Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Criptfeind]

Um. Yeah, a 25x1 planet would be mechanically identical to a 5x5 planet, but that doesn't mean it's the same as just having slots like MOO2. Since you can customize each tile with individual buildings and workers you can't have them just piled up on top of each other like you do in those games. You have to have individual slots on the planet UI for each potential pop on the planet. And each slot needs to have the ability to graphically represent the building, the worker, and the random bonuses. So... You'd have to have tiles to place all these graphical representations on. And a 5x5 obviously looks a lot better and is easier to work with then a 1x25.

Like, yes, it's not a very robust system, but that doesn't mean that they might as well have made it even less robust.

[Dunamisdeos]

Don't the stone-age civs in their little enclaves add society research to adjacent science?

I like having a graphical representation for the planet rather than a list or some such. Also, no, it isn't complex, you plop a capital next to some resources and then you are done with adjacency bonuses on that planet.

[forsaken1111]

Um. Yeah, a 25x1 planet would be mechanically identical to a 5x5 planet,

Not really... 25x1 means maximum adjacency bonus from any tile is affecting 2 other tiles while in a 5x5 grid you could potentially affect four surrounding tiles.

[USEC_OFFICER]

That's the point they're trying to make. Without adjacency bonuses then the arrangement of tiles doesn't matter at all. With them then the two cases are different, though not majorly so.

[Cruxador]

I think the current adjacency mechanics (only on a few specific buildings) are a good compromise. With adjacency on everything, like in Supreme Commander, it would become tedious trying to squeeze the most out of your planets. Without it, the game would be slightly less deep.

And I think the tiles could matter more if they re-do combat to take place on the map, which would be fine if they don't necessitate that the player actually micro-manage that conquest and instead do it a bit like HoI4 where it's mostly automated.

[Sean Mirrsen]

I really dislike where this game is going.

Between "galactic terrain", forced hyperlanes, and an emphasis on static defenses, they're turning what used to be a "realtime space 4X grand strategy game", into a "realtime 'space-themed' 4X grand strategy game". Stellaris post-1.9 is going to turn into a reskin of a boring old land-bound grand strategy game, literally taking away the thing that best differentiated it from other similar games. :|

So what is it that you think makes Master of Orion 2 and/or Endless Space 2 so different from Civilization and/or Endless Legend?

I never played Endless Space, so I can't say how different it is from Endless Legend. But I never managed to become interested in Master of Orion.

I personally think it's both necessary and should have been totally expected.

The rule for Paradox games, since CK2 (and somewhat before that), is, "ship the game incomplete and finish it later via DLC."

By "incomplete" I don't mean it doesn't work, or that it isn't a recognizable game. It's more like "prove that you can make a working game with this premise, and worry about the details later."

With Stellaris you can easily see where that happened: the FTL system never really made sense. The fact FTL type was just a customization choice, with no implications for balance or anything else, also suggests they were more worried about simply showing off a bunch of methods with no idea what system they'd eventually end up with.

I mean, cmon: a single patch where they're going to revamp from the ground up: 1) borders 2) space stations 3) movement on the map 4) the wargoals system 5) apparently something about combat as well? Stellaris 2.0 is the game they should have released.

The building/tile/economy system is another one that's ripe to be rewritten from the ground up. Just watch, in another year it'll be "sooooooo it turns out that Tiles don't actually add anything to the game because adjacency bonuses are too tedious to work with..."

FTL selection is not a "customization choice", not if it's touted as the reason why moving forward with more changes is 'impossible'.

If it were just a 'customization choice', we'd be having a way to have all three transit modes in equal capacity, not be forced to use only one. The weapon choice is far more meaningless, but it's kept because every empire can research the two options not picked.

We could have had Warp as the best drive system for exploration and construction, with Warp wind-up and wind-down being longer not just with distance, but with the size of fleet moving through. Those who choose Warp at startup gain that freedom of exploration and expansion, but have to research Hyperdrive and convert any existing military to it later on so that their fleets aren't reduced to one jump per season later on.

We could have had Hyperdrive as a primary drive system for outgoing military fleets, being fast to engage and disengage on entry and emergence, regardless of distance or fleet size, but limited to its travel lanes - lanes that could be seen by anyone with hyperdrive technology, and subject to blockades and chokepoints, and galactic topography. Those who choose Hyperdrive at startup can immediately start building up their navy, with no cost for later upgrades, but would end up limited in expansion and movement of their own science and constructor ships until they can research Warp drive.

And we could have had Wormhole stations reworked to be more akin to Hiver jumpgates, providing instant travel to connected stations only, letting your ships be anywhere within your empire within a matter of days, an ultimate choice for defensive fleets. Those who would choose Wormhole stations as their starting tech, would have the ability to expand their Wormhole network from the outset, at the cost of tremendously slowing down their own expansion. A Wormhole fleet would not be able to move out of a system without a Wormhole station, only into it - a Wormhole-using empire would have to send a constructor ship through to any new system they have, before being able to expand further from there.

Just like that, all three choices are viable starting technologies, and all three exist at the same time. Hyperlanes are still the best choice for large-scale military action, making chokepoints and fortifications matter. Warp is still there to provide the freedom of expansion and exploration. Wormholes are still OP as a defensive tech, but severely limit those who choose to start with them. And since one ship can only ever have one drivesystem installed, you would not have a situation where a fleet Warps into your space and can suddenly freely move around with hyperlanes. With no one drive tech being the sole choice for an empire anymore, each of the techs can afford to have actually crippling flaws, such as Warp fleets being locked out of movement and combat power for months, if not years, or Wormhole fleets being able to get stuck in a system until a Constructor ship arrives to rebuild a destroyed wormhole station, without it being such a necessarily big problem in the long run.

[Karnewarrior]

That's really what I suggested a while back in the thread, although I cut out Hyperlanes and made Warp the "normal" movement.

You'd be able to warp any ship anywhere, but it would take, at best, a year for it to reach it's destination. Or you could send constructors out and build Wormhole/Warpgates, and these would act like "roads" that would allow very fast movement between any two systems.

Then it would play similar to a Civ game, where your forts are likely along your roads because any smart enemy is going to be using them, and if not then there's a damn good chance for you to spot them moving in and intercept them. They could even then do the warp interdiction thing: It only effects warp drives, not warpgates, but it does suck into one system any given fleet.

[Cruxador]

I'd like to point out that the gates they'll be adding work just like the wormholes you've described. I'm more annoyed about losing wormholes simply because their mechanics were the only ones in the whole game making doomstacks less viable. And of course because the new focus on choke points makes them even more necessary...

[Karnewarrior]

They'll work the same way but you won't be able to build them for most of the game, unfortunately.

I'd prefer if there was a smaller version that worked similar. Oh well...

[Sean Mirrsen]

I've written out this comparison on Reddit already, but seriously, Dominions is going to end up having more strategic variety than Stellaris at this rate. Dominions already has all the things that post-1.9 Stellaris will, provinces with fixed neighbors as lane-linked "star systems", mountains and rivers as gaps in the "spiral arms" to create chokepoints, different terrain types and per-province effects as the new "galactic terrain", caves on some maps that connect different sides of the world the same way new "natural wormholes" will, spells to move your armies between laboratories you own, fortifications to hold chokepoints, and much more. It also includes nations that are natively amphibious, or flying - thus able to cross rivers, seas, fortifications, and sometimes even mountains with utter disregard for terrain.

A land strategy with more movement freedom than a space strategy. How in the hell.

[Ultimuh]

Not sure if I have asked this before, but any ways..
I wish to create an empire with as much naval capacity as possible, firepower is also good.
But I do not want play as a Fanatical Purifier, or any hivemind/machine equivalent thereof.

Any suggestions on government, civic, and trait combinations?
Also, any particular strategy to achieve naval superiority once I started a game?

[GiglameshDespair]

Not sure if I have asked this before, but any ways..
I wish to create an empire with as much naval capacity as possible, firepower is also good.
But I do not want play as a Fanatical Purifier, or any hivemind/machine equivalent thereof.

Any suggestions on government, civic, and trait combinations?
Also, any particular strategy to achieve naval superiority once I started a game?

Well, for ship strength you want to go Fanatic Militarist and take the Distingushed Admiralty civic for a starting +25% to fire rate and +5% evasion. Be democratic or oligarchic and take Citizen Service civic for +15% fleet cap.

Species wise... you probably want energy and minerals. So take those traits.

[Cruxador]

Well, I wrote a rant. Dunno if you guys care but I just laid out my feelings on the latest changes and why they're bad for strategy overall. That's not to say I don't like anything about them, but they encourage doomstacks which really hobbles strategy.

I've written out this comparison on Reddit already, but seriously, Dominions is going to end up having more strategic variety than Stellaris at this rate. Dominions already has all the things that post-1.9 Stellaris will, provinces with fixed neighbors as lane-linked "star systems", mountains and rivers as gaps in the "spiral arms" to create chokepoints, different terrain types and per-province effects as the new "galactic terrain", caves on some maps that connect different sides of the world the same way new "natural wormholes" will, spells to move your armies between laboratories you own, fortifications to hold chokepoints, and much more. It also includes nations that are natively amphibious, or flying - thus able to cross rivers, seas, fortifications, and sometimes even mountains with utter disregard for terrain.

A land strategy with more movement freedom than a space strategy. How in the hell.

Now, I've been critical of Paradox but comparing Stellaris to Dominions isn't really fair. You wouldn't expect a kid in a wheelchair to dunk on Jordan.

[EnigmaticHat]

They have completely different focuses.  Paradox GSGs are focused on politics with de-emphasized combat.  Dominions is super nitty-gritty focused on combat details.

I actually dislike what little combat strategy Stellaris has.  I wish they would just make it super simplified CK2 combat and stop trying to be like other space 4Xs.  They need to focus on non-military interaction between factions rather than on tactical combat, especially considering the AI will always suck at tactics.  So from that perspective I rather like the changes.  Especially since they allow for specialized groups.  You can design forces explicitly for using jump drive surprise attacks, or defending/attacking into fortified system with an environmental effect.  E.g. a fleet with no shields to defend a pulsar system.  My big problem with Stellaris combat is always going to be that there's no supply limit/frontage mechanic, but i'm not sure how you could justify such a thing in space.  At least now moving the doomstack has some small strategy to it.

[Baffler]

I'm not sure I agree that it encourages doomstacks. It seems a bit early to discuss balance at such an early stage (as I throw up a big wall of text) but I get the impression it'll be more strategic, while tactics are changed in nature but not really in complexity.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

To be fair you probably will need to concentrate your forces a lot in the early stages to break through a heavily defended border system, if one exists, but (even if we ignore the other changes they're making to how combat works that they haven't revealed yet) just the way taking territory works now makes doomstacking pretty foolish on its own. Those static defenses are still static and will only rarely be impossible to bypass, but more importantly you'll have far more a) more strategic objectives to consider and b) far greater risk in jumping your whole fleet into unknown territory. In the early game you'll have two kinds of objective - starbases and planets. Planets, whether you end up actually having to siege them down or not, are (probably) your main strategic targets. They have the pops, and the majority of resources are produced there, but they aren't your main tactical targets anymore. It's starbases that mark ownership of a system, and where the majority of ships are produced. That means that you don't need to destroy the most expensive and important industrial infrastructure of a system/planet to capture it anymore (yay) but it also means that you or the enemy can put that industrial infrastructure pretty much wherever you want. So you'll need to go find all that stuff, and not just secure it, but prevent the enemy from recapturing it. If your whole fleet is in one big stack, you risk leaving your rear open and getting cut off, or take heavy losses fighting to destroy the defenses around an important base only to have a small group of enemies recapture it because you either left it entirely unguarded or tried to build your own defensive platforms around it but couldn't get enough in time to make a difference. In an extreme example that means a superfortress is now standing between your diminished fleet and retreat/reinforcements.

The late game creates even more fun by adding a third type of strategic objective: the gateways. The enemy has far more mobility in his own territory than you do because they can use the gateways in those systems and you can't. In the late game that means reinforcements from what may be several major shipyards can muster wherever they want within friendly territory in a relatively short span of time. Ideally then, you would want to cut off access to as many systems as you can as quickly as you can to prevent the enemy from concentrating in those systems and wearing your giant fleetstack down through attrition, reversing your gains, or cutting it off as in the earlier example. Even if not every system has one, they still present an important strategic target. But the advantage they give means the enemy will need to dedicate ships and materiel to defending them if he wants to still be able to use them, especially since you can't build the special defensive platforms around these like you can with the tier 2+ starbases. There's a cap on the number of starbases you can maintain above outpost level, so defense will have to be elastic: that is, fleet-based. Otherwise an invader can just tie up your doomstack while smaller action groups run around in ur base killin ur doods, groups which will be even harder to catch in the future update than they already are because you'll have to cross gravity wells at sublight speeds to warp to a system other than the one you just came out of.

tl;dr: There are more strategically significant targets on the map than you can defend with superfortresses, elastic defense is best.