|
3 DONG HORSE posted:Seriously please let us group transports with fleets if we still have to use them. Also if there isn't an army manager to go along with the fleet manager then kill me now Since assault armies are basically ships that temporarily disembark and not the other way around I see no reason why they can't all be in the same fleet manager logically. After invasion they can just rejoin their fleet automatically.
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2017 19:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 11:22 |
|
|
Baronjutter posted:These changes all seem to be good ideas for making ground combat more interesting, but the actual act of invading an empire doesn't sound any better. The only streamlining is that troops auto-embark now? I guess that's good?
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2017 19:57
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:These changes all seem to be good ideas for making ground combat more interesting, but the actual act of invading an empire doesn't sound any better. The only streamlining is that troops auto-embark now? I guess that's good? Didn't they mention there were changes in how fleet following worked? Following fleets should jump at the same time, without lagging behind. Getting your transport fleet to follow your fleet should be the same as merging them if that's the case, except you can still select your transports without splitting the fleet.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2017 20:01
|
|
|
I don't like the fort idea because the most economically valuable planets should be the most heavily fortified, not the other way around. Having fortress worlds is some neat fluff and might be a handy way to secure your borders but it's backwards in a lot of ways. Wiz mentions that they decided you wouldn't ever bother stationing an offensive army on a planet to defend it anyway so they got rid of that option. Well of course you wouldn't, in the current meta defending planets is pointless. The goal should be to make it so you do want to put your armies on planets. If you can't straight up win the war with your armies as opposed to your fleet, then you might as well not have an army system at all; they're subsidiary. If you could build forts on mostly-uninhabitable planets or moons that would be a neat way to make use of the fort mechanic but I don't think that's happening. Sort of like an indestructible space station that you have to board. You have a small moon that's loaded to the gills with forts and stationed with crack troops, with an FTL inhibitor and planetary defenses and so on, and the enemy has to storm the moon in order to advance into your territory.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2017 20:06
|
|
|
Mortabis posted:I don't like the fort idea because the most economically valuable planets should be the most heavily fortified, not the other way around. Having fortress worlds is some neat fluff and might be a handy way to secure your borders but it's backwards in a lot of ways. Don’t you have to blow up starbases to attack planets? And starbases can have their own inhibitors? It sounds like you defend your more important economically valuable planets with your limited starbases allotment, then can create fortress worlds if you find a size 10 planet named Cadia.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2017 20:10
|
|
|
Mortabis posted:I don't like the fort idea because the most economically valuable planets should be the most heavily fortified, not the other way around. Having fortress worlds is some neat fluff and might be a handy way to secure your borders but it's backwards in a lot of ways. I feel like an easy solution to this, while not ideal, is some brave soul making a mod that allows for moons to be turned into fortresses. Not bu colonizing but by owning the planet and building poo poo on it. I have no idea how that would work in practice, nor how to implement it. I just want more ways to destroy my enemies spread Space Freedom(tm) Nuclearmonkee posted:Since assault armies are basically ships that temporarily disembark and not the other way around I see no reason why they can't all be in the same fleet manager logically. That's what I'm thinking. But I'd also like to keep track of my fortress worlds and garrisons separately from just building them. 3 DONG HORSE fucked around with this message at 20:21 on Dec 21, 2017 |
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2017 20:18
|
|
|
I'm not sure about the fortress world ftl inhibitor. It sounds like it could get really aggravating in the sense that you might end up literally unable to make progress in a war. You can blow up starbases, but if you don't have enough troops and there's no alternate route you are just stuck doing literally nothing because you cant get past the inhibitor.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2017 20:23
|
|
|
TheDeadlyShoe posted:I'm not sure about the fortress world ftl inhibitor. It sounds like it could get really aggravating in the sense that you might end up literally unable to make progress in a war. You can blow up starbases, but if you don't have enough troops and there's no alternate route you are just stuck doing literally nothing because you cant get past the inhibitor. Then build troops? I guess if you really wanted to you could bombard until the buildings are all ruined?
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2017 20:27
|
|
|
TheDeadlyShoe posted:I'm not sure about the fortress world ftl inhibitor. It sounds like it could get really aggravating in the sense that you might end up literally unable to make progress in a war. You can blow up starbases, but if you don't have enough troops and there's no alternate route you are just stuck doing literally nothing because you cant get past the inhibitor. Yes, of course. That's the point. If your army isn't powerful enough to defeat the enemy army you lose. Armies should either be removed from the game or able to win battles on their own. hobbesmaster posted:I guess if you really wanted to you could bombard until the buildings are all ruined? Ideally this would have some cost in ships associated with it, if it is possible.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2017 20:27
|
|
|
TheDeadlyShoe posted:I'm not sure about the fortress world ftl inhibitor. It sounds like it could get really aggravating in the sense that you might end up literally unable to make progress in a war. You can blow up starbases, but if you don't have enough troops and there's no alternate route you are just stuck doing literally nothing because you cant get past the inhibitor. Build more troop?
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2017 20:27
|
|
|
Determined Exterminators are going to be laughing in 2.0. Bomb every world into ashes and settle it. Laugh in the faces of any uppity organics that retake their worlds. Enjoy your irradiated ruins, meatbags!
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2017 20:32
|
|
|
The most prized pre-sentients will be roaches
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2017 20:33
|
|
|
Eiba posted:You don't need to bombard most planets anymore. That's a huge reduction in busywork, I'd think. Your fleet can come in and take out the starport and move on, without having to split your fleet to make sure you've got all the planets you want to invade covered and then checking in on them regularly so you catch when the planetary defenses are actually down and so on. Right, but troops now auto-embark meaning the moment you win your invasion your troops are back in space, so you still need to park a fleet in orbit to protect them. You don't have to wait to bombard down, but you still need a fleet tied to troops to babysit/protect them so it's crazy that you can't join them together.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2017 20:40
|
|
|
If armies are staying in, at least the possibility of fortress worlds (and wanting to seize the inhibitor intact) gives them something interesting and potentially strategically high stakes to do. Plus, there's still the options for "gently caress it, glass the planet" or "unleash the xenomorphs."
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2017 20:42
|
|
|
Thyrork posted:Determined Exterminators are going to be laughing in 2.0. Bomb every world into ashes and settle it. Laugh in the faces of any uppity organics that retake their worlds. Enjoy your irradiated ruins, meatbags! I want to believe that this will be the default approach taken by exterminators in 2.0. And that Fanatic Purifiers will also do this if they can't live on the planet. Both should get unity from Exterminatus.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2017 20:42
|
|
|
Mortabis posted:I don't like the fort idea because the most economically valuable planets should be the most heavily fortified, not the other way around. Having fortress worlds is some neat fluff and might be a handy way to secure your borders but it's backwards in a lot of ways. Most economically viable planets = planets with most and best tiles Planets with most and best tiles = more able to dedicate a tile to a fortress without running at a loss More able to dedicate tiles to fortresses without running at a loss = More able to build fortresses If you have a 10 tile planet, dedicating 10% of your potential output to a fortress is a bigger decision that dedicating 5% of a 20 tile planet's potential output, both generate the same number of defensive soldiers. Of course the 10 tile planet has a narrower combat width, so it's not all better for the 20 tile planet, but the 20 tile planet can build another fortress and still be sacrificing the same percentage of output as a 10 tile planet but has double the number of fortress armies. I think in practice this will end up being dependent more on how threatened you think the planet is rather than its productivity. A 10 tile planet with 5 fortresses, 3 energy generating buildings, and two research stations is probably a break even colony but loving hard to conquer. A 20 tile planet could also build 5 forts and probably still turn a profit, but if it's in the middle of a sprawling empire, why bother?
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2017 21:04
|
|
|
3 DONG HORSE posted:I feel like an easy solution to this, while not ideal, is some brave soul making a mod that allows for moons to be turned into fortresses. Not bu colonizing but by owning the planet and building poo poo on it. I have no idea how that would work in practice, nor how to implement it. Technically, some planets are the moons of gas giants, so just turn those into fortress worlds. Wish granted.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2017 21:06
|
|
|
I meant turning Luna into a fortress world even though it's ineligible for colonization because it's not habitable. Basically I want to turn moons into giant death cannons
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2017 21:30
|
|
|
If assault armies can’t be used to defend planets, what’s to stop the AI from sniping non-fortress planets back from you constantly?
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2017 21:32
|
|
|
Thyrork posted:Determined Exterminators are going to be laughing in 2.0. Bomb every world into ashes and settle it. Laugh in the faces of any uppity organics that retake their worlds. Enjoy your irradiated ruins, meatbags! You can already do this, IIRC, it just takes forever. I expect that it'll still take quite a while in 2.0, so it'll be far slower (and tie up far more of your fleet) than invading would. Kitchner posted:Most economically viable planets = planets with most and best tiles A 20 tile planet is more than twice as good as a 10 tile planet. For a number of reasons, having a number of tiles on a single planet is a lot better than having the same number of tiles spread across multiple planets. A break-even colony is essentially useless. Also, sacrificing output is super bad, because you're paying that cost every month, while you only get the benefits on the off-chance that your space is invaded by an enemy whose fleet you couldn't stop now but might be able to stop in a few months. In the long run, there's always this question: if you'd built mines on those tiles instead of fortresses, how many more ships could you have built over all those years since you got that planet?
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2017 21:40
|
|
|
Bold Robot posted:If assault armies can’t be used to defend planets, what’s to stop the AI from sniping non-fortress planets back from you constantly? Can't invade planets if you hold the starbase.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2017 21:41
|
|
|
There's some ambitious changes in this DLC but a few things that seem like punting the ball rather than addressing the issue -Not reducing # of ships seems like a big missed opportunity -I'm really unsure about the transport / army stuff, it's not an enjoyable part of Stellaris at all right now, so far the changes don't seem to telegraph that this will be massively improved Still excited about the DLC and looking forward to playing it and checking out the changes in a game.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2017 21:47
|
|
|
Ham Sandwiches posted:There's some ambitious changes in this DLC but a few things that seem like punting the ball rather than addressing the issue Same, not scaling down fleets like 10x is a huge missed chance. It fixes so much on the performance front and makes battle much more enjoyable to look at and understand.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2017 21:58
|
|
|
Kitchner posted:Most economically viable planets = planets with most and best tiles
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2017 22:21
|
|
|
Has anyone else been playing this game since launch and never realized army attachments existed?
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2017 22:39
|
|
|
I wonder what sort of bonuses Militarists etc. will get to their forts, increased unity seems like a no-brainer (maybe a perk or civic?) but other things like food production, increased effects, all seem very likely.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2017 22:41
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:You can already do this, IIRC, it just takes forever. I expect that it'll still take quite a while in 2.0, so it'll be far slower (and tie up far more of your fleet) than invading would. That's called a "trade off"  Also fun fact: you can dismantle your fortress after your borders grow past them.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2017 22:42
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:Also, sacrificing output is super bad, because you're paying that cost every month, while you only get the benefits on the off-chance that your space is invaded by an enemy whose fleet you couldn't stop now but might be able to stop in a few months. In the long run, there's always this question: if you'd built mines on those tiles instead of fortresses, how many more ships could you have built over all those years since you got that planet? You are purchasing time instead of ships. There are points in the game where having more time to react to a threat is more valuable than +1-3% bigger fleet, particularly when you are enormous or part of an idiot coalition that reacts slowly when war comes. Jump drives allowing you to largely ignore late game distances as a big empire isn't going to be a thing anymore. If you commit a fleet into enemy space you can't just pull it to the other end of your empire in 2-3 jumps. They have to path all the way back to a wormhole, use it, path to wherever the threat is. Nuclearmonkee fucked around with this message at 22:48 on Dec 21, 2017 |
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2017 22:45
|
|
|
3 DONG HORSE posted:I meant turning Luna into a fortress world even though it's ineligible for colonization because it's not habitable. Basically I want to turn moons into giant death cannons Oh man the mods that make a lot more stuff colonizable are going to have some balance issues. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2017 22:53
|
|
|
Mister Adequate posted:Oh man the mods that make a lot more stuff colonizable are going to have some balance issues. Lol yeah. I however wont be nerfing my precursor worlds. Your shielded and bunker worlds will be able to be turned into Cadia 2.0 if you want. :P This opens up a lot more cool stuff too. I just hope planet modifier bonuses will properly work on armies now.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2017 23:11
|
|
|
3 DONG HORSE posted:That's called a "trade off" Will the AI know how to correctly do this?
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2017 23:14
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:Will the AI know how to correctly do this? It didn't seem to know how to not spam defense armies, so it may not be a big difference economically. My only concern with the AI and fortresses is if the AI abuses an upkeep reduction to put these absolutely everywhere.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2017 23:18
|
|
|
Making transports space only and removing the requirements for bombardment before invasion cuts out pretty much all the micro people have been bitching about, so I'm not really sure why we have people clamoring for more cuts to the invasion game. Just rolling transports into ship modules was a suggestion for when there wasn't a serious commitment to making invasions play better. Now that that's been achieved, having transports on the strategic map is important because being able to snipe them before they make it to your worlds is going to be a pretty big objective in defensive wars. Removing the need to select a fleet and click a planet once every few minutes is not worth the removal of a failure point for attackers in conflicts. Also lol at minmaxers being upset that they have to sacrifice a few resources and some effort to defend strategically and economically important worlds, because that's totally a concept that has no bearing in reality or anything Psycho Landlord fucked around with this message at 23:22 on Dec 21, 2017 |
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2017 23:19
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:Will the AI know how to correctly do this? Maybe? Ask Wiz, I don't actually work on the game. You should play on a higher difficulty if you're worried the AI is going to be gimped economically. It more than makes up for human min-maxing.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2017 23:21
|
|
|
3 DONG HORSE posted:Maybe? Ask Wiz, I don't actually work on the game. You should play on a higher difficulty if you're worried the AI is going to be gimped economically. It more than makes up for human min-maxing. No joke about the higher difficulty. My multiplayer game group bumped it up for the first time in our latest game and a few people got loving butchered by AI empires the first couple sessions.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2017 23:29
|
|
|
MilkmanLuke posted:No joke about the higher difficulty. My multiplayer game group bumped it up for the first time in our latest game and a few people got loving butchered by AI empires the first couple sessions. Our group did that before the recent difficulty setting additions. We were originally going to end up killing each other, but instead we ran around trying to save each other in a forever war as another empire saw that one of us was weak and declared (and so on). This kept happening for so long the first empires we held off were able to war dec again and none of us could ever recover. (It was awesome) Xenomorph armies would be neat if they occasionally slipped their leash and turned the planet into a death world that had to be reclaimed.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2017 23:39
|
|
|
Psycho Landlord posted:Making transports space only and removing the requirements for bombardment before invasion cuts out pretty much all the micro people have been bitching about, so I'm not really sure why we have people clamoring for more cuts to the invasion game. Just rolling transports into ship modules was a suggestion for when there wasn't a serious commitment to making invasions play better. Now that that's been achieved, having transports on the strategic map is important because being able to snipe them before they make it to your worlds is going to be a pretty big objective in defensive wars. Removing the need to select a fleet and click a planet once every few minutes is not worth the removal of a failure point for attackers in conflicts.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2017 23:51
|
|
|
Staltran posted:You're currently able to just make a big enough army that you don't actually need to bombard before invading, so this doesn't actually reduce micro. Which is fine, of course. But sniping transports isn't really engaging gameplay in SP either, the AI doesn't seem to understand at all that they should be protected, and most of the time the AI manages to intercept your transports it's with one corvette. Which is just annoying, since you need to either send a fleet to take care of it or emergency ftl, both of which just waste some of your time. I think I'd still prefer armies to be turned into ship modules or something. You are aware that fleets aren't going to work like this anymore as part of the update this rework is dropping in, right? Fleets following other fleets will now jump together, single ship fleets will no longer be a thing with the fleet manager taking over, transports may well be able to be included in military fleets, so on and so forth. This is all part of a comprehensive rework of the game's war mechanics but everyone seems to want to argue about it in a vacuum and ignore the previous diaries. The AI argument doesn't even work anymore, seeing as how the AI is obviously going to be overhauled to take advantage of these new systems.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2017 00:08
|
|
|
I'm really not sold on the ground combat/army changes being enough to make invasions/war not a tedious mess like they currently are. I was really hoping for something that eliminated transports all together. A more abstracted manpower pool you'd "spend" on invasions once you defeat a system's starbase or what ever. But with so many other changes coming, it's unfair to look at the announced ground combat stuff through the lens of the current war system.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2017 00:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 11:22 |
|
|
I also wanted no transports but at least armies are useful. That part is neat.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2017 00:17
|
|