How's the space on your hard drive? Paradox wants to challenge your galaxy brain with a great selection of space exploration games - and they're all on sale for some very down-to-earth prices! The sale runs from May 4th until May 10th at 17:00 CEST / 08:00 PDT.
The realm rejoices as Paradox Interactive announces the launch of Crusader Kings III, the latest entry in the publisher’s grand strategy role-playing game franchise. Advisors may now jockey for positions of influence and adversaries should save their schemes for another day, because on this day Crusader Kings III can be purchased on Steam, the Paradox Store, and other major online retailers.
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.
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.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.
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.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.
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.
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.)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.
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.However, I think destroying spaceports should give warscore
I would rather make the levels:
* Science ships only (default)
* Miltary access allowed
* Colony ships allowed through
In THAT order.
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.
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.
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.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.
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.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?