Hello everyone!

Today we aim to shed some light on the upcoming changes for the 1.2 “Asimov” update.

Border Rework
Something we did not like with how Stellaris played out towards the mid-game previous to 1.2, was how that the player tended to get locked in and blocked from exploring or gaining access to the rest of the galaxy.

In the upcoming update we aim to correct that issue by reworking how border access works. By default, everyone will have open border access to other empires’ borders. An empire may close its border through a diplomatic action, and access is denied to your rivals by default.

We hope that this will make the game feel less constrained towards the mid-game.

Another valuable addition is that when you give your ships or fleet a Return order, but they cannot find a valid path home, you may set them as “Missing in Action”. While ships are missing in action, they will be invisible to you and reappear within your borders within a certain amount of time.

Expansion Cost
To reduce exploits of the open borders, we have chosen to introduce an Influence cost to colonizing planets or building Frontier Outposts. This cost will be based on the range to your closest owned system.

Embassies & Trust
A significant change in 1.2 is the removal of embassies and the passive opinion increase they provided. In the “Asimov” update, players will have to gain trust by cooperating with the AI. Trust is gained over time by having some sort of treaty with the AI.

Diplomatic Changes
A number of diplomatic statuses that were previously available through trade have now been changed into being Diplomatic Actions available through the diplomacy screen. We felt that some of these actions did not really feel in place, and that they were too hidden, in the trade interface.

We have changed how cooperating with the AI happens. It is no longer as easy to enter into an Alliance with the AI, and you have to start off by gaining their Trust through research agreements, guarantee independence, non-aggression pacts and defensive pacts.

Defensive Pacts are a new diplomatic action that allows two empires to be called into wars if any of them should get attacked.

Joint War Declarations
Another new diplomatic feature is the possibility to invite other empires to your wars. The AI will not join your wars if their Attitude towards you is not at least neutral and they have something they also want from the target.

All things combined we hope that these changes will make the mid-game feel less static and will open up more possibilities for interesting situations to occur.

Join us again next week for more details about the upcoming 1.2 "Asimov" update!

 

[Serenity84]

Oh? I usually just drag a box across and hit merge. Is it direction based? Still, I'd like a lock.

Yeah, it's definitely an issue when you do that. Even using the outliner it's easy to mess things up.

 

[zdlugasz]

I am not sure about those changes. On paper it looks ok-ish, but devil is as always in details
- missing in action, I hope that not while at war, although with broken warscore and peace people might get stranded on one side of galaxy while they get attacked on the other side
- default access
-- also through FE territory?
-- since rivals are usually neighbours, it still means that many/majority of expansion directions might be blocked
-- it will have potential to fuck hyperlane users, and fragment their empires
-- I am not sure what mid-game really is, but AI uses outposts and of course colonizes, thus most of even empty systems will be already in their sphere of influence

What I would expect is
- possibility to demand systems without enemy colonies. If my enemy is desert he might not colonize ocean planet and I might not care for his colonies much

 

[Demarque]

Expansion Cost
To reduce exploits of the open borders, we have chosen to introduce an Influence cost to colonizing planets or building Frontier Outposts. This cost will be based on the range to your closest owned system.

In this case, we will need a way of generating more influence, as it is a scarce "resource" at the start of the game - actually, through the entire game, as I often have just enough to recruit my leaders and enact some edicts. Either increase its base income, or make it so that rivals generate more influence.

 

[Sahuagin]

What you are asking for is to choose strategically which problems you have to handle strategically - to not have challenges to your activities 'forced upon you' unless you invite them. But an aspect of strategy is handling problems your external environment forces upon you, including ones that arise as consequences of your actions.

it makes perfect sense that colonies are worth warscore for being invaded. that is not a problem, in fact it's a superb concept IMO that makes wars so much more interesting than other strategy games. though I would prefer that stronger colonies are worth more than weaker ones. notice, however, that invasions take both time, effort, and resources to pull off, *and* can be undone. and in fact, the more planets you invade, the harder it becomes to defend what you've invaded.

in contrast, blowing up starports is a permanent gain of warscore that takes very little effort. and chasing dozens of them down is something that the AI will always be better at, especially with the AI notoriously hard to intercept, and starports themselves hard for the player to even see (and the AI having "true vision" on top of everything). everything about this is skewed in a really unsetlling way towards giving enemy AI a huge (hidden) edge in accumulating warscore.

there is nothing like this in EU4, for example. EU4 did not have these endless packets of invisible free warscore all over your empire. rather you had territory that could be captured. where territory is *finite*, and *recapturable* (as well as being something that you *chose* to have). and the most valuable territory (forts) take a significant time investment to actually capture.

But the divestment of responsibility is the point: the idea is your empire has grown too extended to for all decision making to be routed through the centre (i.e. the player), so it is devolved to sector administrations.

From the point of view of the centre (the player) the non-controllability of the activity of the sector administration is a meant to be a problem that you factor into your strategic calculation.

do you actually find this to be a *good* game mechanic? to *forcibly* throw 95% of the actual gameplay to the computer? space 4x games DO need a solution for the problem of having to micromanage an enormous empire, and *sectors* are an excellent solution to that problem; but forced AI is not.

 

[apoc527]

Sectors good.
Space port warscore needs to be balanced.

/thread

 

[Raven4030]

in contrast, blowing up starports is a permanent gain of warscore that takes very little effort. and chasing dozens of them down is something that the AI will always be better at, especially with the AI notoriously hard to intercept, and starports themselves hard for the player to even see (and the AI having "true vision" on top of everything). everything about this is skewed in a really unsetlling way towards giving enemy AI a huge (hidden) edge in accumulating warscore.

Are we playing the same game? We're playing the same game right? Because the AI is ludicrously EASY to intercept. It's difficult to chase, but there is a world of difference between chase and intercept. As long as the AI is in a system you control (which, if they're attacking starports, they are), then as they leave the system you can click on the fleet and see exactly what their next destination is. I'm sorry, but if you can't intercept the AI in this game I don't feel sorry for you if you're losing.

Now, as far as spaceports and warscore - I agree fully that the sector AI constantly rebuilding destroyed spaceports while a fleet is right on top of them, effectively giving 1% warscore every few in-game days for camping in one spot, is a bad thing... but that has already been acknowledged as a bug. If that's your complaint, I'm fully on board.

However, I think destroying spaceports should give warscore, because spaceports are instrumental to maintaining your offense. Having a nearby spaceport allows you to quickly send damaged ships back for repairs and then retrieve them. Thus a battleship down to 25% health can be brought back in at full strength within the span of a few in-game months rather than the year-and-a-half it would take to build a new one from scratch. Of course, if your nearest spaceport is halfway across the galaxy, then that really doesn't make a difference - you just have to hope it doesn't get blasted (or that if it does you don't end up needing it anymore). Now, if you open up with a crushing offense that throws the enemy on their heels and they can never really recover the war will probably be over too soon to make a difference (and the AI will likely be so busy trying to stop you that it can't spare the resources to go around raiding), but if the war drags on for longer you will be glad to have that support handy.

Furthermore, say you suffer a set-back and lose a lot of ships. If you had a spaceport already cranking out replacements in the event of catastrophe how close that spaceport is determines how quickly you can regain momentum. In short, I think spaceports should still give warscore because, although cheap to build, a destroyed spaceport still wrecks your ability to repair and replenish from that spot for at least a year in game (longer so long as the enemy fleet remains in system). These effects are easily worth 1% (though to reiterate: not worth the 10% or so that results from buggy AI).

 

[Sahuagin]

Are we playing the same game? We're playing the same game right? Because the AI is ludicrously EASY to intercept. It's difficult to chase, but there is a world of difference between chase and intercept. As long as the AI is in a system you control (which, if they're attacking starports, they are), then as they leave the system you can click on the fleet and see exactly what their next destination is. I'm sorry, but if you can't intercept the AI in this game I don't feel sorry for you if you're losing.

depends which FTL you're talking about. Hyperlanes VS hyperlanes, it's almost 100% impossible to catch them if they don't want to be. I've auto-chased a fleet halfway across the galaxy being literally about 0.2 seconds behind him, but they're programmed to run away indefinitely. I gave up when he intentionally flew deep into unbidden territory. (having fortresses could help in this case. is that what you mean? how else do you literally "intercept" them? you can't outrun them unless you have superior FTL or something.)

(ok I think I see that you're saying that you see where he's going and try to get there before he does, but that doesn't necessarily work. nevertheless the enemy being hard to intercept is less of an issue for me, I don't know if I really even consider that a problem at the moment. it's just that it contributes to the spaceport problem.)

However, I think destroying spaceports should give warscore

they "should" give warscore, as long as I can choose where and when they're built so that I know what I'm defending. they shouldn't give warscore if I'm forced to have dozens of them that I don't want. putting a starport in a system should be my choice. yes, taking warscore away from them is a band-aid fix for the problem that I'm forced to have dozens of them. it needs to not be a forced liability. either I get to control where they go, or they aren't liabilities. one or the other.

 

[Urimidos]

So let's recapitulate this:
- The first patch "Clarke" buffs the "Xenophile" trait by raising the maximum number of possible embasssies because this trait was too unattractive
- The second major patch "Asimov" removes embassies completely, so the aforementioned buff is void again

I really endorse the fact that the devs are caring about balance but this just seems ...well... paradox.

 

[WuphonsReach]

I would rather make the levels:

* Closed
* Science ships only (default)
* Miltary access allowed
* Colony ships allowed through

In THAT order.

It really should be a mix of the two concepts. Right now, it's a bit binary. I'd put the categories of ship types as:

• Science
• Builders (construction / colony)
• Military

Combine that with 3-4 levels of border access (open, stay out of settled systems, fully-open).

 

[WuphonsReach]

In this case, we will need a way of generating more influence, as it is a scarce "resource" at the start of the game - actually, through the entire game, as I often have just enough to recruit my leaders and enact some edicts. Either increase its base income, or make it so that rivals generate more influence.

It's even worse on larger maps. Colonizing on a medium (600) to huge (1000) star maps at 30 influence per colony and no way to increase influence income is just going to be tedious. Once you have 50-60 colonies (and an average population per colony of 7+), building 3-5 colony ships per year for the next wave of colonization is trivial. But coming up with 30+ influence per new colony, multiplied by 3-5 new colony ships per year?

They need to add more techs that grant +1 influence per month, more anoms that reward with influence, and find a way to scale up influence income (and caps) on the larger maps.

 

[Dunaedine]

It's even worse on larger maps. Colonizing on a medium (600) to huge (1000) star maps at 30 influence per colony and no way to increase influence income is just going to be tedious. Once you have 50-60 colonies (and an average population per colony of 7+), building 3-5 colony ships per year for the next wave of colonization is trivial. But coming up with 30+ influence per new colony, multiplied by 3-5 new colony ships per year?

They need to add more techs that grant +1 influence per month, more anoms that reward with influence, and find a way to scale up influence income (and caps) on the larger maps.

More than tech, I think action based on ethos would be an interesting solution, I have explained a little more this idea here: https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/index.php?threads/influence-gain-loss-based-on-ethos.947978/

 

[enpi]

More than tech, I think action based on ethos would be an interesting solution, I have explained a little more this idea here: https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/index.php?threads/influence-gain-loss-based-on-ethos.947978/

I agree, such a solution would level Stellaris above all other 4x games. Influence loss or gain due to ethics and your actions in the game is in theory surely the way to go. While its easy for the player to act according to its ethic I guess it would be tremendous difficult to create such a system for the AI. There are many ethics combination available. As Wiz once said, not every good idea is possible to implement.

 

[Dunaedine]

I agree, such a solution would level Stellaris above all other 4x games. Influence loss or gain due to ethics and your actions in the game is in theory surely the way to go. While its easy for the player to act according to its ethic I guess it would be tremendous difficult to create such a system for the AI. There are many ethics combination available. As Wiz once said, not every good idea is possible to implement.

I understand the difficulty for the AI. It's only a suggestion if the developers can find a good way to do this for the AI. Some seems "easy" to do (technology corresponding to the ethos like military tech for militarist), others (like treaty) seems clearly more difficult to be understand by AI.

 

[TothAval]

In my opinion it should be possible to capture spaceports via transports or space marine cruisers or whatever. Could become an option after reducing a spaceports hitpoints by 2/3 or so.

I find it extremly odd and annoying, that i am forced to destroy every bit of infrastructure an enemy has. Cause if i intend to capture a certain target during a war anyway, why blow everything of use to me to pieces? Would be a nice addition to the game and could also lead to a new war goal (maybe just for certain ethos or governments) and a new tactic. Occupying spaceports could cut a world of the enemies production chain. Itt would not count as an occupied planet but as a world under blockade.

Such a mechanic would also create the possibility to prevent a defeated enemy to immediatly rebuild his fleet after war, if some spaceports remain occupied for several years. During peacetime planetary production would be available to the defeated(maybe with some reparations coming to effect) but he could not use the spaceport to build military vessels as long as it is occupied.

edit: some corrections to the text. and i will open a suggestion in the suggestion subforum for this idea.

 

[Sahuagin]

So let's recapitulate this:
- The first patch "Clarke" buffs the "Xenophile" trait by raising the maximum number of possible embasssies because this trait was too unattractive
- The second major patch "Asimov" removes embassies completely, so the aforementioned buff is void again

I really endorse the fact that the devs are caring about balance but this just seems ...well... paradox.

no, xenophile is still considered to be the diplomat ethos, and gets a buff to negotiations instead. it costs influence to negotiate deals, where negotiating deals now generates positive opinion over time, replacing embassies, and xenophiles pay less to negotiate deals.

 

[Sahuagin]

building 3-5 colony ships per year for the next wave of colonization is trivial. But coming up with 30+ influence per new colony, multiplied by 3-5 new colony ships per year?

more than likely, slowing your ability to expand at such a high rate is intended. though I do expect there to become some other source of influence, or that rivalries are generally worth more, or something.

 

[Count_Farat]

Where are the improvements? The game already got put on a side-track because Sectors are A: not working and B: utter useless. And thus far Asimov doesn't show anything worth waiting for.

Small wishlist from me:
Make FE's optional
Make mid-/endgame crisis optional
Make sectors optional

Now excuse me while I'll play some more GC3.

 

[grommile]

Small wishlist from me:
Make FE's optional
Make mid-/endgame crisis optional
Make sectors optional

That's a ten-minute mod. (Empty the file that contains the FE entries, delete the Crisis trigger events, and set the core planets limit to 99999.)

 

[Deeveo]

I hope auto un-pause gets removed, atleast for SP. And maybe bring the option to set what happens with notifications like in prior games. I also hope some most glaring bugs get fixed, like sometimes fleets getting MIA indefinitely or some buildings/station modules not working (Pioneering Terminal for example). Would love having the possibility to have some level control on sectors if you so wish.

Edit. Also having a button on a notification that takes you to the planet/system in question could be handy especially when you have a large empire.

 

[Lukasz100]

How do Fallen Empires work without embassies?
Now we use embassies to lower anger of the fallens. can that be done with new system?