Stellaris - Paradox new sci-fi grand strategy game

[MadMaxHellfire]

another case of "mods did it first".

i fucking want a fucking star system editor. fuck.

 

[GarfunkeL]

Proxima Centauri is way too close.

 

[Raghar]

i load a game and this is what i find:

i hope this is an april's fool. and i'm not amused.

Rat maze?

 

[GarfunkeL]

thesheeep

On that screenshot, Proxima Centauri is about twice as far from Alpha Centauri A than Alpha Centauri B is. In reality, Proxima Centauri is ~13 000 Astronomical Units from the A component while B component is anywhere from 12 to 36 AU, depending on the orbit. So it's not just a "little" bit farther, it's three orders of magnitude further away. Of course their engine cannot support such distances, which is why Proxima Centauri should be its own system, next door to Alpha Centauri.

My point is that they shouldn't even bother with trying to portray real systems if they're not going to be accurate about it.

 

[Average Manatee]

This is a game where Ringworlds offer the land area of 4 planets. It's all just assigning arbitrary names to arbitrary game elements to give a sci-fi feal.

 

[The Brazilian Slaughter]

They should make the AB system unable to have gas planets while they're at it - we already know there are none, because if there were, we would have spotted them already.

Multi-star systems are cool, tho. Would be interesting if this was mechanically relevant - like, extra energy income per star.

They should add Kuiper Belts and Oort Clouds. Also, Free-Floating Planets, Brown Dwarves, Magnetars and those weird Red Dwarf/Pulsar stars.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G900A using Tapatalk

 

[ThisNameIsFree]

They broke discovery traditions again
At least before you could combine faster exp + bonus leader level cap + survey speed, get level capped scientists very quickly and use them for 30+ unity gain per planet multiplied further by standard empire-wide unity multipliers...

Now whole tree pretty damn useless.



Scaling AI is pure shite since it didn't fixed problem with early expansion. Scaling don't matter if you can easily grab 10x times bigger territory in the earlier game
3xScale at turn xxx multiplied by 0 is still 0, someone should teach them basic math.

 

[MadMaxHellfire]

Multi-star systems are cool, tho. Would be interesting if this was mechanically relevant - like, extra energy income per star.

and again, mods did that first =_=
are stellaris mods too good or is paradox too crap?

 

[The Brazilian Slaughter]

They broke discovery traditions again
At least before you could combine faster exp + bonus leader level cap + survey speed, get level capped scientists very quickly and use them for 30+ unity gain per planet multiplied further by standard empire-wide unity multipliers...

Now whole tree pretty damn useless.



Scaling AI is pure shite since it didn't fixed problem with early expansion. Scaling don't matter if you can easily grab 10x times bigger territory in the earlier game
3xScale at turn xxx multiplied by 0 is still 0, someone should teach them basic math.

Are you kidding? Discovery is the best starting tree.

Also it still gives you Unity through Research. One clever idea is to skip useless early crap (like flak cannons) and then research it later to get a lot of easy unity.

 

[ThisNameIsFree]

Are you kidding? Discovery is the best starting tree.

Also it still gives you Unity through Research. One clever idea is to skip useless early crap (like flak cannons) and then research it later to get a lot of easy unity.

This game is all about minerals tho. This is especially noticeable in the beginning, because if you have enough minerals you can pretty much snowball expansion.
Try start by putting 1 point into prosperity tree - 15% discount for planetary buildings and ships quite noticeable. After this put 3 points into harmony tree - 25% growth speed + unity/happy building. Put 2 more points into prosperity getting energy and one more unity source, after this work on the expansion tree...
Discovery tree have nothing for early game. Research alternatives useful, but can wait until you unlock much better traditions.

 

[LizardWizard]

Multi-star systems are cool, tho. Would be interesting if this was mechanically relevant - like, extra energy income per star.

and again, mods did that first =_=
are stellaris mods too good or is paradox too crap?

PDS has a long history of lifting stuff from their community. Hell, beta testers developed most of the history file for CK2 free of charge. A real racket.

 

[chuft]

Bought this to try it after a friend recommended it. Tried my first (and last) game of it with the 2.0 rules.

I have never experienced such tedium.

For reference I have played and loved Reach for the Stars, Spaceward Ho!, Civilization, Civilization II, MOO 2, SMAC/SMAX, Sword of the Stars, Age of Wonders 2/Shadow Magic.

I am truly stunned by how slow, boring, and tedious Stellaris is. Is this really what 4X is today?

I then tried GalCiv III and quickly gave up on that too when I realized it, like Stellaris, gave you no control over combat resolution, the map scale made no sense, and the fog of war made outer space look like an ugly giant grey blob instead of a cool galaxy to be explored.

I've read Endless Space's combat sucks too.

About to throw up my hands and go back to MOO 2. Can it be true that no one has made a decent 4X since Sword of the Stars?

Guess I will try Age of Wonders III just in case everything new doesn't suck.

 

[thesheeep]

snip

Sounds to me like you just want some turn-based space combat.

I really don't see why a 4X has to let you control anything in combat. I do like if you can set some things, give input, before a combat. Maybe set general strategy, etc. but the actual combat is automatically determined.
At least in games that offer a wealth of other things to do while playing - obviously games like AoW would be pretty terrible without controllable combat, but that is what those games mostly revolve around.
Europa Universalis would be utterly unplayable if you actually had to do combat yourself.

Stellaris is (supposed to be) about way more than just combat.

Then again, neither EU nor Stellaris are really 4X games, are they?

 

[chuft]

Sounds to me like you just want some turn-based space combat.

No, I enjoy the real time space combat in Sword of the Stars, and Homeworld 2 for that matter. I like researching, designing, building, and moving stuff, and then using it in combat, whether it's in space or on the ground.

Then again, neither EU nor Stellaris are really 4X games, are they?

Apparently not.

 

[Raghar]

I use old version without starlanes, and I'm fine. That's one of wonders of piracy. You can keep better version and play it offline, instead of updating, and getting worse version.

It's a great game that allows you to watch Twitch.tv, and occasionally click on stuff before switching back.

On the other hand I have more hours on SupCom and HoI4 than on Stellaris.

 

[Jimmious]

I use old version without starlanes, and I'm fine. That's one of wonders of piracy. You can keep better version and play it offline, instead of updating, and getting worse version.

It's a great game that allows you to watch Twitch.tv, and occasionally click on stuff before switching back.

On the other hand I have more hours on SupCom and HoI4 than on Stellaris.

You can do that without piracy fyi, you can choose any previous patch/version in Steam

 

[Raghar]

You can do that without piracy fyi, you can choose any previous patch/version in Steam

But then you need to live with Steam.

 

[ilitarist]

chuft , I think Endless Space 2 is the best 4X you can get today. However the combat is not it's strong suit. No tactical combat, instead you only set tactics for each combat and chose ship equipment and hero skills. This game is more of an elegant boardgame, it's about winning wars, not battles.

Age of Wonders 3, however, has everything you need. The tactical combat is good. Strategic layer is great. Campaigns are meh because they severely limit what you can do and the story isn't that engaging, but random maps are sent from heaven. Get it.

 

[chuft]

Here is a long post for people bored at work to read. Tl;DR games with megafleet mechanics should have tactical combat.

As a long time wargamer, I am familiar with the three basic paradigms of large scale war simulation.

The first is the pre-20th century paradigm. This was an era which lacked logistics and communications as well as lethal tactical weapons, and the result was a few (or even just one) large army per side stomped around in a big lump. A battle in this era often decided the entire war, because all of each side's strength was present at one time and place. The campaigns of Alexander, the Roman Civil Wars, the Crusades, Napoleon etc. typically featured one decisive battle which in effect decided the war (unless you were Rome fighting Hannibal, in which case your troll-like regeneration capabilities would save you from losses no other empire could survive). In such a game, playing without tactical battle resolution is pretty lame, because everything both sides did was just a buildup for the main event, which was usually a battle of annihilation. The tactical battle WAS the war. Whoever lost, usually conceded the war. Typically there would be no battle unless both sides thought they had a decent chance to win it; a lopsided situation would just see the inferior force fall back, do scorched earth, wait for winter etc.

The second is the 20th century paradigm, that of the continuous line of large units stretching from sea to sea - from the Black Sea to the Baltic, for example. These were gigantic logistics-driven wars with hundreds of divisions on each side, with enormous numbers of battles up and down the line, with a continuous front. In such a war, simulating each battle in detail would be a chore. Even in a game using large areas instead of hexes, and armies or army groups instead of corps or divisions or regiments, there still would be little point to a "battle" resolution system in any detail, because most units only were in contact with one or two enemy units, even if entire army groups were clashing. It is enough to let whatever the unit of maneuver is, be controllable and allow it to resolve an attack. This is the approach of the original Civilization, SMAC, etc. as well as countless historical wargames. You can click on a unit and order it to attack. You can also control its position and mold your lines to take advantage of terrain.

The third category is that of naval warfare, which has been adopted for space warfare by game designers for lack of a better model. Like ancients, this type of war typically features the giant blob of units - the fleet - duking it out with the enemy fleet. Like Trafalgar or Midway or Salamis, a clash of space fleets could, depending on game design, decide the war.

If each side is going to have one or two giant fleets, then I absolutely want tactical combat in a space game, because the tactical combat really should be deciding the war (unless the battle is incredibly lopsided going in, in which case, one side should just run away anyway). Everything else is just the buildup for the epic battle.

If on the other hand, each side (due to game design and not player incompetence) does not have a concentrated fleet, but instead has lots of little fleets scattered all over the place, fighting lots of little battles, then it is more acceptable to use a "WW2" type land warfare model to abstractly resolve the numerous fights. I am trying to remember if I have ever seen a space game like this, and I am having a hard time coming up with one. Usually in space, like at sea, concentration of force is the governing principle, since as Sun Tzu says, a small army is just booty for a large one. And in this case, I want tactical combat - just like I want it in my medieval games (and fantasy games based on medieval tropes).

An odd case is Sword of the Stars, since ships can't be upgraded but still cost maintenance. Often when new techs are discovered, old slow fleets are hurled at the enemy in the hopes of getting the fleets destroyed while doing some damage, as the next generation fleet is built.

So I guess my question is, where do Gal Civ III and Endless Space 2 fall on this spectrum? Do the designs encourage megafleets? Or are you rewarded more for a lot of smaller fleets fighting along far-flung borders? In the latter case, I see a stronger design argument for abstracting out all the (countless) small battles.

 

[Jason Liang]

I don't mind auto-battles. Spaceward Ho! had auto-battles and played just fine. The EU games also have auto-battles and play just fine. In fact, Stellaris should reverse it so that Space battles auto-resolve, while making ground battles tactical. Basically instead of copying MoO, do the opposite.

As far as one vs. several fleets, it's an interesting question. While Spaceward Ho! does encourage a large fleet, ultimately the game is about managing and conserving your metal. If you ever run out of metal, you can't build ships anymore -> game over. Fleets only need to be large enough to crush garrisons. When you have technological advantage, you want to use multiple fleets to eat through their systems asap while you have that tech advantage. One large fleet is *slightly* safer, but much slower. The upshot is that if you put all your ships in one basket, you risk being annihilated by a well-defended system. In that game, no matter how large your fleet is and how much tech advantage you have, if you get blindsided by a fully garrisoned planetary defense system, your fleet is fucked. The safe way to play is to send a scout to each planet first before moving your armada, but that wastes a ton of metal AND slows you down considerably. AND you signal to your opponent that you're planning to invade so they know where your fleet is going -> bad. And the information you get is imperfect since you can't tell if your scout was annihilated by a small garrison, an opposing fleet, or a full defense system.

 

[coldcrow]

Actual warfare in space would be sooooooo different from the crap we see in strategy games, it's not even funny. I mean you simply don't know where your enemy is most of the time. Either you saturate space with seeking drones, carpetfire focused beams or massdrivers in the general direction. Getting a fix on the opponent and a acceptable firing solution for stellar distances seems to be impossible.

 

[GarfunkeL]

The problem usually is that you only need to have your fleet in 1 place at the same time and that there are no sufficient downsides to doomstacks. Navies have historically struggled with that since Napoleonic times (if not earlier), and doomstacks don't really appear in naval combat. Because you have gazillion things for your ships to do and everything takes time.

But in Stellaris and MoO and most 4X games, your fleet doesn't have to do many of the traditional roles of wet navies. Planet-based sensors handle all scouting and it is impossible or unnecessary to build scout ships. Civilian trade and traffic either doesn't exist or is completely abstracted so there's no need to escort convoys or high-value freighters. Pirates either don't exist at all or pop-up as a simple event. Projection of force is non-existent, there is no room for gunboat diplomacy and show of force is meaningless against AI opponents. And so on and so forth.

Actual warfare in space would be sooooooo different from the crap we see in strategy games, it's not even funny. I mean you simply don't know where your enemy is most of the time. Either you saturate space with seeking drones, carpetfire focused beams or massdrivers in the general direction. Getting a fix on the opponent and a acceptable firing solution for stellar distances seems to be impossible.

Well yes and no. Obviously Newtonian/Einsteinian mechanics change things a lot from the cliche "Space is a Sea" thing, but finding space ships isn't actually that difficult because space is cold and anything accelerating or decelerating will create impressive amounts of heat. Even if they are just coasting, the vessel itself will radiate heat. Few dozen fast-tracking IR-sensitive arrays in high Earth orbit with a semi-smart computer program running it would do the trick. Lot of smart people have speculated on this stuff for decades now:
http://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/spacewarintro.php

 

[Average Manatee]

Any "realistic" space warfare involves something like millions of small passive detector drones that annihilate anything before you can see them (whether by a missile swarm or lazorz depends on circumstance). They'll just sit around invisible at -450 F waiting for the command from HQ with the coordinates to shoot at. Really boring and tedious honestly.

But in Stellaris and MoO and most 4X games, your fleet doesn't have to do many of the traditional roles of wet navies. Planet-based sensors handle all scouting and it is impossible or unnecessary to build scout ships. Civilian trade and traffic either doesn't exist or is completely abstracted so there's no need to escort convoys or high-value freighters. Pirates either don't exist at all or pop-up as a simple event. Projection of force is non-existent, there is no room for gunboat diplomacy and show of force is meaningless against AI opponents. And so on and so forth.

But if you doomstack in Stellaris now the enemy might take over that starbase in a sector with no planets and 5 minerals! Surely this will deter players from doing what actually wins wars.

 

[Norfleet]

Actual warfare in space would be sooooooo different from the crap we see in strategy games, it's not even funny. I mean you simply don't know where your enemy is most of the time. Either you saturate space with seeking drones, carpetfire focused beams or massdrivers in the general direction. Getting a fix on the opponent and a acceptable firing solution for stellar distances seems to be impossible.

Actually, you have a pretty good idea where your enemy is most of the time, because it's basically impossible to hide in space. Any spaceship drive will stand out like a burning thousand-K beacon against the cold backdrop of space. If someone lit off a fusion torch drive, we'd see that out by Alpha Centauri using current technology. You're not doing anything anything sneakylike in space. Just sustaining a 300K Earth-habitable environment for your crew announces your presence to everyone in the solar system with current levels of technology. Lighting off a torch drive will announce your presence to everyone within the nearest few lightyears. Using antimatter SCREAMS "LOOK AT ME!!!111" for hundreds if not thousands of light years, as the radiation signature of this is completely unmistakeable as anything else that normally occurs.

Suffice it to say, space stealthy isn't happening. While it's impossible to get someone's position accurately enough due to lightspeed lag to shoot them with your lazor cannon until fairly close in (and by this, we mean thousands of kilometers), you can definitely start launching missiles from across the map. And by map, we mean the entire galaxy. Just remember that this isn't terribly stealthy either.

 

[ilitarist]

We're now suddenly in a historic/sci-fi battle doctrine discussion? Oh.

chuft , there are many ways to look at that. Even pre-20th century warfare had been different. For example there was an important difference between familiar settled society and nomadic militarized society. Those who have no permanent bases and civilians to speak of are different. Later there were less of them due to land being mostly settled but then global trade arrived. And you get those societies again as pirates. Today some still exist as PMCs, terrorists, and, again, pirates, but there are few of them. You can't counter-attack Mongol horde by besieging their planets just as you can't do to pirates anything more than capture their supply bases. And even though they're weak in numbers you only have few percents of your society dedicated to wars while in their society everyone benefits from raiding and fighting. Thus throught the history you get Persians fighting Scythians, Romans or Chinese fighting Huns, Everyone fighitng Mongols. And that's just a single aspect, you can divide national/cultural doctrines in different ways, and I expect it to be the same in space.

Yes, you couldn't fight in WW2 the way Napoleon fought it. Still there were huge differences in policies. Germans relied more on experimental unreliable tech and suspicious projects. Soviets produced a reliable stuff and used subterfuge, stealth and guerrilla fighters as much as they could. Americans had their own doctrine of artillery/airbomb everything into oblivion before entering to save our boys. And so on and so on. No reason not to exaggerate those differences in space. I'd be very much OK with space game having nomad factions who do not live on planets and are few in numbers but don't have to worry about supply and complex economy that much. Or the faction that is Soviet in popular imagination, spamming stuff everywhere while unable to concentrate forces (again, it's not how it was but it's how the stereotype works). And so on.

Anyway, to your question.

Both GalCiv3 and Endless Space are about naval warfare, yes. Technically they're very similar. There's stack limit, e.g. in ES2 it's 6 in the beginning for most factions. Lightest ship costs 1 point of logistics, bigger one 2 and so on. There are technologies to raise the limit, so it's not a design or technical limit, it's there to be raised. In ES2 there are nodes, in GalCiv3 you move in a more familiar wargame style grid but it doesn't matter. You can have as many fleets as you want in any node/tile. But when you engage into combat it's always 1 fleet against the other. Other fleets nearby has no effect on battle, like, at all. Thus it makes little sense to have small fleets. Speed is not affected so a fleet will move at the same speed as the single ship as long as they all have identical drive. In the beginning you may use small single ships for exploration. It's also probably possible to stealthily fly through the dark space and lay siege to enemy's whole empire with small ships in ES2 or kill his trade routes in GalCiv3 but I'm not sure if it's that effective. By the midgame you'll probably have a couple of big full stacks of ships in ES2 and it's mostly about specialization - do they have point armor against your rockets, do they have a cool hero leading fleet. By the endgame you get a lot of production power and you're usually short on special resources so now you produce simpler ships en masse and then it's similar to trench warfare, your elite units have to be rotated out of the fight because even they obliterate cheaper enemies they still suffer some damage, and it's a game of sending enough fleets into the grind. In Stellaris it's similar but it doesn't have a difference between midgame and endgame. You're unlikely to have more than 2 or 3 fully equipped stacks at any point. Also smaller fleets are supposed to get some bonuses for dodge but I don't think anyone cares about it.

I don't like tactical combat in grand strategy games because it feels bizarre that I simultaneously decide the way of whole civilization and do a junior officer work fighting every small battle - it's like I'm one of those dictators who want to be praised as geniuses in their favorite field and in 4X it's always field of war. Not, say, landscape design or poetry. Anyway, in both of those games tactics are part of ships. Their equipment and leadership decide early battles.

Going back to Age of Wonders 3 - it has a much better fusion of tactics and strategy than any other game with tactical and strategic layer. When you attack any army then anyone on neighbouring tiles may join. So single stack of troops (6 units) can be joined by 5 more stacks. There are units that affect stack on strategic layer, like priests improving heal/turn or engineers fixing machines (who have no natural healing). Some units don't like each other and you'd better keep them in separate stacks, some abilities like druid's tame animal or succubus' hypnotize may give you an ally *forever* if you use them in a right way in battle. Many combat arenas have special conditions. You often want specific units to get kills for them to get enough EXP to get some nice ability or stat boost. There's a lot to do on a battlefield. In every other game like that all I care in battle is losses, as long as they're limited and enemy is killed I'm fine. AoW3 is rare in that I care about what happens in battles.