Stellaris Dev Diary #42 - Heinlein patch (part 3)

[blue emu]

Oh, definitely. The two main factors for classifying ecosystems for real are humidity and temperature. I'm all for realism (within reason), hence being excited by your idea.
If there is a good way to balance the extreme cases, though, it could still work. Like giving continental natives less habitability everywhere else, or something. Not sure what to do for the corner case natives, though.

Planet types with two neighbors on the grid would get +18% on each. Three neighbors, +12% on each. Four neighbors, +9% on each. All three variants sum to +36%, distributed across two, three or four planetary types respectively. None of the individual boni will raise a secondary planet habitability to the point where it is better than your primary planet type (ie: your primary type is 20% better than its nearest neighbors, and the largest bonus possible is +18%).

So all choices are viable, you just decide whether you want a higher bonus on fewer world types, or a smaller bonus on more world types.

 

[Arkona]

I just want to bombard enemy planets to oblivion without having to win the war and then purge the xenos. Genocide during war has always been fine as long as you don't turn out as the loser.

 

[DDRussian]

The diplomacy system really needs an overhaul, but I am afraid that the changes listed here are simply not enough.

It is practically impossible to maintain alliances if you are not a pacifist, which is strange given that strong alliances are a major part of good military strategy.
From my recent play-throughs, it seems like you can't maintain any sort of stable alliance without being a pacifist. Apparently, waging wars on religious fanatic sloths and fascist birds and liberating them into less insane empires makes my relatively reasonable allies hate me enough to try and kick me out, and then leave when that fails, despite them having 150+ opinion of me. And this was all in the span of less than 10 years.

 

[Wizzington]

The diplomacy system really needs an overhaul, but I am afraid that the changes listed here are simply not enough.

It is practically impossible to maintain alliances if you are not a pacifist, which is strange given that strong alliances are a major part of good military strategy.
From my recent play-throughs, it seems like you can't maintain any sort of stable alliance without being a pacifist. Apparently, waging wars on religious fanatic sloths and fascist birds and liberating them into less insane empires makes my relatively reasonable allies hate me enough to try and kick me out, and then leave when that fails, despite them having 150+ opinion of me. And this was all in the span of less than 10 years.

Uh, what exactly was the opinion modifier that made them hate you here?

Did you change your war policy, perhaps?

 

[DDRussian]

Uh, what exactly was the opinion modifier that made them hate you here?

Did you change your war policy, perhaps?

That's the thing, I did not change anything. I liberated a few countries from our mutual rivals and was guaranteeing their independence. There was no opinion modifier, my allies still had 150+ opinion with no negatives.
My best guess is that they hated each other or that I was preventing them from invading the new countries. If so, there should be a display in the alliance screen that warns you of such tensions within your alliance or federation.

 

[Dudas Drakaan]

Uh, what exactly was the opinion modifier that made them hate you here?

Did you change your war policy, perhaps?

Speaking of war policy though, when are you going to add UI elements so we can see what other empires' war policies and other laws are? I often see the "differing war policy" and then have to just guess what that war policy is.

 

[Lost Northerner]

Speaking of war policy though, when are you going to add UI elements so we can see what other empires' war policies and other laws are? I often see the "differing war policy" and then have to just guess what that war policy is.

There is only 3 policies as far as I know. Unlimited Wars (can do anything & pretty much majority of empires), Liberation (can only liberate planets & defensive wars) and Defensive War (surprisingly... defensive wars only) policies. Most often, if not always, I get differing policies with Pacifist empires, because they can have Liberation wars at highest.
So it's not too hard to guess which is it, usually. Pacifists simply are bad match to all other ethics, in a way, when it comes to wars.

But when someone else has it then yeah, it's more of a lottery and would kinda be nice to know, but overall I don't really care empires with different war policies than mine. Causes too much friction to my tastes. I just vassalize (or conquer, though I hate pacifists as subjects) them and be done with it.

Overall wouldn't be bad to be able to see it from diplomatic window, for example.

 

[Dudas Drakaan]

There is only 3 policies as far as I know. [...] So it's not too hard to guess which is it, usually.

True, at the start of the game it is generally easy to guess. But in the late game things become more complicated.

As a Militarist, I was surprised when I encountered a Fanatic Militarist with differing war policies as me. One would assume that a fanatic militarist would have unrestricted wars, but they didn't. So I guessed he had chosen Liberation Wars. So I changed my war policy to liberation in order to ally them. That was wrong, as it turned out, the AI chose Defensive Wars as their policy. Why a Fanatic Militarist had defensive wars as their policy (when defensive wars pisses off militarist populations) I have no idea. My guess is that the Fanatic Militarist had lost a war to a pacifist at some point and had their war policy forcibly changed.

Regardless, we need info on empire laws if diplomacy is actually going to be a thing. There is absolutely no reason to keep this information obfuscated. It is not as if it is a secret, given that the game already tells us "-50 Opinion: Differing War Philosophy." Clearly someone in our government knows the laws of other nations and the AI knows the laws of other governments, but we the players are kept from this knowledge for no particular reason.

 

[Crissa]

There are examples in the real wars of militarists with defensive only as their creedo.

Of course, you can't really test that, since just like in the game they can change their minds.

 

[EditorElohim]

When you exit Heinlein anyway?

 

[Dudas Drakaan]

There are examples in the real wars of militarists with defensive only as their creedo.

Of course, you can't really test that, since just like in the game they can change their minds.

That's not the problem. The problem is that there is nowhere in the game to tell us that a fanatic militarist has a defensive policy. If I saw a fanatic militarist with a defensive policy then I know I can safely ignore that empire because they will never attack me, or I will also know (if I am playing a pacifist) that this militarist is an ok guy.

 

[Darkath]

Planet types with two neighbors on the grid would get +18% on each. Three neighbors, +12% on each. Four neighbors, +9% on each. All three variants sum to +36%, distributed across two, three or four planetary types respectively. None of the individual boni will raise a secondary planet habitability to the point where it is better than your primary planet type (ie: your primary type is 20% better than its nearest neighbors, and the largest bonus possible is +18%).

So all choices are viable, you just decide whether you want a higher bonus on fewer world types, or a smaller bonus on more world types.

Ah i feel dumb for not thinking of balancing it that way. That's worth trying to mod it and see what happens

 

[Dudas Drakaan]

The issue with my climate matrix is the habitability : either you have something that doesn't make sense with 60% on all planets that share one characteristic with your home planet (alpine would be as habitable as a savannah for a desert species). Or have it based on proximity in the matrix but then planet affinity would be assymetrical (a desert species would have only 2 types as 60% habitability while continental would have 4 types at 60%). So i can understand that simply having 3 categories i simpler.

Asymmetry is not necessary a bad thing, I feel. Besides, you could even use that asymmetry to create a new species creation system. Choosing a more centralized planet on the grid with more colonizable adjacents could be more expensive than choosing a homeworld climate on the fringes. This would result in species who evolve in more harsh environments being stronger than species who evolve in gentler, more average climates.

That, to me, tells a far more compelling story than, "All planets are the same and all species can have exactly the same traits regardless of what planets they evolved on."

 

[EndlessTest]

Good stuff! Hurry up with the patch, i havent played stellaris in ages waiting for 1.3

 

[LambTaco]

First time poster, long time lurker. (well, since Stellaris came out)

I made two mistakes on my initial glance at this dev diary, and they both got me prematurely excited. When I read Alliance/Federation merger, I thought we would be able to merge existing alliances into one, which is a needed feature, especially since federation victories will become a thing. It was really annoying to not have it in one game I played, and somewhat annoying in the majority. The second was that I saw the 9 planets in a 3x3 grid and assumed we were getting an axis system. Still good changes. Alliances are just a bundle of existing diplo options that's more restrictive, and the seven planet cycle was an obvious illogical placeholder from the start, But I can't help but be disappointed by my own expectations.

Regarding the temperature/moisture axis, I'm all for it. The system the devs are proposing beats the crap out of the old in terms of logic, but i could be much better. Someone mentioned all planets in either of the same axes getting A% while those on others get B%. I like that it's totally balanced out of the box, but it does result in too many colonisable planets. My idea, (and keep in mind I'm not suggesting they use it, it's just for discussion or maybe a mod) involves only two variables and looks something like this:

Base Habitability (for not homeworld or Gaia planets) = 75% - Target Grid Proximity x (5 + (Home Grid Neighbours x 5))

Where Target Grid Proximity is the distance between the preferred planet type and the planet you're attempting to colonise, as the sum of the distance on both axes. Diagonals act as two, a horizontal and vertical. And Home Grid Neighbours is the number of planet type adjacent to the preferred type on the grid; again not counting diagonals. I'd also raise the minimum colonisation threshold to 40% habitability. (or change some other numbers to balance things) This allows the more extreme planet types to have more adaptable inhabitants when it comes to neighbouring planets.

The corners planets would be capable of colonising 6 types from the start. 75% for homeworld type, 60% for the two immediate neighbours. and 45% for the center planet (which is a diagonal and has a sum distance of two) plus the two remaining planets that share an axes, one vertical, one horizontal.

The edge planets would be able to colonise 4 types from the start as well. 75% homeworld, and 50% for three neighbours. This may seem worse than corner at first, but the two diagonals for edge planets is 35%, which is much closer to being usable than the corner planets 5th and 6th choices, which are only 30%. (the 7th is also 30%)

The center planet would be capable of colonising a whopping 5 planet types from the get go. 75% for homeworld, and 50% for the four neighbours. The remaining 4 have a base habitability of 35%, close to the threshold.

At first glance this may seem to favour the more certain types, but there's a tradeoff. The happiness cap is lower for adjacent planets is 10% lower for the center (Continental) than the corner. (e.g. Desert, dry and hot) So corner types would have fewer but happier and more productive planets, and more options from the start, but planets in the opposite corner would be pretty much permanently uninhabitable.

It sounds complicated, but when you make a chart it's pretty simple.

Now, ofcourse this would need some balancing. Changing the base habitability, minimum requirement for habitability, and proximity bonuses to make things more even. I made it divisible by 5 because all the existing modifiers are so, and it's easy to follow, but it may be more balanced to be more granular. Some planets could even get a flat bonus. It also doesn't take into account terraforming and gene mods, or even robots. But it's a start. I imagine gene mods would be changed to cost one point per sum of axes differences, so you can't mod to an opposite type like you can up until the present.

 

[Philocrate]

I'm a bit worried about the direction the game takes with Heinlein. It appears to get more tactics and less strategy.

Many space operas tell a story of diplomacy and internal management, with some good guys, some bad guys, and many in-between, rather than a grand scale battlefield.
For diplomacy we'd a nice story-telling progression: Contact -> Embassy -> Non-Agression -> Defensive Pact -> Alliance -> Federation
But that is getting simplified patch after patch. First Embassies were gone, now Alliances're going away too. Next, a simple friend/no-friend flag?
Diplomacy needed to be tweaked but does it need to be simplified? Certainly not; if anything, diplomacy needs to be more subtle. It has always been a strong point of Paradox grand strategies after all.

I don't want another tactical game in space; I want Stellaris to be a strategy game, if possible grand strategy. Or in other words, I'd rather have it become EU4 in space with strong exploration (= emphasis on civilian issues) than Total War in space (= emphasis on the military); others have done/will do TW very well, and I don't want Stellaris to be just "another one". So to make space great again:
- expand diplomacy, don't simplify it!
- same for species, differentiate them more! Currently gameplays are similar regardless of species traits/ethos/governments, there's a lot of space for creativity here!
- build on Paradox strong foundations and focus on the core game (exploration, diplomacy, politics), otherwise it'll be a Jack of all trades and a mess!

 

[Arizal]

Many space operas tell a story of diplomacy and internal management, with some good guys, some bad guys, and many in-between, rather than a grand scale battlefield.
For diplomacy we'd a nice story-telling progression: Contact -> Embassy -> Non-Agression -> Defensive Pact -> Alliance -> Federation
But that is getting simplified patch after patch. First Embassies were gone, now Alliances're going away too. Next, a simple friend/no-friend flag?

I disagree. Yes, diplomacy is currently lacking, but they are merging alliances and federations because they were too alike. And embassies were scrapped because they were unfun and limiting. What's the player agency in pressing a button and waiting for relations to increase (granted, it's what we do in EUIV, and it might have to change here too...).

Remember that at the release of the game, the "story-telling progression was Contact -> Embassy -> Alliance -> Federation. Non-agression and defensive pacts didn't exist! So, I think we are going in the right direction. With the removal of alliance, they will add the "associated" status for "federation's friends". Now, we only need to be able to go in a game in solo even when we are allied.

And we must be able to mess more with federations.

 

[Tim_Ward]

I don't understand the roleplay angst over the removal of embassies. Wouldn't you have some kind of embassy with basically everyone? So what did the ingame embassy represent, exactly? Load of tosh. The new diplomacy system is better in all respects.

 

[Arizal]

Wouldn't you have some kind of embassy with basically everyone? So what did the ingame embassy represent, exactly?

This! If anything, the new system means you always have an embassy and when you close borders, you also close that embassy. Having a random guy telling how much your country is wonderful doesn't seem a good way to improve relations with another country. What could would be exchange of information and cooperation, which are the options we currently have.

 

[Philocrate]

they are merging alliances and federations because they were too alike.

Then differentiate them, don't scrap one. On Earth, alliances and federations aren't the same; alliances are deepened military relationships (Entente Cordiale, NATO), sometimes with economical and political aspects (Commonwealth), while federations are deepened economical and political integration (EU, a "quasi-federation" with no united army), sometimes with military aspects (USA, federal army).

And embassies were scrapped because they were unfun and limiting.

They needed to be tweaked/modify to make something interesting out of them. Establishing a permanent diplomatic mission abroad is the first step to deepen relationships; it acknowledges the existence and value of the foreign, so it's logical that it betters the relationship over time. They weren't implemented the best and had to be worked on; I understand that developers opted to scrap them altogether (time constrains/other areas to focus on/lack of ideas) but IMHO it completely broke the diplomacy balance.

I don't understand the roleplay angst over the removal of embassies. Wouldn't you have some kind of embassy with basically everyone? So what did the ingame embassy represent, exactly?

Embassies, like on Earth. Yes, they were poorly implemented; no, you don't necessary have an embassy with everyone. On Earth, recalling an embassy is similar to in-game insults. Not having an embassy means you don't recognize the country/the right for this country to exist, similar to in-game rivalry. Now THIS could have been something interesting: in addition to improved relationships over time, using embassies within (or instead of, or as a way to implement) the insult/rivalry mechanism.