|
There's degrees. There's full on crush the game, then there's trying to get yourself to where you can survive and prosper. Then there's those people who are taking on higher difficulties where you need every advantage you can get.
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2018 20:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 10:34 |
|
|
I find most of my games are the opposite since 2.0 came out. The early and mid game is setting things up, researching and pushing my borders out to grab as much as possible. When gateways come around that's when I start to stretch my legs and utilize everything I've been building up. Wish there was an intermediate tech that helped you get around since it takes so long now. A way to make certain hyperlanes faster would be nice. Could also tone into a trade mechanic of sorts, allowing you to connect your mai worlds and neighbors with some sort of midline that speeds things around.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2018 20:31
|
|
|
Hi thread, I stopped reading you after 10+ pages of bad posting about pop growth mechanics. There have been 1000+ posts and a thread title change since then. I just read the three most recent dev diaries. Can anyone fill me in on any other news we have received?
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2018 20:40
|
|
|
Psychotic Weasel posted:I find most of my games are the opposite since 2.0 came out. The early and mid game is setting things up, researching and pushing my borders out to grab as much as possible. When gateways come around that's when I start to stretch my legs and utilize everything I've been building up. But gateways takes loving ages, I can't imagine playing like that unless your science is enormous and you're getting them in like 2250 or something. Like for me it's 2301 right now and I've conquered around half of the galaxy in my Purifier game but I don't have gateways yet. Or battleships but that's just been really bad tech pulls (and researching L gate stuff because I've STILL not opened them once)
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2018 20:46
|
|
|
AAAAA! Real Muenster posted:Hi thread, I stopped reading you after 10+ pages of bad posting about pop growth mechanics. There have been 1000+ posts and a thread title change since then. I just read the three most recent dev diaries. Can anyone fill me in on any other news we have received? Pretty much the only other source of info other than the dev diaries has been Wiz's Twitter, he posts screenshots with little tidbits a couple times a week.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2018 20:48
|
|
|
drat. I just finished what will go down in my empire's history as "The great triple war" and was seriously some of the most fun I've had in the game. It all started when my ally got himself declared on by a member of a five-empire federation encompassing the outer arm of the galactic south-west (led by the insudious humans). I wasn't worried - the only point of contact between me and the federation was a heavily fortified black hole system. But then - the plantfolk squeezed between me and my ally decided they too need to settle some old scores and promptly declared on my ally. That's war number two. And finally - with all my fleets in the west and no gateways - my deplorable fungus neighbors rammed a pair of 10k fleets and some troop transports right into my eastern frontier colonies. Oh, and bots the plants and the mushrooms brought in allies. That's three separate wars (out of two of which I can't even negotiate), against a total of nine empires. My rear end was saved by marauder mercenaries, a lucky "get a bunch of energy" event that allowed me to finance them.. and a great deal of Artificial Stupidity which made the Federation fleets smash one by one into my my citadel.. In the end all three wars ended in white peace with no territorial losses on my part and a near-total annihilation of my ally (he was left with a single system while everything else was either conquered or turned into puppet states). Needless to say, I got rid of that alliance right after. Defence pacts, man.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2018 21:12
|
|
|
Taear posted:I mean that's still basically what I'm saying there. Too much of the starbase is mega situational but there are some things that are useful almost always. TheDeadlyShoe posted:there's nothing wrong with the nebula refinery. its a great way to subsidize placing a starbase in a location. it's only a waste from the perspective of the endgame and its (relatively) limitless resources. I think it's harder to talk strategy about the early and midgame in concrete terms because it's so variable, I usually talk about what I'm building toward because that's easier than discussing the process by which I get there.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2018 21:18
|
|
|
AAAAA! Real Muenster posted:Hi thread, I stopped reading you after 10+ pages of bad posting about pop growth mechanics. There have been 1000+ posts and a thread title change since then. I just read the three most recent dev diaries. Can anyone fill me in on any other news we have received?  * We saw that planets with bad habitability for your POPS will cost you more to support. Penalty may be lessened if you can find some Fremen to come farm Arrakis for you! * A market so you can obtain resources that you don't or can't make well. In early stages it's supposed to represent doing internal swaps with sub-stellar-nation entities such as large corporations, autonomous regions, and Zeon, but eventually it will become truly galactic. It is suggested though not yet clarified that you can go to the slave market and buy POPS - potentially even to free them! * A system that provides mouse-over story tidbits for tile blockers, rendering Generic War Crater #17 into the Great Albertan Crater.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2018 21:32
|
|
|
Rincewinds posted:Sorta hope this will affect migration attraction and pop growth as well, so desert worlds would be mostly populated by species that can adept, though pops leaving hive worlds would probably accept anything. Would be somewhat annoying to set migration rights on every planet just to avoid wasting infrastructure, due to the desert world needing to be covered in glass to accommodate the ocean dwelling fish people. Also in the new system pops don't travel between planets. They can decline and influence what grows on other worlds, but those are separate things.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2018 21:52
|
|
|
I'm sure you can force slaves to go to hell desert planet from your cozy throne of ice and snow.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2018 21:58
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:I don't think I've ever built a starbase where I had nothing but a refinery to put on it. I'm gonna be building a couple dozen anchorage stations anyway. Might as well get some extra minerals out of them. But then I love playing Assimilators so hydroponics and black sites aren't a consideration.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2018 22:19
|
|
|
Gadzuko posted:Pretty much the only other source of info other than the dev diaries has been Wiz's Twitter, he posts screenshots with little tidbits a couple times a week. Nessus posted:* POPS Cool, thanks guys!
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2018 23:02
|
|
|
How about making mining stations & star bases more like small habitats with pops. that way population growth will limit your expansions/production as well. no more putting up a hundred mining stations in the beginning and claiming as many system as you have influence to take. you need pops to run them as well. Now that we have sectors, you could build a mineral sectors/station on a asteroid deposit. build energy sector around the star/gas planets. maybe food sector on barren worlds, has to be something we can use those planets for? - habitats for population growth/science/specialization. star bases are basically habitats without pops. Being able to turn any station/habitat into a ruin. I don't know, but the possibility to do more stuff in each system would be fun. I would love a leader expansion also, that's how you make internal conflict in your empire.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2018 23:32
|
|
|
It'd be neat if resource silos gave a small bonus to space resource generation or something so you were encouraged to build them in high space mining systems. Or in the new system increased special resource gen a bit maybe. Just something to make positioning a bit more meaningful for them. e: better, have them and orbital farms reduce the energy cost of resource stations since you don't have to ship food into the system or the mined minerals out. Splicer fucked around with this message at 00:42 on Sep 16, 2018 |
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2018 00:26
|
|
|
Do you guys initially build every mineral resource that pops up in space, or do you prioritize the ones valued at 3 or more and leave the rest for another time?
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2018 00:59
|
|
|
Prioritize the high yield ones and expansion significantly but if there's nowhere else to expand easily I might backfill earlier.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2018 01:08
|
|
|
Hot Dog Day #82 posted:Do you guys initially build every mineral resource that pops up in space, or do you prioritize the ones valued at 3 or more and leave the rest for another time? Only build on high resource deposits first, but eventually you'll have enough energy income to be able to build all of them. Energy is plentiful, but minerals are in constant demand.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2018 01:13
|
|
|
wiegieman posted:Only build on high resource deposits first, but eventually you'll have enough energy income to be able to build all of them. Energy is plentiful, but minerals are in constant demand. Would you say the same thing holds true for science deposits (or whatever they are called), or should you send your construction ship over to them whenever you find one? I’ve been doing the latter.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2018 01:17
|
|
|
Hot Dog Day #82 posted:Would you say the same thing holds true for science deposits (or whatever they are called), or should you send your construction ship over to them whenever you find one? I’ve been doing the latter. Sure, build those right away if you have the energy to keep them going. The reason you hold off on building the 1 mineral deposits is that planets give you more return per energy upkeep, which in the late game is a non-issue, but you always need more science.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2018 01:51
|
|
|
Taear posted:But gateways takes loving ages, I can't imagine playing like that unless your science is enormous and you're getting them in like 2250 or something. there are a lot of variables here in totally unmodded stellaris on 1x tech speed, sub-admiral difficulty and a non-huge galaxy, yeah, gateway building comes very late. the further away you get from that, the more useful it becomes. i tend to seed a lot of gateways at galaxy generation, 3x-4x, because they are more of a novelty than a transportation network otherwise but yeah, i wouldn't wait for gates to start being an active participant in the galaxy either. fleet speeds aren't so low that you can't manage a reasonably sprawling empire without gates.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2018 01:58
|
|
|
I do the opposite: Build every mineral and energy deposit I find (Although I do prioritize larger ones when I'm making less than 30 minerals a month), and save science deposits for when I have a decent industrial base and can eat the cost easily. Unless I get 4+ science (Either in one chunk or as, say, a 2/2/2) out of it, then that's immediate, and I may even prioritize border expansion in that direction. I run FanMat and science boost races for preference, though, so I can still maintain bleeding edge with less. Of course, I'm using Guilli's Planet Modifiers mod, which tends to scatter a ton of 2-value mining sites in the ring systems of gas giants. So that tilts things significantly. On the subject of mods, I think I went a little overboard on music mods. Star Wars? Great. Star Trek? Marvelous. Shifting from Wars to Trek to Hooked On A Feeling? That's a bit of mood whiplash.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2018 02:08
|
|
|
There's no correct one weird trick build order in Stellaris, which is nice, but you generally can't go wrong super aggressively chasing minerals until you can't. I'm personally too addicted to science to not heavily invest in labs and science deposits early on, but most of the "pros" will say to build every space mine you can, obviously from biggest to smallest, then planet mines, then once you have a big enough mineral economy that you're never waiting on minerals to expand or build up to your fleet cap, then start to invest in science things. But again, it really depends on your situation, and what's cool about stellaris is that it even depends on your goals. No everyone's goals are to paint the map their colour or early rush their neighbours.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2018 04:15
|
|
|
I go minerals over science, unless the sci boost is significant or my expansion stalls, say due to lack of influence and the minerals start piling up. I take energy as needed, sometimes going into the red for a couple of months. I usually play very wide - survey and grab systems towards key junctions and chokepoints and backfill the others later - and my settings are 5X on both planets and primitives. At mid game I tend to just colonize a single far-off planet, give it a couple of systems and set to 'colonize'. Repeat a couple of times and watch the colonization notifiers ping..
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2018 04:28
|
|
|
science quickly becomes a better return, at least at first. +2 physics when you're making 10 per month is far more consequential than another +2 to minerals. getting a tech lead early on can really snowball - if you bash out ten techs in the time it takes the average AI to do five, that's a permanent lead, and the only era of the game that you can attain such a big advantage is very early on while everyone is building their initial space in different ways
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2018 05:00
|
|
|
I never really feel like tech is all that consequential, though, outside of maybe ~15 big milestones like synths or psionics or the empire-unique buildings. I've never actually done the math on what's "better" but just on a gut feeling level I always prefer to keep the mineral snowball growing in the early game rather than care that much about tech.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2018 05:04
|
|
|
My general goal is to hit megastructures and have enough minerals to match my influence to habitat/mega structure output if I'm only in an expansion phase. Before that point I usually try to expand as quickly as possible as long as I'm not at threat of getting wiped in a war. If I'm tooling up for war I want as many minerals as I can muster, and having a proper amount of sectors means you can get a huge mineral buffer going for the war effort. Works fairly well in both MP and SP games. Beyond not being able to build megastructures, tech never really seems like too much of an edge unless I am really, really horribly behind.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2018 06:14
|
|
|
Is it possible to destroy gateways?
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2018 07:40
|
|
|
Jazerus posted:science quickly becomes a better return, at least at first. +2 physics when you're making 10 per month is far more consequential than another +2 to minerals. getting a tech lead early on can really snowball - if you bash out ten techs in the time it takes the average AI to do five, that's a permanent lead, and the only era of the game that you can attain such a big advantage is very early on while everyone is building their initial space in different ways Not really? Incresing your physics production by 20% isn’t really that consequential early game, since there aren’t that many important early physics techs. On the other hand you’re always mineral starved early on. And you’ll be five cheap techs ahead, which won’t be very consequential once they’re 3 months each. Plus the extra early minerals will likely snowball into better science production later on anyway. I also completely disagree that early on is the only time you can get a big science lead, it’s actually much easier late game in my experience. Even ir you haven’t conquered a lot/anything, you might be building megastructures/lab habitats, letting you massively outpace the AIs. That said, I do always start with an autochton monument, even though I know a mine would probably be better. Just feels right for some reason.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2018 08:18
|
|
|
I wonder if there's any point asking for a few code examples of the new code behind tileblockers, deposits, deposits behind tileblockers and maybe jobs. :3
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2018 09:17
|
|
|
Staltran posted:Not really? Incresing your physics production by 20% isn’t really that consequential early game, since there aren’t that many important early physics techs. On the other hand you’re always mineral starved early on. And you’ll be five cheap techs ahead, which won’t be very consequential once they’re 3 months each. Plus the extra early minerals will likely snowball into better science production later on anyway.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2018 09:46
|
|
|
Early physics includes power plant 2, which is massively helpful for dealing with early game energy crunches as you attempt to grab every mineral in sight. Grabbing fusion, blue lasers and better shields is also very helpful for early wars. That being said, I'd favour +2 minerals over +2 physics, but +3 physics is certainly better.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2018 11:01
|
|
|
How many science ships do people build early on?
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2018 11:35
|
|
|
Once I've built mining stations in my home system and maybe an autochthon monument, I start a second science ship as soon as I have enough minerals and nearly enough energy to hire a new scientist. This is usually enough to hold me for a while as I start in a two-arm galaxy and each can explore in one direction along my starting arm. A third science ship joins them whenever it feels like I have another direction to send it. Usually I keep my exploratory corps at three ships unless I get one of the events that gives me a new one or the galaxy feels significantly under-mapped a century in.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2018 11:50
|
|
|
Exploration can pay big dividends, and the earlier you have more ships the earlier you identify key expansion systems. It's critical to get out of the early mineral doldrums with your initial budget, but I like to get a science ship as soon as possible after that.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2018 12:17
|
|
|
if I go hard discovery i'm probably also getting map the stars, and if I'm doing that outta the gate I figure I might as well abuse it by wringing out the max number of scientists active while the edict has time. A few times I ended up with like 6 ships. This isn't at all worthwhile if you can't enforce your control over these wealthier systems tho. Also automated research protocols seem to make odd decisions if you have a huge number of ships. You get to a point where they're wasting a lot of time running around picking weird systems to scan.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2018 12:27
|
|
|
A key trick is to send you science ships out along hyperlanes to new systems but don't scan them immediately. Use a couple of ships to map out the lanes and find habitable worlds, then focus your system scanning to places that you know you want to expand, such as good habitable systems and choke points. If you discover an easy way to block off an entire branch of hyperlanes, you can skip scanning those systems until later on when there is less pressure on your science ships.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2018 12:27
|
|
|
Absolutely true and not following that advice hosed me out of like 2/3 of the guaranteed local worlds in my last game. I ended up left with 1 really small 80% hab and 1 decent size 60%. Fuckin neighbors only had 20%, threw up a dumb mining station on each, and they were a size 22 & 23 I think. I got distracted by an event chain and sent my guys to scan all those first.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2018 12:34
|
|
|
Aethernet posted:Early physics includes power plant 2, which is massively helpful for dealing with early game energy crunches as you attempt to grab every mineral in sight. Grabbing fusion, blue lasers and better shields is also very helpful for early wars. I don’t really agree with power plant 2 being that helpful, building upgrades are expensive early on and I find that you don’t need that many power plants. Trade hubs are generally enough early on, since you shouldn’t need any anchorages yet. If you’re going to be in an early war the upgrades can be good depending on enemy ship designs, but more minerals for more ships is also good, regardless of what the enemy has. Fusion also unlocks fusion missile research, which is bad if you’re not going for missiles. However I rarely get into wars that early so I might easily be wrong about this.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2018 12:46
|
|
|
Splicer posted:It'd be neat if resource silos gave a small bonus to space resource generation or something so you were encouraged to build them in high space mining systems. Or in the new system increased special resource gen a bit maybe. Just something to make positioning a bit more meaningful for them. With the market being a thing, you want silos anyway, just for the storage capacity. You'll need lots of storage to properly exploit automatic buy low, sell high orders.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2018 12:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 10:34 |
|
|
Gort posted:How many science ships do people build early on? Long answer: I scout out my immediate area without scanning until I can grab the discovery tree entry tradition, then I turn on Reach for the Stars and start scanning. After that it's more about what scientists are I buy than how many explorers I want. If I start with three spark of geniuses I'll grab a guy for the second ship, but if that reveals a +anomaly chance guy I'll grab them immediately as well. If I start with three specialists I'll
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2018 12:52
|
|