to change? I don't know if I'm missing something, but this feels totally wrong.
I had a similar experiance, i conquerd 3 out of 4 planets with ease but had to stop because i hadnt enough warpoints, which split my empire in 2 halfs wich i thought was no big deal because they had no fleet left. in the 10 years this 1 planet joined a massive alliance which then screwed me over big time.
i dont quite understand the reason for this system.
On May 14 2016 12:03 Erasme wrote: The AI refuse to cooperate even if you have 100times their fleet. How is it hard to just duplicate the AI from master of orion2..
This is a real time game. So very hard since it is a different problem. They also went a route of easy to mod which limits what they can do further. It isn't horrible I would say.
The problem in my game was that the AI was only sending one ground troop at a time, while having a large fleet in orbit. I send all my ground troops at once and got control of the planet
I have created a scientific utopia, I am part of a federation of planets, the other major empires are also in an alliance and friendly with a high opinion of me, The aggressive empires do not have the power to threaten us. The people are happy, life is good, the galaxay is at peace.. what do you mean we have not yet achieved victory, fine then lets burn it all, this means war..
If I understand correctly it is technically possible to win peacefully by having a large enough federation. However empires in an alliance seem to automatically reject an invitation and I dont see any peaceful way of breaking their alliance in order to invite each of them into the federation?
I am having a lot of fun with this game so I might just start a new game. On the other hand the Prethoryn swarm has just invaded the galaxy and I kind of want to see where that goes. Has anyone else encountered them yet?
On May 14 2016 12:03 Erasme wrote: The AI refuse to cooperate even if you have 100times their fleet. How is it hard to just duplicate the AI from master of orion2..
This is a real time game. So very hard since it is a different problem. They also went a route of easy to mod which limits what they can do further. It isn't horrible I would say.
I dont think it would, you'd simply need to play at a normal pace. You can exploit the system by attacking them first, forcing them to fight on their territories. The AI is forced to come back to defend their homeworld.
On May 13 2016 14:16 Heartland wrote: I got this annoying situation where I started the First League plot line ages ago. Basically one of my science ships came across an anomaly and found the remnants of a two-billion year old empire called the first league, then it told me to research six more anomalies that I'd find about the first league. However, I've never found any more and I've scoured the area where I found the first one. Any ideas what's up?
The planets are really spread out. Can be on other side of the galaxy. Mine bugged out after doing all 6 places. The final one doesn't work at all.
And so they could also be in other people's empires and shit?
On May 13 2016 14:16 Heartland wrote: I got this annoying situation where I started the First League plot line ages ago. Basically one of my science ships came across an anomaly and found the remnants of a two-billion year old empire called the first league, then it told me to research six more anomalies that I'd find about the first league. However, I've never found any more and I've scoured the area where I found the first one. Any ideas what's up?
The planets are really spread out. Can be on other side of the galaxy. Mine bugged out after doing all 6 places. The final one doesn't work at all.
And so they could also be in other people's empires and shit?
Of course, mine were in three different empires on top of mine.
On May 13 2016 14:16 Heartland wrote: I got this annoying situation where I started the First League plot line ages ago. Basically one of my science ships came across an anomaly and found the remnants of a two-billion year old empire called the first league, then it told me to research six more anomalies that I'd find about the first league. However, I've never found any more and I've scoured the area where I found the first one. Any ideas what's up?
The planets are really spread out. Can be on other side of the galaxy. Mine bugged out after doing all 6 places. The final one doesn't work at all.
And so they could also be in other people's empires and shit?
Of course, mine were in three different empires on top of mine.
On May 14 2016 18:02 Startyr wrote: I have created a scientific utopia, I am part of a federation of planets, the other major empires are also in an alliance and friendly with a high opinion of me, The aggressive empires do not have the power to threaten us. The people are happy, life is good, the galaxay is at peace.. what do you mean we have not yet achieved victory, fine then lets burn it all, this means war..
If I understand correctly it is technically possible to win peacefully by having a large enough federation. However empires in an alliance seem to automatically reject an invitation and I dont see any peaceful way of breaking their alliance in order to invite each of them into the federation?
I am having a lot of fun with this game so I might just start a new game. On the other hand the Prethoryn swarm has just invaded the galaxy and I kind of want to see where that goes. Has anyone else encountered them yet?
You shouldn't get too hung up over win conditions. If you've achieved your initial goal you won. It's how every paradox title plays.
- AI Empires are now way more aggressive - Improved random map script to avoid big uncolonized spaces - Increased the maximum number of AI starts - Improved random map script to offer a more balanced start in regards to resources - Rebalanced ship and weapon types - Added and rebalanced many racial traits. Weak and Sedentary, for example, are now no longer free points. - Sectors now give less resources if they are more powerful than the core worlds (to avoid just one huge sector and encourage many smaller ones) - Slaves can now properly join factions - Quest objectives no longer spawn within the borders of Fallen Empires - Fallen Empires now notify you immediately when you are invading their space - Reduced cost for resettlement - Fixed several issues where the game wouldn't update resources and modifiers properly. It is, for example, no longer possible to stay over the limit for core worlds for long periods of time without getting the penalties.
That'd be a good start in my opinion. What do you think should be "fixed" or changed?
edit:
- Being bankrupt now also reduces your fleet strength by 50% (so money can't just be ignored)
On May 14 2016 19:44 Dyme wrote: My fantasy changelog:
- AI Empires are now way more aggressive - Improved random map script to avoid big uncolonized spaces - Increased the maximum number of AI starts - Improved random map script to offer a more balanced start in regards to resources - Rebalanced ship and weapon types - Added and rebalanced many racial traits. Weak and Sedentary, for example, are now no longer free points. - Sectors now give less resources if they are more powerful than the core worlds (to avoid just one huge sector and encourage many smaller ones) - Slaves can now properly join factions - Quest objectives no longer spawn within the borders of Fallen Empires - Fallen Empires now notify you immediately when you are invading their space - Reduced cost for resettlement - Fixed several issues where the game wouldn't update resources and modifiers properly. It is, for example, no longer possible to stay over the limit for core worlds for long periods of time without getting the penalties.
That'd be a good start in my opinion. What do you think should be "fixed" or changed?
I agree with most but I do like the challenge of having a shitty resource starved start though makes the early game extra spicy
Weak isnt as much of a free point as you think. If your species have some good army modifiers, invading a weak race becomes doable with no bombardment at all, making for interesting opportunities even when their fleet is far superior.
On May 14 2016 22:34 Salazarz wrote: Weak isnt as much of a free point as you think. If your species have some good army modifiers, invading a weak race becomes doable with no bombardment at all, making for interesting opportunities even when their fleet is far superior.
I realised this once when i for the live of me couldn't actually invade a planet early in the game (bombarded it to 0) because the defenders just wouldn't die... I was too ressource starfed to just "spam him" so in the end it was white peace...
On May 14 2016 19:44 Dyme wrote: That'd be a good start in my opinion. What do you think should be "fixed" or changed?
A 2D top-down view of the galaxy. I did not think that the stars in the galaxy had different height but when I tried to play a game with hyperlanes, it became very obvious
On May 14 2016 19:44 Dyme wrote: That'd be a good start in my opinion. What do you think should be "fixed" or changed?
A 2D top-down view of the galaxy. I did not think that the stars in the galaxy had different height but when I tried to play a game with hyperlanes, it became very obvious
I think there is already a mod for that out there.
On May 14 2016 19:44 Dyme wrote: My fantasy changelog:
- AI Empires are now way more aggressive - Improved random map script to avoid big uncolonized spaces - Increased the maximum number of AI starts - Improved random map script to offer a more balanced start in regards to resources - Rebalanced ship and weapon types - Added and rebalanced many racial traits. Weak and Sedentary, for example, are now no longer free points. - Sectors now give less resources if they are more powerful than the core worlds (to avoid just one huge sector and encourage many smaller ones) - Slaves can now properly join factions - Quest objectives no longer spawn within the borders of Fallen Empires - Fallen Empires now notify you immediately when you are invading their space - Reduced cost for resettlement - Fixed several issues where the game wouldn't update resources and modifiers properly. It is, for example, no longer possible to stay over the limit for core worlds for long periods of time without getting the penalties.
That'd be a good start in my opinion. What do you think should be "fixed" or changed?
I agree with most but I do like the challenge of having a shitty resource starved start though makes the early game extra spicy
Resource starved starts almost seem like the core of Paradox gameplay, i mean fuck some countries on EU4 actually start with negative resource gain lol
Just won my first war, but kind of unexpectedly. Is there a purpose in building assaulting armies? The civ I attacked just gave up before my assaulting armies landed.
they are good to force highscore against a stronger opponnent. The AI is kinda dumb regarding invasions and if you have a strong army you can just instantly invade most planets. Also if they get stuck inside your empire because of wormholes.
and lategame when you are just painting the map its a lot quicker than trying to chase the fleets of huge federations.
first time I'm fighting someone who is using wormhole... this shit is so fucking OP He can teleport his army in any of my system close enough of his wormgate... I don't know where he's gonna be, and by the time I get there, he just wormhole away, even if some of my battleships got a Subspace snare I can't attack either or he will just attack me before I get to his space how the hell can I defend?
On May 15 2016 09:12 Yhamm wrote: first time I'm fighting someone who is using wormhole... this shit is so fucking OP He can teleport his army in any of my system close enough of his wormgate... I don't know where he's gonna be, and by the time I get there, he just wormhole away, even if some of my battleships got a Subspace snare I can't attack either or he will just attack me before I get to his space how the hell can I defend?
Two things have worked for me, but both suck.
1) Just go for his planets, at some point he will have to come back to defend. Things you lose can be rebuilt. or 2) Exploit the awful AI by baiting him with a fleet that he thinks he can defeat and then reinforcing
But, yeah, I think wormhole is the strongest form of travel and catching fleets in general is really annoying.
You could also go for his wormhole generators with strike fleets. That way he can't move since his ships need those generators (at least at early techs). They show up on the minimap if you know about them.
I see lots of people complaining about the combat in this game. Did people really expect XCOM-level of control over combat in a Paradox game? During the pre-release MP event, Martin Anward confirmed what I was always suspecting by reading dev diaries: "You are leader the leader of the empire, not captain of the fleet"
On May 16 2016 15:22 WindWolf wrote: I see lots of people complaining about the combat in this game. Did people really expect XCOM-level of control over combat in a Paradox game? During the pre-release MP event, Martin Anward confirmed what I was always suspecting by reading dev diaries: "You are leader the leader of the empire, not captain of the fleet"
Havn't seen a lot of complaints about it in this thread. The biggest combat complaint has been in weapons balance and the AI staying at range if even one weapon is ranged while the rest is short ranged.
On May 16 2016 15:22 WindWolf wrote: I see lots of people complaining about the combat in this game. Did people really expect XCOM-level of control over combat in a Paradox game? During the pre-release MP event, Martin Anward confirmed what I was always suspecting by reading dev diaries: "You are leader the leader of the empire, not captain of the fleet"
the problem with combat so far is that there is 0 depths in it. other 4x games have a baseline of tactical choices like terrain or meaningful fortifications and sieging mechanics. stellaris has none of those, warfare is just running through the systems, bombarding and conquering every planet without any big effect and eventually getting what you want. in theory they have the fleet design system in place but that is barely functional at the moment and needs a serious overhaul (as well as everything solar system related, every mechanic they have related to it is cool at the beginning, but gets old and tedious really quickly).
On May 16 2016 15:22 WindWolf wrote: I see lots of people complaining about the combat in this game. Did people really expect XCOM-level of control over combat in a Paradox game? During the pre-release MP event, Martin Anward confirmed what I was always suspecting by reading dev diaries: "You are leader the leader of the empire, not captain of the fleet"
the problem with combat so far is that there is 0 depths in it. other 4x games have a baseline of tactical choices like terrain or meaningful fortifications and sieging mechanics. stellaris has none of those, warfare is just running through the systems, bombarding and conquering every planet without any big effect and eventually getting what you want. in theory they have the fleet design system in place but that is barely functional at the moment and needs a serious overhaul (as well as everything solar system related, every mechanic they have related to it is cool at the beginning, but gets old and tedious really quickly).
4x games with terrain and fortifications? I'm sorry but what 4x games are you thinking about?
Take Master of Orion 2 or Sins of a Solar Empire. the combat in Stellaris really is not far from them and they are some of the best 4x games made to date. (tho MMO2 allowed for manual space combat). There are some issues, mostly in terms of ai. And something like an engagement range for fleets would be nice but the combat in general is pretty much what you would expect from a game of this scale.
On May 16 2016 15:22 WindWolf wrote: I see lots of people complaining about the combat in this game. Did people really expect XCOM-level of control over combat in a Paradox game? During the pre-release MP event, Martin Anward confirmed what I was always suspecting by reading dev diaries: "You are leader the leader of the empire, not captain of the fleet"
the problem with combat so far is that there is 0 depths in it. other 4x games have a baseline of tactical choices like terrain or meaningful fortifications and sieging mechanics. stellaris has none of those, warfare is just running through the systems, bombarding and conquering every planet without any big effect and eventually getting what you want. in theory they have the fleet design system in place but that is barely functional at the moment and needs a serious overhaul (as well as everything solar system related, every mechanic they have related to it is cool at the beginning, but gets old and tedious really quickly).
4x games with terrain and fortifications? I'm sorry but what 4x games are you thinking about?
Take Master of Orion 2 or Sins of a Solar Empire. the combat in Stellaris really is not far from them and they are some of the best 4x games made to date. (tho MMO2 allowed for manual space combat). There are some issues, mostly in terms of ai. And something like an engagement range for fleets would be nice but the combat in general is pretty much what you would expect from a game of this scale.
all civ games had those and gal civ 2 (never played 3) had a boring, but more effective ship design system, it also suffered less from the "catch me if you can"-problem of stellaris. sins of a solar empire is a slow rts or a mixture of rts and 4x which does feel similar to stellaris, but it did have unit control.
so far i think stellaris is a good start (played 72h already, productive week i had) but it needs to be fleshed out much more on all fronts, combat is just the biggest issue.
edit: i mean no 4x game has a super deep and interesting combat system, but stellaris is even more shallow than the rest of them.
Warp inhibitor bases at key locations are pretty good at making sure no one escapes onces they enter your space. Or atleast allow interception. But the fleet AI really needs a bit of work :D. Enemies that can't do shit, just try to take a tour through my systems, chased by a bigger fleet of mine. They find colony ships especially tasty. But I get that they want to save their fleet. Takes multiple wars to take over the space of an enemy world, depending on its size.
On May 16 2016 15:22 WindWolf wrote: I see lots of people complaining about the combat in this game. Did people really expect XCOM-level of control over combat in a Paradox game? During the pre-release MP event, Martin Anward confirmed what I was always suspecting by reading dev diaries: "You are leader the leader of the empire, not captain of the fleet"
Havn't seen a lot of complaints about it in this thread. The biggest combat complaint has been in weapons balance and the AI staying at range if even one weapon is ranged while the rest is short ranged.
Not much here, but it is certainly prevalent at some other sites. I wonder if they would say the same about combat in EU4 for example
But yeah, Corvettes are rather powerful in this game
On May 16 2016 15:22 WindWolf wrote: I see lots of people complaining about the combat in this game. Did people really expect XCOM-level of control over combat in a Paradox game? During the pre-release MP event, Martin Anward confirmed what I was always suspecting by reading dev diaries: "You are leader the leader of the empire, not captain of the fleet"
Havn't seen a lot of complaints about it in this thread. The biggest combat complaint has been in weapons balance and the AI staying at range if even one weapon is ranged while the rest is short ranged.
Not much here, but it is certainly prevalent at some other sites. I wonder if they would say the same about combat in EU4 for example
But yeah, Corvettes are rather powerful in this game
Havn't checked the details but 9 of them beating a battleship feels like the right ratio for me. That way you have a slight loss in food while still saving in build cost, especially when also including infrastructure.
On May 16 2016 15:22 WindWolf wrote: I see lots of people complaining about the combat in this game. Did people really expect XCOM-level of control over combat in a Paradox game? During the pre-release MP event, Martin Anward confirmed what I was always suspecting by reading dev diaries: "You are leader the leader of the empire, not captain of the fleet"
Havn't seen a lot of complaints about it in this thread. The biggest combat complaint has been in weapons balance and the AI staying at range if even one weapon is ranged while the rest is short ranged.
Not much here, but it is certainly prevalent at some other sites. I wonder if they would say the same about combat in EU4 for example
But yeah, Corvettes are rather powerful in this game
A lot of people complaining do play EU4. The actual fights are pretty simple in EU but there are things like terrain, attrition, forts, manpower, war exhaustion, etc. that make wars a lot more involved than Stellaris.
Even if it wasnt, in Stellaris diplomacy is severely limited, there is no trading, espionage, culture, religion, any other way to grow your empire mid-lategame besides warfare , so it would make sense that it was a bit more deep than it is.
Yes corvettes seem too strong. It is viable to build nothing but corvettes due to how evasion works. The most important stats for ships is evasion followed by dps, and since corvettes have the best evasion they are the most op!
On May 17 2016 02:56 Sermokala wrote: Battleships have the ability to have the minefield device that wastes small ships over time.
Does anyone have any use for military stations like fortress's?
They don't take food and can have 4k battle power, so two battleships worth of power extra for each one you can afford after food max.
When facing enemies having to use warp lanes they are good since you can drop one in a choke point. They also stop warp outs, so if you get a super lucky x-x-x system you can block all warp lanes in the system with two fortresses, giving ample time for your fleet to catch up.
On May 17 2016 02:56 Sermokala wrote: Battleships have the ability to have the minefield device that wastes small ships over time.
Does anyone have any use for military stations like fortress's?
Yup, hyperspace traps.
The hyperspace inhibitor forces enemies to land right on top of the station when they try to enter the system, no matter what FTL they use. That means you can trap fleets when they enter your system instead of having to chase them all over the map.
I also occasionally used a strategy where I flew a constructor to the enemy home system right behind my main fleet and built a fortress there during the fighting. All his reinforcements would trickle in and get annihilated one by one by the fortress(es). It's especially nice during sieges, since your fleets then don't have to leave orbit to fight and can continue to bombard his planets.
Some of the UI issues is kinda silly, like not being able to select which candidate to elect or back, because their portraits are not selectable, or that the popup of survey complete/construction complete don't tell you which ship completed it or not telling you how long it will take to upgrade a fleet. Experimenting with creating a sector will simply drain you of influence, nor can you see which systems are connected to which system to join sectors. Hopefully they will make fixing these sort of UI issues a priority, rather than focusing on a DLC about slavery or whatever.
hm does the robot revolution happen every game ? or just on occassion. Robots basically destroyed all my neighbours and now I am collecting their planets. While the robots where so nice to bring me some juicy tech. (destroyed half of my fleets though)
No. I guess it might be the most dominant one of the 3 crisis as the tech are really really handy... (I never used the warp drive that can call in the forbidden, e.g. and the space zerg are supposed to show up whenneither robots or forbidden show up)
After I had destroyed the Prethoryn, I got the event about AI rights and they already had every liberty anyway. That game is really slow now because it's super-late game, so I don't want to find out if the revolt could happen eventually.
it may be spoilerish, it's about an "end game" event I need some answers + Show Spoiler +
The Unbidden came and were totally beaten. I had around 65k power, and made an extra 30k during the "war" cause I thought it would be harder, so now I have 95k and the alien is dead... or its portal at least.
Anyway, how do you remove their space control? They only built stations eveywhere but it doesn't seem to remove his control of the systems when destroyed, so I don't know how to colonize the systems that are now free (since the Unbidden destroyed some minor empires when they arrived)
On May 21 2016 08:50 Yhamm wrote: it may be spoilerish, it's about an "end game" event I need some answers + Show Spoiler +
The Unbidden came and were totally beaten. I had around 65k power, and made an extra 30k during the "war" cause I thought it would be harder, so now I have 95k and the alien is dead... or its portal at least.
Anyway, how do you remove their space control? They only built stations eveywhere but it doesn't seem to remove his control of the systems when destroyed, so I don't know how to colonize the systems that are now free (since the Unbidden destroyed some minor empires when they arrived)
Destroy the stations will remove control. If you remove one and don't notice a change its because there is another station nearby.
Hm, is it just me or are the crystal-infused armor plates stupidly op at the moment? They give a hp bonus similar to shields 2 but without needing any energy and without a counter. No Torpedo will ignore them and i wouldn't use armor instead as everything seems to penetrate armor anyway and the percentage seems low anyway... they work better with bigger ships though, as they have more utility slots compared to damage and can therefore use more plates. Guess i'll have to fiddle with it
against AI, you want some armor since they don't use full armor penetration. But yeah crystal infused plating is a piece of the puzzle for the unbeatable fleet. Had to switch away from the weak balistic weapons, because every race allied against me. Atleast whats left of it. But I found out that fleet cap is 1k. Which makes having Allies pretty important. Unless you want to be at 2,5k/1k to defend yourself. But I have choosen worthy vassals for me. Just have to convice the Fallen Empires near me by force.
Game is fun, hope when they make borders open, they add a button to close borders for all. Would be annoying to close it for every race by hand.
On May 22 2016 02:56 FeyFey wrote: against AI, you want some armor since they don't use full armor penetration. But yeah crystal infused plating is a piece of the puzzle for the unbeatable fleet. Had to switch away from the weak balistic weapons, because every race allied against me. Atleast whats left of it. But I found out that fleet cap is 1k. Which makes having Allies pretty important. Unless you want to be at 2,5k/1k to defend yourself. But I have choosen worthy vassals for me. Just have to convice the Fallen Empires near me by force.
Game is fun, hope when they make borders open, they add a button to close borders for all. Would be annoying to close it for every race by hand.
I found out today that you can't vassalize fallen empires, you can only take their planets. It's totally worth it though, because they have unique buildings on their planets that are insanely good. You just have to make sure the AI sector governor doesn't replace them with trash buildings just because you wanted research.
On another note: I stopped that playthrough after conquering the fallen empire because it got tedious and nothing could threaten me anymore, I had a total population of 1500 with 120 planets and 12 different species united in a irenic democracy (+20% happyness). I decided early to make it a mixed empire where I can colonize every planet type with a species dedicated to that type and so acquired those races by various means, e.g. conquering weaker neighbours that favored a planet type I lacked or advancing primitive civilizations, and eventually my economy just exploded due to the number of planets, At the end my fleet was worth maybe 80-90k with 3 major vassals that had fleets around 10-15k and a few minor, worthless vassals, though I was just at 700/1000 naval strength since building ships got too tedious and on my own I was already equal to the remaining two fallen empires anyways.
They need to add something more to the lategame to make it more interesting. Declare war, vassalize, declare war, vassalize, ... not too interesting, especially with the deathballs that end up being far too efficient anyways. Colonization is also a pain with the way I played. "Where was the species that did tropical planets again? Ah, there, now I need... 1, 2, ... 5 colony ships from this species. Then two for arid, where the f**k was their shipyard again, ok, there, and one continental..." There should be an option to select the species and maybe culture you want and have the AI build the ship for you from any available shipyard that has that combination available and send it there once it's done.
Sectors should also be expanded to make it possible to use them like vassals in crusader kings 2 where they have their own fleets and such. They should also automatically build construction and science ships to survey and mine their area.
Also, lategame performance sucks. I had a fight involving around 800 ships against the fallen empire and everything became sluggish, not because of graphics, but because of CPU bottlenecking.
aww thats annoying with the Fallen empires. My game is still tense, because every world I conquer gets purged, terraformed and repoulated. And because that takes time, an AI empire managed to keep up with me.
I found out that you can expand the sector tab under planets, to show all the planets in that sector. Helps me aton to find the right space stations and planets.
But Stellaris makes me miss the Master of Orion 2 battle system and ship design. So much you could do. Kill the crew, shut down the ship systems. Destroy them the old fashioned way. Put all your weapons on the broadside. And slow incoming fleets with some buildings.
Most fallen Empires are not that big so its pretty easy to force them to cede all their worlds. Plus I think you can make vassals out of your own worlds if you want to make a fallen empire your bitch. (never tried it tho).
I'm creating a mod that adds more kinds of fallen empires and while testing stuff I realized that the Holy Guardians are broken atm. Feel free to colonize their holy planets without any fear.
Alright, I have played this game for ~60h now... It's a solid framework for additional content to come, in order to flesh out the game properly. For now I have more than exhausted what the game has to offer due to a few very major problems. Don't get me wrong, I love Paradox games: My steam account says that I have clocked more than 1000 hours in Crusader's Kings 2 alone.
Upping the difficulty makes diplomacy a pain, since you get a -50 modifier for most actions and proposals on hard difficulty. Even when I had some empires with the same ethics, most treaties and 200+ reputation, they would still refuse to join into an alliance with me purely because of the -50 modifier that cannot be offset by your standing with them alone (it will take only 10% of your reputation as a positive factor). It's unfortunate that the difficulty hamstrings what I hoped would be an interesting aspect of this game.
Getting your alliance to war against some other empire is just plain bullshit. Here's an example: I was in an alliance with 3 other empires of similar size (A, B, C). Whenever empire A wanted to go to war, B and C were totally fine with A getting all the planets. Whenever I wanted to declare war, they would refuse to vote "yes" unless they each received 1-2 planets each, making it impossible to declare war on smaller empires... or those whose planets were simply too fat to satisfy all my allied empires while still staying within the war score limit. Even when I was in a smaller alliance with only 1-2 other empires, I would have to use a fairly obvious exploit in order to get some planets out of declaring a war; when you assign the "cede planet" to your allies upon declaring war, those planets will still get into your possession instead when the enemy asks for peace. That was pretty much the only way to wage an offensive war while inside an alliance, regardless of how many times I have supported the offensive wars of my allies.
Speaking of alliances, fleet movements while inside an alliance is terrible. What the AI tends to do is order all their stacks to follow one of your stacks. In the later stages of the game where our federation had 5 strong empires plus a dozen vassals, I had ~40 stacks of 10-15k strength each following one of my fleets. Entering a system with that many ships caused the game to come to a screeching halt. Technical problems aside, it was just plain stupid because the enemy sent small fleets to ravage the infrastructure of my allies while all their ship were idle following a fleet that was currently being upgraded for 5 years somewhere in my territory. Thanks, my fleets are strong enough, I don't need a super-ultra-mega-doom stack following me everywhere.
Even more infuriating is the fleet movement of the enemies. It's a tedious case of trying to catch the enemy fleet while it is running all over the place without accomplishing anything. In the end I had to set up a few fortresses with FTL snare on border systems with a fleet stationed at a centralized wormhole station connecting to all those systems. Wait for the enemy to randomly jump into one of those trap-systems and send in your fleet while they are stuck. Or siege one of their planets and witness how the enemy sends their fleets one stack at a time into your meat grinder. And that's pretty much all you have to know about fleet strategy, really.
There were a few other minor things like pops migrating to planets that were barely habitable, gene modification on races that originated in a different empire (that was still alive) not working properly and technology RNG that makes it very hard to plan ahead. I don't think that I need to mention UI stuff in detail, since that has been mentioned enough in this thread already. It's simply missing a lot of features that I was used to from games like CK 2.
It's still a solid 4X, mind you... but it's far from what I was hoping for, to be honest; I thought that it was going to be a CK/EU in space with some 4X elements. The writing is nice, but way too scripted and focused on the early game, the exploration phase. Once everything is explored and settled, events are limited to those crisis. It lacks depth. And it lacks reasons for me to care. CK2 was excellent at giving you the depth and framework to create your own stories and narratives.
It's telling that after spending those 60h in Stellaris, I went back to playing CK 2.
On May 22 2016 15:17 WindWolf wrote: So the Unbidden has now spawned at the other end of the galaxy for me. What to do from here,
They will slowly expand and consume anything around them. The bigger their territory the more fleets they will have.
You can either try to rush to get to them as soon as possible and contain them or simply let them be and deal with them when you get to them or they get to you.
hmmm ok i cant kill the prethoryn swarm worlds even after bombing them to zero. i tried the console command too.
also my capital planet suddenly vanished? its there, just a barren world now. not sure how it happened, i had the system blanketed in defense platforms and a 20k+ fleet orbiting.
So there's this small planet I want to colonize so it can push my border farther in another empire, but it has only blocks on hit and I can't land anyone... Does terraforming remove blocks, or is there another method to remove blocks without colonizing a planet?
I just did it, had nothing to lose anyway. It removed all blocked
I conquered an Ancient Empire, and made a new sector out of its planets. Even though I have not checked the "Allow redevelopment", constructions are still being replaced, I don't understand why :[ I want to keep them, they produce a lot more than normal buildings :O
Yesterday I had fought a federation, successfully in theory. At the end I had invaded every single one of their planets, destroyed every fleet, had a battleship orbiting every single one of their combined 40 or so planets, they were pretty much dead in the water. However, because I took too long chasing down one of their 7k fleets that kept warping around, the war score kept dropping due to time. Since there was nothing to kill or invade, I also couldn't increase the war score, which meant eventually it dropped to -100 and I lost the war - including the forced liberation of two of my vassals - despite the enemy being completely defeated and unable to act.
They really need to fix that, that was extremely annoying.
On May 23 2016 11:01 Yhamm wrote: I just did it, had nothing to lose anyway. It removed all blocked
I conquered an Ancient Empire, and made a new sector out of its planets. Even though I have not checked the "Allow redevelopment", constructions are still being replaced, I don't understand why :[ I want to keep them, they produce a lot more than normal buildings :O
That's unfortunately one of the most annoying bugs out there right now. If it does not get hotfixed we will have to wait for the first major patch :/
On May 23 2016 16:23 Jealous wrote: So from watching the trailer, am I correct in saying this is more or less Master of Orion: the 2016 edition?
If so, I'm fucking down.
Master of Orion (2016) is pretty meh, because it's very shallow and linear. You can finish a game in a single evening. Stellaris is much more complex and games can take 50-60 hours.
Master of Orion (2016) vs Stellaris
Master of Orion advantages: Manual combat (though not very complex yet) Espionage Ship design with many options
Master of Orion problems: Every round ends up being very same-y Star Lanes are bad/poorly implemented Limited diplomacy (for now)
Stellaris advantages: Diplomacy (Vassals, protectorates, ...) Much more complex core mechanics More opponents Bigger tech tree Rounds can end up very different, depending on your playstyle
Stellaris problems: UI doesn't explain everything (though tooltips often help) Limited ship design options Automated combat that doesn't always do what you want it to do, e.g. no way to designate ships as escorts, no formations (seriously, wedge formation is the worst formation in space warfare but in Stellaris every fleet uses it), ... We'll most likely get the same DLC spam as in CK2 and the full game with all DLC will probably some day cost 200 bucks. Could also be an advantage, depending on the viewpoint.
On May 23 2016 16:23 Jealous wrote: So from watching the trailer, am I correct in saying this is more or less Master of Orion: the 2016 edition?
If so, I'm fucking down.
Master of Orion (2016) is pretty meh, because it's very shallow and linear. You can finish a game in a single evening. Stellaris is much more complex and games can take 50-60 hours.
Master of Orion (2016) vs Stellaris
Master of Orion advantages: Manual combat (though not very complex yet) Espionage Ship design with many options
Master of Orion problems: Every round ends up being very same-y Star Lanes are bad/poorly implemented Limited diplomacy (for now)
Stellaris advantages: Diplomacy (Vassals, protectorates, ...) Much more complex core mechanics More opponents Bigger tech tree Rounds can end up very different, depending on your playstyle
Stellaris problems: UI doesn't explain everything (though tooltips often help) Limited ship design options Automated combat that doesn't always do what you want it to do, e.g. no way to designate ships as escorts, no formations (seriously, wedge formation is the worst formation in space warfare but in Stellaris every fleet uses it), ... We'll most likely get the same DLC spam as in CK2 and the full game with all DLC will probably some day cost 200 bucks. Could also be an advantage, depending on the viewpoint.
Wait, there is an actual Master of Orion 2016? I was just kidding...
On May 23 2016 16:23 Jealous wrote: So from watching the trailer, am I correct in saying this is more or less Master of Orion: the 2016 edition?
If so, I'm fucking down.
Master of Orion (2016) is pretty meh, because it's very shallow and linear. You can finish a game in a single evening. Stellaris is much more complex and games can take 50-60 hours.
Master of Orion (2016) vs Stellaris
Master of Orion advantages: Manual combat (though not very complex yet) Espionage Ship design with many options
Master of Orion problems: Every round ends up being very same-y Star Lanes are bad/poorly implemented Limited diplomacy (for now)
Stellaris advantages: Diplomacy (Vassals, protectorates, ...) Much more complex core mechanics More opponents Bigger tech tree Rounds can end up very different, depending on your playstyle
Stellaris problems: UI doesn't explain everything (though tooltips often help) Limited ship design options Automated combat that doesn't always do what you want it to do, e.g. no way to designate ships as escorts, no formations (seriously, wedge formation is the worst formation in space warfare but in Stellaris every fleet uses it), ... We'll most likely get the same DLC spam as in CK2 and the full game with all DLC will probably some day cost 200 bucks. Could also be an advantage, depending on the viewpoint.
Wait, there is an actual Master of Orion 2016? I was just kidding...
Sometimes it is better to play a 4x that finishes in one evening than play a game like Stellaris that drags on while nothing interesting or fun happens.
Also you are comparing a "finished" game to early access one.
This game is a solid skeleton for a good game. Unfortunately, this skeleton is in need to get some meat to hang on it. Major updates are highly recomended.
On May 23 2016 18:21 -Archangel- wrote: Sometimes it is better to play a 4x that finishes in one evening than play a game like Stellaris that drags on while nothing interesting or fun happens.
Also you are comparing a "finished" game to early access one.
A lot of the problem I have 4X games is that I played Masters of Orion 2 and feel no need to play it again. And they all seem to be making MoO2 with slightly different flavors.
On May 23 2016 18:21 -Archangel- wrote: Sometimes it is better to play a 4x that finishes in one evening than play a game like Stellaris that drags on while nothing interesting or fun happens.
Also you are comparing a "finished" game to early access one.
A lot of the problem I have 4X games is that I played Masters of Orion 2 and feel no need to play it again. And they all seem to be making MoO2 with slightly different flavors.
Some of us enjoy similar gameplay but with just enhanced graphics and UI.
Also Stellaris can exist alongside MoO2 inspired 4x games just like Sc2 can exist alongside Planetary Annihilation
On May 23 2016 18:21 -Archangel- wrote: Sometimes it is better to play a 4x that finishes in one evening than play a game like Stellaris that drags on while nothing interesting or fun happens.
Also you are comparing a "finished" game to early access one.
A lot of the problem I have 4X games is that I played Masters of Orion 2 and feel no need to play it again. And they all seem to be making MoO2 with slightly different flavors.
Some of us enjoy similar gameplay but with just enhanced graphics and UI.
Also Stellaris can exist alongside MoO2 inspired 4x games just like Sc2 can exist alongside Planetary Annihilation
You see, I love the game play, I just get tired of the same thing being rehashed. I really liked Sins of a Solar Empire, before I realized that there were like 2000 money sinks in the game that didn’t matter, just to drag it out. I liked Gal Civ 2. I just feel like recent offerings in the last 3-4 years have been in a rut of trying to capture MoO2 without doing much to add more texture. If other people like them, that is fine. My critique doesn't mean that your enjoyment is invalid.
I really like what Paradox is doing. I want more of that out of 4X games. I want more ideas being put into tech trees, like that you don’t get to decide what you research next and no every race is on a set path. That people might live on planets before you find them and you can’t purge them. There just needs to be more of that.
Right now the game has to much waiting though, but it is a good start. They need to flesh out the mid game was more events and make wars more interesting. Make systems for a 100 year occupation of a planet and then espionage systems to allow for spy wars during a cold war.
Got a new idea for a playthrough yesterday after experimenting a bit.
Turns out you can indefinitely modify your species once you have the technology if you leave one trait point available. Since changing the preferred planet type costs 0, you can create sub-species for each planet type. That means I don't need to capture other species to colonize all the planet types, I can just modify my own species until it can live on every planet.
Only problem is that they still count as different race and so potentially suffer from xenophobia and repulsive traits and require free voting and xeno leadership to be happy, even though they are just a variant of the same race.
The empire of man (and gene modified desert-, tropical-, tundra-, arid-, arctic- and ocean-men) will rise.
On May 24 2016 15:52 Morfildur wrote: Only problem is that they still count as different race and so potentially suffer from xenophobia and repulsive traits and require free voting and xeno leadership to be happy, even though they are just a variant of the same race.
On May 24 2016 15:42 DnameIN wrote: And speaking about purge mechanic. Does anyone have moral issues before hitting that button like me? It makes me feel like mass murderer...
Coming from CK2, I consider it is not really immoral. Force incest your dwarf, harelip, hunchback, homosexual granddaughter ; maybe we can talk
On May 24 2016 15:42 DnameIN wrote: And speaking about purge mechanic. Does anyone have moral issues before hitting that button like me? It makes me feel like mass murderer...
Do have problems distinguishing between real life and a game? Well I guess you actually do hit the button so I guess not.
On May 24 2016 15:42 DnameIN wrote: And speaking about purge mechanic. Does anyone have moral issues before hitting that button like me? It makes me feel like mass murderer...
Do have problems distinguishing between real life and a game? Well I guess you actually do hit the button so I guess not.
Hitting the button doesn't really make a difference. I'd hit the button even if it was in real life. On some days, purging the earth of all human life sounds great.
On May 24 2016 15:42 DnameIN wrote: And speaking about purge mechanic. Does anyone have moral issues before hitting that button like me? It makes me feel like mass murderer...
Do have problems distinguishing between real life and a game? Well I guess you actually do hit the button so I guess not.
I don't have problem with that. It's just... I'm playing games since 90s and never had problem with that kind of things until Stellaris. Maybe i'm just getting old, but wiping whole planet out of sentient beings seems quite extreme even in game for me.
Don't take my opinion as a rant or some kind of moral crusade - game is fine, and this mechanics fits very well. I was just suprised with my own reaction, and wondered if someone else have simillar experience.
Ps: And no, on current playthough I am not using purge. Why purge, when you can enslave everyone around your corner of galaxy?
On May 24 2016 15:42 DnameIN wrote: And speaking about purge mechanic. Does anyone have moral issues before hitting that button like me? It makes me feel like mass murderer...
Do have problems distinguishing between real life and a game? Well I guess you actually do hit the button so I guess not.
I don't have problem with that. It's just... I'm playing games since 90s and never had problem with that kind of things until Stellaris. Maybe i'm just getting old, but wiping whole planet out of sentient beings seems quite extreme even in game for me.
Don't take my opinion as a rant or some kind of moral crusade - game is fine, and this mechanics fits very well. I was just suprised with my own reaction, and wondered if someone else have simillar experience.
Ps: And no, on current playthough I am not using purge. Why purge, when you can enslave everyone around your corner of galaxy?
really im just disappointed you cant nuke or death star a planet out of existence
or unleash a virus that destroys an entire species
I use purge to purge unhappy populations in an otherwise happy population. Not sure why, but none of the pops seem to care that their alien overlord is purging the troublesome elements on their conquered planet. Maybe the moral problem is that you have a choice, and genocide simply seems to be a weaker choice since enslaving solves most problems. For instance in Galactic Civ II you essentially wipe out everybody on a planet in order to claim it as your own but no one seemed to have moral problems with that. You are given no choice if you want to own an enemy planet.
But yeah more options for the genocidal despot! Wheres the option to purposefully bombard a planet till it is bereft of all life?
On May 24 2016 15:42 DnameIN wrote: And speaking about purge mechanic. Does anyone have moral issues before hitting that button like me? It makes me feel like mass murderer...
Do have problems distinguishing between real life and a game? Well I guess you actually do hit the button so I guess not.
I don't have problem with that. It's just... I'm playing games since 90s and never had problem with that kind of things until Stellaris. Maybe i'm just getting old, but wiping whole planet out of sentient beings seems quite extreme even in game for me.
Don't take my opinion as a rant or some kind of moral crusade - game is fine, and this mechanics fits very well. I was just suprised with my own reaction, and wondered if someone else have simillar experience.
Ps: And no, on current playthough I am not using purge. Why purge, when you can enslave everyone around your corner of galaxy?
really im just disappointed you cant nuke or death star a planet out of existence
or unleash a virus that destroys an entire species
a genocidal despot needs to have options
Next 3 DLC's will address those I am sure . Only for 29.99$
On May 25 2016 01:02 Dangermousecatdog wrote: I use purge to purge unhappy populations in an otherwise happy population. Not sure why, but none of the pops seem to care that their alien overlord is purging the troublesome elements on their conquered planet. Maybe the moral problem is that you have a choice, and genocide simply seems to be a weaker choice since enslaving solves most problems. For instance in Galactic Civ II you essentially wipe out everybody on a planet in order to claim it as your own but no one seemed to have moral problems with that. You are given no choice if you want to own an enemy planet.
But yeah more options for the genocidal despot! Wheres the option to purposefully bombard a planet till it is bereft of all life?
well you can bombard until all the pops are dead and structures are gone, it just takes a really long time (even with militaristic)
On May 25 2016 01:02 Dangermousecatdog wrote: I use purge to purge unhappy populations in an otherwise happy population. Not sure why, but none of the pops seem to care that their alien overlord is purging the troublesome elements on their conquered planet. Maybe the moral problem is that you have a choice, and genocide simply seems to be a weaker choice since enslaving solves most problems. For instance in Galactic Civ II you essentially wipe out everybody on a planet in order to claim it as your own but no one seemed to have moral problems with that. You are given no choice if you want to own an enemy planet.
But yeah more options for the genocidal despot! Wheres the option to purposefully bombard a planet till it is bereft of all life?
Slavery looks a lot better then it should because slave revolts are disabled due to a bug they found just before release.
On May 25 2016 01:02 Dangermousecatdog wrote: I use purge to purge unhappy populations in an otherwise happy population. Not sure why, but none of the pops seem to care that their alien overlord is purging the troublesome elements on their conquered planet. Maybe the moral problem is that you have a choice, and genocide simply seems to be a weaker choice since enslaving solves most problems. For instance in Galactic Civ II you essentially wipe out everybody on a planet in order to claim it as your own but no one seemed to have moral problems with that. You are given no choice if you want to own an enemy planet.
But yeah more options for the genocidal despot! Wheres the option to purposefully bombard a planet till it is bereft of all life?
well you can bombard until all the pops are dead and structures are gone, it just takes a really long time (even with militaristic)
I just want to be able to kill pops quickly, because I want to damage the enemy permamently. EU games allowed you to burn and pillage and raze, as opposed to mere collateral damage. Is it really too much for a galactic overlord to ask?
On May 25 2016 01:02 Dangermousecatdog wrote: I use purge to purge unhappy populations in an otherwise happy population. Not sure why, but none of the pops seem to care that their alien overlord is purging the troublesome elements on their conquered planet. Maybe the moral problem is that you have a choice, and genocide simply seems to be a weaker choice since enslaving solves most problems. For instance in Galactic Civ II you essentially wipe out everybody on a planet in order to claim it as your own but no one seemed to have moral problems with that. You are given no choice if you want to own an enemy planet.
But yeah more options for the genocidal despot! Wheres the option to purposefully bombard a planet till it is bereft of all life?
Slavery looks a lot better then it should because slave revolts are disabled due to a bug they found just before release.
It's not a bug, they decided not to include it in:
On May 25 2016 01:02 Dangermousecatdog wrote: I use purge to purge unhappy populations in an otherwise happy population. Not sure why, but none of the pops seem to care that their alien overlord is purging the troublesome elements on their conquered planet. Maybe the moral problem is that you have a choice, and genocide simply seems to be a weaker choice since enslaving solves most problems. For instance in Galactic Civ II you essentially wipe out everybody on a planet in order to claim it as your own but no one seemed to have moral problems with that. You are given no choice if you want to own an enemy planet.
But yeah more options for the genocidal despot! Wheres the option to purposefully bombard a planet till it is bereft of all life?
well you can bombard until all the pops are dead and structures are gone, it just takes a really long time (even with militaristic)
I just want to be able to kill pops quickly, because I want to damage the enemy permamently. EU games allowed you to burn and pillage and raze, as opposed to mere collateral damage. Is it really too much for a galactic overlord to ask?
On May 25 2016 01:02 Dangermousecatdog wrote: I use purge to purge unhappy populations in an otherwise happy population. Not sure why, but none of the pops seem to care that their alien overlord is purging the troublesome elements on their conquered planet. Maybe the moral problem is that you have a choice, and genocide simply seems to be a weaker choice since enslaving solves most problems. For instance in Galactic Civ II you essentially wipe out everybody on a planet in order to claim it as your own but no one seemed to have moral problems with that. You are given no choice if you want to own an enemy planet.
But yeah more options for the genocidal despot! Wheres the option to purposefully bombard a planet till it is bereft of all life?
Slavery looks a lot better then it should because slave revolts are disabled due to a bug they found just before release.
I think that at the end of the tech tree of any 4x game, there should be Nova bombs and stuff like that. I am sad without doomsday weapons. Let players leave a permanent mark on the galaxy! I am not going to be a predecessor to anyone, if you fight me than there won't be any stars left after i am gone!
And some mid-tier option like dumping asteroids on planets would also be nice.
Dumping asteroids into a planet will always be the most efficient way to destroy it. Even with amazing super sci fi planetary defenses, there is only so much you can do to a falling space rock. Or a bunch of them.
Yeah, bombing planets in space is weird, because the amount of kinetic energy you can generate vastly outstrips the amount needs to destroy an eco system. But nova beams are fun.
I would naturally assume that dumping a few missiles or other weapons would be far faster and energy efficient than carefully finding and altering asteroids towards a planet, especially if the planet was capable of rersisting bombardement in the first place. It's only in hard science with asteriods moving at near relativistic speeds that asteriods would be efficient. Soft science universes can usually detect large mass movements instantaneously and in Stellaris, planets are protected by bombardments by forcefields. Dumping asteriods instead of just straight up bombardment is just strange.
The physics of space and the relative speeds things in space make throwing physical matter really really really face super effective. Of course, this is science fiction and they can have any type of magic space tech they want to defend planets. But in the hardest sci-fi, throwing rocks at planets is more than enough damage to assure the ecosystem is devastated.
On May 25 2016 03:35 Plansix wrote: The physics of space and the relative speeds things in space make throwing physical matter really really really face super effective. Of course, this is science fiction and they can have any type of magic space tech they want to defend planets. But in the hardest sci-fi, throwing rocks at planets is more than enough damage to assure the ecosystem is devastated.
Kinda off-topic but your response just makes me have to link this. + Show Spoiler +
Rocks are NOT ‘free’, citizen.
Firstly, you must manoeuvre the Emperor’s naval vessel within the asteroid belt, almost assuredly sustaining damage to the Emperor’s ship’s paint from micrometeoroids, while expending the Emperor’s fuel.
Then the Tech Priests must inspect the rock in question to ascertain its worthiness to do the Emperor’s bidding. Should it pass muster, the Emperor’s Servitors must use the Emperor’s auto-scrapers and melta-cutters to prepare the potential ordinance for movement. Finally, the Tech Priests finished, the Emperor’s officers may begin manoeuvring the Emperor’s warship to abut the asteroid at the prepared face (expending yet more of the Emperor’s fuel), and then begin boosting the stone towards the offensive planet.
After a few days of expending a prodigious amount of the Emperor’s fuel to accelerate the asteroid into an orbit more fitting to the Emperor’s desires, the Emperor’s ship may then return to the planet via superluminous warp travel and await the arrival of the stone, still many weeks (or months) away.
After twiddling away the Emperor’s time and eating the Emperor’s food in the wasteful pursuit of making sure that the Emperor’s enemies do not launch a deflection mission, they may finally watch the ordinance impact the planet (assuming that the Emperor’s ship does not need to attempt any last-minute course correction upon the rock, using yet more of the Emperor’s fuel).
Given a typical (class Bravo-CVII) system, we have the following:
Two months, O&M, Titan class warship: 4.2 Million Imperials
Two months, rations, crew of same: 0.2 MI
Two months, Tech Priest pastor: 1.7 MI
Two months, Servitor parish: 0.3 MI
Paint, Titan class warship: 2.5 MI
Dihydrogen peroxide fuel: 0.9 MI
Total: 9.8 MI
Contrasted with the following:
5 warheads, magna-melta: 2.5 MI
One day, O&M, Titan class warship: 0.3 MI
One day, rations, crew of same: 0.0 MI
Dihydrogen peroxide fuel: 0.1 MI
Total: 2.9 MI
Given the same result with under one third of the cost, the Emperor will have saved a massive amount of His most sacred money and almost a full month of time, during which His warship may be bombarding an entirely different planet.
The Emperor, through this – His Office of Imperial Outlays – hereby orders you to attend one (1) week of therapeutic accountancy training/penance. Please report to Areicon IV, Imperial City, Administratum Building CXXI, Room 1456, where you are to sit in the BLUE chair.
On May 25 2016 03:35 Plansix wrote: The physics of space and the relative speeds things in space make throwing physical matter really really really face super effective. Of course, this is science fiction and they can have any type of magic space tech they want to defend planets. But in the hardest sci-fi, throwing rocks at planets is more than enough damage to assure the ecosystem is devastated.
In Halo MAC's fire a few hundred tons of tungsten carbide/ depleted uranium at a fraction of the speed of light, shit is tight
On May 25 2016 03:13 Plansix wrote: Dumping asteroids into a planet will always be the most efficient way to destroy it. Even with amazing super sci fi planetary defenses, there is only so much you can do to a falling space rock. Or a bunch of them.
Yeah, bombing planets in space is weird, because the amount of kinetic energy you can generate vastly outstrips the amount needs to destroy an eco system. But nova beams are fun.
There's already a special event where asteroids can damage your planet. I could see say in midgame you could use a construction or science ship to tow an asteroid (they have references this to being done) from the belt or w/e if available and using it to smash an enemy planet.
People joke about that stuff, but it would provide real topography to the invasions if you had to secure asteroid belts so your planets couldn’t be bombarded. That you can blockade a planet, but the invasion would be super costly, so you just start to build a fat sublight drive on the back of a huge rock.
Or you know, you can just drop 5 magna-melta warheads and save the Emperor's time and money. Like I wrote beforehand, if you can spend all that time and energy in altering the course of a suitable asteriod, you can spend a fraction of that energy just pointing the weapons on your spaceship that can travel between the stars in the appropriate direction.
On May 24 2016 15:42 DnameIN wrote: And speaking about purge mechanic. Does anyone have moral issues before hitting that button like me? It makes me feel like mass murderer...
Do have problems distinguishing between real life and a game? Well I guess you actually do hit the button so I guess not.
Hitting the button doesn't really make a difference. I'd hit the button even if it was in real life. On some days, purging the earth of all human life sounds great.
On May 25 2016 04:10 Dangermousecatdog wrote: Or you know, you can just drop 5 magna-melta warheads and save the Emperor's time and money. Like I wrote beforehand, if you can spend all that time and energy in altering the course of a suitable asteriod, you can spend a fraction of that energy just pointing the weapons on your spaceship that can travel between the stars in the appropriate direction.
I think you vastly over estimate the amount of energy and effort required to make something go super fast in space and slam into a planet. Its already going super fast around the sun and gravity does most of it. You just got to give it some constant thrust in the right direction to get it into a intercept orbit. Lots of asteroids have ice on them, which is basically fuel if you mastered faster than light travel.
The amount of effort required is less than dropping the nukes, since the rocks are free. And you don't need to get near the planet. And blowing up the rock isn't a great solution either, since that just makes smaller rocks.
On May 25 2016 04:10 Dangermousecatdog wrote: Or you know, you can just drop 5 magna-melta warheads and save the Emperor's time and money. Like I wrote beforehand, if you can spend all that time and energy in altering the course of a suitable asteriod, you can spend a fraction of that energy just pointing the weapons on your spaceship that can travel between the stars in the appropriate direction.
I think you vastly over estimate the amount of energy and effort required to make something go super fast in space and slam into a planet. Its already going super fast around the sun and gravity does most of it. You just got to give it some constant thrust in the right direction to get it into a intercept orbit. Lots of asteroids have ice on them, which is basically fuel if you mastered faster than light travel.
The amount of effort required is less than dropping the nukes, since the rocks are free. And you don't need to get near the planet. And blowing up the rock isn't a great solution either, since that just makes smaller rocks.
Yes throwing an asteroid at an undefended planet is incredibly easy for an advanced space faring civilization.
But then they could destroy the inhabitants in a million other ways for very little cost (an advanced space faring civilization has access to many worlds full of resources). Ways that take far less time or leave the planet usable in a short time, unless an extinction level meteor strike.
Once the world in question has also managed advanced space flight you need to defend the asteroid and then your cheaper off just bombing the shit out of them.
I know, the idea of throwing asteroids at someone is amazing but the simply reality is that there is no practical scenario in which it is the best option.
If you get into the logistics of moving mass around in space, it all of depends on setting and tech scales. If you are in star trek where tech is basically magical, sure, it’s a waste of time. But if the world is more “hard sci-fi”, then using mass already in the system makes more sense than building everything and dragging it there.
On May 25 2016 04:10 Dangermousecatdog wrote: Or you know, you can just drop 5 magna-melta warheads and save the Emperor's time and money. Like I wrote beforehand, if you can spend all that time and energy in altering the course of a suitable asteriod, you can spend a fraction of that energy just pointing the weapons on your spaceship that can travel between the stars in the appropriate direction.
I think you vastly over estimate the amount of energy and effort required to make something go super fast in space and slam into a planet. Its already going super fast around the sun and gravity does most of it. You just got to give it some constant thrust in the right direction to get it into a intercept orbit. Lots of asteroids have ice on them, which is basically fuel if you mastered faster than light travel.
The amount of effort required is less than dropping the nukes, since the rocks are free. And you don't need to get near the planet. And blowing up the rock isn't a great solution either, since that just makes smaller rocks.
Yes, but my think is this. Space faring civilisation. Both of you have master FTL travel. First you have to find an asteroid. Then you have to attach suitable engines and control systems, if you have them available on your spaceships. Then you have to wait a certain amount of time before the asteriod hits the offending planet. Lets say it doesn't take a lot of energy. It will certainly take effort. Alternatively, this FTL space civilisation with the power and technology to move asteriods can point its weapons at the offending planet, with exactly the same effect, but saving time and effort and most importantly the attention of the player.
Why would warships have the expertise to do attach engine and control systems on an asteriod anyways? Having to use science ships would be an interesting game mechanic but I digress. What it would take is unneccessarily complicated game mechanics or immersion breaking game mechanics to throw an asteriod around. Which is why games usually shy away from such, unless it is literally clicking a button and the effect occurs. Which actually i would be happy about, since it would have exactly the same effect as just asking your fleet to bombard a planet.
Edit: The setting is Stellaris. I don't care about other settings. If it is hard sci fi, then we can't travel FTL anyways. In the Stellaris setting, throwing asteriods around don't make much sense. You can already bombard and destroy planetary forcefields. You can already bombard and accidently kill pops and buildings and tiles. Why can't you just do it purposefully? It's just wierd and feels like one of many missing features.
On May 25 2016 04:10 Dangermousecatdog wrote: Or you know, you can just drop 5 magna-melta warheads and save the Emperor's time and money. Like I wrote beforehand, if you can spend all that time and energy in altering the course of a suitable asteriod, you can spend a fraction of that energy just pointing the weapons on your spaceship that can travel between the stars in the appropriate direction.
I think you vastly over estimate the amount of energy and effort required to make something go super fast in space and slam into a planet. Its already going super fast around the sun and gravity does most of it. You just got to give it some constant thrust in the right direction to get it into a intercept orbit. Lots of asteroids have ice on them, which is basically fuel if you mastered faster than light travel.
The amount of effort required is less than dropping the nukes, since the rocks are free. And you don't need to get near the planet. And blowing up the rock isn't a great solution either, since that just makes smaller rocks.
Yes, but my think is this. Space faring civilisation. Both of you have master FTL travel. First you have to find an asteroid. Then you have to attach suitable engines and control systems, if you have them available on your spaceships. Then you have to wait a certain amount of time before the asteriod hits the offending planet. Lets say it doesn't take a lot of energy. It will certainly take effort. Alternatively, this FTL space civilisation with the power and technology to move asteriods can point its weapons at the offending planet, with exactly the same effect, but saving time and effort and most importantly the attention of the player.
Why would warships have the expertise to do attach engine and control systems on an asteriod anyways? Having to use science ships would be an interesting game mechanic but I digress. What it would take is unneccessarily complicated game mechanics or immersion breaking game mechanics to throw an asteriod around. Which is why games usually shy away from such, unless it is literally clicking a button and the effect occurs. Which actually i would be happy about, since it would have exactly the same effect as just asking your fleet to bombard a planet.
Edit: The setting is Stellaris. I don't care about other settings. If it is hard sci fi, then we can't travel FTL anyways. In the Stellaris setting, throwing asteriods around don't make much sense. You can already bombard and destroy planetary forcefields. You can already bombard and accidently kill pops and buildings and tiles. Why can't you just do it purposefully? It's just wierd and feels like one of many missing features.
But that is one of the root problems with space games, that they treat space like a vast nothing with nothing worth fighting over expect a resource blip. Or planets that you can bombard until the end of time, never running out of bombs. But in reality, any solar system would have numerous areas that would be worth controlling, from asteroid belts to space stations do any number of things, including just refine water(it is easier to refine water from space ice in space than lift it off a planet)
Of course I am not expecting that level of details, but adding terrain features is how other Paradox games keep the battles from becoming blob vs blob. Having an asteroid belt that could be used for long range bombardment if controlled by a fleet is interesting if planets are able to fight back against fleets. Treating space ships as these self contained perfect problem solvers sort of limits the games depth. And not thinking about this stuff sort of robs the game of texture. Of course, translating that into the game's resources is another challenge.
Also, any warship’s crew could fit an asteroid with an engine and simple control system. How to move a big object is space is literally the job description of any pilot or space engineer. Forget moving asteroids, if they had a damaged ship that lost its drive, they would need to find a way to repair move it.
The biggest problem with asteroids is still the time needed. You click bombard. Ships move to asteroid, 1 game minute, rig something up, 30s, send it on its way and it hits 2 min later. You just added 3:30 to the action of bombarding things.
Something that would be interesting would be a preliminary bombardment before declaring war. The detection of those asteroids being on the way in being the declaration of war. That way you lose no time inside of the war and have a bigger advantage for declaring war. To balance it it would change the planet environment making it uninhabitable for 5 years, remove all improvements, create debris on random places and of course kill everybody on it if it actually hits.
I don't think they need to go that crazy. Well they could and that would be cool. I just want there to be more character to each system. I want to be thinking about "well I want those minerals in that system and that really good planet, but I need to defend that belt. If an enemy posts up shop there, they will be able to bomb me into paste." Right now, they are sort of characterless voids.
On May 25 2016 06:25 Plansix wrote: I don't think they need to go that crazy. Well they could and that would be cool. I just want there to be more character to each system. I want to be thinking about "well I want those minerals in that system and that really good planet, but I need to defend that belt. If an enemy posts up shop there, they will be able to bomb me into paste." Right now, they are sort of characterless voids.
I still don't get it.
Player A sets up in an asteroid field and starts to throw rocks Player B moves to his planet to defend.
If fleet A > fleet B he is better of fighting at the planet and then bombing because defending against asteroids is easy if B > A he will simply drive him from the asteroid field, or if that is dangerous because of the asteroid field it becomes a stalemate. if A=B its a stalemate.
What is gained here in mechanics and enjoyment of the game? The fact that a smaller fleet can keep a bigger one occupied? The threat of ordinary bombing does that just as well.
Asteroid fields, nebula's ect could have combat effects to spice things up, I can get behind that but what does the whole asteroid throwing add? I dont see it.
I just used it as an example. But personally, I don’t like that fleets can operate in enemy space so cheaply and bombarding endlessly is at no additional cost. I think they should rip through energy if they are going to bomb a planet. The logistics of sending ships and crew across the vastness of space with enough ordnance to level a planet just seems to easy to plan, without enough consideration. And not costing a lot. Even in Civ 5, I still need to some thought into how I am going to break a city. So space rocks are cheaper, because you don't have to send bombs across space and time.
But that might be to much. But I just want more texture out of the systems in general. To look at them and think “I can set up shop here and defend easily”. The same goes for invasions.
On May 25 2016 07:08 Plansix wrote: I just used it as an example. But personally, I don’t like that fleets can operate in enemy space so cheaply and bombarding endlessly is at no additional cost. I think they should rip through energy if they are going to bomb a planet. The logistics of sending ships and crew across the vastness of space with enough ordnance to level a planet just seems to easy to plan, without enough consideration. And not costing a lot. Even in Civ 5, I still need to some thought into how I am going to break a city. So space rocks are cheaper, because you don't have to send bombs across space and time.
But that might be to much. But I just want more texture out of the systems in general. To look at them and think “I can set up shop here and defend easily”. The same goes for invasions.
The cost of operating a fleet is the increase in energy from paying full upkeep. Unlike in orbit where you pay less then half. You can argue costs are to low but I've seen plenty of people already complain that their fleets cant leave orbit without going bankrupt.
And the logistics? I'm sorry but a set of bombs capable of leveling a continent can probably fit in the janitors storage locker. Not to mention stable reactors + energy weapons = nigh unlimited ammo.
And the damage you do during a bombardment is hilariously low in game. Count the number of days your throwing bombs and then consider how much damage an interstellar fleet could do in those days.
ps I don't remember having to refuel my guns during a siege in Civ 5. I just shoot at the city from outside its range every turn until its dead and then walk a token infantry unit in.
well to play devil's advocate spaceships are a lot smaller targets and weaponry is arguably optimized for space combat rather than orbital bombardment covering some huge amount of surface area. weaponry is designed to destroy a small, hardened target vs a ginormous relativelly soft one. i do think its a little silly you can shoot missiles like 60 units but have to get into orbit of a planet to hit it.
On May 25 2016 07:08 Plansix wrote: I just used it as an example. But personally, I don’t like that fleets can operate in enemy space so cheaply and bombarding endlessly is at no additional cost. I think they should rip through energy if they are going to bomb a planet. The logistics of sending ships and crew across the vastness of space with enough ordnance to level a planet just seems to easy to plan, without enough consideration. And not costing a lot. Even in Civ 5, I still need to some thought into how I am going to break a city. So space rocks are cheaper, because you don't have to send bombs across space and time.
But that might be to much. But I just want more texture out of the systems in general. To look at them and think “I can set up shop here and defend easily”. The same goes for invasions.
The cost of operating a fleet is the increase in energy from paying full upkeep. Unlike in orbit where you pay less then half. You can argue costs are to low but I've seen plenty of people already complain that their fleets cant leave orbit without going bankrupt.
And the logistics? I'm sorry but a set of bombs capable of leveling a continent can probably fit in the janitors storage locker. Not to mention stable reactors + energy weapons = nigh unlimited ammo.
And the damage you do during a bombardment is hilariously low in game. Count the number of days your throwing bombs and then consider how much damage an interstellar fleet could do in those days.
ps I don't remember having to refuel my guns during a siege in Civ 5. I just shoot at the city from outside its range every turn until its dead and then walk a token infantry unit in.
Yes, and as I have stated previously, I find the sci-fi future of self sufficient space ships that can operate endlessly in space and have unlimited ammo to be super boring and removes a lot of the texture of space travel. I don’t need to manually reload my ships, but the concepts of cutting off a fleet from supplies is more interesting, even of that just increases their operating costs. Right now, space combat is blob vs blob, which is fine. But I want more.
Also planets not being able to shoot at ships is just fucking weird. It was weird in MoO2 and its weird here. A planet is just a really big space ship, but it only orbits the sun. That thing should be shooting at a fleet the instant it arrives in system.
I agree that the combat lacks depth. A result of choosing for map based fights in real time. Sins of a Solar Empire suffers from similar problems tho at least there ability micro adds some spice to it.
I don't see how to easily fix it tho (aside from ability micro) because of the lack of precision fleet control combined with their size. If you were to add an asteroid field on the system map you can't really camp out in it with the current control scheme.
I would probably overhaul the controls so you can allow for things like flanks and disengage movements to create a move fluid battlefield where you can then add in more 'terrain' effects.
The lack of planet defense is indeed a bummer but in general defense is terrible. Station firepower/hitpoints are non-existent past the early game and even a small raiding fleet of a few corvettes will run over any station defense.
(and MoO2 had planet based defense (missiles/Fighers/Guns, even a stellar converter at the end) tho they only worked if your planet was directly attacked (a range issue no doubt).
We mastered space travel across the void by bending space and time. But for some reason, we didn’t figure out how to shoot shit from our planets at ships coming to kill us. The place best equipped to hold the most weaponry and upkeep it, but we only designed weapons that can shoot at point blank range.
On May 25 2016 07:46 Plansix wrote: My biggest beef with space 4X games.
We mastered space travel across the void by bending space and time. But for some reason, we didn’t figure out how to shoot shit from our planets at ships coming to kill us. The place best equipped to hold the most weaponry and upkeep it, but we only designed weapons that can shoot at point blank range.
Oh MoO2, your shadow is large and deep.
Shooting a laser of multiple AU's? I can see that being beyond a space faring civilization. Missiles are your only real option for ranges like that and then your likely running into large amounts of PD.
On May 25 2016 07:46 Plansix wrote: My biggest beef with space 4X games.
We mastered space travel across the void by bending space and time. But for some reason, we didn’t figure out how to shoot shit from our planets at ships coming to kill us. The place best equipped to hold the most weaponry and upkeep it, but we only designed weapons that can shoot at point blank range.
Oh MoO2, your shadow is large and deep.
Shooting a laser of multiple AU's? I can see that being beyond a space faring civilization. Missiles are your only real option for ranges like that and then your likely running into large amounts of PD.
No, your main option is some kind of slug that you fire at relativistic speeds using your bend time/space technology that destroys things with kinetic energy.
On May 25 2016 07:46 Plansix wrote: My biggest beef with space 4X games.
We mastered space travel across the void by bending space and time. But for some reason, we didn’t figure out how to shoot shit from our planets at ships coming to kill us. The place best equipped to hold the most weaponry and upkeep it, but we only designed weapons that can shoot at point blank range.
Oh MoO2, your shadow is large and deep.
Shooting a laser of multiple AU's? I can see that being beyond a space faring civilization. Missiles are your only real option for ranges like that and then your likely running into large amounts of PD.
No, your main option is some kind of slug that you fire at relativistic speeds using your bend time/space technology that destroys things with kinetic energy.
Warpdrive doesnt work in the gravity well. Not an option. Jump drive doesnt work in the gravity well Hyperlane drive doesnt work in system
I love Stellaris and I don't really think combat itself is a big problem even though it is a little shallow. What IS a big problem, imo, is the amount of decisions that aren't really decisions when it comes to empire building. Pretty much all of infrastructure development comes down to, 'should I build a mining/research station or upgrade my buildings now or a little later', which sucks bigtime. There should be bigger trade-offs attached to choosing what to do with the 'perks' the systems you control provide, like building a mining station might potentially block you from developing a colony (but then the mining station itself is something you can develop and upgrade into something big to compensate for that); or a research station around a black hole could potentially unleash some minor cataclysm, or whatever etc. When they mentioned the crisis system I was really hoping Paradox would at least try to recreate a line between safe but less effective exploitation of whatever resources and a more aggressive but dangerous way to do stuff -- to the point where entire planets and star systems could be rendered useless in favor of big short-term returns.
I also really dislike how... crowded the whole galaxy feels, which is partly a result of the weak and boring non-decision development system, I think. Colonizable planets are too common, resource nodes are too common, strategic resources are while a nice touch, somewhat bland because the bonuses are realistically too limited in how they can be used (for example the ship buffs are a great idea but having like 5 units of a strategic resource in the entire galaxy really limits its usefulness, much better to have each node provide several units of the resource at once and make the benefit empire-wide but a little weaker, thus encouraging trade of the said resources). I would love to play galaxies that are 1000+ star in size, but have the number of planets you see in like a 400 or even smaller galaxy, same for resource nodes (albeit beefed up in power). That would make exploration more important, territory control more of a thing and stuff like wormhole drives less overpowered (as you wouldn't be able to just go basically across two empires out of a single WH station).
A lot of those things can actually be done via mods I guess and that's something I'll be looking at after the patch hits but yeah. The game is solid starting platform but definitely can become much more interesting with further polish and balancing.
So I only now realize that I can build a Frontier Outpost in the territory of my vassals. As soon as it is built, the system is available to survey: I can find new anomalies, and even if a planet was red before (type was known but unavailable to colonize since not in my territory), it becomes grey as if I never knew its type. It becomes red again after the survey because it's still not in my territory, even if the zone on the map is striped with my color and my vassal's. However, I can build stations (mining/research) and the production is mine, so it's very weird.
EDIT: And in the case the system becomes entirely in your territory after building the outpost, you have to survey everything, even to build stations... how the hell does that work
That said, it really sucks that I can't survey systems in my vassals' territories...
Also, from the very beginning of this game, I have a mission to find 6 artifacts (Precursors - The Cybrex) and there is no option to track the artifacts I didn't find. I got 3 very early, but I am still missing 3. I own 109 colonies, and my vassals got a total of 80~ colonies. I'm not sure if it's possible to know the total of systems, but it's obviously a lot more, and I still have no idea where are the last 3 artifacts ans if I need to survey a system to find them. What if they are somewhere in my vassal system, how would I know?
On May 25 2016 22:20 Yhamm wrote: So I only now realize that I can build a Frontier Outpost in the territory of my vassals. As soon as it is built, the system is available to survey: I can find new anomalies, and even if a planet was red before (type was known but unavailable to colonize since not in my territory), it becomes grey as if I never knew its type. It becomes red again after the survey because it's still not in my territory, even if the zone on the map is striped with my color and my vassal's. However, I can build stations (mining/research) and the production is mine, so it's very weird.
That said, it really sucks that I can't survey systems in my vassals' territories...
Also, from the very beginning of this game, I have a mission to find 6 artifacts (Precursors - The Cybrex) and there is no option to track the artifacts I didn't find. I got 3 very early, but I am still missing 3. I own 109 colonies, and my vassals got a total of 80~ colonies. I'm not sure if it's possible to know the total of systems, but it's obviously a lot more, and I still have no idea where are the last 3 artifacts ans if I need to survey a system to find them. What if they are somewhere in my vassal system, how would I know?
Yeah its a problem I ran into aswell. The reason you cant survey vassal systems btw is that you already have the survey info from the first border range tech. It has a second function to give survey data from allies. If you never research that tech you can survey to your hearts content. its really stupid ><
Today: Premiere World-Devestating Weapon: Various kinds of nuclear weapons. Yield per: 0.1-100 Megatons Yield of global stockpile: ~5000 MT
Star Trek: Photon Torpedo Yield: 64 Megatons Typical UFP Ship holds 200 torps Total Yield: 12,800 MT
Throwing a Rock at Shit: 1 Ceres mass (biggest rock in asteroid belt): 900 exagrams = 9*10^20 kg Velocity necessary to equal Voyager torpedo load: less than a meter a second.
Of course the real point is that you need to impart massive energy in order to move such an object. The energy comes from your engines (and maybe tractor beam?) in one case, while it comes from your weapons tech in the other. Honestly, it seems to me that dragging an asteroid around would generally be pretty cumbersome (would take forever to get to target). Easier to show up and nuke the place from orbit.
Incidentally, this was one thing that always bothered me about the Death Star. A single Star Destroyer (orders of magnitude larger and more powerful than any Star Trek ship) could easily anihilate all life on a planet's surface just with indiscriminate bombardment. (which basically happens in KotOR). I guess blowing up the planet itself is just good shock and awe.
But you see, the asteroid already has all the energy stored it in. It is in orbit and is moving. All you need to do is alter that orbit to meet the planet, which requires a lot less energy because there is no resistance and the distances in space are huge.
It has been talked to death, but you are right that the energy levels are huge.
The death star is really dumb. Super weapons in sci-fi should shoot from beyond the system they are in to destroy a planet. That is what would make them super.
On May 26 2016 01:53 Plansix wrote: But you see, the asteroid already has all the energy stored it in. It is in orbit and is moving. All you need to do is alter that orbit to meet the planet, which requires a lot less energy because there is no resistance and the distances in space are huge.
It has been talked to death, but you are right that the energy levels are huge.
The death star is really dumb. Super weapons in sci-fi should shoot from beyond the system they are in to destroy a planet. That is what would make them super.
Time is the enormous factor in 'just shift its orbit to collide with the planet'. I don't want to bomb them 3 years from now. I want them dead by tomorrow.
On May 26 2016 01:53 Plansix wrote: But you see, the asteroid already has all the energy stored it in. It is in orbit and is moving. All you need to do is alter that orbit to meet the planet, which requires a lot less energy because there is no resistance and the distances in space are huge.
It has been talked to death, but you are right that the energy levels are huge.
The death star is really dumb. Super weapons in sci-fi should shoot from beyond the system they are in to destroy a planet. That is what would make them super.
Time is the enormous factor in 'just shift its orbit to collide with the planet'. I don't want to bomb them 3 years from now. I want them dead by tomorrow.
It would take about the same amount of time for the ship to travel to the planet and bomb it. The ship is in orbit too and it isn’t going to go that much faster than the asteroid unless it has some sort of magic space drive on it that allows it to ignore physics.
I have a question: Is there a option to make aliances/confederations visable on the map? Having to switch between the diplomacy menu and the galaxyscreen ist really annoying
On May 26 2016 01:53 Plansix wrote: But you see, the asteroid already has all the energy stored it in. It is in orbit and is moving. All you need to do is alter that orbit to meet the planet, which requires a lot less energy because there is no resistance and the distances in space are huge.
It has been talked to death, but you are right that the energy levels are huge.
The death star is really dumb. Super weapons in sci-fi should shoot from beyond the system they are in to destroy a planet. That is what would make them super.
Time is the enormous factor in 'just shift its orbit to collide with the planet'. I don't want to bomb them 3 years from now. I want them dead by tomorrow.
It would take about the same amount of time for the ship to travel to the planet and bomb it. The ship is in orbit too and it isn’t going to go that much faster than the asteroid unless it has some sort of magic space drive on it that allows it to ignore physics.
For an asteroid legitimately in orbit, sure. Like, I suppose moving Phobos to hit Mars wouldn't be inconceivable. But a lot of planets have nothing like that near them. Say you wanted to hit Earth... that would actually be quite a chore.
On May 26 2016 01:53 Plansix wrote: But you see, the asteroid already has all the energy stored it in. It is in orbit and is moving. All you need to do is alter that orbit to meet the planet, which requires a lot less energy because there is no resistance and the distances in space are huge.
It has been talked to death, but you are right that the energy levels are huge.
The death star is really dumb. Super weapons in sci-fi should shoot from beyond the system they are in to destroy a planet. That is what would make them super.
Time is the enormous factor in 'just shift its orbit to collide with the planet'. I don't want to bomb them 3 years from now. I want them dead by tomorrow.
It would take about the same amount of time for the ship to travel to the planet and bomb it. The ship is in orbit too and it isn’t going to go that much faster than the asteroid unless it has some sort of magic space drive on it that allows it to ignore physics.
For an asteroid legitimately in orbit, sure. Like, I suppose moving Phobos to hit Mars wouldn't be inconceivable. But a lot of planets have nothing like that near them. Say you wanted to hit Earth... that would actually be quite a chore.
All things orbit the sun at alarming speeds. Even a ship that is moving through space orbits the sun or a thing orbiting the sun. To bring something closer to the sun, you just need to slow it down to change the orbit. In the world where faster than light travel is possible, that task is trivial. We would have already developed that tech to create space station, since building them out of material on a planet would be really inefficient. You can't mine minerals from space if you can't move the asteroid around. Space is a weird place and orbital mechanics are hard to wrap our brains around.
Of course, this is startrek style sci-fi, so the tech is crazy and somewhat magic. Still, I want to have the option to destroy ecosystems with one big rock.
On May 26 2016 01:53 Plansix wrote: But you see, the asteroid already has all the energy stored it in. It is in orbit and is moving. All you need to do is alter that orbit to meet the planet, which requires a lot less energy because there is no resistance and the distances in space are huge.
It has been talked to death, but you are right that the energy levels are huge.
The death star is really dumb. Super weapons in sci-fi should shoot from beyond the system they are in to destroy a planet. That is what would make them super.
Time is the enormous factor in 'just shift its orbit to collide with the planet'. I don't want to bomb them 3 years from now. I want them dead by tomorrow.
It would take about the same amount of time for the ship to travel to the planet and bomb it. The ship is in orbit too and it isn’t going to go that much faster than the asteroid unless it has some sort of magic space drive on it that allows it to ignore physics.
For an asteroid legitimately in orbit, sure. Like, I suppose moving Phobos to hit Mars wouldn't be inconceivable. But a lot of planets have nothing like that near them. Say you wanted to hit Earth... that would actually be quite a chore.
Depends... You want a hit now and here? Have fun... The amount of energy you would need to alter some asteroids orbit for that is completely unrealistic. Would be better spend by just bringing your spaceship over here and dropping some bombs with a similar energy load.
But if you just want to hit Earth.... and don't care if it takes a couple of years... It can be done with indeed little energy investment, by just having minor adjustments on the course of some nearly intercepting asteroids.
But Plansix is just hopping from one idea to the other back and forth, as it fits his argument better. Either you have a huge energy investment (and not at all comparable to moving a spaceship over) to get your desired effect, or you do it with a low investment, but than it takes ages for the asteroid to hit its target.
All this just because I want to raze a planet at a click of a button.
No I don't want to wait 3 in game years to collateral damage a pop, nor do I want a complicated nonsensical game mechanic to do the same thing only that I have to be lucky enough to be in an appropriate system and wait 3 years to guard an asteroid.
It's quite simple. The energy and expertise expenditure to change the course of an asteroid, assuming that said system do have asteroids is vastly above the abilty of any warship to bombard the planet underneath it's own weapons in-universe. There is no reason for a cumbersome game mechanic that diverting an asteriod would entail.
I don’t want to play Kerbel in this game, so I don’t’ know why you keep claiming I do. I just want dooms day tech to level planets, including the one where you drop an rock on them. I want to fly to a system, press a button and have a countdown say “in for months, this planet is ruined by this rock”. People keep saying it would be inefficient or take a lot of energy, like they would be towing the asteroid like a car. But that isn’t really how shit in space moves and I am just pointing that out.
And any system with planets would have asteroids of sufficient size. Asteroids are the byproduct of planets forming. And the tech to move large bodies in space with low energy cost would be developed long before FTL. The resources in space are the only reason to go up there.
On May 26 2016 05:08 Plansix wrote: I don’t want to play Kerbel in this game, so I don’t’ know why you keep claiming I do. I just want dooms day tech to level planets, including the one where you drop an rock on them. I want to fly to a system, press a button and have a countdown say “in for months, this planet is ruined by this rock”. People keep saying it would be inefficient or take a lot of energy, like they would be towing the asteroid like a car. But that isn’t really how shit in space moves and I am just pointing that out.
And any system with planets would have asteroids of sufficient size. Asteroids are the byproduct of planets forming. And the tech to move large bodies in space with low energy cost would be developed long before FTL. The resources in space are the only reason to go up there.
I agree with you for humanoid and most other types of races in Stellaris.
There are edge cases in Sci Fi that wouldn't care about Asteroid movement since they can't get to space at all but have the intelligence to develop physics and math to FTL level. A book series I read recently has a race develop on an Europa (moon of Jupiter) analogue where they have to develop the theories for the theories for the theories just to get material to make the first tool. A race like that could solve FTL before moving large masses since both are academic exercises with no real point to them. There are plenty of other scenarios involving a second intelligent race donating FTL but not large mass movement through an existing star gate system or reverse engineering a broken ship.
1) The most elegant system you can think of is still rather inelegant. You still need to babysit a rock for an indeterminable amount of time to make sure the opposing empire simply doesn't fly in and destroy the asteriod with a ship. Or maybe the asteriod is fast and tough enough, in which case it would be a rather unenjoyable game mechanic when a single ship can fly round systems and start slinging purging asteriods in every system and you have to play hunt the asteriods in addition to the hunt the fleet game that stellaris is already. You might as well allow purposeful bombardment, which would be a better game mechanic to kill pops and buildings.
2) It IS inefficient. If you can travel FTL and bombard a planet, why would you do things the hard, slow way and not just...bombard the planet? You already have the missile/energy/projectile weapons on your spaceship. You are already in orbit. Why expend unneccessary delta-V to alter the course of an asteriod? And at the cost of more time
3) It creates a immersion breaking disreptancy between hard and soft sci-fi. A hard sci-fi asteriod bombardment is totally at odds with the soft sci-fi that Stellaris is. You can make it a high tech level, which destroys your argument that it is low energy, or you can make it a low tech option, which would make for poor gameplay anyhow and raises uncomfortable discreptancies.
4)No one is arguing that the tech to move large bodies in space wouldn't exist. The problem is why would warships have the machinery to do so? To use an analogy, modern warships have the abilty to move large masses (themselves) across vast bodies of water and to propel shells or missiles vast distance with resonable accuracy at high speeds and damage. What they don't have is the ability to have appropriate spare engines and control systems lying around in their cargo bays (or equivalent) to move flotsam around, nor the people on board with the neccesary expertise on board to do so even if they desired to do so.
4 months in the game isn’t that long and of course you would defend your planet killing asteroid with your space fleet. You are there to kill planets and this is how you get that shit done forever. And it would be WAY more effective that bombarding. This is ecosystem destroying levels of scorched earth we are talking about. And of course at some point it would be outdated by tech. But dropping big rocks on planets is a time honored tradition of both hard and soft sci-fi.
Dooms day weapons that level planets are not interesting if you can just do it with the press of a button, instantly. Even the death star had a countdown, custom fit to the pace of the movie. Make the dooms day weapons of all flavors have count downs, because it lets people respond and leads to great moments in games.
I would also settle for a gravity weapon that snaps the moon in half, crippling the economy of the planet for 100 years while they try to clean it up. Because I read Seven Eves and I want to ruin a moon.
you know whats immersion breaking? having weapons that fire 60 units (like... a fifth of the solar system, complete guess) at small moving targets with reasonable accuracy but having to get into orbit to hit a planet.
On May 26 2016 12:00 ticklishmusic wrote: you know whats immersion breaking? having weapons that fire 60 units (like... a fifth of the solar system, complete guess) at small moving targets with reasonable accuracy but having to get into orbit to hit a planet.
That is immersion breaking for you? Not the fact that the later ships have like half the size of the sun? Or does any other proportion in this game is completely "wrong"?
On June 29 2016 00:30 Talaris wrote: Thanks, time to undust it
PS: Did they implement more midgame events like they said at launch ? can't find it in the patchnotes ?_?
in the banner in the forumpost it says something akin to diplomatic incidents etc. I guess those would be the events
First long playtest:
Never had such a event, you still have the "downtime".
What's the biggest problem of the update is the fact, that the A.I. is seriously confused by the ability to wage war togeather with a empire that is not in an alliance. The A.I. tries to use this feature practically at every war they want to wage, but they often ask empires who are not interessted (A.I. - A.I. behaviour) or they dont give the player anything he wants/needs (ask for a large war and only wants to give "humilation" to the player instead of planets or gains). If you (or a A.I.) nation says "veto no" to the request, it still takes 120 days till the request if off the table, often followed by the very same request again and again. This leads to stronger A.I. nations never attack their wanted target because other nations do not want to help them dismantel this small nation.
Even A.I. mods like enhanced A.I. (which was a really good A.I. mod in 1.1. and made the game great again) have problems with it.
Started playing recently. There are a ton of planets/populations that i'd like to burn to the ground but i don't seem to have the options for:
one planet that i colonized had some natives, i eventually let some of them work for me. Shortly afterwards they decided to rebel, shutting down their output and reducing the output of the rest of the planet by 40%, occasionally killing people and destroying things. They have like 4 out of 20 pop on the planet and are just ruining everything. I bought out their influence to 0% but it didn't do much, just a waste of a huge % of my energy credits
another empire was one that i took over because i couldn't figure out how to just kill everyone, i made the additional planets into a sector because it broke my economy immediately but all of them seemed to strike and not give me any money. Shortly after they rebelled and occupied all of the planets, declaring war on me and then winning a planet back when i didn't send a huge ground army fast enough
My government is fanatic militarist. How do i kill everyone and get this over with :D
The lack of good planetary bombardment designed to remove all life on a planet is an often mentioned problem. Conquering an incompatible alien race is a big pain in the ass, if not downright crippeling.
Assuming it wasn't fixed in a patch slavery is the go to solution. Create a race that gets 100% slavery tolerance and just enslave all aliens, preventing them from rebelling and messing things up.
On July 16 2016 17:09 Cyro wrote: Started playing recently. There are a ton of planets/populations that i'd like to burn to the ground but i don't seem to have the options for:
one planet that i colonized had some natives, i eventually let some of them work for me. Shortly afterwards they decided to rebel, shutting down their output and reducing the output of the rest of the planet by 40%, occasionally killing people and destroying things. They have like 4 out of 20 pop on the planet and are just ruining everything. I bought out their influence to 0% but it didn't do much, just a waste of a huge % of my energy credits
another empire was one that i took over because i couldn't figure out how to just kill everyone, i made the additional planets into a sector because it broke my economy immediately but all of them seemed to strike and not give me any money. Shortly after they rebelled and occupied all of the planets, declaring war on me and then winning a planet back when i didn't send a huge ground army fast enough
My government is fanatic militarist. How do i kill everyone and get this over with :D
You need the Purge option. Go to check your government policies and see if you can get it. You should be able to just click on a pop and find something saying "Purge population" and then an additional question pops up if you want to purge all pops of a given species.
On July 16 2016 17:45 Gorsameth wrote: The lack of good planetary bombardment designed to remove all life on a planet is an often mentioned problem. Conquering an incompatible alien race is a big pain in the ass, if not downright crippling.
Assuming it wasn't fixed in a patch slavery is the go to solution. Create a race that gets 100% slavery tolerance and just enslave all aliens, preventing them from rebelling and messing things up.
I haven't had a lot of trouble with rebellions, but wouldn't a proper defensive army on every conquered planet do the job just as well, or would that not stop them every time?
On July 16 2016 17:45 Gorsameth wrote: The lack of good planetary bombardment designed to remove all life on a planet is an often mentioned problem. Conquering an incompatible alien race is a big pain in the ass, if not downright crippling.
Assuming it wasn't fixed in a patch slavery is the go to solution. Create a race that gets 100% slavery tolerance and just enslave all aliens, preventing them from rebelling and messing things up.
I haven't had a lot of trouble with rebellions, but wouldn't a proper defensive army on every conquered planet do the job just as well, or would that not stop them every time?
Enslaving pops often feel like a better use of them than Purging them as well.
or be fanatic spiritualist and simply brainwash them within a few years heh. I always forget that you need to be xenophone or collectivist to get the purging option. Would think fanatic Militarists would do that too.
Was worried after the happiness nerf in 1.2. But people with 0 happiness on the other side of the galaxy had negativ ethics divergence still. But I was lucky that my home planet was really close to the center of the map. And the open borders thing is not to bad, since you can't start colonies wherever you like.
Had a few political incidents, scientists trying to disprove teachings or me colonizing to close to a border. But the big end game disaster was a flop. We come to destroy you ... oops we are beaten. Was still a fun playthrough with inviting ai forces to a war, so not everyone hates you when you start one. And playing out the ai empires vs each other and supporting them with resources.
Was just a bit silly that i could spam ai empires with special resources trade deals so their opinion of me would sky rocket. That way you could instant vasalize recently liberated empires and integrate them later, without your threat level rising.
But yeah it helps if you conquer the 3 first races you meet, because your scientists found 2 destroyers floating in space.
On July 16 2016 17:45 Gorsameth wrote: The lack of good planetary bombardment designed to remove all life on a planet is an often mentioned problem. Conquering an incompatible alien race is a big pain in the ass, if not downright crippling.
Assuming it wasn't fixed in a patch slavery is the go to solution. Create a race that gets 100% slavery tolerance and just enslave all aliens, preventing them from rebelling and messing things up.
I haven't had a lot of trouble with rebellions, but wouldn't a proper defensive army on every conquered planet do the job just as well, or would that not stop them every time?
This. I completely ignore all the revolt meters, I just check where pops are unhappy and build defensive armies on those planets. When they revolt, you just win a battle and the planet is quiet for a while. You need about 1 army per unhappy pop, if you half-ass this, they will win and suddenly you've lost a planet.
On July 16 2016 17:45 Gorsameth wrote: The lack of good planetary bombardment designed to remove all life on a planet is an often mentioned problem. Conquering an incompatible alien race is a big pain in the ass, if not downright crippling.
Assuming it wasn't fixed in a patch slavery is the go to solution. Create a race that gets 100% slavery tolerance and just enslave all aliens, preventing them from rebelling and messing things up.
I haven't had a lot of trouble with rebellions, but wouldn't a proper defensive army on every conquered planet do the job just as well, or would that not stop them every time?
This. I completely ignore all the revolt meters, I just check where pops are unhappy and build defensive armies on those planets. When they revolt, you just win a battle and the planet is quiet for a while. You need about 1 army per unhappy pop, if you half-ass this, they will win and suddenly you've lost a planet.
Thats a lot of money spend (wasted) on upkeep if your taking over large empires.
On July 16 2016 17:45 Gorsameth wrote: The lack of good planetary bombardment designed to remove all life on a planet is an often mentioned problem. Conquering an incompatible alien race is a big pain in the ass, if not downright crippling.
Assuming it wasn't fixed in a patch slavery is the go to solution. Create a race that gets 100% slavery tolerance and just enslave all aliens, preventing them from rebelling and messing things up.
I haven't had a lot of trouble with rebellions, but wouldn't a proper defensive army on every conquered planet do the job just as well, or would that not stop them every time?
This. I completely ignore all the revolt meters, I just check where pops are unhappy and build defensive armies on those planets. When they revolt, you just win a battle and the planet is quiet for a while. You need about 1 army per unhappy pop, if you half-ass this, they will win and suddenly you've lost a planet.
Thats a lot of money spend (wasted) on upkeep if your taking over large empires.
It's not really an issue by that time. If the first 2-3 empires you conquer are incompatible, it will slow you down a bit, but you can use your offensive army if it really becomes a problem so early. I've played a lot of fanatic individualist and conquered like crazy, regardless of ethic. This is the only way I could think of to do it.
If you want to completely avoid the incompatible ethics problem without purging, you can just always use the liberate CB and diplo annex the liberated empires after they have converted most of their pops.
Planets in my sectors automatically build defensive armies, I don't have to do anything for that. I might put a few more on a planet that's contested by other empires or shows signs of rebellion in the early game, but I haven't bothered with anything like that for ages now.
What kind of annoys me is that the way they increase the difficulty is by adding arbitrary number penalties to some stuff like what happens in Civ5. I suppose making a credible AI is still too much of a problem. Maybe I should try the multiplayer thing, but I'm not sure if I can be bothered. Starcraft ruined my hands enough, and this seems about equally intensive in terms of APM if there is no pausing.
and this seems about equally intensive in terms of APM if there is no pausing.
I'm playing with a good friend and we're paused a lot. There's usually stuff for both people to do in pause
we saw a pretty funny bug earlier, one of the factions seemed to split into a bunch of tiny factions with different but similar names and then they all (all 60 of them) declared war on another faction simultaneously.
My first try on the game was not a pleasant experience. Got bored really fast.
Tried this weekend again and enjoyed more than the previous attempt. Either the patch works or I understood the gam,e better this time.
Picked the arid industry guys with elephant trunk. Invest on resources and early military a little bit to scare the neighbors. Vassalize my closest neighbor after I understand they'll not get along with me. 4-5 empires have similar strengths with me but it was fine.
A trigger has happened and I bought a fleet double the size of what I have from some nutjob aliens who loves to warp around without having any home. Then a serious energy shortage has occured and almost zeroed my puny reserves. Technology helped a lot to stabilize now I have around 40+ monthly energy income while all fleet is flying and 280+ mineral income.
Most issues I have with the influence since it is very hard to increase it with good numbers. I declare war and pick humiliate and change policy just to have some influence points(100 each).
Laserist, you need to declare rivalries, don't ally or protectorate too many people and make sure to grab the tech which increases monthly influence. In my current game I got 7 a month or something through those means.
On July 18 2016 22:20 Heartland wrote: Laserist, you need to declare rivalries, don't ally or protectorate too many people and make sure to grab the tech which increases monthly influence. In my current game I got 7 a month or something through those means.
I declared 2 already, got 4 frontier outpost which stings. Just released closest subject in order to achieve +1 influ.
Maybe I should be less liberal with my frontier outposts but it is very hard to resist extra incomez
On July 18 2016 22:20 Heartland wrote: Laserist, you need to declare rivalries, don't ally or protectorate too many people and make sure to grab the tech which increases monthly influence. In my current game I got 7 a month or something through those means.
I declared 2 already, got 4 frontier outpost which stings. Just released closest subject in order to achieve +1 influ.
Maybe I should be less liberal with my frontier outposts but it is very hard to resist extra incomez
a nice thing with frontier outposts is to put them in a sector. That way you do not pay the influence cost, but at the price of only getting 75% of resources.
On July 18 2016 22:20 Heartland wrote: Laserist, you need to declare rivalries, don't ally or protectorate too many people and make sure to grab the tech which increases monthly influence. In my current game I got 7 a month or something through those means.
On my main playthrough i didn't get those tech options. Second faction and i got them thrown at me 2-3 times very early in the game
On July 18 2016 22:20 Heartland wrote: Laserist, you need to declare rivalries, don't ally or protectorate too many people and make sure to grab the tech which increases monthly influence. In my current game I got 7 a month or something through those means.
I declared 2 already, got 4 frontier outpost which stings. Just released closest subject in order to achieve +1 influ.
Maybe I should be less liberal with my frontier outposts but it is very hard to resist extra incomez
I use the frontier outposts to hold strategical space and later expand there. Once you expand you can dismantle the outposts.
On July 18 2016 22:20 Heartland wrote: Laserist, you need to declare rivalries, don't ally or protectorate too many people and make sure to grab the tech which increases monthly influence. In my current game I got 7 a month or something through those means.
I declared 2 already, got 4 frontier outpost which stings. Just released closest subject in order to achieve +1 influ.
Maybe I should be less liberal with my frontier outposts but it is very hard to resist extra incomez
a nice thing with frontier outposts is to put them in a sector. That way you do not pay the influence cost, but at the price of only getting 75% of resources.
That was on an older patch no? I have to go back and dismantle my outposts once I expand far enough.
Game is getting kind of boring. Early game is different levels of annoying, but once you get a handful of planets up and running you just build destroyers with max range weaponry and obliterate everyone. Toss research agreements to neighbors for better relations and easy monthly minerals. Any good mods?
On July 18 2016 22:20 Heartland wrote: Laserist, you need to declare rivalries, don't ally or protectorate too many people and make sure to grab the tech which increases monthly influence. In my current game I got 7 a month or something through those means.
I declared 2 already, got 4 frontier outpost which stings. Just released closest subject in order to achieve +1 influ.
Maybe I should be less liberal with my frontier outposts but it is very hard to resist extra incomez
a nice thing with frontier outposts is to put them in a sector. That way you do not pay the influence cost, but at the price of only getting 75% of resources.
That was on an older patch no? I have to go back and dismantle my outposts once I expand far enough.
Game is getting kind of boring. Early game is different levels of annoying, but once you get a handful of planets up and running you just build destroyers with max range weaponry and obliterate everyone. Toss research agreements to neighbors for better relations and easy monthly minerals. Any good mods?
Could be changed yeah. Havnt played on the latest patch yet
My current game is going a bit crazy with the endgame Crsis.
The Prethoryn Scourge controls a third of my galaxy, I control anotehr third, and a few empires control the last part. I was kinda lucky / unlucky that the scourge spawned at the other side of the galaxy, so I couldn't go there to stop them, and they ate all the weak empires there and spread very fast.
I kinda hold a frontier against them now, but the other endgame crisis, the Extradimensional Invaders, appeared in the MIDDLE of the Prethoryn Scourge.
Now they're both fighting each others and I'm a bit clueless how to approach finishing them, given accessing the primary portal of the invaders is basically impossible. lol
unbidden is the harder one to fight since they keep spawning from that portal. build up a 100k+ tach lance battlecruiser deathball (make sure you toss in a few ships with the support auras) and slam the portal system.
prethoryn is pretty easy, just need a bunch of smaller fleets to snipe their planets and keep a big one to knock out their fleets. all the military stations can be a PITB though.
On July 19 2016 07:20 Noocta wrote: My current game is going a bit crazy with the endgame Crsis.
The Prethoryn Scourge controls a third of my galaxy, I control anotehr third, and a few empires control the last part. I was kinda lucky / unlucky that the scourge spawned at the other side of the galaxy, so I couldn't go there to stop them, and they ate all the weak empires there and spread very fast.
I kinda hold a frontier against them now, but the other endgame crisis, the Extradimensional Invaders, appeared in the MIDDLE of the Prethoryn Scourge.
Now they're both fighting each others and I'm a bit clueless how to approach finishing them, given accessing the primary portal of the invaders is basically impossible. lol
Fun game.
Haha, that is amazing. I think you can beat the Unbidden by sending out a decoy fleet for them to chase while taking your main fleet and gunning for the system with the portal in and then blowing it up. You might not get out alive but it's a really fun and tense way to play at least.
do you want to get purged? 'cause that's how you get purged
That's an amazing planet name in that context. Did you rename that?
edit: I wish I could have some endgame challenge from the crisis' they always arrive way too late for me. Let's hope they add some dynamic triggers or a cascading series of endgame crisis in some later patches/dlcs.
do you want to get purged? 'cause that's how you get purged
That's an amazing planet name in that context. Did you rename that?
edit: I wish I could have some endgame challenge from the crisis' they always arrive way too late for me. Let's hope they add some dynamic triggers or a cascading series of endgame crisis in some later patches/dlcs.
that planet is a great find haha. About endgame crisis, its bound to certain researches I think. And if you end up in a galaxy without some nerdy race, the crisis breaks out really late unless you go for the research.
unbidden is psi jump drives, robots is if you do the +10% research thing (but can be prevented from starting in your empire by giving full rights). prethoryn is random.
alternatively, spawn them using console commands!
i once had prethoryn arrive in my ringworld system, i had a warp inhibitor fortress covered in PD with 6 tach lance fortresses around it. shortest intergalactic invasion ever.
On July 20 2016 00:49 ticklishmusic wrote: unbidden is psi jump drives, robots is if you do the +10% research thing (but can be prevented from starting in your empire by giving full rights). prethoryn is random.
alternatively, spawn them using console commands!
i once had prethoryn arrive in my ringworld system, i had a warp inhibitor fortress covered in PD with 6 tach lance fortresses around it. shortest intergalactic invasion ever.
That's what I'm saying- the invasions come so late that you're completely prepared for them. They should not be linked to tech or date but rather the player (or even an ai) passing some "power ceiling". It could easily be some function of population and tech or fleet strength. I've had games where I was taking out fallen empires after 70 years, it makes no sense that I have to twiddle my thumbs for at least another 40-80 years for some "challenge" to arrive (I guess I could just "win" and end the game but meh).
robots is if you do the +10% research thing (but can be prevented from starting in your empire by giving full rights)
Sentient AI! And make sure to give your robots lots of love
AFAIK another empire can abuse sentient AI and then there will be a significant chance of the bad AI spreading to your own bots even if you treat them perfectly
I am completely covered by haters right now. I previously won against 3 opponents in the north and weaken them so they'll not pose any threat to me. South side, there is one fairly big guy but I have better fleet.In addition to that all the guys around me formed a defensive pact like I am their opponents. WTF, I may have "liberated" a few planets her e and there but c'mon guys. Give me a break.
After solving energy problems, I'll show them who is the boss. Considering I'll not teared apart from inside because of ethnic difference between self-genetically-engineered "Meta race". (compulsory master race meme).
TIL if you liberate a fallen empire you basically "unfall" them and they build fleets and expand. Plus they're friendly to you so you can ally/defpact and trade research agreements for +25% to all research. OPOP.
On July 20 2016 22:21 ticklishmusic wrote: TIL if you liberate a fallen empire you basically "unfall" them and they build fleets and expand. Plus they're friendly to you so you can ally/defpact and trade research agreements for +25% to all research. OPOP.
Isn't it %25 bonus if you don't research that tech yet and they already have it?
I "divide and conquer" till now and annexed them since now but they always have pathetic in every front. I believe it is even better to liberate them more by sectoring them and harvest juicy minerals and such.
Yes, and fallen empires have all tech so its basically +25% to all research for you. Liberated fallen empires also start building fleets and expanding, so they become a ridiculously strong midgame ally. You can opt for the mineral/energy, but I find the research boost to be more worth it.
The problem that arises is when you have to backstab them
trade research agreements for +25% to all research
Quick correction since i see this mistake a lot - it's -25% to research time. This actually results in researching 33.3% faster, because negative percentages are not the same as positive:
With a 100 second research and default speed:
100 seconds = research 1 200 seconds = research 2 300 seconds = research 3
with a 75 second research (-25% time):
75 seconds = research 1 150 seconds = research 2 225 seconds = research 3 300 seconds = research 4
You get 4 researches in the time it'd take to get 3 (133.33% of base speed, 4/3)
As another way of looking at it, a -50% research time would result in researching twice as fast. There's an exponential(?) scale here - each percentage of research speed increase is worth the same as the one before it, but each percentage of cost reduction is worth a lot more than the previous one. This is relatively simple math stuff but it trips a lot of people up at first
trade research agreements for +25% to all research
Quick correction since i see this mistake a lot - it's -25% to research time. This actually results in researching 33.3% faster, because negative percentages are not the same as positive:
With a 100 second research and default speed:
100 seconds = research 1 200 seconds = research 2 300 seconds = research 3
with a 75 second research (-25% time):
75 seconds = research 1 150 seconds = research 2 225 seconds = research 3 300 seconds = research 4
You get 4 researches in the time it'd take to get 3 (133.33% of base speed, 4/3)
As another way of looking at it, a -50% research time would result in researching twice as fast. There's an exponential(?) scale here - each percentage of research speed increase is worth the same as the one before it, but each percentage of cost reduction is worth a lot more than the previous one. This is relatively simple math stuff but it trips a lot of people up at first
The relationship is not exponential, it is anti proportional (If you are talking about research time percentage compared to research done in amount of time.)
I got bored of my previous land locked run and decided to start a new game with harder than normal difficulty, and aggressive AI. And my ass is handed to me by the nearest neighbor. GG wp, will play against cheater AI for sure 11/10. Coding a semi-competent AI is that hard?
-10% time = 11% faster -33.33% time = 50% faster -50% time = 100% faster -90% time = 900% faster -98% time = 4900% faster
etcetc. Each percentage of time reduction creates a greater speedup as it's a higher percentage of the remaining time - i'm not sure that exponential describes this properly, but i dont think inversely proportional directly and fully describes it either
On July 21 2016 18:30 Laserist wrote: I got bored of my previous land locked run and decided to start a new game with harder than normal difficulty, and aggressive AI. And my ass is handed to me by the nearest neighbor. GG wp, will play against cheater AI for sure 11/10. Coding a semi-competent AI is that hard?
Ehm yes, yes it is. Practically every harder AI cheats because it turns out that writing the equivalent of Deep Blue is very hard.
On July 21 2016 18:30 Laserist wrote: I got bored of my previous land locked run and decided to start a new game with harder than normal difficulty, and aggressive AI. And my ass is handed to me by the nearest neighbor. GG wp, will play against cheater AI for sure 11/10. Coding a semi-competent AI is that hard?
How many (strategy-) games do you know that manage it? Yes, it's very hard.
On July 21 2016 18:30 Laserist wrote: I got bored of my previous land locked run and decided to start a new game with harder than normal difficulty, and aggressive AI. And my ass is handed to me by the nearest neighbor. GG wp, will play against cheater AI for sure 11/10. Coding a semi-competent AI is that hard?
Ehm yes, yes it is. Practically every harder AI cheats because it turns out that writing the equivalent of Deep Blue is very hard.
Deep Blue was a brute forcer too. IIRC the "best" Starcraft AI just abused muta micro or something like that with minimal improvements to most stuff and a few scripts to enable better building placement and resource management.
There are some games utilizes a more advanced AI, like Grey Goo (learns player moves and try to counter them the more you play). I don't have enough experience to justify how good they are. I was not asking a deep blue rather, slightly more intelligent than what we have now.
On July 21 2016 18:30 Laserist wrote: I got bored of my previous land locked run and decided to start a new game with harder than normal difficulty, and aggressive AI. And my ass is handed to me by the nearest neighbor. GG wp, will play against cheater AI for sure 11/10. Coding a semi-competent AI is that hard?
Ehm yes, yes it is. Practically every harder AI cheats because it turns out that writing the equivalent of Deep Blue is very hard.
Deep Blue was a brute forcer too. IIRC the "best" Starcraft AI just abused muta micro or something like that with minimal improvements to most stuff and a few scripts to enable better building placement and resource management.
It will always brute force. By the time you have an AI able to use intuition you are well beyond a game opponent and into the realm of creating a digital person.
These games are so incredibly complex with so many decision points at all times. They are utterly beyond our ability to create a truly challenging AI without it resorting to cheating.
On July 21 2016 22:49 Laserist wrote: There are some games utilizes a more advanced AI, like Grey Goo (learns player moves and try to counter them the more you play). I don't have enough experience to justify how good they are. I was not asking a deep blue rather, slightly more intelligent than what we have now.
uh that would be scary in stellaris. Just imagine every empire near you would counter your usual research and ship design route. Even normal AI would stomp you. But its hard to make something like that work when the start is almost pure rng. It works well in a rts that doesn't have many starting routes though.
On July 21 2016 18:30 Laserist wrote: I got bored of my previous land locked run and decided to start a new game with harder than normal difficulty, and aggressive AI. And my ass is handed to me by the nearest neighbor. GG wp, will play against cheater AI for sure 11/10. Coding a semi-competent AI is that hard?
Ehm yes, yes it is. Practically every harder AI cheats because it turns out that writing the equivalent of Deep Blue is very hard.
Deep Blue was a brute forcer too. IIRC the "best" Starcraft AI just abused muta micro or something like that with minimal improvements to most stuff and a few scripts to enable better building placement and resource management.
It will always brute force. By the time you have an AI able to use intuition you are well beyond a game opponent and into the realm of creating a digital person.
These games are so incredibly complex with so many decision points at all times. They are utterly beyond our ability to create a truly challenging AI without it resorting to cheating.
Agreed. Google DeepMind used neural networks instead of brute force to figure out Go which was pretty impressive, but Go is a game with pretty simple rules.
On July 21 2016 22:49 Laserist wrote: There are some games utilizes a more advanced AI, like Grey Goo (learns player moves and try to counter them the more you play). I don't have enough experience to justify how good they are. I was not asking a deep blue rather, slightly more intelligent than what we have now.
uh that would be scary in stellaris. Just imagine every empire near you would counter your usual research and ship design route. Even normal AI would stomp you. But its hard to make something like that work when the start is almost pure rng. It works well in a rts that doesn't have many starting routes though.
How do they counter my tach lance deathball?
...oh. More tach lances than me b/c AI can macro better than me :/
On July 21 2016 22:49 Laserist wrote: There are some games utilizes a more advanced AI, like Grey Goo (learns player moves and try to counter them the more you play). I don't have enough experience to justify how good they are. I was not asking a deep blue rather, slightly more intelligent than what we have now.
uh that would be scary in stellaris. Just imagine every empire near you would counter your usual research and ship design route. Even normal AI would stomp you. But its hard to make something like that work when the start is almost pure rng. It works well in a rts that doesn't have many starting routes though.
It doesn't actually track your in game movements and does counter moves like map hackers. It is supposed to analyze the way you play and react better next time. Basically it trains itself with you.
Google did a similar thing with Go and dump all known Go plays to an AI and let it play with itself again and again and again. Similar but much much more advanced.
-10% time = 11% faster -33.33% time = 50% faster -50% time = 100% faster -90% time = 900% faster -98% time = 4900% faster
etcetc. Each percentage of time reduction creates a greater speedup as it's a higher percentage of the remaining time - i'm not sure that exponential describes this properly, but i dont think inversely proportional directly and fully describes it either
Ah. I was comparing the remaining percentage to the amount of research done in the same time
(100-10)%= 90% ---> 111% Research done 66.6% --> 150% Research done 50% ---> 200% Research done 10% ---> 1000% Research done.
And that is indeed an anti-proportional relationship. (f(x) = k/x)
For your numbers, the graph shifts a bit, since you basically replace "x" with "1-x", which means that you mirror the graph at the y axis and shift it by 1 (or 100%) to the right on the x axis.
This does not change the type of behaviour that the graph display. It is no longer Anti-proportional, as that name only applies to the k/x function. But you still have a pole at 100%, and your graph moves towards infinity as you approach that pole.
Exponential describes a different type of behaviour, namely that of the function f(x) = b*a^x with b any number and a any positive number. This function does not have any poles, but it does grow rather rapidly when approaching large numbers. Notable of exponential growth is that for a fixed change of the x value (time, for example), the amount of stuff is MULTIPLIED by a set number. So after one day, you have 1 apple, after two days you have 3, after 3 days 9, after 4 days 27 and so on. That is exponential growths.
Sadly, a lot of people think "exponential" means "growths a lot".
On July 21 2016 18:30 Laserist wrote: I got bored of my previous land locked run and decided to start a new game with harder than normal difficulty, and aggressive AI. And my ass is handed to me by the nearest neighbor. GG wp, will play against cheater AI for sure 11/10. Coding a semi-competent AI is that hard?
Ehm yes, yes it is. Practically every harder AI cheats because it turns out that writing the equivalent of Deep Blue is very hard.
Deep Blue was a brute forcer too. IIRC the "best" Starcraft AI just abused muta micro or something like that with minimal improvements to most stuff and a few scripts to enable better building placement and resource management.
For Star Craft AIs, take a look at SSCAIT (Student Star Craft AI Tournament). I find it incredibly fascinating, and some of those AIs play in a rather cool fashion. Sadly, all of them are currently at most at D-level. Usually they have some major flaws in decisionmaking that hold them back a lot. Apparently, making even basic decisions in Starcraft is something that is really hard for AIs.
Just got hit with the same bug for the 4'th time this game (an AI faction splits itself into a bunch of tiny factions and then declares war many many times on another)
it's making game crash sometimes when they instantly declare war many times (last one was 102 wars in the same game tick), is this a common bug?
-----
played another 8 hours today - long enough to regret ever playing on a large galaxy. Holy shit. I'm on a 6700k @ overclock (almost certainly the fastest cpu for running the game) and my friend is hosting on a stock 4770k, we've seen the game slow to 1/5'th of normal speed just from flying across a system with 300k worth of fleet. It's not worth it.
Prethoryn seem to like flying around with 2000 individual transport ships which kills performance, there were no major issues until that happened. I'l have to try it without somebody hosting on a weaker CPU. It doesn't seem easy to find any decent benchmarks for this engine either~
The plantoids cosmetic dlc (new portraits and ship/station models) just released to some controversy about pricing (at $8 with a dev saying that he thought it would have been worth it at $20)
No, it's the sign they're sure that players will be ok with this. Paradox had record sales with Stellaris and HoI4, they are not struggling. The sign of them struggling would be fixing their games and making DLC system more comprehensive instead of asking players to spend 200 bucks on a game.
*****
I'm afraid that HOI4 has some mechanics intentionally broken to fix them via DLCs
No, it's the sign they're sure that players will be ok with this. Paradox had record sales with Stellaris and HoI4, they are not struggling. The sign of them struggling would be fixing their games and making DLC system more comprehensive instead of asking players to spend 200 bucks on a game.
*****
I'm afraid that HOI4 has some mechanics intentionally broken to fix them via DLCs
You do know you just made general statements and accusations without argument or logic attached? Thats not how forums work at all. How is anyone suppose to respond to anything you said positively.
well the price for that pack is really hefty :/ but the claims about HoI4 being mechanics intentionally broken is just bullshit. It's the usual Paradox release, but I agree on HoI4 not living up to expectations
On July 21 2016 18:30 Laserist wrote: I got bored of my previous land locked run and decided to start a new game with harder than normal difficulty, and aggressive AI. And my ass is handed to me by the nearest neighbor. GG wp, will play against cheater AI for sure 11/10. Coding a semi-competent AI is that hard?
Ehm yes, yes it is. Practically every harder AI cheats because it turns out that writing the equivalent of Deep Blue is very hard.
Deep Blue was a brute forcer too. IIRC the "best" Starcraft AI just abused muta micro or something like that with minimal improvements to most stuff and a few scripts to enable better building placement and resource management.
It will always brute force. By the time you have an AI able to use intuition you are well beyond a game opponent and into the realm of creating a digital person.
These games are so incredibly complex with so many decision points at all times. They are utterly beyond our ability to create a truly challenging AI without it resorting to cheating.
However modern chess engines are not bruteforcing. They are much more sophisticated and use alrgotims and decision tables to drop deadbranches (which Deep Blue would search and evalaute). So improments are defiently possible. The thing is both SC and Paradox games are much more complicated and would need a lot of additional work and also some decision process to evalute values of information not currently available to engine (like hidden in fog of war).
There is a lot of work to be done, but good Ai can be achived without coming even close to digital person.
the thing with hoi4 is that everytime someone asks for improvement in some area (like diplomacy, coups and party boost) seems like absolutely normal that that will only be fixed with a $20 dlc.
Why I say paradox is milking the cow? because its costumers express that they are fine with the dlc model of shallow content.
when /u/Ilitarist mentions $200 for a game, he is not exaggerating. Every (shallow) content DLC is $20 in release. And Ck2 is in its 7th DLC IIRC 9 content dlcs ATM! (yeah, after a while those prices drop)
I'm modding in HOI4 and have observed things that are blatant negligence. the factor weight that helps the "AI" to choose a focus or a tech, is mostly a RNG fest. Paradox leave to the modders to make that job, when those factor weights can be optimized with some montecarlo runs.
the way the "AI" chooses manufacturers and ministers is also totally random, so the AI wastes PP in air advisories, even if it has not air force.
On August 06 2016 02:33 xuanzue wrote: the thing with hoi4 is that everytime someone asks for improvement in some area (like diplomacy, coups and party boost) seems like absolutely normal that that will only be fixed with a $20 dlc.
Why I say paradox is milking the cow? because its costumers express that they are fine with the dlc model of shallow content.
when /u/Ilitarist mentions $200 for a game, he is not exaggerating. Every (shallow) content DLC is $20 in release. And Ck2 is in its 7th DLC IIRC 9 content dlcs ATM! (yeah, after a while those prices drop)
I'm modding in HOI4 and have observed things that are blatant negligence. the factor weight that helps the "AI" to choose a focus or a tech, is mostly a RNG fest. Paradox leave to the modders to make that job, when those factor weights can be optimized with some montecarlo runs.
the way the "AI" chooses manufacturers and ministers is also totally random, so the AI wastes PP in air advisories, even if it has not air force.
The DLC model is getting excessive although to be fair EU3 also had 5? expansions and even then you needed mods as well. What bothers me more though is both Stellaris and HoI4 were half done when released. With the steady growth of customers it's disappointing this still happens. Especially with HoI4 which had a very solid game to follow up on in HoI3.
Anyone want to play on a small-medium galaxy w/ voicechat sometime? I'm looking for more cooperative oriented play at the moment (rather than competitive)
On August 09 2016 03:56 Cyro wrote: Anyone want to play on a small-medium galaxy w/ voicechat sometime? I'm looking for more cooperative oriented play at the moment (rather than competitive)
Sign me up. I'll be back in a few days and we can mine in high sec at the same time. #Efficiency
I want to play something other than fanatic spiritualist+collectivist but not have major problems with ethics divergence and everybody hating me forever after i take over their planets
Really happy to see fallen empires being fleshed out more. And the War in Haven is basically the religious league mechanic from Europa Universalis 4 in space. And I really like that
The patch keeps looking better and better whenever we get more info. I am liking a lot of these changes, hopefully they will be able to have gauged the right balance so we don't end up in corvette spam again
To be fair the dev diaries usually look really good and then when the patch/expansion comes out the mechanics don't work as well as people think and you're set up for a disappointment.
Urgh the ship roles change seem so forced and rigid. Everything is so oddly artificial and set up as if you start off with all 4 ship hulls at the start of the game. It just simply makes no sense and ruins immersion.
Dunno I always find it odd you have to research bigger ship hulls. But thats mostly because I dislike corv/frig typesl. But stellaris ship design is to restrictive for my taste anyway. So this is an improvement for me, since you need to build more then 1 ship design and different battleships to stack auras.
And I don't know, the open border thing looked horrible to me, but it turned out okay.
On September 13 2016 22:43 RvB wrote: To be fair the dev diaries usually look really good and then when the patch/expansion comes out the mechanics don't work as well as people think and you're set up for a disappointment.
Personally, I believe that if there is anyone that can develop good content for strategy games, it is Stellaris' current game director (Martin Anward). He was the project lead for several expansions for Europa Universalis 4 (including Art of War) that I really enjoyed.
############################################################## ####################### VERSION 1.4.0 ######################## ##############################################################
################### # Leviathans Story Pack ################### * Added new introduction event for the Artisan Troupe * Added encounter event for the Enigmatic Fortress
################### # Features ################### * Added 33 new achievements * No longer possible to build robots on planets belonging to sectors * Added victory event after defeating the Prethoryn Scourge * Added new events for discovering additional Precursor anomalies, so that the quest chains can always be completed * Changed the way the Extradimensionals work: Instead of spawning reinforcements as soon as a fleet is lost, the Extradimensional portal will create new fleets at a fixed rate depending on the number of dimensional anchors the Extradimensionals have placed in the galaxy. Dimensional anchors are a type of station that the Extradimensionals construct, and their main portal is invincible while any dimensional anchors exist in the galaxy. This should make the war against the Extradimensionals more of a long-term fight and less of a surgical strike against the portal.
################### # Balance ###################
#General * Evasion is now capped at 90% * Ship mineral maintenance reduced from 0.5% to 0.4% of ship cost * Ship energy maintenance reduced from 0.5% to 0.4% of ship cost * Afterburners now use the auxiliary slot * Regular empires now start with 8 pops * Primitive farms and factories can now be upgraded directly to hydroponics farms/mining networks * Pirate ships have been reworked slightly and buffed in most cases * Primitives are now consistent in how many pops, farms and factories they get on each age of development, and get new pops, armies and buildings when advancing through the ages * Stone age primitives now generate fewer tile blockers * Space Torpedoes technology now requires Fusion Missiles instead of Nuclear Missiles * Venerable trait cost reduced from 5 to 4 * Mineral Silos are now restricted to 1 per planet * Increased max minerals from Mineral Silos from +1000/+1500/+2000 to +2000/+3000/+4000 * Level 3 mineral silo now only provides +1 mineral per adjacent tile * Increased protectorate tech discount to 95% * Protectorates can no longer conduct independent diplomacy * Repeatable technologies have their base cost increased from 1500 to 3000 and their increasing cost increased from 480 to 1000 * Slave Processing Plant now gives +10% slave food/mineral production instead of +5% * Reduced spawn odds of tomb worlds * Increased frequency of alien pet deposits * Reduced warscore costs for planetary and vassalisation wargoals * Doubled Pre-Sentient Anomaly spawn chances * Fixed CTD when generating a certain tooltip while the player has no planets * Pops are no longer upset if an occupier purges Pops on one of your planets
# Components * Space Torpedo mineral cost reduced from 20 to 10 * Space Torpedo power usage reduced from 20 to 10 * Space Torpedo maximum damage reduced from 260 to 215 * Space Torpedo armor penetration set to 50% * Armored Torpedo mineral cost reduced from 40 to 15 * Armored Torpedo power usage reduced from 40 to 15 * Armored Torpedo damage reduced from 150-300 to 140-280 * Armored Torpedo armor penetration set to 50% * Devastator Torpedo mineral cost reduced from 60 to 20 * Devastator Torpedo power usage reduced from 60 to 20 * Devastator Torpedo armor penetration set to 50% * Devastator Torpedo missile HP reduced from 8 to 6
################### # AI ###################
#War * Federation AI is now better at picking wargoals for non-conqueror federations, will focus on retaking planets and liberating larger countries
#Sector * Major work done to sector AI to make it better at budgeting and utilizing resources
#Diplomacy * AI will now sometimes gift countries that are at war with their rivals and threats * AI will no longer ask you to become their vassal multiple times in a row * AI is now less keen to accept a lot of defensive pacts * Slowed down AI requests for federation membership/association status to prevent message spam
#Misc * Fixed a bug where AI would send fleets to deal with pirates, only to retreat due to pirates being stronger * Fixed a bug where AI was trying to build buildings on tiles that had presentients on them
################### # User Interface ################### * Added a setting to disable all auto-unpausing from popups * Clicking on some resource icons in top bar no longer opens tabs due to being inconsistent * Construction Ship now sends notification 'fleet order finished' only when the last construction in the queue is finished * Planet view colonize button opens same surface view window as when planet is clicked from expansion planner * 'Closed Borders' and 'Truce' are shown as diplomatic statuses
################### # Bugfixes ################### * Garrisons are now properly shown and spawned on occupied worlds. * Fleets will now prioritize spaceports and military stations over other stations (such as mining stations) in combat. * Close borders wargoal now forces borders open for the duration of the truce regardless of rivalry status, etc. * Garrisons are now properly shown and spawned on occupied worlds. * Fleets will now prioritize spaceports and military stations over other stations (such as mining stations) in combat. * Ships and weapon components targeting logic now correctly accounts for evasion, so large weapons are much less likely to target corvettes etc * Fixed armor absorbing too much damage if the ship also had shields left * Fixed very high armor values negating the effects of armor penetration * Fixed auto generated ship designs getting wrong combat computers * Swarm units have had their sound volume adjusted * Spaceport no longer provide Naval Capacity while under construction * Fleet view shows current fleet activity instead of order description * Vassals and overlords no longer gives sensor to each other while at war * Sector AI will spend own resources instead of players resources when upgrading spaceports * Uplift species button is locked if no species can be found on any owned planet * Fixed a bug where some leaders could live forever * Planets with Stone Age Primitives will no longer generate Anomalies * Tzynn Empire now starts with the proper number of trait points * Fixed Nomads getting wrong opinion modifier and habitability trait when allowed to settle on a planet * Launcher MOD tab scrollbar appears with correct position and size when content overflows container * Fixed a rare case of portrait duplication caused by prescripted species templates * Fixed so that NPC ship designs now correctly have PD slots for their PD weapons * Situation Log entry list of counters grows up instead of down * Savannah and Alpine worlds now have proper localization in the start screen * Fixed typo in Frontier Hospital technology description * Fixed a bug where upgrade fleet progress could display numbers above 100% * Fixed some outdated hotkey references in tutorial texts * Fixed frantic twitching animation in diplomacy window for main species * Fixed reversed fanatic/militarist bonus to rivalry influence * Fixed some potential event spam when running on high speeds during War in Heaven * Planet edict modifiers are applied to pops again. Use planet modifier categories when applying planet edict modifiers * Fixed Continental, Savanna and Alpine worlds not being used for primitive civs * Enclave governments now get a new ruler when the first one dies * Primitives that nuke themselves will no longer leave pops on a tomb world where they have no habitability * Fixed some ships getting stuck in a looping death animation * Fixed CTD when looking at a ship that fired a shot during the same frame as it died * Fixed CTD that could happen if ground combat was started on a planet without owner * Garrison from Pops will no longer spawn on planets that have already been occupied * Fixed CTD that could happen when assigning a new mission to an observation station * Fixed various issues with Swarm behaviour
################### # Graphics ################### * Tweaked humanoid 02 and 05 portraits * Added updated clothes textures * Added fixed clothes for humanoid 05 * Arthropoid battleships sections now all line up * Galaxy view textures have been updated. * Extradimensionals' death effects have been updated.
################### # Modding ################### * Event chain counter max = -1 means max is ignored. Default value is -1 * Added count_countries trigger * Script trigger pop_percentage = { percentage > 0.1 limit = { is_robot_pop = yes } } * new trigger won_with_condition = domination_victory * Added trigger num_strategic_resources
My most recent campaign was pretty strange. With default settings but clustered spawns and advanced empires turned of, I had half of a spiral galaxy arm all by myself. It took me 45-something years before I encountered something other than primitives
1.4 is looking good. Also, a free DLC a bit later today. The reason for the delay is probably because the DLC has 1.4 as a requirement
Finally fleshing out and improving on the ethics and factions, making it much more interesting
Interesting they make factions much more important with the bonuses for their happiness. Making caring about them somewhat relevant, perhaps even having many of them for a lot of bonuses instead of just wanting one that is easy to keep happy.
Finally fleshing out and improving on the ethics and factions, making it much more interesting
After reading on the Paradox forum, the new free DLC event has a 1/200 chance to fire when a science ship enters a system with a black hole. And that is every time it enters a black-hole system, not just the first time.
If you are playing with wormhole as your FTL method, you can also build a wormhole station in that system so that science ships uses it even when do their other things
On December 10 2016 06:55 WindWolf wrote: After trying the different FTL methods, I found that I've actually like wormholes the most as long as you aren't trying to conquer everyone ASAP.
I just enjoy playing hyperlanes only galaxies as it kind off gives you a bit more of a strategic element what would have been terrain in other paradox titles
On December 10 2016 23:39 ShiaoPi wrote: I just enjoy playing hyperlanes only galaxies as it kind off gives you a bit more of a strategic element what would have been terrain in other paradox titles
If you limit to hyperlanes then yes it adds a strategic element but if all are allowed it can gives you a disadvantage if someone else jumps past your fleet and you have to take a bad route to catch up.
I stick to warp drive since it is the easiest switch towards the lategame drives. The AI also derps less with warp drives.
AI behaved weird in general though for me, after the dlc. Threw away their ships constantly, so they never recovered if their main fleet got beaten, which made the game a lil boring. But it seems fixed in this update, so should probably try another round.
Paradox and Firaxis really likes to borrow mechanics from each other lately it seems. Not that I'm complaining though, I think this will be a good addition with 1.5
Seems like a good addition especially considering the changes to ethics we are getting. Little concrete information, but they did say that 1.5 is still quite a while away so I guess one should not be too nitpicky
Yeah, it looks like 1.5 is quite a bit away. If I were to guess, I would say that it will come out in early spring or around that time.
On another note, I was at Paradox's Fan Gathering two weeks ago (actually at their offices) and I had a chance to chat a bit with Rikard Åslund (The project lead for Stellaris). And apparently he became project lead because the previous one jumped off mid-development (don't remember any more details on who/why/etc), and Rikard moved in to fill that hole. And he was going to leave the Stellaris team after the game had shipped but later decided to stay.
Well, there is still no reason why the A.I. is such bad and unfun. Boosting the A.I. on hard and very hard with 50%/100% production boni will not make the game harder, as the A.I. is still too stupid to wage wars, to use opportunities, to forge usefull alliances or just to fight a war with something called strategie or tactic.
The A.I. Mods like enhanced A.I. do the work, at least to a certain degree mods can turn it, but there is still no way that Pdox cant just buy the mod (or hire the modder) and at least get a new starting line for its A.I., because thats the thing that kills the fun once you established your empire arround year 2275-2300. The rest of the game just becames grind. Stupid grind, declare war, take some planets, wait 10 years, continue on.
The biggest problem, the bad economy model and very very bad art of war in stellaris are not even mentioned yet by the developers. I cant understand how they add things like this new system in 1.5. while there are major flaws in the core mechanics. Every war is exactly the same, against the A.I. 100% of time, against other players 90% of time: Group all ships in one fleet, if your military powers is larger then your enemy, find his fleet, kill it. If it is smaller, hide your fleet till you produced enough ships so your fleet is larger/better and then look for the fight. If you fight multiple enemys, destroy one fleet after another, start with the smallest enemies. (Your planets got taken? Thanks for giving me more time) Only in a very small case (rare PvP games), it can be usefull to use smaller fleets to snipe off space ports so his fleet costs him more. This whole war mechanic makes Stellaris wars dull and boring, while it could be changed so easy: Reintroduce Stacking Panelty, the more levels your Admiral got, the bigger fleet he can command in a battle. Fleets over the command limit will act unorganised in combat with a growing debuff the more you go over command limit. Other changes need a change in economy first:
The economy is also boring, the exponential growth is so fast in Stellaris, that arround 100 years after start you can get up to 500-1000 minerals per month making you spit out ships fast enough to always use your full potenital fleet amount or even more. In the late game, you can be over 2.5k per month while having a fleetpower of 1500-2000. Following this, sizing individual planets, does not matter anymore in a war. Your enemy invaded 5-7 planets, while you destroyed 3 out of 4 fleets of the enemy federation? Well you still got 200 minerals per month, yeah energy is a problem, so lets stop all research academies for some time and its fine again. Then kick the last empire, retake all planets and boom. While taking planets is super easy (defending them is just not worth it if you cant kill the enemy empire's fleet with it), it does not hurt your an empire once it is at +20 planets, even if it his homeworld. Individual colonies, especially the homeworld, just become one of the many you got in the later midgame turning war into a shitfest where even the most important place of your empire, your homeworld, is not a point you defend aslong as you can crush other fleets during that time or increase your own. Following this, the economy needs to change. First it needs to be slowed down. The expansional growth is normal for the economy, but it spirals way to fast out of control in Stellaris. The rapid increase in income reduces the importance of every planet and station very fast. Then the homeworld needs to be massivle buffed to eager it out. The homeworld should be the very center of your empire, the culturel, the scientifc and the economical one. If and enemy attacks your homeworld, you should feel high pressure to defend. Not that you lose the war instant, but much more then at the very moment. On the other hand, invasions need to be much harder, so that its a heavy commitment to launch an invasion fleet. A way forward would be changing ground combat completly: After bringing in your (expensive) invasion fleet, first you decide what to bomb: Everything, major military operation theaters, only confirmed military objects, nothing. The bombardment will soft the defenders, but not like at the moment, where full bombardments give *100% attack damage, thats just way too much. These bombardments will not only destroy certain buildings on the planets surface, but also will determine the attitude of the people if you conquer this planet and annex it. Then you decide where to invade: Outside of the cities (only small landing losses) or direct space to ground combat invasion (landing in cities, much faster battle but much heavier causalities) while the landing outside of the city can lead to a years taking siege with ongoing causalities. The garrision of planets should be much stronger, in military emperies every pop should form at least one defence army just because he exists and also additional "militas" can be produced even when the planet is blocked or there is a siege going on on the surface. If a liberation fleet form the defender comes to help the planet, while the blockade fleet of the attacker moved somewhere else, the attacker's army sieging the planet could be wiped out completly by bombing (if the fleet is strong and large enough). Following these changes, invasions would take much longer and costing more (or being even much more deadlier for the attacker and short like the current ones) while it would be much more worth to conquer the home world of an empire or one of their core colonies. Togeather with a slower economic growth (+ more important homeworld and core colonies) and the stacking panalty, maybe we wouldnt see the doomsday stack fleets attacking each other and then end of war but ongoing fleet interactions at various fronts at the same time.
Other changes are political. It is good that we finally get different loyality factions and thats a good change by Pdox. But there is still alot missing, when it comes to unloyal pops and factions. These are at the moment not worth being in the game, just as defensive pacts. They just eat influence while not influencing your gameplay in a fun way. My tip would be to add a new value, "Empire Enforcment" ( in %). Each system has another value of empire enforcment, which gets increased by loyal pops in the system (if the system has a colonized planet), fleets/army in the system, military stations and outposts in the system. Loyal pops and non allied military in the system will decrease the value. Nearby systems influence each other, for example, if you conquored another empire and leave their systems without ongoing military representation, even the systems without colonized planets (and disloyal pops) will have a very low empire enforment value. Low empire enforcment value turn your systems "evil" after a time. Resource stations can first start striking (selling their earnings on the black market) and finally could become pirate stations. You have to send law enforment (military) to get them back to work. Whole planets can turn away from you, just like in the current rebellious system, but with much harder consequenses: Rebellious fleets will spawn with an uprising ( people upgrading cargo ships with weapongs), the uprisings will generally be stronger and you will have a harder time to defend them. Rebellions in your empire can make your loyal pops unhappy and finally disloyal (let them fucking go faction, pretty much how alot of asymethric wars have been won on earth).
And last but not least, supply and comercial ships. To make the new pirates usefull (the now ingame ones are not, and my proposed ones are not really) we introduce comercial trading ships and supply ships. Now resources get moved by trading ships automatically from place to place. When you start building a battleship above your homeworld, you need to get resources there from the places you save them. And these places are filled up by civilian trade ships. Pirates can attack them and reduce your income. On top of this, your fleet needs resources to. Instead of beaming them to the fleets, supply ships (in convoys) will send these supplies to your fleets. They will take the supplies out of your depots that are located on planets or in the orbital resource depots you can build. Attack these supply convoys is possible and should be encurraged to give better wars. Fleets without supplies cant move and will starve out after longer time. Supply routes cant be infinite long, you will have to set up military supply stations within enemy territory to supply our fleet deep in enemy lines. When you want to wage an invasion against the enemies core worlds, you will be vulnerable to trade interdiction and supply interdiction. Without saving your back lines and supply lines, you could lose your entire fleet to an much weaker, but more intelligent enemy.
All in all, these are 3 changes that could be force into 3 DLCs, 1.Political, 2. Economical, 3.War. These would make Stellaris much greater, togeather with an A.I. that can spell its name.
In regards to combat, how will that prevent players from simply having one fleet following another? This happened in one of my campaign where I was playing with Wormhole, but my captured Automated Dreadnaught was using Warp (they hot-fixed this rather quickly so that it uses your empire's FTL method) so I just set it to follow my main fleet. Aside from not being able to enter orbit it didn't really change anything. Personally, I would prefer some way to encourage the player to use smaller fleets instead of punishing large ones.
In regards to economy, I feel that every strategy game; in one way or another; has the potential of creating a "critical mass" with the economy. In EU4 before they revamped the buildings, once you get tax/production/trade buildings rolling in your empire, you could easily build every building in all of your provinces and still have ducats to spare. The big limiter then was manpower and AE. Yes the economy can snowball, but how do you balance that vs. nerfing the early game to hard,
What I kinda dislike so far is that, being a DW: universe player, there are no civil ships cruising around with cargo. I just slap mining stations wherever I can and automatically get the resource. In DW you actually had to look after your logistics by protecting the transports from the numerous pirates and providing the right designs for the ships, which then the civil sector would automatically build, amount depending on the taxation you imposed.
You even have to design mining stations correctly as they are also your refuelling stations. And not enough cargo space, docking bays or mining capacity would lead to fleets not being able to refuel efficiently.
So as soon as The Unbidden spawned for me, (as good as) everyone canceled their rivalries and signed migration and non-aggression treaties (or more) with each other. I get why they do it (especially when there is also in awoken fallen empire) but managing all these notifications is really enjoying in a 1000-star galaxy
The sector management is a shitty mechanic and the AI is awful at it. Just looked at a size 22 planet with almost full pops. Almost no improvements built on it. Seriously? If you want to take control from the player so badly that we're only allowed to decide what is built on 5 colonies, at least make the automation decent and not afk. And yes the sector has 5 k minerals and even more EC in the bank.
Other planets seem fine though. It seems the AI is incapable of queueing more at once?
pretty much, which causes issues since they started building space ports automatically heh. Some planets just bug the ai out though, so they don't build anything there ever. Would be nice if you could do changes to planets in sectors without taking them out of the sector and putting them in again after the issues are fixed.
hope they change the ai at some point, to deal with all the changes made to the game better.
On December 27 2016 03:38 Vivax wrote: The sector management is a shitty mechanic and the AI is awful at it. Just looked at a size 22 planet with almost full pops. Almost no improvements built on it. Seriously? If you want to take control from the player so badly that we're only allowed to decide what is built on 5 colonies, at least make the automation decent and not afk. And yes the sector has 5 k minerals and even more EC in the bank.
Other planets seem fine though. It seems the AI is incapable of queueing more at once?
Paradox AI is not known for being great, EU is another great example, as you rob 1 province countries of 5000 gold in a battle cause they cant build any more provinces and just stockpile forever
On December 27 2016 08:16 Silvanel wrote: Well, which games have good AI?
Going for hard achievements can make the game artificially hard playing games with no allies, stuff like that usually paradox ai isnt that good cause late game you get unkillable every game anyway so
On December 27 2016 08:16 Silvanel wrote: Well, which games have good AI?
Going for hard achievements can make the game artificially hard playing games with no allies, stuff like that usually paradox ai isnt that good cause late game you get unkillable every game anyway so
So I started a new playthrough with the fascistoid humans. Enemy fleet with 1 more ship than mine, both are pure corvette fleets. I have level 2 thrusters, all my spare slots are filled with the first armor and blue lasers. They have...No armor, no shields, level 1 mass drivers, level 1 thrusters. Their admiral has 1 more skill point. Why do I lose that battle being ahead in tech? That really sucks.
yeah the ai works okay in most cases, just really slow. Just some planets really bug them out and get the whole sector stuck in worst cases, and fixing that is alot of effert.
For the fleet loss. Admirals are super important, as they can make your fleets almost double in power.
Other reason is armor doesn't matter in corv vs corv and kinetic is just better then laser too.
Got beaten up by a fleet with half my rating, because they were kinetic with a level 5 general. While I had a 2 star and laser. Just didn't hit the corvs of the enemy ... They balanced it a bit more though. Still kinetic seems to good.
Actually looking at release notes everything i need is in free patch. I dont like synthetics one bit. Havent got to playing the game (on new ptach) yet but i will defienetly try it later on.
1.8/Synthetic Dawn was released during my busiest time in quite some while. And after how 1.6 went down I am going to wait a bit after release.
Another thing that I just cannot ignore at this point is their stance on FTL. They did a stream about this a while back, and no matter how much they keep mentioning "Not final numbers are not final", HOW they said things basically implied that they were not far from having made up their mind on this, and it might as well have said "You WILL like hyperlanes". And I don't like hyperlane. I have tried hyperlane-only games several times, yet always fail to see why people like them so much.
I did get to talk to Martin Anward (the game director) at PDXcon in May about this matter, and after that conversation Im willing to give the new FTL-system a chance. But if they go down the hyperlane-only route, it will be judged by the perspective of someone that doesn't like hyperlanes
Wait, are they removing other FTL systems? Not that I am against it, since it wasn't that interesting and switching FTL drives was basically impossible.
On September 22 2017 01:40 Plansix wrote: Wait, are they removing other FTL systems? Not that I am against it, since it wasn't that interesting and switching FTL drives was basically impossible.
They are certainly considering it. I found the video I was talking about now
And the result of my talk with Martin at PDXcon (which was 1 week after the video was released) can be summarized as: * Changes to the FTL system will most likely happen at some point. However, nothing is decided yet and and it will likely be a while before we see it in the game. * The approach will however not be "Remove two FTL methods and call it a day" * Martin really wanted me to give the reworked FTL system a chance
If hyperlanes are necessary to make design of AIs and other balance issues easier, I don't have a problem with that. I already hate defensive structures and that you can't really use them effectively. I also hate that I have to produce and manage so many ships a ship by ship basis, but I'll live if they update the FTL system. They could also make variance within the hyper lane system, but still have fixed points where fleets appear. That is the biggest problem with the system, where stuff appears in space.
In regards to hyperlanes i like them. They have huge potential of turning this good game into awesome. They just need some more love. Not that i dont play other FTL types, but the games with "hyperlane only" turned on were pretty strategic and awesome. They have so much potential for deep strategic improvments to the game and i hope they will explore it while at the same time allow players that like other things to retain different FTL types.
Another thing I don't understand from that video is how building a frontier-outpost in every system that you want to claim causes the game to get less micro-management compared to now.
On September 22 2017 01:56 WindWolf wrote: Another thing I don't understand from that video is how building a frontier-outpost in every system that you want to claim causes the game to get less micro-management compared to now.
Does it automatically build all the stuff in the region to collect the resources. Because that shit was kinda useless busy work. Much like starting out without auto survey.
Make Hyperlanes standard. Warp needs cheap structures (early/mid tech) on Planets you own but will be fast. Wormhole is mid/lategame, requires expensive(!) but fragile structures only buildable in your territory and works generally the same as it does now.
Hard no. But kinda bad IMHO. As i stated before i belive the only FTL method that has HUGE potential for expanding both strategical and tactical depth is hyperlane. Playing with "hyperlane only" is tottaly different game than with warp ON. They should keep it that way while expanding both playstyles as much as they can. Also why would warp need structures? Thats not how it works Lore wise.
Never let lore get in teh way of better game design. Space games have this problem that there is no terrain or any interesting features to the map. And if there are, they are easily avoid because space. I would rather hyperlanes be the primary system that everyone uses. Then make worm holes do something else, like allow people to build jump gates across massive distances. That is far better than three different flavors of basically the same thing.
Well i disagree. I play either "everything on" or "hyperlanes only" . With everything on warp is superior to everything and still will be with structures unless You tweek numbers heavily. It will just make game more micromanagment heavy. While in "hyperlane only" You can actualy make terrain important. The hyperlane matrix just needs rework. Some systems could potentially have many hyperlanes making them more important. Some could have long range lanes (like hyperlane in DS9 for example) connecting different parts of galaxy. While some could have only 1 lane. The hyperlane matrix has huge potential for improving the game.
Imo replace the jump drive tech with Plansix idea. The game is/would be a lot better without warp/jumpdrive (which is just overcharged warp).
Make them buildings that come at the build time of a large mega-structure and only connect to owned/controlled wormhole buildings. Allow to move your fleet from one WHS to another really fast.
Maybe give them another limiter like a cap based on planet numbers or zone around them that stops you from building another one nearby.
I like the idea of core nodes that have many hyperlanes going away from them to create central points of war. Imo there isn't enough separation between systems in stellaris and actual core sectors (possibly with more pops) sound good to me. Maybe go a step further and lower max pop count the further you go away from home planets, so winners of war have to eat through crap planets first to get the juicy targets. Less snowball and actual applications for 8 pop planets.
Not as simple as always picking one weapon choice, i've heard great things about all of the previously terrible options
so cynical ;0 none wants to talk about the 1.8 changes?
I was playing 1.8 to see if the hard AI isnt that annoying anymore with going over fleetmax. And as usual me ended up against an advanced ai militarist. So played it save, had higher tech and allies, but he had the projectile weapons. So had to research those and refit two weapon levels down to win :D.
Just want to have more tech freedom at the start.
I would like if Warpdrive could be slowed in a large area around a planet with certain structures. Would be a nice defensive measure. Hyperlanes already have the defensive stations. Wormhole stations should just take longer to setup and be exposed on the map when used hehe.
Or just have defensive stations pull in everything that jumps past scanrage :D
Not as simple as always picking one weapon choice, i've heard great things about all of the previously terrible options
so cynical ;0 none wants to talk about the 1.8 changes?
I like most of the changes at least from reading. Food buffed to how it should work, Fleet power explosion nerfed, Core sector governing, I don't need a mod for 0 influence sector management, Biological Ascension buffed, rockets re-targeting, tradition cost flattened, naked corvettes aren't the best unit in the game anymore.
Will have to try out traditions before I can give a verdict, some stuff sounds a really op (+10/12/14... unity per lvl 5/6/7 scientist???wtf??? Materialist Robust+max leader cap empire will easily out-unity spiritualists in midgame).
I'm doubtful about all those %buffs to ship buildspeed instead of -%cost, it's either going to be extremely broken (if you can reach like -80% buildtime) or completely useless. I rarely suddenly have the need to produce huge fleets, I mostly keep close to my fleetcap so unless it allows me to play low supply and warp in a fleet within a month when I get eventually attacked, I don't really see the point. I guess it could help in close wars when you have a bank.
I'm really surprised spiritualists get almost exclusively buffs. Robots felt a bit stronger, but idk.
On September 22 2017 08:23 FeyFey wrote: Or just have defensive stations pull in everything that jumps past scanrage :D
That's actually a fairly simple and robust solution :O
I've played quite a bit the last week or so and I've had a lot of fun, but it is very annoying to always put in ten hours or so into a game and then have it ruined because the AI is so immensely stupid. Half the strategizing for wars is about tricking the AI, or trying to trick your idiotic AI allies into action.
If any of you have reached an end-game crisis yet, is the AI any better at dealing with them yet? Because the only time I've seen any AI react to a crisis was an Awakened Empire that awoke before the crisis spawned.
On September 22 2017 23:10 WindWolf wrote: If any of you have reached an end-game crisis yet, is the AI any better at dealing with them yet? Because the only time I've seen any AI react to a crisis was an Awakened Empire that awoke before the crisis spawned.
Yes, a lot of work went into that for 1.8 (supposedly)
a few of the endgame crisis mentions in patch notes, i've heard it talked about on streams/videos specifically as well tho
- Significant work done to Unbidden and Swarm AI, are now far less prone to get stuck and better able to consume the galaxy - Major work done to AI empires' ability to cooperate and defend against endgame crises
I'l update when i get there, took my first game pretty slow so far
Are there any decent strategy guides out? I generally just try to rush getting all my core planets as fast as possible, get all the mineral production I can and expand my borders with tech. Maybe that is a shitty way to play because I keep losing.
I've noticed that the game is, a lot like many other Paradox games, very much about realizing small windows of time where it is imperative to expand, start wars or tech up in order to gain advantages in the long term. It's harder to get what those windows are in Stellaris for me rather than, say, CK.
On September 23 2017 16:52 Heartland wrote: Are there any decent strategy guides out? I generally just try to rush getting all my core planets as fast as possible, get all the mineral production I can and expand my borders with tech. Maybe that is a shitty way to play because I keep losing.
I've noticed that the game is, a lot like many other Paradox games, very much about realizing small windows of time where it is imperative to expand, start wars or tech up in order to gain advantages in the long term. It's harder to get what those windows are in Stellaris for me rather than, say, CK.
I find it hard to advise much other that going over what not to do in a particular game, like sometimes people play the same game style as me and they end up with 5x less stuff at X year because of some decisions that were not that obvious to call out without seeing what i would have done in the same position. It's hard to go through a list and ask stuff like "are you actively surveying systems and building mining stations on the resources that show up" when it's mostly automatic gameplay for me but not neccesarily something that a new player would think to do.
Are you talking from 1.8 experience or before? A lot of stuff changed with regards to expansion this patch. Also fighting vs normal AI right?
Early wars are mostly about picking off vulnerable points, that expansion planet that doesn't have a station on it yet etc - there's a window that opens after that when you have a big enough fleet to fight stations effectively.
I mostly play vs Hard AI with higher than normal aggression. Of course I build new stations over newly discovered resources. I do sometimes wait, however, and that is part of what I am unsure of, what should be premiered when building eco? Maxing out on pop? Levelling up everything? Going for minerals before trying to build a big fleet?
On September 24 2017 02:29 darthfoley wrote: Is this game worth buying? I like EU4 a lot and space games are sexy.
Well, I bought it and all the DLC for like $36, so we shall see
If you like Paradox stuff and like space, you'll enjoy it for sure. I've got an easy 300 hours put in and I'm about to return now that a big update launched.
@rocket-discussion: Fought rockets vs kinetic a few times since the patch and it seems to be okay as long as PDD isn't on the field. The timing with PD before swarm is out is ridiculous though, expect to deal less than 10% of your normal dps. Especially static rocket defense has absolutely zero impact vs PD.
On September 24 2017 02:29 darthfoley wrote: Is this game worth buying? I like EU4 a lot and space games are sexy.
Well, I bought it and all the DLC for like $36, so we shall see
Imo EU has a much stronger gameplay, Stellaris needs some mods to feel refined and each match feels fairly similar to me. Also lots of time I basically do nothing but micro my empire.
It has more of an exploration focus though, and designing ships is still fun. The game isn't bad and definitely addicting, there are just some areas where they went for more simple or more automatized solutions than EU (diplomacy, asynchronous starting positions, anti-snowball), with the result that they work a lot worse.
The devs are fairly active though and listen to the community a lot.
I mostly play vs Hard AI with higher than normal aggression.
Harder AI's have some ridiculous bonus like +50-100% to minerals/energy/fleetcap so it throws most of the normal rules out of the window, it's usually some form of AI abuse into snowballing to be able to deal with that
Sitting down to play a lot more now, damn the AI seems to have gotten better in general as well. I'm 100 years into a devouring swarm play and getting wardecced a lot by 2-3 guys at a time so that they can match or beat my fleet power, actually not that easy to play against. I laughed at the reworked pacifict unity bonus to defensive wars but that thing would have been great to have!
With ultra-wide playstyles being gone (half the planets aren't there, not even enough to claim big areas of space without a lot of border bonuses or frontier outposts) a lot of the AI's are closer in power to me too. With tech being more relevant and unity scaling being a bit better (slower early game, faster lategame) it's silly to take all of the size 10-12 planets so i have around 1/3'rd of the planets that i'd have in a game from a previous patch to play somewhat optimally.
The reworked food system is great. Dev.swarm got some changes to the unity trees and eating people mechanics and can grow pops a lot faster than before, easily >2x faster than last patch in the midgame and there is huge reward for frequent wars to eat people (they give 8 food each base, can be closer to 20 after a unity talent and a lot of bonuses..)
^3x growth multiplying the final pop growth rate, exactly as strong as it sounds
Dev.swarm also gets -50% to resettlement cost out of the box, this stacks directly with the other -25% bonuses so if you have a -50%, a -25% and another -25% it's completely free to resettle infinite pops whenever you want - another fix for one of the glaring design flaws of previous patches.
The AI will also group up more and move around multiple fleets from different empires as one
On September 24 2017 06:14 Archeon wrote: @rocket-discussion: Fought rockets vs kinetic a few times since the patch and it seems to be okay as long as PDD isn't on the field. The timing with PD before swarm is out is ridiculous though, expect to deal less than 10% of your normal dps. Especially static rocket defense has absolutely zero impact vs PD.
On September 24 2017 02:29 darthfoley wrote: Is this game worth buying? I like EU4 a lot and space games are sexy.
Well, I bought it and all the DLC for like $36, so we shall see
Imo EU has a much stronger gameplay, Stellaris needs some mods to feel refined and each match feels fairly similar to me. Also lots of time I basically do nothing but micro my empire.
It has more of an exploration focus though, and designing ships is still fun. The game isn't bad and definitely addicting, there are just some areas where they went for more simple or more automatized solutions than EU (diplomacy, asynchronous starting positions, anti-snowball), with the result that they work a lot worse.
The devs are fairly active though and listen to the community a lot.
That was my experience when I tried it as well (vanilla). Game is great but replay value is fairly low because most things are the same no matter what race you put together. For example the ship construction- the fact that there's an auto build feature pretty much tells the tale. In Master of Orion (the OG of 4x games) there were dozens of different ways to approach ship building- in Stellaris there are so many restrictions. Like the slots- If I'm the one bloody designing the ship, why am I only allowed to put specific things in specific places? It makes no sense.
Lets hope paradox gives the player more room for creativity in future versions.
edit: Oh my god I just remembered the computers you build into ships. Holy shit it pisses me off just thinking about it. You want your battle ships to fly in close range? Sorry guv, can't do that we don't have the technology!
That reminds me of Gratuitous Space Battles, that game let you make some extra/different choices with funny outcomes. One of the best strats that i figured out (which was later patched out for being weird and OP) was just not adding any engines to ships. That didn't let them move at all so that they would sit in the blobby formation that you started them out with and all focus fire on whatever entered weapons range first. Without that, the AI was pretty meh and they'd all fly off and attack different things, fail to break through shield regen etc
I'd like to see a bit more customization in the stellaris system as well as a more user friendly system, it's supposed to be one of the highest priorities for development now so we will probably see something soon-ish
On September 25 2017 02:11 Cyro wrote: It does AFAIK but extremely low range
Buffed from 10 to 30 range, which is 25% lower than laser f.e. But between 1.5 and 2x as much dps.
Not sure about PD since i don't have it max upgrade
The flak max level seems considerably stronger than small gun, actually - the weapon type bonuses are of a much lower effect on small guns and the damage loss doesn't make up for the 1.5x range difference. Two flaks better than a Medium, though? The weapon bonuses for non-flaks get significantly larger and the range difference increases to ~2.25x.
On September 25 2017 02:11 Cyro wrote: It does AFAIK but extremely low range
Buffed from 10 to 30 range, which is 25% lower than laser f.e. But between 1.5 and 2x as much dps.
Not sure about PD since i don't have it max upgrade
The flak max level seems considerably stronger than small gun, actually - the weapon type bonuses are of a much lower effect on small guns and the damage loss doesn't make up for the 1.5x range difference. Two flaks better than a Medium, though? The weapon bonuses for non-flaks get significantly larger and the range difference increases to ~2.25x.
PD lvl 1 crushes laser 1 and 2. The main thing speaking against running only PD into PD-Carrier all game long is the lack of tracking before flack.
Overall it depends on what you are fighting. Against AE Plasma will still beat PD easily in damage output, but the difference in base dps probably still makes them more efficient against low armor compositions than kinetic or rockets. Against the normal AI corvette swarms f.e. mass Flack is probably the way to go.
They are also the only way to deal with the massively buffed strikecraft (and usually share a slot with them).
Hard AI feels pretty fair now. Since it still messes up planet management, so that in the end they are on your eco level. And they also dont have this huge fleet advantage anymore.
So I am happy with the new Hard difficulty. But ship design still needs some love.
On September 25 2017 18:09 Laserist wrote: @Cyro there is no love for eve eh?
Anyways, I bought the latest exp and ready to roll.
Yo get on discord
o7 Discord is for sissies but I'll manage. It's been a while since I last played Stellaris, I can use some friendly advice. Maybe write an AAR after that kek.
How approachable is this game? Ever since I played spore a long time ago I never managed to find an intergalactic empire game that was as easy to get into (alhtough I definetly could do with some more options). My tolerance for research tree navigating and text reading goes about as far as total war. If it gets more than that I simply lose interest.
There is no visible research tree in Stellaris. You get 3 choices to chose from whenever you finish a tech.
Hard for me to say how hard it is to get into, I've played these games a lot since MoO 1 but I think Stellaris isn't bad in that regard either. There are no sliders you have to play with. Planet development is picking what building to put on a given tile (most often simply matching the resource said tile naturally produces). There is an adequate AI option (Sectors). The game even tries to limit the amount of colonies your controlling yourself and steers you towards handing some off to the AI as you grow large.
Space combat is automated. you lose control of a fleet when it engages combat, your only able to signal a retreat.
Stellaris can be played without reading to much I would say. But I would say some more micro management needed compared to Total War. (exception are battles :D)
On September 25 2017 21:46 B.I.G. wrote: How approachable is this game? Ever since I played spore a long time ago I never managed to find an intergalactic empire game that was as easy to get into (alhtough I definetly could do with some more options). My tolerance for research tree navigating and text reading goes about as far as total war. If it gets more than that I simply lose interest.
Very approachable for a 4x game. Very little information hiding, no huge techtrees and everything is fairly straightforward. Most elements are a bit flat, but there are a lot of them, which might be overwhelming at first.
There is some minor RNG manipulation you can do with the techtree, but that's advanced stuff that you don't need in order to play the game at all.
You don't start the game with PD though, i had level 3 of the main weapon before even getting PD as an option; it's supposed to do that.
Idk, PD1 is comparable to laser 2 in research cost. The main reason speaking against it is the lack of Tracking, PD1 has like 20% hitrate vs corvettes. But going MSS main + 2PDs on destroyers is probably the way to go now and there are a lot of reasons to go main 2/3 and then max PD+Aircraft once you get cruiser tech.
Especially since Flaks deal extremely well now with corvettes and Bombers do a lot of DPS vs armor.
The only thing I would say is that there are end game surprises that can really run you over during your first play through. They exist to keep the end game from being stale, but can be really shocking when they happen.
so we went from spamming corvs. to spamming pd destroyers yay. And you can get the pd tech from the pirate base. So a pretty sure thing.
Think developers knew how strong pd is, seeing how AI spams rainbow destroyers. level 1 of each weapon tech and 2 pds. Just wrecked my t4 missiles + swarmers no fun allowed.
On September 26 2017 09:48 FeyFey wrote: so we went from spamming corvs. to spamming pd destroyers yay. And you can get the pd tech from the pirate base. So a pretty sure thing.
Think developers knew how strong pd is, seeing how AI spams rainbow destroyers. level 1 of each weapon tech and 2 pds. Just wrecked my t4 missiles + swarmers no fun allowed.
I think PD1 still looses vs small weapons against corvettes in dps.
But yeah, PD1 is already ridiculously OP vs rockets (and destroyers). 1 PD1 nullifies 2.4 rocket1/2 corvettes on average, which means that a single 3 PD destroyer can deal with 7 corvettes without taking damage. Rocket 3 doubles the HP, but even then it's still extremely one-sided.
Swarm is like a t4.5 while PD1 is a t2.5, so rockets would still be screwed midgame even if swarm countered PD. Which doesn't seem to be the case according to your post.
AI has always been spamming PDs, it's just decent now. If you want to deal with Mass PD destroyer on rocket tech without using PDs, armored Swarm-Carrier-cruiser/BS are probably the way. Pre-Flak-PD is terrible at dealing with any form of strike craft.
Are there any good mods that make fleets less of a spam fest? I hate that I have to play a galactic scale RTS in this game. It just make the entire thing a chore.
I'd like something to reduce the amount of units in the later game because having hundreds of ships, hundreds of armies makes the game run terribly from the midgame onwards. When you can't even interact with the UI properly because it's eating your clicks on an OC'd current gen intel CPU, something is really fucked up I'm playing only on 800 or smaller size galaxies because of this, the whole game crawling along for the second half on 1000 size is just too awkward to play
On September 27 2017 20:28 Cyro wrote: What do you want to change about it?
I dislike building one ship at a time or constantly having to manage fleet make ups. I'm a big board game guy and think think this game would be better served by a fleet system that let you manage a set number of fleets made up of different compositions. You are just smooshing one fleet into the other, so just make the tech define size, make up and tactics. I would rather command 4-5 fleets(number does not matter) than a set number of ships that can be split into any number of fleets.
They could use the same combat model and everything. Same ship design. Just make it so you are building fleets, not ships that you blob to make the number get bigger.
It’s a big fucking abstract board game where we are building. Just make more things abstract and larger in scale. I want to see my ant farm empire and not have to dither around with now many carrier I should build to level out my fleet make up.
Also can we end the MoO call back to having to research ship designs. We are a space faring civilization, building a carrier isn’t something that takes up the entire empire’s R&D department.
Ok Supreme leader, we have two options for research:
A: The a way to mass produce facilities to alter our DNA to remove our flaws and improve our race. This will be installed across our empire.
Or
B: A big space ship filled with tiny space ships with guns. We will also need to do heavy research into the tiny space ships with bomb. I know this is weird, since our big ships already have bombs on them. Trust me, this is really hard stuff.
hit the ai crisis. That was a struggle on hard. Corv spam didnt work, but corv spam with tanky cheap cruisers worked xD. Had to use 3 fleets because 2 fleets reached maximum size o.o.
I personally want more fleet management options.
And yeah building a bigger ship needs lots of research. Building those things is no problem, making the production cost effective is the problem. Just ask the Deathstar guys.
And in Stellaris you research the bigger production facility not the bigger ship.
And performance problems seem to still come from the AI decisionmaking. And that changed a bit for me. A bit slower, but smoother. Not sure I would call it improved.
On September 27 2017 20:28 Cyro wrote: What do you want to change about it?
I dislike building one ship at a time or constantly having to manage fleet make ups. I'm a big board game guy and think think this game would be better served by a fleet system that let you manage a set number of fleets made up of different compositions. You are just smooshing one fleet into the other, so just make the tech define size, make up and tactics. I would rather command 4-5 fleets(number does not matter) than a set number of ships that can be split into any number of fleets.
They could use the same combat model and everything. Same ship design. Just make it so you are building fleets, not ships that you blob to make the number get bigger.
P6, this is the main request of the player base since the release but probably is a core design issue and cannot be fixed overnight. To be honest, it is not too different than real world in which naval forces acts as a deterrent rather than actually fight(Fleet-in-being).
On September 27 2017 20:28 Cyro wrote: What do you want to change about it?
I dislike building one ship at a time or constantly having to manage fleet make ups. I'm a big board game guy and think think this game would be better served by a fleet system that let you manage a set number of fleets made up of different compositions. You are just smooshing one fleet into the other, so just make the tech define size, make up and tactics. I would rather command 4-5 fleets(number does not matter) than a set number of ships that can be split into any number of fleets.
They could use the same combat model and everything. Same ship design. Just make it so you are building fleets, not ships that you blob to make the number get bigger.
P6, this is the main request of the player base since the release but probably is a core design issue and cannot be fixed overnight. To be honest, it is not too different than real world in which naval forces acts as a deterrent rather than actually fight(Fleet-in-being).
I have not been following the community interaction with the developers for a while, so I didn’t know that. I hope they do make the substantive changes to the system in future patch. I think the combat model and AI behavior system they made for fleet battles is interesting and has depth. The problem is that all it is accessed through ship designing and building up fleets, rather than in some drop down menu that says “make my carrier do this when we fight”.
Has anyone been successful with Machine Consciousness on hard difficulty settings? I am having real trouble growing economically and surviving at the same time, because building all your pops for 100minerals is quite a drain on ressources.
On September 29 2017 22:31 nimbim wrote: Has anyone been successful with Machine Consciousness on hard difficulty settings? I am having real trouble growing economically and surviving at the same time, because building all your pops for 100minerals is quite a drain on ressources.
My experience as well, tried it like 4 times and got sweeped every time before I could secure an alliance. Machine Template System is the only saving grace they have and they don't even start with it. Well they got almost immortal rulers and dont care about habitability but since they are min-starved like crazy the habitability isn't as big as it sounds.
The win-condition is probably getting an alliance before getting attacked. So the +25 relation trait is mandatory to have even a chance, probably along with +mins or -robot buildcost to colonize a bit earlier and keep a bigger fleet up.
Templates, destroyers and PDs are probably the major early game techs. Laser vs kinetic is a toss-up imo, kinetic are stronger but need engineering, which you need for the costly templates and destroyers.
The immortal leaders and less alliances allow for more resettlement to increase the pop growth speed, so -migration cost is big midgame. Taking it as a base point +mineral production boosts the eco late midgame a bit more but I think there are more important traits to boost the more important first years.
On September 29 2017 00:06 Heartland wrote: It's the Clauswitz engine, it's not supposed to work
I dont think ive ever had an issue on Hoi/Eu4 with that. Besides the lategame slowdowns like super lategame the game runs noticeably slower but i guess it is processing a whole lot of shit too
On September 30 2017 07:51 nothingmuch wrote: Weeeeeeell. The fact that a game with pretty much 0 graphics has such slowdowns is pretty weak, don'tcherthink?
Its not the graphics that slow the game down, its all the game logic going on in the background that is the likely culprit.
Obviously. But that's pretty much all that the engine has to do and no matter how sick your pc is- when very hard Ottoman and Ming get it on (even if you're not involved at all) - you're entering the slow mo pit of doom.
Yes the game slows down a lot especially late game when its running probably millions of calculations every second the engine cant keep up. early with less units its a breeze though
Increasing RAM noticeably improves the EUIV performance. That being said i think there are some things very wrong with EU/Stellaris engine. It definitely could use some improvments in that regard. I dont know what exactly is happening but performance could use some love.
It noticeably improves when you destroy a doomstack of 300 army transports so if that were represented by 10 or 30 units instead of 300 then it would be a lot easier to simulate.
One example of many but this kind of problem exists all over the game. Lategame i have 200 of the largest ship class or many thousands of the smallest, why can't we make half of our fleet power out of 10 ships if the game performance is gamebreakingly bad?
Probably the soundtrack update. TLDR: If you bought/got the soundtrack officially on steam, all soundtracks (including from DLCs) are now available at ...Steam\steamapps\common\Stellaris\soundtrack (both in MP3 and FLAC)
My thoughts: I really like wormholes and dislikes hyperlanes. (As good as) every time I try them, I get a bad start that would be at least acceptable with the other. Wiz did convince me to try the new system at PDXcon, and I will do that. However my initial impressions are not very positive.
Thanks. Idk why nowadays companies seem to think that I've unlimited memory space for stuff that I can't even access <.<
@WH vs Hyperlanes: I haven't played wormholes a lot, but my experience is that whenever you're boxed in, warp and WH create opportunities to settle on new planets. So it feels very nice on spirals f.e.
But the unlimited mobility also makes any form of defensive play impossible. When boxed in there's still the opportunity to just shoot your way free. Which doesn't always work, but Sandbox games like Stellaris are supposed to have a bit variance in difficulty imo.
So I totally agree with the dev diary that WH and Warp are bad for any depth in warfare, which is an area in dire need of improvement. I like the announced changes, the terrain idea could create natural fortresses, what they are doing with WH is very close to what I hoped they'd do and Jump drive sounds a lot less boring than now.
Thought the post was pretty much on point on everything, they recognized that warfare doesn't work well in the current iteration and are starting to create a base for further reworks. Diplomacy and Base Building is still terrible, but I agree with tackling warfare first, since that's what's supposed to be fun along with exploration.
Half of the thing that makes warfare interesting is terrain. It is the board on which armies are moved. I'm glad they figured out that having no real structure to the play space made for really bad combat.
I've been playing hyperlanes only the last few games and really quite enjoyed it (so long as not in a spiral where it's far to easy to get boxed in.
Also pretty interested to see the new border system work out, sounds in practice like a good idea.
Overall interested to see so much willingness from the dev team to change core bits of the game to improve it (I think they got some flak for all the DLC stuff but if this is a benefit of that then perhaps is worth it?)
On November 03 2017 09:22 Sermokala wrote: I understand the why and the what but it saddens me that this makes the game so much like the other 4x titles when it was less so previously.
Yeah, Stellaris loses one of it's big USP from every other space game out there. At least EU4 and HoI4 is moving in the right direction
I've only ever played warp only games because I hated the other forms of movement so much . Warp interdictor (forgot what they were called) stations allowed for some rudimentary strategic plays. "Terrain" makes zero sense to me in a space game. They put it in for obvious reasons, but I'd rather have them work over the ship design/ combat AI. Let me know how it turns out, for the moment I'm sticking with ES 2.
There would be and is “terrain” in space. Planets, moons, belts of asteroids and other celestial features would be used as points of conflict for space fleet. Just like the islands in the pacific war. Space stations would be built in orbit around things. Flat open space with nothing to fight over is a poor play space and doesn’t make for interesting conflict. Its just two blobs of DPS rubbing against each until one of them gets to press the invade button.
On November 13 2017 22:13 nothingmuch wrote: I've only ever played warp only games because I hated the other forms of movement so much . Warp interdictor (forgot what they were called) stations allowed for some rudimentary strategic plays. "Terrain" makes zero sense to me in a space game. They put it in for obvious reasons, but I'd rather have them work over the ship design/ combat AI. Let me know how it turns out, for the moment I'm sticking with ES 2.
I think warp-only could be made a lot more interesting with a few changes:
- Reducing the range and speed of warp to half or less - Slowing down sieges to twice the duration and lowering the (currently linear) scaling with fleet size - Reducing the strength of starports while increasing the strength of pre-fortress static defenses - Fleets require twice as much supply when not in the system of a friendly planet, friendly starbase or a forward outpost that constructors could build in enemy territory. Maybe scale with distance to next supply point.
Currently you just fly around with 1 big fleet, crush the enemy big fleet and the rest is pretty much cleanup. It's blob vs blob until blob wins. You rarely have need for more than 3-4 fleets, and even those mostly just to clean up only after the enemy blob is already destroyed.
The strength of warp is that it allows you to attack many places at the same time, which usually would force the enemy to also defend many places at the same time. However, the advantage of spreading out your fleet is so small that it's currently just not worthwhile. The only real relevant targets are starports, which until midgame require a significant fleet investment to take out safely. Sieging a planet with a small fleet is pretty much worthless since it's much faster with your whole fleet combined and going around sieging all planets one by one is much safer and almost as efficient as sieging 10 at the same time. By changing the scaling of sieges, small fleets become more efficient at capturing territory.
Of course defending against many small fleets would be a real pain if they had the current range, i.e. could attack pretty much anywhere. That is why the range needs to be lower to allow for a defense in depth, i.e. having your own defending fleets and bases spread out over the frontline a few stars deep.
By scaling the supply of fleets by distance from friendly supply points, the "territory" of star systems, even ones without planets, becomes more important and frontlines can develop. You can't just fly to the capital first, capture it and go from there, you need to fight your way through system by system, but unlike with hyperspace you aren't limited by the connections, which at times are really awful.
Of course that also requires huge AI changes, because the AI always goes for the big blob strategy, which is fairly boring.
I think those changes to warp would allow for a much grander strategy than the current implementation and be a lot more dynamic than hyperspace-only games.
I think one of the things the game lacks is using ships to patrol space, space stations, etc. This is a pretty clearly used sci-fi trope (the possible events are obvious!) but with the way the game works now it's not at all a possibility. That sort of thing could also be used to break up the huge blob of fleet doom that exists now as you have to use your ships for different stuff than just hanging out.
On November 14 2017 05:03 Heartland wrote: I think one of the things the game lacks is using ships to patrol space, space stations, etc. This is a pretty clearly used sci-fi trope (the possible events are obvious!) but with the way the game works now it's not at all a possibility. That sort of thing could also be used to break up the huge blob of fleet doom that exists now as you have to use your ships for different stuff than just hanging out.
I would like a feature like that or the defenses of a system to be more than just RTS style buildings. The whole RTS style for the combat just doesn’t fit with the game’s themes. And it leads to stupid garbage like corvette spam. Just make fleets have a specific make up with specific unit counts. The reason modern navies build different size ships have almost nothing to do with some sort of rock paper counter system in combat. Since those reasons will never be modeled in the game, just setting limits is the way to do it.
protect the big ship that launches the small ones that wreck the enemy without risking the expensive stuff, the one with higher tech and more wins :D. Navy sounds just like stellaris :D.
The new border / war system / super star bases /, sounds interesting though. But I dont think they will ever let the ai use multiple fleets, because it would add alot more micromanegement for the player. Would be cool for harder difficulty instead of just making the ai have more income.
This game gets crazy at times. I was dominating the galaxy with an empire of murder robots, nobody liked me but my early conquests made me probably as strong as the 10 empires below me combined.
But then, the Spiritualist and the Anti Research Fallen Empire awoke, and started a War in Heaven. There's one on my south border, and one on my north border. And just 5 years after the start of this conflict, me still trying to see what do to, the Contingency appeared in the MIDDLE of my empire. which awoke the Robot Fallen Empire to come help me, which is on my west border.
I'm in the middle of so much fighting I can't keep track of anything anymore.
I haven't played much since 2.0, just a bit and i was waiting for them to clean it up and fix/add some stuff. Now looks like a decent time to do some playthroughs
On May 18 2018 22:22 Cyro wrote: How's everyone getting on with 2.0.4?
I haven't played much since 2.0, just a bit and i was waiting for them to clean it up and fix/add some stuff. Now looks like a decent time to do some playthroughs
Its functionally a different game that doesn't explain the functional changes very well. I'm sure they did their due diligence with dev blogs and what not but things changed SO much that it would be easier to completly forget everything you thought you knew about the game pre 2.0 then post 2.0.
Its a better game at the end of the day though I think.
I think stuff needs finetuning. I think starbases need to reworked so they take a lot less micro, pirates are too weak and tribes too strong, max speed is too low, diplomacy is still shit and there needs to be a hyperspace-lane-pregame-setting between I can get from everywhere to everywhere and I need to fly through 10 systems before I can get to a system that looks like it should border. Snowballing is still massive and the entire claim system feels really clunky.
Clunky is the way I'd describe a lot of stuff actually. Imo they had a lot of awkward solutions in 2.0 for major problems pre 2.0. I think overall it's a more well rounded game as a result, but it still needs massive development/tuning time to be really good.
I'm happy that they are trying though and if they do invest the time Stellaris 2.x might be an amazing game.
At a certain tech level you can only leave systems the way you came in if they have a planet that you aren't occupying. Doesn't just go for swarm.
If you mean CB, claims get more and more expensive the further you are away, so you always want to creep next to their border anyways. Claims are their solution to slow snowballing/have small scale wars, but against the AIs slowing snowballing still doesn't really put you in danger ever since the AIs aren't different enough in strength to present a challenge.
The worst part is being a superior empire and having to gobble up small bits of your surroundings every 10 years instead of just being able to crush someone. It makes the later mid and beyond very tedious and drawn out.
I think their goal was to introduce some mechanics to come back, so that makes some sense.
The problem is that aggression isn't punished in any way. In EU f.e. you need to balance your aggression with how strong you are compared to your surroundings because ppl might just form coalitions and kill you if you are too aggressive. In that regard limited warfare makes sense, since nations have to abide some rules. In Stellaris they decided to make diplomacy way reduced, so aggression in PvE doesn't have repercussions. So limiting expansion doesn't make much sense in a scenario where people purge entire planets. I could see it working in PvP sessions with the intended behavior though.
At a certain tech level you can only leave systems the way you came in if they have a planet that you aren't occupying. Doesn't just go for swarm.
I could have my fleet next to the fleet of some other guy but i wouldn't be able to shoot him because we weren't at war and i wouldn't be able to declare war because i didn't own a system next to them. That was ridiculous and it made it to the live 2.0 for a while
On May 19 2018 18:21 Cyro wrote: Stellaris never explained stuff very well, i've always spent a lot of time on third party sites to figure it out
welcome to every paradox game ever
tutorial shows you how to move but doesnt tell you anything else. took me like 5 trial and error games in eu4 when the game doesnt tell you at later tech levels your army should be almost half artillery half infantry
You modern kids and your new-fangled paradox games.
In EU3, you would be happy if you even knew why you just died! We had stuff like slider moves and balancing spending, which wasn't in any direct way related to how much money you had, except for the fact that it had a "give me money" slider, which you should try to use as little as in any way possible, as it killed you a few years later. So be happy that the mechanics of Stellaris or EU4 are so obvious!
I dont know about you guys but the x1.0 hyperlanes setting now feels a bit meh.. or i was rather unlucky in the galaxy generation, 3-4 choke points for a pretty wide empire feels a bit like a joke to me. Might try it on 1.25 or 1.5 for my next game. Other than that 2.1 is quite fun
On May 25 2018 01:44 StateAlchemist wrote: I dont know about you guys but the x1.0 hyperlanes setting now feels a bit meh.. or i was rather unlucky in the galaxy generation, 3-4 choke points for a pretty wide empire feels a bit like a joke to me. Might try it on 1.25 or 1.5 for my next game. Other than that 2.1 is quite fun
this was my start with 1.0x hyperlanes
Spiral - 2 Arms plays pretty well - if you're on elliptical you might have to turn down the hyperlane multiplier since it's a simple blobby galaxy with lots of nearby stars
I really, really like the new hyperlane generation algorithm, and the mystery of not immediately knowing the exact layout of every single hyperlane in the galaxy.
It also seems like systems are generally more valuable than before, partially because the new anomaly system makes that more likely and partially because binary/trinary/special systems tend to have more resources.
Gotta give credit for the fact that the Stellaris devs really aren't chickens. A lot of devs are scared of breaking stuff or alienating players so they only ever change minor things, while 2.0 more fundamentally changed Stellaris than pretty much any patch I've ever seen and now they release a pretty big patch again.
Yeah, i don't agree with some changes and i'm sad that some people like the game less for them but i'm glad that they're making those sorts of changes.
Biggest thing that i have to say is that they need to test their shit, 2.0 would have gone down a lot better if it was more functional. I'd consider most changes since 2.0 including large chunks of 2.1 to be polish that it shouldn't have launched without. It was rushed out the door without any kind of opt-in testing, just beta patch for everyone and it wasn't the first time though it was one of the more catastrophic.
On May 25 2018 05:37 Seuss wrote: I really, really like the new hyperlane generation algorithm, and the mystery of not immediately knowing the exact layout of every single hyperlane in the galaxy.
It also seems like systems are generally more valuable than before, partially because the new anomaly system makes that more likely and partially because binary/trinary/special systems tend to have more resources.
Yes. For a long time (before 2.0) i have been saying that maps are the key to making Stellaris great. I am glad they are moving in this direction but there is still a lot of things to do. Besides different types of Galaxies (even fantasy shapes) i would love to more ability to shape galaxy, add or substract features and i would like to see fixed maps, with set hyperlane system actually created in a way designed to foster gameplay. I would mod it myself if i had the time...
I wish Stellaris had more unique, ridiculously imbalanced things -- more powerful anomalies, more unique systems similar to like, Sanctuary or Trappist etc, technologies that are very rare but significantly better than anything else on the given tier, but perhaps with some extra drawbacks. There's really a lot they could do, tech-wise especially I feel like most weapons / defensive systems are still very bland and boring, but alas, they seem to think that having 'equal' balance between all weapon systems & tiers is more important, which is meh.
On May 25 2018 08:44 Cyro wrote: Yeah, i don't agree with some changes and i'm sad that some people like the game less for them but i'm glad that they're making those sorts of changes.
Biggest thing that i have to say is that they need to test their shit, 2.0 would have gone down a lot better if it was more functional. I'd consider most changes since 2.0 including large chunks of 2.1 to be polish that it shouldn't have launched without. It was rushed out the door without any kind of opt-in testing, just beta patch for everyone and it wasn't the first time though it was one of the more catastrophic.
Yeah, 2.0 and the subsequent patches were train wrecks. Without those game-breaking issues (and maybe without Subjugation being a million times harder than straight genocide), it probably would have been better received.
On May 25 2018 08:44 Cyro wrote: Yeah, i don't agree with some changes and i'm sad that some people like the game less for them but i'm glad that they're making those sorts of changes.
Biggest thing that i have to say is that they need to test their shit, 2.0 would have gone down a lot better if it was more functional. I'd consider most changes since 2.0 including large chunks of 2.1 to be polish that it shouldn't have launched without. It was rushed out the door without any kind of opt-in testing, just beta patch for everyone and it wasn't the first time though it was one of the more catastrophic.
Yeah, 2.0 and the subsequent patches were train wrecks. Without those game-breaking issues (and maybe without Subjugation being a million times harder than straight genocide), it probably would have been better received.
I sort of like that genocide is the easy option. In a game about space races getting along or not, I enjoy that gross use of violence is the easy button. "Getting along" through cultural or more subversive means is fun if it is harder.
Genocide being easy is fine. The problem was Subjugation being effectively impossible against Federations. Thankfully the upcoming status quo/breakaway mechanics will make that less of an issue.
On May 25 2018 01:44 StateAlchemist wrote: I dont know about you guys but the x1.0 hyperlanes setting now feels a bit meh.. or i was rather unlucky in the galaxy generation, 3-4 choke points for a pretty wide empire feels a bit like a joke to me. Might try it on 1.25 or 1.5 for my next game. Other than that 2.1 is quite fun
this was my start with 1.0x hyperlanes
Spiral - 2 Arms plays pretty well - if you're on elliptical you might have to turn down the hyperlane multiplier since it's a simple blobby galaxy with lots of nearby stars
I'm on Spiral - 2 Arms as well, 1k stars It's not that bad but it feels (at least for me) too little, i can just sleep and wait for jump drive for them to come
On May 25 2018 19:08 Salazarz wrote: I wish Stellaris had more unique, ridiculously imbalanced things -- more powerful anomalies, more unique systems similar to like, Sanctuary or Trappist etc, technologies that are very rare but significantly better than anything else on the given tier, but perhaps with some extra drawbacks. There's really a lot they could do, tech-wise especially I feel like most weapons / defensive systems are still very bland and boring, but alas, they seem to think that having 'equal' balance between all weapon systems & tiers is more important, which is meh.
I guess there are plenty of mods in the workshop that might suit your needs tbh, being imabalanced things or simply more content. The vanilla fleet builder in itself is kinda one dimensional and you always build roughly the same things every game so.. But hey, they're working on their issues one baby step at the time, can't complain too much
Yeah I know there are mods -- and I could mod whatever things in myself, modding Stellaris is incredibly easy, but then I don't really play Paradox games in singleplayer and getting a group of players to actually agree on modding is... daunting, to say the least. I really don't understand this desire to keep linear balancing, anyway -- it's a huge drawback in HoI4 as well imo, and I really wish they'd experiment more with... I don't know, asymmetric balance? You know, crazy Starcraft / DotA style where you've got a bunch of things that are way out of the line, but all together the 'imba' kinda gets cancelled out by other 'imbas.' Of course it's not as simple as I make it sound, but they're not even really trying and it's a big flaw of their development style, imo at least.
On May 25 2018 01:44 StateAlchemist wrote: I dont know about you guys but the x1.0 hyperlanes setting now feels a bit meh.. or i was rather unlucky in the galaxy generation, 3-4 choke points for a pretty wide empire feels a bit like a joke to me. Might try it on 1.25 or 1.5 for my next game. Other than that 2.1 is quite fun
this was my start with 1.0x hyperlanes
Spiral - 2 Arms plays pretty well - if you're on elliptical you might have to turn down the hyperlane multiplier since it's a simple blobby galaxy with lots of nearby stars
I'm on Spiral - 2 Arms as well, 1k stars It's not that bad but it feels (at least for me) too little, i can just sleep and wait for jump drive for them to come
On May 25 2018 19:08 Salazarz wrote: I wish Stellaris had more unique, ridiculously imbalanced things -- more powerful anomalies, more unique systems similar to like, Sanctuary or Trappist etc, technologies that are very rare but significantly better than anything else on the given tier, but perhaps with some extra drawbacks. There's really a lot they could do, tech-wise especially I feel like most weapons / defensive systems are still very bland and boring, but alas, they seem to think that having 'equal' balance between all weapon systems & tiers is more important, which is meh.
I guess there are plenty of mods in the workshop that might suit your needs tbh, being imabalanced things or simply more content. The vanilla fleet builder in itself is kinda one dimensional and you always build roughly the same things every game so.. But hey, they're working on their issues one baby step at the time, can't complain too much
Hm i see what you mean there
i don't generally play 1k stars any more because of the game performance issues (especially multiplayer 1k stars when you're having to sync to whoever has the slowest PC), got a lot better performance and still most of the experience with 800 stars
With 2.1 the game seems to be in great shape again. I tried to start a few campaigns before it only to abandon them within hours for various factors. Now I'm having a blast once more. Now if only I could discover the secret to a smooth spiritual + authoritarian empire...
Edit: is a Gaia World start even doable for Spiritualists? You can't really colonize with Droids without breaking your influence gain and your research will be really bad. This in turn means your energy income will be low, and it all spirals downward from there.
i'm thinking of getting this game, but before i play - is there a series on youtube of someone who plays that's worth watching? I'm interested in being able to learn about the mechanics and just what the game is like to play from a strategy point of view (Rather than someone just going crazy)
lmk if there are any let's plays that fit that kind of criterion
i'm thinking of getting this game, but before i play - is there a series on youtube of someone who plays that's worth watching? I'm interested in being able to learn about the mechanics and just what the game is like to play from a strategy point of view (Rather than someone just going crazy)
lmk if there are any let's plays that fit that kind of criterion
Im sure theres plenty, but the issue with "tutorials" for paradox games is they are usually 10 hour sections which no one has time to watch. When I was learning Eu4 i just played until i hit a point where I couldnt do anything and then asked on the forums here for help(that point being battles past tech 13)
i'm thinking of getting this game, but before i play - is there a series on youtube of someone who plays that's worth watching? I'm interested in being able to learn about the mechanics and just what the game is like to play from a strategy point of view (Rather than someone just going crazy)
lmk if there are any let's plays that fit that kind of criterion
Scott Manley has an hour of so of earlygame 2.1 stuff, the other guys that i watch are Aspec and ThePrussianPrince
they're not really targeting 100% beginners and the content is long because games take a really long time, i haven't watched anything through recently to be able to recommend it specifically
On May 30 2018 12:40 heartlxp wrote: One thing that's always bothered me in the mid game is when my neighbors all get defensive pacts so I can't attack them, then not sure what to do
Are you blocking them off at choke points with outposts? If so upgrade those as far as you can and equip them for defense. They keep one enemy away while you take out another.
On May 30 2018 12:40 heartlxp wrote: One thing that's always bothered me in the mid game is when my neighbors all get defensive pacts so I can't attack them, then not sure what to do
Are you blocking them off at choke points with outposts? If so upgrade those as far as you can and equip them for defense. They keep one enemy away while you take out another.
Doesn't work when their space is connected but good to stop getting crushed on all sides when you war declare someone off to the left and the two buddies at the right side decide to join the fun against you as a 1v3 or 1v4
Speaking of 4x games, have any of you tried Endless Legend? It's pretty neat, fantasy/sci-fi setting and really diverse factions (like technophobic guys who can't do any research at all).
Endless Legend is great with the exception of its combat. I even like all the ideas surrounding the combat, I just hate the combat itself because it is both boring and wastes time.
But the rest of the game is sublime. It has some end game problems that 4X games have yet to solve, but its all really good.
I agree that Endless Legend is pretty fun. Combat is slightly weird, and it greatly suffers from you not being able to tell how powerful a unit is by looking at it. Because units always look the same, but become incredibly much more powerful when upgraded.
This might not be a problem for experienced players, but my girlfriend as a more casual player was really confused why her units just died in later ages. She didn't have the same problem in Civ, because it is intuitively obvious why a dude with a sword loses to a tank. That made it much more obvious that getting new units is important. In Endless legend, you just build the same dude with a slightly fancier sword which isn't even rendered on the model.
But in general, the game is pretty fun. There is a lot of stuff to do, and the quests give you direction when you need something to do. You need to be able to judge if a quest is worth the effort, though. And the races are REALLY different with very unique mechanics. The game feels very snowbally though.
Related rant: I have had real problem finding 4x games that work well when played in 2 player coop against AI, even if you give the AI the same setup of 2 player teams. Civ 5/6 for example seem to just break, because a lot of mechanics are based on one player teams. Tech gets really weird, the standard Eurekas from Civ 6 basically never happen because tech is so much faster and you get eurekas whenever your partner researches something. Civ 5 was really weird with the tech speed too, because in that case both get all the tech that any of the two research. And even aggressive AIs never declare war anymore, my guess it because they weight their own strength against both of the enemies without taking the strength of their ally into the equation.
Endless Legend doesn't really have coop, so it becomes "Don't be Necrophage and then ally lateron once the tech is researched. Sadly, this breaks the game, because the AI don't really do any of that, so you suddenly have nearly double the tech.
Snowballing is a perennial problem for 4x and grand strategy games, and the mechanisms behind that problem get exacerbated by doubling up the players.
The closest thing to something where snowballing isn't inevitable is probably CK2, but only if you're using the types of succession where your empire can get broken up.
The best games of CK2 are when you get into the mindset of a narrative around your character instead of playing the game the best you can.
For good 4x games that don't snowball hard I would recommend distant worlds universe. Its got a huge level of complexity but its an indie game so its not very pretty.
Related rant: I have had real problem finding 4x games that work well when played in 2 player coop against AI, even if you give the AI the same setup of 2 player teams. Civ 5/6 for example seem to just break, because a lot of mechanics are based on one player teams. Tech gets really weird, the standard Eurekas from Civ 6 basically never happen because tech is so much faster and you get eurekas whenever your partner researches something. Civ 5 was really weird with the tech speed too, because in that case both get all the tech that any of the two research. And even aggressive AIs never declare war anymore, my guess it because they weight their own strength against both of the enemies without taking the strength of their ally into the equation. .
That's why you should not play in the same team. You might just as well play on different teams and use diplomacy agreements If both players are playing in "team 1" it gets even more stupid if you want to build wonders, since you can't build whatever your ally is building.
On June 08 2018 21:49 Silvanel wrote: I got bored by it pretty easily. I played like 5-6 games (about half of them completed) then put it down and never came back.
It's the same across all the PDX titles, some more than others. I rarely go beyond ~1600 in EU4 for instance.
On July 19 2019 18:06 Silvanel wrote: Sorry for the bump. But does anyone here have modding experience with Stellaris??
I might be able to help but you should try the official forums, we got alot of knowledgeable people there
First a question are You the KaiserJohan from Paradox?
In regards to modding i asked my questions on Paradox forum but didn't get any particulary helpful answers (i have same nickname there). Anyway what i wanted to do is create a StaticGalaxy map with specific system positions and system names as a prop or sort of expansion to our Pen&Paper RPG campaign set in Fading Suns universe. But it turns out its not so easy and straight forward in Stellaris. I ended up useing GalaxyForge 3 map editor from Sins of Solar Empire:Rebellion which is super easy to use and got many (but not all features) i wanted. It would be nice to have something similiar in Stellaris.