Stellaris - Paradox new sci-fi grand strategy game

[Space Satan]

They said ships can have different FTL types, but only in late game.

 

[Old One]

Out of curiosity, which games in this genre would you guys cite as having good combat? I've played a fair number of space empire builder games, and I've never really loved the combat in any of them.

 

[Lone Wolf]

From Explorminate, a decent 4X gaming blog:

Stellaris Q&A

On colonization:

Spoiler

When you build a Colony Ship, you are given the choice of what type of colonists it should carry. That is, which locally available “Pop” (population unit) they should draw from (but the whole Pop does not travel on the ship). When the Colony Ship has landed on the new world, it takes quite a while for the colonists to set up and grow into a full “Pop.” During this time, the colony will be a significant drain on your economy, so it is not always wise to settle as many worlds as you can as quickly as possible. It is worth noting that, in Stellaris, you cannot easily inhabit all types of worlds – not even with late-game technologies. You will be forced to rely on alien Pops or robots to colonize planets your starting race cannot inhabit (you can only terraform a few planets since doing so uses up a strategic resource).

On number of concurrent players:

Spoiler

We only guarantee that the game runs well with 32 human players. That number is completely arbitrary though – there is no such limitation in the engine code or anything like that – but we simply do not use more players in our quality assurance process. As for AI-controlled empires, there is no real limit apart from how many you can reasonably squeeze into the galaxy. We are still working on the default settings and getting that balance right.

On empires arising during the game:

Spoiler

Well, when you think about it, a “minor” faction is really just an empire that starts out with some kind of disadvantage, probably in size or technology. I am not a fan of making some kind of permanent distinction between major and minor factions, but we have plenty of planets that start out as pre-space age civilizations, and also some “fallen empires” that have stopped researching. While you yourself cannot start the game as such a civilization, they are not destined to spend the rest of the game handicapped, and can eventually achieve FTL or start up their technological development again. Many new empires can also appear while you play – for example, through revolts or peace demands – and these will not be hobbled in any way. Stellaris is, in this way, more similar to Europa Universalis with its native tribes, revolts and liberation of subjugated nations.

An interesting tidbit on decentralization and colonial management:

Spoiler

Micromanagement is always a bogeyman, of course, but we have a built-in solution for that: you simply cannot control more than a few planets directly. Once you have grown past a certain point, you need to start assigning planets to something we call Sectors. This isn’t just an automation feature; it’s a step towards actual autonomy. If you have played Crusader Kings II, the concept is similar to how vassals work in that game.

On logistics:

Spoiler

Resources are automatically transported to a global supply (the exception being Food, which is local to the planet). There are no logistics involved in this. All ships and stations, as well as most planetary buildings, cost Energy Credits to maintain, which acts like a natural cap on your construction efforts.

On deck-based research system:

Spoiler

You draw the top three cards and pick one to research. The other two go back into the deck, which is then reshuffled. The magic happens in the act of “shuffling” the deck: Some cards have zero chance of being drawn, depending on prerequisite techs for example. These are simply put aside, which is pretty straightforward. However, the remaining cards all have different likelihoods of being drawn, or redrawn in some cases, depending on many factors, like, for example, the Skill and Traits of the scientist in charge, the ethics of your empire, and the results of your adventures in space. So some cards are “heavier” and tend to end up near the bottom of the pile, if you will. There is more to the system, but this is basically what I can reveal at this point.

On secondary effects of FTL-type choice:

Spoiler

The type of Faster-Than-Light travel you select for your civilization can affect some of the “quests” in the game. When ships enter any type of FTL, they can leave a trace behind to be studied. This is used in some of the in-game events. The various special types of ships and beings in space also use different modes of travel, of course. I guess the short answer is that, yes, the mode of travel can impact encounters, but it’s dependent on how the specific narrative is scripted and not a general rule.

On special projects and implications for modding:

Spoiler

The special projects are so special that they can basically be anything our scripters can come up with. For example, they can require the presence of one or more of various types of ships (construction, science, or military vessels), that might even have to have special modules on them. A project can also potentially be interrupted midway with more narrative and choices, or lead to different outcomes on different occasions, etc.

On factions and rebellion:

Spoiler

Indeed! Leader characters as well as units of population can be members of a certain Faction. Powerful Factions can revolt to gain independence (or for various other reasons). However, you might want to meet them halfway before that happens by granting them limited autonomy and making them a vassal state. Either way, you can take them back more easily than you would conquer an alien empire, since taking their planets in a peace deal would be “cheaper” (much like in Europa Universalis IV peace negotiations).

This game sounds like it's going to have a real crack at making the mid/late game less of a triumphant march to total conquest and more like a bastard child of EU4/CK2. I think that - if they get the balance right - it's going to be a refreshing experience.

 

[ArchAngel]

Out of curiosity, which games in this genre would you guys cite as having good combat? I've played a fair number of space empire builder games, and I've never really loved the combat in any of them.

I liked Sword of the Stars 1 combat a lot. Also Birth of the Federation. Although most people didn't like it, I liked Endless Space combat.

 

[LizardWizard]

From Explorminate, a decent 4X gaming blog:
Stellaris Q&A

, I liked Endless Space combat.

SOTS 1 did have ok combat but if you were ever expecting anything like that in Stellaris you're either mental or haven't played a Paradox title.

 

[kris]

. Either way, you can take them back more easily than you would conquer an alien empire, since taking their planets in a peace deal would be “cheaper” (much like in Europa Universalis IV peace negotiations).

i liked almost everything said, but here is my reservation. This "peace deals like EUIV" sounds just wrong for this type of game. i truly hope you can be an bastard race that just burn down colonies and then colonise those places yourself or downright destroy planets. In fact, even planets in a peace deal is like a new thing for the genre, while not completly wrong, it should only be viable for races that care about diplomacy.

 

[Inf0mercial]

I wonder if this combat will have the same issue that galactic civ and Endless Space did, that stacking offense and ignoring all defense would let you destroy fleets many times your size as fleets regen out of combat and the offensive techs far outstrip the defensive ones as def ones only mitigate damage and don't block it, if you use an admiral with all offensive abilities it just got more lopsided, hopefully shields actually blocking damage will mitigate this, but then again it does talk about shield piercing weapons........

 

[Norfleet]

I liked Sword of the Stars 1 combat a lot. Also Birth of the Federation. Although most people didn't like it, I liked Endless Space combat.

Endless Space's combat was kinda awful because it made little or no sense: No matter how superior your engine technology might potentially be over the other guy, or how disadvantageous it might be to one or even both sides, every single battle ends up fought at short range. RFTS did that kind of combat better. To say nothing of the strategic problem of having to individually destroy over 9000 fleets one at a time, one per turn per fleet.

I wonder if this combat will have the same issue that galactic civ and Endless Space did, that stacking offense and ignoring all defense would let you destroy fleets many times your size as fleets regen out of combat and the offensive techs far outstrip the defensive ones as def ones only mitigate damage and don't block it, if you use an admiral with all offensive abilities it just got more lopsided, hopefully shields actually blocking damage will mitigate this, but then again it does talk about shield piercing weapons........

Of course, the exact opposite thing happens in other games, like MOO2, where stacking sufficient defensive technology would let you tank and kill fleets massively larger than yours because you could have space entirely packed with enemies wall to wall, all firing at you, and the only thing that will result is a giant chain explosion as they blow themselves up on their own turn. Yes, in several games it is possible to create a single ship that will obliterate an entire enemy fleet without firing a shot, on their own turn.

 

[ArchAngel]

From Explorminate, a decent 4X gaming blog:
Stellaris Q&A

, I liked Endless Space combat.

SOTS 1 did have ok combat but if you were ever expecting anything like that in Stellaris you're either mental or haven't played a Paradox title.

I liked guessing right cards to play and see me obliterate enemy as a result

And yes, I have not really played Paradox titles (unless you consider PoE a Paradox title :D). I am not into grand strategy without a combat element.

Well, if combat in this game will be crap there is new Master of Orion and MORE coming as well.

 

[Destroid]

i liked almost everything said, but here is my reservation. This "peace deals like EUIV" sounds just wrong for this type of game. i truly hope you can be an bastard race that just burn down colonies and then colonise those places yourself or downright destroy planets. In fact, even planets in a peace deal is like a new thing for the genre, while not completly wrong, it should only be viable for races that care about diplomacy.

Pretty sure giving planets for peace (and trade) has been in a few games, at least the GalCiv series.

 

[Spectacle]

i liked almost everything said, but here is my reservation. This "peace deals like EUIV" sounds just wrong for this type of game. i truly hope you can be an bastard race that just burn down colonies and then colonise those places yourself or downright destroy planets. In fact, even planets in a peace deal is like a new thing for the genre, while not completly wrong, it should only be viable for races that care about diplomacy.

Pretty sure giving planets for peace (and trade) has been in a few games, at least the GalCiv series.

3
However it turns out I hope it won't be like in the EU series where you give most of the occupied lands back to the loser when you make peace. Invading planets in a different solar system should be a massive undertaking, not something you do simply to build warscore.

It should rather be the other way around, with the loser being forced to give up planets that are indefensible after he lost his fleet.

 

[MadMaxHellfire]

From Explorminate, a decent 4X gaming blog:

Stellaris Q&A

On colonization:

Spoiler

When you build a Colony Ship, you are given the choice of what type of colonists it should carry. That is, which locally available “Pop” (population unit) they should draw from (but the whole Pop does not travel on the ship). When the Colony Ship has landed on the new world, it takes quite a while for the colonists to set up and grow into a full “Pop.” During this time, the colony will be a significant drain on your economy, so it is not always wise to settle as many worlds as you can as quickly as possible. It is worth noting that, in Stellaris, you cannot easily inhabit all types of worlds – not even with late-game technologies. You will be forced to rely on alien Pops or robots to colonize planets your starting race cannot inhabit (you can only terraform a few planets since doing so uses up a strategic resource).

this is extremely unrealistic.
in a grand strategy set in the future, being the almighty ruler of everything, i expect to be able to amass debts on debts on debts on debts not giving a fuck and not meaning to ever pay them. ever. "crime doesn't pay". i'm the government, i don't pay.

 

[Old One]

Out of curiosity, which games in this genre would you guys cite as having good combat? I've played a fair number of space empire builder games, and I've never really loved the combat in any of them.

I liked Sword of the Stars 1 combat a lot. Also Birth of the Federation. Although most people didn't like it, I liked Endless Space combat.

Sword of the Stars would also be my favorite in this genre, I suppose. I still don't love it, however.

I'd probably put it quite high on my overall list of real-time combat systems. Technically it's RTwP, so it may be the best I've ever liked RTwP.

 

[Norfleet]

in a grand strategy set in the future, being the almighty ruler of everything, i expect to be able to amass debts on debts on debts on debts not giving a fuck and not meaning to ever pay them. ever. "crime doesn't pay". i'm the government, i don't pay.

That's not true. The government always pays it debts...by borrowing even more money to pay it. For the government to get into a situation where nobody will lend it money because they doubt its ability to pay would be very bad.

 

[LizardWizard]

http://www.pcinvasion.com/stellaris-interview-henrik-fahraeus-on-taking-paradox-into-space

PCI: Any ideas when we can expect the game?

HF: It’s going to be released sometime this year. When, I can’t really say. I can mention though that we’ve taken in some beta testers, so that might be an indication of how far along the process we are.

PCI: So you’re hitting the last 10% or something like that?

HF: We see the finishing line.

Sounds like Summer release

 

[oldmanpaco]

Oh shit. For some reason I thought this was coming out next month.

 

[MadMaxHellfire]

same here, but luckily it isn't. the longer it takes the better, even if i'm dying to put my dirty paws on it.

 

[Sranchammer]

same here, but luckily it isn't. the longer it takes the better, even if i'm dying to put my dirty paws on it.

Tell that to the HOI4 devs

 

[MadMaxHellfire]

aren't they the same?

 

[SmartCheetah]

They are using the same engine, but I highly doubt it that they are the same people. Most probably different teams exchanging personnel.

 

[GarfunkeL]

aren't they the same?

No, two different teams. HoI4 is the flagship title for Pdox, Stellaris has B-team working on it.

 

[LizardWizard]

aren't they the same?

No, two different teams. HoI4 is the flagship title for Pdox, Stellaris has B-team working on it.

Actually the opposite. As far as lead designer goes: Doomdark > Johan

HOI was dethroned as the flagship years ago by CK2

 

[GarfunkeL]

Dude.

It doesn't matter whether Doomdark is the second coming of the Christ (which he isn't). If the CEO is leading one team, and a designer is leading another team, it's pretty obvious which one is the A and which is the B team. Stellaris is a stab in the dark for them, a new title that might end up being a really profitable or might not. HoI4 is the latest in their best selling franchise and thus extremely important for the company.

Now if they were developing CK3 and HoI4 at the same time, then it would be a murky issue because, as you said, CK2 has surprisingly become their best selling game, no doubt assisted by the DLC policy that they didn't have in place with any Hearts of Iron iteration before (well, HoI3 kinda had it with the music packs). But there is no CK3 under development, so it's pretty clear where the priorities lay. Even if for no other reason then that they decided to delay HoI4 to rework some mechanics and polish it more.

 

[Raghar]

In game developing what matters is who has talent for what, not who is A team, and B team. Considering it's Paradox and both teams sucks, it's not even fair comparison.

 

[LizardWizard]

Dude.

It doesn't matter whether Doomdark is the second coming of the Christ (which he isn't). If the CEO is leading one team, and a designer is leading another team, it's pretty obvious which one is the A and which is the B team. Stellaris is a stab in the dark for them, a new title that might end up being a really profitable or might not. HoI4 is the latest in their best selling franchise and thus extremely important for the company.

Now if they were developing CK3 and HoI4 at the same time, then it would be a murky issue because, as you said, CK2 has surprisingly become their best selling game, no doubt assisted by the DLC policy that they didn't have in place with any Hearts of Iron iteration before (well, HoI3 kinda had it with the music packs). But there is no CK3 under development, so it's pretty clear where the priorities lay. Even if for no other reason then that they decided to delay HoI4 to rework some mechanics and polish it more.

Johan isn't CEO and Doomdark isn't just some designer. And the HOI4 development has been a complete shitshow unlike Stellaris.

Other than Paradox obviously not wanting another HOI3 trainwreck, I don't see any evidence that they're favoring one over the other in terms of marketing/budget. It's just that Johan looks like a complete hack compared to Henrick when in the project lead role.