Stellaris Dev Diary #369 - 4.0 Changes: Part 3

[Critical Ethics]

I don't think food is hated by any significant number of people, consumer goods neither. I do agree that food could have more uses, I wouldn't particularly mind if consumer goods required a mix of food and minerals to represent using organic products for purposes outside of nutrition.

Food was hated when you were forced to perfectly manage your food on a per-planet basis or risk moral spirals. Food became kind of pointless when it was just a big pile of upkeep. With the new trade system food should be much better than it has been since, well, ever, since it will be in a nice middle ground where local food production isn't mandatory but is rewarded with "bonus" trade, and overproduction will still go into your empire supply to feed planets where there's better use of pops.

That's also why I won;t be all that upset even if energy does just become "building food".

e: food and energy kind of sliding toward each other in importance and utility could make it possible to balance introducing organic and energy ships

 

[cryptkeeper]

I have a few more thoughts about the trade change, we should have a trade capital designation. So we can make are capital produce more logistics to supplement our specialized planets. In general it might honestly make sense for capitals to produce naturally more of the resources since it is the main hub for your empire.

Robots, fleets, starbases, buildings, and megsatructures all have energy upkeep, and remember than robots and buildings will contribute to planetary deficits so local energy plants will indirectly boost your net trade income.

The events flavoured around paying for stuff will presumably switch to trade but there's a lot of events where the text is explicit that you're spending energy to power things rather than just pay for them.

I can see the energy based edicts moving from energy to trade.

I wouldn't be opposed to the mineral costs for buildings and districts and mining stations and such being reduced a bit and adding in some kind of energy "startup costs".

Mainly I just want energy to matter and not feel like its production is a waste compared to advanced resources, like often food does( though I do think organic ships and bio ascension might change things on the food front) It honestly just needs a way to directly convert energy to advanced resources, like minerals to alloys, or food to alloys with those civics. I think that like minerals are turned into alloys, energy should be turned into trade value or research,perhaps food or minerals( if a robot or lithiod) can be turned into unity ,making those jobs have that specific upkeep would give each one of the resources a purpose.

But it being used for building things would also make sense. I would like to also see some planetary decisions that use energy, maybe to protect from storms or enemy bombardment.

 

[lordvagrant]

Criminals can still open Branch Offices without a trade deal, getting the same kind of buildings they have right now and adding 25 crime per building to the planet.
However, they can now get a commercial pact too (if both parties agree), which replaces the buildings with their non criminal variant but every building will add +5 to the crime floor (to a max of +20 crime floor for a fully developed branch office, which is not enough to trigger negative crime effects on its own).
If the commercial pact is broken, the branch office reverts to traditional criminal behavior.

Does that make sense?

Will Crime Syndicates get smarter about establishing Branch Offices? If immediately after they establish a branch on one of my planets I declare war, and in the subsequent war I cart off 33% of their population into slavery in addition to salvaging their fleets for minimal loss, after the 6th time will they realise that maybe the branch office is unviable?

 

[KNakamura]

I’ve talked about this ad nauseam, so I’ll try to keep it short, and you can easily refute my argument.

In short, in HoI4, you can make the stupid decision to stack up 10 divisions, and they eat each other's supplies, losing combat power and die to a vastly smaller foe. In Stellaris, if I don’t stack my 10 fleets, the chance of losing to a vastly smaller foe increases.

So the best strategy to avoid losing is:

1. Never be the one with the vastly smaller fleet. Build and plan EVERYTHING in your power to always stay ahead in the fleet power race, killing off any incentives for asymmetrical or alternative playstyles. Everything snowballs into fleet power one way or another.
2. The game's fundamentals are broken. You will never see any merit in game design or gameplay when the game ultimately dictates that bigger numbers win. It all boils down to point 1.

This is why players, like me, who know how it can be done differently—like in HoI4, where smart tactical decisions and automation allow for depth without sacrificing alternative playstyles or complexity—are rooting for anti-doomstack mechanics and their removal in Stellaris. Doomstacking hampers the game and is just boring.

But.. I'm not playing HoI4. I have no desire to! People who go "but Vicky" "but HoI4" forget they can just go play those games. I play Stellaris because of how it approaches things. Making things more intricate just.. raises the complexity of it. I'd rather have doomstacking than more complex mechanics that overwhelm me while I'm try my level hardest not to neglect the economy side of things.

 

[Calvax]

Will Crime Syndicates get smarter about establishing Branch Offices? If immediately after they establish a branch on one of my planets I declare war, and in the subsequent war I cart off 33% of their population into slavery in addition to salvaging their fleets for minimal loss, after the 6th time will they realise that maybe the branch office is unviable?

This is an interesting point. I'd be curious to know if the AI has any logic when it comes to opening criminal branch offices, but it seems fairly simple to add a weighting for it to not do so if the target has a strongly negative opinion and is superior/overwhelming in strength.

Similarly I wonder if the AI will properly be able to evaluate commercial pacts. Because if the AI doesn't like a criminal megacorp that is weaker than it (and has no significant allies) the AI should be disinclined to sign an extortion deal, and more inclined if the opposite.

 

[Bullxdog33]

I love the idea of Logistics and using trade to supply that. I have a few questions about it.
Would Gateways and hyper relays affect trade?
Would systems that are isolated have a reduced production of resources due to logistics or would a trade deficit simply take place? An example would be a Dyson sphere in a system that is not connected to your “trade network” whether because of your own systems or allied systems. Would it give less energy or would it simply negatively impact trade?
I would like to see the logistics system affect certain systems that are not connected.
As per the doomstack. I think that a trade network needs to be established first. Any of your systems or allied systems are part of it and help reduce the cost of fleet upkeep via trade. In the event that you are attacking an enemy. Sending a doomstack straight to the heart of the enemy capital without taking systems on the way should negatively affect trade because you are stretching logistics capabilities. Compared to if you take a system at a time, you build that network but it will still be negatively impacted due to being in enemy territory but to a lesser extent.
A system like this would also affect if you are in a two front war and are pushing on the weakest enemy. By not defending your own empire, your fleet gets less and less logistics. So this would either force you to return home or split your forces.
A side note: A system such as this might positively impact how important star bases become. And maybe in a future dlc, one could built a kilo structure to defend a system without having less logistics needed and no hit to naval capacity

 

[Calvax]

I love the idea of Logistics and using trade to supply that. I have a few questions about it.
Would Gateways and hyper relays affect trade?
Would systems that are isolated have a reduced production of resources due to logistics or would a trade deficit simply take place? An example would be a Dyson sphere in a system that is not connected to your “trade network” whether because of your own systems or allied systems. Would it give less energy or would simply negatively impact trade?
I would like to see the logistics system affect certain systems that are not connected.
As per the doomstack. I think that a trade network needs to be established first. Any of your systems or allied systems are part of it and help reduce the cost of fleet upkeep via trade. In the event that you are attacking an enemy. Sending a doomstack straight to the heart of the enemy capital without taking systems on the way should negatively affect trade because you are stretching logistics capabilities. Compared to if you take a system at a time, you build that network but it will still be negatively impacted due to being in enemy territory.
A system like this would also affect if you are in a two front war and are pushing on the weakest enemy. By not defending your own empire, your fleet gets less and less logistics. So this would either force you to return home or split your forces.
A side note: A system such as this might positively impact how important star bases become. And maybe in a future dlc, one could built a kilo structure to defend a system with having less logistics needed and no hit to naval capacity

I think the idea of a system not being connected having an effect is interesting, but the trade system as described isn't going to calculate distance. It's just "are you in the empire or not".

Though it would be interesting if hyperlanes and gateways gave a -% reduction to the logistic costs of deficits to represent the increased logistical capacity of that infrastructure.

 

[Imp0815]

But.. I'm not playing HoI4. I have no desire to! People who go "but Vicky" "but HoI4" forget they can just go play those games. I play Stellaris because of how it approaches things. Making things more intricate just.. raises the complexity of it. I'd rather have doomstacking than more complex mechanics that overwhelm me while I'm try my level hardest not to neglect the economy side of things.

Then I can only wholeheartedly recommend you give it a try. It’s not that different in the basics, but still different enough to be worth experiencing.

 

[Miguelinileugim]

Logistic Modules on a starbase could have a range value (like trade modules currently do) giving you a logistics projection range from that starbase, meaning that you get standard costs within range while under the starbase's logistic capacity value. Beyond that range (deep into enemy territory) is where the escalating costs hit.
Or two types of module - logistic range (using the current trade module graphic) and logistic capacity (using the current anchorage graphic).
This could mean changing the current anchorage module, which would make much more sense - currently it is just build a bunch of these in systems where no ship ever goes to magically create naval capacity
This gives a strategic choice - do I build a defensive (guns) starbase on the border system, or an offensive (logistics) starbase.
Hmm, the Border Friction relations effect could be impacted by starbase modules such as these.

Oh yeah that sounds pretty lovely! Also a piracy module you can use to decrease the enemy's ability to project their logistic capacity into your territory! (or even in theirs IF they're at war with you!)

 

[Critical Ethics]

But.. I'm not playing HoI4. I have no desire to! People who go "but Vicky" "but HoI4" forget they can just go play those games. I play Stellaris because of how it approaches things. Making things more intricate just.. raises the complexity of it. I'd rather have doomstacking than more complex mechanics that overwhelm me while I'm try my level hardest not to neglect the economy side of things.

Yup. That's why this is a good logistics system for Stellaris, and why trade routes and other weird "distance from starbase" type stuff isn't. You don't have to do weird stuff like work out the nearest starbase to optimise your yadda yadda whatever or calculate the exact ratio of mines to alloys to allow maximised thoroughput. Instead it's just, not enough mines on your alloy planet? Marketbux goes up slow. Too many mines on an alloy planet? MarketBux goes up fast and the extra minerals go into the bank. Got your starships at a starbase? MarketBux doesn't care. Starships roaming around? MarketBux goes up slower. Starships all fighting in one big pile? MarketBux goes up even slower, maybe even goes down. Don't care about any of this and want to pretty much ignore it? Build some extra clerks or make some commercial pacts or just spend less or sell more at the market and then go back to pew pew pew. You're rewarded for engaging with it, but you can also ignore all the details and just throw raw numbers at it instead.

 

[KNakamura]

Then I can only wholeheartedly recommend you give it a try. It’s not that different in the basics, but still different enough to be worth experiencing.

I did! And I decided it wasn't for me.

Yup. That's why this is a good logistics system for Stellaris, and why trade routes and other weird "distance from starbase" type stuff isn't. You don't have to do weird stuff like work out the nearest starbase to optimise your yadda yadda whatever or calculate the exact ratio of mines to alloys to allow maximised thoroughput. Instead it's just, not enough mines on your alloy planet? Marketbux goes up slow. Too many mines on an alloy planet? MarketBux goes up fast and the extra minerals go into the bank. Got your starships at a starbase? MarketBux doesn't care. Starships roaming around? MarketBux goes up slower. Starships all fighting in one big pile? MarketBux goes up even slower, maybe even goes down. Don't care about any of this and want to pretty much ignore it? Build some extra clerks or make some commercial pacts or just spend less or sell more at the market and then go back to pew pew pew. You're rewarded for engaging with it, but you can also ignore all the details and just throw raw numbers at it instead.

Or.. just hear me out: the old system worked fine and the change requires more thinking about it. Stop trying to convince me up is down. It's not, and I rather resent people making me think it is.

I didn't mind the old system at all. I had to spend some time thinking about node placements, but that was about it. This means I have to think carefully about how deep into optimization I want to go, and I don't think doomstacking is bad. I think, bluntly, the forum consensus in this is wrong.

 

[Critical Ethics]

Or.. just hear me out: the old system worked fine

See, this is a fundamental difference of opinion that I don't think we're going to get past. I absolutely, 100% do not agree that the old system(s) worked fine.