|
Sloober posted:One of my complaints is that now that ship slot equipment is for all intents hidden, the only thing worth looking at for an enemy fleet is the fleet power stat Yeah same, it's unfortunate. They should reduce intel requirements by 10 across the board, which would fix that issue.
|
#
¿
Jun 2, 2021 04:23
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 24, 2024 11:00 |
|
|
alcaras posted:Is there a good tl;dr on correct 3.0 ship outfitting? (I haven't played since 2.2 or something ancient and have also forgotten what the meta was then in any case) Small fleets: Interceptor Corvettes / Picket Destroyers Large fleets: Carrier Cruisers / Artillery Battleships / Targeting Titan Amplifier Juggernaut Missile and Hangar Platforms Some folks like cutting out parts of this, but overall it'll work just fine. Keep your kinetic / energy weapons balanced unless you have a reason to emphasize one over the other. Kaal fucked around with this message at 19:46 on Jun 2, 2021 |
|
#
¿
Jun 2, 2021 19:41
|
|
|
Staltran posted:Why cruisers for the carriers instead of battleships? The Cheshire Cat posted:I think it's less that cruisers are better carriers than battleships, but rather they are better at being carriers than they are at anything else, wheras battleships are better at artillery so by making them carriers you aren't getting the most out of them. That's exactly it. Cruisers are best used as carriers, whereas Battleships are best used for artillery (both of the kinetic and energy variety). You can make a battleship into a carrier, but there's no good reason to. You're basically trading two missile slots (that will synergize with your fighters) for a spinal mount, which implies you didn't really need that carrier in the first place. And ultimately I like finding a good role for cruisers rather than consigning them to the dustbin. Of course people are free to disagree - Stellaris combat is fundamentally about economic warfare rather than strategy. Also I like putting Mega Cannons on my Battleships because their high range means they'll be hitting those shields first, while the Neutron Launchers follow up on the armor. Kaal fucked around with this message at 22:40 on Jun 2, 2021 |
|
#
¿
Jun 2, 2021 22:36
|
|
|
Oh also I just realized that once you're a federation leader you can just keep changing the succession term duration and it gives you a fresh term every time. That's some real Roman poo poo, Ceasar would be proud.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 2, 2021 22:48
|
|
|
VostokProgram posted:Do destroyers and corvettes have any use once you get cruisers They're much faster and work great as reaction forces that can sweep up minor systems or reinforce bastions. I generally put them into a couple of 30-50 cap fleets.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 3, 2021 02:16
|
|
|
Anno posted:Was this posted yet? YAAAAAASSSS
|
|
#
¿
Jun 7, 2021 01:59
|
|
|
Stellaris changed up its combat behaviors in 1.8, making targeting based on weapons rather than ships. Each weapon seeks out its best target and then destroys it. Best is dependent on many different factors, particularly ship class, range, and shield strength.
Kaal fucked around with this message at 15:50 on Jun 15, 2021 |
|
#
¿
Jun 15, 2021 12:45
|
|
|
uber_stoat posted:is there a mod that adds a way to i dunno... wheel n deal with your Federation partners so they agree to vote someone into the fed? there's a next door neighbor of mine that would be a perfect addition but the other guy in the fed just won't sign off on it and if there's a way to tell why i don't know what it is. i thought maybe favors could do it but no. Favors should be able to do it, but one thing you can try doing is changing the bylaws to make it a majority vote rather than a consensus one.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 18, 2021 01:37
|
|
|
Anyone have any preferred settings for Logistic Growth Ceiling or Growth Required Scaling? I've been using the default settings, but a recent particularly good start (Sanctuary, Fen Habbannis, a random Relic World, and about a dozen other planets), left my lategame growth feeling pretty flaccid. When I conquered the Gray Tempest I colonized the whole L Cluster and frankly I'm not sure why I bothered, since it'll take them decades for them to have any population and I am swimming in space for people to live. Should I just chalk it up to good luck and breaking the game over my knee? I'll still have decent endgame content since a Fallen Empire woke up and the Unbidden have landed, but it's pretty clear that my growth has basically come to a halt. After considering it more, and looking around on Reddit, the 3.0 growth system fundamentally doesn't work the way I think population should work in 4X games. Logistic Growth Ceiling rewards creating bizarre worlds with 10 jobs, 23 people, and 68 open housing slots that are never used. Growth Required Scaling creates perverse player incentives like repeatedly colonizing planets or creating vassals just to reincorporate them. Neither system really seems to tie growth to population, housing, jobs, or planetary capacity, and I just don't think they contribute to the game. I know lots of people panned the feature when it came out, and I've really been trying to see its merits, but I don't think there are any. It feels like a good idea that got fatally compromised. There are much better ways to reduce overall pop numbers, spur early game growth, or create rubberband mechanics. This mod looks like exactly what I'm looking for out of a pop system. It's nice that it's available, and hopefully its ideas get brought in as default behavior. It works with Starnet so I can use it when I'm playing modded. https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=2461091125 Kaal fucked around with this message at 05:01 on Jun 24, 2021 |
|
#
¿
Jun 24, 2021 00:54
|
|
|
Automated Posting posted:Are there any good collections of premade empires to play with? The random ones have gotten kinda samey/boring, and while I might end of making a few of my own to thrown in there won't be a lot of surprise in playing only with those. These are the ones that I've made. They're a collection of empires from popular sci-fi universes. It's easy to add premade empires to your list, just copy/paste them into your user_empire_designs.txt file. https://pastebin.com/BPfdm3GP
|
|
#
¿
Jun 24, 2021 04:49
|
|
|
Splicer posted:Are you doing the feeder planet thing? Yeah I had created several earlier in the game, and then turned the whole L Cluster into feeder planets, but once I hit 1200-1400 pops the natural growth really slowed to a crawl. I also don't love the mechanic of creating feeder planets in a 4X, since it's rather immersion-killing. I had been ok with it for several games since 3.0, but this particular one just sort made me confront it since it was so clear that no amount of opportunity would spur pop growth. I like the idea of planetary growth being spurred by its capacity, in a Malthusian sense, but the default implemention just isn't doing it for me. A planet swimming in jobs, housing, and population should have no issues growing further. A planet with no jobs or people but filled with empty arcologies should not be the sole source of growth. It's like they think half of Coruscant was born on Tatooine. I'm glad they included the sliders in 3.0.3. Kaal fucked around with this message at 14:00 on Jun 24, 2021 |
|
#
¿
Jun 24, 2021 13:35
|
|
|
Warmachine posted:The empire-wide growth scaling is clearly a performance thing and not a game thing. That's why it feels so incongruous. I find that with growth scaling set at 100 + .05p, I'm getting intractable slowdowns as I enter the late game. and populations are into the thousands. It's why 99% of games I play I put down immediately after curbstomping the crisis. Yeah I get that concern. I'm hopeful that turning off the Logistic Growth Ceiling (aka "capacity rewards") will slow down growth enough to counteract the impact of turning off the Growth Scaling. The mod I mentioned earlier looks really good too, for when I play modded games. The modder seems to really grasp the issues that are involved, and set out to make a system that was engaging but not cheesable, and had early growth but not the endgame performance slow down. https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=2461091125 quote:What are the effects: Kaal fucked around with this message at 14:52 on Jun 24, 2021 |
|
#
¿
Jun 24, 2021 14:46
|
|
|
Noir89 posted:Thats the mod I used before the sliders and it is indeed good! Only reason I turned it off after slider is that i love cheevos Yeah I hear you. Achievements are nice, and I like to think that by playing a relatively default game it keeps me on the same page as most other players in terms of talking about the game. I know that Stellaris offers a ton of settings variability, which limits how similar one person's game is to another's, but it seems like a reasonable foundation. I think that I'll just set both sliders to 0 (or rather 1.0 and 0 / all the way left) and opt out of the 3.0.3 excess housing meta, it seems like the best setting for slow but consistent growth based on actual planetary capacity. Kaal fucked around with this message at 17:18 on Jun 24, 2021 |
|
#
¿
Jun 24, 2021 17:14
|
|
|
Antillie posted:I've noticed that if you turn off Growth Required Scaling then the default Logistic Growth Ceiling value makes empires develop super fast. Like, I'll be where I would normally be in 2400 by 2300 instead due to all that pop growth. Turning down Logistic Growth Ceiling or even turning it off fixes this but since it doesn't affect machine empires and their growth is designed to be balanced against organics with the default Logistic Growth Ceiling the net effect of turning off Logistic Growth Ceiling is to make machine empires super op compared to organics since they then grow pops so much faster. Oh yeah good point. Well I definitely don't want to upset that particular balance. Sounds like I'll have to go back to the Planet Detroit meta, with empty cities as far as the eye can see. Lame.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 25, 2021 00:25
|
|
|
Splicer posted:This is a thing that bugs me a lot. The breeder planet as a concept I'm enjoying, but requiring a bunch of empty cities for it to work properly feels weird. I'd like ways to increase carrying capacity without adding housing, like buildings that directly add to carrying capacity or boost the carrying capacity of empty districts. Or if non-city districts added two carrying capacity on top of their two housing, or something. There certainly should be more to carrying capacity than sheer amount of excess housing + undeveloped districts. All sorts of things like jobs, infrastructure, population, and amenities seem appropriate to include in planetary capacity. Having it just come down to massive amounts of unused housing seems cheesey. At the very least I think there should be a relatively low cap on the amount of excess housing needed to get the full impact from having it.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 25, 2021 15:51
|
|
|
Is it just me or are Fanatic Purifiers just growing explosively in the latest build? In the last several GA games I've played, the pair of FPs in my 13+ AI game are just devouring the map every time. I can hold them back for a while if I spawn next to them, but inevitably they'll just consume any other neighbors and then come after me. With 4k fleets in 10 years, and 10k fleets in 20 years, it doesn't seem like any other AI can stand against them and so they are just super frustrating to play against. They've always been good, but I think that the growth changes in 3.0 have really supercharged their already excellent early game into a rather unstoppable force. The only real solution seems to be selecting an equally powerful empire to start with (either a FP of your own and rushing a neighbor, or starting with a Ring World / Relic World / Habitats and just bunkering), and accepting that they're going to kill off a bunch of the surrounding AI.
Kaal fucked around with this message at 18:10 on Jul 2, 2021 |
|
#
¿
Jul 2, 2021 17:43
|
|
|
Brandfarlig posted:I started playing last night after 500 hours + of CK2 and 3. Learning all the new paradoxisms is an unusual experience coming from a different game. To be fair, you can build more than your naval capacity but it costs extra energy. But the fleet capacity is a hard limit.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 3, 2021 16:20
|
|
|
victrix posted:"hmm I haven't played this in a very long time, I should check it out again, plus sale so there's probably an all in one pack" https://www.wingamestore.com/product/5560/Stellaris/ That seems pretty high, Wingamestore has a decent sale going, check that out. The base game is only $6.39, and you could pick up most of the core DLC for $30-50. If you bought the base game and every single DLC (including stuff like the soundtrack and picture packs) it would only be $84.72. Kaal fucked around with this message at 05:48 on Jul 7, 2021 |
|
#
¿
Jul 7, 2021 01:45
|
|
|
Fur20 posted:huh i guess i misread what all these weapons do. i'm trying to build for hull damage + bypass. but Oops All Lasers is preferable? I tend to use Flak Cannons on my picket destroyers, and Point Defense on my carrier cruisers. The idea behind mostly using energy weapons is that you can focus all of your research and upgrades on a single weapon system. Energy weapons have the added benefit of dealing more damage to hull, which means you're more likely to kill a ship outright.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 7, 2021 03:36
|
|
|
Point Defense also will target enemy ships if there are no missiles or strike craft in range, and Flak Batteries are better for that because they have higher tracking.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 7, 2021 21:45
|
|
|
Cease to Hope posted:it does absolute poo poo for damage though. the difference between flak and PD there is negligible. They actually have fairly comparable damage to standard weapons, with a higher DPS but lower performance against armor and shields.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 7, 2021 22:41
|
|
|
AAAAA! Real Muenster posted:Fair. I havent seen it before 2250 in at least two years of playing Stellaris off again and on again though so its basically a reflex at this point There must be some sort of settings difference involving habitable worlds, or at least in the number of science ships / AI empires. It's pretty rare that I don't finish that entire quest line by like 2030.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 8, 2021 14:40
|
|
|
Fur20 posted:no no they aren't saying they can't complete it, they're saying it never procs The event requires surveying a planet with alien life - if you have fewer planets to survey, or fewer surveyors, or more opposing AI that can survey those planets first, then there are fewer opportunities for the event to trigger.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 8, 2021 19:05
|
|
|
Splicer posted:It's a Mean Time To Happen event. It immediately triggers on scanning your first habitable world (and I think other life triggers), but what gets triggered is a monthly roll that will, on average, take X months /but has no upper bound/. It's entirely possible for you to survey your first planet in year 1, triggering the event, but have the actual event itself not proc for hundreds of years. Fair enough. Good to know. yikes! posted:Speaking of, which auras does everyone use? I generally use the hull repair one because it's always useful. Nanobot Cloud's hull repair is certainly useful for keeping your fleets in the field longer. I prefer the Targeting Grid because it helps the biggest weakness of battleship fleets, which is tracking small ships. I'd prefer stacking bonuses to win fights and deal with the logistics separately. And on the Juggernaut I generally use the Subspace Amplifier with the reduced jump charge time for much the same reason: It's a logistics ship and its biggest issue is just that it's always lagging behind the fleets it's trying to heal. I can see how Target Acquisition Array's extended range could be particularly useful, but committing a Juggernaut to uncertain combat seems like a risk that I would be hesitant to embrace. Kaal fucked around with this message at 21:20 on Jul 8, 2021 |
|
#
¿
Jul 8, 2021 21:07
|
|
|
You can research Psionic as a Materialist as long as you have some variety of Psionic pops, or if you have a Psionic scientist. So the easiest way is to just invite the Racket to join your empire and eventually you'll roll it.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 8, 2021 21:35
|
|
|
AAAAA! Real Muenster posted:Its been so long since I used any Auras because of what PittTheElder said. I forget - do they affect all ships in the same fleet, or all friendly ships in the same system/same combat? Titan Auras work per fleet (bonuses to ships in the same fleet, penalties to ships that the fleet is attacking), while Juggernaut Auras are system-wide. Auras won't stack, which is why I prefer allied auras rather than enemy auras.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 8, 2021 22:32
|
|
|
Tabletops posted:playing for the first time in like almost 4 years, and wow. i have no idea what the gently caress is going on. mostly planetary stuff is wildly different from the old tile system and I don't know wtf. Is the AI management good? can I just set it and forget it? It's not amazing. I rarely ever use the management system, I only do it once my economy has already matured. I hear that the sector system is better than the planetary one, if that helps. For what it's worth, try dedicating each planet to a primary district type. Here's a good quick video tutorial series: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vMKBq0PckpA
|
|
#
¿
Jul 9, 2021 02:12
|
|
|
There are some folks who have strangely dogmatic fixations about how battleships are the only ship worth building in Stellaris, and it doesn't really appear that anything will ever change their minds. I mix carrier cruisers in with my battleship fleets and add a titan flagship as well. And I retain a small pair of corvette/destroyer groups to clean up minor systems. I've never had a problem cleaning up the AI on GA with 5x Crises doing so, and I'm sure that I would have no issue expanding that to 25x Crises so long as I was willing to play that long.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 9, 2021 19:02
|
|
|
Anticheese posted:You can get psionic theory as materialists. The best way to encourage it is to assign a maniacal researcher to biology. It's interesting that while Maniacal will increase the odds of you rolling Psionic Theory, it apparently does not actually fulfill the conditions for rolling it. So while a Maniacal scientist will improve your odds as a Materialist with Psionic pops, if you don't have those Psionic pops then your chances are zero even with Maniacal (unless that scientist also has the Psionic trait).
|
|
#
¿
Jul 10, 2021 08:48
|
|
|
ihop posted:Ugh I am having the toughest time with devouring swarm on GA. I usually try to tech rush rather than alloys, and try to rely on hangar-bastions to keep the enemies at bay. I usually win my first war, whether I start it or not, but whatever empire is waiting behind them war-decs me soon after and although I can hold my own for a while I eventually lose fleet power to attrition faster than the AI, and once I start losing stations it's all over. I usually rage quit when I start losing the war because it sure looks to me like they're going to steamroll the rest of my empire and at best I'll manage to force a white peace leaving me much less powerful and them much more and that's no fun. It sucks too because I feel like the last two games have been really good starts but I just can't manage to keep up with the AI economy and fleets. I've tried a bunch of different methods and basically come to the conclusion that on GA the various genocidal empires are simply more difficult. Either you need to thumb the scales in your start settings, or you need to trade everything you possibly can for alloys / energy and then hope that you're able to consume a neighbor and get through the first 50 years or so without attracting undue attention. There isn't a real trick to it - how many planets you have access to, what chokepoints exist, how many neighbors you have, and what their civics are will all have a much bigger impact than any efficiency tips. Make sure to get out at least four or five surveyors so that you can get a good idea of your surroundings so that you can make intelligent decisions - but it is very possible for GA genocidal starts on default settings to be untenable. Other ideas include: Focus your combat technologies on energy weapons and ship size, invest in the short-term rather than long-term, maintain your fleet numbers to intimidate potential enemies, halt attacks when you've fatally weakened an enemy rather than killing them off and opening up a new front, recognize the limits of how far you can expand, and use the Rapid Deployment war doctrine unless absolutely forced to use No Retreat. Kaal fucked around with this message at 15:22 on Aug 12, 2021 |
|
#
¿
Aug 12, 2021 15:00
|
|
|
Splicer posted:Traditions All seems good to me. I'm glad that they're offering a variety of trees, since it lets them specialize a lot more. The adjustments all make sense to me, and players will adapt and modify their existing builds by selecting different trees. If I were to change anything, it would just be juicing the numbers and making all of the trees more impactful.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 12, 2021 15:56
|
|
|
ihop posted:Thanks, the last paragraph looks like especially useful advice. Pre-2.6ish? I always used Rapid Deployment, after I for some reason switched to No Retreat, I'll give that a shot. I haven't played much since 3.0 so I'm still trying to get a hang of the current meta-strategies. I've always used all-corvette fleets until I can build battleships, then it's either all-vettes, or all-BB fleets. I always thought the cost/effectiveness was not worth it for the other two ships. Should I bet building destroyers and cruisers as they become available? Also, with the current pop growth mechanics I don't know how all-important pops are atm. Should I be colonizing every planet that's 60+ habitability? My loathing for planet management leads me to stick with fewer, high hab planets instead of colonizing everything in sight. With that said, if I do colonize low-hab planets, do I fully develop them or just use them as pop generators to be resettled on more useful planets? No Retreat is a bit deceptive in that it seems better than it is. You win more fights right up until your fleet gets wiped and you lose the war. It's good for the decisive battles, but often there's yet another enemy over the horizon. Hit and Run tends to have the opposite problem, where your fleets tend to lose so many fights that you need overwhelming numbers in battles. Rapid Deployment is a good middle ground. There's lots of strong opinions on ship sizes, but I'd argue that relying entirely on corvettes until replacing them with battleships means that you'll have particularly difficult battles towards the mid-game. Destroyers and cruisers will win more and will be cheaper to sustain. I like mixing destroyers in with corvettes, and cruisers in with battleships, but there's certainly folks in this thread who still prefer all-corvettes / all-battleships. Fundamentally I think it comes down to how comfortable people are with juggling multiple ship types. I would definitely suggest colonizing any 60+ hab planets. If you hate planet management then reduce the number of planets (this will also make it easier to be a genocidal empire because everyone will be more bite-sized). I'd develop them more or less normally. Getting focused on perfect pop-generation numbers is a lot of work, and isn't really necessary for a genocidal empire. More planets will make for better numbers. The rest is gravy. Again though, these sorts of tips are nice but the start settings are way more determinant. I've had perfect GA games that may as well be set on Captain, and impossible GA games that no one could every win, and the only difference was the RNG. I could set up a GA game that I'd probably win every time, or one that would always be super difficult, and it would come down to all the other parts of initial set up. Difficulty level is really only one part of the actual gameplay challenge. Kaal fucked around with this message at 16:21 on Aug 12, 2021 |
|
#
¿
Aug 12, 2021 16:11
|
|
|
Lance of Llanwyln posted:Meanwhile, they buffed the opener to Supremacy LOL why yes I am rushing and would love a free +20 naval capacity right at the start please and thank you. I don't mind that Supremacy is an amazing pick for a militant empire, I just wish that all the traditions were equally impactful to unlock. Unyielding should be a slampick for an empire on the defensive, but it's just sort of decent. Mercantile should be a corporate-dream, but you really need to game out whether it's worth taking at all. I'm sure that these sorts of things will be figured out by optimizers after release, but it shouldn't take a math wizard to parse the benefits of one tradition over another.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 12, 2021 16:54
|
|
|
I think what I'd like to see is just a willingness to have each tree really kick rear end, so you can't wait to finish it. Picking Discovery should start a remarkable era of events, scientific advancement, and leadership improvement. Picking Prosperity should put your economy into high gear. I want optimizers talking about how to crank out culture, and players remarking how their game shifted once they unlocked a new tree just in time.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 14, 2021 05:15
|
|
|
boloney posted:did they ever fix the bad late-game lag in this game. i havent played it in like 4 years Yep. They basically narrowed it down to "too many pops" and the latest update reduced the overhead a bunch and also limited the number of pops overall. It runs pretty good late-game.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 15, 2021 03:16
|
|
|
I'd always go along with the Wenkwort Custodian. Specializing a planet for culture is a unique opportunity, and it also makes a fantastic research world. You can also use it for food or energy production if you need basic resources.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 16, 2021 11:36
|
|
|
Poil posted:I decided to follow through with disabling clerk jobs and my new empire seems to be running better and building up faster than normal despite the mineral poor systems I had around my homeworld. It's amazing. Yeah even as a MegaCorp I don't make Clerks. They just aren't good, and even if you pick every trade perk they scale really poorly because they can't be upgraded via techs or buildings like other workers. Even with a Trade League and +75% trade boost, a Clerk is only about 20%-30% better than a basic worker, and they'll never really improve (while the worker definitely does). Plus you'll likely end up out-of-balance on resources and will need to rely on the market to trade your excess Consumer Goods and Energy, which introduces another inefficiency. Like the much-maligned Medical Worker, Clerks just struggle to pencil out due to a lack of specialization. Hopefully the new traditions will at least allow players to opt-in to a Clerk-heavy economy. Kaal fucked around with this message at 15:30 on Aug 17, 2021 |
|
#
¿
Aug 17, 2021 15:18
|
|
|
tadashi posted:Is there a mod for this game that just lets me be pals with all the other factions and spend my time loving around exploring and not worrying about wars? Besides reducing the difficulty, in game options you can decrease the aggressiveness of other empires. Choosing an empire with Fanatic Xenophilia will also make other empires more friendly towards you, and give you more Envoys to Improve Relations with.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 17, 2021 17:11
|
|
|
Antillie posted:This makes me think that all five are on your home world. Unless there is some way to "move" them your going to be awfully dependent on manual or automatic resettlement. Maybe you just start with one and can build up to four more? Even in that case your going to run into resettlement dependency as soon as you get a sixth colony going. From my reading it seems like the origin is also going to have events that can change how reliant the empire is on the clone vats. My guess is that there's more going on than just the building effects.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 19, 2021 15:54
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 24, 2024 11:00 |
|
|
scaterry posted:I just tried out Stefan Annon's crisis rush build, and it's absolutely broken. Why does it give two star-eaters, a megastructure, and tons of advanced ships tech? Does doing anything else even come close in power level? I mean all of Stefan Anon's builds are some variation of a no neighbor tech rush + newly released bullshit. I'd assume they're all equally overpowered.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 25, 2021 21:07
|
|