|
Captain Invictus posted:I hope they work that amazing bug into the game legitimately somehow Fanatic pacifist xenophobes. "Leave me alone, please".
|
#
?
May 3, 2018 13:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 20, 2024 04:56 |
|
|
iospace posted:Fanatic pacifist xenophobes. "Leave me alone, please".
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2018 14:00
|
|
|
iospace posted:Fanatic pacifist xenophobes. "Leave me alone, please". Inward perfecting so hard you don't want to even show up on a viewscreen
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2018 15:01
|
|
|
Species Trait Shyness: -5% pop growth -10 diplomacy modifier (cancels Repugnant modifier) -1 Other Empire visibility range
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2018 15:09
|
|
|
I haven't played in a few months, should I be using 2.04 or the 2.05 beta?
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2018 15:28
|
|
|
Hot Karl Marx posted:I haven't played in a few months, should I be using 2.04 or the 2.05 beta?
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2018 15:34
|
|
|
thanks, ill do stable I guess, I dont gently caress with MP at all
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2018 15:36
|
|
|
Bloodly posted:Not Chemical Bliss. NEVER Chemical Bliss. The +happy doesn't make up for the roughly -45% output(baseline -60 to everything for Bliss, +15 or so for the +40 Happy taking you to 90%...but that's not counting Faction happiness and such). Unless you're seeking the ultimate in challenge starts. Can you deal with a homeworld that's producing next to nothing? Ok then something else that's Space Drugs But Not The Bad Kind OK
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2018 15:43
|
|
|
Hot Karl Marx posted:thanks, ill do stable I guess, I dont gently caress with MP at all Good idea! Stellaris has this weird verification thing where 9 times out of 10, everything goes well. 1 times out 10 however, the secret RNG behind multiplayer comes up 3 skulls-in-a-row, and then you enter this nightmarish realm of verifying your files over and over again, doing tons of ever more obscure poo poo to make this work, steal hours of time from the other players, until you give up in disgust. So better not try it.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2018 19:39
|
|
|
I don't really see the point of the Fleet cap. Am I missing something with it? There seems to be no downside (well besides the outnumber penalty, but that isn't entirely a downside and isn't always going to be the case) to just having multiple fleets in combat if you need to, and one Leader seems to command the entire battle. Does Fleet cap do anything besides encourage you to make multiple fleets, which you could do anyway if you need to?
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2018 20:49
|
|
|
Darkrenown posted:I don't really see the point of the Fleet cap. Am I missing something with it? There seems to be no downside (well besides the outnumber penalty, but that isn't entirely a downside and isn't always going to be the case) to just having multiple fleets in combat if you need to, and one Leader seems to command the entire battle. Does Fleet cap do anything besides encourage you to make multiple fleets, which you could do anyway if you need to? It was an ultimately futile attempt to stop the player from doomstacking The player still needs to coordinate all these fleets to one place because half the time the AI cheats and goes over fleet cap anyway
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2018 20:51
|
|
|
It's also because putting too many ships in one fleet broke the interface so they changed the system to say 'you're going to have to split your fleets and we'll give you an idea of how big each fleet should be for this stage of the game' rather than just put a fixed hard cap on it. Yeah it's not ideal.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2018 21:55
|
|
|
A problem with the doomstack was that it was the only thing people did. Have a massive fleet and just roll through enemies. Who cares about limits when you have millions of fleet power.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2018 22:22
|
|
|
Darkrenown posted:I don't really see the point of the Fleet cap. Am I missing something with it? There seems to be no downside (well besides the outnumber penalty, but that isn't entirely a downside and isn't always going to be the case) to just having multiple fleets in combat if you need to, and one Leader seems to command the entire battle. Does Fleet cap do anything besides encourage you to make multiple fleets, which you could do anyway if you need to? admirals only command their own fleet and so only give their bonuses to one fleet. it's so that you have to hire admirals.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2018 22:32
|
|
|
iospace posted:Fanatic pacifist xenophobes. "Leave me alone, please".
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2018 22:36
|
|
|
Jazerus posted:admirals only command their own fleet and so only give their bonuses to one fleet. it's so that you have to hire admirals. Do they? You could be right, but I don't see that reflected in the UI at all. When multiple fleets are in the same battle one Admiral takes the "leader of the battle spot" which appears to indicate they are leading all the ships, like what happens in an EU4 battle. It could just be bad UI, but even then it'd be more of a Command Cap than a Fleet size Cap since you can just have fleet 2/3/4 follow the first fleet and functionally have a much larger fleet than your cap even if some part aren't getting the leader bonus, or you just have multiple leaders. If the idea is only to make you use more leaders it'd be less clunky to call it a Command limit and let you assign multiple leaders to the same fleet if you want it to be larger, somewhat like in CK2.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2018 23:00
|
|
|
IAmTheRad posted:A problem with the doomstack was that it was the only thing people did. Have a massive fleet and just roll through enemies. Who cares about limits when you have millions of fleet power. Yeah, but it doesn't do anything to actually prevent doom stacking from being the optimal strategy, and so everyone still does it. EU4 has the exact same problem, serious battles aren't fought between armies, you just have a lot of armies in one place and everyone cycles their armies through a battle Verdun style until one side can't keep up, and then they probably lose the war. The only solution to this is some sort of logistics system, but apparently nobody has been able to invent one that's fun to play. Darkrenown posted:Do they? You could be right, but I don't see that reflected in the UI at all. When multiple fleets are in the same battle one Admiral takes the "leader of the battle spot" which appears to indicate they are leading all the ships, like what happens in an EU4 battle. It could just be bad UI, but even then it'd be more of a Command Cap than a Fleet size Cap since you can just have fleet 2/3/4 follow the first fleet and functionally have a much larger fleet than your cap even if some part aren't getting the leader bonus, or you just have multiple leaders. If the idea is only to make you use more leaders it'd be less clunky to call it a Command limit and let you assign multiple leaders to the same fleet if you want it to be larger, somewhat like in CK2. I think it is just bad UI. Admiral effect apply to the ships themselves, which you can see reflected in the fleet power when you assign/remove them. e: VVV also yeah it's possible it splits the fleets up, I too am a busy man and have never bothered to scroll that far down.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2018 23:05
|
|
Yes, it's like a lava lamp.
|
Does the battle window not split up separate fleets? Usually it has things like stations, civilianship and transports split up but come to think of it I've never bothered scrolling down to see what it all looks like. I'm pretty sure each admiral only confers a bonus to the fleet they are in though. I seem to remember reading that somewhere.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2018 23:06
|
|
|
Darkrenown posted:I don't really see the point of the Fleet cap. Am I missing something with it? There seems to be no downside (well besides the outnumber penalty, but that isn't entirely a downside and isn't always going to be the case) to just having multiple fleets in combat if you need to, and one Leader seems to command the entire battle. Does Fleet cap do anything besides encourage you to make multiple fleets, which you could do anyway if you need to? Shugojin posted:It was an ultimately futile attempt to stop the player from doomstacking PittTheElder posted:Yeah, but it doesn't do anything to actually prevent doom stacking from being the optimal strategy, and so everyone still does it. EU4 has the exact same problem, serious battles aren't fought between armies, you just have a lot of armies in one place and everyone cycles their armies through a battle Verdun style until one side can't keep up, and then they probably lose the war. Post 2.0 the underdog fleet gets a fire-rate bonus, making the advantages of numerical superiority a bit less quadratic. More importantly many if not most of your ships will survive, making it much easier to recover from a loss. So a solo fleet getting caught by a fleet of fleets still hurts, but it's no longer the GG WP it was before. The slower map speed means that if you're running several fleets at once in enemy territory the doomstack isn't going to be able to run them all down anytime soon. The new territory system means that if you're taking territory two or three times faster than your opponent then you're also gaining a lot of their resources, making it easier to recover from losses. Mechanically the fleet cap fits into this by forcing you to buy extra admirals if you want to run at full power even if you're running a doomstack, taking the leader pool penalty out of the equation. Psychologically it means that since your ships are already split into a few discrete groups, you're more likely to try sending them off to do different things rather than going with a gut feeling of bigger-is-better. If you're still just mashing your doomstacks against each other then yeah you're not going to see any difference, but if you actually try to engage with the new benefits of splitting your fleet and waging economic warfare you might be pleasantly surprised! I'm also not staying doomstacks aren't functional, and obviously if you're going for an early leviathan or wolf359-ing an incoming planet cracker then you're still going to want all ships on deck, but running a war with multiple fleets is at least equivalent in benefits as opposed to the trap it was pre-2.0. Generally I have about four fleets running simultaneously, merging and splitting them as needed, but I've not hit a standard war situation where sending them all around in one big blob for a meaningful amount of time was going to do better than three-ish groups. PittTheElder posted:The only solution to this is some sort of logistics system, but apparently nobody has been able to invent one that's fun to play. 
Splicer fucked around with this message at 00:11 on May 4, 2018 |
|
#
?
May 4, 2018 00:01
|
|
|
You should be able to see that your fleet power isn't changing in a multi-fleet battle (the fleet power on your list on the right reflects admiral strength), but I'm pretty confident that admirals only benefit the fleet they're in charge of. Like Weasel said, if you scroll down the leader should be listed on their fleet. The limits to doomstacks are fleet travel times. Having a fleet cap lets a player more easily balance out multiple fleets without completely going over their over naval capacity. It also gives you a reason to hire more than 1 admiral. pre-emptive edit: Splicer really summed it up well.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2018 00:07
|
|
|
Oh yeah it's useful against like normal AIs and such, but usually when the poo poo hits the fan against like a crisis or an awakened empire (a bit less the second one now) you still need a pretty doomstacky thing. I think I like the flavor of "ALL FLEETS, GET THAT loving DIMENSIONAL PORTAL" better than "OKAY GIANT rear end FLEET DO THE SAME THING YOU DO EVERY DAY" though 
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2018 00:30
|
|
|
Having a endgame crisis requiring you to doomstack because it can take on you and the rest of the galaxy is a hugely different situation. The exception and not the norm is a good place for doomstacking.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2018 01:06
|
|
|
So with the Sanctuary ringworld thing, if you Enlighten the primitives on it, how does that end up working? They can't end up sharing the system, so does it just end up with the first one to hit spacefaring? I'm trying to figure out how to end up controlling this ring without pissing off a bunch of factions by just invading the place.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2018 03:05
|
|
|
Assimilation cloud colossus  See also: Taking FE planets with all that juicy industry completely intact.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2018 03:59
|
|
|
 Seriously? Nearest connection is to the far left, the one to the right is even further away.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2018 05:19
|
|
|
Gekkoh posted:
Maybe that wormhole in nithascal goes somewhere useful?
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2018 05:28
|
|
|
evenworse username posted:So with the Sanctuary ringworld thing, if you Enlighten the primitives on it, how does that end up working? They can't end up sharing the system, so does it just end up with the first one to hit spacefaring? As my understanding goes: system belongs to whoever has a colonized planet in the system. If more than one planet is colonized, the system may be shared, such as when you have a colony established and a primitive species hits empire status on another planet. If I remember right with the old war mechanics you could demand one planet of multiple in a system which would also end up in shared system possession, but I don't know if that's possible with the new claims mechanics. In your case, I assume that you don't have a colony in the Sanctuary system, so whoever gets uplifted first assumes possession of the system and then your uplift progress of the others is halted. Maybe build a habitat first since that counts as a colony?
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2018 05:56
|
|
|
Ever go to war just so you could finish Alien Specimen Procurement?
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2018 06:12
|
|
|
Gekkoh posted:Ever go to war just so you could finish Alien Specimen Procurement? Yes, but also to procure more alien specmens (for the stew).
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2018 06:22
|
|
|
Gekkoh posted:Ever go to war because Cybrex Alpha spawned just off your borders and gently caress you AI, I did these stupid worthless surveys, you don't get my goddamn ringworld you worthless shits. Yes
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2018 06:40
|
|
|
isndl posted:As my understanding goes: system belongs to whoever has a colonized planet in the system. If more than one planet is colonized, the system may be shared, such as when you have a colony established and a primitive species hits empire status on another planet. If I remember right with the old war mechanics you could demand one planet of multiple in a system which would also end up in shared system possession, but I don't know if that's possible with the new claims mechanics.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2018 09:00
|
|
|
Talkie Toaster posted:Now the whole system has a single owner. No more shared systems. Once you enlighten someone, they gain control of the system, including any of *your* planets there.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2018 09:39
|
|
|
Splicer posted:I'm curious, if you have only one planet colonised and enlighten a species on a planet in the same system does your empire just vanish? You immediately lose. Just like if you dyson sphere your last planet's sun.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2018 09:45
|
|
|
Captain Monkey posted:You immediately lose. I kind of feel like both of these should be achievements.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2018 10:06
|
|
|
When you enlighten a primitive civ, don't you also get the option to immediately integrate them into your empire? That seems like it should just become the automatic choice if you do it in the last colonized system you hold.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2018 10:38
|
|
|
Slashrat posted:When you enlighten a primitive civ, don't you also get the option to immediately integrate them into your empire? That seems like it should just become the automatic choice if you do it in the last colonized system you hold. Only possible when you can use infiltration.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2018 10:43
|
|
|
In my current game I decide my new ringworld needs to be a site to store all the various races of the galaxy, just in case -ahem- something -ahem- happens to the rest of the galaxy. So I open up my contacts panel and sort my their opinion of me and start down the list looking to make migration treaties. Highest opinion non-vassal empire... a determined assimilator I funneled resources to after they rebelled from their host because I always find that funny. Second highest? An ordinary hive mind. Third highest? Despotic Barbarians or something like that which apparently cannot migrate. Fourth highest? Goddamn Inward Perfection spiritualists. All of these assholes like me the most because none of us are in the big federation and 'mutual threat' is apparently enough of a reason, I guess. I did manage to get some psychic pops and subsequently made them psychic cyborgs though. Now I just gotta hope I can get them to make leaders. Also I think I'm going to do something I haven't tried before, which is, after collecting the races I want to, set everything else to purge. Nice clean galaxy, no need for sectors. Black Pants fucked around with this message at 10:53 on May 4, 2018 |
|
#
?
May 4, 2018 10:47
|
|
|
If all your friends are socially maladjusted weirdos or outright sociopaths maaaaaybe you're the problem?
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2018 11:13
|
|
|
When can we get a 'demand pops' diplomacy option? I only need one of each species for my bio-trophy collection. I guess the more sustenance inclined could use it for food variety.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2018 11:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 20, 2024 04:56 |
|
|
isndl posted:When can we get a 'demand pops' diplomacy option? I only need one of each species for my bio-trophy collection. I guess the more sustenance inclined could use it for food variety. Take the Nihilistic Acquisition perk or the Barbaric Despoiler civic and you can do exactly that with the Raiding bombardment stance!
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2018 11:45
|
|