• We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Status
Not open for further replies.

Stellaris Dev Diary #92: FTL Rework and Galactic Terrain

Hello everyone and welcome to another Stellaris development diary. Today's dev diary is about Faster than Light travel in the Cherryh update, and it's likely to be a controversial one. When discussing, please remember to keep things civil, and I would kindly ask that you read the entire dev diary before rushing to post, as it's going to cover some of the questions and concerns we expect to see from the playerbase. Also, as posted last week, all of these changes are currently far away, and we cannot give more details on ETAs or the exact nature of the Cherryh update than we already have. Thank you!

FTL Rework
The single biggest design issue we have had to tackle in the Stellaris team since release is the asymmetrical FTL. While it's a cool and interesting idea on paper, the honest truth is that the feature just does not fit well into the game in practice, and blocks numerous improvements on a myriad of other features such as warfare and exploration, as well as solutions to fundamental design problems like the weakness of static defenses. After a lot of debate among the designers, we finally decided that if we were ever going to be able to tackle these issues and turn Stellaris into a game with truly engrossing and interesting warfare, we would have to bite the bullet and take a controversial decision: Consolidating FTL from the current three types down into a primarily hyperlane-based game, with more advanced forms of FTL unlocked through technology.

However, as I have said on the previous occasions when discussing this issue, one thing we would never consider doing is just slashing FTL types from the game without adding in something else to compensate their loss. That is what most of this dev diary is going to be about. However, before continuing with the details on the additions and changes we're making to FTL, I want to cover a couple of the questions I expect will arise from this:

Why are you removing FTL choices instead of building on them?
A lot of people have asked this question when we have brought up consolidating FTL types before, suggesting that problems such as static defenses can be solved by just adding more mechanics to handle each special case. I think the problem with this is best illustrated with defense stations and FTL inhibitors. One of the aims of the Starbase system is to give empires the ability to 'lock down' their borders, building fortresses that enemy fleets cannot simply skip past to strike at their core worlds, instead of having to create static defenses in every single valuable system.

With hyperlanes, this is a pretty simple affair: As hyperlanes create natural choke points, the only thing a hyperlane-stopping FTL inhibitor needs to do is to prevent enemy fleets from leaving the system once they enter it. The fleet can enter, it can retreat (via emergency FTL) and it can bring down the source of the FTL inhibitor (which might be a Starbase or even a planet) to be able to continue. This is quite easy to understand, both in terms of which system you need to defend to lock down your borders, and how it works when you are on the offensive.

Now let's add Warp to the mix. In this case, the single-system FTL inhibitor is useless because Warp fleets can just go over it, so we'll invent another mechanic: A warp interdiction bubble, stretching a certain distance around the system, that pull in any hostile Warp fleets traveling there to the system containing the FTL inhibitor, and force them to battle it or retreat. This is immediately a lot more messy: First of all, this bubble can't possibly affect Hyperlane fleets, because it could potentially pull them dozens of jumps away from their current location. This means that when fortifying your borders, you now need to not just make sure that every important chokepoint is covered, but also that your entire border is covered in warp interdiction bubbles.

But there's more: Add Wormholes as well, and you now have an FTL type where not only the 'bubble' type interdictor doesn't make intuitive sense (because Wormhole fleets make point-to-point jumps rather than traveling over the map) but if said interdictor works to pull Wormhole fleets out of position regardless of what makes intuitive sense, you end up with the same probem as with hyperlanes, where the fleet can get pulled out of range of its wormhole network and end up stranded even if it brings down the defenses. This means you pretty much have to invent a third type of interdiction type for Wormhole on top of what is already an overengineered and hard to understand system.

Finally, add the problem of displaying all these different types of inhibitors and interdictors on the map, in a way that the player can even remotely start to understand, and you end up with nothing short of a complete mess, where it's far better to just have static defenses protecting single valuable systems... and so we come full circle.

This is the fundamental problem that we have been grappling with when it comes to asymmetrical FTL: What works in a game such as Sword of the Stars, with its turn-based gameplay, small maps of usually no more than 3-6 empires, and 1-on-1 wars breaks down completely in a Stellaris game with real-time gameplay and wars potentially containing a dozen actors, all with their own form of FTL. The complexity collapses into what is for the player just a mess of fleets appearing and disappearing with no discernible logic to them.

Why Hyperlanes?
When discussing this, we essentially boiled down the consolidation into three possibilities: Hyperlanes only, Warp-only, and Warp+Hyperlanes. Wormhole is simply too different a FTL type to ever really work with the others, and not intuitive enough to work as the sole starting FTL for everyone playing the game. Keeping both Warp and Hyperlanes would be an improvement, but would still keep many of the issues we currently have in regards to user experience and fleet coordination. Warp-only was considered as an alternative, but ultimately Hyperlanes won out because of the possibilities it opens up for galactic geography, static defenses and enhancements to exploration.

Here are the some of the possibilities that consolidation of FTL into Hyperlanes creates for Stellaris:
  • Unified distance, sensor and border systems that make sense for everyone (for example, cost of claiming a system not being based on euclidean distance but rather the actual distance for ships to travel there)
  • Galactic 'geography', systems that are strategically and tactically important due to location and 'terrain' (more on this below) rather than just resources
  • More possibilities for galaxy generation and exploration (for example, entire regions of space accessible only through a wormhole or a single guarded hyperlane, containing special locations and events to discover)
  • Better performance through caching and unified code (Wormhole FTL in particular is a massive resource hog in the late game)
  • Warfare with a distinct sense of 'theatres', advancing/retreating fronts and border skirmishes (more on this in future dev diaries)
Are all new forms of FTL free patch content?
Yes. Naturally we're not going to charge for any form of content meant to replace the loss of old FTL types.

Hyperlane and Sublight Travel
As mentioned, in the Cherryh update. all empires will now start the game with Hyperlanes as their only mode of FTL. By default, hyperlane generation is going to be changed to create more 'islands' and 'choke points', to make for more interesting galactic geography. However, as we know some players do not enjoy the idea of constricted space, we are going to add a slider that controls the general frequency and connectivity of hyperlanes. Turning this up will create a more connected galaxy and make it harder to protect all your systems with static defenses, for players who prefer something closer to the current game's Warp-style movement.

Sublight travel is also being changed somewhat, in the sense that you need to actually travel to the entry point to a particular hyperlane (the arrow inside a system) to enter it, rather than being able to enter any hyperlane from any point outside's a system's gravity well. This means that fleets will move in a more predictable fashion, and interdictions will frequently happen inside systems instead of nearly always being at the edge of them, in particular allowing for fleets to 'guard' important hyperlane entry/exit points. To compensate for the need to move across systems, sublight travel has been sped up, especially with more advanced forms of thrusters.
2017_11_02_2.png


FTL Sensors
Along with the change to FTL, we are also changing the way sensors work. Instead of simply being a circle radiating an arbitrary distance from a ship, station or planet, each level of sensors can now see a certain distance in FTL connections. For example, a ship with level 1 sensors (Radar) will only give sensor coverage of the same system that it is currently in, while a ship with level 2 (Gravitic) sensors will give sensor coverage of that system and all systems connected to it through a Hyperlane or explored Wormhole (more on that below), a ship with level 3 sensors will be able to see systems connected to those systems, and so on. Sensor coverage can be 'blocked' by certain galactic features (more on that below), which will also block propagation into further connected systems. We are currently discussing the implementation of sensor blockers as a potential Starbase component.
2017_11_02_1.png


Wormholes
While Wormhole as a full-fledged FTL type is gone, Wormholes are not. Instead they have been changed into a natural formation that can be encountered while exploring the galaxy. Wormholes come in pairs, essentially functioning as very long hyperlanes that can potentially take a ship across the entire galaxy near-instantly. Natural Wormholes are unstable, and when first encountered, you will not be able to explore them. To explore a Wormhole, you need the Wormhole Stabilization technology, after which a science ship can be sent to stabilize and chart the Wormhole to find out what lies on the other side. If you're lucky, this may be unclaimed space full of valuable systems, but it could just as well be a Devouring Swarm eager to come over for dinner. There is a slider on game setup that controls the frequency of wormhole pairs in the galaxy.
2017_11_02_4.png


Gateways
Gateways is an advanced form of FTL most closely resembling the Wormhole FTL in the live version of the game. While exploring the galaxy, you can find abandoned Gateways that were once part of a massive, galaxy-spanning network. These Gateways are disabled and unusable, but with the Gateway Reactivation mid-game technology and a hefty investment of minerals, they can be restored to working order. Like Wormholes, Gateways allow for near-instant travel to other Gateways, but the difference is that any activated Gateway can be used to travel to any other activated Gateway, and late-game technology allows for the construction of more Gateways to expand the network. Also unlike Wormholes, which cannot be 'closed', Gateways also have the advantage of allowing any empire controlling the system they're in to control who goes through said Gateway - hostile empires and empires to whom you have closed your borders will not be able to use 'your' Gateways to just appear inside of your systems.

When the first Gateway is re-activated, another random Gateway will also be re-activated along with it, so that there is never a situation where you just have a single active Gateway going nowhere. There is a slider on game setup that controls the frequency of abandoned gateways in the galaxy.
2017_11_02_8.png


Jump Drives
Jump Drives and Psi Jump Drives have been changed, and is now an advanced form of FTL that mixes Hyperdrive with some functionality from the old Warp FTL. They allow for a ship to travel normally and very quickly along hyperlanes, but also come equipped with a tactical 'jump' functionality that allows a fleet to make a point-to-point jump ignoring the normal hyperlane limitations. This is done with a special fleet order where you select a target system for the jump (within a certain pre-defined range, with Psi Jump Drives having longer range than regular Jump Drives), after which the fleet charges up its jump drive and creates a temporary wormhole leading to the system. After the fleet makes its 'jump', the Jump Drive will need to recharge, with a significant cooldown before it can be used again, and also applies a debuff to the fleet that reduces its combat effectiveness while the cooldown is in effect. This allows for fleets with Jump Drives to ignore the usual FTL restrictions and skip straight past enemy fleets and stations, but at the cost of leaving themselves vulnerable and potentially stranded for a time afterwards. This design is highly experimental, and may change during the development of Cherryh, but we wanted Jump Drives to not just be 'Hyperdrive IV' but rather to unlock new tactical and strategic possibilities for warfare.

Galactic Terrain
With the switch to Hyperlanes and the creation of strategically important systems and chokepoints, we've also decided to implement something we had always thought was a really interesting idea, but which made little sense without such chokepoints: Galactic Terrain. Specifically, systems with environmental effects and hazards that have profound tactical and strategic effects on ships and empires. This is still something we are in the middle of testing and prototyping, but so far we have created the following forms of Galactic Terrain:
Nebulas block all sensor coverage originating from other systems, meaning that it's impossible for an empire to see what ships and stations are inside a system in a nebula without having a ship or station stationed there, allowing empires to hide their fleets and set up ambushes.
Pulsars interfere with deflector technology, nullifying all ship and station shields in a system with a Pulsar.
Neutron Stars interfere with navigation and ship systems, significantly slowing down sublight travel in a system with a Neutron Star.
Black Holes interfere with FTL, increasing the time it takes for a fleet to charge its emergency FTL and making it more difficult to ships to individually disengage from combat (more on this in a later dev diary).

The above is just a first iteration, and it's something we're likely to tweak and build on more for both the Cherryh update and other updates beyond it, so stay tuned for more information on this.
2017_11_02_3.png

2017_11_02_5.png


That's all for today! I will finish this dev diary by saying that we do not expect everyone to be happy with these changes, but we truly believe that they are necessary to give Stellaris truly great warfare, and that we think you will find the game better for it once you get a chance to try them. We will be doing a Design Corner feature on today's Extraterrestial Thursday stream, where me and Game Designer Daniel Moregård (grekulf) will be discussing the changes, fielding questions and showing off some gameplay in the internal development build. If you want a look at some of these changes in a live game environment, be sure to tune to the Paradox Interactive twitch channel at 4pm CET.

Next week, we're going to talk about war and peace, including the complete rework of the current wargoal system that was made possible by the changes to FTL and system control discussed in this and last week's dev diary. See you then!
 
Last edited:
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions:

ORCACommander

Herald At The Gates
85 Badges
Jul 24, 2014
190
203
  • Crusader Kings II: Jade Dragon
  • Tyranny: Gold Edition
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rights of Man
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Stellaris
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mare Nostrum
  • Cities: Skylines - Snowfall
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Colonel
  • BATTLETECH - Backer
  • Hearts of Iron IV: No Step Back
  • Crusader Kings II: Conclave
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Hearts of Iron IV Sign-up
  • Stellaris Sign-up
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Crusader Kings II: Horse Lords
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Field Marshal
  • Crusader Kings II: Reapers Due
  • Stellaris: Digital Anniversary Edition
  • Cities: Skylines - Natural Disasters
  • Cities: Skylines - Mass Transit
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mandate of Heaven
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Death or Dishonor
  • Tyranny - Bastards Wound
  • Cities: Skylines - Green Cities
  • Crusader Kings III: Royal Edition
  • Shadowrun: Dragonfall
  • Surviving Mars: First Colony Edition
  • Cities: Skylines Industries
  • Imperator: Rome
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Expansion Pass
  • Prison Architect
  • Surviving Mars: First Colony Edition
  • Cities: Skylines - Campus
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Crusader Kings III
  • Shadowrun Returns
  • Battle for Bosporus
  • Crusader Kings II: Holy Fury Pre-order
  • Cities: Skylines - Parklife
  • BATTLETECH - Initiate of the Order
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Expansion Pass
  • Cities: Skylines
  • Surviving Mars: Digital Deluxe Edition
  • Europa Universalis IV: El Dorado
  • BATTLETECH - Beta Backer
  • Crusader Kings II: Way of Life
  • Pillars of Eternity
  • Europa Universalis IV: Common Sense
  • Tyranny - Tales from the Tiers
Are you honestly saying that you'd boycott all Paradox products just because you don't like Stellaris?
I currently boycott all electronic arts products Because I did not like how the changed the Lore of command and conquer.

At the very least I am not purchasing anything stellaris until we get a New full priced base game or PDX backtracks on the gutting of ftl mechanics. If your wondering why I have not purchased synthetic Dawn: its at a crossroads in my mind that this should of been a free expansion because AI rebellion never worked right and the base game, and having enough content not related to that to justify its purchase, thus I am waiting for a deep discount sale.
 

Hawklaser

Second Lieutenant
Oct 28, 2017
163
0
The whole exploring and extending aspect sounds much better for me. I am very happy about the planned update. Maybe the sceptics should watch the video.


Watched the video, and it makes me even more concerned with the direction this is going. I like the idea behind the boarder changes and having different star types having an impact, but still turned off by the dropping of the other FTL types. The reason the video makes me more concerned is they mention the desire to make the galaxy more interesting, but yet are putting off trying to adjust how the map generates until after ripping out 2/3's of the movement options(Gateways and the new wormholes DO NOT replace them, though would still be useful additions with all three of the existing types)which should have a bigger impact on meaningful locations and balance for all FTL types including the addition of islands and gated areas by ensuring said gated areas are only accessible via the new natural wormholes. Galaxy Generation plays a much larger role in determining if a galaxy is interesting instead of forcing hyperlanes only.

How can they lose a customer who has already paid? Do you mean that these customers may not buy a new dlc? Well that's up to them. I do not see any problem at all regarding game changes. If some people don't like the changes, they can play it the old way as long as they like.

(Anyway, I hope that Star Trek New Horizons can continue to work. It's awesome.)

Easy, said customer never/rarely buys their products again, plus said customer starts telling others not to buy their stuff. Consider if you go to a restaurant and get horrible service and food, even if you might be able to get a refund and/or freebies, how likely are you to ever go to that restaurant again, even if its a franchise and to a different location? How likely are you to tell friends and such that the place sucked and to not go there?

Given that a major recurring complaint about the game has been the war system and doomstacks, it's a bit weird how when the devs try to adress this complaint people complain. It's like they want the dev's to fix the war system with two arms tied behind their backs.

The problem is so far with what is out about the upcoming changes, while we would like those problems solved, the revealed upcoming changes only look to be making the problem worse on the Doomstack side, will reserve judgement on the war system part until the dev diary on that specifically comes out.
 

antihero_929

Private
103 Badges
Nov 14, 2009
21
6
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Cities: Skylines - Natural Disasters
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Expansion Pass
  • Stellaris: Federations
  • Crusader Kings III: Royal Edition
  • Battle for Bosporus
  • Stellaris: Necroids
  • Stellaris: Nemesis
  • Hearts of Iron IV: By Blood Alone
  • Hearts of Iron IV: No Step Back
I'm kind of on the fence about FTL changes, but i'm leaning towards this being a worthwhile change. What I think is most important is that any FTL changes retains/improves the satisfaction of researching newer FTL techs over time. I think any scheme that is implemented ultimately comes down moving units from A to B. Balance is important but if it sacrifices player immersion or experience (...or roleplaying) will ultimately hurt the experience.

Good Luck on your changes :)
 

grommile

Field Marshal
66 Badges
Jun 4, 2011
22.452
38.871
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Crusader Kings III
  • Stellaris
  • Shadowrun Returns
  • Teleglitch: Die More Edition
  • Victoria 2
  • 500k Club
  • March of the Eagles
  • Knights of Pen and Paper 2
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Europa Universalis III
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Cities: Skylines
  • Prison Architect
Another 21% want to play 1.8.3, would rather have the current war, territory, and exploration and not these new gimmicks and keep the dynamic, open space Stellaris has to offer that its competitors do not.
I want to play 1.8.9, or possibly 1.9.3.

Neither of which are ever going to exist.
 

Kreliann

Sergeant
80 Badges
Jan 15, 2009
96
0
  • Majesty 2 Collection
  • Cities: Skylines - After Dark
  • Magicka 2
  • Pillars of Eternity
  • Europa Universalis IV: Pre-order
  • Victoria 2: Heart of Darkness
  • Victoria 2: A House Divided
  • Sword of the Stars II
  • Semper Fi
  • Victoria: Revolutions
  • Europa Universalis IV: Res Publica
  • Magicka
  • Hearts of Iron III: Their Finest Hour
  • Hearts of Iron III
  • For the Motherland
  • Crusader Kings II: The Old Gods
  • Stellaris: Synthetic Dawn
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Crusader Kings II: Charlemagne
  • Crusader Kings II: Legacy of Rome
  • Europa Universalis IV: Call to arms event
  • Crusader Kings II: Rajas of India
  • Crusader Kings II: The Republic
  • Cities in Motion
  • Europa Universalis IV: Wealth of Nations
  • Europa Universalis IV: Conquest of Paradise
  • Europa Universalis IV: Art of War
  • Crusader Kings II: Sons of Abraham
  • Crusader Kings II: Sword of Islam
  • Crusader Kings II: Sunset Invasion
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Together for Victory
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Stellaris: Necroids
  • Steel Division: Normandy 44
  • Tyranny: Archon Edition
  • Crusader Kings II: Reapers Due
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Colonel
  • Crusader Kings II: Monks and Mystics
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Stellaris
  • Crusader Kings II: Conclave
  • Crusader Kings II: Horse Lords
  • Europa Universalis IV: Common Sense
  • Crusader Kings II: Way of Life
  • Mount & Blade: With Fire and Sword
  • Mount & Blade: Warband
  • Europa Universalis IV: El Dorado
  • Cities: Skylines
  • Warlock: Master of the Arcane
  • Victoria 2
134 pages... wow

Look, guys, I really can't understand the backlash.
For more than a year already, actually from release it was a universal agreement that Stellaris have very badly implemented war and combat mechanic. A lot of us, me included, demanded from devs to start working on serious issues (lame war, lack of internal politics, lacking diplomacy, no trade) instead of feeding us irrelevant content that of course made game wider (new 'nations' to play), but not deeper.
Now devs FINALLY started to fix things that should have been fixed A YEAR AGO, and you start to backlash on them? There is a saying - better late than never.
I do really hope that Stellaris 2.0 (as devs call it) will finally have engaging and even remotely strategical wars (compared to garbage that we have now), and from what I've seen from dev diaries I'm really confident that these changes are the only way to fix wars and combat. You can't have a meaningful war system when you don't have underlying system of 'provinces' that is consistent within itself.

Dont worry, it is just a vocal minority, as it usually happens at gaming forums. The change will be done, and most of us will enjoy the game finally being fixed at the fundamentals.
 

Chreees

Corporal
80 Badges
Oct 14, 2014
48
114
  • Cities: Skylines - Natural Disasters
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Stellaris: Lithoids
  • Hearts of Iron IV: La Resistance
  • Stellaris: Federations
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Crusader Kings III
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Expansion Pass
  • Battle for Bosporus
  • Europa Universalis 4: Emperor
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Colonel
  • Crusader Kings II: The Old Gods
  • Europa Universalis IV: Call to arms event
  • Stellaris: Distant Stars
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mare Nostrum
  • Cities: Skylines - Snowfall
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cossacks
  • Cities: Skylines - After Dark
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Stellaris Sign-up
  • Cities: Skylines - Campus
  • Imperator: Rome Sign Up
  • Prison Architect
  • Europa Universalis IV: Golden Century
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Field Marshal
  • Stellaris: Megacorp
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rights of Man
  • Stellaris: Digital Anniversary Edition
  • Cities: Skylines - Parklife
  • Europa Universalis IV: Dharma
  • Cities: Skylines - Mass Transit
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mandate of Heaven
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Death or Dishonor
  • Stellaris: Ancient Relics
  • Cities: Skylines - Green Cities
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Expansion Pass
  • Stellaris: Humanoids Species Pack
  • Stellaris: Apocalypse
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rule Britannia
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Crusader Kings II: Conclave
  • Crusader Kings II: Horse Lords
  • Europa Universalis IV: Common Sense
  • Crusader Kings II: Way of Life
  • Magicka: Wizard Wars Founder Wizard
  • Europa Universalis IV: El Dorado
  • Hearts of Iron IV Sign-up
  • Victoria 2
  • Cities: Skylines
I currently boycott all electronic arts products Because I did not like how the changed the Lore of command and conquer.

At the very least I am not purchasing anything stellaris until we get a New full priced base game or PDX backtracks on the gutting of ftl mechanics. If your wondering why I have not purchased synthetic Dawn: its at a crossroads in my mind that this should of been a free expansion because AI rebellion never worked right and the base game, and having enough content not related to that to justify its purchase, thus I am waiting for a deep discount sale.[/B]

I get boycotting a company because of business practices.

I get boycotting a series because of creative differences

But boycotting a company because of creative diffrences seems odd to me.
 

Varren

Captain
39 Badges
Oct 31, 2017
475
1.341
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Stellaris: Synthetic Dawn
  • Crusader Kings II: Sword of Islam
  • Crusader Kings II: Sons of Abraham
  • Imperator: Rome Sign Up
  • Crusader Kings II: Monks and Mystics
  • Stellaris - Path to Destruction bundle
  • Crusader Kings II: Jade Dragon
  • Stellaris: Humanoids Species Pack
  • Stellaris: Apocalypse
  • Stellaris: Distant Stars
  • Stellaris: Megacorp
  • Crusader Kings II: Holy Fury
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rights of Man
  • Stellaris: Ancient Relics
  • Age of Wonders: Planetfall Sign Up
  • Stellaris: Lithoids
  • Stellaris: Federations
  • Crusader Kings III
  • Stellaris: Necroids
  • Stellaris: Nemesis
  • Stellaris: Digital Anniversary Edition
  • Crusader Kings II: Rajas of India
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Crusader Kings II: Way of Life
  • Europa Universalis IV: Common Sense
  • Crusader Kings II: Horse Lords
  • Crusader Kings II: Conclave
  • Stellaris
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Crusader Kings II: Reapers Due
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Crusader Kings II: The Old Gods
  • Crusader Kings II: Legacy of Rome
  • Europa Universalis IV: Art of War
  • Crusader Kings II: Sunset Invasion
  • Crusader Kings II: The Republic
  • Crusader Kings II: Charlemagne
Lolwut?

Being able to attack him from anywhere along the front at the target of my choosing is "giving me space somewhere else", forcing me down a known lane of attack is exactly the opposite...

There's going to be more than one lane of attack, and you can only have so many upgraded starbases. If you've got three hyperlanes connected to your enemy, and only one of them is guarded with a Starbase (the other bases are building your ships, improving your economy, and/or protecting your other fronts), stationing your entire fleet at the starbase will just let your enemies waltz right past you. It's better to split the fleet, leave some ships to slow them down if they go for the outposts, and keep a healthy supply of reserves in the back to reinforce when the enemy shows itself (ideally, you'd also need to be wary of a feint meant to entangle your fleet at one system while the enemy slips its forces past the outpost, but I'm not that optimistic about the AI).
 

LambTaco

Second Lieutenant
6 Badges
Aug 27, 2016
103
35
  • Stellaris
  • Cities: Skylines
  • Cities: Skylines - After Dark
  • Cities: Skylines - Snowfall
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Stellaris - Path to Destruction bundle
134 pages... wow

Look, guys, I really can't understand the backlash.
For more than a year already, actually from release it was a universal agreement that Stellaris have very badly implemented war and combat mechanic. A lot of us, me included, demanded from devs to start working on serious issues (lame war, lack of internal politics, lacking diplomacy, no trade) instead of feeding us irrelevant content that of course made game wider (new 'nations' to play), but not deeper.
Now devs FINALLY started to fix things that should have been fixed A YEAR AGO, and you start to backlash on them? There is a saying - better late than never.
I do really hope that Stellaris 2.0 (as devs call it) will finally have engaging and even remotely strategical wars (compared to garbage that we have now), and from what I've seen from dev diaries I'm really confident that these changes are the only way to fix wars and combat. You can't have a meaningful war system when you don't have underlying system of 'provinces' that is consistent within itself.

It's not THAT they're fixing combat, but HOW they're fixing combat that has everyone in a huff. Many disagree that fixing combat requires restricting movement, and some think even if that's the only way the price is still too high. It's not that hard to understand. I'd rather have a game with broken combat than broken exploration and general movement
 

ORCACommander

Herald At The Gates
85 Badges
Jul 24, 2014
190
203
  • Crusader Kings II: Jade Dragon
  • Tyranny: Gold Edition
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rights of Man
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Stellaris
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mare Nostrum
  • Cities: Skylines - Snowfall
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Colonel
  • BATTLETECH - Backer
  • Hearts of Iron IV: No Step Back
  • Crusader Kings II: Conclave
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Hearts of Iron IV Sign-up
  • Stellaris Sign-up
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Crusader Kings II: Horse Lords
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Field Marshal
  • Crusader Kings II: Reapers Due
  • Stellaris: Digital Anniversary Edition
  • Cities: Skylines - Natural Disasters
  • Cities: Skylines - Mass Transit
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mandate of Heaven
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Death or Dishonor
  • Tyranny - Bastards Wound
  • Cities: Skylines - Green Cities
  • Crusader Kings III: Royal Edition
  • Shadowrun: Dragonfall
  • Surviving Mars: First Colony Edition
  • Cities: Skylines Industries
  • Imperator: Rome
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Expansion Pass
  • Prison Architect
  • Surviving Mars: First Colony Edition
  • Cities: Skylines - Campus
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Crusader Kings III
  • Shadowrun Returns
  • Battle for Bosporus
  • Crusader Kings II: Holy Fury Pre-order
  • Cities: Skylines - Parklife
  • BATTLETECH - Initiate of the Order
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Expansion Pass
  • Cities: Skylines
  • Surviving Mars: Digital Deluxe Edition
  • Europa Universalis IV: El Dorado
  • BATTLETECH - Beta Backer
  • Crusader Kings II: Way of Life
  • Pillars of Eternity
  • Europa Universalis IV: Common Sense
  • Tyranny - Tales from the Tiers
74%, not 80%. "Helpful" means they're interested in knowing about the changes and like to know. It's neutral in that it neither expresses a like or dislike. You take (agree / (agree + disagree + helpful)), not (agree + helpful) / (agree + helpful + disagree) - that will artificially inflate your number.

Also, this is all of those changes. Someone may love the gates and natural wormholes (they look pretty neat) - but it's entirely possible for those to exist in the current 3-FTL system. 74% like all those changes, as a whole, in that package. Some unknown, larger portion will dislike the FTL change but tolerate it for all the new stuff they're trumpeting.

Another 21% want to play 1.8.3, would rather have the current war, territory, and exploration and not these new gimmicks and keep the dynamic, open space Stellaris has to offer that its competitors do not.
I am not sure what you are getting at since I was using someone else math in the argument but it is safer to just ignore the comments saying helpful as Null data
 

Mrakvampire

Captain
88 Badges
Oct 19, 2009
406
248
  • Crusader Kings II: Charlemagne
  • Stellaris - Path to Destruction bundle
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Cities: Skylines - Mass Transit
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mare Nostrum
  • Cities: Skylines - Snowfall
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mandate of Heaven
  • Cities: Skylines - After Dark
  • Europa Universalis IV: Pre-order
  • Europa Universalis IV: Third Rome
  • Crusader Kings II: Jade Dragon
  • Semper Fi
  • Europa Universalis IV: Res Publica
  • Majesty 2 Collection
  • Hearts of Iron III Collection
  • Hearts of Iron III: Their Finest Hour
  • Crusader Kings II: Sunset Invasion
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Crusader Kings II: Legacy of Rome
  • Crusader Kings II: The Old Gods
  • Crusader Kings II: Rajas of India
  • Crusader Kings II: The Republic
  • Crusader Kings II: Sons of Abraham
  • Hearts of Iron III
  • Crusader Kings II: Sword of Islam
  • Europa Universalis IV: Wealth of Nations
  • For the Motherland
  • Europa Universalis IV: Call to arms event
  • Europa Universalis IV: Conquest of Paradise
  • Europa Universalis IV: Art of War
  • Europa Universalis IV: El Dorado
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Crusader Kings II: Monks and Mystics
  • Cities: Skylines - Natural Disasters
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Stellaris: Digital Anniversary Edition
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rights of Man
  • Crusader Kings II: Reapers Due
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Field Marshal
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Colonel
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Pillars of Eternity
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • 500k Club
  • Hearts of Iron IV: No Step Back
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Death or Dishonor
  • Crusader Kings II: Conclave
  • Victoria 2
  • Crusader Kings II: Way of Life
  • Crusader Kings II: Horse Lords
It's not THAT they're fixing combat, but HOW they're fixing combat that has everyone in a huff. Many disagree that fixing combat requires restricting movement, and some think even if that's the only way the price is still too high. It's not that hard to understand. I'd rather have a game with broken combat than broken exploration and general movement

Broken exploration? Broken general movement? Because of usage of hyperlanes??? Are you serious now??? You call it BROKEN???
 

Chreees

Corporal
80 Badges
Oct 14, 2014
48
114
  • Cities: Skylines - Natural Disasters
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Stellaris: Lithoids
  • Hearts of Iron IV: La Resistance
  • Stellaris: Federations
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Crusader Kings III
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Expansion Pass
  • Battle for Bosporus
  • Europa Universalis 4: Emperor
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Colonel
  • Crusader Kings II: The Old Gods
  • Europa Universalis IV: Call to arms event
  • Stellaris: Distant Stars
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mare Nostrum
  • Cities: Skylines - Snowfall
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cossacks
  • Cities: Skylines - After Dark
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Stellaris Sign-up
  • Cities: Skylines - Campus
  • Imperator: Rome Sign Up
  • Prison Architect
  • Europa Universalis IV: Golden Century
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Field Marshal
  • Stellaris: Megacorp
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rights of Man
  • Stellaris: Digital Anniversary Edition
  • Cities: Skylines - Parklife
  • Europa Universalis IV: Dharma
  • Cities: Skylines - Mass Transit
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mandate of Heaven
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Death or Dishonor
  • Stellaris: Ancient Relics
  • Cities: Skylines - Green Cities
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Expansion Pass
  • Stellaris: Humanoids Species Pack
  • Stellaris: Apocalypse
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rule Britannia
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Crusader Kings II: Conclave
  • Crusader Kings II: Horse Lords
  • Europa Universalis IV: Common Sense
  • Crusader Kings II: Way of Life
  • Magicka: Wizard Wars Founder Wizard
  • Europa Universalis IV: El Dorado
  • Hearts of Iron IV Sign-up
  • Victoria 2
  • Cities: Skylines
It's not THAT they're fixing combat, but HOW they're fixing combat that has everyone in a huff. Many disagree that fixing combat requires restricting movement, and some think even if that's the only way the price is still too high. It's not that hard to understand. I'd rather have a game with broken combat than broken exploration and general movement

Movement, and restricting movement has always been one of the most improtant parts of warfare. Its difficult to make combat compelling on a stategic level if there are basically no restrictions on movement.
 

grommile

Field Marshal
66 Badges
Jun 4, 2011
22.452
38.871
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Crusader Kings III
  • Stellaris
  • Shadowrun Returns
  • Teleglitch: Die More Edition
  • Victoria 2
  • 500k Club
  • March of the Eagles
  • Knights of Pen and Paper 2
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Europa Universalis III
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Cities: Skylines
  • Prison Architect
Broken exploration? Broken general movement? Because of usage of hyperlanes??? Are you serious now??? You call it BROKEN???
It's not quite the word I'd use myself, but... sure, why not?
 

ashbery76

Field Marshal
106 Badges
Oct 31, 2000
3.395
2.721
Visit site
  • 500k Club
  • Hearts of Iron IV: No Step Back
  • Europa Universalis: Rome
  • Imperator: Rome
  • Crusader Kings Complete
  • Crusader Kings III
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Europa Universalis III
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Victoria: Revolutions
  • Victoria 2
  • Hearts of Iron III
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Colonel
  • Stellaris
Movement, and restricting movement has always been one of the most improtant parts of warfare. Its difficult to make combat compelling on a stategic level if there are basically no restrictions on movement.

Indeed as is the main reason open space 4x strategic warfare is wafer thin.Just big build fleet and right click to node is about the planning required.
 

ORCACommander

Herald At The Gates
85 Badges
Jul 24, 2014
190
203
  • Crusader Kings II: Jade Dragon
  • Tyranny: Gold Edition
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rights of Man
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Stellaris
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mare Nostrum
  • Cities: Skylines - Snowfall
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Colonel
  • BATTLETECH - Backer
  • Hearts of Iron IV: No Step Back
  • Crusader Kings II: Conclave
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Hearts of Iron IV Sign-up
  • Stellaris Sign-up
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Crusader Kings II: Horse Lords
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Field Marshal
  • Crusader Kings II: Reapers Due
  • Stellaris: Digital Anniversary Edition
  • Cities: Skylines - Natural Disasters
  • Cities: Skylines - Mass Transit
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mandate of Heaven
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Death or Dishonor
  • Tyranny - Bastards Wound
  • Cities: Skylines - Green Cities
  • Crusader Kings III: Royal Edition
  • Shadowrun: Dragonfall
  • Surviving Mars: First Colony Edition
  • Cities: Skylines Industries
  • Imperator: Rome
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Expansion Pass
  • Prison Architect
  • Surviving Mars: First Colony Edition
  • Cities: Skylines - Campus
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Crusader Kings III
  • Shadowrun Returns
  • Battle for Bosporus
  • Crusader Kings II: Holy Fury Pre-order
  • Cities: Skylines - Parklife
  • BATTLETECH - Initiate of the Order
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Expansion Pass
  • Cities: Skylines
  • Surviving Mars: Digital Deluxe Edition
  • Europa Universalis IV: El Dorado
  • BATTLETECH - Beta Backer
  • Crusader Kings II: Way of Life
  • Pillars of Eternity
  • Europa Universalis IV: Common Sense
  • Tyranny - Tales from the Tiers
I get boycotting a company because of business practices.

I get boycotting a series because of creative differences

But boycotting a company because of creative diffrences seems odd to me.

I am not your typical person. but EA changing tiberium is not the only reason i dislike them.

Movement, and restricting movement has always been one of the most improtant parts of warfare. Its difficult to make combat compelling on a stategic level if there are basically no restrictions on movement.
I take it you have never Played Homeworld. Granted its not 4x and you have direct control over each ship down to the fighters...
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Orinsul

Absent Minded
115 Badges
Feb 7, 2008
8.939
2.461
  • Victoria 2: Heart of Darkness
  • Stellaris
  • Cities: Skylines - Snowfall
  • 500k Club
  • Crusader Kings II: Monks and Mystics
  • Crusader Kings II: Holy Knight (pre-order)
  • Europa Universalis IV: El Dorado
  • Europa Universalis IV: Pre-order
  • Crusader Kings II: Way of Life
  • Europa Universalis IV: Common Sense
  • Crusader Kings II: Horse Lords
  • Cities: Skylines - After Dark
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cossacks
  • Crusader Kings II: Conclave
  • Stellaris: Distant Stars
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mare Nostrum
  • Stellaris Sign-up
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Crusader Kings II: Reapers Due
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rights of Man
  • Tyranny: Archon Edition
  • Tyranny: Archon Edition
  • Stellaris: Digital Anniversary Edition
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Cities: Skylines - Natural Disasters
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Together for Victory
  • Europa Universalis IV: Art of War
  • Crusader Kings II: Jade Dragon
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Expansion Pass
  • Stellaris: Humanoids Species Pack
  • Stellaris: Apocalypse
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rule Britannia
  • Surviving Mars: Digital Deluxe Edition
  • BATTLETECH - Digital Deluxe Edition
  • Cities: Skylines - Parklife Pre-Order
  • Cities: Skylines - Green Cities
  • Europa Universalis IV: Dharma
  • Cities: Skylines - Mass Transit
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cradle of Civilization
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mandate of Heaven
  • Europa Universalis IV: Wealth of Nations
  • Europa Universalis IV: Call to arms event
  • Europa Universalis IV: Third Rome
  • Hearts of Iron IV: No Step Back
  • Surviving Mars
  • Europa Universalis IV: Res Publica
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Death or Dishonor
  • Cities: Skylines - Parklife
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Expansion Pass
will there be some lore to explain how the hyperlanes got there?

were they built by the fallen empire gate builders?

if they are being the focus, it might be time to explain how they happen and what they are
 

Cirrus Light

Sergeant
8 Badges
Sep 10, 2017
86
0
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Stellaris
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Stellaris - Path to Destruction bundle
  • Stellaris: Synthetic Dawn
  • Stellaris: Apocalypse
I am not sure what you are getting at since I was using someone else math in the argument but it is safer to just ignore the comments saying helpful as Null data
Oh, lol, I was really more replying to what you were replying to - should've just fished that post out and replied to it instead - but when I first started correcting that other person's numbers, I thought the "disagree" fraction would go up - it actually ended up being about 21% when you compare (diagree / (agree + disagree + helpful)), not the 27% or so I was expecting/recall from the disagree/agree ratio, which is an entirely different thing, of course.

But saying 80% are happy with the DD is wrong. Saying 80% are happy about the FTL change is even more wrong. So, really replying to what you were replying to.
 

Hawklaser

Second Lieutenant
Oct 28, 2017
163
0
Movement, and restricting movement has always been one of the most improtant parts of warfare. Its difficult to make combat compelling on a stategic level if there are basically no restrictions on movement.

For land based combat this is very true. But for Naval and Aerial combat, this goes out the window fairly quickly beyond the most drastic measure of blockading ports and removing airstrips. And space thematically does not lend itself to land based combat conventions. If anything it would be a mix of Naval and Aerial. Most Naval combat outside of dealing with blockades, were typically because of chance encounters until modern over the horizon radar, and sonar became relevant as those are what allowed for planned encounters at sea to begin to happen outside of staking out common routes ships traveled and then stalking the other ship to a favorable location.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.