https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/foru...ge-with-5x-crisis-strength-on-insane.1066449/There's already a 5x crisis strength modifier available and you definitely can not defeat that
Please make crisises no longer exclusive
- Thread starter Exarian
- 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.
You can defeat a 5x crisis on insane even without minmaxing to the fullest(without naval capacity from vassals for example).
If you use lots of one habitat vassals its even doable in tiny galxies with 1x habitable planets although the wait for the crisis is rather boring and you have to contain the crisis quickly.
I suspect a proper minmaxer can do it in a tiny galaxy without using vassals by baiting fleets(especially if you are not playing ironman).
If you use lots of one habitat vassals its even doable in tiny galxies with 1x habitable planets although the wait for the crisis is rather boring and you have to contain the crisis quickly.
I suspect a proper minmaxer can do it in a tiny galaxy without using vassals by baiting fleets(especially if you are not playing ironman).
.png){kind=avatar}
3 separate crisises, consuming galaxy and fighting each-other are much more interesting option then single x3 - x5 crisis. I don't know why we do have so many customization options, but this simple change is continuously ignored by developers...
There's already a 5x crisis strength modifier available and you definitely can not defeat that
The guy posting there pays 6k minerals/energy maintenance for his fleet, his mineral income is 7.3k, in the year 2558
I'm in the year 2306, I have 11.4k mineral income per month.
Since it's possible to spam habitats for energy production (plus a few dyson spheres), we can consider minerals to be the limiting factor.
With 11k minerals per month you can support a fleet with nominal value of 2.75 mil minerals, which will only cost you 2.062 mil at most (-15% from traditions, and -10% from fleet officer governor)
if you run oligarchy or get really lucky with your ruler you can drop it down to 1.209 mil (-10% oligarchy fleet expansion policy, -20% from ruler ship focus trait, -10% ruler military pioneer trait)
I already have saved up approximately 170k minerals.
Assuming crisis hits in 2450, I'll have saved up 19.3 mil minerals and placed into storage. (and yes, you have unlimited mineral storage space in stellaris)
If we imagine that from the moment crisis hits, 100% of my income will be spent to pay for fleet maintenance only, I can afford to build approx 17k battleships (nominal cost ~1500 minerals, actual cost ~1125 per battleship).
That means I can build 1k battleships (8,000 fleet size) to throw at whatever the crisis has in store for me 17 times.
And there's harder min-maxing you can do than what I have done. I did some min-maxing but there were lots of places where I didn't bother because I would have gotten bored of that game 50 years sooner.
BTW I have a run going with 5x crisis & huge galaxy and I'm using the mod to enable multiple crisis spawn for precisely this reason.
TFW you're not quite sure if that was "I agree", "I disagree" or completely unrelated post...
Absolutely yes. All of that. Furthermore there should be an achievement for beating all three in a single game and maybe another one if you beat them all within x years of each other or at an increased strength.First of all, it would be interesting challenge to face all of them
Second, intercations between contingency, swarm and unbidden would make game much deeper (they should be allowed to fight each-other)
Third, It will make endgame much more intensive.
At least, I wish there is a button in allowing multiple crisises to spawn in the same game.
Too hard to face them all at once? Add timer after crisis begin, halting other crisises for 50-100 years.
TLDR version:
"Allow multiple crisises" button
[YES / NO]
"Minimum Delay between crisises" slider (activated when "Allow multiple crisises" value is YES)
NONE for no hardcoded value (crisis could start whenever conditions are met),
SHORT for 20-50 years,
MEDIUM for 50-100 years,
LONG for 100-150 years,
RANDOM for 0-150 years
What do you think?
Really?
Showing how you can throw 17,000-30,000 battleships vs a 15 mil crisis does not sound like "oh you definitely CAN beat it"?
That might be the real challenge. Take over form the AI and try to make the empire efficient enough to beat a crisis without buildin that empire from the ground up.
a) Crises are supposed to be the "bang!" part of "go out with a bang"; they're meant to be the endgame, pretty much, if you haven't already forced it yourself by conquest. If someone else wants more "bang!" for their endgame buck, what, exactly, is the problem for *you*?
b) Why does your distaste for the idea obviate the usefulness of a simple toggle that allows multiple crises for other people? Nothing would force you to use such an option, after all.
@Dr. Chaos: There is no necessity to balance multiple crises, whether against each other or the players(s). None. Nada. Anyone who selects this option is specifically requesting an UNBALANCED game, pretty much by definition. Why is that so difficult to accept for people here?
Last edited:
Especially since with 2.0 there's already going to be quite a few more starting options added to new games (hyperlane/wormhole/jumpgate density etc.).
There's actually no reason to end there, since we also got the option of force spawning all types of fallen empires we should be able to force spawn all leviathans/enclaves as well.
Anything that reduces RNJesus problems with achievement hunting are a welcome addition in my opinion.
As someone who plays with the crisis customization mod, I can tell you that one of the biggest reasons I won't buy Apocalypse day 1 (or allow Stellaris to auto-update to Cherryh) is because I'll be waiting for that mod to be updated, unless at a minimum the vanilla game includes the feature to (optionally) have every crisis trigger.
There is a certain surprise factor that you miss out on if you have them all switched-on, so sometimes I turn-off multi-crisis mode... but other than that, the game is more or less purely more fun when all Hell breaks loose during the end game. And I'm a filthy casual who doesn't like super duper hard mode.
There is a certain surprise factor that you miss out on if you have them all switched-on, so sometimes I turn-off multi-crisis mode... but other than that, the game is more or less purely more fun when all Hell breaks loose during the end game. And I'm a filthy casual who doesn't like super duper hard mode.
I'd love to own the game, period; I can only play about half of any given month (I play on a friend's PC, while watching his kids), so I'm stuck with w/e version he chooses to go with. That said, I definitely have problems with the 2.0 paradigm, as currently presented. For example, the small-unit buff vs. larger forces annoys the piss out of me, as only one example.
That said, more options are ALWAYS better, as long as they remain *options*. This is especially true of those that require very little coding overhead, like the change requested here. I literally cannot see any real downside.
That said, more options are ALWAYS better, as long as they remain *options*. This is especially true of those that require very little coding overhead, like the change requested here. I literally cannot see any real downside.
I don't understand what kind of problem is adding multiple crisis options...
One issue with multiple consecutive crises, with long gaps between them, is that the second crisis is almost always going to be a disappointment compared to the first, because by that time the player will have already bulked up to a crisis-killer power level and can easily nip the new one in the bud. I mean it could still be an option, but I suspect it wouldn't be a fun option, and a game that continued after the first crisis is defeated would get stale.
As for overlapping crises, I imagine that OMNICRISIS would be 'challenging' for an AI to get to grips with, to the point that most regular AI empires just become random noise. But let's be honest, at this point it's not really about difficulty level (a single amped crisis would be harder) or AI coping skills any more, it's about creating a situation that throws the galaxy into utter chaos, like a Big Bad version of a War in Heaven.
As for overlapping crises, I imagine that OMNICRISIS would be 'challenging' for an AI to get to grips with, to the point that most regular AI empires just become random noise. But let's be honest, at this point it's not really about difficulty level (a single amped crisis would be harder) or AI coping skills any more, it's about creating a situation that throws the galaxy into utter chaos, like a Big Bad version of a War in Heaven.
The conditions for crisis is so boring imo.
- 10 for the Prethoryn Scourge
- x2 if more than 240 years passed
- x3 if more than 260 years passed
- x4 if more than 280 years passed
- 10 for the Extradimensional Invaders
- x0 if no default empire has either version of the Jumpdrive
- x4 if any default empire has Psi Jump Drive
- x1.5 if any empire completed the Wanderlust Event chain.
- 10 for the Contingency, which is heavily modified by the prevalence of robots in default Empires. With synthetics, growing pops are excluded but Machine Units are not
- x1.3 if any empire has more than 10%
Synthetic Population - x2 if any empire has more than 25%
Synthetic Population
- x2 if any empire has more than 50%
Synthetic Population
- x2 if any empire has more than 75%
Synthetic Population
- x1.2 if the
Machine Intelligence Fallen Empire exists - x1.25 if any
Machine Intelligence empire exists (the aforementioned Fallen Empire counts for this too)
- x1.5 if any
Machine Intelligence has at least 100 Machine Units
- x2 if any
Machine Intelligence has at least 200 Machine Units
- x3 if any
Machine Intelligence has at least 300 Machine Units
- x1.3 if any empire has more than 10%
- 120 Nothing
The conditions for crisis is so boring imo.
Like, prethoryns won't even spawn if Extradimensional Invaders spawn. And it's most likely that extradimensional invaders will spawn first if someone grabs that jump drive.
- 10 for the Prethoryn Scourge
- x2 if more than 240 years passed
- x3 if more than 260 years passed
- x4 if more than 280 years passed
- 10 for the Extradimensional Invaders
- x0 if no default empire has either version of the Jumpdrive
- x4 if any default empire has Psi Jump Drive
- x1.5 if any empire completed the Wanderlust Event chain.
- 10 for the Contingency, which is heavily modified by the prevalence of robots in default Empires. With synthetics, growing pops are excluded but Machine Units are not
- x1.3 if any empire has more than 10%
- x2 if any empire has more than 25%
- x2 if any empire has more than 50%
- x2 if any empire has more than 75%
- x1.2 if the
- x1.25 if any
- x1.5 if any
- x2 if any
- x3 if any
- 120 Nothing
Psi Jump drive is the thing that is supposed to attract them, always has been. That pesky 120 nothing is what plays all the probability games, even with 4X, you still have a good chance of getting the prethoryn's chance doubled before the crisis fires. My main problem is that large galaxies favor the contingency a bit too much.
A few swipes at the crisis event files can also do this, I'll be doing it after I harvest all the new achieves and get a look at the new crisis strength/mechanics. It's an option, anyways.
I like the idea of a triple crisis.... but if I have to chose between the developers working on economics diplomacy and espionage... you know fleshing out the bare bones of the game. Imma chose the latter 3.
I guarantee you it's not as easy as just change one line of code.... we could do it ourselves in that case
I guarantee you it's not as easy as just change one line of code.... we could do it ourselves in that case