What makes a good system to take ?

[Bouchart]

Strategic resources are a priority, as are nearby systems with wormholes. Eventually I'll take everything.

You can force vassalize and integrate someone to get to another part of the galaxy without building a long chain of outposts or spending a lot on claims.

 

[Peter Ebbesen]

"That it is there."

The exact time that I will take a given system depends on the opportunity cost of spending influence and minerals on it at that time when considering alternatives (whether building outpost or conquering), but leaving systems untaken is not in my DNA.

Fortunately all systems are worth in from my perspective; While some systems are worth more than others due to location and resources, no system, no matter how poor in resources is better left alone.

Not only does this result in more esthetic borders, you also get more starbase capacity - one of the rarest resources in the game, and a highly valuable one.

But that"s just my playing style, overrunning everything in my way in Paradox games. They are all designed to reward map painters, and Stellaris is no different in that regards. No "tech is king" in PDS games.

 

[Roddo]

Ok. Now, Why ?

choke point = preventing other empires to "pass through" will "virtually" claim systems even if you don't. A bargain!. That's because AI will not claim something that cannot connect directly to it's territory with an hyperlane.
or
>+1 "strategic" resource = strat resource, if in contested territory (as in, not safe behind choke points) will be prime target for the AI itself, so... take it before them.
or
>+2 research (personally like tech edge) = I like to have tech edge, if all above are accounted for then I go for this.
or
>+5 basic resources (mineral|energy) = basic resources are good for your health.

Note that the last two can switch places quite regularily, as you'll discover, it's CHEAPER for you to claim a system with 4 minerals than to build a mining district and allocate pops to it (if you even have them readily available).

 

[trojan1234]

I find the problem hard because it factors in alloys, influence, cohesion and sprawl, but most importantly, timing (which is focused on expansion phase so early mid game, but you don't have the same mind on it on 2210 and 2270 right ?)

How do you guys deal with this ? Do you have a rule of thumb ? Have you run some maths on this ?

Cheers.

As you said, path to planets, chokepoints, rare resources are primary target systems.
Claiming other systems are up to how much you have progressed so far.

Early game, main problems are lack of pop and resources(including tech points). I take most of systems of at least 4-5 basic resources.
As you progressed, empire sprawl goes over cap by alot and research buildings are built and working. By the time my research points per month goes over 1k, I started to abandon 2 or 3 research point system. Because 2 sprawl increases 0.6% tech cost, 2-3 research points in +1k doesn't worth.
I abandon systems of basic resources when I started to hit resource cap in mid game. Those system just increases tradition and research cost when you are constantly selling 10k mineral every 2 years.

Just keep in mind the starbase cap as others pointed out when you abandon systems.

A large amount of naval supply in 2.2 is related to your starbases, unless you commit to soldier planets. More starbases also = more trade collection.

Starbase capacity is now mostly a function of the number of systems you own. The tooltip is a lie, starbase capacity is now not related to your pops in any way. The only way to get more starbases is more outposts, and to a lesser extent tech.

I agree that in early game, naval cap is up to starbase. However, once your pop filled up basic resources districts, soldiers are main sources of naval capacity.

Spoiler

This is from my on-going game in 2300s.

Soldier provides already half of naval cap.

This is from my last campain of the very late game:

I didn't bother building starbase anymore but I had enough naval cap from soldiers.

 

[Kryndude]

This is from my last campain of the very late game:

How did you manage to get that far? More than a hundred years ago I would've quite because of lag.

 

[trojan1234]

How did you manage to get that far? More than a hundred years ago I would've quite because of lag.

My goal was xenophobia achievement - purge all xenos, less pop in galaxy, then less lack

 

[Kryndude]

My goal was xenophobia achievement - purge all xenos, less pop in galaxy, then less lack

And you did it in ironman too? Respect.

 

[Urza1234]

As you progressed, empire sprawl goes over cap by alot and research buildings are built and working. By the time my research points per month goes over 1k, I started to abandon 2 or 3 research point system. Because 2 sprawl increases 0.6% tech cost, 2-3 research points in +1k doesn't worth.

Its 0.6% tech cost, on top of your existing sprawl, its linear.

As an example, if you're already at +100% tech cost, then the +2 Sprawl is only a 0.3% increase to your research time.

You cant think about it multiplicatively, you have to think about it additively, because its additive, which actually means thinking about it in terms of the base tech costs.

https://www.desmos.com/calculator/mbrk0ck2aq

This graph shows the time to tech completion for varying amounts of base research compared to varying values of additional research systems under consideration.
Visit the link to look at and understand the graph, or you wont understand anything I'm saying from here on.
The relevant takeaway from the graph is the intersection points between functions y2 to y6 with y1. You can see that for no matter what value of N, the intersection points remain the same, this is because as I said, the penalty from Sprawl is linear.
You can treat the Y-value of the intersection points as the turns to tech completion breakpoint for whether acquiring a system of a particular value would be a net increase or net decrease to your tech completion rate.
To use y2 as an example, the y-intersect of y1 and y2 is 60, for all values of n. This means that if you're considering a system with a single point of physics research, and it will take you more than 60 turns to fully(from 0% to 100%) complete your current physics tech, that system will be a net increase to your physics tech completion speed. No matter how high your sprawl already is.
Since Sprawl affects all your research speeds however, the values might be considered in thirds, and can be processed as follows:

1 Research in system: If your average time to tech completion is more than 180, get it, otherwise dont.
2 Research in system: >90
3 Research in system: >60
4 Research in syetem: >45
5 Research in system: >36
6 Research in system: >30
7 Research in system: >25.5
8 Research in system: >23.5
9 Research in system: >20

The following numbers are an example for a research value of 10,000. Multiply these values by the inverse of the factor of your average research time to 10,000 to use them as a rule of thumb.
To reiterate the purpose of the above mini chart; If the average time it takes you to fully complete techs, across the 3 branches of research, is higher than one of the above values, then a research system of corresponding output will be a net increase in your teching speed. The inverse is also true.

To repost the chart using the x-intercepts in case people find the mental math easier that way:
1 Research in system: If your average research output is less than 0.55% of your average tech cost, get it
2 Research in system: <1.11%
3 Research in system: <1.66%
4 Research in system: <2.22%
5 Research in system: <2.77%
6 Research in system: <3.33%
7 Research in system: <3.88%
8 Research in system: <4.44%
9 Research in system: <5%

Remember of course that increases to research station output can modify the above values by up to a factor of 1.6.
A key takeaway from the above, in my experience, is that since teching faster of course leads to higher tech costs, systems with at least 3 research stay valuable on average.

The above values do not factor in the Sprawl penalty to Unity output, and they also do not factor in station upkeeps, or other resources found in the system. They are only a function of research speed increase/decrease for a given research value of system.

 

[Theter]

Holy shit thats rad Mister Urza, thank you for that. This is the kind of thing I was looking for prior to creating the OP. As long as you don't forget to add any potential bonus to station research (tech, mainly), it helps deciding the worth of spending 75 influence for that 6 research system.

 

[trojan1234]

Its 0.6% tech cost, on top of your existing sprawl, its linear.

As an example, if you're already at +100% tech cost, then the +2 Sprawl is only a 0.3% increase to your research time.

You cant think about it multiplicatively, you have to think about it additively, because its additive, which actually means thinking about it in terms of the base tech costs.

https://www.desmos.com/calculator/mbrk0ck2aq

This graph shows the time to tech completion for varying amounts of base research compared to varying values of additional research systems under consideration.
Visit the link to look at and understand the graph, or you wont understand anything I'm saying from here on.
The relevant takeaway from the graph is the intersection points between functions y2 to y6 with y1. You can see that for no matter what value of N, the intersection points remain the same, this is because as I said, the penalty from Sprawl is linear.
You can treat the Y-value of the intersection points as the turns to tech completion breakpoint for whether acquiring a system of a particular value would be a net increase or net decrease to your tech completion rate.
To use y2 as an example, the y-intersect of y1 and y2 is 60, for all values of n. This means that if you're considering a system with a single point of physics research, and it will take you more than 60 turns to fully(from 0% to 100%) complete your current physics tech, that system will be a net increase to your physics tech completion speed. No matter how high your sprawl already is.
Since Sprawl affects all your research speeds however, the values might be considered in thirds, and can be processed as follows:

1 Research in system: If your average time to tech completion is more than 180, get it, otherwise dont.
2 Research in system: >90
3 Research in system: >60
4 Research in syetem: >45
5 Research in system: >36
6 Research in system: >30
7 Research in system: >25.5
8 Research in system: >23.5
9 Research in system: >20

To reiterate the purpose of the above mini chart; If the average time it takes you to fully complete techs, across the 3 branches of research, is higher than one of the above values, then a research system of corresponding output will be a net increase in your teching speed. The inverse is also true.

To repost the chart using the x-intercepts in case people find the mental math easier that way:
1 Research in system: If your average research output is less than 0.55% of your average tech cost, get it
2 Research in system: <1.11%
3 Research in system: <1.66%
4 Research in system: <2.22%
5 Research in system: <2.77%
6 Research in system: <3.33%
7 Research in system: <3.88%
8 Research in system: <4.44%
9 Research in system: <5%

Remember of course that increases to research station output can modify the above values by up to a factor of 1.6.
A key takeaway from the above, in my experience, is that since teching faster of course leads to higher tech costs, systems with at least 3 research stay valuable on average.

The above values do not factor in the Sprawl penalty to Unity output, and they also do not factor in station upkeeps, or other resources found in the system. They are only a function of research speed increase/decrease for a given research value of system.

Thank you for your time to create this graph. But I found you made wrong assumption. If you change fixed tech cost of 10,000 to 55,000 (repeatable base), y-intersect of y1 and y2 become 330 or somewhere around there. Whice means by your arguement, if you can finish a tech of 55k base cost in less than 330 months, you can abandon the system of single research point, and get faster research time.

Similarly, y-intersect of y1 and y6 become 36 ish. Which means that if you can finish a tech of 55k base cost in less than 36 months, you can abandon the system of 6 research point, and get faster research time.

After early game setup, most techs can be researched in less than 36months for me. That means abandoning research station system worth both in research and unity.

 

[Urza1234]

Thank you for your time to create this graph. But I found you made wrong assumption. If you change fixed tech cost of 10,000 to 55,000 (repeatable base), y-intersect of y1 and y2 become 330 or somewhere around there. Whice means by your arguement, if you can finish a tech of 55k base cost in less than 330 months, you can abandon the system of single research point, and get faster research time.

Similarly, y-intersect of y1 and y6 become 36 ish. Which means that if you can finish a tech of 55k base cost in less than 36 months, you can abandon the system of 6 research point, and get faster research time.

After early game setup, most techs can be researched in less than 36months for me. That means abandoning research station system worth both in research and unity.

I'll go back and edit the y-intercept list to make it more clear that thats the turn time for the example research value of 10,000 only. The x-intercepts remain the same, the percentages still apply, the rule still applies.

For the benefit of people like you with the agency required fiddle with a graph I'll repost a version where K = research cost:

https://www.desmos.com/calculator/o1f2xcukwg

 

[Urza1234]

@trojan1234
Here, since I actually agree with you that the rule of thumb list for the y-intercepts is misleading, the following graph calculates the number for of turns your average research needs to take for investing in a system of 'Research value = C' needs to be.
Slide 'k' for your average research cost, slide 'c' for the research value of the system you're considering. The y output is the number of turns your average research speed needs to be for the system to be valuable. Anything over y is a net increase in research speed:

https://www.desmos.com/calculator/bf73fs0v2p

Here is even one with a table for at-a-glance:
https://www.desmos.com/calculator/4choq7hdqs

 

[trojan1234]

I'll go back and edit the y-intercept list to make it more clear that thats the turn time for the example research value of 10,000 only. The x-intercepts remain the same, the percentages still apply, the rule still applies.

For the benefit of people like you with the agency required fiddle with a graph I'll repost a version where K = research cost:

https://www.desmos.com/calculator/o1f2xcukwg

@trojan1234
Here, since I actually agree with you that the rule of thumb list for the y-intercepts is misleading, the following graph calculates the number for of turns your average research needs to take for investing in a system of 'Research value = C' needs to be.
Slide 'k' for your average research cost, slide 'c' for the research value of the system you're considering. The y output is the number of turns your average research speed needs to be for the system to be valuable. Anything over y is a net increase in research speed:

https://www.desmos.com/calculator/bf73fs0v2p

You don't even need graph for the solution.

X = base research point per month (excluding research stations)
Y = time to tech completion
TC = base tech cost
N is the number of additional outpost for system with research station only
R is value of research station per system

Y = TC / X
Y = TC (1+0.006*N) / (X + R*N)
Solving for Y intersect : Y = TC*0.006/R

For example, tier1 2500 and you have system of research point 5 next to you : y intersect is 3 This means that if you can research less than 3 months, it doesn't worth it. If not, go claim to research faster.

Tier4 20000 and you have system of research point 5 next to you : y intersect is 24 This means that if you can research less than 24 months, it doesn't worth it. If not, go claim to research faster.​

Edit : made digit mistake, fixed

 

[makaramus]

Good system is a system that you think will benefit you more
seriusly sometimes if I really need energy I can take 3 energy system ofcourse I tend to ditch it out once I am done with it

 

[Urza1234]

You don't even need graph for the solution.

X = base research point per month (excluding research stations)
Y = time to tech completion
TC = base tech cost
N is the number of additional outpost for system with research station only
R is value of research station per system

Y = TC / X
Y = TC (1+0.006*N) / (X + R*N)
Solving for Y intersect : Y = TC*0.006/R

For example, tier1 2500 and you have system of research point 5 next to you : y intersect is 3 This means that if you can research less than 3 months, it doesn't worth it. If not, go claim to research faster.

Tier4 20000 and you have system of research point 5 next to you : y intersect is 24 This means that if you can research less than 24 months, it doesn't worth it. If not, go claim to research faster.​

Edit : made digit mistake, fixed

I use graphs to communicate this stuff though since A its visual and B it does the math for you.
Stellaris is a real-time game. I try to do most of my math outside the game, then just use rule-of-thumb for actually playing. If I have a graph or to that can do a bunch of math for me in a Chrome tab then all the better.
Thats why earlier on in the thread I was all "strategy strategy strategy". I still think its all relative to your available resources and needs.

Also, I think I'd multiply your results there by 3, since the outpost increases the tech cost of all 3 of your types of research.

 

[TehJumpingJawa]

Good system is a system that you think will benefit you more
seriusly sometimes if I really need energy I can take 3 energy system ofcourse I tend to ditch it out once I am done with it

Don't do that; if you're that desperate for energy, sell the alloys & minerals you were going to use to develop that system.

 

[makaramus]

Don't do that; if you're that desperate for energy, sell the alloys & minerals you were going to use to develop that system.

I mean I can consider it not doing every time O_O
I doing it when empire sprawl isnt maximum yet and I gonna plan to hold it like 10 years or someting like that wich then benefits more than selling mats

 

[CuddlyTurtle]

Well I've only really got one 'condition', if you could even call it that, for wether or not I take a system of any kind. 'Does someone else own it: if yes = ignore it, if no = take it.'
No point worrying about empire sprawl considering how easy it is to blow your economy up faster than the penalties increase.

 

[Theter]

Well I've only really got one 'condition', if you could even call it that, for wether or not I take a system of any kind. 'Does someone else own it: if yes = ignore it, if no = take it.'
No point worrying about empire sprawl considering how easy it is to blow your economy up faster than the penalties increase.

I don't see how paying 100 Alloys, 75 or less influence, 100 minerals and 2 Empire Sprawl points to get 2 Energy per month is going to be worth it any time. I mean just for the ressources it takes 250 months to repay itself. How much longer for Influence and Tech/Unity malus ?

 

[CuddlyTurtle]

I don't see how paying 100 Alloys, 75 or less influence, 100 minerals and 2 Empire Sprawl points to get 2 Energy per month is going to be worth it any time. I mean just for the ressources it takes 250 months to repay itself. How much longer for Influence and Tech/Unity malus ?

Better I have it than anyone else, resources not spent are resources without value.