Stellaris Dev Diary #128 - Decisions and Planetary Bombardment

[Andy_Dandy]

...Except when empire size penalties are calculated per district instead of per planet, bonuses of these types (Mastery of Nature, Master Builders) suddenly become a lot less good.

Not to mention Lifeseeded...

 

[Sigma 582]

It does make sense that total development of a planet, which then unlocked special buildings, should be primarily driven by the amount of people that actually live there.

Tell that to northern India. E.g. Uttar Pradesh is the most densely populated region (820 per sq.km) while its GDP per capita is on of the lowest in the country ($770). Compare to Switzerland which have a quarter of that population density (200 per sq. km) and 100x GDP per capita ($79k).

 

[Manutero]

I do know that art and gui is Work In Progress!!!
just an opinion: the planet screen is geting super - overcrowded of info. IMHO you can create an extra tab holding some peaces of info... in particular I'd split the building related info and the population/crime/housing/luxury info in other tab

 

[Gothbert]

When a planet gets bombarded it will suffer Devastation. Devastation ticks up from 0 up to 100, and is a direct penalty to your planet’s housing, amenities, trade value and pop growth. Clearing Devastation will take time and cost resources, as one would expect.

I would suggest that Devastation also greatly increase Crime and Public Unrest on a planet. This could help simulate how law and order are breaking down as the planet is bombarded. This could reach the point where 100% Devastation effectively means the planetary government has been reduced to a state of near or total anarchy. I also like the idea that it takes time and resources to repair Devastation. That will make it harder to immediately bounce back after a war for both AI and player empires. Case in point, it took decades for Europe to fully repair itself after the devastation of World War II.

It would also be helpful for a Map Mode to track Devastation status across your empire. This will help players easily identify how badly their empire is suffering during a war and whether suing for peace is a better option. Furthermore, it could also help players understand when empires they are attacking might be close to breaking under the pressure of war. Since systems can have multiple planets, the map mode should list an aggregate Devastation value of all colonies in a system when looking at the map from a Galaxy View.

Also, don't forget to code the AI for more ruthless governments (exterminators, swarms, and purifiers) to take advantage of when their neighbors suffer from high Devastation after a war with another empire is concluded. It would make having them as neighbors even more dangerous as they would be more willing to exploit an empire's weakened state.

 

[AlphaAsh]

"Pop growth reduction: +3%"

Can you please avoid such double-negatives? It's mind-bogling.

"Pop growth: -3%" or similar is easier to grasp.

These aren't the same thing. The reason it's additive is because you can exceed +100% without breaking the game. It makes the range on a modifier effectively infinite. You can't have less than -100%. You can have more than +100%.

 

[Dr_Harnsaft]

Not to mention Lifeseeded...

It makes them nearly useless as it doesn't matter anymore if you have one highly developed or several undeveloped planets in my opinion.

 

[Calvax]

I would suggest that Devastation also greatly increase Crime and Public Unrest on a planet. This could help simulate how law and order are breaking down as the planet is bombarded

This is a great idea, would really help to add some flavour to bombarded planets. As it stands a planet post-embardment is fixed with a few clicks and all is well. Having a period of physical and social recovery would be much richer. Could also help raiding feel more impactful.

 

[BlackUmbrellas]

It makes them nearly useless as it doesn't matter anymore if you have one highly developed or several undeveloped planets in my opinion.

What are you talking about?

Under the new system, there are things a developed planet can do that undeveloped ones can't, and developing a planet means specializing it away from things undeveloped planets are good for.

Playing tall will be a fundamentally different set of concerns than playing wide.

 

[Dr_Harnsaft]

What are you talking about?

Under the new system, there are things a developed planet can do that undeveloped ones can't, and developing a planet means specializing it away from things undeveloped planets are good for.

Playing tall will be a fundamentally different set of concerns than playing wide.

But with tech cost scaling with districts developed planets get a penalty to research speed for being developed. So you could have multiple mining planets or a planet spanning city filled with highly paid researchers and the mining planets would need less research mana for the same tech?
Undeveloped planets should be good for mining and agriculture. Developed should be good for research and industry.

 

[crysanja]

I realy would like to see some options in the traditions.
Like 7 options with 5 picks total.
That way the traditions in each game can be different - maybe even unlock some of the (additional options)traditons with tech or other triggers.

 

[BlackUmbrellas]

But with tech cost scaling with districts developed planets get a penalty to research speed for being developed. So you could have multiple mining planets or a planet spanning city filled with highly paid researchers and the mining planets would need less research mana for the same tech?

So you assume that research- something high-development worlds are supposed to be good at in the new system- wouldn't be properly balanced with that in mind?

Undeveloped mining worlds can't do research, or at least can't do very much of it. A highly developed world can do LOTS of research and be very good at it- almost certainly good enough to easily outpace an equal number of districts worth of mining worlds. Because the mining worlds are mining, and are meant to be good at mining, not researching and good at research.

 

[Dr_Harnsaft]

So you assume that research- something high-development worlds are supposed to be good at in the new system- wouldn't be properly balanced with that in mind?

Undeveloped mining worlds can't do research, or at least can't do very much of it. A highly developed world can do LOTS of research and be very good at it- almost certainly good enough to easily outpace an equal number of districts worth of mining worlds. Because the mining worlds are mining, and are meant to be good at mining, not researching and good at research.

But the developed planets shouldn't be punished for being good at research. If you spent a lot of resources on the development of your planets to be fast at research and thereby neglected agriculture and mining you should be able to outtech those that didn't. But suffer from a shortage of basic resources.

It's not like I want research focused empires to be the most powerful build. They would need lots of resources to support the planets and thereby need to cut short on the military or expand.

 

[Ridixo]

I have a question. If you are reworking planetary bombardment, have you considered a planetary surrender mechanic? I mean, you are very happy bombing a planet, meanwhile the xeno scum on the surface is living in a planetary wide WWII London and Leningrad combined, it's not pretty for them and that is the idea. So maybe they have enough and pull out a white flag, they want to surrender, maybe they for one want to welcome they new overlords. That way you don't need bombard the planet until you soft enough they armies and destroyed their infrastructure. As i see it, this mechanic can work very well in the game, militarist and authoritarian ethos will be less likely to surrender, pacifist will have a penalty, anything to stop the war. Even some planet in the face of invasion and bombardment will not think twice of betraying their actual master, much more if the invaders is their former empire who comes to liberate them.

Just an idea i have and liked to share, keep the good work and learn to love the bomb

 

[Serenity84]

But the developed planets shouldn't be punished for being good at research

You're the only one fantasizing about penalties. And you seem to assume that the only way developed planets are better is because they have more districts which is "punishing". This is wrong. The whole building system will have more options. There will be better upgrades for basic buildings and maybe even entire buildings that will need a developed planet to build them (like requiring hier tier capital buildings). So a built up core world can do more with the same amount of districts than a frontier planet.

 

[BlackUmbrellas]

But the developed planets shouldn't be punished for being good at research. If you spent a lot of resources on the development of your planets to be fast at research and thereby neglected agriculture and mining you should be able to outtech those that didn't. But suffer from a shortage of basic resources.

They're not.

You're not taking relative percentages into account.

An empire with a lot of planets that have less total districts than a single developed planet will have a lower total cost for its techs, but it wont produce as much research, so it will take longer to research them.

A cost of 100 that's filled at 1/tick is higher than a cost of 500 that's filled at 10/tick.

 

[Dr_Harnsaft]

They're not.

You're not taking relative percentages into account.

An empire with a lot of planets that have less total districts than a single developed planet will have a lower total cost for its techs, but it wont produce as much research, so it will take longer to research them.

A cost of 100 that's filled at 1/tick is higher than a cost of 500 that's filled at 10/tick.

OK, I didn't think that through.

 

[$ilent_$trider]

I'm at work at this moment and unable to watch the Paradox streaming.
Could someone kindly post the highlights of what was talked about?

 

[Cruxador]

Is the land clearance decision repeatable? Do the effects scale?

If buildings scaling have been scrapped along with infrastructure, then maybe this isn't the case after all, but if this decision is freely repeatable then Mastery of Nature could be worth taking now.

 

[Sigma 582]

I'm at work at this moment and unable to watch the Paradox streaming.
Could someone kindly post the highlights of what was talked about?

here

 

[Corvididae]

Since you are reworking planetary bombardment anyway, perhaps you could add some technology boosts to it? It has always felt weird to me that my ships can be firing antimatter warheads guided by subspace sensors at other ships, but then as soon as they go into orbit of a planet they go 'Hey, let's pull out the antique nukes and do some carpet bombing! It isn't like we have the tech to find the enemy army and land a quantum tactical warhead right on their chitinous braincase, is it?'

It could even just be added to the missile and sensor technologies, to make it simple. Increased damage from the missile techs, and lessened/increased collateral damage depending on bombardment stance for the sensors.