|
Your vassal should grow increasingly loyal as time passes. They should also be rebuilding their lost ships given time. As for fleet cap, make sure you build up your spaceports. You can also grab an Ascension perk that gives you 200 fleet cap, which can be hugely useful, but keep in mind that your REAL cap is always what you can afford to maintain, not just the cap number. Expansion was the right course, grab anything you can, unless you have certain mods it's not really possible for expansion to cost you beyond the short term. That said if you can't go any wider, build tall, habitats can make a big difference in tipping the balance, as you can turn them towards any resources you need barring unity, and though you can't build spaceports at one, the pops will still help your fleet cap.
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2017 07:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 09:55 |
|
|
I've been building buildings on planets based on what resources are on the tiles. Is that the right move or should I hyper specialize and just have an ENERGY PLANET or something?
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2017 08:03
|
|
Artificer posted:I've been building buildings on planets based on what resources are on the tiles. Is that the right move or should I hyper specialize and just have an ENERGY PLANET or something? That's the right move initially, I think. But if a planet has a modifier to energy or minerals, the best way to take advantage of it is to hyper-specialize. Typically, if a planet has Beltharian stone, for example, I end up turning it into ENERGY PLANET.
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2017 08:14
|
|
|
Artificer posted:I've been building buildings on planets based on what resources are on the tiles. Is that the right move or should I hyper specialize and just have an ENERGY PLANET or something? Gets asked like every other page, I think the wisdom is follow the tile resources early, then later you can specialize, and should if a given planet has a modifier that gives a bonus to one resource. Specialization is absolutely the way to go if you're doing robo/gene modding, as (unless as a machine empire you already have specialized pops on every tile) the finest granularity you can geet for modding pops is on a per-planet basis. So have a planet of mine drones, a planet of energy drones, a planet of livestock etc
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2017 08:14
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/Martin_Anward/status/922731570838097920 What I can spot: Separate tab for starports Separate Navy cap / Starbase cap A cap on FLEET SIZE?  Also possibly a new HP bar below shields - armor?
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2017 08:51
|
|
|
Oh hey. I must have missed it. As long as they don't rebel for 10 years the disloyalty of my vassal won't be a problem. It will be good to get more planets that way, and a species capable of colonizing wet planets.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2017 09:01
|
|
|
Just got wardec'd by a neighbor with a superior fleet. How dead am I?? I have tons and tons of minerals and a lot of bases able to churn out ships, I assume I should start doing that and hope for the best?
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2017 09:08
|
|
|
canepazzo posted:https://twitter.com/Martin_Anward/status/922731570838097920 System begins surveyed also + 3 stations already built. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 09:18 on Oct 24, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2017 09:08
|
|
|
There's plenty of engineering on uranus.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2017 09:53
|
|
|
Ship caps per fleet are a good move, and so long as the AI has been changed up so it doesn't just blob all it's fleet together anyway, that'll probably go a long way towards making war more dynamic.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2017 10:00
|
|
|
We'll see. I wonder what they're going to do to fix the obvious workaround of "just crowd together several fleets," not just for the AI, but for the player. I guess you could give a penalty to combat ability if more than one fleet is involved in a given combat...
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2017 10:01
|
|
|
canepazzo posted:https://twitter.com/Martin_Anward/status/922731570838097920 This does look ace - I assume armour penetrating weapons will now strip off an amount of armour instead. Really want to know how fleet size limits are going to work. Possibly some sort of warp-in mechanic for excess ships, a la SOTS. This would work really well with new centralised starports, as it would give a clear advantage to the defender and hopefully reduce lategame slowdown from displaying massive fleets. Wonder if starbase cap is per upgrade level or per base; i.e. you can have lots of small starbases or a few big ones, but not both.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2017 10:04
|
|
|
Strudel Man posted:We'll see. I wonder what they're going to do to fix the obvious workaround of "just crowd together several fleets," not just for the AI, but for the player. To be fair, even if you do blob them up there's still plenty of other worries a. Having a decent admiral per fleet b. FTL bottlenecks (especially wormholes which can only move one fleet at once) c. General micro and timings (please add estimated FTL travel times on hover to a system  )Sure if everything happens to be in the same system already in a blob and they all have the same thrusters they'll blob, but otherwise forcing the split is gonna incur a lot of changes to the state of play
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2017 10:06
|
|
|
Strudel Man posted:We'll see. I wonder what they're going to do to fix the obvious workaround of "just crowd together several fleets," not just for the AI, but for the player. Well, ideally an AI that uses it's fleets as separate entities will be what forces you not to blob your own - sure, you can beat anything you run into with sheer numbers, but can also only be in one or two places at once and those rear end in a top hat space birds you declared on now have five or six little raiding forces wrecking your economy. Really, creating an AI that broke it's ships up into separate forces was the big thing, and a ship cap just helps enforce that as opposed to being a solution by itself. The Stellaris devs aren't stupid though, so I'm sure they have some sort of system in place.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2017 10:10
|
|
|
The fleet cap probably works in practice too. So if you have 30 ships in a fleet with a level 3 admiral you get optimal bonuses. If you stack another identical fleet on top of it you get no bonuses because only one admiral can be counted at the same time.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2017 10:48
|
|
|
If they manage to fix the whack-a-mole gameplay I'd have about 95% of my game issues taken care of. Not sure how tho.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2017 10:54
|
|
|
Demiurge4 posted:The fleet cap probably works in practice too. So if you have 30 ships in a fleet with a level 3 admiral you get optimal bonuses. If you stack another identical fleet on top of it you get no bonuses because only one admiral can be counted at the same time. Perhaps the cap is soft and admiral bonuses are now more important - if you go over the cap theit bonus is reduced proportionately.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2017 10:58
|
|
|
I really hope the fleet cap goes way up when you have an admiral assigned (and grows with admiral level) so just throwing leaderless fleets at the problem is really inefficient. There are tons of cool gameplay and flavor opportunities when having more admirals actually matters (governments/civics that increase how many admirals you have vs how much individual admirals contribute, being able to go hard on military power by spending your leader cap on admirals instead of governors, etc.).
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2017 10:58
|
|
|
I'd love a "no admiral-less" fleets too, like science ships ceasing to function without scientists; might be too harsh in case of death tho. Also, make it so admirals can sometimes defect with part/all of their fleets depending (do you choose the good admiral, or the admiral with same ethics as you?)
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2017 11:02
|
|
|
canepazzo posted:https://twitter.com/Martin_Anward/status/922731570838097920 Worth noting that the base is built at the star, not planet.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2017 11:21
|
|
|
Something to note is, a fleet size cap effectively buffs tall science focused empires while nerfing wide empires (unless it's a fraction of your total fleet cap) since you can fit for firepower in the same fleet cap. If individual fleet size cap is a factor of total fleet size max however this could provide an unbeatable advantage to an an empire with a larger fleet cap. Like for instance, you get the +200 fleet cap assention perk and suddenly you can for 2-3x the number of ships in your fleet as all your neighbors and can win any battle without any change to composition by simply being able to blob better.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2017 11:44
|
|
|
canepazzo posted:A cap on FLEET SIZE? 
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2017 12:53
|
|
|
Wiz went on to answer a question (sort of): https://twitter.com/Sciira_Mestraal/status/922801152596553728 https://twitter.com/Martin_Anward/status/922802016891662336 https://twitter.com/Martin_Anward/status/922802097359290368
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2017 13:41
|
|
|
My main take away from this is lol rip "wide" empires if starport limiting is both a thing and still governs your ship cap.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2017 13:45
|
|
|
Gamerofthegame posted:My main take away from this is lol rip "wide" empires if starport limiting is both a thing and still governs your ship cap. It could scale off of the number of planets you control, making wide empires THE way to gain more starports and thus ship cap.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2017 13:49
|
|
|
Given how moving fleets around systems currently works I'm a bit worried that it's going to end up being as fun as trying to fight multiple small armies in Siberia in EU4. By the time you see the enemy move to another province/system it's already way too late to do anything. I guess blanketing your entire empire with FTL snares near the star is going to be mandatory? I'd love to be wrong but I'm a cynical moron. Stellaris combat width please? 
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2017 13:52
|
|
|
Nitrousoxide posted:It could scale off of the number of planets you control, making wide empires THE way to gain more starports and thus ship cap.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2017 13:54
|
|
|
FTL snares should probably work like Homeworld and have a radius around them that causes any ship passing through it to drop out on top of it, so instead of having to build ten snares for ten nearby stars you would just build one that covered all of them.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2017 13:55
|
|
|
Considering you can still control multiple fleets at the same time by just assigning them to the same command group all this change will really do is force you to spend more influence assigning admirals, or just leaving fleets without. Also, the computer is much more adept than a human at commanding small groups of things across multiple locations simultaneously so if you enjoyed playing whack-a-mole before then good news! But hey, people wanted a reason to use smaller fleets.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2017 13:59
|
|
|
Psychotic Weasel posted:Considering you can still control multiple fleets at the same time by just assigning them to the same command group all this change will really do is force you to spend more influence assigning admirals, or just leaving fleets without. https://twitter.com/Martin_Anward/status/922802097359290368
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2017 14:00
|
|
|
I want HOI IV fronts and battleplans in Stellaris!
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2017 14:07
|
|
|
I trust you guys to think through the changes but if arbitrary fleet caps are anything like all the games that have come before it will just be a matter of taking the same number of ships, arranging them into more groups and ramming them into the same target anyway.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2017 14:08
|
|
|
Say the words "automated patrols" and I won't complain about anything for at least two weeks. Maybe three.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2017 14:13
|
|
|
I suppose you could also limit the number of ships allowed in a system to prevent just a chain of smaller fleets trailing each other. Of course this would provide a huge advantage to whichever side of the system the battle is closest too for warp-in's and would probably make moving your own fleets around your empire kind of a pain (oh you need to move your main fleet at system support cap over to help with this fight but there's a smaller fleet of yours in the way, forcing you to first move the smaller fleet before you can move the bigger fleet to actually engage) They could also require an admiral for each fleet in order to fight, though i could see this really loving over empires if they loose their admiral and have no points to get a new one, and effectively become unable to fight at all. I don't really see what fleet size caps really do that any other solution wouldn't do better, like a width cap in actual fights.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2017 14:17
|
|
|
Psychotic Weasel posted:I trust you guys to think through the changes but if arbitrary fleet caps are anything like all the games that have come before it will just be a matter of taking the same number of ships, arranging them into more groups and ramming them into the same target anyway. Nitrousoxide posted:I don't really see what fleet size caps really do that any other solution wouldn't do better, like a width cap in actual fights.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2017 14:22
|
|
|
It could be that the per-fleet cap is tied to admirals, and the admirals are now mandatory for fleets. Then since there's a limit on how many scientists/governors/admirals you can have anyway, it becomes a balance choice of whether the player wants to lose out on governor bonuses to planets and put all their government officials into admiral slots to boost their fleet size, or have a very governor-heavy empire that can't field a large fleet. I never felt like the bonuses from officials were that huge though, so maybe they would be beefed up to make those choices more meaningful. I think artificially splitting big stacks in two by having a "only 10 ships per fleet, only 1 fleet per system" kind of limit wouldn't make combat more interesting, honestly. It would just mean having smashing the two halves of my giant stack of ships into the enemy's two halves.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2017 14:23
|
|
|
Red Bones posted:It could be that the per-fleet cap is tied to admirals, and the admirals are now mandatory for fleets. Then since there's a limit on how many scientists/governors/admirals you can have anyway, it becomes a balance choice of whether the player wants to lose out on governor bonuses to planets and put all their government officials into admiral slots to boost their fleet size, or have a very governor-heavy empire that can't field a large fleet. I never felt like the bonuses from officials were that huge though, so maybe they would be beefed up to make those choices more meaningful. Yeah but what happens if your admiral dies mid-war and you can't replace immediately?
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2017 14:29
|
|
|
Splicer posted:Worked in SotS. Yeah, I'm hoping that it uses the SOTS model. It would make tactical combat a little more meaningful, and opens the door for exciting techs that pop out your ships straight by the star. It also means thrusters will be incredibly important. It should also mean that late game fights aren't suddenly a slideshow.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2017 14:34
|
|
|
Red Bones posted:It could be that the per-fleet cap is tied to admirals, and the admirals are now mandatory for fleets. Then since there's a limit on how many scientists/governors/admirals you can have anyway, it becomes a balance choice of whether the player wants to lose out on governor bonuses to planets and put all their government officials into admiral slots to boost their fleet size, or have a very governor-heavy empire that can't field a large fleet. I never felt like the bonuses from officials were that huge though, so maybe they would be beefed up to make those choices more meaningful. The problem with this is, if you loose your admiral and have no points to buy another you have literally no defense at all. I really hope this is not their solution because it would be a bad one.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2017 14:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 09:55 |
|
|
They know that just limiting ships per fleet won't fix anything and the wailing/ gnashing of teeth over a screenshot of "3/10" with no context auto extrapolating to "admiral = fleet size" and related limitations is pretty funny.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2017 14:56
|
|
