Home Trending Latest threads New posts Developer diaries

Giant Bomb Interview with Henrik 'Doomdark' Fåhraeus

Jump to latest Follow Reply
  • 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.
Stellaris 51300 Bug Reports 32011 Suggestions 19790 Tech Support 2992 Multiplayer 383 User Mods 4697 Stellaris AAR (After Action Reports) Console edition 1237
Show only dev responses
I was kind of hoping for some pece-time activities being mentioned as a feature. I hope there will be some, but those two "victory conditions" don't bode well.
 
AppoX said:
I was thinking at the beginning of the anime, before the battle of Astate. But if the mechanics of Stellaris seem to be ill fitting for it I may go further back (to the time of mass exploration/colonisation or Sirius-Earth wars but FPA vs Empire conflict is definitely the most interesting due to the information available so maybe at the beginning of it?), or going forward in time could work great too even.

Since Stellaris has somewhat of a character system it would be nice to have it take place during the events of the anime for everyone to see the characters they love in the anime, in game doing things.

Well to decide I will need to know all the features of Stellaris and its modability (to see which time period is best and if I will need to add some non-canon things to keep the game interesting, which would kinda suck so I want to keep non-canon things to as low as possible)
Click to expand...
Hope mods allow for start dates on predetermined map
 
  • 1
Reactions:
TheRedBat said:
Since the federation itself probably has no territory who would be the state that occupies the planets? The federation leader or the guy who declared or was declared war?
Click to expand...
That's an interesting question.

I wonder if like EU4, you could transfer control of conquered planets to other members. As federation leader, if you took all the newly conquered star systems for yourself, your share of the vote could plummet, all but guaranteeing a loss at the next election. You would either need to spread the conquests around or allow the defeated regime a spot in the federation, possibly as a puppet regime. That way, increasing the size of the federation by conquest could either ruin your reputation, or ensure your leadership in the future... for a time anyway.
 
You're going to have to sell me on claims. Claims are a total crapshoot in CK2, tedious micromanagement in EU4, and painful experiences in V2. To be fair, Paradox is ahead of the competition when it comes to the existence of CBs, and other hard/soft limits on war, but I'm really hoping for a more thoughtful CB acquisition system here.

glass-half-full edit: The POP system already has something that V2 was sorely, sorely missing: non-revolt action from factions. There were no strikes, protests, demonstrations, or boycotts in V2, just...revolts.
 
  • 2
Reactions:
Hakuromatsu said:
You're going to have to sell me on claims. Claims are a total crapshoot in CK2, tedious micromanagement in EU4, and painful experiences in V2. To be fair, Paradox is ahead of the competition when it comes to the existence of CBs, and other hard/soft limits on war, but I'm really hoping for a more thoughtful CB acquisition system here.

glass-half-full edit: The POP system already has something that V2 was sorely, sorely missing: non-revolt action from factions. There were no strikes, protests, demonstrations, or boycotts in V2, just...revolts.
Click to expand...


I cannot express how much I want my dissidents to threaten to bring my house of cards crashing down with a good old general strike, or ancient roman style secession of the populace, rather than to instead spontaneously generate firearms and charge heedlessly and most of all ineffectively into my professional soldiery. I prefer having problems to solve that DON'T just involve the murder of my opponents.
 
  • 3
Reactions:
"Other than humans, every race will be procedurally generated in every game"

Did I missunderstand this? the Human faction is fixed? Defaut human faction can not be Pacifistic, Spritiual, Xenohpobic, Industrious, Researchers (Darrian, Vulcan) , Warriors (Sword Worlds)?
 
So glad they're using Distant Worlds as inspiration. I started playing a bit after Stellaris was announced and I thought there were some great ideas there that I really wanted to see in this game.

But glad at the same time that they're making a less automated version, as Distant Worlds is a bit of a glorious mess (UI especially is a bit lackluster). The mechanics make sense, but tedious amounts of micromanagement are required if you don't want to automate anything once you get bigger.
 
  • 2
Reactions:
Me_ said:
I was kind of hoping for some pece-time activities being mentioned as a feature. I hope there will be some, but those two "victory conditions" don't bode well.
Click to expand...

That makes me wonder - would forming a "universal coalition" via the Federation mechanics count as a 'victory' and end the game, or would the game be allowed (if you wished, of course) to play on, knowing that good things rarely last forever, and keeping the peace is far from simple?
 
Has there been any mention of a "vassal" system? I'm assuming that if you're a member of the Federation but not the president, you're still treated as independent (with limits). However, it would be more interesting if you were treated more like a vassal, instead. I'd love to be able to pledge allegiance to a larger power then undermine them from within or wait until they collapse under their own weight.
 
The thing about automation...many strategy games aren't designed with an "only so many hours in the day" ideology -- that is, they allow the breadth and depth of player action to scale to the size of the player's nation. You can move every unit once per turn no matter how many units you own, you can pause the game and interact with every province no matter how many provinces you own, etc. This isn't terrible in itself, but a) it's unrealistic in a meaningful way (paupers and popes share the same 24 hour day), and b) it means that any automation system will be built on top of the game rather than the game being designed on a foundation of automation. Which means, for a game like Distant Worlds, that automation becomes more of a crutch and a cure for micromanagement than any system enjoyable in its own right.

So in that sense, I'm happy that Doomdark is going all in to micromanagement -- though in some ways CK2's model of feudalism does handle delegation/automation better than EU4 (CNs) and V2 (braindead capitalists, a byzantine trade system)
 
Beanicus said:
So glad they're using Distant Worlds as inspiration. I started playing a bit after Stellaris was announced and I thought there were some great ideas there that I really wanted to see in this game.

But glad at the same time that they're making a less automated version, as Distant Worlds is a bit of a glorious mess (UI especially is a bit lackluster). The mechanics make sense, but tedious amounts of micromanagement are required if you don't want to automate anything once you get bigger.
Click to expand...

Just got into that game the other day, and already I was hoping it would be some form of inspiration for stellaris. Then it comes right out the horses mouth
 
Major lore influences: "basically everything" -- most of the team has read and watched a lot of scifi, provided them with a "treasure chest" to rely on; Henrik specifically mentions the Foundation series​

Fantastic! The Foundation series is so amazing.

Now the only thing this game needs is asymmetrical starts and I'll be happy.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back