|
VirtualStranger posted:What exactly is the difference between "Armour/Shield Damage" and "Armour/Shield Penetration"? Damage means...well it does damages to X, penetration means it bypasses X.
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2018 18:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 16:19 |
|
|
Gyrotica posted:https://twitter.com/Martin_Anward/status/968137319600574464 Sounds like hive/machine is going to be a foreverwar build. Will influence start getting deducted as time passes? What does running out of influence do to those empires?
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2018 18:17
|
|
|
axeil posted:I just got jump drives but it doesn't seem like they do much except make you move faster, which is a shame. If I'm risking the Unbidden I at least want to be able to use my entire military force to counter them without it taking years to get the fleet in place. There is a jump button at the top of the fleet window when you have a fleet selected which lets you skip hyperlanes for one jump, but puts the fleet in a cooldown state where their combat effectiveness is cut in half for a bit once they arrive. You can dramatically cut travel times by leaping across spiral arms or past nests of systems this way.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2018 18:19
|
|
|
axeil posted:I just got Jump Drives and Colossi and it still takes ages for anyone to get anywhere. I'm fine with it taking a very long time to go from one end of the galaxy to the other at game start but the engine tech should really speed things up so by the endgame you're zipping around. I think the idea behind things like wormholes and gateways was to help speed up travel by allowing you to just skip systems all together, but one of these involves a lot of luck and the other a lot of tech and resources. Really my main issue with the changes Cherryh brought on is the fact that it takes an eternity to do anything now and responding to threats in your empir is virtually impossible unless you happened to have enough ships right where they're needed. The ability to speed up travel is desperately needed. The fact that some events are broken because 750+ days still isn't enough time to respond should've been the first clue.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2018 18:24
|
|
|
You could try using a corvette swarm as a rapid response squadron for large areas, corvettes are pretty fast but a fleet travels at the speed of the slowest member.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2018 18:27
|
|
|
Rebellions seem to be much more common now - At least two AI empires in my game are running their show from a colony rather than their homeworld - although they have reclaimed it - and at least one other Empire has an ongoing rebellion it hasn't yet put down. Which is interesting, at least.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2018 18:28
|
|
|
axeil posted:4) The Great Khan event seems way too strong. I was fielding 2 fleets of ~20k and my vassal neighbors had 2-3 fleets of about 10k. We combined had the biggest fleet of anyone in the galaxy save Fallen Empires. Yet the Great Khan spawned with something like 10-12 fleets of 10k Really? That's interesting - I had a smaller galaxy, but saw Khanate fleets of 20k. Mind, I had two fleets of 26k or so myself. Maybe the Khanate automatically tries to scale to make themselves a challenge for whoever the frontrunner is? I will note that the Khanate looks scarier than it is - it has a lot of fleets, but it usually seems to send them into any given area one at a time, with a short delay before sending in another way. With a fleet strong enough to stomp them flat or a powerful defensive starbase it's not that hard to fend them off...until the point where they break through your weaker neighbors and outflank your defenses, anyways, but it's possible to hold them in check long enough that they don't have much of a chance to rampage before the Khan dies. Also I'm not sure if it's a matter of fleet composition or tech or what, but I find that Khanate fleets don't seem to be quite as formidable as their fleet power suggests - I only needed to be a little bit stronger than they were to flatten them with fairly low losses. Might have just been a quirk of the way my ships were designed, though.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2018 18:34
|
|
plus all the fleets they already had. That's strong enough to have taken out a Fallen Empire if they had moved that way. Seems like it's just way too strong right now.
|
Psychotic Weasel posted:I think the idea behind things like wormholes and gateways was to help speed up travel by allowing you to just skip systems all together, but one of these involves a lot of luck and the other a lot of tech and resources. Get multiple fleets. If you can't respond fast enough it means you aren't using enough fleets. You don't have to have every fleet at capacity and you probably shouldn't - one fleet per front, maybe an extra large or second one on fronts that look tougher. You can see all the hyperlanes so you can know where the possible attack angles are.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2018 18:34
|
|
|
I think gates were meant to be more common or the tech that lets you build them come sooner - certainly, I've never seen it. Is it locked behind mega-engineering? You can certainly liberate quite large empires, you just have to have enough of a combat advantage to do it without incurring heavy losses. I think ticking attrition should probably be removed for that particular war goal though, or at least halved. Edit: also, Khan fleets tend to be very low on PD and very vulnerable to strike craft, at least in the games I've seen so far.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2018 18:36
|
|
|
Gates are really late game but them and wormholes should be moved up by 100 years or so to be more relevant.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2018 18:38
|
|
|
Tomn posted:I will note that the Khanate looks scarier than it is - it has a lot of fleets, but it usually seems to send them into any given area one at a time, with a short delay before sending in another way. With a fleet strong enough to stomp them flat or a powerful defensive starbase it's not that hard to fend them off...until the point where they break through your weaker neighbors and outflank your defenses, anyways, but it's possible to hold them in check long enough that they don't have much of a chance to rampage before the Khan dies. I noticed the same thing. In my last game, I was freaking out because a 24k fleet was heading straight into my empire, and there were half a dozen others floating around between 5k and 30k. Clicking each revealed a different target system; they were not doomstacking. However, my 10k fortress with 4k fleet backup shredded that 24k fleet (although with heavy losses). Only the 7k titan managed to escape. Sadly the 30k fleet came through that same system a couple months later, but it was just coincidence, as it had a target in my neighbor's space and just happened to be passing through.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2018 18:39
|
|
|
gates and wormholes are much better with their sliders set to 2x abundance. not so many that they trivialize travel, but enough that the galaxy is traversable. it also makes for interesting wars over useful travel routes!
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2018 18:43
|
|
|
DatonKallandor posted:Get multiple fleets. If you can't respond fast enough it means you aren't using enough fleets. You don't have to have every fleet at capacity and you probably shouldn't - one fleet per front, maybe an extra large or second one on fronts that look tougher. You can see all the hyperlanes so you can know where the possible attack angles are. I often do have multiple fleets running around, usually starting a second one as soon as I have ~10-12 corvettes built for starter fleet. The trouble is with the fleet strength spread out you are easily overrun by opponents who are able to concentrate their forces or if you happen to be off dealing with another problem when another pops up in the opposite direction. If help is more than 4 or 5 systems away you are probably screwed. Stationing fleets near choke points is all well and good where they exist but if you aren't playing with 0.75x hyperlanes there are likely still places you can easily slip by. Not to mention playing pirate whack-a-mole until you have enough minerals and influence to plug every last system you can find.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2018 18:45
|
|
|
Question: with systems only inflating unity costs by 2% while planets take 20% for unity, is the new conventional wisdom for tall play to expand as much as you can, starbases for chokepoints permitting, but not to colonize planets all willy-nilly? Maybe only colonize up to your core systems cap?
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2018 18:46
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:At a certain point your economy will be wrecked so badly you can do nothing but desperately cling on. Losing influence and unit makes sense here at least. I guess I'm more concerned about multiplayer abuse. The AI will peace out if it hits 100%, but a hostile player can decide to lock you into a 100% exhaustion state so long as they're willing to take the hit as well.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2018 18:46
|
|
|
Gateways are really good for getting around massive empires quickly although the baseline spawn rate for broken gates seems low. I usually move the slider for gates up to 1.25 although I think higher might be better. That way you are generally guaranteed to have at least two broken gateways in a moderately sized empire. I’m fine with gateway construction being locked behind endgame tech as long as there are enough broken ones around to be useful in the mid game.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2018 18:46
|
|
|
I'm not sure if I'm a fan of the raiding system. It seems cool to be able to pay them off or point them at your enemies but much of the time they will just roll though your empire even when you're not the target and their fleets outmatch yours for much of the game so it's best just to stay out of their way and repair the damage afterwards. They're a bit like a natural disaster system and I'm not sure whether they add a whole lot outside of the mid game crisis.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2018 18:47
|
|
|
My last game went nicely because my guys and my ally had half the wormhole ends in our territory so I could skip around a lot I later accidentally ticked off that ally because they spammed federation a war request incessantly and I didn't realize every time I declined it I was upsetting them Put a cool down or something on that dang, I know it might annoy players but an AI basically can force you into a war you don't want or a broken federation
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2018 18:48
|
|
|
Aethernet posted:I think gates were meant to be more common or the tech that lets you build them come sooner - certainly, I've never seen it. Is it locked behind mega-engineering? The "Gateway Construction" tech has two pre-requisites: Mega-Engineering and "Gateway Activation" Mega-Engineering only shows up in the late game. "Gateway Activation" is the tech that allows you to repair the abandoned gates found on the map. This tech will only appear once your science ships have discovered one of them. This means that if you have not discovered any of the abandoned gateways yourself, then you cannot build your own. (This also means that turning the Abandoned Gateways slider down to 0x effectively removes all gateways from the game entirely) VirtualStranger fucked around with this message at 18:52 on Feb 26, 2018 |
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2018 18:48
|
|
|
toasterwarrior posted:Question: with systems only inflating unity costs by 2% while planets take 20% for unity, is the new conventional wisdom for tall play to expand as much as you can, starbases for chokepoints permitting, but not to colonize planets all willy-nilly? Maybe only colonize up to your core systems cap? colonize willy-nilly imo systems give no unity. planets do. they're a better investment than 10 systems would be because not only do planets have tons of resources, raw pop numbers contribute to starbase capacity. besides, expansion is more or less a must-have and it reduces the penalty to 16%
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2018 18:48
|
|
|
What are people's thoughts on the different war doctrines? Especially the no-retreat one; +33% fire rate sounds crazy but on the other hand, no retreats ever means you're going to lose a lot of ships in each fight, especially if you use a lot of corvettes and destroyers.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2018 18:49
|
|
|
I like the war score system more or less but it can still be a bit fucky. I'm a huge empire with 4 unassailable fortresses protecting my entire realm. A fallen empire got fussy at me and declared a humiliation war on me. Their fleet was a tiny bit smaller than mine but I was excited for them to smash into one of my forts. Instead, they ignored me and went after the random tiny country on the other side of the map I had a defense pact with. I ran in behind and took the fallen empire's fortress and destroyed all their defenses which was quite the coup but despite taking few easily replaced losses it shot my exhaustion up about 30%. I ran home before their fleet could counter-attack and hoped again they'd come smash into my fort. They didn't, they went back to beating up my ally. They destroyed their fleet and by the time my fleets were back up to 100% power and bristling with Titans and ready to go invade their home world, I was forced into peace as exhaustion reached 100%. The only thing I did in the war was sneak attack the enemy homeworld, destroying their defenses and bombing their capital, then retreating back to my lines. It was a defensive war and they never attacked me, but I was still forced into a humiliation because they wrecked my stupid ally I didn't care about. It feels like we could use a separate peace mechanic or something. Or since their wargoal was to humiliate me, not my tiny ally, they need to inflict some damage on my actual empire.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2018 18:49
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:
To be fair, you did have a defensive pact going - and you didn't hold up your end of the bargain.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2018 18:58
|
|
|
Space Skeleton posted:There is a jump button at the top of the fleet window when you have a fleet selected which lets you skip hyperlanes for one jump, but puts the fleet in a cooldown state where their combat effectiveness is cut in half for a bit once they arrive. You can dramatically cut travel times by leaping across spiral arms or past nests of systems this way. What sucks it that you don't seem to be able to set a "always use jump drives" policy for a fleet or ship. There is never a time I don't want my constructors to use jump drive.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2018 19:07
|
|
|
Tomn posted:Really? That's interesting - I had a smaller galaxy, but saw Khanate fleets of 20k. Mind, I had two fleets of 26k or so myself. Maybe the Khanate automatically tries to scale to make themselves a challenge for whoever the frontrunner is? Oh yeah, I managed to fight them off by syncing up with my vassals and very judiciously hitting them any time they moved into my space. My surprise was more that it seems like that much fleet power is an end-game crisis rather than a mid-game. If I'm the strongest military power in the galaxy and their fleets dwarf mine it makes it feel pretty impossible to defeat them on the battlefield. Space Skeleton posted:There is a jump button at the top of the fleet window when you have a fleet selected which lets you skip hyperlanes for one jump, but puts the fleet in a cooldown state where their combat effectiveness is cut in half for a bit once they arrive. You can dramatically cut travel times by leaping across spiral arms or past nests of systems this way.  Well then, thanks for the info!
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2018 19:08
|
|
|
Jabarto posted:What are people's thoughts on the different war doctrines? Especially the no-retreat one; +33% fire rate sounds crazy but on the other hand, no retreats ever means you're going to lose a lot of ships in each fight, especially if you use a lot of corvettes and destroyers. I roll with the one that gives +25% sublight speed because getting fleets there is so annoying
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2018 19:10
|
|
|
Jabarto posted:What are people's thoughts on the different war doctrines? Especially the no-retreat one; +33% fire rate sounds crazy but on the other hand, no retreats ever means you're going to lose a lot of ships in each fight, especially if you use a lot of corvettes and destroyers. The No Retreat one honestly seems like it's either extremely situational or an outright trap. You will take an absurd amount of losses without disengages. You'd have to out-mineral your opponent a lot to make that worthwhile. Maybe if you're running all-battleships (lowest disengage chance) on artillery mode to maximize the damage before they even get to you, but even then a single lost fight kills your entire fleet.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2018 19:15
|
|
|
I hate the jump drive implementation. It forces me to micro-manage something that is essential since movement is so slow. I would rather they have the option to be automatic and have no penalty to speed. Instead I would make the consequence of using them be that your ships can't retreat.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2018 19:17
|
|
|
Chalks posted:I'm not sure if I'm a fan of the raiding system. It seems cool to be able to pay them off or point them at your enemies but much of the time they will just roll though your empire even when you're not the target and their fleets outmatch yours for much of the game so it's best just to stay out of their way and repair the damage afterwards. On a totally separate topic, bribing a FE for an active sensor link almost feels like cheating. They've got eyes on like a fifth of the galaxy.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2018 19:19
|
|
|
toasterwarrior posted:Question: with systems only inflating unity costs by 2% while planets take 20% for unity, is the new conventional wisdom for tall play to expand as much as you can, starbases for chokepoints permitting, but not to colonize planets all willy-nilly? Maybe only colonize up to your core systems cap? Other way around. Planets are your one big source of Unity, and there's a pretty hard cap on how much a single planet can produce, while systems only give you non-unity boons. If you're playing for Unity, you should probably keep your borders fairly lean, but fill up everything you can within those borders.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2018 19:20
|
|
|
Jabarto posted:What are people's thoughts on the different war doctrines? Especially the no-retreat one; +33% fire rate sounds crazy but on the other hand, no retreats ever means you're going to lose a lot of ships in each fight, especially if you use a lot of corvettes and destroyers. No retreats also means you might end up with more war exhaustion than the other guy even from a winning battle. Also, as to fleet composition: with the fleet manager now I can finally bear to organize my fleets into the appropriate (by which I mean every ship size contributes the same to the command limit) ratios: 16 corvettes: 8 destroyers: 4 cruisers: 2 battleships: 1 titan.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2018 19:26
|
|
|
So what are some of y'all nerds naming conventions for ship designs and sectors and stuff? For ship designs I try to pick names that also work as a handy mnemonic for what class of ship they are. My corvette designs all start with "cor", for example; destroyers start with "des", cruisers with "cr" and battleships with "b". This current game I'm running with: Corvettes: Coronet (missile boat) and Cormorant (interceptor) Destroyers: Desiderata (artillery) and Desdemona (small/medium) Cruisers: Crassus (artillery), Crenel (picket), and Crucifier (line ship, mostly medium weapons) Battleships: Boanerges (picket/line ship - uses line AI but with point defense/fighters and medium weapons), and Bellerophon (artillery) For defense platform designs, I use the various angelic ranks, in order: Angel: autocannons and small weapons Archangel: mix of medium and small Dominion: point defense/fighters Throne: medium weapons Cherubim: missiles and torpedoes Seraphim: large weapons For sector names, I try to keep it relevant to the map or the circumstances of the sector's creation. If I have to sector a bunch of planets after winning a war, I'll call it "Triumph" or "Victory" sector; if I take three planets at a time I might call it "Triumvirate" sector. If there are a few colonies at the outer edge of the galaxy, you'd better believe I'm calling that fucker "Outer Rim" sector, or "The Outlands", or "Backwater". Current game, I had a random colony on a fairly big planet that had to be sectored after colonization, so I just called it "Prosperity", because it was right next to a gateway I knew I was eventually going to reactivate, making it a pretty important sector. If I have planets that are close to my starting position that I don't get around to colonizing until I terraform them, I will try to lump them all into "Coreward" sector. I'm hoping they'll let us rename science ships, colony ships and the like, because I always used to name those as well. Science vessels were Prometheus, colony ships were Epimetheus, construction ships were Sisyphus, and transport ships were Odysseus. Anyone else have very specific naming conventions in your playthroughs?
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2018 19:26
|
|
|
DatonKallandor posted:The No Retreat one honestly seems like it's either extremely situational or an outright trap. You will take an absurd amount of losses without disengages. You'd have to out-mineral your opponent a lot to make that worthwhile. Maybe if you're running all-battleships (lowest disengage chance) on artillery mode to maximize the damage before they even get to you, but even then a single lost fight kills your entire fleet. This is kind of my thinking, yeah. Now I actually do like steamrolling stuff with artillery-laden juggernauts, but Rapid Deployment seems like it's better all around and doesn't require me to be militaristic.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2018 19:30
|
|
|
Anyone else a bit disappointed with the Gaian creation perk? It takes so long (same as before, was always too long) and doesn't improve things THAT much compared to teraforming to the correct habitability or gene modding. I feel like taking the ascension perk and becoming master terraformers it should take the same time as the other options.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2018 19:32
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:Anyone else a bit disappointed with the Gaian creation perk? It takes so long (same as before, was always too long) and doesn't improve things THAT much compared to teraforming to the correct habitability or gene modding. I feel like taking the ascension perk and becoming master terraformers it should take the same time as the other options. I only see it as viable if you have a big multicultural empire and thus everyone gets mad all the time about living in the desert when they like rain forests or in the mountains when they like the ocean or if you are life-seeded.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2018 19:52
|
|
|
DatonKallandor posted:The No Retreat one honestly seems like it's either extremely situational or an outright trap. You will take an absurd amount of losses without disengages. You'd have to out-mineral your opponent a lot to make that worthwhile. Maybe if you're running all-battleships (lowest disengage chance) on artillery mode to maximize the damage before they even get to you, but even then a single lost fight kills your entire fleet. I used it in my Devouring Swarm game because it felt appropriate but since my neighbors were pretty weak I would most likely have crushed them anyway, then I quit to try something else before the fights had time to get hairy. With both the corvette hull points techs my corvettes had 625 hull points and were as such probably tanky enough to make up for not being able to disengage. With how War Exhaustion works it's probably a trap for basically any other type of empire I think.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2018 19:52
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:Anyone else a bit disappointed with the Gaian creation perk? It takes so long (same as before, was always too long) and doesn't improve things THAT much compared to teraforming to the correct habitability or gene modding. I feel like taking the ascension perk and becoming master terraformers it should take the same time as the other options. Locking Gaia terraforming behind an Ascension Perk was a very good move IMO, because back in 1.9, once the AI empires got into the very late stages of the game they would terraform literally every planet in the galaxy into Gaia Worlds.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2018 19:56
|
|
|
It seems reasonable to lock it behind a perk but locking it behind a perk and still making it take forever seems unnecessary.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2018 20:00
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:Anyone else a bit disappointed with the Gaian creation perk? It takes so long (same as before, was always too long) and doesn't improve things THAT much compared to teraforming to the correct habitability or gene modding. I feel like taking the ascension perk and becoming master terraformers it should take the same time as the other options. I mean the +5% happiness / +10% production is nice If you're spiritualist you can just make some trash 10 tile planet a Gaia world for +10% unity forever too I thought I'd be able to make lots of holy worlds like the spiritualist FE but I guess I need a lot longer before my dudes can worship more than one planet 
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2018 20:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 16:19 |
|
|
HappyKitty posted:Anyone else have very specific naming conventions in your playthroughs? I don't use it any more simply because I've gotten lazy but the closest I ended up with for some kind of dedicated naming convention was color coding based on armaments carried, Red being gun focused, Black for missiles or torpedoes, Blue for carrier or point defence picket (which I never selected a color for I guess)
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2018 20:03
|
|
