it was supposed to be less micro intensive but i see myself doing allot of times more micro with fixing pop growth, overpopulation, building buildings when pops grow, balancing housing and amenities and prob a couple of other things that i dont remember off the top of my head
How is the micromanagement in 2.2.3/4?
- Thread starter Dr. B
- 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 agree and I've even said there's plenty of room for optimizations to things like JOBS, GROWTH, SPECIES management, etc. Setting priorities / roles [esp. if authoritarian] would be a good way to address some of this. More automation could also be handy. There's room for improvement -- TONS of it. The devs just need to decide that it's worth doing
While I wouldn't say it's a nightmare, Mastikator is basically right.
In previous versions of the game, planets eventually became "done." You might shift their output later, but once they were full and have all buildings upgraded, you could just ignore them.
Megacorp is not like that all. Most planets go through an initial period of being rural resource generators, then they go through an urbanization process of some kind. The rural planets, even when "full", are focusing on basic resources. But then we go through urbanization and start focusing on buildings for alloys, consumer goods, and research. But then I start converting resource districts over to city districts. Then some planets go from "urban industrial hell holes" to "urban banking center hell holes" when they convert buildings over to commerce buildings, and I suddenly want to support 300 POPs on one planet on clerk jobs.
Then I start building wonders, and 50 planets are shipping POPs to to the Ringworld every year, and the ringworld is desperately trying to employ them all as I constantly build districts there. Oh, and did I mention ecumenoplis? That's a whole other rats nest of development to get into. Great, so I'm building an ecumenoplis. It's finished. Now I start offloading alloy production to it, so I don't have to spam alloy buildings that use special resources. But since it will have 300-400 POPs on it, I have to make careful decisions on how to set it up. And since it has a special POP growth bonus, I really don't want to turn it off, so I end up resettling POPs from it twice a year once it's "full."
Then I get a new technology, and it's time to rethink half the empire's buildings.
Gestalt empires have no problem allocating POPs to jobs. If you don't want someone on a job, just turn it off. Easy peasy. But for regular empires, there are issues where you end up with specialist POPs that won't demote instantly to worker jobs. So, you can't just carpet planets in buildings and districts, or you end up with a bunch of specialists and no one working the mines and farms. Then you enter the spiral of economic death.
It's worth pointing out that because housing and amenities are not global resources, you can't just "template" planets and say "Oh, this is a 15 tile planet with X number of mining districts. I will build it the same way as the other 15 tile planets." Thanks to the effect habitability has on amenities, and how various jobs generate amenities, and how many amenities in various jobs use amenities, it's more complicated.
These aren't bad things. In particular, pacifist empires have more to do. But it also means that the last time I fought a crisis, I just closed the part of the outliner that displayed planets. It was too distracting to see all those employment and housing indicators while I tried to defeat the Unbidden. I'd only look every two years or so and correct as best as I could while I waited for building changes to take effect.
I wasn't complaining. I didn't attach any kind of statement on the game's quality or whether or not micro is good or bad (though personally I am not a fan).
The OP asked the question of "is there more micro? I don't like micro." and so I answered him with "yes there is lots of micro, here is why."
I had to spend so much time fiddling with my planets Le-Guin. I hated the tile system so much, but now it feels like the system actively could be made no-micro. There's some features that really need to be implemented, but once they are, I feel everyone would embrace it.
I ignored planets after I build all of my level 0 & 1 structures on each tile. I'd just pre-build everything as unmanned buildings [via automation] were automatically disabled. I'd just hand the planet over to the Sector AI whose ONLY job was to do the building upgrade and population micro for me.
By the time you get "done" with building now you can be in the end game even on your starting planets.
Imagine playing Sim City with a lot more micro + also war, space diplomacy, technological development etc. That's Stellaris.
Seems more micro to me op, but a better game overall. Well, once it is fixed at least.
Edit: I don't get the hate for the tile system. Granted it's certainly not in keeping with "grand strategy" per-se but from a more basic 4x perspective it didn't feel too wrong.
There are CRAP TONS of areas that could be improved [automation tools, priorities, adjusting system X due to changes in system Y, etc.] so I think we may wind up in a good place eventually. I just hope that the devs see a benefit in taking their time to get Megacorp humming along.
This is one spot where listening to the fans, working with Glavius (?) and other mod builders, taking more time to gather feedback in playtesting, etc. could create a game 3x more enjoyable than now.
it's only "optional" becaue the AI is pisspoor.
If the AI had been worth anything, it would have been mandatory to compete with the AI to micro as much as you could.
I don't understand why the AI isn't already vastly more capable currently. I understand that we have a new system but how one guy [Glavius] can vastly improve AI seems bewildering to me. Just how much was left #TODO??
I don't know. The devs haven't worked a system to maturity yet. They seem more intent on subsystem replacement. Now maybe that was because the original systems were all so very weak and not part of the original vision, but it feels more like the designers changed their vision of the game and are building to something different than the original. If that is the case, I see no reason they won't do the same to the current systems.
2.2 is different, but it can't be objectively better. Every design is a compromise between possibilities. The original system could have been matured as opposed to replaced. Has it been, I'd have more comfort that the devs would continue to improve rather than replace.
Next game I'm toying with the idea of snagging the BETA, going to 0.25x habitability [less planet micro], small galaxy, and Glavius AI mod. Until we get something better this seems like the way to go ... I may even turn over some buildings to the sector AI to see how much micro I could do away with ....
I could be wrong but it seems like Paradox's $ making strategy is to release a game with potential and then modify the base game as a way to sell DLC and constantly generate funds. This is good as it means that a decent game [on release] could become great. This is also bad because the bean-counters are likely going to try to force paid DLC out on a schedule thus not necessarily giving time to get everything to a "mature" state.
While it sets a TERRIBLE precedent I wouldn't necessarily mind paying for a "story pack" [new early, mid, end game crisis events ; Fully "bio-tech" empires ; new anomalies ; something/ anything valuable from a RP perspective] if along side that story pack the dev's released a set of QOL ; AI ; Bug smashing patches. This way I could reward the DEVs after-the-fact and show my appreciation. Also I'm sure I'd simply enjoy the game more too
I'm sorry if my quoting you made you think my comment was directed at you personally, it was aimed in a more general sense with your comment as a good example.
I hated the tile system because it was the same exact feeling for every single planet. The same hoops I jumped through in the same order, regardless, in order to make the most of the bonuses. I don't feel that way for the new system.
It got to the point that I tried to put everything into sectors and let the inefficient sector management take care of it for me, because I disliked it so much.
I was promised adjacency bonuses, but the only building that provided it was the planetary capital.
I was promised variation because of resource distributions, but in the end I just followed those resources and made no real decisions on my own.
I was promised that I could eventually stop having to worry about it, but with the fact that I kept colonizing as made sense, I never stopped, and it drove me insane.
There you have it, that's why I hate the tile system so much. I hated it almost a year before Le-Guin was announced. It's just a bunch of empty promises with no real hope of salvation. The new system has the ability to be better, and I already feel it is a bit better. It's the right direction to go, and we just need to arrive at the destination and I feel everyone will agree.
*shrugs* You think I wasn't doing all of that too?
Dunno about the soldier thing; I just about never build those. But piracy, yeah, that's a bore. Not something I concern myself with too much since my empires typically aren't trade-based; though.
At 40 planets? Sure. I suppose my whole perspective on this is constrained by my rig not being able to handle anything larger than a medium galaxy at acceptable performance. By the time I've got 40 planets up and running, efficiency isn't something I need to care about anymore.
Hmmm.... most of the time I don't have to think about amenities. Of course, I often play xenophiles who never have that many pops who don't like their planet. But between a gene clinic, capitols, and a ministry of production/ research institute, I'm typically in the green or only a couple points down. I've been thinking that the system needs to be tightened up, actually.
The only problem I have with Piracy is when trade's taken route A for years, and I have that route protected, but now suddenly trade has decided to take route B which is not only longer, but also not protected, and I suddenly have pirates popping up for no reason.
Really? I haven't played 2.2 an awful lot, but I already have the exact same hoops I jump through every colony to get the most out of the world. I notice little difference in paradigm between 2.2 and pre-. There a matter of degree, of course, There are a couple of additional layers, but its mostly the same basis. The biggest differences is there are some few colony types that act differently or are more restricted (ecumenopolii, resort worlds, ringworlds) and I am forced to space the hoops out over decades rather than being allowed to make them all at once.
Prior, I could stop worrying about an individual world once the hoops were done. That luxury is now gone. That is beginning to drive me insane.