|
Well, again, I don't know if it'll go far enough to satisfy you but there's actually some stuff in the new patches that might help mitigate your problems. As mentioned, combat computers are in - they're a bit limited by ship type, so you still can't create stand-off corvettes, but you should have a little more adaptability in terms of designing ships to act and fight a certain way. I'll also note that I dunno when you stopped playing, but even in 1.9 I found that while my battleships (which had the "artillery" behavior set" DID approach the enemy at the start of combat, they generally came to a halt once they got in range and stood off to blast away. Also the issue of fleets jumping on top of each other might be partially mitigated by the fact that all travel is FTL travel now, and ships need to move to and from the correct node points to jump to a new system - you'll still get fleets jumping on top of you sometimes, but it'll be predictable when it happens (they're jumping towards us, we're sitting on top of their jump node, let's knife-fight 'em.) Not to say that you're obligated to enjoy the game now, but all that stuff might help. AAAAA! Real Muenster posted:Like....I have to research a tech to have a fleet doctrine? Really? Well, in-universe that's not hard to justify at all. Yeah, we do have fleet doctrines right now...for blue water navies, not for vessels in a 3D (it's an abstraction, shut up) vacuum in which we've never actually fought a major conflict before. Needing to take some time to work out an effective doctrine for warfare in a wholly new sphere with wholly new technology seems to make sense to me. I mean, heck, even today the modern military is scrambling to try and figure out an effective doctrine for drone warfare. Why wouldn't we need a new doctrine for space warfare?
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2018 18:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 16:43 |
|
|
I feel like they should probably just make the micro-level of space combat the system, instead of this weird half-and-half thing. Ships entering the system of enemy ships spot each other and have a "fire phase" or whatever for long range weapons, then start brawling.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2018 21:44
|
|
|
is it normal to have so many kids you can't see their faces  can I not stretch this window 
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2018 21:55
|
|
|
spectralent posted:I feel like they should probably just make the micro-level of space combat the system, instead of this weird half-and-half thing. Ships entering the system of enemy ships spot each other and have a "fire phase" or whatever for long range weapons, then start brawling. Yeah, I feel like combat should be system wide, with ranges reaching all the way across. You are in the system or enter it you are abstracted into the combat. It should internally function 100% like EUIV or whatever and be abstracted, with the visual pew-pew lasers just for aesthetics. EDIT: Combat is positional, but you can't control positioning, except you kinda can if you game the angles and invisible combat bubble.... is not fantastic.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2018 22:50
|
|
|
Punkin Spunkin posted:is it normal to have so many kids you can't see their faces This is normal. Children are meant to be expendable. Don't put your entire trust , faith, and kingdom into your small family of 4 kids. It's even more nuts if you are a Muslim or a pagan and have extra wives and concubines!
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2018 23:08
|
|
|
Alternatively, put your trust in a couple kids because managing a family of 50, and having them balloon out and constantly be a thorn in your main lines side is a good way to get a knife in the back 
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2018 23:25
|
|
|
smdh if you let people who aren't of your blood actually own land
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2018 23:36
|
|
|
Fintilgin posted:Yeah, I feel like combat should be system wide, with ranges reaching all the way across. You are in the system or enter it you are abstracted into the combat. It should internally function 100% like EUIV or whatever and be abstracted, with the visual pew-pew lasers just for aesthetics. The Stellaris map is still desperately missing texture even with everyone on the same FTL.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2018 23:50
|
|
|
ThatBasqueGuy posted:Alternatively, put your trust in a couple kids because managing a family of 50, and having them balloon out and constantly be a thorn in your main lines side is a good way to get a knife in the back Yeah, but its still your dynasty, so your still winning. Bigger dynasty means bigger score!
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2018 23:59
|
|
|
zedprime posted:I would like to see something like it being tiled in the system. So that they can add in terrain bonuses, with like small rocky planets and moons give bonuses to ballistic weapons using them to gravity assist or gas giants allowing ambushes or something clever. Then let the player influence moving the battle from tile to tile if one benefits their makeup better. Yeah, exactly. The thing about gravity assists with planets and moons reminds me of the other wild thing about combat, where the animation shows ships ducking and weaving around and going PEW PEW, but this is happening over days, with ships firing like, maybe a missile every couple of days and a laser every 20 hours or something. Which, man, that's a cool aesthetic, the idea that you're conducting a slow, deliberate battle of sensor detection, positioning and manuever, using weapons consuming so much energy or material that you're firing them for once-a-day killshots or whatever, but then you've also got ships ducking and weaving around each other like they're dogfighting, and they get faster if you turn the timer up and stop if you pause because it's linked to their actual movement speeds and stuff. Which reminds me also: Having system-wide combat that begins with enemy fleets sharing a combat zone would allow for sensors to do something combat-wise and could maybe even allow for scout-ships which are poo poo but give you advantageous spotting.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2018 00:01
|
|
|
I’ve been listening to Mike Duncan’s revolutions podcast, and drat I would love to see a paradox game focused mainly on internal politics and the struggle between socio-economic groups. I know Victoria is kinda this, but Victoria’s focus is more on economics and industrialization than pure socio-economic politics.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2018 00:19
|
|
|
DrSunshine posted:This is normal. Children are meant to be expendable. Don't put your entire trust , faith, and kingdom into your small family of 4 kids. It's even more nuts if you are a Muslim or a pagan and have extra wives and concubines! You are capped at 10 living children with a fertility penalty that kicks in at that point (although I'm not sure if it applies before or after they are born, so you might be able to push past it by having a couple of pregnant concubines/secondary wives when the 10th child is born), but the key is that it's living children. So if you have a high infant mortality rate for whatever reason, or are immortal and decide to keep having children, you will eventually end up with a basically unreadable list of kids. unwantedplatypus posted:I’ve been listening to Mike Duncan’s revolutions podcast, and drat I would love to see a paradox game focused mainly on internal politics and the struggle between socio-economic groups. I know Victoria is kinda this, but Victoria’s focus is more on economics and industrialization than pure socio-economic politics. Honestly if they ever did do a Victoria 3, I think that adding more stuff in this direction would be the best way to make it feel like more than just an engine update to Vicky 2. Like I like the economics and industrialization in Vicky 2 and don't want to see that go away (I know some people hate the economy but to me it's part of what makes the game unique), but the social aspect does seem to be very lacking - you have three whole sliders that cover the entire social aspect of your economy (education/administration/social programs), and unless it's the very beginning of the game and you're a lovely broke nation there's essentially no reason not to have them at 100% at all times. Likewise, taxation ends up just being the same thing, since admin penalties means they never pay the nominal tax rate, and the only thing that makes them angry is if they can't meet their needs (and more often this happens because of a lack of supply rather than a lack of funds). It would be a lot more interesting if governing involved a bit more of a balancing act with your budget to try to appeal to the needs of the different socio-economic groups, and failing to do so could drive them to more extreme political positions (poor might go from socialist to communist if you have lovely welfare programs, rich from liberal to anarcho-liberal if taxes are too high, etc.). You might even have to cut your military spending to focus on domestic issues! Wouldn't that be a first in a strategy game. You could even tie the burgeoning political movements at the time into the economy more - maybe you might have factories that are taken over by communists which distribute the earnings more fairly to the craftsmen/clerks in the factory, who all contribute their funds back into the factory (as opposed to needing to find capitalist investors), which might make for more reliable output, but would also cause communist influence to grow among the pops in that state. You could choose to crack down on it or let it slide, and it would be built into the base mechanics of the economy and management rather than abstracted through random event pop ups. The Cheshire Cat fucked around with this message at 00:33 on Feb 23, 2018 |
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2018 00:19
|
|
|
Yeah I used to prune the family tree a lot to stop future branch backstabbing but this game I went with an elective monarchy where everyone has fifty kids and everyone marries Basically all my vassals, council, and commanders are fam now. And you just keep them satisfied by forever swallowing up more titles to feed them. Plus turnover is great when all of your commanders are your fifty sons or half-brothers. Lotta crushing blows to the head.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2018 00:25
|
|
|
unwantedplatypus posted:I’ve been listening to Mike Duncan’s revolutions podcast, and drat I would love to see a paradox game focused mainly on internal politics and the struggle between socio-economic groups. I know Victoria is kinda this, but Victoria’s focus is more on economics and industrialization than pure socio-economic politics. I would like this game please thank you 
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2018 00:46
|
|
|
spectralent posted:Yeah, exactly. The thing about gravity assists with planets and moons reminds me of the other wild thing about combat, where the animation shows ships ducking and weaving around and going PEW PEW, but this is happening over days, This happens in CK2 and I presume EU4 as well, is it really that much more bothersome because it shows ships buzzing around instead of just two dudes whacking eachother with swords?
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2018 01:28
|
|
|
AAAAA! Real Muenster posted:Yeah I got excited when I read up on 'em but after reading the dev post about them I was less excited because they are super limited in scope and which ship they can go on. This may have changed since that dev diary, though. you get the computers really quickly. unless you're doing an extremely fast corvette rush, you'll have the chance to get computers before you ever fire a shot against anyone but pirates. fleet battles feel a lot better now; the behaviors of different computers are actually quite meaningful even though the choices for each ship class are limited.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2018 03:55
|
|
|
Galaga Galaxian posted:This happens in CK2 and I presume EU4 as well, is it really that much more bothersome because it shows ships buzzing around instead of just two dudes whacking eachother with swords?
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2018 07:12
|
|
|
Galaga Galaxian posted:This happens in CK2 and I presume EU4 as well, is it really that much more bothersome because it shows ships buzzing around instead of just two dudes whacking eachother with swords? Those continue in at least EU4 and HOI when you're paused, and don't speed up when you speed up, because they're just abstractions of the fight going on. In Stellaris they move with the time slider, because they're actual objects with a position used for calculating stuff, because the system is a weird mix of both things.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2018 08:50
|
|
|
Next up in Stellaris 2.1: Make combat use nato symbols so it’s not too believable
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2018 11:31
|
|
|
Fellblade posted:Next up in Stellaris 2.1: Make combat use nato symbols so it’s not too believable Tomn posted:Well, again, I don't know if it'll go far enough to satisfy you but there's actually some stuff in the new patches that might help mitigate your problems. As mentioned, combat computers are in - they're a bit limited by ship type, so you still can't create stand-off corvettes, but you should have a little more adaptability in terms of designing ships to act and fight a certain way. I'll also note that I dunno when you stopped playing, but even in 1.9 I found that while my battleships (which had the "artillery" behavior set" DID approach the enemy at the start of combat, they generally came to a halt once they got in range and stood off to blast away. Tomn posted:Well, in-universe that's not hard to justify at all. Yeah, we do have fleet doctrines right now...for blue water navies, not for vessels in a 3D (it's an abstraction, shut up) vacuum in which we've never actually fought a major conflict before. Needing to take some time to work out an effective doctrine for warfare in a wholly new sphere with wholly new technology seems to make sense to me. I mean, heck, even today the modern military is scrambling to try and figure out an effective doctrine for drone warfare. Why wouldn't we need a new doctrine for space warfare? Jazerus posted:you get the computers really quickly. unless you're doing an extremely fast corvette rush, you'll have the chance to get computers before you ever fire a shot against anyone but pirates. Fintilgin posted:Combat is positional, but you can't control positioning, except you kinda can if you game the angles and invisible combat bubble.... is not fantastic. AAAAA! Real Muenster fucked around with this message at 14:44 on Feb 23, 2018 |
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2018 14:39
|
|
|
 If anyone wants to try Apocalypse before buying it, or if you just love multiplayer in general, I have a Stellaris game starting March 1st. SA recruitment thread: https://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3850158 Discord server- https://discord.gg/ZvWaBeN
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2018 18:24
|
|
|
So I've started playing Stellaris again, and am having trouble with the whole "cannot colonize outside our borders" thing. A whole lot of discussions on various forums seem to suggest that this is possible, but when I right click a (100% habitable) planet with my colony ship, the option is in redtext. Did this change in 2.0, or is there something I'm missing/have forgotten about this.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2018 01:50
|
|
|
Yeah almost every source you're gonna come up with is outdated, the way territory works has been completely overhauled in the update that dropped yesterday. Now you can only colonize planets that are in a system you've claimed by building a starbase in.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2018 01:55
|
|
|
Crazycryodude posted:Yeah almost every source you're gonna come up with is outdated, the way territory works has been completely overhauled in the update that dropped yesterday. Now you can only colonize planets that are in a system you've claimed by building a starbase in. Thanks! Yeah that's what I thought it was (and I kinda remember some tooltips or other reason for thinking it was that way before when it wasn't). I just didn't see anything about this specifically in the patch notes. Ugh, now I'm sitting with an expensive colony ship sucking energy while I build the outpost to let it do anything.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2018 01:59
|
|
|
IMO the solution to Stellaris's combat is to either completly rip off star ruler 2's ship building system or get rid of the ship builder entirely and have set ship types that get stat improvements as you research more tech. That said i have yet to really mess around with combat too much in the recent patch outside of a warlord raid that showed how hard the new disengagement system owns
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2018 03:32
|
|
|
Yeah I really like the disengagement system, and it interacts with the war policies thing really well too. Being space Stalin's a lot better when you can actually issue order no.227 and get bonuses for doing so.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2018 07:06
|
|
|
WhiskeyWhiskers posted:Yeah I really like the disengagement system, and it interacts with the war policies thing really well too. Being space Stalin's a lot better when you can actually issue order no.227 and get bonuses for doing so. Now if only the socialist state mod would update. Then my space stalin simulator would be complete!
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2018 19:13
|
|
|
Agean90 posted:IMO the solution to Stellaris's combat is to either completly rip off star ruler 2's ship building system No, the solution is not to use any part of Star Ruler 2's awful design that sold 3000 copies
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2018 19:47
|
|
|
I managed almost two hours in Star Ruler 2.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2018 23:28
|
|
|
I don't think I got past the tutorial
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2018 23:40
|
|
|
filthy casuals itt
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2018 00:10
|
|
|
Tahirovic posted:Getting back into this game is really hard. One other thing, why are the "Italy does not exist" and "German Reich does not exist" conditions for the Austria-Hungary decision marked as not fulfilled at game start? This is old so you might already know by now, but it’s the opposite of how it appears. Germany and Italy must exist to enable the decision.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2018 01:34
|
|
|
Star Ruler 2 was cool, good
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2018 05:08
|
|
|
Victoria 2 problems: I've played a couple games as Brazil, Argentina and Japan now and I keep running into the same problem: Getting sphere'd by one of the great powers before I can break into the G8 myself. Can't colonize and Can't expand through war. I can't get an alliance with any of the other great powers despite being at 200 relations either. Am I just not progressing fast enough to break into the G8?
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2018 05:26
|
|
|
I don't know if it's optimal, but my Japan opener is basically doing early Meiji on day one, picking off Southeast Asian minors (the Vietnam one if China doesn't ally them, Malaysia and Thailand if they do) until you're in danger of hitting 25 infamy, using the bonus research points from conquest to grab a bunch of reforms, and then hunkering down to squash revolts and getting the last ~50 percent of reforms naturally. I think I've been sphered by the US before while doing this, but IIRC it just means a big dropoff in revenue. I usually max taxes and tariffs at the start so I have a pretty big warchest by the mid 40s. Once you civilize it should be pretty easy to just build army/navy/factories to get you in the top 8 if you aren't by then.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2018 05:39
|
|
|
the easiest way to become a gp is to just beeline the art techs (romantism, impressonism etc). Those can usually be enough to get you at least within spitting distance of #8
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2018 07:08
|
|
|
Away all Goats posted:Victoria 2 problems: Being sphered doesn't prevent you from becoming a great power - although it does restrict your diplomatic options since generally you can only make alliances with your sphere leader and if they aren't in a position to be helpful, well, tough luck. If you get enough points to enter the top 8 it doesn't matter if you're sphered because you just became your own sphere leader. Being sphered shouldn't prevent you from colonizing, though? The only requirement there is that you be at least a secondary power and also have a navy. If you deliberately tank relations, you can take a decision to remove yourself from their sphere, but I think this gives them an "Add to Sphere" CB against you so be wary.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2018 09:19
|
|
|
I think being in a sphere also give you a research bonus? That might only be pre-westernization, though.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2018 05:22
|
|
|
Anyone play March of the Eagles It's pretty much the only paradox game other than CK2 I've played more than a couple times. I wonder if they're both just the most accessible or visually appealing.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2018 05:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 16:43 |
|
|
Being in a sphere can sometimes be good for your economy, since you get access to your sphere's internal market and your pops can buy whatever they need from the sphere after your sphere leader gets first pick. There also shouldn't be anything stopping you from going to war as a sphered or secondary power other than the fact that most of your conquest targets are probably sphered by someone else and thus protected.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2018 05:52
|
|