|
Tomn posted:Isn't there an option to do that right now without a mod, or did I imagine that? Yeah, you can turn a planet into a vassal state right now if you wanted
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2018 21:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 16:23 |
|
|
Is eu4 style vassal feeding valid in this game? I've always just conquered whatever and annexed everything with seemingly little downside.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2018 22:00
|
|
|
appropriatemetaphor posted:Is eu4 style vassal feeding valid in this game? I've always just conquered whatever and annexed everything with seemingly little downside.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2018 22:12
|
|
|
THE loving MOON posted:I'm tempted to just start another game, but I'm worried Apocalypse is gonna drop like the day after I start it or something Well poo poo, the longer you wait the longer the rest of us will have to wait to play Apocalypse! 
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2018 23:28
|
|
|
Chalks posted:Well poo poo, the longer you wait the longer the rest of us will have to wait to play Apocalypse! fffffffffff alright. I'll run some kind of republic so i can lose quickly.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2018 00:02
|
|
|
THE loving MOON posted:fffffffffff alright. I'll run some kind of republic so i can lose quickly. I always say the same thing, and then my republics take over the galaxy. Be warned.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2018 00:31
|
|
|
Libluini posted:I always say the same thing, and then my republics take over the galaxy. Be warned. Checks out so far, started with some big planets with good bonuses, and the only ideologically opposed empire nearby is pinned in between me and an sympethetic advanced start empire. THE FUCKING MOON fucked around with this message at 03:55 on Jan 23, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2018 03:51
|
|
|
Can someone explain the diplo game to me in simple terms because I usually get rolled by an alliance of assholes 100 years in after I've fought off one rear end in a top hat empire in a defensive war. Usually my empire stagnates because I don't want to use sectors to expand, can't get enough research done to get a tech advantage, or my naval capacity does not match the enemies. Or if someone knows where there's a no sector mod that would be a good consolation.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2018 18:27
|
|
|
there's no 'trick' to the diplo game exactly. if you're not using sectors to expand you're not expanding properly. other empires are attacking you because they (rightly) think you're weak. expand properly to achieve power parity with your neighbors and diplo will become much easier. if there is a 'trick' it can be boiled down to: "the enemy of my enemy is my friend."
Zane fucked around with this message at 19:58 on Jan 23, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2018 18:34
|
|
|
Alternatively, you can just straight up buy alliances early in this game (send minerals, resources) from almost anyone not a complete shitlord, and combined with a xenophile/charismatic bonus it's super easy to win games. Until you feel confident, I'd say that's probably the best way to start.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2018 18:36
|
|
|
Rick_Hunter posted:Can someone explain the diplo game to me in simple terms because I usually get rolled by an alliance of assholes 100 years in after I've fought off one rear end in a top hat empire in a defensive war. Usually my empire stagnates because I don't want to use sectors to expand, can't get enough research done to get a tech advantage, or my naval capacity does not match the enemies. So right off the bat people will get a strong penalty if you are an opposing ethos or government, and will just plain hate everyone if they're a xenophobe of any type. They will also get grumpy if your borders are touching. It's very hard to make friends with someone if they already have a strong negative towards you. The best way to make friends is through common hates. The country next to you already hates you, but they also hate their neighbour to the north. Check them out, notice they're pretty neutral to you. Make the jerk a rival and suddenly you and the county to the far north have a common enemy, next thing you know a couple other countries have rival'd this jerk and you all have relationship bonus for having common rivals and suddenly everyone is receptive to NA pacts and then defense pacts. Because you are friends, these other countries do not get upset when you conquer and annex people. Sometimes you're surrounded by people on the fence, bribes can help. Gift them something, and that can sometimes make the difference and get them to accept a treaty. Whatever you do though, if you want to make friends don't start conquering near them or expanding near them or suddenly they'll decide to all rival you and now it's you who is the region's common enemy.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2018 18:40
|
|
|
Rick_Hunter posted:Can someone explain the diplo game to me in simple terms because I usually get rolled by an alliance of assholes 100 years in after I've fought off one rear end in a top hat empire in a defensive war. Usually my empire stagnates because I don't want to use sectors to expand, can't get enough research done to get a tech advantage, or my naval capacity does not match the enemies. For no sector play, you can up your planet limit by taking the right ethics, civics, traditions, and ascensions. Be choosy about what planets you colonise. Also you can dump planets into sectors, turn on respect tile resources, turn off redevelopment, robot building, and space building, starve them of minerals, and just dump minerals in and build manually when you feel like it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2018 18:42
|
|
|
Yeah last night I decided to actually try playing as an empire type on a mid-sized galaxy with maxed civs and fallen empires. I found myself between two devouring swarms, did some expanding and got in good with the nations to the west of me who were unfriendly with that devouring swarm. Eventually I decided to declare war, sent in my 4k fleet (all corvettes because the destroyer tech is eluding me) and we got owned by their 5k fleet. I'm still trying trying out wars in Stellaris, because in all my time up until now I've just been happy to have war declared on me and fighting back when appropriate. Gonna go back to the game soon and see if I can dig my way out of this situation.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2018 18:50
|
|
|
Looking for some advice on playing my tall empire... There is a 25 tile tomb world within my borders. I have been fortunate enough to colonise only 4 planets, all of which are 22+ tile size. I am far ahead in the research and unity game, and was thinkiing about expanding... Would it be better to settle this world with my synths, or instead build, say, a habitat or a riingwold? I've never gotten to that point in the game yet with megastructures... thanks!
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2018 19:04
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:So right off the bat people will get a strong penalty if you are an opposing ethos or government, and will just plain hate everyone if they're a xenophobe of any type. They will also get grumpy if your borders are touching. It's very hard to make friends with someone if they already have a strong negative towards you. The best way to make friends is through common hates. The country next to you already hates you, but they also hate their neighbour to the north. Check them out, notice they're pretty neutral to you. Make the jerk a rival and suddenly you and the county to the far north have a common enemy, next thing you know a couple other countries have rival'd this jerk and you all have relationship bonus for having common rivals and suddenly everyone is receptive to NA pacts and then defense pacts. Because you are friends, these other countries do not get upset when you conquer and annex people. This seems to be the main problem. I was playing a fanatic authoritarian/spiritualist government with a caste system which I thematically like but mechanic-wise hate because as soon as I get xenos into my empire I'm playing whack-a-mole with unrest (don't let it increase but I have to keep building armies). I believe my main enemy were democratic crusaders. I'm hesitant to make deals with empires beyond resource trading because I don't want it to come back and bite me in the rear end with a research deal or active sensor link or something. What was even worse was that my ally (Hegemonic imperialists) let their fleet sit in their territory even though he sided with me against the coming onslaught and I got crushed, 14.5k vs about 40k from 2 empires. I'll try the common hate strategy next time. Splicer posted:For no sector play, you can up your planet limit by taking the right ethics, civics, traditions, and ascensions. Be choosy about what planets you colonise. Also you can dump planets into sectors, turn on respect tile resources, turn off redevelopment, robot building, and space building, starve them of minerals, and just dump minerals in and build manually when you feel like it. Well aware of increasing core systems. I had the techs for +6 core systems but was capped out. I only made my first sector a year before the war started and I got steamrolled. I much prefer a hands on approach even if it's the most inefficient because I like microing all my planets and really despise the sector mechanics. Thank you for the sector tips though.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2018 19:05
|
|
|
Guigui posted:Looking for some advice on playing my tall empire... Why not both? The tomb world will eventually help out your all-important fleet cap with a star base, and with 25 squares you should be able to easily counter the # of planets malus to science and unity. Later on, a ring world will give you lots of room, and are just pretty cool in general. No reason not to do them all.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2018 19:21
|
|
|
Should I just leave all my sectors on "balanced" or specialize them? Should I colonize every planet inside one, even small ones? They don't seem to do very much without me manually directing it all regardless.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2018 19:31
|
|
|
Guigui posted:Looking for some advice on playing my tall empire... I've just started to terraform a tomb world in my current game to my preferred world type, so you could do that, too.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2018 19:55
|
|
|
I've been playing a lot of multiplayer with some friends, and we are curious if there is any way to disable the game from showing which empires are player controlled? We want to be in the dark about if the empire we're about to declare war on is an AI or one of the guys in the hotseat.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2018 22:25
|
|
|
Pseudophile posted:I've been playing a lot of multiplayer with some friends, and we are curious if there is any way to disable the game from showing which empires are player controlled? We want to be in the dark about if the empire we're about to declare war on is an AI or one of the guys in the hotseat. Wiz please, this is a great idea.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2018 22:31
|
|
|
Pseudophile posted:I've been playing a lot of multiplayer with some friends, and we are curious if there is any way to disable the game from showing which empires are player controlled? We want to be in the dark about if the empire we're about to declare war on is an AI or one of the guys in the hotseat. This would be awesome
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2018 22:38
|
|
|
So quick question about how it works. If I want to go tall and only build a few planets, is it the planets that matter or the systems? If I've got a system with a 20, 12, and 15 planet with decent habitability, is it smart to grab them all, or should I just colonize the 20? Do unity/tech costs go up per planet or per system?
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2018 22:59
|
|
|
GorfZaplen posted:This would be awesome And be ultimately useless whenever you invade a planet named “gently caress GorfZaplen” or whatever name you use in Stellaris.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2018 23:59
|
|
|
Technical Analysis posted:And be ultimately useless whenever you invade a planet named “gently caress GorfZaplen” or whatever name you use in Stellaris. I already use namelists on my planets, ships, etc. This would be really a really cool feature, Wiz!!
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2018 00:02
|
|
|
Am I the only one who always keeps the default names like "Epsilon Indi IIIa" or "Trappist IV"? - It makes it easier to remember where your planets are on the map when they're named after their parent star. - Planets in the same system will get grouped next to each other in alphabetical menu lists. - The default name lists (with the exception of the human ones) usually don't have enough planet names in them and it's easy to run out of unique ones.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2018 00:49
|
|
|
Technical Analysis posted:And be ultimately useless whenever you invade a planet named “gently caress GorfZaplen” or whatever name you use in Stellaris. I'm sure that's in one of my namelist mods.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2018 00:50
|
|
|
VirtualStranger posted:Am I the only one who always keeps the default names like "Epsilon Indi IIIa" or "Trappist IV"? I too am really lazy, but this screws me over when I take over planets and end up with three planets named glurg shurlbanth or whatever from three different civilizations using the same nameset but do it at different times so I don't realize it
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2018 00:52
|
|
|
I rename all plants I acquire through war or vassalization because my culture is superior and I must insult the loser in even the most petty way.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2018 00:53
|
|
|
I'm guessing I wasn't the only Alpha Centauri player who ironically renamed bases after taking them in war to dunk on the enemy faction's ideology. Renaming the Believers' capital "Christ Dethroned" never got old.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2018 01:31
|
|
|
VirtualStranger posted:Am I the only one who always keeps the default names like "Epsilon Indi IIIa" or "Trappist IV"? I usually name the star after what I want the planet to be. So the star becomes Neo Tokyo or whatever and the planet auto names to Neo Tokyo III.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2018 01:40
|
|
|
Still on the fence for buying the game? Current Humble Bundle has Stellaris for the $12 price point.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2018 01:54
|
|
|
Fintilgin posted:I usually name the star after what I want the planet to be. So the star becomes Neo Tokyo or whatever and the planet auto names to Neo Tokyo III. This is the correct way to name stuff. Though I keep the default name unless it's god awful stupid, in which case I'll rename the star to something from the names list. In human runs I'll even rename Earth and Mars to "Sol III" and "Sol IV" because once the space empire gets big enough and I've moved the capitol to Trantor, who gives a gently caress about your special name Solarians.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2018 02:48
|
|
|
The only proper names for planets are Paperclip Storage 00001, Paperclip Storage 00002, etc.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2018 02:49
|
|
|
VirtualStranger posted:Am I the only one who always keeps the default names like "Epsilon Indi IIIa" or "Trappist IV"? Depends, when I did robots I renamed everything like "Sector 001" and robot sounding stuff. But normally naw.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2018 02:52
|
|
|
I like coming up with names once the name list itself runs out of options because I feel simply calling a planet 'Soandso Prime' is really boring. If a planet is important enough I'll remember where it is, if not it'll just melt into the background of the galaxy and pay taxes. As for renaming things I've conquered, I usually don't bother. I have a hard enough time thinking of things to name my own planets and I'm really not that creative. The only exception to this is in the Civilization series of games; many years ago during a late night game of Civ3 or something myself and a friend got into a very pointless discussion about how ridiculous the name 'Edfu' is and that it had to go. But after taking over the city we couldn't agree on a better name and it simply got renamed to 'No Longer Edfu'. Since then it has been a requirement that this city (if it exists) needs to be taken over and renamed. I've not found a planet named Edfu in Stellaris but maybe it's time to add it in.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2018 03:01
|
|
|
For my Robo Xcom playthrough I named all of my planets New [Council Member Nation]. And then went from there.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2018 03:10
|
|
|
Sometimes I name my planets and stars according to what they're for, as a reminder for when I'm building on them. So energy planets get names like "Volt" or "Amp", mineral planets get names like "Bauxite" or "Adamantite" and their stars are named according to the colour of the resource (e.g. Lemon for an energy system, Crimson for a mineral one) so I can tell at a glance on the map where my production centres are. Other times I try to see how long I can keep up a theme. I've had an empire cover most of a galaxy while maintaining a theme of "abstract social concepts ending in -ty" (Unity, Society, Liberty, Fidelity etc.), which required a dictionary and thesaurus after a while. Reveilled fucked around with this message at 03:16 on Jan 24, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2018 03:14
|
|
|
Reveilled posted:Sometimes I name my planets and stars according to what they're for, as a reminder for when I'm building on them. So energy planets get names like "Volt" or "Amp", mineral planets get names like "Bauxite" or "Adamantite" and their stars are named according to the colour of the resource (e.g. Lemon for an energy system, Crimson for a mineral one) so I can tell at a glance on the map where my production centres are. Actually yeah, I name stuff "Mineral Planet 1" or "Energy Planet 4".
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2018 03:36
|
|
|
appropriatemetaphor posted:Actually yeah, I name stuff "Mineral Planet 1" or "Energy Planet 4". How do the people who live there feel about that
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2018 03:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 16:23 |
|
|
Yandat posted:How do the people who live there feel about that The ones on the energy planet seem to love it. The ones on the mineral planet are all slaves so who cares.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2018 03:44
|
|
