|
I think what this is missing from a robot side is a button that let's you apply a template to an individual pop. After you have templates its easy enough to just build the robots you want and later create an upgraded template to switch them all to, but your first couple of planets will all be one robot type meaning you have to build the robots else where and do a switch to get a mineral robot on a mineral tile etc. This button should also be there for genetic templates I guess.
|
#
¿
Sep 25, 2017 00:37
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 12, 2024 01:46 |
|
|
Milky Moor posted:Is assimilation 1-4 pops per year per empire or is it 1-4 pops per year per planet? At present it just means you start with 4 cyborgs with no way to make more.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 25, 2017 09:02
|
|
|
Psychotic Weasel posted:There are two Fungoid portraits that seem to feature some creature that was taken over by mushrooms (this one and this one) but other a bit of flavour there's no functional difference to other races. What if those creatures exist in a symbiotic state where the creatures volunteers to be host to the vastly more intelligent fungus speices on their coming of age day and once joined combines the physical prowess of the mammal with the hyper intelligence of the funngus which also provides the ability to produce nutrients through absorbing sunlight reducing the need for food consumption and acts as a sort of "living memory" for the entire species? You just committed genocide against a wonder of the galaxy my friend.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 26, 2017 08:26
|
|
|
Am I supposed to expect a reply to bug reports submitted on the paradox forums or does QA just silently read them like some sort of bug destroying phantom?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 27, 2017 12:52
|
|
|
Personally I think while war and no-war interactions both need massive overhauls, war needs to be the priority and I'm A-OK with diplomacy not being touched at all if it means war gets a serious overhaul in the next DLC. While I agree spy stuff and Federation stuff would be cool, I very much see these as cool extras that expand the game and would be part of an expansion pack. The game didn't ship with them and they weren't a core feature with the exception of Federations, but federations more or less do what they were supposed to on release. War on the other hand is not fun at all once you get beyond a handful of planets in each empire. Even ignoring how much effort it rewires to invade and capture like 10 planets, wars mostly comes down to winning a handful of key engagements to destroy their fleet and then just following up by destroying enough of their spaceports that they can't rebuild. If you start with a 50K fleet consisting of 50 battleships you'd need well over 50K of minerals to rebuild that fleet, which most empires won't be able to physically maintain as a reserve, and building 50 battleships takes so long your opponent could destroy most of your spaceports before you can respond. The all or nothing first few engagements pretty much determines the war. Likewise ground combat is something that should be super cool, but it really isn't. The game isn't a space ship game it's a space empire game and the ground troops of science fiction empires are always a key point (think in Dune you see all the soldiers and guards, in Warhammer you have Imperial Guard and space marines, colonial marines in the Alien franchise, stormtroopers in star wars etc). These are core features that shipped with the game and to me are the last thing on the list of "Things Stellaris should have really made sure we're great at launch". More complex diplomacy would be great, but let's face it Stellaris diplomacy is on par with many 4X games. It's not on par with the other grand stratgey games that's true, but stellaris is more 4X than grand stratgey in my view anyway.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 28, 2017 09:24
|
|
|
tooterfish posted:It's sold as grand strategy. Point taken but I still think in practice it's more 4x than grand stratgey unless massive sweeping changes are made to not just diplomacy but also how the game is played. There's still a win condition, that's very 4X, and when you are the only empire left in the galaxy, nothing happens, you just carry on existing. That is also very 4X. For me to really see it as a grand stratgey game there needs to be more diplomacy but also the idea you can "win" the game needs to be dropped and the galaxy should go through cycles of empires rising and falling. I know that's the intention for the game, but it's not there yet.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 28, 2017 13:25
|
|
|
Is there a reason Fanatic Purifiers can't create vassals? I tried to play a feudal fanatic purifier and then was sad to find I can't crate vassals as a fanatic purifier.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 28, 2017 23:04
|
|
|
Zikan posted:idk seems like the name "fanatic purifier" is pretty self explanatory on that one If I want to kill all non-humans why does that mean I can't create a human only vassal?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 28, 2017 23:46
|
|
|
Kenlon posted:Okay, this is driving me crazy. Why don't my fleets bombard my planets once they've been occupied? I can't use anything other than Light bombardment because we're Fanatic Pacifists, but I can't retake any of my own worlds because I have no way of reducing the 2k+ fortifications, and when I land troops, the militia armies kick my rear end. There's no one actually occupying the drat places! Fortifications now have a regeneration rate, it's not massively high but it's enough that if you don't bring a big enough fleet doing enough damage per day it either won't reduce or it will take forever to reduce. With you being restricted to only light bombardment the irony is that if you were in a rush you would need to throw away the lives of millions of pacifist soldiers in order to conquer the planet because the navy doesn't want to risk a 2% chance per month you'll kill like 5% of the planetary population.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 3, 2017 09:23
|
|
|
I think with the encouragement for multiple fleets it would be good if you could mothball them to. Just have a mothballed fleet have like 25% Hull, armour, and shields, meaning they need to be repaired. It does mean of course that someone could sucker punch your mothballed fleet, but if I have like three 40K strength fleets with their own admirals, I won't need all of them in peacetime to kill space whales or whatever. It also means if I need the leader slots for some reason (?) I can mothball fleets without an admiral.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 30, 2017 18:52
|
|
|
Mortabis posted:I don't like the fort idea because the most economically valuable planets should be the most heavily fortified, not the other way around. Having fortress worlds is some neat fluff and might be a handy way to secure your borders but it's backwards in a lot of ways. Most economically viable planets = planets with most and best tiles Planets with most and best tiles = more able to dedicate a tile to a fortress without running at a loss More able to dedicate tiles to fortresses without running at a loss = More able to build fortresses If you have a 10 tile planet, dedicating 10% of your potential output to a fortress is a bigger decision that dedicating 5% of a 20 tile planet's potential output, both generate the same number of defensive soldiers. Of course the 10 tile planet has a narrower combat width, so it's not all better for the 20 tile planet, but the 20 tile planet can build another fortress and still be sacrificing the same percentage of output as a 10 tile planet but has double the number of fortress armies. I think in practice this will end up being dependent more on how threatened you think the planet is rather than its productivity. A 10 tile planet with 5 fortresses, 3 energy generating buildings, and two research stations is probably a break even colony but loving hard to conquer. A 20 tile planet could also build 5 forts and probably still turn a profit, but if it's in the middle of a sprawling empire, why bother?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 21, 2017 21:04
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 12, 2024 01:46 |
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:
This is only half true. The "costs" of having another planet are: Increased research cost, increased unity costs, building maintenence, consumer goods consumption, food consumption. You can offset these with: research labs, unity buildings, power plants, mines, and farms. After you cover these costs, the resources a planet can generate are: minerals, energy, unity, research, and naval cap. If you have a planet that produces enough of each of these to cover its increases, the planet breaks even. If the planet breaks even on every other resource, it will still give you extra naval cap and reduce the liklihood that you can have all your planets taken in a war or two. A planet that breaks even is neither good nor bad by definition, it just exists with no cost to the empire that has it. Even if you didn't need the naval cap, in the new patch you cant capture a system without taking control of the planet, and since it's all hyperlane based having a size 10 planet covered in fortifications on a choke point with a massive space station defending it would be a pretty good "gate" for your empire. Main Paineframe posted:Also, sacrificing output is super bad, because you're paying that cost every month, while you only get the benefits on the off-chance that your space is invaded by an enemy whose fleet you couldn't stop now but might be able to stop in a few months. In the long run, there's always this question: if you'd built mines on those tiles instead of fortresses, how many more ships could you have built over all those years since you got that planet? If this was true then I'm sure you've cracked the secret and no one will ever build fortresses, not even on choke points. Now this is actually something that may happen if it's still no hassle to invade a world without it having tons of fortresses, but that, a problem with implementation rather than the concept. It also doesn't change the fact that the more economically viable the world is the less of a trade off it is to build defences, not least because you don't want to lose the world without a fight.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 22, 2017 11:49
|
|