Originally posted by Chungus Amongus:

Originally posted by Comein:

im thinking about if paradox know many players like to add some mods, and every time they update it WILL cause game crash by changing or adding some weird function. Even they collect the modder together like Cities skyline 2 or put it in ps5 the game crash still happen. and now i have to balance every single planet between game crashes and restarted

Now that's what I'm talking about, haven't heard this from another person before, I had this same issue with Total War and a simple patch breaking saves to the point I could never finish a campaign, and I didn't use a single TW mod over the years between Medieval 2's Stainless Steel and various units for Warhammer 3, it's just this constant post-release patching now breaks your saves so often. A little upsetting tbh but I'm good as I can play 3k now and will be able to play WH3 someday. PDX hasn't cost me a game yet which is nice but i realised I should probably scramble to play that Republic Clone Army playthrough I wanted to play in case any of the modders duck out from the 4.0 changes and doesn't update their mods XD 4.0 changes may not be so popular but here's hoping it all works out by the time 4.1.0 is here at least

You can play Total War Warhammer 2 and its Mortal Empires Mode with mods, they are both finished with development. At some point Warhammer 3 will be finished too and I hope that most mods will be updated for the final version.

Originally posted by Night:

Originally posted by The_Spartan:

The half-assembled jargon that you speak of can be used and saves a lot of work. It is better than doing the coding from scratch. A human hand at this stage, is always needed, of course. I did not say it wasn't. I know of what I speak because I have done it myself in more than one occasion. The real issue is that the code might not be optimized, and redundancy can and will probably exist (thus why I stated they might be using AI for coding, because at this stage I cannot understand how simple calculations can be responsible to the lag of the game).

EU4 and Stellaris might be different from a gaming perspective but I wasn't taking that in consideration. Are you a bot or something? lol. Seriously. There are imense trade goods in EU4 or in Victoria for example, and prices on either game either go up or down depending a lot of factors, like I said (number of factories for example, or the amount of goods being or not being produced). These calculations are what matter to the discussion. Because behind the cute images, and what they represent, lies the numbers. Mathematically speaking these are way more complicated than those on Stellaris, or apparently, they look like. Does EU4 lag because of the trade system? No. What makes the game lag are the actions from the AI themselves. You will notice this when there is a massive war between countless super powers, the game will lag tremendously.

Even older games (from Paradox or even those from other companies) with similar trade systems never lagged because of them. Capitalism 1 or Capitalism 2 comes to mind in here, a game where prices will go up or down depending on a lot of factors. Stelaris barely has resources/trade goods needing calculation, so I cannot understand how simple things like a calculation to capital, would make things explode. You could always implement certain restrictions if this was the case. Like, force a calculation every month instead of every day. I am not saying its optimal, but there are ways and ways to do the thing instead of changing things dramatically. Either that, or trying to optimize the calculations somehow, in case the same calculation is being performed more times than it should.

Making a small project with Python is not the same as developing a 4X strategy game with teams of hundreds of people. Your ignorance is showing hard. Please drop the AI garbage, they will never commit to it as a practice and its worthless in this conversation.

Calculations take a lot of processing because Stellaris needs to account for entirely fluid gameplay. No system is going to stay the same between runs, and the game needs to recalculate where and how trade is pulled from as more jobs are filled, systems change hands, all while doing this for every single possible variation. This includes trade range, protection, amounts generated natively by systems, the amount to multiply the native generation based on modifiers, on top of the monthly necessary calculation for planetary trade. EU4 trade routes are entirely stagnant and never change, and resources hardly ever change where they are exploited from. In Stellaris, this changes literally every single month. These are not comparable.

Paradox has already shown how they use AI responsibly with development blogs, I think its great that they use it as concepts and work it out with human eye for detail.
I hope many complex systems, narrratives and attractive character designs will be designed from this policy.
As others have said calculations for trade could be made less regular, protection could be issued manually by attacking and defending trade routes with your fleet.
Trade range could be made local and have star bases relocate trade ressources to local planets.

Originally posted by Cuddles:

Originally posted by ´EE`∞EternaL:

I agree that duplicating systems doesnt make sense, especially if its removing deepness of the strategy. But I disagree that trade should be removed entirely, trade is a core aspect of a grand strategy game.
It should be possible to do trade deals with other empires and have trade as one of the playstyles you can pursue for a campaign, to get ressources you cant exploit on your owned worlds without having to conquer.
Trade should give you diplomatic options and manipulation options to destabilize other Empires.

Sure, but that's always been part of the problem with trade in Stellaris, that there are actually three entirely separate trade systems. We have diplomatic deals between empires, we have the market which exists and allows trading even before other empires have been contacted, and then we have the thing actually called trade. It's only the third one that's really being discussed here.

That's a big part of the problem. They want to make changes to one system, but can't do so without making it overlap even more with the other systems. Energy credits are already a core resource used to buy and sell other resources, so how can you make trade into a resource used for actually trading at the same time? As this dev post shows, you really can't. You just end up with some weird mix where both energy and trade are both trying to do exactly the same job. It's already weird enough that hive minds can't trade, but can make trade deals and trade on the market. Which sounds a lot like trading to me.

I certainly wouldn't want to see diplomatic trade cut from the game. In fact, I'd love to see it greatly expanded. That's difficult without making it too easy to exploit the AI, but diplomacy as a whole could use a lot more options and allowing for a lot more impact on the game beyond the current system which essentially boils down to friend/not friend. And the market works pretty well as an option that is usually less efficient than direct production but allows more options especially with short term shortages.

But the current "trade as resource" system serves little purpose other than giving some empires a slightly different flavour on their energy production. Hell, even megacorps generate most of their energy directly through commercial pacts and branch offices, not a resource called "trade". And the suggested changes seem to just add additional complexity and faff without actually adding anything to the game at all - upkeep and trade costs already exist and could be easily modified or added to as they are.

Thank your for you elaboration, I havent played Stellaris yet and your post alleviated some of my concerns. Is it currently possible to attack trade ships and to blockade trade routes to manipulate trade income and rebellion chance with your own fleet?
That woud be complex, strategic options that are useful and fun to engage with.
When trade routes get removed these options could be removed, or is that not the case?

Its good to know the other two trade systems will still work. Just numbers and faff are not complexity, they are complications. Complications often do not add much to a game, complexity on the other hand offer much interactivity and player agency.
Paradox should focus on that and could reduce some calculations of doubled systems and numbers that are not engaging.

Originally posted by MeniliteZ:

Originally posted by Gustav Kuriga:

I know this might surprise you, but just because everyone has a mechanic doesn't mean everyone benefits the same amount from that mechanic. Everyone has unity, but there are certain kinds of empires whose builds produce more unity than others. Everyone has armies, but some builds produce far more powerful armies... even if that's a pointless build to have with the current mechanics. So saying "X is there for every empire" is a truly ignorant thing to say.

How did benefits of mechanics come into the discussion about causes of lag?
Whether everyone benefits from the mechanic is not relevant to that. The fact that every empire has trade means every empire has calculations to being done for it.


EDIT: Ugh, are you thinking we are having 2 separate conversations? It looks like one mixed one to me. The most recent topic, and I thought main one for Trade, was lag.

Maybe we both misunderstood the topic(s). That first line was uncalled for, though.

I think mechanics being used by all races, factions and being used by Player+AI are very important in the discussion to streamline systems to reduce lag.
Complex systems that offer interactivity and strategic options should not be removed, systems that are only there to simulate numbers and can not be used for strategy should be the systems removed first as it will not hurt the complexity of the strategy game.
Every Empire (Player+AI) should have trade and it should be exploitable to make it fun and engaging by plundering trade routes and used for diplomacy

This seems like a dumb ass change honestly. Trade routes and piracy suppression was such a monumental part of the early game and this just straight up kills all of that.

Originally posted by PlasmaticSlave:

This seems like a dumb ass change honestly. Trade routes and piracy suppression was such a monumental part of the early game and this just straight up kills all of that.

I have not one single time used anything but one or two stations to remove all piracy globally

Originally posted by Hexidecimark:

Originally posted by PlasmaticSlave:

This seems like a dumb ass change honestly. Trade routes and piracy suppression was such a monumental part of the early game and this just straight up kills all of that.

I have not one single time used anything but one or two stations to remove all piracy globally

Globally? What about Galactically? (or is it Discally?)
If you meant that, then you must have a very tiny compact empire.

Originally posted by MeniliteZ:

Originally posted by Hexidecimark:

I have not one single time used anything but one or two stations to remove all piracy globally

Globally? What about Galactically? (or is it Discally?)
If you meant that, then you must have a very tiny compact empire.

No, he's just apparently better than you. I can count on one hand the amount of times I've had pirates pop up in my empires and I exclusively play wide and only put combat stations in my chokepoints.

Originally posted by Gakster:

Originally posted by MeniliteZ:

Globally? What about Galactically? (or is it Discally?)
If you meant that, then you must have a very tiny compact empire.

No, he's just apparently better than you. I can count on one hand the amount of times I've had pirates pop up in my empires and I exclusively play wide and only put combat stations in my chokepoints.

Wide is going to have more than 1 or 2 chokepoints, though.
Why go for insults so fast?

Originally posted by MeniliteZ:

Originally posted by Gakster:

No, he's just apparently better than you. I can count on one hand the amount of times I've had pirates pop up in my empires and I exclusively play wide and only put combat stations in my chokepoints.

Wide is going to have more than 1 or 2 chokepoints, though.
Why go for insults so fast?

Only if you don't know what you're doing, but I certainly haven't had to use more than five in any playthrough. The point wasn't the exact number, though; the point was that it doesn't take a lot to completely negate all piracy, thus trade and piracy wasn't "monumentally important" to the game. Especially, as the original comment said, in the early game.

WHAT ABOUT SPACE PIRACY!

Originally posted by MeniliteZ:

Originally posted by Hexidecimark:

I have not one single time used anything but one or two stations to remove all piracy globally

Globally? What about Galactically? (or is it Discally?)
If you meant that, then you must have a very tiny compact empire.

One station configured for piracy suppression-
Citadels give 32 base TP plus disable piracy in home system
Hangar bays give 60 total protection over 6 jumps (92 total so far)

Assuming a late midgame empire,
If you put a gateway on top of a station, that's then 6 jumps per gateway built, which then stacks with all other gateways that have starbases on them

You should have a gateway at at least two chokepoints or nearby, so now we're up to 276

If all your starbases integrate at least one hangar bay, they'll provide an additional 42 to the network within two jumps of a gateway. I will on a slimmer run have around eight, so 336 protection, taking the total up to 612 base protection, plus any base augments, plus any immune sections; have areas that get values above that use bases on top of and between them, nullifying your coreworld piracy.

So once you get gateways, after you've made your initial triad, you should have between 300 and 600 suppression on all relevant systems universally, without mods and before immunity.

Until you make your initial triad, provided you have the DLC for it, (and your empire is a non-megacorp focused on trade) you can produce Hyper Relays, which will allow you to respond to piracy immediately. You will likely be sending ships down relay corridors often enough that the piracy through these corridors will be negligible at best.

Originally posted by Hexidecimark:

Originally posted by MeniliteZ:

Globally? What about Galactically? (or is it Discally?)
If you meant that, then you must have a very tiny compact empire.

One station configured for piracy suppression-
Citadels give 32 base TP plus disable piracy in home system
Hangar bays give 60 total protection over 6 jumps (92 total so far)

Assuming a late midgame empire,
If you put a gateway on top of a station, that's then 6 jumps per gateway built, which then stacks with all other gateways that have starbases on them

You should have a gateway at at least two chokepoints or nearby, so now we're up to 276

If all your starbases integrate at least one hangar bay, they'll provide an additional 42 to the network within two jumps of a gateway. I will on a slimmer run have around eight, so 336 protection, taking the total up to 612 base protection, plus any base augments, plus any immune sections; have areas that get values above that use bases on top of and between them, nullifying your coreworld piracy.

So once you get gateways, after you've made your initial triad, you should have between 300 and 600 suppression on all relevant systems universally, without mods and before immunity.

Until you make your initial triad, provided you have the DLC for it, (and your empire is a non-megacorp focused on trade) you can produce Hyper Relays, which will allow you to respond to piracy immediately. You will likely be sending ships down relay corridors often enough that the piracy through these corridors will be negligible at best.

Damn, they got owned with math

Originally posted by Chungus Amongus:

Originally posted by Hexidecimark:

One station configured for piracy suppression-
Citadels give 32 base TP plus disable piracy in home system
Hangar bays give 60 total protection over 6 jumps (92 total so far)

Assuming a late midgame empire,
If you put a gateway on top of a station, that's then 6 jumps per gateway built, which then stacks with all other gateways that have starbases on them

You should have a gateway at at least two chokepoints or nearby, so now we're up to 276

If all your starbases integrate at least one hangar bay, they'll provide an additional 42 to the network within two jumps of a gateway. I will on a slimmer run have around eight, so 336 protection, taking the total up to 612 base protection, plus any base augments, plus any immune sections; have areas that get values above that use bases on top of and between them, nullifying your coreworld piracy.

So once you get gateways, after you've made your initial triad, you should have between 300 and 600 suppression on all relevant systems universally, without mods and before immunity.

Until you make your initial triad, provided you have the DLC for it, (and your empire is a non-megacorp focused on trade) you can produce Hyper Relays, which will allow you to respond to piracy immediately. You will likely be sending ships down relay corridors often enough that the piracy through these corridors will be negligible at best.

Damn, they got owned with math

Yeah they did. lmfao

Ok. First brilliant idear. I like the logistic aspect a lot. It really makes seens.

But why are you naming it "Trade"? I really find it misleading, uninformativ and unimersiv. Why are you not calling it °logistic capacity or civil shiping capacity? Becouse the name "Trade" is really fictinal and in my opinion really uninformative.

I like the change, but please dont name it Trade.

I played stellaris for 2932 hours and as you can see really like and enjoyed the game.