The value of ethics, traits, and civics, and the Warrior Culture civic

[GC13]

I got curious about how many trait points certain ethic and civic bonuses are worth, and as you'd expect it's not easy due to the low overlap.

So what can we say?

Materialist says that one ethic point is worth somewhere around one trait point, or even more in a diverse empire, since +10% research speed will probably work out to the same as +10% science production in planetside labs.

Conformists, Police State, and Spiritualist conspire to say that two ethic points equal a civic and a bit more than two trait points.

Pacifist says one ethic point equals a civic and a trait point.

Egalitarian has two ethic points equaling one civic and two trait points.

So far, so muddy. Let's get to one specific observation: Warrior Culture, and its +20% to army damage. Industrious puts +7.5% mineral production at being worth one trait point, and Strong costs one trait point and gives +5% mineral production and +20% army damage. A bit of math says that one third of one trait point is worth +20% army damage. One civic = 1/3 of a trait point, when the +minerals civic is worth four times as many trait points.

I mean, not final numbers are not final and all that, but Warrior Culture really needs a buff. Can you imagine if Imperial Cult was the ethics divergence civic and it gave +5% empire ethics attraction? (Actually no, it's worse than that: Conformists is considered a good buy at its current trait point cost, while Strong is ironically considered to be weak despite two thirds of its implied cost coming from the +minerals and Industrious being considered to be okay.)

 

[Twogs]

With the current planet combat system army damage is not needed anyway.

Really, if you control space, you won the war, no matter how many army damage boni the enemy has.

 

[GC13]

It would at least be nice if Warrior Culture granted a bonus to morale, morale damage, and army maintenance.

 

[I am Sovereign]

Army Damage is THE most useless bonus there is. It just does not matter with the current war system.

Till the next major DLC in winter/late fall 2017 (which is presumable about overhauling war/combat)
they should incoperate army damage as a factor as how much armies supress unrest on planets in 1.5 this way it could be usefull.

Its also logical.

Slaves would be more eager to rebel against your standard assault army consisting out of 20 year old boys who were just conscripted.

But they wouldnt do that if those were genetical super warriors in space marine armors wielding guns as big as small cars and riding freaking xenomorphs.

 

[Lemont Elwood]

The only way army damage will every matter is if it becomes possible for planets to control enemy fleet movements and win sieges. Things like beacons that bind you to the orbit of that planet until the planet is occupied, and planet-side artillery batteries which can shoot down ships in orbit.

Until then, it's just a matter of waiting until the invading army wins.

 

[Diezy]

Warrior Culture could even have that old Militarist bonus baked into it (+Happiness during war), or negate that -10% happiness malus from declaring war. To their warrior culture war should be totally fine

 

[Sibericus]

Warrior Culture could even have that old Militarist bonus baked into it (+Happiness during war), or negate that -10% happiness malus from declaring war. To their warrior culture war should be totally fine

I don't think militaristic pops will lose their war happiness effects. It will probably just be a part the faction system instead.

 

[The Founder]

I do not see how you could conflate Species Traits and Government Ethos/Civic for 1.5.
Unless you plan to purge or displace everyone else, you will no doubt end up with aliens in your empire.
Actually that Main pops were pissed if you allow Xeno Leaders (unless they were Xenophile) was pretty Vexing for me.

Furthermore ethos no longer gives Pop-Modifiers. It only gives Empire Modifiers now. Species traits never (really*) gave empire Modifiers, only pop ones.
If anything Species traits are more able to shine. Conformist could backfire on Conquest, while Deviants could be dodged by going Fanatic Individualist (making it all around positive trait). What is positive and Negative will be way clearer.

Civics also give no Empire Modifiers, not pop ones.

For avoidance of unessesary Micro and simplicity of the AI, Empire bonuses are simply better.

*Resilient kind of counted. As could some degree of Leader traits concerning rulers.

 

[Dementor4]

With the current planet combat system army damage is not needed anyway.

Really, if you control space, you won the war, no matter how many army damage boni the enemy has.

Sure, until marines and ship-to-ship combat is implemented.

"Sir, our shields are down! We've got micro-ERbridges opening on decks 3, 4, 6... sir, we're being boarded!"

That would be neat. A fleet dedicated to shield-dropping tech like energy torpedoes and others filled with marines ready to teleport in as soon as shields are down, taking the other guy's ships once they've killed off the crew.

 

[Talanic]

Sure, until marines and ship-to-ship combat is implemented.

"Sir, our shields are down! We've got micro-ERbridges opening on decks 3, 4, 6... sir, we're being boarded!"

That would be neat. A fleet dedicated to shield-dropping tech like energy torpedoes and others filled with marines ready to teleport in as soon as shields are down, taking the other guy's ships once they've killed off the crew.

That's how the Bulrathi were still worthwhile in Master of Orion II. They were heavy-worlders; unequipped Bulrathi could still own enemies who were wearing powered armor. It wasn't a heck of a bonus unless you acquired assault shuttles, but if you managed that you could expect to add a few enemy ships to your fleet quite soon.

 

[I am Sovereign]

Sure, until marines and ship-to-ship combat is implemented.

"Sir, our shields are down! We've got micro-ERbridges opening on decks 3, 4, 6... sir, we're being boarded!"

That would be neat. A fleet dedicated to shield-dropping tech like energy torpedoes and others filled with marines ready to teleport in as soon as shields are down, taking the other guy's ships once they've killed off the crew.

You would not even need beam technology. Though there could be two different approached one that wants to strip down shields and then beam onboard ( Star Trek) or the old school swarming approach (just eating through the hull).

I dream of the day I can send my gene soldiers to board the enemy ship like the
"Magog" von Jene Roddenberrys "Andromeda"

I mean yes...I know the series is not liked by anyone and yes the last season made me wanna kill myself but the principle of

Small ships dedicated to pin theirselfes with claws onto the hull of the enemy ships and then maw/hammer a hull breach in it to release boarding partys as the space war strategy of an entire species rather then destroyers/capital ships was awesome!

 

[tobias.mb]

There could always be "hidden" effects.
For example: Currently being militarist allows you to take more planets in a single war. And as far as I am aware, this is not mentioned anywhere on the ethos selection screen (or anywhere else for that matter.)
Having a Warlike or Expansionist Ruler has the same effect, and that's also not explained in the trait descroption.

 

[Me_]

There could always be "hidden" effects.
For example: Currently being militarist allows you to take more planets in a single war. And as far as I am aware, this is not mentioned anywhere on the ethos selection screen (or anywhere else for that matter.)
Having a Warlike or Expansionist Ruler has the same effect, and that's also not explained in the trait descroption.

I'm going to be the "Actually" guy here and point out that the ruler traits do have this effect in their tooltip. The rest should have their tooltips updated. There should be no hidden effects, except possibly on events.

 

[The Founder]

I dream of the day I can send my gene soldiers to board the enemy ship like the
"Magog" von Jene Roddenberrys "Andromeda"

I mean yes...I know the series is not liked by anyone and yes the last season made me wanna kill myself but the principle of

I liked that show and thet Setting of Beyond Earth.
Mostly by not going of on teh Missconception it would be a Star Trek/Alpha Centauri 2.0

 

[The Danish King]

Didn't one of the devs say that it's now much more important to take planets than just to blockade/bombard them (in terms of warscore)? If that is the case, more army strenght is important.

 

[Lumpy]

Didn't one of the devs say that it's now much more important to take planets than just to blockade/bombard them (in terms of warscore)? If that is the case, more army strenght is important.

Only marginally. If you lose space superiority, you are stripped off your capabilities to rebuild a fleet and fight back. The enemy has unlimited time to prepare for taking your worlds. It doesn't really make a difference if they need 10 or 30 assault armies. Your army strength would only delay your inevitable defeat.

This is not to say that it isn't neat to put a strain on the enemy's resources by making him need more attack armies. But the war is still decided in space. The moment one side crushes the other side's ability to project space power, the war is effectively over. Thus, bonuses to space combat are always preferable to those that give you ground combat buffs.

 

[I am Sovereign]

Didn't one of the devs say that it's now much more important to take planets than just to blockade/bombard them (in terms of warscore)? If that is the case, more army strenght is important.

Sry but I just HAVE to disagree.

I always invaded planets as it just felt wrong to blockade/bombard planets till the enemy hands me over what I set as wargoals.

The only difference was that it took me longer to make the AI acknowledge my victory which was already decdided after my doomstack destroyed the AI's "doom"stack a long time ago. Thats not an improvment.

And the amount of armys never were an issue. Assault armys were so cheap it didnt harmed my economy in any way to build several dozens of them and I mean in the early game.

(Btw I dont think that making offensive armys super expensive or super expensive to maintain to be a real solution here maybe worth a try but I would prefer other approaches)

Only marginally. If you lose space superiority, you are stripped off your capabilities to rebuild a fleet and fight back. The enemy has unlimited time to prepare for taking your worlds. It doesn't really make a difference if they need 10 or 30 assault armies. Your army strength would only delay your inevitable defeat.

This is not to say that it isn't neat to put a strain on the enemies resources by making him need for attack armies. But the war is still decided in space. The moment one side crushes the other side's ability to project space power, the war is effectively over. Thus, bonuses to space combat are always preferable to those that give you ground combat buffs.

Thats why garrisoned armys should be able to damage fleets who are bombarding the planet.

 

[Foefaller]

For kicks, I once played as a V. Strong Military Democracy empire to max out that army damage and see what it was like.

Being able to take fully garrisoned worlds with almost no bombardment with just a dozen or so regular assault troopers was... kinda fun. Once I got to better troops there were literally cases where I could take fully fortified worlds with no bombing whatsoever with a army size that wouldn't have to kick anyone off the planet when all was said and done.

What use was there in that? Well, being able to take a planet just by clearing out the space station and sending the troops in gives your enemy very little opportunity to stop you. Playing Hard when there is usually one or two AI neighbors that have a sizable military advantage on me, I could easily build up a winning warscore without engaging their fleet by surprise attacks on planets, bombing until the last possible moment and sending in the troops regardless of how much fortification is left. While it's true that I could achieve this with weak troops if I just spammed enough of them (one change I'd really want to see, max number of invading troops on a planet at one time) Armies, even basic assault armies, aren't exactly free either.

That being said, it's much better, easier and more strategically sound to build your advantage on space combat over ground combat, especially with the current way ground combat works... but it's not a completely worthless way to do things, just far from ideal.

 

[Dementor4]

Only marginally. If you lose space superiority, you are stripped off your capabilities to rebuild a fleet and fight back. The enemy has unlimited time to prepare for taking your worlds. It doesn't really make a difference if they need 10 or 30 assault armies. Your army strength would only delay your inevitable defeat.

This is not to say that it isn't neat to put a strain on the enemy's resources by making him need more attack armies. But the war is still decided in space. The moment one side crushes the other side's ability to project space power, the war is effectively over. Thus, bonuses to space combat are always preferable to those that give you ground combat buffs.

Well for one, it shouldn't be possible to hold a planet without leaving armies behind. You could implement a system where occupied planets constantly spawn guerilla resistance armies and if the occupiers can't hold the planet the occupation ends. This would make it more difficult to accumulate much warscore against an empire with army bonuses via planet occupation because their guerillas would have those bonuses.

You could also design a non-spaceborne transportation system for armies ("Stargates" built on the planet surface) so that you could easily move armies between planets you own at a moment's notice. This would have the same effect as above, where an occupier would never be safe leaving a smaller force on a planet he's taken because you can easily re-invade via stargate.

 

[Derp]

You could also design a non-spaceborne transportation system for armies ("Stargates" built on the planet surface) so that you could easily move armies between planets you own at a moment's notice. This would have the same effect as above, where an occupier would never be safe leaving a smaller force on a planet he's taken because you can easily re-invade via stargate.

you're never going to win a war by retaking planets, you're just going to annoy the hell out of the person you're at war with

it's like stalling a game by building a single house in the middle of a forest at a map edge in the Age of Empires games; you know you have no chance of actually winning, you're just trying to make the other person quit in disgust