So after reading all these threads the most important thing Stellaris can do is avoid ...

[Guthuk Gaming]

So the title was juuuust too short to finish my statement.

The biggest thing Stellaris can do to differentiate itself and make a great game is avoid having the best military being the only thing that matters. Many other games have tried to fix this issue, with Civ5's united nations being an example.

A big problem in EU4 is that spamming military ideas and having the strongest military is the only thing that truly matters in the end. It makes sense though, since there really aren't any other gameplay elements in EU4 other than conquering people. The espionage game is one sided and has no gameplay. The economic game has some gameplay, but not enough to be satisfying. The colonial game has a lot of gameplay, but in the end just comes down to having the biggest army.

What worries me is that Stellaris will fall in to the EU4 trap where pretty much every decision boils down to "will this help my army?" and every choice boils down to "which one will help my army the most?" Stellaris has a lot of pre-game choices and I assume a lot of mid-game choices, and it would suck if they all came down to which one helped your army the most.

I think Stellaris needs to, more so than EU4, really put down effort on making sure that non-military gameplay is exciting. That economic or diplomatic interactions between countries (space-countries?) is rewarding and fun for both parties. And then from there they need to ensure that an economic or diplomatic or scientific focused empire isn't just free meat for a military focused empire as happens in EU4.

At the very least ensure that espionage is not just a one sided exchange. EU4 will never allow espionage to be powerful since it's not gameplay at all, it's just bad things happening to you until your RNG kicks in and kicks them out. From there you can make espionage actually a powerful aspect of the game. Military empires should be the strongest militarily, but they should have wide open gaping holes in their defenses that diplomatic, economic, and espionage acts can slip right on through.

 

[jacobkim80]

I agree. Let's start some specific ideas about how to make other aspects better. How about making non state actors playable. Like interplanetary corporations. Or revolutionary movement.

 

[Elfryc]

Agreed.

I wish Stellaris could be a game where military may be seen as an aim by itself OR a simple tool used to achieve diplomatic or trade hegemony.
This would allow to achieve different types of victories, depending of your own style and preferences -- or humor at the moment.

When comparing to the EU4 era where military was still seen as a major role for most of the rulers of the time, the recent history, notably for democracies, shows that one may be a ruler with other concerns than military victories and conquest.

 

[Jorgen_CAB]

Make sure that any resources put into improving the military or be in wars is a big price to pay economically and socially. That is the only way you can balance how you will regard the military in general.

So... sure you can invest in the military but ultimately it is a serious drain on your ability to grow your economy, influence and science forward and eventually you will hurt yourself.

In reality it is almost always the most culturally and economically strong that win over the weaker ones. Military power is just a product of those conditions.

Most games just simply ignore what really matters in real life... politics, influence and economy.

 

[FOARP]

I think trade routes would be a great way to simulate living (mostly) at peace with your neighbours being the optimal path - one can imagine lines of communication spreading through space and being profitable to the people who own the civilian ships that carry the cargo.

 

[Precursor]

Why shouldn't states that don't focus on military be easy pickings for a military empire? The entire point of creating a military focused empire is that you can kill everyone else.

A diplomatic one that fails to secure for itself a militarily strong alliance is going to be at risk of invasion. See: Crimea.

Science I've actually not run into issues with often. I think most 4xs I've played I can focus heavily on the tech, when I get invaded I lose the first phase, but then once I actually produce units I tend to be a tier or two above them and wipe the floor with the enemy.

Economic tends to lead into military to me. I build production buildings so I can build bigger, better ships. Could you identify what you mean by the difference between these two?

 

[Alexmathss]

I hope that trade/science nations will be viable and not OP (normally they are one or the other.) and that government does not boil down to I am space north korea with more troops/money/science so I win

 

[Holy.Death]

Why shouldn't states that don't focus on military be easy pickings for a military empire? The entire point of creating a military focused empire is that you can kill everyone else.

Because it shallows the game.

 

[Jorgen_CAB]

Why shouldn't states that don't focus on military be easy pickings for a military empire? The entire point of creating a military focused empire is that you can kill everyone else.

A diplomatic one that fails to secure for itself a militarily strong alliance is going to be at risk of invasion. See: Crimea.

Science I've actually not run into issues with often. I think most 4xs I've played I can focus heavily on the tech, when I get invaded I lose the first phase, but then once I actually produce units I tend to be a tier or two above them and wipe the floor with the enemy.

Economic tends to lead into military to me. I build production buildings so I can build bigger, better ships. Could you identify what you mean by the difference between these two?

Yes... this might be true in the short term... that is why Politics, Influence and Economy is they key to have a strong Military. Not just have a military for the sake of it.

If you look at the world today there are many weak countries with lots of rich resources... be them in the form of natural resources or human capital... and they exist without being invaded by stronger neighbors. Mainly because there is a power balance in the world and not all military strong countries will invade just because they are stronger and the reason are beneficial economic reason and better living quality of the people as a whole. This is called politics, culture and philosophy.

Most games just give players too much freedom to "Meta Game" and completely disregard anything realistic in terms of what people actually want. What everyone actually want in the end is to be secure, fed and entertained. Anything that threatens this is the real threat, this include wars.

 

[FOARP]

Why shouldn't states that don't focus on military be easy pickings for a military empire? The entire point of creating a military focused empire is that you can kill everyone else.

Which is why we now all speak German, or Japanese, or Russian, or French, or Italian . . .

A diplomatic one that fails to secure for itself a militarily strong alliance is going to be at risk of invasion. See: Crimea.

And look at the Russian economy now.

Don't get me wrong, a strong military should be important, but if this game is just a rinse-repeat of maxing-out on the military and then attacking neighbours, it's going to be shallow as hell.

 

[Guthuk Gaming]

So far as suggestions: There needs to be real gameplay for other facets of play. Military action in EU4/CK2 boils down to moving your military to a terrain, tricking the AI in to attacking you in a defensible location, or attacking the EU4 with superior numbers. It's not THAT complicated.

Economics, diplomacy, and espionage just need similar actions. Imagine if it was a game like (I'm being hypothetical here) tick-tac-toe. You make an economic move, and your opponent gets to make a move, and you get a move, and you get say one year to make a move until either somebody wins or it draws. Then it gets locked down in an economic white-peace for awhile until your next "skirmish."

Take alliances and diplomacy for example. If I as Space-Russia start bribing and promising favors to Space-Britain until enough Space-Parliamentarians are encouraged to put forward a Space-Vote on whether or not to break their alliance with Space-Prussia. At that point Space-Britain can begin bribing their own delegates and promising favor, and maybe every 3 months an event pops up for both sides where they get an option to sway over a tough elector. At the end of 4 event pop ups it's called to a vote, and the player that better managed their money, favors, and events gets to either pass or not pass the vote. If Space-Russia wins, then Space-Britain's alliance with Space-Prussia is broken, weakening both nations while strengthening Space-Russia's position.

So far as the player feels they could have played it better, and the gameplay is exciting then it will be good for the game. If I can think after a diplomatic tangle with the Space-Russians "Man, I could have played that better..." then it's good for the game. At that point we can make Space-Diplomacy a larger part of the game, and a militaristic focused empire will find themselves alone and isolated and picked apart by their opponents.

 

[Guthuk Gaming]

Going further, if somebody opened an "economic" war with you it wouldn't be THAT hard to visualize. You can see ships, so why not see economic actions? Let there be an "economic war score" that is influenced by how devastating their strikes are. Have an interface that deals with the war, tells you what actions they are performing, and gives you your actions that you can take. Further, allow players to directly interact with their planets. Is your opponent trying to crash the steel industry? Give them subsidies to keep it afloat, and then counter by letting the Space-UN know that your enemy is intentionally sabotoging the Steel market. Because of your diplomatic power, and how much time you've spent investigating it and gathering proof you have an 83% chance of success. Upon success your opponent's steel producing planets take a massive hit to their relations with him (or at least the governors of that planet do) which gives you a bonus to war score.

If you wait too long though and go for that 100% chance of success he might move on to his next plan and leave you playing catch up. Meanwhile, you have to manage your own attacks as well, and weight the benefits and drawbacks of which economic attack you could take.

Again, so long as there was proper UI support then diplomatic/espionage/economic attacks would be very doable, and would not be that complicated.

 

[GrafKeks]

Make sure that any resources put into improving the military or be in wars is a big price to bay economically and socially. That is the only way you can balance how you will regard the military in general.

So... sure you can invest in the military but ultimately it is a serious drain on your ability to grow your economy, influence and science forward and eventually you will hurt yourself.

In reality it is almost always the most culturally and economically strong that win over the weaker ones. Military power is just a product of those conditions.

Most games just simply ignore what really matters in real life... politics, influence and economy.

Most research in the world is military-backed, whereas development is civilian-backed. Science and military are not antivalent, they go hand in hand.

And you can have a big econ and military, look US. The military research even often helps inducing further economical progress.

 

[Tristers]

Land borders would never have been established if not for war and the need to easily tax the land in order to fuel war, sources: all of history

 

[Jorgen_CAB]

Most research in the world is military-backed, whereas development is civilian-backed. Science and military are not antivalent, they go hand in hand.

And you can have a big econ and military, look US. The military research even often helps inducing further economical progress.

I would disagree strongly with that... only a very small amount of research is military driven. Most research are driven by our need to make lives better for ourselves. Military research is just a necessary evil. Almost all theoretical research is civilian and only a portion of applied research is military.

If you think that the majority of world research is military driven you are sorely mistaken. Most military technology today comes from refined civilian technology and just applied in military applications with a finer degree of precision and opted for military use. Almost all military weapons comes from civilian research into materiel properties research which is driving most of the modern economy forward at the same time that it can support a more advanced military.

So no... civilian research and progress is what drives military research forward... not the reverse. Military research is just wasted resources that could potentially go to more useful research if it was not needed to have a strong and advanced military which I happen to agree with on the wider scope.

But the US is not leading in military science because it needs an advanced military... it is leading in military technology because it has had a very strong civilian economy and research infrastructure. If you look at WW2 as an example you can see how an advanced economy led to an advanced and superior military... not the other way around.

What you need is a good enough military to discourage enemy taking advantage of you... minimal enough to fuel the economy and improve peoples lives which is the primary goal of any modern civilization. Anyone knows that this advance economy can be turned into a powerful military force if needed.

I don't see the US turning their mighty weapons on weaker nations taking their resources just because they can. They have tried to spread Democracy and keep dictators at bay with military means with rather poor results... which goes to show that even mighty weapons are very useless against real world problems most of the time. You need more than just military unless your goal is occupation and I don't really see the US doing that.

 

[Hans_Schnitzel]

Trade and science nations should certainly be viable, but the military inferior should still lose to the military superior.

Trade and science nations can band together though in order to be on par with military superior empires. Nobody likes the big bullies. Some trade empires might even seek an alliance with the military strong nations. They receive protection, the military country receives a trade partner so they can fund their military in the first place.

 

[GrafKeks]

I would disagree strongly with that... only a very small amount of research is military driven. Most research are driven by our need to make lives better for ourselves. Military research is just a necessary evil. Almost all theoretical research is civilian and only a portion of applied research is military.

If you think that the majority of world research is military driven you are sorely mistaken. Most military technology today comes from refined civilian technology and just applied in military applications with a finer degree of precision and opted for military use. Almost all military weapons comes from civilian research into materiel properties research which is driving most of the modern economy forward at the same time that it can support a more advanced military.

So no... civilian research and progress is what drives military research forward... not the reverse. Military research is just wasted resources that could potentially go to more useful research if it was not needed to have a strong and advanced military which I happen to agree with on the wider scope.

But the US is not leading in military science because it needs an advanced military... it is leading in military technology because it has had a very strong civilian economy and research infrastructure. If you look at WW2 as an example you can see how an advanced economy led to an advanced and superior military... not the other way around.

What you need is a good enough military to discourage enemy taking advantage of you... minimal enough to fuel the economy and improve peoples lives which is the primary goal of any modern civilization. Anyone knows that this advance economy can be turned into a powerful military force if needed.

I don't see the US turning their mighty weapons on weaker nations taking their resources just because they can. They have tried to spread Democracy and keep dictators at bay with military means with rather poor results... which goes to show that even mighty weapons are very useless against real world problems most of the time. You need more than just military unless your goal is occupation and I don't really see the US doing that.

Mhhm I have forgotten to write meaningful research yes.
Most of the projects of the DARPA and IARPA fail, because they are real research, connecting ape brains together f.E which recently worked out quite well (https://www.newscientist.com/articl...up-to-make-mind-melded-computer/#.VZ8Cdfkgw8O), the problem with real research is, it is wayyy to risky for most corporations hence the only ones participating in it are "bet your company" companies. So it is usually state-backed ( although some new small biotechs actually do research; Neuralstem comes to mind, and mix it with development ). Research has too much opportunity costs for private firms and you get a higher RROI from development( risk adjusted return on investment ). Marketing and development ( mostly the central bank actually ) are driving the private sector. Research drives drives the economy, and the economa drives research. What do you need for a good economy first and foremost Stability, Order & Trust. So a state without strength on the inside and outside will tremble as the budgets will decrease. The military drives the economy, by exactly this.

Research is reliant on the state, and practical experience ( theories without application or method to verify are not really research but rather philosophy/useless ), although this is from a socio-technical PoV as this is part of my everyday job, hence I am prolly very biased.

And considering research during the last 30 years: DARPA and CIA are very big names, and IARPA will soon become one. So I would say whilst trying to strengthen the states power the military also drives research.

 

[Precursor]

Which is why we now all speak German, or Japanese, or Russian, or French, or Italian . . .



And look at the Russian economy now.

Don't get me wrong, a strong military should be important, but if this game is just a rinse-repeat of maxing-out on the military and then attacking neighbours, it's going to be shallow as hell.

Uh yeah. Many regional languages have been stamped out, or barely cling on, over the centuries. In terms of WWII, USSR, Napoleon, (not really sure what you're referring to with Italian?) the powers you state were put down by alliances backed with military power.

Economy to me should depend on how it's run. If I'm the Dalek Emperor and practice autarky why shouldn't I be able to exterminate others? If they want to survive they ought to pay tribute to Time Lords to stop me, not be able to fight me themselves.

Now if I try and play as someone who's constantly trading then sure me trying to conquer half the galaxy should pose a problem to the other half. And then Russia is relevant because trade embargos would destroy my economic base.

 

[Jorgen_CAB]

My question is this...

Imagine a unified human space civilization who was built on humanitarian peaceful philosophy but who still had a fairly strong military for historical reasons. This civilization met an alien species who were peaceful with no military capability and who only wanted to trade with science and goods. Why would that human society attack or even threaten them with their military?

The only reason you keep a military force is if there is a real threat or out of fear and paranoia.

The only reason for a player to build any sort of military (outside internal security forces) with a unified earth exploring space would basically be for Meta Gaming reasons, at least as long as you have no clue of other intelligent life able to rival you who might dwell out there in space. If you then met an alien species who gave you no signs of being hostile and wanted nothing but peaceful trade with you there would be no reason to escalate the situation by building up a military, outside fear and paranoia.

The only reason for a human civilization in space to acquire a true military would be if they encountered an alien race who intended to take human resources by force.

At any stage any advanced civilization could turn their knowledge into a destructive force if they really needed to. So... just keeping a minimal research and expenditure in military should be a viable strategy if one chooses to. An alien civilization that look at another and only judge their current military force as something important might not be prepared when they awaken a sleeping Bear.

Being peaceful does not have to equal weak willed or not capable in need.

 

[Precursor]

Yes... this might be true in the short term... that is why Politics, Influence and Economy is they key to have a strong Military. Not just have a military for the sake of it.

And a strong military is important to secure those. They feed into each other.

]If you look at the world today there are many weak countries with lots of rich resources... be them in the form of natural resources or human capital... and they exist without being invaded by stronger neighbors. Mainly because there is a power balance in the world and not all military strong countries will invade just because they are stronger and the reason are beneficial economic reason and better living quality of the people as a whole. This is called politics, culture and philosophy.

Most games just give players too much freedom to "Meta Game" and completely disregard anything realistic in terms of what people actually want. What everyone actually want in the end is to be secure, fed and entertained. Anything that threatens this is the real threat, this include wars.

Uh balance of power still puts the military central. The reason those states aren't annexed is because they're protected by another big state, either directly or indirectly.

States want security not entertainment.