• 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 4.0 "Phoenix Update" Free Features

Hello everyone!

We’re less than a week away from the release of BioGenesis and the free Stellaris 4.0 “Phoenix” update, and we’d like to take some time to talk about the things coming in the free 4.0 patch coming to Stellaris on May 5th. We’ve also released a list of preliminary patch notes on the forums, you can read those here.

Game Director Eladrin set aside time to talk about the Free 4.0 Update for Stellaris Official on YouTube.

Pop Groups, Workforce, and Species Modification

Pops have long been one of the biggest causes of late-game performance issues in Stellaris. As such, we’ve grouped singular pops by species, strata, and ethic. This allowed us to reduce the number of calculations required as the number of pops increases in the late game.

Pop groups will produce Workforce, which is assigned to jobs on your planets. Pop groups can supply Workforce to multiple jobs, and species traits that previously would create extra resources, now generate bonus workforce when working these jobs.

With pop groups, we’ve also changed pop growth to be simultaneous across all species on a planet, which should result in a more realistic growth and demographics of pops in your empire. With the added focus on Pop Growth, Empires will generally start with large masses of Civilians on their planets, enough to comfortably colonize several worlds, where they will emigrate over time.

We’ve also done some work on Species Modification. Now, with the Gene Tailoring Technology or Integrated Anatomy tradition, you can specify a default template for a species, afterwards any subspecies with Sub-Species Integration set the Integrate Into Default Sub-Species species right will integrate into the default species template over time.

Trade, Logistics, and MegaCorps

The old Trade Routes system was another system that was hurting game performance, made worse by it being also one of the most hard-to-use and unintuitive game systems. We decided that it was time to remove Trade Routes altogether, and instead make Trade a regular resource that can be used and stockpiled.

Trade will now accumulate monthly over time, and represents logistical effort on behalf of your empire. Planetary deficits will now impart a trade expense, as freighters are commandeered by your empire to transport resources to worlds that aren’t otherwise self-sufficient. Military fleets as well will impart a trade cost, decreasing when they’re in orbit of friendly starbases, and increasing when in hostile territory. Trade can also be spent on the Market for the purchase of resources.

This was also an opportunity to make Trade available for Gestalt empires, who can now collect Trade from both jobs and deposits. While they don’t have much use for Traders and Clerks, their Maintenance and Logistics drones will produce most of their trade.

MegaCorps also had a facelift in 4.0. Most corporate Civics now give bonuses to specific Branch Office buildings, and gain Trader jobs on their Capital from the Branch Office building. Branch Office buildings are now limited to one per planet, but give more appropriate jobs to the host planet.

To offset the bonuses to Branch Office buildings, constructing these buildings now also costs Influence, and has an increased effect on Empire Size.

Criminal Syndicates have also had some improvements, for both their playability and for playing against them. Criminal Syndicates can now establish Commercial Pacts. Having a commercial pact with a Criminal Empire will replace all criminal buildings with their "lawful" counterpart. As long as the commercial pact remains, criminal branch offices will not be removed from the planet. All Criminal branch office buildings now produce 25 Crime and give criminal jobs in addition to regular jobs. We have also added a crime floor to non-criminal branch office buildings on empires they have a trade agreement with, which means there will always be a minimum amount of crime on the branch office planet. Criminal branch offices are also up to 25% more profitable on high crime planets.

New Planet UI & District Specializations

The change from Pops to Pop Groups also opened up an opportunity to revamp exactly how Districts, Buildings, and Jobs interact with each other. Districts provide a base number of jobs, District Specializations provide additional jobs per District, and buildings provide Jobs.

District Specializations are a new feature coming in Stellaris 4.0. City Districts will be able to choose two District Specializations, while the Generator, Mining, and Farming districts each can choose one. District Specializations provide extra jobs per district of that type constructed.

Unlocking Specializations will be locked behind key technologies, but choosing a specialization will also open up three additional Building slots.

Assigning and restricting Jobs works remarkably similar to how it did in previous versions of Stellaris, but now instead of assigning Pops to work the job directly, you’re assigning Workforce from several different Pop Groups to work the job.

New Mammalian Portraits & Precursor Selections

And now my deer friends, one mooo-re surprise for you! The Stellaris 4.0 ‘Phoenix’ update brings ten paws-itively stunning new Mammalian portraits to the base game!

AD_4nXcpPK-S3yZZsg-OphuIWI5dp4SCOUC68dJ8kl8FApj4BMvi8p9SeNqK9nMLZk6ncyWNSxsWpkO7Uq2-qHHjbg0fmbD04TU8bRKTA8GiUnHGCHLim99-dmo6XjvrhdbuxjPcI2VWrw


We know some of you have Precursors that you like the most - and the least - and with Stellaris 4.0, you’ll now be able to turn off the Yuht after you get it for like the sixteenth time in a row.

We’ve also added a new Empire timeline that tracks major events in your empire. We know this is something that some of you have wanted for a while, and it’s great to be able to look back and remember events that happened in your empire.

There’s so much more to talk about coming in Stellaris 4.0, you can read the preliminary patch notes here.

The free Stellaris 4.0 “Phoenix” Update and the BioGenesis expansion will be available May 5th on Steam, or you can get BioGenesis as part of Stellaris: Season 09 for a discount!

Thanks to everyone for playing Stellaris!
 
Last edited:
  • 72Like
  • 24Love
  • 8
Reactions:
Why can't trade go into a global pool to be accessed by your colonies when food, minerals and consumer goods already work like that?
As it is currently conceived, trade is not a hard "resource" but a currency. So it's more like it enters your empire's treasury.

My complaint is that energy is also a currency, and we don't need two currencies when one can do the trick. It seems like an arbitrary division.

It would be more intuitive for me if energy credits lost all uses that are not directly related to actual energy, became a resource that you aim to keep more or less balanced rather than stockpile, and got renamed "energy". Then trade could be renamed into "credits".

As for why gestalt empires would use "credits" for transportation: they shouldn't. Maybe for them a different name can be applied, but this just highlights how ill conceived this idea is.
 
Last edited:
Also, if trade is our universal currency now, can we get an option to build stuff directly with trade instead of resources? It would mean automatically buying from the market the resources, so the price would depend on the market. I think it would improve trade-focused gameplay a lot.

(also rename "trade" into "credits" or "trade credits")
 
Also, if trade is our universal currency now, can we get an option to build stuff directly with trade instead of resources? It would mean automatically buying from the market the resources, so the price would depend on the market. I think it would improve trade-focused gameplay a lot.

(also rename "trade" into "credits" or "trade credits")
Just set up monthly transactions on your internal or later the galactic market

I already regularly do that when I have an overproduction of minerals and food or when I have a lack of strategic resources
 
  • 2
Reactions:
Just set up monthly transactions on your internal or later the galactic market

I already regularly do that when I have an overproduction of minerals and food or when I have a lack of strategic resources
Though, having a keyboard shortcut to buy all missing resources and build with one click would be an interesting QoL thing. The devs would need to somehow signal to the players how much of what they're buying and how much it'll cost them, but if done well it could be convenient, and would reinforce how the new(-ish) resource is supposed to be used.
 
  • 2
  • 1Like
Reactions:
Though, having a keyboard shortcut to buy all missing resources and build with one click would be an interesting QoL thing. The devs would need to somehow signal to the players how much of what they're buying and how much it'll cost them, but if done well it could be convenient, and would reinforce how the new(-ish) resource is supposed to be used.
I mean, were you using the old energy the same way?
 
Though, having a keyboard shortcut to buy all missing resources and build with one click would be an interesting QoL thing. The devs would need to somehow signal to the players how much of what they're buying and how much it'll cost them, but if done well it could be convenient, and would reinforce how the new(-ish) resource is supposed to be used.
shift-click (or something) being a combo build and buy would be excellent in general yeah.
 
"I don't see how having a more powerful ship called a Destroyer forces you to build it, ignore the system all together."

"I don't see how researching Tachyon lances forces you to equip them, ignore them all together."

"I don't see how a system that lets you bee-line critical techs forces you to use it, ignore the system all together."

Is this enough for you to understand the issue?
No. None of your examples are the game forcing anything. Its your goals that appear to be forcing you to make a choice. Which is the same with all choices, but lets think about it. Why would having the option for destroyers even produce a choice? You want the extra military power to defend yourself? well no, you can do that with corvettes and frigates. Cloaked torpedo boats are quite effective at wrecking the main issue when you first unlock destroyers, starbases.

Tachyon Lances are powerful alpha strike weapons. yes. But they aren't perfect against all enemy types, and if you don't need alpha strike or feel your RP would be hurt by them, then they aren't even an option. So I don't see how the game is forcing anything here at all.

And the same here. You don't need to bee-line anything. unless its your goal of the game that is forcing you to bee-line it. If your only goal is to role play an empire why would you? if your goal is to win a war, you have no need to bee-line mega structure things, and you are already going to be heavily focused on war, so you don't need to look at the focus tree at all. And if you want to play slightly better, you can change focus without ever looking at the tasks.
Agreed, and I already made a post about this once.
Logistic capability and currency are two different things that the devs are now trying to lump together.
Beforehand, trade was strictly another method of generating the main currency of the game - energy credits.
Now, since trade routes were removed, trade got a new purpose which has nothing to do with its sources in game or with it being a resource you can accumulate.
Trade Value isn't an in-universe currency. And sense the market came into being, energy credits weren't either. After all 'currency' doesn't make a lick of sense in many situations especially in science fiction. The Federation in DS9 comes to mind. They don't have currency--inside the federation--yet they still have to have a way to produce something similar when dealing with other nations that do. That's what trade value is.

And that's why its impacted by logistics. its a measure of how flexible your economy is and how easily you can 'produce' resources out of thin air. Maybe the government is paying a private business for those resources. maybe the government was overproducing and stockpiling. Maybe the government was giving out exclusive TV spots to get a celebrity endorsement so that people donated resources from personal mines.

But either way, if your supply lines for moving that stuff is inefficient, you will not be able to produce it as needed. hence lowered trade value. The mechanics here are quite clear.
The illogicality is well illustrated by this example - we have a compact virtual high trade empire that generates trade value and does not need logistics capabilities on their 3 planets (they don't exist. Imagine that there is no army of cargo ships, they are all virtual on the planets). But under the new system, they are wow, super, how they can manage giga supplies.

The second empire - poor warriors of a wide empire. A lot of fleet, a lot of planets between which it is necessary to transport a lot of resources and supply millions of ships, planets and stations in the empire. There are no trade zones, no clerks, the entire population works on transportation, servicing ships, and building new ones. But under the new system, their ability to supply the army and the country has turned them into a paradise of trade services and goods.
In your first empire the virtual population still have to move resources around. fuel for generators, metals for building servers, bots for maintenance, and of course military hardware for defense.

Even consumer goods might have to be physically moved. If everything is virtual what is the most valuable thing to have? something unique. To prevent people from copying your unique thing, you might have to have it stored on a specialized disk and plugged in next to your personal computing hardware. And maybe you don't actually need that, but people are more likely to believe it is true if this is how its done. Consumer Goods is all about how the consumer perceives the goods after all.

In the second empire the 'traders' are the only job that could be argued to be off. 'Clerks' can be anything from the guy standing behind the counter to the gal managing a warehouse. Seriously flexible naming there. And you've also forgotten that in the new system their appears to be trade produced by civilians. So in your wide poor warrior culture, they've got an underclass of thousands of people hauling boxes. Its just be abstracted into 'trade value' because if they build up enough of it they can pull alloys, fuel, basic minerals, or even food out of storage as needed and shuffle it around.

I don't see the problem. Especially as the 'trade' might be various fleets, defense forces, and planetary governors bartering 'I don't need this energy this month, can you send your excess minerals for our construction project' possibly even behind the governments back.
As it is currently conceived, trade is not a hard "resource" but a currency. So it's more like it enters your empire's treasury.

My complaint is that energy is also a currency, and we don't need two currencies when one can do the trick. It seems like an arbitrary division.
Trade--as it is currently conceived--is availed to empires that do not have a currency. Gestalts, Post-Money Utopias, Communist Utopias, and even intelligent planetary ecosystems. So it clearly cannot be a currency. I argue above--and in other places--its more like 'wealth' or 'capacity to produce resources in an emergency.'

I'd argue for energy to have the 'credit' modifier removed or to be changed to 'fuel' or something. but until then, it also makes sense that some groups would refuse to change how they count money and thus 'demand' an old, defunct type of money. I mean, all the enclaves give off the 'too stubborn to survive' vibes anyways. All of them appear to have lived on their single station through multiple galactic cycles of death and rebirth. And apparently, they've not changed their ways as a result.
 
  • 11
  • 2
  • 1
Reactions:
It makes even less sense to be able to economically store energy than it is to store abstracted money in a bank. And by less, I mean no sense.

'Energy Credits' never made sense anyways and I long for the day that the devs finally purge the game of that. I mean, why on earth would you tie your economy to something physical who's value fluxes with how common it is just stupid.

--'Lord chancellor we can't keep building that fleet! the cost of supplying all their power generation is killing the economy! the ever-increasing rarity of energy for the civilians is playing havoc on the market and our trade partners are getting annoyed at the destructions in their operations!'
--'Lord Chancelor! if we build that dyson sphere we will crash the economy! so much energy suddenly appearing as available will crash the economy. Talks of keeping that energy out of the civilian market has already sparked protests from those without economic training and they aren't listening!'
Your pops don't buy the food and consumer goods they use with energy credits, which is a good thing too because they have no way of acquiring them since they don't get paid for their labor. So we can probably conclude that energy credits are not used in your empire's internal economy, which has been abstracted away into "living standards", but as a trade good in inter-empire trade or comparable situations where trust is in short supply or to represent expending stored energy where that makes sense.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
"I don't see how having a more powerful ship called a Destroyer forces you to build it, ignore the system all together."

"I don't see how researching Tachyon lances forces you to equip them, ignore them all together."

"I don't see how a system that lets you bee-line critical techs forces you to use it, ignore the system all together."

Is this enough for you to understand the issue?
you can easily beat stellaris doing all these things lol

> People have done corvette only playthroughs all the time.
> Consequently, Corvette only means ignoring all X-slot weapons
> I have multiple friends who only play with auto-research tech on, which does ignore important techs in favor of the cheapest tech. They've beaten the game on admiral before (though not sure about GA I'll have to double check)

Stellaris is relatively free, stop pigeonholing yourself into meta play.
 
  • 8Like
  • 2
Reactions:
you can easily beat stellaris doing all these things lol

> People have done corvette only playthroughs all the time.
> Consequently, Corvette only means ignoring all X-slot weapons
> I have multiple friends who only play with auto-research tech on, which does ignore important techs in favor of the cheapest tech. They've beaten the game on admiral before (though not sure about GA I'll have to double check)

Stellaris is relatively free, stop pigeonholing yourself into meta play.
I don't really want to put a thumb on the scale in either direction here, because both sides are a little right and a little wrong.

You CAN win while doing things that are objectively suboptimal, but those things being objectively suboptimal is... well, objective. You CAN win a fighting game by refusing to use all but one specific attack, but that doesn't mean "you're free to only use one attack" is really a relevant line of argumentation.

You CAN win while ignoring the focus system, but it is objectively optimal to NOT ignore it. In principle, this means it's mechanically mandatory - your ability to win without it doesn't mean ignoring it is an equal option, any more than a Psionic empire not making a Covenant or God-Emperor, or Synthetic empire never completing the situation to actually convert their population is. These are objectively incorrect choices, and the fact that you're allowed to not do the correct thing doesn't make the alternatives any less incorrect.

On the other hand, the focus system may be the least offensive version of this that I've ever seen. I don't see any effective difference between turning it off and ignoring it for the player, and for the AI it will probably do basically nothing. There's an argument that this isn't good for the game (which I disagree with, but it IS a valid argument), but as that ship has sailed I don't see how turning it off makes any difference compared to just not using it in this specific case.
 
  • 8
  • 1Like
Reactions:
Look up Dijkastra's Algorithm or the A* Pathfinding Algorithm. Gaze upon the sheer number of calculations required to find the shortest path from A to B. Then consider how many "A -> B" paths would need to be calculated and re-calculated if borders or other path obstructions change.
To my profane eyes it doesn't seems to be that heavy in calculation. You would only need to account for shortest paths plus closed border. I mean, it wouldn't be so heavy compared to what we would get in gameplay. Add an option to deactivate the resource transports if you can't protect them. I don't think there would be more obstacles..? Ships just pass over celestial and artificial bodies anyway.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
Don't know if it's done in the 4.0 update yet, but planet trade could be affected by overall travel speed of the nation, empires could also have wide trade or get better stuff if they focused on certain trades e.g. one might sell a lot of energy, another might do alloys, or food, and they would get better sales between on those at a loss of others. Trade would be the standard and could be affected by internal sales going up or down and internal tariffs (I hate using that word currently). Overall trade should be affected but doesn't need lines.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
As it is currently conceived, trade is not a hard "resource" but a currency. So it's more like it enters your empire's treasury.

My complaint is that energy is also a currency, and we don't need two currencies when one can do the trick. It seems like an arbitrary division.

It would be more intuitive for me if energy credits lost all uses that are not directly related to actual energy, became a resource that you aim to keep more or less balanced rather than stockpile, and got renamed "energy". Then trade could be renamed into "credits".

As for why gestalt empires would use "credits" for transportation: they shouldn't. Maybe for them a different name can be applied, but this just highlights how ill conceived this idea is.
If your company focuses on energy sales (like Saudi Arabia) or Consumer goods (like China) then they could gain a bonus in the overall economy. Makes them more interesting IMO. I do think that the economies need to be in economic groups that are not necessarily limited to military ones so maybe you sell pops to a group that gives you alloys that you trade to a third group at war...

Companies could be a group of pops that focus on specific resources, and that you can help or hinder internally, or at a higher cost interstellarly. They would do work with civilians and might be interesting.
 
There is a distinct absence of any mention regarding the removal of leader trait picks (which is good thing, I believe) and the focus system (far too much maligned, IMHO).

Also the zone system getting renamed to "district specialization" is... well, it makes so, so much more sense now. I just hope that it will be ironed out before release (and that one planet runs would still be viable).

Also, super curious about the whole "bringing hive and machine worlds up to ecumenopolis level". I really hope that they are competitive power-wise via asymmetrical balance, rather than mere palette swaps of ecus.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
You CAN win while doing things that are objectively suboptimal, but those things being objectively suboptimal is... well, objective. You CAN win a fighting game by refusing to use all but one specific attack, but that doesn't mean "you're free to only use one attack" is really a relevant line of argumentation.
I have in fact both beaten and enjoyed playing a fighting game focused--almost exclusively--on a single attack. Mostly because I was so bad otherwise. But still, if the goal is to enjoy the game, then I objectively made the correct choice.
You CAN win while ignoring the focus system, but it is objectively optimal to NOT ignore it. In principle, this means it's mechanically mandatory - your ability to win without it doesn't mean ignoring it is an equal option, any more than a Psionic empire not making a Covenant or God-Emperor, or Synthetic empire never completing the situation to actually convert their population is. These are objectively incorrect choices, and the fact that you're allowed to not do the correct thing doesn't make the alternatives any less incorrect.
Based on what goal are these choices objectively right or wrong? Maybe a Synthetic Empire not completing is the objectively best choice because by changing the direction of your empire is the most interesting story for you. Maybe making a covenant or a god-emperor because it doesn't make the best sense of your empire and role play, and is thus the objectively bad choices. Or you never pulled the events you liked. Or whatever.

It can only be objectively wrong based on some perceived goal. To me it sounds like 'optimum play' is that goal. But because you can change your goal--'play the way I enjoy, even if its suboptimal'--the game system isn't forcing anything.

The only goal of Stellaris that can be said to be in any way 'objective' is 'win.' but even that isn't a real goal given the game is sandbox. But even then, if I can win without engaging with the focus system, even that objective doesn't make it forced.
To my profane eyes it doesn't seems to be that heavy in calculation. You would only need to account for shortest paths plus closed border. I mean, it wouldn't be so heavy compared to what we would get in gameplay. Add an option to deactivate the resource transports if you can't protect them. I don't think there would be more obstacles..? Ships just pass over celestial and artificial bodies anyway.
Isn't this exactly how trade lanes worked in 3.14. And didn't the devs remove it for late game performance reasons? As well as wanting to change trade of course. I'll go out on a limb and say civilian craft would be at least as bad for performance as trade lane calculations.
 
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions:
I have in fact both beaten and enjoyed playing a fighting game focused--almost exclusively--on a single attack. Mostly because I was so bad otherwise. But still, if the goal is to enjoy the game, then I objectively made the correct choice.

Based on what goal are these choices objectively right or wrong? Maybe a Synthetic Empire not completing is the objectively best choice because by changing the direction of your empire is the most interesting story for you. Maybe making a covenant or a god-emperor because it doesn't make the best sense of your empire and role play, and is thus the objectively bad choices. Or you never pulled the events you liked. Or whatever.

It can only be objectively wrong based on some perceived goal. To me it sounds like 'optimum play' is that goal. But because you can change your goal--'play the way I enjoy, even if its suboptimal'--the game system isn't forcing anything.

The only goal of Stellaris that can be said to be in any way 'objective' is 'win.' but even that isn't a real goal given the game is sandbox. But even then, if I can win without engaging with the focus system, even that objective doesn't make it forced.
If you think "but you can have fun doing something suboptimally" is in any way a rebuttal - or, indeed, a response - to what I said, you don't understand what I said.
 
  • 4
  • 1
Reactions:
If you think "but you can have fun doing something suboptimally" is in any way a rebuttal - or, indeed, a response - to what I said, you don't understand what I said.
It was more a step in the conversation. because I still fail to see in any way how this is the game 'forcing' you to do anything. people can and do enjoy this game playing in all kinds of different ways. And, there is nothing locked behind the focus system. and its clear you can just ignore the fucus system and nothing changes before. So, I still don't understand in what way this is 'forcing' anything. I'm trying to explain. I don't get it.

And what you said: "it's still forcing you even if it's possible to play the game perfectly fine and achieve every goal." And it's just not how the term 'forced' works.
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
To my profane eyes it doesn't seems to be that heavy in calculation. You would only need to account for shortest paths plus closed border. I mean, it wouldn't be so heavy compared to what we would get in gameplay. Add an option to deactivate the resource transports if you can't protect them. I don't think there would be more obstacles..? Ships just pass over celestial and artificial bodies anyway.
Take any ten unique objects and arrange them in a line. Once done, rearrange them into a new line. Repeat until you have created an exhaustive list of all unique arrangements. This activity is the same class of computation as pathing (in a 10 star galaxy).

Another way to look at this is a deck a playing cards. If you could give a good shuffle (completely randomize) the deck once per second and had been doing so since the beginning of time (~13.7 billion years), the likelihood of getting the same sequence of cards more than once is infinitesimal. This is also the same class of computation, but for a 52 star galaxy.

There is a reason there is so much research and effort put into finding better ways to approach the pathiing problem. Cutting this out definitely will improve performance.
 
  • 2Like
  • 1
Reactions:
There is a distinct absence of any mention regarding the removal of leader trait picks (which is good thing, I believe) and the focus system (far too much maligned, IMHO).

The focus system is definitely still in the game, since it was mentioned in the video.

As for leader traits, I think they reversed their decision on touching those. Back in the beta they only halved the amount of traits leaders gained while doing nothing to buff them. In the video and some of the later streams, it seems like they reversed the changes back to how leaders worked in 4.0. I'm not sure if that's a good thing, but its still better than releasing the beta version of the leader changes and making them pretty useless.
 
  • 1
Reactions: