FTL Discussion Thread

[KingAlamar]

I'm a roleplayer. I used to give my empires whatever FTL made the most sense for their lore.

Then I stopped, because Hyperlanes was the only FTL I found made for compelling gameplay.

Roleplay does not require 100% mechanical fidelity. There's a dozen other instances in the game where a roleplayer will have to adapt their RP to the options the game provides- FTL is no different.

I'm glad that you're a role player. I just regret that you never got to play in a sandbox where you wouldn't have had to overcome mechanical obstacles to your RP & Strat game enjoyment.

 

[BlackUmbrellas]

I'm glad that you're a role player. I just regret that you never got to play in a sandbox where you wouldn't have had to overcome mechanical obstacles to your RP & Strat game enjoyment.

I've been playing since juuuuust before Utopia.

The game has never been a pure sandbox, nor will it ever be. There are inherently going to be restrictions on what the player is able to do. That's fine.

If I want to roleplay with total control over what is and isn't possible in the "game space", I'll do it the traditional way, with text.

 

[KingAlamar]

I've been playing since juuuuust before Utopia.

The game has never been a pure sandbox, nor will it ever be. There are inherently going to be restrictions on what the player is able to do. That's fine.

If I want to roleplay with total control over what is and isn't possible in the "game space", I'll do it the traditional way, with text.

Fair enough ... fair enough

 

[Prince Ire]

I'm a roleplayer. I used to give my empires whatever FTL made the most sense for their lore.

Then I stopped, because Hyperlanes was the only FTL I found made for compelling gameplay.

Roleplay does not require 100% mechanical fidelity. There's a dozen other instances in the game where a roleplayer will have to adapt their RP to the options the game provides- FTL is no different.

And I found hyperlanes made for completely uncompelling gameplay and ended up no longer playing the game.

 

[DizietSma]

These points contradict each other...

Um, noooo they dont. Just because its clearly untrue to claim that 90% of space games are starlane-based, doesn't mean there aren't a depressingly large number of starlane-based games out there. If he had said "50% or 60% of space games must disappoint you." then I would have agreed completely, I AM disappointed by those games and the fact that Stellaris has now descended to being just another one of them.

I was challenging his 90% statistic which is quite obviously pure hyperbole.

Basically if Stellaris was always Hyperlane only then you wouldn't see this level of fuss about it.

This is absolutely true, If Stellaris was always hyperlane only, I would never have purchased it in the first place and there would have been no fuss at all. Its the cynical "bait and switch" that I find morally abhorrent. Suddenly removing core features from a game I already gave you my money for is NOT ok.

 

[KingAlamar]

I don't think this was a deliberate bait & switch. I think this one or more of the following:

• Lack of resources to support multiple FTL types
• Honest change in vision of how the game "should be".
• Lack of "rock solid commitment" to maintaining the original vision and improving upon that while keeping core elements largely intact.

I still think that it would have been easy-enough to maintain those features while adding new features. What I can't easily answer is 'what was the opportunity cost'?? What would we have needed to have given up in order to keep FTL. The DEVS made a call ... I'm not sure I agree with it but I don't see this issue [ever?] being revisited for one reason or another.

 

[Guthix]

Mind if I divert from the very deep and turmoilous debate you guys are having about the concept of putting a cat in a metal ball and tossing it into a hyperplane to see if its confused meows are doppler shifted? I have a question.

Has the bug where "shared burdens" weirdly shows up by itself when a government ethic hasn't been selected been reported yet? I wanted to make sure before I made a duplicate report that someone else made on the report forum.

 

[BlackUmbrellas]

Mind if I divert from the very deep and turmoilous debate you guys are having about the concept of putting a cat in a metal ball and tossing it into a hyperplane to see if its confused meows are doppler shifted? I have a question.

Has the bug where "shared burdens" weirdly shows up by itself when a government ethic hasn't been selected been reported yet? I wanted to make sure before I made a duplicate report that someone else made on the report forum.

This is the FTL discussion thread. Its for FTL discussion.

 

[DizietSma]

I don't think this was a deliberate bait & switch. I think this one or more of the following:

I guess we'll never know the truth but honestly the idea that it wasn't deliberate isn't much of a consolation. Its kind of like having your uninsured car completely totaled in a traffic accident and then somebody telling you not to worry because it probably wasn't your fault. The car is still a smoking wreck either way.

 

[President Park Lee Ng]

The question is: Are choke points actually needed?
I know this was one (if not THE) reason they killed the other FTLs but it was - imho - the wrong question.

One thing I often heard was "Static defenses are useless". That was true, but NOT for the reason that they could be circumvented (which they couldn't if placed at the right spots). They were simply too expensive (in early game) or too weak (in late game).
The solution was "we need chokepoints and therefore we must kill Warp/Wormhole". That's like "my finger hurts and therefore I must amputate my arm".

Choke point is needed. That is pretty much the end of it if you wish to call yourself a strategy game

But more elaboration is needed: the game is simply too vast with a lot of things going on, dismantling choke points in favor of multiple FTL systems (simply due to them incapable of existing together, as happened before), is a bad idea. You need choke points so you can, for a moment, simply not worry about a particular part of your empire. Choke point starbases cannot be One Base Navy, that'd be too dumb a design: you need to alleviate worries, not eliminate them, otherwise the game would simply play itself.

That analogy is so bad, I'm not sure how you got it, and why you decided to use it. It's certainly impactful, but woefully misleading

 

[elektrizikekswerk]

Choke point is needed. That is pretty much the end of it if you wish to call yourself a strategy game

Well, on that part we already disagree.
In space (according to all we know) there are no choke points (maybe besides some "terrain" features like nebulae and such which could have been used instead like other games do it - e.g. the aforementioned GalCiv). But nothing (assuming the game gives me the means to do it) prevents me to create my own choke points. I used that comparison earlier in this thread: The French created their choke point by building Maginot and thus "forced" the Germans to find another way - which they did. This all revolves about my point about the design of static defenses pre-2.0.

The analogy maybe was bad in your eyes because you don't see it that way. For me it was exactly that (and according to the "Agrees" I got I'm not the only one feeling so).

 

[President Park Lee Ng]

@President Park Lee Ng Thanks for reacting to my message. It seems I did a poor job conveying what i meant. Here is some clarification

1. Room for error.

More options, with no meaningful reason for them aside from "existing, to give options", is what I call "shallow game mechanics". So many things to do! So many ways to do them! Yet nothing I choose matters beyond that

The current travel systems don't just exist as options, they do in fact have some impacts:

1. Wormholes aren't restricted by FTL snares.
2. Gateways are affected by border status
3. Jumps allows bypassing defensive lines at the cost of combat performance for a significant amount of time

Is it conceivable that extra FTL types can have such interactions? Yes! Yet to me, personally, the mechanic ideas I read feel like this: let the different FTL types exist, their interaction with the rest of the game mechanics come later. They're lackluster, and don't take into account the entire game, is what I'm saying, because movement is very core to the game.

"Things got simplified". Yes, and what's the problem with it? I feel that your argument is "it's simplified, ergo it's bad, because it's simplified". FTL simplification puts everyone on the same, level playing field: everyone has to go through the same steps to reach the same destination star system, and on strategic level that is a very good thing. As you progress through the game, you unlock different, faster ways to travel, which means it'd be technological progression - not your starting choice - that gives you advantage over your peers. Of course, the Random Number God works in mysterious ways thanks to the tech card system so there'd be some variance to that

2. Scouting is less important

Scouting isn't just about tracking enemy movement: scouting is also finding out enemy loadout to better counteract them. Instead of worrying more about where the enemy attacks, I can worry more about *how* the enemy attacks, and the internal machinations of my star empire, such as jobs, factions, construction, etc. Of course, as my borders grow so does my choke points change, and I'd need to rebuild my starbases to keep up. To me, that's much more "star empire management simulator" than "galactic warfare simulator"

3. Raiding

You could do that before, what happened was that when it comes time to actually wage full scale war, your mighty fleets busy themselves attacking unimportant targets like mining stations that you actually want to be intact

If you're talking about taking potshots at the enemy, guerilla style, yes it's harder to do it now, because you can't appear out of nowhere, kill some stations, and then disappear again. It's not impossible, just harder. Barbaric Despoilers revolve around that play style

5. Hyperdrive

It seems that you're interested in real-time strategy in space. Stellaris does not seem to head to that direction, and with the planned diplomatic expansion, perhaps never will again. I'm not saying you're wrong, because I too liked Stellaris due to the fact that I could watch spaceships shoot at each other in "real-time"-ish, it's just that future Stellaris doesn't seem to be the game for you

If you wanted you could build a construction ship and strap a mining module to it with some storage bays and go around mining the asteroids and planets for the resources you need for your stations -- it would be insane to do it, but you have the option.

So this is one of the prime examples of "shallow game mechanics" that I mentioned before. You can, but without any reason to ever do it, the existence of that mechanic makes no difference in the end. It would open up certain aspects of role playing, that's for sure, but nothing more

- We could have multiple fuel types to make it more interesting. This has the potential to create some conflict, where each empire tries to control the fuel sources. Your starting system should always have the type of fuel deposit available you have chosen at start.

This is interesting, so I have a few questions:

• What happens when an enemy empire managed to control all deposits of a certain type? Can you just switch back and forth between different types of fuel?
  
• How would the fuel deposit system work? Do you pay a flat upkeep for the ships or a certain amount gets deducted whenever a ship refuels?
• If a large fleet refuels at a depot, which ships get fuel priority?
• Since resources are updated monthly, if 3 large fleets in 3 separate systems dock waiting to refuel, which fleets get fuel priority when end of month hits?
• Can I conserve fuels for the most important ships by just repairing, but not refueling, weaker ships?
• What happens to a tanker with empty fuel? Is there a reason to not just disband it right then and there and rebuild another one?
• Should crisis be affected by fuels?
• How large a tank should a tanker have? Should a tanker be able to refuel a fleet of 25 battleships by itself?

Science Ship

This system has no difference compared to just max jumps off a depot

Construction Ship

So, are refuel depots a separate station you need to build in a system, or just an extension of starbases?

Assuming the first, should they be destroyable by enemy fire? If they don't, why not just use the captured depots? Is there a reason to not just build a depot in every single system just in case?

[qupte]
Military ships:
- I would remove the star bases as a requirement to conquer a system and set ownership of each orbital and planet instead and use area of influence like it was in pre-2.0 to determine effective borders. This would also allow 2 different empires to share ownership of a system by empire 1 owning the mining and refueling station around the gas giant and empire 2 owning the small colony on the 4th planet. Any captured station or planet gets the occupied status until you can assimilate it or sign a treaty with the other empire that it now belongs to you.
- Since i would change ship design as well, you could have the option to focus on range instead of weapons. If you bring more fuel, you can fit less guns. Choose the composition you want. So in a way fuel would affect firepower. I would also calculate speed differently. Instead of speed i would define ship acceleration and would have a max speed as x, where x<c; machine races should be able to tolerate greater acceleration
- With fuel wars would play out differently. One of the most important aspect of the war would be the supply lines. Since fuel is key to movement you must take/destroy enemy fuel depos to secure your advance and restrict enemy movement. If they build long range ships, then those ships will be less effective in combat, so a small guard fleet can be effective against them[/quote]

Assume you own Earth in Sol, yet the starbase - the stellar installation with guns - is controlled by your enemy. That enemy has closed borders to you.
Logic dictates, whatever you do on Earth is your right alone, but what ships get to travel within the solar system is theirs. Therefore you would not be able to make use of its raw resources. Is there a point to holding that planet, aside from proclaiming its yours?

Also, how do you determine who owns what in the aftermath of a war? Does that mean all wars are total wars from now on? Whatever I defeated is mine, and to me it seems that making me attack the mining stations on top of the starbase is wholly unnecessary

Great question.

So I can imagine your system here, and it feels like the entire system runs counter to your desire of having faster paced game

• In order for my ship to move I need to refuel,
  
• which is done in a fuel depot,
  
• which needs to be fueled by a tanker,
  
• which needs to move from a central depot to outer depots
• which needs to refuel in between depots to reach the outer depots
• which needs to be refueled by other tankers
• which needs to move from a central depot to in-between depots
• which gets its fuel from refineries
• which gets its raw resources from mines
• which needs to be transported by transport ships
• which needs to refuel between transports
  
• which is done in a fuel depot
• which needs to be fueled by a tanker,
  
• which....

You get the idea. It's very much realistic yes, but also feels like it would in fact be slower, and boring. Right now we can move freely, without waiting for fuel to come. With your system, once you've brought a large enough fleet to empty a depot and still need more, you've essentially stopped your entire fleet's movement, and when you can move again depends entirely on your tankers' move speed
I mean, sure maybe your FTLs move faster to compensate, and to what end? Is it fun to watch the transport ships chug along and refueling and whatnot? I guess so for some people? Yet it feels to me that this sort of thing, the logistics of refining fuels, is one thing that can be safely cut out simply because at the end of the day, it just doesn't add much to the game.

Instead of meticulously simulating every aspect of the logistic chain, I think it's better to just abstract it away and have the fuels work as some sort of minimum you need to supply each month based on how many ships you have. If you can't provide enough, your ships get slower. You still have your deposits, and still have its importance to the nation without the hassle of looking at logistic ships.

Even then, I think fuel is already covered. The currency in Stellaris is energy. You already pay upkeep for your ships in energy, both for paying staff and for keeping the ship engines running. Fuels are converted to energy, which then can be used for other things too, like paying enclaves

 

[President Park Lee Ng]

Well, on that part we already disagree.
In space (according to all we know) there are no choke points (maybe besides some "terrain" features like nebulae and such which could have been used instead like other games do it - e.g. the aforementioned GalCiv). But nothing (assuming the game gives me the means to do it) prevents me to create my own choke points. I used that comparison earlier in this thread: The French created their choke point by building Maginot and thus "forced" the Germans to find another way - which they did. This all revolves about my point about the design of static defenses pre-2.0.

The analogy maybe was bad in your eyes because you don't see it that way. For me it was exactly that (and according to the "Agrees" I got I'm not the only one feeling so).

Assuming we're using a very realistic portrayal of space, you'd be right. But we don't, we use a simplified version of it for the sake of sanity and brevity: the enemy is there, find them, I don't care how. In real space, you won't see the stars spread in a very neat, 2D surface, we use the 2D portrayal for easier navigation and information clarity

How many agreements you get do not change how bad your analogy is. If we consider truth by how many people agree to it, I have some bad news for you regarding the shape of our planet

 

[elektrizikekswerk]

Assuming we're using a very realistic portrayal of space, you'd be right. But we don't, we use a simplified version of it for the sake of sanity and brevity: the enemy is there, find them, I don't care how. In real space, you won't see the stars spread in a very neat, 2D surface, we use the 2D portrayal for easier navigation and information clarity

How many agreements you get do not change how bad your analogy is. If we consider truth by how many people agree to it, I have some bad news for you regarding the shape of our planet

I wouldn't mind a 3D galaxy/map. It gave interesting options in games like Ascendancy* or Homeworld.

*Referring to combats within a star system. The galaxy map was 3D, too, but sinc it was a hyperlane game that didn't matter much.

Now your analogy is bad. We simply should agree that we disagree.

 

[President Park Lee Ng]

Now your analogy is bad. We simply should agree that we disagree.

If your attempt at a joke is by agreeing to my post, I'm just saying that I don't really find it funny

Since you don't seem to comprehend the magnitude of your disingenuity, I'll just say this: the axing of FTL system wasn't a decision taken on a whim. Stellaris was a trope game, and the FTL systems were deemed incompatible only after almost 2 years of development. You portray the dev team as ignorants who make decisions without thinking, and I really can't see anything more misleading than that. It's ignorant at best, and slander at worst

 

[elektrizikekswerk]

If your attempt at a joke is by agreeing to my post, I'm just saying that I don't really find it funny

Since you don't seem to comprehend the magnitude of your disingenuity, I'll just say this: the axing of FTL system wasn't a decision taken on a whim. Stellaris was a trope game, and the FTL systems were deemed incompatible only after almost 2 years of development. You portray the dev team as ignorants who make decisions without thinking, and I really can't see anything more misleading than that. It's ignorant at best, and slander at worst

I don't think they took that decision easily. I only think they didn't want to (or weren't allowed to) find a solution that would have saved the different FTL and adding new game mechanics to it. In other words: They didn't have the means (in broadest sense, be it finance/time or motivation; I assume the former) to find and cure the cause of the hurting finger so they cut it off.
And especially the reason “we need/want better static defenses“ (which was a top reason mentioned in the dev diary in which they announced to cut FTL, see quote below) is - in my opinion - the most ridiculous one. So my analogy is equally ridiculous.

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.

 

[DizietSma]

Choke point is needed. That is pretty much the end of it if you wish to call yourself a strategy game

What an amazing revelation, who would have guessed that MOO 2 and Distant Worlds were not actually strategy games? When the very existence of certain games proves you embarrassingly wrong, you know your argument has issues.

 

[Zoolimar]

In MoO2 and Stellaris with warp you would use staging points instead of choke points. In Stellaris that would be a planet/starbase with docked fleet upkeep reduction that is placed a little inside the borders in place where you can reach multiple systems. That organically puts a limit to how big you can make your empire while still controlling most of the territory. Problem was that AI and a lot of the time even players would be too passive to actually exploit it - in theory big expansionist empire would need to keep fleets around all the borders to counter possible incursions and deathballing would lead to having your other side ravaged. In practice AI almost never would do it and multi year unbreakable non-aggression pacts gave enough time to crush someone else.

In MoO it was much more dicey especially with aggressive neighbours. Though against AI you most of the time could severely out-tech it so it didn't matter that much.

 

[kenawyn]

Please read my responses below.

More options, with no meaningful reason for them aside from "existing, to give options", is what I call "shallow game mechanics". So many things to do! So many ways to do them! Yet nothing I choose matters beyond that

The current travel systems don't just exist as options, they do in fact have some impacts:

1. Wormholes aren't restricted by FTL snares.
2. Gateways are affected by border status
3. Jumps allows bypassing defensive lines at the cost of combat performance for a significant amount of time

Is it conceivable that extra FTL types can have such interactions? Yes! Yet to me, personally, the mechanic ideas I read feel like this: let the different FTL types exist, their interaction with the rest of the game mechanics come later. They're lackluster, and don't take into account the entire game, is what I'm saying, because movement is very core to the game.

I disagree. The pre-2.0 drives had a significant impact on game-play. For example:

• Different drives enabled or restricted movement differently
  • Warp drive - slow movement limited by warp jump range and cool-down - level 2 warp allowed warp empires to cross the arms of spiral galaxies
    
  • Hyperdrive - free movement along lanes, that was good for early exploration; also spiral galaxies restricted movement between arms
    
  • Wormhole drive - movement restricted by range around wormhole stations and cool-down; if the station radius allows it your ships can jump over enemy borders
• Different challengers when fighting against an empire depending on which drive they used
  • Fighting against Hyperdrive empires - the hyperlane mapping research is key; protect and fortify the systems that the hyperdrive empire can attack from and exploit free movement to raid and attack them until victory can be secured
    
  • Fighting against Wormhole drive empires - protect all key locations and be ready to sacrifice some planets; send out scouts to find the wormhole generators and move in raiding forces to destroy them asap; if their main forces are stranded keep raiding them until victory can be secured
    
  • Fighting against Warp drive empires - exploit the long cool-down of warp travel. Try baiting their fleets with small but fast forces. Have some snare traps and sacrificial fleets ready to delay their movement until you can position your forces for a large fleet battle

About the current drives:

1. True, but it just means that you place your inhibitors in both systems, or in the system you want to block lane access from. Also there are no FTL snares in the current version, since choke points an inhibitors replaced that mechanic.
2. Not sure what you mean by this.
   
3. True, but by bypassing the defenses you just trapped yourself in enemy territory until your jump drives come back online... and if an enemy catches you the debuff will make sure your losses are significant. Building up a force 3-4 times as big as the enemy and brute forcing your way through the defenses worked better for me, since if your force is large enough you suffer no losses and you usually get a station to secure your advance

Please take what i say with a grain of salt because i only played 6 games with the post-2.0 version (2.1), so some of what i say might be incorrect. In the games i played, non of the features you mentioned seemed significant:

1. I could safely ignore the wormholes - just expanded past them, so they did not matter.
2. I had an extensive gateway system, that i used to move fleets around, since movement in post-2.0 is terribly slow. Without the gateways i would have probably quit the game halfway.
3. I have tried it once and never used it again

"Things got simplified". Yes, and what's the problem with it? I feel that your argument is "it's simplified, ergo it's bad, because it's simplified". FTL simplification puts everyone on the same, level playing field: everyone has to go through the same steps to reach the same destination star system, and on strategic level that is a very good thing. As you progress through the game, you unlock different, faster ways to travel, which means it'd be technological progression - not your starting choice - that gives you advantage over your peers. Of course, the Random Number God works in mysterious ways thanks to the tech card system so there'd be some variance to that.

No, that's not my argument.
I have enjoyed the diversity of travel, because different drives presented different challenges in the early and mid game. For example playing a hyperlane empire on a spiral galaxy against warp and wormhole empires for extra challenge or be the only one with wormhole drive and try to contain the other empires with fast expansion. Now everything is the same. In the past when i ran into a scenario i wondered what i could do in that situation with different restrictions.. now i reverted back to 1.9 just after 6 games.

Scouting isn't just about tracking enemy movement: scouting is also finding out enemy loadout to better counteract them. Instead of worrying more about where the enemy attacks, I can worry more about *how* the enemy attacks, and the internal machinations of my star empire, such as jobs, factions, construction, etc. Of course, as my borders grow so does my choke points change, and I'd need to rebuild my starbases to keep up. To me, that's much more "star empire management simulator" than "galactic warfare simulator"

True, but this thread is about FTL travel, so i only considered scouting from that aspect.
I did not try 2.2, so i do not know much about the jobs. I hate factions, so i always play as an empire that do not generate factions or can suppress them effectively. The old version had a deep enough system for construction. Some automation would have been better, but it is what it is...
The ship design is terrible in all game versions.

Yes, it seems this is where our world views clash:

• you prefer a space empire manager with some flavor combat
• i prefer a space war game with exploration and the events (love the events) with some added management

You could do that before, what happened was that when it comes time to actually wage full scale war, your mighty fleets busy themselves attacking unimportant targets like mining stations that you actually want to be intact

Well, that depends on the empire you are attacking. If it's a small empire that you can easily swallow up, then sure, let's keep those mining stations. But if they are a similar sized strong empire, then weakening them by raiding is better. If their resources become limited they cannot support a large fleet. If your fleet is larger and have a better economy to replace your losses you are set for victory.

If you're talking about taking potshots at the enemy, guerilla style, yes it's harder to do it now, because you can't appear out of nowhere, kill some stations, and then disappear again. It's not impossible, just harder. Barbaric Despoilers revolve around that play style

No. I am talking about small fleets raiding undefended or weakly defended systems while my doomstacks engage their doomstacks. The raiding will make it so that they will have less resources to replace their losses, thus giving me the win.

It seems that you're interested in real-time strategy in space. Stellaris does not seem to head to that direction, and with the planned diplomatic expansion, perhaps never will again. I'm not saying you're wrong, because I too liked Stellaris due to the fact that I could watch spaceships shoot at each other in "real-time"-ish, it's just that future Stellaris doesn't seem to be the game for you

I like all manner of strategy and war games. At the moment I consider Dominions 5 the best strategy game of all times and it is a turn based strategy game. Also what makes you think diplomacy will have that effect? If there will be options where you can safely ignore the rules (purifier, exterminators...) a player like me could still get their enjoyment out of the game.

I already cut my losses and went back to 1.9. I just visit this thread sometimes to read the posts and comment on the ones i like or where i have a strong opinion.

So this is one of the prime examples of "shallow game mechanics" that I mentioned before. You can, but without any reason to ever do it, the existence of that mechanic makes no difference in the end. It would open up certain aspects of role playing, that's for sure, but nothing more

No.
Since ship design is not restricted you have complete freedom on how you design your ships. This is not shallow game mechanics, because there are a lot of cases where this allows you to optimize your designs for your situation. Having the option to also create silly builds is just a consequence.
Here is the simplest example i could find:

• the default mining station in DW has both regular and luxury mining modules (the luxury mining component is more expensive and is there to mine special luxury resources)
• you can design a mining station that has only regular modules cutting the cost significantly. If you build it at a place that only has regular resources you just saved some big money.
• If this station is located at a remote system you could add some fuel storage modules so the station can serve as a resupply depo for ships operating in this region (of course by doing this your civilian sector will have to transport fuel to the station)

So this is one of the prime examples of "shallow game mechanics" that I mentioned before. You can, but This is interesting, so I have a few questions:

• What happens when an enemy empire managed to control all deposits of a certain type? Can you just switch back and forth between different types of fuel?
  
• How would the fuel deposit system work? Do you pay a flat upkeep for the ships or a certain amount gets deducted whenever a ship refuels?
• If a large fleet refuels at a depot, which ships get fuel priority?
• Since resources are updated monthly, if 3 large fleets in 3 separate systems dock waiting to refuel, which fleets get fuel priority when end of month hits?
• Can I conserve fuels for the most important ships by just repairing, but not refueling, weaker ships?
• What happens to a tanker with empty fuel? Is there a reason to not just disband it right then and there and rebuild another one?
• Should crisis be affected by fuels?
• How large a tank should a tanker have? Should a tanker be able to refuel a fleet of 25 battleships by itself?

In Distant Worlds the fuel is used by power generators. Each power generator must be researched before you can use them.

• if you were only using Caslon, because that is the default fuel, and for some reason you loose all your Calson sources this is what will happen
  
  • You will have some stockpiles in your station stores, so as long as they hold your empire is not affected
  • Once you ran out, your ships will have no way of refueling, but they will have some fuel of their own
    
  • Once your ships ran out, their effective speed will drop to a very slow crawl
• if you have researched some power generators that use Hydrogen fuel and you are already collecting Hydrogen then you must go into the ship designer and refit all your ships to use hydrogen power generators -- or you can let the AI do it for you if you are lazy
• If you do not have the research then you must prioritize the research and complete it ASAP (DW uses a research tree with no random elements)
  
• The more likely scenario is that you have Caslon mines, but you have too many ships and your mines cannot keep up with the demand, so you want to diversify your fuel economy and refit some of your designs to use hydrogen instead.

In Distant Worlds you can build fuel tank modules and stores on stations and ships. If a ship wants to refuel, the amount it needs will be deducted from the supplier's stores.

In Distant Worlds you can add dock modules to your stations, so if you have a major space port that services hundreds of ships you should add a lot of docking modules. The number of docking modules determines how many ships can be docked at the same time. Every ship that is docked can be refueled. In stellaris this could be simplified, since the time scale is different. I would refuel fleets at the same time and would do the same as for repairs. The ship goes ot the station, 1 day passes, and each ship will refuel simultaneously.

Distant Worlds uses a FIFO system, but you can also restrict stations for military use only if you want. What i would do is add a priority property to the ships / fleets and this could be used to set which ships are most deserving of the juice first. Also you can ask the ships / fleets to resupply at nearest or resupply at specific station.

The ship could be either stranded - that would generate a distress signal, and a friendly/neutral/enemy ship could rescue/capture/destroy it. Alternatively its speed could be reduced to extremely slow as in Distant Worlds.

Not sure about the crisis.

I would say a tanker should bring enough juice for at least a fleet worth of ships. When dealing with fleets it would make sense to share the fuel... as long as the fleet has any fuel in any of their ships that is enough to generate power to move, the fleet should move. We might want a couple of tankers to tag along with the fleet at all times to extend the range of the fleet.

Distant World uses a lot of automation to deal with fuel and other systems. You are usually only have to think about fuel when you want to expand or when your enemy raids you.

So, are refuel depots a separate station you need to build in a system, or just an extension of starbases?

Assuming the first, should they be destroyable by enemy fire? If they don't, why not just use the captured depots? Is there a reason to not just build a depot in every single system just in case?

It depends, if you implement it similar to Distant Worlds then you will need ships that physically move fuel from one station to the next.
Distant Worlds uses warp and free movement. There are a lot of systems that are not relevant or have nothing useful. This is different in stellaris, so i would say Stellaris needs its own implementation o fuel.

For example it can be as simple as in Conquest Frontier Wars, where you built supply platforms on planet orbital rings that refueled your fleets while being in their influence radius. Of course these stations only worked if your system was connected to your empire via fortified jump points or had a headquarters in the system. This was a great system for a fast paced RTS game, but since stellaris is not a fast paced RTS game i would like a more complex system.

Stations that resupply should be either destroy-able or capture-able or both.

Whatever implementation is chosen, ships should be able to do multiple jumps without running out of fuel, so i wouldn't build them in every system.

Assume you own Earth in Sol, yet the starbase - the stellar installation with guns - is controlled by your enemy. That enemy has closed borders to you.
Logic dictates, whatever you do on Earth is your right alone, but what ships get to travel within the solar system is theirs. Therefore you would not be able to make use of its raw resources. Is there a point to holding that planet, aside from proclaiming its yours?

Also, how do you determine who owns what in the aftermath of a war? Does that mean all wars are total wars from now on? Whatever I defeated is mine, and to me it seems that making me attack the mining stations on top of the starbase is wholly unnecessary

As i mentioned before i think the starbase system was a terrible idea.
But let's say we keep it, this is what i would:
If you have peace then this system will be a Special Administrative Region (like Hong Kong). The empire that controls space allows the planet some amount of autonomy. Trade right or fleet movements will be also regulated. The controller of space will have the player that can set the rules (allow/disallow trade, allow/disallow civilian ships, allow/disallow military ships). Some of these settings will only make sense if the other empire has access to this star.
If your empires are at war, the planets will be conquered or the space around it liberated.

So I can imagine your system here, and it feels like the entire system runs counter to your desire of having faster paced game

• In order for my ship to move I need to refuel,
  
• which is done in a fuel depot,
  
• which needs to be fueled by a tanker,
  
• which needs to move from a central depot to outer depots
• which needs to refuel in between depots to reach the outer depots
• which needs to be refueled by other tankers
• which needs to move from a central depot to in-between depots
• which gets its fuel from refineries
• which gets its raw resources from mines
• which needs to be transported by transport ships
• which needs to refuel between transports
  
• which is done in a fuel depot
• which needs to be fueled by a tanker,
  
• which....

You get the idea. It's very much realistic yes, but also feels like it would in fact be slower, and boring. Right now we can move freely, without waiting for fuel to come. With your system, once you've brought a large enough fleet to empty a depot and still need more, you've essentially stopped your entire fleet's movement, and when you can move again depends entirely on your tankers' move speed
I mean, sure maybe your FTLs move faster to compensate, and to what end? Is it fun to watch the transport ships chug along and refueling and whatnot? I guess so for some people? Yet it feels to me that this sort of thing, the logistics of refining fuels, is one thing that can be safely cut out simply because at the end of the day, it just doesn't add much to the game.

Again you build up a straw-man that you can simply dismiss or defeat.
I do not have to imagine a system like this, because Distant Worlds already has a working fuel system, and it's great.
Also depending on the level of AI assistance you set up, you can play that game as fast or slow as you prefer -- your choice, that is what options are for.
Check it out, its a good game if you can get past the interface and the graphic.

If the enemy can attack, capture or destroy those transports then they are hurting your supply lines.
Currently you can do little to attack the enemy supply lines.
Come to think of it we also lack key economic targets.

Instead of meticulously simulating every aspect of the logistic chain, I think it's better to just abstract it away and have the fuels work as some sort of minimum you need to supply each month based on how many ships you have. If you can't provide enough, your ships get slower. You still have your deposits, and still have its importance to the nation without the hassle of looking at logistic ships.

Even then, I think fuel is already covered. The currency in Stellaris is energy. You already pay upkeep for your ships in energy, both for paying staff and for keeping the ship engines running. Fuels are converted to energy, which then can be used for other things too, like paying enclaves

Good points.

The only thing i would add is that the whole fuel thing was brought up to balance the other FLT types. I see no benefit for adding Fuel while we have the current system.

Since this talk went on way longer than necessary, i suggest we agree to disagree on this one.

• you like the current FTL implementation -- good for you
  
• i liked the old one -- so i will play 1.9
  
• you think fuel is at best unnecessary at worst a terrible idea -- fair enough (for the current game i agree)
  
• I say it might work for balancing the FTL drives; the concept itself works, since there are other games that already use it

Let's leave it at that.
I enjoyed the discussion, but i am afraid i will have little time for the next couple of weeks/months to participate in it.

Cheers!

 

[Zoolimar]

Well the DW type fuel mechanics seems to be ill fitted to Stellaris, unless the AI will be redone from ground up. Because it's current implementation certainly won't be able to keep up with it. On the other hand using something like current trade routes to calculate distance from supply depots to the fleet may be possible. The farther away the fleet from the supply depot the higher will be its maintenance. You could also add the need for the supply depots to be big enough to be able to support the fleet - if the closest is not big enough fleet would start leaching supplies from the next closest which would cost more and so on, and so on, until there are no more depots. If there are not enough supply for the fleet then it will lose X% of combat effectiveness depending on the percentage of supplies that the fleet is lacking.

-You need starbases with supply depots
-You need enough supply depots to support all your ships
-You want as many supply depots as possible close to the enemy border
-Fleets far away from their supply cost much more to maintain - basically multiply by distance to supply depots
-If the fleet has not enough supply it will start to deteriorate fast.

Supply routes evidently can not be charted through systems controlled by the enemy so any fleet acting within enemy territory must be able to keep the route clear or be able to end the campaign in a few months before lack of supplies kills it.

Hell, you already technically have something like this in the way of navy capacity but it is really underutilised and easy to go over if you have enough resources.