Have they fixed the thing where you can bait a fallen empire to declare war on your overlord if you're a vassal yet?
The one planet empire. The OP-OPM.
- Thread starter Edmon
- 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.
Have they fixed the thing where you can bait a fallen empire to declare war on your overlord if you're a vassal yet?
This is what I am also saying.
Saying 'yo bruv i could rek you in MP come at me ' proves absolutely nothing, its a shallow boast which may or may not be true but has absolutely nothing to do with this achievement in SP.
Thats like if in EU4 someone did 3 mountains in 1700 and someone said, yea but i bet if i played france i could beat you.... so what that isnt what we are talking about
No. It happened to me in one of my MP campaigns at the weekend. I was at a festival so somone was substituting for me, they peacefully vassalised a OPM i killed last week and he used this to make me and my ally lose a shit load of planets. Said player is now banned from all multiplayer games in the mp community group... no-one wants to play with a %$£* who ruins everyone else's game when he loses.
Its just stupid as f%$£ because FE always attack once their opinion drops below around -75, this means its really easy to make them attack your overlord in literally any game of stellaris, making player vassals a broken feature.
Ok. I read this post and wanted to give it a try as well. I wasn't as successful as the OP, but the principle still stands.
I played on a normal galaxy, default number of empires, all settings normal. I was Fanatic Materialist/Pacifist.
The main difference between his game and my game was that he had the ability to grab more territory with frontier outposts while I didn't (since he had only eight empires on a huge galaxy to contend with). I tried this same style under more default settings to see how it would pan out.
All that said, I was still surprisingly successful. My tech progression was a bit slower than the OP, but by 2300 I had filled out the society tree and by 2320 the rest were also filled out. I only built two frontier outposts; I suspect with a couple more I could have been faster.
So yes, I would say this post is valid. The only thing he did that was gamey was having a few empires in a large galaxy. This strat would be mostly miss otherwise (as you wouldn't grab enough systems with frontier outposts unless you lucked out).
I'm not saying this is a good strat. Having a fleet size limit of 30 is severely limiting, even when you outtech everybody, and you're going to have major energy problems running all those labs and a passably large fleet. I suppose it would be possible to make tributaries out of some smaller empires early, though I never did this myself.
Edit: Just played to 2300 in another game. My tech was a lot slower than the original poster, but I managed to grab lots of nice territory/star systems and microed my ships better (min-maxing for damage output and such). My tech was fairly slow until 2160, which was when I started to snow ball by making tributaries, vassals, and protectorates (that last one is a much needed source of influence. By 2300, my fleet power was about 7k off of 45 or so ships and no one could touch me, except for a fallen empire, and I'm running about 5 frontier outposts.
Its definitely a fun way to play the game, but I don't think anyone is saying it's an optimal way to play. It is fun to have the tech tree filled out (or at least mostly filled out) by 2300. It'll be interesting to see if my vassal swarm will be enough to take on a fallen empire or the end game crisis.
I played on a normal galaxy, default number of empires, all settings normal. I was Fanatic Materialist/Pacifist.
The main difference between his game and my game was that he had the ability to grab more territory with frontier outposts while I didn't (since he had only eight empires on a huge galaxy to contend with). I tried this same style under more default settings to see how it would pan out.
All that said, I was still surprisingly successful. My tech progression was a bit slower than the OP, but by 2300 I had filled out the society tree and by 2320 the rest were also filled out. I only built two frontier outposts; I suspect with a couple more I could have been faster.
So yes, I would say this post is valid. The only thing he did that was gamey was having a few empires in a large galaxy. This strat would be mostly miss otherwise (as you wouldn't grab enough systems with frontier outposts unless you lucked out).
I'm not saying this is a good strat. Having a fleet size limit of 30 is severely limiting, even when you outtech everybody, and you're going to have major energy problems running all those labs and a passably large fleet. I suppose it would be possible to make tributaries out of some smaller empires early, though I never did this myself.
Edit: Just played to 2300 in another game. My tech was a lot slower than the original poster, but I managed to grab lots of nice territory/star systems and microed my ships better (min-maxing for damage output and such). My tech was fairly slow until 2160, which was when I started to snow ball by making tributaries, vassals, and protectorates (that last one is a much needed source of influence. By 2300, my fleet power was about 7k off of 45 or so ships and no one could touch me, except for a fallen empire, and I'm running about 5 frontier outposts.
Its definitely a fun way to play the game, but I don't think anyone is saying it's an optimal way to play. It is fun to have the tech tree filled out (or at least mostly filled out) by 2300. It'll be interesting to see if my vassal swarm will be enough to take on a fallen empire or the end game crisis.
Last edited:
- 1
I wont deny the AI seems to have difficulty waging way, but I was referring to the SP scenario the OP presented.
He was far from in an invincible position.
Eventually even the AI will be able to do enough damage they he loses from war score from the losses.
I am confused as to the scenario we are talking about.
Is it a SP game where you have stayed with one planet as you described in your OP, or is it a MP game when you have Corvette rushed everyone?
The scenario seems to change as counter points are raised.
If you rush to vassalize everyone around you, then staying one planet or not will make no difference.
So, to reiterate, the 'OP' nature of the strategy mostly depends on having a very empty galaxy with plenty of room to push out borders before hitting the influence of other Empires, and being on normal difficulty so that the level of real opposition is basically zero. That's something, to be sure, but I'm not sure it calls for a re-balance.
I'm still not sure I'm ready to call any strategy 'op' because it works on normal difficulty. Because even a half-competent player's decision making and adaptability are much higher than what the AI can manage, even very weak sub-optimal strategies can thrive on normal (and even on hard - which is where I play my RP empires). That will be even easier, of course, if you generate a galaxy so big and empty that you have literally no real threats of any kind. A strategy is, after all, 'OP' relative to other strategies - since there are strategies that work on Insane, I would forward that for a strategy to be OP, it must be tested on insane.
My incredulity comes from a few problems I see with this strategy on higher difficulties (where many sub-optimal strategies - perhaps like this one? - begin to fail)
1) Technology gains, as a whole, tend to be relatively linear. The best weapons have DPS about 10x the weakest weapons, not 100x or 1000x. You can, of course, enhance this with range and repair cheese, especially against the really weak AI ship templates which rarely adapt to your strategies. But part of the key late-game shift is the tendency of the bulk of production to move from space back down to planets - which is a major power shift this strategy is simply going to miss out on. I'm not sure a net income of 94 minerals (in your screenshot) is going to do it on the higher difficulties where the AI can produce waves of fleets to hit you with in the late-game because they have multi-thousand mineral monthly incomes (as would a larger player empire). I'm not ruling it out - but I'm wondering if it will work, because:
2) I'm not sure your fleet strategy scales into high fleet powers (if it does, this is probably not a technology problem, but rather a ship module balance problem). You note with pride that you've wrecked 17k fleets (FE fleets, I assume), which at start+100 is...not really that impressive. In my last insane game, at start+100 years, I had a total fleet power of 55k (530 fleet size) and had a militarily equivalent neighbor (an advanced start) on one side and a federation to my south that was substantially stronger than me in raw fleet numbers (I'd guess 75-100kish total fleet strength - largest single fleet spotted was 30k, largest single concentration was 30+20+10k, but that was not all they had). There's even one large state on the other side of the galaxy that still reads 'superior' in fleet power. I'm not claiming that I'm awesome - I'm noting that even for a fairly average player like myself, such fleet sizes are possible, just as they are apparently possible for the AI on insane. So how does this defensive strategy work if 60k worth of ships lands in your home planet's gravity well? If you beat that fleet, can you re-establish your defenses (with 94 net mineral income monthly) before you get hit again? Since a strategy is only 'overpowered' in the sense that it is better than other strategies, to even be considered, your 'op' strategy has to be able to meet the challenges that other strategies meet.
3) You are relying very heavily on the weakness of the AI in failing to target outlying resource stations and instead running straight to planets. I would guess that the reason the AI did this is that playing against an AI that expressly and relentlessly targeted resource stations would be infuriating from a micro-management point of view - so this is really a bit of abusing a creature comfort, since you cannot, with four ships, possibly defend all of your resource stations and pushing you deep into the red on energy credits would be trivially easy. Which neatly rules this out as a multiplayer strategy, but I'd argue it also raises issues on the line between 'op' strategy and simply exploiting the heck out of a feature there to keep the rest of us from being miserable. Which leads to the last point:
4) How well does this fair against the AI opponents that do not share the Empire AI's blindness to resource stations: namely the end-game crises? The Unbidden and Scourge both clear out entire systems and push back against influence borders, which means that they will crush your resource economy long before they ever get close to your one star (assuming you don't stop them), unless you get profoundly lucky and have the unbidden portal in on your star specifically. That means in order to contain that threat, you will have to be proactive in engaging them. Can your strategy do that?
Which leads exactly back to my original proposition: in order to make any judgment as to if this is 'op' or not, it needs to be tested out: 1) on insane, 2) in a galaxy with a normal number of starts, including advanced starts, 3) include a confrontation with an end-game crisis and 4) run long enough that the galaxy 'fills' (which is a normal occurrence in most games that don't cheese the starting settings). As for 'how will we know it's insane' - I suspect screenshots that include you holding out against successful insane AI-hegemonic imperialists at any significant date will be pretty obvious...the fleet counts will pretty much give it away.
Now I'm not trying to bash on your fun-self-imposed-restriction game. I don't play my RP-Empires on insane either (I play them on hard) - I keep insane for runs that I at least intend to be serious efforts at victory. self-imposed restriction-fun-games are fine. My issue is with the declaration that this strategy is specifically 'op' and the implication (made subsequently) that the game needed re-balancing around this strategy: which is only true if this strategy substantially outperforms other highly-optimized strategies.
- 1
- 1
It is significantly harder with 39 ai empires on the map. Now on attempt 3 replicating this:
https://www.twitch.tv/ceranai
https://www.twitch.tv/ceranai
No, having more empires around makes the strategy more powerful as you can rapidly attack and vassalise nearby A.I. players and have them add bulk to your fleet for you. I played pacifist for a laugh, but there is no reason why I could not be militarist instead. In a tightly packed universe, if you are a good player, you can exploit nearby A.I. to become even more powerful than my OP suggests.
Works on insane, but I can't prove that it does because of the culture of "HE MUST BE CHEATING!!11!x! on this forum.
And yet I seem to have 14k minerals, 4 battleships and 15 forts, maybe strict monthly income isn't the only way to make minerals? Something to think about...
Instead of theory crafting, why don't you sit down and actually do it? I've said to many others that I've not waged any wars in this play through but had I done so, I would be considerably more powerful than I am in this game. Though the fortress death-ball has eaten entire Fallen Empire Navies that are 3x17k fleets and a 1x6k fleet with ruthless ease and authority.
Energy production is on the home planet and with repeating energy tech, my home planet can easily support my entire empire. If anything, all those stations out there are the main energy drain and their lose would free up energy (though it would kill research).
Sure, why not?
My test games with crowded galaxies were considerably easier than ones spent alone because I could farm the A.I. for the one weakness of the build (fleet support) and thus rely less on Fortress death-star regions... but hey...
- 1
When this is your only response to "what happens when a crisis actually cripples your strategy", you haven't proved your point.
- Your entire strategy depends on tweaking the game start so you don't have advanced AI that can snowball or an actually challenging AI neighbor.
- Your entire strategy depends on your enemy rushing you at predictable points.
- Your entire strategy depends on having decent resources in the surrounding systems before you can get border growth.
- Your entire strategy depends on getting lucky enough with tech cards that you hit critical techs before you need them, made easier because you don't have neighbors willing and capable to conquer you in the first 10 years.
I don't think anyone is seriously accusing you of cheating. At worse, we are accusing you of setting up a playground for your strategy to thrive in and claiming that it isn't perfect for its survival. And I did give this strategy a shot last night, on insane. I'm predicting catastrophic failure as soon as one of my neighbors begins to snowball. In contrast, my expansionist game is surrounded by hegemonic imperialist rivals, yet I'm still standing. In fact, I'm still growing.
- 1
- 1
It's my only response because you are so amazingly wrong that I don't know where to start correcting you. You are hostile and speak as if you know how it works when you don't.
I'm watching Ceranai right now play with a terribly sub-optimal start, less than half the research capability I had at the same points and very little micro of his empire or any pausing to min-max anything and he's STILL managing to survive in an 1000 star with 40 empires and 20 advanced starts. He also isn't turning his conquests into vassals but purging them instead, which dramatically reduces his accumulative power. He's already killed about 6 empires despite what I felt was extremely sub-optimal play.
Basically, I don't have to have dedication to save face because I am correct and you are incorrect.
The key thing is, I do not expect most people to actually execute like I can. So I'm glad that a few people are trying it, I am seeing success despite tons of mistakes and inefficiencies.
Example in point, you have said:
"Your entire strategy depends on having decent resources in the surrounding systems before you can get border growth."
So you aren't aware you can farm influence from nearby empires and use that to fund infinite frontier stations by building them on the day the war is won.
Just an example of how you lack insight.
I'm watching Ceranai right now play with a terribly sub-optimal start, less than half the research capability I had at the same points and very little micro of his empire or any pausing to min-max anything and he's STILL managing to survive in an 1000 star with 40 empires and 20 advanced starts. He also isn't turning his conquests into vassals but purging them instead, which dramatically reduces his accumulative power. He's already killed about 6 empires despite what I felt was extremely sub-optimal play.
Basically, I don't have to have dedication to save face because I am correct and you are incorrect.
The key thing is, I do not expect most people to actually execute like I can. So I'm glad that a few people are trying it, I am seeing success despite tons of mistakes and inefficiencies.
Example in point, you have said:
"Your entire strategy depends on having decent resources in the surrounding systems before you can get border growth."
So you aren't aware you can farm influence from nearby empires and use that to fund infinite frontier stations by building them on the day the war is won.
Just an example of how you lack insight.
- 2
- 1
I just played some 50 years with this OPM thing... and it is quite nice. You just go full tributary/vassalize and have fun. I liked it.
- 1
Streaming attempt two. Playing for the wint his time, the first one was more of a practice run 
https://www.twitch.tv/ceranai
https://www.twitch.tv/ceranai
Pretty amazing RNG start. I've never seen that many resources on systems in any of my games. 1.2 only? No mods, consoles, editors, etc?
I'm far from a min maxer and haven't so much as played a single multiplayer game, but this strat is certainly intriguing! I really like the concept of playing tall in strategy games.
@Edmon how does it differ and/or fare against the standard corvette rush that apparently happens in competitive MP?
@Edmon how does it differ and/or fare against the standard corvette rush that apparently happens in competitive MP?
I saw that sci formula change in the clarke patch and was instantly like, "eh, this is broken. Stupid...,".
More planets should ALWAYS BE BETTER. The way the game is designed right now, you're a fool if you colonize planets under around 18 tiles.
Limiting factors:
1) influence (hard to pacify lots of factions, to hire governors etc),
2) diplomacy (overexpansion and uncomfortable neighbours leading to more defensive wars)
3) a slight penalty to nrg/mineral production for more expansive empires (piracy, bureaucracy, etc)
It isn't much different, the main thing is getting ahead on tech rapidly. You usually want to find crystal aliens and beat them down for the overpowered hull upgrades. Additionally, take red lasers as your start weapon and blue lasers will turn up pretty quickly, keep going down the chain ignoring all other weapons.
How are your strategies specific to having a one planet empire? Could you not employ them with any kind of empire? Is research really that significant? Wouldn't the game design allow you to be "overpowered", anyway?