STELLARIS: New Paradox Game in SPAAAACE

[Tonitrus]

For sure...I guess my thoughts on doomstacks are:

- If the idea of anti-doomstack is to have forces spread out more naturally along a border/frontier.
- Hyperlanes limits this potential of course, by creating natural chokepoints...even if the ease up other aspects of a 4x space sim.  (and of course, Stellaris wasn't isolated to hyperlanes when it first came out...they forced the change I think to simplify other features)
- Because overwhelming concentration of force is always nice, you need a system where the disadvantages of concentrating the force scale appropriately (e.g. while the doomstack might roam about KO'ing each systems/defensesin turn, several smaller opposing forces could dance around it and pick off the doomstack's rear lines...forcing a doomstack to disperse to counter). 

[Threviel]

Makes me think of Roman history. When the Romans could doomstack the Persians they curbstomped them quite handily most often. The issue was that other enemies made doomstacking a very rare occurence indeed, the Romans had to spread their armies on all frontiers and thus the Persian doomstacks, while smaller, often had the upper hand.

So, in an isolated conflict with one narrow border the largest doomstack should win, but that's not always the case in Stellaris, often there are other lanes and all empires most often have other neighbours complicating stuff.

My point being that doomstacks is a very valid military tactic, it's just that other concerns should make them quite rare.

[Solmyr]

In other words, Vic3-style frontlines are the way to go to avoid doomstacks. Not sure how it would work in a space game though.

[Tamas]

The big problem with Stellaris (and to be fair I have a LOT of hours in it) is that as a strategy game it is incredibly simplistic and boring. Two things make it unique: one are the exploration events which I haven't bothered to really read in years. The second is the race customisation, which then lets you imagine in your head that you are playing something unique. Because, except for comparing some extreme edge cases like pacifist vs exterminator, I see no meaningful difference in how you play different races.

I am tempted to say that the success of Stellaris is more a damning of the sci-fi 4x games on offer, rather than a compliment of the game itself.

[Syt]

The big problem with Stellaris (and to be fair I have a LOT of hours in it) is that as a strategy game it is incredibly simplistic and boring. Two things make it unique: one are the exploration events which I haven't bothered to really read in years. The second is the race customisation, which then lets you imagine in your head that you are playing something unique. Because, except for comparing some extreme edge cases like pacifist vs exterminator, I see no meaningful difference in how you play different races.

I am tempted to say that the success of Stellaris is more a damning of the sci-fi 4x games on offer, rather than a compliment of the game itself.

[Tamas]

 

It's the opposite. I want to see innovation. Stellaris has gone stale.

[frunk]

Someone should resurrect and complete Stars: Supernova Genesis.  The best way to advance forward is to plunder the past.

[Zanza]

One of the things I've also noticed in my Stellaris playthroughs, is that even a massive military tech advantage (in weapons/shields) will never seem to scale well to overcome a significant numerical advantage.

This may be by design, but hits hard against tech-heavy, "tall" playthroughs.

I feel that tech makes quite a difference in Stellaris and can overcome numerical disadvantage. However your naval capacity also scales with tech, so you normally will have an advantage in quality and quantity with high tech.

[Zanza]

- Hyperlanes limits this potential of course, by creating natural chokepoints...even if the ease up other aspects of a 4x space sim.  (and of course, Stellaris wasn't isolated to hyperlanes when it first came out...they forced the change I think to simplify other features)

Before limiting to hyperlanes, using warp drives instead took away any notion of terrain. It was impossible to build static defenses as fleets could just jump anywhere - still the case in late game now. So there was no front and no choke points before. Just fleets jumping around.

[HVC]

- Hyperlanes limits this potential of course, by creating natural chokepoints...even if the ease up other aspects of a 4x space sim.  (and of course, Stellaris wasn't isolated to hyperlanes when it first came out...they forced the change I think to simplify other features)

Before limiting to hyperlanes, using warp drives instead took away any notion of terrain. It was impossible to build static defenses as fleets could just jump anywhere - still the case in late game now. So there was no front and no choke points before. Just fleets jumping around.

And endless chasing.

[Syt]

- Hyperlanes limits this potential of course, by creating natural chokepoints...even if the ease up other aspects of a 4x space sim.  (and of course, Stellaris wasn't isolated to hyperlanes when it first came out...they forced the change I think to simplify other features)

Before limiting to hyperlanes, using warp drives instead took away any notion of terrain. It was impossible to build static defenses as fleets could just jump anywhere - still the case in late game now. So there was no front and no choke points before. Just fleets jumping around.

I feel Distant Worlds had that solved to some degree. Besides having range being a factor, ships required fuel to travel between stars. So unless you had fuel stations along your invasion routes and/or had tankers accompany your fleets you couldn't just strike anywhere and had to advance slowly and protect your fuel supply routes.

[crazy canuck]

- Hyperlanes limits this potential of course, by creating natural chokepoints...even if the ease up other aspects of a 4x space sim.  (and of course, Stellaris wasn't isolated to hyperlanes when it first came out...they forced the change I think to simplify other features)

Before limiting to hyperlanes, using warp drives instead took away any notion of terrain. It was impossible to build static defenses as fleets could just jump anywhere - still the case in late game now. So there was no front and no choke points before. Just fleets jumping around.

I feel Distant Worlds had that solved to some degree. Besides having range being a factor, ships required fuel to travel between stars. So unless you had fuel stations along your invasion routes and/or had tankers accompany your fleets you couldn't just strike anywhere and had to advance slowly and protect your fuel supply routes.

Yeah, Distant worlds II has the better combat and strategy.

[Josquius]

Out of nowhere I decided I wanted to play Star Trek as the Federation.

So I tried New Horizons...I wanted the full experience. Real proper size map.... and it grinds at a rate of a day every 5 minutes. Unplayable on my current device.
Trying it on a smaller map it doesn't really have the proper feel. Lots of events go unfired. The Klingons are on top of you right away.
Sad I can't play more.

Then I discovered there was a spin off called New Civilizations. Seems there was some drama with NH which led to this being made. It the same basic core and events but with the massive alterations to the gameplay like no districts and more buildings (to make it more like Birth of the Federation?) removed.
It does have some changes though. Ones I'm not happy with. Crew is the most important resource in the game- I quickly ran out of this and you need it even for building mining stations. There's lots of very careful balancing needed in deciding what to build it seems.
I played into it a fair bit. But issues emerge as the Andorians hate me for no reason and no events involving them fire. I still form the Federation with some others, the Romulans are quite far from me....but the Klingons and nowhere to be seen for some reason and the whole universe just feels...bland and stale. Lots of canon Federation members with large empires of their own and the dick races kept pretty small and in their place without me lifting a finger.
I don't really have the desire to continue. Which is good. I've played through the addiction.

[garbon]

Yeah, my machine isn't good enough for either of them to not at one point (I think once I know most of the galaxy) grind to a halt. And yeah both have enough that is fiddly about them both that scratches itch for a little bit (and as you say usually just enough so I can move on) but nothing where I want to keep playing until a year has passed.

[Darth Wagtaros]

Stellaris could be fun early on, but by mid to late game its a drag. Always. I'd destroy every enemy fleet, conquer more than half the planets but can't get a settlement because a constructor is on t he loose. Or the federation I'm part of declares war every turn despite not having a military beyond my own and I have no power to prevent this or get peace.