• 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 #42 - Heinlein patch (part 3)

Hello everyone and welcome to another Stellaris development diary. This is the third part in a multi-part dev diary about the 'Heinlein' 1.3 patch that we are currently working on. This week's dev diary will be about more miscellaneous changes and improvements coming in the patch, currently planned for release sometime in October.

Federation/Alliance Merger
When Federations were given the ability to vote on invites and wars, alliances became a bit of an odd duck in the Stellaris diplomacy. A middle layer between the 'loose' diplomacy of defensive pacts and joint DOWs, they ended up as little more than a weak form of Federation that's usually swapped out the moment the latter becomes available. In Heinlein, we've decided to retire alliances altogether and have Federations be the only form of 'permanent' alliance. When you unlock the technology for Federations, you will immediately be able to invite another empire into a Federation with you, 4 empires no longer being necessary to start one. Once a Federation has been formed, the technology is not required to invite new members or to ask to join it.

Federation Association Status
Another issue we ran into with the changes to diplomacy in Asimov is that Alliances and Federations had trouble bringing in new members - since non-aggression pacts, defensive pacts and guarantees were no longer possible with outside powers, building trust is difficult and you have to mostly rely on large bribes to get new members to join, something that just didn't feel right. To address this, we're adding a new diplomatic option to Heinlein called 'Federation Association Status'. This works similarly to an invite to the Federation in that it can be offered and asked for with any member of the Federation, but must be approved via unanimous vote. A country that has Federation Association Status is not actually a part of the Federation, but has a non-aggression pact with all Federation members and will gain trust with them up to a maximum value of 100. Revoking association status can be done via majority vote, or on the part of the associate at any time they like.
h4Xxg1d.png


Planet Habitability Changes
The planet habitability wheel is a mechanic we were never quite happy with - it makes some degree of sense, but it's hard to keep track of how each planet relates to your homeworld type, and it ends up nonsensical in quite a few cases (Desert being perfectly fine for Tropical inhabitants, or Arid for Tundra, etc). We found that most players tend to intuitively divide planets into desert/arid tundra/arctic and ocean/tropical/continental, and so we decided to change the mechanic to fit player intuition. Instead of a wheel, planets are now divided into three climate groups (Dry, Wet and Cold) and two new planet types (Alpine and Savanna) were added so that each group has 3 planet types. Habitability for the climates now works as follows (numbers may be subject to change):
  • Habitability for your main planet type is 80% (as before)
  • Habitability for planets of your climate is 60%
  • Habitability for planets of other climates is 20%
As such, you no longer have to keep track of anything other than which climate your planet type has to know whether a particular type of world is suitable for your species.
tAcBgqB.png


We also felt that the number of habitable planets in the galaxy was too large overall, but that we couldn't really decrease it so long as the player only had access to 1/7 of those types at start, which would now become 1/9. We also felt the colonization tech gating could be rather arbitrary, particularly if you had a species suited to a particular planet type but still couldn't colonize it due to lacking the tech. As such, we've done away with the tech gating on colonization, and instead instituted a 30% minimum habitability requirement to colonize a planet. You will also be unable to relocate pops to a planet if their habitability there would be under the 30% minimum. With this change we've also majorly slashed the number of habitable worlds in the galaxy, though if you prefer a galaxy lush with life you will be able to make it so through a new option outlined below. We are, of course, looking into and tweaking the effects that having less habitable worlds overall will have on empire borders.

More Galaxy Setup Options
There is an old gamer's adage that says 'more player choice is always better'. We do not actually agree with this, as adding unnecessary/uninteresting choices can just as well bog a game down as it can improve it, but in the case of galaxy setup in a game such as Stellaris, it is pretty much true. With that in mind, the following new galaxy setup options are planned to be included in Heinlein:
  • Maximum number of Fallen Empires (actually setting a fixed number is difficult due to the way they spawn and how it's affected by regular empires)
  • Chance of habitable worlds spawning
  • Whether to allow advanced empires to start near players
  • Whether to use empire clustering
  • Whether endgame crises should be allowed to appear

Sector Improvements
Since barely a day goes by without a new thread on the topic of sectors and enslavement, we would of course be remiss not to deal with this particular bugbear. We intend to spend a considerable amount of time on the sector AI for Heinlein, but I'm not going to go into specifics on bug fixing/AI improvements but rather on a series of new toggles that we intend to introduce to give the player more control over their sector. In addition to the current redevelopment/respect tile resource toggles, the following new toggles are planned for Heinlein:
  • Whether sector is allowed to enslave/emancipate
  • Whether sector is allowed to build spaceports and construction ships
  • Whether sector is allowed to build military stations (this will replace the military sector focus)
We're also discussing having a sector toggle for building and maintaining local defense fleets, but we don't think we'll have time for it in Heinlein.

That's all for today! Next week we'll be talking about Fallen Empires, how they can awaken, and the War in Heaven.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • 254
  • 71
  • 11
Reactions:
3) You will be able to colonize tomb worlds from the start so long as you have something that can live there.
Has terraforming been changed? Also can you still terraform tomb worlds?
 
I think I'm more interested in having better drawbacks to colonizing inhospitable worlds than a flat happiness cap than I am in devising some kind of incredibly elaborate system for to describe habitability of worlds.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
REALLY disappointed in the information provided in this diary.... This took away almost all diplomatic options for non-federation (most of us) players, removed all the complexity of the colonization game (whose biggest problem was that it was too shallow - there weren't ENOUGH planet types so everyone just focused on a few nonsensical ones close on the wheel) and generally seems to be streamlining the game in ways that feel like they are taking away more than they are providing....
 
  • 19
  • 5
Reactions:
@Wiz

1) 30% seems awfully low and makes Adaptable a very very powerful trait. 40% would seem better.

2) Why not add "Cold World Colonization" "Dry World Colonization" and "Wet World Colonization" and "Hostile (Tomb) World Colonization" as techs? Either as a colonization tech gate, or as a +habitability% tech.

In my games, Pops never migrate from the home world. Suggestions:

3) Make the +/- migration traits (and the Individualist starport module) effect the chance of migration as well as the time.

4) Add a +migration empire policy for non collectivist empires, and a +primary species only migration policy for Xenophobes. Planetary policies are too expensive and promote micromanagement.
 
  • 2
  • 1
Reactions:
About alliances, maybe they can still be of use with more flexibility? It would be nice if an empire could choose between the DOW vote as it is now and going to war alone, without the ally permission (ad involvement). This is nice from a role-play standpoint: xenophobes or militarists won't need to join federations but will still benefit from both the defensive and the offensive features of an alliance while still being able to go solo when needed.
 
Last edited:
  • 3
Reactions:
Federation/Alliance Merger
When Federations were given the ability to vote on invites and wars, alliances became a bit of an odd duck in the Stellaris diplomacy. A middle layer between the 'loose' diplomacy of defensive pacts and joint DOWs, they ended up as little more than a weak form of Federation that's usually swapped out the moment the latter becomes available. In Heinlein, we've decided to retire alliances altogether and have Federations be the only form of 'permanent' alliance. When you unlock the technology for Federations, you will immediately be able to invite another empire into a Federation with you, 4 empires no longer being necessary to start one. Once a Federation has been formed, the technology is not required to invite new members or to ask to join it.

Have to be honest here, can't we somehow keep them both? :(

I really liked the fact the Federation was some kind of special (Star-Trek like) alliance with special requirements and, of course, opportunities. Although you add the association status mechanism, it feels like you're taking away too much out of the equation.

Could you please reconsider about the simple Alliances!? :oops:
 
  • 8
Reactions:
Woohoo! These changes really start to address some of the gripes I'm having with Stellaris.

Before I go on with how happy I am about federations - I want to just address the habitability issue, as if the number of habitable planets are less, I'd like to know how empire growth will be addressed, as - if planets are too sparse it will be difficult to grow - especially as outpost stations are limited.

Hopefully, we'll continue to see further options introduced over time for things to do with Federations. I'd love to eventually have it be like some kind of loose nation a la Galactic Federation/Empire in SW or the UFP in Star Trek. Since I'm on the topic - Based on what I've seen and read around the communities - I think its vitally important to see Federations evolve into some kind of meta-nation or pseudo-HRE from the CK/EU games. However, I think its important to note, that what could make this really fun, is have options/policies that are branching/mutually exclusive in nature. Thus giving more variety and different gameplay experiences per playthrough.

To emphasize what I mean is - Federations should be able to be anything from a loosely formed alliance of nations (something like NATO), or the Allies/Axis during the world wars, to something with some degree of governance like the UFP (I guess what is currently implemented is more or less that) - to senate governed federations with not just wars but other major decisions requiring member voting (and in fact, it would be nice to have options to adjust whether these decisions need to be unanimous or majority voted) or more empire like federations, where member states can weigh in, but ultimately the decision is in the hands of the emperor/leader/president. It would be especially great, to see how federations differ, evolve and mutate. As members we can push for certain edicts, to get the federation to pursue certain edicts over others, and even press for separation with other member nations if we're unhappy with the direction (resulting in a separation war).

And of course, if you can separate - there should also be the option to merge federations.

Obviously, I don't expect this to be added right away, but it would be nice to see movement in this direction. I'd even be willing to pay for a DLC that just focuses on giving federations depth and character.

Continuing on that theme, I'd actually love to see a few DLC's giving more depth to more diplomacy option sin general:

1. I'd love to see some CKII stuff done, giving characters more depth & personality. Especially when electing your leader. Right now having a leader that sympathizes with certain factions does....nothing. It would be great if they gave buffs to separatist groups, to reflect that.

2. In fact, it would be great to have some sort of advisory council from your leaders like in CKII (and as such, having this allows you to have more leaders overall as there is now two tiers of importance)

3. I'd even love to see more government types like a senate oriented democracy where things like certain decisions, like wars, edicts, etc (even terms of surrender!) need to be elected by your leaders

4. the option for government types to change/evolve.

5. Sectors becoming more like duchy's and planets like counties in terms of management. Thus making it more fun to designate governors and sector leaders. Especially if they have more personality.
 
  • 3
Reactions:
Have to be honest here, can't we somehow keep them both? :(

I really liked the fact the Federation was some kind of special (Star-Trek like) alliance with special requirements and, of course, opportunities. Although you add the association status mechanism, it feels like you're taking away too much out of the equation.

Could you please reconsider about the simple Alliances!? :oops:

OH that reminds me! I had an idea regarding this!

If Federations do evolve further (as mentioned above)

I'd love to see alliances have some kind of comeback in the following manners:

1. Throwaway alliances - they can be time-based. They build trust and can be used if there's a quickly growing empire and you (or the ai) needs to cobble together a simple alliance with 1-3 other nations. It can be used a a kind of deterrent if you suspect an opponent is planning to try and invade, to give you time to build up forces. The requirement of this kind of alliance can be unfriendly, but it just results in a shorter alliance period (i.e. 10 years only). the alliance does not necessarily also allow open borders (if they have been closed). Alliances can be open-ended (i.e. help each other in times of war) or directed at a specific foe/foes (kind of like coalitions but broader).

2. Alliances can evolve into federations

3. Alliances can also be a way to group nations in Federations (available only when the federation grows to a certain size AND assuming some form of HRE implementation is done (or any of my suggestions in my previous post) - Intra federation alliances can be used to provide additional weight behind group votes/suggestions

4. A nation can be part of multiple alliances (either with a hard cap/cap defined by technology/no cap, but with penalties for joining too many alliances (i.e. over-committed)

5. In the event of a commerce-oriented DLC the option to have trading alliances
 
  • 2
  • 1
Reactions:
I'd like to see one-step terraforming to go from any planet type to any planet type, with a cheaper version of they are already within the same group. The cost and time could be balanced as appropriate, but having to manage the multiple steps was tedious.
Having it be one step would be nifty indeed so that you don't have to remember to get back to them to continue the terraforming.
 
Hey Wiz, will you guys be moving to Heinlein's hot code for the Extraterrestrial Thursday streams at some point?

Probably! Not for a while though.
 
  • 7
  • 3
Reactions:
I'd still like to advocate for the planets being categorized along both hot-cold and wet-dry lines, but then only have one axis count for game purposes.

As such, I'd go:

bk4K5ib.jpg


For example, if your species starts out with Arid, then you have base 80% hability on those worlds, 60% on Desert and Arctic ones, and 20% for the rest.

Notes:

1) Deserts are characterized by lack of rainfall, not heat. Parts of Antarctica are deserts, even though the continent is hardly balmy. And even deserts that do get hot experience huge shifts in temperatures due to the lack of plant cover. Still, since most players will assume "desert = hot," I'll leave it as the warmest of that bunch.

2) I'd adjust Alpine to Boreal: characterized in Stellaris by extensive vegetation ranging from temperate rain forests to alpine valleys. Or if you want to go the more traditional route of a cool forest, then swap Ocean and Boreal in the chart.

Just my 2 cents.
 
Last edited:
  • 15
  • 10
  • 3
Reactions:
I think the ideal would be to allow for military alliances (like NATO), economic trade agreements (like NAFTA), and political unions (like the EU). With the first two being required before political integration is allowed, after a political union (federation) is formed, the partners become one empire with each separate nation that formed the federation becoming a sector. This, of course, would require substantial development of the game, probably a series of DLC's, to flesh out the economy and sector politics of Stellaris, not to mention sector mechanics and AI itself, as well as a mechanism to allow one to play sectors (with the politics necessary to keep this interesting being a prerequisite) so that if two human players form a federation in multiplayer, play can remain interesting (multiplayer seems like the biggest sticking point for proper federation mechanics, how to make play for two human players entering into a federation remain interesting; it's trivial between a human player and an AI player because the AI player doesn't have to have 'fun').

Obviously this isn't for Heinlein, too much work would need to be done to various mechanics up front. But I really hope the mechanics at least head in this general direction.
 
  • 4
Reactions:
I still find that alliances and federations are pretty much a hindrance more than an advantage in the current iteration of diplomacy because of the inability to maintain trust with other empires. Why does it make sense that entering an alliance forces you to break off all your other diplomatic ties, defensive pacts and all? What if i'm relying on a lot of those to keep my on good terms with my neighbors? Will this be addressed in the next patch?

edit: To clarify, the reason I say this is because having multiple defensive pacts keeps my empire safe during its development phase, and the requirement for unanimous vote for federation association could limit the ability to keep on good terms with surrounding empires.
 
  • 2
  • 1
Reactions: