It should be fixed in the latest beta version. The previous posts in this thread are talking about 2.0.1 or old beta versions.
Warning to wide players: Unity costs are now multiplied
- Thread starter Aquilegia
- 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.
It should be fixed in the latest beta version. The previous posts in this thread are talking about 2.0.1 or old beta versions.
.png){kind=avatar}
Sorry, took a short break from this conversation, then forgot it 
The fewer people on that station, the easier it is for them to drift farther. Much farther. And even 100,000 or 10,000 complete whackjobs can cause a shakeup. I'll try to leave out answers where you repeated your point to respond to a point I repeated.
As you mentioned, does require suspension of disbelief, as why black hole #15 is providing as much extra data as black hole #2. If any part of the planet-based tech penalty is duplication of effort, then that allows system based tech penalty to still make sense, even with automated stations, with no suspension of disbelief.
Automated mineral stations are a little tougher, since at game start you can't automate a planetside mine, and there's no such thing as "letting the planetside people do the work" when collecting it is the work. But, space based mining only gathers a fraction of the overall output of a planet, so it could just be grabbing the richest hunks of rock; doesn't have to dig deeper.
The unity penalty accomplishes less, but it's 1%/20%. However, planet size already doesn't matter for unity, so it needed less help, and with the beta changes to faith in science, a developed planet is always beneficial for unity period (though the benefit asymptotically approaches some max speed). The 1% system penalty makes habitats (which are still detrimental) hurt your unity less, and puts ringworlds on even footing with Gaia worlds and machine worlds (which would otherwise beat ringworlds for unity). And, of course, penalizes shallow play and claiming territory before you can develop it or even with no intent to develop it. It just doesn't have to counteract space based unity sources to do that, so can be 1% instead of 2%.
But, did you enjoy the 1-planet 6-frontier-outpost become-god-of-science-and-territory-then-finally-start-colonizing playstyle? I tried it once. Shallow, like I said.
That's just armchair psychology though.
Yes, the fact that there is no food requirement for a non-self-sufficient space station does imply a negligible population. But, only negligible in terms of food requirements. 1 food feeds a billion humans, minimum. At that scale, a million, even 10 million, is negligible. That's 1/100th of a food per station, still low enough to effectively ignore in game. I don't believe a station has a 10 million on it... But, 100,000 to 1 million, depending on upgrade level? Easy, and still very negligible food requirements.
And, again, makes suspension of disbelief about hydroponics farms unnecessary. Even on your side with lower population, an upgraded outpost+farm totals like 450-550 mineral cost? I forget. The thing could be huge, even in your headcanon with lower population and automation. If actually believing the space hydroponics are similar in size to 1 tile of Earth hydroponics (but in 3D) is a problem for you, then I understand. And that belief would lead to requiring a lot of suspension of disbelief, since it conflicts with many game mechanics. Personally, I also believe battleships are double-digit kilometers long, and even corvettes are massive. Takes the full 9-month output of year 2200 Earth to build it, it better be big.
Basically, my preferred headcanon is that the mechanics are pretty close to truth. Requires less suspension of disbelief that way. Hydroponics farms make sense. Huge, productive mining stations, with or without staff, make sense. System tech penalty not only valuable for gameplay, but makes sense since it represents duplicate space data.
Which leaves...
So, first, I think you're not disagreeing that distance between whole planets should cost increased unity. If so, you'd be upset that it has always caused increased ethics drift. You only seem to be arguing based on the population of stations, in which case you're misunderstand my argument, where I laid the population of stations aside.
Increased ethical drift due to distance between planets is modeled directly in game. How is decreased unity due to distance between planets modeled in game? The only way is increased system cost. How else could it be modeled in game? Some increased planet penalty, based on that planet's distance from capital. Would penalize snakiness a little more than the current system, which might be nice. But, it would fail to penalize shallow play. So, gameplay wise, a trade-off. Unless you really love shallow play, and are annoyed it's been nerfed in favor of actual wide or actual tall play, in which case it's a kick to the nuts for you.
Unfortunately, even with that explanation, it does still require one bit of suspension of disbelief, which is rife throughout the game. Why do systems cause a unity penalty, if it only models planetary distances and you haven't actually colonized anything? Well, why do planets without labs cause tech penalties? Why do systems without research stations cause tech penalties? Because it's easier that way, and better for gameplay. Can't think of any good reason But, in my head canon, they at least all model mechanics that make sense, even if the implementation is a little off.
--------------
Anyway, as for my question about humanity's unity in real life, that was also separate from how many people are on a station in game, because it was completely decoupled from the game.
In game, I believe space stations house 100k-1 million people, which makes all these mechanics make sense. In game, there are at max 1000 important stars in the milky way galaxy. In game is not anywhere near reality. And I agree, if there were a galaxy with 1000 important stars, and each space station only houses 10,000 people despite requiring 1.5x the mineral input as dedicating 1/16th of the surface of Earth to farming (hehe) then they wouldn't contribute much to unity troubles.
However, hypothetically, if FTL travel and instantaneous communication is really possible, and humanity discovers it, before we nuke ourselves or boil ourselves, and spread out through 1/5th of the galaxy. The space stations probably won't house a million people (nor take 100 minerals from an entire Earth producing 14 a month)... They might, but those would be more like a city developing on a river, or around a mine, or at a road junction, a little mini-habitat in a system that's economically important but has no habitable planets. Just the administrative center of a piddly system that just has some solar panels around the star? Nah.
But, there wouldn't be just 200 of them. Nor would there be just 50 colonies, in 1/5th of the galaxy. 1/5th of the milky way is 30 billion stars at lowest estimates. 30 billion More than 200 of those will be important. Unless we're really screwed for habitability, more than 50 planets will be habitable.
We might start at 200 stations and 50 colonies, and then dig deeper, but in game 200/50 is "fully explored and exploited". If we don't ascend to a higher energy state or something first, if we actually still concern ourselves with worldly matters and haven't been replaced by a murderous singularity AI that now spends all its time contemplating how to undo the universe, we'd end up with... What, 100 million stations (that's still only .3%)? 1 million colonies (0.003% of systems)? Even at 50 million per colony and 10000 per station, that's 50 quadrillion humans spread over 1 million locations, and an additional quadrillion in 100 million locations. With 2+ years to travel across it.
In that situation, even with instant communication, do you think humanity would remain unified?
I think 2 colonies a month apart would be culturally unrecognizable to each other, simply by hanging out in different communities on the interstellarweb. And a hefty percentage of the stations, and humanity, will have dropped off the grid and formed their own insular societies. Just because they can.
Now, in game, there are only 200 systems and 50 colonies. And while stations could be huge and well-populated, based on their mineral cost, I agree it's not required. And I'd rather not believe the game is an abstraction of 1 million times as many actual colonies.
The 2 year travel time between planets would still cause unity decrease (and ethical drift) between your 50 planets. And the game comes nowhere near illustrating the actual fractures that would happen in a society spanning 1/5th of a galaxy, but I'm glad it models them a little.
Edit: for the record, if the game's setting were "1 cluster of indeterminate size within a galaxy" instead of "1 galaxy", I wouldn't care so much. But, even though it illustrates a far less dense galaxy, conquering or colonizing 1/5th of an an entire galaxy should feel epic, and being fractious contributes to that.
There were also tiny islands just offshore of Britain where they ended up living like bonobos. Don't want to write out the details here
The fewer people on that station, the easier it is for them to drift farther. Much farther. And even 100,000 or 10,000 complete whackjobs can cause a shakeup. I'll try to leave out answers where you repeated your point to respond to a point I repeated.Yah, the new extra data was a reason (in my opinion) that a research station might not require a million scientists, but only 10,000. Having the actual science be automated doesn't make sense, but having the automated station just gathering data and sending it to some planetside scientists does.
As you mentioned, does require suspension of disbelief, as why black hole #15 is providing as much extra data as black hole #2. If any part of the planet-based tech penalty is duplication of effort, then that allows system based tech penalty to still make sense, even with automated stations, with no suspension of disbelief.
Automated mineral stations are a little tougher, since at game start you can't automate a planetside mine, and there's no such thing as "letting the planetside people do the work" when collecting it is the work. But, space based mining only gathers a fraction of the overall output of a planet, so it could just be grabbing the richest hunks of rock; doesn't have to dig deeper.
Not one that matches the output of a million earth miners. Maybe, as mentioned, around some particularly rich deposits, where actual "mining" isn't required, and also with some future tech. Where are the mineral outputs placed on an Sol start?
If they are automated, and just doing relatively easy work that doesn't require even robot levels of sophistication, then they can still just be large enough to take 90 minerals to build and an energy to run. The size would only be an issue for you if they're populated, I'd think?
Ooo, a gameplay point! First, they did up the energy cost of claiming systems in the beta. But, the tech 2% system/5% planet penalty has additional effects that an energy penalty wouldn't (maybe, depending on how it's designed):
- Makes it detrimental to claim a ton of space, use the space science resources (which can easily beat your planet early game) and become science king without any actual scientists anywhere, apparently. 1 planet + tons of outposts was the unchallenged best at science in 1.9, without any real effort.
- Makes it beneficial to colonize any planet in your territory, even tiny ones, while still making it exciting to find a very nice large planet. Yes, a size 10 planet gives 5% penalty, and gives less science, maybe none. But, you're already paying a 10% penalty for the 5 systems that contained that planet, so it doesn't take much science for it to be worth it, and even if it's 0 science, the energy/minerals means you can build a few extra labs somewhere else without losing energy/minerals.
- Makes science habitats worth it. Even though they're small, have no tile bonuses, and their labs were nerfed... They're still offsetting all those system penalties you have, and only charging the planet penalty.
- Makes ringworlds great, which is really necessary. They're limited by time to a max usage, and also eliminates 3 potential habitats every time you build one, and still has to be worth an additional perk slot when it directly makes its prerequisite perk worse.
The unity penalty accomplishes less, but it's 1%/20%. However, planet size already doesn't matter for unity, so it needed less help, and with the beta changes to faith in science, a developed planet is always beneficial for unity period (though the benefit asymptotically approaches some max speed). The 1% system penalty makes habitats (which are still detrimental) hurt your unity less, and puts ringworlds on even footing with Gaia worlds and machine worlds (which would otherwise beat ringworlds for unity). And, of course, penalizes shallow play and claiming territory before you can develop it or even with no intent to develop it. It just doesn't have to counteract space based unity sources to do that, so can be 1% instead of 2%.
But, did you enjoy the 1-planet 6-frontier-outpost become-god-of-science-and-territory-then-finally-start-colonizing playstyle? I tried it once. Shallow, like I said.
Right. We all find it easier to suspend disbelief somewhere. If your view still requires suspension of disbelief, it's not the obviously superior answer. But, in this post you stopped framing your belief as the only logical way, and instead as your headcanon, so, good. Anyway, my belief includes duplicated effort in science penalty, so the system penalty solves this suspension of disbelief for me: it penalizes duplicated data, even if the station is automated. You only need to suspend disbelief here, because you interpret the tech penalty as just coordination difficulties... Because that allows you to say the system penalty, which you don't like, doesn't make sense
That's just armchair psychology though.Yes, the fact that there is no food requirement for a non-self-sufficient space station does imply a negligible population. But, only negligible in terms of food requirements. 1 food feeds a billion humans, minimum. At that scale, a million, even 10 million, is negligible. That's 1/100th of a food per station, still low enough to effectively ignore in game. I don't believe a station has a 10 million on it... But, 100,000 to 1 million, depending on upgrade level? Easy, and still very negligible food requirements.
And, again, makes suspension of disbelief about hydroponics farms unnecessary. Even on your side with lower population, an upgraded outpost+farm totals like 450-550 mineral cost? I forget. The thing could be huge, even in your headcanon with lower population and automation. If actually believing the space hydroponics are similar in size to 1 tile of Earth hydroponics (but in 3D) is a problem for you, then I understand. And that belief would lead to requiring a lot of suspension of disbelief, since it conflicts with many game mechanics. Personally, I also believe battleships are double-digit kilometers long, and even corvettes are massive. Takes the full 9-month output of year 2200 Earth to build it, it better be big.
Basically, my preferred headcanon is that the mechanics are pretty close to truth. Requires less suspension of disbelief that way. Hydroponics farms make sense. Huge, productive mining stations, with or without staff, make sense. System tech penalty not only valuable for gameplay, but makes sense since it represents duplicate space data.
Which leaves...
The unity system penalty.
So, first, I think you're not disagreeing that distance between whole planets should cost increased unity. If so, you'd be upset that it has always caused increased ethics drift. You only seem to be arguing based on the population of stations, in which case you're misunderstand my argument, where I laid the population of stations aside.
Increased ethical drift due to distance between planets is modeled directly in game. How is decreased unity due to distance between planets modeled in game? The only way is increased system cost. How else could it be modeled in game? Some increased planet penalty, based on that planet's distance from capital. Would penalize snakiness a little more than the current system, which might be nice. But, it would fail to penalize shallow play. So, gameplay wise, a trade-off. Unless you really love shallow play, and are annoyed it's been nerfed in favor of actual wide or actual tall play, in which case it's a kick to the nuts for you.
Unfortunately, even with that explanation, it does still require one bit of suspension of disbelief, which is rife throughout the game. Why do systems cause a unity penalty, if it only models planetary distances and you haven't actually colonized anything? Well, why do planets without labs cause tech penalties? Why do systems without research stations cause tech penalties? Because it's easier that way, and better for gameplay. Can't think of any good reason
But, in my head canon, they at least all model mechanics that make sense, even if the implementation is a little off.--------------
Anyway, as for my question about humanity's unity in real life, that was also separate from how many people are on a station in game, because it was completely decoupled from the game.
In game, I believe space stations house 100k-1 million people, which makes all these mechanics make sense. In game, there are at max 1000 important stars in the milky way galaxy. In game is not anywhere near reality. And I agree, if there were a galaxy with 1000 important stars, and each space station only houses 10,000 people despite requiring 1.5x the mineral input as dedicating 1/16th of the surface of Earth to farming (hehe) then they wouldn't contribute much to unity troubles.
However, hypothetically, if FTL travel and instantaneous communication is really possible, and humanity discovers it, before we nuke ourselves or boil ourselves, and spread out through 1/5th of the galaxy. The space stations probably won't house a million people (nor take 100 minerals from an entire Earth producing 14 a month)... They might, but those would be more like a city developing on a river, or around a mine, or at a road junction, a little mini-habitat in a system that's economically important but has no habitable planets. Just the administrative center of a piddly system that just has some solar panels around the star? Nah.
But, there wouldn't be just 200 of them. Nor would there be just 50 colonies, in 1/5th of the galaxy. 1/5th of the milky way is 30 billion stars at lowest estimates. 30 billion More than 200 of those will be important. Unless we're really screwed for habitability, more than 50 planets will be habitable.
We might start at 200 stations and 50 colonies, and then dig deeper, but in game 200/50 is "fully explored and exploited". If we don't ascend to a higher energy state or something first, if we actually still concern ourselves with worldly matters and haven't been replaced by a murderous singularity AI that now spends all its time contemplating how to undo the universe, we'd end up with... What, 100 million stations (that's still only .3%)? 1 million colonies (0.003% of systems)? Even at 50 million per colony and 10000 per station, that's 50 quadrillion humans spread over 1 million locations, and an additional quadrillion in 100 million locations. With 2+ years to travel across it.
In that situation, even with instant communication, do you think humanity would remain unified?
I think 2 colonies a month apart would be culturally unrecognizable to each other, simply by hanging out in different communities on the interstellarweb. And a hefty percentage of the stations, and humanity, will have dropped off the grid and formed their own insular societies. Just because they can.
Now, in game, there are only 200 systems and 50 colonies. And while stations could be huge and well-populated, based on their mineral cost, I agree it's not required. And I'd rather not believe the game is an abstraction of 1 million times as many actual colonies.
The 2 year travel time between planets would still cause unity decrease (and ethical drift) between your 50 planets. And the game comes nowhere near illustrating the actual fractures that would happen in a society spanning 1/5th of a galaxy, but I'm glad it models them a little.
Edit: for the record, if the game's setting were "1 cluster of indeterminate size within a galaxy" instead of "1 galaxy", I wouldn't care so much. But, even though it illustrates a far less dense galaxy, conquering or colonizing 1/5th of an an entire galaxy should feel epic, and being fractious contributes to that.
Last edited:
Sorry, took a short break from this conversation, then forgot it
There were also tiny islands just offshore of Britain where they ended up living like bonobos. Don't want to write out the details here
100,000 can cause a huge problem in terms of unity for a population of 1,000,000 (10%) and reasonable problem to a population of 10,000,000 (1%) but it will do nothing to a population of 10,000,000,000 (0,001%). There is also no real evidence to suggest that “bonobos” you mentioned are of radically different culture to the rest of Great Britain and not just a different social group (different ethics in Stellaris terms). Please cite something so I can have a frame of reference here.
So you agree that research and mining stations may be automated? As for duplication of effort, I don’t entirely get your point. Are you saying that Earth scientists are only working with data from one black hole and some other planet’s scientists are working only with data from other black hole, and there is no real point to this because their efforts are duplicated? Are you implying that future scientists are not into comparative analysis or peer review or anything? Are they all just stupid?
The Asteroid Belt and Jupiter moons. This shows some research on part of developers because it is theorized that once humans settle the system these areas would be the first ones to be used for large-scale mineral resource extraction.
Well, imagine what that station is doing: storing and deploying equipment; repairing equipment, preliminary transporting, storing and probably sorting the minerals; hosting docks for cargo transport and finally transporting it. It makes sense that it is large, and it also makes sense that it is automated, as even with current AI capabilities, none of these tasks are particularly complex and all may be maintained by algorithm and remote oversight.
I do see the intended reasons for tech and unity penalties. In 1.9 and before going crazy wide was the ultimate solution to everything as you could just ignore all penalties and still win easily because of sheer size of mineral production feeding huge fleets. In 2.0 they try to make tall more competitive by making quality more important in battles, giving it better bonuses in terms of tech and unity, making edicts really good and so on. Again, I agree with the intentions because crazy good wide play had to be counteracted and penalized somehow and I really like quality over quantity and influence changes.
But while I played the beta and came to conclusion that current system basically still encourages either “shallow” where you grab everything remotely valuable you can as fast as possible, ignore all penalties, get a good production going and then slap +20% mineral edict and beat everything like no tomorrow. Alternatively, you can still go for a mutated version of one-planet strategy, take relatively few systems, maybe colonize a few and just wait for your tech to get good with uncertain results because for a long time your economy would be miniscule. Overall, I found tall play in 2.0 to be highly impractical even more so than in 1.9
What I am saying is that you still either play great economy/no research or no economy/great research just like in 1.9 with the first option still being clearly superior. So, in the end current penalties are not that good for Stellaris:
1) On the first glance make tall feel competitive and wide not as good, but in the long run wide without a question still wins handily, so the balance problem is not really solved. In fact, I think this is the reason for why so many people believe that tall is really good now and equal number of people believe that it is even worse than before.
2) Combination of wide and tall is just not fun. It is not as competitive as pure wide, not as weirdly satisfying as pure tall and feels like the game penalizes you for doing a good job expanding your borders intelligently.
3) They result in these abominations.
4) Good luck playing on 0.25x habitable planets setting.
5) Good luck playing on 1000-star setting.
6) Good luck playing on increased tech/unity cost setting.
IMO the proper solution is to remove system penalties and drastically increase planet penalties to compensate. This would make all three playstyles: wide, moderate and tall, more defined and balanced.
Right. We all find it easier to suspend disbelief somewhere. If your view still requires suspension of disbelief, it's not the obviously superior answer. But, in this post you stopped framing your belief as the only logical way, and instead as your headcanon, so, good. Anyway, my belief includes duplicated effort in science penalty, so the system penalty solves this suspension of disbelief for me: it penalizes duplicated data, even if the station is automated. You only need to suspend disbelief here, because you interpret the tech penalty as just coordination difficulties... Because that allows you to say the system penalty, which you don't like, doesn't make sense
As I said previously, I am just countering your headcanon with mine. Neither of those are objectively correct because it is just about comparing made-up arguments to support the made-up theory instead of correct scientific reasoning of changing theory based on objective data.
The matter is that food has no relation to star bases. There is no indication that anyone produces or consumes food at a scale that matters. As for hydroponics module, there are two options: 1) Space installation produces as much food as say, half of Africa; 2) It is a logical mistake. For some reason the second option is much more believable to me.
So, first, I think you're not disagreeing that distance between whole planets should cost increased unity. If so, you'd be upset that it has always caused increased ethics drift. You only seem to be arguing based on the population of stations, in which case you're misunderstand my argument, where I laid the population of stations aside.
Increased ethical drift due to distance between planets is modeled directly in game. How is decreased unity due to distance between planets modeled in game? The only way is increased system cost. How else could it be modeled in game? Some increased planet penalty, based on that planet's distance from capital. Would penalize snakiness a little more than the current system, which might be nice. But, it would fail to penalize shallow play. So, gameplay wise, a trade-off. Unless you really love shallow play, and are annoyed it's been nerfed in favor of actual wide or actual tall play, in which case it's a kick to the nuts for you.
Unfortunately, even with that explanation, it does still require one bit of suspension of disbelief, which is rife throughout the game. Why do systems cause a unity penalty, if it only models planetary distances and you haven't actually colonized anything? Well, why do planets without labs cause tech penalties? Why do systems without research stations cause tech penalties? Because it's easier that way, and better for gameplay. Can't think of any good reason
Planets are fine to be costly and diverse, stations are not. That was my argument all along.
Also I really don’t get your hatred for “shallow” play which apparently means taking a lot of space. The whole game encourages you to take as much space and resources as possible, so you can survive the end crisis. Giving a player that goal and making it harder by imposing arbitrary restrictions is like a racing game where with each round your car gets slower. That’s just not fun. And fun is the main point of playing a videogame.
To summarize: my original point is that in Stellaris, both in terms of gameplay and narrative, nothing suggests that there is a huge population outside planets. Nothing. There are no additional food or consumer goods costs, there is no reference to “hidden” or “irrelevant” systems, nothing suggests that mining or research stations are populated and not ran by rudimentary AI. There is nothing suggesting that star bases house even 100,000 personnel. That’s why it is logical to assume that space station population is miniscule in comparison to even one planet and should not cost such a drastic research or unity penalty because it makes no sense. My arguments are based on the actual text and numbers present in game, which is why I believe they are logical.
You, however, replied with arguments based entirely on your own headcanon i.e. something that can’t be verified. You say that there is a huge population in space because it is 1/5th of the Galaxy. But nothing in the game backs up this hypothesis. You say that all stations are manned. But nothing in the game suggests this is the case. There is no real evidence. And since your arguments are all about interpretation I replied with my own equally baseless headcanon to demonstrate how easy it is to come up with points like that and how easy it is to disprove them
Bonobos are closely related to chimps, making them humans second closest extant relative. They use sex as a form of communication, regardless of age, blood relationship, or gender. It was a flippant comparison, to avoid mentioning the island's shift to normalizing incest, pedophilia, and general non-consensual sex (even bonobos don't do that last one, though many animals do). It was a very very tiny island though. My point was that distance wasn't a factor, which if anything undermines my argument, but also that any population, large or small, even with good communication, will diverge. If technology reaches a point where it can completely simulate phsyical proximity (like, even randomly seeing people pass by, from across the galaxy) that will eliminate the effects of distance, and only size of the empire will matter then.
Anyway, unless either of us are sociologists (maybe you are) I don't think we can accurately argue on what percentage of the population needs to be how far off to cause fractures. My number is probably lower than yours, but I agree .001% is too low.
Yah, if research stations just gather data, and mining stations are exploiting the mineral less aggresively than planetary mines are, then a society that can't currently automate planetside mines could automate a space research/mining station.
In general, up until the last post I replied to, you appeared to be framing your headcanon as basic logic. In the last post I replied to, you seemed to stop that, and explain your headcanon more, and some of it makes sense. And in general, I tried to respond to your shift in tone by switching my tone to more discussion and less argument. Sorry if it didn't come through
No, just saying that some of the data from black hole 2 will likely confirm things, through additional data points, that black hole 1 already taught us. Still useful, but not all new data. And each additional black hole will confirm things a little more, but diminishing, and provide smaller and smaller amounts of new data. You yourself seemed to agree that each black hole providing the same amount of data required a suspension if disbelief. The system penalty can, itself, simulate those diminishing returns, and that's how I've always interpreted it.
And, even planetside, on Earth alone, and with peer review and comparative analysis, this already happens. Once some minimum number of scientists per field of inquiry has been reached, having 1000x the scientists does not and will never result in 1000x the progress (always more, but never linear) because different people will have the same ideas, and communication will never be instantaneous and complete enough to eliminate that.
Nifty.
The quote you wrote this in response to wasn't an argument. I was responding to you saying that you just believe it costs so much and takes so much energy because it's in space, by saying it could just be as large as a mine handling half of Africa. And questioning, if it's automated, do you still have trouble believing any space installation in Stellaris is that large?
And I agree that all that could be automated. The only issue I had was, if automated, the mining station (and research stations) must be doing less complex work than planetside mines/labs, since those cannot be automated on day 1, but the mining station may just be skimming the top of some exceptionally rich mineral deposits (it's definitely not exploiting the whole planet). You never argued otherwise, I was arguing with myself.
I don't know which definition of tall play you use, so can't be sure whether I agree with the 1.9 vs 2.0 comment.
But, for wide play, there is no real advantage now to remaining shallow. Yes, you can leverage simply your territory to win the game, if it's large enough. But, you will benefit from colonizing and developing your planets. Putting labs on just lab tiles on all planets in your territory will make your science reasonable, regardless of width, and in the end that will result in more minerals and energy than not doing so.
But the mutated 1 planet strategy has no advantages anymore. Additional planets, as long as they're at least as science focused as your previous planets, will on average increase your tech (and unity) speed, and always provide at least some energy and minerals.
So, for the record, in case it's the source of some confusion: tall play is not just the absence of width. Tall play involves building up. If OPC, or not colonizing within your systems, not building habitats, qualifies as tall for you, I disagree with your definition. I would, however, like a way to improve a planet directly, rather than improving your systems by building more of them, but it would have to come with its own costs, limitations, and drawbacks.
But onto your points:
1. I think anybody who is saying tall is worse than before is using the definition of tall that I would definite as shallow. Building upwards is more rewarding than ever before. Not building in any direction has been nerfed. That's good.
2. I'm on the phone right now, I'm gonna edit in a screenshot of my very successful tall/wide empire on my computer after posting this. It was quite satisfying.
Though, I realized as I grab this screenshot, if by tall you mean "few planets or pops" rather than "planets and pops built tall rather than spread wide" it's not what you meant. You meant large territory and few planets. In which case, I agree that won't be so fun. But that's not tall. It's wide and the opposite of tall. I call the opposite of tall "shallow". I responded about that further below.
3. Oh, I agree those are abominations. We can agree on that. I disagree with what the guy said, about ruining his empire if he filled them in. Maaaybe if he's playing Grand Admiral, it might cause him a headache? Simply looking at the tech penalty is simplistic. But, while it's not as bad as he stated, it is suboptimal to fill it in, and I agree it shouldn't be. Just disagree with the best way to fix it, because I think the system tech penalty does other useful things, and don't find it incongruent.
6. Yes it decreases tech progress, it's kinda the whole point. Don't see it's relevance to this discussion. The only reason to reduce tech/unity speed is if you believe it's too fast. If you believe it's too slow, don't do it. Is part of the reason you dislike the system tech penalty that it has reduced the maximum possible research speed, if you used all possible mechanics to do so? I play wide with no swiss cheese and get all the tech I need with plenty of time to spare... If I'm used to getting it all done within 100 years, then I could understand being frustrated.
4. Also reduces tech/unity speed, but not as its main purpose. So if you don't like that... slide the costs the other way then? On a low habitability setting, playing swiss cheese is more beneficial, since it ignores the penalties, true, but so does laying down habitats and ringworlds, sooo... Again, not sure why you're bringing it up.
5. And this one I just don't understand. The only issue with a 1000 star system for me is processor slow down. Mine is getting a little long in the tooth. Are you under the impression that wide empires are actually worse in science the wider they are, or something? Wide empires only suffer in science if they don't build labs (which hurts tall empires too) or don't colonize/develop planets (which shouldn't be optimal). Otherwise, a tall empire will be ahead only slightly, and only after investing heavily into habitats and ringworlds. And in any case, going wider when already wide has no negative impact at all. The penalty encourages swiss cheesing, which needs to be rectified, but actual expansion? Even with the penalty, claiming 4 more systems is beneficial, to science included, if it results in claiming another planet.
Agreed. We were not having a winnable argument, and trying to change the tone.
For me, due to relative mineral costs compared to planetary development, I view all space construction in Stellaris as gigantic. I understand that itself might be hard to believe, but it makes other things easier to believe.
Shallow play means not developing your space. Not investing into it. The best example is the old OPC. Play a high-influence empire, drop down as many outposts as you can afford in the nicest spots, build space stations but never colonize anything. You're done within a couple decades, then sit back and wait till your science is maxed out. You have just achieved maximum science progress with minimal investment. The only further investment that can even help you is the science nexus. Everything else is detrimental. Spend a few years building that, then relax again. That's shallow play. Not doing anything, developing anything, investing in anything. And it shouldn't ever be superior.
Again, even with the system penalty, you are not hurting your research by expanding, unless you don't colonize and develop the planets you claim. Whereas before, that was rewarded. So, if you play wide, but not shallow, you are still rewarded, even in tech. If you play shallow, regardless of width, you no longer get an advantage.
Of course, I don't have to play that way. But, I think it's stupid if it's the best. Of course, the fact that a swiss cheese abomination is the best right now is stupid too, we agree on that. Until then, we don't have to play that way. If you think the system penalty has such drastic effects that it's the only viable way, then I can only assume it's because you have trouble playing normally. I don't play swiss cheese, and play on increased difficulties and crisis strengths, and play wide, and handicap myself intentionally in other ways, and the game is still easy and I'm still working on repeatables way before the crisis hits.
Ugh, well, that has nothing to do with the thing you quoted, and you're bringing "mine is the only logical conclusion" back into this.
First, without any additional hidden systems or anything, it is possible for space population to be high enough to impact unity, if space installations are massive, which I believe they are, supported by the in game numbers of costing as much as covering entire continents in high tech mines, and having the same potential resource outputs.
Second, it's possible for there to be enough people in space to affect unity, without being significant enough to affect food/consumer goods. Even 10 million per system is insignificant for food and consumer goods. It's not that high in my head, but that's where it could be without impacting food. And, if we disagree on the sociological effects of having millions of people isolated in space, so be it, but unless you're a sociologist I'll continue to disagree.
Third, the unity and tech system penalties have additional explanations unrelated to population, which I've already brought up. Representing distance's impact for planets, in an abstract way, for unity. And, representing general diminishing returns of space data, like any other data or effort that can be duplicated, for tech. And the kicker, those penalties are actual numbers from the game that you're ignoring so your headcanon makes sense.
You are handwaving more numbers from this game than I am. And admitting it. Mineral costs, energy costs, output numbers, you accept them here and call them a logic error there where convenient. And that's fine, because for you handwaving those numbers is easier to believe than gigantic space stations, or whatever. Or at least, gigantic mining stations are fine, but not gigantic farms? I'm not sure since it's been inconsistent at best. And then, after admitting to all the numbers you ignored and handwaved, you cite some other things which don't even matter to support your conclusion (unless you either define 10 million people on a station as miniscule, or believe every 1/100th of a food is significant), and call it "the only logical conclusion". Sorry man. Not gonna give you the validation there. It's headcanon, and it's probably more realistic irl, but it's fluffier than mine compared to the game mechanics.
And last, it's been a while since I made any reference to hidden systems/people or whatever, and if you're still on about it you're probably also missing the point of what you just quoted. Which had nothing to do with the game, or how the game works, or explaining it. Just describing how fractious a civilization this size would be in a real galaxy.
The only game related part was the end, where I said that fractiousness should be modeled, and wished it were modeled more strongly.
Last edited:
I just wanted to know the name and history of the island in question.
Yah, if research stations just gather data, and mining stations are exploiting the mineral less aggresively than planetary mines are, then a society that can't currently automate planetside mines could automate a space research/mining station.
In general, up until the last post I replied to, you appeared to be framing your headcanon as basic logic. In the last post I replied to, you seemed to stop that, and explain your headcanon more, and some of it makes sense. And in general, I tried to respond to your shift in tone by switching my tone to more discussion and less argument. Sorry if it didn't come through
Regarding logic and headcanon: I believe logical conclusions are the ones that take into account objective data present in game: numbers, descriptions, comparisons to real analogues like Earth size being a measure for other planets and so on. That’s why I believe some facts, like starbases not consuming food, to be a valid prerequisite for logical deduction that accumulated population of all starbases not reaching even one standard population unit, which leads to other sets of conclusions and so forth. Since logic is observable and verifiable, it may be used as an argument.
Everything beyond observable data and concrete descriptions falls into abstract headcanon land. These are ideas and guesses made by different people without much to back either of them up. Both of us made a case for why space stations may be automated or manned but there is nothing concrete to support either guess and that’s why these statements can’t be used as arguments. So, yes, I will treat logic as logic and headcanon as headcanon.
But the raw science output of two black holes stays the same, meaning that they hold equal value to science, which would not be the case if they mostly duplicated each other. That’s why I believe that previous system made a lot of sense: you had your Earth science team which worked with huge amount of data and was effective because of coordination. Once other planets were settled with other scientists, scientific team got split and research became more contradictory and slow despite the same data output. This means that one planet is going to be more effective at research, as it should be.
In my opinion, wide is all about increasing territory and mineral gain at all costs. Claiming systems ASAP, rapid colonization, sectors and lots of conquest. Tall is about developing what you have to its maximum potential before moving forward, while staying within the cap limits. There are varying degrees in this dichotomy, from Fanatic Purifier locust expansion to OPC of course. All of these strategies are valid and should be enjoyable and competitive based on skill because there are many different players with different tastes and preferences.
Previous system worked for me because it presented a valid scale of gain/loss: more planets and people meant less tech and unity. That was reasonable tradeoff that made all strategies work with their own advantages and disadvantages. After all, your hated OPC was by no means a perfect strategy as you make it out to be. There was a constant threat of annihilation because of weak economy and that was an acceptable tradeoff.
The new maluses upset that balance by shifting the measurement from actual expansion to mere territory gain. And as I said in another thread, this is a really bad move for a game intrinsically focused on territorial expansion.
As a result, now there are only handful of working strategies and they were clearly balanced only for certain Galaxy settings. Now it is all about locust vs new version of tall that I call mutated one planet strategy because of small actual territory, and only on standard Galaxy settings. Everyone else gets screwed. You may see it as tightening of balance in 4x fashion, I see it as arbitrary restriction of a choice in a Grand Strategy Game.
In your screenshot I see a tall nation. Only 1/6th of 600-star map by nearly 2500. Probably with an increased habitable planet setting? In any case I don’t see it as particularly enjoyable playstyle. It is fine for yours to be successful and enjoyable to you, but it should not be one of the few optimal ones. Also, something tells me that you had little to no competition in that quadrant?
But he is right for pointing out fundamental game design problem presented by maluses. Pure territorial expansion should not be penalized. Maluses go against every other mechanic in game resulting in unfun experience. I understand that devs try to make the game more restrained, but this is a really simplistic and primitive method to achieve their goals, like doing a cosmetic surgery with a kitchen knife. You can come up with a lot of ways to hide it but with introduction of expansion penalties game now has a glaring design problem.
I believe you are not aware of the gravity of situation. Currently trying even x2 increased cost makes the game nearly unplayable. Waiting 96 months for midgame tech is not worth it to continue the session. It is not about easy and hard but about balance. It is expected for 500-value tech to cost 1000-value and that’s fine. But maluses make it 3000-value. It is what I told you above, one single-minded change cascading across the board and leading to bad consequences. Balance is completely off and sheer scale of it shows that this is definitely not intended. For the record, I tried playing increased costs game with a mod that removes penalties and it was a very enjoyable experience with appropriate pacing.
1) Because I like this setting and find it to be more immersive and want to have an enjoyable experience when the option is presented to me as a customer?
2) You are blatantly making excuses for the devs when it is clear that the problem is not my preference, but a cascading miscalculation of game balance. If my preference suddenly becomes much harder to play at, and it was never a case before, why should it even be an option at this point? Why not remove all options and all preferences in fact? That way the game could only have “optimally” balanced dev approved settings and would cater only to you. Screw everyone else right?
3) Not everyone has Utopia so habitats and ringworlds should not be assumed for granted in these discussions. But I guess these losers should be screwed as well.
I have no clue what you mean by “wide” and “tall” anymore. It sounds like these are different names for the same colonization fever strategy.
Also, your notion that colonization should always be beneficial is odd to say the least. It is just your preference, but you want to enforce it on everyone else? That's just solipsistic.
You are aware that you contradict yourself right now, right? You say that you handicap yourself by eating the penalties and that you still find the game too easy, yet you didn't play at increased tech cost or to conquer the whole Galaxy. Why?
As I explained before, they can be massive and can have the same output for objective reasons but there is nothing to suggest that anyone lives up there. No food cost, no consumer good cost, no increase in research cost once starbase is upgraded etc.
Why do you believe that those people affect unity more than food or consumer goods? This makes no sense.
I’ve already explained to you that distance doesn’t matter if population is too small and you have not proven that it is big. I’ve also countered your “duplication of effort” headcanon with my own so I don’t see the need to accept these assumptions as correct.
Yes, as explained above, I prefer to trust numbers instead of headcanon.
As far as space farms go: unlike mineral outcroppings or star/planet scientific data output, agricultural costs have to come from labor instead of naturally occurring phenomena. As such, space farms would have to be employed by at least the same amount of workforce as the ones on planets (a billion) which is not the case in game. And yes, if each system contained 10,000,000 people and I had 100 systems, I’d expect them to cost at least 1 tiny little food. Not the case.
The civilization would be fractured but only because of number of colonized planets, habitats etc. not because of space stations with miniscule populations.
Based on our discussion I can make two conclusions:
1) We have very different ideas on what is an optimal gameplay. You hate OPC and I see it as valid strategy that should work in game. You love colonization fever and think that it should always be beneficial. I disagree. We play at different Galaxy settings. You believe that penalties improved the game because they are beneficial to your personal gamestyle and I find them detrimental because they ruin my own gamestyle.
Telling me to move away from my preferences because devs arbitrarily changed penalties and accidentally ruined whole array of gamestyles is offensive.
What I want is a slider that regulates the expansion penalties. Per system, per planet and so on. That way we can both have the game we want.
2) You have not managed to convince me that your headcanon is logical. It seems like make believe that is desperately trying to protect whatever devs are doing from criticism. Should I remind you that the whole debate started over a mistake made by Wiz? And you defended it anyway? Well, if your whole logic has defense of a theory/ideology/action as a starting point (bias) instead of objective analysis, then it is no surprise that it is not very convincing.
Ugh, had like 75% of a reply typed out, clicked something, and the forums didn't save it for me :/
Obviously didn't change any culture, but definitely had a big impact for having a population of 50, vs 1 million times that for Britain. Shock and disgust, due to 50 people.
I definitely do not expect any game to ever model 1/100th or 1/1000th of a food unit. I'd expect them to say "not worth the coding, the processor cycles, the UI development, etc." I expect insignificant things to be ignored unless comprehensiveness is a specific design goal. I work on ground software for satellites, software which affects how real world things work, and we constantly set aside insignificant things to focus on stuff which matters.
I agree that the lack of food cost indicates that the population couldn't be greater than 10 million or so (which is larger than I ever thought it was, anyway), and does nothing to indicate there is a significant population at all. Things that do indicate there is a significant population? Ability to feed 3 billion people, the cost of 100 minerals to build and far more to expand, the unity penalty among others. I'm still not sure why handwaving the first 2 things is easier for you than handwaving away not costing 1 food unit in increments of 1/100th.
I know you're handwaving the last because it's precisely what you're arguing against. You want it removed, partially for gameplay reasons, and partially because it makes your headcanon fit the game better... I don't because my headcanon already fits the game. I mean... the simple fact that I'm not the one asking for changes due to how things should really work, should pretty clearly show my headcanon fits the game's numbers better. That's not to say my headcanon is better or you shouldn't have your headcanon. It just makes it really hard to understand how you can't see that your headcanon doesn't fit the game's numbers, when you're the one complaining about the game's numbers not fitting your headcanon?
But, that doesn't make sense. If there are labs on 2 different planets working independently, it's not harder for either to discover something new. If they're not communicating at all, they might find they were working on the same theory, and one wasted its time. If they communicate perfectly, and agree to pursue different theories but still work independently, that waste is gone. Again, the actual tech isn't harder to discover, lab 1 discovers tech 1 and lab 2 discovers tech 2 in the same amount of time they would otherwise. So, like you said, the waste comes from contradiction, trouble coordinating, etc. They must not have perfect communication! They probably even compete sometimes, like real scientists do! In your headcanon, they all agree to pursue completely different fields and put out zero duplicate data, but somehow can't cooperate figure out which contradictory data is true and which isn't?
First, can't believe that. Don't believe you could, if you really thought about it. Trouble coordinating, but as a unified block agreeing not to work on the same thing.
Second, more data makes it easier to eliminate the untrue in contradictions, not harder, in real world science. Which is why having 2 labs working the exact same issue, even with imperfect communication, is beneficial. Having the extra data, even if duplicate, still allows contradictions to be eliminated.
Third, since it's the tech's cost that goes up, rather than outputs in science units going down, science units may represent data (what else would it be) but they clearly do not represent scientific value of that data. So again, it is your headcanon (which is supposedly based on and tied more closely to game numbers) disagreeing with the penalty, rather than the penalty not making logical sense.
Also, let me say that I'm always amused when people call me a PDX fanboy. First off, even more amused when they have more of those little game icons than I do But also because, when did I say I thought things were perfect? The reason, I think, that people get this misconception that I'm arguing that, is because they also get this misconception that tall play is competitive in Stellaris today, combined with a misconception that snaking or swiss cheesing is good for wide empires. Both of these are false. And I'm not happy about the first one. On top of the various (and some really easily avoidable) bugs in the releases for this game, I disagree with a lot of the PDX design decisions, and I know the game is currently imbalanced far in favor of wide empires.
You appear to at least have the misconception that tall is competitive, since you said it's that vs locust expansion. And another guy said, one of the reasons that the system penalty needs to go is because it makes swiss cheese/snaking beneficial and the AI couldn't do it, so he had the misconception it's beneficial for wide empire.. But, it's only beneficial for tall tech heavy empires, with habitats and ringworlds. The AI doesn't play like that, so it's good the AI doesn't swiss cheese. And, it's good the AI doesn't play that way, because any given wide strategy (with a similar level of optimization and skill) will beat any given tall strategy handily. I'm not annoyed at the hate vs. system penalty because I'm a PDX fanboy. I'm annoyed that people who "want more playstyles to be competitive" (which I agree with) are suggesting changes which will make tall even less competitive than it currently already is... And I don't even like playing tall so much!!! I'm defending a playstyle that's not my own!
Anyway, some hard numbers. I loaded up a super-wide save game, and eliminated all systems down to a snake shape (couldn't completely swiss cheese, as that would split up my sector and I'd lose 20% governor bonuses). I lost 10 out of 66 starbase cap, about 10% total mineral and energy output, gained 11% unity speed, 25% engr and phys speed, and 45% society speed (I had loop institutes, and space does not put out much society). This was with full endgame tech, a research nexus, the archives, and a few mineral/energy repeatables. First off, facing the crisis? Would never make this tradeoff at this point. Repeatables have diminishing returns, I'd already finished all my traditions despite playing super-wide, the starbase cap and economic income is just way more useful. I would definitely make this tradeoff back in midgame, but that's not the tradeoff in midgame. The lower your tech, the more of an effect snake/swiss has on your minerals and energy, and the less on your research speed (unity should remain pretty constant). Meanwhile, trading 20% economic income and 20% starbase cap for 10% research/unity speed in midgame? Against the regular AI only, sure, the AI is a pushover, do what you want. Choosing tech will slow you down, but it won't hurt you. Against an expected threat? Would not trade, the economy is more beneficial. Snaking/swiss cheese is of no real concern to a wide empire, and a tall empire would similarly be of no concern to a wide empire, played with even skill.
As for OPC, yah, it had those tradeoffs in 1.9. Why did it have those tradeoffs, what held it back? First, outposts had an influence upkeep, and income is limited, so territory was limited. Second, naval capacity was tied to spaceports over planets. What 2 things are gone in 2.0? Those 2 things. For fun, I turned off the system penalties and played a OPC, insane difficulty, 1000 stars. It is 2380, I own 800 systems, I am researching level 7-10 in engr and phys repeatables (only like 3-5 in society because of space resource balance), and have been undisputed in economic power on top of that since the beginning. Oh, and what slows down a conqueror? Integrating planets, that's about it. I just exterminate. Every system I capture is 100% developed when I capture it, by the standards of OPC. The only reason I'm not at 1000 already is because I took a break from conquering once or twice, but it wasn't out of necessity. And now the game is crashing. Because PDX makes buggy games. But the point is, removing the system penalty, with the other changes in 2.0, doesn't make OPC viable, it makes it not a challenge. Systems are the fastest return on investment in the game, and without a research/unity penalty, there is no reason to pause in exploiting them, and no beating you. Lowest effort (short of not clicking a button), lowest investment, best result.
I'm curious though, what you mean by tall+wide, if that's just tall to you? Habitats and ringworlds are limited by time and influence income (which translates to time), so you can only develop a maximum number of systems to be taller. The wider you are, the smaller a proportion of your systems that is, so your overall average height goes down. This game is 100-ish systems, wide enough that I need sectors, tall enough that my habitats and ringworlds have a strong impact. The people doing swiss cheese (I think the same thing you call mutated OPS) have far fewer than 100. If you mean wide, but building habitats and ringworlds, well, it's not as tall on average, so the wider you go the less of a benefit you'll see from it...
) but that's not it.
If so, that is a questionable design decision. If it's really just 2x, then I'm not saying it's irrelevant, just irrelevant to a discussion about system tech penalty. Either you believe the system tech penalty is alright at 1x (as I do) in which case the problem is with the balance of 2x. Or, you believe the system tech penalty already screws things up at 1x (as you do) so why would you torture yourself by doubling it?
I'm saying, if you enjoy that setting and the problem is it makes tech/unity too slow overall, why not also decrease the tech cost slider?
And, if you enjoy that setting and the problem is, the knowledge that snaking/swiss cheese/habitats/ringworlds are even more powerful at that setting bothers you... well, then I kinda agree that's a problem. I'd feel the same about OPC with 0% penalty. I mean, it's all in our heads, but still. And, I think it would be a good idea scaling system tech penalty down with habitable planets setting. (Not with galaxy size, because galaxy size is already not penalized more by it). Hell, I'd be cool with a separate slider, as you've been suggesting elsewhere. Just knowing, I won't use it, because wide is already strongest. Maybe I'd turn it up though, in a game where I want to see tall more viable? And you should keep in mind, if you turn it down to 0, OPC turns into a steamroller
I think investing and developing should be the only universally beneficial thing. And come with tradeoffs, sure. Spending 10,000 minerals or 100 influence on X might make you a little worse at some things (above the opportunity cost, even), while spending the same on Y gives you different benefits and comes with different drawbacks. But the overall benefit better be unequivocally better than spending 0 on either and just sitting on your hands. If you know you're being penalized for investment, why do anything? Just for RP reasons. But in that case, why complain about what's optimal? (Wide empires are only penalized for taking the truly worst systems, and tall empires have already penalized themselves by playing tall, and I'd agree with something, somewhere, mitigating that.)
And your confusion about my definition of wide is... weird. Wide means more territory. It means you even claim territory so fast your development falls behind. And then your economy booms, but your science and unity falls behind. And you win the game anyway. What wide doesn't mean is "never bother to develop your territory at all". Like, for me, baseline height is, colonize all your planets, build buildings on them, unity buildings if you care about traditions (and you should), lab buildings if you care about tech (and that's optional). I don't consider an empire tall unless it goes above that. Habitats, ringworlds, wonders. Even MoN, Gaia worlds and consecration, makes you a little taller. Being an overlord could also be considered tall. But colonizing and developing your planets is "average height". Not bothering to do that, is shallow.
Tall is not the opposite of wide. Eventually building up the planets in your territory, to the height allowed by default without any tall-play-specific perks, does not make you less wide.
Because of psychology and sociology. Of course they affect unity more. How could they not? Like, seriously, neither of us are sociologists, but don't just ignore the entire field's existence
Another guy in another thread argued because I disagreed that since larger nations put out more culture, they're more culturally advanced and more unified. As if he was translating mechanics he saw in a 4X game into the real world, and saying that's how it must be.
Smaller groups of people definitely can, and often do, have a proportionally higher impact on society and culture and unity. While other gigantic blocs of people are the ones consuming everything and being affected by it. Some messiah appears on a planet halfway across the galaxy, 3 decades later you have a civil war because of 1 guy. Guys on a space station decide to go democratic while the king isn't looking, a little while later riots on half his planets. That's mo
There is something I think it would be beneficial for you to at least realize. And it's gonna sound condescending but I really mean this, as advice.
On the subject of unity, we have more disagreements between our headcanons: how sociology works, how deeply we expect a game to model food upkeep costs, which things we're willing to handwave (for me, the realism of ginormous colossal space installations, for you, the cost and output of some of those installations).
But, on the tech penalty, literally the only disagreement is this duplication of effort thing. You have explicitly chosen a headcanon without it, that doesn't reconcile with the existence of a system penalty, and doesn't really reconcile with the planet tech penalty either. As far as I understood, it's "there can't be duplicate data, because black hole 1 science units = black hole 2 science units = unique, valuable science data, so also planet 1 and planet 2 are putting out equal amounts of unique, valuable science data, and the penalty is just people arguing".
But, as explained above, that doesn't reconcile with the tech penalty at all (cost goes up, so somehow more (unique) nuclear bomb tests required to figure out that yes, fission works?), and doesn't reconcile with reality (the scientists coordinating well enough to not duplicate any effort, yet arguing enough to actively prevent data that would have otherwise solved the problem, from solving it? despite the fact that more data solves disputes in science, doesn't create them?). The only logical conclusion (hah, I'll say it this time) is that the penalty of increased tech cost represents your data being less valuable, on average (by, perhaps, being similar to the data from the other black hole or other planet), rather than the tech somehow being more difficult to discover with more people looking at it, requiring more raw data.
And, if you can't see that, then here's my advice. Really, really ask yourself, whether you can't see that because it's not logical, or because it would mean that the system penalty for tech makes sense, and you reaaaaallllly don't want it to, because realllllly hate it, and you're reeealllly invested in having a logical, correct reason to hate it. Not saying this to be condescending, or whatever, just some real advice. I'm being sincere.
And additionally, whether calling me a fanboy is a defense mechanism against anyone who disagrees with you I have my own problems with this game, a mechanic that reins in tall empires but still allows them to dominate (too much imo) just isn't one of them.
Pitcairn. I misremembered the location though. It's in the Pacific. So, doesn't counter my own argument that distance matters.
Obviously didn't change any culture, but definitely had a big impact for having a population of 50, vs 1 million times that for Britain. Shock and disgust, due to 50 people.
I think some differences in expectations might come from our respective gaming histories. The only GS titles from PDX that I've played are EU and a little EU2. My brother told me that the later ones, and HoI and such, model things very stringently. Maybe the results in different expectations?
I definitely do not expect any game to ever model 1/100th or 1/1000th of a food unit. I'd expect them to say "not worth the coding, the processor cycles, the UI development, etc." I expect insignificant things to be ignored unless comprehensiveness is a specific design goal. I work on ground software for satellites, software which affects how real world things work, and we constantly set aside insignificant things to focus on stuff which matters.
I agree that the lack of food cost indicates that the population couldn't be greater than 10 million or so (which is larger than I ever thought it was, anyway), and does nothing to indicate there is a significant population at all. Things that do indicate there is a significant population? Ability to feed 3 billion people, the cost of 100 minerals to build and far more to expand, the unity penalty among others. I'm still not sure why handwaving the first 2 things is easier for you than handwaving away not costing 1 food unit in increments of 1/100th.
I know you're handwaving the last because it's precisely what you're arguing against. You want it removed, partially for gameplay reasons, and partially because it makes your headcanon fit the game better... I don't because my headcanon already fits the game. I mean... the simple fact that I'm not the one asking for changes due to how things should really work, should pretty clearly show my headcanon fits the game's numbers better. That's not to say my headcanon is better or you shouldn't have your headcanon. It just makes it really hard to understand how you can't see that your headcanon doesn't fit the game's numbers, when you're the one complaining about the game's numbers not fitting your headcanon?
You believe they hold equal value in science, because you believe that the science units = scientific value. And, adding planets make the science teams more contradictory... so they put out less science value. But they don't put out fewer science units. They all put out the same. Everything does, always. What changes is: the cost of tech increases.
But, that doesn't make sense. If there are labs on 2 different planets working independently, it's not harder for either to discover something new. If they're not communicating at all, they might find they were working on the same theory, and one wasted its time. If they communicate perfectly, and agree to pursue different theories but still work independently, that waste is gone. Again, the actual tech isn't harder to discover, lab 1 discovers tech 1 and lab 2 discovers tech 2 in the same amount of time they would otherwise. So, like you said, the waste comes from contradiction, trouble coordinating, etc. They must not have perfect communication! They probably even compete sometimes, like real scientists do! In your headcanon, they all agree to pursue completely different fields and put out zero duplicate data, but somehow can't cooperate figure out which contradictory data is true and which isn't?
First, can't believe that. Don't believe you could, if you really thought about it. Trouble coordinating, but as a unified block agreeing not to work on the same thing.
Second, more data makes it easier to eliminate the untrue in contradictions, not harder, in real world science. Which is why having 2 labs working the exact same issue, even with imperfect communication, is beneficial. Having the extra data, even if duplicate, still allows contradictions to be eliminated.
Third, since it's the tech's cost that goes up, rather than outputs in science units going down, science units may represent data (what else would it be) but they clearly do not represent scientific value of that data. So again, it is your headcanon (which is supposedly based on and tied more closely to game numbers) disagreeing with the penalty, rather than the penalty not making logical sense.
Agree with your definition of tall vs wide. Agree that having a large number of strategies be enjoyable is better. Disagree all should be competitive. In your description "Tall is about developing what you have to its maximum potential before moving forward". Right. Because developing is beneficial. Investing in your economy or tech is beneficial. If strategy A invests 100 resources in 2 different things, and strategy B invests 200 resources in 1, yah, it should be better at that one thing, because it invests more in that 1 thing. If strategy A invests 100 resources in 2 different things and strategy B invests 100 in 1 thing, why should it be better at anything?? That's the old OPC, except you're investing fewer resources in science than any other strategy and still coming out better.
Also, let me say that I'm always amused when people call me a PDX fanboy. First off, even more amused when they have more of those little game icons than I do
But also because, when did I say I thought things were perfect? The reason, I think, that people get this misconception that I'm arguing that, is because they also get this misconception that tall play is competitive in Stellaris today, combined with a misconception that snaking or swiss cheesing is good for wide empires. Both of these are false. And I'm not happy about the first one. On top of the various (and some really easily avoidable) bugs in the releases for this game, I disagree with a lot of the PDX design decisions, and I know the game is currently imbalanced far in favor of wide empires.You appear to at least have the misconception that tall is competitive, since you said it's that vs locust expansion. And another guy said, one of the reasons that the system penalty needs to go is because it makes swiss cheese/snaking beneficial and the AI couldn't do it, so he had the misconception it's beneficial for wide empire.. But, it's only beneficial for tall tech heavy empires, with habitats and ringworlds. The AI doesn't play like that, so it's good the AI doesn't swiss cheese. And, it's good the AI doesn't play that way, because any given wide strategy (with a similar level of optimization and skill) will beat any given tall strategy handily. I'm not annoyed at the hate vs. system penalty because I'm a PDX fanboy. I'm annoyed that people who "want more playstyles to be competitive" (which I agree with) are suggesting changes which will make tall even less competitive than it currently already is... And I don't even like playing tall so much!!! I'm defending a playstyle that's not my own!
Anyway, some hard numbers. I loaded up a super-wide save game, and eliminated all systems down to a snake shape (couldn't completely swiss cheese, as that would split up my sector and I'd lose 20% governor bonuses). I lost 10 out of 66 starbase cap, about 10% total mineral and energy output, gained 11% unity speed, 25% engr and phys speed, and 45% society speed (I had loop institutes, and space does not put out much society). This was with full endgame tech, a research nexus, the archives, and a few mineral/energy repeatables. First off, facing the crisis? Would never make this tradeoff at this point. Repeatables have diminishing returns, I'd already finished all my traditions despite playing super-wide, the starbase cap and economic income is just way more useful. I would definitely make this tradeoff back in midgame, but that's not the tradeoff in midgame. The lower your tech, the more of an effect snake/swiss has on your minerals and energy, and the less on your research speed (unity should remain pretty constant). Meanwhile, trading 20% economic income and 20% starbase cap for 10% research/unity speed in midgame? Against the regular AI only, sure, the AI is a pushover, do what you want. Choosing tech will slow you down, but it won't hurt you. Against an expected threat? Would not trade, the economy is more beneficial. Snaking/swiss cheese is of no real concern to a wide empire, and a tall empire would similarly be of no concern to a wide empire, played with even skill.
As for OPC, yah, it had those tradeoffs in 1.9. Why did it have those tradeoffs, what held it back? First, outposts had an influence upkeep, and income is limited, so territory was limited. Second, naval capacity was tied to spaceports over planets. What 2 things are gone in 2.0? Those 2 things. For fun, I turned off the system penalties and played a OPC, insane difficulty, 1000 stars. It is 2380, I own 800 systems, I am researching level 7-10 in engr and phys repeatables (only like 3-5 in society because of space resource balance), and have been undisputed in economic power on top of that since the beginning. Oh, and what slows down a conqueror? Integrating planets, that's about it. I just exterminate. Every system I capture is 100% developed when I capture it, by the standards of OPC. The only reason I'm not at 1000 already is because I took a break from conquering once or twice, but it wasn't out of necessity. And now the game is crashing. Because PDX makes buggy games. But the point is, removing the system penalty, with the other changes in 2.0, doesn't make OPC viable, it makes it not a challenge. Systems are the fastest return on investment in the game, and without a research/unity penalty, there is no reason to pause in exploiting them, and no beating you. Lowest effort (short of not clicking a button), lowest investment, best result.
Default habitability, I usually play default, that's 80-some habitats or something and 6.5 ringworlds. You are correct about the competition in the quadrant, but on default settings I've very rarely been hemmed in to less than that unless I voluntarily limit my expansion (which is kinda the point in that case).
I'm curious though, what you mean by tall+wide, if that's just tall to you? Habitats and ringworlds are limited by time and influence income (which translates to time), so you can only develop a maximum number of systems to be taller. The wider you are, the smaller a proportion of your systems that is, so your overall average height goes down. This game is 100-ish systems, wide enough that I need sectors, tall enough that my habitats and ringworlds have a strong impact. The people doing swiss cheese (I think the same thing you call mutated OPS) have far fewer than 100. If you mean wide, but building habitats and ringworlds, well, it's not as tall on average, so the wider you go the less of a benefit you'll see from it...
Not penalizing pure territorial expansion would break the game. See above. I mean, obviously just because it would make OPS the undisputed best at everything doesn't mean I'd have to play it. But, you don't have to swiss cheese. Yet, we're both bothered by it. Saying the penalty is the wrong way to do it is fine, but it truly is the only thing keeping tall in the running right now. You seem to be supportive of tall having the unity/tech advantage and wide having the economy advantage so, and want to have more fun and competitive playstyles. Your simplistic solution of just removing the penalty rmeoves all those things, to the extent that they are even true now. I'm sure there's a better way (because we know PDX ain't perfect
) but that's not it.So, I might be missing something. This 3000 cost tech would then cost 1500, on 1x, with penalties accounted for? Or is there some multiplicative effect going on?
If so, that is a questionable design decision. If it's really just 2x, then I'm not saying it's irrelevant, just irrelevant to a discussion about system tech penalty. Either you believe the system tech penalty is alright at 1x (as I do) in which case the problem is with the balance of 2x. Or, you believe the system tech penalty already screws things up at 1x (as you do) so why would you torture yourself by doubling it?
Yes, again that's not what I was referring to.
I'm saying, if you enjoy that setting and the problem is it makes tech/unity too slow overall, why not also decrease the tech cost slider?
And, if you enjoy that setting and the problem is, the knowledge that snaking/swiss cheese/habitats/ringworlds are even more powerful at that setting bothers you... well, then I kinda agree that's a problem. I'd feel the same about OPC with 0% penalty. I mean, it's all in our heads, but still. And, I think it would be a good idea scaling system tech penalty down with habitable planets setting. (Not with galaxy size, because galaxy size is already not penalized more by it). Hell, I'd be cool with a separate slider, as you've been suggesting elsewhere. Just knowing, I won't use it, because wide is already strongest. Maybe I'd turn it up though, in a game where I want to see tall more viable? And you should keep in mind, if you turn it down to 0, OPC turns into a steamroller
Weird. Why should claiming a system always be beneficial? If it should, then why shouldn't colonization?
I think investing and developing should be the only universally beneficial thing. And come with tradeoffs, sure. Spending 10,000 minerals or 100 influence on X might make you a little worse at some things (above the opportunity cost, even), while spending the same on Y gives you different benefits and comes with different drawbacks. But the overall benefit better be unequivocally better than spending 0 on either and just sitting on your hands. If you know you're being penalized for investment, why do anything? Just for RP reasons. But in that case, why complain about what's optimal? (Wide empires are only penalized for taking the truly worst systems, and tall empires have already penalized themselves by playing tall, and I'd agree with something, somewhere, mitigating that.)
And your confusion about my definition of wide is... weird. Wide means more territory. It means you even claim territory so fast your development falls behind. And then your economy booms, but your science and unity falls behind. And you win the game anyway. What wide doesn't mean is "never bother to develop your territory at all". Like, for me, baseline height is, colonize all your planets, build buildings on them, unity buildings if you care about traditions (and you should), lab buildings if you care about tech (and that's optional). I don't consider an empire tall unless it goes above that. Habitats, ringworlds, wonders. Even MoN, Gaia worlds and consecration, makes you a little taller. Being an overlord could also be considered tall. But colonizing and developing your planets is "average height". Not bothering to do that, is shallow.
Tall is not the opposite of wide. Eventually building up the planets in your territory, to the height allowed by default without any tall-play-specific perks, does not make you less wide.
50 people across the world on Pitcairn island didn't eat more than 50 people's worth of food, but they definitely had a larger impact on the UK. (And before you argue about the scale of that impact, remember we disagree about how many people live on stations, and I believe it's considerably more than the 1:1,000,000 ratio displayed here.)
Because of psychology and sociology. Of course they affect unity more. How could they not? Like, seriously, neither of us are sociologists, but don't just ignore the entire field's existence
Another guy in another thread argued because I disagreed that since larger nations put out more culture, they're more culturally advanced and more unified. As if he was translating mechanics he saw in a 4X game into the real world, and saying that's how it must be.
Smaller groups of people definitely can, and often do, have a proportionally higher impact on society and culture and unity. While other gigantic blocs of people are the ones consuming everything and being affected by it. Some messiah appears on a planet halfway across the galaxy, 3 decades later you have a civil war because of 1 guy. Guys on a space station decide to go democratic while the king isn't looking, a little while later riots on half his planets. That's mo
I agree, you have. And you don't need to accept nothing. Definitely, keep your headcanon.
There is something I think it would be beneficial for you to at least realize. And it's gonna sound condescending but I really mean this, as advice.
On the subject of unity, we have more disagreements between our headcanons: how sociology works, how deeply we expect a game to model food upkeep costs, which things we're willing to handwave (for me, the realism of ginormous colossal space installations, for you, the cost and output of some of those installations).
But, on the tech penalty, literally the only disagreement is this duplication of effort thing. You have explicitly chosen a headcanon without it, that doesn't reconcile with the existence of a system penalty, and doesn't really reconcile with the planet tech penalty either. As far as I understood, it's "there can't be duplicate data, because black hole 1 science units = black hole 2 science units = unique, valuable science data, so also planet 1 and planet 2 are putting out equal amounts of unique, valuable science data, and the penalty is just people arguing".
But, as explained above, that doesn't reconcile with the tech penalty at all (cost goes up, so somehow more (unique) nuclear bomb tests required to figure out that yes, fission works?), and doesn't reconcile with reality (the scientists coordinating well enough to not duplicate any effort, yet arguing enough to actively prevent data that would have otherwise solved the problem, from solving it? despite the fact that more data solves disputes in science, doesn't create them?). The only logical conclusion (hah, I'll say it this time) is that the penalty of increased tech cost represents your data being less valuable, on average (by, perhaps, being similar to the data from the other black hole or other planet), rather than the tech somehow being more difficult to discover with more people looking at it, requiring more raw data.
And, if you can't see that, then here's my advice. Really, really ask yourself, whether you can't see that because it's not logical, or because it would mean that the system penalty for tech makes sense, and you reaaaaallllly don't want it to, because realllllly hate it, and you're reeealllly invested in having a logical, correct reason to hate it. Not saying this to be condescending, or whatever, just some real advice. I'm being sincere.
And additionally, whether calling me a fanboy is a defense mechanism against anyone who disagrees with you
I have my own problems with this game, a mechanic that reins in tall empires but still allows them to dominate (too much imo) just isn't one of them.
Last edited:
Pitcairn's influence is as negligible to Great Britain’s culture as 50 low-life workers doing the same things in London causing the same shock and disgust. Arguably Pitcairn’s influence was even less prominent because London’s matters were obviously more important to people in power. Not saying that your point is completely incorrect, but you need to find a better example.
Don’t thing that’s a factor because I am fine with abstractions as long as they don’t directly contradict each other. Which is the case in 2.0 Stellaris.
Let’s clarify something. Game was a certain way in 1.9 and was dramatically changed in 2.0, not always for the better. My main “narrative” argument against these changes is that they make no logical sense, i.e. directly contradict other mechanics, descriptions and numbers, ones that remained from 1.9. New numbers are not more valid than old ones if both remain in game.
Of course, I can engage in mental gymnastics to justify what is in the game now, even if glaring logical contradictions appear, but I prefer not to. So, there can be only two solutions to “narrative” problem: either developers change the remaining elements of 1.9 to suit 2.0 penalty changes or they remove these changes to suit 1.9. I obviously argue for the latter.
Also, treating every change as something set in stone and new canon is really not worth it in Stellaris where things may be changed at a moment’s notice.
If we assume that numbers represent raw data, as it is clearly treated in game (for example these numbers are rewards for completing anomalies), then my theory makes sense. Space stations and planet labs produce certain amounts of data which is used to conduct actual research represented by research bar in technology section. In 1.9 research requires more and more data because of contradicting and competing science approaches, inevitable in cases of rapidly growing population. In 2.0 it arbitrarily grows because… Because it does, I suppose.
Imagine that scientists are working on a new hyperdrive theory. Something that is obviously very complex and hard to research. The entire nation has lots of space data sources, labs that also produce data and scientists on different planets working on the theory. If the population is small and not many planets are settled, the number of scientists actually working on hyperdrive is smaller. They don’t compete as much, they are easier to organize and manage, they are overall more efficient. They can reach scientific consensus faster.
More planets you settle and more population you have, the harder it is to achieve that agreement on whether to approach the problem one way or another even if you have the same data output as previous one. Just look at real world economics research or law or healthcare or any other popular field. The more people work at something, the more contradictory and muddled the whole thing becomes.
You assume that scientists are part of some sort of unified group who are all putting interests of the nation above their own. That's not how it is in the real world at all. There are all kinds of research misconducts.
Assuming all things are equal, including data output, the nation with higher number of settled planets and higher population should have more contradictory research and higher penalties. Of course, the “wide” nation may try to even the odds by producing more data via labs to compensate penalty for actual research.
You need more data in face of contradicting research avenues. That’s why I found 1.9 system to be logical and 2.0 to be illogical.
Now let’s get to elephant in the room: if your headcanon about duplication of efforts etc. is correct than why does my starbase in Bernard’s Star system causes my tech costs to rise by 2%, now 1%?
But why exactly shouldn’t they be competitive? If there is a defined scale with a moderate way of playing and clear-cut advantages/disadvantages on the extreme ends, there would be no problem. In 1.9 it was exactly that: more planets and population, less research and unity. Want to focus on the former? You are competitive. Want to go with the latter approach? You are competitive. Want something in the middle? You are competitive. That’s a good game design.
Ok, I see where your confusion comes from. We have different definitions of the terms, which is made even more pronounced because of 1.9 and 2.0 changes. So, once more:
1.9: wide is about colonizing a lot, getting huge population ASAP, taking territory by all means ASAP, don’t bother with micro, make sectors, build fleet like crazy, stomp everyone or, in other terms, minerals + energy >>> bonuses. Tall is about staying within limits and carefully micromanaging all planets until you are satisfied with them and trying to get the highest bonuses possible by avoiding penalties and focusing on research and unity. Note that tall does include taking a lot of territory, not as much as wide but still a lot.
2.0: Wide is about taking a lot of planets and a lot of territory and not bothering with micro or bonuses that much. Tall is about taking a lot of planets and staying small, focusing on micro and bonuses. Wide + tall is something in the middle. Locust swarm of just taking everything nonstop is ultrawide. Bordergore is ultratall. In my estimation, if you were wide + tall you’d own at least a quarter or third of the Galaxy.
In 1.9 the difference between the playstyles was planet count and population number while in 2.0 it is actual territory. In my opinion this is a bad change because it runs contrary to the very logic and spirit of the game, which was initially developed to accommodate 1.9 definition of wide and tall. That’s why bordergore is a thing that won’t get away, why game now has issues with scaling and why balancing it all would be extremely hard if at all possible.
Not penalizing pure territorial expansion would break the game. See above. I mean, obviously just because it would make OPS the undisputed best at everything doesn't mean I'd have to play it. But, you don't have to swiss cheese. Yet, we're both bothered by it. Saying the penalty is the wrong way to do it is fine, but it truly is the only thing keeping tall in the running right now. You seem to be supportive of tall having the unity/tech advantage and wide having the economy advantage so, and want to have more fun and competitive playstyles. Your simplistic solution of just removing the penalty rmeoves all those things, to the extent that they are even true now. I'm sure there's a better way (because we know PDX ain't perfect
My own testing without system penalty but with increased tech cost was enjoyable and reasonably challenging. But then again, I specifically chose that combination for myself – on default costs it may’ve very well result in what you described.
Of course, what both of our examples show is that you can’t solve this with one change in defines. That’s a systematic mistake that requires systematic solution from Paradox. Adding a slider that let’s you choose the penalties is the way to go. Combine them with certain changes like starbases being tied to a number of planets you own, instead of systems and you would have a good deterrent to unrestricted system expansion. Slightly toning down the amount of available space resources, so there would be an incentive to go after planets is another and so on.
If I had time, I’d create a mod to test the concept.
So, I might be missing something. This 3000 cost tech would then cost 1500, on 1x, with penalties accounted for? Or is there some multiplicative effect going on?
If so, that is a questionable design decision. If it's really just 2x, then I'm not saying it's irrelevant, just irrelevant to a discussion about system tech penalty. Either you believe the system tech penalty is alright at 1x (as I do) in which case the problem is with the balance of 2x. Or, you believe the system tech penalty already screws things up at 1x (as you do) so why would you torture yourself by doubling it?
No, it does not completely screw up things at 1x. It is annoying, counterintuitive and detrimental, but still playable. At 2x effects are far more pronounced making the game unplayable. You should try to play on 2x tech cost when it was 2% per system to witness it yourself but the math behind the problem is actually quite simple:
If you play with base settings and researching tech costing 500, each taken system would penalize you by 2%. Or, in other words, by additional 10 tech cost. If you play with base 1000 tech costs, each system would add 20 tech cost. This means that you not only have to deal with increased cost itself (500 vs 1000) but also with the fact that detrimental effect of each taken system rises twofold. May as well tell expansion goodbye.
And that makes it a system penalty problem. Taking 200 systems on 2x cost would increase cost of base 1x 500 tech six times, up to 3,000, which is basically unplayable because there are nowhere near enough sources of science to compensate. That's definitely not working as designed.
Don’t know about you, but when something is not WAD, I prefer to point it out and try to find a solution instead of just ignoring it.
Yes, again that's not what I was referring to.
I'm saying, if you enjoy that setting and the problem is it makes tech/unity too slow overall, why not also decrease the tech cost slider?
And, if you enjoy that setting and the problem is, the knowledge that snaking/swiss cheese/habitats/ringworlds are even more powerful at that setting bothers you... well, then I kinda agree that's a problem. I'd feel the same about OPC with 0% penalty. I mean, it's all in our heads, but still. And, I think it would be a good idea scaling system tech penalty down with habitable planets setting. (Not with galaxy size, because galaxy size is already not penalized more by it). Hell, I'd be cool with a separate slider, as you've been suggesting elsewhere. Just knowing, I won't use it, because wide is already strongest. Maybe I'd turn it up though, in a game where I want to see tall more viable? And you should keep in mind, if you turn it down to 0, OPC turns into a steamroller
Answering your question, it is because I have a clear idea on what settings I want to play at and I expect them to work congruently. Lowered tech costs would, while penalties don’t really kick in yet, lead to extremely fast paced early game that is just not enjoyable for me. It is a workaround bandage at best, instead of a cure.
Because the game, like other Paradox games made on Clausewitz engine, is built pretty much entirely around the idea of territorial expansion. That’s the goal that sets up the pacing, three-act “plot” structure, victory conditions and more. More territory should always be good.
Colonization is a different thing. It is a strategic choice that should have its pros and cons.
We definitely have different ideas on what is wide and what is tall.
50 people across the world on Pitcairn island didn't eat more than 50 people's worth of food, but they definitely had a larger impact on the UK. (And before you argue about the scale of that impact, remember we disagree about how many people live on stations, and I believe it's considerably more than the 1:1,000,000 ratio displayed here.)
Because of psychology and sociology. Of course they affect unity more. How could they not? Like, seriously, neither of us are sociologists, but don't just ignore the entire field's existence
Another guy in another thread argued because I disagreed that since larger nations put out more culture, they're more culturally advanced and more unified. As if he was translating mechanics he saw in a 4X game into the real world, and saying that's how it must be.
Smaller groups of people definitely can, and often do, have a proportionally higher impact on society and culture and unity. While other gigantic blocs of people are the ones consuming everything and being affected by it. Some messiah appears on a planet halfway across the galaxy, 3 decades later you have a civil war because of 1 guy. Guys on a space station decide to go democratic while the king isn't looking, a little while later riots on half his planets. That's mo
I get what you mean and everything you said applies to planets a lot. That’s why they cause justified increase in costs and ethics drift despite the fact that their populations may be very small. But space stations are a different story, it is a whole another level of scale altogether.
See what I wrote at the beginning of this very long post.
No, I don’t see system penalty as logical. At all. I don’t see how one military installation, housing 1,000 – 100,000 people, or even a whole system with 1,000,000 people if you believe for the sake of argument that mining stations are manned, can screw up research efforts of a planet simply by existing. You did try to explain it and you did put effort into it, but I just don’t see it.
Also, trying to act like Zigmund Freud when talking to someone, even online, doesn't make you look insightful. Quite the opposite.
And additionally, whether calling me a fanboy is a defense mechanism against anyone who disagrees with you
I didn't call you a fanboy. I said that your headcanon seems like an attempt to justify what was inserted into a game, even if it makes no sense.
Watch in horror as the AI completely ignores this idea and expands exponentially and finally swamps your pitiful, conservative empire. AIs don't play tall.
I have yet to encounter a campaign scenario that required me to have more than around 20 planets (+habitats) to whup the AI.
It may not be optimal, but I'd say that staying medium-sized like Aquilegia said is at least viable.
It may not be optimal, but I'd say that staying medium-sized like Aquilegia said is at least viable.
The game has changed already, and this is not relevant anymore. Anyway, that was kind of the point.. that you had to stay artificially small in the previous patch if you wanted all traditions before the end of the game, and only start (aggressive) expansion after getting all of them. Even so, if you managed to get pounded on by the AI in 2300 you're certainly not playing very optimally.. even if you stay small until then.
That was my point. I'm not getting pounded on because I've expanded rapidly with zero concern for minimising penalties to research and unity, because if I don't take territory to increase my productivity, the AI will.
I've tried playing 'tall'. The AI will swamp you. A few extra traditions and ascension perks doesn't secure borders or fund massive fleets.
edit - It amuses me to watch how an AI spreads its territory with apparently no strategic consideration for systems. I've not seen the AI skip a system and come fill it in later. This after I warned that without the necessary improvements to the AI, would make playing anything other than agressive expansionist just a challenge for masochists.
The AI's current consideration for plopping down an outpost seems to be "Got Influence? Neighbouring System? PLOP."
Last edited: