Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Karnewarrior]

Sectors aren't bad because of what they are, they are bad because they aren't like vassals in CK2. They should be subservient but independent legislative units which EVERYBODY needs to deal with.

Idea: They could vary depending on the government structure. In Empires? They're literally feudal realms. In Corporate Oligarchies, they're Subdivisions and their leaders can get promoted to Emperor if they're economically productive. In Democracies, they are Sectors with local politics based on the factions that are most common there. In gestalt consciences, they are subconciences and are prone to splitting off if your Influence gets too low, so you need to balance expansion with control.

I like that idea. It would make different governments feel different, and since ethos restricts government type sometimes, would make a step towards making different ethos feel different too.

I'd like to see something more organic though, perhaps allowing each empire to designate sectors but making them permanent. I don't know how that would work though. I would also like to see the AI have to deal with them too, especially if they're more rebellious than they are now (I have not, in any of my games, ever had a rebellion).

[umiman]

Sectors aren't bad because of what they are, they are bad because they aren't like vassals in CK2. They should be subservient but independent legislative units which EVERYBODY needs to deal with.

Idea: They could vary depending on the government structure. In Empires? They're literally feudal realms. In Corporate Oligarchies, they're Subdivisions and their leaders can get promoted to Emperor if they're economically productive. In Democracies, they are Sectors with local politics based on the factions that are most common there. In gestalt consciences, they are subconciences and are prone to splitting off if your Influence gets too low, so you need to balance expansion with control.

I like that idea. It would make different governments feel different, and since ethos restricts government type sometimes, would make a step towards making different ethos feel different too.

I'd like to see something more organic though, perhaps allowing each empire to designate sectors but making them permanent. I don't know how that would work though. I would also like to see the AI have to deal with them too, especially if they're more rebellious than they are now (I have not, in any of my games, ever had a rebellion).

I've never had one either, but the AI gets them all the time due to their inability to feed themselves.

[Broseph Stalin]

I've only had one because of a slave revolt. I wanted a vassal who didn't share my ideology so I filled a planet with slaves and started purging some of them.   

[Telgin]

Some teasers for the new trade route system: Twitter link

The dev diary covering all of this should be tomorrow I think, but the teasers about piracy are particularly interesting.  I wonder if the notion of pirate bases and explicit pirate fleets will be gone completely in the update, which I'm torn over.  On one hand, it's kind of ridiculous that the pirates can spawn with a bigger fleet of better ships than the player in the first few decades, but on the other it can be fun to fight them when not much else is going on early game.  In most of my games, pirates were the only thing I fought until the crisis hit.

Relatedly, I'll jump on the bandwagon of wishing for civilian ships in systems, but I'll be very, very surprised if they add something like that.

On another note, in my last game I did actually get lots of defensive wars.  That led to the amusing and somewhat frustrating scenario where the spiritualist awakened empire declared war on my for the fourth time, so I decided to bomb and take their homeworld to set an example.  Immediately after doing so, one of my admirals founded a spiritualist faction in my materialist empire, which is sitting at 0% happiness.  I can't tell if she was just moved by the plight of the octopus men she'd just helped bomb into submission, or if she'd forgotten all of the ships they destroyed in the last 3 wars she was in with them...

That's what I get for trying to occupy a planet with spiritualist pops, I guess.


Edit: link to the dev diary.

I'm not so sure about requiring all trade to route to the capital system, but I can understand the mechanical reasons for it.  It would also give me a reason to move my capital world, which in the past I've only ever done because of the achievement for putting one on a ringworld.

I do really like that hangars on starbases will help combat piracy, since it gives me a reason to build them now.  The overall changes to piracy look pretty good, and it looks like they will be keeping pirate fleets under some circumstances.

Hopefully the need to patrol trade routes with your fleets will also open up some variation in fleets and give us reasons to build things other than battleships and corvettes.  My suspicion is that battleships will be the worst choice for it, although maybe carrier cruisers will be the best, again giving a reason to build such things.

[ZeroGravitas]

it would be nice if it started out needing to link to your capital but eventually transitioning to having multiple or different hubs would make sense

all trade leading to capital has some pretty specific political implications

[Teneb]

I am sad there is no inter-empire trade routes, apparently.

[Telgin]

Not yet at least.  It does seem like a pretty gaping hole though, especially when it would work well with federations.  It might even give a compelling reason to join one, if that was the requirement for setting up trade routes to other empires.

Q: Why is trade value wasted, if sent to a (fully developed) world with billions of your people, instead to your homeworld?

A: We're considering the ability to add additional collection points, but we don't want to make this easy as then there would be no need for long trade routes ever.

Just for the "All trade routes to the capital" complaint. Seems to be a gamey change, not a roleplay change. Wonder if there may be some civic stuff relating to trade hubs.

I'm expecting civics, ascension perks and maybe even technologies that grant extra trade centers.  Maybe for most empires it will be limited to one or two, but an empire focused on it might have half a dozen or so.  It's possible, anyway.

Wiz also mentioned visualizing trade, which means maybe we will actually see civilian ships.  I'll still be surprised, but maybe.

I also saw a comment about how ecumenopolises have yet to be confirmed as a feature, and yet have been teased before a few times, which implies that the feature may be locked behind DLC.  If so, I'm trying to guess what else that DLC would unlock.  I would say trade related civics and ascension perks for making trade empires, but that doesn't really seem worth a DLC either.

[Kanil]

If adding additional hubs ends up being too much work, I'd at least take a "turns X% of trade passing through planet into energy credits, sends remainder towards capital". Just something so my ring world with several hundred pops on it plays a greater part in the trade network than generic mining outpost #9.

[Criptfeind]

Wouldn't an ecumenopolis just be a planet that's maxed out cities? Starting 16 tile planet with maxed cities would have (at last look at the still to be determined numbers of course) 80 housing. That's a lot of room for population. I guess I could see a dlc Ascension perk that lets you make a planet with uncapped/raised cap city districts, but I don't think it'd be necessary to do that for an urban planet.

About trade value, I'm a little bit disappointed that it's just retextured energy production that you need to hop though a few hoops though. I can only imagine that all your civilians have an upper body workout regime that involves cranking up a magnet connected to a battery, that then gets shipped off to your capital to be plugged into your rulers personal vibrating massage chair. It makes sense that there won't be trade between empires, because it's really too simplistic a mechanic to make that in any way satisfying I think... Either it generates free energy and is a no brainier bonus for people with friends, or it doesn't and who would care.

[forsaken1111]

it would be nice if it started out needing to link to your capital but eventually transitioning to having multiple or different hubs would make sense

all trade leading to capital has some pretty specific political implications

I think the thought is that to collect trade value you must have a valid trade path back to the capitol, to ensure you are not doing something odd like setting up a trade route in a disconnected sector of your empire that you could not realistically reach (due to hostile borders, space monsters, etc). It doesn't mean all trade is processed on the capitol, just their mechanical way of rewarding a cohesive connected empire

[PTTG??]

This update is making it hard to commit to playing a new game...

[Broseph Stalin]

This update is making it hard to commit to playing a new game...

I'm sitting here thinking of what game I want to play and the only answer I can come up with is "that version of stellaris that isn't out yet."

[Chiefwaffles]

I am sad there is no inter-empire trade routes, apparently.

It's been said that this is happening; there will be trade agreements between empires. Devs just "aren't ready to talk about that yet."

[Nelia Hawk]

maybe you can make traderoutes to your capital from starbases for your empire and get another tab to make traderoutes to other empire capitals you got trade agreements with.

[Zanzetkuken The Great]

I'm like 90% sure that the intra trade routes is merely to counter the spaghetti strategy people have stated is the best way to play.