<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Thoughts: Stellaris</title>
	<atom:link href="https://scientificgamer.com/thoughts-stellaris/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://scientificgamer.com/thoughts-stellaris/</link>
	<description>Science, gaming, and all things in between.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 09 Aug 2026 15:10:26 +0000</lastBuildDate>
		<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
		<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>https://wordpress.org/?v=3.7.36</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: BattleBunny</title>
		<link>https://scientificgamer.com/thoughts-stellaris/#comment-30359</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[BattleBunny]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 04 Jun 2016 08:34:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://scientificgamer.com/?p=4940#comment-30359</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[spot on.

I gave up the game I am streaming. I love the fact everybody hates my evil empire and has allied against me. to my right is a federation of 6, formed because of my aggresion. However when I declare war on them, I can demand about 6-8 planets. To achieve the proper warscore to get these planets I have to conquer about 60-80% of the ENTIRE federation. after which I get my 6-8 planets and a 10 year truce. The federation easily has 80 worlds, So I have to conquer them 10 times!!! to eventually annex them. Other then not making any sence, this is incredibly tedious. 

I abandonded that game. My empire wouldnt give a shit about truce or war goals to begin with. Why cant I declare war, fight them for a few centuries, and when I have occupied all of their worlds, just take them over, or exterminate their population or someth? The war score system really needs to be looked at as it really doesnt fit the game imho.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>spot on.</p>
<p>I gave up the game I am streaming. I love the fact everybody hates my evil empire and has allied against me. to my right is a federation of 6, formed because of my aggresion. However when I declare war on them, I can demand about 6-8 planets. To achieve the proper warscore to get these planets I have to conquer about 60-80% of the ENTIRE federation. after which I get my 6-8 planets and a 10 year truce. The federation easily has 80 worlds, So I have to conquer them 10 times!!! to eventually annex them. Other then not making any sence, this is incredibly tedious. </p>
<p>I abandonded that game. My empire wouldnt give a shit about truce or war goals to begin with. Why cant I declare war, fight them for a few centuries, and when I have occupied all of their worlds, just take them over, or exterminate their population or someth? The war score system really needs to be looked at as it really doesnt fit the game imho.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: ninjaprotocol</title>
		<link>https://scientificgamer.com/thoughts-stellaris/#comment-29935</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[ninjaprotocol]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 23 May 2016 13:07:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://scientificgamer.com/?p=4940#comment-29935</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Interesting fact about the travel tech: I&#039;m using warp drives as humans. Two of the adjecent empires I was at war with were using hyperlane tech, let&#039;s call them Small Empire and Big Empire. Small One was further away and had its hyperlanes throigh Big Empire, which meant it couldn&#039;t reach our alliance&#039;s space at all, but our alliance having warp tech could, allowing for hit and run attacks.

However, the Big Empire, which was initially friendly with me, inexplicably declared war on my vassal race, which I had previously Uplifted (why does this even happen? Isn&#039;t the point of vassalage supposed to be that their politics goes through me?). Now warp drives need a cool down period before they can jump or move again, while hyperlane tech is faster and doesn&#039;t need the cooldown (or so it seems to me). The result? Same game of whack-a-mole that you&#039;ve described, but with the tech reversed.

In that sense I think it&#039;s balanced - they&#039;re each with their pros and cons.

Anyway, as a complete newbie to 4x I found Stellaris easy to get into, although I think your review was very reflective of my experience too (although 17 hours in I&#039;m still in mid game).]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Interesting fact about the travel tech: I&#8217;m using warp drives as humans. Two of the adjecent empires I was at war with were using hyperlane tech, let&#8217;s call them Small Empire and Big Empire. Small One was further away and had its hyperlanes throigh Big Empire, which meant it couldn&#8217;t reach our alliance&#8217;s space at all, but our alliance having warp tech could, allowing for hit and run attacks.</p>
<p>However, the Big Empire, which was initially friendly with me, inexplicably declared war on my vassal race, which I had previously Uplifted (why does this even happen? Isn&#8217;t the point of vassalage supposed to be that their politics goes through me?). Now warp drives need a cool down period before they can jump or move again, while hyperlane tech is faster and doesn&#8217;t need the cooldown (or so it seems to me). The result? Same game of whack-a-mole that you&#8217;ve described, but with the tech reversed.</p>
<p>In that sense I think it&#8217;s balanced &#8211; they&#8217;re each with their pros and cons.</p>
<p>Anyway, as a complete newbie to 4x I found Stellaris easy to get into, although I think your review was very reflective of my experience too (although 17 hours in I&#8217;m still in mid game).</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Hentzau</title>
		<link>https://scientificgamer.com/thoughts-stellaris/#comment-29807</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Hentzau]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 17 May 2016 20:55:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://scientificgamer.com/?p=4940#comment-29807</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[That was impressive - in so far as I can really call a system working as intended out of the box impressive - but unfortunately not a hugely high priority for me.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>That was impressive &#8211; in so far as I can really call a system working as intended out of the box impressive &#8211; but unfortunately not a hugely high priority for me.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Hentzau</title>
		<link>https://scientificgamer.com/thoughts-stellaris/#comment-29806</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Hentzau]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 17 May 2016 20:54:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://scientificgamer.com/?p=4940#comment-29806</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I&#039;m not inherently opposed to the concept of War Goals, they just need to be far more flexible than they are currently. This is an area where the slimming down of the systems compared to EU has hurt Stellaris; if they had a measure like Prestige in the game then they could do something where you could set your initial War Goals very high, but if the war got bogged down and you only managed to get a third of them then you take a prestige hit. Or an internal stability hit. These systems don&#039;t really exist in Stellaris, though, so the War Goals system almost has to be that basic and limited because there&#039;s no other mechanisms that can come into play to balance out a set of aggressive ones.

And yeah, even that idea is very rooted in modern diplomatic thinking. If I&#039;m playing a species of interstellar locusts I&#039;m probably going to be less concerned with my empire&#039;s prestige than I am about consuming the rest of the galaxy. The Shivans from Freespace didn&#039;t give a shit about prestige. There isn&#039;t really much scope for these races to exist in Stellaris as it stands.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;m not inherently opposed to the concept of War Goals, they just need to be far more flexible than they are currently. This is an area where the slimming down of the systems compared to EU has hurt Stellaris; if they had a measure like Prestige in the game then they could do something where you could set your initial War Goals very high, but if the war got bogged down and you only managed to get a third of them then you take a prestige hit. Or an internal stability hit. These systems don&#8217;t really exist in Stellaris, though, so the War Goals system almost has to be that basic and limited because there&#8217;s no other mechanisms that can come into play to balance out a set of aggressive ones.</p>
<p>And yeah, even that idea is very rooted in modern diplomatic thinking. If I&#8217;m playing a species of interstellar locusts I&#8217;m probably going to be less concerned with my empire&#8217;s prestige than I am about consuming the rest of the galaxy. The Shivans from Freespace didn&#8217;t give a shit about prestige. There isn&#8217;t really much scope for these races to exist in Stellaris as it stands.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Hentzau</title>
		<link>https://scientificgamer.com/thoughts-stellaris/#comment-29805</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Hentzau]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 17 May 2016 20:46:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://scientificgamer.com/?p=4940#comment-29805</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The tiny one-system empire that was able to field a 7k fleet made me a little bit suspicious - at the time I owned something like twenty planets and a fleet that made up a third of my naval capacity had a strength of 10k.

Still, the computer can have all the help it wants if that&#039;s what it takes for it to be a challenge. The real problem is the lack of feedback on how your ships are performing; given the vast number of possibilities the ship designer provides I really don&#039;t think a blandly numeric measure represents the true strength of a fleet in the same way that it does in something like EU IV or Crusader Kings, but the game isn&#039;t interested in going into more detail than this.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The tiny one-system empire that was able to field a 7k fleet made me a little bit suspicious &#8211; at the time I owned something like twenty planets and a fleet that made up a third of my naval capacity had a strength of 10k.</p>
<p>Still, the computer can have all the help it wants if that&#8217;s what it takes for it to be a challenge. The real problem is the lack of feedback on how your ships are performing; given the vast number of possibilities the ship designer provides I really don&#8217;t think a blandly numeric measure represents the true strength of a fleet in the same way that it does in something like EU IV or Crusader Kings, but the game isn&#8217;t interested in going into more detail than this.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Hentzau</title>
		<link>https://scientificgamer.com/thoughts-stellaris/#comment-29804</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Hentzau]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 17 May 2016 20:41:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://scientificgamer.com/?p=4940#comment-29804</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Yeah, random races were at the back of my mind but the review was already at  5,000 words and I honestly haven&#039;t dabbled with it that much. From what I&#039;ve seen it has its good and bad points - it&#039;s kind of awesome to run across a forerunner Human Fallen Empire, for example, and I do like that your race&#039;s ethics affects the techs you&#039;ll be able to research. On the flipside I don&#039;t think there&#039;s *that* much variation since while the traits give passive bonuses they don&#039;t fundamentally alter the way a race plays; going back to MOO there&#039;s no equivalent of the Psilons, who could research all tech options rather than just one, or the race of rock people who ate minerals instead of food. Like the much of the rest of Stellaris it&#039;s a decent skeleton of a system that needs more work to flesh it out.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Yeah, random races were at the back of my mind but the review was already at  5,000 words and I honestly haven&#8217;t dabbled with it that much. From what I&#8217;ve seen it has its good and bad points &#8211; it&#8217;s kind of awesome to run across a forerunner Human Fallen Empire, for example, and I do like that your race&#8217;s ethics affects the techs you&#8217;ll be able to research. On the flipside I don&#8217;t think there&#8217;s *that* much variation since while the traits give passive bonuses they don&#8217;t fundamentally alter the way a race plays; going back to MOO there&#8217;s no equivalent of the Psilons, who could research all tech options rather than just one, or the race of rock people who ate minerals instead of food. Like the much of the rest of Stellaris it&#8217;s a decent skeleton of a system that needs more work to flesh it out.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Janek</title>
		<link>https://scientificgamer.com/thoughts-stellaris/#comment-29782</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Janek]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 16 May 2016 18:24:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://scientificgamer.com/?p=4940#comment-29782</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Pretty much agree with everything - early game is great, but it all goes wrong in the mid-to-late game. As you say, it&#039;s a fantastic base to build on, and I&#039;m confident that patches, DLC and mods will make it a genre leader in a year&#039;s time, but it should really have been in better shape.

The timing of the release is kind of bizarre really, what with Hearts of Iron 4 coming out in a couple of weeks.

One thing I will say in its favour is that they&#039;ve nailed the multiplayer functionality, finally. Lightyears better than CK2 or EU4 - our test game the other night was happily going along with 8 players, including with hot-joining which would&#039;ve once required a restart.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Pretty much agree with everything &#8211; early game is great, but it all goes wrong in the mid-to-late game. As you say, it&#8217;s a fantastic base to build on, and I&#8217;m confident that patches, DLC and mods will make it a genre leader in a year&#8217;s time, but it should really have been in better shape.</p>
<p>The timing of the release is kind of bizarre really, what with Hearts of Iron 4 coming out in a couple of weeks.</p>
<p>One thing I will say in its favour is that they&#8217;ve nailed the multiplayer functionality, finally. Lightyears better than CK2 or EU4 &#8211; our test game the other night was happily going along with 8 players, including with hot-joining which would&#8217;ve once required a restart.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Zenicetus</title>
		<link>https://scientificgamer.com/thoughts-stellaris/#comment-29779</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Zenicetus]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 16 May 2016 16:55:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://scientificgamer.com/?p=4940#comment-29779</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Good review, I&#039;m glad I&#039;m not the only one frustrated with the war goal system. I think that&#039;s probably my main complaint right now, especially since I know Paradox will address many of the other things you mentioned, but maybe not this one. It seems to be part of their strategy game DNA, but forcing a civilized Euro-centric war diplomacy system onto a space themed game just isn&#039;t working well. 

If it has to remain, then (as I just suggested in the dev diary post on their forum), we need goals like &quot;Annihilate.&quot; Or maybe &quot;Devour.&quot; You don&#039;t get to negotiate when you&#039;re up against something like a Saberhagen Berserker. The current Galaxy doesn&#039;t feel dangerous enough, when all the factions are so willing to parley. It removes player agency too. Sometimes it&#039;s fun to play the tentacled Monster From Outer Space.

I&#039;m torn about whether to keep playing, or let it sit for a few months and wait for patches. I do enjoy the early exploration phase, but I don&#039;t know how many games I can play if I know I&#039;ll bail out halfway through.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Good review, I&#8217;m glad I&#8217;m not the only one frustrated with the war goal system. I think that&#8217;s probably my main complaint right now, especially since I know Paradox will address many of the other things you mentioned, but maybe not this one. It seems to be part of their strategy game DNA, but forcing a civilized Euro-centric war diplomacy system onto a space themed game just isn&#8217;t working well. </p>
<p>If it has to remain, then (as I just suggested in the dev diary post on their forum), we need goals like &#8220;Annihilate.&#8221; Or maybe &#8220;Devour.&#8221; You don&#8217;t get to negotiate when you&#8217;re up against something like a Saberhagen Berserker. The current Galaxy doesn&#8217;t feel dangerous enough, when all the factions are so willing to parley. It removes player agency too. Sometimes it&#8217;s fun to play the tentacled Monster From Outer Space.</p>
<p>I&#8217;m torn about whether to keep playing, or let it sit for a few months and wait for patches. I do enjoy the early exploration phase, but I don&#8217;t know how many games I can play if I know I&#8217;ll bail out halfway through.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Darren</title>
		<link>https://scientificgamer.com/thoughts-stellaris/#comment-29772</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Darren]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 16 May 2016 12:30:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://scientificgamer.com/?p=4940#comment-29772</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Good review! I didn&#039;t get as far as you did, as I&#039;m absolutely atrocious at waging war in a Paradox game and have been absolutely destroyed by the AI in both games that I played. I don&#039;t know what I&#039;m doing wrong, either, and the game just doesn&#039;t offer enough help for me to figure it out. I&#039;m barely making an energy profit and my ships are fully upgraded, but, as is always the case with Paradox games, the AI can field bigger and better armies than I can. That the game is willing to label an opposing empire&#039;s military strength as &quot;equivalent&quot; is just icing on the cake. 

Still, there&#039;s enough good here that I&#039;ll keep an eye out for DLC and patches in the future.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Good review! I didn&#8217;t get as far as you did, as I&#8217;m absolutely atrocious at waging war in a Paradox game and have been absolutely destroyed by the AI in both games that I played. I don&#8217;t know what I&#8217;m doing wrong, either, and the game just doesn&#8217;t offer enough help for me to figure it out. I&#8217;m barely making an energy profit and my ships are fully upgraded, but, as is always the case with Paradox games, the AI can field bigger and better armies than I can. That the game is willing to label an opposing empire&#8217;s military strength as &#8220;equivalent&#8221; is just icing on the cake. </p>
<p>Still, there&#8217;s enough good here that I&#8217;ll keep an eye out for DLC and patches in the future.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: ilitarist</title>
		<link>https://scientificgamer.com/thoughts-stellaris/#comment-29769</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[ilitarist]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 16 May 2016 11:45:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://scientificgamer.com/?p=4940#comment-29769</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Haven&#039;t played as much but already saw some of the problems you&#039;re talking about. Spot-on review.

Sad that Paradox has went back to old ways of putting betas for all to play. EU4 was in much better shape on release. 

You didn&#039;t say anything about random races idea and I find it the most interesting feature in the game. Other space 4X often had race constructors but those mostly felt like an exercise in making unbalanced versions of existing species; Stellaris, on the other hand, lets you roleplay most space empires you can think of. Or play as random race. Or create race of your clones and set it as always appearing in every game you play. There was something like that in GalCiv3 but it lacked random races so you always knew who you&#039;ll met, here in Stellaris there are set personalities but they feel different depending on random techs and traits of the race. This is the are I expect most expansion.

And no peaceful win state is a bummer, sure.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Haven&#8217;t played as much but already saw some of the problems you&#8217;re talking about. Spot-on review.</p>
<p>Sad that Paradox has went back to old ways of putting betas for all to play. EU4 was in much better shape on release. </p>
<p>You didn&#8217;t say anything about random races idea and I find it the most interesting feature in the game. Other space 4X often had race constructors but those mostly felt like an exercise in making unbalanced versions of existing species; Stellaris, on the other hand, lets you roleplay most space empires you can think of. Or play as random race. Or create race of your clones and set it as always appearing in every game you play. There was something like that in GalCiv3 but it lacked random races so you always knew who you&#8217;ll met, here in Stellaris there are set personalities but they feel different depending on random techs and traits of the race. This is the are I expect most expansion.</p>
<p>And no peaceful win state is a bummer, sure.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
