STELLARIS: New Paradox Game in SPAAAACE

[Tonitrus]

And also agree about the earlier complaints on war goals.

Hardcore xenophobes (or anyone else really), should have some kind of "Total War" option.

[celedhring]

Yeah, combat is pretty lame...and seems biases towards one weapon system over another, without any real balance.

In my current game, still very early on, my race was energy-weapon focused, and the other small empire I got into a war with was using missile-spam corvettes (vs. my energy-spam corvettes).  My weapons were higher tech (by one level), and his shields were higher (II vs. I), but when our roughly equal-size fleets engage, I get overwhelming curb-stomped (he might lose one corvette to my total wipe out).

Missiles have a larger range, so he gets to hit you before you get to weapon range. I dealt with missile spam quite effectively building anti-missile dedicated corvettes, though.

There's a potentially decent counter system in place, but it needs better development and refinement. You don't really get much of a feedback right now, and some ships/weapons are too favored (corvettes are too good and being nerfed next patch, for example).

[Berkut]

The all or nothing combat system however, makes "learning" kind of irrelevant though - by the time you've "learned" anything, your fleet is gone.

[Darth Wagtaros]

The all or nothing combat system however, makes "learning" kind of irrelevant though - by the time you've "learned" anything, your fleet is gone.

And the game along with it.  It turns it into a single game of rock-paper-scissors.

[Monoriu]

The combat reports aren't very useful feedback. 

Anyway, I'll switch to Warhammer for now.  Will wait a bit until they release some patches. 

[Tonitrus]

Other assorted gripes:

- Limitations on war goals/war in general:  There should be a "total war" option...or even just no need to declare war at all (e.g. war started based on your aggressive actions).  Limiting things to only declared wars with lots of rules and restrictions completely takes the fun/realism out of a major part of the game.

- Frontier outposts:  I understand why they have them, but would still remove them completely.  I think they just encourage annoying system "claim rushing".  I would replace it by bolstering up the system already in place of slowly expanding borders/influence (call it "range" limitations of your infrastructure, if you like).  And somewhat related to this one...

- Colony limitations:  It doesn't make sense to me why a continental-favoring race (e.g. humans) cannot already colonized the more "terran-like" ocean/tropical/desert worlds, etc.  Limiting it having to research a specific technology for it is kinda lame.  Instead, just keep the habitability rating low until you research an appropriate tech.  This would also mitigate the aforementioned lack of frontier outposts.  I get it, that it is perhaps to slow you down from expanding like a crazy mofo...but so what?  The cost/expense of building colonies should be enough to reign that in. 

[Berkut]

Other assorted gripes:

- Limitations on war goals/war in general:  There should be a "total war" option...or even just no need to declare war at all (e.g. war started based on your aggressive actions).  Limiting things to only declared wars with lots of rules and restrictions completely takes the fun/realism out of a major part of the game.

I completely disagree with this - I think the lack of "total war" is in fact an attempt to make the game more realistic. Most wars are not total wars, and in most cases you don't just war to exterminate someone else - indeed, those are incredibly rare.

War to extermination are fucking boring. Politics, limited means and limited aims make conflict vastly more interesting.

It would be a huge error to remove this from the game - it would make the game just another 4X yawn fest, of which there have already been dozens.

- Frontier outposts:  I understand why they have them, but would still remove them completely.  I think they just encourage annoying system "claim rushing".  I would replace it by bolstering up the system already in place of slowly expanding borders/influence (call it "range" limitations of your infrastructure, if you like).  And somewhat related to this one...

What is wrong with claim rushing? Again, historically in times of expanding, competing, empires - claim rushing was actually exactly what happened. Whoever got their first and could establish some kind of permanent presence would have de facto claim on that area, and you would have to counter that in some fashion.

Again, these kinds of limits are what makes the game interesting.

- Colony limitations:  It doesn't make sense to me why a continental-favoring race (e.g. humans) cannot already colonized the more "terran-like" ocean/tropical/desert worlds, etc.  Limiting it having to research a specific technology for it is kinda lame.  Instead, just keep the habitability rating low until you research an appropriate tech.  This would also mitigate the aforementioned lack of frontier outposts.  I get it, that it is perhaps to slow you down from expanding like a crazy mofo...but so what?  The cost/expense of building colonies should be enough to reign that in. 

There is so much that needs to be improved about Stellaris, and so much room for that improvement, and all three of your ideas would attack the very core of what makes the game different from all the other 4X games out there, and would be a terrible idea to change.

[Grey Fox]

Colonies are cheap. I have 32 planets in my empire.

[Grey Fox]

I wish I could demand non-colonize system in a War. There's Sol #2 out there & I can take it but the empire holding it has nothing close to it.

[Monoriu]

Are concepts like badboy, aggresive expansion or over-extension present in Stellaris?  So far I don't notice any but I haven't reached the late game yet. 

[garbon]

Are concepts like badboy, aggresive expansion or over-extension present in Stellaris?  So far I don't notice any but I haven't reached the late game yet. 

There is a threat modifier that other empires get when you act aggressively. Has sharp negative impacts on relations.

[celedhring]

Following a suggestion in the Paradox boards I've started a hyperlanes-only game and I'm having a blast. Warfare and expansion become much more strategic since the map gains a sense of geography, and enemies (or yourself) can no longer warp into some random system with a doomstack. There's actual borders and paths that effect war planning and make it much more fun instead of fleet whack-a-mole.

[garbon]

Well if the AI was right, I kinda like that some empires can attack from ways you wouldn't expect. Would break up the complacency that could come from always knowing what direction they'll attack from.

[celedhring]

Well if the AI was right, I kinda like that some empires can attack from ways you wouldn't expect. Would break up the complacency that could come from always knowing what direction they'll attack from.

It makes wars dull though. I just wait until their fleet pops up somewhere, mass up my ships there, whack the mole. With hyperlanes at least there's a point to devising a defensive network.

[garbon]

Well if the AI was right, I kinda like that some empires can attack from ways you wouldn't expect. Would break up the complacency that could come from always knowing what direction they'll attack from.

It makes wars dull though. I just wait until their fleet pops up somewhere, mass up my ships there, whack the mole. With hyperlanes at least there's a point to devising a defensive network.

I don't see why that would be so. You could just as easily mass and park your ships up where they are going to be able to enter. Building defenses shouldn't become more necessary, I would think less so.  When you don't know where enemy ships might come from, you need to defense to buy time until your fleet can make it over to wherever the enemy has appeared. With only hyperlanes, just keep your fleets parked at choke points.