• We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Hello everyone!

Today we aim to shed some light on the upcoming changes for the 1.2 “Asimov” update.

Border Rework
Something we did not like with how Stellaris played out towards the mid-game previous to 1.2, was how that the player tended to get locked in and blocked from exploring or gaining access to the rest of the galaxy.

In the upcoming update we aim to correct that issue by reworking how border access works. By default, everyone will have open border access to other empires’ borders. An empire may close its border through a diplomatic action, and access is denied to your rivals by default.

closed border.jpg


We hope that this will make the game feel less constrained towards the mid-game.

Another valuable addition is that when you give your ships or fleet a Return order, but they cannot find a valid path home, you may set them as “Missing in Action”. While ships are missing in action, they will be invisible to you and reappear within your borders within a certain amount of time.

Expansion Cost
To reduce exploits of the open borders, we have chosen to introduce an Influence cost to colonizing planets or building Frontier Outposts. This cost will be based on the range to your closest owned system.

expansion cost.jpg


Embassies & Trust
A significant change in 1.2 is the removal of embassies and the passive opinion increase they provided. In the “Asimov” update, players will have to gain trust by cooperating with the AI. Trust is gained over time by having some sort of treaty with the AI.

Diplomatic Changes
A number of diplomatic statuses that were previously available through trade have now been changed into being Diplomatic Actions available through the diplomacy screen. We felt that some of these actions did not really feel in place, and that they were too hidden, in the trade interface.

diplomacy screen.jpg


We have changed how cooperating with the AI happens. It is no longer as easy to enter into an Alliance with the AI, and you have to start off by gaining their Trust through research agreements, guarantee independence, non-aggression pacts and defensive pacts.

Defensive Pacts are a new diplomatic action that allows two empires to be called into wars if any of them should get attacked.

Joint War Declarations
Another new diplomatic feature is the possibility to invite other empires to your wars. The AI will not join your wars if their Attitude towards you is not at least neutral and they have something they also want from the target.

invite attackers.jpg


All things combined we hope that these changes will make the mid-game feel less static and will open up more possibilities for interesting situations to occur.

Join us again next week for more details about the upcoming 1.2 "Asimov" update!
 
for me it would be:
- sectors being controlled by AI is now optional

due to recent experiences, I would also like to see:
- starports are no longer worth warscore
- colonies and starports appear on the galactic map under the system icons

The entire point of sectors is to offload the micro management of dozens of planets. I want that. I have no interest in controlling those planets. The Sector AI just needs to function.

Spaceports should be worth warscore. The Sector AI just shouldn't build one while at war.
 
  • 8
  • 3
Reactions:
In order to be really interesting, ultimately Sectors probably need to be more like vassals, including building their own fleets. Otherwise, how will they rebel properly? (Actually, I suppose they can just take your ships--that would be fine too.)
 
  • 3
Reactions:
I just started playing my first 1000 star game after installing the clarke update and I am at 2450+ without any stuttering so far, what do you consider a strong CPU? I would consider mine fairly weak I suppose, I have an I5-2500k at 4.4GHZ and 16 gigs of ram @ 2400.

Maybe they fixed it, will try to load up the game that was lagging before. I have i7-4.7Ghz. You have good CPU too.
 
Why should I waste my Influence on a crap like non-agression treaty when I can save it for expansion, which will give me resources and research, which will add to my empire power more than any diplomacy?
Influence-for-diplomacy would simply make me ignore anything that would waste even a fraction of Inf. It's like you came from the same studio which made Europa Universalis and learned nothing from it. We've already been there with Monarch Power.
 
  • 4
  • 4
Reactions:
The entire point of sectors is to offload the micro management of dozens of planets. I want that. I have no interest in controlling those planets. The Sector AI just needs to function.
no, you have conflated two separate things. The entire point of sectors is to group micro-level concepts into a macro-level concept. The entire point of *AI*, independent of sectors, is to "offload micro-management". sectors are a fantastic and awesome idea. forced AI control of sectors is a horrifyingly bad idea.

and if you have no interest in controlling the sectors, that's great, you can select "AI Controlled = Yes". Why can't I select "AI Controlled = No"?

Spaceports should be worth warscore. The Sector AI just shouldn't build one while at war.

Only if I can control where and when they are built (and heck, seeing them would be nice too). Right now we are forced to have our empire peppered with free warscore fruit all over the place that we can't easily see or control. Even if the AI could not build during a war, why should there be dozens of useless spaceports all across my empire? Why do I have forced war vulnerabilities all over the place that I can barely even see?
 
  • 10
  • 1
Reactions:
For a game that "broke sales record" at release, I'd hoped for a different amount of love and attention. Just a thought.

The sales were a result of hype combined with a burning itch many people felt from the desire of the genre, namely the disappointments of other sci-fi strategy games, like Civ's expansion nobody was happy with. Hype is not based on reality and, as we can plainly see, has nothing to do with the quality of the product.

It also does not help that Paradox allowed their customers to believe they were purchasing a finished product. Misinformation is the basis of all predatory business practices.

I don't think they intended to exploit their customers, but that's what happened and I have to say I am highly unimpressed.
 
Last edited:
  • 9
  • 5
Reactions:
It was acknowledged that there needs to be a 'cooldown' between sending the offers. Not sure if it was make this patch, but they have agreed in principle to tweak this.
I was hoping more for a influence lost per month in maintenance to keep the war going depending on how badly you are losing and your ethics, this can simulate "war exhaustion" with militarists being resistant to it, it can replace the war happiness.
 
  • 4
  • 2
Reactions:
I would really rather not have everything under the sun drain a resource I have no way of replenishing beyond researching specific buildings you can only have a finite amount of. 'War exhaustion' through influence is a bloody awful idea. At least happiness depletes production.
 
  • 5
  • 2
Reactions:
I would really rather not have everything under the sun drain a resource I have no way of replenishing beyond researching specific buildings you can only have a finite amount of. 'War exhaustion' through influence is a bloody awful idea. At least happiness depletes production.
So is the lose 120 influence system we have now. However, i am starting to think that war exhaustion and influence be separate, with war exhaustion building up depending on how the war is going with influence being used out of the Player's own volition to keep it in check.
 
  • 3
Reactions:
Any way we can rework out Star Charts and Alliance "vision" works? It's pretty bad to actually trade Star Charts because it "locks" the star systems you haven't explored, meaning you wont find any new anomalies, while if I never share my charts and always clean up all mining bases etc in the systems i'm going to gain before peace, I can survey everything and the game will spawn anomalies without issue.

edit: I think it also lets you reroll system resources
 
  • 3
  • 1
Reactions:
In order to be really interesting, ultimately Sectors probably need to be more like vassals, including building their own fleets. Otherwise, how will they rebel properly? (Actually, I suppose they can just take your ships--that would be fine too.)

THIS, Sectors should be like a kind of uber-vassal that has it's own fully functional AI which YOU get to set. They will use your tech and you can give/take fleet strength with them the same as you can with resources. We also need to be able to order a sector to do defensive construction and exploration as they are often on your periphery.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
So is the lose 120 influence system we have now. However, i am starting to think that war exhaustion and influence be separate, with war exhaustion building up depending on how the war is going with influence being used out of the Player's own volition to keep it in check.

War exhaustion isn't unreasonable, but influence can be accumulated over time. That's what keeps it being usable. Those outposts hurt because it directly affects how it gathers over time. If it required a lump sum, it wouldn't feel like such a big deal to some people, depending on how they play. Having the points gives you options to use it; not having them ties your hands completely.

Happiness should probably be emphasized more and used more readily. If a population is really just sick of the war, or is morally opposed to it to start, having that hit across entire sectors would seriously hurt, and incentivise the government to wrap it up pronto, or they might have some big issues come up very soon. Rebellion + seriously hurt mineral income to replace ships or build armies can fragment entire nations.

That said, the 'war happiness' penalty would have to be gradual, and not just one big fat block that never grows or shrinks. Think War Exhaustion EU4 style.
 
  • 2
Reactions:
The 1000 cap is a soft cap, not a hard cap. On my current game my 'full strength' puts my fleet size at roughly 1500. You just need to have the spare mineral and energy income to support the penalty to ship upkeep.

I will admit, though, that as you keep expanding your territory and having to expand your fleets to keep up, this means that eventually the linear growth in income from captured territory will be eclipsed by the exponential growth in ship maintenance costs required to defend that territory, though I can't help but wonder if this was intended to be the case. A way to limit how big an Empire can grow before you have to start claiming vassals in order to expand without leaving vast swaths of territory defenseless.

Yeah we all know the 1000 cap is a soft cap. But owning half the galaxy still limits you to about 1700, best case. Which is minuscule when you're taking on 3 empires who each have 1000 = 3000.........
 
  • 1
Reactions:
Currently alliances are absolutely pointless in this game. Stop working on diplomacy until you make the AI stop sticking to my fleets during war. As long as they are just extra ships tacked onto my fleet I see no reason to ally with anyone.

Fix the AI, make them do their own thing during war, until then making alliances is just a burden on expansion.
 
  • 12
  • 5
Reactions:
Cheers for the DD grekulf and the extra info Wiz :D. I hope whoever was crook is at the very least well on the mend, and hopefully feeling much better. Changes sound great - should give the mid and late game a good deal of extra verve.
 
  • 1
Reactions: