• 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.

Stellaris Dev Diary #361 - The Vision

Hi everyone!

Now that the Grand Archive Story Pack is out, I want to do something a little different. With 360 Stellaris Dev Diaries complete, I thought it was time to circle right back around to the beginning: what was, will be.

Stellaris Dev Diary #1 was “The Vision”, and so is #361.

What is Stellaris?​

The vision serves as a guiding tool to keep the entire development team aligned. As the game evolves, we work hard to update it regularly to remain accurate and consistent with our core vision.

Here’s how I currently answer “What is Stellaris?”:


The Galaxy is Vast and Full of Wonders​

For over eight years, Stellaris has remained the ultimate exploration-focused space-fantasy strategy sandbox, allowing players to discover the wonders of the galaxy.

From their first steps into the stars to uniting the galaxy under their rule, the players are free to discover and tell their own unique stories.

Every story, trope, or player fantasy in science fiction is within our domain.


Stellaris is a Living Game​

Over time, Stellaris has evolved and grown to meet the desires of the player base.​
  • At launch, Stellaris leaned deep into its 4X roots.​
  • It evolved from that base toward Grand Strategy.​
  • As it continues to mature, we have added deeper Roleplaying aspects.​
All of these remain part of our DNA.

Stellaris is a 4X Grand Strategy game with Roleplaying elements that continues to evolve and redefine itself.


Every Game is Different​

We desire for players to experience a sense of novelty every time they start a game of Stellaris.

They should be able to play the same empire ten times in a row and experience ten different stories.
A player’s experience will differ wildly if their first contact is a friendly MegaCorp looking to prosper together or if they’re pinned between a Fallen Empire and a Devouring Swarm.

Stellaris relies on a combination of prescripted stories (often tied to empire Origins) and randomized mechanical and narrative building blocks that come together to create unplanned, emergent narratives.

A sense of uncertainty and wonder about what could happen next is core to the Stellaris experience.


What is this About?​

Fundamentally, as the players, Stellaris is your game.

Your comments and feedback on The Machine Age heavily influenced our plans for 2025. We work on very long timelines, so we’ve already been working on next year’s releases for some time now. Most of what I’m asking will affect which tasks the team prioritizes and will help direct our direction in 2026 and beyond.

We’re making some changes to how we go about things. Many people have commented that the quarterly release cadence we’ve had since the 3.1 ‘Lem’ update makes it feel like things are changing too quickly and too often, and of course, it disrupts your active games and mods. The short patch cycle between Vela and Circinus was necessary for logistical reasons but really didn’t feel great.

We’re going to slow things down a little bit to let things stabilize. I’ve hinted a couple of times (and said outright last week) that we have the Custodian team working on some big things - the new Game Setup screen was part of this initiative but was completed early enough that we could sneak it into 3.14.1. My current plan is to have an Open Beta with some of the team's larger changes during Q1 of next year, replacing what would have been the slot for a 3.15 release. This will make 2025Q2, around our anniversary in May, a bigger than normal release, giving us the opportunity to catch up on technical debt, polish, and major features.

What is Stellaris to you?​

How does this match what you think Stellaris is, and where it should go? Would you change any of these vision statements?

What systems and content are “sacred” to you, which would make Stellaris not Stellaris anymore if we changed them?

Some examples to comment on could include:
  • How important to you are the current systems that use individual Pops and Jobs in the planetary simulation?
  • If we made significant changes to fleets, how much could we alter before it no longer felt like the game you love?
  • What aspects are most important in defining your civilization?
  • How do you set goals for yourself during gameplay? When do you set them, and how often do they change as you play?
  • How important is the current Trade system, with routes collecting back to your Capital?
  • Is colonization too easy? Should habitability and planet climate matter more?
  • Are there any Origins that should be Civics, or Civics that should be Origins?
  • If you could remove one game system, what would it be? Which system would you make the central focus of an expansion? Is there a feature you want to enjoy, but feel the current implementation doesn’t quite work for you?

To the Future, Together!​

I want to spend most of this year’s remaining dev diaries (at least, the ones that aren’t focused on the Circinus patch cycle) on this topic, talking with you about where our shared galactic journey is heading.

Next week we’ll be talking about the 3.14.159 patch.

But First, a Shoutout to the Chinese Stellaris Community​

Before I sign off, I want to commend the Chinese Stellaris Community for finding the funniest bug of the cycle. I’ve been told that they found that you can capture inappropriate things with Boarding Cables from the Treasure Hunters origin, and have been challenging each other to find the most ridiculous things to capture.

You know, little things like Cetana’s flagship. The Infinity Machine. An entire Enclave.

I’m not going to have the team fix this for 3.14.159, but will likely have them do so for 3.14.1592. I want to give you a chance to complete your collection and catch them all. After all, someone needs to catch The End of the Cycle and an Incoming Asteroid. Post screenshots if you catch anything especially entertaining!

See you next week!


Stellaris: Grand Archive is now available as a standalone purchase or with a discount as part of Stellaris: Season 08!

Edit:
It's come to my attention that an Incoming Asteroid has been captured! Excellent job!
 
  • 94Like
  • 24Love
  • 10Haha
  • 2
  • 2
Reactions:
  • How important to you are the current systems that use individual Pops and Jobs in the planetary simulation?
I love the pop system, it makes stellaris stand out compared to other paradox games.
  • If we made significant changes to fleets, how much could we alter before it no longer felt like the game you love?
Im not sure what a rework of the fleets would even look like, but I think it could be improved, a bit tedious at the moment
  • What aspects are most important in defining your civilization?
Role-playability
  • How do you set goals for yourself during gameplay? When do you set them, and how often do they change as you play?
Usually at the start, I decide what I will do, how my empire will interact with others
  • How important is the current Trade system, with routes collecting back to your Capital?
It needs a rework, I barely interact with the trade system. I thing logistic routes would be cool where if your food planet was under siege or cut off from the rest of the empire, you wouldn't receive the resources from that planet and go into food shortages
  • Is colonization too easy? Should habitability and planet climate matter more?
Habitability should definitely matter more, currently its meta to just settle every world, which I dont do for RP reasons, just wait for terraforming
  • If you could remove one game system, what would it be? Which system would you make the central focus of an expansion? Is there a feature you want to enjoy, but feel the current implementation doesn’t quite work for you?
IF I COULD REMOVE ONE SYSTEM IT WOULD BE EMPIRE SPRAWL. IT IS BROKEN! MY LEAST FAVORITE PART OF THE GAME. I dont mind the logistic pop growth, but I just want to play a wide, galaxy spanning imperium of man with no vassals on 1000 stars. I used to be able to defeat a 25x crisis early but it was a struggle, now I just get steamrolled because my empire gets too big and I cant keep up with tech. Maybe have empire sprawl affect unity but not research, or greatly lower the amount, or give us the option in the settings to change these settings. Perhaps if it scaled based off the galaxy size as well. because 100 stars in 1000 isnt much, but if you were that large in a smaller galaxy that would obviously be a larger percentage
 
Are the mysterious ships that used Phase Disruptors to melt the metal on the surface of the metal planet following the bombardment the ones depicted here? (Attached image)
Image_231715711920118.jpg
 

What is Stellaris to you?​

How does this match what you think Stellaris is, and where it should go? Would you change any of these vision statements?

What systems and content are “sacred” to you, which would make Stellaris not Stellaris anymore if we changed them?

Some examples to comment on could include:
  • How important to you are the current systems that use individual Pops and Jobs in the planetary simulation?
  • If we made significant changes to fleets, how much could we alter before it no longer felt like the game you love?
  • What aspects are most important in defining your civilization?
  • How do you set goals for yourself during gameplay? When do you set them, and how often do they change as you play?
  • How important is the current Trade system, with routes collecting back to your Capital?
  • Is colonization too easy? Should habitability and planet climate matter more?
  • Are there any Origins that should be Civics, or Civics that should be Origins?
  • If you could remove one game system, what would it be? Which system would you make the central focus of an expansion? Is there a feature you want to enjoy, but feel the current implementation doesn’t quite work for you?

When it comes to pops and economics, what I really care about is
  • Detailed Economic Gameplay - it should be fun to actually play Fanatic Pacifist (and indeed inward perfection) and focus almost entirely on building your economy without playing Galactic Politics or ever fighting a single war
  • Traits should matter - these should be an important defining part of what your empire is good at and the fact that they aren't is one of the two big crippling problems with Genetic Ascension (the other being that other Ascensions - Cybernatic, Modular - do the same things)
  • Empires should broadly fall into one of three categories - Single Species, Species-Caste system or Multi-Species; Single Species Empires - the Xenophobe Dream - should really feel their Primary Species' strengths and weaknesses; Species-Caste system (which doesn't nessesarily mean actual Castes / slavery / etc. - just that the empire has a few species which fill different economic niches - Genemodding into several subspecies would also come under this paradigm); Multi-Species Empires - the Xeophile dream - would be trading specialisation for resiliance. All of these should lean into different playstyles, be fun and be viable.
  • Economics and Pops should mostly feel different based on Pacifist (tall/economy)-Militarist(wide/rush) and Xenophile(resiliant/generalist)-Xenophobe(optimised/specialist) ethics

When it comes to trade
  • The Trade route system is good, but it could be better. Currently you use a few starbases to cast wide nets over your planets and then chain starbases back to your homeworld to avoid pirates, or else put down defence platforms and kill them when they spawn.
  • Limiting the system to just 'trade value' is bad. The resource is inefficient to produce and
  • The system would be much more fun if it interacted with all resources - to steal ideas from Vic and EUV Project Caesar, I feel like planets (and systems) should be part of a combined market - this could be linked to trade hub starbases, sectors or both. Planets would have a market access rating based on infrastructure (Good, Limited, Marginal or None) - Planets with Good or Limited access would supply resources directly to and from the market, those with Marginal or None would be reliant on their own resources only. Limited Access would apply small penalties based resources not produced on-world (for example a Factory planet which had Limited Access and consumed net Minerals would have a small penalty to Metalurgist and Artisan output). Marginal would reduce the speed of planet deficit sitiuations. Market Hubs would trade with one another if the whole market had deficits, assuming trade routes weren't disrupted.
  • Trade ought to be more important to the economy as this is the best mechanism for weaker forces to use to defeat stronger ones militarily - Piracy, Espionage and Small forces doing gurrilla raiding ought to damage enemy economies - the counterplay becomes a choice of economic planet specialisation (for more efficiency) vs. generalisation (for more resiliance)

If I could add wholesale one new system it would be changing how Empire Creation works in terms of starting system and Origin - I'd much rather have something like a Point-Buy system where you could buy things like:
  • Starting planet size
  • Starting planet type (inc. starting with a non-optimal type after you accidentally climate changed your tundra world fully frozen in the early 2100s)
  • How many Guarenteed Habitable Worlds you get
  • Guarenteed Habitable World size
  • Guarenteed Terraforming Candidates (inc. Toxic or Frozen) in your home system
  • Guarenteed Celestial Objects in your starting system (e.g. Gas Giants, Barren Planets, Multiple Stars etc.)
  • Starting with nearby features (Nebulae, Black Holes, Neutron Stars/Pulsars, Wormhole)
  • Starting with nearby semi-scripted systems (Asteroid-rich system, System with a planet with +Alloys, System with several small science deposits)
  • Some Origins could be combined into this (Voidborne, Shattered Ring, Remnants, Life Seeded, Post-Apolcalypse, Ocean Paradise)
  • Some Origins could also be combined into an add-on for this (Galactic Doorstep, Lost Colony, Doomsday, Slingshot to the Stars, Subterranean, Riftworld, Fruitful Partnership, Calamitous Birth) to allow people to do that thing where they want up to 3 origins for 'History', 'Geography' and 'Destiny'
  • Where in the Galaxy you start (Near the Edge, Near the Core, In the middle)
  • Distance to Neighbours (Nearer, Normal or Far)

One thing I think would be a valuable experiment to remove would be removing Warfare (meaning the ability to declare wars). To be clear, I don't mean from the live game - I mean those "Summer Experiment" sorts of things. One thing Paradox Games are usually pretty poor at is non-military conflict resolution (which, to be fair, is hard to get right). I feel like doing an experiment where Warfare wasn't an option would highlight all the places it's effectively the only solution to available to an in-game problem where it feels like other options should exist - Megacorp Branch offices for example. Can't outcompete or fight economically; can't do backroom deals and espionage your way into ownership - you need to take over other Empire's Branches by war. There are other places too of course - get a Precursor Archeology site spawn on the border of another empire and they get the system? Good luck getting them to trade it to you peacefully. Removing War (as an experiment) should highlight a whole bunch of these - which hopefully should get more ways to resolve them.

Why yes, I do play Pacifist / Fanatic Pacifist a lot, how did you know?
 
  • 2Like
Reactions:
Here is my answer to the questions as a person who played Stellaris with only the Utopia expansion.
  • How important to you are the current systems that use individual Pops and Jobs in the planetary simulation?

    The existence of Pops is important since it is an important part of the roleplay experience. Although, I do not think there is a need to simulate every pop individually. I think the best way to implement Pops is to treat Pops as a resource, by assigning Pops to Jobs you temporarily consume them to produce some other resources, and structures like the Synaptic Lathe would consume them entirely to convert them into Logic. We could also make modules in ships that would consume Pops to be turned into armies (details are given in one of the later questions)

  • If we made significant changes to fleets, how much could we alter before it no longer felt like the game you love?

    The main problem with fleet management is that you can have too many fleets at once and managing the fleets would be too difficult. I would like the fleet system to be more user-friendly. If it was up to me, I would make a new unit called a command ship which would be piloted by an admiral (limiting the number of fleets as well as add roleplay experience) and ships would be added to these fleets

  • What aspects are most important in defining your civilization?

    Origins, Traits and Civics.

  • How do you set goals for yourself during gameplay? When do you set them, and how often do they change as you play?

    I set goals based on the situation at hand, like if I need some resource in a planet, or need a particular system, that would become a goal. I set them quite frequently while playing, I normally do not have long-term goals.

  • How important is the current Trade system, with routes collecting back to your Capital?

    Absolutely useless. Trade doesn't generate any substantial value.

  • Is colonization too easy? Should habitability and planet climate matter more?

    Yes, colonization is too easy. In my opinion, the adverse effects of living in an unsuitable environment should be more brutal, like Pops would want to emigrate away from an unsuitable environment unless it has lots of resources. To make planets with suitable environments more appealing, make Pops that are more suitable for an environment be more interested to immigrate to such planets. And there should be more climate variety.

  • Are there any Origins that should be Civics, or Civics that should be Origins?

    I only have Utopia, so I am not in the state to comment on this.

  • If you could remove one game system, what would it be? Which system would you make the central focus of an expansion? Is there a feature you want to enjoy, but feel the current implementation doesn’t quite work for you?

    Remove trade.
    I would like to have the Virtuality ascension be a central focus for an expansion. It could focus on the questions on artificial intelligence, the singularity and things like that. The machine age focused on the machine aspect, this expansion would focus on the AI aspect instead. We could also explore the question arised by the Vultaruum, that they were part of a simulation. The endgame crisis here could be to try and break the simulation (aka make the game crash or have late game lag) :3.
    A second choice for an expansion would be planetary invasions. To solve the issue of armies having to be carried in separate transport ships, we could make transport ships into transport modules for general ships like battleships. The modules would consume Pops as resources and would launch Pops onto planets in order to conquer them.
    A third choice for an expansion would be a Bionics ascension (it would be the opposite of Synthetics - here machine would slowly turn organic, like Pinnochio). This expansion could have biorobots, which would be organic robots following every bidding (Then again these could be just clones).
    A fourth expansion could be on Mechas. If we have Leviathan expansion, we can have Mecha expansions, having bots move through space.
    A fifth expansion could fulfill roleplaying as superheroes in space - leaders who could move in space without any ships (think Superman, Galactus, Brainiac, Frieza, Goku, Omni-man). They may even be able to destroy planets alone, without even using a Colossus weopen.
    I feel like there is some lacking in exploration. If we could have MORE EVENTS (could be added as a expansion which focuses solely on adding new exploration events/situations without adding any more gimmicks), it would be nice to have. We could also have regions in the galaxy blocked from the rest of the galaxy by having separate types of hyperlanes that cannot be breached unless some particular tech is researched. We could make it such that a cosmic storm is blocking regions in the galaxy and only a particular technology would allow you to breach them. We could have a kilostructre like a telescope that would allow you to observe distant systems from afar, adding another layer of exploration other than moving your science ship to a location.
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
I'm a bit late to the party, but I just want express some of my thoughts on the matter.

For one, I fully agree with the notion that Stellaris is a living, breathing game that gets frequent updates and overhauls. This sets it apart from other Paradox games in that those games get entirely new games and the old ones are forgotten about. I believe that a "Stellaris 2" will never happen, at least not anytime soon. I would much rather prefer a complete overhaul to the already existing game in a hypothetical version 4.0 .

A system I wouldn't want to see changed is the war system, at least space combat. For all the talk it gets, I believe that space combat is the most balanced and democratic it has ever been. Yes, I would like to see doom stacking mitigated and I'd like to see space fauna be balanced more, but those should be QoL changes, not full reworks. I believe that wars are the most important aspect to Stellaris, and that many aspects of warfare haven't seen any changes or love to them since 1.0 8 years ago.

I would also like to see other changes to the game such as Internal Politics, Wargoals among other things, Crime and Piracy, Better and more useful genetic ascension, and just generally better AI. All in that order.

These are just some of the things I want, other players have their ideas too. Paradox, if you're reading this, please look at what people have posted in suggestions. There are so interesting ideas on where the game could go from here.
 
After reading the ideas and suggestions of players, we can conclude that the game requires the development of mechanics in depth, not in breadth. A lot of new things have been added in recent years, although it makes sense to make the old mechanics more diverse and add more interactions, events, and generally give them something new.

It is clear that you can’t sell this and it is bad for commerce - you need to sell a new DLC with something new, but how to sell an improvement and deepening of mechanics that were already in the past DLC is a good question. You can’t make a DLC for a DLC.

If you want to improve the situation, find a way to present and sell these improvements and deepening of mechanics.
 
I'd like to see an incentive for pleasing multiple factions. For example, maybe for every Faction that is happy, you unlock the edict for that ethic, or perhaps an edict unique to the faction. If the faction is unhappy, then the edict is removed. Or perhaps the edict's effect just purely scales based on approval level. Or perhaps just tiered unique bonuses given upon reaching approval levels. Some more mechanics with leaders who are leaders of specific factions would be interesting too.
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
  • How important to you are the current systems that use individual Pops and Jobs in the planetary simulation?
Somewhat important I'd say. If it was changed in the direction of having something like variable sized pops though that could be good too.
  • If we made significant changes to fleets, how much could we alter before it no longer felt like the game you love?
It could be changed a lot and I wouldn't mind.
  • What aspects are most important in defining your civilization?
  • How do you set goals for yourself during gameplay? When do you set them, and how often do they change as you play?
  • How important is the current Trade system, with routes collecting back to your Capital?
Not at all.
  • Is colonization too easy? Should habitability and planet climate matter more?
I think so. I feel as if there are too many sources of +habitability modifiers and climate preference genetic engineering and terraforming eventually turn planet habitability into just a chore you have to manage, especially if you have many species in your empire.
  • Are there any Origins that should be Civics, or Civics that should be Origins?
  • If you could remove one game system, what would it be? Which system would you make the central focus of an expansion? Is there a feature you want to enjoy, but feel the current implementation doesn’t quite work for you?
To me the biggest thing lacking in the game is internal political management. Keeping your pops and/or factions satisfied or under control doesn't really matter much in the game as it is and I feel like its an area available for large changes to improve the game. If an expansion focusing on this was developed I think one way it could go that would be a large departure from the current game is an option for a single-species universe like foundation or dune. I feel like something like that really only works well if political machinations are an engaging enough system on their own.
 
  1. Not Particularly important. If the Stellaris team sees a good opportunity to make a change that would improve the granularity, feel, or performance of the pop system, I would be greatly in favor!
  2. Personally, I usually play GSG games in a fairly passive way, so I wouldn't mind too much being changed about combat itself. I know that there are many others who do feel very strongly about the fleets system, so perhaps you should listen to them first. The one thing that I think should be kept though is the "personality" of owning and building a fleet. I always love how it feels to have a fleet in stellaris, and deploy it around. To explain what I mean, if you compare how you might build up, maintain, and strategically station a fleet throughout a game of stellaris to how a player in a Civ game might view their units, there is a bit of a difference. Stellaris fleets are highly customizable, slow, expensive, but powerful. This makes me at least feel more attached to them; because I built them. Civ units, on the other hand, are quick to build, deploy, have limited customization when it comes to gameplay, and have to be controlled in masses to be effective, which makes individual units less interesting. So in any new Stellaris fleet system, I think it would be important to keep the feel of the large, custom fleets that we have in the game now.
  3. Probably the "species" I am playing as, and their unique mechanics. Things like how lithodids work differently from other pop types, and how combining them with other governments/civics/bonuses can produce more unique effects (such as how "devouring swarm" becomes "terravores" when playing as a lithoid species).
  4. Usually, I have a set goal before the campaign that serves as a "guiding principle" for what I am going to do during the game. Sometimes I will also set goals around the mid game as well, as new threats or opportunities emerge from the empires/diplomacy/threats around me If those two previou goals last me long enough, I might also hold out to defeat the crisis. Sometimes that wait can be a bore however, and most of my games end after I have reached a certain technological/military/economic ascendancy over the mostly unchanging situation around me around the end-game (which I set to 2350), or after I accomplished the goals I set for myself at the beginning
  5. Not very important at all, which makes me incredibly sad because I love detailed trade/economic systems in strategy games! I would say that this 100% needs a change to make trade more dynamic and interactable, especially across borders. I mean, is it even a trade system if it can not be done internationally? As for the "capital" part of the trade system, I would say that it's not really a great idea. Trade is not really about any one specific place; it's about mutual benefit (even if one side benefits a lot more than the other). So I would say that in any new trade system, it should be more about providing routes between individual planets. Perhaps to provide for specific planetary needs, or perhaps just for the government (player) to profit off of. Perhaps some resources could play a more interesting role in this theoretical new trade system, in particular consumer goods, or some of the rare resources. That being said, Stellaris is not really about economics (even if I would like it to be :p), so please do whatever you feel is necessary for the game as a whole!
  6. I would say that the current system is just fine for habitable planets. If it mattered too much, then it might just bloat and slow down the early game. I think that the process of building the planets up to their full potential should always be the part that has more focus anyways. That being said, as always, if you have any ideas, try them out!
  7. I would have to have a look through all of the current ones in the game, which I don't have time for at the moment unfortunately. Sorry!
  8. The economic system as a whole, and especially tall play. I feel like playing tall isn't really a thing in stellaris at the moment, with specific exceptions, but I feel like tall play should be a basic system throughout the game. Some specific things would help out with that (notably, HIGHER LEVEL RARE RESOURCE BUILDINGS, PLEASE. I am so tired of dedicating entire planets to chemical plants just because they take so much space. It's honestly a huge problem for playing with as few planets as you can). The fact that all planets take an equal amount of effort, and generate a fairly equal amount of profits/pops for the players makes it both really hard to play tall, and really annoying to play wide. Perhaps there could be a system to build specific planets up really high, and have them fed by other more rural planets. perhaps planets would be split into different types, "core" planets and "non-core" planets. "core" planets generate the real resources for players, but take a lot of effort to care for and supply. Non-core planets would use a different system for planetary development that is more linear and generates less resources for the empire as a whole, but in exchange they don't take as much administrative effort to keep and can be managed automatically, saving some micro. Millenia's normal/vassal regions system is an excellent example of what I'm talking about, and I think that the system as a whole feels really nice for letting the player manage how much they want to take on themselves. There are many other options for how some sort of dynamic planetary development could work, But I would love to see some sort of solution implemented that would both make tall play more viable, and reduce the late game/wide play planet micro significantly. I'm willing to bet that these changes are too far outside of the scope for stellaris, and that's okay, but that won't stop me from hoping :).

Thank you all for making such a fantastic game, and for listening to player feedback so closely!
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
Thank you for the richly detailed game. A few comments on planets. Right now, planets cam specialize production. which is good, But it seems like this could be improved. So if you have a planet producing alloys but running a deficit of food, that should mean food is being shipped from somewhere else. This should be reflected in the trade system somehow. If it is blockaded the food imports would stop. The planet importing food should have a finite storage of food, which could run out during a long blockage. The same would apply to an alloy producing planet importing minerals, etc. Also, the economy should behave differently depending on if the food or whatever imports are happening through market-driven trade vs government subsidies - the latter should be an expense to the government. But market driven trade is something that can be taxed or regulated, at the risk or reducing its efficiently. Also, it seems like government subsidizing something should increase the size of the government and therefore the expense of running it.
 
  • 2Like
Reactions:
  • What is Stellaris to you?
    In the early game, it's a game of exploration and discovery. We explore new systems with events, discover old and lost civilization with odd relics and know new species while we are managing our fragile empire. In the mid game, we have got ours first allies and ours first enemies, surely, some wars. We expand our empire, learn diplomacy and a little crisis can appear. At the end, maybe we are a galectic empire, or a cold war with two blocs, or we are trying join the galaxy because of a great crisis is comming, or you know War in Heaven.
    For me, a completly sci-fi GSG.

  • What systems and content are “sacred” to you, which would make Stellaris not Stellaris anymore if we changed them?
    That core that makes you feel like you are living adventures or conflicts of the universe you created (empire builders, events, diplomacy, etc)

  • How important to you are the current systems that use individual Pops and Jobs in the planetary simulation?
    I would understand that this system could change for one more optimal.

  • What aspects are most important in defining your civilization?
    Civics, political system and Origins. Origins were a really good adittion

  • How do you set goals for yourself during gameplay? When do you set them, and how often do they change as you play?
    Usually, it depends on the party but i think that if political system worked better with ambitious factions and power struggles, players would have to adapt.

  • How important is the current Trade system, with routes collecting back to your Capital?
    I use it a little bit. I think it is too confuse for new players.

  • Is colonization too easy? Should habitability and planet climate matter more?
    Yes, it is. There are some mods that make this aspect more interesting.

  • If you could remove one game system, what would it be?
    The new storm system. I understand the criticism for planetary invasion but i wouldn't remove, i would try to look for a new or different approach.

  • Which system would you make the central focus of an expansion?
    Political system. I think it could fit a new political system with the last rework leaders and sectors. I mean, leaders (politician for a republic, nobles for a kingdom) could run sectors or planets earning or losing influence and create these political struggles.
    Others could be a religion system.

  • Is there a feature you want to enjoy, but feel the current implementation doesn’t quite work for you?
    Espionage. Some mechanics like recruiting a new asset could be better, usually you get the same type of operation category asset. Besides, if you are going to play it like first or second tradition, it feel nothing powerful.
    Federations. I think it could improve with some new polites, some changes on levels and a mechanic of sharing space.
 
Never posted on official forums but feel like this is the best time to toss my few cents accumulated over the years,so here we go

  • How important to you are the current systems that use individual Pops and Jobs in the planetary simulation?
    I find it to be a fine,it works and thats the end of it it does contribute to game lag but oh well. IF it gets streamligned to reduce lag with less emphasis on individual pops its fine.
  • If we made significant changes to fleets, how much could we alter before it no longer felt like the game you love?
    Two things to consider
    First, the fleet-creep over the years - printing battleships by hundreds or frigates by thousands doesnt feel right,doesnt look right also contributes to lag.
    Second, when anti-armor Neutron Launcher (L) was moved to a dedicated torpedo (G) slot. Correct me if i am wrong, but that completely killed any reason to use shield components period,kinetic artillery is the only competitor for the slot (which is an anti-shield weapon),combine that with shields costing power AND having overall less health (regeneration is useless when engagemens last 1-2 volleys and are decided by your deathball+% boosts from economy). Missiles and fighters (if they even reach) completely ignore shields,and using shield hardening to specifically counter torpedoes just isnt worth it over tossing offensive buffs.
    There could be more utility vessels like a one for redirecting and sustaining incoming fire,or amy/science vessel clases, but thats too broad of a topic for this.
  • What aspects are most important in defining your civilization?
    Origins,they define your early game and your core strategy,mid-late game most civilisations will even out.
  • How important is the current Trade system, with routes collecting back to your Capital?
    Unfortunetely my playstyle over the years gravitated toward hive and machine empires that lack trade or any equivalent. No real opinion here. Could be changed back something akin to "logistics network" so routes and resource blockades would matter.
  • Is colonization too easy? Should habitability and planet climate matter more?
    Could be made harder for hostile climates in early game, but It matters enough and i would call it mission accomplished.
  • Are there any Origins that should be Civics, or Civics that should be Origins?
    Not really,Subterainian could probably move down from origins,or something like Eager Explorers moving up.
  • If you could remove one game system, what would it be? Which system would you make the central focus of an expansion? Is there a feature you want to enjoy, but feel the current implementation doesn’t quite work for you?
    • Which system would you make the central focus of an expansion?
      If i had to throw some random wishes,it would be two origin concepts base stellaris does not have any equivalents of.
      Using mobile Arkships instead of planets, and a purely covert empire that isnt just ships,similar to a certain u-choir.
    • Is there a feature you want to enjoy, but feel the current implementation doesn’t quite work for you?
      There are several mechanics/features i would call lacking to a varying degree.
      Major:
      Espionage just doesnt work. There is no operation that has any meaningful impact on any aspect of the game,they are too weak and too random. You want AI allience to fall apart?Your only option is to roll the fleets in,not painfully waste hundreds of influence in to envoy events only to have those federation envoys be instantly replaced. You cant make your enemies go to war with each other,you cant prevent your allies from fighting each other. And this "feature" is half of a DLC.

      Gestalt paragons and general feature cuts. Not being able to collect them all is understandable, but having barely any is a different story. Unlike Xeno-Linguistics,there are no new gestalt-specific paragon,those that existited before are anomaly-related, and legendary paragons are partially arbitary locked off with nothing specific to compensate. And thats when leaders are half of a DLC.
      Then stuff like last astral action not being available because it requires basic psyonic tech (which you are not allowed get), and there is no alternative effect like most relics have.

      Minor:
      Federation fleets. No real reason to use it unless you want to grief an AI and/or your the hegemon. You pay up to 30% total naval capacity by each member to get up to 600 federation nav cap in return. It means if your combined naval capacity is over 2000,you start to losing nav cap, and reaching 2k nav cap is easily done by a single empire and quite early without 100% fleet contribution perk from diplomacy,which is completely meaningless.Either contribution should be a flat reduction based on number of participants and their relative nav cap,or the cap itself should be somewhat scaled based on your combined powers.
      Also federation effects in general are quite weak for a price of having to go diplomacy+tree for the type you want. Remove diplomacy requirement at the very least.
      Galaxy generation. Luckily this seem to be partially taken care of. Hopefully at some point we get empire generation settings. FE: Min/max/even distance between spawns,so you/ai no longer get sandwitched by 6 empires while the rest of the 1k galaxy is empty. General location (i just like spawning near outer edge). Starting planet sizes. Leader traits.
      Starbase design. Directly choosing components they use like we do with ships should be a thing. Being able to tab between them (like you can with planets). Starbase module templates so you dont have to click 18 times for each starbase,for 10-30 of them if you want something changed.
 
Last edited:
  • 1Like
Reactions:
One thing about fleets is you have varied AI fleets, but only on selection for auto build. I would like to have the option of auto updating each ship type and class. Also, encourage mixed fleets, don't have everything just go into a big ball. Each fleet should be able to engage in a different way. For example, my line holds and i sweep my corvette fleet around to the backs or flanks. Have carriers hang back and disgore waves of fighters and bombers to harass the carriers/screen them. Missile boats that have a reload (another idea i saw here) and allow my battleships to be thr flagships. Maybe have limits on the types of ships you can have, but scaled to galaxy size.
 
I posted this post on the 'Overwhelming Forumpower' tread, but I'll repost this and the other one here because I 'm not sure if the devs will see the other one or not.

Since it wasn't a topic originally conversation, I'd like to bring up some thoughts that weren't covered. But if I have all of them in one post it'll get way too big for one day so I'll cover individual topics in separate posts.

Today's thoughts: Starbases, Titans, Jugs, and Weapons


On starbases:

Let's face it, starbases suck currently. Every single starbase you build is the same with very little variation because there is no reason to do so otherwise. Every starbase is pretty much:
6x Anchorage
1x Naval Logistics Office
1x Hydroponics Bays
1x Resource Silo
1x This Space for Rent

Mostly because of a few niche cases (shipyards which you only need 1 or 2 of) there is no reason to use anything else. So here are my thoughts on starbase components and proposed overhaul of them.

Defensive Modules/Buildings and Customization:
Defensive buildings have one single problem:

They're worthless. No, less than worthless. No one uses gun batteries or missile (torpedo) buildings. Part of the problem is lack of starbase customizability (though that's another thought later down the line). What good is adding more medium slots to the starbase when it's just going to fill them with stupid garbage?
The other problem is that they they don't scale with the starbase in question.

The only two defense modules even worth a darn are the Hangar and the Ancient Rampart. And even those are questionable. When it comes right down to it, I'd say it's better to just fill them with anchorages than to use any of them, so you can have a bigger fleet for defense than try to stuff 6/12 more defense platforms in.

One mod (that I indirectly used as a part of NSC when I still used that mod. I haven't in years so I don't know if that's still the case) was Starbases Expanded. Its solution was to give you more starbase slots and more defensive items. I don't think the former is necessary as I have a much more elegant solution for it:

Starbase Module/Building Scaling
Basically it works like this: The bigger you make your starbase, the more of an effect the starbase modules have. FOr example, the gun battery at the start only gives you 1 M slot. However, once you upgrade it to a starhold, they give 2. Then 4 when a star fort, then when upgraded to a citadel, it gives 8. Its bonuses to shields and armor increase as well, but not as dramatically. This would help starbases stay ahead of the curb without requiring you to use unyielding as a crutch or stack it full of defense platforms to make it able to take on even a modest fleet.

Which is another problem with starbases, their lack of alt options, over-reliance on defense platforms for the bulk of their defense (and again, there's only one or two real options there) and flexibility. I'll come back to that later.


First off, defensive modules. I'd propose the following:

  • Starbase weapon modules no longer grant bonuses to armor or hull. That gets put on a different building that adds a lump sum.
  • Also ditch trade protection addage because that system is both outdated and dumb. how does a gun on a starbase add trade protection a few systems over? That makes no sense.
  • They don't add defensive platforms either since I propose a building that does that.
  • For orbital rings, all defensive weapon sections are multiplied by 2x. Otherwise they're just less effective versions of existing starbase items.

Modules:
  • Small Battery: Adds 2/4/8/16 small slots to starbase
  • Point Defense Battery: adds 2/4/8/16 point defense slots to starbase
  • Medium Battery: Gun Battery should get renamed for clarification. Adds 1/2/4/8 medium slots.
  • Hanagar Bay: Adds 1/2/4/8 H slots.
  • Torpedo Launcher: Non-Energy Torpedo gains +100% range (doesn't stack) to make them not useless. Energy torpedo gains +25% fire rate. adds 1/2/3/4 torpedo slots.
  • Large Battery: Requires starhold or better. Adds 1/2/3 large slots.
  • X slot: Requires starfort or better. Adds 1/2 X slots.
Buildings:
  • T Slot Battery: Adds a Single T slot weapon. Requires Citadel.
  • Defense Platform Hangar: Adds 5/10/15/20 defense platform slots.
  • Defense Reinforcement: Adds 3/6/9/12 aux slots and increases shields, armor,and hull by 5/10/15/20%
  • Utility Additions: Adds 1/2/3/4 Utility Slots
  • Disruption Field Generator: Reduces enemy Ship Shielding by 5/10/15/20%
  • Nanite Drone Swarm: Friendly Ships gain +1/2/3/5% hull and armor repair when in system. Enemy ships have regen blocked by that amount.

Customization:

I realize that Starbase customization would not be feasible. So here's my compromise: A bunch of buttons and a slider on the starbase that lets you adjust some things. Namely the favored loadout and shield/armor ratio:
AD_4nXdfRBH7ndgX9WjBHYLgMv0ONuLIDBfGANbNLaEVCfQBWCYxAVqGkbq_aQkAd7i_5rSHoqJK7hPZCXhLAj38xYurjp6fJVL5ta30KdycbIi4kUm3ypMilrGK2lzYCO80GxFwqC4DcauT8fZM0ZVT9fXr4I6Y


(Yes I know my paint skills are crap. Bear with me here. It's just a rough idea.)

Basically the buttons on the upper right would tell it what weapons to favor. X would be default: Use anything it feels like. Laser would tell it to favor non-bypass energy weapons (lasers, plasma cannons, etc). The Gun battery would tell it to favor kinetics: autocannons, kinetic artillery, or kinetic guns. The missile would tell it to try to use missiles wherever possible. The disruptors icon would tell it to use disruptors, arc emitters, or cloud lightning.

The slider on the upper right would tell it what ratio to fill its shield and armor slots. Sliding it all the way right would tell it to it to equip only armor. Sliding it all the way left would tell it to forgo them in exchange for shields. Handy if you're focusing on shields or if the starbase is in a pulsar system.
Economic modules/buildings

Unfortunately they aren't balanced here either. As I said, the only thing useful on starbases right now are anchorages (and shipyards obviously though you only need one or two bases full of those. And once you have the Megashipyard you don't even need those anymore.) Barring some niche cases, every starbase runs the same config because there's simply no reason to run anything else.

I'll give my thoughts on existing items first. And how to change them.

Trade Hub: Let's face it, no one builds these anymore. Why? Because 1st off space trade deposits are so minuscule that it's not worth collecting. And also it makes no sense. Why is there 'trade' on some random asteroid out in space? What, is there a single clerk sitting at desk on some lonely asteroid or a gas station sitting all by its lonesome on a toxic world or something? What is going on there?

It also does not help matters that trade itself is an all-or-nothing thing. You either go all in on it or you simply ignore it in leu of normal energy income methods. And the niche builds that do the former also tend to be very tall (IE: Trade Ring.)

Jokes aside, my proposed change here is no more trade deposits cause that makes no sense and is bothersome. So instead, trade modules would simply increase trade in the system by +1$/+1.25%/+1.5%/+2% each.

Also no more starting with a trade hub in your home system because again, there's no reason to keep that and everyone just deletes the trade hub in favor for another shipyard.

Solar Array Network:
Aka "Trade Hub but actually useful." Too bad they're kinda static. And not worth using over anchorages (especially midgame). And only available to Gestalts, for some odd reason.
1st proposition change is obviously is cut out the 'gestalt only' nonsense. Everyone should get them now.
Second and bigger one is that rather than the simple starbase scaling I proposed thusfar, instead it scales with environment. Namely, the star(s) its orbiting. Brighter stars produce more, dimmer ones produce less.

  • Pulsar: 12 Energy
  • Class A/Neutron: 10
  • Class B: 6
  • Class F: 4
  • Glass G: 3
  • Class K: 2
  • Class M: 1
  • Brown star/black hole: Too dim
If in a binary or trinary system also takes into account the stars nearby. If they're clustered together, it simply adds all their value together. If they're separate, the starbase takes the closest one, then the other's value is divided in half and then added.

This would make solar arrays more strategic, not something you'd want to just put down willy nilly.


Hydroponics Bay:
Problem right now is that it's too much of a brainless take as a building. Not to mention it invalidates farmers for a good chunk of the game. Everyone takes this as a building slot because... well... why wouldn't you? There's no reason not to. You can just have your anchorages and plop a hydro bay into a building slot. No choices or thought process put into it.

My proposition is to bump up hydroponics bay into a module, while reducing the food given by it to 2/3/4/5, making it so you can't just brainlessly slap it onto every starbase anymore, or run your whole food economy on starbases alone unless you dedicate a whole bunch of them to it. Also increases food output from food deposits by 5/10/15/20%.

Nebula Refinery
Proposition is that it scales with starbase size now. Starts at default value but scales up by 2/3/4x as starbase increases.

Anchorage:

As mentioned, it's too much of a brainless take to just plop these on every starbase to build anything else, just because it's that useful and because nothing else is. Not to mention that more ships = more lag. My proposition is to reduce this to a building. It now adds 3/6/9/12 naval capacity. The Naval Logistics office goes the way of the doto and its tech just adds +1/2/3/4 to the building.

New Modules

Okay so I went over the existing ones, now for ideas on new ones.
Mining Hub:

Yes I know it already technically exists but right now it's just a civic specific upgrade to the solar array. This version would be its own thing. It inceases mineral and strategic resources from mining stations in the system by +2/4/8/12% each.

(x)Research Station Datahub:
Increases Research from research stations by 5/10/15/20%. One for each type to prevent them from becoming the catch all.

Alloy Hub:
Increases alloy output of mining stations by 5/10/15/20%.
Also replaces 4/3/2/1 minerals of any mineral deposits with 1 alloy. Does not stack with the above.

I'm sure someone can think of more but that's all I got for Starbase. Onto the next subject...


On Ships:

More specifically, Titans and Juggernauts. I'll start with the former first.

The problem with the titan is that it was clearly made back in the pre-3.6 days when 'Bigger Ship = Automatically better'. When Neutron Launchers were king and ships were based purely around how many of them you could stack on a ship. However, those days are long gone, and the "All L artillery battleship" (which the Titan was just a bigger version of) has fallen off in usefulness, and titans have not been adjusted to the post-3.6 reality of combat.

As it stands, the only really useful thing about titans is the Auras (the perdition beam would be useful if it didn't waste time targeting corvettes with it and instead prioritized bigger ships out of the gate). And even then, only two are: Nanites and the FTL blocker. The other auras are just dogpoo, to the point I forgot they even existed.

Instead, I propose that the FTL dampener thing just be standard on the titan, and instead of the Auras, we get 'specializations'. These 'Specializations' increase a particular kind of weapon in the fleet (and only that fleet, not on all ships in the system) at the expense of all others.

  • Kinetic Specialization: Increases kinetic weapon firing range and damage, gives +5% kinetic armor penetration. While reducing energy weapon range/damage, missile projectile speed, and explosive damage.
  • Energy Weapon Specialization: Increases energy weapon range and damage, giving +5% energy weapon shield pen. While reducing kinetic weapon fire rate+damage, missile projectile speed, and explosive damage.
  • Explosive specialization: Increases explosive weapon fire rate and range (the latter especially for non-energy torpedos) at the cost of kinetic weapon fire rate/damage and energy weapon fire rate/range
  • Strike Craft Specialization: Gives H slot weapons more strike craft and strike craft regen. Gives strike craft +10% ship multiplier damage, and greatly increases PD slot weapons damage and range. This comes at the cost of range, fire rate, and damage on all other damage.

And then there's the hulls. They're static and as I said, were made for a bygone era. Not flexible in the slightest. So I propose the following:

Bow:
  • Titan: 1x T slot
  • Assault: 3x X
  • Artillery: 6x L
  • Gunship: 12x M
  • Torpedo: 6x G, 6x M
  • Carrier: 4xH, 6x PD
Core:

  • Artillery: 6x L
  • Gunship: 12x M
  • Torpedo: 6x, 6M
  • Carrier: 4H, 4PD
Stern:
  • Artillery: 2x L
  • Broadside: 4x M
  • Torpedo: 2x G, 2x M
  • Carrier: 1x H, 2x P

And now the Juggernaut. Again, no real customization, just a sort of 'kitchen sink' trying to be everything at once but failing to be anything useful. The auras here are... a bit more useful than on the titan, so I won't go over them here. All in all though the Juggernaut is more than a bit of a letdown especially since you only get one of them.

So my proposition here is again more hull choices. But this time, single hull segments instead of a mix of a bunch. Also a new concept to ad is 'hull effects'. Hulls have their own effects in addition to the weapon loadouts and number of shipyards.


Mixed Hull:
  • 2x X slot
  • 6x H slot
  • 5x M slot
  • 5x S slot
  • 6x PD slot
Hull Effect: Auras have twice their effect.
Shipyards: 2

The current one but with some more small and PD slots thrown in to make it marginally more combat effective especially at closer range.

Super Titan Hull:
  • 2x T slot
  • 8x X slot
Hull Effect: +25% weapon damage and range. 4x devastation from orbital bombardment.
Shipyards: 0. No repair ability.

Turns the juggernaut into a massive titan but sacrifices any utility.

Torpedo Boat Hull:

  • 18x G Slot
  • 6x M slot
  • 6x S slot
  • 4x PD slot
  • 2x H slot
Hull Effect: +50% ship speed
Shipyards: 1

Turns the juggernaut into a massive torpedo cruiser.

Gunboat Hull:
  • 15x M slot
  • 15x S slot
  • 2x H slot
  • 8x PD slot
Hull Effect: +25% explosive damage. +50% range on non explosive weapons with <50 base range. +25% fire rate on non-explosive weapons with >49 base range. 3x Orbital bombardment damage to ground armies.
Shipyards: 0 (instead it gains the ability to produce ground armies.)

For those who prefer smaller weapons (missiles, autocannons, or disruptors) or want a ground army crusher but don't want to resort to a colossus.

Mega Carrier Hull:
  • 12x H slot
  • 4x M slot
  • 12x PD slot
Hull Effect: +25% Strike Fighter capacity and regen rate.
Shipyards: 4

Super carrier for crushing corvette/frigate swarms.

Mobile Shipyard Hull:
  • 2x H slot
  • 1x M slot
  • 2x S slot
  • 10x PD slot
Hull Effect: 2x Ship repair speed. Combat stance must be evasive or passive! 0.10x bombardment damage.
Shipyards: 8

Goes all in on the utility at the expense of combat capability.


On Weapons:


Missiles:

Missiles are in kind of a weird spot. One day they're useless. One day they're awesome. One day they suck. One day they're Meta. Right now they're overwhelmingly the latter.

To keep them from being the go-to weapons for everything, I propose a new mechanic for missiles (note: missiles, not torpedoes). Salvo

In short, instead of firing a steady stream of missiles constantly, it instead fires a certain amount of missiles quite fast. Each missle type has a certain amount of Salvo. They fire these missiles off at their fire rate (which would be a lot faster than their current rate is now). However, once their salvo has run dry, they need time to reload.

Basically, think how missiles work in battle tech. Instead of mechs firing constant streams of missiles one at a time constantly, they fire bursts of them off in a single salvo then need time to reload them.

As mentioned, Torpedoes wouldn't be affected by this.



Unique/Critter/Archeotech weapons

Let's face it: the space fauna weapons just suck. There's no reason to use any of them at all and they're F or C tier at best for a reason. And it has the side effect of making space fauna itself little more than a very early game speed bump which players quickly roll over.

I'm also counting Archeotech weapons here too since you can count the number of good archeotech weapons and items on one hand.


So starting with the space fauna and unique weapons. I propose to give each of them a little 'gimmick' to make them... not just joke weapons.


Cutting laser: Instead of the way it is now, it instead would act like an 'energy autocannon', and just like the autocannon, it'd have an S, M, and L equivalent. A weapon with garbage range but very high DPS with bonuses against armor and hull but being very ineffective against shields. However, that's not the gimmick. The gimmick is this: Concentration: Every unshielded shot on a single enemy increases the damage by +1%, up to 50% max. Shooting at another enemy resets this back down to default damage.

Cloud Lightning: I'd recommend this stays as it is currently , but its current uselessness would get mitigated by a new gimmick: Chain Lightning: Every time this strikes an enemy, it has a diminishing chance to jump to another enemy within range. It cannot hit the same target twice.

Energy Siphon: Give it an M slot but not an L slot. The gimmick is Shield Stealer: Any time this weapon deals damage to shields, it heals your own by 75% of that amount.

Null Void Beam: Probably the most disappointing of the unique weapons. It's only good for killing shields (and not very good at that. Autocannons and event eh Energy Siphon both do a much better job of it) so let's give this unloved weapon a fitting gimmick after the shields come down: Entropy: Unshielded enemies struck by this weapon are affected by entropy. Ships under entropy have shield/armor/hull regen negated. Every unshielded shot reduces sublight speed and fire rate by 1%, up to 50%. This effect goes away after 10 days outside of combat.

Dragon Scale Armor: It isn't bad. Quite the contrary. But I think we can do a little better than simply 'Better Neutronium'. Instead: Hardened Scales: This armor protects less than neutronium, but comes with 15% armor hardening. This makes it the armor counterpart of Ancient Suspension Fields.

Speaking of which, that's a good segue into Archeotech weapons. The Ruination Gaze, Ancience Nano Missile Cloud Launcher, and Driller Drones are all fine as they are. And the aformentioend Ancient Suspension Fields and pulse armor is fine too. So Instead, I'll concentrate on three of the worst ones.

Ancient Captivation Collapser: The 50% armor pen is... fine. But since it does heavy damage to against armor anyway it's not that useful. Instead, let's reduce that down to 25% and give it 15% shield penetration to make it a semi-disruptor.

Ancient Macro Batteries: This thing is just sad. The S and M versions are virtually identical to their normal counterparts and thus completely pointless, and the L slot's big advantage.... is that there's no medium range? Really? So to fix this one, I'm going to have to do a very long, very complicated, very indepth fix that will require a whole page worth of explaining. So grab a snack and get ready to read a page or two of how to fix the AMBs...

...Just kidding. All we really need to do here is reduce the cooldown by half.

Why? Well, it's depicted as being two gauss cannons next to each other in a rapid fire config, so it should reflect that. This would make the AMB a longer ranged, yet slower firing autocannon. A hybrid between the normal gauss cannon and the autocannon, if you will.

Ancient Defensive Web Slinger: Instead of just being 'Guardian Point Defense but better', make it a mix of both flak and PD, dealing only 150% damage against shields and armor, but ignoring +50% of both.
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
Since it wasn't a topic originally conversation, I'd like to bring up some thoughts that weren't covered. But if I have all of them in one post it'll get way too big for one day so I'll cover individual topics in separate posts.
Since this went over so well, I think it's time for another one. But I think this one will be a bit more... controversial than the last one.

Today's thoughts: Feds and Vassals, Diplomacy and Espionage.

Let's start with the former. The biggest problem with Feds is that they are too secure. Once you form them, there is very little chance of them going away. Yes, certain members can leave from time to time (mostly because the fed dragged someone in that they don't like, usually through vassalizing) but they very rarely if ever outright collapse.

We have a whole precursor chain, called the 'First League'. The long story short is that it was a biiig federation that then devolved into infighting and the whole thing collapsed in on itself. Let me ask you this: when was the last time you saw something like this happen in game? The answer is more than likely "never". That simply does not, nor can it happen. The only way Feds disband naturally is when:
  1. A bigger empire or vassal block or fed or crisis beats them down in a total war to the point of them only having one member.
  2. The Galactic Imperium or War In Heaven forces them to disband.

On the flipside, there is very little actual interaction with members of your federation. There's no real way to get them to get them to vote with particular items or increase or decrease cohesion. This can lead to some total AI-Holes just sitting in your federation blocking everything you try to do and decreasing cohesion but no one wants to kick them out. This is especially problematic when they bring in vassals that clash with each other.

So here's my general proposals for Federations:

  1. Make Cohesion loss actually deadly instead of an inconvenience. Right now, Federations cannot lose levels, let alone forcefully disband on their own due to internal strife (well it _can_ through repeated use of smear campaign/diplomatic incident. But it takes so many usages of it that it really isn't even an option. We'll come back to that later.) So my proposition is that when cohesion loss causes XP to dip below last level up point, it actually reduces a level. If a federation goes to 0, it has about 4 months to try to increase cohesion gain. If it doesn't, the federation is forcefully disbanded and its members cannot form another one for a decade or two.
  2. To prevent newly formed feds from being disbanded immediately, they get a 4 month grace period upon start where they are immune to this.
  3. Laws votes are no longer immediate. Instead, they take 2-3 months to discuss, like the Galcom but faster (another thing I'll go over albeit briefly.) This is to give room for a new trade action: "Accept (Vote)" or "Reject (Vote)". This is because again, You can get an AI-Hole empire that just sits there and rejects everything and/or pushes through really stupid stuff (For the last time, no, we are _not_ going to switch to 'Arena Succession in this Research Cooperative!)
  4. Federation Fleets use a shipset that is a mix between its member states, like in the trailer. IE If it has three members, two use the Humanoid shipset while one uses the lithoid one and you build 9 federation corvettes, 6 of them will be the humanoid corvette and 3 of them will be the lithoid one.
  5. And finally, no more gating federations behind the Diplomacy tree. That's not really necessary and there are better ways to go about it. Especially if Federations are more fragile.
The other big thing to talk about with Feds is how many of them feel like they're an amalgamation of mismatched items. So here's my proposed rework of a few of the federations. I've learned from exerience not to include solid numbers as those tend to be nitpicked, so I'll just give a general idea.

A few general concepts I'm going to introduce for all of them:

Requirements: This already exists, but the requirement for all (Except Hegemony) would be 2 full tradition trees, 50 trust, and certain federation-specific requirements. This is meant to make the Diplomacy requirement obsolete as Diplomacy should stand on its own merit as a tradition, not simply be a gate. That's lazy and stupid.

Favored/Hated/Banned ethics: Certain federations are tailored towards certain objectives. As such, they favor certain types of empires (which cause more cohesion gain) and dislike others (which cause more cohesion loss). While a select few simply outright ban them (IE: Holy Covanant bans synthetics or gestalts.)

Quirk: All feds now have a special 'quirk' to them, an inate ability or downside to differentiate them from other ones.

"Per Member": Some effects below are dependent on the amount of members. Members that match the favored ethics increase thier contribution to this effect, fanatic versions increase it more.

Galactic Union

Gal Union is the 'big tent' Federation. Open to everyone, and focuses on cohesion gain/reducing cohesion loss, but doesn't really offer anything substantial to the table in terms of perks.

Favorted/Hated Ethics: None, it's open to everyone.
Requirements: three trees completed. Trees can be any of them. You must not be any degree of Xenophobe, and your target must not be a fanatic xenophobe.
Quirk: Xenophile/Xenophobe pull/push on all empires in the federation. This increases per level.

  • Level 1: Same as is now (SAIN)
  • Level 2:
    • Swap Unity from Diplomats with Holy Covenant's anti-cohesion loss effect since it makes more sense here.
    • Less cohesion loss from Espionage events (replaces naval contribution effect. Which let's face it, is kind of useless.)
  • Level 3:
    • Increase trust increase per member.
    • Replace unity per member with cohesion gain per member.
    • Less cohesion loss from failed votes
      (President)
    • Small influence gain per member
    • Increased fed XP from diplomat
      (Members)
    • Small influence gain (static)
    • Increased fed XP from diplomat
  • Level 4:
    • Even less cohesion loss from failed votes
    • Even less cohesion loss from conflicting ethics
      (President)
    • +Diplo weight (SAIN)
    • More Leader XP gain from your diplomat.
      (Members)
    • +Diplo Weight
    • More Leader XP gain from your diplomat.
  • Level 5:
    • NO Cohesion loss from failed votes
    • NO Cohesion loss from opposing ethics
    • More diplo weight per member
    • Small Galcom session time reduction per member
Research Coop
A federation that concentrates on research, megastructures, and Ascention.

Requirements: Two completed trees, one of them must be Discovery. You must be some form of materialist or a machine mind.

Favored Ethics: Materialist, Machine Mind
Hated Ethics: Spiritualist, Hive

Quirk: Greater Cohesion loss from number of members
  • Level 1: (SAIN)
  • Level 2: (SAIN)
    • Free Research Agreements
    • President:
    • +2 Research Alternatives
    • Non-President:
    • +1 Research Alternatives
  • Level 3:
    • Massive increase to research from research stations
    • Increased research speed from research agreements.
    • Small research speed increase per member
    • Diplomatic increase from technology (More for President)
  • Level 4:
    • Unity cost production for ascention trees
    • +1 Psionic/Cybernetic/Synthetic pop assimiation per ascended member
    • (Genetic Only) Species modification cost reduced per ascended member.
    • (Genetic Only) Small trait/trait picks bonus per genetically ascended member.
    • (Cybernetic) increased research from jobs
    • (Synthetic) increased assembly speed per synthetically ascended member
    • Small megastructure build speed bonus (increased for science related ones)
  • Level 5:
    • Larger megastructure build speed and cost bonus.
    • Small Synth Queen situation resolve speed per member
    • Bonus damage against Fallen Empires, Synth Queen, and Contingency
    • Small research alternatives bonus per member
Trade Leage
A federation that concentrates on profit. Unfortunately, it doesn't help Megacorps much. Time to change that...

Requirements: Two completed trees, one must be Mercantile. Neither you nor proposed target can have Shared Burdens or be a Gestalt.
Favored Ethics: Megacorp
Hated Ethics: Shared Burdens
Banned Ethics: Gestalts
Quirk: Starts with succession type "Strongest" with criteria "Economy"
  • Level 1:
    • (SAIN)
    • Free Commercial pacts with all members
  • Level 2:
    • Small trade value bonus
    • (Megacorps) Increase branch office income
    • (Non Megacorps) Small trade value bonus per member
      (President)
    • (With Megacorps) Gain small amount of income from all branch offices in fed territory
    • (Without Megacorps) Small amount of trade value bonus per member
  • Level 3:
    • More trade value bonus
    • Consumer goods per month bonus
    • (With Megacorps) Branch office cost reduction in federation space
    • (Without Megacorps) increase to trade value from jobs
  • Level 4:
    • More trade value bonus
    • (With Megacorps) More branch office value income
    • More branch office cost reduction in and out of fed space (the former stacks)
    • More branch office profit sharing
      (President)
    • Increased diplo weight from economy
  • Level 5:
    • More trade value
    • (Megacorps) More trade branch office income
    • (without MC) More trade value from jobs per member
      (President)
    • More trade Value
Hegemony
This one is kind of an odd duck among federations. It was created before Overlord was a thing, and the purpose it's supposed to fulfill has since been taken up by Vassal Blocks, which does what it does just way better. I was going to propose getting rid of this one entirely on account of it (and its associated origin, instead swapping it with a miniature version of the Fiefdom where you are the Imperial Fief) But I had another idea:
What if this 'Federation' is instead something more akin to a miniature Galactic Imperium? Basically my rework would serve to make it distinct from the Military Alliance, which right now is somewhat overshadowed by this in terms of usefulness.

Requirements: 1 Tradition Tree, one of which must be either Supremacy or Domination., but you must possess more than 2 vassals.
Ethics Favor/Hate: None, but conflicting ethics causes greater cohesion loss.
Quirks:
  • The only federation type you can form directly with your vassals.
  • All members are vassals to the president
  • Negative cohesion does not cause disbandment. Instead, continuing cohesion loss causes increasing disloyalty among vassals.


  • Level 1:
    • Members cannot freely leave federation
    • Members gain Secede Casus Belli
    • +20 intel between members
  • Level 2:
    • Members gain "Overthrow" Casus Belli (Member wages war to overthrow the current president. If successful, member becomes president and gains all vassals of the previous president, who is subjugated to the current president. If a status quo, member leaves the federation)
    • No migration treaty upkeep between members
      (Presidential Modifier)
    • Small Naval capacity modifier per non-president member
    • Small ship upkeep and cost reduction per member
  • Level 3:
    • Increased vassal specialization effects for members and president.
      (President)
    • Influence gain per subject member
  • Level 4:
    • More increased vassal specialization effects
    • Hyper Relay build cost and time reduction
      (President)
    • +1 Overlord holding
    • Can build gateways in federation territory
  • Level 5:
    • Even larger vassal specialization effects
    • Even larger hyper relay and gateway build cost and time reduction
      (President)
    • +2 overlord holding
    • 0.3 influence per subject
    • Megastructures in subject territory transfer +20% of their effectst to the overlord.

Martial Alliance
Another one in a weird spot. It's supposed to be a defensive alliance, but its geared more towards conquest, which currently makes it a crappier version of Hegemony. So another one I propose a redo for to make it more tailored towards defensive/NATO (in theory) like.

Requirement: Two trad tress, one must be Unyeilding (if you have apoc)/Supremacy (if you don't). Must be some degree of Militarist or Pacifist

Favored Ethics: Militarist/Pacifist. However, cohesion loss from these ethics conflicting is increased.
Hated ethics: None, but as mentioned, having Militarists and Pacifists causes greater cohesion loss from conflicting ethics.

Quirk: Wars won gives lump sum of federation level. Losing wars causes one levels worth of XP loss.

  • Level 1:
    • Small increase to defense platform construction speed
    • Small increase to ship construction speed during defensive war
    • Small increase to starbase hull, armor, shields, and damage
  • Level 2:
    • Small increase to naval capacity per member. This contribution is doubled in defensive wars.
    • Small increase to defense platform build speed per member
    • Small increase to starbase hull, armor, shields, and damage per member
  • Level 3:
    • Upgraded defense platform segments unlocked (Upgraded defense platform segments have 1.5x their weapon, utility, and aux slots, but take up 0.25 more defense platform slot per segement.)
    • Increased defense platform fire rate per member
    • Increased defense platform cap per member
    • small sublight speed and hyperlane jump speed in friendly territory per member.
    • Small damage increase against crisises (includes midgame ones and crisis aspirants)
      (President)
    • Increased Federaton fleet build speed and cost reduction per member
    • Increased diplo weight from fleets.
  • Level 4:
    • More defense platform cap per member
    • More damage against crisises
    • Marginal Increased damage against crisises per member
    • Slight Federation Fleet increased armor, shield, and hull per member
      (President)
    • Gains "Intervention" ability. This allows the federation to join any war on the side of the defender. Intervention must pass a vote like a normal declaration however. If they do however, defending empire gains a diplo boost with all fed members, and a further one upon winning the war.
      Cannot intervene in the case of uprisings/fealty wars or if the defender is a genocider, crisis aspirant, or fallen empire.
  • Level 5:
    • Unlock Apex Defense Platform segments (Apex Defense Platform segments have 2x their weapon, utility, and aux slots, but take up 1 more defense platform slot per segment)
    • Slight Federation fleet fire rate and damage increase per member
    • Marginal Federation fleet shield and armor hardening per member
    • More damage against crisises
    • Intervention ability extended. Can join uprising wars on either side, or wars against Genociders/crisis aspirants on the side opposing the genocider or CA.
Holy Covenant
The last of the current ones. I find this one more or less enough as it is, but I'll add some minor adjustments anyway.

Requirements: Two Tradition Trees. One tradition tree must be harmony OR Psionics (or cybernetics if you have cybernetic creed).

Favored Ethics: Spiritualists, Psionically Ascended
Hated Ethics: Materialists
Banned Ethics: Any Gestalt, synthetic or cybernetic ascended empire (the latter is only permitted if they use the Cybernetic Creed origin.)

Quirk: If members sythetically or cybernetically ascend, they are automatically ejected and gain a "traitorous heretic!" -200 negative diplo with all members unless the latter is a cybernetic creed empire.
Starts with succession type "Challenge" with type "Spiritual Conclave"

  • Level 1: (SAIN)
  • Level 2: Unity from diplomats (swapped with Galactic Union perk because it makes more sense here). Otherwise SAIN
  • Level 3:
    • Small increase to unity from priests and high priests per member.
    • All spiritualist pops in the federation produce +0.1 xp for the federation
  • Level 4:
    • Further unity increase from priests and high priests per member
    • resource gain from psionic pops per member
      (President)
    • Gains "Holy War" Casus Belli. This is actually two types at once depending on who the target is. Against normal empires, this is a ideology war that automatically forces the target empire/occupied territory into the federation upon victory. Against machines this is a total war. Cannot be declared against Spiritualists. Does not require a vote.
  • Level 5:
    • Increased damage to machine empires, and halved that to materialists.
    • Increased psionic assimilation speed.
    • Slight increased psionic assimilation speed per member
    • Increased damage against The Unbidden
    • +50% robot purge speed
    • Slight robot purge speed per member
Alright, and now a couple of new ideas for two new fed types that I feel are completely missing. Specifically, one for egalitarians (AKA 'Anti-hegemon') and Gestalts (since I find it odd that Gestalts don't get a fed type of their own.)


Burden Bloc
The Egalitarian one. More specifically, the Shared Burdens/Worker Coop ones. As mentioned, it serves as a sort of anti-hegemony and anti-overlord faction. Also anti-megacorp, anti-slaver, and anti-bourg.

Requirements: Two tradition trees. You and your target must both be some degree of egalitarian OR a megacorp with Workers Coop civic.

Favored Ethics: Egalitarian, Democratic, Shared Burdens, Worker Coops
Hated Ethics: Dictatorial, Imperial, Megacorps (unless they have Worker Coops).
Banned Ethics: Gestalts (except Rogue Servitor machines), despoilers, slave guilds/indentured service.

Quirk: Members cannot be an overlord. They cannot propose subjugation nor propose vassalization wars. If they gain vassals via secret fealty, they are freed but still join the bloc. Rogue servitors can join, though any worker bonuses are translated to biotrophy output.

  • Level 1:
    • Cannot have organic slaves.
    • Dictatorships, Imperials, nor Megacorps (Unless worker coops) Can become president.
    • Massive worker political power
    • Minor shift towards egalitarianism per member.
  • Level 2:
    • Increased resources from the egalitarian faction
    • marginal Increased resources from the egalitarian faction per member
    • Slight worker upkeep reduction per member
    • Slight "Sow discord" espionage op chance of success and effect
  • Level 3:
    • Slight worker resource output increase per member
    • Further Egalitarianism shift per member
    • Worker happiness bonus per member
    • Higher "Slave Liberation" Espionage op chance and effect.
    • Gains "Intervention" Ability. This version however only allows them to join an uprising on the side of the rebels.
  • Level 4:
    • Increased damage against overlords or empires with
    • Further Egalitarian faction output
    • Further Egalitarian faction output per member
    • Enable "Destroy Hegemony" Casus Belli. Must target an overlord specifically. If victorious, overlord is forced to release all subjects and cannot reaquire them. Subjects gain a diplomacy gain or hit depending on their loyalty to the overlord at the time. If status quo, any occupied territory is split off from the overlord as an independant victory.
  • Level 5:
    • Dyson Spheres and Matter Decompressors share a quarter of their output with all members of the federation split between them. In exchange, -25% build time and cost to build these megastructures.
    • All fanatic Egalitarians Without Shared Burdens gain it and lose Technocracy or Pleasure Seekers. Megacorps will automatically gain Worker Coops if they don't have it already.
    • Increased damage against the Great Khan
    • +100% Egalitarian push for all non-egalitarian members.
    • Specialists gain a small amount of happiness per member
    • Specialists gain a small amount of resource output per member.

Consciousness Collective
The Gestalt one, because Gestalts get shafted from a lot of these, either directly or indirectly, so I think there needs to be a Gestalt federation.

Requirements: Two ascension trees, must be a gestalt of some form.
Hated Ethics: Determined Exterminators can join, but will cause massive cohesion loss if Hives or Rogue Servitors are present and vise versa. Rogue Servitors will also cause friction with Driven Assimilators.
Banned Ethics: Non-Gestalts

Quirk: Determined Exterminators can join/form one with other robots. Devouring Swarms cannot join ever.

  • Level 1:
    • Small amenity increase from maintenance drones
  • Level 2:
    • Increased amenity increase from maintenance drone
    • Small menial drone output increase per member
    • (RS only): Small biotrophy output increase per rogue servitor
    • (DE & DA only): Small naval capacity increase per DE and DA member
    • (Hive and Generic Machines): Small pop assembly increase per hive/generic robot member (they don't mix)
  • Level 3:
    • Small Hunter killer drone deviation removal increase per member
    • Further menial drone output per member
    • marginal complex drone output per member
    • (RS Only): Further biotrophy output per RS
    • (DE only): Increased purge speed per member
    • (Assimilators and Hives): +1 Pop assimilated per year per member
    • (GM): Further pop assembly per machine member
  • Level 4:
    • Increased damage against non-gestalts
    • small pop assembly increase per member
    • small ship hull and armor increase per member
    • (RS only): Increased naval capacity per RS member
    • (DE only): increased unity gain per member when a pop is purged
    • (DA and Hives): increased pops assimilated per year per DA/Hive member
    • (GM): Increased marginal drone output per machine member
  • Level 5:
    • Megastructure build speed increase per member
    • Ship build speed increase per member
    • +1 Juggernaut capacity
    • +1 Titan capacity per member
    • Increased damage against Preythorn and Contingency crisises.
    • Increase situation speed against Synth Queen crisis.
Welp that was sure a long write. Luckily, that's the end of the thoughts on Feds, and my thoughts on the other subjects are quite a bit less long. . Now to move onto...

Overlords and Vassals:

Luckily this one will be shorter. The short of it is: they suffer the same basic problem as Federations too: they're too stable. And since unlike Federations there's no minimum requirements appart from trust (and for vassal warring you don't even need that) it's far too easy to form huge vassal blocks and be all powerful throughout the game.

Just like feds, we have an example of how things ought to be. But we don't need to dig through precusor lore this time for our example, we just need to run the Imperial Fief origin. Halfway to Midgame the fief breaks up completely into warring factions. Again, how often does that happen in game? Not very often.

Yeah, there's the hint of a check and balance in the form of secret fealties and supporting independence. But three problems here:

  1. Secret Fealities can just be given to anyone without any input from the receiver. This means AIs will often throw away thier SF on an empire that is either too weak, too distant, or simply has no motivation to fight the overlord in question.
  2. Support Independence is worthless as it does not allow for the empire issuing it to help them work towards gaining it in any way. So even in any case of them wanting to use it, they simply just sit there and not use it at all even if the issuer is overwhelmingly strong compared to the overlord.
  3. Neither options offer any way to extend this would-be rebellion to the other subjects, meaning those that have the 'join overlord defensive wars' condition (which is default) will have to end up fighting the breakaway empire, making it even less likely that either party will actually initiate the war.
  4. When rebellions form due to instability, they only take the vassal's navy into account, not the overlords. This means such rebellions have little if no chance of actually succeeding. Plus, outside parties have no way of interfering with this.
So my propositions here are thus:

  1. Secret Fealties must be accepted by the receiver. AIs should only accept secret fealties from subjects if they:
    1. Are close enough to fight the overlord (no more giving fealties to empires on the other side of the galaxy)
    2. Are strong enough to fight the overlord (no more giving fealties to empires not strong enough to fight the overlord)
    3. Have bad relations with the overlord (no more giving fealties to empires that are best buds with the overlords)
    This prevents subjects from wasting their Fealties on dead-end targets.
  2. When a secret fealty or independence support is given, a situation starts. This situation funnels alloys and other resources from the provider to the subject, allowing them to store resources in preparation for a fealty/independence war. The provider can choose how much to give them. Giving more advances the situation more, but carries an increased chance of the overlord finding out. If the situation resolves, the subject is given a fleet (much like how separatists situation more per month, but relative to the fleet size of the provider rather than their own) and the war starts.
    However, each month this carries a risk of the overlord gaining a notice that (subject) is plotting against them, and is gaining help from somewhere. They can launch an investigation espionage event on the subject. If successful, the cover is blown, and the overlord gains options:
    1. Shut it down and discipline the subject. If this is chosen, the subject is forced to close borders with the provider, and the fealty/independence support is cancelled. The Overlord also gains any materials given to the subject this way, and the subject gains the 'humiliation' effect.
    2. Secretly Siphon supplies: Instead of shutting it down outright, the overlord siphons a protion of the monthly alloys for themselves, allowing them to better prepare for the incoming war. This will cause the Subject and Provider's situation to slow down however. The Overlord is also given the situation to notify them when the war will start.
    3. Declare War: Attempts to catch both parties off guard by declaring the war then and there. The subject gets a reduce amount of fleet.
  3. When an independence or fealty war starts, all other subjects are not automatically required to join the war on the overlord's side if they have 'join defensive wars'. Instead, subjects that have overlord wars set to either 'defensive' or 'all' are given a choice to join the war on the overlord's side or the subject's. AIs will more likely side with the overlord if their loyalty towards them is good. In the case of a fealty war, the subjects are also given the choice of joining the fealty or just fighting for independence if they choose to side against the overlord.
    Ones that don't have 'defensive' or 'all' conditions are given the choice to keep neutrality in addition to the other choices, allowing them to either join the war or sit it out.
    All in all this makes fealty wars bigger and more serious, and more like the Imperial Feifdom.
  4. And finally, disloyalty gain should increase per year, not decrease, making it more, not less likely for subjects to rebel as the game goes on, not less.
All in all, these ideas are geared on making overlordship more tenuous and less permanent.


Espionage:
I hinted at this earlier. And yeah, talk about a nothingburger system in desparate need of a rework. It's only marginally useful for gaining intel on enemy positions, because most of the espionage operations range from only situationally useful to outright useless (I'm looking at you, starbase sabatage.) This has the side effect of making the Subterfuge tree kinda useless.

So my thoughts here have two parts. Current ones and ones that need to be added. I'll start with the former first. But first, a semi related thought:

Envoys should be their own leader class. yeah, that's a semi-popular one. But I'm really reiterating it here. Either that or roll Envoys into the Official class and give them a Spy subclass. We already have a Diplomat class for the only other remaining function for envoys (increase/harm relationships. Which I think should also be an 'espionage' opration, but I'll get to that later.) That way, spies can level up and leveled up spies can get more results from them. I'll include this in the below suggestions where appropriate.

Though I do think that Diplomat should be removed from officials and both the spy and diplomat should be rolled into a separate 'envoy' leader class. Makes more sense and requires less work to roll the envoy bonuses into them.

Now, onto the current spy operations.

  • Gather Intel/Acquire Asset/Prepare Sleeper Cells/Crisis Beacon/Imperium related ones/Consume Star/Lure Kelidoscope: I'm just going to lump my thoughts (or rather, lack thereof) into one single group. That is, this does what they're supposed to do so other than the aforementioned 'make spies a leader job so they can level up and get better results' part, I don't really have anything to say here. The first three are honestly the only really useful ones (though all three become obsolete when you get the Sentry Array. But nothing to say there.) And the others are quite simply niche that, again, I don't really have much complaints about. So eh.
  • Extort Favors: Honestly, I think it's time we took the favor system behind the shed and put it out of its misery, and replace it with a more specific trade action system. It was an old, lazy system of getting around the lack of direct diplomacy and when trading favors was removed, favors really fell off in usefulness. Problem is nothing has replaced them and it's a system that clings to life well past its expiration date.
    Wait, where was I? Oh right, the espionage event itself. Personally, I think the favor thing should be removed for a straight up diplo boost with that empire, replacing 'Improve Relations' with this more interactive version.
  • Spark Diplomatic Incident: My problem with this is that it's just a lesser version of Smear Campaign and there's little reason you'd do this over the other. The penalties are too small for the amount of effort put into it (they lose 60 opinon with a random empire, or you lose -15% diplo weight or you lose 10 influence.
    Oh no. Anyway...
    Yeah, the penalties need to be bumped up. Quad the influence loss, triple the opinon loss, and double the diplo weight loss. Plus, like Smear campaign is now, you need to be able to choose the nature of the target. Basically, while the latter would give a reduced opinion with everyone, this would be more targeted. Also the higher the spy level, the bigger the impact.
    Oh, and if the member is a federation member or president, they lose some cohesion. Moreso if they're the latter.
  • Smear Campaign: Right now this is just the 'better' Diplo incident, but that's not saying much. So my fix for this is making it so that instead of the current system (change that to the above), it gives a negative opinion modifier to all empires for a while. If empire is an overlord, they lose loyalty with subjects and gain a negative mod to loyalty per month for a while. If they're a member of a federation, that federation loses some cohesion and increases their ethics friction in the federation. If they are a federation president, they lose cohesion per member, making it more of an effective means to destroy Feds.
  • Steal TechnologyOnly minorly useful. So my suggestions are:
    1. Make it so you get a choice of the tech you will steal. The more research options you have, the more choices you have.
    2. If you can't steal any tech, you simply steal a portion of their research per month, making it useful against empires less advanced than you.
    3. Level 8 spies can steal two techs or double the research.
  • Sabatage Starbase: Wow, talk about a nothingburger of an operation. You waste 100 influence and several months to destroy one building in one starbase which you can't even choose.
    "Oh no. That's going to marginally inconvenience me for one or two months while I rebuild it."
    Like really, what were they thinking? Okay, time to remake this one.
    1. You choose the target.
    2. Most importantly, you 'destroy' the whole starbase, not just one pidly little building. All the modules, all the defense platforms, all the buildings, etc.
    3. All starbase buildings are replaced with 'wreckage' modules/buildings. They can't be deleted, only replaced. Each one of them reduces starbase module buildspeed by 25% each.
    4. More experienced spies can also steal some resources from the starbase and/or destroy all mining stations in the area.
    Basically, this makes this sabatage operation actually damaging and not just 'less than a minor inconvenience'.
  • Arm Privateers: Another nuscance. In theory they scale, but really they don't. Instead, give an option on how much you're going to arm them with. Giving them less scales them less, giving them more scales them larger.

Okay, so those are the empire ones. Not really going to cover the primative ones as again, not much to talk about there. So now, onto the operations I think we desperately need to be added:

  • Forment Unrest: Increase crime/deviancy on a target planet, reducing stability and increasing chances of crime related events.
  • Plant Dissent: Can only target a subject that isn't your own, or members of a federation you don't belong to that aren't the president. If successful, decreases subject loyalty towards the overlord or causes cohesion loss in a federation and increases their chance of leaving the federation.
  • Enforce Loyalty/Reinforce Cohesion: The exact opposite of the above. Only available to overlords or federation presidents. Increases loyalty towards you or increases federation cohesion from that member. Is not considered a hostile action.
  • Freedom Trail: Only available if you are an egalitarian, worker coop, xenophile, or rogue servitor. Can only target an empire that has organic slaves, assimilated cyborgs (DAs), or in the process of purging/assimilating. In the latter case, will target currently assimilating/purging pops first. When successful, will steal a number of slaves from a target planet and add them to your own empire. Freed pops will have the 'saved from slavery'/'saved from assimilation'/'saved from purge' modifiers on them. Amount of slaves scales to total slave pop on the planet. Planets with more slaves give better results but come with a higher chance of failure. Higher level spies will take a higher percentage of slaves. If found out, will cause a disposition hit with the empire in question.
  • Organic Trafficking: The inverse of the above. Only available if your empire has slavery enabled or you are a driven assimilator (it will be called 'Steal Organics' instead) or a hive that is capable of assimilating organics into the hive (It will be called 'Drone Raid'.) Will attempt to steal pops from a planet on target empire and place them into your own as slaves or assimilation victims. They will have the 'recently conquered' modifier on them. If the raid is traced back to you or it fails, you will gain a disposition hit with the empire in question. Amount of pops stolen scales with pop of current planet. Bigger planets yeild more of a load but also higher chance of failure.
    Can target Primitives with this one too.
  • Toaster Liberation Steal Robots: Organic Trafficking but for robots. Unlike Organic Trafficking, you can use this if your empire has artificial intelligence enabled (in other words, you just have to not be a fanatic spritualist or hive), and the target must have robots (regular robots, synths, or machine mind robots will do.) Works roughly the same way.
  • Rig Election: Can only target Democratic or Oligarcic empires. Will attempt to rig the next election to bring a canidate more friendly towards you or more hostile towards (target empire) into power. If successful, the next election will be rigged and you gain a big diplo boost with yourself or target empire suffers a diplo hit with another one of your choice. However, if you fail, you get a massive diplo hit.
  • Launch Coup: Cannot target Gestalts. Will attempt to overthrow a target's government. If successful, the target empire will become Dictatorial with a new leader and you will immediately subjugate target empire. However, target empire will have the 'recently conquered' modifier on all its worlds for several years, increasing crime and lowering stability. If it fails, you gain a massive diplo hit and they gain the 'Animosity' casus beli.
  • Sabotage Logistics: Increases the target's fleet upkeep and reduces their naval capacity for 5 years. Higher level spies increase the amount of upkeep and naval capacity loss.
  • Steal Resources: Steals resources from a target empire's resource stockpiles and adds it to your own. If successful, you get a choice of which resource to steal. Can only steal physical resources, not Unity or Research or Influence.
  • War Propaganda:Can only target a non-gestalt empire you are currently at war with. If successful, one of several things will happen:
    • Enemy War Exaustion will go up by 5-20% (base). Most likely outcome.
    • Max ground forces morale will be reduced by half their war exaustion (IE: If they have 50 war exaustion, morale will go down by 25%).
    • Stability on unoccupied enemy planets will be reduced by half their war exaustion.
    • Enemy naval damage reduced by half their war exaustion.
    • (Rare) An enemy fleet will mutiny and do an emergency FTL, killing the admiral in the process and becoming a pirate fleet when it emerges elsewhere.
    • (Very rare) An enemy fleet will mutiny and defect, killing the Admiral in the process.
That Wraps up my thoughts on it. Now for my thoughts on Diplomacy and the Galcom. Those are much shorter, as most of what I said about them I already covered above.

As far as diplomacy goes, like I said, Favors should go the way of the dodo in exchange for more direct trade options. Trading for:

  • Support on a Galcom/Federation proposition
  • Attempting to increase/decrease relations between them and (target empire)
  • Etc.
  • Hopefully other trade options like rogue servitors being able to trade drones for organic pops, slavers able to trade slaves back and forth directly from each other, etc.

And finally, the Galcom itself. Honestly, the only thing I have to say about it:

Reduce the session and recess time by AT LEAST half. Ideally more.
Because right now it has one major problem: It's slower than molasses in Alaska. There's a lot of options and chains to go down. Too bad you'll not really get much of a chance to explore any of them since every session lasts whole years. And there's no way to speed that up (save for the council but that just ends it early.)

My proposition here are only a few
  • As I said, cut it down by 1/2-2/3rds of what it is now. Because it's insufferably slow to the point that you can almost just ignore it.
  • A tradition/starter/ender effect for Politics that reduces it down by 10%, and this effect stacks with others that have it up to 80%.
  • As previously mentioned, an L5 effect for Gal Union federation types that reduce it further.
Obviously the max cap for the latter two should be 80-90 percent. We don't want the Galcom being too efficient to the point to where all decisions are instant.

Oh, and maybe take inspiration from Gordon_CMB's Superstates Mod as alternate versions of the Galactic Imperium. Because it makes no sense for a democratic crusader to proclaim the Gal Imp, and a Rogue Servitor Gal Imp should look far different from a depoiler or criminal enterprise Gal Imp
 
Last edited:
  • 1Like
Reactions:
I'd love to see a re-work of the exploration system that allows for different levels of exploration depending on your tech, so as you advance as a civilization you're able to revisit previously explored places and learn more about them, and encounter new events and situations as a result.

For me, the exploration phase is one of my favorite parts of the game, and I love discovering new things, so when the galaxy is completely known, I'm a bit sad that there's nothing new left to explore, this would sort of keep the exploration phase going throughout the game.
 
  • 2
Reactions:

What is Stellaris to you?​

How does this match what you think Stellaris is, and where it should go? Would you change any of these vision statements?

What systems and content are “sacred” to you, which would make Stellaris not Stellaris anymore if we changed them?

Some examples to comment on could include:
  • How important to you are the current systems that use individual Pops and Jobs in the planetary simulation?
  • If we made significant changes to fleets, how much could we alter before it no longer felt like the game you love?
  • What aspects are most important in defining your civilization?
  • How do you set goals for yourself during gameplay? When do you set them, and how often do they change as you play?
  • How important is the current Trade system, with routes collecting back to your Capital?
  • Is colonization too easy? Should habitability and planet climate matter more?
  • Are there any Origins that should be Civics, or Civics that should be Origins?
  • If you could remove one game system, what would it be? Which system would you make the central focus of an expansion? Is there a feature you want to enjoy, but feel the current implementation doesn’t quite work for you?

What is Stellaris to you?​


Well, i think Stellaris is one of my fav games. It has the perfect balance between "the new and exciting" and things that i am used to.
Every new game, i have the "excitement" for discovery - to find out what have been changed, what i am going to find out in the galaxy.

However, that is always polaces to improve, so, here is my 5 tip of feedback


  • How important to you are the current systems that use individual Pops and Jobs in the planetary simulation?
    • Not that important. I think it is nice to see big planets with lots of pop, however, i dont feel much the implications of that - it just make more micro managing when i want a efficient build
  • If we made significant changes to fleets, how much could we alter before it no longer felt like the game you love?
    • I believe the fleets problem is the doomstack. It have improved, however, it is still a thing at the current state of the game [the hard cap with fleet size is a thing].
    • I think it would be nice to: have less information about the fleet power of others empires [like the strenth] based on intel. It would make intel more meeningfull for the entire playthrough
    • Tech should have more impactful [i know it has lots of impact] - but not just for raw strengh or fleet size. Cloak should be more meaningful in big fights [ambush feelings], and i dont see a reason not to have battleships with cloak [late late game tech] - tier IV or V.
    • I really like how much pieces there are for ships, however, it could be more intuitive for new players
  • What aspects are most important in defining your civilization?
    • The Origins. I really like the way most of them makes the game feel unique.
    • In my opinion, with the exception of "Prosperous Unification" [vanilla like Origin], every single Origin should have a RP content - that walks with you until late early game or early mid game. Cause this is what makes the game more compelling.
      • If the Origin doesnt bring some RP, maybe it should be a Civic? [cause, there are already some Civics that alter greatly the gameplay]
      • At this point, maybe there shoud be "civic points (2)" and "civics (3)" so that a civic that drastically alter gameplay can be a "0 point civic" [like Beastmastetr, Barbaric Despoilers, Anglers, Fanatical Purifiers, etc], and does not cout against the 2 Civics at the start of the game? Cause at the current state, there are lots of options [every new DLC adds more Civics] - and, a few, are very specific for specific areas of the empire. It would be interesting to see more civics in play
  • How do you set goals for yourself during gameplay? When do you set them, and how often do they change as you play?
    • I like to RP and to go after some achievments - so, in general, i dont change the objective so often - cause by the start of the game i have a goal [RP wise, or an achievment]
  • How important is the current Trade system, with routes collecting back to your Capital?
    • Not important at all
  • Is colonization too easy? Should habitability and planet climate matter more?
    • I think colonization is a complicated topic. It is to easy. However, considering how frequent it is, i think it would be frustrating to see a mechanic that becames too repetitive.
    • Maybe a feel situations could make it more interesting - with diferent options and outcomes
    • Maybe Factions could play a major role here - giving guidelines or "missions" to colonizations [not beeing too passive]
    • Maybe specific Pops have demands
  • Are there any Origins that should be Civics, or Civics that should be Origins?
    • I think every Origin should have some RP or lasting gameplay efects - so, Shatter Ring, Void Dwellers, Lost Colony, Remnants, Mechnist, Syncretic Evolution, Life Seeded, Post Apocalyptic, Common Ground, Hegemon, On the Shouldes of Giants, Scion, Imperial Fiefdom, Slingshot to the Stars,
    • Overtuned, Teachers of the Shroud - shpuld have more RP elements - to make then on pair with new Origins [Custodiam Team, i'm looking to you].
    • Ocean Paradise, Necrophage, should be a Civic
    • Subterranean should be a trait
  • If you could remove one game system, what would it be? Which system would you make the central focus of an expansion? Is there a feature you want to enjoy, but feel the current implementation doesn’t quite work for you?
    • I think war and warfare is in need of change. I really hate the way to "sue to peace" - i think the peace options should be more like EU4 [you can claim individual systens, and not be forced to "status quo", u can peace out participants of the war, you ca demand other stuff that are not system, you have "Agressive Expantion"]; There should be possible to brake truces [and even, there could be civics that reduce the penalties for it - like cutthroat].
    • I like espionage, however, the "missions" are somewhat frustrating to me, i dont feel real impact from them
    • Factions and Trade Routes feel useless - like, for most part of the game, i dont even remenber they are there. I want to enjoy them, however, they dont really have any impacts ion the game

Sorry bad spelling - English not my native language
Thats my 5 tip of feedback
 
30 pages of navel-gazing, and here I am to add my own to the pile.

I'm not even sure why I'm bothering, to be quite honest. The most recent dev diary seems to have tripled-down on the tone-deafness of this one, and I'm fairly certain I'm almost done with this game. Maybe I'll play another ~4 hours just so I can roll over the 4k hours played milestone, but if what I've read in the recent dev diaries is the future? I don't think I'll ever again enjoy Stellaris to the same degree I have in the past, and it might just be best if I uninstalled and forgot it. This won't be a post in the format of others, where I address your direct questions, but instead one where I share my somewhat rambling thoughts. Since this'll probably be my last post on these forums, I don't suppose I can ask you to indulge me for this one?

Anyway, I guess calling The Vision tone deaf might seem like a surprise or possibly an insult, but, well. In this dev diary, you claim that Stellaris is more roleplay focused than ever before! And then, in the same breath, tell us that you are removing an unintended interaction that allows players to express agency within the game in a manner not intended by the development team. I don't know how you can honestly, sincerely say both of these things - it feels like not allowing players to express themselves in ways not intended by the dev team is the very pinnacle of 4X design and the very antithesis of roleplay, but maybe that's just me?

There's a lot I want to say. I bet I could easily fill up an hour-long Youtube diatribe without repeating myself. But with every point I try to make, I keep coming back to the central point of that last paragraph. That Stellaris is, ultimately, a game that is played at the developers' pleasure. Every aspect of its roleplay is either tightly scripted or else forced by the implementation of game mechanics to resolve in a predetermined way that takes extraordinary effort to circumvent.

I mean, consider first contact events with unknown empires. In my experience, and with some very bad napkin math, something like over half of default empires will end up choosing aggressive first contact protocols. Also, empires set to aggressive first contact will always choose to abduct anything they meet if they can. The only way to prevent the absolutely massive (-300!) opinion malus from such an event firing, whether or not it's even successful, is to simply not allow it to fire at all. Of course, the only way to keep it from firing is to keep them from having sensor range on any of your civilian ships or discovering a system your empire has claimed.

And if I want to roleplay a friendly empire, I must dodge this opinion malus. But with what seems like over half of all default empires choosing to engage in this behavior, I am forced to treat every empire I meet as if it will play out this way - the gamble is a losing one otherwise. And this leads to the stated extraordinary effort: I have to stop exploring entirely in that direction, I have to forbid my science ships from entering certain systems, I have to potentially even destroy my own outposts in order to maintain enough of a distance to keep those negative events from happening. And if I don't? I could be a Xenophilic, Fanatic Egalitarian Democracy and I would still end up being mortal, lifelong enemies to an unknown, unmet Democratic Crusader empire just because they were forced to try an abduction on me.

And that alone seems to be at odds with the idea of Stellaris as this roleplaying game, this storytelling generator, doesn't it? How many empires would really risk a full-blown first contact war with another empire by attempting an abduction? In-universe, you can't know whether or not you're trying to establish contact with a fallen empire, yet half the default empires are all-too-happy to try to abduct a complete unknown. They're ready to throw down with a threat of unknown magnitude, just because the designers and players all always know that it will only ever be a default empire at the other end of that first contact event. But... doesn't that speak more towards a 4X design philosophy, a crunchy one, not the fluffy design of a roleplaying game, right?

Now, of course, I do admit that being a democracy that is in a full-blown forever war with another democracy is a specific type of story, but it stops being an interesting story when you realize how arbitrarily forced it all is. This didn't happen by circumstance, it happened because the core design of the game is skewed towards forcing the player into certain play routes. Playing a stereotypical "Let's be Xenophobic, it's really in this year"-style empire is the default game design of Stellaris - the game doesn't just enable it, it enforces it at most levels of its design. Stellaris wants you at war because warfare isn't just the primary way to express agency in how your empire treats with other empires in the game, it's the only way. As a result, every empire ends up feeling like they're the same militarist authoritarian empire, except I get to pick which bonuses my government has.

And every computer feels the same, too. Democratic Crusaders? Evangelizing Zealots? Hegemonic Imperialists? Federation Builders? They all functionally feel the same to interact with. Especially Federation Builders, I've probably taken and deleted at least a half-dozen screenshots of them sitting in Cooperative diplomatic stance while harming relations with me.

The game just feels flat. When everything feeling so samey, how can I possibly agree that the game enables roleplay? Sure, I can create a ton of different flavors of Militarist Authoritarian empires, but at the end of the day, even an allegedly-Fanatic Pacifist empire has to devote the majority of their economy to producing a strong, competitive navy in preparation for their next war, or to ward off their enemies from trying to declare war on them in the first place.

It doesn't stop there, either. I used to love just watching how the galaxy develops. The rise and fall of empires, the alliances, and so on. But these days, ever since Overlord and Federations to be specific, the end-state of the galaxy is generally the same. There will be one or more mega federations that never break up, with anyone who tries to leave being immediately the target of a subjugation war by the federation president to bring them back into the fold. Or, there will be one or more mega overlords, who each have 3-5 vassals of wildly varying (and sometimes diametrically opposed) ethics that never, ever try to rebel. Or, there will be a mix of both.

There will never be a machine uprising that succeeds. There will never be a federation collapse or a vassal rebellion that isn't triggered by a prescripted event such as the Imperial Fiefdom origin. There will never be a planetary rebellion that collapses an empire. There will never be a genocidal empire that remains a threat up until the late game. Rarely, the mega federation will be strong enough to actually beat the end-game crisis and the war in heaven, but I've only seen that maybe a handful of times in my time with the game, and only once that I can think of in my past year of gameplay.

And the things that don't happen don't stop there. I can't offer to join an ongoing war another empire is locked into, an option that was in CK2, a game that is 4 years older than Stellaris. I can't pressure or pay off another empire to stop their war. I can neither request nor force an empire to give up their claims on my systems. I can't loan another empire a fleet so they can win their war without having to directly involve myself.

Even the civics that seem designed for roleplay purposes feel like they're undercooked. Machine Intelligences with the Tactical Algorithms civic have to pay other empires to take their commanders until the commanders are at very high levels. The Obsessional Directive civic starts with a nigh-impossible production quota if you're on Grand Admiral, requiring 12k consumer goods at the end of the first decade. As before, both of these can be stories, but "I paid another empire 5000 energy credits to accept my tactical genius" is a hard sell, and "I couldn't not fail to meet my paperclip quota by the fundamental design incentives of the game" isn't much better.

I dunno, I'm almost certainly lying when I say I'm done with the game - you don't get 1k hours without being mildly addicted, let alone 4k. But I do sincerely mean it when I say that I have no hope that this game will ever again feel to me like it's a proper storytelling generator, a proper avenue for roleplay. Not if you genuinely believe that the game is already in a spot that enables roleplay, not if you believe that taking out the ability for people to do crazy things in unintended ways is enabling of roleplay, and not if you genuinely believe that the only things the game needs to really amp up the roleplay is to tweak the game's core, crunchier mechanics as opposed to focusing on developing its fluffier, chaotic mechanics or the game's complete lack of tools for interacting with other empires beyond basic warfare.

I appreciate it if you got this far, and I promise to never again write this much on these forums. This is just something that's been eating at me since this dev diary was first posted, and when reading the dev diary from earlier this week really left me feeling a decent amount of despair for the future of this game, I felt the need to say something.
 
  • 2Like
Reactions:
I know it’s late but I wanted to add my two cents.

To me Stellaris is a combination of two of my favourite types of games – a strategy but with elements of RP. Some of this RP takes place ‘outside’ of the game, just as my interpretation of various in-game events and the way I imagine my empire and how it is affected. This is fine, as long as there are suitable options for tailoring the empire (and there are plenty), along with different options for interacting with various game elements (and these are, unfortunately, lacking). The most important problem I have with the current version of the game (and it is still one of my favourites!) is the imbalance between those two poles of strategy and RP. The former gives the game structure, but it is the latter that gives it flavour. And right now there is too little flavour in some aspects.

What are these aspects? For me they all revolve around the key component of roleplay – relations and interactions. There are three main areas where these are lacking – exploration (i.e. interactions with the environment), diplomacy (i.e. interactions with other empires), and internal politics (i.e. internal relations between fractions within the empire). Exploration and the whole initial stage of the game is probably what excites me the most in a given gameplay. From the RP perspective these are some of the most defining moments and experiences for a ‘young’ empire that answer a variety of questions: Where are we in the galaxy? What hides in the surrounding systems? What are these strange anomalies we found? Who built this destroyed structure that floats in disarray around a star in the corner of the map? Who lived on this derelict world? Who do we border? While I usually have a pretty specific image of the empire I play at the moment of its creation, all these events and encounters, and even how hyperlanes are arranged, bring it to life and give it context and, for me as a player, an opportunity to imagine how my empire would react. This is why I sometimes find that from a RP perspective the game becomes more and more ‘hollow’ as it progresses – all the systems are scanned, all the are secrets uncovered, and most of the events have already occurred. While there are some substitutes for this for the mid- and late-game in the form of astral rifts, I would much prefer for the galaxy to reveal its secrets throughout the game – there should always be something to explore, some new anomalies and archaeology sites that popped up in already scanned systems (like Zarqlan) or new systems uncovered from time to time, in a similar manner to precursor systems, that are open for exploration. The other thing is the role of events – for me they provide much of the RP flavour in the game and the best ones leave some permanent mark on the empire or on the galaxy’s map. For example, a newly discovered habitable planet without any colony events is just another abstract entity that I do not care for much beyond its resources. On the other hand, planets with migrating forests or a mushroom network are something special and memorable. I would love to have many more events in the game, and colony events in particular – ideally every habitable planet should have a quirk. While obtaining collectibles for your archive is nice, it doesn’t do it for me in terms of a lasting mark (even in the form of a planet or empire modifier).

As for the interactions between the empires, this is an aspect, which for me does not really work right now. I love the game, but I hate how diplomacy works and how other empires react and behave. I feel limited in what I can do in terms of both diplomacy and war. For example, there are many instances where I cannot intervene in any way in a relation between other empires, even if those empires are my allies. I cannot help in a war that has already started. There is currently no way (not to my knowledge at least) to betray an ally in a war or to be betrayed. You can’t change sides in the war, so no sneaky aliens SF tropes for you. As for the Galactic Community, it is currently mostly a modifier spewing machine, with limited RP potential. The same goes for allies, federations, and vassals – you rarely can negotiate or force specific actions, like breaking relations with someone or going into war (allies usually do not want to participate, no matter how much they like my empire). It feels hollow right now and could really benefit from both introducing new actions and adding some events that give flavour to interactions between empires (twin empire modifiers that make us bff or mortal enemies, please!), describe what is happening in the galactic community, pose some dilemmas for members of the federation, etc.

The other thing is that other empires often lack any logic and consistency in their diplomatic actions. I had empires abruptly leaving a federation, even though we were best buddies from the very start of the game, cause somehow they changed their opinion of me in a matter of seconds. I had empires that were leaving a federation just to hop back in, again and again. I had an empire swearing fealty to a genocidal empire and I had driven assimilators that were far too friendly for my taste (even though they were modelled after the Borg). How empires behave during wars in even more bizarre, when they have no intention of suing for peace, even when they are crushed, just because they still have some unimportant, unoccupied planets left. The way empires vote in the galcom and federations seems pretty random. I know that creating an ai with good, consistent diplomatic behaviour is a tall order, but right now I get reminded again and again that I play with or against some scripts with no personality or memory and it really hinders the RP aspect.

Another thing, that I saw in the post above and I completely agree with – right now there are some things in terms of diplomacy and war that will just not happen. There are no successful AI rebellions. There are no schisms in federations. There are rarely any independence wars. Perhaps the worst case here is the Non-aligned systems league, which, after the War in Haven, tends to stay forever as is, and thus most of the empires are in a federation together. This not only makes that particular type of gameplay rather boring, but goes against the RP element of an urgent and temporary alliance. Also, Galactic Nemesis empires are almost always vanquished, but still it takes ages for the war to end and during that time I am even more restricted in my diplomacy options. Impactful diplomatic actions should be available even (or especially) during war, and I can’t even change my federation’s succession term law…

Finally, there is a fundamental problem with espionage right now – to say it bluntly, it is almost useless, which is unfortunate given the potential it has. Right now it just serves to gain some intel because espionage actions do not really do much and, again, are often just a generic or abstract action. I would really like more events and real consequences of espionage. We should be able to inspire and aid revolts in other empires or assassinate their leaders or steal their resources, etc. Right now it is perhaps the most hollow system in the entire game.

As for the last aspect – there is almost no internal politics right now. There are factions, but they are just unity production machines, they have no personality, and there are hardly any events or situations that involve them. What has been done with leaders is great, with all the traits that make them unique, but I would love to have some interactions between those leaders, as well as betrayals, or revolts. Speaking of revolts, right now there is virtually no way for a revolt to succeed and they are limited to a specific planet. Why can’t a conquered species start a revolt on several of your planets, in a manner similar to an AI rebellion? Or a sector governor with a large ego tries to start his own empire? There are of course many other possible internal politics elements and events that would be fun – maybe you have an empire in which each full citizen species has a representative that has to be persuaded to adopt some policies? Maybe there have been reports about a mysterious illness that starts to spread on your planets? Maybe there is a xenophobe demagogue that is inciting violence and you have to do something? There are already nice elements like this (like an offshoot subspecies that may be conflicted with their brethren), but there should definitely be more.

That is my essay, now for short answers to the questions asked in the diary:

How important to you are the current systems that use individual Pops and Jobs in the planetary simulation? I like my pops and would be really sad to see them go or be replaced by some soulless percentages. A better automation is probably the way, rather than abandoning the current system. Maybe you could just choose a specialty for a planet and get some standardised, automated development, if you don’t want to micromanage? AI would also benefit from it, cause now it sometimes develops its planets without any direction or logic.

If we made significant changes to fleets, how much could we alter before it no longer felt like the game you love? I rather like how things stand right now – the rock-paper-scissors aspect is very nice.

What aspects are most important in defining your civilization? How do you set goals for yourself during gameplay? When do you set them, and how often do they change as you play? If you could remove one game system, what would it be? Which system would you make the central focus of an expansion? Is there a feature you want to enjoy, but feel the current implementation doesn’t quite work for you? I have already largely answered these questions above.

How important is the current Trade system, with routes collecting back to your Capital? Not important at all. It is in fact quite irritating, needlessly complicated, and keeps spawning those damned pirates.

Is colonization too easy? Should habitability and planet climate matter more? Yes and yes, mostly due to how easy and relatively quick terraformation is. I've always liked the trope of a largely unhospitable planet that is rich in some resources and is therefore colonised. The colonists, however, mostly live in shielded cities, while torrential rains, energy storms, or icy plains loom outside the window. Right now it is an easy fix with just some terraforming magic. I would love a system where it is economically viable (and necessary) to create colonies on an unhospitable planet – maybe the consequence should not be a negative modifier, but a limit to how many pops can live there? This would also reduce the total number of pops, which is good for game lag. As I mentioned, I would also love more events and situations connected to colonisation – there should be plenty of surprises on a newly colonised world.

Are there any Origins that should be Civics, or Civics that should be Origins? I don’t really have many opinions here – for me it is the totality of an origin, civics, species traits etc. that creates an empire’s identity. I would love, however, to have on option of choosing more than one origin, where applicable of course, to have for example underground necrophages or a remnant lost colony or a progenitor hive with fruitful partnership. There is also a huge discrepancy in the depth of various origins – I know that not every origin has to provide large gameplay changes and long, engaging chain of events (Knights of the Toxic God, you gorgeous beast, I’m looking at you!), but every origin, in my opinion, should provide some events and RP options.

Thank you for reading, I hope it is somehow useful. Sorry devs if I was blunt in some criticisms, but it is only out of love for the game.
 
Last edited:
  • 1Like
Reactions:
  • If you could remove one game system, what would it be? Which system would you make the central focus of an expansion? Is there a feature you want to enjoy, but feel the current implementation doesn’t quite work for you?
What I would remove is the lines and their restrictions currently present on the galaxy map. When Star Trek Infinite was released, I hoped this would eventually be added as an update here as well, but it hasn’t happened. I really liked the new system. The fact that movement, trade, and other mechanics aren’t tied to predefined lines but instead allow free movement between galaxies in any direction seems much more realistic and provides greater freedom to the game.
  • How important is the current Trade system, with routes collecting back to your Capital?
The current trade system is not important to me at all.
  • How important to you are the current systems that use individual Pops and Jobs in the planetary simulation?
I would like to mention here that when playing on a large map, the game's performance decreases significantly after about 100 years, and this is probably due to a lot of pop.
  • If we made significant changes to fleets, how much could we alter before it no longer felt like the game you love?
I would like the ship designer to remain, or for there to be a similar ship building tab.
  • Is colonization too easy? Should habitability and planet climate matter more?
Colonization is indeed easy, but I don't think it can be made difficult.