Print

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

[forsaken1111]

According to their twitter, pop ethics are about to get a major rework and the ethics divergence stat is going away. Good riddance

[Sirus]

Really? Hmm, I sorta liked how pops could start to split away from the fold, maybe even start demanding independence.

Wonder what they'll replace it with...?

[IronyOwl]

Loved the original, theoretical concept, with it tying into sectors and so on, but the actual execution was mostly obnoxious. I would have preferred they build it up and refine it rather than scrap it, but this is a simple alternative.

I assume ethics will now be essentially genetic and inviolate, but they might just make divergence more event/condition based rather than a formalized stat.

[Flying Dice]

I'd be fine if it still existed but was tied to... y'know, actual things, rather than being a stat. So, say a colony-revolution event pops in your repressive authoritarian shithole, some/all of the pops on that planet gain Individualist/whatever. Stuff like that. A world is right by the border with a friendly alien empire for decades, some of the pops gain Xenophilia. The same, except the empire is hostile and aggressive, so they become Xenophobia.

Tie it to actual events and situations is what I'm saying. That would be really cool. Even better if you paired it with sector improvements and could split off sectors with their own core ethos. So, say you've got three planets that are really xenos-friendly from the above, and they also had an event pop with a religious revival after the discovery of some holy artifact or whatever, in your materialist and xenophobia state. Split off a sector, designate it as xenophilia and spiritualist, and the pops within are happy and productive. Appoint a sector governor who shares those ethos (because why wouldn't leaders have ethos?), give them a good deal of latitude. But then you discover you've been too generous and forgiving, the division is so deep that the people of that sector don't feel as if they have a place in your empire any more. Do you enact policies to shift your ethos on a broad scale and deal with similarly broad discontent for a while, or do you risk that sector rebelling and forming a new state?

I'd love to see stuff like that, and it's an example of how ethics divergence and sectors could be tools used to allow emergent stories to form, instead of being annoying piles of shit like they are now.

[Retropunch]

I'd be fine if it still existed but was tied to... y'know, actual things, rather than being a stat.

I completely agree - only issue with that is that it's difficult to monitor/it might just seem random unless it was constantly called out. Part of the problem is that you can end up with a pretty huge empire with tons of sectors - being able to have visibility of that divergence and the reasons why would be difficult to get across. Still I could see this working more at a sector level.

Mostly though, I found that the divergence just made the trait point genetic engineering stuff a bit useless. It takes an ungodly amount of soc research to convert enough of the population if you're quite ethically diverse.


Sectors generally are just rubbish though. Tying it to ethics and stuff is never going to improve it enough, as you're basically just losing control in what is really a very micromanage-y game.

[Descan]

honestly the best way to change sectors is to turn off the "the AI builds what it wants"


Like the sector ethics thing works, add that plus have the AI manage WHEN it builds stuff but you tell it what to actually build. :U In what order.

Then you have the best of both worlds. You're not stressed by making sure to build stuff on time but you're still in control of "hey, dumbass, build minerals and energy BEFORE building ten thousand space stations"

Could even just have a queue you assign. Like "Build minerals on mineral deposits first, then energy, and then XYZ" and the AI tailors it to the planets it's been given, using the minerals and energy it has without hoarding them.

[I'd also like it if the sector AI would give it's minerals back to the player if it has nothing else to build and is just sitting on it. Like sure, keep a stockpile, but if you have 5k minerals in 4 sectors, that's wasted.]

[forsaken1111]

I like the idea of sectors but the implementation is terrible. They're supposed to reduce micromanagement for larger empires, which makes sense, but really a sector should play as its own political entity within your empire, not as a braindead AI governor who can't even figure out how to feed the people.

[TempAcc]

I'd be fine with sectors if sector AI actualy, uh, worked.

Anyway, I also dislike that certain things just seem bound to happen as long as the prerequisites are in place, kind of like a certain pop in a certain planet ALWAYS seems to turn into another species and revolt against the regular species if you have the genetic manipulation techs unlocked. Like, it kind of always happens to me at least.

[Retropunch]

It emanates from the core problem with Stellaris - it can't work out if it wants to be a galciv-type 4x or a grand strategy.

If it wants to be the first, then it could do with giving the player greater control, and sectors would just sort of keep upgrading/building and whatever whilst you did other stuff. As the game is now, I don't see why that would be a problem. Sure, you can get bogged down in over micromanaging if you want, but it'd just be a bit like Distant Worlds - you can intervene if you want, but it'll run itself without if you need.

If they go the second way, then sectors need to be pretty much a separate entity, which just follows your rules, policies and overall strategy without your direct input. At the moment, I don't think this is viable as it's too hands off for the micro of the game, but maybe with some changes it could be. For instance, one of the big changes earmarked for the future is food sharing between planets. Centralising things like that would take the pressure of sectors. Add in sectors maintaining a fleet (which you could requisition in war time) and they'd start to get useful. Sector based factions that matter, plus council sessions with sector leaders, and it'd start getting into the territory of something exciting.

Really though, I wish Stellaris would just make up it's mind where it sits. I'm happy with either (although I'd lean to the second) but at the moment it's just too clunky on so many levels.

[stabbymcstabstab]

I don't know why they don't just give sectors they same AI as a independent empire with the research and diplomacy removed. It'll solve some issues since theres really no reason give them the crappy bug-ridden one they have now.

[Teneb]

Okay, I think I have my weirdest Stellaris run yet. I'm playing as Fanatic Individualist Militarist fungoids running with a indirect democracy (so +1 leader level), and the traits nonadaptive, slow breeders, conformists, quick learners, talented (so everyone starts at level 3) and tropical preference. I start exploring my spiral arm. To my "south" I soon find two habitable worlds, industrialized primitives and a spiritual fallen empire. That empire neatly blocks exploration south, so I turn northwest (I'm east-northeast, at the galaxy's edge). I find another planet of primitives (medieval), a gaia world that is not a holy world, and... another fallen empire. Xenophilic. And the next spiral arm is just too far.

Cue a few years of quietly researching until I get level 2 warp. I cross over to the next spiral arm, ready to see what leviathan stuff might be hiding there... and what do I find? A line of fanatic xenophobes stretching exactly the length of the area I can cross from my spiral arm to theirs.

I guess the game is telling me there will no such thing as allies or friends, and I need to prove there can be only a single stellar empire the hard way.

Or to just stay in my corner and away from this crazy galaxy.

Spoiler: damn xenophobes and their wall (click to show/hide)

[sprinkled chariot]

Its a pity, that there is no covert ops/espionage character type probably with own spaceship type  doing asassinations/trying to board and hijack single ships/abductions/sabotage/stealing technology and stuff. Aswell as character system does not have merchant/ diplomat archetypes doing related things like in total war/europa universalis series. 

[Shadowlord]

Even a system like moo2 would be trivial to add. Spies oppose each other, espionage just has a random chance to steal tech, sabotage has a chance to blow up a station or defense base or w/e. Doesn't let you specify targets.

[Retropunch]

Even a system like moo2 would be trivial to add. Spies oppose each other, espionage just has a random chance to steal tech, sabotage has a chance to blow up a station or defense base or w/e. Doesn't let you specify targets.

Agreed. I'm hoping they completely revamp characters in Banks (I feel that might be what it's about in terms of espionage and characters), but even if they don't, a way to actually influence other empires without just giving them stuff or going to war would be nice.

[Descan]

The two things we need before we get into a good espionage game are internal politics and changable ethos. i'm partial to a revamp of sectors. not only to what i mentioned before about axing the "ai decides" part, but make them tied directly to factions and expand the factions. So you give a faction control over a sector of space to placate it like a vassal in CK2. and ALSO like a vassal, have a sliding scale of control. From almost-independent sectors to rule by decree, and in the middle.

And more-over, if you're a democracy, have a choice between appointment of governors and elected governors, like your own ruler is elected.

That's just off the top of my head of ways to make sectors have a Purpose and also get internal politics that can be toyed with by spies. No idea if it'd be fun in practice.