Print

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

[Criptfeind]

Paradox is incredibly bad at AI so it cheats a lot, even on more moderate difficulties like captain. It should be getting like +25% to everything and some discounts? But I don't think I recall fleets just spawning out of midair, except when it's a fleet that retreated (AI tends to retreat a lot in my experience so you often have to beat the same fleet multiple times to actually kill it)

[Culise]

A breakdown of difficulty bonuses can be found here: Captain is significant but not massive, being one step above the "neutral" Ensign difficulty.  I concur that unless you're fighting someone like a Scion (free fleet once every 20 years when losing against a Superior-rated enemy), you won't typically get fleets spawning ex nihilo.  That said, Scion spawns are justified - they're getting their fleet from their sugar daddy FE, which is what made them such a powerful origin pick for a few older patches and still makes them a bit painful to face even today.  The most probable source for spontaneously-appearing fleets in normal empires is indeed likely to be retreating fleets reemerging.  Also worth noting is that the AI will also play the market heavily.  That superior energy production will translate directly to alloy purchases as long as the market will bear it, which combined with their pre-war stockpiles will typically translate to a burst of parallel ship production due to the number of shipyards they typically have distributed all over the place. 

Worth adding if you've just come back to the game is that the Custodian team put a lot of effort into improving the AI over the last few patches.  Don't worry about turning the difficulty down for a few games if you're coming back; the AI at a lower difficulty will likely be a similar level to what you were facing before.  I also agree with Telgin that you may have ended up with an advanced start neighbor if they have two full fleets in just 20 years.  These start with 500 extra alloys, 200 extra influence, an enlarged starting fleet, free starbases, and extra systems along with all potential colonies in those systems already founded.  Needless to say, if you've left the option enabled, starting next to one can be an experience.

[pisskop]

genocidials will raise fleets like their lives depend on it, advanced start or not I've seen some very aggressive expansionist and turtle play from early game genocidial ai.

[Telgin]

Genocidal empires also get like a +33% fire rate bonus if I remember right, which could lead to a decent boost in fleet power for their fleets.

[Great Order]

They aren't genocidal. I've had one genocidal empire, it's just that the game's been in love with the idea of surrounding me with empires who hate me from the get go.

As in over 8 games at this point, I can count the number of non-hostile first contacts who haven't abducted or attempted to abduct my ships on one hand. I'm not exaggerating, that's a genuine fact.

[Telgin]

The game does do that too, and I kind of hate it sometimes.  I'm not sure the devs have ever admitted it, but it's at least accepted as well known among the community that the game tries to put empires with opposing ethics to yours nearby to create more conflict.

A few things you can do to help would be to decrease the number of AI empires or to set some with more compatible ethics to force spawn.  Fewer empires gives you more time and space to prepare, and I like to do that because I also don't like conquering neighbors but don't want to be boxed into the small space you'd get with the default number of empires.  Force spawning friendlier empires isn't a silver bullet either since the game can refuse to spawn them for various reasons, like portraits being used multiple times.

[pisskop]

My experience has been that the game does still have a bias towards placing opposing ethics at game start.  I created like 40 custom empires and I really enjoy them over the rando ai, even if the surprise of random ai is fun

AI, when they first make contact with you, will default towards harming relations.  It's only after the game develops more that they chill out.  You are the default threat until they find a new one.

I've noticed a difference in my first contact protocols.  When Im at 'aggressive' Im barred from many of the more positive interactions.  However, it allows me to camp chokepoints and chase off builders when I am aggressive.  Which I appreciate.

Taking an unknown starport no longer auto-completes first contact either.

.

Im a bit of an aggressive expanded, with a preference for early game expansion.  I tend to gear my early economy up through trade and then leaning on the market.  I overproduce consumer goods as a byproduct of alloy production, and then sell those too.

New worlds are turned immediately into forge worlds, and I tend to skimp out of starbases for a while to build a competitive fleet.  Early game starbases are generally more useful as forward defense than for their trade value, imo.  Although Im also a huge fan of the food production slot on starbases.  Less farmers means more smithies.

In general I overindustrialize my homeworld early on, and gradually turn my homeworld into a research and food world as the game progresses.  I also probably underinvest in tech early on.  2 research buildings, 3 if Im doing well.  I feel that the game is actually just an economy simulator, and if youre having trouble keeping up with the admittedly cheater ai than you just have to buckle down and burn your economy harder and earlier.

The ai tends to outtech me anyway, its just that I tend to focus on going after stronger branches in the tech tree while they do everything.  And the warmonger ais are almost always at least superior to me, because Im expanding well into the mid game if I get my chokepoints right.

[MorleyDev]

So is it just me, or does the "Under One Rule" origin feel in a lot of ways like a 'vertical slice' prototype of some of the kinds of experiences they'd want to have emerge dynamically from an Internal Politics rework?

Not complaining, it's possibly my new favourite origin atm.

[Telgin]

I haven't tried the origin, but I'm hoping that the DLC as a whole is like a prototype for some kind of internal politics rework.  At this point I'm starting to doubt that they ever intend to implement something like that in Stellaris and will need to wait until Stellaris 2, if they plan to do it even then.

On a different note, the new leaders and mechanics are really cool in the new DLC, but I agree with a lot of people who feel like the leader cap is too restrictive for how the game works now.  I think the idea of a leader cap is an important balance factor with how much better leaders are, but boy does it feel too crowded when you really need least 2 of your starting pool in science ships.  I can't imagine anyone ever uses generals now.

[MrRoboto75]

tbf scientists are the only leader type I really give a shit about.

[EuchreJack]

tbf scientists are the only leader type I really give a shit about.

I've had fun with good admirals.

[MrRoboto75]

hard to give a shit about admirals when combat boils down to having bigger numbers than your opponent.

like Crusader Kings also has a morbillion modifiers for combat but on average having more troops will just win you the war outside of an utter blunder like a river crossing.

[Telgin]

It also doesn't help that using admirals can be actively annoying since they increase command limit based on skill now, so if you try to use them to their fullest by maxing your command limit then when they die the fleet gets split.

I still use them though.  You need at least one for the council position, and some civics require a second one for council positions.  I just don't go over 210 command limit to avoid the problem I just mentioned.

[pisskop]

That sounds painful.  I typically have extra admirals laying around by midgame, since they can spawn via event.  By the time I eventually have the spare influence to make any number of habitats, I tend to favor fortress habs in key areas, so at least fleet capacity isnt an issue after early game.

The problem with habs is that theyre expensive on the influence though.

[Lidku]

hard to give a shit about admirals when combat boils down to having bigger numbers than your opponent.

like Crusader Kings also has a morbillion modifiers for combat but on average having more troops will just win you the war outside of an utter blunder like a river crossing.

CK2 actually was one the few Paradox games where raw numbers could be beaten reliably, given the right said modifiers, troop composition, and technology.

If you're a tribal going up against a feudal, who certainly has more heavy troops than you could possibly have, you're going to get wrecked in the Melee phase. You might rack up a good few casualties in the skirmish phase, but the morale of the entire enemy unit will still hang-on due to the heavy infantry more-or-less still being too durable; thus not losing that much morale compared to other units.

Nomads in CK2 against all other government types, if you've upgraded your campsite buildings good enough, can pretty much take on anybody with only a horde of 2500~ to 5000~ men.