|
Vargatron posted:Anybody have any guides for planet/sector management in the game? I'm wanting to learn how to build and specialize planets without tanking my base economy by making too many specialist buildings. Also, are sectors actually good for automation, or should I just use them for the governor buffs? 1. Build districts, but don't overbuild them. They're the biggest source of your base resource bar megastructures. 2. Don't build too many buildings. Sounds obvious, but it's actually a good idea to not use all your building slots right away, especially super early. Especially specialist or ruler jobs will immediately steal away worker pops, something you do not want! 3. Automation remains utter garbage to the best of my knowledge. 4. Try not to overexpand - each colony in their early stages will drain your resources before growing into a productive planet. Especially relevant for machine empires, I found.
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2019 16:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 22:46 |
|
|
That's crazy. The mobile space is rotten with reskins though so hardly a surprise. I'll go read more. Thanks for the link Splicer.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2019 20:06
|
|
|
Has anyone had any luck with performance-improving mods in the latest PC release? There are a few out there I'd like to try, but I don't have a late-game save handy.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2019 22:59
|
|
|
A lot of people are going to be extremely unhappy with today's dev diary, if the previous talk on the subject of 'espionage' is anything to go by.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2019 23:08
|
|
|
Back Hack posted:A lot of people are going to be extremely unhappy with today's dev diary, if the previous talk on the subject of 'espionage' is anything to go by. https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/index.php?threads/stellaris-dev-diary-164-summary-of-the-year-2019.1296343/ Looks like it quickly fell to page 2 which is not promising. Come back Wiz. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2019 23:19
|
|
|
Vargatron posted:Anybody have any guides for planet/sector management in the game? I'm wanting to learn how to build and specialize planets without tanking my base economy by making too many specialist buildings. Also, are sectors actually good for automation, or should I just use them for the governor buffs? No guides really, but you should learn to do this. Just specialize the buildings on your planet, districts can be pretty much whatever with no underlying effect. Overspecialization to the point where you have no workers is a thing, but generally speaking you also want as many specialists as you can get your hands on. If you're seeing that you're super short of food/minerals/food and your planets have lots of free jobs, then you're overbuilding, just hold off on new buildings until more of those jobs are filled. You 100% want all your planets in sectors, for the governor bonuses at least. I don't bother with automation myself, just download Tiny Outlined v2 and then it's easy to run up to 30 or so through the outliner, and you should never need more than that. Particularly once you hit megastructures you probably want your economy to contract in terms of planet numbers because your raw resources will no longer be produced from jobs. Last game by 2400 I was running 4 ecumenopoleis, 2 complete ringworlds and 3 fortress habs.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2019 23:27
|
|
Yes, it's like a lava lamp.
|
hobbesmaster posted:https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/index.php?threads/stellaris-dev-diary-164-summary-of-the-year-2019.1296343/ This is from last week.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2019 00:08
|
|
|
There is no saving Stellaris through DLC at this point, I think the last possible chance the game had to avoid the event horizon was with 2.2, but that entire mega-update had terrible design flaws and terrible implementation. At this point we've really crossed a threshold where the amount of effort needed to fix the game is more than just making Stellaris 2. I have a feeling Wiz and much of the team that's left the project recently must have felt this too. -The game had a fundamentally bad initial design and they admit as such. They did not have 4X experience and thought they could whip together a basic 4X skeleton and then attach their "grand strategy" meat to it, that didn't work out. -Enter Wiz, who did his best to fix the game up over time but it was like replacing the skeleton of a living creature bone by bone resulting in the "meat" of the game getting constantly sliced up, suffering nerve damage, and scarred. -Emergency amputation of 2 of the travel modes so the team could focus on one movement system was a bold and good call and I'd say was fairly successful but the game's war and combat systems never fully came together into something interesting. -More mid-game meat like the Great Khans and all the new events were great, when they actually worked and were not buggy messes. Unfortunately... they became barely functional buggy messes, it was just more meat slapped over a skeleton that couldn't support it and would need more radical surgery that would gently caress up all the meat anyways, and it did. -2.2 is where I had the most hopes, it felt like wiz really "got" what was making the game lovely. The teams stated goals of creating a new system that presented interested choices, scaled/automated nicely from a single planet to a huge empire, improved performance, and was something the AI could handle got me really optimistic. Unfortunately the core design of the new system was bad, it was full of good ideas but initial internal testing should have quickly shown it to not scale up at all and the AI being hopeless at it. I have no idea why they didn't go back to the drawing board on this. Did they think they'd find one weird trick to getting the AI to handle it? That they could just magically optimize away the massive performance drain from all the new pop and job poo poo? Was it budget? Time pressure? Either way, I'd call it a disaster that's doomed the game. Everything else they add at this point is just lipstick on a pig. They can slap the best diplomacy system and throw more and more late game content no one will really use outside of victory laps but nothing matters when planet management and performance sucks poo poo and the AI can't play the game.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2019 02:52
|
|
|
Back Hack posted:A lot of people are going to be extremely unhappy with today's dev diary, if the previous talk on the subject of 'espionage' is anything to go by.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2019 03:13
|
|
|
For all it's flaws I have 475 hours in this game and I will continue to occasionally play it and hope there is more DLC between now and Stellaris 2
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2019 03:17
|
|
|
AAAAA! Real Muenster posted:Could you post a link to what you are talking about please? I've checked around and I dont see anything about espionage anywhere but I must b missing it? Think they're talking about last weeks one, where they did a recap of work done/work to do. Next diary is due tomorrow, but not sure if they're having one this week.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2019 09:10
|
|
|
Part of me feels they should've gone less 4X and more Grand Strategy, maybe with pre-made empires and a bit more focus on events and intrigue.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2019 09:29
|
|
|
I think Stellaris was supposed to be a Sengoku prototype kind of thing, but the game sold like gangbusters so it sort of became a victim of its own success. I think the fact they slotted in Wiz as a new lead right after release supports that.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2019 11:00
|
|
|
Ice Fist posted:For all it's flaws I have 475 hours in this game and I will continue to occasionally play it and hope there is more DLC between now and Stellaris 2 Same, although I'm way more wait-and-see about DLC now
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2019 13:32
|
|
|
There's a whole bunch of stuff that needs to be either less or more. Like the ship designer, which has more buttons than SotS but mainly serves as a route to loving up. It needs to either do more or require less. Same for the rare resources mechanic, which thanks to the rare resource buildings are just a checkbox exercise the AI is real bad at. The system view promises a lot but in reality you could replace the whole thing with a bunch of point mass nodes and lose nothing but the "sneaking past leviathans" mechanic. I like ship building and system views and exotic resources but I like them when they actually do something.Serephina posted:We really are just talking about the Vasari Titan now, aren't we? Splicer fucked around with this message at 14:15 on Dec 18, 2019 |
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2019 14:11
|
|
|
Hot take: if you're going to have a system view and real time fleet combat, you need some kind of "system terrain" even if it's basic poo poo like "stuff happens if you're close to this kind of planet/an asteroid belt/the star(s)."
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2019 14:21
|
|
|
canepazzo posted:Think they're talking about last weeks one, where they did a recap of work done/work to do. Next diary is due tomorrow, but not sure if they're having one this week.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2019 14:27
|
|
|
AAAAA! Real Muenster posted:Yeah but either way what in the world is Back Hack talking about? The DD that Hobbesmaster posted indicates that the next DD is January 16th or something like that so now I'm just confused about what Back Hack was alluding to. That dev diary includes a review of the "to do list" for new Stellaris features, one item of which is spy stuff.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2019 14:59
|
|
|
GunnerJ posted:Hot take: if you're going to have a system view and real time fleet combat, you need some kind of "system terrain" even if it's basic poo poo like "stuff happens if you're close to this kind of planet/an asteroid belt/the star(s)." 100% this. Since right now, it doesn't really matter at all, as to which system you fight in - they're all the same. (Well, aside from pulsars I think, anyway) But what if you chose to have one of your main borders/chokepoints be in a system with an unusually high quantity of space debris (could be tied to an event/anomaly. Like, could just be asteroids, or it could be debris from a massive space battle from eons ago) which provides a sizeable penalty to attack the system, since the attackers need to focus on what's around them, while fighting. (While the defenders have obtained accurate calculations on the trajectory of each piece of debris, so they don't get the same penalty. All depending on the outcome of the anomaly and/or how long you've owned the system)
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2019 15:05
|
|
|
Major Isoor posted:100% this. Since right now, it doesn't really matter at all, as to which system you fight in - they're all the same. (Well, aside from pulsars I think, anyway) Some ideas about this because I wonder how hard it is to mod... Gravity wells: Any planet or star (not moons or asteroids though, way too much granularity there) have gravity, which makes it easier to move towards them (higher fleet move speed when "near" them) but harder to move away from them once in orbit (lower fleet move speed until "away" from them). Being parked on a planet isn't necessarily good if you want your fleet to move to meet an attacker. Stars: Immense high energy particle output interferes with shield regen (lower regen rate) but makes targeting your fleet harder (accuracy/tracking penalty when targeting ships near a star). Starbases and defense platforms are unaffected by this since they're designed to be near stars but are too big to benefit from the interference. Asteroid belts: Massive move penalty to traversing them and run the risk of random armor/hull damage, but direct fire (energy and kinetic) weapons take a major debuff to accuracy and damage when targeting ships in the belt or when fired from the belt (asteroids getting in the way). Missiles and strike craft unaffected by this (they can maneuver around obstacles). Planets with rings and/or moons: Ships near these planets can be imagined to use the moons/rings to their advantage to evade incoming fire (bonus to evade rate) but this means there are times when they can't fire on the enemy (fire rate debuff). GunnerJ fucked around with this message at 15:24 on Dec 18, 2019 |
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2019 15:22
|
|
|
GunnerJ posted:Hot take: if you're going to have a system view and real time fleet combat, you need some kind of "system terrain" even if it's basic poo poo like "stuff happens if you're close to this kind of planet/an asteroid belt/the star(s)."
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2019 15:30
|
|
|
Nah, I don't agree. It only "kind of happens to you" if you're unaware of it. If you're aware of it, it influences your positioning choices. I'm basing this on earlier versions of the game where you could set up space stations more or less anywhere and I would consciously try to create "terrain" favorable to me using auras. Now being able to do stuff like that would be more active and interesting than just having static planet-based modifiers, but I would definitely think about where I want my fleets in a system if I knew those existed. GunnerJ fucked around with this message at 15:37 on Dec 18, 2019 |
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2019 15:35
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:Good stuff Absolutely well said. Stellaris is a game I really want to love, but I don’t have as much time to play video games anymore as I once did; it’s hard for me to invest time in a title that falls apart so completely during the end game. It’s too bad, really, since I think the first third of the game is really compelling and fun.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2019 15:52
|
|
|
GunnerJ posted:Nah, I don't agree. It only "kind of happens to you" if you're unaware of it. If you're aware of it, it influences your positioning choices. It really doesn't, though, since you can't control ships in combat or give them any orders regarding use of terrain. You can't tell them to stay in (or avoid) asteroid belts, etc etc. It just happens to them arbitrarily based on factors almost completely out of your control.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2019 15:59
|
|
|
Zurai posted:It really doesn't, though, since you can't control ships in combat or give them any orders regarding use of terrain. You can't tell them to stay in (or avoid) asteroid belts, etc etc. It just happens to them arbitrarily based on factors almost completely out of your control. None of this stopped me from positioning space stations to create favorable aura zones in earlier versions of the game to give my fleets a good starting position, so 
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2019 16:05
|
|
|
GunnerJ posted:None of this stopped me from positioning space stations to create favorable aura zones in earlier versions of the game to give my fleets a good starting position, so Splicer fucked around with this message at 16:31 on Dec 18, 2019 |
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2019 16:29
|
|
|
GunnerJ posted:None of this stopped me from positioning space stations to create favorable aura zones in earlier versions of the game to give my fleets a good starting position, so As mentioned, the fact that stations were immobile and innately drew combatants in towards them because of the way Stellaris combat movement functions is what made that work. That doesn't apply to system terrain with the combat engine as-is.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2019 16:35
|
|
|
Splicer posted:Weren't the space stations themselves also combatants, thereby centering the combat on them anyway? But anyway, don't think I'm attacking the idea of adding system terrain, I'd love it. Especially if some of it is user definable (seriously SoaSE is space turrets done right). I'm attacking the current thing where engaged fleets are completely beyond your control once combat starts. Even if we take the assumption that you can start a fight in your preferred zone ( which obviously can only be true of one side of any conflict) that's only a tiny fraction of what terrain should be able to do. Okay, gotcha. Well, for the stations I built, I was more concerned about buff auras for my fleets than minefields so I still think the positioning considerations were valid. But I also have always hated that fleet combat in this game forces fleets to rush at each other, so yeah while we're imagineering a better game let's ditch that. I think the game would still work fine if you could order fleets to move after the firing starts, basically.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2019 16:58
|
|
|
GunnerJ posted:Some ideas about this because I wonder how hard it is to mod... This sounds like a micromanagement nightmare for a game that is absolutely not suited for it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2019 18:46
|
|
|
Fister Roboto posted:This sounds like a micromanagement nightmare for a game that is absolutely not suited for it. Agreed. OTOH they could probably do much more with the "system as a whole has terrain" feature. That ended up being mostly vestigial.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2019 19:16
|
|
|
"Get rid of system view" and "turn systems into minefields" are two of the worst ideas I've ever heard about this game.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2019 19:18
|
|
|
Getting rid of in-system movement would have been good. A fleet is simply in a system, and if two fleets are in a system they fight or interact in some way. Keep the system view but get rid of planet view, have the system view the place you manage systems which are now the lowest level of economic detail.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2019 19:23
|
|
|
Grandpa Palpatine posted:"Get rid of system view" and "turn systems into minefields" are two of the worst ideas I've ever heard about this game. At some level, I think I want to get rid of galaxy view. I spent hours (maybe a day?) fiddling with Stellaris, learning how to play it, and didn't realize galaxy view existed. I just used the arrows at the edge of systems to navigate back and forth. Realizing that I could do most things in galaxy view, and that it was entirely necessary for play, to the extent that I could skip out on system view if I wanted, was pretty disappointing. I think system view's so much prettier. (Kind of same-y, though, system to system.)
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2019 19:29
|
|
|
Vavrek posted:At some level, I think I want to get rid of galaxy view. There's no shame in using the tutorial, folks!
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2019 20:17
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:Getting rid of in-system movement would have been good. A fleet is simply in a system, and if two fleets are in a system they fight or interact in some way. Keep the system view but get rid of planet view, have the system view the place you manage systems which are now the lowest level of economic detail. If you crank up the fight range that's basically what you get, and it plays pretty well - ship speeds and the role computer actually matter that way. The big problem is outposts being armed.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2019 20:19
|
|
|
DatonKallandor posted:outposts being armed.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2019 20:36
|
|
|
AAAAA! Real Muenster posted:I still find this to be hysterical. Who thought arming everything you build in a system was a good idea? Now its just the basic outpost claiming the system but its still kinda comical because if you bring ~10 PD you can ignore it. Asteroids are comical, too. Unless the planets are in really unfortunate positions, an unupgraded Starbase can usually destroy one.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2019 20:40
|
|
|
Yami Fenrir posted:Asteroids are comical, too. Unless the planets are in really unfortunate positions, an unupgraded Starbase can usually destroy one. All the little jank like that is part of why I am so down on the game. So much new content and changes, but not everything has kept up.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2019 20:51
|
|
|
I kind of like the game.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2019 20:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 22:46 |
|
|
From what I remember about EU3 combat each province had some geography expressed in percentages like 20% mountain, 30% forests and 50% plains and when armies met in province the terrain of the fight was decided randomly based on those percentages, each terrain type giving different bonuses to defenders and limiting the battle width. Stellaris should have been like that, with star systems instead of provinces and the geography should have been stuff like debris fields, asteroid felds, gravity wells, planet rings and more exotic things in rare cases like dimensional rifts. Starbases should have been like forts in EU4, a big structure that needs to be sieged or assaulted and limits enemy ships moviments. Eliminate that nonsense of having to move your ships inside the system. The AI would be much better in defending and there would be less micro.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2019 20:56
|
|