STELLARIS: New Paradox Game in SPAAAACE

[Berkut]

I pretty much always played with only hyperlanes allowed anyway.

Otherwise there just isn't really any "geography" to the game.

Regular warp drive could work as well if the structure of the galaxy was then built to create geogrpahy - more empty spaces that canot be traversed, etc.

[Tonitrus]

I just recently started playing again in last couple weeks (after a break for several months)...and one of the things I noticed, playing as a warp-FTL race...was that it seemed to often arbitrarily limit my ability to warp to certain nearby systems almost as if it was forcing me to use invisible hyperlanes anyway.

Though I know that had always been the case when "crossing" arms in a spiral galaxy map.

[garbon]

I pretty much always played with only hyperlanes allowed anyway.

Otherwise there just isn't really any "geography" to the game.

Regular warp drive could work as well if the structure of the galaxy was then built to create geogrpahy - more empty spaces that canot be traversed, etc.

I think it'd be more interesting if they did the latter + say you can't warp through things like nebulas.

Otherwise, what they are kind of creating is just EU4/CK2 in space. As I saw on the forum, so now we can go from one 'province' to 'neighbouring provinces' only - will we get terrain maluses for crossing 'rivers'?

My only 'fear' with this new more limited design is that we're treating space as though it were olden day warfare. You've starbases (or fortresses) with then static defenses that you'll build at key choke points. Doesn't seem very space like - more of a re-hash, revamp of the traditional setup for 4X space games.

[garbon]

I just recently started playing again in last couple weeks (after a break for several months)...and one of the things I noticed, playing as a warp-FTL race...was that it seemed to often arbitrarily limit my ability to warp to certain nearby systems almost as if it was forcing me to use invisible hyperlanes anyway.

Though I know that had always been the case when "crossing" arms in a spiral galaxy map.

Warp only has a certain distance you can travel in one direct shot until you have further researched warp engines. Then you can go further.

[Tonitrus]

I just recently started playing again in last couple weeks (after a break for several months)...and one of the things I noticed, playing as a warp-FTL race...was that it seemed to often arbitrarily limit my ability to warp to certain nearby systems almost as if it was forcing me to use invisible hyperlanes anyway.

Though I know that had always been the case when "crossing" arms in a spiral galaxy map.

Warp only has a certain distance you can travel in one direct shot until you have further researched warp engines. Then you can go further.

I have had the game not allow me to warp to neighboring systems that are quite obviously closer than ones I could warp to....unless visual reference doesn't matter. 

[garbon]

That I can't speak to.

[Berkut]

I just recently started playing again in last couple weeks (after a break for several months)...and one of the things I noticed, playing as a warp-FTL race...was that it seemed to often arbitrarily limit my ability to warp to certain nearby systems almost as if it was forcing me to use invisible hyperlanes anyway.

Though I know that had always been the case when "crossing" arms in a spiral galaxy map.

Warp only has a certain distance you can travel in one direct shot until you have further researched warp engines. Then you can go further.

I have had the game not allow me to warp to neighboring systems that are quite obviously closer than ones I could warp to....unless visual reference doesn't matter. 

You do realize that the "visual reference" includes a third dimension, right? So two systems that look close to one another are not necessarily?

[Agelastus]

I just recently started playing again in last couple weeks (after a break for several months)...and one of the things I noticed, playing as a warp-FTL race...was that it seemed to often arbitrarily limit my ability to warp to certain nearby systems almost as if it was forcing me to use invisible hyperlanes anyway.

Though I know that had always been the case when "crossing" arms in a spiral galaxy map.

Warp only has a certain distance you can travel in one direct shot until you have further researched warp engines. Then you can go further.

I have had the game not allow me to warp to neighboring systems that are quite obviously closer than ones I could warp to....unless visual reference doesn't matter. 

Were the systems showing a red encounter mark and your ships set to avoid? They blocked ships set to avoid from jumping to hostile systems a few patches ago.

[Tonitrus]

Yep, 3rd dimension taken into account.

And no, no hostiles.

[Berkut]

Yep, 3rd dimension taken into account.

And no, no hostiles.

THen you have a different version of Stellaris than I do, because I've never seen that happen.

Have you tried rebooting three times?

[Zanza]

I pretty much always played with only hyperlanes allowed anyway.

Otherwise there just isn't really any "geography" to the game.

Regular warp drive could work as well if the structure of the galaxy was then built to create geogrpahy - more empty spaces that canot be traversed, etc.

I think it'd be more interesting if they did the latter + say you can't warp through things like nebulas.

Otherwise, what they are kind of creating is just EU4/CK2 in space. As I saw on the forum, so now we can go from one 'province' to 'neighbouring provinces' only - will we get terrain maluses for crossing 'rivers'?

My only 'fear' with this new more limited design is that we're treating space as though it were olden day warfare. You've starbases (or fortresses) with then static defenses that you'll build at key choke points. Doesn't seem very space like - more of a re-hash, revamp of the traditional setup for 4X space games.

EU4 works better as a game then Stellaris, especially when it comes to warfare. As space warfare is not hard science fiction anyway, the should focus on what is fun gameplay. If that turns out to be a tried and true formula, so be it.

[garbon]

If that's the case, I'd rather play a different 4X space game. Any number of them are more fun warfare wise and aren't such resource hogs. I didn't really need EU4 in space*.

Of course, I should say that Stellaris is the one P'dox game that I've never felt any urge to buy DLC for.  What goodwill I had for Paradox trying out a new genre dissipated over time. Maybe Stellaris II will prove worthwhile much in the same way that CK2 was the culmination of Sengoku, Rome and CK1.

*which most of the new changes in warfare announced today just seem to be a combination of CK2 and EU4 mechanics

[ulmont]

*which most of the new changes in warfare announced today just seem to be a combination of CK2 and EU4 mechanics

There's some evolution.  One of the interesting bits is the opportunity to have a war where systems change hands on both sides (winner and loser), which I don't think is possible in any of the other games.

[garbon]

*which most of the new changes in warfare announced today just seem to be a combination of CK2 and EU4 mechanics

There's some evolution.  One of the interesting bits is the opportunity to have a war where systems change hands on both sides (winner and loser), which I don't think is possible in any of the other games.

Hence 'most'

But yeah that's something that mods sometimes had but never p'dox games.

[Agelastus]

I just wish that for autocratic governments they'd block your emperor/leader from creating or leading the one faction most antithetical to the ethics and goals of your empire. I've lost count now of the number of autocratic campaigns I've played where this has happened; for example, my xenophobe empire's emperor founding the xenophile faction.

"Yes, your majesty, we are going to have zero faction happiness because of all your policies and actions but we'd still love you to lead us."