Looking for suggestion

[Drethtarr]

Hello fellow space friend.(Long live the mighty Blorg overfriend)

I am currently trying to figure out which ethos/gov/traits I will use for my first game and im looking for your suggestion.

I will try to colonize as much as possible and have better tech/weapons to counter my -20% army damage(only for defence purpose). I just can't choose which second etho would work fine with that build. In your opinion which kind of species would fit this for roleplay reason? Im also thinking to change Weak to Sendentary.

Fanatic Materialist

• +10% Physics output
• +10% Society output
• +10% Engineering output

Direct Democracy; + 4 core system

Intelligent;

• +10% Engineering output
• +10% Physics output
• +10% Society output

Rapid Breeders;

• -10% Growth time

Weak;

• -20% Army damage

Summary

• -20% Army damage
• +4 Core sector planets
• +20% Engineering output
• -10% Growth time
• +20% Physics output
• +20% Society output

 

[Xeorm]

Depends on your plan. Can always take Pacifist and go that route. Or militarist if you're looking to be militarily inclined.

Hard to give an opinion on roleplay purposes given what you've put down. You really need that second ethos to define a culture I find.

 

[TomosCaerllion]

You could also go with Xenophile instead: That way you can co-exist with conquered/migrated aliens in your empire. With Fanatic Materialist and Xenophile you can have your pops focus on tech and as soon as you can get your hands on some Strong militarist aliens you could conquer them an assimilate them. You then have a solid population to draw your ground troops from. Xenophobe would also work if you wanted to enslave them and have a horde of strong slave warriors fighting for your scientific elite, but that might entail increased risks.

I'd personally go for Xenophile if you want to make up for weak, and have your enlightened species focus on research and manning the fleet, while a more brutish species can do your dirty work.

 

[Veracin]

I'd take Xenophile, helps to deal with all of the Xenos you'll inevitably have from colonizing a bunch of planets. Plus it might give you some unique options in alien related events.

 

[Ziffallo]

What did you decide? Xenophile seems logical.

 

[Drethtarr]

Yes, I will go with xenophile and make them fight for me while my main specie will be scientist.

 

[Mordaith]

Yes, I will go with xenophile and make them fight for me while my main specie will be scientist.

Xenophile seems the best choice in the matter. I love how much thought people are giving their races.

Just saying, Paradox, we'd love a race creator with saves and imports pre-launch. <3

(in the meantime this works well enough - http://kaisersly.github.io/stellaris_race_maker/?version=1&ethoses=&government=null&traits= )

 

[TomosCaerllion]

I agree with Mordaith. I've been mentally designing my race for weeks now, and I'm still not 100% sure what I'll play first game! I'm glad our little brainstorm could help you decide though, Drethtarr - and your build does look very fun.

 

[Drethtarr]

Thank for your help it's very appreciated! What kind of build are you guys going to try for your first playthrough?

 

[Oscot]

Direct Democracy; + 4 core system

For what purpose?

 

[Drethtarr]

For what purpose?

Mostly because my stategy will be to colonize as much as possible with my main race. Since they will have the same ethos/traits, they will be happier so less rebellion and more productivity. Having more pops working for me will grant me an advantage on tech and ressources. I don't want to have too big sector and I prefer manage everything.

 

[Ziffallo]

I plan to hug everyone into submission!!

 

[Oscot]

Having more pops working for me will grant me an advantage on tech and ressources.

Direct democracy is a bad choice then. Many government types actually give bonuses to pop growth. Direct democracy does not.

 

[Drethtarr]

In the long term, I think having +4 core world will make me have more pops(If you dont consider planet size). Also, I want to use this type of government for roleplay reason What type of government would you choose then?

 

[Turin the Mad]

I plan to hug everyone into submission!!

Hug zem, hug zem both.

 

[Turin the Mad]

Direct democracy is a bad choice then. Many government types actually give bonuses to pop growth. Direct democracy does not.

Depends on your point of view. Having 9 core worlds is huge, especially if you're picky about the core worlds' tile counts (16+).
80-125 core tiles (5 @ 16-25 each) vs. 144-225 core tiles is an enormous advantage in its own right (80% more core tiles).

In this scenario, it doesn't matter if you fill your core tiles a little faster when you have 80% more core tiles than any non-direct democracy in the game.

 

[Ziffallo]

Hug zem, hug zem both.

My sole friend. Good to see you.

 

[Oscot]

In this scenario, it doesn't matter if you fill your core tiles a little faster when you have 80% more core tiles than any non-direct democracy in the game.

But number of core tiles is not a number that has any meaning in the game. It's like trying to maximise the number of planets you have that begin with "Z". It does nothing.
This isn't CK2. You don't only get resources from your core worlds.

In the long term, I think having +4 core world will make me have more pops(If you dont consider planet size).

I still don't understand why you think that. Having extra core worlds has literally no effect on your growth rate.

Also, I want to use this type of government for roleplay reason

That's a much better answer.

What type of government would you choose then?

Theocratic oligarchy. Also for roleplay reasons.

 

[Exemplar Voss]

Depends on your point of view. Having 9 core worlds is huge, especially if you're picky about the core worlds' tile counts (16+).
80-125 core tiles (5 @ 16-25 each) vs. 144-225 core tiles is an enormous advantage in its own right (80% more core tiles).

In this scenario, it doesn't matter if you fill your core tiles a little faster when you have 80% more core tiles than any non-direct democracy in the game.

'Core tiles' isn't a thing. Tiles in sectors still produce the same amount of resources. All that changes is the amount of hands-on management, and more importantly, prioritization. If you enjoy that or want direct control of upgrades and the like, then by all means. But you aren't getting a numerical benefit out of it.

It can matter if you want to min/max build orders and don't want to wait for the sector governor to build starbases, specific resource buildings or whatever, but at the end of the development cycle you'll still end up with the planet producing X minerals, Y energy, Z food and A/B/C science regardless of whether it is core or sector managed.


I'd honestly wait and see if you enjoy planet micromanagement. If you don't, extra core worlds is a burden with no benefit. Even the basic government types (the ones that don't need unlocking, and are only blocked by collectivist/individualist) offer more benefits.

 

[Turin the Mad]

Core worlds are a thing. Worlds have tiles. Core tiles are effectively a thing.

The amount of resources produced by tiles is affected by pop happiness, which is most easily boosted and controlled in one's core worlds, granting numerical benefits accordingly.