|
Pharnakes posted:Can the AI handle that though? It's always been easy to pick apart a superior navy using whatever the current flavoured doomstack is. Unless that has been changed you could just build 6 CV 6 DD or whatever proves to be best as Japan and if you pick your fights properly you can take the whole US navy out in a few years. Hopefully that will be averted by the new naval engagement rules (so that your 6 CV/ 6 DD stack for example either gets caught out while partially split up, or is ineffective while operating in tight formation). It will most likely also be easier for submarines and lone ships to break through your *perfect battlecruiser ring*, meaning that a diverse, balanced fleet might just beat doomstacks in general.
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2015 22:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 14:11 |
|
|
I'm not in, hopefully somebody from Kaiserreich got in so they can give input.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2015 22:27
|
|
|
Mister Adequate posted:You just replied to a post? Oh you silly goose, you are not posting in the grog thread. This is the grog thread.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2015 22:36
|
|
|
Riso posted:Oh you silly goose, you are not posting in the grog thread. This is the grog thread. I know, I was just messing around :p I'm not actually into real grog games that much, not because I don't like them, but because I've got SO loving many games to play that I have a hard time justifying the time to learn something truly spergy.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2015 22:39
|
|
|
Naval doomstacks was pretty much how things worked out in real life though. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2015 22:40
|
|
|
You guys shouldn't be sad for not getting in, you'll still beta test the game when it comes out.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2015 22:41
|
|
|
Disco Infiva posted:You guys shouldn't be sad for not getting in, you'll still beta test the game when it comes out. Hey now Pdox have actually been pretty decent about finishing their games before release since CK2. Hearts of Iron interests me much less than Stellaris though, I'm still sperging out about tiles over here 
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2015 22:51
|
|
|
Demiurge4 posted:Alright let's sperg out for a bit then, we'll use this planet as the example. It's not like you can transport energy between planets, so the reactor example doesn't necessarily mean specialized planets.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2015 23:07
|
|
|
cool and good posted:It's not like you can transport energy between planets, so the reactor example doesn't necessarily mean specialized planets.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2015 23:13
|
|
|
It sounds alot more Civ-like, with pop units needed to work tiles with set production, which I think is a good thing as Civ city mechanics have worked well for years, and have a good balance between being able to leave them alone in most cases and get good results but can be tweaked for optimal efficiency.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2015 23:21
|
|
|
*presses button to enable planetary governor, never looks at planets again until it's time to build a secret project* If my games of Alpha Centauri are anything to go by.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2015 23:31
|
|
|
Oberleutnant posted:*presses button to enable planetary governor, never looks at planets again until it's time to build a secret project* There's a definite trick to having the amount of attention you need to pay to each planet scale with how many planets you have. Early in the game, I care to micro-manage each planet / city / whatever, but late in the game I want automation. There are only so many times I want to check on a city to make sure it hasn't exceeded the pop cap, or check in and tell it to build another happiness building to raise that cap.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2015 23:39
|
|
|
The dev diaries imply that you move up from managing planets to managing sectors of space as you grow. How this will be done i have no idea
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2015 23:48
|
|
|
Agean90 posted:The dev diaries imply that you move up from managing planets to managing sectors of space as you grow. This kind of scaling is basically a 4X holy grail for me. e: actually, this is Paradox. They'll get my money anyways. But I'm still really enthusiastic!
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2015 23:50
|
|
|
Will there be some equivalent of monarch points to slow down your expansion or is it just energy/food/industry? I'd assume Paradox will continue with the philosophy they've been showing in EU4 and HOI4. Maybe unlocking new slots to build on will cost these points, and then you get to build on them with industry etc.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2015 23:52
|
|
|
The limiter should be colony
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2015 23:55
|
|
|
Isn't one of the conditions of the beta that you don't say you're in the beta and deny anything if asked? Maybe everyone in this thread got in and everyone is just trying to mislead everyone else.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2015 01:05
|
|
|
It's you. You're the only one not invited.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2015 01:06
|
|
|
sux 2 b u nerd 
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2015 01:09
|
|
|
vyelkin posted:Isn't one of the conditions of the beta that you don't say you're in the beta and deny anything if asked? I don't see how that could work, wouldn't the NDA have to apply retroactively?
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2015 02:04
|
|
|
Gort posted:It'll be more like the Germans losing key battles because they didn't have enough fuel to build enough tanks to fight the battles - technically different, effectively similar. I can see why people are complaining in that case. It sounds like in this system, disrupting supply chains is functionally the same thing as strategic bombing. If I can cut an army off from a port/surround them I should be able to starve them of fuel and supplies in a matter of weeks rather than waiting months for the production chain to be affected .
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2015 02:28
|
|
|
Don't all units take attrition during the normal course of operations anyways? It seems like the net effect of this change is that when your supplies are reduced, you can't fly as many missions / launch as many attacks / etc. as you could otherwise and still maintain strength. That seems like a good enough model that the advantage of modelling supply this way sells me on it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2015 02:44
|
|
|
Sharzak posted:I can see why people are complaining in that case. It sounds like in this system, disrupting supply chains is functionally the same thing as strategic bombing. If I can cut an army off from a port/surround them I should be able to starve them of fuel and supplies in a matter of weeks rather than waiting months for the production chain to be affected . Units still need to be in supply, ie able to trace a route from a supply depot (your capital) to their location, or they'll suffer heavy attrition and combat penalties.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2015 03:15
|
|
|
Star posted:The new Stellaris DD about planets https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/index.php?threads/stellaris-dev-diary-9-planets-resources.891510/
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2015 06:42
|
|
|
I don't understand what rationale Stellaris has to exist. There are more than enough generic space 4Xs in the world already, and seeing Paradox waste their resources on yet another 'space-fantasy heartbreaker' just makes me sad.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2015 07:40
|
|
|
That which makes money justifies its own existence
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2015 07:47
|
|
|
Star posted:The new Stellaris DD about planets https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/index.php?threads/stellaris-dev-diary-9-planets-resources.891510/ This is really disappointing, tile-grid planets are one of the things I hate the most about space 4X games, right alongside overcomplicated ship builders. I figure if you're going to do planet buildings either go full-on minimal effort and give it the EU4 system, or go whole hog and make each planet its own mini strategic map. These grid compromises always end up being busywork optimization problems. You can't ignore it because there's a "right answer" and it needs to be done, but the work always just ends up mind numbing. I like the system Star Ruler 2 had, where having a planet import certain resources exerted "pressure" on that planet, which caused the population to automatically build building to fulfill its pressures. You could build things on your own if you wanted, but it was really expensive. The pressure system was maybe a bit too complicated (or at least I never fully figured it out), but in principle I feel like it was a reasonable compromise where the player had input without micromanagement. But it also doesn't translate well to other games because Star Ruler 2 is like 98% importing resources to the correct planets.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2015 08:48
|
|
|
Jsor posted:This is really disappointing, tile-grid planets are one of the things I hate the most about space 4X games, right alongside overcomplicated ship builders. I figure if you're going to do planet buildings either go full-on minimal effort and give it the EU4 system, or go whole hog and make each planet its own mini strategic map. These grid compromises always end up being busywork optimization problems. You can't ignore it because there's a "right answer" and it needs to be done, but the work always just ends up mind numbing. I personally thought Star Ruler was over simplified and pretty boring, it was basically the tile system with planets anyway since you were chaining modifiers. Tiles generally suck (see Galciv) and Stellaris's system doesn't look much better but we are aware that the game is supposed to open up in phases and it could be the tile system is simply a part of the early game to give the player something to do and is discarded for another system later.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2015 08:52
|
|
|
Demiurge4 posted:I personally thought Star Ruler was over simplified and pretty boring, it was basically the tile system with planets anyway since you were chaining modifiers. Tiles generally suck (see Galciv) and Stellaris's system doesn't look much better but we are aware that the game is supposed to open up in phases and it could be the tile system is simply a part of the early game to give the player something to do and is discarded for another system later. I liked the idea in principle more than in execution, admittedly.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2015 08:52
|
|
|
nothing to seehere posted:It sounds alot more Civ-like, with pop units needed to work tiles with set production, which I think is a good thing as Civ city mechanics have worked well for years, and have a good balance between being able to leave them alone in most cases and get good results but can be tweaked for optimal efficiency. On the scale of an interstellar empire you can just forget about it. This kind of system worked poo poo for MOO2, as it just bogs the player down after their empire gets even moderately large (and MOO2's maps weren't even that large), and I can't see it being any better here. I don't understand why developers insist on doing it this way instead of trying something new, or at the least trying to emulate MOO1's (in my opinion) far superior economy model. Oh well. I'll wait until we hear more about this obviously, but this might just have killed my interest in Stellaris, which is a shame because the other parts were looking really interesting.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2015 09:17
|
|
|
Seems like I would treat it the same way I do buildings in eu4: something I care about a lot as a small to medium power and immediately stop giving a poo poo about once I'm huge. Or at least forget to care about.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2015 09:59
|
|
|
I think using planetary governors as default and pushing planet interaction more towards Victoria 2 levels of economic management would be a good idea. The player will unlock slots (just like a national focus) that will let them micromanage planets if they so desire or use them as a passive booster for the governor. This let's the player focus on a few key planets in new or old systems and make them into the jewels of their empire. Heck you can just use the leaders for this instead of a slot. If you want to micro a planet you gotta pay for and install a leader there.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2015 10:01
|
|
|
Will this be Paradox's Spore?
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2015 10:17
|
|
|
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?
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2015 10:36
|
|
|
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? Have you considered we're all grieving for the HOI4 beta?
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2015 10:39
|
|
|
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? Eh, like two people said that. The best thing you can do to tiles is to make them interesting, which is a hard sell, but you could probably pull it off. Could you share a snippet the internal argument for why you chose tiles instead of what I'm sure were a bunch of other suggestions?
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2015 10:43
|
|
|
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? Someone saying "I don't like this kind of gameplay so I probably won't like this" is not being histrionic, they're giving an opinion. e:more reasoning. tooterfish fucked around with this message at 10:48 on Nov 17, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2015 10:45
|
|
|
tooterfish posted:And who's saying this exactly? Look one post above the one you just quoted.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2015 10:48
|
|
|
Demiurge4 posted:Eh, like two people said that. The best thing you can do to tiles is to make them interesting, which is a hard sell, but you could probably pull it off. Could you share a snippet the internal argument for why you chose tiles instead of what I'm sure were a bunch of other suggestions? Not my title, so I'm not going to go into design reasoning, only say that I think it works fine, especially with the sector-level stuff.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2015 10:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 14:11 |
|
|
Wiz posted:Look one post above the one you just quoted.  I think it's safe to ignore stuff like that though, this is the internet after all.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2015 10:50
|
|