Hyperlane chokepoints are dumb, frankly

[Part-Time Jesus]

Topic

[Ragnarok]

Not really. They encourage fortification and can add a level of actual thought to the game.

[DankDansk]

Originally posted by RealJoeBiden:

Topic

as a gameplay concept, it isn't bad. As an actual legit astrophysics concept. it's bonkers.

[bri]

Originally posted by Ragnarok:

Not really. They encourage fortification and can add a level of actual thought to the game.

Where's the thought in "see major choke point, take it, fortify it to the max"? There was much more thought involved when you had to determine which systems needed to be prioritized for defenses without the enemy being railroaded into only attacking where you want them to.

[DankDansk]

Originally posted by bri:

Originally posted by Ragnarok:

Not really. They encourage fortification and can add a level of actual thought to the game.

Where's the thought in "see major choke point, take it, fortify it to the max"? There was much more thought involved when you had to determine which systems needed to be prioritized for defenses without the enemy being railroaded into only attacking where you want them to.

Stellaris' development concept is either 'take something and dumb it down' or 'take something and bloat it'. It can work sometimes, the economy system is far from garbage. But these solutions come with major costs, like the performance issues and dumb AI that scars the game to this day.

I honestly don't think many of the devs have a say in the matter, though. The big wigs do, and a lot of crunch is probably involved as well (Christmas 2.2 comes to mind)

I honestly think Stellaris will always have some major issues no matter what they fix because the devs aren't given the time and resources to do so. They're just expected to print money at light speed with DLC.

[talemore]

All roads leads to rome

[Ragnarok]

Originally posted by bri:

Originally posted by Ragnarok:

Not really. They encourage fortification and can add a level of actual thought to the game.

Where's the thought in "see major choke point, take it, fortify it to the max"? There was much more thought involved when you had to determine which systems needed to be prioritized for defenses without the enemy being railroaded into only attacking where you want them to.

Do you spend your resources on fortifying or more ships?
Do you invest on a habitat for that system to make it more fortified?
How likely is this choke point to be used?
Where do you position shipyards and fleet bases to support it?
Rather than 'enemies can jump pretty much anywhere and your defense platforms are useless', chokepoints provide a niche for citadels and defenses that really didn't exist beforehand.

[EleventhStar]

Originally posted by Ragnarok:

Rather than 'enemies can jump pretty much anywhere and your defense platforms are useless', chokepoints provide a niche for citadels and defenses that really didn't exist beforehand.

no that has nothing to do with chokepoints. the change to how starbases/defenses/inhibitors work made that possible.

the only real thing chokepoints do is make it easier to box civs in than before. there would be a lot more strategic choice if they had done just the new defense system and no/very few chokepoints. with chokepoints the choices are easy, without chokepoints you have to prioritize what systems are important to you and you have to choose between economy/defense in populated systems.

[Penetrator]

There is a hyperlane density slider in the pre-game settings. Put it on max and see if you like the game.

Get ready for the enemy fleets to fly in from every direction as they please, avoiding your biggest stations. If you like playing cat and mouse with corvettes then you're in for a treat.

[EleventhStar]

Originally posted by Penetrating Perpetrator:

There is a hyperlane density slider in the pre-game settings. Put it on max and see if you like the game.

Get ready for the enemy fleets to fly in from every direction as they please, avoiding your biggest stations. If you like playing cat and mouse with corvettes then you're in for a treat.

AI tends to prioritize defending their own lost systems over attacking yours. Which should be no problem to achieve if you fight wars on your own shedule. (and if the AI is the one declaring war you you have bigger problems anyways.)

[bri]

Originally posted by EleventhStar:

Originally posted by Ragnarok:

Rather than 'enemies can jump pretty much anywhere and your defense platforms are useless', chokepoints provide a niche for citadels and defenses that really didn't exist beforehand.

no that has nothing to do with chokepoints. the change to how starbases/defenses/inhibitors work made that possible.

the only real thing chokepoints do is make it easier to box civs in than before. there would be a lot more strategic choice if they had done just the new defense system and no/very few chokepoints. with chokepoints the choices are easy, without chokepoints you have to prioritize what systems are important to you and you have to choose between economy/defense in populated systems.

This. 1.9 spaceports and star forts were useless not because of the enemy being able to attack wherever it wanted to but because you got more combat power out of building a couple corvettes with the same minerals. If you played with mods that gave starports/bases actual fighting power at an efficient mineral/energy cost ratio compared to ships defenses were perfectly viable even with not knowing exactly where the enemy was going to attack. If the new iteration of fortresses were as laughable, combat-wise, as pre 2.0 they still wouldn't be worth building.

[DankDansk]

Originally posted by bri:

Originally posted by EleventhStar:

no that has nothing to do with chokepoints. the change to how starbases/defenses/inhibitors work made that possible.

the only real thing chokepoints do is make it easier to box civs in than before. there would be a lot more strategic choice if they had done just the new defense system and no/very few chokepoints. with chokepoints the choices are easy, without chokepoints you have to prioritize what systems are important to you and you have to choose between economy/defense in populated systems.

This. 1.9 spaceports and star forts were useless not because of the enemy being able to attack wherever it wanted to but because you got more combat power out of building a couple corvettes with the same minerals. If you played with mods that gave starports/bases actual fighting power at an efficient mineral/energy cost ratio compared to ships defenses were perfectly viable even with not knowing exactly where the enemy was going to attack. If the new iteration of fortresses were as laughable, combat-wise, as pre 2.0 they still wouldn't be worth building.

And they could have just made spaceports stronger and called it a day.

[Tiasmoon]

Originally posted by RealJoeBiden:

I can see why - I'm just learning myself. Not trying to troll, I see it's a legit point of contention.

No pun.

It really restricts gameplay, I think

The opposite is also true: hyperlane chokes are great for adding texture to the ''terrain'' and giving it strategic importance.

Originally posted by RealJoeBiden:

Originally posted by Nolo Contendere:

1) play with max hyperlane density
2) play 1.x

Yeah, you're triggered and I'm not trying to trigger ya :)

They gave you valid advice. That is not being triggered. Max hyperlane density solves your problem, as does playing 1.x

Originally posted by RealJoeBiden:

Any threat to an entire large section, I guess with default hyperlane settings, comes doen to like, 3 or 4 different places you could be attacked from.

If you play on larger maps and do some decent expanding, then even with 0.25x hyperlanes you can be attacked in 4 different directions at minimum.

With default settings it will be way more. Tho, you would likely also have a far smaller area because the AI expands faster and you couldnt prevent that.

Originally posted by bri:

Originally posted by Ragnarok:

Not really. They encourage fortification and can add a level of actual thought to the game.

Where's the thought in "see major choke point, take it, fortify it to the max"? There was much more thought involved when you had to determine which systems needed to be prioritized for defenses without the enemy being railroaded into only attacking where you want them to.

For one, there is thought in deciding the cut off choke-point. Do you try to reach a further choke to grab that sweet planet that borders an aggressive empire and risk pissing them off? Or that requires you spend influence you could have spend to grap an area in a different direction?

The best systems for defense (Black Holes, Pulsars, etc) are not often in choke systems, and when they are they might still have a lot of systems to expand beyond. Do you choose to make that your defensive choke, or expand further with weaker border defense as a result?

I guess its also a question of map size, but personally I only really play max map size. I rarely have enough resources to ''just fortify it to max'' with each chokepoint I take. For me their main purpose is to secure areas behind my borders.

Also, grabbing chokepoints is not always an option because sometimes the AI does it before you could do it.

Originally posted by bri:

spaceports and star forts were useless not because of the enemy being able to attack wherever it wanted to but because you got more combat power out of building a couple corvettes with the same minerals. If you played with mods that gave starports/bases actual fighting power at an efficient mineral/energy cost ratio compared to ships defenses were perfectly viable even with not knowing exactly where the enemy was going to attack.

Thats the point tho. Starbases had to be hugely powerful to be able to defend anything with mechanics like that.

Atm starbases dont stand that much chance on their own against a large fleet either. But they are still good to build because of choke points. If the enemy HAS to move through that system that means your starbase value is added to whatever fleets you have available for defending your border.

Yet if they dont have to move through that system, then why would the enemy do that unless you build the starbase to protect a critical system? In which case the starbase would have to be strong enough to atleast hold off said enemy fleet on its own. Current starbases cant hold off most enemy fleets on their own either, if you dont have a massive tech or resource advantage.


Plenty of games have Starbases be OP as hell in the way you suggest. As a result however, in those games the only systems that matter are the ones where you have a Starbase.

Personally I like that in current Stellaris systems that are outside of fortified positions also matter. Fleets matter more then Starbases, which makes the combat more mobile on a strategic level.



Most importantly tho, chokepoints make borders actually matter.

[russak]

Originally posted by mccartneyconnor280:

Originally posted by RealJoeBiden:

Topic

as a gameplay concept, it isn't bad. As an actual legit astrophysics concept. it's bonkers.

It's precisely as bonkers as any fictional FTL system, really.

Or, stated in a converse manner: it's not bonkers because that's the way Stellaris FTL works. And Jump/speculative is the 'exception' that comes later with better tech.

[Penetrator]

Originally posted by Tiasmoon:

Originally posted by RealJoeBiden:

I can see why - I'm just learning myself. Not trying to troll, I see it's a legit point of contention.

No pun.

It really restricts gameplay, I think

The opposite is also true: hyperlane chokes are great for adding texture to the ''terrain'' and giving it strategic importance.

Originally posted by RealJoeBiden:

Yeah, you're triggered and I'm not trying to trigger ya :)

They gave you valid advice. That is not being triggered. Max hyperlane density solves your problem, as does playing 1.x

Originally posted by RealJoeBiden:

Any threat to an entire large section, I guess with default hyperlane settings, comes doen to like, 3 or 4 different places you could be attacked from.

If you play on larger maps and do some decent expanding, then even with 0.25x hyperlanes you can be attacked in 4 different directions at minimum.

With default settings it will be way more. Tho, you would likely also have a far smaller area because the AI expands faster and you couldnt prevent that.

Originally posted by bri:

Where's the thought in "see major choke point, take it, fortify it to the max"? There was much more thought involved when you had to determine which systems needed to be prioritized for defenses without the enemy being railroaded into only attacking where you want them to.

For one, there is thought in deciding the cut off choke-point. Do you try to reach a further choke to grab that sweet planet that borders an aggressive empire and risk pissing them off? Or that requires you spend influence you could have spend to grap an area in a different direction?

The best systems for defense (Black Holes, Pulsars, etc) are not often in choke systems, and when they are they might still have a lot of systems to expand beyond. Do you choose to make that your defensive choke, or expand further with weaker border defense as a result?

I guess its also a question of map size, but personally I only really play max map size. I rarely have enough resources to ''just fortify it to max'' with each chokepoint I take. For me their main purpose is to secure areas behind my borders.

Also, grabbing chokepoints is not always an option because sometimes the AI does it before you could do it.

Originally posted by bri:

spaceports and star forts were useless not because of the enemy being able to attack wherever it wanted to but because you got more combat power out of building a couple corvettes with the same minerals. If you played with mods that gave starports/bases actual fighting power at an efficient mineral/energy cost ratio compared to ships defenses were perfectly viable even with not knowing exactly where the enemy was going to attack.

Thats the point tho. Starbases had to be hugely powerful to be able to defend anything with mechanics like that.

Atm starbases dont stand that much chance on their own against a large fleet either. But they are still good to build because of choke points. If the enemy HAS to move through that system that means your starbase value is added to whatever fleets you have available for defending your border.

Yet if they dont have to move through that system, then why would the enemy do that unless you build the starbase to protect a critical system? In which case the starbase would have to be strong enough to atleast hold off said enemy fleet on its own. Current starbases cant hold off most enemy fleets on their own either, if you dont have a massive tech or resource advantage.


Plenty of games have Starbases be OP as hell in the way you suggest. As a result however, in those games the only systems that matter are the ones where you have a Starbase.

Personally I like that in current Stellaris systems that are outside of fortified positions also matter. Fleets matter more then Starbases, which makes the combat more mobile on a strategic level.



Most importantly tho, chokepoints make borders actually matter.

This is a pretty good summary. There need to be restrictions in movement otherwise there is no strategy.

However, I would personally like to change it to a system where starbases are allowed in systems where you have a colony or megastructure. If you build them anywhere else (like in an uninhabited choke point) they have a huge upkeep cost.

That way the number of them scales with your colonies and it’s a decision if you want to build extra.

[Fireball770]

If you do not want chokepoints, there is an option to disable them. Turn hyperlanes up to max and it says no more chokepoints.