Quote:
|
Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGa
They really don't seem to be parts of your empire, more like ... tributary states, or something. Not quite vassals even.
|
There's more control with sectors than with vassals in any game I ever played. I get the point you are making, I just think you are overstating it.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by cuervo72
1. Minimize the need to micromanage. But...you're playing a Paradox game. Kinda what you sign up for.
|
I don't think micromanage = Paradox Game. In many ways its the opposite. Matrix Game? Sure. But there's a reason why Paradox games don't have tactical combat. They shine(or don't, but it's where the focus is) on the grand strategic level. In a standard galaxy, to 'win', you need a minority of all planets which is over 200 of them.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by cuervo72
2. Hamper the player by forcing the AI on them to goober things up.
|
I think this is part of the purpose and it's an important element that should be present in all large-scale strategy games. No AI will ever be as good as a competent player, as previously talked about.
There's plenty of stuff to complain about. I think more macro tools as the game goes on are needed. Rally points and fleet/ground force templates to streamline construction, ability to designate an entire area of space to survey instead of doing it system-by-system when you've explored hundreds of them, technological advancement is too linear, more differentiation between races, leader system could be more developed, etc. But I think the level of control you have in sectors is roughly appropriate. Spaceports/fleet/army construction is still under your control, taxes, focus for development, etc. Management of the many is different from management of the few, and I think Stellaris should have more features that reflect that, not less. In other words, I think it's a
great design choice, among others that in some cases are not.
.02