|
On September 29 2017 22:31 nimbim wrote:
Has anyone been successful with Machine Consciousness on hard difficulty settings? I am having real trouble growing economically and surviving at the same time, because building all your pops for 100minerals is quite a drain on ressources.
My experience as well, tried it like 4 times and got sweeped every time before I could secure an alliance. Machine Template System is the only saving grace they have and they don't even start with it. Well they got almost immortal rulers and dont care about habitability but since they are min-starved like crazy the habitability isn't as big as it sounds.
The win-condition is probably getting an alliance before getting attacked. So the +25 relation trait is mandatory to have even a chance, probably along with +mins or -robot buildcost to colonize a bit earlier and keep a bigger fleet up.
Templates, destroyers and PDs are probably the major early game techs.
Laser vs kinetic is a toss-up imo, kinetic are stronger but need engineering, which you need for the costly templates and destroyers.
The immortal leaders and less alliances allow for more resettlement to increase the pop growth speed, so -migration cost is big midgame. Taking it as a base point +mineral production boosts the eco late midgame a bit more but I think there are more important traits to boost the more important first years.
|
United Kingdom20326 Posts
Some of them got massive gamechanging buffs in the opt-in beta patch a few days back
|
On September 29 2017 00:06 Heartland wrote:
It's the Clauswitz engine, it's not supposed to work
I dont think ive ever had an issue on Hoi/Eu4 with that. Besides the lategame slowdowns like super lategame the game runs noticeably slower but i guess it is processing a whole lot of shit too
|
Weeeeeeell. The fact that a game with pretty much 0 graphics has such slowdowns is pretty weak, don'tcherthink?
|
On September 30 2017 07:51 nothingmuch wrote:
Weeeeeeell. The fact that a game with pretty much 0 graphics has such slowdowns is pretty weak, don'tcherthink?
Its not the graphics that slow the game down, its all the game logic going on in the background that is the likely culprit.
|
Obviously. But that's pretty much all that the engine has to do and no matter how sick your pc is- when very hard Ottoman and Ming get it on (even if you're not involved at all) - you're entering the slow mo pit of doom.
|
Yes the game slows down a lot especially late game when its running probably millions of calculations every second the engine cant keep up. early with less units its a breeze though
|
Increasing RAM noticeably improves the EUIV performance. That being said i think there are some things very wrong with EU/Stellaris engine. It definitely could use some improvments in that regard. I dont know what exactly is happening but performance could use some love.
|
United Kingdom20326 Posts
It noticeably improves when you destroy a doomstack of 300 army transports so if that were represented by 10 or 30 units instead of 300 then it would be a lot easier to simulate.
One example of many but this kind of problem exists all over the game. Lategame i have 200 of the largest ship class or many thousands of the smallest, why can't we make half of our fleet power out of 10 ships if the game performance is gamebreakingly bad?
|
Anyone any Idea what that 1.5GB update today was about? Couldnt find any news post about it yet.
|
Probably the soundtrack update.
TLDR: If you bought/got the soundtrack officially on steam, all soundtracks (including from DLCs) are now available at ...Steam\steamapps\common\Stellaris\soundtrack (both in MP3 and FLAC)
And now for the most controversial dev diary so far
https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/index.php?threads/stellaris-dev-diary-92-ftl-rework-and-galactic-terrain.1052958/
My thoughts: I really like wormholes and dislikes hyperlanes. (As good as) every time I try them, I get a bad start that would be at least acceptable with the other. Wiz did convince me to try the new system at PDXcon, and I will do that. However my initial impressions are not very positive.
|
Thanks. Idk why nowadays companies seem to think that I've unlimited memory space for stuff that I can't even access <.<
@WH vs Hyperlanes: I haven't played wormholes a lot, but my experience is that whenever you're boxed in, warp and WH create opportunities to settle on new planets. So it feels very nice on spirals f.e.
But the unlimited mobility also makes any form of defensive play impossible. When boxed in there's still the opportunity to just shoot your way free. Which doesn't always work, but Sandbox games like Stellaris are supposed to have a bit variance in difficulty imo.
So I totally agree with the dev diary that WH and Warp are bad for any depth in warfare, which is an area in dire need of improvement. I like the announced changes, the terrain idea could create natural fortresses, what they are doing with WH is very close to what I hoped they'd do and Jump drive sounds a lot less boring than now.
Thought the post was pretty much on point on everything, they recognized that warfare doesn't work well in the current iteration and are starting to create a base for further reworks. Diplomacy and Base Building is still terrible, but I agree with tackling warfare first, since that's what's supposed to be fun along with exploration.
|
Half of the thing that makes warfare interesting is terrain. It is the board on which armies are moved. I'm glad they figured out that having no real structure to the play space made for really bad combat.
|
This is precisly what i have been saying all along. Lets see how will it work out in practice.
|
I understand the why and the what but it saddens me that this makes the game so much like the other 4x titles when it was less so previously.
|
I've been playing hyperlanes only the last few games and really quite enjoyed it (so long as not in a spiral where it's far to easy to get boxed in.
Also pretty interested to see the new border system work out, sounds in practice like a good idea.
Overall interested to see so much willingness from the dev team to change core bits of the game to improve it (I think they got some flak for all the DLC stuff but if this is a benefit of that then perhaps is worth it?)
|
On November 03 2017 09:22 Sermokala wrote:
I understand the why and the what but it saddens me that this makes the game so much like the other 4x titles when it was less so previously.
Yeah, Stellaris loses one of it's big USP from every other space game out there. At least EU4 and HoI4 is moving in the right direction
|
I've only ever played warp only games because I hated the other forms of movement so much  . Warp interdictor (forgot what they were called) stations allowed for some rudimentary strategic plays.
"Terrain" makes zero sense to me in a space game. They put it in for obvious reasons, but I'd rather have them work over the ship design/ combat AI. Let me know how it turns out, for the moment I'm sticking with ES 2.
|
There would be and is “terrain” in space. Planets, moons, belts of asteroids and other celestial features would be used as points of conflict for space fleet. Just like the islands in the pacific war. Space stations would be built in orbit around things. Flat open space with nothing to fight over is a poor play space and doesn’t make for interesting conflict. Its just two blobs of DPS rubbing against each until one of them gets to press the invade button.
|
On November 13 2017 22:13 nothingmuch wrote:I've only ever played warp only games because I hated the other forms of movement so much . Warp interdictor (forgot what they were called) stations allowed for some rudimentary strategic plays. "Terrain" makes zero sense to me in a space game. They put it in for obvious reasons, but I'd rather have them work over the ship design/ combat AI. Let me know how it turns out, for the moment I'm sticking with ES 2.
I think warp-only could be made a lot more interesting with a few changes:
- Reducing the range and speed of warp to half or less
- Slowing down sieges to twice the duration and lowering the (currently linear) scaling with fleet size
- Reducing the strength of starports while increasing the strength of pre-fortress static defenses
- Fleets require twice as much supply when not in the system of a friendly planet, friendly starbase or a forward outpost that constructors could build in enemy territory. Maybe scale with distance to next supply point.
Currently you just fly around with 1 big fleet, crush the enemy big fleet and the rest is pretty much cleanup. It's blob vs blob until blob wins. You rarely have need for more than 3-4 fleets, and even those mostly just to clean up only after the enemy blob is already destroyed.
The strength of warp is that it allows you to attack many places at the same time, which usually would force the enemy to also defend many places at the same time. However, the advantage of spreading out your fleet is so small that it's currently just not worthwhile. The only real relevant targets are starports, which until midgame require a significant fleet investment to take out safely. Sieging a planet with a small fleet is pretty much worthless since it's much faster with your whole fleet combined and going around sieging all planets one by one is much safer and almost as efficient as sieging 10 at the same time. By changing the scaling of sieges, small fleets become more efficient at capturing territory.
Of course defending against many small fleets would be a real pain if they had the current range, i.e. could attack pretty much anywhere. That is why the range needs to be lower to allow for a defense in depth, i.e. having your own defending fleets and bases spread out over the frontline a few stars deep.
By scaling the supply of fleets by distance from friendly supply points, the "territory" of star systems, even ones without planets, becomes more important and frontlines can develop. You can't just fly to the capital first, capture it and go from there, you need to fight your way through system by system, but unlike with hyperspace you aren't limited by the connections, which at times are really awful.
Of course that also requires huge AI changes, because the AI always goes for the big blob strategy, which is fairly boring.
I think those changes to warp would allow for a much grander strategy than the current implementation and be a lot more dynamic than hyperspace-only games.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
