/4xg/ - Stellaris, Civilization & 4X Strategy General

So after some testing i figured out i will make caste slave empire BUT with castes per tile.

Which means alot of resettlement
So i genemodded nomadic+frontier collectives+transcendent empire + artificial moral codes

6 influence per pop,no joke.

>a dozen
That is not codex-compliant, you filthy fucking space furry.

>attack spaceport with docked fleet
>pitiful reinforcement fleet arrives from behind
>fleet destroys spaceport and docked fleet
>fleet slowly moves toward the planet and away from enemy fleet
>enemy fleet stuck at system edge
>no one moves

I'd the ethics to work as a sort of scale between one extreme and the other, where all pops have a degree on all four the ethics simultaneously, and various circumstances cause them to drift toward the various extremes. Being occupied will make pops more xenophobic and militant, for example, while being at peace and having large food surpluses will make pops more peaceful and individualistic, or something along those lines.

I'd like for the government of a given Empire to be setup differently depending on the specific form chosen and other factors, so an indirect democracy could have some number of political houses that govern, with each seat being determined by the pops in your empire, and the way they're determined varying according to player policies, so you could have each seat be a planet FPTP or have there be a proportional system and so on. I'd like for the leaders in a given Empire to have their own ethics, homeworlds, and other details that influence how they operate, who likes them, and so on. I'd like elections to be more detailed, possibly with factions and parties that focus on specific policies, and the governing ethics of the Empire fluctuate depending on who is running the show.

I'd like them to implement something along the lines of Admirals having various ranks that denote how many ships they can optimally command, and, like in Darkest Hour, Admirals who command less ships gain experience faster, so fleets aren't just big doomstack blobs. I'd like the ship classes to be less rigid, wherein technology gives you the capabilities to make ships that are larger and larger naturally over time.

I'd like sectors to operate more like autonomous substates where, depending on your government and policies, their ability to freely decide things varies, so a highly centralized, collectivist Empire can micromanage sector buildings and pops if they want to, while individualist empires aren't able to.

I'd like a Grand Strategy game, honestly.

Tall vs Wide should be an economic policy choice in Stellaris. Tall would have the new research penalty, which gives a large penalty for the number of planets you have while mitigating/removing the penalty for the number of population you have. Wide gives you the old penalty based entirely on total population. There would also be a middling choice for making a smooth transitions and middling empires in general.

There's no real reason for the research system to favor a specific playstyle.

So I went a little overboard on this shit, but whatever.

docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1D_MS2NsriJtZkxSeSzxeZFTCTVn26aoeZnB70xKlbiI/pubhtml

That's a link to a spreadsheet detailing out how much food you will get per planet based on Tile resource, % food increased, and building type.

I ignored trying to build calcs while using the Frontier clinic unless it needed. Most of the time, adding in at Clinic wasted more potential then it saved.

Hope you guys enjoy it.

Fuck you rawbutt, the sons of Fenris do whatever the fuck they want.

And to add on that communal+xenophile+charismatic basically means EVERY single pop is happy up the ass

...

>improved energy initiative
how do you get this along with improved working conditions?

That is strange.
I decide to fight FE and bring like 50k Fleet with 20k vassals but they have like two fleets only(9k and 6k).
I was really surprised by their weakness but then I remembered that they fight before like 4 times against one of the biggest empire and that probably weak them enough.
They only have three planets but if you say its true they should have more.
Unless the reinforce process is bugged.

It just...happened i guess

how do you get so many traits wtf

I don't care about food in Stellaris but I appreciate your autism

You should care, It's the only building thats required on every planet.

Getting your food production to certain levels allows for less food buildings and more plants/mines/labs, thus increasing your output indirectly.

What's a good science value to have at about 2380 ?

You take 4 negatives

whatever you need.

Your science value is going to be dependant on how many planets you have and how many systems within your borders.

If you're only running a 5-15 planet empire, then you will probably only have around 250 science. But if you're running a 30+ planet system, you're going to need 600+
on a side note, science isnt THAT important in Stellaris. You can swarm higher teched fleets with lower teched ships and still do really well. Especially against the AI.

and then just gene mod?

Yup

The codex is a guideline. No one fully follows it except the ultrafaggots and some of their descendants.

>food required on every planet
Filthy organics should just kill themselves so I don't have to purge them

>the codex is a guideline
That sounds like heresy

Answered in the other thread. The gist of it is that it changed in 1.1. I found my backup copy of 1.0.3 and it works as I said, except it was 40k at 8 planets instead of 50k.
Now they just reinforce with a single fleet if they're below 5k. Composition seemed the same, so still a 15k.

Fuck I need to make that a playthrough one of these days.

I've been meaning to do it.

Do synths get your ethos? or do they come with there own?

>some primitives evolve
>go to war and they're now protectorate
>empire below primitives go to war with them
>they're now my vassal
>the NEXT empire down goes to war with my vassal
kek these guys have inferior tech but superior fleet capacity? i really want to get another vassal holy shit

Is there any reason to not aggressively study primitives that are already fanatic xenophobes?

shieet that is some micro hell
good luck getting bigger than 5 planets

yeah every single one is fanatic collectivist and materialist

im 60 years in and i'm fucking bored.
Does the game gets funnier?

Fun fact: WH40K: Space Marine had an ultramarine telling off one of his faggot brothers that pointed out that jumping out of a thunderhawk isn't a codex maneuver.
We all know about Steel Rehn anyway.

Does it matter what planet you set your science ships to 'assist research' on? Or does the bonus go straight to the research itself?

Also, when you get a big planet with max tiles, do you use them for energy/minerals to get the most out of the 10% bonus buildings, or do you use them for research with the orbital observatory?
And vice versa, what do you use the small (9-12) planets for?

>implying Leandros wasn't in the right
Titus is a dirty heretic and you know it

WHO SEEKS THA SEKRETS OF STEHL REHN

Doesn't that really gimp you at the start until you get lucky and get the genemodding tech?

...

Arguably valid point.
Or maybe teh Emprah really did help him against Memeroth.
Plus Leandros is a dick. Fuck Leandros.

Decadent is really easy to deal with since collectivist + divine mandate, weak just affects army strength (and who the fuck doesn't use xenomorphs anyway), and slow breeders is kind of restrictive but easy to work around.

The only real negative is slow learners since hes going by normal lifespan.

LEANDROS WAS RIGHT

arguably you should only colonize the largest planets possible. if lucky, 20+. If not so lucky then probably 15+. i'd stay away from anything smaller unless its got great modifiers, like high mineral or science output.

because of the new Tech penalty set at 10% per planet, any planet below 15 tiles is a loss of tech gain compared to the old system.

Some notes from my autism work last night. these values are all taken at base level, no %food increases at all, and ignoring tile gains (mostly cause I hadn't factored in them yet.) Anytime you see a "leftover" it means theres extra science to 1 or 2 of the other categories so it didn't make an even number.

25 tile planet = 14 labs generating 22 research (with 3 and 3 left over)

18 tile planet = 10 labs generating 16 research (with 3 left over)

16 tile without complex = 8 labs generating 12 research (with +3 and +3 left over)

16 tile WITH complex = 10 labs generating 22 research (with 5 left over)

15 tile planet = 8 labs generating 12 research (yadda yadda)

10 tile planet = 5 labs generating 8 research (2 and 2 left over)

9 tile planet = 4 labs generating 4 research (with 1 extra)

doesn't the sector AI meme all over decadent pops though?

>tall vs wide

it's hard to play wide in moo? wut m8?

your autism may preclude you from understanding the point

In the OP, is that Civ 6?

Yeah, and what's with all this science and culture victory shit? It should all be war victory, who plays Civ to be peaceful!

your strawmanning makes it seem you don't have a point to make.

test

no

that's not a strawman it's an ad hominem
get your fallacies right

>science is an ends
science is a means to advance your empire

all these ridiculous victory conditions do need to go and stay go
>every activity you can do must be a victory in and of itself rather than a means to achieve victory
>collect enough arbitrary points and you win even though all the other empires still are ready to steamroll you

the only reasonable victory condition is last man standing, through conquest or diplomatic takeover

So if I'm reading you right, use the biggest planets for research, smaller planets for energy/minerals, and don't bother with planets below size 15?

Ok, serious question for stellaris.

Should I be colonizing every planet I can? I have my (good) 5 core planets. All relatively big (20+) and I have, essentially, 80% of my empire in one sector.

Yet I have a good 20 or so planets I could colonize right now inside the empire and the sector without any issues but....doesn't that fuck up technological growth?

Should I be doing that? Sectors are crap at managing shit too. If it was just me, I would, but with sectors I am really not sure.

Pic related, my empire.

Then stop playing 4X games you humongous faggot.

He's got a point. Even better 4X games than Civ5 suffer from the idea that expansion should be penalized.

Tall vs wide is a valid difference in development philosophy though, it's just Quality vs Quantity applied to city development.

Stellaris still punishes you for growing your empire in both pre- and post-1.1, the only difference is that where 1.0 favored Wide by attaching penalties to pop count 1.1 now favors Tall by attaching that penalty to planet count.

It's completely arbitrary and should be made into a policy slider so that the player can choose how he wants to grow his empire.

it's not a law of 4x that they must have shitty victory conditions, so no

only colonise small planets if you need them to expand your borders

are people upset they can't just 1pop colonies to expand borders easily? because the colony research penalty will hardly effect normal play at all.

you're still better off with a larger empire, though staying smaller and forming alliances can work well too.

Sector wise, just use the old method of building everything for them beforehand.
As for what to colonize, with the new research penalties anything below 10 slots is pure garbage. Try to go at least homeworld size.

How can I make the stellaris map graphics look more like this? This looks so much better than the current map graphics.

>it's okay to have shitty wincons because it's a 4x
Saturating the world in your culture isn't an ends, it should be a means to assimilating the worlds.

Everyone wearing blue jeans and listening to rock and roll doesn't mean America is the uncontested ruler of the world, now does it?

you can't balance it, because it's fundamentally a broken concept, it will always favor one or the other

the correct approach is to make expansion more difficult, for example, increasing the cost of colonization, decreasing population growth, and attaching a continuous resource cost to underdeveloped colonies, making some colony spots less viable (low profit small planets for example, or less habitable worlds adding productivity penalties for another)

>explore, expand, exploit, and exterminate
If you're not playing a conquest victory then you are, by definition, not playing 4x. You're playing a competitive city builder instead.

he or she*

>not wanting to spread your ideals and culture around the galaxy so that every single individual thinks like your empire does and wants to be part of it. Not watching your enemies planets defect one by one to your glorious empire without ever raising a sword.

>Not wanting to play the mega pope and convert every single person to your religion. Sure they may still have their kings, emperors, parliaments, whatever...but you are their living embodiment of their god. Your orders are absolute, and all empires must bow to your will.

>Not wanting to play as greedy space jews, sticking your hands in everyones back pockets. Buying up seats in democratic empires and bribing war hungry dictators to remove threats to your grand design. once the entire galaxy is reliant on your empires economic strength, who will be left to oppose your reign?

Evolution has apparently failed with you, please remove yourself and your complete lack of imagination from our gene pool

edit a text file :^)

honestly I was fine with the old penaly based on pops, even it didn't make much sense in terms of realism it was still a good way of balancing gameplay. +10% research cost per planet just seems fucking retarded though, there is now literally no reason to colonise small planets if they're already inside your borders

IS that Civ 6 in the OP?

It's so colorful

Well damn.

Why the fuck am I supposed to be avoiding colonizing shit in my 4x colonization game god bloody damnit.

hello i am retarded and i want this as well, please spoonfeed me

>fundamentally a broken concept
Funny that you can't seem explain how. There's no game on earth that is perfectly balanced.

>build 1 science lab
>the penalty is pretty much neutralized already

it's really nothing, it's just to stop cheese tactics

>have 25 research
>colonise a planet
>suddenly you need to be producing an extra 5 research just to keep up
>the first ~5 pops on a planet need to be food producers anyway

if planets would actually defect because of culture that'd be a great mechanic. the actual victory would still be getting rid of the other empire through cultural imperialism, rather than amassing culture merely by itself

sins of a solar empire did it, just about one of the few things it got right, there wasn't a "culture victory" there was a "take over all the other planets with your culture" victory. too bad it was so slow it couldn't compete with conquest or the ridiculously easy and arbitrary "diplomacy victory"

>are people upset they can't do [perfectly viable alternate playstyle]?
No it can't be.

you're one of those people who gets upset when your favorite exploits get patched out, aren't you?

>only run where i don't make friends
>i've conquered two species and soon another
huh

What your saying, and what your trying to say are the same thing.

You're complaining that you can't take over the galaxy with culture cause "its just numbers." But if the mechanics support it, and planets defect or empires are forced to join you in alliance because of it, then you literally are taking over the galaxy with culture.

but that isn't how civ culture victory works, and stellaris doesn't even have culture at all

>Tall vs wide is a valid difference in development philosophy though, it's just Quality vs Quantity applied to city development.
It's flawed logic. Progress requires additional resources as input.

But it does...at least it attempts to.

If you pick an ideology different then one thats influential on your people, your people get pissed off. And if they get pissed off enough, they can actually defect to the other civs.

granted it happens like....maybe 1 out of every 5 games, usually because you the player have beelined tech so much to get your ideology early enough that whenever other civs go to pick one, they are forced to pick yours.

I'm not saying Civ5's culture victory is any good compared to what I've lined out, but its at least something.

>that isn't how civ culture victory works
The whole idea is making it so that other people's citizens prefer your country to your own. You can take people's cities if they don't embrace your ideology, and cities you conquer have less unrest if you have a certain level of cultural influence over them. You're thinking about Civ's culture like
but Japan would be closer to a Civ culture victory than America.

pls spoonfeed me on this someone I'm retarded and I'd love you forever

You're one of those people that think adhoms are an argument, aren't you?

So does surviving as a small empire in Civ. It's not like you're not still fighting off every other country.

dude, i get what your saying...but I'm pretty sure the number of people in Japan that want/love Americans is greater then the amount of weebs in murica.

NO
WE ARE THE BATTLE BROTHERS

>14 out of 24 cruiser configurations are unique
>69 out of 144 battleship configurations are unique
Paradox, please.

That particular screen was an alpha shot.

You would probably have to either look around for other UI changes, or look into the files and do it yourself.

Anything below 10. 10 tiles means 10% from pop plus 10% from planet, 10 tiles on old means 20% from pop.