• 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:

Ulfr

Corporal
55 Badges
Nov 5, 2017
28
0
  • Knights of Pen and Paper +1 Edition
  • Stellaris
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cossacks
  • Stellaris: Synthetic Dawn
  • Cities: Skylines - Snowfall
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mare Nostrum
  • Crusader Kings II: Reapers Due
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rights of Man
  • Tyranny: Archon Edition
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Crusader Kings II: Monks and Mystics
  • Stellaris - Path to Destruction bundle
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mandate of Heaven
  • Europa Universalis IV: Third Rome
  • Surviving Mars
  • Shadowrun: Hong Kong
  • Age of Wonders III
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cradle of Civilization
  • Crusader Kings II: Jade Dragon
  • Stellaris: Apocalypse
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rule Britannia
  • Surviving Mars: Digital Deluxe Edition
  • Stellaris: Distant Stars
  • Europa Universalis IV: Dharma
  • Shadowrun Returns
  • Shadowrun: Dragonfall
  • Stellaris: Megacorp
  • Crusader Kings III
  • Crusader Kings II: Charlemagne
  • 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
  • Crusader Kings II: Sunset Invasion
  • Crusader Kings II: Sword of Islam
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Europa Universalis IV: Art of War
  • Europa Universalis IV: Wealth of Nations
  • Crusader Kings II: Conclave
  • Europa Universalis IV: Res Publica
  • Cities: Skylines
  • Cities: Skylines Deluxe Edition
  • Europa Universalis IV: El Dorado
  • Europa Universalis IV: Pre-order
  • Crusader Kings II: Way of Life
  • Pillars of Eternity
  • Europa Universalis IV: Common Sense
  • Crusader Kings II: Horse Lords
  • Cities: Skylines - After Dark
Endless Space: Probably the most popular but not a pure starlane-based game, you can easily (in the very early game) go off-road and in fact the entire game is designed around lane-connected "islands" where the only way between them is to go off-road with free movement, so even if you dont want to, you must at some point.

The game never requires you to go off-road at all. Those islands connect to the galactic core or to each other by wormholes, which are slightly different Hyperlanes you unlock after a while.

Warp exists, but it's extremely slow at first and doesn't unlock until mid-game. If you aren't heavily investing into it, it's almost always faster to use Hyperlanes instead. I only found it useful, if I've been cut off from my fleets by closed borders.

There's also some form of instant teleportation inside your borders, but that requires you to build portals in your systems and is unique to the Vaulters template.

Endless Space FTL has more in common with Stellaris 2.0 than with 1.9.
 

Boygor

Second Lieutenant
13 Badges
May 18, 2017
133
0
  • Stellaris: Synthetic Dawn
  • Pillars of Eternity
  • Stellaris
  • Stellaris: Digital Anniversary Edition
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Stellaris - Path to Destruction bundle
  • Stellaris: Humanoids Species Pack
  • Stellaris: Apocalypse
  • Stellaris: Distant Stars
  • Shadowrun Returns
  • Shadowrun: Dragonfall
  • Stellaris: Megacorp
  • Crusader Kings II
There is a hyperlane map mode to toggle the hyperlane display on and off. I believe it has been added in 1.6.

Thanks for the constructive response :) Alas the ugliness of hyperlanes isn't just superficial to me. I hate the idea of jumping from system to system on a web of lanes. I've tried many hyperlane based games but ultimately, regardless of a games other qualities I just hate them so much that I can't play them. Every single time I need to move ships I'm reminded that they are there and well, that's just not enjoyable for me.

It's not a lie for me to say that I only bought Stellaris because of warp travel. It was literally the first feature that I confirmed before even looking into the game pre-launch. I swear to God that if it were hyperlane only then I would not have bought it and there are a number of 4x players who feel exactly the same way.

I blame MOO3 after the freedom of travel of MOO2. Hated hyperlanes then, hate them now. Paradox could put literally any feature into the game at this point and I wouldn't care short of introducing jump-drive start.

This whole debate has been illuminating - I never even considered the possibility that what people *really* liked about Space 4X games was the absence of hyperlane FTL. You learn constantly I guess.

I'm not sure if you are being sarcastic or not but actually, this I can relate to 100%. It's literally what will convince me to even think about purchasing a 4x game lol. Not logical but by goodness I hate hyperlanes with a unholy passion ;)
 
Last edited by a moderator:

AlanC9

Field Marshal
16 Badges
Mar 15, 2001
5.081
320
Visit site
  • Hearts of Iron III
  • 500k Club
  • Europa Universalis III: Collection
  • Pillars of Eternity
  • Stellaris
  • Cities in Motion 2
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Crusader Kings II: The Old Gods
  • Europa Universalis III
  • Divine Wind
  • For the Motherland
  • Hearts of Iron III: Their Finest Hour
  • Heir to the Throne
  • Majesty 2 Collection
  • Semper Fi
  • Magicka 2
So where are the "really good" starlane-restricted 4x games, the ones that were incredibly popular and sold really well?

I'd count both SoaSE and some of the Space Empires series. You wouldn't? OK, but that's just your personal tastes showing. You don't like starlanes, so you're unlikely to like games with starlanes.

I'm not sure I'd define "worked" as succeeding in forcing land warfare concepts like chokepoints, roads and mountains into a space game. How incredibly boring, simplistic and uninspired, basically just RISK in space with a starry skin. They worked for what they did, but what they did was just a pretty rubbish dumbing down of the genre, IMO of course.

Whether those are land warfare concepts or not is irrelevant. It's also not really true -- these concepts are from a particular abstraction of land warfare. You can get to using starlanes from first principles rather than thinking about land warfare, the way Niven and Pournelle did. (Note that while their Alderson Drive uses starlanes, they analogize to naval warfare rather than land warfare when describng how it works in practice.)

How come you keep playing this card?


You seem to be implying that I claimed that it should bother somebody else. Can you point me to where I said that? Although to be honest, several somebodies - even on this forum - are obviously bothered or else this thread probably wouldn't be 272 pages long with the other one catching up fast. Clearly not everyone is entirely happy with being forced to use nothing but space roads 1.5 years after already buying a game which loudly advertised FTL diversity as a selling point. I cant say I blame them.

You come across as someone desperately looking for people to agree with him. I suppose that's better than endless repeating the some complaints for no reason at all.
 

pcavalcanti

Second Lieutenant
50 Badges
Dec 24, 2014
138
9
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Victoria 2: Heart of Darkness
  • Stellaris
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Imperator: Rome
  • Cities: Skylines
  • Europa Universalis IV: Pre-order
  • Crusader Kings II: Way of Life
  • Magicka 2
  • Crusader Kings II: Horse Lords
  • Cities: Skylines - After Dark
  • Crusader Kings II: Conclave
  • Cities: Skylines - Snowfall
  • Shadowrun Returns
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Crusader Kings II: Reapers Due
  • Stellaris: Digital Anniversary Edition
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Crusader Kings II: Monks and Mystics
  • Age of Wonders III
  • Stellaris: Humanoids Species Pack
  • Stellaris: Apocalypse
  • Cities: Skylines - Parklife Pre-Order
  • Cities: Skylines - Parklife
  • The Showdown Effect
  • Europa Universalis IV: Art of War
  • Europa Universalis IV: Res Publica
  • Europa Universalis IV: Wealth of Nations
  • Stellaris: Synthetic Dawn
  • Stellaris - Path to Destruction bundle
  • Victoria 2: A House Divided
  • Victoria 2
  • Crusader Kings II: Sword of Islam
  • Crusader Kings II: Sunset Invasion
  • Crusader Kings II: Sons of Abraham
  • Crusader Kings II: The Republic
  • Crusader Kings II: Rajas of India
  • Crusader Kings II: The Old Gods
  • Crusader Kings II: Legacy of Rome
  • Crusader Kings II: Charlemagne
  • Dungeonland
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Sengoku
  • Semper Fi
  • Victoria: Revolutions
  • Knights of Pen and Paper +1 Edition
  • Hearts of Iron III Collection
  • Hearts of Iron III: Their Finest Hour
  • Hearts of Iron III
  • For the Motherland
"Yeah but then the game will look like some demented spider crawled all over outer space. It looks Ugly.

Agreed. The game now looks really ugly from the galaxy map. Depending on the borders they have it looks like intestins... I hope they make a mode to only display the empire border lines - just the lines.
 
Last edited:

terrycloth

Lt. General
61 Badges
Jun 8, 2016
1.478
416
  • Crusader Kings II: Legacy of Rome
  • Stellaris: Synthetic Dawn
  • Tyranny - Tales from the Tiers
  • Europa Universalis IV: Res Publica
  • Magicka
  • Leviathan: Warships
  • Knights of Pen and Paper +1 Edition
  • Europa Universalis IV: Wealth of Nations
  • Europa Universalis IV: Conquest of Paradise
  • Europa Universalis IV: Art of War
  • Dungeonland
  • Crusader Kings II: Sword of Islam
  • Crusader Kings II: Sunset Invasion
  • Crusader Kings II: Sons of Abraham
  • Crusader Kings II: The Republic
  • Crusader Kings II: Rajas of India
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Crusader Kings II: The Old Gods
  • Crusader Kings II: Monks and Mystics
  • Stellaris: Nemesis
  • BATTLETECH
  • Surviving Mars
  • Imperator: Rome
  • Tyranny - Bastards Wound
  • Age of Wonders III
  • Stellaris: Humanoids Species Pack
  • Stellaris: Apocalypse
  • Stellaris: Distant Stars
  • Shadowrun Returns
  • Shadowrun: Dragonfall
  • Shadowrun: Hong Kong
  • Stellaris: Megacorp
  • Imperator: Rome Deluxe Edition
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cossacks
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Victoria 2
  • Warlock: Master of the Arcane
  • Cities: Skylines
  • Europa Universalis IV: El Dorado
  • Crusader Kings II: Way of Life
  • Pillars of Eternity
  • Europa Universalis IV: Common Sense
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Together for Victory
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mare Nostrum
  • Stellaris
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Crusader Kings II: Reapers Due
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rights of Man
  • Tyranny: Archon Edition
  • Stellaris: Digital Anniversary Edition
Agreed. The game now looks really ugly from the galaxy map. Depending on the borders they have it looks like intestins... I hope they make a mode to only display the empire border lines - just the lines.

I think wiz said there was a map mode to turn off display of the hyperlanes? That would only make sense in max density, but it could work there to make it less ugly.
 

SS Boss

For the Empire
79 Badges
Oct 3, 2011
129
475
  • BATTLETECH
  • BATTLETECH: Flashpoint
  • BATTLETECH: Season pass
  • Age of Wonders: Planetfall
  • BATTLETECH - Digital Deluxe Edition
  • BATTLETECH: Heavy Metal
  • Stellaris: Nemesis
  • Warlock 2: The Exiled
  • Warlock 2: Wrath of the Nagas
  • Age of Wonders II
  • Age of Wonders: Planetfall - Revelations
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Victoria 2: Heart of Darkness
  • Stellaris Sign-up
  • Stellaris: Federations
  • Stellaris: Necroids
  • Victoria 2: A House Divided
  • Semper Fi
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Together for Victory
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Stellaris: Distant Stars
  • Stellaris: Digital Anniversary Edition
  • Hearts of Iron III: Their Finest Hour
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Stellaris
  • Crusader Kings II: Monks and Mystics
  • Europa Universalis IV: Art of War
  • Crusader Kings II: Conclave
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Crusader Kings II: Horse Lords
  • Europa Universalis IV: Common Sense
  • Crusader Kings II: Way of Life
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Death or Dishonor
  • Stellaris: Synthetic Dawn
  • Age of Wonders III
  • Europa Universalis IV: Wealth of Nations
  • Crusader Kings II: Jade Dragon
  • For the Motherland
  • Crusader Kings II: Charlemagne
  • Stellaris: Humanoids Species Pack
  • Stellaris: Apocalypse
  • Stellaris: Megacorp
  • Crusader Kings II: Holy Fury
  • Prison Architect
  • Stellaris: Ancient Relics
  • Stellaris: Lithoids
  • Europa Universalis IV: El Dorado
  • Victoria 2
Players will still have the option of keeping the 1.9 version of the game. The same game you bought 1.5 years ago is still available to you. Nothing is being forced on anyone.

Actually, people who think the game should be the same they purchased should play 1.0.

1.9 ? Nope.
 

Kappenloch

Second Lieutenant
Nov 14, 2017
160
0
Where is the triple-FTL game with freeform race building as popular? I guess distant worlds comes closer than most IIRC, but that makes it a draw between DW and ES going by your list.

No I dont think DW qualifies, it has only one movement type (warp) and no freeform race building at all. Thats really the point, Stellaris was almost unique, it was bold, fresh, innovative and different, "was" being the operative word. I think only SOTS and Star Ruler 2 had different FTL options, and they didn't have freeform race building. Now Stellaris is just another common-as-dirt hyperlane-only game. Just like all the forgotten, mediocre dross out there. Very sad.

I´ll get back to you on that in a week. I want to actually play the new system before digging in hard on any particular position. I do however wholeheartedly agree that the whole windup/windown vs. actual travel time and strategic map lack of travel info need to be fixed. But I kinda doubt that would actually fix the problems, it would just make them more manageable.

I find it fascinating that you are one of the few people who can see that instantly teleporting fleets and lack of fleet movement info on the UI is the real underlying problem with Stellaris, but you dont seem to think that fixing them will solve the problem. Why not? it solves the problem in all other games like DW which dont have horribly broken movement. Free movement works fine in DW and doomstacks are not a problem, why wouldn't it work for Stellaris too?

You argument is that there exist some mode in Stellaris that is hyperlane based. I.e. movement is hyperlane-based, border grow is hyperlane-based etc. Your argument is wrong.

By all means feel free to elaborate, You're saying that 2.0 Stellairs will NOT have hyperlane-based movement because...??

The game never requires you to go off-road at all. Those islands connect to the galactic core or to each other by wormholes, which are slightly different Hyperlanes you unlock after a while.

Ahh I didnt know that, but sill it underlines the point that ES is not a purely starlane restricted game, it has free movement available from the very early game and that free movement is extremely useful. I know because I often used it to travel straight from A to E faster than I could travel from following the road network A-B-C-D-E. In Stellaris 2.0 on the other hand, you'll be stuck on space rails until at least the late game.

I'd count both SoaSE and some of the Space Empires series. You wouldn't? OK, but that's just your personal tastes showing. You don't like starlanes, so you're unlikely to like games with starlanes.

SoaSE is not really a 4x, its an RTS focusing on tactical combat, and Space Empires? Yeah I quite liked SE, but definitely not the starlanes, either way it has mostly been forgotten and doesn't even come close to MOO 1 / 2 or Gal Civ in popularity or sales. Nothing subjective about that, its just a fact, SE for all its good points (and there were many) simply wasn't that popular.

Whether those are land warfare concepts or not is irrelevant. It's also not really true -- these concepts are from a particular abstraction of land warfare. You can get to using starlanes from first principles rather than thinking about land warfare, the way Niven and Pournelle did. (Note that while their Alderson Drive uses starlanes, they analogize to naval warfare rather than land warfare when describng how it works in practice.)

How come you keep playing this card?

Everything in a computer game is an abstraction! Roads, Chokepoints and Mountains are land-based concepts which destroy my immersion and make me feel like I'm playing anything EXCEPT a space game. That's why I keep playing that card, its the very thing that stops me from playing 2.0. I have a hundred other land-based games if I want to be challenged by land-based strategic thinking. I buy a space game for a different and fresh strategic challenge, a different way of thinking about attack and defence, not RISK-in-Space.

You come across as someone desperately looking for people to agree with him. I suppose that's better than endless repeating the some complaints for no reason at all.

Oh woe is me, where in this tiny 273 page thread will I ever find anyone who agrees with me, am I all alone? LOL!! :D
 

AlanC9

Field Marshal
16 Badges
Mar 15, 2001
5.081
320
Visit site
  • Hearts of Iron III
  • 500k Club
  • Europa Universalis III: Collection
  • Pillars of Eternity
  • Stellaris
  • Cities in Motion 2
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Crusader Kings II: The Old Gods
  • Europa Universalis III
  • Divine Wind
  • For the Motherland
  • Hearts of Iron III: Their Finest Hour
  • Heir to the Throne
  • Majesty 2 Collection
  • Semper Fi
  • Magicka 2
Everything in a computer game is an abstraction! Roads, Chokepoints and Mountains are land-based concepts which destroy my immersion and make me feel like I'm playing anything EXCEPT a space game. That's why I keep playing that card, its the very thing that stops me from playing 2.0. I have a hundred other land-based games if I want to be challenged by land-based strategic thinking. I buy a space game for a different and fresh strategic challenge, a different way of thinking about attack and defence, not RISK-in-Space.

But this is just you letting your metaphor do the thinking for you. Or rather, letting the metaphor control your feelings, since I don't see any actual thinking here. Hyperlanes aren't actually roads, and if thinking of hyperlanes as roads breaks your immersion, you're doing it to yourself.

Since I was just thinking of Niven's essay… did you ever read The Mote in God's Eye? If you did, did you have trouble thinking of ISS MacArthur as a spaceship. After alls it travels along Alderson Drive tramlines when it isn't maneuvering on its fusion drive. Does that make it a train rather than a battlecruiser?
 

Kappenloch

Second Lieutenant
Nov 14, 2017
160
0
But this is just you letting your metaphor do the thinking for you. Or rather, letting the metaphor control your feelings, since I don't see any actual thinking here. Hyperlanes aren't actually roads, and if thinking of hyperlanes as roads breaks your immersion, you're doing it to yourself.

Since I was just thinking of Niven's essay… did you ever read The Mote in God's Eye? If you did, did you have trouble thinking of ISS MacArthur as a spaceship. After alls it travels along Alderson Drive tramlines when it isn't maneuvering on its fusion drive. Does that make it a train rather than a battlecruiser?

I have good reasons, you're just not seeing them, let me try again in a bit more detail. Your comment about 'The mote in God's Eye' was terrific because it really helps make my point. Mote was a fantastic story written by a brilliant author, it was very enjoyable to read but it wasn't a strategy game it was a sci-fi story. Playing a strategy game like that would be extremely dull and predictable and I would avoid it like the plague because it would bore me to death. I dont oppose hyperlanes on 'reality' grounds (whatever that means) I oppose them because they're dull, simplistic and involve the exact same strategic thinking as I'd use in an extremely simple land strategy game like RISK. That's simply not what I'm looking for in a space strategy game, I want to be challenged by different, more fluid and dynamic strategic concepts. I want something different from all the other land games on my shelf.

Of course Hyperlanes aren't actually roads, but they might as well be as far as the actual strategy is concerned. Same as roads in a land 4x game aren't actual roads but they encourage the exact same strategies as if they were.

That's about as well as I can put it so if you still think I'm making decisions based on an abstraction then I dont know what else to do. My preferences are based on the type of strategic thinking involved and the type of challenges presented, which In hyperlane-only games are IDENTICAL to very simplistic land-based strategy. And that's just not good enough for me to part with my money.
 

macd21

General
80 Badges
Oct 10, 2011
2.089
945
  • Europa Universalis IV: Res Publica
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mare Nostrum
  • Europa Universalis IV: Third Rome
  • Stellaris: Synthetic Dawn
  • Europa Universalis IV: Pre-order
  • Crusader Kings II: Jade Dragon
  • Victoria 2: Heart of Darkness
  • Victoria 2: A House Divided
  • Sword of the Stars II
  • Victoria: Revolutions
  • Europa Universalis IV: Call to arms event
  • Europa Universalis IV: Wealth of Nations
  • Europa Universalis IV: Art of War
  • Crusader Kings II: Charlemagne
  • 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
  • Crusader Kings II: Sunset Invasion
  • Crusader Kings II: Sword of Islam
  • Europa Universalis III: Chronicles
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Europa Universalis IV: Conquest of Paradise
  • Stellaris: Apocalypse
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Together for Victory
  • Crusader Kings II: Monks and Mystics
  • Hearts of Iron IV: No Step Back
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mandate of Heaven
  • BATTLETECH
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Death or Dishonor
  • Age of Wonders III
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cradle of Civilization
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Expansion Pass
  • Stellaris: Humanoids Species Pack
  • Stellaris: Digital Anniversary Edition
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rights of Man
  • Crusader Kings II: Reapers Due
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Stellaris Sign-up
  • Stellaris
  • Crusader Kings II: Conclave
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cossacks
  • Crusader Kings II: Horse Lords
  • Europa Universalis IV: Common Sense
  • Crusader Kings II: Way of Life
  • Europa Universalis IV: El Dorado
  • 500k Club
  • Victoria 2
I have good reasons, you're just not seeing them, let me try again in a bit more detail. Your comment about 'The mote in God's Eye' was terrific because it really helps make my point. Mote was a fantastic story written by a brilliant author, it was very enjoyable to read but it wasn't a strategy game it was a sci-fi story. Playing a strategy game like that would be extremely dull and predictable and I would avoid it like the plague because it would bore me to death. I dont oppose hyperlanes on 'reality' grounds (whatever that means) I oppose them because they're dull, simplistic and involve the exact same strategic thinking as I'd use in an extremely simple land strategy game like RISK. That's simply not what I'm looking for in a space strategy game, I want to be challenged by different, more fluid and dynamic strategic concepts. I want something different from all the other land games on my shelf.

Of course Hyperlanes aren't actually roads, but they might as well be as far as the actual strategy is concerned. Same as roads in a land 4x game aren't actual roads but they encourage the exact same strategies as if they were.

That's about as well as I can put it so if you still think I'm making decisions based on an abstraction then I dont know what else to do. My preferences are based on the type of strategic thinking involved and the type of challenges presented, which In hyperlane-only games are IDENTICAL to very simplistic land-based strategy. And that's just not good enough for me to part with my money.

Whereas I think hyper lanes will make for a better strategy game because it will create choke points, make ‘terrain’ important and y’know, actually introduce strategy to the game. The current system removes any military strategy from the game because any fleet can go anywhere, reducing warfare to who-has-the-bigger-doomstack. It makes Stellaris warfare dull and predictable.
 

zizard

Major
4 Badges
Jul 28, 2017
547
2
  • Stellaris
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Stellaris - Path to Destruction bundle
  • Stellaris: Distant Stars
No I dont think DW qualifies, it has only one movement type (warp) and no freeform race building at all. Thats really the point, Stellaris was almost unique, it was bold, fresh, innovative and different, "was" being the operative word. I think only SOTS and Star Ruler 2 had different FTL options, and they didn't have freeform race building. Now Stellaris is just another common-as-dirt hyperlane-only game. Just like all the forgotten, mediocre dross out there. Very sad.

Yeah it's disappointing that this route was decided. Now the only difference between empires is some +/-% (apart from the FP types which are not really different as much as simply subtracting diplomacy from the base model, and also not including DLC-only things). Starting weapon of neighbours was quite important to find out in the early game (ok well it would be if shield/armour were cost efficient in the early game, but that's another whole topic), and FTL type of each race was important for the entire game.

There's great strategy games out there with more than 1 kind of movement available all game. e.g. Total War with land / sea movement. Which works fine, substantially because you can see at a glance what the rough size of an army / navy is and whether the navy is transporting troops or not. It would seem logical to fix the very clear and straightforward UI problem of galaxy map fleet icons not indicating strength and movement, rather than spending an entire major version number fixing what could be symptoms of that UI flaw. The fun part is that it looks like it's still not fixed :p

Perhaps strategy will be improved with hyperlane only. But you have to wonder whether it would have been even better if they tried to make multiple FTLs work. Several times the developers have chosen removal / homogenisation over embracing the differences. e.g. flak and PD ended up becoming 2 names for 1 thing. Ship classes only being able to use 1 combat computer (now realised to be a mistake). Planet types being 3 shades of 3 colours. AI crisis changed to be similar to the other 2, all using fleets/nodes structure. Watering down of sectors so that they are now merely optional (and bad) auto-build. Shields and armour becoming different coloured health bars. Missiles/torps rolled into one.

I'm not saying that every single one of these examples was the wrong choice. But you have to see a pattern in the way that problematic mechanics are addressed.
 

AlanC9

Field Marshal
16 Badges
Mar 15, 2001
5.081
320
Visit site
  • Hearts of Iron III
  • 500k Club
  • Europa Universalis III: Collection
  • Pillars of Eternity
  • Stellaris
  • Cities in Motion 2
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Crusader Kings II: The Old Gods
  • Europa Universalis III
  • Divine Wind
  • For the Motherland
  • Hearts of Iron III: Their Finest Hour
  • Heir to the Throne
  • Majesty 2 Collection
  • Semper Fi
  • Magicka 2
I have good reasons, you're just not seeing them, let me try again in a bit more detail. Your comment about 'The mote in God's Eye' was terrific because it really helps make my point. Mote was a fantastic story written by a brilliant author, it was very enjoyable to read but it wasn't a strategy game it was a sci-fi story. Playing a strategy game like that would be extremely dull and predictable and I would avoid it like the plague because it would bore me to death. I dont oppose hyperlanes on 'reality' grounds (whatever that means) I oppose them because they're dull, simplistic and involve the exact same strategic thinking as I'd use in an extremely simple land strategy game like RISK. That's simply not what I'm looking for in a space strategy game, I want to be challenged by different, more fluid and dynamic strategic concepts. I want something different from all the other land games on my shelf.
.

But if this is your real argument, then why do you keep talking about how starlanes make you feel like you're doing anything except playing a space-based game? It's not only nonsense, it's orthogonal to your actual interests.

As for the substance, I don't see how the actual Stellaris 1.9 is superior to the proposed Stellaris 2.0. A fantasy alternate Stellaris might do better, but I don't know how to evaluate fantasy alternatives.
 

GulGnu

First Lieutenant
88 Badges
Oct 5, 2000
271
55
Visit site
  • Ship Simulator Extremes
  • Heir to the Throne
  • Lead and Gold
  • The Kings Crusade
  • Majesty 2
  • Crusader Kings II: Jade Dragon
  • Europa Universalis IV: Res Publica
  • Victoria: Revolutions
  • Rome Gold
  • Semper Fi
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Sword of the Stars
  • Europa Universalis IV: Third Rome
  • Crusader Kings II: Monks and Mystics
  • Stellaris: Apocalypse
  • Knights of Honor
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mare Nostrum
  • Stellaris - Path to Destruction bundle
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Field Marshal
  • Crusader Kings II: Sunset Invasion
  • Crusader Kings II: Legacy of Rome
  • Crusader Kings II: Charlemagne
  • Crusader Kings II: The Old Gods
  • Crusader Kings II: Rajas of India
  • Crusader Kings II: The Republic
  • Arsenal of Democracy
  • Crusader Kings II: Sons of Abraham
  • Crusader Kings II: Sword of Islam
  • Europa Universalis III
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Divine Wind
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Europa Universalis IV: Art of War
  • Europa Universalis IV: Conquest of Paradise
  • Europa Universalis IV: Wealth of Nations
  • For The Glory
  • Hearts of Iron III
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rights of Man
  • Crusader Kings II: Reapers Due
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Colonel
  • Hearts of Iron IV Sign-up
  • Stellaris
  • Crusader Kings II: Conclave
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cossacks
  • Crusader Kings II: Horse Lords
  • Europa Universalis IV: Common Sense
  • Pillars of Eternity
  • 500k Club
  • Rome: Vae Victis
  • Stellaris: Nemesis
No I dont think DW qualifies, it has only one movement type (warp) and no freeform race building at all. Thats really the point, Stellaris was almost unique, it was bold, fresh, innovative and different, "was" being the operative word. I think only SOTS and Star Ruler 2 had different FTL options, and they didn't have freeform race building. Now Stellaris is just another common-as-dirt hyperlane-only game. Just like all the forgotten, mediocre dross out there. Very sad.

I might have been thinking about SOTS, yeah.

And yes, multiFTL together with the freeform race design makes Stellaris unique. At the same time, there is also the possibility that there is a good reason for that uniqueness.


I find it fascinating that you are one of the few people who can see that instantly teleporting fleets and lack of fleet movement info on the UI is the real underlying problem with Stellaris, but you dont seem to think that fixing them will solve the problem. Why not? it solves the problem in all other games like DW which dont have horribly broken movement. Free movement works fine in DW and doomstacks are not a problem, why wouldn't it work for Stellaris too?

I wouldn´t go as far as saying it´s *the* problem, I´d put it more in the "a problem" basket.

Better reaction times wouldn´t really solve the problem of uninhibited striking of core worlds, meaning that you get one big battle and that tends to decide the war (unless it´s a close one), I think. You need some kind of fortification / travel inhibition mechanic (EU4 had the same problem before forts) to enable recovery and more arduous wars even for superior attackers.

The only current counter is baseracing your opponent, and that´s not a very satisfying way of playing out wars, imho.

That doesn´t mean that hyperlane travel is the only possible solution (or that it is a solution at all), of course - the alternative is warp+inhibitor bubbles. Like I said, we´ll see in a week.

Finally, my take should not be taken as disagreement with those that have a strong lore/gameplay preference for multiTFL / non-Hyperlane FTL. You are being shafted by this change, and there is no way of arguing around that. It sucks, and I hope it turns out that better warfare makes up for it to as large a degree as possible and that we don´t just end up with unbreakable chokepoints and a megaturtling meta. Fingers crossed.
 

Kappenloch

Second Lieutenant
Nov 14, 2017
160
0
Whereas I think hyper lanes will make for a better strategy game because it will create choke points, make ‘terrain’ important and y’know, actually introduce strategy to the game. The current system removes any military strategy from the game because any fleet can go anywhere, reducing warfare to who-has-the-bigger-doomstack. It makes Stellaris warfare dull and predictable.

Warfare in Stellaris is indeed pretty terrible. I would just have liked to have seen them fix it without scrapping all the FTL starting options. And the hyperlane "strategy" you refer to is boring as hell, totally done-to-death and so simplistic that it can - and is - often mastered by children who regularly play RISK. Because its exactly the same.

But if this is your real argument, then why do you keep talking about how starlanes make you feel like you're doing anything except playing a space-based game? It's not only nonsense, it's orthogonal to your actual interests.

*sigh* Its not my real argument its my entire argument. Starlanes make me feel like I'm playing a land-based game rather than a space-based game because the strategic thinking and challenges involved are exactly the same as that used with roads, mountains (impassable areas) and assaulting fortified chokepoints. I dont like that, I find it dull, simplistic, done-to-death and uninteresting. I want a completely different kind of strategy in my space games, I couldn't care less how realistic it is as long as its relatively deep, nuanced and NOT identical to the same old land strategy. I've said as much about 20 times now, so frankly if you're haven't got it by now I doubt you ever will.

Fuck theres a lot of not designers in here talking like they know anything about video game development...

I was wondering how long it would take for the good old "argument from authority" to try stifling all conversation, and here it is right on queue. Such a very worthy addition to the thread.

Better reaction times wouldn´t really solve the problem of uninhibited striking of core worlds, meaning that you get one big battle and that tends to decide the war (unless it´s a close one), I think. You need some kind of fortification / travel inhibition mechanic (EU4 had the same problem before forts) to enable recovery and more arduous wars even for superior attackers.

What about fuel range for solving that problem? Ships in Stellaris can magically travel forever but in DW you are usually prevented from launching large attacks straight into an opponent empire's heart due to fuel constraints, plus extremely daunting fixed defences which can (and do) take out entire fleets but especially when they run out of fuel in the middle of an attack. All these problems have already been solved again and again (20 years ago with MOO2) in games with properly designed movement. It could also work fine for Stellaris if movement wasn't so horribly implemented. All they have to do is fix it instead of scrapping it.

Cutting out all free movement as 'too hard' is just a terrible way to fix the situation, particularly since all the original problems (teleporting fleets, no movement vectors on the UI) will still be there, but movement is now so dumbed-down and restricted with only hyperlanes that predicting where the enemy is going to teleport from is now a no-brainer. And that's the solution? Ugh!
 

GulGnu

First Lieutenant
88 Badges
Oct 5, 2000
271
55
Visit site
  • Ship Simulator Extremes
  • Heir to the Throne
  • Lead and Gold
  • The Kings Crusade
  • Majesty 2
  • Crusader Kings II: Jade Dragon
  • Europa Universalis IV: Res Publica
  • Victoria: Revolutions
  • Rome Gold
  • Semper Fi
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Sword of the Stars
  • Europa Universalis IV: Third Rome
  • Crusader Kings II: Monks and Mystics
  • Stellaris: Apocalypse
  • Knights of Honor
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mare Nostrum
  • Stellaris - Path to Destruction bundle
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Field Marshal
  • Crusader Kings II: Sunset Invasion
  • Crusader Kings II: Legacy of Rome
  • Crusader Kings II: Charlemagne
  • Crusader Kings II: The Old Gods
  • Crusader Kings II: Rajas of India
  • Crusader Kings II: The Republic
  • Arsenal of Democracy
  • Crusader Kings II: Sons of Abraham
  • Crusader Kings II: Sword of Islam
  • Europa Universalis III
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Divine Wind
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Europa Universalis IV: Art of War
  • Europa Universalis IV: Conquest of Paradise
  • Europa Universalis IV: Wealth of Nations
  • For The Glory
  • Hearts of Iron III
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rights of Man
  • Crusader Kings II: Reapers Due
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Colonel
  • Hearts of Iron IV Sign-up
  • Stellaris
  • Crusader Kings II: Conclave
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cossacks
  • Crusader Kings II: Horse Lords
  • Europa Universalis IV: Common Sense
  • Pillars of Eternity
  • 500k Club
  • Rome: Vae Victis
  • Stellaris: Nemesis
What about fuel range for solving that problem? Ships in Stellaris can magically travel forever but in DW you are usually prevented from launching large attacks straight into an opponent empire's heart due to fuel constraints, plus extremely daunting fixed defences which can (and do) take out entire fleets but especially when they run out of fuel in the middle of an attack. All these problems have already been solved again and again (20 years ago with MOO2) in games with properly designed movement. It could also work fine for Stellaris if movement wasn't so horribly implemented. All they have to do is fix it instead of scrapping it.

Cutting out all free movement as 'too hard' is just a terrible way to fix the situation, particularly since all the original problems (teleporting fleets, no movement vectors on the UI) will still be there, but movement is now so dumbed-down and restricted with only hyperlanes that predicting where the enemy is going to teleport from is now a no-brainer. And that's the solution? Ugh!

There are probably lots of different ways of tackling the problem. And yes, these problems have been solved before, but never in a game with the freeform FTL diversity of Stellaris, as far as I know.

Now, I haven´t sworn a blood oath against hyperlanes, so I´m more open to HL as a possible solution. Range restriction, inhibitors, etc. could all work as well, but that´s not the path taken.
 

PK_AZ

Lt. General
43 Badges
Feb 9, 2015
1.518
1.110
  • Crusader Kings II: Charlemagne
  • Europa Universalis IV: Wealth of Nations
  • Europa Universalis IV: Conquest of Paradise
  • Europa Universalis IV: Art of War
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Crusader Kings II: Sword of Islam
  • Crusader Kings II: Sunset Invasion
  • Crusader Kings II: Sons of Abraham
  • Crusader Kings II: The Republic
  • Crusader Kings II: Rajas of India
  • Crusader Kings II: The Old Gods
  • Crusader Kings II: Legacy of Rome
  • Surviving Mars
  • Hearts of Iron IV: No Step Back
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Death or Dishonor
  • Stellaris: Synthetic Dawn
  • Age of Wonders III
  • Cities: Skylines - Green Cities
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Expansion Pass
  • Cities: Skylines - Parklife
  • Cities: Skylines Industries
  • Crusader Kings II: Holy Fury
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Expansion Pass
  • Cities: Skylines - Campus
  • Hearts of Iron IV: La Resistance
  • Crusader Kings III
  • Hearts of Iron IV: By Blood Alone
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mandate of Heaven
  • Cities: Skylines - Mass Transit
  • Stellaris - Path to Destruction bundle
  • Crusader Kings II: Monks and Mystics
  • Crusader Kings II: Reapers Due
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Stellaris
  • Crusader Kings II: Conclave
  • Cities: Skylines - After Dark
  • Europa Universalis IV: Common Sense
  • Crusader Kings II: Way of Life
  • Europa Universalis IV: El Dorado
  • Cities: Skylines
  • Victoria 2
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Sengoku
What about fuel range for solving that problem?
It would reduce freedom of movement (when compared to Stellaris 1.9), especially in early game, when you just cannot build supply depot in every system. Therefore It would make people angry.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.