[MOD] Relativity - a balance and content mod

[Squibeel]

Idk if it has been mentioned here or if you thought about it but have you thought about the effect of land battles on the overall warscore?

In my experience I doesn't seem to effect the score at all and even if this is a space game, defending a planet should be a considerable event (specially when the AI spawn 20 transports each time and doesn't allow you to heal your troops).

Just leaving the idea here in case it makes sense.

 

[Warial]

As to random negative events being a bad design choice... not so much, no. It depends on how much they happen more than anything else. No-one likes getting constantly hammered by the Barbary Coast Pirates, but a well-handled event chain beginning with a negative event can be good storytelling.

Cannot agree more. Especially when the player is informed beforhand that a bad thing might happen if you do this or that. Events removing stability "because so" are bad, but if they are triggered by player actions, mismanagement, or simply taking risk, then they enrichen the gameplay.

 

[BrokenSky]

And, of course, every race in the galaxy is going to be careful and put just as high a priority on safety protocols as we do. Just as we do compared to people from 30 years ago, because they were a completely different species back in the 1980s.

As to random negative events being a bad design choice... not so much, no. It depends on how much they happen more than anything else. No-one likes getting constantly hammered by the Barbary Coast Pirates, but a well-handled event chain beginning with a negative event can be good storytelling.

Oh are we allowed to talk about nuclear power again? Great : my suggestion is that the first time a nuclear plant breaks down it triggers an event (in addition to the regular nuclear accident event) which gives you a special project which, when completed, also you a policy option (Intrinsic reactor safety requirements) which stops nuclear disasters, but maybe increases the tech cost for nuclear techs.

For the purposes of this I'm assuming that nuclear power-plants can suffer 2 negative events: nuclear meltdown (the plant melts down. The intrinsic safety features work fine, the plant is left unusable) which destroys the building (it needs to be rebuilt from scratch) and the nuclear disaster (think Chernobyl; in addition to some kind of reactor failure, some kind of engineering failure or chemical explosion or something else leads to the dispersion of non-negligible quantities of nuclear material planet-wide. The building is destroyed, and the planet gets the "nuclear disaster" modifier for -5% happiness, -5% growth for some period of time; 5-10 years?). Also maybe a "recent nuclear scare" modifier giving unhappiness to non-materialist pops for 1 year whenever there is a nuclear disaster or meltdown. In case it wasn't obvious, the "intrinsic reactor safety requirement" policy only stops the disasters, not the meltdowns.

Wrt negative events, they are already in the game. They're called critical failures on anomalies and they are exactly as optional as using nuclear power plants. There isn't a problem with having negative events.

 

[Naselus]

Oh are we allowed to talk about nuclear power again? Great : my suggestion is that the first time a nuclear plant breaks down it triggers an event (in addition to the regular nuclear accident event) which gives you a special project which, when completed, also you a policy option (Intrinsic reactor safety requirements) which stops nuclear disasters, but maybe increases the tech cost for nuclear techs.

Yeah, this was the kind of thing I was thinking in terms of - get hit by a nuclear meltdown, you get the 'improved nuclear safety protocol' SR mission that lets you avoid having it again. Maybe you can event benefit from the experience.

Essentially, negative events in this context allow the player to determine his own risk appetite. You don't want nuclear meltdowns? Don't build nuclear reactors. There's other options you can use instead. That's mechanically a good thing; it allows a player who is behind to move ahead of other players by engaging in risky play. Play too risk-averse, you're losing out on potential revenues. Play too risky, and you're courting disaster.

 

[korodikrisz]

Sabotage Nuclear Plant in war.

 

[GAGA Extrem]

If you need some economic inspiration, here is a draft for a basic ressource system that I wanted to test in a mod. Basically a "mine offworld, manufacture into yield onworlds" to get rid of all the M/E deposits. To encourage trade the spaceport stuff would be empire unique.

How many of the T2 names can you figure out?

 

[Naselus]

What I'm more interested in right this second is figuring out how to make planetary edits cost influence-per-month, tbh.

 

[GAGA Extrem]

Afaik that's not possible - so you'd probably need either special country edicts to regulate cost (different tiers with different upkeep that allow planetary ones) or you'd need silent events that drain influence once a year (should work if edicts can be checked with planetary modifier triggers). Or tie the edicts to influence-consuming buildings.

 

[Prince_Igor]

Waiting ASAP, guys.
Good luck!

 

[keynes2.0]

As to random negative events being a bad design choice... not so much, no. It depends on how much they happen more than anything else. No-one likes getting constantly hammered by the Barbary Coast Pirates, but a well-handled event chain beginning with a negative event can be good storytelling.

One of the things that makes Stellaris more enjoyable compared to EUIV or CKII is that you dont have something bad happen and feel powerless. Like for instance in Stellaris I had an anomaly kill one of my scientists. It was unlucky and all but I was like "tough luck" and then I moved on. Whereas in EUIV you are going to go to great lengths to avoid triggering a national disaster like the civil war or peasant war because they derail your game.

I would say that to make the game feel more like Stellaris I would have the meltdown/pollution chain result in the creation of a tile blocker. That is something tangible that feels like a setback but not one that derails the game.

 

[Naselus]

Afaik that's not possible - so you'd probably need either special country edicts to regulate cost (different tiers with different upkeep that allow planetary ones) or you'd need silent events that drain influence once a year (should work if edicts can be checked with planetary modifier triggers). Or tie the edicts to influence-consuming buildings.

Yeah, it can definitely be done tbh - there's an influence_gain_add command which can be used to change the rate, it's just it's country scoped. So in the worst case a triggered modifier can be created to measure them.

 

[Naselus]

One of the things that makes Stellaris more enjoyable compared to EUIV or CKII is that you dont have something bad happen and feel powerless. Like for instance in Stellaris I had an anomaly kill one of my scientists. It was unlucky and all but I was like "tough luck" and then I moved on. Whereas in EUIV you are going to go to great lengths to avoid triggering a national disaster like the civil war or peasant war because they derail your game.

I would say that to make the game feel more like Stellaris I would have the meltdown/pollution chain result in the creation of a tile blocker. That is something tangible that feels like a setback but not one that derails the game.

Yes, that's pretty much the scale of the setback we'd be looking at - a relatively rare event that ruins a tile and requires a cleanup job, and that you can find ways to avoid. Frankly, I'm amazed this has generated so much debate; I did way, way, way worse things to players in V2

 

[GrafKeks]

And, of course, every race in the galaxy is going to be careful and put just as high a priority on safety protocols as we do. Just as we do compared to people from 30 years ago, because they were a completely different species back in the 1980s.

As to random negative events being a bad design choice... not so much, no. It depends on how much they happen more than anything else. No-one likes getting constantly hammered by the Barbary Coast Pirates, but a well-handled event chain beginning with a negative event can be good storytelling.

#YOLO, well to be fair some security improvements were made in some countries :/

I thought about a comet has sighted BS if you research a dangerous technology or build a dangerous building then yes it can be good story-telling, albeit explicitly, I like the emergent one more. Bad anamoly, critical anomaly failures sure thing, but please remove the comet sighted, unless the comet's an steroid that is going to crash into my colony. It's one thing taking risks, but completely random stuff better have a very interesting story, so it's less annoying.

It's a decentralized virtual currency that runs on magic and unicorn pooh. OK?

Can't argue against magic.

 

[Naselus]

Afaik that's not possible - so you'd probably need either special country edicts to regulate cost (different tiers with different upkeep that allow planetary ones) or you'd need silent events that drain influence once a year (should work if edicts can be checked with planetary modifier triggers). Or tie the edicts to influence-consuming buildings.

Adding

    effect ={
        planet ={
            owner = {
                add_modifier = {
                modifier = edict_active
                days = 3600
                }
            }
        }
    }

Into a planetary edit, and

edict_active = {
    influence_gain_add = -1
}

into the static modifiers works, btw.

 

[GrafKeks]

Adding

    effect ={
        planet ={
            owner = {
                add_modifier = {
                modifier = edict_active
                days = 3600
                }
            }
        }
    }

Into a planetary edit, and

edict_active = {
    influence_gain_add = -1
}

into the static modifiers works, btw.

BTW you might wanna sticky the latest build in the OP, just sayin

 

[Arcvalons]

Where will Strategic Resources be used? Right now you still require Minerals/Production for ships and buildings.

 

[Naselus]

BTW you might wanna sticky the latest build in the OP, just sayin

I will when it's ready for releasing later on today.

 

[Naselus]

Where will Strategic Resources be used? Right now you still require Minerals/Production for ships and buildings.

Strategic Resources are used to generate minerals. Basically, a lot of the expenses are locked on mineral or energy costs. So the economy has to be designed with them as the end-point rather than the start-point.

 

[Walleriousis]

Adding

    effect ={
        planet ={
            owner = {
                add_modifier = {
                modifier = edict_active
                days = 3600
                }
            }
        }
    }

Into a planetary edit, and

edict_active = {
    influence_gain_add = -1
}

into the static modifiers works, btw.

Wouldn't that make it non stackable? You could turn on all the edicts and they would just cost -1 influence.

 

[Naselus]

Wouldn't that make it non stackable? You could turn on all the edicts an they would just cost -1 influence.

On it's own, yes. That can be worked around easily enough using lots of different statics, and then limiting the country to pick the right one - so, for example, for the first edict I have 30 'versions' of the modifier, and then tell the game to add a modifier based on the previous one. So the first time I actuvate the edict, the game checks for my existing modifier, finds there isn't one, and addes edict1l1. The next time, it checks for and finds edict1l1, and so removes it and adds edict 1l2 in stead.


It's not very elegant but it will do the trick if I can't find a better way.