I find it kinda funny how THAT OTHER GUYS are always, ALWAYS fanboys.
Last edited:
FTL Discussion Thread
- Thread starter scaper12123
- Start date
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
I've been giving this topic some thought since reading all the dev diaries about the next patch recently, and want to throw some ideas in case some of these are usefull:
First I want to share what I did in my private mod, I made every ftl type available for research, using hyperlane games to make sure every faction starts with them, as I agree hyperlanes are the most interesting due to their strategic aspects. Wormholes may become available early in the game but they're only usefull if you're too restricted by the hyperlane paths you got. Warp drive comes later, it has more freedom and range, at the cost of slow windup time (instead of windown), the logic is, you want to jump to a more distant star, it takes more time to calculate the jump, so a short jump will have similar windup as hyperlane, but at max range it can take over a month, and warp speed is slower than hyperlane, so it balances ok.
So about the dev diaries, I love most of what I read, love the idea of the natural wormholes, but I would suggest a different type of artificial wormhole too, the true replacement of wormhole ftl, researchable by everyone, but instead of a drive you put on ships, it should be a structure built in space ports with a shipyard and placed in the vicinity of the space port, so it will be near the center of the system, instead of outside the gravity well. You're unlikely the have space ports with shipyards in every system so they will not replace hyperlanes, but are an excellent strategic infrastructure to allow you to quickly move a fleet between systems with wormhole gates.
Now you may be thinking, that sounds a lot like the Gateways as described in the dev diary, so this is how they can be different:
- researchable in mid-game (tier 3 maybe)
- each gate has a range (upgradeable) so fleets can only use them if the destination gate is in range of the source gate, just like current wormholes
- you can only use gates of your own network and your vassals/federation members, any other should require diplomatic agreement with high trust requirements, and your allies network will be useless if they are outside your own's range
- movement should not be instantaneous, to go from one gate to another in range it should be like current warp drive, but with no windup/down time, and if destination requires passing through multiple gates, then the fleet should be seen making multiple warp-like jumps, but the ships will only "pop-out" in the destination gate, not in the ones between, and this is why I think warp drive should be the one to go (removed)
- if possible, the fleet's ships should not simply jump all at the same time, in other words, wormhole gates should be smaller than the ancient gateways, and ships should go through them one at a time in rapid succession, or n ships at a time depending on star gate level
- in the event a star gate is destroyed by the enemy, or disrupted by some auxiliar component in an enemy ship if its in range of the stargate, while a fleet is incoming, the fleet should turn back and drop in the last stargate it went through, as the cost of loosing the fleet would probably be too high and unbalancing
Some other related ideas, I would love to see some basic newtonian insystem movement of ships, ships turn but keep moving in previous direction until acceleration changes the vector, not only in battles, so ships would take some time to accelerate to a fraction of light speed, and slow down before reaching objective. This could also make battles more interesting, smaller ships would turn and accelerate faster, while larger ships if packing short range weapons would be out of range more often, it would be another layer of strategy both for the player and the AI. Star Control 2 anyone?
Large star systems would take more time to explore, or to wipe-out mining and research stations, but this could be an issue for early game only, if warp drives were changed to insystem drives, as a mid game tech that not only allows faster movement but also ignores newtonian physics, which leads to another idea, fleets have to drop out of warp to engage, but the only way to retreat from battle should be to warp-away, droping shields in the process (during windup) so damage would be dealt to hull and armor, but as the fleet goest to warp it quickly moves away from battle in the direction of the hyperlane back home. Auxiliar ship/station components can increase enemy's warp windup to make it more "expensive" to retreat, but never make it impossible, and this should be the only way retreat works (not some weird jump type that sends the fleet to a limbo for a while). Without warp drive, retreat can work in a similar way, ships turn to the hyperlane and accelerate above engagement speed, the difference is they dont loose shields and the enemy is more likely to pursue, this is inspired by the Lost Fleet series of books, so I would also suggest no windup/down time for hyperlane jumps, as soon as the fleet reaches hyperlane jump position, it jumps, and should drop from jump in target system at same speed it had before, moving in direction of the star until receiving new destination, which may be another hyperlane location.
So if we were to have both newtonian movement and warp drives, the thruster component would handle turn speed, acceleration and evasion, with better thrusters giving better values but insystem max speed is capped at the same value for all thrusters, while the warp drive component (should not replace the thrusters nor the ftl drive) has windup/down values as well as insystem speed well above that of thrusters max speed but doesnt have to accelerate, reaching max speed instantaneously. Better warp drives could have shorter wind times and require less power, but max speed should be the same or have little difference, to give retreating fleets better chances to get away from an enemy with superior warp.
Another practical example, a science ships equiped with a warp drive, would engage warp if it calculates it would reach the target planet faster that way, to scan a planet and its moons it would most likely stick to thrusters.
Another request, even if just as a possibility for mod makers to use, the possibility of a ship without an ftl drive to jump to another star, by using the current "missing" feature when a fleet retreats or looses means to return home. Imagine the same way we have standard and advanced empires, we could also have pre-ftl empires (but above space age primitives) that just havent found hyperlanes yet and the means to use them, they would move in the direction of the hyperlane using thrusters (although they cant access the hyperlane) and leave the star system, getting the missing status until they show up in the target system after (distance * n game days). Some people would love an Expanse like scenario with the solar system split between 2 or 3 factions and where you also have the possibility of sending pre-ftl science and colony ships away, and keep fighting for control of you own system while those ships are gone. In which case you should also make it possible for two factions to control mining/research stations in the same system, but then there's the issue with the new star port changes...
Thats it, I actually took a few hours to write this, please dont be meanAnd happy new year!
Wow, that's upsetting how someone's effort is simply voted down like that. I generally hate the "like" ("agree / disagree") functions as they're mostly used to paint red over opinions you don't like... I mean, if you disagree, you should make a post about it, imo. :c
Anyhow, I've read the majority of your post (sorry, I woke up merely an hour ago), and I understand the point you're making in favor of modding capabilities and I have to stand up by it. It's a known fact that Paradox supports their games long after they're out and there's more than a dozen of features in both Stellaris and Hearts of Iron that won't be working the same way in 2 years' time. I mean, look at EU-IV with the forts, estates, decisions and so on.
The point I wanted to make, aiming it both at the community and Paradox, is that HOI-IV is the prime model of what I think is proper decision-making by a game dev. You've made up a great skeleton for the community to extend upon with the variety of mods that each appeal to their individual preferences. You've got people that love HOI-IV for the WW1-like warfare (true, it is a little too much like trench warfare at this time), you've got those who go hardcore and try to keep it realistic with various appropriate mods, hell, and then there's a modern times mod. All I'm saying is that the game is quite playable (yeah, there's a lot that can be improved, but the game is /perfectly playable/) and yet offers a lot of modding opportunities, at least that's what I've gathered (not as a modder).
The only thing I didn't like about your suggestion is the wormholes part. When you said it'd be too costly to lose a fleet due to an unfortunate wormhole jump, I instantly thought of the historical naval battles like that one taking place in the Mediterranean in WW2, as well as the infamous port attacks in the case of England vs the Spanish Armada, or the Port Arthur blockade. If anything, realism should rather be pressed here.
But hey, happy new year to you as well! I've not tried any Stellaris mods yet, been playing for just a few days and I'm sticking to 'nilla so far, but I'll look out for your mods when I go ahead and get started for real.
Or, and bear with me here, I'm going to present you with a complicated and perhaps frightening idea. What if, in the other corner there is a bunch of hardcore gamers with decades of experience who disagree with you? I know it's scary but there is such a thing as people who don't share your opinions, not because they're stupid or fanboys or casual gamers but because they have a different opinion, you should probably get used to it.
Nah, they call themselves hardcore, but they’re like total noobs
Otherwise they would have the experience to understand that the ftl changes are completely asinine.
Last edited:
Wow, that's upsetting how someone's effort is simply voted down like that. I generally hate the "like" ("agree / disagree") functions as they're mostly used to paint red over opinions you don't like... I mean, if you disagree, you should make a post about it, imo. :c
The only thing I didn't like about your suggestion is the wormholes part. When you said it'd be too costly to lose a fleet due to an unfortunate wormhole jump, I instantly thought of the historical naval battles like that one taking place in the Mediterranean in WW2, as well as the infamous port attacks in the case of England vs the Spanish Armada, or the Port Arthur blockade. If anything, realism should rather be pressed here.
But hey, happy new year to you as well! I've not tried any Stellaris mods yet, been playing for just a few days and I'm sticking to 'nilla so far, but I'll look out for your mods when I go ahead and get started for real.
Thanks Mescaline, actually I dont really care if people downvote, in the short time I've been in this forum i've noticed there's lots of people with nothing better to do in their day than flood these threads with useless texts. No, my text was meant for Paradox in case they like at least some of my ideas
While hoping people like you provide constructive criticism About the cost of loosing a fleet in a wormhole jump, yea you have a point, my only concern is about that feature being exploited, so maybe an alternative would be to drop the fleet in a random star near the destination, with damage applied to all ships, maybe even losses, or just use the lost fleet mechanic.
Well the only mod i've published adds new planet types and is meant to be used together with another guy's mod that adds new stars, so if you try only those 2 mods you wont deviate much from vanilla, except perhaps the habitability relations are a bit different.
You could pretty much point to nearly all of Paradox Studio's titles as example (except for Victoria 2).
I am sure there are plenty of non-mainstream titles still being supported long-pasted release date.
Homeworld 1 and 2 space-based RTS. Re-released to support on more modern OS and not counting the remaster version.
Starcraft just had a re-master years after release date. Starcraft 2: Wing of Liberty is still receiving support even if you don't get the expansions.
Isometric RPG such as baldur's gate and icedale wind remaster to work on modern OS.
Original War most recent update Dec 3rd 2015 was for steam workshop support and other things. While Original War was released in June 2001. Let that difference sink in for a good moment or two.
I could go on and on but I think my point is pretty much clear. Why the cut off at 2010? Just out of curiosity and seems like a baseless pick to me.
Most of these have to be re-purchased. That's not really 'continued support' so much as selling it twice.
It would be hard to fund dev team to do a 10 year remaster for free as a business model.
How do you suggest they get paid if they were free?
Funny that you should ask this on a Paradox forum.
There's a difference for me between years of patches and added content through DLC and the above mentioned short sequence of patches, then years of nothing, then a re-release at full price with higher resolution and higher OS support.
.png){kind=avatar}
Not a fan of the FTL changes. I'd rather see something different, like not funneling the entire galaxy into a hideous collection of tunnels and grids that forces a very specific style of game play.
Instead, why not use warp drives? Here's the idea.
1) Remove the range of warp drives completely. Instead when a player selects a fleet and highlights (but doesn't click) a destination star system, they are shown a % chance that the fleet will be able to make a jump to that system without being interdicted. Every star system has an interdiction radius where it imparts a penalty to the fleets chances, black holes have a wider radius and a higher penalty. Interdiction always pulls the warp drive off it's intended course and into the system in question. Each level of warp drive improves the travel speed, slightly improves the wind up and wind down times (representing the energy needed to engage the drives, should start at 40/40 days), and slightly improves the odds of avoiding interdiction by natural causes. Improving combat computers also slightly improves the odds of avoiding interdiction.
2) Starbase interdiction modules have a wider range then even black holes, and a far greater penalty. You could also include interdiction modules as auxiliary modules on ships, though the power consumption would be tremendous (150-300) which has roughly the radius and power of a black hole. This means that boardering star bases only have a CHANCE of interdicting a fleet. However interdiction causes damage to the fleet (suddenly being torn off course and then halted wouldn't be pleasant after all). Fleets that specifically target boarder starbases can avoid severe damage and punch a clear hole into enemy territory. Or more daring or advanced civilizations may opt to attempt punching strait through and hitting deep behind enemy lines instead.
3) Hyperlanes get removed. Completely. Then thrown in a meat grinder, maybe a rock grinder, and lit on fire before being blasted into a sun. By lit on fire I mean burned with chlorine trifluoride. Space is space, there is no hyperlane conveniently connecting stars with each other and forcing "choke points". Keep the other plans for space geography, plenty of ways for that to directly affect warp speed and the like. But the sensor idea? yeah.... no....
4) Psi Drives have a limited range, but they don't replace warp drive. Instead Psi Drives are actually the crew of the fleets that create a wormhole from point A to B. Faster wind up and cool down the warp (20/20 for example), no chance of interdiction, but the range would be equal to level 3 warp currently in live. When a player selects a star for the fleet to move, and has psi drive capability, the fleet determines the fastest travel time (either multiple psi jumps or simply warping directly to the target).
5) Jump Drives are a materialists level 6 ENGINES. Rather then replacing Warp drives, fleets upgrade their engines to Jump Drives. Their subspace speed is reduced to level 1 engines but they are capable of micro jumps within a system with a cool down of 5 days (fleet determines fastest method of travel when player orders it to a destination within a system), and their max range for FTL travel is equal to level 1 warp that's currently live. While Jump Drives have the fastest wind up and wind down speeds (15/5), and allow for subspace micro jumps in systems, they also have a much shorter range.
This allows for more advanced tactical and strategic maneuvering and planning. Warp will generally be the fastest method of travel from point A to B, even in the end game, the more advanced FTL methods allow players options for bypassing defenses (and forcing players to plan for such bypasses).
Keep the outpost and starbases, but have them be the primary method of expanding territory rather then planets and population. Not claiming star by star, but expanding the boarder the way the system does now. Keeping (and upgrading) internal starbases means that as an empire grows, the player has to plot which bases to keep as starbases and which ones to downgrade to outpost level. They can develop a natural internal defense network (and production network, if desired) while carefully balancing maintenance and boundry continuity. Also require that outposts be built within the current boundry.
To solve the changes required to the war system, the claim system works well, but you can only claim outpost by outpost and only in continuity of your own boarder.
Sorry but hyperlanes make the game convenient. It's bad enough we're basically stuck on a relatively flat plane, but to take more depth from the galaxy by enforcing hyperlane travel as the primary JUST to add carebear level of tactics? Space should require a completely different mind set for strategic thinking. Centralized defenses, the decisions like hitting defense systems directly, or attempting a smash run on infrastructure. Grid defenses to reduce the chances of a successful deep-penetration maneuver as much as possible. And planning attacks with pincher maneuvers or plotting counter maneuvers to prevent them.
Instead, why not use warp drives? Here's the idea.
1) Remove the range of warp drives completely. Instead when a player selects a fleet and highlights (but doesn't click) a destination star system, they are shown a % chance that the fleet will be able to make a jump to that system without being interdicted. Every star system has an interdiction radius where it imparts a penalty to the fleets chances, black holes have a wider radius and a higher penalty. Interdiction always pulls the warp drive off it's intended course and into the system in question. Each level of warp drive improves the travel speed, slightly improves the wind up and wind down times (representing the energy needed to engage the drives, should start at 40/40 days), and slightly improves the odds of avoiding interdiction by natural causes. Improving combat computers also slightly improves the odds of avoiding interdiction.
2) Starbase interdiction modules have a wider range then even black holes, and a far greater penalty. You could also include interdiction modules as auxiliary modules on ships, though the power consumption would be tremendous (150-300) which has roughly the radius and power of a black hole. This means that boardering star bases only have a CHANCE of interdicting a fleet. However interdiction causes damage to the fleet (suddenly being torn off course and then halted wouldn't be pleasant after all). Fleets that specifically target boarder starbases can avoid severe damage and punch a clear hole into enemy territory. Or more daring or advanced civilizations may opt to attempt punching strait through and hitting deep behind enemy lines instead.
3) Hyperlanes get removed. Completely. Then thrown in a meat grinder, maybe a rock grinder, and lit on fire before being blasted into a sun. By lit on fire I mean burned with chlorine trifluoride. Space is space, there is no hyperlane conveniently connecting stars with each other and forcing "choke points". Keep the other plans for space geography, plenty of ways for that to directly affect warp speed and the like. But the sensor idea? yeah.... no....
4) Psi Drives have a limited range, but they don't replace warp drive. Instead Psi Drives are actually the crew of the fleets that create a wormhole from point A to B. Faster wind up and cool down the warp (20/20 for example), no chance of interdiction, but the range would be equal to level 3 warp currently in live. When a player selects a star for the fleet to move, and has psi drive capability, the fleet determines the fastest travel time (either multiple psi jumps or simply warping directly to the target).
5) Jump Drives are a materialists level 6 ENGINES. Rather then replacing Warp drives, fleets upgrade their engines to Jump Drives. Their subspace speed is reduced to level 1 engines but they are capable of micro jumps within a system with a cool down of 5 days (fleet determines fastest method of travel when player orders it to a destination within a system), and their max range for FTL travel is equal to level 1 warp that's currently live. While Jump Drives have the fastest wind up and wind down speeds (15/5), and allow for subspace micro jumps in systems, they also have a much shorter range.
This allows for more advanced tactical and strategic maneuvering and planning. Warp will generally be the fastest method of travel from point A to B, even in the end game, the more advanced FTL methods allow players options for bypassing defenses (and forcing players to plan for such bypasses).
Keep the outpost and starbases, but have them be the primary method of expanding territory rather then planets and population. Not claiming star by star, but expanding the boarder the way the system does now. Keeping (and upgrading) internal starbases means that as an empire grows, the player has to plot which bases to keep as starbases and which ones to downgrade to outpost level. They can develop a natural internal defense network (and production network, if desired) while carefully balancing maintenance and boundry continuity. Also require that outposts be built within the current boundry.
To solve the changes required to the war system, the claim system works well, but you can only claim outpost by outpost and only in continuity of your own boarder.
Sorry but hyperlanes make the game convenient. It's bad enough we're basically stuck on a relatively flat plane, but to take more depth from the galaxy by enforcing hyperlane travel as the primary JUST to add carebear level of tactics? Space should require a completely different mind set for strategic thinking. Centralized defenses, the decisions like hitting defense systems directly, or attempting a smash run on infrastructure. Grid defenses to reduce the chances of a successful deep-penetration maneuver as much as possible. And planning attacks with pincher maneuvers or plotting counter maneuvers to prevent them.
Last edited:
Funny that you should ask this on a Paradox forum.
There's a difference for me between years of patches and added content through DLC and the above mentioned short sequence of patches, then years of nothing, then a re-release at full price with higher resolution and higher OS support.
Those same DLC you spoke of still cost money which is exactly what I was trying to point out earlier.
Hypothetically if Paradox Interactive, or any other publisher really, planned to "not sell" any DLC that cost money. The original purchase of the base game sales would only last a few year at the most with a few exceptions.
One such exception I can think of is Starcraft getting a second wave of new fans in South Korea years after original release. Original Starcraft came out in 1998 and South Korea Starcraft competition sport took off in 2002.
With the current model that Paradox Interactive uses. People who don't want DLC don't have to buy them. While those who want to support/receive future patches can do.
My point is that even if you don't buy into the DLC. You are getting patches because other people buy into the DLC to support future content/DLC. To think otherwise is just silly.
You misunderstand my point. I don't disagree with your statement, that ongoing support needs a continuous revenue stream. I merely disagree that what Homeworld and others did can be considered 'ongoing support' as they merely re-released the game several years after their support (as in patches and new content) for their original release stopped.
The issue is that although they tried to make the three FTL types different, but balanced, is that Warp underperformed like mad and Wormhole just outright broke the game.
You couldn't reduce Warp's warm-up/cool-down time without basically making superior to Hyperlanes. And Wormhole's downside of taking longer to make a singularity the larger your fleet is really it's only balancing factor besides requiring specialized facility. Hyperlanes' only reason problem (the density of lanes) will literally get fixed in the upcoming patch. Taking all things into consideration, Wormhole was always going to be OP as hell compared to the other two, and Warp would always be the black sheep because of how bad it was.
Good for exploration, sure. But bad for pretty much everything else.
Again, as someone who only played Warp, I completely understand the need to change. It's like how they're overhauling missiles. In theory, the three weapon types should be balanced but we all know that Mass Drivers > Almost Everything. You only took Lasers to get to Plasma. Every attempt to "fix" missiles lead to nothing because PD just hard-counters it.
And are people really of the opinion that multiple overlapping inhibitor technologies would be anything BUT a huge mess?
You couldn't reduce Warp's warm-up/cool-down time without basically making superior to Hyperlanes. And Wormhole's downside of taking longer to make a singularity the larger your fleet is really it's only balancing factor besides requiring specialized facility. Hyperlanes' only reason problem (the density of lanes) will literally get fixed in the upcoming patch. Taking all things into consideration, Wormhole was always going to be OP as hell compared to the other two, and Warp would always be the black sheep because of how bad it was.
Good for exploration, sure. But bad for pretty much everything else.
Again, as someone who only played Warp, I completely understand the need to change. It's like how they're overhauling missiles. In theory, the three weapon types should be balanced but we all know that Mass Drivers > Almost Everything. You only took Lasers to get to Plasma. Every attempt to "fix" missiles lead to nothing because PD just hard-counters it.
And are people really of the opinion that multiple overlapping inhibitor technologies would be anything BUT a huge mess?
Hello All,
I am new to the game, I got it only a few days ago. So I am not sure if this FTL change is already in and what I am playing or not in the game yet.
As apersonal preference, I prefer the non Hyperlane restricted system. I staretd 4X games with Original Master of Orion, and then MOO 2 etc, and theya ll have Warp Style free type of movement in the galaxy and it has been a sought after feature for me in any 4X game thereafter. I stayed away from Node/Hyperlane based games, I really dislike the lack of freedom these offer and the constrain. Plus well it is really Ficticious way of travel, there is no scientific basis for it. The most probably FTL system we will devellop in reality is really Warp as it stands now, and maybe Wormholes.
In any case, from agameplay standpoint I prefer the variety I prefer being able to choose what type of FTL technology I can use. And I was delighted to see we have that choice in Stellaris! I was affraid that it would be like the new Master Of Orion (remake) where they constrain to hyperlanes and I regretted buying and only played a few hours and gave up.
I watched some Youtube videos on teh subject and I think the solution to some of the "issues" here would simply be to have a fuel range for Warp technology as to "pace" the rate of exploration and expansion compared to other FTL systems such as Hyperspace, and Hyperlane travel. The player could research better Fuel cells or evenb Power Generation means as they preogress to have longer Warp travel capability.
That would be my suggestion here in order to maintain the current varied system in place. My Other favorite 4x game has been Sword of the Stars, and that one sports also several FTL systems for various races.
So I am hoping that Stellaris (which is awesome just the best 4x for me right noiw) will remain at the forefront and not lose value and appeal.
Cheers!
I am new to the game, I got it only a few days ago. So I am not sure if this FTL change is already in and what I am playing or not in the game yet.
As apersonal preference, I prefer the non Hyperlane restricted system. I staretd 4X games with Original Master of Orion, and then MOO 2 etc, and theya ll have Warp Style free type of movement in the galaxy and it has been a sought after feature for me in any 4X game thereafter. I stayed away from Node/Hyperlane based games, I really dislike the lack of freedom these offer and the constrain. Plus well it is really Ficticious way of travel, there is no scientific basis for it. The most probably FTL system we will devellop in reality is really Warp as it stands now, and maybe Wormholes.
In any case, from agameplay standpoint I prefer the variety I prefer being able to choose what type of FTL technology I can use. And I was delighted to see we have that choice in Stellaris! I was affraid that it would be like the new Master Of Orion (remake) where they constrain to hyperlanes and I regretted buying and only played a few hours and gave up.
I watched some Youtube videos on teh subject and I think the solution to some of the "issues" here would simply be to have a fuel range for Warp technology as to "pace" the rate of exploration and expansion compared to other FTL systems such as Hyperspace, and Hyperlane travel. The player could research better Fuel cells or evenb Power Generation means as they preogress to have longer Warp travel capability.
That would be my suggestion here in order to maintain the current varied system in place. My Other favorite 4x game has been Sword of the Stars, and that one sports also several FTL systems for various races.
So I am hoping that Stellaris (which is awesome just the best 4x for me right noiw) will remain at the forefront and not lose value and appeal.
Cheers!
I posted the below in another thread but think it's just as appropriate in this one (about FTL, hyperlanes, etc.):
So I'm new to Stellaris, the Paradox forum, etc. and just coming up to speed on the inbound Cherryh update. With that said, I'm no stranger to 4x games (board and PC) and do have some thoughts on hyperlanes.
I can understand why using hyperlanes can be somewhat desirable from a 4x space game perspective. It creates terrain, chokepoints, and makes some planets/sectors more strategic than others (by way of chokepoints). This is evident in old TV shows like "Space: Above and Beyond" where they described planet Ixion as being strategically important because it was a jump away from the Chigg's homeworld.
But other TV shows (e.g. Star Trek) didn't use hyperlanes at all but also described some planets as having strategic importance as well. That had me wondering how or why would that be the case if starships can warp in and out of any system undeterred.
I concluded the answer was simply the planet's strategic importance had nothing to do with terrain or location but everything to do with what it produced and who it produced it for.
Personally, I would prefer Stellaris NOT to have hyperlanes. I think hyperlanes aren't "natural" given the existence of warp drives. I think "hit and run" raids deep into enemy territory will be practically impossible to do when hyperlanes create artificial "war fronts". Imagine how quickly the Rebellion of the Star Wars universe would be eradicated if they couldn't warp in and out of any system conducting hit and run attacks because of hyperlanes.
Proponents of hyperlanes like how the enemy is forced into confrontations and can't evade enemy forces. You can still force engagements with the enemy WITHOUT hyperlanes by simply attacking a planet that the enemy deems crucial or of strategic importance. If the enemy chooses to still not engage you, then you've won the battle without firing a single shot.
So I'm new to Stellaris, the Paradox forum, etc. and just coming up to speed on the inbound Cherryh update. With that said, I'm no stranger to 4x games (board and PC) and do have some thoughts on hyperlanes.
I can understand why using hyperlanes can be somewhat desirable from a 4x space game perspective. It creates terrain, chokepoints, and makes some planets/sectors more strategic than others (by way of chokepoints). This is evident in old TV shows like "Space: Above and Beyond" where they described planet Ixion as being strategically important because it was a jump away from the Chigg's homeworld.
But other TV shows (e.g. Star Trek) didn't use hyperlanes at all but also described some planets as having strategic importance as well. That had me wondering how or why would that be the case if starships can warp in and out of any system undeterred.
I concluded the answer was simply the planet's strategic importance had nothing to do with terrain or location but everything to do with what it produced and who it produced it for.
Personally, I would prefer Stellaris NOT to have hyperlanes. I think hyperlanes aren't "natural" given the existence of warp drives. I think "hit and run" raids deep into enemy territory will be practically impossible to do when hyperlanes create artificial "war fronts". Imagine how quickly the Rebellion of the Star Wars universe would be eradicated if they couldn't warp in and out of any system conducting hit and run attacks because of hyperlanes.
Proponents of hyperlanes like how the enemy is forced into confrontations and can't evade enemy forces. You can still force engagements with the enemy WITHOUT hyperlanes by simply attacking a planet that the enemy deems crucial or of strategic importance. If the enemy chooses to still not engage you, then you've won the battle without firing a single shot.
I've been away from Stellaris for some month , came back for some multiplayer fun with some buddies, started reading dev diaries today in disorder to get back into business, read some awesome stuff like casus belli and frontier overhaul etc. Until the infamous DD92...
This ruined my day so much that only german may have a word expressing how much this disapointed me, sadly I can't speak german to save my life.
I can with some efforts understand the devs arguments, with some efforts because in the end it can be sumarized as "We had a grand vision making our game very different and original from our competitor but failed hard to implement it correctly so we are now going mainstream space 4x, but Hey! Look at all the massive improvements that would have been questionnably impossible without this hard but much needed, unrequested and highly divisive change".
We have failed youAnakin Paradox, we have failed you...
What's next ? "DD 123 - Blob of death are a still a thing more than ever so we are switching to turn based to solve it, but here are some massive improvements that would have been questionnably impossible without this hard but much needed, unrequested and highly divisive change" ?
Yes I know this is exagerated but for those saying "come on, hyperlane only is not such a big change", for me it is as much as going turn based would be, in worse because I actually tolerate turn based games
But this... ? No thanks, I've turned back from hyperlane 4X games for a very simple, subjective, reason : I hate it with a passion.
The FTL approach of stellaris was actually by far the first and almost only required reason I was so excited about this game to begin with.
I've been struggling for long to choose wich one was my favorite game between Distant Worlds and Stellaris, DW being generally superior AFAIC in term of gameplay, but having an already outdated UI and lame presentation when it came out. Now there won't be any competition anymore as Stellaris 2.0+ will be in the same category for me as the new trash MoO and Endless Space serie I couldn't enjoy a bit even if I tried hard to.
This ruined my day so much that only german may have a word expressing how much this disapointed me, sadly I can't speak german to save my life.
I can with some efforts understand the devs arguments, with some efforts because in the end it can be sumarized as "We had a grand vision making our game very different and original from our competitor but failed hard to implement it correctly so we are now going mainstream space 4x, but Hey! Look at all the massive improvements that would have been questionnably impossible without this hard but much needed, unrequested and highly divisive change".
We have failed you
What's next ? "DD 123 - Blob of death are a still a thing more than ever so we are switching to turn based to solve it, but here are some massive improvements that would have been questionnably impossible without this hard but much needed, unrequested and highly divisive change" ?
Yes I know this is exagerated but for those saying "come on, hyperlane only is not such a big change", for me it is as much as going turn based would be, in worse because I actually tolerate turn based games
But this... ? No thanks, I've turned back from hyperlane 4X games for a very simple, subjective, reason : I hate it with a passion.
The FTL approach of stellaris was actually by far the first and almost only required reason I was so excited about this game to begin with.
I've been struggling for long to choose wich one was my favorite game between Distant Worlds and Stellaris, DW being generally superior AFAIC in term of gameplay, but having an already outdated UI and lame presentation when it came out. Now there won't be any competition anymore as Stellaris 2.0+ will be in the same category for me as the new trash MoO and Endless Space serie I couldn't enjoy a bit even if I tried hard to.
Last edited:
Weltschmerz?
The pain of having expectations for the world, and the world not living up to them.
Thank you! I knew it, german always have words for those kind of thing
Well i still didn't hear 1 good argument why we should give up 2 FTL's for only hyper lane travel...
There are so many solutions if the dev's/management only had some more creativity/fantasy...
For example 'choke points' could be really simple created by just a little bit adjusting of the galaxy map creator:
There a probably way more better solutions then the ones i provided here, but the point is:
Don't kill the different types of FTL, the people who really like only 1 type of FTL already could set it in the game options.
Don't kill the game, don't divide the community, but make it better, sometimes a simple fine tuning could make a huge difference.
There are so many solutions if the dev's/management only had some more creativity/fantasy...
For example 'choke points' could be really simple created by just a little bit adjusting of the galaxy map creator:
- Create some distance between some dedicated star systems so that the FTL always should travel over that dedicated star system in between because the other star systems are to far (out of reach)
- Nebula's that distort 1 type of FTL for example no wormhole travel and another nebula has no hyper lane travel, etc.
- Distort wormhole travel so that the travel distance in enemy territory is only at 30% range
- Hyper lane disruption: reduce speed of every single incoming ships of a fleet differently
- Blow up a star/star system so no travel is possible
- etc.
There a probably way more better solutions then the ones i provided here, but the point is:
Don't kill the different types of FTL, the people who really like only 1 type of FTL already could set it in the game options.
Don't kill the game, don't divide the community, but make it better, sometimes a simple fine tuning could make a huge difference.
I've played enough space games (board, PC) with hyperlanes to know that it's tedious and boring to fight over the same systems ad nauseum. I like Stellaris but have no desire to play another space game with hyperlanes.