Bug: I am unable to save changes to a deep space citadel template in the current beta because it is "currently used by a Station starbase."
-
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.
So I decided to actually rebuild the code from 3.14 with updates to support 4.00. It did not freeze its economy at all. Based on my findings from that I am not under the impression that the code as created in the beta actually addresses the cause of the issue. Just removed the largest cause, naval capacity.
The main problem with the script that was written for 4.0 launch is that the game does not handle mixes of non optional fixed subplans and scaling optional subplans with a shared resource. Even read the code as written right now is clearly incorrect given the way it actually behaves in game. The optional scaling resources will scale to the same amount as the non optional scaling resources and do not scale independently. The only reason I believe the update reduced the incidence of the it getting frozen out is because naval capacity was changed to be optional so it isn't block the other scaling.
To correctly write out optional scaling with the current behavior you have to actually write out multiple fixed optional subplans and turn them on one by one.
As an example of the current behavior:
subplan
-optional
motes 1
subplan
-optional
-scaling
motes 1
subplan
alloys 10
subplan
-scaling
alloys 10
If you where producing 32 alloys and 0 motes your current targets would be 40 alloys and 4 motes. Optional subplans are limited by non optional ones.
The screenshot attached was from the following settings and froze until it surpassed 30 consumer goods. There should be a science target as is indicated by the actual plans listed by it doesn't show up until the consumer goods gets unstuck. Which after it jumped all the way into the moon.
subplan
consumer_goods 10
subplan
-optional
consumer_goods 20
subplan
-optional
-scaling
consumer_goods 10
Any need for multiple plans for early vs late vs mid is a code smell covering the actual bug. Also as a side note, there is no way to scale unity and science output based on empire size which is the actual issue with early vs late game scaling. Naval cap and resource production should also be intrinsically linked to the actual techs unlocked which is what actually determines the proper ratios. There is no way to write those into the scripts as is right now without shoving a LOT of subplans into them. At the very least giving us some way to indicate we want scaled science&unity instead of fixed science and unity output would make this a bunch easier.
Attachments
Last edited:
- 5
- 2
Another of the main issues was that if the AI is meeting 90% of the target goals, it will consider a plan "complete" and look for a more advanced plan to move to. (But it'll fall back to the original plan if it's no longer meeting those goals at some point.)
I have the intention of continuing to refine these economic plans and breaking them apart more than they are now. Using the potential blocks on the plans themselves instead of restricting individual subplans should be better for performance and reliability in general.
- 4
(sorry its 3am for me super sleepy) that is what I am saying. I didn't have this bug trigger. I am under the impression its because of mixing optional scaling subplans and on optional base resources. The only other real difference besides that as I don't use multiple triggers for scaling unity and science and alloys I use 1 fixed one that covers all the logical groups. This stops happening and they scaled until my laptop shuddered.
Code:
potential = {
has_monthly_income = { resource = minerals value >= @minerals_target }
has_monthly_income = { resource = energy value >= @energy_target }
if = { limit = { country_uses_food = yes } has_monthly_income = { resource = food value >= @food_target } }
if = { limit { country_uses_consumer_goods = yes } has_monthly_income = { resource = consumer_goods value >= @consumer_goods_target } }
}- 4
idk much about this, but CG is a thing where the target doesnt really have to increase no? They just need enough for upkeep. Same for food if not bioship/catalytic)
The issue isn't if it needs to the code as written should be 310 but it doesn't do that.
It then as soon as it crosses 40 it goes to the right value.
That behavior isn't correct and is a bug. The code being used isn't aware of that bug so it can get stuck if it unable to push something like naval cap up or unity. Hence AI dropping dead.
Attachments
It would also work better for visuals. Having hundreds of ships means they all clip together in one giant mess.
- 5
- 4
- 1
Another bug while playing the current beta: Selling a specimen from my grand archive causes a CTD. I've tried multiple times with different specimen. Trading a specimen to another empire also causes a CTD.
I have a new specimen that I want to activate but I can't make room for it. In addition to fixing this bug, can you please make it possible for us to more freely choose which specimen to put on display? Currently, we have to sell older specimen to make room for newer ones. Let us put specimen into storage (we might want to use them again later) and choose which specimen to replace them with.
I have a new specimen that I want to activate but I can't make room for it. In addition to fixing this bug, can you please make it possible for us to more freely choose which specimen to put on display? Currently, we have to sell older specimen to make room for newer ones. Let us put specimen into storage (we might want to use them again later) and choose which specimen to replace them with.
- 3
- 3
- 3
I've really wanted this feature since grand archives was introduced. It's irritating to have to do a trading shuffle with an ally or vassal rather than just being able to right click something to send it to storage.
It also just feels bad from a narrative sense. We're a vast space empire that can send resources from one planet to another but we can't figure out how to move a specific item from a museum to a warehouse and back?
- 9
Ok, let me break down what rustles my jimmies with this one:
I, and others, have raised concerns about the game having shallow military gameplay for years. It boils down to building the biggest doomstack and steamrolling the enemy — which becomes dull fast if you're looking for engaging tactical and strategic depth from early to late game. Stellaris falls flat when your economic snowball and doomstack snowball outpace everything — often before the endgame crisis even appears.
And even when it does, the crisis is just a final stat check: does your doomstack beat their doomstack?
Me and a small group of players have been vocal about improving or rebalancing this. For us, it's disappointing that the game — which ultimately functions as a military-industrial complex simulator — doesn't offer more meaningful variation or depth in that core loop.
On the other side, you have people arguing that Stellaris is a story-driven, RP-heavy experience, and it’s “not meant to be about war.” I get that. But I think that view deliberately ignores how the actual systems function — and how dominant military power is in determining success.
What's more frustrating: PDX devs have acknowledged the doomstack problem multiple times. Yet we’ve gotten years of DLCs with fluff, reworks of systems that were never a main complaint — while the core problem of doomstacking remains untouched.
Which brings me to this seemingly minor, logical change — and why it stings.
With the things I just roughly lined out about the issue, this line is a literal slap in the face for people like me who argue that doomstacking is real — that the game boils down to it and makes military interaction (another reminder that the game is heavily focused around military) dull and boring. Because it simultaiouly aknolegdes what i wrote for years and it makes the issue just even more convient.
And on the opposite side — the crowd that often argues with “well, I don’t do it,” or “you don’t need to do it,” or “it’s not incentivized” — gets a slap too, because this basically tells us: “We know you’re going to doomstack”. So the issue is real, we all do it, and it’s the primary military mechanic. No need to wonder IF it's even a real issue it just is.
Now, I could say “haha, I knew it!” — but chocke on it because we get a change that makes it not even a secret anymore. This is Stellaris: - a doomstack simulator. And now it’s made even more convenient.
Yes, I understand and agree that it might be an easy performance improvement — but holy hell, this has been part of my ongoing feedback for years, and now the solution basically says, “F it". At least, that’s what it reads like to me.
But please — correct me if I’m wrong in my interpretation.
- 2
- 1
- 1
I've seen a lot of your posts and while I don't necessarily agree with every proposal about the war system I completely agree that it's bare bones and leads to the game being quite simple at its core. To my mind a big part of this is also the lack of fleshed out internal politics which leads to military/vassal play just being a snowball, something the new pop system with its pop groups has a better chance of addressing (a small example being dev comments in the 4.0 beta that pops on conquered planets might join a resistance fighter group).
I don't think this decision is a slap in the face unless you think the devs have implemented this change with the intention that it be permanent and sufficient (i.e. to the devs mind this change has been implemented in lieu of any future military rework). It seems unlikely this is the case. People already doomstack with multiple fleets which just adds more calculations and currently the devs are looking at performance. Having bigger fleets doesn't lead to much of a difference in how people are playing (though there is a slight balance concern with high level admirals) but is a quick fix to performance.
Given the context of trying to fix the firestorm of problems with 4.0 and the surveys on military reworks that went out at the end of last year I expect there are more comprehensive discussions/plans happening regarding the military systems. But we won't see those soon so for now the changes aren't being made with a mind to address big issues so much as assist in performance and convenience in the interim.
- 4
- 2
Selling asthetic wonders is still CTD (maybejust when full and storage is filled?)
Last edited:
Look, we do not see thousands of ships until very late in the game. By then if you have a galaxy spanning empire its fully reasonable to have such a large force. If we had a thousand ships at year 50 I would agree, its too much, but we don't. Too often here people use the end game numbers as "OH MY GOD WE NEED TO FIX THE GAME BECAUSE ITS TOO EASY OR TOO LAGGY OR TOO...." which is in completely unveiled reference to people complaining about producing too many resources. It also is an issue because the player will take on short term negatives which an AI is not coded to accept. Example there is purposefully having a large negative resource because its a short term action to artificially boost another or finish something.
What I do think is wrong with fleet combat in Stellaris is mono fleets having such superiority. I think this could be partially corrected by limiting the load outs of hull sizes a lot more, literally you get two choices of what it will be and nothing more, and fleet composition rules enforced by numbers.
Example of fleet composition rule. While each hull type has a point value it could also be assessed a fleet percentage value. The percentage value would update throughout the game as the number of hull types increases. Early on you would be allowed 100% of a fleets composition to be Corvettes/Frigates. By the time Battleships are available the limit is down to fifty percent with battleships and cruisers limited to a third. What happens when exceed the limit, the command cost is doubled beyond. So if your fleet has only Corvettes and you have sixty fleet size, the first 30 cost normal but the next 30 command points only slot in 15 corvettes because they cost double. Battleships, well they start out at eight points so that you could squeeze 4 into that sixty fleet size without penalty but any more cost 16 each which means you cannot do but 5 of them (32+16 leaving 12 points which is not enough for another)
- 3
- 1
Would it be possible to get a save with this? We weren't able to reproduce it internally when we tried.
Edit: Grunts got it to happen, thanks.
The command limit change is primarily intended to reduce the number of fleets the AI has in the mid to late game. It is not intended to be a solution to some of the issues surrounding fleet combat, and I fully agree that reworking fleet combat is not something we can prioritize at this time.
We do have designs to investigate some ideas around Squadrons (groups of identical ships in a fleet would form together into larger units) and Armadas (fleets of fleets), but those will only be able to be looked at after we're able to stabilize more of the current systems.
Last edited:
- 18
- 5
While allowing a single fleet doomstack is a welcome change until a better combat rework is done, I feel that the problem of having thousands of ships which is bad for perf and readability is not entirely fixed.
I suggest looking at an option to make better, more fleet intensive ships in the late game.
One of those would be to add a "hull" component to the ships that does a few things :
-scale a bit up the model to show it's an advanced version
-Increase basically all stats by a percentage
-Increase price substantially
-Multiply the fleet usage by the hull component level.
Those components could be gained with starbase tech or ship size tech.
If you can make a ship that takes 4 times as much fleet size but has let's say +100% to all stats (thinking about offense and defense, 2 times damages and 2 times hardness should translate in 4 times efficiency) and cost 4 times the price you can have fleets that are roughtly the same power in the late game but using 4 times less ships (of course numbers should be tweaked so bigger ships are slightly advantageous so you want to make them).
The increase in fleet size could be added only for empire fleet capacity and not admiral fleet capacity so upgrading ships is not a pain and does not destroy fleets.
I suggest looking at an option to make better, more fleet intensive ships in the late game.
One of those would be to add a "hull" component to the ships that does a few things :
-scale a bit up the model to show it's an advanced version
-Increase basically all stats by a percentage
-Increase price substantially
-Multiply the fleet usage by the hull component level.
Those components could be gained with starbase tech or ship size tech.
If you can make a ship that takes 4 times as much fleet size but has let's say +100% to all stats (thinking about offense and defense, 2 times damages and 2 times hardness should translate in 4 times efficiency) and cost 4 times the price you can have fleets that are roughtly the same power in the late game but using 4 times less ships (of course numbers should be tweaked so bigger ships are slightly advantageous so you want to make them).
The increase in fleet size could be added only for empire fleet capacity and not admiral fleet capacity so upgrading ships is not a pain and does not destroy fleets.
- 2
- 1
Completely solid arguments, and I do not disagree. But the optics here — particularly with my personal experience and the underlying admission to the issue I perceived (and seemingly had to fight just to be understood in the first place by some) — are what truly antagonized me.
And also, the inaction on this issue for years combined with the admission here is truly the spice on top.
Perfect! Despite all this, I still wish you the best and success in the process of fixing 4.0, and I hope we can see these designs sooner rather than later! – It’s not like I’m here to make the game look bad, but to see it improved, as Stellaris is my favorite sci-fi GSG!
- 1
I also don't like monofleets but I don't think an arbitrary % is the right way to go about addressing it. Intuitively I feel one of the issues is there are too many types of weapons/components that have lots of benefits and no downsides. Like armour which is bypassed by far too many weapons and has negligible increase in alloys as the only downside, or missiles which have range, tracking, and shield bypass. I'd like to see far, far fewer bypass weapons with weapons and defences having a non overlapping advantage and disadvantage. Like missiles should be good at counter evasion, they shouldn't also magically fly through shields.
For the fleet comp the ships need to interact more. Like how in HOI4 (which admittedly I've not played a lot of, not in years) smaller ships act as screens that need to be destroyed/degraded before larger ships can be targeted.
This sounds really interesting. It's a compromise between going EU4 like, and remaining true to the current 1-2-1 model. I really can't wait to try it!
Also some tools to manage vassal fleets would be nice. For the most part I would be ok if I could prohibit them from building any fleets at all - that would be large cpu savings! Perhaps add it to the agreement screen? Or through diplomancy?
Another Idea would be to have space docks be ... space docks, i.e. fleet warehouses. Old discussions about mothballing are coming into my mind. But if we could just park a fleet in a starbase, and take it out of the proccessing lists would be a huge gain in speeding up the preparation years before wars.
For reference, I really suffered in my last game going through all the crisis, just due to performance: month proccessing was dead slow, and combat worse than a slidehsow, especially with the Cetana final fight.
For now I will only play without crisis because it's just pointless at the low crisis multiplier settings, while at the medium/upper difficulty multipliers the game can't keep up with all the fleets you *must* build - perhaps I should wait for my new PC next month.
- 1
@Eladrin I also had the issue with specimens in the Grand Archive and I submitted the crash logs, it was in the previous open beta and in this new release. While you are fixing that, would you consider allowing specimen to be move to storage instead of selling them?? I want the flexibility to choose what I display and change that display based on what my empire needs are (which changes over time). The current design is inflexible and unnecessarily limiting while breaking the roleplay and fantasy elements. It would also be nice to be able to expand your Grand Archive to gain more slots/vivarium space and/or allow it to display relics also.
Was the Erudite fix supposed to work on existing saves where you already had the trait on your species but did not get it on your leaders? because it did not do that for me.
Finally, as a Hivemind I seem to be unable to roll FE Trade building techs when I have both Cosmogenesis AND Enigmatic Engineering. I've completed all available non-repeatable tech options but still can't get it. Hivemind Logistics is extremely limiting when it comes to fielding a fleet. I can understand not wanting them to be masters of trade, but it feels like they are unable to supply themselves in any reasonable manner if you don't select Mercantile Traditions. If Hiveminds don't get any trade buildings, maybe the Synapse Drone or Warrior Drone job should produce trade as well to support the naval cap it produces.
- 3
- 1
I hope the esteemed development team can take some time to look into the balance issues in this version. Players in the Chinese community have already managed to achieve extremely absurd stats by Year 2234（1x research and tradition costs）—near-infinite resources and technologies that can be researched in just one month no matter what. This was accomplished using purely vanilla content, without any mods that alter gameplay or the use of console commands.
- 1
- 1