|
Electro-Boogie Jack posted:Same lack of clarity when they don't tell you what this new science agreement/non-aggression pact/whatever is going to cost you. No idea how they redesigned the diplomacy stuff without fixing that; this is stuff the game shouldn't have shipped with, to say nothing if it still being unclear years later. What, you don't like the "Do you want to join this pact we're not going to explain to you at all?" prompts?
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2020 20:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 10:00 |
|
|
PittTheElder posted:The problem of taking over AI worlds has already been addressed, but generally speaking when you're seeing huge swings like that, its because you have a surplus of worker tier jobs, and the AI is allocating your workers somewhere else. Then your stockpile of one resource eventually runs low, so the AI retasks the workers to address the shortage en masse, giving you the huge swings. Yeah I think it was both of these actually, plus sometimes trade "collapsing" so you lose one or two major arteries to piracy. The biggest issue I think is that feedback is not immmediate - the numbers refresh every month rather than every day, so maybe something changes on the 2nd of the month but you only find out the effects 29 days later. E: I think a third issue is with the monthly trades that turn on and off somewhat arbitrarily. For example: I have a monthly purchase of 33 gas. Sometimes, it stops buying it month to month, so you have something like this (right is when the buy order doesn't go through, left is when it does):  canepazzo fucked around with this message at 20:26 on Mar 22, 2020 |
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2020 20:21
|
|
|
Psycho Landlord posted:Strike craft chat in here is pretty great because people are going all in on carriers with no support and then wondering why they can't crack hard targets and battleship fleets Mr. Crow posted:This. Just making sure we're agreeing on this then: You feel that the carrier combat computer exists solely to push the engagement range out (so, you buy ONE for the entire fleet), and you're happy with the H slots being long-range PD, and the rest of the slots on the carrier-ai ship being blank? This you guys feel is the 'correct' use case? And while I agree with that as being the best of what you're going to get out of them... it's still total poo poo. There's probably space 4x games that do worse, but I've not played them.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2020 20:39
|
|
|
Psycho Landlord posted:Strike craft chat in here is pretty great because people are going all in on carriers with no support and then wondering why they can't crack hard targets and battleship fleets More of that please.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2020 20:44
|
|
|
canepazzo posted:E: I think a third issue is with the monthly trades that turn on and off somewhat arbitrarily. For example: I have a monthly purchase of 33 gas. Sometimes, it stops buying it month to month, so you have something like this (right is when the buy order doesn't go through, left is when it does):
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2020 20:45
|
|
|
Serephina posted:Just making sure we're agreeing on this then: You feel that the carrier combat computer exists solely to push the engagement range out (so, you buy ONE for the entire fleet), and you're happy with the H slots being long-range PD, and the rest of the slots on the carrier-ai ship being blank? This you guys feel is the 'correct' use case?  Do you mean the AI builds carriers with blank slots? That's a bug, clearly.Also sadly, I think I've played all of the games that are worse than Stellaris in terms of combat. All of them.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2020 20:45
|
|
|
Serephina posted:Just making sure we're agreeing on this then: You feel that the carrier combat computer exists solely to push the engagement range out (so, you buy ONE for the entire fleet), and you're happy with the H slots being long-range PD, and the rest of the slots on the carrier-ai ship being blank? This you guys feel is the 'correct' use case? No, because as I said they eat corvettes and destroyers for breakfast - they attack faster than everything but auto cannons and go through shields. They fall off against heavier armor on cruisers and battleships, hence the need for big guns in other parts of your fleet. You could do one carrier for engagement shenanigans and leave it at that, or you could have some cruiser carriers interspersed as I stated and watch your enemy's screen disappear faster instead of continually eating your KA and XL shots that would be better served pounding on said cruisers and battleships. This also masses your carriers into a blob with overlapping PD in case something does go wrong, meaning you're much more likely to jump them out. tl:dr no, we're not in agreement because you're approaching strike craft from an inherently flawed doctrine within Stellaris combat and you're not acknowledging that. Psycho Landlord fucked around with this message at 21:00 on Mar 22, 2020 |
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2020 20:50
|
|
|
Splicer posted:Do you set a cost cap for your auto buys? Nope, I don't. However, it sometimes gives me a popup that tells me that one of my buy orders is too high a price nonetheless.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2020 20:52
|
|
|
Libluini posted:
No, I mean that the carrier-computer sits the ship back at 150, which is roughly the outmost ring of the system when the fight is happening at the station. Until your 'front line' collapses and the ball move up a bit, absolutely zero guns on that 'carrier' ship will be firing. The L slot (if you have one) can fire when the enemy ball hits your artillery line, and the rest won't shoot until the carrier itself is mobbed. My point was that any ship using the carrier-computer is effectively removing itself from the fight (apart from the strike craft) (also apart from other dumb scenarios, all of which boil down to your fleet getting wiped). It's a *very* hard sell for a new feature that's supposed to be improved and functioning well. Psycho Landlord posted:No, because as I said they eat corvettes and destroyers for breakfast - they attack faster than everything but auto cannons and go through shields. They fall off against heavier armor on cruisers and battleships, hence the need for big guns in other parts of your fleet. You could do one carrier for engagement shenanigans and leave it at that, or you could have some cruiser carriers interspersed as I stated and watch your enemy's screen disappear faster instead of continually eating your KA and XL shots that would be better served pounding on said cruisers and battleships. This also masses your carriers into a blob with overlapping PD in case something does go wrong, meaning you're much more likely to jump them out. That heavy armour comment is odd also... you understand that Strike Craft do +50% to armour? If you kinda mean "big ball of hp" then that makes sense though, a corvettes major defense is evasion rather than hp, but there are so many other better ways to clear them rather than waiting for your L-slot PD to get around to it. Serephina fucked around with this message at 21:07 on Mar 22, 2020 |
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2020 20:56
|
|
|
Serephina posted:No, I mean that the carrier-computer sits the ship back at 150, which is roughly the outmost ring of the system when the fight is happening at the station. Until your 'front line' collapses and the ball move up a bit, absolutely zero guns on that 'carrier' ship will be firing. The L slot (if you have one) can fire when the enemy ball hits your artillery line, and the rest won't shoot until the carrier itself is mobbed. Oh, you meant the Carrier-computer. Now I understand what you are getting at. You are wrong, because you are excluding two main cases (at least) were your carriers would be under threat: Fights that happen when fleets with jump drive or next to the same hyperlane entry point land on each other and the inevitable shitball that happens when a cloud of corvettes manages to breach through your defenses. If your carriers have at least some weapons besides fighters when that happens, you lose less carriers. Simple math. Psycho Landlord posted:tl:dr no, we're not in agreement because you're approaching strike craft from an inherently flawed doctrine within Stellaris combat and you're not acknowledging that. My (often described in this thread) carrier support doctrine clearly isn't flawed as I've been winning countless fights with only minor losses.  But you're right, we're apparently really not in agreement. 
Libluini fucked around with this message at 21:01 on Mar 22, 2020 |
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2020 20:57
|
|
|
Libluini posted:But you're right, we're apparently really not in agreement. My post was at Seraphina, not you.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2020 20:58
|
|
|
Psycho Landlord posted:My post was at Seraphina, not you. Take this as a lesson to always use quote.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2020 21:02
|
|
|
I truly missed the discourse this thread can produce Stellaris is magical, you guys Serephina posted:I'm sorry to be a big internet warrior over this... but I think you're talking out of your rear end. I JUST posted a screenie of strike craft making GBS threads the bed against a fleet heavy with corvettes and destroyers. The save file is Ironman, but I can screencap other parts of my ship design and possibly theirs if you want. The enemy screen doesn't 'disappear' to strike craft in 2.6.1, as they appear to spend most of their lives chasing down errant missles and whatnot. Why are you apologizing for posting as you normally post? Yeah the armor comment was more about total health, I should have been more clear about that. Also you posted yourself that you think said corvettes were missile spamming, which with only 15 battleships worth of hangars and no supporting elements of course that's going to overwhelm your fighters, since there were 45 corvettes alone in that fight, to say nothing of the station itself. Strike craft attack missiles on a squadron basis, not individually. If there are more missiles in the air then there are squadrons and you aren't being covered by PD, then your strike craft will be focused on the PD role. If you have enough PD to saturate, say on your own corvette screen, then suddenly your strike craft are freed up for attack runs. For the third time, a complete focus on Carriers to the exclusion of supporting elements is going to perform badly, straight up. EDIT: On a completely different topic, has anyone used the Amazing Space Battles mod and can comment on just what "longer battles" means? I used the component weapon effects back when they were their own thing and liked them a lot but I'm not sure if I want to use the main mod and deal with actual balance changes or just go for the stripped down effects only version. Psycho Landlord fucked around with this message at 21:28 on Mar 22, 2020 |
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2020 21:14
|
|
|
How do yall build your late game fleets anyway? I've seen so much ocntradictory advice about it. Lately I've seen suggestions for just battleships and destroyers, and zero corvettes/cruisers. I've always tried to keep equal fleet cap in each size, but that was a simplicity thing.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2020 21:46
|
|
|
Oh yea for sure, building one-note fleets is bad, except for when it's not. The classic example of a big blob of battleships packing big dumb L and X slots beats everything, not because of carefully crafted finesse but rather that the AI mixes its fleets and so the artillery nukes everything then cleans up the corvettes later. There's some theory of using 100k fleets of pure 'vettes and that might actually happen in multiplayer but against the AI big guns alpha striking will win. The reason I'm running around building these gimmick fleets is to actually see what the changes have brought around. Like actual, empirical testing of what they do well and poorly at. And the only way to do this is to lean into things and see what breaks. Your fleets of mixed Bships and Destroyers and Strike craft for example; how can you TELL that the strike craft are what's killing the enemy vettes and not the rest of your mixed fleet doing well with the "carriers" dragging their feet? Remember that guy who did actual testing with pure hanger fleets (no other modules) to find out exactly where Ameobas lie in effectiveness? Since you sure as hell can't trust the ingame numbers. He also found out that the lovely teir1 "scouts" beat everything as a result, since they shoot down bombers. Stuff like that sort of testing. I don't have the patience to recreate all that v various fleets, so I'm just playing with empires which try to focus on getting strike craft out first and then have the rest of the tech follow up, and see how the fleets perform. So, back to real-world results. I sent a fleet of triple the size against a guppy of the 'exaclty wrong' composition; heavier on vettes and destroyers, zero PD, and my fleet got near-wrecked and now I can pick over what went wrong. They brought some missiles and strike craft, but I also had shittons of normal PD which would have been overkill (and was), but the strike craft still spent their time playing at missile chasing instead of applying their DPS to the fragile 'vettes. My take-away from this is that hangars are basically now L-sized PD, which can cover ships not themselves. That's interesting enough, but if you want PD there are way better ways of getting it rather than building the world's shittiest battleship, which has knock-on effects on what the real value of said configs are compared to more traditional fleets. I hope that's all clear. And since you've basically gone into name-calling here Psycho Landlord, how about you go take your anecdotes about "hurr durr I just mix fleets and win against smaller ones that must mean everything is fine", shove it, and come back when you have something concrete about 2.6.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2020 21:49
|
|
|
Serephina posted:And since you've basically gone into name-calling here Psycho Landlord, how about you go take your anecdotes about "hurr durr I just mix fleets and win against smaller ones that must mean everything is fine", shove it, and come back when you have something concrete about 2.6. I'm not? I apologize if it was perceived that way, but the only sarcasm I've posted in this entire exchange was my initial statement about carrier chat's direction. Don't really appreciate your reductive and incorrect read of my argument there at the end though, because if that's what you actually think I'm saying you've been arguing against a non-existent entity for the past hour. In response to the actual meat of that post, yes I recognize what you're trying to achieve, and my initial point was, in fact, that Strike Craft's primary purpose was engagement range extension for your entire fleet. The recent statements about combat doctrine are about optimizing their inclusion into your fleet to achieve that range extension without creating a single failure point that removes that capability from your fleet IE a weaponless single carrier, which can occasionally be tagged with an XL weapon during merges, even at extreme range. I don't share your conclusions about *exactly* how strike craft behave in combat based on my own experience, but I'm not where I can easily do tests or post screenshots to compare with yours so it's going to be a moot point.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2020 21:58
|
|
|
I didn't appreciate the "Why are you apologizing for posting as you normally post?", but I think I'm going to give it a rest, sorry for being aggressive. D.A.R.E says: Carriers: not even once, kids, lets you end up like him.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2020 22:03
|
|
|
yikes! posted:How do yall build your late game fleets anyway? I've seen so much ocntradictory advice about it. Lately I've seen suggestions for just battleships and destroyers, and zero corvettes/cruisers. ~Corvettes with the ratio of:
~Cruisers with the ratio of:
~Battleships with the ratio of:
It works well for me against the AI, but I dont think that doing well against the AI is a high bar to clear, sooooo, yeah. edit: I like doing monofleets so I can peel the Corvettes off to take undefended systems or intercept stragglers, or peel the Cruisers off to go take down a minor upgraded station while the BBs bombard a planet, that kind of poo poo. The Corvettes and Cruisers can zip around taking out low priority targets while the BBs knock over sandcastles. Also it progresses nicely in that I can get the Cruisers up and running before the BBs, and I keep them as the smaller big brother that can take down stations much faster than Corvettes. AAAAA! Real Muenster fucked around with this message at 22:16 on Mar 22, 2020 |
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2020 22:13
|
|
|
Some more strike craft research from reddit: Using them as PD-bait for a missile-heavy fleet sounds interesting. quote:
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2020 22:14
|
|
|
For people who have been experimenting with all this stuff: can you put carrier computers on battleships with no hangar slots? If so, I'm quite curious to test a setup like this: 15 all big gun BBs, lets say Giga Cannon + 4 Neutron Launchers 4 support CVs, with as many hangars as it'll let you add, random guns to fill the rest idk 4 support CCs, with all medium guns (some mix of plasma and kinetics) Everything with carrier computers. That's basically the composition I run now, except with all CCs rather than CVs. The cruisers are just there to melt corvettes just in case the AI happens to get close (and tend to die first, which is fine) while the battleship line does basically all the work. But maybe that can be done more effectively now, especially if the carrier computers actually keep your ships at range now? Or maybe even just switch them all over to battleships really. PittTheElder fucked around with this message at 22:18 on Mar 22, 2020 |
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2020 22:15
|
|
Yes, it's like a lava lamp.
|
Serephina posted:I didn't appreciate the "Why are you apologizing for posting as you normally post?", but I think I'm going to give it a rest, sorry for being aggressive. Yeah nah that was me saying I didn't read you as being any more aggressive or internet warrior-y than normal, my bad. Also using your analogy there everyone in the thread will be fielding all-carrier fleets in a week right alongside the D.A.R.E reps EDIT: Anno posted:Some more strike craft research from reddit: See that's all super interesting to me, especially the swarming behavior loving up their DPS part, because all my usage of them has been in mass-combat scenarios - I only use carriers in large fleets and tend to only deploy those fleets against other large fleets so their flight pattern hasn't been as big an issue. One of the reasons I was interested in that mod I posted about earlier is that it allegedly altered strike craft swarm behavior in a significant way. Psycho Landlord fucked around with this message at 22:21 on Mar 22, 2020 |
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2020 22:16
|
|
|
All this pretty advanced carrier chat has me realising I know very little about how to optimise the game. I found a player, Stefan Annon, on YouTube. Felt like he knew what he was doing, but he's a huge advocate of carrier groups, which is now a little suspect and as such makes me question him a bit. Are there any really good resources for improving your performance?
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2020 22:56
|
|
|
canepazzo posted:Yeah I think it was both of these actually, plus sometimes trade "collapsing" so you lose one or two major arteries to piracy. The biggest issue I think is that feedback is not immmediate - the numbers refresh every month rather than every day, so maybe something changes on the 2nd of the month but you only find out the effects 29 days later. The game does monthly trades before monthly production, so you need to have a stockpile to prevent this issue. For instance if you sell 500 minerals per month and produce 1000, but don't always keep at least 500 minerals on hand, then you'll see your energy go back and forth by 500 minerals worth. This gets even more stupid with trade treaties - if you dip too low in stockpile (even with always net positive production) you'll instantly flake on the trade treaty, cancel it, and offend them.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2020 23:25
|
|
|
canepazzo posted:Nope, I don't. However, it sometimes gives me a popup that tells me that one of my buy orders is too high a price nonetheless.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2020 23:27
|
|
|
Trade leagues are straight up silly. Yes I will take all the trade policy bonuses at level 1, thank you for asking
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2020 23:57
|
|
|
I should really start mixing fleets. Usually I just dump my previous fleet when I get a new ship type.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2020 00:17
|
|
|
ShadowHawk posted:Your problem is likely that you are running out of a resource you are selling. I don't think canepazzo is trying to sell anything
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2020 00:27
|
|
|
Krazyface posted:I don't think canepazzo is trying to sell anything Selling energy in order to buy gas. [edit] If you look at the screenshots posted, about 50% of the outgoing is in trades when they're all working. MrL_JaKiri fucked around with this message at 00:35 on Mar 23, 2020 |
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2020 00:32
|
|
|
I feel there's a good thread title in coronavirus + Origin Trail but it's not coming together Wait how does chrome not know coronavirus is a word
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2020 00:39
|
|
|
Bobfly posted:All this pretty advanced carrier chat has me realising I know very little about how to optimise the game. I found a player, Stefan Annon, on YouTube. Felt like he knew what he was doing, but he's a huge advocate of carrier groups, which is now a little suspect and as such makes me question him a bit. Are there any really good resources for improving your performance? Stefan is legit, though I remain unconvinced that Technocracy is as good as he maintains. If he thinks carriers are amazing I would certainly hear him out.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2020 00:58
|
|
|
I legit am loving the machine world start. Yes I would like to have 25 extra minerals on my home planet right off the bat, no need to spend any construction on my starting system. Made it real easy to just build into alloys on my homeworld and specialize each planet. And I had the first league as my precursor so I snagged the relic world for sweet sweet research.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2020 01:14
|
|
|
Just encountered a smallish bug, the game generated two digsites on the same planet (hidden world and the sentinals) when hidden world conpleted i couldnt select the other one.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2020 01:46
|
|
|
Enigmatic Fortress is spamming the initial quest choice over and over again. Managed to complete it but it had my situation log entirely filled with spam! Edit: also, it looks like an AI fixed up all four sections of an abandoned ring world and only colonized one of them.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2020 01:51
|
|
|
Seems weird that i cant use favors when getting other countries into the federation. Come on materialist bros, you owe me, just let the hivemind into the trade league, they'll keep the determined exterminators from trying poo poo
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2020 03:29
|
|
|
I like Stellaris and I've put almost 400 hours into it but god drat this war system sucks. I've got one rank in Pacifist and I get attacked. They take one colony system of my ally (but not the colony) and I take 10 systems and one colony and we're just barely winning this war. 17% to 22%, then of course I wasn't allowed to chose conquest as a war goal so after all this I have to give it all back, though those systems will change ethics. Woopity loving doo.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2020 04:18
|
|
|
You know how in that one level of Super Mario World where you have to ditch Yoshi into the bottomless nothing in order to reach the secret exit? That's all pacisfism is good for. Playing tall, teching up in record time, then reforming your government. It's a tool to be discarded when you don't need it anymore, just like Yoshi.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2020 05:22
|
|
|
So I won that war by accepting status quo which was a far greater win for me than my war demands since more systems were liberated than I had claims on and instead of changing ethics they formed a new entity that are now my allies. What? And Tyler Too! posted:You know how in that one level of Super Mario World where you have to ditch Yoshi into the bottomless nothing in order to reach the secret exit? That's all pacisfism is good for. Playing tall, teching up in record time, then reforming your government. It's a tool to be discarded when you don't need it anymore, just like Yoshi. First time playing any form of pacifist (because it's a 4X, come on) so I guess I'll swap that out.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2020 05:28
|
|
|
Remember, pacifist means "passive aggressive" not no wars ever. You still have that impose ideology CB, or can easily switch out of fanatic to get it. Those systems won't just "change ethics" they'll create a new empire that is friendly to you. You can' vassalize them, but you can federate them...
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2020 05:29
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:Remember, pacifist means "passive aggressive" not no wars ever. You still have that impose ideology CB, or can easily switch out of fanatic to get it. Yeah, see my last post. Impose ideology option at the start of the war gave no indicator at all that a new ally would be the result. Besides that, status quo being easier to obtain than my lesser war goals is garbage.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2020 05:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 10:00 |
|
|
TOOLTIPS, USE THEM, EVERYWHERE.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2020 05:52
|
|