What would you want the DLC after Utopia to focus on?

[Radically Right Wing]

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.

To recap, I am not looking to force larger conquering empires to cooperate. However, if we provide one half of the galaxy a tool to "play nice," I find it fair that we provide the other half of the galaxy a tool to play "not nice." This way, we don't have everyone playing to the tune of a Space UN or standing alone and sanctioned out the wazoo.

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.

Why do I have to use a foreign nations currency? It is stronger if I have my own! If I have the strongest currency in the Galaxy why would I want to use someone elses? I think if the "good guys" are forcing me to get rid of my currency and sovereignty they are not very "good" to begin with.

 

[eon47]

Trade could bring a surprising range of benefits. You have the obvious economic angle, but it could also enrichen diplomacy if done right. If piracy is included along with that, you'd also have the game's first foray into espionage.

At the same time, however, some sort of mechanic, maybe like planetary devastation or something, is needed to force players to protect their worlds and spread out their fleets rather than always lumping them together. Really, both trade and this could add so much to the game.

 

[SS Boss]

Trade and diplomacy.

 

[Berstager]

A kind of "Underworld expansion

• Adding criminal syndicates or terrorist orgs that i lef alonwt could create their own empiire (ala Hutt in SW)
• Drugs maybe as pop modifier? (the spice must flow!) although that would work as some sort update to an econ expans
• Maybe some sort of coruuption level ala EU4
• Espionage: basicly what evryone said infiltration steal tech and that shit

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.

They blocked that option out of vanilla damn...

 

[LordPavel]

Give a soul to sector.
Right now, they exist, they work more or less good for build. You can give a leader, but I feel this area of the game is empty because the dev dont have the time for finish this part of the game (and plan to make money via DLC with this part) ...
You can increase or deacrease the indepence of sectors. Like CK2, the sector could have fleets, start wars against another sector or against another nation. See this sector really start a true war against you. Do something big and good for your empire.

 

[Bayes]

I dont know... With this change it seems to me that there isnt any part of the game that is incredibly lackluster atleast.
Maybe make some changes to wars, but with the exception of ground battles that seems fine imo.
So what about some new features?
Like a trade themed dlc, with smugglers, revamped pirates, organic trade routes with actual ships that could require escorts. Thats what I want to see.


EDIT: How could I forget, a relativly small dlc focused on goverments, leaders and ofc sectors.

 

[grandad1982]

Lots of the stuff people are asking for here is stuff that should be and will be in the free patches. For example warfare improvements will overwhelmingly be free because it's an integral part of the current game.

For me the next expansion sould focus on external politics (diplomacy, trade etc). Federations and alliances could be really fleshed out.

 

[Adaption]

I think Trade & Dip would give a lot more for peaceful players. I'd just assume that an espionage system would be apart of it. I'm not too phased about intrigue, but I would definitely appreciate some sort of essential trade mechanic for global market/autarky minded civilisations/players - but I think it would be cool to have a spy leader, with traits and skill levels determining the success of different operations.

 

[BrokenSky]

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.

Yeah, but i feel that having it not be global per say, but need transporting (allowing for sieges to cut off planets which specialise - perhaps balanced by the introduction of more bonuses for planet specialisation and allowing a trade off between independent planets and interdependent ones) would be a better way to do it. Plus people have already said they want space-nomads, and since introducing global food is likely to happen soon, if it is to happen in this manner (with transport it around via raidable, blockable trade-routes) this would need to be the next expansion.

 

[General Retreat]

Yeah, but i feel that having it not be global per say, but need transporting (allowing for sieges to cut off planets which specialise - perhaps balanced by the introduction of more bonuses for planet specialisation and allowing a trade off between independent planets and interdependent ones) would be a better way to do it. Plus people have already said they want space-nomads, and since introducing global food is likely to happen soon, if it is to happen in this manner (with transport it around via raidable, blockable trade-routes) this would need to be the next expansion.

I imagine the way it'll go is the ability to turn on import/export for each planet. This means you could maintain a local surplus to boost growth without it being shipped to the other side of the galaxy. Similarly, you can also specifically order planets to take from the global pool until they break even on demand.

I can't imagine transport ships would be modelled in-game because, Jesus, what a nightmare for lag. Probably any planet that is blockaded will just be cut off from the global pool and default to local supply. So your breadbasket can't export and your Trantor is left eating its shoes.

 

[BrokenSky]

I imagine the way it'll go is the ability to turn on import/export for each planet. This means you could maintain a local surplus to boost growth without it being shipped to the other side of the galaxy. Similarly, you can also specifically order planets to take from the global pool until they break even on demand.

I can't imagine transport ships would be modelled in-game because, Jesus, what a nightmare for lag. Probably any planet that is blockaded will just be cut off from the global pool and default to local supply. So your breadbasket can't export and your Trantor is left eating its shoes.

Well it isn't necessarily necessary for the ships to be modeled, but if you just do it like that you can't have things like raiding traderoutes between planets and it means you can't get things like proper piracy or the ability to raid trade to gain resources for your worldships as a nomad.

I feel like this would be cool t do using trade a trade system, and if they want to add a trade system this would be a good thing for it to be used for, and this would let them do a cool and in-depth system for trade + piracy + nomads which would probably be enough for a good expansion.

 

[Aklar]

Internal politics, political intrigues, coups and revolutions, scandals and conflicts in parliament,civil wars. Also:
-different types of economy(Planned, Free Market, Mixed, etc)
-Reworked Embassies(ability to establish embassies on primitive planets, terror acts in embassies, etc)
-economic sanctions(and a major changes to economy and trade)
-pandemiсs and epidemics.
-empires flags and colours on ships
-espionage
-more ways to interact with other empires.
Actually, that's a very little part of my expectations, but i'm too lazy to write the whole list.
P.S. I also want a small easter egg - destroyed Dyson Sphere in system "Tabby's Star".

 

[Exarian]

Most of people here completely lack of imagination.

You wish new expansion focus on earth-like diplomacy, espionage, trade...
Why are You limiting Your ideas to anthropomorphic concepts, mirroring other Paradox grand strategies?

If there are many species of different origin in galaxy - why do you Expect them to be so similar to humanity in their behavior?
Main problem in such intergalactic civilizations should be possible lack of viable way to communicate (culture and biology-wise, translating language is simplest problem to solve). Have You ever read Lem's Solaris? Extraterrestrial species may live on completely different plane of existence (which doesn't mean being technologically superior or inferior), and creating any form of coalition may be as smart idea as making treaty with ants or stones...

Everyone (Everyone?) love star trek/star wars concept of "galactic federation/republic", but this vision is extremely limiting. Imagine sentient species:
- living thousands of year, spending centuries in stasis
- living only days, becoming adult in week and dieing few days later
- much larger then humans (godzilla size? continent size? planet size?)
- much smaller then humans (ant size? bacteria size?)
- requiring almost no pressure to live (almost space vacuum)
- requiring extreme pressure to live (gas giant?)
- non-carbon life requiring extremely high/extremely low temperature to live (cold-lovers requiring -250 degree, or some kind of plasma-being requiring +2000 degree)
- requiring completely different set of resources to live
- seeing completely different spectrum of light then humans or using completely different method of perception and communication (neutrino emissions? )
- beings existing in different plane of time/space
- hive minds, energy beings...
- and many, many more

If there is life in galaxy/universe, it may be based on completely different rules then earth life. How do you with to make treaty with something sentient, but completely not-compatible to Your civilization? Requiring different resources, living in different places, using completely different set of life-goals?


Borders/treaties/espionage/trade - all of them belong to realm of policies.
As Clausewitz said, "War is regarded as nothing but the continuation of state policy with other means. "
And war/conflict is only possible if there is any common area of interest and viable way of enforcing own rights. It may be none.

You are not negotiating with ants, and godzilla is not negotiating with You.
Treaties with species living days is pointless, while being living for millenia will not take Your words seriously.
And You don't have neither way nor reason to communicate with spieces living with different place of existance, eating space vacuum (casimir force?), and communicating via neutrino emission... Just like You are not speaking with plants.


Galaxy full of sentient species is not "United Nations".

Even if others are "compatible" in terms of environment and resource requirements, they are still extremely different and not possible to communicate on any reasonable terms. Most natural way of solving communication problems is aggression, and extermination is natural solution. Are You negotiating with rats?

 

[Neocv]

I thought in something related to the past. I mean, the game have lots of stuff about previous civilizations like the Precursors or the Fallen Empires and references in anomalies about other fallen civilizations(like the ones about lost ships and terraformation projects).
It could have the ability to put a background in your empire that could give bonus and setbacks, and could be something simple with points like the ones used in traits or ethos.
Could have more end game crisis or things like that. The civilizantions mentioned have fallen and/or disappeared for a reason, and although it is explained in some cases ,others appear that they just ended out of thin air.
The galaxy has many misteries, and who knows what kind of marvelous or dangerous things are forgotten between the star and planets just waiting to be found. Something that ended the empires thousands or millions of years ago could resurface to eagerly end the ones existing now.

 

[Jostarus]

Imperialism! : Puppet empires, Trading routs and protection, Buy and sell slaves. Build outposts in "allied" terretory, ressource contreacts, overthrow goverments, espionage

 

[safe-keeper]

Logistics. Just the ability to ship food between planets would be awesome. Make me build "convoys" to do so like in HOI, I don't care, just give me a proper logistics system !

Other uses than food shipments would be to actually have to transport minerals when you have a trade agreement, having to ship resources from mines to planets, and so on. I'm fine with all planets sharing the same resource stockpile, but you should have to safeguard ships (which can be abstracted like HOI convoys) from mines to the nearest planet.

Also, perhaps a second type of "minerals" to build more expensive stuff, like fortresses and battleships.

Edit: also, perhaps make players build ammunition and strike craft for your fleet like you have to build fighters, ammo, rifles, and whatnot in HOI4, so that warfare actually has an "upkeep cost" in minerals.

 

[Drakonn]

Yeah, but i feel that having it not be global per say, but need transporting (allowing for sieges to cut off planets which specialise - perhaps balanced by the introduction of more bonuses for planet specialisation and allowing a trade off between independent planets and interdependent ones) would be a better way to do it. Plus people have already said they want space-nomads, and since introducing global food is likely to happen soon, if it is to happen in this manner (with transport it around via raidable, blockable trade-routes) this would need to be the next expansion.

I agree it should be a little more involved than say building a trade port building on each planet allows one to ship food and that's it.

 

[Mikeboy]

Trade seems like something that might completely upset the balance of the game, so I'm not too keen on that. It should only be added if it can be done in a way that won't put non-trading species (xenophobes, isolationists, fanatic militarists) at disadvantage.

Why on Earth should trade not benefit stable peaceful Empires more? That not only makes sense from a logical view but also a balance perspective, given there's not really enough incentive to remain peaceful in the late-mid game and building tall isn't particularly viable.

 

[Corvid]

Industry, Trade and Warfare. No question in my mind

Fixing these three things go together in my mind, and the next major expansion should focus on them.

First off, make ALL goods locally produced but tradeable. So anything a planet consumes beyond what it produces it pulls from the rest of the empire, and exports whatever it produces an excess off. Colored lines in space connects all your planets, orbital habitats, mining outposts etc. in a dedicated mapmode showing how much is going where. Building storage silos allows you to store up resources in case a planet gets blockaded etc.

Now free trade deals between empires allow you to connect your networks to theirs. This also gives pirates something to raid, and big, busy trading routes can be vital targets during war

The introduction of Consumer Goods as a peaceful sink for minerals etc. is a step in the right direction, but I´d like to see second-order goods introduced in their place with dedictated manufacturing buildings for them. Take minerals, energy and food and convert them at a certain ratio to create new goods -Call them "Civilian" "Military" and "Engineering" goods.

Civilian goods are for civilian consumption - they support high living standards, keep your pops happy, and are used to construct some civilian buildings.

Military goods are used, alongside the raw minerals and energy to construct military hardware, and more importantly to supply fleets and armies in the field. Every fleet and every army should trail behind it their own one-way trade route, that can be raided, and your investment in logistics tech dictates how far afield your fleet can range before your supply hose becomes too thinly stretched for the fleets to operate at 100% capacity. Just across the border is easy, but penetrating a large enemy empire to it's core worlds should be difficult unless you actually take and hold territory, planets, spaceports etc. before moving in deeper. This creates a geopgraphy to the battlefield that is sorely lacking now.

Engineering goods would be neccesary for all of the bigger tech upgrades, ESPECIALLY megastructures.

Creating second-order goods allows you to open up a whole new dimension differentiating industrious, free-market capitalist empires from despotic slavers for examples - by allowing empires that invest in the R&D and infrastructure to be good at making second-order goods a higher yield - if the baseline is that say, one unit of Military Goods requires an input of 10 minerals, 10 energy and 5 food, an empire with the right tech and ethos might be able to cut that in half or more.

This would create an interesting trinary rather than binary choice - not guns vs butter, but guns now vs butter now vs more of both in the future.

Third, improve space combat substantially and make ground combat interesting. I don't care exactly how you do the latter, but it MUST become a functioning, entertaining, integral part of the game if Stellaris is ever to become a truly greate SF game. I´ve written on that topic extensively in other threads and this is too long a post as it is, but it HAS to happen.

 

[Kat Tsun]

Why do I have to use a foreign nations currency? It is stronger if I have my own! If I have the strongest currency in the Galaxy why would I want to use someone elses? I think if the "good guys" are forcing me to get rid of my currency and sovereignty they are not very "good" to begin with.

If you have the strongest currency in the Galaxy, you would logically be the people forcing other people to get rid of their currency. If someone is trying to get you to switch from Zimbabwean Stellar Empire Credits to United Systems Dollars, then you aren't really in the position you're describing.

Why are You limiting Your ideas to anthropomorphic concepts, mirroring other Paradox grand strategies?

Critiques of anthropomorphism in video games generally devolves to "I can understand it, therefore it's bad," or something similar. It's a non-argument.

It would be impossible to play as Lem's sentient planet or something like Watt's Rorschach. This is obvious, but if you have a human controlling something that is supposed to be unknowable and alien, it rapidly becomes understandable, which renders the sort of critique you're offering invalid. It would be impossible to play as Lem's Solarian Ocean because you would instantly understand everything about it, which defeats the point of it being something that cannot be understood by positivism. Lem's book is a existential tract in the manner of Foucault and Sartre, not a literal storybook. It was deliberately designed to show that there are some types of knowledge that science can't explain, not to propose a realistic or potential hypothetical (although Lem might disagree!). It would equally be impossible to play as Watts's Rorschach, because the space starfish cannot be understood as they lack consciousness entirely, which is something that humans (obviously) do not lack, and presents a far more fundamental and basic issue than Lem's silly philosophical dispute.

Good science fiction points at human anthropomorphic concepts because we're all stuck in the same human-shaped box as everyone else. Lem and Watts ended up being mostly coherent to laymen because otherwise it would be a mess that no one would read it. Lem rejects scientific positivism (among other things, which is sooo :European_philosophy and constructs a thought experiment to present this. Watts rejects something more concrete: the concept of consciousness being valuable in an evolutionary sense, and his thought experiment explores that idea.

So no, unless you have some radically different worldview from the rest of humanity (in which case you literally cannot explain it), I'm not seeing what you're saying here. Lem was so totally understandable to most people to the point that he could be actively disagreed with.

Making "aliens who aren't understood because they're alien" isn't clever, though. It's lazy. If you can't explore a philosophical conceit in your stories, you're stuck with the alternative, which is exploring sociopolitical structures through a mirror. Stellaris is good at this because it consists of human players doing human things in a futuristic aesthetic. Which is better, you ask? Neither, they're two sides of the same coin of science fiction. In Stellaris's case, the thought experiment is constructed by the player while Paradox provides the tools, rather than presenting their own narrative.