Stellaris Dev Diary #40 - Heinlein Patch (part 1)

[Safehold]

Note that as I said, there will be a *lot* of bug fixes, UI improvements and QoL changes coming in Heinlein, so I will not be able to answer every question about which exact ones will and will not make it, but if you have something you feel should be addressed for Heinlein (and it isn't a major feature addition/overhaul), feel free to mention it here.

I was wondering if the feature of using influence or additional resource cost to place a building or change in a sector managed planet, would become available. That shouldn't affect the AI, mostly the interface options. Initially, removing planets and adding them was too much expense for the small amount of changes many players want to make in sector planets. Before the strategic resource change, it was probably to destroy some buildings and replace betharian power plants that no longer had access to the empire's stones. Or building a combination of science centers and energy plants on empty squares that have no inherent resource bonus, rather than using the sector priority that changes all planets. The basic macro vs micro argument has been had before, but I would add that centralized decision making is inefficient, and usually the cost projections exceed projected budgets. Adding resource waste to a building construction, would naturally stop good central planners from doing too much interference. Even without the influence limit.

Applying this to the resettlement option will also give the user more flexibility. Requiring armies or energy/minerals, the more unhappy the pop being moved would have more role play value, but is inherently more difficult to balance. Having situations where resettling a pop doesn't require adding or removing planets from a sector, thus creating micro and influence waste, would do a lot to alleviate user complaints about sectors, as well as making the experience more immersive. If the only way to do something, such as using core planets for resettlement, requires going through the sector management, then sooner or later people will start complaining about sectors instead of any other issue.

While there are many things in Stellaris that has no equivalent model on Earth to project from, things like population resettlement has been seen before on Earth. Wars can do so as a natural consequence, or as a consequence of losing/winning a war. It would help Stellaris feel more like a simulated reality, on par with Ck2 or HOI4.

 

[Safehold]

I'm a little surprised at your choice of automating exploration. Perhaps this isn't possible, but it seems you have a neat mechanism in the game which could be used to create an interesting way to assign your explorers an area of space to explore — Sectors. Would it not be possible to use the exact same method of assigning areas to explore as is currently used to assign planets to sectors? Then you could place a limit on how many systems can be explored before being reassigned to a technology which could increase over time. For example a mid game science ship with typical tech for that point in the game may be able to survey 10 (or whatever) system autonomously before having to return to base or be re-supplyed. Kind of like Star Trek's five year mission. You have lots of cool concepts in the game, but you don't seem to be thinking of what other possibilities exist to use current methodology for new purposes.

I really like the addition of rally points. After a while it gets tiring trying to link up the right ships to the right fleet.

Paradox has always had history as a guide to pre plan the game designs. A kind of pre production. For Stellaris, there is no history that can serve as an example. They have to project based on current knowledge, what a future model is like, but I don't think it's all that different. Human history is pretty cyclical, even with new technologies, survey missions aren't much different from say 6 months in a submarine, restricted due to human psychology, fuel, food, air. Or from the various arctic explorations or undersea missions. They don't need to come up with a purely AI or in game explanation for these things, since the in game explanation is pretty bare bones for Stellaris sci fi.

Paradox should play to their strengths. In that fashion, the sci fi will feel like a more realistic simulation.

 

[Oscot]

I think this is a terrible idea -- admirals' levels fluctuate rapidly during war time and so does the size of a fleet that you need to send around. It'd be annoying micro at a time when you really don't want even more micro.

I agree with your assessment that "this constitutes micro", but not your conclusion that "this is bad". What's more appropriate than a combat leader fresh from the front using his new-found understanding of xeno tactics to organize a better counter-fleet? Individual dmirals becoming absolutely vital to your war effort is to me both a welcome move towards character-driven emergent narrative and probably a difficulty hike that I sorely need after 300 hours of play.

Plus, admirals tend to die at 5 stars and be replaced at 1 star.

Again: good. Losing a top-tier ruler in CK2 can cripple your country. Losing a top-tier admiral in Stellaris should cripple your military. Wars are cookie-cutter at the moment. Throwing in some variability where the ebb and flow of your admiral pool has Serious Consequences would be extremely refreshing.

The *worst* part of the idea is to penalize fleets without admirals. That forces a limited number of stacks which is the opposite of what people were trying to accomplish with a fleet size limit.

No it doesn't.
If your 5* admiral still only has a fleet cap of 500, your minimum number of fleets is still >1, which means mission accomplished.

Something like the system attrition limit -- too many FTL drives in the same place makes everyone's FTL work badly in the vicinity? You could still try to split up the fleet and converge on the target from multiple routes, but that opens things up to having the subcomponents ambushed, at least.

I approve of this.
In fact I did actually fight a war where I was required to outmanuever my opponent like this. I was Warp and he was Hyperlanes, so if I ever wanted to actualy catch him I had to jump in-system basically on top of him, which required of me a sort of interstellar flanking attack. That was fun.

 

[jursamaj]

Losing a top-tier admiral in Stellaris should cripple your military.

No. Part of the point of modern military structure is that nobody is indispensable.

 

[Oscot]

No. Part of the point of modern military structure is that nobody is indispensable.

And if I were playing I am the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff in the Current Year IRL then this would be a valid argument.
But I'm playing what is supposed to be a fun space game, and I think that a greater degree of character focus would help it be a fun space game.

Also, I see your "In the future nobody is indispensable in space wartime" and I raise you Ender's Game.

 

[Philthy]

And if I were playing I am the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff in the Current Year IRL then this would be a valid argument.
But I'm playing what is supposed to be a fun space game, and I think that a greater degree of character focus would help it be a fun space game.

Also, I see your "In the future nobody is indispensable in space wartime" and I raise you Ender's Game.

Because we all know how well THAT worked out But humanity survived, the Bu--Formics, I mean-- never make clear what their true intentions were. Ender Admits the Hive Queen lies like nobodies business because in her mind, anything she says is TRUE. We get a bunch of different interpretations of the Formics from different perspectives. Especially interesting in Shadows in Flight...

but thematically and gameplay wise Stellaris is clearly embracing an idea of GREAT LEADERS truly making an impact on a galactic scale. I'm happily ready to embrace a game that says the era of a mega-influential is here. The ego, talents, and will of one individual can shape the course of the galaxy. It's a GSG/4x hybrid, but the emergent story telling is where the game should come to shine. I totally agree that more character focus would be excellent.

 

[Oscot]

Ender Admits the Hive Queen lies like nobodies business because in her mind, anything she says is TRUE. We get a bunch of different interpretations of the Formics from different perspectives. Especially interesting in Shadows in Flight...

Elaborate? I did read Shadows in Flight, but it was like 5 years ago and I can't remember any of it.

My understanding was that the Formics didn't realise humans were sentient because they're non-philotic, and so it wasn't genocide, it was pest control. Once they figured it out they were all "Oops, maybe we deserve to get MD'd a bit because we're Literally Space Hitler".

 

[jursamaj]

And if I were playing I am the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff in the Current Year IRL then this would be a valid argument.
But I'm playing what is supposed to be a fun space game, and I think that a greater degree of character focus would help it be a fun space game.

Also, I see your "In the future nobody is indispensable in space wartime" and I raise you Ender's Game.

The problem is that neither the ruler nor the leader should wish to set up a situation where the military will be crippled by the inevitable loss of that leader. Countries that *do* put themselves in that situation will, sooner or later, die by that sword.

As for Ender… I'm nowhere near as impressed with Card as you obviously are.

 

[Vjeldan]

Since it's easy do recruit one or two new admirals this shouldn't be that much of a problem.
Its a question of balancing between what an admiral can do on level zero and what he can advance to.

I realy like the idea of leaders playing a bigger role in stellaris. There is much room for development and leaders and rules for them are already in the game. Should be very possible to do alot of good things with them in the near future.