Stellaris 2

[Munin]

Thinking back about a comment in an old post from TitaniumMan91 made me wonder.
I do think he has a point. SzalonyNiemiec made also a topic about this last year and I think it makes sense.

As I like to brainstorm and see what others here think I think this could be an interesting discussion.

-> What really could be improved?
-> Which games could stellaris learn from?
-> What should be removed from stellaris?
What do other space grand strategy simulators do better?

Haven't played on the new patch yet, but it really does feel like 4.0 should have been Stellaris 2 1.0

This is the 4th major revision to core mechanics and I'll grant maybe there wasn't enough to justify a full sequel, but you can find more things to add or modify from the original to justify a sequel, it's a big game with lots of systems and (when I played last) plenty of undercooked jank that inevitably builds up over the course of 10 years of expansions.

Update the graphics, finagle the fleets/armies more, and fully detangle the spaghetti code holding the whole thing together (makes future expansions easier) and call it a sequel.

 

[Munin]

I ll start first since I started the topic:

To be improved elements: For me it is the graphical element and this can only be resolved with a better game engine that would allow this. One of the other weakest elements for me as well is the army invasion of planets, it s just very sad that not more has been done with this as it could add another battle element to the game that could prove really fun. What would be wrong with good big army battles on planets? On top of this of course most importantly is game performance, this could be improved by developping the game from scratch with having a better game engine to work with.

Other games: As I like the saying go big or go home I would hope that stellaris looks at "X4: Foundations" for what great graphics could do to a space game. The Endless space series showed that improved graphics really are interesting to watch (even though it could have done a lot better, as ship combat is kind of weird with the card system), for example ship design with a nice ship 3D model to look at?

Removed from stellaris: I think the espionage system should be removed & replaced and the first contact system really could be better removed.

X4 and endless space video s for reference:

ship design endless space 3D model

space battle endless space 2

X4 graphics

 

[Adaman5280]

Ah yes the weekly stellaris 2 post.

 

[WoodenP]

A new game with the modern PDX UI handling (scaling, dynamic functions) would go a very long way.

Other modern PDX games also handle portraits very differently. Less modder friendly perhaps but much more exciting species packs, especially for Stellaris which is the PDX game that can play with characters more than any other.

There are long outstanding technical gimmicks players have asked for for years, like orbiting planets.

Not to mention a fresh starting point with zero bloat from dozens of micro-DLCs. A release from technical debt and spaghetti code. An escape valve to the criticism that Stellaris has become too expensive.

Lots of reasons to do a Stellaris 2.

 

[3ishop]

Well sure the graphics would be improved in a new edition, we see that happen in most games especially with Pdox titles due to the length of time between them. Although at the same time I would say who comes to these titles with the focus on graphics? That seems more of a nice to have bonus for it rather than a real reason to go to a new title.

Similar with performance, yes it is nice to have a good performing game but when a lot of that tends to come due to it having less mechanics because it's a new game that hasn't had nearly a decade of updates...is that alone worth it?

The reworking of core elements is also quite common in Pdox titles with a core part being aimed at allowing more DLC to interact with them so not that worried and as it shows they can do that with the existing game they don't need to release a new title which with very little else changing wouldn't do well as it's own product.

One of the other weakest elements for me as well is the army invasion of planets, it s just very sad that not more has been done with this as it could add another battle element to the game that could prove really fun. What would be wrong with good big army battles on planets?

Well age old there's not much that can really be done with it to make it better or more interesting. It's remained in the current form for quite a while and there's been posts about it but none have came up with anything that would make it fun, make it worth interacting with or ultimately change the role of just dumping a doom stack on it. It's had improvements to it since release, mostly going with quality of life elements like removing the attachments for each army.

 

[Call Me Vandal]

I'd like for galaxy generation to be more procedural, akin to Dwarf Fortress in a sense.

It's obnoxious playing an """exploration""" game where, every playthrough, you see the same pre-made, text-based events and precursors recycled again and again. If galaxy gen simulated (or at least approximated, to save time) a full playthrough's worth of prehistory before the game even starts, not only would it be more interesting from an exploration perspective -- you never know what you're gonna get -- but you would be exploring things that directly tie into the gameplay, not just text events that are a slog to read through for the tenth time (tbqh, I find they're a slog to read through for the first time, but I understand I don't represent everyone in saying that), and which are thoroughly divorced from what you're doing for 90+% of your Stellaris playthrough, namely 4X empire-building.

 

[Dagorad]

Stellaris 2? If anyone is disappointed with Stellaris 4, I recommend going back to Stellaris 3.

 

[Munin]

Well age old there's not much that can really be done with it to make it better or more interesting. It's remained in the current form for quite a while and there's been posts about it but none have came up with anything that would make it fun, make it worth interacting with or ultimately change the role of just dumping a doom stack on it. It's had improvements to it since release, mostly going with quality of life elements like removing the attachments for each army.

yes, I found some old posts about it. And it is not that exiting as what it could be, I don't really like the endless 2 ground combat but at least it has more graphics than stellaris ground combat.

This is a suggestion from 2017:

An unobtrusive yet compelling Ground Invasion System

I've spent the past hour or so looking through the forums looking at several suggestions for ground combat and noticed a few trends that cause them to be denounced by the greater community and even the Wiz himself. Almost every suggestion seems...

forum.paradoxplaza.com

 

[rubert]

space battle endless space 2

I am not fan of tactical battles in 4X games - either they are very simple or take too much time. Especially bad if autosolve is either significiantly worse or better than the manual battles. Though from what I understand, battles in Endless Space are mostly just set tactics and watch the battle unfold. Disclaimer: I might be mistaken about ES2 as I haven't really played it, I remember ES1 had weird card battle system.

A new game with the modern PDX UI handling (scaling, dynamic functions) would go a very long way.

This is my biggest hope. Current Stellaris does not scale well to high dpi monitors. No idea how well it scales to devices like Steam Deck. Future sequel should be handle devices like Steam Deck, high dpi 4k monitors or big TVs.

Personally I am hoping the sequel happens sooner rather than later.

 

[Sevinceur]

I'd like bigger star systems even if that means we'd get less of them. I would like it to be tacticaly rewarding to choose to fight in a spot instead of another in the system.

 

[DarkHelmet110985]

I’ve played Endless Space and that video you linked is so old that it no longer is really applicable. Yet what I do like about ES over Stellaris is that it made Planet types meaningful. Namely an Ash world would, in Stellaris terms, produce Energy and Minerals/Alloys while an Ocean world would be heavily slanted towards Food and Science output. The more inhospitable a world was, the greater the happiness malus it applied unless anomalies or certain luxury resources were present to offset it. The exception was the Riftborn since they were a mechanical faction with the Biophobic faction trait that made the inhospitable planets ideal. Riftborn, btw, are really good at going wide for those interested. I should mention that Gas Giants were able to be colonized. Where is that in Stellaris?

In Stellaris, there really is no difference between an Arid world or an Ocean world. You produce the same amount of resources once Habitability is accounted for and what you produce is predicated on what Jobs are being worked. In ES, that’s not the case since an Atoll world would have a base output of 8 Food, 6 Production, 4 Dust(aka Energy) and 2 Science per Pop with system improvements and Planet Specialization increasing the output. Different Economic systems that made terraforming a different outcome. Namely terraforming in Stellaris was to maximize productivity while terraforming in ES meant changing the base output of the planet to make it more hospitable to the Pops living there. Meaning terraforming in ES was more consequential since in exchange for making living conditions more palpable, you sacrificed 50% of your base Industrial output. Some players may not opt for that given the benefits Industry has when producing ships. In Stellaris, there really is no downside or opportunity cost for doing so.

Combat in ES is largely out of the players hands and building a fleet with a mixed composition is heavily advised since each ship type has a certain role. In Stellaris, you really have no incentive to build the smaller ships once you get Cruisers and Battleships since both can use Missiles and Strikecraft(Cruisers get Torpedoes too). Both offensive outfits shred smaller craft and deal heavy damage to larger ships. Titans are merely there to apply a useful aura and that’s it(Hull variety is heavily needed for Titans).

 

[prismaticmarcus]

I do think he has a point. SzalonyNiemiec made also a topic about this last year and I think it makes sense.

So why didn't you post there?