|
Mixed thoughts on needing to waste space on forts and whatnot but I guess it makes sense that you need to develop some military infrastructure on you planet. Don't think I've seen that city tileset before though - is it new?
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2017 17:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 11, 2024 17:38 |
|
|
Baronjutter posted:So now instead of having to remember to disband a bunch of armies we need to remember to redevelop a bunch of tiles? And now the AI needs to weigh the ground-combat importance of planets and make even more tile-management decisions? I'm curious how this all will work together, but it does seem odd to take the worst system in the game (ground combat/invasions) and now tie it in with the 2nd worst system in the game, tile management. well, if the old streams are any indication. Forts have to use tiles because otherwise there's no opportunity cost; the old defense armies are a p good case in point, there's no real decision making involved with them. It also means there's a concrete penalty to unrest even if you can handle it, in the sense of losing tiles. Maybe attack armies will use tiles too. Like building a cloning lab will get you a certain number of clone armies. quote:Mixed thoughts on needing to waste space on forts and whatnot but I guess it makes sense that you need to develop some military infrastructure on you planet. I'm curious whether fortress worlds will actually be useful. I suppose even if you lose, the more casualties an enemy suffers attacking a world the more war exhaustion they get. Oh, wait! I think you don't control a starbase if you don't control all the worlds in its system. So a fortress could prevent then from utilizing one of your fortresses even if they take it. TheDeadlyShoe fucked around with this message at 18:01 on Dec 20, 2017 |
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2017 17:57
|
|
|
I went pretty far in my 1st game as a single planet empire. Right up until I used my extra ascendancy perk on synth ascension and a spiritualist fallen empire woke up and headshot my planet and fleet in like 1 month. Ouch.
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2017 17:57
|
|
|
TheDeadlyShoe posted:
You could build heavily fortified worlds to try and stall your opponent but some people have asked what's stopping people from just blowing up your Starbase and skipping the heavily fortified planets there to go wreck up easier targets deeper in your territory. Really the only use a defensive army had was to reduce unrest. In a war they are often bombed into oblivion and wouldn't stop a wet fart by the time your opponent was ready to invade. Spending a bunch if money to fortify a planet your opponent can just fly past without engaging seems a waste to me.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2017 18:18
|
|
|
TheDeadlyShoe posted:well, if the old streams are any indication. Forts have to use tiles because otherwise there's no opportunity cost; the old defense armies are a p good case in point, there's no real decision making involved with them. It also means there's a concrete penalty to unrest even if you can handle it, in the sense of losing tiles. There is opportunity cost involved with defensive armies - they cost minerals to build and upkeep to maintain. Their cost is relatively small, sure...but so is their benefit. Fortress worlds, though? I don't see how they could possibly make it work, unless they add buildings that can damage a nearby fleet. The opportunity cost of dedicating a bunch of tiles to defensive buildings is way too high to justify the relatively small benefits of just making a single planet hard to invade. Even if it means you can't fully flip a system, you can still just render the spaceport useless and move on to softer targets elsewhere.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2017 18:23
|
|
|
Finally a use for a size 8 in a system with 2 other actually useful colonizable planets!
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2017 18:27
|
|
|
I'm pretty sure that it got stated somewhere, either in a stream or one of the dev diary threads, that you can build hyperspace inhibitors on planets, so there's your reason for a invading a fortress world.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2017 18:30
|
|
|
wiz on paradox forums: "Armies no longer reduce unrest, period." Guess its just the forts and empire modifiers now. Unrest could be a problem! Psychotic Weasel posted:Really the only use a defensive army had was to reduce unrest. In a war they are often bombed into oblivion and wouldn't stop a wet fart by the time your opponent was ready to invade. Spending a bunch if money to fortify a planet your opponent can just fly past without engaging seems a waste to me. Disengagement system means that occupying planets isnt just purely a cleanup job now since the enemy fleet will still be a threat, probably.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2017 18:32
|
|
|
Also making fortress worlds work would have to involve making it so attacking armies can't just roll over any amount of defense effortlessly by dealing double damage and backing off to heal if things go south
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2017 18:32
|
|
|
Double damage is already out. Or at least there's no indication of it in the teaser screenshots. Orbital bombardment still does something but its not clear what.Main Paineframe posted:There is opportunity cost involved with defensive armies - they cost minerals to build and upkeep to maintain. Their cost is relatively small, sure...but so is their benefit. I'd be willing to bet that at least one tradition tree or civic will give additional unity for forts...and tamping down on unrest if you need to might be worth it just for that. You're right that the cost is very high though. TheDeadlyShoe fucked around with this message at 18:38 on Dec 20, 2017 |
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2017 18:36
|
|
|
TheDeadlyShoe posted:Double damage is already out. Or at least there's no indication of it in the teaser screenshots. Orbital bombardment still does something but its not clear what. Also combat width being a thing might favor defenders.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2017 18:47
|
|
|
More choices on the tilegame is a good thing, and choices that tie into other game systems are even better. People dislike the tilegame (I've read) because once you figure out what you want to do with a particular planet then everything else is just clicking. Making a planet's strategic location meaningful in the tile game - as I assume the changes tying into forts are meant to - will be good.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2017 19:09
|
|
|
Aethernet posted:More choices on the tilegame is a good thing, and choices that tie into other game systems are even better. People dislike the tilegame (I've read) because once you figure out what you want to do with a particular planet then everything else is just clicking. Making a planet's strategic location meaningful in the tile game - as I assume the changes tying into forts are meant to - will be good. A lot of people hate the tile game because the AI absolutely can't figure it out. So even if you personally as a player like the tile system, you still get to deal with a galaxy full of useless AI's with empires of 8/20 pop planets with 2 buildings on them into the late game.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2017 19:14
|
|
|
MShadowy posted:I'm pretty sure that it got stated somewhere, either in a stream or one of the dev diary threads, that you can build hyperspace inhibitors on planets, so there's your reason for a invading a fortress world. That sounds like it'll be possible to be a complete dick with your border systems. 2 or 3 planets full of forts and ftl inhibitors will make your enemy dedicate a rather large chunk of minerals + energy just to get through. Jumpdrives and wormholes will make it possible to go around, but until then it's just a giant middle finger to all your neighbors.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2017 19:17
|
|
|
Aethernet posted:We should open a book on what the funniest bug in 2.0 will be. Yours seems plausible, although nothing will ever beat SOTS2: I'll be happy if anything just gets close to matching President Fleet Consciousness.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2017 19:19
|
|
|
Yeah, can't really look at the new army system through the lens of current mechanics, considering that so much is changing. I've got faith that Wiz et al. are well aware of the potential issues with the new system, and are planning accordingly. We might even get a dev diary farther down the line that claims that they've drastically improved the AI's planet management. I mean, the changes already outlined represent so much new/different stuff that the current AI presumably can't handle as is, a rework is almost a certainty.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2017 19:26
|
|
|
Lprsti99 posted:claims that they've drastically improved the AI's planet management. Wouldn’t be the first time we’ve heard this though.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2017 19:28
|
|
|
Bad planet management doesn't cause planets with low pops. I'm not sure why people keep saying that. Maybe if the empire is starving. But then they'll rack up unrest events and eventually topple the government which will result in a public announcement so its pretty obvious. Ai gets the job done. There were some major screwups back in the day. Now it just has minor fumbles in my experience.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2017 19:34
|
|
|
TheDeadlyShoe posted:wiz on paradox forums: "Armies no longer reduce unrest, period." Genocide it is!
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2017 19:53
|
|
|
Aethernet posted:We should open a book on what the funniest bug in 2.0 will be. Yours seems plausible, although nothing will ever beat SOTS2: sots 2 really was like nothing I have seen before, or since. The disappointment and salt in that release thread... yowza
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2017 19:55
|
|
|
Bold Robot posted:Wouldn’t be the first time we’ve heard this though. That's fair, but I'm still willing to extend the benefit of the doubt!
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2017 19:58
|
|
|
Aethernet posted:More choices on the tilegame is a good thing, and choices that tie into other game systems are even better. People dislike the tilegame (I've read) because once you figure out what you want to do with a particular planet then everything else is just clicking. Making a planet's strategic location meaningful in the tile game - as I assume the changes tying into forts are meant to - will be good. I like the tile game. I haven't built a defensive army ever since my first few games though. So moving it to a building is weird to me.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2017 20:01
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:A lot of people hate the tile game because the AI absolutely can't figure it out. So even if you personally as a player like the tile system, you still get to deal with a galaxy full of useless AI's with empires of 8/20 pop planets with 2 buildings on them into the late game. The AI seems to have been doing pretty well in my recent games.  Edit: although what you're describing was definitely historically the case.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2017 20:10
|
|
|
I like the tile game, too. But wish there was more to it than building powerplants and mines. And also that the AI would make more intelligible decisions when developing a planet. At least now you can intervene in your sectors without spending influence but that doesn't help when it comes to other empires.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2017 20:12
|
|
|
OddObserver posted:Also combat width being a thing might favor defenders. At the very least it should help mitigate the invasion doomstack instantly demolishing the defenders, meaning a defender will be able to actually inflict losses on an invading force before falling.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2017 20:18
|
|
|
Nickiepoo posted:I'll be happy if anything just gets close to matching President Fleet Consciousness. That should have stayed as a feature. President Fleet Consciousness, you were too good for the bug list. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2017 21:28
|
|
|
So at what point should I worry about Fallen Empires waking up to humble me? Right now I have a fleet score of 60k or so and am about to to go to war with another top tier faction for the purpose of subjecting them.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2017 22:55
|
|
|
Hunt11 posted:So at what point should I worry about Fallen Empires waking up to humble me? Right now I have a fleet score of 60k or so and am about to to go to war with another top tier faction for the purpose of subjecting them. Any minute now - 50k (or taking another Fallen Empire world) is the threshold. Used to be 40k before the 1.9 patch. https://stellaris.paradoxwikis.com/Fallen_empire#Upstart_awakening
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2017 23:00
|
|
|
ulmont posted:Any minute now - 50k (or taking another Fallen Empire world) is the threshold. Used to be 40k before the 1.9 patch. So should I just go all out and hope to beat the ones nearest to me before they beat me, or should I just get ready to take it?
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2017 23:02
|
|
|
Hunt11 posted:So should I just go all out and hope to beat the ones nearest to me before they beat me, or should I just get ready to take it? Depends on the ethics of the FEs that might wake up. I'd ignore Materialist and Xenophobe and try to kill Xenophile (especially) and Spiritualists (if you can) before they wake up. If they do wake up, swear allegiance and bide your time (which is why you have to kill Xenophiles since they will render you incapable of declaring war as a signatory).
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2017 23:06
|
|
|
Wait, you can't even declare war against your master if you agree to be subjecated by the xenophile AE? That doesn't sound right...
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2017 23:12
|
|
|
Psychotic Weasel posted:Wait, you can't even declare war against your master if you agree to be subjecated by the xenophile AE? That doesn't sound right... Sure, you can, but if you weren't a bad enough empire to take on the Xenophile AE before you swore allegiance and stopped going to war with other empires, how the hell are you going to get any tougher?
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2017 23:16
|
|
|
Aethernet posted:More choices on the tilegame is a good thing, and choices that tie into other game systems are even better. People dislike the tilegame (I've read) because once you figure out what you want to do with a particular planet then everything else is just clicking. Making a planet's strategic location meaningful in the tile game - as I assume the changes tying into forts are meant to - will be good. It's the same with planetary invasions. There's loads of ways to make an invasion fun. The trick is making an invasion that's fun when you're microing your starting neighbour's home planet and also fun when you're on wave three of your galactic conquest running six invasions simultaneously while also gearing up for the next twelve.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2017 23:21
|
|
|
ulmont posted:Depends on the ethics of the FEs that might wake up. I'd ignore Materialist and Xenophobe and try to kill Xenophile (especially) and Spiritualists (if you can) before they wake up. If they do wake up, swear allegiance and bide your time (which is why you have to kill Xenophiles since they will render you incapable of declaring war as a signatory). So I have a Materialist and a Xenophobe right next to me and a Xenophile and Spiritualist on the other side of the galaxy so do I just sit and wait or do as much conquering as I can before they start to wake up?
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2017 23:21
|
|
|
ulmont posted:Sure, you can, but if you weren't a bad enough empire to take on the Xenophile AE before you swore allegiance and stopped going to war with other empires, how the hell are you going to get any tougher? Wait for them to grow too big and let decadence kick in, or if you get lucky break off if/when the War in Heaven kicks off. I actually have no idea how decadence is displayed in the game since I've never gotten that far... usually the AE is dead or I've grown bored with the current game before then.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2017 23:29
|
|
|
Hunt11 posted:So I have a Materialist and a Xenophobe right next to me and a Xenophile and Spiritualist on the other side of the galaxy so do I just sit and wait or do as much conquering as I can before they start to wake up? If you sit and wait they will eventually wake up anyway unless you disband part of your fleet (and then some other AI dickhead will cross 50K and you're back in the same spot but worse). The Xenophobes waking up will impact your life the least, as while they take a 25% mineral and energy tax they don't care if you go to war with the other vassals. If your position I'd try to eat the Materialists and then conquer your way to the Xenophiles. But it's a race at this point as when an AE wakes up they usually get enough free ships to boost them to at least 200K fleet power.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2017 23:34
|
|
|
Psychotic Weasel posted:I actually have no idea how decadence is displayed in the game since I've never gotten that far... You have to go view an AE's planet and hover over a mineral production tile to see the negative modifier for decadence. It's a bit of a pain in the rear end.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2017 23:35
|
|
|
ulmont posted:Any minute now - 50k (or taking another Fallen Empire world) is the threshold. Used to be 40k before the 1.9 patch. Strange, I'm at 40k but all the other empires around me are at 60k+, and none of the FEs seem to have awakened. MTTH weirdness?
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2017 23:48
|
|
|
bgreman posted:Strange, I'm at 40k but all the other empires around me are at 60k+, and none of the FEs seem to have awakened. MTTH weirdness? Possibly. It has to have been 100 years in the game, the event is MTTH 50 years, but that MTTH is modified by the number of FEs in the game (so 2 FEs means 100 years, etc.).
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2017 23:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 11, 2024 17:38 |
|
|
That Works posted:So when do you build defensive armies? Never. They're a complete waste, except for clamping down on unrest.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2017 00:08
|
|
