Stellaris Dev Diary #58: Habitats

[cosmeIII]

We can say that the commonwealth of man has its pops for gameplay reasons, would be a pain to start out as a colony.

 

[smjjames]

We can say that the commonwealth of man has its pops for gameplay reasons, would be a pain to start out as a colony.

But it DID start out as a colony, well, a 'lost colony'. Ingame lore (what there is of ingame lore anyway) is that it started out as a colony in the late 21st century (decade unknown), and you start in 2200, so, that's over a 100 years of growth right there. Lots of growth, sure, but that's a minimum of four generations from colony founding. Could squeeze in up to two more generations depending on the age mix of the colonists.

However, the pops are extremely abstracted, and there is an entire thread or two on this floating around.

 

[Zenicetus]

Not on asteroids because it's difficult to orbit them (habitats = size 12, asteroids = size 4 - 7, so the asteroid might start orbiting the habitat instead).

That could be solved by parking your giant habitat at a Lagrange Point near enough to the asteroids. But I can see why they want to limit too many habs per system.

I don't like that they can't be destroyed (until some later DLC with planet-killers), but I guess we'll see how this plays out.

I think starting at size 12 makes sense. It follows a theme in the Banks novels where it was implied that most citizens in The Culture made an intentional choice to quit living on planets and live on Orbitals instead, because they were *better* than planets. Not just more room to spread out, but so much space that many different custom and exotic environments can be built from scratch. You get that with size, not a measly progression from smaller space stations. It's not just a practical technology, but downright hedonistic.

If they follow that theme in the game, there should be some happiness modifiers compared to living on a planet, because the environment can be so easily modified to suit whatever you want.

 

[the glory of plain]

Not on asteroids because it's difficult to orbit them (habitats = size 12, asteroids = size 4 - 7, so the asteroid might start orbiting the habitat instead).

Not on moons because of game limitations. The habitat counts as a moon of its host planet, and moons can't have moons in this game.

Why not modify the asteroids？
like Omega in MASS EFFECT

 

[Stratigan]

so we're gonna be able to build space walls next diary?

And make Space Mexico pay for them?

 

[LizardCommander]

Now I know the odds are pretty high that the next update will have something to do with Ringworlds (or perhaps Dreadnoughts), or even a new kind of spaceship, or I could just be taking the "It's going to be big" too literally. However, I'd like to suggest a change to the way that static installations work, and the reason why I am posting this here is because I would like to see it combined with this new habitat system. Personally, I feel that static defenses are far weaker than they should be, and while some say that they shouldn't be able to equal a fleet in power, I disagree. I do believe that they should be extremely limited in number when at this level of power, should be extremely costly (in both upfront, and sustained, say 10,000 minerals base, 200 influence; along with something like 25 minerals and 20 energy a month, this is of course base, there would be additional costs for upgrades, more on this later), and should have certain tech requirements (or even Ascendant perk slots, similar to Voidborn, the space building one (at least what I assume it to be). This would be a combination of a space station and a habitat, it would be indestructible in the way that planets currently are, and conquerable like them as well. It would have a military number based on the techs you have (choosing projectile weapons for it's weapons (retrofitting is allowed in case you need to change the weapons of a conquered one, or if you just need to change it) and researching projectile weapons will then increase it's damage as usual with something like a station), and would have slots on it like a planet. Those slots would be like regular tiles on a planet, except with unique options (and potentially options dedicated to military stuff, like the training base for better soldiers, etc.) that might include increased shielding, better weapons, and primarily military focused technologies. It would be garrisonable by troops, and would have other defensive options that increase the defenses of your troops, and the overall garrison health that reduces damage taken (however, unlike most planets it would not feature increased damage taken when hitting 0). It would function similar to the Enigma Fortress, whereas it would take considerable damage to destroy. Once 'destroyed' it would go into a downstate, in which it would be unable to fire back at the enemy, and would be vulnerable to an assault. At this point, the AI or player would set their fleet (as if they're bombarding a planet) onto the 'Fortress', to keep it vulnerable to being attacked. As long as there is an enemy fleet bombarding it, it cannot repair itself. The idea is that it would be a bulwark, something that your foe has to defeat and capture in order to move on. It would require a sizable fleet to be kept pinned down (so that the enemy cannot simply run away, leaving one corvette to hold it down). As long as it is up and active, it would create a large deniability field that prevents enemy fleets from moving past it, only fleets that are allied/have border access would be able to go beyond it. The point of this is to allow one to create focused defense points across their empire, or guarding critical locales, and requiring that the enemy send a sizable force to deal with them. The fortress must be captured (or later destroyed when planets can be destroyed) in order for said field to be destroyed. Of course, you would be limited to something reasonable (1-3, depending on tech/game year, something so that a really big empire can make use of these, and a really small empire can't abuse it). They would exert border pressure (so it would act as an actual frontier outpost as well), and only it's system would be enterable within a large area (this is again, to ensure that your breadbasket worlds can be reasonably defended). I would like dev feedback if possible. <3

 

[Mitchz95]

Now I know the odds are pretty high that the next update will have something to do with Ringworlds (or perhaps Dreadnoughts), or even a new kind of spaceship, or I could just be taking the "It's going to be big" too literally. However, I'd like to suggest a change to the way that static installations work, and the reason why I am posting this here is because I would like to see it combined with this new habitat system. Personally, I feel that static defenses are far weaker than they should be, and while some say that they shouldn't be able to equal a fleet in power, I disagree. I do believe that they should be extremely limited in number when at this level of power, should be extremely costly (in both upfront, and sustained, say 10,000 minerals base, 200 influence; along with something like 25 minerals and 20 energy a month, this is of course base, there would be additional costs for upgrades, more on this later), and should have certain tech requirements (or even Ascendant perk slots, similar to Voidborn, the space building one (at least what I assume it to be). This would be a combination of a space station and a habitat, it would be indestructible in the way that planets currently are, and conquerable like them as well. It would have a military number based on the techs you have (choosing projectile weapons for it's weapons (retrofitting is allowed in case you need to change the weapons of a conquered one, or if you just need to change it) and researching projectile weapons will then increase it's damage as usual with something like a station), and would have slots on it like a planet. Those slots would be like regular tiles on a planet, except with unique options (and potentially options dedicated to military stuff, like the training base for better soldiers, etc.) that might include increased shielding, better weapons, and primarily military focused technologies. It would be garrisonable by troops, and would have other defensive options that increase the defenses of your troops, and the overall garrison health that reduces damage taken (however, unlike most planets it would not feature increased damage taken when hitting 0). It would function similar to the Enigma Fortress, whereas it would take considerable damage to destroy. Once 'destroyed' it would go into a downstate, in which it would be unable to fire back at the enemy, and would be vulnerable to an assault. At this point, the AI or player would set their fleet (as if they're bombarding a planet) onto the 'Fortress', to keep it vulnerable to being attacked. As long as there is an enemy fleet bombarding it, it cannot repair itself. The idea is that it would be a bulwark, something that your foe has to defeat and capture in order to move on. It would require a sizable fleet to be kept pinned down (so that the enemy cannot simply run away, leaving one corvette to hold it down). As long as it is up and active, it would create a large deniability field that prevents enemy fleets from moving past it, only fleets that are allied/have border access would be able to go beyond it. The point of this is to allow one to create focused defense points across their empire, or guarding critical locales, and requiring that the enemy send a sizable force to deal with them. The fortress must be captured (or later destroyed when planets can be destroyed) in order for said field to be destroyed. Of course, you would be limited to something reasonable (1-3, depending on tech/game year, something so that a really big empire can make use of these, and a really small empire can't abuse it). They would exert border pressure (so it would act as an actual frontier outpost as well), and only it's system would be enterable within a large area (this is again, to ensure that your breadbasket worlds can be reasonably defended). I would like dev feedback if possible. <3

This isn't the best place to make a suggestion like that; it'll get lost in all the other posts. Better to create a new thread, and maybe split that wall of text into paragraphs.

 

[Zectogonix]

When it says "Paid Feature" Does that mean we are going to have to pay for it? As in DLC?

 

[SolarGuy]

When it says "Paid Feature" Does that mean we are going to have to pay for it? As in DLC?

Yep. Ascension Perks (including organic->synth conversion and habitats) as well as special laws for purging and slavery (including neutering and processing of pops) are paid features as far as I can remember. All coming in a DLC accompanying the 1.5 update.

 

[runrun]

How long does pdx plan to update the game?
usualy, what is it s politics ?
Does it consider a stellaris 2?

 

[schedim]

How long does pdx plan to update the game?
usualy, what is it s politics ?
Does it consider a stellaris 2?

Varies a bit, but I think we can safely assume there is several years of support ahead, compare with how long CK II been around and it still gets DLCs frequently.

 

[runrun]

Now I know the odds are pretty high that the next update will have something to do with Ringworlds (or perhaps Dreadnoughts), or even a new kind of spaceship, or I could just be taking the "It's going to be big" too literally. However, I'd like to suggest a change to the way that static installations work, and the reason why I am posting this here is because I would like to see it combined with this new habitat system. Personally, I feel that static defenses are far weaker than they should be, and while some say that they shouldn't be able to equal a fleet in power, I disagree. I do believe that they should be extremely limited in number when at this level of power, should be extremely costly (in both upfront, and sustained, say 10,000 minerals base, 200 influence; along with something like 25 minerals and 20 energy a month, this is of course base, there would be additional costs for upgrades, more on this later), and should have certain tech requirements (or even Ascendant perk slots, similar to Voidborn, the space building one (at least what I assume it to be). This would be a combination of a space station and a habitat, it would be indestructible in the way that planets currently are, and conquerable like them as well. It would have a military number based on the techs you have (choosing projectile weapons for it's weapons (retrofitting is allowed in case you need to change the weapons of a conquered one, or if you just need to change it) and researching projectile weapons will then increase it's damage as usual with something like a station), and would have slots on it like a planet. Those slots would be like regular tiles on a planet, except with unique options (and potentially options dedicated to military stuff, like the training base for better soldiers, etc.) that might include increased shielding, better weapons, and primarily military focused technologies. It would be garrisonable by troops, and would have other defensive options that increase the defenses of your troops, and the overall garrison health that reduces damage taken (however, unlike most planets it would not feature increased damage taken when hitting 0). It would function similar to the Enigma Fortress, whereas it would take considerable damage to destroy. Once 'destroyed' it would go into a downstate, in which it would be unable to fire back at the enemy, and would be vulnerable to an assault. At this point, the AI or player would set their fleet (as if they're bombarding a planet) onto the 'Fortress', to keep it vulnerable to being attacked. As long as there is an enemy fleet bombarding it, it cannot repair itself. The idea is that it would be a bulwark, something that your foe has to defeat and capture in order to move on. It would require a sizable fleet to be kept pinned down (so that the enemy cannot simply run away, leaving one corvette to hold it down). As long as it is up and active, it would create a large deniability field that prevents enemy fleets from moving past it, only fleets that are allied/have border access would be able to go beyond it. The point of this is to allow one to create focused defense points across their empire, or guarding critical locales, and requiring that the enemy send a sizable force to deal with them. The fortress must be captured (or later destroyed when planets can be destroyed) in order for said field to be destroyed. Of course, you would be limited to something reasonable (1-3, depending on tech/game year, something so that a really big empire can make use of these, and a really small empire can't abuse it). They would exert border pressure (so it would act as an actual frontier outpost as well), and only it's system would be enterable within a large area (this is again, to ensure that your breadbasket worlds can be reasonably defended). I would like dev feedback if possible. <3

it s not a platform game

 

[Zurkes]

Damn, i'm getting more and more excited about this, next week I'll be probably going to explode!

 

[Darustet]

I'm glad you can't destroy orbitals before you can destroy planets. Would make playing orbitals too risky, as a single war could destroy all your orbitals on top of any ceded planets. Size and indestructability might not be realistic, but we are talking about a game where early game Earth can grow a new pop (~1-3B humans) in less than a year. Even in the highest probable projections made by UN, where we would have ~21B people by 2200 (one pop would be 3B people), that sort of growth would take a decade.

I'll probably RP the whole thing in the lines of "That is no new star you see twinkling next to Jupiter, son. It is a city, no, a whole world built in the Heavens. A structure of immense size and power, nearly indestructable to conventional weapons and when fully populated, can rival a whole colony in terms of production and trade. As a pinnacle of human ingenuity and technological progression, it brings with it a new stage of human evolution and our future; the Voidborn."

 

[Peko?]

Now I know the odds are pretty high that the next update will have something to do with Ringworlds (or perhaps Dreadnoughts), or even a new kind of spaceship, or I could just be taking the "It's going to be big" too literally. However, I'd like to suggest a change to the way that static installations work, and the reason why I am posting this here is because I would like to see it combined with this new habitat system. Personally, I feel that static defenses are far weaker than they should be, and while some say that they shouldn't be able to equal a fleet in power, I disagree. I do believe that they should be extremely limited in number when at this level of power, should be extremely costly (in both upfront, and sustained, say 10,000 minerals base, 200 influence; along with something like 25 minerals and 20 energy a month, this is of course base, there would be additional costs for upgrades, more on this later), and should have certain tech requirements (or even Ascendant perk slots, similar to Voidborn, the space building one (at least what I assume it to be). This would be a combination of a space station and a habitat, it would be indestructible in the way that planets currently are, and conquerable like them as well. It would have a military number based on the techs you have (choosing projectile weapons for it's weapons (retrofitting is allowed in case you need to change the weapons of a conquered one, or if you just need to change it) and researching projectile weapons will then increase it's damage as usual with something like a station), and would have slots on it like a planet. Those slots would be like regular tiles on a planet, except with unique options (and potentially options dedicated to military stuff, like the training base for better soldiers, etc.) that might include increased shielding, better weapons, and primarily military focused technologies. It would be garrisonable by troops, and would have other defensive options that increase the defenses of your troops, and the overall garrison health that reduces damage taken (however, unlike most planets it would not feature increased damage taken when hitting 0). It would function similar to the Enigma Fortress, whereas it would take considerable damage to destroy. Once 'destroyed' it would go into a downstate, in which it would be unable to fire back at the enemy, and would be vulnerable to an assault. At this point, the AI or player would set their fleet (as if they're bombarding a planet) onto the 'Fortress', to keep it vulnerable to being attacked. As long as there is an enemy fleet bombarding it, it cannot repair itself. The idea is that it would be a bulwark, something that your foe has to defeat and capture in order to move on. It would require a sizable fleet to be kept pinned down (so that the enemy cannot simply run away, leaving one corvette to hold it down). As long as it is up and active, it would create a large deniability field that prevents enemy fleets from moving past it, only fleets that are allied/have border access would be able to go beyond it. The point of this is to allow one to create focused defense points across their empire, or guarding critical locales, and requiring that the enemy send a sizable force to deal with them. The fortress must be captured (or later destroyed when planets can be destroyed) in order for said field to be destroyed. Of course, you would be limited to something reasonable (1-3, depending on tech/game year, something so that a really big empire can make use of these, and a really small empire can't abuse it). They would exert border pressure (so it would act as an actual frontier outpost as well), and only it's system would be enterable within a large area (this is again, to ensure that your breadbasket worlds can be reasonably defended). I would like dev feedback if possible. <3

For the love of Space God, paragraphs!

 

[Tabris01]

While I understand that enabling the destruction of habitats without enabling the destruction of planets, couldn't you allow for sustained bombardement to turn it barren, or whatever the habitat equivalent of barren is, as more and more hullbreaches depressurize the installation?

 

[vulpesvulpes1]

an idea on the subject of the defence of the habitast. maby you could have a defensive system that can be destroyed. So they aren't vulnerable, but not over powered.

 

[PirateJack]

As systems can have multiple planets/habitats (enough to make taking all of them through war score difficult), will there be a Cede System wargoal that would be used to take all inhabited things in a system?

 

[PirateJack]

While I understand that enabling the destruction of habitats without enabling the destruction of planets, couldn't you allow for sustained bombardement to turn it barren, or whatever the habitat equivalent of barren is, as more and more hullbreaches depressurize the installation?

Well, you can technically do that with orbital bombardment already, it just takes forever until you've cratered the entire planet. Once they're down to zero POPs the planet becomes uninhabited and, because it's full of tile blockers, you can't re-colonise it.

 

[BlackUmbrellas]

While I understand that enabling the destruction of habitats without enabling the destruction of planets, couldn't you allow for sustained bombardement to turn it barren, or whatever the habitat equivalent of barren is, as more and more hullbreaches depressurize the installation?

I assume the closest you're going to get is a Orbital-specific tile blocker that sometimes pops up, same as planets.