[Dev Team] 4.0.22-Wilderness Open Beta 2025-07-08 Updated (checksum 26d5)

[Thiend]

If I felt strongly that monofleets were a problem, I would probably want to fix them by rewarding players for mixing ship types, rather than penalizing or forbidding the use of a single ship type.

One approach would be a stacking buff to the fleet produced by each type of ship, up to some limit (say, 64 command points worth of ships, so you'd cap it at 8 battleships, or 16 cruisers, etc.). The buffs might be something like this:

• Swarm Optimization: +0.15% evasion per corvette in the fleet (max of +9.6%)
• Advanced Reconnaissance: +0.3% tracking per destroyer (max of 9.6%)
• Combat Support Algorithms: +0.03% hull and armor repair per day (max of 0.48%)
• Destruction Protocols: +2.5% ship damage (multiplicative with other modifiers, max 20%) and +10% orbital bombardment damage (max 80%) per battleship.

I don't think these buffs or these numbers are necessarily the right one, but they're the kind of things that would give you a significant incentive to build some of each type of ship.

That would work, or making it more necessary to cover the weaknesses of other ship types.

One of the bigger ship design problems we currently have is that you have to use smaller weapons to combat smaller ships because larger weapons have worse tracking (strikecraft being a notable exception, which is one of the reasons I think they need adjustment), but you DON'T need to use larger weapons to combat larger ships. This is part of the reason that the problem is so often corvette spam - corvettes use small weapons, so their weapons are equally effective against everything. Something like artillery battleships is NOT equally effective against all targets - it has bad tracking, and therefore isn't as effective against corvettes. Except when artillery is very overtuned, corvettes counter all larger ships and each other.

There are multiple options for fixes. Personally, I'd make quite a few balance changes to ships if I had the opportunity, but one of the first would be copying the Weaver support ability chaining and making a weapon that chains to many targets with decreased damage against large targets - this would introduce a specific counter to small ships that wouldn't work just as well against large ones like every other weapon that can hit corvettes does.

 

[yarpus]

Request for small tweak: allow Worker Cooperatives/Shared Burdens to pick Xenophobe ethic.

I understand that there is conflict between „must use Egalitarian Living Standards” and „Cannot give full citizenship to other species” but it can be easily solved - Purge.

I know it may not sound like optimal way to play the game but I really dislike having to share my utopia with Xenos.

 

[turtleturtle111]

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.)

GA with Mid game scaling. I backported a bunch of the wilderness beta fixes into a mod for 4.0.21 along with a custom fixed version of the economic plan that with multiple flat optional values for energy, minerals, food and CG instead scaling ones. (they turn on per amount being spent each month up to 1200 consumed per resource). I think I can 100% confirm this resolves the actual main bug.

Currently adding naval cap as optional and adding a part for the empire size scaling. I will attach it after I am done and test it further.

 

[Dr Pippy]

That would work, or making it more necessary to cover the weaknesses of other ship types.

One of the bigger ship design problems we currently have is that you have to use smaller weapons to combat smaller ships because larger weapons have worse tracking (strikecraft being a notable exception, which is one of the reasons I think they need adjustment), but you DON'T need to use larger weapons to combat larger ships. This is part of the reason that the problem is so often corvette spam - corvettes use small weapons, so their weapons are equally effective against everything. Something like artillery battleships is NOT equally effective against all targets - it has bad tracking, and therefore isn't as effective against corvettes. Except when artillery is very overtuned, corvettes counter all larger ships and each other.

There are multiple options for fixes. Personally, I'd make quite a few balance changes to ships if I had the opportunity, but one of the first would be copying the Weaver support ability chaining and making a weapon that chains to many targets with decreased damage against large targets - this would introduce a specific counter to small ships that wouldn't work just as well against large ones like every other weapon that can hit corvettes does.

One thing that comes to mind is that shields and/or armor could apply a flat reduction in damage. I remember shields working this way back in my MoO2 days, so you'd have to upgrade to higher-tech weapons if you wanted to do any appreciable damage. A similar approach (and one which I think is preferable) would be something like

damage_taken= incoming damage**2/(incoming_damage+damage_reduction).

E.g., if you're firing at a target that has damage_reduction=50, let's say, with a weapon that would do 60 damage to an unarmored target, the actual damage you'd do would be 60^2/(60+50)= 32.7 (a 45% reduction), but if your weapon did 600 base damage, the damage taken would be 600^2/(600+50)= 554, which is only an 8% decrease.

With this kind of set-up (which I think is more or less how armor worked in Morrowind, although it's been a few years!), larger ships would have more armor/shielding, and thus high values for damage_reduction. These ships would be stronger against weapons that do low damage per shot, and so you'd need larger weapons to be effective. I can also imagine this framework providing a (potentially) better way to handle penetration: rather than bypassing shields or armor entirely, you'd just get to ignore some of the damage_reduction stat.

Obviously this would require a significant rebalancing of both weapon damage and ship protection, but I think it could be sufficiently beneficial to justify the time spent.

 

[Thiend]

One thing that comes to mind is that shields and/or armor could apply a flat reduction in damage. I remember shields working this way back in my MoO2 days, so you'd have to upgrade to higher-tech weapons if you wanted to do any appreciable damage. A similar approach (and one which I think is preferable) would be something like

damage_taken= incoming damage**2/(incoming_damage+damage_reduction).

E.g., if you're firing at a target that has damage_reduction=50, let's say, with a weapon that would do 60 damage to an unarmored target, the actual damage you'd do would be 60^2/(60+50)= 32.7 (a 45% reduction), but if your weapon did 600 base damage, the damage taken would be 600^2/(600+50)= 554, which is only an 8% decrease.

With this kind of set-up (which I think is more or less how armor worked in Morrowind, although it's been a few years!), larger ships would have more armor/shielding, and thus high values for damage_reduction. These ships would be stronger against weapons that do low damage per shot, and so you'd need larger weapons to be effective. I can also imagine this framework providing a (potentially) better way to handle penetration: rather than bypassing shields or armor entirely, you'd just get to ignore some of the damage_reduction stat.

Obviously this would require a significant rebalancing of both weapon damage and ship protection, but I think it could be sufficiently beneficial to justify the time spent.

This would also work, although as someone who spent thousands of hours on Morrowind and intends to do even more within a week, it would need more transparent functionality.

Ironically, the opposite setup would work better - we unlock new ship designs, so them being broadly superior would be appropriate. But they're broadly inferior, because you have to specifically counter evasion but not health, which is the tradeoff made as ship sizes increase.

 

[Dr Pippy]

This would also work, although as someone who spent thousands of hours on Morrowind and intends to do even more within a week, it would need more transparent functionality.

Is there a new/remastered version? I remember being absolutely blown away by the worldbuilding and story and all that when it came out, but I haven't played in quite some time. Clearly you have impeccable taste in video games though!

Ironically, the opposite setup would work better - we unlock new ship designs, so them being broadly superior would be appropriate.

I think I would prefer a setup where you start with all four of the basic ship types unlocked (or at least corvettes, destroyers, and cruisers), and then tech allows you to unlock more advanced/specialized sections. The most interesting gameplay would require an understanding of the proper role of each ship type, and intelligent strategic choices about the right ratios between them.

I'm fairly sure this is easier said than done.

But they're broadly inferior, because you have to specifically counter evasion but not health, which is the tradeoff made as ship sizes increase.

I have to say that my experience playing against the AI is that there are enough sources of tracking that my battleship monofleets don't have too much trouble with lots of destroyers and corvettes. The other part of the trade-off between small and large weapons is range, and battleships with an X slot can engage well before the small ships can get their first shots off. The accuracy isn't great, but enough shots hit that it generally seems like the majority of their ships have been deleted before they can start shooting. I'm sure this is different playing against humans with properly designed ships, but when you're fighting ships designed via RNG, it seems like you've got a lot more flexibility.

 

[Thiend]

Is there a new/remastered version? I remember being absolutely blown away by the worldbuilding and story and all that when it came out, but I haven't played in quite some time. Clearly you have impeccable taste in video games though!

Sadly no, although I'd buy it. I've got it modded for some QoL improvements, among a few others designed to not really change it to a different game or anything.

I think I would prefer a setup where you start with all four of the basic ship types unlocked (or at least corvettes, destroyers, and cruisers), and then tech allows you to unlock more advanced/specialized sections. The most interesting gameplay would require an understanding of the proper role of each ship type, and intelligent strategic choices about the right ratios between them.

I'm fairly sure this is easier said than done.

I have to say that my experience playing against the AI is that there are enough sources of tracking that my battleship monofleets don't have too much trouble with lots of destroyers and corvettes. The other part of the trade-off between small and large weapons is range, and battleships with an X slot can engage well before the small ships can get their first shots off. The accuracy isn't great, but enough shots hit that it generally seems like the majority of their ships have been deleted before they can start shooting. I'm sure this is different playing against humans with properly designed ships, but when you're fighting ships designed via RNG, it seems like you've got a lot more flexibility.

In theory, L-slots have nowhere near enough tracking even with bonuses. But the AI is just using the autodesigner, so it isn't generally presenting a strong enough force to be a threat, and most scripted threats (IE crisis, leviathans) aren't evasion-heavy.

In addition to some parts of ship design needing an overhaul, the AI needs an overhaul to at least make a coherent design. Or, more particularly, the autodesigner - which also applies for players that don't want to design their ships manually.

 

[RingworldUtopia]

should bug reports be posted here? or in the bug report forum? i have two bugs i posted in the bug report forum.

1. i can't assign a leader to the federation, it claims i'm not a member
2. i got two crashes in a row reloading from the same autosave (though it seems to have stopped)

 

[Gilbert95]

I think I would prefer a setup where you start with all four of the basic ship types unlocked (or at least corvettes, destroyers, and cruisers), and then tech allows you to unlock more advanced/specialized sections. The most interesting gameplay would require an understanding of the proper role of each ship type, and intelligent strategic choices about the right ratios between them.

This reminds me of an idea that has been floating in the back of my head for awhile. At empire creation you pick one of corvettes, destroyers or cruisers. This represents the military philosophy that your empire embraces as they enter a dangerous galaxy. At least in the early to mid game, you cannot learn to build the other two. Everyone can learn to build battleships (and above, with the right DLC).

This way ship balance is at the empire level and creates a dynamic where you have to be ready to fight one of three distinct force types. This also solves the issue of every AI empire feeling samey in battle because they all use basically the same mix of loadouts and fleet templates (I know AI personalities affect these, but they rarely feel impactful)

By now you have probably guessed that I have been playing Stellaris for a long time, going back to when you made a similar choice about weapon type
I understand why they changed this, but I miss this type of empire differentiation.

 

[RingworldUtopia]

This reminds me of an idea that has been floating in the back of my head for awhile. At empire creation you pick one of corvettes, destroyers or cruisers. This represents the military philosophy that your empire embraces as they enter a dangerous galaxy. At least in the early to mid game, you cannot learn to build the other two. Everyone can learn to build battleships (and above, with the right DLC).

This way ship balance is at the empire level and creates a dynamic where you have to be ready to fight one of three distinct force types. This also solves the issue of every AI empire feeling samey in battle because they all use basically the same mix of loadouts and fleet templates (I know AI personalities affect these, but they rarely feel impactful)

By now you have probably guessed that I have been playing Stellaris for a long time, going back to when you made a similar choice about weapon type
I understand why they changed this, but I miss this type of empire differentiation.

this would be good if you still could build the other two but only later. then bundle in a permanent bonus to the type you picked at the start, and maybe a permanent malus to the other two, to still encourage you to focus on what you picked. i would love to simply focus on cruisers from the start.

 

[Phrencys]

Playing a game as Wilderness and I have a couple elements to report regarding pops.

First of all, it's basically impossible to get a high score even when blatantly dominaning the galaxy. Maybe it's because I'm using my biomass to build stuff, but it feels really weird being underevaluated like that.

Secondly, during the Biomorphosis you have options that make you sacrifice pops for perks. I've lost a planet to this, presumably because I was low on biomass and it deleted everything on it. Then had to rebuild all the buildings which were all already upgraded. Don't know if it's intended but it sure feels awful.

 

[Trigaea]

If I felt strongly that monofleets were a problem, I would probably want to fix them by rewarding players for mixing ship types, rather than penalizing or forbidding the use of a single ship type.

One approach would be a stacking buff to the fleet produced by each type of ship, up to some limit (say, 64 command points worth of ships, so you'd cap it at 8 battleships, or 16 cruisers, etc.). The buffs might be something like this:

• Swarm Optimization: +0.15% evasion per corvette in the fleet (max of +9.6%)
• Advanced Reconnaissance: +0.3% tracking per destroyer (max of 9.6%)
• Combat Support Algorithms: +0.03% hull and armor repair per day (max of 0.48%)
• Destruction Protocols: +2.5% ship damage (multiplicative with other modifiers, max 20%) and +10% orbital bombardment damage (max 80%) per battleship.

I don't think these buffs or these numbers are necessarily the right one, but they're the kind of things that would give you a significant incentive to build some of each type of ship.

Europa Universalis does this.

EU3 and EU4 have some variation of bonuses for having a correct ratio of infantry to cavalry + it was baked into the design of both systems that you'd never want to leave artillery regiments unattended.

For most nations, you'd want some combination of all three unit types in your armies.

This would make sense for Stellaris for the same reason we don't have carrier monofleets in real life: the larger ships need smaller support ships to do their jobs. Contrast with current Stellaris where the only "job" ships have is to destroy other ships. It'd make sense if your carriers would want smaller ships for enhanced tracking, repair, screening, etc.

 

[Akkadian]

Will Ring world designations be fixed?

Why isn't there a 'generator' designation even though there are literally made around a star to harvest it's energy?

 

[MrApophenia]

Don't know if anyone else has had this, but so far for me, the beta seems to have broken:

* Specimens, which can no longer come out of storage once they go in due to an exhibit track being full.
* Virtual ascension appears to simply no longer create pops (as opposed to creating millions of pops like it was before).

 

[Dawnshot]

Don't know if anyone else has had this, but so far for me, the beta seems to have broken:

* Specimens, which can no longer come out of storage once they go in due to an exhibit track being full.

I have experienced the same bug. After managing to sell a specimen without it causing a CTD (a related bug, I assume), the now empty spot did not automatically fill with a specimen from storage.

 

[BookHermit]

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.

I've been wanting the ability to setup/assign squadrons in the same way as defense armies, basically to assign ships semi-permanently to a station to have them defend the station / system and not clutter up my fleet list late game.

Originally I had wanted anti-pirate squadrons so I could mothball fleets and turn them into passive anti-piracy patrols without having them clutter the fleet UI, but that doesn't apply to the current trade/logistics system.

 

[letryhqrd]

@Eladrin has the update from 07-08 by chance re-introduced some cross-platform shenanigans again?

Getting the same ECONOMY, NUM_POP_GROUP and ECONOMY_OVERLORD related desyncs as the last infamous cross-platform OOS issue — and only as of the recent update. Same pattern as well, random-ish but set start (10-20 years from 2200) and once it happens the save is bricked, everytime I unpause from a desync it immediately goes OOS again.

Save files/OOS folder using -randomlog -randomlog_stack=5 -randomlog_frames=3 are attached @ https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/foru...ing-cross-os-v4-0-22-wilderness-26d5.1840132/

 

[pankozin]

You don't need a save to reproduce it. It's all over the place, multiplayer is not working for PC. We trying to have 3ppl game and never did pass 2300 so far. No matter beta or 'stable' version. Btw, this message is sponsored by RANDOM_COUNT

 

[grommile]

You don't need a save to reproduce it.

Having the saves means you can reproduce it instantly instead of spending an hour setting things up.

 

[pankozin]

Having the saves means you can reproduce it instantly instead of spending an hour setting things up.

I added the saves many times - no reaction. Under 'u don't need a save' I meant that every multiplayer session will end with OOS, so you can take any save or start any game - it will not work. ANYHOW, here is recent save. Main problem is R_C, but also NUM_SHIPS etc. I guess its 10 different types spawning randomly.