Paradox Studio Thread -

[vulgar]

Eh, I don't see them going that far, but I love the idea of strategic regions. It allows something like the Crimean war or Russo-Japanese war to happen. These wars escalating to invasions of mainlands in Vic2 was just silly.

The localized war system also makes winning against the UK easier/more realistic.

Yeah, I can also imagine a system where you can enable/disable AI combat in order for Paradox to continue in their quest to make these games more accessible.

HOI4 had a big problem where they removed the ability for players to micro as efficiently as HOI3, forcing you to use their noob friendly AI combat.

Hopefully they won't fall into the same trap, but I suppose it's optimistic thinking to look forward to being able to play a satisfying Paradox game without mod intervention.

 

[Slap47]

Paradox is an enigma.

 

[CisnaHet Scumale]

View attachment 2209762

Paradox is an enigma.

This would be more based if it was 50 crime and +15% pop growth

 

[Jarolleon]

This would be more based if it was 50 crime and +15% pop growth

The modifier grows through the event chain, but eventually you find out it's because of some shrooms that can be harvested for exotic gases.

 

[Capsaicin Addict]

You can't help but wonder if there's two competing internal visions at Paradox. One woke, the other reasonable.

The modifier grows through the event chain, but eventually you find out it's because of some shrooms that can be harvested for exotic gases.

So it's because of drug abuse. Still accurate.

Have they managed to de-stupid the Stellaris AI yet?

 

[vulgar]

You can't help but wonder if there's two competing internal visions at Paradox. One woke, the other reasonable.

No, I think the internal battle in Paradox is whether strategy should be instant gratification or longterm reward.

EU4's vision has been steadily growing towards a mobile game: click button - get reward, conquer province - more map paint. Imperator was created with this same vision, Stellaris wasn't.

Things like ideology and accessibility seem like non-negotiable things that come from the top down, Vicky3 will be ideologically in line and very accessible. The real battle is in the game's design philosophy.

 

[Jarolleon]

You can't help but wonder if there's two competing internal visions at Paradox. One woke, the other reasonable.

So it's because of drug abuse. Still accurate.

Have they managed to de-stupid the Stellaris AI yet?

Nope, because anyone who wants smart AI just downloads the Starnet mod. Though I did see a Pdox poster on the forum say they were unsatisfied with how awful the AI was at technology in this patch. I've seen the AI still using coilguns in 2300 on Captain, and this is with the empire wide growth slowdown turned off.

 

[Slap47]

The modifier grows through the event chain, but eventually you find out it's because of some shrooms that can be harvested for exotic gases.

Its a pretty nice event. You can create a Mexico planet with insanely high population growth and high emigration.

 

[>tfw no astropath gf]

I don't know about you guys, but I hope the next Stellaris update brings a massive overhaul to the government, sector and leader mechanics because right now they are godawful, governments outside of hive-minds and megacorps are essentially the same, I want more depth, like democracies having things like senates or hereditary monarchies having a legitemacy system.

Leaders should have something like a loyalty mechanic that affects how they behave, for example and admiral with low loyalty might disobey your orders and start doing whatever he wants, like attacking random enemy fleets or go alone into enemy systems, if that leader is a faction leader and has low loyalty he might try a coup or start a rebellion for power; another idea I have is adding a new spying mechanic that allows you to kidnap foreign leaders, if you kidnap an admiral or a general they might show you their total fleet power and current military tech. if you kidnap a scientist they'd tell you what their nation is investigating right now and if you kidnap a sector administrator they'd tell you about their economic state and about the current issues they have, this brings me to my next point, sectors.

Sectors as they currently stand are completly useless, my general idea is this: the further away you get from your home system the more expensive it becomes to mantain and build new things like mining stations or outposts, however that can be negated if you establish a sector, the sector is going to get a third of all the materials in their region, they'd use the materials to build their own things like buildings, and more importantly, fleets, those fleets will act as independent of you so they won't occupy space in the naval capacity and you won't have to mantain them, in times of war they'd be under your control and go back to the sector when the war ends. But that'd be the just at the beggining of the game, as time moves on, sectors would start acting with more autonomy, for instance, they might ask you to let them elect their own leaders, if you say yes they go and have an election making and if you say no they'll lose happiness and might even do a strike, they might choose a different economic policy or maybe act differently towards primitives and things like that, here you could force them to adopt your politics wich would cause them to grow unhappy and make the sector become more disloyal, a disloyal sector will start to send in less resources to their father empire and during war it might outright refuse to give it's fleets to you, if too many sectors become unhappy and disloyal they'd band together and send you an ultimatum about sector rights, telling you to let them do what they want, if you refuse to comply they declare war and if they win they would either choose to become fully independent or choose to remain in your nation but with far more autonomy; however that wouldn't be the only way sectors can cause a civil war, if a sector becomes too succesful, let's say, producing thousands of goods and have a decent fleet they might ask you for independence, if you say yes they become their own nation BUT will have excelent relations and be have a mutual-defense treaty signed with you, if you say no they declare war, if they win they'll have hostile relations with you but if they lose then the pops of the sector would have all sorts of debufs and the defeated sector will become disloyal. All those things would make sectors useful and necessary but also potentially dangerous in the longrun, meaning that you would need to know how to handle not only external enemies but also the growing internal ones, wich would make in my opinion for a more dynamic game, specially in the mid and late game.

Those are my ideas, I'd like to hear your opinions on them, weather they're autistic or dumb, or if you like them.

 

[Emperor Julian]

Its a pretty nice event. You can create a Mexico planet with insanely high population growth and high emigration.

I used the planet as a hotbox for rapid growth on other worlds to counter my slow breeder trait. combined with genetic modification ascention and dumb luck on events and ai ascentions I bred the ubermench.

 

[CisnaHet Scumale]

Leaders should have something like a loyalty mechanic that affects how they behave, for example and admiral with low loyalty might disobey your orders and start doing whatever he wants, like attacking random enemy fleets or go alone into enemy systems, if that leader is a faction leader and has low loyalty he might try a coup or start a rebellion for power; another idea I have is adding a new spying mechanic that allows you to kidnap foreign leaders, if you kidnap an admiral or a general they might show you their total fleet power and current military tech. if you kidnap a scientist they'd tell you what their nation is investigating right now and if you kidnap a sector administrator they'd tell you about their economic state and about the current issues they have, this brings me to my next point, sectors.

I think leaders are fine where they are. If there is going to be a rebellion mechanic, I'd rather it be tied to pop ethics and factions. My latest game can run a fanatical xenophobe population and yet only influence growth is the cost to doing xeno alliance mechanics in mid-game, end game. Seems pretty dumb to me.

 

[Kane Lives]

I don't know about you guys, but I hope the next Stellaris update brings a massive overhaul to the government, sector and leader mechanics because right now they are godawful, governments outside of hive-minds and megacorps are essentially the same, I want more depth, like democracies having things like senates or hereditary monarchies having a legitemacy system.

Leaders should have something like a loyalty mechanic that affects how they behave, for example and admiral with low loyalty might disobey your orders and start doing whatever he wants, like attacking random enemy fleets or go alone into enemy systems, if that leader is a faction leader and has low loyalty he might try a coup or start a rebellion for power; another idea I have is adding a new spying mechanic that allows you to kidnap foreign leaders, if you kidnap an admiral or a general they might show you their total fleet power and current military tech. if you kidnap a scientist they'd tell you what their nation is investigating right now and if you kidnap a sector administrator they'd tell you about their economic state and about the current issues they have, this brings me to my next point, sectors.

Sectors as they currently stand are completly useless, my general idea is this: the further away you get from your home system the more expensive it becomes to mantain and build new things like mining stations or outposts, however that can be negated if you establish a sector, the sector is going to get a third of all the materials in their region, they'd use the materials to build their own things like buildings, and more importantly, fleets, those fleets will act as independent of you so they won't occupy space in the naval capacity and you won't have to mantain them, in times of war they'd be under your control and go back to the sector when the war ends. But that'd be the just at the beggining of the game, as time moves on, sectors would start acting with more autonomy, for instance, they might ask you to let them elect their own leaders, if you say yes they go and have an election making and if you say no they'll lose happiness and might even do a strike, they might choose a different economic policy or maybe act differently towards primitives and things like that, here you could force them to adopt your politics wich would cause them to grow unhappy and make the sector become more disloyal, a disloyal sector will start to send in less resources to their father empire and during war it might outright refuse to give it's fleets to you, if too many sectors become unhappy and disloyal they'd band together and send you an ultimatum about sector rights, telling you to let them do what they want, if you refuse to comply they declare war and if they win they would either choose to become fully independent or choose to remain in your nation but with far more autonomy; however that wouldn't be the only way sectors can cause a civil war, if a sector becomes too succesful, let's say, producing thousands of goods and have a decent fleet they might ask you for independence, if you say yes they become their own nation BUT will have excelent relations and be have a mutual-defense treaty signed with you, if you say no they declare war, if they win they'll have hostile relations with you but if they lose then the pops of the sector would have all sorts of debufs and the defeated sector will become disloyal. All those things would make sectors useful and necessary but also potentially dangerous in the longrun, meaning that you would need to know how to handle not only external enemies but also the growing internal ones, wich would make in my opinion for a more dynamic game, specially in the mid and late game.

Those are my ideas, I'd like to hear your opinions on them, weather they're autistic or dumb, or if you like them.

There's one problem with this:

Paradox do not play, or understand their own games. Ergo, you probably put more thought into the mechanics than the entire dev team ever did after 2.0.

 

[>tfw no astropath gf]

I think leaders are fine where they are. If there is going to be a rebellion mechanic, I'd rather it be tied to pop ethics and factions. My latest game can run a fanatical xenophobe population and yet only influence growth is the cost to doing xeno alliance mechanics in mid-game, end game. Seems pretty dumb to me.

Well I think leaders should be more important to the internal stability of the Empire, it's kinda dumb that your leaders can also act as faction leaders but that never affects how they behave, I think ideally pops, factions and leaders would all be somewhat tied to one another through a general rebellion/loyalty mechanic.

There's one problem with this:

Paradox do not play, or understand their own games. Ergo, you probably put more thought into the mechanics than the entire dev team ever did after 2.0.

Probably, although the Stellaris team seems to be the 'better late than never' type of team, a lot of people wanted an overhaul to the diplomacy system since the game launched and we eventually got that in Federations and Nemesis so I have hope, although re-reading what I've written I realise that the current AI would be incapable of properly managing all of those mechanics so it would probably be better first make an uptade solely focused on the AI.