-
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.
No. Please don't. We need them to live on and as a source of energy and light...
Oh you mean in the game...
Yeah. Ask paradox. They'll know.
Oh you mean in the game...
Yeah. Ask paradox. They'll know.
- 41
It really wouldn't be sci-fi if it's not possible to destroy entire star systems.
- 33
- 6
I certainly hope we'll be able to. There's nothing quite like glassing a planet at the last second just to spite an enemy force.
- 10
I want death stars, a general named Grand Moff Tarkin, and the ability to destroy planets. Yes!
- 16
if planets and stars can be destroyed we'll know what one of the endgame crisis are!
...majin buu FTW?
...majin buu FTW?
- 2
The ability to destroy a planet is insignificant next to the power of the force.
- 35
- 1
Blowing up stuff is fun and all... but unless the world is useless toxic piece of junk, wouldn't you want the resources instead?
There better be but it should have political fallout internal and external dependant of race.
By the time late game superweapons are available in most games you don't need them anymore.Glassing is just easier and cheaper.
- 3
There are two aspects to consider:
1. AI reaction on superweapons
I guess this may be compared to the cold war. Neither the USA nor the UdSSR used their atomic bombs. Because they were afraid that the other side may start using them too. Therefore having superweapons might work as a diplomativ protection while not being used.
But what if you actually use them? I think this should depend on how one uses them. If the main goal is to destroy the enemies military then it might be justified in the eyes of the AI. For example a planet where only 10k civilians and about 1000k soldiers live might be considered a military target.
But if you blow up another empires home planet with 10B civilians on it this should be seen as the vile mass-level genocide that it is and should result in a major coalition against the aggressor (because everybody thinks he could be next).
2. Game Balance
I think superweapons should need time to load up and fire. Otherwise it's impossible to defend against them. Imagine having your fleet at the one end of your empire while an opponent destroys all your planets on the other side.
And maybe neighbouring empires should be notified, when such a weapon is built. I can't imagine that it goes unnoticed, when half of an empires economy is dedicated for a secret projekct on a distant forest moon.
That being said I'd like to see several types of superweapons in the game to
-blow up planets
-blow up suns
-make suns into black holes
-move planets (to throw them into their sun, heat them up or cool them down or just place them in the middle of nowhere)
1. AI reaction on superweapons
I guess this may be compared to the cold war. Neither the USA nor the UdSSR used their atomic bombs. Because they were afraid that the other side may start using them too. Therefore having superweapons might work as a diplomativ protection while not being used.
But what if you actually use them? I think this should depend on how one uses them. If the main goal is to destroy the enemies military then it might be justified in the eyes of the AI. For example a planet where only 10k civilians and about 1000k soldiers live might be considered a military target.
But if you blow up another empires home planet with 10B civilians on it this should be seen as the vile mass-level genocide that it is and should result in a major coalition against the aggressor (because everybody thinks he could be next).
2. Game Balance
I think superweapons should need time to load up and fire. Otherwise it's impossible to defend against them. Imagine having your fleet at the one end of your empire while an opponent destroys all your planets on the other side.
And maybe neighbouring empires should be notified, when such a weapon is built. I can't imagine that it goes unnoticed, when half of an empires economy is dedicated for a secret projekct on a distant forest moon.
That being said I'd like to see several types of superweapons in the game to
-blow up planets
-blow up suns
-make suns into black holes
-move planets (to throw them into their sun, heat them up or cool them down or just place them in the middle of nowhere)
- 4
- 1
- 1
I want a catplosion superweapon! Bring the enemy down with lots of cuteness :3
- 2
Even as an avid sci-fi reader, I must say this definition is brand new to me.
- 67
- 5
- 1
Really? Wormhole travel is confirmed possible from day one. Say I have a wormhole station in a remote system that contains nothing of value, but is within range of your home system. Technologically speaking, what's to stop me from opening a wormhole with the endpoint inside your sun. What would the effect of that be on the star?
With the kind of physics the game is assuming, star-killing and planet-killing are totally technologically viable (heck planet-killing is viable with current tech... Carpet nuking from orbit). I can fully understand if it isn't included for gameplay reasons or because eliminating a Star would be difficult for the engine to handle or because programming all the consequences of such would be onerous, but theoretically at least it should be well within the grasp of these civs.
- 8
well as far as i know, Wormholes dont suck anything in. Sooo maybe nothing will happen.
- 1
In the game, wormholes can only be created at the edges of star systems. It's very common in SF to have this "not too close to the star" limitation, usually explained as the technology doesn't work in regions of high spacetime curvature (e.g. the hyper-limit in the Honorverse).
I disagree that star killing is automatically within the grasp of these civs. In some settings, FTL would require the application of unimaginable energies, the mastery of space and time, etc, etc. Stellaris seems more like a setting where FTL is a surprisingly easy trick, and the other technology isn't that advanced, or at least doesn't start that way. I mean, you can open a wormhole but you don't know how to make practical exoskeletons yet.
The setting seems to assume some amazing breakthroughs in drive technology, but everything about the drive techs suggest they don't have a lot of broader applications. Which is not to say that we can't get star-killing tech later on.
- 1
While technically cool, I think star killing and planetary destruction like from Star Wars would be a bad gameplay mechanic. There's only 1000 systems, no need to decrease that further!
As for planetary destruction I'd only be ok with it if it's also possible to create planets. Terraformed to useful levels.
I remember some games where you can just sneak in a planetary destroyer and make an important planet go boom in an instant, that's especially lame. If it were implemented it should require extended charging while in the solar system so the enemy gets a chance to respond.
Bombarding a planet into the ground is another matter, however.. I'm definitely in favor of that, though I'd prefer the damage to linger for centuries unless active and expensive clean-up is undertaken then perhaps a few decades.
As for planetary destruction I'd only be ok with it if it's also possible to create planets. Terraformed to useful levels.
I remember some games where you can just sneak in a planetary destroyer and make an important planet go boom in an instant, that's especially lame. If it were implemented it should require extended charging while in the solar system so the enemy gets a chance to respond.
Bombarding a planet into the ground is another matter, however.. I'm definitely in favor of that, though I'd prefer the damage to linger for centuries unless active and expensive clean-up is undertaken then perhaps a few decades.
- 7
- 3