|
OwlFancier posted:You can trade a couple of research points for free use of an extra fleet and/or the cost of rebuilding stations and maintaining that fleet... You don't seem to understand: there is no "extra" fleet. If I go to war, those corvettes get used. If I'm hunting space monsters, those corvettes get used. If pirates appear (and they will, whether I'm deleting stations or just have an empty border because I can't pay influence yet to expand there yet), those corvettes get used. Those corvettes contribute to increasing my power rating so other empires don't get any funny ideas. The point is, the corvettes were ships I was going to build and maintain anyway. It's just instead of sitting in drydock sometimes they have to go kill pirates.
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2018 18:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 20, 2024 05:14 |
|
|
Magil Zeal posted:It's a fleet I have anyway for other purposes. It's not like I just never build ships, and pirates are going to appear at most points in the game anyway. I don't have the influence to claim literally every system even if I wanted to early on (I should want to, but I don't, which is part of the problem). Why should you want to? I mean, it's clear that you DO want to, but I think a lot of the design intent that went into 2.0 was that you should not, in fact, want to claim literally every system. Or at least, that doing so is a choice you should make that is interesting and has tradeoffs, rather than "of course you should claim all the space you physically can". You really hate the tradeoffs on offer, obviously, but do you agree that some tradeoff should exist? Because if not I think you're never going to be happy with this game. Paradox has a long history of using tech penalties as one (of many) ways to make less populous or physically smaller players at least SOMEWHAT viable against larger ones, rather than letting the blobs snowball. Stellaris has a symmetrical start unlike EU or CK, but I think that concept is still valuable and honestly, it's unlikely to go away anytime soon no matter how much you hate it. I agree that a lot of the complaining about pirates is really overwrought though (you should have multiple fleets covering several regions anyway, pirates do scale but they cap out at 4-5k, and they're basically a few free resources and free XP for your admirals and ships). Dallan Invictus fucked around with this message at 18:13 on Mar 2, 2018 |
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2018 18:06
|
|
|
I have a dumb question about refugees and that ascendancy perk that lets you abduct pops. How does it work with planet type? Can I only accept/steal people that fit on planets I already have colonized or can I use them to expand to new planets?
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2018 18:10
|
|
|
Dallan Invictus posted:Why should you want to? I mean, it's clear that you DO want to, but I think a lot of the design intent that went into 2.0 was that you should not, in fact, want to claim literally every system. Or at least, that doing so is a choice you should make that is interesting and has tradeoffs, rather than "of course you should claim all the space you physically can". You really hate the tradeoffs on offer, obviously, but do you agree that some tradeoff should exist? Because if not I think you're never going to be happy with this game. Again, because if you don't want to, then what's the point of it being there? To trap you into maybe making a bad choice? The key issue, I think, is where you say "doing so is a choice you should make that is interesting and has tradeoffs". The problem is, there is no interesting choice. There is no trade-off. It's just mathematically bad to claim the system. If, as I proposed, the system started off hurting you but got better down the line, then there would be interesting choice, about whether or not you can afford to invest in something that will only pay off in the long-term. And about which systems you want to shoot for first. But that's not how it works now. Dallan Invictus posted:Paradox has a long history of using tech penalties as one (of many) ways to make less populous or physically smaller players at least SOMEWHAT viable against larger ones, rather than letting the blobs snowball. Stellaris has a symmetrical start unlike EU or CK, but I think that concept is still valuable and honestly, it's unlikely to go away anytime soon no matter how much you hate it. This works more or less okay for planets. At the very least, it's generally worthwhile to claim a world, and if it's not, you can (usually) eventually make it so (I think small worlds need some more help, but it's not a huge issue, not as big as stars right now). But star outposts with no planets don't work like that. This isn't about hating the idea of a tech penalty altogether, this is about how it is specifically implemented.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2018 18:11
|
|
|
Magil Zeal posted:Again, because if you don't want to, then what's the point of it being there? To trap you into maybe making a bad choice? See, this isn't true though? Or maybe you think it's true because you highly prioritise research. But maybe the net research/unity cost is worth it for the strategic value of the space, or the minerals, or for pretty borders, or because pirates annoy you that much. Or maybe none of those are enough and you leave it alone as a buffer zone, expand in a different direction, or focus on building up the space you have. These are choices that each player will make differently based on their goals. But space is big! Or it should be. The idea that absolutely none of it should ever be more trouble than it's worth is really, really weird to me. I do agree that there should be SOME way to improve on uncolonized stars (whether it's tech to improve station yields or resource improvements on outposts or something along those lines). But I still think that there should be a cost or penalty to expansion, because something needs to rein in the usual 4X snowball.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2018 18:18
|
|
|
Dallan Invictus posted:See, this isn't true though? Or maybe you think it's true because you highly prioritise research. But maybe the net research/unity cost is worth it for the strategic value of the space, or the minerals, or for pretty borders, or because pirates annoy you that much. Or maybe none of those are enough and you leave it alone as a buffer zone, expand in a different direction, or focus on building up the space you have. These are choices that each player will make differently based on their goals. I'm only concerned with the numbers in this analysis, so things like "having pretty borders" and "annoying pirates" aren't really going to have any weight here. It's fine if you want to play suboptimally and you acknowledge you're playing suboptimally because of aesthetic reasons, and hell, I do it all the time, but it in no way justifies bad mechanics. Remember, this is a penalty we're talking about removing. Removing this in no way hurts any of those things you just talked about, it only helps. I'm not even a huge research-focused player. I almost never take the +10% research boost ascension perk, I prefer to open with Expansion (or hell, Prosperity) over Discovery. But if I add up the numbers and no matter what it's negative, then something's wrong. And 3 minerals per turn, or 3 physics research per turn, etc. is simply not worth the huge increases to tech costs you get in the mid-to-lategame from having sub-optimal systems claimed. Dallan Invictus posted:But space is big! Or it should be. The idea that absolutely none of it should ever be more trouble than it's worth is really, really weird to me. I do agree that there should be SOME way to improve on uncolonized stars (whether it's tech to improve station yields or resource improvements on outposts or something along those lines). But I still think that there should be a cost or penalty to expansion, because something needs to rein in the usual 4X snowball. I'm okay with certain bits of space not providing much value. Just appropriately match the cost to the value. That's the whole problem here, the cost is disproportionate to the value. Keep in mind even if you remove 2% research per system, there's still the energy maintenance of the station and the 1% Unity penalty. I never suggested removing those. And there's of course the initial investment in the outpost itself, the mineral/influence cost. The game won't instantly become ICS just because you remove the research penalty on claimed systems.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2018 18:27
|
|
|
Admiral Joeslop posted:Is there a handy list of all the possible government combinations (Pacifist/Fanatic Egalitarian, Pacifist/Fanatic Xenophobe, etc) or will I have to make my own checklist? I imagine it's pretty big since you can have 2-3 per empire. If my script is correct, there are 80. As far as I can tell this is every combination but I am too lazy to check. quote:Fanatic Authoritarian, Materialist
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2018 18:28
|
|
|
Magil Zeal posted:I'm only concerned with the numbers in this analysis, so things like "having pretty borders" and "annoying pirates" aren't really going to have any weight here. It's fine if you want to play suboptimally and you acknowledge you're playing suboptimally because of aesthetic reasons, and hell, I do it all the time, but it in no way justifies bad mechanics. Remember, this is a penalty we're talking about removing. Removing this in no way hurts any of those things you just talked about, it only helps. I already told you how to remove it. Just do that.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2018 18:32
|
|
|
So it seems to be that I can't claim -any- systems. That's... Kind of limiting.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2018 18:38
|
|
|
THE BAR posted:So it seems to be that I can't claim -any- systems. That's... Kind of limiting. What are your ethics?
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2018 18:41
|
|
|
Magil Zeal posted:What are your ethics? Authoritarian/Militarist/Spiritualist, I did check if the computer decided to screw around with my war policies, but nope. E: I also can't rival this particular FE, so I can't even use my super weapon CB against them. I can rival the FE on the other side of the galaxy just fine. EE: Okay, so with a colossus you can no longer make claims. That's fine and all, but when you can't rival them either, then you're just stuck. And they're not declaring on me, even after failing two of their missions and a ton of insults. THE BAR fucked around with this message at 18:54 on Mar 2, 2018 |
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2018 18:43
|
|
|
PepperKeibu posted:If my script is correct, there are 80. As far as I can tell this is every combination but I am too lazy to check. There should be 8*4 tri-ethos empires and 8*6 fanatic ones, which adds up to 80. Checks out. E: ^The machine FE doesn't engage in standard diplomacy at all (you can't rival them, and their opinion of you will always be ?, even if you insult them). That's working as intended, though I dunno if you're supposed to be unable to claim their territory. Just let them be, you monster. Zulily Zoetrope fucked around with this message at 18:54 on Mar 2, 2018 |
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2018 18:52
|
|
|
THE BAR posted:Authoritarian/Militarist/Spiritualist, I did check if the computer decided to screw around with my war policies, but nope. That does sound like a bug of some sort, unless there's a factor we're missing here. Assuming you definitely have Unrestricted Wars set.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2018 18:53
|
|
|
Is there any way to grab a copy of a cloud ironman save? This happened: Note: I don't have jump drives.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2018 19:01
|
|
|
Bedshaped posted:I am finding the changes really interesting, a lot of them are quite good for throttling that early game rush I dislike. So it's a matter of percentages. Every time you lose a ship, that ship's Naval Capacity value is calculated as a percentage of your max Capacity and that's how much it hurts you for War Exhaustion. The exact numbers changed with the 2.02 beta patch, but by way of not to be taken literally example, say you have a maximum Naval Capacity of 100 and you get a Destroyer blown up. That Destroyer is worth 2 NC and thus you take a 2% Exhaustion penalty for losing it. Again this is just an example, I don't know what the post-patch math actually is now. The complication is that since fixed defenses like Starbases and Defense Stations don't have a Capacity cost their destruction doesn't affect the owner's Exhaustion. (Having the system Occupied does, however. ) What that means is that if you have a 15k fleet that costs you 100 of your 100 Naval Capacity and I have a 15k fleet that costs 100 of my 200 Capacity and we slam them into each other and everyone dies, you will suffer twice as much Exhaustion as I will, since your fleet represented 100% of your Capacity, while mine represented only 50% of mine. Note that this is in relation to maximum Capacity, not what is actually in existence. If, in the example above, those 15k fleets were literally all the ships we both had built, I'd still take half of the Exhaustion that you would because my maximum Capacity is greater than yours. The upside of which is that you should always prioritize increasing your Naval Capacity, even if actually building and launching a fleet of that size would cripple your economy. Just having the Capacity, even unused, makes you more resilient to losses and makes wars more winnable. It also means that avoiding heavily fortified systems is in your interest, particularly in a long and closely contested war, since anything you lose blowing up a Bastion is essentially free points for your opponent. Which in turn suggests the value of building defenses at choke points that force your opponent to take those losses and crank up his own Exhaustion. And so on and so forth. It takes a bit to get a handle on all the aspects of post 2.0 war, but the key to it is that its no longer just a matter of "Build Doomstack, crush all opposition" which is all to the good as far as I'm concerned.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2018 19:08
|
|
|
THE BAR posted:EE: Can't you use the Conquest CB even without a claim if you have a colossus?
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2018 19:10
|
|
|
So does anyone know which techs you need to research titans?
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2018 19:10
|
|
|
Splicer posted:Is there any way to grab a copy of a cloud ironman save? This happened: I'm not sure I see the problem.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2018 19:11
|
|
|
ulmont posted:Can't you use the Conquest CB even without a claim if you have a colossus? Even better - its a total war purifier like CB.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2018 19:13
|
|
|
Agnosticnixie posted:Are you spawning the max number of possible AI empires? The game can't handle it even on a max sized map, which is why they dropped the cap in 1.8-ish. ... I max out everything, so that might explain it. I got all 3 Marauders, but only 2 fallen empires.. anyway, one of the Fallen Empires was a Holy Guardians type. and without me noticing any war declaring, they just annexed a whole Synthetic Determined Exterminator empire, that was the 2nd strongest empire behind me, and it happen so fast that i think it's a bug. it seemed that in one day, the fallen empire just took over everything, and it's not even awakened. Now i have the biggest Fallen empire i ever seen in my game.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2018 19:15
|
|
|
Is there a way to get rid of starbases, after a war I'm one over my limit and want to get rid of a backwater base somewhere. Also I think my precursor event is bugged. I know where the last system is but when I go there nothing happens? There isn't any option for science ships to research anything either.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2018 19:18
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:Even better - its a total war purifier like CB. I swear all I could use was Conquest when I was playing yesterday, but I'll check back again after getting rid of the Unbidden. Axetrain posted:Is there a way to get rid of starbases, after a war I'm one over my limit and want to get rid of a backwater base somewhere. You want the downgrade button - it's on the same tab where you upgrade a starbase, on the left side. After downgrading enough times it will turn into "dismantle."
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2018 19:19
|
|
|
Axetrain posted:Is there a way to get rid of starbases, after a war I'm one over my limit and want to get rid of a backwater base somewhere. Click on the starbase then click the downgrade button
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2018 19:19
|
|
|
Axetrain posted:Is there a way to get rid of starbases, after a war I'm one over my limit and want to get rid of a backwater base somewhere. Go to the base you don't want and hit DOWNGRADE. That'll reduce it to an Outpost.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2018 19:20
|
|
|
ulmont posted:I'm not sure I see the problem. There is no hyperlane between two of the systems that it paths through.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2018 19:24
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Life seeded is actually not bad if you run into primitives, because you can just annex them and then use them to do your colonization while you have a super productive capital. Even better when you uplift primitives to colonize for you, especially as an inward perfection empire. The fact that they’ll never be equals is offset by the permanent +10% happiness from being uplifted!! Those rubes will do our dirty work and love it! I’ve been putting habitats above all their worlds and have migration off, so they see my main race as starfaring gods who lifted them into the light of intelligence and gave them countless worlds, aloof and forever out of reach as a faint silhouette in the morning sky.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2018 19:28
|
|
|
I had the Great Khan spawn and start taking systems. They vassalised one large empire and were slowly pushing towards a Despoiler I was at war with. Suddenly he's dead and his territory gets broken up. Loads of the ships of the Robot fallen empire were in his territory. Then they all hosed off. The empire isn't awakened or anything - what's that about? The machine empire is close-ish but definitely wasn't touched at all.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2018 19:33
|
|
|
Magil Zeal posted:Frankly I think the current system has it entirely backwards. Currently, that 2-3 research system will be fine early on because your research costs are low enough such that 2-3 extra research per month will benefit you. But tech costs increase, and the output of that station does not, so eventually it starts to hurt you. That is, in my mind, the opposite of how it should be. Instead, I believe it should hurt you early, but down the road be more powerful. It's not that tech costs increase that's the problem - the outpost penalty is a percentage penalty, after all. The problem is that you start building labs, and a higher proportion of your science income will come from non-station sources. Pirates aren't really a problem. Just leave a single 1-system pocket in your territory as a honeytrap. In my experience the pirates will always spawn there, and always go for the same target. Then you just build a starbase strong enough to kill the pirates, and you only need to send a minimal force to clean up the starbase afterwards.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2018 19:45
|
|
|
Would it be too breaking to say, prevent pirate spawns in systems which you have sensor coverage on? Or would that too quickly eliminate their presence?
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2018 19:50
|
|
|
I must say I think it is odd that early game you earn the majority of your resources from mining stations but later game that gets entirely replaced by what pops produce on planets as your empire expands. It would be cool if you could upgrade the scanners on your science vessels so you can re-scan everything to look for better bonuses to unlock in the systems that you already own. Or better mining/research station tech so you can crack the crust of a barren world easier for the juicy minerals on the inside or to research the interior of a planet.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2018 19:52
|
|
|
I actually really like the changes to warfare overall. War exhaustion combined with fleet actions not being matters of complete annihilation mean even an overwhelmingly one-sided conflict is still essentially a race for the conqueror to exert their will before their society gets fed up. Even if their fleet stands no chance at all against your grand armada, defeating them won't destroy them and you probably don't have time to keep a single giant doomstack together when you need to be flipping a sprawling empire for the occupation score, so there's still a chance for an outmatched opponent to take relevant actions during a war and even deliver minor reversals by ambushing smaller raiding fleets. Defended planets being significant obstacles gives them even better chances to simply outlast their opponents. All-in-all, it makes warefare a lot more engaging than just obliterating their small doomstack with your large doomstack and then spending 20 years occupying planets with no opposition. If you've got a hard time wrapping your head around the idea of war exhaustion even though you've crushed their military and occupied their territory, just think back to the staggering popularity of the second Gulf War.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2018 19:53
|
|
|
ulmont posted:Can't you use the Conquest CB even without a claim if you have a colossus?    No CBs, no way to get 'em, either.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2018 19:55
|
|
|
All the AI Empires I start next to seem to have very pretty filled in borders with only a handful of stations but I can't seem to get my poo poo to fill in. Is there a trick other than just spamming stations in the gaps to increase border growth? Also I don't really have a good handle on what slavery does for me. Why would I want em?
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2018 19:55
|
|
|
AAAAA! Real Muenster posted:I must say I think it is odd that early game you earn the majority of your resources from mining stations but later game that gets entirely replaced by what pops produce on planets as your empire expands. It would be cool if you could upgrade the scanners on your science vessels so you can re-scan everything to look for better bonuses to unlock in the systems that you already own. Endless Space 2 does this and it's pretty neat. Each planet has a set of anomolies that you can see, but can't probe until you have the correct 'curiosity' level, which is gained by researching techs. Hiding the amount of anomolies on a planet and allowing for re-scanning would be pretty good for discovery tradition, since you can get locked out of a ton of planets once you start meeting people.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2018 19:57
|
|
|
ulmont posted:I'm not sure I see the problem.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2018 19:58
|
|
|
THE BAR posted:No CBs, no way to get 'em, either. Yeah, I see that in the bug forum now. https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/index.php?threads/stellaris-2-0-2-colossus-prevents-claims-yet-only-gives-cb-on-rivals.1074745/
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2018 19:59
|
|
|
TalonDemonKing posted:Endless Space 2 does this and it's pretty neat. Each planet has a set of anomolies that you can see, but can't probe until you have the correct 'curiosity' level, which is gained by researching techs. Hiding the amount of anomolies on a planet and allowing for re-scanning would be pretty good for discovery tradition, since you can get locked out of a ton of planets once you start meeting people. Splicer fucked around with this message at 20:20 on Mar 2, 2018 |
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2018 20:05
|
|
|
Gay Horney posted:All the AI Empires I start next to seem to have very pretty filled in borders with only a handful of stations but I can't seem to get my poo poo to fill in. Is there a trick other than just spamming stations in the gaps to increase border growth? In regards to borders, they no longer grow. You build an outpost in a system, you now control that system. You can build outposts that don't border your territory, but it has absurd influence costs the further you go. Slavery is awesome for minerals and food. Not only are slaves inherently more productive than normal pops(except at the very highest levels of happiness), but there are also a bunch of sources of extra modifiers for slaves, such as leader agendas, governor trait, a building and a tech. It comes out to somewhere around 30% more food and minerals from slaves than max happiness pops.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2018 20:08
|
|
|
loaded up my 2.0 game with the beta version, here's something fun  literally every time a new day ticks over the game simultaneously brings up two pop-ups, one of which tells me i now have the Stop Colossus CB to the fanatical purifiers to my northeast and the second of which tells me the Stop Colossus CB is no longer valid literally. every. day.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2018 20:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 20, 2024 05:14 |
|
|
Gay Horney posted:All the AI Empires I start next to seem to have very pretty filled in borders with only a handful of stations but I can't seem to get my poo poo to fill in. Is there a trick other than just spamming stations in the gaps to increase border growth? Stations are the only way to boost your border, and the trick is mostly to prioritize building to choke points. Backfill once you've cut off everyone else's access to a region of space. As for slavery, you trade in happiness bonuses (or penalties) for enslaved populations for flat bonuses (ie chattel slavery is +10% to food and minerals) that can be pushed well over the happiness bonus, but you have to deal with unrest and potential slave revolts. You still end up needing to boost happiness anyways, since slaves have massive penalties to energy, unity, and research. Plus the only way to get slaves means being authoritarian (cutting off democracy and all the benefits of being egalitarian) or xenophobic (thereby pissing off everyone else). If you build for it it can be pretty strong, especially early on since you both get decadent as a basically free trait and you get slavery bonuses immediately whereas happiness bonuses take some work to get , but if you aren't setting yourself up for it it's probably a waste. Also I'm pretty sure Authoritarian is the only way to get the caste system, which is better than xenophobia's binary is a slave species/is not a slave species set up, since with caste system it only enslaves pops working the tiles that get the benefit. TGLT fucked around with this message at 20:19 on Mar 2, 2018 |
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2018 20:16
|
|