Then whats the difference from having non-sentient servitude robots? :/
If your empire has AI outlawed poilcy while still allow robotic workers, any synthetic pop on newly conquered planets will convert back to robots anyway
Last edited:
3.6 "Orion" Open Beta - Discussion Thread
- Thread starter MrFreake_PDX
- Start date
-
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
If your empire has AI outlawed poilcy while still allow robotic workers, any synthetic pop on newly conquered planets will convert back to robots anyway
IIRC, the Disengage Threshold was reduced to 25% Hull, so I'm actually not surprised if most of your Corvettes got nuked down with no chance to disengage.
- 1
What does cartwheel actually do? I can't discern it from the galaxy view without exploring everything.
This was fairly early game, still; would've been T2 or T3 small or medium weapons mostly. 25% hull is 50 points for corvettes, so some of them wouldn't have made a successful disengage check, and some of them would've been killed without ever being in the disengage zone.
But 0 out of 70 suggests a very low chance for an individual ship to disengage (mean of about 1% per ship, 95% CI between 0.04% and 5%, although I'm being a little sloppy with the analysis). Since every other early-game engagement had very different results (50-80% survival rate, including ships lost during emergency jump), I think some sort of bug is the most likely explanation.
Hey, the ragtag teamwork successfully felled the big-bad who made a strategic error rooted in overconfidence! That's the exact kinda pulp sci-fi Stellaris is made to invoke! I'd call that a success right there.
- 3
This!
I very much like the idea for psionic to be good with fewer pops. So additional pop growth wouldn't fit the theme but something unique is always good.
This and the high failure chance. The perfect way would be to add a good/usefull finisher (many suggestions here) and in addition three (for certain empires or under dire circumstances 4) mutual exclusive special projects. You can only finish one. The time for that project could be modified by your traditions and ethics but you can choose. And it's a guaranteed success.
The finisher itself could be a choice too in theory. A chosen one like i suggested for the finisher effect is mostly good for imperial or dictatorial empires. But for a democracy and oligarchic it's not that big of a deal i guess. The story behind the chosen is a accumulation of psionic energy in the shroud that is transferred into one being that gain incredible power. So, what else could be done with that energy? How about removing the chosen from the random shroud pool and let us choose between him and two other equal good options. Each should give a strong buff for the empire.
This would give psionic the "unique" ability to choose between different playstyles for your empire depending on your preference/choice and empire situation. You could get maybe something useful for each government type. In addition would this prevent the the galaxy from being full of chosen ones. The AI can maybe only take one of the other options.
But hey, just an idea!
Last edited:
- 3
- 1
It was missed when the APs got broken apart. Previously, if you had access to Synthetic Ascension, it meant that you had previously taken The Flesh is Weak and we very much wanted the AI to always take it as their next pick.
- 8
- 1
- 1
- 1
Has anyone tested the ability of Machine Intelligences to merge Machine/Mechanical species into just one glorious micro-free species yet? I am running into this problem (again) on my current non-beta playthrough, after conquering the Caretakers. Can't seem to find any way to modify species the Caretakers into being the same robot species as my Rogue Servitor bots. Has anyone made it work successfully in the beta?
It was already mentioned before but maybe should the Ascension have a tab like the crisis. With a steady progress based on unity (which is kind of a ascension resource already) and certain deeds fitting for the ascension. E.g. killing some leviathans for bio or doing espionage operations for psionic. I would really like things like this. In addition a ascension wouldn't be over so fast and would give much more and better perks over time (Zro tech for psi i.e.).
For balancing reasons would it maybe even better if it take the same slot like becoming the crisis, making it mutual exclusive. The crisis feels in it's own way already like a ascension but a more sinister one.
In any case would a progression tab be much much cooler than a tradition. The same level better as a tradition is over a ascension perk for this topic.
- 1
I think ascensions would feel considerably better as a crisis like progression tab than they are as either a second ascension perk or tradition tree.
And yeah, becoming the crisis has enough of a wide ranging impact that it feels like an alternative to ascension (and after all, what's the point of doing *anything* with your species in this galaxy when you intend to truly ascend via the aetherophasic engine).
And yeah, becoming the crisis has enough of a wide ranging impact that it feels like an alternative to ascension (and after all, what's the point of doing *anything* with your species in this galaxy when you intend to truly ascend via the aetherophasic engine).
- 7
In terms of flavor, you have a valid point.
Not sure I agree -- becoming Psionic and then using your Psi-powers to break into the Shroud seems flavorful -- but you can make an argument about flavor which is reasonable.
However, from a mechanical perspective it's not reasonable. Assimilating conquered pops is an important source of Menace. Getting to spam Multi-Role Menacing Destroyers before the opponent can field Battleships is awesome.
We'd need some new source of Menace to replace assimilation if BtC didn't allow any Ascension Path.
The combat rework is highly confusing thus far to say the least. While I don't want to post at that fleet feedback thread just yet, (because of bugs and other apparently missing stuff & balancing) there are some major high level design and approach issues that need addressing.
1. The idea of hull scaling damage is broken. Slot size should take care of that. If we want to have large torpedo frigates, just add a section wil L torpedo slots on small ships.
2. Right now, the patch makes it useless to field Battleships, and starbases suffer too much as apparently both are made of glass.
3. Historically, explosive weapons and torpedoes where the end of fortresses and large battleships. This doesn't make sense with the patch as we get torpedoes early on.
4. Will the game have an evolutionary path through it's tech tree, with every empire, ending with just carrier fleets fielding torpedo strike craft? Like WW2? Is that wanted?
5. I understand the will to have a somewhat balanced system where everything counters something. But what about empire customization? Will the devs add Doctrine trees that unlock with some type of system, ala HOI4? Are they developing these allready, just to throw it at us at the next DLC?
6. Although this is beyond the scope of the changes, touching this system does indeed require many other systems to be tweeked or reworked. These include all FE's, crisis and any other event encounter, because most of them are large single large hulls that are just torpedo fodder.
7. Not only do they need to fix repetables, but leader bonuses, edicts and so much other stuff must be updated.
8. Inherent problems with ship roles, weapons targeting priorities and combat manuevering must be fixed as well otherwise it just doesn't make sense.
9. Using multiple single role fleets and going out of the scale of the fleet as a unit with micro, makes AI look like a fool. If anyone is reworking a game system, they should at least rework it in a manner where the existing/future AI will be competent with it.
10. The changes make large alloy economies moot. This will bite the game elsewhere, as players will re-focus that opportunity cost into other economy sectors. Is this taken into account? Will the AI do the same?
1. The idea of hull scaling damage is broken. Slot size should take care of that. If we want to have large torpedo frigates, just add a section wil L torpedo slots on small ships.
2. Right now, the patch makes it useless to field Battleships, and starbases suffer too much as apparently both are made of glass.
3. Historically, explosive weapons and torpedoes where the end of fortresses and large battleships. This doesn't make sense with the patch as we get torpedoes early on.
4. Will the game have an evolutionary path through it's tech tree, with every empire, ending with just carrier fleets fielding torpedo strike craft? Like WW2? Is that wanted?
5. I understand the will to have a somewhat balanced system where everything counters something. But what about empire customization? Will the devs add Doctrine trees that unlock with some type of system, ala HOI4? Are they developing these allready, just to throw it at us at the next DLC?
6. Although this is beyond the scope of the changes, touching this system does indeed require many other systems to be tweeked or reworked. These include all FE's, crisis and any other event encounter, because most of them are large single large hulls that are just torpedo fodder.
7. Not only do they need to fix repetables, but leader bonuses, edicts and so much other stuff must be updated.
8. Inherent problems with ship roles, weapons targeting priorities and combat manuevering must be fixed as well otherwise it just doesn't make sense.
9. Using multiple single role fleets and going out of the scale of the fleet as a unit with micro, makes AI look like a fool. If anyone is reworking a game system, they should at least rework it in a manner where the existing/future AI will be competent with it.
10. The changes make large alloy economies moot. This will bite the game elsewhere, as players will re-focus that opportunity cost into other economy sectors. Is this taken into account? Will the AI do the same?
- 1
Does displacement purge not give menace?
TBH assimilating the conquered giving the same menace as purging is probably a bit cheesy given that it doesn't bring the same kind of heat.
- 1
You could be getting double menace from first assimilating to psi and then purging the psionic templated sub-species.
Purge is not a replacement for something which you usually do right before you purge.
No?
Assimilation is better than purging for most empires.
Purging is never a replacement for assimilation.
- 1
Yeah, but what you're losing from a "generate menace" point of view is the ability to assimilate *then* purge.
- 3
No, I'm saying that purging is NOT a valid substitute for assimilation.
That was your argument, which you brought up. Purging is never a replacement. You are making an incorrect argument.
Assimilating generates Menace with or without purging.
- 1
I was able to beat a 25x all-crisis run with battleship monofleets (focused arc emitter + carrier), so this seems highly exaggerated.
How so? More alloys = more ships, and all else being equal, larger fleets still beat smaller fleets unless you've designed something particularly vulnerable to a hard counter.
i ... i don't understand... in all my testing and games , BB without XL weapons are quite mediocre ok .
but once you unluck the XL energy weapons , BB with arty become the best single ship in the game . you don't need anything else . since they do 360° in 1 millisecond and all ships have reduced dodge , without touching the tracking buffs , arty litteraly doesn't miss.
And i tested cittadels with DP 2 L arty slots, and just melt fleets .
ive a bug? i'm not actualy playing the open beta ? but there are the new ascensions and all ? corrupted files?
edit: even when i HARDCOUNTER the BB with torpedo cruisers , they lose the battle , but win in resources used\ lost . 45 cruisers cost ALOT , and you lose alot of them to Xl\arty .
- Status