• 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 #369 - 4.0 Changes: Part 3

Hello everyone!

Today we’re going to take a glance at the Trade and Logistics changes coming in the Stellaris 4.0 ‘Phoenix’ update, then check out some new portraits.

Trade and Logistics​

Trade as a Standard Resource

The Trade system introduced in the Stellaris 2.2 ‘Le Guin’ update was raised as an especially frequent point of confusion for many players. UX issues around disconnected trade stations combined with some quirks of being a modifier based system (like ignoring habitability) made some of it unintuitive. The system had a major impact on performance as well, so while examining Stellaris for optimizations, we decided that we wanted to revamp the system.

In 4.0, Trade will become a standard advanced resource, generally produced in the same way as before, but will follow all of the standard rules around resource-producing jobs. The Trade Routes system has been removed - any produced Trade will be immediately collected like any other normal resource.

Resource Bar showing Trade

We’ve done some cleanup to the top bar while we were in there.

Logistical Upkeep

Hello, @Gruntsatwork here, with Eladrin’s UI wizardry done, I shall step in to reveal some of our trade secrets to you.

The majority of your trade upkeep will come from 2 sources in the new system.

First, local planetary deficits will carry a small trade upkeep, a fraction of the missing resources value on the galactic market. This represents the logistical effort required to commandeer freighters to supply a world that is not self-sufficient and therefore requires resources to be transported in from off-world. Mind you, this will occur in addition to normal deficits, if your entire empire is not capable of supplying those needs either.

In short, your planets will either satisfy their own local needs, or require trade to offset the logistics cost.

The second major trade upkeep will come from Fleets. Any fleets currently docked at one of your starbases have no trade upkeep.

Once your fleets start to move they will gain a small Trade Upkeep, representing the logistical efforts required to support them. This small upkeep will increase if your fleets are in hostile territory – that is territory owned by another empire you are at war with, as supplying them becomes so much more dangerous and space insurance coverage is no joke.

In the future, logistical upkeep could potentially be used to counter-act Doomstacking, for example by scaling upkeep with the number of ships in a fleet, dividing by the number of fleets, fleets per system etc, we have no concrete solution yet, but welcome your thoughts.

With these new sources of trade upkeep, it is of course important to mention that we will also introduce a new trade deficit. Like Unity, this will not create a Deficit Situation but a country modifier that persists until the deficit is dealt with. Running a trade deficit will reduce advanced resource production (alloys, consumer goods, unity, and research) and all ship weapons damage.

Stockpiling Trade and Using Trade in the Market

Our intent is for Trade Policies to continue to exist going forward. Currently, we expect to have half of your net Trade income (after paying Logistical Upkeep) converted to other resources using your Trade Policy, plus any that might otherwise overflow your storage. Some of the current Trade Policies may be tweaked a bit. The rest will go into your resource stockpile as an advanced resource.

In addition, the galactic market has been adjusted so that its primary trading resource is Trade. As such, energy is now available on the market as a standard resource. The energy storage cap has been brought to the same level as minerals and food, while Trade’s storage cap has been set to 50.000 at the base level.

As we are in the middle of implementation, we are adjusting this as we receive internal feedback and will continue to do so when it is time for our open beta.

We will be keeping a close eye on the value of trade as a resource. If necessary, we’ll keep turning the dials to ensure it is an actually interesting resource to focus on.

For modders, the main market resource is set as a define and can be switched to something else.

Gestalt Empires and Trade

Rejoice, friends of bugs and bolts, for you too will be able to enjoy the benefits of trade starting with 4.0.

As part of the Phoenix update, Gestalt empires will be able to collect trade like normal empires do, from both jobs and deposits.

In contrast to normal empires, Gestalt empires will rarely do so with Traders and Clerks, instead their most basic drones, maintenance drones for example, will create trade in addition to their normal resources and modifiers. In addition, they will also have access to Trade Policies, to enrich their common wallet.

Of course, with benefits come drawbacks, and so Gestalt Empires will also deal with the logistical upkeep for local planetary deficits and Fleets that are not docked and/or within hostile territory. The Galactic Market will of course also accept gestalt trade as its main resource.

In the future, we are also considering Megacorp Gestalt Empires, for your corporate drone needs, but whether we will have time to do that for 4.0 or later remains to be seen.

Corporate Branch Office Updates

For Branch Offices, we have a plethora of improvements ready for your enjoyment, courtesy of our ever industrious Mr.Cosmogone.

Branch office buildings are now all limited to 1 per planet and now give more appropriate jobs to the host planet. They also increase local trade production based on those jobs and their corporate resource output is in turn increased by local trade.

Most Corporate Civics now also give bonuses to a specific branch office building, increasing its trade value bonus and receiving Merchant jobs on their Capital from it.

Numerous changes have been made to Criminal Syndicates:

  • Criminal Empires can now establish commercial pacts. Having a commercial pact with a Criminal Empire will replace all criminal buildings with their "lawful" counterpart. As long as the commercial pact remains, criminal branch offices will not be removed from the planet.
  • All Criminal branch office buildings have had their crime value set to 25 and give one Criminal Job alongside a regular Job.
  • We have also added a crime floor to non-criminal branch office buildings on empires they have a trade agreement with, which means there will always be a minimum amount of crime on the branch office planet. Criminal branch offices are also up to 25% more profitable on high crime planets.

Balance-wise, these buildings are more impactful, so branch office buildings now cost influence, and branch offices now take up 5 empire size instead of 2.

Oh, and we have also allowed Megacorps to open branch offices on other Megacorps... The influence cost is doubled when built on a planet owned by another Megacorp.

Mammalian Portraits​

Thanks, Gruntsatwork. Now a message from Content Design Lead @CGInglis :

And now my deer friends, one mooo-re surprise for you! The Stellaris 4.0 ‘Phoenix’ update brings ten paws-itively stunning new Mammalian portraits to the base game!

Mammalian Species Portraits

Glass of milk, standing in between extinction in the cold, and explosive radiating growth…



The Gremlin

A regal Hippopotaxeno

My, what big teeth you have.

The secrets of enlightenment are waiting.


Next Week​

Next week we’ll start talking about how Pops will change and might pull up the new Planet UI. Since the branch itself is still very full of placeholders, we’ll be using the design mockups while explaining the changes.

See you then!
 
  • 104Like
  • 71Love
  • 9
  • 8
  • 6
Reactions:
Please have the size of the Starbase affect the cost and maximum cost of your fleet that is free. This way a major base is going to be more important for the maximum size of the fleet you can handle. Having the local planet trade deficit/bonus affect the local fleet would make more important planets be better places to handle the mega fleets, while the edge of the empire with minor Starbases will cost more to handle Alpha fleet. If the planet can handle the fleet it's better to place it there.
This could be done easily by requiring one crew quarters module to supply one fleet and allow more than one crew module per starbase.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
This update is going to be so trash. Only tall empires like this game anymore cause it’s literally a tall only playstyle. Every update they force it on you. You people constantly screw this game up because you can’t just leave it alone and make a new Stellaris. Give console a choice to choose which version they want to play cause your updates are terrible. I can already say I’m going to hate everything about this.
The game still objectively favors wide empires, with the notable exception of Virtual ascension. And even Virtual isn't actually on top (IIRC, a Natural Design Invasive Species hive rush beats its in a head to head, at least in PVP).

But for all other ascensions, wide is still at least slightly favored (though tall is definitely closer now than it has been).
Make sure to cap more things too, you know the thing real life would never actually have? “What’s that military? You need 20 thousand ships? Nah. We’re gonna cap you at 9999 for no reason what so ever. Oh you can still afford anchorages and fortress worlds? Oh well, it’s capped forever. deal with it. It’s real life.”
The 9999 cap has been there for a long time, and there's no scenario other than the absurd challenge difficulties (25x crisis) where you actually need it. And it's not hard cap: you can keep building ships beyond it.

If you haven't noticed the hard cap before this patch, that actually means your empire never got wide enough to hit it before... which would imply that you're successfully going wider than ever.
“You want a wide empire with 100 planets? That’s not allowed. Here’s 11 leaders in total. Have fun”
100 planets is doable even in the dark days of Paragons, with its obnoxiously small total leader cap, though I can understand being very annoyed with this.
 
  • 6
Reactions:
2000+ hours here.
I applaud most of the changes, but I seriously dislike trade as a resource, and even more to somehow intertwine it with logistics.
Let's cut the BS and just give stellaris a proper currency and logistics system.
Currency:

Most ideas for the current trade resource can be kept, but call it "credits" or "stellari" or whatever. This opens up a lot of new possibilities and makes energy a more valuable and limited resource. It makes no sense to create energy, which is essentially fuel, simply by trade. And please allow leaders to be paid by it instead of with unity.
Gestalt empires should keep the current system since they themselves have no need of money, and should only be able to get it from trade with the galactic market or other empires.

Logistics:
Logistics are extremely important in today's world and even more so in space, both in peace and war.
This should imo replace naval capacity and should simply be a percentage that you can lower or raise in the edict or policy tab.
It should have an upkeep of both energy and alloys, where only the richest empires can afford 100% logistcal needs met.
The requirements should depend on the empire sprawl and whether your ships are docked, moving in friendly territory or enemy territory, and the amount of ships in total.
At 0% your empire is basically dying, no amount of resource sharing is being done between planets, which means any planet with a food deficit should start dying off, alloy planets with no mineral mines will produce nothing, commercial pacts with other nations will generate nothing, ships have their speed extremely reduced and can no longer be repaired, have low fire rate, no shield regeneration, etc. This would mean that self sufficient planets have a decent role in the game now instead of only planet specialisation.
At 100% your empire flourishes, cash pours in, population growth goes up, production is elevated, ships become faster, repair quicker, have higher fire rate, etc.
It opens up doors for some great sabotage acts through espionage, and should get new technologies and perhaps even an entire tradition tree.
This gives a ton of extra content and strategy to the game without really taxing performance.

Ty for reading my wall of text.
 
  • 2
Reactions:
The game still objectively favors wide empires, with the notable exception of Virtual ascension. And even Virtual isn't actually on top (IIRC, a Natural Design Invasive Species hive rush beats its in a head to head, at least in PVP).

But for all other ascensions, wide is still at least slightly favored (though tall is definitely closer now than it has been).

The 9999 cap has been there for a long time, and there's no scenario other than the absurd challenge difficulties (25x crisis) where you actually need it. And it's not hard cap: you can keep building ships beyond it.

If you haven't noticed the hard cap before this patch, that actually means your empire never got wide enough to hit it before... which would imply that you're successfully going wider than ever.

100 planets is doable even in the dark days of Paragons, with its obnoxiously small total leader cap, though I can understand being very annoyed with this.
I’ve always known. I’m at 11k with 13% upkeep *nope, actually it’s 17% now, fun* and it’s always been annoying because real life don’t have caps. more upkeep on top of the upkeep you shouldn’t even have because of the cap and now there’s going to be even more because apparently being far away means you can’t support your military because that’s totally real.

“We took over Normandy beach Sir. HQ says they can safely send supplies now since we still control all the land that we took over before coming here.”

“Sorry, private! New update! We have to go all the way back to HQ to get those supplies THEN we can come back and advanced!”

“But sir! That doesn’t make sense. everything we took is still in our control and clear to send supplies. HQ is in London! We’re in Germany!”

“New update says otherwise”

Plus it doesn’t matter if you “only need it on GA” if the player wants to have it, player should be able to have it with out punishments if his empire can afford it and if you can’t afford it, colonize more planets so you can like it’s that simple. Thats how real life would be. It’s hilarious the game says you’re over your naval capacity and can’t afford it but yet my energy is literally plus a thousand meaning yes I can lmao it’s just adding imaginary stuff to make it more expensive. I get having to pay to build your ships, I get paying your crews and captains and having a upkeep because of how much they cost, that makes perfect sense, not having imaginary capacity to make things more expensive and harder for no reason if this games tries so hard to mimic real life.

Know what hasn’t been in Stellaris? “Trade upkeep” “leader cap” they can always add stuff in but never take out it seems.

I don’t see how it objectively favors wide empires when every update limits and adds more caps that weren’t there before and finds ways to force you to be smaller. They don’t even want you to doomstack now! You doomstacking on a single player game against AI is something they are now trying to punish lmao

Who’s in control? The player or them?

Yeah, someone who wants to be a fanatic purifier to own a whole galaxy on large while colonizing every single planet can sure run an effective government with 11 leaders in total

I’m not understanding this whole planet thing in full. So if you purposely make a planet into a generator only world, you get upkeep because that planet is deficient in everything else? It seems every planet has to be a everything world now to not be in total chaos
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • 5
  • 3Haha
Reactions:
I like the idea of trade being made into a standard resource and that it now represents logistics. However, I'd like to suggest creating a new icon for logistics instead of using the existing jewelry icon, which I think has too much attachment to the old trade system when it represented a trade value for expensive items like fancy jewelry being transported back to the capital. It's confusing to me to be using terms like "trade value" and "trade upkeep" when it now only really just represents "logistics". Maybe instead create a new logistics icon like a set of cargo boxes at the top of the screen next to the other resources in place of the existing jewelry icon.
 
  • 2Like
  • 1
Reactions:
Will living standards still provide trade? How does the logistical upkeep interact with corporate offices? Can we have a logistics based mega corp that makes its money by towing minerals to forge worlds?
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
Hi, I've left Stellaris a while after 2.2 and the hint of a revised pop system got me to look back here so forgive me if my idea is several updates out of relevance.
This is still the exact problem I'm talking about. What you're describing is the annoying micro version that I want to avoid. By making the tax only apply in combat you're still encouraged to use your fleets in separate battles, which implies they'd be split up, but if you do want to do a big climactic all out fight it still costs exactly the same as it would in the annoying micro version except you can just send your ships all up at once instead of getting charged more money because two of your fleets happened to funnel through the same system on the way to the fight.

There's no benefit to forcing people to keep their ships apart outside of combat since a doomstack that's not in combat is just a pile of ships. It's only in combat that the doomstack matters so sidestep the whole issue and only charge extra during combat. Same effect but with no perverse incentives.
In the future, logistical upkeep could potentially be used to counter-act Doomstacking, for example by scaling upkeep with the number of ships in a fleet, dividing by the number of fleets, fleets per system etc, we have no concrete solution yet, but welcome your thoughts.

These two points got me thinking of an idea.
  • A fleets gets a logistics meter that's drained in combat.
  • A fleet with less then 100% logistics that normally consumes x trade when not docked consumes another x which is used to refill the logistics.
  • This excess Trade consumption is limited per system but scales with fleet command limit - so if you have two fleets at max size in a single system they replenish their logistics half as fast.
  • A fleet that sits below 50% logistics can no longer use interstellar travel except emergency retreat.

This has the following consequences:
  • A doomstack outside of combat is just a pile of ships.
  • A doomstack used on the offense gets stuck and bogged down - leaving you unable to further the advance with the same doomstack
  • A doomstack on defense still gets stuck and potentially vulnerable to further attacks but at least in the system it's supposed to defend - leaving other fronts defenseless
  • High trade stockpiles/production makes you able to support more fleets or the same fleets for a longer time but doesn't make your doomstacks better
  • Corvettes/small fleets can do hit & run (or suicide attacks) on larger fleets to drain their logistics and keep them pinned (or drain the enemies Trade stockpile)
Possible modifications I can think of is making the logistics meter a ship value instead of a fleet value. This can have desirable or undesirable consequences when merging or splitting fleets.
 
  • 2Like
Reactions:
one reason i enjoy playing gestalts is specifically to avoid tedious things like trade systems. i hope the extra upkeep drawbacks aren't significant enough to overtake the silly amount of maintenance drones that are already unavoidably necessary on every planet. empire size is already enough for folks who like to build wide, i really hope this won't multiply that
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
I had an idea once, and it may be worth to consider.
Trade should NOT be stockpiled, but being monthly potential (to trade). This monthly trade could be used as currency like described in this DD both for maintenance and market, but also made interesting decision making over what to do with it this month. This changes very little, but very much at the same time especially if trade would be used as fleet maintenance resource. Militaristic empires with low trade could not afford to maintain huge fleet, yet they would still have more powerfull fleet that empires focused on trade that could afford much more, but much weaker ships. Stockpiling trade can offset this decisionmaking becuase trade can be made artificially by selling other resources that wormongers could have abundance, and stockpile trade during peacetime to use more fleets during war for faster conquests before trade runs out (which them could realistically does because of stronger ships).
It might been not clear enough, but what I also meant was that trade should not be a resource that can be freely created. Each empire would have a fixed monthly trade pool, generated by jobs and deposits, and it wouldn't be possible to increase it through the galactic market. Trade could be exchanged for other resources, but resources could not be exchanged for trade.
This system would make trade a more strategic resource rather than just another commodity to be stockpiled or manipulated through the market. It would have several key effects on gameplay:

1. Greater distinction between trade-based and military-focused empires – Militaristic empires with weak trade networks would struggle to maintain large fleets, forcing them to either invest in trade infrastructure or accept smaller but stronger fleets. Meanwhile, trade-oriented empires would have an advantage in sustaining larger numbers of ships, even if individually weaker.


2. Eliminates artificial trade creation – By preventing the conversion of raw resources into trade, it ensures that empires must genuinely invest in trade infrastructure rather than relying on market manipulation. This makes trade policies and economic development more meaningful.


3. Strategic decision-making – Since trade would be a finite monthly resource, players would need to decide carefully how to allocate it. Should they prioritize fleet maintenance, economic bonuses, or resource conversion? This could introduce interesting trade-offs and long-term planning.


4. Potential solution to doomstacking (if addressed properly) – If trade is a key component of fleet upkeep, massive fleets could become harder to sustain unless an empire has a robust trade economy. This could encourage more balanced, multi-fleet strategies rather than a single overwhelming armada.


5. For the future: More impactful economic warfare – Blockades, trade route disruptions, and economic policies targeting trade could have serious consequences, making economic warfare a viable alternative to direct military confrontation.



Overall, this system would add depth to trade mechanics and force players to think more carefully about their economic choices, rather than simply treating trade as just another resource to be accumulated indefinitely.
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
In short, your planets will either satisfy their own local needs, or require trade to offset the logistics cost.
Can you at least do it for the system? For example I can make Alloys Ecu and Arc Furnace in the same system. Mining stations anyway "must deliver" minerals somewhere (to the nearest planet). You can add a module for starbase/orbital ring "Advanced logistic center" which will let planets and mining/research stations to transfer/receive goods from the same system. For example this module can reduce trade cost by -75% for resources from this system.
Also it will be good for Ring World and Dacha systems. Players will be able to make Ecu + Habitat for resources Ecu need etc.

Imagine being a nation, who has technology of instant teleportation of objects between planets in the Dacha system, but you still need to pay for logistics.
 
  • 4Like
Reactions:
In the future, logistical upkeep could potentially be used to counter-act Doomstacking, for example by scaling upkeep with the number of ships in a fleet, dividing by the number of fleets, fleets per system etc, we have no concrete solution yet, but welcome your thoughts.

I really like the idea and would appreciate techs and/or other ways to increase fleet support efficiency. It could take empire-wide bureaucracy or specific Starbase modules that act as depots/logistic hubs. Also, piracy, guerrilla warfare and commerce raiding (i.e. small fleets of enemy light vessels operating between your fleet and the closest logistical hub) should have a strong impact on fleet supplying upkeep.

This would also offer a hook for espionage, since targeting a logistic hub with a sabotage mission could seriously hamper the long range deployment of enemy fleets deep into your space, forcing them to retreat.
 
I think that "convoys" could be a better term than "trade value" since those can be used both for logistics and trade purposes as well as getting stockpiled.

Purchasing resources in the galactic market with "convoys" would be akin to sending a merchant fleet. Not to mention that it is also a more agnostic term for gestalts.

The only strange thing would be that clerks and living standards create "convoys" out of thin air, but traders, maintenance drones, and merchants producing convoys make a ton of sense.
 
  • 4Like
Reactions:
I deeply dislike not having trade routes. They are a cool and universal sci-fi trope/element. I hope we'll get them back in the future, just upgraded and more interesting.

I'd happily lose trade routes and have "trade" as an ethereal empire-wide resource, in return for all the *other* resources becoming "heavy" and requiring a logistics network for you to produce them in one system and consume them in another (along with all that entails from a military perspective: pirates are an annoying minigame that we don't particularly need, but actual PvP logistical warfare, like the Battle of the Atlantic in space, would much more interesting). In the latter model, trade can be the upkeep cost of the network rather than the material being transported. It would make much more sense than the current situation, where minerals, energy and so on magically teleport into and out of your empire stockpile, and logistics are only relevant for this funny optional bonus resource (implying that Gestalts don't have interstellar logistics, for example).

I also hope that if a "trade network" comes back, Hyper-Relays will play a much more serious role in peacetime empire logistics (and not via delivering arbitrary bonuses to colonies via edicts, I don't like that system at all). For example, if transporting resources between colonies costs trade, then Hyper-Relays could drastically reduce the cost per jump.
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
The logistic cost for empire wide trade and military is good. But will there be any tech or planet decision to counter this cost? Like the precursor worlds usually spawn at the middle of nowhere, or go after the fallen empire worlds a galaxy away.
 
The logistic cost for empire wide trade and military is good. But will there be any tech or planet decision to counter this cost? Like the precursor worlds usually spawn at the middle of nowhere, or go after the fallen empire worlds a galaxy away.
Fleet upkeep is only about what territory the fleet is in.
Docked = free
Not docked in friendly territory, or allied territory, or empty territory (?) = low upkeep
Enemy territory = high upkeep
So if you need to fly further to get where you want to go then it is going to cost you more than fighting right next door, but to me that seems intuitive and good for gameplay.

Distance does not impact the planet deficit upkeep at all. Upkeep is only affected by what the planet does not make. So a precursor being far away is not going to cause any new problems once you have settled it.
 
  • 3Like
Reactions: