Stellaris |OT| Imperium Universalis

Still haven't received my key, but at least I have the livestream and the people freaking out over the 6/10 review to distract me while I wait.


Based on the text and further listening to Rowan detail his issues on TMA, I can't really take issue with his conclusion. It's not his job to play apologist for the game.
 
ZZMitch said:
Yeah, my complaints with EU4 (and likely Stellaris) are that the AI is bad at getting stronger so that it can actually compete with the player. I can't tell you the number of times in EU4 I have seen a nation like AI Ottomans just sit there and not do anything about tiny un-allied states on their borders that they could easily invade and annex. Passive AI is a major issue with EU4 and it looks like it is going to be an issue in Stellaris.
Click to expand...

I'm confused about the AI issue though that was brought up. He said the AI is too passive and doesn't do anything, but yet the AI declared war on a a weaker ally just to get at the reviewer's Empire. That seems like the opposite, no?
 
Shifty Capone1 said:
I have never really ordered anything from GMG. Do the keys usually get sent out at exact release or should I be concerned I haven't gotten one yet?
Click to expand...
PtyuVRR.png


GMG will send out keys at launch.
 
ExVicis said:
I'm confused about the AI issue though that was brought up. He said the AI is too passive and doesn't do anything, but yet the AI declared war on a a weaker ally just to get at the reviewer's Empire. That seems like the opposite, no?
Click to expand...

Yeah I noticed that and I agree. I am not just blindly agreeing with Kaiser here. I am just noting that his early complaints mirror my own issues with EU4. The fact that the AI did declare war in that case is promising.
 
So my desktop will run this fine obviously, anyone have an idea how it'll be on a Surface Pro 4? CK2 is playable on it once you lower the resolution a bit.
 
Airbar said:
But help me with the 3MA episode. From what I gathered (don't know anyone on the podcast except for Austin Walker) he seemd to always compare the game to EU4. Which is fine to a certain degree. And I think he didn't even get to the endgame events? Stopped at that point because I didn't want to spoil them for me.

Just curious if my impressions are right?
Click to expand...

He wasn't attacked for like 50 hours. Unhappy citizens never resulted in significant problems for him. Sector governors wouldn't properly build up stations or other military units. The map was missing informational modes like the previous Paradox games and the perspective could deceive you on the location of stars.

That's not even all of the issues he brought up. Even the other panelists that liked the game acknowledged many of these issues.

I suspect I will still really enjoy this game, but just because he didn't doesn't mean his score is insincere. And those who accused him of this should be ashamed.
 
Shifty Capone1 said:
I have never really ordered anything from GMG. Do the keys usually get sent out at exact release or should I be concerned I haven't gotten one yet?
Click to expand...

Usually no. It's a PDX thing I thing I'm guessing. Normally you'll get them when the preload starts or a day or two early.
 
ZZMitch said:
Yeah I noticed that and I agree. I am not just blindly agreeing with Kaiser here. I am just noting that his early complaints mirror my own issues with EU4. The fact that the AI did declare war in that case is promising.
Click to expand...

The thing is with these sort of grand strategies, especially historical simulations, is that they adhere to limitations of waging war, the AI can't just be made to declare war because it wants war, it also has to adhere to casus belli and such variables in consideration. A lot of games like Civilization for example can be made very aggressive since they're not grand strategies and don't adhere to the same sort of game rules. Though since Stellaris uses a war goal system, it can be more aggressive, but it's still important to consider the goals that must be set and the negotiation process for what is claimed and what treaties are formed, since the AI shouldn't just follow a simple aggressive conquest only approach. The idea of wars in grand strategies aren't about total conquest or extermination, since wars can be used for other strategic reasons. It's much easier to develop an AI that is aggressive and only wants conquest than one that uses war strategically for the outcome of treaties/other stuff from negotiation process for peace.
 
XiaNaphryz said:
So my desktop will run this fine obviously, anyone have an idea how it'll be on a Surface Pro 4? CK2 is playable on it once you lower the resolution a bit.
Click to expand...

Geh, I didn't even think about specs. I have a year-old, maxed-out 13 inch Retina Macbook Pro. I hope it runs fine.
 
Skyward Sheep said:
I don't think I've heard much about the Unbidden yet. Are they separate to the Fallen Empires?
Click to expand...

They're an endgame threat. If you research certain technologies, they have a chance of appearing; in the case of the Unbidden, Jump Drives will cause a rift to a different dimension to open and the Unbidden swarming out.
Think of the Reapers or Species 8472.
 
Brohan said:
Think wormholes FTL travel is too hard for a new player?
Click to expand...

I don't think so. They're not all that complicated. You're given a visual indicator that shows the radius of how far your wormhole stations allow you to travel, and you can freely travel within that radius. You'll just have to construct more Wormhole stations to go further.

Warp is the easiest to understand between the 3 propulsion types, but I would argue it's probably the worst of the bunch.
 
hobblygobbly said:
The thing is with these sort of grand strategies, especially historical simulations, is that they adhere to limitations of waging war, the AI can't just be made to declare war because it wants war, it also has to adhere to casus belli and such variables in consideration. A lot of games like Civilization for example can be made very aggressive since they're not grand strategies and don't adhere to the same sort of game rules. Though since Stellaris uses a war goal system, it can be more aggressive, but it's still important to consider the goals that must be set and the negotiation process for what is claimed and what treaties are formed, since the AI shouldn't just follow a simple aggressive conquest only approach. The idea of wars in grand strategies aren't about total conquest or extermination, since wars can be used for other strategic reasons. It's much easier to develop an AI that is aggressive and only wants conquest than one that uses war strategically for the outcome of treaties/other stuff from negotiation process for peace.
Click to expand...

Well yes that's true. But in EU4 it is still extremely easy to get a casus belli. All you need to do is send a diplomat to the target country that borders you, hang out for a few months, and then you are good. CK2 has a much more interesting system.

I am not saying the AI should be a one-dimensional conquest machine. What I am saying is that the AI should be doing a better job recognizing when its neighbors are vulnerable or weak as well as building up stronger defensive alliances when its neighbors are strong and aggressive. This is something that doesn't happen enough in EU4 and what seems to be the case in Stellaris.
 
Bregor said:
Wow at the people labeling Rowan's review clickbait. I listened to the 3MA episode about Stellaris and his arguments are well made. Maybe you won't agree with him (once you have played it) but attacking his credibility is far out of line.
Click to expand...
Is the guy complaining in that episode the guy who did the IGN review?

Sounds as boring as his Stellaris save did.
 
Skyward Sheep said:
I had a feeling this was the case. Welp, RIP my space empire, you had a good run.
Click to expand...

Just don't research Jump Drive. Of course, maybe an AI empire will research it instead. That happened during DDRJake's Greater Denmark game; his neighbour and ally researched Jump Drive, and brought about the ire of the Unbidden. And that happened at least 50-100 years too early too haha.
 
ZZMitch said:
Yeah, my complaints with EU4 (and likely Stellaris) are that the AI is bad at getting stronger so that it can actually compete with the player. I can't tell you the number of times in EU4 I have seen a nation like AI Ottomans just sit there and not do anything about tiny un-allied states on their borders that they could easily invade and annex. Passive AI is a major issue with EU4 and it looks like it is going to be an issue in Stellaris.
Click to expand...
I think the AI is just inconsistent. Sometimes it will attack weaker neighbors, sometimes it doesn't. Sometimes the AI is even too aggressive, launching a massive war for essentially little gain. Or it will try to solo a superior power with much greater military capabilities, simply because they're a little weak at the moment. I think Paradox mentioned before that there's an element of randomness to AI war declarations. The Stellaris AI seems to be okay at recognizing opportunities. DDRJake got ganged up on by two other AIs, simply because he declared war on a superior foe. The difference between EU4 and Stellaris is that AI personality and ethics determine most of the AI behavior. The game will change a lot depending on whether you are surrounded by militarist or pacifist nations.
 
Waiting....waiting....is it able to download yet?!...........waiting...waiting....is it able to be downloaded yet....waiting..............oh god the waiting..........
 
I think I'm going to try hyperlanes. From quill's videos, wormholes seem good early on to get access to a lot at once, but hyperspace travel being faster is nice.
 
Mgoblue201 said:
I think the AI is just inconsistent. Sometimes it will attack weaker neighbors, sometimes it doesn't. Sometimes the AI is even too aggressive, launching a massive war for essentially little gain. Or it will try to solo a superior power with much greater military capabilities, simply because they're a little weak at the moment. I think Paradox mentioned before that there's an element of randomness to AI war declarations. The Stellaris AI seems to be okay at recognizing opportunities. DDRJake got ganged up on by two other AIs, simply because he declared war on a superior foe. The difference between EU4 and Stellaris is that AI personality and ethics determine most of the AI behavior. The game will change a lot depending on whether you are surrounded by militarist or pacifist nations.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I see what you are saying and I am still hopeful.

What makes me nervous is that there have been many games of EU4 where it is like 1650 and I look around the map and wonder why I should even bother playing any more because the game is essentially over. I rarely get to experience the end game of EU4 because the game becomes less of an interesting struggle and more of a boring grind through out-matched AI nations by the mid to end game.

I was really hoping Stellaris would be more like CK2 where your realm is on more of a rollercoaster with gains and losses than EU4 where you just snowball from the beginning without much to stop you after a certain point.
 
Stellaris |OT| No keys available for this game
Poodlestrike said:
No it doesn't. Alliance and federation map modes at the very least seem like they'd be hugely useful.
Click to expand...

It does when the philosophy is to keep it as simple as possible. Doesn't mean I wouldn't like a few different options, but I can see why they left it out for now.
 
hobblygobbly said:
The thing is with these sort of grand strategies, especially historical simulations, is that they adhere to limitations of waging war, the AI can't just be made to declare war because it wants war, it also has to adhere to casus belli and such variables in consideration. A lot of games like Civilization for example can be made very aggressive since they're not grand strategies and don't adhere to the same sort of game rules. Though since Stellaris uses a war goal system, it can be more aggressive, but it's still important to consider the goals that must be set and the negotiation process for what is claimed and what treaties are formed, since the AI shouldn't just follow a simple aggressive conquest only approach. The idea of wars in grand strategies aren't about total conquest or extermination, since wars can be used for other strategic reasons. It's much easier to develop an AI that is aggressive and only wants conquest than one that uses war strategically for the outcome of treaties/other stuff from negotiation process for peace.
Click to expand...

"Grand strategy" is more a marketing term, it doesn't make really sense. Civilization 4 / Civ 5 is as much a strategy game as EU4 or Galciv or Stellaris.

Civ AI has multiple parameters it must assess before going to war, like in EU4 or Stellaris : do you focus on a culture win ? or on science ? or economy ? On which wonders ? Which AI enemies will you get and so on.

If Stellaris AI is too passive it's not because of complexity, it's just a not so good AI (which is par for the course for 4X games at release) and it can be improved in patches and mods, like Civ AI was too (Civ 4 AI was better than Civ 5 AI though because the one unit per tile rule made the tactical AI a lot harder to build).

I'd argue it's actually less complex as an AI development to just build a fleet and move it to a system compared to moving units on a Earth map, so EU4 / Civ look quite a bit harder to dev than Stellaris at least for combat.
 
Krisprolls said:
"Grand strategy" is more a marketing term
Click to expand...

Actually it's not. There's some specific mechanical aspects that a game needs in order to fulfill being a grand strategy game. One such thing is the abstraction of a topographic/geographic map into a political one.

For instance in games like Civilization or Settlers of Catan, your map is based on geographic things like plains, desert, water or mountains. However in grand strategy games such as Risk or Europa Universalis, you have it more focused on political order, by the world being split into provinces rather than geographic regions.

Stellaris is a bit of a hybrid; it starts out like a regular 4X game, but the mid- and lategames are supposed to play more similarly to an EU4.
 
Red Arremer said:
Actually it's not. There's some specific mechanical aspects that a game needs in order to fulfill being a grand strategy game. One such thing is the abstraction of a topographic/geographic map into a political one.

For instance in games like Civilization or Settlers of Catan, your map is based on geographic things like plains, desert, water or mountains. However in grand strategy games such as Risk or Europa Universalis, you have it more focused on political order, by the world being split into provinces rather than geographic regions.

Stellaris is a bit of a hybrid; it starts out like a regular 4X game, but the mid- and lategames are supposed to play more similarly to an EU4.
Click to expand...

My point is on the dev side of things or in dev complexity it doesn't change anything though.
 
publicpwnerer said:
Still a no show from Greenmangaming. Cmon, 3 minutes...really slack job.
Click to expand...

Just got mine from GMG, maybe check on the GMG page in your games library.

*edit* And Steam just unlocked the game, download faster, stupid internet connection!
 
Got my steamkey from Imperialgames, when does the game unlock?
Pretty excited, having recently finished Dark Souls 3 and UC4, I'm ready for this.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Paradox announces Europa Universalis 5
27
681
GigantorX replied
  • Featured
Atomfall |OT|
|OT|  2 3 4 5
243
13K
vaibhavpisal replied
POPUCOM |OT| Pop Till You Drop!
|OT| 
4
144
Branded replied
  • Featured
The Precinct |OT| GAF Blue Bloods
|OT|  2 3 4
172
3K
Insanemaelstrom replied
  • Featured
FBC: Firebreak |OT| Take control. Save the Bureau.
|OT|  2 3 4 5
204
1K
SnapShot replied
Top Bottom