Print

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

[Majestic7]

I hope that in the future we can set target priorities for fleets and classes of ships regarding what to target etc.

[Sean Mirrsen]

Hell, the whole combat computer thing should be a lot deeper than it is. It was a mistake to tie the stat bonuses to the behaviors (not that the behaviors are particularly elaborate). What if you want to make a long-range missileboat? Obviously you want the damage increase, but that module makes the ship charge in blindly. It should have been split into two subsystems, a "systems computer" and a "tactics computer", with the former giving a stat bonus and the latter dictating how the ship behaves in battle.

All it would take is a simple set of design-specific options: "maintain maximum range", "close with enemy", "screen long-range combatants", "pursue enemy long-range combatants", and "escort capital ships". Give a fleet focus toggle to tell the whole fleet if it should concentrate fire on a single random enemy, on one of the largest enemies, split fire between an appropriate number of the smallest enemies (to avoid overkill), or divide fire evenly across the enemy force. Lock that stuff behind some fleet tactics techs.

That sounds kinda like Gratuitous Space Battles grafted on top of the current Stellaris combat system. Which, now that I think about it, sounds totally awesome.

That would be incredible.

That was, very nearly, the combat system in Stardrive, which (coupled with basically my second-favorite ship design system) was the reason I liked the game so much. Too bad about the developer's choices, though.

[Neonivek]

I hope that in the future we can set target priorities for fleets and classes of ships regarding what to target etc.

I actually like that they don't have that. If ONLY because I picture that what "we" don't see is a huge chaotic space fight. It would be like telling an army of 1000 to shoot on a single random tank and expecting them all to unload their AKs on it.

If they did include it, I'd hope it isn't too powerful.

[Majestic7]

I don't mean combat control; I mean a chance to pick target priorities in ship design window. So that you could set your torpedo boats to attack battleships first, then cruisers, then starbases, then other targets, for example. Then those boats would pick their targets according to that logic.

[IronyOwl]

But with the way fleets work, a war is pretty much decided by the first big engagement, so if they did that the only limit on blobbing would be how long you feel like eating war exhaustion.

I strongly disagree, at least early game.  Maybe I'd doing it wrong, but I always have far more minerals than Energy, so I find it a lot cheaper to just poof a fleet at wartime and hope they're all dead by peacetime.  I see wars as a battle of resources: I outproduce ships until I win.

Trouble here is that respective fleet power scales exponentially; if you have more ships than the other guy, you blow up his ships faster which means he blows up fewer of your ships. It's way more efficient to build up a superblob and crush an enemy fleet in one go than it is to send wave after wave of expendable minions at it. And since mineral and energy output are both roughly analogous and largely under your control, having way more minerals and way less energy than you need strikes me as an odd choice.

Obvious example: I assume you'd never, ever bother to send ships after the enemy one at a time just because you had a second ship in the queue right after it.

I hope that in the future we can set target priorities for fleets and classes of ships regarding what to target etc.

I actually like that they don't have that. If ONLY because I picture that what "we" don't see is a huge chaotic space fight. It would be like telling an army of 1000 to shoot on a single random tank and expecting them all to unload their AKs on it.

If they did include it, I'd hope it isn't too powerful.

I don't mean combat control; I mean a chance to pick target priorities in ship design window. So that you could set your torpedo boats to attack battleships first, then cruisers, then starbases, then other targets, for example. Then those boats would pick their targets according to that logic.

I agree with both of these. Some measure of design/control would be nice, but not of the "always shoot the healers first" variety. Whether your torpedo boats manage to reach their battleships or not should be a noteworthy turn of events in the battle, not completely certain or something that just happens on accident sometimes.

[Neonivek]

Apperantly the creators find gene-modding to "safe" and want to balance it against Terraforming to make it the "safe" option.

>_<

Terraforming is ridiculously expensive... so much so it feels more like they are punishing gene-modding.

[Ultimuh]

Well one of the devs don't like the idea of terraforming being cheap and easy.
But I do agree that making other "alternatives" harder/expensive kind of sucks.

[LoSboccacc]

eh I liked that stellaris could be played in game time chunk, not every game needs to be a once in a lifetime event like a civilization marathon - stuff should have reasonable time and be balanced in returns, or it's as not having it in the first place

[jocan2003]

Hell, the whole combat computer thing should be a lot deeper than it is. It was a mistake to tie the stat bonuses to the behaviors (not that the behaviors are particularly elaborate). What if you want to make a long-range missileboat? Obviously you want the damage increase, but that module makes the ship charge in blindly. It should have been split into two subsystems, a "systems computer" and a "tactics computer", with the former giving a stat bonus and the latter dictating how the ship behaves in battle.

All it would take is a simple set of design-specific options: "maintain maximum range", "close with enemy", "screen long-range combatants", "pursue enemy long-range combatants", and "escort capital ships". Give a fleet focus toggle to tell the whole fleet if it should concentrate fire on a single random enemy, on one of the largest enemies, split fire between an appropriate number of the smallest enemies (to avoid overkill), or divide fire evenly across the enemy force. Lock that stuff behind some fleet tactics techs.

That sounds kinda like Gratuitous Space Battles grafted on top of the current Stellaris combat system. Which, now that I think about it, sounds totally awesome.

That would be incredible.

That was, very nearly, the combat system in Stardrive, which (coupled with basically my second-favorite ship design system) was the reason I liked the game so much. Too bad about the developer's choices, though.

My best 2 is Stardrive and star-ruler ship building, both was incredible, if i had to choose between both, star-ruler ship design all the way.

[ZeroGravitas]

Is it just me, or is their forum moderation weird? I've been banned three times now, on a generic "trolling" reason, with no real explanation or anything. And this is the same rules as the rest of the Paradox forums, which I've previously never even been warned on, despite posting plenty on the CK2 forum. Anyone else had such an experience?

On Paradox forums it mostly revolves around who reports you; for what; and which moderator happens to get the report.

Most of the moderators are fine but a couple are total idiots. There's one in particular who has a list of sorts, and once you're on it, he'll relentlessly punish you for any minor infraction. I've seen some of his actions reversed by the moderator chief, but eventually he'll get his man.

The way their forums function is totally absurd as well; if you're temp banned, you can't even see why or appeal it until AFTER the temp ban has expired. And it's impossible for them to retroactively lower the severity of an infraction. You can also get placed on probation, which means you can still post suggestions, but not report bugs.

Overall it matches Paradox's own design philosophy: a bunch of ad hoc crap with no regularity of policy or professionalism.

[Rolan7]

The way their forums function is totally absurd as well; if you're temp banned, you can't even see why or appeal it until AFTER the temp ban has expired.

Sounds like what Cruxador experienced.  Yeesh that sucks is kinda bad.

And it's impossible for them to retroactively lower the severity of an infraction.

Wait but... how is that public knowledge?

You can also get placed on probation, which means you can still post suggestions, but not report bugs.

That sounds really dumb.

Overall it matches Paradox's own design philosophy: a bunch of ad hoc crap with no regularity of policy or professionalism.

uh
That's not my experience, though I *assume* it's true of their initial releases.
You sound like you have an axe to grind...

[PTTG??]

So you can't start out as both decadent and xenophobic since that means you only want to have alien slaves, but you don't have any slaves starting out...

I just want to make giant fat space turtles with spindly alien fungus slaves!

I'm literally working on a mod to allow that. I'm willing to deal with the penalty until I find an acceptable slave race.

Huh, that was easy. Am I a cool micro-modder now?

[ZeroGravitas]

And it's impossible for them to retroactively lower the severity of an infraction.

Wait but... how is that public knowledge?

I'm not sure it's "public knowledge" but I've seen screenshots of the conversations with a Paradox forums moderator where he explained it.

Overall it matches Paradox's own design philosophy: a bunch of ad hoc crap with no regularity of policy or professionalism.

uh
That's not my experience, though I *assume* it's true of their initial releases.
You sound like you have an axe to grind...

Well, (1) if you talk to people who worked at Paradox internally for a few years, and you look at the typical problems Paradox has on release of a new product, you figure out pretty quickly that they don't really do code-base management very well. Their own CEO calls it "nonconforming game development." Patches make changes that aren't in any documentation, anywhere; those same changes are reverted without warning or explanation; and then the developers themselves don't even know how parts of the game work. I've even seen situations where developer A didn't realize developer B changed something and said he would check with head developer C on whether the change was supposed to be in the game. And we're not even talking about the bugs that creep into the games for inexplicable reasons (like Japan being randomly broken for a few patches in EU4).

(2) I suppose I do, to the extent that I think it's great that Paradox is seeing more success these days, but there are also some fundamental problems with how their design process work. If you've ever watched their developer multiplayer games in EU4, you can almost always guess what changes will be coming in the next patch. Oh, Groogy has a fucking temper tantrum and spams chat because he thinks the other player should accept a peace deal faster? We get the new Unconditional Surrender button. Oh, a player in India wins the multiplayer game? Better nerf the non-European countries some more.

And I'm not even talking about their games themselves, really. This is all 100% about how they function as a company. It's the "making it up as we go along" school of game design. Sure, they make up some good shit, mostly. But their process is loosey-goosey and it shows in the games.

[Cruxador]

uh
That's not my experience, though I *assume* it's true of their initial releases.

I think he's overstating the case, but they do definitely lack consistency, and if you follow them enough, you get the idea that a big part of this is because of how the social structure of their office works, which isn't really what you want determining outcomes in a company.

[PTTG??]

uh
That's not my experience, though I *assume* it's true of their initial releases.

I think he's overstating the case, but they do definitely lack consistency, and if you follow them enough, you get the idea that a big part of this is because of how the social structure of their office works, which isn't really what you want determining outcomes in a company.

heh. heh ha ha haHAHAHHAAAAA.

Yeah you just described pretty much 100% of offices ever.