Utopia is a giant leap in the right direction and is going to fix some of my biggest pet peeves about Stellaris. After that I definitely want Economy and Trade as well! I'd love a system similar in depth and design to those in EU4.
- 1
What would you want the DLC after Utopia to focus on?
- Thread starter Me_
- 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.
Utopia is a giant leap in the right direction and is going to fix some of my biggest pet peeves about Stellaris. After that I definitely want Economy and Trade as well! I'd love a system similar in depth and design to those in EU4.
I'm not looking to capture the "Big Bads" in my "Bad Guy" Space UN. If someone were playing the galactic conqueror, they would not need the assistance of smaller empires - on this we agree. For the "Bad Guy" Space UN, I am looking to the Civilization 4 Mod, Fall From Heaven 2. In FFH2, the Under and Overcouncil are two opposed groups of like minded individuals. The "goods," join the Overcouncil and do "good" things, ban slavery, ban dangerous or unsavory resources, stop smuggling, use a unified currency, etc. I assume any organization in Stellaris would play a similar role. However, the Undercouncil, still has the potential to be a viable and valuable mechanic in Stellaris. Any sort of organization would fill the role of a crime syndicate, aligning those of a similar "nefarious purpose." Resolutions that could be passed by an Organization of "Bad Dudes" could include the following:
- Smuggling rings (if inflation ever became "a thing" use of targeted smuggling operations could cause economic distress on empires).
- Slaving operations - this becomes increasingly relevant post-Banks.
- Proliferation of illegal weapons and resources (imagine if Space UN bans the use of "Zro" by all member empires, are you going to stand alone or join the Undercouncil for mutual protection).
- Drugs, drugs, and more drugs (the spice must flow). Also consider the negative effects of unleashing a potent drug on an unsuspecting empire.
- If planet killers and superweapons ever became "a thing," having joint-access to the development and deployment of such weapons would promote a loose alliance of "little bads," and act as a sort of M.A.D. Furthermore, imagine if contributing members constituted a discount to mineral cost and construction time on a superweapon. A large organization of several smaller independent nations could win out on the arms-race against a single "Big Bad," providing a valuable tool to defend themselves or strike out at the rest of the galaxy. In this manner, I am also assuming a Space UN would not allow for the development of such a weapon among its members.
- Privateer contracts, border control, prison/penal planets.
- Protection rackets.
Of course, we could also take resolutions and attach them to Federations. That way, each Federation plays to their specific interests and we avoid arbitrarily forcing a "good guy" and "bad guy" organization that supersedes the interests of a Federation.
- 5
- 2
.png){kind=avatar}
Ok, but please make war mechanic (especially in terms of war goals, breaking treaties and peace negotiations) similar to EU4 first.
Global food is in the works and coming already. I think Wiz said it won't be in for 1.5/Utopia but some weeks after that. Don't quote me on that second sentence though I'd have to check. I just know it's most likely not making it in time for the Update.
Looks like there are those Stellaris players who would like a good vs evil axis. With Empires of Evilness that only do evil things because they are evil.
But i don't think this is a good thing for Stellaris.
Stellaris has a somewhat complex ethics system and is more than just 4X with emphasis on exterminate. Good vs Evil is good for orcs vs hobbits+elves+humans-alliance, or space-orcs vs space-elves+humans-alliance, but Stellaris has potencial for complex grand strategy diplomacy beyond "I stronk, i kill!".
But i don't think this is a good thing for Stellaris.
Stellaris has a somewhat complex ethics system and is more than just 4X with emphasis on exterminate. Good vs Evil is good for orcs vs hobbits+elves+humans-alliance, or space-orcs vs space-elves+humans-alliance, but Stellaris has potencial for complex grand strategy diplomacy beyond "I stronk, i kill!".
- 4
Diplomacy and political intrigue, I want to Sheev my way to galactic domination
- 1
- 1
I would love that the update right after Banks focus on optimizing performances.
Maybe a little bit of new/polished features but an enormous work is needed if we want to enjoy building those megastructures.
Maybe a little bit of new/polished features but an enormous work is needed if we want to enjoy building those megastructures.
I understand Your way of thinking, all these items will be nice to add, but I don't see any reason to separate "good guys" from "bad guys". In world of Great Politics there are not "good" or "bad", even worst nations did good things, and best nations did worst things - and "only" limitations were public opinion / separatist movements / international sanctions / risk of international intervention. Politics are dynamic, every action should be possible and every action should have an impact on internal/external situation.
Things You propose are just improvement of already existing gameplay. Gameplay still lacking tools to play really evil empire, not willing to use diplomacy at all...
Conquering entire galaxy and destroying every obstacle on path to absolute supremacy, should be the most unrestricted way of playing game - with only risk of being beaten by stronger alliance/coalition, or failing in internal policy. Game is giving tons of unnatural restrictions for this kind gameplay, especially from diplomatic area. You cannot break truce, You cannot change wargoals, You are forced to take seriously access restrictions from 1-planet empires, You cannot annihilate planet population/infrastructure from orbit... These restrictions are both painful and illogical, and are effectively damaging game immersion.
I agree. I believe that, of the things I have suggested, all could be included as part of a Federation. That way, a Federation can dictate what it involves itself in and how, independent of the "good/evil" axis. Want to be a non-slaving Federation that runs drugs and protection rackets? Sure. Want to be a Federation that bans the use of Zro but, promotes smuggling and slaves? You have that option. Want to have a Federation contribute to build a superweapon but, sanction an empire for building their own? You bet.
I don't want to see Stellaris' inter-galactic politics turn into "good guys versus bad guys." However, Federations need the tools to dictate political agendas internally and externally.
Wide-scale galactic politics don't need to go much further than Coalitions.
As far as the "ultimate evil" goes, I feel we are getting some for internal dealings (cattle populations, multiple ways to purge, species rights, etc.). I do agree that we need more options to externally play the "Big Bad." Superweapons certainly fill a large chunk of that but, I also think the new Tradition system could give way to some of what you are looking for. For example, an Ascension Perk that gives access to an equivalent to the Imperium C.B. from CK2/EU4, conquering large swathes of planets with reduced downtime between wars. Reducing the cost to vassalize and integrate could also come in the form of a Tradition. A new "total destruction" orbital bombardment policy could be locked behind a Tradition. All relatively simple features to introduce, they just need to be done.
I'm usually a more a pacific isolationist player, so I usually don't go for war and stuff, I mostly use diplomacy to stay in peace, but I think that the most troublesome aspect now is the war. Sure, economy, diplomacy and espionage should be in the game(and probably will be in the future), The warfare aspect of the game should be highly improved as soon as possible, mostly because ,as the game it is now, war is one of the most important features(and the most boring), so as soon as spaces battles improved, the game you became far more interesting and if done right can even fix the mid-late game that now are directly related to war.
I think he was referencing the "Its the Economy you fools!" response to the comet sighted event in EU4. An option that is enabled if you have purchased the DLC Common Sense.
Regarding "bad guys in the international organisation" problem, I see no reason why they shouldn't be in, unless they are extremely bad.
Look at the real life UN. It has always included "badguy" countries pretending to be nice ones. It includes most of world's dictatorships today. Next to peaceful democracies, UN contains crazy religious lunatics (looking at you, Saudi Arabia, you barbaric monstrosity) human_rights_crushing autocracies, dictators, military juntas, post-communist states, states which joyfully wage terrible wars etc.
If big strategy game like Stellaris includes "ultimate non-governmental international organization UN style" then I see no reason why it shouldn't include "badguys". GalCiv2 had bloodthirsty warmongers in its "UN" (although iirc states could drop out of it).
Only really extreme rogue factions conflicted with everybody by default shouldn't be included. IRL this is ISIS (at one point they controlled around 8 million people - that'd be quite decent country if recognized) - in Stellaris their equivalent would be Fanatic Purifiers (and crisis invaders, lol). Maybe some empires could be kicked out of such star UN if they really pissed off everybody (by extreme warmongerinf, genocides etc).
Look at the real life UN. It has always included "badguy" countries pretending to be nice ones. It includes most of world's dictatorships today. Next to peaceful democracies, UN contains crazy religious lunatics (looking at you, Saudi Arabia, you barbaric monstrosity) human_rights_crushing autocracies, dictators, military juntas, post-communist states, states which joyfully wage terrible wars etc.
If big strategy game like Stellaris includes "ultimate non-governmental international organization UN style" then I see no reason why it shouldn't include "badguys". GalCiv2 had bloodthirsty warmongers in its "UN" (although iirc states could drop out of it).
Only really extreme rogue factions conflicted with everybody by default shouldn't be included. IRL this is ISIS (at one point they controlled around 8 million people - that'd be quite decent country if recognized) - in Stellaris their equivalent would be Fanatic Purifiers (and crisis invaders, lol). Maybe some empires could be kicked out of such star UN if they really pissed off everybody (by extreme warmongerinf, genocides etc).
- 2
I'd love a DLC focusing on making things more special. Part of this could be fleshing out primitives, but primarily I'd like to have a ton of new colony events, with the chance being 95% that one spawns for the colony. But without repetition if possible.
Back to the pre-FTLs, we should have more options to deal with them. One being downgrading their tech level, instead of upgrading it (enlightening should also be gradual, no instant bronze->space transition after some time). Another option should be to make contact, simply causing an event or two every few years that tell you about how they advance (or kill eachother over the existence of other species), with ways of influencing them through such events. They could also occasionally send messages to empires they know. One of their events could be that they captured a ship or two, so they have a small fleet (but not rebuildable, as they use FTL but don't really understand it).
Back to the pre-FTLs, we should have more options to deal with them. One being downgrading their tech level, instead of upgrading it (enlightening should also be gradual, no instant bronze->space transition after some time). Another option should be to make contact, simply causing an event or two every few years that tell you about how they advance (or kill eachother over the existence of other species), with ways of influencing them through such events. They could also occasionally send messages to empires they know. One of their events could be that they captured a ship or two, so they have a small fleet (but not rebuildable, as they use FTL but don't really understand it).
- 1
Personally I'd be fine with expansion-sized huge pack of simply more events and anomalies although I'm sure many people would dislike that
- 5
Perhaps species atmosphere and gravity tolerance percentages that will affect various aspects on various planets.
Either Victoria 2 trade or no trade. What goes on in Eu4 you can barely call "trade".
- 6
- 1
I'd like to see a DLC focused on war first. It may not be the funnest thing compared to new mechanics and what not, but I think the game really needs it. Though I don't know how the Utopia dlc will change my opinion.
- 3
Completely disagree.
"War is regarded as nothing but the continuation of state policy with other means."
Empire should be able to perform constant unlimited wars, without being artificially forced to use diplomacy and respect treaties. Only things limiting this gameplay should be:
- facing superior power, forcing "genocidal conqueror" to form alliance or be beaten
- facing galaxy-wide coalition forcing empire to limit conquest or be beaten
- internal policy limitations, like revolts, separatist movements or "pacifist heresies" hitting state stability and causing possible empire implosion
No "invisible walls" please.
Giving players (and NPC empires) more freedom is increasing complexity, since there is both more You can do, and more You can expect from others.
- 5
Personally I'd like a larger variety in race creation and customization. I truly love my robotic races, and would love to see them in game without having to add them via Workshop. You could add a Template step to creation that lets you pick for example "Base, Robotic, Hive Mind, Ect."
Each template, besides base, would give you said template which could have pro's and con's. Robotics could have 1 more trait point to work with, since they are upgradable.However you have to build your Pop's, which can impact your early game with the costs. Hive Templates could have large bonuses to ignore Unhappiness, since they are the extension of one Will. While they couldn't have Sectors, since they are all ruled by a single Mind.
That's my thoughts on what would be nice to have in-game. =)
Each template, besides base, would give you said template which could have pro's and con's. Robotics could have 1 more trait point to work with, since they are upgradable.However you have to build your Pop's, which can impact your early game with the costs. Hive Templates could have large bonuses to ignore Unhappiness, since they are the extension of one Will. While they couldn't have Sectors, since they are all ruled by a single Mind.
That's my thoughts on what would be nice to have in-game. =)