Print

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

[Greenbane]

So after some thought on it I realized that Stellaris could well allow one of my favorite strategies from GalCiv2.

Specifically, since there is a rough "rock paper scissors" to attack/defense type, a high research civ can rush a bunch of one combo and then proliferate it through the cosmos, and since it's a higher tier then what they were using, the AI in GC2 at least would use it instead.
You could then switch focus to a combo designed to beat that one, and have the most advantageous force in the galaxy.

Basically its this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZqaCEPwWGtc weaponized.

I do hate that kind of simplistic design, shoehorning in rock-paper-scissors without an ounce of sense instead of giving weapon types proper purpose. GalCiv2 and 3 were considerably lesser due to that.

I didn't know Stellaris had embraced such a scheme. Can anyone confirm?

[Majestic7]

We have different weapons, maneuverability, armor and stuff. I've seen no indication of clear rock-paper-scissors like GalCiv, which in my opinion is a boring and overhyped serie anyway.

[Criptfeind]

Yeah. I guess any game is going to have some degree of rock paper scissors. We won't be able to tell if the combat is okay before we play it (I except boring, but serviceable, like their other games, which also means if you like games for their in depth combat and such, I think you'll be really disappointed by Stellaris). So far it doesn't seem as awful as Galciv or... I think endless space was like that as well? But it very well could be.

[USEC_OFFICER]

I'd like to point out that Galciv 2's (and maybe 3) combat system was even worse than the basic rock-paper-scissors system. The three different attack types had almost no interaction with each other. An off-type defence was square-rooted and added to the on-type defence of the ship. That is it. That is literally the only interaction between the three weapon types in combat. Admittedly the three weapon types also had different research speeds to differentiate them, but generally you were best off by sticking to a single type for combat and researching your defenses depending on your enemies. Or completely ignore defense and just churn out legions of suicide attack craft.

What I'm trying to say here is that Galciv 2 was a good example of how to not do combat in a 4x game. I would be surprised if Stellaris didn't surpass it in some way.

[Greenbane]

Yeah. I guess any game is going to have some degree of rock paper scissors. We won't be able to tell if the combat is okay before we play it (I except boring, but serviceable, like their other games, which also means if you like games for their in depth combat and such, I think you'll be really disappointed by Stellaris). So far it doesn't seem as awful as Galciv or... I think endless space was like that as well? But it very well could be.

Yeah, every weapon is going to have counters, and that's fine, but GalCiv2-3 is notorious for adhering to the RPS scheme far too rigidly by design: technology's all over the place and you're forced to pick a weapon-defense path, and then it's completely random what you'll actually find in the field.

Maybe it turns out your nemesis uses a killer combination that requires you to overhaul your entire navy and start researching other defenses/weapons virtually from scratch. Nevermind if some species appears out of the blue, sporting that one third type of weapon you hadn't prepared for! At the same time, you could encounter a faction with just the right combination for you to easily steamroll them.

Such randomness always felt terrible on a fundamental level, and I'm astounded it made it into GalCiv3.

So anyway, glad to hear Stellaris doesn't seem to be so heavy-handed.

[Drakale]

Endless space wasn't exactly rock paper scissor in the tech department, but the combat actions you could take was.

From what I have seen, combat options will be pretty limited in Stellaris, instead focusing on logistics. My biggest worry is the apparent death ball philosophy to space combat where you entire nation's military force is concentrated in one fleet at all time as an optimum strategy. I was hoping for some sort of province defense for your systems with more mobile dedicated warfleets you could use to reinforce or attack enemy positions. I just don't see many opportunities for stalemates and attrition wars in the current system. The gameplay video I saw went from one successful fight to subduing an entire same-sized empire in a very short time.

[Greenbane]

Endless space wasn't exactly rock paper scissor in the tech department, but the combat actions you could take was.

From what I have seen, combat options will be pretty limited in Stellaris, instead focusing on logistics. My biggest worry is the apparent death ball philosophy to space combat where you entire nation's military force is concentrated in one fleet at all time as an optimum strategy. I was hoping for some sort of province defense for your systems with more mobile dedicated warfleets you could use to reinforce or attack enemy positions. I just don't see many opportunities for stalemates and attrition wars in the current system. The gameplay video I saw went from one successful fight to subduing an entire same-sized empire in a very short time.

Death-balling is a valid concern. The game could benefit from some Hearts of Iron-like mechanics, like limiting the amount of ships a single officer can command, and the amount of ships which can effectively engage in a single battle, with tech, ideology, traits and other factors affecting those limits.

Expansion material, I suppose.

[Criptfeind]

I have to say, deathballing doesn't reallllly bother me. And artificial limits, especially when you're in space, seem like they might feel a bit forced. There does need to be like, balance on the warscore. But if it ends up being that basically you want a large fleet, or several fleets if your empire is big enough for multiple fronts, that won't bother me too much.

[Greenbane]

Fleet/battle limits wouldn't necessarily feel forced: they're related to command & control technology, and it wouldn't be a stretch to relate them to command traits as well. It could even be further integrated with gameplay, with C&C modules and even dedicated ships, which dynamically expand those limits while allowing the possibility for a sudden drop in effectiveness mid-battle if they're destroyed.

Alternatively, another implementation would do away with limits, instead opting to allow C&C modules to bestow general effectiveness bonuses upon a fleet, granting it an advantage against one with lesser or no C&C modules active.

[Shadowlord]

Both Sword of the Stars and Star Ruler II have fleet size limits based on your command and control, and it works well in both. (In SR2, you can put more support command on your flagship to be able to have more support ships, but then you'll also need more supplies for them all, and both those things increase the flagship's upkeep cost. In SotS you need a command and control ship, and research increases how many ships they can command.)

[Criptfeind]

Fleet/battle limits wouldn't necessarily feel forced

Hum. Not necessarily forced, but it's hard for me to imagine that with the scale they are going with that any such limit wouldn't feel forced.

Increase efficiency though command ships sounds like a fine idea though.

Both Sword of the Stars and Star Ruler II have fleet size limits based on your command and control, and it works well in both. (In SR2, you can put more support command on your flagship to be able to have more support ships, but then you'll also need more supplies for them all, and both those things increase the flagship's upkeep cost. In SotS you need a command and control ship, and research increases how many ships they can command.)

I can't actually remember star ruler that well, but in sword of the stars at least it's like. Very contrived, and it doesn't make sense. It's a game thing done to make the game more enjoyable, and it's important for that because the combat is such a important part of the game and in it you personally control your ships in a rts style battle with some physics, where if you actually had hundreds of ships it'd be impossible to manage and it'd be a computer killer. So, for sword of the stars it's the right option. I don't think that'd necessarily be the case for Stellaris.

[Shadowlord]

There wasn't any fleet sizes (or fleets, except where you selected a bunch of ships and designated them as a fleet) in Star Ruler I, so you could end up with stuff like this and this.

Presumably that won't be a problem in Stellaris? I haven't watched/read all the stuff, so I don't know how the combat works.

[Criptfeind]

What? Too many ships at once? That won't be an issue in Stellaris, aside from maintenance costs being somewhat of a cap on them, you've also have a fleet limit, increase it with tech and buildings, fill it with ship depending on their size. I don't know if it's impossible to have over your limits, in their other games you can freely go over it, it's just very expensive to do so (although worth doing still, especially if you're rich, or have relatively small navel capacity compared to your size.) Ether way, no, there isn't going to be thousands of ships in an empire.

[Puzzlemaker]

On top of that if you end up with a large empire, it may take a long time for your fleet to move from one side to the other, depending on your warp type.

[Cruxador]

I do hate that kind of simplistic design, shoehorning in rock-paper-scissors without an ounce of sense instead of giving weapon types proper purpose. GalCiv2 and 3 were considerably lesser due to that.

I didn't know Stellaris had embraced such a scheme. Can anyone confirm?

It's a simplification, and not exactly accurate. Lasers are more effectively deflected by shields, while mass drivers are more effectively deflected by armor. Missiles are effective against either but are vulnerable to point defense. It's not a true rock paper scissors situation, but it is a "get the right tech/module to beat your enemies" situation.

Yeah. I guess any game is going to have some degree of rock paper scissors. We won't be able to tell if the combat is okay before we play it (I except boring, but serviceable, like their other games, which also means if you like games for their in depth combat and such, I think you'll be really disappointed by Stellaris). So far it doesn't seem as awful as Galciv or... I think endless space was like that as well? But it very well could be.

Boring but serviceable seems about right. You can't interact with it aside from calling a retreat, and so it's mostly just watching ships swirl around each other with guns blasting, while numbers change on a display panel. Visually, it's more interesting than their other games, but I'm not sure that's true of the actual numbers and stuff that you care about – though there is information about which weapons and modules are doing the most, which could be handy. However, your interaction with combat isn't necessarily the only important part – just consider the great depth of Dominions 4, where you only set tactics ahead of time. Stellaris won't be that deep, but designing your ships and assigning them combat computers should at least be more than Paradox' previous games.

Endless space wasn't exactly rock paper scissor in the tech department, but the combat actions you could take was.

From what I have seen, combat options will be pretty limited in Stellaris, instead focusing on logistics. My biggest worry is the apparent death ball philosophy to space combat where you entire nation's military force is concentrated in one fleet at all time as an optimum strategy. I was hoping for some sort of province defense for your systems with more mobile dedicated warfleets you could use to reinforce or attack enemy positions. I just don't see many opportunities for stalemates and attrition wars in the current system. The gameplay video I saw went from one successful fight to subduing an entire same-sized empire in a very short time.

The dev said that keeping everything in one fleet was typical to the early game, implying that it's less so later on – though I'll believe that when I see it. There is a province defense system though – in fact there's two. You have defensive armies (those without dedicated transports, who stick to their own worlds) as PD against ground invasions, and you build defensive stations (or defensive modules on other stations) as PD for the system.

Endless space wasn't exactly rock paper scissor in the tech department, but the combat actions you could take was.

From what I have seen, combat options will be pretty limited in Stellaris, instead focusing on logistics. My biggest worry is the apparent death ball philosophy to space combat where you entire nation's military force is concentrated in one fleet at all time as an optimum strategy. I was hoping for some sort of province defense for your systems with more mobile dedicated warfleets you could use to reinforce or attack enemy positions. I just don't see many opportunities for stalemates and attrition wars in the current system. The gameplay video I saw went from one successful fight to subduing an entire same-sized empire in a very short time.

Death-balling is a valid concern. The game could benefit from some Hearts of Iron-like mechanics, like limiting the amount of ships a single officer can command, and the amount of ships which can effectively engage in a single battle, with tech, ideology, traits and other factors affecting those limits.

Expansion material, I suppose.

The former of those systems is confirmed in the game; the size of a single fleet is limited. The starting limit seems high enough not to matter in the early game, though.