So far not seen a single one that adds any depth over the existing system. Most have just added more busy work OR made invasions a mini game chore that needs micro managing more than fleets.
- 9
- 1
- 1
-
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.
I am not convinced that this is a good idea, but you have at least explained an interpretation of internal politics that doesn't actively and directly detract from the game.
This still falls under something that would slot into a related concept-based DLC, internal development, because this as stated is a feature rework, not a DLC. I don't mind expanding faction or sector management a bit, but this kind of thing just can't be the main focus of an entire DLC without detracting from the game. There isn't enough compatible material.
Even on this level, it's already dangerously close to "immerse yourself in this mechanic or spontaneously lose massive semi-random chunks of your empire to it." This sector politics you're talking about is fundamentally a Crusader Kings mechanic, straight out, and if I wanted that to be a main focus of gameplay I would play that game instead.
- 7
- 2
People reach for immersion so much, im kind of wishing wed see fan costumes and sets and alien accents. We dont.
As for immersion as some kind of sacrosanct thing to strive for and used as a rhetorical tool to basically allude to missing experiential value...Y'all playing with the base UI? Okay, wrap it up about immersion, I've seen more than enough and have to on a minute by minute basis.
Last edited:
- 2
- 1
We can at least boil down the friction with Internal Politics to revolving around 'active piloting out of negative feedback' and how Stellaris really doesn't need another 'if you don't touch this thing, things will go to crap' subsystem. I think after all the discussions including this one, Internal Politics stumbles when those giddy for it basically sound like Chore Enthusiasts who are adamant there is a joy to not only doing the chores, but organizing the order of the chores, discovering meta to the chores, etc etc. And like, as much as I want a little intrigue in my domestic affairs to keep them lively and make some choices, I don't want to have to actively pilot parts of Internal Politics at all times to avoid careening into a mountain.
If anything, it feels too late to add a subsystem like that into the game that already has a few subsystems people blow their stacks about with ample warning it'll be bad if they ignore it. "Why did half my empire rebel?" usually has a cause, and it might not be a good cause or a 'feels right' cause from the player POV, but usually we can guess why it happened and get and admission from the player that they thought it would blow over or they thought they had it under control not understanding the mechanic well enough to avert it. And usually it happens a handful of times before the player is like 'well I guess I gotta pay attention to this situation now and prevent it', but a whole system built around 'pay attention or suffer' in addition to all else going on...IDK folks...IDK...as much as I want something that gives more character interactions, choices and outcomes domestically.
- 3
- 3
- 1
Alright, here’s an idea
First, redo planet building slots a bit. Instead of just always having 12 building slots, make it so that it is a bit more variable. A small planet has 6, medium have 12, large have 18. Each set of 6 represents a portion of the planet. Armies fight over control over each of the portions (all automatic, no additional micro, they just do one, then move on to the next, then on to the next, only player interaction is landing armies, dropping more armies off to the planet as needed). All PDFs fight in all parts, but defensive buildings only add bonuses to their portion. High level defense buildings (I would include some higher tier than what we have now) have the possibility to make the battle a lot longer. When armies disengage they fall back to a friendly-controlled part if one exists, and recover- if there isn’t one, they just wait to get routed as they do now.
- 1
The first part of this is a potentially interesting idea. The second is the reason we don't want and the devs don't intend to make a ground combat rework.
There is no point to adding any of that, whether it would require more player interaction or not. The end result of all of that is that it would take more processing power to handle invasions and... that's it, it would otherwise function in exactly the same way. Perhaps slightly slower, which isn't really an upside.
- 9
- 1
- 1
Where fun?
No, really, where is fun in this system? Not only you propose mechanics that changes nothing at start conditions, nor at end conditions, nor it even add illusion of player choices; you also expect different, much more important mechanics (building slots), to be tailored for your suggestion.
- 7
- 1
- 1
Disagree with that across the board. First part just makes buildings worse and most planets worse. Idea for most building slots is to boost the districts the planet can have or if it doesn't have many of them can at least be useful for resources you can't get that way - admin, research and strategic resources.
This also works worse for your idea of breaking them in to zones. If you have less building slots you aren't going to waste this now more precious item on an invasion item which is already you expecting to be on the losing end. Better to invest in a building to buff your empire to stop the enemy getting that far.
It also adds no depth to the warfare. When invading unless only sending a handful of armies we are invading across the entire planet. So end result is there isn't any "safe" zones to retreat to as armies can be attacking everywhere. It also doesn't add any depth to it, they are still just going across in a doomstack wiping the defenders out like the current system.
- 3
For all the rework ideas, we don't even have a 'invasion style' toggle that gives 3.5 options between 'High loss quickly, normal, low loss slow, pillage and plunder the museums and galleries and whoever gets in the way gets shot'
Is that a better step in any direction? I dont think so but it's like, the complexity is low, the utility is low, the focus required is low, so is it even worth doing?
But check out this hat I found in the robe wearing gecko museum of funny artifacts. Some say the hat fits perfectly on Zarqlan's head, some say it was even his hat, but for all the lore and backstory, it's my hat now. (I'm half jesting with this, but if I want a ground combat rework, I'm looking at objective outcomes and not means to fiddle with. This is so far past the point of what a ground combat rework means to most people begging for it, but holy crap I want what I do to affect the outcomes, not making what I do be 3 effing hoops to jump through to render the same outcome we have now. Give me a choice and an upside to making it and I'll be contented there's a little extra vigor in the choices I make, that's not a rework.)
Is that a better step in any direction? I dont think so but it's like, the complexity is low, the utility is low, the focus required is low, so is it even worth doing?
But check out this hat I found in the robe wearing gecko museum of funny artifacts. Some say the hat fits perfectly on Zarqlan's head, some say it was even his hat, but for all the lore and backstory, it's my hat now. (I'm half jesting with this, but if I want a ground combat rework, I'm looking at objective outcomes and not means to fiddle with. This is so far past the point of what a ground combat rework means to most people begging for it, but holy crap I want what I do to affect the outcomes, not making what I do be 3 effing hoops to jump through to render the same outcome we have now. Give me a choice and an upside to making it and I'll be contented there's a little extra vigor in the choices I make, that's not a rework.)
Last edited:
- 3
- 1
City districts already do this.
For your standard planet, available building slots are capital building bonus + number of city districts + additional sources from civics and technologies, hard capped at 12 slots.
If the hard cap didn't exist, available building slots would effectively be capped by planet size, as max city districts is 1:1 with planet size.
So really, the solution is less complicated. Just raise or remove the hard cap. No additional rules are necessary since you're still capped by planet size via number of city districts.
Opening my 'Extra Building Slot' menu that somehow involves a scroll despite only having two slots above 12.
- 1
Yeah, I assume UI limitations is how they arrived at 12 slots in the first place.
If you look at the Stellaris Steam page, in fact, the very first screenshot is from a version where there are 16 building slots. This was reduced to 12 when alloy and CG districts were added, probably because they couldn't make the two new districts + 16 building slots fit on the already small planet view.
- 1
- 1
I just wish armies costed alloys instead of minerals.
Makes no sense gladiators are better equipped than the actual bloody military!
Makes no sense gladiators are better equipped than the actual bloody military!
- 2
- 2
Do you really believe that?
Moving alloys and consumer goods production from buildings to districts means that player needs less building slots. That, by itself, is good enough justification to decrease number of building slots.
- 4
- 1
So, here's the difference.
In Stellaris, I can conquer a neighbor and make all their pops into my citizens.
Right now that means I get a bunch more pops with very few consequences.
If internal politics were relevant, I'd need to deal with those pops and their pre-existing opinions about how things should be done. It would be more challenging to snowball because conquering an empire would have consequences beyond +400 alloys per month.
Cars don't conquer neighboring cars and merge contents. You can't just steer into a FedEx truck and collect the deliverables into your car.
Stellaris is not a car.
Yeah it could be done badly.
Let's not do it that way.
If someone is already on the council, they should not turn against the government without some significant reason -- like if you're purging pops of that Council member's species, maybe the Council member dislikes that enough to form a faction against you.
But normally, it's pretty easy to just not pick government members for anti-government factions.
- 11
- 4
On the topic of internal politics:
What about centering it around the presently static 'empire size' mechanic? Presently it simply increased tech/unity costs. Instead it could represent relative cohesion influenced by origin/faction approval/government type/pop happiness.
Making big blob empires more at risk of unrest than say a small Republic. And rather than spontaneous civil war, a situation could emerge if too far over empire size (without the appropriate pop/faction approval); it would progress from happiness penalty, to resource penalty, etc., before anything like revolt.
This "could" allow for more dynamic empires, without taking player choice away; vis, playing a more stable government type/size.
I imagine this could touch other systems as well if the idea is to make it within current Stellaris mechanics and not simply tacked on. Hence being a major add on rather than a minor.
Or maybe I want empire size to be more interesting...
Or maybe I want to run a blob empire and confront my own Spartacus....
Anecdotally, I could use a bit more to do mid/mid-late game aside from 'go a conquerin' which I will generally avoid because it brings too much micro management. (Developing internal cohesion to bring down tech costs 'could' be interesting?)
Just a thought.
What about centering it around the presently static 'empire size' mechanic? Presently it simply increased tech/unity costs. Instead it could represent relative cohesion influenced by origin/faction approval/government type/pop happiness.
Making big blob empires more at risk of unrest than say a small Republic. And rather than spontaneous civil war, a situation could emerge if too far over empire size (without the appropriate pop/faction approval); it would progress from happiness penalty, to resource penalty, etc., before anything like revolt.
This "could" allow for more dynamic empires, without taking player choice away; vis, playing a more stable government type/size.
I imagine this could touch other systems as well if the idea is to make it within current Stellaris mechanics and not simply tacked on. Hence being a major add on rather than a minor.
Or maybe I want empire size to be more interesting...
Or maybe I want to run a blob empire and confront my own Spartacus....
Anecdotally, I could use a bit more to do mid/mid-late game aside from 'go a conquerin' which I will generally avoid because it brings too much micro management. (Developing internal cohesion to bring down tech costs 'could' be interesting?)
Just a thought.
- 1
- 1
I like the idea every ship carries ground combat troops. Bigger ship carries bigger army.
- 2
Yeah, don't hope for that. As highly irritating events, rebellions has to be easily-avoidable by mildly-competent player, if played safely. Their job is not to happen, but to be credible thread, so player is forced to act in expected way, f.e. care about faction approval, don't push laws that aristocracy do not like, throw gold at dukes etc.
That, and to be actual risk for players playing extreme-way.
- 2
- 1
Internal politics can be comprised of social movements, factions or parties with their own dynamic narrative through events - no deterministic outcomes, please - and situations that will provide drama, emergent narratives and difficult decisions for the player to take. It certainly has nothing to do with character driven gameplay.
- 8