The way they described it, "materials" are not the directly equivalent to "hammers", neither is "energy" to "money", so there might be a bit of variation there. I don't think trade deals will be done solely through energy, for example. Materials will probably be exchangeable as well. It is not extremely revolutionary, but it is not a straight up port of the Civilization formula.
-
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.
The way they described it, "materials" are not the directly equivalent to "hammers", neither is "energy" to "money", so there might be a bit of variation there. I don't think trade deals will be done solely through energy, for example. Materials will probably be exchangeable as well. It is not extremely revolutionary, but it is not a straight up port of the Civilization formula.
Looking great !!! 
Alot of new information to drool on and clarification in this dev diary!
Alot of new information to drool on and clarification in this dev diary!
Energy can be stored, so it looks quite similar to money... Granted, the description is quite vague so I could be wrong.
I think it includes money, as well as actual labor. The work done
- 2
Materials can also be stored, unlike hammers. Which is what I meant when I said it is not a direct equivalent. The way I understand, both "materials" and "energy" represent "money", just in different forms. Energy is liquid money. Assets, work and energy spent. Materials are "hard" money. Actual stuff that you can use.
- 3
I. Can't. Wait. Gimme Nao.
Yup, planetary management is often lacking in genre. We mostly get two types:
1. Build everything everywhere, like the MoO2, where only real factor was planet size (cause terraforming).
2. Specialization. Galciv specialization was BAD. Too much of it, planets felt like ant drones (actually worst example was Star Ruler 2, the supply routes there were not bad by idea but got overblown beyond ridiculous in size).
Stellaris obviously have the second type, but i hope planetary management will be way less restrictive than in Galciv with more factors involved (and i'm fairly certain it will be, considering it's Paradox).
Yup, planetary management is often lacking in genre. We mostly get two types:
1. Build everything everywhere, like the MoO2, where only real factor was planet size (cause terraforming).
2. Specialization. Galciv specialization was BAD. Too much of it, planets felt like ant drones (actually worst example was Star Ruler 2, the supply routes there were not bad by idea but got overblown beyond ridiculous in size).
Stellaris obviously have the second type, but i hope planetary management will be way less restrictive than in Galciv with more factors involved (and i'm fairly certain it will be, considering it's Paradox).
- 2
I like city development and specialization in Civ5. Cities don't feel like drones but they have some 'personality' in the same time, depending on the environment and focus:
*manufacturing cities (mines, quarries, strategic resources)
*wealth cities (trade routes, luxury resources)
*cultural cities (cultural/touristic infrastructure)
*scientific cities (high pop, academia, scientific infrastructure)
*maritime cities (sea trade routes, navy building, sea resources)
*strategic cities (founded in bad terrain to control vital resources or narrow passages)
Thing is, whilst there are adjacencies, the walls between the tiles, generic pictures, and lack of inter-connections make it look distinctly un-map-like. I can't see having combat on these tiles.
- 1
I do not like you guys anymore. If you can get this game ready by Jan 3rd 2016 I will fall back in love and tell everyone how awesome you are again.
Take my cash, please hurry.
Take my cash, please hurry.
- 1
I'm glad that each planet will have enough detail to feel different. That is one of my main complaints about other games in the genre, the planets all feel the same with only terrain being different.
- 2
With CK2 being ideal for a Game of Thrones mod, I think this will have a good chance of spawning the end-all Star Trek mod.
- 2
- 1
It reminds me of X-COM's base building, though I've never played Gal Civ. I seem to be as impulsive and dumb as an AI when it comes to planning these, so I hope there's either an automation button or the AI is not too smart here.
Yeah, when I said that I would be fine with trimming down POP complexity from Vicky 2, one pop per province wasn't exactly what I had in mind.
Overall, this is the DD that has enthused me the least so far, though that might be because it's not clear how all these things will fit together. The resource deposits, for example, are they actually individual types of resources with specialized functions, like canned goods in Vicky 2, or are they like Civ and each one gives a different bonus to the three basic resource units? Do the adjacent building bonuses make dedicated farm/power plant/mining worlds an obvious optimal choice or will planets be mostly self-sufficient? Depending on just those two questions, we can have a game where wars are frequent and fought to secure access to tropical wood or where wars are rarer and fought for more abstract ideological, economic, political, or strategic goals.
- 3
I am disappointed with this dev diary.... and the 'pop' system, seems like it will be just another generic abstracted Civ 5-style 'citizen system' instead of amazing Victoria 2 style pops. As far as dev diaries go this one was the best one at diminishing my hype out of any dev diary out of any PDS game. The Pop system was literally the #1 feature I was waiting for, I wish they just made a Victoria 2 in space.... Okay okay we didn't get much information about the pop system, but seriously... A tile can be worked by having a Pop placed in it...? Sounds like Civ 5 and I hated managing citizens in Civ 5. Also this essentially confirms the #1 thing I was worried about when they announced the pop system - abstraction and removal of 'large numbers' now we will have things like 4 Human pops 3 [insert race name] pops on a planet, instead of 4.412.321 million humans and 3.231.450 [another race] on a planet. I see it very immersion breaking and quite a lot less exciting. Also it all sounds very samey, I haven't played very many 4x space strategy games but this system of 3 resources doesn't seem too innovative, and still kind of reminds me of Civ 5 for some reason...
I guess me thinking that it will be essentially Victoria 2 in space with a lot of other new cool stuff was a mistake.
Well I will still buy the game when it comes out (and probably will pre-order it too) but just thinking what could've been pains my heart...
God I really need Vicky 3..
I guess me thinking that it will be essentially Victoria 2 in space with a lot of other new cool stuff was a mistake.
Well I will still buy the game when it comes out (and probably will pre-order it too) but just thinking what could've been pains my heart...
God I really need Vicky 3..
- 17
I was actually hoping that the improved procedural generation we will see in the next EU4 expansion was cross pollination from Stellaris - or vice versa. Looks like I was wrong.
Anyway, even without procedural generation you can have a decent range of planets. I think Gal Civ has only a handful of - pre-drawn - topographic maps per planet type, but due to random placement and different number of tiles they still feel somewhat unique
You do realise that Victoria style pops in a space game with hundreds of planets would produce a great amount of lags and bugs?
- 10
- 5
Cheers for the DD Grefulk . I like the look of the system - plenty of depth and yet easy to manage. Looking forward to hearing more, cheers for the bonus screenie .
. I like the look of the system - plenty of depth and yet easy to manage. Looking forward to hearing more, cheers for the bonus screenie .
In the first picture, what do those black and red striped borders represent around those tiles?
Victoria handles its hundreds of provinces just fine and engine improvements make this a reasonable expectation, I would say. Of course, I'm not sure it would be entirely desireable.
- 7
- 1
There are plenty solutions to that, as someone said - engine improvements are one.
But there are others - some slight abstraction... not simple integers from 1 to 50 but, instead of having 3 trillion pops, have 3 million, but have the figure show to the player as 3 trillion. You have 3 million pops under the hood taking processing power, but the system tricks you by adding a few more zeroes to keep the figure 'realistic' while still keeping things immersive. Also the lag in Victoria 2 wasn't just because of the high number of Pops (contrary to popular belief(?)), the lag was because of the large amount of different goods and the pops buying them. When you increase pop numbers - the amount of goods produced in RGOs rises and the pops buy more consumer goods - this is the principal reason for lag... not the amount of Pops themselves-per say.
Although Victoria 2 was on an old engine. I am not suggesting Stellaris should have all those different resources and consumer goods and things which the pops would purchase - the pops themselves with the resource system abstracted would be enough. And the removal of resources by itself would give a high enough performance boost (since the pops wouldn't do that much under the hood anyway) to allow huge amounts of pops to be processed.
So yes its achievable, just because Victoria 2 didn't work well with large amount of pops doesn't mean a space game designed to have large amounts of pops wouldn't work either. Its doable, but certainly harder than the simple abstraction of pops in the numbers of 1 to 50 per planet...
- 9
- 1