• 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:

Knight of Orthus

First Lieutenant
16 Badges
Dec 9, 2017
271
0
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Stellaris: Synthetic Dawn
  • Crusader Kings II: Charlemagne
  • Crusader Kings II: Sword of Islam
  • Crusader Kings II: Way of Life
  • Crusader Kings II: Conclave
  • Stellaris
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Stellaris: Digital Anniversary Edition
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Crusader Kings II: Monks and Mystics
  • Stellaris: Apocalypse
  • Imperator: Rome Sign Up
  • Crusader Kings II: Legacy of Rome
  • Crusader Kings II: The Old Gods
  • Stellaris - Path to Destruction bundle
Pure bullshit / Propaganda.
Ah yes. Propaganda. Next you are going to accuse Russia of paying me to advocate those disastrous views in order to errode western society as we know it? Because if that is the case, I'd like a paycheck, thank you very much.
The statistics are not at all pertinents for the very simple reason that peoples who do not like the changes have simply de-install the game, that's all. A minor part still play in v1.9 probably, despite playing an obsolete game version now. It has been confirmed by the producer here on this forum that the statistics numbers are global, including Apocalypse. So it is totally normal that the statistics show a huge majority of people playing in v2.0, as basically steam stats cant show something else. In few word : stats given here by the producer are not relevants.
1. Those stats are steam stats. You can check them out yourself.
2. Those stats show that more players are playing the game than ever, except just after release. This means currently playing, not installed or deinstalled or whatever.

--> Please provide evidence for your "mass exodus" of players. Because there has been an influx of players, and Steam does not cover PDX's backs in terms of cheating statistics. Please do not go there.
The "ballsy" actions was essentially a very coward move in term of game design : the devs choosed the easy way (features removal) than the challenging one (features balance). Many games have proven that FTL variety was balancable, and the changes needed was only minor tweaking, v1.9 was close to be the "best space 4x game ever" for a lot of players.
Except that it wasn't removed. Check out the Dev diary about FTL REWORK if you don't know what you are talking about. I for one enjoy gateways and natural wormholes far more than "FTL diversity", which essential morphed into Warp-only on midgame.

But it demands skills in game design. Something I am sorry to say the new lead designer have not shown since his arrival on this project yet : he basically borrowed features from Civ5 for the first expansion, and now for the second one he is transforming the game into an Endless Space clone. Someone should remind him the initial ambition of the game : exploration liberty, player driven emergent story, etc... the game is so far from this now. Good job!
How lucky we are that you grace us with your superior wisdom! Please, teach us your ways so we may expand our knowledge and bask in awe at yours!
Regarding the "It's over" : we will respeak about this in some months, when Paradox will realize that its new DLC sales are bad and the players basis will have tanked, thanks to the "ballsy" changes of v2.0. ;)
I'll hold you to that. Or rather, I'll probably forget, and you will, too. I will enjoy the game, so will many others, and maybe you will, too, once the next dlc comes around. Or you will still be posting about how 2.1 was the final straw for you. This debate will be forgotten, it is already marginal! Yes yes, because of your mass exodus of players, of course. :rolleyes:
If only ! Instead I fear we will keep getting those type of post until the very end of the universe.... Anyway... as you say ! Let's wait and see ;)
I certainly aim to please, but I honestly can't promise to endure until the end of the universe. I'll apologize in advance in case I let you down.


If anyone ever wants an example of "beating a dead horse", I will just direct them to this thread.
Precisely! To reiterate:
It's over. Once the next DLC and major patch come around it will be almost forgotten. There has been no large outcry. Average Players have gone up massively, almost no one is playing 1.9 anymore (see the statistics on that) - and even in this forum, very few people are complaining. The "silent exodus" argument is made up to adress that (though entirely fictive, see average players on Steam, which have gone way up).

I repeat: It's over. The Devs have listened to the crippling problems sucking the joy out of all pre-Cherry games, and they took ballsy action to adress them. Most players are happy (there are always a few outraged, that can't be avoided). They will not roll back those awesome improvements. They would loose their player base - and Paradox is very much for-profit, so they will never intentionally do that.
 

_Sohei_

Captain
47 Badges
Aug 24, 2013
433
145
  • Crusader Kings II: Charlemagne
  • Victoria 2: Heart of Darkness
  • Victoria 2: A House Divided
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Sword of the Stars
  • Sengoku
  • Semper Fi
  • Victoria: Revolutions
  • Europa Universalis IV: Res Publica
  • Knights of Pen and Paper +1 Edition
  • Hearts of Iron III Collection
  • Hearts of Iron III
  • For the Motherland
  • Europa Universalis IV: Wealth of Nations
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Crusader Kings II: The Republic
  • Crusader Kings II: Rajas of India
  • Crusader Kings II: The Old Gods
  • Crusader Kings II: Legacy of Rome
  • Hearts of Iron III: Their Finest Hour
  • BATTLETECH - Digital Deluxe Edition
  • Cities: Skylines - Parklife Pre-Order
  • Cities: Skylines - Parklife
  • Shadowrun Returns
  • Shadowrun: Dragonfall
  • Shadowrun: Hong Kong
  • Imperator: Rome Deluxe Edition
  • Imperator: Rome
  • Prison Architect
  • Imperator: Rome Sign Up
  • Age of Wonders: Planetfall Sign Up
  • Crusader Kings III
  • Crusader Kings III: Royal Edition
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Death or Dishonor
  • BATTLETECH
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Together for Victory
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Stellaris: Digital Anniversary Edition
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Colonel
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Hearts of Iron IV Sign-up
  • Stellaris
  • Mount & Blade: With Fire and Sword
  • Mount & Blade: Warband
  • Europa Universalis IV: Pre-order
  • Cities: Skylines
  • Victoria 2
but saying ftl could be balanced with small changes? please illustrate how.
To go into sufficient detail would require a long response and it is already being discussed over here: https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/index.php?threads/ftl-discussion-thread.1053192/

Yeah no, your once-a-year 20 dollars are not enough to fund entire second development team.
I won't go into too much detail on my personal purchase habits but I will say that I spend a lot more than that on games published by Paradox, including a lot of purchases for other people. Of course I am not alone - there are others making purchases that happen to have similar views. Certainly enough to cover costs. Of course they want to do more than cover costs - they want to maximize profits. But solely increasing profits without regard to customer satisfaction should not be the goal, otherwise you may as well sell the company to EA. I think that the Paradox devs do highly value customer satisfaction, which is why I make an effort to appeal to them at all.

Spending development time on getting new users may bring in more revenue than focusing on existing users within the scope of this one game but when you look at them as customers of all company products existing users tend to more reliably bring in more revenue than new users since they will be tend to be involved in many more product lines and a larger portion of them will tend to be repeat customers.

An entire second development team would also not necessarily be required to extend the old code fork slightly before abandoning it again. Whether it is worth spending the time and effort to do so or not is another matter that is worthy of debate.
 
Last edited:

Popenhauzen

Second Lieutenant
16 Badges
Oct 2, 2017
131
0
  • Stellaris: Synthetic Dawn
  • Stellaris
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Stellaris: Digital Anniversary Edition
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Stellaris - Path to Destruction bundle
  • BATTLETECH
  • Age of Wonders III
  • Age of Wonders
  • Stellaris: Humanoids Species Pack
  • Stellaris: Apocalypse
  • BATTLETECH - Digital Deluxe Edition
  • BATTLETECH: Flashpoint
  • BATTLETECH: Season pass
  • BATTLETECH: Heavy Metal
To go into sufficient detail would require a long response and it is already being discussed over here: https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/index.php?threads/ftl-discussion-thread.1053192/

What you said was "The tweaks required to 1.9 to make it better would require very little or no adjustment to the FTL and game balance changes could have been accomplished for the most part with implementing changes in slightly different way". Can you answer me on that regard instead of sending me to a 119 page post that has people arguing about what is possible and not possible and right or wrong according to how warp space operates. I mean you did say small changes = easily described no? Hence why i disbelieve you more and more.
 

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 just love how confident he is that he understands Paradox's cost-benefit structure better than they do, when they can see the numbers and he can't.
 

Xephos Demonslayer

Captain
43 Badges
Oct 11, 2017
325
67
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Stellaris: Synthetic Dawn
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Expansion Pass
  • Stellaris: Distant Stars
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Death or Dishonor
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cradle of Civilization
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Expansion Pass
  • Stellaris: Humanoids Species Pack
  • Stellaris: Apocalypse
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rule Britannia
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mandate of Heaven
  • Europa Universalis IV: Dharma
  • Europa Universalis IV: Golden Century
  • Stellaris: Ancient Relics
  • Stellaris: Lithoids
  • Hearts of Iron IV: La Resistance
  • Stellaris: Federations
  • Battle for Bosporus
  • Europa Universalis 4: Emperor
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mare Nostrum
  • Hearts of Iron IV: No Step Back
  • Stellaris: Nemesis
  • Stellaris: Necroids
  • Europa Universalis IV: El Dorado
  • Europa Universalis IV: Common Sense
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cossacks
  • Stellaris
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rights of Man
  • Stellaris: Digital Anniversary Edition
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Together for Victory
  • Stellaris - Path to Destruction bundle
  • Stellaris: Megacorp
  • Europa Universalis IV: Call to arms event
  • Europa Universalis IV: Res Publica
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Europa Universalis IV: Third Rome
  • Europa Universalis IV: Art of War
  • Europa Universalis IV: Conquest of Paradise
  • Europa Universalis IV: Wealth of Nations
Regarding the "It's over" : we will respeak about this in some months, when Paradox will realize that its new DLC sales are bad and the players basis will have tanked, thanks to the "ballsy" changes of v2.0. ;)

And when it doesn't I'll be laughing at your hubris for thinking they'll go back to the way it was before.

What's done is done. All that's left here is our sh*tposting and counter -sh*tposting. And at least try the new update before you keep complaining. I was wary, but ended up loving it. Once again, I agree that removing core features is a d*ck move, but after sinking 600 hours into pre 2.0, just 150 on post 2.0 has told me that it was definitely a change for the better. More so considering that the first 600 hours were spread across 2 years and the 150 across less than a month. Keep wining if you want, I really can't bring myself to feel any more sympathy for the same repetitive arguments and complaints after so long, and that goes for both sides of the argument. Have a nice life, and goodbye.
 
Last edited:

Popenhauzen

Second Lieutenant
16 Badges
Oct 2, 2017
131
0
  • Stellaris: Synthetic Dawn
  • Stellaris
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Stellaris: Digital Anniversary Edition
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Stellaris - Path to Destruction bundle
  • BATTLETECH
  • Age of Wonders III
  • Age of Wonders
  • Stellaris: Humanoids Species Pack
  • Stellaris: Apocalypse
  • BATTLETECH - Digital Deluxe Edition
  • BATTLETECH: Flashpoint
  • BATTLETECH: Season pass
  • BATTLETECH: Heavy Metal
i find it funny that people are so mad about ftl diversity. "core feature", something so shallow and simple. what was the complex thing about it. seeing if a system was in or out the circle range? honestly it is so silly a thing to get mad about. do people spend a lot of time enjoying the right click? i dont believe for a moment those that say they bought the game for the diversity of ftl, or that they were hurt so much about it. Because there was nothing special, exciting or thought provoking about it.
 

Defiler99

Space Barbarian
89 Badges
Dec 9, 2013
1.426
390
  • Sword of the Stars II
  • Ship Simulator Extremes
  • Sengoku
  • Semper Fi
  • March of the Eagles
  • Majesty 2 Collection
  • Magicka
  • The Kings Crusade
  • Victoria 2: A House Divided
  • Stellaris: Necroids
  • Teleglitch: Die More Edition
  • Victoria 2: Heart of Darkness
  • Warlock: Master of the Arcane
  • War of the Vikings
  • Cities: Skylines
  • Tyranny: Gold Edition
  • Magicka: Wizard Wars Founder Wizard
  • Crusader Kings II: Way of Life
  • Pillars of Eternity
  • Crusader Kings II: Horse Lords
  • Cities: Skylines - After Dark
  • Crusader Kings II: Conclave
  • Stellaris
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Crusader Kings II: Reapers Due
  • Tyranny: Archon Edition
  • Tyranny: Archon Edition
  • BATTLETECH - Digital Deluxe Edition
  • Stellaris: Apocalypse
  • Cities: Skylines - Parklife Pre-Order
  • Cities: Skylines - Parklife
  • Stellaris: Distant Stars
  • Shadowrun Returns
  • Shadowrun: Dragonfall
  • Surviving Mars: First Colony Edition
  • Stellaris: Megacorp
  • Crusader Kings II: Holy Fury
  • Surviving Mars: First Colony Edition
  • Surviving Mars: Digital Deluxe Edition
  • Stellaris: Lithoids
  • Stellaris: Humanoids Species Pack
  • Stellaris: Digital Anniversary Edition
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Crusader Kings II: Monks and Mystics
  • Stellaris - Path to Destruction bundle
  • Tyranny - Bastards Wound
  • Crusader Kings II: Jade Dragon
  • BATTLETECH
  • Age of Wonders III
I'm not finding myself with more fleets than I used in 1.9, honestly.
Two or three is plenty, and that's how many felt useful in 1.9 as well.

Doomstacks are still a thing, they're just composed of one fleet following another.
 

hangry

First Lieutenant
98 Badges
May 26, 2016
278
343
I'm not finding myself with more fleets than I used in 1.9, honestly.
Two or three is plenty, and that's how many felt useful in 1.9 as well.

Doomstacks are still a thing, they're just composed of one fleet following another.

Why? Every war in 1.9 was just one decisive battle and after that tedious and meaningless invasions.
 

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
For example, you need to maintain several fleets and position them strategically inside your empire and cant just wipe out everything immediately with your invincible doomstack of doom.

Strategically, ha, what a joke. You simply have to split your fleet and place them on opposing borders because they are too slow to react otherwise. "Strategy" comes down to attacking a fleet and then waiting 20 years for your ships to arrive. Exciting!

In addition, the combat is now "whack-a-mole" hell only instead of whacking a single Doomstack you have to fly around painting the map by whacking Starbase after Starbase and fleet after fleet (usually the same as previously engaged) in order to get any results. It's so deathly dull I can't bring myself to complete a full game of 2.0.

Give me fast, decisive 1.9 warp warfare any time.
 

Mandemon

First Lieutenant
62 Badges
May 29, 2013
231
2
  • Arsenal of Democracy
  • Magicka 2
  • Pillars of Eternity
  • War of the Roses
  • Warlock 2: Wrath of the Nagas
  • Warlock 2: The Exiled
  • Victoria 2: Heart of Darkness
  • Victoria 2: A House Divided
  • Victoria 2
  • The Showdown Effect
  • Sword of the Stars II
  • Semper Fi
  • Victoria: Revolutions
  • Magicka
  • Leviathan: Warships
  • Knights of Pen and Paper +1 Edition
  • Hearts of Iron III
  • Ancient Space
  • Cities in Motion 2
  • Crusader Kings II
  • 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
  • Dungeonland
  • King Arthur II
  • Europa Universalis III
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Surviving Mars
  • BATTLETECH
  • Stellaris - Path to Destruction bundle
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Crusader Kings II: Reapers Due
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Hearts of Iron IV Sign-up
  • Stellaris: Synthetic Dawn
  • Stellaris
  • Crusader Kings II: Conclave
  • Crusader Kings II: Horse Lords
  • Crusader Kings II: Way of Life
  • Mount & Blade: With Fire and Sword
  • Mount & Blade: Warband
  • Magicka: Wizard Wars Founder Wizard
  • Cities: Skylines
  • Warlock: Master of the Arcane
  • Teleglitch: Die More Edition
Strategically, ha, what a joke. You simply have to split your fleet and place them on opposing borders because they are too slow to react otherwise. "Strategy" comes down to attacking a fleet and then waiting 20 years for your ships to arrive. Exciting!

That is stategy. The fact that you can no longer have a single doomstack that covers the entire empire is strategy, it forces you to think where your forces are. The fact that you can no longer reach everything with a snap of a finger forces you to consider where your routes are, where you want to expand, where your forces are. Do you go past that easy-to-defend choke point and claim those systems with planets or stay behind you choke point, trading resources for defense?

These are strategies.

In addition, the combat is now "whack-a-mole" hell only instead of whacking a single Doomstack

This is a good thing. Wars have actual phases, fronts, strategies you need consider, instead of "all ships to closest enemy colony". Ships can now disengage, which allows smaller empires to fight defense in depth, instead of one singe big battle.

Give me fast, decisive 1.9 warp warfare any time.

Easy. Revert to 1.9, intructions are readily avaible from Paradox and enjoy your no-brains-needed warfare.

Meanwhile, rest of us enjoy racking our brains on how we are going to conduct our warfare, instead of having a single doomstack do everything.
 

~Robbie

Captain
26 Badges
Nov 6, 2017
342
417
  • Crusader Kings II: Conclave
  • Prison Architect
  • Crusader Kings II: Holy Fury
  • Shadowrun: Dragonfall
  • Shadowrun Returns
  • Surviving Mars: Digital Deluxe Edition
  • Crusader Kings II: Jade Dragon
  • Age of Wonders III
  • Surviving Mars
  • Stellaris - Path to Destruction bundle
  • Crusader Kings II: Monks and Mystics
  • Crusader Kings II: Reapers Due
  • Stellaris
  • Crusader Kings II: Horse Lords
  • Pillars of Eternity
  • Crusader Kings II: Way of Life
  • Teleglitch: Die More Edition
  • 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
  • Crusader Kings II: Charlemagne
I do not find that Stellaris 2.0 warfare requires really any kind of strategic thought in order to excel at. Certainly not anything approaching "racking my brain" in order to win. Even if we don't use the "dogpile enemies at obvious choke points" strategy that is very effective, doomstacks still work very well against the AI.

Stellaris is a wonderful empire management game, but combat tactics are stone-simple and always have been. Since 2.0 doesn't really expand the strategy required to win, I'd go with 1.9 war as well since it's just as simple but cuts to the chase.
 

Defiler99

Space Barbarian
89 Badges
Dec 9, 2013
1.426
390
  • Sword of the Stars II
  • Ship Simulator Extremes
  • Sengoku
  • Semper Fi
  • March of the Eagles
  • Majesty 2 Collection
  • Magicka
  • The Kings Crusade
  • Victoria 2: A House Divided
  • Stellaris: Necroids
  • Teleglitch: Die More Edition
  • Victoria 2: Heart of Darkness
  • Warlock: Master of the Arcane
  • War of the Vikings
  • Cities: Skylines
  • Tyranny: Gold Edition
  • Magicka: Wizard Wars Founder Wizard
  • Crusader Kings II: Way of Life
  • Pillars of Eternity
  • Crusader Kings II: Horse Lords
  • Cities: Skylines - After Dark
  • Crusader Kings II: Conclave
  • Stellaris
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Crusader Kings II: Reapers Due
  • Tyranny: Archon Edition
  • Tyranny: Archon Edition
  • BATTLETECH - Digital Deluxe Edition
  • Stellaris: Apocalypse
  • Cities: Skylines - Parklife Pre-Order
  • Cities: Skylines - Parklife
  • Stellaris: Distant Stars
  • Shadowrun Returns
  • Shadowrun: Dragonfall
  • Surviving Mars: First Colony Edition
  • Stellaris: Megacorp
  • Crusader Kings II: Holy Fury
  • Surviving Mars: First Colony Edition
  • Surviving Mars: Digital Deluxe Edition
  • Stellaris: Lithoids
  • Stellaris: Humanoids Species Pack
  • Stellaris: Digital Anniversary Edition
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Crusader Kings II: Monks and Mystics
  • Stellaris - Path to Destruction bundle
  • Tyranny - Bastards Wound
  • Crusader Kings II: Jade Dragon
  • BATTLETECH
  • Age of Wonders III
Why? Every war in 1.9 was just one decisive battle and after that tedious and meaningless invasions.

I usually ended up facing a large-ish federation, and found that a single fleet led me to too much chasing-around.
 
Last edited:

Athmet

Captain
93 Badges
Nov 20, 2011
359
60
  • Cities: Skylines - Snowfall
  • Hearts of Iron III Collection
  • Magicka
  • Europa Universalis IV: Res Publica
  • Semper Fi
  • Victoria 2: A House Divided
  • Victoria 2: Heart of Darkness
  • Cities: Skylines - After Dark
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cossacks
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mare Nostrum
  • Europa Universalis IV: Third Rome
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Crusader Kings II: Reapers Due
  • Stellaris: Synthetic Dawn
  • Cities: Skylines - Natural Disasters
  • Stellaris - Path to Destruction bundle
  • Hearts of Iron III
  • Ancient Space
  • 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
  • Hearts of Iron III: Their Finest Hour
  • For the Motherland
  • Europa Universalis IV: Call to arms event
  • Europa Universalis IV: Wealth of Nations
  • Europa Universalis IV: Art of War
  • Europa Universalis IV: Conquest of Paradise
  • Victoria 2
  • Crusader Kings II: Monks and Mystics
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Together for Victory
  • Stellaris: Digital Anniversary Edition
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rights of Man
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Colonel
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Stellaris Sign-up
  • Europa Universalis IV: El Dorado
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Warlock: Master of the Arcane
  • Victoria 3 Sign Up
  • Cities: Skylines
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Crusader Kings II: Horse Lords
  • Europa Universalis IV: Common Sense
  • Pillars of Eternity
I believe the right question would be from here, how to move on ? It is clear they will not go back to the 1.9 FTL type.

I think the key words are: moving on. Ideas not to go back but to move forward.

If you do not like the way the game work with the current FTL system, it might be good time for a break so you can play the x others space games that suit you more with the multiple FTL choices.

I am glad they are working hard on resolving bugs and tweaking the actual 2.0 system instead of taking the time to revert everything to 1.9 like some would hope they would do.
 

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
That is stategy. The fact that you can no longer have a single doomstack that covers the entire empire is strategy, it forces you to think where your forces are. The fact that you can no longer reach everything with a snap of a finger forces you to consider where your routes are, where you want to expand, where your forces are. Do you go past that easy-to-defend choke point and claim those systems with planets or stay behind you choke point, trading resources for defense?

These are strategies.



This is a good thing. Wars have actual phases, fronts, strategies you need consider, instead of "all ships to closest enemy colony". Ships can now disengage, which allows smaller empires to fight defense in depth, instead of one singe big battle.



Easy. Revert to 1.9, intructions are readily avaible from Paradox and enjoy your no-brains-needed warfare.

Meanwhile, rest of us enjoy racking our brains on how we are going to conduct our warfare, instead of having a single doomstack do everything.

If you are racking your brain to figure out which hyperlane to park your ships on I suggest that you might read "Zapp Brannigan's big book of war". Should be right up your alley.

There are no strategies in 2.0 apart from turtle or not turtle. It's frankly pitiful that people are trying to sell this on-(hyper)rails nonsense as something deep and meaningful when it is anything but.

I could put on Benny Hill music to the border flux during war :)
 

Mandemon

First Lieutenant
62 Badges
May 29, 2013
231
2
  • Arsenal of Democracy
  • Magicka 2
  • Pillars of Eternity
  • War of the Roses
  • Warlock 2: Wrath of the Nagas
  • Warlock 2: The Exiled
  • Victoria 2: Heart of Darkness
  • Victoria 2: A House Divided
  • Victoria 2
  • The Showdown Effect
  • Sword of the Stars II
  • Semper Fi
  • Victoria: Revolutions
  • Magicka
  • Leviathan: Warships
  • Knights of Pen and Paper +1 Edition
  • Hearts of Iron III
  • Ancient Space
  • Cities in Motion 2
  • Crusader Kings II
  • 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
  • Dungeonland
  • King Arthur II
  • Europa Universalis III
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Surviving Mars
  • BATTLETECH
  • Stellaris - Path to Destruction bundle
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Crusader Kings II: Reapers Due
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Hearts of Iron IV Sign-up
  • Stellaris: Synthetic Dawn
  • Stellaris
  • Crusader Kings II: Conclave
  • Crusader Kings II: Horse Lords
  • Crusader Kings II: Way of Life
  • Mount & Blade: With Fire and Sword
  • Mount & Blade: Warband
  • Magicka: Wizard Wars Founder Wizard
  • Cities: Skylines
  • Warlock: Master of the Arcane
  • Teleglitch: Die More Edition
If you are racking your brain to figure out which hyperlane to park your ships on I suggest that you might read "Zapp Brannigan's big book of war". Should be right up your alley.

You <------------------------------------------------------> The point.

Of course once you got your borders locked down it's easy to decide where to have your fleets on stand-by, but until you have secure borders you need to decide where your fleets are. Which borders you can afford to leave undefended.

There are no strategies in 2.0 apart from turtle or not turtle. It's frankly pitiful that people are trying to sell this on-(hyper)rails nonsense as something deep and meaningful when it is anything but.

I see you never tried defense in depth. Or two-pronged attack. Or you played on 0.5 hyperlanes, with minimal movement options, which makes turtling extremly easy.
 

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
If you are racking your brain to figure out which hyperlane to park your ships on I suggest that you might read "Zapp Brannigan's big book of war". Should be right up your alley.

There are no strategies in 2.0 apart from turtle or not turtle. It's frankly pitiful that people are trying to sell this on-(hyper)rails nonsense as something deep and meaningful when it is anything but.

I could put on Benny Hill music to the border flux during war :)

There were no strategies in 1.9 either, by your standards. So what's the argument?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.