Koramei posted:

Anyway there's a new dev diary for Stellaris

Dev Diary posted:

Here is an example of the Sol system, and though it’s got a little bit more planets than most systems, systems being randomly generated and all, it does give you an idea of what solar systems may look like.

Panzeh posted:

If you're going to have a lot of planetary management you have to limit the number, though. I mean if a planet is just a set of sliders like Moo1, so be it, but if you are going all out, you do have to keep the number reasonably low.

V for Vegas posted:

Getting pretty excited for EU4 1.14. The map mode button layout has been a pet peeve for a while so good to see them getting a make over.

V for Vegas posted:

Wiz tweeted this the other day

Fintilgin posted:

I'm actually non ironically sad that CKII doesn't let me go Maximum Julian.

crabcakes66 posted:

Even in that very thread the weirdo neonazi types on the Paradox Forums came out to play:

Tomn posted:

You know, I know Stellaris has mentioned it'd delve into federations, but I'd love it if there were multiple positions of responsibility within the federation that member governments can jockey for instead of just "President." Instead of just the one "winner-takes-all" position of power that acts as an upgraded form of the government you're already in charge of while everyone else is reduced to helpless vassals, spread the power around so that different posts can be held by different governments with wildly varying priorities. I want to see constant jockeying and friendly competition between allies as they seek the positions of power that matter most to them. I want to see ramshackle, bickering federations constantly working at cross-purposes where it takes a whole lot of effort to ensure that everyone is pointed in the same direction instead of just working for their own personal benefit - with perhaps the option of trying to concentrate power in the hands of one particular government at a cost in efficiency and loyalty.

One of the things that bug me most about "diplomatic" wins in 4X strategy games is that in most such games, allies are boring. You sign one treaty and then the only real interaction you ever have with your allies beyond that is maybe the occasional subsidy or trade and hoping that they'll answer your call to arms. A scenario where you constantly have things to do with - or to - your allies would help make diplomacy a lot more interesting than just throwing money at them until they're happy, and competing for positions within a greater governmental framework sounds like just the sort of thing that might work.

zedprime posted:

So you're saying you'd like an option to suspend the democratic process during times of war? I like that idea especially if there's an option to say "you know what, lets keep going like this" after the war ends.

Fintilgin posted:

Sadly, given the expansion is unannounced, and it usually takes at least six weeks or so from announcement to release... I'm starting to think we're not actually going to see it this year.

Empress Theonora posted:

New Stellaris dev diary on species and empires.

Monarchs, heirs, factions, ideology sliders, and POPs! I think Stellaris might be................ the perfect game.....................................

Gwyrgyn Blood posted:

Same but also ship design.

Hitlers Gay Secret posted:

Has anyone tried out the game Rouge State? Looks interesting enough. And has a catchy national anthem.

Decrepus posted:

Why did they ever put turrets on the side though.

Grizzwold posted:

It's this one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PFN9nvFYHmk

VerdantSquire posted:

Honestly, from my own experiences, the main reason people think that this is a great idea is because obviously bigger sizes = more content, right? I don't really blame people for choosing all the stuff that makes the game a lot longer and bigger, since from their perspective, it's the option that will give them the "most" out of the game. But, while on paper it may seem like increasing the scale of a game won't change much, the effect is much more like what you get if you make someone several times the height of a normal human in real life. You don't get a monster of a human being, you get a human being whose back breaks instantly under the force of gravity and is left with a myriad of physical health issues which probably makes them incapable of even sitting upright. The same thing can be seen with games: Increasing the scale does not equal more content, it results in the framework of the game breaking apart and previously interesting components becoming incredibly annoying and dull.

It doesn't help that a lot of strategy game developers seem to just think that allowing players to make the game as big as they want is completely fine. If you want to truly increase the scale of your game, you have to do a lot more than adjust a couple of values and call it a day, you have to absolutely overhaul a lot of the systems to account for the fact that the player is going to be managing dozens of times more units/settlements/whatever than they'd normally would, and playing on a map far larger than what the game was designed for. Developers really ought to make sure that their game is capable of functioning on even the highest scaling setting available, but I'm basically a nobody so who cares what I think?

devblog posted:

Most leader types are recruited using Influence (a type of diplomatic "currency" in the game) and there is a cap on the total number of leaders you can employ, so you will need to weigh your need for Admirals against that for competent Governors, etc. Although all leaders tend to gain experience and become more accomplished over time, they do not live forever. The day will come when they perish and will need to be replaced…

Gwyrgyn Blood posted:

It's a video game, I think you can probably assume it's an abstraction for the sake of play-ability. Limitations on how many Characters you can have leads to more decision making and less micromanagement.

I don't know if you've ever played Dominions 4 or not, but I'd use that as an example of why unlimited numbers of leaders is potentially a horrifying thing for a 4x.

Tomn posted:

For an in-game justification, while there's no shortage of people who can fill any given position, there IS a limited pool of top-class talent and it's possible to come up with scenarios where the best and the brightest gravitate to, say, the Navy and the civilian sector while the Army gets the shaft. Possibly the leaders in Stellaris represent the particularly outstanding folks at the top without bothering to represent all the other guys who are competent but who won't really make headlines.

Koramei posted:

You will note that micromanaging your leaders down to the barony level in CK2 is one of the most mind numbing experiences possible once you get past a certain size. I can kind of see why you might want lots of leaders (although I think you're probably overestimating how much you'll enjoy it in practice) but I think for all but 1% of the playerbase it just adds needless confusion and an enormous amount of micromanagement for next to no benefit whatsoever.

it also sounds like something that'll be incredibly easy to mod, leader cap is the sort of value that's in defines.lua I expect.

GSD posted:

You also only get a few generals at a time in EU4, even when you have several hundred thousand soldiers in arms.

Koramei posted:

Having an unlimited pool of leaders like that sounds like it'll just make you care about them a whole lot less. It's a lot easier to keep track of just a few people and actually get somewhat invested in them. I can see how it kinda sounds like it'll make things seem busier and more alive, but I think in practice all it'll do is take away a huge chunk of the uniqueness of the characters you actually care about for very little benefit.

e: actually there's a really good example for this, just look at Total War Rome 2. They switched from a limited selection of leaders that were slow to replace and turned it into an unlimited pool, and suddenly people started caring about their generals a whole lot less, even though they were about as detailed as they had been in the older titles.


This just sounds like you want to be able to get all the best leaders all the time. I dunno about Endless Space, but in EU4 you're totally able to make your leaders better, it just takes a lot of investment through ideas and army tradition. When you give people a selection of traits to choose from, all that happens is they take all the best ones all the time and there end up being totally optimal play strategies. Randomness avoids that somewhat.

Also no state in history has been able to just hand pick the best and brightest in their country. You're dealing with corrupt and self interested nobles, if you don't like it, spend another 50 MP to strip some poor guy of his title and find a replacement, otherwise make do.

Slime Bro Helpdesk posted:

I was tempted to link another "Germany was not the aggressor in WW2" thread from HoI-4, but drat that's weak poo poo compared to the Stellaris stuff.

zedprime posted:

Hitlers Gay Secret posted:

Is there a vermin race? If not, why isn't there one?

Humans were like the first race announced dude.

Demiurge4 posted:

Paradox and Obsidian to merge! Immediately go public and get bought out by EA.

Fintilgin posted:

I think a 'sandbox' DLC would be crazy fun too. Have the game randomly generate semi-balanced nations named off regions like the EUIV generator, so you've got Red Texas fighting fascist Chicago in the Great Plains or whatever. Paradox is nuts if they don't do something fun like that. Especially now that they have more robust AI and peace making rules.

Orcs and Ostriches posted:

And if your cold war somehow gets out of hand it just loads up the After the End mod for CK2.

Ofaloaf posted:

Part of the team, yeah. What regional quirk has been misrepresented now?

Pharnakes posted:

Can I just say that I hate the "can only research something once trope". If that was true in real life and an initial wrong conclusion destroyed all evidence or future possibility of research then we would never have got anywhere at all. I don't even think it makes for good gameplay, it just encourages stupid gamey poo poo like using only 1 scientist to research all the anomalies you find to pump their xp into some sort of super genius. Doesn't make any sense at all. Yes you can come up with other mechanics to punish such tactics, but why can't you just remove the incentive to do it in the first place?

Oh look, we have found a strange and wondrous alien artefact, better not pay any attention to it at all until our xenobilochemolinguistastrophysimathematian can come and research it. Presumably by eating it, since no traces are left thereafter.

nothing to seehere posted:

It does seem like you guys are complaining that it might be possible to miss content or for it to be possible for not everything to turn up good for you. I've got no problem with stuff sometimes giving no bonus, personally. Sometimes poo poo just doesn't

Darkrenown posted:

HoI 4 supply DD:
https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/index.php?threads/hearts-of-iron-iv-33rd-development-diary-supply.891122/

A Buttery Pastry posted:

Will Italian units require extra supply, to simulate their love of pasta and the strain that puts on supply lines?

Funky Valentine posted:

Star posted:

The new Stellaris DD about planets https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/index.php?threads/stellaris-dev-diary-9-planets-resources.891510/

Wiz posted:

Have you guys considered that switching from 'this will be the best ever' to 'this will be the worst ever' because of one DD about tile grid planets is just a little bit on the histrionic side?

Bort Bortles posted:

Welp, officially off the hype train for Stellaris.

Westminster System posted:

I had fun with Stardrive 2 - people are extremely salty over the fact that Stardrive 1 was never "finished" (Part developer fault, part random factors, part game engine being discontinued during development) - though its still a reasonably decent game let down by engine limitations. Mileage varies on the bias of other reviews as well.

Koramei posted:

Maybe I'm just not thinking about it right, but planetary management being disabled as you get larger sounds like it'll bother the hell out of me. Even when automation in games is practical and makes a lot of sense it still always feels like "well the AI doesn't know how to manage the planets as well as me, why should I hand over control". Especially if a big part of the early game is having nicely optimized planets, and suddenly when you get bigger you find their efficiency hits the toilet. It'll just seem really jarring.

What other games have done automation like that that people can point to? I can't think of any and maybe in practice I'm wrong and it feels really different.

nothing to seehere posted:

The space 4X genre is probably unique in having no brilliant games for a long time despite a fairly steady pace of people trying to make good ones, and getting average/good at best. Maybe there's something about how divergent fans expectations are about the genre that you never get a universally acclaimed game?

Sky Shadowing posted:

Obligatory SQUAWK!

Demiurge4 posted:

Yeah they've implied there will be a lot of events in the game that shakes up major empires. Stellaris probably won't be a game where you paint the entire map your color like in EU4.

Sharzak posted:

Sins of a solar empire loving unequivocally owned though??

Psychotic Weasel posted:

But seriously I hope HOI4 and Stellaris don't come out right next to each other. I don't know why they would release them like that, knowing that there's probably some serious overlap in markets, but since one of them has been in development forever someone may just decide to shove it out as soon as it's done so it can start earning back some cash. As for which one I want to play first? I don't care, I'll play the hell out of both eventually so just finish one already drat it.

Deceitful Penguin posted:

Not saying its you thinking that btw, just that the entitlement is pretty amusing to me.

Alikchi posted:

New Stellaris dev diary on the ship designer.

zedprime posted:

The worrying part is its going more ambitious than EU4, which is maybe limiting but who's simplicity throws at least a few bones about important decisions about splitting armies or early unit type choices. Every other bundle of force that's gone complicated, in CK2, HoI3, Vicky2, HoI2, ends up having maximized, often unintuitive, builds figured out and you just attach the correct materiel or marry in high martial Welshmen into your family and go about your day.

In other words I'm worried the ship designer is going to be about marrying Welshmen again.

Ghost of Mussolini posted:

Some of these Stellaris DDs blow me away, and others make me not want to touch it at all, fearing infection from the space 4x plague that has killed off so many games.