That's rigth, it's only after researching the contact that you'll see their bubble.
- 2
Please give us the option to STAND OUR GROUND in early border disputes
- Thread starter ahhheygao
- 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.
That's rigth, it's only after researching the contact that you'll see their bubble.
No his complant does not vanish because you lose your investment of the frontier outpost, the problem could be solved with a pop up asking if you'd like to cede your outpost to the alien territory, or if you'd keep it for a steep drop in relations and/or a beginning of hostilities.
- 10
- 1
i'd actually very much like a space-HRE like openign where evryone is claiming stuff - it SHOUDL lead to enclaves and the like if you contest the same space, but would get rooted out by midgame as people war, and forma llainces. heck, you can even make a diplomatic option for giving up enclaves where you basicly agree to give up systems that are entirely enveloped by the other party.
- 14
Thats the price of losing the race and having this option will only cause a lot of problems and exploits.
- 8
- 3
It would only require one war between two empires to resolve all the issues along their border, one declares war with their war goals being all the various colony worlds that violate their space. Any bubbles caused by outposts are removed simply by destroying them, without even the need for a war goal.
Also, if you'd watched the stream you'd have noticed that any of the war goals can be selected and there is no specific cb related mechanics to be given for overlapping claims, you just decide what you want as your objective when you declare the war. So since successfully finishing colonies or frontier outposts, even with just part of their default sphere of influence would still overlap most sectors it would be relatively easy to clear up with an early game conflict.
OR as I mentioned above the isolation would contribute to ethical drift on colonies and to enclaves declaring independence - to then be conquered by the surrounding nation, thus resolving any long-term enclave situations without the parent species even fighting about it.
- 3
Simple: the same way any other MIA ships would flee. Why, are you actually suggesting WH or hyperlane ships stuck deep within enemy territory can't flee, and only the Warp ships can flee?
The advantage of the current system is that it's binary and simplistic. Surely we are capable of handling a tad bit of complexity to simulate border disputes that are rarely anything simple or black and white. Even "simple" races have silver and bronze, not just gold medal.
Your so-called hypothetical additional complexity were addressed with existing mechanics: MIA, military access/open borders, or declare war.
"Just declare war" is a viable solution to YOUR hypothetical bubble issue that you've created out of nowhere, but not satisfactory to my original contention. Interesting how another solution works for a different issue!
- 12
- 1
Wouldn't a simply solution be to not extend the control gained by colonizing a planet, beyond the actual system where the planet is colonized?
Since colonization seems to take longer than building an outpost, you'll only experience what happened here if you're being a fool and trying to build a frontier outpost where someone is colonizing. Hell, you could just disable building outposts where someone is colonizing.
Since colonization seems to take longer than building an outpost, you'll only experience what happened here if you're being a fool and trying to build a frontier outpost where someone is colonizing. Hell, you could just disable building outposts where someone is colonizing.
- 7
- 1
Well, if they're in full blobmode and you're just trying to make a border outpost/not in Bob Ross mode. I mean, this should be the kind of thing that escalates quickly into an international incident, which is why you should think twice about whether it is worth it. Think the crises from Victoria II that arise when two nations try colonizing the same state, for that kind of "back down or get smacked" thing. I don't think anyone is asking for that kind of crisis mechanic to be implemented on a broad scale (I don't even care if the "stand your ground" option is in place at all, the "first come first serve" option seems like a totally reasonable design choice) but I feel like that is the alternate situation that this guy is proposing.
Now that I think about it though, that kind of crisis system would be a pretty cool thing. Not sure how it'd work out given the symmetry of starting points. Probably this is where federation DLC comes into play or something.
- 5
- 1
- 1
Like this doesn't? And the race for what, an arbitrary zone of space? Would the Earth stop colonising Mars if three systems over the [REDACTED] started colonising yugopotamia III?
- 12
- 1
This is not even close to a relevant example, as mars is in our solar system.
My problem with this "stand your ground" idea is that I'm a fan of these hard borders that the Stellaris team has decided on. The thing is.... I'm sick of games like Gal Civ III where I have to scramble to snatch up every single habitable world in my space before some rude aliens come in and take them out from under me. I like the idea that basically... once I have a colony or an outpost built, a certain area of space is in my sphere of influence and no one can mess with it without declaring war on me. So once I've claimed space, I can colonize it at my leisure, instead of being pretty much forced to do nothing but colonize until every single planet is taken.
- 2
- 1
I'm also not a fan of the mad scramble, but I agreed with the OP that the bubble of influence was very large and without any nuance (often something I consider a weakness of game design), which is why I proposed a tiered progress of influence.
- 10
Holy god this! I've played a bunch of 4X games where this is a thing and it pisses me off. I am in favor of hard borders, I just feel the amount of space a new colony or outpost is way too much. The system and immediate space around it should be enough,
- 11
- 1
I think the logic behind such a large area of space being claimed is that compared to the 4X games, the density of habitable planets is surprisingly low. So claiming one planet gets you a cluster of stars, rather then just one system. It wouldn't really do anything for you to have just one system locked down, as that system more the likely only had one habitable planet to begin with. I think the borders are fine as is.
- 10
- 1
- 1
But you still have a race, the absolutely enormous range of the borders makes it even more vital for you to fling colonies out into the void to grab as much space as you can before someone else does, and then you can later come along and fill in all the nice bits you managed to net.
- 10
Kind of ignores that there's tonnes of things you can do in a system other than colonise a planet.
Though I can see the benefits of the system as it is(for example it basically ensures you get resources), it's really a matter of too much happening too fast.
- 2
After two and a half hours of speed up gameplay by wiz and he has 1 colony and a captured planet of a lower civ. That doesnt seems too fast at all.
Not everyone wants games to last hundreds of hours.
It seems a nice progression if the first x takes 3 to 6 hours of gameplay.
Not everyone wants games to last hundreds of hours.
It seems a nice progression if the first x takes 3 to 6 hours of gameplay.
I disagree. I could see colonizing a planet in a system granting an empire influence over that one system because the area wherein things will happen is generally confined to the system's orbital planes (where most of the planets are.) Being automatically granted control of several cubic light-years worth of empty space because you have a colony on one planet around one of the stars in that space is highly unrealistic due to the logistics involved. It implies control of not only each orbital plane of each star system, but also of the general routes between each star. Given the three differing means of FTL travel, no one empire would have that much control when they're just starting out.
The Blorg should not have automatically been pushed out of the system they were in because a planetary colony was founded a dozen light-years away, but they should have been notified that it happened and allowed to either continue or abandon their efforts, knowing that continuing would have created some logistical and diplomatic challenges.
- 10
I don't think anyone in this thread has a problem witht he speed things went
- 6
In fairness, Wiz was very distracted. I feel like a competent player, who wasn't overly distracted, would have managed to colonise at least 4/5 of the habitable worlds he found in that time period, and still conquered the emergents, if they hadn't colonised the world next to them and incorporated them from the outset. Wiz did a lot of talking about menus etc. while the game went on untended, and quite quickly, in the background.
- 3
I didn't saw the whole thread, but I disagree with Wiz objection. Sure, if the first to complete his station only has a CB and is angry that the other continued constructing his stuff, then this "Stand your ground" idea is much too powerful and removes all possibility to feel secure in our borders, but if there is something like a crisis, or if a war is automatically declared for the control of the zone if the second player persists, it seems to me most players would think before doing such a drastic thing.
Stellaris, like EUIV, is not a game where we are permanently at war, nor should we able to. War has to be carefully planned, and declaring one without sufficient preparation can be disastrous.
Besides, I can only imagine, if such a "stand your ground" feature were in the game, how close a race it would be to control systems, and how entire fleets could be mobilized in order to dissuade the other player to stand his ground. It seems to me this would be a plus on gameplay, if it were done on the model of crisis, neutral zone areas or chain of events which could lead to an unplanned war declaration.
Stellaris, like EUIV, is not a game where we are permanently at war, nor should we able to. War has to be carefully planned, and declaring one without sufficient preparation can be disastrous.
Besides, I can only imagine, if such a "stand your ground" feature were in the game, how close a race it would be to control systems, and how entire fleets could be mobilized in order to dissuade the other player to stand his ground. It seems to me this would be a plus on gameplay, if it were done on the model of crisis, neutral zone areas or chain of events which could lead to an unplanned war declaration.
- 8