Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
Discussions Rules and Guidelines
Report this post
Brutal
Think of how many scientists and philosphers have been killed in all our wars. How much wasted potential. War is destructive by its very nature and the only thing it creates is money for small groups who do nothing positive with it.
Major beef
War and trade are the 2 greatest drivers of innovation. All great ancient civilisations were a combination of trade and war: Phoenicians - merchant colonisers, Greeks - Similar to Phoenicians but more warlike, Romans: more muggers than traders, just stole loads of Greek tech and siege weapons, Mongols: not civilised or ancient, but created a massive tariff free zone which set up loads of Mongol descended dynasties up in Asia. Won't go much into trade here, but war drives necessity to beat others. Mapping the Atlantic seabed and mint toothpaste are all results of war technologies (the former was the spin off of some stuff ppl discovered while trying to win WW2 - might have been sonar, and I can't remember the other but it might have been space travel during the Cold War era, when the US and USSR fired rockets into space to show each other that these rockets (with nukes) could also be fired at countries). Thus war drives civilisations to drive and adapt to conditions.
At the same time, invention needs law and order to function. Like the Congo was a decent place to live, fertile, rich in minerals and ruled by an effective and just series of kings until some Dutch Slavers decided that the best way to get some slaves out of the area was to start a civil war. So law and order (also necessary for civilisation) collapsed in the Congo and today's it's not a nice place to live because of all this.
In summary Sun Tzu (some great Chinese strategician, I don't understand much of what he says but apparently Hitler, Napoleon and Montgomery all found his bestselling book useful) once said: there is no instance of a country benefitting from prolonged warfare. The clever bugger was smart enough to put the word "prolonged" in so we can never pin him down because a prolonged period of time varies with opinion. Major plot twist ahead tho One thing none of you may have noticed though is that to conquer lands - and thus winning Stellaris - one does not actually have to be civilised so arguing about whether war helps or hinders civilisation is pointless.[/spoilers]
Not if youre doing Spiritalist for max Happiness to get a full 20% boost to EVERYTHING; it's insane, way better than just 10% science.
Nope not at all. It's a slower process, since it's a bit easier to vassalize smaller empires, than larger ones, but if in every war you can liberate one or two planets and then add those to your empire through vassalization, and then once they have converted their population to your Ethics, integrate them fully.
I find as the number of vassals you have goes up, the more likely another Empire decides to attack you or a vassal, and because you're the overlord you get to decide the war conditions, it gives you the ability to liberate even more planets.
It can get to a point where you can spend more time at war, than at peace, which might seem contradictory for a Pacifist Empire. There will come a point where Empires will organize into alliances and federations, which might make it a bit more challenging. I had a game where the galaxy had factionalized into three dominant Alliances. Two of the Empires in the other two Alliances had Guarantees of Independence with one another, which meant that if our alliance attacked any of them, both alliances would have been dragged in. I suspect the Guarantee of Independence was established prior to one of the Empires joining the other alliance, so it was a complicated situation, since I don't think you can guarantee someone's independence if you are already part of an alliance, with the exception of newly liberated planets.
As soon as that Guarantee of Independence expired though, and those two Empires were no longer coming to the other's assistance, it was all over, and we became the Dominant power in the galaxy, bringing freedom and safety to the people ;)
Maybe a way to win the game as a pacifist could be to prevent wars from happening for a century? But to work, we would need better diplomatic options to be a moderator between two empires that don't like each other faces to prevent a war, etc. Pacafist should aim to bring peace in the galaxy, so there should be a way for them to do so.
The game definitely needs a victory condition relating to a shared/allied win condition. Perhaps control of X% of the galaxy with Y number of existing Alliances/Federations. The more Alliances/Federations there are, the lower the percentage of territory you need to control, so if there are two alliances, alliance members need to control 60-80% of the galaxy, and I almost might make it colonized worlds, as opposed to all habitable worlds. Eventually there may come a point where every planet has been colonized so the number of planets required is the same, but it could potentially allow an Empire to rush colonies to end the game earlier than it might otherwise, since the number of colonized worlds in the early game is a lot smaller than what 40% of the entire galaxy is.
With a percentage of colonized worlds it allows an Empire to expand their percentage by colonizing worlds to increase their share of planets, or go to war to take (and thus reduce another Empires percentage of colonized worlds).
For those who watch Stellaris gameplay on Youtube, Quill18's current Stellaris game could be an example of a Pacifist Empire who wins a game by this win condition. He hasn't really gone to war with anyone over territory, except in the early part of the series, but he has spread out across the galaxy grabbing as many unclaimed planets as possible.
Counting Federations/Alliances in the equation for the number of colonizable planets under control would be an easy fix, but the fact that your federation controls most of the galaxy doesn't mean there will be peace, and it still doesn't make sens.
If you play as a militaristic/xenophobe nation, you should have to control 80% yourself without aid of allies. If you play as a materialistic/xenophile, they should count the federations/Alliances. If you play as a Pacifist, you need more than just having your allies control most of the galaxy. When wanting peace, the number of planets in control shouldn't matter one bit. Obviously, if you control a large portion of the galaxy, it would mean that that portion will be in peace, but to achieve that, you would of had to go to war, which defeats the purpose of a pacifist. If your allies expanded enough to reach the 80% number, you will lose because they had to go to war in order to gain that territory. A Pacifist should avoid war at all cost, and they need a complete new mecanism for them. Maybe a way to change an empire to be Pacifist as well could kinda work. Whatever it is, it needs to make sense and be logical.
How do you stay a pacifist and backstab them in the back?
Another option I have seen in other games is borders having their own influence (different then the influence points) and that influence can take over another world near it controlled by another player/ai and flip the planet. Such as liking your empire better than the ones they are with so they switch. It would take some semi major changes but would also allow pacifists to conquer other worlds through simply providing a happy empire.
Did you read my entire message? I left the part that matters With the exception of Quill's early game, I don't recall him going to war, and he has an extensive teritory that wraps itself around half the galaxy by colonizing every and any unclaimed planet his wormhole tech could get access to. Last count was 96 or 97 planets, and only a handful of them gained in war during his initial expansion.
This depends on your definition of pacifism, and whether such a definition is viable or playable. If we go with a definition of pacifism where you can't declare any wars, can only have a tenth of the normal fleet capacity, and should you ever get attacked, you surrender (as the French did at the start of World War II) the moment someone aggressive looks at you, you're not going to last long. Prospective allies aren't going to be interested in having you as an ally because they'd have to defend you, because you'd be incapable and unwilling to defend yourself. If we were to take it to the extreme, even if you did get into an alliance, your pacifism would require you to Vote No to any declaration of war, and you'd seek a White Peace the moment such was available.
What does the Pacifist do in this game when someone comes knocking? Immediate surrender? That's avoiding war at all costs.
Maybe Fanatic Pacifists should have some restrictions on war, but those who only dip into Pacifism because they have a preference for peace, as opposed to militarism shouldn't necessarily be so restricted. Maybe you have a lower fleet cap. Maybe ships cost 10% more. Maybe Military techs cost more, while other non-Military techs cost less.
Quil's tactic would only work with a low amount of empires, but it is a viable way if you can do so. In my game, there isn't any place left to colonize, so that wouldn't work.
Pacifist should have restrictions and very strong and valid reasons to be able to declare war. If you get attacked, you should obviously be able to defend yourself and I wouldn't be in favor of limiting fleet capacity or anything like that. They should avoid war at all cost by diplomatic means, but the current options don't allow that. Some militaristic nations won't give a ♥♥♥♥ about politics and will just attack you when the occasion is right, so you still need to defend yourself. You can be big and scary and use that as a deterrant.
I am not in favor of limiting pacifist a lot. They should simply have a way to promote pacifism and have a way to win that doesn't require direct colonization. Right now, there aren't any ways for pacsfist to win unless you forget your a pacifist and ♥♥♥♥ sht up.
Also I guess mods can't add winning conditions like that... haven't seen any mods out there that does anything like this.
Liberating planets as opposed to Conquering them is a way to promote and spread Pacifism, since the newly Liberated Planets gain your Empire's Ethics. Perhaps a Pacifist only have the ability to use Cede as a Wargoal on planets that they previously owned, or perhaps where Pops within their empire reside.
Perhaps Pacifists cannot attack other Pacifist empires, but have a little bit more flexibilty against Militarists, or perhaps against those who declare you a Rival.
With Quill's game he took advantage of Wormhole tech and spammed colony ships to grab planets in a way that I think 150 years into the game, the AI hadn't yet spread as much as it could have. I think it was a Medium to Large sized galaxy, with the default number of Empires. Planets got thrown immediately into sectors to keep within the Core Planet Limit, and he otherwise did very little micromanaging of them. He has since pissed off the Keeper's of Knowledge Fallen Empire by researching Sentient AI, and they've decided to go to war after refusing their demands ;)
Im slightly joking but not fully, i mean its a game of such large scope (which will only increase with patches and time) honestly 'winning' should be defined by your own goals, for example my pacficist playthrough ive more or less retired now (may revisit one day) cause honestly at this point i consider our own personal goal as won, we control more space than anyone have never had a war all the other major races who like me are in alliances and peaceful as well, the only warlike alliance is basically done for after a failed war... I will probably play it again when more mid game and colony events get added but for now ive won that one imo, i dont much care whether the arbitrary 'win' condition is met or not.
Its like CK2 you dont set out to win it you set out to play it and see what happens on the way. Realistically as more stuff is added, more scope, better ai it will most likely become near impossible for any ethos to hit the win condition with any player sanity left anyway.
As an aside pacifists are OP, spritual pacifists even more so, thank you very much +15-20% efficiency on ever pop in my empire. You can syphon off other species to colonise every planet type and even with the war unhappiness its still a win win, not that youll ever need to have a war cause you blob so fast with a good species build youll basically be near unstoppable if you play well.