|
Fojar38 posted:Don't let anyone tell you about min/maxing in Stellaris. Calling it a 4x is somewhat generous when it's really a sim game. As long as you have enough minerals, and enough force to make other empires around you, if any, back off. That's the only real limiter, since minerals, generally speaking, gets you everything else you're after; power, science, food, planets, mega-projects, force... There are other concerns(Pops to run the facilities, influence to colonise), but one can say they are minor.
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2017 02:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 22, 2024 13:16 |
|
|
Snowman Crossing posted:That's the basic process, but I keep liberating them and they keep trending xenophobic and so won't enter a migration treaty even though i'm a charismatic race of pacifist space snails who gently drop small nets from orbit while I grind their fleets to dust. If you aren't xenophobic the vassals you tear away from an existing empire won't be either - they literally copy your ethics.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2017 02:54
|
|
|
Liberate dudes then vassalize them then when you can assimilate them free them. Usually they'll join up if you ask after you've Stockholmed them a little.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2017 03:24
|
|
|
The only space 4x game I've ever fully completed was the new Master of Orion, because when the space stock market went up, I thought "oh beans I should get on that" and dumped most of what turned out to be a disgustingly large fortune into it, instantly collapsing the galactic economy and rendering all currencies but mine obsolete, netting me an economy victory. I didn't even know there WAS an economic victory at that point, I was just hoarding
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2017 04:31
|
|
|
Is it a good idea to ignore tile bonuses and just turn a planet into a giant mineral/energy production center? I found a 24 size planet with +50% to minerals, so now it's my personal giant strip mine, nearing 200 minerals/month while growing the last few pops. Is it worth it to do this on non-specific-bonus planets?
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2017 05:57
|
|
|
nimby posted:Is it a good idea to ignore tile bonuses and just turn a planet into a giant mineral/energy production center? you can think of the +50% minerals thing as being tile bonuses everywhere, so just act as you would if every time came with a +1 to +2.5 (depending on tech) mineral tile bonus on top of whatever it currently has. in other words, yes, mine everything unless there's something super fancy there
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2017 06:07
|
|
|
ulmont posted:If you aren't xenophobic the vassals you tear away from an existing empire won't be either - they literally copy your ethics. You're right. I was thinking of "liberate" not "vassalize". Whatever empire I've been tearing chunks out of is too big for me to vassalize outright. So you're saying if I liberate them, THEN demand vassalization, they switch to my ethics?
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2017 06:23
|
|
|
nimby posted:Is it a good idea to ignore tile bonuses and just turn a planet into a giant mineral/energy production center? Usually, yes, because you get various options for percentage-based bonuses to an entire planet, like various edicts or governor traits, plus various adjacency bonuses that also help compound things, though to a more limited degree. That said, bonuses on the individual tile level are rarely too consequential in either direction. If you've got a mining world that has a 2 energy tile on it or something, the few bonus percent for extra mining probably don't outweigh that, but neither does the bonus +2 energy outweigh the mineral bonus. It's situational.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2017 06:29
|
|
|
Snowman Crossing posted:You're right. I was thinking of "liberate" not "vassalize". Whatever empire I've been tearing chunks out of is too big for me to vassalize outright. So you're saying if I liberate them, THEN demand vassalization, they switch to my ethics? Yeah, liberated empires will copy your ethics, which will give you a big bonus on vassalizing them.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2017 06:42
|
|
|
HonorableTB posted:So should I be building spaceports for them? When I colonize a world to give to a sector, I usually only clear the blocker tiles for them and toss a few upgrades on the tiles already populated. It changes over time. Especially in the beginning, you want to leave Redevelopment off, so that they don't pointlessly spend all their relatively scarce minerals constantly rejigging their buildings, and I usually leave Respect Tile Resources on indefinitely, just because that way I can put them on mineral focus but that won't be the only thing they do. You do end up with waaaay too much food if you do that, but +40% growth speed isn't terrible either. Once they have a decent mineral income, I turn space construction on, but I'll let them get 5+ worlds first.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2017 06:59
|
|
Yes, it's like a lava lamp.
|
Fojar38 posted:Don't let anyone tell you about min/maxing in Stellaris. Calling it a 4x is somewhat generous when it's really a sim game. Sure, chase your bliss, but if you want an ethos that gives you a benefit or fits any specific playstile definitely don't pick xenophile.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2017 09:46
|
|
|
Spanish Matlock posted:Sure, chase your bliss, but if you want an ethos that gives you a benefit or fits any specific playstile definitely don't pick xenophile. Nonsense. Xenophile is built for and fits specifically for a diplomatic/multispecies playstyle, with opinion boosts, diplo cost reduction and faction that grows very strong specifically from these things. You may not enjoy or think that playstyle is good but that does not mean Xenophile isn't perfect for it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2017 11:39
|
|
|
Looks like we might be getting some new civics: https://twitter.com/lysannschlegel/status/884695738755756032 At least, I think that's what this is highlighting? eta: Whoops, missed the little picture on the side of the prole species.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2017 12:18
|
|
|
Wiz posted:Nonsense. Xenophile is built for and fits specifically for a diplomatic/multispecies playstyle, with opinion boosts, diplo cost reduction and faction that grows very strong specifically from these things. You may not enjoy or think that playstyle is good but that does not mean Xenophile isn't perfect for it. The problems are that Egalitarian and Spiritualist give you better benefits for opinion boosts in any civ (multispecies or otherwise), diplomatic play is shallow and frustrating at the moment, and all of this is conditional on willing neighbors who may or may not spawn. Marginal situational boosts that do not affect the early game don't compare to the broad benefits that apply to almost anything you might want to do fron every other ethic.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2017 14:32
|
|
|
Wiz posted:Nonsense. Xenophile is built for and fits specifically for a diplomatic/multispecies playstyle, with opinion boosts, diplo cost reduction and faction that grows very strong specifically from these things. You may not enjoy or think that playstyle is good but that does not mean Xenophile isn't perfect for it. What about xenophile makes any of those things easier? Did they fix migration or do migration treaty empires with lovely planets still entirely prefer in-empire migration to migrating to your xenophile paradise? Granted it's been a while since I played, but the last time I played all of the xenophile bonuses were essentially meaningless.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2017 09:51
|
|
|
Spanish Matlock posted:What about xenophile makes any of those things easier? Did they fix migration or do migration treaty empires with lovely planets still entirely prefer in-empire migration to migrating to your xenophile paradise? Granted it's been a while since I played, but the last time I played all of the xenophile bonuses were essentially meaningless. 1.8 will allow any species to live on any planet, albeit at a pretty horrendous habitability penalty. This means you can get treaties with anyone, I assume. Won't fix migration slowing down your pop growth, though.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2017 11:28
|
|
|
So I'm playing a game as the Commonwealth and attempting to conquer the galaxy. Problem is, practically everyone is a democratic federation builder. They've all gone and built a giant super federation, it's literally over half the galaxy with all the goody empires and they all won their local power struggles. Everybody else is just a rogue's gallery of despotic losers that got pummeled into inconsequence by this galaxy-spanning federation. I'd love to make my own counterbalancing axis of power, but everybody has a "pathetic" fleet score from getting beat up so it's not worth it. They kicked my rear end in a fleet battle once already, I had to give them a whole sector of planets and agree to stop committing atrocities. I'm sure they were just waiting down the cooloff period to invade me again since I had no ships left, but in the meantime a xenophile fallen empire awakened and decided that er no actually they are going to bring peace and order to the galaxy so everybody has to stop fighting now. It was a total asshat move because this federation had things in hand quite nicely already, they were pretty much just doing their victory lap at that point. I was about to quit the playthrough but tried I signing up as the AE's protectorate. Cue the awakened empire declaring war on the entire federation shortly afterwards and sending it's giant fleet to stomp them. I have a sensor link to see their fleet since I'm their pet now, and it's quite satisfying to watch them effortlessly tear apart one of the federation's strongest members and send them plummeting down into the "pathetic" club with the rest of us. I'm now rebuilding my fleet with a view to backstabbing my protectors at the appropriate moment while they fight their ego war over who the galactic police are. After losing a couple fleets, the federation actually got serious and put a giant kitchen-sink fleet together to take on the AE's 450k stack, it looks like they are going to start tearing chunks out of each other which is just perfect: 
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2017 11:34
|
|
|
Wiz posted:Nonsense. Xenophile is built for and fits specifically for a diplomatic/multispecies playstyle, with opinion boosts, diplo cost reduction and faction that grows very strong specifically from these things. You may not enjoy or think that playstyle is good but that does not mean Xenophile isn't perfect for it. I mean it fits but personally the biggest advantage I see coming from the xenophile ethic is the reduction to diplomatic influence cost, as a fanatic xenophile can essentially have double the number of defensive treaties. However, the main purpose of playing a diplomatic run through is to join a federation, meaning that you can't sign defensive treaties. I can't remember if the discount applies to diplomatic annexation but I assume it does, which is a nice bonus but realistically absorbing people quicker would be fare more useful than paying less to absorb them as you can only annex one vassal at a time. All the "best" bonuses if you want to be a diplomatic species comes from the Diplomacy tradition, and if you want to vassalise and absorb people domination is has all the bonuses. When you compare the "bonus" you get to diplomacy from xenophile to say the bonus you get to your empire from say militarist, materialist, and egalitarian xenophile just doesn't seem as strong. I know the counter argument is that supremacy, discovery, and prosperity all provide pretty good bonuses compared to militarist/materialist/egalitarian, but I feel xenophile really is a "feel free to leave it and it won't inhibit your diplomatic game at all", whereas if you want to play someone with max research you really want to be a materialist, and if you're going to be really aggressive some sort of militarist is a big bonus. Egalitarian is also pretty important if you want to play a race with high living standards. I guess xenophile's bonus to opinion means it's easier to form alliances/federations etc, but I find in practice this rarely matters, if you can't get them into your federation by just dumping a load of minerals on them then they probably are not a good idea to invite into your federation anyway
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2017 11:42
|
|
|
When playing on Hard should I be ready to accept that everyone around me in the early game will always be 'Superior' to me in fleet score, even when I'm maxed out and they're smaller, or am I just bad?
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2017 11:48
|
|
|
Nickiepoo posted:When playing on Hard should I be ready to accept that everyone around me in the early game will always be 'Superior' to me in fleet score, even when I'm maxed out and they're smaller, or am I just bad? You can go over your fleet cap. It's a scaling upkeep penalty after you do so, if you can afford the upkeep then go nuts.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2017 12:28
|
|
|
If I declare war on an 'empire' with 2 systems that has a defensive pact with a small empire, and that small empire has a 2nd defensive pact with a much larger empire, do I go to war with all 3?
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2017 12:36
|
|
|
Kitchner posted:I mean it fits but personally the biggest advantage I see coming from the xenophile ethic is the reduction to diplomatic influence cost, as a fanatic xenophile can essentially have double the number of defensive treaties.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2017 12:51
|
|
|
GenericOverusedName posted:You can go over your fleet cap. It's a scaling upkeep penalty after you do so, if you can afford the upkeep then go nuts. Yeah, I'm more asking if 'realistically' I should always just accept being the underdog when playing on hard.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2017 13:02
|
|
|
Nickiepoo posted:Yeah, I'm more asking if 'realistically' I should always just accept being the underdog when playing on hard. Hard AIs get some bonuses. Realistically you need to build more dang ships and go over your fleet cap
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2017 13:03
|
|
|
Sanctum posted:If I declare war on an 'empire' with 2 systems that has a defensive pact with a small empire, and that small empire has a 2nd defensive pact with a much larger empire, do I go to war with all 3? Only if you had declared war on the small empire, the larger empire won't come in to help because the small one declared war on it's own to defend the tiny one.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2017 13:09
|
|
|
Vadoc posted:Only if you had declared war on the small empire, the larger empire won't come in to help because the small one declared war on it's own to defend the tiny one. Yeah defensive pacts do not cascade, defensive treaty obligations are only between the two parties involved in the treaty and only in the case that one of them is attacked. It doesn't trigger if they start a war, and it doesn't trigger if they enter into a war as a result of their other treaty obligations.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2017 13:56
|
|
|
Nickiepoo posted:Yeah, I'm more asking if 'realistically' I should always just accept being the underdog when playing on hard. Only for the first couple wars maybe. Max out those stations and fleet cap, and if necessary, bank a pile of minerals then burst way over fleet cap and go win your war. As long as you engage quickly and lose a bunch of ships it won't bankrupt you.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2017 16:44
|
|
|
Mukip posted:So I'm playing a game as the Commonwealth and attempting to conquer the galaxy. Problem is, practically everyone is a democratic federation builder. They've all gone and built a giant super federation, it's literally over half the galaxy with all the goody empires and they all won their local power struggles. Everybody else is just a rogue's gallery of despotic losers that got pummeled into inconsequence by this galaxy-spanning federation. I'd love to make my own counterbalancing axis of power, but everybody has a "pathetic" fleet score from getting beat up so it's not worth it. They kicked my rear end in a fleet battle once already, I had to give them a whole sector of planets and agree to stop committing atrocities. Keep us posted man. Sounds great
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2017 17:06
|
|
|
My first play-through, I started as the pacifist sloth-people. I ended up, through a bit of fortune and strategic choice, getting a sizable chunk of territory with few planets, but a lot of stars and resources. My plan initially was to turtle up and just build Dyson Spheres and science megastructures, get an insane research bonus going, and shoot way ahead of everyone in tech. I switched my strategy to "expand and get massive fleet" because I got an Awakened Empire who started rapidly expanding with a 500k fleet and I realized I wouldn't be able to out-tech them in time, but how viable a strategy is it to try and keep a low planet count and bliz through research like that? The gambit partially worked because when I first started my expansionist wars my fleets were crushing equivalent sized fleets with either few or zero losses.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2017 17:08
|
|
|
Mukip posted:So I'm playing a game as the Commonwealth and attempting to conquer the galaxy. Problem is, practically everyone is a democratic federation builder. They've all gone and built a giant super federation, it's literally over half the galaxy with all the goody empires and they all won their local power struggles. Everybody else is just a rogue's gallery of despotic losers that got pummeled into inconsequence by this galaxy-spanning federation. I'd love to make my own counterbalancing axis of power, but everybody has a "pathetic" fleet score from getting beat up so it's not worth it. They kicked my rear end in a fleet battle once already, I had to give them a whole sector of planets and agree to stop committing atrocities. Wild Horses posted:Keep us posted man. Sounds great Yeah, take pictures of this when it happens, looks like it'll be a pretty hilarious throw down.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2017 01:28
|
|
|
Mukip posted:So I'm playing a game as the Commonwealth and attempting to conquer the galaxy. Problem is, practically everyone is a democratic federation builder. They've all gone and built a giant super federation, it's literally over half the galaxy with all the goody empires and they all won their local power struggles. Everybody else is just a rogue's gallery of despotic losers that got pummeled into inconsequence by this galaxy-spanning federation. I'd love to make my own counterbalancing axis of power, but everybody has a "pathetic" fleet score from getting beat up so it's not worth it. They kicked my rear end in a fleet battle once already, I had to give them a whole sector of planets and agree to stop committing atrocities. Christ, I've never seen a Federation get their poo poo together quite that well. That's like 600k+ Fleet power.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2017 04:36
|
|
|
Goodbye Hazari Swarm, you were fun to play but in the end the devouring swarm made too many enemies. I took a short period to consolidate all my conquests and ended up getting ganged up on by the galaxy's 3 different alliance blocks and the interventionist awaked empire. Defending against 3 different ~100k strong fleets isn't easy, but when several 150k fleets join in I'm calling it quits. I'm guessing I wasn't nearly as aggressive enough as I should have been early in the game, to prevent such strong alliances from forming in the first place.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2017 16:14
|
|
|
That's how Germany lost, yeah.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2017 16:19
|
|
|
Metal King @ Paradox posted:Hello everyone and welcome to another Stellaris development diary. This week’s diary I’m taking charge and going to write about Voice Over’s for the (unannounced) Story Pack coming alongside the 1.8 ‘Čapek’ update! We still can’t tell you any further details about the name or release date of the Story Pack, but stay tuned for future dev diaries! https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/index.php?threads/stellaris-dev-diary-77-ethics-voice-packs.1035192/
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2017 16:27
|
|
|
Militarist sounds hilarious.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2017 16:33
|
|
|
Nuclearmonkee posted:Militarist sounds hilarious. I really hope it's that over the top for doing everything, not just military things.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2017 16:55
|
|
|
Okay, since you can switch back to the previous VO that's much better than being forced to be over the top militarist all the time. Or just be the borg all the time. Even if you're a xenophilic materialist empire.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2017 18:12
|
|
|
Not really a fan of this.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2017 18:14
|
|
|
Speaking of the Borg, I'm hoping that future updates allow synthetic empires to convert to hive mind
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2017 18:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 22, 2024 13:16 |
|
|
GunnerJ posted:Not really a fan of this. Me neither. And while it's nice that they keep adding lots of flavor things it might be better if they focused on actually making the base gameplay enjoyable. Off the top of my head: fleet combat sucks, not having a fleet builder sucks, ground combat sucks, there's nothing to do that isn't forever war, end crises are boring, there's no espionage, and diplomacy is anemic at best and basically pointless at worst. And then there's the unity mechanic, which was a desperate attempt to tack on something to permit different playstyles, but ultimately boils down to choosing in what order you'll tick off a series of either minor or gamebreaking upgrades. Be nice if this game had some sort of actual end goal for what it wants to be. I have no idea where this is supposed to be a year from now. Except that it will apparently have voice acting for some reason.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2017 18:26
|
|
