Hello and welcome to another Stellaris development diary! Today we will take a look at some of the minor features and changes in the coming 2.0 'Cherryh' update.

Quality of Life
We have added small icons to the outliner that lets you see if planets have buildings that can be upgraded, or if there are Pops that do not have a building they are working. Similarly, you will be able to see when a starbase has an empty module or building slot.

This should make it a lot easier for you to manage your planets and starbases.

In the fleet view it is now also possible to see which designs can be upgraded.

Hallowed Planets
Spiritualist empires will be able to designate an uncolonized Gaia World within their borders as a 'Holy World'. The Holy World will increase your empire's unity production as long as it remains uncolonized and within your borders.

In addition to being able to make uncolonized Gaia Worlds useful, Hallowed Planets will also make spiritualist factions happy.

War Doctrines
In addition to other changes to traditions, finishing the Supremacy traditions now allows you to set a War Doctrine for your empire. War Doctrines give you additional customization and specialization regarding how you utilize your fleets.

There are four different war doctrines with different strengths and weaknesses:
Defense in Depth: Defensive empires will have a bonus to their ship fire rate within their own borders
Hit and Run: This doctrine will increase the likelyhood of your ships making an emergency FTL in combat, and also reduce damage caused by emergency FTL
Rapid Deployment: Empires that choose to rely on quickly being able to respond to threats may choose this doctrine which increases sublight speed and ship weapon range
No retreat: Militarists and Gestalt Consciousness empires can choose to employ a doctrine of no retreat, increasing ship fire rate but removing the ability for individual ships to emergency FTL out of combat instead of being destroyed.

Psionic Awakening (Utopia)
Should you be playing a Psionic empire, introduced with Utopia, it will now be possible to help lesser species awaken their psionic potential. This works similar to Assimilation, where you can give another species the benefits of your chosen ascension path.

That's all for this week! Next week you will be able to read the full patch notes for the 2.0 'Cherryh' update!

 

[Quinzal]

Any alliance whose purpose is not the intention to wage war is senseless and useless.
- Adolf Hitler
no moderator, i do not support nazis - it's just a good quote

That's a terrible quote, end of.

I'd rather think that's what fanatical spiritualists would say when they are trying to defend against larger enemy fleets...

But, I don't know anything about spiritualist way with my fanatical materialism.

There's a difference between "I really like this belief and loathe everyone who doesn't share it" and "I'm willing to wage war and fight to the death for this belief"

 

[henzington]

That's a terrible quote, end of.

There's a difference between "I really like this belief and loathe everyone who doesn't share it" and "I'm willing to wage war and fight to the death for this belief"

Pacifist versus militarist

 

[Starcomet]

The thing about playing Pacifist in game that I wish they would change is the requirement that federations cannot have defensive war only policy. I hate being a pacifist or fanatic pacifist and other non-pacifist telling me they will not join because I have defensive only wars. I like liberation wars and all, but I just want play a peaceful game of cooperation between empires and focus on internal development until the Unbidden or another crisis shows up.

 

[Zergor]

The thing about playing Pacifist in game that I wish they would change is the requirement that federations cannot have defensive war only policy. I hate being a pacifist or fanatic pacifist and other non-pacifist telling me they will not join because I have defensive only wars. I like liberation wars and all, but I just want play a peaceful game of cooperation between empires and focus on internal development until the Unbidden or another crisis shows up.

The things federations don't like is having different war policies. Non pacifists want to wage wars to gain territory. And having someone who refuse to conquer is a problem for them.
If you want to play strictly pacifict you can ally with strictly pacifists empires. But it's normal that your neighbor that want to fight will refuse you in his federation.

 

[Starcomet]

The things federations don't like is having different war policies. Non pacifists want to wage wars to gain territory. And having someone who refuse to conquer is a problem for them.
If you want to play strictly pacifict you can ally with strictly pacifists empires. But it's normal that your neighbor that want to fight will refuse you in his federation.

But why not just have federation be restricted only to liberation wars? And how about allowing the other members the power to declare war even if the current president will not. For example, I am the only member who has defensive only wars but if the current president wishes to declare a liberation war and the others vote yes and I vote no, I cannot stop them as majority rules. Even when I become president, I cannot stop the others from voting in favor of war.

The AI must surely be able to see that even if I have defensive only wars, if it and another member agree to vote for war, I could not overrule it.

 

[natevandrake]

Can we drag the planets around in the panel so we can order them however we wish yet?

 

[Zergor]

But why not just have federation be restricted only to liberation wars?

If all members in the federation are pacifist, it will de facto be restricted to liberation war.
If all members in the federation are fanatical pacifist, it will de facto be restricted to defensive war.

Just choose your allies carefully.

 

[Fatal_m]

"I'm so excited, and I just can't hide it
I'm about to lose control and I think I like it!
I'm so excited, and I just can't hide it
And I know, I know, I know, I know, I know I want you"

~The Pointer Sisters!

 

[LughC]

There is nothing about Nazi philosophy that makes rational sense, which doesn't mean we shouldn't try to understand it and why people believed in it, but in doing so we should never give it credence because it is utterly insane and abhorrent.

(for clarification this is about historical Nazi not modern skin heads who have taken the name)

your right state housing and welfare are completely irrational!!!

you claim that it should be understood but have made no attempt to understand it yourself.

the core philosophy behind the Nazi was that of pure collectivism. you life was for your nation then your family and lastly yourself. This is the hook that allowed people to believe in it. This would also grow into the ability to do horrible things to other human beings. because one life is nothing a nation will outlive any one man and so any evil for the good of your nation was a necessary evil. Nazis are generally regarded as racists but that is a gross oversimplification. It was not only other races they distained but anyone they viewed as "harmful" gays, cripples gypsies/vagabonds were all considered undesirables and it was in the nations "best interest" to either find a "use" for them or remove them.

frankly there was nothing irrational about the Nazi ideology and the belief that only irrational people are capable of holding it is as dangerous as believing only someone truly evil could become a Hitler. The problem is that in order to avoid repeating the past we are taught even as children that the evil deeds were committed by evil people for evil means. In reality few humans actually operate that way. "the phrase everyone is the hero of their own story" is true. Even amongst cases of psychopathy and sociopathy there are few who can do terrible things without some form of self rationalization and justification.


all that said the quote is still kind of dumb particularly when you look at both history and the modern day only to find very few alliances were formed strictly to wage war. Even if we just limit it to military alliances most were formed to avoid and discourage war not start it.


and now we wait because there will no doubt be that one person who some how takes this as a defense or even as support for the Nazi ideology and completely miss the point

 

[FleetingRain]

Ok no need to write paragraphs about Hitler, just let it go.

 

[Kipsta]

This diary is boring. I have mods auto upgrade my planets anyways and the rest is ultra minuscule.

 

[TallGiraffe]

@Wiz
Would it be hard to make a station upgrade to cloak your station from enemy sensors? I feel like that could add some value to Enigmatic Engineering

 

[Devanor]

@Wiz
Would it be hard to make a station upgrade to cloak your station from enemy sensors? I feel like that could add some value to Enigmatic Engineering

They're already considering adding a starbase building that will stop enemy sensors, akin to how Nebulae will work in 2.0

 

[LughC]

They're already considering adding a starbase building that will stop enemy sensors, akin to how Nebulae will work in 2.0

I thought those just jammed sensors of the ships in range not hid the structure if your ships were out of its jamming range. if so that kinda sucks and makes nebulas mostly pointless

 

[terrycloth]

Not sure if the gaia world marked as a HOly World is worth it.. The amount of what you lose in energy/minerals just doesn't seem worth it.. Would make more sense that gaia worlds that are marked as Holy Worlds can be settled, but only farms, and specific unity buildings/cultural buildings can be built, and thats it. That way it gives more, but is still special?

I'm guessing it'll mostly be used on really tiny gaia worlds.

 

[Tyko]

I like the idea of doctrines, but assigning them on an empire wide basis feels odd...over time and especially as empires get larger and are dealing with multiple fronts it's very possible that you'll be holding on one front while aggressively pushing forward on another one - each of which is supported by a different doctrine. Also, doctrines can change over time as your empire's position and policy changes.

Cool start, just seems too limited

 

[LughC]

I like the idea of doctrines, but assigning them on an empire wide basis feels odd...over time and especially as empires get larger and are dealing with multiple fronts it's very possible that you'll be holding on one front while aggressively pushing forward on another one - each of which is supported by a different doctrine. Also, doctrines can change over time as your empire's position and policy changes.

Cool start, just seems too limited

they would be a bit too powerful on a fleet by fleet basis. the idea behind them is what does your empire value most not what is best for each situation

 

[methegrate]

I like the idea of doctrines, but assigning them on an empire wide basis feels odd...over time and especially as empires get larger and are dealing with multiple fronts it's very possible that you'll be holding on one front while aggressively pushing forward on another one - each of which is supported by a different doctrine. Also, doctrines can change over time as your empire's position and policy changes.

Cool start, just seems too limited

My impression is that doctrines don't reflect situational strategy. Rather they're supposed to reflect how your society approaches war in general.

Just to pull from Star Trek, the Federation fights defensive wars, so it builds massive starbases and has some of the best shielding technology in the known galaxy. But they were willing to sign away cloaking devices, because it doesn't fit their approach to warfare. The Klingons, on the other hand, build faster, more heavily armed warships that reflect their aggressive style.

Different fights will call for different strategies, but doctrine is about how you built and trained your military.

Although I do agree completely... I would love some ability to call a strategy for a particular fight.

Personally, I'd do that by creating a bunch of new Fleet Stance options. Stance Raider could automatically attack targets with the lowest available weapons and hitpoints. Stance Bombardment could stay at the maximum range of its longest weapons (good for taking on defenses). Etc. Since you can't change fleet stances in combat, that would still be hands off, but you'd get to generally set what this fleet is supposed to do in-system.

 

[Jedi515]

The thing about playing Pacifist in game that I wish they would change is the requirement that federations cannot have defensive war only policy. I hate being a pacifist or fanatic pacifist and other non-pacifist telling me they will not join because I have defensive only wars. I like liberation wars and all, but I just want play a peaceful game of cooperation between empires and focus on internal development until the Unbidden or another crisis shows up.

 

[Starcomet]

So basically liberation war everyone until you have a huge federation of pacifist?