not really. in my current game a high tech star fortress decked out with gauss cannons and level 5 shields on makes it to a meager 3000 fleet power. I'm talking at least 10x as strong as that
I'd like to be able to spend some influence to force my scientists to "put a pin in that idea" for later.
If two techs pop up that you want, can't you spend a month of research on one and then switch to the other, leaving the partially researched tech in your queue (like debris research)?
Nope, techs only stay forever a choice if they're from debris or an event.
not really. in my current game a high tech star fortress decked out with gauss cannons and level 5 shields on makes it to a meager 3000 fleet power. I'm talking at least 10x as strong as that
We seem to be gong by different metrics. It looks like you want to see a defensive platform off sufficient fleet power to engage a fleet on equal footing.
I'm talking about defensive platforms merely having superior fleet power to their equivalent rank of starship and then have arrays of defense platforms facing off against fleets. As things stand, in a one-on-one fight, a single fortress is cheaper and far more formidable than a battleship of an equivalent technology level. The only thing holding static emplacements back is the exclusion zone.
3DS Friend Code:
Armchair: 4098-3704-2012
0
Options
AssuranIs swinging on the SpiralRegistered Userregular
The last two games I've played I've been wiped out by an advanced start aggressive neighbor who had 4k fleet power and then was sandwiched between two hostile nations who rivaled me then declared war before I could react and build a better fleet to defend myself.
So, AI is really better than the last time I played.
I'd like to be able to spend some influence to force my scientists to "put a pin in that idea" for later.
I'd be satisfied with like an always-available 2 month research project that was "these suck, go spend some time thinking of something worth my time, nerds".
I try to keep some cheap techs (like Tier 1 versions of weapons I don't use, etc) around for "re-roll" purposes.
I want star fortresses to be exactly like I said. a star fortress should be a huge battle station that can fight off small fleets, and they should cost an appropriate amount of fleet capacity. that way you have a clear differential between conquerer races(fleet capacity put towards warships) and defensive races(lots of fleet capacity put towards stations)
I want star fortresses to be exactly like I said. a star fortress should be a huge battle station that can fight off small fleets, and they should cost an appropriate amount of fleet capacity. that way you have a clear differential between conquerer races(fleet capacity put towards warships) and defensive races(lots of fleet capacity put towards stations)
I'd go so far as to say make them expensive and limited to developed worlds but capable of fighting off major fleets. Like, it should be q campaign in and of itself to take a system with a star fortress - an end of war "Fall of Berlin" level undertaking.
That would make it easy to secure the home system and major sector centers, while keeping minor wars focused on colonies and conquered worlds. It would make the "Conquer 80 percent of the galaxy" goals unusuable, but I hope the game moves away from the 4x model as it deepens anyway.
Lots of solutions have been tried but no one has really found something that a)works an b)players like.
I think they are all solvable with DLC and general Paradox-style game evolution. Its just hard because the meat of the game is currently devoted to constant expansion.
Lots of solutions have been tried but no one has really found something that a)works an b)players like.
I think they are all solvable with DLC and general Paradox-style game evolution. Its just hard because the meat of the game is currently devoted to constant expansion.
The only game I can think of is king of dragon pass but it's a pretty drastic departure from normal 4x stuff.
Paradox's other stuff is of the get big and get bored variety.
Lots of solutions have been tried but no one has really found something that a)works an b)players like.
I think they are all solvable with DLC and general Paradox-style game evolution. Its just hard because the meat of the game is currently devoted to constant expansion.
The only game I can think of is king of dragon pass but it's a pretty drastic departure from normal 4x stuff.
Paradox's other stuff is of the get big and get bored variety.
You can have a great time playing smaller nations, developing nations within their borders or using tactics to eliminate foes and building alliances without taking territory yourself. Taking the world as the Inca makes for great bragging rights, but it is only one way to play those games.
This is especially true for Crusader Kings 2. A whole game can be about working your way up the chain of power through charm, murder, and strategic marriage without ever invading anyone.
I want star fortresses to be exactly like I said. a star fortress should be a huge battle station that can fight off small fleets, and they should cost an appropriate amount of fleet capacity. that way you have a clear differential between conquerer races(fleet capacity put towards warships) and defensive races(lots of fleet capacity put towards stations)
I'd go so far as to say make them expensive and limited to developed worlds but capable of fighting off major fleets. Like, it should be q campaign in and of itself to take a system with a star fortress - an end of war "Fall of Berlin" level undertaking.
Oh, uh... you probably shouldn't have also given it an AI.
The coolest starbases I have encountered in an RTS were the ones in sins of a solar empire. They were juggernauts when well upgraded, and one race had the ability to grant one starbase the ability to move like a ship between systems. It was incredibly expensive, but once you had the upgrade and got the starbase fully kitted out it was incredibly satisfying. It was hell of a vanguard for the rest of the fleet, with way more health and shields than basically any other ship.
That game was forced hyperlanes in most cases though, so static defenses had more of a spot.
Yeah, thoughts that an nonexpansionist empire will be able to turtle up behind their Maginot Space Line are fundamentally flawed.
Less that static defenses should always win, and more that taking a home planet should be more difficult than other systems. Right now, it takes no more effort, and I take no more losses, just rolling up to an empire's main system and landing a bunch of troops than anywhere else. It never feels like I have stabbed into the heart, since the defenses are so useless that there is no heart.
the idea is that attacking a heavily fortified empire would cost you a lot of attrition to fight through their defense stations while giving them time to replenish their losses. and while I haven't played it in a while people built static defenses all the time in SC2 so I dunno what that is about. this isn't an rts anyway
the idea is that attacking a heavily fortified empire would cost you a lot of attrition to fight through their defense stations while giving them time to replenish their losses. and while I haven't played it in a while people built static defenses all the time in SC2 so I dunno what that is about. this isn't an rts anyway
Yeah. I wouldn't want every system to be able to be fortified, but I'd like a gameplay system where attacking a major, fortified world would be a huge risk if the enemy still had major fleets roaming around. Taking a homeworld of a large empire, for example, should be the kind of thing you do either in the last days of the war or when you know you have the enemy bogged down on other fronts and you have prepared the resources to push through.
Static defenses are never a replacement for mobile units in rts games.
Hmm, I can remember that not being the case in Red Alert 2; there was a special cannon an allied player can elect to have that was pretty impressive as a static defense. If it wasn't protected by anti air, that was a viable counter. otherwise you had to overwhelm it.
Sins of a Solar Empire had the best starbases. Unique upgrades to make them interesting, different ways to kit them out for your needs (economic or warfare) and special techs to synergize with your fleet,like giving a Vasari starbase a wormhole and letting it jump to an enemy planet, allowing your whole fleet to cross the system and invade in an instant
+3
Options
AxenMy avatar is Excalibur.Yes, the sword.Registered Userregular
Not being able to defend everything at once is one of the most unbreakable truths of warfare.
That said, Stellaris has few effective options to even try to defend some things.
IMHO I feel like static defenses shouldn't be a way to outright protect a system and instead should be a way to buy your fleet time to respond. Right now though they do neither of those things.
A Capellan's favorite sheath for any blade is your back.
My primary complaint about wormholes is how the game stupidly deletes my wormhole stations that are within enemy territory after a campaign. Because the flawed warscore system requires that I conquer 90% of my opponent's worlds to capture three of them, my warfleets are then stuck stranded in enemy territory with no way to return home because they're the equivalent of 4 wormhole stations deep into enemy territory.
One solution to this that I found is this:
Check if there are planets with primitive species inside the enemy empire.
If there is one, take a few armies and subjugate that xeno scum. This costs some influence.
Now you control or share a system inside your enemies space. Put a wormhole station here.
Someone actually did testing on missiles on the official forums.
Turns out that the travel time makes it so that even if the enemy does not have any point defenses, obscene amounts of damage is lost simply from your ships firing at targets that will be dead before their missile hits.
Torpedoes, on the other hand, can actually be pretty good, especially if your AI opponent went heavy on cruisers and battleships. Didn't use to be the case, but 1.4 they made (non-energy) torpedoes cheaper, gave them armor penetration, and adjusted target priorities so they would never waste trying to hit corvettes and destroyers with them unless that's all that was left. Still have issues with PD spam though.
regular torpedoes are bad now too because they penetrate shields but you have to equip a non torpedo weapon that won't penetrate shields making the damage it does worthless. you used to be able to stack corvettes with all torpedoes in do very well, now you can't. energy torpedoes are good since they ignore PDs and take down shields from long range.
IItwould be cool to see alliances form and shatter based on how you evolved your species. I've been dreaming of a synthetic/bio-engineered/purist/become pure energy end game.
Hmmm, wonder if the robot revolutionaries will see me as a friend now. Maybe they will add other ways to solve end game crisis?
Yep. That sure sounds like an affront to the natural order that warrants a genociding. I'm gonna put that up on the list right next to "having a faction border color too similar to my own."
Yep. That sure sounds like an affront to the natural order that warrants a genociding. I'm gonna put that up on the list right next to "having a faction border color too similar to my own."
On a related note, just like you can rename your Empire, there's really no reason you shouldn't be able to change your flag (and its colors).
Yep. That sure sounds like an affront to the natural order that warrants a genociding. I'm gonna put that up on the list right next to "having a faction border color too similar to my own."
On a related note, just like you can rename your Empire, there's really no reason you shouldn't be able to change your flag (and its colors).
Once a game is started, allowing empires to change their color and symbol would mean it would be difficult to tell who was absorbing who.
Yep. That sure sounds like an affront to the natural order that warrants a genociding. I'm gonna put that up on the list right next to "having a faction border color too similar to my own."
On a related note, just like you can rename your Empire, there's really no reason you shouldn't be able to change your flag (and its colors).
Once a game is started, allowing empires to change their color and symbol would mean it would be difficult to tell who was absorbing who.
Renaming can also be abused in multiplayer, but in singleplayer there's no reason not to have both.
If you're going down that path, it would probably be best as a bit of a rework of the map UI so that each player can define the colors used to represent each empire on their own star charts. A given empire's color would merely be the default used by everyone's maps.
That way it is impossible to game the system by shuffling your color around to confuse people because any change that you make on your end will have no effect whatsoever on other's perception of you. The only changes that they'll ever see on their star map will be if they willingly choose to change the color that they use to perceive you.
Posts
Nope, techs only stay forever a choice if they're from debris or an event.
We seem to be gong by different metrics. It looks like you want to see a defensive platform off sufficient fleet power to engage a fleet on equal footing.
I'm talking about defensive platforms merely having superior fleet power to their equivalent rank of starship and then have arrays of defense platforms facing off against fleets. As things stand, in a one-on-one fight, a single fortress is cheaper and far more formidable than a battleship of an equivalent technology level. The only thing holding static emplacements back is the exclusion zone.
Armchair: 4098-3704-2012
So, AI is really better than the last time I played.
I try to keep some cheap techs (like Tier 1 versions of weapons I don't use, etc) around for "re-roll" purposes.
I'd go so far as to say make them expensive and limited to developed worlds but capable of fighting off major fleets. Like, it should be q campaign in and of itself to take a system with a star fortress - an end of war "Fall of Berlin" level undertaking.
That would make it easy to secure the home system and major sector centers, while keeping minor wars focused on colonies and conquered worlds. It would make the "Conquer 80 percent of the galaxy" goals unusuable, but I hope the game moves away from the 4x model as it deepens anyway.
Lots of solutions have been tried but no one has really found something that a)works an b)players like.
I think they are all solvable with DLC and general Paradox-style game evolution. Its just hard because the meat of the game is currently devoted to constant expansion.
The only game I can think of is king of dragon pass but it's a pretty drastic departure from normal 4x stuff.
Paradox's other stuff is of the get big and get bored variety.
You can have a great time playing smaller nations, developing nations within their borders or using tactics to eliminate foes and building alliances without taking territory yourself. Taking the world as the Inca makes for great bragging rights, but it is only one way to play those games.
This is especially true for Crusader Kings 2. A whole game can be about working your way up the chain of power through charm, murder, and strategic marriage without ever invading anyone.
Armchair: 4098-3704-2012
Oh, uh... you probably shouldn't have also given it an AI.
That game was forced hyperlanes in most cases though, so static defenses had more of a spot.
Less that static defenses should always win, and more that taking a home planet should be more difficult than other systems. Right now, it takes no more effort, and I take no more losses, just rolling up to an empire's main system and landing a bunch of troops than anywhere else. It never feels like I have stabbed into the heart, since the defenses are so useless that there is no heart.
Yeah. I wouldn't want every system to be able to be fortified, but I'd like a gameplay system where attacking a major, fortified world would be a huge risk if the enemy still had major fleets roaming around. Taking a homeworld of a large empire, for example, should be the kind of thing you do either in the last days of the war or when you know you have the enemy bogged down on other fronts and you have prepared the resources to push through.
Hmm, I can remember that not being the case in Red Alert 2; there was a special cannon an allied player can elect to have that was pretty impressive as a static defense. If it wasn't protected by anti air, that was a viable counter. otherwise you had to overwhelm it.
That said, Stellaris has few effective options to even try to defend some things.
IMHO I feel like static defenses shouldn't be a way to outright protect a system and instead should be a way to buy your fleet time to respond. Right now though they do neither of those things.
One solution to this that I found is this:
Check if there are planets with primitive species inside the enemy empire.
If there is one, take a few armies and subjugate that xeno scum. This costs some influence.
Now you control or share a system inside your enemies space. Put a wormhole station here.
Someone actually did testing on missiles on the official forums.
Turns out that the travel time makes it so that even if the enemy does not have any point defenses, obscene amounts of damage is lost simply from your ships firing at targets that will be dead before their missile hits.
Torpedoes, on the other hand, can actually be pretty good, especially if your AI opponent went heavy on cruisers and battleships. Didn't use to be the case, but 1.4 they made (non-energy) torpedoes cheaper, gave them armor penetration, and adjusted target priorities so they would never waste trying to hit corvettes and destroyers with them unless that's all that was left. Still have issues with PD spam though.
Steam: Elvenshae // PSN: Elvenshae // WotC: Elvenshae
Wilds of Aladrion: [https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/comment/43159014/#Comment_43159014]Ellandryn[/url]
Hmmm, wonder if the robot revolutionaries will see me as a friend now. Maybe they will add other ways to solve end game crisis?
Armchair: 4098-3704-2012
On a related note, just like you can rename your Empire, there's really no reason you shouldn't be able to change your flag (and its colors).
Once a game is started, allowing empires to change their color and symbol would mean it would be difficult to tell who was absorbing who.
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
Eeeeee!
They will be *campers* soon. Soon is now. They will enjoy *the change* but perhaps not.
Renaming can also be abused in multiplayer, but in singleplayer there's no reason not to have both.
That way it is impossible to game the system by shuffling your color around to confuse people because any change that you make on your end will have no effect whatsoever on other's perception of you. The only changes that they'll ever see on their star map will be if they willingly choose to change the color that they use to perceive you.
Armchair: 4098-3704-2012
For the same reason that one climbs a mountain. Because it is there.
Armchair: 4098-3704-2012