• 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:
If you despise Sectors that much I'd advise you to stay clear of Stellaris for good.
The chances that they will be removed completly are nearly zero.

i hate them soo much because they DO NOTHING for the game they need to be completely reworked and improved upon greatly i have played through the game twice and started multiple games that i couldn't be bothered continuing for one reason or another

sectors if removed would make the game so much better heck there are mods on the workshop that do just that
 
  • 10
  • 1
Reactions:
As Soranya said, the chances of Sectors being removed is near 0. Sectors are there to represent the difficulties of leading an interstellar empire.

to bad they dont really do that in any real way other then you getting less resources for no reason if planet X produces 100 resouces puting it under a sector reduces to 50 the other 50 goes no where and does nothing worth while
 
  • 6
Reactions:
to bad they dont really do that in any real way other then you getting less resources for no reason if planet X produces 100 resouces puting it under a sector reduces to 50 the other 50 goes no where and does nothing worth while

The sector gets 50 resources in that example, and your central pot gets 50 resources. The sector then stockpiles and spends its pile of resources as it sees fit.
 
  • 4
  • 1
Reactions:
to bad they dont really do that in any real way other then you getting less resources for no reason if planet X produces 100 resouces puting it under a sector reduces to 50 the other 50 goes no where and does nothing worth while
The sector gets 50 resources in that example, and your central pot gets 50 resources. The sector then stockpiles and spends its pile of resources as it sees fit.
@si1foo And you can also change the amount of resources they take for their own development, by raising/lowering their taxes.
 
  • 2
  • 1
Reactions:
I do have a question for Wiz if he see's this, something I have been wondering and that is will we be getting the ultimate weapon or weapons of destruction or Dooms Day weapons as they are called that could destroy an entire star and everything around it in the system making that system completely uninhabitable or if you don't want to go that far just destroy a planet and everything on it. I just see that every government except maybe a pacifist government would have a dooms day weapon that they can call upon on
 
I do have a question for Wiz if he see's this, something I have been wondering and that is will we be getting the ultimate weapon or weapons of destruction or Dooms Day weapons as they are called that could destroy an entire star and everything around it in the system making that system completely uninhabitable or if you don't want to go that far just destroy a planet and everything on it. I just see that every government except maybe a pacifist government would have a dooms day weapon that they can call upon on

I'm almost certain we'll do this sooner or later.
 
  • 15
  • 10
  • 2
Reactions:
I second the "Dry, Wet, Frozen" classification instead of "Dry, Wet, Cold".
I, too ...

The "Dry, Wet, Frozen"- Classification hasn't at Least - 2 Problems, which the "Hot, Mild, Cold"-Classification would (currently) has ...
1. The "Arid"-World-Type does not really fit in a "Hot, Mild, Cold"-Classification, because "arid" means More or Less - "dry", so that It has to get at Least a new Name ...
2. I would have a Problem with the "Tropical"-World-Type as a mild One, because I thought, that such a World would be hot (, but wet) ...

And ...
I tend to prefer, that I can only colonize Worlds within my Climate ...
80% for my World-Type (as in this DD), 60% for the other 2 World-Types within my Climate (as in this DD, too) and 0% for all other World-Types ...
In the Case, that I want to colonize Worlds outside my Climate, I have to modify my Species or to integrate/conquer other Species.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
Though i didnt agree with you concerning the ship roles and changes, i am happy to see the ideas in this dev diary. I would be even happier if you would answer some of my questions.
Since i am not that "conquer all" type player and i prefer late game crises and events, i wonder if it is possible to reset the lategame-crisis (i think its limited to 1/game) or remove the limitation so i can experience all of them in one playthrough?
Are you planning to add some more late game events, questlines, etc. to the game?
Some mods added asteroid colonization. Is it considered as a potential feature in a future patch?

Thank you, keep up the good work!
 
The issue is that from a plausibility point of view, having all the planets on one axis share the habitability, makes underisable result. What a species like is the combination temperature/humidity, just one of these parameter is not enough for believable results. For instance if we decide the criterion is temperature, a desert species will like tropical environment, and if we decide or humidity, a desert species would also like an arctic planet. (according to the last suggestion of the matrix). Which effectively doesn't make much sense.

However we could let go of the matrix and change the classification to temperature without much of an impact

Code:
Hot          Temperate      Cold
Desert        Oceanic      Arctic
Arid         Continental    Boreal
Savannah      Tropical     Tundra

This is the same groups as the dev ones, but the classification names make more sense to me, even if we lose a bit in internal consistency for the "temperate" one
Of course they aren't a perfect fit, that's why they'd only have 60% habitability. Also, you seem to have misunderstood. The 60% habitability isn't either just for planets matching your temperature or just for planets matching your humidity, it's for both. So a desert homeworld for example would give you 80% habitability on desert worlds, 60% on dry worlds, 60% on hot worlds and 20% on worlds that are neither hot nor dry.
 
I like everything about this patch EXCEPT for the doing away with alliances.
But in the current patch alliances are pretty much redundant because of defensive pacts and joint war declarations. All alliances do is compromise your diplomacy with everyone (no more non-aggression pacts or defensive pacts) and block you from starting wars on your own
 
  • 2
Reactions:
As far as i can see it there is no mechanical difference between an alliance in 1.2 and a small group of empires who have mutual defensive pacts and the same group being invited to vote on going to war with yet another empire. Please correct me if I am wrong but if that is the case i can see how the devs think Alliances are unnecessary now...

however being a fan of "more is more" perhaps it would be better if they morphed alliances into something else, like a group defensive pact that provided a higher max trust than a normal defensive pact or something like that...
 
  • 2
  • 1
Reactions:
Please people don't take this wrong way, but I'm tad amazed to see how much people complain over losing Alliances. I have tried alliance quite many times in this game and I have problems staying in those longer than very short while. Then I get fed up with idiot AI allies, which don't agree with me about anything, ever. No matter how good/fair/logical suggestions I do.
Federations I tolerated to extent, because it was only peachy when I was able to be president in it, because they had to obey me at least during my reign, but overall never seen it worthwhile due too short "rule" time until it switches out again.

Tbh I wanted Federation style options. Bit like there is government styles. Vote for new president every 10 years, vote for president every 25 years and vote for life (till president dies). Highest point to part vote. With possibility to bribe people with money and/or influence points.

Now Federation is going to be sort of old Alliance, or at least so it seems. Which means I even less interested over it. I do defensive pacts practically almost exclusively anymore, due I rarely need actual allies and when i do, it's usually for defensive wars anyway.
Plus I don't get to tied to AIs weird quirks, where they want to be disagree with everything, because they're so damn special. Other thing I love to use is temporary alliances, aka joint offensive wars. If they agree to it, it's good. If not, fine I can manage it alone anyway (more often than not). Plus sometimes noticed waiting is good too, because my target may enter war against some other bigger empire in their far end borders. Thus "enemy of my target, is my opportunity", can go offensive as well without having to give anything to anyone and have it tied on two fronts.


Planet habitability argument I don't even really take part, because I'm content what ever happens, I either like it or hate i and if I hate it, there is most likely way to mod/modify game to more my liking.
 
Last edited:
Great, love the new planet System; in fact I thought about neihboring planets in the Wheel that way. The Goal to reduce habitable planets is also very much welcomed!

And the sector Thing, of Course.
 
As far as i can see it there is no mechanical difference between an alliance in 1.2 and a small group of empires who have mutual defensive pacts and the same group being invited to vote on going to war with yet another empire. Please correct me if I am wrong but if that is the case i can see how the devs think Alliances are unnecessary now...

however being a fan of "more is more" perhaps it would be better if they morphed alliances into something else, like a group defensive pact that provided a higher max trust than a normal defensive pact or something like that...

Alliances will probably re-appear once the Federations have been revamped to be more than just a shallow alliance of states (we'll probably get an entire expansion that revolves around Federations). But for now, they are redundant and it would just waste valuable computer resources..
 
  • 3
Reactions: