Print

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

[Telgin]

Ah, yeah , you may be right.  Although I could have sworn that gestalts didn't get an internal market either and instead just got more jobs for pops than other empires.  Maybe that was compensating for trade value instead, and since a lot of that was based on the previous scaling job model that's been largely discarded it may not even be that anymore anyway.

I expect that Inward Perfectionists will get galactic market access though, if for no other reason than the fact that they can make trade deals with other empires in the current version of the game.

[Criptfeind]

The more jobs is specifically to make up for not having internal trade, as you say, not having trade value.

I expect that Inward Perfectionists will get galactic market access though, if for no other reason than the fact that they can make trade deals with other empires in the current version of the game.

That sounds like a reasonable train of thought to me.

[Cruxador]

Presumably its main purpose is to make Swiss cheese empires no longer optimal.

Probably won't do that. Sectors still increase empire size. So unless you are small enough that you are below your admin cap, you'll want to swisscheese your empire to reduce the penalties still.

If it's by sector then it wouldn't have that effect since once you've got a sector, you might as well have everything in that sector. But I don't know if that's how it works. Where were the new empire size calculations discussed?

[Telgin]

One of the devs posted an image showing the calculations in the latest dev diary:



The impact for owned systems is higher than I expected, at twice the penalty of a district, and it's kind of weird that colonies add to the size on top of their district size, but we'll see how that gets balanced after release.

What's particularly interesting is that it looks like the penalties for going over the empire size become very large, very fast.  Technology and tradition costs don't scale too badly, but campaign and leader costs go up very fast.  Unless those +10% penalties come in some kind of step function where you just get blanket penalties for hitting certain size milestones above your administrative cap, they're going to get out of hand.  Unless the base cost for them is really low...

Of course, it's also hard to know how the administrative cap can be improved.  Clearly the Courier Network tradition gives you a +20 cap, and I'm guessing some ascension perks will increase that too, plus maybe ruler or governor levels, but it doesn't look like it scales easily.

[Cruxador]

Oh, yeah those numbers look ridiculous. Hopefully someone at Paradox will take a break from their office multiplayer to evaluate those numbers on a big map. It's definitely looking like Swiss cheese empires are even more mandatory now, though.

[Majestic7]

MAybe sectors will take less adminstrative resources than directly controlled colonies. I'm fond of vassals anyway.

[Telgin]

That would make some sense, although it was at least implied that they weren't going to be pressuring players to hand over control of systems anymore and just leave the automation open as an option for those who wanted it.  I wouldn't put it past them to do it anyway, but we'll see.

Maybe hiring governors will increase the administrative cap?  That would be interesting to see.

And in the end, this is really just expressing the same tech and tradition penalties as are here now.  The +10% costs to campaigns and leaders for going 10 over the administrative cap is the main thing that concerns me.  I know that they said that leader costs would scale with empire size, so maybe that's deliberate and could be priced so that it's not unreasonable, but the campaign cost thing looks kind of excessive.

[Criptfeind]

If it's by sector then it wouldn't have that effect since once you've got a sector, you might as well have everything in that sector. But I don't know if that's how it works. Where were the new empire size calculations discussed?

Oh. Sorry, I'm a dummy, I mistyped and meant system not sector.


As for the new numbers, tech penalty for systems is lower then before and per planet is higher (once a planet is fully developed) which I think is good (Although it looks like planets are going to potentially be more productive. Which might make sectors even worse comparatively.) So maybe... But the leader/campaign costs might be a killer. Especially since it sounds like we'll want a governor for every inhabited system... I dunno.

MAybe sectors will take less adminstrative resources than directly controlled colonies. I'm fond of vassals anyway.

The way they've been talking about sectors makes me think this probably won't be the case. It sounds like sectors won't really be anything like we think of sectors now, as autonomously controlled areas that are distinct in our empire with mechanically differences. It sounds like in the future the difference between the home sector and any other sector will basically just be what leader is giving bonuses to it. Otherwise it'll be the same, with us directly controlling it and no longer have split resource banks and autobuilding and such. A move away from vassalish sectors and towards them not really existing in a meaningful way.

[Cruxador]

The way they've been talking about sectors makes me think this probably won't be the case. It sounds like sectors won't really be anything like we think of sectors now, as autonomously controlled areas that are distinct in our empire with mechanically differences. It sounds like in the future the difference between the home sector and any other sector will basically just be what leader is giving bonuses to it. Otherwise it'll be the same, with us directly controlling it and no longer have split resource banks and autobuilding and such. A move away from vassalish sectors and towards them not really existing in a meaningful way.

Apparently you can still give them resources to auto-build if you want, they just won't retain their resources for that purpose by default or prevent you from building. So it's opt-in micromanagement reduction, rather than mandatory gameplay excision.

[Criptfeind]

New Dev diary talking about tech and the ability to make specialized planets (only two in the base game but looks cool for modders)

I'm thinking the way tech works is going to be the total deathknell for any idea of tall vs wide. Since it doesn't look like increasing your tech is going to help with resource extraction very much, it shouldn't be nearly as important as simply getting more planets for more dudes to work on.

I think the real update though was on steam where they showed a new ascension perk for universally compatable xeno-sexual biology. Finally my captain Kirks can leave litters of half green children thoughout the universe.

[Cruxador]

Penal worlds seem like a great way to boost immigration on new planets. Nothing else super interesting stands out.

[Rolan7]

Depending on what we have time for, it's possible that the 'quality' of the resort world will impact how much amenities it will give other planets (for example, a Gaia World would be an ideal resort).

If they don't get around to it, I wonder if low-habitability worlds will make good resorts hehe.  Hopefully the amenities production is tied to the happiness of the local population though.

[Egan_BW]

Yeah, seems like it's ideal right now to stick a resort on the most barren, deadly, and useless body you can find, so that the tourists can look at the pointy rocks and acid clouds from their windows while enjoying the air conditioning.

[forsaken1111]

Yeah, seems like it's ideal right now to stick a resort on the most barren, deadly, and useless body you can find, so that the tourists can look at the pointy rocks and acid clouds from their windows while enjoying the air conditioning.

I see you've been to Las Vegas...

[Radsoc]

If they do a CK2 style announcement, my guess would be that the release is one month from that date. Or maybe they just put 2 months, for a christmas release