Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Rhoth

Stellaris Succession Game

51 posts in this topic

Okay let's get this started.  I'm thinking we play as a democratic government type and then switch to a new player every time there is an election (even if the same ruler is elected again).

Another option if we want to play as robots or a hive is to just change out every 10 years or so.

Sign up below and then post what kind of nation you think we should play?

Examples:  Aggressive (such as a fanatical purifier with no diplomacy), spiritual (play with the Shroud), robotic (either start as them or ascend to them), slavers (as it sounds), hippy alien lovers (xenophile egalitarians), etc.

 

 

PLAYING:

Rhoth

GK

Nikolai

Arnelos

Spaced Cowboy (if he purchases Utopia)

Share this post


Link to post

I can play, and will be happy with whatever.

Another option, like back in the AU day, set a goal and everybody start with the same save, and see how we all did.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post

I'll be observing this one only. What do you rate Stellaris out of ten guys? To contrast, please rate CK2 and EU4 too. :)

 

Share this post


Link to post

Penry, it's a fun and addictive game, but it has its issues.  I'd say a 7 right now, compared to an 9 for EU4.  I don't know if I can speak for CK2 as I really haven't played it in a long time, but back when I was playing it I'd say an 8 for different reasons than EU4.  CK2 is more roleplaying heavy than EU4 if you want to play it that way, which I like, but I just prefer the gameplay of EU4 over CK2.

The issue with Stellaris is that it's still a work in progress.  It has a lot going for it, but it's only had a year of development compared to 5 years of CK2 and 4 of EU4 (also it's new IP, not a sequel like the others).  Like EU4 (and Civ6), Stellaris tends to be much better in the early game than the mid-to-late game.  Once you really get rolling you can steamroll the rest of the galaxy if you set up correctly (note that you don't have to play that way if you don't want to...it's perfectly viable to play a pacifist game or some other roleplaying goal, though you might end up as a vassal to an Awakened (formerly Fallen) Empire).  I also have some issues with the combat model being a little too static (doomstacks) and wish there was more diplomatic and espionage interaction than there is.

All that said, Stellaris can be very addictive in the early game.  Exploring, colonizing, researching anomalies to find new stuff, initial territorial wars...those are all great fun.  Once you hit that critical mass of colonization/territorial expansion that's when the fun starts to fall off a bit.  The late game does have its interesting items such as the War in Heaven (when it works) and the Crisis (an incursion by a powerful group from another galaxy/universe), but they aren't as interesting as the early game.

Share this post


Link to post

CK2 is by far the best of the bunch in my eyes, a solid 9/10 at a minimum. 

 

EU4 is part of the EU series, which I love. But while it's better than EU3, it doesn't hold a torch to EU2. And for each DLC it becomes a bigger mess. I'd say by now it's down to a 7/10, a solid score, but far from the best of the bunch. It lacks soul.

 

Stellaris is very fun, but the similar start each times makes replayability worse than CK2. It's a fun game though, 7/10 or 8/10.

Share this post


Link to post

I should probably try CK2 again.  The last time I really played a full game in earnest was before they expanded the map to India. :o   I've played a couple of starts here and there, but I always want to try and "go EU4" with the conquering, and get frustrated with my advisors not generating CB claims and then quit.  I tried a game some months ago and spent 25 years with no generated claims on anyone else, and then quit.

So Nik, do you want to play in the succession game?  Do you have a preference for nation type/playstyle?

Share this post


Link to post
50 minutes ago, Rhoth said:

So Nik, do you want to play in the succession game?  Do you have a preference for nation type/playstyle?

I'm interested. But I only have Utopia, not Synthetic Ascension.

Share this post


Link to post

I'm okay with playing without Synthetic Ascension if it's the only way you can play.  Whomever (probably me I'd guess) starts the game can just make sure they don't have it activated for this game.

Share this post


Link to post

I'll also be observing this one only as I only have the base game and have played it very little so far as well :( . Will be watching this with interest though.

Share this post


Link to post

How about this for a race to play: 

Authoritarian/Spiritualist/Militarist. Imperial authority with Imperial Cult and Feudal Society initial civics (allows for more vassals as there is less subject power penalty and they can colonize on their own)

For roleplaying purposes the nation is set up to worship their Godking ;) and press their religion on others via force, but they do not have a gigantic desire to directly govern their conquests.  They prefer to make them vassals and let them do their own thing (as long as they submit to the worship of the GK) while they keep their own race pure and dominant, living on their holy worlds.  The Domination tradition and the Consecrated Worlds ascension perk would both be nearly mandatory here, but I think that they could easily go with either the Shroud or genetic engineering ascension paths as both make sense.

I'm thinking this might be a lot of fun.  It's not really a slaver race with the micro-management necessary, and it also lends itself to a bit less doomstacking since we wouldn't be gobbling up everything ourselves and making our personal naval limit gigantic.  We'd still have an overall decent military since vassals do provide their own navies, and with the Domination tradition they provide more naval limit than normal vassals.   I don't have any idea how that would ultimately play out, as whenever I've taken vassals before it was as a pacifist with the intent to integrate (before they nerfed that), and I've never played with the Feudal Society civic, but I think it would be fun.

Also it's not a democratic race like I'd talked about in the initial post, but we can still switch out after 10 or 20 years.

 

Share this post


Link to post

I'm thinking we use the reptilian race that looks a bit like anthropomorphic snapping turtles and go with the Enduring (+20 year leader lifespan), Strong (+5% minerals and some army damage), and Natural Engineers (+15% to Engineer, or Natural Sociologists if we want to go with genetic ascendance) traits, with Sedentary (costlier resettlement and slower migration) as the negative trait.  They are better than many other races at what they do and they live longer (turtles), but they are a bit set in their ways and don't take well to change because of their longer lifespan.

Thought about going with Industrious (+15% minerals) or Intelligent (+10% to all types of research) instead of Strong or Natural Engineers, and adding another negative trait, but only Slow Breeders (slower pop growth speed) and Solitary (-5% happiness) make sense to me for the other negatives, and I'm not a huge fan of either trait.  Also thought about the Talented trait (+1 leader cap) which meshes well with longer lifespan, but we'd have to remove one of the other positive traits for it, probably Strong which was as much for RP as anything.

As Natural Engineers the natural inclination would be for mass drivers or missiles to be our primary weapons tech.  I haven't played around with missiles in a while and supposedly they are much more viable now in 1.8.1 than they were previously so I'm leaning that way.  For FTL travel I personally hate warp.  I like both of the others, with a personal preference for wormholes, though I also have a real soft spot for all-hyperlane games (where every nation can only use hyperlanes, no warp or wormholes) since it provides a little bit more depth to the strategic combat and makes forts more of a thing.

Reptilian_massive_14.png

Share this post


Link to post

I have been playing all hyperlane lately, and it is fun.

 

Rails are still overpowered.  Missiles are still weak.  More in balance now, but still not good enough.  I am happy with whatever traits you choose to pick, as I will just adapt either way.  

 

You can still go cybernetic - as the GK says that technology is the way to holiness and turning oneself into a machine is as close to the divine as possible (just roll with it, ok).  So, no need to force our hand early on.  

Share this post


Link to post

I don't want to spoil the fun for you guys if you want to use Synthetic Dawn, it's just I have to prioritize and Mario Odyssey is my pick of the month. :(

 

I'd like a race that can do diplo and not only war if I'm in, and what you describe above Rhoth works for me I think. :) Hyperlanes only is my preference btw.

Share this post


Link to post

Robot stuff is fun, but we won't be playing a robot race anyway.  I'm fine without Synthetic Dawn.

As for the race I was actually tinkering with it last night a bit and was having fun.  Force-vassalized my nearest neighbor.  Unfortunately another nation who was a bit stronger than me overall (I had a very poor resource area and only 5 planets to my name) declared war on my defensive pact ally and pulled in a pacifist nation advanced start that was about twice as strong as me. 

Let me know how Mario Odyssey is.  My son really wants it. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
32 minutes ago, Rhoth said:

Let me know how Mario Odyssey is.  My son really wants it. ;)

Will do! But I'm 99.999999999% certain you can just count it as a sure win. ;) 

 

Playing Mario + Rabbids with my wife these days, really a good game. :)

 

I'm up for playing then. :) I won't do war without being sure to win, as I'm not that good in the game (especially compared to CK2!). But it'll be fun. :)

Share this post


Link to post

That might be a bit more difficult to deal with than only missing one.  Utopia is a large part of the race I was building.

Share this post


Link to post

That is still $20, not likely to get until I see if at ~$5, like to see if others are at base or else I can sit.

Share this post


Link to post

If playing at base ends up being the thing I'll be okay with it, but someone else will have to come up with a concept.  Mine depends too much on Utopia.

Share this post


Link to post

I like the suggestions of Reptilian, Mass Drivers, Spiritualist, and Militarist.  I'm fine with the racial traits, though strong is frankly pretty pointless aside from encouraging the militarist ethos (maybe replace with Talented as the only 1-point alternative you suggested?).

But as for suggested changes?

1. Oligarchy with Exalted Priesthood & Aristocratic Elite ('Holy Order' government type)  This would hold the selection of a new leader every 40 years like clockwork, which will double as the means of passing the save to the next player (even if they then select the same leader).

2. Replace Authoritarian with Fanatic Spiritualist.  More conformity to the religious ethos being spread (and robots/mech civs even less friendly...) and no slavery to micro-manage.  Potential alternatives include Xenophobe (for supremacists) or xenophile (for a multi-ethnic but religiously orthodox civ).

Oh, and I'm definitely on board to play as well.

Share this post


Link to post

Arne's suggestions would probably allow for going to vanilla with no Utopia (at least I assume so, are those civics still part of vanilla?)  My ideas were very much involved around using the synergy between the Domination tradition and Feudal Society civic, along with the synergy of Consecrated Worlds ascension perks and Imperial Cult.  If we can't use traditions and ascension perks there is no real reason to bother with my ideas.

As for the Strong trait, it was as much for roleplaying purposes as anything.  The turtles just "look" strong. ;)  I'm not married to it, and I generally prefer Talented.  I just usually try to avoid having all of my races with the "best" traits.

I still suggest that we switch off after 10-20 years, no matter if the ruler changes.   Otherwise by the time we get around to the 4th or 5th player at 40 years a pop then the game is basically over.

Share this post


Link to post

I wasn't thinking about synergies for the civics - more just time table and RP.  There's some appeal for imperial cult there as well on the RP side.

Share this post


Link to post

That's a fair point.  I like RP-based picks and play on normal myself.

Share this post


Link to post

Perhaps just forum poll each axis of the civic system, racial type, etc.?  Democracy game the setup, then succession game the game.

(not that I want to overly belabor or complicate things... I'm ok with the current setup, too)

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0