• 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.

Ikael

Colonel
May 6, 2016
980
1.037
I must say that I am greatly enjoying this conversation, for there are a lot of things that I did not realize at first, like the endless possibilities for cheesing that some perks like Nihilistic Acquisition offer, like, goddamn, son.

If it were up to me, I would outright remove perks that are, in essence, replacements for civics (shared destiny as a feudal society lite, nihilistic acquisition as a barbaric despoilers lite, etc), but I understand that this would probably never happen, realistically speaking, since no developer would ever want to remove features from DLCs.

But I have been thinking that a possible solution to that problem might be to simply drastically increase the requirements of "must pick" Ascension Perks. I do think that a category of late-game APs that requires you to have, say, 4 or even 5 ascension perks in place before being able to choose them, would certainly mitigate some of their problems, for they would require at least a huge, deliberate investment of unity in order to reach them, instead of, you know, nothing.

Defender of the galaxy, Megastructures, Ecumenopolis, Nihilistic acquisition, Colossus, or Shared Destiny (in its current form) are prime candidates to be included in a hypothetical "late-game Ascension Perks" category. Add a couple of new late-game perks, and we might see far more variety regarding Ascension Perk choices.

Not to mention that it would also feel quite good to have the best perks reserved for the endgame for once, instead of the current clunky "pick overpowered perks first as soon as possible, then abandon unity focus since you are left only with garbage perks" strategy.

One possible change for Mastery of Nature is that instead of just adding moar districts it adds +2 districts plus a feature which increases the max mining/generator/farming districts or adds a rare resource feature (or both).

(But that should be part of making planet districts a more competitive way of getting basic resources).

If it were up to me, I would give tons of uniques to each Ascension Perk (unique planet modifiers for mastery of nature, unique leader traits for Transcendental Learning, etc, etc), but I understand that such a thing would be a headache to balance, and perhaps too much resource-consuming to implement.
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:

GloatingSwine

Field Marshal
42 Badges
Aug 6, 2010
4.268
2.411
  • 500k Club
  • Crusader Kings III
  • Crusader Kings III: Royal Edition
  • Stellaris
  • Stellaris: Digital Anniversary Edition
  • Stellaris: Humanoids Species Pack
  • Stellaris: Lithoids
  • Stellaris: Necroids
  • Stellaris: Megacorp
  • Stellaris: Ancient Relics
  • Stellaris: Federations
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Stellaris - Path to Destruction bundle
  • Stellaris: Apocalypse
  • Stellaris: Nemesis
  • Stellaris: Synthetic Dawn
  • Stellaris: Distant Stars
But I have been thinking that a possible solution to that problem might be to simply drastically increase the requirements of "must pick" Ascension Perks. I do think that a category of late-game APs that requires you to have, say, 4 or even 5 ascension perks in place before being able to choose them, would certainly mitigate some of their problems, for they would require at least a huge, deliberate investment of unity in order to reach them, instead of, you know, nothing.

The problem with "must pick" perks isn't solved by making them come later, because the problem is that they're "must pick" in the first place.

There are two reasons why a perk becomes a "must pick", either because they provide something so good that not having it is a major disadvantage (Arcology Project unless you get lucky with relic worlds, Galactic Wonders/Master Builders) or because they stand out from all the rest of the options at the point they are available (Technological Ascendancy is first pick 99% of the time because you can get your first pick quite early on and all the other zero requirement picks aren't relevant yet that early in the game).

Nerfing them isn't always the right choice either, because if they provide an incomparable (Arcology, Master Builders) they remain a must pick they're just a bit worse, or if they're just "the best available bonus when it becomes available" then something else turns into the must pick instead.

Sometimes it's better to accept that a "must pick" probably shouldn't be an ascension perk, that's what happened to most of the megastructures.

I think the other Megastructures and special planets (Ecu, Gaia, Hive, and Machine) should probably go the way of Voidborne. Take the basic "build the thing" function out of the ascensions, nerf them a bit*, and have:

  • An ascension that makes all space resources better (all mining platforms and megastructures produce more resources)
  • An ascension that makes special planet types specialer (increases their bonuses, adds districts to them)

* Quite a lot, for the Matter Decompressor and Dyson Sphere, frankly. Planets should be more competitive at basic resources.
 
  • 2
  • 1Like
Reactions:

MordridBlack

Colonel
19 Badges
Jan 1, 2020
1.157
488
  • Stellaris
  • Stellaris: Nemesis
  • Stellaris: Necroids
  • Stellaris: Federations
  • Stellaris: Lithoids
  • Stellaris: Ancient Relics
  • Stellaris: Megacorp
  • Stellaris: Distant Stars
  • Stellaris: Apocalypse
  • Stellaris: Humanoids Species Pack
  • Surviving Mars
  • Stellaris - Path to Destruction bundle
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Stellaris: Digital Anniversary Edition
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Cities: Skylines
  • Stellaris: Synthetic Dawn
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
World Shaper: Gaia Worlds are pretty low margin by the time you have the tech to create them with this. All the specialist outputs are better on an Ecumenopolis and all the worker outputs are too easy to move away from planets. Either Gaia worlds need to be made special enough to be worth an AP or this needs to come out of being one.
World Shaper is technically a niche pick, it has a use, but it is for a very small selection of empire builds
 

MordridBlack

Colonel
19 Badges
Jan 1, 2020
1.157
488
  • Stellaris
  • Stellaris: Nemesis
  • Stellaris: Necroids
  • Stellaris: Federations
  • Stellaris: Lithoids
  • Stellaris: Ancient Relics
  • Stellaris: Megacorp
  • Stellaris: Distant Stars
  • Stellaris: Apocalypse
  • Stellaris: Humanoids Species Pack
  • Surviving Mars
  • Stellaris - Path to Destruction bundle
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Stellaris: Digital Anniversary Edition
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Cities: Skylines
  • Stellaris: Synthetic Dawn
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
I think the other Megastructures and special planets (Ecu, Gaia, Hive, and Machine) should probably go the way of Voidborne. Take the basic "build the thing" function out of the ascensions, nerf them a bit*, and have:

  • An ascension that makes all space resources better (all mining platforms and megastructures produce more resources)
  • An ascension that makes special planet types specialer (increases their bonuses, adds districts to them)

* Quite a lot, for the Matter Decompressor and Dyson Sphere, frankly. Planets should be more competitive at basic resources.
in the case of making it so megas aren't tied to a perk and are just a rare technology unlock [and nerf them in a reasonable manner], I'm okay with this, but it presents an issue

that being: do we then remove [or at the very least expand] the limit of megastructures that an empire can build directly because they have all been nerfed in some fashion? (Maybe exclude habitats, ringworlds and gateways from this nerf, because that would likely make gateways useless, and both habitats and ringworlds have been nerfed already)


as for the whole special planets not being tied to perks...that I will disagree on

having them locked to a perk choice is actually beneficial in this instance

for things like Gaia/Hive/Machine, this is a much more factored choice because often your empire build requires it, or it will improve your empire if it isn't required
plus nerfing these world types is more complicated since they already offer such limited bonuses

for Ecus...these are hard used as alloy factory worlds, so these would need a significant nerf either in the bonus they give off...or having a hard-set limit of how many your empire can have put in place if it got removed from the perk pool [and if it stays in there, I will still say consider nerfing the bonuses and maybe add on a limit of how many ecus an empire can have to mitigate the strength they have]
 

GloatingSwine

Field Marshal
42 Badges
Aug 6, 2010
4.268
2.411
  • 500k Club
  • Crusader Kings III
  • Crusader Kings III: Royal Edition
  • Stellaris
  • Stellaris: Digital Anniversary Edition
  • Stellaris: Humanoids Species Pack
  • Stellaris: Lithoids
  • Stellaris: Necroids
  • Stellaris: Megacorp
  • Stellaris: Ancient Relics
  • Stellaris: Federations
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Stellaris - Path to Destruction bundle
  • Stellaris: Apocalypse
  • Stellaris: Nemesis
  • Stellaris: Synthetic Dawn
  • Stellaris: Distant Stars
in the case of making it so megas aren't tied to a perk and are just a rare technology unlock [and nerf them in a reasonable manner], I'm okay with this, but it presents an issue

that being: do we then remove [or at the very least expand] the limit of megastructures that an empire can build directly because they have all been nerfed in some fashion? (Maybe exclude habitats, ringworlds and gateways from this nerf, because that would likely make gateways useless, and both habitats and ringworlds have been nerfed already)


as for the whole special planets not being tied to perks...that I will disagree on

having them locked to a perk choice is actually beneficial in this instance

for things like Gaia/Hive/Machine, this is a much more factored choice because often your empire build requires it, or it will improve your empire if it isn't required
plus nerfing these world types is more complicated since they already offer such limited bonuses

for Ecus...these are hard used as alloy factory worlds, so these would need a significant nerf either in the bonus they give off...or having a hard-set limit of how many your empire can have put in place if it got removed from the perk pool [and if it stays in there, I will still say consider nerfing the bonuses and maybe add on a limit of how many ecus an empire can have to mitigate the strength they have]

The nerfs I'm envisioning are pretty much just to the Dyson Sphere and Matter Decompressor because of the way they contribute to the irrelevance of basic resource districts.

The Science Nexus doesn't really obsolete science building on planets.

Those should stay as a 1 per empire, but Ringworlds maybe not because you do have to populate them before they do anything which is a harder limit anyway.

For Ecumenopolis I would envision it as something like the basic version gives you the special districts at a 1:2 ratio to planet size with and the perk upgrades that to 1:1 so without the perk you have to give up more of your planets (in a regime where, hopefully, you want to use more of those planets for basic outputs), increases production bonus on gaia worlds and adds extra bonuses to hive and machine worlds.
 
  • 1
Reactions:

Ikael

Colonel
May 6, 2016
980
1.037
The problem with "must pick" perks isn't solved by making them come later, because the problem is that they're "must pick" in the first place.

There are two reasons why a perk becomes a "must pick", either because they provide something so good that not having it is a major disadvantage (Arcology Project unless you get lucky with relic worlds, Galactic Wonders/Master Builders) or because they stand out from all the rest of the options at the point they are available (Technological Ascendancy is first pick 99% of the time because you can get your first pick quite early on and all the other zero requirement picks aren't relevant yet that early in the game).

Nerfing them isn't always the right choice either, because if they provide an incomparable (Arcology, Master Builders) they remain a must pick they're just a bit worse, or if they're just "the best available bonus when it becomes available" then something else turns into the must pick instead.

Sometimes it's better to accept that a "must pick" probably shouldn't be an ascension perk, that's what happened to most of the megastructures.

I think the other Megastructures and special planets (Ecu, Gaia, Hive, and Machine) should probably go the way of Voidborne. Take the basic "build the thing" function out of the ascensions, nerf them a bit*, and have:

  • An ascension that makes all space resources better (all mining platforms and megastructures produce more resources)
  • An ascension that makes special planet types specialer (increases their bonuses, adds districts to them)

* Quite a lot, for the Matter Decompressor and Dyson Sphere, frankly. Planets should be more competitive at basic resources.
I don't think that they are mutually exclusive solutions either. Some APs will probably work better as technologies on their own as you said (arcologies seem especially hard to balance), while others might benefit from a split (for example, making colossi a technology, while turning the total war cassus belli into an AP separate from it), and finally, some APs could be better balanced just by requiring more perks in place before unlocking them, and thus, delaying them for a bit (I was thinking about Defenders of the galaxy, or special planets a la hiveworlds).

Conversely, another big part of the puzzle lies in the current gamut of "never picks". I mean in the end, there are very few APs that retain their usefulness in the long term (and very few rewards for going heavy on unity and filling every AP slot).
 

GloatingSwine

Field Marshal
42 Badges
Aug 6, 2010
4.268
2.411
  • 500k Club
  • Crusader Kings III
  • Crusader Kings III: Royal Edition
  • Stellaris
  • Stellaris: Digital Anniversary Edition
  • Stellaris: Humanoids Species Pack
  • Stellaris: Lithoids
  • Stellaris: Necroids
  • Stellaris: Megacorp
  • Stellaris: Ancient Relics
  • Stellaris: Federations
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Stellaris - Path to Destruction bundle
  • Stellaris: Apocalypse
  • Stellaris: Nemesis
  • Stellaris: Synthetic Dawn
  • Stellaris: Distant Stars
TBH I don't think Total War should exist except for genocidal empires (even Driven Assimilators have it too easy). Being able to instantly scoop up empires without the drag of claim costs and immediately get full productivity from the population is way too much.

I think it's better to focus on the Always Picks first. Some of the Never Picks might start showing up if you aren't reserving 5 points for Arcology, Ascendancy, and Megastructures and a sixth always goes to Technological Ascendancy because it's the only consistently useful thing to pick that early in the game 99% of the time.
 
  • 1
Reactions:

Ikael

Colonel
May 6, 2016
980
1.037
I dunno, I mean, Unity is as weak as it is. Not that I don't think that "always picks" APs should not be nerfed (they should), but unless that change is done in tandem with a strengthening of the weakest ascension perks, I am afraid of getting another "espionage now requires influence" type of situation. It would only make science + alloys even more dominating than they already are.
 

GloatingSwine

Field Marshal
42 Badges
Aug 6, 2010
4.268
2.411
  • 500k Club
  • Crusader Kings III
  • Crusader Kings III: Royal Edition
  • Stellaris
  • Stellaris: Digital Anniversary Edition
  • Stellaris: Humanoids Species Pack
  • Stellaris: Lithoids
  • Stellaris: Necroids
  • Stellaris: Megacorp
  • Stellaris: Ancient Relics
  • Stellaris: Federations
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Stellaris - Path to Destruction bundle
  • Stellaris: Apocalypse
  • Stellaris: Nemesis
  • Stellaris: Synthetic Dawn
  • Stellaris: Distant Stars
Once people aren't basically locked in to picking the same five every time because they're too good to leave on the table and have more than 2-3 slots for APs that specialise their empires in different ways then it'll be easier to see what still needs buffing and think about how.
 

Reman

Field Marshal
74 Badges
Jun 26, 2010
2.647
3.604
  • Stellaris: Lithoids
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Expansion Pass
  • Stellaris: Humanoids Species Pack
  • Stellaris: Apocalypse
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rule Britannia
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Expansion Pass
  • Stellaris: Distant Stars
  • Europa Universalis IV: Dharma
  • Surviving Mars: First Colony Edition
  • Crusader Kings II: Holy Fury
  • Europa Universalis IV: Golden Century
  • Imperator: Rome Deluxe Edition
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cradle of Civilization
  • Hearts of Iron IV: La Resistance
  • Stellaris: Federations
  • Imperator: Rome - Magna Graecia
  • Crusader Kings III
  • Battle for Bosporus
  • Europa Universalis 4: Emperor
  • Stellaris: Necroids
  • Stellaris: Nemesis
  • Hearts of Iron IV: By Blood Alone
  • Hearts of Iron IV: No Step Back
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Death or Dishonor
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Victoria 2
  • Cities: Skylines
  • Europa Universalis IV: El Dorado
  • Crusader Kings II: Way of Life
  • Europa Universalis IV: Common Sense
  • Crusader Kings II: Horse Lords
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cossacks
  • Crusader Kings II: Conclave
  • Stellaris
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Colonel
  • Crusader Kings II: Reapers Due
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rights of Man
  • Stellaris: Digital Anniversary Edition
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Together for Victory
  • Crusader Kings II: Monks and Mystics
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mandate of Heaven
  • Surviving Mars
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Imperator: Rome
  • Victoria 2: A House Divided
Isn't abducting pops to get around logistic growth still a big part of the meta? i've spent a few months away from the game but i don't remember that changing.
No it's not, because you can almost always just directly conquer the world instead which is a lot faster.

Nihilistic Acquisition should not be a thing. It's a one sided total war casus belli.

...

You capture a system, hoover up their pops, and if they want them back, they have to claim your planets. There's not even a war goal that lets them reclaim what you just took. It's incredibly unbalanced and makes the entire game ridiculously easy.

...

Nihilistic Acquisition is one of the strongest perks in the game, especially in singleplayer, since it allows you to bypass the need for influence to conquer enemies.
The big issue with NA is how slow pop acquisition is. In normal conquest you can just zip through the enemy's lands and occupy their lands in a blitzkrieg. With NA you have to use ships to sloooowly bombard their planets. Investing a bunch of alloys into an expensive fleet and then having it sit around inefficiently bombing planets for years is wasteful when you consider the opportunity costs.

The inability for enemies to take back their stuff in a symmetrical way is not a serious benefit in SP. The highest RoI wars are the ones where you can trounce the enemy easily, which precludes the possibility of a counterattack. Even in the unusual situation of being forced to fight a near-peer, how often does a situation occur where you have enough fleet supremacy to be able to bombard their worlds for lengthy periods of time, but you couldn't have just occupied their planets to get a favorable status quo peace? I don't think I've ever encountered that sort of thing in my 1000+ hours of playing the game.

The point about the ability to get stronger without influence is a bit more enticing, but it still doesn't justify the wastefulness of being forced to inefficiently use fleets to bombard planets. If you want to get stronger, why not just take Interstellar Dominion to take both the enemy's pops AND their land AND do both much faster? If influence is still a major bottleneck there are a few clever ways of using subjugation CBs to significantly decrease influence costs as well.
 
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions:

Reman

Field Marshal
74 Badges
Jun 26, 2010
2.647
3.604
  • Stellaris: Lithoids
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Expansion Pass
  • Stellaris: Humanoids Species Pack
  • Stellaris: Apocalypse
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rule Britannia
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Expansion Pass
  • Stellaris: Distant Stars
  • Europa Universalis IV: Dharma
  • Surviving Mars: First Colony Edition
  • Crusader Kings II: Holy Fury
  • Europa Universalis IV: Golden Century
  • Imperator: Rome Deluxe Edition
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cradle of Civilization
  • Hearts of Iron IV: La Resistance
  • Stellaris: Federations
  • Imperator: Rome - Magna Graecia
  • Crusader Kings III
  • Battle for Bosporus
  • Europa Universalis 4: Emperor
  • Stellaris: Necroids
  • Stellaris: Nemesis
  • Hearts of Iron IV: By Blood Alone
  • Hearts of Iron IV: No Step Back
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Death or Dishonor
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Victoria 2
  • Cities: Skylines
  • Europa Universalis IV: El Dorado
  • Crusader Kings II: Way of Life
  • Europa Universalis IV: Common Sense
  • Crusader Kings II: Horse Lords
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cossacks
  • Crusader Kings II: Conclave
  • Stellaris
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Colonel
  • Crusader Kings II: Reapers Due
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rights of Man
  • Stellaris: Digital Anniversary Edition
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Together for Victory
  • Crusader Kings II: Monks and Mystics
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mandate of Heaven
  • Surviving Mars
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Imperator: Rome
  • Victoria 2: A House Divided
Ecumenopoleis don't compete with Gaias, they compete with Habitats or Ring Worlds. Ecumenopoleis aren't powerful because of the 20% bonus (though it is quite nice), they're powerful because they turn 1 planet into 3 planets. Three size 24 planets can support 144 metallurgists, but a single size 24 ecumenopolis can also support 144. And the cost is actually quite cheap; when you consider the alternative (building orbital rings around all three), you actually save influence with an ecumenopolis. And comparing the cost of building e.g. 72 industrial districts vs. 24 industrial districts, 20k minerals, and 12 foundry arcologies, you actually only spend 8k minerals, making them cheaper than 3 gaia worlds. They also increase the sprawl efficiency of your empire (by reducing number of districts) and help you concentrate more pops on planets with planetary ascensions (or unique designations like the capital).

They're cheaper in both basic resources and influence (all else being equal), they're more efficient (both per pop and per district), and they offer unique opportunities like unity from districts. They even give extra growth (as one planet with 25% extra and two planets with nothing special beat three gaia worlds, who have no bonuses to growth). The only ways in which they aren't better are the rare resource upkeep (which isn't even as bad as it looks, since you save on things like redundant Ministry of Production, foundries, and orbital foundries by needing only 1 copy instead of 3) and the happiness.

It's true that if you find relic worlds, you don't need Arcology Project. But if you don't find them, Arcology Project is significantly stronger than World Shaper.
This analysis is indeed true for jobs that produce alloys and CGs, but I think you misunderstood me and thought I was implying Gaia worlds were replacements for Ecus. I probably should have been more explicit that both are quite good, and having both in your empire is worthwhile. A typical setup would be to have Ecus produce the CGs and alloys, while gaia worlds would make everything else. Ecus aren't particularly efficient for science or unity, and can't produce any basic resources at all. World shaper is nice since it has an incredibly rapid break-even. It's not uncommon to have most or all planets terraformed to gaia worlds *and* for them to have broken even on the initial investment before the first Ecu has been built and fully staffed. And this is assuming you're already at 100% habitability; if you can't get to 100% by other means, World Shaper is practically an always-pick.
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:

Abdulijubjub

Major
22 Badges
Jun 14, 2021
644
1.213
  • Stellaris: Apocalypse
  • Stellaris: Nemesis
  • Stellaris: Necroids
  • Stellaris: Federations
  • Stellaris: Lithoids
  • Stellaris: Ancient Relics
  • Surviving Mars: First Colony Edition
  • Stellaris: Megacorp
  • Surviving Mars: First Colony Edition
  • Stellaris: Distant Stars
  • Surviving Mars: Digital Deluxe Edition
  • Cities in Motion 2
  • Stellaris: Humanoids Species Pack
  • Stellaris: Synthetic Dawn
  • Surviving Mars
  • Stellaris - Path to Destruction bundle
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Stellaris: Digital Anniversary Edition
  • Stellaris
  • Pillars of Eternity
  • The Showdown Effect
  • Magicka
No it's not, because you can almost always just directly conquer the world instead which is a lot faster.
But it costs influence, and it's not repeatable. Nihilistic Acquisition lets you:
  • declare war on someone on the far side of the galaxy and take all their pops with 0 influence cost
  • repeatedly declare war on a neighbor, letting them regrow all their pops at 5x the rate without the growth-required penalty that you get from having 1500-3000 pops.
  • get the growth from having breeder worlds without actually having the extra colony sprawl of keeping them around: your pathetic enemy to the galactic north can be left with all their planets to slowly breed more pops for you without you having to slow down your tech with an extra 400 sprawl from 40 colonies. If those planets were going to be empty and just making more pops, you may as well let someone else hold them for you.
The big issue with NA is how slow pop acquisition is. In normal conquest you can just zip through the enemy's lands and occupy their lands in a blitzkrieg. With NA you have to use ships to sloooowly bombard their planets. Investing a bunch of alloys into an expensive fleet and then having it sit around inefficiently bombing planets for years is wasteful when you consider the opportunity costs.
Empty corvette hulls bombard just as well as fully decked out battleships. Just build more ships. And they're not slooooooow. Use indiscriminate bombardment until you get to around 30% devastation, then switch to raiding. You'll get a pop every 1-2 months or so.

Your empty (or nearly empty) corvettes can go back to patrolling your systems to keep piracy down once you're done with the war.

The inability for enemies to take back their stuff in a symmetrical way is not a serious benefit in SP. The highest RoI wars are the ones where you can trounce the enemy easily, which precludes the possibility of a counterattack. Even in the unusual situation of being forced to fight a near-peer, how often does a situation occur where you have enough fleet supremacy to be able to bombard their worlds for lengthy periods of time, but you couldn't have just occupied their planets to get a favorable status quo peace? I don't think I've ever encountered that sort of thing in my 1000+ hours of playing the game.
  1. The highest RoI wars are the ones where you can trounce the enemy quickly... if you don't have Nihilistic Acquisition. If you do, then you can declare lots more wars, and still get fantastic RoI. Every one of your neighbors is a pinata full of pops that you can bash open whenever you feel like it, even if they technically have stronger fleets that you. And once you've gone a few rounds of stealing their pops, they'll be weakened enough that you'll be stronger after all.
  2. Suppose you're peer-to-peer. You don't even have to kill the enemy fleet to win a war. Declare war on an enemy, and ignore their fleet. Let them rampage through your systems taking starbases. Beeline for their capital instead. Steal all their pops while the AI does its thing. Peace out, letting them take your border systems. You just lost 5 systems, but gained 50 pops. This is a resounding victory, and you never had to fight anything but a starbase to get it. What made it possible is the fact that they can't reclaim what you're capturing with your fleets with their fleets.
  3. Even if you can absolutely smash the AI, you aren't thinking this through. You smash the AI's fleet, but they refuse to surrender and give you the 5 systems you had the influence to claim until you occupy everything or drive their war exhaustion to 100% (as happens in basically every war). So instead, you take your fleets and park them over their capital and one of their guaranteed habitables that you weren't able to claim (too far inside their empire). Then you bombard until the planet is empty. You've now won everything you had the influence to claim, plus a bonus 50 pops from their core worlds.
  4. If you're in a war with AI allies (ex. overlord sugar daddy, federation, etc.) NA lets you take pops even if your buddies are the ones with the claims and doing all the heavy lifting.

Interstellar Dominion is also pretty good, but it has the downsides of being permanent (if you succeed) and reversible (if you don't). Once you take a planet you've taken it, and you can no longer use it to farm pops from the AI. And if the AI takes back a system that you've captured, you don't get to keep it. Notably, though, systems you conquer automatically give claims to the empire that once owned them. Pops that you steal do not. This means both that you can't lose them if the AI declares war on your while you're busy fighting someone else, and that they don't cause permanent relations maluses. If you declare war and steal 500 pops, the AI doesn't care. But if you declare war and steal 25 systems, the AI will forever despise you because they have a permanent 10 claims per system.
 
Last edited:
  • 1
Reactions:

Abdulijubjub

Major
22 Badges
Jun 14, 2021
644
1.213
  • Stellaris: Apocalypse
  • Stellaris: Nemesis
  • Stellaris: Necroids
  • Stellaris: Federations
  • Stellaris: Lithoids
  • Stellaris: Ancient Relics
  • Surviving Mars: First Colony Edition
  • Stellaris: Megacorp
  • Surviving Mars: First Colony Edition
  • Stellaris: Distant Stars
  • Surviving Mars: Digital Deluxe Edition
  • Cities in Motion 2
  • Stellaris: Humanoids Species Pack
  • Stellaris: Synthetic Dawn
  • Surviving Mars
  • Stellaris - Path to Destruction bundle
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Stellaris: Digital Anniversary Edition
  • Stellaris
  • Pillars of Eternity
  • The Showdown Effect
  • Magicka
This analysis is indeed true for jobs that produce alloys and CGs, but I think you misunderstood me and thought I was implying Gaia worlds were replacements for Ecus. I probably should have been more explicit that both are quite good, and having both in your empire is worthwhile. A typical setup would be to have Ecus produce the CGs and alloys, while gaia worlds would make everything else. Ecus aren't particularly efficient for science or unity, and can't produce any basic resources at all. World shaper is nice since it has an incredibly rapid break-even. It's not uncommon to have most or all planets terraformed to gaia worlds *and* for them to have broken even on the initial investment before the first Ecu has been built and fully staffed. And this is assuming you're already at 100% habitability; if you can't get to 100% by other means, World Shaper is practically an always-pick.
  1. If you're taking two ascension perks, obviously it will be better than one. Gaias and Ecus are better than just Ecus alone.
  2. Ecus are amazingly efficient for unity, what are you talking about? You can get 3x as many jobs (20 districts and 8-10 building slots instead of just 10 building slots), and at a fraction of the cost in crystals: one district costs 1 crystal and gives 6 jobs, while you'd have to pay 2 crystals from one building slot to get the same on a gaia world. And the ecumenopolis is getting an extra 10% bonus to unity from jobs. Unless you mean that you shouldn't be employing priests/bureaucrats anyway. In which case, sure, if you want to neglect unity ecumenopoleis don't help, by why care about efficiency then?
  3. If you haven't been able to fully build your ecumenopolis before you've fully terraformed your entire empire to gaias (much less paid back the 3700 energy in terraforming costs per planet), I think you must be playing a different game. Or you get extremely unlucky and somehow don't manage to roll Anti-Gravity Engineering for decades after you get Climate Restoration. Anti-Gravity Engineering is a T3 tech, and Climate Restoration is T4.
 
  • 1
Reactions:

SirBlackAxe

Lt. General
16 Badges
Aug 13, 2021
1.410
3.089
  • Stellaris
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Stellaris: Digital Anniversary Edition
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Stellaris - Path to Destruction bundle
  • Stellaris: Synthetic Dawn
  • Stellaris: Humanoids Species Pack
  • Stellaris: Apocalypse
  • Stellaris: Distant Stars
  • Stellaris: Megacorp
  • Stellaris: Ancient Relics
  • Stellaris: Lithoids
  • Stellaris: Federations
  • Stellaris: Necroids
  • Stellaris: Nemesis
Perks I always take if playing an empire they're available for:
  • Imperial Prerogative: Not particularly exciting, but the math is good. Eventually.
  • An ascension path
  • Arcology Project: Feels mandatory unless you've picked up a couple decent-size relic worlds so that you can make them into Ecumenopolises without needing the perk.
  • Universal Transactions: Free commercial pacts is worth a nice lump of monthly influence.
  • Nihilistic Acquisition: Feels a bit cheap and too consequence-free, but pops are pops.
  • Hydrocentric/Hive Worlds/Machine Worlds
Perks I take conditionally:
  • Consecrated Worlds: If I own more than one of the Spiritualist fallen empire's holy worlds it compares favorably to One Vision, although spiritualist ethics attraction is usually a downside even if you're spiritualist due to the difficulty of pleasing the Traditionalist faction.
  • Interstellar Dominion: I'll take this early if I'm racing for systems against nearby empires and my bottleneck is influence, not alloys.
    • I've never taken it for the purpose of reducing the influence cost of claims, however.
  • Mastery of Nature: May take if I have a few small planets with good bonuses.
    • Access to Orbital Rings has made this perk worse.
    • Blocker clearing cost reduction isn't particularly useful unless you get an early Relic World. Most of the time you don't need to clear blockers until it's late enough in the game that the energy cost in negligible.
    • Increasing max available districts
    • Would be better if the effects scaled with planetary ascension in some way.
  • One Vision: Better when you take it earlier so it accelerates your tradition adoption and before amenities bonuses snowball too much.
  • Shared Destiny: Usually only if I have multiple subjects. They pair of envoys do give the same diplomatic weight bonus as Galactic Contender if assigned to galcom, though, with the flexibility to assign them to other tasks.
  • Technological Ascendancy: Take early for the rare tech chance if you're fishing for psionic theory in order to go for Psionic ascension.
  • Voidborn: If playing Void Dwellers, or a boxed-in unaggressive empire forced to build many habitats. Most empires get enough regular planets that they don't need habitats unless the habitable planets game setting is low, though.
  • Grasp the Void: Sometimes 5 more starbases is all I need to completely eliminate piracy, so that I don't have to remember to toggle the trade route map mode every year. Also worth 180 naval capacity if you make them all anchorages, which is more than double what you get from Galactic Force Projection.
  • World Shaper: Can save you from needing to do a bunch of habitability gene modding in a sufficiently diverse empire. The pop output and happiness bonuses aren't bad, either. Utility decreases relative to the percentage of your pops which are robots or live on Ecumenopolises or artificial worlds, however.
    • Would be better if game mechanics didn't encourage concentrating as many pops as possible on a small number of high density Ecumenopolises.
    • Would be better if it wasn't so easy to hit 100% habitability everywhere.
  • Master Builders: If I've got the alloy income to support it, have researched multiple megastructures I want, and aren't spending alloys on military development instead. It's not unusual for me to meet those conditions eventually, but the perk isn't usually a high priority.
    • Decreases in utility the more megastructures you've finished, eventually becoming nearly useless once you run out of megastructures to build.
    • I believe the megastructure build speed modifier also applies to habitats, possibly making it also relevant to habitat-focused empires.
  • Galactic Wonders: If I own a ruined megastructure I can repair to gain access to it early. Usually by the time I've gotten around to fully upgrading a megastructure from scratch it isn't offering anything I feel is worth the effort of restructuring my economy for.
    • Ring Worlds would feel better if I wasn't spending most games with a massive surplus of unused planet space, and didn't need to deal with the hassle of resettling hundreds of pops.
    • I understand that the Dyson Sphere and Matter Decompressor are good, they just don't often feel necessary to me.
  • Colossus Project: Most of the time is much slower than conquering planets with armies, due to the way planets never have more than a token handful of defensive armies unless they're fortress worlds. I know everyone says that the total war part of the perk is more important, but I feel like any time I want access to total war I already have it from another source. That's a playstyle thing though, I tend to be uninterested in conquering the galaxy because I don't really want to manage that many colonies.
    • May start taking this much more often now that the AI has started building up fortress worlds with thousands of army power.
    • Deliberately avoided this for a while due to the ghost pop bug. Not sure if it's fixed yet or not.
Perks I don't take:
  • Eternal Vigilance: Static defenses just don't feel that useful to me, I'd much rather spend my alloys on my fleet than defense platforms.
  • Executive Vigor: The period of time during which I have enough useful available unity edicts before edict fund is laughably outstripped by snowballing empire size and unity income is too short for this to feel worth it.
  • Transcendent Learning: You hit the max leader cap naturally, or at least close enough to it that the time it takes to go from 9 to 10 doesn't really feel like you're missing out on much from that final level you only very rarely reach. And by the time you're choosing amongst the low priority perks your leaders are already pretty high level and looking into lifespan extension options.
    • Maybe relevant for egalitarians (who don't want to use the max level +2 policy) that aren't taking actions to extend their lifespans, I guess?
  • Enigmatic Engineering: While the AI can now research debris, preventing them from doing so simply doesn't feel like it matters. Encryption seems similarly pointless.
  • Galactic Force Projection: Compares unfavorable to taking Grasp the Void for anchorages. Technically a better choice if you don't have at least 3 systems without starbases or you need the naval cap immediately without investing alloys and time in starbases, but that's not really a position I ever find myself in.
    • This is valuable for single-system vassals, though (when they can manage to pick it at random). Just not something for human players.
  • Defender of the Galaxy / Galactic Contender: Big free damage bonuses like that just feel kinda cheap and also too specific.
Untested:
  • Detox: I don't have Toxoids yet.
  • Lord of War: Haven't played around with mercenaries much yet, so I'm not sure how valuable the effects are.
  • Xeno-Compatibility: Is disabled.
    • tbh rather than fully disabling this perk I'd like to just replace the hybrid pop mechanic something else.
  • Become the Crisis: Never tried it.



I've certainly got a whole bunch of ideas for tweaks to a whole bunch of APs. Might just make a single suggestion thread later, I don't really want to spam separate suggestions for each one.
 
  • 1Like
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions:

Kittyluvr

Recruit
31 Badges
May 19, 2022
6
13
  • Stellaris: Humanoids Species Pack
  • Stellaris: Nemesis
  • Stellaris: Necroids
  • Crusader Kings III: Royal Edition
  • Crusader Kings III
  • Stellaris: Federations
  • Stellaris: Lithoids
  • Stellaris: Ancient Relics
  • Cities: Skylines - Campus
  • Prison Architect
  • Stellaris: Megacorp
  • Cities: Skylines Industries
  • Shadowrun: Dragonfall
  • Stellaris: Distant Stars
  • Cities: Skylines - Parklife
  • Stellaris: Apocalypse
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Cities: Skylines - Green Cities
  • Stellaris: Synthetic Dawn
  • Cities: Skylines - Mass Transit
  • Stellaris - Path to Destruction bundle
  • Cities: Skylines - Natural Disasters
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Stellaris: Digital Anniversary Edition
  • Stellaris
  • Cities: Skylines - Snowfall
  • Cities: Skylines - After Dark
  • Cities: Skylines Deluxe Edition
  • Cities: Skylines
  • Magicka
  • Europa Universalis IV
I agree with most of the rebalancing suggestions, and actually I was looking for a thread like this. One idea I've had for a while as more trees have become available is an ascension perk that lets you pick an additional tradition tree (you still have to unlock it as normal and you don't get another ascension perk after finishing it) which really speaks I think to how underpowered ascension perks end up feeling once you get your must picks and the like. (I do still think a perk like that would be cool, but it needs to be an option, not the default.)
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:

Thiend

First Lieutenant
45 Badges
Mar 23, 2022
248
408
  • Stellaris: Distant Stars
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Crusader Kings II: Reapers Due
  • Stellaris: Digital Anniversary Edition
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Crusader Kings II: Monks and Mystics
  • Stellaris - Path to Destruction bundle
  • Stellaris: Synthetic Dawn
  • Crusader Kings II: Jade Dragon
  • Stellaris: Humanoids Species Pack
  • Stellaris: Apocalypse
  • Stellaris
  • Shadowrun Returns
  • Stellaris: Megacorp
  • Crusader Kings II: Holy Fury
  • Prison Architect
  • Stellaris: Ancient Relics
  • Stellaris: Lithoids
  • Stellaris: Federations
  • Crusader Kings III
  • Stellaris: Necroids
  • Stellaris: Nemesis
  • Magicka
  • 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
  • Impire
  • A Game of Dwarves
  • Majesty 2 Collection
  • Warlock: Master of the Arcane
  • Warlock 2: The Exiled
  • Warlock 2: Wrath of the Nagas
  • War of the Roses
  • Crusader Kings II: Way of Life
  • Pillars of Eternity
  • Magicka 2
  • Crusader Kings II: Horse Lords
  • Crusader Kings II: Conclave
I agree with most of the rebalancing suggestions, and actually I was looking for a thread like this. One idea I've had for a while as more trees have become available is an ascension perk that lets you pick an additional tradition tree (you still have to unlock it as normal and you don't get another ascension perk after finishing it) which really speaks I think to how underpowered ascension perks end up feeling once you get your must picks and the like. (I do still think a perk like that would be cool, but it needs to be an option, not the default.)
A perk that gives you an additional tradition tree and nothing else but can be picked as many times as you want could be interesting.
 

TrotBot

Field Marshal
48 Badges
Feb 2, 2018
3.079
4.694
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Expansion Pass
  • Cities: Skylines - Campus
  • Stellaris: Humanoids Species Pack
  • Stellaris: Apocalypse
  • Surviving Mars: Digital Deluxe Edition
  • Cities: Skylines - Parklife
  • Stellaris: Distant Stars
  • Surviving Mars: First Colony Edition
  • Cities: Skylines Industries
  • Imperator: Rome Deluxe Edition
  • Imperator: Rome
  • Surviving Mars: First Colony Edition
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Expansion Pass
  • Stellaris: Ancient Relics
  • Age of Wonders: Planetfall
  • Stellaris: Lithoids
  • Age of Wonders: Planetfall - Revelations
  • Hearts of Iron IV: La Resistance
  • Stellaris: Federations
  • Imperator: Rome - Magna Graecia
  • Stellaris: Necroids
  • Stellaris: Nemesis
  • Hearts of Iron IV: No Step Back
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Cities: Skylines
  • Cities: Skylines - After Dark
  • Cities: Skylines - Snowfall
  • Stellaris
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Colonel
  • Tyranny: Archon Edition
  • Tyranny: Archon Edition
  • Tyranny: Gold Edition
  • Stellaris: Digital Anniversary Edition
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Cities: Skylines - Natural Disasters
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Together for Victory
  • Cities: Skylines - Mass Transit
  • Surviving Mars
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Death or Dishonor
  • Tyranny - Bastards Wound
  • Cities: Skylines - Green Cities
  • Stellaris - Path to Destruction bundle
  • Stellaris: Megacorp
  • Stellaris: Synthetic Dawn
  • Tyranny - Tales from the Tiers
just chiming in to say: whatever rebalancing of the APs happens, megastructures do NOT need nerfing. plz they are such a massive investment of time, science, unity, alloys, and often influence, and the ONLY interesting thing in the lategame. i don't want the "the game ends in 2300" crowd to be even MORE right. I play without end dates, and megastructures NEED to be powerful or else what is even the point of them?
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:

SS Boss

For the Empire
79 Badges
Oct 3, 2011
114
366
  • 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
They should do a patch like Orion but just to rework Ascension Perks.

What I think devs should look:

- More perks that unlock traditions like the new Ascension Paths, and more perks that unlock new systems like Become the Crisis.

- Rework all the perks which effect is just +x or +x% this or that. Like, Technological Ascendancy - instead of +x% research rate, add a new tier of research lab, or an unique research district, or an unique research job. Things like that, which brings a more interesting and interactive change to your empire instead of just a modifier. Its an Ascension Perk, after all.

- Merge some perks that have a lot in commom and are not that good, like World Shaper, Detox and Mastery of Nature. Perhaps making them a single World Shaper perk that unlocks a new tradition tree with all that terraforming stuff.

However, I dont think we need more perk slots. Choices matter and empires should be different, everyone should not have everything at the end of the game.
 
Last edited:
  • 3
Reactions:

Dementor4

Colonel
14 Badges
Feb 19, 2017
1.022
1.557
  • Stellaris: Synthetic Dawn
  • Stellaris
  • Stellaris: Digital Anniversary Edition
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Stellaris - Path to Destruction bundle
  • Stellaris: Humanoids Species Pack
  • Stellaris: Apocalypse
  • Stellaris: Distant Stars
  • Stellaris: Megacorp
  • Stellaris: Ancient Relics
  • Stellaris: Lithoids
  • Stellaris: Federations
  • Stellaris: Necroids
  • Stellaris: Nemesis
Psionics: buff the numbers by massive amounts or reduce RNG and remove downsides. Overhaul the tradition tree to not be literally worthless without DLC to give espionage and almost worthless with that DLC
A general "envoys are 20% more effective" would work. Envoys run espionage, so the feature would still benefit them, but it would also improve the effects of your envoys in improving relations, increasing your political power in the GC, and keeping to cohesion of your federation high. All of which makes perfect sense for telepaths to excel at.
 
  • 2
  • 1Like
Reactions: