|
Updated Machine Government to allow the construction of hydroponic farms instead of nutrient paste facilities. Citizen pops are fussier about what they eat than bio-trophies. To compensate for the reduced initial output (+2 from the farm instead of +5 from paste) I've made the initial farm's food deposit +3, so the initial surplus is +1 to give you a bit more time to construct another farm - two pops have to grow to completion before you run a food deficit. I'm also in the process of making a compatibility patch for CGM: Buildings - I've finally got the mods and files loading in the right order to selectively overwrite buildings and techs. That should be ready some time tonight, along with the addition of the repeating food productivity tech to Machine Government as I just realised I left that out of the update. GotLag fucked around with this message at 11:52 on Apr 24, 2018 |
#
?
Apr 24, 2018 11:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 17:10 |
|
|
Asimo posted:It was! Whoops, I completely missed that bug. Oh well, guess it's back to warmongering in the meanwhile. You can revert to 2.0.2, where it's not bugged, click IWIN and then go back to the beta. Bit faffy but avoids abandoning games.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2018 11:50
|
|
|
HAH! Turns out raider fleets will take the shortest possible path to their destination, even if that means going right through the Ether Drake's system. They had taken a shortcut through a wormhole in my empire, which I didn't realize raiders could use, and were tearing a warpath straight down the middle of it as they headed for one of my colonies. One bubble in my empire is a no-go zone because it has both the automated dreadnought and ether drake in it, so when both my fleets went idle after being in pursuit I wasn't sure what happened, thinking the raiders had left. Then two minutes later I get a notification their fleet was destroyed in the Brynnis system, where the Ether Drake lives. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2018 12:15
|
|
|
Using that mod with extra starting civics is pretty fun. I added a third civic so I could play a race of habitat-dwelling fanatical purifiers who have a Dyson sphere. gently caress. The. Ground.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2018 12:20
|
|
|
For extra Voidborne fun make sure you're using Guilli's Planet Modifiers and Habitat Specialisations. The former causes some planets to give huge benefits to habitats around them, the latter gives habitats you build a bonus to mineral/food/science output in exchange for reduced energy output.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2018 12:39
|
|
|
Black Pants posted:For extra Voidborne fun make sure you're using Guilli's Planet Modifiers and Habitat Specialisations. The former causes some planets to give huge benefits to habitats around them, the latter gives habitats you build a bonus to mineral/food/science output in exchange for reduced energy output. I love Guilli's mod and will give the habitat one a shot.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2018 12:47
|
|
|
The habitat one always seemed like too much of a hassle to me, but I can see it being really nice if you're playing a civic that starts with mini-habitats.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2018 13:52
|
|
|
Spanish Matlock posted:Did they actually move on you with them? Because afaik they don't actually.. do anything. They did in my case, but my space was huge and by the time they reached any systems worth mentioning they were stretched so thin their fleets that started at ~20k strength were now at, and this is not hyperbole, 3 fleet strength. I imagine they were at zero minerals and power both or something? e: this was in 2.0.1 or somesuch when the AI still kinda worked a bit tho. Truga fucked around with this message at 15:43 on Apr 24, 2018 |
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2018 15:40
|
|
|
hey, so i've played like one game since 2.0 and with ai mods are now actually interested in playing more. what's the priorities for minerals in the early game? i usually spread out as far as i can and build up stations and infrastructure on the homeworld as needed, then since there's usually at least one empire that needs to get taken out i build up like 20 corvettes and a couple armies, but this doesn't really feel enough to deter a major threat
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2018 19:22
|
|
|
StashAugustine posted:hey, so i've played like one game since 2.0 and with ai mods are now actually interested in playing more. what's the priorities for minerals in the early game? i usually spread out as far as i can and build up stations and infrastructure on the homeworld as needed, then since there's usually at least one empire that needs to get taken out i build up like 20 corvettes and a couple armies, but this doesn't really feel enough to deter a major threat As many as you can possibly get your hands on. Very early game you're looking for +30 minimum, as that lets your expansion keep pace with your influence income. Beyond that, just more more more.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2018 19:26
|
|
|
yeah ive generally been prioritizing mineral mining/buildings, i was just wondering what secondary priorities for mineral spending should be
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2018 19:32
|
|
|
Here's how I spend in the early game, in order of importance 1) Anything that generates more minerals. 2) A farm, if I need to avoid a food deficit. 3) Energy generating things, if I need more energy. 4) Save up to expand, if I'm near to running out of places for the above. 5) IT'S TIME FOR SCIENCE! 6) A corvette if I have angry neighbors. Once you get past a couple of planets, and/or start getting unique buildings, those guidelines continue to loosen. And a unity building is usually the first thing I build on any planet.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2018 19:43
|
|
|
After spending a couple months going down a mod rabbit hole, I disabled all of them to do some achievement hunting with a random species. Ended up with a peacock hivemind with cutesy names and a predilection for scientific progress. So far it's been one of my more memorable campaigns. The AI is surprisingly aggressive, and I had my first war declared on me within 20 years of the start, which I've never had happen. Now that 2300 is approaching, distinct power blocs are forming among the galactic nations, I have a federation with 2 low-average powered spiritual seekers, and I find myself constantly playing international politics, making tough decisions about how to spend limited resources and time, and have had some narrative style surprises thrown my way (like what those despotic slavers did to those iron-age primitives I had been curiously observing!). I guess now that I'm playing vanilla again I'm qualified to criticize the design once more. My main problem, I suppose, is that the pendulum has swung too far as far as combat lethality goes in 2.0. Obviously wars lasting 15 days until the one and only fleet action ended was no good, but now it feels like the fighting is almost pointless. A huge battle means maybe <10% of the fleet is actually destroyed and costing minerals to replace. It also means the two admirals might as well be messaging each other to take bets on who will "win" when the same battle is repeated every 6-9 months until someone says uncle. Overall, battles don't feel decisive enough. The consequences of losing don't seem serious enough, or costly enough. I like the disengagement mechanic, but I think it could use some tinkering. Like, if I'm going to battle with beat-up ships that disengaged without repairing last time, they shouldn't get a an equal chance to escape again once their shields go down, they should just get blown up. Repairing ships should be more than just a commitment of a little time until the gauges fill up, it should cost minerals/energy as well, in amounts proportional to their build cost. Fleet capacity ought to be revisited and lowered, as most empires will have fleet capacity = naval cap for a very long time, maybe halfway through the game, and 2 small fleets are rarely worth one big one, as bigger numbers still always win battles. In summary - the consequences of a battle between 2 galactic fleets, representing the sum of the political, economic, and technological power of it's builders, had ought to feel more meaningful than it does right now. And to complete this compliment sandwich, I just want to say Stellaris is my favorite game since Civ IV and I am at once proud, yet deeply, deeply ashamed of how many hours Steam says I've logged into it at this point.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2018 20:11
|
|
|
Captain Invictus posted:HAH! Turns out raider fleets will take the shortest possible path to their destination, even if that means going right through the Ether Drake's system. That explains a game I had where I kept getting "we're gonna raid you now" notices followed by "raider fleet destroyed" notices. The raiders were on the other side of the galaxy and there must have been some unfortunate pathing.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2018 20:23
|
|
|
ConfusedUs posted:Here's how I spend in the early game, in order of importance My planet build order is always gene center-unity then go from there with needs, altho this also depends very much on tile blockers and whats available. I had a couple planets roll science tiles being the only open ones The Bramble posted:After spending a couple months going down a mod rabbit hole, I disabled all of them to do some achievement hunting with a random species. Ended up with a peacock hivemind with cutesy names and a predilection for scientific progress. So far it's been one of my more memorable campaigns. The AI is surprisingly aggressive, and I had my first war declared on me within 20 years of the start, which I've never had happen. Now that 2300 is approaching, distinct power blocs are forming among the galactic nations, I have a federation with 2 low-average powered spiritual seekers, and I find myself constantly playing international politics, making tough decisions about how to spend limited resources and time, and have had some narrative style surprises thrown my way (like what those despotic slavers did to those iron-age primitives I had been curiously observing!). Battles are more decisive if you bring bigger guns has been my experience. So packing a destroyer with an L slot or even a gunship 2M slots leads to more blown up corvettes. My late game fleets always pack battleships and cruisers with big toys nowadays just to do that
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2018 20:24
|
|
|
Question for the Outside Context Problem achievement. I found Sol, have an observation post on Earth, and it's Late Medevial Age right now. I'm guessing I got lucky that I can still get the achievement, and is it simply a matter of sending down an army while they're duking it out in a world war? And will I know when they're in a world war?
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2018 21:00
|
|
|
iospace posted:Question for the Outside Context Problem achievement. I found Sol, have an observation post on Earth, and it's Late Medevial Age right now. I'm guessing I got lucky that I can still get the achievement, and is it simply a matter of sending down an army while they're duking it out in a world war?
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2018 21:07
|
|
|
The Bramble posted:Overall, battles don't feel decisive enough. The consequences of losing don't seem serious enough, or costly enough. I like the disengagement mechanic, but I think it could use some tinkering. Like, if I'm going to battle with beat-up ships that disengaged without repairing last time, they shouldn't get a an equal chance to escape again once their shields go down, they should just get blown up. Repairing ships should be more than just a commitment of a little time until the gauges fill up, it should cost minerals/energy as well, in amounts proportional to their build cost. Fleet capacity ought to be revisited and lowered, as most empires will have fleet capacity = naval cap for a very long time, maybe halfway through the game, and 2 small fleets are rarely worth one big one, as bigger numbers still always win battles. In summary - the consequences of a battle between 2 galactic fleets, representing the sum of the political, economic, and technological power of it's builders, had ought to feel more meaningful than it does right now. Repairing does cost minerals, albeit not a great deal. I kind of disagree about combat: the lower lethality of battles means it's much more about controlling space, which is more strategically interesting. Sure, you can catch harrassing fleets and beat them back, but if you can't control all the lanes over which a war is being fought you're not sure to win.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2018 21:25
|
|
|
I do think fleet capacity should go down a little, it'd be cool to have like the max size of a fleet being a big ship or two and a few dozen escorts
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2018 21:35
|
|
|
iospace posted:Question for the Outside Context Problem achievement. I found Sol, have an observation post on Earth, and it's Late Medevial Age right now. I'm guessing I got lucky that I can still get the achievement, and is it simply a matter of sending down an army while they're duking it out in a world war? machine age earth is WW2 earth. i don't think that a medieval earth will develop into WW2 earth - probably it will keep the medieval-esque ethics on the pops when it develops, for example. also, on average pre-renaissance societies do not advance very quickly and you'd probably have to play for 700 years to see it develop into the machine age.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2018 21:37
|
|
|
iospace posted:Question for the Outside Context Problem achievement. I found Sol, have an observation post on Earth, and it's Late Medevial Age right now. I'm guessing I got lucky that I can still get the achievement, and is it simply a matter of sending down an army while they're duking it out in a world war? I think you need a very specific flavor of Earth to spawn for that achievement, the one that's already actively engaged in WWII when you discover it. Even if I'm remembering incorrectly, I've never seen primitives naturally advance more than one, maybe two development levels even across like a 400 year game, and even then that's usually atomic to space age or space age to full empire. I don't think your Earth is ever gonna go from Late Medieval all the way up to the machine age or whatever the world wars period is called.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2018 21:37
|
|
|
I've had a primitive civ go from Industrial to early space age. They were fun to watch, and their world was tiny, so I ate them last.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2018 21:43
|
|
|
Crazycryodude posted:I think you need a very specific flavor of Earth to spawn for that achievement, the one that's already actively engaged in WWII when you discover it. Even if I'm remembering incorrectly, I've never seen primitives naturally advance more than one, maybe two development levels even across like a 400 year game, and even then that's usually atomic to space age or space age to full empire. I don't think your Earth is ever gonna go from Late Medieval all the way up to the machine age or whatever the world wars period is called.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2018 21:43
|
|
|
A few more 2.0.4 fixes:quote:New Aethernet posted:Was it using the beta? It's currently bugged. Supposedly fixed now re: occupation.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2018 21:57
|
|
|
Sloober posted:Battles are more decisive if you bring bigger guns has been my experience. So packing a destroyer with an L slot or even a gunship 2M slots leads to more blown up corvettes. My late game fleets always pack battleships and cruisers with big toys nowadays just to do that I've also found that bringing bigger guns means I feel my own losses more. One of the main reasons I switched over to corvette spam in my anti-contingency fleets was because bringing in the battleships + titan meant that my losses always took too long to replace (especially that titan which always seemed to be the first to go).
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2018 22:02
|
|
|
Yeah, even the best battleship fleet is going to take heavy losses, generally bigger losses in terms of minerals than a corvette fleet so already corvettes are ahead. Then you take into account that you can build 20 corvettes in parallel faster than 4 battleships, meaning your fleet is able to get back to work faster with a corvette fleet too. I hate corvette spam so much, I want battleship fleets, or a reason for mixed fleets, but evasion/withdrawal is so OP at the moment it seems foolish to use anything but corvettes. Titans are an absolute joke in both their utility, staying power, and re-build cost. They also always seemed to be the first to die. 200 corvettes and a titan? Titan and 15 corvettes died. 20 battleships and a titan? 5 battleships and the titan die. Mixed fleet with a titan? A mix of losses, but always the titan is dead. Useless.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2018 22:07
|
|
|
iospace posted:Question for the Outside Context Problem achievement. I found Sol, have an observation post on Earth, and it's Late Medevial Age right now. I'm guessing I got lucky that I can still get the achievement, and is it simply a matter of sending down an army while they're duking it out in a world war? I started an achievement hunting game last night, and luckily managed to get that one as a part of it. The way to tell if you'll get it the achievement is if Earth has a bunch of armies labeled US, UK, Russia, etc. You can try waiting until they reach that age normally, but you're probably better off just ignoring it and playing games until it spawns like that.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2018 22:07
|
|
|
Nemo2342 posted:I've also found that bringing bigger guns means I feel my own losses more. One of the main reasons I switched over to corvette spam in my anti-contingency fleets was because bringing in the battleships + titan meant that my losses always took too long to replace (especially that titan which always seemed to be the first to go). I'm running half corvettes and half-battleships now...I hold the corvettes at 100 and then add battleships as fleet size increases. I just can't find a reason to faff about with destroyers, cruisers, or titans.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2018 22:08
|
|
|
ulmont posted:I'm running half corvettes and half-battleships now...I hold the corvettes at 100 and then add battleships as fleet size increases. This is kind of what I"m gravitating towards. I use just enough destroyers to mount point defense but cruisers are kind of in an odd spot because medium guns overlap too much with larger ones in terms of what they can reliably hit. I usually pack a Titan for the regeneration field but I'm not sure how much that's doing for me.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2018 22:23
|
|
|
Personally I hate that the smaller ships are just faster. One more reason to never build battleships and just cruise around with swarms of corvettes, which is dumb as hell. Ships could probably stand to be equalized in speed, and just made faster in general.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2018 22:26
|
|
Yes, it's like a lava lamp.
|
PittTheElder posted:Personally I hate that the smaller ships are just faster. One more reason to never build battleships and just cruise around with swarms of corvettes, which is dumb as hell. Oh yeah that's another HUGE point in favour of corvettes, their on-map travel speeds are so much higher and speed/response time is so much more important now.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2018 22:32
|
|
|
I think small weapons should get an inherent debuff vs. large ships to simulate the fact that a bunch of peashooters are going to have a lot of trouble inflicting serious structural damage on something as big as a battleship or titan. Titans, and maybe battleships as well, should probably also get some kind of boost to their default withdrawal chance. Make it so that small ships exist to combat other small and medium ships, mediums are good against everything, and large ships are good against other larges + stations. The game already does a good job of simulating large mounts being mostly ineffective against corvettes due to evasion chance, but the lack of any debuff in the other direction just ends up tilting everything too far in favor of corvettes.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2018 22:41
|
|
|
I can't be assed to figure out what the different little weapons and shield modules do so I just set them on autocomplete and pump out ships randomly until I get big numbers. I wish there was more incentive to create specialized ships and more ways to learn what difference all the little weapons really make because I have no clue and it doesn't seem to add much to the game as it is.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2018 22:47
|
|
|
Gadzuko posted:I think small weapons should get an inherent debuff vs. large ships to simulate the fact that a bunch of peashooters are going to have a lot of trouble inflicting serious structural damage on something as big as a battleship or titan. Titans, and maybe battleships as well, should probably also get some kind of boost to their default withdrawal chance. Make it so that small ships exist to combat other small and medium ships, mediums are good against everything, and large ships are good against other larges + stations. The game already does a good job of simulating large mounts being mostly ineffective against corvettes due to evasion chance, but the lack of any debuff in the other direction just ends up tilting everything too far in favor of corvettes. This and removing the ability of corvettes to mount torpedoes (split the missile and torpedo mounts again, move torps to destroyers) would go a long way to rebalancing fleet compositions.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2018 22:57
|
|
|
winterwerefox posted:Thanks to Guill's planet mods, I stumbled on a RP concept race that I am rather enjoying. That is pretty loving awesome.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2018 23:02
|
|
|
My current Death World race are spiritual Fanatic Purifiers who believe that to live is to suffer, and that they were chosen to suffer so no one else had to. They're not killing everyone. They're releasing them from the burden of existence, so their souls can transcend to a better place.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2018 23:06
|
|
|
McSpanky posted:This and removing the ability of corvettes to mount torpedoes (split the missile and torpedo mounts again, move torps to destroyers) would go a long way to rebalancing fleet compositions. Corvettes having missiles is fine imo, but giving them a point defense section seems kind of weird to me. There's nothing a corvette fleet can't do really at that point.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2018 23:12
|
|
|
Splicer posted:Can you enlighten them for a while and then stop?
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2018 23:18
|
|
|
Splicer posted:Can you enlighten them for a while and then stop? Enlightening doesn't advance a primitive civ through the ages, it rolls on until it's done at which point the entire civ snaps straight from the Bronze Age into the Space Empire Age. Does kinda make you wonder what, exactly, happens if you start enlightening a civ and stop midway, though. "Heeeeeeey, bronze age guys, OK, enough with the leis, we told you, we're not gods. Annnnyways, I know we said we were gonna discuss how to make nuclear fusion this week, buuuuut something came up and we gotta cancel the project. Sooooo I'm afraid you're gonna have to figure it out for yourself. I'm sure you'll be fine, though, you've already got the internal combustion engine down, even if you insist on calling it "The Divine Firehammers of the Gods" and mostly use it to power your sinner-torturing devices. Reeeeeeally wish we had time to talk about that, remind me to drop off a book of 23rd century ethics before we go. Anyways I'm sure you guys will be fiiiine. We'll see you around, peace out!" E;f,b
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2018 23:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 17:10 |
|
|
The entire combat system would be better if it was faster. The problem is that range is pretty meaningless because 95% of a battle's time will be at close range. If combat used a more abstracted model with say, 3 phases, a long range, medium range, and close phase, then range could matter and ship design could matter. Or even if weapons did a lot more damage or fired much faster so that battles are over by the time you get to close range. The problem though, like many problems in stellaris, is one that they are stuck with a really bad initial core design. In previous paradox games the armies you were moving around on the screen were abstracted, you didn't actually see 20,000 little pikemen running from one province to the next. This means that a military unit's strategic movement was separate from its tactical in-combat movement, the two didn't really relate to each other. Stellaris made a huge mistake by trying to make the local system maps big RTS battle maps as well as the primary method of strategic movement. This has forced them into a lovely situation where they can't balance in-combat movement speeds without messing up out of combat movement speeds because it's the same thing. If Stellaris used a more traditional paradox map game system where systems were like provinces you could have a more typical abstracted combat system. Two enemy fleets are in the same system? A combat happens! Now you can tweak how this combat works to your heart's content. You can create a system where small ships are hard to hit but limited to mostly short range weapons, but if the enemy has enough long range high accuracy power they could kill the tiny ships before they ever got into range. Basically you could play with how fast ships get into the short range brawls that dominate the current system. But with the current system you can't really do this, they tried in the past but people would complain that "when my ships get into combat they suddenly slow to a crawl!!" and that was indeed very frustrating. So why not just increase the fire rate? Let long range weapons have an actual advantage by giving them time to get a quite a few shots off, let medium weapons get a few shots off, all before small weapons ever come into range. Wouldn't that work? It would, but it would make combat over very very quickly, which would eliminate any chance of getting ships even from a neighbouring system in to help. Much like tiles have painted stellaris into a corner in regards to the AI and economic/population scaling, the RTS system maps have painted the game into a corner regarding in-combat movement and weapon range balance.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2018 23:33
|
|