Stellaris - To Serve Man - The Something Awful Forums

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Video Games > Stellaris - To Serve Man

Splicer: Oct 16, 2006; from hell's heart I cast at thee
🧙🐀🧹🌙🪄🐸

GunnerJ posted:

eta: If you're significantly outgunned or outnumbered, you might do it anyway, but I guess I'd want "effectiveness" to come down to things like sublight speed (oversized fleets are cumbersome) and defensive penalties so that you can throw more ships at it to overcome being at a disadvantage, but at the price of losing more ships. It's not something you can do consistently without putting a ridiculous burden on your economy.

Definitely. That's one of the effective results of the SotS1 system. While dumping over your cap into a fleet sometimes gives you a small amount of extra ships in your deployment, the main thing it gives you is reinforcements. So having 60 command points of ships in an 12 point cap fleet is in no way worse than having 30/12, it's not really much better. While 30/12 is better than 20/12, it's a marginal increase at best in most circumstances, and having two 30/12 fleets is nowhere near as good as having three 20/12 fleets. So something with this effective result (Shoving a few extra ships in won't make life worse, it's just not a linear increase once you go past the cap) would be cool, though the exact system SotS1 uses wouldn't work at all in this game.

# ? Mar 6, 2017 14:23

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 27, 2024 20:22

ulmont: Sep 15, 2010; IF I EVER MISS VOTING IN AN ELECTION (EVEN AMERICAN IDOL) ,OR HAVE UNPAID PARKING TICKETS, PLEASE TAKE AWAY MY FRANCHISE

GotLag posted:

I'm still learning not to put too much trust in threat values. A fallen empire woke up, and I decided to just try attacking them with the intention of reloading after my fleet was destroyed. Imagine my surprise when my 100k 16/16/32/32 blob annihilated their 140k fleet (albeit with only 17 battleships left at the end). Did I just get lucky in that kinetics are the best counter to fallen empires?

Kinetics are one of the best weapon types (of course, there are only 3 and 1 just sucks, so that's not amazing).

What I have noticed is that threat values seem to be based more on DPS than anything else. As much lower tech as your ships are than FE ships, you will have many more hull points by comparison than the FE ships for the same DPS, so you will have a higher capacity to absorb damage.

I tend to assume that I need about 2/3 the fleet strength of an FE to win before I get to endgame tech (after which I assume I need 4/3 or so, however you would consider it normally), which tracks your experience there.

# ? Mar 6, 2017 14:56

Crazycryodude: Aug 15, 2015; Lets get our X tons of Duranium back!

....Is that still a valid thing to jingoistically blow out of proportion?

Wait, endgame tech makes it HARDER to deal with Fallen Empires?

# ? Mar 6, 2017 15:00

Truga: May 4, 2014; Lipstick Apathy

Kinetics are end-game tech. :v:

# ? Mar 6, 2017 15:02

Skippy McPants: Mar 19, 2009

Crazycryodude posted:

Wait, endgame tech makes it HARDER to deal with Fallen Empires?

No, he just means that the Fleet Strength indicator favors damage output over hull points and at lower tech levels you tend to have more HP in proportion to your DPS. That balance flips as you tech up and as a result your Fleet Strength ends up getting inflated somewhat.

# ? Mar 6, 2017 15:07

Taear: Nov 26, 2004; Ask me about the shitty opinions I have about Paradox games!

Skippy McPants posted:

No, he just means that the Fleet Strength indicator favors damage output over hull points and at lower tech levels you tend to have more HP in proportion to your DPS. That balance flips as you tech up and as a result your Fleet Strength ends up getting inflated somewhat.

Which is why your 30k fleet can beat a 90k Prethoryn Scourge fleet.

# ? Mar 6, 2017 15:52

Kimsemus: Dec 4, 2013; by Reene; Toilet Rascal

I don't know how many of you guys play with Alphamod, but I built a modpack designed around playing with Alphamod that is being enjoyed by a couple groups of goons right now:

http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=873872037

It's also what I'm currently playing with -- still kind of tweaking and messing with removing/adding things, but if you're bored with the base game, consider giving it a whirl

# ? Mar 6, 2017 16:23

Aethernet: Jan 28, 2009; This is the Captain...

Our glorious political masters have, in their wisdom, decided to form an alliance with a rag-tag bunch of freedom fighters right when the Federation has us at a tactical disadvantage. Unsurprisingly, this has resulted in the Feds firing on our vessels...

Damn you Huxley!; Grimey Drawer

https://twitter.com/Martin_Anward/status/838706255690620928

Of course, this means I will now be forced to mine every last mineral, rather than stopping space mining after the early game because it's too expensive. OCD will cripple my empire.

# ? Mar 6, 2017 16:55

ulmont: Sep 15, 2010; IF I EVER MISS VOTING IN AN ELECTION (EVEN AMERICAN IDOL) ,OR HAVE UNPAID PARKING TICKETS, PLEASE TAKE AWAY MY FRANCHISE

Aethernet posted:

Of course, this means I will now be forced to mine every last mineral, rather than stopping space mining after the early game because it's too expensive. OCD will cripple my empire.

Why would you ever not mine every last mineral? I guess if you're purely energy constrained, a 2 mineral for 1 energy station is kind of breakeven, but that's it...

# ? Mar 6, 2017 16:58

AriadneThread: Feb 17, 2011; The Devil sounds like smoke and honey. We cannot move. It is too beautiful.

mine every last goddamn celestial body in your terrority

# ? Mar 6, 2017 17:09

Aethernet: Jan 28, 2009; This is the Captain...

Our glorious political masters have, in their wisdom, decided to form an alliance with a rag-tag bunch of freedom fighters right when the Federation has us at a tactical disadvantage. Unsurprisingly, this has resulted in the Feds firing on our vessels...

Damn you Huxley!; Grimey Drawer

ulmont posted:

Why would you ever not mine every last mineral? I guess if you're purely energy constrained, a 2 mineral for 1 energy station is kind of breakeven, but that's it...

I am always energy constrained, because I can store minerals as ships but I need to ensure I always have enough energy to run them. 2 minerals for 1 energy is not worth it when colonies give you better options (again, outside the early game), plus it's literally the ratio you get from trading for energy with the cost of the mining station on top. 3 minerals and above is worth it. Of course, with consumer goods, this could all change in 1.5.

# ? Mar 6, 2017 17:10

GunnerJ: Aug 1, 2005; Do you think this is funny?

If I don't feel confident in having a decent buffer of energy-per-month I generally don't make mining stations for anything but 3+ mineral spots.

# ? Mar 6, 2017 17:12

ulmont: Sep 15, 2010; IF I EVER MISS VOTING IN AN ELECTION (EVEN AMERICAN IDOL) ,OR HAVE UNPAID PARKING TICKETS, PLEASE TAKE AWAY MY FRANCHISE

AriadneThread posted:

mine every last goddamn celestial body in your terrority

Aethernet posted:

2 minerals for 1 energy is not worth it when colonies give you better options (again, outside the early game), plus it's literally the ratio you get from trading for energy with the cost of the mining station on top.

You get a much better ratio trading for energy from friendly empires; I can usually get more like 1.2:1 minerals:energy.

# ? Mar 6, 2017 17:25

Conskill: May 7, 2007; I got an 'F' in Geometry.

Aethernet posted:

I am always energy constrained, because I can store minerals as ships but I need to ensure I always have enough energy to run them. 2 minerals for 1 energy is not worth it when colonies give you better options (again, outside the early game), plus it's literally the ratio you get from trading for energy with the cost of the mining station on top. 3 minerals and above is worth it. Of course, with consumer goods, this could all change in 1.5.

Yeah, I suspect consumer goods (and orbital habitats, which have been said to be mineral poor) is going to change the mineral game up pretty heavily. It'll be interesting to see how it plays out, since the value of minerals already fluctuates pretty dramatically from early to late game.

# ? Mar 6, 2017 17:29

CrazyLoon: Aug 10, 2015; "..."

Taear posted:

Which is why your 30k fleet can beat a 90k Prethoryn Scourge fleet.

Another recent experience for me was sending my 180k fleet versus 250k-300k Awakened Empire fleet. It was kitted out to counteract it properly, but we still would've wiped entirely, mainly because we engaged them at max range in the boring, usual way where their extreme range weapons from battlecruisers win out most of the time.

Then I rebuilt and a year or so later, I noticed that superfleet headed towards one of my systems and ambushed them at their entry point in a system, so that we engaged at close range at the very start. At that point my 200k fleet wiped their 300k fleet clean and only lost 50k strength.

So I don't think combat in Stellaris is all about being long range boring poo poo. It usually can be, to be sure, but if you see an enemy fleet going a certain direction and manage to ambush them, then take them down at close range and yea...with the right outfitting, suddenly those numbers and long range cannons mean very very little. And ideally for me, it's usually two fleets that work together. The ambush fleet of cruisers and corvettes at close range in ideal conditions, and the standard battleship/destroyer fleet to provide support from a distance or just engage as regular.

CrazyLoon fucked around with this message at 17:40 on Mar 6, 2017

# ? Mar 6, 2017 17:30

Staltran: Jan 3, 2013; Fallen Rib

Do you guys who don't build 2 mineral mining stations have no mines on your planets either? I'm generally more energy starved too but that just seems excessive.

# ? Mar 6, 2017 17:38

GunnerJ: Aug 1, 2005; Do you think this is funny?

Staltran posted:

Do you guys who don't build 2 mineral mining stations have no mines on your planets either? I'm generally more energy starved too but that just seems excessive.

It's usually a temporary thing. There's a kind of rhythm to the game where at certain points I'll just be crunched for energy income and need to think carefully about what I dump energy-per-month into. 1-mineral spots are almost never worth it unless I am rolling in cash anyway.

On-planet mines provide a bonus to mineral extraction on top of resource spots so I don't think that comparison is very good.

# ? Mar 6, 2017 17:42

CrazyLoon: Aug 10, 2015; "..."

Staltran posted:

Do you guys who don't build 2 mineral mining stations have no mines on your planets either? I'm generally more energy starved too but that just seems excessive.

It depends on what extra resources I have on my starting planet vs what station resources I see my science ships discover early on (which is why I always build that 2nd one immediately). Then I try to max out mineral production ASAP and as far as I think I can push it, without ever going into an energy deficit or hampering my colonization too much. It's why I always hope I get a fair few extra energy tiles on each game start TBH, since those are super reliable, easy, quick and the default gives 1 more resource bonus than minerals on planets.

# ? Mar 6, 2017 17:43

Staltran: Jan 3, 2013; Fallen Rib

GunnerJ posted:

It's usually a temporary thing. There's a kind of rhythm to the game where at certain points I'll just be crunched for energy income and need to think carefully about what I dump energy-per-month into. 1-mineral spots are almost never worth it unless I am rolling in cash anyway.

On-planet mines provide a bonus to mineral extraction on top of resource spots so I don't think that comparison is very good.

Even if a planet tile has a mineral bonus, building a mine on it won't give you twice as much minerals as you would get energy from building a power plant on it instead (unless you have much better mine technology than power plants and are industrious or something, I guess). If 1 energy for 2 minerals isn't worth it, well, I can't see how a mine would have a better ratio than that if you take into account the opportunity cost of not having a power plant instead.

# ? Mar 6, 2017 18:08

GunnerJ: Aug 1, 2005; Do you think this is funny?

Staltran posted:

Even if a planet tile has a mineral bonus, building a mine on it won't give you twice as much minerals as you would get energy from building a power plant on it instead (unless you have much better mine technology than power plants and are industrious or something, I guess). If 1 energy for 2 minerals isn't worth it, well, I can't see how a mine would have a better ratio than that if you take into account the opportunity cost of not having a power plant instead.

This is kind of a strange point because the opportunity cost of not building a power plant isn't relevant to the comparison given that you can't get energy out of a space rock or whatever that gives only minerals. And anyway, I do need some minerals. Replacing all my mines with power plants will solve my energy flow problem but introduces another and inefficiently uses tile bonuses.

So I'm not even going to think about that. That doesn't matter to me when I'm comparing spending 1 energy-per-month on a 2 mineral asteroid/etc to adding 2 minerals produced (from a mine network) to a tile that already gives 1+ minerals. That's at least a 3:1 ratio. Further upgrades are less efficient but still beat 2:1. If we're talking about a tile that gives 2 minerals (directly comparable to a 2-mineral asteroid), then even with a basic mine it's 3:1, upgraded to a mine network it becomes 4:1.

The rhythm of the game I mentioned is such that eventually I'm not worried about energy but can't build ships fast enough, at which point 2:1 mining stations make sense to me.

# ? Mar 6, 2017 18:55

Kitchner: Nov 9, 2012; IT CAN'T BE BARGAINED WITH.
IT CAN'T BE REASONED WITH.
IT DOESN'T FEEL PITY, OR REMORSE, OR FEAR.
AND IT ABSOLUTELY WILL NOT STOP, EVER, UNTIL YOU ADMIT YOU'RE WRONG ABOUT WARHAMMER; Clapping Larry

Point is though a power plant gives the same as the min doesn't it?

So you have a tile that gives you 1 mineral.

You could build a mine which gives you 3 minerals, or a powerplant which gives 2 energy. When you get the final level of mines you could get 6 minerals, or you could get 5 energy.

So really the only difference is the +1. If anything the trade off gets worse over time, as when both techs are fully upgraded the difference between minerals and energy is like 15%.

# ? Mar 6, 2017 18:59

Baronjutter: Dec 31, 2007; "Tiny Trains"

Yeah bonuses only matter early on. In the end I'll just be like "need an energy planet" or "need a mining planet" and just cover over what ever bonus is under it.

# ? Mar 6, 2017 19:02

Jeb Bush 2012: Apr 4, 2007; A mathematician, like a painter or poet, is a maker of patterns. If his patterns are more permanent than theirs, it is because they are made with ideas.

GunnerJ posted:

This is kind of a strange point because the opportunity cost of not building a power plant isn't relevant to the comparison given that you can't get energy out of a space rock or whatever that gives only minerals. And anyway, I do need some minerals. Replacing all my mines with power plants will solve my energy flow problem but introduces another and inefficiently uses tile bonuses.

No, it's exactly the correct comparison to make. If you're turning down 2 minerals for 1 energy because you don't think the conversion rate is good enough, it makes no sense to build mines over power plants, where the minerals you get vs. the energy you lose (from not replacing that mine with a power plant!) is way worse than a 2:1 ratio.

GunnerJ posted:

So I'm not even going to think about that. That doesn't matter to me when I'm comparing spending 1 energy-per-month on a 2 mineral asteroid/etc to adding 2 minerals produced (from a mine network) to a tile that already gives 1+ minerals. That's at least a 3:1 ratio. Further upgrades are less efficient but still beat 2:1. If we're talking about a tile that gives 2 minerals (directly comparable to a 2-mineral asteroid), then even with a basic mine it's 3:1, upgraded to a mine network it becomes 4:1.

Yeah, this is all nonsense because you're comparing it building nothing on that tile, which is not the actual alternative.

(whereas with mining stations building nothing on that asteroid is the alternative)

# ? Mar 6, 2017 19:03

PittTheElder: Feb 13, 2012; Yes, it's like a lava lamp.

Kitchner posted:

Point is though a power plant gives the same as the min doesn't it?

So you have a tile that gives you 1 mineral.

You could build a mine which gives you 3 minerals, or a powerplant which gives 2 energy. When you get the final level of mines you could get 6 minerals, or you could get 5 energy.

So really the only difference is the +1. If anything the trade off gets worse over time, as when both techs are fully upgraded the difference between minerals and energy is like 15%.

It's actually more clear cut than that, because a basic power plant gives three energy, not two.

So in the simplest case where we're discussing one +2Min asteroid and one +1Min planet tile, you have the following options:

Build a mine on the asteroid, power plant in the tile. You produce (+2 asteroid) minerals, and (+3 plant, -1 station) energy after maintenance: +2/+2
Build a mine on the tile, do not build a mining station. You produce (+1 Tile, +2 Mine) minerals and (-1, mine) energy after maintenance: +3/-1

Even though you've saved some 60-90 minerals by not building a mining station in the second scenario, the former is the clear winner over anything but the short term.

PittTheElder fucked around with this message at 19:07 on Mar 6, 2017

# ? Mar 6, 2017 19:05

GunnerJ: Aug 1, 2005; Do you think this is funny?

PittTheElder posted:

Even though you've saved some 60-90 minerals by not building a mining station in the second scenario, the former is the clear winner over anything but the short term.

Yes, this is why I keep emphasizing that this is a temporary thing. When I am not worried about energy flow, I build mining stations on even crap rocks.

Jeb Bush 2012 posted:

Yeah, this is all nonsense because you're comparing it building nothing on that tile, which is not the actual alternative.

(whereas with mining stations building nothing on that asteroid is the alternative)

Alright, but look man, I don't sit around with a spreadsheet planning out my pretend space empire. I'm talking about what makes sense over the ebb and flow of the developing economy. I guess part of that thought process I haven't really mentioned is the tedium of dealing with tiles. Am I going to want a power plant on a mineral tile forever? I don't want to deal with replacing that poo poo later because of a temporary crunch. In the long run I want to use tiles in ways that take advantage of what they offer (until the very endgame I guess). I am never going to get anything out of space rocks besides what they offer so once I build mining stations on them, I don't have to worry about whether I'm using them effectively enough again.

# ? Mar 6, 2017 19:20

Jeb Bush 2012: Apr 4, 2007; A mathematician, like a painter or poet, is a maker of patterns. If his patterns are more permanent than theirs, it is because they are made with ideas.

GunnerJ posted:

Yes, this is why I keep emphasizing that this is a temporary thing. When I am not worried about energy flow, I build mining stations on even crap rocks.

Alright, but look man, I don't sit around with a spreadsheet planning out my pretend space empire. I'm talking about what makes sense over the ebb and flow of the developing economy. I guess part of that thought process I haven't really mentioned is the tedium of dealing with tiles. Am I going to want a power plant on a mineral tile forever? I don't want to deal with replacing that poo poo later because of a temporary crunch. In the long run I want to use tiles in ways that take advantage of what they offer (until the very endgame I guess). I am never going to get anything out of space rocks besides what they offer so once I build mining stations on them, I don't have to worry about whether I'm using them effectively enough again.

I mean if you're just saying you can't be bothered with the micro fair enough (stellaris tile management is pretty tedious and bad imo) but you seemed to be trying to argue it was also the correct play optimisation-wise which it clearly isn't

# ? Mar 6, 2017 19:28

PittTheElder: Feb 13, 2012; Yes, it's like a lava lamp.

GunnerJ posted:

Yes, this is why I keep emphasizing that this is a temporary thing. When I am not worried about energy flow, I build mining stations on even crap rocks.

If you are worried about energy, forgoing the mining station in lieu of building planetary mines is making your problem worse, not better. It only seems more efficient if you examine it from a purely mineral cost point of view, but since you're almost certainly going to replace those planetary mines with power plants or research stations later, it's a very dubious trade-off.

# ? Mar 6, 2017 19:29

Hot Dog Day #82: Jul 5, 2003; Soiled Meat

I guess I am terrible at this game -- if I see a mineral it is for goddamn sure getting a mine on it. My space plants bigly subscribe to Keynesian economics and never turn down a chance to employ their fellow citizens in building projects

# ? Mar 6, 2017 19:33

GunnerJ: Aug 1, 2005; Do you think this is funny?

Jeb Bush 2012 posted:

I mean if you're just saying you can't be bothered with the micro fair enough (stellaris tile management is pretty tedious and bad imo) but you seemed to be trying to argue it was also the correct play optimisation-wise which it clearly isn't

Well, I tried to make it clear that this wasn't some complex optimization exercise but rather what makes sense at particular states of the game without much of a long view. Although once someone was coming at me with opportunity costs of overriding tile bonuses, I did take it more seriously. I guess what I'm talking about is clearer when taking micro into account. It would just never occur to me in an energy crunch to start building power plants on mineral tiles to finance mining stations, knowing that eventually I'll want minerals more. Usually at that point I'm busy sucking any energy I can out of available sources. I mean I have plenty of blank tiles to build power plants on.

Also I use the building automation mod to cut most of that tedium out entirely and it respects tile bonuses so. :v:

# ? Mar 6, 2017 19:36

Kitchner: Nov 9, 2012; IT CAN'T BE BARGAINED WITH.
IT CAN'T BE REASONED WITH.
IT DOESN'T FEEL PITY, OR REMORSE, OR FEAR.
AND IT ABSOLUTELY WILL NOT STOP, EVER, UNTIL YOU ADMIT YOU'RE WRONG ABOUT WARHAMMER; Clapping Larry

Hot Dog Day #82 posted:

I guess I am terrible at this game -- if I see a mineral it is for goddamn sure getting a mine on it. My space plants bigly subscribe to Keynesian economics and never turn down a chance to employ their fellow citizens in building projects

I mean I generally do this as I assume it all sort of works out in the end. The problem really only rears it's head fully during the end game but then I out all my sectors on energy focus anyway.

# ? Mar 6, 2017 19:37

GunnerJ: Aug 1, 2005; Do you think this is funny?

PittTheElder posted:

If you are worried about energy, forgoing the mining station in lieu of building planetary mines is making your problem worse, not better.

Good, because that's not what I do. Someone asked if I (as part of a group of people averse to building mining stations for 1-2 minerals) never build mines on planets ("have no mines on your planets"). Of course not. Usually, though, they've already been built. So during a crunch I might build stations only on 3+ mineral rocks, but I'll also be cautious about building mines on planets, and I'm not going to go around demolishing mines to build power plants (which I may eventually also have to revert to mines later?? laffo, no thanks). There's no contradiction.

GunnerJ fucked around with this message at 19:41 on Mar 6, 2017

# ? Mar 6, 2017 19:39

Darkrenown: Jul 18, 2012; please give me anything to talk about besides the fact that democrats are allowing millions of americans to be evicted from their homes

GunnerJ posted:

Wanna ask a modding question: how do you actually get events to fire at the start of the game? I am using events that do exactly that as a template to apply defined modifiers to every regular empire in the game. I'm following events that do this as a template:
code:
	id = smallerfleets.1
	hide_window = yes
	is_triggered_only = yes

	immediate = {
		every_country = {
			limit = {
				is_country_type = default
			}
			add_modifier = { modifier = "smallerfleets" days = -1 }
		}
         }
"smallerfleets" is defined as:
code:
smallerfleets = {
	navy_size_mult = -0.5
}
But it doesn't really matter what I modify. The event doesn't fire. I'm literally just filling in the blanks of events that do the same thing except they add a technology. That works fine. What am I doing wrong?

The "is_triggered_only = yes" means something needs to trigger it, such as another event or an on_action (common/on_action normally). Either add have something trigger it or just fire it from the console. Or remove is_triggered_only = yes and add a trigger checking you don't have that modifier. In either case though, you risk empires which appear later not getting it and having double the fleet size, so safest way would be to add it to the yearly pulse events (in on_action assuming Stellaris has that) with both is_triggered_only = yes and a triggering checking you don't have the modifier - that way every year any empire without the modifier gets it added.

# ? Mar 6, 2017 19:44

GunnerJ: Aug 1, 2005; Do you think this is funny?

Darkrenown posted:

The "is_triggered_only = yes" means something needs to trigger it, such as another event or an on_action (common/on_action normally). Either add have something trigger it or just fire it from the console. Or remove is_triggered_only = yes and add a trigger checking you don't have that modifier. In either case though, you risk empires which appear later not getting it and having double the fleet size, so safest way would be to add it to the yearly pulse events (in on_action assuming Stellaris has that) with both is_triggered_only = yes and a triggering checking you don't have the modifier - that way every year any empire without the modifier gets it added.

Thanks, I didn't anticipate a problem like this so I'll look for a better way. The weird thing is though that this definition works if I just have the event add some vanilla tech, it pops up right at the start of the game with it. (eta: Actually I just checked and I'm using "fire_only_once = yes" instead apparently??) The only thing it can't seem to do is add anything custom-made.

eta: The better way ended up being defines and a starting tech.

GunnerJ fucked around with this message at 13:38 on Mar 7, 2017

# ? Mar 6, 2017 19:50

PittTheElder: Feb 13, 2012; Yes, it's like a lava lamp.

Hot Dog Day #82 posted:

I guess I am terrible at this game -- if I see a mineral it is for goddamn sure getting a mine on it. My space plants bigly subscribe to Keynesian economics and never turn down a chance to employ their fellow citizens in building projects

No that's the right way to do it.

# ? Mar 6, 2017 19:51

Baronjutter: Dec 31, 2007; "Tiny Trains"

I find the point where I no longer care about tile bonuses is the point when I'm no longer really enjoying the game.

I love tiny 25% hab maps because this lasts longer. That new bio-lab on that +3 society bonus tile actually makes a difference, you see your society research go from 20 to 28 or what ever and you know that's adding up. That planet you just colonized with 2 beth stones on it is going to solve your energy problems. But when you're making like 500 of every research type and sitting at +200 minerals and energy nothing feels like it matters anymore, everythings a drop in the bucket so why bother? The work/time as a player to do things doesn't end up having enough in-game payoff to matter so I start playing less and less optimally and trusting the sectors more and more because who cares? Taking 3 systems in a war? Who cares, those 3 planets are a drop in the bucket, it's not worth the hassle of doing a yet another identical war.

Early game is fun and exciting. Very late game with a crisis or awakened empire or something can be interesting. But by the mid game you pretty much know if you've won or not and nothing seems to have a payoff anymore.

# ? Mar 6, 2017 20:05

DatonKallandor: Aug 21, 2009; "I can no longer sit back and allow nationalist shitposting, nationalist indoctrination, nationalist subversion, and the German nationalist conspiracy to sap and impurify all of our precious game balance."

The game really needs an auto-construct mode for builders to automate the mining station and research station placement in the end game, because it gets tedious as gently caress when your territory is constantly growing and mining stations keep getting destroyed by the mid-game and late-game wars. I also wouldn't mind if +1 minerals spots didn't exist anymore to make this work better, because +1 minerals is garbage clutter.

# ? Mar 6, 2017 20:45

Aethernet: Jan 28, 2009; This is the Captain...

Our glorious political masters have, in their wisdom, decided to form an alliance with a rag-tag bunch of freedom fighters right when the Federation has us at a tactical disadvantage. Unsurprisingly, this has resulted in the Feds firing on our vessels...

Damn you Huxley!; Grimey Drawer

PittTheElder posted:

It's actually more clear cut than that, because a basic power plant gives three energy, not two.

So in the simplest case where we're discussing one +2Min asteroid and one +1Min planet tile, you have the following options:

Build a mine on the asteroid, power plant in the tile. You produce (+2 asteroid) minerals, and (+3 plant, -1 station) energy after maintenance: +2/+2

Build a mine on the tile, do not build a mining station. You produce (+1 Tile, +2 Mine) minerals and (-1, mine) energy after maintenance: +3/-1

Even though you've saved some 60-90 minerals by not building a mining station in the second scenario, the former is the clear winner over anything but the short term.

TIME TO SPERG

The issue with the way you've framed the problem above is that the decision isn't tile vs space, it's tile vs space vs another tile. For 180 minerals I can buy two space mines or two planetary mines (which will produce the same as space mines, even without a tile bonus) plus a power plant that will pay for both mines and give me a profit of 1 energy. There are considerably more planetary tiles than there are space mining opportunities, so the decision will always come down in favour of planetary tiles unless the number of planetary tiles I can use is constrained. This can happen in two situations: at the beginning of the game when you have few colonies and your pops have not expanded to fill the available space, and when your colonies have run out of room to grow and lebensraum is the order of the day. In the first situation building space mines is worthwhile, in the second the constraint on your expansion is likely to be the number of ships you can field at one time. The latter is constrained by energy rather than mineral supply, so even if you're in a situation where you're knocking down mines to build power plants, building space mines using minerals that could otherwise be turned into battleships seems unwise. Battleships eventually turn into more planetary tioles.

This doesn't even get into planetary mines benefiting from happiness, robots, slavery and processing plants. Towards the end of the game when I have more resources than sense I'll build mines to get red of the annoying non-green numbers, but OCD is, alas, less than optimal.

# ? Mar 6, 2017 20:53

Namaer: Jun 6, 2004

If I want to start a game where empires are spread out a bit, can the default settings do that somehow or do I need a mod?

# ? Mar 6, 2017 21:02

Baronjutter: Dec 31, 2007; "Tiny Trains"

Namaer posted:

If I want to start a game where empires are spread out a bit, can the default settings do that somehow or do I need a mod?

Just pick fewer empires and turn off clustering.

# ? Mar 6, 2017 21:03

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 27, 2024 20:22

Deceitful Penguin: Feb 16, 2011

You know, it's kinda baffling how overpopulation isn't a problem in the Stellaris universe, apparently

# ? Mar 6, 2017 21:05

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Video Games > Stellaris - To Serve Man

«‹›641 »