Stellaris

No probl3m so far i my game. I find it pretty fun but like paradox gamesnit will need expansons to be fleshed out.

I've seen the reviews confirming that start is great, end is great but the big middle of the game is a grind.
I've only scratched the surface so far, but I can confirm that start is great, the mystery of the universe is thick : exploration is immersive and you never know what you'll get. Growing is slow, so it's not the massive rush from early GC, which is good (though the game DOES took a LOT of inspiration from GC).

The two elements which I found the most spectacular are music and the overall map, though. The map really gives you the feeling of being in a galaxy filled with star, and the music has this futuristic mystique which is perfect for the game.

So far, so good.

Double A said:

are there really CBs in a space game

Click to expand...

Well not CBs per say but more war goals.

Akka said:

I've only scratched the surface so far, but I can confirm that start is great, the mystery of the universe is thick : exploration is immersive and you never know what you'll get. Growing is slow, so it's not the massive rush from early GC, which is good (though the game DOES took a LOT of inspiration from GC).

Click to expand...

I wonder if I'm the only one who isn't sure what GC is?

It could be Galactic Civilizations (I, II, or III), but those aren't Paradox games and seem very different to me, do they really have much at all in common with Stellaris?

DaviddesJ said:

I wonder if I'm the only one who isn't sure what GC is?

It could be Galactic Civilizations (I, II, or III), but those aren't Paradox games and seem very different to me, do they really have much at all in common with Stellaris?

Click to expand...

I think the point was that GC forced a very fast start in order to be competetive while Stellaris takes its time while still being immersive enough to be interesting. It had nothing to do with the companies, the point was just to compare two different experiences of space. Personally I feel the pacing in Stellaris is very close to spot on in the early game, but I haven't played GC, so...

All i know is that i like stellaris more than gc3 so far.

Call me old fashioned, but I don't really get the real time aspect of a grand strategy game. For me it should always be turn based. I've tried to get into eu but not managed it. I suspect with this I might find the same thing.

sherbz said:

Call me old fashioned, but I don't really get the real time aspect of a grand strategy game. For me it should always be turn based. I've tried to get into eu but not managed it. I suspect with this I might find the same thing.

Click to expand...

I'm in agreement philosophically but I have yet to place galactic civs or any paradox title for more than an hour so can't comment on actuality. My strategy game experience is basically limited to civ series and master of orion and lords of the realm 2.

It works really well in paradox games.

Real time also simply allows the best multiplayer experience unless you enjoy waiting for slow people (or are this person).

The main reason with instability why i dont play mp civ.

Not like it's reaaaally real time anyway. With the pause function being readily available and all functions available during pause it's more like a pseudo turn-based system that has the option to run in real time. When there's stuff to do you just hit pause and "play your turn", then you watch as it plays out and pause again when it's needed.

It also gets all the good stuff of RTS, like not having to wait between turns or just being able to passively breeze through phases where nothing of importance happens.

I find the system to be very enjoyable and don't think anything is "lost" because it's not really turn-based.

Anyone care to comment on ground combat? I see the systems are in place, but I don't know how to use them. Do I need a tech to build transports?

Ryika said:

Not like it's reaaaally real time anyway. With the pause function being readily available and all functions available during pause it's more like a pseudo turn-based system that has the option to run in real time. When there's stuff to do you just hit pause and "play your turn", then you watch as it plays out and pause again when it's needed.

It also gets all the good stuff of RTS, like not having to wait between turns or just being able to passively breeze through phases where nothing of importance happens.

I find the system to be very enjoyable and don't think anything is "lost" because it's not really turn-based.

Click to expand...

I'm wondering whether the difference comes down to multi player. I have never played grand strategy games in multiplayer really, and probably never will. They are the sort of things I like to play, and I concede this might sound silly, with my feet up on the desk and just my hand on the mouse. And I plot world domination from this position. Being in real time puts me slightly on edge, and I feel compelled to have my finger hovering over the space bar. It makes my grand strategy seem more like work than fun. In turn based I can act like a pie and Kim Jong Un at the same time, and that's rather appealing.

I guess it also comes down to another of the things that annoys me about rts these days. It's less about strategy and more about how quickly one can click buttons. This might be an unfair assessment of paradox games, but I can't seem to erase that itch.

It looks like an interesting game, but past experience with with Paradox' Victoria series has taught me to be wary of neat-sounding features. They also need to be properly implemented and balanced to prevent freakish results, and Stellaris actually seem to share a few of features with Victoria such as migration and political factions.

And there's this:

Not only is Stellaris externally inert, its internal empire management turns dull as well. Once you expand past five star systems, you’re penalized with a mechanic designed to prevent micromanagement. You’re forced to create sectors: clumps of your empire given over to an AI governor in order to give you resources without hassle. Unfortunately, these sectors are black holes where fun gets sucked into an event horizon, never to return.

Sectors take the best part of Stellaris – planet management – and turn into...nothing.

Click to expand...

Sounds awfully like the way things went with factories in Victoria. Building them is maybe the most fun part of the game but you couldn't do so yourself unless you had particular parties in power. Paradox would retort that if you wanted to built factories yourself you simply would have to make sure you had the right party in power. I wonder if they're now going to retort that if you want to manually control planet management, you would simply have to keep your empire smaller than 5 colonies.

Yeah I'm really not sure of the whole five planets plus sector thing. I feel like it is aimed to address both micromanagement time sinking and even out the production level of large versus small players. I'm just not sure it is well implemented. If there's a capacity for sectors to add some political intrigue and other additional components then bravo, but I don't see that yet in the four hours or so I've played.

How common should colonizable planets be?

So far I've investigated quite a few systems and found zero planets that are habitable.

Dell19 said:

How common should colonizable planets be?

So far I've investigated quite a few systems and found zero planets that are habitable.

Click to expand...

Its pure randomness. Two draws are made. First whether or not there is an habitable planet then which kind it is and at he start you can only colonize one type and gaia type. To give you some perspective i got 4 habitable planet next to me in my game.

I've played for a few hours and I think it's fine so far, but I am missing the auto-pause options present in every other modern PDS game.

I've been really overwhelmed by playing just 5 systems. There's lots to do. I can't wait for getting sectors.

Auto-pause? There is a bunch of messages that auto-pause, at least for me. I like sectors, too. My core sector planets are even relatively underdeveloped compared to the Sector worlds. Of course they do have some of the best planets I have found.

Speaking of which, I thought I had a slow start because although I found two inhabitable planets around me, there were also few resources and I was hemmed in between two other empires. I flanked one of them and cornered on their side of the arm, and in the 2290s I must have somewhere around 20 systems plus 2 frontier outposts that I am thinking about erasing. The Jedi are also the most populous species in the known galaxy (and quite a few planets havent even been filled out yet).

Still, I love sectors. My favourite sector has to be the Kashyyyk sector, which has three planets in a single system. I recently gave it its fourth planet, which probably marks the end of my expansion towards the Galactic centre. I am now colonising the outer arm, where the Human Commonwealth is my closest neighbour.

One problem I have had is some sort of glitch that makes some options pop up automatically when offering a trade deal, because of which I gave a research agreement to the pathetic humans without getting anything substantial in return.

In almost a hundred years of play, I haven't gone to war yet, and I suspect I will have to declare war myself to clean up borders, since my puny neighbour is probably going to be sandwiched between my colonies on the different arms. No Fallen Empires yet, either. And my fleet is around 40 when my naval capacity is six times that much. It is funny because my neighbour has been superior or equivalent all the time instead of having a comparatively pathetic naval capacity.

My cat empire is happily purging and enslaving its neighbours.