Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Post
  • Reply
Kaal
May 22, 2002

JEREMY CORBYN BULLIED MY NAZI GRANDPA IN PRIMARY SCHOOL



Arrath posted:

I last played about the time Rebellion came out, any idea if they have fixed the rampant desynch problems at all?? That would be aces.

Yeah it's quite playable as far as I know.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Kaal
May 22, 2002

JEREMY CORBYN BULLIED MY NAZI GRANDPA IN PRIMARY SCHOOL



double nine posted:

so they're racist gnomes?

I'd go for "typical goonciv"

Kaal
May 22, 2002

JEREMY CORBYN BULLIED MY NAZI GRANDPA IN PRIMARY SCHOOL



OwlFancier posted:

I think carriers would be better if they could actually launch missions independent of the main fleet. Like you can launch a wave of fighters/bombers across the system to strike a fleet or station without risk to your own fleet, giving them a specific use outside of just being another overcomplicated kind of gun. Then your PD rating basically determines how effective those strikes are and how long it takes the carriers to replenish their wings before they can strike again. It's never going to be overwhelming even if you have no PD but if the fighters are unopposed then they will whittle you down faster with successive strikes.

I would be concerned about replicating Sins of a Solar Empire's carrier-supremacy issues. If one ship type can attack without committing to battle, why use anything else? Combat in Stellaris struggles with not really having a purpose for each ship type. I think that carrier sections would need to differentiate from missile sections in some way beyond range.

Personally, I'd lean towards having fighters debuff enemy defenses and make them take more damage from attacks, as part of a larger move to having cruisers buff / debuff ships with their sections. Give them the carriers, point defense, EW/CNC type sections. That would give them a unique and useful purpose, and also encourage mixed fleets.

Similarly, I'd organize the other ships along similar lines, with corvettes being efficient bruisers that are a good value for minerals, destroyers being effective artillery, and battleships being expensive tanks that are a good value for fleet cap. This would go a long way toward fixing the aimlessness of the current combat dynamics.

Kaal fucked around with this message at 20:44 on May 14, 2018

Kaal
May 22, 2002

JEREMY CORBYN BULLIED MY NAZI GRANDPA IN PRIMARY SCHOOL



hobbesmaster posted:

They should leave strike craft in the dumpster and bring up the atomic rockets page whenever you click on the module.

I mean obviously there's a lot of good points to be made here, and sci-fi writers often are lazy when it comes to exploring outside WW2 combat tropes. But just to defend space fighters a little bit: As long as manuverability is important they're going to exist. Just in purely mathematical terms, there's an inherent advantage in a vehicle having a high thrust to mass ratio. And in an environment where projectiles are devastatingly powerful and accurate, being able to quickly change your velocity will be very important.

And while lasers and other forms of radiation will present unique problems, it should be recognized that those issues are endemic to spaceflight even outside of combat. If a vehicle can't shield its occupants against a reasonable amount of radiation, then it won't be capable of dealing with solar flares or other common extraterrestrial phenomena.

Now depending on the technology those fighters might only have limited use - perhaps only in gravity wells, or only against certain targets - and it certainly could be true that drones will replace manned fighters whenever possible, but I wouldn't ring in the glorious age of space battleships just yet.

Kaal
May 22, 2002

JEREMY CORBYN BULLIED MY NAZI GRANDPA IN PRIMARY SCHOOL



BadOptics posted:

So you basically re-invented missiles. Congrats.

Edit: That being said, 4X games should adhere to two rules: is it fun and is it cool?

I didn't reinvent anything, it's just there's basic reasons that missiles and fighter jets dominate modern combat. Missiles are great but you run into CNC issues fairly quickly with them in space because the distances are so great. There's a 4-24 minute delay between Earth and Mars - far too long for making effective combat decisions. Heck there's more than a 1 second delay between Earth and the Moon, which is already pushing the bounds of an acceptable response rate. So you'll want to mount those missiles on a control vehicle. But how do you protect that vehicle - with armor or with manuverability? Armor isn't perfect against everything so pretty quickly you're sitting right back in a fighter jet.

I mean this is not to say that manuverability will be important in every eventuality. Settings where militaries use nukes freely, or where AI dominates, or where lethal speed of light weapons are common, all present good reasons to not use manned fighter jets. But even then there are reasonable ways for space fighters to operate in that environment. James Doohan (the actor who played Scotty on Star Trek) actually wrote some fairly decent books featuring starfighters in a Newtonian setting, check them out!

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/801968.The_Rising

Kaal fucked around with this message at 12:42 on May 15, 2018

Kaal
May 22, 2002

JEREMY CORBYN BULLIED MY NAZI GRANDPA IN PRIMARY SCHOOL



Splicer posted:

The third is a possibility, but makes the dogfighting layer an afterthought rather than the core competency. Though, a bunch of strike craft milling about shooting each other with the winning side impacting ships and imposing various malluses could be neat...

Yeah I quite like the idea, and I think it would work well with the existing system because it wouldn't require them to introduce a totally new combat mechanic to make it work. Fighters would be useful but not critical - finding the right balance of carriers and point defence would be an interesting sidebet.

Kaal fucked around with this message at 12:49 on May 15, 2018

Kaal
May 22, 2002

JEREMY CORBYN BULLIED MY NAZI GRANDPA IN PRIMARY SCHOOL



hobbesmaster posted:

You can always handwave/invent physics/magic/whatever to make it make sense but the real life physics problems with all this are on that page linked. 4 times the delta v required is huge. Stellaris of course appears to have reactionless drives which has their own massive issues for the setting: http://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/reactionlessdrive.php
(ie, why can't we ram ships into planets at 0.9999c and blow them up?)

Well again the issue with relying on long-range cruise missiles is that the scale of combat is just so much larger than terrestrial combat. At a certain point you're going to need a vehicle to carry those missiles rather than firing them from a planet, because a 30 minute CNC delay is just too long. Heck, modern militaries essentially have instantaneous control of their cruise missiles and they still prefer using jets and drones (for combat awareness reasons as much as cost). In fact Ken Burnside acknowledges that a vehicle would be required in the link. So then it just comes down to haggling over whether armor or maneuverability is more useful for your purpose.

Kaal fucked around with this message at 02:48 on May 16, 2018

Kaal
May 22, 2002

JEREMY CORBYN BULLIED MY NAZI GRANDPA IN PRIMARY SCHOOL



Staltran posted:

The real advantage corvettes have is evasion. Prior to 2.0 small ships had (meaningful amounts of) evasion as a multiplicative defensive stat, and bigger ships had (likewise meaningful) armor. The 2.0 armor change took that advantage away from bigger ships, and their lower sublight speed also became far more important in 2.0. Their only real advantage now is access to L and XL slot weapons.

I think that the reason that corvettes rule the space lanes right now is basically because they're good at all the important parts of combat (speed, evasion, mineral value, war exhaustion) and face virtually no drawbacks from being limited to small or guided weapons. And frankly it's pretty stupid. There really ought to be some benefit to using larger hulls.

Corvettes should have access to small and medium weapons. They should be an efficient use of minerals but an ineffective use of fleet cap. They should rely on evasion and form a frontline screen.

Destroyers should also get access to guided weapons and point defence. They should do great damage for their mineral cost and decent for their fleet cap, but lack endurance.

Cruisers should get fighters and large weapons. They should be good at fleet support and de/buffing, but also be good but mineral pricey all-around fighters.

Battleships should get XL weapons and lots of slots. They're the expensive flagships that are great value for fleet cap and can take and deliver a pounding.

Also: Overhaul or remove the XP system, which doesn't work well. Make defense platforms autoupgrade to cut down on busywork. Take out speed differences between ship classes so that mixed fleets don't wear anchors around their necks. Significantly tone down the disengage mechanic / make it more dangerous to rely on and update the war score system so that players aren't penalized for commiting to battle and seizing enemy territory. Identify a core strength and weakness for each weapon system.

Kaal fucked around with this message at 02:35 on May 24, 2018

Kaal
May 22, 2002

JEREMY CORBYN BULLIED MY NAZI GRANDPA IN PRIMARY SCHOOL



CitizenKain posted:

I like those ideas.

Maybe another thing they need to look at is missiles being only a single slot size, and corvettes being able to use torpedoes at all. Like destroyers should be the smallest hull that can carry torps, with cruisers being able to carry a bunch. As for missiles, maybe have a M and L size mounts that have multiple launchers per spot. Like a cruiser should really be able to lay down a wall of missiles for its size.

Or maybe smaller ships can keep the launchers, but limit their number of shots in an engagement. Like, a corvette gets 2 torps, you get an early burst of damage, but then you have a ship flying around with a puny S weapon. Destroyers have more launches possible. This way you could decide between burst/sustained damage, and how heavy you think someone went in on point defense.

Totally. Well I think there's certainly some promise in looking at missiles and torpedoes as being medium and large slots. I mean the sections for corvettes and cruisers are even called Missile and Torpedo sections respectively. I think that even if the devs didn't want to upend the existing system, they could improve it by limiting corvettes to missiles, and then varying the slots available to each section (I.e. the missile guidance system takes up the space of one of the defense slots) to help balance. I think that adding an ammo mechanic might be overly opaque, but certainly reducing the recharge rate more so that missiles don't out-DPS most other weapons would be a good start.

Of course rebalancing the weapons brings in many other elements, which is why they've struggled with it. The combat computers are wildly unbalanced and encourage dumb tactics like firing torpedoes point-blank. The weapons ranges are all over the place and don't really seem to impact the fight because the computer generally favors getting in as close as possible. There's apparently some targeting issues that make it very difficult to screen your artillery, because the frontline is simply ignored. Basically the combat issues are kind of egregious, particularly if you compare it to the fairly well-considered systems of Sins of a Solar Empire or Eve Online. It's all stuff that probably made sense in isolation, but collectively has led to the uninteresting monofleets that dominate the game. Fortunately combat is really only a quarter of the game.

Hopefully in the aftermath of Niven they'll be able to take a breath and see what they can do to encourage the use of more mixed and balanced fleets.

Kaal fucked around with this message at 16:45 on May 24, 2018

Kaal
May 22, 2002

JEREMY CORBYN BULLIED MY NAZI GRANDPA IN PRIMARY SCHOOL



Staltran posted:

They're in Stellaris/common/ship_sizes/00_ship_sizes.txt:
code:
@speed_very_slow = 80
@speed_slow = 100
@speed_default = 120
@speed_fast = 140
@speed_very_fast = 160
# ...

corvette = {
# ...
	max_speed = @speed_very_fast
# ...
}
destroyer = {
# ...
	max_speed = @speed_fast
# ...
}
cruiser = {
# ...	
	max_speed = @speed_default
# ...
}
battleship = {
# ...
	max_speed = @speed_slow
# ...
}
titan = {
# ...
	max_speed = @speed_slow
# ...
}
Acceleration and rotation speed are also there. However, the values seem to apply both in and out of combat. So there doesn't seem to be possible to have all ships be as fast out of combat, but have smaller ships be faster in combat. I think you could still make combat speeds slower in general by reducing all of these and increasing SHIP_SUBLIGHT_SPEED_MULT in Stellaris/common/defines/00_defines.txt. The default is 5, which sounds a bit much for being the multiplier for out of combat speed vs combat speed, but it could still be it. SHIP_SPEED_SCALE might also be relevant.

MISSILE_SUBLIGHT_SPEED_MULT might affect strike craft too? The comment says "General speed multiplier for ship movement within solar systems", but they might have just copypasted that from the previous line and forgot to change ship to missile.

There's also MISSILE_BASE_ROTATION_SPEED, but you probably don't need to touch that.

What happens if you set the max speed of all ships to be equal, but reduce the acceleration and rotation of the larger classes. I would think that it might have the desired effect, and it would even appear Newtonian (because realistically bigger space ships would be just as fast as smaller ones, if not faster due to larger engines and better inertial dampeners / space magic, they would just take more time to get going.)

Kaal fucked around with this message at 02:32 on May 25, 2018

Kaal
May 22, 2002

JEREMY CORBYN BULLIED MY NAZI GRANDPA IN PRIMARY SCHOOL



So I went ahead and picked up the DLC thanks to all the deals going around right now, and laughed super hard when I realized that the Artist's Enclave is a stand-in for National Public Radio - complete with a Donations Week 😂😂

Kaal
May 22, 2002

JEREMY CORBYN BULLIED MY NAZI GRANDPA IN PRIMARY SCHOOL



Tomn posted:

Really? I just thought it was Kickstarter/crowdfunding in general.

You're probably right that it's not specific to NPR, but their whole "Gosh we just don't know if we can continue our work providing culture to the masses, can you donate some credits to keep us going" just reminded me of them so clearly.

Kaal
May 22, 2002

JEREMY CORBYN BULLIED MY NAZI GRANDPA IN PRIMARY SCHOOL



OwlFancier posted:

Yes the tile system can definitely be made more interesting and the AI can be made to handle it better too, but I am hopeful that the new system is going to prove more interesting still.

I totally agree with this. The tile system isn't too bad in theory, but it struggles to scale. The sector system was the intended solution for this, but it just doesn't work well enough for you to let the sector AI handle it alone - especially newly colonized planets. That's fixable, especially if the player was given more control over governing the AI, but developing a new system works too.

On a related note, the tile system is getting rendered a bit of a moot point when planets are basically the only place to invest in mineral production - which is the key resource for most of the game. As a result a lot of the tile mechanic is just getting ignored.

Kaal fucked around with this message at 18:44 on May 27, 2018

Kaal
May 22, 2002

JEREMY CORBYN BULLIED MY NAZI GRANDPA IN PRIMARY SCHOOL



Meldonox posted:

Hi guys, thanks for the advice this morning. I'm about to settle in for the afternoon and put some of it to practice.

Is there a priority to how I build out tiles? Like, if I'm doing a ton of power plants to bolster my energy production but have a ton of mineral income and am running a robot society, do I just plop them down on empty/mineral/food tiles? Should I keep science tiles clear unless I have a big imbalance or are those always good to exploit as are?

And should I keep trading excess minerals to my next door neighbor since I've been grooming them as a buffer on one of my chokepoints, or is it less dangerous to sell for a lovely rate with the exchange some random race is holding, or should I try to be clever and sell to the xenophobic militarists that are really far away and got beef with the dudes who are talking poo poo at me from the other side of my neighbor?

Sorry for posting a bunch of dumb questions, I'm actually getting into this and want to make sure my first (no doubt inevitably failing) proper campaign leaves me taking away the right habits.

Ultimately, planets are your main source of mineral investment throughout the game, and should be prioritized as much as possible. Starbases can give you tons of energy, as can habitats or Dyson Spheres. Science and Unity can be had pretty easily too, and are largely related to how large you grow rather than specific investment. You're likely to be swimming in Food unless you make a specific effort not to be, and it's not that useful in any case. At the end of the day, it's probably wisest to only match tiles that are at least +2, and otherwise focus on mineral production and planetary uniques.

Kaal fucked around with this message at 21:36 on May 27, 2018

Kaal
May 22, 2002

JEREMY CORBYN BULLIED MY NAZI GRANDPA IN PRIMARY SCHOOL



OwlFancier posted:

As a corrolary to this, mineral income is only useful as long as you have something to spend it on, and unless you are trying to conquer everyone that can cap out quite quickly, so you can also focus, or refocus, on science production as well.

This is certainly true, particularly in the early game. Fleets, starbases, and megaprojects take up most of your mineral income. If you are only investing in one or two of these areas, then you can prioritize science instead. That being said, a habitat takes minerals to build and is a fantastic source of science.

Kaal
May 22, 2002

JEREMY CORBYN BULLIED MY NAZI GRANDPA IN PRIMARY SCHOOL



really queer Christmas posted:

Distant stars trait spoiler

Are brain slug traits bugged? Iíve got a ruler and scientist with brain slugs and neither are giving the bonuses. Specifically, research speed for the scientist and tile research output and naval capacity for the ruler

Yeah I don't think they work, or at least don't display

Kaal
May 22, 2002

JEREMY CORBYN BULLIED MY NAZI GRANDPA IN PRIMARY SCHOOL



Rutibex posted:

Moo2 had warp drives and space terrain. You couldn't warp through space with a black hole, and going through a nebula made your warp drive go to a crawl. Taking out the other FTL options just feels lazy as gently caress to me. If they wanted to they could have added terrain modifiers to the other types of movement.

Having different strategic considerations based on what sort of FTL type you opponent uses adds all sorts of interesting gameplay. If its two star lane civilization next to each other you get the choke points, but if you happen to be next to a wormhole species you need to adjust to that and play differently. That sounds like variety to me!

I think that the Sword of the Stars comparison is apt: Giving species different movement types works well when it's baked into their design - if not, then it's a very difficult balancing act and the AI will probably struggle. Adding variety is interesting, but the game should be able to implement it well.

Kaal
May 22, 2002

JEREMY CORBYN BULLIED MY NAZI GRANDPA IN PRIMARY SCHOOL



Rutibex posted:

Its lazy in the sense that they didn't bother trying to flesh out the three distinct FTL types and make them more strategic in combination with each other. That would have obviously been a lot harder to design, so the lazy option is to just throw it out and do the same space lane stuff every other 4X game does.

I can't blame them for taking three dysfunctional travel systems and deciding to make one working and indepth travel system with a couple variants, rather than three complexly interlocking ones. What you're describing is cool but it also sounds like an expansion unto itself. Personally I'd rather have them focus on refining the existing systems.

Kaal
May 22, 2002

JEREMY CORBYN BULLIED MY NAZI GRANDPA IN PRIMARY SCHOOL



Milky Moor posted:

I find it weird that people don't seem to get that in a world where warp and wormholes existed, taking hyperlanes was literally the trap option.

I don't think it has to be. In SotS, the hyperlane options were totally viable because they were very fast compared to the other travel modes, and that worked well in combination with the expansionist species that used them. Whereas the warp drives were comparatively slow, and gateways had all sorts of limits on them. And even then, all the species could use STL travel as a backup when necessary. But their movement types were bound up with their other racial traits. The strength of individual Morrigi vessels was balanced by how slow they traveled when alone. The potent swarms of Hivers were balanced by limitations on how many could fit through a gate. The races who could react quickly tended to have weaker ships meaning they needed spend more time marshaling forces. It wasn't a perfect system, but it was one founded upon counterbalances. I do agree that without those counterbalances, the inherent inflexibility of node-based travel would always really struggle to compete in an asymmetric system.

Baronjutter posted:

I just had some random power I've never interacted with give me 12,000 minerals, so they're pretty smart.

And I bet your Opinion of them improved, didn't it?

Kaal fucked around with this message at 15:27 on May 28, 2018

Kaal
May 22, 2002

JEREMY CORBYN BULLIED MY NAZI GRANDPA IN PRIMARY SCHOOL



Aethernet posted:

Someone asked in the thread the other day which civics they should take, so I've prepared a short guide for the non-special civics - the ones that can be swapped out. As before, I'd prefer that it represented the Goon Consensus, so please point out anything I should change before putting it in the OP.

These recommendations look great. You might be interested in checking out this other excellent guide to Stellaris perks / ethics / etc: https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=910342178

Kaal
May 22, 2002

JEREMY CORBYN BULLIED MY NAZI GRANDPA IN PRIMARY SCHOOL



Nightgull posted:

Why would anyone pick wet planets then? Society is always my highest research number and food is pretty much solved by station buildings.

Food just comes out of my ears in this game, to the point that I'll basically do whatever I can to get rid of it. My last game I was making +300 food, with 5000 stocked up. And I was going around replacing +2 farms and closing hydroponics stations and replacing them with nothing just to save on energy costs. They could double pop food costs and it would hardly affect my play.

Kaal
May 22, 2002

JEREMY CORBYN BULLIED MY NAZI GRANDPA IN PRIMARY SCHOOL



Thrasophius posted:

So its a double whammy. Corvette spam was already a thing but now its even more so. Seems like an unintentional buff to me.

That's a shame, I did like my battleships but now they have to slowboat it across systems too to jump. Why use them?

It's a big speed difference too. A corvette with afterburners can be twice as fast as a battleship without one. Yet corvettes also give you excellent combat power per fleet cap. They also do a great job of jumping out rather than dying, which is good for your war score. It's difficult to justify using any other ship type in mechanical terms.

Tomn posted:

It does mean strategic positioning matters now, though. If they're trying to get through a star system and you have a fleet in said system, you can reliably bring them to battle, instead of having to jump all over creation trying to get juuuust the right angle of approach to either land directly on top of the enemy to force them to fight or at least land in close enough that you can cool down the FTL engines and catch the enemy before they jump out.

For my money, having to move across a system is way, way less tedious than the micromanagement hell of trying to pin down an enemy fleet pre 2.0.

Yeah I think it's only a good thing that ships need to cross systems to jump, rather than simply never going inside a gravity well. And a corvette fleet moves fairly quickly through a system. The issue is mainly that larger ships take so long that you end up really waiting around for them. All ships should move at or near the same speed, and Hyperspace Registrars should be stronger and have an increased aura effect to include nearby systems so that building a highway is feasible.

Black Pants posted:

During a regular war, if you occupy a system with a gateway, the gateway still belongs to the empire you're at war with, and they can still use it.

Yeah and it's really dumb. Gateways should be controlled by whomever controls the starbase. Perhaps give them a cool down mechanic like the starbases so they can't be used immediately by the winning side.

Kaal fucked around with this message at 10:56 on Jun 1, 2018

Kaal
May 22, 2002

JEREMY CORBYN BULLIED MY NAZI GRANDPA IN PRIMARY SCHOOL



Clanpot Shake posted:

So how many people actually bother with the ship designer? In my last 2 games (Captain difficulty) I've had no problem with fleet composition. It helps that I can consistently out-tech the AI, but even against the contingency and the prethoryns I didn't have much trouble. Is tailoring your fleets more necessary at higher difficulties?

I'm also wary of bothering with the ship designer because the fleet manager is still so wonky. Even with only auto-generated designs, with all fleets fully upgraded, still it sometimes wants to reinforce all of my corvettes, thinking I'm at 0/50, when I'm actually full or even over (like 80/50, which happens if you do reinforce unnecessarily).

It may be that you're running into an issue where fleet manager doesn't work well with manual fleet management that is occurs when merging fleets or building directly from a shipyard with an orbiting fleet. If you only use fleet manager, or refuse to use fleet manager, you should run into no issues. Otherwise you may occasionally have to prune your fleet requirements in the manager.

Kaal
May 22, 2002

JEREMY CORBYN BULLIED MY NAZI GRANDPA IN PRIMARY SCHOOL



ulmont posted:

Another oddity: I (aggressor) have lost 41 ground armies in this war, giving me 23% war exhaustion just from that. My opponent has lost 175 ground armies and gained...0% war exhaustion.

That doesnít seem quite balanced.

Edit: also thereís no possible way Iíve lost 41 ground armies in this war.

The math for war exhaustion makes no sense and isn't worth understanding to my mind. It just is a black box to me. Lose ten systems and three planets? No worries. Do your battleships take damage in the process but not actually suffer losses? 5% war exhaustion. Your corvettes get slammed and emergency warp out? Totes fine. Does nothing happen all month? 1% war exhaustion.

Kaal
May 22, 2002

JEREMY CORBYN BULLIED MY NAZI GRANDPA IN PRIMARY SCHOOL



Thrasophius posted:

That sounds really lovely. What happens when you reach 100%? Is it like Europa where everything goes to poo poo and people rebel?

I believe that you get a 20% happiness malus, and in 24 months your opponent may force a status quo peace. Also war exhaustion is an opinion factor for getting the AI to accept peace terms.

Kaal fucked around with this message at 05:48 on Jun 2, 2018

Kaal
May 22, 2002

JEREMY CORBYN BULLIED MY NAZI GRANDPA IN PRIMARY SCHOOL



Dareon posted:

The Great Khan surfaced like five jumps from me. A year later I pledged fealty to them. A year after that the Khan died in battle against another loving raider empire. A year after THAT, the Khanate went back to its raiding roots, leaving two hostile 13k fleets in my space when I was still struggling to build a fleet above 10k.

It's fine, I didn't want to know what was on the other side of that L-Gate anyway. It's not like this is the fourth game I've played since Distant Stars and the first time an L-Gate has even been a possibility for me. Never mind that I had to literally triple my outpost count to reach it (I was playing tall inward perfection).

It's ok, I just popped open an L Gate at 2270 or thereabouts, having about a 10k Navy and a 15k Fed Fleet. After intentionally not spoiled myself about anything about them. It went similarly.

Also the damned things all beelined for my systems despite my owning the only L Gate on my side of the galaxy. About five years into the rout, my federation presidency switched hats and the fed fleet retreated entirely. I managed to take out one of the 30k fleets rampaging my systems, but the other two were just wrecking havoc. There were still 80k worth of fleets guarding the entrance to the L cluster. It was about the time that one of them took a wormhole to the center of a my friendly fallen protectors cluster and then started demolishing them at the same time that I threw in the towel.

Now I get to try out the beta patch!

Kaal
May 22, 2002

JEREMY CORBYN BULLIED MY NAZI GRANDPA IN PRIMARY SCHOOL



wiegieman posted:

It's a sucker's game to delay your expansion for a chance at 3 minerals on a moon. Expand more.

Yes, you might get 5 of each research. I don't care. Expand more.

Use your initial science ship to explore rather than survey, and use your minerals in your planet and starting system. You'll spot where all the nearby planets are, and by the time Discovery pops you'll know which systems to prioritize.

Kaal fucked around with this message at 00:57 on Jun 8, 2018

Kaal
May 22, 2002

JEREMY CORBYN BULLIED MY NAZI GRANDPA IN PRIMARY SCHOOL



Vengarr posted:

Not letting them be purged just causes the purging fleet to get pissy and kill your outpost before loving off (without destroying the planet), so it's not a big deal either way.

Wiki says a purge turns the planet into a barren world

I believe that is actually a bug, because there's more to that event chain that doesn't get triggered right now.

Kaal
May 22, 2002

JEREMY CORBYN BULLIED MY NAZI GRANDPA IN PRIMARY SCHOOL



McSpanky posted:

Some events to spice up the terminally long indoctrination of stone/bronze/etc age primitives would be nice too, I realize turning cavemen into astronauts takes time but I hope something more engaging than watching a bar fill ever... so... slowly is in the cards.

There actually is an event or two that does this, but it's relatively rare and not super powerful.

Kaal
May 22, 2002

JEREMY CORBYN BULLIED MY NAZI GRANDPA IN PRIMARY SCHOOL



It took me losing two Iron Man games in a row to realize that L-gates are basically end-game content. I thought I could handle poking around in the early game to see what it was, but I was wrong. Then I thought I could take all the wandering fleets in the mid-game, which I more or less could, but then discovered that I'd need to defeat a system with a combined fleet size of 240k at the same time. Nope. There really ought to be a better warning of the scale of the thing. Also, I don't care what the event said, those fleets had no problem targeting me immediately via my L-gate. My empire and my federation buddy looked like swiss cheese, while all the fanatic purifiers and democratic crusaders on our borders were left untouched.

Kaal fucked around with this message at 01:04 on Jun 10, 2018

Kaal
May 22, 2002

JEREMY CORBYN BULLIED MY NAZI GRANDPA IN PRIMARY SCHOOL



Kestral posted:

Right? It's clearly possible and I'd love to make it work, because it appeals to the perfectionist in me, but I'm baffled as to how you generate that kind of income, unity, and tech simultaneously while rushing for 13ish planets.

Well there's been a variety of balance changes since 2.0.2 to make going wide more viable, but it still seems viable in theory since the penalties for going wide are still pretty punitive in comparison. Set up the galaxy generator for lots of planets, and turn the difficulty low so you don't need to worry about other empires (which is what they did in the Reddit thread). Only put outposts on systems with planets, and use some variety of a machine empire for rapid specialized pop production. And pick your techs strictly according to the tier requirements so you can grab mega engineering precisely when you want it.

Kaal
May 22, 2002

JEREMY CORBYN BULLIED MY NAZI GRANDPA IN PRIMARY SCHOOL



Arrath posted:

Well where's the fun when you don't have the AI trying to strangle you in the crib you when you're sitting there with 10 corvettes and no defensive stations to speak of.

Agreed. Though I can say that for the folks who just aren't interested in the combat mechanics, this would be an interesting economic challenge.

Kaal
May 22, 2002

JEREMY CORBYN BULLIED MY NAZI GRANDPA IN PRIMARY SCHOOL



Elias_Maluco posted:

Newbie question: how much should I expand?

Its my first game after the tutorial, fand initally I had to expand like crazy to find habitable planets (got some bad luck in this). Then I just kept going because, why not? There aint much else to do. Eventually I got bigger and stronger and more advanced than all players Ive met, but still a lot weaker than the 2 "fallen empires" Ive found (Im not sure if I understand what that is)

Now I realized its making traditions a lot more expensive (like 240% for colonies, 100% more for systems etc), but still I feel like Im missing out if I dont grab those sweet systems. Besides, I really dont have much else to do. Recently I got the traditikn to allow federations but no one wants to join me on one anyway

I'm really not sure if expanding actually pays for itself, to be honest. Obviously they generate some resources, and there's a strategic value of a sort, but with the influence cost and science and unity penalities, it's hard to say that you really come out ahead compared to hunkering down in a handful of starting systems and building a bunch of habitats. I would say that largely the benefit is that the game is more fun when you strive to expand and engage in diplomacy, even though playing as Space Denmark is probably your surest ticket to power. At least there isn't a science victory, so you have to eventually engage with the world around you to win.

Kaal
May 22, 2002

JEREMY CORBYN BULLIED MY NAZI GRANDPA IN PRIMARY SCHOOL



Elias_Maluco posted:

Im playing a pacifist empire, so go warring is not even a option

I didnt even knew there was also science penalties, but I was feeling that the more I grown, the more everything just becomes more slow. I have amazing energy and mineral incomes, but that doenst seems all that useful anymore: I have more than enough for anything I could want to build or keep and Im constantly hitting maximum storage capacities

Also, Im probably 2x or 3x the size of anyone else in the universe alreeady

The only problem with stopping the expansion business is that I really dont know what else to do. I mean, I can keep surveying the universe, but that seems kinda pointless if I dont aim to get expand more and it seems Im not even getting cool events anymore (like I had a lot, in the beginning)

Start making megastructures, or reform your government so that you aren't a pacifist.

Kaal
May 22, 2002

JEREMY CORBYN BULLIED MY NAZI GRANDPA IN PRIMARY SCHOOL



Elias_Maluco posted:

I dont have the tech yet (even though Ive found lots of abandoned ones)

Suppose I want to keep pacifist, what else can I do while I wait for the megastructures tech?

Start handing out huge bribes to get people to join your federation.

Kaal
May 22, 2002

JEREMY CORBYN BULLIED MY NAZI GRANDPA IN PRIMARY SCHOOL



CoolHandMat posted:

so no one has had the Brain Slugs go bad?

Nope, they seem to be honest to gosh symbiotes.

Kaal
May 22, 2002

JEREMY CORBYN BULLIED MY NAZI GRANDPA IN PRIMARY SCHOOL



Moonwolf posted:

Are factions broken in the beta? Just turned it on and my purifiers keep having their factions disappear at the end of the month, and then come back, which makes influence planning a pain.

I had something similar happen, where my Authoritarian faction appeared, then a Spiritualist faction, and then my Authoritarian faction disappeared, and later came back. No idea what to make of it.

Kaal
May 22, 2002

JEREMY CORBYN BULLIED MY NAZI GRANDPA IN PRIMARY SCHOOL



Captain Invictus posted:

Factions disappear if there are zero pops in them, they reappear when at least one pop picks up the banner once again.

That's what I figured happened, except it was bizarre that the Authoritarian faction went from 10 pops, to 5 pops, to none, and back to 5. My guess is that something about the faction system bootstraps the system by pushing pops in one direction or another, and the Authoritarian faction couldn't maintain itself in the face of all the temples.

Kaal fucked around with this message at 12:36 on Jun 14, 2018

Kaal
May 22, 2002

JEREMY CORBYN BULLIED MY NAZI GRANDPA IN PRIMARY SCHOOL



Arrath posted:

I actually still had this occur as of a few days ago, on the beta patch.

Well it was specifically addressed as a resolved issue in the last update. No idea what the problem would be.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Kaal
May 22, 2002

JEREMY CORBYN BULLIED MY NAZI GRANDPA IN PRIMARY SCHOOL



FTL inhibitors do a better job of defending territory than all the defense platforms in the world. Whether or not the game needs another reason to drag out the endgame is another matter entirely.

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Post
  • Reply