I found my cruisers just died way to easily to other similar sized fleets. Ended up spending more replenishing them than I did with battleships.
This is all very qualitative though, also against AI. I imagine things are very different in a min-maxed MP game.
Were you fielding only cruisers, or was it a mixed fleet and only the cruisers died? Because if the latter, I think that's how it's supposed to work. The fleet organization system puts cruisers at the front and destroyers at the back, so cruisers eat all the damage. (Hence why that Redditor's layouts has the cruisers mounted with close-range weapons and destroyers mounted with long-range weapons.)
+1
Options
YoshisummonsYou have to let the dead vote, otherwise you'd just kill people you disagree with!Registered Userregular
Cruiser s have more hp per fleet capacity than anything else, more defensive augment slots than battleship. Dramatically higher sublight speeds up the mopping up phase of conflicts.
The problem with mixed fleet ccomposition is one of your four ship sizes will just eat an unequal amount of damage Which with endgame/fallen fleets ends up being your battleships which defeats the point of a corvette screen if it can't absorb the damage for the precious spinal slots.
Yeah, it was a mixed fleet. Although I did find that even with fighting AE/FEs my battleships didn't seem to take much damage compared to my other units.
Did anyone else vote in the recent poll they put up about what to concentrate on next? When I voted it was a dead heat between politics and warfare. Personally I voted for the latter, since late game war is just a slog.
I voted for politics as that's the main draw of the game to me, managing and building an empire. I'm not sure how they can make fleet combat fun other than scrapping the whole thing and starting fresh at this point. If I want fun space combat I'll boot up Sins of a Solar empire.
As for fleets, I try to do a 1-2-4 build. Each Cruisers gets 2 Destroyers and a Corvette. I do lose Cruisers a a high rate though, and they are expensive and time consuming to replace.
0
Options
AxenMy avatar is Excalibur.Yes, the sword.Registered Userregular
I went with Politics as well. Though it was a tough choice for me, but decided Politics needed love more. Warfare currently works, but Politics is lacking IMHO.
A Capellan's favorite sheath for any blade is your back.
So can one of you that are experts in diplomacy write up a notional "walkthough" of how you'd go from first contact to best buds? I can usually get some kind of trade agreements going, but it always ends up with me paying them to accept a research agreement or the like and I can never quite make it to the point where they'd accept closer ties. I've never been any good at this aspect of a 4x game (including civ series) because I just cannot see how to get there from the beginning. I can read the wiki all day and it just doesn't really click for me.
I've had AI approach me when I am big and intimidating in addition to me being opposed to their enemies while having taken no aggressive action towards their own empire. It never progresses beyond a research agreement or defensive pact because I have no interest whatsoever in creating an alliance or Federation. In my games diplomacy is merely a precursor to war, or rather that war and their subsequent extermination is the culmination of diplomacy.
Edit :
But if you do want to create an alliance that will eventually be torn apart by internal strife, then you need to realize that most nations are in it for themselves and don't really care about trying to pool together with other nations. You need to become strong enough that they'll view joining up with you as being disproportionately valuable in favor of themselves.
It's like convincing a small nation to join up with NATO. For a small nation with a limited population and GDP, signing up for nato is a relatively small commitment to make in exchange for becoming sheltered under the aegis of the United States war machine (and other nations too, but let's be honest here. USA is what sells the deal.)
However, if we were to imagine a rival to the US war machine that could take care of themselves, then they'd be far less inclined to bind themselves with obligations and commitments when they're capable of standing by themselves.
I'd argue that if you want to start a Federation, then to follow an variation of "sic vic pacem, Para bellum" (if you want peace, prepare for war). If you want an alliance, be prepared to stand alone.
If you are capable of standing against the threats of the galaxy, then others who are weaker than you will want to be amongst your friends.
Some AI are more inclined to join up and build alliances. Finding one and joining up can get the ball rolling for creating your friendship club. If you can become a major player in the galaxy or you and the friendship inclined can combine into a major power, then others will be more inclined to follow. But if you are just a peer then most won't want to risk the commitment of binding themselves to you.
No I can do what you're saying as well. But what about trading up research agreements with a more technologically advanced neighbor? While I understand the pitfalls of the federation, that's not only where I'd like to go. I see some people play for migration and things and I haven't the first idea how to target those kinds of endgames.
0
Options
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
Mixed fleet composition would be less of a problem if you could fucking dictate your fleet staying together until the enemy is engaged (requiring your slowest ships to be in position). Instead it's just a stupid "okay attack or be attacked, EVERYONE CHARGE" and corvettes are on their own.
Now, arguably, that would reinforce the idea that your bigger ships should have missiles so that the massive range increase lets them participate ASAP. But we've already been over that. But there's another flaw; when a missile is tailing a craft and said craft is trying to evade it, shouldn't that delay it being able to fire / participate in combat? Hypothetically, ships that are evading artillery or missile fire shouldn't have the same opportunity for attack. In the simplest term, it's the "covering fire" concept.
0
Options
Lord_AsmodeusgoeticSobriquet:Here is your magical cryptic riddle-tumour: I AM A TIME MACHINERegistered Userregular
Mixed fleet composition would be less of a problem if you could fucking dictate your fleet staying together until the enemy is engaged (requiring your slowest ships to be in position). Instead it's just a stupid "okay attack or be attacked, EVERYONE CHARGE" and corvettes are on their own.
Now, arguably, that would reinforce the idea that your bigger ships should have missiles so that the massive range increase lets them participate ASAP. But we've already been over that. But there's another flaw; when a missile is tailing a craft and said craft is trying to evade it, shouldn't that delay it being able to fire / participate in combat? Hypothetically, ships that are evading artillery or missile fire shouldn't have the same opportunity for attack. In the simplest term, it's the "covering fire" concept.
I think they're going to be monkeying with fleet combat dynamics to try and address some of these issues in Capek.
Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if Labor had not first existed. Labor is superior to capital, and deserves much the higher consideration. - Lincoln
I took a loot at the Ship balance changes dev diary again and it looks like its just a few band-aids for now rather than the proper overhaul that's needed. What stuck out was:
Naked Corvettes should no longer be more cost-effective than upgraded ones
Fighters will have much higher evasion so that they don't all instantly die to PD
Destroyers will go in front so that they can actually screen the fleet like they're supposed to (So I guess the new standard formation is Battleships -> Corvettes -> Cruisers -> Destroyers)
Missiles will re-target if their original target is destroyed, making them hopefully not suck
Mass Drivers will not be obviously the best starting weapon in all situations anymore
Re diplomacy: it also has a lot to do with your government ethics vs. theirs. If you're a militarist materialist and they're a spiritualist pacifist then very little will make them like you. Meaning they'll have a lower base approval of you than someone with compatible ethics.
Part of that, I suspect, is also how you respond in the first contact dialog. It's been a while since I've played, but do you even know what their ethics are at that point?
Re diplomacy: it also has a lot to do with your government ethics vs. theirs. If you're a militarist materialist and they're a spiritualist pacifist then very little will make them like you. Meaning they'll have a lower base approval of you than someone with compatible ethics.
Part of that, I suspect, is also how you respond in the first contact dialog. It's been a while since I've played, but do you even know what their ethics are at that point?
You do, but AFAIK how you respond in first contact is purely flavor, unless of course you straight up declare war on them.
The first contact negatives are reduced by how closely the ethics of your response match theirs. It's not necessarily a huge difference in the long run since it is only modifying something that decays over time anyway, but every little bit can help depending on what you are aiming for.
I took a loot at the Ship balance changes dev diary again and it looks like its just a few band-aids for now rather than the proper overhaul that's needed. What stuck out was:
Naked Corvettes should no longer be more cost-effective than upgraded ones
Fighters will have much higher evasion so that they don't all instantly die to PD
Destroyers will go in front so that they can actually screen the fleet like they're supposed to (So I guess the new standard formation is Battleships -> Corvettes -> Cruisers -> Destroyers)
Missiles will re-target if their original target is destroyed, making them hopefully not suck
Mass Drivers will not be obviously the best starting weapon in all situations anymore
Also:
Flak is now a Point-Defense slot weapon with a high power cost. It has a faster firing rate and better tracking than regular PD, making it ideal to defend against highly evasive missiles and strike craft.
Strike craft had their evasion buffed, making them harder to bring down quickly without massed PD.
Missiles and strike craft had their speed majorly increased, so they will no longer take so long to reach the enemy once the fireworks start.
And the way they're fixing the naked corvette also makes upgraded modules more cost effective instead of just slot-effective.
Previously the next tier cost twice as much, but fit twice as much firepower in one slot. Now it costs considerably less.
In order to address this, we've gone over the cost of essentially every component and ship hull in the game. The base cost of the corvette hull was raised (a starting corvette now costs 100 instead of ~60), component costs were reduced, and the way component cost increases with technology was majorly cut down: Where a small blue laser would previously cost twice as much as a small red laser, it now only costs 3.5 minerals to the red lasers' 3.0, an increase of only ~16% instead of 100%. Similar changes were done to utility and required components, and many components had their base cost majorly slashed, so that it should now always be worthwhile to use those hard-earned technologies to upgrade your ships.
Previously, once you subtract the relatively insignificant cost of the base hull, a 100k fleet cost exactly the same regardless of tech. 100 dps was still going to cost you 1000 minerals, meaning a high-tech empire had no clear advantage over a low-tech empire of comparable wealth. Now (soon?) a scrappy STEMpire can field 100dps for, let's say, 600 minerals.
Would be neat to see subterranean civilisation on planets with uninhabitable surface.
Actually ...
They do exist already. It's a planetary special you can get, and you can set up trade agreements with them and everything. Or wipe them out; you know, like you do.
I always took Mastery of Nature first. That's a bunch of tech I don't need to research and a bunch of resources I don't need to spend to clear up space on my new planets.
Now... eh, I'm probably still gonna take it first. Still a bunch of tech I don't need to research.
- Removed the restrictions on interfering with sector planet buildings and pops, can be re-enabled via a define
- Removed the influence cost for revoking systems from sectors and deleting sectors
- Inward Perfection now requires Fanatic Pacifism
Two big ones for sectors which will make working with sectors less annoying. You may even start to use them now! Inward Perfection requirement change is meh. The wombo combo of Inward Perfection + Agrarian Idyll is still going to be stupidly powerful for early unity generation
Having carriers launch more strike craft instead of one wave and done is going to be huge. A big problem with strike craft at the moment is that what you start with is what you get. Once PD takes out the initial set those slots are now dead weight but now, hanger slots act more like persistent weapons. Carrier heavy empire here I come!
So it looks like Feudal Empires are going to be a thing now, somehow, but from the patch I can't exactly work out how they're supposed to play.
You can now create vassals from any planet you control, not just homeworlds, and Domination has been reworked to be all about vassal/tributary bonuses, not integration. vassals created this way will have your ethics, but their own civics and authority type.
Patch notes also mentioned that the AI is suppose to be much better at gathering at your fleet, rather than the maybe possibly some of the time it is now.
0
Options
MortiousThe Nightmare BeginsMove to New ZealandRegistered Userregular
I always took Mastery of Nature first. That's a bunch of tech I don't need to research and a bunch of resources I don't need to spend to clear up space on my new planets.
Now... eh, I'm probably still gonna take it first. Still a bunch of tech I don't need to research.
I always take the two exploration ones first.
I sit in my home system until I get the increased chance of anomolies spawning before I start scanning the surrounding systems, and once I get the research for scanning perk I build another research ship or two, before I start branching into other perks.
But yeah, once I start colonizing other planets I tend to grab that first, it's pretty powerful.
- Mastery of Nature now reduces cost to clear blockers by -50% instead of -100%
It's not like that was one of the least-appealing ascension perks to begin with or anything...
As a highly adaptive one species empire that sought to go wide and colonize even the tomb worlds, mastery of nature was always a snap pick that blew all the other alternatives completely out of the water.
General_Armchair on
3DS Friend Code:
Armchair: 4098-3704-2012
+3
Options
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
After they fit in the new AI-stuff, I hope Hive Mind can be shuffled up a bit. It weirds me out that "fanatic authoritarian god fanatic authoritarian" takes up the full Ethos-capacity. Also the matter-of-course auto-murder if you happen to touch anybody else.
Mastery of Nature is worth a stupid amount of free energy/minerals. I knew it had to get nerfed because it simply allows you to snowball expansion like crazy. When you're already waiting for pops to grow on new worlds, you can just clear the entire place of blockers and immediately jump to min/maxing building placement. Then the end savings in resources from not needing to pay to clear just means more growth, more ships
I'm going to miss being able to queue up the unity buildings and spam queue all of the tile blockers for free before handing new worlds off to the sector AI.
I like the patch notes! Now pleaseeee don't break the game for a week after launch -- I've been waiting for this hivemind flavor text for like 4 months now.
Would be neat to see subterranean civilisation on planets with uninhabitable surface.
Actually ...
They do exist already. It's a planetary special you can get, and you can set up trade agreements with them and everything. Or wipe them out; you know, like you do.
Yeah, on planets where people already live on the surface.
If the planet was just recently terraformed before they say hi, I guess it's not a big difference.
Wait, if Inward Perfection requires Fanatic Pacifism
and Celestial Empire requires Inward Perfection, Spiritualism, Xenophobia and Pacifism
Would be neat to see subterranean civilisation on planets with uninhabitable surface.
Actually ...
They do exist already. It's a planetary special you can get, and you can set up trade agreements with them and everything. Or wipe them out; you know, like you do.
Yeah, on planets where people already live on the surface.
If the planet was just recently terraformed before they say hi, I guess it's not a big difference.
Wait, if Inward Perfection requires Fanatic Pacifism
and Celestial Empire requires Inward Perfection, Spiritualism, Xenophobia and Pacifism
Agrarian Idyll requires Fanatic Pacifism
Inward Perfection just has some new things to it, but I don't think they changed the reqs for it or Celestial Empire.
Something to note about the Agrarian Idyll + Inward Perfection combo is that Pacifism no longer has the 20/40% Unity production boost. It's instead going to be a 5/10% pop resource generation bonus. Inward Perfection has a lower unity generation bonus so you no longer get a stupidly huge 70% or so unity production gain with the current numbers of the combo but is again like pacifism focused on economic growth.
There's also a tease that certain diplomatic actions are not possible with Inward Perfection. I suspect this may be locking out virtually all diplomatic relations except conquest wars similar to Fanatic Purifiers not having diplomatic options but everyone doesn't immediately war dec you on sight with Inward Perfection. After all, if as an empire you believe yourself to be the most perfect civilisation in the galaxy, why would you even interact with those xeno savages?
Agrarian Idyll requiring Fanatic Pacifists just means you can't pick Spiritualist/Materialist as a third ethos and it'll take longer to transition from a Pacifist start into a more militant footing mid/end game once you've done your snowball growth phase.
Would be neat to see subterranean civilisation on planets with uninhabitable surface.
Actually ...
They do exist already. It's a planetary special you can get, and you can set up trade agreements with them and everything. Or wipe them out; you know, like you do.
Yeah, on planets where people already live on the surface.
If the planet was just recently terraformed before they say hi, I guess it's not a big difference.
Wait, if Inward Perfection requires Fanatic Pacifism
and Celestial Empire requires Inward Perfection, Spiritualism, Xenophobia and Pacifism
Agrarian Idyll requires Fanatic Pacifism
Inward Perfection just has some new things to it, but I don't think they changed the reqs for it or Celestial Empire.
Oh, that makes more sense.
I'd expect Inward Perfection to be the kind of isolationists who close their harbours and decline trade.
Posts
This is all very qualitative though, also against AI. I imagine things are very different in a min-maxed MP game.
http://steamcommunity.com/id/pablocampy
Were you fielding only cruisers, or was it a mixed fleet and only the cruisers died? Because if the latter, I think that's how it's supposed to work. The fleet organization system puts cruisers at the front and destroyers at the back, so cruisers eat all the damage. (Hence why that Redditor's layouts has the cruisers mounted with close-range weapons and destroyers mounted with long-range weapons.)
The problem with mixed fleet ccomposition is one of your four ship sizes will just eat an unequal amount of damage Which with endgame/fallen fleets ends up being your battleships which defeats the point of a corvette screen if it can't absorb the damage for the precious spinal slots.
Did anyone else vote in the recent poll they put up about what to concentrate on next? When I voted it was a dead heat between politics and warfare. Personally I voted for the latter, since late game war is just a slog.
http://steamcommunity.com/id/pablocampy
As for fleets, I try to do a 1-2-4 build. Each Cruisers gets 2 Destroyers and a Corvette. I do lose Cruisers a a high rate though, and they are expensive and time consuming to replace.
Edit :
But if you do want to create an alliance that will eventually be torn apart by internal strife, then you need to realize that most nations are in it for themselves and don't really care about trying to pool together with other nations. You need to become strong enough that they'll view joining up with you as being disproportionately valuable in favor of themselves.
It's like convincing a small nation to join up with NATO. For a small nation with a limited population and GDP, signing up for nato is a relatively small commitment to make in exchange for becoming sheltered under the aegis of the United States war machine (and other nations too, but let's be honest here. USA is what sells the deal.)
However, if we were to imagine a rival to the US war machine that could take care of themselves, then they'd be far less inclined to bind themselves with obligations and commitments when they're capable of standing by themselves.
I'd argue that if you want to start a Federation, then to follow an variation of "sic vic pacem, Para bellum" (if you want peace, prepare for war). If you want an alliance, be prepared to stand alone.
If you are capable of standing against the threats of the galaxy, then others who are weaker than you will want to be amongst your friends.
Some AI are more inclined to join up and build alliances. Finding one and joining up can get the ball rolling for creating your friendship club. If you can become a major player in the galaxy or you and the friendship inclined can combine into a major power, then others will be more inclined to follow. But if you are just a peer then most won't want to risk the commitment of binding themselves to you.
Armchair: 4098-3704-2012
Now, arguably, that would reinforce the idea that your bigger ships should have missiles so that the massive range increase lets them participate ASAP. But we've already been over that. But there's another flaw; when a missile is tailing a craft and said craft is trying to evade it, shouldn't that delay it being able to fire / participate in combat? Hypothetically, ships that are evading artillery or missile fire shouldn't have the same opportunity for attack. In the simplest term, it's the "covering fire" concept.
I think they're going to be monkeying with fleet combat dynamics to try and address some of these issues in Capek.
Part of that, I suspect, is also how you respond in the first contact dialog. It's been a while since I've played, but do you even know what their ethics are at that point?
Unreal Engine 4 Developers Community.
I'm working on a cute little video game! Here's a link for you.
You do, but AFAIK how you respond in first contact is purely flavor, unless of course you straight up declare war on them.
And the way they're fixing the naked corvette also makes upgraded modules more cost effective instead of just slot-effective.
Previously the next tier cost twice as much, but fit twice as much firepower in one slot. Now it costs considerably less.
Previously, once you subtract the relatively insignificant cost of the base hull, a 100k fleet cost exactly the same regardless of tech. 100 dps was still going to cost you 1000 minerals, meaning a high-tech empire had no clear advantage over a low-tech empire of comparable wealth. Now (soon?) a scrappy STEMpire can field 100dps for, let's say, 600 minerals.
https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/index.php?threads/stellaris-dev-diary-79-ship-component-balance-changes.1036466/
Steam: Elvenshae // PSN: Elvenshae // WotC: Elvenshae
Wilds of Aladrion: [https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/comment/43159014/#Comment_43159014]Ellandryn[/url]
Actually ...
Steam: Elvenshae // PSN: Elvenshae // WotC: Elvenshae
Wilds of Aladrion: [https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/comment/43159014/#Comment_43159014]Ellandryn[/url]
Release date next week! Patch notes too long to paste.
News to me:
Hive Minds:
Juffo-Wup can now keep the Non as food.
Special interaction with Prethoryn
Bio Ascension: More points and cheaper advanced traits (bwhaa?!)
Final Combat changes:
Missiles: Buffed speed + retargeting. (Not news)
Counter-point:
PDS: Buffed vs Missiles.
Counter-counter point: Swarmer type missiles buffed vs PDS
Strike craft: Buffed stats + multiple waves (!)
Flak: Buffed vs Strike craft? (now PDS type)
And a bunch of other details that all sound new and pretty good.
It's not like that was one of the least-appealing ascension perks to begin with or anything...
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
Now... eh, I'm probably still gonna take it first. Still a bunch of tech I don't need to research.
- Removed the influence cost for revoking systems from sectors and deleting sectors
- Inward Perfection now requires Fanatic Pacifism
Two big ones for sectors which will make working with sectors less annoying. You may even start to use them now! Inward Perfection requirement change is meh. The wombo combo of Inward Perfection + Agrarian Idyll is still going to be stupidly powerful for early unity generation
Having carriers launch more strike craft instead of one wave and done is going to be huge. A big problem with strike craft at the moment is that what you start with is what you get. Once PD takes out the initial set those slots are now dead weight but now, hanger slots act more like persistent weapons. Carrier heavy empire here I come!
You can now create vassals from any planet you control, not just homeworlds, and Domination has been reworked to be all about vassal/tributary bonuses, not integration. vassals created this way will have your ethics, but their own civics and authority type.
Patch notes also mentioned that the AI is suppose to be much better at gathering at your fleet, rather than the maybe possibly some of the time it is now.
I always take the two exploration ones first.
I sit in my home system until I get the increased chance of anomolies spawning before I start scanning the surrounding systems, and once I get the research for scanning perk I build another research ship or two, before I start branching into other perks.
But yeah, once I start colonizing other planets I tend to grab that first, it's pretty powerful.
It’s not a very important country most of the time
http://steamcommunity.com/id/mortious
As a highly adaptive one species empire that sought to go wide and colonize even the tomb worlds, mastery of nature was always a snap pick that blew all the other alternatives completely out of the water.
Armchair: 4098-3704-2012
Armchair: 4098-3704-2012
If the planet was just recently terraformed before they say hi, I guess it's not a big difference.
Wait, if Inward Perfection requires Fanatic Pacifism
and Celestial Empire requires Inward Perfection, Spiritualism, Xenophobia and Pacifism
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
Agrarian Idyll requires Fanatic Pacifism
Inward Perfection just has some new things to it, but I don't think they changed the reqs for it or Celestial Empire.
There's also a tease that certain diplomatic actions are not possible with Inward Perfection. I suspect this may be locking out virtually all diplomatic relations except conquest wars similar to Fanatic Purifiers not having diplomatic options but everyone doesn't immediately war dec you on sight with Inward Perfection. After all, if as an empire you believe yourself to be the most perfect civilisation in the galaxy, why would you even interact with those xeno savages?
Agrarian Idyll requiring Fanatic Pacifists just means you can't pick Spiritualist/Materialist as a third ethos and it'll take longer to transition from a Pacifist start into a more militant footing mid/end game once you've done your snowball growth phase.
Oh, that makes more sense.
I'd expect Inward Perfection to be the kind of isolationists who close their harbours and decline trade.