Whilst I'm Mega-Hyped. I'm also foreseeing a ton of mechanics based DLCs. A bit like GalCiv3, where they stripped away a lot of the mechanics and plan to gradually feed them back in via expansions.
To be fair, when Stardock made a game with all features available from the get-go (Elemental: War of Magic) it didn't work out too well.
The base structure of Paradox games have been steadily improving, like I think EU4 is vastly superior to EU2. What was lost though were the historical events etc and other content. Instead Paradox now increasingly make just skeletons and frameworks, expecting modders to provide the real content. It is the same with CK2, although the base game is great it gets boring quickly; it is the fluff, flavor and events provided by modders in the Big Mods that make the game awesome.
It will be interesting to see if Stellaris will be the same kind of empty framework.
Paradox's new policy actually disallows major mods, they only like stuff they directly control, which means mods that fit on the Steam workshop.
Dev Diary 5: Empires and Species
So, Empires are defined by species (in the six major classes we know already: Mammalian, Arthropoid, Avian, Reptilian, Molluscoid or Fungoid), but also by their Ethos (which are designated at game start, but can also be manipulated in-game). Species have genetic traits which are also bought separately, which are much more fixed when compared to ethos but are still not completely inviolate (quote from Sheng-ji Yang here). Pops also have their own ethos which may or may not match their government, like Victoria 2 issues and parties, but it looks like they're a bit more unruly than they were in V2. It sounds...promising, depending on how much control we actually have to influence population and government ethos directly or indirectly.
I'm a bit disappointed. A technological/synthetic racial class would be okay; something with robots and AIs and crystal people.
Based on previous stuff, the xenophobic/xenophilic axis doesn't seem to have much basis in either established sociology or in logic, and is more of a "good guy/bad guy" axis based on a modern pop political idea of tolerance.
"We think you are great! Now join us or else!"
Here's another aspect of why: Slavery is considered xenophobic, contrary to the definition of the word. It might be more accurately be called Equality vs Superiority or something.
Most leader types are recruited using Influence (a type of diplomatic "currency" in the game)
And that sets off blaring EU4-colored warning lights.
Other dumb choices include: A leader cap, meaning you'll have lots of ungoverend planets and systems.
Adjacency bonuses are by type, meaning you should make a cluster of power stations to maximize efficiency, rather than putting things that make power adjacent to things that consume power, to promote a realistic network of industry.
I always pictured spaceports being on planet surfaces, like on Tatooine, and in MoO 2,
In actuality, the most efficient way is to lift parts and supplies into orbit using an elevator and construct stuff up top.
so what is everyone's first race? i what to make a Utopian human federation like in Star Trek. i don't like the dystopian theme that seems to pervade most sci fi.
We don't know much about races, so I can't say that for certain. Depends on the traits and portraits available, but if nothing catches my eye I'll just go human. As for nation, I want to go spiritual collectivist to make an ideal society, and either xenophobic or pacifist, depending on how the mechanics work out; preserving my own race (and thus a predominance of my own ethics) seems overall beneficial but I suspect Paradox is making it the "bad guy" option rather than simply making it a tribal "us first" ideology. Might do it even if they do. Pacifism comes with a food (and thus population) bonus, which is nice and I like to build more than conquer, but it depends on how restrictive the mechanics are. Still gonna want to go on cheerful colonialist adventures in other people's nations, after all.
I'm thinkin' some kind of spiritualist, militaristic order working on a code of morality no-one else in the galaxy will ever understand. Let us cut God to see if He bleeds!
You endeavor to reach heaven through violence? The faithful of YISUN are a strange breed.
What if they don't? What if they're freeing someone from the tyranny of choice, and replacing it with a system of safety in certainty?
Every slavery is inherently hierarchical; for someone to be owned, another must own. That would generally imply belief about who should fit which role, and the odd case where the ruling designated caste isn't necessarily the rulers of your slave nation seems to me an odd enough exception that it's reasonable to be omitted in the base game. Though "force them to adopt this policy we like" seems like a reasonable CB for the game to include. Even "force them to adopt this policy we don't like" if you want to play the USA disarm Japan, radicalize foreign religions, and etc.
a philosophy/religion seeing war in itself as holy would be interesting.
The Assyrians had something like that. Others too, including an Orthodox heresy that I don't recall the name of.